Mikhail Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1925 in Moscow, is a filigree example of sharp satirical fiction of that time. In it, the author reflected his ideas and beliefs about whether a person needs to interfere with the laws of evolution and what this can lead to. The topic touched upon by Bulgakov remains relevant in modern real life and will never cease to disturb the minds of all progressive mankind.
After publication, the story caused a lot of talk and ambiguous opinions, because it was distinguished by the bright and memorable characters of the main characters, an extraordinary plot in which fantasy was closely intertwined with reality, as well as undisguised, sharp criticism of the Soviet regime. This work was very popular among dissidents in the 60s, and after being republished in the 90s, it was generally recognized as prophetic. In the story "Heart of a Dog" the tragedy of the Russian people is clearly visible, which is divided into two warring camps (red and white) and only one must win in this confrontation. In his story, Bulgakov reveals to readers the essence of the new victors - proletarian revolutionaries, and shows that they cannot create anything good and worthy.
History of creation
This story is the final part of Mikhail Bulgakov's previously written cycle of satirical stories of the 1920s, such as The Diaboliad and Fatal Eggs. Bulgakov began writing the story "Heart of a Dog" in January 1925 and finished it in March of the same year, it was originally intended for publication in the journal Nedra, but did not pass the censorship. And all such content was known to Moscow lovers of literature, because Bulgakov read it in March 1925 at the Nikitsky Subbotnik (literary circle), later it was rewritten by hand (the so-called "samizdat") and thus distributed to the masses. In the USSR, the story "Heart of a Dog" was first published in 1987 (6th issue of the Znamya magazine).
Analysis of the work
Story line
The basis for the development of the plot in the story is the story of an unsuccessful experiment by Professor Preobrazhensky, who decided to turn the homeless mongrel Sharik into a man. To do this, he transplants the pituitary gland of an alcoholic, parasite and rowdy Klim Chugunkin to him, the operation is successful and an absolutely “new person” is born - Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, who, according to the author’s idea, is a collective image of the new Soviet proletarian. The “new man” is distinguished by a rude, arrogant and deceitful character, a boorish demeanor, a very unpleasant, repulsive appearance, and an intelligent and educated professor often has conflicts with him. Sharikov, in order to register in the professor's apartment (which, he believes, he has every right to), enlists the support of a like-minded and ideological teacher, the chairman of the Shvonder house committee, and even finds a job for himself: he is engaged in catching stray cats. Driven to the extreme by all the tricks of the newly-minted Polygraph Sharikov (the last straw was the denunciation of Preobrazhensky himself), the professor decides to return everything as it was, and turns Sharikov back into a dog.
main characters
The main characters of the story "Heart of a Dog" are typical representatives of the Moscow society of that time (the thirties of the twentieth century).
One of the main characters in the center of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky, a well-known scientist of world renown, a respected person in society who adheres to democratic views. He deals with the rejuvenation of the human body through animal organ transplants, and seeks to help people, while not causing them any harm. The professor is depicted as a solid and self-confident person who has a certain weight in society and is accustomed to living in luxury and prosperity (he has a large house with servants, among his clients are former nobles and representatives of the highest revolutionary leadership).
Being a cultured person and possessing an independent and critical mindset, Preobrazhensky openly opposes Soviet power, calling the Bolsheviks who came to power "blathers" and "loafers", he is firmly convinced that it is necessary to fight devastation not with terror and violence, but with culture, and believes that the only way to communicate with living beings is through affection.
After conducting an experiment on a stray dog Sharik and turning him into a man, and even trying to instill in him elementary cultural and moral skills, Professor Preobrazhensky undergoes a complete fiasco. He admits that his “new man” turned out to be completely useless, does not lend himself to education and learns only bad things (Sharikov’s main conclusion after working through Soviet propaganda literature is that everything must be divided, and this should be done by the method of robbery and violence). The scientist understands that it is impossible to interfere with the laws of nature, because such experiments do not lead to anything good.
The professor's young assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, is a very decent and devoted person to his teacher (the professor at one time took part in the fate of a poor and hungry student, and he answers him with devotion and gratitude). When Sharikov reached the limit, writing a denunciation of the professor and stealing a pistol, he wanted to use it, it was Bormental who showed firmness of spirit and toughness of character, deciding to turn him back into a dog, while the professor was still hesitating.
Describing these two doctors, old and young, from the positive side, emphasizing their nobility and self-esteem, Bulgakov sees in their description himself and his relatives-doctors, who in many situations would have done exactly the same.
The absolute opposites of these two positive characters are the people of the new time: the former dog Sharik himself, who became Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, the chairman of the house committee Shvonder and other “residential comrades”.
Shvonder is a typical example of a member of the new society, who fully and completely supports the Soviet government. Hating the professor as a class enemy of the revolution and planning to get part of the professor's living space, he uses Sharikov for this, telling him about the rights to the apartment, making documents for him and pushing him to write a denunciation of Preobrazhensky. Himself, being a narrow-minded and uneducated person, Shvonder gives in and shivers in conversations with the professor, and from this he hates him even more and makes every effort to annoy him as much as possible.
Sharikov, whose donor was a bright average representative of the Soviet thirties of the last century, an alcoholic without a definite job, a lumpen-proletariat Klim Chugunkin, convicted three times, twenty-five years old, is distinguished by an absurd and arrogant character. Like all ordinary people, he wants to break out into people, but he doesn’t want to learn something or make any effort for this. He likes to be an ignorant slob, fight, swear, spit on the floor and constantly run into scandals. However, without learning anything good, he absorbs the bad like a sponge: he quickly learns to write denunciations, finds a job for himself - to kill cats, the eternal enemies of the canine family. Moreover, showing how ruthlessly he deals with stray cats, the author makes it clear that Sharikov will do exactly the same with any person who comes between him and his goal.
