Am I Willing to Stand Up for My Beliefs?

At some point in a person’s life they will have to ask themselves, “What do I believe?” and “Am I willing to stand up for my beliefs?” To believe something privately is one thing, but it is another thing to take a public stand regarding one’s belief, especially if there is a large element of risk involved once those beliefs are made known.

In 1905, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), author of such works as “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” wrote an editorial piece entitled “Bethink Yourselves” regarding the Russo-Japanese War. This piece was banned in Russia on the grounds that it was declared ‘unpatriotic’ by the Czar’s government; however, it was published in ‘The London Times’. As a public figure, he felt the need to speak out. He wrote, “"Again war. Again sufferings, necessary to nobody, utterly uncalled for; again fraud, again the universal stupefaction and brutalization of men "Men who are separated from each other by thousands of miles, hundreds of thousands of such men (on the one hand—Buddhists, whose law forbids the killing not only of men but of animals ; on the other hand—Christians, professing the law" of brotherhood and love), like wild beasts on land and on sea are seeking out each other in order to kill, torture, and mutilate each other in the most cruel way. What can this be? Is it a dream or a reality? Something is taking place which should not, cannot be; one longs to believe that it is a dream and to awake from it. But no, it is not a dream, it is a dreadful reality!"“ 1

The Russo-Japanese War was part of the backdrop of the 2017 film, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky’s Story” directed by Russian director Karen Shakhnazarov (b. 1952). Alexei Vronsky, Anna Karenina’s lover, is reflecting upon his relationship with Anna thirty years after Anna’s death at the Saint Petersburg train station. Vronsky and Anna’s relationship was largely a war between them (which did not end well), Vronsky spent the rest of his life running from one war to another after Anna died, and the Russo-Japanese War certainly was not a rousing success for the Russian government since the 1905 Revolution followed as a result.

Karen Shakhnazarov is aware of all of this; however, he still chose to publicly support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by signing a letter to that effect. He is not alone in his support of the war, in fact, 511 artists signed a letter in 2014 supporting Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region of Ukraine. However, the questions still remain, “Why do I really believe?” and “Can I genuinely stand up for my beliefs?”

In 2005, Russian director Vladimir Bortko (b. 1946) directed a ten part mini-series for Russia-1, the premier government owned television station, entitled “The Master and Margarita” based upon the classic novel of the same name by author Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).

This novel is filled with satire regarding the Soviet government of the 1930s. In fact, the publication of the novel was banned in the Soviet Union until it was published in serial form in 1966. Mikhail Bulgakov, a writer and medical doctor, had serious health issues and petitioned Joseph Stalin’s government for permission to move to Paris, France with the rest of his family in order to receive the medical attention he needed. This request was denied and Bulgakov ended up dying in Moscow at the age of 48.

The mini-series “The Master and Margarita” remained very faithful to Bulgakov’s novel since it was done over ten episodes and could go into much more depth than a 90 minute or so film in the movie theater.

Another extremely satiric piece about the Soviet Union by Mikhail Bulgakov was made into a television movie by Vladimir Bortko in 1988. The novella and film are entitled “Heart of a Dog”, the story of a stray dog who is transformed into a man by a surgeon simply to see if it is possible to transform a dog by implanting human testes and a pituitary gland into a dog. The dog, who is given the name Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov, after becoming human, appears to be representative of the most base attitudes of Soviet society in the 1920s. This novella was written in 1925, but not officially released in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Vladimir Bortko knew what this novel and novella were about. He saw how they satirized the dictatorial Russian government of their day; however, he still chose to sign the letter in support of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region. From where is this disconnect coming? These are not the actions of the Master, but of Berlioz, the head of Massolit, who published only those pieces which the government found acceptable.

Speaking out against the government, especially one which encourages imprisoning opponents, is a risky undertaking. Actress Liya Akhedzhakova (b. 1938), who starred In such films as “Office Romance” and “The Irony of Fate” is an outspoken critic of contemporary Russian culture and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In April 2023. Russian- and English-language independent news website, Meduza, reported that Vitaly Borodin, head of the Federal Security and Anti-Corruption Project, is asking Russia’s Prosecutor General to launch a criminal case against Akhedzhakova. He claims, Akhedzhakova has criticized “the state organs’ and the president’s decisions and policies with regard to the war by Russia in Ukraine. Akhedzhakova denies the allegations. This is tantamount to being declared a ‘foreign agent’, as what done in the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin.

