List of used literature. Modern schools of transpersonal psychology

One of the leading themes of Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is the theme of Good and Evil, as well as the closely related theme of justice. Both of these problems are developed in parallel in the work - in the so-called “Yershelaim chapters” dedicated to Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Pontius Pilate, as well as in the Moscow chapters describing the life of Moscow in the 30s of the 20th century.
A kind of “connecting link” between these chapters, as well as between the earthly and heavenly worlds, between the lower and the higher in the novel are Woland (that is, Satan himself) and his retinue. It is the Devil, as well as Koroviev, Azazello and Behemoth, who suddenly appear in Soviet Moscow. What is the purpose of their visit?
To explain this, Bulgakov gives in his work a portrait of contemporary Moscow. In the novel, this city appears as “hell on earth” - an insane place where all kinds of human vices are concentrated. It is in Moscow that bureaucracy flourishes on a colossal scale - let us remember the episode in the suit of Prokhor Petrovich, who himself very successfully signs papers and creates resolutions. It is in this city that all spheres of life are affected by bribery (the story of the chairman of the housing association Nikanor Ivanovich Bosy), opportunism (director of Variety Styopa Likhodeev) and debauchery (Semliarov) flourish here.
In addition, Moscow is immersed in total fear, because here people “mystically” disappear from their apartments, and the city’s residents are divided into two categories: those who write denunciations (the image of Aloysius Mogarych), and those who suffer from them (the Master) .
In general, Moscow in the 1930s, according to Bulgakov, was immersed in an atmosphere of total immorality in the broadest sense of the word. Who else should appear here if not Satan himself?
However, Woland and his retinue perform a function unusual for them: they do not tempt, but punish those who have long succumbed to temptation.
Let us remember that the epigraph to the first part of the novel, which “introduces” Satan and his servants to us, is the lines from Goethe’s poem “Faust”: “I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good.” Following this “motto”, “dark” heroes restore justice - they perform a function that is traditionally attributed to the forces of Good. According to Bulgakov, Good and Evil, the Devil and God are two sides of the same coin, designed to perform a single function - to restore justice, to control the balance of light and evil in this world: “Everything will be right, the world is built on this.”
And if some kind of violation occurs, then the one who is stronger comes into play. The writer is of the opinion that in this case only Satan can restore order in Moscow.
Therefore, Woland, with the help of his servants, punishes the bribe-taker Nikonor Ivanovich Bosogo, the liar Varenukha, the slacker and libertine Styopa Likhodeev. The manager of the branch, the bartender at Variety, the mediocre poet Bezdomny, and Baron Meigel and others “get theirs.”
But Satan not only punishes “evildoers of all stripes.” He also, in accordance with his “creed,” “brings good.” After all, it is none other than Woland who saves the Master and unites him with Margarita. In addition, it is he who restores the text of the novel about Pontius Pilate (“manuscripts do not burn”). The Devil gives the Master the peace he needs so much, depriving him of the Light that he did not deserve: “There, there. The house and the old servant are already waiting for you there, the candles are already burning, and soon they will go out, because you will immediately meet the dawn.”
Thus, in my opinion, the answer to the question “What do Woland and his companions bring to the world: good or evil?” unambiguous As Bulgakov shows us, Satan returned to this world the justice he needed so much - he gave everyone what they deserved. This means, as it seems to me, that Woland and his retinue, despite their “original” purpose, bring good to the world, actively helping the forces of light.

Lecture No. 3

Point of view author in a novel

M.A. Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita”: methods for identifying it

1 Determining the author's position is an operation that is in many ways similar to determining the problematic of a work. IN literary text It is rare to find direct formulations (reasoning remarks, author's reasoning): literature more often speaks in figurative than logical language. Translating their vision of the content of the work into logical formulas, philologists must provide evidence in favor of the fact that the given text allows for the proposed interpretation. The more complex the text, the more factors the researcher needs to take into account when formulating what is commonly called (with a certain degree of convention) “the author’s position.” And the more diverse interpretations in such cases appear in the scientific literature.

“The Master and Margarita” is a work that has not even been approximately “solved” in serious philological research. This is recognized by philologists themselves who study last novel M.A. Bulgakov. There are reasons to doubt that an objective completeness of understanding of this novel is generally achievable. Firstly, the artistic edifice, which we conventionally consider the final text, was not completed by the author: Bulgakov died without completing the intended edit. Secondly, in this very edit (as Deacon Andrei Kuraev rightly points out) there was probably an element of self-censorship, which did not clarify, but, on the contrary, obscured the author’s position. Third, excruciating depression last months life also affected the changes that Bulgakov made to the most important final scenes of the novel.

However, the text of “The Master and Margarita” with which we are now dealing still looks like a sufficiently harmonious artistic whole so that we can at least try to formulate its problematics and even some of the author’s “answers” ​​to the questions posed in the novel. It is unlikely that the solutions we propose will become final. More importantly, we will try to obtain them together with our students, strictly adhering to the scientific principles of text analysis. This, in our opinion, is much more useful than simply “presenting” one of the existing (and not fully proven) concepts - even the one proposed by the compilers of school textbooks. Moreover, high school students usually experience this novel as something deeply personal and do not agree to accept other people’s approximate interpretations.

2 Before starting to work with the novel, schoolchildren are given an unusual task: make a list of what seemed incomprehensible in it. This work tends to be taken seriously, and we are able to focus on issues that really interest our students. Basically, they coincide with those that serious philologists argue about, but there are also those that require a simple commentary or more accurate knowledge of the text.

Having collected the sheets of questions, we can immediately sort them. The children themselves will answer simple questions right away, and we will write down complex questions on the board and in notebooks. The formulations change from year to year, but the essence of the main questions remains the same:

Is it really true that in the world created by Bulgakov, Woland rules and there is no God? (Option: did Bulgakov believe in God or only in the devil?)

Why are Yeshua and Matthew Levi described as so weak and vulnerable, devoid of beauty and greatness?

Why does Yeshua say that all people are good? (Otherwise: why, instead of a real gospel sermon, Yeshua talks about human kindness? Is it possible to identify Yeshua with Christ?)

Why does evil spirits look so cute? (In other words: does Bulgakov believe that evil spirits are capable of doing good?)

Why did Woland spare Margarita and fulfill her request? After all, they didn’t stand on ceremony with the other heroes that his gang used?

Was what is described in the Yershalaim chapters invented by the Master or guessed? (In other words: is this a novel or reality - in the system of Bulgakov’s plan?)

Why did the Master deserve not light, but peace? And whose verdict is this: his own, an invented hero, or the real God?

Why cowardice is the most terrible vice? (And what does Pontius Pilate have to do with it?)

Did Ivanushka the Bezdomny really end up becoming the Master’s student?

Let's say right away: the length of the article will not allow us to touch on all these questions (although work in class is most often structured as a sequential search for answers). Let us consider those of them, the answers to which are given by direct analysis of the text.

Before moving on to such work, it is necessary to clarify the context (as we remember, a kind of ODZ that cuts off obviously incorrect decisions). The biographical context allows us to assert: the novel “The Master and Margarita” cannot be considered directed “against God.” This is contrary to the author's intent. The book began with a visit to the editorial office of the magazine “Atheist” that outraged Bulgakov to the depths of his soul and continued with the prayer: “Help, Lord, finish the novel!” Bulgakov worked on this work as long as he could, overcoming pain and despair, and in delirium asked: “Who will take me? Will they take me?..” As V. Losev believes, “perhaps a painful question arose in the writer’s mind: who will take him after earthly life, which “extraterrestrial agency” - Woland or Yeshua?” We must immediately warn students: this novel most likely “protects” God from anti-religious propaganda, although the author himself was not a “church” person and was not distinguished by a sinless and righteous life.

3 To the first of the above questions ( who rules the world?) the answer can be found without resorting to complex calculations: it is written into the novel “in plain text.” There are scenes that show the true balance of power. The most striking of them is when Azazello, leading the souls of the Master and Margarita out of the basement, saw how the frightened cook raised her hand to make the sign of the cross and shouted: “I’ll cut off my hand!” In addition, no matter what style Yeshua Ha-Nozri is depicted in, it is he who determines the fate of the Master, and not Woland. The last (and most important) detail concerns literary time: the events in both novels (both the “Moscow” and the “Yershalaim”) take place on Strastnaya and end on the night before the Resurrection. On Saturday, Woland and his retinue leave Moscow, then throw themselves into the black abyss and disappear.

From this follows the only possible conclusion: in the world where the novel takes place, both the prince of darkness and the resurrected Christ God (and not just the executed wandering philosopher) actually exist. Only the presence of Woland is obvious, and the presence of Christ is barely discernible - even though His power is greater. So, in the novel there is visible devil And invisible God, much more powerful than the forces of evil (although the latter are trying in every possible way to deny this and demonstrate their enormous power and power).

The question discussed above is closely related to another - about why Woland honestly fulfilled Margarita's request, while all the other people who “collaborated” with him in one way or another were thrown into big trouble. Some readers get the impression that Woland helps the Master and Margarita solely out of sympathy for their love and suffering. Out of kindness, so to speak, of the soul, or out of a desire for justice. However, kindness is unusual for this character, and mercy is completely disgusting to him - he himself speaks about this after the ball. (It is not he who is “responsible” for justice in this world - this is mentioned in the scene of the last trial of Pilate.)

Woland mentions mercy twice in the novel (the first time - at a session at the Variety Show), but Bulgakov would not repeat an insignificant detail. The first time, after the public demanded to forgive Georges of Bengal and return his head, Woland says: “... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people...” The second time this is an obvious test for Margarita: after the ball she unexpectedly asks not for the Master, but for Frida, the only “guest” at the ball who is burdened by her crime. Margarita denies her mercy and refers to pride (a property for Woland that is understandable and pleasant). And yet, with her little power, she forgives - and after that Woland fulfills her demand, and does not throw her out of the “bad apartment” - to drown herself.

This episode contains a hidden reminiscence - a quote from the Sermon on the Mount, the text most famous for every Christian: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy” (Matthew 5:7). Having pardoned Frida, Margarita leaves Woland’s jurisdiction - that’s all, since the Word of God is an irrevocable and binding law for everyone. Let's check this conclusion - ask ourselves: is there any other artistic need for the appearance of Frida among the heroes of the novel, who is given unexpected attention? great attention? Apparently not. Well, let’s remember this “answer”: mercy, mercy is stronger than Woland. Let us also note that this conclusion does not contradict either our first “answer” (God exists in the world, and He is stronger than the devil), nor what we know about the author’s plans from the history of the creation of the novel.

4 In order to get answers to other questions, you need to take a closer look at the structure of the novel. Let's start by asking you to think about and justify your answer to the question: how many worlds are presented in the novel?(And further: Is there a connection between them and how is it expressed?)

Sometimes students understand this question in their own way and talk about how many plot lines there are in the novel. Usually they see three main plots: historical (“Yershalaim”), satirical (Woland and Soviet Moscow), lyrical (the line of the Master and Margarita). This is a convenient path for formal philological research (each line has its own traditions, and their combination makes the novel uniquely original). However, we are looking for answers to questions concerning the author’s position, and therefore we will leave these studies aside and return to the question specifically about “worlds”. Usually, only two autonomous worlds are named at first: Moscow and Yershalaim. This is not a very accurate answer, but let’s agree with it for now and consider what connects these worlds.

Both cases describe the events of Holy Week.

In both cases, a tragedy unfolds, the cause of which is human vices: greed, envy, betrayal, cowardice...

In both cases, the victim is a person who sought to bring a message of goodness into this world.

