Bad Words Are Not Allowed!

: Language and Transformation in Mikhail Bulgakov's

"Heart of a Dog"
Author(s): Eric Laursen
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal , Fall, 2007, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Fall, 2007), pp.
491-513
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20459524

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East
European Journal

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BAD WORDS ARE NOT ALLOWED!:
LANGUAGE AND TRANSFORMATION IN
MIKHAIL BULGAKOV'S HEART OFA DOG

Eric Laursen, University of Utah

In Mikhail Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog (Co6aibe cepOqe [1925])1 Professor

Preobrazhensky inserts part of the brain of Klim, an alcoholic and criminal,
into the brain of a stray dog.2 The professor claims to be concerned about the
question of eugenics, "about the improvement of human nature [o6 y iy'i
IIIueHHH IeJIOBelecKoH npHpOAbII],"3 but his experiment improves neither
human nor canine nature. Instead, the dog's character is gradually replaced by
that of the organ donor. In the dog's humanized body, Klim is the same crim
inal and alcoholic; he is given only two things that he lacked before: legal
access to the professor's apartnent and the ability to speak his mind within its
walls. To the dismay of everyone, the words the creature utters reflect an inter
est only in power and self-gratification. The bourgeois Professor Preobrazhen
sky and his Communist nemesis Comrade Shvonder begin separate campaigns
to transform the dog-man into what each believes a fully-formed human being
should be. The professor tries to civilize the creature with rigid rules, etiquette,
and high culture. Comrade Shvonder tries to transform him with a new name,

This article is part of a larger project begun in Fall 2000 at the Tanner Humanities Center at
the University of Utah, where I was a Nathan Aldrich Fellow. I thank the Center for its support.
1. The original title of Heart of a Dog was A Dogs Happiness: A Monster Story [Co?aube
cnacmbe. Hydoeuu?nan ucmopw]. It was written in the first months of 1925 and was initially
accepted for publication by the almanac Nedra; Bulgakov also contracted with MKhAT to adapt
the novel for the stage. However, in 1926 Bulgakov's manuscript was confiscated, and publica
tion and staging plans were canceled. Although the manuscript was returned to Bulgakov two
years later due to the intervention of Maksim Gorky, it was not published in the Soviet Union
during Bulgakov's lifetime. It appeared for the first time in Germany in Grani, no. 69 (1968):
3-85. However, in Russia the novel was not published until Gorbachev's glasnost period, when
it finally appeared in the journal Znamia in 1987. It has since been staged several times; for a
discussion of these theatrical productions see Natov 89-131.
2. For possible folkloric and linguistic sources for Bulgakov's choice of a dog, see Mondry.
3. Bulgakov, Sobach'e serdtse 11. Translation is mine. All quotes are taken from this source
and followed by page numbers in parentheses.
SEEJ, Vol. 51, No. 3 (2007): p. 491-p. 513 491

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
492 Slavic and East European Journal

the proper documents, and Communist propaganda. Despite their efforts, how
ever, Klim remains Klim. He brings chaos into their lives, and the professor
can return his apartment to a peaceful state only by reversing the operation.
With his final words, the newly obedient dog warns visitors: "Bad words are
not allowed! [Henpx4JhlHHblMH CJIOBaMH He Bbipa)KaTbcA!]" (91).
Much scholarship on Heart of a Dog has been concerned with exploring the
novel's literary influences4 or explaining the work as an allegory for the revo
lution.5 But I think that the creature's final words point to a much different
reading. In the 1920s many believed that one could change a person's mind by
changing his or her words. Katerina Clark has labelled such efforts "prome
thean linguistics": "the idea that language can serve as the ultimate vehicle for
the kind of transformation sought by revolution. Just as Prometheus trans
gressed epistemological boundaries and stole fire, one could, in order to give
'fire' to the people, intervene in the natural cause of language evolution and
regulate it" (Clark 208). Many interpretations of Heart of a Dog present the
novel as a battle between good (the professor) and evil (Shvonder). But in the
following pages I will argue that Heart of a Dog is instead an attack on two
"modern Prometheuses," each of whom tries to create a human being with
"good" words. Comrade Shvonder believes that he can create Homo-Sovieti
cus and free humankind, and Professor Preobrazhensky, the "hater of the pro
letariat [HeHaB4CTH1K nipoJieTapHaTa]" (22), believes that he can civilize the
freed vulgarian and regain control of a world now filled with "bad words."
Many of the so-called "promethean linguists" were one-language advo
cates, who felt that developing a common worldwide language would evolve
the mindset needed to attain worldwide communism.6 But most focused on

4. See Piotrovskii, Rydel, Shargorodskii.

5. See Doyle, Glenny, Proffer. Most of these interpretations have in common the idea that
Preobrazhensky represents Lenin; S. V Nikolsky supports this view by seeing "Ilich" contained
in the professor's first name and patronymic (Nikol'skii 12). The most detailed?and certainly
the most entertaining?of these is by Solomon Ioffe, who assigns historical figures to each of
the characters in the novel. Sharik, Klim Chugunkin, and Sharikov are all Stalin at different
times after the revolution, Preobrazhensky is Lenin, Zina is Zinoviev, Daria is Dzerzhinsky, and
the stuffed owl is Nadezhda Krupskaia, Lenin's wife (Ioffe).
6. Esperantists operating in Russia were perhaps the most pragmatic of the single-language
proponents, but they were only one of the many groups and individuals to jump on the one-lan
guage bandwagon. Followers of Nikolai Fedorov believed that a pre-Babel universal language
would one day be recovered by a congress of scientific linguists, and there were universal lan
guage schemes among the anarchists (Stites 55, 169-70). Aleksandr Bogdanov, the theoretician
of the Proletkult, was also a one-language advocate; in his novel Red Star [1908] (1984, 47^-8)
the inhabitants of the planet-wide Martian communist utopia all speak the same language, which
is difficult for the hero to translate, because concepts exist on communist Mars that do not exist
yet on earth. And, of course, the one-language theories of the linguist Nikolai Marr were formu
lated in the 1920s and became the mainstay of Soviet linguistic theory under Stalin. A world
wide language, either artificial or organic, later became a common motif in Soviet science fic
tion (McGuire 31).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 493

