The author of the novel about Pontius Pilate is Bulgakov's double not only because his image reflects the psychological traits and life impressions of the writer. Bulgakov consciously builds parallels between his life and the life of the Master. The image of the hero has a parable character, expressing Bulgakov’s idea of the extremely important calling of the artist and representing a generalized type of artist. The idea of the novel “The Master and Margarita” about the highest purpose of art, designed to affirm good and resist evil, is extremely attractive. “The very appearance of the Master - a man with a pure soul, with pure thoughts, embraced by creative fire, an admirer of beauty and in need of mutual understanding, a kindred soul - the very appearance of such an artist is certainly dear to us.” The very name of the hero contains not only the direct meaning of the word “master” (a specialist who has achieved high skill, art, mastery in any field). It is opposed to the word “writer”. To Ivan Bezdomny’s question: “Are you a writer?” The night guest replied: “I am a master,” he became stern” (112). In the 30s, the writer was occupied the most important question: is a person worthy to be responsible to eternity? In other words, what is his charge of spirituality? A person who has realized himself, in Bulgakov’s view, is accountable only to eternity. Eternity is the environment of existence of this personality. Berlioz and many others “by whose hands, out of ignorance or indifference, evil is created on earth deserves obscurity.”1 Turning to the philosophy of I. Kant allowed Bulgakov to more directly turn to the search for the nature of morality and the mystery of creativity - concepts that are closely related to each other, since art in its deeply moral basis. The master has all the high moral qualities, experiencing only a lack, like M. Bulgakov himself, of a practical beginning. He is “submissively imbued with extreme despair, and also freely ascends to the very heights. His free personality equally perceives both evil and good, while remaining himself.”2 A weak resistance to the evil principle for a creative nature seems natural to the author of the novel. Heroes are carriers of high moral idea in the writer's works they invariably find themselves defeated in a collision with the circumstances that gave rise to evil. The novel of the Master, who does not belong to the powerful hierarchy of the literary and near-literary world, cannot see the light of day. There is no place for the Master in this society, despite all his genius. “With his novel M. Bulgakov... affirms the priority of simple human feelings over any social hierarchy.”1 But in a world where the role of a person is determined solely by his social position, there still exists goodness, truth, love, creativity, although they are sometimes one has to seek protection from “ “. Bulgakov firmly believed that only by relying on the living embodiment of these humanistic concepts, humanity can create a society of true justice, where no one will have a monopoly on truth. The Master's novel, like Bulgakov's own novel, differs sharply from other works of that time. He is the fruit of free labor, free thought, creative flight, without the author’s violence against himself: “...Pilate flew towards the end, towards the end, and I already knew that last words the novel will be: “...The fifth procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate arose,” says the Master (114). The story of the novel about Pontius Pilate appears as a living stream of time moving from the past to the future. And modernity is like a link connecting the past with the future. From Bulgakov’s novel it is clear that a writer needs freedom of creativity like air. He cannot live and create without her. The literary fate of the Master in many ways repeats the literary fate of Bulgakov himself. Critical attacks on the novel about Pontius Pilate almost verbatim repeat the Yankovites’ accusations against the “White Guard” and “Days of the Turbins.” The situation in the country in the 1930s was accurately reflected in The Master and Margarita. Through the feeling of fear that gripped the Master, the writer’s novel conveys the atmosphere of totalitarian politics, under which it was dangerous to write the truth about the autocracy of Pontius Pilate, about the tragedy of the preacher of truth and justice Yeshua. The refusal to print the novel was accompanied by an ominous hint from the editors: “...Who is this... who decided to write a novel on such a strange topic!?” The Master's night confession to Ivan Bezdomny in Stravinsky's book is striking in its tragedy. Bulgakov was persecuted by critics and sworn speakers, and he naturally reacted painfully to this persecution. Unable to confront his detractors publicly, “the writer sought satisfaction through art, taking muses (including the patroness of history, Clio) as his seconds. Thus, the stage of “The Master” became a dueling arena.”1 In terms of autobiographical associations, it should be pointed out that the initial reason for the campaign against Bulgakov was his novel “The White Guard” and the play “Days of the Turbins,” and first of all main character these works are white officer Alexey Turbin. Thus, the similarity of the life circumstances of M. Bulgakov and the master is revealed, but also the parallelism of the heroes of Bulgakov’s novel and the novel The Master and their literary destiny. The situation of persecution in which the writer found himself in the second half of the 20th years is very reminiscent of the circumstances he talks about. This is a complete detachment from literary life, and a lack of livelihood, “a constant expectation of the “worst.” The denunciation articles that poured into the press were not only literary, but also political in nature. “These are completely bleak days. The novel was written6 there was nothing more to do...” (119), - the Master tells Ivan Bezdomny. “Something extremely false and uncertain was felt in literally every line of these articles, despite their menacing and confident tone. It seemed to me ... that the authors of these articles were not saying what they wanted to say, and that