Who is the author of the dog's heart? dog's heart

So, as a sign of peaceful greetings
I take off my hat, I hit it with my forehead,
Having recognized the philosopher-poet
Under a careful hood.
A. S. Pushkin

In terms of genre, “Heart of a Dog” (1925) is a story, but when discussing its genre uniqueness, it should be recognized that it is a social and philosophical satirical story with elements of fantasy.

The story describes NEP Moscow in the mid-20s of the 20th century. The life of ordinary people, for whose happiness the revolution was made, is very difficult. Suffice it to recall the girl typist, citizen Vasnetsova. For her work she receives a pittance, which is impossible to feed herself on even in the canteen of “Normal food for employees of the Central Council of the National Economy”, so she is forced to become the mistress of her boss, a boorish and smug “coming from the people” (I). This figure (“chairman of something”) believes: “My time has come. Now I (...) steal as much as I can - all on the female body, on cancerous cervixes, on Abrau-Durso. Because I was hungry enough in my youth, it will be enough for me, but there is no afterlife” (I). The young typist will become Sharikov’s bride, and, of course, she will agree to marry this miracle of nature not because of a good life.

The author describes ordinary Soviet people sympathetically, but there are other characters in the story who are satirically ridiculed. This is the fat cook from the mentioned “Normal Food...” canteen: he steals quality food and feeds rotten food to visitors, which causes these visitors to have stomach ache. This is the new elite - patients of Professor Preobrazhensky, well-fed and satisfied, but preoccupied with various sexual problems. The professor himself, who resembles a medieval French knight, and his faithful student-squire Doctor Bormental, who wanted to correct the laws of nature, are ridiculed.

The social content of the story is expressed through a description of the everyday life of Moscow: criminals are on the loose in the capital, as before (Klim Chugunkin), there is a problem of food supply, the drama of communal apartments, and bitter drunkenness. In other words, Bulgakov shows the discrepancy between official Soviet propaganda and real life. The social idea of ​​the story is to show the difficult, unsettled life of an ordinary person in the Soviet country, where, as in the old days, swindlers and scoundrels of various stripes rule the roost - from the canteen caretaker to high-ranking patients of Professor Preobrazhensky. These heroes are portrayed satirically, and the logic of the narrative leads the reader to the conclusion that the well-fed and comfortable life of such people is paid for by the suffering of the entire people during the years of the revolution and civil war.

In the story, the social content is closely intertwined with philosophical reflections on the new, post-revolutionary time and the “new” man generated by this time. At least two serious philosophical problems should be highlighted in the work.

The first is about the scientist’s responsibility for his discoveries. Professor Preobrazhensky decided to carry out a unique operation - to transplant a human pituitary gland into the brain of an experimental dog. Since Philip Philipovich is a talented surgeon, he managed to implant the pituitary gland of the bandit Klim Chugunkin into the brain of the mongrel Sharik. The scientist conceived this operation in order to test his guesses regarding the artificial rejuvenation of the human body. Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor could not yet know that the pituitary gland contains many different hormones. The result was unexpected: the experimenter’s miscalculation led to the birth of a disgusting informer, alcoholic, demagogue - Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. With his experiment, Preobrazhensky challenged evolution, the natural state of affairs in nature.

But, according to Bulgakov, violating the laws of nature is very dangerous: a monster may be born that will destroy the experimenter himself, and along with him all of humanity. In fiction, this idea was developed in the middle of the 19th century (M. Shelley’s novel “Frankenstein, or the New Prometheus”), and many times in the 20th century (A.N. Tolstoy’s novel “The Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin”, B. Brecht’s play “Galileo” ”, the story of the Strugatsky brothers “Monday begins on Saturday”, etc.). Preobrazhensky realized the danger of his scientific experience when Sharikov robbed him, tried to survive from the apartment, and wrote a denunciation about the counter-revolutionary statements and actions of the professor. Philip Philipovich, in a conversation with Bormenthal, admitted his experience was practically useless, although brilliant, from a scientific point of view: “Please explain to me why it is necessary to artificially fabricate Spinoza, if any woman can give birth to a genius at any time. (...) Humanity itself takes care of this and, in an evolutionary order, every year persistently, singling out all kinds of scum from the masses, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn the globe” (VIII).

The second philosophical problem of the story is about people's compliance with the laws of social development. In the author’s opinion, social ills cannot be cured in a revolutionary way: the writer experiences deep skepticism regarding the revolutionary process in his backward country and contrasts it with the “beloved and Great Evolution” (letter from M.A. Bulgakov to the USSR Government dated March 28, 1930). The story “Heart of a Dog” reflected a sharp change in Bulgakov’s social views compared to the previous beliefs presented in the novel “The White Guard” (1921-1924). Now the writer understands that it is not the revolution with its unpredictable explosions and zigzags, but the great, unstoppable evolution that acts according to nature, natural and human. Only as a result of the revolution can individuals like Shvonder and Sharikov come to power - uneducated, uncultured, but self-satisfied and determined.

It seems to Shvonder and Sharikov that creating a just society is easier than ever: everything must be taken away and divided. Therefore, Shvonder is outraged that Professor Preobrazhensky lives in a seven-room apartment and even has servants (cook Daria Petrovna and maid Zina). The fighter for “universal justice” and at the same time the chairman of the House of Coma cannot understand that for normal work and successful experiments a scientist requires premises and freedom from household chores. With his scientific discoveries, a scientist brings such enormous benefit to society that it is beneficial for society itself to create good living conditions for him. After all, an outstanding scientist, as Preobrazhensky is presented in the story, is a rarity and of great value to the nation. However, such reasoning is beyond Shvonder’s understanding, and he, seeking formal social equality, as he understands it, constantly pits Sharikov against Philip Philipovich. The professor, analyzing the situation, is sure that as soon as Sharikov finishes with his “creator,” he will definitely “take care of” his “ideological leader” (VIII). Then things won’t go well for Shvonder either, because Sharikov is a dark, evil and envious force that can’t create anything, but wants to divide everything and grab more for itself. Sharikov’s view of the world seems primitive to Preobrazhensky (and Bulgakov himself), although nothing else could have been born in the undeveloped brains of Poligraf Poligrafovich. Skeptical about the idea of ​​“general sharing,” the writer essentially repeats the opinion of the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, who wrote that “equality is an empty idea and that social justice should be based on the dignity of each individual, and not on equality.” .

The story contains elements of fantasy that make the plot entertaining and at the same time help to reveal the idea of ​​the work. Of course, the pituitary gland transplant operation and the very transformation of a dog into a humanoid creature are fantastic, but the fantastic (even from the point of view of physiologists of the early 21st century) ideas of artificial rejuvenation of the human body seemed quite real to some domestic scientists in the mid-20s of the 20th century. This is evidenced by newspaper articles and reports enthusiastically describing the promising experiences of doctors (L.S. Aizerman “Fidelity to the idea and fidelity to ideas” // Literature at school, 1991, No. 6).

So, in his story, Bulgakov, being a doctor, expressed a skeptical attitude towards the problem of rejuvenation, and being a writer, he satirically depicted the “success” of gerontologists and philosophically comprehended the consequences of human revolutionary intervention in the life of nature and society.

The story “The Heart of a Dog” can be considered the most interesting work of Bulgakov’s early work, since the main artistic principles of the writer were fully manifested in it. In a small work, Bulgakov managed to do a lot: to depict in sufficient detail and satirically the modern life of the country of the Soviets, to raise the most important moral problem about the responsibility of a scientist for his discovery, and even to present his own understanding of the ways of development of human society. New social conditions give rise to “new” people, and the story discusses the collapse of the idea that a “new” person can be created quickly, for example, by some miraculous pedagogical or surgical methods. The courage of Professor Preobrazhensky, who decided to improve nature itself, was severely punished.

With its multifaceted content, “Heart of a Dog” resembles Bulgakov’s main work, the novel “The Master and Margarita,” because in terms of genre features, both the novel and the story coincide - a social and philosophical satirical work with elements of fantasy.

To understand the meaning of M. Yu. Bulgakov’s great work “The Heart of a Dog,” you need to analyze it. This will help you not only understand the design features of the text, but also the problems, and help you write a successful school or graduation essay.

We will tell you further about what the story is, what Sharikov’s name was, what the essence and theme of the story are, how to draw up a plan for the description, giving a brief summary of the work and its history of creation.

