Rereading the story The Heart of a Dog. “Heart of a Dog” characteristics of the characters Characteristics of the main characters
“Brother flayers, why are you taking me?!”
(Why is Professor Preobrazhensky bad)
"...Didn't they hit you with a boot? They hit you with a brick in the ribs
did you receive? There is enough food. Experienced everything with
I accept my fate and if I cry now, then
only from physical pain and cold, because
that my spirit has not yet faded. The spirit of a dog is tenacious.
But my body is broken, beaten,
people have abused him enough."
(M. Bulgakov " dog's heart")
Reading M. Bulgakov’s brilliant work “Heart of a Dog” (and especially watching the equally talented film of the same name), one must realize (paradoxically) that not only Sharikov, but also Professor Preobrazhensky is a negative hero. Without a doubt, Bulgakov conceived of Preobrazhensky as a positive hero - the prototype, as they say, was Bulgakov’s uncle, the doctor N. M. Pokrovsky. But Bulgakov, like anyone great writer, did not lie in his works and showed the truth of life. At the same time, he seemed to oppose with his story those anomalies public life, which established themselves in the country after the “Great Revolution” of 1917. And when, at the end of the twentieth century, the anomalies of the “r-r-revolutionary” era were replaced by the anomalies of the current “great turn” (a turn, so to speak, in the other direction),the image of Preobrazhensky revealed its negative sides . The anomalies under Bulgakov were a disdainful attitude towards the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, a passion for the destruction of the old way of life, etc. These anomalies were, in turn, a mirror reflection of the anomalies of the previous period: for example, if before the revolution there was reverence for noble origin, then after it there appeared reverence for the proletarian - although both of them, in essence, are vulgar. Every major artist is a little ahead of his time. In this regard, it is worth recalling the somewhat hackneyed definition of “progressive”. And if in the middle of the 19th century it was progressive to depict the suffering of ordinary workers, then after 1917 this became a “common place”, the “prey” of the mass writer. In the same way, Bulgakov, defending the rights of the old intelligentsia against the encroachments of the unbridled crowd, was progressive, even brave, when he showed the proletariat in a somewhat grotesque form (at that time only a few dared to do this). But during perestroika, such sentiments again became a template and vulgarity - the same "prey" of a middle-level writer, and what was progressive was something else - to fight against the opportunistic denigration of the Soviet system, against the arrogant habits of the newly-minted "elite" andagainst excessive admiration for Western liberal values. In "The Heart of a Dog" there is only one positive hero - the dog Sharik. There are several more or less nice minor characters- such as Preobrazhensky’s servant or his high-ranking patient in the Soviet hierarchy. The negative traits of Sharikov and Shvonder are emphasized in every possible way by the author himself, so let’s focus on negative traits Preobrazhensky, which may not have been so noticeable in the era of Bulgakov, but are noticeable now. From what is said below it will be clear why among goodies Dr. Bormenthal is not mentioned. Firstly Preobrazhensky is rude and arrogant with the servants, with his assistant, with those around him (though he is quick-witted) - this rudeness runs through the pages of the entire book.<1>(See notes at the end of the article ) Secondly , selfish. He is not like those selfless doctors (who exist not only in books, but also in life) who work to help their neighbors, to alleviate people’s suffering. Preobrazhensky works for money, or for scientific fame and prestige.<2>In this, Preobrazhensky differs sharply from another Bulgakov character - the brilliant and eccentric Professor Persikov from the story “Fatal Eggs”. Third , Preobrazhensky sins with the same snobbish habits, which the now widely known “new Russians” call “cheap show-off.” Everything about him reveals a man who has recently “come into the public eye” (“Father is a cathedral archpriest”), who has not yet gotten used to his wealth. This includes “raking up” about his rooms (how many of them he needs), and about his lordly lifestyle (this looks cheesy against the backdrop of the poverty of the majority of the population). And about the fact that even red caviar is “Phi!!!” for him, he supposedly has better appetizers, and not those for “undercut landowners” (?!).<3> Fourth , he is cruel. Or rather, not so much cruel as insensitive to the suffering of animals. Suchinsensitivitynecessary for any experimental biologist (the same Persikov “tortures” frogs). But Preobrazhensky’s cruelty is deeper (when he puts Sharik on the operating table, he is almost sure that the dog will die...<4> Certainly , biologists are conducting And such experiments (the same academician Pavlov). But the whole point is that by that time Sharik had become HIS (Preobrazhensky’s) dog. Anyone who has had a dog that is YOURS, that loves you, that is your friend, who has looked into her eyes, will understand what I am talking about. It's one thing to kill a stranger's dog. Yes, this is unthinkable for a decent person not connected with biology, medicine, or astronautics, but scientists are often forced to do this in the name of higher interests. And Preobrazhensky had every opportunity to find such a dog. But only a very cruel and soulless person can kill HIS dog.<5> This cruelty of Preobrazhensky is continued in the fact that he kills (albeit a bad man, but a human being) Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. And this murder, in fact, proves that,fifthly , Preobrazhensky is immoral and does not take into account either human or God's laws. He, despite his apparent intelligence and the fact that he emphatically opposes himself to the proletarians (as the “rabble”) and the “new order,” is a typical child of the new “pseudo-revolutionary” era. He shares the position that for the sake of higher interests, for the sake of higher goals, both law and morality can be violated. Preobrazhensky emerged victorious in the confrontation with Sharikov not because he was morally superior or more humane than Sharikov, but because he was stronger - “by the right of the strong.” The professor has in his arsenal a scalpel, Bormental’s assistant, medical knowledge, and Sharikov’s dependence on him (in terms of living space and food). He simply “killed” Sharikov as a conscious proletarian of the hated bourgeois. MAYBE Preobrazhensky had some right to kill? Let's say, is it right that he is the “creator” of Sharikov (although Sharikov says that he did not ask to make a man out of him)?