Heart of a dog main idea. Analysis of the work The Heart of a Dog by Bulgakov
The story was written in January-March, and for at least six months attempts were made to overcome censorship and publish it in various publications, which ended the same way: “this is a sharp pamphlet on modernity, under no circumstances should it be printed” (L. Kamenev). And in the spring of 1926, the story was... confiscated from the writer during a search, and it took the efforts of many people (including M. Gorky) for it to be returned to Bulgakov. It remains to add that for the first time in the former USSR, “Heart of a Dog” was published only in 1987, 62 years after its creation... It was this work of Bulgakov that took the longest to reach the reader.
In “The Heart of a Dog,” Bulgakov continues the theme of transforming life, begun in “Fatal Eggs,” but here this theme is revealed in a new light: the writer is interested in how a person can improve himself and the life around him, how the “revolution” turns out to be untenable where we are talking about a positive impact on public life. To demonstrate this, the writer uses a fantastic situation, which nevertheless quite accurately reflects the spirit of the era, which can be conditionally called “a time of great expectations.”
The figurative system of the story “Heart of a Dog” is constructed in such a way that in the center of the work is the image of a genuine Russian intellectual, Professor Preobrazhensky (a very “telling” surname), who through hard work achieved outstanding results in his chosen activity, but, like a real scientist, cannot and does not wants to stop there: it is not enough for him that he carries out “rejuvenation”, which does not make a person better; rather, judging by the satirical depiction of the “reception”, on the contrary. He wants to use science to achieve “improvement of the human race,” for which he conducts constant experiments, creates a unique operating technique, and carries out this operation that changes ideas about human capabilities.
It is after the completion of the operation, when the dog, who was supposed to die, gradually begins to turn into a human being, and the conflict of the story “Heart of a Dog” is fully “indicated”: the contradiction between “form” and “content”, between the human appearance of the emerging “laboratory beings" and his boorish attitude towards the people around him, his impudent confidence in "his right" to what never belonged to him and what he has no right to claim. Moreover, the famous “take and divide” turns out to be the main life rule of the new “man”, who actively implements it in his command.
Bulgakov shows that Sharikov carries within himself all the worst that can be in a person: “Realize that the whole horror is that he no longer has a dog’s heart, but a human heart. And the lousiest of all that exists in nature.” . It turns out that, morally, the dog Sharikov stands much higher than the “new man” Sharikov. In showing the reasons for this paradox, the image of the “chairman of the house committee” Shvonder, who becomes a kind of “spiritual father” (or, more precisely, the father of lack of spirituality) of Sharikov, is of great importance. This image embodies almost all the negative features inherent, in the writer’s opinion, in the “new government”: incompetence, disregard for the interests of other people, dogmatism, readiness to use brute force to achieve their goals, the belief that only he knows what there must be other people's lives. The scary thing is not that Shvonder is like that, but that he has power and carries out the policy of this power by all means available to him. It is Shvonder’s support that allows the development of all those negative character traits that Sharikov “inherited” from Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was grafted onto a dog’s brain.
It is curious that “for Sharikov” two forces seem to be “fighting”: Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant Bormental, who embody genuine culture, intelligence, morality, and Shvonder and his comrades, who have only “proletarian consciousness” and the desire to “destroy foundations" of a world whose values are inaccessible to them. And in this struggle the latter are winning, because “things... have now changed a lot,” as Dr. Bormenthal says ironically. Precisely because, as he is, Sharikov is in demand by the “new time”, he gradually becomes a terrible symbol of the “victory” of the new system, that very “terror” with the help of which the new government “explains” to the dull what life should be like now .
However, what is fundamentally important is that Professor Preobrazhensky manages to save those around him from the danger that the “creature” he created brings to normal life, and this again becomes possible not thanks to his, the professor’s, professional excellence: a repeat operation “returns” the dog its original appearance. Explaining the reasons for his failure, Preobrazhensky is extremely precise: “Here, doctor, what happens when a researcher, instead of groping and in parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil. Here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge!” And here Bulgakov pursues the idea of the “Great Evolution”, and here Professor Preobrazhensky expresses the humanistic position of the author of the story: “Never commit a crime, no matter who it is directed against. Live to old age with clean hands.”
Probably, Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog” took so long to reach the Russian reader because its main idea turned out to be a deadly precise sentence to those who once hoped through “surgical intervention” (revolution) to change the life of the people for the better: after all, if a unique operation , carried out by a truly master of his craft, could not “improve” one single person, then can a revolution, the apotheosis of violence perpetrated by amateurs and half-educated people, “improve” the life of humanity?.. Rhetorical question...
Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog", which we analyzed, has a subtitle: "A Monstrous Story." What is “monstrous” about the story about Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky? Everyone will answer this question in their own way, fortunately, Bulgakov is too great a writer to give “recipes” for all occasions. The main thing is probably different: the story shows us that only the person himself is responsible for himself and everything that happens to him in life. He is responsible in word and deed, he is responsible first of all to himself - and therefore to all humanity...
What is the book “Heart of a Dog” about? Bulgakov's ironic story tells about the failed experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. What is it? In search of an answer to the question of how to “rejuvenate” humanity. Does the hero manage to find the answer he is looking for? No. But he comes to a result that has a higher level of significance for society than the intended experiment.
Kiev resident Bulgakov decided to become a singer of Moscow, its houses and streets. This is how the Moscow chronicles were born. The story was written in Prechistinsky Lanes at the request of the Nedra magazine, which was well acquainted with the writer’s work. The chronology of the writing of the work fits into three months of 1925.
Being a doctor, Mikhail Alexandrovich continued the dynasty of his family, describing in detail in the book an operation to “rejuvenate” a person. Moreover, the famous Moscow doctor N.M. Pokrovsky, the uncle of the author of the story, became the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.
