Apartment building O. N

Archive: No. 41. 10/11/2013
MOSCOW BARANKI AND ODESSA BAGLIKS

WHO WROTE "12 CHAIRS"

I did this not in the interests of truth, but in the interests of truth.
"Golden calf"

Exposing a talented hoax always arouses interest; if, moreover, it is a hoax around a fairly well-known work of art, the interest turns out to be general. What can we say about the explosion of interest that the information offered here will cause: the novels “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” were actually written by Bulgakov?! I foresee the first reaction of most readers: okay, this is a good joke, but don’t fool us!

I must admit that, although not so categorically, I still reacted with disbelief to the call from Irina Amlinsky, author of the book “12 Chairs from Mikhail Bulgakov” (Berlin, 2013). Although the degree of my skepticism was quite high, I was more or less prepared to perceive even such unexpected information, being well acquainted with the literary hoaxes of Shakespeare, Stern, Pushkin. In addition, I know that Bulgakov was a brilliant hoaxer and that his literary hoaxes have so far been read only by a few readers, and their research by A.N. Barkov and P.B. Maslak are practically not mastered by our literary criticism. But these two huge novels?..
Of course, it’s not just about volume – although it’s about volume too. It is not easy to hide such a grandiose hoax. But this is only the first thing that comes to mind; Once we assume that a literary hoax actually took place, many questions immediately arise:
Why did Bulgakov need this hoax? Who took part in it, besides Bulgakov, Ilf and Petrov? Where did the style of “12 Chairs” come from (in the future, when speaking about “12 Chairs” I will mean both novels), so different from the style of the things Ilf and Petrov wrote before this novel? Where did Ostap Bender and other main characters come from? How did Bulgakov manage to write “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” in different years without his wife (L.E. Belozerskaya) noticing it? Or was she privy to the hoax and, like Petrov and Ilf, honestly remained silent until her death? What to do with the memories that Ilf and Petrov wrote “12 Chairs” in the evenings and all night long? And, finally, how to reconcile the worldview of the writers who participated in the hoax? Bulgakov was an irreconcilable anti-Soviet and in this sense never betrayed himself, and Ilf and Petrov were completely Soviet writers - and in this they also seemed to be unchanged. Meanwhile, for all the essential anti-Soviet nature of these two novels, there is also a certain Soviet element in them, which is completely unacceptable for Bulgakov.
True, it was quite easy for me to answer the last question, since I know what techniques Bulgakov the hoaxer used to say what he thought and not be accused of “White Guardism” - but even without this there were enough questions that required an answer. I offered to send Amlinsky the book.
As I read it, my skepticism began to melt away faster than reading. The huge number of quotes given by Amlinski with traces of participation in Bulgakov’s texts forced me to admit: these novels had at least three authors, and not two. But here, too, I myself found a counterargument: yes, this is so, but they worked - and just at that time - in the same editorial office (the Moscow newspaper Gudok), one might say, they sat at the same table, endlessly exchanged jokes and witticisms, shared ideas. In addition, Bulgakov was a generous man; he could give a lot - and probably did.
But a lot is not everything. And from Amlinsky’s book it turned out that these texts could not have been written either in such co-authorship or in any other way. She “plowed” all the works of Bulgakov (including editions of chapters that were not included in the final text of “The Master and Margarita”, “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf”), all the works of Ilf and Petrov and all the memories about them - about all three. Having analyzed the texts according to many “sections”, she discovered that in these two novels there are strikingly similar in structure and vocabulary descriptions of similar scenes found in Bulgakov’s works written before the novels described (scenes of recruitment for military resistance, murder scenes, flood scenes in an apartment, descriptions of an apartment building, borrowing clothes, etc., etc.); that the main images of “12 Chairs” migrated there from Bulgakov’s previous works; that the prose style of the novels is the same as in the works written by Bulgakov before and after; and that the dilogy is literally saturated with facts from his biography and incidents from his life, his habits and preferences, signs of the appearance and character of his friends and acquaintances and the routes of his movements. Moreover, all this is used and included in the flesh of the prose in such a way that there can be no talk of working together on it. That's not how they write together. Only Mikhail Bulgakov himself could write this way. But not Ilf and Petrov.
But in this case, we should abstract ourselves from these, although multiple, particulars and try to answer the questions asked at the beginning of the article. And we should start, of course, with style. Amlinsky, for example, cites two phrases - from “12 Chairs” and “The Master and Margarita”:
“At half past eleven, from the north-west, from the direction of the village of Chmarovka, a young man of about twenty-eight entered Stargorod.” ("12 chairs")
“In a white cloak with a bloody lining, a shuffling cavalry gait, early in the morning of the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan...” (“The Master and Margarita”)
Yes, indeed, the music, the rhythm of these two phrases practically coincides - but one cannot judge by one phrase, even understanding that such a coincidence cannot be accidental. But if we continue this analysis of the rhythm of the prose of “12 Chairs” and “The Master”, begun by Amlinsky, then it is not difficult to see that around these phrases in the same places in both novels the rhythm - with slight variations - is the same.
But another phrase fits perfectly here - from the novel “The Golden Calf” - with which, as in the two previous cases, the narrator introduces the reader to a new hero for the first time:
“A man without a hat, in gray canvas trousers, leather sandals worn like a monk on his bare feet, and a white shirt without a collar, with his head bowed, came out of the low gate of house number sixteen.”
Moreover, in the prose of both “The Master” and “12 Chairs” there are constantly similar-sounding, “long” periods interspersed with short phrases, and its rhythmic basis is identical in both cases. (Of course, we are talking about narrative prose, not dialogue.) But the rhythm of the prose is individual, if not borrowed. Some may object to me: “The Master and Margarita” was written after “12 Chairs”. Especially! If we recognize this striking rhythmic similarity, but do not agree that “12 Chairs” was written by Bulgakov, we will have to recognize Bulgakov as the epigone of Ilf and Petrov! And finally, Ilf and Petrov, in all their works before “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf,” wrote in a completely different, “chopped” style, characteristic not so much for them as for Soviet prose in general of the 1920s - in short sentences ( the notorious “blizzard” style).
Let's move on to the main character.

