Andrey Deryagin. Reading Experience: "The Master and Margarita" - Priest

To be honest, I'm confused again. It is completely unclear to me why this book is such a success and has become Bulgakov's most popular work. Especially against the background of the fact that the "White Guard" is a hundred times better. MiM is published more and more often than The Lord of the Rings (only in 2012, 12 different editions were published in Russia alone!). In England, it was included in the list of "the best books of the 20th century", and even fashionable clutches appeared with applique in the form of the cover of the British edition of the book - in my opinion, tasteless and made in the style of "Harry Potter". A kind of "Bulgakov in the style of Prada." The clothing line of which, as everyone knows, is worn by the Devil, that is, Woland. And Jesus wears black underpants by Calvin Klein. OK. Let's move on to the book.

I have read the novel twice. Once at the age of nineteen, and I liked the book. But I read it as a fashionable bestseller (!), and I didn’t look for any “hidden meanings” there. Then I tried to read two years later, already being a different person, matured and faced with real life problems. And this time it was as if I had a completely different book in front of me. Boring, banal, ordinary.

Here lies the clue. Mikhail Afanasyevich, as we know, was a fairly petty-bourgeois man. Speaking in modern terms - glamorous. The limit of his dreams all his life was “his own cozy apartment with beautiful, good furniture, bookshelves, carpets, dishes”, as well as a beautiful woman at his side, a bottle of cognac and a snack. Well, and a good dose of opiates to the heap.

This philistinism sharply distinguishes Bulgakov from the environment of all great Russian literature. And if you understand this, and also analyze what I wrote about my reader's adultery with this book, then you immediately slap your forehead and feel how a bright light bulb flashes there. Yes, here it is - the secret of this mysterious work! On a surface!

This secret lies in the fact that MiM is an ideal BESTSELLER, a prototype of all subsequent pop books - and, we admit, the pinnacle of this direction.

This book will invariably arouse the admiration of all glamorous, unaware of real life problems, romantically inclined students, young ladies, etc. Those about whom Alexander Nevzorov said that they supposedly sit on a pink plush sofa, see pink dreams and watch a special pink TV.

Bulgakov wrote the novel for ten years, already being a complete drug addict, almost dying, and yet he found the ideal formula. I will try to briefly outline its components.

1. Catchy, beautiful, intriguing name, which itself flies off the tongue. A book with this title is a must read.

2. Lightweight, carefully finished tongue. The gaze does not cling to the lines, but slides over them.

3. Rapidly unpredictable plot with flashbacks and polyphonic structure. We jump from one bright event to another, from hero to hero. It even now makes an impression, but then - check it out! - IN THE WHOLE WORLD LITERATURE THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE THIS!

4. Moral uncertainty. Even more - perversion. Scandalous, to be honest. The protagonist is actually not a hero at all, but a finished man. Margo is a venal petty-bourgeois woman who gives herself to an unloved person for a roof, a table and rags, then cheating on him with a light heart. A witch who pardoned a woman who buried her own child in the ground. Well, about the "good Devil" I generally keep quiet. This character is present in all ladies' mystical novels. Judas is also good and attractive.

5. Scenes of violence in the style of Quentin Tarantino, with jokes and jokes, quite shocking and, frankly, demonstrating the teenage cruelty of the author, who sent all his wives for abortions. Yes, and he changed them quite ruthlessly. Well, right Henry viii!

6. Element of a fairy tale, mysticism, horror.

7. Really beautiful, although completely implausible, love line. Such a dirty, criminal, fatal relationship in the style of the English Patient. For middle-aged men and women entangled in their "leftists". I think they even shed a tear, recognizing themselves in the novel and feeling sorry.

8. At the same time, as I said, the novel is not at all cheap, and it is above the level of any "Shades of Gray" and "Wet Nuances". Nevertheless, the characters are very complex, deep, you empathize with them, and the love of a rich, strong character and, apparently, a sexy bourgeois woman for a poor, sick, but talented and spiritual writer is really touching. Nobody writes like that anymore.

9. The last point is obviously the most important. Despite the above - in MIM there is also a hint of some highly spirituality and "hidden meanings" - in the form of that very "novel within a novel." Of course, according to the Yershalaim chapters, it is clear that Bulgakov did not understand a damn thing in the Gospel, but this is not a problem, since most readers did not understand anything in it either.

So let's recap. I read MIM. What do I have in this situation? Some pluses! And not a single downside. I enjoy light, relaxed reading. At the same time, I read a “fashion bestseller”, that is, I am also in the “trend”, not some kind of sucker buried in Umberto Eco. And besides, this is a recognized classic, real high literature, that is, I also have a taste. Moreover, the author left an understatement in the plot, smart people talk about "nine levels of hidden meanings." True, I don’t understand these meanings, and I don’t need them - I have enough plot, meat, love and satire - but I still feel like an intellectual, besides. If others ask: “What are you reading?”, You can answer with pathos: “Masters and Margarita” - and see respect in their eyes.

Spoiler (plot reveal) (click on it to see)

Those who have their favorite MIM book are really proud of it, as I don’t know what, it’s even embarrassing to look at, and others look at them as if they were some kind of elite. I answer.

About "hidden meanings". I don't know if they are there - you need to read M.A.'s diaries. But for fifty years, critics and literary critics have not been able to say exactly what these meanings are. I understand - two, three levels. But nine! Personally, Bulgakov does not impress me at all as a person capable of creating such a “literary onion”. It seems to me that if there are many difficult-to-define “hidden meanings” in a novel, there is a doubt whether they exist at all, or whether these are just speculations.

There is, however, one version that seems interesting to me. Like that MiM is such a rebus on the principle of "topsy-turvy", such a dying figure for the descendants of Mikhail Afanasyevich. Like the fact that people who take the novel at face value are deeply and tragically mistaken.

In fact, both the Master and the bug Margo, and Woland are negative characters. And the mission of the Master and Margarita was to prevent Evil from playing its ball in Moscow. Actually, there is only one positive character in the novel - Yeshua. The master created a novel about him, as something higher than himself, a true example of fearlessness and fortitude, and he himself died ingloriously along with his mistress.

Of course, this version is doubtful. And surely Bulgakov wrote the novel with a different intention. But that was how it had to be.

Score: 6

A talented satire on the union of the 20s of the last century, only in my unpretentious opinion, all the hype around it, is unjustified.

Bulgakov settles his personal scores there - with atheists, with the house of writers, with Soviet life ...

(a simple example, in the course of the book, Woland (The Devil) punishes people for their sins, for stinginess, meanness and treason, but he kills Berlioz for nothing? although no, there is a reason, because Berlioz is an atheist, and does not believe in anything god or devil.

Looks like a serious sin :-))

There are dozens of books that, in my opinion, are MUCH superior: "Perfumer" "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" "Trainspotting" "Chapaev and the Void" "Generation P" "Affair with Cocaine" and so on and so forth.....

Why is she the most talked about?

Maybe because it was banned at one time, and the forbidden fruit, as you know .... or because "Woland" indulges the child's hidden fantasies of the reader, when, like a real superman, he cracks down on all the offenders of ordinary people?

deep philosophical meaning would hardly attract much attention .....

If I defiled another idol, you can unleash all the dogs on me.

Just first formulate for yourself at least 5 reasons why you like this book so much. (only without “every time I find something new for myself”, otherwise it’s already sickening)

Then I will believe that this is something more than a herd mentality.

Score: 4

Speaking about "MiM" it is necessary to "keep in mind" three points:

1. we are reading an unfinished work - Bulgakov continued to work on the novel until his last days;

2. Bulgakov hoped for the publication of the novel and, when working on the text, included the so-called "internal editor";

Accordingly, it is difficult to talk about how the final author's version of "MiM" could look like.

Nevertheless, we are dealing with a brilliant and multifaceted work, the number of interpretations of which probably already exceeds the number of fairy tales told by Scheherazade ... "MiM" has a strange feature - with each new reading, it turns to the reader with its unknown (or imperceptible) hitherto faces. Such is the magical quality of this novel.

From my point of view, "MiM", despite its brilliant satirical component, the novel is deeply tragic, hopeless. This is a novel about a country whose inhabitants have abandoned God; about a world that has completely gone beyond the realm of the Sacred. That is why Woland chooses Moscow for his visit - from now on this country becomes his diocese. The hopelessness and tragedy of Bulgakov's worldview is emphasized by the fact that no one opposes evil in the novel - it's just that there is no one left in this world who could try to take on such a mission. This terrible last Bulgakovian secret is lost in the artistic fabric of the novel behind bright satirical scenes, behind a romantically sublime love conflict, behind the Yershalaim version of the gospel story, again told by Woland ...

In general, Bulgakov's meticulous, extremely painstaking work on his main novel (11 years, from 1929 to 1940) deserves to be read with the same painstaking attention. It is necessary to try to catch not only the general mood of certain parts of the novel, but to read the text very closely, paying attention to the smallest details, which, at the first, “enthusiastic” reading, may seem secondary, of a purely service nature. First of all, the epilogue of the novel deserves such a reading. And especially the line of Professor Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (Homeless). In the nightmarish visions that come to him on a full moon, one can find the most unexpected answers to many riddles of Bulgakov's novel...

However, this interpretation of "MiM" is purely personal, not claiming any completeness or universality.

Score: 10

For a long time I wanted to write a devastating review, in defiance of the general ohams and sighs, and each time I realized that I had nothing special to say about this novel. It is difficult to give something meaningful about a book that did not hook anything. She didn’t anger, didn’t cause rejection, but simply passed by, leaving a feeling of deep bewilderment at the exit: “What is it that people admire so much?”

I thought to go from the opposite, to read other people's enthusiasm, to find points of support and vulnerabilities in the argument, to get angry properly ... it turned out half. And the truth got angry at the stupid herd conformism, but in fact again there is nothing to grab onto: praises are basically as streamlined as their object. Still, I'll try to give birth to a review, I'm tired of keeping it in myself.

In general, the novel, in my opinion, belongs to the category of classics, which was fresh and original for its time and received a cult status on this occasion. Over time, the freshness fizzled out, originality (as genres developed and the severity of Soviet censorship decreased) came to naught, and the tail of cultism still reaches for the book, according to the law of the most terrible force in the Universe - inertia.

Again, the novel consists of three not very equal storylines. They say that the classics are determined by the eternity of plots and images, non-attachment to a specific context. If so, then the enrollment of the "Master" in the classical fund is a clear exaggeration. After all, the adventures of the main anti-hero with the company and the ordeal of their victims, which make up the lion's share of the book, are, in fact, social satire. Sharp, mediocrely written, but completely inscribed in its time period. Today it can be assessed from the standpoint of cultural studies and historical everyday life, but the generations for whom it was precisely satirical literature have gone. A century and a half or two centuries later, we are still surrounded by a mass of Pushkin, Griboyedov and Gogol characters, but in a few decades the characters ridiculed by Bulgakov or Ilf & Petrov have disappeared. Special times - special heroes, and this period of national history is too specific.

The line of the Master and his beloved… I don’t know, if the author were not Bulgakov, but Bulgakova, I would write it off as “purely feminine”, otherwise this whole hyperpathetic love story out of nothing looks too far-fetched. I can understand passionate love, which makes you commit madness and quickly burns out. I can also understand True Love, which grew stronger over the years and demanded sacrifices. But suddenly arisen love to the grave to the creative genius - sorry. This is probably the fairy tale that every writer who dreams of such an endlessly devoted friend of harsh days really wants to believe. But I don't believe it at all.

The most interesting storyline - as usual, and the most infringed in the page volume, driven to the last plan. A revolutionary view of the Gospel for its time, which today has already become a textbook - something that is worth reading even in the form of several chapters cut out of the book. Read the rest strictly according to your mood and not believe the fans of the novel, who stubbornly push it onto the shelf of the must-read-and-adore-everyone-and-every "golden fund" ...

Score: 5

It is generally accepted that in the novel The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov approaches the gospel story in an unconventional way, unusually revealing contradictions in the depiction of Woland and Yeshua. The sensational film adaptation of the novel brings the thought back to this problem, prompting a re-formulated conclusion: Bulgakov wrote a history that was Christian in form, but in essence it was Buddhist.