The first reading of the typewritten material took place at a meeting of the Nikitsky Subbotniks, which immediately became known to the country’s leadership. In May 1926, a search was carried out at the Bulgakovs’ place, the result of which was not long in coming: the manuscript was confiscated. The writer’s plan to publish his work did not come true. The Soviet reader saw the book only in 1987.
Main problems
It was not for nothing that the book disturbed the vigilant guardians of thought. Bulgakov managed to elegantly and subtly, but still quite clearly reflect the pressing issues of the day - the challenges of new times. The problems in the story “Heart of a Dog” that the author touches on do not leave readers indifferent. The writer discusses the ethics of science, the moral responsibility of a scientist for his experiments, the possibility of the disastrous consequences of scientific adventurism and ignorance. A technical breakthrough could turn into a moral decline.
The problem of scientific progress is acutely felt at the moment of its powerlessness before the transformation of the consciousness of a new person. The professor dealt with his body, but could not control his spirit, so Preobrazhensky had to give up his ambitions and correct his mistake - stop competing with the universe and return the dog’s heart to its owner. Artificial people were unable to justify their proud title and become full-fledged members of society. In addition, endless rejuvenation could jeopardize the very idea of progress, because if new generations do not naturally replace the old ones, then the development of the world will stop.
Are attempts to change the country's mentality for the better completely fruitless? The Soviet government tried to eradicate the prejudices of past centuries - it is this process that is behind the metaphor of Sharikov’s creation. Here he is, the proletarian, the new Soviet citizen, his creation is possible. However, its creators face the problem of education: they cannot calm down their creation and teach it to be cultured, educated and moral with a full set of revolutionary consciousness, class hatred and blind faith in the correctness and infallibility of the party. Why? This is impossible: either a pipe or a jug.
Human defenselessness in the whirlwind of events associated with the construction of a socialist society, hatred of violence and hypocrisy, the absence and suppression of the remaining human dignity in all its manifestations - all these are slaps in the face with which the author branded his era, and all because it does not value individuality . Collectivization affected not only the village, but also souls. It became more and more difficult to remain an individual, because the public laid more and more rights on her. General equalization and equalization did not make people happier, but turned them into ranks of meaningless biorobots, where the tone is set by the most dull and mediocre of them. Rudeness and stupidity have become the norm in society, replacing revolutionary consciousness, and in the image of Sharikov we see a verdict on a new type of Soviet man. From the rule of the Shvonders and others like them arise the problems of trampling on intelligence and intelligentsia, the power of dark instincts in the life of an individual, total gross interference in the natural course of things...
Some questions posed in the work remain unanswered to this day.
What is the point of the book?
People have long been looking for answers to the questions: What is a person? What is its social purpose? What role does everyone play in creating an environment that would be “comfortable” for those living on planet Earth? What are the “paths” to this “comfortable community”? Is consensus possible between people of different social origins, holding opposing views on certain issues of existence, occupying alternative “steps” in intellectual and cultural development? And, of course, it is important to understand the simple truth that society develops thanks to unexpected discoveries in one or another branch of science. But can these “discoveries” always be called progressive? Bulgakov answers all these questions with his characteristic irony.
A person is a personality, and the development of personality implies independence, which is denied to a Soviet citizen. The social purpose of people is to do their job masterfully and not interfere with others. However, Bulgakov’s “conscious” heroes only chant slogans, but do not work to translate them into reality. Each of us, in the name of comfort, must be tolerant of dissent and not prevent people from practicing it. And again in the USSR everything is exactly the opposite: Preobrazhensky’s talent is forced to fight to defend his right to help patients, and his point of view is brazenly condemned and persecuted by some nonentities. They can live in peace if everyone minds their own business, but there is no equality in nature and there cannot be, because from birth we are all different from each other. It is impossible to maintain it artificially, since Shvonder cannot begin to operate brilliantly, and the professor cannot begin to play the balalaika. Imposed, unreal equality will only harm people and prevent them from adequately assessing their place in the world and occupying it with dignity.
Humanity needs discoveries, this is understandable. But there is no point in reinventing the wheel - trying to reproduce a person artificially, for example. If the natural method is still possible, why does it need an analogue, and even such a labor-intensive one? People face many other, more significant threats that require the full power of scientific intelligence to be addressed.
Main topics
The story is multifaceted. The author touches on important topics that are characteristic not only of the era of the beginning of the twentieth century, but are also “eternal”: good and evil, science and morality, morality, human destiny, attitude towards animals, building a new state, homeland, sincere human relations. I would especially like to highlight the topic of the creator’s responsibility for his creation. The struggle between ambition and integrity in the professor ended with the victory of humanism over pride. He accepted his mistakes, admitted defeat, and used the experience to correct his mistakes. This is exactly what every creator should do.
Also relevant in the work is the theme of individual freedom and the boundaries that society, like the state, has no right to cross. Bulgakov insists that a full-fledged person is one who has free will and beliefs. Only he can develop the idea of socialism without caricatured forms and branches that disfigure the idea. The crowd is blind and always driven by primitive incentives. But the individual is capable of self-control and self-development; she must be given the will to work and live for the good of society, and not be turned against it by vain attempts at forced merger.
Satire and humor
The book opens with a monologue from a stray dog addressed to “citizens” and giving precise characteristics of Muscovites and the city itself. The population “through the eyes” of a dog is heterogeneous (which is true!): citizens – comrades – gentlemen. “Citizens” shop at the Tsentrokhoz cooperative, and “gentlemen” shop at Okhotny Ryad. Why do rich people need a rotten horse? You can only get this “poison” in Mosselprom.
You can “recognize” a person by their eyes: who is “dry in the soul,” who is aggressive, and who is a “lack.” The last one is the nastiest. If you are afraid, you are the one who should be “plucked.” The most vile “scum” are the wipers: they sweep away “human cleaning”.
