The fate of the master in the work of the master and margarita. The fate and love of the master and margarita. Acceptance of the absence of a proper name in the name of a character

The novel by M. A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" is to some extent autobiographical. The fate of the Master largely repeats the fate of Bulgakov himself. Although he began writing his novel in 1928, the main creative period began after his marriage to Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya. In Elena, you can immediately notice Margarita - the main character of the novel, who, like a muse, appeared to the Master and contributed to the writing of the novel. Just like with Bulgakov, the "main book" of the Master was born - a work in which he was able to put his soul and heart. This book for Bulgakov was his novel "The Master and Margarita", which he wrote for 12 years - from 1928 to 1940. The conditions in which he was created were difficult, but the purpose of the artist is not to fight for fate and prosperity, but in creativity! Bulgakov did absolutely the right thing when he created, correcting and rewriting the novel in order to achieve the highest result and serve his own principle: "Finish before dying." Bulgakov did not fight for his novel, but simply created it nobly and brought it to life.

Everything that Mikhail Bulgakov experienced in his lifetime - both happy and difficult - he gave all his most important thoughts to the novel "The Master and Margarita". And an extraordinary creation of a true free artist was born.

In his novel, Bulgakov contrasts the Master, the artist, the creator and the literary society of Moscow. The master does not appear at the beginning of the novel, but only in chapter 13. In a conversation between two patients of a psychiatric hospital, for the first time, a word is heard that replaced the name of the hero and was placed at the beginning of the novel:

Are you a writer? the poet asked with interest.

The guest darkened his face and shook his fist at Ivan, then said:

I am a master...

"Master", because the word "writer" on the pages of the novel is compromised by the holders of MASSOLIT membership cards.

For the first time, we get acquainted with numerous representatives of this society in the Griboedov House, where a meeting of their dominant staff was held, solving issues that in no way related to creativity or art. Their activity in this governing body was to beg for a holiday cottage, a ticket to Yalta.

As Woland later put it: "... they were spoiled by the housing problem ..." When a ball begins in this "lair" of writers, it more and more resembles "hell", in which everything boils and boils with empty and meaningless speeches. Bulgakov never shows us this society in work or creativity, they can only fight for a place or money. And for all these sins, and most importantly, for unbelief, Berlioz, who was at the head of this society, is paying - he was cut off by a tram! We see that this is a really terrible and rotten society, which was supposed to be the "light at the end of the tunnel" for the unenlightened segments of the population, but in reality it was simply inactive and lined its pockets. The master does not consider himself a writer. He is only the creator of the novel about Pontius Pilate. Indeed, besides this novel, he did not write a single line, he had no other creations. The story about Pontius Pilate and Yeshua is also not invented, it is "guessed". This is confirmed by Woland, who was personally present at the events described in the manuscript.

The master writes in his basement on the Arbat. Margarita helps him, supports him, does not let him stop. Their whole life is contained in the novel that has not yet been completed, they exist for the sake of it. The manuscript belongs to Margarita no less than to the Master, making up an integral part of her being. The novel is not yet completed, but the ending is already known: "The cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the horseman Pontius Pilate."

This means that the novel already exists independently of the author and is only waiting for its implementation on paper. The master cannot yet predict what will be in the manuscript, but he knows for sure that it will be completed. And it happened. The work of life was finally carried out, and all that remained was to submit the manuscript for publication. And then disaster strikes. A talented person created what he had been striving for for many years. While he was writing in his basement, there were no obstacles in his way. Now that the work is completed, the Master is shocked at how his creation is perceived by the editors. He could not even think about all the behind-the-scenes intrigues of the publishing world.

And so one of the editors decides to print a large excerpt from the novel. Now it's all up to the critics. But their accusations are stupid, meaningless and, by and large, have nothing to do with the essence of the novel. All this happens at a time when atheism was spread everywhere in the Soviet country, churches were blown up, clergymen were shot. Therefore, the reaction to "an attempt to push an apology of Christ into the press" was natural. No one would have had the courage to support the "anti-Soviet" romance. A person who was either very brave or very naive could dare to publish a novel about Jesus.

