Without a Home in "Master and Margarita"

   Most novels are read once and placed on a bookshelf or elsewhere and never touched again by the same reader.  There are some novels or stories which one reads on more than one occasion simply out of pure enjoyment. There are others which are re-read in order to obtain information or perhaps understand something which was read earlier even better. 

   However, there are some novels which need to be read more than once simply because of the depth of content, breadth of character development, or numerous layers of themes which cannot be understood properly in a first, second, or, even, a third reading.  One such novel is The Master and Margarita by Mikhaíl Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891-1940).  This novel has several characters that reek havoc in 1930s Moscow including a large black cat which walks and talks like a person named Behemoth, an “ex-choirmaster” named Fagotto/Koroviev, an assassin named Azazello, and a character believed to be satan named Woland. 

    We are introduced to three of these characters in chapter five.  Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, head of the Soviet literary union MASSOLIT, is at Patriarch’s Pond with Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyryov (whose pen name is Bezdomny), a young poet who is a member of MASSOLIT.  The two are discussing Ponyryov poem about Jesus and the fact that it is too “realistic” for Berlioz’s taste when they are approached by a man who eventually introduces himself as Professor Woland, an expert in black magic. 

   Berlioz and Ponyryov begin discussing whether or not Jesus actually existed (neither believe this is true), when Professor Woland interrupts and begins to explain what transpired between Jesus (Yeshua Ha-Nozri in the novel) and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea.  Professor Woland tells them that this is not second hand information, because he was actually there when this dialogue took place.  They then begin to speak about whether or not God exists (Berlioz and Ponyryov are atheists) and Professor Woland argues with them using the philosophical proofs for God existence written by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  The argument eventually turns to who is in charge of everything if there is no God.  Ponyryov argues that people are in charge of their own destiny and Professor Woland states that no one even knows when they will die. He then proceeds to tell Berlioz under what circumstances he will die.  He will be run over by a trolley car and lose his head after slipping on some oil spilled by a woman named Anna.

     Berlioz leaves the conversation and ends up dying in exactly the way that Professor Woland described.  Ponyryov sees the end result of the accident and becomes convinced that Professor Woland is a spy.  He then begins a one man crusade to arrest Professor Woland, along with Faggoto/Koroviev and Behemoth who have joined up with the professor. 

   After chasing them around Moscow, to no avail, Ponyryov ends up at a restaurant in his underwear, carrying a candle, and wearing an icon around his neck where the members of MASSOLIT were meeting and dining.  He begins to explain to them what transpired at Patriarch’s Pond and the restaurant manager calls for a car to take Ponyryov to the local psychiatric hospital for evaluation. 

   He then explains the entire scenario to the doctor in charge of the hospital and is diagnosed with schizophrenia.  This was also predicted by Professor Woland during their conversation.  No one will listen to him, including the police, so he is forced to become a hospital patient.

   Later on in the novel, we meet “The Master” who is the main protagonist in the story when The Master enters Ponyryov’s room at night tells him about Margarita and the novel he wrote about Pontius Pilate.  He tells the Master that is a poet, but when asked, “Is your poetry any good?” he responses, “no” and promises never to write poetry again.

   In Russian, as in many other languages, names have meanings.  Koroviev can easily be translated into English as “cow”, for example, and Behemoth can be translated as “hippo”.  Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyryov’s pen name is Bezdomny which translates into “without a home” or “homeless” in English. My question is, “Why did Bulgakov give this character the pen name of Bezdomny?”  We know nothing about where Ivan lives based upon the novel nor do we know anything about his family life; however, there is no mention of the fact that he was, in fact, homeless. 

    Ivan has a profession, is a member of the Soviet literary bureaucracy, and, when confronted with a situation which is beyond his control, he attempts to arrest the person he believes in causing problems and return order to the society in which he lives.  By all appearances, he is a good citizen.  However, people like Ivan really had no home in the Soviet Union.  The system was designed to destroy their personal creativity and force them to produce “works of art” which are completely approved by the state.  These are not works of art, they are propaganda tools.  In real life, people like Ivan attempted to, and, in many cases, succeeded to run away from the Soviet Union and begin a life in a new country. 

