This week's discussion topics are brought to us by the always punctual RTS:
Comment on one or more of the following:
Chapter 16 (The Execution): How does Bulgakov's description of the crucifixion vary significantly from the Gospels? Why might he have chosen the perspective of Matthew Levi? What sticks out in the scene as very real, or very unpleasant, or very symbolic?
Chapters 17 and 18 (An Unquiet Day and Hapless Visitors): Select a specific incident to examine (such as the compulsory singers, the unexpected appearance of a kitten, the experience of Berlioz' uncle, or...). Does the episode reflect a particular aspect of Soviet life? If so, how? Does the episode contain something you find symbolic?
On the whole, what sort of picture do these two chapters paint of Moscow and the Muscovites? What motivates the characters? What gets them into trouble? What strategies get them out of trouble (or fail to get them out of trouble)? Are there innocent victims? What patterns do you see in the unholy trickery?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought it was interesting how Bulgakov describes Matthu Levi's hiding place on Bald Mountain during the crucifixion:
ReplyDelete"He found a place for himself not on the side where the execution could be watched most comfortably, but on the northern slope, which was not gentle and accessible, but craggy, with gaps and crevasses, in one of which a sickly fig tree tried desperately to live, clutching at the heaven-cursed water-less earth."
A few of things stuck out to me in this passage. First, Matthu Levi views the crucifixion from a point on the mountain that is neither gentle or nor accessible. Why does Bulgakov feel the need to describe Levi's position in these terms? Could Bulgakov be saying that the path of the righteous in not always easy or comfortable? I also thought Bulgakov's description of the "heaven-cursed waterless earth" was significant. Bulgakov has used water as a symbol in a number of important passages. In chapter 2, the water fountain in colonade serves as a symbol of relief for Pontius Pilate. All he can think about during the trial is putting his head under the fountain to easy the pain in his head. Later, Bulgakov uses water to symbolize Ivan's rebirth as he dives into the river. In chapter 16, the guards offer the prisoners a wet sponge to quench their thirst. After each prisoner has the sponge place to their lips, they are killed. Is water being used as a symbol of transcendence? Or, are all of these references to water purely coincidental?
The final point that I would like to make about this passage involves the fig tree. I'm not exactly sure what to make of the "sickly fig tree." The fig tree is used as a symbol throughout the Bible, partially because it was an important tree for the people of Israel. In many cases, the fig tree is used as a symbol for God. Thus, a withered fig tree would seem to imply that God/goodness/justice is dead in the land of Yershalayim.
The sickly fig tree makes me think of Adam and Eve being modest with lush fig leaves after they lose their innocence. And I think it makes a good connection - Adam and Eve lost innocence, but they still had God and their fig leaves were full and green. Levi, like Adam and Eve, is trying to hide behind the fig leaf, but for Levi there is nothing there and the tree is sad and withered - maybe this is Bulgakov's way of saying "god is dead."
ReplyDeleteI think there is probably also a connection here with Hella and her unabashed nakedness.
Chapter 17 is excellent commentary on the state of the soviet….state. Everything is in disarray. Nothing works correctly and nobody takes responsibility. Examples:
ReplyDeleteCab drivers won’t take fares. – What is a cab supposed to do, but take fares? The excuse is that money is no good and is turning into other things. The reality is perhaps that Russia (USSR) had a problem with counterfeit money, and it is likely that the value of paper money changed quickly in the economic instability and so people would hesitate to trade with it and would rather trade with real goods
.
Prokhor Petrovich, chairman of the commission, is nothing but an empty suit. – This perfectly portrays the person in a position of authority who is both irresponsible and unresponsible. He is irresponsible insofar as he can not actually do anything because he is not really there, and he is unresponsible insofar as he can not be held accountable for anything because he is not really there. He wears a nice suit and sits at a nice desk and appears to have power, but in fact is nothing.
