Bulgakov wrote many stories and short stories, but none of them were written just like that, without some secret, subtle hint. In each of his works, with the help of witty and clever satire, he reveals some secret or gave an answer to a question that has long been of concern to everyone. So the story "" carries something more than a story about the transformation of a dog into a man.

No. It touches upon the question that has long worried the writer himself, which he later put into the mouth of Pontius Pilate from The Master and Margarita: “What is truth?”

This question is eternal, you can find many different answers to it, but as Bulgakov noted in “Notes on the Cuffs” with bitter irony: “Truth comes only through suffering ... It's black, be calm! But for knowing the truth, they don’t pay money, they don’t give rations. Sad but true."

But what does it mean? Can it be said that Sharik, the dog from the street, has learned what truth is? I think it's possible. But we, seeing Sharik's life before and after the operation, empathizing with him with his pain, fear and other feelings, having merged with his soul while reading, we understand how reckless, immoral medicine is. Yes, Sharik is just a beast, but he feels, lives, and therefore does not deserve what Professor Preobrazhensky did to him. Nothing alive deserves that kind of treatment.

Tale " dog's heart”is a story about the great discoveries made by professors of the construction school, brilliant scientists in the era of scientific experiments. Behind the curtain of laughter in the story are deep reflections on the shortcomings human nature, about the destructiveness of ignorance, about the responsibility that, along with discoveries, falls on the shoulders of scientists and science. Themes are eternal, which still do not lose their significance.

We see that Bulgakov, jokingly, reveals to us the image of not only Sharik, but also the professor himself, who, like many people in his profession, is lonely. Philip Filippovich is associated with a deity only in the eyes of Sharik, while for others he is the key to the castle of rejuvenation. We come to understand that if a person combines loneliness, a desire to refute reality that is unacceptable for himself and honesty, then this can lead to unexpected and sometimes tragic consequences. Sharik came to such an inevitable, critical outcome, having transformed into Sharikov. Bulgakov in "The Heart of a Dog" mercilessly exposes the "purity" that has lost its aesthetic beginning of science and self-satisfied people of science. They imagined themselves equal to God: they decided to reshape the animal essence, creating a man out of a dog.

Therefore, I think that the story is devoted not only to misconceptions related to science, medicine, but also to a cold attitude towards the universe and religion.

And the truth lies in the fact that every living being makes its way into life different ways, some by deceit, mistakes, but most often by labor, which sometimes carries in itself not what they wanted to achieve. Sometimes it happens that people, in order to achieve their goal, "walk over corpses", this is what we see in Bulgakov. Bulgakov's satire carries a secret meaning, but it is easy to understand: you just need to want it.

The writer believed that his reader had a thoughtful and unbiased mind - for this he respected him, sought contact with him, turning from the pages of his works. We must accept this gift and understand Bulgakov's satire in all its new strength and complexity.

M. A. Bulgakov came to literature already during the years of Soviet power. He was not an emigrant and experienced all the difficulties and contradictions of the Soviet reality of the 1930s. His childhood and youth are connected with Kiev, the subsequent years of his life - with Moscow. During the Moscow period of his life, Bulgakov was not only a writer, but also a theatrical figure, the author of scripts and productions in the Moscow art theater. Peru Bulgakov owns novels: " white guard", "theatrical romance", "Master and Margarita".

The theme of disharmony, brought to the point of absurdity due to human interference with the eternal laws of nature, is revealed by Bulgakov with brilliant skill and talent in the story "Heart of a Dog".

The eternal problem the best minds in Russia - the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people. What is the role of the intelligentsia, what is its participation in the fate of the people - the author of the story made the reader think about this in the distant 20s. In the story, fantasy elements are combined with everyday background. Professor Preobrazhensky is a democrat by origin and convictions, a typical Moscow intellectual. He sacredly preserves the traditions of students of Moscow University: to serve science, to help a person and not harm him, to cherish the life of any person - good and bad. His assistant, Dr. Bormental, treats his teacher reverently, admires his talent, skill, human qualities. But he does not have that endurance, that holy service to the ideas of humanism, which we see in Preobrazhensky.

Bormental is able to get angry, indignant, even use force if necessary for the good of the cause. And these two people are doing an experiment unprecedented in world science - transplanting stray dog human pituitary. The result came from scientific point vision is unexpected and phenomenal, but in everyday, everyday terms, it led to the most deplorable results. The creature formed in this way has the appearance of its human donor - Klim Chugunkin - a tavern balalaika player, a drunkard and a rowdy who was killed in a fight. This hybrid is rude, undeveloped, arrogant and arrogant. By all means he wants to break out into people, to become no worse than others. But he cannot understand that for this it is necessary to go through the path of a long spiritual development, it requires work to develop the intellect, horizons, and mastery of knowledge. Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov (as the creature is now called) puts on patent-leather shoes and a poisonous tie, but otherwise his suit is dirty, untidy, tasteless. With the help of the manager of the houses, Shvonder, he registers in Preobrazhensky's apartment, demands the "sixteen arshins" of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house.

