Professor Preobrazhesky's mistake in the story "Heart of a Dog" by M. Bulgakov is a mirror reflection of our reality
Lesson - research using DER
"What is Professor Preobrazhensky's mistake?"
(according to M.A. Bulgakov’s story “ dog's heart»)
1 slide
The story "Heart of a Dog" was written in 1925, but the writer did not see it printed. In Russia, the work was published only in 1987.
"It's spicy pamphlet on the present, it is impossible to print in any case, ”this is how L. B. Kamenev understood this work. How did you understand it?
Students' answers (most often students' answers come down to Professor Preobrazhensky's experiment)
The teacher asks problematic issue: “And what did Professor Preobrazhensky understand at the end of the story? What is his mistake?
Different opinions of students lead to a problem situation, in the course of solving which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work.
Student's report on the history of the creation of the story "Heart of a Dog" (preliminary homework)
The story is based on a great experiment. Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was perceived by Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. The writer was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary (not excluding violence) methods, to educate a new, free person by the same methods. For him, this was such an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the "experimenters" themselves. The author warns readers about this in his work.
2 slide
- “Satire is created when a writer appears who considers the current life imperfect, and, indignantly, proceeds to expose it artistically. I believe that the path of such an artist will be very, very difficult. (M.A. Bulgakov)
Let's remember what satire is. What is satire directed at? (Satire is a kind of comic. The subject of satire is human vices. The source of satire is the contradiction between universal human values and the reality of life).
What traditions of Russian satirists were continued by M. Bulgakov? (M.E. Saltykova-Shedrina, N.V. Gogol).
Analytical group study:
1. What does Moscow of the 1920s look like to the reader? Through whose eyes do we see Moscow? (Through the eyes of a dog, this is a detachment technique that allows the author to “hide” his attitude to what is happening and at the same time to most fully reveal the character of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment. Moscow seems to the guys dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy. In this city, where wind, blizzard and snow reign, embittered people live, trying to keep what they have, and even better - to grab more.The students find details in the text that confirm their impressions, and come to the conclusion that in Moscow there is an atmosphere of chaos, disintegration , hatred: a person who was a nobody now receives power, but uses it for his own good, regardless of the people around him (an example of this is the fate of the “typist”).
3 slide
How does Professor Preobrazhensky appear before us? Is the choice of the professor's surname random? How does the author feel about his character in the first part of the story? What can be said about the lifestyle and views of the professor?
4 slide
What are its moral principles? What is the essence of the professor's attitude to the new system?
Why did the professor pick up a homeless dog? Why is he conducting an experimental operation?
Slide
What does Sharik look like to you? Describe it at the moment of meeting with the professor. Which qualities of Sharik do you like, which ones do you not? What qualities does the author emphasize in Sharik? For what purpose does he do this? What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it? What does Sharik like in the professor's house and what does he not like? (From the first lines, the “stream of consciousness” of the dog unfolds in front of the reader. And from the first lines it is clear that this dog is fantastic. The dog, whose body was abused by people, of course, knows how to hate, but the “typist” causes him sympathy and pity.
6 slide (viewing a movie clip)
The meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slavish soul and vile fate, he gives his love and devotion to "mental labor to the master" for a piece of Krakow sausage. The lackey obsequiousness that woke up in Sharik manifests itself not only in a readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in a desire to avenge past humiliations to one of those whom he used to be afraid of like fire - "to poke the porter by the proletarian calloused leg").
7 slide
Does Sharik change from December 16th to 23rd? Highlight the stages of these changes. Compare the behavior of a dog and a person (Sharikov) in the episodes of the first and second parts: choosing a name, dinner, visiting the house committee. Is there anything canine in a person? Why? What is in Sharikovo from a dog, what is from Chugunkin? (Sharikov, whose first word was the name of the store where he was scalded with boiling water, very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to servants, turn his ignorance into a weapon against education. He even has a spiritual mentor - the chairman of the house committee Shvonder. Sharikov's career is truly amazing - from a vagrant a dog authorized to exterminate stray cats and dogs. And here one of the main features of Sharikov appears: gratitude is completely alien to him. On the contrary, he takes revenge on those who know his past. He takes revenge on his own kind in order to prove his difference from them, to assert himself. Shvonder , inspiring Sharikov to exploits (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky's apartment), just does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.)