the here-and-now, attempting to change Russian itself into a transformative

language; the Productionists called these efforts "linguistic engineering"
(Clark 208). We can divide the goals of linguistic engineers into two areas,
each touted by one of the main characters in Heart of a Dog. In one area,
practiced by Comrade Shvonder, reforms centered on transforming Russian
to reflect the ideas of Communism. These efforts consisted of more than
teaching the masses Communist jargon.7 They sought to forge equality by rid
ding language of the markers of gender, class, and rank. The Proletkult, for
example, fought to abolish bourgeois titles and forms of address; they even
campaigned to rid Russian of capital letters, which were seen as promoting
inequality (Ryazanova-Clarke and Wade 17). Linguistic evidence of bour
geois etiquette was also targeted, since it was seen as a byproduct of an ex
ploitative and hierarchical society.
A second area of language reform, practiced by Professor Preobrazhensky,
focused on efforts to "cleanse" Soviet speech of crude expressions and sub
standard grammar. One of the major figures in this battle was Lev Trotsky,
who wrote in his 1923 book Problems of Life [BonpoCbl 6blma]: "The strug
gle against 'bad language' is a condition of intellectual culture, just as the
fight against filth and vermin is a condition of physical culture" (Trotsky 53).
It is tempting to equate Professor Preobrazhensky, who also fights to "civi
lize" the dog-man's language and behavior, with Trotsky; after all, Edythe
Haber has argued that Rokk, from Bulgakov's other mad-scientist story,
"Fatal Eggs" [PoKoBbIe AiiUa, 1925], represents Trotsky and his ideas of soci
etal improvement through science and high art (Haber 196-200). But these
efforts were not the sole property of Trotsky.8 Michael Gorham asserts that
the 1920s witnessed the emergence of "a dominant discourse of language
purism" (Gorham 2000, 135). Even before the revolution, workers often
equated swearing with a lack of culture (Smith 173-78); at least one pre
revolutionary trade union prohibited cursing as a symptom of "the lack of re
spect for the human personality that exists under the bourgeois system."9
And, after the revolution, "civilizing" language became an integral compo
nent of Bolshevik campaigns to promote "culturedness" [KyjsbTypHocTb]. In
1923-1924, the years preceding the composition of Heart of a Dog, the
"struggle for cultured speech" [6opb6a 3a KyJ1bTypHy10 pelib] was launched;
it was part of a campaign aimed at young people, especially at members of
the Komsomol, to promote changes in language, dress, and behavior
(Smith 192-93). Swearing and poor grammar became connected with politi
cal backwardness (Smith 196), and, as Clark points out, metaphors of hygiene

7. For a detailed discussion of the influx of new words into Russian see Gorham 2003,23-26
and Ryazanova-Clarke and Wade 3-18.
8. For example, Maksim Gorky also complained about the introduction of non-standard
forms (see Ryazanova-Clarke and Wade 17 and Gorham 2003, 108-14).
9. Quoted in Smith 190.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
494 Slavic and East European Journal

and bodily purity were commonly applied to speech: "many contended that
an individual who showed sexual license or used bad language could not be
trusted politically" (Clark 21 1).
Language reformers were often criticized for going to extremes. Many
writers of the 1 920s lampooned the meaningless neologisms and foreign bor
rowings that inundated Russian after the revolution, and Lenin himself criti
cized the overuse of Communist jargon (Lenin 662). But it was the attempt to
"clean up" language which attracted the most hostility. Before the revolution,
cursing was sometimes seen as a camivalesque challenge to authority and
power, especially in peasant festivals; and, after the revolution, many work
ers continued this line of thought by viewing cursing and poor grammar as
part of a "proletarian slang" (Smith 179-91). Factory workers even took to
using thieves' jargon as a "proletarian language" (Gorham 2003, 27). S. A.
Smith writes: "Those who resisted the pressures to speak 'properly' clearly
resented the elitism of the Bolshevik Kulturtrdger, and the tactic they used
against them was to accuse them of meshchanstvo" (Smith 199). Bulgakov's
depiction of the battle over the speech of a newly-created human being in
Heart of a Dog emphasizes the conflict inherent in language reform efforts of
the 1 920s, especially the incongruity between egalitarian language reform, as
practiced by Comrade Shvonder, and the Bolshevik idea of culturedness, as
practiced by the bourgeois Professor Preobrazhensky.

The Master Takes a Dog: Maintaining Control

Several weeks after the October Revolution, Lenin proposed that apartments
be redivided so that each person in Russia could receive his or her ten square
meters. But this redivision of living space was more than an attempt to achieve
equity. Many believed that living together would transform the human psy
che.10 Central to this plan was the communalizing of dining, which would re
move this necessary daily experience from the realm of the individual family
and transfer it to a common space. Therefore, in Heart of a Dog, when Com
rade Shvonder and the house committee demand that the professor give up his
dining room to the revolution, their choice is not random. They view the pro
fessor's apartment as the last enclave of bourgeois dining in Moscow (one of
them protests that even Isadora Duncan has no dining room). In the other
apartments of the professor's formerly luxurious building, the house commit
tee has been constructing partitions, reapportioning rooms according to com
munal needs. Now, in entering the apartment, the committee rejects the profes
sor's pre-revolutionary walls, both literal and figurative, suggesting that he
dine in his bedroom and see patients in his study. For the professor, however,
his apartment walls are the last defense of the "civilized" world against the

