The image of Woland
Messir Woland is the most powerful character in the novel. He has enormous power over the inhabitants of the real and the afterlife, and his power is constantly emphasized by members of his retinue. Immediately after his appearance in Moscow, life is turned upside down, and no one can resist him, including people from the “relevant bodies”. Woland is able to recklessly dispose of human destinies at his own discretion, to make a person unhappy or happy.
Bulgakov's Woland, like his assistants, is not a bearer of evil in the novel. He is not a representative of the power opposed to God, but rather his helper doing the dirty work. The Good, embodied by the Master and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, is depicted by the author as weak and defenseless. The role of Woland and his retinue is to protect the forces of good from evil. Thus, these characters administer justice on earth. Woland is in the novel a symbol of retribution according to merit, a symbol of higher justice. So he punished Berlioz and Ivan Bezdomny for disbelief.
The main characters of the novel, the Master and Margarita, are the only ones whom Woland did not punish, but rewarded. For this, Margarita had to endure serious trials: having fallen into sin, to preserve her pride, having made a promise, not to refuse it, even sacrificing herself. Satan rewards the master without trials - only for the novel written by him, and for the suffering endured because of this novel. He returns the burnt novel to the Master, convincing him that "manuscripts do not burn."
In Bulgakov's depiction, Jesus Christ is neither God nor the son of God. And in behavior, and in appearance, and in his thoughts there is almost nothing from the hero of the gospel legend. This is a completely earthly, ordinary person, a wandering preacher named Yeshua and nicknamed Ha-Notsri. Yeshua is a physically weak person who experiences pain and suffering, he is afraid that he will be beaten and humiliated, he is not so brave and not so strong. But at the same time, he is a highly developed individuality. He is a man of thought, lives "by his own mind".
Yeshua was brought as a criminal to the procurator Pontius Pilate, one of the most powerful men in Judea. Pontius Pilate imbues this weak man, the defendant, with great sympathy and respect, because he gave completely sincere answers to all questions, was an interesting conversationalist, and did not give up his convictions in order to save his life.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri is convinced that "there are no evil people in the world." In addition, he argued that "the temple of the old faith would collapse." It was for these words that he was sentenced to death, as they undermined the power of the high priest Kaifa.
Bulgakov's Christ is sincere, kind, honest, wise and weak; possesses purely human features. It seems that there is nothing divine in the preacher and philosopher at all. However, there is one feature in his character, thanks to which people declared Yeshua a saint. This trait is mercy, which stemmed from his amazing kindness and belief that "there are no evil people in the world." Ha-Nozri did not judge anyone for their actions, and even for the evil inflicted on him.
In the image of Yeshua Ha-Notsri, Bulgakov portrayed not just a person, he showed him from the best side, the way he should be, an ideal, an example to follow. Yeshua was executed - and at the same time he could afford to forgive his tormentors and executioners. And these same tormentors and executioners repented of their crime. This is the main feature of Bulgakov's hero: the ability to make people better, cleaner, happier with the power of words.
good evil roman bulgakov
The novel by M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" is a multidimensional and multilayered work. It combines, closely intertwined, mysticism and satire, the most unbridled fantasy and merciless realism, light irony and intense philosophy. As a rule, several semantic, figurative subsystems are distinguished in the novel: everyday, connected with Woland's stay in Moscow, lyrical, telling about the love of the Master and Margarita, and philosophical, comprehending the biblical story through the images of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua, as well as the problems of creativity based on literary material. the work of the Master. One of the main philosophical problems of the novel is the problem of the relationship between good and evil: the personification of good is Yeshua Ha-Notsri, and the embodiment of evil is Woland.
The novel "The Master and Margarita" is, as it were, a double novel, consisting of the Master's novel about Pontius Pilate and a work about the fate of the Master himself, connected with the life of Moscow in the 30s of the XX century. Both novels are united by one idea - the search for truth and the struggle for it.
