What genre is this work The Master and Margarita. Analysis of the work “The Master and Margarita”
"The Master and Margarita" is the final work of M. Bulgakov. This is how the author regarded his novel. Elena Sergeevna Bulgakova recalled: “Dying, he said: “Maybe this is right... What could I write after “The Master”?”
Bulgakov named his novel fantasy novel. Readers also usually define its genre, since the fantastic pictures in it are really bright and colorful. A novel can also be called a work adventurous, satirical, philosophical.
But the genre nature of the novel is more complex. This is a unique novel. It has become traditional to define the genre of a novel as menippea, to which, for example, the novel “Gargantua and Pantagruel” by Francois Rabelais belongs. In the menippea, under the mask of laughter, serious philosophical content is hidden. “The Master and Margarita,” like any menippea, is a two-dimensional novel; it combines polar principles: philosophical and satirical, tragic and farcical, fantastic and realistic. Moreover, they do not just combine, but form an organic unity.
Menippea 1 is also characterized by stylistic diversity, displacement and mixing of spatial, temporal and psychological plans. And we also find this in “The Master and Margarita”: the narrative here is conducted either in a satirical manner, or in a serious, sacred manner; the reader of this novel finds himself either in modern Moscow, or in ancient Yershalaim, or in another transcendental dimension.
Such a novel is difficult to analyze: it is difficult to identify general meaning(those meanings) that contains such contradictory content of the novel.
The novel "The Master and Margarita" has important feature- This double romance, romance within a romance(text in text): the hero of one novel is the Master and its action takes place in modern Moscow, the hero of another novel (written by the Master) is Yeshua Ha-Nozri and the action of this novel takes place in ancient Yershalaim. These novels within the novel are very different, as if they were written by more than one author.
Yershalaim chapters- that is, the novel about Pontius Pilate, Yeshua Ha-Nozri - are written in precise and laconic, spare prose. The author does not allow himself any elements of fantasy or grotesquery. And this is quite understandable: we're talking about about an event of world-historical proportions - the death of Yeshua. The author here doesn’t seem to be composing artistic text, but recreates history, writes the Gospel measuredly, strictly, solemnly. This severity is already present in the very title of the “ancient” chapter (the second chapter of the novel) - “Pontius Pilate” - and in its (chapter’s) opening lines:
In a white cloak with a bloody lining, and with a shuffling gait, early in the morning of the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan, the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, came out into the covered colonnade between the two wings of the palace of Herod the Great...
The procurator twitched his cheek and said quietly:
- Bring the accused.
And immediately, from the garden platform under the columns to the balcony, two legionnaires brought in a man of about twenty-seven and placed him in front of the procurator’s chair. This man was dressed in an old and torn blue chiton, and his hands were tied behind his back. The man had a large bruise under his left eye and an abrasion with dried blood in the corner of his mouth. The man brought in looked at the procurator with anxious curiosity.
Modern ones are written completely differently. Moscow chapters- a novel about the Master. There is a lot of fantasy, comedy, grotesque, devilry, which discharge the tragic tension. There are also lyrical pages here. Moreover, lyricism and farce are often combined in one situation, within one paragraph, for example, in the famous beginning of the second part: "Follow me, reader! Who told you that there is no real, true, eternal love? May the liar's vile tongue be cut out!" In all this, the personality of the author-narrator is revealed, who builds his narrative in the form of familiar chatter with the reader, sometimes turning into gossip. This narrative, which the author calls “the most truthful,” contains so many rumors and innuendos, which rather indicates the unreliability of this part of the novel. See, for example, the title and beginning of the fifth chapter "There was a thing in Griboedov":
The house was called the “Griboyedov House” on the grounds that it was once owned by the aunt of the writer, Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov. Well, whether she owned it or not, we don’t know for sure. I even remember that, it seems, Griboyedov did not have any aunt-landowner... However, that was the name of the house. Moreover, one Moscow liar said that supposedly on the second floor, in a round hall with columns, famous writer I read excerpts from “Woe from Wit” to this same aunt, who was reclining on the sofa. But who knows, maybe I read it, it doesn’t matter! And the important thing is that this house was currently owned by the same MASSOLIT, headed by the unfortunate Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz before his appearance on the Patriarch’s Ponds.
The ancient (ancient) and modern (Moscow) parts of the novel are independent, different from each other, and at the same time echo, represent an integral unity, they represent the history of mankind, the state of morality over the past two thousand years.