10. See Stites 200-4 and Boym 121-30.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 495

"ruin [pa3pyxa]`11 encroaching from outside. His seven rooms divide life into
an organized and predictable division of people and activities. Servants sleep
in their room and he in his. The cook has her kitchen and the professor his op
erating room. Most important, dining is done in the dining room.
The house committee has taken pains to erase any such divisions in the build
ing and in their group; they look alike, dress alike, and even at one point speak
in unison. Throughout their encounter, the professor battles not only to defend
the boundaries of his apartment but also to reestablish the boundaries of class,
gender, and rank among the people who have entered. For example, he deter
mines which of them is a woman and allows her alone to keep her hat. The bat
tle with the house committee, however, is first and foremost linguistic; the pro
fessor defends his world with words, establishing a linguistic wall between him
and the collective. He repeatedly corrects what he considers to be errors in
grammar and language usage: "Try to express your thoughts more clearly
[FIOTpyAHTeCb H3JiaraTb BamH MbICJIH AcHee]" (18); "I request that you not use
such expressions [IHonIpomIy Bac He yiioupe6JIATb TaKHX BbipaKeHHH]" (21).
And he condemns the group for not clearly showing grammatical gender differ
ences: "'Dir-ec-tress,' Filipp Filippovich corrected her [3a-Be-gy-onJa3i,
nioiipaBHji ee DHiin (HJ1Hnn11oBHLI]" (21). They fight back, angrily rejecting
his bourgeois forms of address-"Gentlemen [rocnoga]" (17), "my dear sir
[M4JoCTH1BIH rocyAapb]" (18)-but they leave the apartment completely si
lenced; the only sound made is the professor's door, shutting behind them and
audibly reestablishing the boundary between him and the "ruin" they represent:
"The four of them silently left the study, silently walked through the receiving
room, silently walked through the foyer, and the only thing heard was the
heavy, resonant sound of the front door shutting behind them ['leTBepo MojiHa
BbIEffJH4 113 Ka64HeTa, MoW-Ia upOIfJIH HpHeMHyIO, MoILa nepeAH1o0o, H
CJIbIIIIHO 6buio, KaK 3a HHMH 3aKpbIJIaCb TW)KejiO H 3ByqHO HapaAHaA ABepb]"
(22). After they depart, the dog admires the professor's linguistic power:
"What, does he know some kind of word? ['4TO OH, CJIOBO, 'ITO JIH, TaKOe
3HaeT?]" (21). With this powerful "word" the professor silences the house com
mittee, and boundaries remain intact.
In the following scene, we see the professor in the dining room, which he
has just saved from the house committee. In the dining room, the professor's
sense of control is most strongly felt. Everything he says is instructive,
homiletic: "Filipp Filippovich didactically interrupted [HacTaBHTeIbHo
nepe6w4i (DHJIHH4Hz (DPHJIHInIIIOBHI]" (23), "he sermonized [npofosBeqoBaii]"
(24), "the master edifyingly explained [Ha3W4JaTeJIbHo o6lsCHHJI Xo3AHH]"
(28). His interlocutor, the courteous Dr. Bormenthal, bows to his authority on

11. Susanne Fusso connects the repeated use of the word "ruin [pa3pyxa]" in the novel with
Mayakovsky's poster figure with the same name, a gremlin-like destroyer of property (Fusso 394).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
496 Slavic and East European Journal

every topic. The only other person in the dining room is Zina, and she liter
ally obeys his commands. In the dining room, the professor instructs both
Zina and Bormenthal on how and what to eat, what to talk about, and how to
solve the problems of the outside world. When they have opinions contrary
to those of the professor, they quickly bow to his authority; for example,
when Zina protests feeding the dog in the dining room, she is immediately si
lenced, and the dog is fed. Moreover, the professor's speech is presented in
long paragraphs, interrupted only by single sentences or broken phrases,
Zina's or Bormenthal's responses to his own actions and words. His long
monologue on "ruin" is so unchallenged that he treats it as a written text,
meant to be studied and marked for future reference: "I underline this with a
red pencil [noaxiepKHsBaLo KpaCHEIM KapaHgamoM]" (25). But it is the speaker,
not the listener, who chooses what to mark. With Zina and Bormenthal, as
with the house committee, the professor controls language.
Part of his "sermon" concerns the importance of protecting the dining ex
perience from uncontrolled voices: "The majority of people don't know how
to eat at all. It is necessary to know not only what to eat but when and how...
and what to talk about while you eat. Yes sir. If you worry about your diges
tion, my best advice is -don't talk about Bolshevism and medicine during
dinner [BOJIbIur4HCTBO Iiogeii BOBce eCTb He yMeiOT. HYKHO He TOJIbKO
3HaTb-T cTOcbeCTb, HO H Korga H KaK.... 14qITO IpH 3TOM rOBOPHTb. Aa-c.
ECJIH BBi 3a6oTHTecb 0 CBOeM nHi1eBapeHHH, MOH go6pbii COBeT-He
FOBOpHTe 3a o6egoM o 6onbmeBH43Me H Mee4LUHHe]" (24). The professor
therefore limits the people who speak in his seven-room world to those who
will obey his rules about conversation: his patients, the servants, and Bor
menthal. He outlines for Bormenthal a hospital study which proved that
people who read Pravda lose weight and suffer from poor physical reflexes,
appetite, and mood. Therefore, to protect his physical and emotional well
being, the professor shuts out disturbing printed matter. When he does allow
the house committee into the apartment, they never penetrate into the dining
room. In the appropriate room for their encounter, the office, the house com
mittee is defeated in verbal battle and quickly dismissed so that the profes
sor can repair to the sanctuary of his dining room for the proper food and
conversation. In a way, all the people around the professor are like the stray
dog he takes into his apartment, obedient to his verbal commands.

The Dog Takes a Master: Trading Controlfor Power

Although the professor seems to control speech in the pre-operation chap
ters, Heart of a Dog opens with the dog in total control of language and point
of view.12 But the dog's first-person account of life on the streets is short

12. Fusso interprets the dog's first-person narration as a pose on the part of the primary
third-person narrator, "an imitation of a dog's-eye view?a kind of ventriloquism" (Fusso