“Consistently, from work to work (Bulgakov - V.K.), we meet the image of Ostap Bender,” writes Amlinsky. – He is a clever, adventurous, intelligent, charming and handsome rogue, ...not devoid of acting abilities, quite erudite, capable of saying a couple of French, less often German words, quickly making decisions in difficult situations, a card player, a joker, who finds common ground with everyone a language that tries to take the maximum from life and has the ability to subordinate different people to its influence, ... which takes root in any environment and changes only the surname and first name from work to work, remaining faithful to its creator Bulgakov - while there is no image of a hero similar to Ostap not in any work by Ilf and Petrov. Ostap’s twin brothers are Amethystov (the play “Zoyka’s Apartment”), born before Bender, and Georges Miloslavsky (the play “Ivan Vasilyevich”), created after Ostap.” And, as she shows later, to a large extent - Charnota from the play “Running”, and V. Losev, in addition to Amethystov and Miloslavsky, also includes Koroviev from “The Master and Margarita” in this gallery.
It is interesting that, regardless of Amlinsky, almost the same similarities between Ostap Bender and Amethystov were identified and presented on the Internet in the article “12 chairs from Zoyka’s apartment” by A. B. Levin. I have no doubt that the researcher herself discovered what Levin noticed and described (she is familiar with this publication and refers to it), but the point here is not “who crowed first.” It is important that, in the case of a literary hoax that took place and the difficult literary situation that arose in connection with this, Amlinsky acquired an unexpected and observant ally (the full text of his article can be found at this address).
“The given ... numerous coincidences exclude, as it seems to me, their randomness,” writes Levin. – If we accept that each of the noted coincidences is independent of the others, and the probability of each (obviously overestimated) is one in two, then the probability of their simultaneous appearance in the dilogy lies between one millionth and one ten millionth. There are many thousands of times fewer of all Russian novels than is needed for the random occurrence of such a sequence of coincidences. At the same time, it is hardly possible to establish the reasons for the occurrence of each of these coincidences half a century after the death of all three authors.”
It is remarkable that Lewin uses a probabilistic approach in his reasoning: in fact, taking into account the many other similarities that Amlinsky discovered, the randomness of so many coincidences is so negligible that it simply cannot be taken into account. At the same time, the last sentence of the paragraph quoted here from his article, which in no way follows from the previous one, is objectionable. It was the obvious non-randomness of these coincidences that should sooner or later force someone to investigate their cause, regardless of the “statute of limitations.” Irina Amlinski became such a researcher.
So, it seems that there really was a literary hoax, and the author of “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” was Mikhail Bulgakov. In this regard, we have to answer the main question: who needed this hoax and why. But before answering it, we should ask another: didn’t Bulgakov leave us some hint, some “key” that would help us answer this question? After all, knowing Bulgakov, we understand that he simply could not help but give us such a hint if he actually carried out this hoax. It looks like Amlinsky found this key:
“The author left the most interesting message for future readers,” writes Amlinsky, “at the beginning of the narrative of the novel “12 Chairs,” in which he names the reason for the “transfer” of his talent and authorship to Ilf and Petrov:
“...Azure sign “Odessa bagel artel - Moscow bagels.” The sign showed a young man in a tie and short French trousers. He held in one hand, turned inside out, a fabulous cornucopia, from which ocher Moscow bagels poured out like an avalanche, which were passed off as Odessa bagels when needed. At the same time, the young man smiled voluptuously.”
Let's decipher Bulgakov's message. “Odessa bagel artel” – feuilletonists from Odessa Kataev, Ilf and Petrov; “Moscow Baranki” - feuilletonist Bulgakov, who loved to dress stylishly. “The Fairytale Cornucopia” characterizes Bulgakov’s cursive writing: he wrote feuilletons easily and quickly - and “12 Chairs” is, in essence, a large feuilleton, or, more precisely, a novel in feuilletons. “The hand turned inside out” (how unusually, strangely said, drawing attention to what was said!) is Bulgakov’s mystifying technique of secretive writing, when the role of the narrator is transferred to the antagonist. In our case, Bulgakov makes the narrator a certain Soviet feuilletonist, who utters the words in “12 Chairs”: “The treasure remains. It was maintained and even increased. You could touch it with your hands, but you couldn’t take it away. It went into the service of other people”; and in “The Golden Calf” he will say: “Real life flew by, joyfully trumpeting and sparkling with lacquered wings.” It’s no wonder that Ilf and Petrov put their names on the cover without any fear.
“Moscow bagels passed off out of necessity and as Odessa bagels”: Bulgakov committed a forced hoax, agreeing to pass off his novel as written by Ilf and Petrov. “The young man smiled voluptuously” - well, having published this novel-feuilleton, stuffed with anti-Soviet statements - albeit from the lips of “negative” characters - Bulgakov could well have smiled voluptuously. Here it is appropriate to quote an entry from the diary of E.S. Bulgakova dated September 15, 1936: “This morning M.A. submitted a letter to Arkadyev, in which he refused to serve at the Theater and from working on “The Windsors.” In addition, an application to the directorate. We went to the Theater and left a letter for the courier.[...] M.A. told me that he wrote this letter to the Moscow Art Theater “with some kind of voluptuousness.”
Now we can try to reconstruct this hoax, at the same time answering those questions that have so far remained unanswered.
From what is generally known about the “emergence of the plan” and its implementation, besides Ilf and Petrov, there is no doubt about the participation of Valentin Kataev in this hoax. But his role can only be assessed with an understanding of why this hoax was started and carried out in the first place. After all, Bulgakov at that moment lived comfortably: starting in 1926, his prose was no longer published, but his plays were shown in many theaters, in 1927 alone he earned more than 28,000 rubles; he bought and furnished an apartment and for the first time in his life achieved the comfort that he so needed for quiet writing. Therefore, the novel was not written for money.
At the same time, Bulgakov no longer expected to see his name on published prose. On the one hand, the fierce hatred of Soviet critics towards him, and on the other, summons to the GPU and conversations there about “Fatal Eggs” and “Diaboliad”, the search and seizure of the diary and manuscript of “The Heart of a Dog” - everything indicated that hopes for publication there is no prose. So why did he take up this feuilleton novel - despite the fact that before he complained about the need to write feuilletons, which took away his strength and time, and, as we now understand, knowing (from the first lines of the novel) that it could be published only under someone else's name?
Logic leads us to the only possible answer. Bulgakov wrote this novel under the order of the organization in whose hands his fate was at that moment - the order of the GPU. It was an agreement in which the condition on his part was a promise to leave him alone. And from the enemy? – His agreement to write Soviet prose. They intended to use his sharply satirical pen in the struggle against Trotskyism that was unfolding at that time. Bulgakov knew that he could write this prose in such a way that it would be impossible to find fault with him and that everyone would understand it as they would like to understand it.
As a hoaxer, Bulgakov, who learned the art of mystification from Pushkin, never told anyone about his secret passages. Evidence of this is “The White Guard” (1923), where he made the narrator of his antipode (in life - V.B. Shklovsky; see about this the work of P.B. Maslak “The Image of the Narrator in “The White Guard”) - which turned ideological signs in the novel and defended the author from accusations of White Guardism. In the “negotiations” with both the GPU and Bulgakov, Kataev became the mediator. He convinced Ilf and Petrov that, on the one hand (on the part of the GPU), the hoax did not threaten them, but on the other hand, it could make a name; at the same time, they did a good deed, helping Bulgakov.
Bulgakov, who truly had a sacred attitude towards the women he loved, nevertheless did not trust their ability to keep a secret. He wrote easily and quickly, mainly at night, and therefore none of Bulgakov’s wives had any idea about his literary hoaxes. Amlinski believes that Bulgakov wrote “12 Chairs” in July–September 1827, which is in good agreement with the calculations of M.P. Odessky and D.M. Feldman that editorial preparation for publication in the magazine began already in October. As for the memories of Ilf and Petrov about how they wrote “12 Chairs,” their memories could not have been any other: all participants in the hoax, as best they could and knew how, misled those around them and other contemporaries.
Of course, their very participation in the hoax put them in a difficult position, especially Ilf, who felt out of place for a long time. Ilf's daughter, A.I. Ilf recalled: “Petrov remembered the amazing confession of the co-author: “I was always haunted by the thought that I was doing something wrong, that I was an impostor. In the depths of my soul I always had a fear that they would suddenly say to me: “Listen, what the hell kind of writer you are: you should be doing something else!”
Nevertheless, Ilf and Petrov did not utter a sound and kept the secret. Moreover, they now had to justify their obligations. For this reason, after the publication of “12 Chairs”, with the knowledge of Bulgakov, they began to use Bulgakov’s motifs, details and images in their stories and feuilletons, both from the published edition of the novel and from the remaining unpublished chapters (and subsequently from “The Golden Calf” ) – right down to stories written specifically for them by Bulgakov, thereby misleading future researchers of their work. It was from 1927 that entries appeared in Ilf’s notebook, which further strengthened his authority as an undeniably talented co-author of novels.
Both sides (Bulgakov and the GPU) agreed that the book in this situation could not be published under the true author’s name, which became a red rag for Soviet criticism. To implement the project, the name Kataev, acceptable to both parties, was proposed, who carried out the further “coupling”. And if we accept this version, Kataev’s behavior becomes clear: he was a mediator in these negotiations and, ultimately, a participant in the hoax.
The result was successful for everyone. That is why, after the release of “12 Chairs,” the manuscript and diary were returned to Bulgakov, and the GPU left him alone. But his prose was no longer destined to be published during his lifetime. Soviet criticism did everything possible for this even without the GPU.
The last question remains: why was this hoax overlooked by literary criticism? The answer to this question today is already obvious. Our literary criticism underestimates the genius of both Pushkin and Bulgakov as mystifying writers. We practically did not consider the problem of the narrator in their novels - otherwise we would have long ago guessed how exactly both Pushkin and Bulgakov used the opportunity to transfer this role to their antagonist. This problem was first solved by A.N. Barkov in his two main works “The Master and Margarita. Alternative reading" (1994) and "Walking with Eugene Onegin" (1998), but both books are hushed up by academic literary criticism.
I have no illusions about the recognition of this hoax by literary scholars. However, even if they are forced to agree with what is stated in Amlinsky’s book, we will have to organize the existing knowledge about the process of creating and publishing “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” and try to find additional information that sheds light on the reason why Bulgakov passed off Moscow bagels as Odessa bagels - or offer some other version of the events of that time that could explain all these “coincidences” that are inexplicable within the framework of the existing theory of the authorship of these novels. In any case, the problem will require discussion.

Vladimir KOZAROVETSKY

The museum-apartment of A. B. Goldenweiser, one of the greatest musicians of the first half of the twentieth century, pianist, composer, teacher, musical and public figure, People's Artist of the USSR, rector of the Moscow Conservatory, was created by decision of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on January 26, 1955. The museum was created with the direct participation of Alexander Borisovich and received its first visitors in 1959. At first, Alexander Borisovich himself conducted excursions, and after his death in 1961, his student, assistant and wife E. I. Goldenweiser (1911−1998) became the head of the museum. The museum-apartment of A. B. Goldenweiser today, in fact, is a “museum within a museum” - a single memorial, collection and exhibition, scientific research, musical, educational and reference-methodological complex. The museum premises are divided into two zones - a memorial and a chamber music salon. The memorial department conducts educational and excursion work; the music salon hosts meetings with students of A. B. Goldenweiser, concerts of piano, vocal and instrumental music, as well as video and sound recording evenings. The museum hosts scientific readings, methodological seminars, consultations and reviewing of scientific works on musical topics, and there is an opportunity for researchers and scientists to work. The exhibition pays much attention to Goldenweiser’s more than half a century of teaching activity. The names of his students are widely known: S. Feinberg, G. Ginzburg, A. Kaplan, L. Sosina, T. Nikolaeva, D. Paperno, G. Grodberg and many others. The subject of constant concern for Alexander Borisovich was children's music education. The Central Music School in Moscow, which grew out of the Special Children's Group organized in the early 1930s, owes its creation largely to A. B. Goldenweiser. The museum stores, studies and displays A. B. Goldenweiser’s archive, his library, numerous collections, and valuable memorial items. The basis of the Goldenweiser collection are manuscripts, books, notes and letters of great scientific and documentary-historical value. And the extensive collection of paintings, graphics and sculpture speaks of his subtle artistic taste. The musician’s photo archive contains photographs with autographs of N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, S. I. Taneyev, S. V. Rachmaninov, N. K. Medtner, M. A. Chekhov, K. S. Stanislavsky. Of particular interest are the photographs in Yasnaya Polyana with L.N. Tolstoy, which were taken by Sofia Andreevna Tolstaya. The collection of concert and theater programs reflects the musical life of Moscow from 1886 to 1961. Many memorial items create an atmosphere of comfort and the effect of the presence of the owner in the museum-apartment. Among them are two pianos from the C. Bechstein company, furniture from the early 20th century, and personal belongings of L.N. Tolstoy, with whom A.B. Goldenweiser had almost 16 years of friendship. The collection of the A. B. Goldenweiser Apartment Museum is of great value not only for researchers of the work of the outstanding musician, but also for ordinary music lovers, as well as for everyone interested in the history of Russian musical culture.

The further into the forest, the thicker the partisans. The more I compare texts, the more I come to a dead end.
They all slept there under the same blanket and wrote in the same style.
So what should we do about it? Is this some kind of meme from that time or did someone like it and copied everything from each other?

At night I spent the night, and during the day I went to the house office and
I asked to be registered as a joint resident. Chairman brownie
controls, a fat man painted in samovar paint in a lambskin hat
and with a lambskin collar, sat with his elbows outstretched and copper eyes
looked at the holes in my sheepskin coat.

Lamb caps bowed over the sheet, and they were instantly struck by paralysis. I can tell from the clock that ticked on the wall how long it lasted. Three minutes. Then the chairman came to life and turned his fading eyes on me:
“Ulya?..” he asked in a clothed voice. Again the clock ticked in silence.
“Ivan Ivanovich,” he said relaxedly. lamb chairman, - write them, my friend, a warrant for cohabitation.
(Bulgakov. Memoirs) Excellent metonymy, by the way!