The Master himself said that the bitterness of critics is not caused by the fact that they do not like the novel, but by the fact that they say something that is not what they think. Involuntarily, an association arises with Pontius Pilate, who did not dare to admit that he believed Yeshua. The master is like Ga-Notsri - an innocent defenseless person trying to say what he cannot but say, for which he is sent to execution.

"The Romance of the Master" is the story of the destruction of an idyll that came into conflict with the outside world, and its restoration in the realm of the other world. The world that opposes the world of the Master is the world of a selfish, inert, ignorant crowd, in which representatives of evil spirits rightfully rule. The character of the crowd has remained unchanged for centuries. Woland, watching the crowd in the Variety Theater, says to Koroviev: "Well ... they are people like people. They love money, but it has always been ... ordinary people ... In general, they resemble the former ones ..."

The novel permeates the confrontation between true freedom and unfreedom in all its manifestations. After all, it is freedom - words, thoughts, feelings, actions - that characterizes a real creative free person.

Yeshua Ha-Notsri, arrested, brutally beaten, sentenced to death, remains free in spite of everything. It is impossible to take away his freedom of thought and spirit. He is neither a hero nor a slave of honor. When Pilate hints to him how to answer questions in order to save his life, he does not reject his secret proposals, he simply does not hear them, they are so alien to his very spiritual essence. Yeshua performs a moral feat, remaining firm in the face of painful death in his humanistic preaching of universal kindness and free thinking. The fate of the author of the novel about Pontius Pilate is a creative feat. Both the teaching of Yeshua and the work of the Master are peculiar moral and artistic centers from which the action of The Master and Margarita is repelled and directed.

Pontius Pilate is a powerful Roman procurator, in his hands is the life and death of any of the inhabitants of Judea, but he does not know freedom. He is a servant of Caesar, his position, his career. And although Pontius Pilate really wants to save Yeshua, to break the chains of this slavery is beyond his strength.

In the Moscow chapters, the overwhelming majority of the characters are not free people, bound by fetters of instructions, rules, dogmas, decrees, or shackles of their own making. All these heroes are children of their time, which professes clear rules and frameworks. Bulgakov and his "accomplices" from Satan's retinue are quite lenient towards those who have lost their freedom against their will, and are completely ruthless towards those who have drowned themselves in prison, regardless of their position.

For Bulgakov, Berlioz is the most repulsive figure: a well-read, erudite, but incorrigible dogmatist. Berlioz is a writer who, upon meeting with an extraordinary person, runs after the police, editor and mentor of literary youth, who teaches these very youth to think freely and independently.

All these unfreedoms are opposed by the inner independence of the Master, which makes him related to Yeshua. The Master's novel is good, first of all, because it is the fruit of free labor, free creative flight, in which there is no place for the slightest violence of the author over himself. After all, he did not compose what he talks about in his "Pilate", but "guessed" without taking into account any guiding principles. Therefore, the fury of the critics of the novel is the fury of those who sold their freedom against those who kept it in themselves.

Margarita is also a free bird. Before meeting the Master, she had everything that a happy woman has: a handsome, kind husband who adored his wife, a luxurious mansion, and money. "She was happy? Not a single minute! .. What did this woman need? .. she needed him, the master, and not at all a Gothic mansion, and not a separate garden, and not money." Margarita "guessed" the Master among thousands of people just as he guessed her. And happiness reigned in the tiny basement apartment near the Arbat: freedom, creativity, love.

This happiness was destroyed precisely when the "neighbors" caught the Master that he was not like them: he didn't think like that, he didn't feel that way. And now the manuscript of the novel is burned, and the Master has no choice but to go to surrender to a lunatic asylum. Unfreedom defeated freedom, but, having won, it turned out to be powerless to destroy, trample on what the souls of the Master and Margarita were full of. They did not bow to their stranglers, they did not ask for mercy, they preferred something else.

"When people are completely robbed, like you and me," the Master says, "they seek salvation from the otherworldly force! Well, I agree to look there." This otherworldly power allows the heroes of the novel not only to preserve their freedom, but also to feel it with a special fullness that is inaccessible in real life.

