The plot of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov’s fantastic and at the same time realistic story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925, is based on the controversial experiment of Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky to transplant the human pituitary gland and endocrine glands into a dog. On the one hand, this operation was of enormous importance for the development of science, since the result of its implementation was the truly amazing transformation of an animal into a man, who later began to call himself Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. On the other hand, the consequences of this experience were terrible and almost turned into a disaster for the scientist himself.
Although Sharikov was able to physically become a man (he learned to walk upright, talk, his hair fell out and his tail fell off), he remained an absolutely immoral and selfish creature. Moreover, these qualities were passed on to him not from an animal, but from the citizen whose organs the professor used to carry out the operation - the drunkard, rowdy and reveler Klim Chugunkin.
Because Sharikov tried his best to be “like everyone else” and even received an identity card, a work position and found a partner, the situation only became worse. First of all, it was bad for Preobrazhensky himself and his entourage. When the situation escalated to the limit, and Sharikov began to threaten the professor and his assistant Dr. Bormental with a pistol, the logical ending of the story followed: the scientists had to carry out the reverse operation and turn Sharikov back into a dog.
It would seem that the experiment ended successfully and Preobrazhensky managed to correct the terrible consequences of his mistake, but this does not relieve the scientist of responsibility. A person has no right to take on the role of creator, since interference in wildlife, changing the natural course of things always leads to sad results.
Philip Philipovich himself realizes his fatal mistake. This is what he says about her to Bormenthal: “Here, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil.” The scientist’s experiment initially did not have any high good goals, since it was only about the possibility of human rejuvenation, and for this the professor was ready to take such a desperate step.
Bulgakov emphasizes several times in his story that Preobrazhensky was smart enough to see the possible consequences of his actions, but he chose to remain blind in this matter. As a result, he endangered not only himself, but also his loved ones. Was this discovery worth it? Of course not. Realizing this, Preobrazhensky himself says that the price of his experiment is “one broken penny.”
The professor’s guilt has local consequences, but the responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the ideological inspirers of the 1917 revolution is much greater and heavier. The story “Heart of a Dog” is not only a work about one person’s mistake, it is also a bitter story about what radical changes in society lead to.
Initially, Philip Philipovich did not intend to create an artificial person, especially the kind Sharikov turned out to be. The operation was carried out to “clarify the issue of the survival of the pituitary gland, and subsequently its effect on the rejuvenation of the body in people.” As often happens, the experiment led to unexpected consequences that can hardly be called favorable. We can safely say that the experiment was a failure. And not because in the end Polygraph Sharikov had to undergo surgery to restore his dog appearance. The experiment was unsuccessful because the life of the professor and his household was ruined, because the artificial man did not find a better use for himself other than to become a flayer, and finally, because in place sweetest dog turned out to be a real bastard. The professor himself is not to blame. From the moment Sharik began to transform, events got out of control. Preobrazhensky is a surgeon, he could not predict character changes former dog and only thought about it later, when Sharikov had already become a thorn that tormented all the residents of the professor’s apartment. Philip Philipovich is generally a vulnerable person. He spent most of his life in a completely different world: in the world of a scalpel and an operating table, anatomical atlases and medical histories. The time was different too. When Preobrazhensky used to look away from his medicine, he saw an orderly, normal life around him, where everyone knew their place. In this life, there were still carpets on the main staircase, shoes did not disappear from the shoe rack, and the newly-minted housing associations did not build brick partitions between apartments. Here, in an understandable and logical world, the professor was on the spot himself and could well discern the true value of another. But that was before. Now Philip Philipovich clearly sees that the world has gone crazy, that this is the very “time of change” that the ancient Chinese were so afraid of. And he, already an elderly, accomplished man, clearly sees the reasons for the devastation and turmoil in society, he correctly talks about how to make life around him better and more comfortable. But Preobrazhensky does not take into account the fact that reason is not capable of breaking through to madness, that any arguments not in favor of the existing order of things will be immediately declared by the current masters of life to be bourgeois prejudices, and the professor himself, like many like him, will be included in the ranks of individuals in need of “ clarification." Perhaps this is why Philip Philipovich so diligently does not change the established pattern of behavior in everyday life. He makes small talk over meals, goes to the opera, he “keeps the mark” of that very part of society that has always been its best part - the mark of the prosperous middle class. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity for this. And most importantly, Professor Preobrazhensky continues to engage in scientific activities and surgical practice. And the practicing surgeon Preobrazhensky is engaged in the rejuvenation of the human body. Of course, not complete - things haven’t come to that yet. But he is capable of adding a little youth to the fading rich. They pay well for this. And again, it’s not Philip Philipovich’s fault that his services are used by people who are caricatures and, in general, pathetic. All these green-haired womanizers and young old women are just patients for him, working material. The professor treats them condescendingly and is not particularly keen to poke around in their souls. He's had enough bodies. And for the time being everything goes fine - there is not the slightest reason to change your views. The first reason appears when Sharik, who has already been operated on, begins to behave in such a way that prohibitory notices have to be put up throughout the house, but this measure does not help much either. The main mistake of Professor Preobrazhensky is precisely that he became interested late in who the owner of the pituitary gland was during his lifetime. After all, as it turned out, it is the pituitary gland that determines human personality. As a result, the quite cute and touching dog Sharik got into his brain Klim Chugunkin - a previously convicted, thieving balalaika player who abused alcohol and, in the end, died from a stab in the heart in a drunken fight. Nothing good could come from such a neighborhood. Sharik found himself driven somewhere into a corner of consciousness, and Chugunkin not only began to rule the roost, but also managed to do a lot of things. inherent in a dog pervert, turn a minor shortcoming or even a virtue (for example, pity for the typist Vasnetsova) into a real vice. However, Poligraf Poligrafovich turned out to be what he was, not only because of the Chugunkin pituitary gland. Sharik himself, too, at some moments of his wandering life, probably stole, and knew how to steal on the sly, and put his tail between his legs in front of those who were stronger. But for a homeless dog, all these shortcomings are a way to survive. When he settled with the professor, when he was fed and cured, Sharik changed. He has changed so much that he would hardly be able to take root on the street again: “I am a master’s dog, an intelligent creature, I have tasted better life" In the “better life,” Sharik no longer had to steal food, run from the janitors, or freeze in the doorways. A dog doesn't need more happiness. But, alas, Poligraf Poligrafovich is a man. And in comparison with Preobrazhensky, with Bormental, even with Zinochka and Daria Petrovna, he is a second-class creature. In fact, he is a tramp again. The janitors and doormen for him were those who took him from the frosty streets of Moscow, who fed him, walked him and stroked him. In this situation, Sharik the dog could no longer cope. Chugunkin took charge of his survival in human society. And the new benefactor, who tamed the stray creature, Poligraf Poligrafovich, became the manager Shvonder. The result is natural. With the well-mannered and successful professor, Sharik felt like an incognito canine prince. And under the auspices of the proletarian Shvonder, Sharikov emerged as true children of a troubled era, becoming as significant as a normal pet. By and large, even in human form he remained a dog. He even chased cats the same way and caught fleas on himself with his teeth. Could it have been different? Probably, it could have been done if Sharik had been operated on not in the twenty-fourth year, but in the fourteenth year, if the pituitary gland had belonged to a brighter personality than Klim Chugunkin, if Preobrazhensky had paid a little more attention to him, and if the ill-fated Shvonder had not been nearby. After all, Philip Philipovich had difficulty perceiving his creation as a thinking and independent being. To scold him, to poke his nose into something wrong, to take him by the throat is always welcome. Both the professor and Bormenthal are ready for this. But Shvonder, unfortunately for Preobrazhensky, sees in Sharikov an oppressed and powerless element. And he begins to take a lively part in his fate. It is Shvonder who gives Sharikov a name, gets the document, slips books and even subsequently gets him a job. Why not Philip Philipovich with his Krakow sausage? After all, it’s no worse. Well, the fact that the name is inhuman, the book is revolutionary, and the position is a knacker, let’s not forget who Shvonder is. It would be strange if the house manager sent his ward to college, handed over the works of humanist philosophers and began to teach him how to use a knife and