Features of the revolutionary era in M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog”
M. A. Bulgakov is an outstanding Russian writer, a man of a complex and dramatic fate. Bulgakov is an amazing person who was characterized by strong convictions and unshakable decency. It was extremely difficult for such a person to survive in the revolutionary era. The writer did not want to adapt, to live according to the ideological norms dictated from above.
M. A. Bulgakov satirically depicted the contemporary era in his story “The Heart of a Dog,” which, for obvious reasons, was published in the USSR only in 1987.
At the center of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky and his grandiose experiment on Sharik. All other events in the story are somehow connected with them.
Satire is heard in almost every author’s word, starting from the very moment where the life of Moscow is shown through the eyes of Sharik. Here the dog compares the cook of Count Tolstoy with the cook from the Council of Normal Nutrition. And this comparison is clearly not in favor of the latter. In this very “Normal Nutrition” “the bastards cook cabbage soup from stinking corned beef.” One can feel the author's longing for the passing culture and noble life. In the young Soviet country they steal, lie, and slander. The typist’s lover, out of ball-point thoughts, thinks like this: “I’m now the chairman, and no matter how much I steal, it’s all on a woman’s body, on cancer necks, on Abrau-Durso.” Bulgakov emphasizes that, despite the very high cost of the changes that have taken place in the country, nothing has changed for the better in it.
The writer persistently portrays the intelligentsia as the best layer of society. An example of this is the culture of life, the culture of thoughts, the culture of communication of Professor Preobrazhensky. In everything he feels an emphasized aristocracy. This is a “gentleman of mental labor, with a French pointed beard,” he wears a fur coat “on a silver fox,” a black suit of English cloth, and a gold chain. The professor occupies seven rooms, each of which has its own purpose. Preobrazhensky keeps servants who deservedly respect and honor him. The doctor dines in a very cultured manner: both the excellent table setting and the menu itself make one admire his meal.
By contrasting Preobrazhensky with those who are replacing those like him, Bulgakov makes the reader feel the full drama of the era that has come in the country. The house in which the professor lives is being occupied by tenants, apartments are being compacted, and a new building management is being chosen. “God, the Kalabukhovsky house has disappeared!” - the doctor exclaims upon learning about this. It is no coincidence that Preobrazhensky says this. With the advent of the new government, a lot changed in Kalabukhovsky: all the galoshes, coats, and samovar from the doorman disappeared, everyone began to walk in dirty galoshes and felt boots along the marble staircase, the carpet was removed from the front staircase, they got rid of the flowers on the landings, Electricity problems. The professor easily predicts the further course of events in the country ruled by the Shvonders: “the pipes in the toilets will freeze, then the steam heating boiler will burst, and so on.” But the Kalabukhov House is only a reflection of the general devastation that has occurred in the country. However, Preobrazhensky believes that the main thing is that “the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.” He rightly notes that those who call themselves the authorities are two hundred years behind the Europeans in development, and therefore they cannot lead the country to anything good.
Bulgakov more than once draws the reader's attention to the preference in that era of proletarian origin. So Klim Chugunkin, a criminal and a drunkard, is easily saved from severe just punishment by his origin, but Preobrazhensky, the son of a cathedral archpriest, and Bormental, the son of a judicial investigator, cannot hope for the saving power of origin.
A striking sign of revolutionary times is women, in whom it is very difficult to discern women. They are devoid of femininity, wear leather jackets, and behave in a distinctly rude manner. What kind of offspring can they give, how to raise them? The question is rhetorical.
new
Showing all these signs of the revolutionary era, Bulgakov emphasizes that a process devoid of morality brings death to people. Professor Preobrazhensky conducts a great experiment, and its depiction in the story is symbolic. For the writer, everything that was called the construction of socialism was nothing more than a large-scale and more than dangerous experience. Bulgakov had an extremely negative attitude towards attempts to create a new society by force. The writer sees only deplorable consequences of such an experiment and warns society about this in his story “Heart of a Dog.”