He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he reads a book recommended by Schwonder - Engels' correspondence with Kautsky. From the point of view of Preobrazhensky, all this is a bluff, empty attempts that in no way contribute to the mental and spiritual development Sharikov. But from the point of view of Shvonder and others like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society that they create with such pathos and rapture. Sharikov was even hired in government agency made him a little boss. For him, to become a boss means to change outwardly, to gain power over people. This is how it happens. He is now dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a government car, controls the fate of a poor secretary girl.

Professor Preobrazhensky still does not leave the thought of making a man out of Sharikov. He hopes for evolution, gradual development. But there is no development and there will not be if the person himself does not strive for it. In fact, the professor's whole life turns into a nightmare. There is neither peace nor order in the house. Obscene language and balalaika strumming are heard all day long; Sharikov comes home drunk, sticks to women, breaks and destroys everything around. He became a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house. And what are the Sharikovs capable of doing if you give them full will in life? It is terrible to imagine a picture of the life that they are able to create around them.

So the good intentions of Preobrazhensky turn into a tragedy. He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to disastrous results. In the story "Heart of a Dog" the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into a dog again. He is content with his fate and himself. But in life, such experiments are irreversible. And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.

Tasks and tests on the topic "Analysis of the story by M. A. Bulgakov Heart of a Dog"

• The base of the word. Parsing words by composition. Analysis of the word composition model and selection of words according to these models - Composition of the word grade 3

The story was written in January-March, and for at least six months attempts were made to overcome censorship and publish it in various publications, which ended in the same way: "this is a sharp pamphlet on the present, it should not be printed in any case" (L. Kamenev). And in the spring of 1926, the story was ... confiscated from the writer during a search, and it took the efforts of many people (including M. Gorky) to return it to Bulgakov. It remains to add that for the first time in former USSR"Heart of a Dog" was published only in 1987, 62 years after its creation ... It was this work of Bulgakov that went to the reader for the longest time.

In The Heart of a Dog, Bulgakov continues the theme of transforming life, begun in Fatal Eggs, but here this theme is revealed in a new light: the writer is interested in how a person can make himself and the life around him better, how the "revolution" turns out to be untenable where we are talking on the positive impact on public life. To show this, the writer uses a fantastic situation, nevertheless, quite accurately reflecting the spirit of the era, which can be conditionally called "the time of great expectations."

The figurative system of the story "Heart of a Dog" is built in such a way that in the center of the work is the image of a genuine Russian intellectual Professor Preobrazhensky (a very "speaking" surname), who through hard work achieved outstanding results in his chosen activity, but, like a real scientist, cannot and will not wants to stop there: it is not enough for him that he carries out "rejuvenation", which does not make a person better, rather, judging by satirical image"reception", on the contrary. With the help of science, he wants to achieve "improvement of the human race", for which he conducts constant experiments, creates a unique operating technique, and conducts this operation, which overturns ideas about human capabilities.

It is after the completion of the operation, when the dog, which was supposed to die, gradually begins to turn into a human being, and the conflict of the story "Heart of a Dog" is "denoted" in full measure: the contradiction between "form" and "content", between the human appearance of the "laboratory" that appeared creatures" and his boorish attitude towards people around him, impudent confidence in "his right" to what he never owned and what he has no right to claim. Moreover, the famous "take and divide" turns out to be the main rule of life a new "man" who actively implements it in his command.

Bulgakov shows that Sharikov carries all the worst that can be in a person: “Realize that the whole horror is that he no longer has a dog, namely human heart. And the lousiest of all that exists in nature. "It turns out that in morally dog Sharik is worth much higher than " new person"Sharikov. In showing the reasons for such a paradox, the image of the "chairman of the house committee" Shvonder, who becomes a kind of "spiritual father" (or, more precisely, the father of lack of spirituality) Sharikov, is of great importance. This image embodies almost all the negative features inherent, in the opinion writer, "new power": incompetence, disregard for the interests of other people, dogmatism, willingness to use brute force to achieve their goals, the belief that only he knows what other people's lives should be. but the fact that he has power and pursues the policy of this power by all means available to him.It is Shvonder's support that allows the development of all those negative character traits that Sharikov "inherited" from Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was grafted onto a dog's brain.

