An example of cowardice from the literature is Master and Margarita. Cowardice - arguments. A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
I. Unusualness of the novel "Master and Margarita".
II. Cowardice is the basis of all human vices.
1. Woland opens the "curtain" of time.
2. The master is the servant of truth.
3. Fortitude of the wandering philosopher.
4. Pontius Pilate - a representative of the authorities 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 to have found the keys to all the mysteries lurking 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." It is impossible not to agree with this characterization 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 all - 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 continues throughout the novel. The all-seeing Woland, opening the “curtain” of time for us, shows that the course of history does not change human nature: Judas, Aloysia (traitors, scammers) exist at all times. But betrayal is also most likely based on cowardice - a vice that has always existed, a vice that underlies many serious 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 K. Helvetius argued that "after courage, there is nothing more beautiful than a confession of cowardice."
In his novel, Bulgakov claims that man is responsible for the improvement of the world in which he lives. The position of non-participation is not acceptable. Can the Master be called a hero? Most likely no. The master failed to remain a fighter to the end. The Master is not a hero, he is only a servant of the truth. The Master cannot be a hero, because he became afraid - he refused his book. He is broken by the hardships that have befallen him, but he has broken himself. Then, when he fled from reality to the Stravinsky clinic, when he assured himself that “you don’t need to make big plans.” He doomed himself to inaction of the spirit. He is not a creator, he is only a Master, that is why he is granted only “peace”.
Yeshua is a wandering young philosopher who came to Yershalaim to preach his doctrine. Yeshua is a physically weak person, but at the same time he is a person, he is a man of thought. He is above the Master. Both the teaching of Yeshua and the work of the Master are unique moral and artistic centers. The masters, unlike Yeshua, were nevertheless broken by the severe trials they endured, forced to give up creativity. He chickened out, burned the manuscripts, and took refuge in a mental hospital. The Master acquires 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 kindness. 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 get scared, 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.”
Pontius Pilate is the representative of the power of Imperial Rome in Judea. The rich life experience of this man helps him to understand Ha-Nozri. Pontius Pilate does not want to ruin the life of Yeshua, he tries to persuade him to a compromise, and when this fails, he wants to persuade the high priest Kaifa to pardon Ha-Nozri on the occasion of the Easter holiday. Pontius Pilate manifests to Yeshua both pity, and compassion, and fear. 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. Pontius Pilate for M. Bulgakov is not just a coward, an apostate, but he is also a victim. By departing 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 above the Master. Indeed, in the name of her love and faith in the talent of her lover, she overcomes fear and her own weakness, even defeats circumstances. Yes, Margarita is not an ideal person: becoming 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 flinch. Margarita fights to the end for her love. 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. Back in The White Guard, M. Bulgakov warned: "Never run away at a rat's pace into the unknown from danger."
The theme of cowardice links the two lines of the novel. Many critics will attribute cowardice to the master himself, who failed to fight for his novel, for his love and his life. And this is precisely what will explain the rewarding of the master after the completion of the whole story with peace, and not with light. Let's dwell on this in more detail.
At the end of the novel, when Woland leaves Moscow, Levi Matvey comes to him with an assignment (ch. 29).
“- He read the work of the master,” Levi Matthew spoke, “and asks you to take the master with you and reward him with peace. Is it really difficult for you to do, spirit of evil?
“He did not deserve the light, he deserved peace,” said Levi in a sad voice.
The question of why the master did not deserve the light remains to this day not fully clarified. 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, which, unlike his mythological counterpart, allowed himself to be broken, burned the novel”, “did not fulfill his duty: the novel remained unfinished.” A similar point of view is expressed by G. Lesskis in his 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 strength that Yeshua reveals on the cross just as convincingly as on interrogation by Pilate ... None of the people dare to reproach a tortured person for such a capitulation, he deserves peace.
Of interest is another point of view expressed, in particular, in the works of the American scientist B. Pokrovsky. He believes that the novel "The Master and Margarita" shows the development of rational philosophy, and the novel of 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 demythologization of the sacred texts of Christianity. The master, according to Pokrovsky, is among these demythologists, 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 sin, but he did not see it, did not understand it (meaning 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 testimony of the devil about the truth - and this is his second sin, more serious, 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 the world alien to him, even in the name of his salvation. Here the master just corresponds to the idea of "good will" and "categorical imperative", which the author of the novel "The Master and Margarita" calls to follow, following Kant. In the first chapter, when the characters argue about the existence of God, Woland, referring to Kant, says that he first destroyed all the proofs for the existence of God, and then "built 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 reasonable 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 in spite of selfish considerations, for the very idea of goodness, out of respect for duty or moral law alone.
We emphasize what is important, in our opinion, to Bulgakov. In his novel, Yeshua is the bearer of goodwill. 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, who saw the sin of the master in the destruction of faith: “However, such a statement is paradoxical, but 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 fully agree with him, because his truth is in faith, in religion only, and he believes that the Mind is to blame for everything (“the nightmare of the mind that absolutizes 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", nevertheless, it is on the conscious and rational will that he stakes 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".
