What is this book about " dog's heart"? The ironic story of Bulgakov tells about the failed experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. What is it? In search of an answer to the question of how to "rejuvenate" humanity. Does the hero manage to find the desired answer? No. But he arrives at a result that has a higher level of significance for society than the intended experiment.

Bulgakov from Kiev decided to become a singer of Moscow, its houses and streets. This is how the Moscow chronicles were born. The story was written in Prechistinskiye lanes by order of the Nedra magazine, which is well acquainted with the work of the writer. The chronology of the writing of the work fits into three months of 1925.

As a doctor, Mikhail Alexandrovich continued the dynasty of his family, describing in detail in the book the operation to "rejuvenate" a person. Moreover, the well-known Moscow doctor N.M. Pokrovsky, the uncle of the author of the story, became the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.

The first reading of the typed material took place at a meeting of the Nikitsky Subbotniks, which immediately became known to the country's leadership. In May 1926, the Bulgakovs were searched, the result of which was not long in coming: the manuscript was seized. The plan to publish his work with the writer did not come true. The Soviet reader saw the book only in 1987.

Main problems

It was not in vain that the book disturbed the watchful guards of thought. Bulgakov managed to gracefully and subtly, but still quite clearly reflect the topical issues - the challenges of the new time. The problems in the story "Heart of a Dog", which the author touches on, do not leave the readers indifferent. The writer discusses the ethics of science, the moral responsibility of the scientist for his experiments, the possibility of the disastrous consequences of scientific adventurism and ignorance. A technical breakthrough could turn into a moral decline.

The problem of scientific progress is acutely felt at the moment of its powerlessness before the transformation of the consciousness of a new person. The professor coped with his body, but he could not control the spirit, so Preobrazhensky had to part with ambitions and correct his mistake - to stop competing with the universe and return the dog's heart to the owner. Artificial people could not justify their proud title and become full members of society. In addition, endless rejuvenation could jeopardize the very idea of \u200b\u200bprogress, because if new generations do not naturally replace old ones, then the development of the world will stop.

Are attempts to change the mentality of the country for the better completely fruitless? The Soviet government tried to eradicate the prejudices of the past centuries - it is this process that is behind the metaphor of Sharikov's creation. Here he is, the proletarian, the new Soviet citizen, his creation is possible. However, the problem of upbringing arises before its creators: they cannot calm down their creation and teach it to be cultured, educated and moral with a full set of revolutionary consciousness, class hatred and blind faith in the correctness and infallibility of the party. Why? This is impossible: either a pipe or a jug.

Human helplessness in the whirlwind of events related to the construction of a socialist society, hatred of violence and hypocrisy, the absence and suppression of the remaining human dignity in all its manifestations - all these are slaps in the face with which the author branded his era, and all because it does not put individuality in a penny ... Collectivization has affected not only the village, but also the soul. It became more and more difficult to remain a person, because the public presented more and more rights to her. Universal equating and equalizing did not make people happier, but turned them into the ranks of meaningless biorobots, where the grayest and most talentless of them set the tone. Rudeness and stupidity have become the norm in society, have replaced revolutionary consciousness, and in the image of Sharikov we see a sentence to a new type of Soviet man. The domination of the Shvonders and others like them also gives rise to the problems of trampling on the intelligentsia and the intelligentsia, the power of dark instincts in the life of an individual, total rude interference in the natural course of things ...

Some of the questions posed in the work are not answered to this day.

What is the meaning of the book?

People have long been looking for answers to the questions: What is a person? What is its social purpose? What role does everyone play in creating the environment that would be "comfortable" for those living on planet Earth? What are the “paths” to this “comfortable community”? Is it possible for a consensus between people of different social origins, adhering to opposite views on certain issues of being, occupying alternative "steps" in the intellectual and cultural development? And, of course, it is important to understand the simple truth that society develops thanks to unexpected discoveries in a particular branch of science. But can these “discoveries” always be called progressive? Bulgakov answers all these questions with his characteristic irony.

A person is a person, and personal development implies independence, which is denied to a Soviet citizen. The social purpose of people is to skillfully do their job and not interfere with others. However, Bulgakov's "conscious" heroes only chant slogans, but do not work for the benefit of translating them into reality. Each of us, for the sake of comfort, should tolerate dissent and not interfere with people professing it. And again in the USSR everything is exactly the opposite: Preobrazhensky's talent is forced to fight to defend his right to help patients, and his point of view is blatantly condemned and persecuted by some insignificant. They can live in peace, if everyone does their own thing, but there is no equality in nature and cannot be, because from the very birth we are all different from each other. It is impossible to support him artificially, since Shvonder cannot begin to operate brilliantly, and the professor cannot play the balalaika. Imposed, not real equality will only harm people, prevent them from adequately assessing their place in the world and taking it with dignity.

Humanity needs discoveries, this is understandable. But you shouldn't reinvent the wheel - try to reproduce a person artificially, for example. If the natural method is still possible, why does it need an analogue, and even so laborious? There are many other, more significant threats before people, to which the full power of scientific intelligence should be turned.

Main topics

The story is multifaceted. The author touches upon important topics, characteristic not only of the era of the early twentieth century, but also “eternal”: good and evil, science and morality, morality, human destiny, attitude to animals, building a new state, homeland, sincere human relations. I would especially like to highlight the theme of the responsibility of the creator for his creation. The struggle between ambitions and adherence to principles in the professor ended with the victory of humanism over pride. He resigned himself to his error, admitted defeat, and used experience to correct his mistakes. This is exactly what every creator should do.

Also relevant in the work is the topic of individual freedom and those boundaries that society, like the state, is not entitled to cross. Bulgakov insists that a full-fledged person is one who has free will and beliefs. Only he can develop the idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism without caricatured forms and ramifications that disfigure the concept. The crowd is blind and always driven by primitive stimuli. But the personality is capable of self-control and self-development, it must be given the will to work and live for the good of society, and not turn it against it by vain attempts of forcible merger.

Satire and humor

The book opens with a monologue of a stray dog, addressed to the "citizens" and giving precise characteristics to Muscovites and the city itself. The population "through the eyes" of a dog is not uniform (which is true!): Citizens - comrades - gentlemen. "Citizens" shop at the Tsentrokhoz cooperative, and "gentlemen" - at Okhotny Ryad. Why do rich people need a rotten horse? You can get this "poison" only in Mosselprom.

You can “recognize” a person by the eyes: some have “dryness in their souls”, some are aggressive, and who are “lackeys”. The last one is the nastiest. If you are afraid, you should be "tapped". The most disgusting "scum" - wipers: rowing "human cleaning".

But the cook is an important subject. Nutrition is a serious indicator of the state of society. So, the lordly chef of the Counts Tolstoy is a real person, and the chefs from the Council of Normal Nutrition do things that even a dog doesn't want. If I become chairman, then I actively steal. Ham, tangerines, wines - these are the "former Eliseev brothers." The doorman is worse than cats. He lets a stray dog \u200b\u200bpass by currying favor with the professor.

The education system “presupposes” Muscovites “educated” and “uneducated”. Why learn to read? "So the meat smells a mile away." But if you have at least some brains, you will learn to read and write without courses, like, for example, a stray dog. The beginning of Sharikov's education was an electrician's shop, where the tramp "tasted" insulated wire.

