Essay based on M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog”
Here we should recall the story of Mikhail Bulgakov “ Heart of a Dog" The main character, doctor F. F. Preobrazhensky, does the seemingly impossible. He turns a dog into a human through pituitary gland transplant surgery. A scientist wants to surprise the scientific world and make a discovery. But the consequences of such interference in nature are not always for the good. The new Sharik in the human form of P.P. Sharikov will never become a full-fledged person, but will resemble the same drunkard and thief whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him. A man without conscience, who is capable of any baseness.
Also in another work by Mikhail Bulgakov - “ Fatal eggs"shows how an irresponsible attitude towards science can result.
Zoologist professor Vladimir Persikov was supposed to breed chickens, but due to a terrible mistake, instead they turn out to be giant reptiles that threaten death. Everyone is seized with horror and panic, and when there seems to be no way out, suddenly a frost of 18 degrees below zero hits. And in August. The reptiles did not survive the cold and died.
In Ivan Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" main character– Evgeny Bazarov is also involved in science in the field of medicine. Wants to do something useful. But his own worldview lets him down. He rejects everything that constitutes people's needs (love, art). The author sees this “nihilism” as the reason for Eugene’s death.
Updated: 2017-10-05
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Lesson – research using COR
“What is Professor Preobrazhensky’s mistake?”
(based on the story “Heart of a Dog” by M.A. Bulgakov)
1 slide
The story “Heart of a Dog” was written in 1925, but the writer did not see it published. In Russia, the work was published only in 1987.
"It's spicy pamphlet for the present, under no circumstances should it be printed,” - this is how L. B. Kamenev understood this work. How did you understand it?
Student answers (most often student answers come down to Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment)
The teacher asks problematic issue: “What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand at the end of the story? What is his mistake?
Different opinions of students lead to a problematic situation, during the solution of which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work.
Student’s message about the history of the creation of the story “Heart of a Dog” (preliminary homework)
The story is based on a great experiment. Everything that was happening 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 using revolutionary (not excluding violence) methods, and about educating a new, free person using the same methods. For him, this was 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 with his work.
2 slide
- “Satire is created when a writer appears who considers current life imperfect, and, indignant, begins 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 against? (Satire is a type 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).
Which Russian satirists did M. Bulgakov continue the traditions of? (M.E. Saltykova-Shedrina, N.V. Gogol).
Analytical group study:
1. How does Moscow of the 1920s appear to the reader? Through whose eyes do we see Moscow? (Through the eyes of a dog is a method of detachment that allows the author to “hide” his attitude to what is happening and at the same time most fully reveal the character of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment. Moscow seems dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy to the guys. In this city, where wind, blizzard and snow reign, embittered people live, trying to hold on to what they have, or, even better, to grab more. Students find details in the text that confirm their impressions, and come to the conclusion that in Moscow there is a situation of chaos and decay. , hatred: a person who was a nobody now receives power, but uses it for his own benefit, 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 accidental? How does the author treat his hero in the first part of the story? What can you say about the professor’s lifestyle and views?
4 Slide
What are his moral principles? What is the essence of the professor’s attitude to the new system?
For what purpose did the professor pick up a stray dog? Why is he performing an experimental operation?
Slide
What do you think of Sharik? Describe it at the moment of meeting with the professor. Which qualities of Sharik do you like and which do you not? What qualities does the author emphasize in Sharik? For what purpose is he doing this? What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it? What does Sharik like about the professor’s house and what doesn’t? (From the first lines, the “stream of consciousness” of the dog unfolds before the reader. And from the first lines it is clear that this dog is fantastic. The dog, whose body was violated by people, of course, knows how to hate, but the “typist” evokes sympathy and pity in him.
6 slide (viewing a film fragment)
A meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slave soul and vile fate, he gives his love and devotion to “mental labor to the master” for a piece of Krakow sausage. The lackey's servility, awakened in Sharik, is manifested not only in the readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in the desire to take revenge for past humiliations on one of those whom he previously feared like fire - “to bite the doorman by the proletarian calloused foot”).
