‘Incompetent individuals confused the writer with the characters’: the Bulgakov Museum responded to the Institute of National Memory

The Mikhail Bulgakov Museum in Kyiv has responded to the decision of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, which on April 3rd classified the writer as a “Ukrainophobe.”

The museum’s reaction appeared on its official website.

As stated in the publication, eight out of nine signatories of the expertise are not specialists in literary studies, therefore they cannot provide competent assessments of Mikhail Bulgakov’s personality and his work. The museum writes that the experts, being non-specialists, simply attributed the views of Bulgakov’s literary characters to him and his family.

“The authors attribute statements of literary characters from Bulgakov’s works to him and his family in a categorical, emotional, and negative manner,” the museum stated.

It reminded that Bulgakov’s characters not only criticize the Petliurists but also talk about “red gangs,” “Moscow officers,” and “hatred” towards Kerensky. Additionally, the experts of the Institute of National Memory ignored the historical context in which Bulgakov created his works. Instead, “Bulgakov’s persona is directly associated with contemporary aggressive ideologists and propagandists of Russia”: in their expertise, the Institute writes that several works by the classic “completely resonate with the narratives of current Kremlin propagandists Dugin, Solovyov, and Skabeeva.”

Moreover, the museum employees – the main specialists on the writer in Ukraine – were not involved in conducting the expertise.

Furthermore, the museum refuted several conclusions about Bulgakov made by the Institute of National Memory. In particular, the Institute claimed that the writer deserted from the UNR army, to which he was mobilized, and joined the ranks of the “white” Volunteer Army due to his “monarchist loyalty.”

The museum, however, stated that this is a lie and Bulgakov was forcibly mobilized into the Volunteer Army. Moreover, there is no evidence in any documents confirming his “loyalty to monarchy.”

The museum also rejected the claim by the Institute that Bulgakov and his family were “irritated” by the Ukrainian language. The writer’s sister, Elena, chose to study at a pedagogical institute in Ukrainian, and Bulgakov’s godfather was a historian of Ukrainian literature, Nikolai Petrov. Bulgakov himself regularly used Ukrainian words and expressions in private correspondence, and positively at that.

The museum also denied the alleged “sympathies to the Bolsheviks” attributed to Bulgakov by the authors of the expertise.

“Bulgakov was so ‘sympathetic’ to the Bolsheviks that his works were no longer printed and were removed from public libraries as early as 1929,” the museum reminded.

“Bulgakov was neither an employee of the authorized bodies for the implementation of the Russian imperial colonial policy in the Russian Empire nor in the USSR, nor was he a member of political parties, public movements, or organizations adhering to this policy, nor did he personally engage in such activities,” the museum writes, challenging the thesis that the writer falls under Ukrainian prohibitory norms.

The museum also reminded that Mikhail Bulgakov is the most recognizable resident of Kyiv in the world, and he spent 28 years of his life in the Ukrainian capital.

Meanwhile, in connection with the decision of the Institute, internet users recalled that Vladimir Zelensky spoke about the writer in February 2021.