Heart of a Dog

“The dog gathered the last of his strength and crawled, fainting, out of the doorway onto the sidewalk. The blizzard boomed like gunfire over his head, flapping a great canvas billboard marked in huge letters: ‘Is Rejuvenation Possible?’”

The imagery here is an ironic juxtaposition of the wartime destruction and suffering with the idealistic aspirations of the new Russian Soviet regime. Bulgakov uses the simile “the blizzard doomed like gunfire” to draw a connection between the harsh weather and the war. This situation contrasts sharply with the aspirational question asked by the billboard, “Is Rejuvenation Possible?” —the question at the center of the novella’s thematic exploration of Transforming Bodies to Transform Society.

“There the brothers taught him all about insulated cable, which can be sharper than a cabman’s whip. This famous occasion may be regarded as the beginning of Sharik’s education.”

The Heart of a Dog contains elements of a Bildungsroman or a coming-of-age story that tracks the development of the central character from childhood to adulthood. The character of Sharik(ov) effectively undergoes two cycles of maturation, once as a dog and once as a human. The language here signals that Sharik’s “first lesson” as a dog was a brutal one, and one that shaped his resentment of the working class after two shopkeepers beat him.

“‘You know, Professor,’ said the girl, with a deep sigh, ‘if you weren’t world-famous and if you weren’t being protected by certain people in the most disgusting way’ (the blond youth tugged at the hem of her coat, but she brushed him off) ‘which we propose to investigate, you would be arrested.’

‘What for?’ asked Philip Philipovich with curiosity.

‘Because you hate the proletariat!’”

This exchange between a member of the House Committee and Professor Philipovich illustrates the tensions caused by The Destructive Consequences of Governmental Corruption. As a young idealist, the “girl” feels that Philipovich should be treated like everyone else in conformity with the government’s stated goals of egalitarianism, and she resents the special treatment he receives for being “world-famous.” Her dialogue foreshadows how the government will turn against Philipovich by the end of the novella for his reactionary views.

“On gorgeous flowered plates with wide black rims lay thin slices of salmon and pickled eel; a slab of overripe cheese lay on a heavy wooden platter, and in a silver bowl packed in ice—caviar. Beside the plates stood delicate glasses and three crystal decanters of different colored vodkas. All these objects were on a small marble table, handily placed alongside the huge carved oak sideboard, which shone with glass and silver.”

This passage contains the most luscious, detailed imagery in the entire novella. It is used to underscore the wealth and access to food that Philipovich has due to his privileged position in society. This contrasts with the food shortages and deprivations suffered by the majority of Russian people at this time. Philipovich’s relative privilege is a core component of the theme of Class Conflict in Domestic Spaces.

“If you care about your digestion, my advice is—don’t talk about Bolshevism or medicine at the table. And, God forbid—never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.”

Bulgakov’s writing is celebrated for its ironic humor, as seen in this excerpt. Professor Philipovich is celebrated as a medical visionary, but here he articulates some absurd medical opinions, namely that talking about Bolshevism or medicine while eating can cause indigestion. While the absurdity is humorous, it also points to Philipovich’s anti-Bolshevik political views.

“If when I go to the lavatory I don’t pee, if you’ll excuse the expression, into the bowl but on the floor instead, and if Zina and Darya Petrovna were to do the same thing, the lavatory would be ruined. Ruin, therefore, is not caused by lavatories, but it’s something that starts in people’s heads. So when these clowns start shouting ‘stop that ruin’—I laugh!”

A core theme of The Heart of a Dog is transforming bodies to transform society. Here, Philipovich articulates his belief that societal changes can be created through changing the thoughts of individuals, a belief he attempts to enact through brain surgery, literally changing people’s minds, and therefore their actions, and eventually society as a whole.

“‘Fourteen minutes,’ grunted Bormenthal through clenched teeth as he pierced the flabby skin with his crooked needle. Both grew as tense as two murderers working against the clock.”

Bulgakov describes Philipovich’s surgical operation on Shurik in graphic detail with a tone more evocative of pulp science fiction than the more restrained language of the rest of the work. The use of dramatic modifiers like “clenched teeth” and “crooked needle” creates suspense. Bulgakov also uses metaphor to characterize Philipovich and Bormenthal as working like “murderers,” which contrasts ironically with what they are actually doing; rather than killing, they are creating a new life.

“‘No time to argue whether he’s alive or not,’ hissed the terrible Philip Philipovich. ‘I’m at the saddle. So what if he does die?…Hell…the banks of the sa-acred Nile…Give me the gland.’”

Bulgakov characterizes Philipovich as a “mad scientist” in the midst of the surgical operation. He takes on a Faustian quality, someone larger than life, as illustrated by the adjective “terrible.” However, he is also mentally unstable, unable to stop himself from stating the symbolic lines from Aïda (See: Symbols & Motifs).