their rage was caused by precisely this” (119-120). The culmination of this campaign was Bulgakov’s famous letters to the Soviet government (actually, to Stalin). “As I published my works, criticism of the USSR paid more and more attention to me, and not one of my works ... not only never received a single approving review, but on the contrary, the more famous it became my name in the USSR and abroad, the more furious the press reviews became, finally taking on the character of frantic abuse”1 (letter 1929). In another letter (March 1930), M. Bulgakov writes: “...I discovered 301 reviews about me in the USSR press over the 10 years of my work (literary). Of these, there were 3 commendable ones, and 298 were hostile and abusive.” The concluding words of this letter are noteworthy: “...I, a playwright, ... famous both in the USSR and abroad, have this moment- poverty, street and death." The almost verbatim repetition in the assessment of their position by Bulgakov and the Master clearly indicates that the writer consciously associated the fate of the Master with his own. In this regard, the letter to Stalin becomes not only a biographical6 but also a literary fact - a preparation for the novel, since the image of the Master appeared in later editions of the novel. Bulgakov and the Master have one common tragedy - the tragedy of non-recognition. The novel clearly shows the motive of responsibility and guilt. creative personality who compromises with society and power, avoids the problem of moral choice, artificially isolates herself in order to be able to realize her creative potential. Through the mouth of Yeshua, the Master reproaches his contemporaries for cowardly cowardice in defending their human dignity under the pressure of dictatorship and bureaucracy. But unlike Bulgakov, the Master does not fight for his recognition, he remains himself - the embodiment of “immeasurable strength and immeasurable, defenseless weakness of creativity.” The Master, like Bulgakov, becomes ill: “And then came... the stage of fear. No, not fear of these articles... but fear of other things that are completely unrelated to them or to the novel. So, for example, I began to be afraid of the dark. In a word, the stage of mental illness has arrived” (120). Undoubted autobiographical associations include the pages of the burnt novel. As you know, Bulgakov burned the draft manuscripts of the first editions of the novel, which were given to him three years after they were confiscated during a search. Driven to despair, the Master “took the heavy lists of the novel and rough notebooks from the desk drawer and began to burn them.” “Breaking his nails, he tore apart the notebooks, stood them up between logs and a poker, and ruffled the sheets. ...And the novel, stubbornly resisting, still died.” It should be noted that the burning of the novel is a motif “referring to” Dead souls“And moreover - ... not only to creativity, but also to the fate of Gogol.” The great love that illuminated the life of M. Bulgakov was also reflected in the novel. It would probably be wrong to identify the images of the Master and Margarita with the names of the creator of the novel and Elena Sergeevna. They are collective. But many autobiographical features of the writer and his wife are present in the work. First of all, I would like to note the departure of Margarita (like Elena Sergeevna) from her wealthy, prosperous husband. (More on this below). Bulgakov considers literature faithful to Gogol’s fate.” The great love that illuminated the life of M. Bulgakov was also reflected in the novel. It would probably be wrong to identify the images of the Master and Margarita with the names of the creator of the novel and Elena Sergeevna. They are collective. But many autobiographical features of the writer and his wife are present in the work. First of all, I would like to note the departure of Margarita (like Elena Sergeevna) from her wealthy, prosperous husband. (More on this below). Bulgakov considers literature to be the Master’s faithful companion; it not only shares his difficult fate, but also complements his romantic image. Love appears to the Master as an unexpected gift of fate, salvation from cold loneliness. “Thousands of people were walking along Tverskaya, but I guarantee you that she saw me alone and looked not only anxiously, but even as if painfully. And I was struck not so much by her beauty as by the extraordinary, unprecedented loneliness in her eyes!” (114) - says the Master. And further: “She looked at me in surprise, and I suddenly, and completely unexpectedly, realized that I had loved this woman all my life!” (114). “Love jumped out in front of us, like a killer jumps out of the ground in an alley, and struck us both at once! That's how lightning strikes, that's how it strikes Finnish knife! (115). Appearing as a sudden insight, the instantly flared up love of the heroes turns out to be long-lasting. “Little by little, the fullness of feeling is revealed in her: here is tender love, hot passion, and an unusually high spiritual connection between two lovers.” The Master and Margarita are present in the novel in inextricable unity. When the Master tells Ivan the story of his life, his entire narrative is permeated with memories of his beloved. In Russian and world literature, the motif of peace as one of the highest values is traditional. human existence. Suffice it to recall, for example, Pushkin’s formula “peace and freedom.” Therefore, they are necessary for the liberation of harmony. This does not mean external peace, but creative peace. This is the kind of creative peace that a Master should find in his final refuge. There are many nuances, shades, and associations in the novel’s solution, but “they all agree on one thing: this solution is natural, harmonious, unique and inevitable. The master will receive exactly what he has repeatedly craved.” And Woland does not embarrass him by talking about the incompleteness of the reward. Bulgakov's Margarita gains existence after death for her love, and the Master - for the feat of free creative will, the recreation of existence. The master easily crosses his threshold and goes out to the