At the beginning of the Christian era, two thousand years ago, Yeshua Ha-Nozri 2 came into the world with the teaching of goodness, but his contemporaries did not accept his truth, and Yeshua was sentenced to the shameful death penalty - hanging on a stake. The date itself - the twentieth century - seemed to oblige us to take stock of the life of mankind in the bosom of Christianity: has the world become better, has man become smarter, kinder, more merciful during this time, have Moscow residents, in particular, changed internally, since external circumstances have changed? What values do they consider the most important in life? In addition, in modern Moscow in the 1920-1930s, the construction of a new world, the creation of a new man, was announced. And Bulgakov compares modern humanity in his novel with what it was like in the time of Yeshua Ha-Nozri. The result is by no means optimistic, if we recall the “certificate” about Moscow residents that Woland received during a performance at the Variety Show:
Well, they are people like people. They love money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous... well, well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people...In general, they resemble the previous ones... housing problem only ruined them.
M. Bulgakov’s novel as a whole is a kind of “information” from the author about humanity in the conditions of the Soviet experiment and about man in general, about philosophical and ethical values in this world in the understanding of M. Bulgakov.
Read also other articles on the work of M.A. Bulgakov and the analysis of the novel "The Master and Margarita":
- 2.2. Features of the novel genre
The genre uniqueness of the novel "The Master and Margarita" - the "last, sunset" work of M. A. Bulgakov still causes controversy among literary scholars. It is defined as a myth novel, philosophical novel, menippea, mystery novel, etc. “The Master and Margarita” very organically combined almost all the genres existing in the world and literary trends. According to the English researcher of Bulgakov's creativity 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 the Russian and Western European literary traditions.” No less original is the composition of “The Master and Margarita” - a novel within 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: biblical and contemporary to Bulgakov- 1930s and I century. ad. Some events described in the Yershalaim chapters are repeated exactly 1900 years later in Moscow in a parodic, reduced version.
There are three storylines in the novel: philosophical - Yeshua and Pontius Pilate, love - the Master and Margarita, mystical and satirical - Woland, his retinue and Muscovites. They are presented in a free, bright, sometimes bizarre form of storytelling and are closely interconnected with Woland’s infernal image. The novel begins with a scene on the Patriarch's Ponds, where Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz and Ivan Bezdomny heatedly argue with a strange stranger about the existence of God.
To Woland’s question “who controls human life and all order on earth in general,” if there is no God, Ivan Bezdomny, as a convinced atheist, answers: “Man himself controls.” But soon the development of the plot refutes this thesis. Bulgakov reveals relativity human knowledge and predestination life path. At the same time, he affirms man's responsibility for his destiny. Eternal questions: “What is truth in this unpredictable world?
Are there immutable, eternal moral values", - are put by the author in the Yershalaim chapters (there are only 4 (2, 16, 25, 26) of the 32 chapters of the novel), which, undoubtedly, are the ideological center of the novel. The course of life in Moscow in the 1930s merges with the Master’s narrative about Pontius Pilate.
Hunted in modern life, the genius of the Master finally finds peace in Eternity. As a result, the storylines of the two novels are completed, converging at one spatio-temporal point - in Eternity, where the Master and his hero Pontius Pilate meet and find “forgiveness and eternal shelter.” Unexpected twists, situations and characters bible chapters are mirrored in the Moscow chapters, promoting such plot completion and revealing the philosophical content of Bulgakov’s narrative.
Each piece of art Over time, it takes its well-deserved place in literature. The most famous novel Mikhail Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". These pages amaze with their depth of meaning; there is nothing superfluous here.
Let's start with a composition that is quite unusual: a novel within a novel. The hero of the work writes a novel about the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. And the lines of his work form a peculiar interweaving with the novel of the author himself.
This technique was chosen by Bulgakov for a reason, because it helps to achieve main goal- touch on many problems: false and true creativity, crime and punishment, love and devotion, courage and cowardice. In addition, the author shows new interpretation biblical events.
The cross-cutting idea of Bulgakov's novel is the value of real creativity. To reveal it, he introduces us to two heroes - Berlioz, the stupid and narrow-minded chairman of a large Moscow literary association, editor of a magazine, and the poet, Ivan Bezdomny, who publishes his poems on the pages of this periodical. Berlioz's views and the narrowness of his thinking cannot be changed; he immediately dies on the tram tracks. But the poet has a chance to be reborn. And this is exactly what happens to him in the mental hospital.
The topic raised is not accidental. It was painful for the author himself. Many critics believe that behind the image of the Master is none other than Bulgakov.
To depict the theme of creativity in its entirety, the writer suggests looking at the members of MASSOLIT, scribblers who have one desire - to fill their bellies. The master is completely different, he stands out from this environment and is simply expelled from there. But there are those who will appreciate this genius - otherworldly forces and Margarita, who loved him even before they met.
