The history of the creation of the novel dog's heart. "Heart of a Dog" main characters

Something, and even our directors know how to film great works no worse than "theirs." And not only works domestic writers. Take, for example, the film adaptation of “Ten Little Indians” or “Secrets of the Blackbirds” by A. Christie, or Sherlock Holmes And it is logical to assume that we will film the books of our writers much better than “they”, there in the West or in Europe. Well, how, pray tell, does the same Lattuada, who decided a decade earlier to film Bulgakov's story about a dog turned into a man, know the very era when Professor Preobrazhensky set up his mythical experiment? Without knowing, it is impossible to feel. Therefore, Sharikov Lattuade, performed by Koki Ponzone, looked like some kind of ridiculous intellectual who did not fit into the human surroundings of the era of the collapse of the NEP. Yes, and Max von Sydow, with all due respect to him as an actor, did not convince the well-known Bulgakov professor in the role. correctly play, respectively, Polygraph Poligrafovich and Preobrazhensky.

Why do many people call this masterpiece of Bortko plagiarism What kind of plagiarism is this? This is a screen version of a classic literary work, and ours, domestic. And Bortko, by the way, had much more film rights than the Italian filmmaker. The fact that the Italian filmed the film earlier than we did is easily explained by politics. Bulgakov would have been banned for a long time.

That, in essence, is all that I would like to say as part of the discussion of the analogies between the Italian and Soviet versions of the adaptation of "Heart of a Dog". Let's return to the Soviet version It should be noted that what struck me most of all was not the manner of shooting (also very original black and white era, without a gap and a future, darkness, dirt, leveling everywhere), but the acting. Bortko managed to lure just a block of Russian cinema: Evstigneev, Ruslanova, and Vladimir Tolokonnikov, little known at that time, became famous for the role of Sharikov. We can say that it was only his role, you can’t imagine anyone else in it. She stuck with him, despite his other magnificent works, Tolokonnikov until his death was recognizable precisely for this role. I'll mention other characters as well. For example, Shvonder. To say that Roma Kartsev played him superbly means to say nothing. Of course, the role of the soviet building manager for a Jew is very doubtful, but here the bet was made on the charisma of the actor himself it was the not smiling Kartsev who most suited the role of the beginning king of the lumpen. It is impossible not to mention the little-known N. Fomenko. Her episodic role the masculine communist Vyazemskaya cannot leave the movie gourmet unattended.

All in all, this movie is good. Nothing to complain about. Well, there is no movie without movie bloopers. On the contrary, they say that the more bloopers, the better the movie.

What is this book about " dog's heart"? The ironic story of Bulgakov tells of a failed experiment by 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 comes to a result that is more important for society. high level significance than the intended experiment.

Kyivian Bulgakov decided to become a singer of Moscow, its houses and streets. This is how Moscow chronicles were born. The story was written in Prechistinskiye lanes by order of the Nedra magazine, which is well acquainted with the writer's work. The chronology of writing 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 doctor in Moscow N.M. Pokrovsky, the uncle of the author of the story, became the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky.

The first reading of the typewritten 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 confiscated. The writer's plan to publish his work did not come true. The Soviet reader saw the book only in 1987.

Main problems

The book has not in vain disturbed the vigilant guardians of thought. Bulgakov managed to gracefully and subtly, but still quite clearly reflect the burning issues - the challenges of the new time. The problems in the story "Heart of a Dog" that the author touches on do not leave readers indifferent. The writer talks about the ethics of science, moral responsibility scientist for his experiments, the possibility of 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 impotence before the transformation of the consciousness of the new man. The professor coped with his body, but he could not control his spirit, so Preobrazhensky had to part with his 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 ​​​​progress, because if new generations do not naturally replace the old ones, then the development of the world will stop.

