The novel "Master Margarita" became not only one of the most famous works Mikhail Bulgakov, but also one of the most mysterious books, the interpretation of which researchers have been struggling with for 75 years. Our review contains 7 keys that reveal some key moments of the novel, lifting the veil of mystery and illustrations for different editions of Bulgakov’s novel.
1. Literary hoax
Scientists know for certain that Bulgakov enthusiastically studied German mysticism of the 19th century. It was after becoming acquainted with treatises on God, demonologies of the Christian and Jewish faith, and legends about the devil that the writer decided to create a book, and all this is mentioned in the work. The writer changed his novel several times.
The book was first written in 1928-1929. Several titles were invented for this novel: “The Juggler with a Hoof”, “The Black Magician” and no Master with Margarita. The central character of the first edition of the novel was the Devil and, in fact, the book was very reminiscent of Faust, only written by a Russian author. But his book never saw the light of day, and very little is known about it, since, having received a ban on a play called “The Cabal of the Holy One,” Bulgakov decided to burn the manuscript. The writer informed the government about his new novel about the Devil, who died in the flames.
The second novel was called "Satan, or the Great Chancellor." The main character of the work is a fallen angel. In this edition, Bulgakov had already invented the Master with Margarita, there was also a place for Woland and his retinue, but she also did not see the light of day.
The writer chose the title “The Master and Margarita” for the third manuscript, which was published by publishing houses; unfortunately, Bulgakov was unable to complete the work.
2. The Many Faces of Woland
If you read the novel without thinking too much, you get the impression that Woland is a positive character who has become a patron of creativity and love, a hero who tries to fight the vices inherent in people. But Woland is the Tempter, and upon careful reading, his many faces become noticeable. In reality, Woland represents Satan, a reinterpreted Christ, a new Messiah, the kind of hero that Bulgakov described him as in his first unpublished manuscripts.
You can understand the many faces of Woland only by carefully reading The Master and Margarita. Only then can one notice the hero’s resemblance to the Scandinavian Odin, turned into a devil by Christian traditions, or to the god Wotan, who was worshiped by ancient Germanic pagan tribes. Woland bears a portrait resemblance to the Freemason and great magician Count Cagliostro, who knew how to predict the future and remembered events a thousand years ago.
Attentive readers will definitely remember the moment when the employees remember the name of the magician and suggest that his name is Faland. Indeed, it is in tune with Woland, but that’s not the only interesting thing. Few people know that the devil is called Faland in Germany.
3. Satan's Retinue
Bright heroes with an ambiguous past in The Master and Margarita were Behemoth, Azazello and Karoviev-Fagot. The writer presented them as instruments of justice used by the devil.
The writer took the image of Azazello, a demon-killer and a demon of the waterless desert from Old Testament. This is the name in these books for the fallen angel who taught people how to create jewelry and weapons. He also taught women to paint their faces, which according to biblical books is considered a lascivious art, and therefore it was this hero of Bulgakov who pushed Margarita onto a dark path by giving her cream. Azazello is an absolute evil who poisons lovers and kills Maigel.
Every reader of the novel remembers Behemoth for the rest of his life. This is a werecat, who is Woland’s favorite jester. The prototype of this character was the mythological beast described in the Old Testament, the devil of gluttony from mystical legends. When composing the image of the cat Behemoth, the writer used information that he learned while studying the story of Anne Desanges. She lived in the 17th century and was possessed by seven devils at once. One of them was a demon from the rank of Thrones, named Behemoth. They depicted him as a monster with the head of an elephant and terrible fangs. The demon looked like a hippopotamus with its short tail, huge belly and thick hind legs, but its hands were human.
The only person in Woland's devilish retinue was Koroviev-Fagot. Researchers cannot determine exactly who the prototype of this Bulgakov character is, but they suggest that its roots go back to the god Vitsliputzli. This assumption is based on a conversation between Bezdomny and Berlioz, in which the name of this Aztec god of war, to whom he made sacrifices, is mentioned. If you believe the legends about Faust, then Vitzliputzli is not a simple spirit of hell, but the first assistant of Satan.
4. Queen Margot
This heroine is very similar to Bulgakov’s last wife. The writer also emphasized in the book “The Master and Margarita” the special connection of this heroine with the French Queen Margot, who was the wife of Henry IV. On the way to Satan's ball, the fat man recognizes Margarita and calls her the bright queen, then he mentions the wedding in Paris, which as a result became the bloody St. Bartholomew's Night. Bulgakov also writes about the Parisian publisher Gessar, who in the novel “The Master and Margarita” takes part in St. Bartholomew's Night. The historical Queen Margarita was a patron of poets and writers. Bulgakov in his book spoke about Margarita’s love for the brilliant writer Master.
