What conclusion did Preobrazhensky come to? “The unnatural experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. Transformation into a human
![What conclusion did Preobrazhensky come to? “The unnatural experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. Transformation into a human](https://i1.wp.com/xn----8sbiecm6bhdx8i.xn--p1ai/sites/default/files/resize/images/shkolnikam/Sobachie_serdce_1-320x448.jpg)
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925 in Moscow, is a filigree example of sharp satirical fiction of that time. In it, the author reflected his ideas and beliefs about whether a person needs to interfere with the laws of evolution and what this can lead to. The topic touched upon by Bulgakov remains relevant in modern real life and will never cease to disturb the minds of all progressive humanity.
After its publication, the story caused a lot of speculation and controversial judgments, because it was distinguished by the bright and memorable characters of the main characters, an extraordinary plot in which fantasy was closely intertwined with reality, as well as an undisguised, sharp criticism of Soviet power. This work was very popular among dissidents in the 60s, and after its reissue in the 90s it was generally recognized as prophetic. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the tragedy of the Russian people is clearly visible, which is divided into two warring camps (red and white) and in this confrontation only one must win. In his story, Bulgakov reveals to readers the essence of the new victors - proletarian revolutionaries, and shows that they cannot create anything good and worthy.
History of creation
This story is the final part of a previously written cycle of satirical stories by Mikhail Bulgakov of the 20s, such as “The Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs”. Bulgakov began writing the story “Heart of a Dog” in January 1925 and finished it in March of the same year; it was originally intended for publication in the Nedra magazine, but was not censored. And all of its contents were known to Moscow literature lovers, because Bulgakov read it in March 1925 at the Nikitsky Subbotnik (literary circle), later it was copied by hand (the so-called “samizdat”) and thus distributed to the masses. In the USSR, the story “Heart of a Dog” was first published in 1987 (6th issue of the Znamya magazine).
Analysis of the work
Story line
The basis for the development of the plot in the story is the story of the unsuccessful experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, who decided to turn the homeless mongrel Sharik into a human. To do this, he transplants the pituitary gland of an alcoholic, parasite and rowdy Klim Chugunkin, the operation is successful and a completely “new man” is born - Poligraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, who, according to the author’s idea, is a collective image of the new Soviet proletarian. The “new man” is distinguished by a rude, arrogant and deceitful character, a boorish manner of behavior, a very unpleasant, repulsive appearance, and the intelligent and well-mannered professor often has conflicts with him. Sharikov, in order to register in the professor’s apartment (to which he believes he has every right), enlists the support of a like-minded and ideological teacher, the chairman of the Shvonder house committee, and even finds himself a job: he catches stray cats. Driven to the extreme by all the antics of the newly minted Polygraph Sharikov (the last straw was the denunciation of Preobrazhensky himself), the professor decides to return everything as it was and turns Sharikov back into a dog.
Main characters
The main characters of the story “Heart of a Dog” are typical representatives of Moscow society of that time (the thirties of the twentieth century).
One of the main characters at the center of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky, a world-famous scientist, a respected person in society who adheres to democratic views. He deals with the issues of rejuvenating the human body through animal organ transplants, and strives to help people without causing them any harm. The professor is depicted as a respectable and self-confident person, having a certain weight in society and accustomed to living in luxury and prosperity (he has a large house with servants, among his clients are former nobles and representatives of the highest revolutionary leadership).
Being a cultured person and possessing an independent and critical mind, Preobrazhensky openly opposes Soviet power, calling the Bolsheviks who came to power “idlers” and “idlers”; he is firmly convinced that it is necessary to fight devastation not with terror and violence, but with culture, and believes that the only way to communicate with living beings is through affection.
Having conducted an experiment on the stray dog Sharik and turned him into a human, and even tried to instill in him basic cultural and moral skills, Professor Preobrazhensky undergoes a complete fiasco. He admits that his “new man” turned out to be completely useless, does not lend himself to education and learns only bad things (Sharikov’s main conclusion after studying Soviet propaganda literature is that everything needs to be divided, and doing this by the method of robbery and violence). The scientist understands that one cannot interfere with the laws of nature, because such experiments do not lead to anything good.
