Namelessness in the title, and of the main character, in Bulgakov’s “Master and Margarita” (post 7), probably reflect the author’s multiple personality.

My analysis of this novel in the previous six posts may seem stupid to most people, who will say I have entirely missed its magic, humor, philosophy, politics, satire, and romance.

In my defense, I can only say that the namelessness of the Master—who is not only a title character, but is referred to by the title of Chapter XIII as “the hero”—is the single most salient fact, that any credible analysis must address it, and mine does.

Why is this character called “the Master”? His own explanation, “I no longer have a name. I gave it up, just as I’ve given up everything else in life,” makes no sense. It is as if Donald Trump had said, “I’m nothing. I no longer have a name. I gave it up, just call me the President.”

Since some novelists say that when their characters come to them, they already have a name, perhaps this character came to Bulgakov already called “the Master” (an honorific, not a name), and Bulgakov, himself, didn’t know anything more than what the character says about it (quoted above).

In any case, the important thing is not the meaning of the words, “the Master,” but the meaning of namelessness, per se. Real people almost always have names. The only place where namelessness is common is in multiple personality, where it often happens that personalities are nameless.

In short, the title of this novel, and the namelessness of its hero, probably reflect the author’s multiple personality. And that is where any analysis of this novel should start. Of course, there are other issues (magic, humor, etc.). My analysis is the first word, not the last.