Irony, humor, and satire are often used in conjunction with tropes: similes, metaphors, and impersonations. The particular satirical device we can consider the method of the initial presentation of the characters according to the preliminary descriptive characteristics: “mysterious gentleman”, “rich eccentric” - Professor Preobrazhensky ”; "Handsome-bitten", "bitten" - Dr. Bormental; "Someone", "fruit" - a visitor. Sharikov's inability to communicate with tenants, to formulate his requirements, gives rise to humorous situations and questions.

If we talk about the state of the press, then through the mouth of Fyodor Fedorovich, the writer talks about the case when, as a result of reading Soviet newspapers before lunch, patients lost weight. An interesting assessment by the professor of the existing system through the "hanger" and "galosh rack": until 1917, the front doors were not closed, since dirty shoes and outerwear were left below. After March, all galoshes disappeared.

main idea

In his book M.A. Bulgakov warned that violence is a crime. All life on earth has a right to exist. This is an unwritten law of nature that must be followed in order to prevent a point of no return. It is necessary to preserve the purity of the soul and thoughts for life, so as not to indulge in internal aggression, not to pour it out. Therefore, the violent interference of a professor in the natural course of things is condemned by the writer, therefore it leads to such monstrous consequences.

The civil war hardened society, made it marginal, boorish and vulgar at its core. Here they are, the fruits of violent interference in the life of the country. All of Russia in the 1920s is a rude and ignorant Sharikov who does not at all strive for work. His tasks are less lofty and more selfish. Bulgakov warned his contemporaries against such a development of events, ridiculing the vices of a new type of people and showing their inconsistency.

The main characters and their characteristics

1. The central figure of the book is Professor Preobrazhensky. Wears gold-rimmed glasses. He lives in a rich apartment of seven rooms. He is lonely. He devotes all his time to work. Philip Philipovich conducts a reception at home, sometimes he also operates here. Patients call him "magician", "sorcerer". "He does", often accompanying his actions by singing excerpts from operas. Loves theater. I am convinced that everyone should strive to become a specialist in their field. The professor is an excellent speaker. His judgments are lined up in a clear logical chain. He says about himself that he is a man of observation, facts. Leading a discussion, he gets carried away, gets excited, sometimes turns to shout if the problem touches him to the quick. The attitude towards the new order is manifested in his statements about terror, which paralyzes the human nervous system, about newspapers, about the devastation in the country. Caring for animals: "hungry, poor fellow." In relation to living beings, he preaches only affection and the impossibility of any violence. Suggestion of humane truths is the only way to influence all living things. An interesting detail in the interior of the professor's apartment is a huge owl sitting on the wall, a symbol of wisdom, which is so necessary not only for a world-famous scientist, but also for every person. At the end of the "experiment", he finds the courage to admit that the experiment rejuvenation failed.
2. Young, handsome Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental - assistant professor, who fell in love with him, sheltered him as a promising young man. Philip Philipovich hoped that a talented scientist would leave the doctor in the future. During the operation, in the hands of Ivan Arnoldovich, literally everything flickers. The doctor is not just scrupulous about his duties. The doctor's diary as a strict medical report-observation of the patient's condition reflects the entire gamut of his feelings and experiences for the result of the "experiment".
3. Shvonder is the chairman of the house committee. All his actions resemble the convulsions of a puppet, which is controlled by someone invisible. The speech is confused, the same words are repeated, which sometimes causes a condescending smile from readers. Shvonder doesn't even have a name. He sees his task in fulfilling the will of the new government, without thinking whether this is good or bad. For the sake of achieving his goal, he is capable of any step. Vindictive, he distorts the facts, slanders many people.
4. Sharikov is a creature, something, the result of an "experiment". A sloping and low forehead indicates the level of its development. Uses all swear words in his vocabulary. An attempt to teach him good manners, to instill a taste for beauty was not crowned with success: he drinks, steals, mocks women, cynically offends people, strangles cats, "commits bestial acts." As the saying goes, nature rests on it, because you can't go against it.

The main motives of Bulgakov's work

The versatility of Bulgakov's work is striking. It is as if you are traveling through the works, meeting familiar motives. Love, greed, totalitarianism, morality - these are just parts of one whole, “wandering” from book to book and creating a single thread.

• In Notes on Cuffs and Heart of a Dog, there is a belief in human kindness. This motive is also central in The Master and Margarita.
• Destiny is clearly traced in the story "The Devil" little man, an ordinary screw of a bureaucratic machine. This motive is typical for other works of the author. The system suppresses their best qualities in people, and the scary thing is that over time this becomes the norm for the people. In the novel The Master and Margarita, writers whose creations did not correspond to the ruling ideology were kept in a psychiatric hospital. Professor Preobrazhensky talked about his observations, when he gave patients to read the newspaper Pravda before dinner, they lost weight. It was impossible to find anything in the periodicals that would contribute to broadening one's horizons and allowing one to look at events from opposite angles.
• Selfishness is what guides most of the negative characters in Bulgakov's books. For example, Sharikov from Dog's Heart. And how many troubles could have been avoided, provided that the "red ray" would be used for its intended purpose, and not for selfish purposes (the story "Fatal Eggs")? The foundations of these works are experiments that run counter to nature. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov identified the experiment with the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, which is dangerous for society as a whole.
• The main motive of the writer's work is the motive of his home. The cosiness in Philip Philipovich's apartment ("a lamp under a silk shade") resembles the atmosphere of the Turbins' house. Home - family, homeland, Russia, about which the writer's heart ached. With all his creativity, he wished the homeland well-being and prosperity.

Interesting? Keep it on your wall!

By the anniversary of the painting "Vesti" learned about the experiments of Preobrazhensky and the casting of actors

25 years ago, at the end of 1988, the premiere of the television movie "Heart of a Dog" by Vladimir Bortko based on the story of the same name by Mikhail Bulgakov took place. Since then, the popularity of this two-part masterpiece has only grown, it invariably ranks among the tops of Soviet / Russian films.

The expressions of Professor Preobrazhensky came into use: "The devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads", "Give me such a piece of paper that it would be armor", "Do not read Soviet newspapers in the morning!" The scientist's common sense was opposed to the revolutionary absurdity, which was embodied on the screen by Shvonder and Sharikov, whose phrases also became winged: "Abyrvalg", "This is some kind of shame, professor", "Cats were strangled, strangled," "Take away and divide everything", " In line, sons of bitches, in line. "

Vesti decided to understand the scientific, revolutionary, artistic and even musical component of the immortal work.

GERMAN BOBIKOV AND CICCOLINA

The story was written by Mikhail Bulgakov in 1925. It was supposed to be published in the almanac Nedra, but Lenin's associate, Politburo member Lev Kamenev banned it, inscribing a negative resolution: “This is a poignant pamphlet on modernity. In no case should you print. " And for the first time the story was published in 1968 abroad - in Germany and England.

The first film adaptation was also abroad: director Alberto Lattuada directed the Italian-German film "Heart of a Dog" (Italian "Cuore di cane", German "Warum bellt Herr Bobikow?" - "Why is Mr. Bobikov barking?") In 1976. The film reflected the disappointment in the flower revolutions of the hippies of the late 60s: shvonders and balls embodied the destroyers of student revolutionary illusions.

The famous Swedish actor, twice Oscar-nominated Max von Sydow, starred in the role of Preobrazhensky, and the future porn star Cicciolina played one of the episodic roles.

