So who are you, finally?

I am part of the force

forever wants evil and forever

does good.

"Faust" I. Goethe.

The epigraph to the novel by M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" are the words of Mephistopheles (the devil) - one of the characters in the drama by I. Goethe "Faust". What is Mephistopheles talking about and what does his words have to do with the story of the Master and Margarita?

M. Bulgakov precedes the appearance of Woland with a quotation from Faust; he seems to warn the reader that the evil spirit in the novel occupies one of the leading places.

The words of Mephistopheles can be fully attributed to Bulgakov's character - Woland (moreover, Mephistopheles and Woland, in fact, are the same person). The “foreign consultant” really wants evil, he is the bearer of evil by nature, and his color in the novel is black. However, a certain nobility and honesty are also characteristic of him; and sometimes, willingly or unwittingly, he does good deeds (or deeds that bring benefits). Woland does much less evil than his role suggests. And although people die at his will - Berlioz, the chairman of MASSOLIT, and the former Baron Meigel, an employee of the spectacular commission - their death seems natural, because it is the result of their own deeds.

By the will of Woland, houses burn, people go crazy, disappear for a while ... It should be noted that those who suffered from the devil in the novel are mostly negative characters (bureaucrats, people who find themselves in a position they are not capable of, drunkards, slobs , finally, fools). Bulgakov shows that everyone is rewarded according to their deserts - and not only by God, but also by Satan.

After all, Woland helps the main characters - the Master and Margarita - and even fulfills Margarita's wishes. The devil not only returns her beloved person, and his home, but even frees Frida at the request of Margarita. After Matthew Levi gives Woland the desire of Jesus, Satan rewards the Master and his beloved: he gives them eternity. And he does it willingly - it seems that he was just waiting for the command.

Yes, and the evil deeds of the devil often turn into a benefit for the people affected by him.

The poet Ivan Bezdomny, with the help of Woland, realized that his poems were absolutely mediocre. He made the decision never to write again. After leaving the Stravinsky clinic, Ivan becomes a professor, an employee of the Institute of History and Philosophy, begins a new life.

The administrator Varenukha, who had been a vampire, forever weaned himself from the habit of lying and swearing on the phone, and became irreproachably polite.

The chairman of the housing association, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, has unlearned taking bribes.

Nikolai Ivanovich, whom Natasha turned into a boar, will never forget those moments when a different life, different from gray everyday life, touched him, he will regret for a long time that he returned home, but all the same - he has something to remember.

After the fire in Griboyedov's house, in a conversation with Woland, Koroviev says that the house will be rebuilt and that this new house will be better than the previous one. And the place of the Latunskys will be taken by worthy people, real talents, who will create a new literature, far from the current situation.

Yes, evil is destructive, but it destroys the old, obsolete. After all, if this is not done, routine and inertia will triumph in life.

Woland, referring to Levi Matthew, said: “What would your good do if evil did not exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows are obtained from objects and people ... ". Indeed, what is good in the absence of evil?

This means that Woland is needed on earth no less than the wandering philosopher Yeshua Ga-Notsri, who preaches kindness and love. Good does not always bring good, just as evil does not always bring trouble. Quite often the opposite is the case. That is why Woland is the one who, desiring evil, nevertheless does good. This idea is expressed in the epigraph to the novel.

The meaning of the epigraph taken from Goethe's poem "Faust" (the novel "The Master and Margarita")

The epigraph of Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita" is taken from Goethe's poem "Faust" not by chance. The work of the great German poet served Bulgakov as a real source of themes and prototypes of the main characters.

The main acting force of the novel is Satan, who incarnated and came to Moscow for seemingly unknown reasons. The name of Satan "Woland" is taken from a poem by Goethe, where it is mentioned only once, and is usually omitted in Russian translations. This is how Mephistopheles calls himself in the scene of Walpurgis Night, demanding from evil spirits to give way: "Nobleman Woland is coming!"

The writer hides the true face of Woland only at the very beginning of the novel in order to intrigue readers. Then he directly declares through the lips of the Master and Woland himself that Satan has definitely arrived at the Patriarch's. The version with hypnotists and mass hypnosis, which Woland and his companions allegedly subjected to Muscovites, is also present in The Master and Margarita. But its purpose is sharp satire. Thus, Bulgakov expresses the ability and desire of the philistine consciousness to explain any inexplicable phenomena of the surrounding life, up to mass repressions and the disappearance of people without a trace.

