Every person has many vices. Writers tried to reveal these vices through the prism of their heroes and their lives. Thanks to example literary heroes, the reader could see himself from the outside and fight this negative trait character. And so, Bulgakov is no exception. He reveals the problem of cowardice in his famous novel The Master and Margarita. Just today we will turn to his famous work and, in an essay on the work The Master and Margarita, we will trace the problem of cowardice, which the writer considered the most terrible vice.
One of Bulgakov's main works is the novel The Master and Margarita, where moral problems, problem true love, good and evil, loyalty and betrayal. The author also touched upon the topic of vices, where cowardice stands out among all human negative characteristics. Every person can be afraid and have fear of something, but it is cowardice that is destructive. It does not allow one to admit mistakes, it affects the personal I, making a person a simple individual, but not a person.
It is cowardice that is a terrible vice, and this problem is clearly visible in The Master and Margarita through the example of characters. For example, the Master cannot be called a hero, he is not a fighter, he could not go to the end. By abandoning his manuscript, the Master showed his cowardice; he allowed himself to be broken. Unlike Yeshua, who showed courage and spiritual strength, the Master turned out to be the opposite.
Pontius Pilate, who has power, also shows cowardice. He is afraid of losing his authority; he is simply broken by the masses. He could not insist on the truth, he did not save a person whose guilt he doubted, he abandoned his moral principles, for which he paid.
Cowardice is the worst vice
The writer calls cowardice the most terrible vice, and it is very difficult to disagree with him. Why? This is because it is precisely this shameful quality of humanity that pushes people to commit crimes. It is she who controls the actions of traitors; those who often flatter their leadership are also guided by cowardice. It is the coward who lies, and all because he is afraid. Afraid to admit guilt and afraid to tell the truth. And you need to be above your vices. As one philosopher said, after courage, there is nothing more beautiful than admitting cowardice. I also completely agree with this statement.
The theme of cowardice connects the two lines of the novel. Many critics will attribute cowardice to the master himself, who was unable to fight for his novel, for his love and his life. And this is precisely what will be explained by the rewarding of the master after the completion of the whole story with peace, and not with light. Let's look at this in more detail.
At the end of the novel, when Woland leaves Moscow, Matvey Levi comes to him with an errand (chapter 29).
“He read the master’s work,” said Matvey Levi, “and asks you to take the master with you and reward him with peace. Is it really difficult for you to do this, spirit of evil?
“He didn’t deserve light, he deserved peace,” Levi said in a sad voice.”
The question of why the master did not deserve the light remains not fully clarified today. It is analyzed in detail by V. A. Slavina. She notes that the most common opinion is that “the master was not awarded the light precisely because he was not active enough, that, unlike his mythological double, he allowed himself to be broken, he burned the novel,” and “did not fulfill his duty: the novel remained unfinished.” A similar point of view is expressed by G. Lesskis in the comments to the novel: “The fundamental difference between the protagonist of the second novel is that the master turns out to be incompetent as a tragic hero“: he lacked that spiritual strength that Yeshua reveals on the cross as convincingly as during his interrogation by Pilate... None of the people dares to reproach the exhausted man for such a surrender, he deserves peace.”
Another point of view, expressed, in particular, in the works of the American scientist B. Pokrovsky, is also of interest. He believes that the novel “The Master and Margarita” shows the development of rational philosophy, and the novel by the master himself takes us not two thousand years into the past, but into early XIX c., to that point historical development, when, after Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, the process of demythologizing the sacred texts of Christianity began. The master, according to Pokrovsky, is among these demythologizers, and therefore is deprived of light (the master freed the Gospel from the supernatural - there is no resurrection of Christ). Moreover, he is given a chance to atone for his sin, but he did not see it, did not understand it (this refers to the episode when Ivan Bezdomny in Stravinsky’s clinic tells the master about his meeting with Boland, and he exclaims: “Oh, how I guessed! How I guessed everything!” »
He accepted the devil’s testimony about the truth - and this is his second sin, a more serious one, Pokrovsky believes. And what many critics see as the reason for punishing the master with peace, Pokrovsky calls an act of heroism, because the hero did not make any compromises with a world alien to him, even in the name of his salvation. Here the master exactly corresponds to the idea of “good will” and the “categorical imperative”, which the author of the novel “The Master and Margarita”, following Kant, calls for. In the first chapter, when the heroes argue about the existence of God, Woland, referring to Kant, says that he first destroyed all the evidence for the existence of God, and then “constructed his own sixth proof.” Kant’s sixth proof is the doctrine of good will, the essence of which, according to Vladimir Solovyov’s definition, is “the universal rational idea of good, acting on the conscious will in the form of an unconditional duty or a categorical imperative (in Kant’s terminology). Simply put, a person can do good in addition to and despite selfish considerations, for the sake of the very idea of good, out of sheer respect for duty or moral law.
