The time frame of Sharikov's human life. “Sharikovism” as a social and moral phenomenon (based on M. A. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog”). Implementation of Preobrazhensky's experiment

We are accustomed to unambiguous perception: black and white. There is a tragic lack of halftones. Previously, during the times of socialism (developed, improved, etc.), being a bourgeois was bad, being a proletarian was good. And now it’s the other way around: the bourgeois (sorry, businessman) is a generally positive character, the proletarian is negative. And within the framework of this binary consciousness, one reads M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog,” which during the years of perestroika, especially in the brilliant film adaptation by V. Bortko, became a real battering ram for the assault and collapse of the Soviet legacy. Even the nickname “Sharikov” has become a household name and means not so much a drunkard and a hooligan, but rather a “legitimist, supporter of social justice.” This is why the Democrats do not favor him - for socialism, and not for alcoholism: at times they themselves are not fools by the collar. And Professor Preobrazhensky is perceived almost as Doctor Aibolit, or, better to say, Doctor Haaz - the bearer of a truly scientific and humanistic principle.

Let's take a closer look at the bright face of Professor Preobrazhensky

But let’s digress for a while from Sharikov’s gloomy appearance and take a closer look at the bright face of Professor Preobrazhensky. And let's think about his last name. Not so much over the fact that he is called to transform the world, but over the fact that he is the son of a cathedral archpriest. How does he feel about his father? Here's a telling quote:

“After all, we don’t have a suitable origin, my dear?

What the hell... My father was a forensic investigator in Vilna,” Bormenthal answered sadly, finishing his cognac.

Well, sir, wouldn’t you? After all, this is bad heredity. It’s impossible to imagine anything more nasty than her. However, my fault, it’s even worse for me. Father is a cathedral archpriest. Mercy. “From Seville to Grenada in the quiet twilight of the night...” Damn it...

A bitter joke about being an outcast under the new system? Hardly. Every joke contains only a fraction of a joke, the rest is true. Let's answer one simple question: did Professor Preobrazhensky retain the faith of his father, or at least respect for it? The answer will have to be negative. Along the way, the professor constantly curses. And even when faced with the terrible obviousness of punishment for violating Divine laws and intruding into the mysterious sphere of human existence, he remembers not God, but nature: “Here, doctor, what happens when a researcher, instead of groping and in parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: Here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.”

There is no trace of faith in God in him, there is only faith in human reason.

Yes, he retains something of Christian morality: “Never commit a crime. Live to old age with clean hands." In the revolutionary years, this, of course, was a lot, just like caring for the hungry Bormenthal at one time. But this, perhaps, is all that connects him with his father, the cathedral archpriest.

And if we talk about Christian morality in its entirety, in the sense of sacrificial service... The civil war has just died down. The country is not recovering from epidemics - Spanish flu, typhus and, of course, syphilis. This is where the knowledge of venereologist Professor Preobrazhensky can come in handy.

Professor Preobrazhensky and he accepts solid money from “cool citizens”

What does he do? For substantial money, he accepts “white-haired citizens,” in the language of Captain Gleb Zheglov. He makes money from vice and thereby ensures his comfortable existence, comfortable life and glorious feasts with hot snacks, “newly blessed vodkas”, etc.

Now let's look at the situation from the other side.

The Church rejected the heresy of the anthropomorphites, who taught that the human body itself reveals the image of God, and yet it treats it as some kind of shrine. “Build yourself into a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5), the Apostle Peter teaches us - these words apply not only to the soul, but also to the body. “Flee fornication; Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18), cries the Apostle Paul. We feel the attitude towards the body as a shrine in almost the entire liturgical life of the Church: we are anointed with consecrated oil, the body of the deceased (“honest relics”, according to the definition of the Trebnik) is censed, candles are placed in front of it, etc.

What does Professor Preobrazhensky do? “I will insert monkey ovaries into you,” he says to a 55-year-old lady who is having a whirlwind affair with a certain gentleman. This is how he feels about this shrine. And the question is: would his father, Cathedral Archpriest Philip of Preobrazhensky, bless him for such actions - combining the shrine of the human body with monkey genitals, and even for prodigal purposes?

