In his story, Bulgakov showed Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky as a creator, a highly moral, highly developed and intelligent person.
The professor devoted his entire life to helping people find health. He developed, made scientific discoveries, and worked a lot. In the middle of his “career” he helped one student, he turned out to be the future Doctor Bormenthal. A friendship began between the men. Bormenthal owed everything to the professor, he thanked and “idolized” him.
Bulgakov also shows the character of the professor. The man was practically calm, very reasonable, and had an excellent sense of humor. He did not save, despite the difficult situation in the country, neither on food nor on living conditions. The professor earned a lot. Due to his merits in medicine, the man had immunity, however, he did not share political views with Shwodner. Often during a conversation with Bormenthal, the professor clearly conveyed his “harsh” point of view and argued every word he said.
The professor decided on the riskiest experiment. He believed that thanks to this “discovery” people would be able to regain their youth forever, and perhaps these were attempts to find a way to “ eternal life».
However, after the operation to transplant a heart into an animal, Philip Philipovich was in for serious disappointment. Sharikov, who appears instead of the dog, completely destroys all theories about “eternal life” and youth. In addition, Polygraph Poligrafovich, under the influence, makes the professor’s life almost unbearable.
In the apartment where the “luminaries of medicine” lived, things began to happen. unpleasant situations. Philip Philipovich took it very hard. He is accustomed to a calm and measured lifestyle.
The man very much regretted that he still carried out this operation. He saw what terrible person was able to “resurrect”, but could not understand what to do next.
Having suffered a fair amount from “their creation,” the professor and Bormenthal decide to carry out another operation and return everything to its original place.
And again surgical intervention is obtained desired result. goes into oblivion, and his place is gradually taken by the dog Sharik.
Preobrazhensky will never want to argue with nature again. He and Dr. Bormenthal learned a big lesson.
No, the professor was not afraid that he would have to share living space with Sharikov, he was not afraid of the police, he was not afraid of losing his authority... He was deeply outraged by his behavior, lack of manners and lack of desire to study. Philip Philipovich understood that it was precisely this behavior that led to complete ruin in life.
The professor had no choice but to admit to the public that his experiment was a “fiasco.” Thus, he forever “hidden” his greatest achievement from humanity.
The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Bulgakov’s uncle, his mother’s brother Nikolai Mikhailovich Pokrovsky, a gynecologist. The furnishings of his apartment at 24 Prechistenka (or Chisty Lane, 1) coincide in detail with the description of the professor’s apartment. A colorful characterization of N. M. Pokrovsky has been preserved in the memoirs of the first wife of the writer T. N. Lapp: “As soon as I started reading,” I immediately guessed that it was him. Just as angry, he was always humming something, his nostrils flared, his mustache was just as bushy. In general, he was nice. He was then very offended by Mikhail for this. Nikolai Mikhailovich did not marry for a long time, but he loved to look after women and was distinguished by an inflexible, hot-tempered character.”
We see Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky through the eyes of Sharik: “The door across the street in a brightly lit store slammed, and out appeared. It is a citizen, not a comrade, and even more accurately, a master. Closer - clearer - sir. Do you think I judge by my coat? Nonsense. Nowadays, many people, including proletarians, wear coats. But by the eyes, you can’t confuse them both up close and from afar. Oh, eyes are a significant thing! Like a barometer. You can see everything - who has a great dryness in their soul, who can poke the toe of a boot in the ribs for no reason, and who is afraid of everyone.
The gentleman confidently crossed the street in the blizzard and moved into the gateway. Yes, yes, this one can see everything. This rotten corned beef won't eat..."
The “mysterious gentleman” amazes Sharik with everything: “What a personality! What kind of person is this who can lead dogs from the street past the doorman into the house of a housing association? Look, this one is mean; - no sound, no movement! It seems that nothing can unsettle the professor, only when he learns that “four big” tenants have been moved into the third apartment, “his eyes widened and his mustache stood on end.”
My God! I can imagine what will happen in the apartment now!” - he exclaims with horror.
And in the apartment, as in the house, and indeed throughout the country, devastation began.
Philip Philipovich’s famous monologue about devastation: “This is a mirage, smoke, fiction! What is this “ruin” of yours? Old woman with a stick? The witch who broke all the windows and put out all the lamps? Yes, it doesn’t exist at all! What do you mean by this word? This is this: if, instead of operating, I start singing in chorus every evening in my apartment, I will be in ruins! If, while going to the restroom, I start, excuse me for the expression, urinating past the toilet and Zina and Daria Petrovna do the same, the restroom will be in chaos. Consequently, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads!”
