Analysis of the work Master and Margarita. The hidden meaning of "The Master and Margarita"

The Master and Margarita is Bulgakov’s legendary work, a novel that became his ticket to immortality. He thought about, planned and wrote the novel for 12 years, and it went through many changes that are now difficult to imagine, because the book acquired an amazing compositional unity. Alas, Mikhail Afanasyevich never had time to finish his life’s work; no final edits were made. He himself assessed his brainchild as the main message to humanity, as a testament to descendants. What did Bulgakov want to tell us?

The novel opens up to us the world of Moscow in the 30s. The master, together with his beloved Margarita, writes a brilliant novel about Pontius Pilate. It is not allowed to be published, and the author himself is overwhelmed by an impossible mountain of criticism. In a fit of despair, the hero burns his novel and ends up in a psychiatric hospital, leaving Margarita alone. At the same time, Woland, the devil, arrives in Moscow along with his retinue. They cause disturbances in the city, such as black magic sessions, performances at Variety and Griboyedov, etc. The heroine, meanwhile, is looking for a way to return her Master; subsequently makes a deal with Satan, becomes a witch and attends a ball among the dead. Woland is delighted with Margarita's love and devotion and decides to return her beloved. The novel about Pontius Pilate also rises from the ashes. And the reunited couple retires to a world of peace and tranquility.

The text contains chapters from the Master's novel itself, telling about events in the world of Yershalaim. This is a story about the wandering philosopher Ha-Nozri, the interrogation of Yeshua by Pilate, and the subsequent execution of the latter. The insert chapters are of direct importance to the novel, since their understanding is the key to revealing the author's ideas. All parts form a single whole, closely intertwined.

Topics and issues

Bulgakov reflected his thoughts about creativity on the pages of the work. He understood that the artist is not free, he cannot create only at the behest of his soul. Society fetters him and ascribes certain boundaries to him. Literature in the 30s was subject to the strictest censorship, books were often written to order from the authorities, a reflection of which we will see in MASSOLIT. The master was unable to obtain permission to publish his novel about Pontius Pilate and spoke of his stay among the literary society of that time as a living hell. The hero, inspired and talented, could not understand its members, corrupt and absorbed in petty material concerns, and they, in turn, could not understand him. Therefore, the Master found himself outside this bohemian circle with the work of his entire life, which was not permitted for publication.

The second aspect of the problem of creativity in a novel is the author’s responsibility for his work, its fate. The master, disappointed and completely desperate, burns the manuscript. The writer, according to Bulgakov, must achieve the truth through his creativity, it must benefit society and act for the good. The hero, on the contrary, acted cowardly.

The problem of choice is reflected in the chapters devoted to Pilate and Yeshua. Pontius Pilate, understanding the unusualness and value of such a person as Yeshua, sends him to execution. Cowardice is the most terrible vice. The prosecutor was afraid of responsibility, afraid of punishment. This fear completely drowned out his sympathy for the preacher, and the voice of reason speaking about the uniqueness and purity of Yeshua’s intentions, and his conscience. The latter tormented him for the rest of his life, as well as after his death. Only at the end of the novel was Pilate allowed to talk to Him and be freed.

Composition

In his novel, Bulgakov used such a compositional technique as a novel within a novel. The “Moscow” chapters are combined with the “Pilatorian” ones, that is, with the work of the Master himself. The author draws a parallel between them, showing that it is not time that changes a person, but only he himself is capable of changing himself. Full time job over oneself is a titanic task, which Pilate failed to cope with, for which he was doomed to eternal mental suffering. The motives of both novels are the search for freedom, truth, the struggle between good and evil in the soul. Everyone can make mistakes, but a person must constantly reach for the light; only this can make him truly free.

Main characters: characteristics

1. Yeshua Ha-Nozri (Jesus Christ) is a wandering philosopher who believes that all people are good in themselves and that the time will come when the truth will be the main thing human value, and institutions of power will cease to be necessary. He preached, therefore he was accused of an attempt on the power of Caesar and was put to death. Before his death, the hero forgives his executioners; he dies without betraying his convictions, he dies for people, atonement for their sins, for which he was awarded the Light. Yeshua appears before us real person made of flesh and blood, capable of feeling both fear and pain; he is not shrouded in an aura of mysticism.
2. Pontius Pilate is the procurator of Judea, a truly historical figure. In the Bible he judged Christ. Using his example, the author reveals the theme of choice and responsibility for one’s actions. Interrogating the prisoner, the hero understands that he is innocent, and even feels personal sympathy for him. He invites the preacher to lie to save his life, but Yeshua is not bowed down and is not going to give up his words. The official's cowardice prevents him from defending the accused; he is afraid of losing power. This does not allow him to act according to his conscience, as his heart tells him. The procurator condemns Yeshua to death, and himself to mental torment, which, of course, is in many ways worse than physical torment. At the end of the novel, the master frees his hero, and he, together with the wandering philosopher, rises along a ray of light.
3. The master is a creator who wrote a novel about Pontius Pilate and Yeshua. This hero embodied the image ideal writer, living by his creativity, not looking for fame, rewards, or money. He won large sums in the lottery and decided to devote himself to creativity - and this is how his only one was born, but, of course, brilliant work. At the same time, he met love - Margarita, who became his support and support. Unable to withstand criticism from Moscow's highest literary society, the Master burns the manuscript and is forcibly committed to a psychiatric clinic. Then he was released from there by Margarita with the help of Woland, who was very interested in the novel. After death, the hero deserves peace. It is peace, and not light, like Yeshua, because the writer betrayed his beliefs and renounced his creation.
4. Margarita is the creator’s beloved, ready to do anything for him, even attend Satan’s ball. Before meeting the main character, she was married to a wealthy man, whom, however, she did not love. She found her happiness only with the Master, whom she herself called after reading the first chapters of his future novel. She became his muse, inspiring him to continue creating. The heroine is associated with the theme of fidelity and devotion. The woman is faithful to both her Master and his work: she brutally deals with the critic Latunsky, who slandered them; thanks to her, the author himself returns from a psychiatric clinic and his seemingly irrevocable lost romance about Pilate. For her love and willingness to follow her chosen one to the end, Margarita was awarded by Woland. Satan gave her peace and unity with the Master, what the heroine most desired.

Woland's image

In many ways, this hero is similar to Goethe's Mephistopheles. His very name is taken from his poem, the scene of Walpurgis Night, where the devil was once called by that name. The image of Woland in the novel “The Master and Margarita” is very ambiguous: he is the embodiment of evil, and at the same time a defender of justice and a preacher of true moral values. Against the background of cruelty, greed and depravity of ordinary Muscovites, the hero looks rather like a positive character. He, seeing this historical paradox(he has something to compare with), concludes that people are like people, the most ordinary, the same, only the housing issue has spoiled them.

The devil's punishment comes only to those who deserve it. Thus, his retribution is very selective and based on the principle of justice. Bribe takers, incompetent scribblers who care only about their material wealth, catering workers who steal and sell expired food, insensitive relatives fighting for an inheritance after the death of a loved one - these are those whom Woland punishes. He does not push them to sin, he only exposes the vices of society. So the author, using satirical and phantasmagoric techniques, describes the customs and morals of Muscovites of the 30s.

The master is a truly talented writer who was not given the opportunity to realize himself; the novel was simply “strangled” by Massolitov officials. He was not like his fellow writers with a credential; lived through his creativity, giving it all of himself, and sincerely worrying about the fate of his work. The master retained a pure heart and soul, for which he was awarded by Woland. The destroyed manuscript was restored and returned to its author. For her boundless love, Margarita was forgiven for her weaknesses by the devil, to whom Satan even granted the right to ask him for the fulfillment of one of her desires.