Slide
Who is Sharikov's ideological mentor? Which impact is more terrible: physical or ideological? (Any violence cannot be justified)
What future did Bulgakov predict to Shvonder through Professor Preobrazhensky? Has this prediction come true?
slide
Compare the education theories of Prof. and Dr. Bormenthal. Which one was more effective and why? How did the results of the experiment affect the professor and his assistant? Does it change author's attitude to the professor throughout the story? What are these changes?
10 slide
What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand by the end of the story? What is his mistake? What does the author warn his reader about? (Professor Preobrazhensky comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story "Heart of a Dog", the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into a dog again. He is satisfied with his fate and himself. But in life, such experiments And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
Bulgakov believes that building socialism is also an experiment. A new society is created through violence, to which the author has a negative attitude. For him, this is a violation of the natural course of events, which will be deplorable for everyone.
Unlike the happy ending of Mikhail Bulgakov's brilliant book, real history everything turned out differently. After the revolution of 1917, numerous Sharkovs led by Shvonders came to power in the USSR. Proud of their proletarian origin, infinitely far from knowledge of the laws of history and economics, replacing genuine culture and education with immoderate "vocal impulses", these outcasts with "ruin in their heads" brought their country to a social catastrophe unheard of in world history. We are still healing the wounds of the bloody historical “operation” of 1917.
The great diagnostician and seer, M. Bulgakov predicted the tragic consequences of a social experiment "unprecedented in Europe" in the midst of historical events- in the article "Future Prospects", written in November 1919 9 . The article ends with the words:
“It will be necessary to pay for the past with incredible work, the severe poverty of life. Pay both figuratively and literally.
To pay for the madness of the March days, for the madness of the October days, for independent traitors, for Brest, for the insane use of machines for printing money... for everything!
And we will pay.
And only when it is already very late, we will again begin to create something in order to become full-fledged, so that we will be allowed back into the halls of Versailles.
Who will see these bright days?
Oh no! Our children, perhaps, and perhaps even grandchildren, because the scope of history is wide, and it “reads” decades just as easily as individual years.
And we, representatives of the unfortunate generation, dying in the rank of miserable bankrupts, will be forced to say to our children:
“Pay, pay honestly, and always remember the social revolution!”
Answer in writing the question: what is the meaning of the finale of the story?
Materials used in preparation for the lesson:
http://900igr.net/kartinki/literatura/Sobache-serdtse/011-M-A.-Bulgakov-1891-1940.html
http://www.bulgakov.ru/dogheart/dh6/
M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog"
In the foreground "Dog Heart"- the experiment of the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky with all the tragicomic results unexpected for the professor himself and his assistant Bormental. Transplanted into a clean scientific purposes to a dog, human spermatic glands and the pituitary gland of the brain, Preobrazhensky, to his amazement, receives from a dog ... a man. Homeless Ball, forever hungry, offended by everyone who is not lazy, in a matter of days, in front of the professor and his assistant, turns into homosapiens. And already on his own initiative receives human name: Sharikov Polygraph Polygraphovych. His habits remain, however, canine. And the professor, willy-nilly, has to take up his upbringing.
Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky not only an outstanding specialist in his field. He is a man of high culture and an independent mind. And he is very critical of everything that has been happening around since March. 1917
of the year. The views of Philipp Philippovich have much in common with the views of Bulgakov. He is also skeptical about the revolutionary process. And also strongly opposed to any violence. Weasel is the only way that is possible and necessary in dealing with living beings - rational and unreasonable. "Terror can't do anything..."