The director of the Moscow branch office likes to form clubs to butter up his superiors – he brought in the choral master who is to blame for the uncontrollable singing. Choral master leaves, but everyone keeps singing indicative of lack of personal control/responsibility. – The choral master is the opposite of the bodiless suit. He steps in and does some real work by making everybody sing, but then disappears before the blame can be placed. The choir, then, is in a position of nonsensically doing what they were told to do, but unable to see how they should be held accountable because they were just following orders.
Bank tellers won’t accept deposits, which is along the lines of cabbies not taking fares. – Foreign currency is evil because foreign currency represents the non-communist influence that might bring down the iron curtain. The irony is that foreign currency would have retained its value in the economic instability of the Soviet era, further demonstrating the absurdity of Soviet life.
Of course people are missing as well, and nobody has a clue where they are. This could representative of unwillingness to get involved, unwillingness to take blame, or actual ignorance of the location of loved ones picked up by the police forces.
I think all of this portrays the “nonsensical farce” of Soviet life. I think my favourite passage is when the cabby is swearing up a storm but Bulgakov just keeps saying “unprintable words…” When I first read this I liked it because gratuitous swearing annoys me, but then I noticed that there are places in the book where swearing does happen. This led me to believe that this use of “unprintable words” in place of swearing is making reference to the institution (and maybe ubiquitousness) of censorship.
"And each of them will sit under his
ReplyDeleteVine and under his fig tree
With no one to make them afraid."
Micah, 4:4
Here's some nameless commentary on that passage from the internet:
"The 'vine' and 'fig tree' are mentioned rather than a house, to signify, there will be no need of a covert; men will be safe even in the fields and open air."
The fig tree -- for me, at least -- signifies peace and safety, probably because I grew up with the short song taken from the above verse of the Bible. (The other half of the song states "and into ploughshares turn their swords / nations shall make war no more." You probably recognize it.) A sickly fig tree is certainly a sign all is not well. Matthew searches out the symbol of peace and safety, sick though it be, and although it does not offer a very good vantage point. For me this suggests at least two things: that people are drawn to the good; and that we must strive for the good, even when any bastion of good is inconvenient, poorly nourished and almost certain to fail.
Yup, not much new to add. When reading the crucifixion scene, I didn't focus so much on the fig tree but on how Levi chose the worst position to watch the execution, on a craggy and tough slope. Everything about the description is difficult. Bulgakov even describes the fig tree as trying to live. Definitely not accidental details.
ReplyDeleteReading the different account of the crucifixion, I couldn't help but think of Monty Python's The Life of Brian; Bulgakov's account is much less hilarious. The main difference between the biblical account of Jesus' death and Bulgakov's, at least that I noticed, was the anonymous nature of Bulgakov's: No crown of thorns, no mockery by the Roman troops. Also, it's Matthew Levi who admonishes God, not Jesus - as far as we can tell no 'Why have you forsaken me?' In the Bible, there's an element of drama and theatrics when Jesus is crucified, in Bulgakov's version it's a sad, lonley death.
As for the hijinks in Moscow, y'all summed it up pretty well. The scene with the empty suit cracked me up - hilarious. The unwilling chorus was kind of the opposite side of that coin, I thought. Both are kind of indictments of automatons, of people just going along with the system. The empty suit is commenting on it from an individual perspective while the unwilling chorus shows how all those individual actions add up to whole organizations aiding and abetting.
One thing that kind of confused me was the return of the sparrow, this time doing the foxtrot. Quite an amusing scene, but what the hell is that about? The Unquiet Day chapter was, to me, more straightforward than the Hapless Visitors chapter. In this chapter Berlioz's uncle and the bartender from the Variety seemed to be confused pawns in Woland's games, but less complicit actors at the same time. Maybe it's their haplessness that saves them from the tempations of the devil. The victims of his temptations, like the people at the seance, seemed to think they were going to trick the devil, like they could take advantage of the opportunity. Whereas the uncle and bartender weren't as wily in their dealings with Woland. But maybe I'm making that up, because the uncle was coming for the apartment and the bartender was trying to get his money back (but maybe those are legit claims). One thing I did notice was that instead of phrases like devil take him or only the devil would know, there started to be phrase invoking Christ - for Christ's sake.