Bulgakov expressed his attitude towards Woland in the epigraph: “I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good” (“Faust” by Goethe). Indeed, having unlimited capabilities, the hero punishes human vices, but this can be considered an instruction on the true path. He is a mirror in which everyone can see their sins and change. His most devilish feature is the corrosive irony with which he treats everything earthly. Using his example, we are convinced that maintaining one’s convictions along with self-control and not going crazy is possible only with the help of humor. We cannot take life too seriously, because what seems to us an unshakable stronghold so easily crumbles at the slightest criticism. Woland is indifferent to everything, and this separates him from people.

good and evil

Good and evil are inseparable; When people stop doing good, evil immediately appears in its place. It is the absence of light, the shadow that replaces it. In Bulgakov's novel, two opposing forces are embodied in the images of Woland and Yeshua. The author, in order to show that the participation of these abstract categories in life is always relevant and occupies important positions, places Yeshua in an era as distant as possible from us, on the pages of the Master’s novel, and Woland in modern times. Yeshua preaches, tells people about his ideas and understanding of the world, its creation. Later, for openly expressing his thoughts, he will be tried by the procurator of Judea. His death is not the triumph of evil over good, but rather a betrayal of good, because Pilate was unable to do the right thing, which means he opened the door to evil. Ha-Notsri dies unbroken and undefeated, his soul retains the light in itself, opposed to the darkness of the cowardly act of Pontius Pilate.

The devil, called to do evil, arrives in Moscow and sees that people's hearts are filled with darkness even without him. All he can do is denounce and mock them; Due to his dark essence, Woland cannot create justice otherwise. But it is not he who pushes people to sin, it is not he who makes the evil in them overcome the good. According to Bulgakov, the devil is not absolute darkness, he commits acts of justice, which is very difficult to count bad deed. This is one of the main ideas of Bulgakov, embodied in “The Master and Margarita” - nothing except the person himself can force him to act one way or another, the choice of good or evil lies with him.

You can also talk about the relativity of good and evil. AND good people act wrongly, cowardly, selfishly. So the Master gives up and burns his novel, and Margarita takes cruel revenge on the critic Latunsky. However, kindness does not lie in not making mistakes, but in constantly striving for the bright and correcting them. Therefore, forgiveness and peace await the loving couple.

The meaning of the novel

There are many interpretations of the meaning of this work. Of course, it is impossible to say definitively. At the center of the novel is the eternal struggle between good and evil. In the author’s understanding, these two components are at equal rights both in nature and in human hearts. This explains the appearance of Woland, as the concentration of evil by definition, and Yeshua, who believed in natural human kindness. Light and darkness are closely intertwined, constantly interacting with each other, and it is no longer possible to draw clear boundaries. Woland punishes people according to the laws of justice, but Yeshua forgives them in spite of them. This is the balance.

The struggle takes place not only directly for human souls. A person’s need to reach out to the light runs like a red thread throughout the entire narrative. True freedom can only be achieved through this. It is very important to understand that the author always punishes heroes shackled by everyday petty passions, either like Pilate - with eternal torment of conscience, or like Moscow inhabitants - through the tricks of the devil. He extols others; Gives Margarita and the Master peace; Yeshua deserves the Light for his devotion and faithfulness to his beliefs and words.

This novel is also about love. Margarita appears as an ideal woman who is able to love until the very end, despite all the obstacles and difficulties. Master and his beloved - collective images a man dedicated to his work and a woman true to her feelings.

Theme of creativity

The master lives in the capital of the 30s. During this period, socialism is being built, new orders are being established, and moral and ethical standards are being sharply reset. New literature is also born here, with which on the pages of the novel we become acquainted through Berlioz, Ivan Bezdomny, and members of Massolit. The path of the main character is complex and thorny, like Bulgakov himself, but he retains a pure heart, kindness, honesty, the ability to love and writes a novel about Pontius Pilate, containing all those important problems that every person of the current or future generation must solve for himself . It is based on the moral law hidden within each individual; and only he, and not the fear of God's retribution, is able to determine the actions of people. Spiritual world The master is subtle and beautiful, because he is a true artist.

However true creativity persecuted and often becomes recognized only after the death of the author. The repressions affecting independent artists in the USSR are striking in their cruelty: from ideological persecution to the actual recognition of a person as crazy. This is how many of Bulgakov’s friends were silenced, and he himself had a hard time. Freedom of speech resulted in imprisonment, or even death, as in Judea. This parallel with the Ancient World emphasizes the backwardness and primitive savagery of the “new” society. The well-forgotten old became the basis of policy regarding art.

Two worlds of Bulgakov

The worlds of Yeshua and the Master are more closely connected than it seems at first glance. Both layers of the narrative touch on the same issues: freedom and responsibility, conscience and fidelity to one’s beliefs, understanding of good and evil. It’s not for nothing that there are so many heroes of doubles, parallels and antitheses here.

The Master and Margarita violates the urgent canon of the novel. This is not a story about fate individuals or their groups, it is about all of humanity, its fate. Therefore, the author connects two eras that are as distant as possible from each other. People in the times of Yeshua and Pilate are not very different from the people of Moscow, the Master’s contemporaries. They are also concerned about personal problems, power and money. Master in Moscow, Yeshua in Judea. Both bring the truth to the masses, and both suffer for it; the first is persecuted by critics, crushed by society and doomed to end his life in psychiatric hospital, the second is subjected to a more terrible punishment - a demonstrative execution.

The chapters dedicated to Pilate differ sharply from the Moscow chapters. The style of the inserted text is distinguished by its evenness and monotony, and only in the chapter of execution does it turn into a sublime tragedy. The description of Moscow is full of grotesque, phantasmagoric scenes, satire and ridicule of its inhabitants, lyrical moments, dedicated to the Master and Margarita, which, of course, determines the presence of various storytelling styles. The vocabulary also varies: it can be low and primitive, filled even with swearing and jargon, or it can be sublime and poetic, filled with colorful metaphors.

Although both narratives are significantly different from each other, when reading the novel there is a feeling of integrity, so strong is the thread connecting the past with the present in Bulgakov.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

Introduction

Analysis of the novel “The Master and Margarita” has been the subject of study by literary scholars throughout Europe for many decades. The novel has a number of features, such as the non-standard form of a “novel within a novel”, unusual composition, rich themes and content. It is not for nothing that it was written at the end of life and creative path Mikhail Bulgakov. The writer put all his talent, knowledge and imagination into the work.

Novel genre

The work “The Master and Margarita,” the genre of which critics define as a novel, has a number of features inherent to its genre. These are several storylines, many characters, and the development of action over a long period of time. The novel is fantastic (sometimes called phantasmagorical). But the most striking feature of the work is its structure of a “novel within a novel.” Two parallel worlds - the masters and the ancient times of Pilate and Yeshua, live here almost independently and intersect only in the last chapters, when Woland is visited by Levi, Yeshua's student and close friend. Here, two lines merge into one, and surprise the reader with their organic nature and closeness. It was the structure of the “novel within a novel” that made it possible for Bulgakov to so masterfully and fully show two such different worlds, events today and almost two thousand years ago.

Features of the composition

The composition of the novel “The Master and Margarita” and its features are determined by the author’s non-standard techniques, such as the creation of one work within the framework of another. Instead of the usual classical chain - composition - plot - climax - denouement, we see the interweaving of these stages, as well as their doubling.

The beginning of the novel: the meeting of Berlioz and Woland, their conversation. This happens in the 30s of the 20th century. Woland's story also takes the reader back to the thirties, but two thousand years ago. And here begins the second plot - the novel about Pilate and Yeshua.

Next comes the plot. These are the tricks of Voladn and his company in Moscow. This is also where the satirical line of the work comes from. The second novel is also developing in parallel. The climax of the master's novel is the execution of Yeshua, the climax of the story about the master, Margarita and Woland is the visit of Matthew Levi. The denouement is interesting: it combines both novels into one. Woland and his retinue take Margarita and the Master to another world to reward them with peace and quiet. Along the way they see the eternal wanderer Pontius Pilate.

“Free! He is waiting for you!" – with this phrase the master frees the procurator and ends his novel.