About the story “Heart of a Dog”

Bulgakov's story was created in the middle of the nineteenth century ( date of writing 1925 G.) in the capital as an example of the sharp type of satirical fiction of that era. In it, the author was able to express all his ideas, feelings and thoughts on the topic of personal intervention in the evolutionary process and the consequences of this phenomenon.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891 - 1940) - Russian writer, playwright, theater director and actor. Author of novels, novellas and short stories, many feuilletons, plays, dramatizations, film scripts, opera librettos.

It also touches on other deep ideas. It is interesting that after publication, the story became the object of attacks from literary critics. The reasons were the extraordinary and at the same time interesting main characters, an unusual plot in which the intertwining of life is noticeable, with a fantastic direction.

The work was and remains popular, and in the 90s it was called prophetic. It clearly shows the tragedy of a people divided into red and white, as well as the negative essence of the concept of victors.

This book is the final one in the cycle of satirical works by Bulgakov from the middle of the last century. The author began to work on it for the magazine “Nedr”, but due to the fact that the story did not withstand censorship, it was not included in it.

Then Bulgakov gave the work to the Nikitsky Subbotnik and read it aloud in a circle, where his work was appreciated and began to be distributed to the masses. In the USSR, the work was published for the first time only in 1987 in the magazine “Znamya”.

Plot of the story

The focus is on the experiment of a prominent surgeon and professor Philip Preobrazhensky, who, together with Dr. Bormental, transplants human organs into the stray dog ​​Sharik.

The results of the experiment are wonderful - every day Sharik becomes similar in character and appearance to a person, to the rude, thief and drunkard Klim, whose organs he received when they were transplanted to him.

The story of the experiment became known to the medical community and captivated the tabloid press. Everyone, except the genius surgeon himself, is happy with the work done, since Sharik has turned into a brute, a communist activist and a thief of household things.

Professor Preobrazhensky's mistake led to Sharik becoming unbearable. After the results of Preobrazhensky’s work were finally completed, he decides to turn Sharik back into a dog. After this, Sharik becomes a loving and devoted dog.

Genre, composition, direction

“The Heart of a Dog” in structure and direction is a story, as the author wrote, but if we talk about its originality of the genre, it is worth noting that it is a socio-philosophical satirical story with fantastic elements. It cannot be called a novel, but the features of this genre are also present in the description of the characters and their actions.

In composition, the story is circular, since the story starts from the beginning of the transformation of the dog’s life and ends with it. The compositional elements of the story about the mortal life of a four-legged creature are the post-revolutionary mood with gloomy weather, thoughts about the meaning of existence and the life of ordinary people.

The plot of the story begins when the professor takes poor Sharik to his home, and the dog does not feel so unhappy, since he is treated, fed and even dressed. It is no coincidence that Bulgakov here chooses the direction of the story from the point of view of the dog in order to show the reader his thoughts and feelings after his renewal and transformation into a person.

Transformation is the starting point of a new story, where the reader begins to understand the direction of the story’s plot. Now the main characters are the professor and Sharik. These are several completely different characters who are trying to get along together.

During the experiment, notes from the observer are written by Bormental, an accomplice in the operation on Sharik. This is a kind of compositional type of element, since it is in it that the small details of the modification of behavior with the dog’s appearance are reflected.

Sharikov's character changes with his acquaintance with a representative of the communists. With it, he begins to catch stray animals, steal, and soon decides to kill his former owner. But he fails, and as a result Sharikov becomes a dog again.

This is where the ring composition ends. Sharik becomes an ordinary calm dog with a collar and an owner.

The meaning of the work

The meaning of the story is to define the essence of renewed Soviet citizens who have “dog” hearts. That is, people devoted to the Soviets and deprived of their own will and reason, shouting that they are free, but are not ready to accept it because of the responsibility for their own actions.

Because of this, they cannot live better, for this reason they bark like dogs and try to hurt the bourgeoisie in the form of professors.

Also, the semantic idea is expressed in the destruction of the concept of culture, in the chaos of the revolution, which is represented by beautiful speeches.

The main characters and their characteristics

The main characters of the story and the main characters are considered to be Professor Preobrazhensky (patronymic name - Philip Filippovich) with the dog Sharik, an updated dog and turned into a human Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. Also among the main characters are Dr. Bormenthal and the communist Shvonder.

Professor- an educated and free from the new ideology doctor of science and surgeon who openly scolds the Soviets and has his own convictions against them, believing that only culture can help the state get back on its feet after devastation, and not a violent form of coercion. Realizing that the experiment was a failure and Sharikov is becoming an uncultured person and a boor, Philip Philipovich still tries to make him a decent citizen.

Dog Sharik- a stray dog ​​from whom the story is told. A doctor picks him up on the street and starts living with him. Being a dog, he is distinguished by his gratitude, affection, but cunning, which he gained while being homeless. The professor conducts his experiment on him, transplanting human organs into him. As a result, the dog turns into Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, a vile communist, cunning thief and murderer.

Poligraf Poligrafovich- a colorful and ordinary communist who repeatedly violates the law and moral standards for his own benefit. He dreams of becoming rich and famous, but does not want to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for this. Everything bad is absorbed by him like a sponge. The desire to kill animals is illustrated by the readiness to kill any citizen of the new state, if necessary.

Dr. Bormenthal- Preobrazhensky’s aspiring assistant by position, who is a decent and cultured person. He is devoted to the professor, because he once helped him gain faith in himself and gave him a job. In short, it was he who insisted on turning Polygraph back into a dog, showing fortitude with strength of character.

Shvonder- a hero who meets Sharik when he becomes human. He becomes his co-worker. Refers to representatives of the new Soviet society, having the appropriate character, clothing and behavior. He is the chairman of the house committee.

Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin is a recidivist thief, alcoholic and hooligan who died in a fight, whose organs were used by Philip Philipovich for transplantation into the dog Sharik.

Issues

The story touches on many issues. Thus, we can highlight the following problems: human intervention in the laws of evolution, the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people in the USSR, lack of culture and stupid bureaucratic delays, illiteracy, ignorance and stupidity.

We can also highlight the following problems: responsibility for the discoveries of scientists and scientific knowledge, morality and ethics, human destiny, attitude towards animals and homeland, sincerity of relationships, humility towards defeat and correction of one’s own mistakes.

In addition, there are problems of good and evil, “Sharikovism,” the destructive effects of the revolution, and the creation of a robot out of a person.

Main themes

The Heart of a Dog is a treasure trove of various topics for analysis. Here you can trace the themes: culture with lack of culture, the intelligentsia, “Sharikovism” and “Shvonderism”, devastation in the minds and the country, ideology, cattle with degradation, power, science, responsibility for discoveries, good with evil, science with morality, morality and fate human relationships with animals.

You can also trace the following themes of the story: the creation of a new state with ideology, the homeland with the sincerity of relationships, power with anarchy, pride, humanism.

Metaphorical features

Researchers of the text of the story, noting its metaphorical features, begin with the starting point of the narrative - the metaphorical expression of the title and subtitle of the text “heart of a dog”, which has a dual meaning.

• “Devastation is in our heads”;
• “If Aunt Zina urinates on the floor in my toilet, then devastation will come in my toilet”;
• “Where will I eat?”;
• “I wish that everyone”;
• “If you want, have lunch in the bathroom and kill rabbits in the dining room”;
• “Get off, you nit”;
• “No more pouring for Sharikov”;
• “I’m so lucky, so lucky,” he thought, dozing off, “simply indescribably lucky. I established myself in this apartment. I am absolutely sure that my origin is unclean. There is a diver here. My grandmother was a slut, may the old lady rest in heaven. True, for some reason they cut my head all over, but it will heal before the wedding. We have nothing to look at.”

Stylistics of the story

In terms of style, the story belongs to a political pamphlet, a science-fiction dystopia, or a parody of the proletariat. Critics interpreted this story differently, expressing their opinions. All this is due to the ambiguity of perception of the work and the variety of artistic means used.

The style of language in the work is colloquial, less often scientific and artistic. The conversational style is manifested in expressions characteristic of the characters according to their social status.

Thus, Shvonder used words that are characteristic of the new bureaucratic Soviet system:

• “We...came to you after a general meeting of the house, at which the issue of densifying the apartments of the house was raised”;
• “The general meeting of the house asks you to voluntarily, as a matter of labor discipline, give up the dining room.”

The professor, being part of the domestic noble intelligentsia, expresses in his speech his love for theater and morality:

• “...and you, dear sir, I will ask you to take off your headdress.”

Bormenthal is an educated, intelligent and naive man who admires the genius of the professor because their views on life are similar. His speeches are conversational style. He also uses scientific terminology and vocabulary in an attempt to explain a scientific experiment. However, the terms he uses are adjacent to words from the colloquial style:

• “Believe me, Philip Philipovich, you are much more to me than a professor-teacher... My immense respect for you...”