We emphasize what is important, in our opinion, to Bulgakov. In his novel the bearer goodwill Yeshua speaks. And then we ask the question: can Yeshua, following the “categorical imperative,” punish the master for not being as strong as himself? He would rather forgive this shortcoming, as he forgave Pontius Pilate, than help the master finish his novel. Then Pokrovsky is right in seeing the master’s sin in the destruction of faith: “Paradoxical as such a statement may be, historically the master is the predecessor of the “educated” theorist Berlioz and the ignorant practitioner Ivan Bezdomny, Ivan before his rebirth. Pokrovsky is closer to the truth, in our opinion, but we cannot completely agree with him, because his truth is in faith, in religion only, and he believes that Reason is to blame for everything (“the nightmare of reason that has absolutized itself”).
According to V.A. Slavina, this is not entirely true with Bulgakov. Although ideas and theories are often the cause of misfortune (remember "Fatal Eggs" and " Heart of a Dog"), although he denies social revolutions, preferring the “favorite and Great Evolution,” yet it is precisely on the conscious and reasonable will that he places his bets on the path to good. And this is the essence of his philosophy, embodied in a brilliant artistic form- in the novel “The Master and Margarita”.
The archive of M. Bulgakov contains the magazine “Literary Studies” (1938) with an article by Mirimsky about Hoffman. It was about her that Bulgakov wrote to Elena Sergeevna in Lebedyan: “I accidentally came across an article about Hoffmann’s fiction. I'm saving it for you, knowing that it will amaze you as much as it did me. I'm right about The Master and Margarita! You understand what this consciousness is worth - I’m right!” In this article, among those noted by Bulgakov, there are the following words: “He (Hoffmann) turns art into a battle tower, from which, as an artist, he carries out satirical reprisals against reality.” This is obvious for Bulgakov’s novel, which is why, first of all, the work took so long and difficult to reach the reader.
We focused in most detail on the biblical chapters, since they contain the philosophical quintessence of the novel. It is not for nothing that Ilf and Petrov’s first remark after reading the novel by Bulgakov was: “Remove the “ancient” chapters - and we will undertake to publish it.” But this in no way diminishes the content of the chapters on modernity - one cannot be read without the other. Post-revolutionary Moscow, shown through the eyes of Woland and his retinue (Koroviev, Behemoth, Azazello), is a satirical-humorous, with elements of fantasy, an unusually bright picture with tricks and disguises, with sharp remarks along the way and comic scenes. .
During his three days in Moscow, Woland explores the habits, behavior and lives of people of different social groups and layers. He wants to know whether the Moscow population has changed and how significantly, moreover, he is more interested in “whether the townspeople have changed internally.” Readers of the novel see a gallery of heroes similar to Gogol’s, but only smaller than those, albeit from the capital. It is interesting that each of them is given an unflattering description in the novel.
The director of the Variety Theater Styopa Likhodeev “drinks, has relationships with women, using his position, doesn’t do a damn thing, and can’t do anything...”, the chairman of the housing association Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy is a “burner and a rogue”, Maigel is an “earphone” and "spy", etc.
In total, in the novel “The Master and Margarita” there are more than five hundred characters - these are not only those who are distinguished by some individual or specific features, but also “collective characters” - viewers of the Variety Show, passers-by, employees of various institutions. Woland, although he, according to Margarita, is omnipotent, does not use his power to its full potential and, rather, only to emphasize and more clearly show human vices and weaknesses. These are tricks in the Variety Show and an office with an empty suit signing papers, a singing institution and the constant transformation of money either into simple pieces of paper or into dollars... And when in the theater the “Chairman of the Acoustic Commission” Arkady Apollonovich Sempleyarov demands that Woland expose the tricks, a real exposure of those present occurs in the Variety of Citizens.