At the same time, it is quite clear that Bulgakov did not know Eastern philosophy and strove to squeeze the impossible into habitual images. What the genius of the writer intuitively grasped essentially has only an indirect relation to the corresponding ideas about the opposition of good and evil principles in the Christian tradition. It is not surprising that some churchmen (for example, deacon Kuraev, known for his extremist statements), feeling a discrepancy with canonical ideas, declare not only Woland, but also the Master and Margarita as negative characters, especially emphasizing the demonic nature of Margarita.

The central attribute of the Christian worldview is the unconditional division into divine and diabolical. In Indian and Chinese philosophy there is no tragic splitting of the world into poles. Rather, these poles themselves are present (yin-yang), but there is a constant interaction between them, and the truth lies in following the Middle Way or Tao. The enemy of a person is not evil and insidious entities, but his own immersion in the Maya illusion (that is, evil and insidious entities are present in abundance, but they are also Maya). The destruction of illusions, the way out of them into the world of reality is the central pedagogical task of the Eastern worldview.

In a literary work, time and space of action are limited, this is a certain picture, beyond which we can assume something, but within which fundamental answers to questions of a worldview nature must already be given. Especially when it comes to such an outstanding writer as Bulgakov, and such a philosophically profound work as The Master and Margarita.

Consider the details of the novel, the interpretation of which is of paramount importance in both Eastern and Western religions. Namely: the action of the light force, outwardly perceived as evil (for example, illness), always has a positive meaning and is good of a higher order. On the contrary, what can be perceived as good from the forces of Satan (for example, an accidental gain) is a consequence of the deceit of the forces of darkness and human delusion, since the ultimate goal of the devil is always evil.

Woland is fundamentally not a Christian devil in any of his guises, if only because he constantly mocks mediocrity, hypocrisy and double-mindedness, tears off his masks. A real devil would welcome lies, vice and duplicity in every possible way.

Even Mephistopheles - one of the most attractive images of Satan, with whom Woland is often compared - has the main sign of the devil - he tempts Faust and triumphs, for the temptation of knowledge is still an Edenic temptation. Nothing in Bulgakov's novel, meanwhile, indicates that Woland has any secret intentions and is plotting satanic intrigues. Thinking out for the writer what is much better integrated into a different picture of the world is at least inadequate.

Woland helps the only positive heroes, without demanding anything in return, in general. Moreover, the transformation of his servants on the lunar road (Koroviev turns into a knight, for example) shows that their evil jokes were not arbitrary buffoonery of omnipotent entities, unable and unwilling to limit themselves in evil, but the fulfillment of some vow imposed on them (servants). . Numerous "exposures" and bullying of stealing officials and townsfolk are written out in such a way as if they are taking place within the framework of some big serious game, and the "evil spirits" are forced to play their assigned role. What he does is without undue enthusiasm.

In Buddhism, the role of the devil is played by Mara, the god of illusions, who prevents the knowledge of true reality. Of course, Woland is not suitable for the role of Mary, as he diligently exposes all sorts of illusions.

If we move away from the Christian surroundings, which give the figure of Woland an ominous ambiguity, and try to really understand his function, then we will come to the Indian concept of karma - the law of retribution for this or that behavior. Woland's company personifies the karma that overtakes the ball spirit and rewards them with justice, and not according to satanic arbitrariness. There is no correct parallel to this in the Christian tradition. The warrior Archangel Michael, who fights the forces of darkness and repays justice, does not test, does not provide chances - he angrily punishes those who are pointed out by the right hand of God.

That is, all this evil spirit was forced to be karmic tools (as for Woland himself, it is not clear whether he forced him, or whether he was instructed to accompany the “correcting ones”), which is a situation that is completely oriental in spirit. Clearing the Augean stables of human vices, Koroviev-Fagot, Behemoth, and others outlived their own karma.

Here we see all the difference between the Eastern and Western world outlook. From a Christian point of view, for sins, it is necessary to ask for forgiveness from the almighty God, in whose personal will there will be a direction of a person (forever and ever!) to heaven or hell. It is absolutely impossible to live with such a feeling, therefore there is a sacrament: the practice of remission of sins by a priest after appropriate repentance. This is a very characteristic moment, because repentance may not entail the correction of an already accomplished deed.

In the East, the fate of a person is in his own hands, and every bad deed there has to be balanced by an deed. And the universal law, and not the omnipotent will of the superbeing, manages the measure of the released.

Consider the situation with the death of Berlioz. Woland appears here either as an arbitrarily swaggering demon, watching the trembling of the condemned (Christian interpretation), or there is some sense in his act. Representing Woland as a personified karma, we can understand much more than assuming the first option, which gives rise to sheer bewilderment.

Berlioz showed a complete inability to change and the meeting with Woland was the last straw - the meaning of incarnation for him was exhausted (and it should be recalled that in the east there is knowledge of reincarnation, that is, the successive return of the spirit to earth for improvement). Even the news of his own death did not shake Berlioz's flat convictions - but one must understand that this was the last chance, after which the existence of the physical shell became meaningless. In this incarnation, Berlioz was already completely and completely alienated from the world. It was filled with harsh and at the same time completely false views, there was not even a minimal sincerity left in it to overcome delusions and revise life values.

A characteristic moment: at the ball, when Berlioz's head is brought to Woland, he says words that are an esoteric truth about a person's posthumous fate: "Everyone will be rewarded according to his faith!" In the Christian tradition, such words represent clear heresy.

Consider the situation with Woland's second interlocutor, Ivan Bezdomny. It was empty, for its emptiness was in demand; but, having been torn out of his familiar environment, after meeting with the Master, when his usual external activity was suppressed, he began to change, as the internal activity began to develop. As a result, Homeless was able to be reborn. At the beginning of the novel, he is a typical lumpen who has mastered the art of rhyming words. He is strikingly ignorant, unrestrained, and gives the impression of a hopelessly one-dimensional person.

But it was important for Bulgakov to show the possibilities of the transformation of human nature. The primitiveness and rudeness of Ivan Bezdomny is a consequence of his underdevelopment and the fact that it was his underdevelopment that turned out to be in demand in a twisted society.

There is a very wise position in Eastern philosophy: in order to fill a jug, it must first be emptied. A person filled with false concepts changes with great difficulty. Sometimes this is not possible at all. Then the person perishes, as Berlioz perished. Again, until the next incarnation. But a person who is not inert can be changed. Ivan Bezdomny, devoid of any attempts to analyze his own actions, a superficial person of pure thoughtless action performed under the influence of transient emotions, is suddenly forced to think, that is, to transfer the action inside himself.

His mental crisis and the subsequent change in the path of life vividly illustrate the possibilities of a person for radical renewal and in this sense are deeply optimistic. But at the same time, the years of militant delusions were not in vain - and Ivan, having become a scientist, lost his rough, brutal love of life. He became sad, quiet and thoughtful, as if in his younger years he had used up the supply of life's joy and activity.

The action of karma is inevitable. Let us recall how Koroviev literally imposes a bribe on the house manager, and then immediately calls the police. And karma overtakes the greedy house manager instantly.

There are many more episodes when Woland or someone from his retinue put people before the need to choose - and gave what people themselves chose. This is most concentrated in the scene of the session of black magic. If you want money and clothes - get it. But money and clothes do not give happiness, so those who are tempted have a lesson, a reminder that passion for things is passion for illusory existence. And clothes with money melt in the air ...

They asked to tear off the head of the entertainer - please! They asked to put it back - back please! Look, people, what your words and thoughts create if they are immediately put into action! Watch and take care of yourself!

The novel is very unusual in terms of place and time of action. The existence of parallel plots at different times is relatively easy to accept. But Bulgakov, describing a number of scenes (for example, visions of Pontius Pilate after the execution of Yeshua or delaying midnight for several hours during Woland's ball), creates additional realities connected with the obvious reality non-linearly, "at an angle", so to speak. He stretches time and space, or, on the contrary, abruptly collapses it (as, for example, when Berlioz's unlucky neighbor moved to Yalta). Apartment No. 50 turns into a whole layer of realities, a kind of portal between worlds.

The misunderstanding of what was described by Bulgakov, even by the writers Ilf and Petrov who were close to him in many respects in spirit, may be due, among other things, to the fact that at that time there were no well-defined perception skills. The human psyche was very poorly mapped, and practical interest in the inner world of man was more than discouraged. Now the achievements of transpersonal psychology (primarily Stanislav Grof), the passion of many people for esotericism (at least the books of Carlos Castaneda) gives the skill of understanding what is described in the novel. Now even among fantastic works one can find many multi-layered plots (for example, in Golovachev's novels "Forbidden Reality", "Messenger" or "Black Man"). At the time of the writing of The Master and Margarita, this was a unique phenomenon.

At the same time, it is Buddhism that affirms the multidimensionality of the world, while church Christianity in every possible way eschews such ideas.

The linear daily reality that we are all used to dealing with can be identified with the mind - the superficial and utilitarian part of the mind. If you examine the psyche in an altered state of consciousness (when the block between the conscious and the unconscious - the subconscious and the superconscious is weakened), then it turns out that it is fraught with many images that directly affect a person's life. We will then meet fantastic figures, called archetypes by the famous psychologist Carl Jung. The experiences of archetypes are very vivid and can radically change a person's life, fill him with energy. As long as he's willing to do it. And if you are not ready, then the new energy becomes dangerous and can break a person (all the same Berlioz).

Needless to say, such an analogy does not have Christian roots, but is very close to the Indian and Chinese worldview.

There are, of course, common motifs that are equally suitable for both Western and Eastern consciousness. But this will have only an indirect relation to the "evil spirits".

Bulgakov created a very unusual work. This unusualness is manifested in the fact that topicality is viewed through the prism of eternity, and the eternal is drawn as a series of extremely specific conflict situations.

In this sense, the writer succeeded in what Gogol did not succeed in his time, who did not see the ways to overcome the deep inferno into which he immersed his heroes and into which most of the then Russia was really immersed. If Gogol's time shrinks and sticks to individual characters and furnishings, then in Bulgakov's novel there is always a note of going beyond the infernal world. Life with all its unsightly manifestations appears not as a hopeless circle, but as a crooked reflection of eternity, which nevertheless shines through the cracks of this reflection.

Score: 10

*gets up from chair*

Hello. My name is Dmitry. I am 30 years old. I recently read The Master and Margarita and didn't like it.

Forgive me, fans of the book...

Without claiming to be a great connoisseur of allegories, hidden meanings and philosophical overtones, at first I thought that I had missed some thread. A thread that would allow me to go through the labyrinth of this, quite simple at first glance, text and discover the deep, fundamental meaning that the author clearly put into it.

It's easier for me in this regard. No need to invent meanings that would explain the genius of this work. I didn't like the novel. And I know exactly why I didn't like it. First of all, because it did not evoke emotions in me. I did not worry about any of the characters, and this, as for me, is a necessary attribute of any work of art. There are a lot of characters in MiM, but even the main ones appear before us as points located strictly in a certain place in the coordinate system of this novel. They don't have a "before" or "after". There is no development. Everyone is already in their places and waiting for the action to begin. The theater of the absurd, in which all events unfold, also does not add points to the work. There is too much grotesque in everything that happens, and at the same time, negligible time is devoted to the disclosure of characters. In the end, there is no empathy. Everything looks like a farce.

I understand that the author did not have time to finish the novel, and it was compiled on the basis of a draft version. And also the fact that, due to strict censorship, the true meaning had to be hidden as deeply as possible. But, nevertheless, I judge what is, and not what could be. As I already said, I didn’t have enough emotionality (even if someone would call it a wrapper), so that, clinging to it, I could proceed to unraveling the tangle of hidden meanings. For those who, excluding the form, go straight to the content and look for philosophical thoughts, it seems to me that it would be easier to read the same Kant or Nietzsche, for example. Why torture yourself with this husk from the plot? Recognize the characters, their characters? Deal with the motivation of their actions? But wait, after all, we are not reading a scientific work on philosophy or theology.