Are attempts to change the country's mentality for the better really fruitless? Soviet authority tried to eradicate the prejudices of past centuries - this is the process behind the metaphor of Sharikov's creation. Here he is, the proletarian, the new Soviet citizen, his creation is possible. However, its creators face the problem of education: they cannot appease 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 defenselessness 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 a penny on individuality. Collectivization affected not only the village, but also the souls. It became more and more difficult to remain a person, because the public presented more and more rights to her. General equalization and leveling did not make people happier, but turned them into ranks of meaningless biorobots, where the most gray and mediocre of them set the tone. Rudeness and stupidity have become the norm in society, they have replaced revolutionary consciousness, and in the image of Sharikov we see a sentence for a new type of Soviet person. From the dominion of the Shvonders and the like, the problems of trampling on intelligence and intelligentsia, the power of dark instincts in the life of an individual, total gross interference in the natural course of things ...

Some of the questions posed in the work remain unanswered 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 public 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 to reach a consensus between people of different social origins, holding 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 due to unexpected discoveries in one or another 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 the development of a person implies independence, which is denied to a Soviet citizen. The social destiny of people is to masterfully do their job and not interfere with others. However, the "conscious" heroes of Bulgakov only chant slogans, but do not work for the benefit of their embodiment in reality. Each of us, in the name of comfort, must be tolerant of dissent and not prevent people from confessing it. And again in the USSR, everything is exactly the opposite, but the opposite: Preobrazhensky's talent is forced to fight to defend his right to help patients, and his point of view is brazenly condemned and persecuted by some nonentities. They can live in peace if everyone minds their own business, but there is no equality in nature and cannot be, because from birth we are all different from each other. It is impossible to maintain it artificially, since Shvonder cannot start operating 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 occupying it with dignity.

Humanity needs discoveries, this is understandable. But you should not reinvent the wheel - try to reproduce a person artificially, for example. If the natural way is still possible, why does it need an analogue, and even such a laborious one? People are facing many other, more significant threats, to which it is worth turning the full power of scientific intellect.

Main Topics

The story is multifaceted. The author touches on important topics that are characteristic not only of the era of the early twentieth century, but are also "eternal": good and evil, science and morality, morality, the fate of man, attitudes towards 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 of ambition 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 his experience to correct his mistakes. This is exactly what every creator should do.

Also relevant in the work is the theme of individual freedom and those boundaries that society, like the state, cannot cross. Bulgakov insists that a full-fledged person is one who has free will and beliefs. Only he can develop the idea of ​​socialism without caricatured forms and offshoots that deform the idea. The crowd is blind and always driven by primitive stimuli. But a person is capable of self-control and self-development, she must be given the freedom to work and live for the good of society, and not set her against it with futile attempts at forced merging.

Satire and humor

The book opens with a monologue stray dog addressed to "citizens" and giving accurate characteristics to Muscovites and the city itself. The population through the "eyes" of the dog is heterogeneous (which is true!): citizens - comrades - gentlemen. "Citizens" buy goods in the cooperative of Tsentrokhoz, and "gentlemen" - in Okhotny Ryad. Why do rich people need a rotten horse? You can get this "poison" only in Mosselprom.

You can “recognize” a person by their eyes: who has “dryness in the soul”, who is aggressive, and who is a lackey. The last one is the most disgusting. If you are afraid, then you should be “punched”. The most vile "scum" - janitors: rowing "human cleaning".

But the cook is an important object. Nutrition is a serious indicator of the state of society. So, the lordly cook of Counts Tolstoy is a real person, and the cooks from the Council of Normal Nutrition do things that even a dog is indecent. If I became the chairman, then I actively steal. Ham, tangerines, wine - these are the “former Eliseev brothers”. The doorman is worse than cats. He lets a stray dog ​​pass, currying favor with the professor.

The education system "assumes" Muscovites "educated" and "uneducated". Why learn to read? "Meat smells like 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 Sharkov's education is an electrician's shop, where a tramp "tasted" insulated wire.

The techniques of irony, humor and satire are often used in combination with tropes: comparisons, metaphors and personifications. special satirical device we can consider the way 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 residents, to formulate his demands, gives rise to humorous situations and questions.