There are deeply sad lines in The Master and Margarita, there are mischievous, funny episodes and scenes. Robbed to the skin, excommunicated from the reader and viewer, "sealed" in his apartment with government seals, mortally ill and aware that his days were numbered, Bulgakov remained himself: he did not lose his sense of humor or sharpness of language, which means he did not lose his freedom artist. In the history of Russian and world literature, this novel is not only evidence of Bulgakov's human fortitude and citizenship, not only a hymn to a moral and fearless person - Yeshua Ha-Notsri, but also to a creative person - the Master.

>Essays based on The Master and Margarita

Love and fate of the master

The novel "Master and Margarita" is considered to be the pinnacle of creativity M. A. Bulgakova. This work is unique, if only because so far no critic has fully revealed its true creative intent. Each reader has their own vision. The protagonist of the novel is a gifted writer in the prime of his life, called Master. After he won a certain amount of money in the lottery and left his job, the Master took up what he loved. He wrote a fascinating historical novel about the reign of the procurator Pontius Pilate and of the last days of the wandering philosopher Yeshua Ha-Nozri. The master put his whole soul into this work.

At this stage of his life, he met margarita- a young Moscow housewife, whose husband was a military engineer. Love between the Master and Margarita broke out instantly, as soon as their eyes met, full of loneliness. Margarita became not only the lover of the brilliant writer, but also his assistant. She was able to appreciate his book, which she re-read many times. Feeling that the Master could not cope without her, she left her husband.

When the time came to give the novel to print, the Master knew that his whole life depended on it. Unfortunately, the publishing house employees in those days did not always say what they thought and were often hypocritical. Despite the fact that the novel was more than worthy, they refused to publish it. And the critic Latunsky even wrote a harsh criticism of the novel. This article finally broke the Master, and he decided to set fire to his manuscript. After that, he spent some time in a mental hospital. There he met a failed poet Ivan Homeless who became his follower.

Desperate, Margarita at that time agreed to sell her soul to the devil for the well-being of her lover and the salvation of his work. Having resorted to the help of Satan, this couple lost their light, but found peace. Woland, as promised, returned the Master to Margarita, and to the Master a copy of his manuscript. Then he decided to transfer them to another dimension, since on earth they were surrounded by miserable, insignificant and hypocritical people.

The tragedy of the Master was that he was looking for recognition in the wrong circles. The fate of this hero is closely connected with the fate of the author himself. It is known that M. A. Bulgakov himself was also a historian by education and worked for some time in the museum. Many of his works were also rejected by publishers, and the novel The Master and Margarita was only published at all twenty-six years after the writer's death. Many writers who freely expressed their opinion in those days ended up in psychiatric clinics, died in poverty, and did not receive recognition during their lifetime. But, as you know, "manuscripts do not burn" and true creativity is immortal.

The idea of ​​a "novel about the devil" came to Bulgakov back in 1928. The manuscript of the first edition, apparently with some drafts and preparatory materials, was destroyed by him in March 1930. He reported this in a letter to the government dated March 28, 1930. ( “And personally, with my own hands, I threw a draft of a novel about the devil into the stove”) and in a letter to V.V. , I began to smear page after page again with that novel of mine destroyed three years ago. Why? I don’t know ").

The text of the first edition, as can be concluded from the surviving drafts, differed significantly from the published final edition of the novel. Almost the leading role was played by the satirical beginning with elements of humor. As he worked on the novel, its philosophical sound intensified: like the outstanding realists of the 19th century, the writer tried to solve the "damned" questions about life and death, good and evil, about a person, his conscience and moral values, without which he cannot exist.

The novel "The Master and Margarita" consists, as it were, of two novels (a novel within a novel- a technique used by Bulgakov and in his other works). One novel is from ancient life (a novel-myth), which is either written by the Master or narrated by Woland; the other is about modern life and the fate of the Master himself, written in the spirit of fantastic realism. At first glance, there are two narratives that are completely unrelated to each other: neither in content, nor even in execution. You might think that they were written by completely different people. Bright colors, fantastic images, whimsical style in modern paintings and a very precise, strict, even somewhat solemn tone in the novel about Pontius Pilate, which is maintained in all biblical chapters. But, as one of the most interesting researchers of the novel, L. Rzhevsky, notes, "the two plans of Bulgakov's novel - the modern, Moscow, and the ancient Yershalaim - are compositionally connected by the methods of linkages, repetitions and parallels" .