You can read hundreds of reviews, dozens of scientific articles on M&M, and in each case there will be a different interpretation of the novel. Merit of the author? I'm sure not. This is your merit! It is the reader who makes the book meaningful. And the more the halo of a unique, outstanding work around this book, the more meanings he finds in it. This works equally well in any art form. Whether it's abstractionism in fine arts or arthouse in cinema... The less obvious the author's intention is for the perceiving party, the more opportunities it has to bring its own interpretation to what it sees/heard/read. It's the same story with MIM. At one time, due to certain circumstances (I will not describe which ones, so as not to increase the size of the review), the book received a great response. And then it's a matter of technology. In the wake of popularity, every educated person considered it his duty to read the book and express his understanding and attitude to what he read. On the fertile ground of a mixture of mysticism, religion and social satire, theories about the meaning of what was read multiplied, and the controversy surrounding the novel continued to fuel interest in it. And in the end, all this resulted in such a cultural phenomenon as The Master and Margarita, a work that everyone loves, but no one understands, or rather, everyone understands in their own way. In any case, it turns out that the author could not convey to the reader any specific thought, his (correct!) interpretation. And readers have to, doing the work of a writer, fill the read with meaning themselves. Hundreds of meanings...

Did you understand the book correctly?

Score: 5

I will try to answer Povlastnich and other commentators who do not understand why the book has such a high rating.

First, readers love a love story. Margarita, for the sake of one hope that her lover will be returned to her, is ready to give her soul to the devil and in general everything that she has. And saves him. The master drives her away from himself, although he suffers without her - only so that she does not die next to him. Both, in their own way, sacrifice themselves for the sake of the one they love.

Secondly, the language here is really great. Few of our twentieth-century authors can even come close to it. Figurative, saturated with figures of speech, sonorous, light, poetic. Even this alone is already enough for a high rating.

Thirdly, humor, irony, sarcasm. People love to laugh, especially to laugh at someone. If you look closely, the author laughs at all his contemporaries in general. The master and his beloved are, as it were, alone against the whole world. Woland reveals the depravity and stupidity of the people inhabiting the world: a long line of bad poets, hypocrite critics, embezzlers of public funds, bureaucrats, speculators, thieving officials, etc. Social satire was a popular genre at the time.

Fourth, the related idea of ​​just retribution. All scoundrels and scoundrels, from the critic Latunsky to the barman Sokov, receive for their sins in such a way that few people imagined. Readers like this very much, especially in Russia.

Fifth, here is an original look at the Gospel and the role of Pontius Pilate. Revolutionary for its time. Prior to that, either the orthodox church picture of the world or militant atheism dominated in the minds.

Sixth, philosophical overtones. Some ideas are spelled out directly - the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves, for example. But there are also deeper layers - about the fate of the creator and his creation, about the nature of good and evil, about the fact that a person does not know his fate, no matter how arrogant he may be (“man is suddenly mortal”). Sometimes this philosophical subtext is expressed only in images - for example, the darkness that came hid the city along with golden idols, and Margarita admits that these golden idols bother her.

Finally, I will add - they often make such a claim: a pale and indistinct Master. But Bulgakov deliberately does not reveal it in the traditional way. The Master is his literary work, a novel about Pilate. Heroes in literature are revealed through actions; his act is the creation of a novel. The Master himself is almost impersonal, he doesn't even have a name. Even Margarita perceives it without separating it from the novel. He is all - this is his book, and nothing more is needed. And when society does not accept the book, he slides into death and madness, only a miracle saves him.

Score: 10

It is surprising that so many people consider this novel their favorite, write that they re-read it many times, but do not understand it at all; or, what is the same, understand strictly the opposite.

Of course, this is the merit of Bulgakov, who hid meanings from censorship; of course, this is a plus for the novel, which allows for a multifaceted reading and understanding, but. But it is also sad because the main meaning of the novel, the main "charge", the author's intention turns out to be unreadable.

I will immediately make a reservation for what is written below: I am not at all a religious fanatic, but rather an atheist, but I treat Christianity with respect and interest.

I got acquainted with the novel a long time ago, long before it was taught at school. I read many times, if I ever counted the times of reading, then I lost my way about fifteen years ago. Also, like many, he “absorbed” different storylines in turn.

I don’t know how they study the novel in schools in literature classes now, but if this happens, as with other literary works (and, alas, there is no reason to doubt this), then it would be better if they didn’t do it :wink:

I won’t lie that I understood everything myself, no, I also read the works of literary critics. Many... five, six. I think that this is absolutely necessary for understanding MiM. Reading the novel along with research papers, I enjoyed it, perhaps more strongly than when I read the novel for the first time.

In general, "MiM" is not a novel about love, but about our loss of faith. Agree, it is difficult to walk around Moscow and not meet a single church anywhere. Bulgakov succeeds in this in the novel. Remember the scene where Woland is sitting on the roof (on the roof, by the way, of Pashkov's house, in the basements of which there are library storages; do you remember the reason for Woland's arrival in Moscow, which he told Berlioz and Homeless? Yes, yes, the texts of Herbert Avrilaksky found in the library ...) and looks around Moscow - he looks at the place where the blown up Cathedral of Christ the Savior stood. In Moscow, described in the novel, there is no Temple - only libraries with texts of warlocks.

The Master's novel, those four chapters that make up the Yershalaim part of MiM, was written by Woland. The master is not a creator, he is only a medium, leading the creation of Woland, Satan, into our world. And the goals of Satan are clearly not good. I heard that many call Bulgakov the Master, hinting that the Master is the author's alter ego. Nonsense! Bulgakov has a gift from God.

Jesus? There is no Jesus in the novel, there is Yeshua, a parody of Jesus, weak, weak-willed. Blasphemous. And what else can be Christ in the Gospel of the devil?

Love? Excuse me, what kind of love are you talking about? Would Bulgakov, the greatest stylist of the last century, describe love by comparing it to a murderer and a Finnish knife? Readers laugh at you! Margarita, a slanting witch, and the Master burned in the fire of other people's passions are not at all created for each other, and they will not receive peace at all, but will spend eternity in a dull country from Margaret's dream - remember, a gray landscape, not a single tree, not a single vertical line. Is this happiness? Yadu me, yadu! if it's happiness.

Margarita is also a "mishandled Cossack", a pawn in Woland's game, a character necessary to push through the Master's novel - he himself is no longer fit for this ... It's funny to write like that, but in a sense Margarita is Woland's "silovik". She is not the Master's muse - she appears when the novel "flew to the end", when the Master's soul was already burning out.

Ridiculous are those who repeat as some kind of revelation the phrases "Manuscripts do not burn" and "Never ask for anything." Manuscripts are burning, and someone, but Bulgakov knew this well. People, remember who said that!? This is not the author, this is from the Evil One... Do you believe him? I congratulate you, citizens, believe! :wink:

Go to church - there people pray, ask God. Asking is common to everyone; even the most inveterate atheists (I’m talking about myself, however) in difficult moments automatically turn to someone up there ... It’s easier for believers in this regard - they know whom and how to ask. Never ask for anything, you say? What else can the devil advise?

Devil. Part of the power that always wants evil and always does good. How much good did Woland and his associates do in Moscow? Bend your fingers for each of his good deeds - if you bend three fingers, it will be amazing; I find no reason even for one finger. So the epigraph of the book is sly, do not believe it implicitly...

"MiM" is a novel of almost hopeless despair. But there are also bright moments. The impending Easter holiday sweeps Woland and his retinue of ugly people out of Moscow, which means there is still a power higher than Satan ...

Read and think. And reread. And literary critics read in parallel. And think. And read.

Score: 10

I grew up around books. In our family, the TV appeared when some of the houses already had VCRs. There weren't many things in my childhood. But one was too much. These are books. They were in every room, in every rack, on every table except the kitchen table. The books on the tables were open, the ones my father had worked with, some with lots of bookmarks. Solemn collections of essays with gilded embossing of the author's name lined up on the shelves and frightened me with their immensity. Maybe that's why, at the beginning of my life as a reader, I studiously avoided "monumental" literature. The first novel I read on my own was The Master and Margarita. Of course, I have read novels before. These are “The Fight for Fire” (Jose Roni) and “When there was no man” (Angels), “I can jump over puddles” (Marshall) and Soloviev “The Tale of Hodge Nasreddin” Bussenar and M. Twain and many others. But all these books were given to me by my father. He brought it into the room, put it on the table and said - read it, you will like it. I got to Bulgakov's 1973 edition myself. Because it is thick and between its pages no one could see my rubles saved on breakfast. I started reading it from the middle. I think that if I had come across not a piece of a novel describing the adventures of Behemoth and Koroviev in a grocery store, but a piece from the White Guard or the Tetral novel, then reading the Master and Margarita would have been postponed indefinitely.

I was then about eleven years old. Then it seemed to me that I read a very positive and cheerful "book" (forgive me M.A.). I leafed through the melodramatic vicissitudes, and read the line of Yeshua diagonally. I re-read the book for the second time when I was in my 20s. And then it seemed to me that I understood what she meant. About Love and destructive Genius. Undeserved genius. Falling on the Master like a concrete slab and crushing him. No more scrolling through the Master line. I didn't squeamishly at the melodramatic component. I UNDERSTAND the book.

I re-read it about 10 years later. I was about 30. And I suddenly saw .... that the last time I understood the book in a completely different way. I misunderstood her. I finally saw the main idea. Humanity on the part of transcendent entities in relation to ..... man. "He didn't deserve light, he deserved peace." I came to religion. God forbid, I did not become a believing Christian. But a lot has changed in my attitude to this issue.

After 10 years, I reread it again. What does Bulgakov describe in the novel? Soviet Moscow of the early 20th century? Yes, nothing like that! He describes Moscow in 2015. Only the housing issue spoiled the Muscovites even more. Religion? no .... it is secondary. Society, and the psychology of society on the example of individuals, that's what came to the fore, after another reading.

"- It's low! - Woland was indignant, - you are a poor man ... after all, you are a poor man? The barman pulled his head into his shoulders, so that it became clear that he was a poor man.

My God .... yes, each such sketch is a whole performance!

I can't imagine what I'll see if I manage to read a book at 50. But I guess it must be something else. Something that hasn't been noticed so far. Of course this book is in my library. But what is much more important, it is in the library that every person has, even the one who physically does not even have a single book. The one inside. And in this inner library, this BOOK stands in the most honorable place.

Score: 10

The first time I read this novel was when it was in school (ninth grade? tenth?). The impression left is quite unambiguous: some kind of dregs, apart from the chapters about Yeshua, they are beautiful. And ten years later, I finally got around to re-reading it. And you know what turned out? Which is even worse!

I can't help but wonder at the delight of the fans. More precisely, I can understand those who perceive MiM with humor, even banter. I'm not close, but I can. In the end, the most colorful retinue of Woland really cannot but cause a smile. Especially Behemoth, well, how not to love him?! Put, Gella, a bracket! Write "boar" in brackets...

But take it all seriously? Great love? Genius talent? Does it do good? Whoa?! The master is such a pitiful, weak little man that it is disgusting to look at. He only does what he whines, groans “Leave me!” and suffers over the fate of his novel (already one devastating review, life is over!). Margarita is so simply an unprincipled lady, she lives with a rich husband, she does not rush to go to her lover, although she declares that she dreams about it. If not for Woland, who magically solved all the questions, she would have depicted the dog in the hay.

And how can you see non-negative characters in the devil and his henchmen? They seem to destroy human lives at every turn out of mischief or because a person interfered with them, but at the same time they are not evil, like you, just funny jokers! And it doesn’t matter that someone ended up feeling better, it doesn’t change the essence! People can be stupid, impudent, narcissistic, but none of them deserve this!

As for the Master's novel, which once struck me so much... I still like it. It has something that the main part lacks so much: purity, sincerity, simplicity. And even though Yeshua looks a little ridiculous, the heart breaks from sympathy for Pilate. For the sake of these four small chapters, everything else was worth reading.

Score: 3

To write reviews on such books is only a disgrace. But I will still write.

In general, there are two ways to read The Master and Margarita. First: read it as a book full of poisonous humor about the Moscow adventures of two lovers and motley evil spirits led by an old and wise demon. Second: long and hard to try to determine the place of the novel in the coordinate system that he uses as a canvas for his non-canonical drawing in all respects. in the Christian system. The master still does not write a novel about Prometheus, but about Pontius Pilate. And it is not Cthulhu who appears in Moscow in the thirties, but Woland.

