Plan
I. Staging moral problems in the story by M. Bulgakov “ dog's heart».
II. What Professor Preobrazhensky understood and did not understand.
1. Preobrazhensky – main character stories.
2. Preobrazhensky’s experiment – a scientific feat or a crime?
3. Professor Preobrazhensky’s mistake.
4. Preobrazhensky and Shvonder.
III. Moral Lessons stories.
In the story “The Heart of a Dog,” M. A. Bulgakov raises a number of acute moral issues, which have always troubled Russian writers: the theme of crime and punishment, good and evil, personal responsibility of a person both for his actions and for the fate of the world.
Main actor The story is about Professor Preobrazhensky, a prominent scientist working on the problem of eugenics, the improvement of human nature. An experiment on a homeless mongrel is one of his episodes scientific activity aimed at a good goal - to make humanity happy.
Philip Philipovich - intellectual, the smartest person, a highly moral person. He knows exactly what is good and what is bad. Happening in revolutionary Russia the changes outrage him, he sees their futility, he knows exactly how to live: everyone must honestly mind their business. “When he (the proletarian) gets rid of all sorts of hallucinations and starts cleaning the barns - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself,” the professor believes. He is confident in his unshakable rightness, they listen to him respectfully, they admire him... But it turns out that fate has prepared a serious lesson for him.
What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand and what did he not understand?
M. Bulgakov gives his hero a “speaking” surname, making him remember the miracle of the Transfiguration. The operation to transplant the human pituitary gland into Sharik is carried out on Christmas Eve, on the eve of Christmas. It would seem that a great, holy deed is being prepared. But in the naturalistically depicted operating scene, the professor looks like a priest, a murderer, a robber, a butcher, but not a righteous man. The author prompts the reader: a crime is actually being committed.
The operation went brilliantly. Dr. Bormenthal admires his teacher, calls him a great scientist, and predicts a great future for his discovery. And the professor himself does not immediately understand: his scientific discovery “is worth exactly one penny.”
Yes, Sharik acquired a human appearance, learned to speak, even joined the proletarian class... But did he become a man? No, the professor only succeeded in “ sweetest dog turn into... scum." Philip Philipovich bitterly reproaches himself: “This is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil... Why artificially fabricate Spinoza when any woman can give birth to him at any time? Madame Lomonosov gave birth to her famous one in Kholmogory!”
What helped Preobrazhensky understand his mistake? Precisely that, firstly, Klim Chugunkin turned out to be the donor, and secondly, “ housing problem“Did not allow the professor to evict Sharikov from his living space. Realizing what a monster he got as a result of his experiment, Preobrazhensky again commits a crime: he returns Polygraph Poligrafovich to his former appearance. It's scary to think what would have happened if Sharikov had turned out to be a good man, if the professor had not stopped his experiments to improve human nature forever, but put them on stream.
So, Professor Preobrazhensky became wiser, bitter experience taught him: you cannot interfere with the laws of nature, this can lead to disaster.
M. Bulgakov believed that in public life Instead of a revolutionary process, there should be a “great evolution”. The representative of the new revolutionary government, Shvonder, is ridiculous, absurd and pathetic; the attempts of his comrades to build new life. They can only recruit new Sharikovs into their ranks and fight stubborn “irresponsible” citizens, like Preobrazhensky, who does not want to give up their square meters.
The story ends happily. The ball became the cutest again and the happiest dog, the house committee was put to shame, Professor Preobrazhensky found peace of mind. He lives in his own living space and hardly often remembers the insignificant Shvonder; he is proud of his intelligence, high moral principles and hardly understands that he is partly to blame for what is happening in the country.
Indeed, revolutionaries are conducting an experiment on society, just as Philip Philipovich once experimented on nature. He does not understand that people who undertake thankless work are worthy of not only contempt, but also sympathy revolutionary transformation society, that because of the heavy curtains of a spacious and comfortable apartment, he cannot see the life of the street, the life ordinary people. Philip Philipovich did not understand that in troubled times no one is innocent in the common misfortune, that everyone is responsible for everything that happens in the world.
M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” reminds us even today: it is impossible to forcibly make a person happy, and especially humanity. Moral laws are unshakable, and for violating them, everyone is responsible both before their conscience and before the whole era.
The image of a righteous woman in Solzhenitsyn's story " Matrenin Dvor»
Plan
I. The meaning of the word "righteous."
II. Life or living?
1. Life of Matryona.
2. Death of Matryona.
3. Those around us in the mirror of Matryona’s life and death.
III. What remains for people?
A village does not stand without a righteous man.
