With the consequences of their own inventions.

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

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

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

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

What happens when all these human and animal qualities are combined in a new being? "Here's what: two convictions, alcoholism, "divide everything", a hat and two gold coins are gone ... - a boor and a pig ..." Sharikov, whom his creator prevents from living the way he wants, seeks to destroy his "daddy "with the help of political dokos.

Of course, people from the breed of "simplifiers and equalizers" played an important role here, in whose person the revolutionary idea appeared in its hypertrophied appearance. Such people seek to undo the complex culture created by European humanity. Shvonder is trying to subordinate Sharikov to his ideology, but does not take into account the fact that the human race itself has degraded in Polygraph Poligrafovich, and therefore he does not need any ideology. “He doesn’t understand that Sharikov is a more formidable danger for him than for me,” says Preobrazhensky. Shvonder, then only horns and legs will remain of him.

Bulgakov was very worried about such consequences of combining a revolutionary experiment with the psychology of a human crowd. Therefore, in his work, he seeks to warn people about the danger threatening society: the process of forming balls can get out of control and it will be disastrous for those who contributed to their appearance. At the same time, the blame falls equally on the "fools" of the Shvonderov and the "wise men" of the Preobrazhenskys. After all, the idea of ​​an experiment with a person, born in a scientist's office, has long gone out into the street, embodied in revolutionary transformations. Therefore, the writer raises the question of the responsibility of thinkers for the development of ideas launched into life.

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

An opponent of all violence, Professor Preobrazhensky, as the only possible way of influencing a rational being, recognizes only kindness: “Nothing can be done with terror,” he says ... “I affirm this, I have affirmed and I will affirm. They think in vain that terror will help them. No, sir, no, sir, it won't help, no matter what it is - white, red and even brown! Terror completely paralyzes the nervous system. Yet his attempts to instill elementary cultural skills in Sharikov fail.

Now, having familiarized readers with the gnostic concept of humanity, I propose to return to Bulgakov's story and its heroes, the main of which is Sharikov. His image is divided into two - this is the image of the dog Sharik described by the author quite sympathetically before the operation (and also after the reverse operation) and the image of Sharikov himself depicted with a clear, clearly felt disgust. But here's the question - is the dog Sharik for Bulgakov just an animal? After all, he not only quite humanly talks to himself about certain life, including human realities (say, about the difficult lot of a typist), he is even capable of sympathy for her, while he himself is in an extremely distressed situation. What's more, he can read! This is not a dumb Mu-mu or some kind of Kashtanka, thinking in images, but not in words. It seems to me quite obvious that the “dog” Sharik is rather an allegorical description of a certain human type. What?

Bulgakov himself speaks about this in plain text: “ The smell rejuvenated me, lifted me from my belly, with burning waves cramped my empty stomach for two days, the smell that defeated the hospital, the heavenly smell of chopped mare with garlic and pepper. I feel, I know, in the right pocket of his fur coat he has a sausage. He is above me. Oh my lord! Look at me I'm dying. Slave our soul, vile share!»

So, we are talking about a slave. But not just a slave. Let us recall Sharik's attitude towards Professor Preobrazhensky. He worships him, he idolizes him: " Still, I still lick your hand. Kiss your pants, my benefactor!- This is Sharik hungry. But Sharik is full: “ I was so lucky, so lucky, - he thought, dozing, - just indescribably lucky. I established myself in this apartment. I am finally convinced that my origin is unclean. There is no diver here. The slut was my grandmother. The kingdom of heaven to her, old woman. approved. True, the whole head was slashed for some reason, but it will heal before the wedding. We have nothing to see».