“December 23. At 8: 05 p.m. Prof. Preobrazhensky commenced the first operation of its kind to be performed in Europe: removal under anesthesia of the dog’s testicles and their replacement by implanted human testes, with appendages and seminal ducts, taken from a 28-year-old human male, dead 4 hours and 4 minutes before the operation, and kept by Prof. Preobrazhensky in sterilized physiological fluid.”

Chapter 4 comprises Doctor Bormenthal’s notes about Sharik’s prognosis. This radical shift in format is indicative of the modernism of the work, which suddenly becomes imbued with real medical language such as “sterilized physiological fluid.” This cold, technical language describing the surgery contrasts sharply with the tense, lyrical, dramatic language used to describe the surgery in early passages.

“January 8. Late this evening diagnoses finally agreed. With the impartiality of a true scholar Philip Philipovich has acknowledged his error: Transplantation of the pituitary induces not rejuvenation but total HUMANIZATION [underlined three times]. This does not, however, lessen the value of his stupendous discovery.”

Bulgakov creates humor by juxtaposing what should be the factual, clinical language of a doctor’s notes with Bormenthal’s inability to be objective about his hero and mentor, Philipovich. It becomes clear Bormenthal worships the man, as illustrated by his hyperbolic language describing Philipovich as “a true scholar” in the midst of discussing Sharik’s diagnosis. Their conclusion that Sharik has been humanized contributes to their ongoing discussions of transforming bodies to transform society throughout the work.

“There’s no doubt that it is his illegitimate (as they used to say in rotten bourgeois society) son. This is how the pseudo-learned members of our bourgeoisie amuse themselves. He will only keep his seven rooms until the glittering sword of justice flashes over him like a red ray.”

This passage from Shvonder’s article about Philipovich in the newspaper parodies the sometimes florid and often strident language of young Bolshevik idealists in the early Soviet Republic. It also illustrates government corruption in the early Soviet Union as Shvonder uses his political clout to spread false rumors about Philipovich to assert his political authority and control.

“‘Why don’t you leave me alone, for God’s sake? And why shouldn’t I call you “Pop,” anyway? I didn’t ask you to do the operation, did I?’ The man barked indignantly. ‘A nice business—you get an animal, slice his head open, and now you’re sick of him! Maybe I wouldn’t have given permission for the operation.’”

The relationship between Philipovich and Sharikov is a constant source of tension between the two and serves as a driver of Class Conflict in Domestic Spaces. Here, Sharikov grows angry when Philipovich refuses to let Sharikov call him “Pop” or refer to him as his father. This rejection of the parent-child roles leads Sharikov to identify more strongly as a worker and to seek support from Shvonder instead.

“‘Tell me, Sharikov,’ said Bormenthal, ‘how much longer are you going to chase cats? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. It’s disgraceful! You’re a savage!’

‘Me—a savage?’ snarled Sharikov. ‘I’m no savage.’”

This dialogue ironically juxtaposes Sharikov’s behavior with his dialogue. While he insists he is “no savage,” he animalistically “snarl[s]” while he says it. As a test case, Sharikov illustrates the limits of the professor’s attempts to transform society by transforming the bodies of its citizens. Although they initially believed Sharikov was fully humanized, he continues to have dog-like tendencies, such as chasing cats.

“‘Incidentally, why don’t you like the theatre?’

Sharikov held his empty glass up to his eye and looked through it as though it were an opera glass. After some thought he pouted and said, ‘Hell, it’s just crap…talk, talk. Pure counterrevolution.’”

This humorous dialogue between Sharikov and Philipovich ironically parodies the kind of feedback that Bulgakov, no doubt, received about his own work as a playwright, pointing to the real-world destructive consequences of governmental corruption that Bulgakov satirizes. Many of Bulgakov’s plays were banned in the Soviet Union due to their perceived positive depictions of the White Army or other “reactionary” topics, of which the government disapproved.

“‘You belong to the lowest possible stage of development,’ Philip Philipovich shouted him down. ‘You are still in the formative stage. You are intellectually weak. All your actions are purely bestial. Yet you allow yourself in the presence of two university-educated men to offer advice, with quite intolerable familiarity, on a cosmic scale and of quite cosmic stupidity, on the redistribution of wealth…and at the same time you eat toothpaste…’”

In an early chapter, Philipovich stated that he hated the “proletariat.” In this fiery argument with Sharikov, he explains the source of his hatred. He resents his intellect and authority being challenged by the working class, here represented by Sharikov, a group he views as “intellectually weak” and more akin to animals than men. He is frustrated that his surgical intervention was not able to transform Sharikov more fully into an intelligent man he could treat as a peer.

“‘It’s true that it resulted in a discovery—and you know yourself just what sort of discovery that was—’ here Philip Philipovich pointed sadly with both hands toward the window blind, obviously pointing to Moscow— ‘but just remember, Ivan Arnoldovich, that the sole result of that discovery will be that from now on we shall all have that creature Sharik hanging round our necks—’”

This imagery draws a connection between the Class Conflict in Domestic Spaces depicted throughout the novel and the tensions and conflicts in wider Russian society. Philipovich “obviously point[s] to Moscow” while discussing his failure to more fully transform “that creature Sharik.” Like Dr. Frankenstein, he feels burdened and guilty by his inability to fully realize his dream of transforming bodies to transform society, and he fears the consequences of his actions.