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 497

lived, broken when he is given the name "Sharik" by a young typist. In order
to get food, he accepts the name, even though it is at odds with his self
image: "What kind of 'Sharik' is he, anyway? Sharik is a round [...] son of
noble parents [KaKoii OH, K LiepTy, <<ilapilK? lllapH4K-3T0 3HaqIHT KpyrFlbIH
[...] CbIH 3HaTHbIX pOqHTeJIeH]" (3). By accepting the name, thereby ac
knowledging the typist's power over him, the dog gives up control of the
text, and it switches to third person. But her power is weak; she herself is
controlled by a Soviet official who thinks only of his own needs. And, with
her departure, the dog's voice regains control of narration. The resumption
of first-person is, however, short-lived; moments later, he is given food13 and
is assigned the same name by the Professor. After this, the first-person nar
ration gradually fades, resuming in spots, but is lost completely when the
dog enters the apartment.
Outside the apartment, the dog has some control over even the written word;
he has learned to read store signs in order to find food. However, at the border
of the professor's apartment, he encounters a new, unfamiliar, sign: "The first
three letters he put together right away: 'P-r-o-Pro'. But after that was some
pot-bellied two-sided trash. It wasn't clear what it meant [TpHi nepBbie 6yKBbI
OH CJIO)KHi4 cpa3y: <<d3-ep-o-llpo>>. Ho aanbme uima nyy3aTaA gBy6oKa5 ApAHb,
HeH3BeCTHO tITO o6o3aHaIaLoiuaA]" (9). The mysterious word is, of course,
"professor," the title that gives Preobrazhensky the power to maintain bound
aries. The "pot-bellied" letter is the Russian F [CL], which also begins the first
name and patronymic of the professor (Filipp Filippovich). In Russian, this let
ter is used mainly in words of non-Slavic origin; it is therefore mysterious and
somewhat threatening to the simple Russian dog. The professor's enigmatic
door plaque marks the boundary of a new world, where the dog gains power
not from his own control of words but from the professor's. As the dog crosses
the border guarded by this "pot-bellied trash," his control of narration is com
pletely relinquished. He is not only given the new name Sharik but is also per
manently renamed at the narrative level, as the "I" becomes a "he."
The renamed dog enters the foyer and is met with a floor-to-ceiling mirror,
above which are "terrifying [cTpamHbie]" (9) deer antlers, which signify both
the professor's control of the natural world and the threat to outsiders who
cross his threshold. Below, the dog sees his own reflection, an imperfect and
uncontrolled representative of the natural world: "a second ragged and torn
Sharik [BToporo HCTaCKaHHoro H pBaHoro IllapHKa]" (9). But he soon experi

390). Helena Goscilo argues that the first-person dog narration is used for several reasons: for
comic effect, to make the reader like the dog, and to elevate Preobrazhensky (Goscilo 286).
13. Henrietta Mondry views the professor's feeding the dog "human" food as "aimed at so
cializing and civilizing Sharik" (5). Ronald LeBlanc attributes the dog's transformation in Pro
fessor Preobrazhensky's apartment to an abundance of food; the dog moves from the "realm of
necessity" to the "domain of pleasure" (65). LeBlanc views the dog's acquisition of food as
symbolic of the acquisition of culture (58).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 498 Slavic and East European Journal

ences a metamorphosis under the professor's power. He becomes healthy and

fat, and, by the end of the third chapter, he has grown into his "aristocratic"
name; he now thinks of himself as a "canine prince-incognito [co6a'mi4
HPHHU-HHKOFHHTO]" (29) and a "noble dog, an intellectual creature [6apcKHi
niec, HHTeJ1J1HreHTHoe cyIecTBo]" (35). However, in return for his "noble" re
flection the dog must accept the fact that the professor controls his movement.
Sharik is given a collar, a symbol of his servitude and of the professor's con
trol. Initially, he finds it shameful, but gradually he learns that it allows him to
cross previously blocked thresholds. After that he is proud of the collar and the
reaction it provokes in doormen (respect) and stray dogs (envy). He accepts
this symbol of servitude in exchange for elevated status and the ability to cross
boundaries previously closed to him; after receiving the collar, he enters the
kitchen for the first time.
Although the narration switches from first-person to third-person, the story
continues to be told from the dog's point of view. We see only what he sees.
So he seems to retain some narratorial power through submitting to the pro
fessor. This is reflected in his ability to rename the doctor's assistant; once
Bormenthal has been bitten by Sharik, the new narrator refers to him there
after as "the bitten one [TsAIHyTb1i]" (23). However, this remaining power is
accompanied by a weakening of judgement; the insight the dog had in the
outside world vanishes when he enters the apartment. On the street, the un
named dog understands the people he meets, their character and their place in
the world; Edythe Haber argues that the dog's early narration "gives the
pooch powers of cognition even beyond the ordinary human, approaching
that of the omniscient narrator" (209). Through the dog's first-person narra
tion, we learn about the typist's life in detail, and when he meets the profes
sor for the first time, he already knows the man's first name and patronymic
and his place in the world. However, by crossing the threshold of the profes
sor's apartment, the dog seems to lose his insight. After entering, he is mys
tified by the doctor's behavior and by the behavior of the doctor's servants
and patients. With his collar, the dog gains status but forfeits a true under
standing of the world around him. In particular, he fails to understand his own
place in the apartment. The dog is mystified as he is brought into the operat
ing room: "But why? [3a 'ITo?]" (36). He is sedated, his point of view van
ishes, and we learn that the dog has been chosen not as a noble pet but as a
disposable scientific subject.

The Master Is a Dog: the Illusion of Control

While watching the confrontation with the house committee, the dog feels
an affinity for the professor: "'What a guy,' the dog thought, delighted, 'just
like me' [BOT 3TO niapeH6,-B BOCTopre niogymai niec,-Becb B MeH]" (20).
And the pre-operation scenes do reveal a resemblance between the dog and his
master. The dog is annoyed by uninvited singers in the park, who disturb his

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 499

enjoyment of sausage wrappers, just as the professor is annoyed by the unin

vited singing of the house committee, which drifts into the dining room. The
professor shocks the house committee by proclaiming his hatred for the prole
tariat. Similarly, the dog places the proletariat very low on the scale of human
beings, calling those who have gained power "scum [Mpa3b]" (2) and "vermin
[ragHHa]" (1). The kind typist is treated badly by her lover, a powerful Soviet
official, and the dog is treated even worse. The criminal Klim Chugunkin, on
the other hand, is pardoned for his crimes because of his proletarian back
ground. Both the professor and the dog fondly remember conditions before the
revolution; this is embodied for the dog in the kind cook of Count Tolstoy, who
always fed him, and for the professor in the luxurious apartment building,
where galoshes were never stolen. The apartment is their refuge from the bar
barism of the post-revolutionary world, and both professor and dog guard its
walls, barking at undeserving house committees and cats. Despite their efforts,
the outside world has begun to threaten the integrity of the professor's apart
ment. Mud has been tracked through the halls of his building and up to his
door, and the galoshes stand, the professor's defense against outside "ruin,"
has been moved into the apartment's foyer. Moreover, the walls of his apart
ment are now permeable; he must let the house committee inside, and they
track mud onto his Persian carpets. The professor quickly silences them, but
their revolutionary songs still penetrate the walls of his beloved dining room,
disturbing his carefully controlled conversation.
When the dog learns that his new collar allows him to enter previously for
bidden doorways, he has a sudden insight: "A collar is just like a briefcase
[OmeiiHHK -Bce paBHO tITO nopTDeJIb]" (31). Just as the dog has been given
a collar, which both limits and empowers him, the professor has been given a
"briefcase," which subordinates him to the state but which also allows him to
cross the boundaries of the natural world (animal organs into human bodies
and human organs into animal bodies).14 Each believes that he controls those
around him, the professor with "kindness [zacKoa]" ( 11) and the dog by being
"affectionate [7acKoBbnoi]" (40). When the dog is brought into the operation
room, it becomes clear that his control has been illusory. After the operation,
the professor also begins to realize that he no longer controls the world around
him. But even before the experiment, we can see that the professor's control is
as delusional as the dog's. If we examine the battle with the house committee
in more detail, we find that the professor lacks physical and emotional control.
This is signalled by color changes -he turns red, yellow, gray -and, more sig

