# Reading > Forum Book Club >  December / Bulgakov Reading: Master and Margarita

## Scheherazade

In December, we will be reading _Master and Margarita_ by Bulgakov:


> Surely no stranger work exists in the annals of protest literature than The Master and Margarita. Written during the Soviet crackdown of the 1930s, when Mikhail Bulgakov's works were effectively banned, it wraps its anti-Stalinist message in a complex allegory of good and evil. Or would that be the other way around? The book's chief character is Satan, who appears in the guise of a foreigner and self-proclaimed black magician named Woland. Accompanied by a talking black tomcat and a "translator" wearing a jockey's cap and cracked pince-nez, Woland wreaks havoc throughout literary Moscow. First he predicts that the head of noted editor Berlioz will be cut off; when it is, he appropriates Berlioz's apartment. (A puzzled relative receives the following telegram: "Have just been run over by streetcar at Patriarch's Ponds funeral Friday three afternoon come Berlioz.") Woland and his minions transport one bureaucrat to Yalta, make another one disappear entirely except for his suit, and frighten several others so badly that they end up in a psychiatric hospital. In fact, it seems half of Moscow shows up in the bin, demanding to be placed in a locked cell for protection.


http://www.amazon.com/Master-Margari...6698255&sr=8-1


Book Club Regulations

----------


## bazarov

Finally! Won't go too far with story because I don't want to spoil someones joy of reading so my question is: if story about Ha-Nocri or Jeshua is obviously showing Jesus, why is he 27 instead 33 years old?

----------


## Walter

I'm not sure there is a particular reason for 27, but I'll answer the question with a question. Is there _anything_ in the book that is represented correctly? With the possible exception of street and place names, everything else seems to be satire, or humor, written so broadly that inversion of what is seen on the page seems closer to reality. In some instances one can recognize the satire from one's own knowledge of conditions then; in other cases one can easily surmise the background situation then for the satirical comments being read now. I thought the book was great fun to read, especially in view of the author's continually sly point of view. Hence, perhaps, the 27 instead of 33 because he expects us to _know_ the correct age without telling us.

----------


## manolia

> Finally! Won't go too far with story because I don't want to spoil someones joy of reading so my question is: if story about Ha-Nocri or Jeshua is obviously showing Jesus, why is he 27 instead 33 years old?


I was wondering about the same thing...perhaps the author wants to tell us that everything concerning Jesus, even his age, was distorted by the evangelists -the one who was following Jesus around and was continually distorting what he said or did, don't remember his name  :Rolleyes:  .

I have read more than 200 pages by now, but my first question concerns the first chapter. Since i have never read Kant, that's no secret  :FRlol:  , what are his 4 proofs of the non-existence of God?

Hehehe the book has some gore in it and some supposedly scarry parts and is full of black humour...it would make a really nice movie.. :Wink:

----------


## Etienne

"don't remember his name "

It's not the wrong name, Jesus is simply a latinized name of the hebrew Yeshua or Jeshua (but Joshua would be a more accurate translation, it's not how some chose to translate the name however). Ha-Nozri means "from Nazareth".

"Since i have never read Kant, that's no secret , what are his 4 proofs of the non-existence of God?"

On the contrary, he tries to prove it's existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...der_.28Kant.29

I'm not sure about there being four however...

----------


## Walter

Manolia,
Just to begin:

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

and I seem to remember the claim that the proofs are all fallacious in one way or another.

----------


## Etienne

> Manolia,and I seem to remember the claim that the proofs are all fallacious in one way or another.


"God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist."

Well it doesn't take much observation to realize that this is base circular logic.

"Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God."

This is based on premises that are not a necessity, but simply a supposition (that might have looked like a necessity to some under the influence of preconceived ideas), and the conclusion that "The first cause is God" is not a logically necessary conclusion, at least, if God is understood as the abrahamic one.

But these are also very, very simplified, the real arguments are more complex (not necessary less fallacious though) there has been many "proofs" of God, most famous are by Anselm of Canterbury (Saint Anselm) and Descartes, however both are extremely dubious and logically fallacious. All these so-called proofs have also been criticized by other theist philosophers or theologians.

