M. Bulgakov focuses on ethical issues in his novel Christian teaching and the image of Christ, leaving aside the strictly spiritual, religious problems: “The main religious postulate - the doctrine of the God-man, torn to pieces, died on the cross and resurrected - is not considered by the writer in its holistic and complete form, giving a new reference human history. And in this sense, the image of Yeshua, perceived by many readers as Christ, but according to Bulgakov’s plan is not identical to him, is only an abstract abstract function of the moral and ethical ideas of humanity. Yeshua is the personified image of the moral law entering into unequal fight with legal right" 1.
Yeshua came into the world with the truth: man is good. Good is an absolute value. For Yeshua, all people are good (see fragment of the second chapter of “Pontius Pilate”):
“Do you know such people,” Pilate continued, not taking his eyes off the prisoner, “a certain Dismas, another Gestas and a third Bar-Rabban?”
“I don’t know these good people,” answered the prisoner.
- Is it true?
- Is it true.
- Now, tell me, why do you always use the words “good people”? Is that what you call everyone?
“Everyone,” answered the prisoner, “ evil people not in the world.
“This is the first time I’ve heard about this,” said Pilate, grinning, “but maybe I don’t know much about life!.. But, for example, the centurion Mark, they called him the Rat-Slayer, is he kind?”
“Yes,” answered the prisoner, “he is, indeed, an unhappy man.” Since good people disfigured him, he has become cruel and callous. It would be interesting to know who crippled him?
“I can readily report this,” Pilate responded, “for I witnessed it.” Good people rushed at him like dogs at a bear. The Germans grabbed his neck, arms, legs...
“If I could talk to him,” the prisoner suddenly said dreamily, “I’m sure he would change dramatically...
Of the five proofs of the existence of God - historical, cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral given in Encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Efron 2, - the latter is updated in the novel - moral, proposed at the time German philosopher I. Kantom. As we know, the third chapter of M. Bulgakov’s novel, where the death of M.A., predicted by the strange “foreign professor” Woland, comes true. Berlioz, called “The Seventh Proof” - that is, Woland’s proof of the existence of God (by contradiction): if the devil exists, then God also exists. In the early editions of the novel (1929-1930), “Woland’s proof” was called the sixth, and Kant’s moral proof was thus the fifth, in accordance with the dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. However, turning to I. Kant’s treatise “Only possible reason to prove the existence of God,” M. Bulgakov found out that the philosopher refuted another, fifth in total, proof - logical. Thus, in the latest edition of the novel, Kant’s proof naturally became the sixth, and Woland’s proof the seventh. Hence the title of the third chapter - “The Seventh Proof” 3.
The proposition about the unconditional and independent of our consciousness value of good is elevated by Kant to the rank of proof of the existence of God: “Two things always fill the soul with new and ever stronger surprise and awe, the more often and longer we reflect on them - these are the stars of the sky above me and the moral the law is in me" 4 (i.e. the beauty of the world and the good will of man). Immanuel Kant’s teaching about good will, according to the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, is that “a person can do good in addition to and despite any selfish considerations, for the sake of the very idea of good, out of sheer respect for duty or moral law” 5 .
At the beginning of the novel, in an argument M.A. Berlioz and Ivanushka Bezdomny with Woland we're talking about about the moral proof of the existence of God proposed by Kant. Berlioz insists that there was no Jesus at all, and refers to Schiller and Strauss (repeating arguments almost verbatim from the article “God” in the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary): “Kant’s proof,” the educated editor objected with a subtle smile, “is also unconvincing. And it was not for nothing that Schiller said that Kant’s reasoning on this issue could satisfy only slaves, and Strauss simply laughed at this proof.”. And Woland agrees with M.A. Berlioz that Kant’s moral proof is not convincing; at one time Messire spoke about this to Kant himself (18th century): “After all, I told him then at breakfast: “You, professor, have your way, have come up with something awkward! It may be smart, but it’s painfully incomprehensible. Above you make fun of will be [emphasis mine. - VC.]"".
And Woland cannot be denied knowledge of human psychology: indeed, contemporaries made fun of Yeshua and his truth (“a good man”), and the truth of the Master’s novel about the events of two thousand years ago was also ridiculed.
