INTRODUCTION

History of the study of creativity in modern school.

The author of the work considers the problem of studying creativity in school, namely, he proposes the development of lessons on the novel “The Master and Margarita” in a humanities class with a credit system for teaching literature: analysis of the work, forms and methods of collective, group and individual work with the text, understanding the relevance and topicality of the tasks problems in the novel.

Creativity in general and its main novel“The Master and Margarita” is our “returned literature.” This is the spiritual culture that has been inaccessible for half a century to a wide circle readers. IN school programs until 1991, the name of the talented Russian writer of the twentieth century was not even mentioned. But in the late 80s of the twentieth century, in connection with democratic changes in the life of our country, we had the opportunity to get acquainted with the work of many previously unfairly “forgotten” poets and writers who created their works under the conditions of a totalitarian state. In a series of brilliant names - a name. Attention to creative heritage the writer is now huge: his books have been published in millions of copies, ten-volume and five-volume collected works have appeared, the M. Gorky Institute of World Literature has announced the preparation of an academic collected works, Bulgakov’s works are being filmed, staged, his plays are shown in many theaters, dozens of books and hundreds of articles are devoted to creativity and life of the Master - .

d) Moscow inhabitants;

d) Woland and his retinue.

3. Select the necessary quotes to analyze the content of these chapters.

4. Repeat the definition of the concepts: satire, grotesque (p. 386 of the textbook), fantasy.

Perspective task:

1. Know the lecture material for the test lesson.

2. Answer in writing the question: “Why was Popov’s friend and first biographer, considering the novel “The Master and Margarita” a genius, confident that the work would be appreciated in 50-100 years?”

Application

LESSON TWO

(Exposure of Moscow inhabitants and the near-literary world

in the satirical chapters of the novel “The Master and Margarita”)

Chapters 1, 3-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 28, Epilogue

The purpose of the lesson: after analyzing the content of the satirical chapters, lead students to understand the author’s idea and trace Gogolian traditions in Bulgakov's prose.

Epigraphs for the lesson written on the board:

1. ...my mind is satirical. From the pen come things that at times, apparently, sharply offend social-communist circles. f) the metamorphosis that occurred with the lilac buyer in Torgsin. 2. Find the traditions of Gogol’s satire in the analyzed scenes. What satirical technique does Bulgakov use to expose and ridicule the vulgar world of the Soviet man in the street? FOURTH GROUP. Woland and his retinue. 1. How does Woland appear on the pages of the novel when he communicates with Moscow townsfolk? 2. What is the role of Woland and his retinue in the satirical chapters of the novel? 3. Correlate all the episodes considered with the key phrase of the novel: “... to each one will be given according to his faith” and draw a conclusion on the topic of the lesson.

Application

Moscow 30s of the twentieth century

in the novel "The Master and Margarita"

Application

Message about the procurator of Judea Pontius Pilate.

Pontius Pilate - real historical figure. He was procurator of Judea in 26-36 AD. e. Bulgakov's Pilate is greatly ennobled compared to the prototype, so his bribery and desire for profit are hidden in the subtext. It is known that it was precisely because of the exorbitant exactions from the population that Pilate was eventually removed from his post.

According to medieval German legend, the procurator was the son of the astrologer king Ata and the daughter of the miller Pila, who lived in Rhineland Germany. One day At, while on a campaign, learned from the stars that the child he conceived would immediately become powerful and famous. The miller's daughter Pila was brought to the king. Pilate received his name from the addition of their names. The procurator apparently received the nickname Golden Spear for his keen eye and love of gold.

The posthumous fate of Pilate is connected with another legend. In the article “Pilate” in the Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia, the fate of the fifth procurator of Judea was associated with the name of the mountain of the same name in the Swiss Alps, where “he allegedly still appears on Good Friday and washes his hands, trying in vain to cleanse himself of complicity in a terrible crime.”

The story about Pilate goes back to the Gospel story (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27:19) about the warning of Pilate by his wife, who advises her husband not to harm the righteous man she saw in a dream, otherwise he, Pilate, will have to suffer for his careless actions. It is symbolic that the procurator’s disease hemicrania (migraine) is aggravated by rose oil - rose oil: the red rose is a symbol of the agony of the cross and the subsequent resurrection of Christ.

The motive for hesitation, fear of Pilate, direct threat to him from the Jews - residents of the city of Yershalaim hated by the procurator - is also contained in the Gospel of John (chapter 19)

Bulgakov in his novel develops a deep gospel story doubt, fear and, ultimately, Pilate's betrayal of Jesus. Already in the Gospel of John we are talking specifically about betrayal, since Pontius Pilate “found no guilt in Him [Jesus]” and “sought to let him go.”

Application

QUOTE PLAN FOR THE IMAGE OF A MASTER

1) “I...can’t stand noise, fuss, violence...” (p.129)

2) “I am a master.” (p.133)

3) “I no longer have a last name... I gave it up, like everything else in life.” (p. 134)

4) “A historian by training,” “I know five languages...” (p. 134)

5) “... once won a hundred thousand rubles.” “I quit my job at the museum and started writing a novel about Pontius Pilate.” (p. 134)

6) “Love jumped out in front of us, like a killer jumps out of the ground in an alley, and struck us both at once!” (p. 137)

7) “I first came into the world of literature... I remember it with horror!” (p. 139)

8) “... the novel, stubbornly resisting, still died.” (p. 144)

9) “...fear controlled every cell of my body.” (p.146)

10) “...I’m broken, I’m bored, and I want to go to the basement.” (p. 285)

11) “He didn’t deserve light, he deserved peace...” (p. 353)

Application

Test based on the novel “The Master and Margarita”