Now, with your permission, one more quote, this time not from Bulgakov: “ A slave who salivates when he smugly describes the charms of a slave life and admires a kind and good master is a serf, boor". The author of these words is Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Isn't it true that they describe Sharik quite accurately and completely?
Now actually about Sharikov. Sharikov, on the contrary, is disgusting to Bulgakov. He is described as quite disgusting - a poorly educated, uncultured boor, as they say now, "cattle". But remember - Sharik, as a person, is only a few weeks old! And before that, he was in an environment in which no one at all sought to instill in him the rudiments of culture. You don’t even demand from a one-year-old child the immutable observance of table etiquette, do you? At the same time, he undoubtedly progresses, at least intellectually. However, Preobrazhensky progress denies him the right to do this in advance - let's recall a fragment of Dr. Bormental's diary: “ When I told him about my hypotheses and about the hope of developing Sharik into a very high mental personality, he chuckled and replied: “Do you think so?” His tone is ominous". According to the professor, the whole essence of Sharikov is determined only by the pituitary gland of the petty-criminal element Klim Chugunkin, who was transplanted to him, and nothing else. That is why no spiritual progress is possible for him - there is a purely biological limitation of this progress in him, dooming him to remain a boor and cattle forever.

But if Sharikov is an image of a certain human type, then what, it turns out, is Bulgakov talking about? About the fact that there are people who are slaves, boors and cattle by nature. People who have been ordered the path of ascent, development. Inferior people, not quite people, people-dogs, people-animals ... One would like to add to this series - "sub-humans", "sub-humans", isn't it? And in fact: A subhuman is a biological creature created by nature, having arms, legs, a semblance of a brain, with eyes and a mouth. However, this terrible creature is only partially human. It wears human-like facial features - but spiritually and psychologically, the subhuman is lower than any animal. Inside this creature is a chaos of wild, unbridled passions: a nameless need to destroy, the most primitive desires and undisguised meanness.". If we remove “created by nature” (“Subhuman is a biological creature created by nature ...”) - it’s as if it was written about Sharikov, right? It’s just that it was written by the Nazis, and it was also written about Russians. About Russians in general, all Russians, without division into Sharikovs and Preobrazhenskys.

No, I don't want to say that Bulgakov has anything to do with Nazism. It's just that the root of the views of the Nazis and Bulgakov is the same: the one I spoke about in the first part of the report, that is, gnosticism and gnostic concepts. Sharik turning into Sharikov is a typical Gnostic "chilik". He is tolerant and even somewhat sympathetic, while he is content with the role of a slave assigned to him, happy with his slavery. But as soon as he rises, as soon as he wishes for more, to wish to become a man, to change this world, to make it more just for himself and for those like him - and he becomes hostile, disgusting for those whom the existing order of things suits by virtue of what it provides them with. a certain privileged position relative to the "Balls". For example, Professor Preobrazhensky. Or Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov.

From the understanding of the Gnostic system, the images of Shvonder and Preobrazhensky also become clear. Shvonder is, of course, a "psychic". He is spiritually and intellectually clearly superior to Sharikov, but at the same time he is even more hated by the author. And no wonder, because he personifies just that very attempt to raise "natural slaves" from their "natural" (in quotation marks) slave position to a more befitting human. It is Shvonder who explains to Sharikov that he has rights, as well as, among other things, duties: not only to “get a document”, but also to register with the military in order to participate in the defense of his country in case of war. It is Shvonder who arranges Sharikov a job, albeit somewhat... morally ambiguous. In the end, it is Shvonder who, after the “disappearance” of Sharikov, turns to the police: the man is gone! That is, it is Shvonder who, from beginning to end, treats Sharikov, whatever the origin of the latter, as a person. That is why he is disgusting to the author: Shvonder is not just trying to get some benefits for himself - he “for some reason” also spreads it to others, to those who, according to Bulgakov, clearly do not deserve it.

And finally, Professor Preobrazhensky. In some ways - the "alter ego", the "second self" of Bulgakov himself, who has only achieved everything that Bulgakov would like to achieve: material well-being, world recognition, even some power, which, for example, is enough to resist attempts to "condense » his apartment by Schwonder. It is through the mouth of Preobrazhensky that Bulgakov expresses his thoughts and views, for example, “I don’t like the proletariat”, “I am for the division of labor”, and, finally, the same, abundantly quoted statement “devastation is not in the toilets, but in the heads.” Of course, only in the minds, after eleven years of the war - first the First World War, then the Civil War, where else ... And, undoubtedly, Bulgakov's Preobrazhensky is a pneumatic man, a "higher being", almost a superman, "having the right."

