The meaning of the title of the story The Heart of a Dog is short. The meaning of the story Heart of a Dog - an essay based on Bulgakov's story Heart of a Dog

Bulgakov wrote many stories and novellas, 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 deft satire, he reveals some secret or gave an answer to a question that has long been of concern to everyone. So the story “” contains something more than a story about the transformation of a dog into a man.

No. It touches on a 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 Cuffs” with bitter irony: “Only through suffering does truth come... It’s black, rest assured! But they don’t pay you money or give you rations for knowing the truth. Sad but true."

But what does this mean? Can we say that Sharik, the dog on the street, learned what truth is? I think it's possible. But we, seeing Sharik’s life before and after the operation, empathizing with him in his pain, fear and other feelings, merging our souls with his during reading, understand how reckless and immoral medicine is. Yes, Sharik is just an animal, but he feels, he lives, and therefore he did not deserve what Professor Preobrazhensky did to him. Nothing living deserves such treatment.

The story " Heart of a Dog"is a story about the great discoveries made by professors of the construction school, brilliant scientists in the era of scientific experiments. Behind the screen of laughter, the story hides deep reflections on the shortcomings of human nature, the destructiveness of ignorance, and the responsibility that, along with discoveries, falls on the shoulders of scientists and science. Eternal themes that still do not lose their meaning.

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 Philipovich is associated only with a deity in the eyes of Sharik, but for others he is the key to the castle of rejuvenation. We come to understand that if a person combines loneliness, the desire to refute an unacceptable reality and honesty, this can lead to unexpected and sometimes tragic consequences. Sharik came to such an inevitable, critical outcome, transforming into Sharikov. Bulgakov in “Heart of a Dog” mercilessly exposes “purity”, science that has lost its aesthetic principle 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 dedicated not only to misconceptions associated with science and medicine, but also to a cold attitude towards the universe and religion.

And the truth is that every living creature makes its way into life in different ways, some through deception, mistakes, but most often through labor, which sometimes does not carry what they wanted to achieve. Sometimes it happens that people, in achieving their goal, “walk over corpses”, this is what we see in Bulgakov. Bulgakov's satire carries within itself secret meaning, but it’s easy to understand: you just have 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 to the pages of his works. We must accept this gift and understand Bulgakov's satire in all its strength and complexity.

“A REAL WRITER IS THE SAME AS AN ANCIENT PROPHET: HE SEES CLEARER THAN ORDINARY PEOPLE” (A. P. CHEKHOV)

The meaning of the story “Heart of a Dog”

(based on the story “Heart of a Dog” by M. A. Bulgakov)

M. A. Bulgakov’s story “” undoubtedly belongs to the best in the writer’s work. The determining factor in the story “Heart of a Dog” is satirical pathos (by the mid-20s M. had already shown talented satirist in stories, feuilletons, stories “The Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs”).

In “The Heart of a Dog,” the writer uses satire to expose the complacency, ignorance and blind dogmatism of other government officials, the possibility of a comfortable existence for “labor” elements of dubious origin, their impudence and sense of complete permissiveness. The writer’s views fell out of line with those generally accepted then, in the 20s. However, ultimately, M. Bulgakov’s satire, through ridicule and denial of certain social vices, carried within itself the affirmation of enduring moral values. Why did M. Bulgakov need to introduce metamorphosis into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man the spring of intrigue? If in Sharikov only the qualities of Klim Chugunkin are manifested, then why shouldn’t the author “resurrect” Klim himself? But before our eyes, “gray-haired Faust,” busy searching for means to restore youth, creates a man not in a test tube, but by transforming himself from a dog. Dr. Bormenthal is a student and assistant to the professor, and, as an assistant should, he takes notes, recording all stages of the experiment. We have before us a strict medical document that contains only facts. However, soon the emotions overwhelming the young scientist will begin to be reflected in changes in his handwriting. The doctor's guesses about what is happening appear in the diary. But, being a professional, Bormenthal is young and full of optimism, he does not have the experience and insight of a teacher.