Main themes of the novel

Mikhail Bulgakov concluded the meaning of the novel “The Master and Margarita” in the interweaving of main themes and ideas. It’s not for nothing that the novel is called fantastic, satirical, philosophical, and love. All these themes develop in the novel, framing and emphasizing main idea- the struggle between good and evil. Each theme is both tied to its characters and intertwined with other characters.

Satirical theme- this is Woland’s “tour”. Distraught about material goods the public, representatives of the elite greedy for money, the antics of Koroviev and Behemoth acutely and clearly describe the disease contemporary writer society.

Love theme embodied in the master and Margarita and gives the novel tenderness and softens a lot tough moments. It was probably not in vain that the writer burned the first version of the novel, where Margarita and the master were not yet present.

Theme of sympathy runs through the entire novel and shows several options for sympathy and empathy. Pilate sympathizes with the wandering philosopher Yeshua, but, confused in his duties and fearing condemnation, he “washes his hands.” Margarita has a different kind of sympathy - she wholeheartedly empathizes with the master, and Frida at the ball, and Pilate. But her sympathy is not just a feeling, it pushes her to take certain actions, she does not fold her arms and fights to save those for whom she worries. Ivan Bezdomny also sympathizes with the master, imbued with his story that “every year, when the spring full moon comes... in the evening he appears on the Patriarch’s Ponds...”, so that later at night he can see bittersweet dreams about wondrous times and events.

Theme of forgiveness goes almost next to the theme of sympathy.

Philosophical topics about the meaning and purpose of life, about good and evil, about biblical motives have been the subject of debate and study among writers for many years. This is because the features of the novel “The Master and Margarita” are in its structure and ambiguity; With each reading, more and more new questions and thoughts are revealed to the reader. This is the genius of the novel - it has not lost its relevance or poignancy for decades, and is still as interesting as it was for its first readers.

Ideas and main idea

The idea of ​​the novel is good and evil. And not only in the context of struggle, but also in the search for definition. What is really evil? Most likely, this is the most complete way to describe main idea works. The reader, accustomed to the fact that the devil is pure evil, will be sincerely surprised by the image of Woland. He does not do evil, he contemplates and punishes those who act basely. His tour in Moscow only confirms this idea. He shows the moral illnesses of society, but does not even condemn them, but only sighs sadly: “People are like people... The same as before.” A person is weak, but he has the power to confront his weaknesses and fight them.

The theme of good and evil is shown ambiguously in the image of Pontius Pilate. In his soul he opposes the execution of Yeshua, but he does not have the courage to go against the crowd. The verdict is passed on the wandering innocent philosopher by the crowd, but Pilate is destined to serve his sentence forever.

The struggle between good and evil is also the opposition of the literary community to the master. It is not enough for self-confident writers to simply refuse a writer; they need to humiliate him and prove that they are right. The master is very weak to fight, all his strength went into the novel. It is not for nothing that devastating articles for him take on the image of a certain creature that begins to appear to the master in a dark room.

General analysis of the novel

Analysis of “The Master and Margarita” implies immersion in the worlds recreated by the writer. Here you can see biblical motifs and parallels with the immortal “Faust” by Goethe. The themes of the novel develop separately, and at the same time coexist, collectively creating a web of events and questions. The author depicts several worlds, each finding their own place in the novel, in a surprisingly organic way. The journey from modern Moscow to ancient Yershalaim, the wise conversations of Woland, the talking huge cat and the flight of Margarita Nikolaevna are not at all surprising.

This novel is truly immortal thanks to the talent of the writer and the undying relevance of the themes and problems.

Work test

The novel “The Master and Margarita” is a true literary masterpiece. And this always happens: the outstanding artistic merits of a work become the strongest argument in favor of a blasphemous untruth that has declared itself to be the only Truth.

Bulgakov’s novel is not dedicated to Yeshua, and not even primarily to the Master himself with his Margarita, but to Satan...

I.

The Savior testified before His disciples:

“As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father” (John 10:15)

“...I don’t remember my parents. They told me that my father was Syrian..."- states the wandering philosopher Yeshua Ha-Nozri during interrogation by the fifth procurator of Judea, the horseman of Pontius Pilate.

Already the first critics who responded to the magazine publication of Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” noticed and could not help but notice Yeshua’s remark regarding the notes of his student Levi Matvey:
“In general, I am beginning to fear that this confusion will continue for a very long time. And all because he writes me down incorrectly. /…/ Walks, walks alone withwith goat parchment and writes continuously. But one day I looked into this parchment and was horrified. I absolutely do not know anything that is written there.said. I begged him: burn your parchment for God’s sake! But he snatched it from my hands and ran away.".
Through the mouth of your hero the author rejected the truth of the Gospel.

And without this remark, the differences between Scripture and the novel are so significant that, against our will, a choice is imposed on us, for it is impossible to combine both texts in the mind and soul. It must be admitted that the obsession with verisimilitude, the illusion of authenticity, is unusually strong in Bulgakov.

There is no doubt: the novel “The Master and Margarita” is a true literary masterpiece. And this always happens: the outstanding artistic merits of a work become the strongest argument in favor of what the artist is trying to convey...

Let's focus on the main thing: before us is a different image of the Savior.

It is significant that this character carries a different meaning to his name in Bulgakov: Yeshua. But this is Jesus Christ. It is not for nothing that Woland, anticipating the story of Pilate, assures Berlioz and Ivanushka Bezdomny: “Keep in mind that Jesus existed.”

Still from the film “The Master and Margarita”

Yes, Yeshua is Christ, presented in the novel as the only true one, as opposed to the Gospel, which is supposedly fabricated, generated by the absurdity of rumors and the stupidity of the disciple. The myth of Yeshua is created before the reader's eyes.
Thus, the head of the secret guard, Afranius, tells Pilate a complete fiction about the behavior of wandering philosopher during the execution: Yeshua did not at all say the words attributed to him about cowardice, and did not refuse to drink. The trust in the student’s notes was undermined initially by the teacher himself.
If there can be no faith in the testimony of obvious eyewitnesses, then what can we say about the later Scriptures? And where does the truth come from if there was only one disciple (the rest, therefore, impostors?), and even that one can only be identified with the Evangelist Matthew with great reserve. Consequently, all subsequent evidence is pure fiction. This is how M. Bulgakov leads our thought, placing milestones on a logical path.

But Yeshua differs from Jesus not only in name and life events - he is essentially different, different at all levels: sacred, theological, philosophical, psychological, physical. He is timid and weak, simple-minded, impractical, naive to the point of stupidity. He has such a wrong idea about life that he is not able to recognize an ordinary provocateur-informer in the curious Judas of Kiriath. Out of the simplicity of his soul, Yeshua himself becomes a voluntary informer on Levi’s faithful disciple Matthew, blaming him for all the misunderstandings with the interpretation of his own words and deeds. Here, truly: simplicity is worse than theft. Only Pilate’s indifference, deep and contemptuous, essentially saves Levi from possible persecution. And is he a sage, this Yeshua, ready at any moment to have a conversation with anyone and about anything?

Its principle: “It’s easy and pleasant to tell the truth.” No practical considerations will stop him on the path to which he considers himself called. He will not be careful, even when his truth becomes a threat to his own life. But we would fall into error if we denied Yeshua any wisdom on this basis. He reaches true spiritual heights by proclaiming his truth contrary to so-called “common sense”: he preaches, as it were, above all specific circumstances, above time - for eternity. Yeshua is tall, but tall by human standards.
He is a human. There is nothing of the Son in himGod's The divinity of Yeshua is imposed on us by the correlation, in spite of everything, of his image with the Person of Christ. But we can only conditionally admit that before us is not a God-man, but a man-god. This is the main new thing that Bulgakov introduces, in comparison with the New Testament, into his “good news” of Christ.

Again: there would be nothing original in this if the author remained on the positivist level of Renan, Hegel or Tolstoy from beginning to end. But no, it’s not for nothing that Bulgakov called himself a “mystical writer”; his novel is oversaturated with heavy mystical energy, and only Yeshua knows nothing other than the lonely earthly path - and at the end A painful death awaits him, but not the Resurrection.