Yershalaim scenes are projected onto Moscow ones. One cannot but agree with B. V. Sokolov and a number of other researchers who claim that the characters of ancient history and the 20th century form parallel structures: Yeshua - Master, Levi Matvey - Ivan Bezdomny, Kaifa - Berlioz, Judas - Baron Meigel. In both plans, the action takes place before the Easter holiday. Many episodes and descriptions are also parallel: the Yershalaim crowd is very reminiscent of the spectators of a variety show; the place of execution and the mountain where the sabbat takes place have the same name. Descriptions of the weather in Yershalaim and Moscow are close to each other: scorching solar heat is replaced by a thunderstorm. The last motifs are very close to the apocalyptic scenes of The White Guard. There is also an absolute coincidence here: as in the "White Guard", the last murder - the murder of Yeshua - led to the fact that "the sun burst". In fact, humanity in the novel experiences the Hour of Judgment twice: during Yeshua and in the 20th century.

Bulgakov did not accidentally turn to the genre philosophical novel-myth. On the one hand, the philosophical novel is closely linked to modernity; on the other hand, turning to myth, which carries the broadest generalization, moving away from everyday life, allows us to translate the narrative into the sacred world, connect historical time with the cosmic, everyday life with symbolism. The two plans of the novel allowed the writer to give two endings: real and symbolic. In the real earthly world, there was no place for the Master and Margarita. Some heroes find genuine moral values ​​(Ivan Bezdomny finds a home and becomes a professor of history), others take a step towards the norms of human behavior (Varenukha became kind, took up the Sempliarov business, Likhodeev became healthy), and still others (including the scammer and traitor Aloisy) lead the former a life. The stay of Woland and his retinue only slightly changes the course of everyday life.

Another thing is in the mythologized, conditional plot of Satan's visit to Moscow. Like Yershalaim, the broken Moscow sun in the glass goes out and at the same time the veil of the future opens: "everything will be right", "it will be as it should be." The harbinger of this is perceived as a flame that engulfed not only the "bad apartment", the basement on the Arbat, but also "Griboyedov". Woland's semi-joking, semi-serious conversation with Koroviev, who allegedly helped firefighters, is symbolic:

“Ah, if so, then, of course, we will have to build a new building.

• “It will be built, sir,” replied Koroviev, “I dare to assure you of this.
• “Well, all that remains is to wish it to be better than before,” remarked Woland.
• “So it will be, sir,” said Koroviev.

These words echo what Yeshua said to Pilate: "The temple of the old faith will collapse and a new temple of truth will be created." The struggle of light and darkness, black clouds and fire ends with Bulgakov in the distant future with the victory of Light. Despite all the shortcomings of humanity, the suffering of its best people, the overwhelming burden they carry, the writer remains true to the great secret of life - the predestination of a successful outcome, which gives the novel an optimistic sound. The writer connects the possibility of such a victory with the extent to which people will follow the highest destiny. So the roll call of two plot plans allows you to philosophical idea of ​​the unity of people and morality in all historical epochs. It is no coincidence that Woland, to the main question of interest to him "have the townspeople [i.e. people] changed internally" gives the answer:

"... People are like people. Well, frivolous ... well, well ... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts ... ordinary people ... In general, they resemble the former ones ... the housing problem only spoiled them" .

The "housing problem", as Bulgakov understands it, thinking about the origins of the tragic destinies of our time, is a lost Home and a lost God. In the novel, this “question” explicitly or implicitly affects all the characters of the Moscow scenes: the Master, and Margarita, and Berlioz, and Poplavsky, and Latunsky, and Aloisy Mogarych, and others. One of the characters is generally called Homeless, and Woland himself lives on someone else's "living space". It is in this vein that Woland's discussion with Moscow writers should be understood. To the question of Satan, "if there is no God, then, one asks, who controls human life and the whole routine on earth?" Ivan Nepomniachtchi immediately gives the answer: "The man himself controls!"