It is curious that two forces seem to be "fighting" for Sharikov: Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant Bormental, embodying genuine culture, intelligence, morality, and Shvonder and comrades, who have only "proletarian consciousness" and the desire to "destroy to the ground" the world, whose values ​​are inaccessible to them. And in this struggle, the latter win, because "things ... have now changed a lot," as Dr. Bormenthal says ironically. Precisely because Sharikov, as he is, is in demand by the "new time", he gradually becomes a terrible symbol of the "victory" of the new system, of the very "terror", with the help of which the new government "explains" to the dull, what life should be like now. .

However, it is fundamentally important that Professor Preobrazhensky manages to save those around him from the danger that the "creature" created by him brings to normal life, and this again becomes possible not thanks to his, professor, professional excellence: the repeated operation "returns" the dog to its original appearance. Explaining the reasons for his failure, Preobrazhensky is extremely precise: “Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of groping and in parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil. Here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge!” And here Bulgakov carries out the idea of ​​the "Great Evolution", and here Professor Preobrazhensky expresses the humanistic position of the author of the story: "Never commit a crime, against whomever it is directed. Live to old age with clean hands"

Probably, Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" went to the Russian reader for so long because main idea it turned out to be a deadly sentence in terms of accuracy to those who once hoped to change it to better life people: because if unique operation, carried out by a truly master of his craft, could not "improve" a single person, then can a revolution, the apotheosis of violence perpetrated by amateurs and half-educated people, "improve" the life of mankind? .. A rhetorical question ...

Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog", which we analyzed, has a subtitle: "A Monstrous Story". What is the "monstrosity" of the story about Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky? Everyone will answer this question in their own way, fortunately, Bulgakov is too great writer in order to give "recipes" for all occasions. The main thing, probably, is something else: the story shows us that only the person himself is responsible for himself and everything that happens to him in life. He answers both in word and deed, he answers first of all to himself - and therefore to all mankind ...

Introduction

The topic of my research was born from an observation made while reading the story "Heart of a Dog" by M.A. Bulgakov.

Creativity M.A. Bulgakov is widely known in Russia. He wrote such works as The Master and Margarita, Heart of a Dog, Crimson Island, The Adventures of Chichikov, Fatal Eggs, Notes of a Young Doctor, Diaboliad, etc.

An outstanding creation of M. Bulgakov was the story "Heart of a Dog". Written in 1925, it was not published during the life of the writer. In 1926, his apartment was searched and the manuscript of the story "The Heart of a Dog" was confiscated. It was published only in 1987.

The story raises the question of the social restructuring that took place in those years, shows Bulgakov's attitude towards it.

I drew attention to the fact that in the story there are many times the words "full", "hungry", "eat", "food". I believe that the topic of food occupies a special place - Sharik's thoughts about food, we listen to Professor Preobrazhensky's speech on how to eat, we go to his sumptuous dinners, we see the kitchen - "the main branch of paradise", the kingdom and its queen Daria Petrovna .

The relevance of the work: For us, modern readers, it is important to know the history of our homeland, the way of life, culture and customs of those people who lived in the past. This is where writers help us. One of them is M.A. Bulgakov. He belongs to the number of "returned" writers. With the help of his works, truthful and sincere, we recreate complete picture life of Russia in the last century.

Goal of the work: To study the theme of food as a reflection of the life and customs of the inhabitants of Moscow in the 20s of the last century in the story "Heart of a Dog".

Tasks:

1. View critical literature about the story "Heart of a Dog".

2. Compile a dictionary of the names of dishes used at the beginning of the 20th century

Object of study: art world story "Heart of a Dog"

Subject of study: the theme of food in the story "Heart of a Dog"

dog heart bulgakov food

The story "Heart of a Dog" and its analysis

The protagonist of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, conducting a medical experiment, transplants the organ of the "proletarian" Chugunkin, who died in a drunken brawl, into a stray dog. Unexpectedly for the surgeon, the dog turns into a man, and this man is an exact repetition of the deceased lumpen. If Sharik, as the professor called the dog, is kind, intelligent and grateful to the new owner for the shelter, then miraculously revived Chugunkin is militantly ignorant, vulgar and impudent. Convinced of this, the professor carries out the reverse operation, and the good-natured dog reappears in his cozy apartment.

The story was connected with the reality of the 1920s by many threads. It shows pictures of the NEP, the dominance of the bourgeoisie, traces of recent devastation, the widespread use of advertising, the everyday disorder of Muscovites, the housing crisis of that time, the practice of forced compaction, the bureaucratic passions of the house committees, the omnipotence of the RAPP, the selfless devotion of scientists and their scientific experiments of those years.