With the first way, everything is clear. People read about the arts of the Woland retinue - and they are all terribly charming there, they sting, expose human vices, gush with aphorisms - and admire their intelligence and justice. Could be so. True, for some reason it occurs to a rare reader that if you personally take him and do justice, then it will not seem enough. But the characters of the novel, all without exception, understand this very quickly in their own skin. Master and Margarita, by the way, too. After all, they die in the main, Moscow reality of the novel. It is logical: they do not believe in God, it remains to believe in universal justice. And she comes to them - very global, but not divine. And gives out an award. Or punishment. It's like looking.

The second way is fraught with endless discussions. And it requires attention to the heads of Yershalaim. This is where the controversy begins. Who is Yeshua? Is this a deromanticized image of Christ or some kind of parody of him? Here, the disgraced deacon Andrei Kuraev generally decided that "a novel in a novel" is Woland's version of the gospel events, distorted to suit his worldview and goals. It also seems to me that Yershalaim does not draw on Jerusalem, Yeshua does not draw on Jesus, his teaching does not draw on Christian, and Levi Matthew does not draw on the apostle. It looks scary, but it's not. And small distortions, accumulating, give a picture not only different from the original, but also somewhat blasphemous. And the "novel in the novel" itself is not the insight of a genius who guessed how it all happened in Judea two thousand years ago, but an attempt by a talented author to tell that in reality everything is not as it really is. The attempt is so successful that the characters he invented gain power over him. They become almost equal to him, their creator - there, beyond the line of earthly life, in the strange, escheated world of Woland, where the Master and Margarita were sucked into a whirlpool - by her passion, his talent, which he burned to ashes in a single flash, historical circumstances and perhaps their own choice.

It is in this world that Matthew Levi comes to Woland to ask for the Master and Margarita - he comes just as Gesar could come to Zabulon with a business proposal. Night Watch, Day Watch, no, this is not a Christian worldview, it is at best a Christian dualistic heresy. Or maybe in the reality of Woland everything is so? The way the Master described it, the way Woland himself and his minions claim. Light is unthinkable without shadow, shadow is unthinkable without light, a snake bites its own tail, balance rests on a fragile balance of power... In such a world, everything really should be right and just, into such a world Woland's retinue lured the desperate Margarita, and Margarita fascinated the insane Master , and they will have peace without light with blossoming cherries, and the restless characters of the Master, Yeshua and his accuser will have a moonlight path and an eternal conversation about the eternal. “This hero has gone into the abyss, gone forever, forgiven on Sunday night, the son of the astrologer king, the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the horseman Pontius Pilate.” For some reason, many to tears cling to these words, me too.

And I would believe that this is the main reality of Bulgakov's novel, if not for one circumstance. On the night from one unusual Saturday to one unusual Sunday, this whole cabal of infernal characters seemed to be blown away from Moscow, from our human reality. It's time for them to go home, to the abyss, to the false moonlight. No wonder: Easter is coming anyway. Even if the Master forgot about it when he wrote his novel, Bulgakov obviously remembered.

Score: 9

I realized that it was necessary to take a closer look at the novel The Master and Margarita even at school. And not because it is a very interesting and unusual novel, although it is. The main reason: almost all my friends liked the book, and even strangers in the profiles of one well-known social network can very often see “MiM” among their favorite books, and God forbid, if this is not the only name in this column. Then I did not understand such a hype, but now I seem to understand: people really like to join the ingenious (and the fact that the novel is brilliant, I think, does not need proof). It's funny to notice how in quotes dozens of people have an epigraph to "MiM" from "Faust", but they are not able to single out their favorite quote from the novel on their own. Young people proudly declare that they have read Bulgakov, however, apart from The Master and Margarita, they cannot name a single work. At university, I noticed a similar phenomenon related to the theory of relativity: while studying at the Faculty of Humanities, I often heard phrases about Einstein and his theory, but explain it or say something other than “everything is relative”, yes “e-equals-m-ts -square" many could not. This is sad. Now I don’t emphasize my intellect, I don’t engage in narcissism, I was really sad to watch this around me. But enough about the bad. Let's move on to the novel itself.

He is brilliant. Written in an ironic and light style, the novel stands out favorably against the background of the entire school curriculum taken together (to be honest, I didn’t read so many books from this program completely, the fingers of one hand are enough, and “MiM” on this hand takes the place of the thumb). I think it makes no sense to retell the plot, and not only because this work is held at school, but on the fantasy lab alone, about 300 reviews have already been written on it, the fact is that pundits and ladies offer almost a dozen different interpretations of the novel, but about the number of analyzes of allusions, symbols and ideas, I, perhaps, will not say anything. I have always loved the idea of ​​free will and the ability of a person to have his own opinion on any matter. So I will express my opinion: the plot is not constrained by any genre framework, the density of ideas for the share of the text just rolls over, and this is not the final version of the work, because Bulgakov worked on it until his death. It’s hard to understand a book, with each new reading you will definitely see more, but whether you see what you want / can see or what the author wanted to say is still a big question. I would also like to speak about the characters. Bulgakov managed to make all of them alive and real, and therefore absolutely unsuitable for transferring to film. It is impossible to film a work where such attention is paid to details. Almost everyone really likes Woland, which, in general, is not surprising: the Prince of Darkness is presented not as an absolute evil, but rather as a judge who does not feel any sympathy for sinners, but on the contrary, punishing them and rewarding them according to their deserts. And his retinue? What is the gigantic size of Behemoth, which is a cat, and Koroviev, with his sense of humor, very remarkable. By the way, an interesting detail: there is no main character in the novel. Usually, how, the "powers of darkness" interact with a person, tempting him or pushing him to their side. It's not like that here. There are several actors, among whom bright and strong personalities stand out, and there are all the others whom I met, talked to and forgot. In general, everything is like with people. Now it is necessary to mention the Master, a man of ideas, Yeshua, who saw only the good in all people, and Margarita, who approached the highest understanding of love like no other. It is they who, no, do not oppose Woland and his "forces of darkness", rather they interact with him. And not only with them, but also with readers. Remember how many screen adaptations and productions the novel had, how many illustrations were drawn, how many songs were written based on and dedicated to one character. And how many people were inspired by the images of heroes to perform any actions or create an appropriate manner of behavior? Here, of course, accurate statistics fail, but I dare to assume that there are many.

On this I would like to end. Sorry for the delay in the review, and everything turned out to be rather chaotic. I'm not a genius, I only once read a brilliant novel that left a lasting impression.

Thank you for your attention.

P.S. I think that the series “The book is mysticism, the book is a mystery” should have been opened, the novel “The Master and Margarita” should be published in it and closed, because. the name of this series is the best definition for the work of M. A. Bulgakov.

Score: 9

I have a special relationship with this book - very warm and touching. I met her in 1987 when I was 15 years old. At that time, I was passionately fond of Russian and foreign classical literature, comprehended Turgenev, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Hugo, Balzac, etc. One day, when I came to the bookstore, I, as always, rummaged through the bookshelves with the classics. Just then the salesman rolled out a cart loaded with gray and green books. Some buyers immediately approached and took several pieces. I, too, yielding to the general mood, took two - gray and green, but it turned out to be the same book. It was written "The Master and Margarita" - something flashed in my memory, but I did not remember it. I knew nothing about any Mikhail Bulgakov and his books. It was later that the excitement about this work reached me, there was the song “Margarita”, the production of the play by Roman Viktyuk, talk about the book on TV and in print, etc. After reading the annotation, I didn’t understand anything, but I decided that the gray book would do.

The book was published by the East Siberian Book Publishing House in an unsightly binding, without illustrations and with crooked lines. But for me it didn't matter anymore. I plunged into it with my head, pages flew by page, read night and day, every free minute, plunging, dissolving in the author's prose. I finished the first reading with questions: what is it, what is it about, what does it mean? And immediately began to read again. Since then, I have read it more than ten times. Some parts I know almost by heart. I love this book very much. For what? I don’t know myself: for everything, probably, but especially for the fact that she exists.

I have never tried to analyze it, draw conclusions, look for hidden and obvious meaning - so many treatises, articles, thoughts and conjectures have been written on this topic that I leave myself the opportunity to only read and relive what was written. From the moment I got acquainted with the book, I have loved mimosas, even though Margarita threw them away then, because the Master did not like them, he loved roses, but for me they are a symbol of spring, a symbol of search and acquisition. "I walked with these flowers to meet you."

Every time I pick up this novel, I read it from beginning to end, as for the first time, with the same excitement and trepidation. The very first lines take me to Moscow to the Patriarch's - "Once in the spring, at the hour of an unprecedentedly hot sunset, two citizens appeared in Moscow, on the Patriarch's Ponds ..." I hear the hiss of warm apricot water, which Berlioz and Ivan Bezdonmny drink; I see a strange foreigner in an expensive gray suit and a gray beret, he carries under his arm a cane with a black knob in the shape of a poodle's head, he has a crooked mouth and eyes of different colors - green and black; here is Annushka with Sadovaya, breaking a liter of sunflower oil; I see the cracked pince-nez and jockey cap of the former regent Koroviev, I hear his cracked voice, like the creaking of an old door; here is a small, fiery-red Azazello, with a fang sticking out of his mouth, coming straight out of the mirror; cat Behemoth, jumping on the footboard of a tram and holding out a coin to the conductor; here is the lunar path along which Yeshua and “the son of the astrologer king, the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the horseman Pontius Pilate, forgiven on Sunday night”; Margarita, embroidering the letter M on a hat for the Master; and here is a small stove in the basement of an old house, in which the Master’s manuscript is burning, and a thunderstorm is raging outside the window ... And so you can list your favorite and memorable places from the book for a long time, but it’s better to take it and read it again after some time. I will never get tired of this book, it will always give me hope and confidence, peace and good mood, make me sad and smile, wonder and rejoice. Rejoice that this book, written by Master Bulgakov, did not disappear, did not burn out, was not lost, but saw the light and I have the opportunity to read it at any time. Thank you Master!

Scornfully, cruelly, even sadistically, Woland and his company dealt with those who turned up on the way. And I pity the victims of their diabolical antics:

1) A hard worker (driver) carved by glass fragments, whose tram drove through Berlioz. Bulgakov writes that she was a beauty. After that, perhaps, it will no longer be such a beauty. And with such a nightmare she will live on.

2) Berlioz, who not only suffered to the fullest, but even after his death Woland mocked him.

3) The variety show administrator Varenukha, who did not succumb to threats and wanted to expose the villains. For which he was corny beaten and given to be eaten by a vampire. And he became a vampire. True, later, having become better after the ball, Woland and the company complied with his request to let him go, because he is not bloodthirsty and cannot be a vampire.

4) The entertainer of Bengalsky, from the experienced shock, ended up in a psychiatric hospital. “... the entertainer has lost a significant dose of his cheerfulness, which is so necessary for his profession. He still had an unpleasant, painful habit of falling into an anxious state every spring on a full moon, suddenly clutching his neck, looking around in fear and crying.

5) The financial director of the Rimsky variety show, who turned into an old man. "... the old, aged, with a shaking head, the financial director filed a letter of resignation from the Variety."

6) The honest and decent accountant of the variety show Lastochkin, to whom Woland's company slipped the currency and was arrested for this.

7) Even the petty bribe taker, Nikanor Ivanovich, whom the devilish dream could not force to slander himself.

And yet, it’s a pity the trampled talent of Ivan Bezdomny, but this master has already tried.

That's who really needed to be not weakly punished, so this is Aloisy Mogarych, who wrote a denunciation of the master in order to occupy his apartment. But Woland and his company punished him purely symbolically by throwing him on a train somewhere near Vyatka. And since he was an extremely enterprising person, after a few months he took the post of the departed Rimsky. And how Varenukha sometimes whispers that “he seems to have never met such a bastard as this Aloysius in his life, and that, as if from this Aloysius, he expects everything, anything.”

The master doesn't sympathize with me. He lived happily for himself, worked as a historian in a museum, earning money by translating from five languages, won, according to him, a huge amount of money (one hundred thousand rubles). Which allowed him to leave his job and do what he wanted to do - write a book. As in a fairy tale, an ideal girlfriend appeared for a creative person.

