Today we will consider the criminal case against Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky from Mikhail Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog". All quotes are taken from the literary source.

Why does a well-known doctor, "global luminary", professor operate at home, and not in a clinic? Probably for the same reason his clients pay big bucks to keep their operation from being known to anyone. In essence, this is an underground clinic for business clients, criminals and forbidden experiments. All transactions are paid for in black cash.

His rates are 10 rubles per visit, while the typist's salary at that time was 45 rubles a month. That is, ordinary patients with serious ailments could not make an appointment with the leading doctor.

Covering up a crime

At the same time, Preobrazhensky himself is involved in concealing the crimes of his clients. In particular, he makes an underground abortion in his apartment to a seduced 14-year-old girl, fulfilling the order of a pedophile and not reporting his crime to law enforcement agencies.

- I'm too famous in Moscow, professor. What should I do?

“Gentlemen,” shouted Philipp Philippovich indignantly, “it can’t be like that. You need to restrain yourself. How old is she?

- Fourteen, professor... You understand, publicity will ruin me. One of these days I have to get a business trip abroad.

- Why, I'm not a lawyer, my dear ... Well, wait two years and marry her.

- I'm married, professor.

- Oh, gentlemen, gentlemen!

corpse theft

To carry out forbidden experiments with human organs, he organizes the theft of a corpse from the morgue.

Animal abuse. Violation of the rights of the individual

Preobrazhensky puts an experiment on a dog in almost complete certainty that the dog will die. The matter is aggravated by the fact that by the time the experiment began, Sharik was not a laboratory animal or even a yard dog, but Preobrazhensky's pet.

Thus, the experiment was carried out on an animal unsuitable for this purpose in unsuitable conditions (not a laboratory or a hospital), in addition, the operation was not legally formalized.

Prosecutor: “Preobrazhensky lives by fixing gigolos and whores”

Human history and, especially, literature knows cases when a person's abilities and talents came into glaring contradiction with his moral qualities. One of the clearest examples of this kind is Professor Preobrazhensky.

Preobrazhensky lives by repairing gigolos and whores, inserting monkey ovaries into elderly revelers. Excuse my frankness, but you can’t throw out a word from a song. It does not shun clandestine abortions for juvenile victims of debauchery, but more on that below.

In his apartment, Preobrazhensky is engaged in illegal private medical practice, which, in case of harm to human health, falls under Art. 235 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Illegal private medical practice".

These types of activities are recognized as illegal if they are carried out by persons who do not have a license for the specified type of activity. It is quite obvious that, in principle, a license cannot be issued to perform the most complex operations, including on the brain at home.

In his illegal medical activities, the professor actively goes beyond the bounds of not only morality, but also the criminal code - for example, he performs an underground abortion on a 14-year-old (!) Girl, who is brought to him by an adult married libertine, who, according to him, occupies a certain position in society. (Article 123 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Illegal abortion")

As already mentioned, in the difficult post-war period, Preobrazhensky maintains a high standard of living, living in an eight-room apartment. Quiet living is the result of a bribe to a high-ranking official, which Preobrazhensky does not even hide, demanding intercession and patronage from his "roof" when representatives of local governments legally come to him to check the conditions of his residence.

By the way, it is no secret that the true outstanding scientists, as a rule, were very modest in everyday life.

Since, it seems, Preobrazhensky treats all God's creatures with the same contempt, then his experiments are completely inhuman - for example, he remakes a dog into a person using the corpse of a deceased alcoholic - well, so as not to ask for the consent of relatives. The body is obtained illegally. Article 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Desecration of the bodies of the dead” (fine) and Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Cruelty with animals” (imprisonment for up to 2 years), in the opinion of the prosecution, fit perfectly here.

But as a result of experiments, a person is obtained. The man is real, alive and with all rights. Naturally, Preobrazhensky continues to treat him like a dog, and even worse, because a person begins to feel like a person and wants to arrange elementary things - get documents, get a job, register for housing, get married, etc. In general, from a legal point of view, he behaves quite adequately. At the same time, he reminds Preobrazhensky, who has played the Lord God, that "he did not give consent to the operation - as well as my relatives."

All this makes Preobrazhensky furious - some kind of cattle and the right to swing?! Therefore, Preobrazhensky, with another member of an organized group, an assistant citizen Bormental, remakes him back into a dog.

Outcome

According to article 123 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Illegal abortion”, I ask you to impose a fine of 40,000 rubles (half of the maximum sanction).

Under Article 244, part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Desecration of the bodies of the dead” as part of an organized group - to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 1 year.