fork. By the way, Preobrazhensky could have taken care of the proper education of Polygraph Polygraphovich. Yes, Klim Chugunkin was very strong in the newly created man, but there is always a way, a method of selecting the “key” to the heart that remained a dog’s. And, as we remember, Sharik is very cute creature capable of love and gratitude. It is quite possible that Philip Philipovich never fully believed that a real person came out from under his scalpel. He is a scientist, he has the right to doubt. And Sharikov every now and then pulls out tricks that are more characteristic of a dog than a person. Chasing a cat in a professor's apartment, for example. And the behavior of Poligraf Poligrafovich when he was torn with claws, when Preobrazhensky and Bormental scolded him for the pogrom committed in the apartment. Isn’t it true that everything was very much reminiscent of the actions of a dog that stood on its hind legs and learned to speak, and not at all of a person. Shvonder is not a scientist, he simply believes his own eyes. And for the rest he lacks imagination. He is a proletarian to the core, thanks to which Polygraph Poligrafovich is perceived by him not with his mind, but with his emotions. How can you not reach out to the oppressed? And so it turned out that the unfortunate dog was tamed for the second time. And, as befits the owner’s dog, he began to show his teeth at strangers. Thus, baseness and idealism found themselves under one roof in Philip Philipovich’s apartment. The idealist Preobrazhensky clings with all his might to the inviolability of his usual life. He is confident that this is possible even at a time when Soviet Russia is slowly sprouting from the ruins of Tsarist Russia. Meanwhile, the newly minted proletarian barks with might and main at his former idol. The professor forbids Sharikov to play the balalaika until he's stupefied, swear obscene words and wear vulgar patent leather boots? This means that we can safely talk about the infringement of rights, that Philip Philipovich oppresses the unfortunate man-dog. This means that you can threaten retribution and it is even necessary to prevent the bourgeois from accidentally imagining too much about himself. Preobrazhensky, with the light hand of Polygraph Poligrafovich, is suddenly forced, having experienced some of the “charms” of the new life, to realize: he cannot be outside of it. Even the professor in Soviet time learns what a flood in an apartment is like due to broken plumbing, what it’s like when Sharikov’s drunken friends steal his hat and cane, and Sharikov himself proudly declares that he is registered here on sixteen square arshins and will not go anywhere. The professor and Bormenthal are protected by everyone from the invasion of modern times accessible ways. And they seem to be winning. Polygraph Poligrafovich becomes Sharik again, most likely, everything in the apartment will return to normal again. How long? Apparently not. “Heart of a Dog” is not only a description of Professor Preobrazhensky’s surgical experience and its consequences. This is not only the story of the collapse of hopes that a human can be made from an animal. The story is in itself an experiment conducted by the author - M. A. Bulgakov. The surgeon works with human flesh. The writer experiments with the souls of his heroes, with their lives and destinies. Through allegory and fantastic assumption, the writer considers the possibility of peaceful coexistence of the old, patriarchal philistine society pre-revolutionary Russia and the emerging Soviet system, the new order. The story was written in 1925, when one could still not only fear a gloomy, unpredictable future, but also feel hope for a successful outcome of the troubled times. And it immediately turns out that the old and new societies speak completely different languages. The professor shuns expressions like “labor element”, does not recommend reading Soviet newspapers before eating, and refuses to eat what the grocery store proudly calls Krakow sausage and which Sharik, with his unmistakable canine nose, defines as “chopped mare with garlic.” In turn, the new society is hostile to large apartments, university education and the theater. In the first case, there is ordinary envy: when someone else has ten rooms, and you have some kind of closet under the stairs, you really want changes. The proletariat is afraid of education, since a comprehensively educated person, as a rule, sees the errors of the communist doctrine. Theater is simply incomprehensible to the proletariat: “They talk and talk... There is only one counter-revolution.” The second barrier to the coexistence of the new and old foundations is their mutual confidence in their own rightness and the error of their opponents. Preobrazhensky declares that “you cannot serve two gods.” From the height of his own experience and from the position of a person accustomed to the normal rhythm of life, he says: “It is impossible to sweep the tram tracks and arrange the fate of some Spanish ragamuffins at the same time!” Is he right? Yes, I'm right. But the proletariat is convinced of exactly the opposite. Every person who has succumbed to the red ideology firmly believes that without his personal participation not a single case will get off the ground. And even if he is just a turner, or even a janitor, or even a goldsmith. But