     Many literary critics believe that the character of Margarita is based upon Bulgakov’s last wife and the Master is Bulgakov himself.   While I do not necessarily disagree with this assessment I will also add that the character of Bezdomny is also autobiographical in Bulgakov’s case.   Mikhail Bulgakov was born in Kyiv and lives many years of his life in Moscow, but, in reality, he never had a real home in the Soviet Union.  It is true that he had a family and a place to live, but his creative spirit was not as free as it could have been in such a totalitarian society and he suffered a great deal under the repressive government of Joseph Stalin (1878-1953).  In fact, Bulgakov’s extended family was granted permission to leave Russia and go to Paris, but Mikhail was not given such permission.  He and his wife stayed in Moscow and he died quite prematurely for an illness which may have been cured had he been able to move to Paris. 

    For almost any creative person, living in such a culture can be equated to being like a bird in a gilded cage.  It might look wonderful and provide a sense of safety, but it is still a cage. Creativity requires freedom in order to blossom and survive.  Ivan may have come to that conclusion while in the psychiatric hospital which is why he promised that Master that he would never write again.  Bulgakov felt that he was confined to the life he had in Moscow and attempted to make the best of a very difficult situation.  While both men may have had a place to reside, they were, indeed, homeless since they have nowhere to lay their heads and be at peace. 

                                                                                                                                                                               

The Absurdity of Reality

   From a practical standpoint, many of the events of our daily life can appear to be very random and have no direct connection to any other events in our life. While it is true that faith can give meaning and purpose to one’s life, the fact remains that, in many cases, even our faith will often raise more questions than answers when it comes to why certain things happen the way that they do.

    I am not advocating that the universe is entirely random and any attempt to make sense of it is completely futile.  There is order in the universe; however, it exist side-by-side with chaos.  The idea of order and chaos co-existing is certainly nothing new.  In fact, it was proposed by many of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. This idea was also proposed by Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572) ¹. 

     Following the Bolshevik revolution, Russian society experienced its own form of chaos.  Czar Nicholas II and his family had been executed and V.I. Lenin and his supporters were either deporting or killing the intelligentsia because they found these highly educated individuals to be a threat to the new system of government that they imposing on the Russian people. 

  In was during this period of time that Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) wrote his most famous novel, Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита).  This novel is challenging to read, even in Russian; however, it contains many very important insights which are applicable to other societies as well. There are many themes contained within this novel; however, I will focus on only one theme, namely “absurdity”.  

   Russia has always had a very deeply religious history and the Bolsheviks knew that if their new system of government was going to work they would have to destroy any connection between the Russian people and their religious traditions. In Master and Margarita, two of the characters are discussing their belief that Jesus Christ did not truly exist when they are approached by a third man who wishes to enter into their conversation. What these two men did not know is that this third man, Woland, is actually the devil. There have been arguments introduced by various literary critics that the character of Woland is actually a representation of Joseph Stalin.

   The acts of the devil Woland and his retinue in Moscow seem, at first sight, to be carried out for no reason. From the beginning, when Woland predicts the unlikely circumstances of Berlioz's beheading, to the end, when Behemoth stages a shoot-out with the entire police force, there seems to be no motivation other than sheer mischief. Much of what happens seems to be absurd. However, when you look deeper into it, it does not appear to be that absurd. Well, at least no more absurd than reality itself. Absurdism is a philosophy holding that humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe, which is impossible to explain in a rational way why there is life and that all efforts meant to explain the essentials of the universe are doomed to fail. According to the absurdists human suffering is the result of wasted efforts of individuals to find a reason or a meaning in the absurd chasm of existence. At first sight Master and Margarita seems to have absurdist characteristics.

After a while, though, their trickery reveals a pattern of preying upon the greedy, who think they can reap benefits they have not earned, just because they served the people in power without asking questions. For example, when a bribe is given to the chairman of the tenants' association, Bosoi, Woland tells Korovyov to "fix it so that he doesn't come here again." Bosoi is then arrested, which punishes him for exploiting his position. Similarly, the audience that attends Woland's black magic show is delighted by a shower of money only to find out the next day that they are holding blank paper.  The women who thought they were receiving fine new clothes later find themselves in the streets in their underwear. These deceptions appear mean-spirited and pointless, but the victims in each case are blinded by their interest in material goods and dropped all previously cherished moral values as soon as they had the opportunity to benefit from their greed.