14. Haber also notes the resemblance between dog and master, seeing the subordination of
the professor as a result of the New Economic Policy (214). I would argue, however, that Heart
of a Dog makes a more universal statement about science and state power. Haber argues that
dog and master bear only a passing resemblance, because the professor is too "insubordinate"
(215). As I will show, the dog's subordination is only surface, hidden by an inability to commu
nicate his thoughts to the professor.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
500 Slavic and East European Journal

nificantly, by changes in his voice: "in desperation he exclaimed [B OTIa5HH1H

BocK14KHyJI]" (18); "Filipp Filippovich spoke in a strange kind of voice
[MOJIBHJI (PHHII 4JIHn InIOBHuq KaKHM-To CTpaHHbIM roJiocoM]" (19); "he
began to speak in a slightly strangled voice [3aroBopHI OH cjiera npH2,4yMeH
HbIM roJiocoM]" (19). Eventually, like his experiment, he crosses the boundary
between animal and human and begins to emit bestial sounds: "he bellowed
[pABKHyJI OH]" (19); "in a serpent voice [3Me4HbIM roJIocoM]" (21). The pro
fessor claims to control with "kindness"; however, all through the encounter
with the house committee he is angry and rude; it is only after he has phoned
his important patient that his color and voice return to normal, and he is at last
able to behave calmly and courteously. In reality, the professor maintains con
trol not with words but with more tangible weapons: money, walls, collars, and
very important patients. This is true even in the dining room, where he makes
an obvious show of paying Bormenthal. And, although he criticizes the state's
use of terror, when the sanctity of his dining room is threatened by outside
singing, he suggests that they post a policeman next to each singer in order to
regain silence.
Throughout the pre-operation scenes, the professor obsesses about the loss
of galoshes and introduction of mud into his crystal palace of an apartment,
where representatives of the natural world are bottled or stuffed, frozen in a
scientifically-induced stasis or artificially produced, like the "paradisical
flowers [paiicK4e UBeTbI]" (22) on his dining-room china. When he brings the
dog into his apartment, the professor believes that he can control him too. By
the time of the operation, he thinks that the dog has been transformed from a
wild street animal into an easily-controlled house dog; just before the surgery,
the final flea, the last remnant of outside "ruin," is "doomed [o6peMeHHaR]"
(33). But, immediately upon entering the apartment, the dog breaks a vial,
and the "ruin" he brings into the apartment continues unabated until he is se
dated in the operating room. The stuffed owl in the professor's office is a
symbol of wisdom; under the professor's control, it peers down through glass
eyes at the polished surfaces of the apartment. But the "domesticated" dog
easily tears the owl to shreds. The dog also chews up galoshes, the professor's
protection against outside mud. And, when the dog is locked in the bathroom
shortly before the operation, he vows to destroy the professor's new galoshes.
At this point the dog remembers freedom, the chaotic world outside the apart
ment, and sees, reflected in the bathtub, a stranger with the eyes of a wolf. The
professor's mirrors reflect a "canine prince incognito," but, in this moment of
rebellion, the dog's true nature is revealed. A collar cannot contain the wolf
within. By believing that he controls with kindness, the professor allows him
self to bring the wolf into his apartment.
The professor's delusion that he controls with kindness extends even to his
work. Although he tells Bormenthal that his real interest is in eugenics, the
"improving of human nature," the only tangible result of the professor's

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 501

work- other than the dog-man -is that one of his rejuvenated patients is now
able to have sex with underaged girls. Rather than improving human nature,
he furthers exploitation of the innocent. And his treatment of the dog echoes
this. The professor's "kindness" to the dog has an ulterior motive; he fattens
him up in order to perform an experiment on the unsuspecting animal; and he
openly expresses his doubt that the dog will survive the operation. The unset
tling images found in the operation scene emphasize the fact that the profes
sor's scientific experiments are anything but kind. In the operating room the
professor is a "bandit [pa360iiHHK]" (39) and a "satiated vampire [CblTblii
BaMnHp]" (40). Bormenthal is a "tiger [T4rp]" (39). Together they are "mur
derers [y6HiHUbl]" (38). Nevertheless, in asserting that his real work is in eu
genics, the professor believes that he is "kind," even in the laboratory.
Prior to the operation, the dog shatters a portrait of Ilya Mechnikov, who,
like the professor, had explored the science of aging.15 This event presages
the shattering of the professor's illusion of control over his apartment and
over his work. In the operating room, where the professor dares to cross the
boundaries of the natural world, he is compared to a "priest [Kpeiu]" (35) and
a "deity [6owecTBo]" (35).16 The room is filled with blinding bright white
light reminiscent of the Biblical Transfiguration, which in Russian is preo
brazhenie and therefore shares the root of the professor's last name (Preo
brazhenskii). In the Transfiguration, Christ reveals his divinity to the apostles
by radiating light, but in the operating room this "deity" is clothed only in ar
tificial light;17 and, through his failure to control the results of the experiment,
the professor's fallibility, not divinity, is revealed. The professor believes that
he is conducting an experiment in rejuvenation and that the dog will die. The
fact that the operation instead turns him into a human being proves that the
professor has no control over his work- even before it begins to walk and
talk and call him "comrade."