If we talk about the state of the press, then through the mouth of Fedor Fedorovich, the writer talks about the case when, as a result of reading Soviet newspapers before dinner, the patients lost weight. An interesting assessment by the professor of the existing system through the “hanger” and “galoshes rack”: until 1917, the doors of the front doors were not closed, as dirty shoes and outerwear 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 the 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 internal aggression, not to splash it out. That is why the professor's forcible intervention in the natural course of things is condemned by the writer, and therefore 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 failure.

Main characters and their characteristics

1. The central figure of the book is Professor Preobrazhensky. Wears gold-rimmed glasses. Lives in a rich apartment, consisting of seven rooms. He is alone. He devotes all his time to work. Philip Philipovich conducts a reception at home, sometimes he operates here. Patients call him a "magician", "sorcerer". “Creates”, often accompanying his actions with singing excerpts from operas. Loves the theatre. I am convinced that every person should strive to become a specialist in their field. The professor is an excellent speaker. His judgments line 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 shouting if the problem touches him to the quick. The attitude towards the new system is manifested in his statements about terror, paralyzing nervous system man, about the newspapers, about the devastation in the country. Carefully treats animals: "hungry, poor fellow." In relation to living beings, he preaches only kindness and the impossibility of any violence. The 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, so necessary not only for a world-famous scientist, but for every person. At the end of the "experiment" finds the courage to admit that the experiment rejuvenation failed.
2. Young, handsome Ivan Arnoldovich Bormenthal - an assistant professor who fell in love with him, sheltered him as a promising young man. Philipp Philippovich hoped that a talented scientist would emerge from the doctor in the future. During the operation, literally everything flickers in the hands of Ivan Arnoldovich. 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 whole 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 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 doing the will new government without thinking if it's good or bad. For the sake of achieving his goal, he is capable of any step. Vengeful, 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. Trying to train him good manners, to instill a taste for beauty was not crowned with success: he drinks, steals, mocks women, cynically insults people, strangles cats, "performs bestial deeds." As they say, nature rests on it, because you cannot go against it.

The main motives of Bulgakov's work

The versatility of Bulgakov's work is amazing. You seem to be traveling through the works, meeting familiar motifs. Love, greed, totalitarianism, morality are just parts of one whole, “wandering” from book to book and creating a single thread.

• In "Notes on Cuffs" and in "Heart of a Dog" sounds faith in human kindness. This motif is also central in The Master and Margarita.
• In the story "Diaboliad" the fate is clearly traced little man, an ordinary cog in the bureaucratic machine. This motif is typical for other works of the author. The system suppresses them in people the best qualities, and the scary thing is that over time this becomes the norm for the people. In the novel The Master and Margarita, writers whose works did not correspond to the ruling ideology were kept in the "psychiatric hospital". Professor Preobrazhensky told about his observations, when he gave the patients to read the newspaper Pravda before dinner, they lost weight. It was impossible to find anything that would help broaden one's horizons and allow one to look at events from opposite angles in the periodical press.
• Selfishness is what guides the majority negative characters Bulgakov's books. For example, Sharikov from "Heart of a Dog". 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 basis of these works are experiments that run counter to nature. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov identified the experiment with building 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 native home. The comfort in the apartment of Philipp Philippovich ("a lamp under a silk shade") resembles the atmosphere of the Turbins' house. Home is a family, homeland, Russia, about which the writer's heart ached. With all his work, he wished well-being and prosperity to his homeland.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

The great Russian writer is widely known for his brilliant and, at the same time, humorous works. His books have long been dismantled into quotations, witty and well-aimed. And even if not everyone knows who wrote "The Heart of a Dog", then many have seen a great movie based on this story.

In contact with

Summary of the plot

How many chapters in Heart of a Dog - along with the epilogue 10. The action of the work takes place in Moscow at the beginning of the winter of 1924.

1. First, the dog's monologue is described, in which the dog appears smart, observant, lonely and grateful to the one who fed.
2. The dog feels how its beaten body hurts, remembers how it was beaten and poured with boiling water by the janitors. The dog feels sorry for all these poor people, but more for himself. How compassionate women and passers-by fed.
3. A gentleman passing by (Professor Preobrazhensky) treats her to Krakow - a good boiled sausage and calls for him. The dog walks meekly.
4. The following is a story about how the dog Sharik acquired his abilities. And the dog knows a lot - colors, some letters. At the apartment, Preobrazhensky calls in Dr. Bormenthal's assistant, and the dog feels he has fallen into a trap again.
5. All attempts to fight back fail and stupefaction sets in. Nevertheless, the animal woke up, albeit bandaged. Sharik hears how the professor teaches him to be affectionate and caring, to feed him well.