But the cook is an important object. Nutrition is a serious indicator of the state of society. So, the lordly cook of Count Tolstoy is a real person, and the cooks from the Council of Normal Nutrition do things that are indecent even for a dog. If I became chairman, then I actively steal. Ham, tangerines, wines - these are the “former brothers of Elisha.” The doorman is worse than cats. He lets a stray dog pass, ingratiating himself with the professor.
The education system “presumes” Muscovites to be “educated” and “uneducated.” Why learn to read? “The meat smells a mile away.” But if you have any brains, you will learn to read and write without taking courses, like, for example, a stray dog. The beginning of Sharikov’s education was in an electrical store, where a tramp “tasted” insulated wire.
The techniques of irony, humor and satire are often used in combination with tropes: similes, metaphors and personification. A special satirical device can be considered the way of initially presenting characters based on preliminary descriptive characteristics: “mysterious gentleman”, “rich eccentric” - Professor Preobrazhensky”; “handsome bitten”, “bitten” - Dr. Bormenthal; “someone”, “fruit” - visitor. Sharikov’s inability to communicate with residents and formulate his demands gives rise to humorous situations and questions.
If we talk about the state of the press, then through the mouth of Fyodor Fedorovich the writer discusses the case when, as a result of reading Soviet newspapers before lunch, patients lost weight. The professor’s assessment of the existing system through the “hanger” and “galosh rack” is interesting: until 1917, the front doors were not closed, since dirty shoes and outerwear were left downstairs. After March all the galoshes disappeared.
main idea
In his book M.A. Bulgakov warned that violence is a crime. All life on earth has the right to exist. This is an unwritten law of nature that must be followed to avoid the point of no return. It is necessary to maintain purity of soul and thoughts throughout your life, so as not to indulge internal aggression, not to splash it out. Therefore, the professor’s violent intervention in the natural course of things is condemned by the writer, and therefore leads to such monstrous consequences.
The Civil War hardened society, made it marginal, boorish and vulgar at its core. These are the fruits of violent interference in the life of the country. All of Russia in the 20s was rude and ignorant Sharikov, who did not at all strive for work. His goals are less lofty and more selfish. Bulgakov warned his contemporaries against such a development of events, ridiculing the vices of a new type of people and showing their inconsistency.
The main characters and their characteristics
- The central figure of the book is Professor Preobrazhensky. Wears glasses with gold frames. Lives in a rich apartment consisting of seven rooms. He's lonely. He devotes all his time to work. Philip Philipovich conducts receptions at home, sometimes he operates here. Patients call him “magician”, “sorcerer”. He “creates,” often accompanying his actions by singing excerpts from operas. Loves the theater. I am convinced that every person should strive to become a specialist in their field. The professor is an excellent speaker. His judgments are built into a clear logical chain. He says about himself that he is a man of observation and facts. While leading a discussion, he gets carried away, gets excited, and sometimes starts shouting if the problem touches him to the quick. His attitude towards the new system is manifested in his statements about terror, which paralyzes the human nervous system, about newspapers, and about the devastation in the country. Treats animals with care: “I’m hungry, poor thing.” In relation to living beings, he preaches only affection and the impossibility of any violence. Instilling humane truths is the only way to influence all living things. An interesting detail in the interior of the professor’s apartment is a huge owl sitting on the wall, a symbol of wisdom, so necessary not only for a world-famous scientist, but for every person. At the end of the “experiment”, he finds the courage to admit that the experiment rejuvenation failed.
- Young, handsome Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental, an assistant professor, who fell in love with him and took him in as a promising young man. Philip Philipovich hoped that the doctor would become a talented scientist in the future. During the operation, literally everything flashes in Ivan Arnoldovich’s hands. The doctor is not just scrupulous about his duties. The doctor's diary, as a strict medical report-observation of the patient's condition, reflects the whole gamut of his feelings and experiences about the result of the “experiment”.
- Shvonder is the chairman of the house committee. All his actions resemble the convulsions of a puppet, which is controlled by someone invisible. The speech is confused, the same words are repeated, which sometimes causes a condescending smile in the readers. Shvonder doesn't even have a name. He sees his task as fulfilling the will of the new government, without thinking about whether it is good or bad. He is capable of taking any step to achieve his goal. Vengeful, he distorts the facts and slanderes many people.
- Sharikov is a creature, something, the result of an “experiment”. A sloping and low forehead indicates the level of its development. Uses all swear words in his vocabulary. An attempt to teach him good manners and instill a taste for beauty was unsuccessful: he gets drunk, steals, mocks women, cynically insults people, strangles cats, “commits bestial acts.” As they say, nature rests on it, because you can’t go against it.
The main motives of Bulgakov's creativity
The versatility of Bulgakov's creativity is amazing. It’s as if you are traveling through the works, encountering familiar motifs. Love, greed, totalitarianism, morality are just parts of one whole, “wandering” from book to book and creating a single thread.
- “Notes on Cuffs” and “Heart of a Dog” convey a belief in human kindness. This motif is central in The Master and Margarita.
- In the story “Diaboliad” the fate of a little man, an ordinary cog in a bureaucratic machine, is clearly traced. This motif is characteristic of other works by the author. The system suppresses the best qualities in people, and the scary thing is that over time this becomes the norm for the people. In the novel “The Master and Margarita,” writers whose creations did not correspond to the ruling ideology were kept in a “psychiatric hospital.” Professor Preobrazhensky talked about his observations: when he gave patients the Pravda newspaper to read before lunch, they lost weight. It was impossible to find anything that would help broaden one’s horizons and allow one to look at events from opposite angles in the periodical press.
- Selfishness is what guides most of the negative characters in Bulgakov’s books. For example, Sharikov from “Heart of a Dog”. And how many troubles could have been avoided, provided that the “red ray” would have been used for its intended purpose, and not for selfish purposes (the story “Fatal Eggs”)? The basis of these works are experiments that go against nature. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov identified the experiment with the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, which is dangerous for society as a whole.