15. Mechnikov was the winner of the Nobel prize for medicine in 1908. He probably occu
pies a prominent place in the professor's apartment due to his theory that senility is caused by
bacilli in the intestine. The professor, conducting experiments in rejuvenation, would undoubt
edly be interested in Mechnikov's theory of aging, but Mechnikov's focus on the intestines also
echoes the equation of power with food and digestion in the novel. Mechnikov, like Professor
Preobrazhensky, had many ideas about how and what to eat; see Trimmer 81-91. Moreover, ac
cording to the official Nobel Prize website, Mechnikov wore overshoes in any kind of weather
(http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1908/mechnikov-bio.html); perhaps Bulgakov draws
on this in his depiction of Professor Preobrazhensky's preoccupation with galoshes.
16. Eugenics was commonly seen as a "civic religion" in the first decades of the twentieth
century. The Soviet eugenicist Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov asserted: "Eugenics is the reli
gion of the future and it awaits its prophets" (quoted in Adams 162). Haber discusses the many
comparisons of religion and science in the novel (215).
17. Electric light is also the source of the disastrous red ray in Bulgakov's other "mad scien
tist" story of the 1920s, "Fatal Eggs" [1925]. This is perhaps a comment on the Bolsheviks' be
lief in the transforming power of electricity: "Communism equals Socialism plus the electrifi
cation of the entire country."

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
502 Slavic and East European Journal

Giving the Masses a Voice (Blot)

Before the operation, the professor maintains the illusion of control, be
cause he has the ability to suppress speech. Even though the people around
him frequently disagree with his actions and proclamations, he manages to si
lence them quickly. Their protests are fragmentary, short sentences, easily
dismissed by the erudite professor. And he believes that he has subdued the
dog, despite tooth-marked evidence to the contrary, because the dog cannot
utter even short protests. The professor assures a patient that the dog does not
bite: "'I don't bite?' the dog was astonished [51 He Kycaiocb?-yw4BHJIcs
nec]" (13). But the professor cannot read the dog's mind, and, as long as
Sharik cannot speak, the professor can maintain the illusion of control. When
the mute dog is replaced by an uncontrollable speaker who is given legal
sanction to enter the professor's apartment, the illusion is shattered.
The chapter following the experiment is in the form of a journal written by
Bormenthal,18 the professor's assistant. Although Bormenthal writes down the
facts about the dog's transformation, in the beginning he merely records the
professor's own observations. The first eight entries of the journal are there
fore scholarly, full of scientific information, and clearly punctuated; they fit
well with the orderly, grammatical world created by Preobrazhensky. But,
when the dog-man begins to develop speech, Bormenthal loses control of the
narration. This loss is signalled by editorial comments in parentheses through
out the notes. The first is found in the middle of the entry for December 29,
when human sounds begin to issue from the dog. The next several pages of en
tries, which chronicle the emergence of speech in the creature, are filled with
such annotations, noting changes in handwriting, writing instrument, paper,
and neatness, and an increasing number of "blots [KJIxKCbI]." Along with these
disorderly textual insertions, uncontrolled voices, asserting the existence of the
supernatural and the irrational, begin to invade his scientific narrative; Bor
menthal notes rumors that Martians have landed in Moscow and that the apoc
alypse has arrived. Faced with these uncontrolled voices, Bormenthal loses
control not only of the text but of his own mind: "I am lost [...] I'll go insane
[A Tepi6oCb [ ..] A C YMY COiAY]" (43).
When the professor is injured and Bormenthal takes over both observation
and narration (after January 2), his point of view is full of "blots." Prior to
being fully "humanized," the dog-man says a word he learned from a store sign
in reverse. Bormenthal attributes this to the nature of canine optic nerves; but,
in the first part, the dog has already explained that the word is reversed for a
different reason: a policeman was always stationed at the beginning of the
store's sign (like the professor, Bormenthal fails to understand the role of au

18. Goscilo argues that Bormenthal's journal "humanizes" the doctors and serves to distance
the reader from the likeable Sharik as the negative Sharikov enters. She also argues that the
journal serves to further elevate Preobrazhensky in the reader's estimation: "he earns the
reader's unreserved respect" (286-88).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 503

thoritarian force in every process). Moreover, Bormenthal observes Preo

brazhensky's study of the organ donor's background and fails to understand the
conclusion that the professor is gradually coming to: the dog-man is acquiring
the character of the criminal Klim Chugunkin. Bormenthal himself notes that
he is not a psychiatrist; nevertheless, he attempts to describe and understand a
human mind. His "scientific" description of an emerging human psyche is as
flawed as the dog's vision of a "prince incognito" in the professor's mirror.
The journal demonstrates Bormenthal's lack of control and inaccuracy of
perception; at the same time it reveals the professor's increasing powerless
ness as the dog-man acquires the capacity for human speech. When he first
hears the dog-man curse, the professor falls and injures himself; he must then
turn observation of the experiment over to Bormenthal. The cursing therefore
interferes with the professor's scientific work. But it also takes away the illu
sion that the professor controls those around him with language:
For some reason the cursing produces a surprisingly painful effect on Filipp Filippovich. There
are moments when he departs from controlled and cold observation of new phenomena, and it
seems that he loses his patience. For example, once, when the dog was cursing, he suddenly ex
claimed nervously, "Stop!" This had absolutely no effect.

Ha DiiHJinnia )HJmrrIOBH'ia 6paHb ripOH3BO,1HT HOIeMy-TO YAHBHTejibHO TAIOCTHOe Bne'a

TJIeHHe. SbIBalOT MoMeHTbI, KOrga OH BbIXOIHT H3 cgepwaHHoro H XOIOAHOrO Ha6JIitoeH4H
HOBbIX IBjieHHi H KaK 6bI TepAeT TepHeHHe. TaK, B MOMeHT pyraHH OH Bgpyr HepBHO
BbIKpHKHyJI: -FlepecTaTb! 3To He rIpOH3sBJ1o HHKaKoro 344eKTa. (45)

Faced with the creature's "bad words," the professor's own words lose their
supposed efficacy; the dog-man's first meaningful statement is a refusal to
obey the professor (January 11). With the dog's acquisition of speech, the
"blots" leave the pages of Bormenthal's journal and begin to muddy the pro
fessor's civilized world. Of course, the dog-man's very existence, unplanned
by the professor, is a "blot" on Preobrazhensky's scientific power, which is
reflected by the physical blot following Bormenthal's written praise: "Prof.
Preobrazhensky, you are a creator (Blot) [rlpo4. IHpeo6paweHcKHi, BbI
TBopeU (KJlIKca)]" (46).
The chapter after Bormenthal's journal opens with a series of signs posted
on the door of the waiting room; these hastily written signs forbid the con
sumption of sunflower seeds and limit the playing of musical instruments
within the apartment. With these signs, the professor attempts to control the
dog-man with the written word. However, the signs, rather than reestablish
ing the boundaries so important to the professor, instead provide evidence
that control over these boundaries has been lost. Music no longer drifts in; it
originates within the apartment, and the careful controls over what is eaten
and how it is eaten have been lost. The narrator moves from these signs into
the dining room, where the sideboard mirror is now broken in half; suitably,
this dining-room scene is a "cracked" reflection of the pre-operation dinner,
during which the professor lectured Bormenthal on how to dine. Despite the