The dog woke up

A well-fed and rejuvenated dog, Preobrazhensky takes with him to an appointment. Here Sharik sees the patients: an old man with green hair who feels like a young man again, an old woman in love with a sharpie and asking to transplant monkey ovaries into her, and many, many others. Unexpectedly, four visitors from the administration of the house came, all in leather jackets, boots and dissatisfied with how many rooms there were in the professor's apartment. After a call and a conversation with an unknown person, they embarrassedly leave.

Further events:

1. The dinner of Professor Preobrazhensky and the doctor is described. Over food, the scientist talks about what brought only destruction and deprivation. Galoshes are stolen, they don’t heat in apartments, rooms are taken away. The dog is happy, because he is full, warm, nothing hurts him. Unexpectedly in the morning after the call, the dog was again taken to the examination room and euthanized.
2. It describes an operation to transplant Sharik's seminal glands and pituitary gland from a criminal and a brawler, who was killed during the arrest.
3. Excerpts from the diary kept by Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental are given. The doctor describes how the dog gradually becomes a man: he gets up on his hind legs, then legs, begins to read and talk.
4. The situation in the apartment is changing. People walk around oppressed, there are traces of disorder everywhere. The balayka is playing. Settled in an apartment former ball- a short, rude, aggressive little man who demands a passport and invents a name for himself - Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov. He is not embarrassed by the past and does not care at all. Most Polygraph hates cats.
5. Dinner is described again. Sharikov changed everything - the professor swears and refuses to accept patients. The communists quickly took over the polygraph and taught their ideals, which turned out to be close to him.
6. Sharikov demands to be recognized as his heir, to allocate a part in the apartment of Professor Preobrazhensky and to issue a residence permit. Then he tries to rape the professor's cook.
7. Sharikov gets a job trapping stray animals. According to him, cats will be made into “polts”. He blackmails the typist into living with him, but the doctor saves her. The professor wants to expel Sharikov, but he is threatened with a gun. It is twisted and there is silence.
8. The commission, which came to rescue Sharikov, finds a half-dog, half-man. Soon, Sharik is sleeping again at the professor's table and rejoices at his luck.

main characters

The symbol of science in this story is the luminary of medicine - professor, the name of Preobrazhensky from the story "Heart of a Dog" Philip Filippovich. The scientist is looking for ways to rejuvenate the body, and finds - this is the transplantation of the seminal glands of animals. Old people become men, women hope to throw off a dozen years. The transplantation of the pituitary gland and testicles, and the heart that was transplanted to the dog in the “Heart of a Dog” from a murdered criminal is just another experiment of the famous scientist.

His assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, a young representative of miraculously preserved noble norms and decency, was best student and remained a faithful follower.

Former dog - Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov - a victim of the experiment. Those who only watched the movie especially remembered what the hero from "Heart of a Dog" played. Obscene verses and jumps on a stool became the author's find of the scriptwriters. In the story, Sharikov simply strummed without interruption, which terribly annoyed Professor Preobrazhensky, who appreciated classical music.

So, for the sake of this image of a driven, stupid, rude and ungrateful peasant, the story was written. Sharikov wants only to live beautifully and eat deliciously, does not understand beauty, norms of relations between people, lives by instinct. But Professor Preobrazhensky believes that the former dog is not dangerous for him, Sharikov will bring much more harm to Shvonder and other communists who patronize and teach him. After all, this created person carries in himself all the lowest and worst that is inherent in man, does not have any moral guidelines.

The criminal and organ donor Klim Chugunkin seems to be only mentioned in Heart of a Dog, but it was his negative qualities that were transferred to a kind and intelligent dog.