Soviet power is his power too. It used to be the imperialist predators who ran everything! Is the proletarian right? Yes, I'm right. The mutual correctness of both is explained by the fact that they obviously different positions. Everything is relative, and the truth of different ideas cannot be assessed from one point. And when people with different beliefs collide, and even speak different languages, and are absolutely sure that they are right, then conflict cannot be avoided. And this conflict will not become a playful children's brawl, but a real war of destruction. Which, by the way, is what happens in “Heart of a Dog.” To finally get rid of Sharikov, we have to return him to an animal state. In fact, to commit a crime, although Preobrazhensky tried his best to avoid this, thereby demonstrating another vulnerable side of people of the old school: the desire to keep their hands clean. Crime is immoral, it is humiliating for a person, and almost impossible for a doctor. The doctor is used to saving lives, not ruining them. Meanwhile, the proletarians, the current masters of life, will stop at nothing. Anonymous letters, notes in newspapers, slander - this is only a small part of what they are ready for. If necessary, then murder will hardly be an obstacle... Thus, the failure of the experiment described in “Heart of a Dog” is natural. A writer cannot lie to the reader and himself. The old society is doomed to destruction if, in the battle with the new, it does not adopt its methods. Preobrazhensky defeated Sharikov because he was able to understand this and commit an atrocity in the name of himself and others. Perhaps, by describing the pitiful ending of Poligraf Poligrafovich, M. A. Bulgakov gave hope that everything would be fine, that the terrible dream in which Russia found itself after the seventeenth year would pass and be forgotten. Does he believe it? Hard to say. The reason for the failure of the experiment, therefore, is the time in which the action takes place and the people who happen to be around the artificial person. And Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky is just a victim of circumstances. As well as the great disappointment of his surgical and generally scientific career - Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov.
Initially, Philip Philipovich did not intend to create an artificial person, especially the kind Sharikov turned out to be. The operation was carried out to “clarify the issue of the survival of the pituitary gland, and subsequently its effect on the rejuvenation of the body in people.” As often happens, the experiment led to unexpected consequences that can hardly be called favorable. We can safely say that the experiment was a failure. And not because in the end Polygraph Sharikov had to undergo surgery to restore his dog appearance. The experiment was unsuccessful because the life of the professor and his household was ruined, because the artificial man did not find a better use for himself other than to become a flayer, and finally, because in the place of the sweetest dog there was a real scoundrel.
The professor himself is not to blame. From the moment Sharik began to transform, events got out of control. Preobrazhensky is a surgeon; he could not predict changes in the character of the former dog and only thought about it later, when Sharikov had already become a thorn that tormented all the residents of the professor’s apartment.
Philip Philipovich is generally a vulnerable person. He spent most of his life in a completely different world: in the world of a scalpel and an operating table, anatomical atlases and medical histories.
The time was different too. When Preobrazhensky used to look away from his medicine, he saw an orderly, normal life around him, where everyone knew their place. In this life, there were still carpets on the main staircase, shoes did not disappear from the shoe rack, and the newly-minted housing associations did not build brick partitions between apartments. Here, in an understandable and logical world, the professor was on the spot himself and could well discern the true value of another. But that was before. Now Philip Philipovich clearly sees that the world has gone crazy, that this is the very “time of change” that the ancient Chinese were so afraid of. And he, already an elderly, accomplished man, clearly sees the reasons for the devastation and turmoil in society, he correctly talks about how to make life around him better and more comfortable. But Preobrazhensky does not take into account the fact that reason is not capable of breaking through to madness, that any arguments not in favor of the existing order of things will be immediately declared by the current masters of life to be bourgeois prejudices, and the professor himself, like many like him, will be included in the ranks of individuals in need of “ clarification."
Perhaps this is why Philip Philipovich so diligently does not change the established pattern of behavior in everyday life. He makes small talk over meals, goes to the opera, he “keeps the mark” of the very part of society that has always been its best part - the mark of the prosperous middle class. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity for this. And most importantly, Professor Preobrazhensky continues to engage in scientific activities and surgical practice.
