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

[Kris]

This thread is for discussion of The Master and Margarita, Part One, Chapters 1-9.

[Mary]

So I literally just started, but chapter 1 first impression: I like the instant mystical tone of the book. This is definitely unlike anything I've read before.

[Jason]

Mary, are you reading the version that's listed on your review page? P&V? Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the 'translations' thread.

[Mary]

Yes, P&V

[Jim]

Mary wrote: "So I literally just started, but chapter 1 first impression: I like the instant mystical tone of the book. This is definitely unlike anything I've read before."

That's the ticket, Mary! Settle back and enjoy the ride.:)

[Mary]

Jim wrote: "That's the ticket, Mary! Settle back and enjoy the ride.:)"

:-)

[Kris]

The first chapter is very impressive - Bulgakov weaves in so many threads that carry throughout the rest of the novel: (view spoiler)[religious debates; free will versus fate; informers and suspicious foreigners to set the political scene; and writers' concerns (especially about editors), among others (hide spoiler)]. I read an article in which the writer talked about elements of Bulgakov's skill as a playwright enabling him to write that first chapter so effectively.

ETA: I am hiding some themes in the spoiler tag - not episodes from TM&M, but I thought some of you might prefer to avoid even general references to some later developments in the novel.

[Mikki]

Mary wrote: "So I literally just started, but chapter 1 first impression: I like the instant mystical tone of the book. This is definitely unlike anything I've read before."

So true, within the first few paragraphs you quickly realize that this book is in a league of its own. I had a huge smile plastered across my face throughout the entire first chapter. The lead in to Pontius Pilate is just brilliant.

Kris wrote: "I read an article in which the writer talked about elements of Bulgakov's skill as a playwright enabling him to write that first chapter so effectively."

You can see that as he so deftly sets up the framework of the story through dialogue alone.

[Judith]

I was immediately amused and interested by the first chapters. They provided enough action, character development, mystery and humor to get the novel off to a good start and make you want to keep reading.

[Kris]

I'm interested in hearing about people's reactions to the Chapter 2, Pontius Pilate - how it affected you when you read it, what struck you about Bulgakov's approach, what effect it had on the opening of the novel, especially juxtaposed with the Moscow chapters/story.

[Mary]

Kris wrote: "I'm interested in hearing about people's reactions to the Chapter 2, Pontius Pilate - how it affected you when you read it, what struck you about Bulgakov's approach, what effect it had on the opening of the novel, especially juxtaposed with the Moscow chapters/story."

I found myself getting impatient and wanting to get back to the story that started in C1. And then really glad when C3 started and picked right up where C1 left off.

[Mikki]

Kris wrote: "I'm interested in hearing about people's reactions to the Chapter 2, Pontius Pilate - how it affected you when you read it, what struck you about Bulgakov's approach, what effect it had on the opening of the novel, especially juxtaposed with the Moscow chapters/story. ..."

I'm running out, but will come back later to flesh out these quick thoughts. I loved the way the 1st chapter seamlessly moved into the second which tied together the past and present. Here we see many of the themes -- the sunlight (which I also saw at times of enlightenment), the question of man's fate and of the true extent of power.

The portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a man with a conscience, humanized him as we saw duality in character which served to answer his own question concerning the good of all men.

[Megan]

I enjoyed the repeated last line from Chapter 1 and the first line from Chapter 2 - it emphasized the storytelling nature of that chapter.

The Pontius Pilate chapter didn't feel out of place at all, although that repetition, and the storytelling (and given who was doing the storytelling) served as a reminder that this is both memory and interpretation.

I'm noticing so far the sunlight/moonlight metaphors. Does it strike anyone else that they're both references to flawed ways of seeing - sunlight, because it reveals too much and dazzles, moonlight, because it reveals too little and obscures.

Also, any of the other translations have a note on swallows? I'm reading the B/O version, and haven't found a reference to them, but they show up in almost every chapter so far.