The Son of God showed us supreme example humility, truly humbling His Divine power. He, Who with one glance could have destroyed all the oppressors and executioners, accepted reproach and death from them of his own free will and in fulfillment of the will of His Heavenly Father. Yeshua clearly relied on chance and did not look far ahead. He does not know his father and does not carry humility in himself, because he has nothing to humble. He is weak, he is completely dependent on the last Roman soldier, and is not able, if he wanted, to resist external force. Yeshua sacrificially bears his truth, but his sacrifice is nothing more than a romantic impulse of a person who has little idea of ​​his future.

Christ knew what awaited Him. Yeshua is deprived of such knowledge; he innocently asks Pilate: “Would you let me go, hegemon...”– and believes that this is possible. Pilate would indeed be ready to release the poor preacher, and only the primitive provocation of Judas from Kiriath decides the outcome of the matter to the disadvantage of Yeshua. Therefore, according to the Truth, Yeshua lacks not only volitional humility, but also the feat of sacrifice.

He does not have the sober wisdom of Christ. According to the testimony of the evangelists, the Son of God was a man of few words in the face of His judges. Yeshua, on the contrary, is too talkative. In his irresistible naivety, he is ready to award everyone the title kind person and in the end he agrees to the point of absurdity, claiming that it was Centurion Mark who was mutilated "good people". Such ideas have nothing in common with the true wisdom of Christ, who forgave His executioners for their crime.

Yeshua cannot forgive anyone anything, because one can only forgive guilt, sin, and he does not know about sin. In general, he seems to be on the other side of good and evil. Here we can and should draw an important conclusion: Yeshua Ha-Nozri, even though he is a man, is not destined by fate to perform an atoning sacrifice, and is not capable of it. This - central idea Bulgakov's story about a wandering truth-teller, and this is a denial of the most important thing that the New Testament contains.

Levi Matvey from the novel “The Master and Margarita”

But as a preacher, Yeshua is hopelessly weak, because he is unable to give people the main thing - faith, which can serve as a support for them in life. What can we say about others if even a faithful disciple does not pass the first test, in despair sending curses to God at the sight of Yeshua’s execution.
And having already cast aside human nature, almost two thousand years after the events in Yershalaim, Yeshua, who finally became Jesus, cannot defeat the same Pontius Pilate in a dispute, and their endless dialogue is lost somewhere in the depths of the boundless future - on the way woven from moonlight. Or is Christianity generally showing its failure here? Yeshua is weak because he does not know the Truth. That is the central moment of the entire scene between Yeshua and Pilate in the novel - a dialogue about Truth.

-What is Truth? – Pilate asks skeptically.

Christ was silent here. Everything has already been said, everything has been announced. Yeshua is unusually verbose:

“The truth, first of all, is that you have a headache, and it hurts so much that you are cowardly thinking about death.” Not only are you unable to talk to me, but you even find it difficult to look at me. And now I am unwittingly your executioner, which saddens me. You can’t even think about anything and dream only that your dog, apparently the only creature to which you are attached, will come. But your torment will now end, your headache will go away.

Christ was silent - and in this we must see deep meaning. But once he has spoken, we are waiting for an answer to the greatest question that a person can ask God; for the answer must sound for eternity, and not only the procurator of Judea will listen to it. But it all comes down to an ordinary psychotherapy session. The sage-preacher turned out to be an average psychic (to put it in modern terms). And there is no hidden depth behind those words, no hidden meaning. The truth turned out to be reduced to the simple fact that someone in this moment headache. No, this is not a reduction of Truth to the level of ordinary consciousness. Everything is much more serious. Truth, in fact, is completely denied here; it is declared to be only a reflection of fast-flowing time, elusive changes in reality. Yeshua is still a philosopher. The Savior's Word has always gathered minds in the unity of Truth. The word of Yeshua encourages the rejection of such unity, the fragmentation of consciousness, the dissolution of the Truth in the chaos of petty misunderstandings, like a headache. He is still a philosopher, Yeshua. But his philosophy, outwardly opposed to the vanity of worldly wisdom, is immersed in the element of “the wisdom of this world.”

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God, as it is written: It catches the wise in their wickedness. And one more thing: The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”(1 Cor. 3:19-20). That is why the poor philosopher in the end reduces all his philosophies not to insights into the mystery of existence, but to dubious ideas about the earthly arrangement of people.

"Among other things, I said- says the prisoner, - that all power is violence against people and that the time will come when there will be nothe power of neither the Caesars nor any other power. Man will move into the kingdom of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all.”

Kingdom of truth? “But what is truth?”- that’s all you can ask after Pilate, having heard enough such speeches. “What is truth? - Headache?"

There is nothing original in this interpretation of the teachings of Christ. Belinsky, in his notorious letter to Gogol, stated about Christ: “He was the first to proclaim to people the teachings of freedom, equality and fraternity, and through martyrdom he sealed and established the truth of his teaching.” The idea, as Belinsky himself pointed out, goes back to the materialism of the Enlightenment, that is, to the very era when the “wisdom of this world” was deified and elevated to an absolute. Was it worth it to fence the garden in order to return to the same thing?

One can guess the objections of fans of the novel: main goal the author was artistic interpretation character of Pilate as a psychological and social type, its aesthetic study.

There is no doubt that Pilate attracts the novelist in that long-ago story. Pilate is generally one of central figures novel. He is larger, more significant as a person than Yeshua. His image is distinguished by greater integrity and artistic completeness. It's like that. But why was it blasphemous to distort the Gospel for this purpose? There was some meaning here...

But this is perceived by the majority of our reading public as completely unimportant. The literary merits of the novel seem to redeem any blasphemy, making it even unnoticeable - especially since the public is usually inclined, if not strictly atheist, then in the spirit of religious liberalism, in which any point of view on anything is accepted legal right exist and be ranked in the order of truth. Yeshua, who raised the headache of the fifth procurator of Judea to the rank of Truth, thereby provided a kind of ideological justification for the possibility of an arbitrarily large number of ideas-truths of this level.
Besides, Bulgakovsky Yeshua provides everyone who so desires with a titillating opportunity to partly look down on the One before whom the Church bows as the Son of God. The ease of free treatment with the Savior Himself, which is provided by the novel “The Master and Margarita” (a refined spiritual perversion of aesthetically jaded snobs), we agree, is also worth something! For a relativistically minded consciousness there is no blasphemy here.
The impression of authenticity of the story about the events of two thousand years ago is ensured in Bulgakov’s novel by the veracity of the critical coverage of modern reality, despite all the grotesqueness of the author’s techniques. The revealing pathos of the novel is recognized as its undoubted moral and artistic value.
But here it should be noted that (no matter how offensive and even insulting it may seem to later researchers of Bulgakov) this topic itself, one might say, was opened and closed at the same time by the first critical reviews of the novel, and above all by the detailed articles of V. Lakshin (Roman M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" // New world. 1968. No. 6) and I. Vinogradov (The Master’s Testament // Questions of Literature. 1968. No. 6). It is unlikely that it will be possible to say anything new: in his novel Bulgakov gave a damning criticism of the world of improper existence, exposed, ridiculed, and incinerated with the fire of caustic indignation to the nec plus ultra (extreme limits - ed.) the vanity and insignificance of the new Soviet cultural philistinism.

Opposition to official culture the spirit of the novel, as well as tragic fate its author, as well as the tragic initial fate of the work itself, helped to ascend the work created by the pen of M. Bulgakov to a height difficult to achieve for any critical judgment.