	During what period did Bulgakov create the novel “The Master and Margarita”?
	What technique did Bulgakov use in the title of the novel?
	What phenomenon of the 20s of the twentieth century is the concept of the novel connected with?
	How is the genre of a novel traditionally defined?
	Who dedicated the lines: You lived so harshly and brought it to the end Great contempt...
	Name three worlds that are intertwined in the novel.
	Which characters form a dyad in the novel?
	What does Woland mean in German?
	Who is the main character of the Yershalaim chapters?
	What extraordinary abilities did Yeshua have?
	Which chapters form the semantic center of the novel?
	Who was the prototype of Margarita?
	What charges were brought against Yeshua by the Small Sanhedrin?
	Who led MASSOLIT?
	What was the special source of pride for MASSOLIT members and the envy of Moscow residents?
	Where did Ivan Bezdomny end up after? unsuccessful attempt catch up with a foreign professor?
	Why, the day after the black magic session at Variety, Moscow taxi drivers did not want to accept “chervontsi” as payment for travel?
	How was he exposed?
	Why did the master wish the critic Latunsky the fate of Berlioz?
	What allowed the master to quit his service and start writing a novel about Pilate?
	What happened on Bald Mountain “in the fifth hour of the suffering of the robbers”?
	What technique of satirical exposure did Bulgakov “prepare” for the head of the Entertainment Commission, Prokhor Petrovich?
	Why and how were the employees of the City Entertainment Branch punished?
	Who did Azazello order to return to Kyiv and sit there “quieter than water, lower than the grass and not dream of any apartments in Moscow”?
	What should Margarita do to see the master again?
	Who else used Azazello cream and why?
	Name the “means of transportation” of Margarita and her housekeeper Natasha.
	How did guests get to Satan's ball?
	Who said the words: “...to each one will be given according to his faith”?
	What did Berlioz's head turn into after his conversation with Woland?
	Why did Woland want to “get rags and plug up all the cracks” in his bedroom?
	Name the last two “enterprises” of the cat Behemoth and Koroviev.
	What “instruction” did Pilate give to Afranius?
	What happens once a year, on the spring full moon?
	Name the hero of the novel:
		“... dressed in a gray summer pair, he was short, well-fed, bald, carried his decent hat like a pie in his hand, and on his well-shaven face were glasses of supernatural size in black horn-rimmed frames.”
		“... he was neither short nor huge, but simply tall... he had platinum crowns on the left side, and gold crowns on the right. He was wearing an expensive gray suit and foreign-made shoes that matched the color of the suit. He cocked his gray beret jauntily over his ear, and under his arm he carried a cane with a black knob in the shape of a poodle’s head.”
		“This man was dressed in an old and torn blue chiton. His head was covered with a white bandage with a strap around his forehead, 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.”
		“... a broad-shouldered, reddish, curly-haired young man in a checkered cap twisted at the back of his head - he was wearing a cowboy shirt, chewed white trousers and black slippers.”
		“... is reflected in the dressing table in the form of a man with hair sticking out in different directions, with a swollen face covered with black stubble, with swollen eyes, in a dirty shirt with a collar and tie, in long johns and socks.”
		“...small, but unusually broad-shouldered, wearing a bowler hat on his head and with a fang protruding from his mouth, disfiguring his already unprecedentedly vile face. And at the same time, he’s still fiery red.”
		“...shaven, dark-haired, with sharp nose, with anxious eyes and a tuft of hair hanging over his forehead, a man of about thirty-eight.”
		“The man who appeared to Pilate was middle-aged, with a very pleasant, round and neat face, with a fleshy nose. His hair was of some indeterminate color. The alien's nationality would be difficult to determine. The main thing that determined his face was, perhaps, an expression of good nature, which was disturbed, however, by his eyes, or rather, not by his eyes, but by the way the visitor looked at his interlocutor. Usually the alien kept his small eyes under closed, slightly strange, as if swollen, eyelids. Then a gentle slyness shone in the slits of those eyes.”
		“The man who came, about forty years old, was black, ragged, covered with dried mud, looked like a wolf, from under his brows. In a word, he was very unsightly and most likely resembled a city beggar, of which there are many who hang around on the terraces of the temple or in the bazaars of the noisy and dirty Lower City.”
		“... a young man with a neatly trimmed beard in a clean white kefi that fell to his shoulders, in a new festive blue tallif with tassels at the bottom and in new creaking sandals.”

Application

Essay-reasoning

What was he punished for?

At the end of the novel “The Master and Margarita” Woland states that “...everyone will be given according to his faith.” The chairman of the largest Moscow literary association (MASSOLIT), Mikhail Aleksandrovich Berlioz, was “given according to his faith,” or rather, taken away due to lack of faith. He lost his head, moreover, it was “honored” to become the cup from which Satan himself drank.

Why was the most venerable member so cruelly punished? Soviet society, respected leader, talented writer, erudite, finally? Berlioz is not just an atheist, an atheist (not a fashion in those years, but an unshakable law), he is a militant theorist of atheism, materialistic dogmatism; moreover, he is a mentor, a spiritual leader of those who live and write in accordance with his beliefs. Ivanushki the Homeless, which “proliferated” in hundreds throughout the country, is the result of the Berliozs’ activities.

In a dispute with Woland about Kant’s moral proof of the existence of God, Berlioz does not argue his point of view, acts as a typical communist demagogue, and I. Bezdomny develops the logic of his teacher at a primitive level: “Take this Kant, but for such proof he will spend three years in Solovki !

Bulgakov is especially partial to Berlioz: after all, he is not an ordinary critic Latunsky, but the head of a large literary organization that bears moral responsibility for the Bezdomnys, Latunskys, and Lavrovichs. As a result of Berlioz's activities, Russian classic literature turned into “consumer goods” corresponding to the conjuncture of Soviet society.

The strongest argument in favor of the cruel punishment of Berlioz is the selfishness of all the actions of the leader of MASSOLIT. Dachas, vouchers, apartments, bonuses - a “tidbit” for which one can betray one’s talent, beliefs, and sell one’s soul to the Devil.

Bulgakov achieves his greatest satirical denunciation of the figures of MASSOLIT in two “mirror” scenes of the novel: the dance of the writers in the restaurant of the Griboedov House and the performance of raging monkey jazz at Satan’s ball. The author does not give detailed characteristics of Berlioz’s “pets”: the combination of the noble name and the phonetically wild surname of the poetess Adelphine Buzdyak is enough for him to achieve an inimitable satirical effect.

Thus, each hero of the novel received what he deserved, but Berlioz was punished more terribly than others, because he did not realize all the highest responsibility that was entrusted to him, the leader of the mass of writers, obliged to bring spirituality to society, and not destroy genuine talent. It is possible that some “Berlioz” one day stood in the way of Bulgakov with his communist ideology. This is why Mikhail Afanasyevich is so irreconcilable towards Mikhail Aleksandrovich Berlioz.

Application

COMPOSITION

“...have these townspeople changed internally?”

(Satirical chapters of the novel “The Master and Margarita”).

The novel “The Master and Margarita” is the result of the work of the 20th century Russian writer Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov. A sharp, exciting plot, a fair amount of mysticism, and satire that never loses its relevance make the novel interesting and unforgettable. In his last work Bulgakov, continuing the traditions of Shchedrin, mercilessly criticizes the Soviet bureaucracy, the world of literature and art, the lifestyle and value system of the inhabitants of our country in the 30s of the twentieth century. The main accuser in the novel is Mr. Woland - the devil himself. But in Bulgakov’s book he is not associated with the forces of evil; on the contrary, he does good in the name of the triumph of justice. This is evidenced by the epigraph to the work.