About the latter - a little more detail. Usually everyone notices the bold juxtaposition: Yeshua the Master. In our opinion, there is no reason to consider it blasphemous: the gospel “plot” is applicable to any era and to any person. Everyone who follows Christ is “guaranteed” their own cross and their own pain from encountering the untruths of this world. The analogy we saw makes it possible to say that the fate of an honest person, in particular an artist, in a totalitarian state is not news in this world (the topic is clear, and we will not dwell on it).

If the class does not see any other meaning in the proposed comparison, we will ask a few more questions. In the “Romance of Pilate” it is shown crucial moment in the history of mankind: the beginning of the Christian era (when any person was given the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of God by following Christ and using volitional and moral effort for this; before the resurrection of Christ this Kingdom was closed to people). Does it follow from this that in Moscow we also see a certain key moment in the history of mankind? And in general, why did Woland come to Moscow? And why exactly to Moscow?

The last question is the easiest to answer: in Moscow, the majority of citizens (according to Berlioz) consciously abandoned faith in God. (Remember Woland’s amazing reaction: he heartfeltly shakes Berlioz’s hand.) Deacon Andrei Kuraev believes that the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was a sign for Woland, and this is a convincing version. Next, it will not be difficult to answer the question: why did the devil come to Moscow? If no one else needs the Kingdom of God here, it means that the prince of darkness can try to reign instead of Christ. After all, a holy place is never empty, no matter what Berlioz says about it. Woland did not come on tour, he was testing the waters. And the hot May described in the novel could indeed become both a “key” and a “turning point” in the history of mankind. And we already know why he didn’t: at the Variety show, the Muscovites “failed the exam” (since Woland, in fact, did not come there to entertain them, but to test their readiness for the beginning of a new era): people turned out to be just people, sinners, but merciful. Having stopped the execution (buffoonish - but it’s an execution!) of Bengalsky, they, like Margarita later, turned out to be largely beyond Woland’s control. He was left with reprisals against “ little demons” Moscow life, and on Easter night he was forced to go home, as had happened many times before. And the ball turned out to be simply “traditional”.

This comparison shows us Bulgakov’s original plan (in the first editions there was neither the Master nor Margarita - only godless Moscow, where Woland appeared, and Yershalaim, where Yeshua Ha-Notsri came, in every possible way degraded in the depiction of the “black magician” to the level of an ordinary one, weak person). The meaning of this “message” is to warn what consequences will result from godlessness instilled at the state level.

5 Continuing the conversation about “worlds” in the novel, let’s take a closer look at the system of images. It has long been noted that in a novel there is a kind of “multiplication” of heroes performing the same function - but in different worlds. This property of the novel is especially noticeable in the portraits of those who claim supreme power. It’s not only Pontius Pilate who wears a cloak, is surrounded by a retinue, and speaks Latin. In the Moscow chapters, Woland and Professor Stravinsky claim the role of the ruler, whose resemblance to Pilate strikes Ivan Bezdomny. What meaning did the author put into this similarity?

Before answering this question, it makes sense to ask differently: Is the Moscow “world” homogeneous? Or are there some separate little worlds in it? Students usually identify several autonomous “living spaces”:

Moscow Massolita, Soviet bureaucracy; a purely satirically depicted Moscow pseudo-intelligent “rabble”, hostile to the Master;

Moscow of the Master and Margarita, their lyrical space, “fenced off” in Soviet Moscow;

Apartment No. 50 is a space occupied by evil spirits;

Professor Stravinsky's clinic is a shelter for the mad.

Pilate rules in Yershalaim; in apartment No. 50 - Woland; in a clinic for the mentally ill - a professor who looks so much like Pilate. And who rules in Moscow, where both the Master and his enemies live?

This is another invisible hero of the novel, whose unmentioned presence in this work has also been repeatedly noted by researchers. Moscow is ruled by Stalin, to whom Bulgakov (in insane hope) was going to “submit” his novel in order to obtain permission for publication, to whom he had already applied once, driven to despair by outright persecution, at whose whim the Moscow Art Theater continued to play “Days of the Turbins” - a sort of strong personal patron of the author. This invisible figure acquires interesting shapes due to comparison with other powerful people of this world. Stalin is comparable to Woland - as a huge evil who imagines himself to be the ruler, not yet of the world, but certainly of the country - for sure, knowing neither conscience nor mercy, hostile to God. He is also comparable to Stravinsky - the undivided ruler over the madmen locked in a madhouse (a very expressive metaphor, indeed). And, most importantly, he is comparable to Pontius Pilate - an earthly ruler with enormous power and at the same time with a man who faces a moral choice. Pilate was afraid to stand up for the persecuted, so as not to become a victim of a political denunciation, which the high priest Caiaphas threatened him with (and Pilate had reason to fear the Emperor Tiberius), and made an irreparable mistake, which he is doomed to regret not on earth, but in eternity.

Is Bulgakov’s novel in some way an appeal to Stalin as a person who was also capable of suffering pangs of conscience? Now this idea seems too naive to us. But let us remember the novel: after all, Yeshua Ha-Nozri reached Pilate - and this looks artistically convincing. There is another version: Bulgakov flattered Stalin by portraying the evil spirits as “pretty” because in this way he wanted to achieve the publication of his work. The author allegedly made a deal with his conscience, glorified inhuman force and thereby supported the “party line”... But if so, then the very meaning of such a publication is called into question. And in any case, it's time for us to figure out what the “message” both the Master and Bulgakov want to convey to readers?

6 We have come to a series of questions related to the image of Yeshua, his comparison with the image of the Master, with their common prophetic mission.

Let's start with what will shock religious readers the most: Why does Yeshua look so weak, helpless, humiliated, lonely? No greatness, no beauty, no royalty... Theologians are outraged by something else: Why, instead of a real gospel sermon, does this wandering impostor (a typical “intelligent wimp”) repeat what Christ never said: “All people are good”?

In his work (serious and competent), Deacon Andrei Kuraev calls the Yershalaim chapters “blasphemous.” And a little further he explains the meaning of such an image: in the Master’s novel, the events are shown from the point of view of Pilate (a proud Roman and pagan) and end before the Resurrection. Pilate saw before him not God, but simply a man, and from his proud Roman point of view, this Man looked something like this. “This was the “image” of Christ, this is how He seemed to the crowd. And from this point of view, Bulgakov’s novel is brilliant: it shows the visible, external side of the great event - the coming of Christ the Savior to Earth, exposes the scandalousness of the Gospel, because you really need to have an amazing gift of Grace, to perform a true feat of Faith, so that in this dusty Wanderer without a diploma higher rabbinical education to identify the Creator of the Universe.” Maybe Bulgakov (the Master?) overdid it in the “degrading” details (they, however, for some reason do not harm the reader’s simple sympathy for this hero), but let’s check the text.

- Does Yeshua have any real power and authority?- Oddly enough, yes. He performs a miracle of healing (as simply and imperceptibly as all the gospel miracles were performed). And he tells Pilate literally the same thing that was told to him in the present Gospel: you (the hegemon) have no power over life and death - it belongs to My Heavenly Father (John 18:36). However, it seems that the wandering philosopher is trying very hard to look like just a weak person.

- Why is it important for all three - Yeshua Ha-Notsri, the Master, Bulgakov - that this hero is seen as an ordinary person? Or you can ask differently: is the novel about Pontius Pilate and his strange relationship with a man arrested on a political denunciation addressed only to Stalin?- The answer is obvious: of course not. The novel is addressed to those same “conscious atheists” who lived in our country in the 30s (otherwise would it have been worth seeking publication?).

-Is the novel about love for God?- No. We are talking about love for a person (although - if you follow the logic Holy Scripture- these are very closely related things: “to love God” and “to love your neighbor”). About purely human relationships.

- Why does the Master so emphasize that this is a novel about Pontius Pilate?- Yes, because it was Pilate’s moral choice that was his main topic(as it should be in the novel).

-What must Pilate choose between?- Between political loyalty to Caesar (and with it all earthly blessings) and conscience, as well as that very “simply” love for one’s neighbor.

- Was such a novel relevant in the 30s of the twentieth century?- And how... How much evil was done in those years by the hands of the most ordinary people, and many of them, deep down in their souls, could be “good”, but were afraid of incurring the terrible wrath of the state.

- Is anything said about this in the novel?- Yes: cowardice is “the most terrible vice.”

So, we are convinced that the novel is about moral choice and about purely human relationships. Many of Bulgakov’s contemporaries could face such a choice any day.

7 Now about the other side of the novel, which also caused heated discussions: Why does evil spirits look so cute? And does she really “eternally want evil and always do good” (see epigraph to the novel)?

The last statement coincides with the very widespread opinion that good and evil (like light and shadow) are two inseparable aspects of being (or the Absolute - in the terminology of the authors of occult doctrines). And it is often attributed to Bulgakov, and most often by the authors methodological developments. Let's clarify.

- Who in the novel expresses this point of view?- Woland in a dispute with Levi Matvey. Woland justifies himself by punishing the evil, but leaving to the good something like Tolstoy's non-resistance to evil through violence. But taking this character at his word is risky - let's look at things.

-Who were the victims of Woland and his retinue?- In short, they are sinners who “bought” the promises of demons or simply rejected the protection of God (there are many examples, the guys themselves will gladly give them).

- Is there anything new here compared to the traditional idea of ​​the fate of sinners?- Apparently not. It’s a completely traditional picture, except, perhaps, for one thing: both the author and the readers treat the demons’ mockery of the victims with a great deal of gloating and almost without sympathy. And when Woland declares that he is doing a good deed - punishing evil, for some reason everyone agrees with him. We need to figure out why?

For this purpose, let us return to the comparison of “worlds”. What episodes of Moscow life correspond to the “life and customs” of apartment No. 50?- With the “life and customs” of Massolit. Particularly noticeable are the echoes between the dinner “at Griboyedov” and the ball at Satan’s (it’s also easy to give examples).

- What do Woland’s “guests” have in common with the privileged Moscow public?- Focus on purely earthly interests (money, dacha, apartment, food, entertainment, affairs...)

- What is the difference between them?- Woland’s world looks both “more honest” and more artistic in its intoxication with earthly goods. The world of Moscow is wretched and poor. (Remember the advice that Woland gives to the bartender about how to live the rest of his life.)

- Is Woland really ready to “provide” earthly happiness to humanity?- He doesn’t need it (just remember the naked ladies), and besides, he’s a deceiver. The “happiness” he offers is an illusion, a shadow, ashes, pieces of paper instead of money, etc.

- What meaning does Bulgakov put into this comparison?- Probably satirical: it’s still not in favor of Moscow. Soviet citizens were deprived of their spiritual wealth, lured with promises of an earthly communist paradise, but in return for material benefits, citizens received a miserable, miserable life. The fact that housekeeper Natasha chose to become a witch sounds like a death sentence Soviet life, and not as a condemnation of Natasha.

- What is the relationship between evil spirits and Soviet authorities? - Woland and his team do not recognize any authority over themselves: those who came to arrest them, for example, they mocked to their heart's content. It is these scenes that probably make Bulgakov's demons especially attractive in the eyes of our readers. Well, this is a very strong (albeit risky in every sense) satirical move.

8 The assessment of the main characters also causes a lot of controversy. Let's try to understand the author's attitude towards the Master and Margarita by continuing our comparison of “worlds”.

- Do The Master and Margarita have anything in common with Moscow literary circles?- The students are surprised to discover that there is. These are completely “earthly” people, with earthly (and sinful) love, with the ability to appreciate beautiful and expensive things (especially for the heroine), with a thirst for earthly rewards - fame - for talent and skill.

