The essay “Bulgakov and the Master are one common tragedy. Open lesson on the novel by M.A

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

Bulgakov and the Master have one common tragedy - the tragedy of non-recognition. The novel clearly conveys the motive of responsibility and guilt of a creative person who compromises with society and power, avoids the problem of moral choice, and artificially isolates himself in order to be able to realize his creative potential. Through the mouth of Yeshua, the Master reproaches his contemporaries for cowardly cowardice in defending their human dignity under the pressure of dictatorship and bureaucracy. But unlike Bulgakov, the Master does not fight for his recognition, he remains himself - the embodiment of “immeasurable strength and immeasurable, defenseless weakness of creativity.”

The Master, like Bulgakov, becomes ill: “And then came... the stage of fear. No, not fear of these articles... but fear of other things that are completely unrelated to them or to the novel. So, for example, I began to be afraid of the dark. In a word, the stage of mental illness has arrived.”

Undoubted autobiographical associations include the pages of the burnt novel.
The great love that illuminated the life of M. Bulgakov was also reflected in the novel. It would probably be wrong to identify the images of the Master and Margarita with the names of the creator of the novel and Elena Sergeevna: many autobiographical features of the writer and his wife are present in the work. First of all, I would like to note the departure of Margarita (like Elena Sergeevna) from her wealthy, prosperous husband. Bulgakov considers Margarita the Master's faithful companion. She not only shares his difficult fate, but also complements his romantic image. Love appears to the Master as an unexpected gift of fate, salvation from cold loneliness. “Thousands of people were walking along Tverskaya, but I guarantee you that she saw me alone and looked not only anxiously, but even as if painfully. And I was struck not so much by her beauty as by the extraordinary, unprecedented loneliness in her eyes!” - says the Master. And further: “She looked at me in surprise, and I suddenly, and completely unexpectedly, realized that I had loved this woman all my life!” “Love jumped out in front of us, like a killer jumps out of the ground in an alley, and struck us both at once! That’s how lightning strikes, that’s how a Finnish knife strikes!”

Appearing as a sudden insight, the instantly flared up love of the heroes turns out to be long-lasting. In it, little by little, the fullness of feeling is revealed: here is tender love, and hot passion, and an unusually high spiritual connection between two people. The Master and Margarita are present in the novel in inextricable unity. When the Master tells Ivan the story of his life, his entire narrative is permeated with memories of his beloved.

In Russian and world literature, the motif of peace is traditional as one of highest values human existence. Suffice it to recall, for example, Pushkin’s formula “peace and freedom.” The poet needs them to achieve harmony. This does not mean external peace, but creative peace. This is the kind of creative peace that a Master should find in his final refuge.

Peace for the Master and Margarita is purification. And having been cleansed, they can come to the world of eternal light, to the kingdom of God, to immortality. Peace is simply necessary for such suffering, restless and world-weary people as the Master and Margarita were: “...O thrice romantic master, don’t you really want to walk with your friend under the cherry trees that are beginning to bloom during the day, and listen to Schubert’s music in the evening? Wouldn't you really enjoy writing by candlelight with a quill pen? There, there! The house and the old servant are already waiting for you there, the candles are already burning, and soon they will go out, because you will immediately meet the dawn. Along this road, master, along this one,” Woland says to the hero.

WOLAND is the central character of M.A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” (1928-1940), the devil who appeared at the “hour of hot spring sunset on the Patriarch’s Ponds” to celebrate “the great ball of Satan” here in Moscow; which, as it should be, became the cause...

The events described in the Gospel continue to remain a mystery for many hundreds of years. Disputes about their reality and, above all, about the reality of the person of Jesus still do not cease. M. A. Bulgakov tried to portray these events in a new way in the novel...

Woland is a character in the novel (The Master and Margarita((heading the world of otherworldly forces(Woland is the devil(Satan((prince of darkness(((spirit of evil and lord of shadows((all these definitions are found in the text of the novel (. Woland is largely oriented.. .

