An example of cowardice from literature is The Master and Margarita. Cowardice - arguments. A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

I. The unusual nature of the novel “The Master and Margarita”.

II. Cowardice is the basis of all human vices.

1. Woland lifts the “curtain” of time.

2. The Master is the servant of truth.

3. The fortitude of a wandering philosopher.

4. Pontius Pilate – representative of the authority of imperial Rome.

5. Strength and weakness of Margarita.

III. “The Master and Margarita” is a novel about the omnipotence of good.

The novel “The Master and Margarita” is the main work of M. Bulgakov. There is hardly a person, even one who knows the writer’s work well, who would claim that he has found the keys to all the mysteries hidden in the novel. A. Akhmatova was one of the first to highly appreciate the novel “The Master and Margarita” and said about Bulgakov: “He is a genius.” One cannot but agree with this description of the writer.

M. Bulgakov in the novel “The Master and Margarita” raises questions about man and time, about the balance of light and darkness, about the mutual transition of good and evil. Among everything is the theme of human vices.

The words of the hero of the novel, Ga-Notsri, affirm the idea that one of the main human vices is cowardice. This idea can be seen throughout the novel. The all-seeing Woland, lifting the “curtain” of time for us, shows that the course of history does not change human nature: Judas, aloisia (traitors, informers) exist at all times. But the basis of betrayal is also, most likely, cowardice - a vice that has always existed, a vice that underlies many grave sins. Aren't traitors cowards? Aren't flatterers cowards? And if a person is lying, he is also afraid of something. Back in the eighteenth century, the French philosopher C. Helvetius argued that “after courage, there is nothing more beautiful than a confession of cowardice.”

In his novel, Bulgakov argues that man is responsible for improving the world in which he lives. The position of non-participation is not acceptable. Can the Master be called a hero? Most likely not. The master failed to remain a fighter to the end. The Master is not a hero, he is only a servant of truth. The Master cannot be a hero, since he chickened out and abandoned his book. He is broken by the adversity that befell him, but he also broke himself. Then, when I escaped from reality to the Stravinsky clinic, when I convinced myself that “there is no need to make big plans.” He doomed himself to inaction of the spirit. He is not a creator, he is only a Master, and therefore he is granted only “peace”.

Yeshua is a wandering young philosopher who came to Yershalaim to preach his teaching. Yeshua is a physically weak person, but at the same time he is a personality, he is a man of thought. He is higher than the Master. Both the teachings of Yeshua and the work of the Master are unique moral and artistic centers. The masters, unlike Yeshua, were nevertheless broken by the difficult trials they endured and forced to abandon creativity. He chickened out, burned the manuscripts and took refuge in a mental hospital. The Master finds the opportunity for a creative life only in the other world. Yeshua is weak physically, but strong spiritually. Under no circumstances does he renounce his views. Yeshua believes that a person can be changed for the better with good. It is very difficult to be kind, so it is easy to replace goodness with all sorts of surrogates, which often happens. But if a person does not chicken out and does not give up his views, then such goodness is omnipotent. The “tramp”, the “weak man” managed to turn the life of Pontius Pilate, the “almighty ruler” upside down.

Pontius Pilate is the representative of the authority of imperial Rome in Judea. This man's rich life experience helps him understand Ga-Nozri. Pontius Pilate does not want to ruin the life of Yeshua, he tries to persuade him to compromise, and when this fails, he wants to persuade the high priest Kaifa to have mercy on Ha-Notsri on the occasion of the Easter holiday. Pontius Pilate shows pity, compassion, and fear towards Yeshua. It is fear that ultimately determines the choice of Pontius Pilate. This fear is born of dependence on the state, the need to follow its interests. For M. Bulgakov, Pontius Pilate is not just a coward, an apostate, but he is also a victim. By apostatizing from Yeshua, he destroys both himself and his soul. Even after physical death, he is doomed to mental suffering, from which only Yeshua can save him.

