Scan barcode
yaredz's review against another edition
5.0
I love The Master and Margarita; it's all of funny, philosophically deep, and incredibly moving. I've learned that's commonplace for great Russian Literature, though. Having read it twice, though, I know that this book is way to complex for me to address multiple topics within the novel. So humour me if I go with my favourite: Bulgakov's Christ and his theological implications.
Within the first chapter, Bulgakov clearly argues that logical reasoning has no power in the religious domain. This theme constantly reappears throughout the book, and is first seen in the irony of Berlioz’s atheism before Woland, the devil himself, where he says “In the realm of reason, there is no proof for God’s existence” (9), and is consistently emphasized throughout the novel, as the Muscovites attempt to rationally explain Woland’s divine powers, such as when Bengalsky calls Woland’s show “a purely scientific experiment” (122), or the police declaring that the acts of Woland’s retinue were “the work[s] of a gang of hypnotists and ventriloquists with a superb command of their art” (385).
This idea is why Woland is so dismissive of rational ‘proof’ of God, calling Kant’s proof “mighty unclear” (9), before saying “no proof is required” (14) of Jesus’ existence, implying that matters of religion are beyond reason. He then provides his account of Jesus' trial before Pilate, who appears to be stripped of all his miraculous prowess. Thus Bulgakov’s exploration of Christ begins from an absurd logical foundation: a position of no proof provided by the Woland, the devil, who implores the reader to find Christ without relying on reason, and one that strips the reader of knowledge from the Gospels through his intentional defamiliarization. Therefore, to understand Christ, Bulgakov appears to be saying, one has to go beyond reason and venture into faith, revealing the first important attribute of Bulgakov’s Christ: his super-rational, ineffable nature. The reality is that reason fails to explain the supernatural - in these cases, intuition is all we can rely on.
Given Woland’s thoughts on reason, adopting a non-rational perspective is crucial in approaching Bulgakov’s Jesus, whose depiction differs significantly from Jesus’ portrayal in the Gospels. Even if Woland’s account is valid, and serves as adequate proof of Jesus’ existence in the context of the novel, the reader is still left with questions regarding the true identity of Bulgakov’s Yeshua. Is he simply a human, moral teacher, whose words were distorted by Matthew Levi’s parchment, in which he “said nothing of what’s written there” (19)? Or is he the canonical Son of God, sent to offer his life in exchange for the forgiveness of sins? Rather than providing a concrete answer, Bulgakov’s Yershalaim chapters consciously distance the reader from the Biblical Gospels through defamiliarization: most notably, Bulgakov’s Jesus is given his Hebrew name, Yeshua Ha-Notsri, and appears to lack the miraculous powers he is known for in the Bible.
For example, when Yeshua is tried before Pilate, he denies having any supernatural powers, despite appearing to read Pilate’s thoughts and knowing of his “only dream that [his] dog should come” (21). Here, Yeshua simply claims that he read Pilate’s gesture of “moving [his] hand in the air” (22), but for a moment, this raises a suspicion that Yeshua is more than just a “vagrant” (18) Jew. However, Bulgakov quickly re-emphasizes the differences between his mundane Yeshua and the Biblical divine Jesus, as when asked if he “entered Yershalaim by the Susa gate riding on an ass” (23), he replies that he “doe[s]n’t even have an ass” (23), and that he was not accompanied by a crowd, but is only followed by Matthew Levi.
Furthermore, Yeshua does not perform any miracles, and is executed on a post instead of being crucified. In chapter 16, Yeshua’s death is described graphically, with his face “covered with flies” (151), highlighting Yeshua’s mortality and earthly nature. But despite Yeshua's initial down-to-earth depiction, subtle indications suggest a deeper, more mystical aspect to his character, which are introduced in chapter 29. Bulgakov once again introduces uncertainty into this conception of Jesus, as Yeshua’s resurrection is implied at the end of the novel through Levi Matvei, who asks Woland to fulfill Yeshua’s wish to “reward [the master] with peace” (361).
