Wither Russia? The image of Russia in the fiction of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Essay title: Discuss the problem of a writer and society in Stalin’s Russia. The Master and Margarita is Mikhail Bulgakov’s (1891-1940) last novel. He conceived it over a period of twelve years (from 1928-1940) and began it on six separate occasions. Although he did not manage to completely review it, the novel certainly marks Bulgakov’s finest literary moment. Unfortunately he never saw it’s publication, as it was, like most of his works, banned. Its first publication was in 1966, some ten years after the Soviet Union had begun to publish or perform some of his earlier works. This alone gives us an insight into the problems a writer faced in the Soviet Union of Stalin. Bulgakov’s life was noted for his love of literature and his devotion to work, but alas he never saw the fruition of his works. This caused him immense suffering and drove him to despair. At one point he asked Stalin personally to release him from his misery and permit him to emigrate (1930). Instead he received a phone call from Stalin himself, offering him the opportunity to work at the Moscow Theatre. However, as Bulgakov had imagined, his situation did not improve and his plays were either rejected, censored beyond recognition or quite simply banned. The Master and Margarita is written in two parts. It is set in Moscow around the 1930’s and covers a period of four days in May. The novel tells the tale of the coming of the devil to Moscow in the guise of a foreign magician, named Woland. The book opens with Woland encountering two soviet writers and relating to them the story of Pontius Pilate. The result of this tale is the death of one of the writers (Berlioz) and the other one (Ivan Bezdomny) is driven insane while pursuing the Devil through Moscow. As a result he ends up in a sanatorium, where he meets the Master. Ivan tells him of his encounter with the Devil, the Master then confesses that he himself has written a novel about Pontius Pilate. It turns out that the tales are identical. Meanwhile the Devil and his associates, Koroviev, Behemoth and Azazelo are causing havoc in Moscow, playing tricks on the citizens and performing Black Magic as a part of their show. The second part of the novel begins with the introduction of the Master’s lover, Margarita. She makes a deal with Woland in order to free her lover. The pact involves her playing hostess to the Devil’s ball, after which the Master is returned to her. The story ends with the release of Pilate by the Master from his eternal torment, as a result of which Woland grants Margarita and the Master peace. Woland and his associates finally leave Moscow, their task accomplished. This most particular and fantastic novel harbours a wealth of ideas and philosophies. It was after Bulgakov’s last novel and could be regarded as a legacy to the after world. It is a natural breeding ground for countless interpretations and also raised many questions about society and art. The task set for this essay is to shed some light on to this tale with regard to Bulgakov’s views on the writer and his role in society, commenting on the characters and their relationship to Bulgakov, and finally transcending to his view on art and it’s significance. The writer and his art under Stalin. That the novel is about writers and their work becomes only to apparent when one regards the character list. The opening lines introduce us to two (second class) writers, Ivan Bezdomny and Berlioz, who belong to MASSOLIT, a writers association. They converse about the meaning of Bezdomny’s poetry with regards to conveying a specific message. The Master himself a writer, who wrote a novel about Pontius Pilate and due to its terrible reception and defamation by the critics, turned his back writing. However there are also other aspects of writing treated in this novel, for example the theatre/variety style of writing which is represented by Stepa Likhodev, to name but one. So the central theme evolves around the writer and his art. Readers are quick to sense the underlying political side of Bulgakov’s novel, especially when knowing about his own publishing career. It is interesting to note here, that the original concept of the novel, did neither include Margarita, nor the Master. It is only after the third version had been started (in 1931) that Margarita was included and the Master his first small appearance. Bulgakov started emphasising more and more the importance of the Master in 1934-36. The emergence of the theme of the writer and his political environment coincides with the growing frustration that Bulgakov felt with the treatment of art by the State. This was at the same time the beginning of a new Russian literary movement. Bulgakov had strong views on a writer’s responsibility toward society: a writer had to speak the truth. Unfortunately in his day and age the State held a different opinion, namely that art was to convey images and ideological processes that depicted the Revolution as the pinnacle of Russian achievement. In other words speak the truth according to the State. In light of this it becomes apparent why Bulgakov’s writing was not published under Stalin. He simply did not conform to the State guidelines. The new literary movement was best defined by R.H. Pittman, who states that “it is characterised by the friction between prescribed productivity