The essay “Bulgakov and the Master are one common tragedy. What do the Master and Bulgakov have in common? What do the Master and Yeshua have in common? What is the difference between their positions? What broke the Master? How did the inhuman influence the hero? Who is closer to Bulgakov, the master or Yeshua?

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 the highest values ​​of 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 ones - N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin....

circumstances of his life? How does the Master get to Stravinsky's clinic? What symbolic meaning does Bulgakov put into the image of the clinic? Please, it's very necessary!

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 (the novel The White Guard and the play Days of the Turbins based on it), and more generally, 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 is the path of life that leads them to suffering. The Master's creativity brings upon him devastating criticism and persecution, the teachings of Yeshua lead him to execution. Also, the common point of the two heroes is that both were betrayed by the people who were next to them. The Master was slandered by Aloysius Magarych, whom the Master later did not consider bad even after remaining homeless and ending up in the Stravinsky clinic. He simply did not see the presence of evil in him. Which is comparable to the fact that Yeshua proposed calling absolutely all people good. And Yeshua was betrayed by Judas, about whom he also spoke positively.
3) The difference between the heroes is the determination to follow the path of suffering to the end. Broken under a hail of devastating reviews, trying to stop him, the Master burned his novel, and Yeshua, without renouncing his words, doomed himself to death.
4) For the Master, the systematic persecution first caused misunderstanding, then despondency, and finally a state close to mental disorder. His fears even found some kind of figurative expression in his head. He described it as the presence of some terrible octopus nearby. The only source of strength for him was the presence of Margarita nearby. But she needed to leave. And she had to leave when the Master’s condition was especially difficult. And then, in his words, he went to bed sick, and woke up sick. And almost simultaneously with the Master’s illness, another misfortune overtook him; through the fault of Aloysius, whom he considered a friend, the Master lost his home.
5) The master, realizing his condition as painful, got to the point that even the most ordinary trams scared him, and having heard somewhere about Stravinsky’s clinic, he simply went to it on foot. He could have frozen, because in winter he had no warm clothes except a coat, but by 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.

Answer

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 (the novel The White Guard and the play Days of the Turbins based on it), and more generally, 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 is the path of life that leads them to suffering. The Master's creativity brings upon him devastating criticism and persecution, the teachings of Yeshua lead him to execution. Also, the common point of the two heroes is that both were betrayed by the people who were next to them. The Master was slandered by Aloysius Magarych, whom the Master later did not consider bad even after remaining homeless and ending up in the Stravinsky clinic. He simply did not see the presence of evil in him. Which is comparable to the fact that Yeshua proposed calling absolutely all people good. And Yeshua was betrayed by Judas, about whom he also spoke positively.
3) The difference between the heroes is the determination to follow the path of suffering to the end. Broken under a hail of devastating reviews, trying to stop him, the Master burned his novel, and Yeshua, without renouncing his words, doomed himself to death.
4) For the Master, the systematic persecution first caused misunderstanding, then despondency, and finally a state close to mental disorder. His fears even found some kind of figurative expression in his head. He described it as the presence of some terrible octopus nearby. The only source of strength for him was the presence of Margarita nearby. But she needed to leave. And she had to leave when the Master’s condition was especially difficult. And then, in his words, he went to bed sick, and woke up sick. And almost simultaneously with the Master’s illness, another misfortune overtook him; through the fault of Aloysius, whom he considered a friend, the Master lost his home.
5) The master, realizing his condition as painful, got to the point that even the most ordinary trams scared him, and having heard somewhere about Stravinsky’s clinic, he simply went to it on foot. He could have frozen, because in winter he had no warm clothes except a coat, but by 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.