“I’m not an artist at all,” says Woland, “but I just wanted to see Muscovites en masse...” And people don’t stand the test: men rush for money and to the buffet, and women for rags. As a result, a well-deserved and fair conclusion: “...They are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... in general, they resemble the old ones... housing issue I just ruined them..."
It is noteworthy that the action of the novel begins with Woland's acquaintance with Berlioz, the head of a writers' organization, the editor of a thick magazine, one might say, even a theorist and ideologist, and Ivan Bezdomny, a poet who, on Berlioz's order, writes an anti-religious poem. The educated Berlioz's confidence in his theoretical postulates and the poet's blind adherence to them frightens the poet, like any dogmatism that leads to thoughtless obedience and, as a consequence, tragedy. The tragedy is not of an individual, but of an entire society forced to submit to a false totalitarian idea. Lies are punishable by retribution, “retribution as part of the earthly law of justice” (V. Lakshin). This retribution in Bulgakov’s interpretation sounds like the thesis “everyone will be given according to his faith,” which is revealed through the example of Berlioz in the scene at Satan’s ball.
“Mikhail Alexandrovich,” Woland said quietly to the head, and then the eyelids of the murdered man lifted, and on the dead face Margarita, shuddering, saw living eyes, full of thoughts and suffering. – Everything came true, didn’t it? - Woland continued, looking into the eyes of the head, - the head was cut off by a woman, the meeting did not take place, and I live in your apartment. This is a fact. And fact is the most stubborn thing in the world. But now we are interested in what follows, and not in this already accomplished fact. You have always been an ardent preacher of the theory that when a person’s head is cut off, life in a person ceases, he turns into ash and goes into oblivion. I am pleased to inform you, in the presence of my guests... that your theory is both solid and ingenious. However, all theories are worth one another. There is one among them, according to which everyone will be given according to his faith.” Berlioz is fading into oblivion - he believed in it, he promoted it. He deserved this punishment. The fate of Berlioz's interlocutor Ivan Bezdomny is also interesting. In the final version of the novel, his punishment is much lighter than in earlier editions. He can't cope with the spring full moon. “As soon as it begins to approach, as soon as it begins to grow and fill with gold... Ivan Nikolaevich becomes restless, nervous, loses appetite and sleep, waits until the moon ripens.” But in The Great Chancellor - early version“The Master and Margarita” – the fate of Ivan Bezdomny is more complicated. He turns out to be dead at the trial (we don’t know how he died) in front of Woland and to the question: “What do you want, Ivanushka?” - answers: “I want to see Yeshua Ha-Nozri, open your eyes to me.” “In other lands, in other kingdoms,” Woland tells him to this, “you will walk through the fields blind and listen. A thousand times you will hear how silence gives way to the noise of the flood, how birds cry in the spring, and you will sing them, blind man, in verse, and for the thousand and first time, on Saturday night, I will open your eyes. Then you will see him. Go to your fields." Ivan Bezdomny, out of ignorance, also believed in Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, but after the events at the Patriarch's Ponds, at the Stravinsky clinic, he admits that he was wrong. And although Bulgakov pursues the idea that “blindness due to ignorance cannot serve as an excuse for unrighteous actions,” at the same time he understands that Berlioz’s guilt cannot be equated with the actions of Ivan Bezdomny.
In this regard, the fate of Pontius Pilate is also interesting. In the last chapter of “The Master and Margarita,” which is called “Forgiveness and Eternal Shelter,” there is a kind of combination of two novels (the Master’s novel and Bulgakov’s novel), the master meets his hero:
“They read your novel,” Woland spoke, turning to the master, “and they only said one thing, that, unfortunately, it is not finished. So, I wanted to show you your hero. For about two thousand years he sits on this platform and sleeps, but when he comes full moon, as you can see, he is tormented by insomnia. She tortures not only him, but his faithful watchman, the dog. If it is true that cowardice is the most serious vice, then, perhaps, the dog is not to blame for it. The only thing the brave dog was afraid of was thunderstorms. Well, the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves.”
