The Master and Margarita Paperback – September 28, 2021

The problem with modern totalitarian regimes - the most disgusting form of government - is that they produce no art: no music, no literature, no poetry, no architecture, no visual arts. The art that does come out of such states comes from those who hate what they are and oppose them (at least passively). One of the most terrifying possibilities of the 21st Century is that the ultra-conservative/religious right wing of American politics will realize its long-held aim of a totalitarian theocracy. (Another case of the need to be careful what you wish for: the NRA's policy of making sure white supremacists have an adequate supply of Uzis may backfire. If the rightwingers establish their tyranny, one of the first things they'll do is repeal the 2nd Amendment.)The tyrannies of the 1930s and `40s were classics of the form - although reading Orwell's "1984" shows the terrifying possibility that more far-reaching totalitarianism could occur. In prewar Stalinist Russia, the alleged art of the state was "Soviet realism". Even the actual (and therefore anti-Soviet) artists of Russia occasionally felt the brunt of Stalin and his thugs - with results such as Shostakovich's intensely Stalinist (and therefore antimusical) "Hymn of the Forest". The dreary banality of all the arts under such antihuman regimes as Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany was almost beyond belief.Even so, flowers bloomed in the virtually sterile artistic soil of Stalin's Russia. Great musical talents such as Prokofiev and Kabalevsky - although no fans of their genocidal dictator - were able produce pretty much what they wanted because their styles tended not to offend Stalin and his cultural goon squad. Literature in the Soviet period suffered even more than music: Russia's greatest writers could publish their works, if at all, abroad. What the government allowed to be published were propagandistic (although not entirely hack) works like Shokolov's "Virgin Soil Upturned". Although the hack writers of the Stalinist period didn't lack talent, the really great writers of the Bolshevik state were obliged to work mostly sub rosa.From the 1920s to the end of his life, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov lived and worked within the Stalinist tyranny. Denied permission to emigrate and virtually denied permission to create, he lived unhappily until 1940 when he died prematurely of cancer. Paradoxically, Stalin was actually rather fond of Bulgakov, having seen and enjoyed one of his plays. Bulgakov died early enough to avoid Stalin's usual betrayal of nearly everyone he originally befriended (however marginally). The dictator died before he got around to Lavrentiy Beria and some others, but they were certainly on his list by that time. Even at that late date, more than a decade after his death, Bulgakov remained an obscure figure. His greatest work was not published in any form until 1966.This work is "Master and Margarita", one of a small handful of immortal novels produced within (and in defiance of) Soviet Russia - and possibly the greatest of them. The greatness of M&M is advanced by its universality. This is achieved by abstracting it to a large extent from the political reality of 1930s Moscow. While the novel paints a vivid picture of life in the Soviet capital, the Stalinist system is virtually invisible and its founder totally so. M&M could be taking place in the capital of any strongly centrist European state. It should be noted that many editions of M&M exist. The only one you will wish to purchase is this one (translated by Burgin and O'Connor). It is far above the others in the accuracy and felicity of its translation, not to mention its wonderful notes and analytical essay ("Afterword").The "Master" of the novel's title is in many respects Bulgakov himself: a brilliant writer with little success at being published, whose masterpiece (a novel) seems condemned to nonpublication. The novel in this case is about Pontius Pilatus, the Procurator of Judea until mid-36 CE (the year in which Yeshua bar-Yosif ["Jesus son of Joseph"] was crucified). Some chapters of this novel appear in M&M, allowing the author to tie many elements of M&M together. Bulgakov is well versed in Gospel history, learnedly referring to Yeshua as "ha-Notsri". This term is frequently mistranslated as "the Nazarene" or "of Nazareth" (leading the author of "Matthew" of quote a probably nonexistent older text). It actually means "of the branch", from netser or nezer ("branch") - generally taken to mean a claimed descent from the very early Israeli king David. Bulgakov cleverly gives Pilatus a character that doesn't match what we know of him from Josephus. Similarly he gives us a different Yeshua and Yehudah ("Judas") than we would expect.The "Margarita" of the title, the Master's muse, is in some respects Bulgakov's 3rd wife (and also his muse), Elena Sergeyevna Shilovskaya. In terms of text devoted to her, Margarita is a far more important than the Master. The Master's story line in this work is reality mostly hers. Her name is an important clue to the novel as a whole. Marguerite (Margarita) is one of the names given to Faust's inamorata. In her passionate devotion to the Master, in her uncompromising