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 504 Slavic and East European Journal

professor's earlier warnings about Soviet newspapers, he is now reading a

newspaper denunciation written by Shvonder19; as the professor explained in
his pre-operation "sermon," this activity has a negative physical and emo
tional effect: "Lightning distorted his face, and through his teeth ragged, man
gled, chirping words poured out [MOJIHHH KOBepKaJ1H ero JIHUO, H CKBO3b
3y6bi ciinaJi4cb o60pBaHHbie, KybIe BopKytoioi4e cJloBa]" (49). Like his re
flection, the professor's words are now broken, fragmented. Moreover, the
lyrics to one of the dog-man's popular songs repeat themselves in the profes
sor's mind, taking the place of his usual operatic offerings20 and bringing
back his earlier dining room proclamation that "ruin [...] is in the heads
[pa3pyxa [...] B roJIoBax]" (27). The professor loses total control over his
head -his emotions and his reasoning -when the dog-man Sharikov, the em
bodiment of ruin, enters the dining room in garish clothes. Sharikov's patent
shoes with white spats remind the professor of galoshes; but these "galoshes"
are a cracked reflection of those that protect the professor from the encroach
ing mud of the revolution; they instead disrupt his previous "civilized" behav
ior and deprive him of self-control.
In the post-operation dining-room scene, the professor is especially con
cerned about Sharikov's speech. He lectures the dog-man on swearing and be
rates him for not using his first name and patronymic and for addressing Zina
with the overly familiar "Zinka." When Sharikov calls him "comrade," the
professor explodes. Unlike the earlier conversation in the dining room, the
professor's own speech is no longer composed of long, instructive para
graphs. He is frequently interrupted, and his replies are emotional and uncon
trolled: "Filipp Filippovich irritably exclaimed [pa3gpaweHHo BOCKJI1KHyJI
4DHJIHIH (T4J1HHnBoB4I]" (52); "he furiously shouted [MpOCTHO Kp4KHyJI]"
(52); "he despondently exclaimed [yHbIJ0o BocKJHKHyJI]" (53). These changes
in voice are similar to those in the first scene with the house committee, but
now they occur in the sacred dining room, and the professor cannot make a
phone call that will return the courtesy to his voice. Now, rather than lectur
ing an admiring Bormenthal, the professor becomes an unwilling audience
for Sharikov's own lecture on Soviet equality:
I'm not allowed to curse. I'm not allowed to spit. And from you I hear only, "Fool, fool." It's
obvious that only professors are allowed to swear in the Resefesar. Filipp Filippovich flushed,
and tried to fill a glass but broke it. He drank from another and thought, "If this goes on, he will
start to teach me and he will be completely correct in doing so. I cannot control myself."

MHe no maTyIKe HeJIb3A. rIlesaTb-HeJlb3A. A OT BaC TOJIbKO HI CJmIby: <<?ypaK, JypaK?). BH4HO
TOJbKO npo4eccopaM pa3pemaeTCA pyraTbCA B Pece4ecepe. (HJi4ii 4H1rinOBiH4 HJiHanwIC5
KpOBbhO, H, HaHOIJIHIA CTaKaH, pa36Hw ero. HaiinBmHcHb H3 qpyvoro, noJyMan: <<Eue HeMHoro, OH
MeHIA YNHTb CTaHeT H 6yaeT COBepimeHHO ipaB. B pyKax He Mory gepwaTb ce6A>>. (54)

19. Later, in the third dining-room scene, a volume of Engels is brought into the dining room,
and the professor, in frustration, orders that it be burnt.
20. For a discussion of Professor Preobrazhensky's musical selections see Natov 81-87.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 505

The professor's frustration with the dog-man's speech causes him first to
drop his cigar and then to break the glass; he has now become the source of
ruin.
Like the dining-room scene, each scene in the pre-operation part of the
novel is "reflected" in the post-operation scenes, but reversed.21 For example,
in the first part the house committee demands that the professor give up his
dining room, and he refuses; in the second part the professor demands an
extra room for the dog-man, and the house committee refuses. Before the op
eration, when the dog is locked in the bathroom, he vows revenge, but all he
can do is howl. After the operation, the dog-man locks himself in the bath
room, breaks all the glass and mirrors, and unleashes a flood upon the profes
sor's little world. The professor tries to talk him out of the bathroom. But, the
professor's former controls-words, collars, doors-will no longer contain
the ruin. As they work to halt the flow of water within the apartment, Bormen
thal urges Preobrazhensky to put on galoshes; the professor must be protected
from ruin within the walls of his own apartment. The dog-man's destruction
puts an end to the professor's work; patients have to be turued away from the
flooded apartment. And, rather than keeping the ruin out, his doorway now
serves as a conduit for the water pouring out of the apartment and into the rest
of the building. The many mirrors in the professor's apartment, which for
merly reflected false images of power and nobility, now are either broken,
cracked, or clouded with steam from the evaporating flood.

"A Document Is the Most Important Thing": Shvonder's Monster

Just as the dog relinquished power by accepting the name Sharik, the dog
man now asserts power by choosing his own name. The letter F (4 in Rus
sian), the "pot-bellied trash," which begins the first name and patronymic of
the professor, ends the first name and father's name contained in the
patronymic that Sharikov chooses for himself: Poligraf Poligrafovich.22 The
dog Sharik cannot decipher the mysterious symbol "PD"; the man Sharikov ac
quires the power to take it for himself. With the help of the house committee,
Sharikov has chosen his name from the Soviet equivalent of a saints' calen