The gradually increasing aggression, arrogance and impunity of Sharikov is specially shown by the author in order for the reader to understand how terrible and dangerous this “Sharikovism”, which was emerging in the 20s of the last century, as a new social phenomenon of the post-revolutionary period. Such Sharikovs, who are found all the time in Soviet society, especially those in power, pose a real threat to society, especially to intelligent, intelligent and cultured people, whom they hate fiercely and try to destroy them in every possible way. Which, incidentally, happened later, when during the Stalinist repressions the color of the Russian intelligentsia and military elite was destroyed, as Bulgakov predicted.
Features of compositional construction
The story "The Heart of a Dog" combines several literary genres at once, in accordance with the plot of the storyline, it can be attributed to a fantastic adventure in the image and likeness of H. G. Wells's "The Island of Dr. Moreau", which also describes an experiment to breed a hybrid of a person and an animal. From this side, the story can be attributed to the genre of science fiction that was actively developing at that time, the prominent representatives of which were Alexei Tolstoy and Alexander Belyaev. However, under the surface layer of science-adventure fiction, in fact, there is a sharp satirical parody, allegorically showing the enormity and inconsistency of that large-scale experiment called "socialism" that the Soviet government carried out on the territory of Russia, trying to create a "new man" born from terror and violence revolutionary explosion and the imposition of Marxist ideology. What will come of this, Bulgakov just very clearly demonstrated in his story.
The composition of the story consists of such traditional parts as the plot - the professor sees a homeless dog and decides to bring him home, the culmination (several points can be distinguished here at once) - the operation, the visit of the Domkomovites to the professor, Sharikov’s writing a denunciation of Preobrazhensky, his threats with the use of weapons, the professor's decision to turn Sharikov back into a dog, the denouement - a reverse operation, Shvonder's visit to the professor with the police, the final part - the establishment of peace and tranquility in the professor's apartment: the scientist goes about his business, the dog Sharik is quite satisfied with his dog life.
Despite all the fantasticness and improbability of the events described in the story, the author's use of various techniques of grotesque and allegory, this work, thanks to the use of descriptions of specific signs of that time (urban landscapes, various places of action, life and appearance of characters), is distinguished by unique credibility.
The events taking place in the story are described on the eve of Christmas, and it is not for nothing that the professor is called Preobrazhensky, and his experiment is a real “anti-Christmas”, a kind of “anti-creation”. In a story based on allegory and fantastic fiction, the author wanted to show not only the importance of the responsibility of a scientist for his experiment, but also the inability to see the consequences of his actions, the huge difference between the natural development of evolution and revolutionary intervention in the course of life. The story shows a clear author's vision of the changes that took place in Russia after the revolution and the beginning of the construction of a new socialist system, all these changes for Bulgakov were nothing more than an experiment on people, large-scale, dangerous and having catastrophic consequences.
, Fatal Eggs , The White Guard even go through the school curriculum. We want to make an analysis of another literary masterpiece from Bulgakov. Read below the analysis of the story "Heart of a Dog", which is replete with deep quotes.
The history of the creation of the story "Heart of a Dog"
The story was written in 1925, published after Bulgakov's death. The writer described the real reality of that time with the addition of fantastic elements. This technique is used to enhance reality. The mystical writer, the most mysterious of his contemporaries, excited all readers and critics with this story. Let's analyze the genre of the story "Heart of a Dog".
Genre originality of the story
According to all literary canons, this is a story, but if you go deeper, then this is a socio-philosophical satirical story with elements of the fantastic. Social, because the life of Moscow, its everyday life and inhabitants are described. Philosophical, because there are arguments about the new world, the new man. Satirical, because Bulgakov approached the description of secondary characters with humor. Fantastic, because it contains an episode of the reincarnation of a dog into a man.
The main theme of the story is philosophical. A dangerous experiment to create a new human being with unforeseen consequences. The desire to change the world for the better.
Analysis of the idea of the story Heart of a Dog
The ideological nature of Bulgakov's work is also present in this story. Having two worlds. Preobrazhensky's apartment is like a looking-glass world. On the one hand, a cozy home, and on the other - a spacious boundless space. The second object is the world outside the door of the apartment. Through the eyes of the heroes, everything around is dirty, miserable, evil. The people on the street are greedy and scary. Such ideology shows the presence of Peace and Chaos. There is plot movement. The heroes are trying to find a balance in these two worlds and are fighting with themselves. Bulgakov wanted to show the life of the intelligentsia and the people. How they are interconnected and influence each other. In the analysis of the story "Heart of a Dog" it is important to consider the main characters.
The main characters of the work
- Dog Sharik is a citizen of Sharikov. Initially, an intelligent animal with a mind. Having become a man, he turned into an ill-mannered and rude person. But still, considering the image of Sharikov, what conclusion can be drawn? Sharikov man or animal?
- Professor Preobrazhensky is a representative of the intelligentsia, a highly moral person.
The plot and composition of the story
The work tells about how the professor decided to transplant the internal secretions of a person into a dog. But the expectations were not met. The operation was successful and Sharikov became the one whose organs were transplanted to him. He refused to learn good manners. One day he came to the professor and said that he had permission to have a residence permit in his apartment. In addition, Sharikov wrote a denunciation against the professor. When an investigator came to him, who suspected him of the murder of Sharikov, Preobrazhensky showed him a mangy dog, after what he saw, the representative of the law fainted. The professor did not immediately want to return everything to its place, he hoped for a gradual transformation of Sharikov, but this did not work out. He has become a threat to society.
You can learn more about the plot by reading the summary of the story Heart of a Dog on our website.
What conclusion can be drawn after we have completed the analysis of the story "Heart of a Dog"? People have different inclinations and often negative qualities. But can a person change? Everyone must answer this question for themselves. The fate of a person is in his hands, which means that everyone can shape himself as a person.
On our site you can get acquainted not only with a summary, but also
Moscow Institute of Open Education
Department of Philological Sciences
Analysis of the story by M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog"
Prepared by the teacher
Russian language and literature
Butrimova N.S.
Moscow, 2014
Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov created his story "Heart of a Dog" during the period of revolutionary changes in Russia. M.A. Bulgakov was one of those writers who criticized socialist construction and ridiculed the methods of building a socialist society. The genre of anti-utopia becomes a kind of struggle against the absurd state system.
