Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers Part Two, Chapter XXVI – XXXII, Epilogue, p. 264 – 335 and Conclusions/book as a whole.

Judas of Kerioth receives his payment and his reward. An around the clock investigation provides explanations, but no real conclusions. Woland and company leave apartment 50. Before heading out of town, Korovyov and Behemoth do some shopping and then share a lunch under the awning of the unforgettable Griboyedov veranda. Woland has a roof-top meeting with Levi Matvei, who tells him that The Master has earned peace, but not light. Azazello drops by The Master and Margarita’s place and shares a glass of wine before taking them on their final journey. The Master meets the subjects of his novel and receives their approval. In the Epilogue, we learn that life in Moscow continues, but will never be quite the same.

And so, after many wild scenes, we arrive at a resting place. The Master and Margarita are set to enjoy eternity together, and Ivan finds a new career, but no real peace. Overall, a wildly entertaining and thought-inspiring book.

What was this novel about?

What was its message?

Why was it so much fun to read, even though it is filled with misery and mishap?

Jim, this thread is called "Discussion - Week Three.." but this is actually the thread for the final discussion, which is Week Four.

I don't mean to be "picky" but I'm thinking that some of the readers may find it confusing, since last week's discussion was also called "Week Three."

Barbara wrote: "Jim, this thread is called "Discussion - Week Three.." but this is actually the thread for the final discussion, which is Week Four.

I don't mean to be "picky" but I'm thinking that some of the re..."

Fixed.

What did you think about the Master meeting and getting the approval of the characters in his novel?

I finished this book last night, and wrote a three word review: "mesmerizing and baffling." I enjoyed parts of the book immensely, but I kept feeling like there must be something more to it that I wasn't getting. I assume that the Master was, in some ways, a stand-in for Bulgakov himself. Maybe getting the approval of his characters was an idea that appealed to him.

Another thing that struck me as I was reading the book was how post-modern it felt at times. Does anyone know if David Foster Wallace was a fan of this book?

Casceil, baffling is an excellent word to describe it. I love this book. Can I say why, at this point? No. Like you and Barbara, I feel that Bulgakov is trying to communicate ideas that I am missing.

Let's say the Master is a stand-in for Bulgakov, and the demons/devils are stand-ins for Stalin's regime (they are the ones making people disappear). Did Margarita's pact with the "devil" to rescue him and his novel have anything to do with the "pact" he made with Soviet government when he asked to either be allowed to emigrate or that they use him in his capacity as a writer?

And what about his corrupted Gospel story? There seems to be a point of making the story concretely historical rather than spiritual (which somewhat diminishes its effect). None of the characters within the Pontius Pilate story are recognizable to me, as far as character goes, compared to the biblical stories, other than perhaps the character of Pilate.

I feel like one of those wind-up toys that, when you place it down, keeps bumping into walls and then turning and going in another direction. However I'm only at chapter 27 so hopefully something in this mish-mash will become clearer.

Cleo wrote: "And what about his corrupted Gospel story? There seems to be a point of making the story concretely historical rather than spiritual (which somewhat diminishes its effect). None of the characters within the Pontius Pilate story are recognizable to me, as far as character goes, compared to the biblical stories, other than perhaps the character of Pilate..."

Levi Matvei is Matthew, Yeshua is Jesus, and Judas, is of course, Judas. And there's the question of the bible story versus Bulgakov's version. I imagine neither matches actual events. Did you find the parallels between the Roman Secret Service and Stalin's Secret Service interesting?

I did find the parallels between the Roman Secret Service and Stalin's Secret Service very interesting, but I have to admit that some of the characters in the Roman Secret Service (and in the Roman part of the story throughout the book) were very confusing. I knew that Levi was Matthew, Yeshua was Jesus and Judas was Judas.

I'm going back through the Pontius Pilate chapters now, so that I can give some examples of which characters confused me. The Chapter that I'm looking at right now is Chapter 26, The Burial.