This answer, on the one hand, receives a weighty refutation in the same chapter: Berlioz, arrogantly making plans for the near future, finds himself under a tram. On the other hand, the Yershalaim chapters, like the entire storyline of Margarita, prove that a person not only can, within certain limits, but must control his own destiny, however, being guided by the highest moral criteria that are the same for all times and peoples. Despite the fact that Yeshua Ha-Notsri is a "tramp" and "alone in the world", he retains the ability to believe in people, the conviction that a time will come when the state will not put pressure on a person and everyone will live according to the laws of morality, Kantian categorical imperative. It is no coincidence that the name of the German philosopher is mentioned in the same first chapter of the novel, where there is a dispute about whether there is a God, the concept of which is equivalent in Bulgakov to the concept of higher morality. With all the scenes of the novel, the writer proves that if God is the support of man, then man is the support of God. Bulgakov sees the "secret" of a person's spiritual survival in the situation of the collapse of the former House in the need to perform a new feat, similar to what Yeshua Ha-Notsri accomplished two thousand years ago.

The antagonists of the Yershalaim part of the novel are Yeshua and Pontius Pilate. Bulgakov's Yeshua is, of course, not the biblical, at least not the canonical Jesus Christ, which is constantly emphasized in the text of the novel. There is no hint here that he is the son of God. In Bulgakov's version, Yeshua is an ordinary man of about twenty-seven who does not remember his parents; by blood, he "seems to be a Syrian", originally from the city of Gamala, he has only one student Levi Matvey, causing a far from unambiguous assessment of the author. It is not the gospel story about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that is important to the author, but the trial of Yeshua, which Pilate is doing, and its consequences. Yeshua appears before Pilate to confirm the death sentence of the Sanhedrin, which consists of two charges. One of them allegedly consists in Yeshua's appeal to the people with a call to destroy the temple. After the prisoner explains what he was talking about, the procurator will reject this accusation. But the second accusation is more serious, as it concerns the Roman emperor: Yeshua violates the "Law of lèse majesté...". The accused admits that he expressed his views on state power. The author highlights the scene in which Pilate gives Yeshua the opportunity to get out, escape, avoid execution, if only he lies and refutes his words about Caesar:

“Listen, Ha-Notsri,” the procurator spoke, looking at Yeshua in a strange way: the procurator’s face was menacing, but his eyes were anxious, “have you ever said anything about the great Caesar? Answer! Did you say? .. Or .. Didn't ... say? - Pilate extended the word "not" a little more than it should be in court, and sent Yeshua in his gaze some thought that he seemed to want to inspire the prisoner.

Despite the evidence of the most terrible consequences, Yeshua did not take advantage of the opportunity given to him by Pilate: “It is easy and pleasant to tell the truth,” he declares.

"Among other things, I said<...>that all power is violence against people, and that the time will come when there will be no power of Caesars or any other power. Man will pass into the realm of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all."

Pilate is shocked and frightened - now, if Yeshua is pardoned, he himself is in danger:

"Do you think, unfortunate man, that the Roman procurator will release a man who said what you said? Oh gods, gods! Or do you think that I am ready to take your place?"

As L. Rzhevsky notes, "the theme of Pilate's crime" is one of the "structural themes of the novel", and it is no coincidence that the Master's novel is called "the novel about Pilate". In Bulgakov, Pilate is not punished for having authorized the execution of Yeshua. If he did the same, being in harmony with himself and his concept of duty, honor, conscience, there would be no guilt behind him. It is his fault that he didn't that, remaining itself, should have done. The writer psychologically accurately conveys the state of Pilate, who understands that he is committing an unrighteous act:

"A hateful city," the procurator suddenly muttered for some reason and shrugged his shoulders, as if he were cold, and rubbed his hands, as if washing them ...