5. Moscow – Yershalaim
There are many mysteries in the novel, and one of them is the time in which the events of The Master and Margarita take place. It is impossible to find a single date from which it was possible to continue reporting. The actions date back to May 1-7, 1929, which coincided with Holy Week. In parallel, in the “Pilate Chapters” the actions develop during the week of the 29th or 30th year in Yershalaim, where Holy Week is also described. In the first part of the novel, the actions in these stories develop in parallel; in the second part, they begin to intertwine with each other and then merge into a single story. At this time, history gains integrity and moves into the other world. Yershalaim now goes to Moscow.
6. Kabbalistic roots
When studying the novel, experts came to the conclusion that when writing of this work Bulgakov was interested not only in Kabbalistic teachings. In the mouth of Woland one can sometimes hear the concepts of Jewish mysticism.
There is a moment in the book when Woland says that you should never ask for anything, especially from the strong. In his opinion, people themselves will give and offer. These cabalistic teachings prohibit accepting anything unless it is given by the creator. The Christian faith allows you to ask for alms. Hasidim believe that people are created in the image of God and therefore they are supposed to constantly work.
The concept “about light” can also be traced in the work. He accompanies Woland throughout the book. The moonlight disappears only after Satan and his retinue disappear. Light can be interpreted in different ways; for example, there are teachings about it in the Sermon on the Mount. If you look at everything a little differently, it becomes clear that this concept also coincides with the basic idea of Kabbalistic teachings, according to which the Torah is light. The idea of Kabbalah says that the achievement of the “light of life” depends only on a person’s desires, and this completely coincides with the main idea of the novel about a person’s independent choice.
7. The last manuscript
Bulgakov began writing the latest edition of the book, which was eventually released by publishing houses. Until his death, the writer worked on the creation of this work. The novel took 12 years to complete, and yet it turned out to be unfinished. Scientists cannot figure out the reason. They suggest that the author himself felt little knowledgeable about early Christian texts and Jewish demonology, and an amateur in some matters. Bulgakov gave his last vital energy to his last novel. The last change in the novel was the introduction of Margarita’s phrase about writers following the coffin. It was February 13, 1940, and a month later Mikhail Afanasyevich passed away. His last words to the novel were the phrase “So that they know, so that they know...”.
Continuing the theme of Elena Chernenko, who was able to convey not only the deep images of the characters, but also the mysterious atmosphere that reigns in Bulgakov’s novel.
Remember, once talking about the film, we touched upon the problem of film adaptation - the translation of highly artistic literature into the language of cinema. So, perhaps, no more complex work in this regard, than Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”.
Such a master of Soviet directing as Mikhail Romm even once said that this novel is one of those literary works, on which there is no need to make films at all. They say that it is fundamentally untranslatable into the language of cinema. But the problem here is not only that.
The black mysticism inherent in the novel, as much as it always attracted directors, scared them away. The process of film adaptation was also hindered by Soviet atheistic censorship, which, although it understood that the novel could not be called Christian, but rather an anti-Christian interpretation of the Gospel events, nevertheless could not accept in it such a pressure of mysticism and the triumph of dark forces.
As Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev noted, after “The Master and Margarita,” at least, there is no doubt about the existence of the devil. And Bulgakov himself, by the way, initially thought to call the novel “The Gospel of Woland”, and even “The Gospel of Satan”. Therefore, the words of Vladimir Bortko that he filmed a large anti-Soviet feuilleton seem a little strange, especially since he literally followed the text of the work page by page, not excluding its most terrible, mystical moments.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005, scene of the extraction and ceremonial drinking of human blood):
I drink... your health, gentlemen!
Despite all the dark energy of the fireproof novel, the country's best directors fought for the right to film it as soon as it became available to the public. Danelia, Elem Klimov, Rolan Bykov, even Eldar Ryazanov. But they all tried unsuccessfully to approach the writer’s text. Sometimes, as I said, censorship got in the way. For example, Ryazanov was banned from production without any explanation. But there were also difficulties in finding a cinematic equivalent to Bulgakov’s prose. Take the same cat Behemoth. It seems like a detail, but for many it became a stumbling block. Bortko also suffered with him, and the audience was not completely satisfied with the hefty animated puppet. In a word, what is organic in the book, in the film, although funny, is still rather ponderous.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (director Vladimir Bortko, 2005, scene of Likhodeev watching Bassoon and the cat Behemoth drinking and eating):
I see that you are a little surprised, my dear Stepan Bogdanovich. Meanwhile, there is nothing to be surprised at.