Who is Aphranius?? (It probably should be obvious to me, but somehow it's not.) In one of the earlier Pilate chapters (the chapter where Jesus was hung along with the other prisoners), there was a man in a hooded cloak who was sitting off to the side by himself. I thought this man was Woland, because he was acquaintances with Pilate and at the very beginning of the novel Woland tells Berlioz and Ivan the Poet that he met Pontius Pilate.

So until the name Aphranius came up, which wasn't until one of the later Pilate chapters, I thought the hooded man was Woland. But if he was Woland, why did he call himself Aphranius. AND, I'm guessing that Aphranius worked for the Roman Secret Service, which is the reason he killed Judas. (Although I'm not exactly sure why he was so bent on killing Judas.) And who was Niza???

I feel silly for being so unsure of these characters, but I do have to admit that I'm not very well-versed in the Bible or in the history of the time of Jesus, Judas, Pilate, etc. I find that many people are more familiar with this time period than any other time in history, but it's usually people who have had a religious upbringing or have studied theology.

Don't feel badly, Barbara. When I read your questions, l felt like I had to go back and review and I've recently read some of these parts!

I thought Aphranius was the equivalent of the Roman Secret Service. What confused me about him was that he accomplished what Pilate wished (not cause a disturbance with the Jews) but he did not do as he asked (keep Judas safe). I'm not sure what this means.

A man in a hooded cloak? Wasn't that Levi Matvei who followed the procession? Now I'm confused. I'll have to go back and check. And I echo your question, who was Niza or what was she meant to represent?

The End of Apartment 50: There are more references to sparrows and linden trees. What is this about? It is interesting to note that Margarita's soul was in perfect shape It is interesting. What does this mean? Is there some significance that the "demons" need to leave the apartment on Saturday when the sun is setting?

I'm not expecting any answers, just thinking aloud, but if anyone has any insight, please feel free to shed some light.

Does anyone know if Bulgakov was an atheist or not. Someone said he was but I can't find anything to confirm it (not that I've looked hard). I did read his grandfathers were clergymen (although I think this appellation is Protestant, not Orthodox) so I'm assuming that he had a decent grounding in the Bible, but I'm not sure.

I also saw Aphranius as the Roman equivalent of the NKVD. The many references to the Soviet secret service in the M&M tend to be rather cryptic (for obvious reasons), it's one area where it helps to have a book with annotations.

Aphranius was present as the hooded character when Pontius met Ha Nosri (Jesus), and was also at the crucifixion; he was indeed the one sitting off to the side. He isn't named until the later chapter. It is never specified how exactly Woland is present in Jerusalam.

And, Barabara, my understanding was that Aphranius killed Judas because Pontius told him to, very indirectly. Read the scene again, and keep in mind that as the Roman authority, Pontius can't come right out and order the murder of Judas, so he communicates his desire to his 'hitman' indirectly. The veiled conversations between the two men was one of my favorite parts of the book.

I have a lot more I really want to discuss about this book. For now, I'll say that I really enjoyed it when I first read it. On rereading, I freakin' loved it. It is definitely one of those books that opens up immensely on a second reading.

Whitney wrote: "And, Barabara, my understanding was that Aphranius killed Judas because Pontius told him to, very indirectly. Read the scene again, and keep in mind that as the Roman authority, Pontius can't come right out and order the murder of Judas, so he communicates his desire to his 'hitman' indirectly. The veiled conversations between the two men was one of my favorite parts of the book...."

Okay, I must read this part again. I didn't pick up on this but I was reading at a hair salon and it was rather noisy so that is my excuse ...... ;-)

Whitney wrote: "I have a lot more I really want to discuss about this book. For now, I'll say that I really enjoyed it when I first read it. On rereading, I freakin' loved it. It is definitely one of those books that opens up immensely on a second reading. ..."

