There is a clear parallel between the fate of Yeshua and the suffering life of the Master. The connection between the historical chapters and the contemporary chapters strengthens the philosophical and moral messages of the novel.
In real terms, the narrative depicted life Soviet people in the 20–30s of the twentieth century, showed Moscow, the literary environment, representatives different classes. Central characters here are the Master and Margarita, as well as Moscow writers in the service of the state. The main problem that worries the author is the relationship between the artist and the authorities, the individual and society.
The image of the Master has many autobiographical features, but one cannot equate him with Bulgakov. The Master's life reflects in artistic form the tragic moments of the writer's life. The master is a former unknown historian who abandoned his own surname, “like everything else in life,” “had no relatives anywhere and almost no acquaintances in Moscow.” He lives immersed in creativity, in understanding the ideas of his novel. As a writer, he is concerned with eternal, universal problems, questions of the meaning of life, the role of the artist in society.
The very word “master” takes on symbolic meaning. His fate is tragic. He is serious, deep, talented person existing under a totalitarian regime. The Master, like I. Faust, is obsessed with the thirst for knowledge and the search for truth. Freely navigating the ancient layers of history, he searches in them for the eternal laws by which human society is built. For the sake of knowing the truth, Faust sells his soul to the devil, and Bulgakov’s Master meets Woland and leaves with him from this imperfect world.
The Master and Yeshua have similar traits and beliefs. The writer allocated little space to these characters in the overall structure of the novel, but in terms of their meaning these images are the most important. Both thinkers have no roof over their heads, are rejected by society, both are betrayed, arrested and, innocent, destroyed. Their fault lies in incorruptibility, self-esteem, devotion to ideals, and deep sympathy for people. These images complement each other and feed each other. At the same time, there are differences between them. The master was tired of fighting the system for his novel and voluntarily withdrew, while Yeshua went to execution for his beliefs. Yeshua is full of love for people, forgives everyone, the Master, on the contrary, hates and does not forgive his persecutors.
The Master does not profess religious truth, but the truth of fact. Yeshua - tragic hero, created by the Master, whose death he sees as inevitable. With bitter irony, the author introduces the Master, who appears in a hospital gown and himself tells Ivan that he is crazy. For a writer, living and not creating is tantamount to death. In despair, the Master burned his novel, which is why “he didn’t deserve light, he deserved peace.” One more thing brings the heroes together common feature: They don’t feel who will betray them. Yeshua does not realize that Judas betrayed him, but he has a presentiment that a misfortune will happen to this man.
It is strange that the Master, who is closed and distrustful by nature, gets along with Aloysius Mogarych. Moreover, already being in a madhouse, the Master “still” “misses” Aloysius. Aloysius “conquered” him with “his passion for literature.” “He did not calm down until he begged” the Master to read him “the entire novel from cover to cover, and he spoke very flatteringly about the novel...”. Later, Aloysius, “having read Latunsky’s article about the novel,” “wrote a complaint against the Master saying that he kept illegal literature.” The purpose of betrayal for Judas was money, for Aloysius - the Master’s apartment. It is no coincidence that Woland claims that the passion for profit determines people's behavior.
Yeshua and the Master each have one disciple. Yeshua Ha-Notsri - Matthew Levi, Master - Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev. At first, the students were very far from the position of their teachers, Levi was a tax collector, Ponyrev was a poorly gifted poet. Levi believed that Yeshua was the embodiment of Truth. Ponyrev tried to forget everything and became an ordinary employee.
Having created his heroes, Bulgakov traces the changes in the psychology of people over many centuries. The Master, this modern righteous man, can no longer be as sincere and pure as Yeshua. Pontius understands the injustice of his decision and feels guilty, while the Master’s persecutors confidently triumph.

Master. In the early edition of the novel, when the image was not yet clear to M. Bulgakov himself, the title character was called Faust. This name was conditional, caused by an analogy with the hero of Goethe’s tragedy, and only gradually the concept of the image of Margarita’s companion, the Master, became clearer.

The Master is a tragic hero, largely repeating the path of Yeshua in the modern chapters of the novel. The thirteenth (!) chapter of the novel, where the Master first appears before the reader, is called “The Appearance of the Hero”:

Ivan [Bezdomny. - V.K.] lowered his legs from the bed and peered. From the balcony, a shaved, dark-haired man with a sharp nose, anxious eyes and a tuft of hair hanging over his forehead, about thirty-eight years old, cautiously looked into the room... Then Ivan saw that the newcomer was dressed in sick clothes. He was wearing underwear, shoes on his bare feet, and a brown robe was thrown over his shoulders.

— Are you a writer? - the poet asked with interest.