The Hippopotamus cat, Margarita flying on a broomstick - because of all this, some of the directors independently abandoned the idea of making a film. Let's say, if we take foreign cinema, then Federico Fellini himself, who dreamed of staging it, never realized it. Although censorship didn’t bother him. But still, it was abroad that the first film adaptations began to appear. First in Poland in the year seventy-one, then there was an Italian-Yugoslav version in the year seventy-two, and finally again in Poland, already in the year eighty-nine. From foreign productions, actually, that’s all. Moreover, all these versions are considered weak and half-hearted. And then in two thousand and five Bortko’s film appears - a solid one, following literally every word of the writer.
And yet, as heated discussions after the film’s release showed, apparently, any film adaptation of this mystical novel cannot completely satisfy everyone. Even the most cinematic pieces of text, such as, for example, the scene at the Patriarchs, were criticized by many. Although Oleg Basilashvili is generally ominously convincing in the image of Woland with a lecture about how man is suddenly mortal and is not his own master at all.
Someone who recently believed that he was in control of something suddenly finds himself lying motionless in a wooden box. And those around him, realizing that there is no more use for him lying there, burn him in the oven.
The fact that working with the mystical text of a work is a risky test for those who attempt it has long become a commonplace. Bortko, however, does not agree with this. And, nevertheless, he also had various strange troubles on the set. And we managed to film the film only on the second attempt, when we took a church blessing and blessed everything that was connected with the filming process.
A special mystery surrounding domestic film productions of the novel is added by the fact that there is another film adaptation, which few people have seen, in good quality- certainly no one saw it, and most simply never heard of it. Meanwhile, it is precisely this that is the very first domestic film version, filmed back in ninety-four. There Woland was played by Valentin Gaft. His energetically mischievous interpretation of the image may seem even more convincing to some.
Yuri Kara , 1994):
Ah... ummm... Where are your things? Where are you staying?
Nowhere.
Where will you live?
In your apartment.
I'm very pleased. I'm afraid you will be uncomfortable there. And the Metropol has wonderful rooms...
Is there no devil either?
And the devil.
Ivan, be quiet.
There is no devil! This is the punishment. And stop freaking out!
Ha ha ha! No, this is positively interesting! What is it that you have, no matter what you miss - nothing?
During filming, the director of the film, Yuri Kara, had enough opportunities to think about the fact that dark forces do not exist. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain such an incredible number of mystical coincidences and interference. For example, a car with a driver named Koroviev crashed into the director’s car. Six cameramen were changed, and the last of them, Evgeny Grebnev, died shortly after filming, and he was only thirty-seven years old. And finally, the film itself was never seen by the general public. Why this is so - more on that a little later. For now I’ll just say that Valentin Gaft, who played Woland, says that some higher power is preventing the film from being released.
At the same time, it cannot be said that evil somehow triumphs in this film adaptation. Although there is indeed one moment there, which, despite all the external gaiety, is not just anti-God, but, in general, blasphemous. And who knows, maybe that’s why the film never comes out.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (director Yuri Kara, 1994):
And you, Ivan Nikolaich, have great faith in Christ.
Whoa... Black magic has begun.
You need to be consistent (draws a glowing face on the ground with a cane). Please step on this portrait.
But... it's just strange...
I don't want to.
Are you afraid?
I don't think so!
Afraid.
For mercy, professor... He doesn’t believe in any Christ. But... it’s absurd, childishly absurd, to prove your disbelief in this way.
Then there was no need to chatter that “he’s an atheist, a fighter against God.” How do you want to preach to men? What kind of propagandist are you? You're an unfortunate intellectual, that's what you are!
Who? Am I an intellectual?! Am I an intellectual?!! Well then! So! (Jumps up, steps on, rubs his foot, sits down). Here!
And this episode characterizes the darkness of the plan not so much of the film director, but of Bulgakov himself, because Yuri Kara, by and large, did not come up with anything here himself. He only took a scene from early editions of the novel, when it could still be called “The Gospel of Satan.” And as an artist, in general, he had the right to treat Bulgakov’s text in such a way, to use its early editions. Moreover, the peculiarity of the novel is that the canonicity of the final edition is to some extent conditional. As you know, the novel was published without the presence of Bulgakov himself - the writer had long since died by that time - and no one can say with one hundred percent certainty how Bulgakov would ultimately accept the final version, or which one of the many editions he would choose.