The operation to transplant the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the alcoholic and thief Klim Chugunkin into the poor dog Sharik looks even more blasphemous. As a result, the dog is completely humanized, which gives rise to an enthusiastic cry from Bormental’s assistant: “Professor Preobrazhensky, you are a creator.” But let us just remember how God creates man. The Fathers of the Church especially emphasized that to create man, God took substance from the pure virgin earth, just as He later became incarnate from the Most Pure Ever-Virgin Mary. Here is what, in particular, Blessed Augustine writes: “The Mother of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, is rightly called the face of the earth, that is, the dignity of the earth. The Holy Spirit, designated in the Gospels by the name “spring and water,” watered Her. The fact that man was created from dust and settled in paradise in order to cultivate and preserve it means that he had to remain in the will of the Father, fulfilling it and submitting to it.”

And here is an animal shell, animal passions and disgusting criminality at the end.

The question arises: was there a boy, or was all this the wild fantasy of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, the delirium of the author of the story “Morphine”? Was there anything like this in reality?

It is worth talking about two prototypes of Professor Preobrazhensky.

First - Sergey Nikolaevich Voronov. He was born in 1865. He spent a lot of time in the East, in Cairo, where he observed eunuchs. He noted their poor memory: the eunuchs had great difficulty in learning verses from the Koran. In addition, these poor people aged prematurely: they developed senile clouding of the cornea early, their hair turned gray early, and they lived very short lives. But these same phenomena, which are artificially induced in eunuchs, are observed in normal people in old age. Voronov came to the conclusion: it is necessary to stimulate the vital forces of the body by transplanting the donor's seminal glands. The best thing is monkeys. The Doctor praised them as a source of "spare parts." “The monkey seems to be superior to man in the quality of its organs, in its physical constitution, which is stronger and less tainted by bad heredity: gouty, syphilitic, alcoholic, etc.,” he wrote.

Returning to Paris in 1910, Voronov became director of the experimental surgery station at the College de France and began experiments and research in the field of rejuvenation. First, Voronov performed more than 500 operations on sheep, goats, and bulls, grafting the testicles of young animals onto older ones - and they again became playful, healthy, and capable of reproduction.

On June 12, 1920, the first long-awaited gland transplant from a monkey to a human took place. And a few years later, Voronov had already performed 236 operations on elderly people. Doctors from London, New York, Rome, Shanghai, Geneva attended the operations... The doctor claimed that in 90% of cases the effect was amazing. Even in people between 70 and 85 years of age who suffered from impotence, after transplant surgery, sexual desire was restored in 74% of cases. Here is what Voronov writes about one of his patients, an elderly English aristocrat: “The patient left Paris twelve days after the operation, and I saw him only eight months later. My laboratory assistant, Dr. Didri, and I were literally amazed when we saw Mr. E.L., who had lost half of his obesity, cheerful, with quick movements, with a clear gaze, as if laughing at our surprise. The fat disappeared, the muscles strengthened, and he gave the impression of a man in blooming health. He tilted his head, and we were convinced that he was not exaggerating when he said that his bald head was covered with thick white fluff. He came from Switzerland, where he climbed mountains and practiced the sport beloved by the British. This man really looked 15-20 years younger. Physical and mental state, sex life - everything has completely changed thanks to the action of the vaccine, which turned a decrepit, pitiful and powerless old man into a strong man who uses all his abilities.”

Let's compare this with Professor Preobrazhensky's visit:

“The person who entered bowed very respectfully and embarrassedly to Philip Philipovich...

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

“Lord Jesus,” thought the dog, “that’s a fruit!”

The fruit had completely green hair growing on its head, and on the back of its head it was a rusty tobacco color. Wrinkles spread across the fruit's face, but its complexion was pink, like a baby's. The left leg did not bend, it had to be dragged along the carpet, but the right leg jumped like a child’s clicker. On the side of the most magnificent jacket, a precious stone stuck out like an eye.

The dog’s interest even made him feel nauseous.

Tew-tew... - he barked lightly.

Be silent! How's your sleep, darling?

Hehe! Are we alone, professor? “This is indescribable,” the visitor spoke embarrassedly. - Password d'onner... I am positively fascinated. You are a magician."