The satirical story "Heart of a Dog" was written in 1925, and published only 62 years later in 1987. This is a complex and complex story. Professor Preobrazhensky from the sweetest dog Sharik, through an experiment, creates the "rare scum" of Sharikov. This experiment reveals the absurdity going on in society in the 20sXXcentury. The revolution that has taken place leads to the complete collapse of the country. Russia is practically destroyed. Bulgakov already understood what had happened. He, not embarrassed, ridicules the Soviet government, "songwriters", speaks of the need for everyone to engage intheir deed. “... Although, if someday, if I have free time, I will study the brain and prove that all this social mess is just sick nonsense ...” As a result, on May 7, 1926, the manuscript of the story “Heart of a Dog” was confiscated.
A lot of controversy arises around the title of the story. The author himself makes his heroes think about who they turned out to be as a result of the experiment. The man with the heart of a dog? But the worst thing is that the dog has absolutely nothing to do with it, Sharikov has “... just a human heart. And the lousiest of all that exists in nature. Professor Preobrazhensky is fully aware of what he did: "... Turn the sweetest dog into such filth that your hair stands on end! .." Perhaps the heart of Sharik's dog was the most humane and kind, in general, a dog is a devoted and loving creature .
Such a character as W a wonder is also a man with a dog's heart, without his own spiritual world, an idler, a boor. We can say that it was created artificially. Shvonder has no opinion of his own. All views were forced upon him. Shvonder is a pupil of the proletariat - a group of people, according to Bulgakov, who sing about a bright future, but do nothing all day long.Bulgakov says that there are a lot of people with canine hearts among us, and they show themselves at certain moments, for example, a mother who abandons her child.
Bulgakov writes that the dog essence in Sharikovo consists only in hunting for cats, but it will soon pass and the worst thing will remain - Klim Chugunkin, who received a second life.
The composition of the story "Heart of a Dog" is most likely circular. The work begins with Sharik's monologue and ends with Sharik's reflections. Polygraph Sharikov disappeared, as if he did not exist at all. Dog Sharik did not remember his “human” past, he knew only one thing: “I was so lucky, so lucky ... just indescribably lucky. I established myself in this apartment ... "
The story contains several repeated phrases of the sweetest dog Sharik: “I was lucky ...”. The dog saw salvation in the mysterious gentleman, he is ready to kiss his hands, only for a piece of a "rotten horse."
The development of the plot of the story gives the reader the opportunity to see how Bulgakov's characters change. The dog Sharik turns first into a "new organism", then into Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich, and again into the sweetest dog Sharik. Professor Preobrazhensky appears before the reader as a gentleman, not a comrade, not a citizen, but precisely a gentleman, a very emotional self-confident person, who is characterized by sorrowful exclamations, a thunderous voice ":" ... Philip Philipovich got excited, his hawk nostrils swelled. Gaining strength after a hearty dinner, he thundered like an ancient prophet, and his head sparkled with silver ... "What happens to the" ancient prophet "after the operation? The ball becomes a humanoid creature, constantly swearing, Klim Chugukin is resurrected in it. All this makes a “surprisingly painful impression” on Philipp Philippovich, he loses his self-control, becomes nervous. Dr. Bormental writes in his Case History that after the meeting with Philipp Philippovich, "for the first time ... I saw this confident and amazingly intelligent person confused." Here the old man appears for the first time. The professor’s student deeply respects his teacher, but the repeated “old man” leaves no doubt that the experience of Professor Preobrazhensky broke this strong man, who becomes the former professor after the return of the dearest dog Sharik: “The former imperious and energetic Philip Philippovich, full of dignity, appeared before night guests and apologized that he was in a dressing gown. Professor Preobrazhensky is a terrific character, he openly mocks the house management, constantly repeating the same phrase: “The Kalabukhovsky house is gone!”, thereby infuriating his comrades.
Bulgakov gives his heroes more than speaking names: Sharik is a children's toy that brings joy, this word contains a diminutive suffix, you want to pet such a dog, you don’t expect any meanness from him. Philipp Philippovich - literally “loving horses”, this has its own special meaning, the horse will not let a bad person with a “dog heart” approach him.
Professor Preobrazhensky is a model of the Russian intelligentsia, he is the owner of an 8-room apartment in which he not only lives, but also works. After the revolution, he stayed to live and work in Moscow, he is not able to leave a friend in a difficult situation: “I am a Moscow student, not balls!”, His apartment is filled with special things that create general comfort: “Light flooded a whole abyss of objects, of which the most amusing thing was a huge owl sitting on a bough on the wall. And his speech is an example of a pre-revolutionary school: "Darling", he addresses everyone, even to Sharikov on "You", however, in his speech you can also see colloquial words that fit into his image in a completely natural way.
Klim Chugunkin - on the one hand, Klim is translated as merciful, but Bulgakov gives him the "wonderful" surname Chugunkin. Cast iron is a heavy metal, but nevertheless, it is very fragile. It was precisely such people that the revolution needed: on the one hand, calm, soft, merciful, and on the other, very fragile, it is easy to break it, crush it under itself, and if this happened, then the cast-iron tanks would lean on people with all their weight, destroying everything human. on his way. In his story, Bulgakov connects Klim Chugunkin with a new creation, Polygraph Poligrafovich. Thus, he wants to show all the absurdity of the new government, all its deceit, its desire for destruction. Mikhail Bulgakov laughs at the "new era" and the Polygraph appears - a lie detector necessary to establish the truth. Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov deprives people of hope for a brighter future. Sharikov - "a boor and a pig", an alcoholic who drives the inhabitants of the apartment to madness with his drunkenness, is deceitful ("wounded on the Kolchak fronts", borrows money from Shvonder for books and drinks them away). At the same time, he is cowardly, he is afraid of Dr. Bormenthal and armed with a revolver, he writes denunciations against the professor. Bulgakov stops humanizing Sharikov: “He himself threw himself into the arms of the inevitable andbarked viciously and abruptly…”, “…he barked…”.