[Carol]

Yes, Megan. I am reading the Ginsburg translation (which I just now realized is censored and thus incomplete, that sucks!) and there are swallows in this version as well. I was struck by the appearance of the swallow in Ch. 2. I did notice it the first time I read but did not pay attention to this significance surrounding it. Now I'm seeing on the second read that when the swallow appears Pilate is struck by strange visions and the formation of apparitions around him. It is then that he has "short, incoherent and extraordinary thoughts..." and then has an idea "about some sort of immortality, and for some reason the thought of immortality gave him intolerable anguish." (p. 29, Ginsburg). Clearly, on the second read, a foreshadowing of what's to become of Pilate (spoilers removed). I can't believe I didn't even notice this before.

[Mary]

Megan wrote: "I enjoyed the repeated last line from Chapter 1 and the first line from Chapter 2 - it emphasized the storytelling nature of that chapter."

I like this too, it happens again a couple of chapters later "it was ten o'clock" is repeated as the last line of a chapter and then immediately as the first line of the next. (don't have my book with me so can't check the exact chapters)

[Kris]

@Megan and @Carol: I haven't seen any specific notes on swallows yet in the notes and criticism I have read so far, but quite a few websites identify the swallow as a Christian symbol for freedom, inability to be kept captive. Also, apparently it's a symbol in icons and other religious artwork for Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection. Both could make sense in TM&M, including in the examples you mention, Carol - maybe a contrast to Pilate's anguish? He's imprisoned in his own cowardice, I think. And the reference to the Resurrection makes sense.

I'll keep my eyes open and see if I can find any other references. I'm not sure how much I trust these websites, so I may do some searching later in some other references.

[Carol]

Like Megan, I thought it clever that the last line from Ch. 1 flows right into the first line of Ch. 2. To me, it served to highlight the importance of the narrative and, without it, I probably would not have been as attentive. I wish I had more knowledge of the historical account of the time period of Ch. 2; I am the first to admit that I am absolutely ignorant of such things. Nonetheless, I think caught on quickly enough.

I too was struck by the softening of Pilate's affect after meeting and speaking with Yeshua. I enjoyed the idea of Pilate experiencing cognitive dissonance when determining what Yeshua's fate will be. On one hand, he believe's him to be a madman who is capable of curing his headaches and someone who believes "There are no bad people in the world," (p. 27). And this has a profound influence on Pilate. I like the contrast of Pilate's personal motivation to save the stranger with that of his professional duty to defend the "the rule of the Emperor Tiberius," (p. 30). And the apparition that follows the appearance of the swallow, causing Pilate to have incoherent thoughts on immortality and anguish, only serves to heighten Pilate's confusion. I thought this was an excellent choice on Bulgakov's part; the humanizing of Pilate serving as a vehicle for us to sympathize with him, and the sympathy that will be played upon throughout the book.

[Carol]

Well I just now saw your comment Kris. So it is incorrect of me to say this "causes" the incoherent thoughts. I like the idea of it contrasting Pilate's anguish.

[Kris]

@Mikki and @Megan - TM&M is filled with images of sunlight and moonlight - tons of the critical essays I have looked at talk about their significance by tracing their functions throughout the novel. Moonlight appears all over especially in Part Two.

Megan, I like your ideas about both obscuring sight. There's something dazzling and disconcerting about that, which fits in nicely to the atmosphere throughout TM&M. I think it makes sense to track where both appear throughout TM&M, especially since there's a lot more elucidation of the importance of moonlight as a symbol later.

Moonlight and sunlight also seem to be among the devices Bulgakov uses to help tie together the Moscow chapters with the Pilate chapters. -- similar symbols, color schemes, etc. They join with the framing transitions to help hold the novel together.

BTW, there has also been a lot of debate and focus on those transitional elements to try to determine who is the narrator, not just of the Pilate chapters, but of the novel as a whole. Lots of competing theories, so it may be interesting to discuss some of our ideas about that as we get later in the book.

Such great observations already! I'm excited about seeing where this discussion goes.

[Kris]

Carol wrote: "Like Megan, I thought it clever that the last line from Ch. 1 flows right into the first line of Ch. 2. To me, it served to highlight the importance of the narrative and, without it, I probably wou..."

Carol, one of my reactions to chapter 2 was feeling a bit off-kilter, since Bulgakov purposefully chooses unfamiliar names for places and people, and he changes some key aspects of the Biblical representation of Jesus's life and crucifixion. So, while historical details were helpful in some cases, they also led to a lot of confusion and time spent trying to reconcile the two stories -- which seems to have been Bulgakov's intention.