Of course, he was striking in that he turned out to be very tall; I was struck by the fact that from under his forehead eyes of extraordinary strength and beauty looked out... But he came out, in general, with an ordinary Soviet appearance, somewhat tired a man in a short fur coat with a lambskin collar and a lambskin, slightly moved back hat(Olesha about Mayakovsky. Quotes Kataev)

I remember this evening well - Ingulov on the presidium! maybe Klavdiya Zaremba is next to him! – and Mayakovsky, so beautifully described by Olesha. However, I would not say that Mayakovsky was wearing a short fur coat with a lambskin collar and a lambskin hat. This is not accurate. I would say this: on Mayakovsky there was a dark gray, winter, short, knee-length, short coat with a black astrakhan collar and the same black - but not a hat, but rather a round shallow cap, indeed somewhat shifted to the back of the head, revealing the entire forehead and part clipper-cropped head. (Kataev)

What happened next shocked my mother even more. Father Fyodor said that he had to leave that evening on business, and demanded that Katerina Alexandrovna run to her baker brother and take him for a week lamb collar coat and brown duck cap. ("12 chairs")

Above the boots reigned a greenish bekesha on golden fox fur. Raised lamb collar looking like a quilted blanket from the inside out, it protected the brave mug with Sevastopol forecastles from the frost. On the head of Alexander Ivanovich a lovely curly hat fit inside.("The Golden Calf") I remembered from "The Master and Margarita": "on his face were glasses of supernatural size..."

The deputy was not in the room, but the one who was there man in lambskin hat treated the newcomers with gentlemanly coldness. Where? - asked the lazy man, starting to tremble.
- Into the mine, - repeated the lambskin hat. - For professional work. Yes, you go to yourself to the chairman.
The chairman called the man in the lambskin cap and ordered not to let anyone in.
(Ilf and Petrov. Stories) Similar metonymy.

Original taken from amlinski_irina in “12 CHAIRS FROM MIKHAIL BULGAKOV”. Book two

"12 CHAIRS FROM MIKHAIL BULGAKOV." Book two

“Let us become free thinkers and
Let’s get used to analyzing on our own”
Papus

Chapter 2. NOVELS “THE 12 CHAIRS” AND “THE GOLDEN CALF”

The connection between the novels “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” with Bulgakov and his works written before the idea arises “12 Chairs” was shown in the previous book “12 Chairs from Mikhail Bulgakov”, but the mournful silence of Ilfo- and Bulgakov scholars, which has been going on for three years now, forced me to dig into the chairs again. The exercise was not in vain: under the upholstery of each chair there was an undervalued material.
But before we begin to consider this material, I would like to outline the vector and method of searching for evidence. And for this I will call Academician D.S. as an ally. Likhachev, Soviet and Russian philologist, culturologist, art critic, author of fundamental works on the history of Russian literature. I mean his work “Once again about the accuracy of literary criticism” (Russian literature, No. 1, 1981), in which Dmitry Sergeevich examines the image of Ostap Bender:

« <…> in the proof of particular solutions, observations of “trifles” and “particulars” play a huge role . It is these “particulars” that usually turn out to be the most reliable evidence .
Let me give you an example. In studying the works of Ilf and Petrov, researchers were especially interested in the question: where did the image of Ostap Bender come from? Who were his literary predecessors? Many assumptions have been made. However the true “predecessor” of Ostap Bender is easy to recognize by “little things”; This is Amethyst in Mikhail Bulgakov's play "Zoyka's Apartment".
The point is not only that both heroes are businessmen, impudents, projectors, but also that both strive to achieve their well-being with the help of women, both are former provincial actors and do not disdain cheating, both have no baggage, both have something... then green in his suit, both lack underwear, both have a peculiar way of speaking - fragmentary and aphoristic, both have amazing self-confidence, etc., etc.
Ostap Bender, as an image, clearly depends on Amethystov , but the latter, in turn, depends on the image of Jingle in Dickens's Pickwick Club. And again, “little things” “give away” and prove this dependence.
Amethysts and Jingle were minor actors in the past, engaged in cheating. Both move and dance easily. Both have fragmentary speech. Both allegedly lost their luggage on the road. For Amethystov - on the railway, on a train, for Jingle - on a ship (“bales”, “boxes”). Both have green clothes from someone else's shoulder. Both don't have socks on their feet. Both seek to take advantage of women's favor for their material well-being. Thus, the indisputable solution to the question of the “literary genealogy” of the image of Ostap Bender is facilitated not by the main, “general” traits of their character, but by “little things” that cannot be the result of a random coincidence, but indicate direct borrowing ».

And now, dear reader, let us ask ourselves: how could Ilf and Petrov study the character of Amethystov from Zoyka’s Apartment, if the text of this play in Russian was first published in the USA in the New Journal in 1969-1970, and in German - in 1929, and the Soviet reader first became acquainted with the text in 1982? Maybe Ilf and Petrov absorbed the features of Amethystov’s image while attending productions of “Zoyka’s Apartment” (the premiere took place on October 28, 1926 at the Vakhtangov Theater)? Nothing happened, reader. The theater, as well as Bulgakov’s play, did not interest them at all. They did not visit theaters at all. This information was proudly shared by Petrov’s brother, Valentin Kataev, in his book of memoirs with the modest title “My Diamond Crown”:

“He (Bulgakov - approx. I.A.) was somewhat older than all of us, the characters in this essay of mine, the then Gudkovites, and differed favorably from us in that he was a positive, family man, with principles, while we were the most desperate bohemians, nihilists, resolutely denied everything that had at least some connection with the pre-revolutionary world, starting with the Peredvizhniki and ending with the Art Theater, which we despised to such an extent that, having arrived in Moscow, not only had we never visited it, but we even had no idea where it was located, what street?

And further. Researchers of literature of the 20-30s, including Ilfo- and Bulgakov scholars, repeat the same idea in different words in their works: Bulgakov in the editorial office of the newspaper “Gudok” enriched himself topics , “hovering at that time” in the air. Don't believe this, reader. A theme can be borrowed, but little things and details that do not significantly affect the image of the hero and the development of the plot are absolutely pointless to borrow: they are interesting only to the author himself.

Let’s return to the novel “12 Chairs,” or rather, to the origins of its origins: not to the generally accepted fairy tale, like Valentin Kataev giving the idea of ​​“12 Chairs” to his brother Petrov and friend Ilf, - a fairy tale that does not explain anything, including generosity the giver - but to the fact that at least somehow explains this gesture. At the time of the “gift,” Kataev had nothing on his writer’s track record except a bunch of feuilletons and the story “Embezzlers.” His generosity is inexplicable and illogical, unless one accepts as a hypothesis another explanation: the giver had something more left than “Chairs”, and this something allowed him to make such a large gesture. People like Kataev don’t give away the latter.
We will return to the story with Kataev later, and now I am ready to show that Bulgakov’s draft version of the novel about the devil already existed in 1926 and was “tested” in the novel “12 Chairs”, both at the level of images of characters and at the level of ideas.

In contrast to the clear, clear dates that record the beginning and end of work on Bulgakov’s works, the dates of creation and completion of the “Ilfo-Petrovsky” novels have not been determined to this day. Let me remind you that draft novels - do not exist . There is a white paper written by Petrov, and a typewritten copy with minor corrections. True, there are Ilf’s “Notebooks,” but even with them, to put it mildly, not everything is clear. The fact is that successful phrases, Bender’s theses and maxims, honed into aphorisms, were entered by Ilf into the “Notebooks” in parallel with work on the novel . This was noted by researcher of Ilfo-Petrov’s works, textual critic and literary critic Lidiya Markovna Yanovskaya in her study “Why do you write funny?”:

“In fact, only now, in the fall of 1927, did a very specific genre of his notebooks begin to take shape. It is curious that expressions like “The smoke is curly like cauliflower”, “The iron claws of the hookers” or the inscription on the embankment “Take care of the rings, take care of the bars, don’t touch the walls”, used in the novel in one of the “Volga” chapters, appeared in the notes only now, while working. During the trip along the Volga on a circulation steamer ( in 1925 - I.A.) Ilf has never made this kind of recording before.”

Even Feldman and Odessky, who presented readers with complete versions of “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” and wrote the following in the preface to this edition, could not clarify the timing of writing:

“It is unclear, in particular, when the novel was started, when it was finished, what exactly prevented the co-authors from working faster. There are archival materials, there are publications, but the evidence is contradictory.”

Although they said this regarding the “Golden Calf,” the situation is no clearer regarding the “12 Chairs.” This is stated in another passage from Odessky and Feldman:

“In the archive of Ilf and Petrov no drafts the second and third parts of “The Great Schemer” . But this does not mean that they did not exist: there are practically no drafts of “The Twelve Chairs” either . There is only the last white autograph of the novel , which was retyped on a typewriter. The situation with “The Golden Calf” is similar: only the last white autograph of the second and third parts has been preserved ».

Let's sort it out, reader, with authorship and time of writing novels on one's own.
First of all, let's pay attention to copyright timestamps woven into the fabric of the work. The author's timestamp is a hint that tells the reader at least the year the text was written. WITH plot passage of time in the novel “12 Chairs” - everything is simple: there is an author’s mark at the beginning of the narrative - “On Friday, April 15, 1927” - and a mark of the end of the novel, when the main character was stabbed to death (“on a rainy day at the end of October”). But to determine true operating time over the first novel, you'll have to look into the second.

In The Golden Calf, the author's first clue, indicating the time spent working on the novel, is so exquisitely built into the text that it only comes to the surface after repeated readings. We find it in Chapter XIII “Vasisualiy Lokhankin and his role in the Russian Revolution” during Varvara Lokhankina’s discussion with Mitrich, at the moment of discussing the “housing issue” that arose due to the division of the room of the absent pilot Sevryugov:

“- Yes, you understand! - Varvara fumed, holding a sheet of newspaper to the chamberlain’s nose. - Here's the article. Do you see? “Among the hummocks and icebergs.”
- Icebergs! - Mitrich said mockingly. - We can understand this. Ten years of no life . All Icebergs, Weisbergs, Eisenbergs, all sorts of Rabinovichs.”

What events does Mitrich count from? If we count down 10 years, based on Ilfo-Petrov’s dating of the work on “The Golden Calf” (1929-1931), it turns out that Mitrich is complaining about events that happened either in 1919 or 1920-21, after which the normal course of his life ceased. But there are no such events. The only event that radically changed his life is clearly indicated by the author’s reference to Mitrich’s past, when he was in rank chamberlain court of His Imperial Majesty and was styled Alexander Dmitrievich Sukhoveyko. He lost his rank and position in society overnight, becoming nobody, just Mitrich.