The image of Yeshua-Ga Nozri
Yeshua is the embodiment of a pure idea. He is a philosopher, a wanderer, a preacher of kindness, love and mercy. His goal was to make the world cleaner and kinder. Yeshua's life philosophy is this: "There are no evil people in the world, there are unhappy people." “A good man,” he turns to the procurator, and for this he is beaten by Ratslayer. But the point is not that he addresses people like that, but that he really behaves with every ordinary person as if he were the embodiment of goodness. The portrait of Yeshua is virtually absent in the novel: the author indicates the age, describes the clothes, facial expression, mentions bruises and abrasions - but nothing more: “... They brought in a man of about twenty-seven. This man was dressed in an old and tattered 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.
To Pilate's question about his relatives, he answers: “There is no one. I am alone in the world." But this does not sound like a complaint about loneliness. Yeshua does not seek compassion, there is no feeling of inferiority or orphanhood in him.
The power of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is so great and so all-encompassing that at first many take it for weakness, even for spiritual lack of will. However, Yeshua Ga-Notsri is not a simple person: Woland thinks of himself with him in the heavenly hierarchy on approximately equal terms. Bulgakov's Yeshua is the bearer of the idea of a god-man. In his hero, the author sees not only a religious preacher and reformer: the image of Yeshua embodies free spiritual activity. Possessing a developed intuition, a subtle and strong intellect, Yeshua is able to guess the future, and not just a thunderstorm, which “will begin later, towards evening,” but also the fate of his teaching, which is already being incorrectly expounded by Levi.
Yeshua is inwardly free. He boldly says what he considers the truth, what he himself has come to, with his own mind. Yeshua believes that harmony will come to the tormented earth and the kingdom of eternal spring, eternal love will come. Yeshua is relaxed, the power of fear does not weigh on him.
“Among other things, I said,” said the prisoner, “that all power is violence against people and that the time will come when there will be no power of either Caesars or any other power. Man will pass into the realm of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all. Yeshua courageously bears all the suffering inflicted on him. It burns the fire of all-forgiving love for people. He is sure that only good has the right to change the world.
Realizing that he is threatened with the death penalty, he considers it necessary to say to the Roman governor: “Your life is meager, hegemon. The trouble is that you are too closed off and completely lost faith in people.
Speaking of Yeshua, one cannot fail to mention his unusual name. If the first part - Yeshua - transparently alludes to the name of Jesus, then the "dissonance of the plebeian name" - Ga-Notsri - "so mundane" and "secularized" in comparison with the solemn church one - Jesus, as if called upon to confirm the authenticity of Bulgakov's story and its independence from gospel tradition.
Despite the fact that the plot seems to be completed - Yeshua is executed, the author seeks to assert that the victory of evil over good cannot be the result of social and moral confrontation, this, according to Bulgakov, is not accepted by human nature itself, should not be allowed by the entire course of civilization: Yeshua remained alive, he is dead only to Levi, to Pilate's servants.
The great tragic philosophy of Yeshua's life is that truth is tested and affirmed by death. The tragedy of the hero is in his physical death, but morally he wins.
Most people have read Bulgakov's incredible novel The Master and Margarita. Critics have different opinions about the work. Yes, and the people who read it react ambiguously to the book, at the same time, each person experiences completely contradictory feelings and emotions.
The uniqueness of Bulgakov's novel
Today, readers have the opportunity to watch a film based on the novel "The Master and Margarita", as well as attend a performance in the theater. For quite a long time, critics tried to determine the type of work, to understand what idea it should convey to the reader, but they did not succeed. This is because the book written by Bulgakov combines many genres and various elements. Surprisingly, the novel-myth was not published during the life of the writer, as they were considered mediocre and hopeless. But exactly twenty-six years have passed since the death of the creator of the book, as many became interested in it, and it saw the light in 1966. It is incredible that all this long time Bulgakov's wife kept the manuscript and believed that one day it would become a real bestseller.