The novel opens with Woland's meeting with writers, members of MASSOLIT, the young poet Ivan Bezdomny and the chairman of this writing organization, Berlioz. Communication with Satan for the respected editor and high-ranking official ended sadly: he lost his head (and his life, of course). Why is Woland so harsh? Berlioz not only doesn’t believe in anything. Being a deeply immoral person, he propagates this lack of faith in the minds of Soviet citizens like Bezdomny and Ryukhin, for whom literature is a profitable craft. The aforementioned MASSOLIT is far from being a temple of art. All writers are passionate about the pursuit of dachas, apartments, free trips, they are envious and greedy. What kind of creativity are we talking about here? Even if they wrote something, it was mediocre, vulgar, but always in the spirit of Soviet ideology. And the appearance is true talented work was met with avalanche criticism designed to humiliate and destroy the dissident (as was the case with the master’s novel). To expose the vicious society of people who call themselves literary figures is the writer’s task, which he copes with brilliantly.

Bulgakov, continuing the traditions of Gogol, uses fantasy and the grotesque to make the ugly phenomena of Soviet reality appear in all their ugliness. MASSOLIT was burned, the leadership of Variety was pretty frightened, Soviet citizens, greedy for the free and bright, were fooled. One after another, types in the Gogolian spirit appear on the pages of the novel. Here is the director of the Variety Show Styopa Likhodeev, awakening from sleep with a deep hangover, a slacker, a Don Juan, a careerist and a bribe-taker. But no less bright picture:, the chairman of the housing association, a thief and a swindler, is not averse to making money at the expense of a rich foreigner, and at the same time plugging the “gap” in the cooperative’s budget. A fantastic technique - a wad of money crawling into his briefcase on its own - looks almost realistic, illustrating the life of Soviet society in the 30s.

An equally typical and characteristic sign of the times (alas, which has not yet been eliminated in Russia!) is the bureaucracy of officials at all levels of government. Bulgakov the satirist mercilessly ridicules the activities of idler officials, talking about the head of the Entertainment Commission. The suit, left without its owner, Prokhor Petrovich, “managed” the institution extremely fruitfully, and the boss himself, returning to his usual chair, approved (!) all the actions of the “deputy”. The employees of the city entertainment branch are no less “hardworking”, for which they were punished with a lesson choral singing, very prolonged.

Have the townspeople changed internally? Woland asks this question while giving a session of black magic at the Variety Show. Yes, it's possible, but unlikely better side. There was a stir when money rained down from the ceiling when Koroviev-Fagot opened a “ladies’ store.” Gullible, selfish and fussy citizens greedily grabbed everything they could lay their hands on. Bulgakov’s contemporaries were not at all sympathetic, since their values ​​were of a pronounced material nature: apartments (Kievite Poplavsky’s attempt to get a Moscow apartment), dachas, luxury vacations, gourmet food, money, of course, gold, currency... Having the latter was strictly forbidden, but very I wanted to, so she hid, for example, in the cellar or buried herself in the ground. “...people are like people. They love money, but that’s always been the case...” The townsfolk are greedy, and Woland gives them a lesson in integrity in the hope that they will become better people. Bulgakov writes his novel for the same purpose.

The past decades have shown that people have not outlived their vices, and therefore the novel “The Master and Margarita” is read in a very modern way. Society remained firmly in its predilections. The satirical chapters of Bulgakov's novel demonstrate the poverty of the internal, spiritual culture of the Soviet citizen: both the official, the artist, and the layman. To expose vice, to expose it in all its ugliness and ugliness is the task of the satirist. This is service to your Fatherland. Bitter bread. Bulgakov fully experienced this himself.

List of used literature.

1. Akhmatova’s works in two volumes. - M.: Pravda, 1990. - T.1. - p.251.

2. Bulgakov and Margarita. Theatrical novel. dog's heart. - Tomsk book publishing house, 19 p.

3. Karsalova, truth, humanity...: The novel “The Master and Margarita” in the graduating class // Literature at school No. 1. - p.72-79.

4. “He did not deserve light, he deserved peace...”: Commentary on “The Master and Margarita” .// Literature at school No. 2. - p.54-61.

5. “Heretics in Literature”: L. Andreev, E. Zamyatin, B. Pilnyak, M. Bulgakov: Tutorial. – Saratov: Lyceum, 2003. – 288 p. – (Through the pages of literary classics).

6. “It was the most bright life…”: Based on the novel “The Master and Margarita” // Literature at school No. 7. - p.28-31.

7. Marantsman analysis of the novel “The Master and Margarita”. XI grade // Literature at school No. 5. - p.40-42. - No. 7. - p.23-No.1. - p.27-32.

8. Pushkin in three volumes. - M.:Hud. literature, 1985. - T.1. - p.528.

9. Sokolov “The Master and Margarita”: Essays creative history. - M.: Nauka, 19 p.

10. , Turaev dictionary literary terms: A book for students. Edition 2. – M.: Prosveshchenie, 1985. –208 p.

11. Shentalinsky V. Master through the eyes of the GPU: Behind the scenes of the life of Mikhail Bulgakov. // New World No. 10. - p.177.

12. Ivan Bezdomny found Yagupov’s house?: “The Master and Margarita.” // Literature at school No. 2. - p.134-139.

13. Yanovskaya L. Woland’s triangle: Chapters from the book. //October No. 5. - p.182-188.

Korsalova, truth, humanity...: The novel “The Master and Margarita” in the graduating class // Literature at school. – 1994 – No. 1. – from 72-79

Ivan Bezdomny found Yagupov’s house?: “The Master and Margarita” // Literature at school. – 1998 – No. 2. - With. 134-139

Problematic analysis of the novel “The Master and Margarita”. 11th grade // Literature at school. – 2002 o – p No. 5. - With. 40-42. – No. 7. – p. 23-27. – 2003 – No. 1. – p. 27-32

Yanovskaya L. Woland’s triangle: Chapters from the book // October No. 5. - With.

Shentalinsky V. Master through the eyes of the GPU: Behind the scenes of the life of Mikhail Bulgakov // New World.- 1997.- No. 10.-p.177

Bulgakov and Margarita. - Tomsk book publishing house, 19 p. In the following, all quotes from the novel are given according to this edition, indicating the page in the text.

The poem “Here I am for you, in exchange for grave roses...” (1940) from part V “Late Response” of the cycle “Wreath for the Dead”

I have already written what to say about the work of M.A. Bulgakov, and especially about “The Master and Margarita,” one can go on and on. It was also said that the novel turns to each reader in a special way, reveals an individual meaning. Moreover, with each subsequent reading you can almost certainly discover a little more than the last time. Therefore, there was no way to limit ourselves to just one post about “The Master and Margarita”. So, part two, dedicated, as you might have guessed, to the historical background of the novel.