I'm looking forward to the final discussion too! Will it be Whitney and Jim leading the blind? We shall see .....

I’d like to hear people’s ideas on how this fits into the Faust mythology. There are numerous references to Faust throughout the book, but I’d like to understand how it relates thematically. I haven’t found any reference that are much help here, they tend to declare that Faust (Goethe’s and Gounod’s) was a big influence on Bulgakov, and then they repeat the laundry list of references without really discussing how Faust is an actual influence.

Here’s some of the laundry list:
The epigraph, The name Woland, the parallel to Walpurgisnacht in Margarita’s experience in the woods, the name Berlioz, the appearance of a poodle, the Master’s direct reference to Faust when talking to Ivan, and, obviously, Margarita making a deal with the devil. There are some others, as well, I believe.

Here are some of the ways in which I think Faust may relate:

-The epigraph about Satan willing evil but working good. Woland and his crew are creating mischief everywhere, but in the end they are for the most part messing with people and institutions that deserve to be messed with.

-Goethe’s theme that action is everything. Faust rewrites the gospel as “in the beginning was the deed”, and Faust’s deal with the devil decrees that he will accept his damnation at the point where he ceases to strive for new things. The Stalinist system has created a society where meaningful striving is impossible. The Master’s total lassitude as a result of the official reception of his book and his subsequent imprisonment and mental breakdown seem to support this concept of inertia as damnation.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the possible Faustian themes?

Cleo wrote: I'm looking forward to the final discussion too! Will it be Whitney and Jim leading the blind? We shall see ....."

Cleo, this fourth week incorporates our final discussion and conclusions about the book. I have been reading The Master and Margarita: A Critical Companion which looks at many theories about what relates to what and so on. From what I have found, it seems there are widely diverging opinions about this book. My own conclusion is that Bulgakov borrows from here and there, alludes to this and that, and changes many things to fit the needs of his message which might mean this or might mean that. In other words, given the melange of sources and his modifications of the source material, there are a multitude of possible interpretations throughout the book. Part of the fun and genius of the book is that even though the subject matter is deadly serious, he somehow manages to make it all humorous, engaging, and engrossing.

Regarding Faust - in real life, Stalin enjoyed Bulgakov's plays, which in his time was the exact equivalent of being best buddies with Satan's spawn on earth. Given that fact, the idiosyncrasies of the book make more sense - Bulgakov had to hide what he wanted to say in plain sight - or something like that... We will find a similar scenario dramatized in the movie 'Mephisto' which we'll be discussing in a few weeks after we finish Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus. Mephisto is based on the novel by Klauss Mann, Thomas's son.

Whitney wrote: "I’d like to hear people’s ideas on how this fits into the Faust mythology. There are numerous references to Faust throughout the book, but I’d like to understand how it relates thematically. I have..."

Very interesting, Whitney. Thank you!

With regard to Satan willing evil but working good, could anyone expand on this? In this book he is obviously aware he is doing both (but a person/Satan could also will evil and good comes out of it by accident). What was the purpose of portraying Satan in this manner?

Did all the people deserved to be messed with? Why Berloiz? Why Ivan (although his experience perhaps made him realize he was a bad poet??? -- I'm grasping here)?

Jim wrote: "Cleo, this fourth week incorporates our final discussion and conclusions about the book...."

Aw! And here I thought since you all have been on your Faustian journey you'd have concrete answers! ;-)

To clarify with regard to the reading schedule, for example, when you set up Week 1, should a person read the scheduled chapters during that week, or should one have already read all the chapters and be ready to discuss them during that week?

Jim wrote: "My own conclusion is that Bulgakov borrows from here and there, alludes to this and that, and changes many things to fit the needs of his message which might mean this or might mean that. In other words, given the melange of sources and his modifications of the source material, there are a multitude of possible interpretations throughout the book..."