And the practicing surgeon Preobrazhensky is engaged in the rejuvenation of the human body. Of course, not complete - things haven’t come to that yet. But he is capable of adding a little youth to the fading rich. They pay well for this. And again, it’s not Philip Philipovich’s fault that his services are used by people who are caricatures and, in general, pathetic. All these green-haired womanizers and young old women are just patients for him, working material. The professor treats them condescendingly and is not particularly keen to poke around in their souls. He's had enough bodies. And for the time being everything goes fine - there is not the slightest reason to change your views. The first reason appears when Sharik, who has already been operated on, begins to behave in such a way that prohibitory notices have to be put up throughout the house, but this measure does not help much either.
The main mistake of Professor Preobrazhensky is precisely that he became interested late in who the owner of the pituitary gland was during his lifetime. After all, as it turned out, it is the pituitary gland that determines human personality. As a result, the quite cute and touching dog Sharik got into his brain Klim Chugunkin - a previously convicted, thieving balalaika player who abused alcohol and, in the end, died from a stab in the heart in a drunken fight.
Nothing good could come from such a neighborhood. Sharik turned out to be driven somewhere into a corner of consciousness, and Chugunkin not only began to rule the show, but also managed to pervert a lot of what was inherent in the dog, turning a minor flaw or even a virtue (for example, pity for the typist Vasnetsova) into a real vice.
However, Poligraf Poligrafovich turned out to be what he was, not only because of the Chugunkin pituitary gland. Sharik himself, too, at some moments of his wandering life, probably stole, and knew how to steal on the sly, and put his tail between his legs in front of those who were stronger. But for a homeless dog, all these shortcomings are a way to survive. When he settled with the professor, when he was fattened and cured, Sharik changed. He has changed so much that he would hardly be able to settle down on the street again: “I am a master’s dog, an intelligent creature, I have tasted a better life.” In the “better life,” Sharik no longer had to steal food, run from the janitors, or freeze in the doorways. A dog doesn't need more happiness.
But, alas, Poligraf Poligrafovich is a man. And compared to Preobrazhensky, to Bormental, even to Zinochka and Daria Petrovna, he is a second-class creature. In fact, he is a tramp again. The janitors and doormen for him were those who took him from the frosty streets of Moscow, who fed him, walked him and stroked him. In this situation, Sharik the dog could no longer cope. Chugunkin took charge of his survival in human society. And the new benefactor, who tamed the stray creature, Poligraf Poligrafovich, became the manager Shvonder.
The result is natural. With the well-mannered and successful professor, Sharik felt like an incognito canine prince. And under the auspices of the proletarian Shvonder, Sharikov emerged as true children of a troubled era, becoming as significant as a normal pet. By and large, even in human form he remained a dog. He even chased cats the same way and caught fleas on himself with his teeth.
Could it have been different?
Probably, it could have been done if Sharik had been operated on not in the twenty-fourth year, but in the fourteenth year, if the pituitary gland had belonged to a brighter personality than Klim Chugunkin, if Preobrazhensky had paid a little more attention to him, and if the ill-fated Shvonder had not been nearby. After all, Philip Philipovich had difficulty perceiving his creation as a thinking and independent being. To scold him, to rub his nose into something wrong, to take him by the throat is always welcome. Both the professor and Bormenthal are ready for this. But Shvonder, unfortunately for Preobrazhensky, sees in Sharikov an oppressed and powerless element. And he begins to take a lively part in his fate. It is Shvonder who gives Sharikov a name, gets the document, slips books and even subsequently gets him a job. Why not Philip Philipovich with his Krakow sausage? After all, it’s no worse. Well, the fact that the name is inhuman, the book is revolutionary, and the position is a knacker, let’s not forget who Shvonder is. It would be strange if the house manager sent his ward to college, handed over the works of humanist philosophers and began to teach him how to use a knife and fork.
By the way, Preobrazhensky could have taken care of the proper education of Polygraph Polygraphovich. Yes, Klim Chugunkin was very strong in the newly created man, but there is always a way, a method of selecting the “key” to the heart that remained a dog’s. And, as we remember, Sharik is a very sweet creature, capable of love and gratitude.