In general, the style of the story is distinguished by the use of almost the entire arsenal of visual means: an allegorical background with an ironic narrative and grotesque image. Lyrical metaphors are also actively used to effectively express the author’s position.

Conclusion

“The Heart of a Dog” is a great work of the twentieth century by Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, which is still relevant in its meaning today. It touches on themes and problems that exist in modern life. That is why the significance of this story is great for literature.

The great Russian writer is widely known for his brilliant and, at the same time, humorous works. His books have long been dismantled into quotes, witty and apt. And even if not everyone knows who wrote “Heart of a Dog,” many have seen the magnificent movie based on this story.

In contact with

Plot Summary

How many chapters are in “Heart of a Dog” - including the epilogue 10. The action of the work takes place in Moscow at the beginning of winter 1924.

1. First, the dog's monologue is described, in which the dog appears smart, observant, lonely and grateful to the one who fed it.
2. The dog feels how its beaten body hurts, remembers how the windshield wipers beat it and poured boiling water on it. The dog feels sorry for all these poor people, but more for himself. How compassionate women and passers-by fed me.
3. A passing gentleman (Professor Preobrazhensky) treats her to Krakow-quality boiled sausage and invites her to follow him. The dog walks obediently.
4. The following tells how the dog Sharik acquired his abilities. And the dog knows a lot - colors, some letters. In the apartment, Preobrazhensky calls Dr. Bormental's assistant, and the dog feels that he has again fallen into a trap.
5. All attempts to fight back do not yield results and darkness sets in. Nevertheless, the animal woke up, albeit bandaged. Sharik hears the professor teaching him to treat him kindly and carefully, to feed him well.

The dog woke up

Preobrazhensky takes the well-fed and well-fed dog with him to the reception. Then Sharik sees patients: an old man with green hair who feels like a young man again, an old woman in love with a sharper and asking to have monkey ovaries transplanted into her, and many, many others. Unexpectedly, four visitors from the management of the house arrived, all in leather jackets, boots and dissatisfied with how many rooms there were in the professor’s apartment. After calling and talking with the unknown person, they leave embarrassedly.

Further events:

1. The lunch of Professor Preobrazhensky and the doctor is described. While eating, the scientist talks about how he brought only destruction and deprivation. Galoshes are stolen, apartments are not heated, rooms are taken away. The dog is happy because he is well-fed, warm, and nothing hurts. Unexpectedly, in the morning after the call, the dog was again taken to the examination room and euthanized.
2. An operation is described to transplant the seminal glands and pituitary gland into Sharik from a criminal and brawler killed during arrest.
3. The following are excerpts from the diary kept by Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental. The doctor describes how the dog gradually becomes a human: it stands on its hind legs, then its legs, begins to read and speak.
4. The situation in the apartment is changing. People walk around depressed, there are signs of disorder everywhere. Balayka is playing. A former ball has settled in the apartment - a short, rude, aggressive little man who demands a passport and comes up with a name for himself - Poligraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. He is not embarrassed by the past and does not care about anyone. Most of all, Polygraph hates cats.
5. Lunch is described again. Sharikov changed everything - the professor swears and refuses to accept patients. The polygraph was quickly adopted by the communists and taught their ideals, which turned out to be close to him.
6. Sharikov demands to be recognized as the heir, to allocate a part in Professor Preobrazhensky’s apartment and to obtain registration.
7. Then he tries to rape the professor's cook.
8. Sharikov gets a job catching stray animals. According to him, cats will be made into “polts”. He blackmails the typist into living with him, but the doctor saves her. The professor wants to kick Sharikov out, but we threaten him with a pistol. They twist him and there is silence.

The commission that came to rescue Sharikov finds a half-dog, half-man. Soon Sharik is again sleeping at the professor's table and rejoicing at his luck.

The symbol of science in this story becomes the luminary of medicine - the professor, the name of Preobrazhensky from the story “The Heart of a Dog,” Philip Philipovich. The scientist is looking for ways to rejuvenate the body, and finds - this is the transplantation of the seminal glands of animals. Old people become men, women hope to lose ten years. The transplantation of the pituitary gland and testes, and the heart that was transplanted into the dog in “Heart of a Dog” from a murdered criminal is just another experiment of the famous scientist.

His assistant, Doctor Bormenthal, a young representative of miraculously preserved noble norms and decency, was the best student and remained a faithful follower.

The former dog - Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov - is a victim of the experiment. Those who just watched the movie especially remembered what the hero from “Heart of a Dog” played. Obscene couplets and jumping on a stool became the author's find of the scriptwriters. In the story, Sharikov simply strummed without interruption, which terribly annoyed Professor Preobrazhensky, who appreciated classical music.

So, for the sake of this image of a driven, stupid, rude and ungrateful man, the story was written. Sharikov just wants to live beautifully and eat deliciously, does not understand beauty, the norms of relationships between people, lives by instincts. But Professor Preobrazhensky believes that the former dog is not dangerous for him; Sharikov will do much more harm to Shvonder and the other communists who look after and teach him. After all, this created man carries within himself all the lowest and worst that is inherent in man, and does not have any moral guidelines.

The criminal and organ donor Klim Chugunkin seems to be only mentioned in “Heart of a Dog,” but it was his negative qualities that were passed on to the kind and smart dog.

Theory of the origin of images

Already in the last years of the existence of the USSR, they began to say that the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Lenin, and Sharikov’s was Stalin. Their historical relationship is similar to the story with the dog.

Lenin brought the wild criminal Dzhugashvili closer, believing in his ideological content. This man was a useful and desperate communist, he prayed for their ideals and did not spare his life and health.

True, in recent years, as some close associates believed, the leader of the proletariat realized the true essence of Joseph Dzhugashvili and even wanted to remove him from his circle. But animal cunning and rage helped Stalin not only hold out, but also take a leadership position. And this is indirectly confirmed by the fact that, despite the year “Heart of a Dog” was written - 1925, the story was published in the 80s.

Important! This idea is supported by several allusions. For example, Preobrazhensky loves the opera “Aida”, and Lenin’s mistress Inessa Armand. The typist Vasnetsova, who repeatedly appears in close connection with the characters, also has a prototype - the typist Bokshanskaya, also associated with two historical figures. Bokshanskaya became Bulgakov’s friend.

Problems posed by the author

Bulgakov, confirming his status as a great Russian writer, in a relatively short story was able to pose a number of extremely pressing problems that are still relevant today.

First

The problem of the consequences of scientific experiments and the moral right of scientists to interfere with the natural course of development. Preobrazhensky first wants to slow down the passage of time, rejuvenating old people for money and dreaming of finding a way to restore youth to everyone.

The scientist is not afraid to use risky methods when transplanting animal ovaries. But when the result is a human, the professor first tries to educate him, and then generally returns him to the appearance of a dog. And from the moment Sharik realizes that he is a human, that same scientific dilemma begins: who is considered a human, and whether the scientist’s action will be considered murder.

Second

The problem of relations, or more precisely, the confrontation between the rebel proletariat and the surviving nobility, was painful and bloody.

The impudence and aggressiveness of Shvonder and those who came with them is not an exaggeration, but rather a frightening reality of those years.

Sailors, soldiers, workers and people from the bottom filled the cities and estates quickly and brutally. The country was flooded with blood, former rich people were starving, gave their last for a loaf of bread and hastily went abroad. A few were able not only to survive, but also to maintain their standard of living. They still hated them, although they were afraid of them.

Third The problem of general devastation and the error of the chosen path has arisen more than once in Bulgakov’s works.

The writer mourned the old order, culture and the smartest people dying under the pressure of the crowd.

Bulgakov - prophet

And yet, what did the author want to say in “Heart of a Dog”. Many readers and fans of his work feel such a prophetic motive. It was as if Bulgakov was showing the communists what kind of man of the future, a homunculus, they were growing in their red test tubes.

An expected discovery, a breakthrough in science, a new word in the social order turns out to be just a stupid, cruel, criminal, strumming on a balayka, strangling unfortunate animals, those from among whom he himself came. Sharikov’s goal is to take away the room and steal money from “daddy.”

“Heart of a Dog” by M. A. Bulgakov - Summary

Dog's heart. Michael Bulgakov

Conclusion

The only way out for Professor Preobrazhensky from “Heart of a Dog” is to pull himself together and admit the failure of the experiment. The scientist finds the strength to admit his own mistake and correct it. Will others be able to do this...