universal. True, he does this at the cost of abandoning his creativity, for which he is awarded “peace.” Moreover, in this case the Master also observes the principle of the absolute primacy of the moral position. In Woland’s scene with Levi Matvey it is said for the first time: “He did not deserve light, he deserved peace.” (290). Reward, given to the hero, not lower, but in some ways even higher than traditional light. For the peace granted to the master is creative peace. Bulgakov raised the feat of creativity so high that “the Master speaks on equal terms with the Prince of Darkness,” so high that in general “there is talk of an eternal reward (... for Berlioz, Latunsky and others there is no eternity and there will be neither hell nor heaven) ." But “Bulgakov... places the feat of creativity - his own feat - not as high as the death on the cross of Yeshua Ha-Nozri.” And if we draw a connection with other works of the writer, it is not as high as the feat “in the battlefield of the slain” in the novel “ white guard" Only the limited and dogmatic Levi Matthew, devoted to Yeshua, is able to enjoy the “naked light” (“but the harsh, “black and white” thinking is emphasized by the color scheme in the execution scene, when he either disappeared in complete darkness, then was suddenly illuminated by an unsteady light”), who does not have creative genius. Yeshua is aware of this and therefore asks Woland, the “spirit of denial,” to reward the Master with creative peace: “He read the Master’s work,” Matthew Levi spoke, “and asks you to take the Master with you and reward him with peace” (290). It is Woland, with his skepticism and doubt, who sees the world in all its contradictions, who can best cope with such a task. Moral ideal, embedded in the Master’s novel, is not subject to decay, and is beyond the power of otherworldly forces. Bulgakov's Yeshua, who sent Matthew Levi to earth, is not an absolute god. He himself asks for Pilate, the Master and Margarita from the one who sent him to earth so long ago: “He asks that you take the one who loved and suffered because of him too,” Levi turned pleadingly to Woland." (291). Peace for the Master and Margarita is purification. And having been cleansed, they can come into the world eternal light, to the kingdom of God, to immortality. Peace is simply necessary for such suffering, restless and tired of life people as the Master and Margarita were: “... Oh, thrice romantic master, don’t you really want to walk with your friend under the cherry trees that are beginning to bloom during the day, and listen to Schubert’s music in the evening ? Wouldn't it be nice for you to write by candlelight? quill pen? There, there. The house and the old servant are already waiting for you there, the candles are already burning, and soon they will go out, because you will immediately meet the dawn. Along this road, master, along this one,” Woland says to the hero (308).
The relationship between Yeshua Ha-Notsri and Woland in M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is a very interesting topic, which at first causes bewilderment. There is no usual Christian antagonism in these connections. Here one can rather trace partnership relations based not on parity, but on a certain subordination of Woland’s “department” to Yeshua’s “ministry”. This is especially visible in last chapters novel.
Antagonism or interaction?
If we imagine Jesus Christ in the image of Ha-Nozri, and see Satan in Woland (these comparisons suggest themselves), then we need to answer the question of why such interaction, almost cooperation, between two “departments” arose. The top management sends Matthew Levi to the lower (performer). The messenger conveys the order to ensure peace for the Master - the main character of the novel. And Satan, the one who, according to Christian theology, is entrusted with being in charge of hell, agrees. Let's understand these intricacies and relationships between the Kingdom of Heaven and the underworld.
Key quotes
Let's remember the plot of the novel "The Master and Margarita". The content of this multifaceted literary work Briefly it can be said like this. Woland arrives in Moscow in the 1930s with his retinue and occupies the apartment of the late writer Berlioz. His goal is to find Margarita, the queen of his May ball. As the plot develops, he encounters the Master, a writer who created a novel about Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Further the story goes as if in two parallel realities: in the author’s contemporary Moscow and Yershalaim (Jerusalem) almost two thousand years ago. Harassed by his colleagues from MASSOLIT, the writer eventually broke down and burned his work. “Manuscripts don’t burn,” Woland said, and then the notebook with the apocryphal “Gospel of the Master” reappeared. "Happy end?" - you ask. Not really. Here is a key quote from the novel:
“He [Ha-Nozri] read the Master’s work... He 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?
“Nothing is difficult for me, and you know that well.” - Woland paused and asked: - And you, why don’t you take him to your place, into your world?
“He did not deserve light, he deserved peace,” said the messenger Levi sadly.”
Author's world model
This above dialogue calls whole line questions of a conceptual nature. Let's formulate them. Why didn't the Master deserve the light? Why does Yeshua (Christ) turn through a messenger to Woland with a request to give peace to the suffering writer? After all, Satan, according to Christian beliefs, rules hell. But God is omnipotent and can do everything Himself, including giving someone peace. If Christ gives the Master into the hands of Woland, can this be called a worthy reward? It’s not for nothing that Matthew Levi has a sad voice. What does “peace” mean for Bulgakov himself, how does it relate to the “darkness” and “light” of the New Testament? As we see, the dialogue between Levi Matvey and Woland is devoid of any antagonism. The characters are a little piqued, but it looks like an exercise in sophistry. We can say that for Bulgakov Woland does not represent absolute evil. He is rather proud and considers himself an independent executor of the will of God.