Russian proverb
The righteous is just, right person strictly observing moral laws. The heroine of A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s story “Matrenin’s Dvor” probably did not consider herself a righteous woman, she simply lived the way her compatriots and fellow villagers lived.
The righteousness of a person is determined by what kind of life he lived, what death he died, what he taught people, what word they will remember him with after his departure.
Matryona's life was similar to the lives of thousands of her compatriots. The difficulties of the war and post-war times forced people to experience common pain; suffering was supposed to unite people, a common misfortune to make them purer, kinder, more righteous. But this was not the case with everyone, because the war and difficult life You can write off your own sins - they say, we are not bad, life is bad.
Nobody would envy Matryona's fate. Without waiting for her husband to return from the war, she went to his brother - and all her life she was tormented by the consciousness of her guilt, akin to betrayal, she reproached herself for her sin... And the whole sin was that she pitied Thaddeus’s family, who were left without help. She gave birth to six children - and not one survived. Kira raised her daughter ex-husband. And all the wealth she acquired was a strong upper room, a dirty white goat, ficus trees and a lanky cat. Her fellow villagers restrainedly condemned her: she never kept a pig, “she didn’t chase after things... She didn’t try to buy things and then cherish them more than her life. I didn’t bother with outfits. For clothes that embellish freaks and villains...” And so she died in poverty.
Death puts everything in its place, sums it up human life. What will Matryona the Righteous leave as a legacy to her loved ones, what word will they remember her with, how will they remember her? First of all, they remembered that now there was no one to help dig the garden, “to plow themselves with a plow” - the deceased helped everyone, did not take any payment. What can we do now without her help? The best friend, who has been friends with Matryona for half a century, shyly asks to give her the “gray knit” promised to Matryona. Thaddeus is worried about one thought: he must take away the remaining logs, otherwise they will disappear. They argue about the hut: who will get it - the sister or the adopted daughter. Crying for the deceased takes place according to all the rules, but ostentatious grief for Matryona, who died because of the greed of several close people, is combined with an attempt to justify oneself: “...And why did you go to where death was guarding you? And no one invited you there! And I didn’t think about how you died! And why didn’t you listen to us?... (And from all these lamentations the answer stuck out: we are not to blame for her death, but we’ll talk about the hut later!).”
Matryona is buried and buried according to all the rules: the priest conscientiously conducts the Orthodox service, and is remembered according to custom (“ Eternal memory", as expected, they sing before the jelly!). And they are proud that everything is done like a human being...
Matryona left, “misunderstood and abandoned even by her husband, who buried six children, but did not have a sociable disposition, a stranger to her sisters, sisters-in-law, funny, foolishly working for others for free...” And only two people mourn Matryona sincerely: “not at all ritually,” the adopted daughter Kira sobs bitterly, like a woman, wisely and calmly, non-vainly, “a strict, silent old woman, more ancient than all the ancients” speaks of her death; the guest experiences sincere pain.
Yes, Matryona’s life is not the life of a saint. Not everyone was able to appreciate her righteousness, many have condemned, but have they forgotten? She will remain to live in the memory of her adopted daughter, her life lessons will not be forgotten by the teacher who shared her shelter for a short time... And that’s all? But is it really about how they evaluate you, what they say about you? The point is how you live your life, whether you can remain human, what page you write in the book of life.
They fought for their homeland (based on the story by B. Vasiliev “And the dawns here are quiet...”)
Plan
I. Memory of the war.
II. “And the dawns here are quiet...” is a book about the great feat of the people.
1. Different paths - one destiny.
2. There is no such thing as a meaningless death.
3. A woman at war.
III. Their feat is immortal in people's memory.
Live your life for your friends...
A. Akhmatova
Sixty-five years have passed since the Great Patriotic War. But among the people there lives the memory of the people who defended native land. We learn about their exploits from the stories of veterans, from history textbooks and, of course, from fiction. One of the most famous works about the war is the story of Boris Vasiliev “And the dawns here are quiet...”.
The girl soldiers, the heroes of this work, have different backgrounds, different tempers, upbringing. It seems that there is nothing in common between the balanced, restrained Rita Osyanina and the cheerful, desperate Zhenya. Different destinies– and one fate: war. The war did not depersonalize, but united and rallied the girls - the heroines of the book. Everyone has one goal - to defend their homeland, their village, their piece of land. For the sake of this lofty goal, fighters risk their lives and bravely fight an enemy who is much stronger than them. They do not think about heroism; they consider defending the Fatherland a duty.
