The novel the master and margarita is the originality of the genre. M

In the story "Heart of a Dog" Bulgakov described as the protagonist an outstanding scientist (Professor Preobrazhensky) and his scientific activities, and from the specific scientific problems of eugenics (the science of improving the human breed) he moved on to the philosophical problems of the revolutionary and evolutionary development of human knowledge, human society and nature in general. In The Master and Margarita, this scheme is repeated, but the main character is a writer who wrote only one novel, and even that has not finished. For all that, he can be called outstanding because he devoted his novel to the fundamental moral issues of mankind, and did not succumb to the pressure of the authorities, which called (and, with the help of literary associations, forced) cultural figures to glorify the successes of the proletarian state. From the issues of concern to creative people (freedom of creativity, publicity, the problem of choice), Bulgakov in the novel moved to the philosophical problems of good and evil, conscience and fate, to the question of the meaning of life and death, therefore the socio-philosophical content in The Master and Margarita , in comparison with the story "Heart of a Dog", differs in greater depth and significance due to the many episodes and characters.

The Master and Margarita genre is a novel. Its genre originality can be revealed as follows: a satirical, socio-philosophical, fantastic novel in a novel. The novel is social, since it describes life in the USSR in the last years of the New Economic Policy, that is, in the late 1920s. It is impossible to date more precisely the time of action in the work: the author deliberately (or not specifically) combines facts of different times on the pages of the work: the Cathedral of Christ the Savior has not yet been destroyed (1931), but passports have already been introduced (1932), and Muscovites travel in trolleybuses (1934). The place of action of the novel is philistine Moscow, not ministerial, not academic, not party and government, but precisely communal and household. In the capital, for three days, Woland and his retinue study the customs of ordinary (average) Soviet people, who, according to the plan of communist ideologists, should represent a new type of citizens, free from social diseases and shortcomings inherent in people of a class society.

The life of Moscow inhabitants is described satirically. The evil spirits punish grabbers, careerists, schemers who "flourished magnificently" on the "healthy soil of Soviet society." The scene-visit of Koroviev and Begemot to the Smolensk market in the Torgsin store is remarkably presented - Bulgakov considers this institution a bright sign of the times. Petty demons casually expose a swindler posing as a foreigner, and deliberately ruin the entire store, where an ordinary Soviet citizen (due to the lack of currency and gold things) has no way (2, 28). Woland punishes a cunning businessman who conducts dexterous machinations with living space, the thief-barman from the Variety theater Andrei Fokich Sokov (1, 18), the bribe-taker-chairman of the house committee Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy (1, 9) and others. Bulgakov very wittily depicts Woland's performance in the theater (1, 12), when all women who wish are offered new beautiful outfits for free instead of their own modest clothes. At first, viewers do not believe in such a miracle, but very quickly greed and the opportunity to receive unexpected gifts overcome mistrust. The crowd rushes to the stage, where everyone gets an outfit to their liking. The performance ends in a funny and instructive way: after the performance, the ladies, tempted by the gifts of evil spirits, turn out to be naked, and Woland sums up the whole performance: “... people are like people. They love money, but it has always been ... (...) in general, they resemble the old ones, the housing issue only ruined them ... ”(1, 12). In other words, the new Soviet man, about whom the authorities talk so much, has not yet been brought up in the country of the Soviets.

In parallel with the satirical depiction of crooks of various stripes, the author gives a description of the spiritual life of Soviet society. It is clear that Bulgakov was primarily interested in the literary life of Moscow in the late 1920s. Bright representatives of the new creative intelligentsia in the novel are the semi-literate, but very self-confident Ivan Bezdomny, who considers himself a poet, and the literary official Mikhail Aleksandrovich Berlioz, who educates and inspires the young members of MASSOLIT (in different editions of the novel, the literary association located in the house of Griboyedov's aunt, Massolite, then MASSOLIT). The satirical portrayal of the figures of proletarian culture is based on the fact that their high self-esteem and pretensions do not correspond to their "creative" achievements. Officials from the "Commission of Spectacles and Amusements of the Light Type" are shown simply grotesquely (1, 17): the suit quietly replaces the head of the Commission, Prokhor Petrovich, and signs official documents, and small clerks sing folk songs during working hours (the same "serious" activity in the evenings was Domkom activists are busy in the story "Heart of a Dog").