7 slide
Does Sharik change from December 16 to December 23? 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, lunch, visiting the house committee. Does anything canine manifest itself in a person? Why? What is in Sharikov from the 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 the 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 wandering dog to the commissioner for the destruction of stray cats and dogs. And here one of the main features of Sharikov is manifested: gratitude is completely alien to him. On the contrary, he takes revenge on those who know his past in order to prove his difference from them, to assert himself. , who inspires Sharikov to exploits (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky’s apartment), simply does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.)
Slide
Who is Sharikov’s ideological mentor? Which impact is worse: physical or ideological? (Any violence cannot be justified)
What future did Bulgakov predict for Shvonder through the mouth of Professor Preobrazhensky? Did this prediction come true?
slide
Compare the educational theories of Professor 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 the reasons for 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 interference 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 with himself. But in life, such experiments irreversible. And Bulgakov was able to warn about this at the very beginning of the 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, which the author views negatively. For him, this is a violation of the natural course of events, which will be disastrous for everyone.
In contrast to the happy ending of Mikhail Bulgakov’s brilliant book, in real story everything turned out differently. After the revolution of 1917, numerous Sharikovs led by Shvonders came to power in the USSR. Proud of their proletarian origin, infinitely far from knowing the laws of history and economics, having replaced genuine culture and education with immoderate “vocal outbursts,” these marginalized people 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” at the height 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 labor, the harsh 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 money printing machines... 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 Versailles halls.
Who will see these bright days?
Oh no! Our children, perhaps, and perhaps our grandchildren, because the scope of history is wide, and it “reads” decades just as easily as individual years.
And we, representatives of the unlucky 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 ending of the story?
In preparation for the lesson the following materials were used:
http://900igr.net/kartinki/literatura/Sobache-serdtse/011-M-A.-Bulgakov-1891-1940.html
http://www.bulgakov.ru/dogheart/dh6/
Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society. Using the example of the failure of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 20s 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 experiment, 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 succinct description: “Profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. Liver dilated 1 (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” So what? The creature that emerged as a result of a scientific experiment has the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharika is combined with the qualities of the alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And it is not surprising that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois.”
The scientific result was unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most disastrous consequences. The type who appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of an operation, “short in stature and unattractive in appearance,” upended the well-functioning life of this house. He behaves defiantly rudely, arrogantly and insolently.
The newly minted Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov puts on patent leather shoes and a tie of a poisonous color, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of the house committee Shvonder, he registers in Preobrazhensky’s apartment, demands the “sixteen arshins” of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he is reading a book recommended by Shvonder - the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky. And he even makes critical remarks about the correspondence...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are pathetic attempts that in no way contribute to Sharikov’s mental and spiritual development. But from the point of view of Shvonder and others like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society that they create. Sharikov was even hired at government agency. For him, to become a boss, albeit a small one, means to transform outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a state car, and controls the fate of a girl secretary. His arrogance becomes limitless. All day long, obscene language and balalaika tinkling can be heard in the professor's house; Sharikov comes home drunk, pesters women, breaks and destroys everything around him. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the entire house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental are unsuccessfully trying to instill in him the rules of good manners, develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events Sharikov only likes the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave culturally at the table, Sharikov ironically notes that this is how people tormented themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going 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 catastrophic results. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into rtca. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.
In his story “Heart of a Dog,” Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that took place in Russia is not the result of natural socio-economic and spiritual development society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is exactly 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 using revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about educating a new, free person using the same methods. Main idea The writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people.
M. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog”
In the foreground "Heart of a Dog"- an experiment by the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky with all the tragicomic results that were unexpected for the professor himself and his assistant Bormental. Having transplanted human seminal glands and the pituitary gland of the brain into a dog for purely scientific purposes, Preobrazhensky, to his amazement, receives from the dog... a human. Homeless Ball, always hungry, offended by everyone and everything, in a matter of days, before the eyes of the professor and his assistant, he turns into homosapiens. And on his own initiative he receives a human name: Sharikov Polygraph Polygraphovich. His habits, however, remain that of a dog. And the professor, willy-nilly, has to take on his upbringing.
Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky not only an outstanding specialist in his field. He is a man of high culture and independent mind. And she perceives very critically everything that has been happening around since March 1917
year. The views of Philip Philipovich have much in common with the views of Bulgakov. He is also skeptical of the revolutionary process and is also strongly opposed to all violence. Caress is the only way that is possible and necessary in dealing with living beings - rational and unreasonable. “Nothing can be done with terrorism...”
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 one of high culture and morality, out of a dog. “With affection, exclusively affection.” And of course, by your own example.
The result is known. Attempts to instill Sharikov elementary cultural skills meet with persistent resistance on his part. And every day Sharikov becomes more impudent, more aggressive and more dangerous.
If the "source material" for sculpting Poligrafovich's polygraph If there was only Sharik, perhaps the professor’s experiment would have been a success. Having settled down in Philip Philipovich's apartment, Sharik, at first, like a recent street child, still commits some hooligan acts. But in the end he turns into a completely well-bred house dog.
But by chance, human organs went to a citizen Sharikov from a criminal. Moreover, a new, Soviet formation, as emphasized in his official characterization, or, more precisely, in Bulgakov’s very poisonous parody of the characterization:
"Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Non-partisan, sympathetic. Tried 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - conditional hard labor for 15 years.”
A “sympathizer” sentenced to hard labor “conditionally” - it is reality itself that intrudes into Preobrazhensky’s experiment.
Is this character really lonely? There is also the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, in the story. In this case, this “personnel” Bulgakov character has a special character. He even writes articles for the newspaper and reads Engels. And 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 is Professor Preobrazhensky, he has no business occupying seven rooms. He can have dinner in the bedroom, perform operations in the examination room, where he cuts up rabbits. And in general it’s time to equalize it with Sharikov, a man of a completely proletarian appearance.
The professor himself manages to fight off Shvonder this way or that way. But fight off Poligraf Poligrafych he turns out to be unable to. Shvonder already taken over Sharikov patronage and educates, paralyzing all professorial educational efforts, in his own way.
Two weeks after the dog's 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 Shvonder, who knows what he is talking about, is “the most important thing in the world.” In another week or two Sharikov neither more nor less - a co-worker. And not an ordinary person - the head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is the same as it was - dog-criminal... Just look at his message about his work “in his specialty”: “Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled.”
But what kind of satire is this if, just a few years later, thousands of real ball-carriers were “choking and strangling” in the same way not cats, but people, real workers, who had not been guilty of anything before the revolution?!
Preobrazhensky and Bormental, making sure that they were satisfied " sweetest dog turn into such scum that it makes your hair stand on end,” they eventually corrected their mistake.
But those experiments that have been taking place in reality for a long time have not been corrected. In the very first lines of the story a certain Central People's Council Farms. Under the canopy Central Council a normal food canteen is discovered, where employees are fed cabbage soup made from stinking corned beef, where the cook in a dirty cap is a “thief with a copper face.” And the caretaker is also a thief...
But Sharikov. Not artificial, professorial - natural...: “I am now the chairman and, no matter how much I steal, it’s all about the female body, about cancerous cervixes, about Abrau-Durso. Because I was hungry enough when I was young, that’s enough for me, but there is no afterlife.”
Why not a cross between a hungry dog and a criminal? And this is no longer a special case. Something much more serious. Isn't it the system? The man got hungry and humiliated himself to his heart's content. And suddenly, on you! - position, power over people... Is it easy to resist temptations, of which there are now plenty?..
Boborykin, V.G. In the foreground of “Heart of a Dog”/V.G. Boborykin//Mikhail Bulgakov.-1991.-P.61-66
Description of the presentation Experience and mistakes in the novel by M. A. Bulgakov on slides
Within the framework of the direction, discussions are possible about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, a people, humanity as a whole, about the cost of mistakes on the path to understanding the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes you think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes, without which it is impossible to move forward. life path, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes. Direction characteristics
Methodological recommendations: “Experience and errors” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is less implied, because without errors there is and cannot be experience. Literary hero By making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, he changes, improves, and takes the path of spiritual and moral development. By assessing the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one’s own mistakes, the price of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that a wrong decision or an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also have the most fatal impact on the destinies of others. In literature we also encounter tragic mistakes that affect the destinies of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic area.