But when the writers rejected his novel about Pontius Pilate (the wrong character for victorious atheism), the “end of the world” came for him. And although the master experienced criticism, turning into persecution, to the point of insanity, in relation to Ivan Bezdomny he does exactly the same as the critics who hate him did to him, that is, he completely rejects his work. Not even reading.

“What is your last name?

- Homeless.

“Eh, eh…” said the guest, grimacing.

- And you, what, my poems do not like? Ivan asked with curiosity.

- I really don't like it.

- What have you read?

I haven't read any of your poetry! the visitor exclaimed nervously.

– How do you say?

“Well, what’s wrong with that,” answered the guest, “as if I hadn’t read the others?” However ... is it a miracle? Okay, I'm ready to take it on faith. Are your poems good, tell me yourself?

- Monstrous! Ivan suddenly said boldly and frankly.

- Do not write anymore! the visitor asked pleadingly.

I promise and I swear! - solemnly said Ivan.

In vain Ivan Bezdomny is so self-critical, probably because of his youth (he is 23 years old). He is undoubtedly talented, because "Jesus in his image turned out to be quite like a living, although not an attractive character."

It is admirable that Ivan tried to stop an extremely dangerous type (it was Woland), who, according to him, "possesses some kind of extraordinary power", "otherwise he will do indescribable troubles." But he was put in a psychiatric hospital and, perhaps, because of this, something worse did not happen to him. “Ivan only smiled bitterly to himself and thought about how stupid and strange it all turned out. Just think about it! He wanted to warn everyone about the danger threatening from an unknown consultant, he was going to catch him, but he only succeeded in getting into some mysterious office in order to tell all sorts of nonsense about Uncle Fyodor, who drank heavily in Vologda. It's unbearably stupid!"

And even when he learned from the master that it was Satan himself, even then he would not have stopped. “But he’s the devil knows what he’s going to do here! Is there any way to catch him? - not entirely confident, but still raised his head in the new Ivan, the former, not yet completely finished Ivan.

The characters of Yeshua and Woland were not at all impressed: Yeshua turned out to be faded, I can’t believe that he is able to attract people to him. Woland and the company and all their stormy activities are too grotesque of the same type.

“The thirty-year-old childless Margarita was the wife of a very prominent specialist, who, moreover, made the most important discovery of national importance. Her husband was young, handsome, kind, honest and adored his wife. She did not need money and could buy anything she liked. Housekeeping and cooking was done by a housekeeper. It must be assumed that her husband was absorbed in work, which is why he paid little time and attention to his wife. In short, Margarita was a bored housewife.

And then something unusual and significant filled the void of her life - the process of creating a book. "... in a singsong voice and loudly repeated certain phrases that she liked, and said that her life was in this novel." The master probably seemed to her a miracle worker, a magician. She adored him, admired him. But unfortunately for Margarita, the master no longer wanted to be a master, no longer wanted to create anything.

“I no longer have any dreams and no inspiration either,” the master answered, “nothing around interests me, except for her,” he again put his hand on Margarita’s head, “I’ve been broken, I’m bored, and I want to go to the basement.

– And your novel, Pilate?

“He hates me, this novel,” replied the master, “I have experienced too much because of him.

“I beg you,” Margarita asked plaintively, “don’t talk like that. Why are you torturing me? You know that I have put my whole life into this work of yours.”

Margarita repeated more than once that her whole life is in the novel. All life in a novel, but there is no place left for a loved one? It seems that if there is no creativity in Margarita's life, then the former emptiness, meaninglessness and boredom from which she fled to the master will return again. But the author declared their relationship to be true, faithful, eternal love and sent her, along with the master, to eternal rest. Senselessness and boredom for Margarita will now last forever. "Well, the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves." (Woland).

The novel is a draft version, it has many inconsistencies and contradictions. The main ideas of the work are not clear. Suppose one of these ideas is to oppose the creative personality to the philistine masses, including the community of writers. But the master is some kind of parody of a creative person. In general, incomprehensible ideas and incomprehensible ending. In addition, there is vulgarity and cruelty. I think that there is nothing to powder the brains of schoolchildren with this work and the novel should have an age limit of 18+.

Rating: 1

The book makes me feel ambivalent.

When at one time I read it according to the school curriculum, I rather liked it. Original characters and a lively plot favorably distinguished it from "War and Peace", "Crime and Punishment" and other domestic incorruptibles. There were some quibbles, but that's how it is.

But then these nit-picking began to link with each other by themselves and eventually formed into a minus, one single, but big. In bloody hypocrisy.

Let's take the Master. He complains that his colleagues do not recognize him. He calls them mediocrity, which he - a genius - is no match for, and especially emphasizes their ability to go to holiday homes for free. At the same time, the book contains excerpts from the Master's novel... And, you know, this is a lofty and boring cryptological fantasy that does not pull not only on genius, but even on self-sufficiency. Therefore, I wanted to see examples of the work of those mediocre colleagues - to compare. Otherwise, the Master's words are just an envious rut.

Or let's take Woland. He crucifies with taste and arrangement that people have not improved at all since his last visit and that the housing problem has spoiled them even more. But, my friend, why such a surprise, if you hold your ball every year? What changes were you hoping for? Moreover, sinners enter his domain every second - they should tell what is happening above.

Or let's take hell. The fate of sinners in Bulgakov's hell remains mostly behind the scenes, but Frida, for example, is given a handkerchief every morning. Sorry, but if a simple reminder of sin is already a punishment for it, then why is the fate of the Master with a passion better?

If we assume that everything is as intended, then it turns out to be generally funny. The whole plot boils down to the fact that there is Woland, who plays people. A sort of lets play, only not on YouTube, but in a solid Soviet volume.

In general, no, I, of course, do not think that the book deserves one, but it did not deserve a place in the school curriculum and such mass memory after more than half a century.

Rating: 1

The Master and Margarita is a famous novel by Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov. The genre of the novel is difficult to unambiguously determine, since the novel is multi-layered and contains many genres and elements of such genres as: satire, farce, fantasy, mysticism, melodrama, philosophical parable. Many theatrical performances and several films have been made on its plot (in Yugoslavia, Poland, Sweden, Russia).

The novel (Bulgakov scholars also call it a menippea and a free menippea) "The Master and Margarita" was not published during the author's lifetime. For the first time it was published only in 1966, 26 years after Bulgakov's death, with cuts, in an abbreviated magazine version. The writer's wife, Elena Sergeevna Bulgakova, managed to keep the manuscript of the novel during all these years.

Bulgakov was not sure that The Master and Margarita would be published under Soviet rule. Only twenty-six years after the death of the writer, the novel was still published, twenty-five before the end of Soviet power, and gained noticeable popularity among the Soviet intelligentsia (up to the point that it was distributed in hand-reprinted copies).

According to the numerous extracts from books preserved in the archive, it can be seen that the sources of information on demonology for Bulgakov were the articles of the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron devoted to this topic, M. A. Orlov’s book “The History of Relations between Man and the Devil” (1904) and the book of the writer Alexander Valentinovich Amfiteatrov (1862-1938) "The Devil in everyday life, legend and literature of the Middle Ages".

Plot

Satan (introduced in the work as Woland) wanders the world with goals known only to him, from time to time stopping in different cities and villages. During the spring full moon, the journey takes him to Moscow in the thirties, a place and time where no one believes in either Satan or God, denying the existence of Jesus Christ in history. True, one person (Master) lives in Moscow, who wrote a novel about the last days of Jesus and the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate who sent him to execution; but this man is now in a lunatic asylum, where he was led, among other things, by a reverent attitude towards his work, subjected to harsh criticism from censors and contemporary writers. He burned the novel.

During the journey, Woland is accompanied by his retinue: (Koroviev, the cat Behemoth, Azazello, Gella). All people who came into contact with Woland and his companions are punished for their inherent sins and sins: bribery, drunkenness, selfishness, greed, indifference, lies, rudeness, imitation of activity ... Often these punishments, although supernatural in nature, are a logical continuation of the offenses themselves (for example, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, who took a bribe in rubles from Koroviev, was detained for currency speculation, because these rubles magically turned into dollars). Woland, together with his entire retinue, settles in a "bad apartment" on Sadovaya - in an apartment from where people have been disappearing for several years (they disappear, however, without the help of supernatural forces, since the description of these mysterious disappearances is Bulgakov's allusion to the repressions of the 30s years).

Margarita, the beloved of the Master, who lost his trail after he ended up in a lunatic asylum, dreams of only one thing - to find and return him. Azazello meets her, who gives her hope for the fulfillment of her dream if she agrees to perform one service for Woland. Margarita does not immediately, but agrees, and gets acquainted with Woland and his entire retinue. Woland asks her to become the queen of the ball, which he gives that night. On the night from Friday to Saturday, the ball at Satan begins. Ordinary sinners do not get to the ball as guests - they turn out to be only true, ideological villains.

Employees of the NKVD (this commissariat is not named anywhere in the novel by its own name) are trying to figure out the case of the disappearance of the entire top of the Variety Theater, and most importantly, the origin of the currency, for which all the ruble cash collected at the theater box office was mysteriously exchanged. Traces quickly lead the investigators to the "bad apartment", they repeatedly search it, but all the time they find it empty and sealed. Another plot line of the novel, developing in parallel with the first one, is the novel about Pontius Pilate itself, written by the Master. This novel is an alternative version of the gospel. It tells the story of Pontius Pilate, who did not dare to speak out against the Sanhedrin and save the condemned Yeshua Ha-Nozri (this is the name of the character in the novel, the main prototype of which was Jesus Christ).

At the end of the novel, both lines intersect: the Master frees the hero of his novel, and Pontius Pilate, after his death, languishing on a stone slab with his faithful dog Banga for so long and wanting to finish the interrupted conversation with Yeshua all this time, finally finds peace and sets off on an endless journey through the flow of moonlight along with Yeshua. The master and Margarita find in the afterlife the "peace" given to them by Woland (which differs from the "light" mentioned in the novel - another variant of the afterlife).

Place and time of the main events of the novel

All events in the novel (in its main narrative) unfold in Moscow in the 1930s, in May, from Wednesday evening to Sunday night, and on these days there was a full moon. It is difficult to determine the year in which the action took place, since the text contains conflicting indications of time - perhaps conscious, and perhaps as a result of the author's unfinished editing.

In the early editions of the novel (1929-1931), the action of the novel is pushed into the future, 1933, 1934 and even 1943 and 1945 are mentioned, the events take place at different periods of the year - from early May to early July. Initially, the author attributed the action to the summer period. However, most likely, in order to comply with the peculiar outline of the narrative, the time was transferred from summer to spring (see Chapter 1 of the novel “Once in the Spring ...” And in the same place, further: “Yes, the first strangeness of this terrible May evening should be noted”).

In the epilogue of the novel, the full moon, during which the action takes place, is called festive, while the version suggests itself that Easter means Easter, most likely Orthodox Easter. Then the action should begin on the Wednesday of Holy Week, which fell on May 1, 1929. Proponents of this version also put forward the following arguments:

• May 1 is the day of international solidarity of workers, widely celebrated at that time (despite the fact that in 1929 it coincided with Passion Week, that is, with the days of strict fasting). Some bitter irony is seen in the fact that Satan arrives in Moscow on this very day. In addition, the night of May 1 is Walpurgis Night, the time of the annual witches' sabbath on Mount Broken, from where, therefore, Satan directly arrived.

• the master in the novel is "a man about thirty-eight years old." Bulgakov turned thirty-eight on May 15, 1929.

It should, however, be pointed out that on May 1, 1929, the moon was already waning. The Easter full moon never falls in May at all. In addition, the text contains direct indications of a later time:

• the novel mentions a trolleybus launched along the Arbat in 1934, and along the Garden Ring in 1936.

• the architectural congress mentioned in the novel took place in June 1937 (the First Congress of Architects of the USSR).

• very warm weather settled in Moscow at the beginning of May 1935 (the spring full moons then fell in mid-April and mid-May). The 2005 film adaptation takes place in 1935.