Silence does not automatically imply consent. There are many artists who never signed any letter in support of war and who never made their personal feelings known. However, to produce such works based upon “Anna Karenina” using war as backdrop or the writings of Mikhail Bulgakov and then stand in support of the actions of a dictatorial government seems extremely hypocritical. It seems as though the same level of fear present during the time of Joseph Stalin is still alive in Russia today. Who would imagine that a well known Russian citizen would be declared a “foreign agent” in 2022 for expressing his opinion regarding an act undertaken by his government?

End Note

1. “Tolstoy on the Russo-Japanese War”: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&context=ocj

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. 

                                                                                                                                                                               

Dealing with the Devil

Since the dawn of creation, mankind has always wanted to do thing his own way.  Individual initiative is certainly not a bad thing; however, doing things one’s own way without listening to any guidance or directions from others can have disastrous side effects which not only impact us directly, but also our loved ones and others we encounter. 

    This reality has been expressed in religious terms in the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to survive in the Garden of Eden, but told them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Satan, the deceiver, in the appearance of a snake, explains to Eve that she actually misunderstood God’s words to her and encourages her to take the fruit from the tree.  She, in turn, gives this fruit to her husband, Adam.  Christianity refers to this act as “original sin” because Adam and Eve chose to follow their own thoughts instead of listening to God and this “original sin” has been passed on to every one of Adam’s descendants.     

    The story of man turning to the devil for some “help” has been written down in various forms over the centuries.  One famous account was inFaust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832).  In this story, the main character, Faust, is a highly successful, but unhappy scholar who enters into a pact with the devil, Mephistopheles, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and wealth.  The exchange becomes too much for Faust and it eventually becomes the source of his undoing.  Eventually Faust does win his soul back and learns a valuable lesson, namely, that having all this knowledge and worldly wealth is not worth anything at the price of losing one’s soul. 

    A similar theme was also addressed in Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита by Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).  One of the main characters in this novel is Woland.   He is the personification of the devil and could be understood as almost a “Robin Hood” like figure.  At one point in the novel, two of the characters, Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, head of MASSOLIT, the Soviet writer’s guild, and a twenty three year old poet named Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyrov (whose pen name is Bezdomny which means “homeless” in Russian) 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. This conversation shows the depths of Woland’s understanding of philosophy and history.  He wants to know who is “in charge” if God does not exist.  Berlioz and Bezdomny agree that we are in charge of our own destiny.  Woland introduces Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the famous Prussian philosopher into the conversation and they begin discussing Kant’s proofs for the existence of God and why they do not make sense   Woland provides his “seventh proof” of God’s existence by demonstrating that he, Woland, not Berlioz, is able to predict Berlioz’s death accurately, thus underscoring the contingency of human life and pointing to the reality of something other than a spatio-temporal reality governed by material laws.  Woland, through his arguments, and the novel itself in its dramatic undermining of Berlioz’s Marxist materialism, thus takes up something like the perspective of Eric Voegelin (1901-1985), a German-American political philosopher, which is that while trying to prove God’s existence is indeed misguided, it is equally misguided to draw the conclusion that because there are no effective proofs that God is an existent object, therefore there is only immanent reality. (2)

   If you read the novel, it seems that Woland is a positive character, who is a patron of arts and love, the hero, who is trying to fight the evils inherent in the people of 1930s Russia. However, Woland is a tempter on closer reading which becomes noticeably diverse. In fact, Woland is Satan, a rethinking of Christ, the new Messiah, a hero as Bulgakov described him in his first unpublished manuscripts.

   To understand the diversity of Woland it is possible only in a careful reading of "The Master and Margarita." Only then can one see the similarity with the Scandinavian hero Odin, then turned into the devil of Christian tradition, or the god, Wotan, who was worshipped the old Germanic pagan tribes. Woland has a portrait resemblance to the great magician and freemason Count Cagliostro, who was able to predict the future and remember the events of a thousand years ago.