and spontaneous creativity”. This however is only the tip of the iceberg, if one wants, the political aspect only scratches the surface of the interpretation of The Master and Margarita, but it lays the basic foundation to the further understanding of Bulgakov’s view on Art. In The Master and Margarita his satire of this problem becomes most apparent when dealing with Berlioz, Bezdomny and other members of MASSOLIT. The organisation finds its real life equivalent in the RAPP. The aim of this organisation was to provide the revolutionary writer with all the comforts necessary to write. Interestingly, if not surprisingly, only guideline followers are tolerated. This is highlighted in Behemoth’s and Koroviev’s attempt to enter the Griboyedov house, headquarters of the organisation. ” - Are you writers? Asked the woman in return. - Indubitably, replied Kroviev with dignity. - Where are your membership cards? The woman repeated. (…) - But look here - if you wanted to make sure that Dostoevsky was a writer, would you really ask him for his membership card? Why, you only have take five pages of one of his novels and you won’t need a membership card to convince you that the man is a writer…” The relationship between Berlioz and Bezdomny is an interesting one in light of State control. Berlioz is the chairman of MASSOLIT and consequently responsible for enforcing prescribed State guidelines. In him, Chudakova (a famous Bulgakov critic), recognised a few contemporary publishers as his role model, such as Vladimir Blyum or Mikhail Kol’stov, both editors of journals. This would link The Master and Margarita to Bulgakov’s real life experiences, thus establishing an autobiographical connection. Our acquaintance with Berlioz is rather short lived as he dies underneath a tram. The reason for his death is a form of punishment. Not for being an atheist as might be assumed following his earlier discourse, but rather for betraying the intellectuals, ”… the ideological time serving for men, who really should have known better”. His role is that of a minder for the young Bezdomny. The more important character of the two, however, is Ivan Bezdomny, who has been recognised in Mikhail Reysner and Barbus. He is a young writer, member of MASSOLIT, commissioned by Berlioz to write a poem about Jesus Christ. His problems begin with this poem, his artistic creativity gets the better of him and thus finds himself in conflict with Berlioz. Appearing in the opening lines and in the final chapter of the novel, one sees that Ivan is himself a central figure on a journey, a journey during which his awareness of his art and its meaning is awoken. The scene of great relevance to this revelation is Chapter 11, entitled The two Ivans. In this episode Ivan’s personality separates into an old Ivan and a new Ivan, symptomatic of the division between conformity and spontaneous creativity. These new prospects which have been kept under seal for such a long time, that they appear completely alien to Ivan, though they are a writer’s natural instinct, this stark confrontation drives him insane and is manifested in the psychological disease Schizophrenia. Bulgakov used it as a mean to show the tension between the State and the individual, which leads to clashes of the Self. During his stay in the sanatorium, Ivan meets the Master who urges him to give up writing when the latter finds out that Bezdomny is a writer. The Master does this on the one hand because Ivan is a member of the very organisation which destroyed the Master and on the other this proves that Ivan is a poor writer. Ivan is cured from his ailment, but can only go on living under heavy sedation imposed by the doctors and carried out by his wife. The sedation represents State control. Ivan is being forced to block out the memories and to conform. Notable is also his change of career, he chooses the very profession the Master used to carry out before his writing, namely a professor of history. Thus moving away from writing, moving away from reporting the truth. Bulgakov uses Bezdomny to demonstrate another one of his points, that a conforming author does not believe in what he writes. Arriving at the Sanatorium Ivan is not alone, he is in the company of Ryukhin, a writer and a member of MASSOLIT. A number of critics saw in Ryukhin Mayakovsky, Bulgakov’s sworn enemy when it came to his principles. Mayakovsky embodied the very thing Bulgakov was fighting against: a rigid following of State guidelines. Yet Bulgakov believed that Mayakovsky did not have faith in a single word he wrote. Bezdomny full of venom attacks Ryukhin and shows him as the fraud that he is. ”A typical kulak mentality, said Ivan (…), and what’s more he’s a kulak masquerading as a proletarian. Look at his mean face and compare it with all that pompous verse he writes for May Day… All that stuff about ‘onwards and upwards’ and ‘banners waving’! If you could look inside him and see what he’s thinking you’d be sickened!” Though deeply offended by this exposé Ryukhin realises that Bezdomny is right in accusing him so, ”He was right - he was telling the truth! I don’t believe a single word of what I’ve written” is Ryukhin’s conclusion. His realisation though when returning to the Griboyedov house is that instead of being helpful, he could have enjoyed himself and never known the truth about himself. This he realises would have made him substantially happier, proving that he did