The theme of experience and mistakes in a dog's heart. The main problem of the “heart of a dog”. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society. Using the example of the failure of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 20s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experiment, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but succinct description: “Profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. Liver dilated 1 (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And it is not surprising that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois.”
The scientific result was unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most disastrous consequences. The type who appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of an operation, “short in stature and unattractive in appearance,” upended the well-functioning life of this house. He behaves defiantly rudely, arrogantly and insolently.
The newly minted Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov puts on patent leather shoes and a tie of a poisonous color, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of the house committee Shvonder, he registers in Preobrazhensky’s apartment, demands the “sixteen arshins” of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he is reading a book recommended by Shvonder - the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky. And he even makes critical remarks about the correspondence...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are pathetic attempts that in no way contribute to Sharikov’s mental and spiritual development. But from the point of view of Shvonder and others like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society that they create. Sharikov was even hired by a government agency. For him, to become a boss, albeit a small one, means to transform outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a state car, and controls the fate of a girl secretary. His arrogance becomes limitless. All day long, obscene language and balalaika tinkling can be heard in the professor’s house; Sharikov comes home drunk, pesters women, breaks and destroys everything around him. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the entire house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental are unsuccessfully trying to instill in him the rules of good manners, develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov only likes the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave culturally at the table, Sharikov ironically notes that this is how people tormented themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into rtca. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in real life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.
With his story “Heart of a Dog,” Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that took place in Russia is not the result of the natural socio-economic and spiritual development of society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is exactly how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society using revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about educating a new, free person using the same methods. The main idea of the writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people.
The problematics of “Heart of a Dog” allow us to fully explore the essence of the work of the famous Soviet writer Mikhail Bulgakov. The story was written in 1925. Let’s try to figure it out together why it is considered one of the key works of Russian literature of the early 20th century.
Daring story
Everyone who came across this work was imbued with the problems of “The Heart of a Dog.” Its original title was "Heart of a Dog. A Monstrous Story." But then the author decided that the second part only made the title heavier.
The first listeners of the story were friends and acquaintances of Bulgakov, who gathered at the Nikitin subbotnik. The story made a great impression. Everyone was animatedly discussing her, noting her audacity. The problems of the story "Heart of a Dog" have become one of the most discussed topics in the coming months among the capital's educated society. As a result, rumors about her reached law enforcement agencies. Bulgakov's house was searched and the manuscript was confiscated. It was never published during his lifetime, being published only during the years of perestroika.
And this is understandable. After all, it reflected the main problems of Soviet society, which emerged almost immediately after the victory of the October Revolution. After all, in essence, Bulgakov compared power to a dog that turns into a selfish and vile person.
By analyzing the issues of “Heart of a Dog,” one can study what the cultural and historical situation was like in Russia after the story reflects all the troubles that Soviet people had to face in the first half of the 20s.
At the center of the story is a scientific experiment carried out by He transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog. The results exceed all expectations. In a few days the dog turns into a human.
This work became Bulgakov's response to the events taking place in the country. The scientific experiment he depicts is a vivid and accurate picture of the proletarian revolution and its consequences.
In the story, the author poses many important questions to the reader. How does revolution relate to evolution, what is the nature of the new government and the future of the intelligentsia? But Bulgakov is not limited to general political topics. He is also concerned about the problem of old and new morality and ethics. It is important for him to find out which of them is more humane.
Contrasting layers of society
The problematic of Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" largely lies in the opposition of different strata of society, the gap between which was felt especially acutely in those days. The intelligentsia is personified by the professor, luminary of science, Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky. The representative of the “new” man born of the revolution is the house manager Shvonder, and later Sharikov, who is influenced by the speeches of his new friend and communist propaganda literature.
Preobrazhensky's assistant, Doctor Bormental, calls him a creator, but the author himself clearly has a different opinion. He is not ready to admire the professor.
Laws of evolution
The main claim is that Preobrazhensky encroached on the basic laws of evolution and tried on the role of God. He creates a person with his own hands, conducting, in essence, a monstrous experiment. Here Bulgakov makes a reference to his original title.
It is worth noting that Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening in the country then as an experiment. Moreover, the experiment is grandiose in scale and at the same time dangerous. The main thing that the author denies Preobrazhensky is the moral right of the creator. After all, having endowed a kind stray dog with human habits, Preobrazhensky made Sharikov the embodiment of everything terrible that was in people. Did the professor have the right to do this? This question can characterize the problems of Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog.”