Bulgakov’s legendary work “The Heart of a Dog” is studied in literature lessons in the 9th grade. Its fantastic content reflects very real historical events. In “Heart of a Dog,” the planned analysis involves a detailed analysis of all artistic aspects of the work. It is this information that is presented in our article, including analysis of the work, criticism, issues, compositional structure and history of creation.

Brief Analysis

Year of writing- the story was written in 1925.

History of creation- the work is created quickly - in three months, sold in samizdat, but published in its homeland only in 1986 during the period of perestroika.

Subject– rejection of violent intervention in history, political changes in society, the theme of human nature, its nature.

Composition– a ring composition based on the image of the main character.

Genre- social and philosophical satirical story.

Direction– satire, fantasy (as a way of presenting literary text).

History of creation

Bulgakov's work was written in 1925. In just three months, a brilliant work was born, which subsequently gained a legendary future and national fame.

It was being prepared for publication in the Nedra magazine. After reading the text, the editor-in-chief naturally refused to publish such a book, which was openly hostile to the existing political system. In 1926, the author’s apartment was searched and the manuscript of “Heart of a Dog” was confiscated. In its original version, the book was called “Dog's Happiness. A monstrous story,” later it received a modern name, which is associated with lines from the book by A.V. Laifert.

The very idea of ​​the plot, according to researchers of Mikhail Bulgakov’s work, was borrowed by the author from the science fiction writer G. Wells. Bulgakov's plot becomes almost a covert parody of government circles and their policies. The writer twice read his story, for the first time at the literary meeting “Nikitin Subbotniks”.

After the next performance, the audience was delighted, with the exception of a few communist writers. During the author’s lifetime, his work was not published, largely due to its disgraced content, but there was another reason. “The Heart of a Dog” was first published abroad, which automatically “sentenced” the text to persecution in its homeland. Therefore, only in 1986, 60 years later, it appeared on the pages of Zvezda magazine. Despite the disfavor, Bulgakov hoped to publish the text during his lifetime; it was rewritten, copied, and passed on by the writer’s friends and acquaintances, admiring the courage and originality of the images.

Subject

The writer raises problem the ideology and politics of Bolshevism, the lack of education of those who rose to power, the impossibility of forcibly changing the order of history. The results of the revolution are deplorable; it, like Professor Preobrazhensky’s operation, led to completely unexpected consequences and revealed the most terrible diseases of society.

Subject human nature, nature, characters are also touched upon by the author. It gives a translucent hint that a person feels too omnipotent, but is not able to control the fruits of his activities.

Briefly about issues works: a violent change in the social system and way of life will inevitably lead to disastrous results, the “experiment” will be unsuccessful.

Idea Bulgakov's story is quite transparent: any artificial intervention in nature, society, history, politics, and other areas will not lead to positive changes. The author adheres to healthy conservatism.

Main thought The story says the following: uneducated, immature “people” like the “Sharikovs” should not be given power, they are morally immature, such an experiment will result in a disaster for society and history. The conclusion about the author’s artistic goals from the position of the political system and politics of the 20-30s would be too narrow, so both ideas have the right to life.

Meaning of the name works is that not all people are born with normal, spiritually “healthy” hearts. There are people on earth who live the life of Sharikov, they have dog (bad, evil) hearts from birth.

Composition

The story has a circular composition, which can be traced by following the content of the work.

The story begins with a description of a dog who soon becomes a man; ends where it began: Sharikov is operated on and again takes on the appearance of a contented animal.

A special feature of the composition are Bormenthal’s diary entries about the results of the experiment, the patient’s rebirth, his achievements and degradation. Thus, the history of Sharikov’s “life” was documented by the professor’s assistant. A striking key point of the composition is Sharikov’s acquaintance with Shvonder, who has a decisive influence on the formation of the personality of the newly minted citizen.

In the center of the story are two main characters: Professor Preobrazhensky and Polygraph Sharikov, they are the ones who have a plot-shaping role. In the beginning of the work, the author’s technique is interesting: life is shown through the eyes of the dog Sharik, his “dog’s” thoughts about the weather, people and his own life are a reflection of the little that is needed for a calm existence. The culmination of the story is the rebirth of Polygraph, his moral and spiritual decay, the highest manifestation of which was the plan to kill the professor. In the denouement, Bormetal and Philip Philipovich return the experimental subject to his original form, thereby correcting their mistake. This moment is very symbolic, as it defines what the story teaches: some things can be corrected if you admit your mistake.

The commission that came to rescue Sharikov finds a half-dog, half-man. Soon Sharik is again sleeping at the professor's table and rejoicing at his luck.

Genre

The genre “Heart of a Dog” is usually referred to as a story. It is essentially a social or political satire. The interweaving of sharp satire with philosophical reflections on the future after the revolution gives the right to call the work a socio-philosophical satirical story with elements of fantasy.

Work test

Rating analysis

Average rating: 4.8. Total ratings received: 91.

Kuleva Yulia

Abstract and presentation on M. Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog".

Download:

Preview:

Municipal educational institution

"Melekhovskaya basic secondary school No. 2"

ABSTRACT

“Features of genre, composition and satire in M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog”

Kuleva Yulia

Teacher:

Kuleva Natalya Viktorovna

Plan.

1. Introduction.
2. Main part.

1. Pamphlet or work of genius?
2. The setting in the story. Moscow 1925.
3. Features of the composition of a fantasy story:

A) location of chapters;

B) removal technique;

C) stages of Sharikov’s “becoming”: Sharik’s developing brain, the revival of Klim Chugunkin or the creation of a monster?

D) the image of F.F. Preobrazhensky, his guilt and misfortune; from the author's

Irony to sympathy.

1. Special Bulgakov satire:

A) the subject of satire;

B) character system;

B) portrait descriptions;

D) dialogues;

D) “speaking” surnames;

E) language;

G) grotesque and irony.

1. Conclusion.
2. Bibliography.

Satire is created when a writer appears,

Who will consider the current life imperfect, and,

Indignant, he will begin to expose her artistically.

I believe that the path of such an artist will be

Very, very difficult.

M. Bulgakov

Satire as a literary genre has existed for many centuries and, in my opinion, will exist for just as long. Dozens and hundreds of writers at different times took on topical topics and reflected them in a biting, ruthless manner - the manner of satire. Themes and genres changed. But one thing remained unchanged - the authors’ indifference to human vices.

In my understanding, a satirical writer is a doctor who prescribes a patient a bitter but potent medicine. What can a person get sick with? Laziness, ignorance, drunkenness, theft, debauchery, bureaucracy... And the cure is satire.

The twentieth century was rich in talented satirists. One of them is M.A. Bulgakov is a man of difficult fate, which was shared by his works, many of which were banned for a long time.

I watched the film “Heart of a Dog”, based on the story of the same name, for the first time two years ago, I liked it immediately, despite the fact that I did not understand everything in it. But the plot, the wonderful acting, and the speech of the characters made a huge impression on me. This school year I picked up a book. Interest in it was also aroused by the fact that we studied the events of the 1920s in detail in history lessons. After reading the story, I was struck by the merciless satire of the writer’s contemporary society and the author’s courage (after all, this is 1925!).

I carefully, page by page, read the story, studied articles by literary critics, and gradually the features of Bulgakov’s satire, the secrets of the composition of the work, all those nuances that make it inimitable began to open up to me. All my “discoveries” formed the basis of this essay.

In my work I used a number of articles and books. One of them -

T. Ryzhkova “The Tale of M.A. Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog", which reveals in detail the features of the composition of the work. I. Velikanova’s article helped me enter the wonderful world of Bulgakov’s satire. I learned a lot on this issue in M. Chudakova’s book “The Poetics of Mikhail Zoshchenko,” dedicated to another talented writer, but also making a comparison with the author’s word of Bulgakov. Of particular interest to me were V. Gudkova’s “Comments to M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog,” which examine the work from various angles.

In January 1925, M. Bulgakov began work on a satirical story for the Nedra magazine. It was originally called “Dog's Happiness. A Monstrous Story,” but soon the writer changed the name to “Heart of a Dog.” L.B. Kamenev, having familiarized himself with Bulgakov’s manuscript at the request of the publisher of “Nedra” Angarsky, pronounced a verdict on the work: “This is a sharp pamphlet on modernity, under no circumstances should it be published.”

The dictionary of literary terms says that the word “pamphlet” comes from the English pamphlet, meaning “a piece of paper held in the hand.” In literature, a pamphlet is called “a work of a sharply satirical nature, ridiculing in a sharp, denouncing form the political system as a whole, a social phenomenon, etc.” The pamphlet is distinguished by its documentary nature, fidelity to objective fact and the limitations of artistic fiction itself. “The pamphlet can intertwine journalism with satirical methods of evaluation. Pamphletizing can also be inherent in a work of art, in which more or less easily decipherable portrait sketches and characteristics of certain historical figures are given.”