Mitrich, like Bulgakov, counts from the events of 1917, because it was from them - according to Preobrazhensky - that this whole rigmarole called “social revolution” began:

“Would you like a galosh stand? I have lived in this house since 1903. And so, during this time, until April 1917, there was not a single case, I emphasize with a red pencil - not a single one!.. that at least one pair of galoshes would disappear from our front door downstairs with the common door unlocked. Please note, there are twelve apartments here, I have a reception. In April 17, one fine day, all the galoshes disappeared, including two pairs of mine, three sticks, a coat and the doorman’s samovar. And since then the galosh stand has ceased to exist.”

Add ten years to the seventeenth year and get 1927, in which the real author already worked on next a novel about Ostap Bender!

Why didn’t Ilf and Petrov, who report that they worked on the novel from 29 to 31, bring Mitrich’s remark about ten years in accordance with other time stamps? (“- Shame on you, Vasisualiy Andreich, - said the bored Ptiburdukov, - even just stupid. Well, think about what you are doing? On second year of the five-year plan ...» ( First Five Year Plan started October 1, 1928); bow on the Turksib (the last crutch was driven in on April 28, 1930).

Professor Preobrazhensky's assistant, Dr. Bormental, tells us that “the years are shown incorrectly.” Why didn't Ilf and Petrov coordinate this mark with other timestamps?
The answer is simple: YOU DID NOT HAVE TIME to familiarize yourself with your “own” text in detail. That's why they didn't fix it.

Now let's look at the novel about the great schemer from the position of Mikhail Bulgakov.
Document specialist and historian Viktor Losev in his work “A Fantastic Novel about the Devil” writes the following:

“Unfortunately, exact information about the time when work on the novel began has not been preserved ( from materials OGPU it is clear that Already in 1926, Bulgakov was comprehending the main ideas of the novel, collecting material and making rough sketches ), but the approximate time frame for writing the essay is known - this is the second half of 1928 , that is, the time when disputes flared up in the press and in bureaucratic institutions about “Run” (the writer’s favorite play) and when the persecution of the writer acquired the character of monstrous mockery and mockery.”

I, just like you, reader, do not have access to materials of this kind. We have to take Losev at his word. But I am convinced that in 1926 a draft of a novel about the devil already existed and it suffered the same fate as Bulgakov’s diaries: taken by employees of a well-known organization during a search in May 1926, they were returned to Bulgakov in the second half of 1929 and personally burned by him. But it was not there! The diaries, although not completely, were “restored from the ashes” and published in the 90s. “Manuscripts do not burn,” the banned writer made it clear to his descendants, meaning the safety of his every word, ensured by the Cheka-OGPU-GPU-KGB.

Since I do not have direct evidence that the draft existed and Bulgakov was already working on a novel about the devil, but I have a firm belief in this, we will use, as is practiced in court, indirect evidence and make a verdict “on the totality.”

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, we will be guided by the axiom: every object casts its own shadow, therefore, every shadow has its own object. All you need is light for this. We will turn on the lights and see how some of the characters from the novel about the devil miraculously act on the stage of the novel “The 12 Chairs”.

I must warn you, reader, that I did not hold Bulgakov’s drafts in my hands, but worked only with published texts. The only text that I will not refer to in my investigation is the edition of the novel about the devil, “restored” by Marietta Chudakova, a unique specialist on the globe today who allowed herself to speculate and add to the text cut out from the notebook and destroyed by Mikhail Afanasyevich.

So, “The Black Magician”, “The Engineer’s Hoof” - Drafts of the novel. Notebook 1 and 2. 1928-1929.” and "12 chairs". We will compare the following heroes:

Novel “12 Chairs”:
Ostap Bender
Ippolit Matveevich Vorobyaninov
his mother-in-law - Klavdiya Petukhova

"Black magician":
Yeshua Ha-Nozri
Levi Matvey
Claudia Procula - wife of Pontius Pilate

First we will look at a couple of female characters: Vorobyaninov's mother-in-law and the wife of Pontius Pilate. The first thing that attracts attention is that both heroines are Claudia, whose “middle names” begin with the letter “P”.

Claudia P - Claudia P Etukhova, Claudia P rocula

2. To both Claudias on the eve of the tragedy I have disturbing dreams, while both of them suffer in the dream .

3. « The elemental base of the dreams of both Claudius is similar : both see people in their dreams, both note a minor detail - hair: “ curly head "sees Proculus, oh " loose hair "says Petukhova.

“- The wife of His Excellency Claudia Proculus ordered to convey to His Excellency her husband that she didn't sleep all night , I saw the face of a curly-haired prisoner three times in a dream “This is the very thing,” the adjutant said in Pilate’s ear, “and he begs his husband to release the prisoner without harm.” ("Black magician")

“Klavdia Ivanovna continued:
- I saw the late Marie with loose hair and a golden sash.<…> I'm very worried ! I'm afraid something would happen ! ("12 chairs")

Bulgakov “kills” Claudia Petukhova late in the evening of Friday, April 15, 1927, which corresponds to the 13th of Nisan, and on Saturday, April 16/14 of Nisan, the eve of Passover begins. Only with a glance at Claudia Prokula, who is seeing a prophetic dream, does the reason for Claudia Petukhova’s disturbing dream become clear. And her phrase “I’m afraid something would happen!” refers to events developing in parallel in the novel about the devil. Late in the evening of the 13th of Nisan, Claudia Petukhova dies, and a few hours later: “In a white cloak with a bloody lining, with a shuffling cavalry gait, in the early morning of the fourteenth of the spring month of Nisan...”- Bulgakov's novel will include Pontius Pilate.

4. Both "Claudia P" are stupid and are treated with disdain :

“Ippolit Matveevich did not love his mother-in-law . Klavdia Ivanovna was stupid , and her advanced age did not allow us to hope that she would ever grow wiser.”

“Ippolit Matveyevich looked down at his mother-in-law. His height reached 185 centimeters. From such a height it was easy and convenient for him to relate to his mother-in-law Klavdia Ivanovna with some disdain " ("12 chairs")

“- Give her Excellency to your wife Claudia Procule , - the procurator answered out loud, - that she is a fool . The arrested person will be dealt with strictly according to the law. If he is guilty, he will be punished, and if he is innocent, he will be released.” ("Black magician")

It is interesting that there is not much information about Pilate’s wife Claudius Procula, canonized by some churches. BUT! Not a single source speaks of her stupidity , Bulgakov exposes Claudia stupid , while maintaining her right to see prophetic, warning dreams .

In the Gospel of Matthew (27:19) we read:

“While he was sitting in the judgment seat, his wife sent him to say: Do not do anything to the Righteous One, becauseNow in a dream I suffered a lot for Him ».

John Chrysostom:

“After the evidence contained in the deeds, a dream was not an unimportant thing. But why doesn’t Pilate himself see it? Or because his wife was more worthy of him , or because if he had seen it, he would not have believed him, and perhaps would not even have spoken about him. Therefore, it is arranged that the wife sees this dream, so that it becomes known to everyone. And she’s not just dreaming; but also suffers a lot so that the husband, although out of compassion for his wife, hesitates to commit murder.”

"From cannon sounds of Claudia Ivanovna's voice a cast-iron lamp with a core, shot and dusty glass tchotchkes trembled.
- I'm very worried! I'm afraid something would happen!
The last words were spoken with such force that the square of hair on Ippolit Matveyevich’s head swayed in different directions.<…> Her voice was so strong and thick that Richard the Lionheart would have envied it. , from the cry of which, as you know, horses crouched.”

“Caesar the Emperor will be unhappy if I start walking through the fields! Damn it! - Pilate suddenly shouted in a terrible squadron voice " (“The Engineer’s Hoof.” Notebook two. 1928-1929)

The meaning of these minor scenes and details, which at first glance do not work in any way on the plot of the novel “12 Chairs,” becomes clear only when compared with scenes from Bulgakov’s works signed with his name: these are a kind of puzzle keys, signaling parallel written texts, and both heroines are born of the same fantasy, and Claudia Petukhova acts as a reflection of Claudia Procula.

Let's look at the next pair of heroes - Ippolit Matveyevich and Matvey Levi - and make sure that Ippolit Matveyevich is a parody of Matvey Levi.

1. The sound of the name Levi Matvey and the name Ippolit Matveevich is similar when spoken out loud .

Le Viy Matvey - Ippo whether T Matveevich

When analyzing Bulgakov’s characters at the level of “nominal material,” it should be remembered that it is better to read Bulgakov’s texts not with your eyes, but out loud. From the memoirs of Gudok employee Mikhail Shtikh:

“One day August Potocki burst into our room, seriously angry.
- Guys, you sons of bitches! - he announced with his usual directness. - Catch fleas God knows where, but you don’t see what’s happening under your nose.
- What is happening under our noses, August? - we asked.
- Look how your friend Mikhail Bulgakov signs his second feuilleton!
We watched: "G.P. Ukhov." So what's wrong with that?
- No, you don't read it with your eyes, you read it out loud !
Read it out loud... My mothers! "Gepeukhov"!

2. Ippolit Matveevich - before meeting with Bender he serves registrar ohm at the registry office. What is included in the registration book? Names, surnames and numbers , indicating the date of either birth, death, or marriage.

Levi Matvey - tax collector before meeting Yeshua. What are the duties of a tax collector besides collecting money? Recording (fixing) names, surnames, numbers (amounts and dates) .

3. Both Ippolit Matveyevich and Levi Matvey use notebooks. We learn about Ippolit Matveevich’s notebook from the dialogue in the janitor’s room of the former Vorobyaninovsky mansion in Stargorod:

“Ippolit Matveyevich blushed even more, took out a small notebook and wrote down in calligraphy: “25/IV-27 issued to Comrade Bender b. - 8" ».

4. Both - Ippolit Matveyevich and Levi Matvey - after meeting with strangers - Ostap Bender and Yeshua - submit to their will and become their companions. Moreover, they find their Teachers and become their the only students .

5. Levi Matthew steals a knife to kill the Teacher out of good intentions, because, in his opinion, he should not die painfully on the cross. In Soviet realities, events and thoughts are reflected as in a distorting mirror: Ippolit Matveyevich kills his Teacher with a razor in order to take possession of the treasure alone.