The tragedy of the incomprehensibility of Jesus is visibly represented by the picture of I.N. Kramskoy "Laughter" ("Hail, King of the Jews!") (1870-1880s). This canvas has two ideological and artistic centers. The left side of the picture, which immediately attracts our attention, is occupied by Jesus Christ wearing a crown of thorns, pillory; the pose and facial expression of Jesus are full of mournful dignity and greatness. He is deepened in himself, detached, and it seems that his gaze is directed beyond the boundaries of the space of the picture, before his mental gaze is the fate of his teaching, the fate of humanity. However, the artist places the emphasis on something else - on those laughing, on those laughing at Jesus (the right side of the picture). These laughing people, occupying the entire right side of the canvas and opposing Christ, are extremely picturesque: how much superiority and condescending irony is in the expression of their faces, in their imposing poses, and disdainful gestures! Behind them are power, wealth, practical life experience, and they already know what values are the most important in this earthly world! And only opposite them - on the left side of the canvas, behind Christ's back - is the lonely figure of a man turned away from the audience (apparently one of the apostles), with his arms hanging powerlessly and his head sadly bowed, resisting the blasphemous laughter: he alone understands at this moment the meaning of what is happening and the scale of the tragic events.
But even at the pillory, in his last earthly hour, Yeshua (like Jesus) remained faithful to the moral law: in response to the evil reproaches of the robber awaiting his death, Yeshua asks his executioner: "Give him a drink too". (However, Yeshua does not say to the thief, like Jesus Christ: “Today you will be with me in paradise.”)
The tragedy of Yeshua is not so much in his uncompromisingness, but in the fact that his truth was not in demand. And Yeshua fears that his teaching about goodwill will be misunderstood: "This confusion will continue very for a long time" ; lies will be preached in his name; they will try to introduce people to the truth of good with fire and sword and in the end they will announce that it "did not exist at all" And “all the stories about him are just fiction, the most ordinary myth.”
The truth of Yeshua is revealed in the novel as tragic: it is beautiful, it sparkles like gemstone, but it cannot be historically realized. All this leads to the modernization of the image of Yeshua-Jesus, making the image of Yeshua, according to Archpriest Alexander Men, “very far from the Gospel” 6. But this was the goal of the author of the novel.
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
The novel “The Master and Margarita” is distinguished by the complexity and breadth of its moral and philosophical issues. In his work, Bulgakov managed to combine myth and reality, satirical everyday life and a romantic plot. In the novel, three planes can be distinguished that are interconnected with each other: real, biblical and fantastic. It is impossible to understand this complex work without taking into account the cultural and historical context. It is imperative to take into account those literary sources, on which M. Bulgakov relied. First of all, you need to turn to the Bible, to the Gospel.
In the New Testament there are four Gospels, four versions of the story of the acts, condemnation and execution of Jesus Christ. Bulgakov creates the fifth version of the life and death of Jesus Christ. The image of Yeshua is perceived in relation to the image of Christ, although Bulgakov himself in the novel never puts an equal sign between them. And that's fair, because Bulgakovsky Yeshua shown primarily not as God, but as a man, although perhaps not quite ordinary. But common line The gospel biography of Christ is preserved in the novel. Like Christ, Yeshua, a young wandering philosopher, came to Yershalaim to preach his teaching. Like the real Christ, after the betrayal of Judas, he is arrested by the police and handed over to the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, who pronounces a death sentence on the wandering philosopher. Of course, there are significant differences between the heroes that relate to the facts of their biography. Perhaps the main difference is that the teaching that Bulgakov’s hero preaches only partially resembles the gospel sermons of Christ. Although both heroes never deviate from their views.
This sometimes real, sometimes completely fantastical novel explores current problem both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries - the problem of human self-government, the responsibility of man and humanity for the entire “routine of life on earth.” If human life is truly woven from chance, then can a person vouch for tomorrow, for his future, can a person be responsible for others? What does it mean to govern oneself, what kind of person is capable of self-government? Are there any immutable moral categories, or are they all changeable, and a person is driven by fear of power and death, a thirst for power and wealth? These questions are posed by the author of the novel in the “gospel” chapters - a kind of ideological center of the novel.