Everything was curiously complicated by the fact that for a significant part of our half-educated readers, the novel “The Master and Margarita” for a long time remained almost the only source, from where one could obtain information about the Gospel events. The reliability of Bulgakov's narrative was checked by himself - the situation is sad. The attack on the holiness of Christ itself turned into a kind of intellectual shrine.
The thought of Archbishop John (Shakhovsky) helps to understand the phenomenon of Bulgakov’s masterpiece: “One of the tricks of spiritual evil is to mix concepts, to entangle the threads of different spiritual fortresses into one ball and thereby create the impression of spiritual organicity of that which is not organic and even inorganic in relation to the human spirit.”. The truth of the exposure of social evil and the truth of one’s own suffering created a protective armor for the blasphemous untruth of the novel “The Master and Margarita.” For the untruth that declared itself the only Truth.
“Everything there is not true”, - the author seems to be saying, meaning the Holy Scriptures. “In general, I’m beginning to fear that this confusion will continue for a very long time.” The truth reveals itself through the inspired insights of the Master, as evidenced by Satan with certainty, claiming our unconditional trust. (They will say: this is a convention. Let us object: every convention has its limits, beyond which it certainly reflects a certain idea, a very specific one).

II.

Bulgakov's novel is not dedicated to Yeshua, and not even primarily to the Master himself with his Margarita, but to Satan.
Woland is the undoubted protagonist of the work, his image is a kind of energy node of the entire complex compositional structure of the novel. Woland's primacy is initially established by the epigraph to the first part: “I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good.”
Satan acts in the world only to the extent that he is allowed to do so by the permission of the Almighty. But everything that happens according to the will of the Creator cannot be evil, is directed towards the good of His creation, and is, no matter how you measure it, an expression of the supreme justice of the Lord.

“The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are in all His works” (Ps. 144:9).

This is the meaning and content Christian faith. Therefore, the evil that comes from the devil is transformed into good for man, thanks precisely to God’s permission. The Lord's will. But by its nature, by its diabolical original intention, it continues to remain evil. God turns it for good - not Satan.
Therefore, stating: "I do good"- the servant of hell is lying. The demon lies, but that’s in his nature, that’s why he’s a demon. Man is given the ability to recognize demonic lies. But the satanic claim to come from God is perceived by the author of “The Master and Margarita” as an unconditional truth, and on the basis of faith in the devil’s deception, Bulgakov builds the entire moral, philosophical and aesthetic system of his creation.

Woland's conversation with Matthew Levi about Good and Evil

Woland's idea is equated in the philosophy of the novel with the idea of ​​Christ. “Would you be so kind as to think about the question,- the spirit of darkness teaches from above the stupid evangelist, - what would your good do if evil did not exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows come from objects and people. Here is the shadow of my sword. But there are shadows from trees and living creatures. Don't you want to rip off the entire globe, sweeping away all the trees and all living things because of your fantasy of enjoying the naked light? You are stupid".
Without expressing it directly, Bulgakov pushes the reader to guess that Woland and Yeshua are two equal entities that rule the world. In the system artistic images In the novel, Woland completely surpasses Yeshua - which is very significant for any literary work.

But at the same time, the reader is faced with a strange paradox: despite all the talk about evil, Satan acts rather contrary to his own nature. Woland here is an unconditional guarantor of justice, a creator of good, a righteous judge for people, which attracts the reader’s warm sympathy. Woland is the most charming character in the novel, much more likable than the weak-willed Yeshua.
He actively intervenes in all events and always acts for the good – from admonishing the thieving Annushka to rescuing the Master’s manuscript from oblivion. Justice is poured out onto the world not from God - from Woland.
The incapacitated Yeshua can give people nothing except abstract, spiritually weakening discussions about not entirely intelligible goodness, and besides vague promises of the coming kingdom of truth. Woland directs the actions of people with a strong will, guided by the concepts of very specific justice and at the same time experiencing genuine sympathy, even sympathy, for people.

And this is important: even the direct messenger of Christ, Matthew Levi, “turns imploringly” to Woland. The consciousness of his rightness allows Satan to treat the failed evangelist disciple with a degree of arrogance, as if he had undeservedly arrogated to himself the right to be close to Christ. Woland persistently emphasizes from the very beginning: it was he who was next to Jesus at the moment major events, “unrighteously” reflected in the Gospel. But why is he so persistent in imposing his testimony? And wasn’t it he who directed the inspired insight of the Master, even if he did not suspect it? And he saved the manuscript, which was consigned to the fire.
"Manuscripts don't burn"- this devilish lie once delighted admirers of Bulgakov’s novel (after all, they so wanted to believe it!). They are burning. But what saved this one? Why did Satan recreate the burned manuscript from oblivion? Why is the distorted history of the Savior included in the novel?

It has long been said that the devil especially wants everyone to think that he does not exist. This is what is stated in the novel. That is, he does not exist at all, but he does not act as a seducer, a sower of evil. Who wouldn’t be flattered to appear in people’s opinion as a champion of justice? The devil's lies become a hundred times more dangerous.
Discussing this feature of Woland, the critic I. Vinogradov made an unusually important conclusion regarding the “strange” behavior of Satan: he does not lead anyone into temptation, does not instill evil, does not actively affirm untruths (which seems to be characteristic of the devil), for there is no no need.
According to Bulgakov’s concept, evil acts in the world without demonic efforts, it is immanent in the world, which is why Woland can only observe the natural course of things. It is difficult to say whether the critic (following the writer) was consciously guided by religious dogma, but objectively (albeit vaguely) he revealed something important: Bulgakov’s understanding of the world, at best, is based on the Catholic teaching about the imperfection of the pristine nature of man, which requires active external influence to correct it .
Woland, in fact, is engaged in such external influence, punishing guilty sinners. He is not required to introduce temptation into the world at all: the world is already tempted from the very beginning. Or is it imperfect from the start? By whom was he seduced if not by Satan? Who made the mistake of creating the world imperfect? Or was it not a mistake, but a conscious initial calculation? Bulgakov's novel openly provokes these questions, although it does not answer them. The reader must figure it out on his own.

V. Lakshin drew attention to another side of the same problem: “In the beautiful and human truth of Yeshua there was no place for the punishment of evil, for the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bretribution. It’s difficult for Bulgakov to come to terms with this, and that’s why he so needs Woland, removed from his usual elements of destruction and evil and, as if in return, having received a punishing sword into his hands from the forces of good.” Critics immediately noticed: Yeshua took from his Gospel Prototype only the word, but not the deed. The case is Woland's prerogative. But then... let's draw our own conclusion...
Are Yeshua and Woland nothing more than two unique hypostases of Christ? Yes, in the novel “The Master and Margarita” Woland and Yeshua are the personification of Bulgakov’s understanding of the two essential principles that determined the earthly path of Christ. What is this - a kind of shadow of Manichaeism?

But be that as it may, the paradox of the system of artistic images of the novel was expressed in the fact that it was Woland-Satan who embodied at least some kind of religious idea of ​​being, while Yeshua - and all critics and researchers agreed on this - is an exclusively social character, partly philosophical, but nothing more.
One can only repeat after Lakshin: "We see here human drama and the drama of ideas. /…/ In the extraordinary and legendary, what is humanly understandable, real and accessible is revealed, but for that reason no less significant: not faith, but truth and beauty.”

Of course, at the end of the 60s it was very tempting: as if abstractly discussing the events of the Gospel, touching on the sick and pressing issues of his time, to conduct a risky, nerve-wracking debate about the urgent matter. Bulgakov's Pilate provided rich material for menacing philippics about cowardice, opportunism, indulgence in evil and untruth - this still sounds topical to this day. (By the way: didn’t Bulgakov laugh slyly at his future critics: after all, Yeshua did not utter those words denouncing cowardice - they were invented by Afranius and Matthew Levi, who did not understand anything in his teaching). The pathos of a critic seeking retribution is understandable. But the evil of the day remains only evil. The “wisdom of this world” was not able to rise to the level of Christ. His word is understood on a different level, on the level of faith.

However, “not faith, but truth” attracts critics in the story of Yeshua. The very opposition of two most important spiritual principles, which are not distinguishable at the religious level, is significant. But at lower levels, the meaning of the “gospel” chapters of the novel cannot be understood; the work remains incomprehensible.

Of course, critics and researchers who take positivist-pragmatic positions should not be embarrassed. There is no religious level for them at all. The reasoning of I. Vinogradov is indicative: for him “Bulgakov’s Yeshua is an extremely accurate reading of this legend (i.e., the “legend” of Christ. - M.D.), its meaning - a reading that is in some ways much deeper and truer than its presentation in the Gospels.”