Margarita is a weak woman. But she is taller than the Master. Indeed, in the name of her love and faith in the talent of her lover, she overcomes fear and her own weakness, and even overcomes circumstances. Yes, Margarita is not an ideal person: having become a witch, she destroys the house of writers, participates in Satan's ball with the greatest sinners of all times and peoples. But she didn't chicken out. Margarita fights for her love to the end. It is not for nothing that Bulgakov calls for love and mercy to be the basis of human relations.

In the novel “The Master and Margarita,” according to A. Z. Vulis, there is a philosophy of retribution: what you deserve, you get. The biggest vice - cowardice - will certainly entail retribution: torment of the soul and conscience. Even in The White Guard, M. Bulgakov warned: “Never run like a rat into the unknown from danger.”

The theme of cowardice connects the two lines of the novel. Many critics will attribute cowardice to the master himself, who was unable to fight for his novel, for his love and his life. And this is precisely what will be explained by the rewarding of the master after the completion of the whole story with peace, and not with light. Let's look at this in more detail.

At the end of the novel, when Woland leaves Moscow, Matvey Levi comes to him with an errand (chapter 29).

“He read the master’s work,” said Matvey Levi, “and asks you to take the master with you and reward him with peace. Is it really difficult for you to do this, spirit of evil?

“He didn’t deserve light, he deserved peace,” Levi said in a sad voice.”

The question of why the master did not deserve the light remains not fully clarified today. It is analyzed in detail by V. A. Slavina. She notes that the most common opinion is that “the master was not awarded the light precisely because he was not active enough, that, unlike his mythological double, he allowed himself to be broken, he burned the novel,” and “did not fulfill his duty: the novel remained unfinished.” A similar point of view is expressed by G. Lesskis in the comments to the novel: “The fundamental difference between the protagonist of the second novel is that the master turns out to be untenable as a tragic hero: he lacked the spiritual power that Yeshua reveals on the cross as convincingly as on interrogation by Pilate... None of the people dares to reproach the exhausted man for such a surrender, he deserves peace.”

Another point of view, expressed, in particular, in the works of the American scientist B. Pokrovsky, is also of interest. He believes that the novel “The Master and Margarita” shows the development of rational philosophy, and the novel by the master himself takes us not two millennia into the past, but to the beginning of the 19th century, to that point in historical development when, after Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” the process of demythologizing the sacred texts of Christianity. The master, according to Pokrovsky, is among these demythologizers, and therefore is deprived of light (the master freed the Gospel from the supernatural - there is no resurrection of Christ). Moreover, he is given a chance to atone for his sin, but he did not see it, did not understand it (this refers to the episode when Ivan Bezdomny in Stravinsky’s clinic tells the master about his meeting with Boland, and he exclaims: “Oh, how I guessed! How I guessed everything!” »

He accepted the devil’s testimony about the truth - and this is his second sin, a more serious one, Pokrovsky believes. And what many critics see as the reason for punishing the master with peace, Pokrovsky calls an act of heroism, because the hero did not make any compromises with a world alien to him, even in the name of his salvation. Here the master exactly corresponds to the idea of ​​“good will” and the “categorical imperative”, which the author of the novel “The Master and Margarita”, following Kant, calls for. In the first chapter, when the heroes argue about the existence of God, Woland, referring to Kant, says that he first destroyed all the evidence for the existence of God, and then “constructed his own sixth proof.” Kant’s sixth proof is the doctrine of good will, the essence of which, according to Vladimir Solovyov’s definition, is “the universal rational idea of ​​good, acting on the conscious will in the form of an unconditional duty or a categorical imperative (in Kant’s terminology). Simply put, a person can do good in addition to and despite selfish considerations, for the sake of the very idea of ​​​​good, out of sheer respect for duty or moral law.