- The main motive of the writer’s work is the motive of his native home. The comfort in Philip Philipovich’s apartment (“a lamp under a silk lampshade”) resembles the atmosphere of the Turbins’ house. Home is family, homeland, Russia, about which the writer’s heart ached. With all his creativity, he wished well-being and prosperity for his homeland.
In the story “The Heart of a Dog” by M. A. Bulgakov, he acutely shows the contradiction between different classes of society. Even despite the fact that the historical events of that time should have leveled the class inequality of society. In the emerging realities, the differences between representatives of the intelligentsia and the working class became even more acute.
Bulgakov M.A. was a participant in those events and observed what happened in the society of that time.
So, in the story, a red thread running through the entire narrative is the intellectual and spiritual confrontation between two types of people.
The first type are representatives of the “old” intelligentsia who went through a long stage of forming their own personality. Professor Preobrazhensky and his faithful assistant Doctor Bormental. Both of these characters not only have amazing intellectual qualities, but also have high moral principles based on humanistic ideas: service to man and society, significant moral and spiritual constants. Of course, the heroes of this series are not devoid of human qualities.
Dr. Bormenthal can exert physical influence on a bully or rude person, push him out the door, but the distinctive feature of such behavior is a strong sense of natural justice and the conviction that the truth must always triumph.
The other wing is headed by an odious figure - Sharikova. The story of its origin in our world is well remembered by everyone. So, Sharikov is a collective character who shows all the absurdity of the new intelligentsia. This character is built on contradictions that are expressed not only externally, but also internally.
Sharikov tries to dress fashionably, but his entire appearance is sloppy. He reads new books that he doesn't understand. He tries to say smart things in public, but all this is a rough retelling of ideas already voiced.
The strange thing is that society perceives this person and even begins to experience some kind of career growth. This further emphasizes the moral and spiritual state of society.
main idea Bulgakova M.A. is to show that a person must develop, work on himself, suffer, grieve, rejoice, but only in this way can a person become better, only in this way does individuality grow. No fashionable things or smart books can replace a person’s inner state or make him better.
Detailed analysis
Bulgakov Mikhail Afanasyevich is one of the most famous Russian writers, who was able to give the world immortal works known to everyone around the world. His work is still popular today. In many educational institutions, the study of the works of Mikhail Bulgakov is included in the curriculum. For example, “The Master and Margarita”, “Diaboliad”, “Heart of a Dog”. I would like to pay special attention to the last poem.
The analyzed work begins its history in January 1925. It was officially published after the death of the author himself. Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov was able to very accurately reflect the current reality, which is reflected in the present day. To enhance the present reality and create the necessary atmosphere, fantastic events were included in the work. Namely, the transformation of the dog Sharik into citizen Sharikov.
The work raises a number of philosophical questions that make the reader think about many things. For example, the possibility of changing the world for the better, re-educating a person and his significance for society. The author skillfully illustrates the life of the intelligentsia and the common people. Their connection and influence on each other.
Let's consider ideological component of the story. The work contains a description of two worlds at once: Preobrazhensky’s apartment and beyond. Through the eyes of the main characters, the reader sees that everything around is dirty, pathetic and evil. Passersby are scary and greedy. One senses the presence of Peace and Chaos, where Peace is precisely Preobrazhensky’s apartment. A cozy and warm home and endless space.
There is dynamics in the plot. The characters are in search of balance in these two worlds, and also struggle with themselves.
Main characters The stories “Heart of a Dog” are:
- Dog Sharik (hereinafter referred to as citizen Sharikov). At the very beginning, he is introduced as a smart and reflective animal. After the experiment, having become a human, he turned into a rude and uncultured person.
- Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. He is a representative of the “world” of the intelligentsia, a deeply moral person.
“The Heart of a Dog” tells the story of how Professor Philip Philipovich decided on a dangerous experiment to transplant key internal human organs into a dog. The operation was successful, and Sharik acquired a human form. The professor is expressed admiration and delight, many are interested in such an experiment. But Philip Philipovich himself is worried, because he does not know who Sharikov will eventually become.
As time goes by, Sharikov becomes a drunkard and an ignoramus; in addition, he falls under the influence of Shvonder, who turns him against Professor Preobrazhensky. Sharikov behaves rudely and cheekily in Philip Philipovich’s apartment and demands to register him in these apartments.
For a long time, the professor did not dare to try the opposite experiment, hoping that the situation would change for the better. But this did not work out, and Sharikov, after another organ transplant, becomes a stray dog.
To summarize, I would like to note that people have different inclinations and oddities. More often this manifests itself in a negative form and with corresponding qualities. But one question remains unchanged - is a person capable of change? Everyone must answer this question for themselves. The fate of a person is only in his hands and everyone decides for himself what it will be. Everyone forms their own personality.
Let us add that classical literature should be read by everyone. After all, many are forced to study such literature, especially in schools. Classic literature should not be read “under pressure”. Many people re-read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, Pushkin and other writers only at a conscious age. After all, only in such works eternal philosophical questions are raised.
Option 3
In the work “Heart of a Dog,” the author with particular subtlety reflects current issues that challenge the new time. The author discusses the moral value that science should bear. About what moral responsibility falls on the shoulders of a scientist conducting a scientific experiment.
Progressive science is powerless before the transformation of human consciousness. The professor managed to solve only the superficial issue of change, which did not lead to the desired result. The idea of progress cannot be based only on the constant rejuvenation of man. If the cyclical change of generations is disrupted, the development of the world will slow down.
The plot of the story is multifaceted. The responsible obligations that the creator must bear for the result of his experiment come to the fore. The topic of personal freedom remains significant. The author proves that a free person is one who has the right to his beliefs.