Yes, from the position of ordinary consciousness, by human standards, ignorance imparts to Yeshua’s behavior the pathos of heroic fearlessness, a romantic impulse towards “truth,” and contempt for danger. Christ’s “knowledge” of His destiny, as it were (according to the critic), devalues ​​His feat (what kind of feat is that, if you want it, you don’t want it, but what is destined will come true). But the high religious meaning of what happened thus eludes our understanding.
The incomprehensible mystery of Divine self-sacrifice is the highest example of humility, the acceptance of earthly death not for the sake of abstract truth, but for the salvation of humanity - of course, for the atheistic consciousness these are only empty “religious fictions,” but one must at least admit that even as pure idea these values ​​are much more important and significant than any romantic impulse.

Woland's true goal is easily visible: the desacralization of the earthly path of God the Son - which, judging by the first reviews of critics, he succeeds in completely. But it was not just an ordinary deception of critics and readers that Satan intended when creating a novel about Yeshua - and it is Woland, by no means the Master, who is the true author of the literary opus about Yeshua and Pilate. It is in vain that the Master is ecstatically amazed at how accurately he “guessed” long-ago events. Such books are “not guessed” - they are inspired from the outside.
And if the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, then the source of inspiration for the novel about Yeshua is also easily visible. However, the main part of the narrative, even without any camouflage, belongs to Woland; the Master’s text becomes only a continuation of Satan’s fabrication. The narrative of Satan is included by Bulgakov in the complex mystical system of the entire novel “The Master and Margarita”. Actually, the name obscures this true meaning works. Each of these two plays a special role in the action for which Woland arrives in Moscow.
If you look at it impartially, then the content of the novel, it is easy to see, is not the story of the Master, not his literary misadventures, not even his relationship with Margarita (all that is secondary), but the story of one of Satan’s visits to earth: with the beginning of it the novel begins, with its end and it ends. The master is introduced to the reader only in chapter 13, Margarita and even later as Woland’s need for them arises. For what purpose does Woland visit Moscow? To give your next “great ball” here. But Satan didn’t just plan to dance.

N.K. Gavryushin, who studied the “liturgical motives” of Bulgakov’s novel, substantiated the most important conclusion: The “great ball” and all the preparations for it constitute nothing more than a satanic anti-liturgy, a “black mass”.

Under a piercing scream "Hallelujah!" Woland's associates are going wild at that ball. All the events of “The Master and Margarita” are drawn towards this semantic center of the work. Already in the opening scene - on the Patriarch's Ponds - preparations for the “ball” begin, a kind of “black proskomedia”.
The death of Berlioz turns out to be not at all absurdly accidental, but included in the magic circle of the satanic mystery: his severed head, then stolen from the coffin, turns into a chalice from which, at the end of the ball, the transformed Woland and Margarita “communion” (this is one of the manifestations of the anti-liturgy - the transubstantiation of blood into wine, a sacrament topsy-turvy). The bloodless sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy is replaced here by a bloody sacrifice (the murder of Baron Meigel).
At the Liturgy in the church the Gospel is read. For the “black mass” a different text is needed. The novel created by the Master becomes nothing more than the “gospel of Satan”, skillfully included in the compositional structure of a work about anti-liturgy. This is why the Master's manuscript was saved. This is why the image of the Savior is slandered and distorted. The Master fulfilled what Satan intended for him.

Margarita, the Master’s beloved, has a different role: due to some special characteristics inherent in her magical properties it becomes the source of the energy that turns out to be necessary for the entire demonic world at a certain moment in its existence - for which reason that “ball” is started. If the meaning of the Divine Liturgy is in the Eucharistic union with Christ, in strengthening the spiritual strength of man, then the anti-liturgy gives an increase in strength to the inhabitants of the underworld. Not only the innumerable gathering of sinners, but also Woland-Satan himself seems to gain new power here, symbolized by the change in his external appearance at the moment of “communion,” and then the complete “transformation” of Satan and his retinue on the night “when everyone comes together.” scores."

Thus, a certain mystical action takes place before the reader: the completion of one and the beginning of a new cycle in the development of the transcendental foundations of the universe, about which a person can only be given a hint - nothing more.

Bulgakov’s novel becomes such a “hint”. Many sources for such a “hint” have already been identified: here are Masonic teachings, theosophy, Gnosticism, and Judaistic motives... The worldview of the author of “The Master and Margarita” turned out to be very eclectic. But the main thing is that its anti-Christian orientation is beyond doubt. No wonder Bulgakov disguised himself so carefully true content, the deep meaning of his novel, entertaining the reader’s attention with side details. The dark mysticism of a work penetrates into the human soul against will and consciousness - and who will undertake to calculate the possible destruction that can be caused in it?

The novel “The Master and Margarita” is the central work of M.A.’s entire work. Bulgakov. This novel has an interesting artistic structure. The novel takes place in three storylines. This is the realistic world of Moscow life, and the Yershalaim world, which takes the reader to distant events and times, as well as the fantastic world of Woland and his entire retinue. Of particular interest is the analysis of the novel "The Master and Margarita", with the help of which you can better feel everything philosophical meaning of this work.

Genre originality of the novel

In terms of its genre, The Master and Margarita is a novel. His genre originality is revealed as follows: a socio-philosophical, fantastic, satirical novel within a novel. This work is social because it reflects last years NEP in the USSR. The scene of action is Moscow, not academic, not ministerial and not party-government, but philistine, communal.

Over the course of three days in Moscow, Woland and his entire retinue study the customs of the most ordinary Soviet people. According to the plan of communist ideologists, these people were supposed to represent new type citizens who are free from social disadvantages and diseases.

Satire in the work "The Master and Margarita"

The life of Moscow inhabitants in the novel is described by the author extremely satirically. Here, evil spirits punish careerists, grabbers, schemers. They “flourished magnificently”, taking advantage of the “ healthy soil Soviet society."

The author gives a description of the spiritual life of society in parallel with a satirical depiction of swindlers. First of all, Bulgakov was interested in literary life Moscow. Prominent representatives creative intelligentsia in this work are the literary official Mikhail Berlioz, who inspires the young members of MOSSOLIT, as well as the semi-literate and extremely self-confident Ivan Bezdomny, who considers himself a poet. The satirical depiction of cultural figures is based on the fact that their greatly inflated self-esteem does not correspond to their creative achievements.

The philosophical meaning of the novel "The Master and Margarita"

Analysis of the work shows the great philosophical content of the novel. Here are scenes from ancient times intertwined with a description of Soviet reality. From the relationship between the procurator of Judea Pontius Pilate, the all-powerful governor of Rome, and the poor preacher Yeshua Ha-Nozri, the philosophical and moral content of this work by Bulgakov is revealed. It is in the clashes of these heroes that the author sees a vivid manifestation of the combat of the ideas of evil and good. Reveal more fully ideological plan Bulgakov's works are helped by elements of fantasy.

Analysis of an episode of the novel

Analysis of the episode "The Master and Margarita" can help you feel more deeply this work. One of the most dynamic and striking episodes of the novel is Margarita’s flight over Moscow. Margarita’s goal is to meet Woland. Before this meeting, she was allowed to fly over the city. Margarita was overcome by an amazing feeling of flight. The wind liberated her thoughts, thanks to which Margarita was transformed in the most amazing way. Now the reader is faced with the image not of a timid Margarita, a hostage to the situation, but of a real witch with a fiery temperament, ready to commit any crazy act.

Flying past one of the houses, Margarita looks into the open windows and sees two women quarreling over everyday trifles. Margarita says: “You are both good,” which indicates that the heroine will no longer be able to return to such an empty life. She became alien to her.