Such characters as Shvonder, Vyazemskaya and Pestrukhin do not deserve names at all, they are comrades without sex, exactly the same, people with dog hearts.
The peculiarity of the narration lies in the fact that Bulgakov deliberately does not allow one person to tell the story. In the first chapter, the dog Sharik acts as the narrator, but nevertheless he leads his story on behalf of the author, the author knows everything, he knows both the name of the mysterious gentleman and the story of the young typist. The “case history” is described on behalf of Dr. Bormenthal, the beginning of his notes is a dry presentation of facts, which gradually changes, you can see how nervous he is, blots appear, he writes in uneven handwriting, exclamations appear. In the last chapter, the narrator is again the dog Sharik, thus, in the story, the author's assessment is dispersed among several characters: Preobrazhensky, Bormental and Sharik.
Bulgakov's story is a fantastic work, an operation, the transformation of a dog into a man and again into a dog. Bulgakov uses his favorite technique: the play of light and darkness. “Twilight crept in, nasty, wary, in a word - darkness” and “The Master and Margarita”: “Darkness that came from the sea covered the city hated by the procurator.”
The story "Heart of a Dog" very clearly shows people of different classes, living conditions, speech. Sharikov - is a lower being, his speech is replete with obscene language, boorish behavior towards the professor and doctor. Bulgakov resorts to metaphors, comparisons and epithets in the story: "... The atmosphere in the Obukhov rooms was stuffy", "... like a gray-haired Faust ...", "... a gray-haired magician ...".
Bulgakov uses a mixture of styles: during the conversation, Shvonder uses the vocabulary of an official business style. According to Professor Preobrazhensky, this unjustified use "there was a question of compaction." Hence the question: "Who stood on whom?"
"Heart of a Dog" is a philosophical work that combines both sarcasm and fantasy.Professor Philip Philipovich imagined himself akin to God, he transforms an earthly creature one into another, from a sweet and affectionate dog he created a “two-legged monster” without any concept of honor, conscience, gratitude. Thanks to Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, the whole life of Professor Preobrazhensky turned upside down. Sharikov, imagining himself a man, brings discomfort into the measured and calm life of the professor.The professor corrects his mistake by "remaking" Sharikov into Sharik. He explains to Shvonder and his company: “Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people. So I tried, but only unsuccessfully, as you can see. He spoke and began to turn into a primitive state. Atavism!"Yes, this is a sharp satire on the socialist society, which asserted the right of "every cook to rule the state." M.A. Bulgakov ridiculed the attempts of the Bolsheviks to create a new man.
For many years, the name of M. A. Bulgakov and his works remained banned. But now we have the opportunity to rethink everything that happened and try to deprive the world of such a monster as balloons.
"Heart of a Dog" was written at the beginning of 1925. It was supposed to be published in the Nedra almanac, but censorship banned publication. The story was finished in March, and Bulgakov read it at the literary meeting of Nikitsky Subbotniks. The Moscow public became interested in the work. It was distributed in samizdat. It was first published in London and Frankfurt in 1968, in Znamya magazine No. 6 in 1987.
In the 20s. were very popular medical experiments on the rejuvenation of the human body. Bulgakov, as a doctor, was familiar with these natural science experiments. The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Bulgakov's uncle, N.M. Pokrovsky, a gynecologist. He lived on Prechistenka, where the events of the story unfold.
Genre features
The satirical story "Heart of a Dog" combines various genre elements. The plot of the story resembles fantastic adventure literature in the tradition of G. Wells. The subtitle of the story "The Monstrous Story" testifies to the parodic coloring of the fantastic plot.
The science-adventure genre is the outer cover for satirical overtones and topical metaphor.
The story is close to dystopia due to its social satire. This is a warning about the consequences of a historical experiment that must be stopped, everything must return to normal.
Issues
The most important problem of the story is social: it is the comprehension of the events of the revolution, which made it possible to rule the world by balls and shvonders. Another problem is awareness of the limits of human capabilities. Preobrazhensky, imagining himself a god (he is literally worshiped by households), goes against nature, turning a dog into a man. Realizing that “any woman can give birth to Spinoza at any time”, Preobrazhensky repents of his experiment, which saves his life. He understands the fallacy of eugenics, the science of improving the human race.
The problem of the danger of intrusion into human nature and social processes is raised.
Plot and composition
The sci-fi story describes how Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky decides to experiment on transplanting the pituitary gland and ovaries of the “semi-proletarian” Klim Chugunkin to a dog. As a result of this experiment, the monstrous Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov appeared, the embodiment and quintessence of the victorious proletariat class. The existence of Sharikov brought a lot of problems to the family of Philip Philippovich, and, in the end, endangered the normal life and freedom of the professor. Then Preobrazhensky decided on a reverse experiment, transplanting the pituitary gland of a dog to Sharikov.
The ending of the story is open: this time, Preobrazhensky was able to prove to the new proletarian authorities that he was not involved in the “murder” of Polygraph Poligrafovich, but how long will his already far from calm life last?
The story consists of 9 parts and an epilogue. The first part is written on behalf of the dog Sharik, who suffers from the harsh winter of St. Petersburg from the cold and a wound on his scalded side. In the second part, the dog becomes an observer of everything that happens in Preobrazhensky's apartment: the reception of patients in the "obscene apartment", the professor's opposition to the new house management headed by Shvonder, Philip Philipovich's fearless admission that he does not like the proletariat. For the dog, Preobrazhensky turns into the likeness of a deity.
The third part tells about the ordinary life of Philip Philipovich: breakfast, conversations about politics and devastation. This part is polyphonic, it contains the voices of both the professor and the “bitten” one (Bormental’s assistant from the points of view of Sharik who bit him), and Sharik himself, talking about his lucky ticket and about Preobrazhensky as a magician from a dog’s fairy tale.
In the fourth part, Sharik meets the rest of the inhabitants of the house: the cook Daria and the servant Zina, whom the men treat very gallantly, and Sharik mentally calls Zina Zinka, and quarrels with Daria Petrovna, she calls him a homeless pickpocket and threatens with a poker. In the middle of the fourth part, Sharik's story breaks off because he is undergoing an operation.