not learn anything from this “revelation”. This kind of attitude is also reflected by the Muscovites ultimately not learning anything from the passing of the Devil through Moscow. This however is beyond the scope of this essay. So what can we conclude about the writer’s fate under Stalin? Bulgakov satirises the writer and their environment, ridiculing their methods, their lack of interest in real issues, their lack of faith in their own words. He criticises the entire system for breeding pompous artists who have lost touch with their work and their objectives, namely to inform and educate. The Devil and the Master’s tale serve to lead these characters to self-awareness, to step outside the guidelines of conformity. Sadly nothing seems to affect these people. Ryukhin soon returns to normality by trying to forget what he has seen and heard. Bezdomny is under such heavy sedation that he is unable to wake up to the realities anymore. His turning away from reality can also be viewed as his way to avoid the truth. The Master, the true writer remains secluded from society in a twilight zone. Indeed a sad prospects for the Soviet Union. The Master, Pontius Pilate, Jeshua and Bulgakov In the second part of this essay I would like to focus a little more on the Master, his book, it’ characters and its relevance to Bulgakov’s expectation of art. Again the autobiographical aspect has to be acknowledged, though one now has to differentiate between the “literal and metaphorical” autobiography. The first part of the essay was dealing with literal autobiography, reflecting on concrete events in the life of Bulgakov and his attitude toward certain writers. Now we enter the realm of the metaphorical autobiography, we simultaneously enter the realm of fantasy. This is the part of the story where Bulgakov takes a look at himself and what he could have been. With regards to the character of the Master many mysteries are conjured up. Questions about his importance for the novel. Why the name? Why is he so central, if he only appears in five of the thirty-two chapters? Why is he not granted light, but only peace, after such a long time of suffering? Looking at the character of the Master and in what environment he appears, one notices the shadiness, the eeriness, the kind of twilight he lives in. Here Bulgakov makes full use of his time spent at the theatre to create an atmosphere with lights and colour. To answer the question of the origin of his name, many critics refer to a conversation between Stalin and Pasternak, where the latter was asked if Mandelstam was a master with regards to his writing. Bulgakov probably snatched this up, but the Master is more than just an attempt at ridiculing Stalin’s view on literature. The Mater reflects Bulgakov’s own short-comings. In him we find everything that Bulgakov could have been. Why has the Master not earned light, but merely peace? Bulgakov also dreamed of peace, a place where he could write freely. However neither of them did not deserve it. The Master did not deserve because he burned his manuscript and ceased writing, because of the critics relentless attacks. They were so full of anger, angry because the Master was able to do something they could not do, that is to speak freely. Again parallels to Bulgakov’s life become apparent. The following excerpt from a letter written to the Soviet government helps highlight this: ”… I contend that the whole of the USSR press(…) have throughout my literary activity argued in one voice, imbued WITH EXTRAORDINARY ANGER, that the works of M. Bulgakov cannot exist in the USSR. And I declare that the USSR press is PERFECTLY RIGHT.” Bulgakov did not deserve peace for having compromised his ideals. A few before his death, Bulgakov started work on a play called Batum, about the youth of Stalin. In so many letters he had appealed to the leader of the Soviet Union to release him, for even though he had been advised ”to dye my coat a different colour. This was stupid advice. Whether dyed or with it’s coat clipped short, the wolf will never look like a poodle.” So what did he compromise? In the words of Jeshua he committed the greatest sin of all… cowardice! But why would a man of such high aspirations do this? The answer to question this is incredibly straight forward, he wanted to provide security for his wife. Yet he could never forgive himself for compromising his values and hence he did not deserve peace. So in the Master we find Bulgakov’s own short comings embodied. In the Master’s book Pontius Pilate we again find guilt, the guilt for sentencing a perfectly innocent man, Jeshua, to death because of fear, fear of the State. The fear of the Roman Empire drove Pontius Pilate to this heinous crime. An interesting aspect of the structure of the novel, is the omission of the oppressive State in Moscow. Instead the dictator like State is to be found in Jerusalem, where peace is enforced by an iron rule from above implicated by force, fear and a network of surveillance. Here we find one of Bulgakov’s technical devices at work. The Moscow he has created seems fantastic and surreal, further emphasised by the reality of Jerusalem. This only increases the discrepancy between the State and real life. The Master’s fear is the only manifestation of the oppressive State, he fears the State and its critics, to the point of feeling imaginary ”cold tentacles” wrapping themselves around him. We established the