In the early 30s, Valery Yazvitsky’s one-act play “Who is to Blame” (“Devastation”) was staged at the Moscow Workshop of Communist Drama, where the main actor there was an ancient, crooked old woman in rags named Destruction, who was making it difficult for the proletarian family to live. Soviet propaganda really made some kind of mythical elusive villain out of the devastation, trying to hide that its root cause was the Bolshevik policy, war communism, the fact that people had lost the habit of working honestly and efficiently and had no incentive to work. Preobrazhensky (and with him Bulgakov) recognizes that the only cure against devastation is ensuring order, when everyone can mind their own business: “Policeman! This, and only this! And it doesn’t matter at all whether he wears a badge or a red cap. Put a policeman next to every person and force this policeman to moderate the vocal impulses of our citizens. I will tell you that nothing will change in our house until you pacify these singers! As soon as they stop their concerts, the situation will naturally change for the better!”
The professor is a hard worker, and although he lives in seven rooms, which seems like an indescribable luxury to the tenants, the purpose of each is rational, and in the writer’s opinion, this is how he should live normal person: sleep in the bedroom, have dinner in the dining room, and operate in the operating room. The consciousness of “new” people is not formed by the culture of human needs, the culture of everyday life. The main thing for them is to divide everything, lay bricks, put up partitions, remove carpets and flowers from the stairs, that is, change the world in their own way, in a proletarian way. The first meeting with the “four things” of fellow tenants ended in the victory of Philip Philipovich, the professor is triumphant. The worker, whose gender Preobrazhensky could not determine, wants to somehow justify the purpose of the visit and offers the professor “several magazines in favor of the children of France.
No, I won’t take it,” Philip Philipovich answered meekly, glancing sideways at the magazines.
Don't you sympathize with the children of France?
No, I'm sorry.
So why?
Don't want".
In this episode, the views of Philip Philipovich are very clearly expressed. He openly, without a shadow of fear, declares: “Yes, I don’t like the proletariat,” which, of course, in those days was very dangerous, as Bormenthal jokingly notes, he “should have been arrested.”
The life of Philip Philipovich seems luxurious even to Bormental, especially to Zina and Sharik. This is normal life: “on plates painted with heavenly flowers with a wide black border, thin slices of salmon and pickled eels lay. On a heavy board there is a piece of cheese in tears, and in a silver tub, lined with snow, caviar. In the middle of the room is a table, heavy as a tomb, covered with a white tablecloth, and on it are two cutlery, napkins folded in the form of papal tiaras, and three dark bottles.
Zina brought in a silver covered dish in which something was grumbling
And vodka should be forty degrees, not thirty - that’s firstly,” Philip Philipovich interrupted instructively, “and secondly, God knows what they poured in there.” Can you tell what comes to their mind? Please note, Ivan Arnoldovich: only landowners who were not killed by the Bolsheviks eat cold appetizers and soup. A more or less self-respecting person handles hot snacks.” The whole way of life in the new society provokes the professor’s protest: “And, God forbid, don’t read any Soviet newspapers before lunch.” According to Preobrazhensky, they cause decreased reflexes, poor appetite, and a depressed state of mind.
Before the reader is an intelligent, kind, but sarcastic person, loyal to what is happening, but clearly does not support the existing government, with its laws, norms of life, “culture”, a person capable of analyzing what is happening and able to adapt to existing conditions to the extent necessary for him. But how does the portrait of this sedate “master” change when the main thing - the house - collapses: “The Kalabukhovsky house is gone! When these baritones shout: “Beat the destruction!”, I laugh. (Philip Philippovich's face contorted so that the one who had been bitten opened his mouth.) I swear to you, I'm laughing! This means that each of them must hit themselves in the back of the head! And when he hatches out of his hallucinations and starts cleaning the barns - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself. You cannot serve two gods! It is impossible to sweep at the same time tram rails and arrange the fate of some Spanish ragamuffins! No one will be able to do this, doctor, and especially not people who, in general, are two hundred years behind the Europeans in development, are still not entirely confident in buttoning their own pants! His hawk-like nostrils flared.”
If homework on the topic of: » Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky If you find it useful, we will be grateful if you post a link to this message on your page on your social network.
Latest news
Categories
News
Essays on the topic
- Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky discovered a way to rejuvenate the body by transplanting animal endocrine glands into people. In his seven-room apartment in
- Unified State Exam test in chemistry Reversible and irreversible chemical reactions Chemical equilibrium Answers
Reversible and irreversible chemical reactions. Chemical balance. Shift in chemical equilibrium under the influence of various factors 1. Chemical equilibrium in the 2NO(g) system
Niobium in its compact state is a lustrous silvery-white (or gray when powdered) paramagnetic metal with a body-centered cubic crystal lattice.