M. Bulgakov's archive contains the journal "Literary Study" (1938) with Mirimsky's article about Hoffmann. It was about her that Bulgakov wrote to Elena Sergeevna in Lebedyan: “I accidentally attacked an article about Hoffmann's fiction. I'm saving it for you, knowing that it will amaze you as it hit me. I'm right in 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 military tower, with which, as an artist, he creates a satirical reprisal against reality.” This is also obvious for Bulgakov's novel, which is why, first of all, the work took so long and difficult to reach the reader.
We focused on the biblical chapters in most detail, since they contain the philosophical quintessence of the novel. Not without reason, the first remark of Ilf and Petrov after reading the novel by Bulgakov was: “Remove the“ ancient ”chapters - and we undertake to print.” But this in no way belittles 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 and humorous, with elements of fantasy, an unusually bright picture with tricks and dressing up, 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." Before the readers of the novel, there is a gallery similar to Gogol's heroes, but only smaller than those, albeit from the capital. It is interesting that each of them in the novel is given an impartial characterization.
The director of the Variety Theater Styopa Likhodeev “gets drunk, gets involved 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 “burnout and a rogue”, Meigel is an “earphone” and "spy", etc.
In total, in the novel "The Master and Margarita" more than five hundred characters are not only those who are distinguished by some individual or specific features, but also "collective characters" - spectators of the Variety, passers-by, employees of various institutions. Woland, although he, according to Margarita, is omnipotent, uses his power far from being in full force and, rather, only in order to emphasize and more clearly show human vices and weaknesses. These are tricks in the Variety and an office with an empty suit signing papers, a singing institution and the constant transformation of money into simple papers, then into dollars ... And when in the theater the "chairman of the Acoustic Commission" Arkady Apollonovich Sempleyarov demands from Woland to expose tricks, a real exposure of those present takes place in Variety Citizens.
“I’m not an artist at all,” says Woland, “but I just wanted to see Muscovites in bulk ...” And people do not 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 it has always been... Mankind loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether it is 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 former ones ... the housing problem 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, editor of a thick magazine, one might even say a theoretician and ideologist, and Ivan Bezdomny, a poet who writes an anti-religious poem on Berlioz's order. The confidence of the educated Berlioz in his theoretical postulates and the poet's blind adherence to them is frightening, like any dogmatism that leads to thoughtless obedience and, as a result, tragedy. A tragedy not of an individual, but of a whole society forced to submit to a false totalitarian idea. For a lie, retribution is due, “retribution as part of the earthly law of justice” (V. Lakshin). This retribution in Bulgakov's interpretation sounds like the thesis "each will be given according to his faith", which is revealed by the example of Berlioz in the scene at Satan's ball.
“Mikhail Alexandrovich,” Woland turned softly to the head, and then the dead man’s eyelids lifted, and on the dead face Margarita, shuddering, saw living eyes full of thought and suffering. Everything came true, didn't it? Woland went on, 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. It is a fact. A fact is the most stubborn thing in the world. But now we are interested in the future, and not in this already accomplished fact. You have always been an ardent preacher of the theory that after cutting off the head, life in a person stops, he turns into ashes and goes into oblivion. I am pleased to inform you, in the presence of my guests ... that your theory is both solid and witty. However, all theories stand one another. There is one among them, according to which each will be given according to his faith. Berlioz goes 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 handle the spring full moon. “As soon as it begins to approach, as soon as the luminary begins to grow and fill with gold ... Ivan Nikolayevich becomes restless, nervous, loses his appetite and sleep, waits for the moon to ripen.” But in The Great Chancellor, an early version of The Master and Margarita, the fate of Ivan Bezdomny is more complicated. He appears at the trial dead (how he died, we don’t know) before Woland and to the question: “What do you want, Ivanushka?” - replies: "I want to see Yeshua Ha-Nozri - you open my eyes." “In other lands, in other kingdoms,” Woland tells him, “you will walk through the fields blind and listen. A thousand times you will hear how silence is replaced by the noise of floods, how birds cry in spring, and you will sing them, blind, 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." Due to ignorance, Ivan Bezdomny also believed in Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, but after the events at the Patriarch's Ponds, in the Stravinsky clinic, he admits that he was wrong. And although Bulgakov holds the idea that "blindness due to ignorance cannot serve as an excuse for unrighteous deeds," 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, called Forgiveness and Eternal Refuge, two novels (the Master's novel and Bulgakov's novel) are connected, as it were, the master meets his hero:
“They read your novel,” Woland spoke, turning to the master, “and they said only one thing, that, unfortunately, it was not finished. So, I wanted to show you your hero. For about two thousand years he has been sitting on this platform and sleeping, but when the full moon comes, as you can 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 grievous 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 going along the lunar road together. This moment in the novel seems to be very important, as well as the “full of thought and suffering” eyes of Berlioz’s head. Suffering from having done or said something wrong, but cannot be returned. “Everything will be right, the world is built on this,” Woland says to Margarita and invites the master to end the novel “in one phrase.”