6. But the point is not only that Ippolit Matveyevich and Levi Matvey coincide at the level of details. They are also carriers of the same author’s idea, playing it out in the scenes of the works: all the confusion occurs because people cannot adequately perceive, analyze and transmit information. Yeshua is horrified by what Matthew Levi writes down after him, complaining to Pilate that “the witnesses have terribly mixed up what I said.” It is this thesis that is played out in the dialogue between Ippolit Matveevich and the owners of the Nimfa funeral home. First, we will remember what Ippolit Matveevich’s mother-in-law told about her dream, and What he remembered:

“- I saw the deceased Marie with her hair down and in gold sash."

Vorobyaninov conveys the content of the dream in his own way:

“She’s healthy, she’s healthy,” answered Ippolit Matveyevich, “what’s going on with her?” Today gold I saw a girl, dissolute . She had such a vision in a dream.”

The “elemental base” of a dream is the same, but its meaning becomes different. By mentioning Mary with her hair down in her mother-in-law's dream, the author signals us about Mary Magdalene, who is traditionally depicted with her hair down and her head uncovered. At the same time, Vorobyaninov, reinterpreting a dream about his late wife, speaks of a “loose girl,” thus throwing a bridge into a work being written at the same time - a novel about the devil. This technique is allusion in one work to another - Bulgakov used it more than once. We'll talk about this later too.

I will add that the married couple - Ippolit Matveevich Vorobyaninov and his wife Maria in the novel “12 Chairs” did not form by chance: we read about the couple Levi Matvey and Maria in an extract from “The History of the Jews from Ancient Ages to the Present” by Graetz (in 12 volumes! !!), made by Bulgakov's hand while working on a draft version of a novel about the devil. Unfortunately, the extract itself was only allowed to be seen by researcher V.I. Losev, who cites it in the comments to volume 4 of the eight-volume collected works of Bulgakov (St. Petersburg, 2002). For this I thank him very much. We read:

« Levi Matthew and Maria . Also a follower was a rich publican, whom sources call either Matthew or Levi and in whose house Yeshua constantly lived and returned with comrades from the most despicable class. His followers included women of dubious reputation, of whom Maria is the most famous Magdalene<…>».

It is also important that Bulgakov acts knightly with Maria: from a “woman of dubious reputation” Maria becomes the wife of the nobleman Vorobyaninov. But that's not all. In order not to make her a witness to the moral fall of her husband, who went so far as to kill his companion, the author resettles her into another world long before the story with diamonds begins. Thus, the choice of name for Vorobyaninov’s wife and the choice of first and patronymic for Vorobyaninov himself can seem random only if Ilfo-Petrovsky authorship is assumed.

Let's move on to comparing the main characters of the novels: Ostap Bender and Yeshua Ha-Nozri.

1. Yeshua’s only student in the novel is Matthew Levi. Ostap Bender in the novel “12 Chairs” also has one student - Vorobyaninov. The relationships within these two couples are mirror images. It is interesting that in “The Golden Calf” the “resurrected” Ostap no longer has one, but three students: Balaganov, Panikovsky and Kozlevich.

2. If Yeshua is the messiah, then Ostap Bender is the anti-messiah. Yeshua does everything for the sake of people, Bender, on the contrary, does everything for himself. Yeshua sees only the good in people, all people are good. Bender finds a vice in everyone and plays on it.

3. Bender's age: “entered Stargorod young man about twenty-eight "; in Bender’s imagined police report, “The second corpse belongs to a man twenty seven years old . He loved and suffered. He loved money and suffered from its lack.”

Yeshua's age in early editions: “- Son of a bitch! What have you done?! Have you... have you... ever spoken words that are not true?
“No,” Yeshua answered fearfully.
“You... you...” Pilate hissed and shook the prisoner so that his curly hair jumped on his head.
- But, my God, at twenty-five years old such frivolity!

In the final one: “And immediately from the garden platform under the columns to the balcony, two legionnaires were brought in and placed in front of the procurator’s chair a man about twenty-seven ».

4. Both are wandering philosophers. They have no relatives and are alone. Excellent oratory skills, charismatic.

5. The dress code is “camping”, nothing extra.

Bender: “A young man entered the city in green, narrow, waist-length , suit. His mighty neck was wrapped several times old woolen scarf , her feet were in patent leather boots with an orange-colored suede upper. There were no socks under the boots.”

Yeshua: “This man was dressed in old and torn blue chiton . His head was covered with a white bandage with a strap around his forehead and his hands tied behind his back.”

The “elemental base” for describing the “messiah” is the same: element old clothes and white headdress . On Bender's head in "The Golden Calf" there will be a cap with a white top:

"Citizen in a cap with a white top , which is mostly worn by administrators of summer gardens and entertainers, undoubtedly belonged to the larger and better part of humanity.”

6. Both Yeshua and Bender “appear” in the novels out of nowhere, but from almost the same geographical direction:
"- Where you're from?
“From the city of Gamala,” answered the prisoner, indicating with his head that there, somewhere far away, to the right of it, in the north , there is the city of Gamala."

"At half past eleven from the northwest , from the side of the village of Chmarovka.."
At the same time, Yeshua appears in the ancient city - Yershalaim, Bender - in his projection - in the Old Town - Stargorod.

7. Koroviev, “The Master and Margarita”: “ INblood tests - the most difficult questions in the world!"
“Who are you by blood?” - asked Pilate.
“I don’t know for sure,” the arrested man answered briskly, “I don’t remember my parents.” I was told that my father was Syrian …».

“And I will be buried, Kisa, magnificently, with an orchestra, with speeches, and on my monument there will be
carved: “Here lies the famous heating engineer and fighter Ostap-Suleiman-Bertha-Maria Bender Bey, father whom was a Turkish subject ...,” Ostap echoes him in “12 Chairs.”
Since the action of the novel “12 Chairs” takes place in 1927, and the main character Ostap is 27-28 years old, therefore, the year of his birth is either 1899 or 1900. During these years, Syria was still part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. Thus, Syrian father Yeshua and Turkish-subject Pope Otapa lived in the same historical and geographical cloud and belong to the imagination of one author.

Let's summarize this small investigation: Bender, Ippolit Matveevich and Claudia Petukhov's mother-in-law are projections of Yeshua, Matvey Levi and Claudia Procula. Their shadows. And since there is a shadow, then there is also an object that casts it. And such an “object” already existed by the time of work on the novel “12 Chairs” - a draft of a future novel about the devil. After all, in order to create caricatured images, it was necessary ALREADY HAVE original.

And one last thing. When reading Bulgakov's works, you need to remember, reader: nothing happens by chance in Bulgakov! If anything, even the most insignificant, seems inappropriate or far-fetched to us, this means only one thing: we do not yet know the reason for the occurrence of this “something random” .

12 Chairs from Mikhail Bulgakov

I did not do this in the interests of truth,

but in the interests of truth.

Exposing a talented hoax always arouses interest; if, moreover, it is a hoax around a fairly well-known work of art, the interest turns out to be general. What can we say about the interest the information offered here may arouse: the novels “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” were actually written by Bulgakov?! However, I foresee the first reaction of most readers: oh well, it's a good joke, but don't fool us!

I must admit that, although not so categorically, I still reacted with disbelief to the call , author of the book “12 Chairs from Mikhail Bulgakov” (Berlin, 2013). Although the degree of my skepticism was quite high, I was still more or less prepared to perceive even such unexpected information, being well acquainted with the literary hoaxes of Shakespeare, Stern, Bulgakov and Pushkin (especially the latter). In addition, I know that Bulgakov was a brilliant hoaxer and that his literary hoaxes have still been read only by a few readers, and their research by A.N. Barkov and P.B. Maslak has practically not been mastered by our literary criticism. But these two huge novels?..

Of course, it’s not just about volume – although it’s about volume too. It is not easy to hide such a grandiose hoax. But this is only the first thing that comes to mind; Once we assume that a literary hoax actually took place, many questions immediately arise:

Why did Bulgakov need this hoax?

Who took part in it, besides Bulgakov, Ilf and Petrov?

Where did the style of “12 Chairs” come from (in the future, when speaking about “12 Chairs” I will mean both novels), so different from the style of the most famous works of Ilf and Petrov?

Where did Ostap Bender and other main characters come from?

How did Bulgakov manage to write “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” in different years without it being noticed by his wife (L.E. Belozerskaya)? Or was she privy to the hoax and, like Petrov and Ilf, honestly remained silent until her death?

What to do with the memories that Ilf and Petrov wrote “12 Chairs” together in the evenings and all night long?

Regarding everything written by Ilf and Petrov before “The 12 Chairs,” I would like to ask: where did the great talent suddenly come from? And where did it go then?

And, finally, how to reconcile the worldview of the writers who participated in the hoax? Bulgakov was an irreconcilable anti-Soviet and in this sense never betrayed himself, and Ilf and Petrov were completely Soviet writers - and in this they also seemed to be unchanged. Meanwhile, for all the essential anti-Soviet nature of these two novels, there is also a certain Soviet element in them, which is completely unacceptable for Bulgakov.

True, it was quite easy for me to answer the last question, since I know what techniques Bulgakov the hoaxer used in order to dare to say what he thought and not be accused of “White Guardism” - but even without this there were enough questions that required an answer. I offered to send Amlinsky the book.

As I read it, my skepticism began to melt away faster than reading. The degree of penetration into the problem, the breadth of coverage of the material and the huge number of quotes given by Amlinsky forced me to admit: these novels had at least three authors, and not two. But here, too, I myself found a counterargument: yes, this is so, but they worked - and just at that time - in the same editorial office (the Moscow newspaper Gudok), one might say, they sat at the same table, endlessly exchanging jokes and witticisms, shared ideas. In addition, Bulgakov was a generous man, he could give - and probably gave - a lot.