The fantastic success turned Voronov into a cult figure. There was even a “monkey tonsils” cocktail. And Voronov prophesied: “The time is not far off when transplantation of the endocrine glands of monkeys, which has become available to every surgeon, will mark significant progress in human therapy.”

But as Akhmatova perspicaciously wrote:

Are the deadlines close?..

I forgot your lessons

Evil talkers and false prophets...

Voronov’s words turned out to be false prophecy and quackery. And just a couple of years later, his authority burst miserably. What happened?

And this is what happened: the rejuvenated patients somehow suspiciously quickly found themselves in Charon’s shuttle. In the next world, that is. The same English aristocrat E.L. died two years after the operation. Voronov was bombarded with menacing accusations from patients and sarcastic questions from the press. Voronov fought off like a bear from a pack of dogs: “On September 4, 1923, I was informed of his death, which followed from an attack of delirium tremens caused by chronic intemperance, which, unfortunately, was not corrected by vaccination.” But such answers raised even more insidious questions: why, dear man, did you get the vaccination (that is, the transplant)? Is it not to encourage this intemperance? And what kind of delirium tremens is this - from intemperance? Another great scientific discovery of the brilliant professor? Two menacing words sounded more and more clearly: charlatan and swindler.

The patients and the press were followed by heavy artillery - speeches from fellow professionals - famous surgeons.

The famous English doctor David Hamilton even wrote a book: “The Scam: Monkey’s Glands,” in which he argued that animal tissue will certainly be rejected by the human body. At best, the operation will leave a scar, looking at which the patient can believe that the vaccination worked. In other words: blessed is he who believes: he has warmth in the world. It turns out that Voronov’s grateful patients, who supposedly improved their condition, were simply practicing self-hypnosis. This is the so-called placebo effect. But for this it is not at all necessary to gut the unfortunate monkey and slash the poor patient - it is enough to buy a flower, look at it and inspire yourself that it brings you healing. The famous surgeon Kenneth Walker spoke clearly and clearly: Voronov’s method is “no better than the methods of witches and sorcerers.”

In general, Voronov was made clear: the patient needed care - from a doctor. He had to give up experiments. But he did not lose heart: he earned a considerable fortune for his wife. It was this that allowed him to lead the life of a socialite: numerous love affairs, travel, parties. The question arises: did such a life lead to the need for the venerable surgeon to transplant monkey organs? No, I didn't. Voronov turned out to be a tough nut to crack and spent his life until he was 85 years old. He died in Lausanne and was buried in the Russian section of the Cocade cemetery in Nice.

However, Voronov’s appearance lacks something for complete resemblance to Professor Preobrazhensky: Moscow registration (or at least Soviet citizenship) and closeness to the leaders.

Our other hero had all this - Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov (1870-1932). And even his appearance - a small beard, a knightly mustache - resembles a portrait of Philip Philipovich.

Our hero was born in the same year as Lenin in a very wealthy family. He studied successfully and made a brilliant scientific career. At the age of 36, he became a professor for the method of artificial insemination of mares, which was very profitable for horse breeders. But mares were not enough for the trotting run of Ilya Ivanovich’s scientific imagination.

He conceived a daring idea: to breed a hybrid of man and monkey. The Russian military became interested in the project: on the one hand, the physical capabilities of chimpanzees and gorillas are significantly superior to those of humans, on the other hand, hybrids are still not people, you don’t feel sorry for them. And you don’t have to pay a salary, because they are subhuman.

As we can see, the idea of ​​the Uruk-hai, the fighting orcs, appeared long before Tolkien, and Mr. Ivanov could well have taken the place of Saruman in his novel. But the morals of the Russian officers are also characteristic, which forgot why they came to the Russian Imperial Army, forgot its ancient motto - “For the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland.” And now the question is: what do we believe, gentlemen, officers, blue princes? Into the ape-man? And who will we lead into battle - humanized gorillas?

However, Ivanov soberly understood that his great plan had to start small - with experiments on lower living beings, close to each other. Ivanov conducted his experiments in the world-famous Askania-Nova nature reserve, founded in 1828. The scientist crossed mice and rats, rabbits and hares, donkeys and zebras, bison and domestic cows, inseminating them artificially. The purposeful biologist not only created hybrids, but also carefully studied their behavior.