Pontius Pilate is tormented by the fact that he did not agree on something important with the prisoner with whom he dreamed of walking along the lunar road together. This moment in the novel seems very important, as well as the “full of thoughts and suffering” eyes of Berlioz’s head. Suffering because you did or said something wrong, but you can’t take it back. “Everything will be right, the world is built on this,” Woland says to Margarita and invites the master to end the novel “with one phrase.”
“The master seemed to be waiting for this already, while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting prosecutor. He clasped his hands like a megaphone and shouted so that the echo jumped across the deserted and treeless mountains:
- Free! Free! He's waiting for you!
Pontius Pilate receives forgiveness. Forgiveness, the path to which lies through suffering, through awareness of one’s guilt and responsibility. Responsibility not only for actions and actions, but also for the thoughts and ideas themselves.
Searched here:
- the problem of cowardice in the novel The Master and Margarita
- cowardice in the novel The Master and Margarita
- cowardice in the master and margarita
Courage and timidity are moral categories associated with the spiritual side of the individual. They are an indicator of human dignity, demonstrate weakness, or, on the contrary, strength of character, which manifests itself in complex life situations. Our history is rich in such vicissitudes, so arguments in the direction of “Courage and Cowardice” for the final essay are presented in abundance in Russian classics. Examples from Russian literature will help the reader understand how and where courage manifests itself and fear comes out.
- In the novel L.N. In Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” one such situation is war, which puts the heroes before a choice: to give in to fear and save their own lives, or, despite the danger, to preserve their fortitude. Andrei Bolkonsky shows remarkable courage in battle; he is the first to rush into battle to encourage the soldiers. He knows that he may die in battle, but the fear of death does not frighten him. Fyodor Dolokhov also fights desperately in the war. The feeling of fear is alien to him. He knows that a brave soldier can influence the outcome of a battle, so he bravely rushes into battle, despising
cowardice. But the young cornet Zherkov gives in to fear and refuses to give the order to retreat. The letter, which was never delivered to them, causes the death of many soldiers. The price for showing cowardice turns out to be prohibitively high. - Courage conquers time and immortalizes names. Cowardice remains a shameful stain on the pages of history and literature.
In the novel by A.S. Pushkin " Captain's daughter“An example of courage and courage is the image of Pyotr Grinev. He is ready to defend at the cost of his life Belogorsk fortress under the onslaught of Pugachev, and the fear of death is alien to the hero at the moment of danger. Heightened sense justice and duty do not allow him to escape or refuse the oath. Shvabrin, clumsy and petty in his motives, is presented in the novel as the antipode of Grinev. He goes over to Pugachev's side, committing betrayal. He is driven by fear for his own life, while the fates of other people mean nothing to Shvabrin, who is ready to save himself by exposing another to the blow. His image entered the history of Russian literature as one of the archetypes of cowardice. - War reveals hidden human fears, the most ancient of which is the fear of death. In V. Bykov’s story “The Crane Cry,” the heroes face a seemingly impossible task: to detain the German troops. Each of them understands that fulfilling a duty is possible only at the cost own life. Everyone must decide for themselves what is more important to them: to avoid death or to carry out orders. Pshenichny believes that life is more valuable than a ghostly victory, so he is ready to surrender in advance. He decides that surrendering to the Germans is much wiser than risking his life in vain. Ovseev also agrees with him. He regrets that he did not have time to escape before the arrival of German troops, and spends most of the battle sitting in a trench. During the next attack, he makes a cowardly attempt to escape, but Glechik shoots at him, not allowing him to escape. Glechik himself is no longer afraid to die. It seems to him that only now, in a moment of complete despair, did he feel responsible for the outcome of the battle. The fear of death for him is small and insignificant compared to the thought that by fleeing he could betray the memory of his fallen comrades. This is the true heroism and fearlessness of a hero doomed to death.