The death of girls may seem not heroic at all, even senseless. Is it possible to call, for example, a heroic death in a swamp? Descendants will not see the obelisk over Osyanina’s grave, and even her son may not know where his mother is buried. But if not for their dedication, not for the selfless heroism of ordinary Soviet soldiers, our people would not have been able to withstand the terrible, bloody war.
Girls in the war experienced hardship, grief, and fear. But they also learned true soldier camaraderie. They became close people, and even the unsociable, reserved foreman sincerely became attached to his subordinates and fell in love with them.
The war united the people. The soldiers defended not only their land, their home, but also their comrades, relatives, and complete strangers. Girls in the war had no right to forget that they were mothers, daughters, and granddaughters. They were forced not only to raise, but also to save their children and their future. Perhaps the greatest difficulty of a woman’s position in the war was that she had to combine two incompatible, mutually exclusive tasks: to continue life while raising children, and to kill her while fighting the Nazis. Rita Osyanina, while on duty, visits her husband at night little son; she is a tender mother and a brave fighter.
They fought for their Motherland... Destined by nature itself for another, higher mission, tender and weak, able to love and pity, they took up arms to kill and take revenge. The war changed the usual way of life, changed even the souls of people, making the timid brave, the weak strong. Even their smallest contribution to the victory is great, their exploits are immortal as long as we remember them.
Bulgakov's creativity is the pinnacle phenomenon of Russian artistic culture XX century. The fate of the Master, deprived of the opportunity to be published and heard, is tragic. From 1927 to 1940, Bulgakov did not see a single line of his own in print.
Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov came to literature already during the years of Soviet power. He experienced all the difficulties and contradictions of Soviet reality in the thirties. His childhood and youth were connected with Kiev, and the subsequent years of his life with Moscow. It was during the Moscow period of Bulgakov’s life that the story “Heart of a Dog” was written. It reveals with brilliant skill and talent the theme of disharmony, brought to the point of absurdity thanks to human intervention in the eternal laws of nature.
In this work, the writer rises to the top of satirical fiction. If satire states, then satirical fiction warns society of impending dangers and cataclysms. Bulgakov embodies his conviction in the preference of normal evolution over the violent method of invading life; he speaks of the terrible destructive power of complacent aggressive innovation. These themes are eternal, and they have not lost their significance even now.
The story “Heart of a Dog” is distinguished by an extremely clear author’s idea: the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of natural spiritual development society, but an irresponsible and premature experiment. Therefore, the country must be returned to its previous state, without allowing the irreversible consequences of such an experiment.
So, let's look at the main characters of "Heart of a Dog". Professor Preobrazhensky is a democrat by origin and convictions, a typical Moscow intellectual. He sacredly serves science, helps people, and will never harm him. Proud and majestic, Professor Preobrazhensky spouts ancient aphorisms. Being a luminary of Moscow genetics, the brilliant surgeon is engaged in profitable operations to rejuvenate aging women.
But the professor plans to improve nature itself, he decides to compete with life itself, to create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain into a dog. This is how Sharikov is born, embodying the new Soviet man. What are its development prospects? Nothing impressive: the heart of a stray dog and the brain of a man with three convictions and a pronounced passion for alcohol. This is what should develop from new person, new society.
Sharikov wants to become one of the people at all costs, to become no worse than others. But he cannot understand that for this it is necessary to go through a long path of spiritual development; it requires work to develop the intellect, horizons, and mastery of knowledge. Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov (as the creature is now called) puts on patent leather shoes and a poisonous-colored tie, but otherwise his suit is dirty, unkempt, and tasteless.
A person with a doglike disposition, the basis of which was the lumpen, feels like the master of life, he is arrogant, arrogant, and aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky and the humanoid lumpen is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. Here is one of their everyday scenes:
“…Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor, I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I no longer hear a single swear word in the apartment! Don't give a damn! “There’s a spittoon,” the professor is indignant.
“For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” the man suddenly said tearfully.”
Despite the dissatisfaction of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way: during the day he sleeps in the kitchen, messes around, does all sorts of outrages, confident that “nowadays everyone has their own right.” And in this he is not alone. Polygraph Poligrafovich finds an ally in Shvonder, the local chairman of the house committee. He bears the same responsibility as the professor for the humanoid monster. Shvonder supported social status Sharikov, armed him with an ideological phrase, he is his ideologist, his “spiritual shepherd.” Shvonder supplies Sharikov with “scientific” literature and gives him Engels’s correspondence with Kautsky to “study”. The beast-like creature does not approve of any author: “Otherwise they write, write... Congress, some Germans...” He comes to one conclusion: “Everything must be divided.” This is how Sharikov’s psychology developed. He instinctively sensed the main credo of the new masters of life: plunder, steal, take away everything created. The main principle of a socialist society is universal equalization, called equality. We all know what this led to.