References to fiction
Bulgakov's story intertwines many genres. But the most obvious are the references to science fiction. They are the key artistic feature of the work. As a result, realism is brought to the point of complete absurdity.
One of the author's main theses is the impossibility of forcibly reorganizing society. Especially something so drastic. History shows that in many ways he was right. The mistakes made by the Bolsheviks today form the basis of history textbooks devoted to that period.
Sharik, who has become human, personifies the average character of that era. The main thing in his life is class hatred of his enemies. That is, the proletarians cannot stand the bourgeoisie. Over time, this hatred spreads to the rich, and then to educated people and ordinary intellectuals. It turns out that the basis of the new world is connected to everything old. It is obvious that a world based on hatred had no future.
Slaves in power
Bulgakov is trying to convey his position - slaves are in power. That's what "Heart of a Dog" is about. The problem is that they received the right to govern before at least a minimal education and understanding of culture. The darkest instincts awaken in such people, as in Sharikov. Humanity turns out to be powerless before them.
Among the artistic features of this work, it is necessary to note numerous associations and references to domestic and foreign classics. The key to the work can be obtained by analyzing the exposition of the story.
The elements that we encounter in the beginning of “Heart of a Dog” (blizzard, winter cold, stray dog) refer us to Blok’s poem “The Twelve.”
Such an insignificant detail as a collar plays an important role. In Blok, a bourgeois hides his nose in his collar, and in Bulgakov, it is by his collar that a homeless dog determines Preobrazhensky’s status, realizing that in front of him is a benefactor, and not a hungry proletarian.
In general, we can conclude that “Heart of a Dog” is Bulgakov’s outstanding work, which plays a key role both in his work and in all Russian literature. First of all, according to the ideological plan. But both its artistic features and the issues raised in the story are worthy of high praise.
The work of M. A. Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction of the 20th century. Its main theme can be considered the theme of “the tragedy of the Russian people.” The writer was a contemporary of all those tragic events that took place in Russia in the first half of our century. But most importantly, M. A. Bulgakov was an insightful prophet. He not only described what he saw around him, but also understood how dearly his homeland would pay for all this. With bitter feeling, he writes after the end of the First World War: “...The Western countries are licking their wounds, they will get better, they will get better very soon (and will prosper!), and we... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the days of October ,for all!" And later, in 1926, in his diary: “We are wild, dark, unhappy people.”
M. A. Bulgakov is a subtle satirist, a student of N. V. Gogol and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the writer’s prose is not just satire, it is fantastic satire. There is a huge difference between these two types of worldview: satire exposes the shortcomings that exist in reality, and fantastic satire warns society about what awaits it in the future. And the most frank views of M. A. Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “The Heart of a Dog.”
The story was written in 1925, but the author never saw its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw it only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. The main character of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, who represents the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual, conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: creating a new person by transplanting part of a human brain into a dog. The story contains the theme of a new Faust, but, like everything by M. A. Bulgakov, it is of a tragicomic nature. Moreover, the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the name Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new person, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the “proletarian” - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois.” And then - street expressions: “don’t push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of short stature and unattractive appearance appears. 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 the eyebrows.”
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a canine disposition, the “basis” of which was the lumpen-proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, swaggering, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormenthal and the humanoid creature is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirtfront...” - “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I never hear a single curse word again. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look!” - the professor is indignant. “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said tearfully... “Why aren’t you letting me live?” Despite the dissatisfaction of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitively and stupidly: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, messes around, does all sorts of outrages, confident that “nowadays everyone has his own right.”
Of course, it is not this scientific experiment in itself that Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov seeks to depict in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. We are talking not only about the scientist’s responsibility for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary changes and a revolutionary invasion of life.
The story “Heart of a Dog” contains the author’s extremely clear view of everything that is happening in the country.
Everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M. A. Bulgakov as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society using revolutionary, that is, methods that justify violence, and about educating a new, free person using the same methods. He saw that in Russia they were also trying to create a new type of person. A person who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received enormous rights from the state. It is precisely such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put into the dirt those who are independent, intelligent, and high in spirit. M.A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization of Russian life to be an intervention in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can also hit the “experimenters”? Do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control? ? These are the questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov poses in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we are still experiencing?