That would be my guess but I haven't read any notes or commentaries. I find this conclusion disappointing on one hand and liberating on another. At least I don't have to sift through everything and feel "dim" because I think I'm missing important ideas/issues, and so I can read it and enjoy it for what I can glean from it. However, I have a urge to read more about Stalinist Russia, as I feel that it would have given the book more meaning.

I remember reading (somewhere) about a popular author who said that when people attempted to analyze his work, the majority of the time they were incorrect. After I read that, it decreased my desire to pick apart everything in a book and motivated me to simply try to target larger themes.

In any case, I have 2 chapters left so if anyone wants to start a final wrap-up, please begin. I'm not far behind.

Casceil wrote: "Does anyone know if David Foster Wallace was a fan of this book?"

I remember seeing a while ago a list of DFW's books that are now in the collections of a library somewhere, but I can't find it now. Maybe someone who remembers where this was could check to see if M&M is on the list.

Whitney wrote: "my understanding was that Aphranius killed Judas because Pontius told him to, very indirectly."

Pilate does later tell Levi Matvei that he killed Judas, but I'm not sure what to make of that.

In chapter 19, Bulgakov says "During those three days [her husband was away] [Margarita] was at her own disposal, and no one could prevent her from thinking what she liked". Is this perhaps a parallel and exaggeration of the Soviet regime, where it might have seemed you weren't even free to think what you liked?

Also, in the epilogue, I thought lots of random people getting arrested for no apparent reason in the attempted clearup after Woland and his cronies had left Moscow was very interesting, and must have rung true for those who had lived through the period.

Cleo wrote: "To clarify with regard to the reading schedule, for example, when you set up Week 1, should a person read the scheduled chapters during that week, or should one have already read all the chapters and be ready to discuss them during that week?.."

The idea is that the reading would be done prior to the discussion, so that each Monday, people can jump right in with observations and comments. You can, of course, read when it best fits your schedule, and comment when you're ready.

It's funny, but the more I look into this book, the less clear it becomes. He has included so much it's nearly impossible to apply any one interpretation. Instead, multiple possibilities exist for each of the many elements. I think you're right about the value of studying the history of the Stalin era. Would probably deepen our understanding.

Cleo wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I’d like to hear people’s ideas on how this fits into the Faust mythology. There are numerous references to Faust throughout the book, but I’d like to understand how it relates them..."

Cleo, in Message 13 of this thread you mentioned "Satin willing evil but working good." I definitely found this to be the case. I actually liked Woland, because it seemed to me that he was trying to help people in certain ways by "teaching lessons." Yes, in certain parts I was very disturbed by some of the destruction and death he caused, but looking back (and it's possible I forgot about some other innocent people who died), the only completely "good" and "innocent" person who was killed was Berlioz (Mikhail Alexandrovich.)

But the worst part of the death of Berlioz was when his severed head was brought to Woland on a tray, in "The Great Ball at Satan's" chapter. This was one of the saddest and most disturbing parts of the book for me. Woland addressed the severed head of Berlioz (and Berlioz certainly seemed to be suffering a great deal), and Woland said to Berlioz "Everything came to pass, did it not?" at which point Woland listed all of the things he predicted to Berlioz and Ivan the Poet in Chapter 1, "Never Talk to Strangers."

OK, so Woland was upset in Chapter 1 when Berlioz and Ivan did not believe him, but now that he proved his point to both Ivan and Berlioz, why couldn't he restore Berlioz's head to his body and let him live? Woland seemed to bring other people who seemed to be "dead" back to life.

So Cleo, I completely understand your question regarding why Woland chose certain people to "mess with." Yes, he chose Ivan as well, and Ivan suffered tremendous mental anguish, but by the end he seemed to be fine. Berlioz, on the other hand, suffered tremendous physical pain (it's so obvious in the description of his severed head in Chapter 23), so I don't know why Woland chose Berlioz as a person to "pick on."