And he uses this right: first he creates Sharikov from Sharik - not on purpose, as a result of an experiment, by mistake. And then he corrects his mistake. That is, in general, kills a man. Yes, a person of little culture, unpleasant in communication and causing him personally some inconvenience. But - after all, a person! Even if Preobrazhensky himself does not recognize him as such. And he is not at all tormented by remorse about this: the only thing that did not allow him to do this before was the fear of punishment, and by no means an internal ban on murder. And why should he be tormented by remorse if for him Sharikov is not a man, but just a talking dog? A subhuman, a chilik ... But how far is it from this position to the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz? After all, you can, you can! Subhuman - you can! Slaves, "talking tools" - you can! Russian - you can! Yes? Do you agree with this, dear listeners?

And here is the statement of our contemporary, for some reason, classifying himself as a "Preobrazhensky": “Our problem is that we also count non-humans as people - and evaluate them in the human nomination. That's why we get upset, comparing numbers, that's why we go into impotent anger, not understanding how this is possible: to lie in the eyes, spew vulgarities, kill, arrange monkey dances around the murdered ... We - mistakenly - believe that we relate with them to one biological species (ours), in which this is really impossible, and we scream with indignation. By inertia, we count them as opponents, and they - environment. And similar external signs - such as having a pair of arms and legs, a nose, glasses, registration and the ability to use an iPad - should not distract us from this harsh essence of the matter. This text was written by Viktor Shenderovich. He and others like him, obviously, also believe that they "have the right." And give them free rein - they will not fail to use them. Actually, they already took advantage once: the so-called “perestroika” and what followed it, with all the numerous victims “who did not fit into the market” (why should we feel sorry for them, chili-subhuman, in fact?) - this is after all in many respects the work of this particular part of society, for some reason unknown to me, claims the proud title of "creative intelligentsia". Although now, it seems, it is possible to replace the Russian, which means “slave” word “creative” with fashionable foreign “creative” ...

Fortunately, there is another book in Russian literature. A book that is not just a product of literary fiction, like Heart of a Dog, but written according to the events that actually took place. And at the same time completely refuting Bulgakov's theoretical constructions. I am talking, of course, about Anton Semyonovich Makarenko's Pedagogical Poem. In fact, after all, his pupils are uniform "Sharikovs", almost to the point of literalness: "yard dogs", homeless children. And some of them are completely "Klimy Chugunkins", a petty criminal element. But only Makarenko does not argue with a smart look that "these people will never come out" - he just takes and makes people out of them. Giant, ascetic labor, which is possible only under the condition of great love for a person - does! And what kind of people - real, such that everyone and every Preobrazhensky is up to them - like walking to the moon! And precisely because this is not fiction, but the truth - I believe Makarenko, but not Bulgakov. I believe that there are no people for whom the path of spiritual, moral and intellectual growth, ascent, is closed, regardless of their social or national origin, and that it is this path that is open to all and those people who decide to follow it and leading others is the only hope of humanity for a life worthy of a person, and simply for life in the 21st century and all subsequent ones. " I believe", in the words of Mayakovsky's poems," greatness of the human heart"! Well, who and what you believe, dear listeners - you choose.

Features of the revolutionary era in M. Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog"

M. A. Bulgakov is an outstanding Russian writer, a man of complex and dramatic fate. Bulgakov is an amazing person who was characterized by strong convictions and unshakable decency. It was unusually difficult for such a person to survive in a revolutionary era. The writer did not want to adapt, to live according to ideological norms dictated from above.

M. A. Bulgakov satirically depicted the contemporary era in the story “Heart of a Dog”, which, for obvious reasons, was published in the USSR only in 1987.

In the center of the story is Professor Preobrazhensky and his grandiose experiment on Sharik. All other events of the story are related to them in one way or another.