Along with such "creative" workers, the author places a tragic hero - a real writer. As Bulgakov said half-jokingly, half-seriously, the Moscow chapters can be briefly rewritten as follows: the story of a writer who ends up in an insane asylum for writing the truth in his novel and hoping that it will be published. The fate of the Master (Bulgakov in the novel calls his hero "master", but in critical literature another designation for this hero is adopted - Master, which is used in this analysis) proves that in the literary life of the Soviet Union, the dictatorship of mediocrities and functionaries like Berlioz reigns rudely interfere with the work of a real writer. He cannot fight them, because there is no freedom of creativity in the USSR, although the most proletarian writers and leaders speak about it from the highest tribunes. The state uses its entire repressive apparatus against independent, independent writers, as shown by the example of the Master.

The philosophical content of the novel is intertwined with the social, scenes from the ancient era alternate with the description of Soviet reality. The philosophical moral content of the work is revealed from the relationship between Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea, the all-powerful governor of Rome, and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, a beggar preacher. It can be argued that in the clash of these heroes Bulgakov sees a manifestation of the eternal confrontation between the ideas of good and evil. The Master, who lives in Moscow in the late 1920s, enters into the same fundamental confrontation with the state system. In the philosophical content of the novel, the author proposes his own solution to the “eternal” moral questions: what is life, what is the main thing in life, can a person who alone opposes the whole society be right, etc.? Separately in the novel there is a problem of choice associated with the actions of the procurator and Yeshua, who profess opposite life principles.

From a personal conversation with Yeshua, the procurator understands that the accused is not a criminal at all. However, the Jewish high priest Kaifa comes to Pontius Pilate and convinces the Roman governor that Yeshua is a terrible rebel-instigator who preaches heresy and pushes the people into unrest. Kaifa demands the execution of Yeshua. Consequently, Pontius Pilate is faced with a dilemma: to execute the innocent and calm the crowd, or spare this innocent, but prepare for a popular revolt, which the Jewish priests themselves can provoke. In other words, Pilate is faced with a choice: to act according to conscience or against conscience, guided by momentary interests.

Yeshua faces no such dilemma. He could have chosen: to tell the truth and thereby help people, or to deny the truth and be saved from crucifixion, but he has already made his choice. The procurator asks him what is the most terrible thing in the world, and receives the answer - cowardice. Yeshua himself demonstrates by his behavior that he is not afraid of anything. The scene of the interrogation by Pontius Pilate testifies that Bulgakov, like his hero, a wandering philosopher, considers truth to be the main value in life. God (the highest justice) is on the side of a physically weak person if he stands for the truth, therefore the beaten, beggar, lonely philosopher wins a moral victory over the procurator and makes him painfully experience the cowardly act committed by Pilate just out of cowardice. This problem worried Bulgakov himself both as a writer and as a person. Living in a state that he considered unjust, he had to decide for himself: to serve such a state or to resist it, for the second one could pay, as happened with Yeshua and the Master. Still, Bulgakov, like his heroes, chose opposition, and the writer's work itself became a bold act, even the feat of an honest man.

Elements of fiction allow Bulgakov to more fully reveal the ideological concept of the work. Some literary scholars see in The Master and Margarita features that bring the novel closer to the menippea, a literary genre in which laughter and an adventurous plot create a situation of testing lofty philosophical ideas. A distinctive feature of the menippea is fantasy (a ball at Satan's, the last refuge of the Master and Margarita), it overturns the usual system of values, gives rise to a special type of behavior of heroes, free from any conventions (Ivan Homeless in a madhouse, Margarita as a witch).

The demonic principle in the images of Woland and his retinue performs a complex function in the novel: these characters are capable of doing not only evil, but also good. In Bulgakov's novel, Woland opposes the earthly world of crooks and shameless functionaries from art, that is, he defends justice (!); he sympathizes with the Master and Margarita, helps the separated lovers unite and settle scores with the traitor (Aloisy Mogarych) and the persecutor (critic Latunsky). But even Woland is powerless to save the Master from the tragic outcome of his life (complete disappointment and spiritual devastation). This image of Satan undoubtedly reflects the European tradition that comes from Goethe's Mephistopheles, which is also indicated by the epigraph to the novel from Faust: “I am part of the power that always wants evil and always does good ...”. Perhaps that is why Bulgakov's Woland and the petty demons turned out to be handsome, even magnanimous, and their witty tricks prove the writer's extraordinary ingenuity.