The famous gesture, thanks to which the name of Pilate became a household name, as the very expression "wash your hands" became commonplace, here means something opposite to what it means in the Gospel. There, with this symbolic gesture, Pilate demonstrates his non-participation in what is happening. For Bulgakov, this gesture is a sign of the strongest emotional excitement. The procurator knows in advance that he will not act as his own soul or conscience tells him, but as the one who owns his whole being tells him fear, for which he is subject to the judgment of higher powers. Pontius Pilate is punished with a terrible insomnia lasting twelve thousand moons. In the last chapter of The Master and Margarita, which is called "Forgiveness and Eternal Refuge", there is, as it were, a combination of two novels - the Master's novel and Bulgakov's novel. The master meets with his hero and receives from Woland an offer to end his novel with one phrase:

“The master seemed to have been waiting for this, while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting procurator. He folded his hands like a mouthpiece and shouted so that the echo jumped over the deserted and treeless mountains:

- Free! Free! He is waiting for you!"

Pontius Pilate receives forgiveness, the path to which lies through suffering, through the awareness of one's guilt and responsibility, not only for deeds and actions, but also for thoughts and ideas.

“Two thousand years ago, in ancient Yershalaim, this sin was committed, inspired by the king of darkness, in the eternal and inscrutable struggle of darkness with light,” writes L. Rzhevsky. “Two thousand years later, this sin was repeated by incarnation in another, already modern, huge city And he brought with him a terrible host of evil among people: the destruction of conscience, violence, blood and lies.

Thus two plans, two streams of narration came together. The writer connects a further solution to this problem with the couple Yeshua - the Master. The similarity of the portraits, the unwillingness to dissemble, allow us to establish the commonality of these characters. The more striking is the difference. Yeshua remained unbroken. The fate of the Master is more tragic: after being released from the hospital, he no longer wants anything. At the request of Yeshua, Woland provides his beloved peace.

The question why the Master was not taken into the world, combined with the sadly pronounced phrase of Levi Matthew: "He did not deserve the light, he deserved peace" - causes disputes among literary critics. The most common opinion is that "The Master was not awarded the light precisely because he was not active enough, which, unlike his mythological counterpart, allowed himself to be broken, burned the novel"; "did not fulfill his duty: the novel remained unfinished". A similar point of view is expressed by G. A. Lesskis in the comments to The Master and Margarita:

"The fundamental difference between the protagonist of the second novel lies in the fact that the Master turns out to be untenable as a tragic hero: he lacked the spiritual strength that Yeshua reveals on the cross as convincingly as during interrogation by Pilate ... No one dares to reproach the exhausted man for such a surrender, he deserves peace.

Of interest is the point of view expressed in the works of the American scientist B. V. Pokrovsky. In his opinion, the novel "The Master and Margarita" shows the development of rational philosophy, which led to communism. The novel of the Master himself takes us not two millennia into the past, but to the beginning of the 19th century, to that point in historical development, when, after Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the process of demythologization of the sacred texts of Christianity began. As Pokrovsky believes, the Master is among these demythologists (liberates the Gospel from the supernatural, removes the main question for Christianity about the Resurrection of Christ), and therefore is deprived of light. According to the scientist, the Master was given a chance to atone for sin (meaning the episode when Ivan Bezdomny tells the Master about his meeting with Woland in the Stravinsky clinic), but he did not realize it: he took the devil’s testimony as the truth (“Oh, how I guessed! How I guessed!"). That is why he "did not deserve the light."

Developing a similar point of view, it can be assumed that Bulgakov gave the Master autobiographical features in this respect as well. It is no coincidence that in our time, some Orthodox critics accused the writer himself of distorting (desacralizing) Holy Tradition. One must think that the author of The Master and Margarita, who himself dreams of free creativity, follows the Pushkin tradition: an artist needs a Home, inner peace; in his actions he must be guided exclusively by inner conviction ("There is no happiness in the world, but there is peace and will"). What the Master received perfectly matches the Pushkin and Bulgakov ideal of the creator, especially since the last lines of the novel do not deny the possibility that the Master will ever, in the distant future, meet Yeshua.