Favorite hero
Many people, when reading The Master and Margarita, have their favorite characters. Yeshua Ha-Nozri is considered especially interesting. His writer identifies with Jesus Christ and gives him a particularly sacred appearance. Nevertheless, the plot twists in such a way that Yeshua is completely different from the image of the gospel saint.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri means Jesus in Hebrew. The meaning of the unusual nickname is still unclear. The unique name was not invented by Bulgakov, he only borrowed it from one of the characters in Chevkin's play. The writer wanted him to be considered and be the main character of the novel. In our time, many people think that the main place in the book is occupied directly by the Master and Margarita, as well as dark forces.
Becoming a hero Yeshua
Mikhail Bulgakov spent a lot of time thinking about the image of the hero he so wanted to describe. As a basis, he took some chapters from the Gospel, which passed his own verification and careful processing of the information contained in them. Thus, the writer wanted to make sure that he was right. This is how Yeshua Ha-Nozri arose, whose image many, and Bulgakov himself, compared with the person of Jesus.
In addition to information from the Gospel, the writer drew some plots and details from works of art. Perhaps that is why The Master and Margarita has an indefinite genre, since it is based on fantasy, satire, mysticism, parable, melodrama and much more.
Mikhail Bulgakov, creating the image of Yeshua, primarily relied on his preferences, thoughts about a full-fledged, morally healthy person. He understood that society is filled to the brim with filth, envy and other negative emotions. Therefore, Yeshua is the prototype of a new person who is true to his convictions, fair and honest by nature. In this way, Bulgakov decided to influence society and each individual separately.
Character characteristic
Bulgakov pays great attention to Yeshua Ha-Notsri and specifically emphasizes the significant difference between his beloved hero and Jesus Christ. The similarities between the characters are reflected in some points. For example, Yeshua was also betrayed by Judas and was crucified on a cross, but otherwise he is a completely different person. He appears as an ordinary drifter who likes to philosophize and may experience a natural fear of physical pain. Jesus, on the other hand, is shrouded in mysticism and depicted as a deity, something holy and inaccessible to an ordinary mortal.
Mikhail Bulgakov tried to create a completely different Yeshua Ha-Nozri. The characterization of the character is quite simple, but extremely interesting. It was a man from Nazareth who called himself a wandering philosopher. The heroes themselves, namely the Master, who was working on his own novel, and Woland, described Yeshua as a prototype of Jesus Christ. Thus, Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Jesus have some similarities, a similar fate. But otherwise they are very different from each other.
Place of Yeshua Ha-Nozri in the novel
The key character in the novel is a symbol of Light and Goodness. He is the exact opposite of Woland, who is considered the lord of Darkness. Yeshua is present in almost all storylines. Bulgakov writes about him at the beginning, he is also mentioned in the main text and at the end of the book. The bottom line is that Ga-Notsri does not act as God. In general, throughout the entire novel Bulgakov never wrote about heaven or hell. All this is relative for the creator of the book, and there is no question of a single God at all.
The ideology taken as a basis is more similar to the Gnostic or Manichaean. In this regard, the parties are clearly divided into good and evil. As they say, there is no third. At the same time, it is clear that representatives of both spheres act in the book. Yeshua Ha-Notsri is on the side of good, Woland is the representative of evil. They are completely equal and have no right to interfere in the existence and activities of each other.
Unpredictable plot
It was noted above that good and evil cannot interfere in each other's affairs. But in the novel you can meet the moment when Yeshua begins to read the book of the Master. He unusually likes the work, and he decides to send Levi Matvey to Woland. Yeshua's request is to free the Master and Margarita from evil and reward them with peace. Yeshua Ha-Notsri, whose image seems to be woven from good, decides on an unpredictable act, because the agreement on non-interference in each other's affairs was concluded many years ago. Thus, Good takes risks and opposes active Evil.
Yeshua's abilities
In addition to the fact that Yeshua Ha-Notsri, whose quotes were remembered by almost all people, was an excellent philosopher, he had great power. This is clearly shown in the pages of the novel when the philosopher cured Pilate of a headache. Yes, he had a real gift, but at the same time he was an ordinary person, which Mikhail Bulgakov emphasizes. In the novel "The Master and Margarita" everything was described in a completely different way than in the Bible. This is evidenced by the scene that took place according to the plot: Yeshua looked into the manuscripts of Matthew and was horrified, because almost everything that was indicated there was not true. Some events coincided with reality, but only half. So Bulgakov wanted to convey to people that the Bible is not a standard and, perhaps, half of what is written there is a lie.