The professor's young assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, is a very decent and devoted person to his teacher (the professor at one time took part in the fate of a poor and hungry student, and he responded with devotion and gratitude). When Sharikov reached the limit, having written a denunciation of the professor and stole a pistol, he wanted to use it, it was Bormental who showed fortitude and toughness of character, deciding to turn him back into a dog, while the professor was still hesitating.
Describing these two doctors, old and young, from the positive side, emphasizing their nobility and self-esteem, Bulgakov sees in their descriptions himself and his relatives, doctors, who in many situations would have acted in exactly the same way.
The absolute opposites of these two positive heroes are people of modern times: the former dog Sharik himself, who became Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, the chairman of the house committee Shvonder and other “tenants”.
Shvonder is a typical example of a member of the new society who fully and completely supports Soviet power. Hating the professor as a class enemy of the revolution and planning to get part of the professor’s living space, he uses Sharikov for this, telling him about the rights to the apartment, giving him documents and pushing him to write a denunciation against Preobrazhensky. Himself, being a narrow-minded and uneducated person, Shvonder gives in and hesitates in conversations with the professor, and this makes him hate him even more and makes every effort to annoy him as much as possible.
Sharikov, whose donor was a bright average representative of the Soviet thirties of the last century, an alcoholic without a specific job, three times convicted lumpen-proletariat Klim Chugunkin, twenty-five years old, is distinguished by his absurd and arrogant character. Like all ordinary people, he wants to become one of the people, but he doesn’t want to learn anything or put any effort into it. He likes to be an ignorant slob, fight, swear, spit on the floor and constantly run into scandals. However, without learning anything good, he absorbs the bad like a sponge: he quickly learns to write denunciations, finds a job he “likes” - killing cats, the eternal enemies of the canine race. Moreover, by showing how mercilessly he deals with stray cats, the author makes it clear that Sharikov will do the same with any person who comes between him and his goal.
The gradually increasing aggression, impudence and impunity of Sharikov are specially shown by the author so that the reader understands how terrible and dangerous this “Sharikovism”, emerging in the 20s of the last century, as a new social phenomenon of the post-revolutionary time, is. Such Sharikovs, found all over the Soviet society, especially those in power, pose a real threat to society, especially to intelligent, intelligent and cultured people, whom they hate fiercely and try to destroy in every possible way. Which, by the way, happened later, when during Stalin’s repressions the color of the Russian intelligentsia and military elite was destroyed, as Bulgakov predicted.
Features of compositional construction
The story “The Heart of a Dog” combines several literary genres; in accordance with the plot of the storyline, it can be classified as a fantastic adventure in the image and likeness of “The Island of Dr. Moreau” by H.G. Wells, which also describes an experiment on breeding a human-animal hybrid. From this side, the story can be attributed to the science fiction genre that was actively developing at that time, the prominent representatives of which were Alexei Tolstoy and Alexander Belyaev. However, under the surface layer of science-adventure fiction, in fact, there turns out to be a sharp satirical parody, allegorically showing the monstrosity and failure of that large-scale experiment called “socialism”, which was carried out by the Soviet government on the territory of Russia, trying to use terror and violence to create a “new man”, born from revolutionary explosion and propagation of Marxist ideology. Bulgakov very clearly demonstrated what will come of this in his story.
The composition of the story consists of such traditional parts as the beginning - the professor sees a stray dog and decides to bring him home, the climax (several points can be highlighted here) - the operation, the visit of the house committee members to the professor, Sharikov writing a denunciation against Preobrazhensky, his threats with the use of weapons, the professor's decision to turn Sharikov back into a dog, the denouement - the reverse operation, Shvonder's visit to the professor with the police, the final part - the establishment of peace and tranquility in the professor's apartment: the scientist goes about his business, the dog Sharik is quite happy with his dog's life.
Despite all the fantastic and incredible nature of the events described in the story, the author’s use of various techniques of grotesque and allegory, this work, thanks to the use of descriptions of specific signs of that time (city landscapes, various locales, life and appearance of the characters), is distinguished by its unique verisimilitude.