And this conservative professor, who categorically rejects the revolutionary theory and practice of reorganizing the world, suddenly finds himself in the role of a revolutionary. The new system strives to create a new man from the old "human material". Philip Philipovich, as if competing with him, goes even further: he intends to make a man, and even a high culture and morality, out of a dog. "A caress, an exceptional caress." And of course, by example.
The result is known. Attempts to instill Sharikov elementary cultural skills are met with stubborn resistance on his part. And every day Sharikov becomes bolder, more aggressive and more dangerous.
If the "source material" for modeling Polygraph Polygraphovycha if there was only one Sharik, perhaps the professor's experiment would have succeeded. Having taken root in the apartment of Philipp Philippovich, Sharik, at first, as a recent homeless child, still commits some hooligan acts. But in the end it turns into a well-mannered house dog.
But by chance, human organs went to a citizen Sharikov from a criminal. In addition, a new, Soviet formation, as emphasized in his official characterization, or, more precisely, in Bulgakov's very poisonous parody of a characterization:
"Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Nonpartisan, sympathetic. Tried 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - conditionally hard labor for 15 years.
A "sympathizer" sentenced to hard labor "conditionally" - this is reality itself invading Preobrazhensky's experiment.
Is this character really alone? There is also the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, in the story. This "personnel" Bulgakov's character V this case special become. He even writes articles for the newspaper, reads Engels. In general, he is fighting for revolutionary order and social justice. Residents of the house should enjoy the same benefits. No matter how brilliant the scientist Professor Preobrazhensky, there is nothing for him to occupy seven rooms. He can dine in the bedroom, perform operations in the examination room, where he cuts rabbits. And in general it is time to equate it with Sharikov, a man of a completely proletarian appearance.
The professor himself manages to fight off Shvonder in one way or another. But fight back Polygraph Polygraphich he is unable to. Shvonder already taken over Sharikov patronage and educates, paralyzing all professorial educational efforts, in his own way.
Two weeks after the dog skin came off Sharikova and he began to walk on two legs, this participant already has a document proving his identity. And the document, according to Schwonder, who knows what he's talking about, is "the most important thing in the world." In another week or so Sharikov neither more nor less - a co-worker. And not an ordinary one - the head of the sub-department of cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is the same as it was - a canine-criminal .. What is worth one of his messages about his work "in his specialty": "Yesterday they strangled cats, strangled them."
But what kind of satire is this, if in just a few years thousands of real ball-bearers in the same way “choked-choked” no longer cats - people, real workers, who were not guilty of anything before the revolution ?!
Preobrazhensky and Bormental, making sure that they were hurt " the cutest dog turn into such scum that your hair stands on end, ”in the end they corrected their mistake.
But those experiments that have been carried out for a long time in reality itself have not been corrected. In the very first lines of the story, a certain Central People's Council farms. under the shade Central Council a canteen of normal food is discovered, where employees are fed shami from stinking corned beef, where a cook in a dirty cap is "a thief with a copper muzzle." And the caretaker is also a thief ...
And here Sharikov. Not artificial, professorial - natural ...: “I am now the chairman and, no matter how much I steal, everything is on female body, on cancer necks, on Abrau-Durso. Because I was hungry enough in my youth, it will be with me, and the afterlife does not exist.
Why not a mixture of a hungry dog and a criminal? And here it is no longer special case. Something much more serious. Isn't it a system? The man was hungry, humiliated enough. And suddenly, on you! - position, power over people ... Is it easy to resist the temptations, which are now in turn plenty? ..
Boborykin, V.G. In the foreground of the "Heart of a Dog" / V.G. Boborykin//Mikhail Bulgakov.-1991.-S.61-66
The problems of the "Heart of a Dog" allows you to fully explore the essence of the work of the famous Soviet writer Mikhail Bulgakov. The story was written in 1925. Why is she considered one of the key works Russian literature of the beginning of the 20th century, let's try to figure it out together.
A daring tale
The problems of the "Heart of a Dog" were imbued with everyone who came across this work. Its original title was Heart of a Dog. A Monstrous Story. But then the author decided that the second part only makes the title heavier.