In addition, the writer points out that Yeshua died without ever lying, without betraying his principles and beliefs. It was for this that all the people were grateful to him and admired the sacred person. Yeshua became unusual only because he was real, fair and courageous. Bulgakov tries to emphasize all these qualities and convey to people: here he is - the ideal of a real person.
Character execution
After a case was opened against Yeshua, I decided to deal with him without violence. In his report, he wrote that the wandering philosopher posed no danger and was generally considered insane. As a result, Yeshua was sent to Caesarea Stratonov on the Mediterranean Sea. This happened due to the fact that with his speeches the man caused excitement in the crowd, and they simply decided to eliminate him.
Being a prisoner, Yeshua wrote a report to the procurator, in which he expressed his opinion about the actions of the authorities - that it is they who make people prisoners, and without them a person will live in a completely different world, that is, in a place where justice and truth reign. After reading the report, the procurator decided that the execution of Yeshua Ha-Notsri was inevitable. He argued that the man insulted the ruler, and this cannot be justified.
At the same time, Pontius Pilate shouted that the best, fairest and most honest government that can be on earth is the reign of Emperor Tiberius. At this point, Yeshua's case was closed. After that, the execution of the hero took place, the most terrible and difficult - he was crucified on a wooden cross. With the death of Yeshua, everything around begins to plunge into darkness. At the same time, the inhabitants, whom the philosopher considered his friends and believed in them, show themselves from a completely different side. The townspeople come to admire the terrible execution, the picture they see delights some. Thus ends the earthly path of Yeshua Ha-Nozri, whose characteristics allow us to appreciate all its severity.
Instead of an afterword
To form your own opinion about the hero, you must independently read Bulgakov's unique masterpiece. And only after that you can watch a film based on his motives. The time allotted for getting to know the characters of The Master and Margarita, their fate, will not be wasted, but will bring great pleasure.
YESHUA GA-NOZRI
The character of the novel "The Master and Margarita", ascending to Jesus Christ of the Gospels. The name "Yeshua Ha-Notsri" Bulgakov met in Sergei Chevkin's play "Yeshua Ganotsri. The Impartial Discovery of Truth" (1922), and then checked it against the writings of historians. The Bulgakov archive preserved extracts from the book of the German philosopher Arthur Drews (1865-1935) "The Myth of Christ", translated into Russian in 1924, where it was stated that in Hebrew the word "natsar" or "natzer" means "branch “or “branch”, and “Yeshua” or “Joshua” - “help to Yahweh” or “help of God”. True, in his other work, “The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in the Past and Present,” which appeared in Russian in 1930, Drew preferred a different etymology for the word “natser” (another option is “notser”) - “guard”, “shepherd ”, joining the opinion of the British biblical historian William Smith (1846-1894) that even before our era there was a sect of Nazarenes among the Jews, or Nazarenes, who revered the cult god Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua) “ga-notsri”, i.e. . "Guardian Jesus" The writer's archive also contains extracts from the book "The Life of Jesus Christ" (1873) by the English historian and theologian Bishop Frederick W. Farrar. If Dreve and other historians of the mythological school sought to prove that the nickname of Jesus the Nazarenes (Ha-Nozri) was not of a geographical nature and had nothing to do with the city of Nazareth, which, in their opinion, did not yet exist in gospel times, then Farrar, one of the most prominent adherents of the historical school (see: Christianity), defended the traditional etymology. From his book, Bulgakov learned that one of the names of Christ mentioned in the Talmud - Ga-Notsri means Nazarene. Farrar translated the Hebrew “Yeshua” somewhat differently than Drewe, “whose salvation is Jehovah.” With Nazareth, the English historian connected the city of En-Sarid, which Bulgakov also mentioned, forcing Pilate to see in a dream "a beggar from En-Sarid." During the interrogation by the procurator I.G.-N. the city of Gamala, mentioned in the book of the French writer Henri Barbusse (1873-1935) "Jesus against Christ", appeared as the birthplace of the wandering philosopher. Extracts from this work, published in the USSR in 1928, are also preserved in the Bulgakov archive. Since there were different, contradictory etymologies of the words "Yeshua" and "Ha-Notsri", Bulgakov did not in any way reveal the meaning of these names in the text of "The Master and Margarita". Due to the incompleteness of the novel, the writer did not make his final choice on one of the two possible places of birth of I. G.-N.