Theory of the origin of images

Already in last years The existence of the USSR began to say that the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Lenin, and Sharikov was Stalin. Their historical relationship is similar to the dog story.

Lenin brought the wild criminal Dzhugashvili closer, believing in his ideological stuffing. This man was a useful and desperate communist, he prayed for their ideals and spared no life and health.

True, in recent years, as some close associates believed, the leader of the proletariat realized the true essence of Joseph Dzhugashvili and even wanted to remove him from his entourage. But animal cunning and fury helped Stalin not only to hold on, but also to take a leadership position. And this is indirectly confirmed by the fact that, despite the year of writing "The Heart of a Dog" - 1925, the story was printed in the 80s.

Important! This idea is supported by some allusions. For example, Preobrazhensky loves the opera "Aida", and Lenin's mistress Inessa Armand. The typist Vasnetsov, who repeatedly flickers in close connection with the characters, also has a prototype - the typist Bokshanskaya, who is also associated with two historical figures. Bokshanskaya became a friend of Bulgakov.

Problems posed by the author

Bulgakov, confirming the status of a great Russian writer, in a relatively small story was able to put a series of extremely acute problems that are still relevant today.

First

The Problem of Consequences scientific experiments and the moral right of scientists to interfere with the natural course of development. Preobrazhensky first wants to slow down the passage of time by rejuvenating old people for money and dreaming of finding a way to restore youth to everyone.

The scientist is not afraid to use risky methods, transplanting the ovaries of animals. But when the result is a person, the professor first tries to educate him, and then generally returns him to the appearance of a dog. And from the moment Sharik realizes himself as a man, the very scientific dilemma begins: who is considered a man, and whether the action of a scientist will be considered murder.

Second

The problem of relations, more precisely, the confrontation between the rebellious proletariat and the surviving nobility, had a painful and bloody character. The arrogance and aggressiveness of Shvonder and those who came with them is not an exaggeration, but rather a frightening reality of those years.

Sailors, soldiers, workers and people of the bottom filled the cities and estates quickly and cruelly. The country was flooded with blood, the former rich people were starving, they gave their last for a loaf of bread and hastily went abroad. A few were able not only to survive, but also to maintain their standard of living. They still hated them, although they were afraid.

Third

The problem of general ruin and the fallacy of the chosen path has already arisen more than once in Bulgakov's works. The writer lamented the old order, culture and smartest people perishing under the onslaught of the crowd.

Bulgakov - a prophet

And yet, what the author wanted to say in Heart of a Dog. Many readers and admirers of his work feel such a prophetic motive. Bulgakov seemed to be showing the communists what kind of person of the future, the homunculus, they are growing in their red test tubes.

Born as a result of an experiment by a scientist working for the needs of the people and protected by a higher projection, Sharikov threatens not only the aging Preobrazhensky, this creature hates absolutely everyone.

An expected discovery, a breakthrough in science, a new word in social structure turn into just a stupid, cruel, criminal, strumming on a balika, strangling the unfortunate animals, those from among which he himself came out. Sharikov's goal is to take away the room and steal money from "dad".

"Heart of a Dog" M. A. Bulgakov - Summary

Dog's heart. Michael Bulgakov

Conclusion

The only way out for Professor Preobrazhensky from the "Heart of a Dog" is to pull himself together and admit the failure of the experiment. The scientist finds the strength to admit his own mistake and correct it. Can others do it...

The story "Dog's Heart" subtitled " Monstrous story»; Being in many ways the pinnacle of Soviet (or anti-Soviet) social satire, it was never published during the life of the writer. First published in the USSR in 1987. For 19 years before that, she had publications in London and Frankfurt.