The finest hour for Poligraf Poligrafovich was his “service”. Having disappeared from the house, he appears before the astonished professor as a kind of young man, full of dignity and self-respect, “in a leather jacket from someone else’s shoulder, in worn leather pants and high English boots.” The incredible smell of cats immediately spread throughout the entire hallway. He presents the stunned professor with a paper stating that Comrade Sharikov is the head of the department for cleaning the city from stray animals. Shvonder got him there.
So, Bulgakov’s Sharik made a dizzying leap: from a stray dog, he turned into an orderly to cleanse the city of stray dogs and cats. Well, pursuing your own - characteristic all ball ones. They destroy their own, as if covering up traces of their own origin...
The last chord of Sharikov’s activity is the denunciation of Professor Preobrazhensky. It should be noted that it was in the thirties that denunciation became one of the foundations of a socialist society, which would be more correctly called totalitarian.
Sharikov is alien to shame, conscience, and morality. He lacks human qualities, there is only meanness, hatred, malice.
However, Professor Preobrazhensky still does not abandon the idea of making Sharikov a man. He hopes for evolution, gradual development. But there is no development and there will not be if the person himself does not strive for it. Preobrazhensky's good intentions turn into tragedy. He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story, the professor corrects his mistake by turning Sharikov back into a dog. But in life such experiments are irreversible. Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of the destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
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. Due to the fact that these monsters have penetrated into all areas of life, Russia is now going through difficult times.
Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. Their non-human essence manifests itself all the time. The judge convicts an innocent man to fulfill a plan to solve crimes; the doctor turns away from the patient; a mother abandons her child; officials, for whom bribes have become the order of the day, are ready to betray their own. Everything that is most lofty and sacred turns into its opposite, since a non-human has awakened within them and tramples them into the dirt. When a non-human comes to power, he tries to dehumanize everyone around him, since non-humans are easier to control. For them, all human feelings are replaced by the instinct of self-preservation.
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. Today is so close to yesterday... At first glance, it seems that everything has changed, that the country has become different. But consciousness and stereotypes remained the same. More than one generation will pass before the Sharikovs disappear from our lives, people become different, the vices described by Bulgakov in his immortal work. How I want to believe that this time will come!..
In this work, the author raises many aspects that are of considerable importance for any person, including the themes of good and evil, the commission of a crime and subsequent punishment, the responsibility of the individual not only for his actions, but also for the fate of other living beings.
At the center of the story is the prominent scientist Preobrazhensky, who is very passionate about working to change for the better. physical nature people, and the episode associated with the homeless dog is for him just one of many stages in his activities aimed at making the inhabitants of the planet more worthy and happy.
The professor is an intelligent, insightful and at the same time truly highly moral and truly moral individual. He is deeply outraged by everything that happens on Russian territory immediately after the revolution. In his opinion, one should live completely differently, and an honest, decent person should, first of all, mind his own business and do it as diligently as possible.
Among intellectuals and scientists, Philip Philipovich really enjoys considerable respect and authority, but he receives a significant lesson from fate, which makes him subsequently think about a lot.
The experimenter's surname is associated with the great miracle of the Transfiguration, and it was before Christmas that the professor began an amazing operation to transplant a human pituitary gland into the dog Sharik. He himself is firmly convinced that he is doing a truly holy deed, but the writer looks at the situation differently, and when reading this episode, Preobrazhensky resembles an ordinary butcher or robber, but not the real righteous man that he feels himself to be. The operation goes well, and Bormenthal, the professor’s student, sincerely predicts a brilliant future for the new discovery.
Next, readers see how Sharik actually turns into a person outwardly, masters speech and even “merges into proletarian class" But the professor soon realizes that in fact he did not achieve his goal at all, that he only managed to transform a “kind and sweet” dog into an ordinary “scum.”
Preobrazhensky finds himself unable to evict the disgusting Sharikov from his own living space due to the then “housing issue.” Seeing that he has created a genuine monster, the scientist immediately returns the original, original canine appearance to the object of his experiment, and from now on vows to himself never to conduct such experiments again, not to interfere with the natural laws of nature.
According to Bulgakov, it’s exactly the same in social life There must be a gradual “great evolution”, and not a hasty breakdown of everything that has developed over the centuries, as happened after the revolution. The representative of the new government, Shvonder, looks simply ridiculous, pitiful and inspiring hostility, who can only join the new Sharikovs to his supporters and fight such “irresponsible citizens” as Preobrazhensky, who refuses to give up the square meters that belong to him.