That is why Yuri Kara allowed the possibility of some freedom in the interpretation of the work. Yes, even Bortko does not always follow the text literally. Another thing is that in Yuri Kara’s film there is a scene that, in its summary interpretation, borders on bad taste - the scene when Lenin, Hitler and Stalin suddenly turn out to be guests at Woland’s ball. In this farcical moment of the film, it is clearly felt that it was filmed precisely in the post-perestroika years, with their clumsiness and politicization.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (director Yuri Kara, 1994, episode with the meeting of guests before the ball):
Traitor Judas. Ulyanov-Lenin.
I am glad, queen, to attend the ball! I'm very glad.
We are delighted. Felix Dzerzhinsky.
We are delighted! Joseph Stalin.
I admire you, Margarita Nikolaevna.
Generalissimo...
And I wish you all the best.
We are delighted. Adolf Gitler.
Heil... And these are still alive!
And these are specially invited.
So why, after all, does Yuri Kara’s controversial production never reach the audience? Why is the painting lying on the shelf in our super free time? In fact, there is a purely logical explanation. At the beginning, the producers interfered with the film's release. They didn't like that the film was three and a half hours long. They needed two at most. But here the director and actors have already protested. Then another obstacle appeared. The heir of Bulgakov himself, a certain Shilovsky, who cannot be called a direct relative, intervened. The fact is that Bulgakov had no children, and Shilovsky is the son of the writer’s third wife, born from another marriage. They say that he even shot at Mikhail Afanasyevich himself in jealousy. Although, maybe these are rumors.
But the point is that, according to copyright law, which, ironically, came into force almost immediately as soon as the film was completed, it was Shilovsky who became the owner of the writer’s texts. So he banned the release of the film. The reason is a distortion of the canonical edition. At the same time, Shilovsky himself notes that many of the actors in Yuri Kara’s film are stronger than Bortko’s. He includes Mikhail Ulyanov in the role of Pontius Pilate and Nikolai Burlyaev in the role of Yeshua.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (director Yuri Kara, 1994):
Yeshua Ha-Nozri, do you believe in any gods?
God is one. I believe in him.
Then pray to him. However, this will no longer help. No wife?
No. I am alone.
Oh, hated city! If you had been stabbed to death before meeting Judas, it would have been better.
And you would let me go, hegemon. I see that they want to kill me.
Do you really think, unfortunate one, that the Roman procurator will release a man who said what you said? Or do you think I'm ready to take your place?
Hegemon...
Be quiet. Be quiet.
If we abstract from the mystical plot of the novel and talk about the acting, then it is in them, and not in the direction, that the main success of the film lies. The selection of actors here is no less stellar than in Bortko’s film. And the leading actors take advantage of some of the film's weaknesses. Sergei Garmash in the role of Ivan Bezdomny can be considered a real find. At the same time, I’m not saying that Vladislav Galkin failed to cope with the role - he also felt the character well in his own way. And let’s even, before comparing Galkin with Garmash, refresh our memory of his playing.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005, the hero speaks on the phone):
Comrade on duty! Order now that five motorcycles with machine guns be sent to capture the foreign consultant. What?.. Come pick me up, I’ll go with you... Says the poet Homeless from a madhouse. Doctor, what is your address? Are you listening to me? Hello! (Hangs up). Ugliness!
But Ivan Bezdomny, performed by Sergei Garmash, is an absolute fit into the image of the proletarian poet. Moreover, it is interesting that at that time the actor was still almost unknown to anyone. He played so brightly, so convincingly that if the film had been released on time, he, of course, would have immediately become a star. So, the same episode of the novel, but performed by Sergei Garmash.
Police! Comrade on duty! Urgently send five motorcycles with machine guns to capture the foreign consultant. Come pick me up, I’ll go with you... Says the poet Homeless from a madhouse. What's your address?
Karl Marx, thirteen.
Hello! Hello, police! Hello! (Hangs up). Ugliness!
The specificity of this film adaptation lies in the special acting courage. By the way, Valentin Gaft and Alexander Filippenko, who played in both versions, admit that in Yuri Kara’s film there was more improvisation, that it was better able to convey Bulgakov’s humor, phantasmagoric intonation, and the energy of his text.