The author of The Master and Margarita seems to be saying: even if the devil himself came to Moscow with his infernal retinue, “competent” bodies and theorists, like the chairman of MASSOLIT, Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, would still find a completely rational basis for this.

To different characters communicating with Woland, he gives a different explanation of the goals of his stay in Moscow. Woland says to Berlioz and Homeless that he has arrived to study the found manuscripts of Herbert Avrilaksky. The hero explains his visit to the employees of the Variety Theater and the manager of the house with the intention to perform a session of black magic. To the Variety Theatre's barman Sokov, already after the scandalous session, Satan says that he simply wanted to "see the Muscovites en masse, and it was most convenient to do this in the theater." Margarita Koroviev, before the start of the Great Ball with Satan, informs that the purpose of the visit of Woland and his retinue to Moscow is to hold this ball, whose hostess must certainly bear the name of Margarita and be of royal blood.

Woland has many faces, as befits the devil. In conversations with different people, he puts on different masks, gives completely different answers about the goals of his mission. Meanwhile, all the versions given serve to disguise his true intention - the salvation of the brilliant Master and his beloved, as well as the salvation of the manuscript of the novel about Pontius Pilate.

I think that Woland is the bearer of fate. And here Bulgakov is in line with the long tradition of Russian literature, linking fate, fate, fate not with God, but with the devil. But Woland's unconventionality is manifested in the fact that, being a devil, he is endowed with some obvious virtues.

Woland, like the hero of Goethe, wishing evil, must do good. In order to get the Master with his novel, he punishes the false writer Berlioz, the thief bartender Sokov and the grabber-manager Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy. It seems to me that the desire to give the author of the novel about Pontius Pilate to the power of otherworldly forces is only a formal evil, since it is done with the blessing and even on the direct instructions of Yeshua Ha-Notsri, personifying the forces of good.

But good and evil are created, ultimately, by the hands of man himself. Woland and his retinue only give an opportunity to manifest those vices and virtues that are inherent in people. For example, the cruelty of the crowd towards Georges of Bengal in the Variety Theater is replaced by mercy. The initial evil, when they wanted to tear off the head of the unfortunate entertainer, becomes a necessary condition for the manifestation of goodness - pity for the entertainer who lost his head. For Bulgakov, Woland personifies the fate that punishes Berlioz, Sokov and others who violate the norms of Christian morality. This is the first devil in world literature who punishes for non-compliance with the commandments of Christ.

Woland turns to Matthew Levi, who refused to wish health to the “spirit of evil and the lord of shadows”: “You spoke your words as if you did not recognize shadows, and also evil. Would you be so kind as to think about the question: what would your good do if evil did not exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it?

In this phrase of the lord of darkness, in my opinion, the meaning of the epigraph chosen by Bulgakov is revealed to us - the unity and complementarity of good and evil. For without evil, people cannot understand what good is. And this is the great humanistic meaning of the entire work "The Master and Margarita". Everything in the world has the right to exist, and it is not given to people to judge what should be and what should be destroyed.

Even before the reading begins, the reader is warned that the thing he is embarking on will be directly connected with Goethe's tragedy. The meaning of the epigraph is far from limited to this. The whole philosophical meaning of the novel is compressed in it, and a lot will have to be disassembled and discussed before we get close to resolving the riddle. Two lines from "Faust" begin to excite the reader when reading the very first pages; the strange characterization of Satan does not cease to excite the thoughtful reader to the very end: it directly sets the topic for reflection. Having closed the book, the reader understands that the promise given in the epigraph has been fulfilled: Woland really "does good" - which the braggart Mephistopheles never did. And a new riddle arises: what evil does Woland want? And does he want evil in general?.. And what is his real attitude towards evil and good?

And the reader opens the book again - as we do now.

…So, the first pages. The epigraph sets their mood, as if explaining in advance the strangeness and horror that fell on the sunset Patriarch's Ponds, which made the May evening “terrible”. "... No one came under the lindens, no one sat on the bench, the alley was empty." Listen to how it sounds: "no one ... no one ... empty-ta-a was-a al-leya-a ..."