Under Article 245, part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Cruelty with animals” as part of an organized group - to impose a fine of 60,000 rubles (half of the maximum sanction).

According to Article 111 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm”, which caused a mental disorder based on ideological hatred or hostility, as part of an organized group - to impose a sentence of 6 years in prison.

When sentencing, take into account the advanced age of the defendant, the absence of a criminal record, positive characteristics, however, take into account the exceptional audacity, cynicism and demonstrative nature of the commission of the crime, in connection with which to impose a general punishment in the form of real deprivation of liberty by partial addition of punishments in the form of 6 years 6 months in prison.

Defense: "All Preobrazhensky's accusations directly contradict the law"

Without exception, all the numerous accusations brought against my client are completely unfounded. They are not supported by evidence and directly contradict the requirements of the law, which establishes both the general grounds for criminal liability and specific elements of crimes. What follows is a brief substantiation of this assertion in relation to each accusation.

Allegations of "corruption and blackmail"

Preobrazhensky, is neither an official nor the head of any organization, and cannot be the subject of these crimes. He is not charged with actions that could form part of any of them, as well as giving a bribe (Article 291). The actions that Preobrazhensky is accused of as “corruption and blackmail” are a legitimate defense of his rights from the arbitrariness of officials.

Conspiracy charge

Concealment of especially grave crimes is a criminal offense (Article 316 of the Criminal Code). Sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old (part 1 of article 134 of the Criminal Code) is a crime of medium gravity, and then only if she has not reached puberty. There is no evidence that she has not reached puberty, on the contrary - the state of pregnancy indicates just the achievement of puberty.

There is no evidence that the abortion was performed by Preobrazhensky precisely for the purpose of hiding the fact of sexual intercourse with a minor, and not for any other purpose (for example, in order to avoid the negative consequences of pregnancy for her life and health).

Accusation of "stealing a corpse"

Pure invention. Firstly, the corpse cannot in any way be the subject of theft, and secondly, there are no signs of theft - the secret theft of someone else's property (Article 158 of the Criminal Code).

Animal cruelty allegations

Preobrazhensky picked up a homeless sick dog on the street, doomed to death, went out and fed him, the dog sincerely fell in love with him for this. This fact is recognized by the prosecution. After that, Preobrazhensky gave the dog a chance to become a man, at the same time making him a world celebrity. What kind of cruel treatment of an animal can we talk about here, even if this animal never became a man?! All the mandatory elements of this crime are missing (Article 245 of the Criminal Code): the death or injury of an animal, the motive (hooligan or mercenary) and the method (sadistic or in the presence of minors) of its commission.

Accusations of "murder or excess of self-defense"

Murder is the infliction of death on a person (Article 105 of the Criminal Code). The prosecution did not prove that Sharikov/Sharik was (became) a human being. "Speaking is not the same as being human." Parrots, for example, also talk. The transplantation of a human organ into an animal is not in itself proof of its transformation into a human. Consequently, there is no object of encroachment, and thus the very possibility of being charged with murder is excluded. In addition, whoever Sharikov / Sharik was, he was not deprived of life.

The case undeniably established: “Sharik still exists, and no one has decisively killed him. ... The nightmarish-looking dog with a crimson scar on his forehead rose again on his hind legs and, smiling, sat down in a chair.

As for Bormental's actions, they were aimed at protecting Sharikov armed with a revolver from an attack, at repelling his aggressive criminal actions: violent harassment against Zina, causing bodily harm to Bormental.

He was undoubtedly in a state of necessary defense. His actions corresponded to the nature and danger of the encroachment, the limits of necessary defense were not exceeded. The fact that the defender has the opportunity to call for help, contact law enforcement agencies does not exclude the state of necessary defense and does not detract from the right to his own active actions to repel the attack.

The subsequent (after repulsing the armed attack by Sharikov/Sharik) surgical actions of Preobrazhensky and Bormental were not “exceeding self-defense”, as the prosecution falsely claims, and, of course, not an attempted murder, but a continuation of a scientific experiment.

There is no evidence that Preobrazhensky's claim that Sharik/Sharikov never became human is false. It has not been refuted by anything, and all doubts must be interpreted exclusively in favor of the accused (Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Outcome

Unproven guilt means proven innocence. An accusation, and even more so a guilty verdict, cannot be based on assumptions and unclear formulations. That's what justice is about. Only one conclusion is possible from all that has been said: my client is subject to full acquittal on all charges brought against him and full rehabilitation.