But a lot is not everything. And from Amlinsky’s book it turns out that these texts could not have been written either in such co-authorship or in any other way. She “plowed” all the works of Bulgakov (including editions of chapters that were not included in the final text of “The Master and Margarita”, “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf”), all the works of Ilf and Petrov and all the memories about them - about all three. Having analyzed the texts according to many “sections”, she showed that in these two novels there are strikingly similar in structure and vocabulary descriptions of similar scenes found in Bulgakov’s works written before the novels described (recruitment scenes, murder scenes, scenes of a flood in the apartment, descriptions of an apartment building, clothing lending, etc.); that the main images of “12 Chairs” migrated there from Bulgakov’s previous works; that the prose style of the novels is the same as in the works written by Bulgakov before and after; and that the dilogy is literally saturated with facts from his biography and incidents from his life, his habits and preferences, signs of the appearance and character of his friends and acquaintances and the routes of his movements. Moreover, all this is used and included in the flesh of the prose in such a way that there can be no talk of working together on it. That's not how they write together. Only Mikhail Bulgakov himself could write this way. But not Ilf and Petrov. Judge for yourself. I did not select the examples given by Amlinsky based on the degree of persuasiveness, but simply took them in a row from her analysis; the dates of the works are indicated everywhere by the year of publication (although, for example, the novel “12 Chairs,” first published in the 1st issue of the magazine “30 Days” in 1928, was obviously completed no later than the fall of 1927).

“Exactly at noon the rooster crowed at the Plow and Hammer cooperative.” Nobody was surprised by this." (“12 chairs”, 1928)

And here’s where this rooster got into the “12 chairs”:

“...At ten and a quarter in the evening a rooster crowed three times in the corridor... Nothing would surprise a person who has lived in corridor No. 50 for a year and a half. It was not the fact that the rooster suddenly appeared that frightened me, but the fact that the rooster was crowing at ten o'clock in the evening. The rooster is not a nightingale, and in pre-war times it sang at dawn.” (Bulgakov, “Moonshine Lake”, 1923)

Here are another pair clearly related by common origin:

“The pharmacist Leopold Grigorievich, whom family and friends called Lipa...” ("12 chairs")

“I managed to walk around the hospital and was absolutely convinced that it had a wealth of instruments...

“Well, sir,” Demyan Lukich remarked sweetly, “this is all through the efforts of your predecessor Leopold Leopoldovich.” After all, he operated from morning to evening... They called him Liponty Lipontyevich instead of Leopold Leopoldovich.” (Bulgakov, “Towel with a Rooster”, 1923)

And here's another:

“...The legs were in patent leather boots with an orange-colored suede upper.” (12 chairs")

- “...He seemed comical to me, just like patent leather boots with a bright yellow top...” (Bulgakov’s second wife L. Belozerskaya about the first meeting with him in 1921, in the book “Oh, the honey of memories,” 1989)

More:

“Brezina is a diva from the Parisian Folies Bergere theater!” (In the poster, from a chapter not included in the main edition of “12 Chairs.”) In the same place: “The famous Mademoiselle Brezina slowly came onto the stage with shaved armpits and a heavenly face. The diva was dressed in an ostrich dress."

“The costumes they made for us were magnificent... My photograph in a suit made of ostrich feathers... was exhibited on the Grands Boulevards for a long time.” (From Belozerskaya’s book of memoirs “At Someone Else’s Threshold,” about how in Paris during emigration she was accepted into the troupe of the Folies Bergere music hall.)

And further:

“... Ippolit Matveevich... began to forcefully tear the stranger’s thick fingers off the chair.” ("12 chairs")

Shchukin... began to bend finger by finger and bent them all.” (“Fatal Eggs”, 1925).

And further:

“By lunchtime, the astrolabe was sold (at the market - V.K.) to a mechanic for three rubles.” (“12 chairs,” with Amlinski revealing that it took Ostap about an hour to sell the astrolabe.)

“An hour later I sold my overcoat at the market” (Bulgakov, “Notes on Cuffs”, 1922 - 23). E.S. Bulgakova, diary: “Mandelshtam’s wife recalled how she saw Misha in Batum 14 years ago (that is, in 1921 - V.K.) ... when he was poor and selling kerosene at the market.” Charnota in the play “Running” also sells at the market.

Three years before the appearance of Vorobyaninov’s green mustache and hair in “12 Chairs” in the story “Heart of a Dog” (1925), Professor Preobrazhensky’s client’s hair also turned green.

In “12 Chairs” “Father Fyodor... smiling embarrassedly... almost got hit by the executive committee’s car”, in “Diaboliada” (1924) “Korotkov... smiling broadly and stupidly... almost got hit by a car”), and in “Fatal Eggs” (1925) “Persikov... almost got hit by a car on Mokhovaya.”

The chicken pestilence killed 250 chickens of the priest Drozdova (“Fatal Eggs”, 1925), and the pestilence took away 240 rabbits from Father (that is, the priest) Fyodor in “12 Chairs”.

Both Professor Preobrazhensky and his patient in “Heart of a Dog” (1925) and Vorobyaninov in “12 Chairs” loved, knew by heart Don Juan’s serenade “From Seville to Grenada in the Quiet Twilight of Nights” - and sang it.

“Green tapestry” from Bulgakov’s story “Metabolism” (1924), “pale green tapestries” from the story “Khan’s Fire” (1924) and “tapestry with shepherdesses” from the story “I Killed” (1926) were included in “12 Chairs” "in the form of the tapestry "Shepherdess", but not a single tapestry was included in the works of Ilf and Petrov.

The room "divided into five compartments by plywood partitions" from the story "A Treatise on Dwelling" (1926) in "12 Chairs" became a "large mezzanine room" that was "cut by plywood partitions into long slices."

“Brother Lunacharsky” from “The Golden Correspondence of Ferapont Ferapontovich Kaportsev” (1924) turned into “the son of Lieutenant Schmidt” in “The Golden Calf”, along with accompanying signs, even to the point of coincidences in the amounts given to the swindlers.

The description of a huge puddle that emerged from Gogol’s Mirgorod “amazing puddle” was used by Bulgakov three times: first in the feuilleton “Chanson D'été. Rainy Introduction" (1923), then in "12 Chairs" ("A platoon of Red Army soldiers in winter helmets undauntedly crossed a puddle..."), and for the third time - in the part of the chapter "On How Panikovsky violated the convention.”

Bulgakov’s favorite words and expressions walk through the pages of his stories and “12 chairs”, but never in Ilf and Petrov: the adverb “instantly”, the noun “abundance” and forms from it, the expressions “pay attention”, “I’m coming to you on business” ”, “as well as (also)”, “didn’t study at universities”, “shish with butter”, “son of a bitch”, “don’t use indecent words”, “handshakes are cancelled”, etc. and so on.

According to the stories and feuilletons of Bulgakov, the stories “Fatal Eggs” and “Heart of a Dog”, the novels “The White Guard”, “The Great Chancellor” and the novel “12 Chairs”, men walk and run in long johns (“underpants”), which they never do in the works of Ilf and Petrov.

In Bulgakov’s works (the novel “The White Guard”, the stories “I Killed”, “The Raid” and “On the Night of the 3rd”) the descriptions of the murder scenes are strikingly similar in expression to the description of the murder of Ostap Bender, moreover, the subject “equipment” of the scenes the murders are identical: night, the only witness is the moon, the place of the murder is illuminated by a lantern (or flashlight), the murder is cruel and bloody. Needless to say, Ilf and Petrov have nothing like this. In the same way, they do not mention the Finnish knife, which Bulgakov repeatedly used in his works, including mainly as a symbol of a treacherous stab in the back. It was with a Finnish knife that the great schemer in “The Golden Calf” was going to open the underground millionaire.

The verb “to gush” is used four times in different versions of phrases and phrases in “12 Chairs”; Bulgakov used it in other works more than 10 times; Ilf and Petrov - not even once. “Shish” in the form of simply “shisha” and “shisha with butter”, in the form of “kukish”, “fig” or “dula” in Bulgakov’s stories and novels, including in “12 chairs”, was used more than 30 (! ) times, despite the fact that Ilf and Petrov remained absolutely indifferent to this word and gesture. I admit that Amlinsky could have made a mistake and missed one or two cases, since all the texts are not yet available in electronic form, but her research is still impressive.

Bulgakov has many references to all kinds of romances and quotes from them - while Ilf and Petrov treated romances mockingly and made irony about them: meanwhile, in “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” alone, Amlinsky discovered more than 20 (!) lines or stanzas of various romances quoted by their expert Bulgakov. But the romance theme is only part of the overall musical theme; here is a list of only the voices that appeared in Bulgakov’s works and in the novels under study: treble, tenor, lyric soprano, coloratura soprano, mezzo-soprano, baritone, baritone bass and bass - in many times and in different variations. The same thing applies to mentions of singers and choirs, with the names of operas and arias from them, with the names of notes and instruments. Considering that there is nothing like this in the works of Ilf and Petrov, it is difficult to imagine a co-authorship, as a result of which all these musical terms and details organically fit into the flesh of the novels.

These novels did not escape the mystical aura that is so characteristic of all of Bulgakov’s works. It is impossible to cite all these quotes, I will only say that in “12 Chairs” alone there are more than two and a half dozen references to demonism, devilry and otherworldliness, while “none of the characters of Ilf and Petrov flew up onto the eaves, dissolved or reflected in mirrors, even in such sketches in which it is impossible to do without reflection.”

In “12 Chairs” and in other Bulgakov’s works, deep traces of incidents from his biography that were etched into Bulgakov’s emotional memory were found. It seems that the reason that the episode with the sale of the kerosene stove burdened Bulgakov’s emotional memory to such an extent was his innate delicacy and modesty, which he had to overcome during the “bazaar” trade.

One day, Bulgakov’s suitcase was stolen, which, in particular – and mainly – contained his underwear. Apparently he had to borrow money, which was extremely painful for him; for this reason, these themes of stealing a suitcase with linen and borrowing someone else’s linen and someone else’s clothes are running through the writer’s works: stolen suitcases from both Bender and Amethystov from “Zoyka’s Apartment” (1925), a caftan in “The Cabal of the Holy One,” a suit in “ Ivan Vasilyevich,” the vest in “12 Chairs,” the borrowed underpants in “Days of the Turbins”—and this latter apparently “hooked” him so much that he even made the surname of the main character of “The Diaboliad” a derivative of this word, and his underwear became an almost haunting theme in his work (which, of course, does not exist at all in the works of Ilf and Petrov). Amlinsky has assembled an astounding selection of "drawers" and "underpants" quotes from Bulgakov's works, including the novels under study.