“Heart of a Dog” was written in early 1925. It was supposed to be published in the Nedra almanac, but censorship prohibited publication. The story was completed in March, and Bulgakov read it at the literary meeting of the 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 the magazine “Znamya” No. 6 in 1987.
In the 20s Medical experiments on rejuvenating the human body were very popular. 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 is reminiscent of fantastic adventure literature in the tradition of H. Wells. The subtitle of the story “A Monstrous Story” indicates the parodic flavor of the fantastic plot.
The science-adventure genre is an outer cover for satirical subtext and topical metaphor.
The story is close to dystopias due to its social satire. This is a warning about the consequences of a historical experiment that must be stopped, everything must be returned 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 for the Sharik and Shvonders to rule the world. Another problem is awareness of the limits of human capabilities. Preobrazhensky, imagining himself to be a god (he is literally worshiped by his family), 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 invasion into human nature and social processes is raised.
Plot and composition
The science-fiction plot describes how Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky decides to experiment with transplanting the pituitary gland and ovaries of the “semi-proletarian” Klim Chugunkin into a dog. As a result of this experiment, the monstrous Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov appeared, the embodiment and quintessence of the victorious proletariat class. Sharikov's existence caused many problems for Philip Philipovich's family, and, in the end, endangered the normal life and freedom of the professor. Then Preobrazhensky decided on a reverse experiment, transplanting the dog’s pituitary gland into 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 Poligraf Poligrafovich, but how long will his far from peaceful 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 cold and a wound on his scalded side in the harsh St. Petersburg winter. 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, the fearless admission of Philip Philipovich that he does not love the proletariat. For the dog, Preobrazhensky turns into a semblance 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 “chopped one” (Bormental’s assistant from the point of view of Sharik who pulled 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 him with a poker. In the middle of the fourth part, Sharik's narrative is interrupted because he undergoes surgery.
The operation is described in detail, Philip Philipovich is terrible, he is called a robber, like a murderer who cuts, snatches, 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 style, with emotionally charged words. The case history ends with Bormenthal’s conclusion that “we have a new organism before us, and we need to observe it first.”
The following chapters 6-9 are the story of Sharikov’s short life. He experiences the world by destroying it and living the probable fate of the murdered Klim Chugunkin. Already in Chapter 7, the professor has the idea of deciding on a new operation. Sharikov's behavior becomes unbearable: hooliganism, drunkenness, theft, harassment of women. The last straw was Shvonder’s denunciation from Sharikov’s words against 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 subtext
The professor has a telling surname. He transforms the dog into a “new person.” This happens between December 23 and January 7, 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 polygrapher (who writes a lot) is the embodiment of the devil, a “massive” 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 amidst the surrounding chaos and destruction. A star looks out of the apartment window from the darkness (chaos), observing the monstrous transformation. The professor is called a deity and a priest. He officiates.
Heroes of the story
Professor Preobrazhensky– scientist, a figure of world significance. At the same time, he is a successful doctor. But his merits do not prevent the new government from frightening the professor with a seal, registering Sharikov and threatening to arrest him. The professor has an inappropriate background - his father is a cathedral archpriest.
Preobrazhensky is quick-tempered, but kind. He sheltered Bormenthal at the department when he was a half-starved student. He is a noble man and is not going to abandon his colleague in the event of a disaster.
Doctor Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental- 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 completely rational, reasoning creature. He even jokes: “A collar is like a briefcase.” But Sharik is the very creature in whose mind the crazy idea of rising “from rags to riches” appears: “I am a master’s dog, an intelligent creature.” However, he hardly sins against the truth. Unlike Sharikov, he is grateful to Preobrazhensky. And the professor operates with a firm hand, mercilessly kills Sharik, and having killed, he regrets: “It’s a pity for the dog, he was affectionate, but cunning.”