The events taking place in the story are described on the eve of Christmas and it is not for nothing that the professor is called Preobrazhensky, and his experiment is a real “anti-Christmas”, a kind of “anti-creation”. In a story based on allegory and fantastic fiction, the author wanted to show not only the importance of the scientist’s responsibility for his experiment, but also the inability to see the consequences of his actions, the huge difference between the natural development of evolution and revolutionary intervention in the course of life. The story shows the author's clear vision of the changes that took place in Russia after the revolution and the beginning of the construction of a new socialist system; all these changes for Bulgakov were nothing more than an experiment on people, large-scale, dangerous and having catastrophic consequences.
Summary of a literature lesson in 11th grade
Subject: The image of Professor Preobrazhensky in M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.”
The purpose of the lesson: to reveal the skill of M. Bulgakov in creating the image of the artistic image of Professor Preobrazhensky, which contains the idea of the work.
Tasks
educational: work on the skills of text analysis, skills of revealing the image of a literary hero;
developing: develop thinking, the ability to generalize and draw conclusions, improve monologue and dialogic speech of students;
educational: to cultivate the civic position of students, a sense of responsibility for their own actions and for what is happening in society, to interest them in the work of M.A. Bulgakov.
Board design
1. Portrait of M.A. Bulgakov.
2. Portrait of N.M. Bulgakov (prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.
3. Portrait of the hero of the story, made by a student.
4. Recording: Techniques for creating an artistic image of a hero:
A) Hero's name
B) Portrait of a hero.
C) The actions of the hero.
D) Description of the situation in which the hero is located.
D) Speech characteristics of the hero (monologues, including internal ones, dialogues).
E) The system of images of the work, the environment - minor characters through which the image is revealed.
G) Compositional techniques used by the author to reveal the character of the hero.
Lesson equipment
Interactive board, projector, computer for viewing an excerpt from the film “Heart of a Dog” by N. Bozhko.
Leading task
1. Individual task: report on the role of minor characters in revealing the image of Professor Preobrazhensky (for 1-2 minutes)
2. Individual task: report on the image of Doctor Bormental and his role in revealing the character of Professor Preobrazhensky (for 1-2 minutes)
During the classes
Organizational moment - 1 min.
I . Teacher's opening speech - 1 min.
We continue to study the story by M.A. Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog” and today the image of Professor Preobrazhensky is in the center of our attention.
It was already noted earlier that the changes taking place in Russia in the 20-30s, associated with the construction of socialism and a new future man, were perceived by the humanist writer as a huge experiment, terrible in its scale and consequences. Bulgakov had a negative attitude towards the idea of creating a new society, educating a new person, free from the previous morality and culture. The writer perceived this as interference in the natural course of things, the thousand-year history of mankind, and the consequences of this interference could be disastrous for everyone, including the “experimenters” themselves. The story “Heart of a Dog” warns about this.
But besides this, in his work Bulgakov reflects on the role of the scientist and science, on the role of the intelligentsia in society, on their moral responsibility to society. That is why the image of Professor Preobrazhensky becomes so important.
The purpose of our lesson is to analyze this image, to comprehend Bulgakov’s writing skills in creating the image of the main character. We will try to determine ways and techniques for revealing the character of the characters in the story.
II . Work on the image of Professor Preobrazhensky - 18-20 min
So, before us is the main character of the story - Professor Philip Philipovich
Preobrazhensky.
- What do you think is the meaning of Bulgakov’s first and last name of his hero?
(Listen to students' answers)
NamePhilip translated from Greek means “lover of horses.” The horse in Ancient Greece was one of the symbols of a noble person. And the wordphilippic means “an angry diatribe, a speech against someone or something. Students should come to the conclusion that with this image the author probably wanted to expose the experiment in which the professor transformed a dog into a man. The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was the writer’s uncle, Nikolai Mikhailovich Bulgakov, a famous doctor, an intelligent and talented person (photo on the board).
Let us pay attention to the portrait-illustration of the hero of the story.
- Is this how you imagined the professor?
(Listen to students' answers)
The character of a literary hero in a work of art is revealed in certain ways and techniques. Pay attention to the notes on the board.
Let's see how Bulgakov creates a portrait of F.F. Preobrazhensky.