   Bulgakov's life was highly influenced by Stalin's regime, which also can be called absurd. The following story is only one of the dozens of examples. Stalin once ordered to arrest a mine director. The mine had collapsed and Stalin suspected the director of sabotage. "Sabotage" is a word that was often used in the Soviet Union when megalomaniac projects appeared to be unfeasible. The director was interrogated and tortured until he "confessed" that he had acted under orders from the German government. When the chief of police reported this, Stalin did not believe it. For one reason or another, he was convinced that it was not the German, but the French government who was the culprit. So he ordered them to "interrogate" the director again. This time he "confirmed" Stalin's version. What's more, he recognized that he had tried to mislead Stalin by blaming the Germans for it. Such examples were common practice in the Soviet Union in that time. The people often reacted in an absurd way too. This can be seen in many situations and details in the novel. For example, when Woland calls Mogarych - the man who had taken the Master's basement when he was in the psychiatric hospital - he was "in nothing but his underwear, though with a suitcase in his hand for some reason and wearing a cap". It looks like an absurd detail, but it refers to the fact that under the Stalin terror every Soviet citizen had always a suitcase ready with the most necessary things, just in case of un unexpected visit from the secret police at night. ²

    These are just a few examples of what, at first glance, appear as absurd in this novel, but becomes more understandable once the reader understands more of the historical events which were taking place at the time.  Here in the United States, we have no concept of the secret police unexpectedly visiting us in the middle of the night so that we must be ready at any moment to possibly be arrested and imprisoned without a proper trial. 

      The idea of being tortured until you “confess” to your crime is something completely foreign to residents of the United States, but this goes on in many countries of the world even today. 

    While we are not experiencing what took place in the Soviet Union during the reign of Joseph Stalin, we are experiencing our own issues.  The United States, which was once the “envy of the entire world” because of our educational system has become very lax.   American students do not read at the level that they once did and independent/ critical thinking is something which is no longer taught.  Our students are more interested in simply remembering whatever they need to know in order to pass a particular examination and then summarily forget whatever they had learned.   There is no effort to imbibe what they have learned so that it can become a part of who they are. 

     Instead of critically thinking about a particular subject, students are content with idea of being told what to think.  They may not express this idea in such terms, but if they do not engage in critical thinking the outcome is the same.  This may appear absurd, at first; however, there is a certain amount of reasoning which is behind it. 

     One of the challenges with educating the people is that those in charge may actually be confronted by the very people they have educated.   By not teaching someone to think critically it is possible to make them more compliant.  Those who do think critically and question what is going on will quickly be referred to as “trouble makers”, “negative”, or “dissidents” and can more easily be removed or silenced.    

       How much longer this will continue is based upon two important questions. First, are we willing to acknowledge that this is happening? Secondly, are we willing to do something about it? 

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Restoring the Divine Sparks to Their Source” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/02/restoring-divine-sparks-to-their-source.html

2)    “Master and Margarita” http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/en/07recencies/absurditeit.html

  

Climbing the Ladder at Any Cost

   From our youth, we are taught about the importance of climbing the corporate or social ladder. While it is true that there many who have certain advantages when it comes to climbing these ladders because of various factors including their education and/or the financial standing of their family, the Horatio Alger myth would have us believe that such ladder climbing is available to each of us if we are willing to work hard enough.

   We live in a culture which is driven by consumerism.  The idea of having to “keep up with the Jones family” is almost ingrained in us from childhood.  Our entire economy is consumer driven.  People need to keep spending money and buying things in order to keep our country financially sound. 

  While it is certainly not mandatory that we become like animals in order to have financial or personal success, the fact is that this does happen.  There are people who would have no problem at all grinding people into the ground in order to get what they want.  The Roman playwright Plautus (d. 184 BC) made reference to this fact when he stated, “Homo homini lupus” (man unto man a wolf).  We know of many people throughout history who have ruined the lives of others simply in order to get ahead.

   However, instead of a wolf, what if it was a dog?  Imagine for a moment that a scientist places human male genitalia and a pituitary gland inside a dog and this dog slowly begins to speak and act like a human.  Imagine that this half-man/half-dog creation is able to adapt to life within our society rather well.  We have often heard it said that the business world is “dog eat dog”, so he would feel right at home. 