The writer introduces ironic elements into the narrative, which are combined with means of artistic expression. A special feature is a technique based on satire, when each character appears before the reader in the minds of the average person: “a rich eccentric”, “a handsome man who has been bitten”, “a certain piece of fruit”. Sharikov’s inability to conduct a dialogue with residents, to clearly formulate thoughts, contributes to the emergence of a number of comical situations.
With his story, the writer tries to convey to the consciousness of the people that any violent action is a crime. All living beings living on Earth have every right to their existence, which is an unwritten law of nature. It is important to be able to maintain purity of spiritual thoughts throughout your life. This opinion of the writer allows him to condemn the violent interventions of Preobrazhensky, who with his experiments disrupts the natural course of things.
Lermontov Mikhail Yuryevich, the greatest Russian poet, a famous bright mind who created many greatest creations. One of the creations is a novel called “A Hero of Our Time.” This is the best and most famous
The novel “Oblomov” is remembered by everyone as a work about all-consuming laziness, in the image of Ilya Ilyich. And, probably, without the love theme, this novel would have become completely boring.
Tsar Saltan. More than anything else, Tsar Saltan cares about the affairs of his state. It was important for Tsar Saltan to have an heir, and therefore Tsar Saltan, having overheard a conversation between three girls - sisters
Fashion trends change at the speed of light, so it is very difficult to imagine what a wardrobe will look like in 2200. The world does not stand still, science is rapidly moving forward, new inventions and new discoveries are appearing.
Analysis of the novel “Heart of a Dog”
The story is based on a great experiment. Everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism, was perceived by Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. To attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary, i.e. methods that did not exclude violence, he was extremely skeptical about educating a new, free person using the same methods. For him, this was such an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the “experimenters” themselves. The author warns readers about this with his work.
The hero of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, came to Bulgakov’s story from Prechistenka, where the hereditary Moscow intelligentsia had long settled. A recent Muscovite, Bulgakov knew and loved this area. He settled in Obukhov (Chisty) Lane, where “Fatal Eggs” and “Heart of a Dog” were written. People who were close to him in spirit and culture lived here. The prototype of Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky is considered to be Bulgakov’s maternal relative, Professor N.M. Pokrovsky. But, in essence, it reflected the type of thinking and the best features of that layer of the Russian intelligentsia, which was called “Prechistinka” in Bulgakov’s circle.
Bulgakov considered it his duty to “stubbornly portray the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country.” He treated his hero-scientist with respect and love; to some extent, Professor Preobrazhensky is the embodiment of the outgoing Russian culture, the culture of the spirit, aristocracy.
Professor Preobrazhensky, an elderly man, lives alone in a beautiful, comfortable apartment. the author admires the culture of his life, his appearance - Mikhail Afanasyevich himself loved aristocracy in everything, at one time he even wore a monocle.
The proud and majestic Professor Preobrazhensky, who spouts ancient aphorisms, is a luminary of Moscow genetics, a brilliant surgeon engaged in profitable operations to rejuvenate aging ladies and lively elders: the author's irony is merciless - sarcasm in relation to the prosperous Nepmen.
But the professor plans to improve nature itself; he decides to compete with Life itself and create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain into a dog.
In Bulgakov's story, the theme of Faust sounds in a new way, and it is also tragic, or rather, tragicomic in Bulgakov's way. Only after the accomplishment does the scientist realize the immorality of “scientific” violence against nature and man.
The professor who transforms the dog into a human bears the name Preobrazhensky. And the action itself takes place on Christmas Eve. Meanwhile, by all possible means the writer points out the unnaturalness of what is happening, that this is an anti-creation, a parody of Christmas. And based on these signs, we can say that in “Heart of a Dog” the motives of Bulgakov’s last and best work - a novel about the devil - are already visible.
The relationship between the scientist and the street dog Sharik-Sharikov forms the basis of the plot outline of the story. When creating the image of Sharik, the author certainly used the literary tradition. And here the author follows his teacher Gogol, his “Notes of a Madman,” where in one of the chapters a person is shown from a dog’s point of view and where it is said: “Dogs are smart people.” The author is close to the great German romantic Ernest Hoffmann with his cat Murr and intelligent talking dogs.
The basis of the story is the internal monologue of Sharik, an eternally hungry, miserable street dog. He is not very stupid, in his own way he evaluates the life of the street, life, customs, characters of Moscow during the NEP with its numerous shops, teahouses, taverns on Myasnitskaya “with sawdust on the floor, evil clerks who hate dogs”, “where they played the accordion and It smelled like sausages."
The completely chilled, hungry dog, also scalded, observes the life of the street and draws conclusions: “Out of all proletarians, street cleaners are the most vile scum.” “You come across different cooks. For example, the late Vlas from Prechistenka. He saved so many lives.”
He sympathizes with the poor young lady - a typist, frozen, "running into the gateway in her lover's sergeant's stockings." “She doesn’t even have enough for cinema, they deducted money from her at work, fed her rotten meat in the canteen, and the caretaker stole half of her canteen forty kopecks...” In his thoughts and ideas, Sharik contrasts the poor girl with the image of a triumphant boor - the new master of life: “I am now the chairman, and no matter how much I steal, it’s all on a woman’s body, on cancerous necks, on Abrau-Durso.” “I feel sorry for her, I feel sorry for her. And I feel even more sorry for myself,” complains Sharik.
Seeing Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, Sharik understands: “he is a man of mental labor...” “this one will not kick.”
And now Sharik lives in a luxurious professorial apartment. One of the leading, cross-cutting themes of Bulgakov’s work begins to emerge - the theme of the Home as the center of human life. The Bolsheviks destroyed the House as the basis of the family, as the basis of society. The writer contrasts the lived-in, warm, seemingly eternally beautiful house of the Turbins (“Days of the Turbins”) with Zoyka’s decaying apartment (the comedy “Zoyka’s Apartment”), where there is a fierce struggle for living space, for square meters. Maybe that’s why in Bulgakov’s stories and plays the stable satirical figure is the chairman of the house committee? In “Zoyka’s Apartment” this is Harness, whose dignity is that he “wasn’t at the university”; in “Heart of a Dog” he is called Shvonder; in “Ivan Vasilyevich” - Bunsha; in “The Master and Margarita” - Barefoot. He, the pre-house committee, is the true center of the small world, the focus of power and vulgar, predatory life.