Woland's phenomenon is described in combination: by the author's speech and from the point of view of Berlioz and Bezdomny. However, the latter, in principle, cannot identify their interlocutor-devil; on their blindness the action is built. And the reader needs to recognize him, and for this, literary signs of Satan are given. They are presented somewhat ominously: "when ... it was already late, various institutions presented their reports describing this person," reports with significant confusion: some report that the stranger was "limping on his right leg," others that on the left; lameness is only in the "reports", in the direct description there is another sign - a cane with a black knob in the form of a poodle's head.

These are all replays of Faust. Mephistopheles comes to Faust also at the hour of sunset, on an anxiously deserted field, in the guise of a black poodle. Of course, the poodle did not limp ... Paraphrases, if you look, are very funny. The fact is that the lameness of Mephistopheles is noticeable only to especially perceptive people. In the scene "Auerbach's cellar in Leipzig", only the reveler Siebel notices the lameness, and he screams about hellfire when the wine flares up. It turns out that the “summaries” were compiled by some Soviet zibels, who became adept at satanic affairs. It is also funny with the poodle: Mephistopheles himself climbed into the skin of a dog, and the majestic Woland decorated the hilt of his cane-sword, a sovereign attribute, with a dog's head.

Satan was asked the question - who is he by nationality? The question is comedic - from the point of view of Satan himself. Is it conceivable to ask the Prince of all darkness such questions? And he asks again in surprise: “Me?” - they say, in some way I am the reason that you, little people, hid in your nations, like in caves, and expect dirty tricks from "enemies" or "interventions" ... Having asked again, he suddenly thinks. About what? Why shouldn't the "liar and the father of lies" (as the Scripture says) answer instantly, with the first fiction that comes up? And just because he is not a canonical Satan, he does not condescend to lies. On the other hand, he is not Mephistopheles, he is by no means opposed to being recognized. And he, as it were, goes into the literary spaces surrounding The Master and Margarita, weighs everything and returns with an indefinite, even strange, but quite honest answer in the context of the novel: “Perhaps a German” ...

Turning to the collection of sources "Faust", prepared by V. M. Zhirmunsky, we see that the main body of previous legends and literary compilations about Faust and his friend Satan is German. Mephistopheles turns out to be a German squared. The theological aspect is no less interesting. Lutheranism, a reform movement that originated in Germany and was led by a German, literally revived the devil. Martin Luther was the greatest theologian, he translated the Bible into German and, from the height of his - colossal! - authority, he began to assert that the devil, firstly, has great power, and secondly, constantly appears among mortals. “You can think that the German reformer in his youth suffered in the literal sense of hallucinations,” writes V. M. Zhirmunsky in the article “The History of the Legend of Faust.” It was not only Luther himself and his closest associates who revived the devil, who, by the way, denounced the “vile monster” - the historical Faust ... They were with the whole new German church, which in the 16th-17th centuries “experienced a terrible epidemic of witch trials: the execution of witches, under torture confessed to intercourse with the devil. “It was in the ideas of this Protestant milieu that Faust's nigromancy (i.e., black magic) should have turned into a pact with the devil,” states the researcher.

The theological revolution that brought Satan back to earthly affairs introduced Faust into literature. His story became instructive, with the blessing of the new church, she climbed onto the podium of the theatrical stage, especially the puppet theater, became a German folk drama and from there she moved into great literature - of course, also in German, the famous period of "storm and stress". Lessing tried to write about it, other writers of the same time - and, finally, Goethe wrote his own, since then, the only "Faust".

So, Mephistopheles is a German in the full sense of the word.

But Woland is "perhaps a German."

The Master opens with another allusion to the virtual cloud around Goethe's Faust. The hint is contained in the name of the first person who appeared on the scene: "Berlioz". The surname most famous in musical culture: Hector Louis Berlioz, the famous French composer and conductor of the 19th century, was a promoter of program music and created a number of works on the theme of Faust.

His namesake, Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, is extremely noticeable in the novel. It is quite clear that the author hated him (although he gave him all three of his initials; we will have to return to this fact later). Moreover, Berlioz is entrusted with the gospel theme: he sets its historiographical outline - and Bulgakov reproduces his instructions with mocking accuracy, but in such a way that the result is the opposite of what the “well-read editor” would like. The theme breaks out of Berlioz's hands and turns against him. Bulgakov makes him a tragic figure in a way; in the last second of pseudo-life, in which he is already deprived of his body, his eyes are “full of thought and suffering” ...