The publication in the USSR of "Dog's Heart" happened in the magazine "Banner" only in 1987, 62 years after it was written. Director Sergei Mikaelyan gave this magazine to Vladimir Bortko to read at Lenfilm. “I knew others famous works Bulgakov, the same Master and Margarita, but I haven’t read The Heart of a Dog, ”Vladimir Vladimirovich told us. The professor's monologue instantly captured Bortko, he decided to shoot. There were no censorship problems with this picture, despite its severity - perestroika was thundering in the yard. Unlike Bortko's painting "The Blonde Around the Corner" with Andrei Mironov, which lay on the shelf for two years - until 1984. By the way, this picture brought the first fame to the director.

THE FILM ARE FILMED NOT ONLY ON THE STORY

After the premiere of "Heart of a Dog", the audience rushed to read the story, but they did not find many jokes and scenes. The fact is that Vladimir Bortko and his wife Natalya wrote the script not only based on the story - they made extracts from the writer's stories and feuilletons.

The mad janitor, whom the librarian, to get rid of, advised to read volumes of the encyclopedia - from the feuilleton "Gemstone Life", the prophetess in the circus - from the story "Madmazel Jeanne" ("Fool, make a smart face!"), The call of spirits - from "Spiritual session ”, and the“ stars ”of Clara and Rosa, which Shvonder conducted, were from the feuilleton“ Golden correspondences of Ferapont Ferapontovich Kaportsev ”. These sketches and poignancies not only made the picture shine.

“Using Bulgakov's stories,” the director shared with us a secret, “we have expanded the framework of the apartment where the story takes place. Now there was a street, a circus. " By the way, Peter played the Moscow streets, since the shooting took place at Lenfilm.

PROFESSORS OF THE TRANSFORMATION AND BORMENTAL

Stars of the first magnitude auditioned for the role of Preobrazhensky: Leonid Bronevoy, Mikhail Ulyanov, Yuri Yakovlev and Vladislav Strzhelchik. Evgeny Evstigneev won the tender, and this role came in handy for him. After the division of the Moscow Art Theater between Tatyana Doronina and Oleg Efremov, Evstigneev stayed with the latter. But he asked the chief chief, since he had recently suffered a heart attack, not to give him new roles, but only to play out the old ones. Efremov took this as a betrayal and hacked in the heat of the moment: "So go to retirement ..." Evstigneev was shocked. It was in this state that he appeared at the screen tests. So he himself at that time experienced sensitive blows of fate, which also fell to the lot of Preobrazhensky. “All the actors played great at the auditions, but Evstigneev was more accurate,” recalls Bortko. The artist's son, Denis Evstigneev, remarked: “The film literally saved my father. He constantly talked about his role, played something, showed scenes. The picture became a support for him in that difficult period. " Many noted the penetrating manner of Evstigneev in this role, which he himself later called his beloved. As for Dr. Bormental, his director immediately saw Boris Plotnikov, then an actor of the Moscow Theater of Satire. “I immediately approved Plotnikov,” Bortko tells us. "And he was very pleased with it." Plotnikov was afraid to play with the eminent artist, but Evstigneev said: “We are equal, colleague,” and the timidity passed.

BALLS AND BALLS

More than a dozen candidates auditioned for the role of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. Nikolai Karachentsov, who organically voiced the Gascon dog in the cartoon Dog in Boots, based on The Three Musketeers (1981), was a striking one among them. "Karachentsov played a talented dog, but his acting role is a hero-lover, and I needed a dog and an alcoholic in one image," says Bortko. Vladimir Tolokonnikov was selected by the actor's photo base, which was at all major studios - he served in the Almaty Russian Theater named after Lermontov (as we learned, he works there even now, and after “Heart of a Dog” one of his most striking roles was in the film “Hottabych” in 2006, where he played an old genie). At the screenings, Tolokonnikov made a toast so vividly: “I wish that everything!” That the director had no doubts. “Volodya killed me the moment he took a sip,” says the director. - Of course, it was not vodka, but water. But he drank very convincingly. " The role of Sharik was played by a mongrel named Karai. He was selected from several applicants - members of the "Druzhok" dog club. “It was the smartest dog,” says the director. - He didn’t speak French. I did everything from the first take. " Karay subsequently became a "movie star", starring in the films "Wedding March", "Re-examination", "Rock and Roll for the Princess" and "Forever 19 Years".

BEER DO NOT OFFER. ONLY COGNAC!

It is known that Evgeny Evstigneev liked to drink 50 grams of cognac “for courage” before going on stage or before shooting. Tolokonnikov said that due to theatrical troubles, Evgeny Aleksandrovich began to bring more alcohol to the shooting. And he shared with Tolokonnikov. A phrase from the film "Don't Offer Sharikov Beer!" turned to the voice-over: "Shouldn't I pour Sharikov?" Vladimir Bortko told us about the conflict with Evstigneev on this basis: “Evgeny Aleksandrovich decided that there would be no filming today. And he drank very well. A difficult conversation took place. But after that, there were no such conflicts with him. Evstigneev did not use alcohol on the site anymore.

Heart of a Dog is a warning film that social and scientific revolutions have side effects. In the finale, Preobrazhensky says with disappointment: "This is what happens when the researcher, instead of groping and parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge!"

INSPIRED BY ESENIN

The film also remembers the songs "The Harsh Years Are Going", "Chastushki of Sharikov" by the bard Yuliy Kim ("Bumbarash") to the music of Vladimir Dashkevich ("Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson").

“Bulgakov's book says:“ They sing, ”says Bortko. - But what? I ordered songs for Dashkevich and Kim. They wrote great. But then I realized that when Sharikov dances, he needs ditties. As in Yesenin's poem there were, like these: "The steamer is sailing past the pier - we will feed the fish with the communists." And again he called Kim, and a day later he dictated to me on the phone: "Oh, apple, you are my ripe, but the young lady is coming, the skin is white, The skin is white, the fur coat is valuable, If you give something, you will be whole," etc.

EXPERIMENTS WITH PEOPLE AND ANIMALS

We became curious to find out how realistic were Preobrazhensky's experiments on rejuvenation.

“In the 1920s and 1930s, a Russian emigrant in France, Dr. Serge Voronov, transplanted testicles from a monkey to elderly men,” the deputy director of the Institute of Gerontology, Professor Valery Shatilo told us. - But it gave a temporary effect, for several months. Besides, there was a real danger of bringing in the virus. "

From our contemporaries, the director of the Institute of Genetic and Regenerative Medicine, Academician Gennady Butenko reminds one of our contemporaries in terms of courage and uniqueness of experiments: “We decided to sew two mice together. Young and old animal. And, to their surprise, they saw that the old did not get younger, but the young, on the contrary, became old. The aging mechanism dominates. "

The same effect was observed with stem cell transplantation. Regarding organ transplantation from dog to human, Butenko told us: “It's dangerous. The species barrier is triggered when organs are rejected by the immune system. "

Of the latest anti-aging substances, the academician named rapamycin - an antibiotic that slows down the development of aging programs. And reservatrol is a substance from red wine. “However, to get the rejuvenating effect of this substance, you need to drink at least five liters of red wine a day. You will become an alcoholic faster, ”the academician laughs.

In his opinion, science of the future needs to delve into the genome: “Last year, the US Congress allocated $ 9 billion to study the human genome. Preobrazhensky must now be a geneticist. But there is no need to hope for a breakthrough in this area. And the variations on the theme of "Heart of a Dog" are just fantasy today. Writers come to me to suggest a real plot for a book, but no revolutionary upheavals are foreseen in this area. "

Publisher Harcourt [d] Quotes on Wikiquote Media files at Wikimedia Commons

"Dog's heart" - the story of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov.