True, some may think that the actor’s courage is at times excessive, in some ways even reminiscent of the eccentricity of the late Gaidai. But all this can be explained precisely by the peculiarities of directing in the early nineties, which was characterized by such a farcical bias. But this is also to some extent characteristic of Bulgakov’s novel, to take the same image of Koroviev, which is entirely built on grotesquery and exaggeration. This is the complexity of Koroviev’s role. It requires an enchanting, brilliant performance, but the audience should not have the feeling that the actor is overacting.
This was the difficult task that Alexander Abdulov and Alexander Filippenko had. And it’s even hard to say who dealt with it better.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994, the hero speaks on the phone):
Al-leu?.. I consider it my duty to report that our chairman of the housing association at house number three hundred two bis on Sadovaya Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy speculates in currency. IN this moment in his apartment number thirty-five, in the ventilation, in the restroom, in newsprint four hundred dollars. Timofey Kvastsov, a resident of the said house, speaks. I beg you to keep my name secret! I fear the revenge of the above-mentioned chairman.
In general, of course, comparing who played better and who played worse is somewhat unfair. Everyone imagines heroes in their own way. And then some artists switched from one version to another. And yet comparisons inevitably have to be made.
The Master turned out to be interesting in Yuri Kara's film. He was played by Lenkom Theater actor Viktor Rakov. The image he created is noticeably different from Bortkov’s production. Bortko, having chosen Alexander Galibin, an actor with a characteristic anemic dry face, for this role, suggested that he play very minimalistically. In its own way, this is justified, since the Master in the novel is depicted sparingly and even schematically. And yet, perhaps, in Bortko’s work he is too unemotional, representing, as it were, a kind of mask.
The master, performed by Viktor Rakov, as expected from the novel, is exhausted, has the necessary dignity, but at the same time there is a sense of lightness and naturalness in him. Although, however, this is all a matter of taste.
You see, what a strange story. I'm sitting here because of the same thing as you. Precisely because of Pontius Pilate. The fact is that a year ago I wrote a novel about Pilate.
Are you a writer?
I am a master. (Puts on a yarmulke). She sewed it for me with her own hands.
As for Margarita, it’s more complicated. Anastasia Vertinskaya, despite her innate aristocracy, does not always seem completely convincing. In the end, Yuri Kara himself was not too pleased with her. But Anna Kovalchuk, for all her languid beauty, can hardly be called such an impeccable fit into the image.
In general, both the Master and Margarita, despite the fact that their names are stated in the title of the novel, are perhaps not its main characters. There is even an opinion that they perform only a certain function in order to better reveal the mystical plane of existence. This is precisely what occupied Bulgakov, who decided to create a kind of Faust of the twentieth century. Let us remember what he himself said: “I am writing a novel about the devil.” And the title of the work constantly varied around the name of Woland.
And, of course, also a key figure in the structure of the novel, and therefore the film, is Pontius Pilate. It is no coincidence that the very first, still Polish film adaptation, directed by Andrzej Wajda, was called “Pilate and Others.” Pilate excites Bulgakov as the best illustration of a man caught between good and evil, as a problem of conscience. And in the film by Yuri Kara these pangs of conscience strong man Mikhail Ulyanov shows it very accurately.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):
And for the third time we say that we ask for Varravan.
How? Even after my petition? The petitions of the one in whose person the Roman power speaks?
But is the position of governor irremovable?
Fine. So be it... I feel cramped. Closely.
It's stuffy today. There is a thunderstorm somewhere.
It's not because it's stuffy. Because I feel close to you, Caiaphas. Take care, High Priest.
And now about Pontius Pilate performed by Kirill Lavrov. Of course, one cannot help but admit that he deeply felt the role and managed to show the wavering, tormented soul of the powerful of this world. And this despite his advanced age. But still. There is a moment in the novel when Pilate shouts in the voice of the commander of the cavalry guard. So, when Mikhail Ulyanov does this, his angry cry sounds much more convincing.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):
And will the kingdom of Truth come?
It will come, hegemon.
It will never come!!! Never!!!
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):
And will the kingdom of Truth come?
It will come, hegemon.
It will never come! Criminal! Criminal! Criminal!
Pilate occupies much more space in the structure of the novel than Yeshua. In all editions of the work it is never said: “A novel about Yeshua.” Always - “The Romance of Pontius Pilate”. Moreover, as you know, Yeshua is an understated image of Jesus Christ. It is shown as if through Woland's glasses. This creates confusion in the audience's perception - many identify Yeshua with Jesus Christ. In Bulgakov’s text, Yeshua’s behavior is described in the following words: “he was scared, he said touchingly, he smiled ingratiatingly.” And if a writer describes his character this way, then this is not only not a god-man, but also clearly not his hero.