(Work with text) Chapter 1 from the words “The door is across the street... Give it to me.”
From the words “What a personality!” until the end of the chapter.
- What feature of the writer’s depiction of the hero’s appearance did you notice?
(The portrait is given through the eyes of a dog. At the same time
citizen = master
comrade = lackey)
- What technique does Bulgakov use when describing Preobrazhensky’s apartment? For what? (The technique is an antithesis. Two different worlds - the world of cleanliness, prosperity, peace and comfort and the world of dirt, stench, poverty and anger).
Professor, gentleman, educated, well-mannered, noble person, personality. He is a world-famous scientist and practicing doctor who earns money through his labor and talent. He is confident, calm, and can do what he loves. Philip Philipovich keeps a servant and lives in 7 rooms. According to the new government - the house committee headed by Shvonder - this is an unaffordable luxury.
(Working with text) Ch. 2 - an episode of the house committee coming to the professor’s apartment demanding a seal. From the words “Tiled squares…. The golden chain sparkled"
- Pay attention to details. How does the professor change in appearance during a conversation with the “proletarians”?
(The face “turned tenderly purple” - “the purpleness took on a somewhat grayish tint” - “his purpleness turned yellow”, he “barked”)
- What did the author want to emphasize?
(Irritation. He is infuriated by the lack of basic common sense, reference to dubious authorities).
- What do you think, maybe living in 7 rooms is really an unaffordable luxury?
(We listen to the opinions of the students. No, this is not a luxury - this is a normal condition of human life. It is interesting that the purpose of the rooms is rational. This has evolved over the centuries and has even become entrenched in the language: bedroom, dining room, children's room, office..)
(Working with text) Ch. 3 . From the beginning to the words “filled with liquid saliva”
From the words “Let’s get off the plates” to “don’t read Soviet newspapers”
Derzhavin’s lines immediately come to mind:
Crimson ham, green cabbage soup with yolk,
Ruddy yellow pie, white cheese, red crayfish,
What tar, amber, caviar...
And lines from Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”:
And Strasbourg's pie is imperishable
Between live Limburg cheese
And a golden pineapple.
- Why are the associations not accidental?
(Food consumption culture has its roots in our
history)
- How does this description help to understand the image of Professor Preobrazhensky?
(The culture of life is an important component of the general human
chesky culture. Comparing Preobrazhensky and Shariko-
va, the reader immediately highlights the superiority of man, “able
there is something").
III . The role of minor characters in revealing the image of the hero – 10 min.
(We listen to the student’s answer to the individual advanced task: “The role of images of servants in revealing the character of Professor Preobrazhensky”).
In Soviet Russia, the work of servants was considered slave labor, degrading human dignity. But Bulgakov proves the opposite: any work, if done responsibly and with soul, is necessary and will be appreciated. The professor himself, treating his servants with respect and trust, does not humiliate, but, on the contrary, makes them feel needed, important, and even involved in the life of the professor.
Antithesis again: Sharikov’s attitude towards Zina and Daria Petrovna.
(We listen to the student’s answer to the individual advanced task about the role of Dr. Bormental in revealing the image of the professor.)
We draw a conclusion about the role of minor characters in revealing the image of the main character: portrait, interior, everyday life, minor characters - everything indicates that Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky is a self-confident, worthy, intelligent person with high culture.
IV . The role of the image in revealing the idea of the work – 15 minutes.
-What is the purpose of a professor’s life? (We listen to the students’ answers).
The purpose of his life is to serve science. For this reason, he decided on an experiment to humanize the dog... But Sharikov, this “new man,” appears in the apartment, and devastation immediately begins, as, indeed, everywhere: in the house, in the country.
In the early 30s, at the Moscow Workshop of Communist Drama, Valery Yazvitsky’s one-act play “Who is to Blame” (“Devastation”) was staged, where the main character is an ancient, crooked old woman in rags named Devastation. Soviet propaganda sought to make a mythical, elusive villain out of the devastation, trying to hide that its root cause was the Bolshevik policy, war communism, when people, having no incentive to work, stopped working honestly and efficiently.