Neo-Thomist model of the world
Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov cannot be reproached for adhering to Orthodox dogma. Levi Matthew and Yeshua do not look like representatives of the Higher Good. The master “guessed” the Passion of Christ, but he describes it as the suffering of a corruptible person. Yes, the writer’s Yeshua “will not quench the smoking flax.” He reads in the hearts of people (in particular, Pontius Pilate). But His divine essence is revealed later. The former tax collector, evangelist Levi Matthew, looks like an irreconcilable religious fanatic who “incorrectly records what Yeshua said.” Thus, these characters in Bulgakov’s novel are not pure Light, but its messengers. And in Christianity, the messengers of God are angels. But Satanail is also an angel, only a fallen one. And he is not Absolute Evil. Therefore, the meeting between Woland and Matthew Levi is devoid of gospel antagonism (let us recall, for example, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 6).
Plato's model of the world
Let's consider the novel "The Master and Margarita", the content of which we have briefly retold, in the light of the teachings of classical Greek philosophy. Plato imagined the earthly world as the material embodiment of ideas. Pouring downward as emanations, they move away from the source of light. And therefore they are distorted. In the upper world the divine world of ideas remains unshakable, and below is the corruptible, material vale of sorrow. This Platonic model does not answer the question of why the Master did not deserve light, but it does at least explain what peace means. This is a state between the earthly world of sorrows and the Kingdom of Absolute Good, a certain intermediate layer of reality where a calm existence is established human soul. This is exactly what the Master, broken by persecution, wanted - to be alone with Margarita and forget all the horror he experienced in Moscow in the thirties of the twentieth century.
The Image of the Master and the Sorrow of Levi Matthew
Many researchers agree that main character The novel is autobiographical. The writer also burned the first edition of “The Master and Margarita”, and wrote the second “on the table”, realizing that publishing such an “unorthodox” story in the USSR would doom himself to exile in the Gulag. But, unlike his literary hero, Bulgakov did not renounce his brainchild, he released it into this world.
Quotes about the Master present him as a man broken by the system: “I no longer have any aspirations, dreams, and no inspiration either... I’m not interested in anything around me... I’m broken, I’m bored... This novel has become hateful to me, I suffered too much because of it " While in a psychiatric hospital, he hopes that Margarita will forget him. Thus, he betrays her too. Cowardice is not a virtue at all. But an even greater sin is despondency. Margarita says about her lover: “Oh, you are unfortunate, you have little faith... They have devastated your soul.” This explains the sad voice of Levi Matthew. Something unclean cannot enter the Kingdom of the Heavenly Father. But the Master does not strive for the Light.
Model of the world of early Christianity
The original Church represented the material world as the creation of an exclusively evil principle. Therefore, Christians of the first centuries had no need for theodicy, the justification of God for existing evil. They trusted in " new land and the new heaven,” where the truth dwells. This world, they believed, was ruled by the prince of darkness 14:30). Souls striving for the Light, like those tormented by conscience, will be heard and accepted into the heavenly palace. Those who are too mired in their sins, who “loved the world,” will remain in it and will go through new cycles of rebirth, incarnate into new bodies. The characterization of the Master given by Bulgakov himself allows us to judge that this character does not strive for the Light. Unlike Pontius Pilate, he craves only peace - first of all for himself. And Yeshua Ha-Nozri allows him to make this choice, because no one can be driven into the Kingdom of Heaven by force.
Why the Master did not deserve light, but was given peace
Margarita in the novel looks like a more decisive, courageous and purposeful woman than her lover. She is not only the Master's muse. She is ready to fight for him too. Margarita's spiritual nobility manifests itself at Woland's May ball. She doesn't ask for anything for herself. She places her entire heart on the altar of love. Bulgakov contrasts the image of the Master, who has abandoned his novel and is already ready to renounce Margarita, with his main character. Here she is, yes, she would be worthy of the light. But she longs to enter it only hand in hand with the Master. According to Bulgakov, there are other worlds where people find peace and tranquility. Dante Alighieri in " Divine Comedy"describes Limbo, where the souls of the righteous, who do not know the light of Christianity, live without knowing grief. The author of the novel places his lovers there.
Reward or sentence?
We have already answered the question of why the Master did not deserve the light. But how should we perceive his fate - should we rejoice for him or grieve along with Matthew Levi? From a Christian point of view, there is nothing good in being away from God. But, they taught, all souls will one day gain their sight and see the truth. They will turn to God, He will not abandon His children. And when they are cleansed of sins, He will accept them as His Father accepted prodigal son. Therefore, the fate of the Master and Margarita cannot be considered a sentence to eternal alienation from the world. All souls will one day be saved, since their real home is the Kingdom of Heaven. Including Woland. Everyone just has their own repentance.