Interestingly, Levi Matvei refers to Yeshua as “he” (360), further defamiliarizing Christ by not even mentioning his name, which even extends to the epilogue, where Ivan Nikolaevich only recognizes him as Pilate’s “companion” (396). Nowhere does Bulgakov reveal Yeshua’s relationship to God, if he is part of the Holy Trinity, or if he is something else entirely. This defamiliarization and ambiguity leads the reader to question the fundamental nature of faith and what it means to follow Christ without relying solely on reason. In Bulgakov, who questioned the veracity of the Gospels, implicit is the question: "Is it essential to the faith that Jesus walked on water, or healed the blind?" To him, the simple requirement for Christianity was to the belief that following Christ, and believing in his death and resurrection leads to light through the forgiveness of sins, not belief in miracles indoctrinated by the church designed to control the Chrsitian population. In providing such an ambiguous image of Yeshua, Bulgakov ensures that some questions about his Christ are unattainable through reason, posing the question: what do we know about Jesus, and what is truly important about him?
An important clue is revealed in the epigraph: "I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and forever works good.” In The Master and Margarita, evil is a concept that helps emphasize the nature of goodness, which Woland constantly stresses throughout the novel. Yeshua understands this in his forgiveness of Pilate, who caused his death; it is the divine love of forgiveness of enemies that leads both he and Pilate to the light. Pilate directly sins against Jesus, yet the very existence of Christ’s forgiveness and divine love is only possible because of sin. Here, the reader is reminded of Woland’s question: “Do you want to strip the earth of all trees and living things just because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid.” (360).
There also exists an obvious parallel to John 1:5, which writes, “The light shines in the darkness. But the darkness has not overcome the light.” Bulgakov’s allusion to the Gospel of John is made unquestionably clear as early as chapter 2, where Pilate asks Yeshua, “What is truth?” (20), a verbatim quotation of Pilate’s questioning of Jesus in John 18:38. Both Woland and the Gospel of John are explicit in saying that darkness allows us to clearly see the light - the premise of the verse is not that Jesus will remove the darkness, but that the light will shine - in this case, Pilate’s sins allow us to see the divine goodness of Jesus’ love for Pilate. Here, we see Bulgakov's response to the Problem of Evil: that is, an omnipotent and benevolent God should remove all evil, yet evil exists, so this God, by definition, does not exist. Woland argues otherwise: after all, if evil exists, then good must too. God allows evil to achieve the greater good, and arguing that we know otherwise is to make the mistake of Berlioz and Homeless: to be entirely rational, and, at the same time, completely wrong.
Yet a question remains: ultimately, it was he, the ‘cruel procurator’, the self-proclaimed ‘fierce monster’ (33) who ordered the execution of Yeshua, so why does Yeshua allow Pilate the light while only asking Woland to give the Master and Margarita peace? I think the theological reason for this can be found in John 8:12, where Jesus says “Anyone who follows me will never walk in darkness. They will have that light.” The implication is simple: despite his sins, Pilate’s love for and willingness to follow Jesus leads him to the light; in comparison, the Master and Margarita’s faith in Woland only leads to peace. This explains why Levi Matvei is with Yeshua in the light, despite Pilate telling him that “you have learned nothing of what [Yeshua] taught you” (329). It does not matter that he is “cruel” (330) or that Yeshua was “horrified” (19) by what he wrote on his parchment - the simple act of following Christ allows him to find the light.
Furthermore, Yeshua’s decision to provide Pilate the light is representative of Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:39). It doesn't make rational sense for Pilate’s sins to be forgiven solely due to his willingness to follow Jesus, nor is it logical to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), but this is precisely Bulgakov’s point: once again, as mentioned earlier, he is showing the failure of reason to grasp the nature of Christianity and the supernatural. Although the novel’s depiction of Yeshua differs from the Biblical canon, it is the darkness and evil that surround Yeshua’s execution that reveals two fundamental truths about Bulgakov’s Jesus: first, by following Christ, all sins are forgiven, and one is led to the light, and second, Christ’s genuine, unconditional love, through Yeshua’s forgiveness of Pilate and his adherence to the Sermon on the Mount, and both messages are essential to Bulgakov’s conception of Christ.