Noun. Saturating the text with nouns can become a means of linguistic figurativeness. The text of the poem by A. A. Fet “Whisper, timid breathing...”, in his
Today we will consider the criminal case against Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky from the story by Mikhail Bulgakov “ dog's heart" All quotes are taken from the literary source.
Why does a famous doctor, a “world luminary,” a professor operate at home and not in a clinic? Probably for the same reason that his clients pay a lot of money so that no one knows about their operation. Essentially, it is an underground clinic for business clients, criminals and prohibited experiments. All transactions are paid in cash.
His rates were 10 rubles per visit, while the typist's salary at that time was 45 rubles per month. That is, ordinary patients with serious illnesses could not make an appointment with a leading doctor.
Covering up a crime
At the same time, Preobrazhensky himself is involved in covering up the crimes of his clients. In particular, he performs a clandestine abortion in his apartment on a seduced 14-year-old girl, fulfilling the order of a pedophile and not reporting his crime in law enforcement agencies.
- I'm too famous in Moscow, professor. What should I do?
“Gentlemen,” Philip Philipovich shouted indignantly, “you can’t do this.” You need to restrain yourself. How old is she?
- Fourteen, professor... You understand, publicity will ruin me. One of these days I should get an overseas business trip.
- But I’m not a lawyer, my dear... Well, wait two years and marry her.
- I'm married, professor.
- Oh, gentlemen, gentlemen!
Stealing a corpse
To conduct prohibited experiments with human organs, he organizes the theft of a corpse from the morgue.
Animal abuse. Violation of personal rights
Preobrazhensky performs an experiment on a dog in almost complete confidence that the dog will die. The matter is aggravated by the fact that by the time the experiment began, Sharik was not a laboratory animal or even a yard dog, but Preobrazhensky’s pet.
Thus, the experiment was carried out on an animal unsuitable for this purpose in unsuitable conditions (not a laboratory or a hospital); in addition, the operation was not legally documented.
Prosecutor: “Preobrazhensky lives by fixing gigolos and whores”
Human history and, especially, literature knows cases when a person’s abilities and talents came into blatant contradiction with his moral qualities. One of bright examples Professor Preobrazhensky is of this kind.
Preobrazhensky lives by repairing gigolos and whores, and inserting monkey ovaries into elderly revelers. Sorry for being direct, but you can’t erase a word from a song. He does not disdain clandestine abortions for minor victims of debauchery, but more on that below.
In his apartment, Preobrazhensky is engaged in illegal private medical practice, which, in case of harm to human health, falls under Art. 235 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Illegal private medical practice.”
These types of activities are considered illegal if they are carried out by persons who do not have a license for the specified type of activity. It is quite obvious that, in principle, a license cannot be issued to conduct the most complex operations, including on the brain at home.
In his illegal medical activities, the professor actively goes beyond not only morality, but also the criminal code - for example, he performs a clandestine abortion on a 14-year-old (!) girl, who is brought to him by an adult married libertine, who, according to him, occupies a certain position in society. (Article 123 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Illegal abortion”)
As has already been said, in a complex post-war period Preobrazhensky supports high level life, living in an eight-room apartment. Quiet living is the result of a bribe to a high-ranking official, which Preobrazhensky does not even hide, demanding intercession and patronage from his “roof” when representatives of the authorities local government legally come to him to check his living conditions.
By the way, it is no secret that truly outstanding scientists, as a rule, were very modest in everyday life.
Since, it seems, Preobrazhensky treats all God's creatures with equal contempt, his experiments are completely inhumane - for example, he transforms a dog into a human using the corpse of a deceased alcoholic - well, so as not to ask the consent of relatives. The corpse is obtained illegally. Article 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Desecration of the bodies of the dead” (fine) and Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Cruelty to animals” (imprisonment for up to 2 years), in the opinion of the prosecution, are ideal here.
But as a result of experiments, a person is obtained. A person is real, alive and with all rights. Naturally, Preobrazhensky continues to treat him like a dog, and even worse, since the person begins to feel like a human and wants to arrange basic things - get documents, get a job, register in a living space, get married, etc. In general, from a legal point of view, he behaves completely adequately. At the same time, he reminds Preobrazhensky, who was playing at the Lord God, that “he did not give consent to the operation, neither did my relatives.”