- How does Preobrazhensky propose to get rid of the devastation? (Bring order to the country, when everyone should mind their own business and be responsible for their work)
The revolution gave birth to “new people” who destroyed the old world, a great culture, armed with one right - to take everything and divide it. But the goal of the revolution is to improve the lives of ordinary people, to transform the world.
Wanting to improve human nature, Preobrazhensky created a monster who easily accepted proletarian ideas. The pituitary gland transplant operation humanizes the dog within a week; the “humanization operation” of the Shvonders lasted longer, but the result is essentially the same. These people have only external human characteristics, which are insufficient for the definition of “human” to be applicable to them. Millions of Shvonders and Sharikovs were instilled with a terrible idea: in order to become the master of life, you don’t need to work hard, make an effort, educate yourself, it’s enough that you are a “proletarian”.
Watching an excerpt from the film - a fragment from Chapter 8 - a conversation between the professor and Dr. Bormenthal about the result of the experiment. - 5 minutes.
- What conclusion does the professor come to after his experiment?
(The failure of such experiments is inevitable, because it is impossible to “humanize” something that has ceased to be human, having lost the spiritual, moral and ethical basis on which the relationship between society and the individual is built. That is why the experiment with the humanization of the dog failed in the same way as the tragic communist experiment Time has shown how right Bulgakov was in his insights.
- Does the writer condemn the professor for this experiment?
(Working with text) – epilogue “The gray harmonies of trumpets warmed...
- What does the author call the professor? (Supreme being, omnipotent man, gray-haired wizard).
- What conclusion can be drawn?
(In the story, the professor manages to return everything to normal: the evil boor Sharikov again becomes a kind and affectionate dog. It’s a pity that in real life it is impossible to turn back time.)
V. Lesson summary.
The image of Professor Preobrazhensky is the main image, by comprehending which one can understand the writer’s ideological plan. This is one of the most vivid, memorable images created by Bulgakov. The author's skill is manifested in the ability to use various methods and techniques in creating the image of his hero.
VI. Homework - 1-2 min.
A talented writer, in the images he created, expresses thoughts that concern not only his contemporaries, but also his descendants. Experiments to create a new person continue in the twentieth century.Icentury. Now scientists are trying to clone people. I suggest you answer the question in writing:
“What did the Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov warn humanity about when creating the image of Professor Preobrazhensky?”
VII . Giving and commenting on lesson grades - 2 minutes.
Sensational rejuvenation surgeries
M. Bulgakov’s fantastic story “The Heart of a Dog” about a professor conducting an experiment on transplanting a human pituitary gland into a dog was, in fact, not completely fictional. The main character, Professor Preobrazhensky, had a real prototype, or rather, even several prototypes. In those days, Russian and foreign scientists actually conducted experiments on human rejuvenation, and even on crossing humans with animals! There are at least four contenders for the role of Preobrazhensky’s prototype.
Evgeny Evstigneev as Professor Preobrazhensky in the film by V. Bortko *Heart of a Dog*, 1988
Researchers who search for prototypes of this literary hero usually start with portrait resemblance and geographic coordinates. The fact is that the story describes the apartment of Professor Preobrazhensky, and this description coincides in detail with the furnishings of the apartment of Bulgakov’s uncle, gynecologist Nikolai Mikhailovich Pokrovsky. In addition, one cannot help but notice the external similarity between the professor described in the story and Pokrovsky.
Bulgakov's uncle N. M. Pokrovsky and the house on Prechistenka in which he lived
This version is also supported by the memoirs of the writer’s first wife, Tatyana Lappa: “When I started reading “Heart of a Dog,” I immediately guessed that it was him. Just as angry, he was always humming something, his nostrils flared, his mustache was just as bushy. He was then very offended by Mikhail for this. Nikolai Mikhailovich was distinguished by an inflexible, hot-tempered character.” However, the similarities are limited to these details. Pokrovsky did not conduct scandalous experiments. Unlike the next contender for the role of the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.
Charles Brown-Séquard
Professor Preobrazhensky not only treats patients, but also their rejuvenation - for example, in one episode he tells a 51-year-old woman that he intends to transplant monkey ovaries into her. This sounds anecdotal, but, nevertheless, very close to reality. The outstanding French doctor Charles Brown-Séquard, at the age of 70, began experiments on rejuvenation - he gave himself 6 injections of an extract from the testes of rabbits and dogs. According to him, he felt a surge of strength and vigor and felt rejuvenated.