We emphasize what is important, in our opinion, to Bulgakov. In his novel, Yeshua is the bearer of good will. And then we ask the question: can Yeshua, following the “categorical imperative,” punish the master for not being as strong as himself? He would rather forgive this shortcoming, as he forgave Pontius Pilate, than help the master finish his novel. Then Pokrovsky is right in seeing the master’s sin in the destruction of faith: “Paradoxical as such a statement may be, historically the master is the predecessor of the “educated” theorist Berlioz and the ignorant practitioner Ivan Bezdomny, Ivan before his rebirth. Pokrovsky is closer to the truth, in our opinion, but we cannot completely agree with him, because his truth is in faith, in religion only, and he believes that Reason is to blame for everything (“the nightmare of reason that has absolutized itself”).

According to V.A. Slavina, this is not entirely true with Bulgakov. Although ideas and theories are often the causes of misfortune (remember “Fatal Eggs” and “Heart of a Dog”), although he denies social revolutions, preferring the “beloved and Great Evolution”, it is precisely on the conscious and rational will that he places his bets on the path to good . And this is the essence of his philosophy, embodied in a brilliant artistic form - in the novel “The Master and Margarita”.

The archive of M. Bulgakov contains the magazine “Literary Studies” (1938) with an article by Mirimsky about Hoffman. It was about her that Bulgakov wrote to Elena Sergeevna in Lebedyan: “I accidentally came across an article about Hoffmann’s fiction. I'm saving it for you, knowing that it will amaze you as much as it did me. I'm right about The Master and Margarita! You understand what this consciousness is worth - I’m right!” In this article, among those noted by Bulgakov, there are the following words: “He (Hoffmann) turns art into a battle tower, from which, as an artist, he carries out satirical reprisals against reality.” This is obvious for Bulgakov’s novel, which is why, first of all, the work took so long and difficult to reach the reader.

We focused in most detail on the biblical chapters, since they contain the philosophical quintessence of the novel. It is not for nothing that Ilf and Petrov’s first remark after reading the novel by Bulgakov was: “Remove the “ancient” chapters - and we will undertake to publish it.” But this in no way diminishes the content of the chapters on modernity - one cannot be read without the other. Post-revolutionary Moscow, shown through the eyes of Woland and his retinue (Koroviev, Behemoth, Azazello), is a satirical-humorous, with elements of fantasy, an unusually bright picture with tricks and disguises, with sharp remarks along the way and comic scenes. .

During his three days in Moscow, Woland explores the habits, behavior and lives of people of different social groups and strata. He wants to know whether the Moscow population has changed and how significantly, moreover, he is more interested in “whether the townspeople have changed internally.” Readers of the novel see a gallery of heroes similar to Gogol’s, but only smaller than those, albeit from the capital. It is interesting that each of them is given an unflattering description in the novel.

The director of the Variety Theater Styopa Likhodeev “drinks, has relationships with women, using his position, doesn’t do a damn thing, and can’t do anything...”, the chairman of the housing association Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy is a “burner and a rogue”, Maigel is an “earphone” and "spy", etc.

In total, in the novel “The Master and Margarita” there are more than five hundred characters - these are not only those who are distinguished by some individual or specific traits, but also “collective characters” - viewers of the Variety Show, passers-by, employees of various institutions. Woland, although he, according to Margarita, is omnipotent, does not use his power to its full potential and, rather, only to emphasize and more clearly show human vices and weaknesses. These are tricks in the Variety Show and an office with an empty suit signing papers, a singing institution and the constant transformation of money either into simple pieces of paper or into dollars... And when in the theater “Chairman of the Acoustic Commission” Arkady Apollonovich Sempleyarov demands Woland to expose the tricks, a real exposure of those present occurs in the Variety of Citizens.

“I’m not an artist at all,” says Woland, “but I just wanted to see Muscovites en masse...” And people don’t stand the test: men rush for money and to the buffet, and women for rags. As a result, a well-deserved and fair conclusion: “...They are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... Humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous... well, well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... in general, they resemble the old ones... the housing problem has only spoiled them..."