In terms of genre, “Heart of a Dog” is clearly not a pamphlet. In addition, the work has not lost its relevance even after more than 80 years, which rarely happens with a pamphlet.

Why does the story attract the attention of readers, literary critics, film and theater directors, and why did the name Sharikov almost instantly become a household name? Was it only Bulgakov who wrote a pamphlet on Soviet power?

What is unfolding before us is a collision not of a private, but of a universal scale.

Moscow of the 1920s appears to us as dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy. In this city there is wind, blizzard, snow and angry people live, trying to hold on to what they have, or even better, to grab more. In Moscow there is a situation of chaos, decay, hatred: a person who was a nobody now receives power, but uses it for his own benefit, regardless of the people around him (an example of this is the fate of the “typist”).

Bulgakov introduces the reader to Philip Philipovich’s apartment, where life seems to follow different laws: there is order, comfort, and they respect their neighbors. True, this life is under threat, because the house committee, headed by Shvonder, is constantly trying to destroy it, remake it to its own taste, according to its own laws.

What connects the two worlds in the story is, of course, Sharik, a dog, homeless and rootless, as if in a fairy tale, transported from a world of darkness, hunger and suffering to a world of warmth, light and peace.

The composition of “Heart of a Dog” is quite prosaic: two parts with a prologue and an epilogue. In the prologue to the dramatic events, which is Chapter I, the author creates the atmosphere of a universal cataclysm. Chapters II and IV make up Part I. Chapters II and III slowly introduce us to the inhabitants of the house on Prechistenka, their way of life and thoughts and, of course, the character of the dog Sharik. Both the prologue and these chapters are presented mainly through the eyes of a dog - a technique of detachment that allows the author to “hide” his attitude to what is happening and at the same time most fully reveal the character of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment.

The author only records the action, avoiding direct commentary on it, but his ironic smile is in the details, in the composition: in the clash of remarks, assessments, and behavior of the characters. Chapter IV - the climax and denouement of Part I - the operation and the supposed death of Sharik. This scene is presented directly by the author, who notes the ambiguous impression of what is happening.

Part II, like I, opens with a kind of prologue, which is the diary of Doctor Bormenthal (Chapter V). The author gives the story of the miraculous transformation of a dog into a human to a medical professional who notes the facts, but does not have the experience and insight of his teacher, Professor Preobrazhensky. Bormenthal's overwhelming admiration, bewilderment, and hopes are reflected in the change in handwriting, which is noted by the author, who supposedly does not undertake to judge fantastic events. This technique intrigues the reader, who, together with Bormental and Preobrazhensky, is trying to understand what is happening.

In chapters VI – IX, the story about the evolution of the “new man” is narrated by the author, the only one who can keep all the characters in sight and objectively present all the details of the ongoing catastrophe. He does not convey observations to Sharikov, as he did in Part I with Sharik, since, unlike a dog, it is impossible to detect thoughts in this man.

The end of Chapter IX talks about a new operation. The events in Parts I and II are repeated: the choice of name, Philip Philipovich’s visit to the house committee, the outrage committed by Sharik-Sharikov (owl - cat), lunch, the professor’s thoughts before the operations, conversations with Dr. Bormental, the operation - but the changes are all the more striking , occurring in the house and in people.

The story ends with an epilogue in which the situation, thanks to the wonderful skill of Professor Preobrazhensky, is returned to the original state of Part I - the double ring is closed.

Why does Bulgakov depict almost all the events of Part I using the technique of detachment, giving the narration to Sharik?

From the first lines, the dog’s “stream of consciousness” unfolds before the reader. And from the first lines it is clear that the dog in front of us is fantastic. His unreality lies not only in the fact that he is able to think, read, distinguish people by their eyes, reason (the technique is not new for literature - let’s remember “Kholstomer” by L.N. Tolstoy or “Kashtanka” by A.P. Chekhov), but also in what he knows and what he thinks about it. He can parody Mayakovsky (“Nowhere else will you get such poison as in Mosselprom”), ironically perceive the slogan “Is rejuvenation possible?” (“Naturally, perhaps. The smell rejuvenated me...”). The dog’s consciousness is clearly politicized, and his sympathies, as well as antipathies, are obvious: “Janitors of all proletarians are the most vile scum,” “a doorman... is many times more dangerous than janitors.” The dog knows too well what they feed people in the canteens, how much a Class IX typist earns and how she lives, and even the name of the gentleman he doesn’t yet know, whom you can’t feed with rotten meat, because he will immediately print in the newspapers: “...I, Philip Philipovich, was fed " The author's assessments of events are mixed in Part I with Sharik's assessments, enhancing the dog's fantastic omniscience and ironically coloring what is depicted.

A dog whose body has been violated by people, of course, knows how to hate, but the “typist” evokes sympathy and pity in him. And the author openly sympathizes with the dog and the young lady, given over to be torn to pieces by people and the natural elements: “Some typist receives four and a half chervonets for the IX category, well, however, her lover will give her fildepers stockings. But how much bullying does she have to endure for this fildepers... "Bowing her head, the young lady rushed to the attack, broke through the gate, and on the street it began to spin her, toss her around, then screwed her in with a snow screw, and she disappeared." “The dog’s soul was so painful and bitter, so lonely and scary that small dog tears flew out of his eyes and immediately you dried up.”

A meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slave soul and vile fate, he gives his love and devotion to “mental labor to the master” for a piece of Krakow sausage. The lackey's servility, awakened in Sharik, is manifested not only in the readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in the desire to take revenge for past humiliations on one of those whom he previously feared like fire - “to bite the proletarian calloused foot.” A wonderful meeting changed Sharik’s position in society, turned him from a homeless, rootless dog into “Mr. Sharik” and allowed the author to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of his fantastic character.

The first act of a peculiar drama begins, in which the dog gets acquainted with the house of Professor Preobrazhensky and its inhabitants. He, like a child, observes a world that is new to him, sometimes noticing something that a person who has lost the acuity of perception would not see. But sometimes Sharik doesn’t understand much. Ready to endure physical punishment for biting Dr. Bormental’s leg, he hears the professor’s “terrible” words about the need to treat a living creature kindly (the dog will draw conclusions from them a little later). The scene of receiving patients, constructed by the author with the help of an ironic collision of high and low, gives Sharik such an interest that even the nausea that tormented him after anesthesia goes away. The first visitor, whom Sharik christens “fruit,” addresses the professor, who has suddenly become “extraordinarily important and personable.”

“- Hee hee! “You are a magician and sorcerer, professor,” he said in confusion.

“Take off your pants, my dear,” Philip Philipovich commanded and stood up.”

Receiving vulgarities and libertines who are ready to pay any money for the return of youth, Professor Preobrazhensky hums a serenade of Don Juan (music by P. Tchaikovsky to the words of A. K. Tolstoy), which gives the scene an even greater comic effect and helps the reader understand the author’s attitude to what is happening. And the dog “became completely foggy, and everything in his head went upside down”: “Well, to hell with you,” he thought dully, putting his head on his paws and dozing off with shame...” But the spirit of conformity is strong in the dog: “It’s an obscene apartment, but how good it is!”

Watching the scene of Philip Philipovich’s visit to the house committee headed by Shvonder, Sharik is convinced of the omnipotence of the professor, not understanding on what it is based: “What a guy! How he spat! What a guy!”

After a hearty lunch, Sharik finally recognizes the professor as a good person, “a wizard, magician and sorcerer from a dog’s fairy tale...”. The philosophy of the fantastic dog is by no means fantastic: it’s good where it’s warm, satisfying and not beaten; He who has strength and power is right - an ordinary slave philosophy.

During his week at the professor's house, Sharik changed significantly. From an unfortunate dying dog, he turned into a shaggy, fat, arrogant, handsome dog. Changes also occur in his consciousness: concern about why the professor needed him is replaced by suspicions about his own merits: “Maybe I’m handsome.” The emerging fear of losing “warmth and satiety” is quickly replaced by the confidence that he “pulled out the most important dog ticket, that he is a handsome man, an incognito canine prince.” Dissatisfaction with the collar also quickly passes as soon as Sharik notices “the mad envy in the eyes of all the dogs he meets.” And he, who only recently felt sorry for the “typist,” begins to treat people like a lord: Philip Philipovich is the main deity, and he is shown the highest canine respect; Daria Petrovna is the queen of the kitchen (warmth and satiety), and with the help of touching persistence, keys are selected that open access to the kingdom of fire and food; Dr. Bormental is just a “punch” who played practically no role in Sharik’s life, and Zina is a servant, whom Sharik patronizes himself with a disdainful nickname: Zinka.