The events of the "Romance of Pontius Pilate" take place in the Roman province of Judea during the reign of Emperor Tiberius and management on behalf of the Roman authorities by Pontius Pilate, on the day before the Jewish Passover and the night after, that is, Nisan 14-15 according to the Jewish calendar. Thus, the time of action is presumably the beginning of April 29 or 30 AD. e. The novel "The Master and Margarita" is dedicated to the history of the master - a creative person who opposes the world around him. The history of the master is inextricably linked with the history of his beloved. In the second part of the novel, the author promises to show "true, faithful, eternal love." The love of the master and Margarita was just like that.

Interpretation of the novel

This section is missing references to information sources. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and removed. You can edit this article to include links to authoritative sources.

It has been argued that Bulgakov's idea for the novel came about after visiting the editorial office of the Bezbozhnik newspaper.

It was also noted that in the first edition of the novel, a session of black magic was dated June 12 - June 12, 1929, the first congress of Soviet atheists began in Moscow, with reports from Nikolai Bukharin and Emelyan Gubelman (Yaroslavsky).

There are several opinions on how this work should be interpreted.

Response to militant atheist propaganda

One of the possible interpretations of the novel is Bulgakov's answer to the poets and writers who, in his opinion, promoted atheism and denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical person in Soviet Russia. In particular, the response to the publication by the Pravda newspaper of that time of anti-religious poems by Demyan Bedny. As a consequence of such actions on the part of militant atheists, the novel became an answer, a rebuke. It is no coincidence that in the novel, both in the Moscow part and in the Jewish part, there is a kind of caricature whitewashing of the image of the devil. It is no coincidence that in the novel the presence of characters from Jewish demonology, as if in opposition to the denial of the existence of God in the USSR. Archdeacon Andrey Kuraev considers the "Pilatian chapters" blasphemous, but advises not to transfer this assessment to the entire work. In his opinion, the image of Yeshua, inspired by Woland and described by the master, is a parody of the atheistic (and Tolstoy) idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"sweet Jesus", showing that the author of this kind of Soviet atheistic pamphlets is Satan (Woland). In the book “Master and Margarita”: for Christ or against?” Father Andrei compares the final version of the novel with drafts, pointing out that in the early versions it was Woland who acted as the author of the novel, while the master was introduced into the novel significantly Later.

A. Kuraev calls the novel within the novel (Yershalaim story) "The Gospel from Satan". Indeed, in the early editions of the novel, the first chapter of Woland's story was called "The Gospel of Woland" and "The Gospel of the Devil" (by the way, in the first editions of Homeless in the hospital, not the master, but Woland himself appeared and told the story of Yershalaim; also in the early version Homeless, amazed Woland's awareness of the Yershalaim events, suggested to him: "And you write your own Gospel," to which Woland replied: "The Gospel from me? Hee hee ... This is interesting"). Indeed, in Woland's Yershalaim story, an anti-Gospel and frankly Talmudic presentation of the life of Christ is evident (“Yeshua Ha-Notsri” - the name of Christ in the Talmud; denial of birth in Bethlehem, descent from King David, entry into Jerusalem on a young donkey, generally denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the relationship of the Old Testament prophecies specifically to Him are the main points of the Talmudic story about Christ; they are also obvious, for example, in the work of Demyan Poor), which can be seen as a parody and denunciation by Bulgakov of Soviet anti-Christian propaganda.

Hermetic interpretation of the novel

There is a so-called hermetic interpretation of the novel, which indicates the following: One of the main ideas is that the evil inclination (Satan) is inseparable from our world, just as it is impossible to imagine light without a shadow. Satan (as well as the bright beginning - Yeshua Ha-Nozri) live primarily in people. Yeshua was unable to determine the betrayal of Judas (despite the hints of Pontius Pilate), including because he saw only the bright component in people. And he could not protect himself because he did not know from what and how. In addition, in this interpretation there is a statement that M. A. Bulgakov interpreted L. N. Tolstoy’s ideas about non-resistance to evil by violence in his own way, introducing into the novel just such an image of Yeshua.

Philosophical interpretation

In this interpretation of the novel, the main idea stands out - the inevitability of punishment for deeds. It is no coincidence that supporters of this interpretation point out that one of the central places in the novel is occupied by the acts of Woland's retinue before the ball, when bribe-takers, libertines and other negative characters are punished, and Woland's court itself, when everyone is rewarded according to his faith.

Interpretation by A. Zerkalov

There is an original interpretation of the novel, proposed by science fiction writer and literary critic A. Zerkalov-Mirrer in the book "The Ethics of Mikhail Bulgakov" (published in 2004). According to Zerkalov, Bulgakov disguised in the novel a “serious” satire on the mores of Stalin’s time, which, without any decoding, was clear to the first listeners of the novel, to whom Bulgakov himself read. According to Zerkalov, Bulgakov, after the caustic "Heart of a Dog", simply could not descend to satire in the style of Ilf-Petrov. However, after the events around the Heart of a Dog, Bulgakov had to mask the satire more carefully, placing markers for understanding people. It is worth noting that in this interpretation, some inconsistencies and ambiguities in the novel received a plausible explanation. Unfortunately, Zerkalov left this work unfinished.

A. Barkov: "The Master and Margarita" - a novel about M. Gorky

According to the conclusions of the literary critic A. Barkov, "The Master and Margarita" is a novel about M. Gorky, depicting the collapse of Russian culture after the October Revolution, and the novel depicts not only the reality of Bulgakov's contemporary Soviet culture and literary environment, led by the Soviet newspapers by the “master of socialist literature” M. Gorky, erected on a pedestal by V. Lenin, but also the events of the October Revolution and even the armed uprising of 1905. As A. Barkov reveals the text of the novel, M. Gorky served as the prototype of the master, Margarita - his common-law wife, artist of the Moscow Art Theater M. Andreeva, Woland - Lenin, Latunsky and Sempleyarsky - Lunacharsky, Levi Matvey - Leo Tolstoy, Variety Theater - the Moscow Art Theater.

A. Barkov convincingly reveals the system of images, giving clear indications of the novel on the prototypes of the characters and the connection between them in life. Regarding the main characters, the instructions are as follows:

• Master:

1) In the 1930s, the title of "master" in Soviet journalism and newspapers was firmly entrenched in M. Gorky, to which Barkov gives examples from periodicals. The title "master" as the personification of the highest degree of the creator of the era of socialist realism, a writer capable of fulfilling any ideological order, was introduced and promoted by N. Bukharin and A. Lunacharsky.

2) The novel contains many indications of the year of events - this is 1936. Contrary to a certain indication of May as the time of the story, in relation to the death of Berlioz and the master, clear references to June are made in the novel (the lace shadow of acacias, flowering lindens, strawberries were present in early editions). Moreover, Woland's phrases contain indications of the second new moon of the May-June period, which in 1936 fell on June 19. This is the day when the whole country said goodbye to M. Gorky, who had died the day before. The darkness that covered the city (both Yershalaim and Moscow) is a description of a solar eclipse that happened on this day, June 19, 1936 (the degree of closing of the solar disk in Moscow was 78%), accompanied by a decrease in temperature and a strong wind (on the night of this day over Moscow there was a severe thunderstorm) when Gorky's body was exhibited in the Kremlin's Hall of Columns. The novel also contains details of his funeral (“Hall of Columns”, the removal of the body from the Kremlin (Alexandrovsky Garden), etc.) (absent in early editions; appeared after 1936).

3) The novel written by the “master”, which is an openly Talmudic (and defiantly anti-evangelical) presentation of the life of Christ, is a parody not only of the work and creed of M. Gorky, but also of L. Tolstoy, and also denounces the creed of all Soviet anti-religious propaganda. It is superfluous to remind at whose suggestion the novel "masters" was written.

• Margarita:

1) “Gothic mansion” of Margarita (the address is easily established from the text of the novel - Spiridonovka) is the mansion of Savva Morozov, with whom Maria Andreeva, an artist of the Moscow Art Theater and a Marxist, beloved of S. Morozov, lived until 1903, to whom he transferred huge sums used by her for the needs of Lenin's party. Since 1903, M. Andreeva was the common-law wife of M. Gorky.

2) In 1905, after the suicide of S. Morozov, M. Andreeva received S. Morozov's insurance policy bequeathed to her for one hundred thousand rubles, ten thousand of which she transferred to M. Gorky to pay his debts, and gave the rest to the needs of the RSDLP (in the novel, the master finds a “lottery ticket” “in a basket of dirty linen”, according to which he wins one hundred thousand rubles (with which he begins to “write his novel”, that is, launches a large-scale literary activity), ten thousand of which he transfers to Margarita).

3) The house with a “bad apartment” in all editions of the novel was held with pre-revolutionary continuous numbering of the Garden Ring, which indicates pre-revolutionary events. The “bad apartment” in the novel originally appeared with the number 20, not 50. According to the geographical indications of the first editions of the novel, this is apartment No. the base for the training of armed Marxist militants, created by M. Andreeva, and where V. Lenin visited Gorky and Andreeva several times (a memorial plaque on the house reports about several of his stays in this house in 1905: Vozdvizhenka, 4). The “housekeeper” “Natasha” (the party nickname of one of Andreeva’s henchmen) was also here, and there were episodes of shooting when one of the militants, working with a weapon, shot through the wall into a neighboring apartment (the episode with Azazello’s shot).

4) The Falerno wine mentioned in the novel refers to the Italian region of Naples-Salerno-Capri, which is closely connected with Gorky's biography, where he spent several years of his life, and where Lenin repeatedly visited Gorky and Andreeva, as well as with the activities of the RSDLP militant school in Capri , in which Andreeva, who was often on Capri, took an active part. The darkness that came precisely from the Mediterranean Sea also refers to this (by the way, the eclipse of June 19, 1936 really began over the territory of the Mediterranean Sea and passed over the entire territory of the USSR from west to east).

• Woland - Woland's life prototype comes from the system of images created in the novel - this is V.I. Lenin, who personally participated in the relationship between M. Andreeva and M. Gorky and used Andreeva to influence Gorky.

1) Woland marries the Master and Margarita, at the great ball with Satan - in 1903 (after Andreeva met Gorky), Lenin personally ordered Andreeva in Geneva to involve Gorky more closely in the work of the RSDLP.

2) At the end of the novel, Woland and his retinue stand on the building of the Pashkov house, reigning over it. This is the building of the Lenin State Library, a significant part of which is filled with the works of Lenin (in the early editions of the novel, Woland, explaining the reason for his arrival in Moscow, instead of mentioning the works of Avrilaksky, says: “Here in the state library is a large collection of works on black magic and demonology”).

Thus, as A. Barkov reveals all the plots of the novel, the novel shows the preparation and conduct of the October Revolution, the cultural upheaval of a continental scale (and cosmic influence), the formation in the USSR of a new Soviet culture created by V. Lenin, the erection of M. Gorky on the cultural pedestal by Lenin , as well as sunset, death (physical and spiritual) of M. Gorky.

Characters

Moscow in the 30s

Master

A writer, the author of a novel about Pontius Pilate, a person who is not adapted to the era in which he lives, and driven to despair by the persecution of colleagues who severely criticized his work. Nowhere in the novel is his name and surname mentioned; to direct questions about this, he always refused to introduce himself, saying - "Let's not talk about it." Known only by the nickname "Master" given by Margarita. He considers himself unworthy of such a nickname, considering it a whim of his beloved. A master is a person who has achieved the highest success in any activity, which may be why he is rejected by the crowd, which is not able to appreciate his talent and abilities. The Master, the protagonist of the novel, writes a novel about Yeshua (Jesus) and Pilate. The master writes the novel, interpreting the gospel events in his own way, without miracles and the power of grace - like Tolstoy. The master communicated with Woland - Satan, a witness, according to him, of the events that took place, the described events of the novel.

“From the balcony, a shaven, dark-haired man, with a sharp nose, anxious eyes and a tuft of hair hanging over his forehead, looked into the room cautiously, about 38 years old.”

margarita

The beautiful, wealthy but bored wife of a famous engineer, suffering from the emptiness of her life. Having met the Master by chance on the streets of Moscow, she fell in love with him at first sight, passionately believed in the success of his novel, prophesied glory. When the Master decided to burn his novel, she only managed to save a few pages. Then she makes a deal with the devil and becomes the queen of the satanic ball hosted by Woland in order to regain the missing Master. Margarita is a symbol of love and self-sacrifice in the name of another person. If you call the novel without using symbols, then "The Master and Margarita" is transformed into "Creativity and Love".