All this makes Preobrazhensky furious - some kind of cattle and rights to download?! Therefore, Preobrazhensky with another participant organized group, the assistant citizen Bormenthal, remakes him back into a dog.
Bottom line
Under Article 123 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Illegal abortion”, I ask you to impose a penalty in the form of a fine of 40,000 rubles (half of the maximum sanction).
According to Article 244 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Desecration of the bodies of the dead” as part of an organized group - impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 1 year.
According to Article 245 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Cruelty to animals”, as part of an organized group - impose a penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 60,000 rubles (half of the maximum sanction).
According to Article 111 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “ Intentional causing grievous harm to health", entailing mental disorder based on ideological hatred or enmity, as part of an organized group - sentenced to 6 years in prison.
When assigning a sentence, take into account the defendant’s advanced age, lack of criminal record, positive characteristics however, take into account the exceptional audacity, cynicism and demonstrative nature of the crime, and therefore appoint general punishment in the form of real imprisonment by partial addition of sentences of 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Defense: “All of Preobrazhensky’s accusations are directly contrary to the law”
Without exception, all the numerous charges brought against my client are completely unfounded. They are not supported by evidence and directly contradict the requirements of the law establishing how general grounds criminal liability, and specific elements of crimes. Below are brief justifications for this statement in relation to each accusation.
Allegations of “corruption and blackmail”
Preobrazhensky is neither an official nor the head of any organization, and cannot be the subject of these crimes. He is not charged with actions that could constitute part of any of them, as well as giving a bribe (Article 291). The actions accused of Preobrazhensky as “corruption and blackmail” are a legitimate defense of one’s rights against the arbitrariness of officials.
Charge of concealing a crime
Concealment is only criminally punishable serious crimes(Article 316 of the Criminal Code). Sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old (Part 1 of Article 134 of the Criminal Code) is a crime moderate severity, and then only if she has not reached puberty. There is no evidence that she has not reached puberty; on the contrary, the state of pregnancy indicates that she has reached puberty.
There is also no evidence that Preobrazhensky performed the abortion precisely for the purpose of concealing the fact of sexual intercourse with a minor, and not for another purpose (for example, to avoid the negative consequences of pregnancy for her life and health).
Charge of "stealing a corpse"
Pure fiction. Firstly, a corpse cannot in any way be the subject of theft, and secondly, there are no signs of theft - the secret theft of someone else's property (Article 158 of the Criminal Code).
Animal cruelty charge
Preobrazhensky picked up a homeless man on the street sick dog, doomed to death, went out and fed him, the dog sincerely loved him for this. This fact is admitted by the prosecution. After this, Preobrazhensky gave the dog a chance to become a human, at the same time making him a world celebrity. What kind of cruel treatment of an animal can we talk about here, even if this animal never became a human?! All mandatory elements of this crime are missing (Article 245 of the Criminal Code): death or injury of an animal, motive (hooligan or selfish) and method (sadistic or in the presence of minors) of its commission.
Charges of "murder or excess of self-defense"
Murder is causing the death of a person (Article 105 of the Criminal Code). The prosecution has not proven that Sharikov/Sharik was (became) a person. “Speaking does not mean being human.” Parrots, for example, also talk. The mere transplantation of a human organ into an animal is also not proof of its transformation into a human. Consequently, there is no object of attack, and thus the very possibility of being charged with murder is excluded. In addition, whoever Sharikov/Sharik was, he was not deprived of his life.
The case indisputably established: “The ball still exists, and no one definitely killed him. ...A nightmarish-looking dog with a purple scar on his forehead rose again hind legs and, smiling, sat down in a chair.”
As for Bormental’s actions, they were aimed at protecting against the attack of Sharikov, armed with a revolver, at repelling his aggressive criminal acts: violent harassment against Zina, causing bodily harm to Bormental.
He was undoubtedly in a state of necessary defense. His actions corresponded to the nature and danger of the attack; the limits of necessary defense were not exceeded. The fact that the defender has the opportunity to call for help or contact law enforcement agencies does not exclude the state of necessary defense and does not detract from the right to his own active actions to repel an attack.
The subsequent (after repelling the armed attack of Sharikov/Sharik) surgical actions of Preobrazhensky and Bormental were not “excess of self-defense,” as the prosecution falsely claims, and, of course, not an attempted murder, but a continuation of a scientific experiment.