Yes, while Sharik is in a dog’s clothing, his philosophy does not bring much harm - except that he “clarified” the owl.

“Why did M. Bulgakov,” asks in his article about T. Ryzhkov’s story, “need to introduce metamorphosis into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man the spring of intrigue? If in Sharikov only the qualities of Klim Chugunkin are manifested, then why shouldn’t the author “resurrect” Klim himself? But before our eyes, “gray-haired Faust,” busy searching for means to restore youth, creates a man not in a test tube, but by transforming a dog.”

And now about Dr. Bormenthal's diary. Why is the diary kept by Dr. Bormental, and not by the professor?

Dr. Bormenthal is a student and assistant to the professor, and, as befits an assistant, he keeps a diary, recording all stages of the experiment. We have before us a strict medical document that contains only facts. However, soon the emotions overwhelming the young scientist will begin to be reflected in changes in his handwriting. The doctor's guesses about what is happening appear in the diary. But, being a professional, Bormenthal is young and full of optimism, he does not yet have the experience and insight of a teacher. Thus, the “elimination” of the author and bright hopes for the result of the experiment increase the reader’s interest, keep the reader in suspense, giving him the opportunity to make his own guesses about the events.

“The dates of the entries in the diary,” writes T. Ryzhkova, “allow us to note a sacred parallel: on December 23, in the evening, the operation was performed; From December 24 to January 6, when the new creature loses one by one the signs reminiscent of a dog, from Christmas Eve to Christmas the transformation of a dog into a human takes place.”

Is this why Bulgakov chose the surname Preobrazhensky for the playwright?

What stages of formation does the “new man” go through, who recently was not only nothing, but a dog?

Even before the complete transformation, on January 2, the creature cursed its creator for his mother, and by Christmas his vocabulary was replenished with all kinds of swear words. The first meaningful reaction to the creator’s comments is “get off, you nit.” Dr. Bormental puts forward the hypothesis that “we have before us Sharik’s unfolded brain,” but we know, thanks to Part I of the story, that there was no swearing in the dog’s brain, and we accept a skeptical assessment of the possibility of “developing Sharik into a very high mental personality,” expressed by Professor Preobrazhensky. But is the professor absolutely right when he believes that he has revived Klim Chugunkin, a lumpen and a criminal?

Smoking is added to the swearing (Sharik did not like tobacco smoke); seeds; balalaika (and Sharik did not approve of music) - and balalaika at any time of the day (evidence of attitude towards others); uncertainty and bad taste in clothing.

Sharikov's development is rapid: Philip Philipovich loses the title of deity and turns into a “daddy.” These qualities of Sharikov are accompanied by a certain morality, more precisely, immorality (“I’ll register, but fighting is a piece of cake”), drunkenness, and theft. This process of transformation “from the sweetest dog into scum” is crowned by a denunciation of the professor, and then an attempt on his life.

Talking about Sharikov's development, the author emphasizes the remaining dog traits in him: attachment to the kitchen, hatred of cats, love for a well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, and in conversations barks and yapps indignantly. But it is not the external manifestations of canine nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistinka. Insolence, which seemed sweet and safe in a dog, becomes unbearable in a man who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, with no intention of “learning and becoming at least somewhat acceptable member of society.” His morality is different: he is not a NEPman, therefore, he is a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: thus Sharikov shares the idea of ​​“dividing everything,” which is captivating for the mob.

Shvonder, who becomes the “godfather” of Poligraf Poligrafovich, tries to raise Sharikov in his own way. Ideas about universal equality, brotherhood and freedom, assimilated by the undeveloped consciousness of the head of the house committee, are instilled in the “new man.” It must be said that they end up in the brain, which is generally devoid of consciousness (instincts live in it!). “The results are felt instantly: the instinct of the struggle for existence - natural, eternal - finds support in ideology. Shvonder is a fool, so he doesn’t understand what kind of genie he’s letting out of the bottle. Soon he himself will become a victim of the monster that he is so intensively “developing,” writes V. Gudkova in a commentary to the story. - Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both the dog and the person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster who, in his baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder, who understands only strength, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything he obeyed at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a man must remain a man.”

Now let's turn our attention to another participant in the dramatic events in the house on Prechistinka - Professor Preobrazhensky. A famous scientist in Europe is searching for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the old principles of life. Everyone, according to Philip Philipovich, in this world should do his own thing: sing in the theater, operate in the hospital, and then there will be no devastation. He rightly believes that achieving material well-being, the benefits of life, and a position in society can only be achieved through labor, knowledge and skills. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. Convictions do not hammer into the enemy’s head with a club: “Nothing can be done with terror.” The professor does not hide his dislike for the new order, which has turned the country upside down and brought it to the brink of disaster. He will not be able to accept new rules (“to divide everything,” “who was nobody will become everything”) that deprive true workers of normal working and living conditions. But the European luminary still compromises with the new government: he returns her youth, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. To stand in open opposition to the new government means to lose your apartment, the opportunity to work, and perhaps even your life. The professor made his choice. In some ways, this choice reminds readers of Sharik’s choice.

In chapters II and III of the story, the image of the professor is given by Bulgakov in an extremely ironic manner. In order to provide for himself, Philip Philipovich, who resembles a French knight and king, is forced to serve scum and libertines, although he tells Doctor Bormental that he does this not for money, but out of scientific interests. But, thinking about improving human nature, Professor Preobrazhensky so far only transforms depraved old people and prolongs their opportunity to lead a depraved life.

At the house committee members, for whom there is no difference at all between a man and a woman, and the words “gentlemen” are humiliating, who have no idea about the culture of behavior and the culture of work, Philip Philipovich looks “like a commander at his enemies.” Shvonder’s hatred, which the author emphasizes, turns out to be powerless in this episode thanks to “telephone law.” But the professor is omnipotent only for Sharik. The scientist is guaranteed safety as long as he serves those in power, he can afford to openly express his dislike for the proletariat, he is protected from the libels and denunciations of Sharikov and Shvonder. But his fate, like the fate of the entire intelligentsia, trying to fight against the stick with words, was guessed by Bulgakov and predicted in Vyazemskaya’s story: “If you had not been a European luminary and the people of whom, I am sure, we would not have stood up for you in the most outrageous way Let’s make it clear, you should have been arrested.” By the way, Sharik uses exactly the same word “let’s explain” to express his subconscious hatred of the owl that irritates him.

In Chapter III, over lunch, we become more familiar with the professor’s views. The description of the dishes makes the reader's mouth water, and he, like Sharik, is ready to bang his tail on the parquet.

This begs the question, why did Bulgakov need to describe the table setting, dishes, and smells in such detail?

A landscape created by man for man to enjoy! This is beauty, it is a tradition to remain a cultured person in nutrition, not to eat, but to receive aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure: “You need to be able to eat, but imagine - most people don’t know how to eat at all.” It is against culture, tradition, and therefore a whole series of rules and prohibitions that Sharikov will rebel at dinner in the second part of the story.

And the professor is most concerned about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov House), in work and leading to devastation. Alas, Philip Philipovich’s remarks are too modern that the devastation is in the minds, that when everyone minds their own business, “the devastation will disappear by itself.”

But it is not difficult to notice the author’s irony in this scene: “Having gained strength after a hearty lunch, he (Preobrazhensky) thundered like an ancient prophet, and his head sparkled with silver.” It's easy to be a prophet on a full stomach! Sharik’s reaction also enhances the author’s irony: “He could earn money right at rallies...a first-class businessman.”

In Chapter IV the narrative speeds up sharply. The abundance of verbal vocabulary and sound writing gives the scene dynamism, tension and expression. In this episode, Sharik appears before the reader as a martyr performing a “difficult feat.” These associations are confirmed by another detail - the “red crown” on the dog’s forehead. Professor Preobrazhensky appears in several guises at once. First, he raises his hands, as if blessing Sharik for a “difficult feat.” And then he instantly transforms into a robber (maybe this ability of his to transform is reflected in his surname?) - into a murderer torturing his victim: he “waved his knife,” “pulled Sharik long across the stomach,” “attacked predatorily,” “slashed a second time.” ”, “the two of them began to tear it apart with hooks”, “climbed into the depths”, “teared it out of the body”... finally the priest making the sacrifice (a new hypostasis) “fell away from the wound” (like a vampire who drank blood). The author directly compares Philip Philipovich with a robber, emphasizing the bestial nature in the expression of his face, in the sound of his voice, using sound writing: “ Z lips of Philip Philipovich shrank, the eyes became little prickly bleh sk, and, waving the knife with his cheek, he pointedly and long Sharik's stomach is wounded. The skin immediately split open, and blood sprayed out of it in different directions.”