The theme of the story is a man as a social being, over whom a totalitarian society and the state are carrying out a grandiose inhuman experiment, embodying the brilliant ideas of their theoretic leaders with cold cruelty.

The professor's risky surgical experiment is a nod to the "daring social experiment" taking place in Russia. Bulgakov is not inclined to see "the people" as an ideal being. He is sure that only difficult and long haul enlightenment of the masses, the path of evolution, not revolution, can lead to a real improvement in the life of the country.

The good intentions of Preobrazhensky turn into a tragedy. He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic, sad results. In life, such experiments are irreversible. And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.

The author of "Heart of a Dog", a doctor and surgeon by profession, was an attentive reader of the scientific journals of the time, where much was said about "rejuvenation", amazing organ transplants in the name of "improving the human race." So Bulgakov's fantasy, with all the brilliance of the author's artistic gift, is quite scientific.

Sharik is not only cunning, but affectionate and gluttonous. He is smart and observant. deployed internal monologue Sharik includes numerous apt observations of the dog over the life of the then Moscow, its way of life and customs, the social stratification of its population into "comrades" and "masters". The author makes the dog cute, gives him bright memories of early youth at the Transfiguration Gate. A wandering dog is socially literate, kind, not without wit ("a collar is like a briefcase").

Sharik has reduced, profanity, he speaks street language - to dig, eat, eat, creature, mug, grymza, get drunk, die, which gives us an idea of ​​what the standard of living was in those days.

Proud and majestic Professor Philipp Philippovich Preobrazhensky, a pillar of genetics and eugenics, who conceived of moving from profitable operations to rejuvenate aging ladies and smart old men to a decisive improvement of the human race, is perceived as a higher being, a great priest only by Sharik. Nevertheless, the inquisitiveness of his mind, his scientific search, the life of the human spirit, his honesty resist historical turmoil, immorality and depravity. Preobrazhensky is an opponent of any crime and instructs his assistant, Dr. Bormental: "Live to old age with clean hands."

He is arrogant, selfish and inconsistent (rejecting violence, Preobrazhensky threatens to kill Shvonder, which contradicts professorial humanism and admits it over nature). Therefore, here the author uses satire.

Sharikov is the most primitive creature, which is characterized by rudeness, impudence, spitefulness and aggressiveness. He is the same thief and drunkard as his ancestor Chugunkin. He is completely devoid of conscience, sense of duty, shame, culture. And the funny thing is that yesterday's dog, and now Sharikov, gets the position of head of the subdepartment for cleaning the city from stray animals.

IN social sphere he quickly finds his own kind, finds a mentor in the person of Shvonder and his company, and becomes the object of his educational influence. Shvonder and his team feed their ward with slogans and ideological tricks (Shvonder even lets Sharikov read the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, which Preobrazhensky eventually burns). Sharikov quickly assimilates his rights and privileges, class hatred, rob and seize someone else's.

In those days, it was the illiterate Sharikovs who were ideally suited for life, it was they who form the new bureaucracy, become obedient cogs in the administrative mechanisms, and exercise power. Without Sharikov and others like him in Russia, mass dispossession of kulaks, organized denunciations, extrajudicial executions, torture of people in camps and prisons under the guise of "socialism" would have been impossible, which required a huge executive apparatus, consisting of demi-humans with a "dog heart".

Bulgakov's story, funny and scary at the same time, surprisingly organically combined the description of everyday life, fantasy and satire, written easily, clearly and plain language. Bulgakov ridicule and dog devotion, and Sharikov's black ingratitude, dense ignorance, trying to master the commanding heights in all spheres of life. The author draws attention to the revolutionary violence in the country, which was undertaken in relation to the former foundations of being, to the nature of man and his psyche, formed in certain social and domestic conditions of life, in relation to culture. You can't turn everything upside down. It is unacceptable to give immeasurable rights, privileges and power to those who are ignorant. There is no need for cooks to offer to run the state, and statesmen to sweep the street or cook in the kitchen. Everyone must do their job.

According to the OGPU, "Heart of a Dog" was also read in the literary circle "Green Lamp" and in the poetic association "Knot", which gathered at P.N. Zaitsev. Andrei Bely, Boris Pasternak, Sofia Parnok, Alexander Romm, Vladimir Lugovskoy and other poets appeared in The Knot. Here Bulgakov met a young philologist A.V. Chicherin: “Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, very thin, surprisingly ordinary (in comparison with Bely or Pasternak!), also came to the Knot community and read Fatal Eggs, Heart of a Dog. Without fireworks. Quite simply. But I think that almost Gogol could envy such a reading, such a game.