The idea of ​​war orcs appeared long before Tolkien, and I.I. Ivanov could well take the place of Saruman in his novel

But there was nothing unusual in these experiments themselves: from time immemorial, they crossed a horse and a donkey, getting a mule. This is a common intraspecific cross. But go cross a donkey with a cow! Or a horse and pig!

Let us note that this Great Combinator considered man and ape to be one species, so he believed that crossing a man with an ape was quite possible. Ivanov stated this in 1910 in his speech at the World Congress of Zoologists in the Austrian city of Graz. The location is also not accidental - the country of Russia's future enemy. And the country that gave birth to Hitler.

Fortunately or unfortunately - it’s not for us to judge - the First World War broke out, and then the revolution and civil war, which put an end to the great combinations of the daring biologist. But, alas, only temporarily.

Soviet power was established, the stormy Russian life temporarily calmed down, and Ivanov again took up his old ways. For the success of his experiment, resources were required, and therefore high patronage. Surgeon Vladimir Nikolaevich Rozanov (1872-1934) helped Ivanov achieve it. The personality is very colorful. In many ways. Firstly, because, like Professor Preobrazhensky, he was on friendly terms with the highest Soviet leaders, they gave their lives and health into his hands. He operated on Lenin in 1922: then Rozanov removed the bullet that Fanya Kaplan had put into the leader back in 1918. He skillfully cut out Stalin's appendicitis. It is not surprising that the Soviet leaders absolutely trusted him.

Experiments on breeding apes, which were carried out by Professor Ivanov, were supervised by G. Yagoda

The second feature: Rozanov was a faithful follower of the foreign adventurer Sergei Voronov, already known to us, and following his example, he tried to rejuvenate a person through transplanting the seminal glands of monkeys. According to rumors, the formidable People's Commissar Yagoda himself underwent a corresponding operation. Rozanov’s faith in the Voronov method was not shaken even by the wave of revelations about the Parisian swindler. It was explained simply: the rotten conservative capitalist world did not appreciate the brilliant scientist. Therefore, Rozanov supported the even more revolutionary biologist Ivanov with all his strength and with all his soul.

As you know, the birthplace of the European revolution and the most atheistic country at the beginning of the twentieth century was France. Liberté, égalité, fraternité and other rubbish. That is why the works of the fiery revolutionary biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov aroused interest among French colleagues. They offered a scientific base for experiments in French Guinea, in the city of Conakry. Near the city there were luxurious botanical gardens. In them, the experimenter, who decided to make a revolution in human evolution, began his experiments.

In 1927, Ivanov inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. The experiment failed

In early 1927, Ivanov inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. This daring experiment ended in complete failure. One monkey died and two were unable to conceive. But the revolutionary biologist did not lose heart. He took 15 monkeys with him and went with them to Sukhumi, where, thanks to the works of Rozanov, and most importantly, the head of the affairs of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, Comrade Nikolai Petrovich Gorbunov (1892-1938), a special secret base was organized, which was under the owl wing of the OGPU. The main task of this top-secret base is experiments on crossing humans with monkeys. The immediate supervisor is Yagoda Genrikh Grigorievich (1891-1938), then second deputy chairman of the OGPU. Interesting personality. Jewish by origin, professional revolutionary, lover of literature and the occult. The builder of the White Sea Canal, about whom Nikolai Klyuev wrote so heartfelt:

That Kitezh is new and invisible,
That's the White Sea Death Canal,
Akimushka dug it
From Vetluga Prov, and Aunt Thekla.
Great Russia is wet
With your blood to the bones
And hid her tears from people.

And Yagoda’s attitude towards Orthodoxy was this: in the waiting room of his bath there were icons. He undressed, shot at them and went to wash with his comrades. Perhaps, having received a death sentence from the former seminarian Dzhugashvili-Stalin, he remembered these shots...

Lev Davydovich Trotsky called Yagoda a zealous nonentity. But every nonentity also has the right to flights of thought. As Solonevich said: every master has his own dream of white roses. Yagoda created all the conditions for fruitful scientific work for his gardener Ivanov.