The ending of the story turns out to be successful. Sharik returns to his existence as a “sweet dog”; Philip Philipovich also continues to study science and hardly remembers this story. He never thinks about the fact that the intelligentsia, to which Preobrazhensky belongs, is partly to blame for the difficult situation that has arisen in the country.
Revolutionaries experiment on society, just as the professor previously experimented on “natural creatures.” But it does not even occur to the scientist that he actually does not know real life, spending days and nights in his cozy apartment “behind heavy curtains.” The writer gradually leads readers to the idea that there are no innocent people in the changes taking place in the world, that everyone is responsible not only for themselves, but also for the fate of all humanity.
This work is still very relevant today. Any person should know that it is impossible to make anyone happy by force, against their will, as Preobrazhensky tried to do. The laws of morality and ethics always remain unchanged and unshakable, and everyone who allows himself to violate them is responsible for such actions not only before his own conscience, but also before the era in which he happens to live.
What is the book “Heart of a Dog” about? Bulgakov's ironic story tells about the failed experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. What is it? In search of an answer to the question of how to “rejuvenate” humanity. Does the hero manage to find the answer he is looking for? No. But he comes to a result that is more important for society high level significance than the intended experiment.
Kiev resident Bulgakov decided to become a singer of Moscow, its houses and streets. This is how the Moscow chronicles were born. The story was written in Prechistinsky Lanes at the request of the Nedra magazine, which was well acquainted with the writer’s work. The chronology of the writing of the work fits into three months of 1925.
Being a doctor, Mikhail Alexandrovich continued the dynasty of his family, describing in detail in the book an operation to “rejuvenate” a person. Moreover, the famous Moscow doctor N.M. Pokrovsky, the uncle of the author of the story, became the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.
The first reading of the typewritten material took place at a meeting of the Nikitsky Subbotniks, which immediately became known to the country’s leadership. In May 1926, a search was carried out at the Bulgakovs’ place, the result of which was not long in coming: the manuscript was confiscated. The writer’s plan to publish his work did not come true. The Soviet reader saw the book only in 1987.
Main problems
It was not for nothing that the book disturbed the vigilant guardians of thought. Bulgakov managed to elegantly and subtly, but still quite clearly reflect the pressing issues of the day - the challenges of new times. The problems in the story “Heart of a Dog” that the author touches on do not leave readers indifferent. The writer discusses the ethics of science, the moral responsibility of a scientist for his experiments, the possibility of the disastrous consequences of scientific adventurism and ignorance. A technical breakthrough could turn into a moral decline.
Problem scientific progress is acutely felt at the moment of his powerlessness before the transformation of the consciousness of a new person. The professor dealt with his body, but could not control his spirit, so Preobrazhensky had to give up his ambitions and correct his mistake - stop competing with the universe and return the dog’s heart to its owner. Artificial people were unable to justify their proud title and become full-fledged members of society. In addition, endless rejuvenation could jeopardize the very idea of progress, because if new generations naturally If the old ones are not replaced, then the development of the world will stop.
Are attempts to change the country's mentality for the better completely fruitless? Soviet authority tried to eradicate the prejudices of past centuries - this is the process behind the metaphor of Sharikov’s creation. Here he is, the proletarian, the new Soviet citizen, his creation is possible. However, its creators face the problem of education: they cannot calm down their creation and teach it to be cultured, educated and moral with a full set of revolutionary consciousness, class hatred and blind faith in the correctness and infallibility of the party. Why? This is impossible: either a pipe or a jug.
Human defenselessness in the whirlwind of events associated with the construction of a socialist society, hatred of violence and hypocrisy, the absence and suppression of the remaining human dignity in all its manifestations - all these are slaps in the face with which the author branded his era, and all because it does not value individuality . Collectivization affected not only the village, but also souls. It became more and more difficult to remain an individual, because the public laid more and more rights on her. General equalization and equalization did not make people happier, but turned them into ranks of meaningless biorobots, where the tone is set by the most dull and mediocre of them. Rudeness and stupidity have become the norm in society, replacing revolutionary consciousness, and in the image of Sharikov we see a verdict on a new type of Soviet person. From the rule of the Shvonders and others like them arise the problems of trampling on intelligence and intelligentsia, the power of dark instincts in the life of an individual, total gross interference in the natural course of things...
Some questions posed in the work remain unanswered to this day.
What is the point of the book?
People have long been looking for answers to the questions: What is a person? What is its social purpose? What role does everyone play in creating an environment that would be “comfortable” for those living on planet Earth? What are the “paths” to this “comfortable community”? Is consensus possible between people of different social origin holding opposing views on certain issues of existence, occupying alternative “steps” in the intellectual and cultural development? And, of course, it is important to understand the simple truth that society develops thanks to unexpected discoveries in one or another branch of science. But can these “discoveries” always be called progressive? Bulgakov answers all these questions with his characteristic irony.