So, I ask myself: did Bulgakov just give this man the name of a French composer? After all, he stubbornly wrote music based on Faust, and Bulgakov passionately loved Gounod's opera almost all his life. In The White Guard, he did what he rarely allowed himself: he proclaimed in the author's text: "Faust ... is completely immortal." The music and text of Gounod's opera are heard both in The White Guard and in The Theatrical Novel, where Mephistopheles-Rudolfi appears under it. It seems to me that the symphonic fantasies of Hector Berlioz irritated Bulgakov after the simple and harmonious music of Gounod. Not so, they say, he interpreted Goethe - and now his name is given to another unfortunate interpreter.

Let's go back to Woland. Literally from the doorstep, we counted several obvious references to Faust and his cultural retinue, and the Master himself certified them. Let's ask an indispensable question: why? Why are we, the readers, immediately made to understand that the most important character of the novel is a purely conventional character, a piece from Mephistopheles? Just so that we prick up our ears and start waiting for dirty tricks in the spirit of the sarcastic devil Goethe? But then, and very soon, it turns out that Woland, in fact, is completely different ...

It seems to me that in the first and third chapters, this quality of his, which I would call "literary", in itself works like a mitraliasis: several targets are hit with one shot. First, the reader is really on guard. Then he receives a warning about the whole manner of the novel - about its proliteracy. The third reason is artistic; More precisely, there are even two reasons. Bulgakov, for reasons of censorship, needed that the reprisal against Berlioz did not look like a fair execution, and he achieved this: well, which Mephistopheles is the judge? And besides, the writer brilliantly solved a difficult literary task. It is very difficult to achieve a sense of authenticity in a fantastic thing if readers know that the situation being described is completely unreal. Pilate's trial of Yeshua could be real, Woland's appearance could not. And, what is most unpleasant for the writer, the witnesses of this phenomenon, Berlioz and Bezdomny, interfere with the feeling of authenticity. They don't recognize the devil, and they shouldn't. And usually in science fiction, the characters seem to prop up the author with their shoulders: they are immensely surprised at a fantastic event and immediately begin to believe in it, demonstrating the most real psychological reactions. And this, according to the law of sympathetic magic, charges the reader.

Bulgakov decides everything differently. Berlioz and Bezdomny do not believe in Satan, and neither should the reader! The reader should not feel like a smart guy, and the characters are fools, he should put himself in their place. Laughing at two writers who got plucked like chickens, we periodically blush, realizing that we, in their place, would have behaved in exactly the same way. Well, unless they ran to call the NKVD ... We would not be afraid of such a Satan either. Bulgakov does not disguise, but sticks out literary conventionality, Mephistopheles shines through Woland; we see that a literary-psychological etude is being played out, only it is being played out purely: the characters in a conditional situation behave in the same way as you and I would behave.

Bulgakov himself, resolutely, did everything so that we would not create a sense of falsehood - inevitable if he tried to make us believe in the existence of the devil. And we obediently, even enthusiastically, receive our lesson in morality. But at the end of the 3rd chapter, the image of Woland ceases to be in contact with Faust, and so it goes until the end of the thing (as far as possible in the novel, fundamentally Faustian). For with the death of Berlioz, everything must change - both the action and the poetics. The reader, who has just smirked - the writer runs to call the NKVD - suddenly sees how the severed head rolls along the cobblestone and the "gilded moon" shines on it. The terrible authenticity of the event suddenly overtakes us and holds our hearts - also until the end of the novel.

Anna MELNIKOVA,
MOU “Average
general educational
school number 45”,
Vorkuta,
Komi Republic

About the epigraph to the novel "The Master and Margarita"

The novel by M. Bulgakov “The Master and Margarita” has changed its status among readers several times since its publication. First - a favorite novel of the intellectual elite, a sign of familiarization with a high and semi-forbidden culture. Then - a cult novel for the general reader, it was then that aphorisms about “second freshness” and that you never have to ask for anything were widely quoted, and the entrance to the house on Sadovaya became a place for a youth party. And finally, a work from the school curriculum...