In the portrait of I. G.-N. Bulgakov took into account the following message from Farrar: “The Church of the first centuries of Christianity, being familiar with the elegant form in which the genius of pagan culture embodied his ideas about the young gods of Olympus, but also recognizing the fatal depravity of the sensual image in it, apparently with particular perseverance tried to free herself. from this idolization of bodily qualities, and took for the ideal of Isaiah the image of a stricken and humiliated sufferer or David's enthusiastic description of a man despised and reviled by people (Ex., LIII, 4; Ps., XXI, 7,8,16,18). His beauty, says Clement of Alexandria, was in his soul, but outwardly he was thin. Justin the Philosopher describes him as a man without beauty, without glory, without honor. His body, says Origen, was small, poorly built, and ugly. "His body," says Tertullian, "had no human beauty, much less heavenly splendor." The English historian also cites the opinion of the Greek philosopher of the 2nd century. Celsus, who made the tradition of the simplicity and ugliness of Christ the basis for denying His divine origin. At the same time, Farrar refuted the assertion based on an error in the Latin translation of the Bible - the Vulgate - that Christ, who healed many from leprosy, was himself a leper. The author of The Master and Margarita considered the early evidence of the appearance of Christ reliable, and made his I.G.-N. thin and inconspicuous with traces of physical violence on his face: the man who appeared before Pontius Pilate “was dressed in an old and torn blue tunic. 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. The man brought in looked at the procurator with anxious curiosity. Bulgakov, unlike Farrar, strongly emphasizes that I. G.-N. - a man, not God, therefore he is endowed with the most unattractive, unmemorable appearance. The English historian was convinced that Christ "could not be in his appearance without the personal majesty of the prophet and high priest." The author of The Master and Margarita took into account Farrar's words that Jesus Christ had been beaten twice before being interrogated by the procurator. In one version of the 1929 edition, I. G.-N. He directly asked Pilate: “Only don’t beat me hard, otherwise I was already beaten twice today...” After the beatings, and even more so during the execution, Jesus’ appearance could not contain any signs of the greatness inherent in the prophet. On the cross at I. G.-N. rather ugly features appear in the appearance: “. ..The face of the hanged man was revealed, swollen from bites, with swollen eyes, an unrecognizable face, "and" his eyes, usually clear, were now unclear. External ugliness I. G.-N. contrasts with the beauty of his soul and the purity of his idea of the triumph of truth and good people (and evil people, in his opinion, do not exist in the world), just as, according to the Christian theologian of the 2nd-3rd centuries. Clement of Alexandria, the spiritual beauty of Christ is opposed to his ordinary appearance.
