Concept of Power in Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

downloadDownload
  • Words 1450
  • Pages 3
Download PDF

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov uses magic to present the state of unrest in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist regime. Woland and his entourage of outlandish beings often cause chaos by using their victim’s fears and vices against them. Bulgakov makes a clear comparison between Woland, or Satan, and Stalin in the similar ways Woland exhibits the traits of Stalin, such as seemingly unwarranted punishment and the bending of traditional rules to further personal goals. Although Woland mimic’s Stalin in these ways, he ultimately does it to bring attention to the problems by exaggerating them to the point where they cannot go unaddressed. Despite obvious humanitarian issues, citizens of the Soviet Union would often purposefully stay ignorant to Stalin’s crimes because it was beneficial to their own monetary or positional gains. The eccentric and magical ways in which Woland’s crew cause unrest are so extraordinary that the ignorance of the people is almost comically unreasonable. Using exaggeration in the form of magic, Bulgakov exposes the sin of the Soviet people who overlook the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime.

The reactions of the both Berlioz and Ivan in the first chapter and Bengalsky in the twelfth chapter show the great extent to which people will rationalize acts of terror, no matter how unreasonable they are. In the first portrayal of Woland, the readers are introduced to his magical abilities. When proposing a counter opinion to Woland, Berlioz was surprised to see that “before he managed to utter these words, the foreigner spoke” and predicted what he would say (11). Later in the conversation, Ivan Nikolaevich was baffled that Woland knew his name without prior interaction, saying “How do you know my name?” (12). Despite the impossibility of Woland’s knowledge, Berlioz and Nikolaevich try to rationalize it by claiming that “he’s no foreign tourist, he’s a spy” (13). Both characters show their limited ability to explain situations outside of their own comfort, opting to rationalize the problems they face in the easiest and most comfortable way to them instead of the correct way. This explanatory strategy mimics the way that characters like them would explain missing people or low food counts in the country, opting to explain it by targeting other people instead of Stalin, who provides them with the wealth and power they desire to keep. This explanatory strategy leads to Berlioz’s downfall in the chapter.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Disregarding his claims leads to death. Woland predicts Berlioz’s death saying, “Your head will be cut off…by a Russian woman, a Komsomol girl” (10,11). Berlioz, similarly to earlier, disregards him saying “that simply cannot be” (11). Although his fate may or may not have already been set in stone, if Berlioz had heeded Woland’s warning, he may have been able to prevent his demise. By correlating the ignorance of Berlioz to Woland’s claims with his death, Bulgakov shows how this ignorance negatively affects Berlioz. This allegory could then be applied to the larger portion of Soviet society, who disregard problems that eventually lead to their own demise. Similarly, Bengalsky’s disregard for Woland’s abilities lead to his downfall. When addressing the crowd during the séance, Bengalsky perfectly describes the mob mentality of ignorance when he claims “both you and I know that there’s no such thing in the world, and that it’s all superstition” (119). In response to his continuous scientific explanations, Woland orders Behemoth to tear off Bengalsky’s head. Only after the crowd sees the horrific effects of dismissing unruly acts by Woland do they act upon it, saying collectively “forgive him, forgive him” (123). Additionally, this response is offered only after Woland asks the crowd directly if they should forgive him. Bulgakov shows that people will only act against unjust treatment of people after it is made an option by those in authority. The crowd represents the way that the Soviet people did not confront authority unless given the option to do so, which would never happen in a society like the Soviet Union, where Stalin keeps his power through suppression of speech. Bulgakov shows how personal interest, in this case entertainment, blinds people to the dangerous effects of disregarding crimes of those in authority. Bengalsky is the manifestation of these dangerous effects in the way that his rationalization leads to his decapitation.

The other narrative in the story, Yershalaim, also exemplifies the cowardice Bulgakov is trying to expose through the acts of both Pontius Pilate and the people. Pilate feels uneasy about putting Yeshua to death for his crimes. Because of this, the High Priest Kaifa accuses Pilate of preventing peace saying “You wanted to release him so that he could disturb the people, outrage the faith, and bring the people under Roman Swords!” (33). Pilate immediately “apologized in refined terms before the high priest” (34). Pilate was afraid to oppose authority and stand up for what he believed to be good. Instead, in threat from authority, Pilate favored maintaining his power and wealth in society against doing the right thing. Berlioz, Ivan, and Bengalsky overlooked Stalin’s immoral acts to maintain their power in the same way Pilate overlooks Kaifa and the authority’s killing of Yeshua to maintain his power. The people of Yershalaim show a similar preference to not stray from their own explanatory strategies to Berlioz and Ivan. When the people see a man like Yeshua who defies their own comfortable way of life with things they perceive as magic, they decide to stay ignorant to the problems that authority cause them and put Yeshua to death. The people chant “Long live Caesar!” and decide to put Yeshua to death by deciding to pardon another with another thunderous chant, “Bar-Rabban!” (36,37). The crowd’s definitive tone and deference to power ultimately lead to the killing of their own savior from the same power that threatens them. Although not explicitly labeled magic, Yeshua’s abilities are perceived as impossible in the same way that Woland’s are. In both narratives, magic demonstrates the terrors of authority. In the Moscow narrative, the magic demonstrates terror by exaggerating it greatly, but it in the Yershalaim narrative, the magic demonstrates terror by offering solutions to it through the words and miracles of Yeshua. In both cases, the people choose to disregard the magical abilities in favor of their standard explanatory strategies to maintain their status.

The characters in the novel that do not try to rationalize Woland and the problems of the state are rewarded, and subsequently, those who do not are punished. By doing this, Bulgakov implies the immorality of the ignorance portrayed by the Soviet people. The Master wrote Pontius Pilate, which in his eyes was “true art,” but feared that releasing it would lead to his rejection due to the Stalinist regime’s history of suppressing speech that undermine its power. (142). In this fear, the master “took the heavy manuscript of the novel and the draft notebooks from the desk drawer and started burning them” (143). Like Berlioz, Bengalsky, and Pilate, the Master was punished for overlooking the oppression of authority. In his case, he entered a clinic for mental health, which caused him great pain, as punishment. Bulgakov uses these punishments to imply that this ignorance is immoral. On the other hand, Margarita does not try and rationalize Woland’s powers like the others. She says, “I know what I’m getting into…I agree to perform this comedy of rubbing in the ointment, agree to go to the devil and beyond!” (227). In doing this, Margarita opts to defy the explanatory system imposed on her by authority, unlike Berlioz, Bengalsky, and Pilate. Because of this, Margarita is rewarded greatly by Woland, as is the Master, who later agrees to release a sequel to Pontius Pilate written by Ivan, showing his defiance against the oppression instead of the cowardice of overlooking the oppression. By rewarding this behavior, Bulgakov shows that actively deciding against ignorance is the morally correct decision. The reward they receive is shown in the end of the novel, when Margarita is “walking with the Master towards their eternal home…setting the Master free” (384). This reward, like the punishments received by characters like Bengalsky, the barman, and the professor, are magical in nature. The punishments are portrayed as more harmful, and the rewards are portrayed as more fulfilling because of both of their magical natures. This magic is used to emphasize the importance of choosing the correct side, favoring courage and defiance over the overlooking of atrocities by authority.

Bulgakov’s use of Magic throughout The Master and Margarita emphasizes the danger of ignoring Stalin’s humanitarian crimes, and emphasizes the subsequent punishments and rewards for the decision made. Without the magic in the novel, a full understanding of the importance of this decision cannot be understood.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.