“I am a master,” he became stern and took out of his robe pocket a completely greasy black cap with the letter “M” embroidered on it in yellow silk. He put on this cap and showed himself to Ivan both in profile and front to prove that he was a master.

Like Yeshua, the Master came into the world with his truth: this is the truth about the events that happened in ancient times. M. Bulgakov seems to be experimenting: what would happen if the God-man came to the world again today? What would his earthly fate be? An artistic study of the moral state of modern humanity does not allow M. Bulgakov to be optimistic: the fate of Yeshua would have remained the same. Confirmation of this is the fate of the Master’s novel about the God-Man.

The master, like Yeshua in his time, also found himself in a conflictual, dramatic situation: power and the dominant ideology actively oppose his truth - the novel. And the Master also goes through his tragic path in the novel.

In the name of his hero - Master 1 - M. Bulgakov emphasizes the main thing for him - the ability to be creative, the ability to be a professional in his writing and not betray his talent. Master means creator, creator, demiurge, artist, and not a craftsman 2. Bulgakov's hero is a Master, and this brings him closer to the Creator - the creator, the artist-architect, the author of the expedient and harmonious structure of the world.

But the Master, unlike Yeshua, turns out to be untenable as a tragic hero: he lacks that spiritual, moral strength which Yeshua demonstrated both during his interrogation by Pilate and at his hour of death. The very title of the chapter (“The Appearance of the Hero”) contains tragic irony (and not just high tragedy), since the hero appears in a hospital gown as a patient in a psychiatric hospital, and he himself announces to Ivan Bezdomny about his madness.

Woland says about the Master: "He got a good finish". The tormented Master renounces his novel, his truth: “I no longer have any dreams and I don’t have any inspiration either... Nothing around me interests me except her [Margarita. - V.K.]... I was broken, I’m bored, and I want to go to the basement... I hate it, this novel... I I've suffered too much because of him."

The Master, like Yeshua, has his own antagonist in the novel - this is M.A. Berlioz, editor of a thick Moscow magazine, chairman of MASSOLIT, spiritual shepherd of the writing and reading flock. For Yeshua in the ancient chapters of the novel, the antagonist is Joseph Caiaphas, “the acting president of the Sanhedrin, the high priest of the Jews.” Caiaphas acts on behalf of the Jewish clergy as the spiritual shepherd of the people.

Each of the main characters - both Yeshua and the Master - has his own traitor, the incentive for which is material gain: Judas of Kiriath received his 30 tetradrachms; Aloisy Mogarych - Master's apartment in the basement.

Read also other articles on the work of M.A. Bulgakov and the analysis of the novel "The Master and Margarita":

• 3.1. Image of Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Comparison with the Gospel Jesus Christ
• 3.2. Ethical issues of Christian teaching and the image of Christ in the novel
• 3.4. Yeshua Ha-Nozri and the Master

1) The master and Bulgakov are related by some unpleasant episodes from the life of the writer himself, which he transferred into the novel. For example, persecution by critics (novel White Guard and the play Days of the Turbins based on it), and more generally, the confrontation with the state, which also regulates cultural life. Like, for example, writing works “on the table”, works written but not published during life (Heart of a Dog).
2) What the Master and Yeshua have in common can be called life path which leads them to suffering. The Master's creativity brings upon him devastating criticism and persecution, the teachings of Yeshua lead him to execution. Also, the common point of the two heroes is that both were betrayed by the people who were next to them. The Master was slandered by Aloysius Magarych, whom the Master later did not consider bad even after remaining homeless and ending up in the Stravinsky clinic. He simply did not see the presence of evil in him. Which is comparable to the fact that Yeshua proposed calling absolutely all people good. And Yeshua was betrayed by Judas, about whom he also spoke positively.
3) The difference between the heroes is the determination to follow the path of suffering to the end. Broken under a hail of devastating reviews, trying to stop him, the Master burned his novel, and Yeshua, without renouncing his words, doomed himself to death.
4) For the Master, the systematic persecution first caused misunderstanding, then despondency, and finally a state close to mental disorder. His fears even found some kind of figurative expression in his head. He described it as the presence of some terrible octopus nearby. The only source of strength for him was the presence of Margarita nearby. But she needed to leave. And she had to leave when the Master’s condition was especially difficult. And then, in his words, he went to bed sick, and woke up sick. And almost simultaneously with the Master’s illness, another misfortune overtook him; through the fault of Aloysius, whom he considered a friend, the Master lost his home.
5) The master, realizing his condition as painful, got to the point that even the most ordinary trams scared him, and having heard somewhere about Stravinsky’s clinic, he simply went to it on foot. He could have frozen, because in winter he had no warm clothes except a coat, but by luck he was picked up by a driver who was delayed on the way due to a car breakdown.
6) The clinic appears as a symbolic place of rebirth for several characters who, through Woland’s fault, ended up in it; this is described in the epilogue. But first of all - the poet Ivan Bezdomny, who, having become the first witness of Woland's presence in the city, entered the clinic as a bad poet (...are your poems good? - Terrible.), and came out a completely different person who will become a professor-historian. And he will give up the flashy pseudonym Bezdomny, for the sake of his usual surname Ponyrev. In its own way, this can also be considered as the incomplete departure of the image of the Master from the novel after death. Because the Master, telling Ivan in the ward about his life, says that a couple of years ago he was a historian.