similarities between Bulgakov and The Master, The Master and Pontius Pilate. There are also links between The Master and Jeshua. The Master has just like Jeshua a disciple, Bezdomny, but more importantly their views are controversial for their respective societies. Hence their isolation and persecution. Jeshua like The Master is an idealist, who does not realise in what kind of a world he is living, not understanding the reactions of the people and these people’s fear of their ideas and ideals. The critic Milne pointed out that Jeshua in his innocence destroys officialdom and turns men into human beings, for as Lord Acton correctly perceived: ”power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men… are always bad men, even when they exercise influence and authority.” So through each of these characters Bulgakov is represented, showing his failings and his expectations. The Master for his short comings, Pilate for his inability to follow through with his ideals and Jeshua for his search for truth and innocence. The Master’s story and Bulgakov’s expectancy of Art Art for Bulgakov was a very special manifestation of the human intellect. His appreciation of other great writers, such as Gogol, Tolstoy or Molière is well known. The reason for his interest in them, was their longevity of their works, and especially Molière played an important role in this respect. Bulgakov was fascinated by the fact that his plays, though 250 years old, were still being performed and were still relevant. For Bulgakov a proper work of art was contemporary, but nevertheless relevant tomorrow and yesterday. In a way it foresees the future, takes the past into account, but always speaks the truth. The writer is a master of the times and all knowing. In our belief system there is only one being capable of this, namely God. Art for Bulgakov is the embodiment of God, symbolically the writer is God. The best example of this is The Master himself and his novel of Pontius Pilate. In chapter 13 he exclaims: ”Oh, how I guessed it all!” after hearing Ivan’s account of Woland’s Pilate tale. He recounted the events of Jeshua’s sentencing exactly as Woland had seen it. The different narrators and mediums of relating the novel in exactly the same style and fashion, also imply that there is only one truth, God’s truth. The writer is the vessel through which this is being conveyed. With regards to art it is always interesting to note that history is very often remembered, by remembering the period in which a great writer lived. Dictators in fact never quite achieve that kind of status. Who remembers Pushkin living in the time of Tsar Nicholas the First? It is the other way round, Nicholas the First lived in the time of Pushkin. This elucidates the impact of art on life and history. If one takes the words of Jeshua’s blasphemy against the Roman Empire in a metaphorical sense and transposes these onto the real world: ”… and that the time will come when there will be no rule by Caesar nor any other form of rule. Man will pass into the kingdom of truth and justice where no sort of power will be needed” one could interpret this as the time when the writer will be the highest form. For a writer is a master and a master writes truth. The kingdom of truth is a paradise for any artist where he can freely articulate his opinion. Conclusion So what are the writer’s problems as seen by Bulgakov and what concept of art does he have? It is the writer’s duty to report the truth and not to compromise his ideals by following State guidelines, which restrict his artistic freedom and creativity. Bulgakov especially criticises the establishment of the 1920-1930’s such as RAPP, where writers are standardised and write on commission, without thinking about the implications of their words. He laughs in their face, because of their pompous behaviour. They are only facades, behind which lies pure selfish egocentricity and he morns their lack of freedom. The apparition of the Devil serves to awaken their awareness, but all remain indifferent. In fact Moscow itself remains the same, as if Woland had never been there. The words in works of art fulfil a special aim: a novel is eternal, created by a master with divine inspiration. Bulgakov saw freedom in his works, the chance to travel through time, but also to be critical of everything, even oneself. Pasternak, Bulgakov’s contemporary, had a different point of view. He regarded ”the artist as being an eternal hostage, being captive by time”. He knew of the securities that writing brought. He was in his lifetime a successful writer. His view was that the reader makes the novel eternal by reading it. Unfortunately Bulgakov died without the knowledge of such security. He was unable to get a response from his work. A great loss for the Soviet Union, which was censoring at the peril of destroying an entire literary generation. Above all Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita is enjoyable to read, and very funny, for in Bulgakov’s satire lies laughter and in laughter lies freedom. >Bibliography: C. Wright, Bulgakov Life and Interpretation E. Proffer, Bulgakov J. Curtis, Bulgakov’s Last Decade A. Barratt, Between Two Worlds:A critical Introduction to “Master and Margarita” L. Milne, Bulgakov: Critical Biography R.H. Pittman, The writer’s Divided Self in Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita” E. Proffer, Major Soviet Writers, ed. E.J. Brown