And from a robber, Preobrazhensky also instantly turns into a creator: “With one hand he grabbed a dangling lump, and with the other, with scissors, he cut the same one in the depths somewhere between the spread out hemispheres. He threw the little ball of balls onto a plate, and put a new one in the brain along with a thread, and with his short fingers, which had become miraculously thin and flexible, he managed to wrap it there with an amber thread.”

Having received an unexpected result from the experiment (“changing the pituitary gland does not give rejuvenation, but complete humanization”), Philip Philipovich reaps its consequences. Trying to educate Sharikov with words, he often loses his temper from his unheard-of rudeness, breaks into a scream (he looks helpless and comical - he no longer convinces, but orders, which causes even greater resistance from the pupil), for which he reproaches himself: “We must still restrain myself... A little more, he will begin to teach me and he will be absolutely right. I can’t control myself.” The professor cannot work, his nerves are frayed, and the author's irony is increasingly replaced by sympathy. It turns out that it is easier to carry out a complex operation than to re-educate (and not educate) an already formed “person” when he does not want, does not feel the inner need to live the way he is offered!

“And again,” writes V. Gudkova, “we involuntarily recall the fate of the Russian intelligentsia, who prepared and practically carried out the socialist revolution, but somehow forgot that they had to not educate, but re-educate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with their lives for illusions embodied in reality."

Dr. Bormental takes charge of Sharikov’s upbringing, quickly realizing that the only way to influence this monster is by force. He is cooler and more restrained than his teacher, who increasingly emerges “from a state of ironic calm.” The doctor warns the professor against careless statements addressed to Shvonder (“I swear, I’ll eventually shoot this Shvonder”) and, following Preobrazhensky, comes to the conclusion that “nothing good will come of it in the apartment.” Sharikov listens to Bormental because he is afraid of him, but, being a dog, he did not care about him! But fear does not give rise to respect, but only hatred. How should a person be raised?

One thing is clear: neither one nor the other theory has stood the test in practice. Sharikov hears only what corresponds to his instinctive aspirations; it is generally impossible to educate and re-educate him - neither with a word nor with a stick.

Dr. Bormenthal and the professor are sincerely attached to each other and selflessly protect each other from impending danger. Taking care of the teacher, the student is even ready to physically destroy the monster. But Philip Philipovich holds Bormental not out of fear, but from a position of honor: “Never commit a crime, no matter who it is directed against. Live to old age with clean hands.” But in practice, this postulate also turns out to be impossible to fulfill.

The professor is extremely annoyed by the result of the experiment: “If someone laid me out here and flogged me, I would, I swear, pay five chervonets! Damn me... After all, I sat for five years, picking out appendages from my brains... and now the question is - why? This phrase contains not only irritation with the result, but also a measure of responsibility for what was done.

Philip Philipovich draws a conclusion for himself and for the author: “... humanity takes care of itself and, in an evolutionary order, every year persistently, singling out from the mass of all kinds of scum, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn the globe!”

Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor did not assume that there were many hormones in the pituitary gland. An oversight and miscalculation led to the birth of Sharikov. And the crime that the scientist Dr. Bormenthal warned against was nevertheless committed, contrary to the views and beliefs of the teacher. Sharikov, clearing a place for himself in the sun, did not hesitate either to denounce or to physically eliminate the “benefactors.” Scientists are no longer forced to defend their beliefs, but their lives: “Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised his left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a bitten pine cone with an unbearable cat smell. And then with his right hand, directed at the dangerous Bormental, he took a revolver out of his pocket.” Forced self-defense, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the scientists’ responsibility for Sharikov’s death, but we are once again convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates.

The genre of a fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author’s thought about the scientist’s responsibility for the right to experiment sounds cautionary. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.

The story “Heart of a Dog” is of interest not only from the point of view of composition and genre, but also from the point of view of the originality of the satirical image inherent in this work.

M.A. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” is undoubtedly one of the best in the writer’s work and at the same time is one of the least studied works.

Written in January-March 1925, the story completes the cycle of the writer’s early satirical works and at the same time anticipates his latest novels - in terms of content, images, and plot elements. “Heart of a Dog” shared the fate of most of M.A. Bulgakov’s works, which were kept in the writer’s archive for many years. For the first time in our country, the story was published only in 1987 (“Banner” - No. 6), many years after the death of the writer and much later than other works.

The first question that arises when reading the story is the definition of the subject of the satirical image. This is how I. Velikanova defines it in the article “Features of Bulgakov’s satire”: “In “Heart of a Dog” the writer, through satire, denounces the complacency, ignorance and blind dogmatism of other representatives of power, the possibility of a comfortable existence for “labor” elements of dubious origin, their impudence and feeling complete permissiveness. It should be noted that the writer’s views fell out of the mainstream then, in the 20s. However, ultimately, M. Bulgakov’s satire, through ridicule and denial of certain social vices, carried within itself the affirmation of enduring moral values.”

The satirical content of the story is revealed primarily through the system of characters. It is easy to notice that the characters form a kind of antagonistic pairs, allowing the main conflict of the work to be most fully revealed. It is interesting from this point of view to consider the interaction of such characters as Professor Preobrazhensky - Sharikov, Preobrazhensky - Shvonder.

Professor Preobrazhensky is a significant figure in the story. This is, first of all, a high-class professional, a talented scientist who conducts experiments on human rejuvenation and has come across an unexpected discovery in this area. The entire way of life of the professor's house maintains a connection with the old, pre-revolutionary time, and the professor himself is sensitive to any violation of this way of life. In Philip Philipovich’s office everything sparkles and shines, which reveals the professor’s love for order – both internal and external. Everything related to science and work is of paramount importance for Professor Preobrazhensky. It is to his work that he owes everything - his name, European fame, wealth.

Only the moral principles of a professor can inspire respect. “Never commit a crime... Live to old age with clean hands,” he told Dr. Bormenthal.

The professor’s public position, which is not so simple and certainly not straightforward, deserves thoughtful reflection. The professor says a lot of “seditious” things. (“Yes, I don’t like the proletariat...”) He attaches great importance to the disappearance of galoshes. Galoshes are not important for him in themselves; he sees them as a kind of symbol of the devastation reigning around him. Despite all his aggressiveness, Preobrazhensky does not deny the new order; on the contrary, it is its absence that arouses the professor’s anger. He insists on establishing order, based on the fact that in modern society this is necessary, since this is a society with a strict division of labor: “In the Bolshoi, let them sing, and I will operate. That’s good - and no destruction..."

The results that Professor Preobrazhensky arrives at are very important. He admits not only the fallacy of his experiments, but also their danger. You can, of course, graft Spinoza’s pituitary gland and build another, higher organism out of the dog. But why? “Please explain to me why it is necessary to artificially fabricate Spinoza, when any woman can give birth at any time!.. After all, Madame Lomonosov gave birth to this famous one of hers in Kholmogory... My discovery... costs exactly one broken penny...”

Shvonder (and other members of the house committee) take a completely different position in life in the story. Shvonder is a person in authority. But the man is not smart and not too subtle, for whom Sharikov with his “proletarian” origin means more than Professor Preobrazhensky with his works. Shvonder loves to express himself in flowery phrases (“the shining sword of justice will flash with a red ray”), for him all external manifestations of the matter are extremely important (in the evenings the singing of “chorales” can be heard in the Kalabukhovsky house). Shvonder himself is deeply convinced of the significance of his person. Meanwhile, the professor is a thousand times right: it will be much more beneficial for everyone if everyone, instead of singing songs, begins to mind his own business. Shvonder is ready to follow all directions and instructions straightforwardly and thoughtlessly. It would be wrong to see in this character a caricature of Bolshevism (for which Bulgakov was reproached at one time). Professor Preobrazhensky identifies Shvonder and the members of the house committee with the proletariat, but they are rather his “substitutes.” And they discredit themselves not only by their senseless actions, but also by their alliance with Sharikov.