History

The story was written in January-March 1925. During a search carried out at Bulgakov's OGPU on May 7, 1926 (order 2287, file 45), the manuscript of the story was also seized from the writer. Three versions of the text have survived (all in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library): the chapter "Give the floor to the textual critic".

In 1967, without the knowledge and against the will of the writer's widow E. S. Bulgakova, the casually copied text of "Heart of a Dog" was transferred to the West: the chapter "My Queen of France ..." was simultaneously published in several publishing houses and in 1968 was published in the magazine Grani (Frankfurt ) and in Alec Phlegon's "Student" magazine (London).

Plot

The story of a dog that turned into a man was also the property of the tabloid press. Curious people begin to come to the professor's house. But Preobrazhensky himself is not happy with the outcome of the operation, since he understands that he can get out of Sharik.

Meanwhile, Sharik falls under the influence of the communist activist Shvonder, who convinced him that he was a proletarian suffering from oppression by the bourgeoisie. (represented by Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant Dr. Bormental), and turned him against the professor.

Shvonder, being the chairman of the house committee, issues documents to Sharik in the name of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, arranging him to work in the service for the capture and destruction of homeless animals (in the "cleaning") and forces the professor to officially register Sharikov in his apartment. In the "cleaning" service, Sharikov quickly makes a career, becoming a boss. Under the bad influence of Shvonder, having superficially read communist literature and feeling himself "the master of the situation," Sharikov begins to be rude to the professor, to behave cheekily at home, to steal things with money and harass servants. In the end, it comes to the point that Sharikov writes a false denunciation of Professor and Doctor Bormental. This denunciation only thanks to the influential patient of the doctor does not reach the law enforcement agencies. Then Preobrazhensky and Bormental ordered Sharikov to get out of the apartment, to which he categorically refused. The doctor and the professor, unable to endure the arrogant and daring antics of Polygraph Poligrafovich and expecting only a worsening of the situation, decide to do the opposite operation and transplant the canine pituitary gland to Sharikov, after which he gradually begins to lose his human appearance and turns into a dog again ...

Characters

Facts

• The prototype of the "Kalabukhov House", in which the main events of the story unfold, was the apartment building of the architect S.F. Kulagin (house number 24 on Prechistenka Street), built with his money in 1904.
• Throughout the story, Professor Preobrazhensky constantly hums "From Seville to Grenada ... In the quiet twilight of the nights." This line is from Tchaikovsky's romance "Serenade of Don Juan", the verses to which are taken from the poem by A. K. Tolstoy "Don Juan". Perhaps, in this way Bulgakov played up the professor's occupation: the character of Tolstoy's poem was known for his sexual adventures, and the professor returns sexual youth to his faded patients.
• The professor conducts the operation on the Ball from December 24 to January 6 - from Catholic to Orthodox Christmas Eve. The transformation of the Ball takes place on January 7, at Christmas,.
• There is an opinion that Sharikov can be perceived as the bearer of the demonic principle. This can be seen in his appearance: the hair on his head is "tough, like bushes on a rooted field", like a devil. In one of the episodes, Sharikov shows Professor Preobrazhensky shish, and one of the meanings of the word shish is the standing hair on the devil's head: 642.
• Perhaps the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was his uncle, mother's brother, Nikolai Mikhailovich Pokrovsky, a gynecologist, for the author. His apartment coincides in detail with the description of Philip Philipovich's apartment, and, in addition, he had a dog. This hypothesis is also confirmed by Bulgakov's first wife, T.N. Lappa, in his memoirs. The prototypes of the patients of Professor Preobrazhensky were acquaintances of the writer and famous public figures of that time: 642-644. But there are other hypotheses (more about them are described in the article by Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky).
• House committees, which Professor Preobrazhensky complained about, and one of which was headed by Shvonder, really worked very poorly after the revolution. As an example, we can cite the instruction to the residents of the Kremlin dated October 14, 1918: “[…] house committees do not at all fulfill the duties assigned to them by the law: the dirt in the yards and squares, in houses, on stairs, in corridors and apartments is terrifying. Garbage from apartments is not taken out for weeks, it stands on the stairs, spreading the infection. Ladders are not only not washed, but also not swept. For weeks, manure, garbage, the corpses of dead cats and dogs are lying in the yards. Stray cats roam everywhere, being constant carriers of the infection. In the city there is a "Spanish" disease that has entered the Kremlin and has already caused deaths ... "
• Abyrvalg - the second word uttered by Sharik after his transformation from a dog into a human - is the reversed word "Glavryba" - the Main Directorate of Fisheries and the State Fish Industry under the People's Commissariat of Food, which in 1922-1924 was the main economic body in charge of fishing grounds RSFSR. The first word similarly constructed was “abyr” (from “fish”). Sharik pronounced this word in the reverse order, because, as a dog, he learned to read using the signboard "Glavryba", to the left of which there was always a policeman, which is why Sharik approached the sign from the right side and read from right to left.
• The rock band "Agatha Christie" recorded the song "Heart of a Dog", the text of which is Sharik's monologue.

Tale as a political satire

The most widespread political interpretation of the story refers it to the very idea of \u200b\u200ba "Russian revolution", "awakening" of the social consciousness of the proletariat. Sharikov is traditionally perceived as an allegorical image of the lumpen proletariat, who unexpectedly received a large number of rights and freedoms, but quickly discovered selfish interests and the ability to betray and destroy both their own kind (a former homeless dog climbs the social ladder, destroying other homeless animals), and those who endowed them with these rights. It should be noted that Klim Chugunkin earned money by playing music in taverns and was a criminal. The ending of the story looks artificial, without outside interference (deus ex machina), the fate of Sharikov's creators looks a foregone conclusion. It is believed that Bulgakov predicted massive repressions in the 1930s.

A number of Bulgakov scholars believe that Heart of a Dog is a political satire on the leadership of the state in the mid-1920s, and each of the characters has a prototype among the country's political elite at that time. In particular, the prototype of Sharikov-Chugunkin is Stalin (both have an "iron" second name), Professor Preobrazhensky - Lenin (who transformed the country), Doctor Bormental, constantly in conflict with Sharikov - Trotsky (Bronstein), Shvonder - Kamenev, Zina's assistant - Zinoviev, Daria - Dzerzhinsky and so on.

Censorship

An agent of the OGPU was present at the reading of the manuscript of the story during a meeting of writers in Gazetny Pereulok, who described the work as follows:

[...] such things, read in the most brilliant Moscow literary circle, are much more dangerous than the uselessly harmless speeches of the 101st class of writers at the meetings of the All-Russian Union of Poets.

The first edition of "Heart of a Dog" contained practically open allusions to a number of political figures of that time, in particular to the Soviet plenipotentiary in London, Christian Rakovsky, and a number of other functionaries known in the circles of the Soviet intelligentsia for scandalous love affairs.

Bulgakov hoped to publish "Heart of a Dog" in the almanac "Nedra", but it was recommended not to even give the story to Glavlit for reading. Nikolai Angarsky, who liked the work, managed to hand it over to Lev Kamenev, however, he said that "this sharp pamphlet on the present should never be printed." In 1926, when a search was carried out in Bulgakov's apartment, the manuscripts of "The Heart of a Dog" were seized and returned to the author only after the petition of Maxim Gorky three years later.

Screen adaptations

Year	Country	Name	Producer	professor Preobrazhensky	dr. Bormental	Sharikov

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Dog's HEART. Michael Bulgakov

✪ Heart of a Dog - Invasion of the Professor!