The operation is described in detail, Philip Philipovich is terrible, he is called a robber, like a murderer who cuts, pulls out, destroys. At the end of the operation, he is compared to a well-fed vampire. This is the author's point of view, it is a continuation of Sharik's thoughts.
The fifth, central and climactic chapter is the diary of Dr. Bormenthal. It begins in a strictly scientific style, which gradually turns into a colloquial one, with emotionally charged words. The case history ends with Bormenthal's conclusion that "we have a new organism in front of us, and we need to observe it first."
The following chapters 6-9 are the history of Sharikov's short life. He learns the world, destroying it and living the probable fate of the murdered Klim Chugunkin. Already in chapter 7, the professor has an idea to decide on a new operation. Sharikov's behavior becomes unbearable: hooliganism, drunkenness, theft, molestation of women. The last straw was Shvonder's denunciation from the words of Sharikov to all the inhabitants of the apartment.
The epilogue, describing the events 10 days after Bormental's fight with Sharikov, shows Sharikov almost turning into a dog again. The next episode is the reasoning of the dog Sharik in March (about 2 months have passed) about how lucky he was.
Metaphorical overtones
The professor has a telling last name. He transforms the dog into a "new man". This happens between December 23rd and January 7th, between Catholic and Orthodox Christmas. It turns out that the transformation takes place in some kind of temporary void between the same date in different styles. A polygraph (multi-writing) is the embodiment of the devil, a “replicated” person.
Apartment on Prechistenka (from the definition of the Mother of God) of 7 rooms (7 days of creation). She is the embodiment of divine order amid the surrounding chaos and devastation. A star looks out of the window of the apartment from the darkness (chaos), watching the monstrous transformation. The professor is called a deity and a priest. He is a priest.
Heroes of the story
Professor Preobrazhensky- a scientist, a value of world importance. However, he is a successful doctor. But his merits do not prevent the new government from frightening the professor with a seal, prescribing Sharikov and threatening arrest. The professor has an inappropriate background - his father is a cathedral archpriest.
Preobrazhensky is quick-tempered, but kind. He sheltered Bormenthal in the department when he was a half-starved student. He is a noble person, not going to leave a colleague in the event of a disaster.
Dr. Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental- the son of a forensic investigator from Vilna. He is the first student of the Preobrazhensky school, loving his teacher and devoted to him.
Ball appears as a fully rational, reasoning being. He even jokes: "A collar is like a briefcase." But Sharik is the very creature in whose mind a crazy thought appears to rise "from rags to riches": "I am a master's dog, an intelligent creature." However, he almost does not sin against the truth. Unlike Sharikov, he is grateful to Preobrazhensky. And the professor operates with a firm hand, ruthlessly kills Sharik, and having killed, regrets: "It's a pity for the dog, he was affectionate, but cunning."
At Sharikova nothing remains of Sharik but hatred for cats, love for the kitchen. His portrait is described in detail first by Bormental in his diary: he is a short man with a small head. Subsequently, the reader learns that the hero's appearance is unsympathetic, his hair is coarse, his forehead is low, his face is unshaven.
His jacket and striped trousers are torn and dirty, a poisonous sky tie and lacquer boots with white leggings complete the suit. Sharikov is dressed in accordance with his own notions of chic. Like Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him, Sharikov plays the balalaika professionally. From Klim, he inherited a love for vodka.
The name and patronymic Sharikov chooses according to the calendar, the surname takes "hereditary".
The main character trait of Sharikov is arrogance and ingratitude. He behaves like a savage, and about normal behavior he says: "You are torturing yourself, as under the tsarist regime."
Sharikov receives a "proletarian education" from Shvonder. Bormental calls Sharikov a man with a dog's heart, but Preobrazhensky corrects him: Sharikov has just a human heart, but the worst possible person.
Sharikov is even making a career in his own sense: he takes the position of head of the subdepartment for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals and is going to sign with the typist.
Stylistic features
The story is full of aphorisms expressed by different characters: “Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner”, “Devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads”, “You can’t fight anyone! One can act on a person or an animal only by suggestion ”(Preobrazhensky),“ Happiness is not in galoshes ”,“ And what is will? So, smoke, a mirage, a fiction, the delirium of these ill-fated democrats ... ”(Sharik),“ A document is the most important thing in the world ”(Shvonder),“ I am not a master, gentlemen are all in Paris ”(Sharikov).
For Professor Preobrazhensky, there are certain symbols of normal life, which in themselves do not provide this life, but testify to it: a galoshes rack in the front door, carpets on the stairs, steam heating, electricity.
Society of the 20s characterized in the story with the help of irony, parody, grotesque.
Introduction
The topic of my research was born from an observation made while reading the story "Heart of a Dog" by M.A. Bulgakov.
Creativity M.A. Bulgakov is widely known in Russia. He wrote such works as The Master and Margarita, Heart of a Dog, Crimson Island, The Adventures of Chichikov, Fatal Eggs, Notes of a Young Doctor, Diaboliad, etc.
An outstanding creation of M. Bulgakov was the story "Heart of a Dog". Written in 1925, it was not published during the life of the writer. In 1926, his apartment was searched and the manuscript of the story "The Heart of a Dog" was confiscated. It was published only in 1987.
The story raises the question of the social restructuring that took place in those years, shows Bulgakov's attitude towards it.
I drew attention to the fact that in the story there are many times the words "full", "hungry", "eat", "food". I believe that the topic of food occupies a special place - Sharik's thoughts about food, we listen to Professor Preobrazhensky's speech on how to eat, we go to his sumptuous dinners, we see the kitchen - "the main branch of paradise", the kingdom and its queen Daria Petrovna .
The relevance of the work: For us, modern readers, it is important to know the history of our homeland, the way of life, culture and customs of those people who lived in the past. This is where writers help us. One of them is M.A. Bulgakov. He belongs to the number of "returned" writers. With the help of his works, truthful and sincere, we recreate a complete picture of the life of Russia in the last century.