U Sharikova nothing remains of Sharik except hatred of cats and love of the kitchen. His portrait was first described in detail by Bormenthal in his diary: he is a short man with a small head. Subsequently, the reader learns that the hero’s appearance is unattractive, his hair is coarse, his forehead is low, his face is unshaven.
His jacket and striped trousers are torn and dirty, a poisonous heavenly tie and patent leather boots with white leggings complete the costume. Sharikov is dressed in accordance with his own concepts of chic. Like Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him, Sharikov plays the balalaika professionally. From Klim he got his love for vodka.
Sharikov chooses his first and patronymic according to the calendar, and takes the “hereditary” surname.
The main character trait of Sharikov is arrogance and ingratitude. He behaves like a savage, and about normal behavior he says: “You torture yourself, like under the tsarist regime.”
Sharikov receives a “proletarian education” from Shvonder. Bormenthal calls Sharikov a man with a dog’s heart, but Preobrazhensky corrects him: Sharikov has a human heart, but the worst possible person.
Sharikov even makes a career in his own sense: he takes the position of head of the department for cleaning Moscow from stray animals and is going to sign with the typist.
Stylistic features
The story is full of aphorisms expressed by different characters: “Don’t read Soviet newspapers before lunch,” “Devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads,” “You can’t hurt anyone!” You can influence a person or an animal only by suggestion” (Preobrazhensky), “Happiness is not in galoshes”, “And what is will? So, smoke, mirage, fiction, nonsense of these ill-fated democrats..." (Sharik), "The document is the most important thing in the world" (Shvonder), "I am not a master, the gentlemen are all in Paris" (Sharikov).
For Professor Preobrazhensky, there are certain symbols of normal life, which in themselves do not ensure this life, but testify to it: a shoe rack in the front door, carpets on the stairs, steam heating, electricity.
Society of the 20s is characterized in the story with the help of irony, parody, and grotesque.
Consider the image of Sharikov from the story “Heart of a Dog”. In this work, Bulgakov does not just talk about the unnatural experiment he conducted. Mikhail Afanasyevich describes a new type of person who appeared not in the laboratory of a scientist, but in Soviet reality in the post-revolutionary years. An allegory of this type is the image of Sharikov in the story “The Heart of a Dog.” The plot of the work is based on the relationship between a major scientist and Sharikov, a man artificially created from a dog.
Assessment of life by the dog Sharik
The first part of this story is based largely on the internal monologue of a stray half-starved dog. He evaluates street life in his own way, gives a description of the characters, morals, and life of Moscow during the NEP era with many teahouses, shops, taverns on Myasnitskaya with clerks who hated dogs. Sharik is able to appreciate affection and kindness, and sympathize. He, oddly enough, understands the social structure of the new country well. Sharik condemns the new masters of life, but knows about Preobrazhensky, an old intellectual from Moscow, that he will not “kick” a hungry dog.
Implementation of Preobrazhensky's experiment
In the life of this dog, a happy accident occurs, in her opinion - a professor takes her to his luxurious apartment. It has everything, even a few “extra rooms”. However, the professor does not need the dog for fun. He wants to carry out a fantastic experiment: after transplanting a certain part, a dog will have to turn into a human. If Preobrazhensky becomes Faust, creating a man in a test tube, then his second father, who gave Sharik his pituitary gland, is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov very briefly characterizes this man. His profession is playing around taverns on the balalaika. He is poorly built, the liver is dilated as a result of drinking alcohol. Chunugkin died in a pub from a stab in the heart. The creature that appeared after the operation inherited the essence of its second father. Sharikov is aggressive, swaggering, insolent.
Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov
Mikhail Afanasyevich created a vivid image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog”. This hero is devoid of ideas about culture, about how to behave with other people. After some time, a conflict brews between the creation and the creator, Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, who calls himself a “homunculus,” and Preobrazhensky. The tragedy is that a “man” who has barely learned to walk finds reliable allies in his life. They provide a revolutionary theoretical basis for all his actions. One of them is Shvonder. Sharikov learns from this hero about what privileges he, a proletarian, has in comparison with Preobrazhensky, a professor. In addition, he begins to understand that the scientist who gave him a second life is a class enemy.