From 1927 until his death in 1932, Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was engaged in his experiments. All of them are hidden behind an impenetrable veil of secrecy. It is only known that our biologist attracted female volunteers. Disappointed with female chimpanzees, the scientist decided to test the strength of human organisms. Women had to become pregnant by male monkeys through artificial insemination. However, failures in artificial fertilization led to the idea of ​​natural fertilization. For this purpose, a young orangutan was even brought to Sukhumi. But all the costs and efforts did not produce any results. This is evidenced by the fact that at the end of 1930 the laboratory in Sukhumi was disbanded. This was, according to rumors, preceded by the suicide of a Komsomol volunteer, who decided for the sake of science and the future transformation of humanity, its eternal youth, to overcome her maiden shame, human dignity, and finally, her instinct for safety and come into contact with a monkey, in other words, to sin with her.

Maxim Gorky: “One hundred people should be sacrificed for the sake of experiments that will give life and youth to thousands and thousands of people”

Actually, the leaders of the world proletariat did not care about human sacrifices. Their point of view at the end of the 20s of the twentieth century was neatly expressed by the “Petrel” of the revolution, Maxim Gorky: “One should sacrifice a hundred people for the sake of experiments that will give life and youth to thousands and thousands of people.” In other words, everything for a bright future. But, as Mandelstam said, “even what will happen is only a promise.” However, it was not new for communists to plunge their contemporaries and compatriots into blood and dirt for the sake of a bright future. The point is different: the fakir was drunk, and the trick failed. Ivanov was not forgiven for failures, adventurism and outright hackwork. Perhaps the shop was closed at the behest of Stalin, who generally disapproved of such experiments, which smacked of voluntarism and Trotskyism. But Ivanov did not get to the White Sea Canal: high patrons helped. The daring biologist was sent to Alma-Ata. In this city he worked at the Kazakh Veterinary Institute. In March 1932, Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov died of a heart attack.

The crossing of man and ape ended in complete failure. Neither the support of Rozanov, nor the favor of Gorbunov, nor the business participation of Yagoda helped the Great Combinator.

As we know, even tsars, let alone professors or even second deputy chairmen of the OGPU, cannot cope with God’s elements. The God-created laws of nature have rendered their verdict regarding interspecies fertility - final and not subject to appeal.

These are the personalities behind the benign face of Professor Preobrazhensky. And that's what he served. I hope readers understand that, despite his outward conservatism and love of order and comfort, Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky is the most radical revolutionary. Shvonder is no match for him. Because the “biggest fool” - the chairman of the house committee - works on a superficial level: he tries to rebuild social relations - the superstructure, to put it in Marxist terms, and does it stupidly, primitively and fussily, real life it still flows past him, flows away like water through your fingers. But more on this in the next publication. But Philip Philipovich works at a deep level, with the basis, trying to remake human nature itself. This is a deep and much more terrible revolution. Lenin, Trotsky and Sverdlov would have been impossible if Charles Darwin had not appeared in his time with his theory of the origin of man from the ape, and therefore with a whole fan of criminal possibilities. And not only fruitless attempts to cross a man with a monkey. But also with much more “fruitful” theories - atheism, materialism, racism and, we note, social Darwinism, inextricably linked with such quasi-science as eugenics. And Philip Philipovich is devoted to her with all his soul: “I cared about something completely different, about eugenics, about the improvement of the human race. And then I ran into rejuvenation!”

Galton intended to make eugenics, which, in his opinion, confirmed the right of the Anglo-Saxon race to world domination, “part of the national consciousness, like a new religion.”

And now a short excursion into where eugenics came from and what consequences it led to. Its founder was a certain Francis Galton, cousin of the notorious Charles Darwin. It was Galton who coined the term eugenics. By eugenics he meant scientific and practical activities to develop improved varieties of cultivated plants and breeds of domestic animals, as well as to protect and improve human heredity. The reader may ask: so what? Isn't this a noble activity that both genetics and breeding are engaged in? Don't tell me. Galton believed that there are peoples with a positive set of genetic characteristics and, accordingly, with a set of negative ones. Consequently, the former have every right to control the latter. Galton intended to make eugenics, which, in his opinion, confirmed the right of the Anglo-Saxon race to world domination, “part of the national consciousness, like a new religion.”