-What distinguishes them from the leaders of Massolit?- That they are honest and “real”: the Master is really talented (unlike other “writers”), his novel is a truly significant “word” addressed to the conscience of society (which is what Russian classical literature has always been), and Margarita is the most In fact, she loves him, although this love is “lawless,” but the author still does not condemn his heroine. And she is ready to give up all her blessings for the sake of her love.

- Does the outside world notice this difference?- The world notices the Master when he presents his novel (Margarita remains in the shadows) and attacks him - both for his talent and for the meaning of his work. In the main, the Master turned out to be a stranger to them.

Let us now try to compare the characters with the world of the “Yershalaim novel”. We have already talked about the Master Yeshua analogy. Does Margarita have her own double in this world?- It happens that in class he even names two (and sometimes three) doubles. The most obvious answer is Matthew Levi. Both of them, in their love and devotion, go into direct rebellion against God. Levi Matthew blasphemes in order to “reduce” God’s wrath on himself and on Yeshua and thereby end his suffering. And Margarita makes a deal with Woland.

- Why don’t they suffer punishment for this?- Even for the reader who does not know the corresponding Gospel text (Matthew 10:39) about how someone who will destroy it can save his soul, it is still clear: one cannot condemn one for selfless love.

- Can the love of Margarita and Levi Matthew be called sublime and ideal?- No, oddly enough. Bulgakov depicts very human passions. Both heroes are not only trying to save their loved one, they are not averse to revenge.

Pilate also wants to take revenge - this unexpectedly brings him closer to both Levi Matthew and Margarita. All of them have not yet learned anything from Yeshua, their devotion is partial and almost blind (it is sometimes compared to Banga’s devotion to Pilate, especially when it comes to the afterlife; thus, the dog turns out to be Margarita’s third “double”).

So, Bulgakov showed both the Master and Margarita as completely earthly people, sinful and weak, but loving, honest, alive, which distinguishes them from Moscow anti-heroes, just as pangs of conscience distinguish Pilate from other participants in the events.

-Are there “higher” heroes in the novel?- They usually call Yeshua and Levi Matthew (only they are somewhere “in the region of light”). They are indifferent to earthly temptations. This is especially noticeable in the image of Levi Matthew. Students will easily remember details that are likely an allusion. It is known that in the first centuries of Christianity, civilized pagans contemptuously called Christian preachers “dirty” - for their indifference to external beauty. The Master, who survived the arrest, and Ivanushka the Bezdomny, who was shocked by the events at the Patriarch’s, become just as strange and “unseemly”... However, for them this is more a sign of brokenness than of ascetic indifference to everything earthly.

9 And finally, the question of the Master’s posthumous fate. We do not have the opportunity to analyze the most complex problem of “authorship” within the novel (who exactly - Woland or the Master - owns the “novel about Pilate”; who ultimately judges the Master - his hero, a wandering philosopher, or the One who is present in the novel unnamed; whose Pilate was released by authority at the end - etc.). It is precisely in these questions (despite the abundance of versions) that the work’s incompleteness is unlikely to ever allow us to obtain final and unambiguous answers.

Readers are usually most interested in another question: why did the Master deserve not light, but peace? There are also several versions about this. Some believe that the Master did not deserve the light because he renounced his prophetic novel (E.B. Skorospelova). Others blame him for his collaboration with Woland, although they note that it was not the result of a conscious choice (A. Kuraev). Still others note his extreme spiritual emptiness, inability to rise to the light. The fourth simply talk about the quality of the “peace” that awaits the Master in Margarita’s company (and value it very little).

Let us venture to make one guess about this “sentence” and how the ending of the novel is generally structured. In this work, as we have already said, next to the “visible” characters there are “invisible” and unnamed ones, but at the same time they are the most real. They take this text beyond the limits of the game, which literature is always to some extent, into life itself. In addition to the two that have already been discussed, there is a third - the real author of this book. If we take this fact into account, the mirrored ending of the novel will look like this: the Master wrote his novel, presented it to Woland (a sort of earthly patron), but Yeshua Ha-Nozri judged him, and the Master received the fate that he believed in and dreamed about (one can also recall what Woland said about the posthumous fate of the head of Baron Meigel) - peace.

The real author wrote a novel, wanted to submit it to Stalin (understanding what kind of character he was), but knew very well that in any case he would present his work to another Judge and he could not avoid this Court (“Will they take me?.. Who will take me?”) . Since the Master inside the novel is practically the alter ego of the author, Bulgakov could not call him (himself) worthy of light. I just begged for mercy and at least peace. And yet he managed to talk about his longing for the world.

You can test the last statement by asking yourself: Is there this longing for the world (for God) in the novel?- Eat. She is shown in a recurring dream, which is dreamed first by Pilate, then by Ivanushka. For the first time, the reader has a strong desire to join the strange walk of Pilate and Ha-Nozri along the moonbeam. This is followed by the release of Pilate, but the Master does not join the heroes - he goes into his “peace”. No matter what Woland says (“why chase after the footsteps of what is already over?” - but the Master cannot forgive himself...), the novel truly ends with the same dream and the same longing, the aspiration of the soul somewhere beyond the bounds visible existence, where the strange philosopher takes Pilate. It is the secret aspiration and dissatisfaction of the soul that is the very last word of the novel.

It is also important that Ivan Bezdomny sees this last dream. There is also a heated debate about this hero: some believe that he actually became a student of the Master and “received the light” (as was the case in the early versions of the novel), others believe that his fast scientific career testifies against him. Let's say one thing: it is hardly correct to apply purely realistic standards to a character with such a folklore name (and corresponding role).

This dream is written in such a way as to seem deceptive and “not proving anything.” The mere fact that Pilate and Ha-Nozri are walking along lunar ray, symbolic. Truth in the Christian poetic tradition is symbolized by the sun (and the Sun of Truth is one of the most famous figurative descriptions of Christ), while the moon is a deceptive and evil luminary. And the resurrection of Yeshua occurs only in a dream, and not in reality... But we knew before: the novel ends on the eve of the Resurrection and does not cross this fundamentally important line with a single line. Yes, and it would be strange to write about this greatest triumph in a country that still had to suffer so much before being spiritually resurrected.

34. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”: art world and figurative system.

At the center of the work, in the comparison of its different layers, in their fantastic combination, is the tragedy of an individual dependent on a tyrant, and the eternal struggle between good and evil, and the eternal problem of guilt, responsibility and retribution. The tragic story of a Master, persecuted by circumstances that have a concrete embodiment in real people (Berlioz and others), is comparable to the tragedy and transformation of Yeshua, condemned to torment by the tyrant Pontius Pilate. This comparison reveals the author’s point of view on the fate of the artist, dependent on a dark, unreasonable force that sees Good as a threat to its existence. The master, the champion of Good, while remaining faithful to his calling, also accomplishes a feat, a feat of creativity. The novel about the feat of the preacher Yeshua Ha-Nozri, written by the Master, has its own problems. This is, first of all, the question that Pontius Pilate asks Yeshua: “What is truth?” By comparing the positions of these heroes, the problem of man and power is posed and resolved. What is the inner freedom of man and his lack of freedom, Good and Evil, their eternal confrontation and struggle? And the questions arising from these eternal questions of existence are the same eternal questions as loyalty and betrayal, mercy and forgiveness. They are projected onto the fate of the Master, onto the relationship with the mysterious force that is trying to break him, onto the role of Woland in the Moscow episodes. Bringing together the events of two thousand years ago and episodes of Moscow life, Bulgakov argues that the main problems of human existence remain the same. These are eternal problems. Each new generation tries to resolve them in its own way, forgetting about the search for truth and responsibility. The observant Woland also notices this. The problem of personality and power is resolved by the Master and Bulgakov in the scene of the confrontation between Yeshua and Pontius Pilate. The almighty procurator of Judea is himself dependent on Rome. He is ready to help the wandering preacher and save him. but he is afraid and he approves the death sentence. He is afraid of denunciation. He is afraid of losing his power and being guilty in the eyes of the Roman Caesar, from whom there can be no mercy. And he goes against his conscience, which told him that Yeshua is innocent and needs to be saved. Later, interrogating Levi Matthew, the procurator wants to know about Yeshua’s last words and hears what he said about cowardice as the most terrible and shameful vice. Pontius Pilate committed a betrayal out of cowardice, the price for which was suffering for two thousand years, when his unforgiven soul knew no peace. At the end of the novel, we learn that Pontius Pilate was forgiven by Yeshua himself, who said that there was no execution. As the ruler of Judea, Pontius Pilate seems to be free. But he does not have internal freedom, that is, the determination to act as his conscience and sense of justice dictate, he is not free internally. Life demands a high price for inner freedom, for a clear conscience. This is the price paid for inner freedom by Yeshua, and in the Moscow situation of the 20th century, by the Master, who creates his work as his conscience and talent dictate. And each of them makes a choice between Good and Evil: what to serve, which side to take. The choice is also expensive. Levi Matthew, the tax collector, having believed in the truth preached by Yeshua, throws money on the road and rushes after the preacher. Then he is ready, at the cost of his life, to save the crucified man from torment. Margarita performs the same feat of loyalty, trying and hoping to find and free the Master. These parallels in Bulgakov's novel are intended to convince the reader of the eternity and topicality of the problems of Good and Evil, loyalty and betrayal, man and power. Associated with them are issues of responsibility and retribution for betrayal committed consciously, for selfish reasons. The massacre of Judas is carried out by the head of the secret service, Afranius, directed by the same Pilate. And if the procurator is still forgiven by Ha-Nozri, even after thousands of years, Judas is not forgiven. The theme of mercy and forgiveness is heard in many episodes of the novel. Margarita, promising to stand up for Frida, begs Woland to forgive her. And she is forgiven, because mercy is highest. And in it, mercy and forgiveness, lies the truth. The Master, who burned his novel, is also forgiven, although he was not given light, but only the peace that his suffering heart so needed. The projection of this issue is presented in the Moscow episodes. The storyline of Woland and his retinue is constructed by the author not only as opposing the line of Yeshua. Woland acts as a judge in the corrupt world of Moscow critics and writers, helpfully ready to hunt down anyone pointed at from above. Woland's victims are those who deserve punishment. These are not only literary dealers. These are rogue administrators, and the entire bureaucratic system, which has become the dominant force, hiding behind demagoguery about the dictatorship of the proletariat. The author treats Woland's henchmen and partly himself with a condescending and ironic attitude, showing that he and his retinue are not so terrible compared to what those in power do or those encouraged by power. Woland understands the artist and even tries to protect him. But what is the meaning of the interference of evil spirits in human affairs? For the sake of justice and punishment of the guilty? The fact is that there is no one to restore moral standards of life: no one cares about this, in reality there is no force that would fight evil. What is happening in Moscow during the action of the novel can rightly be called hell. Therefore, it is natural for Woland and his retinue to appear in it. The unnaturalness of Moscow morals is not only that the capital is dominated by bureaucrats, swindlers and crooks, mediocrity is supported in the writing community, there is a whole corporation of literary critics who defame talented books and their creators. And young, inexperienced, sometimes ignorant people are commissioned (!) to write works on a certain topic, just as Berlioz commissioned an atheistic poem for Ivan Bezdomny. Then the poet himself, like his other brothers in the workshop, admit that they wrote completely mediocre things. But Ivan Bezdomny was lucky: he met and became friends with the Master, although in the “house of sorrow” - in a psychiatric hospital, from which the Master could no longer leave. Now, using new material - the Moscow life of the Master - the problem of man and power, artist and power arises. And the situation is not much different from what it was two thousand years ago. The bosses of the writers were afraid of the Master's novel, because they recognized themselves in Pontius Pilate, understood the artist's intention and saw danger in it. That is why the Master’s fate is so sad. And again, now based on the material of the Moscow episodes, the problem of freedom and lack of freedom of the artist, the artist and the authorities, loyalty and betrayal, responsibility and retribution is solved.