It is noteworthy that the action of the novel begins with Woland's acquaintance with Berlioz, the head of a writers' organization, the editor of a thick magazine, one might say, even a theorist and ideologist, and Ivan Bezdomny, a poet who, on Berlioz's order, writes an anti-religious poem. The educated Berlioz’s confidence in his theoretical postulates and the poet’s blind adherence to them frightens the poet, like any dogmatism that leads to thoughtless obedience and, as a consequence, tragedy. The tragedy is not of an individual, but of an entire society forced to submit to a false totalitarian idea. Lies are punishable by retribution, “retribution as part of the earthly law of justice” (V. Lakshin). This retribution in Bulgakov’s interpretation sounds like the thesis “everyone will be given according to his faith,” which is revealed through the example of Berlioz in the scene at Satan’s ball.

“Mikhail Alexandrovich,” Woland said quietly to the head, and then the murdered man’s eyelids lifted, and on his dead face, Margarita, shuddering, saw living eyes, full of thoughts and suffering. – Everything came true, didn’t it? - Woland continued, looking into the eyes of the head, - the head was cut off by a woman, the meeting did not take place, and I live in your apartment. This is a fact. And fact is the most stubborn thing in the world. But now we are interested in what follows, and not in this already accomplished fact. You have always been an ardent preacher of the theory that when a person’s head is cut off, life in a person ceases, he turns into ash and goes into oblivion. I am pleased to inform you, in the presence of my guests... that your theory is both solid and ingenious. However, all theories are worth one another. There is one among them, according to which everyone will be given according to his faith.” Berlioz is fading into oblivion - he believed in it, he promoted it. He deserved this punishment. The fate of Berlioz's interlocutor Ivan Bezdomny is also interesting. In the final version of the novel, his punishment is much lighter than in earlier editions. He can't cope with the spring full moon. “As soon as it begins to approach, as soon as it begins to grow and fill with gold... Ivan Nikolaevich becomes restless, nervous, loses appetite and sleep, waits until the moon ripens.” But in “The Great Chancellor” - an early version of “The Master and Margarita” - the fate of Ivan Bezdomny is more complicated. He turns out to be dead at the trial (we don’t know how he died) in front of Woland and to the question: “What do you want, Ivanushka?” - answers: “I want to see Yeshua Ha-Nozri, open your eyes to me.” “In other lands, in other kingdoms,” Woland tells him to this, “you will walk through the fields blind and listen. A thousand times you will hear how silence gives way to the noise of the flood, how birds cry in the spring, and you will sing them, blind man, in verse, and for the thousand and first time, on Saturday night, I will open your eyes. Then you will see him. Go to your fields." Ivan Bezdomny, out of ignorance, also believed in Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, but after the events at the Patriarch's Ponds, at the Stravinsky clinic, he admits that he was wrong. And although Bulgakov pursues the idea that “blindness due to ignorance cannot serve as an excuse for unrighteous actions,” at the same time he understands that Berlioz’s guilt cannot be equated with the actions of Ivan Bezdomny.

In this regard, the fate of Pontius Pilate is also interesting. In the last chapter of “The Master and Margarita,” which is called “Forgiveness and Eternal Shelter,” there is a kind of combination of two novels (the Master’s novel and Bulgakov’s novel), the master meets his hero:

“They read your novel,” Woland spoke, turning to the master, “and they only said one thing, that, unfortunately, it is not finished. So, I wanted to show you your hero. For about two thousand years he sits on this platform and sleeps, but when the full moon comes, as you see, he is tormented by insomnia. She torments not only him, but his faithful guardian, the dog. If it is true that cowardice is the most serious vice, then perhaps the dog is not to blame for it. The only thing the brave dog was afraid of was thunderstorms. Well, the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves.”

Pontius Pilate is tormented by the fact that he did not agree on something important with the prisoner with whom he dreamed of walking along the lunar road together. This moment in the novel seems very important, as well as the “full of thoughts and suffering” eyes of Berlioz’s head. Suffering because you did or said something wrong, but you can’t take it back. “Everything will be right, the world is built on this,” Woland says to Margarita and invites the master to end the novel “with one phrase.”

“The master seemed to be waiting for this already, while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting prosecutor. He clasped his hands like a megaphone and shouted so that the echo jumped across the deserted and treeless mountains:

- Free! Free! He's waiting for you!