There is no evidence that Preobrazhensky's claim that Sharik/Sharikov never became human is false. It has not been refuted in any way, and all doubts must be interpreted exclusively in favor of the accused (Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Bottom line
Unproven guilt means proven innocence. An accusation, and especially a conviction, cannot be based on assumptions and unclear formulations. That's what justice stands for. There is only one possible conclusion from all that has been said: my client is subject to complete acquittal of all charges brought against him and full rehabilitation.
Sentence to Professor Philip Preobrazhensky
The verdict is read out by Dmitry Nechevin, Doctor of Law, Professor of Moscow State Law University.
Having considered the criminal case against Preobrazhensky, having heard the prosecution and defense, as well as the evidence presented in the case under consideration, the court makes the following decision.
The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Bulgakov’s uncle, his mother’s brother Nikolai Mikhailovich Pokrovsky, a gynecologist. The furnishings of his apartment at 24 Prechistenka (or Chisty Lane, 1) coincide in detail with the description of the professor’s apartment. A colorful characterization of N. M. Pokrovsky was preserved in the memoirs of the first wife of the writer T. N. Lapp: “When I started reading “The Heart of a Dog,” I immediately guessed that it was him. Just as angry, he was always humming something, his nostrils flared, his mustache They were just as curvy. In general, he was handsome. He was very offended by Mikhail for this for a long time, but he really liked to look after women.<...>He was distinguished by an inflexible, hot-tempered character."
We see Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky through the eyes of Sharik: “The door across the street in a brightly lit store slammed, and a citizen appeared from it. It was a citizen, not a comrade, and even more likely - a gentleman. Closer - clearer - a gentleman. You think I’m judging by coat? Nonsense. Nowadays, many proletarians wear coats.<...>But by the eyes, you can’t confuse them both up close and from afar. Oh, eyes are a significant thing! Like a barometer. You can see everything - who has a great dryness in their soul, who can poke the toe of a boot in the ribs for no reason, and who is afraid of everyone<...>
The gentleman confidently crossed the street in the blizzard and moved into the gateway. Yes, yes, this one can see everything. This rotten corned beef won't eat..."
The “mysterious gentleman” amazes Sharik with everything: “What a personality!<...>What kind of person is this who can lead dogs from the street past the doorman into the house of a housing association? Look, this scoundrel - not a sound, not a movement!" It seems that nothing can unsettle the professor, only when he learns that “four pieces” of comrades have been housed in the third apartment, “his eyes widened and his mustache stood on end<...>
My God! I can imagine what will happen in the apartment now!” he exclaims in horror.
And in the apartment, as in the house, and indeed throughout the country, devastation began.
Philip Philipovich’s famous monologue about devastation: “This is a mirage, smoke, fiction!<...>What is this “ruin” of yours? Old woman with a stick? The witch who broke all the windows and put out all the lamps? Yes, it doesn’t exist at all! What do you mean by this word?<...>This is this: if, instead of operating, I start singing in chorus every evening in my apartment, I will be in ruins! If, while going to the restroom, I start, excuse me for the expression, urinating past the toilet and Zina and Daria Petrovna do the same, the restroom will be in chaos. Consequently, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads!”
In the early 30s, in the Moscow Workshop of Communist Drama, Valery Yazvitsky’s one-act play “Who is to blame” (“Devastation”) was staged, where the main character was an ancient, crooked old woman in rags named Devastation, who was making it difficult for a proletarian family to live. Soviet propaganda really made some kind of mythical elusive villain out of the devastation, trying to hide that its root cause was the Bolshevik policy, war communism, the fact that people had lost the habit of working honestly and efficiently and had no incentive to work. Preobrazhensky (and with him Bulgakov) recognizes that the only cure against devastation is to ensure order, when everyone can mind their own business: “A policeman! This, and only this! And it doesn’t matter at all whether he will be with a badge or in a red cap. Put a policeman next to every person and force this policeman to moderate the vocal impulses of our citizens<...>I will tell you<...>that nothing will change in our house until you pacify these singers! As soon as they stop their concerts, the situation will naturally change for the better!”
The professor is a hard worker, and although he lives in seven rooms, which seems an indescribable luxury to his fellow tenants, the purpose of each is rational, and in the writer’s opinion, this is how a normal person should live: sleep in the bedroom, dine in the dining room, and operate in the operating room. The consciousness of “new” people is not formed by the culture of human needs, the culture of everyday life. The main thing for them is to divide everything, lay bricks, put up partitions, remove carpets and flowers from the stairs, that is, change the world in their own way, in a proletarian way. The first meeting with the “four pieces” of his comrades ended in the victory of Philip Philipovich, the professor is triumphant. The worker, whose gender Preobrazhensky could not determine, wants to somehow justify the purpose of the visit and offers the professor “several magazines in favor of the children of France.