<6>This “right” was clearly expressed by Gogol with the famous formula: “I gave birth to you, and I will kill you.” If we recognize such a “right,” then we recognize the “right” of parents to kill their children, which is immoral. MAYBE Sharikov was such a bastard that his murder would have been morally justified? It’s impossible to condemn a person who, due to a number of certain circumstances, killed, say, the maniac Chikatilo? Yes, Sharikov is a bastard, but the totality of his atrocities does not amount to more than imprisonment in a correctional facility. Sharikov is rude, stupid, and tortures cats (although Preobrazhensky himself says that interest in cats will soon pass). Sharikov is an informer, Sharikov uses his official position to persuade his subordinate to cohabitate... He is an egoist, a "r-r-revolutionary", a liar, a drunkard, in the end - but for the evil that he managed to commit in his short life He didn’t “earn” more life than going to prison. MAYBE Preobrazhensky knew that Sharikov was potentially capable of doing something more, something more evil and terrible? But why then did Preobrazhensky, even before the murder, try (albeit not very persistently) to get rid of Sharikov? Tried to evict him from your apartment, remove him from YOUR life, but leave him in society? The professor committed murder not because Sharikov was so bad, but because Sharikov began to INTERFERE with the professor and threaten his PERSONAL well-being. Sharikov would have listened and left would be different e place - and there would be no murder. Thus,the murder has a purely criminal motive, and is not carried out for “higher” reasons (if such are even possible for murder).<7> MAYBE the professor was in a hopeless situation, maybe he just had no choice? No! There was a choice. There were every opportunity to control the situation without leading to murder. The professor did not even bother raising Sharikov. Sharikov, after all, is a NEW person, and in this regard he is similar to a child... Maybe he has not yet had time to “educate” - he shouldn’t kill a child because he misbehaved, or caused a loss. Preobrazhensky “educated” Sharikov rudely, instead of explaining to an inexperienced creature that he was wrong, to enter his world, he was simply rude and insulting. So, for example, while talking with his “pupil” about reading books, the professor suddenly starts yelling and orders the book to be burned, and in violation of all laws of ethics, he yells, addressing not Sharikov, but a third party (the servant). At the table, in conversations with Poligraf Poligrafovich, the professor constantly and annoyingly demonstrates his superiority over Sharikov, constantly expresses his contempt for this man, constantly boasts and shows off his “show-offs” like a petty dude.<8>It’s not just Sharikov, any self-respecting person would rebel and be negative towards the professor. A holy place is never empty, and instead of Preobrazhensky, Shvonder took up the upbringing of Sharikov - with all the ensuing consequences. Come on... MAYBE Preobrazhensky doesn’t understand anything about education (not everyone can be a Sukhomlinsky)? But, with his connections, the professor would have been able to evict Sharikov (evict - after all, not kill). I could if I wanted to. He managed to defend his rooms... He could, as a last resort, hand over Sharikov to the police (hand him over to the police - after all, not kill him), after all, there was a reason. It would be possible to come up with something else. But... But most likely, the professor was too lazy to “mess around”, call somewhere, bother. It’s much easier - he sniped with a scalpel (it’s a familiar thing...). Thus, Preobrazhensky, killing Sharikov, was not in a hopeless situation - he killed him, as one eliminates people who are in the way, “standing in the way,” killed the same way like ordinary bandits do. Of course, the motives for the murder were somewhat “deeper” than those of simple bandits, because the professor had another interest, say, scientific. In addition, the professor’s behavior fits into the guidelines of the future (for him) Western politically correct mass culture - why not kill? Sharikov is so unsympathetic. It should be added that the professor committed the murder only when he was confident that he knew medicine better than the police, and if something happened, he would be able to prove that there was no murder, just a natural process. reverse side- "atavism". That is, Preobrazhensky dealt with Sharikov, being confident in his own impunity. And if you listen to the echoes of the professor’s conversations with Bormenthal, then you can assume (though only assume) that at first it was not a murder by turning a person into a dog that was planned, but a “simple” murder,if I may say so -killing in a more traditional way. And another question: who was killed - Sharikov or Klim Chugunkin "in a new way"?<9> On the other hand, such a boor as Preobrazhensky is no better than Sharikov for those around him. Only author's love Bulgakov's love for the first and dislike for the second prevents us from immediately noticing this. Let's say, we can agree with the unspoken opinion of the author of "Heart of a Dog" that Preobrazhensky is quite rightly fighting with the house committee, defending one of his seven rooms. But, having already defeated the committee members in the fight for the room (using the notorious telephone right), Preobrazhensky defiantly refuses the OBVIOUSLY CONCILIATING gesture of the Komsomol girl: he does not want to pay penny donations. The psychology of this scene is clear: after Preobrazhensky’s call, the young people, in order to hide their awkwardness (at least in front of each other), want to leave, albeit defeated, but at least “saving their face.” This desire is quite understandable. The professor pointedly refuses them this. He tries to make his victory not only complete (it is already complete), but also HUMILIATING for his rivals, forgetting that in front of him are only young, and, perhaps as a result, mistaken people.<10> If the professor had not been a smug boor, he would not have had problems not only with Sharikov, but also with Shvonder. But if it were so, there would be no story and film “Heart of a Dog”... So I say - the story and the film are good, but Preobrazhensky is a negative hero. Negative, despite all the author’s love for his character. And if this was not very noticeable during Bulgakov’s life, now the negative traits of Preobrazhensky appeared in all relief. This article does not at all call for a revision of any positions. It also does not claim that the film “Heart of a Dog” in 1988 should have been shot differently (it is largely adequate to the book, almost verbatim). Not at all. I think that Bulgakov would have been pleased with that production if he had been able to watch it. In addition, no one is stopping this or that artist from filming his vision of the work. I just want to repeat once again: truly artistic things, truly artistic characters begin to live their own life. own life, sometimes against the will of the author. This is how they differ from the stereotyped heroes of mediocre hacks."Okay, you will have galoshes tomorrow, dear
Philip Philipovich, he thought, two pairs have already
buy one and buy another one. So that you don't lock up the dogs."