Let's start with this. 1938, hot summer. Bulgakov, under the influence of unprecedented inspiration, writes his novel and finishes it by June 25 (the first reprint of the novel dates back to this date). In the same year, sketches began and the plot of the novel “Pyramid” by Leonid Leonov was formed. Briefly: an angeloid arrives in Moscow, taking the surname Dymkov. Somehow, Stalin summons him to the Kremlin and asks him to help “reduce the excessive playfulness of people’s lusts and thoughts in order to prolong life on earth” (murder). Angeloid refuses and leaves Moscow. In 1938, another work takes place - Lazar Lagin's fairy tale "Old Man Hottabych".

Three fantastic books, three unusual main characters - an angel, a devil and a genie. Interestingly, the first two disappear from the capital shortly after their arrival; Hottabych, on the contrary, remains, joins the ranks of the pioneers and begins working in the circus. Why is this happening? The answer lies on the surface: Soviet ideology. The devil and the angel are entities directly related to religion; the genie is a figure from the pre-Christian era. It is quite logical that it is easier to adapt Hottabych to the reality of that time than the “Christian” Woland and Dymkov.

But why exactly 1938, not earlier and not later? The answer again lies in history: 1937 marks the peak Stalin's repressions. Fantastic works become an attempt to comprehend these terrible “miracles” that cannot be explained Soviet era, the goals of which are clear to everyone, but the reasons are unknown to almost no one.

So, Bulgakov writes a novel about the devil, including the Yershalaim chapters, discussions about truth, and so on. Did Mikhail Afanasyevich know how this could turn out under Soviet rule? Did you hope that The Master and Margarita would be published? Of course, Bulgakov was counting on posthumous publication in post-Stalin or even post-Soviet Russia, but that was not why he created the work. "The Master and Margarita" was a novel for the authorities, and its author addressed one to a specific person- Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

It must be said that Mikhail Afanasyevich had a special connection with Stalin. The leader of the USSR was very fond of the play “Days of the Turbins” and watched the production many times. One cannot help but recall the case when Stalin personally called Bulgakov, after which a job was found for the writer at the Moscow Art Theater. Woland’s remark naturally suggests itself here: “Never ask for anything! Never and nothing, and especially among those who are stronger than you. They will offer and give everything themselves!”

About the image of Woland. The figure of Joseph Vissarionovich is clearly visible in him. The destruction caused in Moscow by Satan's gang becomes an image of repression (just as senseless and merciless). But what’s interesting is that the devil in “The Master and Margarita” is very fair, he punishes only those who really deserve it: bureaucrats who cheat on their wives, bribe-takers who want easy prey, spies who sniff out everything about everyone, and so on. Really good and talented people they do not suffer at the hands of the devil and his gang. So does Mikhail Afanasyevich really justify the repressions? The answer is yes, Bulgakov is really trying to do this. He considers Stalin a “useful evil”, necessary to restore order in the state, eliminate “corrupted housing issue"and spiritually poor people, all this little thing that deserves nothing other than serious reprisal. But at the same time, the author gives the leader advice: no need to touch the artists, they need care. Mikhail Afanasyevich did not encourage repression at all; he wrote a book justifying Stalin in order to protect himself and his colleagues. "The Master and Margarita" is a novel in defense of cultural figures, directed against bureaucracy and scoundrels.

Lecture No. 3

Point of view author in a novel

M.A. Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita”: methods for identifying it

1 Determining the author's position is an operation that is in many ways similar to determining the problematic of a work. In a literary text one can rarely find direct formulations (reasoning remarks, author's reasoning): literature more often speaks in figurative than logical language. Translating their vision of the content of the work into logical formulas, philologists must provide evidence in favor of the fact that this text admits the proposed interpretation. The more complex the text, the more factors the researcher needs to take into account when formulating what is commonly called (with a certain degree of convention) “the author’s position.” And the more diverse interpretations in such cases appear in the scientific literature.

“The Master and Margarita” is a work that has not even been approximately “solved” in serious philological research. This is recognized by philologists themselves who study last novel M.A. Bulgakov. There are reasons to doubt that an objective completeness of understanding of this novel is generally achievable. Firstly, the artistic edifice, which we conventionally consider the final text, was not completed by the author: Bulgakov died without completing the intended edit. Secondly, in this very edit (as Deacon Andrei Kuraev rightly points out) there was probably an element of self-censorship, which did not clarify, but, on the contrary, obscured the author’s position. Thirdly, the painful depression of the last months of his life also affected the changes that Bulgakov made to the most important final scenes novel.

However, the text of “The Master and Margarita” with which we are now dealing still looks like a sufficiently harmonious artistic whole so that we can at least try to formulate its problematics and even some of the author’s “answers” ​​to the questions posed in the novel. It is unlikely that the solutions we propose will become final. More importantly, we will try to obtain them together with our students, strictly adhering to the scientific principles of text analysis. This, in our opinion, is much more useful than simply “presenting” one of the existing (and not fully proven) concepts - even the one proposed by the compilers of school textbooks. Moreover, high school students usually experience this novel as something deeply personal and do not agree to accept other people’s approximate interpretations.

2 Before starting to work with the novel, schoolchildren are given an unusual task: make a list of what seemed incomprehensible in it. This work tends to be taken seriously, and we are able to focus on issues that really interest our students. Basically, they coincide with those that serious philologists argue about, but there are also those that require a simple commentary or more accurate knowledge of the text.

Having collected the sheets of questions, we can immediately sort them. The children themselves will answer simple questions right away, and we will write down complex questions on the board and in notebooks. The formulations change from year to year, but the essence of the main questions remains the same:

Is it really true that in the world created by Bulgakov, Woland rules and there is no God? (Option: did Bulgakov believe in God or only in the devil?)

Why are Yeshua and Matthew Levi described as so weak and vulnerable, devoid of beauty and greatness?

Why does Yeshua say that all people are good? (Otherwise: why, instead of a real gospel sermon, Yeshua talks about human kindness? Is it possible to identify Yeshua with Christ?)

Why does evil spirits look so cute? (In other words: does Bulgakov believe that evil spirits are capable of doing good?)

Why did Woland spare Margarita and fulfill her request? After all, they didn’t stand on ceremony with the other heroes that his gang used?

Was what is described in the Yershalaim chapters invented by the Master or guessed? (In other words: is this a novel or reality - in the system of Bulgakov’s plan?)

Why did the Master deserve not light, but peace? And whose verdict is this: his own, an invented hero, or the real God?

Why cowardice is the most terrible vice? (And what does Pontius Pilate have to do with it?)

Did Ivanushka the Bezdomny really end up becoming the Master’s student?

Let's say right away: the length of the article will not allow us to touch on all these questions (although work in class is most often structured as a sequential search for answers). Let us consider those of them, the answers to which are given by direct analysis of the text.