----------


## manolia

> It's not the wrong name, Jesus is simply a latinized name of the hebrew Yeshua or Jeshua (but Joshua would be a more accurate translation, it's not how some chose to translate the name however). Ha-Nozri means "from Nazareth".


Yep, i know that, but thanx anyway  :Wink:   :Smile:  
I meant the evangelist's name (from the second chapter of the book where satan relates the story of Jesus and he comically says about his being followed around by..?)




> On the contrary, he tries to prove it's existence.


He does? Oh i see now  :FRlol:  The author does what Walter said above  :Wink:  




> Manolia,
> Just to begin:
> 
> http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm
> 
> and I seem to remember the claim that the proofs are all fallacious in one way or another.


Thanx  :Smile: 
EDIT
Indeed they are three...but i am almost sure that the book says four proofs (either i have a bad translation or i don't remember correctly).
Walter from all the philosophers sited on this page i have only read Marx  :FRlol:  .

----------


## bazarov

> Thanx 
> EDIT
> Indeed they are three...but i am almost sure that the book says four proofs (either i have a bad translation or i don't remember correctly).
> Walter from all the philosophers sited on this page i have only read Marx  .


I haven't read Kant but...
On page 15 of my golden hard covered ltd edition copy Woland says that there are 5 Kant's proofs that God doesn't exist and Berlioz agrees with him. Later, Kant destroyed those evidences and made his own 6th proof. Woland, just before Berlioz was decapitazied tells them that 7th proof will appear in front of them in next minutes.

----------


## manolia

> I haven't read Kant but...
> On page 15 of my golden hard covered ltd edition copy


Hehe show off  :Tongue:  




> Woland says that there are 5 Kant's proofs that God doesn't exist and Berlioz agrees with him. Later, Kant destroyed those evidences and made his own 6th proof. Woland, just before Berlioz was decapitazied tells them that 7th proof will appear in front of them in next minutes.


I checked my copy and it says the same thing.. :Blush:  i guess my memory is worse than the memory of a goldfish  :FRlol:

----------


## Boris239

> I'm not sure there is a particular reason for 27, but I'll answer the question with a question. Is there _anything_ in the book that is represented correctly? With the possible exception of street and place names, everything else seems to be satire, or humor, written so broadly that inversion of what is seen on the page seems closer to reality. In some instances one can recognize the satire from one's own knowledge of conditions then; in other cases one can easily surmise the background situation then for the satirical comments being read now. I thought the book was great fun to read, especially in view of the author's continually sly point of view. Hence, perhaps, the 27 instead of 33 because he expects us to _know_ the correct age without telling us.


The part of the book about Jeshua does not have much humor, does it? 
Bulgakov shows us that Levy Mathew does not understand much of Jeshua's teachings so what we have left is spoilt and changed version of the real thing- it is clearly the writer's view on the church. Btw, Bulgakov's father was a very well known religious philosopher.
p.s.
there is a not very well known russian movie plus recently made TV series.

Couple of things that I would be interested to find out your opinion:

Why Master does not deserve light only peace? Who is your favorite from Woland's retinue? Mine without any doubt is Behemoth
Who is Koroviev really? In the end he transforms into the knight who made a bad joke.

----------


## manolia

> The part of the book about Jeshua does not have much humor, does it? 
> Bulgakov shows us that Levy Mathew does not understand much of Jeshua's teachings *so what we have left is spoilt and changed version of the real thing*- it is clearly the writer's view on the church. Btw, Bulgakov's father was a very well known religious philosopher.
> .


That was my point too Boris  :Wink:   :Smile:  Everything is distorted by 
levy Mathew (i couldn't remember his name for the life of me  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  )




> p.s.
> there is a not very well known russian movie plus recently made TV series..


Is it good?




> Couple of things that I would be interested to find out your opinion:
> Who is your favorite from Woland's retinue? Mine without any doubt is Behemoth


I can only answer this one (since i have just finished the first part of the book). I reaaaaaaly like the big fat black cat  :FRlol:  Very clever  :FRlol:  I have this thing with movies you know and i keep picturing (the whole book) but mostly the cat  :FRlol:

----------


## bazarov

> Hehe show off


Stupid computer!

----------


## manolia

:FRlol:   :FRlol:  Nice  :Wink:  
Mine has a big fat cat on the cover page  :Tongue: 

Hey i saw the pictures..