And he himself dabbled in the ideas of social Darwinism. Here is what he writes: “In the near future, perhaps in just a few hundred years, the civilized races will completely supplant or destroy all the barbarian races in the world.”

However, even if you are a good Englishman, do not expect that this automatically gives you the right to rule the world. After all, Galton carried out not only racial, but also social division of society. Accordingly, if you belong to the business class or the nobility, if you are a gentleman, then you have the right origin, the right set of genetic characteristics that give you the right to world domination. On the contrary, if you are poor, then it is your own fault, you have bad heredity. And your place is downstairs. In general, it is better to sterilize the poor and vagabonds.

In the twentieth century, similar ideas reached the state level. The program for sterilization of tramps, criminals, alcoholics, and crazy people was launched in the USA somewhat earlier than Hitler: he was only a student of the British and Americans, although a capable student.

In 1932, one of the eugenics scientists directly stated the following:

“There is no doubt that if the sterilization law were enforced to a greater extent in the United States, the result would be, in less than a hundred years, we would have eliminated at least 90% of the crimes, insanity, imbecility, idiocy and sexual perversions not speaking of many other forms of defectiveness and degeneration. Thus, within a century, our madhouses, prisons and mental hospitals would be almost cleared of their victims of human misery and suffering."

Adolf Hitler extended this principle not only to the pauperized and criminal world, but also to entire nations. On his orders, the mentally ill, criminals, as well as Jews and gypsies were sterilized... But sterilization was not enough, and then a blessed death, or a blessed murder, was used. By order of Hitler, mentally retarded citizens of Germany and then other countries, including those in the occupied territory of the Soviet Union, were physically exterminated.

"So what?" - you ask. All this is so-called negative eugenics, and Professor Preobrazhensky is a supporter of positive, improving, progressive eugenics. Dear friends, the very fact of Sharikov’s extermination at the end of the story shows that, alas, Professor Preobrazhensky and his faithful assistant Bormental were not alien to negative genetics - the extermination of individuals who do not correspond to known parameters. And in his views, alas, Professor Preobrazhensky fits perfectly into the ideology of social Darwinism. But more about this in the next publication.

“Why such seductive biological excursions on the pages of an Orthodox publication, Father Deacon?” - enlightened readers may ask. I answer: because of the terrible biological revolution that we are witnessing. Due to the tremendous development of biotechnology, genetic engineering, and the enormous successes of medicine and biology in general, on the one hand. And because of the stunning public immorality and criminal stupidity in this matter - and not only abroad, but, unfortunately, here, in Russia. In the 1990s, like wild absurdity, I listened to the story of one archimandrite about his Orthodox friend in America, who suffered greatly from his boss, who decided to become... a boss. But now in State Duma The possibility of introducing a law to replace the two genders - male and female - with... five is being seriously debated. "What does it mean?" - asked one narrow-minded deputy. “That there will be five toilets in the State Duma,” they answered him.

Yes, as Professor Preobrazhensky rightly noted, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the minds of citizens. Let us add that Philip Philipovich took a fair part in this head-spinning chaos.

After all, the revolution is started by kindly professors and writers - “old men with fragrant gray hairs”, intellectuals - various philanthropists like Rousseau, Tolstoy, Milyukov, Darwin, Voronov and Ivanov. It is only completed by butchers like Fouche and Yagoda, criminals like Klim Chugunkin, or small-town riffraff like Shvonder. And the son of the cathedral archpriest Preobrazhensky is a symbol. Both the spiritual preparation of the October revolution and... But more on this in the next article.

With the consequences of your own ideas.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is one of the most significant writers and playwrights of the 20th century. Diverse in theme and style, his work is marked by the greatest artistic discoveries. Seeing and sharply criticizing all the shortcomings of the bourgeois system, the writer also did not recognize an idealized attitude towards the revolution and the proletariat. Topical criticism of the phenomena of social and political life of that time reaches its peak in the story “Heart of a Dog,” filled with vivid grotesque and satirical images and paintings.