35. Historical and social space in M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”.

1) Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891 - 1940)
2) Complex relations with modernity and Stalin. The leader was aware of B.'s genius, so he saved his life, but did not give him freedom.
3) Only 1 play was allowed to be staged (by Stalin personally) - “Days of the Turbins”
4) District "M. and M." written from 1929 to 1940, but published in 1966-67. The time of writing the novel historically coincides with the most severe terror (the apogee - 1937), when the state dictated not only actions, but also thoughts. Bulgavok auto-censored the text. Everything is encrypted, harsh attacks are destroyed.
5) The main idea of ​​the district is the eternal opposition of moral and creative asceticism to the forces of evil, embodied in two time plans; in grotesquely depicted modern times (using mythological imagery) and gospel scenes.
6) 2 time layers: Jerusalem (Yershalaim) - the beginning of our era and Moscow of the 30s.
7) Almost every hero of the novel (Mosk.plast) has his own prototype. The master is sometimes compared to Gorky, and Woland to Stalin. It is explained as follows: The Master, like Gorky, ultimately entered the service of the satanic system of Woland-Stalin.
8) There are many allusions to representatives of the literary community. (The critic Latunsky, hated by Margarita, is O. Litovsky, chairman of the Main Repertoire Committee - theatrical censorship.) The literary environment is familiar to the author, he himself suffered and was not published. MASSOLIT is not exactly deciphered anywhere, it is only indicated that this is one of the literary associations. This is a parody of RAPP, MAPP, etc. Such options are also offered - mass Soviet literature. Or even LIT is like a stone, but all together is “a mass like a stone.” (Conclusions about B.’s attitude towards literature, writers, associations and the reader)
9) The village of Peredelkino, donated to writers by Stalin in 1935 for the construction of writers' dachas, is designated under the name. Perelygino.
10) RAPP (somewhere they write that MAPP) was located in Herzen’s house. (Tverskoy Boulevard, if anyone is interested). Bulgakov replaced Herzen with Griboyedov, where he has a restaurant.
11) Bureaucratic system: what are the demands of Likhodeev from Yalta to confirm his identity?
12) Monetary transactions: currency speculation (the chairman of the housing association Bosoy “hides” currency in the ventilation - currency transactions are prohibited in the USSR), greed: white chervonets fall to the public in Variety (by the way, they had this color until 1937, when the monetary reform - help in setting the date).
13) Denunciation technique in the USSR. Especially at this time. Woland's retinue pawns Barefoot in this way, pretending to be a tenant of another apartment.
14) A sign of a totalitarian regime: undesirables and dissidents were sent to psychiatric hospitals, which were essentially prisons. In Bulgakov's works, the following people end up there: the master, Ivan the homeless, Barefoot (professor Stravinsky's clinic).
15) Satan’s Ball was written based on impressions of a reception at the American ambassador, where Bulgakov was once invited along with the political, military and literary elite.
16) Almost all of Moscow has been studied, all (or almost all) places in the novel are correlated with real ones. Only there was no Tram on the Patriarch's.
17) The newspaper campaign against the Master is the persecution of Bulgakov after the publication of his plays "Days of the Turbins", "Running", "Zoyka's Apartment" and the novel " White Guard". "Let's hit Bulgakovism!" was the title of an article in the newspaper "Working Moscow". "Hit the Pilatchina" critic Lavrovich suggests after the Master published excerpts from the novel about Pontius Pilate. (!!! He is not the only writer who was persecuted! Develop the topic) Gorky died in Gorki near Moscow, the Master - near Moscow in the Stravinsky clinic. (Point 17 you don’t need to read further, only if you are very interested))) In the novel, darkness came after the death of the Master (before he found peace). In life, the eclipse was on June 19 1936 - the day after Gorky's death. Azazello gave the Master the Falernian wine tsekuba. Almost the same name was given to one of Gorky's brainchildren - TSEKUBU (Central Commission for the Improvement of the Living Life of Scientists). The Master looks like Gogol - shaved, dark-haired, with a sharp nose and with alarmed eyes. For the sake of this similarity, the Master appears for the first time in the novel without a beard. The Master's burning of his novel is an allusion to Gogol's burning of the second volume of Dead Souls.
18) The NKVD line is exaggerated in the film adaptation, in the novel - very subtly: in a conversation with Woland, Bezdomny suggests sending Kant to Solovki.
19) Bulgakov was a reporter, knew the language of the street: in courtyard slang, the word “Annushka” meant “death,” and “to take on Annushka” meant “to intimidate with the threat of death.”
20) Muscovites: Woland’s conclusion - people are like people, they love money, they are frivolous, only the housing issue has spoiled them.
21) Idiocy (but in essence it was so) - they began to exterminate black cats in the novel. And in general, “Cultural people took the point of view of the investigation.” This is ideology.
22) Conclusions about the importance of the Historical and social layer in the novel. Encryption (and the need for this for historical reasons). Thin image. Irony. Satire.

I have already written what to say about the work of M.A. Bulgakov, and especially about “The Master and Margarita,” one can go on and on. It was also said that the novel turns to each reader in a special way, reveals an individual meaning. Moreover, with each subsequent reading you can almost certainly discover a little more than the last time. Therefore, there was no way to limit ourselves to just one post about “The Master and Margarita”. So, part two, dedicated, as you might have guessed, to the historical background of the novel.

Let's start with this. 1938, hot summer. Bulgakov, under the influence of unprecedented inspiration, writes his novel and finishes it by June 25 (the first reprint of the novel dates back to this date). In the same year, sketches began and the plot of the novel “Pyramid” by Leonid Leonov was formed. Briefly: an angeloid arrives in Moscow, taking the surname Dymkov. Somehow, Stalin summons him to the Kremlin and asks him to help “reduce the excessive playfulness of people’s lusts and thoughts in order to prolong life on earth” (murder). Angeloid refuses and leaves Moscow. In 1938, another work takes place - Lazar Lagin's fairy tale "Old Man Hottabych".

Three fantastic books, three unusual main characters - an angel, a devil and a genie. Interestingly, the first two disappear from the capital shortly after their arrival; Hottabych, on the contrary, remains, joins the ranks of the pioneers and begins working in the circus. Why is this happening? The answer lies on the surface: Soviet ideology. The devil and the angel are entities directly related to religion; the genie is a figure from the pre-Christian era. It is quite logical that it is easier to adapt Hottabych to the reality of that time than the “Christian” Woland and Dymkov.

But why exactly 1938, not earlier and not later? The answer again lies in history: 1937 marks the peak of Stalin's repressions. Fantastic works become an attempt to comprehend these terrible “miracles” that cannot be explained Soviet era, the goals of which are clear to everyone, but the reasons are unknown to almost no one.

So, Bulgakov writes a novel about the devil, including the Yershalaim chapters, discussions about truth, and so on. Did Mikhail Afanasyevich know how this could turn out under Soviet rule? Did you hope that The Master and Margarita would be published? Of course, Bulgakov was counting on posthumous publication in the post-Stalin or even post Soviet Russia, but he did not create the work for this purpose. “The Master and Margarita” was a novel for the authorities, and its author addressed it to one specific person - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

It must be said that Mikhail Afanasyevich had a special connection with Stalin. The leader of the USSR was very fond of the play “Days of the Turbins” and watched the production many times. One cannot help but recall the case when Stalin personally called Bulgakov, after which a job was found for the writer at the Moscow Art Theater. Woland’s remark naturally suggests itself here: “Never ask for anything! Never and nothing, and especially among those who are stronger than you. They will offer and give everything themselves!”

About the image of Woland. The figure of Joseph Vissarionovich is clearly visible in him. The destruction caused in Moscow by Satan's gang becomes an image of repression (just as senseless and merciless). But what’s interesting is that the devil in “The Master and Margarita” is very fair, he punishes only those who really deserve it: bureaucrats who cheat on their wives, bribe-takers who want easy prey, spies who sniff out everything about everyone, and so on. Really good and talented people they do not suffer at the hands of the devil and his gang. So does Mikhail Afanasyevich really justify the repressions? The answer is yes, Bulgakov is really trying to do this. He considers Stalin a “useful evil”, necessary to restore order in the state, eliminate those “spoiled by the housing problem” and spiritually poor people, all this little thing that deserves nothing more than serious punishment. But at the same time, the author gives the leader advice: no need to touch the artists, they need care. Mikhail Afanasyevich did not encourage repression at all; he wrote a book justifying Stalin in order to protect himself and his colleagues. "The Master and Margarita" is a novel in defense of cultural figures, directed against bureaucracy and scoundrels.

Integrated lesson of literature and history in 11th grade. This lesson is designed for students in the humanities class and represents training session with technology-based research activities and organization group work"zigzag" type.

Download:

Preview:

Biographical department

Read fragments of the chronicle of Bulgakov’s life (Moscow period) and answer the question: how did the political and social life of the country influence the fate of the writer.

Sokolov B.V. Mikhail Bulgakov: affairs and days.

1921 – arrival in Moscow. He and his wife move into a student dormitory, then into an apartment at a kindergarten with distant relatives, then into the room of another relative and soon register there.

1926 . – speech at the debate “Literary Russia”. Bulgakov argued: “It’s time for the Bolsheviks to stop looking at literature from a narrow utilitarian point of view and it is necessary to give a place in their magazines to the real “living word” and “living writer.” The writer must be given the opportunity to write simply about “the person” and not about politics.” A search in Bulgakov's room carried out by employees of the OGPU (United State Political Administration). Typewritten copies of the story were confiscated. dog's heart"and the manuscript of Bulgakov's diary. Call to the investigator to testify. During interrogation by the OGPU he testified: “On peasant themes I can’t write because I don’t like the village. It’s difficult for me to write from everyday life. I am very interested in the life of the Russian intelligentsia, I love them, I consider them, although weak, but a very important layer in the country.”

1927 – Bulgakov left the Moscow Society of Dramatic Writers and Composers in protest against the position of A.V. Lunacharsky, who sharply criticized “The Days of the Turbins.”

1928 - removal of the plays “Zoyka’s Apartment” and “Days of the Turbins” from the repertoire, banning the play “Running”.

1929 – Stalin opposes “Run”. The decision of the Main Repertoire Committee to remove all Bulgakov's plays from the repertoire. Bulgakov writes letters of application to I. Stalin, M. Kalinin, A. M. Gorky and others asking for permission to leave the USSR, since it is impossible to obtain a livelihood in their homeland. Submits an application to leave the All-Russian Writers Union.

1930 – Bulgakov writes a letter to the Government of the USSR with a request to determine his fate and either give him the right to emigrate, or provide the opportunity to work as an assistant director at the Moscow Art Theater. Stalin called Bulgakov and resolved the issue of employing Bulgakov as a director.

1935 – Bulgakov helps A. Akhmatova draft a letter to Stalin asking for participation in the fate of the arrested son L. Gumilyov and husband N. Punin. They are soon released.

1936 – the play “Ivan Vasilyevich” is prohibited from being staged.

1938 – Bulgakov writes a letter to Stalin with a request to ease the fate of the playwright N. Erdman, who was forbidden to live in Moscow. The letter remained unanswered. Reads the first 3 chapters of “The Master and Margarita” to N. Angarsky, who talks about the impossibility of publishing the novel.