"M.Ya. Schneider - Aesopian language is a thing that has long been familiar: it is the result of a special [montage] of reality. The shortcomings of the story are excessive efforts in order to understand the development of the plot. We must accept the implausible plot. From the point of view of playing with the plot, this is the first literary work who dares to be himself. The time has come to realize the attitude towards what happened. Written in perfectly clear and precise Russian. Responding to what was happening with a fiction, the artist made a mistake: in vain he did not resort to household comedy than the "Inspector General" was at one time. The strength of the author is significant. He is above his task.

I.N. Rozanov - A very talented work, a very angry satire.

Yu.N. Potekhin - We do not know how to approach living writers. For a year and a half, M.A. managed to ignore. Fiction M.A. organically soldered with sharp everyday grotesque. This fantasy works with extraordinary power and persuasiveness. Sharikov's presence in everyday life will be felt by many.

L.S. Ginzburg - Notes that M.A. has long been noted.

V.M. Volkenstein - Our criticism has always been symbolic. There is a lot of play in this piece. Criticism quickly draws conclusions - it is better to refrain from them. This thing gives me: we have people like Professor Preobrazhensky, there are Sharikovs, and many [others]. It's already a lot.

B. Nick. Zhavoronkov - It's very bright. literary phenomenon. From a public point of view - who is the hero of the work - Sharikov or Preobrazhensky? Preobrazhensky is a brilliant tradesman. An intellectual [who] took part in the revolution, and then was afraid of his rebirth. Satire is aimed precisely at this kind of intellectuals.

M.Ya. Schneider - I did not mean the flat Aesopian language - the author's personal dictionary immediately went under the Aesopian language. If only it were character development in action - not stage [style].

V. Yaroshenko is not a political satire, but a public one. She ridicules manners. The author owns the language and the plot."

Thoughts of professional writers are quite interesting in themselves, although understandable timidity is also palpable in them, caused by the very nature and orientation of Bulgakov's satire and possible consequences his participation in the discussion of the "Heart of a Dog". The writers were not afraid in vain: among them, naturally, was an informer of the GPU, who compiled a much more detailed report on the meeting.

Here is what he reported to the Lubyanka: "The whole thing is written in hostile tones, breathing endless contempt for Sovstroy. Bulgakov definitely hates and despises the entire Sovstroy, denies all its achievements. There is a faithful, strict and vigilant guardian of the Soviet power, this is Glavlit, and if my opinion does not differ from his, then this book will not see the light of day.But let me note the fact that this book (1 part of it) has already been read to an audience of 48 people, of which 90% are writers themselves.Therefore, its role, its main the deed has already been done, even if it is not allowed by Glavlit: it has already infected the writer's minds of listeners and will sharpen their pens. "

The theme of food as a reflection of life in Moscow in the twenties of the last century

The scene of the story "Heart of a Dog" is Moscow, the time is 1924. The basis of the story is the internal monologue of Sharik, eternally hungry, miserable street dog. He is very intelligent, in his own way evaluates the life of the street, life, customs, characters of Moscow during the NEP.

The representatives of the "old" Moscow, that is, the nobles, in the story are Preobrazhensky, the cook of Counts Tolstoy Vlas, Daria Petrovna, Zina, Dr. Bormental, the sugar factory Bazarov, the bourgeois Sablin. They are opposed by the images of Shvonder and his team, consisting of Vyazemskaya, Pestrukhin and Zharovkin, Sharikov, a proletarian cook.

In the story "Heart of a Dog" a special place is occupied by the theme of food. Sharik's thoughts begin with her.

Actually, the dog Sharik was first christened by a passer-by young lady, the second time Professor Preobrazhensky called him that. In this apparent discrepancy between the nickname and appearance of the dog, the author's irony is visible. In fact, what kind of Sharik is he? After all, "Sharik is a round, well-fed, stupid, eats oatmeal, the son of noble parents, and he is shaggy, lanky and torn, a fried hat, a homeless dog."

Sharik loves delicious food. Living on the street, he goes hungry for months; they treat him badly: once he was even scalded with boiling water. The culprit of the incident is a certain cook of the canteen of normal food for employees of the Central Council National economy, whom the dog calls "The scoundrel in a dirty cap", "The thief with a copper head", "What a reptile, and also a proletarian!" At the same time, Sharik recalls the former lordly cook of the Counts Tolstoy, Vlas, who gave the dogs a bone, and on it an eighth of meat. Sharik is grateful to him for saving the lives of many dogs: "The kingdom of heaven be upon him for being real personality, the master's cook of Counts Tolstoy ... "

The author's satire is also expressed in the names of institutions: Sharik also complains about the canteen of normal food. It's called - NORMAL FOOD. From the name, it becomes clear that the food there is poor, poor-quality food is served: "... soup is cooked from stinky corned beef, and those poor things do not know anything", "This is corned beef, this is corned beef! And when will it all end?" You can find the names of those enterprises where food was sold and bought in pre-revolutionary times: " Okhotny Ryad", "Slavic Marketplace".

