The Master and Margarita: Part One, Chapters 1-9

[Kris]

I haven't yet gone wrong when listening to you, MB. :)

[Jim]

Catie wrote: "I really feel like he's juxtaposing the complete denial of Jesus' existence in the first chapter to the mad belief in chapter 2. In chapter 2, the crowds are tearing down a temple in his name, and the rumors about his activities have already been so exaggerated that Pilate believes he arrived on a donkey (haha) with a massive entourage of followers."..."

I really like your analysis, Catie! I would add that in chapter 1, the official (state) position is that Jesus did not exist, and Berlioz wants Ivan to come into line with that. Woland upsets that discussion by his hijinks and then his eyewitness tale.

In chapter 2, the official (Roman) position is that the Jewish temples are to be tolerated/respected, but only Roman law is truly a priority for Pilate. As you said, Pilate gets clued in that there is much more to Yeshua than the pitiful man he sees at first - and maybe something of direct value to him (Pilate). But when Yeshua admits saying that all empires will fall someday, that is the end of Pilate's authority to intervene, and from that point forward he is torn between what must be done and what will be lost in consequence.

"This is completely just my opinion, but to me it feels like he's saying that we lose either way. By denying the existence of Jesus, we lose the history of one of the greatest men (real, human, men with flaws) in our existence. By exaggerating his acts and committing violence in his name, we forget what he was actually all about. I feel like he's saying that there's ignorance on both sides. I can definitely see that he was more interested in Jesus/Yeshua the man, the person. "

I agree with these points too! Soviet society loses by denying the existence of this very important figure (and Woland steps into that breach). Yershalaim loses because they first follow, then abandon Yeshua.

And Pilate loses because he is powerless to stop the act which he must order, even though he understands the tragedy as he begins to understand Yeshua. The irony for Pilate is magnified by the high priest's intransigence, and by the fickle crowd. He becomes the 'victim' of the ignorance you are talking about.

At least, that's the way I reacted to those two chapters. They really are cornerstones for the book, as you and I discussed. And the history of Christianity is rife with the violence in his name that you talked about, so that may have been a part of Bulgakov's message as well.

[Kris]

Catie, it's great to have you participating the discussion! I think that we haven't done much yet in the next discussion section, but I think that will be changing, since a number of group members have gotten to that point in the novel.

[Jim]

Catie wrote: "Ha, Jim I love how positive you always are. I have the feeling I'm probably going to be schooled many times during these discussions. :D I really don't have any sort of Christian background so I'm very appreciative of your insights..."

Thanks so much, Catie! I am on Chapter 12 also, and will start watching for comments in the next section.

Yes, Woland and his entourage can certainly shake things up.:D

[Terry]

Thanks Catie...yes I think the Yeshua/Pilate segments are perhaps the most interesting elements of the book (to me at least) and now that I'm closer to the end I can certainly say that the ambiguity continues!

[Nataliya]

Catie wrote: "By denying the existence of Jesus, we lose the history of one of the greatest men (real, human, men with flaws) in our existence. By exaggerating his acts and committing violence in his name, we forget what he was actually all about. I feel like he's saying that there's ignorance on both sides. I can definitely see that he was more interested in Jesus/Yeshua the man, the person."

I love how you described it, Catie! The ignorance on both sides is definitely a message that Bulgakov is getting through in this book (or Master's novel, as a matter of fact).

[Mary]

Catie wrote: "Ha, Jim I love how positive you always are. I have the feeling I'm probably going to be schooled many times during these discussions. :D I really don't have any sort of Christian background so I'm very appreciative of your insights."

I felt the same way Catie, I had to do some background reading because I was unfamiliar with the Jesus/Bible story that TM&M was referencing.

[Nathan "N.R."]

Mary wrote: "I felt the same way Catie, I had to do some background reading because I was unfamiliar with the Jesus/Bible story that TM&M was referencing.
"

Is anyone able to quickly provide the appropriate biblical citations for the material which Bulgakov is working upon in the Jerusalem chapters? I know there's only a few brief verses or chapters which would cover the ground so that we won't have to read the entire (4x!) gospel narratives. If no one else gets to it or has them handy, I could perhaps pull them together tomorrow morning. Maybe they're stuck back there in the P&V or B&O annotations.

[Kris]

Nathan, I'll check my other sources at home to see if I can find some better sources. In the interim, not sure if this will help? http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russi... I'm worried it may be too general, but it does specify some biblical citations.... Could at least provide a starting place.

[Kris]

Grr - of course, they don't specify specific citations from the Gospels. I'll be home shortly, so I'll try to find something more helpful.

[Kris]

OK, this is also a better source: http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/0... . The annotations do provide biblical citations.

[Nathan "N.R."]

Kris wrote: "OK, this is also a better source: http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/0... . The annotations do provide biblical citations."

Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that site.