What stages of development does it go through? new person", who recently was not only a nobody, but a dog? Even before the complete transformation, on January 2, the creature cursed its creator for his mother, and by Christmas his vocabulary was replenished with all kinds of swear words. A person’s first meaningful reaction to the creator’s comments is “get off, you nit.” Dr. Bormental puts forward the hypothesis that “we have before us the unfolded brain of Sharik,” but we know thanks to the first part of the story that there was no swearing in the dog’s brain, and we are skeptical about the possibility of “developing Sharik into a very high mental personality,” expressed by the professor Preobrazhensky. Smoking is added to the swearing (Sharik did not like tobacco smoke); seeds; balalaika (and Sharik did not approve of music) - and balalaika at any time of the day (evidence of attitude towards others); untidiness and bad taste in clothing. Sharikov’s development is rapid: Filippovich loses the title of deity and turns into a “daddy.” These qualities of Sharikov are accompanied by a certain morality, more precisely, immorality (“I’ll register, but fighting is a piece of cake”), drunkenness, and theft. This process of transformation is crowned sweetest dog into scum”, a denunciation of the professor, and then an attempt on his life.

Talking about Sharikov's development, the author emphasizes the remaining dog traits in him: attachment to the kitchen, hatred of cats, love for a well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, barks and yelps indignantly in conversations. But it is not the external manifestations of canine nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. Insolence, which seemed sweet and harmless in a dog, becomes unbearable in a man who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, with no intention of “learning and becoming at least somewhat acceptable member of society.” His morality is different: he is not a NEPman, therefore, he is a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: thus Sharikov shares the idea of ​​“dividing everything,” which is captivating for the mob. Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both the dog and the person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster who, in his baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder; who understands only power, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything he has submitted to at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a man must remain a man.

Another participant in the dramatic events in the house on Prechistenka is Professor Preobrazhensky. The famous European scientist is searching for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the old principles of life. Everyone, according to Philip Philipovich, in this world should do their own thing: sing in the theater, operate in the hospital, and then there will be no devastation. He rightly believes that achieving material well-being, the benefits of life, and a position in society can only be achieved through labor, knowledge and skills. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. The conviction is not driven into the enemy’s head with a club: “Nothing can be done with terror.” The professor does not hide his dislike for the new order, which has turned the country upside down and brought it to the brink of disaster. He cannot accept new rules (“to divide everything,” “who was nobody will become everything”) that deprive true workers of normal working and living conditions.

But the European luminary still compromises with the new government: he returns her youth, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. Stand in open opposition to new government- lose your apartment, your opportunity to work, and maybe even your life. The professor made his choice. In some ways this choice is reminiscent of Sharik’s choice. The image of the professor is given by Bulgakov in an extremely ironic manner. In order to provide for himself, Philip Philipovich, who resembles a French knight and king, is forced to serve scum and libertines, although he tells Doctor Bormental that he does this not for money, but out of scientific interests. But, thinking about improving the human race, Professor Preobrazhensky is so far only transforming depraved old men and prolonging their opportunity to lead dissolute lives.

The professor is omnipotent only for Sharik. The scientist is guaranteed security as long as he serves those in power, as long as the authorities need him, he can afford to openly express his dislike for the proletariat, he is protected from the libels and denunciations of Sharikov and Shvonder. But his fate, like the fate of the entire intelligentsia, trying to fight against the stick with words, was guessed by Bulgakov and predicted in Vyazemskaya’s story: “If you were not a European luminary and people who, I am sure, we still would not stand up for you in the most outrageous way Let’s make it clear, you should have been arrested.” The professor is worried about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov House), in work and leading to devastation. Alas, Philip Philipovich’s remarks are too modern that the devastation is in the minds, that when everyone minds their own business, “the devastation will end by itself.” Having received an unexpected result from the experiment (“changing the pituitary gland does not give rejuvenation, but complete humanization”), Philip Philipovich reaps its consequences. Trying to educate Sharikov with words, he often loses his temper from his unheard-of rudeness, breaks into a scream (he looks helpless and comical - he no longer convinces, but orders, which causes even greater resistance from the pupil), for which he reproaches himself: “We must still restrain myself... A little more, he will begin to teach me and he will be absolutely right. I can’t control myself.” The professor cannot work, his nerves are frayed, and the author's irony is increasingly replaced by sympathy.

It turns out that it is easier to carry out a complex operation than to re-educate (and not educate) an already formed “person” when he does not want, does not feel the inner need to live as he is offered. And again, one involuntarily recalls the fate of the Russian intelligentsia, who prepared and practically carried out the socialist revolution, but somehow forgot that they had to not educate, but re-educate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with their lives for the illusions embodied in reality.

Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor did not assume that there were many hormones in the pituitary gland. An oversight and miscalculation led to the birth of Sharikov. And the crime that the scientist Dr. Bormenthal warned against was nevertheless committed, contrary to the views and beliefs of the teacher. Sharikov, clearing a place for himself in the sun, does not stop either at denunciation or at the physical elimination of the “benefactors.” Scientists are no longer forced to defend their beliefs, but their lives: “Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a bitten shisha with an unbearable cat smell. And then with his right hand, directed at the dangerous Bormental, he took a revolver out of his pocket.” Forced self-defense, of course, somewhat softens the scientists’ responsibility for Sharikov’s death in the eyes of the author and the reader, but we are once again convinced that it does not fit into any theoretical postulates. The genre of a fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author’s thought about the scientist’s responsibility for the right to experiment sounds cautionary. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.

What is the meaning of the title of A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel”?

Sample essay text

When you close the last page of Kuprin’s story “The Duel,” you get a feeling of the absurdity and injustice of what happened. The dry lines of the report, in a clerical manner, accurately and dispassionately set out the circumstances of the death of Second Lieutenant Romashov, who died as a result of a duel with Lieutenant Nikolaev. The life of a young, pure and honest man is simply and routinely cut short.

The external outline of the story seems to explain the cause of this tragedy. This is Yuri Alekseevich’s love for a married woman, Shurochka Nikolaeva, which aroused the legitimate and understandable jealousy of her husband and his desire to defend his desecrated honor. But mixed with this love is the meanness and selfish calculation of Shurochka, who was not ashamed to conclude a cynical deal with a man in love with her, in which his life was the stake. In addition, it seems that Romashov’s death is predetermined by the events that occur in the story. This is facilitated by the general atmosphere of cruelty, violence, and impunity that characterizes the officer environment.

This means that the word “duel” is an expression of the conflict between universal moral standards and the lawlessness that is happening in the army.

Young second lieutenant Romashov arrives at his place of service with the hope of finding his calling here, meeting honest, courageous people who will accept him into their friendly officer family. The author does not idealize his hero at all. He is, as they say, an average, even mediocre person with a funny habit of thinking about himself in the third person. But there is undoubtedly a healthy, normal beginning in him, which evokes in him a feeling of protest against the surrounding way of army life. At the beginning of the story, this protest is expressed in Romashov’s timid attempt to express his disagreement with the general opinion of his colleagues, who approve of the wild actions of a drunken cornet who drove into a crowd of Jews, or an officer who shot “like a dog” a civilian who dared to reprimand him. But his confused speech that cultured, decent people should not attack an unarmed man with a saber, evokes only a condescending response, which reveals poorly hidden contempt for this “Fendrick”, “institute”. Yuri Alekseevich feels his alienation among his colleagues, naively and awkwardly trying to overcome it. He secretly admires Bek-Agamalov's prowess and strength, trying to become like him. However, innate kindness and conscientiousness force Romashov to stand up for the Tatar soldier in front of the formidable colonel. But a simple human explanation for the fact that a soldier does not know the Russian language is regarded as a gross violation of military discipline, which turns out to be incompatible with the principles of humanity and humanity.

In general, in Kuprin’s story there are many “cruel” scenes depicting the humiliation of human dignity. They are characteristic primarily of the soldier environment, among which the distraught, muzzled soldier Khlebnikov, who tried to throw himself under a train to put an end to daily torture, especially stands out. Sympathizing with this unfortunate soldier, protecting him, Romashov nevertheless cannot save him. The meeting with Khlebnikov makes him feel even more acutely like an outcast among the officers.

In the hero’s mind, a whole scale of humiliation is gradually built up, when the general treats the regiment commander rudely, he in turn humiliates the officers, and they humiliate the soldiers. The officers take out all their anger and melancholy from the meaninglessness and idiocy of army everyday life and leisure on these submissive, dumb creatures. But the heroes of Kuprin’s story are not at all inveterate scoundrels; in almost each of them there are some glimpses of humanity. For example, Colonel Shulgovich, having rudely and sharply reprimanded an officer who wasted government money, immediately helps him. This means, in general, good people in conditions of tyranny, violence and continuous drunkenness lose their human appearance. This further highlights the depth of the moral decline of the officers in the decaying tsarist army.

The writer presents the image of Romashov in dynamics and development. The author shows in the story the spiritual growth of the hero, which is manifested, for example, in his changed attitude towards the society of officers, which the regiment commander calls “a whole family.” Romashov no longer values ​​this family and is ready to break out of it even now and go into the reserve. In addition, now he is not timid and confused as before, but clearly and firmly expresses his convictions: “It is dishonorable to beat a soldier. You cannot beat a man who not only cannot answer you, but does not even have the right to raise his hand to his face in order to defend himself.” from the blow. He doesn’t even dare to move his head. It’s shameful.” If earlier Romashov often found oblivion in drunkenness or in a vulgar relationship with Raechka Peterson, then by the end of the story he reveals firmness and strength of character. Perhaps, in the soul of Yuri Alekseevich, a duel is also taking place, in which ambitious dreams of fame and military career with the indignation that grips him at the sight of the senseless cruelty and complete spiritual devastation that permeated the entire army.