Evgeny Evstigneev as Professor Preobrazhensky in the film by V. Bortko *Heart of a Dog*, 1988
To demonstrate the veracity of his feelings, Brown-Séquard ran up the stairs, which he had previously climbed with difficulty. His report, read at the Paris Scientific Society in 1889, caused a lot of noise. Some scientists followed his example and repeated his experiment. But soon the scientist recognized the short duration of the rejuvenating effect: he began to quickly become decrepit and died after 5 years - nature took its toll.
Samuil Abramovich Voronov
Samuil Abramovich Voronov
Brown-Séquard's experiments were continued by the French surgeon of Russian origin Samuil Abramovich Voronov. He developed a technique for grafting monkey testicular tissue into human testicles. His experiments were so popular that he soon had a line of wealthy patients dreaming of rejuvenation and sexual activity. Thousands of people underwent treatment according to Voronov’s system, and soon he even opened a monkey nursery for the convenience of carrying out procedures. But soon Voronov lost confidence and was proclaimed a charlatan.
Samuil Abramovich Voronov
And in the USSR, no less sensational experiments were carried out at the same time by Professor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, who discovered the method of artificial insemination to the world. He was creating interspecific hybrids and dreamed of crossing a man with a monkey. He came up with this idea in 1910 at the World Congress of Zoologists. His dream was not destined to come true, but similar ideas were heard in the scientific world of the early twentieth century.
Professor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov and the expected result of his experiments
Polygraph Sharikov - the result of an experiment by Professor Preobrazhensky
It is difficult to say which of these outstanding doctors was really the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky, and whether he actually had prototypes - perhaps this is a collective image that embodied the features of the best minds of that era.
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 take a break from Sharikov’s gloomy appearance for a while 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,” Bormental 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 nights...” That’s it, 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 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 changed completely 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 respects. 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, the instinct of safety and come into contact with a monkey, in other words, to sin with it.
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 “most important fool” - the chairman of the house committee - works on a superficial level: he tries to rebuild social relations - the superstructure, in Marxist terms, and does it stupidly, primitively and fussily, real life still flows past him, flows away like water through fingers. But more on this in the next publication. But Philip Philipovich works at a deep level, with the basis, trying to remake the very nature of man. 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. This is what he writes: “In the near future, perhaps within 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 grief 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 observing. 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 the State Duma is seriously debating the possibility of introducing a law to replace the two genders - male and female - with... five. "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.
Starting my thoughts about Professor Preobrazhensky, the hero of the work “Heart of a Dog,” I would like to dwell a little on some facts of the biography of the author - Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (05/15/1891 Kiev - 03/10/1940, Moscow), Russian writer, theater playwright and director. All this is in order to draw some parallels that will largely unite the author and his imaginary hero.
A little about the author's biography
Bulgakov was born into the family of an associate professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy, but he himself soon became a student at the medical faculty of Kyiv University. During World War I he worked as a front-line doctor. In the spring of 1918, he returned to Kyiv, where he practiced as a private venereologist. During the civil war of 1919, Bulgakov was a military doctor of the Ukrainian Military Army, then of the Armed Forces of southern Russia, the Red Cross, the Volunteer Army, etc. Having fallen ill with typhus in 1920, he was treated in Vladikavkaz, and after that his writing talent awoke. He will write to his cousin that he has finally understood: his job is to write.
Prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky
You can really compare Bulgakov with the prototype of the main character; they have too much in common. However, it is generally accepted that Preobrazhensky (the professor) as an image was copied from his uncle Mikhail Afanasyevich, a famous Moscow doctor, gynecologist
In 1926, the OGPU conducted a search of the writer, and as a result, the manuscripts of “The Heart of a Dog” and the diary were confiscated.
This story was dangerous for the writer because it became a satire on the Soviet regime of the 20-30s. The newly created class of the proletariat is represented here by heroes like the Shvonders and Sharikovs, who are absolutely far from the values of the destroyed tsarist Russia.