✪ The main phrase from the movie "Heart of a Dog"

Subtitles

History

The story was written in January-March 1925. During a search carried out at Bulgakov's OGPU on May 7, 1926 (order 2287, file 45), the manuscript of the story was also seized from the writer. Three versions of the text have survived (all in the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library).

In the USSR, in the 1960s, the story was distributed in samizdat.

In 1967, without the knowledge and against the will of the writer's widow E. S. Bulgakova, the carelessly copied text of "Dog's Heart" was transferred to the West simultaneously to several publishing houses and in 1968 it was published in the Grani magazine (Frankfurt) and Alec Flegon's student "(London).

Plot

The story of the dog turned into a man quickly became known in medical circles, and then became the property of the tabloid press. Colleagues express their admiration to Professor Preobrazhensky, Sharik is demonstrated in the medical lecture hall, and curious people begin to come to the professor's house. But Preobrazhensky was not happy with the outcome of the operation, he understood that he could get out of Sharikov.

Meanwhile, Sharik falls under the influence of the communist activist Shvonder, who convinced him that he was a proletarian suffering from oppression by the bourgeoisie (in the person of Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant Dr. Bormental), and turned him against the professor.

Shvonder, being the chairman of the house committee, issued Sharik documents in the name of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, arranged for him to work in the service of catching and destroying homeless animals (in the "cleaning") and forced the professor to register Sharikov in his apartment. In "cleaning" Sharikov quickly made a career, becoming the boss. Under the influence of Shvonder, having read communist literature and feeling like a boss, Sharikov begins to be rude to the professor, to behave cheekily at home, to steal things with money and harass the servants. In the end, it got to the point that Sharikov wrote a false denunciation against Professor and Doctor Bormental. This denunciation only thanks to the influential patient of the doctor did not reach the law enforcement agencies. Then Preobrazhensky and Bormental ordered Sharikov to get out of the apartment, to which he refused and threatened the doctor with a revolver. Bormental attacked and disarmed Sharikov, after which he and the professor, unable to endure the antics of Polygraph Poligrafovich any longer and expecting only a worsening of the situation, decided to do the opposite operation and transplanted Sharikov's canine pituitary gland, and he gradually began to lose his human appearance and turned into a dog again.

Characters

Facts

A number of Bulgakov scholars believe that Heart of a Dog was a political satire on the government of the mid-1920s. In particular, that Sharikov-Chugunkin is Stalin (both have an “iron” second name), prof. Preobrazhensky is Lenin (who transformed the country), his assistant, Doctor Bormental, who is constantly in conflict with Sharikov, is Trotsky (Bronstein), Shvonder is Kamenev, assistant Zina is Zinoviev, Daria is Dzerzhinsky, and so on.

Censorship

An agent of the OGPU was present at the reading of the manuscript of the story during a meeting of writers in Gazetny Pereulok, who described the work as follows:

[...] such things, read in the most brilliant Moscow literary circle, are much more dangerous than the uselessly harmless speeches of the 101st class of writers at the meetings of the All-Russian Union of Poets.

The first edition of "Heart of a Dog" contained practically open allusions to a number of political figures of that time, in particular to the Soviet plenipotentiary in London, Christian Rakovsky, and a number of other functionaries known in the circles of the Soviet intelligentsia for scandalous love affairs.

Bulgakov hoped to publish "Heart of a Dog" in the almanac "Nedra", but it was recommended not even to give the story to Glavlit for reading. NS Angarsky, who liked the work, managed to pass it on to Lev Kamenev, however, he said that "this sharp pamphlet on the modern times should never be printed." In 1926, when a search was carried out in Bulgakov's apartment, the manuscripts of "The Heart of a Dog" were seized and returned to the author only after the petition of Maxim Gorky three years later.

In Samizdat, the story was already distributed in the early 1930s.

“DOG'S HEART”, a novella subtitled “A Monstrous Story”. During Bulgakov's lifetime, it was not published. For the first time: Student, London, 1968, No. 9, 10; Grani, Frankfurt, 1968, No. 69; Bulgakov M. Dog's heart. London, Flegon Press, 1968. For the first time in the USSR: Banner, 1987, No. 6. Author's date on typewritten S. p.: “January - March 1925”. The story was intended for the almanac "Nedra", where "The Devil's Day" and "Fatal Eggs" were previously published. The editor of Nedr, Nikolai Semenovich Angarsky (Klestov) (1873-1941), urged Bulgakov with the creation of the S.S., hoping that it would have no less success among the reading public than the Fatal Eggs. On March 7, 1925, the author read the first part of S. p. at the literary meeting of “Nikitinskiye Subbotniks”, and on March 21 there - the second part of the story. One of the listeners, M. Ya. Schneider, conveyed to the audience his impression of S. S. in the following way: “This is the first literary work that dares to be himself. The time has come for the realization of the attitude to what happened ”(ie, to the October Revolution of 1917). The same readings were attended by an attentive OGPU agent, who, in the reports of March 9 and 24, assessed the story quite differently: “I was at the next literary“ subbotnik ”at EF Nikitina's (Gazetny, 3, apt. 7, v. 2-14 -sixteen). Bulgakov read his new story. Plot: the professor takes out the brains and seminal glands from the just deceased and puts them in the dog, as a result of which the latter is “humanized”. At the same time, the whole thing is written in hostile, breathing infinite contempt for the Soviet Union in tones:

1). The professor has 7 rooms. He lives in a workhouse. A deputation comes to him from the workers with a request to give them 2 rooms, since the house is overcrowded, and he has 7 rooms alone. He meets the requirement to give him an 8th. Then he goes to the phone and, by number 107, says to some very influential Soviet worker “Vitaly Vlasyevich” (?) (In the surviving text of the first edition of S.S. this character is named Vitaly Alexandrovich (in subsequent editions he turned into Pyotr Alexandrovich); probably the informant from hearing incorrectly wrote down the patronymic of an influential patron. - B.S.) that he would not do the operation for him, “ceases the practice altogether and leaves forever for Batum”, since workers armed with revolvers came to him (and this is actually actually not) and make him sleep in the kitchen, and do the operations in the restroom. Vitaly Vlasyevich calms him down, promising to give a "strong" piece of paper, after which no one will touch him.

The professor is triumphant. The working delegation is left with a nose. "Then, comrade," says the worker, "buy literature for the benefit of the poor of our faction." “I won't buy it,” the professor replies.

- Why? It's not expensive. Only 50 kopecks. Perhaps you have no money?

- No, I have money, but I just don't want to.

- So you don't like the proletariat?

"Yes," the professor confesses, "I do not like the proletariat."

All this is being listened to accompanied by the gloating laugh of the Nikitin audience. Someone can not stand it and exclaims angrily: “Utopia”.

2). “Devastation,” the same professor grumbles over a bottle of Saint-Julien. - What it is? An old woman barely wandering with a stick? Nothing like this. There is no devastation, there has not been, will not be and does not exist. The devastation is the people themselves. I lived in this house on Prechistenka from 1902 to 1917 for fifteen years. There are 12 apartments on my staircase. You know how many patients I have. And downstairs on the front door stood a hanger for a coat, galoshes, etc. So what do you think? For these 15 liters. not a single coat, not a single rag was missing. This was until February 24, and on the 24th they stole everything: all the fur coats, my 3 coats, all the canes, and even the samovar whistled at the doorman's. That's what. And you say devastation. " Deafening laughter from the entire audience.

3). The dog he sheltered tore a stuffed owl for him. The professor was in an indescribable rage. The servant advises him to beat the dog well. The professor's rage is not appeased, but he thunders: “You can't. You can't beat anyone. This is terror, but this is what they achieved by their terror. You just need to teach. " And he fiercely, but not painfully, pokes the dog with his muzzle at the torn owl.