and uncompomisable innocence, Margarita is a dramatic picture of Marguerite - but more real and compelling than the portraits of Goethe and Gounod. In a literary sense, Margarita as a shadow of Marguerite, just as M&M is a shadow of the Faust legend.It seems equally obvious that the Master must be a shadow of Faust himself. Yet the connection seems improbably remote. The Master appears as anything but Faustian, and rather than immersing himself in the world he has removed himself from it and immured himself in an asylum. Even so, his connection with Faust is palpable and compelling. Faust sought something that was not approved by the mediaeval state: knowledge (particularly of the dark arts). Bulgakov sought something deeply disapproved by the Stalinist state: truth. Indeed, no tyrant or would-be tyrant can tolerate truth. (This, I believe, explains Führer Bush's hatred of the truth and Vice-Führer Cheney's pathological fear of it.)The trinity Faust-Marguerite-Mephisopheles brings us inevitably to the protagonist (dare I say hero?) of M&M, Woland. His name, founded on the German for "where?", raises instant questions about where he is actually from and, consequently, who he actually is. That he is the "devil" of New Testament legend becomes quickly and readily apparent. He begins his visit to Moscow by going after a number of unsavory individuals. That they are of little consequence is a necessary reflection of the fact that going after people of real consequence would have landed Bulgakov in a non-mythical hell thanks to Russia's non-mythical devil (Stalin). That Woland's real mission is salvation - at least of Margarita and the Master - will seem far-fetched to the reader until it actually happens. The question is whether that mission was deliberate - for as Goethe says of his devil, "That Power I serve ... wills forever evil yet does forever good." More accurately in M&M, Woland's mission seems to be insuring that evil begets evil and good begets good.Woland in turn is part of yet another trinity: himself, Behemoth, and Korovyov. Behemoth ("the Beast", one might say) appears mostly in the form of a 6-foot upright cat. Korovyov is more human in form but just as obviously a demon. This trinity turns parts of Moscow upside-down through the use of particularly bizarre pranks. (It might be observed that the prominent presence in their company of an owl and a mirror suggests "[Till] Eulenspiegel", another famous prankster.) The merriment begins almost at once with the death of the unpleasant Rimsky, run over by a streetcar. The image of his head, rolling kabumpty-bumpty-bump down the street is hilariously macabre. Much of the novel is full of this trinity's high-jinks.I'd have to reread the novel with a mind to make notes in this regard, but I suspect that other trinities appear with some frequency in M&M.As the pranks in Moscow wind down, the story shifts gears to focus on the adventures of Margarita with Woland and his entourage. There is a grand ball that takes place in an impossibly large space. This is a reflection of Dante Alighieri's "Inferno". There is then a witch's Sabbath in a remote location. This Faustian episode is accompanied by another, a wild ride on black horses, that appears again at the end of the novel. Throughout, as earlier, it is Woland who guides and directs the activities.Finally, it is Woland, saying he does so at the request of Yeshua, who arranges the salvation of the Master and Margarita. Bulgakov - who has been standing things on their heads throughout the text - thus ultimately stands Christian mythology on its head. It is one of his greatest achievements that he uses the Master's novel and his own novel's ending to add a deep and refreshing humanity to hoary and less human New Testament myths.M&M has lent several sayings to popular Russian culture. Most important of them is the non sequitur, "manuscripts don't burn". In the novel, the Master burns his novel, just as Bulgakov burned the original ms. of M&M. The phrase comes from Woland, but magically produces the Master's ms. Bulgakov, on the other hand, re-transcribed his work from memory. The problem here is, and Bulgakov certainly knew it, that manuscripts do burn. If that were not so, we should now be able to purchase a CD of Sibelius' 8th Symphony. Still, it's amazing how many musicians and authors have left posthumous instructions that certain mss. should be burned, only to have people with a better grasp of reality refuse to burn them.Bulgakov's incomparable novel ends in a chapter of ravishing prose, of which I would like to quote a small paragraph. "'And there too," said Woland, pointing backward. `What would you do in your little basement?' The fragmented sun dimmed in the glass. `Why go back?' continued Woland in a firm and gentle voice. `O Master, thrice a romantic, wouldn't you like to stroll with your beloved under the blossoming cherry trees by day and then listen to Schubert by night? Wouldn't you like to sit over a retort, like Faust, in the hope of creating a new homunculus? Go there! Go there! There where a house and an old servant already await you, where the candles are already burning, but will soon go out because you are about to meet the dawn. Take that road, Master, that one! Farewell! It is time for me to go.'"