Sharikov's behavior
Let’s add a few more touches to the image of Sharikov in Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.” This hero clearly understands the main credo of the new masters of life: steal, plunder, steal what others have created, and most importantly, strive for equalization. And the dog, once grateful to Preobrazhensky, no longer wants to put up with the fact that the professor settled “alone in seven rooms.” Sharikov brings a paper according to which he should be allocated an area of 16 square meters in the apartment. m. Morality, shame, and conscience are alien to the polygraph. He lacks everything else except anger, hatred, meanness. He's getting looser and looser every day. Polygraph Poligrafovich commits outrages, steals, drinks, and molests women. This is the image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog”.
The finest hour of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov
The new job becomes for Sharikov his finest hour. A former stray dog makes a dizzying leap. She turns into the head of the department for cleaning Moscow from stray animals. This choice of profession by Sharikov is not surprising: people like them always want to destroy their own. However, Polygraph does not stop there. New details complement the image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog.” A brief description of his further actions is as follows.
The story of the typist, the reverse transformation
Sharikov appears some time later in Preobrazhensky’s apartment with a young girl and says that he is signing with her. This is a typist from his department. Sharikov declares that Bormental will need to be evicted. In the end, it turns out that he deceived this girl and made up many stories about himself. The last thing Sharikov does is inform on Preobrazhensky. The sorcerer-professor from the story that interests us manages to turn a man back into a dog. It’s good that Preobrazhensky realized that nature does not tolerate violence against itself.
Sharikovs in real life
In real life, alas, Sharikovs are much more durable. Arrogant, self-confident, with no doubt that everything is permitted to them, these semi-literate lumpen people have brought our country to a deep crisis. This is not surprising: violence over the course of historical events and disregard for the laws of social development could only give rise to the Sharikovs. The polygraph in the story turned back into a dog. But in life he managed to go a long and, as it seemed to him and suggested to others, a glorious path. He poisoned people in the 30-50s, just like once stray animals were once in his line of work. He carried suspicion and dog anger throughout his entire life, replacing with them dog loyalty, which had become unnecessary. This hero, having entered rational life, remained at the level of instincts. And he wanted to change the country, the world, the universe in order to make it easier to satisfy these animal instincts. All these ideas are conveyed by the creator of the image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog.”
Human or animal: what distinguishes ballers from other people?
Sharikov is proud of his low origins and his lack of education. In general, he is proud of everything low that is in him, since only this raises him high above those who stand out in mind and spirit. People like Preobrazhensky need to be trampled into the dirt so that Sharikov can rise above them. The Sharikovs outwardly do not differ in any way from other people, but their non-human essence is waiting for the right moment. When it comes, such creatures turn into monsters, waiting for the first opportunity to seize their prey. This is their true face. The Sharikovs are ready to betray their own. For them, everything holy and lofty turns into its opposite when they touch it. The worst thing is that such people managed to achieve considerable power. Having come to her, the non-human strives to dehumanize everyone around him so that it becomes easier to manage the herd. All human feelings are repressed from them
Sharikovs today
It is impossible not to turn to modern times when analyzing the image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog.” A short essay on the work should contain in the final part a few words about today's ballgames. The fact is that after the revolution in our country, all conditions were created for a large number of similar people to arise. The totalitarian system greatly contributes to this. They have penetrated into all areas of public life, and they still live among us. The Sharikovs are able to exist, no matter what. The main threat to humanity today is the heart of a dog along with the human mind. Therefore, the story, written at the beginning of the last century, remains relevant today. It is a warning to future generations. It sometimes seems that Russia has become different during this time. But the way of thinking, the stereotypes, will not change in 10 or 20 years. It will take more than one generation before the Sharikovs disappear from our lives, and people become different, devoid of animal instincts.