Before moving on to such work, it is necessary to clarify the context (as we remember, a kind of ODZ that cuts off obviously incorrect decisions). The biographical context allows us to assert: the novel “The Master and Margarita” cannot be considered directed “against God.” This contradicts author's intention. The book began with a visit to the editorial office of the magazine “Atheist” that outraged Bulgakov to the depths of his soul and continued with the prayer: “Help, Lord, finish the novel!” Bulgakov worked on this work as long as he could, overcoming pain and despair, and in delirium asked: “Who will take me? Will they take me?..” As V. Losev believes, “perhaps a painful question arose in the writer’s mind: who will take him after earthly life, which “extraterrestrial agency” - Woland or Yeshua?” We must immediately warn students: this novel most likely “protects” God from anti-religious propaganda, although the author himself was not a “church” person and was not distinguished by a sinless and righteous life.

3 To the first of the above questions ( who rules the world?) the answer can be found without resorting to complex calculations: it is written into the novel “in plain text.” There are scenes that show the true balance of power. The most striking of them is when Azazello, leading the souls of the Master and Margarita out of the basement, saw how the frightened cook raised her hand to make the sign of the cross and shouted: “I’ll cut off my hand!” In addition, no matter what style Yeshua Ha-Nozri is depicted in, it is he who determines the fate of the Master, and not Woland. The last (and most important) detail concerns artistic time: the events in both novels (both the “Moscow” and the “Yershalaim”) take place on Strastnaya and end on the night before the Resurrection. On Saturday, Woland and his retinue leave Moscow, then throw themselves into the black abyss and disappear.

From this follows the only possible conclusion: in the world where the novel takes place, both the prince of darkness and the resurrected Christ God (and not just the executed wandering philosopher) actually exist. Only the presence of Woland is obvious, and the presence of Christ is barely discernible - even though His power is greater. So, in the novel there is visible devil And invisible God, much more powerful than the forces of evil (although the latter are trying in every possible way to deny this and demonstrate their enormous power and power).

The question discussed above is closely related to another - about why Woland honestly fulfilled Margarita's request, while all the other people who “collaborated” with him in one way or another were thrown into big trouble. Some readers get the impression that Woland helps the Master and Margarita solely out of sympathy for their love and suffering. Out of kindness, so to speak, of the soul, or out of a desire for justice. However, kindness is unusual for this character, and mercy is completely disgusting to him - he himself speaks about this after the ball. (It is not he who is “responsible” for justice in this world - this is mentioned in the scene of the last trial of Pilate.)

Woland mentions mercy twice in the novel (the first time - at a session at the Variety Show), but Bulgakov would not repeat an insignificant detail. The first time, after the public demanded to forgive Georges of Bengal and return his head, Woland says: “... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people...” The second time this is an obvious test for Margarita: after the ball she unexpectedly asks not for the Master, but for Frida, the only “guest” at the ball who is burdened by her crime. Margarita denies her mercy and refers to pride (a property for Woland that is understandable and pleasant). And yet, with her little power, she forgives - and after that Woland fulfills her demand, and does not throw her out of the “bad apartment” - to drown herself.

This episode contains a hidden reminiscence - a quote from the Sermon on the Mount, the text most famous for every Christian: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy” (Matthew 5:7). Having pardoned Frida, Margarita leaves Woland’s jurisdiction - that’s all, since the Word of God is an irrevocable and binding law for everyone. Let's check this conclusion - ask ourselves: is there any other artistic need for the appearance of Frida among the heroes of the novel, to whom unexpectedly great attention is paid? Apparently not. Well, let’s remember this “answer”: mercy, mercy is stronger than Woland. Let us also note that this conclusion does not contradict either our first “answer” (God exists in the world, and He is stronger than the devil), nor what we know about the author’s plans from the history of the creation of the novel.

4 In order to get answers to other questions, you need to take a closer look at the structure of the novel. Let's start by asking you to think about and justify your answer to the question: how many worlds are presented in the novel?(And further: Is there a connection between them and how is it expressed?)

Sometimes students understand this question in their own way and argue about how much storylines in the novel. Usually they see three main plots: historical (“Yershalaim”), satirical (Woland and Soviet Moscow), lyrical (the line of the Master and Margarita). This is a convenient path for formal philological research (each line has its own traditions, and their combination makes the novel uniquely original). However, we are looking for answers to questions concerning the author’s position, and therefore we will leave these studies aside and return to the question specifically about “worlds”. Usually, only two autonomous worlds are named at first: Moscow and Yershalaim. This is not a very accurate answer, but let’s agree with it for now and consider what connects these worlds.

Both cases describe the events of Holy Week.

In both cases, a tragedy unfolds, the cause of which is human vices: greed, envy, betrayal, cowardice...

In both cases, the victim is a person who sought to bring a message of goodness into this world.

About the latter - a little more detail. Usually everyone notices the bold juxtaposition: Yeshua the Master. In our opinion, there is no reason to consider it blasphemous: the gospel “plot” is applicable to any era and to any person. Everyone who follows Christ is “guaranteed” their own cross and their own pain from encountering the untruths of this world. The analogy we saw makes it possible to say that the fate of an honest person, in particular an artist, in totalitarian state is not news in this world (the topic is clear, and we will not dwell on it).

If the class does not see any other meaning in the proposed comparison, we will ask a few more questions. In the “Romance of Pilate” it is shown crucial moment in the history of mankind: the beginning of the Christian era (when any person was given the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of God by following Christ and using volitional and moral effort for this; before the resurrection of Christ this Kingdom was closed to people). Does it follow from this that in Moscow we also see a certain key moment in the history of mankind? And in general, why did Woland come to Moscow? And why exactly to Moscow?

The last question is the easiest to answer: in Moscow, the majority of citizens (according to Berlioz) consciously abandoned faith in God. (Remember Woland’s amazing reaction: he heartfeltly shakes Berlioz’s hand.) Deacon Andrei Kuraev believes that the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was a sign for Woland, and this is a convincing version. Next, it will not be difficult to answer the question: why did the devil come to Moscow? If no one else needs the Kingdom of God here, it means that the prince of darkness can try to reign instead of Christ. After all, a holy place is never empty, no matter what Berlioz says about it. Woland did not come on tour, he was testing the waters. And the hot May described in the novel could really become both a “key” and a “turning point” in the history of mankind. And we already know why he didn’t: at the Variety show, the Muscovites “failed the exam” (since Woland, in fact, did not come there to entertain them, but to test their readiness for the beginning of a new era): people turned out to be just people, sinners, but merciful. Having stopped the execution (buffoonish - but it’s an execution!) of Bengalsky, they, like Margarita later, turned out to be largely beyond Woland’s control. He was left with reprisals against “ little demons” Moscow life, and on Easter night he was forced to go home, as had happened many times before. And the ball turned out to be simply “traditional”.