Pontius Pilate receives forgiveness. Forgiveness, the path to which lies through suffering, through awareness of one’s guilt and responsibility. Responsibility not only for actions and actions, but also for the thoughts and ideas themselves.

Searched here:

• the problem of cowardice in the novel The Master and Margarita
• cowardice in the novel The Master and Margarita
• cowardice in the master and margarita

One of the most terrible human vices... Cowardice. Yes, we all experience fear, but cowardice is the quality of a cowardly person who is unable to take responsibility for his actions.

The great Russian writer, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, in the indicated passage of his novel, raises the problem of cowardice and reveals it through the image of the Jewish procurator Pontius Pilate.

He suffered punishment for the death of an innocent man, whose innocence he did not doubt, but still sentenced him to death. Why did he do this? Afraid of losing his unquestioned authority, even such a man as Pontius Pilate was broken under the pressure of the masses. For his lack of desire to prove the truth and, moreover, to save the life of a person who even helped him, he was punished.

Bulgakov's position is definitely clear - he believes that cowardice is the most serious vice. It is impossible not to agree with the author's opinion. It is with the tacit consent of cowards and indifferents that the most terrible crimes occur, which carry with them irreparable consequences...

Reflecting on this problem, Valentin Rasputin’s story “Live and Remember” comes to mind. The main character of the work is Andrei Guskov, also a coward. Yes, he defended his homeland, walked under bullets, but deserted. What was his cowardice? Not in his desertion, but in his inability to take responsibility for the act he committed. He wanted to justify his action by longing for his family and for Nastenka, his wife, and with a light heart he threw this burden onto her shoulders. It was mean and cowardly of him. He simply became cowardly and faint-hearted.

As a second example, I would like to cite the war story “Sotnikov” by Vasil Bykov. Partisan Rybak, in military operations, proved himself to be a reliable comrade who you can rely on in difficult times, but when he is captured along with Sotnikov, he becomes a coward and makes a deal with the Germans and becomes a policeman himself. In order to save his life, he betrays the principles of partnership and betrays his homeland.

Only a mentally weak person is capable of cowardice and betrayal. These vices have one root - cowardice and mental poverty. Such people are very dangerous for society, because in a difficult situation it is impossible to predict whether they will be true to their words...

Updated: 2018-03-01

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

Useful material on the topic

Every person has many vices. Writers tried to reveal these vices through the prism of their heroes and their lives. Thanks to the example of literary heroes, the reader could see himself from the outside and fight this negative character trait. And so, Bulgakov is no exception. He reveals the problem of cowardice in his famous novel The Master and Margarita. Just today we will turn to his famous work and, in an essay on the work The Master and Margarita, we will trace the problem of cowardice, which the writer considered the most terrible vice.

One of Bulgakov's main works is the novel The Master and Margarita, which reveals moral problems, the problem of true love, good and evil, loyalty and betrayal. The author also touched on the topic of vices, where cowardice stands out among all human negative characteristics. Every person can be afraid and have fear of something, but it is cowardice that is destructive. It does not allow one to admit mistakes, it affects the personal I, making a person a simple individual, but not a person.

It is cowardice that is a terrible vice, and this problem is clearly visible in The Master and Margarita through the example of the characters. For example, the Master cannot be called a hero, he is not a fighter, he could not go to the end. By abandoning his manuscript, the Master showed his cowardice; he allowed himself to be broken. Unlike Yeshua, who showed courage and spiritual strength, the Master turned out to be the opposite.

Pontius Pilate, who has power, also shows cowardice. He is afraid of losing his authority; he is simply broken by the masses. He could not insist on the truth, he did not save a person whose guilt he doubted, he abandoned his moral principles, for which he paid.

Cowardice is the worst vice

The writer calls cowardice the most terrible vice, and it is very difficult to disagree with him. Why? This is because it is precisely this shameful quality of humanity that pushes people to commit crimes. It is she who controls the actions of traitors; those who often flatter their leadership are also guided by cowardice. It is the coward who lies, and all because he is afraid. Afraid to admit guilt and afraid to tell the truth. And you need to be above your vices. As one philosopher said, after courage, there is nothing more beautiful than admitting cowardice. I also completely agree with this statement.