"This one eats plentifully and does not steal. This one will not kick with his foot, but he himself is not afraid of anyone, and is not afraid because he is always full ..." - this is Sharik's opinion about Preobrazhensky in the first minutes of meeting him. It seems that he internally sympathizes with the professor, and after he gives him a piece of sausage, Sharik begins to count Preobrazhensky great person, With broad soul, benefactor of stray dogs.

He is learning to read various titles shops, enterprises where food is sold: he recognizes the letter "M" on green-blue signs with the inscription "M. S. P. O. Meat trade", "A" learned in "Glavryba", and then the letter "B" from there; further on, Sharik learned to read the words "Gastronomy", "Wine", and where it smells of sausages and plays the harmonica - "Do not use indecent words and do not give tea."

The life of the noble intelligentsia is shown to us by the way of life of Preobrazhensky, his luxury home, his habits. He eats crayfish, roast beef, sturgeon, turkey, veal chops, minced mare with garlic and pepper. During the week Sharik spends at Preobrazhensky's house, he eats as much as during a month and a half of hungry street life. A pile of scraps is bought for him every day for 18 kopecks. at the Smolensk market, he eats for six.

Preobrazhensky attaches great importance to food. At dinner, he makes a speech about how to eat: "Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a tricky thing. ... You need not only to know what to eat, but also when and how. If you care about your digestion, do not talk about Bolshevism at dinner and about medicine."

To eat is not to eat, but to receive aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure. It is against culture, tradition, and therefore a whole series of rules and prohibitions that Sharikov will rebel at dinner in the second part of the story.

Philipp Philippovich speaks rather for himself. He talks aloud, speaking sharply about the dangers of reading newspapers, which disrupt digestion. To prove this, he made thirty observations. It turned out that patients who did not read newspapers felt good, while those who read Pravda lost weight, they developed reduced knee jerks, poor appetite, and a depressed state of mind.

The professor can afford to be a gourmet, he teaches Bormental the art of eating, so that it is not just a necessity, but a pleasure. This is already an occasion to talk about Soviet vodka. Bormenthal notes that the "newly blessed" is very decent. Thirty degrees." Philipp Philippovich objects: “Vodka should be at forty degrees, not thirty,” then he prophetically adds: “they can splash anything there.”

All these sarcastic remarks, seemingly trifles, actually create a complete picture of life in Moscow in the twenties.

Lunch at Preobrazhensky's is luxurious, as befits a rich man's dinner, in the dining room there is an atmosphere of purity, harmony and refined taste: "On plates painted with paradise flowers with a black wide border lay thin slices of salmon, pickled eels. tears and in a silver tub covered with snow - caviar. Between the plates - a few thin glasses and three crystal decanters with multi-colored vodkas. All these items were placed on a small marble table, nestled comfortably by the huge carved oak of the sideboard, which belched out beams of glass and silver light. In the middle of the room, a table as heavy as a tomb is covered with a white tablecloth, and on it are two cutlery, napkins rolled up in the form of papal tiaras, and three dark bottles.

You can find such lines: "Having gained strength after a hearty dinner, he (Preobrazhensky) thundered, like ancient prophet and his head sparkled with silver. " Again, the author's irony is visible here: it is easy to be a prophet on a full stomach!

The kitchen is the holy of holies, the kingdom of the cook Darya Petrovna, "the main branch of paradise," as Sharik calls it. The kitchen has a tiled stove, white curtains, golden pots. Every day everything is noisy there, shoots and flames rage. Sharik believes that "The whole apartment was not worth even two spans of Darya's kingdom."

The queen of all this splendor is Daria Petrovna. Her whole appearance testifies to the heat emanating from the kitchen, prosperity, satiety, which the atmosphere of the house is full of: "Daria Petrovna's face burned with eternal fiery torment and unquenched passion in crimson pillars. hair on the back of the head - twenty-two fake diamonds glowed.

In the description of the kitchen, such means are used artistic expressiveness, as metaphors (metaphors of the second type), in which the verbs are used: "the flame shot and raged", "the oven crackled", "the kitchen rumbled with smells, bubbling and hissing"; epithets: "oven", "gold pans".