Satire sounds in almost every author's word, starting from the very moment where the life of Moscow is shown through the eyes of Sharik. Here is a dog comparing the cook Count Tolstykh with a cook from the Council of Normal Nutrition. And the comparison is clearly not in favor of the latter. In this very "Normal Diet" "bastards from stinky corned beef cook cabbage soup." One feels the author's yearning for the outgoing culture, the noble way of life. In a young Soviet country, they steal, lie, and slander. The lover of a typist from ball thoughts thinks like this: “I am now the chairman, and no matter how much I steal, everything is for the female body, for cancerous necks, for Abrau-Durso.” Bulgakov emphasizes that, despite the too expensive price of the changes that have taken place in the country, nothing has changed for the better in it.

The writer stubbornly depicts the intelligentsia as the best layer of society. An example of this is the culture of everyday life, the culture of thoughts, the culture of communication of Professor Preobrazhensky. In everything, he feels an underlined aristocracy. This is a “mind-work gentleman, with a French pointed beard”, he wears a fur coat “on a silver fox”, a black suit of English cloth, a gold chain. The professor occupies seven rooms, each of which has its own purpose. Preobrazhensky keeps servants, who deservedly respect and honor him. The doctor has a very cultured lunch: both the excellent table setting and the menu itself make one admire his meal.

Contrasting Preobrazhensky with those who come to replace those like him, Bulgakov makes the reader feel all the drama of the era that has begun in the country. The house in which the professor lives is occupied by housing comrades, apartments are being densified, a new house management is being chosen. “God, the Kalabukhovsky house is gone!” - the doctor exclaims, having learned about it. It is not by chance that Preobrazhensky says so. With the advent of the new government, a lot has changed in Kalabukhovsky: all galoshes, overcoats, the doorman’s samovar disappeared, everyone began to walk in dirty galoshes and felt boots on the marble stairs, removed the carpet from the front stairs, got rid of flowers on the grounds, appeared Electricity problems. The professor easily predicts the further course of events in a country ruled by shvonders: “pipes will freeze in the toilets, then the boiler in the steam heating will burst, and so on.” But the Kalabukhovsky house is only a reflection of the general devastation that has come in the country. However, Preobrazhensky believes that the main thing is that "the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads." He rightly notes that those who call themselves authorities are two hundred years behind the Europeans in development, and therefore they cannot lead the country to anything good.

Bulgakov more than once draws the reader's attention to the preference in that era of proletarian origin. So Klim Chugunkin, a criminal and a drunkard, is easily saved from a severe just punishment by his origin, and Preobrazhensky, the son of a cathedral archpriest, and Bormental, the son of a judicial investigator, cannot hope for the saving power of origin.

A striking sign of revolutionary times is women, in whom it is very difficult to discern women. They are deprived of femininity, walk in leather jackets, behave emphatically rudely. What kind of offspring can they give, how to raise him? The question is rhetorical.

new

Showing all these signs of a revolutionary era, Bulgakov emphasizes that a process devoid of morality brings death to people. Professor Preobrazhensky is conducting a great experiment, and his depiction in the story is symbolic. For the writer, everything that was called the construction of socialism is nothing more than a large-scale and more than dangerous experience. Bulgakov was extremely negative about attempts to create a new society by forceful methods. The writer sees the consequences of such an experiment only deplorable and warns society about this in his story “Heart of a Dog”.

"Heart of a Dog" was written at the beginning of 1925. It was supposed to be published in the Nedra almanac, but censorship banned publication. The story was finished in March, and Bulgakov read it at the literary meeting of Nikitsky Subbotniks. The Moscow public became interested in the work. It was distributed in samizdat. It was first published in London and Frankfurt in 1968, in Znamya magazine No. 6 in 1987.

In the 20s. were very popular medical experiments on rejuvenation human body. Bulgakov, as a doctor, was familiar with these natural science experiments. The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Bulgakov's uncle, N.M. Pokrovsky, a gynecologist. He lived on Prechistenka, where the events of the story unfold.

Genre features

The satirical story "Heart of a Dog" combines various genre elements. The plot of the story resembles fantastic adventure literature in the tradition of G. Wells. The subtitle of the story "The Monstrous Story" testifies to the parodic coloring of the fantastic plot.

The science-adventure genre is the outer cover for satirical overtones and topical metaphor.

The story is close to dystopia due to its social satire. This is a warning about the consequences of a historical experiment that must be stopped, everything must return to normal.