Objective: To study the theme of food as a reflection of the life and customs of the inhabitants of Moscow in the 20s of the last century in the story "Heart of a Dog".
Tasks:
1. View critical literature about the story "Heart of a Dog".
2. Compile a dictionary of the names of dishes used at the beginning of the 20th century
Object of study: the artistic world of the story "Heart of a Dog"
Subject of study: the theme of food in the story "Heart of a Dog"
dog heart bulgakov food
The story "Heart of a Dog" and its analysis
The protagonist of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, conducting a medical experiment, transplants the organ of the "proletarian" Chugunkin, who died in a drunken brawl, into a stray dog. Unexpectedly for the surgeon, the dog turns into a man, and this man is an exact repetition of the deceased lumpen. If Sharik, as the professor called the dog, is kind, intelligent and grateful to the new owner for the shelter, then miraculously revived Chugunkin is militantly ignorant, vulgar and impudent. Convinced of this, the professor carries out the reverse operation, and the good-natured dog reappears in his cozy apartment.
The story was connected with the reality of the 1920s by many threads. It shows pictures of the New Economic Policy, the dominance of the bourgeoisie, traces of recent devastation, the widespread use of advertising, the everyday disorder of Muscovites, the housing crisis of that time, the practice of forced compaction, the bureaucratic passions of the house committees, the omnipotence of the RAPP, the selfless devotion of scientists and their scientific experiments of those years.
The theme of the story is a man as a social being, over whom a totalitarian society and the state are carrying out a grandiose inhuman experiment, embodying the brilliant ideas of their theoretic leaders with cold cruelty.
The professor's risky surgical experiment is a nod to the "daring social experiment" taking place in Russia. Bulgakov is not inclined to see "the people" as an ideal being. He is convinced that only the difficult and long path of enlightening the masses, the path of evolution, not revolution, can lead to a real improvement in the life of the country.
The good intentions of Preobrazhensky turn into a tragedy. He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic, sad results. In life, such experiments are irreversible. And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
The author of "Heart of a Dog", a doctor and surgeon by profession, was an attentive reader of the scientific journals of the time, where much was said about "rejuvenation", amazing organ transplants in the name of "improving the human race." So Bulgakov's fantasy, with all the brilliance of the author's artistic gift, is quite scientific.
Sharik is not only cunning, but affectionate and gluttonous. He is smart and observant. Sharik's extended internal monologue includes numerous apt observations of the dog over the life of Moscow at that time, its way of life and customs, the social stratification of its population into "comrades" and "masters". The author makes the dog cute, gives him bright memories of his early youth at the Preobrazhenskaya Zastava. A wandering dog is socially literate, kind, not without wit ("a collar is like a briefcase").
Sharik has reduced, profanity, he speaks street language - to eat, to eat, to eat, a creature, mug, grymza, get drunk, die, which gives us an idea of what the standard of living was in those days.
Proud and majestic Professor Philipp Philippovich Preobrazhensky, a pillar of genetics and eugenics, who planned from profitable operations to rejuvenate aging ladies and lively old men to move on to a decisive improvement of the human race, is perceived as a higher being, a great priest only by Sharik. Nevertheless, the inquisitiveness of his mind, his scientific search, the life of the human spirit, his honesty are opposed to historical confusion, immorality and depravity. Preobrazhensky is an opponent of any crime and instructs his assistant, Dr. Bormental: "Live to old age with clean hands."
He is arrogant, selfish and inconsistent (rejecting violence, Preobrazhensky threatens to kill Shvonder, which contradicts professorial humanism and admits it over nature). Therefore, here the author uses satire.
Sharikov is the most primitive creature, which is characterized by rudeness, impudence, spitefulness and aggressiveness. He is the same thief and drunkard as his ancestor Chugunkin. He is completely devoid of conscience, sense of duty, shame, culture. And the funny thing is that yesterday's dog, and now Sharikov, gets the position of head of the subdepartment for cleaning the city from stray animals.
In the social sphere, he quickly finds his own kind, finds a mentor in the person of Shvonder and his company, and becomes the object of his educational influence. Shvonder and his team feed their ward with slogans and ideological tricks (Shvonder even lets Sharikov read the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, which Preobrazhensky eventually burns). Sharikov quickly assimilates his rights and privileges, class hatred, rob and seize someone else's.
In those days, it was the illiterate Sharikovs who were ideally suited for life, it was they who form the new bureaucracy, become obedient cogs in the administrative mechanisms, and exercise power. Without Sharikov and others like him in Russia, under the guise of "socialism", mass dispossession of kulaks, organized denunciations, extrajudicial executions, torture of people in camps and prisons would have been impossible, which required a huge executive apparatus, consisting of demi-humans with a "dog heart".
Bulgakov's story, funny and scary at the same time, surprisingly organically combined the description of everyday life, fantasy and satire, written in an easy, clear and simple language. Bulgakov ridicule and dog devotion, and Sharikov's black ingratitude, dense ignorance, trying to master the commanding heights in all spheres of life. The author draws attention to the revolutionary violence in the country, which was undertaken in relation to the former foundations of being, to the nature of man and his psyche, formed in certain social and domestic conditions of life, in relation to culture. You can't turn everything upside down. It is unacceptable to give immeasurable rights, privileges and power to those who are ignorant. There is no need for cooks to offer to run the state, and statesmen to sweep the street or cook in the kitchen. Everyone must do their job.
According to the OGPU, "Heart of a Dog" was also read in the literary circle "Green Lamp" and in the poetic association "Knot", which gathered at P.N. Zaitsev. Andrei Bely, Boris Pasternak, Sofia Parnok, Alexander Romm, Vladimir Lugovskoy and other poets appeared in The Knot. Here Bulgakov met a young philologist A.V. Chicherin: “Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, very thin, surprisingly ordinary (in comparison with Bely or Pasternak!), also came to the Knot community and read Fatal Eggs, Heart of a Dog. Without fireworks. Quite simply. But I think that almost Gogol could envy such a reading, such a game.