The Master and Margarita is a novel within a novel, as one work intertwines chapters from the Master's novel about Pontius Pilate and the chapters in which the Master himself is the main character, that is, the “antique” and “Moscow” chapters. By comparing two different novels within one, Bulgakov expresses his philosophy of history: the ideological and moral crisis of the ancient world led to the emergence of a new religion - Christianity and Christian morality, the crisis of the European civilization of the 20th century - to social revolutions and atheism, that is, to the rejection of Christianity. Thus, humanity moves in a vicious circle and after two thousand years (without one century) returns to the same thing from which it once left. The main thing that attracts Bulgakov's attention is, of course, the depiction of contemporary Soviet reality. Comprehending the present and the fate of the writer in the modern world, the author resorts to an analogy - to the depiction of the historical situation (the life and execution of the philosopher Yeshua Ha-Nozri in Judea at the beginning of a new era).

So, the novel "The Master and Margarita" by genre is a very complex work. The description of the life of Moscow during the NEP period, that is, the social content, is intertwined with scenes in ancient Judea, that is, with a philosophical content. Bulgakov satirically ridicules various Soviet swindlers, semi-literate poets, cynical functionaries from culture and literature, and useless officials. At the same time, he sympathetically tells the story of the love and suffering of the Master and Margarita. This is how satire and lyrics are combined in the novel. Along with the realistic portrayal of Muscovites, Bulgakov places fantastic images of Woland and his retinue in the novel. All these diverse scenes and techniques of depiction are combined in one work through a complex composition - a novel within a novel.

At first glance, "The Master and Margarita" is a fascinating novel about the fantastic tricks of evil spirits in Moscow, a witty novel, sarcastically ridiculing the mores of NEP's life. However, behind the external amusement and gaiety in the work, you can see a deep philosophical content - a discourse about the struggle between good and evil in the human soul and in the history of mankind. Bulgakov's novel is often compared with the great novel by I.-V. Goethe "Faust", and not only because of the image of Woland, which is at the same time similar and not similar to Mephistopheles. Another thing is important: the similarity of the two novels is expressed in a humanistic idea. Goethe's novel arose as a philosophical understanding of the European world after the Great French Revolution of 1789; Bulgakov in his novel comprehends the fate of Russia after the October Revolution of 1917. Both Goethe and Bulgakov argue that the main value of a person is in his desire for goodness and creativity. Both authors contrast these qualities to chaos in the human soul and destructive processes in society. However, periods of chaos and destruction in history are always replaced by creation. That is why Goethe's Mephistopheles never receives the soul of Faust, and Bulgakov's Master, unable to withstand the struggle with the surrounding spiritless world, burns his novel, but does not harden, retains in his soul love for Margarita, sympathy for Ivan Homeless, sympathy for Pontius Pilate, who dreams of forgiveness ...

Literature lesson in grade 11 on the topic "The Master and Margarita".

The history of the novel. Genre and composition.

The purpose of the lesson: 1) to tell about the meaning of the novel, its fate, to show the features of the genre and composition, 2) to promote the expression of students' interest in the work of M.A. Bulgakov.

During the classes

1) Introductory remarks by the teacher.

Reading an excerpt from the book "Bulgakov and Lappa"

Why do you think I started the lesson by reading this passage?

2) Work in a notebook. Recording the topic of the lesson.

3) Teacher's message.

"Finish before you die!"

The history of the novel.

Bulgakov began writing the novel The Master and Margarita in 1928 and worked on it for 12 years, that is, until the end of his life, without hoping to publish it.

Work on the novel resumed in 1931.

At this time Bulgakov writes to his friend: “A demon has possessed me. Choking in my little room, I began to smudge page after page of that novel, which was destroyed three years ago. What for? Do not know. I am amuse myself. Let it fall in the summer. However, I will probably give it up soon. "

However, Bulgakov no longer throws M and M anymore.

The second edition of The Master and Margarita, created up to 1936, had the subtitle Fantastic Novel and variants of the titles The Great Chancellor, Satan, Here I Am, Hat with a Feather, The Black Theologian, He appeared, "The Horseshoe of a Foreigner," "He Appeared," "The Coming," "The Black Magician," and "The Hoof of the Consultant."

The second edition of the novel already featured Margarita and the Master, and Woland acquired his own retinue.

The third edition of the novel, begun in the second half of 1936 or in 1937, was initially called "The Prince of Darkness." In 1937, returning once again to the beginning of the novel, the author first wrote on the title page the title "The Master and Margarita", which became final, set the dates 1928‑ 1937 and more did not leave work on it.