Issues

The most important problem of the story is social: it is the comprehension of the events of the revolution, which made it possible to rule the world by balls and shvonders. Another problem is awareness of the limits of human capabilities. Preobrazhensky, imagining himself a god (he is literally worshiped by households), goes against nature, turning a dog into a man. Realizing that “any woman can give birth to Spinoza at any time”, Preobrazhensky repents of his experiment, which saves his life. He understands the fallacy of eugenics, the science of improving the human race.

The problem of the danger of intrusion into human nature and social processes is raised.

Plot and composition

The sci-fi story describes how Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky decides to experiment on transplanting the pituitary gland and ovaries of the “semi-proletarian” Klim Chugunkin to a dog. As a result of this experiment, the monstrous Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov appeared, the embodiment and quintessence of the victorious proletariat class. The existence of Sharikov brought a lot of problems to the household of Philip Philippovich, and, in the end, endangered the normal life and freedom of the professor. Then Preobrazhensky decided on a reverse experiment, transplanting the pituitary gland of a dog to Sharikov.

The ending of the story is open: this time, Preobrazhensky was able to prove to the new proletarian authorities that he was not involved in the “murder” of Polygraph Poligrafovich, but how long will his far from calm life last?

The story consists of 9 parts and an epilogue. The first part is written on behalf of the dog Sharik, who suffers from the harsh winter of St. Petersburg from the cold and a wound on his scalded side. In the second part, the dog becomes an observer of everything that happens in Preobrazhensky's apartment: the reception of patients in the "obscene apartment", the professor's opposition to the new house management headed by Shvonder, Philip Philipovich's fearless admission that he does not like the proletariat. For the dog, Preobrazhensky turns into the likeness of a deity.

The third part tells about the ordinary life of Philip Philipovich: breakfast, conversations about politics and devastation. This part is polyphonic, it contains the voices of both the professor and the “bitten” one (Bormental’s assistant from the glasses of Sharik who bit him), and Sharik himself, talking about his lucky ticket and about Preobrazhensky as a magician from a dog’s fairy tale.

In the fourth part, Sharik meets the rest of the inhabitants of the house: the cook Darya and the servant Zina, whom the men treat very gallantly, and Sharik mentally calls Zina Zinka, and quarrels with Daria Petrovna, she calls him a homeless pickpocket and threatens with a poker. In the middle of the fourth part, Sharik's story breaks off because he is undergoing an operation.

The operation is described in detail, Philip Philipovich is terrible, he is called a robber, like a murderer who cuts, pulls out, destroys. At the end of the operation, he is compared to a well-fed vampire. This is the author's point of view, it is a continuation of Sharik's thoughts.

The fifth, central and climactic chapter is the diary of Dr. Bormenthal. It begins in a strictly scientific style, which gradually turns into a colloquial one, with emotionally charged words. The case history ends with Bormenthal's conclusion that "we have before us new organism, and you have to watch it first.

The following chapters 6-9 are the history of Sharikov's short life. He learns the world, destroying it and living the probable fate of the murdered Klim Chugunkin. Already in chapter 7, the professor has an idea to decide on a new operation. Sharikov's behavior becomes unbearable: hooliganism, drunkenness, theft, molestation of women. The last straw was Shvonder's denunciation from the words of Sharikov to all the inhabitants of the apartment.

An epilogue describing the events 10 days after Bormental's fight with Sharikov shows Sharikov almost turning into a dog again. The next episode is the reasoning of the dog Sharik in March (about 2 months have passed) about how lucky he was.

Metaphorical overtones

The professor has a telling last name. He transforms the dog into a "new man". This happens between December 23rd and January 7th, between Catholic and Orthodox Christmas. It turns out that the transformation takes place in some kind of temporary void between the same date in different styles. A polygraph (multi-writing) is the embodiment of the devil, a “replicated” person.

Apartment on Prechistenka (from the definition of the Mother of God) of 7 rooms (7 days of creation). She is the embodiment of divine order amid the surrounding chaos and devastation. A star looks out of the window of the apartment from the darkness (chaos), watching the monstrous transformation. The professor is called a deity and a priest. He is a priest.