No, I won’t take it,” Philip Philipovich answered meekly, glancing sideways at the magazines.<...>
Don't you sympathize with the children of France?
No, I'm sorry.
So why?
Don't want".
In this episode, the views of Philip Philipovich are very clearly expressed. He openly, without a shadow of fear, declares: “Yes, I don’t like the proletariat,” which, of course, in those days was very dangerous, as Bormenthal jokingly notes, he “should have been arrested.”
The life of Philip Philipovich seems luxurious even to Bormental, especially to Zina and Sharik. This is normal life: “on plates painted with paradise flowers with a black wide border lay thin slices of salmon and pickled eels. On a heavy board there was a piece of cheese in tears, and in a silver tub lined with snow, caviar<...>In the middle of the room is a table, heavy as a tomb, covered with a white tablecloth, and on it are two cutlery, napkins folded in the shape of papal tiaras, and three dark bottles.
Zina brought in a silver covered dish in which something was grumbling<...>
And vodka should be forty degrees, not thirty - that’s firstly,” Philip Philipovich interrupted instructively, “and secondly, God knows what they poured in there.” Can you tell what comes to their mind?<...>Please note, Ivan Arnoldovich: only landowners who were not killed by the Bolsheviks eat cold appetizers and soup. A more or less self-respecting person operates with hot snacks." The entire way of life in the new society provokes a protest from the professor: "And, God forbid, do not read Soviet newspapers before lunch<...>don’t read any.” According to Preobrazhensky, they cause decreased reflexes, poor appetite, and a depressed state of mind.
Before the reader is an intelligent, kind, but sarcastic person, loyal to what is happening, but clearly does not support the existing government, with its laws, norms of life, “culture”, a person capable of analyzing what is happening and able to adapt to existing conditions to the extent necessary for him. But how does the portrait of this sedate “master” change when the main thing - the house - collapses: “The Kalabukhovsky house is gone!<...>When these baritones shout: “Beat the destruction!”, I laugh. (Philip Philippovich's face contorted so that the one who had been bitten opened his mouth.) I swear to you, I'm laughing! This means that each of them must hit themselves in the back of the head! And that's when he hatches from himself<...>hallucinations, but will start cleaning the barns - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself. You cannot serve two gods! It is impossible to sweep the tram tracks and arrange the fate of some Spanish ragamuffins at the same time! No one will be able to do this, doctor, and especially not people who, in general, are two hundred years behind the Europeans in development, are still not entirely confident in buttoning their own pants!<...>His hawk nostrils flared."
The theme of the house runs through all the works of M. A. Bulgakov. In both “The White Guard” and “The Master and Margarita” it is the leitmotif of the works. In "Heart of a Dog" the professor looks at what is happening with pain, he is not indifferent, he lives in real world, and not in the world of "Aida", although he hums his favorite tune from this opera with pleasure. And, according to the professor, there is no counter-revolution in his words, “they contain common sense and life experience...”.
He works and doesn’t like slackers (that’s what he, like the author himself, considers the famous four to be). “The one who is in no hurry to get anywhere succeeds everywhere.<...>Of course, if I started jumping around meetings and singing like a nightingale all day long, instead of doing my own thing, I wouldn’t get anywhere.<...>
I am a supporter of division of labor. At the Bolshoi, let them sing, and I will operate. So I bury - and no more destruction..." The human and political credo of Preobrazhensky, and with him Bulgakov, is clear: both the hero of the story and the author are concerned about the same thing - the world in which they live, which they want to make better , changing a person. And how can you educate a person? And here the professor has an answer, but is it the right one?
“With affection, sir. The only way that is possible in dealing with a living being. Terror cannot do anything with an animal, no matter what stage of development it may be at. This I affirm, have asserted, and will continue to assert. They are in vain to think that terror will help them. No, no, no, it won’t help, no matter what it is: white, red or even brown. Terror is completely paralyzing! nervous system", says the professor, perhaps explaining the position of M. Bulgakov, who wanted to “stand dispassionately above the Reds and Whites.” The main thing for the writer is love for a person and faith in him.
It is also symbolic that with the appearance of the transformed Sharik in the house, everything went upside down, “ruin” began to reign in the house: the measured order of life, human relationships was disrupted, even the professor’s speech took on new turns, nervous intonations (where is the caress, maybe , is it applicable only to animals?): “Remove this dirty trick from your neck. You... you... look at yourself in the mirror - what do you look like! What a farce! Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor, for the hundredth time I ask that I never hear any more. dirty word in the apartment. Don't give a damn!<...>Handle the urinal carefully. Stop all conversations with Zina! She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look! Who answered the patient “The dog knows him”? Are you really in a tavern, or what?"