This comparison shows us Bulgakov’s original plan (in the first editions there was neither the Master nor Margarita - only godless Moscow, where Woland appeared, and Yershalaim, where Yeshua Ha-Notsri came, in every possible way degraded in the depiction of the “black magician” to the level of an ordinary one, weak person). The meaning of this “message” is to warn what consequences will result from godlessness instilled at the state level.

5 Continuing the conversation about “worlds” in the novel, let’s take a closer look at the system of images. It has long been noted that in a novel there is a kind of “multiplication” of heroes performing the same function - but in different worlds. This property of the novel is especially noticeable in the portraits of those who claim supreme power. It’s not only Pontius Pilate who wears a cloak, is surrounded by a retinue, and speaks Latin. In the Moscow chapters, Woland and Professor Stravinsky claim the role of the ruler, whose resemblance to Pilate strikes Ivan Bezdomny. What meaning did the author put into this similarity?

Before answering this question, it makes sense to ask differently: Is the Moscow “world” homogeneous? Or are there some separate little worlds in it? Students usually identify several autonomous “living spaces”:

Moscow Massolita, Soviet bureaucracy; a purely satirically depicted Moscow pseudo-intelligent “rabble”, hostile to the Master;

Moscow of the Master and Margarita, their lyrical space, “fenced off” in Soviet Moscow;

Apartment No. 50 - space occupied evil spirits;

Professor Stravinsky's clinic is a shelter for the mad.

Pilate rules in Yershalaim; in apartment No. 50 - Woland; in a clinic for the mentally ill - a professor who looks so much like Pilate. And who rules in Moscow, where both the Master and his enemies live?

This is another invisible hero of the novel, whose unmentioned presence in this work has also been repeatedly noted by researchers. Moscow is ruled by Stalin, to whom Bulgakov (in insane hope) was going to “submit” his novel in order to obtain permission for publication, to whom he had already applied once, driven to despair by outright persecution, at whose whim the Moscow Art Theater continued to play “Days of the Turbins” - a sort of strong personal patron of the author. This invisible figure takes on interesting shapes due to comparison with others. strongmen of the world this. Stalin is comparable to Woland - as a huge evil who imagines himself to be the ruler, not yet of the world, but certainly of the country - for sure, knowing neither conscience nor mercy, hostile to God. He is also comparable to Stravinsky - the undivided ruler over the madmen locked in a madhouse (a very expressive metaphor, indeed). And, most importantly, he is comparable to Pontius Pilate - an earthly ruler with enormous power and at the same time with a man who faces a moral choice. Pilate was afraid to stand up for the persecuted, so as not to become a victim of a political denunciation, which the high priest Caiaphas threatened him with (and Pilate had reason to fear the Emperor Tiberius), and made an irreparable mistake, which he is doomed to regret not on earth, but in eternity.

Is Bulgakov’s novel in some way an appeal to Stalin as a person who was also capable of suffering pangs of conscience? Now this idea seems too naive to us. But let us remember the novel: after all, Yeshua Ha-Nozri reached Pilate - and this looks artistically convincing. There is another version: Bulgakov flattered Stalin by portraying the evil spirits as “pretty” because in this way he wanted to achieve the publication of his work. The author allegedly made a deal with his conscience, glorified inhuman force and thereby supported the “party line”... But if so, then the very meaning of such a publication is called into question. And in any case, it's time for us to figure out what the “message” both the Master and Bulgakov want to convey to readers?

6 We have come to a series of questions related to the image of Yeshua, his comparison with the image of the Master, with their common prophetic mission.

Let's start with what will shock religious readers the most: Why does Yeshua look so weak, helpless, humiliated, lonely? No greatness, no beauty, no royalty... Theologians are outraged by something else: Why, instead of a real gospel sermon, does this wandering impostor (a typical “intelligent wimp”) repeat what Christ never said: “All people are good”?

In his work (serious and competent), Deacon Andrei Kuraev calls the Yershalaim chapters “blasphemous.” And a little further he explains the meaning of such an image: in the Master’s novel, the events are shown from the point of view of Pilate (a proud Roman and pagan) and end before the Resurrection. Pilate saw before him not God, but simply a man, and from his proud Roman point of view, this Man looked something like this. “This was the “image” of Christ, this is how He seemed to the crowd. And from this point of view, Bulgakov’s novel is brilliant: it shows the visible, external side of the great event - the coming of Christ the Savior to Earth, exposes the scandalousness of the Gospel, because you really need to have an amazing gift of Grace, to perform a true feat of Faith, so that in this dusty Wanderer without a diploma higher rabbinical education to identify the Creator of the Universe.” Maybe Bulgakov (the Master?) overdid it in the “degrading” details (they, however, for some reason do not harm the reader’s simple sympathy for this hero), but let’s check the text.

- Does Yeshua have any real power and authority?- Oddly enough, yes. He performs a miracle of healing (as simply and imperceptibly as all the gospel miracles were performed). And he tells Pilate literally the same thing that was told to him in the real Gospel: you (the hegemon) have no power over life and death - it is mine. Heavenly Father(John 18:36). However, it seems that the wandering philosopher is trying very hard to look like just a weak person.

- Why is it important for all three - Yeshua Ha-Notsri, the Master, Bulgakov - to be seen as a hero ordinary person? Or you can ask differently: is the novel about Pontius Pilate and his strange relationship with a man arrested on a political denunciation addressed only to Stalin?- The answer is obvious: of course not. The novel is addressed to those same “conscious atheists” who lived in our country in the 30s (otherwise would it have been worth seeking publication?).

-Is the novel about love for God?- No. We are talking about love for a person (although - if you follow the logic Holy Scripture- these are very closely related things: “to love God” and “to love your neighbor”). About purely human relationships.

- Why does the Master so emphasize that this is a novel about Pontius Pilate?- Yes, because it is Pilate’s moral choice that is his main theme (as it should be in a novel).

-What must Pilate choose between?- Between political loyalty to Caesar (and with it all earthly blessings) and conscience, as well as that very “simply” love for one’s neighbor.

- Was such a novel relevant in the 30s of the twentieth century?- And how... How much evil was done in those years by the hands of the most ordinary people, and many of them deep down in their souls could be “kind”, but were afraid of bringing it upon themselves terrible anger states.

- Is anything said about this in the novel?- Yes: cowardice is “the most terrible vice.”

So, we are convinced that the novel is about moral choice and purely human relationships. Many of Bulgakov’s contemporaries could face such a choice any day.

7 Now about the other side of the novel, which also caused heated discussions: Why does evil spirits look so cute? And does she really “eternally want evil and always do good” (see epigraph to the novel)?

The last statement coincides with the very widespread opinion that good and evil (like light and shadow) are two inseparable aspects of being (or the Absolute - in the terminology of the authors of occult doctrines). And it is often attributed to Bulgakov, and most often - the authors of methodological developments. Let's clarify.