Having affirmed the cultural and spiritual values ​​of humanity all his life, Bulgakov could not calmly relate to how, before his eyes, these values ​​were lost, deliberately destroyed, and lost their meaning for a society subject to the “mass hypnosis” of revolutionary changes. The story "The Heart of a Dog" was called by critics "a poignant pamphlet on modernity." But time has shown that the issues raised in the work are relevant not only for the era in which Bulgakov lived and worked. The phenomena described in the story and the images created by the author remain relevant today.

The writer perceived the revolution as a dangerous experimentation with living life, when an accidental discovery is used as the basis for a thoughtless experiment that leads humanity to disaster. And the main danger lies not in the changes themselves that occur to people, but in the nature of these changes, in the way, by what methods these changes are achieved. Evolution also changes a person, but the difference is that evolution is predictable, but experiment is not, since it always contains unaccounted possibilities. M. Bulgakov shows us what dramatic consequences this can lead to. Professor Preobrazhensky transplants the human pituitary gland into a mongrel named Sharik, resulting in a completely new creature - a homunculus named Sharikov.

"A new field opens up in science: without any retort of Faust, a homunculus was created. The surgeon's scalpel brought into life a new human unit." A unique experiment was carried out on humans. But how terrible this experiment will be, the heroes have yet to find out.

What happens when all these human and animal qualities are combined in a new being? “Here’s the thing: two convictions, alcoholism, “divide everything,” a hat and two ducats are missing... - a boor and a pig...” Sharikov, who is prevented by his creator from living the way he wants, seeks to destroy his “dad” "through political harassment.

Of course, an important role was played here by people from the breed of “simplifyers and equalizers”, in whose person the revolutionary idea appeared in its hypertrophied form. Such people seek to undo the complex culture created by European humanity. Shvonder is trying to subordinate Sharikov to his ideology, but does not take into account the fact that in Poligraph Poligrafovich the human race itself has degraded, and therefore he does not need any ideology. “He doesn’t understand that Sharikov is a more formidable danger for him than for me,” says Preobrazhensky. “Well, now he is trying in every possible way to set him against me, not realizing that if someone, in turn, sets Sharikov against himself Shvonder, then only horns and legs will remain from him.”

Bulgakov was very concerned about such consequences of combining a revolutionary experiment with the psychology of the human crowd. Therefore, in his work, he seeks to warn people about the danger threatening society: the process of forming balls can get out of control and it will be disastrous for those who contributed to their appearance. In this case, the blame falls equally on the “fools” and the “wise men” of the Preobrazhenskys. After all, the idea of ​​an experiment with a person, born in a scientist’s office, long ago went out onto the street, embodied in revolutionary transformations. Therefore, the writer raises the question of the responsibility of thinkers for the development of ideas put into practice.

It is no coincidence that Sharikov so easily finds his social niche in human society. There are already masses of people like him, only created not in the laboratory of a scientist, but in the laboratory of a revolution. They begin to indiscriminately crowd out everything that does not fit into the framework of their ideology - from the bourgeoisie to the Russian intelligentsia. The Sharikovs gradually occupy all the highest echelons of power and begin to poison the lives of normal people. Moreover, they take upon themselves the right to manage this life. “This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.”

Opponent of all violence, Professor Preobrazhensky as the only possible path impact on a rational being is recognized only by affection: “You can’t do anything with terror,” he says... “This is what I affirm, have argued, and will continue to affirm. They are in vain to think that terror will help them. No, no, no, it won’t help, whatever it is - white, red and even brown - Terror is completely paralyzing! nervous system"And yet his attempts to instill basic cultural skills in Sharikov fail.

“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 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 issue social story: this is an understanding of the events of the revolution, which gave the Sharik and Shvonders the opportunity 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 of 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 to 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, 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 style, with emotionally charged words. The medical 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 to decide on 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 interfere new government scare the professor with a seal, register Sharikov and threaten with arrest. 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 described in detail first 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. Bormental 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.

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 underline all his actions with revolutionary theoretical basis. 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: plunder, 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, anger... 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 becomes 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, disregard for 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 rational 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 emergence huge amount 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!..

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.

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, problems with electricity. 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.”