In May - June 1938, the full text of the novel was reprinted for the first time, copyright editing continued almost until the writer's death. In 1939, important changes were made to the end of the novel and the epilogue was added. But then the terminally ill Bulgakov dictated to his wife, Elena Sergeevna, amendments to the text. The extensiveness of the insertions and corrections in the first part and at the beginning of the second suggests that no less work was to be done further, but the author did not have time to complete it. Bulgakov stopped work on the novel on February 13, 1940, less than four weeks before his death.

Fatally ill, Bulgakov continued to work on the novel until his last day, to make corrections. E.S. Bulgakova recalled this: “During my illness, he dictated and corrected The Master and Margarita to me, the thing that he loved more than all his other things. He wrote it for 12 years. And the last corrections that he dictated to me were included in the copy, which is in the Lenin Library. These amendments and additions show that his intelligence and talent did not weaken in the least. These were brilliant additions to what had been written before.

When at the end of the illness he almost lost his speech, sometimes only the ends or beginnings of words came out. There was a case when I was sitting next to him, as always, on a pillow on the floor, near the head of his bed, he made me understand that he needed something, that he wanted something from me. I offered him medicine, drink - lemon juice, but I understood clearly that this was not the case. Then I guessed it and asked: "Your things?" He nodded with an air of yes and no. I said: "The Master and Margarita"? He, terribly delighted, made a sign with his head that "yes, it is." And he squeezed out two words: "To know, to know."

Bulgakov realized his novel "as the last, sunset," as a testament, as his main message to humanity.

4) Genre of the novel "The Master and Margarita"

Remember what genres of the novel are you familiar with?

The novel can be called everyday, and fantastic, and philosophical, and autobiographical, and lyrical, and satirical.

The work is multi-genre and multi-faceted. Everything is closely intertwined, like in life.

Bulgakov scholars call this work a novel-menippea.

A menippea novel is a work in which a serious philosophical content is hidden under a laughter mask.

The menippea is very characterized by scenes of scandals, eccentric behavior, inappropriate speeches and speeches, that is, all kinds of violations of the generally accepted, ordinary course of events, established norms of behavior.

5) Composition of the novel.

According to the literary critic V.I. Tyups, "the title of a literary text (like the epigraph) is one of the most essential elements of the composition with its own poetics"

Let's try to analyze the title of the novel.

Remember the works, the titles of which are built according to the same scheme "he and she".

Such a traditional name immediately warns the reader that it will be the love line that will be central and, obviously, the narrative will be tragic in nature.

The title of the novel thus immediately states the theme of love.

Moreover, the theme of love is connected with the theme of creativity.

It's all about the unusual name - Master (in the text this word is written with a small letter) is an unnamed name, a generalization name, meaning "creator, an extremely professional in his field"

The master is the very first word of the novel, he opens the work. There is no real name, but it expresses the essence of the person --------- the tragedy of the person.

What features of the title did you note?

The name is harmonious, since the technique of an anagram is used - repetitions of some letters in both parts of the title of the novel.

This repetition indicates that there is a deep connection between the words - at the level of the character, the fate of the heroes.

But in this case, the title does not reflect the completeness of the content of the text,

in which, in addition to the theme of love and creativity, the theme of good and evil is very important.

What compositional part reflects this theme?

Reading the epigraph.

Think about what else is special about the composition of the novel?

A novel within a novel.

Drawing up a diagram (Yershalaim chapters and Moscow chapters)

6) Message e.

Make a diagram "Heroes of the novel" The Master and Margarita "

A writer who turns to the genre variety of the novel about the novel faces a difficult compositional task: combining two different stylistic plans. On the one hand, this is a story about the history of the novel, about the circumstances surrounding its creation, about the social and cultural environment that gave birth to it. On the other hand, this is actually a novel text, the history of the creation of which becomes the plot-forming factor of the work. The complexity of this task for Bulgakov was aggravated by the fact that the Master writes a novel about the events of two thousand years ago, refers not only to a fundamentally different social and historical environment, but also to events that predetermined the spiritual evolution of mankind for millennia ahead. Naturally, there is a huge tradition of telling about them - from the canonical texts of the Gospel to many apocryphal, both the most ancient and created in the last century. Such apocrypha can, for example, include the story of Leonid Andreev "Judas Iscariot". Of course, the text created by the Master belongs to this kind of apocrypha.