- Who in the novel expresses this point of view?- Woland in a dispute with Levi Matvey. Woland justifies himself by punishing the evil, but leaving to the good something like Tolstoy's non-resistance to evil through violence. But taking this character at his word is risky - let's look at things.

-Who were the victims of Woland and his retinue?- In short, they are sinners who “bought” the promises of demons or simply rejected the protection of God (there are many examples, the guys themselves will gladly give them).

- Is there anything new here compared to the traditional idea of ​​the fate of sinners?- Apparently not. It’s a completely traditional picture, except, perhaps, for one thing: both the author and the readers treat the demons’ mockery of the victims with a great deal of gloating and almost without sympathy. And when Woland declares that he is doing a good deed - punishing evil, for some reason everyone agrees with him. We need to figure out why?

For this purpose, let us return to the comparison of “worlds”. What episodes of Moscow life correspond to the “life and customs” of apartment No. 50?- With the “life and customs” of Massolit. Particularly noticeable are the echoes between the dinner “at Griboedov” and the ball at Satan’s (it’s also easy to give examples).

- What do Woland’s “guests” have in common with the privileged Moscow public?- Focus on purely earthly interests (money, dacha, apartment, food, entertainment, affairs...)

- What is the difference between them?- Woland’s world looks both “more honest” and more artistic in its intoxication with earthly goods. The world of Moscow is wretched and poor. (Remember the advice that Woland gives to the bartender about how to live the rest of his life.)

- Is Woland really ready to “provide” earthly happiness to humanity?- He doesn’t need it (just remember the naked ladies), and besides, he’s a deceiver. The “happiness” he offers is an illusion, a shadow, ashes, pieces of paper instead of money, etc.

- What meaning does Bulgakov put into this comparison?- Probably satirical: it’s still not in favor of Moscow. Soviet citizens were deprived of their spiritual wealth, lured with promises of an earthly communist paradise, but in return for material benefits, citizens received a miserable, miserable life. The fact that the housekeeper Natasha chose to become a witch sounds like a condemnation of Soviet life, and not a condemnation of Natasha.

- What is the relationship between evil spirits and Soviet authorities? - Woland and his team do not recognize any authority over themselves: those who came to arrest them, for example, they mocked to their heart's content. It is these scenes that probably make Bulgakov's demons especially attractive in the eyes of our readers. Well, this is a very strong (albeit risky in every sense) satirical move.

8 The assessment of the main characters also causes a lot of controversy. Let's try to understand author's attitude to The Master and Margarita, continuing our comparison of “worlds”.

- Do The Master and Margarita have anything in common with Moscow literary circles? - The students are surprised to discover that there is. These are completely “earthly” people, with earthly (and sinful) love, with the ability to appreciate beautiful and expensive things (especially for the heroine), with a thirst for earthly rewards - fame - for talent and skill.

-What distinguishes them from the leaders of Massolit?- That they are honest and “real”: the Master is really talented (unlike other “writers”), his novel is a truly significant “word” addressed to the conscience of society (which is what Russian classical literature has always been), and Margarita is the most In fact, she loves him, although this love is “lawless,” but the author still does not condemn his heroine. And she is ready to give up all her blessings for the sake of her love.

- Does he notice? external world this difference?- The world notices the Master when he presents his novel (Margarita remains in the shadows) and attacks him - both for his talent and for the meaning of his work. In the main, the Master turned out to be a stranger to them.

Let us now try to compare the characters with the world of the “Yershalaim novel”. We have already talked about the Master Yeshua analogy. Does Margarita have her own double in this world?- It happens that in class he even names two (and sometimes three) doubles. The most obvious answer is Matthew Levi. Both of them, in their love and devotion, go into direct rebellion against God. Levi Matthew blasphemes in order to “reduce” God’s wrath on himself and on Yeshua and thereby end his suffering. And Margarita makes a deal with Woland.

- Why don’t they suffer punishment for this?- Even for the reader who does not know the corresponding Gospel text (Matthew 10:39) about how someone who will destroy it can save his soul, it is still clear: one cannot condemn one for selfless love.

- Can the love of Margarita and Levi Matthew be called sublime and ideal?- No, oddly enough. Bulgakov draws just very human passions. Both heroes are not only trying to save their loved one, they are not averse to revenge.

Pilate also wants to take revenge - this unexpectedly brings him closer to both Levi Matthew and Margarita. All of them have not yet learned anything from Yeshua, their devotion is partial and almost blind (it is sometimes compared to Banga’s devotion to Pilate, especially when it comes to the afterlife; thus, the dog turns out to be Margarita’s third “double”).

So, Bulgakov showed both the Master and Margarita as completely earthly people, sinful and weak, but loving, honest, alive, which distinguishes them from Moscow anti-heroes, just as pangs of conscience distinguish Pilate from other participants in the events.

-Are there “higher” heroes in the novel?- They usually call Yeshua and Levi Matthew (only they are somewhere “in the region of light”). They are indifferent to earthly temptations. This is especially noticeable in the image of Levi Matthew. Students will easily remember details that are likely an allusion. It is known that in the first centuries of Christianity, civilized pagans contemptuously called Christian preachers “dirty” - for their indifference to external beauty. The Master, who survived the arrest, and Ivanushka the Bezdomny, who was shocked by the events at the Patriarch’s, become just as strange and “unseemly”... However, for them this is more a sign of brokenness than of ascetic indifference to everything earthly.

9 And finally, the question of the Master’s posthumous fate. We do not have the opportunity to analyze the most complex problem of “authorship” within the novel (who exactly - Woland or the Master - owns the “novel about Pilate”; who ultimately judges the Master - his hero, a wandering philosopher, or the One who is present in the novel unnamed; whose Pilate was released by authority at the end - etc.). It is precisely in these questions (despite the abundance of versions) that the work’s incompleteness is unlikely to ever allow us to obtain final and unambiguous answers.

Readers are usually most interested in another question: why did the Master deserve not light, but peace? There are also several versions about this. Some believe that the Master did not deserve the light because he renounced his prophetic novel (E.B. Skorospelova). Others blame him for his collaboration with Woland, although they note that it was not the result of a conscious choice (A. Kuraev). Still others note his extreme spiritual emptiness, inability to rise to the light. The fourth simply talk about the quality of the “peace” that awaits the Master in Margarita’s company (and value it very little).

Let us venture to make one guess about this “sentence” and how the ending of the novel is generally structured. In this work, as we have already said, next to the “visible” characters there are “invisible” and unnamed ones, but at the same time they are the most real. They take this text beyond the limits of the game, which literature is always to some extent, into life itself. In addition to the two that have already been discussed, there is a third - real author this book. If we take this fact into account, the mirrored ending of the novel will look like this: the Master wrote his novel, presented it to Woland (a sort of earthly patron), but Yeshua Ha-Nozri judged him, and the Master received the fate that he believed in and dreamed about (one can also recall what Woland said about the posthumous fate of the head of Baron Meigel) - peace.