1. Wisdom is the daughter of experience. (Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, scientist) 2. Experience is a useful gift that is never used. (J. Renard) 3. Do you agree with the popular proverb “Experience is the word people use to call their mistakes”? 4. Do we really need our own experience? 5. Why do you need to analyze your mistakes? What can you learn from the mistakes of the heroes of the novel “The Master and Margarita”? 6. Is it possible to avoid mistakes by relying on the experience of others? 7. Is it boring to live without making mistakes? 8. What events and impressions in life help a person grow up and gain experience? 9. Is it possible to avoid mistakes when searching for a path in life? 10. A mistake is the next step towards experience 11. What mistakes cannot be corrected? Theme options
What we cannot avoid in this life are mistakes and misconceptions that will haunt us throughout our lives. This is a key point in the psychological attitude of every person - you will always make mistakes, you will always be mistaken and mistaken. And therefore, dear friends, you should treat this normally, not make a disaster out of it, as we were taught, but learn a very valuable and useful lesson from each such situation. Why will you always make mistakes and be misled, because no matter who you are, you don’t know everything about this world, and you will never know everything, this is the law of life, and your whole life is a process of learning. But you can significantly reduce the number of mistakes you make, you can be less mistaken, at least not make mistakes and not be mistaken in obvious situations, and for this you must learn. You can learn in this life from your own or from others’ mistakes. The first option is much more effective, the second is more promising. Human psychology Website of Maxim Vlasov
But still, the main thing that I want to draw your attention to is something else, the main thing comes down to your attitude towards all this. Many of us like to live according to concepts once accepted, holding on to them as a lifeline, and no matter what happens, not changing our minds for anything. This is the main mistake in the mental attitude, as a result of which a person stops growing. And this also has a negative impact on the idea of oneself, of one’s mistakes, delusions and one’s abilities... We all make mistakes and are mistaken, we can all see the same situation differently, based on a number of our own ideas about reality. And this is actually normal, there is nothing scary about it, as it is usually presented. You know that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, which he theorized. A light beam can reach a speed three times higher than the speed that he considered to be the maximum, that is, 300 thousand km/sec.
Goethe said: “Error is to truth as a dream is to awakening.” Waking up from a mistake, a man with new strength turns to the truth. L.N. Tolstoy believed that mistakes give reason. However... The mind makes mistakes: what is happening is either mutual exchange or mutual deception. The greatest mistake people make in life is when they don't try to live by doing what they enjoy best. (Malcolm Forbes) In life, everyone must make their own mistakes. (Agatha Christie)Aphorisms
The only real mistake is not correcting your past mistakes. (Confucius) If it were not for the mistakes of youth, then what would we remember in old age? If you take the wrong road, you can return; If you make a mistake with a word, nothing can be done. (Chinese last) He who does nothing never makes mistakes. (Theodore Roosevelt) Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. (O. Wilde) Making a mistake and realizing it - this is wisdom. Realizing a mistake and not hiding it is honesty. (Ji Yun)
Bitter experience. Irreparable mistakes. The price of mistakes. Thesis Sometimes a person commits actions that lead to tragic consequences. And, although he eventually realizes that he made a mistake, nothing can be corrected. Often the cost of a mistake is someone's life. Experience that prevents errors. Thesis Life – best teacher. Sometimes difficult situations arise when a person must accept right decision. Doing right choice, we gain invaluable experience – experience that will help us avoid mistakes in the future. Abstracts
Mistakes, without which it is impossible to move along the path of life. People learn from some mistakes. Thesis Is it possible to live life without making mistakes? I think not. A person walking along the path of life is not immune from a wrong step. And sometimes it is thanks to mistakes that he gains valuable life experience and learns a lot.