It is quite possible that Philip Philipovich never fully believed that a real person came out from under his scalpel. He is a scientist, he has the right to doubt. And Sharikov every now and then pulls out tricks that are more characteristic of a dog than a person. Chasing a cat in a professor's apartment, for example. And the behavior of Poligraf Poligrafovich when he was torn with claws, when Preobrazhensky and Bormental scolded him for the pogrom committed in the apartment. Isn’t it true that everything was very much reminiscent of the actions of a dog that stood on its hind legs and learned to speak, and not at all of a person.
Shvonder is not a scientist, he simply believes his own eyes. And for the rest he lacks imagination. He is a proletarian to the core, thanks to which Polygraph Poligrafovich is perceived by him not with his mind, but with his emotions. How can you not reach out to the oppressed?
And so it turned out that the unfortunate dog was tamed for the second time. And, as befits the owner’s dog, he began to show his teeth at strangers.
Thus, baseness and idealism found themselves under one roof in Philip Philipovich’s apartment.
The idealist Preobrazhensky clings with all his might to the inviolability of his usual life. He is confident that this is possible even at a time when Soviet Russia is slowly sprouting from the ruins of Tsarist Russia. Meanwhile, the newly minted proletarian barks with might and main at his former idol. The professor forbids Sharikov to play the balalaika until he's stupefied, swear obscene words and wear vulgar patent leather boots? This means that we can safely talk about the infringement of rights, that Philip Philipovich oppresses the unfortunate man-dog. This means that you can threaten retribution and it is even necessary to prevent the bourgeois from accidentally imagining too much about himself.
Preobrazhensky, with the light hand of Polygraph Poligrafovich, is suddenly forced, having experienced some of the “charms” of the new life, to realize: he cannot be outside of it. Even a professor in Soviet times knows what a flood in an apartment is like due to broken plumbing, what it’s like when Sharikov’s drunken friends steal his hat and cane, and Sharikov himself proudly declares that he is registered here on sixteen square arshins and will not go anywhere.
The professor and Bormenthal protect themselves from the invasion of modern times by all available means. And they seem to be winning. Polygraph Poligrafovich becomes Sharik again, most likely, everything in the apartment will return to normal again. How long? Apparently not.
“Heart of a Dog” is not only a description of Professor Preobrazhensky’s surgical experience and its consequences. This is not only the story of the collapse of hopes that a human can be made from an animal. The story is itself an experiment conducted by the author, M. A. Bulgakov. The surgeon works with human flesh. The writer experiments with the souls of his heroes, with their lives and destinies.
Through allegory, a fantastic assumption, the writer considers the possibility of peaceful coexistence of the old, patriarchal philistine society of pre-revolutionary Russia and the emerging Soviet system, the new order. The story was written in 1925, when one could still not only fear a gloomy, unpredictable future, but also feel hope for a successful outcome of the troubled times.
And it immediately becomes clear that the old and new societies speak completely different languages. The professor shuns expressions like “labor element”, does not recommend reading Soviet newspapers before eating, and refuses to eat what the grocery store proudly calls Krakow sausage and which Sharik, with his unmistakable canine nose, defines as “chopped mare with garlic.”
In turn, the new society is hostile to large apartments, university education and the theater. In the first case, there is ordinary envy: when someone else has ten rooms, and you have some kind of closet under the stairs, you really want changes. The proletariat is afraid of education, since a comprehensively educated person, as a rule, sees the errors of the communist doctrine. Theater is simply incomprehensible to the proletariat: “They talk and talk... There is only one counter-revolution.”
The second barrier to the coexistence of the new and old foundations is their mutual confidence in their own rightness and the error of their opponents. Preobrazhensky declares that “you cannot serve two gods.” From the height of his own experience and from the position of a person accustomed to the normal rhythm of life, he says: “It is impossible to sweep the tram tracks and arrange the fate of some Spanish ragamuffins at the same time!” Is he right? Yes, I'm right.
But the proletariat is convinced of exactly the opposite. Every person who has succumbed to the red ideology firmly believes that without his personal participation not a single case will get off the ground. And even if he is just a turner, or even a janitor, or even a goldsmith. But Soviet power is his power too. It used to be the imperialist predators who ran everything! Is the proletarian right? Yes, I'm right.