"Friendship and Enmity"
"Friendship and Enmity"
Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Loon"
Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Destruction"
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"
Daniel Pennac "Eye of the Wolf"
Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov "Hero of Our Time"
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
Oblomov and Stolz
The great Russian writer, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, published his second novel, Oblomov, in 1859. It was a very difficult time for Russia. Society was divided into two parts: the first, the minority - those who understood the need to abolish serfdom, who were not satisfied with the life of ordinary people in Russia, and the second, the majority - “masters”, wealthy people, whose life consisted of idle pastime, living off what belonged to them peasants In the novel, the author tells us about the life of the landowner Oblomov and about those heroes of the novel who surround him and allow the reader to better understand the image of Ilya Ilyich himself.
One of these heroes is Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, a friend of Oblomov. But despite the fact that they are friends, each of them presents in the novel their own life position that is opposite to each other, so their images are contrasting. Let's compare them.
Oblomov appears before us as a man “... about thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, ... an even light of carelessness glowed throughout his face.” Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “he is thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... his complexion is even, dark and there is no blush; the eyes, although a little greenish, are expressive.” As you can see, even in the description of appearance we cannot find anything in common. Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles who owned several hundred serfs. Stolz's father was half German, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.
Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood, since they studied together in a small boarding school located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhleve. Stolz's father was the manager there.
“Maybe Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well from him if Oblomovka had been about five hundred miles from Verkhlev. The charm of Oblomov’s atmosphere, lifestyle and habits extended to Verkhlevo; there, except for Stolz’s house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and stillness.” But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: “From the age of eight, he sat with his father at the geographical map, sorted through the warehouses of Herder, Wieland, biblical verses and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, townspeople and factory workers, and with his mother he read sacred history, taught Krylov’s fables and sorted it out from Telemacus’ warehouses.” As for physical education, Oblomov was not even allowed outside, while Stolz
“Tearing himself away from the pointer, he ran to destroy birds’ nests with the boys,” sometimes disappearing from home for a day. Since childhood, Oblomov was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, which took away the need for his own actions; others did everything for him, while Stolz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor.
But Oblomov and Stolz are already over thirty. What are they like now? Ilya Ilyich has turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life slowly passes on the sofa. Goncharov himself speaks with a bit of irony about Oblomov: “Ilya Ilyich’s lying down was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like that of a lazy person: it was his normal state." Against the background of such a lazy existence, Stolz’s life can be compared to a seething stream: “He is constantly on the move: if society needs to send an agent to Belgium or England, they send him; you need to write some project or adapt a new idea to business - they choose it. Meanwhile, he goes out into the world and reads: when he has time, God knows.”
All this once again proves the difference between Oblomov and Stolz, but, if you think about it, what can unite them? Probably friendship, but other than that? It seems to me that they are united by an eternal and uninterrupted sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his sofa, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and eventful life. “Life: life is good!” argues Oblomov, “What to look for there? interests of the mind, heart? Look where the center is around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society!... Don’t they sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with threes and jacks? Maybe Ilya Ilyich is right, because we can say that people who live without a specific, lofty goal simply sleep in pursuit of satisfying their desires.
But who is more needed by Russia, Oblomov or Stolz? Of course, such active, active and progressive people as Stolz are simply necessary in our time, but we must come to terms with the fact that the Oblomovs will never disappear, because there is a piece of Oblomov in each of us, and we are all a little Oblomov at heart. Therefore, both of these images have the right to exist as different life positions, different views on reality.
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Duel between Pierre and Dolokhov. (Analysis of an episode from L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace,” vol. II, part I, chapter IV, V.)
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy in his novel “War and Peace” consistently pursues the idea of the predestined destiny of man. He can be called a fatalist. This is clearly, truthfully and logically proven in the scene of Dolokhov’s duel with Pierre. A purely civilian - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a rake, a rake, a fearless warrior. But Pierre was completely unable to handle weapons. Just before the duel, second Nesvitsky explained to Bezukhov “where to press.”
The episode telling about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov can be called “Unconscious Act”. It begins with a description of a dinner at the English Club. Everyone sits at the table, eats and drinks, toasts to the emperor and his health. Present at the dinner are Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, and Bezukhoe. Pierre “does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, difficult and insoluble.” He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? “Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov’s beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul.” And after a toast made by his “enemy”: “To the health of beautiful women and their lovers,” Bezukhov realizes that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the beginning of which occurs when Dolokhov snatches a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The Count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it hesitantly, timidly, one might even think that the words: “You... you... scoundrel!.., I challenge you...” - accidentally escape him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and neither do the seconds: Nesvitsky, Pierre’s second, and Nikolai Rostov, Dolokhov’s second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits all night in the club, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill his opponent, but this is only an appearance, “his soul is restless. His opponent “has the appearance of a man busy with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming matter. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night.” The Count still doubts the correctness of his actions and wonders: what would he do in Dolokhov’s place?