But getting back to the "good" that Woland did, look at the way he helped the Master by encouraging him with his manuscript, and look at the way he helped both the Master and Margarita so they could "live happily ever after." I really saw the good side of Woland in the way he helped the Master and Margarita. I also found Woland to be very funny, sarcastic, intelligent, witty, etc. He definitely had many qualities that drew me to him.

David wrote: "In chapter 19, Bulgakov says "During those three days [her husband was away] [Margarita] was at her own disposal, and no one could prevent her from thinking what she liked". Is this perhaps a paral..."

David, you brought up an excellent point in Message 16. I've always been under the impression that in the Soviet regime people were not even allowed to "think" what they wanted to think. That there wasn't even "freedom to think what you want to think." Some people may even refer to this as "brainwashing." The regime were not satisfied that you simply acted the way they wanted you to act, but they also wanted to be convinced that the citizens also "thought" the way the regime wanted them to think.

This is my own personal opinion, somewhat based on some books I've read or films I've seen which took place during this time period.

Whitney wrote: "I’d like to hear people’s ideas on how this fits into the Faust mythology. There are numerous references to Faust throughout the book, but I’d like to understand how it relates thematically. I have..."

Whitney, your post in Message 11 is very thought-provoking. I've been reading the posts backward (most recent first, which is only confusing me more), so in my post in Message 18, when I addressed Cleo's post "about Satin willing evil but working good" I didn't realize that this comment came from your post.

Your question about how M&M fits into the Faust mythology is an extremely difficult question for me to think of right now. I need to really think about it. Of course, there were some moments of clarity while reading M&M (clarity in terms of how it fits in with the Faust mythology), but I just can't think clearly enough right now to come up with any answers.

Your laundry list is extremely helpful. The only part of your laundry list that I did not recognize from Faust is the name Berlioz. I was under the impression that the name Berlioz was a creation of Bulgakov's, and not borrowed from any previous Faust stories. In the explanatory notes in my edition, it says: "Bulgakov names several of his characters after composers. In addition to Berlioz, there will be the financial director Rimsky and the psychiatrist Stravinsky. The efforts of critics to find some meaning behind this fact seem rather strained."

Barbara wrote: "Cleo wrote: "Cleo, in Message 13 of this thread you mentioned "Satin willing evil but working good." I definitely found this to be the case. I actually liked Woland, because it seemed to me that he was trying to help people in certain ways by "teaching lessons." Yes, in certain parts I was very disturbed by some of the destruction and death he caused..."

Yes, I think that Woland comes off as a sympathetic character and likable even, which is quite surprising and also disturbing. Even without the deaths, the chaos he and his cohorts caused was shocking. He adversely affected a large number of people in ways that would change their lives in a negative way, perhaps forever. Bulgakov again, portrayed this with humour but if one takes away the humour, it is really not amusing. I was also troubled by the bullying manner in which, usually Korovyov and Behemoth, treated innocent people. While Woland didn't participate and occasionally seemed to caution them to tone it down, it didn't seem to bother him. The only people he did assist (I hope I'm remembering this correctly) is the Master and Margarita and he did this because she appeared at his ball, therefore "selling her soul" to him. I'm unclear as to how he planned to use her soul because he appears to let them go on their merry way ........ perhaps this links to Levi Matvei's message of the Master deserving peace but not light .....? I'm not sure .....

I finished reading the notes in my book and am part way through the commentary so I'm sure I'll have more to say after I finish. As Jim says, there appears to be many rabbit trails in this book and while some themes can be grasped, there are many puzzle pieces that just don't fit.