It’s interesting that our directors, although they seem to understand that this is Bulgakov’s character and not Christ, still try to avoid understated characteristics of the image. Bortko invited the strong Bezrukov with a twinkle in his eyes. But Bulgakov’s text is essentially provocative. And under the guise literary character it refutes the very resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other important gospel events. For example, his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. A symbolic event that has become an important holiday for Christians.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):
Is it true that you appeared in Yershalaim through the Susa Gate riding on a donkey and accompanied by a crowd of rabble who shouted greetings to you as if you were some kind of prophet?
I don’t even have a donkey. And I came to Yershalaim exactly through the Susa Gate, but on foot. Accompanied by one Levi Matvey. And no one shouted anything to me, since no one in Yershalaim knew me then.
The peculiarity of Yuri Kara’s film is that, unlike Bezrukov, actor Nikolai Burlyaev tried to create the image of a truly god-man, and not a smiling wandering philosopher. Burlyaev was already an Orthodox man and decided to correct Bulgakov’s text, removing all the pitiful phrases and a request to Pilate for mercy. As a result, of course, it was not possible to play Christ, but the image acquired more inner freedom and divine grandeur.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):
Then you must swear that you didn't do it.
What do you want me to swear to?
At least with your life. Now is the time to swear by it, since it hangs by a thread. Know that.
Don't you think that you have hung her up, hegemon? If so, you are very mistaken.
I can cut this hair.
And that's where you're wrong. Agree that only the one who hung it can cut the hair.
Then Nikolai Burlyaev still regretted that he decided to play someone who was impossible to play. He realized that it was pointless to try to defeat Woland on his own territory. After all, Bulgakov, reducing the image of Christ, finally agrees to the point that Yeshua, through his disciple, asks Woland to take him with him and reward eternal peace Masters. And what is surprising here is not even that the Master deserved not light, but peace. It is surprising that Yeshua, on behalf of Levi Matthew, asks the devil for this. This scene is performed with special pathos in Bortko’s film.
Stills from the film “The Master and Margarita” (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):
He read the Master's work. And asks you to take the Master with you. And rewarded him with peace. Is it really difficult for you to do this?
The spirit of evil.
Nothing is difficult for me to do, and you know this well. Why don’t you take him to your place, into the Light?
He didn't deserve the Light. He deserved peace.
Tell me what will be done. And leave me immediately.
He asks that you take the one who loved and suffered because of him too.
Illustration: Slovik Alexandra
The work “The Master and Margarita” in the form in which we know it now has changed from its very beginning. Mikhail Bulgakov began working on the novel in 1928. The book was written in several versions. Each of the options was imbued with mysticism.
No. 1. Mysticism of Bulgakov
Many people know the fact that the writer was fascinated by the occult sciences. He was particularly interested in 19th century German mysticism. It was during this period that the writer began to create his famous work.
In the first manuscript there was no trace of either our beloved Master or the beautiful Margarita. At the head of the narrative was the Devil himself, and the work was very reminiscent of Faust, only in the Russian way. Moreover, the description of the main character, that is, the Devil himself, was allocated 15 handwritten pages. It seemed that the author personally knew the character.
We will no longer know what was written on these 15 pages, since the first version of the novel was burned.
In the second version of the novel, which was called “Satan, or the Great Chancellor,” the main character is an angel whom God sent from himself to the sinful earth. In this version there is already a place for the Master, and the beautiful Margarita, and Woland with his mysterious retinue. But the reader will not see this novel either.
And finally, the work “The Master and Margarita” in the form in which the whole world knows it is only the third option. The writer never finished it.
No. 2. Woland in his many faces
Reading the novel, one can assume that Woland is not at all negative character, although he is a prototype of the Devil himself. In the novel he is the patron of creativity and love. But it's not that simple.
The writer embodied in his character the Tempter Satan, the Scandinavian Odin, and the ancient German god Wotan all rolled into one. Woland combines a multifaceted image, which in appearance is very similar to the powerful magician Count Cagliostro.
Another interesting point: in Germany the devil is called nothing less than Faland. Is it really close in sound to Woland?
No. 3. Woland's minions
In the work, Woland appears with his retinue. The most memorable for all readers were such bright characters as Azazello, Koroviev-Fagot and the cat Behemoth.