It is in the biblical chapters (there are only four) that Bulgakov tries to solve a number of important moral and philosophical problems. The writer reflects on the choice of life paths leading either to truth, freedom, or to slavery, betrayal, and inhumanity. The different views of the heroes on these problems become the cause of misunderstanding between Pontius Pilate and Yeshua. Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, values truth and intelligence, but believes that circumstances are stronger. He accuses Ga-Notsri of disrupting order in Yershalaim with his speeches about faith and truth, about goodness. He caused alarm among the most insightful people, the guards of order, to whom Pontius Pilate belonged due to his official position. Yeshua believes that a person can be changed for the better with good. He believes that in the future everyone will be equal, the power of one person over another should not exist. Rich life experience Pontius Pilate helps him understand Yeshua as a person. He does not want to destroy Yeshua, he is trying to persuade him to compromise. Inwardly, Pontius Pilate himself yearns for the truth. He feels that the world, ugly and disharmonious, is held together by the chains of “faith” and “violence.” But ultimately it is fear that determines the choice of Pontius Pilate. This fear is born of dependence on the state, the need to follow its interests. Bulgakov depicts Pilate not as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but as a sick man who showed weakness, for which he is doomed to eternal torment. By apostatizing from Yeshua, the procurator destroys both himself and his soul. Even after physical death, he is doomed to moral suffering, from which only the one who caused it, that is, Yeshua, can save him. From him, Pontius Pilate at the end of Bulgakov's novel receives forgiveness, after which his moral suffering finally stops.
The Gospel story depicted by M. Bulgakov in the work “The Master and Margarita” is also addressed to our history. The writer was troubled by the question: “What is truth: following state interests or focusing on human values?. The choice of Pontius Pilate indicates that under a totalitarian regime a person can survive if he is guided by state interests, and not by his own moral guidelines. M. Bulgakov’s work “The Master and Margarita” carries a huge spiritual charge of energy and optimism. Following best traditions Russian classics, Bulgakov calls to light through darkness, affirms the power of goodness and art.
The famous novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" - central work in his work. The most interesting artistic structure This book is endowed with: its action unfolds in three different planes. Firstly, the author presents to the readers the realistic world of Moscow life in the thirties. Secondly, it takes the reader into the exciting ancient times of Yershalaim, enriched by the history of events described in the Bible. And finally, before us appears fantasy world black magician Woland and his retinue.
Leaving aside the strictly spiritual and religious problems, Mikhail Bulgakov focused in his novel on the ethical issues of Christian teaching and the image of Christ himself. The image of Yeshua is perceived by many readers as Christ, however, according to the author’s intention, he was not at all identical to him.
And, it seems to me, this is fair, because Bulgakov’s Yeshua is shown, first of all, not as God, but as a man, although perhaps not quite ordinary. Despite this, the general line of the gospel biography of Christ in the novel is preserved. I think that this hero embodies a call to preserve the Christian ideals of goodness, love for one's neighbor, and the love of freedom.
Thus, the gospel chapters, which are the ideological center of the work, lift the veil of eternity and, in the “language of legends,” describe to us those days when humanity froze in anticipation of a “new word” that had the opportunity to open the way to new world, into the world of simple truths. This is why Yeshua came to old world with a new truth: man is kind.
And goodness is its absolute value. For Yeshua, all people are good.
Having shown compassion for the Hegemon, Ha-Notsri proclaims the first Christian commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” extolling in his mouth the virtue, love and compassion that humanity once lost. Pontius Pilate, understands that Yeshua’s ideas are true, becomes interested in him, but does not accept him, afraid to go against the “former ways.” Bulgakov demonstrates how representatives of the old world, drowning in their shortcomings, do not accept new saving ideas. This problem is real and by analyzing historical facts, one can trace its eternal relevance. For example, this problem worried the famous Russian painter Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoy. In his painting “Laughter” (“Hail, King of the Jews!”) (1870–1880s), he placed two artistic centers. On the left side is Jesus Christ, full of mournful dignity and majesty, wearing a crown of thorns at the pillory. Detached, deep within himself, and looking into the distance, beyond the boundaries of the canvas. He is full of thoughts about the future future for humanity and is saddened by its anticipation. However, the artist’s emphasis is not on Jesus himself, but on the crowd that “laughs” at his ideas and teachings. And only in the far left corner is a lonely figure of a follower of Christ, an apostle, visible (a parallel with Levi Matthew, a follower of Yeshua). In their imposing poses and dismissive gestures, one can see confidence in the future and the righteousness of the “old ways.” Returning to the novel, I would like to note that Bulgakov presented the scene of the death of Berlioz, who told Woland that he was confident in his future, in a very ironic way. The tragedy here is that “Christian truth” is simply not in demand among the crowd. This is where Ha-Nozri fears that the crowd will misinterpret his teachings, “this confusion will continue for a very long time.”