Such a socially aggressive administrator, confident in his permissiveness, is in the story “Heart of a Dog” by the house committee's chairman, Shvonder, a man in a leather jacket, a black man. He, accompanied by his “comrades,” comes to Professor Preobrazhensky to take away his “extra” space and take away two rooms. The conflict with the uninvited guests becomes acute: “You are a hater of the proletariat!” the woman said proudly. “Yes, I don’t like the proletariat,” Philip Philipovich agreed sadly.” He does not like the lack of culture, dirt, destruction, aggressive rudeness, and the complacency of the new masters of life. “This is a mirage, smoke, fiction,” is how the professor assesses the practice and history of the new owners.
But now the professor performs the main work of his life - a unique operation - an experiment: he transplants a human pituitary gland from a 28-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation to the dog Sharik.
This man, Klim Petrovich Chugunkin, twenty-eight years old, was tried three times. "Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. Liver enlarged (alcohol). Cause of death - stab in the heart in a pub."
As a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appeared - a non-human, who completely inherited the “proletarian” essence of his “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct words: “bourgeois.” And then - the street words: “don’t push!” “Scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon”, etc. He was a disgusting “man of small stature and unattractive appearance. The hair on his head grew coarse... His forehead was striking in its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of his eyebrows.” He “dressed up” in the same ugly and vulgar way.
The smile of life is that as soon as Sharikov stands on his hind legs, he is ready to oppress, drive into a corner the “father” who gave birth to him - the professor.
And this humanoid creature demands from the professor a document on residence, confident that the house committee, which “protects interests,” will help him with this.
- - Whose interests, may I ask?
- - It is known whose - labor element. Philip Philipovich rolled his eyes.
- - Why are you a hard worker?
- - Yes, we know, not nepman.
From this verbal duel, taking advantage of the professor’s confusion about his origin (“you are, so to speak, an unexpectedly appeared creature, a laboratory one”), the homunculus emerges victorious and demands that he be given the “hereditary” surname Sharikov, and he chooses a name for himself - Poligraf Poligrafovich. He organizes wild pogroms in the apartment, chases (in his canine essence) cats, causes a flood... All the inhabitants of the professor's apartment are demoralized, there can be no talk of any reception of patients.
It should also be noted that Shvonder, the chairman of the house committee, is no less responsible than the professor for the humanoid monster. Shvonder supported Sharikov’s social status, armed him with an ideological phrase, he is his ideologist, his “spiritual shepherd.”
The paradox is that, as can already be seen from the above dialogue, by helping a creature with a “dog’s heart” to establish itself, he is also digging a hole for himself. By setting Sharikov against the professor, Shvonder does not understand that someone else could easily set Sharikov against Shvonder himself. A person with the heart of a dog just needs to point out anyone, say that he is an enemy, and Sharikov will humiliate him, destroy him, etc. How reminiscent this is of Soviet times and especially the thirties... And even these days this is not uncommon.
Shvonder, the allegorical “black man,” supplies Sharikov with “scientific” literature and gives him Engels’s correspondence with Kautsky to “study.” The beast-like creature does not approve of either author: “And then they write and write... Congress, some Germans...” he grumbles. He draws only one conclusion: “Everything must be divided.”
Do you know the method? - asked an interested Bormental - “But what is the method here,” Sharikov explained, becoming talkative after vodka, “it’s not a tricky thing.” But what about this: one is settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of pants, and the other wanders around, looking for food in trash bins."
So the lumpen Sharikov instinctively “smelled” the main credo of the new masters of life, all the Sharikovs: plunder, steal, take away everything created, as well as the main principle of the so-called socialist society being created - universal equalization, called equality. What this led to is well known.
Sharikov, supported by Shvonder, becomes more and more relaxed and openly hooligans: To the words of the exhausted professor that he will find a room for Sharikov to move out, the lumpen replies:
“Well, yes, I’m such a fool as to move out of here,” Sharikov answered very clearly and showed the dumbfounded professor Shvonder’s paper that he was entitled to a living space of 16 meters in the professor’s apartment.
Soon, “Sharikov embezzled 2 chervonets from the professor’s office, disappeared from the apartment and returned late, completely drunk.” He came to the Prechistenka apartment not alone, but with two unknown persons who robbed the professor.
The finest hour for Poligraf Poligrafovich was his “service”. Having disappeared from the house, he appears before the astonished professor and Bormenthal as a kind of fine fellow, full of dignity and self-respect, “in a leather jacket from someone else’s shoulder, in worn leather pants and high English boots. The terrible, incredible smell of cats immediately spread throughout the entire hallway He presents a document to the stunned professor, which says that Comrade Sharikov is the head of the department for cleaning the city from stray animals. Of course, Shvonder put him there. When asked why he smells so disgusting, the monster replies:
Well, it smells... well known: according to its specialty. Yesterday cats were strangled - strangled...
So Bulgakov’s Sharik made a dizzying leap: from stray dogs to orderlies to cleanse the city of stray dogs (and cats, of course). Well, pursuing one’s own is a characteristic feature of all Sharikovs. They destroy their own, as if covering up traces of their own origin...
Sharikov's next move is to appear in the Prechistinsk apartment together with a young girl. “I’m signing with her, this is our typist. Bormental will have to be evicted... - Sharikov explained extremely hostilely and gloomily.” Of course, the scoundrel deceived the girl by telling tales about himself. He behaved so disgracefully with her that a huge scandal broke out again in the Prechistenka apartment: driven to white heat, the professor and his assistant began to defend the girl...