Sentence to Professor Philip Preobrazhensky

The verdict is read out by Doctor of Law, Professor of the Moscow State Law University Dmitry Nechevin.

Having considered the criminal case on charges of Preobrazhensky, having heard the side of the prosecution and the defense, as well as the evidence presented in the case under consideration, the court makes the following decision.

It is better for an animal to remain an animal. Professor Preobrazhensky, a doctor who gives youth to patients in the story "Heart of a Dog", came to this conclusion. Philip Philipovich created Sharikov as a kind of human being, but the experiment failed - the ideal member of society did not come out of the dog.

Story

The work pretty much spoiled the life of the Russian prose writer. At the beginning of 1925, Mikhail Bulgakov began to create a new story under the working title Dog's Happiness. A monstrous story, which was expected to be published in the Nedra magazine.

Three months later, the author put an end to the next literary work and presented it to his colleagues in the pen at the Nikitsky Subbotniks meeting. The Main Political Directorate immediately received a denunciation of Mikhail Afanasyevich for a “hostile thing, breathing contempt for the Soviet system”.

It came to, and he finally hacked the work. Moreover, they came to the writer with a search, confiscating two copies of the manuscripts of The Heart of a Dog. In the 1960s, a typewritten creation leaked into samizdat, and from there, carelessly copied, flew to the West. Legally, the story reached the Soviet reader only in 1987 through the Znamya magazine, but it was the same poor-quality copy. Only at the height of perestroika was the original published.

About the prototypes of the main character of the story of Professor Preobrazhensky are still arguing. Whether there was such a person remains a mystery, but the prototypes are exactly M.A. Bulgakov used in his work. Researchers see similarities with the life of the hero in the life of the gynecologist Nikolai Pokrovsky, the uncle of the prose writer. The decor of the book doctor's dwelling is as copied from his apartment.

Perhaps the writer also relied on the image of an academician: an influential person of his time despised the Bolsheviks, survived a series of searches, but survived thanks to Lenin's patronage.

The biography of Preobrazhensky was also based on elements of the activities of Sergei Voronov, an experimental surgeon who tried to transplant primate ovaries into women. And the famous gynecologist Vladimir Snegirev liked to sing when he was thinking about important matters, just like the professor from Heart of a Dog.

And, finally, the list of prototypes is closed by the former personal doctor of the family, Dmitry Nikitin, exiled to Arkhangelsk, and the physician Vasily Preobrazhensky, whose interests lay in the field of genetics and experimental physiology. In particular, he tried his hand at rejuvenation.

Whether one of these personalities was actually the main one for creating the image of Philipp Philippovich is no longer important now. Bulgakov managed to mix the best minds of the era and show the reading public a symbol of humanity and high morality. True, the educator did not work out of Preobrazhensky - no matter how he tried, he did not succeed in blinding a full-fledged person from Sharikov.

main plot

The plot of the story takes place in Moscow at the end of 1927. Professor Preobrazhensky, together with his assistant Dr. Bormental, in continuation of successful experiments on rejuvenation, decide to try their hand at transplanting human testicles and a gland responsible for growth and development to an animal. The material was taken from the deceased alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin, and the street dog Sharik acted as the experimental subject.

The dog began to turn into a man, having absorbed the worst qualities of his donor - a passion for alcohol, rudeness and rudeness. The news of the successful experience spread around the medical community, and the fruit of the amazing experiments became the star of medical lectures. Yesterday's dog, having fallen under the care of the chairman of the house committee, an activist of the communist party Shvonder, received documents in the name of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov and completely strayed from the hands of his creator.

Shvonder instilled in the consciousness of the half-man, half-dog the conviction that he was a representative of the proletariat, suffering from the oppression of the bourgeoisie, that is, the doctor and his assistant Bormenthal. Sharikov allows himself to be rude towards them, gets drunk to the point of unconsciousness, molests servants and steals money. The last straw was the denunciation of Preobrazhensky, which miraculously did not reach the authorities. During the scandal, when the professor was driving his scientific offspring out of the apartment, Sharikov threatened him with a revolver. The patience of the doctors ran out, and the experimenters performed an operation with the opposite effect - Polygraph Poligrafovich again took on the appearance of a dog.

The image of a professor

An exact description of the hero is given by Sharikov himself with a capacious phrase:

"There is no smell of the proletariat here."

