Tracing the Biblical -Mythological Origins of Mikhail Bulgakov's

Fallen and Changed: Tracing the Biblical -Mythological Origins of Mikhail Bulgakov’s Azazello and Korov′ev Elliot Mason Elliot Mason explores the biblical and mythological ancestry of two of the novel’s most under-studied demonic characters: Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot. Thesis presented to the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Russian, 2010. From the archives of the website The Master and Margarita http://www.masterandmargarita.eu Webmaster Jan Vanhellemont B-3000 Leuven +32475260793 Fallen and Changed: Tracing the Biblical -Mythological Origins of Mikhail Bulgakov’s Azazello and Korov′ev by Elliot Mason A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Russian Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2010 © Elliot Mason 2010 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract In his analysis of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, Elliot Mason explores the biblical and mythological ancestry of two of the novel’s most under-studied demonic characters: Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot. Both characters, it is argued, serve important thematic roles within The Master and Margarita, acting as symbols of the oppressed artist, creativity and judgement. Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot are integral to an eschatological reading of the text, with Korov′ev in particular suggesting new areas of Faustian influence within The Master and Margarita. Azazello’s relevance to the novel is discussed in terms of his relationship with another of Bulgakov’s characters: the demon Abaddon. Through an examination of the biblical, literary and mythological development of the myth of the Azazel-figure throughout history, Mason argues a thematic, and perhaps even more tangible, connection between the two characters. In the context of Bulgakov’s novel, it is argued, Azazello and Abaddon are interrelated, and it is this relationship that sheds new light on the thematic importance of either character to The Master and Margarita. An examination of older, non-canonical biblical texts allows the connection between Azazel and Abaddon to be explored and applied to Bulgakov’s novel. It is argued that Bulgakov himself, upon reading the texts studied, came to many of the same conclusions, and that these conclusions resulted in the connectedness of Azazello and Abaddon within The Master and Margarita. The second chapter of Mason’s study is devoted to tracing the heritage of the character, Kovo′ev-Fagot. A number of references and clues within The Master and Margarita are suggestive of the fact that Bulgakov had a particular literary, mythological iii or contemporary figure in mind when he created the character. Despite these references, Bulgakovian scholars have so far been unable to identify precisely whom Bulgakov was drawing on as inspiration for Korov′ev. Using the information provided by The Master and Margarita, Westenra argues for a reading of Korov′ev-Fagot as the biblical, mythological sea-beast, Leviathan. He further links the character with Mephistopheles, finding a connection between Leviathan and Mephistopheles in a lesser-known version of the Faust legend, which replaces the name of one with the other. An overview of Leviathan’s eschatological and thematic functions, as well as his relationship with Egyptian and Norse chaos serpents, is used in order to provide the demonological background of the figure to a potentially non-specialist audience. The themes explored in this section of the argument are then applied to The Master and Margarita itself, in order to better understand the intended role of Korov′ev-Fagot to Bulgakov’s work. The identification of Korov′ev-Fagot with Leviathan and Mephistopheles, as well as that of Azazello with Abaddon, serves as a foundation of information, compiled in order that future interpretations may hopefully draw from it. iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Zina Gimpelevich for her confidence and support throughout the writing of my thesis. I would also like to thank my readers, Dr. Sarah Turner and Dr. Ireneusz Szarycz, for their advice and help, as well as Janet Vaughan and Helena Calogeridis. Thanks also to my family back in Newfoundland, to Bethany Brown, Laura Springate, Ali Cattell, Belinda Kleinhans, Stephen Aylward and Nicole Boggan. Your encouragement has been crucial to the completion of this thesis, as well as to the overall maintenance of what little sanity I possessed to begin with. Thanks should also go out to Grumbles, Chloe, Lola, Delilah and Dotty (although you’d likely much rather spend an afternoon chewing this document than reading it). v Dedication For Bastet, Smudge, Loki and Grumbles. vi Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Out of the Bottomless Pit: Azazello’s Bibilical-Mythological Origins ......................................................................................................................... 6 2. A Modern Moby Dick: Hunting the Leviathan .......................................... 39 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................82 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 85 vii Introduction Tsvetan Todorov, in his book, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, defines fantasy as “that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event” (Todorov 25). Applied to the complex demonology of Mikhail Bulgakov’s 1940 novel, The Master and Margarita, Todorov’s definition certainly describes the sense of indecision and confusion that arises when presented with Bulgakov’s devils: Voland, Azazello, Korov′ev-Fagot, Behemoth, and Hella. The question of who exactly these figures are, what they represent, and from which literary and religious traditions they spring has long been on the tip of the tongue of Bulgakov’s readers. On one occasion in 1939, Bulgakov’s friends were encouraged by the author to speculate upon the significance of Voland and his troupe of hooligans. As prominent Bulgakovian scholar Andrew Barratt points out, despite the numerous theories presented by each of Bulgakov’s friends, not to mention the assertion by Elena Bulgakova herself that she had correctly identified Voland as Satan, the true answer remains obscure (Barratt 140-41). George Krugovoy sees the novel as a gnostic text, drawing from the idea (rooted in Zoroastrianism) that good and evil are two co-equal forces. For Krugovoy and Barratt, Voland and his fellow devils are no simple creatures of darkness; instead they function as divine representatives, journeying to Earth in order to reveal important truths to the human protagonists (Barratt 171-2; Krugovoy 78). At the same time, Sternbock-Fermor places the emphasis on the Goethean influence, identifying the characters of The Master and Margarita with the main players in Faust. Undoubtedly, the reality of Bulgakov’s inspiration and symbolism is more complex than any one reading or theory could hope to address. It is the goal of this study, then, to try 1 and make sense of the tangled kaleidoscope of Bulgakov’s demons, taking into consideration the various themes and influences at play within the novel. In particular, my investigation hopes to shed light on two of the The Master and Margarita’s more enigmatic demonic characters: Azazello and Korov′ev-Fagot. While Bulgakov’s devil-in- chief, Voland, has been well-researched and puzzled over, in-depth investigations into the symbolism of, and inspiration for, Azazello and Korov′ev have yet to be attempted. By tracing the mythological and biblical heritage of both of these characters, I will contextualize their presence in The Master and Margarita, further cementing their significance within apocalyptic and Faustian readings of the work. To begin with, it is necessary to define a few of the terms that will prove important to this study, and to establish certain facts concerning Bulgakov and his sources. Since my interpretation of The Master and Margarita relies heavily on primary sources outside of the novel itself, a section of each chapter will be devoted to explaining and examining the development of those sources outside of their relationship to Bulgakov’s writing. A large portion of these sources are biblical in nature, with the majority of them coming from an apocryphal, apocalyptic tradition. What do We Mean by Apocalypse?: A Revelation of Revelation The word apocalypse comes from the Greek, apokalypsis, which means revelation (Collins 3). It is suggestive of the uncovering of something previously hidden or obscured. Apocalyptic literature, then, in its most basic sense, is literature that illuminates or makes clear—literature that tells us something new. Such a broad 2 definition of the term would arguably encompass all world literature, yet we have a seemingly distinct view, within our culture, of what we consider apocalyptic and what we do not. Within the field of religious studies, a canonical definition of apocalyptic literature remains evasive, but we

Load more