The image of Azazello was taken by the writer from the Bible, or rather from the Old Testament. That was the name of the angel who created such evil on the planet as weapons and jewelry. Azazello also taught the beautiful half of humanity the art of decorating the face, which is a sin of fornication according to the Bible. It was Azazello who became the tempter for Margarita. It was he who gave the magic cream and directed her along a dark path.
Woland's favorite jester is the cat Behemoth. The writer introduced the image of this character after reading the story of Anne Desanges, the abbess of the Loudun Monastery, who lived in the 17th century and was possessed by seven demons. One of them became the prototype of the character of the cat Behemoth. By the way, the writer also had his own Hippopotamus in his life. That was the name of the writer's dog.
The only one human image in the retinue given to Koroviev-Fagot. According to assumptions, this character is the prototype of the Aztec god of war Vitzliputzli.
No. 4. Magnificent Margarita
The image of Margarita is very reminiscent of Bulgakov’s third wife, Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya. The novel also mentions a certain connection between Margarita and the French Queen Margot. If you remember history, Queen Margot favored writers and poets. And in the novel itself one can trace Margarita’s love for the Master.
No. 5. Mysterious time
The curious thing about the novel is that there is not a single mention of the time in which the events take place. It feels like we are flying from one century to another. Also, events move from one city to another - from the mysterious Yershalaim to Moscow.
No. 6. Bulgakov's death list
Elena Shilovskaya and Mikhail Bulgakov The third wife of Mikhail Afanasyevich, Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya, left a note in personal diary a few days before the writer’s death. The lines of that note said that the husband asked to make a certain list, a list of the things that he had done. Bulgakov asked about this so that people would know. Elena Sergeevna considered that this was a kind of delirium of a sick person, and it seemed to her that it was impossible to understand the writer. However, she made a promise to her husband that she would make changes to the novel and send the book to print.
Shilovskaya notices that her husband listened to her every word, and then uttered a rather meaningful phrase, “So that they know.”
Bulgakov’s biographers claim that they were talking about a list of the writer’s enemies – both literary and ideological. Nevertheless, Mikhail Afanasyevich passionately wanted to publish his novel. It is believed that the last phrase in a conversation with his wife meant that readers would receive a certain warning from the writer through his work.
All the many existing books can be divided into two groups: books for the soul and just for reading. With the latter, everything is clear: these are various romance novels with bright covers, detective stories with big titles. These books are read and forgotten, and none of them will become your favorite board books. Everyone has their own definition of the first. A good book means a lot to me. After all, a clever work can give a person much more than just the opportunity to have a good time. She pushes the reader to think, makes him think. Good books you discover them suddenly, but they stay with us for life. And re-reading them, you discover new thoughts and sensations.
Following these arguments, Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” can safely be called a good book. Moreover, my review of this work could consist of nothing but exclamation and question marks: the feeling of admiration and admiration for the Master’s creation is so strong, so mysterious and inexplicable is it. But I’ll try to plunge into the abyss of mystery called “The Master and Margarita.”
Turning to the novel again and again, I discovered something new each time. Any person, reading this work, can find for himself something that is interesting to him, that excites and occupies his mind. You need to read the novel “The Master and Margarita”, and then... romantics will enjoy the Love of the Master and Margarita as the purest, most sincere, desired feeling; worshipers of God will hear a new version old story Yeshua; philosophers will be able to rack their brains over Bulgakov’s riddles, because behind every line of the novel there is Life itself. The persecution of Bulgakov, the censorship of RAPP, the inability to speak out openly - all this forced the author to hide his thoughts and his position. The reader finds and reads them between the lines.
The novel “The Master and Margarita” is the apotheosis of the entire work of Mikhail Bulgakov. This is his most bitter and most heartfelt novel. The pain and suffering of the Master from his lack of recognition is the pain of Bulgakov himself. It is impossible not to feel the author's sincerity, his genuine bitterness, sounding in the novel. In The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov writes partly the story of his life, but calls people by other names, describing their characters as they really existed. His enemies are depicted in the novel with evil irony, turning into satire. Rimsky, Varenukha, Styopa Likhodeev, “devoted” artists who sow only bad taste and falsehood. But Bulgakov’s main opponent in the novel is Mikhail Aleksandrovich Berlioz, chairman of MASSOLIT, read RAPP. This is who decides destinies on the literary Olympus, this is who decides whether a writer is worthy of being called “Soviet”. He is a dogmatist who does not want to believe the obvious. It is with his consent that works that do not correspond to the ideological standards of the writers are rejected. Berlioz broke the fate of the Master and many others who do not seek small joys and devote themselves with all passion to their work. Who is taking their place? The author takes us to the House of Writers, where the main life is in full swing in the Griboyedov restaurant. The writer wastes all his ardor on petty intrigues, on running around offices, on eating all sorts of delicacies, and so on. That is why we see an almost complete absence of talented literature during the reign of Berlioz.