Professor Preobrazhensky is a representative of the intelligentsia, a symbol of the outgoing Russian culture. This is evidenced by the appearance and lifestyle of the doctor. Philip Philipovich is dressed in a dark suit, wears a gold chain and a fox fur coat. In the spacious seven-room apartment, despite the changed times, there is still a servant, to whom the doctor treats with respect. The professor has lunch in an aristocratic manner - in the dining room, where the table is set with expensive dishes, and the assortment of dishes includes slightly salted salmon, caviar, cheese and even eels.

The author created a charming personality. Preobrazhensky is very emotional, intelligent and has excellent logic, in disputes he behaves diplomatically and with restraint, and readers quickly turned aphorisms, which are rich in his speech, into catch phrases. Trying to characterize the characters of "The Heart of a Dog" by phrases, people who are keen on socionics attribute the professor to two sociotypes - an extrovert and a rational.

Preobrazhensky sincerely does not like the proletariat, condemns the new authorities for their rudeness and violent methods, predicting the imminent decline of the country's economy. The changes reflected in the little things infuriate the professor: the guests of the house now do not take off their shoes in front of the stairs, not a month passes without turning off the electricity, and carpets and flowers have disappeared in the front door. Philipp Philippovich believes that the proletariat is worthy only of cleaning sheds, and not of leading the state.

In the famous monologue about devastation, the professor shares his opinion that the horror that is happening around is the result of a mess in a person’s head:

“What is this ruin of yours? (...) Yes, it does not exist at all. What do you mean by this word? This is what: if I, instead of operating every evening, start singing in my apartment in a choir, I will be in ruins. (…) Consequently, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.”

The luminary of science pursues the goal of making the world around us better, but not through violence.

“You can only act by suggestion,” he says.

Preobrazhensky hopes to transform nature by transplanting human organs into animals in order to eliminate the imperfection of human nature. The fiasco in this direction makes the professor understand the immorality of scientific experiments on humans, and attempts to change the order of things are fraught with unpredictable consequences. As a result, the hero comes to the conclusion that everything in nature is logical and natural - geniuses decorating the world still stand out from the "mass of all filth".

Quotes

“- And, God save you, do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner.
- Hm... Why, there are no others.
“Don’t read any.”

“You know, a person without documents is strictly forbidden to exist.”

“Why was the carpet removed from the front stairs? M? What, Karl Marx forbids keeping carpets on the stairs?

"And you, in the presence of two people with a university education, allow yourself to give advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity."

“Never commit a crime, no matter who it is directed against. Live to old age with clean hands."

“Only the landowners who were not cut by the Bolsheviks eat cold appetizers and soup. A more or less self-respecting person operates with hot appetizers.

“I’m closing my apartment and leaving for Sochi! I can give the keys to Shvonder, let him operate. But only one condition - whatever, whatever, whenever, but that it be such a piece of paper, in the presence of which neither Shvonder nor anyone else could even come to the door of my apartment! Final paper! Actual! Real! Armor!"

Quotes from the "Heart of a Dog" are so witty that they were not ignored by the authors of the memes. The Internet is full of photos of Professor Preobrazhensky from a 1988 Soviet film with altered phrases. Let's take a look at the funniest ones:

"Humanity will be saved by punitive psychiatry."

“Did you read it on the Internet, sir? Yes, you, my friend, have problems with your head.

"I'm not trolling, I'm just being defensive."

• The first film based on Bulgakov's story was directed by Alberto Lattuada. The film was co-produced by Germany and Italy and was released in 1976. In the homeland of "Heart of a Dog", the film adaptation was delayed due to the ban on the work.

• For, who brilliantly played the role of Preobrazhensky in the Russian film, work in the "Heart of a Dog" was a salvation: the Moscow Art Theater actor was retired in the late 80s, and the director gave him a chance not to become depressed.
• Actors similar to dogs were selected for the role of Sharikov. Casting organizers saw similar features in and. However, the director rejected these candidates. In the last stack of photos, the attention of the master of cinematography was attracted by an unknown employee of the Alma-Ata theater. At the tests, the man won the heart of the creator of the picture when he raised a glass of vodka with the words: “I wish that everything!”

The image of Professor Preobrazhensky (based on the novel by M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog")

The story "Heart of a Dog" is one of the top works of M. A. Bulgakov. It combines specific signs of the reality of the 20s. and fantasy. The writer shows a grotesque image of contemporary reality.

“The theme of the responsibility of science (and, more broadly, theory) to living life, Bulgakov turned in a new way in Heart of a Dog. This story, written in 1925, the author never saw printed. It talked about the unpredictable consequences of scientific discoveries, about the fact that an experiment that runs ahead and deals with inadequate human consciousness is dangerous, ”wrote literary critic V. Ya. Lakshin.