A person is a personality, and the development of personality implies independence, which is denied to a Soviet citizen. The social purpose of people is to do their job masterfully and not interfere with others. However, Bulgakov’s “conscious” heroes only chant slogans, but do not work to translate them into reality. Each of us, in the name of comfort, must be tolerant of dissent and not prevent people from practicing it. And again in the USSR everything is exactly the opposite: Preobrazhensky’s talent is forced to fight to defend his right to help patients, and his point of view is brazenly condemned and persecuted by some nonentities. They can live in peace if everyone minds their own business, but there is no equality in nature and there cannot be, because from birth we are all different from each other. It is impossible to maintain it artificially, since Shvonder cannot begin to operate brilliantly, and the professor cannot begin to play the balalaika. Imposed, unreal equality will only harm people and prevent them from adequately assessing their place in the world and occupying it with dignity.
Humanity needs discoveries, this is understandable. But there is no point in reinventing the wheel - trying to reproduce a person artificially, for example. If the natural method is still possible, why does it need an analogue, and even such a labor-intensive one? People face many other, more significant threats that require the full power of scientific intelligence to be addressed.
Main topics
The story is multifaceted. The author touches upon important topics, characteristic not only of the era of the beginning of the twentieth century, but also being “eternal”: good and evil, science and morality, morality, human destiny, attitude towards animals, building a new state, homeland, sincere human relations. I would especially like to highlight the topic of the creator’s responsibility for his creation. The struggle between ambition and integrity in the professor ended with the victory of humanism over pride. He accepted his mistakes, admitted defeat, and used the experience to correct his mistakes. This is exactly what every creator should do.
Also relevant in the work is the theme of individual freedom and the boundaries that society, like the state, has no right to cross. Bulgakov insists that full-fledged person- one who has free will and beliefs. Only he can develop the idea of socialism without caricatured forms and branches that disfigure the idea. The crowd is blind and always driven by primitive incentives. But the individual is capable of self-control and self-development; she must be given the will to work and live for the good of society, and not be turned against it by vain attempts at forced merger.
Satire and humor
The book opens with a monologue stray dog, addressed to “citizens” and giving exact specifications Muscovites and the city itself. The population “through the eyes” of a dog is heterogeneous (which is true!): citizens – comrades – gentlemen. “Citizens” shop at the Tsentrokhoz cooperative, and “gentlemen” shop at Okhotny Ryad. Why do rich people need a rotten horse? You can only get this “poison” in Mosselprom.
You can “recognize” a person by their eyes: who is “dry in the soul,” who is aggressive, and who is a “lack.” The last one is the nastiest. If you are afraid, you are the one who should be “plucked.” The most vile “scum” are the wipers: they sweep away “human cleaning”.
But the cook is an important object. Nutrition is a serious indicator of the state of society. So, the lordly cook of Count Tolstoy is a real person, and the cooks from the Council of Normal Nutrition do things that are indecent even for a dog. If I became chairman, then I actively steal. Ham, tangerines, wines - these are the “former brothers of Elisha.” The doorman is worse than cats. He lets a stray dog pass, ingratiating himself with the professor.
The education system “presumes” Muscovites to be “educated” and “uneducated.” Why learn to read? “The meat smells a mile away.” But if you have any brains, you will learn to read and write without taking courses, like, for example, a stray dog. The beginning of Sharikov’s education was in an electrical store, where a tramp “tasted” insulated wire.
The techniques of irony, humor and satire are often used in combination with tropes: similes, metaphors and personification. Special satirical device can be considered a way of initially presenting characters based on preliminary descriptive characteristics: “mysterious gentleman”, “rich eccentric” - Professor Preobrazhensky”; “handsome bitten”, “bitten” - Dr. Bormenthal; “someone”, “fruit” - visitor. Sharikov’s inability to communicate with residents and formulate his demands gives rise to humorous situations and questions.
If we talk about the state of the press, then through the mouth of Fyodor Fedorovich the writer discusses the case when, as a result of reading Soviet newspapers before lunch, patients lost weight. The professor’s assessment of the existing system through the “hanger” and “galosh rack” is interesting: until 1917, the front doors were not closed, since dirty shoes and outerwear were left downstairs. After March all the galoshes disappeared.
main idea
In his book M.A. Bulgakov warned that violence is a crime. All life on earth has the right to exist. This is an unwritten law of nature that must be followed to avoid the point of no return. It is necessary to maintain the purity of soul and thoughts throughout your life, so as not to indulge internal aggression, not to splash it out. Therefore, the professor’s violent intervention in the natural course of things is condemned by the writer, and therefore leads to such monstrous consequences.