The first listeners of the story were friends and acquaintances of Bulgakov, who gathered at the Nikitinsky subbotnik. The story made a big impression. Everyone was discussing her animatedly, noting her impudence. The problematics of the story "Heart of a Dog" has become one of the most discussed topics for the coming months among the educated society of the capital. As a result, rumors about her reached law enforcement agencies. Bulgakov's house was searched, and the manuscript was confiscated. It was never published during his lifetime, being published only during the perestroika years.
And this can be understood. After all, it reflected the main problems Soviet society, which appeared almost immediately after the victory October revolution. After all, in fact, Bulgakov compared power with a dog that turns into a selfish and vile person.
Analyzing the problems of "Heart of a Dog", one can study what was the cultural and historical situation in Russia after. The story reflects all the troubles that had to be faced Soviet people in the first half of the 20s.
In the center of the story is a scientific experiment that He conducts by transplanting a human pituitary gland into a dog. The results exceed all expectations. In a few days, the dog turns into a human.
This work was Bulgakov's response to the events taking place in the country. The scientific experiment he portrayed is a vivid and accurate picture of the proletarian revolution and its consequences.
In the story, the author poses many important questions to the reader. How does revolution relate to evolution, what is the nature of new government and the future of the intelligentsia? But Bulgakov is not limited to general political topics. He is also concerned about the problem of old and new morality and morality. It is important for him to find out which of them is more humane.
Contrasting strata of society
The problematic of Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog" largely lies in the opposition of various strata of society, the gap between which was felt especially acute in those days. The intelligentsia is personified by the professor, the luminary of science Philip Philippovich Preobrazhensky. Representative of the "new" person, born of the revolution, is the house manager Shvonder, and later Sharikov, who is influenced by the speeches of his new friend and communist propaganda literature.
Preobrazhensky's assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, calls him a creator, but the author himself is clearly of a different opinion. He is not ready to admire the professor.
Laws of evolution
The main claim is that Preobrazhensky encroached on the basic laws of evolution, tried on the role of God. He creates a person with his own hands, conducting, in fact, a monstrous experiment. Here Bulgakov makes a reference to his original title.
It is worth noting that it was precisely as an experiment that Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening then in the country. Moreover, the experiment is grandiose in scale and at the same time dangerous. The main thing that the author denies to Preobrazhensky is the moral right of the creator. After all, having endowed a kind homeless dog with human habits, Preobrazhensky made Sharikov the embodiment of all that terrible that was in people. Did the professor have the right to do so? This question can characterize the problems of Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog.
References to fantasy
Many genres are intertwined in Bulgakov's story. But the most obvious are the references to science fiction. They constitute the key artistic feature of the work. As a result, realism is brought to sheer absurdity.
One of the main theses of the author is the impossibility of a forced reorganization of society. Especially such a cardinal one. History shows that in many ways he was right. The mistakes made by the Bolsheviks today form the basis of history textbooks devoted to that period.
Sharik, who has become a man, personifies the average character of that era. The main thing in his life is class hatred for enemies. That is, the proletarians cannot stand the bourgeois. Over time, this hatred spreads to the rich, and then to educated people and ordinary intellectuals. It turns out that the basis of the new world is to everything old. Clearly, a world based on hate had no future.
Slaves in power
Bulgakov is trying to convey his position - the slaves were in power. That's what Heart of a Dog is about. The problem lies in the fact that they received the right to govern before they had at least a minimal education and understanding of culture. The darkest instincts wake up in such people, as in Sharikov. Mankind is powerless before them.
Among the artistic features of this work, it is necessary to note the numerous associations and references to the domestic and foreign classics. The key to the work can be obtained by analyzing the exposition of the story.
The elements that we meet in the plot of the "Heart of a Dog" (blizzard, winter cold, stray dog) refer us to Blok's poem "The Twelve".