On the other hand, it is difficult to agree with B.V. Pokrovsky when he writes: "However, such a statement is paradoxical, but historically the Master is the forerunner of the educated theorist Berlioz and the ignorant practitioner Ivan Bezdomny, Ivan before his rebirth." It is obviously incorrect to see in the figure of the Master "a nightmare of the mind that has absolutized itself", to compare him with Professor Persikov and even with Preobrazhensky. Although Bulgakov's ideas and theories are often the cause of misfortunes ("Fatal Eggs" and "Heart of a Dog"), in the writer's last novel the Master embodies not rationalism and pragmatism (Berlioz speaks of these functions), but, in the words of V. S. Solovyov, "the universal rational idea of ​​good, acting on the conscious will in the form of an unconditional duty or a categorical imperative (in Kant's terminology). Simply put, a person can do good in addition to and contrary to selfish considerations, for the very idea of ​​good, out of respect for duty alone or moral law.

The embodiment of this lifestyle in the novel is Margarita, the only character who does not have a couple in the biblical plot of the book. Thus, Bulgakov emphasizes the uniqueness of Margarita and the feeling that possesses her, reaching the point of complete self-sacrifice. (Margarita, in the name of saving the Master, concludes an agreement with the devil, that is, she destroys her immortal soul.) Love is combined in her with hatred and at the same time with mercy. Having destroyed the apartment of the hated Latunsky, she calms the crying child, and a little later refuses Azazello's offer to kill the critic. The scene after the ball is extremely important, when instead of asking for the Master's salvation, Margarita intercedes for the unfortunate Frida. Finally, Bulgakov's favorite theme of the House, love for the family hearth, is connected with the image of Margarita. The Master’s room in the cutter’s house with a table lamp, books and a stove, unchanged for the artistic world of Bulgakov, becomes even more comfortable after the appearance of Margarita, the Master’s muse, here.

One of the most interesting images of the novel is Woland. Just as Yeshua is not Jesus Christ, Woland does not embody the canonical devil. Already in the drafts of 1929 there was a phrase about Woland's love for Yeshua. Satan in Bulgakov is not an immoral evil force, but an active principle, which is so tragically absent from Yeshua and the Master. There is an inseparable connection between them, as between light and shadow, about which, by the way, Woland sarcastically says to Levi Matthew:

"What would the earth look like if the shadows disappeared from it ... Do you want to tear off the entire globe, blowing away all the trees and all life from it because of your fantasy of enjoying the naked light?"

This is also evidenced by the epigraph of the novel, taken from Goethe's Faust: "I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good."

Bulgakov’s Satan, V. Ya. Lakshin notes, is a “thoughtful humanist”, he and his retinue for the main characters are not demons of evil, but rather guardian angels: “Woland’s gang protects integrity, purity of morals.” Moreover, the researchers unanimously noted that neither Woland himself nor his retinue bring any evil to Moscow life, except for the murder of Baron Meigel, "an earphone and a spy." Their function is to manifest evil.

Of course, the biblical chapters of the novel contain the philosophical quintessence of Bulgakov's thought, but this in no way belittles the content of the chapters on modernity: one does not exist without the other. Post-revolutionary Moscow, shown through the eyes of Woland and his retinue (Koroviev, Behemoth, Azazello), is a satirical-humorous, with elements of fantasy, an unusually vivid picture with tricks and dressing up, sharp remarks along the way and comic scenes. During his three days in Moscow, Woland explores the habits, behavior and lives of people of different social groups and strata. Before the readers of the novel passes a gallery of heroes similar to Gogol's, but only smaller, although they are from the capital. It is interesting that each of them in the novel is given an impartial characterization. So, the director of the Variety Theater Styopa Likhodeev "gets drunk, enters into relations with women, using his position, does not do a damn thing, and can't do anything ...", the chairman of the housing association Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy - "burnout and rogue", Meigel - scammer etc. .

The novel "The Master and Margarita" is the pinnacle of Bulgakov's work. In the novel, the author touches on many different issues. One of which is the literary tragedy of a man who lived in the 1930s. For a real writer, the worst thing is not being able to write about what you think about, to freely express your thoughts. This problem also affected one of the main characters of the novel - the Master.