Everything that Bulgakov experienced in his life, both happy and difficult - he gave all his main thoughts and discoveries, all his soul and all his talent to the novel “The Master and Margarita”. Bulgakov wrote “The Master and Margarita” as a historically and psychologically reliable book about his time and people, and therefore the novel became a unique human document of that remarkable era. Bulgakov presents many problems on the pages of the novel. Bulgakov puts forward the idea that everyone is given what they deserve, what you believed in is what you get. In this regard, he also touches on the problem of human cowardice. The author considers cowardice to be the greatest sin in life. This is shown through the image of Pontius Pilate. Pilate was the procurator in Yershalaim. One of those whom he judged is Yeshua Ha-Nozrp. The author develops the theme of cowardice through the eternal theme of the unjust trial of Christ. Pontius Pilate lives by his own laws: he knows that the world is divided into those who rule and those who obey them, that the formula “the slave submits to the master” is unshakable. And suddenly a person appears who thinks differently. Pontius Pilate understood perfectly well that Yeshua did not commit nothing for which he needs to be executed. But for an acquittal, the opinion of the procurator was not enough. He personified the power, the opinion of many, and in order to be found innocent, Yeshua had to accept the laws of the crowd. In order to resist the crowd, a large one is needed. Inner strength and courage. Yeshua possessed such qualities, boldly and fearlessly expressing his point of view. Yeshua has his own philosophy of life: “... there are no evil people in the world, there are unhappy people.” Pilate was so unhappy. For Yeshua, the opinion of the crowd means nothing. does not mean that even in such a dangerous situation for himself, Pilate was immediately convinced of Ga-Nosrp’s innocence. Moreover, Yeshua was able to relieve the severe headache that tormented the procurator. But Pilate did not listen to his “inner” voice, the voice of conscience, but followed the lead of the crowd. The procurator tried to save the stubborn “prophet” from imminent execution, but he resolutely did not want to give up his “truth.” It turns out that the all-powerful ruler is also dependent on the opinions of others, the opinions of the crowd. Because of the fear of denunciation, the fear of ruining his own career, Pilate goes against his convictions, the voice of humanity and conscience. And Pontius Pilate shouts so that everyone can hear: “Criminal!” Yeshua is executed. Pilate is not afraid for his life - nothing threatens her - but for his career. And when he has to decide whether to risk his career or send to death a person who managed to conquer him with his intelligence, the amazing power of his word, or something else unusual, he prefers the latter. Cowardice is the main problem of Pontius Pilate. “Cowardice is undoubtedly one of the most terrible vices,” Pontius Pilate hears the words of Yeshua in a dream. “No, philosopher, I object to you: this is the most terrible vice!” - the author of the book suddenly intervenes and speaks in his full voice. Bulgakov condemns cowardice without mercy or condescension, because he knows: people who have set evil as their goal - there are, in essence, few of them - are not as dangerous as those who seem ready to advance good, but are cowardly and cowardly. Fear turns good and personally brave people into blind instruments of evil will. The procurator realizes that he has committed treason and tries to justify himself to himself, deceiving himself that his actions were correct and the only possible. Pontius Pilate was punished with immortality for his cowardice. It turns out that his immortality is a punishment. It is a punishment for the choices a person makes in their life. Pilate made his choice. And the biggest problem is that his actions were guided by petty fears. He sat on his stone chair on the mountains for two thousand years and saw the same dream for two thousand years - he couldn’t imagine a more terrible torment, especially since this dream was his most secret dream. He claims that he did not agree on something then, on the fourteenth month of Nisan, and wants to go back to correct everything. Pilate's eternal existence cannot be called life; it is a painful state that will never end. The author nevertheless gives Pilate the opportunity to be released. Life began when the Master folded his hands into a megaphone and shouted: “Free!” After much torment and suffering, Pilate is finally forgiven.