Description of the presentation Experience and mistakes in the novel by M. A. Bulgakov on slides
Within the framework of the direction, discussions are possible about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, a people, humanity as a whole, about the cost of mistakes on the path to understanding the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes you think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes, without which it is impossible to move forward. life path, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes. Direction characteristics
Methodological recommendations: “Experience and errors” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is less implied, because without errors there is and cannot be experience. Literary hero By making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, he changes, improves, and takes the path of spiritual and moral development. By assessing the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one’s own mistakes, the price of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that a wrong decision or an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also have the most fatal impact on the destinies of others. In literature we also encounter tragic mistakes that affect the destinies of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic area.
1. Wisdom is the daughter of experience. (Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, scientist) 2. Experience is a useful gift that is never used. (J. Renard) 3. Do you agree with folk proverb“Experience is the word people use to call their mistakes”? 4. Do we really need it? own experience? 5. Why do you need to analyze your mistakes? What can you learn from the mistakes of the heroes of the novel “The Master and Margarita”? 6. Is it possible to avoid mistakes by relying on the experience of others? 7. Is it boring to live without making mistakes? 8. What events and impressions in life help a person grow up and gain experience? 9. Is it possible to avoid mistakes when searching for a path in life? 10. A mistake is the next step towards experience 11. What mistakes cannot be corrected? Theme options
What we cannot avoid in this life are mistakes and misconceptions that will haunt us throughout our lives. This is a key point in the psychological attitude of every person - you will always make mistakes, you will always be mistaken and mistaken. And therefore Dear friends, you should treat this normally, not make a disaster out of it, as we were taught, but learn a very valuable and useful lesson from each such situation. Why will you always make mistakes and be misled, because no matter who you are, you don’t know everything about this world, and you will never know everything, this is the law of life, and your whole life is a process of learning. But you can significantly reduce the number of mistakes you make, you can be less mistaken, at least not make mistakes and not be mistaken in obvious situations, and for this you must learn. You can learn in this life from your own or from others’ mistakes. The first option is much more effective, the second is more promising. Human psychology Website of Maxim Vlasov
But still, the main thing that I want to draw your attention to is something else, the main thing comes down to your attitude towards all this. Many of us like to live according to concepts once accepted, holding on to them as a lifeline, and no matter what happens, not changing our minds for anything. This is it main mistake, in a mental attitude, as a result of which a person stops growing. And it also has negative impact on the idea of oneself, of one’s mistakes, delusions and one’s abilities... We all make mistakes and are mistaken, we can all see the same situation differently, based on a number of our own ideas about reality. And this is actually normal, there is nothing scary about it, as it is usually presented. You know that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, which he theorized about. A light beam can reach a speed three times higher than the speed that he considered to be the maximum, that is, 300 thousand km/sec.
Goethe said: “Error is to truth as a dream is to awakening.” Awakening from error, a person turns to the truth with renewed vigor. L.N. Tolstoy believed that mistakes give reason. However... The mind makes mistakes: what is happening is either mutual exchange or mutual deception. The greatest mistake people make in life is when they don't try to live by doing what they enjoy best. (Malcolm Forbes) In life, everyone must make their own mistakes. (Agatha Christie)Aphorisms
The only real mistake is not correcting your past mistakes. (Confucius) If it were not for the mistakes of youth, then what would we remember in old age? If you take the wrong road, you can return; If you make a mistake with a word, nothing can be done. (Chinese last) He who does nothing never makes mistakes. (Theodore Roosevelt) Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. (O. Wilde) Making a mistake and realizing it - this is wisdom. Realizing a mistake and not hiding it is honesty. (Ji Yun)
Bitter experience. Irreparable mistakes. The price of mistakes. Thesis Sometimes a person commits actions that lead to tragic consequences. And, although he eventually realizes that he made a mistake, nothing can be corrected. Often the cost of a mistake is someone's life. Experience that prevents errors. Thesis Life is the best teacher. Sometimes difficult situations arise when a person must make the right decision. Doing right choice, we gain invaluable experience – experience that will help us avoid mistakes in the future. Abstracts
Mistakes, without which it is impossible to move along the path of life. People learn from some mistakes. Thesis Is it possible to live life without making mistakes? I think not. A person walking along the path of life is not immune from a wrong step. And sometimes it is thanks to mistakes that he gains valuable life experience and learns a lot.