In the image of I. G.-N. reflected the arguments of the Jewish publicist Arkady Grigoryevich (Abraham-Uria) Kovner (1842-1909), whose polemic with Dostoevsky was widely known. Probably, Bulgakov was familiar with the book dedicated to Kovner by Leonid Petrovich Grossman (1888-1965) "Confession of a Jew" (M.-L., 1924). There, in particular, they quoted a letter from Kovner, written in 1908 and criticizing the arguments of the writer Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856-1919) about the essence of Christianity. Kovner stated, referring to Rozanov: “Undoubtedly, Christianity has played and is playing a huge role in the history of culture, but it seems to me that the personality of Christ has almost nothing to do with it. Not to mention the fact that the personality of Christ is more mythical than real, that many historians doubt its very existence, that it is not even mentioned in Jewish history and literature, that Christ himself is not the founder of Christianity at all, since the latter was formed into a religion and the church only a few centuries after the birth of Christ - not to mention everything this, after all, Christ himself did not look upon himself as the savior of the human race. Why do you and your relatives (Merezhkovsky, Berdyaev, and others) place Christ as the center of the world, a God-man, holy flesh, a monoflower, etc.? so that you and your relatives sincerely believe in all the miracles that are told in the Gospels, in the real, concrete resurrection of Christ. good, ideally pure person, which, however, world history knows many? How many good people died for their ideas and beliefs? How many of them endured all sorts of torments in Egypt, India, Judea, Greece? How is Christ higher, holier than all martyrs? Why did he become a god-man?
As for the essence of Christ's ideas, as far as they are expressed by the Gospel, his humility, his complacency, then among the prophets, among the Brahmins, among the Stoics you will find more than one such complacent martyr. Why, again, is Christ alone the savior of mankind and the world?
Then none of you explains: what was the world before Christ? How many thousands of years has mankind lived on something without Christ, but four-fifths of mankind live outside of Christianity, and therefore without Christ, without his redemption, i.e. without needing him at all. Are all the countless billions of people perished and doomed to perish only because they were born before the Savior-Christ, or because they, having their own religion, their prophets, their own ethics, do not recognize the divinity of Christ?
Finally, after all, ninety-nine hundredths of Christians to this day have no idea about true, ideal Christianity, the source of which you consider Christ. After all, you know very well that all Christians in Europe and America are rather worshipers of Baal and Moloch than the monoflower of Christ; that they still live in Paris, London, Vienna, New York, St. Petersburg, as the pagans used to live in Babylon, Nineveh, Rome and even Sodom ... What results did holiness, light, God-manhood, the redemption of Christ give, if his worshipers remain pagans still?
Have courage and answer clearly and categorically to all these questions that torment unenlightened and doubting skeptics, and do not hide behind expressionless and incomprehensible exclamations: the divine cosmos, the God-man, the savior of the world, the redeemer of mankind, the monoflower, etc. Think of us hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and speak to us in human language."
I. G.-N. in Bulgakov, he speaks with Pilate in a completely human language, and speaks only in his human, and not divine, incarnation. Outside the novel are all the gospel miracles and the resurrection. I. G.-N. does not act as the creator of a new religion. This role is prepared for Levi Matthew, who "wrongly writes down" for his teacher. And nineteen centuries later, even many of those who consider themselves Christians continue to be in paganism. It is no coincidence that in the early editions of The Master and Margarita, one of the Orthodox priests arranged a sale of church valuables right in the temple, and the other, Father Arkady Elladov, persuaded Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy and other arrested people to hand over the currency. Subsequently, these episodes from the novel left because of their obvious obscene language. I. G.-N. - this is Christ, cleansed of mythological layers, a good, pure man who died for his conviction that all people are good. And only Levi Matthew, a cruel man, as Pontius Pilate calls him, and who knows that "there will still be blood," is able to found a church.