The real author wrote a novel, wanted to submit it to Stalin (understanding what kind of character he was), but knew very well that in any case he would present his work to another Judge and he could not avoid this Court (“Will they take me?.. Who will take me?”) . Since the Master inside the novel is practically the alter ego of the author, Bulgakov could not call him (himself) worthy of light. I just begged for mercy and at least peace. And yet he managed to talk about his longing for the world.

You can test the last statement by asking yourself: Is there this longing for the world (for God) in the novel?- Eat. She is shown in a recurring dream, which is dreamed first by Pilate, then by Ivanushka. For the first time, the reader has a strong desire to join the strange walk of Pilate and Ha-Nozri along the moonbeam. This is followed by the release of Pilate, but the Master does not join the heroes - he goes into his “peace”. No matter what Woland says (“why chase after the footsteps of what is already over?” - but the Master cannot forgive himself...), the novel truly ends with the same dream and the same longing, the aspiration of the soul somewhere beyond the bounds visible existence, where the strange philosopher takes Pilate. It is the secret aspiration and dissatisfaction of the soul that is the most the last word novel.

It is also important that Ivan Bezdomny sees this last dream. There is also a heated debate about this hero: some believe that he actually became a student of the Master and “received the light” (as was the case in early versions novel), others believe that his fast scientific career testifies against him. Let's say one thing: it is hardly correct to apply purely realistic standards to a character with such a folklore name (and corresponding role).

This dream is written in such a way as to seem deceptive and “not proving anything.” The mere fact that Pilate and Ha-Nozri are walking along lunar ray, symbolic. Truth in the Christian poetic tradition is symbolized by the sun (and the Sun of Truth is one of the most famous figurative descriptions Christ), the moon is a deceptive and evil luminary. And the resurrection of Yeshua occurs only in a dream, and not in reality... But we knew before: the novel ends on the eve of the Resurrection and does not cross this fundamentally important line with a single line. Yes, and it would be strange to write about this greatest triumph in a country that still had to suffer so much before being spiritually resurrected.

M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is one of the most significant philosophical works 20th century. It presents the reader with many the most complex issues, one of which is the problem of justice. It is worth noting that this issue is resolved in an original, non-standard, unusual way in the novel. In Bulgakov, the bearers of justice are none other than the Devil and his retinue. It is not for nothing that the writer chose lines from Faust’s poem “Goethe” as the epigraph “representing” Woland: I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good. “The Master and Margarita” very accurately and completely depicts the picture of Soviet Moscow in the 30s. 20th century. Bulgakov creates an image of a crazy world living according to unnatural laws. People disappear from “bad apartments” here, bureaucracy reigns everywhere, bribery, debauchery, opportunism, denunciations and immorality in the broadest sense of the word flourish. But a particularly gloomy picture is presented by the literary world of Moscow, where the master ends up trying to publish his novel. A unique model of this world in the work is MASSOLIT. The author shows that not a single one of the three thousand one hundred eleven members of this highly respected organization fulfills its immediate responsibilities - does not engage in literary creativity. But all the members of MASSOLIT solve housing, food, dacha and other everyday problems with enviable energy. All of them - Berlioz, Latunsky, Lavrovich, Ryukhin - long ago and firmly learned what and how to write in order to secure their position in society. Bulgakov emphasizes that true creativity has nothing to do with the crafts of these opportunists. Cynical, pragmatic, indifferent to everything except their career, the Massolitians shape the literary atmosphere of the time. Of course, in this society the fate of the master and his creation turns out to be predetermined: the hero ends up in the Stravinsky clinic as a mentally ill person. The rejection of the novel about Pilate and the persecution that unfolded against him in the literary world give rise to deep despair in the master, because he was deprived of the main thing for an artist - freedom of creativity. The hero no longer wants to live in a world where “violence, bad poetry and social order” reign. The writer expresses his attitude towards the “Moscow vices” he describes with the help of Woland and his retinue who visited the capital. It is these heroes who judge and punish the guilty, it is they who restore that justice that no one but them can restore. Thus, already at the beginning of the novel, Woland “deals” with the chairman of MASSOLIT, Berlioz, a deceitful, narrow-minded opportunist, and his “ward”, the young poet Ivan Bezdomny. We learn that Bezdomny wrote a poem in which he denies the existence of Christ and ridicules religion, the Christian faith: “And the Christians, without inventing anything new, created their own Jesus in the same way, who in fact was never alive. This is what the main emphasis needs to be placed on...” But this was done not out of the inner conviction of the aspiring poet, but for the sake of power, in order to be noticed and favored. However, Homeless is not yet as hopeless as his older comrade; he is capable of transformation. But Berlioz is no longer there. That is why Woland destroys Mikhail Alexandrovich, and “puts” Ivan Ponyrev on the path of correction. Perhaps in even more detail than the Massolitovites, Bulgakov describes the staff of the Variety Show, who are a collection of all kinds of vices. So, the director of the Variety Show Styopa Likhodeev is a drunkard, a lazy person, a thief, a libertine. So are his wards: administrator Varenukha, financial director Rimsky. These "characters" believe normal occurrence take bribes, be rude, be mean. Of course, Woland could not help but notice their “talents”. That is why Likhodeev instantly loses his “warm place” when he finds himself in Yalta. And Rimsky and Varenukha face to face with evil spirits and remember this for the rest of their lives. Other heroes of the novel are also subjected to Woland's fair trial. The chairman of the house committee, the “great bribe-taker” Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, receives his punishment and ends up in a prison cell for his sins. Many other Moscow residents who were caught in a session of “revealing black magic” are also punished. It is here that the massive vices of Bulgakov’s contemporary society are revealed: immoderate craving for money, debauchery, philistinism, ignorance, cruelty. But in general, the same picture of “hell on earth” is painted: “... in Variety after all this, something like Babylonian pandemonium began. The police were running towards Sempleyar’s box, curious people were climbing onto the barrier, hellish bursts of laughter and frantic screams were heard, drowned out by the golden ringing of cymbals from the orchestra.” But Woland’s retinue restores justice, not only by punishing. So, Satan allows the master and Margarita to reunite, granting them peace - what these heroes needed most. Thus, Woland’s judgment is not only harsh, but also fair. He gives everyone what they deserve, everyone gets what they deserve. In Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita" one of the main ideas is the idea of ​​justice. It is embodied in the work by heroes “non-standard” for this theme - the Devil and his retinue. Thus, the author emphasizes that in the “Babylonian pandemonium” that Moscow represented in the 30s. 20th century, only Satan was able to restore justice and give everyone what they deserved - Good here turned out to be powerless.