"M.Ya. Schneider - Aesopian language is a thing that has long been familiar: it is the result of a special [montage] of reality. The shortcomings of the story are excessive efforts in order to understand the development of the plot. One must accept an implausible plot. From the point of view of playing with the plot, this is the first a literary work that dares to be itself. It's time to realize the attitude to what happened. Written in a completely clean and clear Russian language. Inventing what is happening, the artist made a mistake: in vain he did not resort to everyday comedy, which he once was " Inspector". The strength of the author is significant. He is above his task.
I.N. Rozanov - A very talented work, a very angry satire.
Yu.N. Potekhin - We do not know how to approach living writers. For a year and a half, M.A. managed to ignore. Fiction M.A. organically soldered with sharp everyday grotesque. This fantasy works with extraordinary power and persuasiveness. Sharikov's presence in everyday life will be felt by many.
L.S. Ginzburg - Notes that M.A. has long been noted.
V.M. Volkenstein - Our criticism has always been symbolic. There is a lot of play in this piece. Criticism quickly draws conclusions - it is better to refrain from them. This thing gives me: we have people like Professor Preobrazhensky, there are Sharikovs, and many [others]. It's already a lot.
B. Nick. Zhavoronkov - This is a very bright literary phenomenon. From a public point of view - who is the hero of the work - Sharikov or Preobrazhensky? Preobrazhensky is a brilliant tradesman. An intellectual [who] took part in the revolution, and then was afraid of his rebirth. Satire is aimed precisely at this kind of intellectuals.
M.Ya. Schneider - I did not mean the flat Aesopian language - the author's personal dictionary immediately went under the Aesopian language. If only it were character development in action - not stage [style].
V. Yaroshenko is not a political satire, but a public one. She ridicules manners. The author owns the language and the plot."
Thoughts of professional writers are quite interesting in themselves, although understandable timidity is palpable in them, caused by the very nature and direction of Bulgakov's satire and the possible consequences of their participation in the discussion of "Heart of a Dog". The writers were not afraid in vain: among them, naturally, was an informer of the GPU, who compiled a much more detailed report on the meeting.
Here is what he reported to the Lubyanka: "The whole thing is written in hostile tones, breathing endless contempt for Sovstroy. Bulgakov definitely hates and despises the entire Sovstroy, denies all its achievements. There is a faithful, strict and vigilant guard at the Soviet power, this is Glavlit, and if my opinion does not differ from his, then this book will not see the light of day.But let me note the fact that this book (1 part of it) has already been read to an audience of 48 people, of which 90% are writers themselves.Therefore, its role, its main the deed has already been done, even if it is not allowed by Glavlit: it has already infected the writer's minds of listeners and will sharpen their pens. "
The theme of food as a reflection of the life of Moscow in the twenties of the last century
The scene of the story "Heart of a Dog" is Moscow, the time is 1924. The basis of the story is the internal monologue of Sharik, the eternally hungry, miserable street dog. He is very clever, in his own way evaluates the life of the street, life, customs, characters of Moscow during the NEP.
The representatives of the "old" Moscow, that is, the nobles, in the story are Preobrazhensky, the cook of the Counts Tolstoy Vlas, Daria Petrovna, Zina, Dr. Bormental, the sugar factory Bazarov, the bourgeois Sablin. They are opposed by the images of Shvonder and his team, consisting of Vyazemskaya, Pestrukhin and Zharovkin, Sharikov, a proletarian cook.
In the story "Heart of a Dog" a special place is occupied by the theme of food. Sharik's thoughts begin with her.
Actually, the dog Sharik was first christened by a passer-by young lady, the second time Professor Preobrazhensky called him that. In this apparent discrepancy between the nickname and appearance of the dog, the irony of the author is visible. In fact, what kind of Sharik is he? After all, "Sharik is a round, well-fed, stupid, eats oatmeal, the son of noble parents, and he is shaggy, lanky and torn, a fried hat, a homeless dog."
Sharik loves delicious food. Living on the street, he goes hungry for months; they treat him badly: once he was even scalded with boiling water. The culprit of the incident is a certain cook of the dining room for normal meals for employees of the Central Council of the National Economy, whom the dog calls "The scoundrel in a dirty cap", "The thief with a copper head", "What a reptile, and also a proletarian!" At the same time, Sharik recalls the former lordly cook of the Counts Tolstoy, Vlas, who gave the dogs a bone, and on it an eighth of meat. Sharik is grateful to him for saving the lives of many dogs: "God rest his soul for being a real person, the lordly cook of Counts Tolstoy..."
The author's satire is also expressed in the names of institutions: Sharik also complains about the canteen of normal food. It's called - NORMAL FOOD. From the name it becomes clear that they are poorly fed, they serve low-quality food: "... they cook cabbage soup from stinky corned beef, and those poor things don't know anything", "This is corned beef, this is corned beef! And when will it all end?" You can find the names of those enterprises where food was sold and bought in pre-revolutionary times: Okhotny Ryad, Slavyansky Bazaar.
“This one eats plentifully and does not steal. This one will not kick with his foot, but he himself is not afraid of anyone, and is not afraid because he is always full ...” - this is Sharik’s opinion about Preobrazhensky in the first minutes of meeting him. It seems that he internally sympathizes with the professor, and after he gives him a piece of sausage, Sharik begins to consider Preobrazhensky an excellent person, with a broad soul, a benefactor of stray dogs.
He learns to read by various names of shops, enterprises where food is sold: he recognizes the letter "M" on green-blue signs with the inscription "M. S. P. O. Meat trade", "A" he learned in "Glavryba", and then the letter "B" from there; further, Sharik learned to read the words "Gastronomy", "Wine", and where it smells of sausages and plays the harmonica - "Do not use indecent words and do not give tea."
The life of the noble intelligentsia is shown to us by Preobrazhensky's way of life, his luxurious house, his habits. He eats crayfish, roast beef, sturgeon, turkey, veal chops, minced mare with garlic and pepper. During the week Sharik spends at Preobrazhensky's house, he eats as much as during a month and a half of hungry street life. A pile of scraps is bought for him every day for 18 kopecks. at the Smolensk market, he eats for six.