NOTES: 1 — Here and below are quotes from M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.” “We’re coming to you, professor,” said one of them, who had a head of thick curly hair rising a quarter of an arshin high on his head, “on this matter... “You, gentlemen, are in vain to walk without galoshes in this weather,” interrupted (hereinafter it is emphasized by me - S.A.) Philip Philipovich admonished him, - firstly, you will catch a cold, and, secondly, you left a mark on my carpets, and All my carpets are Persian. ... “First of all, we are not gentlemen,” the youngest of the four, peach-haired, finally said. - Firstly, - interrupted his Philip Philipovich, are you a man or a woman? The four fell silent again and opened their mouths. “I’m a woman,” admitted the peach-haired young man in a leather jacket and blushed deeply. Following him, for some reason, one of those who entered, a blond man in a fur hat, blushed deeply. “In that case, you can remain in your cap, but, dear sir, I ask you to take off your headdress,” impressive said Philip Philipovich... - Was it you who moved into Fyodor Pavlovich Sablin’s apartment? “Us,” Shvonder answered. - God, the Kalabukhov house has disappeared! - Philip Philipovich exclaimed in despair and clasped his hands. - What are you doing, professor? laugh ? - Why am I laughing?! “I’m in complete despair,” Philip Philipovich shouted, “what will happen to steam heating now?” - You you're kidding me , Professor Preobrazhensky? -What business did you come to me for? Tell me as soon as possible, I'm going to lunch now. - We, the management of the house, - with hatred Shvonder spoke...” 2 — “Oh, I don’t want to go to the clinic. Is it possible with you, professor? - You see, I perform operations at home only in extreme cases. It will cost very much - 50 chervonets. “I agree, professor!” 3 - “Yes, yes, this one shows everything. This rotten corned beef will not eat, and if it is served to him somewhere, he will raise such a scandal and write in the newspapers: they fed me, Philip Philipovich.” "-... Dr. Bormental, I beg you, leave the caviar alone. And if you want to listen to good advice: pour not English, but ordinary Russian vodka... Note, Ivan Arnoldovich, only landowners who were not killed by the Bolsheviks eat cold appetizers and soup. Not enough. - a person with the slightest bit of self-respect handles hot snacks... Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a tricky thing. You need to be able to eat, but imagine - most people don’t know how to eat at all.” 4 - “He laid his chin on the edge of the table, spread the dog’s right eyelid with two fingers, looked into the obviously dying eye and said: “Here, damn it. He didn’t die. Well, he’ll die anyway. Eh, Doctor Bormental, I’m sorry for the dog, he was affectionate.” , albeit cunning." 5 - “He’s taking care of me,” thought the dog, “a very good man. I know who he is. He’s a wizard, magician and magician from a dog’s fairy tale... It can’t be that I saw all this in a dream. What if - dream?". 6 - “...And about the “father” - you are in vain. Did I ask you to perform an operation on me? - the man barked indignantly. - Good job! They grabbed the animal, slashed the head with a knife, and now they disdain it. I, perhaps, have my permission to "I didn't give the operation. And neither did my relatives. Maybe I have the right to file a lawsuit." 7 - “So, uh...” Philip Philipovich suddenly interrupted him, obviously tormented by some kind of thought, “do you have a free room in your house? I agree to buy it. Yellow sparks appeared in Shvonder’s brown eyes. - No, professor, unfortunately. And it’s not expected.” 8 - “You stand at the lowest stage of development,” Philip Philipovich shouted over him, “you are still a nascent, mentally weak creature, all your actions are purely bestial, and in the presence of two people with a university education you allow yourself with a swagger that is completely unbearable.” , give some advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity about how to divide everything.... Get it into your head that you need to be silent and listen to what they tell you.” “I don’t understand something,” he said cheerfully and meaningfully. “I can’t give a damn. I can’t give a damn. And all I hear from you is: “fool, fool.” Apparently only professors are allowed to swear in Recefeser.” 9 - “I don’t understand anything,” answered Philip Philipovich, throwing up his shoulders royally, “what kind of Sharikov? Oh, it’s my fault, this dog of mine... Whom I operated on? - Sorry, professor, not a dog, but when he was already a man. That's the problem. - So he said? - asked Philip Philipovich. - This does not mean being human. However, it doesn't matter. Sharik still exists, and no one has definitely killed him... Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people. So I tried, but it was unsuccessful, as you can see. I talked and began to return to a primitive state. Atavism". 10 — “If there was a discussion now,” the woman began, excited and blushing, “I would prove to Pyotr Alexandrovich... “Excuse me, don’t you want to open this discussion right now?” Philip Philipovich asked politely. The woman's eyes sparkled. - I understand your irony, professor, we will leave now... Only... I, as the head of the cultural department at home... “The manager,” Philip Philipovich corrected her. “I would like to suggest you,” here the woman pulled out several bright and snow-wet magazines from her bosom, “to take several magazines in favor of the children of Germany.” About fifty dollars a piece. “No, I won’t take it,” Philip Philipovich answered briefly, glancing sideways at the magazines. Complete amazement was expressed on their faces, and the woman was covered with a cranberry coating.” 