----------


## bazarov

You were quick! I don't know why I couldn't upload them. Did you see the gold?  :Smile:  Hope 'll finish it by morning so I can discuss about everything.







Hah, made it! Tutorial for newbies are always useful  :Smile:

----------


## manolia

Really nice  :Nod:  It looks old  :Wink:

----------


## bazarov

It's 3 weeks old, it's brand new, still has that smell and it was expensive...

----------


## Boris239

The series is reasonably good, haven't seen the movie.




> It's 3 weeks old, it's brand new, still has that smell and it was expensive...


It's cool- but some of my friends still have SamIzdat "M&M" from the times when it was not allowed and their parents were secretly giving it to their friends to read

----------


## bazarov

I am done with reading! 




> Bulgakov shows us that Levy Mathew does not understand much of Jeshua's teachings so what we have left is spoilt and changed version of the real thing- it is clearly the writer's view on the church. Btw, Bulgakov's father was a very well known religious philosopher.


I get the feeling he is making fun of theology whenever and wherever he can. That would make him against his father's opinion? Maybe they didn't like each other too much? Of course, he could also be satiric version of his father what would make him a good son.






> Why Master does not deserve light only peace?


Eternal peace could be found only in death. Like Jeshua knew that; he asked Woland to take Master under his custody. Maybe it's satirical pointing on heaven and paradise like places of eternal good and light.




> Who is your favorite from Woland's retinue? Mine without any doubt is Behemoth.


Agree totally. From chess playing, to gun shots, swimming in cognac, shooting spades and constant funny answers to Woland and Margarita...Poor black cats suffered because of him all over Moscow.  :FRlol:  




> Who is Koroviev really? In the end he transforms into the knight who made a bad joke.


What does mean ''a bad joke''? He said it and then even tried to correct it and it was a failure. He didn't made it so it can't be something unpleasant or unhonorable like taking someone's wife or a murder.
To be honest, I think Boris knows the answer but he is teasing us? It should be something from Russian history, maybe that guy from Boris Godunov who said he is someone's son and he wasn't and he shouldn't be new tsar? Just maybe, because Bulgakov obviously liked Pushkin? Maybe very big maybe...

----------


## bazarov

Procurator and Afanasije are talking in the garden:




> The visitor did not decline a second cup of wine, swallowed a few
> oysters with obvious pleasure, tried some steamed vegetables, ate a piece of
> meat. Having eaten his fill, he praised the wine:
> * 'An excellent vintage. Procurator, but it is not Falerno?''
> 'Caecuba,thirty years old*,' the procurator replied
> courteously.


At the end, Azazello gives a bottle of wine to Master:




> 'And again I forgot!' cried Azazello, slapping himself on the forehead.
> 'I'm quite frazzled! Messire sends you a present,' here he adverted
> precisely to the master, 'a bottle of wine. I beg you to note that it's the
> same wine the procurator of Judea drank. *Falernian wine*.'
> It was perfectly natural that such a rarity should arouse great
> attention in both Margarita and the master.


Why is this changed? If it was a Azazello's mistake, Master would see it. But no, he and Margarita are delighted with that fact so they see it as a normal. What is a meaning of that?

----------


## Boris239

The problem ,Baz, is that as far as I know nobody knows who Koroviev really is. I've read about couple of versions- one was about the Albigonsian knight who compared the death of Simon de Monfor with the sunrise- i.e. comparing death with life- Woland tells us that the knight made a nbad joke about darkness and light. When I was an undergraduate I went to a literature professor who is actually one of the translators of "M&M"- she didn't know.

----------


## manolia

I won't read your few last posts, not yet since you are discussing something towards the end..
Anyway, i have just read the party scene. Perhaps the best chapter in my opinion  :Wink:

----------


## bazarov

> Koroviev-Fagot/Dark Violet Knight
> *As they leave Moscow each of the members of Woland's suite turns back into his original form. Koroviev turns out to be a knight in dark-purple who once made a bad pun about darkness and light. The inspiration for this character seems to come from Cervantes' novel Don Quixote which Bulgakov adapted for stage in 1938. In the novel the knight Sanson, in order to force his friend Don Quixote to return home and give up being a knight, disguises himself as the Knight of the White Moon and challenges him to a duel. He beats Don Quixote, who when forced to return home cannot bear the collapse of his fantasies and dies. In this way Sanson becomes the unwilling cause of Don Quixote's death. Bulgakov alters Cervantes' name from Samson to Sanson or Sun-son, the son of the sun. Here Bulgakov plays on the themes of light and dark since the knight connected with the sun commits a dark deed while Don Quixote who had gone mad, and in that way is connected with darkness, actually comes across as a figure of light. The knight's unsuccessful joke is connected with the theme of light and dark. This theme again plays in with the epigraph of the novel itself about willing evil but actually accomplishing good. The dark violet of Korovyev's armor symbolizes the mourning and death of the lovers and their passage to a different world. This color was used in this way in the poetry and prose of the Russian Symbolists, and in particular Andrei Bely's poem The Last Meeting. (Sokolov)


From Boris's site  :FRlol:  I told you he is teasing us!

----------


## Etienne

Ohh that does make sense, and is quite amazing! Koroviev is Samson! Wow, I have to read it again just for that I think!

----------


## bazarov

My dear Ettiene...

----------


## Etienne

Ok, I admit I already wanted to read it again, and I probably won't do it because I'll read books I haven't read yet, but at least it let me express my amazement... oh forget it!  :Tongue:

----------


## Boris239

Well, this is only one of the versions. I can't say that I fully agree with it. Even though the site is very good, it doesn't mean that everything there is true  :Smile:

----------


## bazarov

> Well, this is only one of the versions. I can't say that I fully agree with it. Even though the site is very good, it doesn't mean that everything there is true


True. 

He could be Sanson Carasco, but I don't think Sanson did anything wrong; he helped to poor Don. Or is it because Don didn't want that help and it ruined him and that's the reason of Koroviev's guilt? Or Sanson did good but Bulgakov twisted it like he normally does?


Ettiene, sorry; I thought you're sarcastic again. :Tongue:

----------


## annakarina

Hi all, I am new to the forum and would just like to know, by when do we have to have read this book? It is probably stated quite clearly somewhere; in that case I apologise in advance for being thick.

----------


## Alexei

> Hi all, I am new to the forum and would just like to know, by when do we have to have read this book? It is probably stated quite clearly somewhere; in that case I apologise in advance for being thick.


Hi, Annakarina, welcome to the forum  :Wave:  You don't have to apologize at all. I think there isn't any deadline so don't worry. The discussion has already more or less started and you can join in as soon as you finish it. I haven't finish it yet too. Anyway I recommend you to finish it as soon as possible - it is such a great book, I love it  :Smile:

----------


## bazarov

Why this thread is going so slowly? Are you still reading?

----------


## Alexei

> Why this thread is going so slowly? Are you still reading?


I haven't finish with the rereading yet  :Blush:  
I have a question. I've read a few times about the cloak. It's white with with red lining (I probably haven't translated it right but i think you understand what I'm talking about). Do you think there is some special meaning in this? I suppose there is some when this fact is repeated so many times, but I can't understand what. 
Actually there is one more. Why the author doesn't tell us what exactly have happened with the Master before he had left his home and gone to the psikhushka?

----------


## bazarov

He didn't want Margarita to suffer with him because he was very sad and jaded, especially after ending his novel and bad critics about novel. 

I am not sure on what cloak you're referring :Tongue:

----------


## Alexei

> He didn't want Margarita to suffer with him because he was very sad and jaded, especially after ending his novel and bad critics about novel.


Yes, I know that  :Biggrin:  , but I mean there is one part of the story that is missing. The last night, after Margarita had already left, he had heard a knocking on the window and then...??? The Master continue to narrate it to Bezdomni, but it isn't 
narrated, the author goes to explaining how he is talking low and fast and that it seems to be of great importence etc, then the story continues with something like (I am reading it on Bulgarian and i am translating to English so I can't give an exact or even very close quote): In January in the middle of the night I was lying in the yard... Then it is described his state of mind and he says he had decided to go in the hospital. You can see the passage by yourself it's close to the end of chapter 13.