The story was written in January-March 1925, the manuscript was accepted in the Nedra almanac, but was postponed from book to book, and, waiting for publication, Bulgakov even concluded Art Theater contract for staging "Heart of a Dog". However, the gradually changing literary and social situation, the intolerant aggressiveness of the RAPP and its critics, and the attacks on Bulgakov, which intensified after the premiere of The Days of the Turbins in October 1926, closed the way for the story to be published. At the beginning of 1927, the Moscow Art Theater broke the contract with Bulgakov to stage the story. On the long years"Heart of a Dog" remained in the writer's archive. March 7, 1925 the author read the first part of "Heart of a Dog" on literary meeting"Nikitinsky Subbotniks", and on March 21 in the same place - the second part of the story. One of the listeners, M.Ya. The time has come to realize the attitude towards what happened” (i.e., to the October Revolution of 1917). One of the visitors to the premiere of the story said: “My personal opinion: such things, read in the most brilliant Moscow circle, are much more dangerous than the useless-harmful speeches of writers 101- of the highest grade at meetings of the All-Russian Union of Poets.

People experienced in literature praised the story. For example, April 8, 1925. the writer Vikenty Veresaev wrote to the poet Maximilian Voloshin: “I was very pleased to read your review of M. Bulgakov ... his humorous things, pearls, promising an artist of the 1st rank from him. But censorship cuts him mercilessly. Recently stabbed the wonderful thing "Dog's Heart", and he completely loses heart. Critics, including V. Shklovsky, who turned out to be a bad prophet for Bulgakov, pointed out at one time the writer's dependence on the traditions of Wells' fantasy with his Food of the Gods. With great reason, perhaps, one could recall domestic experiments close to this genre - Al. Tolstoy in "Aelita" or E. Zamyatin in the novel "We". But it is even more correct to keep in mind Bulgakov's dependence on the classical tradition, which he followed, of course, not as a pointing finger, but as a guiding star. First of all, it is necessary to name the gloomy and cheerful fantasy of Gogol and the satire of Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Bulgakov read "Dead Souls" at the age of nine, and for the rest of his life he could not free himself from the magic of the words of this great artist. It is no coincidence that in one of his stories of the 1920s, the shadow of Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov walks around NEP Moscow. As for Shchedrin, in a writer's questionnaire dedicated to the memory of the author of The History of a City, Bulgakov stated: “Saltykov had an extraordinary influence on me, and, being in young age, I decided that it was necessary to treat the environment with irony ... When I became an adult, a terrible truth was revealed to me. Atamans-well done, dissolute clementines, rukosuy and bast shoes, Major Pryshch and the white scoundrel Moody-Grumbling outlived Saltykov-Shchedrin. The satirical method of Shchedrin, but without his bile, like Gogol's fantasy, but devoid of gloomy reflection, Bulgakov rethought in his own way in his realistic prose, in the original genre of satirical utopia.

Bulgakov's third story about Moscow. "Heart of a Dog" was not published in the writer's homeland until 1987, and in 1976, M.O. Chudakova, in materials for Bulgakov's biography, could not even mention its name for censorship reasons, limiting herself to retelling the plot. Now this story, which was the last to reach the Russian-speaking writer, has become the “desktop” book of a whole generation. Why did the story have such a difficult fate? It was written after The Fatal Eggs in 1925. The editor of the almanac "Nedra" N.S. Angorsky hoped to get the story into print, turning, in particular, for help to one of the prominent leaders of the party and government, L.B. Kamenev. However, the latter commented on the “Heart of a Dog” in this way: “This is a sharp pamphlet on the present, it is by no means impossible to print!” This review, together with the position of the censorship, made it impossible for the story to be published in the USSR for more than six decades. Readers almost lost the story forever when, during searches in Bulgakov's apartment, the only copy of the manuscript was confiscated and the author could not get it back for several months. Only thanks to the requests of M. Gorky the story returned to Bulgakov.

The plot of "The Heart of a Dog" is borrowed to some extent from the same Wells from the novel "The Island of Dr. Moreau" and is associated with the idea of ​​humanizing animals. Bulgakov was certainly influenced English writer, but only at the level of a certain generality of plots. Idea content Bulgakov's stories are completely independent and sometimes deeper than those of Wells.

"Heart of a Dog" is one of the few literary works who received such loud instant fame. The reason for this, of course, is its brilliant literary merits, but also the uniqueness of its appearance in print - 62 years after its creation.