   Since dogs operate well according the pack model, this new “man-dog” would display his dominance within the pack and soon become the Alpha male.  Snapping and growling at anyone who challenged his position, he would have no problem biting someone’s head off (quite literally).  He would not be conscious of the notion that there is plenty of money to be made by everyone.  Remember, he has the mind of a dog.  If he has something he will defend it to the death and if you have something that he wants, he will do whatever he needs to do to take it away from you.  In the pack model, you are either the leader or you are nothing.

   This same mindset would carry over to his personal relationships as well. If he met a woman, his main ideas would be domination and breeding.  Since he has the mind of a dog, her feelings would be completely unimportant to him.  He simply sees something that he wants and he goes after it.  As long as you understand that he is the Alpha male, he will tolerate you, but do not expect to become his friend.  He has no friends, simply other creatures who are there for his convenience. 

   Imagine now that this “man-dog” enters the world of politics.  Now he is not only an Alpha male, but one with quite a bit of authority and power.  His strong personality might be what gets him elected, but do not be fooled for one moment, he has no interest in helping anyone who put him in power.  He uses the power and authority he has been given to grab as much for himself as he can.  You might say, “He was elected to help his constituents!”  His response would be, “I got what I want, if they do not have what they want that is not my problem.  However, if they have something that I want I will take it.”   Sound familiar?    

   We can imagine that this new failed medical experiment has caused major problems for the doctor who performed it.  At one point the “dog-man” actually reports this physician to the local housing authority because the doctor is occupying several apartments in order to do his experiments and the “dog-man” does not like the fact that someone has something that he cannot have. After giving this “person” a new life, this doctor is now forced to defending himself in front of the housing authority who wants to take away these apartments from him so they can use them for other purposes. 

    In 1925, Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940), a Russian physician turned author, wrote a story entitled Собачье сердце (The Heart of a Dog). The summary of this story is as follows: A bedraggled street dog is about to perish in the cold winter night, after having been scalded by boiling water earlier in the day. Suddenly, an elegant man feeds him and takes him home. The dog's savior is a famous and wealthy medical professor who rejuvenates people by hormonal manipulations.

    As soon as the dog becomes accustomed to his new life of plenty, he finds himself the subject of a strange experiment--the professor and his assistant implant the testicles and pituitary gland of a dead criminal into the dog's body. After a rocky post-operative course, the dog gradually begins to change into an animal in human form and names himself Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharik. The half-beast-half-man, who gets along very well in the prevailing proletarian society, turns his creator's life into a nightmare--until the professor manages to reverse the procedure.¹

      The dog-man’s choice of a new name is satirical.  The word sharik means “ball” or “round” in Russian.  Interesting choice of a name given the gift he received from the medical professor. Sharik is still most popular dog’s name in Russia and Ukraine.

    Comparisons were made between Bulgakov’s “dog-man” character and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein monster.  However, in the case of Frankenstein everyone who encountered the creature rejected it because it was so unnatural.  Poligraph Sharik is equally unnatural, but fits in quite well in 1920s Russian society.  The Bolsheviks came to power by convincing the people that they needed to get rid of Czar Nicholas II and share all things in common.  In no time at all, these same people slowly began to turn on the very people that put them into power. The intelligentsias (the highly educated) were banished from Russia and those who did not leave were eventually executed. 

    The same thing could happen in our country as well.  While we are not a Communist society, human nature remains the same regardless of where one lives.  It is natural that people in power want to stay in power and they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power that they already have.  Many of the comments that were made in this story regarding the issues facing Russia in the 1920s could easily be applied to our country at this point in our history.

    Given Bulgakov’s satirical look at life in Russia following the Bolshevik revolution, it is not surprising that this work was banned from the Soviet Union.  It was first published in English in 1968 and was not published in the Soviet Union until 1987. 

     As I mentioned earlier, names are very important in this story.  The name of the person whose genitalia and pituitary gland were used was an alcoholic named Chugunkin.  In Russian, “chugun” means “cast iron” and this choice of name could easily be understood by the Russian reader as a parody of Joseph Stalin.  In Russian, “stal” means “steel”. 

     Climbing the ladder of success is certainly not a bad thing.  Every parent would want his or her children to be more successful than they are; however, climbing the ladder does not mean that we step on the fingers of the person on the rung below us in order to lift ourselves up.

      It is true that success comes at a price; however, that price should not include becoming an animal in the process. 

¹Mikhail Bulgakov “The Heart of a Dog”

http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1572