For those who are reading M&M very closely--especially you multi-translation readers--and do not have a firm biblical background, I highly recommend a quick perusal through the relevant biblical passages. Of course Bulgakov is also working with Orthodox traditions, but whatever his particular sources be, his reworkings of them are of especial theological interest. By overlaying the received gospel stories with Bulgakov's reframing and retelling, one should find a lot of interesting things happening.

[Kris]

The annotations are really helpful, Catie. They cover many of Bulgakov's sources for the Pilate chapters, and they even include some links to some source material for people who want to investigate further.

[Mikki]

Kris wrote: "Could this be part of Ivan's role as a witness? He sees the cat, but no one else does. He tries to warn people about Woland, and he's hospitalized for schizophrenia."

I thought so too. Behemoth's role seems to be the set-up guy who first stuns the victim into thinking that they're seeing things or even going a bit crazy, allowing for one of the others in the entourage (namely The Choirmaster) to carry out the evil doing.

[Jim]

Kris wrote: "OK, this is also a better source: http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/0... . The annotations do provide biblical citations."

That is a great site, Kris!

[Kris]

Jim wrote: "Kris wrote: "OK, this is also a better source: http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/0... . The annotations do provide biblical citations."

That is a great site, Kris!"

Thanks Jim! I really like it. It's the best online resource for TM&M that I have seen so far. And it's much better to look at than the Middlebury TM&M website, which looks like it was designed in the early 1990s.

[Jim]

Kris wrote: "Thanks Jim! I really like it. It's the best online resource for TM&M that I have seen so far. And it's much better to look at than the Middlebury TM&M website, which looks like it was designed in the early 1990s...."

It's great! I haven't looked at the Middlebury site yet, but this one has lots of good stuff, including a very good discussion of chapter 15 which I will link in the next discussion thread. A very good discussion of Chapter 2 (Pilate) also, as you indicated earlier.

[Nataliya]

Moonbutterfly wrote: "Second: Margarita v/s Margaret/Gretchen
In Faust there is a confusion with names. I believe Margaret is also Gretchen in Faust - I could have this wrong. My question is, is Margarita a name similiar to Margaret? I suspect we're gonna have a naming problem in M&M. "

Margarita = Margaret = Gretchen. You are right about all those.

[Mary]

Moonbutterfly wrote: "In the scene were Ivan takes a swim and looses his clothes. Did anyone take that as a type of baptism gone wrong? This is also the first chapter the cat appears as well. Am I reading too much into things? Did anyone also notice this?"

I didn't think of that, but it's an interesting thought. People losing their clothes is a big theme in TM&M and I don't want to give anything away...

[Carol]

I didn't think of that either moonbutterfly but I think that's an astute observation and interpretation. I tend to not think thy symbolically; I admire how u see things. You call yourself a slow poke but maybe that's a good thing! : )

[Mary]

I read several of the chapters three times lol I think it's just that kind of novel for some people. There's so much detail and so many characters and double meanings and things easily missed - and after a lot of the discussions in here it's evident that a lot of elements are open for interpretation and there is not right or wrong.

The key for me was to read slow (I always read too fast!), re-read if need be and think about what I was reading as I read, so I had to always be able to concentrate in a quiet environment (no reading in public etc.)

[Moira]

Kris wrote: "Let me know if I'm getting too academic here. I don't want to go overboard. "

No, it's great!

[Moira]

Moonbutterfly wrote: "I think the M&M cat should replace the cute little girl on the GoodReads capacity error page. Just saying."

That is fucking BRILL.

[Jason]

“There are two; motives; for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can; boast about it; [on Goodreads].”

[Mary]

^ I was about to post that Jason :D

[Jason]

Haha, sorry Mary. :)

[Mikki]

Moonbutterfly wrote: "In the scene were Ivan takes a swim and looses his clothes. Did anyone take that as a type of baptism gone wrong? This is also the first chapter the cat appears as well. Am I reading too much into things? Did anyone also notice this? "

You are actually dead on! I read the B&O translation and in it are chapter annotations. For Chapter four it describes Woland, The Choirmaster and the cat as being the unholy trinity and states that Ivan is getting ready for a baptism. I did wonder about the clothes being stolen and then attributed it to his somewhat gullible personality which you'll see more of later.

I'm poky too and am just now finishing the last two chapters. My problem is similar to yours as I look for (and think I see) meaning in EVERYTHING and often will flip back to reread something from 50 pages before if I suddenly realize a connection to what I'm currently reading. It's slow but fulfilling!

[Mary]

Jason wrote: "Haha, sorry Mary. :)"

Great minds...

[Moira]

Mikki wrote: "Behemoth's role seems to be the set-up guy who first stuns the victim into thinking that they're seeing things or even going a bit crazy, allowing for one of the others in the entourage (namely The Choirmaster) to carry out the evil doing. "

So he's like....a Man in Black, but a black cat. Heh. Heh.

Behemoth is also the monster of the land, as Leviathan is of the sea: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/art...

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

So he basically becomes this divine pet until the end times, which....seems appropriate for a cat!

[Mikki]

Moira wrote: "Mikki wrote: "So he's like....a Man in Black, but a black cat. Heh. Heh."