They are all opposed to Professor Preobrazhensky, whose quotes deserve special attention. This surgeon and scientist, a luminary of Russian science, appears for the first time at the moment when in the story the dog, the future Sharikov, dies in a city gateway - hungry and cold, with a burnt side. The professor appears at the most painful hours for the dog. The dog’s thoughts “voice” Preobrazhensky as a cultured gentleman, with an intelligent beard and mustache, like those of French knights.
Experiment
Professor Preobrazhensky's main business is to treat people, to look for new ways to achieve longevity and effective means of rejuvenation. Of course, like any scientist, he could not live without experiments. He picks up the dog, and at the same time a plan is born in the doctor’s head: he decides to perform an operation to transplant the pituitary gland. He does this experiment on a dog in the hope of finding an effective method for gaining a “second youth.” However, the consequences of the operation were unexpected.
Over the course of several weeks, the dog, which was given the nickname Sharik, becomes a human and receives documents bearing the name Sharikov. Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant Bormenthal are trying to instill in him worthy and noble human manners. However, their “education” does not bring any visible results.
Transformation into a human
Preobrazhensky expresses his opinion to assistant Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental: it is necessary to understand the horror that Sharikov no longer has a dog’s heart, but a human one, and “the lousiest of all those existing in nature.”
Bulgakov created a parody of the socialist revolution, described the clash of two classes, in which Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky is a professor and intellectual, and the working class is Sharikov and others like him.
The professor, like a real nobleman, accustomed to luxury, living in a 7-room apartment and every day eating various delicacies such as salmon, eels, turkey, roast beef, and washing it all down with cognac, vodka and wine, suddenly found himself in an unexpected situation. The unbridled and arrogant Sharikovs and Shvonders burst into his calm and proportionate aristocratic life.
House Committee
Shvonder is a separate example of the proletarian class; he and his company form the house committee in the house where Preobrazhensky, an experimental professor, lives. They, however, seriously began to fight him. But he is also not so simple, Professor Preobrazhensky’s monologue about the devastation in people’s heads suggests that the proletariat and its interests are simply hateful to him, and as long as he has the opportunity to devote himself to his favorite business (science), he will be indifferent to petty swindlers and swindlers like Shvondera.
But he enters into a serious struggle with his household member Sharikov. If Shvonder puts pressure purely outwardly, then you cannot so easily disown Sharikov, because it is he who is the product of his scientific activity and the product of an unsuccessful experiment. Sharikov brings such chaos and destruction into his house that in two weeks the professor experienced more stress than in all his years.
Image
However, the image of Professor Preobrazhensky is very curious. No, he is by no means the embodiment of virtue. He, just like any person, has his shortcomings, he is a rather selfish, narcissistic, vain, but a living and real person. Preobrazhensky became the image of a real intellectual, alone fighting the devastation brought by the Sharikov generation. Isn't this fact worthy of sympathy, respect and sympathy?
Time for revolution
The story “Heart of a Dog” shows the reality of the 20s of the twentieth century. Dirty streets are described, where signs are hung everywhere promising a bright future for people. An even more depressing mood is caused by bad, cold, stormy weather and the homeless image of a dog, which, like most Soviet people of the new country under construction, is literally surviving and is in constant search of warmth and food.
It is in this chaos that Preobrazhensky, one of the few intellectuals who survived a dangerous and difficult time, appears - an aristocratic professor. The character Sharikov, still in his dog body, assessed him in his own way: that he “eats abundantly and does not steal, will not kick, and he himself is not afraid of anyone, because he is always full.”
Two sides
The image of Preobrazhensky is like a ray of light, like an island of stability, satiety and well-being in the terrible reality of the post-war years. He's actually nice. But many do not like a person who, in general, everything is going well, but for whom it is not enough to have seven rooms - he wants another one, an eighth, to make a library in it.
However, the house committee began an intensified struggle against the professor and wanted to take his apartment away from him. In the end, the proletarians did not manage to harm the professor, and therefore the reader could not help but rejoice at this fact.