Preobrazhensky attaches great importance to food. At dinner, he makes a speech about how to eat: "Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a tricky thing. ... You need not only to know what to eat, but also when and how. If you care about your digestion, do not talk about Bolshevism at dinner and about medicine."
To eat is not to eat, but to receive aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure. 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.
Philipp Philippovich speaks rather for himself. He talks aloud, speaking sharply about the dangers of reading newspapers, which disrupt digestion. To prove this, he made thirty observations. It turned out that patients who did not read newspapers felt good, while those who read Pravda lost weight, they developed reduced knee jerks, poor appetite, and a depressed state of mind.
The professor can afford to be a gourmet, he teaches Bormental the art of eating, so that it is not just a necessity, but a pleasure. This is already an occasion to talk about Soviet vodka. Bormenthal notes that the "newly blessed" is very decent. Thirty degrees." Philip Philipovich objects: “Vodka should be at forty degrees, not thirty,” then he prophetically adds: “they can splash anything in there.”
All these sarcastic remarks, seemingly trifles, actually create a complete picture of life in Moscow in the twenties.
Lunch at Preobrazhensky's is luxurious, as befits a rich man's dinner, the atmosphere of purity, harmony and refined taste reigns in the dining room: "On plates painted with paradise flowers with a black wide border lay thin slices of salmon, pickled eels. tears and in a silver tub covered with snow - caviar. Between the plates - a few thin glasses and three crystal decanters with multi-colored vodkas. All these items were placed on a small marble table, nestled comfortably by the huge carved oak of the sideboard, which belched out beams of glass and silver light. In the middle of the room, a table as heavy as a tomb is covered with a white tablecloth, and on it are two cutlery, napkins rolled up in the form of papal tiaras, and three dark bottles.
You can find the following lines: "Having gained strength after a hearty dinner, he (Preobrazhensky) thundered, like an ancient prophet, and his head sparkled with silver." Again, the author's irony is visible here: it is easy to be a prophet on a full stomach!
The kitchen is the holy of holies, the kingdom of the cook Darya Petrovna, "the main branch of paradise," as Sharik calls it. The kitchen has a tiled stove, white curtains, golden pots. Every day everything is noisy there, shoots and flames rage. Sharik believes that "The whole apartment was not worth even two spans of Darya's kingdom."
The queen of all this splendor is Daria Petrovna. Her whole appearance testifies to the heat emanating from the kitchen, prosperity, satiety, which the atmosphere of the house is full of: "Daria Petrovna's face burned with eternal fiery torment and unquenched passion in crimson pillars. hair on the back of the head - twenty-two fake diamonds glowed.
In the description of the kitchen, such means of artistic expression were used as metaphors (metaphors of the second type), in which the verbs were used: "the flame shot and raged", "the oven crackled", "the kitchen rumbled with smells, bubbling and hissing"; epithets: "oven", "gold pans".
It becomes interesting, what is the process of cooking in this "paradise"? It is described in this way: “With a sharp and narrow knife, she chopped off the heads and legs of helpless hazel grouses, then, like a furious executioner, she tore off the flesh from the bones, tore out the insides from the chickens, skewered something in a meat grinder. From a bowl of milk, Darya Petrovna pulled out pieces of soaked rolls, mixed them on a board with meat gruel, poured it all with cream, sprinkled with salt and made cutlets on the board. The stove buzzed like a fire, and in the pan it grumbled, bubbling and jumping. The damper jumped back with thunder, revealing a terrible hell. , poured ... "
Metaphors are used here, again with the use of verbs: "the damper jumped back, revealed hell"; epithets: "sharp and narrow knife", "helpless grouse", "furious executioner", "terrible hell"; comparisons: "like a furious executioner, the flesh was ripped off the bones", "there was a buzzing in the stove, like on fire."
The main technique of the author in the story is the antithesis. For example, there is a motive of satiety and an opposite motive of hunger: a street dog, Sharik, is malnourished, and sometimes does not eat at all, and having settled in Preobrazhensky's house, he eats the same food as representatives of the highest intelligentsia: roast beef, for breakfast - oatmeal.
The problem of the "new man" and the structure of the "new society" was one of the central problems of the literature of the 1920s.
The dog’s thoughts about food are one means of expressing the author’s position, his attitude towards the proletariat: for example, Sharik was scalded with boiling water by a proletarian cook, whom the dog scornfully and contemptuously calls a “cap”, “a thief with a copper head”, and the cook of Counts Tolstoy, Vlas, on the contrary , was generous to stray dogs, gave them a bone, saved many lives; the differences between the life of the "old" and the life of the "new" Moscow are shown - this is the luxurious apartment of Preobrazhensky and the street life of Sharik, Shvonder and his team.
Thus, the central problem of the story "Heart of a Dog" is the image of the state of culture, life and customs of man and the world in a difficult transitional era, an era of general devastation.
Preobrazhensky sees Moscow through the eyes of a hereditary intellectual. He is outraged that carpets had to be removed from the stairs, because people in dirty galoshes began to walk along these stairs. But the most important thing is that he does not understand why everyone in Moscow is talking about devastation, and at the same time they are only singing revolutionary songs and looking at how to do bad things to those who live better. He does not like lack of culture, dirt, devastation, aggressive rudeness, complacency of the new masters of life. And the professor is most worried about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov house), in work and leading to devastation. Ruin - in the minds that when everyone goes about their business, "the ruin will disappear by itself."
"This is a mirage, smoke, a fiction" - this is how the professor assesses the new Moscow. In connection with the professor, one of the leading, cross-cutting themes of Bulgakov's work begins to sound in the story - the theme of the House as the center of human life. The Bolsheviks destroyed the House as the basis of the family, as the basis of society, everywhere there is a fierce struggle for housing, for square meters. Maybe that's why in Bulgakov's stories and plays a stable satirical figure is the chairman of the house committee? He, the head of the house committee, is the true center of the small world, the center of power and the past, predatory life. Such an administrator, confident in his permissiveness, is Shvonder, a man in a leather jacket, a black man in the story "Heart of a Dog".