Haha, oh no, Moira, Behemoth is the man and you might want to put a Sir in front of that! Just ask him.

BTW, I love that passage and seem to remember Behemoth being compared to the size of a hippopotamus. Anyone else remembering that or did I just get caught up in all of Moira's pretty words posted?

[Mikki]

Jason, I seriously need that on a t-shirt!

[Moira]

Mikki wrote: "BTW, I love that passage and seem to remember Behemoth being compared to the size of a hippopotamus."

Wiki is pretty hilarious on this:

Since the 17th century CE there have been many attempts to identify Behemoth. Some scholars have seen him as a real creature, usually the hippopotamus, and occasionally as the elephant, crocodile, or water buffalo. The reference to Behemoth's "tail" that "moves like a cedar", is a problem for most of these theories, since it cannot easily be identified with the tail of any animal. Biologist Michael Bright suggests that the reference to the cedar tree actually refers to the brush-like shape of its branches, which resemble the tails of modern elephants and hippopotamuses.

Some have identified it as the elephant's trunk, but it might instead refer to Behemoth's penis, based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second last part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones"—not, as in the translation above, his thighs. The Vulgate, recognising this, uses the word "testiculorum".

The comparisons I remember are hippopotamus and crocodile, but apparently also dinosaur? Hah. I believe he is also the demon of gluttony.

[Moira]

that picture is PERFECT

[Moira]

Wiki also links to a pretty awesome behemoth-was-a-dinosaur site, which says

Although we cannot travel back in time to see the first dinosaurs, we do have an eye-witness report from the only person who was on hand to observe their origin, God Himself.

I kind of love that. Now I am imagining God on the witness stand.

LAWYER: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you.....uh....
GOD: ....
LAWYER: OK, well, then just put your hand on the boo -- uh....
GOD: ....
LAWYER: Okay FINE. Will you please just state your name for the record?
GOD: I AM.
LAWYER: You are....who?
LAWYER'S BRIEFCASE: //bursts into fire (the burning brief!)
STENOGRAPHER: ....

[Mikki]

Moira wrote: "Some have identified it as the elephant's trunk, but it might instead refer to Behemoth's penis, based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second last part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones"—not, as in the translation above, his thighs. The Vulgate, recognising this, uses the word "testiculorum"."

The Devil only knows what comes between Behemoth and his Calvins. Yes, in this book he was definitely the demon of gluttany, but such a refined palate, no?

[Kris]

Moonbutterfly wrote: "Slow poke here. I'm on chapter chapter 4. I'm the type of person who makes everything into a symbol, so I have to check myself with reality.

In the scene were Ivan takes a swim and looses his clothes. Did anyone take that as a type of baptism gone wrong? This is also the first chapter the cat appears as well. Am I reading too much into things? Did anyone also notice this? "

MB, Mikki wrote just what I was about to. Well done, both of you!

[Kris]

Moira wrote: "So he basically becomes this divine pet until the end times, which....seems appropriate for a cat! "

Liam just jumped up here to say that he agrees!!

[Carol]

Mikki wrote: "Moonbutterfly wrote: "In the scene were Ivan takes a swim and looses his clothes. Did anyone take that as a type of baptism gone wrong? This is also the first chapter the cat appears as well. Am I ..."

Wow. I totally missed that.

[[deleted user]]

I just got done chapter 9, and I'm really loving the book so far. I don't know a lot about Pontius Pilate, so I feel like I might be missing something there. I hear this part of the story feels more incorporated as the book goes on.

I love the cat especially and thought it was great that he hopped on the train after they kicked him off. It's hilarious that they always call him hefty and he's always hogging out.

[Kris]

Valerie wrote: "I just got done chapter 9, and I'm really loving the book so far. I don't know a lot about Pontius Pilate, so I feel like I might be missing something there. I hear this part of the story feels mor..."

I'm so glad you are loving the book, Valerie. Behemoth is a highlight for me as well.

The Pilate chapters do feel really different in tone, but I think the parallels in themes with the Moscow storyline become more apparent the further you get in. http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/ has some very useful annotations and background information if you decide you need more context for the Pilate chapters.

[Ce Ce]

I realize this discussion has looooong since wrapped, but I am reading The Master and Margarita (PV translation) and I am longing for feedback.

I am currently reading Ch 7, 'A Naughty Apartment'...I'll peruse comments once I've finished Ch 9.

Thank you for being here. Hello to Kris...we met during The Year of Reading Proust!

[Ce Ce]

Mary wrote: "I read several of the chapters three times lol I think it's just that kind of novel for some people. There's so much detail and so many characters and double meanings and things easily missed - and..."

Slow and repetitive reading seems essential. After reading Ch 1 - 9...and all of your intriguing comments I am going to re-read before going on.

I saw Ch 1 & 2, beautifully connected by the last and first sentences, as flip sides of the same story...and thought perhaps they were the framework for the book.

Off to re-read...and re-consider.