Ultimately, despite Yeshua’s story forming a significant part of the novel’s plot, Bulgakov does not tell us who his Yeshua is. On the one hand, we are shown the worldly, mundane Yeshua’s death before Pilate, yet this image is thrown into question when Yeshua’s resurrection and immortality are implied at the novel’s end when he asks Woland for the Master’s peace. Although heretical, I found Bulgakov’s treatment of Jesus to be very moving, as to me, Yeshua embodies the Biblical Jesus’ most important teachings: to love thy enemy, and to believe in the forgiveness of sins. Bulgakov paints Yeshua with such a mystifying air that we cannot know his true essence, yet his love and compassion are still immediately obvious. In this, I am reminded of Woland’s belief that humans are limited in their grasp of Christ - although one can ponder his nature, read his Gospels, and follow his teachings, concrete knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our grasp. However, of Yeshua, we know Christ’s divine love, and that following his path leads to the light.
That would be all, were it not for the perfection that is the closing sentences of the novel: "Someone was setting the master free, as he himself had just set free the hero he had created. This hero had gone into the abyss, gone irrevocably, the son of the astrologer-king, forgiven on the eve of Sunday, the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the equestrian Pontius Pilate." (384). Take careful note of the phrase "setting the master free". Bulgakov wrote this novel under one goal, asking his wife on his deathbed to see to the novel's publication "so that they will know." He spent his whole life under the oppression of Soviet censors, who claimed the inexistence of his religion to be a scientific fact, yet he never stopped believeing in the power of the simple truth. So if you ask me, Bulgakov's Christ is not just love, nor is he merely light. He is truth: for, in one last allusion to the Gospel of John, verse 8:32, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Absolutely incredible.
Within the first chapter, Bulgakov clearly argues that logical reasoning has no power in the religious domain. This theme constantly reappears throughout the book, and is first seen in the irony of Berlioz’s atheism before Woland, the devil himself, where he says “In the realm of reason, there is no proof for God’s existence” (9), and is consistently emphasized throughout the novel, as the Muscovites attempt to rationally explain Woland’s divine powers, such as when Bengalsky calls Woland’s show “a purely scientific experiment” (122), or the police declaring that the acts of Woland’s retinue were “the work[s] of a gang of hypnotists and ventriloquists with a superb command of their art” (385).
This idea is why Woland is so dismissive of rational ‘proof’ of God, calling Kant’s proof “mighty unclear” (9), before saying “no proof is required” (14) of Jesus’ existence, implying that matters of religion are beyond reason. He then provides his account of Jesus' trial before Pilate, who appears to be stripped of all his miraculous prowess. Thus Bulgakov’s exploration of Christ begins from an absurd logical foundation: a position of no proof provided by the Woland, the devil, who implores the reader to find Christ without relying on reason, and one that strips the reader of knowledge from the Gospels through his intentional defamiliarization. Therefore, to understand Christ, Bulgakov appears to be saying, one has to go beyond reason and venture into faith, revealing the first important attribute of Bulgakov’s Christ: his super-rational, ineffable nature. The reality is that reason fails to explain the supernatural - in these cases, intuition is all we can rely on.
Given Woland’s thoughts on reason, adopting a non-rational perspective is crucial in approaching Bulgakov’s Jesus, whose depiction differs significantly from Jesus’ portrayal in the Gospels. Even if Woland’s account is valid, and serves as adequate proof of Jesus’ existence in the context of the novel, the reader is still left with questions regarding the true identity of Bulgakov’s Yeshua. Is he simply a human, moral teacher, whose words were distorted by Matthew Levi’s parchment, in which he “said nothing of what’s written there” (19)? Or is he the canonical Son of God, sent to offer his life in exchange for the forgiveness of sins? Rather than providing a concrete answer, Bulgakov’s Yershalaim chapters consciously distance the reader from the Biblical Gospels through defamiliarization: most notably, Bulgakov’s Jesus is given his Hebrew name, Yeshua Ha-Notsri, and appears to lack the miraculous powers he is known for in the Bible.