1Now, having introduced readers to the Gnostic concept of humanity, I propose to return to Bulgakov’s story and its characters, the main of whom is Sharikov. His image splits into two - this is the image of the dog Sharik described by the author quite sympathetically before the operation (as well as after the reverse operation) and the image of Sharikov himself, depicted with obvious, clearly felt disgust. But here’s the question: is the dog Sharik just an animal for Bulgakov? After all, he not only talks to himself in a completely human way about certain life, including human realities (say, about the difficult lot of a typist), he is even capable of sympathy for her, while he himself is in an extremely difficult situation. Moreover, he can read too! This is not the wordless Mu-mu or some Kashtanka, who thinks in images, but not in words. It seems quite obvious to me that the “dog” Sharik is rather an allegorical description of a certain human type. Which one?
Bulgakov himself speaks about this in plain text: “ The smell rejuvenated me, lifted me from my belly, and with burning waves it filled my empty stomach for two days, a smell that conquered the hospital, the heavenly smell of chopped mare with garlic and pepper. I feel, I know, he has sausage in the right pocket of his fur coat. He's above me. Oh my lord! Look at me. I'm dying. Our soul is slavish, vile share!»
So, we are talking about a slave. But not just about a slave. Let us remember Sharik’s attitude towards Professor Preobrazhensky. He worships him, he idolizes him: “ I'll lick your hand again. I kiss my pants, my benefactor!"- Sharik is hungry. But Sharik is well-fed: “ I’m so lucky, so lucky,” he thought, dozing off, “simply indescribably lucky.” I established myself in this apartment. I am absolutely sure that my origin is unclean. There is a diver here. My grandmother was a slut. The kingdom of heaven to her, old lady. Established. True, for some reason they cut my head all over, but it will heal before the wedding. We have nothing to look at».
Now, with your permission, another quote, this time not from Bulgakov: “ A slave whose mouth waters when he smugly describes the delights of slave life and admires his kind and good master is a slave, a boor" The author of these words is Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Isn’t it true that they describe Sharik quite accurately and completely?
Now about Sharikov itself. Sharikov, on the contrary, is disgusting to Bulgakov. He is described as quite disgusting - a poorly educated, uncultured boor, as they now say, “cattle.” But remember - Sharik, as a person, is only a few weeks old! And before that, he was in an environment in which no one at all tried to instill in him the rudiments of culture. You don’t even demand from a one-year-old child strict adherence to table etiquette, do you? At the same time, he is undoubtedly progressing, at least intellectually. However, Preobrazhensky denies him the right to this progress in advance - let us remember a fragment of Dr. Bormental’s diary: “ When I told him about my hypotheses and the hope of developing Sharik into a very high mental personality, he chuckled and replied: “What do you think?” His tone is ominous" According to the professor, Sharikov’s entire essence is determined only by the pituitary gland of the petty criminal element Klim Chugunkin, which was transplanted to him, and nothing else. That is why no spiritual progress is possible for him - there is a purely biological limitation of this progress in him, dooming him to remain a boor and cattle forever.
But if Sharikov is an image of a certain human type, then what is Bulgakov talking about? About the fact that there are people who are slaves, boors and cattle by nature. People who are deprived of the path of ascension and development. Inferior people, not quite people, dog people, animal people... One would like to add to this series - “sub-humans”, “sub-humans”, don’t you? And in fact: " A subhuman is a biological creature created by nature, with arms, legs, a semblance of a brain, eyes and a mouth. However, this terrible creature is only partially human. It bears facial features similar to those of humans - but spiritually and psychologically the subhuman is lower than any animal. Inside this creature is a chaos of wild, unbridled passions: a nameless need to destroy, the most primitive desires and undisguised meanness." If you remove “created by nature” (“A subhuman is a biological creature created by nature...”) - it’s as if it was written about Sharikov, right? But it was written by the Nazis, and it was also written about the Russians. About Russians in general, all Russians, without division into “Sharikovs” and “Preobrazhenskys”.
No, I don’t want to say that Bulgakov has anything to do with Nazism. It’s just that the root of the views of the Nazis and Bulgakov is the same: the one that I talked about in the first part of the report, that is, Gnosticism and Gnostic concepts. Sharik, turning into Sharikov, is a typical “hilik” of the Gnostics. He is tolerant and even somewhat sympathetic, as long as he is content with the role assigned to him as a slave, happy with his slavery. But as soon as he rebels, as soon as he wishes for more, to wish to become a man, to change this world, to make it fairer for himself and those like him - and he becomes hostile, disgusting for those who are satisfied with the existing order of things due to what it provides them a certain privileged position relative to “Sharikov”. For example, Professor Preobrazhensky. Or Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov.