4). “The best remedy for health and nerves is not to read newspapers, especially Pravda. I observed 30 patients in my clinic. So what do you think, those who have not read Pravda recover faster than those who have read, "etc., etc. There are many more examples, examples of Bulgakov definitely hating and despising the entire Sovstroy, denies everything his achievements.

In addition, the book is replete with pornography, clothed in a business, allegedly scientific view... Thus, this book will please both a malevolent man in the street, and a frivolous lady, and sweetly tickle the nerves of just a depraved old man. There is a faithful, strict and vigilant guard at the Soviet Power, this is Glavlit, and if my opinion does not differ from his, then this book will not see the light. But let me point out the fact that this book (the first part of it) has already been read to an audience of 48 people, of which 90 percent are writers themselves. Therefore, her role, her main work, has already been done, even if she will not be missed by Glavlit: she has already infected the writers' minds of listeners and will sharpen their feathers. And the fact that it will not be published (if it “does not exist”), this will be a luxurious lesson for them, these writers, a lesson for the future, a lesson in how it is not necessary to write in order to miss censorship, that is, how publish your beliefs and propaganda, but in a way that sees the light of day. (25 / III - 25 Bulgakov will read the second part of his story).

My personal opinion: such things, read in the most brilliant Moscow literary circle, are much more dangerous than the uselessly harmless speeches of the 101st class writers at the meetings of the All-Russian Union of Poets. " About Bulgakov's reading of the second part of S. p. an unknown informant reported much more succinctly. Either she made a lesser impression on him, or thought that the main thing had already been said in the first denunciation:

“The second and last part of Bulgakov's story“ Heart of a Dog ”(I told you about the first part two weeks earlier), read by him on“ Nikitinsky Subbotnik ”, aroused strong indignation of the two communist writers who were there and the general delight of all the others. The content of this final part boils down to approximately the following: The humanized dog became impudent every day, more and more. She became depraved: she made vile proposals to the professor's maid. But the center of the author's mockery and accusations rests on something else: on the wearing of a leather jacket by a dog, on the demand for living space, on the manifestation of a communist way of thinking. All this pissed the professor out of himself, and at once he put an end to the misfortune he had created, namely: he turned the humanized dog into the old, ordinary dog.

If similarly grossly disguised (for all this “humanization” is only an emphatically noticeable, careless make-up) attacks appear on the book market of the USSR, then the White Guard abroad, exhausted no less than us from book hunger, and even more from fruitless searches for an original, biting plot , it remains only to envy the exceptional conditions for counter-revolutionary authors in our country ”. Messages of this kind probably alerted the authorities that controlled the literary process, and made it inevitable that S. s.

People skilled in literature praised the story. For example, on April 8, 1925, the writer Vikenty Veresaev (Smidovich) (1867-1945) wrote to the poet Maximilian Voloshin (Kiriyenko-Voloshin) (1877-1932): “I was very pleased to read your review of M. Bulgakov ... his humorous things - pearls, promising from him an artist of the first rank. But the censorship cuts him mercilessly. Recently I stabbed the wonderful thing "Heart of a Dog", and he completely falls in spirit. " On April 20, 1925, in a letter to Veresaev, Angarsky complains about the same thing - it is very difficult to carry Bulgakov's satirical works “through censorship. I'm not sure his new story, Heart of a Dog, will pass. In general, literature is bad. The censorship does not assimilate the party line ”. The old Bolshevik Angarsky here pretends to be naive. In fact, a gradual tightening of censorship began in the country as JV Stalin's power was consolidated. The reaction of criticism to Bulgakov's previous story "Fatal Eggs", regarded as an anti-Soviet pamphlet, also played a role. On May 21, 1925, Nedr employee B. Leontyev sent Bulgakov a very pessimistic letter: “Dear Mikhail Afanasyevich, I am sending you Notes on Cuffs and Heart of a Dog. Do what you want with them. Sarychev said in Glavlit that the “Heart of a Dog” should no longer be cleaned. "The whole thing is unacceptable" or something like that. " However, NS Angarsky, to whom S. s. I liked it very much, I decided to turn to the very top - to a member of the Politburo Lev Borisovich Kamenev (Rosenfeld) (1883-1936). Through B. Leontyev, he asked Bulgakov to send the manuscript to S. p. with censorship corrections to Kamenev, who was resting in Borjomi, with a cover letter that should be “author's, tearful, with an explanation of all the ordeals ...” On September 11, 1925 Leontiev wrote to Bulgakov about the disappointing outcome of this last attempt to get S. “Your story“ Heart of a Dog ”was returned to us by LB Kamenev. At the request of Nikolai Semyonovich, he read it and expressed his opinion: "This is a sharp pamphlet on the present, it should never be printed." Leont'ev and Angarsky reproached Bulgakov for having sent Kamenev an uncorrected copy: “Of course, one cannot attach much importance to the two or three most poignant pages; they could hardly change anything in the opinion of a man like Kamenev. And yet, it seems to us. Your unwillingness to give the previously corrected text played a sad role here. " Subsequent events showed the groundlessness of such fears: the reasons for the prohibition of S. p. were far more fundamental than a few uncorrected or censored pages. On May 7, 1926, as part of a campaign sanctioned by the Central Committee to combat “changeover” (see: “Under the Heel”), Bulgakov's apartment was searched and the manuscript of the writer's diary and two copies of S. s. Only more than three years later, what was confiscated with the assistance of Maxim Gorky (Alexei Maksimovich Peshkov) (1868-1936) was returned to the author.

Fabulno S. with., Like "Fatal Eggs", goes back to the works of the famous English science fiction writer Herbert Wells (1866-1946), this time - to the novel "The Island of Dr. Moreau" (1896), where the maniac professor in his laboratories on a desert island are engaged in the creation of surgical unusual "hybrids" of humans and animals. H. Wells's novel was written in connection with the growth of the movement of opponents of vivisection - operations on animals - and their killing for scientific purposes. In Bulgakov's work, the kindest professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky is conducting an experiment to humanize the cute dog Sharik and very little resembles Wells' hero. However, the experiment ends in failure. Sharik perceives only the worst traits of his donor, drunkard and bully proletarian Klim Chugunkin. Instead good dog an ominous, stupid and aggressive Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov appears, who nevertheless fits perfectly into socialist reality and even makes an enviable career: from a being of undetermined social status to the head of the sub-department for cleaning Moscow from stray animals. Probably, having turned his hero into the head of a subdivision of the Moscow Communal Services, Bulgakov recalled his forced service in the Vladikavkaz subdivision of arts and Moscow Leto (the literary department of the Glavpolitprosvet) with an unkind word. Sharikov becomes socially dangerous, incited by the chairman of the house committee Shvonder against his creator, Professor Preobrazhensky, writes denunciations against him, and in the end even threatens with a revolver. The professor has no choice but to return the newly minted monster to its primitive canine state. If in “Fatal Eggs” a disappointing conclusion was drawn about the possibility of realizing the socialist idea in Russia at the existing level of culture and education, then in S. p. the attempts of the Bolsheviks to create a new person, called to become the builder of a communist society, are parodied. In the work "At the Feast of the Gods", published in Kiev in 1918, the philosopher, theologian and publicist S. N. Bulgakov noted:

“I confess to you that comrades sometimes seem to me to be creatures completely devoid of spirit and possessing only the lowest mental abilities, a special kind of Darwinian apes - Homo socialisticus.” Author S. s. in the image of Sharikov this idea materialized, probably taking into account the message of the writer and literary critic Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky (1893-1984), the prototype of Shpolyansky in the "White Guard", citing rumors in his memoir "Sentimental Journey" (1923) that circulated in Kiev at the beginning 1919: “It was said that the British - they were not sick people - told that the British had already planted herds of monkeys in Baku, trained in all the rules of the military system. They said that these monkeys cannot be propagandized, that they go into attacks without fear that they will defeat the Bolsheviks. Perhaps these rumors could have been a simple development in the imagination of the image of "a special kind of Darwinian monkeys." Bulgakov previously used the testimony of VB Shklovsky, when he described in "Fatal Eggs" the reptiles' trip to red Moscow.