The mutual correctness of both is explained by the fact that they are obviously in different positions. Everything is relative, and the truth of different ideas cannot be assessed from one point.
And when people with different beliefs collide, and even speak different languages, and are absolutely sure that they are right, then conflict cannot be avoided. And this conflict will not become a playful children's brawl, but a real war of destruction. Which, by the way, is what happens in “Heart of a Dog.” To finally get rid of Sharikov, we have to return him to an animal state. In fact, to commit a crime, although Preobrazhensky tried his best to avoid this, thereby demonstrating another vulnerable side of people of the old school: the desire to keep their hands clean. Crime is immoral, it is humiliating for a person, and almost impossible for a doctor. The doctor is used to saving lives, not ruining them.
Meanwhile, the proletarians, the current masters of life, will stop at nothing. Anonymous letters, notes in newspapers, slander - this is only a small part of what they are ready for. If necessary, then murder will hardly be an obstacle...
Thus, the failure of the experiment described in “Heart of a Dog” is natural. A writer cannot lie to the reader and himself. The old society is doomed to destruction if, in the battle with the new, it does not adopt its methods. Preobrazhensky defeated Sharikov because he was able to understand this and commit an atrocity in the name of himself and others. Perhaps, by describing the pitiful ending of Poligraf Poligrafovich, M. A. Bulgakov gave hope that everything would be fine, that the terrible dream in which Russia found itself after the seventeenth year would pass and be forgotten. Does he believe it? Hard to say.
The reason for the failure of the experiment, therefore, is the time in which the action takes place and the people who happen to be around the artificial person. And Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky is just a victim of circumstances. As well as the great disappointment of his surgical and generally scientific career - Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov.
Essay on the topic: REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF PROFESSOR PREOBRAZHENSKY’S EXPERIMENT
Searched on this page:
- What is the mistake of Professor Preobrazhensky
- why Professor Preobrazhensky's experiment failed
- Professor Preobrazhensky's mistake
- characteristics of Professor Preobrazhensky
- Why did Preobrazhensky's experiment fail?
The work of M. A. Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction XX 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. Main character In 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. It's about 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 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 new type 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 restructuring Russian life interference 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 represents 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 behind geographical map, sorted through the warehouses of Herder, Wieland, biblical verses and summed up the illiterate accounts of the peasants, townspeople and factory workers, and with his mother he read sacred history, learned Krylov’s fables and sorted through the warehouses of Telemachus.” 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 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 to 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 your health beautiful women, and their lovers,” Bezukhov understands 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.
The October Revolution not only broke the old foundations of life and changed life, it also gave birth to a new, completely phenomenal type of person. This phenomenon, of course, interested writers, many of them tried to unravel it, and some, such as M. Zoshchenko, N. Erdman, V. Kataev, completely succeeded. The “new” man in the street, the so-called “homo soviticus,” not only adapted to the new government, he accepted it as his own, and found his place in it. The distinctive features of such a “homo soviticus” are increased aggressiveness, belief in one’s own infallibility and impunity, and peremptory judgments.
M. A. Bulgakov did not ignore this phenomenon either. Being an employee of the Gudok newspaper in the early 20s, he, of course, saw enough of such types, and the results of his observations were reflected in the satirical stories “Fatal Eggs,” “Diaboliad” and “Heart of a Dog.”
The main character of the story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925, is professor of medicine Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky, who was dealing with the then fashionable problem of rejuvenating the human body. The surname that Bulgakov gives to his hero is not accidental, because the professor is engaged in eugenics, that is, the science of improving and transforming the biological nature of man.
Preobrazhensky is very talented and dedicated to his work. Not only in Russia, but also in Europe he has no equal in his field. Like any talented scientist, he devotes himself entirely to his work: he sees patients during the day, and in the evening, or even at night, he studies specialized literature and performs experiments. In all other respects, he is a typical intellectual of the old school: he loves to eat well, dress tastefully, watch a premiere at the theater, and chat with his assistant Bormental. Preobrazhensky is not demonstratively interested in politics: the new government irritates him with lack of culture and rudeness, but things do not go further than poisonous grumbling.