Then Margarita’s attention was attracted by the eight-story “Dramlit House”. Margarita learns that this is where Latunsky lives. Immediately after this, the heroine’s perky disposition develops into a witch’s frenzy. It was this man who killed Margarita’s lover. She begins to take revenge on Latunsky, and his apartment turns into a water-filled mess of broken furniture and broken glass. Nothing can stop and calm Margarita at this moment. Thus, the heroine transfers her heartbreaking state to the world around her. In this case, the reader encounters an example of the use of alliteration: “shards ran down,” “real rain began,” “whistled furiously,” “the doorman ran out.” Analysis of "The Master and Margarita" allows us to delve deeper into the hidden meaning of the work.

Suddenly, the witch's excesses come to an end. She sees in the third floor window little boy in the crib. The frightened child evokes in Margarita the maternal feelings inherent in every woman. Together with them she experiences awe and tenderness. Yes, her state of mind After the mind-blowing defeat it returns to normal. She leaves Moscow very relaxed and with a sense of accomplishment. It's easy to see the parallelism in the description environment and Margarita's moods.

The heroine behaves fiercely and frantically, being in a bustling city in which life does not stop for a single minute. But as soon as Margarita finds herself surrounded by dewy meadows, ponds and green forests, she finds peace of mind and balance. Now she is flying slowly, smoothly, reveling in the flight and having the opportunity to enjoy all the charm of a moonlit night.

This analysis of the episode of "The Master and Margarita" shows that this episode plays an important role in the novel. Here the reader observes the complete rebirth of Margarita. She urgently needs it to perform actions in the future.

Novel by chapters.)

"Master and Margarita"

(From the previous versions of the title - “The Engineer’s Hoof.” The novel was completed in May 1938. But even before his death, M.A. dictated all the corrections.)

Of course, “The Master” stunned me, as it did every subsequent reader, and gave me something to think about. The entire description of Soviet Moscow of the 20s - it was the “ordinary” inimitably brilliant, accurate, irrefutable Bulgakov - no Soviet blush of this picture can be erased in any square centimeter not forever. Bulgakov mocks the literary environment with fireworks - the Griboedov house, Massolit, Perelygino (Peredelkino), the colorful Archibald Archibaldovich, “black hair covered with fiery silk” - brightly and well, but he gets confused with jokes, very straightforward with anger. Of course, SSP is asking for satire.

Stravinsky Clinic - as a euphemism for landings. A series of devastating denunciatory newspaper articles (and it’s true: “There was something extremely false and uncertain about them, despite their menacing, confident tone”) and was sufficient grounds for the arrest of the Master, Aloisy Mogarych was set up as a household pillow, to take the edge off the press and GPU. – A striking scene in Torgsin (“where can a poor person get currency?”). And this is where evil spirits act as the implementer of justice. – And the scene of the confiscation of gold in the GPU, although developed with a wild writer’s imagination, evokes a somewhat shy, dubious feeling: is this material for such humor? it was too scary to be so funny. – Of course, the plan can also be traced in the fact that evil spirits and the GPU produce similar devastation in different places, sweeping out one after another.

With the names he goes on a rampage here, violates the limit: Poklyovkina, Dvubratsky, Nepremenova (Navigator Georges), Zagrivov, Hieronymus Poprikhin, Kvant, Cherdakchi, Crescent, Bogokhulsky, Johann of Kronstadt, Ida Gerkulanovna, Adelfina Budzyak, Boba Kandalupsky, Vetchinkevich - but also put yourself in the position of the author: all these Berliozs and Rimskys need to be disguised somehow.

And into this - already essentially demonic Soviet life - without any effort by the artist, the whole devilish company naturally fit in as its- and just as naturally it turned out to be several degrees nobler than the actual Soviet-Bolshevik, disgusting, already disgusting.

Just by the undoubted relationship between Bulgakov and Gogol, one could expect something similar. In "The Adventures of Chichikov" the joker-Satan is named. In different places of different works, Bulgakov is constantly struck by Mephistopheles’ aria from Faust, and he even repeats it excessively. Then the whole “Diaboliad”, where Long John already turns into a black cat - but this is not yet a serious deviliad, a buffoonery. For the first time seriously - here.

What could have fascinated him so much with this topic? I reject any innate inclination or mystical connection. And I think: since Civil War having experienced the cruel peals of the revolutionary chariot, barely surviving under the Bolsheviks after his rather accidental White Guard, hiding, confusing his biography, starving in Moscow, desperately making his way into literature, experiencing all the oppressive weight of both the regime and the literary mafia - he had to somehow... then dream of the sword of justice that would one day fall on them all. And he can no longer imagine God’s justice—but the devil’s! Bulgakov's despair from Soviet years– not divided by anyone, not resolved by anything, but only by evil spirits. The master says so directly: “Of course, when people are completely robbed, they seek salvation from an otherworldly force.”

And besides this author’s thirst for striking punishment, there is no serious motivation for Woland’s arrival in Moscow; the presented excuse to look at the Muscovites gathered in large numbers has little appeal: that human nature has not changed in Soviet times, it should be clear to Woland anyway, without an excursion to Moscow.

Satan in this novel is the only strong, honest, smart, noble one in a world of fake or inferior ones. But the epigraph from Faust is not accidental: “I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good.” Yes, in Soviet conditions, evil spirits can look like liberating ones, compared to the GPU - so is it just the force of Good?

The details of Woland’s appearance are very good when they are shown: one, green, with an insane eye, the other, black, empty and dead, the exit to the well of darkness; sloping face, skin forever burned by tan. At the end there is a black glove with a bell (claws?). - Koroviev, these chicken feathered whiskers, pince-nez without one glass, a rattling voice - and then, especially impressive for him, the transformation into a dark purple knight with an unsmiling face. - The killer Azazello - a fang from the mouth, an eye with a cataract, crooked, fiery red - the author had to imagine all this in both vividness and variety. – The cat is beyond praise, and all four together even form some kind of harmony, a chorus.

There are many brilliant scenes with the tricks of evil spirits: the first actions in apartment 50; Koroviev's things (chapter 9), very inventive; reprisal against Varenukha (chapter 10); magic session at Variety (12), brilliant; flour of Rome (14); end of apartment 50 (27), the cat shoots back; Koroviev and the cat in Torgsin and in the Griboyedov House (28). And Satan’s ball amazes with its inexhaustible imagination. (And, by the way, who is punished at this ball of murderers and poisoners? - Only the informer, Baron Meigel, that is, informers are worse than all poisoners - like the stranglers of literature.) - Margarita visiting Woland's retinue - average; The only original thing is how the apartment space opens up, and the chess game and the cat’s tricks are mixed up. The very first scene at the Patriarch's Ponds, very strong in the first reading, already in the third seemed to me too much. – And Ivan’s pursuit of Woland’s retinue around Moscow is too much, a playful comic, only a cat with a dime is good. – Even more overkill Ch. 17 – a jacket without a head, choral singing under hypnosis (a symbol of the entire Soviet existence?), but not justified by the plot: why does evil spirits need this? Bulgakov became naughty. And chapter 18, uncle from Kyiv, is funny at first, but then it’s not, the episodes of demons’ fun that lead nowhere. – But the transformation of everyone in the last flight is almost a hymn to Satan.

And all the arbitrariness of the diabolical would have caused only laughter and no spiritual protest - if at times, with a hammered, stone, trembling tread of phrases, chapters of the gospel history - and so not seen in a Christian way - were not introduced into this same book! Why, next to this dashing, victorious, whistling Satanism, is Christ introduced deprived of his true, familiar appearance to us, so pitiful, humiliated, and so without his spiritual and mental unimaginable height, with which he shone among people? and so much so – without the actual essence of Christianity? In that very first reading, I felt a sense of depression, and in subsequent years, during re-readings, the heavy feeling intensified. If the gospel story is seen not necessarily through the eyes of Woland, then through the eyes of a completely atheistic intelligentsia. (And this is written by the son of a theologian - it’s true: he was both embittered and suffocated for a decade and a half of the early Soviet years.) The natural explanation is the history and practice of creating this book. As Elena Sergeevna said, Bulgakov did not write it for the distant future: he carried the hope of publishing it under Soviet conditions - but how?.. Ilf and Petrov, friends from Gudok, knew about this novel and promised to somehow help Bulgakov ( but they didn’t help in any way). If we now go back to the early thirties, who remembers them well, and together with the author read the book in those years, in that situation - yes, this is almost a Christian feat: to dare to declare that Christ appeared at all(after all, His there wasn't at all)! And that He is not a myth and was sincere, kind and did not carry any “opium for the people”! Even in this humiliated guise did Yeshua destroy the atheistic communist lie?