I was reading on a Master and Margarita website that there is not a consensus agreement of who the main character was; there were a number of possibilities. If I was forced to choose, I would say Woland in Part One and Margarita in Part Two. What does everyone else think? If you treat Margarita as a main character and asked what she wanted in the story, it was reasonably easy to target that she wanted the Master freed but she was unable to accomplish her desire because of the system, and therefore needed supernatural help to arrange his release. When I asked myself what Woland wanted, I came up with a blank at first. What did he want? The only thing I could come up with was that he wanted to give atheist Russia a shake up and show people he really did exist. But otherwise his only purpose was to help the Master and Margarita --- or perhaps acquire her soul? Then there is the link to Woland and his gang symbolizing the Soviet system ..... ah, so confusing ......!

Barbara wrote: "Your laundry list is extremely helpful. The only part of your laundry list that I did not recognize from Faust is the name Berlioz...."

The composer Berlioz wrote the opera "The Damnation of Faust". Jim mentioned it somewhere before.

the only completely "good" and "innocent" person who was killed was Berlioz

I have a completely opposite opinion here. The statement 'willing evil but doing good' can be interpreted in many ways. In terms of The Master and Margarita, I don't see it as 'making people happy', but as 'exposing corruption and hypocrisy'. Berlioz is a complete party hack. We initially meet him criticizing Ivan's poem not because of its artistic merit, but because it does not meet the Party's standard for political correctness. As the head of Massolit, Berlioz would have been the type of party functionary that Bulgakov was well aware off as approving or disapproving art based on whether it met the official political standards or not. Also, as discussed somewhere before and I'm too lazy to look, I don't believe Woland had anything to do with Berlioz's death (or anyone's except the Baron). He merely informed him it would happen.

I also wouldn't say Ivan made it through all that well, he is plagued by night terrors from his encounter with Woland. He may very well have been happier if he had continued his days as a hack poet for the official writer's union, but instead he was exposed to some truth, and has moved on to the institute of History and Philosophy. So, would you consider doing good leaving someone in blissful ignorance, or exposing them to a truth that may cause them misery?

Woland and his crew are also largely messing with people's greed for foreign goods and for apartment space in Moscow. They are also messing with some people who seemingly don't deserve it at all (Rimsky comes to mind along with a few others). But, hey, he is Satan after all, no one said he was a nice guy.

RE: Woland helping the Master and Margarita, yes, he reunited them, but he did so by having Azzozello poison them. I suppose that was nice.

Think of Woland/Satan as a fallen angel. His purpose then is still that of an angel, but an angel of the profane and not an angel of heaven. And further, think of "fallen" as meaning fallen from grace/heaven/God, etc. In other words, Satan rules on earth where the humans live. Satan is there to test and tempt and lead humans astray so that when they do, they cannot ascend to God's heaven. And further-further, the stage show where the women are offered the latest Western fashions is simple temptation which succeeds quite well (along with the raining rubles). Later, when the clothes disappear and the women are on the street in their culottes, it becomes a public shaming/punishment for their greed. Woland is there to tempt - "lead us not into temptation" - but frequently, the Muscovites follow Woland's lead. The Christian messages are what Woland is all about. And further-further-further, the real-world housing shortage in Moscow causes citizens to do terrible things, including the man who informs on the Master so that he can take over his apartment after the Master is arrested - "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors lease" etc.

So with all of that, Woland and company arrive to proclaim to the newly atheist country that just because you had a revolution, doesn't mean the old rules/Gods are no longer in effect. Illustrated quite plainly by Berlioz's beheading...

Whitney, Cleo, and Jim,

WOW. Now I know why it's a million times better to read a book with a group like this, filled with such erudite and intelligent people, as opposed to reading a book on my own.

All three of your posts, in response to some of the comments I had made, REALLY opened my eyes. I really think this is a book that I MUST read again.

There are so many great books to read, but sometimes it's better to have less time to read all the books you want to read because you're spending time rereading. I think a great way to read a book is to read it, then discuss it with a group, and then go back with a much more opened mind and read the book again.

I have so much to say, but I don't know where to begin, AND I need to finish some work (I have ANOTHER deadline this week!!) Also, I am still dealing with these horrible headaches, so it's been difficult to think clearly.