“The master seemed to have been waiting for this while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting prosecutor. He folded his hands like a mouthpiece and shouted so that the echo jumped over the deserted and treeless mountains:
- Free! Free! He is waiting for you!"
Pontius Pilate is forgiven. Forgiveness, the path to which lies through suffering, through the awareness of one's guilt and responsibility. Responsibility not only for deeds 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 Master and Margarita
- cowardice in master and margarita
One of the worst 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 was punished for the death of an innocent person, whose innocence he did not doubt, but still sentenced him to death. Why did he go for it? Fearing to lose his indisputable authority, even such a man as Pontius Pilate was broken under the pressure of the masses. For the lack of a desire in him 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 opinion of the author. It is with the tacit consent of the cowards and the indifferent that the most terrible crimes happen, which carry irreparable consequences...
Reflecting on this problem, Valentin Rasputin's story "Live and Remember" comes to mind. The protagonist of the work is Andrei Guskov, also a coward. Yes, he defended his homeland, went under the 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 act by longing for his family and for Nastenka, his wife, and with a light soul he threw this burden on her shoulders. It was mean and cowardly of him. He was simply timid and timid.
As a second example, I would like to cite Vasil Bykov's war story Sotnikov. Partisan Rybak, in military operations, showed himself as a reliable comrade who can be relied upon in difficult times, but when he is captured along with Sotnikov, he is 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, betrays his homeland.
Only a mentally weak person is capable of cowardice and betrayal. These vices have one root - cowardice and spiritual 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!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Useful material on the topic
Every person has many vices. The 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 here, 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 based on the work of The Master and Margarita, we will trace the problem of cowardice, which the writer considered the worst 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 upon the topic of vices, where cowardice highlights among all human negative characteristics. Each person can be afraid and have fear of something, but it is cowardice that is destructive. It does not allow admitting mistakes, it strikes the personal self, making a person a simple individual, but not a personality.
It is cowardice that is a terrible vice, and this problem is clearly visible in the Master and Margarita on 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. Rejecting 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.
Cowardice is also shown by Pontius Pilate, who, having power, is a coward. He is afraid of losing authority, he is simply broken by the masses. He could not insist on the truth, he did not save the person whose guilt he doubted, he deviated from moral principles for which he paid.
Cowardice is the worst vice
The writer calls the most terrible vice - cowardice and it is very difficult to disagree with him. Why? All because it is this shameful quality of humanity that pushes people to crime. It is she who controls the actions of traitors, and those who often flatter their leadership are 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 the recognition of cowardice. I also fully agree with this statement.
Everything that Bulgakov experienced in his lifetime, 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 rewarded according to their deserts, what you believed in is what you get. In this regard, he touches upon the problem of human cowardice. The author considers cowardice the biggest sin in life. This is shown through the image of Pontius Pilate. Pilate was 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 according to his own laws: he knows that the world is divided into rule-N (them and those who obey them, that the formula “the slave obeys the master” is unshakable. And suddenly a person appears who thinks otherwise. Pontius Pilate understood perfectly well that Yeshua did not commit nothing for which he should be executed. But for a verdict of acquittal, the opinion of the procurator alone was not enough. He personified 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, you need a large 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 also so unhappy. For Yeshua, the opinion of the crowd is nothing It does not mean that he, even being in such a dangerous situation for himself, strives to help others. Pilate was immediately convinced of Ha-Notsrp's innocence, especially since 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 crowd's lead. The procurator tried to save the stubborn "prophet" from inevitable 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, 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 subdue him with his mind, the amazing power of his word, or something else unusual, he prefers the latter. Cowardice is the main trouble 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 intervenes unexpectedly and speaks in his full voice. Bulgakov condemns cowardice without mercy and condescension, because he knows that people who set evil as their goal are not so dangerous - there are, in fact, few of them - as those who seem to be ready to hasten to good, but are cowardly and cowardly. Fear makes good and personally brave people a blind instrument of evil will. The procurator understands that he committed a betrayal and tries to justify himself to himself, deceiving himself that his actions were correct and the only possible ones. Pontius Pilate was punished with immortality for his cowardice. It turns out that his immortality is a punishment. It is a punishment for the choice a person makes in his life. Pilate made his choice. And the biggest problem is that petty fears guided his actions. For two thousand years he sat on his stone chair on the mountains and for two thousand years he had the same dream - he couldn’t think of a more terrible torment, especially since this dream is his most secret dream. He claims that he did not finish something then, 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 like a mouthpiece and shouted: “Free!”. After much torment and suffering, Pilate is finally forgiven.