In the center of the "Heart of a Dog" is the story of the transformation of a stray dog ​​Sharik into a man Polygraph Poligrafovich. The author of the experiment is Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky.

"No, it doesn't smell like a proletarian here," is Sharik's own first impression of the professor. Indeed, Preobrazhensky is a real aristocrat, the son of a cathedral archpriest. He is a living embodiment of the outgoing Russian culture. The doctor wears a black suit of English cloth, a gold chain, and a fur coat of black and brown fox. Philip Philipovich has servants with whom he maintains respectful, good relations. He is no longer young. Lives in a luxurious and comfortable apartment. Despite the ongoing process of "densification of apartments", Philipp Philippovich lives in seven rooms. It has a dining room, although even Isadora Duncan does not have one.

Dinner at Preobrazhensky's is a real ritual. His table is rich in salmon, pickled eels. The author draws a piece of cheese with a tear, and caviar. Rich dishes: plates with birds of paradise, decanters, glasses with multi-colored vodkas - a marble table, a carved oak sideboard, a table and more only complement the general picture of the aristocracy of Preobrazhensky's life.

The appearance of the professor is surprisingly charming. His speech is full of aphorisms. He is smart, quite self-possessed in a dispute and sharp with words, erudite. Filipp Filippovich is well acquainted with the repertoire of Moscow theaters, constantly sings lines from his favorite opera, and is not averse to spending his leisure time culturally.

Preobrazhensky behaves confidently and boldly in skirmishes with the company headed by Shvonder. “This is a guy,” Sharik admires him, “all in me.”

Preobrazhensky frankly admits his dislike for the proletariat. Rudeness, swagger, excessive self-confidence and impudence of the proletarians are alien and hateful to him. He speaks with irony about Soviet newspapers, predicts the imminent economic ruin, and indignantly remarks on the changes that have come after March 1917. Galoshes are now disappearing in his house, some do not consider it necessary to take off their shoes in front of the marble staircase, the carpet has been removed from the front staircase, the flowers have disappeared from the landings, the electricity goes out once a month. The direct appointment of the proletariat, according to Preobrazhensky, is not the administration of the country, but the cleaning of sheds.

Philip Philipovich is a typical character. He lives on Prechistenka, where hereditary Moscow intelligentsia have long settled. The writer himself knew and loved this Moscow region very well. Here he also wrote "Heart of a Dog". People close to Bulgakov in spirit, culture, and upbringing lived on Prechistenka.

Philip Philipovich - the luminary of medicine. He is engaged in rare and profitable operations to rejuvenate aging ladies and gentlemen who do not want to come to terms with the laws of nature. Merciless is the author's irony and sarcasm towards Preobrazhensky's patients. One of them he calls "fruit". The “fruit” has green hair that shimmers in a rusty tobacco color at the back of his head, an infantile complexion without wrinkles, an unbending left leg and a jumping right. Another patient has terrible black bags under her eyes, and her cheeks are a doll-like ruddy color. She is fifty-one years old, but she pretends to be forty-five years old. Another visitor to the professor has a relationship with a very young person and is very afraid of publicity. “An obscene apartment,” Sharik thinks, having seen enough of Preobrazhensky's activities.

Nevertheless, doctors like the professor are rare. The doctor is incredibly respected by his assistant Bormental. "He has no equal in Europe ... by golly!" he exclaims with admiration.

Repeatedly, Preobrazhensky speaks of the inadmissibility of violence against a living being. “You can only act by suggestion,” he says, but he plans to improve nature itself by transplanting a part of human organs into a dog. The surgeon needed the dog as material for experiments to correct imperfect human nature.

Only some time after the operation, the professor realizes all the immorality of scientific violence against nature and man. “I tried it, but it didn’t work,” he remarks sadly about his experiment. In the course of the story, the portrait of the professor changes several times. At first, this is a wealthy gentleman shining with prosperity, then a hunched and as if gray-haired old man, and in the final - the former imperious and energetic Philip Filippovich. Preobrazhensky eventually makes an important conclusion for himself that “in evolutionary order” every year dozens of outstanding geniuses stubbornly stand out “from the mass of all filth”, “decorating the globe”.

The idea of ​​the author about the responsibility for any experiment is connected with the image of a brilliant professor. Any experience, according to the writer, must be well planned and thought out to the end and not contain violent methods of remaking reality, otherwise its consequences can lead to a real disaster.