Van Bezdomny (aka Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev) is a character in the novel The Master and Margarita, a poet who in the epilogue becomes a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy. In the fate of the poet Ivan Bezdomny, who by the end of the novel turned into a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev, Bulgakov says that the new people created by Bolshevism will turn out to be unviable and, naturally, will die along with the Bolshevism that gave birth to them, that nature does not tolerate not only emptiness , but also pure destruction and negation and requires creation, creativity, and true, positive creativity is possible only with the affirmation of the beginning of the national and with a sense of the religious connection of man and nation with the Creator of the Universe.” Ivan Bezdomny
When meeting with Ivan, then still Bezdomny, Woland urges the poet to first believe in the devil, hoping that by doing so I.B. will be convinced of the truth of the story of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and then will believe in the existence of the Savior. The poet Bezdomny found his “small homeland”, becoming Professor Ponyrev (the surname comes from the Ponyri station in the Kursk region), as if joining the origins national culture. However, the new I.B. was struck by the know-it-all bacillus. This man, raised by the revolution to the surface of public life, at first - famous poet, after - a famous scientist. He expanded his knowledge, ceasing to be that virgin youth who tried to detain Woland at the Patriarch's Ponds. But I. B. believed in the reality of the devil, in the authenticity of the story of Pilate and Yeshua, while Satan and his retinue were in Moscow and while the poet himself communicated with the Master, whose behest I. B. fulfilled, refusing poetic creativity in the epilogue.
Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev is convinced that there is neither God nor the devil, and he himself in the past became a victim of a hypnotist. The professor's old faith revives only once a year, on the night of the spring full moon, when he sees in a dream the execution of Yeshua, perceived as a world catastrophe. He sees Yeshua and Pilate peacefully talking on a wide, flooded moonlight road, sees and recognizes the Master and Margarita. I.B. himself is not capable of true creativity, and the true creator - the Master - is forced to seek protection from Woland in his last refuge. This is how Bulgakov’s deep skepticism regarding the possibility of degeneration for the better of those who were brought into culture and social life With the October Revolution of 1917, the author of “The Master and Margarita” did not see in Soviet reality the kind of people whose appearance was predicted and on whom Prince N. S. Trubetskoy and other Eurasians hoped. Nurtured by the revolution, the nugget poets who emerged from the people, in the writer’s opinion, were too far from the feeling of “the religious connection of man and nation with the Creator of the Universe,” and the idea that they could become the creators of a new national culture turned out to be a utopia. Having “seen the light” and turned from Homeless to Ponyrev, Ivan feels such a connection only in a dream.
A series of guests who pass in front of Margarita on V. b. at the village , was not chosen randomly. The procession is opened by “Mr. Jacques and his wife,” “one of the most interesting men,” “a convinced counterfeiter, a state traitor, but a very good alchemist,” who “became famous for that. . . that he poisoned the royal mistress.” The last imaginary poisoners on V. b. at the village turn out to be Bulgakov's contemporaries. “The last two guests were coming up the stairs. “Yes, this is someone new,” said Koroviev, squinting through the glass, “oh yes, yes.” Once Azazello visited him and, over cognac, whispered advice to him on how to get rid of one person whose revelations he was extremely afraid of. And so he ordered his friend, who was dependent on him, to spray the walls of his office with poison. - What's his name? - asked Margarita. “Oh, really, I don’t know myself yet,” answered Koroviev, “I’ll have to ask Azazello.” - Who's with him? “But this is his most efficient subordinate.” Guests of Woland
During V. b. at the village Not only imaginary poisoners and murderers pass before Margarita, but also genuine villains of all times and peoples. It is interesting that if all the imaginary poisoners at the ball are men, then all the true poisoners are women. The first to speak is “Mrs. Tofana.” The next poisoner on V. b. at the village - a marquise who "poisoned her father, two brothers and two sisters over an inheritance." On V. b. at the village Margarita sees famous libertines and pimps of the past and present. Here is a Moscow dressmaker, who organized a meeting house in her workshop (Bulgakov included V. B. at the village prototype among the participants main character his play “Zoyka’s Apartment”), and Valeria Messalina, the third wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius I (10 -54), the successor of Guy Caesar Caligula (12 -41), also present at the ball.