Consequently, Bulgakov was faced with the task of stylistically distancing the story of Moscow in the 1930s and Yershalaim at the beginning of our era. The writer solves this problem by introducing the image of the narrator into the Moscow chapters. The Yershalaim chapters are created in a completely different stylistic manner. Jokes are inappropriate here, the ironic tone of the narrative that characterizes the Moscow chapters. This is a kind of new apocrypha, claiming to reproduce the truth, an apocrypha from Woland - not without reason it is he who sanctions the truth of everything depicted.

The idea of ​​the truth of what the Master "guessed" was declared by Woland in his very first conversation with Berlioz. “Your story is extremely interesting, professor,” Berlioz turns to Woland after he and Bezdomny heard from him the first chapter of the novel about Pilate, “although it does not at all coincide with the Gospel stories.

- Have mercy, - the professor replied with a condescending smile, - someone, but you should know that absolutely nothing of what is written in the Gospels actually never happened ... ”After that Woland undertook to confirm the truth of what was written by the Master, for he himself witnessed what was happening two thousand years ago.

So, if the text of the Master claims to be true, then it cannot contain a stylistically expressed image of the narrator, whose consciousness would refract the described events, interpret them in one way or another. The author acts only as a stingy witness of what is happening. Therefore, stylistically, the Moscow and Yershalaim chapters are completely different.

The style of the novel about Pilate does not change depending on how they are introduced into Bulgakov's text, who tells about the events; the image of the narrator is not expressed in any way. Therefore, the writer can resort to various plot motives for introducing them into the novel composition. This is Woland's story at the Patriarch's Ponds (chapter 2. Pontius Pilate), Ivanushka's dream in a psychiatric hospital (chapter 16. Execution), Margarita's reading of the Master's notebook (chapter 25. How the procurator tried to save Judas from Kiriath; chapter 26. Burial).

But the compositional unity of the novel is formed not only by the plot motives of the inclusion of the Yershalaim chapters in the text and their stylistic distance. The two temporal layers are correlated both at the level of problematic and at the level of composition of the novel "The Master and Margarita".

The Moscow and Yershalaim chapters are mirrored in many ways. They are united by the character system. In both, there are two pairs of ideologues, the conflict between which defines the novel's problematic. These are, on the one hand, Yeshua and Pilate, on the other, Woland and Berlioz. Both have two heroes whose images are typical of the genre of a philosophical novel, in which they go from one system of views to another: Levi Matthew (follow the path of this hero from a tax collector to a follower of Yeshua) and Ivan Homeless. The images of Yeshua and the Master are clearly correlated: for them the call of the moral imperative turns out to be higher than any other motives, but both lack activity, an active principle, which leads to worldly and vital helplessness and tragic blindness. That is why both are victims of betrayal. The images of the traitors are also correlated: these are Judas and Aloysius Mogarych. The stories of the relationship between the victim and the traitor are also mirrored in the two temporal plans of Bulgakov's novel. This is a story of friendship and insidious selfish betrayal: Judas receives thirty tetradrachmas, and Aloisy Mogarych - the Master's apartment.

The correlation of the plot lines of the two time plans reveals that good without activity is powerless and meaningless. Therefore, Woland appears in the novel, the embodiment of activity and omnipotent deeds.

The compositional unity of the novel is also created by the fact that Bulgakov, creating an apocrypha from Woland, parodies some Christian motifs and rituals in Moscow chapters. In a dream, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy sees that “some people with golden pipes in their hands (angels?) Bring him, and very solemnly, to large varnished doors” (gates of heaven? Or hell?), After which he hears a voice from heaven : “- Welcome, Nikanor Ivanovich! Hand over your currency! "

Ivan Bezdomny's pursuit of Woland's gang, which began at the Patriarch's Ponds and ended in a very strange appearance in MASSOLIT, parodies the rite of baptism: Ivan is then really reborn, from that evening the hero's evolution begins. In throwing around Moscow (here the devil leads him, Bulgakov implements the saying) Ivan takes a paper icon and a wedding candle in the apartment, where he is unknown why he is. After that, having bathed in the Moscow River (having been baptized with water), he discovers that the pleasant bearded man, to whom he entrusted his clothes, has safely disappeared, leaving in return his striped pants, a torn sweatshirt, a candle, an icon and a box of matches. In a new vestment, in a torn whitish sweatshirt with a paper icon of an unknown saint pinned to his chest, Ivan Homeless appears with a lighted wedding candle in the restaurant of the House of Griboyedov.