> I am not sure on what cloak you're referring


Bad luck, ha?  :FRlol:  
Just check the first line of chapter 2, it's beginning with the cloak (well...not exactly with the cloak but it is described in the beginning of the sentence). It's mention a few time more later and I began to think there is some meaning in it, but may be it's nothing. Anyway, I am curious  :Tongue:

----------


## Etienne

> Ettiene, sorry; I thought you're sarcastic again.


I'm a misunderstood man!  :Bawling:  

 :Banana:

----------


## Boris239

> I haven't finish with the rereading yet  
> I have a question. I've read a few times about the cloak. It's white with with red lining (I probably haven't translated it right but i think you understand what I'm talking about). Do you think there is some special meaning in this? I suppose there is some when this fact is repeated so many times, but I can't understand what. 
> Actually there is one more. Why the author doesn't tell us what exactly have happened with the Master before he had left his home and gone to the psikhushka?


Well, I can answer the second question. Master was taken to the NKVD- after all Mogarych obviously informed the authorities. In the novel there are a lot of places where it's not said explicitly about the involvement of the police but you can deduce it.

----------


## manolia

> Why this thread is going so slowly? Are you still reading?


I am almost done (2 more chapters)..i've been awfully busy these last two weeks  :Wink:  




> Well, this is only one of the versions. I can't say that I fully agree with it. Even though the site is very good, it doesn't mean that everything there is true


I liked that version (of course it would never have crossed my mind). I don't quite agree with it. Koroviof is a more sinister figure i think. He is bad..really bad, sarcastic, evil and cunning..i like him  :Wink:   :FRlol:  




> Yes, I know that  , but I mean there is one part of the story that is missing. The last night, after Margarita had already left, he had heard a knocking on the window and then...??? The Master continue to narrate it to Bezdomni, but it isn't 
> narrated, the author goes to explaining how he is talking low and fast and that it seems to be of great importence etc, then the story continues with something like (I am reading it on Bulgarian and i am translating to English so I can't give an exact or even very close quote): In January in the middle of the night I was lying in the yard... Then it is described his state of mind and he says he had decided to go in the hospital. You can see the passage by yourself it's close to the end of chapter 13.





> Well, I can answer the second question. Master was taken to the NKVD- after all Mogarych obviously informed the authorities. In the novel there are a lot of places where it's not said explicitly about the involvement of the police but you can deduce it.


What Boris says is true. It is explained somewhere in the novel that Mogarych-who coveted the master's cosy and snug appartment- turned him in. He spread false reports to the police. So you can assume that they were cops the ones he saw during the dark night, after Margarita left the appartment...or you can give a supernatural explanation..i think this novel is really open to various interpratations  :Wink:  

As for the cloak...i noticed too that it is described in various parts but i can't see a significance  :Wink:  

I think that Master is denied the light because he depicted Jesus as a human being..and not according to Levy Mathew's rightings. Not as god..a divine figure.

----------


## Alexei

I finally finish with my rereading  :Smile:  
Thanks, for the answers. You're right, *Boris*, one can deduce what have happened, but I actually wondered why it is left out of the book. Probably *Manolia* is right, like that you can interpret it as you like, I haven't thought about this at all  :FRlol:

----------


## manolia

You are welcome Alexei  :Smile:  
I finished the book. Hehehe i loved the ending. All of them on black horses..reminded me of the riders of the Apocalypse  :FRlol:  (can it be an allusion to this? Sounds probable.)
I think Koroviof is the *devil's advocate*  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
He certainly looks like a lawyer  :Tongue:   :FRlol:

----------


## bazarov

> You are welcome Alexei  
> I finished the book. Hehehe i loved the ending. All of them on black horses..reminded me of the riders of the Apocalypse  (can it be an allusion to this? Sounds probable.)


Yeah, that crossed my mind too.

----------


## manolia

So, what do you all think, did the Satan come to Moscow looking for the master? I think yes.
Why was only the master able to liberate Pilate?

----------


## Etienne

> I think that Master is denied the light because he depicted Jesus as a human being..and not according to Levy Mathew's rightings. Not as god..a divine figure.


Well, I believe that in the context of the story, Master depicted the story of Jesus accurately, as opposed to what Matthew and others made of it in the Bible. Perhaps Margarita couldn't go to heaven?

----------


## manolia

> Well, I believe that in the context of the story, Master depicted the story of Jesus accurately, as opposed to what Matthew and others made of it in the Bible.