And in this bloodless fight, a healthy moral principle, a humane desire to protect humiliated, suffering people, wins. Growing up young hero combined with his spiritual growth. After all, maturity does not always mean striving for perfection. This is evidenced by the images of officers, people who have become accustomed to the oppressive situation and have adapted to it. Yes, and sometimes a longing for a different, normal life breaks out in them, which is usually expressed in a burst of anger, irritation, and drunken revelry. Some kind of vicious circle arises from which there is no way out. In my opinion, Romashov’s tragedy is that, while denying the monotony, idiocy and lack of spirituality of army life, he still does not have enough strength to resist it. There is only one way out of this moral impasse for him - death.

Narrating the fate of his hero, his quests, delusions and epiphanies, the writer shows the social ill-being that covered all spheres of Russian reality at the beginning of the century, but was more clearly and clearly manifested in the army.

Thus, the title of Kuprin’s story can be understood as a duel between good and evil, violence and humanism, cynicism and purity. This, in my opinion, is the main meaning of the title of A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel”.

References

To prepare this work, materials from the site were used http://www.kostyor.ru/

When you close the last page of Kuprin’s story “The Duel,” you get a feeling of the absurdity and injustice of what happened. The dry lines of the report, in a clerical manner, accurately and dispassionately set out the circumstances of the death of Second Lieutenant Romashov, who died as a result of a duel with Lieutenant Nikolaev. The life of a young, pure and honest man is simply and routinely cut short.

The external outline of the story seems to explain the cause of this tragedy. This is Yuri Alekseevich’s love for married woman, Shurochka Nikolaeva, which aroused the legitimate and understandable jealousy of her husband and his desire to defend his desecrated honor. But mixed with this love is the meanness and selfish calculation of Shurochka, who was not ashamed to conclude a cynical deal with a man in love with her, in which his life was the stake. In addition, it seems that Romashov’s death is predetermined by the events that occur in the story. This is facilitated by the general atmosphere of cruelty, violence, and impunity that characterizes the officer environment.

This means that the word “duel” is an expression of the conflict between universal moral standards and the lawlessness that is happening in the army.

Young second lieutenant Romashov arrives at his place of service with the hope of finding his calling here, meeting honest, courageous people who will accept him into their friendly officer family. The author does not idealize his hero at all. He is, as they say, an average, even mediocre person with a funny habit of thinking about himself in the third person. But there is undoubtedly a healthy, normal beginning in him, which evokes in him a feeling of protest against the surrounding way of army life. At the beginning of the story, this protest is expressed in Romashov’s timid attempt to express his disagreement with the general opinion of his colleagues, who approve of the wild actions of a drunken cornet who drove into a crowd of Jews, or an officer who shot “like a dog” a civilian who dared to reprimand him. But his confused speech that cultured, decent people should not attack an unarmed man with a saber, evokes only a condescending response, which reveals poorly hidden contempt for this “Fendrick”, “institute”. Yuri Alekseevich feels his alienation among his colleagues, naively and awkwardly trying to overcome it. He secretly admires Bek-Agamalov's prowess and strength, trying to become like him. However, innate kindness and conscientiousness force Romashov to stand up for the Tatar soldier in front of the formidable colonel. But a simple human explanation for the fact that a soldier does not know the Russian language is regarded as a gross violation of military discipline, which turns out to be incompatible with the principles of humanity and humanity.

In general, in Kuprin’s story there are many “cruel” scenes depicting the humiliation of human dignity. They are characteristic primarily of the soldier environment, among which the distraught, muzzled soldier Khlebnikov, who tried to throw himself under a train to put an end to daily torture, especially stands out. Sympathizing with this unfortunate soldier, protecting him, Romashov nevertheless cannot save him. The meeting with Khlebnikov makes him feel even more acutely like an outcast among the officers.