It becomes interesting, what is the process of cooking in this "paradise"? It is described in this way: “With a sharp and narrow knife, she cut off the heads and legs of helpless hazel grouses, then, like a furious executioner, she tore off the flesh from the bones, tore out the insides from the chickens, skewered something in a meat grinder. From a bowl of milk, Darya Petrovna pulled out pieces of soaked rolls, mixed them on a board with meat gruel, poured it all over with cream, sprinkled with salt and molded cutlets on the board. The stove buzzed like a fire, and in the pan it grumbled, bubbling and jumping. The damper jumped back with thunder, revealing a terrible hell. , poured ... "

Metaphors are used here, again with the use of verbs: "the damper jumped back, revealed hell"; epithets: "sharp and narrow knife", "helpless grouse", "furious executioner", "terrible hell"; comparisons: "like a furious executioner, the flesh was ripped off the bones", "there was a buzzing in the stove, like on fire."

The main technique of the author in the story is the antithesis. For example, there is a motive of satiety and an opposite motive of hunger: a street dog, Sharik, is malnourished, and sometimes does not eat at all, and having settled in Preobrazhensky's house, he eats the same food as representatives of the highest intelligentsia: roast beef, for breakfast - oatmeal.

The problem of the "new man" and the structure of the "new society" was one of the central problems of the literature of the 1920s.

The dog’s reflections on food are one means of expressing the author’s position, his attitude towards the proletariat: for example, Sharik was scalded with boiling water by a proletarian cook, whom the dog scornfully and contemptuously calls a “cap”, “a thief with a copper head”, and the cook of Counts Tolstoy, Vlas, on the contrary , was generous to stray dogs, gave them a bone, saved many lives; shows the differences between the life of the "old" and the life of the "new" Moscow - this luxury apartment Preobrazhensky and street life Sharika, Shvonder and his team.

Thus, central issue The story "Heart of a Dog" becomes an image of the state of culture, life and customs of man and the world in a difficult transitional era, an era of general devastation.

Preobrazhensky sees Moscow through the eyes of a hereditary intellectual. He is outraged that carpets had to be removed from the stairs, because people in dirty galoshes began to walk along these stairs. But the most important thing is that he does not understand why everyone in Moscow is talking about devastation, and at the same time they are only singing revolutionary songs and looking at how to do bad things to those who live better. He does not like lack of culture, dirt, devastation, aggressive rudeness, complacency of the new masters of life. And the professor is most of all worried about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov house), in work and leading to devastation. Ruin - in the minds that when everyone goes about their business, "the ruin will disappear by itself."

"This is a mirage, smoke, a fiction" - this is how the professor assesses the new Moscow. In connection with the professor, one of the leading, cross-cutting themes of Bulgakov's work begins to sound in the story - the theme of the House as the center human life. The Bolsheviks destroyed the House as the basis of the family, as the basis of society, everywhere there is a fierce struggle for housing, for square meters. Maybe that's why in Bulgakov's stories and plays a stable satirical figure is the chairman of the house committee? He, the head of the house committee, is the true center of the small world, the center of power and the past, predatory life. Such an administrator, confident in his permissiveness, is Shvonder, a man in a leather jacket, a black man in the story "Heart of a Dog".

In the story "Heart of a Dog" M. A. Bulgakov sharply shows the contradiction between different classes society. Even though historical events of that time, they were supposed to equalize the class inequality of society. In the revealed realities, the differences between the representatives of the intelligentsia and the working class became even more acute.

Bulgakov M.A. was a participant in those events and observed what happened in the society of that time.

So, in the story, an intellectual and spiritual confrontation between two types of people runs like a red thread through the whole narrative.

The first type is representatives of the "old" intelligentsia, who have gone through a long stage of the formation of their own personality. Professor Preobrazhensky and his faithful assistant Dr. Bormenthal. Both of these characters have not only amazing intellectual qualities, but also have high moral principles based on humanistic ideas: service to man and society, significant moral and spiritual constants. Of course, the heroes of this series are not devoid of human qualities.

Dr. Bormental can have a physical impact on a bully or a rude person, push him out the door, but distinguishing feature such behavior is a strong sense of natural justice and the conviction that the truth must always prevail.

The other wing is headed by an odious figure - Sharikova. Everyone remembers the history of its origin in our world very well. So, Sharikov is a collective character who shows all the absurdity of the new intelligentsia. This character is built on contradictions, which are expressed not only externally, but also internally.

Sharikov tries to dress fashionably, but his entire appearance is sloppy. He reads new books that he does not understand. He tries to say smart things in public, but all this is a rough retelling of already voiced ideas.