So, we looked at the image of Sharikov in the story “Heart of a Dog”. A brief summary of the work will help you get to know this hero better. And after reading the original story, you will discover some details of this image that we have omitted. The image of Sharikov in the story by M.A. Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog" is a great artistic achievement of Mikhail Afanasyevich, like the entire work as a whole.
Now, having introduced readers to the Gnostic concept of humanity, I propose to return to Bulgakov’s story and its characters, the main of whom is Sharikov. His image splits into two - this is the image of the dog Sharik described by the author quite sympathetically before the operation (as well as after the reverse operation) and the image of Sharikov himself, depicted with obvious, clearly felt disgust. But here’s the question: is the dog Sharik just an animal for Bulgakov? After all, he not only talks to himself in a completely human way about certain life, including human realities (say, about the difficult lot of a typist), he is even capable of sympathy for her, while he himself is in an extremely difficult situation. Moreover, he can read too! This is not the wordless Mu-mu or some Kashtanka, who thinks in images, but not in words. It seems quite obvious to me that the “dog” Sharik is rather an allegorical description of a certain human type. Which one?
Bulgakov himself speaks about this in plain text: “ The smell rejuvenated me, lifted me from my belly, and with burning waves it filled my empty stomach for two days, a smell that conquered the hospital, the heavenly smell of chopped mare with garlic and pepper. I feel, I know, he has sausage in the right pocket of his fur coat. He's above me. Oh my lord! Look at me. I'm dying. Our soul is slavish, vile share!»
So, we are talking about a slave. But not just about a slave. Let us remember Sharik’s attitude towards Professor Preobrazhensky. He worships him, he idolizes him: “ I'll lick your hand again. I kiss my pants, my benefactor!"- Sharik is hungry. But Sharik is well-fed: “ I’m so lucky, so lucky,” he thought, dozing off, “simply indescribably lucky.” I established myself in this apartment. I am absolutely sure that my origin is unclean. There is a diver here. My grandmother was a slut. The kingdom of heaven to her, old lady. Established. True, for some reason they cut my head all over, but it will heal before the wedding. We have nothing to look at».
Now, with your permission, another quote, this time not from Bulgakov: “ A slave whose mouth waters when he smugly describes the delights of slave life and admires his kind and good master is a slave, a boor" The author of these words is Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Isn’t it true that they describe Sharik quite accurately and completely?
Now about Sharikov itself. Sharikov, on the contrary, is disgusting to Bulgakov. He is described as quite disgusting - a poorly educated, uncultured boor, as they now say, “cattle.” But remember - Sharik, as a person, is only a few weeks old! And before that, he was in an environment in which no one at all tried to instill in him the rudiments of culture. You don’t even demand from a one-year-old child strict adherence to table etiquette, do you? At the same time, he is undoubtedly progressing, at least intellectually. However, Preobrazhensky denies him the right to this progress in advance - let us remember a fragment of Dr. Bormental’s diary: “ When I told him about my hypotheses and the hope of developing Sharik into a very high mental personality, he chuckled and replied: “What do you think?” His tone is ominous" According to the professor, Sharikov’s entire essence is determined only by the pituitary gland of the petty criminal element Klim Chugunkin, which was transplanted to him, and nothing else. That is why no spiritual progress is possible for him - there is a purely biological limitation of this progress in him, dooming him to remain a boor and cattle forever.
But if Sharikov is an image of a certain human type, then what is Bulgakov talking about? About the fact that there are people who are slaves, boors and cattle by nature. People who are deprived of the path of ascension and development. Inferior people, not quite people, dog people, animal people... One would like to add to this series - “sub-humans”, “sub-humans”, don’t you? And in fact: " A subhuman is a biological creature created by nature, with arms, legs, a semblance of a brain, eyes and a mouth. However, this terrible creature is only partially human. It bears facial features similar to those of humans - but spiritually and psychologically the subhuman is lower than any animal. Inside this creature is a chaos of wild, unbridled passions: a nameless need to destroy, the most primitive desires and undisguised meanness." If you remove “created by nature” (“A subhuman is a biological creature created by nature...”) - it’s as if it was written about Sharikov, right? But it was written by the Nazis, and it was also written about the Russians. About Russians in general, all Russians, without division into “Sharikovs” and “Preobrazhenskys”.