Satan, who visited Moscow under the guise of a foreign professor of black magic, a "historian". At the first appearance (in the novel The Master and Margarita), he narrates the first chapter from the Roman (about Yeshua and Pilate).

Bassoon (Koroviev)

One of the characters of Satan's retinue, all the time walking in ridiculous checkered clothes and pince-nez with one cracked and one missing glass. In his true form, he turns out to be a knight, forced to pay with constant stay in the retinue of Satan for one once said unsuccessful pun about light and darkness.

The hero's surname was found in F. M. Dostoevsky's story "The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants", where there is a character named Korovkin, very similar to our Koroviev. His second name comes from the name of the musical instrument bassoon, invented by an Italian monk. Koroviev-Fagot has some resemblance to a bassoon - a long thin tube folded in three. Moreover, the bassoon is an instrument that can play both high and low keys. Now bass, then treble. If we recall the behavior of Koroviev, or rather the change in his voice, then another character in the name is clearly visible. Bulgakov's character is thin, tall and in imaginary subservience, it seems, is ready to triple in front of his interlocutor (in order to calmly harm him later).

In the image of Koroviev (and his constant companion Behemoth), the traditions of folk laughter culture are strong, these same characters retain a close genetic connection with the heroes-picaros (rogues) of world literature.

A member of Satan's retinue, a killer demon with a repulsive appearance. The prototype of this character was the fallen angel Azazel (in Jewish beliefs, who later became the demon of the desert), mentioned in the apocryphal book of Enoch, one of the angels whose actions on earth provoked the wrath of God and the Flood. By the way, Azazel is a demon who gave men weapons, and women - cosmetics, mirrors. It is no coincidence that he goes to Margarita to give her the cream.

The character of the retinue of Satan, a playful and restless spirit, appearing either in the form of a giant cat walking on its hind legs, or in the form of a full citizen, with a face that looks like a cat. The prototype of this character is the eponymous demon Behemoth, a demon of gluttony and debauchery, who could take the form of many large animals. In its true form, the Behemoth turns out to be a thin young man, a page demon. But in fact, the prototype of the Behemoth cat was Bulgakov's big black dog, whose name was Behemoth. And this dog was very smart. For example: when Bulgakov celebrated the New Year with his wife, after the chiming clock, his dog barked 12 times, although no one taught her to do this.

Belozerskaya wrote about the dog Buton, named after Molière's servant. “She even hung another card on the front door under Mikhail Afanasyevich’s card, where it was written: “Buton Bulgakov.” This is an apartment on Bolshaya Pirogovskaya. There Mikhail Afanasyevich began work on Mastor and Margarita.

Gella

A witch and vampire from the retinue of Satan, who embarrassed all his visitors (from among the people) by the habit of not wearing almost anything. The beauty of her body is spoiled only by a scar on her neck. In the retinue, Woland plays the role of a maid.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz

Chairman of MASSOLIT, a writer, a well-read, educated and skeptical person. He lived in a “bad apartment” at 302-bis Sadovaya, where Woland later settled during his stay in Moscow. He died, not believing Woland's prediction about his sudden death, made shortly before her.

Ivan Nikolaevich Homeless

Poet, member of MASSOLIT. He wrote an anti-religious poem, one of the first heroes (along with Berlioz) who met Woland. He ended up in a clinic for the mentally ill, and was also the first to meet the Master.

Stepan Bogdanovich Likhodeev

Director of the Variety Theater, Berlioz's neighbor, who also lives in a "bad apartment" on Sadovaya. A slacker, a womanizer and a drunkard. For "official inconsistency" he was teleported to Yalta by Woland's henchmen.

Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy

Chairman of the housing association on Sadovaya Street, where Woland settled during his stay in Moscow. Zhadin, the day before, he committed the theft of funds from the cash desk of the housing association. Koroviev entered into an agreement with him for temporary housing and gave a bribe, which, as the chairman later claimed, "creeped into his portfolio by itself." Then, on the orders of Woland, Koroviev turned the transferred rubles into dollars and, on behalf of one of the neighbors, reported the hidden currency to the NKVD. Trying to somehow justify himself, Bosoy confessed to bribery and announced similar crimes on the part of his assistants, which led to the arrest of all members of the housing association. Due to further behavior during interrogation, he was sent to a lunatic asylum, where he was haunted by nightmares related to the requirements to hand over the available currency.

Ivan Savelyevich Varenukha

Administrator of the Variety Theatre. He fell into the clutches of Woland's gang when he carried to the NKVD a printout of correspondence with Likhodeev, who had ended up in Yalta. As punishment for "lying and rudeness on the phone", he was turned into a vampire gunner by Gella. After the ball, he was turned back into a human and released. At the end of all the events described in the novel, Varenukha became a more good-natured, polite and honest person. An interesting fact: the punishment of Varenukha was a "private initiative" of Azazello and Behemoth.

Grigory Danilovich Rimsky

Financial Director of the Variety Theatre. He was shocked by the attack on him by Gella, along with his friend Varenukha, so much that he preferred to flee from Moscow. During interrogation at the NKVD, he asked for an "armored camera" for himself.

Georges of Bengal

Entertainer at the Variety Theatre. He was severely punished by Woland's retinue - his head was torn off - for the unsuccessful comments that he made during the performance. After returning the head to its place, he could not recover and was taken to the clinic of Professor Stravinsky. The figure of Bengalsky is one of many satirical figures whose purpose is to criticize Soviet society.

Vasily Stepanovich Lastochkin

Accountant Variety. While I was handing over the cash register, I found traces of the presence of Woland's retinue in the institutions where he had been. During the delivery of the cash register, he suddenly discovered that the money had turned into a variety of foreign currencies.

Prokhor Petrovich

Chairman of the Spectacle Commission of the Variety Theatre. Behemoth the cat temporarily kidnapped him, leaving an empty suit sitting at his workplace.

Maximilian Andreevich Poplavsky

Kiev uncle of Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, who dreamed of living in Moscow. He was invited to Moscow for the funeral by Woland himself, however, upon arrival, he was concerned not so much with the death of his nephew as with the living space left by the deceased. Woland's retinue was expelled with instructions to return back to Kyiv.

Andrey Fokich Sokov

Barmaid at the Variety Theatre, criticized by Woland for poor quality food served at the buffet. He accumulated over 249 thousand rubles on the purchase of second-fresh products and other abuses of his official position. He also received from Woland a message about his sudden death, which, unlike Berlioz, he believed, and took all measures to prevent it - which, of course, did not help him.

Nikolay Ivanovich

Margarita's neighbor from the bottom floor. He was turned into a boar by Margarita's housekeeper Natasha and in this form was "drawn as a vehicle" to a ball with Satan.

Natasha

Margarita's housekeeper, who voluntarily turned into a witch during Woland's visit to Moscow.

Aloisy Mogarych

An acquaintance of the Master, who wrote a false denunciation against him for the sake of appropriating living space. He was expelled from his new apartment by Woland's gang. After the trial, Woland left Moscow unconscious, but, waking up somewhere near Vyatka, he returned. He replaced Rimsky as financial director of the Variety Theatre. Mogarych's activities in this position brought great torment to Varenukha.

Annushka

professional speculator. She broke a bottle of sunflower oil on the tram tracks, which caused the death of Berlioz. By a strange coincidence, he lives next door to a "bad apartment."

Frida

A sinner invited to Woland's ball. Once she strangled an unwanted child with a handkerchief and buried her, for which she experiences a certain kind of punishment - every morning this very handkerchief is always brought to her headboard (no matter how she tries to get rid of it the day before). At Satan's ball, Margarita pays attention to Frida and addresses her personally (she also invites her to get drunk and forget everything), which gives Frida hope for forgiveness. After the ball, when the time comes to voice her only main request to Woland, for which Margarita pledged her soul and became the queen of the satanic ball, Margarita, regarding her attention to Frida as an inadvertently given veiled promise to save her from eternal punishment, and also under the influence of feelings, donates in favor of Frida with his right to a single request.

Baron Meigel

An employee of the NKVD assigned to spy on Woland, who introduces himself as an employee of the Spectacular Commission in the position of acquainting foreigners with the sights of the capital. He was killed at Satan's ball as a sacrifice, with the blood of which Woland's liturgical chalice was filled.

Archibald Archibaldovich

The director of the Griboyedov's House restaurant, a formidable boss and a man with phenomenal intuition. Economical and as usual catering thieves. The author compares him with the captain of the brig.

Arkady Apollonovich Sempleyarov

Chairman of the Acoustic Commission of Moscow Theatres. At the Variety Theatre, at a session of black magic, Koroviev exposes his love affairs.

Jerusalem, 1st century n. e.

Pontius Pilate

The fifth procurator of Judea in Jerusalem, a cruel and domineering man, nevertheless managed to feel sympathy for Yeshua Ha-Nozri during his interrogation. He tried to stop the well-established mechanism of execution for lèse-majesté, but failed to do this, which he later regretted all his life. He suffered from a severe headache, from which he was relieved during interrogation by Yeshua Ha-Nozri.

Yeshua Ha-Nozri

The image of Jesus Christ in the novel, the wandering philosopher from Nazareth, described by the Master in his novel, as well as by Woland at the Patriarch's Ponds. Quite strongly at odds with the image of the biblical Jesus Christ. In addition, he tells Pontius Pilate that Levi-Matthew (Matthew) wrote down his words incorrectly and that "this confusion will continue for a very long time." Pilate: “But what did you say about the temple to the crowd in the bazaar?” Yeshua: “I, hegemon, said that the temple of the old faith would collapse and a new temple of truth would be created. I said it in a way that makes it easier to understand." A humanist who denies resisting evil with violence.

Levy Matvey

The only follower of Yeshua Ha-Nozri in the novel. Accompanied his teacher until his death, and subsequently took him down from the cross to bury him. He also made an attempt to kill Yeshua, who was led to execution, in order to save him from the torment on the cross, but failed. At the end of the novel comes to Woland, sent by his teacher Yeshua, with a request for "peace" for the Master and Margarita.

Joseph Kaifa

Jewish high priest, president of the Sanhedrin, who condemned Yeshua Ha-Notzri to death.

Judas

One of the young residents of Jerusalem, who handed over Yeshua Ha-Nozri to the hands of the Sanhedrin. Pilate, surviving his involvement in the execution of Yeshua, organized the secret murder of Judas in order to take revenge.

Mark Ratslayer

Pilate's bodyguard, once crippled during the battle, acting as an escort, and directly carrying out the execution of Yeshua and two more criminals. When a severe thunderstorm began on the mountain, Yeshua and other criminals were stabbed to death in order to be able to leave the place of execution.

Aphranius

Head of the secret service, colleague of Pilate. He supervised the execution of the murder of Judas and planted the money received for the betrayal at the residence of the high priest Kaifa.

Niza

A resident of Jerusalem, an agent of Aphranius, who pretended to be the beloved of Judas in order to lure him into a trap on the orders of Aphranius.

Versions

First edition

Bulgakov dated the start of work on The Master and Margarita in various manuscripts either 1928 or 1929. In the first edition, the novel had variants of the names "Black Magician", "Engineer's Hoof", "Juggler with a Hoof", "V.'s Son", "Tour". The first edition of The Master and Margarita was destroyed by the author on March 18, 1930, after receiving news of the ban on the play The Cabal of Saints. Bulgakov reported this in a letter to the government: “And personally, with my own hands, I threw a draft of a novel about the devil into the stove ...”. Work on The Master and Margarita resumed in 1931. Rough sketches were made for the novel, and Margarita and her then nameless companion, the future Master, already appeared here, and Woland acquired his violent retinue.

Second edition

The second edition, created before 1936, had the subtitle "Fantastic novel" and variants of the titles "The Great Chancellor", "Satan", "Here I am", "The Black Magician", "The Hoof of the Engineer".