The Civil War hardened society, made it marginal, boorish and vulgar at its core. These are the fruits of violent interference in the life of the country. All of Russia in the 20s was rude and ignorant Sharikov, who did not at all strive for work. His goals are less lofty and more selfish. Bulgakov warned his contemporaries against such a development of events, ridiculing the vices of a new type of people and showing their inconsistency.
The main characters and their characteristics
- The central figure of the book is Professor Preobrazhensky. Wears glasses with gold frames. Lives in a rich apartment consisting of seven rooms. He's lonely. He devotes all his time to work. Philip Philipovich conducts receptions at home, sometimes he operates here. Patients call him “magician”, “sorcerer”. He “creates,” often accompanying his actions by singing excerpts from operas. Loves the theater. I am convinced that every person should strive to become a specialist in their field. The professor is an excellent speaker. His judgments are built into a clear logical chain. He says about himself that he is a man of observation and facts. While leading a discussion, he gets carried away, gets excited, and sometimes starts shouting if the problem touches him to the quick. His attitude towards the new system is manifested in his statements about terror, paralyzing nervous system people, about newspapers, about the devastation in the country. Treats animals with care: “I’m hungry, poor thing.” In relation to living beings, he preaches only affection and the impossibility of any violence. Instilling humane truths is the only way to influence all living things. An interesting detail in the interior of the professor’s apartment is a huge owl sitting on the wall, a symbol of wisdom, so necessary not only for a world-famous scientist, but for every person. At the end of the “experiment”, he finds the courage to admit that the experiment rejuvenation failed.
- Young, handsome Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental, an assistant professor who fell in love with him and took him in as a promising young man. Philip Philipovich hoped that the doctor would become a talented scientist in the future. During the operation, literally everything flashes in the hands of Ivan Arnoldovich. The doctor is not just scrupulous about his duties. The doctor's diary, as a strict medical report-observation of the patient's condition, reflects the whole gamut of his feelings and experiences about the result of the “experiment”.
- Shvonder is the chairman of the house committee. All his actions resemble the convulsions of a puppet, which is controlled by someone invisible. The speech is confused, the same words are repeated, which sometimes causes a condescending smile in the readers. Shvonder doesn't even have a name. He sees his task as fulfilling the will of the new government, without thinking about whether it is good or bad. He is capable of taking any step to achieve his goal. Vengeful, he distorts the facts and slanderes many people.
- Sharikov is a creature, something, the result of an “experiment”. A sloping and low forehead indicates the level of its development. Uses all swear words in his vocabulary. An attempt to teach him good manners and instill a taste for beauty was unsuccessful: he gets drunk, steals, mocks women, cynically insults people, strangles cats, “commits bestial acts.” As they say, nature rests on it, because you can’t go against it.
The main motives of Bulgakov's creativity
The versatility of Bulgakov's creativity is amazing. It’s as if you are traveling through the works, encountering familiar motifs. Love, greed, totalitarianism, morality are just parts of one whole, “wandering” from book to book and creating a single thread.
- “Notes on Cuffs” and “Heart of a Dog” convey a belief in human kindness. This motif is central in The Master and Margarita.
- In the story "Diaboliad" the fate of little man, an ordinary cog in the bureaucratic machine. This motif is characteristic of other works by the author. The system suppresses them in people best qualities, and the scary thing is that over time this becomes the norm for the people. In the novel “The Master and Margarita,” writers whose creations did not correspond to the ruling ideology were kept in a “psychiatric hospital.” Professor Preobrazhensky talked about his observations: when he gave patients the Pravda newspaper to read before lunch, they lost weight. It was impossible to find anything that would help broaden one’s horizons and allow one to look at events from opposite angles in the periodical press.
- Selfishness is what most people are motivated by negative characters Bulgakov's books. For example, Sharikov from “Heart of a Dog”. And how many troubles could have been avoided, provided that the “red ray” would have been used for its intended purpose, and not for selfish purposes (story “ Fatal eggs")? The basis of these works are experiments that go against nature. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov identified the experiment with the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, which is dangerous for society as a whole.
- The main motive of the writer’s work is the motive of his native home. The comfort in Philip Philipovich’s apartment (“a lamp under a silk lampshade”) resembles the atmosphere of the Turbins’ house. Home is family, homeland, Russia, about which the writer’s heart ached. With all his creativity, he wished well-being and prosperity for his homeland.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
In the story “Heart of a Dog,” M. A. Bulgakov raises a number of pressing moral issues that have always troubled Russian writers: the theme of crime and punishment, good and evil, a person’s personal responsibility for his actions and for the fate of the world.