Of course, the story was known, as well as "The Pit", "Chevengur" by A. Platonov, as well as many other forbidden works of literature. And yet the illegal existence of the book - and the example of the "Heart of a Dog" proves this - cannot be even half full. Only by obtaining the rights of citizenship, separated from the original stored in the archive, set off on an independent voyage in time and readers, the work can be revealed as it deserves.

.The "Fatal Eggs" was Bulgakov's first thing, which caused a truly stormy reaction from critics, and Rappovskaya in particular. Now she already knew that this dangerous writer should not be overlooked. And each of his new works was met by a friendly chorus of furious, accusing and boiling with anger voices.

One can imagine what cries would have risen in the RAPP if Bulgakov's story, written shortly after the "Fatal Eggs" - "Heart of a Dog" - had been published at the same time.

Bulgakov the satirist was not pleasing to the authorities: the satire was too sharp and accurate, and besides, Bulgakov did not hide his dislike for the new "masters of life." As a result - the prohibition to be staged in the theater, to be published, to "breathe". During his lifetime, he was reproached for the lack of a worldview, called "a new-bourgeois offspring, splashing poisoned, but impotent saliva on the working class and its communist ideals." The attacks on Bulgakov have not stopped to this day. In particular, his "Master and Margarita" is accused of blasphemy: "a dissolute hobby evil spirit"(A.I. Solzhenitsyn), "blasphemous novel" (N. Bokov).

When in 1925 Bulgakov's story "Fatal Eggs" was published, not the first satirical thing of the writer, one of the critics, either with surprise or with irony, remarked: "Bulgakov wants to become a satirist of our era ...". Now, perhaps, no one will deny that Bulgakov has become a satirist of our era. Yes, even the most outstanding. And this despite the fact that he did not want to become one at all. The era itself made him a satirist. By the nature of his talent, he was a lyricist. Everything he wrote went through his heart. Each image he creates carries his love or hatred, admiration or bitterness, tenderness or regret. When you read Bulgakov's books, you are inevitably infected by these feelings of his. With satire, he only “snarled” at everything that was unkind that was born and multiplied before his eyes, from which he himself had to fight back more than once and that threatened with serious troubles for the people and country. He was disgusted by the bureaucratic forms of managing people and the life of society as a whole, and bureaucracy took deeper roots in all spheres of social life. He could not bear violence either against himself or against other people. And it has been used more and more widely since the time of war communism. He saw the main misfortune of his "backward country" in lack of culture and ignorance, and both, with the destruction of the intelligentsia, despite the "cultural revolution", and the elimination of illiteracy, did not decrease, but, on the contrary, penetrated into the state apparatus, and into those layers societies, which in all respects were supposed to constitute its intellectual environment. And he rushed into battle to defend that “reasonable, kind, eternal” that they sowed in their time the best minds and the souls of the Russian intelligentsia, and what is now being discarded and trampled under foot in the name of the so-called class interests of the proletariat.

Bulgakov had his own creative interest in these battles. They kindled his fantasy, sharpened the pen. And even the fact that criticism responded to the thin sword of his satire with a cudgel, the same one, Rappov's, which jammed everything truly talented in literature, did not deprive him of either humor or courage. But he never entered into such out of pure excitement, as often happened with satirists and humorists. He was invariably driven by anxiety and pain for the good and eternal that was lost by people and the country on the path that they followed not at all of their own free will.

That is why in the tenth year of his work, in the conditions of flourishing Stalinism, his works were banned. But for the same reason, when it was returned to readers six decades later, it turned out that these works not only did not become outdated, but turned out to be more topical than many, many contemporary readings written on the most topical topic of the day.

Bulgakov's creative world is fantastically rich, diverse, full of all sorts of surprises for both the reader and researchers. Not one of his novels, not one of his short stories or plays fits into the patterns we are accustomed to. They are perceived and interpreted different people differently. Every attentive reader has his own Bulgakov.

The plots of the two Moscow stories have something in common. There is in the "Heart of a Dog" and its own leaven from the realm of fantasy. But what excites and worries the writer, he reveals here not in an allegorical form, but, as they say, in plain text. Therefore, we can say with confidence that "Heart of a Dog" is a work in the spirit of classical tragic realism.