[Kris]

@Carol, I also like your point about Pilate's humanization, which resonates with Mikki's point in comment 12. I think that leads to another point of discussion -- how does Bulgakov represent good and evil throughout TM&M? Are there characters who are expressly one or the other, or do we see a more nuanced representation their morality throughout?

[Kris]

Carol wrote: "Well I just now saw your comment Kris. So it is incorrect of me to say this "causes" the incoherent thoughts. I like the idea of it contrasting Pilate's anguish."

I was just forwarding a hypothesis, which could be wrong! I think one of the wonderful things about this novel is how it lends itself to so many different approaches for interpretation.

[Jim]

Kris wrote: "I'm interested in hearing about people's reactions to the Chapter 2, Pontius Pilate - how it affected you when you read it, what struck you about Bulgakov's approach, what effect it had on the open..."

Great comments from everyone! I love the Pontius Pilate chapter (2) for many reasons, some of them a bit spoilery. I certainly understand Mary's point about the interruption of the Moscow story, and the distraction of that. But the drama of reliving that momentous scene through Pilate's perspective is just riveting for me.

The combination of familiar details (from my Christian upbringing) and the completely novel, very human perspective of the procurator is very powerful for me. I think these elements - and the shadowy symbols at the edges of the scene - add a new layer to the ominous mystical-or-realistic confusion that we got in Chapter 1.

[Mary]

Jim wrote: "I certainly understand Mary's point about the interruption of the Moscow story, and the distraction of that. But the drama of reliving that momentous scene through Pilate's perspective is just riveting for me.
"

I think I'm going to go back and start over. And maybe read the Glenny edition too. As usual I'm reading too fast (eagerly).

[Carol]

Kris wrote: "@Carol, I also like your point about Pilate's humanization, which resonates with Mikki's point in comment 12. I think that leads to another point of discussion -- how does Bulgakov represent good a..."

I am pondering the possibility that there is one character inherently and expressly "good": Ivan. He certainly has his struggles but I don't recall any of them concerning a faltering b/wn good and evil.?
And it would be necessary to scan the book again for examples contradicting this, but maybe Koroviev is expressly evil? That's a good question. I can see a little of both in almost every character...even Azazzello. But then the description of Azazzelo in "Forgiveness and Eternal Refuge" Ch.helps cement the idea of him being an all-evil entity.

[Mikki]

Megan wrote: "I'm noticing so far the sunlight/moonlight metaphors. Does it strike anyone else that they're both references to flawed ways of seeing - sunlight, because it reveals too much and dazzles, moonlight, because it reveals too little and obscures."

Yes, one of my favorite lines which comes in a later chapter describes the moonlight as being deceptive. I also see the light being associated with knowledge coming to light though not necessarily flawed. Also in the third chapter where it closes with Berlioz's realization of his fate and the simultaneous splintering of the moon going to dark.

[Mikki]

Kris wrote: "BTW, there has also been a lot of debate and focus on those transitional elements to try to determine who is the narrator, not just of the Pilate chapters, but of the novel as a whole. Lots of competing theories, so it may be interesting to discuss some of our ideas about that as we get later in the book.

I like the idea of the omniscient narrator, especially when he speaks directly to the reader. It's perplexing because he's all knowing and we can be certain that it isn't the Devil, so...God? I'm anxious for the identity to be revealed.

[Kris]

Mary wrote: "Jim wrote: "I certainly understand Mary's point about the interruption of the Moscow story, and the distraction of that. But the drama of reliving that momentous scene through Pilate's perspective ..."

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

[Kris]

Carol wrote: "I am pondering the possibility that there is one character inherently and expressly "good": Ivan. He certainly has his struggles but I don't recall any of them concerning a faltering b/wn good and evil.?
And it would be necessary to scan the book again for examples contradicting this, but maybe Koroviev is expressly evil? That's a good question. I can see a little of both in almost every character...even Azazzello. But then the description of Azazzelo in "Forgiveness and Eternal Refuge" Ch.helps cement the idea of him being an all-evil entity. "

I think Ivan is a fascinating character. He plays the role (unsuccessfully) as a witness in the first few chapters, and it's interesting to see how his relationship with the storyline evolves throughout the book. I also like the idea of contrasting him with The Master, who will make his appearance in Chapter 13.