The strange thing is that society perceives this person and even he begins to career. This further emphasizes the moral and spiritual state of society.

main idea Bulgakova M.A. is to show that a person must develop, work on himself, suffer, grieve, rejoice, but only in this way can a person become better, only in this way does the growth of individuality occur. No fashionable things, smart books will replace internal state man, will not make him better.

Detailed Analysis

Bulgakov Mikhail Afanasyevich is one of the most famous Russian writers who was able to give the world immortal works known to all over the world. His work is still popular today. In many educational institutions, curriculum study of the work of Mikhail Bulgakov is included. For example, The Master and Margarita, Diaboliad, Heart of a Dog. I would like to pay special attention to the last poem.

The analyzed work takes its history in January 1925. It was officially published after the death of the author himself. Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov was able to very accurately reflect the current reality, which is reflected in today's day. To enhance the real reality and create the right atmosphere, fantastic events were included in the work. Namely, the transformation of the dog Sharik into citizen Sharikov.

The work raises a number of philosophical questions that make the reader think about many things. For example, the possibility of changing the world for the better, the re-education of a person and his significance for society. The author skillfully illustrates the life of the intelligentsia and common people. Their connection and influence on each other.

Consider ideological component of the story. Into the work goes description two worlds at once: Preobrazhensky's apartment and beyond. Through the eyes of the main characters, the reader sees that everything around is dirty, miserable and evil. Passers-by are scary and greedy. The presence of Peace and Chaos is felt, where the World is just the apartment of Preobrazhensky. Cozy and warm home and boundless space.

The story has dynamics. The characters are in search of balance in these two worlds, and are also fighting with themselves.

Main actors The stories "Heart of a Dog" are:

1. Dog Sharik (hereinafter citizen Sharikov). At the very beginning, he is presented as an intelligent and reflective animal. After the experiment, becoming a man, he ceased into a rude and uncultured person.
2. Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. He is a representative of the "world" of the intelligentsia, a deeply moral person.

"The Heart of a Dog" tells how Professor Philipp Philippovich decided on the most dangerous experiment in transplanting the internal key organs of a human into a dog. The operation was successful, and Sharik acquired a human form. The professor is expressed admiration and enthusiasm, many are interested in such an experiment. But Philip Philipovich himself is concerned, because he does not know who Sharikov will eventually become.

Time passes, Sharikov becomes a drunkard and an ignoramus, in addition, falls under the influence of Shvonder, who turns him against Professor Preobrazhensky. Sharikov is rude and cheeky in Philip Philipovich's apartment and demands that he be registered in these apartments.

For a long time, the professor did not dare to conduct a reverse experiment, hoping that the situation would change in better side. But this did not work out, and Sharikov, after another organ transplant, becomes a stray dog.

Summing up, I would like to note that people have different inclinations and oddities. More often this is manifested in a negative form and corresponding qualities. But one question remains unchanged - can a person change? Everyone must answer this question for himself. The fate of a person is only in his hands and everyone decides for himself what it will be. Everyone creates their own personality.

We add that classical literature should be read by everyone. After all, many are forced to study such literature, especially in schools. Classical literature should not be read under duress. Many only re-read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, Pushkin and other writers only at a conscious age. After all, only in such works eternal philosophical questions are raised.

Option 3

In the work "Heart of a Dog", the author reflects with particular subtlety the current issues that challenge the new time. The author discusses the moral value that science should carry. About what kind of moral responsibility falls on the shoulders of a scientist conducting a scientific experiment.

Progressive science is powerless before the transformation of human consciousness. The professor managed to solve only a superficial issue of change, which did not lead to desired result. The idea of ​​progress cannot be based only on the constant rejuvenation of man. If the cyclical change of generations is violated, the development of the world will slow down.

The plot of the story is multifaceted. Responsible obligations that the creator must bear for the result of his experiment come to the fore. The theme of individual freedom remains significant. The author proves that a free man is one who is entitled to his beliefs.

The writer introduces ironic elements into the narrative, which are combined with the means of artistic expression. A feature is a technique based on satire, when each character appears before the reader in the view of the layman: "a rich eccentric", "a handsome man - bitten", "a certain fruit". Sharikov's inability to engage in a dialogue with the residents, to articulate his thoughts clearly, contributes to a number of comical situations.

With his story, the writer tries to convey to the minds of the people that any violent act is a crime. All living beings that live on Earth have every right to exist, which is an unwritten law of nature. It is important throughout life to be able to maintain the purity of spiritual thoughts. This opinion of the writer allows him to condemn the violent interventions of Preobrazhensky, who, with his experiments, violates the natural course of things.

If a few years ago someone would have asked: what is social media or internet? Any person would find it difficult to answer this question. Now everyone knows what the Internet is. And I think, in our time, anyone can answer this question.