The main feature of the literary portrait of M.A. Bulgakov, in my opinion, is his commitment to the idea of ​​creative freedom. In his works, the writer not only reveals himself as much as possible, which allows his work to be attributed to modernism, but also freely places fantastic heroes in reality, risks retelling the gospel story, making the devil the central character. Bulgakov's narrator often changes an ironic mask to a lyric one, sometimes disappears altogether, as, for example, in the chapters about Pilate in the novel The Master and Margarita, leaving the reader the right to draw his own conclusions. The writer proclaims the fearlessness of a true creator - the principle of any creativity, because "manuscripts do not burn", they are equivalent to an indestructible Universe, the truth cannot be hidden. If in the "White Guard" the main sin is considered despondency, then in "The Master and Margarita" the master is deprived of the right to light, as he succumbed to fear. The creator's betrayal of his destiny, cowardice, according to Bulgakov, are unforgivable. The master in the novel gains fearlessness only when he no longer has anything and does not want to create, Bulgakov's texts have a special magic, because their author has always had the courage to speak sincerely and truthfully.

The artistic conventions of Bulgakov's prose - the exceptional plot whimsy, the outward implausibility of situations and details - are difficult to comprehend. In The Master and Margarita satire, realism and fantasy are intertwined; this work is defined as a myth-novel. The writer seeks to expand real time and space by including the text in the text, to show the interconnection of events, at the same time focusing on the universal and culturally-historically distant, rather than on close reality. The causes and consequences of the events are intertwined in an interesting way. So, the procurator of Judea, considering it impossible to free the condemned man himself, proposes to make a choice for the high priest, but Caiaphas's decision will affect the future of the whole world, and will give Pilate dubious glory for centuries. In our time, as soon as the critic Latunsky spread the master's novel in his article, the neighbor Aloisy Mogarych denounces the author, eager to expand his living space. Captured on a denunciation by the secret police, the master goes mad. It is terrible that at all times political gain is more important than morality and the heroes are similar in that they do not listen to the voice of conscience. For Bulgakov, a moral absolutist, the concepts of good and evil remain unchanged in any empire, both in the Roman and in the Soviet. Therefore, he correlates the fate of the protagonist with the fate of Jesus Christ, and modern history - with the Sacred history. A novel within a novel, the story of Pilate cannot be regarded as an independent work (unlike, for example, The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov), since his philosophy is conditioned by its place in the main novel. The mythical images of Yeshua and Woland only confirm the eternity and inviolability of moral laws.

Despite the presence of mythical elements in The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov assigned a huge role to historical material. Asserting the idea of ​​the perversion of law and justice under a despotic regime, Bulgakov did not have to distort or embellish the historical facts about the times of rule in Ancient Rome and in the Soviet empire. However, it is characteristic that with the existence of a huge number of plot and figurative parallels between the era of Pontius Pilate and the 30s of the twentieth century, Pilate and Kaif, who are situationally in power, are nowhere compared with Stalin. This is probably not necessary. “All power is violence against people ... the time will come when there will be no power of either the Caesars or any other power. A person will pass into the kingdom of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all. " The dispute between Yeshua and Pilate, where the former is the embodied idea of ​​Christianity, and the latter represents earthly power, according to the writer, does not need to be resolved. Bulgakov's novel is not an anti-gospel. Yeshua is the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount, a man who believes that all people are naturally good and that one should turn the cheek to the offender. The author only excluded the messianic theme from his work, otherwise the question of the existence of Christ is decided by him in a religious way. In addition to the Gospel, the Master and Margarita traces the details of medieval apocrypha and legends, which Bulgakov put into artistic form in historical sources. Thus, the novel cannot be strictly attributed to either the historical works of realism or the works of Christianity.

The artistic, modernist nature of The Master and Margarita is emphasized by numerous symbolic descriptions. In both the Moscow and Yershalaim chapters, images of golden church domes and golden idols stand out, from religious symbols becoming simple adornments. Bulgakov always doubted the spirituality of the official faith, the representatives of which imagined themselves to be the rulers of human souls. The same tyranny is hidden under the external religiosity. Therefore, the appearance in the novel of a thundercloud covering Yershalaim is significant so that the great city "disappeared ... as if it did not exist in the world."