In connection with this, the current status of the novel, there is a desire to introduce a clearly unusual work into the usual framework, hang another label, “explain” (as Bulgakov himself would say), and “explain” in a very definite way.

The fact is that back in the late 80s, clergy said that The Master and Margarita was a “devilish” novel that glorified Satan, and that an Orthodox Christian should not even keep it in the house.

Yes, the thinking reader must inevitably face the question: how to perceive the image of Woland and his actions themselves? After all, Woland is so charming; after all, he punishes only bribe-takers, bureaucrats, traitors, depraved people, and even blasphemers! And this despite the fact that almost from the first pages a more or less educated reader knows: before him is the prince of darkness. Satan.

Satan is a positive hero? Is the novel about the devil, as Bulgakov himself sometimes said? Doesn't this alone make one horrified and shudder, especially in our days of the revival of the Christian worldview (a revival, often, alas, ostentatious)?

A slightly exaggerated view of the image of Woland and the author's position, which we have to meet today, is something like this:

Woland must cause horror and disgust; and since this does not happen, the author is on his side. And then the novel is a satanic and anti-Christian work, and the image of Christ in it is deliberately distorted. And if this blasphemous work is included in the school curriculum, the task of the teacher is to save the fragile souls of schoolchildren by explaining it to them.

Another, somewhat different opinion was heard recently at one of the teachers' seminars: Bulgakov does not glorify the devil at all, but it is difficult to understand, and the task of the teacher is to correctly interpret the novel.. Agreeing with this thesis, I can’t accept the proposed interpretation in any way: Woland does not administer and cannot administer any justice, since justice on earth is generally not feasible before the Last Judgment (from the standpoint of theology and the Christian religion, it probably is, but where is it shown in the novel?); Satan comes to Moscow behind the Master’s novel, allegedly containing him, Satan, an excuse (I also do not find evidence of this in the text) ...

We are again faced with a desire - and even a demand - to explain what Bulgakov was wrong about (and Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Pushkin are next in line). Explain this time not from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, but from the standpoint of Orthodoxy.

The viciousness of such an approach is obvious: it gives rise to nihilism and arrogance in the student and the reader in general, creates in him the illusion of omniscience, and instills contempt for the writer, who “did not understand” obvious things.

And the reason is that such an approach completely ignores the entire artistic side of the work: the system of images, composition, numerous reminiscences and cultural allusions. What remains is a bare scheme that can be interpreted as you like, without looking back at the text.

The nature of a truly artistic work is such that there is nothing superfluous, accidental in it - everything is important. This fully applies to the epigraph. About him and about his key role in resolving the "problem of Woland" and will be discussed further.

* * *

I

“I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good”, - this is the answer of Mephistopheles to the question of Faust: “... so who are you, finally?” - M.A. Bulgakov made an epigraph to the novel, as if immediately expressing his attitude towards Woland. But these words can only be understood in the context of Goethe's tragedy.

Why does Mephistopheles recommend himself so? Does the devil (or rather, the evil force of which he is a part) really do good for people? Then it is time to write down Goethe in the category of "Satanists". Or maybe Mephistopheles just needs to attract Faust, charm him in order to deceive?

Of course, Mephistopheles is lying; Let's clarify: he thinks he's lying. Throughout the tragedy, this clever, caustic, charming devil is only waiting for the right opportunity to destroy Faust, to force him to utter the agreed phrase: “Stop, a moment! You are wonderful!” - and take possession of his soul.

Now it's time to remember who gave Mephistopheles the right to tempt Dr. Faust and how it turned out. Let's remember the Prologue in the sky.

The devil assures that man is a nonentity; God is convinced of the greatness of his creation. Doctor Faust is destined to become in this dispute the personification of the entire human race. He will destroy his soul, indulging in base aspirations - the devil is right; endure - the Lord is right. And he calmly gives "his servant" into the clutches of the devil. Why?

And why does God calmly send his other faithful servant, Job, to the test in the famous biblical story?

There is no doubt that in the Prologue in the Sky, Goethe relies on the Book of Job. There, too, there is a dispute between God and Satan about the faith of man and his fidelity to God. And God is so confident in Job that he says to Satan: “...behold, all that he has is in your hand; only do not stretch out your hand on him” (Job; chapter 1, verse 12). Note: Satan can only do to Job what God has allowed him to do.