No, I don’t want to say that Bulgakov has anything to do with Nazism. It’s just that the root of the views of the Nazis and Bulgakov is the same: the one that I talked about in the first part of the report, that is, Gnosticism and Gnostic concepts. Sharik, turning into Sharikov, is a typical “hilik” of the Gnostics. He is tolerant and even somewhat sympathetic, as long as he is content with the role assigned to him as a slave, happy with his slavery. But as soon as he rebels, as soon as he wishes for more, to wish to become a man, to change this world, to make it fairer for himself and those like him - and he becomes hostile, disgusting for those who are satisfied with the existing order of things due to what it provides them a certain privileged position relative to “Sharikov”. For example, Professor Preobrazhensky. Or Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov.
From an understanding of the Gnostic system, the images of Shvonder and Preobrazhensky become clear. Shvonder is, of course, a “psychic”. He is spiritually and intellectually clearly superior to Sharikov, but at the same time he is even more hateful to the author. And it is not surprising, because he personifies precisely that very attempt to raise “natural slaves” from their “natural” (in quotes) slave position to a more befitting human one. It is Shvonder who explains to Sharikov that he has rights, as well as, by the way, responsibilities: not just to “receive a document,” but also to register with the military in order to participate in the defense of his country in case of war. It is Shvonder who gets Sharikov a job, albeit a somewhat...morally ambiguous one. In the end, it is Shvonder who, after Sharikov’s “disappearance,” turns to the police: the man is missing! That is, it is Shvonder who from beginning to end treats Sharikov, whatever the latter’s origins, as a person. That is why he is disgusting to the author: Shvonder is not just trying to get some benefits for himself - he “for some reason” also extends this to others, to those who, in Bulgakov’s opinion, clearly do not deserve it.
And finally, Professor Preobrazhensky. In some ways - an “alter ego”, a “second self” of Bulgakov himself, who has only achieved everything that Bulgakov would like to achieve: material well-being, world recognition, even some power, which, for example, is enough to resist attempts to “densify” » his apartment Shvonder. It is through the mouth of Preobrazhensky that Bulgakov expresses his thoughts and views, for example, “I don’t like the proletariat,” “I am for the division of labor,” and, finally, that same, abundantly quoted statement, “the devastation is not in the toilets, but in the heads.” Of course, exclusively in the heads, after eleven years of war - first the First World War, then the Civil War, where else... And, undoubtedly, Preobrazhensky, according to Bulgakov, is a pneumatic, a “supreme being,” almost a superman, “having the right.”
And he uses this right: first he creates Sharikov from Sharik - not on purpose, as a result of an experiment, by mistake. And then he “corrects” his mistake. That is, in general, kills a person. Yes, a person of little culture, unpleasant to communicate with and causing him some inconvenience personally. But - after all, a person! Even if Preobrazhensky himself does not recognize him as such. And he is not at all tormented by remorse about this: the only thing that prevented him from doing this before was the fear of punishment, and not at all the internal prohibition on murder. Why should he be tormented by remorse if for him Sharikov is not a person, but a talking dog? Subhuman, weakling... But how far is it from this position to the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz? After all, it’s possible, it’s possible! Subhumans - yes! Slaves, “talking tools” - you can! Russians - yes! Yes? Do you agree with this, dear listeners?