M.A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is very difficult to read. At first glance, this is a novel about evil spirits, about Satan and his gang who caused trouble in Moscow. But after reading individual episodes again, you understand: the author wanted to tell us a completely different story.
All the main characters of the novel deserve special attention. But we will look at two figures that, in my opinion, carry the main semantic load. This is the Master and Yeshua Ha-Nozri. These images have a lot in common, but also quite a lot of differences. Let’s try to find out what Bulgakov wanted to tell his readers through their lips.
The master is a former historian who writes the main work of his life - a novel about Pontius Pilate. Why did the Master choose such a controversial image - a cruel tyrant of the Roman Empire? What attracted him to this man? The Master's novel takes us two thousand years ago. The fifth procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, decides to execute the vagabond Yeshua Ha-Nozri for calling people to a new life. The master shows in the novel the inevitability of execution. According to a friend biblical story, two thousand years ago Jesus Christ was executed in the same way. The Master has his own truth. The religiosity of the novel does not suit critics, and they prohibit its publication. And here the Master loses the meaning of life and the truth that he put into his novel.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri is a poor wanderer who walks from city to city and tells people about the truth. What truth does he convey? For Yeshua no evil people, he calls everyone a “good person.” For him, everyone is equal: Pontius Pilate, and his servant Ratboy, and the tax collector Levi Matthew, and the traitor Judas and Kiriatha. Yeshua tells Pilate that there will soon be a thunderstorm and the procurator’s head will pass. That Pilate is very lonely and doesn’t love anyone, this makes it hard for him. That you can’t put all the love into a dog. That the most terrible vice of a person is cowardice.
Yeshua carries his truth to the end, unlike the Master. Before his execution, he still believes in good people and does not renounce love for people. The master burns his novel and abandons it, saying that it brought him a lot of trouble. In a conversation with Woland, the Master says that he no longer believes in anything and he doesn’t need anything.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri, to some extent, copies the image of the Creator; he influences the consciousness of people only with his own faith and love. The master is also a creator in some way. WITH light hand Margarita, he deserved this title. “You are the Master...” she said and admired his talent; she knew the novel by heart.
Yeshua loves people, even when he is on the verge of death. He tries to look into the eyes of his “killers” and smile at them. He forgave everyone for his death: both Pontius Pilate and his traitor. And the Master hates his “accusers”. The critic Latunsky and the chairman of MASSOLIT Berlioz became hateful to him.
Yeshua dies physically, but he lives in the soul of Pontius Pilate and even makes him believe in the truth that he preached. He is waiting for him on the lunar road, where there is only freedom and eternal peace.
The master also dies. It is no longer possible for him to live in this world that he hates. He receives eternal peace thanks to his Margarita. In a deal with Woland, the Master returns his romance and freedom. But his weakness is still obvious. Without Margarita's strength, he would not have been able to do anything and would not have dared to do anything.
The two heroes of Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” are so similar and so different. Each of them has their own role in this novel.