Quite true  :Wink:  But perhaps Jeshua didn't like that in the end (at least after 2000 years of his being considered divine and being worshipped by milions of people). Perhaps he didn't like this new author, the master, who was "enlighted" and managed to reveal the truth about his identity and his real story..

In the end Jeshua appears to be in heaven or something, sending Mathew Levy as his ambassador to Satan..so you can assume that either:
a) Master didn't get the story right (which i don't believe is the case)
b)Jesus isn't as gentle and kind as it is depicted by Christianity and is denying Master the privilege of going to the light because he "doesn't believe he is worthy of the light" (to quote the book) because he failed to depict him as a holy being. Geezzz...there are many possible interpretations  :FRlol:  but having in mind that the book is mocking religion - among other things- (this is how i take it at least) it sounds probable to me. Besides god and Satan aren't in very bad terms (in the context of the story)  :FRlol:  .

One more thought: I think that Master is very kindly treated by Satan, Jesus' rival..And if you agree with me that Satan came to Moscow looking for the Master (the author of the story of Jesus' real life)..perhaps we have something here..




> Perhaps Margarita couldn't go to heaven?


Hmmm..i haven't thought about that. But i believe that the decision wasn't necessarily being taken for the Master's gratification.

----------


## bazarov

> So, what do you all think, did the Satan come to Moscow looking for the master? I think yes.


Me too.




> Why was only the master able to liberate Pilate?


Because he wrote a story where Pilat was sitting in the garden and waiting for Jeshua to come; story was unfinished and only Master, as a writer of that story could finish it. He decided to let him go free in eternity. 




> Perhaps Margarita couldn't go to heaven?


Margarita was like Tatyana, model of great Russian women in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, so she has almost all good merits: she is smart, honest, loyal, etc so I believe she could go to heaven, but Master couldn't. 

Why did soldier stab Jeshua in his heart instead of his ribs? Another fact showing that whole story about Jesus is fake? In my opinion, that's the reason why Master get Satan and hell instead of heaven.

P.S. 15th nissan really is a day of Jesus death. Well done, Bulgakov!

----------


## Alexei

I was thinking for while about this discussion and I think I do not really agree with you that Bulgakov is mocking religion, I think he actually mocks it's misunderstanding. Whit such old religion as Christianity there are so many things that people don't get anymore and according to his it was like this even in the beginning. I don't think he is ridiculing the Christianity but the people that can't understand it without some great miracles and some razzle-dazzle. They can't believe in the reality, in ll that common sense told them to and search for the divine and good in the miracles, when it is more or less in the world surrounding them. That's why almost all the wonders in the book belong to the department of Voland,the department of Satan, because good and divine doesn't reveal themselves in marvels, because with marvels is too easy to believe in something and the real thing is to believe in the goodness within you and within the reality that surrounds you.

p.s. Now, you are going to tell me nobody thinks that Bulgakov ridicule religion  :FRlol:  , so I am going to say it now - Sorry if I have misunderstood something.

----------


## Etienne

> Margarita was like Tatyana, model of great Russian women in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, so she has almost all good merits: she is smart, honest, loyal, etc so I believe she could go to heaven, but Master couldn't.


Well if we consider that Margarita is a witch and made a pact with the devil, I believe this is a sufficient reason in christian lore to be barred from heaven, isn't it?

----------


## Boris239

Well, a a couple of points

For me Margarita is nothing like Tatyana, whose character is not even half strong as Margo's. She saves her lover like Gretchen does in "Faust" (there are in general a great number of similarities between "M&M" and faust) but not just by asking the Virgin but making the pact with the devil- wouldn't any of us want a woman like that? Margarita originally didn't have much of a role in te novel and only in the final versions she became the main heroine- after Bulgakov married his 3rd wife Elena Sergeevna. 
Bulgakov doesn't mock religion- it's more like he mocks its modern interpretation- the whole argument that I've read about Jeshua being unhappy that Master has depicted him as human would make the hero of Bulgakov's novel very unhappy.
About master not earning the light but only peace. First of all who decided that light is better- that's what Woland tells Master and Margarita. But for me there is much more important reason. Jeshua says that cowardice is the worst of vices, and Master is very guilty of it- he doesn't fight for his novel, he gives it up, burns it and voluntarily goes to asylum (btw unbelievably prophetic- in later Soviet years dissidents were put into asylum- how can you not be happy under our great regime- you must be crazy). We know that "manuscripts do not burn", but the fact is the fact- Master is a very weak man who is saved by extremely strong and resourceful woman. And here we can feel Bulgakov's own guilt- after all he did exactly what Master did by burning the first version of "M&M" (it was called differently), and he did even worse than that- he compromised with Stalin writing a play about him. I am not saying that to condemn him or somethig- after all it was almost impossible for a writer in USSR not to compromise at least a bit, and Stalin (whose favorite play btw was Bulgakov's "Days of Turbins") did personally called him and then elped to obtain work at one of Moscow theatres. I do not judge him, but he himself undoubtedly did. He himself thinks that he is not worthy of light, he feels guilty...