What is on V. b. at the village A string of murderers, poisoners, executioners, libertines and procurers passes in front of Margarita, not at all by chance. Bulgakov's heroine is tormented by betrayal of her husband and, albeit subconsciously, puts her offense on a par with the greatest crimes of the past and present. The abundance of poisoners and poisoners, real and imaginary, is a reflection in Margarita’s brain of the thought of possible suicide together with the Master using poison. At the same time, their subsequent poisoning, carried out by Azazello, can be considered imaginary and not real, since almost all male poisoners in V. b. at the village - imaginary poisoners. Another explanation for this episode is the suicide of the Master and Margarita. Woland, introducing the heroine to famous villains and libertines, intensifies the torment of her conscience. But Bulgakov seems to leave an alternative possibility: V. b. at the village and all the events associated with him occur only in the sick imagination of Margarita, who is tormented by the lack of news about the Master and guilt before her husband and subconsciously thinking about suicide. A special role in V. b. at the village Frida plays, showing Margarita the version of the fate of the one who crosses the line defined by Dostoevsky in the form of the tears of an innocent child. Frida, as it were, repeats the fate of Margarita in Goethe’s “Faust” and becomes a mirror image of Margarita.
This is a collective image that Bulgakov paints. He satirically conveys to us portraits of his contemporaries. It becomes funny and bitter from the images drawn by the author. At the very beginning of the novel we see Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, chairman of MASSOLIT (the union of writers). In fact, this person has nothing to do with real creativity. B. is completely faked by time. Under his leadership, the entire MASSOLIT becomes the same. It includes people who know how to adapt to their superiors and write not what they want, but what they need. There is no place for a true creator, so critics begin persecuting the Master. Moscow of the 20s was also a Variety Show, run by the lover of carnal entertainment Styopa Likhodeev. He is punished by Woland, just like his subordinates Rimsky and Varenukha, liars and sycophants. The chairman of the house management, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, was also punished for bribery. In general, Moscow of the 1920s was distinguished by many unpleasant qualities. This is a thirst for money, a desire for easy money, satisfaction of one’s carnal needs at the expense of spiritual ones, lies, servility to superiors. It was not in vain that Woland and his retinue came to this city at this time. They punish the hopeless severely, and give those who are not yet completely morally lost a chance to improve. Moscow 20s
As we remember, at the beginning of the novel, writers Berlioz and Bezdomny convince their friend that there was no Jesus and that in general all gods are fictitious. Is it necessary to prove that this was “atheism out of fear” (especially from the editor Berlioz)? And so, at the very moment when Ivan Bezdomny “one hundred percent” agreed with Berlioz, Woland appears and asks: if there is no God, then who controls human life? Ivan Bezdomny “angrily” (because he was subconsciously unsure of his words) replied: “The man himself controls.” So: no one in the “Moscow” chapters “manages” anything. Moreover, by myself. Not a single person, starting with Berlioz and Bezdomny. All of them are victims of fear, lies, cowardice, stupidity, ignorance, money-grubbing, lust, self-interest, greed, hatred, loneliness, melancholy. . . And because of all this they are ready to throw themselves into the arms of even the devil himself (which is what they do at every step...). Should Mikhail Bulgakov be given over to the evil spirits? (I. Akimov)
Likhodeev Stepan Bogdanovich is the director of the Variety Show, in which Woland, calling himself a professor of magic, plans a “performance”. Likhodeev is known as a drunkard, a slacker and a lover of women. Bosoy Nikanor Ivanovich is a man who held the position of chairman of a housing association on Sadovaya Street. A greedy thief who the day before embezzled some of the money from the partnership's cash register. Koroviev invites him to conclude an agreement to rent out a “bad” apartment to the guest performer Woland and gives a bribe. After this, the received bills turn out to be foreign currency. Following a call from Koroviev, the bribe-taker is taken to the NKVD, from where he ends up in a mental hospital. Aloysius Mogarych is an acquaintance of the Master who wrote a false denunciation against him in order to appropriate his apartment. Woland's retinue kicked him out of the apartment, and after the trial of Satan, he left Moscow, ending up at Vyatka. Later he returned to the capital and took the position of financial director of Variety. Annushka is a speculator. It was she who broke the container with purchased sunflower oil while crossing the tram rails, which was the cause of Berlioz’s death.