Life as usual flows on a well-trodden rail, until one fine day a homeless dog Sharik, brought by the professor himself for an experiment, appears in Professor Preobrazhensky’s apartment. The dog immediately shows his quarrelsome and aggressive character. About the doorman at the entrance, Sharik thinks: “I wish I could bite him on his proletarian calloused foot.” And when he sees a stuffed owl in the professor’s waiting room, he comes to the conclusion: “This owl is rubbish. Impudent. We will explain it."
Preobrazhensky has no idea what kind of monster he brought into the house and what will come of it.
The professor's goal is grandiose: he wants to benefit humanity by giving it eternal youth. As an experiment, he transplants the seminal glands into Sharik, and then the pituitary gland of a deceased person. But rejuvenation does not work - in front of the amazed eyes of Preobrazhensky and Bormental, Sharik gradually turns into a person.
The creation of an artificial person is not a new subject in literature. Many authors turned to him. They created all sorts of monsters on the pages of their works - from Frankenstein to modern “transformers” and “terminators”, using them to solve very real, earthly problems.
So it is for Bulgakov: the plot of the “humanization” of the dog is an allegorical understanding of modernity, the triumph of rudeness, which has taken the form of state policy.
Surprisingly, for the half-man, half-beast Sharik (or Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, as he decided to call himself) a social niche is very quickly found. The chairman of the house management, demagogue and boor Shvonder “takes him under his wing” and becomes his ideological inspirer. Bulgakov does not spare satirical colors to describe Shvonder and the rest of the house management members. These are faceless and sexless creatures, not people, but “labor elements” who, as Preobrazhensky says, have “ruin in their heads.” They spend their days singing revolutionary songs, holding political talks and solving issues of densification. Their main task is to divide everything equally, this is how they understand social justice. They are also trying to “compact” the professor who owns a seven-room apartment. The arguments that all these rooms are necessary for normal life and work are simply beyond their understanding. And if not for a high patron, Professor Preobrazhensky would hardly have been able to defend his apartment.
Before, before the fatal experiment, Philip Philipovich practically did not encounter representatives of the new government, but now he has such a representative at his side. Sharikov’s impudence is not limited to drunkenness, rowdy behavior, and rudeness; now, under the influence of Shvonder, he begins to claim his rights to living space and is going to start a family, since he considers himself one of the “labor elements”. Reading about this is not so much funny as it is scary. You can’t help but think about how many of these ball-carriers, both in these years and in subsequent decades, will find themselves in power and will not only poison the lives of normal people, but also decide their destinies, determine their internal and foreign policy countries. (Probably, similar thoughts appeared among those who banned Bulgakov’s story for many years).
Sharikov’s career is developing successfully: on Shvonder’s recommendation, he is accepted to public service as the head of the department in the MKH for catching stray cats (a suitable occupation for a former dog!). Sharikov flaunts himself in a leather coat, like a real commissar, gives orders to the maid in a metallic voice and, following Shvonder, professes the principle of equalization: “But what about: one settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of pants, and the other hangs around in the trash bins looking for food." Moreover, Sharikov writes a denunciation against his benefactor.
The professor realizes his mistake too late: this half-man, half-animal, scoundrel and boor has already thoroughly established himself in this life and has completely fit into the new society. An unbearable situation is developing, from which Bormental is the first to propose a way out - they should destroy the monster they created with their own hands.
“Crime has matured and fallen like a stone...”
The professor and his assistant become accomplices in the crime, but they are criminals “by necessity.” Since the change social status Sharikov, the conflict between Preobrazhensky and Sharikov went beyond the home. And the professor decides on another operation - he returns Sharikov to his original state.
It would seem that M. Bulgakov’s story ends happily: Sharik in his natural form is quietly dozing in the corner of the living room and normal life in the apartment is restored. However, Shvonder, members of the house management and many other polygraph polygraph specialists, against whom medicine is powerless, remained outside the apartment.
The results of the local experiment could easily be annulled; the price paid for a social experiment unprecedented in history, carried out on the scale of an entire country, turned out to be exorbitant for Russia and the Russian people.