I also was struck by how Woland and his entourage appear -- I expected them to be much more consistently and clearly evil and sinister throughout.

[Jim]

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

I think you are doing a fabulous job! As long as you don't pass out exam questions, I am good to go and it looks like others are well ahead of me.:)

I want to read more of the background refs you linked - and I am definitely enjoying this discussion thread!

[Kris]

Thanks, Jim! I just don't want to slip into teaching mode, especially since this is my first time reading TM&M, and many group members have more knowledge than I do (including you!).

I am going to write a review of The Master and Margarita: A Critical Companion pretty soon. It's excellent. She has a wonderful 55 page introduction that provides a good framework to understand the basic schools of criticism on The Master and Margarita, and then there's a second section with a good selection of critical essays, then a final section with some primary sources, and an annotated bibliography of English sources on Bulgakov and TM&M. I know that this book is only the tip of the iceberg on criticism on TM&M, but Weeks provides such a clear framework that it makes it easier to determine what texts to look at next.

[Kris]

Mikki wrote: "I like the idea of the omniscient narrator, especially when he speaks directly to the reader. It's perplexing because he's all knowing and we can be certain that it isn't the Devil, so...God? I'm anxious for the identity to be revealed. "

I wish I had a clearer idea myself, Mikki! It seems like one of those fun debates, where there are many possibilities, and textual evidence pointing all over the place. I agree that all the framing sentences in the novel keep drawing our attention to the fact that we are reading a text, which in turn makes it difficult not to wonder who the narrator is.

[Jim]

Kris wrote: "Thanks, Jim! I just don't want to slip into teaching mode, especially since this is my first time reading TM&M, and many group members have more knowledge than I do (including you!). "

Thanks, Kris! I think your knowledge has already surpassed mine, but I do appreciate the compliment.

I am going to write a review of The Master and Margarita: A Critical Companion pretty soon. It's excellent.

I look forward to your review! Just ordered a copy through one of the Amazon booksellers too (a bargain!).

[Nataliya]

Kris wrote: "I think that leads to another point of discussion -- how does Bulgakov represent good and evil throughout TM&M? Are there characters who are expressly one or the other, or do we see a more nuanced representation their morality throughout?"

Except for Yeshua, I think it's easy to say that all of the characters are neither all good or all bad. This ambiguity is what makes them feel real.

Carol wrote: "I am pondering the possibility that there is one character inherently and expressly "good": Ivan. He certainly has his struggles but I don't recall any of them concerning a faltering b/wn good and evil.?
And it would be necessary to scan the book again for examples contradicting this, but maybe Koroviev is expressly evil?"

Ivan is ignorant, violent, short-tempered and often quite rude. That is enough to not make him exclusively "good". Koroviev, on the other hand, is into the quite humorous mischief that disqualifies him from being "evil". Actually, the only absolute evil in this story seems to be the society, really.

Kris wrote: "Moonlight and sunlight also seem to be among the devices Bulgakov uses to help tie together the Moscow chapters with the Pilate chapters. -- similar symbols, color schemes, etc. They join with the framing transitions to help hold the novel together."

This attempt to tie-in the Moscow and Yershalaim chapters was actually carried over to the M&M Russian TV series that used the same voice for Master and Yeshua.

[Carol]

Ignorant and rude, yes. But I don't think that is enough to disqualify him as "good.". Certainly, he is not on par with Yeshua. (which, duh, didnt even cross my mind to think of him!). I only think of him as " good" bc he doesn't ever quite sink to the depths that other characters do when they encounter Woland and his retinue. He changes vastly throughout the book but I never see him engage in the antics that I use to qualify others as evil.

I agree with your statement on Koroviev though, Nataliya. I was wavering on him to begin with. He does throw quite a good amount of humor into his mischief.