Another time he was robbed in such a way that, despite his impressionability and vulnerability, it remained a scar for life: his entire salary he had just received was stolen - 400 rubles, he was left without a penny. The strong impression this made on him can be clearly seen from the huge selection of quotes from Bulgakov’s works using the number 400 (including from “12 Chairs”).

No less impressive is the analysis of the movements of Ostap Bender with Vorobyaninov and Father Fyodor: as it turned out, all these travels repeat the routes of certain Bulgakov moves in the 1920s, right down to the names of the hotels in which he stayed in the same settlements - and right up to the disaster at the last point - Batum - which reflected the real life catastrophe of Bulgakov, who was never able to sail to Constantinople.

“After the demonstration of topographical, musical and mystical design, after numerous echoes with the work of Bulgakov, with the coverage of facts from his personal life in the novels,” Amlinsky summarizes in this part of his investigation, “only one conclusion is possible: the main and coordinating author of both novels is the writer Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov."

But in this case, it’s time for us to digress from these, albeit multiple, particulars and try to answer the main questions asked at the beginning of the article. And we should start, of course, with style. Amlinsky, for example, cites two phrases - from “12 Chairs” and “The Master and Margarita”:

“At half past eleven, from the north-west, from the direction of the village of Chmarovka, a young man of about twenty-eight entered Stargorod.” ("12 chairs")

“In a white cloak with a bloody lining, a shuffling cavalry gait, early in the morning of the fourteenth of the spring month of Nisan...” (“The Master and Margarita”).

Yes, indeed, the music, the “bewitching rhythm” (L. Yanovskaya’s expression) of these two phrases practically coincides - but one cannot judge by one phrase, even realizing that such a coincidence cannot be accidental. But if we continue this analysis of the rhythm of the prose of “12 Chairs” and “The Master”, begun by Amlinsky, then it is not difficult to see that around these phrases in the same places in both novels the rhythm - with slight variations - is the same. Another phrase fits well with this comparison, with which, as in the two previous cases, the narrator first introduces the reader to a new hero:

“A man without a hat, in gray canvas trousers, leather sandals worn like a monk on his bare feet, and a white shirt without a collar, with his head bowed, came out of the low gate of house No. 16.” ("Golden calf")

Moreover, in the prose of both “The Master” and “12 Chairs,” there are constantly similar-sounding, “long” periods interspersed with short phrases, and its rhythmic basis is identical in both cases. (Of course, we are talking about narrative prose, not dialogue.) But the rhythm of the prose is individual, if not borrowed. Some may object to me: “The Master and Margarita” was written after “12 Chairs”. Especially! If we recognize this striking rhythmic similarity, but do not agree that “12 Chairs” was written by Bulgakov, we will have to recognize Bulgakov as the epigone of Ilf and Petrov! And finally, Ilf and Petrov, in all their works, except for “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf,” wrote in a completely different prose, a different, “chopped” style, characteristic not so much for them, but for Soviet prose in general in the 1920s. X. Look at any place in “One-Story America” - as a rule, their sentences are short, and occasionally they become longer only due to its homogeneous members. It may be objected to me that this is sketch prose, but in the stories Ilf and Petrov remained feuilletonists with the same style. As for the writers' dictionary, it does not require a separate discussion: the entire presentation of Amlinsky's investigation is replete with vocabulary matches from Bulgakov's prose and from the novels under study.

Let's move on to Ostap Bender - and start with the strikingly similar habits and character traits of Amethyst from “Zoyka's Apartment” (1925) and Ostap Bender.

1) Both main characters hint at their noble, albeit illegitimate, origins and at the same time selflessly lie - this is generally their common feature. (From memories of Bulgakov, it is known that during the rehearsals of “Zoyka’s Apartment,” Mikhail Afanasyevich and the first performer of the role of Amethyst, Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov, competed, inventing various biographies of Amethyst, until they agreed that he was the illegitimate son of the Grand Duke and a cafe singer) .

2) Both Bender and Amethyst act as someone's cousins.

Bender: “Is it warm in Paris now? A good city. I have a married cousin there..."

Amethyst: You’re being rude, Zoya... You’re persecuting your cousin...

3) And this is how future partners see them (both, Obolyaninov and Vorobyaninov, are of noble origin, with very similar character traits):

“In the end, it’s difficult without an assistant,–thought Ippolit Matveevich,– and he seems to be a big swindler. This one might be useful." ("12 chairs")

« Obolyaninov(offstage, muffled). I am completely unsuited for this. An experienced scoundrel is needed for such a position.” (“Zoyka’s apartment”)

4) Both Bender and Amethyst, both do not disdain clothes from someone else’s shoulder.

5) Both Amethyst and Bender sprinkle their speech with French words and expressions, ... speak a little German, both (like Bulgakov - V.K.) do not speak English.

6) Both are gamblers, they play “nine”.

7) Both are characterized by vulgarity and familiarity.

8) Both joke, using the same expressions. For example, Amethyst states that handshakes are canceled, – and in Bender’s office there were posters about office hours and the harmfulness of handshakes.

9) Both dream of going abroad in the most primitive form: the sea, the beach and they are in white pants.

It is interesting that, regardless of Amlinsky, A.B. Levin identified and presented on the Internet in the article “12 chairs from Zoyka’s apartment” almost the same similarities. I have no doubt that the researcher herself discovered what Levin noticed and described (she is familiar with this publication and refers to it), but the point here is not “who crowed first.” It is important that, in the case of a literary hoax that took place and the difficult literary situation that arose in connection with this, Amlinsky acquired an unexpected and observant ally. Here, for example, are the similarities of these heroes, which are noted by Levin and with which Amlinsky’s list could be continued (the full text of his article can be found at address

10) As experienced scammers, Bender and Amethyst are ready for any surprises and twists of fate: in this case, they always have everything they need with them. Ostap keeps his “gentleman’s set” (a police cap, a magician’s poster, four decks of cards with the same back, a stack of documents with round lilac stamps, charity cards and enamel breastplates) in an “obstetric bag”, and Amethysts– in a dirty suitcase (six decks of cards, portraits of leaders..., “a pocket full of documents”).

11) Both are fond of these leather goods:

"My right hand,–said the great schemer, patting the bag on the plump side of the sausage.– Here is everything that an elegant citizen of my age and scope might need.” ("12 chairs")

Amethysts. My faithful comrade, suitcase. Together with you again, but where? (“Zoyka’s apartment”)

12) Elements of their biographies are also strangely similar. Amethystov served as an actor, in the police, in Odessa “he got rid of bureaucracy”, ended up in prison and appears in the novel after serving time. Ostap was imprisoned in Taganskaya prison, he is not averse to performing on stage, even in the form of a magician, he is the owner of a police cap and, heading to Chernomorsk on the Antelope (implied to Odessa), he calls for “a strike against sloppiness.”

13) Both use the same expressions.

Amethysts . To him! Right in the eyes. I'm an old fighter, I have nothing to lose but chains.

Bender, addressing Kozlevich, says:

“And in Arbatov you have nothing to lose except spare chains.”

14) As it turns out, both Ostap and Ametistov have “spare” documents, and the names and surnames in these false documents strangely “echo”:

“Konrad Karlovich Mikhelson, forty-eight years old, a member of the union since one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, a highly moral person, my good friend, it seems a friend of the children...” ("12 chairs")

“And my friend Karl Petrovich Chemodanov, a bright personality, a party member, died in my room.” (“Zoyka’s apartment”)

15) The speech patterns of Ostap and Amethystov are very similar. “Both speak a strange mixture of macaronic Russian, characteristic of the people of the “society” of pre-revolutionary Russia and the Soviet clerical, and they choose the same cliches from Soviet newspeak.”

16) Both heroes clearly declare their adherence to the law:

Amethysts Law, sir. The law is sacred to me. I can't do anything.

And the great schemer speaks about himself in the third person in the same way: “Note to yourself, Ostap Bender did not kill anyone. They killed him– It was. But he himself is clean before the law. I'm certainly not a cherub. I don’t have wings, but I respect the Criminal Code.”

It is likely that other matches can be found; Well, for example: both Bender and Amethystov love theatrical appeals “into the air”, to certain citizen-comrades and “gentlemen of the jury”, both are brilliant at the techniques of demagoguery, both are absolute cynics.

“Consistently, from work to work (Bulgakov - V.K.), we meet the image of Ostap Bender,” writes Amlinsky. – He is a clever, adventurous, intelligent, charming and handsome rogue, ...not lacking in acting abilities, quite erudite, capable of saying a couple of French, less often German words, quickly making decisions in difficult situations, a card player, a joker, who finds common ground with everyone a language that tries to take the maximum from life and has the ability to subordinate different people to its influence, ... which takes root in any environment and changes only the surname and first name from work to work, remaining faithful to its creator Bulgakov - while there is no image of a hero similar to Ostap not in any work by Ilf and Petrov. Ostap’s twin brothers are Amethystov (the play “Zoyka’s Apartment”), born before Bender, and Georges Miloslavsky (the play “Ivan Vasilyevich”), created after Ostap.” And, as she shows later, to a large extent - Charnota from the play “Running”, and V. Losev, in addition to Amethystov and Miloslavsky, also includes Koroviev from “The Master and Margarita” in this gallery.

All of the above is more than enough to agree with Levin’s conclusion:

“The given ... numerous coincidences exclude, as it seems to me, their randomness,” writes Levin. – If we accept that each of the noted coincidences is independent of the others, and the probability of each (obviously overestimated) is one in two, then the probability of their simultaneous appearance in the dilogy lies between one millionth and one ten millionth. There are many thousands of times fewer of all Russian novels than is needed for the random occurrence of such a sequence of coincidences.”

It is remarkable that Lewin uses a probabilistic approach in his reasoning: in fact, taking into account the many other stylistic similarities that Amlinsky discovered and only a small part of which we present here, the randomness of such a number of coincidences is so negligible that it simply cannot be taken into account . At the same time, the last sentence of the paragraph quoted here from his article, which does not follow at all from the previous one, raises an objection: “At the same time, it is hardly possible to establish the reasons for the occurrence of each of these coincidences half a century after the death of all three authors.” It was the obvious non-randomness of these coincidences that should sooner or later force someone to investigate their cause, regardless of the “statute of limitations.” Irina Amlinski turned out to be such a researcher.