Bulgakov encourages the reader to think about crime through cowardice and moral self-purification. At the end of the novel, the Master finishes his book, releasing Pontius Pilate, who was afraid to accept the “true covenants.” Pilate waited nineteen centuries for forgiveness for his mistake and repented. And so, “on Sunday night” he is forgiven, for God forgives everyone. This confirms the biblical truth: “Through repentance we will cleanse ourselves.”
So, following the Christian commandments or any other laws of humanity is in human power.
I live in the twenty-first century. However, the more I observe people and the laws of life, the more often I notice that the world lives and changes according to the laws of eternity. And it seems to me that these laws are dictated by biblical commandments. They are the ones heard in the words of Yeshua from Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”: “I bring you a new world.” This desire for a “new” world, for a world of goodness and inner freedom is characteristic of every generation of people. Every writer and artist reflects this desire in their work. Therefore the most significant a work of art In Russian literature, I consider Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”.
In it, the author revealed the Christian ideals of goodness, love for one's neighbor, harmony, and freedom. In my opinion, the morality of all humanity is based on them, they rule the world of people, their entire network. The “gospel” chapters, which are the ideological core of the entire novel, lift the curtain of eternity. They give the right to judge that the novel can be considered historical. Pictures of life in biblical times appear in the Master's novel about Pontius Pilate. These chapters are distinguished by a special, sublime language, the “language of legends.” It seems to me that the biblical chapters describe those days when humanity seemed to freeze in anticipation of a new word, a new law, which
It would open the path to a new world, the path to truth. And this truth lies not only at the basis of Christianity, but also at the basis of the existence of the human world. It is not for nothing that the prisoner Ga-Notsri, an ordinary convict, becomes a desirable interlocutor for the procurator. This also happened because Yeshua showed compassion for the Hegemon, proclaiming the first Christian commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself. “And indeed, a miracle occurs: the procurator’s headache disappears and this awakens the Roman governor’s interest in Yeshua; moreover, he tries in every possible way to save his life. After all, the voice of Yeshua extols Christian, or rather human, values that have been lost for many generations: virtue, justice, morality, love. It seems to me that when the hero of the Master is loved, he says simple things that all people are good, that “there are no evil people, but there are unhappy ones,” then in these words the most innermost thoughts of the author himself are heard. These Christian postulates help the watchful heart of Yeshua to unravel the mystery of Pontius Pilate, helps him penetrate inner world Hegemon and see there isolation, constraint, boundless melancholy, the one in power, while Yeshua himself truly a kind person, "a person with hands tied" turns out to be freer than the procurator. Thus, in my opinion, the novel reveals the riddle and secret of freedom: to be free, you need to be kind, you need to love and understand people. Then your life will become beyond the control of anyone, and you yourself will understand the value of human life. In the biblical chapters this conclusion is confirmed by the actions of Pontius Pilate. After all, the hope of saving Yeshua does not leave the procurator even when the prisoner was accused of insulting Caesar, but the Hegemon is not free, he is in the grip of cowardice. For fear of ruining his career, he sends Yeshua to execution, and then suffers from complete betrayal. Yeshua died, and the “unlucky” procurator is haunted everywhere by the awareness of his vice—cowardice. For 19 centuries, he is waiting for forgiveness, and he will be forgiven one day “on Sunday night,” for God forgives everyone. This confirms the biblical truth: “Through repentance we will cleanse ourselves.” In my opinion, repentance is another way of learning the truth of life.
But is a person capable of repenting, is he capable of loving, understanding another, is the path to inner freedom? This is a mystery for every generation of people. Woland tries to ask the rest of the Muscovites of the 20s of the 20th century about this. And today I understand that to find answers to these questions you don’t need supernatural power. Throughout life, a person tests himself and others for the ability to follow the wisest and most humane laws of the movement of the world, the Christian commandments.