- Vasily Terkin is another archetype hero who has gone down in the history of literature as the image of a brave, cheerful and gallant soldier going into battle with a smile on his lips. But it is not so much with feigned fun and well-aimed jokes that he attracts the reader, but with genuine heroism, masculinity and perseverance. The image of Tyorkin was created by Tvardovsky as a joke, however, the author depicts the war in the poem without embellishment. Against the backdrop of military realities, the simple and captivating image of the fighter Tyorkin becomes the popular embodiment of the ideal of a real soldier. Of course, the hero is afraid of death, dreams of family comfort, but he knows for sure that protecting the Fatherland is his main duty. Duty to the Motherland, to fallen comrades and to oneself.
- In the story “Coward” by V.M. Garshin displays the character's characteristics in the title, thereby, as if assessing him in advance, hinting at the further course of the story. “The war absolutely haunts me,” the hero writes in his notes. He is afraid that he will be recruited as a soldier and does not want to go to war. It seems to him that millions of people have been lost human lives cannot be justified by a great purpose. However, reflecting on his own fear, he comes to the conclusion that he can hardly accuse himself of cowardice. He is disgusted by the idea that he can take advantage of influential contacts and avoid war. Inner feeling truth does not allow him to resort to such a petty and unworthy means. “You can’t run away from a bullet,” says the hero before his death, thereby accepting it, realizing his involvement in the ongoing battle. His heroism lies in the voluntary renunciation of cowardice, in the inability to do otherwise.
- “And the dawns here are quiet...” B. Vasilyeva - the book is by no means about cowardice. On the contrary, it is about incredible, superhuman courage. Moreover, its heroes prove that war can have woman's face, and courage is not only a man’s lot. Five young girls are fighting an unequal battle with a German detachment, a battle from which they are unlikely to emerge alive. Each of them understands this, but none of them stops before death and humbly goes towards it to fulfill their duty. All of them - Liza Brichkina, Rita Osyanina, Zhenya Komelkova, Sonya Gurvich and Galya Chetvertak - die at the hands of the Germans. However, there is not a shadow of doubt about their silent feat. They know for sure that there can be no other choice. Their faith is unshakable, and their perseverance and courage are examples of true heroism, direct proof that there are no limits to human capabilities.
- “Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights?” - asks Rodion Raskolnikov, confident that he is more likely the latter than the former. However, due to an incomprehensible irony of life, everything turns out to be exactly the opposite. Raskolnikov's soul turns out to be cowardly, despite the fact that he found the strength to commit murder. In an attempt to rise above the masses, he loses himself and crosses the moral line. Dostoevsky in the novel emphasizes that to stand on wrong way Self-deception is very simple, but overcoming fear and suffering the punishment that Raskolnikov is so afraid of is necessary for the spiritual purification of the hero. Sonya Marmeladova comes to the aid of Rodion, who lives in constant fear for what he has done. Despite all her external fragility, the heroine has a persistent character. She instills confidence and courage in the hero, helps him overcome cowardice, and is even ready to share Raskolnikov’s punishment in order to save his soul. Both heroes struggle with fate and circumstances, this shows their strength and courage.
- “The Fate of a Man” by M. Sholokhov is another book about courage and courage, the hero of which is an ordinary soldier Andrei Sokolov, to whose fate the pages of the book are dedicated. The war forced him to leave home and go to the front to undergo trials of fear and death. In battle, Andrei is honest and brave, like many soldiers. He is faithful to duty, for which he is ready to pay even with his own life. Stunned by a live shell, Sokolov sees the approaching Germans, but does not want to run, deciding that the last minutes need to be spent with dignity. He refuses to obey the invaders, his courage impresses even the German commandant, who sees in him a worthy opponent and a valiant soldier. Fate is merciless to the hero: he loses the most precious thing in the war - loving wife and children. But, despite the tragedy, Sokolov remains a man, lives according to the laws of conscience, according to the laws of a brave human heart.
- V. Aksenov’s novel “The Moscow Saga” is dedicated to the history of the Gradov family, which gave its entire life to serving the Fatherland. This is a trilogy novel, which is a description of the life of an entire dynasty, closely connected by family ties. The heroes are ready to sacrifice a lot for the sake of each other's happiness and well-being. In desperate attempts to save loved ones, they show remarkable courage, the call of conscience and duty for them is decisive, guiding all their decisions and actions. Each of the heroes is brave in their own way. Nikita Gradov heroically defends his homeland. He gets the title of hero Soviet Union. The hero is uncompromising in his decisions, and several military operations are successfully carried out under his leadership. The Gradovs’ adopted son, Mitya, also goes to war. By creating heroes, plunging them into an atmosphere of constant anxiety, Aksenov shows that courage is the lot not only of an individual, but also of an entire generation raised to respect family values and moral duty.