- image ideal woman who is faithful and has real feelings. Their meeting with the Master is not accidental, it is, as they say, fate. Margarita does not need the life that suits most “ordinary” women. She is very lonely, and her eyes clearly show this. The heroine of the novel is the embodiment of the author's ideal of a wife, a friend of the great creator.
The persecution forces the Master to hide from everyone in a clinic for the mentally ill, but his beloved remains faithful to him even in this situation. This is true devotion, pure and devoid of any self-interest. This topic is also important for Bulgakov.
The Master's novel conveys a different interpretation biblical motifs. Yeshua on the pages of his work is not God, but an ordinary wandering philosopher, who is not alien to ordinary human suffering and fears.
Bulgakov also touches on the problem of conscience in his work. It is revealed through the image. He understands perfectly well that Yeshua is innocent and brings only good to people. But the desire to maintain his high rank pushes him to the death penalty. But Pontius will also not escape retribution - immortality and pangs of conscience will become his eternal punishment.
The novel “The Master and Margarita” reveals a huge number of themes, the interpretation of which is striking in its unusualness and depth.
Accept the collection of colorful heads,
Half funny, half sad.
Common people, ideal,
The careless fruit of my amusements,
Insomnia, light inspirations,
Immature and withered years,
Crazy cold observations
And hearts of sorrowful notes.
A.S. Pushkin
In the story " dog's heart"Bulgakov described as the main character an outstanding scientist (Professor Preobrazhensky) and his scientific activity, and from specific scientific problems eugenics (the science of improving the human race) moved to philosophical problems revolutionary and evolutionary development of human knowledge, human society and nature in general. In The Master and Margarita, this pattern is repeated, but the main character becomes a writer who wrote only one novel, and even that one was not finished. With all this, he can be called outstanding because he devoted his novel to the fundamental moral issues of humanity, and did not succumb to the pressure of the authorities, which called on (and, with the help of literary associations, forced) cultural figures to glorify the successes of the proletarian state. From issues that concern creative people (freedom of creativity, openness, the problem of choice), Bulgakov in the novel moved on to the philosophical problems of good and evil, conscience and fate, to the question of the meaning of life and death, therefore the social and philosophical content in “The Master and Margarita” , compared to the story “Heart of a Dog,” is distinguished by greater depth and significance due to the many episodes and characters.
The genre of “The Master and Margarita” is a novel. Genre originality it can be revealed as follows: a satirical, socio-philosophical, fantasy novel within a novel. The novel is social, as it describes life in the USSR in last years NEP, that is, at the end of the 20s of the XX century. It is impossible to more accurately date the time of action in the work: the author deliberately (or not intentionally) connects facts from 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 setting of the novel is philistine Moscow, not ministerial, not academic, not party and government, but rather communal. In the capital throughout three days Woland and his retinue study the morals of ordinary (average) Soviet people, who, according to communist ideologists, should represent new type citizens free from social diseases and shortcomings inherent in people of a class society.
The life of Moscow inhabitants is described satirically. Evil spirits punish grabbers, careerists, schemers who “flourished magnificently” on the “healthy soil of Soviet society.” The scene of Koroviev and Behemoth's visit to the Smolensk market at the Torgsin store is wonderfully presented - Bulgakov considers this establishment a bright sign of the times. Small demons casually expose the swindler posing as a foreigner and deliberately destroy the entire store, where an ordinary Soviet citizen (due to the lack of currency and gold items) has no access (2, 28). Woland punishes a cunning businessman who carries out clever fraud with living space, a thief-bartender from the Variety Theater Andrei Fokich Sokov (1, 18), a bribe-taker-chairman of the house committee Nikanor Ivanovich Bosogo (1, 9) and others. Bulgakov very wittily depicts Woland's performance in the theater (1, 12), when all interested ladies are offered free new beautiful outfits in exchange for their own modest clothes. At first, the audience does 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 dressed to their liking. The performance ends funny and instructive: after the performance, the ladies were flattered by gifts evil spirits, find themselves naked, and Woland sums up the whole performance: “... people are like people. They love money, but that’s always been the case... (...) in general, they resemble the old ones, the housing issue only spoiled them...” (1, 12). In other words, 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 swindlers 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 20s of the 20th century. Prominent representatives 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 young members of MASSOLIT (in different editions of the novel, the literary association, located in the house of Griboyedov’s aunt, is designated either Massolit, then MASSOLIT). Satirical image 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 for Shows and Entertainment of a Light Type” are shown simply grotesquely (1, 17): the suit calmly replaces the head of the Commission, Prokhor Petrovich, and signs official documents, and the petty clerks work time chant folk songs(Domkom activists in the story “Heart of a Dog” were busy with the same “serious” activity in the evenings).