Heroes of the story

Professor Preobrazhensky- a scientist, a value of world importance. However, he is a successful doctor. But his merits do not prevent the new government from frightening the professor with a seal, prescribing Sharikov and threatening arrest. The professor has an inappropriate background - his father is a cathedral archpriest.

Preobrazhensky is quick-tempered, but kind. He sheltered Bormenthal in the department when he was a half-starved student. He is a noble person, not going to leave a colleague in the event of a disaster.

Dr. Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental- the son of a forensic investigator from Vilna. He is the first student of the Preobrazhensky school, loving his teacher and devoted to him.

Ball appears as a fully rational, reasoning being. He even jokes: "A collar is like a briefcase." But Sharik is the very creature in whose mind a crazy thought appears to rise "from rags to riches": "I am a master's dog, an intelligent creature." However, he almost does not sin against the truth. Unlike Sharikov, he is grateful to Preobrazhensky. And the professor operates with a firm hand, ruthlessly kills Sharik, and having killed, regrets: "It's a pity for the dog, he was affectionate, but cunning."

At Sharikova nothing remains of Sharik but hatred for cats, love for the kitchen. His portrait is described in detail first by Bormental in his diary: this is a man vertically challenged with a small head. Subsequently, the reader learns that the hero's appearance is unsympathetic, his hair is coarse, his forehead is low, his face is unshaven.

His jacket and striped trousers are torn and dirty, a poisonous sky tie and lacquer boots with white leggings complete the suit. Sharikov is dressed in accordance with his own notions of chic. Like Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him, Sharikov plays the balalaika professionally. From Klim, he inherited a love for vodka.

The name and patronymic Sharikov chooses according to the calendar, the surname takes "hereditary".

The main character trait of Sharikov is arrogance and ingratitude. He behaves like a savage, and about normal behavior he says: "You are torturing yourself, as under the tsarist regime."

Sharikov receives a "proletarian education" from Shvonder. Bormental calls Sharikov a man with a dog's heart, but Preobrazhensky corrects him: Sharikov has just a human heart, but the worst possible person.

Sharikov is even making a career in his own sense: he takes the position of head of the subdepartment for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals and is going to sign with the typist.

Stylistic features

The story is full of aphorisms expressed by different characters: “Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner”, “Devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads”, “You can’t fight anyone! One can act on a person or an animal only by suggestion ”(Preobrazhensky),“ Happiness is not in galoshes ”,“ And what is will? So, smoke, a mirage, a fiction, the delirium of these ill-fated democrats ... ”(Sharik),“ A document is the most important thing in the world ”(Shvonder),“ I am not a master, gentlemen are all in Paris ”(Sharikov).

For Professor Preobrazhensky, there are certain symbols of normal life, which in themselves do not provide this life, but testify to it: a galoshes rack in the front door, carpets on the stairs, steam heating, electricity.

Society of the 20s characterized in the story with the help of irony, parody, grotesque.