But: in order to pay for censorship, a number of internal concessions had to be made (as in “Running”), and this might seem acceptable to the author. Essentially: wrapping the image of Christ; destruction of the meaning of the gospel story; destruction of its plot as well - this might seem like a reasonable price? - No apostles, except for the confused Levi Matthew, no Last Supper, no myrrh-bearing women, and most importantly - no Higher cosmic meaning in what is happening. It’s as if the whole plot is being deliberately destroyed: Christ is not 33, but 27 years old, he is from Gamala, his father is Syrian, he does not remember his parents; he did not ride into Jerusalem on a donkey amid the rejoicing of the inhabitants (then there is nothing to justify the anger of the Sanhedrin), and he met Judas only yesterday. And this is “Ha-Nozri”. “There are no evil people in the world” - this is not at all the meaning of the Gospel. And, in fact, there is no teaching. The only miraculous action: reads Pilate's thoughts and heals him from pain. Even in eternity, although the “region of light” is left behind him, Yeshua has no power: he himself does not have the power to forgive Pilate and reward him with peace, he asks Woland to do so.

But Pilate is developed in a believable and interesting way. This headache (before the thought of poison?) is also good: how easily an executioner can become a martyr. The right feeling: I didn’t say something, didn’t listen to the end. While the swallow was flying, he formulated a pardon for himself. But the thought was artificially inserted: “immortality has come; whose?" The conversation with Caiaphas is good. - The whole intrigue of the murder of Judas is quite in the spirit of picaresque or adventure novels of previous centuries, this is read, it is not in keeping with the theme.

It was probably a lot of work for the author to find and present all possible details. Maybe that's where it fell apart. But a lot seems convincing, the geography of the city, details of clothing, everyday life. The picture of the suffering of the crucified is very real, this being surrounded by gadflies. (The terrible thunderstorm at the death of Christ - saved.)

So, in Bulgakov’s world, there is no God at all, even behind the scenes, even outside visible world. On the outskirts of it is the helpless Jesus. (However, the Russian understanding is: “In a slave form, the King of Heaven.”) And Satan owns the world and reigns over it. Bulgakov in this novel is not even close to Christianity, he is grounded in a Soviet way. (Where does all of Bulgakov have direct religiosity? Only in “The White Guard,” Elena’s prayer.)

“What would your good do if evil did not exist?” – obviously, the author’s thought. Both before his death and at his death, Bulgakov did not turn directly to Orthodoxy. (Let us compare that in these same years Klyuev also practiced fighting against God.) In this “he did not deserve light, he deserved peace” - the attitude and thirst of the author himself. And in repeating that cowardice is the worst of human vices, self-flagellation strikes oneself? (Many times he also had to bend, although it was not in his character!)

But it may be even more complicated than that. Beyond the practical explanation of censorship: why did Bulgakov repeatedly interweave and express the motives of the devil? There is some long-term bias of the author here, reminding us of Gogol. (As in general, due to the brilliance of humor, so rare in Russian literature, he also repeats Gogol to us.) It would be more precise to formulate this way: for some urgent need, satanic forces persistently fought for the soul of both writers. And the shock of this struggle affected both. But in both cases, Satan did not win.

I admire this book - but have not lived with it. For me personally - and here is a similarity with Gogol: no one in Russian literature gave me less than Gogol - I just Nothing I didn’t learn it from him. He is a stranger to me than everyone else. – And Bulgakov as a whole is the opposite: although I didn’t adopt anything from him, and the properties of our feathers are completely different, and I didn’t fully accept his main novel, he remains warmly related to me, truly an older brother, I myself can’t explain Where does this relationship come from? (Yes, I really felt his torment under the Soviet heel, I know from myself.) And I only pray for his soul, that he will emerge a complete winner from that grueling struggle.

And more about “The Master”. Masters- there is almost nothing in the novel, except for the romantic story to Ivan about his beloved. No creative figure, high spirit - although, of course, there is brokenness in the design. (A writer in a mental hospital is a prophecy for the 60s and 70s.) In the way he says goodbye to Moscow, “as if threatening the city,” the “bitter resentment” is also the writer Bulgakov himself. The scene of tenderness between the Master and Margarita at the end is quite trivial; the conversation between the lovers is little touching. Despite all this, the erotic string does not sound at all. (Like almost nowhere in Bulgakov?) Yes, there is no Master. (Although appearance is mentioned once: dark hair, a tuft of hair on the forehead, a sharp nose, alarmed brown eyes.)

And Margarita? He greedily absorbs all the covenants of the devilish company, their company, views and jokes. She, both by her nature and her spirit, is an outspoken witch, so easily accustomed to Satanism, she herself clings to Woland. And then in the basement: “How happy I am that I entered into a deal with him! I'm a witch and I'm very happy with it! Health Woland! About Woland: “I understand... Should I give myself to him?” The cult of witchcraft: they not only wash her with blood, but even “the soaring violins doused her body as if with blood.” – Margarita in Flight – although there is a lot of imagination, it’s an average kind of fun: not new, the elements seem to have been familiar for a long time, borrowed. (The Master and Margarita are still swearing all the time.)

Ivan Bezdomny is also some kind of underplayed, underdeveloped figure, as if he were such an important character, but...

The narrator himself does not leave the field of view, who every now and then gives in phrases of his own, completely unnecessary reservations (the Gogolian influence is also noticeable in this): “the fact still remains a fact,” “the nerves could not stand it, as they say,” “ everything was mixed up in the Oblonskys’ house, as he rightly put it famous writer Leo Tolstoy”, “but the devil knows, maybe he read it, it doesn’t matter” and shorter, but completely unnecessary reminders about the narrator: “interesting to note”, “what we don’t know, we don’t know”, cheerful rollicking appeals to the reader, in which there is no wit, but redundancy. This creates haste and sloppiness in the presentation.

Language

When I first read it, it seemed to me that the Gospel chapters are distinguished by their cobbled together, dense, and even sonorous language. After repeated visits, the impression weakened, I don’t know. – There is playful swiftness in the Moscow chapters. – Replies can be individual live ones, but in general they are not individual speech.

However: hellish pain; hellish heat; devilish fire flashed in Pilate's eyes; Stepin's headache porridge; with great dexterity; the headache is difficult to convey; what was said about... is all careless.

Of course, the language is easy to read, there is a lot of dialogue, and with such dynamic action.

Humor

Bulgakov's main charm is always. And there is a lot of it here. Something immediately became proverbial:

sturgeon of the second freshness (only in vain is it explained); hit the pilatchina firmly; I don’t bother anyone, I fix the primus stove; what do you have, no matter what you miss, you have nothing; it must be admitted that among intellectuals there are also extremely smart ones; This is what these trams bring to the table; it was the incomparable smell of freshly printed money; eyes slanted towards the nose from constant lies; looked up and down as if he were going to sew him a suit (how Chekhovian!); no document, no person; moth-eaten, gray eyebrows; brushing off his wife with his bare foot (talking on the phone with the GPU).

With “The Master” we also had that long-term anxiety that a certain student from Tartu, who was allowed by Elena Sergeevna to read “The Master” without taking it out, somehow managed to take away and take away the copy, I don’t know - with a selfish purpose or a selfless one, but Negotiations went on with him for many months: to return the novel to the widow, and not to give it its own course. Still returned it. Oh, how many worries does the sub-Soviet holder of forbidden, choking manuscripts have! Was there before? – but in my time it was no longer in E.S. the audacity with which Margarita could host Satan's ball.