Bulgakov's attitude to Preobrazhensky is ambiguous. He respects and loves him as a true representative of the intelligentsia, but condemns him as the author of a very dubious and dangerous experiment.

The assessment of the representatives of the intelligentsia in Bulgakov's story is far from unambiguous. Professor Preobrazhensky is a famous scientist in Europe. He is looking 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 principles of morality and morality. Everyone, according to Philipp Philippovich, in this world should do their own thing: in the theater - to sing, in the hospital - to operate. Then there will be no destruction. And to achieve material well-being, life's blessings, position in society and respect can only be achieved through work and knowledge. It is not the origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. Beliefs, according to the professor, cannot be instilled into consciousness by force: "You can't do anything with terror."
The professor does not hide his dislike for the revolution and the new revolutionary order. He does not accept the new rules of life. Scientific research, his favorite work is most important for him, so he has to compromise with the new government: he treats its representatives, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. Open opposition to the authorities would mean deprivation of an apartment, the opportunity to work, and perhaps even life itself. The professor made his choice, many patients turn to him. Preobrazhensky is sure that those who work have the right to normal working and rest conditions. As a well-mannered and cultured person, the professor believes that a living being should only be treated with kindness. To his student and assistant Bormental, he gives a cautionary order: “Never commit a crime, no matter who it is directed against. Live to old age with clean hands."
Confidence in his rightness, high cultural level, talent and scale of personality allow him, in the conditions of a difficult turning point, not only to save his life, but also to emerge victorious from a clash with the house committee and Shvonder.
There are many contradictions in the professor's political views. Being engaged in science, he lives in isolation, is interested in theater, deliberately fences himself off from problems. Revolutionary upheavals irritate him and interfere with his work. Fighting with Shvonder, the professor did not yet fully understand what a terrible, destructive force in his person was allowed to power, how dangerous balls of all stripes are. The scientist naively believes that a policeman, assigned to each person, can immediately restore order in the country. But in the new government, the role of policemen is performed by shvonders and balls, ready to destroy both culture and objectionable people.
Bulgakov warns mankind against irresponsible experiments, leads to the realization of the danger of forcing the laws of evolution. This story is still relevant today. The writer names the main cause of all human troubles: confidence in the knowledge of absolute truth and in one's own infallibility.
Note that neither the professor nor Dr. Bormenthal thought of creating man. What happened as a result of their experience is a terrible monster, which cannot be re-educated. To the credit of the professor, he understood the horror of such “side effects” before Dr. Bormental. The doctor claimed that the laboratory creature had a "dog heart", that is, more canine qualities remained in it. The professor says that Sharikov has the “human heart” of Klim Chugunkin, with all the ensuing consequences. It is no coincidence that the name of Sharikov after the publication of the story turned into a household name.
Professor Preobrazhensky repented of his actions: “If someone<…>laid me out here and flogged me—I would, I swear, pay five chervonets!<…>Damn it… After all, I spent five years in prison picking out appendages from brains. So, as a friend, I’ll tell you, in secret, of course, I know you won’t shame me - the old donkey Preobrazhensky ran into this operation as a third-year student ... You know what work I did, it’s incomprehensible to the mind. And now the question is, why? To one day turn the sweetest dog into such scum that your hair stands on end!<…>Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of groping and in parallel with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil!
The terrible results of the experiment force the professor to conclude that experiments to “improve” human nature are inadmissible: “Please explain to me why it is necessary to artificially fabricate Spinoza, when any woman can give birth to him at any time! .. After all, Madame Lomonosov gave birth to this famous !"; "Humanity takes care of itself<…>and in the evolutionary order, every year, stubbornly, singling out all sorts of scum from the mass, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn the globe.
In the epilogue, the scientists, brought to nervous exhaustion, saving their lives from Sharikov, who attempted on them, perform a second operation, turning the monster they created into a dog again. Everything returns to normal. ends his poignant tale with the words:
“In the distance, flasks tinkled dully. The bitten one was cleaning up the cabinets in the examination room.
The gray-haired wizard sat and sang:

- To the banks of the sacred Nile ...