For example, when Yeshua is tried before Pilate, he denies having any supernatural powers, despite appearing to read Pilate’s thoughts and knowing of his “only dream that [his] dog should come” (21). Here, Yeshua simply claims that he read Pilate’s gesture of “moving [his] hand in the air” (22), but for a moment, this raises a suspicion that Yeshua is more than just a “vagrant” (18) Jew. However, Bulgakov quickly re-emphasizes the differences between his mundane Yeshua and the Biblical divine Jesus, as when asked if he “entered Yershalaim by the Susa gate riding on an ass” (23), he replies that he “doe[s]n’t even have an ass” (23), and that he was not accompanied by a crowd, but is only followed by Matthew Levi.
Furthermore, Yeshua does not perform any miracles, and is executed on a post instead of being crucified. In chapter 16, Yeshua’s death is described graphically, with his face “covered with flies” (151), highlighting Yeshua’s mortality and earthly nature. But despite Yeshua's initial down-to-earth depiction, subtle indications suggest a deeper, more mystical aspect to his character, which are introduced in chapter 29. Bulgakov once again introduces uncertainty into this conception of Jesus, as Yeshua’s resurrection is implied at the end of the novel through Levi Matvei, who asks Woland to fulfill Yeshua’s wish to “reward [the master] with peace” (361).
Interestingly, Levi Matvei refers to Yeshua as “he” (360), further defamiliarizing Christ by not even mentioning his name, which even extends to the epilogue, where Ivan Nikolaevich only recognizes him as Pilate’s “companion” (396). Nowhere does Bulgakov reveal Yeshua’s relationship to God, if he is part of the Holy Trinity, or if he is something else entirely. This defamiliarization and ambiguity leads the reader to question the fundamental nature of faith and what it means to follow Christ without relying solely on reason. In Bulgakov, who questioned the veracity of the Gospels, implicit is the question: "Is it essential to the faith that Jesus walked on water, or healed the blind?" To him, the simple requirement for Christianity was to the belief that following Christ, and believing in his death and resurrection leads to light through the forgiveness of sins, not belief in miracles indoctrinated by the church designed to control the Chrsitian population. In providing such an ambiguous image of Yeshua, Bulgakov ensures that some questions about his Christ are unattainable through reason, posing the question: what do we know about Jesus, and what is truly important about him?
An important clue is revealed in the epigraph: "I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and forever works good.” In The Master and Margarita, evil is a concept that helps emphasize the nature of goodness, which Woland constantly stresses throughout the novel. Yeshua understands this in his forgiveness of Pilate, who caused his death; it is the divine love of forgiveness of enemies that leads both he and Pilate to the light. Pilate directly sins against Jesus, yet the very existence of Christ’s forgiveness and divine love is only possible because of sin. Here, the reader is reminded of Woland’s question: “Do you want to strip the earth of all trees and living things just because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid.” (360).
There also exists an obvious parallel to John 1:5, which writes, “The light shines in the darkness. But the darkness has not overcome the light.” Bulgakov’s allusion to the Gospel of John is made unquestionably clear as early as chapter 2, where Pilate asks Yeshua, “What is truth?” (20), a verbatim quotation of Pilate’s questioning of Jesus in John 18:38. Both Woland and the Gospel of John are explicit in saying that darkness allows us to clearly see the light - the premise of the verse is not that Jesus will remove the darkness, but that the light will shine - in this case, Pilate’s sins allow us to see the divine goodness of Jesus’ love for Pilate. Here, we see Bulgakov's response to the Problem of Evil: that is, an omnipotent and benevolent God should remove all evil, yet evil exists, so this God, by definition, does not exist. Woland argues otherwise: after all, if evil exists, then good must too. God allows evil to achieve the greater good, and arguing that we know otherwise is to make the mistake of Berlioz and Homeless: to be entirely rational, and, at the same time, completely wrong.
Yet a question remains: ultimately, it was he, the ‘cruel procurator’, the self-proclaimed ‘fierce monster’ (33) who ordered the execution of Yeshua, so why does Yeshua allow Pilate the light while only asking Woland to give the Master and Margarita peace? I think the theological reason for this can be found in John 8:12, where Jesus says “Anyone who follows me will never walk in darkness. They will have that light.” The implication is simple: despite his sins, Pilate’s love for and willingness to follow Jesus leads him to the light; in comparison, the Master and Margarita’s faith in Woland only leads to peace. This explains why Levi Matvei is with Yeshua in the light, despite Pilate telling him that “you have learned nothing of what [Yeshua] taught you” (329). It does not matter that he is “cruel” (330) or that Yeshua was “horrified” (19) by what he wrote on his parchment - the simple act of following Christ allows him to find the light.