1940 – A few days before his death he said: “I wanted to serve the people... I wanted to live in my own corner... I did no harm to anyone...”

Biographical department

Answer card

Biographical department

Answer card

Completed the task______________________________________________________________

Biographical department

Answer card

Completed the task______________________________________________________________

Preview:

Historical department

Task: analyze data from historical sources and identify the features of Soviet society of the 1920-30s, correlate them with data from the novel “The Master and Margarita”. Draw conclusions.

A) does real Soviet society correspond to the ideal of the theorists of socialism?

B) at what points did you notice discrepancies, what are they?

Q) Why do you think the USSR built a society so little similar to the one described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin?

Do you think the ordinary Soviet person, busy with everyday work, solving his small everyday problems, had an accurate idea of ​​this ideal?

1. Society for Equality and Justice. All benefits should be shared equally.

1. "Hello, dear Comrade Stalin! Our beloved leader, teacher and friend of the entire happy Soviet country. Dear Comrade Stalin! I send you my warm and heartfelt greetings and wish you the best success in your life, be healthy forever. I want to describe to you my sad life.

Dear comrade. Stalin! I heard your speeches on the radio, you said that in the Soviet Union the life of children is very good, they study in schools, the doors to school are wide open for them. This is, of course, true, dear Comrade Stalin.

Dear Joseph Vissarionovich, my brother Alexander and I are unable to go to school.

Because, Comrade Stalin, we have no food. We already have a cow and a horse

took away the Kurilovsky Village Council in 1935. And now we have been living for the second year

without a cow and a horse... We have a family, Comrade Stalin, of 8 people: 6 children, the most

the eldest girl is 14 years old and the youngest is 2 years old...

I, Comrade Stalin, go to school in the 4th grade, and my brother also goes to school in the 2nd

th class. The rest do not study because they are still young. Dear Comrade Stalin,

It is very impossible for us to go to school, since there is no food, and besides, we have very

severe anemia.

Dear and beloved leader, Comrade Stalin! I think and hope for you that you

can you provide us with any assistance? And do not leave my request unfulfilled.

To Comrade Stalin Thank you to Comrade Stalin for our happy life! Behind

our happy childhood, For our wonderful days. N. Shvetsova (I’m 12 years old).

1. Closed distribution was intended to protect the working population from the worst effects of shortages. But he quickly acquired another function - ensuring privileged supplies for certain categories of privileged persons. For various elite categories of officials and specialists, special closed distributors were created, supplying them with goods at a much higher price. High Quality than those available in ordinary closed stores and factory canteens.

S. Fitzpatrick. Social history of Soviet Russia in the 30s, Moscow, 2008

1. One young physicist... ate a steak received from his father-in-law's distributor and praised: “It’s tasty and especially pleasant, because others don’t have it...”. People were proud of the letters of their rations, rights and privileges and hid their salaries from the lower categories... “We are hungry,” Evgeniy Yakovlevich explained to us in 1930, when we returned from Armenia. - But now everything is new. Everyone was divided into categories and everyone was fasting or eating according to their rank. He is given exactly what he deserves..."

(From the memoirs of N. Mandelstam)

1. When a class seizes power, a certain part of this class turns into agents of the power itself. Thus, a bureaucracy arises... I mean that the social position of a communist who has at his disposal a car, a good apartment, regular vacation... differs from the position of the same communist working in coal mines, where he receives from 50 to 60 rubles a month ...

2. Material well-being

1. Meanwhile, people lived in communal apartments, where one family usually occupied one room, in dormitories and barracks. Only a small group with extreme privileges had separate apartments. A much larger number of people settled in the corridors and “corners” of other people’s apartments: those who lived in the corridors and hallways usually had beds, and the inhabitants of the corners slept on the floor in the corner of the kitchen or some other common area. In Moscow in 1930, the average standard of living space was 5.5 m2 per person, and in 1940 it dropped to almost 4 m2. City housing departments had the right to evict tenants - for example, those considered “class enemies” - and move new ones into already occupied apartments. The latter custom, euphemistically referred to as “densification,” was one of the worst nightmares for city dwellers in the 1920s and early 1930s. An apartment occupied by one family could suddenly, at the behest of the city authorities, turn into a multi-family or communal one, and the new residents, as a rule, came from the lower classes, were completely unfamiliar to the old ones and were often incompatible with them. In Moscow and other large cities, all kinds of housing fraud flourished: fictitious marriages and divorces, registration of strangers as relatives, rental of “beds and corners” at exorbitant prices (up to 50% of monthly earnings). As reported in 1933, “the occupation [for housing] of stokers, gatehouses, basements and stairwells has become a mass phenomenon in Moscow.”

3. Man to man...

1. The term “communal” has a certain ideological connotation, conjuring up a picture of a collective socialist dormitory

In fact, judging by most stories, communal apartments did not at all contribute to the cultivation of the spirit of collectivism and habits of communal life among the residents; in fact, they did the exact opposite. Each family jealously guarded personal property, such as pots, pans, and plates, stored in the kitchen, a common area. Demarcation lines were strictly drawn. Envy and greed flourished in the closed world of the communal apartment, where often the size of the rooms and the size of the families occupying them did not correspond to each other, and families living in large rooms caused deep resentment of those who lived in small ones. This indignation was the source of many denunciations and lawsuits, the purpose of which was to increase the living space of the informer or plaintiff at the expense of the neighbor.

(S. Fitzpatrick. Social history of Soviet Russia in the 30s, Moscow, 2008)

2. 1933 We, half-starved, stand at the window of the writers' dining room... and the wife of one famous writer... stands above us on the stairs and with mocking arrogance tells us: “And we feed our puppies with these scraps...”. I hated her for this phrase, and when she was repressed, I thought: “That’s what this chicken needs.”

(from memories Ukrainian writer V.Sosyury)

3. “How ashamed one becomes to live! No real communication is possible because you are afraid of the coward in yourself and it is disgusting to talk to a person, bearing in mind that he may be talking to you in order to inform you somewhere. With a smart person - you are afraid of his intelligence - he uses it! With a stupid person, you’re afraid that he’ll talk stupidly...”

(from the diary of writer M.M. Prishvin)

4. Free personality...

1. “The “totalitarian” regime has no less destructive effect on fiction. The struggle between trends and schools gave way to the interpretation of the will of the leaders. A forced organization has been created for all groups, a kind of concentration camp. artistic word. Mediocre but well-intentioned narrators, like Serafimovich or Gladkov, are elevated to classic status... Outstanding artists either commit suicide, or seek material in the depths of time, or fall silent..."

(from the book by L.D. Trotsky “The Betrayed Revolution”)

2. Culture flowing into the people in a broad wave ceases to be culture... Universities are open to everyone... but is there at least one among them graduate School worthy of the name, equal in quality to the old university? It is permissible to doubt this. A worker or peasant guy, with enormous efforts and O Tom, who has earned a diploma as a doctor or engineer, cannot write or even speak Russian correctly. Having acquired a certain stock of professional information, he is completely devoid of general culture and, opening a book, meeting with a surviving intellectual of the old school, at every step he painfully feels his ignorance. He may have become a specialist... but he did not and will not become a cultured person... The reason is clear. The environment that previously processed and trimmed the young barbarian who entered it, better than any school and books, has disappeared...

(from the work of G.P. Fedotov “Letters about Russian culture” 1938-1939)

3.In the 1930s. were created creative unions architects, writers, composers, artists, journalists, filmmakers.

Historical department

Answer card

Completed the task_______________________________________________

Preview:

Questions for commissions:

Answer the following questions and write a written commission opinion based on them.

Questions:

1. What signs of a totalitarian regime can you find on the pages of the novel and in passages from historical sources?
2. At the banquet dedicated to victory in Great Patriotic War, Stalin made a toast about the importance of the cog man. How does the writer relate to the problem of depersonalization of the Soviet people? Formulate your attitude to the problem.
3. Does Bulgakov's image of Moscow correspond to the facts about the life of real Moscow in the 20-30s?
4. Is the writer's laughter at the life of the new Soviet state justified?

The conclusion of the commission on the “Bulgakov question”: how truthfully the writer portrayed Moscow in the 30s and whether the writer’s laughter at the life of Soviet people was justified.

Commission decision___________________________________________________________

Rationale:

Composition of the commission:

Executive secretary of the commission ________________________________

Date of:

Preview:

Literary department

Read excerpts from M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita.” Determine what is the object of Bulgakov’s satire in each fragment and what techniques of satire the writer used (grotesque, irony, sarcasm, fantasy, carnival laughter, buffoonery - see textbook, p. 125).

1. Excerpt from chapter 5. MASSOLIT.

MASSOLIT is located in Griboedov in such a way that it couldn’t be better or more comfortable. Anyone entering Griboedov's, first of all, involuntarily became familiar with the notices of various sports clubs and with group, as well as individual photographs of MASSOLIT members, with which (photographs) the walls of the staircase leading to the second floor were hung.

On the doors of the very first room on this top floor one could see a large inscription “Fish and Country Section”, and there was also a picture of a crucian carp caught on a hook.

Something not entirely clear was written on the door of room No. 2: “One-day creative trip. Contact M.V. Podlozhnaya.”

The next door bore a brief but completely incomprehensible inscription: “Perelygino.” Then a casual visitor to Griboyedov’s eyes began to run wild from the inscriptions that were colorful on his aunt’s walnut doors: “Registration in the queue for paper at Poklevkina’s,” “Cash desk,” “Personal calculations of sketchists”...

Having cut through the longest queue, which began already downstairs in the Swiss one, one could see the inscription on the door, into which people were banging every second: “Housing problem.”

Behind the housing issue, a luxurious poster was revealed, which depicted a rock, and along its ridge a horseman was riding in a burqa and with a rifle over his shoulders. Below there are palm trees and a balcony, on the balcony there is a sitting young man with a tuft, looking somewhere up with very, very lively eyes and holding a pen in his hand. Signature: “Full-length sabbaticals from two weeks (short story) to one year (novel, trilogy). Yalta, Suuk-Su, Borovoe, Tsikhidziri, Makhinjauri, Leningrad (Winter Palace).” There was also a queue at this door, but not excessive, about one and a half hundred people.

Every visitor, unless he was, of course, a complete idiot, when he got to Griboedov, immediately realized how good life was for the lucky members of MASSOLIT, and black envy immediately began to torment him. And immediately he turned bitter reproaches to heaven for not rewarding him with literary talent at birth, without which, naturally, there was no point in dreaming of acquiring a MASSOLIT membership card, brown, smelling of expensive leather, with a wide gold border, known to all Moscow with a ticket.

2. Excerpt from chapter 7. Bad apartment.

It must be said that this apartment - No. 50 - has long enjoyed, if not a bad, then at least a strange reputation. Until two years ago, its owner was the widow of the jeweler de Fougere. Anna Frantsevna de Fougere, a fifty-year-old respectable and very businesslike lady, rented out three of the five rooms to tenants: one whose surname was, it seems, Belomut, and another with a lost surname.

And then two years ago, inexplicable incidents began in the apartment: people began to disappear from this apartment without a trace.

One day on a weekend, a policeman came to the apartment, called the second tenant (whose last name has been lost) into the hallway and said that he was asked to come into the police station for a moment to sign for something. The tenant ordered Anfisa, Anna Frantsevna’s devoted and long-time domestic worker, to say if he received a call that he would return in ten minutes, and left with a polite policeman in white gloves. But not only did he not return ten minutes later, he never returned at all. The most surprising thing is that, obviously, the policeman disappeared with him.