[Carol]

Very interesting point on society being the true evil, Nataliya. I forget that you are quite on expert on M&M! I am eager to hear more from you on these threads.
: )

[Mary]

Kris wrote: "BTW, there has also been a lot of debate and focus on those transitional elements to try to determine who is the narrator, not just of the Pilate chapters, but of the novel as a whole. Lots of competing theories, so it may be interesting to discuss some of our ideas about that as we get later in the book."


I love this.

[Mary]

Jim wrote: "The combination of familiar details (from my Christian upbringing) and the completely novel, very human perspective of the procurator is very powerful for me."

You hit the nail on the head for me - I think I was jarred by chapter 2 so much because I am very unfamiliar with biblical events...

[Mary]

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

No way! These group reads are amazing. I'd rather be the most confused one in the group who starts the damn book over again (lol) -- but learning something -- than the most bored one in the room (aka 90% of my life)

[Kris]

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

No way! These group reads are amazing. I'd rather be the most confused one in the group who starts the d..."

Thanks Mary! Just trying to make sure. ;)

[Kris]

Mary wrote: "Kris wrote: "BTW, there has also been a lot of debate and focus on those transitional elements to try to determine who is the narrator, not just of the Pilate chapters, but of the novel as a whole. Lots of competing theories, so it may be interesting to discuss some of our ideas about that as we get later in the book."


I love this. "

I agree -- I'm about to start Ginsburg (translation #3), and this is one of the elements I want to focus on.

[Kris]

Nataliya wrote: "Except for Yeshua, I think it's easy to say that all of the characters are neither all good or all bad. This ambiguity is what makes them feel real."

I had a similar reaction, Nataliya. I found some of the Gnostic readings of the novel fascinating for that reason. And it's such an interesting project on Bulgakov's part to present modified Christian stories and imagery against a different moral framework than a traditional Christian one. It made me think a lot about the worldview and ethics of the novel.

[Judith]

I wondered why the story of Jesus and Pilot was changed in certain ways from the Biblical versions... Has anyone read anything to explain why the particular changes were made or why any changes at all (excluding, of course, telling the story from Pilot's point of view, which I loved.) I chiefly was confused about why the dialogue between them presented (at least to me) Jesus in a more agitated and confused state than the Biblical version (I'm going on memory here, not any recent re-reading or research.)

I was not at all surprised by the sympathetic view of Pilot's position in Jesus' situation because in my religious studies through the church that was always a point that was emphasized. That Pilot's sin was cowardice was always made clear in those studies.

I also never wondered about the narrator being other than the author. Am I missing something here (most probably I am missing quite a bit)? How could God tell a story the way this one is told? Nope, can't see it...

[Nathan "N.R."]

Nataliya wrote: "Actually, the only absolute evil in this story seems to be the society, really.."

That claim, I think, needs some evidence. At the very least, 'society' has to be set in motion over-against the very characters of which it is constructed. How does one get from characters which are neither good nor evil to a collective entity which is absolutely evil? If Bulgakov is depicting Soviet society as merely absolutely evil without ambiguity I'll be tempted to put the book down as propaganda. As a novel, if it succeeds as a novel, it will have to be more subtle and nuanced than that. But I'm only in chapter 10 and have not yet come across any characterizations of 'society.'

My thoughts on Ivan as of chapter 10 is that he is forced into a solipsistic position, charged as schizophrenic because his claims cannot be recognized by anyone outside of himself--he has no evidence of Woland or Pilate outside his own claims, nothing with which to convince others of the truth of his claims. For 'his' truth to become 'truth' for others, he needs something inter-subjectively visible and in common with others, something he lacks. Psychiatric charges were common Soviet means for removing political dissidents.

[Kris]

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "My thoughts on Ivan as of chapter 10 is that he is forced into a solipsistic position, charged as schizophrenic because his claims cannot be recognized by anyone outside of himself--he has no evidence of Woland or Pilate outside his own claims, nothing with which to convince others of the truth of his claims. For 'his' truth to become 'truth' for others, he needs something inter-subjectively visible and in common with others, something he lacks. Psychiatric charges were common Soviet means for removing political dissidents. "

I also think that schizophrenia is a diagnosis that mirrors Bulgakov's representation of a dual reality, the mythic/fantastic and the realistic. Ivan has access to both realities, but he is living in a Soviet state that denied, outlawed and suppressed the mythic and fantastic, something that Bulgakov decried throughout his life. When you add in your point about the Soviet use of psychiatric charges against dissidents, this becomes a very powerful plot device on different levels.