Van Bezdomny (aka Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev) is a character in the novel The Master and Margarita, a poet who in the epilogue becomes a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy. In the fate of the poet Ivan Bezdomny, who by the end of the novel turned into a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev, Bulgakov says that the new people created by Bolshevism will turn out to be unviable and, naturally, will die along with the Bolshevism that gave birth to them, that nature does not only tolerate emptiness , but also pure destruction and negation and requires creation, creativity, and true, positive creativity is possible only with the affirmation of the beginning of the national and with the feeling of the religious connection of man and nation with the Creator of the Universe.” Ivan Bezdomny
When meeting with Ivan, then still Bezdomny, Woland urges the poet to first believe in the devil, hoping that by doing so I.B. will be convinced of the truth of the story of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and then will believe in the existence of the Savior. The poet Homeless has found his “ small homeland", becoming Professor Ponyrev (the surname comes from the Ponyri station in the Kursk region), as if thereby joining the origins national culture. However, the new I.B. was struck by the know-it-all bacillus. This man, raised by the revolution to the surface of public life, at first - famous poet, after - a famous scientist. He expanded his knowledge, ceasing to be that virgin youth who tried to detain Woland at the Patriarch's Ponds. But I. B. believed in the reality of the devil, in the authenticity of the story of Pilate and Yeshua, while Satan and his retinue were in Moscow and while the poet himself communicated with the Master, whose behest I. B. fulfilled, refusing poetic creativity in the epilogue.
Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev is convinced that there is neither God nor the devil, and he himself in the past became a victim of a hypnotist. The professor's old faith revives only once a year, on the night of the spring full moon, when he sees in a dream the execution of Yeshua, perceived as a world catastrophe. He sees Yeshua and Pilate peacefully talking on a wide, moonlit road, he sees and recognizes the Master and Margarita. I.B. himself is not capable of true creativity, and the true creator - the Master - is forced to seek protection from Woland in his last refuge. This is how Bulgakov’s deep skepticism regarding the possibility of degeneration for the better of those who were brought into culture and social life With the October Revolution of 1917, the author of “The Master and Margarita” did not see in Soviet reality the kind of people whose appearance was predicted and on whom Prince N. S. Trubetskoy and other Eurasians hoped. Nurtured by the revolution, the nugget poets who emerged from the people, in the writer’s opinion, were too far from the feeling of “the religious connection of man and nation with the Creator of the Universe,” and the idea that they could become the creators of a new national culture turned out to be a utopia. Having “seen the light” and turned from Homeless to Ponyrev, Ivan feels such a connection only in a dream.
A series of guests who pass in front of Margarita on V. b. at the village , was not chosen randomly. The procession is opened by “Mr. Jacques and his wife,” “one of most interesting men“,” “a convinced counterfeiter, a state traitor, but a very good alchemist,” who “became famous for that. . . that he poisoned the royal mistress.” The last imaginary poisoners on V. b. at the village turn out to be Bulgakov's contemporaries. “The last two guests were coming up the stairs. “Yes, this is someone new,” said Koroviev, squinting through the glass, “oh yes, yes.” Once Azazello visited him and, over cognac, whispered advice to him on how to get rid of one person whose revelations he was extremely afraid of. And so he ordered his friend, who was dependent on him, to spray the walls of his office with poison. - What's his name? - asked Margarita. “Oh, really, I don’t know myself yet,” answered Koroviev, “I’ll have to ask Azazello.” - Who's with him? “But this is his most efficient subordinate.” Guests of Woland
During V. b. at the village Not only imaginary poisoners and murderers pass before Margarita, but also genuine villains of all times and peoples. It is interesting that if all the imaginary poisoners at the ball are men, then all the true poisoners are women. The first to speak is “Mrs. Tofana.” The next poisoner on V. b. at the village - a marquise who "poisoned her father, two brothers and two sisters over an inheritance." On V. b. at the village Margarita sees famous libertines and pimps of the past and present. Here is a Moscow dressmaker, who organized a meeting house in her workshop (Bulgakov included V. B. at the village prototype among the participants main character his play “Zoyka’s Apartment”), and Valeria Messalina, the third wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius I (10 -54), the successor of Guy Caesar Caligula (12 -41), also present at the ball.
What is on V. b. at the village A string of murderers, poisoners, executioners, libertines and procurers passes in front of Margarita, not at all by chance. Bulgakov's heroine is tormented by betrayal of her husband and, albeit subconsciously, puts her offense on a par with the greatest crimes of the past and present. The abundance of poisoners and poisoners, real and imaginary, is a reflection in Margarita’s brain of the thought of possible suicide together with the Master using poison. At the same time, their subsequent poisoning, carried out by Azazello, can be considered imaginary and not real, since almost all male poisoners in V. b. at the village - imaginary poisoners. Another explanation for this episode is the suicide of the Master and Margarita. Woland, introducing the heroine to famous villains and libertines, intensifies the torment of her conscience. But Bulgakov seems to leave an alternative possibility: V. b. at the village and all the events associated with him occur only in the sick imagination of Margarita, who is tormented by the lack of news about the Master and guilt before her husband and subconsciously thinking about suicide. Special role on V. b. at the village Frida plays, showing Margarita the version of the fate of the one who crosses the line defined by Dostoevsky in the form of the tears of an innocent child. Frida, as it were, repeats the fate of Margarita in Goethe’s “Faust” and becomes a mirror image of Margarita.