The dog has seen terrible things. An important person plunged his hands in slippery gloves into a vessel, pulled out brains - a stubborn man, persistent, he always achieved something, cut, examined, squinted and sang:

- To the banks of the sacred Nile ... "

The professor's research, like that of other scientists around the world, continues. The end of the story is left open.
The polyphonic sound of the story is given by the change of narrators: Sharik's internal monologue is replaced by the narrator's speech, and Bormental's diary is given as an insert. This allows you to give the story a multidimensional meaning, and readers to get acquainted with the position of several characters in order to form their own opinion about the events. It becomes clear that the position of the author-narrator is close to the position of Sharik, the doctor and the professor, but there is no complete coincidence in the assessment. Behind satire, humor and grotesque, Bulgakov hid important moral and philosophical problems. He wrote about the relationship between evolution and revolution, the moral choice of a person and especially a scientist, about the fate of the intelligentsia, about the new government. The writer believed that the world is contradictory, changing every second, a person still knows too little to allow himself to irresponsibly interfere with the laws of nature, all the more so to change them at his whim.
"Heart of a Dog" was the last satirical story in Bulgakov's work. It has been banned for sixty years. Later, the story was repeatedly reprinted and was skillfully filmed by the famous director A. Bortko. To this day, it arouses the interest of readers of various internal aspirations. The problems raised in the story are also relevant for the people of the 21st century. The writer bitterly writes about the imperfection of man, regrets that the society of happiness and harmony is still only a dream.

The new year 1925 began successfully for Bulgakov. The almanac "Nedra", in which his "Diaboliad" and "Fatal Eggs" were printed, ordered him a story. Two months later (March 7) at a meeting of writers "Nikitinsky subbotniks" he reads the first part of the new work, a little later - the second. They will talk about the story, the Moscow Art Theater will offer to stage a performance, put on a performance on its stage. Everything is going just fine, if not for the denunciation. The high party rank Lev Kamenev imposes a fatal resolution and forbids publication.

Bulgakov, Professor Preobrazhensky: a long way home

"Heart of a Dog" was first printed in 1968 abroad, almost simultaneously in two countries: Germany and England. She will return home only in 1987, will be published in the Znamya magazine, and before that she will be distributed throughout the country in typewritten texts of samizdat. In a year, viewers will see the two-episode television series of the same name (the premiere will take place on November 19) directed by Vladimir Bortko. The film starred wonderful actors: Evgeny Evstigneev, Boris Plotnikov, Nina Ruslanova, Roman Kartsev.

Since then, for the majority of people inhabiting the post-Soviet space, Professor Preobrazhensky ("Heart of a Dog"), book, film and image - have merged in Evgeny Evstigneev. It is impossible to imagine Philip Philipovich otherwise, there is not enough imagination. Two personalities: a literary hero and an actor - a single organic phenomenon, a fusion of literature and cinema.

First film adaptation: a different point of view from Italy

Italian cinema discovered Bulgakov in the 70s of the last century. The Italians made films based on the works of Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita", "Fatal Eggs". Director Alberto Lattuada, a classic of Italian neorealism, took up the adaptation of the story with enthusiasm. Filmed in Belgrade. The main role was played by the Swedish popular artist Max von Sydow. Bulgakov (Professor Preobrazhensky in the reading of the master of cinema - an intellectual involved in the coming to power of ball madmen, intoxicated with the ideas of communism and fascism, would probably not approve of such an interpretation of the image. The intelligentsia is not a victim of the system here - it is its ideologist, the creator of super-ideas that were picked up by the poorly educated "His hands are dirty, the director shows for a long time close-up the scientist's bloodied medical gloves. He is greedy, obsessed with luxury, eats delicacies in the presence of servants, thereby emphasizing the social gap between them. The film focuses on the episode of burning in the furnace of Engels' correspondence with Kautsky. Subsequently, the Nazis will do the same with objectionable books.In a word, in the Italian interpretation, the image of Professor Preobrazhensky is extremely unsympathetic.The other is closer and dearer to us.

"There is a need to know..."

Preobrazhensky (professor) is a man of 60 years old, he wears a pointed beard and fluffy mustache that makes him look like French knights. Glasses in an expensive frame shine on his face, a "golden palisade" in his mouth. At home, he wears an azure robe and red shoes. On the street - a fur coat on a fox, sparkling with a spark. Under outerwear - a black suit of English cloth, on the stomach - a gold chain. His voice spreads through the apartment like a command trumpet. He is imperious, full of majestic dignity, imposing, unhurried, thoughtful.

Immediately a detail enters, small and detailed, which turns Philipp Philippovich from a heavy, living statue of an academic scientist into an elderly man with well-established sweet, slightly funny habits. He sings endlessly, loves opera, smokes cigars, knows a lot about good alcohol and enjoys eating only wholesome food. This is a man wise with rich life experience, loves a sedate conversation and believes that "devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads." His precise, clear, ironic thoughts amaze with their objectivity and consistency. Professor Preobrazhensky, the quotes with which he practically speaks have long become winged.