- Feats are an eternal theme in literature. Cowardice and courage, their confrontation, numerous victories of one over the other, are now becoming the subject of debate and search by modern writers.
One of these authors was the famous British writer JK Rowling and her world-famous hero – Harry Potter. Her series of novels about a boy wizard won the hearts of young readers with their fantastic plot and, of course, bravery of heart. central character. Each of the books is a story of the struggle between good and evil, in which the first always wins, thanks to the courage of Harry and his friends. In the face of danger, each of them remains steadfast and believes in the final triumph of good, which, according to a happy tradition, rewards the winners for courage and bravery. Interesting? Save it on your wall!
The problems we found related to cowardice are often found in texts for preparing for the Unified State Exam in the Russian language. Arguments from Russian literature, selected to these problems, will help graduates write a high-quality argumentative essay. All these examples are available for download in table format. Link at the end of the article.
- In the novel M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" Pontius Pilate was a victim of his own cowardice. He was faced with a choice: to listen to his mind or to his heart, to save the poor philosopher Yeshua or to doom him to death penalty, maintaining authority and balance in the city. The fear of the Sanhendrin and the high priest Caiaphas turned out to be stronger of one's own will and the desire to save the innocent. Because of the Hegemon's cowardice and fear of his future, Ga-Notsri is subjected to unfair reprisals. After his execution, Pontius Pilate suffers from remorse and does not find peace of mind for two thousand years.
- The main character novel by A.S. Pushkin " Evgeny Onegin», Despite his inconsistency and ambiguity, he can well be called a cowardly person. Evgeniy could easily refuse a duel with his close comrade, Vladimir Lensky, but did not do this. He's like socialite, with his refusal to duel, he was afraid to shake the respect of society. Main character I could not present myself in secular circles as a weak, weak-willed person who was afraid of battle. He didn't want to be the object of ridicule and gossip. In fact, because of his cowardice in front of society, another person died. Evgeniy himself did not know how to forgive himself for this, so he did not find happiness in life.
- If your problem concerns cowardice in love, then we have a whole one for it.
Fear in war
- In the story “Sotnikov” by V. Bykov the antipode of the main character, Rybak, being cowardly, agrees to join the ranks of the policemen - henchmen of the invaders. Hoping at opportunity to return to the partisan detachment, he made a deal with his conscience. “The opportunity to live has appeared - this is the main thing. Everything else will come later,” the partisan reasoned. Without thinking about it at all future fate his homeland, he does everything to survive. Survive at any cost. A sense of patriotism, duty and responsibility to the fatherland does not awaken in him. The fisherman lost faith and failed to accept suffering for his people, as Sotnikov did. Shameful cowardice and cowardice are the main features of this hero, which led him to moral decline.
- Main character V. Rasputin's story “Live and Remember” also fails to cope with the difficult period of the war. He deserts from the front. Driving past his home, the soldier who fought honestly cannot stand it. He succumbs to the fear of death, becomes a deserter and a coward, dooming to death all those for whom he went to fight: his wife Nastena and the child for whom they had been waiting for so long. And the girl, whose soul is too pure and innocent, cannot withstand the weight that has fallen on her fragile shoulders. Deep morality and spiritual strength do not allow her to hide the deserter or betray the Motherland with him. And she goes under the waters of the Yenisei with her unborn child.
Consequences of cowardice
- IN work by A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" one of the defenders Belgorod fortress– Alexey Shvabrin turns out to be a coward and a traitor. At the first opportunity, he goes over to Pugachev’s side in order to save his life. Shvabrin is ready to kill those whom until recently he could consider friends and allies.
The price of his own life becomes higher for him than the life of his comrades, higher than the oath and the fate of the fatherland. Because of the fear of possible death, he completely abandons any moral principles and easily goes over to the side of the enemy.