This collective image, which Bulgakov draws. He satirically conveys to us portraits of his contemporaries. It becomes funny and bitter from the images drawn by the author. At the very beginning of the novel we see Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, chairman of MASSOLIT (the union of writers). In fact, this person has nothing to do with real creativity. B. is completely faked by time. Under his leadership, the entire MASSOLIT becomes the same. It includes people who know how to adapt to their superiors and write not what they want, but what they need. There is no place for a true creator, so critics begin persecuting the Master. Moscow of the 20s was also a Variety Show, run by the lover of carnal entertainment Styopa Likhodeev. He is punished by Woland, just like his subordinates Rimsky and Varenukha, liars and sycophants. The chairman of the house management, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, was also punished for bribery. In general, Moscow of the 1920s was distinguished by many unpleasant qualities. This is a thirst for money, a desire for easy money, satisfaction of one’s carnal needs at the expense of spiritual ones, lies, servility to superiors. It was not in vain that Woland and his retinue came to this city at this time. They punish the hopeless severely, and give those who are not yet completely morally lost a chance to improve. Moscow 20s
As we remember, at the beginning of the novel, writers Berlioz and Bezdomny convince their friend that there was no Jesus and that in general all gods are fictitious. Is it necessary to prove that this was “atheism out of fear” (especially from the editor Berlioz)? And so, at the very moment when Ivan Bezdomny “one hundred percent” agreed with Berlioz, Woland appears and asks: if there is no God, then who controls human life? Ivan Bezdomny “angrily” (because he was subconsciously unsure of his words) replied: “The man himself controls.” So: no one in the “Moscow” chapters “manages” anything. Moreover, by myself. Not a single person, starting with Berlioz and Bezdomny. All of them are victims of fear, lies, cowardice, stupidity, ignorance, money-grubbing, lust, self-interest, greed, hatred, loneliness, melancholy. . . And because of all this they are ready to throw themselves into the arms of even the devil himself (which is what they do at every step...). Should Mikhail Bulgakov be given over to the evil spirits? (I. Akimov)
Likhodeev Stepan Bogdanovich is the director of the Variety Show, in which Woland, calling himself a professor of magic, plans a “performance”. Likhodeev is known as a drunkard, a slacker and a lover of women. Bosoy Nikanor Ivanovich is a man who held the position of chairman of a housing association on Sadovaya Street. A greedy thief who the day before embezzled some of the money from the partnership's cash register. Koroviev invites him to conclude an agreement to rent out a “bad” apartment to the guest performer Woland and gives a bribe. After this, the received bills turn out to be foreign currency. Following a call from Koroviev, the bribe-taker is taken to the NKVD, from where he ends up in a mental hospital. Aloysius Mogarych is an acquaintance of the Master who wrote a false denunciation against him in order to appropriate his apartment. Woland's retinue kicked him out of the apartment, and after the trial of Satan, he left Moscow, ending up at Vyatka. Later he returned to the capital and took the position of financial director of Variety. Annushka is a speculator. It was she who broke the container with the purchased sunflower oil at the crossing of tram rails, which was the cause of Berlioz’s death.
(366 words) Are cowardly people really incapable of showing mercy and compassion? I completely share Suvorov’s position and believe that fear pushes us to acts that are cruel to others. Cowardice, understood as timidity, which determines a person’s actions and actions, does not give him the opportunity to do good and act in accordance with moral principles. He is forced to always focus on the stronger and braver, becoming a tool to achieve selfish goals. Or his own weakness forces him to think only about himself.
Cowardice manifests itself most clearly during military operations, when fear for one’s life sometimes forces one to betray one’s country, one’s values and beliefs, thereby hardening a person. Thus, in the work of A. Pushkin “ Captain's daughter“Shvabrin, abandoning his noble honor, goes over to the side of the rebel Emelyan Pugachev in order to remain safe. When the rebels won, the loser became so afraid of his fate that he stooped to beg for forgiveness. However, when the victim joined the enemy camp, not a trace of timidity remained: the hero coldly and vilely forces the woman to belong to him, using his power. This act is based on the fear of losing in a fair fight for the girl’s heart and the humiliation he experienced from betrayal. He wants to rehabilitate himself in his own eyes by forcing Marya to obey. Shvabrin’s cowardice and cruelty are manifested even before this: when, during a duel with Grinev, he stabs him in the back; informs the parents of his opponent about Mironova’s condition in order to prevent the wedding of Masha and Peter. Thus, the root cause of his hardness of heart is weakness of spirit.
Another example of cowardice and hard-heartedness can be the hero of M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” Pontius Pilate, historical character, Procurator of Judea. According to the novel, he sends the philosopher Yeshua (whose prototype is Jesus) to execution, fearing unrest in the city and conflict with local authorities. At the same time, Pontius seems to absolve himself of responsibility for what happened, “washes his hands,” dooming himself to mental torment, and an innocent person to death. He makes only a timid attempt to save the life of this wanderer, but bureaucratic obstacles and political calculations overshadow his virtue. If the hero had been brave, as he once was in battle, he would have defended justice, as required by his professional duty.