Author S. s. foresaw that the Sharikovs could easily squeeze out of the light not only the Preobrazhenskys, but also the Shvonders. The strength of Polygraph Poligrafovich lies in his virginity in relation to conscience and culture. Professor Preobrazhensky sadly prophesies that in the future there will be someone who will incite Sharikov against Shvonder, as today the chairman of the house committee incites him against Philip Filippovich. The writer, as it were, predicted the bloody purges of the 30s already among the communists themselves, when some Shvonders punished others who were less successful. Shvonder in S. with. - a gloomy, although not devoid of comic, personification of the lowest level of totalitarian power - the house manager, opens a large gallery of similar heroes in Bulgakov's work, such as Hallelujah (Harness) in Zoya's apartment, Bunsha in Bliss and Ivan Vasilyevich, Nikanor Ivanovich Barefoot in The Master and Margarita.

The operation on Sharik is performed by the professor with the priestly surname Preobrazhensky in the afternoon of December 23, and the humanization of the dog is completed on the night of January 7, since the last mention of his dog's appearance in the observation diary kept by Bormental's assistant is dated January 6. Thus, the whole process of the transformation of a dog into a human covers the period from December 24 to January 6, from Catholic to Orthodox Christmas Eve. There is a Transfiguration, but not the Lord's. The new man Sharikov is born on the night of January 6-7 - in orthodox Christmas... But Polygraph Poligrafovich is not the embodiment of Christ, but of the devil, who took a name for himself in honor of the fictitious “saint” in the new Soviet “saints” prescribing to celebrate the Day of the Printers. Sharikov is, to some extent, a victim of printing products - books containing Marxist dogmas that Shvonder gave him to read. From there, the “new man” brought out only the thesis of a primitive egalitarianism - “take everything and divide it up”. During his last quarrel with Preobrazhensky and Bormenthal, Sharikov's connection with otherworldly forces was emphasized in every possible way: “Some unclean spirit possessed Polygraph Poligrafovich, obviously, death was already watching him and doom stood behind him. He himself threw himself into the arms of the inevitable and barked viciously and abruptly:

- What is it really? That I, the authorities, perhaps, will not find you? I am sitting here at sixteen arshins and I will sit!

“Get out of the apartment,” Philip Philipovich whispered sincerely.

Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised his left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a shish that was bitten with an intolerable feline smell. And then he took a revolver out of his pocket with his right hand at the dangerous Bormental. " Shish is the "hair" on the head of the devil standing on end. Sharikov's hair is the same: "hard, like bushes on a field that has been uprooted." Polygraph Poligrafovich, armed with a revolver, is a kind of illustration of the famous saying of the Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): "All the armed prophets won, and the unarmed ones died." Here Sharikov is a parody of V. I. Lenin, L. D. Trotsky and other Bolsheviks who, by military force, ensured the triumph of their teachings in Russia. By the way, three volumes of Trotsky's posthumous biography, written by his follower Isaac Deutscher (1906-1967), were called “The Armed Prophet”, “The Disarmed Prophet”, “The Exiled Prophet” (1954-1963). Bulgakov's hero is not a prophet of God, but of the devil. However, only in the fantastic reality of S. with. he manages to disarm and, through a complex surgical operation, bring him into his primary form - the kind and cute dog Sharik, who only hates cats and janitors. In reality, no one could disarm the Bolsheviks.

The prototype of Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, as well as one of the prototypes of Professor Persikov in "Fatal Eggs", was Bulgakov's uncle, mother's brother Nikolai Mikhailovich Pokrovsky (1868-1941), a gynecologist. His apartment at 24 Prechistenka (or Chisty Pereulok, 1) coincides in detail with the description of Preobrazhensky's apartment in S. Interestingly, in the address of the prototype, the names of the streets are associated with the Christian tradition, and his surname (in honor of the holiday of the Intercession) corresponds to the surname of the character associated with the holiday of the Transfiguration of the Lord. A colorful description of NM Pokrovsky has survived in the memoirs of Bulgakov's first wife, TN Lapp: “... As I began to read (S. p. - BS), I immediately guessed that it was him. The same angry, he always hummed something, his nostrils flared, his mustache was just as lush. In general, he was cute. Then he was very offended by Mikhail for this. He had a dog at one time, a Doberman Pinscher. " The memoirist also noted that "Nikolai Mikhailovich did not marry for a long time, but he loved to look after women." Perhaps this circumstance prompted Bulgakov to force in S. with. bachelor Preobrazhensky to engage in operations to rejuvenate the thirsty love affairs of aging ladies and gentlemen. N. M. Pokrovsky also recalls Bulgakov's second wife L. Ye. Belozerskaya: “He was distinguished by a hot-tempered and uncompromising character, which gave rise to a joke to one of his nieces:“ You cannot please Uncle Kolya, he says: don’t dare give birth and don’t dare have an abortion ””. Pokrovsky used all his numerous relatives, including T. N. Lapp's abortion at the end of 1916 or the beginning of 1917, when the Bulgakovs lived in the village of Nikolskoye in the Smolensk province.

In early editions of S. p. Among the patients of Preobrazhensky, quite specific persons were guessed. So, mentioned by an elderly lady her frantic lover Moritz is a good acquaintance of Bulgakov V.E. Moritz (1890-1972), an art critic who worked in State Academy Art Science (GAChN) and enjoyed great success with the ladies. In particular, the first wife of Bulgakov's friend NN Lyamin, Alexandra Sergeevna Lyamina (née Prokhorova), the daughter of a famous merchant, left her husband for Moritz. In 1930 V.E. Moritz was arrested on charges of creating, together with the philosopher GG Shpet (1879-1937), who was well known to Bulgakov, at GAKhN, a “strong citadel of idealism,” exiled to Kotlas, and after returning from exile he happily taught mastery of the actor at the Theater School. M.S.Schepkina. In the later edition, the name Moritz was replaced by Alphonse. The episode with the “well-known public figure”, kindled with passion for a fourteen-year-old girl, in the first edition was supplied with such transparent details that it really frightened NS Angarsky: “... An agitated voice barked over his head:

- I am a famous public figure, professor! What to do now?

- Gentlemen! - Philip Philipovich shouted indignantly, - you can't do that! You need to restrain yourself. How old is she?

- Fourteen, professor ... You understand, the publicity will ruin me. One of these days I have to get a business trip to London.

- But I'm not a lawyer, my dear ... Well, wait two years and marry her.

- I'm married, professor!

