Lesley Milne brings to light a piece of evidence that Bulgakov himself thought of The Master and Margarita as a philosophical novel, its most appealing aspect to me. In her characterization, though, Bulgakov's last sunset novel becomes a 'philosophical carnival', in which 'the Master, Bezdomny, Woland, and Margarita . . . are united in a celebration of a universal truth, which is the freedom and triumph of the spirit'. This 'universal truth' to me is too facile, and the 'carnival' applies only to Part 1 and only to the Moscow story. The Master himself is not triumphant, his reemergence from insanity incipient, his fate a post-vita retirement.

To Milne, the philosophy in M&M is religious anarchy as defined by Nicholas Berdyaev: 'an ideal of freedom, of harmony and of order which arises from within . . . the victory of the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Caesar'. This is the philosophy that Yeshua imparts to Pilate in saying, 'There are no evil people in the world' and predicting the coming of 'the kingdom of truth and justice, where generally there will be no need for any authority'. Pilate replies, 'It will never come!', thus setting up a dialectic and starting an interrupted dialogue which will not be consummated for 2000 years. Milne uses the term dialectical spiral in describing the engagement of the several principals, reflected back and forth between Yerushalaim and Moscow, ascending and descending between the materialistic and spiritual planes. An insightful way of saying there are many layers to this novel, don't be satisfied with your first impression, but dig deep for the network of connections. You will be well rewarded.

Milne diminishes Yeshua's 'no evil people' assertion, saying, 'if people are evil it is because they have been made so by circumstance and not because they are so'. But note how Yeshua assesses Mark Ratslayer: 'is he good? Yes . . . unhappy . . . cruel and hard . . . If I could speak with him I'm sure he'd change sharply'. Unhappy, cruel and hard, but good, not evil. As he stands, whip in hand, a good man. Is this a truth we can believe in? That Mark, unchanged, supervising Yeshua's execution, is a good man?

It may be hard to take, but a philosophy that says we are all one with Mark may be more grounded than saying Mark is an aberration, standing apart from us, who is to be reviled. Woland disagrees, preferring to see both the light and the shadow. Yet Yeshua blamed no one. So are we on the side of Yeshua or on the side of Woland? Or is there, in truth, not two sides but just the one? Is Yeshua's one God in actuality God of one? ( )