Pierre doesn't know what to do: either run away or finish the job. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov doesn’t want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time due to the lack of awareness of the act, which Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: “For about three minutes everything was ready, and yet they hesitated to start. Everyone was silent.” The indecision of the characters is also conveyed by the description of nature - it is sparing and laconic: fog and thaw.
Began. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had the semblance of a smile. He is aware of his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre walks quickly, straying from the beaten path, as if he is trying to run away, to finish everything as quickly as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, at random, flinching from the strong sound, and wounds his opponent.
Dolokhov, having fired, misses. Dolokhov's wounding and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in the action and a denouement, which is what all the characters experience. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back his sobs, clutching his head, he goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, to whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was accomplished. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house as a friend and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of “judge” and “executioner” at the same time; he repents of what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism is disarming; even before the duel, he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helene's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Maybe I would have done the same thing in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even probably I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helene’s insignificance and baseness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his action; this woman is not worth taking a sin on her soul - killing a person for her. Pierre is scared that he almost ruined his own soul, as he had previously ruined his life, by connecting it with Helen.
After the duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov learned that “Dolokhov, this brawler, brute, - Dolokhov lived in Moscow with an old mother and a hunchbacked sister and was the most gentle son and brother...”. Here one of the author’s statements is proven that not everything is as obvious, clear and unambiguous as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think, know or assume about it. The great philosopher Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy teaches to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. In the scene of Dolokhov’s duel with Pierre Bezukhov, Tolstoy gives a lesson: it is not for us to judge what is fair and what is unfair, not everything obvious is unambiguous and easily resolved.
M. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog”
In the foreground "Heart of a Dog"- an experiment by the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky with all the tragicomic results that were unexpected for the professor himself and his assistant Bormental. Having transplanted human seminal glands and the pituitary gland of the brain into a dog for purely scientific purposes, Preobrazhensky, to his amazement, receives from the dog... a human. Homeless Ball, always hungry, offended by everyone and everything, in a matter of days, before the eyes of the professor and his assistant, he turns into homosapiens. And on his own initiative he receives a human name: Sharikov Polygraph Polygraphovich. His habits, however, remain that of a dog. And the professor, willy-nilly, has to take on his upbringing.
Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky not only an outstanding specialist in his field. He is a man of high culture and independent mind. And she perceives very critically everything that has been happening around since March 1917
of the year. The views of Philip Philipovich have much in common with the views of Bulgakov. He is also skeptical of the revolutionary process and is also strongly opposed to all violence. Caress is the only way that is possible and necessary in dealing with living beings - rational and unreasonable. “Nothing can be done with terrorism...”
And this conservative professor, who categorically rejects the revolutionary theory and practice of reorganizing the world, suddenly finds himself in the role of a revolutionary. The new system strives to create a new man from the old “human material”. Philip Philipovich, as if competing with him, goes even further: he intends to make a man, and even one of high culture and morality, out of a dog. “With affection, exclusively affection.” And of course, by your own example.
The result is known. Attempts to instill Sharikov elementary cultural skills meet with persistent resistance on his part. And every day Sharikov becomes more impudent, more aggressive and more dangerous.
If the "source material" for sculpting Poligrafovich's polygraph If there was only Sharik, perhaps the professor’s experiment would have been a success. Having settled down in Philip Philipovich's apartment, Sharik, at first, like a recent street child, still commits some hooligan acts. But in the end he turns into a completely well-bred house dog.
But by chance, human organs went to a citizen Sharikov from a criminal. Moreover, a new, Soviet formation, as emphasized in his official characterization, or, more precisely, in Bulgakov’s very poisonous parody of the characterization:
"Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Non-partisan, sympathetic. Tried 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - conditional hard labor for 15 years.”
A “sympathizer” sentenced to hard labor “conditionally” - it is reality itself that intrudes into Preobrazhensky’s experiment.