“THE MASTER AND MARGARITA” (2) The novel “The Master and Margarita” brought the author posthumous world fame. This work is a worthy continuation of the traditions of Russian classical literature, and above all, satirical - N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin...

In the real sense of the narrative, Bulgakov depicted the life of Soviet people in the 20-30s of the twentieth century, showed Moscow, the literary environment, and representatives of different classes. The central characters here are the Master and Margarita, as well as Moscow writers in the service of the state. The main problem that worries the author is the relationship between the artist and the authorities, the individual and society.

The image of the Master has many autobiographical features, but one cannot equate him with Bulgakov. In the life of the Master in artistic form the tragic moments of the writer’s fate are reflected. The master is a former unknown historian who abandoned his own surname, “like everything else in life,” “had no relatives anywhere and almost no acquaintances in Moscow.” He lives immersed in creativity, in understanding the ideas of his novel. As a writer, he is concerned with eternal, universal problems, questions of the meaning of life, the role of the artist in society.

The word “master” itself takes on a symbolic meaning. His fate is tragic. He is serious, deep, talented person existing under a totalitarian regime. The Master, like I. Goethe's Faust, is obsessed with the thirst for knowledge and the search for truth. Freely navigating the ancient layers of history, he searches in them for the eternal laws by which human society is built. For the sake of knowing the truth, Faust sells his soul to the devil, and Bulgakov’s Master meets Woland and leaves this imperfect world with him.

The Master and Yeshua have similar traits and beliefs. The writer allocated little space to these characters in the overall structure of the novel, but in terms of their meaning these images are the most important. Both thinkers have no roof over their heads, are rejected by society, both are betrayed, arrested and, innocent, destroyed. Their fault lies in incorruptibility, self-esteem, devotion to ideals, and deep sympathy for people. These images complement each other and feed each other. At the same time, there are differences between them. The master was tired of fighting the system for his novel, he voluntarily withdrew, but Yeshua went to execution for his beliefs. Yeshua is full of love for people, forgives everyone, the Master, on the contrary, hates and does not forgive his persecutors.

The Master does not profess religious truth, but the truth of fact. Yeshua - tragic hero, created by the Master, whose death he sees as inevitable. With bitter irony, the author introduces the Master, who appears in a hospital gown and himself tells Ivan that he is crazy. For a writer, living and not creating is tantamount to death. In despair, the Master burned his novel, which is why “he didn’t deserve light, he deserved peace.” The heroes have one more common feature: they do not feel who will betray them. Yeshua does not realize that Judas betrayed him, but he has a presentiment that a misfortune will happen to this man. Material from the site

It is strange that the Master, who is closed and distrustful by nature, gets along with Aloysius Mogarych. Moreover, already being in a madhouse, the Master “still” “misses” Aloysius. Aloysius “conquered” him with “his passion for literature.” “He did not calm down until he begged” the Master to read him “the entire novel from cover to cover, and he spoke very flatteringly about the novel...”. Later, Aloysius, “having read Latunsky’s article about the novel,” “wrote a complaint against the Master saying that he kept illegal literature.” The purpose of betrayal for Judas was money, for Aloysius - the Master’s apartment. It is no coincidence that Woland claims that the passion for profit determines people's behavior.

Yeshua and the Master each have one disciple. Yeshua Ha-Notsri - Matthew Levi, Master - Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev. At first, the students were very far from the position of their teachers, Levi was a tax collector, Ponyrev was a poorly gifted poet. Levi believed that Yeshua was the embodiment of Truth. Ponyrev tried to forget everything and became an ordinary employee.

Having created his heroes, Bulgakov traces the changes in the psychology of people over many centuries. The Master, this modern righteous man, can no longer be as sincere and pure as Yeshua. Pontius understands the injustice of his decision and feels guilty, while the Master’s persecutors confidently triumph.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

fate and yeshua essay
comparative characteristics of the master and Yeshua
contrast between the master and Yeshua
Yeshua image
master and yeshua

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

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