Prototypes of Philip Philipovich

Philologists believe that there were several prototypes. Preobrazhensky (professor) - a certain collective image of the luminaries of that time. Topping the list is the writer's uncle, gynecologist Nikolai Pokrovsky. Firstly, the descriptions of the apartments are the same: the same luxurious and large, the same heavy, expensive furniture. Secondly, external similarity. The writer's first wife recalled that she immediately recognized this anger, flaring nostrils, irascibility and singing arias.

The Frenchman and physician Charles Brown-Séquard, having reached the age of 70, decided to rejuvenate and came up with a medicine from the testes of rabbits. In 1889, he gave a lecture to the Paris Scientific Society, declaring himself young and vigorous. The doctor's research became a sensation, but not for long. The rise in vitality was more of a psychological nature, since the doctor soon wilted and died.

The experiment was also continued by a French scientist, originally from Russia - Samuil Volkov, who grafted the tissues of monkey testicles into humans. A line of people lined up for him to experience the joy of a second youth, but one of the rich patients died, and Volkov was nicknamed a charlatan. Researchers of Bulgakov's work tend to classify Bekhterev, Pavlov and other famous doctors and researchers of that time as prototypes.

Let's remember not the film, but the text. Preobrazhensky, a professor, receives patients, and Sharik, a homeless dog, watches them. He is disgusted by the smell of perfume and cream underpants, decorated with hateful cat faces, a strange-looking man. Then a giggling woman, unwilling to admit how old she is, babbles about a young lover, a card cheat. A dog's "fresh eye" pulls these people out of their usual medical context. For the doctor they are just patients, for the animal they are something unpleasant and disgusting. The story raises the eternal theme of the scientist's moral responsibility for the world and his fate. Mankind has repeatedly witnessed how a scientific discovery turned against him, killed, maimed, brought suffering.

“What a reptile, and also a proletarian!”

The book begins with an amazing monologue of a homeless mongrel. The cook of the canteen of normal food for employees of the Central Council of the National Economy (what is the name) poured boiling water over his left side. The street is cold and deserted, the wind is blowing. He would have hidden in the alley, licked the wound, but the enemy janitor, "the most vile scum" of all the proletarians, will definitely kill him. The sweet smell of fried onions and porridge spreads along the street. It's the firefighters having dinner. The dog gratefully remembers the lordly cook of Counts Tolstoy Vlas. Now there are no more. The dog sees a typist running down the street. The wind ruffles the skirt, under which the washed linen. She is wearing fildepersovye stockings, donated by her lover, for them the libertine will demand sophisticated love. There is no unfortunate joy: they deducted from a meager salary, with light disorder, there is not enough for cinema, and for women it is the only consolation in life. The girl hides behind the door of the dining room, which smells of cabbage soup with rotten corned beef.

“The dog stood up on its hind legs and performed some kind of prayer in front of Philip Philipovich”

The dog is delighted with his savior to a violent canine exaltation. He is devoted and ready to endure even a collar. A world-famous scientist appears in the halo of his greatness. Residential comrades tremble before him, one call to an influential patron solves the problem of the impending "seal". He talks at length and wisely, like a man who knows life deeply. Professor Preobrazhensky will speak about devastation weightily and to the very point. We will remember. Professor Preobrazhensky, the quotes that we repeat are a whole world, he delights with insight.

"Learning to read is completely useless when the meat smells like that from a mile away"

Everything will end with the transformation of Sharik into Polygraph Polygraphovich. This is no longer cute Sharik, but Klim Chugunkin, an unrestrained drunkard who plays the balalaika in taverns. A brazen, dark force will turn the well-established life of the house upside down: reception will become impossible, the flood will bring water to the landing, Sharikov’s friends will steal galoshes and the owner’s personal cane from the hallway. The fruit of human hands is more terrible than Shvonder: the day will come and Sharikov will sweep him out of his way and destroy him. The danger is terrible because it grows from within, it is impossible to get away from it. The owner of the apartment is changing before our eyes. Bormental will notice how haggard he is, hunched over, becoming smaller, grumbling like an old man. Preobrazhensky, a professor and scientist, thought deeply, the dark thought of murder ripens in him, expands and oppresses. This is the price paid for the purity of a scientific idea. And he utters bitter famous words about the senselessness of the artificial fabrication of Spinoza, when any woman can easily give birth to them, as Madame Lomonosov gave birth to her famous in Kholmogory. The brilliant experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky is meaningless.