An important role is played by such an insignificant detail as a collar. In Blok's collar, a bourgeois hides his nose, and in Bulgakov's, it is by the collar that a homeless dog determines the status of Preobrazhensky, realizing that in front of him is a benefactor, and not a hungry proletarian.
In general, we can conclude that "Heart of a Dog" is Bulgakov's outstanding work, which plays a key role both in his work and in all domestic literature. First of all by ideological concept. But it deserves high praise artistic features, and the issues that are raised in the story.
The story of Mikhail Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917, showed the grave consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, whether it be nature or society. Using the example of the failure of the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 1920s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experience, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but capacious description: “The profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is expanded 1 (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab to the heart in a pub.” And what? In the resulting scientific experiment being the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharik is connected with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois”.
The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most deplorable consequences. The type that appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of the operation, “small in stature and unsympathetic in appearance,” turned the well-established life of this house upside down. He behaves defiantly rude, arrogant and arrogant.
The newly-appeared Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov puts on patent-leather shoes and a poison-colored tie, his suit is dirty, untidy, tasteless. With the help of Shvonder's house committee, he registers himself 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 the book recommended by Schwonder, the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. And even makes critical remarks about the correspondence ...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are miserable attempts that in no way contribute to the mental and spiritual development of Sharikov. But from the point of view of Shvonder and Sharikov like him, it is quite suitable for the society they are creating. Sharikov was even hired in government agency. For him, to become, albeit small, but the boss means to change outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a government car, and controls the fate of a secretary girl. His arrogance becomes boundless. For days on end, obscene language and balalaika strumming are heard in the professor's house; Sharikov comes home drunk, sticks to women, breaks and destroys everything around. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental unsuccessfully try to instill in him the rules of good manners, to develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov likes only the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave at the table in a cultured way, Sharikov notes with irony that this is how people tortured themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more of a failure than a success of Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: "Old donkey ... Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge." 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 again turns into rtca. He is content with his fate and himself. But in real life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.
In his story “Heart of a Dog”, Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that has taken place in Russia is not the result of a natural socio-economic and spiritual development society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about the upbringing of a new, free person by the same methods. the main idea The writer is that bare progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people.
Mikhail Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917, showed the grave consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, whether it be nature or society. Using the example of the failure of the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 1920s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experience, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but capacious description: “Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is enlarged (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab to the heart in a pub.” And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an ever-hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois”.
The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most deplorable consequences. The type that appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of the operation, “small in stature and unsympathetic in appearance,” turned the well-established life of this house upside down. He behaves defiantly rude, arrogant and arrogant.
The newly appeared Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov. puts on patent-leather shoes and a poison-colored tie, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of Shvonder's house committee, he registers himself 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, the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. And even makes critical remarks about the correspondence ...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are miserable attempts that in no way contribute to the mental and spiritual development of Sharikov. But from the point of view of Shvonder and Sharikov like him, it is quite suitable for the society they are creating. Sharikov was even hired by a government agency. For him, to become, albeit small, but the boss means to change outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a government car, and controls the fate of a secretary girl. His arrogance becomes boundless. For days on end, obscene language and balalaika strumming are heard in the professor's house; Sharikov comes home drunk, sticks to women, breaks and destroys everything around. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental unsuccessfully try to instill in him the rules of good manners, to develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov likes only the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave at the table in a cultured way, Sharikov notes with irony that this is how people tortured themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus we convince
- New!
The story of Mikhail Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917, showed the grave consequences of human interference in the natural course of development, whether it be nature or society....
- New!
M.A. Bulgakov had a rather ambiguous, complex relationship with the authorities, like any writer of the Soviet era who did not write works praising this authority. On the contrary, it is clear from his works that he accuses her of the devastation that has come ...
- New!
The story "The Heart of a Dog", it seems to me, is distinguished by the originality of the solution of the idea. The revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of natural socio-economic and spiritual development, but an irresponsible and premature experiment ....
The story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1925, M. Bulgakov did not see printed, as it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by the OGPU during a search. "Heart of a Dog" - the last satirical story of the writer. Everything, that...