Pious, or, more frankly, superstitious, Anfisa bluntly told the very upset Anna Frantsevna that this was witchcraft and that she knew very well who had taken both the tenant and the policeman, but by nightfall she did not want to talk. Well, as you know, witchcraft has only to begin, and then nothing can stop it. The second tenant disappeared, I remember, on Monday, and on Wednesday Belomut seemed to disappear into the ground, but, however, under different circumstances. In the morning, as usual, a car came to pick him up to take him to work, and drove him away, but did not bring anyone back and never returned.

Madame Belomut's grief and horror defy description. But, alas, both were short-lived. That same night, having returned with Anfisa from the dacha, to which Anna Frantsevna had for some reason hastily gone, she no longer found citizen Belomut in the apartment. But this is not enough: the doors of both rooms occupied by the Belomut spouses turned out to be sealed.

Two days passed somehow. On the third day, Anna Frantsevna, who had been suffering from insomnia all this time, again hurriedly left for the dacha... Needless to say, she did not return!

Anfisa, who was left alone, cried to her heart's content and went to bed at two o'clock in the morning. What happened to her next is unknown, but residents of other apartments said that in No. 50 some knocks were heard all night and as if electric lights were burning in the windows until the morning. In the morning it turned out that Anfisa was gone too!

For a long time, all sorts of legends were told in the house about the disappeared and about the cursed apartment, such as, for example, that this dry and pious Anfisa allegedly carried twenty-five large diamonds belonging to Anna Frantsevna on her withered chest in a suede bag. That it was as if in the woodshed at the very dacha where Anna Frantsevna was hastily going, some untold treasures in the form of the same diamonds, as well as gold money of the tsar’s mintage, were discovered spontaneously... And so on in the same way. Well, what we don’t know, we can’t vouch for.

3. Excerpt from chapter 9. The struggle for Berlioz’s room.

Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, chairman of the housing association at house No. 302 bis on Sadovaya Street in Moscow, where the late Berlioz lived, had been in terrible trouble since the previous night from Wednesday to Thursday.

The news of Berlioz's death spread throughout the house with some supernatural speed, and from seven o'clock on Thursday morning they began to call Bosom by phone, and then to appear in person with statements containing claims to the deceased's living space. And within two hours Nikanor Ivanovich accepted thirty-two such statements.

They contained pleas, threats, slander, denunciations, promises to make repairs at their own expense, indications of unbearable cramped conditions and the impossibility of living in the same apartment with the bandits. Among other things, it was amazing in its own way artistic power a description of the theft of dumplings, placed directly in a jacket pocket, in apartment No. 31, two promises to commit suicide and one confession of a secret pregnancy.

They called Nikanor Ivanovich into the front hall of his apartment, took him by the sleeve, whispered something, winked and promised not to remain in debt.

This torment continued until the beginning of the first hour of the day, when Nikanor Ivanovich simply ran away from his apartment to the control room at the gate, but when he saw that he was being watched there too, he ran away from there too.

4. Excerpt from chapter 9. Arrest of Bosogo.

And now the damned translator found himself in the front hall, checked out the number there and for some reason began to speak very tearfully into the phone:

- Hello! I consider it my duty to report that our chairman of the housing association at house number three hundred two bis on Sadovaya, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, is speculating in currency. At the moment, in his apartment number thirty-five there are four hundred dollars in ventilation, in the toilet, and in newsprint. Timofey Kvastsov, a resident of the said building from apartment number eleven, speaks. But I beg you to keep my name secret. I fear the revenge of the above-mentioned chairman.

What happened next in apartment No. 50 is unknown, but it is known what happened at Nikanor Ivanovich’s. Having locked himself in his dressing room with a hook, he pulled out a bundle from his briefcase, which the translator had imposed on him, and made sure that it contained four hundred rubles. Nikanor Ivanovich wrapped this pack in a piece of newspaper and stuffed it into the ventilation duct.

Five minutes later the chairman was sitting at the table in his small dining room. His wife brought from the kitchen neatly chopped herring, thickly sprinkled with green onions.

And at that moment two citizens entered the dining room. When looking at the citizens, Nikanor Ivanovich turned white and stood up.

-Where is the toilet? – the first one, who was wearing a white shirt, asked worriedly.

There was a knock on the dining table (it was Nikanor Ivanovich who dropped the spoon on the oilcloth).

“Here, here,” Pelageya Antonovna answered quickly.

And those who came immediately rushed into the corridor.

- What's the matter? - Nikanor Ivanovich asked quietly, following the newcomers, - we can’t have anything like that in our apartment... And you have documents... I’m sorry...

The first one showed Nikanor Ivanovich the document as he walked, and the second one at the same moment found himself standing on a stool in the restroom, with his hand stuck into the ventilation duct. Nikanor Ivanovich’s eyes grew dark, the newspaper was taken off, but the bundle contained not rubles, but unknown money, either blue or green, and with the image of some old man. However, Nikanor Ivanovich saw all this unclearly; some spots floated before his eyes.

“Dollars are in the ventilation,” the first one said thoughtfully and asked Nikanor Ivanovich softly and politely: “Your bag?”

- No! - Nikanor Ivanovich answered in a terrible voice, - the enemies planted it!

- I do not have! No, I swear to God, I’ve never held it in my hands! – the chairman cried desperately.

Five minutes later, the residents of the house who were in the yard saw how the chairman, accompanied by two other persons, proceeded straight to the gate of the house. They said that Nikanor Ivanovich had no face, that he staggered as he walked as if drunk, and muttered something.

And an hour later, an unknown citizen appeared in apartment number eleven, just at the time when Timofey Kondratyevich was telling other residents, choking with pleasure, about how the chairman had been swept away, lured Timofey Kondratyevich out of the kitchen into the hallway with his finger, and said something to him and disappeared with him.

5. Excerpt from chapter 12. At a black magic session.

Bassoon, having dismissed the injured entertainer, announced to the public as follows:

- Tapericha, when this annoying thing is sold out, let's open a ladies' store!

And immediately the floor of the stage was covered with Persian carpets, huge mirrors appeared, illuminated from the sides by greenish tubes, and between the mirrors were display cases, and in them the spectators, in amused amazement, saw Parisian women's dresses of different colors and styles. This is in some windows, and in others hundreds of ladies' hats appeared, both with feathers and without feathers, and with buckles, and without them, and hundreds of shoes - black, white, yellow, leather, satin, suede, and with straps, and with pebbles. Cases appeared between the shoes, and the shiny edges of the crystal bottles sparkled with light. Mountains of handbags made of antelope skin, suede, silk, and between them - whole piles of hammered gold oblong cases in which lipstick can be found.

Bassoon, smiling sweetly, announced that the company was exchanging old ladies' dresses and shoes for Parisian models and Parisian shoes completely free of charge. He added the same regarding handbags, perfumes and other things.

And then it broke through completely, and women came onto the stage from all sides. In the general excited chatter, laughter and sighs, a man’s voice was heard: “I won’t let you!” - and the female one: “Despot and tradesman, don’t break my hand!” The women disappeared behind the curtain, left their dresses there and came out wearing new ones. A whole row of ladies sat on stools with gilded legs, vigorously stamping their newly shod feet into the carpet. The bassoon knelt down, wielded a horny dresser, the cat, exhausted under piles of handbags and shoes, dragged itself from the display case to the stools and back, the girl with a disfigured neck kept appearing and disappearing and reached the point where she had completely begun to rattle in French, and What was surprising was that all the women understood her perfectly, even those who did not know a single French word.

General amazement was caused by a man who squeezed onto the stage. He announced that his wife had the flu and that he therefore asked him to convey something to her through him. To prove that he was really married, the citizen was ready to present his passport. The caring husband’s statement was met with laughter, Fagot shouted that he believed as himself, even without a passport, and handed the citizen two pairs of silk stockings, the cat himself adding a case of lipstick.

Late women rushed to the stage, lucky women in ball gowns, pajamas with dragons, formal business suits, and hats pulled down over one eyebrow flowed from the stage.

Then Fagot announced that due to the late hour the store was closing until tomorrow evening in exactly one minute, and an incredible bustle arose on the stage. The women quickly, without any fitting, grabbed the shoes. One, like a storm, burst behind the curtain, threw off her suit there and took possession of the first thing that turned up - a silk robe, in huge bouquets, and, in addition, managed to pick up two cases of perfume.

Exactly a minute later a pistol shot rang out, the mirrors disappeared, display cases and stools fell through, the carpet melted into the air just like the curtain. The last thing to disappear was the tall mountain of old dresses and shoes, and the stage became again austere, empty and bare.

12. Excerpt from the epilogue. Consequence.

The investigation into his case lasted a long time. After all, after all, it was a monstrous thing! Not to mention the four burned houses and hundreds of people driven mad, there were also killed. This can be said for sure about two: about Berlioz and about that unfortunate employee in the bureau for introducing foreigners to the sights of Moscow, the former Baron Meigel. After all, they were killed. The burnt bones of the second were found in apartment No. 50 on Sadovaya Street after the fire was extinguished. Yes, there were victims, and these victims required an investigation.

But there were more victims, and after Woland left the capital, and these victims, sad as it may be, were black cats.

About a hundred of these peaceful, loyal and useful animals to man were shot or exterminated by other means in different places of the country. A dozen and a half cats, sometimes severely mutilated, were taken to police stations in different cities. For example, in Armavir, one of the innocent cats was brought by some citizen to the police with his front paws tied.

Besides the cats, some minor troubles befell some people. Several arrests occurred. Among others, those detained for a short time were: in Leningrad - citizens Volman and Volper, in Saratov, Kyiv and Kharkov - three Volodins, in Kazan - Volokh, and in Penza, and it is completely unknown why - Candidate of Chemical Sciences Vetchinkevich... True, he was huge, very dark brunette.

In addition, nine Korovins, four Korovkins and two Karavaevs were caught in different places.

A certain citizen was removed from a Sevastopol train tied up at the Belgorod station. This citizen decided to entertain the passengers traveling with him with card tricks.

In Yaroslavl, just at lunchtime, a citizen appeared at a restaurant with a primus stove in his hands, which he had just taken from being repaired. Two doormen, as soon as they saw him, abandoned their posts in the dressing room and ran, followed by all the visitors and employees from the restaurant. At the same time, the cashier inexplicably lost all her proceeds.

There was a lot more, you can’t remember everything. There was a great stir of minds.

6. Excerpt from chapter 13. Harassment of the Master.

– I first came into the world of literature, but now, when it’s all over and my death is obvious, I remember it with horror! – the master whispered solemnly and raised his hand. “Yes, he struck me extremely, oh, how he struck me!”

- Who? – Ivan whispered barely audibly, afraid to interrupt the excited narrator.

- Yes, editor, as I say, editor. Yes, that's how he read it. He looked at me as if my cheek was swollen with gumboil, somehow glanced sideways at the corner and even chuckled in embarrassment. He unnecessarily crumpled the manuscript and quacked. The questions he asked me seemed crazy to me. Without saying anything about the essence of the novel, he asked me about who I was and where I came from, how long had I been writing and why nothing had been heard about me before, and even asked, from my point of view, a completely idiotic question: who is I? inspired to write a novel on such a strange topic?

Finally, I got tired of him, and I asked him point blank whether he would publish the novel or not.

Here he began to fuss, began to mumble something and declared that he could not personally resolve this issue, that other members should familiarize themselves with my work editorial board, namely the critics Latunsky and Ariman and the writer Mstislav Lavrovich. He asked me to come in two weeks.

I came two weeks later and was received by some girl with her eyes slanted towards her nose from constant lies.