Both Dr. Bormenthal and Philip Philipovich ultimately understand their mistake - it is impossible to make a human out of a non-human. The process of Sharikov’s degradation under the influence of Shvonder becomes irreversible, education does not help, nature and the environment in which the individual grew up and developed take their toll, he cannot be corrected. And only when the reverse transformation took place, life returned to its track:
“The door from the office let Philip Philipovich through. He came out in the well-known azure robe, and then everyone could immediately see that Philip Philipovich had gained a lot over the last week. The former, powerful and energetic Philip Philipovich, full of dignity, appeared before the overnight guests and apologized that he's wearing a robe." The old Philip Philipovich returned, refuting the myth of the “new man”, the possibility of his formation both with the help of affection and with the help of terror.
Post tags:
The New Year of 1925 began successfully for Bulgakov. The almanac “Nedra”, in which his “Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs” were published, commissioned him to write a story. Two months later (March 7), at a meeting of writers “Nikitin Subbotniks”, he reads the first part of the new work, and a little later - the second. They will start talking about the story, the Moscow Art Theater will offer to stage it, stage the play on its stage. Everything is going just fine, if not for the denunciation. High party official Lev Kamenev imposes a fatal resolution and prohibits publication.
Bulgakov, Professor Preobrazhensky: a long journey to the homeland
“The Heart of a Dog” was first published abroad in 1968, almost simultaneously in two countries: Germany and England. She will return home only in 1987, will be published in the magazine “Znamya”, and before that will be distributed throughout the country in typewritten texts of samizdat. Within a year, viewers will see the two-part television series of the same name (premiere on November 19) directed by Vladimir Bortko. The film starred wonderful actors: Evgeny Evstigneev, Boris Plotnikov, Nina Ruslanova, Roman Kartsev.
Since then, for the majority of people inhabiting the post-Soviet space, Professor Preobrazhensky (“Heart of a Dog”), book, film and image have merged in Evgeniy Evstigneev. It is impossible to imagine Philip Philipovich differently; there is not enough imagination. Two personalities: literary hero and the actor is a single organic phenomenon, a fusion of literature and cinema.
First film adaptation: a different point of view from Italy
Italian cinema discovered Bulgakov in the 70s of the last century. Italians made films based on Bulgakov’s works “The Master and Margarita” and “Fatal Eggs”. Director Alberto Lattuada, a classic of Italian neorealism, enthusiastically took on the film adaptation of the story. Filmed in Belgrade. Main role played Swedish popular artist Max von Sydow. Bulgakov (Professor Preobrazhensky, as interpreted by the master of cinema, is an intellectual involved in the rise to power of madmen, intoxicated by the ideas of communism and fascism, might not have approved of such an interpretation of the image. The intelligentsia here is not a victim of the system - she is its ideologist, the creator of super-ideas that were picked up by the poorly educated most. His hands are dirty, the director takes a long time. close-up shows bloody medical gloves scientist. He is greedy, obsessed with luxury, eats delicacies in front of the servants, thereby emphasizing the social gap between them. The film focuses on the episode of the burning of Engels' correspondence with Kautsky in an oven. Subsequently, the fascists will do the same with objectionable books. In short, in the Italian interpretation, the image of Professor Preobrazhensky is extremely unsympathetic. The other is closer and dearer to us.
“You need to be able to eat...”
Preobrazhensky (professor) is a man of 60 years old, he wears a pointed beard and a fluffy mustache that make him look like French knights. Glasses with expensive frames shine on his face, and there is a “golden picket fence” in his mouth. At home he wears an azure robe and red shoes. On the street - a fur coat on a fox, sparkling with a spark. Under the outerwear there is a black suit made of English cloth, and on the stomach there is a gold chain. His voice flows through the apartment like a command trumpet. He is imperious, full of majestic dignity, imposing, leisurely, thoughtful.
Immediately a detail enters, small and detailed, which transforms Philip Philipovich from a heavy, living statue of an academic scientist into an elderly man with established, sweet, slightly funny habits. He hums endlessly, loves opera, smokes cigars, knows a lot about good alcohol and enjoys eating only healthy food. This is a man wise with rich life experience, loves sedate conversation and believes that “devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.” His clear, clear thoughts, full of irony, amaze with their objectivity and consistency. Professor Preobrazhensky, the quotes he practically uses have long become popular.