The first test of Job ends with the victory of the righteous over Satan: having lost all his property and all his children, Job “said: Naked I came out of my mother's womb, and naked I will return. The Lord gave, the Lord took; may the name of the Lord be blessed! In all this Job did not sin, and did not say anything foolish about God” (chapter 1, verse 21-22).

True, the second test - leprosy, which for the ancient Jew was not just an incurable disease, but a sign of God's disgrace, Job withstood with difficulty. He seems to be rebelling against God. But as soon as the Lord spoke to the rebel, he, struck by the greatness of the Creator revealed to him, humbles himself and glorifies him. And this humility - not stupid, submissive, but suffered through suffering - is most of all in the Lord's soul: "... you spoke about me not so true as My servant Job" (chapter 42, verse 8).

In an effort to shame God and destroy the righteous, the biblical Satan achieved the exact opposite result: he testified to the power of the Lord and helped Job to establish himself in faith and gain a reward. Wishing evil, did good.

Let us now return to Faust. What did Mephistopheles achieve by seeking to destroy his soul and shame the entire human race? Faust goes to heaven! Even having signed an agreement with the devil, having succumbed to many temptations, Faust retained in himself a divine spark, faith in goodness, justice, harmony, the desire to establish (in the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment) goodness on earth, among people. And after all, Faust utters the fatal phrase not in self-satisfied reassurance, but in anticipation of the creation of a new, beautiful world, so that Mephistopheles cheated, revealed his true essence, proved that the devil, no matter how charming he was, is first of all a liar, a deceiver, crafty.

Without reducing the ideological content of the immortal tragedy only to this, we note, nevertheless, that the finale serves to resolve the dispute from the Prologue in heaven. And let us recall how confident the Lord is in His triumph:

When a gardener plants a tree
The fruit is known in advance to the gardener.
(Translated by B. Pasternak)

The reader realizes how much more powerful and wiser Goethe's Lord is than Mephistopheles, who dared to argue with him. God calmly allows Faust to be tempted, because he knows in advance that Faust will pass the test. It cannot be otherwise: omniscience is an essential attribute of Divinity. And how pathetic and ridiculous then becomes the devil, presumptuously counting on defeating the one who knows everything in advance!

* * *

II

Thus, the meaning of the epigraph can be only one: the devil (Mephistopheles, Woland, or some “power” of which they are a part) wants evil. But he cannot go beyond what is permitted from above and, thinking that he acts of his own free will, only serves as an instrument of Divine Providence - he involuntarily does good.

Is this understanding of the epigraph confirmed by the content of the novel itself? Obviously yes.

Woland is majestic, wise, seemingly just... But the enemy of the human race must appear like that, like Mephistopheles, in order to attract hearts and destroy mortals who believe him. The author, however, reveals to us the true essence of the prince of darkness: “... his left, green (eye) is completely insane, and the right one is empty, black and dead”; his laughter is “satanic”, and on the eve of Easter, having completed his work on earth, he, together with his retinue, falls into a hole - into the underworld. And the very name Woland, chosen after much deliberation, in medieval German dialects meant “deceiver, rogue” (in Russian, the devil is also called “crafty”) (Utekhin, p. 291; Yanovskaya, p. 195).

Does Woland do good? No, he did evil: he “pushed Berlioz under the tram” (let us remember the words of Ivan Bezdomny: “He purposely put him under the tram!”), drives Ivan himself into a lunatic asylum, ruins Rimsky’s life, kills Meigel ... He and his retinue cruelly they mock Likhodeev, Varenukha, Bengalsky and many, many others ... Woland, undoubtedly, must destroy Margarita's soul, involving her in the disgusting coven of the “great ball”. And what "good" was he going to do to the Master, pulling out a beggar, a homeless and insane person from a hospital where he hoped to find refuge? Is it good to restore a novel that still cannot be printed?

But all the evil in the novel is put in the most rigid framework. The encounter with him changed for the better the personality of Bezdomny, Likhodeev, Bengalsky, and Varenukha. Why? Not at all because Woland wanted it: they just repented, and the devil no longer has power over them. Not at the will of Woland, but in spite of him, justice is carried out in the episode with Frida (whose fate, we note, echoes the fate of Goethe's Gretchen, who went to heaven). And the most important proof: the soul of Margarita did not die, because at the cost of her own death the heroine was going to buy the salvation of another person - the Master; but she was ready to forget about this in order to help Frieda. It seems that it will not be blasphemy to recall here the words: “He who saves his soul will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake will save it” (Matthew, chapter 10, verse 39).