I hope to be able to get back here tomorrow or Wednesday so that I can comment on some of the brilliant posts the three of you just posted in Messages 21, 22, and 23. But one thing I'll say right now, is thank you to Whitney for the comments on Berlioz. I wasn't thinking clearly when I referred to him as an "innocent" person. Yes, he is a "party hack" -- I don't know why I "spaced out" on that one!!!!

Barbara wrote: "Whitney, Cleo, and Jim,

WOW. Now I know why it's a million times better to read a book with a group like this, filled with such erudite and intelligent people, as opposed to reading a book on my o..."

As the angels of serendipity would have it, I came across some interesting ideas in chapter 13 of Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus. The narrator is describing the lectures of a professor who teaches the "Psychology of Religion". The description goes into some depth about the relation between good and evil and how one needs the other, and how the temptations of the devil are necessary to bring about piety and grace in God. This description is rounding out my appreciation for what Bulgakov achieves with the stories of Woland and company in Moscow. (Chapter 13 will be discussed next week in the Doctor Faustus thread. Check it out if you have the book.)

Jim wrote: "As the angels of serendipity would have it, I came across some interesting ideas in chapter 13 of Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus. The narrator is describing the lectures of a professor who teaches the "Psychology of Religion"..."

This resonates with Woland's statements to Levi Matvei at the end about how light is meaningless without shadow. Of course I'm already behind on the Mann, but will endeavor to catch up.

Whitney wrote: "I also saw Aphranius as the Roman equivalent of the NKVD. The many references to the Soviet secret service in the M&M tend to be rather cryptic (for obvious reasons), it's one area where it helps t..."

Whitney: I agree with your interpretation, that Pilate was being a slick politician (reminds me of Henry II of England trying to rid himself of a particular "turbulent priest"--aka Thomas A Becket, and then later claiming he was misunderstood)--I love this line of the Secret Service man--"The Procurator is never wrong, but this time he is mistaken.."

What interests me in all this, and may have some insight into Bulgakov's religious views---is this:

Traditionally, Judas Iscariot (who betrays Jesus with a kiss) is viewed as having committed suicide, presumably unable to live with his part in Jesus' death, and that end was perceived , at least by Catholics, as "the unpardonable sin"--taking one's own life is an act of despair that completely nullifies one's belief in God's grace and ability to pardon ANY sin, even the death of his own Son . Therefore, Judas is in hell, with Satan. However, even in the Bible you get the sense that Jesus knew God's plan: Judas had to do this as a duty.

This fate of Judas' had always struck me as completely unfair, considering that the all-knowing God apparently orchestrated the whole thing, and Judas was one of Jesus' favorites of the disciples. So I'm wondering if perhaps Bulgakov felt the same way, therefore undercutting the traditional story by making Judas a victim of government henchmen, who then covered it up with a suicide story to once again keep Pilate's hands clean.

Jim wrote: "RE: Woland helping the Master and Margarita, yes, he reunited them, but he did so by having Azzozello poison them. I suppose that was nice.

Think of Woland/Satan as a fallen angel. His purpose the..."

Jim: I agree with your idea about Woland as a fallen angel, and it goes with my reading of Paradise Lost, where God basically "uses" Satan (like Judas?) to bring about ultimate good in people, teach them lessons, and so forth. Unlike Goethe's Faustian idea that everything is predicated on a man's action, I think Bulgakov wants us to see something else, because his most sympathetic character, Margarita, does an unpardonable action, (selling her soul to the devil) but she does it for altruistic purposes--to save the Master. I think her parallel is Gretchen in the Faustian legend, who also is saved from damnation in the end.

I never know what to make of the Master's end--he shall have peace but not light? What does light represent!?? Traditionally in literature: knowledge and/or goodness. Which of these will he not receive, and isn't peace better, anyway? Seems to me he had knowledge before but that didn't help him.