Sometimes in Bulgakov, what seems symbolic becomes a parody. So, the paper icon of Ivan and the heavy image of a poodle around Margarita's neck are like variants of a crucifix, which is absent in the Yershalaim chapters. The twelve writers in the meeting room of Griboyedov remind the apostles, only they are not waiting for Christ, but for the deceased Berlioz. The association with the transformation of water into wine from the Gospel gives rise to the scene of converting labels from narzan into money. But it is important that the images of Woland and Yeshua do not look parodic. In the novel, Woland appears not as a malevolent tempter, but as a judge who atone for his sins with such a service, Yeshua is an intercessor, an intercessor for people before God. Black magic sometimes seems less remarkable than reality, with its nocturnal disappearances and other forms of institutionalized violence. The object of Bulgakov's satire is not Ancient Rome with its tyranny, but the writers' club - Griboyedov. Second-rate writers with little appetizing surnames see the meaning of life in squabbles around departmental dachas, vouchers and apartments. The writer makes scoundrels and dull-headed officials a target for his satirical pen, as if inspired by Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin. But Bulgakov's satire is intended, first of all, not to destroy, but to assert. To assert the existence of moral absolutes, to awaken in us the voice of conscience, so often muffled for political reasons.

Bulgakov, despite all the irony in relation to the world around him, nevertheless in my eyes looks like a great idealist, who opposes the creative perception of the world to the ordinary, believes in romantic ideals. "The Master and Margarita" continues such a series of novels as "We" by E. Zamyatin, "Doctor Zhivago" by B. Pasternak, where in the conflict between the individual and society, moral victory invariably remains with the person-creator. It is no coincidence that although Woland is the central character in Bulgakov's work, the novel is named in honor of the master. In some ways, based on the example of his personality, the author wanted to open his inner world to us, to attach to his feelings. And this is also a kind of expression of individual freedom, an indicator of his openness to the world.

The genre uniqueness of the novel "The Master and Margarita" - "the last, sunset" work of Mikhail Bulgakov still causes controversy among literary critics. It is defined as a myth-romance, a philosophical novel, a menippea, a mystery novel, etc. In The Master and Margarita, almost all genres and literary trends existing in the world are very organically combined. According to the English researcher of creativity Bulgakov J.

Curtis, the form of "The Master and Margarita" and its content, make it a unique masterpiece, parallels with which "are difficult to find in both Russian and Western European literary tradition." No less original is the composition of The Master and Margarita - a novel in a novel, or a double novel - about the fate of the Master and Pontius Pilate.

On the one hand, these two novels are opposed to each other, while on the other hand they form a kind of organic unity. The plot originally intertwines two layers of time: the biblical and contemporary to Bulgakov - the 1930s. and I century. ad. Some of the events described in the chapters of Yershalaim are repeated exactly 1900 years later in Moscow in a parody, reduced version.

There are three storylines in the novel: philosophical - Yeshua and Pontius Pilate, love - Master and Margarita, mystical and satirical - Woland, his retinue and Muscovites. They are clothed in a free, bright, sometimes bizarre form of narration and are closely interconnected with each other in the infernal image of Woland. The novel begins with a scene on the Patriarch's Ponds, where Mikhail Aleksandrovich Berlioz and Ivan Homeless argue hotly with a strange stranger about the existence of God.

To the question of Woland "who controls human life and all the order on earth in general," if God does not exist, Ivan Homeless, as a convinced atheist, answers: "Man himself controls." But soon the development of the plot refutes this thesis. Bulgakov reveals the relativity of human knowledge and the predetermination of the path of life. At the same time, he asserts the responsibility of a person for his own destiny. Eternal questions: "What is truth in this unpredictable world?

Are there immutable, eternal moral values? ", - are put by the author in the chapters of Yershalaim (there are only 4 (2, 16, 25, 26) out of 32 chapters of the novel), which are undoubtedly the ideological center of the novel. The course of life in Moscow in the 1930s It merges with the Master's story about Pontius Pilate.

Hounded in modern life, the Master's genius finally finds peace in Eternity. As a result, the plot lines of the two novels end, closing in one space-time point - in Eternity, where the Master and his hero Pontius Pilate meet and find "forgiveness and eternal shelter." Unexpected turns, situations and characters of the biblical chapters are mirrored in the Moscow chapters, contributing to such a plot completion and the disclosure of the philosophical content of Bulgakov's narrative.