----------


## manolia

> Because he wrote a story where Pilat was sitting in the garden and waiting for Jeshua to come; story was unfinished and only Master, as a writer of that story could finish it. He decided to let him go free in eternity.


Yes i thought that too, that since the Master is the creator of the story he is the one who can set his creation free..but Pilat is supposedly waiting for about 2000 years..before Master wrote his novel  :Wink:  Errmmmm..ok. Nevermind  :Biggrin:  




> so I believe she could go to heaven, but Master couldn't.


That's what i believe too.. :Wink:  After all Master's faith is discussed and determined and not Margarita's. Margarita short of follows  :Wink:  




> Why did soldier stab Jeshua in his heart instead of his ribs? Another fact showing that whole story about Jesus is fake? *In my opinion, that's the reason why Master get Satan and hell instead of heaven*.


Can you expand on this a bit? Sounds interesting  :Wink:  




> I was thinking for while about this discussion and I think I do not really agree with you that Bulgakov is mocking religion, *I think he actually mocks it's misunderstanding.* Whit such old religion as Christianity there are so many things that people don't get anymore and according to his *it was like this even in the beginning*. I don't think he is ridiculing the Christianity but the people *that can't understand it without some great miracles and some razzle-dazzle*. They can't believe in the reality, in ll that common sense told them to and search for the divine and good in the miracles, when it is more or less in the world surrounding them. That's why almost all the wonders in the book belong to the department of Voland,the department of Satan, because good and divine doesn't reveal themselves in marvels, because with marvels is too easy to believe in something and the real thing is to believe in the goodness within you and within the reality that surrounds you.
> 
> p.s. Now, you are going to tell me nobody thinks that Bulgakov ridicule religion  , so I am going to say it now - Sorry if I have misunderstood something.


 :Thumbs Up:  great post Alexei  :Smile:  
That's why i believe he (Bulgakov) is mocking religion because the interpretation of the scriptures (wittily portrayed in the book with the juxtaposition of the true story vs Mathew Levy's distortion of it) is what most people believe in after all  :Wink:  I am an atheist, so i don't have much of an opinion about the said interpretation. Everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wants and everyone is free not to believe, also  :Smile:  




> Well if we consider that Margarita is a witch and made a pact with the devil, I believe this is a sufficient reason in christian lore to be barred from heaven, isn't it?


Hehehe not necessarily (in the context of the book, always  :Wink:  ).




> Bulgakov doesn't mock religion- it's more like he mocks its modern interpretation- the whole argument that I've read about Jeshua being unhappy that Master has depicted him as human would make the hero of Bulgakov's novel very unhappy.
> About master not earning the light but only peace. First of all who decided that light is better- that's what Woland tells Master and Margarita.* But for me there is much more important reason. Jeshua says that cowardice is the worst of vices, and Master is very guilty of it- he doesn't fight for his novel, he gives it up, burns it and voluntarily goes to asylum (btw unbelievably prophetic- in later Soviet years dissidents were put into asylum- how can you not be happy under our great regime- you must be crazy).* We know that "manuscripts do not burn", but the fact is the fact- Master is a very weak man who is saved by extremely strong and resourceful woman. And here we can feel Bulgakov's own guilt- after all he did exactly what Master did by burning the first version of "M&M" (it was called differently), and he did even worse than that- he compromised with Stalin writing a play about him. I am not saying that to condemn him or somethig- after all it was almost impossible for a writer in USSR not to compromise at least a bit, and Stalin (whose favorite play btw was Bulgakov's "Days of Turbins") did personally called him and then elped to obtain work at one of Moscow theatres. I do not judge him, but he himself undoubtedly did. He himself thinks that he is not worthy of light, he feels guilty...