“This is Lapshennikova, the editorial secretary,” said Ivan, grinning, knowing well the world that his guest was so angrily describing.

“Maybe,” he snapped, “so, from her I received my novel, already quite greasy and disheveled.” Trying not to let her eyes meet mine, Lapshennikova informed me that the editors had been provided with materials for two years in advance and that therefore the question of publishing my novel, as she put it, was no longer necessary.

“I remember, I remember that damn loose-leaf newspaper,” the guest muttered, drawing a sheet of newspaper in the air with two fingers, and Ivan guessed from further confused phrases that some other editor had printed a large excerpt from a novel by someone who called himself a master.

According to him, no more than two days passed when an article by the critic Ahriman appeared in another newspaper, which was called “The Enemy under the Wing of the Editor,” which stated that Ivanov’s guest, taking advantage of the editor’s carelessness and ignorance, made an attempt to smuggle an apology for Jesus Christ into print .

- Oh, I remember, I remember! – Ivan cried. - But I forgot what your last name is!

“Let’s leave, I repeat, my last name, it doesn’t exist anymore,” answered the guest. - It's not about her. A day later, in another newspaper signed by Mstislav Lavrovich, another article was discovered, where the author intended to hit, and hit hard, Pilatchin and that godman who decided to smuggle (that damned word again!) it into print.

Stunned by this word “Pilatchina,” I unfolded the third newspaper. There were two articles: one by Latunsky, and the other signed with the letters “N. E." I assure you that the works of Ariman and Lavrovich could be considered a joke in comparison with what Latunsky wrote. Suffice it to tell you that Latunsky’s article was called “The Militant Old Believer.”

The articles didn't stop. I laughed at the first ones. But the more of them appeared, the more my attitude towards them changed. The second stage was the stage of surprise. Something extremely false and uncertain was felt in literally every line of these articles, despite their menacing and confident tone. It seemed to me - and I could not get rid of it - that the authors of these articles were not saying what they wanted to say, and that their rage was caused by this. And then, imagine, the third stage came - fear. No, not fear of these articles, understand, but fear of other things that are completely unrelated to them or to the novel. So, for example, I began to be afraid of the dark. In short, the stage of mental illness has arrived.

7. Excerpt from chapter 15. Interrogation of Bosogo.

Nikanor Ivanovich has little in his memory of this other place. I only remembered a desk, a wardrobe and a sofa.

There, with Nikanor Ivanovich, whose vision was somehow blurred from the rush of blood and emotional excitement, we entered into a conversation, but the conversation turned out to be somehow strange, confused, or rather, it didn’t work out at all.

The first question that was asked to Nikanor Ivanovich was this:

– Are you Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, chairman of house committee number three hundred two bis on Sadovaya?

To this Nikanor Ivanovich laughed a terrible laugh and answered literally like this:

– I’m Nikanor, of course, Nikanor! But what a fool I am as a chairman!

- So how? - they asked Nikanor Ivanovich, squinting.

“And so,” he answered, “if I was the chairman, then I should have immediately established that he is an evil spirit!” So what is this? The pince-nez is cracked... all torn... What kind of translator can he be for a foreigner!

-Who are you talking about? - they asked Nikanor Ivanovich.

- Koroviev! - Nikanor Ivanovich cried, - he’s holed up in our apartment number fifty! Write: Koroviev. He must be caught immediately! Write: sixth front door, there he is.

-Where did you get the currency from? – they asked Nikanor Ivanovich sincerely.

“The true God, the almighty God,” said Nikanor Ivanovich, “sees everything, and that’s where I want to go.” I never held it in my hands and had no idea what kind of currency it was! “The Lord will punish me for my depravity,” Nikanor Ivanovich continued with feeling, now buttoning his shirt, now unbuttoning it, now crossing himself, “he took it!” He took it, but he took it with our Soviet ones! I prescribed for money, I don’t argue, it happened. Our secretary Bedzhnev is good, too! Frankly speaking, all thieves are in the house management. But I didn’t take any currency!

When asked not to play the fool, but to tell how the dollars got into the ventilation, Nikanor Ivanovich knelt down and swayed, opening his mouth, as if wanting to swallow a parquet checker.

“Would you like,” he mumbled, “to eat the land that I didn’t take?” And Koroviev is the devil.

8. Excerpt from chapter 17. Costume of Prokhor Petrovich.

An empty suit sat behind a huge desk with a massive inkwell, and with a dry pen not dipped in ink, he ran over the paper. The suit had a tie, a pen was sticking out of the suit pocket, but there was no neck or head above the collar, nor were any hands protruding from the cuffs. The suit was immersed in work and was completely unaware of the chaos that reigned all around. Hearing that someone had entered, the suit leaned back in its chair, and the voice of Prokhor Petrovich, well known to the accountant, sounded over the collar:

- What's the matter? After all, it is written on the doors that I do not accept.

The beautiful secretary squealed and, wringing her hands, cried:

- You see? See?! He is absent! No! Bring him back, bring him back!

Then someone poked his head into the office door, groaned and flew out. The accountant felt his legs tremble and sat down on the edge of his chair, but did not forget to pick up his briefcase. Anna Richardovna jumped around the accountant, tearing at his jacket, and screamed:

“I always, always stopped him when he cursed!” So I’m done,” then the beauty ran up to the desk and exclaimed in a musical, gentle voice, a little nasal after crying:

- Prosha! Where are you?

– Who do you think is “Prosha” here? – the suit inquired arrogantly, sinking even deeper into the chair.

- He won’t know! He won't recognize me! You understand? – the secretary sobbed.

– I ask you not to cry in the office! - Already angry, said the hot-tempered striped suit and pulled a fresh stack of papers towards him with his sleeve, with the obvious purpose of putting a resolution on them.

- No, I can’t see this, no, I can’t! - Anna Richardovna shouted and ran out into the secretary’s room, and the accountant flew out after her like a bullet.

“Imagine, I’m sitting,” Anna Richardovna said, shaking with excitement, again clutching the accountant’s sleeve, “and a cat comes in.” Black, healthy, like a hippopotamus. Of course, I shout at him, “Screw me!” He goes out, and instead of him a fat man comes in, also with some sort of cat-like face, and says: “What are you, citizen, shouting at visitors?” And go straight to Prokhor Petrovich, I, of course, follow him, shouting: “Are you crazy?” And he, the impudent one, goes straight to Prokhor Petrovich and sits down in the chair opposite him! Well, that one... He - kindest soul human, but nervous. He lost his temper! I do not argue. A nervous man, he works like an ox, he lost his temper. “Why, he says, are you barging in without a report?” And the impudent one, imagine, lounged in a chair and said, smiling: “And I, he says, came to talk to you about some business.” Prokhor Petrovich flared up again: “I’m busy!” And he, just think, answers: “You are not busy with anything...” Eh? Well, here, of course, Prokhor Petrovich’s patience snapped, and he cried out: “What is this? Take him out, the devil would take me!” And he, imagine, smiled and said: “The devil will take it? Well, it’s possible! And, fuck, I didn’t have time to scream, I saw: this one with the cat’s face and si... sitting... suit... Geee! - Anna Richardovna howled, spreading her mouth, which had completely lost all shapes.

Choking on a sob, she took a breath, but said something completely incongruous:

- And writes, writes, writes! Wow! He's talking on the phone! Costume! Everyone ran away like rabbits!

The accountant just stood there and shook.

9. Excerpt from chapter 17. Choral singing.

It turned out that the head of the city branch, having “completely ruined light entertainment” (according to the girl), suffered from a mania for organizing all kinds of circles.

- He rubbed points on his superiors! - the girl yelled.

During the year, the head managed to organize a club for the study of Lermontov, chess and checkers, ping-pong and a horse riding club. By the summer, he threatened to organize a fresh water rowing club and a mountaineering club.

And today, during lunch break, he, the manager, comes in...

“And he leads by the arm some son of a bitch,” the girl said, “he came from nowhere, in checkered trousers, in a cracked pince-nez and... a completely impossible face!”

The faces of the future climbers darkened, but the manager immediately called on everyone to be cheerful, and the specialist joked, joked, and swore that singing takes very little time, but the benefits from this singing, by the way, are a whole carload.

Well, of course, as the girl said, the first to jump out were Fanov and Kosarchuk, the most famous branch sycophants, and announced that they were signing up. Then the rest of the employees became convinced that singing was inevitable, and they had to sign up for the club too. They decided to sing during the lunch break, since the rest of the time was occupied by Lermontov and checkers. The manager, to set an example, announced that he had a tenor, and then everything went like in a bad dream. The checkered specialist choirmaster yelled:

- Do-mi-sol-do! - he pulled the shy ones out from behind the closets, where they were trying to escape from singing, told Kosarchuk that he had perfect pitch, whined, whined, asked to respect the old regent-singer, tapped his fingers with a tuning fork, begging for the sound of “The Glorious Sea.”

They thundered. And they thundered gloriously. Checkered really understood his business. Finished the first verse. Then the regent apologized, said: “I’ll be a minute,” and... disappeared. They thought that he would actually return in a minute. But ten minutes passed and he was gone. Joy overwhelmed the affiliates - he escaped.

And suddenly they somehow sang the second verse on their own, everyone was led by Kosarchuk, who, perhaps, did not have perfect pitch, but had a rather pleasant high tenor. Sang. There is no regent! They moved to their places, but before they had time to sit down, they began to sing, against their will. Stop - but that was not the case. They will be silent for three minutes and then burst out again. If they keep quiet, they will burst out! Then they realized there was trouble.

10. Excerpt from chapter 18. Bartender Sokov.

The black magician was stretched out on some kind of immense sofa, low, with pillows scattered on it. As it seemed to the barman, the artist was wearing only black underwear and black pointed shoes.

“I,” the barman began bitterly, “am the manager of the buffet of the Variety Theater...

The artist extended his hand forward, on the fingers of which stones sparkled, as if blocking the barman’s mouth, and spoke with great fervor:

- No no no! Not another word! Under no circumstances and never! I won’t take anything in your mouth in your buffet! I, most respected one, passed by your stand yesterday and still can’t forget either the sturgeon or the feta cheese. My precious one! Cheese cheese is not green, someone deceived you. She's supposed to be white. Yes, and what about tea? After all, this is slop! I saw with my own eyes how some unkempt girl poured raw water from a bucket into your huge samovar, while the tea continued to be poured. No, my dear, that’s impossible!

“I’m sorry,” said Andrei Fokich, stunned by this sudden attack, “I have nothing to do with this matter, and sturgeon has nothing to do with it.”

- That is, how does it have anything to do with it if it is spoiled!

“The sturgeon has been sent back fresh,” the barman said.

- Darling, this is nonsense!

-What nonsense?

- The second freshness is nonsense! There is only one freshness - the first, and it is also the last. And if the sturgeon is second freshness, then this means that it is rotten!

“I’m sorry,” the barman began again, not knowing how to get rid of the artist who was nagging him.

“I can’t apologize,” he said firmly.

“I didn’t come for this,” the barman said, completely upset. “Yesterday you deigned to do tricks... among other things, pieces of paper flew from the ceiling,” the barman lowered his voice and looked around in embarrassment, “well, they all grabbed them.” And then a young man comes into my buffet, gives me a chervonets, I give him eight and a half in change... Then another. I fight back everything. And today I started checking the cash register, and lo and behold, instead of money there was cut paper. The buffet was fined for one hundred and nine rubles.

- Are they scammers? - the magician asked the guest anxiously, - are there really scammers among Muscovites?