The master differs sharply from other writers in Moscow. All ranks of MASSOLIT, one of the largest Moscow literary associations, write to order. The main thing for them is material wealth. Ivan Bezdomny admits to the Master that his poems are terrible. In order to write something good, you need to put your soul into the work. And the topics on which Ivan writes do not interest him at all. The master writes a novel about Pontius Pilate, while one of the characteristic features of the 30s is the denial of the existence of God.

The master wants to be recognized, to become famous, to arrange his life. But money is not the main thing for the Master. The author of the novel about Pontius Pilate calls himself the Master. That's what his lover calls him. The name of the Master is not given in the novel, since this person appears in the work as a talented writer, the author of a brilliant creation.

The master lives in a small basement of the house, but this does not oppress him at all. Here he can safely do what he loves. Margarita helps him in everything. The novel about Pontius Pilate is the work of the Master's life. He put his whole soul into writing this novel.

The tragedy of the Master lies in the fact that he tried to find recognition in a society of hypocrites and cowards. The novel is refused to be published. But it was clear from the manuscript that his novel had been read and re-read. Such a work could not go unnoticed. There was an immediate reaction in the literary environment. Articles criticizing the novel rained down. Fear and despair settled in the Master's soul. He decided that the novel was the cause of all his misfortunes, and therefore burned it. Shortly after the publication of Latunsky's article, the Master finds himself in a psychiatric hospital. Woland returns the novel to the Master and takes him and Margarita with him, as they have no place among greedy, cowardly, insignificant people.

The fate of the Master, his tragedy echoes the fate of Bulgakov. Bulgakov, like his hero, writes a novel where he raises questions of Christianity, and also burns the first draft of his novel. The novel "The Master and Margarita" remained unrecognized by critics. Only many years later he became famous, was recognized as a brilliant creation of Bulgakov. Woland's famous phrase was confirmed: "Manuscripts do not burn!" The masterpiece did not disappear without a trace, but received worldwide recognition.

The tragic fate of the Master is characteristic of many writers who lived in the 1930s. Literary censorship did not let in works that differed from the general flow of what needed to be written about. Masterpieces could not find recognition. Writers who dared to express their thoughts freely ended up in psychiatric hospitals, died in poverty, never achieving fame. In his novel, Bulgakov reflected the real situation of writers in this difficult time.

One of the main characters of Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita" is the Master. The life of this man, like his character, is complex and unusual. Each era in history gives mankind new talented people whose activities reflect, to one degree or another, the reality surrounding them. Such a person is also the Master, who creates his great novel in conditions where they cannot and do not want to evaluate him according to his merits, just as they cannot evaluate the novel of Bulgakov himself. In The Master and Margarita, reality and fantasy are inseparable from each other and create an extraordinary picture of Russia in the twenties of our century. bulgakov master pilat tragedy

The atmosphere in which the Master creates his novel is not in itself conducive to the unusual theme to which he devotes it. But the writer, regardless of her, writes about what excites and interests him, inspires him to creativity. His desire was to create a work that would be admired. He wanted well-deserved fame, recognition. He was not interested in the money that can be received for a book if it is popular. He wrote, sincerely believing in what he creates, not aiming to obtain material benefits. The only person who admired him was Margarita. When they read the chapters of the novel together, still unaware of the disappointment that lay ahead of them, they were excited and truly happy.

There were several reasons why the novel was not properly rated. First, it is the envy that appeared among mediocre critics and writers. They realized that their work was nothing compared to the Master's novel. They did not need a competitor who would show that there is true art. Secondly, this is the theme of the novel, which is taboo. It could influence the views in society, change the attitude towards religion. The slightest hint of something new, something beyond the limits of censorship, must be destroyed.

The sudden collapse of all hopes, of course, could not but affect the mental state of the Master. He was shocked by the unexpected disregard and even contempt with which they treated the main work of the writer's life. It was a tragedy for a man who realized that his goal and dream were unrealizable. But Bulgakov brings a simple truth, which is that true art cannot be destroyed. Even after years, but it will still find its place in history, its connoisseurs. Time erases only mediocre and empty, not worthy of attention.