   Attentive readers will certainly remember a time when officials remembered the name of the magician and speculated that his name was Faland. Indeed, in tune with Woland, but only not that interesting. Few people know that in “Falandom” is the name the Germans give for the place known as hell in English. (1)

   The acts of the devil Woland and his minions in Moscow seem, at first glance, 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, a large talking black cat who can take on a human appearance when needed, 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 it is examined more closely, it does not appear to be that absurd. Well, at least no more absurd than reality itself.

    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.

   The fact that Woland appears to be robbing from the wealth may give him a “Robin Hood” like appearance, to some; however, there is a deeper meaning at stake.  This is not only about Woland and these people.  The very soul of the Russian nation has been sold to the devil by the Bolsheviks, according to Bulgakov, and these characters are allegorical representations of the entire nation.

    This is a very profound novel and the author is making many important points regarding the role of sin in our lives, the daily struggle between good and evil which we face, and how our actions have consequences not only for us but for generations to come.  It would be unfair to over simplify this great work of Russian literature by stating that these themes are easily understood or that they have only one meaning.  Neither of these things is true.  This novel has multiple layers of meaning and can impact the reader in a variety of different ways depending upon when they read it and what is going on in their own life.  It can be read over and over again and each time the reader will find something new to reflect upon.

   It is also true that the theme of entering into a pact with the devil is present in American literature as well.  The Devil and Tom Walker by Washington Irving (1783-1859) first appeared in 1824 and tells the story of a man who enters into an agreement with the devil and becomes a loan shark.  The story ends with the main character being taken away by the devil on a black horse.  Tom Walker is never seen again and his home burns to the ground. 

    An adaptation of this story was The Devil and Daniel Webster by Stephen Vincent Benét (1898-1943).  This story first appeared in 1937 and tells the story of Jabez Stone, a poor farmer from New Hampshire, who makes a seven year pact with the devil in exchange for prosperity. When the seven years are complete, he is able to extend this pact for another three years.  However, at the end of the tenth year, the devil returns to Stone and demands his soul as payment.

    Stone approaches Daniel Webster, a prominent New England attorney, and asks him to defend him against the devil.  There is a court case involving the devil and Daniel Webster.  Mr. Webster eventually wins this case and it has been said that after this trial the devil was never again seen in New Hampshire.

    Making a pact with the devil may seem like a good decision at first.  One can become wealthy or acquire whatever knowledge he or she wants, but at what cost?  Eventually payment will be demanded by the one with whom this agreement has been made and the price which must be paid is much greater than any possible benefit the person may receive.

(1)      “Seven Keys to the novel ‘Master and Margarita’, which Reveal the Secrets of this Mysterious Book” http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/170815/25849/

(2)      Paulette Kidder, “The Interdependence of Satire and Transcendence in Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita” (Eric Voegelin Society Meeting-American Political Science Association 2012)

The Power of Love in our Lives

  There are few things which transcend time and place with greater force than human emotions.  We might have a great deal of difficulty understand someone else’s culture or the time period in which they were living; however, we can immediately relate to their experiences of loss at the death of a loved one, happiness at the birth of a child, or the feeling of being in love.

   William Shakespeare described the anguish of forbidden love in his play “Romeo and Juliet”.  Romeo and Juliet were from two different families that did not get along and they had to see each other in secret.  The pain these two lovers experienced was so great that the play ends with each of them taking their own life.

    This same theme of forbidden love was expressed in The Letters of Abelard and Heloise.  Peter Abelard, a well-known philosopher in the eleventh century is hired to tutor a young woman. They eventually fall in love, have a child, and then secretly get married.  When her uncle finds out about this, Heloise is banished to a convent and Abelard eventually becomes a monk.  In spite of their new vocations, these two are still in love and their letters express their very strong feelings for each other.