YESHUA GA-NOZRI, the character of the novel "The Master and Margarita", ascending to Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Bulgakov met the name “Yeshua Ha-Notsri” in Sergei Chevkin’s play “Yeshua Ganotsri. The Impartial Discovery of Truth” (1922), and then checked it against the writings of historians. The Bulgakov archive preserved extracts from the book of the German philosopher Arthur Drews (1865-1935) “The Myth of Christ”, translated into Russian in 1924, where it was stated that in Hebrew the word “natsar”, or “natzer”, means “branch “ or “branch”, and “Yeshua” or “Joshua” - “help of Yahweh” or “help of God”. True, in his other work, “The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in the Past and Present,” which appeared in Russian in 1930, Drew preferred a different etymology for the word “Natser” (another variant is “notzer”) – “guard”, “shepherd ”, joining the opinion of the British biblical historian William Smith (1846-1894) that even before our era there existed among the Jews a sect of Nazarenes, or Nazarenes, who revered the cult god Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua) “ga-notsri”, i.e. . "Guardian Jesus" The writer's archive also contains extracts from the book of the English historian and theologian, Bishop Frederick W. Farrar, The Life of Jesus Christ (1873). If Dreve and other historians of the mythological school sought to prove that the nickname of Jesus the Nazarenes (Ha-Nozri) was not of a geographical nature and had nothing to do with the city of Nazareth, which, in their opinion, did not yet exist in gospel times, then Farrar, one of the most prominent adherents of the historical school (see: Christianity), defended the traditional etymology. From his book, Bulgakov learned that one of the names of Christ mentioned in the Talmud - Ha-Notsri means Nazarene. Farrar translated the Hebrew “Yeshua” somewhat differently than Drewe, “whose salvation is Jehovah.” The English historian associated the city of En-Sarid with Nazareth, which Bulgakov also mentioned, forcing Pilate to see “a beggar from En-Sarid” in a dream. During the interrogation by the procurator I.G.-N. the city of Gamala, mentioned in the book of the French writer Henri Barbusse (1873-1935) "Jesus against Christ", figured as the birthplace of the wandering philosopher. Extracts from this work, published in the USSR in 1928, are also preserved in the Bulgakov archive. Since there were different, contradictory etymologies of the words "Yeshua" and "Ha-Notsri", Bulgakov did not in any way reveal the meaning of these names in the text of "The Master and Margarita". Due to the incompleteness of the novel, the writer did not make his final choice on one of the two possible birthplaces of I. G.-N.
In the portrait of I. G.-N. Bulgakov took into account the following message from Farrar: “The Church of the first centuries of Christianity, being familiar with the elegant form in which the genius of pagan culture embodied his ideas about the young gods of Olympus, but also recognizing the fatal depravity of the sensual image in it, apparently with particular perseverance tried to free herself. from this idolization of bodily qualities, and took for the ideal of Isaiah the image of a stricken and humiliated sufferer or David's enthusiastic description of a man despised and reviled by people (Ex., LIII, 4; Ps., XXI, 7,8,16,18). His beauty, says Clement of Alexandria, was in his soul, but outwardly he was thin. Justin the Philosopher describes him as a man without beauty, without glory, without honor. His body, says Origen, was small, poorly built, and ugly. “His body,” says Tertullian, “had no human beauty, much less heavenly splendor.” The English historian also cites the opinion of the Greek philosopher of the 2nd century. Celsus, who made the tradition of the simplicity and ugliness of Christ the basis for denying His divine origin. At the same time, Farrar refuted the assertion based on an error in the Latin translation of the Bible - the Vulgate - that Christ, who healed many from leprosy, was himself a leper. The author of The Master and Margarita considered the early evidence of the appearance of Christ reliable, and made his I.G.-N. thin and inconspicuous with traces of physical violence on his face: the man who appeared before Pontius Pilate “was dressed in an old and torn blue tunic. 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. The man brought in looked at the procurator with anxious curiosity. Bulgakov, unlike Farrar, strongly emphasizes that I. G.-N. - a man, not God, therefore he is endowed with the most unattractive, unmemorable appearance. The English historian was convinced that Christ "could not be in his appearance without the personal majesty of the prophet and high priest." The author of The Master and Margarita took into account Farrar's words that Jesus Christ had been beaten twice before being interrogated by the procurator. In one version of the 1929 edition, I. G.-N. He directly asked Pilate: “Just don’t beat me hard, otherwise I was already beaten twice today...” After the beatings, and even more so during the execution, Jesus’ appearance could not contain any signs of the greatness inherent in the prophet. On the cross at I. G.-N. rather ugly features appear in the appearance: “. ..The face of the hanged man was revealed, swollen from bites, with swollen eyes, an unrecognizable face”, and “his eyes, usually clear, were now unclear”. External ugliness I. G.-N. contrasts with the beauty of his soul and the purity of his idea of the triumph of truth and good people (and evil people, in his opinion, do not exist in the world), just as, according to the Christian theologian of the 2nd-3rd centuries. Clement of Alexandria, the spiritual beauty of Christ is opposed to his ordinary appearance.