“Ah, gentlemen, gentlemen! ..” NS Angarsky crossed out the phrase about a business trip to London in red, and marked the whole episode with a blue pencil, having signed twice in the margins. As a result, in the subsequent edition, “a well-known public figure” was replaced by “I am too famous in Moscow ...”, and a business trip to London turned into just a “business trip abroad”. The fact is that the words about the public figure and London made the prototype easily recognizable. Until the spring of 1925, only two of the prominent members of the Communist Party traveled to the British capital. The first is Leonid Borisovich Krasin (1870-1926), since 1920 - the people's commissar of foreign trade and at the same time the plenipotentiary and trade representative in England, since 1924 he became the plenipotentiary in France. The second is Christian Georgievich Rakovsky (1873-1941), the former head of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine, who replaced Krasin at the post of plenipotentiary envoy in London at the beginning of 1924. S.'s action p. takes place in the winter of 1924-1925, when Rakovsky was the plenipotentiary in England, who probably served as the prototype for the libertine in S. s. In his diary entry on the night of December 21, 1924 in connection with the cooling of Anglo-Soviet relations after the publication of the letter of G. Ye. Zinoviev (Radomyshelsky-Apfelbaum) (1883-1936), the then head of the Comintern, Bulgakov also mentioned Rakovsky: “The famous letter Zinoviev, which contains unequivocal calls for the indignation of the workers and troops in England - not only by the Foreign Office, but by the whole of England, apparently, is unconditionally recognized as genuine. England is over.

Stupid and slow Englishmen, albeit with a delay, but nevertheless begin to realize that in Moscow, Rakovsky and couriers arriving with sealed packages lurks some, very formidable danger of Britain's decay ”.

Apparently, Rakovsky's amorous pleasures gave rise to rumors in Moscow, and in the image of an elderly lecher - a lover of minors, going back to a specific prototype, Bulgakov tried to demonstrate the moral decay of the one who was called to work for the decay of "good old England". Through the lips of Philip Philipovich, the author expressed surprise at the incredible voluptuousness of the Bolshevik leaders. The love affairs of many of them, in particular, the “All-Union headman” MI Kalinin (1875-1946) and the secretary of the Central Executive Committee. S. Yenukidze (1877-1937), were not a secret for the Moscow intelligentsia in the 1920s.

In the early edition of S. p. Professor Preobrazhensky's statement that the galoshes from the hall “disappeared in April 1917” was also read more seditiously - an allusion to the return of V. I. Lenin and his “April Theses” to Russia, as the root cause of all the troubles that happened in Russia. In the next edition, April was replaced by March 1917 for censorship reasons, and the February revolution, as it were, became the source of all disasters, although Bulgakov seemed to have a positive attitude to the conquests of this revolution: in the play "Sons of the Mullah" it is shown as a blessing. Probably, the activities of the Bolsheviks by S. s. considered aimed at the elimination of the democratic gains of February.

The famous monologue of Philip Philipovich about devastation: “This is a mirage, smoke, fiction! .. What is your“ devastation ”? An old woman with a stick? The witch who knocked out all the windows, put out all the lamps? It doesn't exist at all! What do you mean by this word? Here's what: if, instead of operating, I start singing in chorus every evening in my apartment, I will be in ruin. If I, going to the restroom, start, excuse me for the expression, urinate past the toilet and Zina and Darya Petrovna do the same, the restroom will be ruined. Consequently, the devastation sits not in the closets, but in the heads ”, - has one very specific source. In the early 1920s, a one-act play by Valery Yazvitsky (1883-1957) “Who is to blame?” Was staged in the Moscow Workshop of Communist Drama. ("Devastation"), where the main character was an ancient crooked old woman in rags named Devastation, preventing the family of the proletarian from living. Soviet propaganda really did make some kind of mythical elusive villain out of ruin, trying to hide that the root cause was in the politics of the Bolsheviks, in military communism, and also in the fact that people had lost the habit of working honestly and efficiently and had no incentives to work. The only remedy against devastation Preobrazhensky (and with him Bulgakov) recognizes the maintenance of order, when everyone can do their own thing: “Policeman! This and only this! And it doesn't matter at all whether he is wearing a badge or wearing a red cap. Put a policeman next to every person and make this policeman moderate the vocal impulses of our citizens. I'll tell you ... that nothing will change for the better in our house, and in any other house, until you pacify these singers! As soon as they stop their concerts, the situation will change for the better by itself! ”. Lovers of choral singing during working hours Bulgakov punished in the novel "The Master and Margarita", where the employees of the Entertainment Commission are forced to sing non-stop by the former choir director Koroviev-Fagot. The policeman as a symbol of order appears in the feuilleton “The Capital in a Notepad” (1922-1923). The myth of devastation turns out to be correlated with the myth of S. V. Petlyura in the White Guard, where the former accountant Bulgakov is reprimanded for the fact that he ultimately went about not his business - he became the “chief chieftain” of the ephemeral, according to the writer, Ukrainian state. In the novel, the monologue of Alexei Turbin, where he calls for a fight against the Bolsheviks in the name of restoring order, is correlated with Preobrazhensky's monologue and causes a reaction similar to it. Brother Nikolka notes that “Alexei is an irreplaceable person at the rally, an orator.” Sharik, on the other hand, thinks about Philip Philipovich, who has gone into oratorical excitement: "He could earn money right at the rallies ..."

The very name "Heart of a Dog" is taken from the tavern couplet, placed in the book of A. V. Leifert "Balagany" (1922):

“... For the second pie - / Filling of frog legs, / With onions, peppers / Yes with a dog's heart”. This name can be correlated with the past life of Klim Chugunkin, who made his living by playing the balalaika in taverns (ironically, the author's brother S. S. I. Bulgakov also earned his living in emigration with this).

S. s. was supposed to be staged at the Moscow Art Theater. On March 2, 1926, Bulgakov entered into a corresponding agreement with the theater, which, in connection with the censorship ban of the S.S., was terminated on April 19, 1927.

In S. with. there are specific signs of the time of action - from December 1924 to March 1925. The epilogue of the story speaks of the March fog, from which Sharik, who had regained his canine hypostasis, suffered from headaches, and the program of Moscow circuses, which Preobrazhensky studies for the presence of contraindicated The ball of numbers with cats ("At Solomonovsky ... some kind of ... yussems and a dead center man ... Nikitin ... elephants and the limit of human dexterity") exactly corresponds to the real circumstances of the beginning of 1925. It was then in 1 the State Circus on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, 13 (formerly A. Salamonsky) and the 2nd State Circus on B. Sadovaya, 18 (formerly A. Nikitin) trapeze artists “Four Yussems” and the equilibrist Eton, whose number was called “Man on dead center ”. Note that the exact timing is characteristic not only of S. of page, but also of other Bulgakov's works - the story "Fatal Eggs", the play "Bliss", the novel "The Master and Margarita".

According to some reports, even during the life of S. Bulgakov, p. distributed in samizdat. An anonymous correspondent in a letter on March 9, 1936, when, after the publication of a critical article in Pravda, it became inevitable that the Cabal of saints would be removed from the stage, encouraging Bulgakov, she informed him that many things “that are written by you, but m. and is attributed, rewritten and transmitted, for example, the version of the ending of the story “Fatal eggs” and the story “Heart of a Dog” ”. Also, the famous literary critic Razumnik Vasilyevich Ivanov-Razumnik (Ivanov) (1878-1946) in his book of memoir sketches "Writers' Fates" (1951) noted:

“Realizing too late, the censorship decided not to miss a single printed line of this“ inappropriate satirist ”in the future (this is how a certain type who has a command at the censorship outpost put it about M. Bulgakov). Since then, his stories and stories were forbidden (I read his very witty story “Sharik” in the manuscript) ... ”Here,“ Sharik ”clearly means S. p.