Furthermore, Yeshua’s decision to provide Pilate the light is representative of Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:39). It doesn't make rational sense for Pilate’s sins to be forgiven solely due to his willingness to follow Jesus, nor is it logical to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), but this is precisely Bulgakov’s point: once again, as mentioned earlier, he is showing the failure of reason to grasp the nature of Christianity and the supernatural. Although the novel’s depiction of Yeshua differs from the Biblical canon, it is the darkness and evil that surround Yeshua’s execution that reveals two fundamental truths about Bulgakov’s Jesus: first, by following Christ, all sins are forgiven, and one is led to the light, and second, Christ’s genuine, unconditional love, through Yeshua’s forgiveness of Pilate and his adherence to the Sermon on the Mount, and both messages are essential to Bulgakov’s conception of Christ.
Ultimately, despite Yeshua’s story forming a significant part of the novel’s plot, Bulgakov does not tell us who his Yeshua is. On the one hand, we are shown the worldly, mundane Yeshua’s death before Pilate, yet this image is thrown into question when Yeshua’s resurrection and immortality are implied at the novel’s end when he asks Woland for the Master’s peace. Although heretical, I found Bulgakov’s treatment of Jesus to be very moving, as to me, Yeshua embodies the Biblical Jesus’ most important teachings: to love thy enemy, and to believe in the forgiveness of sins. Bulgakov paints Yeshua with such a mystifying air that we cannot know his true essence, yet his love and compassion are still immediately obvious. In this, I am reminded of Woland’s belief that humans are limited in their grasp of Christ - although one can ponder his nature, read his Gospels, and follow his teachings, concrete knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our grasp. However, of Yeshua, we know Christ’s divine love, and that following his path leads to the light.
That would be all, were it not for the perfection that is the closing sentences of the novel: "Someone was setting the master free, as he himself had just set free the hero he had created. This hero had gone into the abyss, gone irrevocably, the son of the astrologer-king, forgiven on the eve of Sunday, the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the equestrian Pontius Pilate." (384). Take careful note of the phrase "setting the master free". Bulgakov wrote this novel under one goal, asking his wife on his deathbed to see to the novel's publication "so that they will know." He spent his whole life under the oppression of Soviet censors, who claimed the inexistence of his religion to be a scientific fact, yet he never stopped believeing in the power of the simple truth. So if you ask me, Bulgakov's Christ is not just love, nor is he merely light. He is truth: for, in one last allusion to the Gospel of John, verse 8:32, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Absolutely incredible.
maryhasalittlezoo's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
valefrog2000's review against another edition
funny
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.25
elle_nari's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.0
nanbary's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Equally enamoured and devastated.
Easily my new favourite book and I will forever be jealous of anyone who has the opportunity to read this for the first time.
Witty and cheeky, incandescent and soulful - so many of the characters are so very compelling and Bulgakov’s ability to describe a setting in a way you can not only clearly visualise but feel is entirely unlike anything I have read to date. It’s mysticism doesn’t leave you confused but in a state of wonder that feels comparable to reading Alice’s Adventures only for a more mature audience.
Forever grateful for whoever designed the cover of this book which so baited me in at the store as I will never be the same! And a thank you as well to the real life Margarita who pushed against censors for the books publication. WOW!
Easily my new favourite book and I will forever be jealous of anyone who has the opportunity to read this for the first time.
Witty and cheeky, incandescent and soulful - so many of the characters are so very compelling and Bulgakov’s ability to describe a setting in a way you can not only clearly visualise but feel is entirely unlike anything I have read to date. It’s mysticism doesn’t leave you confused but in a state of wonder that feels comparable to reading Alice’s Adventures only for a more mature audience.
Forever grateful for whoever designed the cover of this book which so baited me in at the store as I will never be the same! And a thank you as well to the real life Margarita who pushed against censors for the books publication. WOW!
gatonolivro's review against another edition
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jwolflink3's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75