But here is a statement from our contemporary, who for some reason considers himself one of the “Preobrazhenskys”: “Our problem is that we also consider non-humans to be people - and evaluate them in human terms. That’s why we get upset when we compare numbers, that’s why we fly into impotent anger, not understanding how this is possible: lying to their faces, spewing vulgarities, killing, arranging monkey dances around the murdered person... We - mistakenly - believe that we are on the same page with them biological species (ours), in which this is truly impossible, and we scream in indignation. By inertia, we consider them opponents, and they are the environment. And similar external signs - such as having a pair of arms and legs, a nose, glasses, registration and the ability to use an iPad - should not distract us from this harsh essence of the matter.” This text was written by Viktor Shenderovich. He and others like him obviously also believe that they “have the right.” And give them free rein - they will not fail to use it. Actually, they already took advantage of it once: the so-called “perestroika” and what followed it, with all the numerous victims who “didn’t fit into the market” (why should we feel sorry for them, the sickly subhumans, really?) - that’s what In many ways, it is the work of this particular part of society, which for some reason unknown to me claims the proud title of “creative intelligentsia.” Although now, it seems, it is possible to replace the Russian, and therefore “slave” word “creative” with the fashionable foreign “creative”...
Fortunately, there is another book in Russian literature. A book that is not just a product of literary fiction, like “Heart of a Dog,” but written based on events that actually took place. And at the same time completely refuting Bulgakov’s theoretical constructions. I'm talking, of course, about the “Pedagogical Poem” by Anton Semyonovich Makarenko. In fact, his pupils are formal “Sharikovs”, almost to the point of literalism: “yard dogs”, street children. And some of them are actually “Klima Chugunkins”, petty criminal elements. But Makarenko doesn’t intelligently argue that “these people will never make it” - he simply takes and makes people out of them. With gigantic, selfless labor, which is possible only under the condition of great love for a person - he does! And what kind of people - real ones, such that everyone and every Preobrazhensky is like walking to the moon before them! And precisely because this is not fiction, but the truth, I believe Makarenko, but not Bulgakov. I believe that there are no people for whom the path of spiritual, moral and intellectual growth and ascension is closed, regardless of their social or national origin, and that it is this path that is open to everyone and those people who decide to follow it and leading others is the only hope of humanity for a life worthy of a person, and simply for life in the 21st century and all subsequent ones. " I believe", in the words of Mayakovsky's poems, " the greatness of the human heart"! Well, who and what you believe in, dear listeners, is up to you to choose.
In the story “Heart of a Dog” by M.A. Bulgakov does not just describe the unnatural experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. The writer shows a new type of person who arose not in the laboratory of a talented scientist, but in the new, Soviet reality of the first post-revolutionary years. The basis of the plot of the story is the relationship between a major Russian scientist and Sharik, Sharikov, a dog and an artificially created man. The first part of the story is based mainly on the internal monologue of a half-starved street dog. He evaluates in his own way the life of the street, life, customs, characters of Moscow during the NEP, with its numerous shops, teahouses, taverns on Myasnitskaya “with sawdust on the floor, evil clerks who hate dogs.” Sharik knows how to sympathize, appreciate kindness and affection and, oddly enough, perfectly understands the social structure of the new Russia: he condemns the new masters of life (“I am now the chairman, and no matter how much I steal, it’s all on a woman’s body, on cancerous necks, on Abrau-Durso”), and about the old Moscow intellectual Preobrazhensky he knows that “this one will not kick.”
In Sharik’s life, in his opinion, a happy accident occurs - he finds himself in a luxurious professor’s apartment, which, despite the widespread devastation, has everything and even “extra rooms.” But the professor doesn’t need the dog for fun. A fantastic experiment is planned on him: by transplanting part of the human brain, the dog should turn into a human. But if Professor Preobrazhensky becomes the Faust who creates man in a test tube, then the second father - the man who gives the dog his pituitary gland - is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin, whose description is given extremely briefly: “Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” And the creature that emerged as a result of the operation completely inherited the proletarian essence of its ancestor. He is arrogant, swaggering, aggressive.