Hey Boris i believe you aren't reading this book for the first time, eh?
I think you are right..perhaps one should read this book twice in order to get the most of it  :Wink:  It's like reading a black comedy directed by David Lynch if you know what i mean  :Wink:   :FRlol:  
Anyway, i liked your explanation (after all it is repeatedly said that cowardice is the worst of sins, so this must be significant). And if you consider the information you'd given us about Bulgakov's life it indeed makes sense  :Nod:

----------


## bazarov

> Well if we consider that Margarita is a witch and made a pact with the devil, I believe this is a sufficient reason in christian lore to be barred from heaven, isn't it?


Her pact with Devil was made only from her wish to save Master and their love, so all her ''bad'' actions are product of her love. God didn't made her that kind of deal, and Satan did so she ended up with Satan.




> Yes i thought that too, that since the Master is the creator of the story he is the one who can set his creation free..but Pilat is supposedly waiting for about 2000 years..before Master wrote his novel  Errmmmm..ok. Nevermind


But Master's novel was saying about what happened 2000 years ago, and it was very accurate, just like it really did happen. That's way Pilate was still waiting (parallel worlds  :FRlol:  )






> Can you expand on this a bit? Sounds interesting


Jeshua is 27 instead of 33 years old, soldier stabbed him in his heart instead of his ribs, Levi Matheus was his disciple but Joseph from Arimatheus took his body and putted it in the grave, Jeshua was somewhere there under some rocks, Jesus's grave was a known spot. Woland or Devil on Earth is like a question: You want to see Apocalypse? Here you go! Apocalypse should be the end, and it doesn't look so, does it?
So, it looks to me that he laughs to story about Jesus!

----------


## manolia

> But Master's novel was saying about what happened 2000 years ago, and it was very accurate, just like it really did happen. That's way Pilate was still waiting (parallel worlds  )


Hehehe like "The terminator" movie  :FRlol:  in a sense...





> Jeshua is 27 instead of 33 years old, soldier stabbed him in his heart instead of his ribs, Levi Matheus was his disciple but Joseph from Arimatheus took his body and putted it in the grave, Jeshua was somewhere there under some rocks, Jesus's grave was a known spot. Woland or Devil on Earth is like a question: You want to see Apocalypse? Here you go! Apocalypse should be the end, and it doesn't look so, does it?
> So, it looks to me that he laughs to story about Jesus!


Oh i see...i think someone else...Boris perhaps..said something like that..that the alternative (Satan's offer) is not that bad after all  :Wink:

----------


## bazarov

Well, ends just the cause, does it?

----------


## hellsapoppin

I did not read the book and, much to my regret, will not have the time to join in the discussion. My understanding is that the book is chock full of symbolism that is often overlooked by Western readers. Does anyone know what those symbols are?

----------


## bazarov

Master and Margarita mini serial was recorded in 2005, I heard it's great. You can find it and download it on....yes, it's forbidden; I know  :Biggrin: 
So, try to find if you like; if you can't send me PM and I'll help you.

----------


## Jozanny

Before I retired from the forum I started reading _The Master and Margarita_, but even with the well endowed footnotes from Richard Fevear, in my e-edition, I find the subversive intent of Bulgakov to be elusive, maybe not quite as baffling as Flan's _The Third Policeman_, but still puzzling, at least to the extent that Menippean satire is not something I master easily, Swift's work being an exception. This is not to say that the dynamic within the text isn't appealing. The jagged locking of horns between Berlioz, Homeless, and the professor is funny, as is the editor's death, but Bulgakov isn't Tolstoy, with a messianic strain thrumming our ear drums.

Conceptually, to me state ideology and religous orthodoxy are flip sides of the same coin, so thus far, I am not sure who or what I'm rooting for, wondering the meanwhile if there isn't a Russian author alive or dead who doesn't annoy me on some level, even Tatyana, whose work I enjoy.

I'm still in the opening chapters, however, and won't push myself any further along, for now.

----------