[Kris]

Judith wrote: "I wondered why the story of Jesus and Pilot was changed in certain ways from the Biblical versions... Has anyone read anything to explain why the particular changes were made or why any changes at..."

Some great questions, Judith, and I have seen a great deal of critical attention to Bulgakov's approach to the Pilate chapters. He effectively displaces fantastic aspects of Christian belief and scripture onto the Moscow scenes (something you particularly see later in the novel, especially in Part Two). One of Bulgakov's concerns seems to have been the suppression of the fantastic and mythical under the Soviet state. He draws attention to this by representing the Pilate chapters as historical, and by choosing place names and personal names that will not be immediately familiar to his readers, as well as by changing some key elements in the story of Jesus in the New Testament. This also is a way to focus attention on Pilate's very human flaws, which helps to set up the novel's conclusion.

Bulgakov was also writing during a time when there was a rise in militant atheism in Soviet Russia. I read a quote in which he stated that there was a historical Jesus, it was a fact, simple as that. Scholars have identified many parallels between details he includes in TM&M, especially in the Pilate chapters, and contemporary theological and historical research and debates about the existence of a historical Jesus. Based on this, it's possible that Bulgakov was intending TM&M, in part, to be a response to this debate.

[Nathan "N.R."]

Kris wrote: "I also think that schizophrenia is a diagnosis that mirrors Bulgakov's representation of a dual reality, the mythic/fantastic and the realistic."

Somewhere, somehow, Bakhtin's ideas about the double-voicedness of the word of the novel will raise its head here as well. In considering questions of who is narrating the novel we are addressing the question about the gap between the biographical Bulgakov and the author Bulgakov; between the author and the narrator; and the gap between the narrator and the characters. Even as the narrator is telling the story (fantasy), his word, perhaps, is simultaneously being spoken by the biographical Bulgakov about Soviet reality.

A further question I have for those of you reading the background material: to what extent was Bulgakov writing in a coded language in order to get his material past the censors, etc, or did he feel capable of speaking more or less directly, even if novelistically, about matters? That is, to what extent is his a dissident language resembling the coded sets of references out of which the Apocalypse of John is constructed?

[Kris]

Judith wrote: "I also never wondered about the narrator being other than the author. Am I missing something here (most probably I am missing quite a bit)? How could God tell a story the way this one is told? Nope, can't see it... "

I've seen arguments that the narrator is an omniscient narrator, but also some that point to the many nods to the narrator, and to the fact that several characters are actively engaged in writing throughout TM&M, as indicating that a character within TM&M is narrating the novel. Many of these critics have argued that Ivan is the narrator, but others have posited Woland. The critics who have done this have argued for a unified view of the novel, so they want to identify a single source from within the novel as the narrator. Not everyone agrees with them, but it's an interesting angle to consider.

[Kris]

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "A further question I have for those of you reading the background material: to what extent was Bulgakov writing in a coded language in order to get his material past the censors, etc, or did he feel capable of speaking more or less directly, even if novelistically, about matters? That is, to what extent is his a dissident language resembling the coded sets of references out of which the Apocalypse of John is constructed? "

I don't think Bulgakov expected TM&M to be published in his lifetime, particularly not when he was completing the final version, as he was quite ill and had already been put through the mill by censors. (He famously burned his ms version of the novel in Spring 1930 after having several of his plays banned and facing vicious attacks in the Soviet press. (He later reproduced the novel in late 1933-1934 - that was the third version.)

Apocalyptic references figure prominently in TM&M, and I think there's no question that even the 1966-7 censored version would have put Bulgakov at risk 30 years earlier. I'm interested in delving more into the criticism on these references, starting with The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction. In addition to TM&M, Bethea looks at The Idiot, Petersburg, Chevengur, and Doctor Zhivago.

[Carol]

You guys are losing me. I feel a little silly trying to keep up with the discussion. You guys are all so incredibly intelligent! It's intimidating.