The deepest conflict in the story arises between Professor Preobrazhensky and his “brainchild” - Sharikov. As a result of a scientific experiment, a good-natured dog turned out to be a liar, a drunkard, a rude person, and, moreover, endowed with exorbitant claims. Sharikov demands his documents, enters the service and is even planning to get married. He also develops a certain philosophy of life: he proudly calls himself a “labor element” and talks about his rights. Justice in his concept is to “take everything and divide it.” It was already said above that the professor is aware of the danger of the results of his experiment. What is the danger? Sharikov, with his minimal intelligence and complete lack of moral principles, not only easily adapts to any conditions, but also shows aggressiveness. And this aggression is easy to direct anywhere. In the story, the professor says: “Well, Shvonder is the biggest fool. He doesn’t understand that Sharikov is an even more formidable danger for him than for me... if someone, in turn, sets Sharikov against Shvonder himself, then all that will be left of him is his horns and legs!”

Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, realizing the terrible social dangers arising from his experiment, manages to perform a second operation, and Sharikov returns to his original dog existence.

The story “Heart of a Dog” has its own special principle for characterizing the characters. First of all, attention is drawn to the portrait descriptions with which Bulgakov usually accompanies the appearance of his heroes. It is the portrait that allows you to form a definite opinion about the character and feel the author’s attitude. The portrait sketches in the story are done in a very original way. The writer does not seek to give a comprehensive picture of a particular character. On the contrary, in his appearance he emphasizes the most vivid and expressive detail, but such that the reader can mentally recreate not only the external, but also the internal appearance of a person. This is, for example, what Sharikov looks like during a conversation with a professor: “A poisonous sky-colored tie with a fake ruby ​​pin was tied around the man’s neck. The color of this tie was so striking that from time to time, closing his tired eyes, Philip Philipovich, in complete darkness, either on the ceiling or on the wall, saw a flaming torch with a blue crown. Opening his eyes, he was blind again, because from the floor, splashing a fan of light, lacquered boots with white spats were thrown into his eyes.

“Like wearing galoshes,” thought Philip Philipovich with an unpleasant feeling...” Such an absurd outfit of Sharikov reveals him as an ignorant, uncultured person, but at the same time overly self-confident.

Professor Preobrazhensky himself in the story is first seen through the eyes of Sharik. The dog, with his characteristic observation, notes the most significant features of the social status and nature of the gentleman unfamiliar to him: “This one eats abundantly and does not steal. This one will not kick, but he himself is not afraid of anyone, and he is not afraid because he is always well-fed. He is a man of intellectual work, with a cultured pointed beard and a gray, fluffy and dashing mustache, like those of French knights, but the smell from him flies through the snowstorm - like a hospital and a cigar.”

The main means of characterizing the characters in the story “Heart of a Dog” is dialogue. The life position and worldview of such different people as Preobrazhensky, Bormental, Sharikov, Shvonder are fully revealed in them. The dialogue between Professor Preobrazhensky and Sharikov is very expressive (Chapter VI). The professor’s remarks perfectly convey the complex range of feelings that engulfed him in a conversation with a newly minted tenant: disgust towards Sharikov’s appearance (“Where did this nasty thing come from? I’m talking about a tie”), irritation at his manners (“Don’t you dare call Zina Zinka !”, “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor!”, “Don’t give a damn!”), rage in response to the familiar address “daddy.” At the same time, Sharikov looks quite confident, he is not embarrassed in a conversation with the professor, because we are talking about his rights: “ - Of course, of course... What kind of comrades we are to you! Where else? We didn’t study at universities, we didn’t live in apartments with 15 rooms with bathrooms. Only now is the time to leave it. Nowadays everyone has their own right...” Here, both the relationships of the characters and their characteristics are conveyed through dialogue.

Let us note in passing that Bulgakov was always attentive to the choice of names for his characters. The writer could have been attracted by the mobility, roundness, and “quality” contained in the satirical surname “Sharikov.” And the name “Poligraf Poligrafovich” satirically sharpened the tendency to invent new names that arose in the post-revolutionary decade. In addition, the ridiculous name chosen by Sharikov creates a comic effect. Sometimes the character’s surname reflects the nature of his activity: “Preobrazhensky” - from the verb “to transform,” which emphasizes the creative, transformative nature of the professor’s activities.

An important tool in revealing the satirical content of the story “Heart of a Dog” is language. Bulgakov was characterized by a serious, thoughtful, deeply conscious attitude towards this aspect of his works. Here it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of M. Chudakova. Comparing the attitude of two writers to the direct author's word - M. Zoshchenko and M. Bulgakov, she, in particular, writes: “the main way of Bulgakov’s attitude to someone else’s word is his alienation from the author and from the heroes close to him, isolation and isolation. Someone else's word is incompatible with the author's word; the author’s speech develops against the background of words that are close and appealing to her.”

This remark is very important, because Bulgakov’s use of someone else’s word always serves as a sign of a certain speech appearance of the character. Indeed, linguistic features - lexical, intonation - are an important means of characterizing characters. Those of them that are unsympathetic to the author are often expressed in bad Russian, and this is specially emphasized by the writer. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the clumsy speech of the House Committee members is thus ridiculed:

“We, the management of the building,” Shvonder spoke with hatred, “came to you after a general meeting of the residents of our building, at which the issue of densifying the apartments of the building was raised.

Who stood on whom? - Philip Philipovich shouted, “take the trouble to express your thoughts more clearly.”

And the word “I’m sorry,” repeated several times by those who came, was just coming into use in those years instead of “Sorry” and was considered vulgar. One can imagine how it hurt the ear of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The writer also ridicules Shvonder’s passion for pompous, revolutionary-pathetic phrases (“until the shining sword of justice flashed a red ray over him”).

A certain lexical layer is embedded in Sharikov’s speech. An interesting set of phrases that Klim Chugunkin used in everyday life and which then first surfaced in Sharikov’s mind: “a couple more,” “there’s no room,” “get off the bandwagon,” as well as “all the swear words that exist in the Russian lexicon.” . The writer constructs Sharikov’s speech from short, abrupt phrases, which obviously characterizes the primitive way of his thought.

Bulgakov widely uses lexical possibilities when describing a particular event. Thus, when describing the operation on Sharik, the writer uses a deliberate discrepancy between the vocabulary and what is happening. The comparisons are expressive, polished, and figurative: “Both were worried like murderers,” “Bormental’s eyes resembled two black muzzles aimed point-blank at Sharikov,” and others. The comic effect here comes from the fact that the description of the surgical operation does not correspond to the vocabulary borrowed from the criminal chronicles.

M. Bulgakov also uses various techniques of satirical depiction: grotesque and hyperbole, humor, irony, parody. A special place among them belongs to irony, since it acts as a means of expressing the author’s assessment. Irony is invariably present in the description of the characters in the story, for example, the patients of Professor Preobrazhensky who want to rejuvenate: “The fruit had completely green hair growing on its head, and on the back of its head it turned into a rusty tobacco color, wrinkles spread across the fruit’s face, but its complexion was pink, like a baby. The left leg couldn’t bend, it had to be dragged along the carpet, but the right leg jumped like a child’s clicker.” Sharikov reads the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky and expresses judgments about what he read. Sometimes the author’s irony is hidden: after Dr. Bormental’s enthusiastic words “Professor Preobrazhensky, you are a creator,” the author’s remark (“blot”) follows, which removes Dr. Bormental’s pathos.

Probably, what I said about the story is just a drop in the ocean. Because a true classic lives for a long time, and each generation discovers something of its own in it.

Bulgakov is a Master, and his books are part of the golden fund of our literature. That is why the short story “The Heart of a Dog” contains so much. Everything here is thought out to the smallest detail. Each detail plays its own specific role. The special satirical orientation of the work is created by its composition - from the arrangement of chapters, the method of detachment, the “birth” and life of Sharikov to the courageous step of the professor, who managed to condemn himself.

The attentive reader discovers the skill with which the talented satirist creates the background of what is happening, the images of the characters, their speech, manners, portrait details, and the like. The special genre chosen by the author – a fantasy story – also plays an important role here. All this together makes the work bright and memorable.

References.

1. Bulgakov M. Heart of a Dog. – M., Fiction, 1990
2. Velikanova I. Features of M. Bulgakov’s satire. // Literature at school. 1995 - No. 6
3. Gudkova V. Comments on M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog.” // Bulgakov M. Collection. Op.: in 5 volumes - M., 1990 - volume 2
4. Ryzhkova T. M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog.” // Literature at school. 1995 - No. 6
5. Chudakova M. Poetics of Mikhail Zoshchenko. – M., 1979
6. Dictionary of literary terms (Ed. and compiled by L.I. Timofeev and S.V. Turaev. - M., 1974)