Prototypes of Philip Philipovich
Philologists believe that there were several prototypes. Preobrazhensky (professor) - a certain collective image luminary of that time. The list is headed by the writer’s uncle, gynecologist Nikolai Pokrovsky. Firstly, the descriptions of the apartments are the same: the same luxurious and large, the same heavy, expensive furniture. Secondly, external similarity. The writer's first wife recalled that she immediately recognized this anger, flaring nostrils, hot temper and singing arias.
The Frenchman and doctor Charles Brown-Séquard, having reached 70 years old, decided to rejuvenate himself and came up with a medicine from the testes of rabbits. In 1889, he made a report to the Paris Scientific Society, declaring himself young and vigorous. The doctor's research became a sensation, but not for long. Climb vitality was bigger psychological nature, because the doctor soon withered and died.
The experiment was also continued by a French scientist, originally from Russia, Samuil Volkov, who grafted tissue from monkey testicles into humans. A line of people lined up to see him, wanting to experience the joy of a second youth, but one of the rich patients died, and Volkov was called a charlatan. Researchers of Bulgakov’s work are inclined to classify the scientists Bekhterev, Pavlov and others as prototypes famous doctors and researchers of that time.
Let's remember not the film, but the text. Preobrazhensky, a professor, receives patients, and a homeless dog Sharik watches over them. He is disgusted by the smell of perfume and cream long johns, decorated with hateful cat faces, of a strange-looking man. Then a giggling woman, unwilling to admit how old she is, babbles about young lover, card sharper. The dog's "fresh eye" takes these people out of their usual medical context. For a doctor they are just patients; for an animal they are something unpleasant and disgusting. The story rises eternal theme the moral responsibility of the scientist for the world and its destinies. Humanity has witnessed more than once how scientific discovery turned against him, killed, maimed, brought suffering.
“What a reptile, and also a proletarian!”
The book begins with an amazing monologue from a homeless mongrel. He is the cook of the canteen providing normal meals to employees of the central council National economy(what’s the name) poured boiling water over his left side. The street is cold and deserted, the wind is blowing. He would hide in the gateway and lick his wound, but the enemy, the janitor, “the most vile scum” of all proletarians, would definitely kill him. The sweet smell of fried onions and porridge spreads along the street. It's the firefighters having dinner. The dog gratefully remembers the lordly cook of the Tolstoy Counts, Vlas. Now there are no such people. The dog sees a typist running down the street. The wind flutters the skirt, underneath which is washed out underwear. She is wearing fildepers stockings, donated by her lover, for which the libertine will demand sophisticated love. There is no joy for the unfortunate person: they deducted from their meager salary, their lungs are in disarray, they don’t have enough for cinema, and for women it is the only consolation in life. The girl hides behind the door of the dining room, from which there is the smell of cabbage soup with rotten corned beef.
“The dog stood on its hind legs and performed some kind of prayer in front of Philip Philipovich.”
The dog is delighted with his savior to the point of violent canine exaltation. He is loyal and ready to endure even a collar. A world-famous scientist appears in the aura of his greatness. The tenants tremble before him; one call to an influential patron solves the problem of the threatening “compaction”. He reasons extensively and wisely, like a man, deeply knower of life. Professor Preobrazhensky will speak weightily and to the point about the devastation. We will remember. Professor Preobrazhensky, the quotes we repeat are the whole world, he admires his insight.
“There’s absolutely no point in learning to read when you can already smell meat a mile away.”
Everything will end with the transformation of Sharik into Poligraf Poligrafovich. This is no longer dear Sharik, but Klim Chugunkin, a heavy drunkard who plays the balalaika in taverns. Impudent, dark force will turn the well-established life of the house upside down: reception will become impossible, the flood will carry water onto the landing, Sharikov’s friends will steal galoshes and the owner’s personalized expensive cane from the hallway. The fruit of human hands is more terrible than Shvonder: the day will come and Sharikov will sweep him out of his way and destroy him. The danger is terrible because it grows from within; it is impossible to escape from it. The owner of the apartment himself is changing before our eyes. Bormenthal will notice how haggard he is, hunched over, smaller, grumbling like an old man. Preobrazhensky, professor and scientist, is deep in thought; it is ripening, expanding and depressing within him. black thought about murder. This is the price to pay for purity scientific idea. And he utters the bitter famous words about the pointlessness of artificially fabricating Spinozas, when any woman can easily give birth to them, just as Madame Lomonosova gave birth to her famous one in Kholmogory. The brilliant experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky is meaningless.