The last, final chord of Sharikov’s activity is a denunciation-libel against Professor Preobrazhensky.
It should be noted that it was then, in the thirties, that denunciation became one of the foundations of a “socialist” society, which would be more correctly called totalitarian. Because only a totalitarian regime can be based on denunciation.
Sharikov is alien to conscience, shame, and morality. He has no human qualities other than meanness, hatred, anger...
It’s good that on the pages of the story the sorcerer-professor managed to reverse the transformation of a man-monster into an animal, into a dog. It’s good that the professor understood that nature does not tolerate violence against itself. Alas, in real life the Sharikovs won, they turned out to be tenacious, crawling out of all the cracks. Self-confident, arrogant, confident in their sacred rights to everything, semi-literate lumpens brought our country to the deepest crisis, because the Bolshevik-Shvonder thesis of the “great leap of socialist revolution”, mocking disregard for the laws of evolution, could only give birth to the Sharikovs.
In the story, Sharikov returned to being a dog, but in life he walked a long and, as it seemed to him, and it was suggested to others, a glorious path, and in the thirties and fifties he poisoned people, as he once did in the line of duty to stray cats and dogs. Throughout his life, he carried dog anger and suspicion, replacing with them the dog’s loyalty that had become unnecessary. Having entered into rational life, he remained at the level of instincts and was ready to adapt the entire country, the entire world, the entire universe in order to satisfy these animal instincts. He is proud of his low origins. He is proud of his low education. He is proud of everything low, because only this lifts him high - above those who are high in spirit, who are high in mind, and therefore must be trampled into the dirt so that Sharikov can rise above them. You involuntarily ask yourself the question: how many of them were and are among us? Thousands? Tens, hundreds of thousands?
Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. Their inhuman essence is just waiting to manifest itself. And then the judge, in the interests of his career and the implementation of the plan to solve crimes, condemns the innocent, the doctor turns away from the patient, the mother abandons her child, various officials for whom bribes have already become the order of things, these are politicians who, at the first opportunity to grab a tasty morsel, drop their mask and show their true essence, ready to betray their own. Everything that is most lofty and sacred turns into its opposite, because an inhuman has awakened within them and tramples them into the dirt. When a non-human comes to power, he tries to dehumanize everyone around him, because non-humans are easier to control; in them, all human feelings are replaced by the instinct of self-preservation.
In our country, after the revolution, all conditions were created for the appearance of a huge number of Sharikovs with dog hearts. The totalitarian system greatly contributes to this. Probably due to the fact that these monsters have penetrated into all areas of life, that they are still among us, Russia is now going through difficult times. The Sharikovs, with their truly canine vitality, no matter what, will go over the heads of others everywhere.
The heart of a dog in alliance with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why the story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations. Today is so close to yesterday... At first glance, it seems that outwardly everything has changed, that the country has become different. But consciousness, stereotypes, the way of thinking of people will not change in either ten or twenty years - more than one generation will pass before the Sharikovs disappear from our lives, before people become different, before the vices described by Bulgakov in his immortal work disappear . How I want to believe that this time will come!...
These are gloomy thoughts about the consequences (possible on the one hand, accomplished on the other) of the interaction of three forces: apolitical science, aggressive social rudeness and spiritual power reduced to the level of a house committee.
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925 in Moscow, is a filigree example of sharp satirical fiction of that time. In it, the author reflected his ideas and beliefs about whether a person needs to interfere with the laws of evolution and what this can lead to. The topic touched upon by Bulgakov remains relevant in modern real life and will never cease to disturb the minds of all progressive humanity.
After its publication, the story caused a lot of speculation and controversial judgments, because it was distinguished by the bright and memorable characters of the main characters, an extraordinary plot in which fantasy was closely intertwined with reality, as well as an undisguised, sharp criticism of Soviet power. This work was very popular among dissidents in the 60s, and after its reissue in the 90s it was generally recognized as prophetic. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the tragedy of the Russian people is clearly visible, which is divided into two warring camps (red and white) and in this confrontation only one must win. In his story, Bulgakov reveals to readers the essence of the new victors - proletarian revolutionaries, and shows that they cannot create anything good and worthy.
History of creation
This story is the final part of a previously written cycle of satirical stories by Mikhail Bulgakov of the 20s, such as “The Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs”. Bulgakov began writing the story “Heart of a Dog” in January 1925 and finished it in March of the same year; it was originally intended for publication in the Nedra magazine, but was not censored. And all of its contents were known to Moscow literature lovers, because Bulgakov read it in March 1925 at the Nikitsky Subbotnik (literary circle), later it was copied by hand (the so-called “samizdat”) and thus distributed to the masses. In the USSR, the story “Heart of a Dog” was first published in 1987 (6th issue of the Znamya magazine).
Analysis of the work
Story line
The basis for the development of the plot in the story is the story of the unsuccessful experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, who decided to turn the homeless mongrel Sharik into a human. To do this, he transplants the pituitary gland of an alcoholic, parasite and rowdy Klim Chugunkin, the operation is successful and a completely “new man” is born - Poligraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, who, according to the author’s idea, is a collective image of the new Soviet proletarian. The “new man” is distinguished by a rude, arrogant and deceitful character, a boorish manner of behavior, a very unpleasant, repulsive appearance, and the intelligent and well-mannered professor often has conflicts with him. Sharikov, in order to register in the professor’s apartment (to which he believes he has every right), enlists the support of a like-minded and ideological teacher, the chairman of the Shvonder house committee, and even finds himself a job: he catches stray cats. Driven to the extreme by all the antics of the newly minted Polygraph Sharikov (the last straw was the denunciation of Preobrazhensky himself), the professor decides to return everything as it was and turns Sharikov back into a dog.
Main characters
The main characters of the story “Heart of a Dog” are typical representatives of Moscow society of that time (the thirties of the twentieth century).