I. The complexity of the moral and philosophical issues of the novel “The Master and Margarita”
II. Philosophical and biblical motives in the novel.
1. Biblical events in the interpretation of M. Bulgakov.
2. Problems of the “gospel” chapters of the novel.
3. Dispute between Pontius Pilate and Yeshua.
III. Problems of good and truth in the novel “The Master and Margarita”.
The novel “The Master and Margarita” is distinguished by the complexity and breadth of its moral and philosophical issues. In his work, Bulgakov managed to combine myth and reality, satirical everyday life and a romantic plot. In the novel, three planes can be distinguished that are interconnected with each other: real, biblical and fantastic. It is impossible to understand this complex work without taking into account the cultural and historical context. It is imperative to take into account the literary sources on which M. Bulgakov relied. First of all, you need to turn to the Bible, to the Gospel.
In the New Testament there are four Gospels, four versions of the story of the acts, condemnation and execution of Jesus Christ. Bulgakov creates a fifth version of the life and death of Jesus Christ. The image of Yeshua is perceived in relation to the image of Christ, although Bulgakov himself in the novel never puts an equal sign between them. And this is fair, because Bulgakov’s Yeshua is shown primarily not as God, but as a person, although perhaps not quite ordinary. But the general line of the gospel biography of Christ in the novel is preserved. Like Christ, Yeshua, a young wandering philosopher, came to Yershalaim to preach his teaching. Like the real Christ, after the betrayal of Judas, he is arrested by the police and handed over to the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, who pronounces a death sentence on the wandering philosopher. Of course, there are significant differences between the heroes that relate to the facts of their biography. Perhaps the main difference is that the teaching that Bulgakov’s hero preaches is only partly reminiscent of the gospel sermons of Christ. Although both heroes never deviate from their views.
This, sometimes real, and at times completely fantastic novel, explores a pressing problem of both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries - the problem of human self-government, the responsibility of man and humanity for the entire “routine of life on earth.” If human life is truly woven from chance, then can a person vouch for tomorrow, for his own future, can a person be responsible for others? What does it mean to govern oneself, what kind of person is capable of self-government? Are there any immutable moral categories, or are they all changeable, and a person is driven by the fear of power and death, the thirst for power and wealth? These questions are posed by the author of the novel in the “gospel” chapters - a kind of ideological center of the novel.
It is in the biblical chapters (there are only four) that Bulgakov tries to solve a number of important moral and philosophical problems. The writer reflects on the choice life paths, leading either to truth, freedom, or to slavery, betrayal, inhumanity. The different views of the heroes on these problems become the cause of misunderstanding between Pontius Pilate and Yeshua. Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, values truth and intelligence, but believes that circumstances are stronger. He accuses Ga-Notsri of disrupting order in Yershalaim with his speeches about faith and truth, about goodness. He caused alarm among the most insightful people, the guards of order, to whom Pontius Pilate belonged due to his official position. Yeshua believes that a person can be changed for the better with good. He believes that in the future everyone will be equal, the power of one person over another should not exist. Pontius Pilate's rich life experience helps him understand Yeshua as a person. He does not want to destroy Yeshua, he is trying to persuade him to compromise. Inwardly, Pontius Pilate himself yearns for the truth. He feels that the world, ugly and disharmonious, is held together by the chains of “faith” and “violence.” But ultimately it is fear that determines the choice of Pontius Pilate. This fear is born of dependence on the state, the need to follow its interests. Bulgakov depicts Pilate not as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but as a sick man who showed weakness, for which he is doomed to eternal torment. By apostatizing from Yeshua, the procurator destroys both himself and his soul. Even after physical death, he is doomed to moral suffering, from which only the one who caused it, that is, Yeshua, can save him. From him, Pontius Pilate at the end of Bulgakov's novel receives forgiveness, after which his moral suffering finally ends.
The Gospel story depicted by M. Bulgakov in the work “The Master and Margarita” is also addressed to our history. The writer was troubled by the question: “What is truth: following state interests or focusing on universal human values?” The choice of Pontius Pilate indicates that under a totalitarian regime a person can survive if he is guided by state interests, and not by his own moral guidelines. M. Bulgakov’s work “The Master and Margarita” carries a huge spiritual charge of energy and optimism. Following the best traditions of Russian classics, Bulgakov calls to light through darkness, affirms the power of goodness and art.
- What is Matryona’s righteousness and why was it not appreciated and noticed by others? (based on the story by A. I. Solzhenitsyn “Matrenin’s Dvor”) - -
- What features of A. A. Fet’s poetry were pointed out by L. N. Tolstoy, who noted the “lyrical audacity” of the poet? - -