The novel The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov, is a masterpiece of the Stalinist-Soviet era of the twentieth century. Bulgakov, in his banned novel, elucidates his vision and interpretation of the period under harsh Stalinist and Communist bureaucratic oppression. These interpretations, not made evident until the book’s release in the mid 1960’s, deal not only with love and devotion, but also with good and evil, virtue and remorse, and responsibility and redemption. Motivated and inspired by Goethe’s themes found in the literary tale Faust, the book ranges from hilarious interludes and occurrences to deep philosophical views of society and political parody. The novel itself interplays three stories: the first concerning the devil (Stalin?) in Moscow in the 1920’s and 1930’s (although no years are given by Bulgakov), the story of the Master and his love, Margarita, and the topic of the Master’s novel, Pontius Pilate and Jesus. Within these three stories is an amazing portrayal of comedy, philosophy, heartbreak, betrayal, fear and love.Woland’s (the devil) attacks on literary society in Moscow is likely a portrayal of Stalin’s crackdown on artistic expression in the early 1930’s. Bulgakov experienced this crackdown firsthand, actually writing a letter to Stalin in the 1930’s asking to leave the Soviet Union. Stalin instead allowed Bulgakov to enter a writer’s guild, although continued to repress the literature and art created by the guild’s artisans and writers. In the novel, Woland’s henchmen, including the personified black cat (Behemoth) and the tall freak with the pince-nez glasses, contribute to this fear of “big brother” with their recurring appearances in places visited by the book’s characters.Bulgakov makes his views of Soviet officials and society in general apparent throughout the novel as well. One official, for example, is seen by office visitors (or not seen!) as an empty suit working at a desk. The suit answers phones, shuffles papers and carries on government business, but has no visible hands or head. Bulgakov portrays other officials who oversee Moscow apartments as apparatchiks with no real direction or knowledge of how to interact with people in difficult situations. Moreover, Bulgakov points out the greed and selfishness, or perhaps desperation, of Soviet citizens in pursuit of better living quarters and money. Berlioz’s uncle, for example, comes to Moscow after the death of his wife’s nephew (Berlioz) only with the intent to claim Berlioz’s Moscow apartment. Of course, he finds it has been commandeered by the devil and his retinue. People crazily diving after ten Ruble notes at the devil’s black magic performance, only to find out later that the bills are fake, is yet another example.Bulgakov daringly plays with themes of religious fear and remorse throughout his novel as well, with the story (as told by Woland and the Master) of Pontus Pilate and Jesus (Yeshua Ha-Notsri). Perhaps this is Bulgakov’s way of defying and making fun of the reality of Stalinist and Communist imposed atheism on Russian society. How ironic that the devil himself has to convince two atheists, Berlioz and Bezdomny, that Jesus really did exist. Moreover, Bulgakov’s (or the Master’s) portrayal of Pilate as having misgivings over the crucifixion of Jesus may be his way of wondering or perhaps hoping that Soviet officials may feel the same remorse for sequestering Soviet society. His portrayal of Levi, a former tax collector who watches in agony as Jesus and three others are executed, may also indicate this notion, since Levi later approaches Woland to ask for the Master and Margarita to be reunited.His portrayal of Jesus as believing that “all men are good” as opposed to Pilate’s belief that “all men are bad,” not only speaks to the theme of the book, but also to the Soviet authority. This speaks to the theme of redemption prevalent throughout the book in that people can be redeemed and can forgive others even for the most heinous of crimes. Bulgakov may be saying that even Stalin’s crimes, although not to be forgotten, are to be forgiven if one wishes to find one’s own salvation and peace. Even the devil shows compassion, putting Margarita through the hell of the criminal ball yet then permitting her to return to the arms of the Master. Hence, perhaps the main lesson of Bulgakov’s work is that happiness is not found by distinguishing good from evil but rather through redemption and the reconciliation of one’s own soul. If Bulgakov seeks vengeance over his treatment by Soviet authorities, he will never find peace.The character of “the Master” is, likely, Bulgakov himself. The Master has been driven insane by the rejection of his novel by critics, who deem it as “Pilatism,” and the censorship of literature in general. His depression and anxiety have landed him in a mental hospital and deprived him of his love, Margarita. Although the Master attempts to burn his manuscript, Margarita saves a part of it which she cherishes in her lover’s absence. The key problem for the Master, however, is not so much the people and oppressors around him but rather his inability to overcome fear itself. Pilate pervades the entirety of the novel, combining the three stories, and is perhaps a reflection of how Bulgakov felt about himself and Soviet society in general; remorseful and seeking redemption.The love story between Margarita and the Master is one of beauty and allusion. The realities of a forced and contrived society rife with selfishness and repression pull them apart. However, their reunion is a symbol of overcoming the system. Although Margarita has to do the devil’s bidding (sell her soul and become a witch), she does it to reunite with her lost love. She is redeemed, however, because she is sincere in her devotion. Even the devil himself is somewhat of a redeemer, as he helps to reveal the stories of Margarita, Pilate and Jesus. Perhaps Bulgakov was speaking here to the power of the human spirit, in that even when manipulated by a devil (Stalin and the corrupt governing system) people can still persevere. Every character, in the end, finds some semblance of redemption. The characters and hence society live on because, as Bulgakov famously makes clear in the novel (as said by Woland), “manuscripts don’t burn.”The Master and Margarita is indeed a masterpiece of literary art. One could read it numerous times and come away with new meanings and life lessons each time. Its themes of redemption and the enduring nature of the human spirit are the characteristics that allow the novel to continue in perpetuity. It is unfortunate that Bulgakov did not live to see the success of his magnum opus. However, if the lessons and beauty of his book ring true, perhaps he does know of its success.