Bulgakov appears somewhat different and unusual to the readers in the chapters dedicated to Yeshua. We see the similarity of this biblical character with the author. According to contemporaries, Mikhail Bulgakov was an honest, sincere person. Just like Yeshua, he brought goodness and warmth to his loved ones, but, like his hero, he was not protected from evil. However, the writer does not have that holiness, the ability to forgive weaknesses, there is not that gentleness inherent in Yeshua. With a sharp tongue, merciless satire, and evil irony, Bulgakov is closer to Satan. This is what the author makes the judge of all those mired in vice. In the original version Grand Duke Darkness was alone, but, restoring the burned novel, the writer surrounds him with a very colorful retinue. Azazello, Koroviev, and the cat Behemoth were created by the Master for small pranks and tricks, while the messir himself has more significant matters ahead of him. Bulgakov shows him as the arbiter of destinies, giving him the right to punish or pardon. In general, the role of black forces in the novel “The Master and Margarita” is unexpected. Woland appears in Moscow not to encourage, but to punish sinners. He comes up with an unusual punishment for everyone. For example, Styopa Likhodeev escaped with only a forced trip to Yalta. The director of the variety show, Rimsky, was punished more severely, but was left alive. And the most difficult test awaits Berlioz. A terrible death, a funeral turned into a farce, and, finally, his head in the hands of the sir himself. Why is he so severely punished? The answer can be found in the novel. The biggest sinners, according to the author, are those who have lost the ability to dream, invent, and whose thoughts follow a measured path. Berlioz is a convinced, inveterate dogmatist. But he is in special demand. The Chairman of MASSOLIT is in charge of the souls of people, directing their thoughts and feelings. He is entrusted with selecting books on which subsequent generations are raised. Berlioz is from the breed of those pseudo-literators with whom Bulgakov fought all his life. And the Master takes revenge on his enemies, forcing the heroine of the novel, Margarita, to defeat the hated House of Writers. He takes revenge for bullying, for persecution, for his broken destiny, for desecrated works. And it is impossible to condemn Bulgakov - after all, the truth is on his side.
But the author put not only dark, gloomy feelings into his favorite creation. “Love jumped out in front of us... and struck us both at once...” These words open the kindest, brightest pages of the novel. This is the love story of the Master and Margarita. The faithful assistant and wife of the writer Elena Sergeevna was reflected in the image of Margarita - the most sensual image. Only the love of Bulgakov’s half-saint, half-witch saved the Master, and Woland gives them the happiness they deserve. Having gone through many trials, but maintaining their love, the Master and his Muse leave. So what remains for the reader? How did the novel-life end?
“This is the end, my student...” - last words Masters. They are addressed to Ivan Bezdomny. The poet has changed a lot since we met him on the first pages of the novel. That old, mediocre, insincere, false Ivan disappeared. The meeting with the Master transformed him. Now he is a philosopher, eager to follow in the footsteps of his Teacher. This is who remains among the people and will continue the work of the Master, the work of Bulgakov himself.
Every page, every chapter of the novel made me think, dream, worry and be indignant. I discovered a lot of new and interesting things. "The Master and Margarita" is not just a book. This is a whole philosophy. Philosophy of Bulgakov. Its main postulate can probably be called the following thought: every person must, first of all, be a thinking and feeling person, which for me is Mikhail Bulgakov. And if, as R. Gamzatov said, “the longevity of a book depends on the degree of talent of its creator,” then the novel “The Master and Margarita” will live forever.
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 topics 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. This is a few storylines, many heroes, action development over a long period of time. The novel is fantastic (sometimes called phantasmagorical). But the most striking feature of the work is its “novel within a novel” structure. 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 millennia 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”. The public, maddened by material wealth, representatives of the elite, greedy for money, the antics of Koroviev and Behemoth acutely and clearly describe the ills of the modern society of the writer.
Love theme embodied in the master and Margarita and gives the novel tenderness and softens many poignant 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