Is this character really lonely? There is also the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, in the story. In this case, this “personnel” Bulgakov character has a special character. He even writes articles for the newspaper and reads Engels. And in general he is fighting for revolutionary order and social justice. Residents of the house should enjoy the same benefits. No matter how brilliant the scientist is Professor Preobrazhensky, he has no business occupying seven rooms. He can have dinner in the bedroom, perform operations in the examination room, where he cuts up rabbits. And in general it’s time to equalize it with Sharikov, a man of a completely proletarian appearance.
The professor himself manages to fight off Shvonder this way or that way. But fight off Poligraf Poligrafych he turns out to be unable to. Shvonder already taken over Sharikov patronage and educates, paralyzing all professorial educational efforts, in his own way.
Two weeks after the dog's skin came off Sharikova and he began to walk on two legs, this participant already has a document proving his identity. And the document, according to Shvonder, who knows what he is talking about, is “the most important thing in the world.” In another week or two Sharikov neither more nor less - a co-worker. And not an ordinary person - the head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is the same as it was - dog-criminal... Just look at his message about his work “in his specialty”: “Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled.”
But what kind of satire is this if, just a few years later, thousands of real ball-carriers were “choking and strangling” in the same way, not cats, but people, real workers, who had not done anything wrong before the revolution?!
Preobrazhensky and Bormenthal, having made sure that they had managed to “turn the sweetest dog into such scum that it makes your hair stand on end,” they eventually corrected their mistake.
But those experiments that have been taking place in reality for a long time have not been corrected. In the very first lines of the story a certain Central People's Council Farms. Under the canopy Central Council a normal food canteen is discovered, where employees are fed cabbage soup made from stinking corned beef, where the cook in a dirty cap is a “thief with a copper face.” And the caretaker is also a thief...
And here Sharikov. Not artificial, professorial - natural...: “I am now the chairman and, no matter how much I steal, it’s all about the female body, about cancerous cervixes, about Abrau-Durso. Because I was hungry enough when I was young, that’s enough for me, but there is no afterlife.”
Why not a cross between a hungry dog and a criminal? And this is no longer a special case. Something much more serious. Isn't it a system? The man got hungry and humiliated himself to his heart's content. And suddenly, on you! - position, power over people... Is it easy to resist temptations, of which there are now plenty?..
Boborykin, V.G. In the foreground of “Heart of a Dog”/V.G. Boborykin//Mikhail Bulgakov.-1991.-P.61-66
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society. Using the example of the failure of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 20s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experiment, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but succinct description: “Profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And it is not surprising that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois.”
The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most disastrous consequences. The type who appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of an operation, “short in stature and unattractive in appearance,” upended the well-functioning life of this house. He behaves defiantly rudely, arrogantly and insolently.
Newly-minted Polygrapher Poligrafovich Sharikov.” puts on patent leather shoes and a tie of a poisonous color, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of the house committee Shvonder, he registers in Preobrazhensky’s apartment, demands the “sixteen arshins” of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he is reading a book recommended by Shvonder - the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky. And he even makes critical remarks about the correspondence...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are pathetic attempts that in no way contribute to Sharikov’s mental and spiritual development. But from the point of view of Shvonder and others like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society that they create. Sharikov was even hired by a government agency. For him, to become a boss, albeit a small one, means to transform outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a state car, and controls the fate of a girl secretary. His arrogance becomes limitless. All day long, obscene language and balalaika tinkling can be heard in the professor’s house; Sharikov comes home drunk, pesters women, breaks and destroys everything around him. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the entire house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental are unsuccessfully trying to instill in him the rules of good manners, develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov only likes the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave culturally at the table, Sharikov ironically notes that this is how people tormented themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into a dog. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in real life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.
With his story “Heart of a Dog,” Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that took place in Russia is not the result of the natural socio-economic and spiritual development of society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is exactly how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society using revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about educating a new, free person using the same methods. The main idea of the writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people
- New!
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society....
- New!
M.A. Bulgakov had a rather ambiguous, complex relationship with the authorities, like any writer of the Soviet era who did not write works praising this power. On the contrary, it is clear from his works that he blames her for the devastation that has come...
- New!
The story “Heart of a Dog,” it seems to me, is distinguished by its original solution to the idea. The revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of natural socio-economic and spiritual development, but an irresponsible and premature experiment...
M. Bulgakov did not see the story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925, published, since it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by OGPU officers during a search. “Heart of a Dog” is the writer’s latest satirical story. Everything, that...