“‘Right now he’s doing all he can to turn Sharikov against me, not realizing that if someone in his turn sets Sharikov against Shvonder himself, there’ll soon be nothing left of Shvonder but the bones and the beak.’

‘You’re right. Just think of the way he goes for cats. He’s a man with the heart of a dog.’”

Philipovich uses animalistic language to characterize Sharikov’s tendency to betray authority figures, noting that “there’ll soon be nothing left of Shvonder but the bones and beak,” suggesting that the dog-like Sharikov will eat Shvonder as a dog might eat a bird. Bormenthal’s dialogue here gives the novella its title, The Heart of a Dog, which points to Sharik(ov)’s incomplete transformation into a man and, correspondingly, the failures of the Russian Revolution to entirely transform Russian society.

“The whole horror of the situation is that he now has a human heart, not a dog’s heart. And about the rottenest heart in all creation!”

Philipovich is characterized throughout the work as a misanthrope: he has few friends, detests the average person, and is content to hoard food and other markers of wealth for himself. In this passage, he articulates his hatred of humanity by describing the human heart as “the rottenest heart in all creation.” Bulgakov suggests he prefers dogs because they are loyal and do not challenge his authority.

“The typewritten sheet read: ‘It is hereby certified that the bearer, Comrade Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharikov, is appointed in charge of the subdepartment of the Moscow City Sanitation Department responsible for eliminating vagrant quadrupeds (cats, etc.).’”

This passage parodies the self-important language and inflated titles common in the Soviet Union. Because of the ideological valorization of working-class labor as part of the program of the Soviet New Man, language was developed to emphasize the importance of dirty, difficult work. Thus, instead of Feline Control Officer, Sharikov is given a wordy job description.

“Philip Philipovich slipped a pince-nez over his eyeglasses and began to read. For a long time he mumbled half aloud, his expression changing every moment. ‘…also threatening to murder the chairman of the House Committee, Comrade Shvonder, which shows that he must be keeping a firearm. And he makes counterrevolutionary speeches, and has even ordered his domestic worker, Zinaida Prokofievna Bunina, to burn Engels in the stove. He is an obvious Menshevik, and so is his assistant, Ivan Arnoldovich Bormenthal, who is living secretly in his apartment without being registered. Signed: P. P. Sharikov, Subdepartment Controller, City Sanitation Department. Countersigned: Shvonder, Chairman, House Committee; Pestrukhin, Secretary.’”

This passage parodies the real-world charging documents regarding “crimes” in the Soviet Union. The basis for the charges against Philipovich includes a combination of baseless rumors, such as the claim he is “an obvious Menshevik,” over-exaggeration of real events, such as “burn[ing] Engels in the stove,” and speculation, such as the claim that “he must be keeping a firearm.” Sharikov and Shvonder are conspiring against Philipovich to get him in trouble with the authorities.

“The crime ripened, then fell like a stone, as usually happens.”

This simile is a rare example of figurative, poetic language in the work. It is evocative of the ruminations of Rodion Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment (1866), who obsessively broods over committing murder until he does so, and the language of that work. Similarly, the tension between Philipovich and Sharikov has “ripened” over the course of the work until it reaches its violent peak in Chapter 9.

“‘Like hell I will! You gotta give me my rights. I’ve a right to thirty-seven square feet and I’m staying right here.’

‘Get out of this apartment,’ whispered Philip Philipovich in a strangled voice.

It was Sharikov himself who invited his own death. He raised his left hand, which stank most horribly of cats, and thumbed his nose at Philip Philipovich. Then with his right hand he drew a revolver on Bormenthal.”

In this tense passage, Sharikov demonstrates his willingness to turn to violence to expropriate Philipovich’s property for his own use based on his understanding of the rights accorded to him by the government. Bulgakov describes this willingness as Sharikov “invit[ing] his own death,” as Philipovich does not technically kill Sharikov; he simply reverses the operation and transforms him back into a dog. This language suggests that the loss of his humanity is akin to death.

“Science has not yet found the means of turning animals into people. I tried, but unsuccessfully, as you can see. He talked, and then he began to revert to his primitive state. Atavism.”

In this passage, Philipovich explains that Sharikov’s transformation was unsuccessful because while he could talk, he was not fully human and instead maintained elements of his “primitive state.” This is an ambiguous statement. It could be read as a lie to hide the real reason Philipovich decided to reverse the operation—because Sharikov was challenging Philipovich’s authority—as Sharikov was continuing to develop by getting a job and pursuing romantic relationships, albeit in a somewhat imperfect way. However, it could also indicate that Philipovich views Sharikov’s attempted violence as a sign that he continued to exist in a “primitive state.”