In response, the barman smiled so bitterly that all doubts disappeared: yes, there are scammers among Muscovites.

- It's low! - Woland was indignant, - you are a poor man... after all, you are a poor man?

The barman pulled his head into his shoulders, so that it became clear that he was a poor man.

– How much savings do you have?

The question was asked in a sympathetic tone, but still such a question cannot but be considered indelicate. The barman hesitated.

“Two hundred and forty-nine thousand rubles in five savings banks,” a cracked voice responded from the next room, “and two hundred gold tens under the floor of the house.”

The barman seemed attached to his stool.

11. Excerpt from chapter 18. In Torgsin.

About a quarter of an hour after the fire started on Sadovaya, a tall citizen in a checkered suit and with him a large black cat appeared at the mirrored doors of Torgsin on the Smolensk market.

For some reason the misanthrope doorman did not like this couple of visitors.

“We only have currency,” he wheezed, looking irritably from under his shaggy, moth-eaten gray eyebrows.

“Perhaps I have a full Primus of currency,” the cat-like fat man passionately interjected into the conversation, rushing into the store. Looking at the outlandish couple with hatred and doubt, the doorman stepped aside, and our acquaintances, Koroviev and Behemoth, found themselves in the store.

A short, completely square man, blue-shaven, wearing horn-rimmed glasses, wearing a brand new hat, not wrinkled and without streaks on the ribbon, in a lilac coat and red kid gloves, stood at the counter and hummed something imperiously. A salesman in a clean white robe and a blue cap was serving a lilac client. With a very sharp knife, very similar to the knife stolen by Levi Matvey, he removed from the fat, weeping pink salmon its snake-like skin with a silvery tint.

“And this department is magnificent,” Koroviev solemnly admitted, “and the foreigner is handsome,” he benevolently pointed his finger at the lilac back.

“No, Fagot, no,” Behemoth answered thoughtfully, “you, my friend, are mistaken.” There is something missing in the face of the lilac gentleman, in my opinion.

The lilac back trembled, but probably by accident, for the foreigner could not understand what Koroviev and his companion were saying in Russian.

- Karoshi? – the lilac buyer asked sternly.

“Worldwide,” answered the seller, coquettishly picking under the skin with the tip of a knife.

“I love Karoshi, but I don’t like bad ones,” the foreigner said sternly.

- Of course! – the seller answered enthusiastically.

Here our friends moved away from the foreigner with his salmon to the edge of the pastry counter.

“It’s hot today,” Koroviev turned to the young, red-cheeked saleswoman and did not receive any answer from her. - How much are tangerines? - Koroviev asked her then.

“Thirty kopecks a kilo,” answered the saleswoman.

“Everything bites,” Koroviev noted with a sigh, “eh, eh...” He thought a little more and invited his companion: “Eat, Behemoth.”

The fat man took his primus stove under his arm, took possession of the top tangerine in the pyramid and, immediately devouring it with its skin, began to grab the second one.

– What are you doing this, you bastard?!

Pavel Iosifovich was already hurrying to the scene of action.

- Citizens! - he shouted in a vibrating thin voice, - what is this being done? Ass? Let me ask you about this! Poor man,” Koroviev let his voice tremble and pointed to Behemoth, who immediately put on a tearful face, “the poor man spends the whole day repairing the primus stove; he's hungry... but where can he get the currency? Well, the poor man took a tangerine to try. And the whole price of this tangerine is three kopecks. And now they are whistling like nightingales in the forest in spring, disturbing the police, distracting them from their work. Can he? A? - and then Koroviev pointed to the lilac fat man, which caused the strongest anxiety to appear on his face - who is he? A? Where did he come from? For what? Are we bored without him? Did we invite him, or what? Of course,” the former regent yelled at the top of his voice, sarcastically twisting his mouth, “he, you see, is in a formal lilac suit, he’s all swollen from salmon, he’s all stuffed with currency, but for ours, for ours?! I'm sad! Bitterly! Bitterly! - Koroviev howled, like the best man at an ancient wedding.

This whole stupid, tactless and probably politically harmful thing made Pavel Iosifovich shudder angrily, but, strangely enough, it was clear from the eyes of the crowded audience that it aroused sympathy in so many people! And when Behemoth, holding his dirty, torn sleeve to his eye, exclaimed tragically:

– Thank you, faithful friend, you stood up for the victim! - a miracle happened. A most decent, quiet old man, dressed poorly but cleanly, the old man, who was buying three almond cakes in the confectionery department, suddenly changed. His eyes flashed with battle fire, he turned purple, threw the bag of cakes on the floor and shouted:

- Is it true! - in a childish thin voice. Then he grabbed a tray, throwing off the remains of the chocolate Eiffel Tower destroyed by Hippo, waved it, tore off the foreigner’s hat with his left hand, and with his right hand hit the foreigner’s bald head with the flat of the tray. There was a sound like the sound that happens when sheet metal is thrown onto the ground from a truck. The fat man, turning white, fell on his back and sat down in a tub of Kerch herring, knocking out a fountain of herring brine. Immediately the second miracle happened. Lilac, having fallen into the tub, cried out in pure Russian, without signs of any accent:

- They are killing! The police! Bandits are killing me! - apparently as a result of shock, suddenly mastering a hitherto unknown language.

Then the doorman's whistle stopped, and in the crowds of excited shoppers, two police helmets flashed closer. But the insidious Behemoth, like a gang dousing a shop in a bathhouse, doused the confectionery counter with gasoline from a primus stove, and it burst into flames on its own.

Literary department

Answer card (fill in at least 5 lines)

Completed the task ______________________________________________________________

Preview:

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com

Slide captions:

Moscow of the 30s in M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” Integrated history and literature lesson

Problem? Lev Kamenev: Mikhail Bulgakov: “A sharp pamphlet on modernity. You can’t print!” Lev Borisovich Kamenev - Soviet party and statesman, Bolshevik, revolutionary. PAMPHLET - a work usually directed against the political system as a whole or its individual aspects, against one or another public group, parties, governments, etc., often through the exposure of individual representatives ( Literary encyclopedia). “My mind is satirical. From the pen come things that sometimes seem to sharply offend social-communist circles. The negative phenomena of life in the Soviet country attract my close attention.”

Preview:

Moscow of the 30s in M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”

Integrated lesson of literature and history in 11th grade

Literature teacher Magina N.V.

History teacher Tretyakova M.N.

Comment on the lesson:This lesson is designed for students in the humanities class and is a training session based on the technology of research activities and the organization of group work using the “zigzag” type.

Goals:

1) determine the features of contemporary events depicted by Bulgakov, help students understand the author’s position;

2) develop the ability to draw analogies between historical reality and the events depicted in the work;

3) develop research and collaboration skills.

Equipment: presentation, handouts, cards - “certificates”

Technological lesson map

During the classes :

1. Literature teacher: About his work M. A. Bulgakov said: “I always write with a clear conscience and as I see.” It was precisely this principle of creativity, to which the writer remained faithful until the end of his life, that did not allow him to fully realize himself as a writer under the conditions of the new Soviet state. But it is precisely this honesty with oneself that captivates us, readers, in Bulgakov and makes him one of the most beloved writers today, i.e. makes it modern. His last, “sunset” novel, “The Master and Margarita,” will become the object of our study today. As we already know, this novel is a labyrinthine narrative in which three novels interact: about Pilate, about the Master, about Woland - and three worlds - Yershalaim, fantasy and Moscow. Today we will talk about Bulgakov’s “Moscow novel”.

A history teacher : Scientists are inclined to believe that the action in the novel takes place in 1929, proclaimed by Stalin “the year of the great turning point.” Let's remember what economic and political processes took place in the country at the turn of the 20s and 30s.

Sample answers: industrialization was in full swing, the complete collectivization of agriculture began, the struggle with the political opponents of the Bolsheviks, as well as the struggle for power within the party itself, ended, Stalin’s sole power was established.

The Soviet Union of the 1920-30s is the first five-year plans, labor enthusiasm and exceeding the plan; this is Chkalov’s flight across the North Pole and the feat of the Chelyuskinites, heroically evacuated from a ship trapped in the ice of the northern sea route. Bulgakov's novel gives us a different idea of ​​Soviet society during this period. The novel was created in certain political and socio-economic conditions, so we can consider it as a historical source. The basis of literature is an image, the basis of historical science is a historical fact. Therefore, it is not enough for us to find the features of Soviet society in the novel. To confirm the presence of such a characteristic, we need to correlate these data with data from historical sources, and try to create an objective image of the time, which, after Stalin, began to be called “the year of the Great Turning Point.”

Literature teacher: At the same time, Bulgakov’s fate changed: all his plays were banned.

What was Bulgakov accused of?

The teacher pays attention to the quotes.

“A poignant pamphlet on modernity. You can’t print!” (L. Kamenev).

Lev Borisovich Kamenev - Soviet party and statesman, Bolshevik, revolutionary.

PAMPHLET - a work usually directed against the political system as a whole or its individual aspects, against one or another social group, party, government, etc., often through the exposure of individual representatives (Literary Encyclopedia).

And now let us turn to the words of Bulgakov himself:

“My mind is satirical. From the pen come things that sometimes seem to sharply offend social-communist circles. The negative phenomena of life in the Soviet country attract my close attention.” (M. Bulgakov)

Please comment on these two statements. What do they have in common? As we see, the writer himself does not deny that he laughs at the “dark” sides of life in the Soviet country. What's the problem then? What's the contradiction?

Sample answer:Why did laughing at vices provoke such fierce criticism from the young state? Maybe Bulgakov exaggerated the negative phenomena of the new Moscow and slandered the Soviet state?

Please formulate the purpose of the lesson based on the topic and problem.

Sample answer:The goal is to find out how truthfully Moscow of the 30s is depicted in the novel and whether the writer’s laughter at the new life is justified.

2. In order to explore the object in detail - Moscow of the 30s - we will now divide into groups, and in order to get a little closer to that era, we will issue you certificates (multi-colored, then other groups are formed by color) of department employees - the Literary Department, Historical Department, Art Education and Biographical Department. They must be signed. Your task is to carefully study the materials offered to you and complete the task on the card.

3. At the next stage of our lesson, we gather commissions on the “Bulgakov issue.” Commissions are collected based on the color of your IDs. At least one employee from each department joins the commission; he brings with him all the materials necessary for the commission’s work. The commission’s task is to discuss Bulgakov’s novel and make its decision: whether the writer truthfully portrayed Moscow in the 30s and whether Bulgakov’s laughter at Soviet reality was justified. Each commission prepares a written opinion based on the questions on the card. Then the executive secretary of each commission will publish its conclusion.

4. Each commission makes its decision on the “Bulgakov question” (one of the commission members reads out the conclusion).

5. So, based on the commissions’ findings, let’s formulate our common decision. Please write down in your notebook the answer to the problematic question “Why did Bulgakov’s laughter provoke such fierce criticism from the state?”(Read selectively).

Today's lesson combined 2 educational subject- history and literature. How did you see the connection between these subjects in the lesson?

6. Our lesson is coming to an end. Your certificates contain an “Employee Self-Assessment Sheet”. Please give points from 1 to 5 in the appropriate columns of the table. Hand over your certificates. Your marks for the lesson will consist of self-assessment, marks for the card and a written conclusion. In the meantime, let's express our opinion about the lesson.

7. Homework:

1) write a “sharp pamphlet on modernity”

2) write a fantasy “New adventures of Koroviev and Behemoth”

3) write an essay “The Artist and Power”

Preview:

Poster 5.

Poster 6.

Poster 7.

Artprosvet

Answer card

Completed the task__________________________________________