The Master and Margarita

What Political Satires display between the lines.

Mikhail Bulgakov wrote ‘The Master and Margarita’ for many reasons, mostly to reflect his views on the Soviet Union.

I believe that he sought to expose the wrongdoings of his party, using writing to reveal Stalin’s actions and the restrictions on artistic liberty. 

In ‘The Master and Margarita,’ Bulgakov explored the impact of individual and collective choices, with a running theme of morality.

These choices are intertwined in three narratives which consistently reference the character of Woland, depicted as a construct of Satan. The accounts tell of a surreal sense of Stalinist terror in Moscow; love that cannot be fully attained; and a retelling of Pontius Pilate. (A Roman procurator of Judea who condemns Yeshua Ha-Nozri (Jesus), to death despite having the knowledge of his innocence.) 

The three parts of the novel ultimately act as an implicit observation of the people under Soviet control, and how life was, through a symbol displaying a moral confliction in following Stalin yet possessing a desire for free will. 

Yet the significance of being during the era of Stalin ultimately clarifies that the satirical writing was a social commentary from the perspective of an anti-Stalin writer.  

This period was marked by extreme repression from the government, which consequently meant that Bulgakov faced censorship in the Soviet Union and could not publish his written work until 1966. However, even that was censored until 1973 when his writing was published as it had been intended.

Bulgakov purposely used expression and words as criticism to the misdeeds of the government. In an attempt not to brood on what Stalin did to consolidate his power, it is necessary to know of the Great Purges to contextualise what Bulgakov meant in writing a great work of sardonic fiction. 

In reading ‘The Master and Margarita,’ the implication of a voice limited in freedom of speech makes the reader look between the lines and realise how the discourse between characters reflected Bulgakov’s thoughts as a writer.  

The novel was, on the outside, a political satire, yet somehow still referenced the reality of the time.  “You should never ask anyone for anything. Never – and especially from those who are more powerful than yourself.” – Mikhail Bulgakov.  

What I’ve identified from this key point of dialogue is that the author understood that he was powerless against the Soviet Union. 

The most important take aways from the novel are the questions we are left wondering. “But would you kindly ponder this question: What would your good do if evil didn’t exist, and what would the earth look like if all the shadows disappeared? After all, shadows are cast by things and people. ”  Mikhail Bulgakov. 

Did Bulgakov write the novel to illustrate the hopelessness of humanity if we are constantly driven by guilt? Are humans ready to accept inconceivable events if only it satisfies them, and ready to discard it if not of use? Will interpretations ever grasp the meaning of the novel despite relating to other writers who struggled with personal philosophical and religious questions? (Fyodor Dostoevsky, referenced in Bulgakov’s book but also a Russian author). 

With only a small amount of research into such an exploratory tale, we are left with a deeper realisation of the historical context. We know more of a story we could originally just call poetic, and at some points chaotic, satire. We are given an understanding of the power of political satires and left wondering why humans dismiss knowledge of the past and the present.

With the knowledge of Nikanor Ivanovich hoarding foreign currency, theatre staff at the Variety (who scramble for money, clothing, and status) we also ask why we aren’t aware of how the biggest threat and enemy of mankind is human greed.