But this is only one side of the coin of Preobrazhensky’s life, and if you delve deeper into the essence of the matter, you can see a not very attractive picture. The prosperity that Bulgakov’s main character, Professor Preobrazhensky, enjoys, it must be said, did not suddenly fall on his head and was not inherited from rich relatives. He made his wealth himself. And now he serves people who have received power into their hands, because now it is their time to enjoy all the benefits.
One of Preobrazhensky’s clients voices very interesting things: “No matter how much I steal, everything goes to the female body, Abrau-Durso champagne and cancerous cervixes.” But the professor, despite all his high morality, intelligence and sensitivity, does not try to reason with his patient, re-educate him or express displeasure. He understands that he needs money to support his usual way of life without need: with all the necessary servants in the house, with a table filled with all sorts of dishes such as sausages not from Mosselprom or caviar spread on crispy fresh bread.
In the work, Professor Preobrazhensky uses a dog’s heart for his experiment. Not because of his love for animals, he picks up an exhausted dog to feed or warm him, but because, as it seems to him, a brilliant, but monstrous plan for him has arisen in his head. And further in the book this operation is described in detail, which only causes unpleasant emotions. As a result of the rejuvenation operation, the professor ends up with a “newborn” person in his hands. That is why it is not in vain that Bulgakov gives a telling surname and status to his hero - Preobrazhensky, a professor who implants the cerebellum of the repeat offender Klimka into the dog that came to him. This bore fruit; the professor did not expect such side effects.
Professor Preobrazhensky's phrases contain thoughts about education, which, in his opinion, could make Sharikov a more or less acceptable member of social society. But Sharikov was not given a chance. Preobrazhensky had no children, and he did not know the basics of pedagogy. Perhaps that is why his experiment did not go in the right direction.
And few people pay attention to Sharikov’s words that he, like a poor animal, was seized, striped and now they are abhorring him, but he, by the way, did not give his permission for the operation and can sue. And, what is most interesting, no one notices the truth behind his words.
Teacher and educator
Preobrazhensky became the first literature teacher for Sharikov, although he understood that learning to speak does not mean becoming a full-fledged person. He wanted to make a highly developed personality out of the beast. After all, the professor himself in the book is a standard of education and high culture and a supporter of old, pre-revolutionary morals. He very clearly defined his position, speaking about the ensuing devastation and the inability of the proletariat to cope with it. The professor believes that people should first of all be taught the most basic culture; he is sure that using brute force, nothing can be achieved in the world. He realizes that he has created a creature with a dead soul, and finds the only way out: to perform the reverse operation, since his educational methods did not work on Sharikov, because in a conversation with the maid Zina he noted: “You can’t fight anyone... On humans and animals You can only act by suggestion."
But the skills of demagoguery, as it turns out, are learned much easier and faster than the skills of creative activity. And Shvonder succeeds in raising Sharikov. He does not teach him grammar and mathematics, but begins immediately with the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, as a result of which Sharikov, with his low level of development, despite the complexity of the topic, from which his “head was swollen,” came to the conclusion: “Take everything and share!” This idea of social justice was understood best of all by the people's power and the newly minted citizen Sharikov.
Professor Preobrazhensky: “Devastation in our heads”
It should be noted that “Heart of a Dog” shows from all sides the absurdity and madness of the new structure of society that arose after 1917. Professor Preobrazhensky understood this well. The character's quotes about the devastation in their heads are unique. He says that if a doctor, instead of performing operations, starts singing in chorus, he will be ruined. If he begins to urinate past the toilet, and all his servants do this, then devastation will begin in the restroom. Consequently, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.
Famous quotes by Professor Preobrazhensky
In general, the book “Heart of a Dog” is a real quotation book. The professor’s main and vivid expressions were described in the text above, but there are several more that also deserve the reader’s attention and will be interesting for various reflections.
“He who is not in a hurry succeeds everywhere.”
- “Why was the carpet removed from the main staircase? What, Karl Marx forbids carpets on stairs?”
- “Humanity itself takes care of this and, in an evolutionary order, every year persistently creates dozens of outstanding geniuses from the mass of all kinds of scum that adorn the globe.”
- “What is this destruction of yours? An old woman with a stick? A witch who knocked out all the windows and put out all the lamps?”