Third edition

The third edition, begun in the second half of 1936, was originally called "Prince of Darkness", but already in 1937 the title "Master and Margarita" appeared. On June 25, 1938, the full text was reprinted for the first time (printed by O. S. Bokshanskaya, sister of E. S. Bulgakova). The author's editing continued almost until the death of the writer, Bulgakov stopped it at the phrase of Margarita: “So this, then, is the writers going after the coffin?” ...

Publication history of the novel

During his lifetime, the author read certain passages at home to close friends. Much later [when?], the philologist A. Z. Vulis wrote a work on Soviet satirists and remembered the forgotten satirist, the author of Zoya's Apartment and Crimson Island. Vulis learned that the writer's widow was alive and established contact with her. After an initial period of distrust, Elena Sergeevna gave the manuscript of The Master to be read. The shocked Vulis told many, after which rumors about a great romance spread throughout literary Moscow. This led to the first publication in the Moscow magazine in 1966 (circulation 150,000 copies). There were two prefaces: by Konstantin Simonov and Vulis. [Source not specified 521 days].

The corrected text of the novel was published as a separate edition in 1973 [source not specified 521 days], and the final text was published in the 5th volume of the collected works, published in 1990 [source not specified 521 days].

Bulgakov studies offer three concepts for reading the novel: historical and social (V. Ya. Lakshin), biographical (M. O. Chudakova) and aesthetic with a historical and political context (V. I. Nemtsev).

• about the project

The novel by M. A. Bulgakov is a masterpiece of world and domestic literature. This work remained unfinished, which gives each reader the opportunity to come up with their own ending, to some extent feeling like a real writer.

PART ONE

1 chapter. Never talk to strangers

The next topic of conversation between Ivan Bezdomny and Mikhail Berlioz was Jesus Christ. They argued heatedly, which attracted the attention of a stranger who decided to have the audacity to interfere in their dialogue. The man resembled a foreigner both in appearance and speech.

Ivan's work was an anti-religious poem. Woland (the name of a stranger who is also the devil himself) tried to prove the opposite to them, assuring that Christ exists, but the men remained adamant in their convictions.

Then the foreigner, as proof, warns Berlioz that he will die from sunflower oil spilled on the tram rails. The tram will be driven by a girl in a red scarf. She will cut off his head, not having time to slow down.

Rated the book

Why do I hate these "MiM" of yours: a few observations of a bore who has not joined the main book cult of the country

1) Bulgakov had a chance to catch an amazing era: the 1920s - the time of Babel, Vaginov, Olesha, Alexei Tolstoy, Ilf and Petrov, Kataev - were almost the most interesting in the history of Russian literature. Bulgakov knew how to learn, knew how to imitate - and in his texts the finds of more talented contemporaries are abundantly presented. For example, the first chapter of "MiM" is a mirror image of the first chapter of "Julio Jurenito." Both Bulgakov and Ehrenburg's meeting with a mysterious stranger of a demonic breed turns into a conversation about meaning, God and predestination of fate, compare "But here's what worries me: if There is no God, then, one asks, who governs human life and the whole routine on earth? and "But at least something exists? ... But is it all based on something? Does anyone manage this Spaniard? Is there any sense in it? .." However, Ehrenburg's caustic and observant book has only 19 readers on the livelib! But without Jurenito, perhaps there would be no Woland.

2) Usually the Master and the Homeless are contrasted: the first is a genius, and the second is mediocre. This conclusion is based on the fact that the Master does not like Bezdomny's poems "terribly" (although he has not read and is not going to read) and Bezdomny, being in a clearly inadequate state, recognizes his poems as "monstrous". But meanwhile the very text of the novel proves the opposite. The homeless man is undoubtedly a talented poet, because "Jesus turned out to be, well, completely alive." Creating a full-blooded character is already worth a lot. Here, the Master's Jesus did not work out: his Yeshua is a dull and dull image, a leaf likeness of the Gospel Christ, the complexity of whose appearance Bulgakov, the grandson of a priest and the son of a theologian, understood very well. For me, the storyline of Bezdomny is the story of a talent that was trampled on in passing - and the reader did not notice, carried away by the demonic antics of Koroviev-Fagot; The homeless man is the only one that evokes my genuine sympathy.

3) It surprises me that most readers take at face value absolutely everything that one way or another lets out in the novel. For example, Woland's remark "... never ask for anything! Never for anything, and especially from those who are stronger than you. They themselves will offer and give everything themselves!" is perceived with extreme seriousness, as if it is voiced not by the father of lies, but by the Old Testament prophet, whose commandments must be obeyed unquestioningly and literally. And some even consider Woland to be a kind of reasoner, whose opinion a priori coincides with the opinion of the author.
UPD: They take another lie of Woland seriously - that people do not change, modern people are the same as the old ones, "the housing problem only spoiled them." But it is obvious to anyone who is interested in history that with the passage of time the categories of thinking, ideas about beauty and morality, the meanings of the most basic words and concepts, and behavior patterns change significantly. The devilish picture of the world is a simplified picture of the world.

4) Moreover, the fact that the narrator in "MiM" is most often overlooked is a mocking and cynical type, whose words and assessments should be taken more ironically. For example, the famous words “Follow me, reader! Who told you that there is no true, true, eternal love in the world? " precede the story of very specific relationships: Margarita lives on the content of an unloved person and, having met the Master, is in no hurry to leave a beautiful apartment with furniture and a maid (to put it mildly, “real, faithful, eternal love” is good!); then, having lost her lover, she regrets that she sent off a potential gentleman: "Why, in fact, did I drive this man away? I'm bored, but there is nothing wrong with this ladies' man." But the reader continues to sculpt a holy ideal out of a prudent kept woman, without thinking that if these two had "real, faithful, eternal love" - ​​they would be granted not only "peace".

As can be understood from the above, I do not like the naively enthusiastic perception of "MiM" that has taken root among the masses. This book is not the "Gospel of Michael" at all, but a game full of deliberate deceptions and omissions. And I am offended that in the wake of the enthusiasm for this unfinished and secondary novel, many first-class books were forgotten, guilty only of being written in Soviet times. Therefore, if someone, after my post, has a desire to read the same "Julio Jurenito" or "Fiery Angel" - I will be very happy.

Rated the book

It would be banal to say that The Master and Margarita is a mysterious novel. I've been talking about this in lectures for over 15 years. But here's what's amazing: when my heart is in turmoil, when I feel bad, I randomly open any page of the novel and get exactly to the one where the answer is given to me, and the mood improves, and it becomes so good, and I laugh and cry from the realization that Bulgakov and his novel are part of my life, part of my existence. The book is always there - just stretch out your hand, there are so many bookmarks in it, so many notes! No, I do not believe those people who say that they did not like the novel - it simply did not open up to the consciousness and understanding of this reader. You have to grow up to read the novel! I remember a case when I met my favorite professor, microbiologist Yuri Ivanovich Sorokin, and he told me with such enthusiasm how his son Arkady and his friends were copying the samizdat pages of the novel The Master and Margarita all night long. It was in 1979. I then modestly kept silent and did not say that I also read the novel in samizdat performance. Years have passed. Now I have 4 editions of the novel, and I am proud of it, I am proud that my colleagues come to my lectures, write down, take notes, and the members of the attestation commission (honorable ladies) cried when I told the love story of the Master and Margarita! This novel is undoubtedly sent to us by God!

Rated the book

A strange illness happened to me: everything that I do not undertake to re-read takes on a completely different meaning, often completely opposite to the original one. The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, Anna Karenina... And this syndrome got to the Master and Margarita. I read it in the summer, there was a feeling that I was punched in the stomach. I thought: stress - I'll re-read it later. And just finished reading it the other day. No, then - in the summer - it did not seem to me. That's right.
I'll try to tell. In my youth, for me it was, perhaps, one of the most intimate novels about ideal love, about the fate of the Master with an unconditional parallel with the fate of Bulgakov and Elena. A novel about people, about what is important to them. Well, for example, cowardice is the most terrible vice; We speak with you in different languages, as always, but the things we talk about do not change; Everyone decorates himself as best he can. And so on. I couldn’t talk about this novel with anyone for a very long time: it was too intimate, it touched my soul too much. From the words and I want Frida to stop serving a scarf, I just started to sob. This went on for a very long time.
And so I re-read the novel already, in principle, having experienced a lot in my life: both losses, and gains, and joy, and grief, and disappointment, and love, and passion - in general, I became an adult. :)
And I came to the conclusion that it was a dying romance. And no matter how much they tell me that he is the result of all Bulgakov's work, it is not true. This is a novel of a dying man contemplating where he will go after death. And will it end up somewhere at all. Is there a place where they end up after death. It’s like a person looks into a large mirror and tries to find an answer to how he lived and what he deserves: punishment or reward. Each line in the novel is a reflection of precisely this state of search and answers to this, in principle, one and only question. Reflection of Woland, Pilate and reality. And all this is carried by the Master, as if in a kaleidoscope. Another interesting thought came to my mind. Everyone tends to associate the Master and Yeshua. Well, not everyone, but most. But! Master = Pilate. Yeshua = the conscience of the Master. That's exactly how I saw it. And the Master's novel about Pilate is essentially a conversation with his conscience. Therefore, he was not finished. Therefore, the manuscripts do not burn - to look and talk with your conscience, oh, how difficult. Almost deadly. The feeling of Dostoevsky is simply amazing from these chapters. Therefore, I consider it incorrect to say that these are chapters on Christian humility and so on. Nothing like that. Bulgakov is a wise author and he took the most characteristic character for a conversation with conscience - Pilate, who betrayed his soul. A stunning example. After all, a person is not a static substance, but a moving one. Through these characters he tried to understand himself. And, probably, a clash of conscience with the truth, with reality, in which there is more evil, in which one must very often step over it. After all, the burning of the manuscript by the Master is also a kind of "crucifixion" of conscience, as in the story of Yeshua and Pilate, like the scene of Satan's ball. After all, there Margarita acts as an author / Bulgakov. And also scenes with the crucifixion of conscience: "" and I want Frida to stop serving a handkerchief "". And all the characters: the Master, Yeshua, Woland, Pilate, Margarita - these are all parts of the mosaic named M.A. Bulgakov. Such a polyphony of one person. The whole novel is essentially Bulgakov's conversation with himself. And more about my own conscience.
Further, I did not see love in the novel at all ... Absolutely. Passion. Desire. Worship of talent, but not the love of a man and a woman. Margarita did not love the Master himself. She was captivated by his talent. The male Master and the Master Creator never united in her image. True love is bright and creative, it will never lead lovers into darkness.

Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita is one of the greatest works of Russian literature of the 20th century. It is very multifaceted, it can be re-read many times, each time finding a new meaning. This is a novel-mystery, a novel-revelation, which is remembered for a lifetime.

The events take place in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century. The devil arrives in Moscow with his retinue, before people he appears as a foreigner. Woland starts talking about religion, the existence of God, mystically interfering in the fate of people. In the theater "Variety" he holds a performance, where he shows absolutely incredible tricks. It gives women the opportunity to choose any outfit for free. But when they leave the theater, they remain completely naked, their clothes disappear. Woland's personality is mysterious, no one really knows anything about him. And he administers justice, punishing people for greed, cowardice, deceit, betrayal.

The second line in the plot is love. Margarita, the wife of an important official, meets the Master, an unknown writer. They are united by forbidden, fatal love, at the same time it is deep, calm. The master is writing a book about the ancient city of Yershalaim, in which Pontius Pilate judges Jesus Christ. Critics ridicule religious themes. The reading of religious literature, the Gospel was forbidden in the country.

The novel touches on the theme of the existence of God, faith, justice. Woland, together with his retinue, exposes many human vices, punishing the guilty. The love of the Master and Margarita, sincere and devoted, is able to go through the most difficult trials.

Despite the fact that the novel describes the 30-40s of the 20th century, the issues raised in it are relevant to this day. It can be noted with regret that even after many years people still strive for power, are ready to go over their heads for the sake of a career and money, lie and betray. The novel makes you think that love, kindness and honesty are still more important in life.

On our site you can download the book "The Master and Margarita" Bulgakov Mikhail Afanasyevich for free and without registration in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format, read the book online or buy the book in the online store.