Now let’s ask ourselves: is it possible, with such “coincidences” numbering in the hundreds, that Ilf and Petrov could be the authors of “12 Chairs”? Indeed, in this case, to apply the word “epigones” to them would be too delicate. At the same time, another question arises: if Bulgakov took any part in the writing of both novels (even if only as a co-author!), then how could they not mention this participation? Well, at least in a word, at least in half a word? But none of them even mentioned this anywhere. Isn't it strange?

I do not accuse either Ilf or Petrov of unscrupulousness or ingratitude and prefer to believe that they risked their reputation as writers when, with such stylistic similarities between Bulgakov’s prose and “12 Chairs,” they put their names on the cover of the novel, mystifying their contemporaries and descendants. One of the main tasks of a literary hoax is to hide its cause. Position obliged all its participants to maintain secrecy. Everyone had to lie, left and right. It is easy to imagine how Bulgakov willingly agreed with those who told him that Ilf and Petrov had written a wonderful book. It’s even easier - how Ilf and Petrov accepted congratulations on the success of “12 Chairs.” They could not even hint at any participation of Bulgakov in the creation of the novel - otherwise the hoax would not have lasted even a week. Given that, due to the fierce hatred of Soviet critics towards Bulgakov, they stopped publishing him completely from 1926 (as it later turned out - until his death), they would not have been forgiven for such games.

I may be reproached for the fact that, together with Amlinsky, I am “framing” Ilf, Petrov and Bulgakov, that such behavior of hoaxers would be contrary to elementary human ethics. Yes, this is true, but it should be remembered that hoaxes are always directed to the future, and therefore do not cause any damage to the contemporaries of the hoaxers: for this reason, literary hoaxes allow violations of ethics.

So, it seems that there really was a literary hoax, and the author of “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” was Mikhail Bulgakov. In this regard, we have to answer the main question: who needed this hoax and why. But before answering it, we should ask another: didn’t Bulgakov leave us some hint, some “key” that would help us answer this question? After all, knowing Bulgakov, we understand that he simply could not help but leave such a “notch” for us if he really carried out this hoax. It looks like Amlinsky found this key:

“The author left the most interesting message for future readers at the beginning of the story.”the novel “12 Chairs”, in which he names the reason for the “transfer” of his talent and authorship to Ilf and Petrov:

“On one side there is an azure sign: “Odessa Bagel Artel - Moscow Bagels.” The sign showed a young man in a tie and shorts. French trousers. He held a fairy horn in one hand, turned inside out. abundance, from which ocher Moscow bagels fell like an avalanche, standing out out of need and for Odessa bagels. At the same time, the young man smiled voluptuously.”

Let's decipher Bulgakov's message. “Odessa bagel artel” – feuilletonists from Odessa Kataev, Ilf and Petrov; the “young” man was Bulgakov, who loved to dress stylishly. "Fairy Horn" abundance" characterizes Bulgakov's cursive writing: he wrote feuilletons easily and quickly - and "12 Chairs" is, in essence, a large feuilleton, or, more precisely, a novel in feuilletons. “The hand turned inside out” (how unusually, strangely said, drawing attention to what was said!) is Bulgakov’s mystifying technique of secretive writing, when the role of the narrator is transferred to the antagonist. “Moscow bagels, passed off out of need and as Odessa bagels” - Bulgakov’s works, if necessary (“out of need”) were passed off as works of Odessa residents. In other words, Bulgakov resorted to a forced mystification, agreeing to pass off his novel as written by Ilf and Petrov. "M the young man smiled voluptuously” - well, having published this novel-feuilleton, all peppered with anti-Soviet statements - albeit from the lips of “negative” characters - Bulgakov could well have smiled voluptuously. In support of the last assumption, we draw on an entry from the diary of E.S. Bulgakova dated September 15, 1936:

“This morning M.A. submitted a letter to Arkadyev, in which he refused to serve at the Theater and from working on “The Windsors.” In addition, an application to the directorate. We went to the Theater and left a letter for the courier.[...] M.A. told me that he wrote this letter to the Moscow Art Theater “with some kind of voluptuousness.”

Now we can try to reconstruct this hoax, at the same time answering those questions that have so far remained unanswered. From what is generally known about the “emergence of the plan” and its implementation, besides Ilf and Petrov, there is no doubt about the participation of Valentin Kataev in this hoax. But his role can only be assessed with an understanding of why this hoax was started and carried out in the first place. After all, Bulgakov at that moment lived comfortably: starting in 1926, his prose was no longer published, but his plays were performed in many theaters, and in 1927 alone he earned more than 28,000 rubles. He furnished the apartment and for the first time in his life achieved the comfort that he so needed for quiet writing. Therefore, the novel was not written for money.

At the same time, Bulgakov no longer expected to see his name on published prose. On the one hand, the fierce hatred of Soviet critics towards him, and on the other, constant summons to the GPU, the search and seizure of the diary and manuscript of “The Heart of a Dog” - everything indicated that there was no hope for the publication of the prose. So why did he take up this novel-feuilleton - despite the fact that he complained about the need to write feuilletons, which took away his strength and time, and, as we now understand, knowingly (from the first lines) that it could only be published under someone else’s name? name?

Logic leads us to the only possible answer. Bulgakov wrote this novel under the order of the organization in whose hands his fate was at that moment - the order of the GPU. It was an agreement in which the condition on his part was a promise to leave him alone. And from the enemy? – His agreement to write Soviet prose. Bulgakov knew that he could write honest prose in such a way that it would be impossible to find fault with him and that everyone would understand it as they would like to understand it.

As a hoaxer, Bulgakov, who learned the art of mystification from Pushkin, never told anyone about his secret passages. Truly sacred to the women he loved, he nevertheless did not believe in their ability to keep a secret. He wrote easily and quickly, mainly at night, and therefore none of Bulgakov’s wives had any idea about his literary hoaxes.

Evidence of this is “The White Guard” (1925), where he made his antagonist (in life - V.B. Shklovsky; see about this the work of P.B. Maslak “The Image of the Narrator in “The White Guard”) - which turned ideological signs in the novel and defended the author from accusations of White Guardism. In “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” Bulgakov made the narrator a certain Soviet feuilletonist who accepts Soviet power and confirms his attitude towards it by uttering at least one loyal phrase.

There is such a place in “12 chairs”:

“The treasure remains. It was maintained and even increased. You could touch it with your hands, but you couldn’t take it away. It went into the service of other people.”

There is such a place in the “Golden Calf”:

“Real life flew by, joyfully trumpeting and sparkling with varnished wings.”

In “negotiations” with the GPU, both sides agreed that the book in this situation could not be published under the name of Bulgakov, which caused unprecedented anger among Soviet critics. To implement the project, the name Kataev, acceptable to both parties, was proposed, who carried out the further “coupling”. And if we accept this version, Kataev’s behavior becomes clear: he was a mediator in these negotiations and, ultimately, a participant in the hoax. He convinced Ilf and Petrov that the hoax, on the one hand (from the GPU) did not threaten them with anything, but on the other hand, it could make their name; At the same time, they, being completely Soviet people in their worldview, with a clear conscience put their name on the cover of the novel. I believe that Bulgakov’s phrase about “Moscow bagels, out of necessity, passed off as Odessa bagels,” about the necessity of this mystification, was left in the novel with their knowledge.

Amlinsky believes that Bulgakov wrote “12 Chairs” in July-September 1927, which is in good agreement with the calculations of M.P. Odessky and D.M. Feldman that the editorial preparation of the publication in the magazine began already in October. As for the memories of Ilf and Petrov about how they wrote “12 Chairs” together, their memories could not have been any other: all participants in the hoax, as best they could and knew how, misled those around them and other contemporaries. Of course, their very participation in the hoax put them in a difficult position, especially Ilf, who felt out of place for a long time. Ilf’s daughter, A.I. Ilf recalled: “Petrov remembered the amazing confession of his co-author: “I was always haunted by the thought that I was doing something wrong, that I was an impostor. In the depths of my soul I always had a fear that they would suddenly say to me: “Listen, what a damn writer you are: you should be doing something else!”

Nevertheless, Ilf and Petrov did not utter a sound and kept the secret. Moreover, they now had to justify their obligations. For this reason, after the publication of “12 Chairs”, with the knowledge of Bulgakov, they began to use Bulgakov’s motifs, details and images in their stories and feuilletons, both from the published edition of the novel and from the remaining unpublished chapters (and subsequently from “The Golden Calf” ), thereby misleading future researchers of their work. It was from 1927 that entries appeared in Ilf’s notebook, which further strengthened his authority as an undeniably talented co-author of novels.

The result was successful for everyone. That is why, after the release of “12 Chairs,” Bulgakov was returned the manuscript and diary, which he immediately destroyed, and was really left alone. But his prose was no longer destined to appear on the pages of the Soviet press. Even without the GPU, Soviet criticism did everything possible for this.

The last question remains: why did our literary criticism overlook this hoax? The answer to this question today is already obvious. Literary scholars underestimate the genius of both Pushkin and Bulgakov as mystifying writers. We practically did not consider the problem of the narrator in their novels - otherwise we would have long ago guessed how exactly both Pushkin and Bulgakov used the opportunity to transfer this role to their antagonist. This problem was first solved by A.N. Barkov in his two main works “Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”. Alternative reading"; M., 1994) and “Walks with Evgeniy Onegin” (1998), but both books are hushed up by academic literary criticism.

In an article about the theory of literary mystification, I wrote:A hoax is considered completed when it is solved. Today, with the release of Amlinsky’s book, the hoax with “12 chairs” and “The Golden Calf” can be considered completed. In connection with it, we still have to answer a number of questions outlined by Amlinsky, in particular about the authorship of some of the works of Ilf and Petrov, published after the publication of these novels. She promises to do this in the next book.

I have no illusions about the recognition of this hoax by literary scholars. However, even if they are forced to agree with what is stated in Amlinsky’s book, we will have to organize the existing knowledge about the process of creating and publishing “12 Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” and try to find additional information that sheds light on the reason why the hoaxers gave out “Moscow bagels” “for “Odessa bagels” - or offer some other version of the events of that time that could explain all these “coincidences” that are inexplicable within the framework of the existing theory of the authorship of these novels. In any case, the problem will require discussion.