    The love between Antony and Cleopatra was one of the factors which helped to undo the Egyptian empire.  Mark Antony and Empress Cleopatra fell in love and, against the advice of the Roman government, the two of them got married.  The Roman army became deeply concerned about the increasing power of the Egyptians and eventually went to war with them.  Antony, who was fighting against his countrymen, received a false report that Cleopatra had been killed.  He became so distraught that he fell on his own sword.

    When Cleopatra heard the news that Antony had taken his own life she ended her own life. Such is the power of love. It can lead one to believe that it is better to no longer be alive than to go on living without the one you love.

     A leading medieval poet of Iran, Nizami of Ganje is known especially for his romantic poem “Layla and Majnun”.  Inspired by an Arab legend, Layla and Majnun is a tragic tale about unattainable love. It had been told and retold for centuries, and depicted in manuscripts and other media such as ceramics for nearly as long as the poem has been penned. Layla and Qays fall in love while at school. Their love is observed and they are soon prevented from seeing one another. In misery, Qays banishes himself to the desert to live among and be consoled by animals. He neglects to eat and becomes emaciated. Due to his eccentric behavior, he becomes known as Majnun (madman). There he befriends an elderly Bedouin who promises to win him Layla’s hand through warfare. Layla’s tribe is defeated, but her father continues to refuse her marriage to Majnun because of his mad behavior, and she is married to another. After the death of Layla’s husband, the old Bedouin facilitates a meeting between Layla and Majnun, but they are never fully reconciled in life. Upon death, they are buried side by side. The story is often interpreted as an allegory of the soul’s yearning to be united with the divine.¹

     When we think of love stories, we often reflect upon the warm sentiment of two souls being united as one and living out the remainder of their lives in peace and harmony.  However, this is rarely the case.  Love is often painful.  There are few people who can hurt us more than someone we love.  A glance, a gesture, or even a single word can cut us quicker and deeper than any knife ever made.  

     If a love relationship goes wrong, it can go terribly wrong, but if the relationship is strong in can be a marvelous thing to behold. The expressions of caring, compassion, and affection between two people who are genuinely in love can melt even these coldest of hearts.  Love can also inspire a person to great acts of heroism which they would never have seen themselves capable of had it not been for the relationship that they share with this other person.

     Rather early in the novel, Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита) by Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) we are introduced to “the Master”, a bitter author, whose historical novel about Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ has been rejected. He becomes so despondent that he burns his manuscript and turns his back on the world, including his lover, Margarita.

     In part two of Master and Margarita we are finally introduced to Margarita, who represents human passion and refuses to despair of her lover or his work. She is made an offer by Satan, and accepts it, becoming a witch with supernatural powers on the night of his Midnight Ball, which coincides with the night of Good Friday, linking all three elements of the book together, since the Master's novel also deals with this same spring full moon when Christ's fate is sealed by Pontius Pilate and he is crucified in Jerusalem.        

     Later, after learning to fly, she enters naked into the world of the night, flies over the deep forests and rivers of Russia, bathes, and, cleansed, returns to Moscow as the anointed hostess for Satan's great Spring Ball. Standing by his side, she welcomes the dark celebrities of human history as they pour up from the bowels of Hell.

    She survives this ordeal without breaking, borne up by her unswerving love for the Master and her unflinching acknowledgment of darkness as part of human life. For her pains and her integrity, she is rewarded well. Satan's offer is extended to grant Margarita her deepest wish. She chooses to liberate the Master and live in poverty and love with him. In an ironic ending, neither Satan nor God think this is any kind of life for good people, and the couple leave Moscow with the Devil, as its cupolas and windows burn in the setting sun of Easter Saturday.

    Margarita could have had anything she wanted.  She could have chosen to become the wealthiest woman in the world, the ruler of some country, or become the wife of the most handsome man of her day.  However, she chose none of these things.  Instead, she chose to live in poverty with the Master. 

    This is the power of love in our lives.  It can inspire us to see what it truly important and be willing to forego anything else so that we will be able to attain that which is most important to us.      

                                 End Notes

¹ “Top Twenty Most Famous Love Stories in History and Literature” http://amolife.com/reviews/top-20-most-famous-love-stories-in-history-and-literature.html

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