In the hero’s mind, a whole scale of humiliation is gradually built up, when the general treats the regiment commander rudely, he in turn humiliates the officers, and they humiliate the soldiers. The officers take out all their anger and melancholy from the meaninglessness and idiocy of army everyday life and leisure on these submissive, dumb creatures. But the heroes of Kuprin’s story are not at all inveterate scoundrels; in almost each of them there are some glimpses of humanity. For example, Colonel Shulgovich, having rudely and sharply reprimanded an officer who wasted government money, immediately helps him. This means, in general, good people in conditions of tyranny, violence and continuous drunkenness lose their human appearance. This further highlights the depth of the moral decline of the officers in the decaying tsarist army.

The writer presents the image of Romashov in dynamics and development. The author shows in the story the spiritual growth of the hero, which is manifested, for example, in his changed attitude towards the society of officers, which the regiment commander calls “a whole family.” Romashov no longer values ​​this family and is ready to break out of it even now and go into the reserve. In addition, now he is not timid and confused as before, but clearly and firmly expresses his convictions: “It is dishonorable to beat a soldier. You cannot beat a man who not only cannot answer you, but does not even have the right to raise his hand to his face in order to defend himself.” from the blow. He doesn’t even dare to move his head. It’s shameful.” If earlier Romashov often found oblivion in drunkenness or in a vulgar relationship with Raechka Peterson, then by the end of the story he reveals firmness and strength of character. Perhaps, in the soul of Yuri Alekseevich, a duel is also taking place, in which ambitious dreams of glory and a military career fight with the indignation that grips him at the sight of the senseless cruelty and complete spiritual emptiness that permeated the entire army.

And in this bloodless fight, a healthy moral principle, a humane desire to protect humiliated, suffering people, wins. The maturation of the young hero is combined with his spiritual growth. After all, maturity does not always mean striving for perfection. This is evidenced by the images of officers, people who have become accustomed to the oppressive situation and have adapted to it. Yes, and sometimes a longing for something else breaks out in them, normal life, which is usually expressed by a burst of anger, irritation, and drunken revelry. Some kind of vicious circle arises from which there is no way out. In my opinion, Romashov’s tragedy is that, while denying the monotony, idiocy and lack of spirituality of army life, he still does not have enough strength to resist it. There is only one way out of this moral impasse for him - death.

Narrating the fate of his hero, his quests, delusions and epiphanies, the writer shows the social ill-being that covered all spheres of Russian reality at the beginning of the century, but was more clearly and clearly manifested in the army.

Thus, the title of Kuprin’s story can be understood as a duel between good and evil, violence and humanism, cynicism and purity. This, in my opinion, is the main meaning of the title of A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel”.

(356 words) The story “The Heart of a Dog” is one of Bulgakov’s most successful works, which, however, was not understood by his contemporaries. Firstly, main goodie the story is an intellectual, and the proletarian revolution was alienated by the intellectual elite, so many people reacted with hostility to the work. Secondly, readers did not understand the meaning of the story, as well as its title: the author either hinted at the “dog life” of the workers, or that they were dogs, or simply described a curious experiment. However, the title (like the work) has several meanings, and to fully understand the author's intentions, it is necessary to take everything into account.

The immediate meaning of the title of the story “Heart of a Dog” lies on the surface. In the story, the human pituitary gland and testes were transplanted into the body of an animal. However, it soon became clear that the former owner of the organs was that other... dog: he wandered, broke the law, drank and cursed. All these qualities were passed on to Sharikov. However, he had another side, inherited from the dog. Judging by the cultural speech of the dog-narrator, it is positive. This is a kind and healthy essence given to us by nature itself, but it is completely overshadowed by human vice - the fruit of civilization. The author wanted to say that by nature we are all good people, but the crowd, led by tyranny, is capable of knocking out everything natural and virtuous from us. The dog was chosen to show that the animal, with the name of which it is customary to insult an opponent, in fact, stands higher than other gentlemen at the stage of evolution.

Another meaning of the title of the story is that the author defined the essence of new Soviet citizens as the “heart of a dog.” That is, they are blindly devoted to the new government, but are deprived of their will and their mind. They shout about freedom, but are not ready to accept it, because they cannot take responsibility for their actions, cannot begin to think and live like human beings. Therefore, they bark and bark, accepting Sharikov into their faceless flock in order to bite the “bourgeois” professor more painfully. For them, he is a stranger, opening his own gate, and only the chain prevents them from tearing him apart.

The meaning of the ending of the story “Heart of a Dog” is to show Philip Philipovich’s repentance and the mistake he corrected. Thus, the author announces his verdict on the attempt of the revolutionary government to create a new society and state artificially, as the professor created Sharikov. A coup is a violent change imposed by force, like surgery. But in order to change, people need gradual natural development, and not a “fas” command. They're not dogs...