From an understanding of the Gnostic system, the images of Shvonder and Preobrazhensky become clear. Shvonder is, of course, a “psychic”. He is spiritually and intellectually clearly superior to Sharikov, but at the same time he is even more hateful to the author. And it is not surprising, because he personifies precisely that very attempt to raise “natural slaves” from their “natural” (in quotes) slave position to a more befitting human one. It is Shvonder who explains to Sharikov that he has rights, as well as, by the way, responsibilities: not just to “receive a document,” but also to register with the military in order to participate in the defense of his country in case of war. It is Shvonder who gets Sharikov a job, albeit a somewhat...morally ambiguous one. In the end, it is Shvonder who, after Sharikov’s “disappearance,” turns to the police: the man is missing! That is, it is Shvonder who from beginning to end treats Sharikov, whatever the latter’s origins, as a person. That is why he is disgusting to the author: Shvonder is not just trying to get some benefits for himself - he “for some reason” also extends this to others, to those who, in Bulgakov’s opinion, clearly do not deserve it.
And finally, Professor Preobrazhensky. In some ways - an “alter ego”, a “second self” of Bulgakov himself, who has only achieved everything that Bulgakov would like to achieve: material well-being, world recognition, even some power, which, for example, is enough to resist attempts to “densify” » his apartment Shvonder. It is through the mouth of Preobrazhensky that Bulgakov expresses his thoughts and views, for example, “I don’t like the proletariat,” “I am for the division of labor,” and, finally, that same, abundantly quoted statement, “the devastation is not in the toilets, but in the heads.” Of course, exclusively in the heads, after eleven years of war - first the First World War, then the Civil War, where else... And, undoubtedly, Preobrazhensky, according to Bulgakov, is a pneumatic, a “supreme being,” almost a superman, “having the right.”
And he uses this right: first he creates Sharikov from Sharik - not on purpose, as a result of an experiment, by mistake. And then he “corrects” his mistake. That is, in general, kills a person. Yes, a person of little culture, unpleasant to communicate with and causing him some inconvenience personally. But - after all, a person! Even if Preobrazhensky himself does not recognize him as such. And he is not at all tormented by remorse about this: the only thing that prevented him from doing this before was the fear of punishment, and not at all the internal prohibition on murder. Why should he be tormented by remorse if for him Sharikov is not a person, but a talking dog? Subhuman, weakling... But how far is it from this position to the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz? After all, it’s possible, it’s possible! Subhumans - yes! Slaves, “talking tools” - you can! Russians - yes! Yes? Do you agree with this, dear listeners?
But here is a statement from our contemporary, who for some reason considers himself one of the “Preobrazhenskys”: “Our problem is that we also consider non-humans to be people - and evaluate them in human terms. That’s why we get upset when we compare numbers, that’s why we fly into impotent anger, not understanding how this is possible: lying to their faces, spewing vulgarities, killing, arranging monkey dances around the murdered person... We - mistakenly - believe that we are on the same page with them biological species (ours), in which this is truly impossible, and we scream in indignation. By inertia, we consider them opponents, and they are the environment. And similar external signs - such as having a pair of arms and legs, a nose, glasses, registration and the ability to use an iPad - should not distract us from this harsh essence of the matter.” This text was written by Viktor Shenderovich. He and others like him obviously also believe that they “have the right.” And give them free rein - they will not fail to use it. Actually, they have already taken advantage of it once: the so-called “perestroika” and what followed it, with all the numerous victims who “didn’t fit into the market” (why should we feel sorry for them, the sickly subhumans, really?) - this is after all In many ways, it is the work of this particular part of society, which for some reason unknown to me claims the proud title of “creative intelligentsia.” Although now, it seems, it is possible to replace the Russian, and therefore “slave” word “creative” with the fashionable foreign “creative”...
Fortunately, there is another book in Russian literature. A book that is not just a product of literary fiction, like “Heart of a Dog,” but written based on events that actually took place. And at the same time completely refuting Bulgakov’s theoretical constructions. I'm talking, of course, about the “Pedagogical Poem” by Anton Semyonovich Makarenko. In fact, his pupils are formal “Sharikovs”, almost to the point of literalism: “yard dogs”, street children. And some of them are actually “Klima Chugunkins”, petty criminal elements. But Makarenko doesn’t talk intelligently about the fact that “these people will never turn out to be people” - he simply takes and makes people out of them. Gigantic, selfless labor, which is possible only if great love to a person - does! And what kind of people - real ones, such that everyone and every Preobrazhensky is like walking to the moon before them! And precisely because this is not fiction, but the truth, I believe Makarenko, but not Bulgakov. I believe that there are no people for whom the path of spiritual, moral and intellectual growth and ascension is closed, regardless of their social or national origin, and that it is this path that is open to everyone and those people who decide to follow it and leading others is humanity's only hope for life, worthy of a person, and just for life in the 21st century and all subsequent ones. " I believe", in the words of Mayakovsky's poems, " the greatness of the human heart"! Well, who and what you believe in, dear listeners, is up to you to choose.
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 a problematic question: “What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand at the end of the story? What is his mistake?