Next to such “creative” workers the author places tragic hero- a real writer. As Bulgakov half-jokingly and half-seriously said, the Moscow chapters can be briefly retold as follows: a story about a writer who ends up in a madhouse for writing the truth in his novel and hoping that it would 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 accepted - Master, which is used in this analysis) proves that in literary life Soviet Union The dictatorship of mediocrities and functionaries like Berlioz reigns, who allow themselves to 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 stands. The state uses its entire repressive apparatus against independent, independent writers, as is shown in the example of the Master.
The philosophical content of the novel is intertwined with the social; scenes from the ancient era alternate with a 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 poor 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. In the same fundamental confrontation with state system enters the Master, living in Moscow at the end of the 20s of the XX century. In the philosophical content of the novel, the author offers his solution to the “eternal” moral issues: what is life, what is the main thing in life, can a person, alone opposing 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 principles of life.
The procurator understands from a personal conversation with Yeshua 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-inciter who preaches heresy and pushes the people towards unrest. Kaifa demands the execution of Yeshua. Consequently, Pontius Pilate faces a dilemma: execute an innocent man and calm the crowd, or spare this innocent man, 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 his conscience or against his conscience, guided by immediate interests.
Yeshua does not face such a dilemma. He could choose: to tell the truth and thereby help people, or to renounce the truth and be saved from crucifixion, but he had already made his choice. The procurator asks him what is the worst thing in the world, and receives the answer - cowardice. Yeshua himself demonstrates by his behavior that he is not afraid of anything. The interrogation scene with Pontius Pilate indicates 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 physically weak person, if he stands for the truth, therefore the beaten, poor, lonely philosopher wins moral victory over the procurator and makes him painfully experience the cowardly act committed by Pilate precisely 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 resist it; for the second he could pay, as happened with Yeshua and the Master. Still, Bulgakov, like his heroes, chose confrontation, and the writer’s work itself became a brave act, even a feat of an honest man.
Elements of fantasy allow Bulgakov to more fully reveal ideological plan works. Some literary scholars see in The Master and Margarita features that bring the novel closer to the menippea - literary genre, in which laughter and an adventurous plot create a situation where high philosophical ideas are tested. Distinctive feature The menippea is fantasy (Satan's ball, the last refuge of the Master and Margarita), it overturns the usual system of values, gives rise to a special type of behavior of the heroes, free from any conventions (Ivan Bezdomny in a madhouse, Margarita in the role of 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 swindlers and unscrupulous 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 (Aloysius Mogarych) and persecutor (critic Latunsky). But even Woland is powerless to save the Master from the tragic ending of life (complete disappointment and spiritual devastation). This image of Satan certainly reflected European tradition, which comes from Goethe’s Mephistopheles, as indicated by the epigraph to the novel from “Faust”: “I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good...”. Maybe that’s why Bulgakov turned out to have Woland and the little demons as likable, even generous, and their witty pranks prove the writer’s extraordinary ingenuity.
“The Master and Margarita” is a novel within a novel, since chapters from the Master’s novel about Pontius Pilate and chapters in which the Master himself is the main character, that is, the “ancient” and “Moscow” chapters, are intertwined in one work. Through a comparison of 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 European civilization of the 20th century - to social revolutions and atheism, that is, the rejection of Christianity. Thus, humanity moves in a vicious circle and after two thousand years (less 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. Understanding modernity and the fate of the writer in modern world, the author resorts to an analogy - to depict a historical situation (the life and execution of the philosopher Yeshua Ha-Nozri in Judea at the beginning of the new era).
So, the novel “The Master and Margarita” is 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 the 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 lyricism are combined in the novel. Along with realistic depiction Muscovites, Bulgakov places in the novel fantastic images Woland and his retinue. All these various scenes and depiction techniques 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 that sarcastically ridicules the mores of NEP life. However, behind the external entertainment and fun in the work one can see deep philosophical content - a discussion about the struggle between good and evil in the human soul and in the history of mankind. Bulgakov's novel is often compared to the great novel by J.-W. Goethe "Faust", and not only because of the image of Woland, who is both similar and not similar to Mephistopheles. Another thing is important: the similarity of the two novels is expressed in the humanistic idea. Goethe's novel arose as a philosophical understanding European world after the Great french revolution 1789; Bulgakov in his novel comprehends the fate of Russia after October revolution 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 with 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 become bitter, retains in his soul love for Margarita, sympathy for Ivan Bezdomny, sympathy for Pontius Pilate, who dreams of forgiveness .