One of the main characters at the center of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky, a famous world-famous scientist, a respected person in society who adheres to democratic views. He deals with the issues of rejuvenating the human body through animal organ transplants, and strives to help people without causing them any harm. The professor is depicted as a respectable and self-confident person, having a certain weight in society and accustomed to living in luxury and prosperity (he has a large house with servants, among his clients are former nobles and representatives of the highest revolutionary leadership).
Being a cultured person and possessing an independent and critical mind, Preobrazhensky openly opposes Soviet power, calling the Bolsheviks who came to power “idlers” and “idlers”; he is firmly convinced that it is necessary to fight devastation not with terror and violence, but with culture, and believes that the only way to communicate with living beings is through affection.
Having conducted an experiment on the stray dog Sharik and turned him into a human, and even tried to instill in him basic cultural and moral skills, Professor Preobrazhensky undergoes a complete fiasco. He admits that his “new man” turned out to be completely useless, does not lend himself to education and learns only bad things (Sharikov’s main conclusion after studying Soviet propaganda literature is that everything needs to be divided, and doing this by the method of robbery and violence). The scientist understands that one cannot interfere with the laws of nature, because such experiments do not lead to anything good.
The professor's young assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, is a very decent and devoted person to his teacher (the professor at one time took part in the fate of a poor and hungry student, and he responded with devotion and gratitude). When Sharikov reached the limit, having written a denunciation of the professor and stole a pistol, he wanted to use it, it was Bormental who showed fortitude and toughness of character, deciding to turn him back into a dog, while the professor was still hesitating.
Describing these two doctors, old and young, from the positive side, emphasizing their nobility and self-esteem, Bulgakov sees in their descriptions himself and his relatives, doctors, who in many situations would have acted in exactly the same way.
The absolute opposites of these two positive heroes are people of modern times: the former dog Sharik himself, who became Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, the chairman of the house committee Shvonder and other “tenants”.
Shvonder is a typical example of a member of the new society who fully and completely supports Soviet power. Hating the professor as a class enemy of the revolution and planning to get part of the professor’s living space, he uses Sharikov for this, telling him about the rights to the apartment, giving him documents and pushing him to write a denunciation against Preobrazhensky. Himself, being a narrow-minded and uneducated person, Shvonder gives in and hesitates in conversations with the professor, and this makes him hate him even more and makes every effort to annoy him as much as possible.
Sharikov, whose donor was a bright average representative of the Soviet thirties of the last century, an alcoholic without a specific job, three times convicted lumpen-proletariat Klim Chugunkin, twenty-five years old, is distinguished by his absurd and arrogant character. Like all ordinary people, he wants to become one of the people, but he doesn’t want to learn anything or put any effort into it. He likes to be an ignorant slob, fight, swear, spit on the floor and constantly run into scandals. However, without learning anything good, he absorbs the bad like a sponge: he quickly learns to write denunciations, finds a job he “likes” - killing cats, the eternal enemies of the canine race. Moreover, by showing how mercilessly he deals with stray cats, the author makes it clear that Sharikov will do the same with any person who comes between him and his goal.
The gradually increasing aggression, impudence and impunity of Sharikov are specially shown by the author so that the reader understands how terrible and dangerous this “Sharikovism”, emerging in the 20s of the last century, as a new social phenomenon of the post-revolutionary time, is. Such Sharikovs, found all over the Soviet society, especially those in power, pose a real threat to society, especially to intelligent, intelligent and cultured people, whom they hate fiercely and try to destroy in every possible way. Which, by the way, happened later, when during Stalin’s repressions the color of the Russian intelligentsia and military elite was destroyed, as Bulgakov predicted.
Features of compositional construction
The story “The Heart of a Dog” combines several literary genres; in accordance with the plot of the storyline, it can be classified as a fantastic adventure in the image and likeness of “The Island of Dr. Moreau” by H.G. Wells, which also describes an experiment on breeding a human-animal hybrid. From this side, the story can be attributed to the science fiction genre that was actively developing at that time, the prominent representatives of which were Alexei Tolstoy and Alexander Belyaev. However, under the surface layer of science-adventure fiction, in fact, there turns out to be a sharp satirical parody, allegorically showing the monstrosity and failure of that large-scale experiment called “socialism”, which was carried out by the Soviet government on the territory of Russia, trying to use terror and violence to create a “new man” born from revolutionary explosion and propagation of Marxist ideology. Bulgakov very clearly demonstrated what will come of this in his story.
The composition of the story consists of such traditional parts as the beginning - the professor sees a stray dog and decides to bring him home, the climax (several points can be highlighted here) - the operation, the visit of the house committee members to the professor, Sharikov writing a denunciation against Preobrazhensky, his threats with the use of weapons, the professor's decision to turn Sharikov back into a dog, the denouement - the reverse operation, Shvonder's visit to the professor with the police, the final part - the establishment of peace and tranquility in the professor's apartment: the scientist goes about his business, the dog Sharik is quite happy with his dog's life.
Despite all the fantastic and incredible nature of the events described in the story, the author’s use of various techniques of grotesque and allegory, this work, thanks to the use of descriptions of specific signs of that time (city landscapes, various locales, life and appearance of the characters), is distinguished by its unique verisimilitude.
The events taking place in the story are described on the eve of Christmas and it is not for nothing that the professor is called Preobrazhensky, and his experiment is a real “anti-Christmas”, a kind of “anti-creation”. In a story based on allegory and fantastic fiction, the author wanted to show not only the importance of the scientist’s responsibility for his experiment, but also the inability to see the consequences of his actions, the huge difference between the natural development of evolution and revolutionary intervention in the course of life. The story shows the author's clear vision of the changes that took place in Russia after the revolution and the beginning of the construction of a new socialist system; all these changes for Bulgakov were nothing more than an experiment on people, large-scale, dangerous and having catastrophic consequences.