Different student opinions lead to problematic situation, during which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work.
Student’s message about the history of the creation of the story “The 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. To attempts to create a new perfect society using revolutionary (not excluding violence) methods, to educating a new one using the same methods, free man the writer was extremely skeptical. 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 - 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, and 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, 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 extermination of stray cats and dogs. And here one of the main features of Sharikov manifests itself: gratitude is completely alien to him. On the contrary, he takes revenge on those who know his past. He takes revenge on his own kind in order to prove his difference from them, to assert himself. Shvonder , 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 the author's attitude towards the professor change 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 those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
Bulgakov believes that building socialism is also an experiment. A new society is created through violence, 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/
Bulgakov considered it his duty to “persistently portray the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country.” He treated his hero-scientist with respect and love; to some extent, Professor Preobrazhensky is the embodiment of the outgoing Russian culture, the culture of the spirit, aristocracy.
Professor Preobrazhensky, an elderly man, lives alone in a beautiful, comfortable apartment. The author admires the culture of his life, his appearance - Mikhail Bulgakov himself loved aristocracy in everything.
By conviction, the professor is a supporter of the old pre-revolutionary order; all his sympathies are with the former homeowners, factory owners, factory owners, under whom there was order and life was comfortable and good. Bulgakov does not analyze Political Views professor, but the scientist expresses very definite thoughts about the devastation, about the inability of the proletarians to cope with it.
The proud and majestic Professor Preobrazhensky, who spouts ancient aphorisms, is a luminary of Moscow genetics, a brilliant surgeon, engaged in profitable operations to rejuvenate aging ladies and lively elders.
The professor is friends with Dr. Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental. This is a Moscow student and the “first student of the school” of the professor. A few years ago Bormental "half-starved student" came to the professor, and he gave him shelter at the department.
One day, a professor, walking home, beckons a stray dog named Sharik in an alley. He's different a high degree of awareness of human affairs and common sense: “What could he buy in a crappy store? Is Okhotny Ryad not enough for him? What's happened?! Kol-ba-su. Sir, if you had seen what this sausage is made from, you would not have come near the store. Give it to me." Sharik is not aggressive, but prone to observation. In the story, he is the spokesman for the author’s thoughts about society at the beginning of the 20th century. In general, Sharik is a sweet, affectionate, calm dog who “had some secret to win people’s hearts.” For several days he lives in the apartment of Professor Preobrazhensky, who is preparing for the experiment.
The professor, having picked up the dog, decided to improve nature itself, compete with life itself, and create a new person. He transplants a human pituitary gland into Sharik 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 : “Non-partisan, sympathetic. He was tried 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time his origin saved him, the third time he was given a suspended sentence of 15 years. Theft. Profession: playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub (“Stop Signal”, near Preobrazhenskaya Zastava). This is how the author creates a contrast between Professor Preobrazhensky and Doctor Bormental. It would seem that the experiment was a success - the dog does not die, but gradually turns into a small, poorly built man. From the very beginning, he makes an unpleasant impression: he swears and protests about his clothes. Dr. Bormenthal wrote in his diary: “His smile is unpleasant and as if artificial. He swore. This swearing is methodical, continuous and, apparently, completely meaningless.” The creature's first clear word is "bourgeois". And then - street words: “don’t push”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” etc.
As a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appeared, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “donor”. He is aggressive, arrogant, swaggering, feels like the master of life, acting using the “pressure and assault” method, so beloved by the proletarians. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormenthal and the humanoid lumpen is absolutely inevitable, and the life of the inhabitants of the apartment becomes a living hell. Sharikov very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to the servants, and turn his ignorance into a weapon against education. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirtfront...” “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor,” I ask for the hundredth time. So that I don't hear any more dirty word. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look! - the professor is indignant. “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” he [Sharikov] suddenly said tearfully, “...Why aren’t you letting me live?..”
All day long in the professor's house one can hear obscene language and balalaika tinkling ( “...and in blue pencil letters, large as cakes, in Bormenthal’s hand: “Game on musical instruments from 5 o'clock in the afternoon to 7 o'clock in the morning is prohibited"). 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 Bormenthal unsuccessfully try to instill rules in him good manners, develop and form it. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov only likes the circus, and he does not recognize the theater: “Yes, fooling around... They talk, talk... There is only one 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: “You have everything like at a parade... a napkin here, a tie here, yes, “excuse me,” yes, “please, merci,” but for real, that’s not the case. You are torturing yourself, just like during the tsarist regime.” It gradually becomes clear that the professor’s experiment is not as successful as it actually seemed.
One day, Shvonder, trying to develop his ward in a “revolutionary direction,” gives Sharikov the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky to study. The bestial creature does not approve of either author: “ And then they write and write... Congress, some Germans...". He draws one conclusion: “ We have to share everything." “Do you even know the method? - Yes, what is the method, it’s not a tricky thing. But what about this: one is settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of pants, and the other wanders around, looking for food in trash bins.” So Sharikov “smelled” the main credo of the new masters of life, all the Sharikovs: plunder, steal, take away everything created, as well as the main principle of the so-called socialist society being created: universal equalization, called equality. The indignant professor announces to Sharikov that he is at the lowest level of development and nevertheless allows himself to give advice on a cosmic scale. The professor orders the harmful book to be thrown into the oven.