Going forward, how Bulgakov is using the character of Margarita is a bit confusing to me - how it adds and compliments the satire doesn't make sense yet.
Margarita knows what she wants and she's going after it. She has no shame so the devil has no hold on her. She's got the biggest balls of them all, so there is no option but for her and Woland to be great friends. But really, I think she is important because she encompasses the qualities that are contrary to the ones portrayed in chapter 17. She's bold, she's not confused, she has direction and its her own direction, she isn't trying to cheat anybody or rise above by stomping on others - when she gets to choose her reward for hosting the devil's ball, she chooses for someone else. Margarita rocks. I think I have a crush on her. She's hot.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I really like Margarita's character. She really throws a wrench in everything. One thing I find confusing about this book, but that I also like very much, is the mix of satire/sarcasm/mockery with this sort of romantic sweetness about the Master and Margarita, and this powerful female character that spits in the face of about everything else in the book. It's like you think you have the book pegged, then all of a sudden, no, you don't. There seems to be a way out of the idiocy and brutality that does not involve martyring oneself.
ReplyDeleteBut... the Devil is really HELPFUL with all this...and I'm pondering what to read into all that. I thought we were against the devil, but all of a sudden he doesn't seem like such a bad guy after all, so long as you're not an ass trying to ask him for something, or a bureaucrat pounding along with the System to no purpose whatever. In most books, when someone makes some sort of trade with the devil, they end up the worse for it. This book doesn't seem to be so like that. I can think of many small reasons why Margarita would not get a major comeuppance (she's cool, she doesn't ask for anything, she pays the devil first instead of last, the mercy thing...), but I think the key to it is actually Goethe's Faust, who, unlike the squadron of Fausts before him, wins salvation instead of ruin through his love and enjoyment (theatrehistory.com). The Goethe quote at the beginning of the book -- 'who are you, then?' 'I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good.' -- could describe Bulgakov's Woland, I suppose. I have a strong suspicion that we would find a number of clarifying clues about this book, and particularly about Margarita, in Goethe's Faust.
Also, it fits with what we've discussed so far that Faust's dying words are "He alone deserves liberty, like life, who daily must win it." You can't just go along with a bad regime and expect to get off easy; you have to win your freedom, it won't be won for you. We come back to the theme of individual responsibility.
But I'm jumping way ahead. Am I right in thinking many if not most of us have left the reading schedule far behind?
Which is to say, in a long-winded way, that I agree with Meghin!
ReplyDelete"But... the Devil is really HELPFUL with all this...and I'm pondering what to read into all that. I thought we were against the devil, but all of a sudden he doesn't seem like such a bad guy after all, so long as you're not an ass trying to ask him for something, or a bureaucrat pounding along with the System to no purpose whatever."
ReplyDelete- made me think of the idea of karma...Maybe the devil's job is to help dole out appropriate karmic repercussions. Somebody does something dumb and they get something dumb back from Woland. So it isn't that Woland tempts people and makes them do evil, but he is the one who causes the drama and self-punishment that people receive from doing evil.
I also was thinking about the recurrance of the sparrow. When I think of sparrows, I think of happy frolicky birds with cute fluffy butts. They seem like very playful animals. And this is a very playful book. I think sparrows may have more symbology for the book, but this aspect alone is compelling - It makes sense to have a playful motif running through a playful book.
Oh, Margarita's totally hot - and naked too, which is cool.
ReplyDeleteI think there is something to that karmic retribution. As RTS reminded us, the epigraph contained "'I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good" - kind of like the devil is the flip side of God's coin, the yin to his yang. If you're a lying, thieving asshole Woland's got your comeuppance. At some point during the ball scene Woland even says so to Margarita. Once you get through the ball chapter, and especially after the next scene in Jerusalem, you get the impression cowardice and scheming has a lot to do with the chaos unleashed in Moscow. But Margarita doesn't get sucked into that. Woland says to Margarita, "We've been testing you... never ask for anything, and especially from those you are stronger than you." (in the extraction of the master chapter) If you try and get something from the devil, the devil's gonna get you.
Where's the beef??
ReplyDelete