Thus, cruelty is an integral “companion” of cowardice, which manifests itself in various life situations. Only brave people who are not afraid to stand up for the truth and risk even their own interests for it are capable of showing compassion and kindness.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
Everything that Bulgakov experienced in his life, both happy and difficult - he gave all his main thoughts and discoveries, all his soul and all his talent to the novel “The Master and Margarita”. Bulgakov wrote “The Master and Margarita” as a historically and psychologically reliable book about his time and people, and therefore the novel became a unique human document of that remarkable era. Bulgakov presents many problems on the pages of the novel. Bulgakov puts forward the idea that everyone is given what they deserve, what you believed in is what you get. In this regard, he also touches on the problem of human cowardice. The author considers cowardice to be the greatest sin in life. This is shown through the image of Pontius Pilate. Pilate was the procurator in Yershalaim. One of those whom he judged is Yeshua Ha-Nozrp. The author develops the theme of cowardice through eternal theme unjust trial of Christ. Pontius Pilate lives by his own laws: he knows that the world is divided into those who rule and those who obey them, that the formula “the slave submits to the master” is unshakable. And suddenly a person appears who thinks differently. Pontius Pilate understood perfectly well that Yeshua did not commit nothing for which he needs to be executed. But for an acquittal, the opinion of the procurator was not enough. He personified the power, the opinion of many, and in order to be found innocent, Yeshua had to accept the laws of the crowd. In order to resist the crowd, a large one is needed. Inner strength and courage. Yeshua possessed such qualities, boldly and fearlessly expressing his point of view. Yeshua has his own philosophy of life: “... evil people no, there are unhappy people in the world.” Pilate was just as unhappy. For Yeshua, the opinion of the crowd means nothing; even being in such a dangerous situation for himself, he strives to help others. Pilate was immediately convinced of Ga-Nosrp's innocence. Moreover, Yeshua was able to relieve the severe headache that tormented the procurator. But Pilate did not listen to his “inner” voice, the voice of conscience, but followed the lead of the crowd. The procurator tried to save the stubborn “prophet” from imminent execution, but he resolutely did not want to give up his “truth.” It turns out that the all-powerful ruler is also dependent on the opinions of others, the opinions of the crowd. Because of the fear of denunciation, the fear of ruining his own career, Pilate goes against his convictions, the voice of humanity and conscience. And Pontius Pilate shouts so that everyone can hear: “Criminal!” Yeshua is executed. Pilate is not afraid for his life - nothing threatens her - but for his career. And when he has to decide whether to risk his career or send to death the person who managed to conquer him with his mind, amazing power his word, something else unusual, he prefers the latter. Cowardice is the main problem of Pontius Pilate. “Cowardice is undoubtedly one of the most terrible vices,” Pontius Pilate hears the words of Yeshua in a dream. “No, philosopher, I object to you: this is the most terrible vice! - the author of the book suddenly intervenes and speaks in his full voice. Bulgakov condemns cowardice without mercy or condescension, because he knows: people who have set evil as their goal - there are, in essence, few of them - are not as dangerous as those who seem ready to advance good, but are cowardly and cowardly. Fear turns good and personally brave people into blind instruments of evil will. The procurator realizes that he has committed treason and tries to justify himself to himself, deceiving himself that his actions were correct and the only possible. Pontius Pilate was punished with immortality for his cowardice. It turns out that his immortality is a punishment. It is a punishment for the choices a person makes in their life. Pilate made his choice. And the biggest problem is that his actions were guided by petty fears. He sat on his stone chair on the mountains for two thousand years and saw the same dream for two thousand years - he couldn’t imagine a more terrible torment, especially since this dream was his most secret dream. He claims that he did not agree on something then, on the fourteenth month of Nisan, and wants to go back to correct everything. Pilate's eternal existence cannot be called life; it is a painful state that will never end. The author still gives Pilate the opportunity to be released. Life began when the Master folded his hands into a megaphone and shouted: “Free!” After much torment and suffering, Pilate is finally forgiven.
- New!
The novel “The Master and Margarita” is the most mystical work of M. A. Bulgakov. But, oddly enough, it is not perceived by the reader as fantasy divorced from reality. The novel is life-affirming, because it raises questions that always concern people:...
It is known that Bulgakov worked on the novel “The Master and Margarita” - the main book of his life - for 12 years. Initially, the writer conceived a novel about the devil, but perhaps by 1930 the plan had changed. The fact is that this year Bulgakov...
The opinion of any person is subjective to one degree or another, so it is difficult (and for some, impossible) to unambiguously agree with N.V.’s statement. Gogol that “art certainly strives for good...”. This is perhaps the first question that arises...
Literary critic B.V. Sokolov believes that “the evil spirits in The Master and Margarita, not without humor, expose human vices to us.” This is true. The encounter with the devil's power brings into the open in the novel what is usually hidden...