He is completely devoid of ideas about human culture, about the rules of relationships with other people, he is absolutely immoral. Gradually, an inevitable conflict is brewing between the creator and the creation, Preobrazhensky and Sharik, or rather, Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov, as the “homunculus” calls himself. And the tragedy is that a “man” who has barely learned to walk finds reliable allies in life who provide a revolutionary theoretical basis for all his actions. From Shvonder, Sharikov learns about the privileges he, a proletarian, has compared to a professor, and, moreover, begins to realize that the scientist who gave him human life is a class enemy. Sharikov clearly understands the main credo of the new masters of life: rob, steal, take away everything that was created by other people, and most importantly, strive for universal equalization. And the dog, once grateful to the professor, can no longer come to terms with the fact that he “settled alone in seven rooms,” and brings a paper according to which he is entitled to an area of 16 meters in the apartment. Sharikov is alien to conscience, shame, and morality. He has no human qualities, except for meanness, hatred, malice... Every day he becomes more and more unruly. He steals, drinks, acts outrageously in Preobrazhensky’s apartment, and molests women.
But Sharikov’s finest hour is his new job. Sharik makes a dizzying leap: from a stray dog he turns into the head of a department for cleaning the city from stray animals.
And this choice of profession is not surprising: the Sharikovs always strive to destroy their own. But Sharikov doesn't stop on what has been achieved. After some time, he appears in an apartment on Prechistenka with a young girl and declares: “I’m signing with her, this is our typist. Bormental will have to be evicted...” Of course, it turns out that Sharikov deceived the girl and made up many stories about himself. And the last chord of Sharikov’s activity is the denunciation of Professor Preobrazhensky. In the story, the sorcerer-professor manages to reverse the transformation monster man into an animal, into a dog. It’s good that the professor understood that nature does not tolerate violence against itself. But, alas, in real life the Sharikovs turned out to be much more tenacious. Self-confident, arrogant, no doubters in their sacred rights to everything, the semi-literate lumpen brought our country to the deepest crisis, for violence over the course of history, neglect of the laws of its development could only give birth to the Sharikovs. In the story, Sharikov again turned into a dog, but in life he walked a long and, as it seemed to him, and it was suggested to others, a glorious path, and in the thirties and fifties he poisoned people, as he once did in the line of duty to stray cats and dogs. Throughout his life he carried the dog's anger and suspicion replacing with them the dog's loyalty that had become unnecessary. Having entered intelligent life, he remained at the level of instincts and was ready to change the entire country, the entire world, the entire universe so that these animal instincts would be easier to satisfy.
He is proud of his low origins. He is proud of his low education. In general, he is proud of everything low, because only this raises him high above those who are high in spirit and mind. People like Preobrazhensky must be trampled into the dirt so that Sharikov can rise above them. Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but their non-human essence is just waiting for the moment to manifest itself. And then they turn into monsters, who, at the first opportunity to grab a tasty morsel, throw off the mask and show their true essence. They are ready to betray their own. Everything that is highest and holy turns into its opposite as soon as they touch it. And the worst thing is that the Sharikovs managed to achieve enormous power, and when coming to power, the non-human tries to dehumanize everyone around him, because non-humans are easier to control, all human feelings are replaced by the instinct of self-preservation. In our country, after the revolution, all conditions were created for the appearance of a huge number of balls with dog hearts. The totalitarian system greatly contributes to this. Probably due to the fact that these monsters have penetrated into all areas of life, that they are still among us, Russia is now going through difficult times. It’s scary that the aggressive Sharikovs, with their truly dog-like vitality, can survive no matter what. The heart of a dog in alliance with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why the story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations. Sometimes it seems that our country has become different. But the consciousness, stereotypes, and way of thinking of people will not change in ten or twenty years - more than one generation will change before the Sharikovs disappear from our lives, before people become different, before the vices described by M.A. disappear. Bulgakov in his immortal work. How I want to believe that this time will come!..