In conclusion, Woland fulfills the will of Yeshua. We should not be embarrassed that he is asked: this does not necessarily mean that Jeusha and Woland - Light and Darkness - are equal in rights. The point, perhaps, is in the character of Yeshua himself, who is unwilling and unable to give orders. One can again recall the Lord in Goethe, kindly conversing with Mephistopheles and proclaiming: “I am never an enemy like you.” And Woland’s irritation in a conversation with Levi Matthew was caused not only by hostility towards the “slave” who does not want to recognize the power of Darkness, but also by the need to submit (probably for the umpteenth time) to the will of Good.

Composition Bulgakov M.A. - Master and Margarita

Topic: - The role of the epigraph in the novel by M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita"

So who are you, finally?
I am part of the force
forever wants evil and forever
does good.
"Faust" I. Goethe.
The epigraph to the novel by M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" are the words of Mephistopheles (the devil) - one of the characters in the drama by I. Goethe "Faust". What is Mephistopheles talking about and what does his words have to do with the story of the Master and Margarita?
M. Bulgakov precedes the appearance of Woland with a quotation from Faust; he seems to warn the reader that the evil spirit in the novel occupies one of the leading places.
The words of Mephistopheles can be fully attributed to Bulgakov's character - Woland (moreover, Mephistopheles and Woland, in fact, are the same person). The “foreign consultant” really wants evil, he is the bearer of evil by nature, and his color in the novel is black. However, a certain nobility and honesty are also characteristic of him; and sometimes, willingly or unwittingly, he does good deeds (or deeds that bring benefits). Woland does much less evil than his role suggests. And although people die at his will - Berlioz, the chairman of MASSOLIT, and the former Baron Meigel, an employee of the spectacular commission - their death seems natural, because it is the result of their own deeds.
By the will of Woland, houses burn, people go crazy, disappear for a while ... It should be noted that those who suffered from the devil in the novel are mostly negative characters (bureaucrats, people who find themselves in a position they are not capable of, drunkards, slobs , finally, fools). Bulgakov shows that everyone is rewarded according to their deserts - and not only by God, but also by Satan.
After all, Woland helps the main characters - the Master and Margarita - and even fulfills Margarita's wishes. The devil not only returns her beloved person, and his home, but even frees Frida at the request of Margarita. After Matthew Levi gives Woland the desire of Jesus, Satan rewards the Master and his beloved: he gives them eternity. And he does it willingly - it seems that he was just waiting for the command.
Yes, and the evil deeds of the devil often turn into a benefit for the people affected by him.
The poet Ivan Bezdomny, with the help of Woland, realized that his poems were absolutely mediocre. He made the decision never to write again. After leaving the Stravinsky clinic, Ivan becomes a professor, an employee of the Institute of History and Philosophy, begins a new life.
The administrator Varenukha, who had been a vampire, forever weaned himself from the habit of lying and swearing on the phone, and became irreproachably polite.
The chairman of the housing association, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, has unlearned taking bribes.
Nikolai Ivanovich, whom Natasha turned into a boar, will never forget those moments when a different life, different from gray everyday life, touched him, he will regret for a long time that he returned home, but all the same - he has something to remember.
After the fire in Griboyedov's house, in a conversation with Woland, Koroviev says that the house will be rebuilt and that this new house will be better than the previous one. And the place of the Latunskys will be taken by worthy people, real talents, who will create a new literature, far from the current situation.
Yes, evil is destructive, but it destroys the old, obsolete. After all, if this is not done, routine and inertia will triumph in life.
Woland, referring to Levi Matthew, said: “What would your good do if evil did not exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows are obtained from objects and people ... ". Indeed, what is good in the absence of evil?
This means that Woland is needed on earth no less than the wandering philosopher Yeshua Ga-Notsri, who preaches kindness and love. Good does not always bring good, just as evil does not always bring trouble. Quite often the opposite is the case. That is why Woland is the one who, desiring evil, nevertheless does good. This idea is expressed in the epigraph to the novel.