Next, the dog man demands a residence document from the professor, confident that the house committee, who “protects interests”. “Whose interests, may I ask? -It is known whose labor element. - Philip Philipovich rolled his eyes.-Why are you a hard worker? “Yes, we already know, he’s not a NEPman.”
From a verbal duel, taking advantage of the professor's confusion about his origin (“You are, so to speak, an unexpectedly appeared creature, a laboratory one”), Sharikov emerges victorious and demands that he be given the “hereditary” surname Sharikov, and he chooses the name Poligraf Poligrafovich for himself. In addition, he finds an ally, Shvonder, who demands the issuance of the document to Sharikov, claiming that the document is the most important thing in the world: “I cannot allow an undocumented tenant to stay in the house, and not yet registered with the police. What if there is a war with imperialist predators? - I won’t go anywhere to fight! - Sharikov suddenly barked gloomily into the closet. -Are you an individualist anarchist? - Shvonder asked, raising his eyebrows high. “I’m entitled to a white ticket.”
The scary thing is that the bureaucratic system does not need the science of a professor. It costs her nothing to appoint anyone as a person - any nonentity, an empty place, even a laboratory creature. But, of course, having formalized it accordingly and reflected it, as expected, in the documents.
Sharikov, supported by Shvonder, is becoming more and more relaxed and openly hooligans: to the words of the exhausted professor that he will find a room for Sharikov to move out, the lumpen replies: “Well, yes, I’m such a fool to move out of here.”, - and presents Shvonder’s paper to the dumbfounded professor, which states that he is entitled to a living space of 16 square meters in the professor’s apartment.
Soon “Sharikov embezzled 2 chervonets from the professor’s office, disappeared from the apartment and returned late, completely drunk.” He came to the Prechistenka apartment not alone, but with two unknown persons who robbed the professor.
Combining the past of a stray dog and a dissolute drunkard, Sharikov is born with one feeling - hatred of those who offended him. And this feeling somehow immediately falls into the general tone of the class hatred of the proletariat towards the bourgeoisie, the hatred of the poor towards the rich, the hatred of the uneducated towards the intelligentsia.
One day, having disappeared from home, he appears before the astonished professor and Bormenthal as a young man, full of dignity and self-respect: “in a leather jacket from someone else’s shoulder, in worn leather pants and high English boots. The terrible, incredible smell of cats immediately spread throughout the entire hallway.” He presents a paper to the surprised professor, which states that Comrade Sharikov is the head of the department for cleaning the city from stray animals. Of course, Shvonder got him there. When asked why he smells so disgusting, the monster replies: “Well, it smells... well known: according to its specialty. Yesterday cats were strangled - strangled...”
So, Sharik made a dizzying leap: from stray dogs to paramedics cleaning the city from stray animals. Pursuit of one's own - characteristic all Sharikovs. They destroy their own, as if covering up traces of their own origin. They take revenge on their own kind in order to prove their difference from them, to assert themselves.
It should be noted that Shvonder bears no less responsibility than the professor for the humanoid monster. He supported social status Sharikov, he is his ideologist, his “spiritual shepherd”.
The paradox is that, as can already be seen from the above dialogue, by helping a creature with a “dog’s heart” to establish itself, he is also digging a hole for himself. By setting Sharikov against the professor, Shvonder does not understand that someone else could easily set Sharikov against Shvonder himself. It is enough for a person with a dog's heart to point out anyone, say that he is an enemy, and “all that will remain of Shvonder himself are horns and legs.”
Sharikov's next move is to appear in the Prechistensk apartment together with a young girl. “I’m signing with her, this is our typist. Bormental will have to be evicted from the reception area. He has his own apartment,” Sharikov explained extremely hostilely and gloomily.”. He deceived the girl by telling tales about himself: “He said, scoundrel, that he was wounded in battle,” the young lady sobbed. A huge scandal broke out again in the Prechistensky apartment: the professor and his assistant, driven to white heat, began to defend the girl. And Sharikov most brazenly promised the girl “reduction in staff,” using his power as the head of the cleaning department, to which Bormental threateningly declared: “...I will personally inquire about whether citizen Vasnetsova has been laid off... if I find out that she has been laid off, I... with my own hands will shoot you right there. Beware, Sharikov, I say in Russian!”
This threat contained a phrase that served as the reason for Sharikov’s final offense - denunciation of Philip Philipovich: “...And also threatening to kill the chairman of the house committee, Comrade Shvonder, from which it is clear that he keeps firearms. And he makes counter-revolutionary speeches, and even ordered his social servant Zinaida Prokofyevna Bunina to burn Engels in the stove, like an obvious Menshevik with his assistant Bormental Ivan Arnoldovich, who secretly, not registered, lives in his apartment. Signature of the head of the cleaning department P.P. Sharikov - I certify.” Thanks to a happy accident, this denunciation did not reach the “higher authorities”, but ended up in the hands of a former patient of the professor, who brought it to Preobrazhensky.
After this, Philip Philipovich invites Sharikov to pack his things and immediately get out of the apartment. In response to this, Sharikov shows the professor a shish with one hand, and with the other he takes a revolver out of his pocket. A brawl ensues between Bormental, driven to white heat, and Sharikov. But even this significant, decisive “duel” is depicted by Bulgakov in humorous tones: “He [Sharikov] raised his left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a bitten pine cone with an unbearable cat smell. And then with his right hand, directed at the dangerous Bormental, he took a revolver out of his pocket. Bormental's cigarette fell like a shooting star, and a few seconds later Philip Philipovich, jumping over the broken glass, rushed in horror from the closet to the couch. On it, prostrate and wheezing, lay the head of the purification department, and the surgeon Bormental was placed on his chest and suffocated him with a small white pillow.” A few minutes later, the pale Bormenthal cuts the bell wire, locks the front door and the back door and hides with the professor in the examination room.