In the image of I. G.-N. reflected the arguments of the Jewish publicist Arkady Grigoryevich (Abraham-Uria) Kovner (1842-1909), whose polemic with Dostoevsky was widely known. Probably, Bulgakov was familiar with the book dedicated to Kovner by Leonid Petrovich Grossman (1888-1965) "Confession of a Jew" (M.-L., 1924). There, in particular, they quoted a letter from Kovner, written in 1908 and criticizing the arguments of the writer Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856-1919) about the essence of Christianity. Kovner stated, referring to Rozanov: “Undoubtedly, Christianity has played and is playing a huge role in the history of culture, but it seems to me that the personality of Christ has almost nothing to do with it. Not to mention the fact that the personality of Christ is more mythical than real, that many historians doubt its very existence, that it is not even mentioned in Jewish history and literature, that Christ himself is not the founder of Christianity at all, since the latter was formed into a religion and the church only a few centuries after the birth of Christ - not to mention everything this, after all, Christ himself did not look upon himself as the savior of the human race. Why do you and your relatives (Merezhkovsky, Berdyaev, and others) place Christ as the center of the world, a God-man, holy flesh, a monoflower, etc.? so that you and your relatives sincerely believe in all the miracles that are told in the Gospels, in the real, concrete resurrection of Christ. good, ideally pure person, which, however, world history knows many? How many good people died for their ideas and beliefs? How many of them endured all sorts of torments in Egypt, India, Judea, Greece? How is Christ higher, holier than all martyrs? Why did he become a god-man?
As for the essence of Christ's ideas, as far as they are expressed by the Gospel, his humility, his complacency, then among the prophets, among the Brahmins, among the Stoics you will find more than one such complacent martyr. Why, again, is Christ alone the savior of mankind and the world?
Then none of you explains: what was the world before Christ? How many thousands of years has mankind lived on something without Christ, but four-fifths of mankind live outside of Christianity, and therefore without Christ, without his redemption, i.e. without needing him at all. Are all the countless billions of people perished and doomed to perish only because they were born before the Savior-Christ, or because they, having their own religion, their prophets, their own ethics, do not recognize the divinity of Christ?
Finally, after all, ninety-nine hundredths of Christians to this day have no idea about true, ideal Christianity, the source of which you consider Christ. After all, you know very well that all Christians in Europe and America are rather worshipers of Baal and Moloch than the monoflower of Christ; that they still live in Paris, London, Vienna, New York, St. Petersburg, as the pagans used to live in Babylon, Nineveh, Rome and even Sodom ... What results did holiness, light, God-manhood, the redemption of Christ give, if his worshipers remain pagans still?
Have courage and answer clearly and categorically to all these questions that torment unenlightened and doubting skeptics, and do not hide behind expressionless and incomprehensible exclamations: the divine cosmos, the God-man, the savior of the world, the redeemer of mankind, the monoflower, etc. Think of us hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and speak to us in human language."
I. G.-N. in Bulgakov, he speaks with Pilate in a completely human language, and speaks only in his human, and not divine, incarnation. Outside the novel are all the gospel miracles and the resurrection. I. G.-N. does not act as the creator of a new religion. This role is prepared for Levi Matthew, who "wrongly writes down" for his teacher. And nineteen centuries later, even many of those who consider themselves Christians continue to be in paganism. It is no coincidence that in the early editions of The Master and Margarita, one of the Orthodox priests arranged a sale of church valuables right in the temple, and the other, Father Arkady Elladov, persuaded Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy and other arrested people to hand over the currency. Subsequently, these episodes from the novel left because of their obvious obscene language. I. G.-N. - this is Christ, cleansed of mythological layers, a good, pure man who died for his conviction that all people are good. And only Levi Matthew, a cruel man, as Pontius Pilate calls him, and who knows that "there will still be blood," is able to found a church.