The Master in Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is a man who was touched by God’s providence, and he instantly saw the light for free creativity. He is trying to write a new “gospel” to bring the word of God into our world, mired in sins and depravity, like ancient Yershalaim. The author does not introduce us to the Master right away, but we meet Woland from the first pages of the novel, because he is the Prince of this world. He is also an earthly judge, the master of human justice, prisons, and he is embodied in the host of earthly sinners, libertines, thieves and murderers.
The publican Levi Matvey from the Master's novel has his new incarnation in Ivan Bezdomny. Bulgakov assigns this important role of the first and only apostle of the “new coming” to the atheist-virsheplaiter, the blasphemer of the Christian faith. Both go backstage, having played their role, like everyone else minor characters, so that the figure of the Master, the creator of the “everyday” novel about Christ, appears more clearly.
Prince Christ has already appeared in Russian literature in the form of the crazy Prince Myshkin from the pen of F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “The Idiot”. We also meet the master for the first time in a madhouse. He - mirror reflection Yeshua Ha-Nozri, whom he himself brought out in his novel and whom everyone also considers crazy. At first glance, the Master and Yeshua are not alike. And this dissimilarity intensifies as the Master fulfills the mission of Yeshua, who sent him to this world.
But the Soviet incarnation of Christ on earth does not go to the cross. Like his hero, the Master sensitively responds to human suffering and pain: “I, you know, can’t stand noise, fuss, violence and all sorts of things like that. I especially hate... screaming, be it a scream of suffering, rage or some other -some scream." The master is lonely, like Yeshua: “The cold and fear, which became my constant companion, drove me into a frenzy. I had nowhere to go...” Yeshua, in turn, tells Pilate: “I have no permanent home... I travel from the city in town".
Yeshua commits moral feat, even in the face of painful death, remaining firm in his preaching of universal kindness and free-thinking. The master also suffers for this. The teachings of Yeshua and the work of the Master are rejected by the world, which loves evil. But unlike Yeshua, the Master was broken by the suffering he endured, forced to give up creativity, to burn the manuscript: “I hated this novel, and I’m afraid. I’m sick. I’m scared.” Despair is one of the most terrible mortal sins. Yeshua completely fulfilled the will of God and went to the cross.
An important difference between the Master and Yeshua is his desire to “ground” events, to record on paper an everyday episode from the era of the decline of the Roman Empire. Yeshua not only does not write anything himself, but has a sharply negative attitude towards the writings on the parchment of his voluntary “disciple-apostle” Levi Matthew. The divine word, like music, cannot be reliably transferred to paper. In this, Yeshua is directly opposed to the image of the Master who is trying to build literary composition from the elusive and multivariate course of fate called life.
The Master turns out to be a genuine and deeper antagonist of Yeshua than even his persecutor Pontius Pilate, to whom “little is given” and from whom “little is asked.” The master does not share the idea of ​​forgiveness; it is difficult for him to believe that every person is kind. Perhaps this is why the master finds himself a patron and intercessor in the devil-Woland, but again by the will of Christ himself, transmitted through Matthew Levi.
And here the repentance of the author himself is visible. Bulgakov had to experience almost everything that the Master experienced in his “basement” life. No wonder these pages are so bright and convincing. The master and Bulgakov have a lot in common. Both are passionate about history, both live in Moscow. They create their novels in secret from everyone. There is even an outward resemblance: “From the balcony, a shaven, dark-haired man of about thirty-eight years old, with a sharp nose, anxious eyes and a tuft of hair hanging over his forehead, cautiously peered into the room.” By the way, Bulgakov was the same age when he sat down to write his novel.
There is another indirect similarity: Bulgakov read for the first time at the age of eight " Dead Souls"N.V. Gogol, and then learned the novel-poem almost by heart. Gogol burned the second part" Dead souls", so did the Master.
The story of the novel about Pontius Pilate appears before us as a living stream of time, moving from the past to the future. And modernity is only a link connecting the past with the future. Therefore, the literary fate of the Master in many ways repeats the literary fate of Bulgakov himself, because literature is part of the flow of life, or more precisely, its reflection in the flow of time.
And besides, “The Master and Margarita” accurately reflected the situation in the USSR in the 30s. Through the feeling of fear that gripped the Master, the reader is conveyed the terrible atmosphere of the totalitarian politics of terror, in the conditions of which writing the truth about the autocracy of Pontius Pilate, about the tragedy of the preacher of truth and justice Yeshua was simply dangerous, not to mention reckless.
The Master's night confession to Ivan Bezdomny at Stravinsky's clinic is striking in its tragedy. The situation of persecution in which Bulgakov found himself in the second half of the 30s of the last century is very reminiscent of the circumstances that the Master tells Ivan Bezdomny: “constantly expecting the worst.” And he concludes with the thought: “Completely joyless days have come. The novel was written, there was nothing more to do...”
Bulgakov and the Master have one common tragedy - the tragedy of non-recognition. Through the mouth of Yeshua, the Master reproaches his contemporaries for cowardly cowardice under the pressure of ideological 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’s powers give out: “And then came... the stage of fear. No, not the fear of these articles... So, for example, I began to be afraid of the dark. In a word, the stage of mental illness came.” 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. The idea of ​​the novel “The Master and Margarita” about the highest purpose of art, designed to affirm good and resist evil, is extremely important. The very appearance of the Master, a man in eternal doubt, in the aspiration for beauty and intoxication with worldly life, in a thirst for glory, is sinful from the point of view of Christian ethics. It is here that Bulgakov comes to a revelation - modern man can never be saved from spiritual filth and will never deserve forgiveness.