Ten days later, an investigator appears in the apartment with a search warrant and the arrest of Professor Preobrazhensky and Doctor Bormental on charges of murdering the head of the cleaning department, P.P. Sharikov. “What kind of Sharikov is this? - asks the professor. “Oh, it’s my fault, this dog of mine... whom I operated on?” The professor explains: “That is, he said?... This does not mean being human... Sharik still exists, and no one has definitely killed him.” And he introduces the visitors to a strange-looking dog: in some places bald, in others with patches of growing fur, he walks out on his hind legs, then stands on all fours, then again rises on his hind legs and sits in a chair. The police leave with nothing.
On the day when Sharikov presented the professor with a document for living space in his apartment, Philip Philipovich talks with Bormental in his office. Analyzing what is happening, the scientist reproaches himself for the transformation sweetest dog into such filth: “...the old ass Preobrazhensky ran into this operation as a third-year student.” The professor discounts his discovery by saying that “Theoretically this is interesting”, “physiologists will be delighted”, and practically this scoundrel Sharikov - “Klim Chugunkin - that’s what, sir: two criminal records, alcoholism, “divide everything”, a hat and two chervonets disappeared - a boor and a pig...”
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He understands this himself: “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.
According to socionics, a “Complementary” (Dual) relationship has developed between Sharik and Professor Preobrazhensky, since they differ in all mental functions, but are similar on the scale of rationality - irrationality. This is precisely the relationship between Sharik and Professor Preobrazhensky, which is proven on the basis of their speech characteristics. Here is an excerpt from the work, which shows the attitude of the characters towards each other: “The mysterious gentleman leaned towards the dog, flashed his golden eye rims and pulled out a white oblong package from his right pocket. Without taking off his brown gloves, he unwound the paper, which was immediately taken over by the blizzard, and broke off a piece of sausage called “special Krakow.” And this piece for the dog. Oh, selfless person! Woohoo!
Sharik again. Baptized. Yes, call it what you want. For such an exceptional act of yours.
The dog instantly tore off the peel, bit into the Krakow one with a sob and devoured it in no time. At the same time, he choked on sausage and snow to the point of tears, because from greed he almost swallowed the string. Again, again, I lick your hand. I kiss my pants, my benefactor!
“It will be for now...” the gentleman spoke so abruptly, as if he was commanding. He leaned over to Sharikov, looked inquisitively into his eyes and unexpectedly ran his gloved hand intimately and affectionately over Sharikov’s stomach.
“Aha,” he said meaningfully, “there’s no collar, well, that’s great, it’s you that I need.” Follow me. - He snapped his fingers. - Fuck-fuck!
Should I follow you? Yes, to the ends of the world. Kick me with your felt boots, I won’t say a word.” This confirms the conclusion based on socionics data (see Appendix 3).
Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky
In this same pair, a relationship of conflict has developed, since the heroes are opposite to each other in all functions. When communicating with Sharikov, Professor Preobrazhensky becomes very impulsive, nervous and uncontrollable. These relationships are especially evident in the conversations of these characters, which most often develop into quarrels and conflicts. Here is one example of a quarrel between Sharikov (Sh.) and Professor Preobrazhensky (P.)
Sh.: “You are painfully oppressing me, dad,” the man suddenly said tearfully.
Philip Philipovich blushed, his glasses sparkled.
P.: Who is your “dad” here? What kind of familiarity is this? So that I don't hear this word again! Call me by my first name and patronymic!
A daring expression lit up the little man.
Sh.: Why are you all... don’t give a damn, don’t smoke... don’t go there... What is it, in fact, as clean as on a tram? Why don't you let me live? And about “daddy” you are wrong! “Did I ask you to perform an operation on me,” the man barked indignantly, “good job!” They grabbed the animal, slashed its head with a knife, and now they abhor it. I may not have given my permission for the operation. And equally (the little man raised his eyes to the ceiling, as if remembering a certain formula), and equally my relatives. Maybe I have the right to file a claim?
Philip Philipovich's eyes became completely round, the cigar fell out of his hands. “Well, dude!” - flew through his head.
P.: “How, sir,” he asked, squinting, “would you like to be dissatisfied that you were turned into a human?” Perhaps you would prefer to run through garbage dumps again? Freezing in the gateways? Well, if only I knew!..
Sh.: Why are you all reproaching - garbage, garbage. I got my piece of bread! What if I died under your knife? What do you have to say about this, comrade?
P.: “Philip Philipovich”! - Philip Philipovich exclaimed irritably, - I’m not your comrade! This is monstrous! - “Nightmare... nightmare!” - he thought.
This example confirms socionics data (see Appendix 3).
- What documents should an individual entrepreneur have?
- Accounting for individual entrepreneurs - rules and features of independent reporting under different tax regimes Primary documentation for individual entrepreneurs
- Accounting for individual entrepreneurs: features of accounting in individual entrepreneurs?
- How to privatize an apartment, everything about privatization List of documents for privatization of an apartment