The assessment of the representatives of the intelligentsia in Bulgakov's story is far from unambiguous. Professor Preobrazhensky is a famous scientist in Europe. He is looking for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the principles of morality and morality. Everyone, according to Philipp Philippovich, in this world should do their own thing: in the theater - to sing, in the hospital - to operate. Then there will be no destruction. And to achieve material well-being, life's blessings, position in society and respect can only work and knowledge. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. Beliefs, according to the professor, cannot be introduced into the mind by force: "Terror cannot do anything."
The professor does not hide his dislike for the revolution and the new revolutionary order. He does not accept the new rules of life. Scientific research, his favorite work is most important for him, so he has to compromise with the new government: he treats its representatives, and it provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. Open opposition to the authorities would mean deprivation of an apartment, the opportunity to work, and perhaps even life itself. The professor made his choice, many patients turn to him. Preobrazhensky is sure that those who work have the right to normal working and rest conditions. As a well-mannered and cultured person, the professor believes that a living being should only be treated with kindness. To his student and assistant Bormental, he gives a cautionary order: “Never commit a crime, no matter who it is directed against. Live to old age with clean hands."
Confidence in his rightness, high cultural level, talent and scale of personality allow him, in the conditions of a difficult turning point, not only to save his life, but also to emerge victorious from a clash with the house committee and Shvonder.
AT political views professor a lot of contradictions. Being engaged in science, he lives in isolation, is interested in theater, deliberately fences himself off from problems. Revolutionary upheavals irritate him and interfere with his work. Fighting with Shvonder, the professor still did not fully understand what a terrible, destructive force in his person was allowed to power, how dangerous balls of all stripes are. The scientist naively believes that a policeman, assigned to each person, can immediately restore order in the country. But in the new government, the role of policemen is performed by shvonders and balls, ready to destroy both culture and objectionable people.
Bulgakov warns mankind against irresponsible experiments, leads to the realization of the danger of forcing the laws of evolution. This story is still relevant today. Writer calls main reason all human troubles: confidence in the knowledge of absolute truth and in one's own infallibility.
Note that neither the professor nor Dr. Bormenthal thought of creating man. What happened as a result of their experience is a terrible monster, which cannot be re-educated. To the credit of the professor, he understood before Dr. Bormenthal the whole horror of such " side effects". The doctor claimed that the laboratory creature had a "dog heart", that is, more canine qualities remained in it. The professor says that Sharikov has the “human heart” of Klim Chugunkin, with all the ensuing consequences. It is no coincidence that the name of Sharikov after the publication of the story turned into a household name.
Professor Preobrazhensky repented of his actions: “If anyone<…>laid me out here and flogged me—I would, I swear, pay five chervonets!<…>Damn it… After all, I spent five years in prison picking out appendages from brains. So, as a friend, I’ll tell you, in confidence, of course, I know you won’t shame me - the old donkey Preobrazhensky ran into this operation as a third-year student ... You know what work I did, it’s incomprehensible to the mind. And now the question is, why? To one day the cutest dog turn into such scum that your hair stand on end!<…>Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of groping and in parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil!”
The terrible results of the experiment force the professor to conclude that experiments to “improve” human nature are inadmissible: “Please explain to me why it is necessary to fabricate Spinoza artificially, when any woman can give birth to him at any time! .. After all, Madame Lomonosov gave birth to this famous !"; "Humanity takes care of itself<…>and in the evolutionary order, every year, stubbornly, singling out all sorts of scum from the mass, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn Earth».
In the epilogue, the scientists, brought to nervous exhaustion, saving their lives from Sharikov, who attempted on them, perform a second operation, turning the monster they created into a dog again. Everything returns to normal. ends his poignant tale with the words:
“In the distance, flasks tinkled dully. The bitten one was cleaning up the cabinets in the examination room.
The gray-haired wizard sat and sang:

- To the banks of the sacred Nile ...

The dog has seen terrible things. An important person plunged his hands in slippery gloves into a vessel, took out brains, - a stubborn man, persistent, he always achieved something, cut, examined, squinted and sang:

- To the banks of the sacred Nile ... "

The professor's research, like that of other scientists around the world, continues. The end of the story is left open.
The polyphonic sound of the story is given by the change of narrators: Sharik's internal monologue is replaced by the narrator's speech, and Bormental's diary is given as an insert. This allows you to give the story a multidimensional meaning, and readers to get acquainted with the position of several actors to form your own opinion about the events. It becomes clear that the position of the author-narrator is close to the position of Sharik, the doctor and the professor, but there is no complete coincidence in the assessment. Behind satire, humor and grotesque, Bulgakov hid important moral and philosophical problems. He wrote about the relationship between evolution and revolution, the moral choice of a person and especially a scientist, about the fate of the intelligentsia, about the new government. The writer believed that the world is contradictory, changing every second, a person still knows too little to allow himself to irresponsibly interfere with the laws of nature, all the more so to change them at his whim.
"Heart of a Dog" was the last satirical story in Bulgakov's work. It has been banned for sixty years. Later, the story was repeatedly reprinted and was skillfully filmed by the famous director A. Bortko. To this day, it arouses the interest of readers of various internal aspirations. The problems raised in the story are also relevant for the people of the 21st century. The writer bitterly writes about the imperfection of man, regrets that the society of happiness and harmony is still only a dream.