The main character of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky, a prominent scientist working on the problem of eugenics, the improvement of human nature. An experiment on a homeless mongrel is one of the episodes of his scientific activity aimed at a good goal - to make humanity happy.
Philip Philipovich is an intellectual, the smartest person, a highly moral person. He knows exactly what is good and what is bad. The changes taking place in revolutionary Russia outrage him, he sees their futility, he knows exactly how to live: everyone must honestly mind their business. “When he (the proletarian) gets rid of all sorts of hallucinations and starts cleaning the barns - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself,” the professor believes. He is confident in his unshakable rightness, they listen to him respectfully and admire him. But it turns out that fate has prepared a serious lesson for him.
What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand and what did he not understand?
M. Bulgakov gives his hero a “speaking” surname, making him remember the miracle of the Transfiguration. The operation to transplant the human pituitary gland into Sharik is carried out on Christmas Eve, on the eve of Christmas. It would seem that a great, holy deed is being prepared. But in the naturalistically depicted operating scene, the professor looks like a priest, a murderer, a robber, a butcher, but not a righteous man. The author prompts the reader: a crime is actually being committed.
The operation went brilliantly. Dr. Bormenthal admires his teacher, calls him a great scientist, and predicts a great future for his discovery. And the professor himself does not immediately understand: his scientific discovery “is worth exactly one penny.”
Yes, Sharik acquired a human form, learned to speak, and even joined the proletarian class. But did he become a man? No, the professor only managed to “turn the sweetest dog into... scum." Philip Philipovich bitterly reproaches himself: “This is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil. Why artificially fabricate Spinoza when any woman can give birth to him at any time? Madame Lomonosov gave birth to her famous one in Kholmogory!”
What helped Preobrazhensky understand his mistake? Precisely the fact that, firstly, Klim Chugunkin turned out to be the donor, and secondly, the “housing issue” did not allow the professor to evict Sharikov from his living space. Realizing what a monster he got as a result of his experiment, Preobrazhensky again commits a crime: he returns Polygraph Poligrafovich to his former appearance. It’s scary to think what would have happened if Sharikov had turned out to be a good person, if the professor had not stopped his experiments on improving human nature forever, but had put them on stream.
So, Professor Preobrazhensky became wiser, bitter experience taught him: you cannot interfere with the laws of nature, this can lead to disaster.
M. Bulgakov believed that in public life, instead of the revolutionary process, there should be a “great evolution”. The representative of the new revolutionary government, Shvonder, is ridiculous, absurd and pathetic; the attempts of his comrades to build a new life are futile. They can only recruit new Sharikovs into their ranks and fight stubborn “irresponsible” citizens, like Preobrazhensky, who does not want to give up their square meters.
The story ends happily. Sharik again became the sweetest and happiest dog, the house was put to shame, Professor Preobrazhensky found peace of mind. He lives in his own living space and hardly often remembers the insignificant Shvonder; he is proud of his intelligence, high moral principles and hardly understands that he is partly to blame for what is happening in the country.
Indeed, revolutionaries are conducting an experiment on society, just as Philip Philipovich once experimented on nature. He does not understand that the people who take on the thankless task of revolutionary transformation of society deserve not only contempt, but also sympathy, and that because of the heavy curtains of a spacious and comfortable apartment, he cannot see the life of the street, the life of ordinary people. Philip Philipovich did not understand that in troubled times there are no innocent people in the common misfortune, that everyone is responsible for everything that happens in the world.
M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” reminds us even today: it is impossible to forcibly make a person happy, and especially humanity. Moral laws are unshakable, and for violating them, everyone is responsible both before their conscience and before the whole era.
- New!
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society....
M. A. Bulgakov came to literature already during the years of Soviet power. He was not an emigrant and experienced first-hand all the difficulties and contradictions of Soviet reality in the 1930s. His childhood and youth were connected with Kiev, and the subsequent years of his life with Moscow. To Moscow...
"Dog's heart" - satirical story, in which Bulgakov discusses the ways of development of contemporary Russia. In accordance with the social situation of the 20s of the XX century, representatives of the intelligentsia act in the work (Professor Preobrazhensky,...
October Revolution gave birth to new type person. Writers tried to understand this phenomenon, and many of them, such as M. Zoshchenko, N. Erdman, V. Kataev, succeeded. The “new” average person not only adapted to the new government, he saw something in it...