21. Yury Piotrovsky also notes a "mirroring" in Heart of a Dog', he claims that the professor
and Sharik/Sharikov "mirror" one another in their words and actions. Piotrovsky views the dog
man as a combination of the criminal tendencies of Klim and the high opinion of self that the
"canine prince" has gained in the professor's apartment (Piotrovskii 68-69).
22. Susanne Fusso and Sergei Shargorodsky link the name to one of Mayakovsky's clients,
Mospoligraf, and therefore to Mayakovsky (Fusso 398 nil; Shargorodskii 87). Fusso reads the
novel as a rejection of Soviet propagandists, especially Mayakovsky, whose agitprop work
sought to transform society with words (392-94). Haber, on the other hand, reads the name as
a "backward echo" of the professor's name; she argues extensively and convincingly that they
are spiritually very much the same, but, in their opposing tastes (high vs. low culture), they em
body two extremes resulting from the New Economic Policy (219-20).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
506 Slavic and East European Journal

dar, a calendar of technology.23 His choice reflects the post-revolutionary en

thusiasm for science, but the name has greater significance; in Russian
"Poligraf" points to the printing profession (nonirpa4HAs).24 And Poligraf
Poligrafovich is indeed a creation of the printing profession, since his new
name must be printed in the newspaper in order to gain official recognition.
By helping Sharikov choose a name, publish it, and acquire documents, Com
rade Shvonder brings the dog-man to life in the Soviet sense: "without docu
ments a person is strictly forbidden to exist [tiejioBeKy 6e3 ,aoKyMeHTOB
cTpoFo BocnpeuaeTcA cymecTBoBaTb]" (53). Once he has an identity and an
officially sanctioned existence, Sharikov turns to the press to take away the
last remnants of the professor's former control over him; just before the op
eration is reversed, Sharikov is about to use the newspaper to denounce the
professor. As promised, the Soviet press establishes an identity for the name
less masses and serves as a weapon to wrench power from the powerful.
Against the professor's wishes, the dog-man's "birth" is announced in a
newspaper article, according to which, on January 7, Russian Orthodox
Christmas, the professor assisted in the birth of an infant who could play the
violin.25 The press thereby fulfills on the printed page what the professor
could not achieve with experiments in eugenics; a musical "genius" is created
and on Christmas no less, thus heralding a new beginning. The article is ac
companied by a picture of Dr. Bormenthal, which was stolen by a reporter
and which is captioned "Prof. Preobrazhensky." Before the experiment, the
Professor forbade the reading of Soviet newspapers. Now, those who write
them have entered the apartment and have stolen not only Bormenthal's pic
ture, but also the Professor's "powerful" name, giving it to someone suppos
edly under the professor's control. However, transforming humankind in print
does not make it so in reality. The dog-man is not a musical genius who will
contribute to high culture; he is just another tavern balalaika player (Klim's
profession), who rejects the professor's beloved operas for the circus.26 And
renaming Bormenthal does not give him any real power or scientific insight.
Just as the press, the professor, and Bormenthal fail to produce a perfected

23. Sharikov chooses his name from the calendar entry for March 4. Perhaps Bulgakov in
tended this as a reference to Lenin's final article "Better Fewer, but Better" [JlyHine MeHbine, #a
jiyHine], which was printed in Pravda on March 4, 1923. The article, which discussed the reor
ganized state apparatus, is often seen as an attack on Stalin. Sharikov has frequently been seen
as a Stalin figure.
24. Printers were among the first professions to unionize; their union was particularly strong
and active in the decade leading up to the 1917 revolutions, both in supporting workers' rights
and in fighting censorship; see Ruud.
25. Diana Burgin also notes that the journal covers the Christmas season, but she uses the
new calendar for her analysis of Sharikov as a "reverse Christ" (thus she finds the December 25
note that the dog's health has improved to be an indicator of "birth") (501^4).
26. Bulgakov may also have been satirizing the Soviet avant-garde's fascination with the
circus.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 507

person through their oral and written manipulations of reality, so too does
Comrade Shvonder. In the post-operation "reflection" of the scene in which
the house committee was silenced, Shvonder demands Preobrazhensky's co
operation in applying for Sharikov's documents. In this scene the power seems
to have been reversed. Whereas earlier the professor placed a phone call to
save his apartment, which calmed him, now he is interrupted by a phone call,
which irritates him. And, when he asks Shvonder for an extra room for
Sharikov, it is Shvonder's turn to refuse him. Whereas Shvonder himself was
earlier interrupted and silenced by the professor, he now speaks in longer sen
tences, and, more importantly, fulfills his role as revolutionary by giving
Sharikov a voice in the professor's apartment: "Shvonder immediately sup
ported him, 'Excuse me, Professor, but Citizen Sharikov is completely correct.
It is his right to take part in discussing his own fate, and especially because the
matter concerns documents' [1HBoHgep HeMe,JieHHo ero noJgep>KaJi: -Flpo
cTHTe, npo4eccop, rpaxKgaHHH IlIapHKOB coBepmeHHo ilpaB. 3To ero
inpaBo -y'IaCTBOBaTb B o6cywgeHHH ero co6CTBeHHORi "'aCTH, B OCo6eH
HOCTH nOCTOJIbKy, rIOCKOJIbKy 2eJiO KacaeTcA goKyMeHToB]" (56). But what
comes out of Sharikov's mouth is beyond Shvonder's control. When Sharikov
openly expresses his refusal to serve in the military, Shvonder turns to him and
"courteously [yl"THBo]" (56) explains his duty as a Soviet citizen. But civility
and patient explanation work no better for Shvonder than they do for the pro
fessor: "It was Shvonder's turn to be embarrassed [HacTaJia oqiepelb IIIBOH
aepa CMyT4TbcA]" (56).
Although Sharikov refuses to work, he defines himself as a member of the
"laboring element [TpyAoBoro 3JIeMeHTa]" (53). Therefore, like Shvonder
and the house committee, he demands a portion of the professor's living
space, money, and possessions; however, he also takes money from the pro
fessor's servants and the house committee. Like Shvonder, he rejects the
bourgeois "Mister" and demands to be called "Comrade Sharikov" or at least
by first name and patronymic; however, he refuses to grant this dignity to
others, calling Zina "Zinka."27 Like Shvonder, he uses Communist jargon to
reject the professor's rigidly-defined "bourgeois" civility: "'Everything with
you is like a parade,' he said, 'Here you need a napkin, there you need a
necktie, and 'excuse me' and 'please-merci,' and as to the real thing, well,
there's none of that [- BOT Bce y Bac, KaK Ha niapage,-3aroBopHJ1 OH,
caJIieTKy -TyTa, raJicTyK-cioJa, ga ?H3BHHHTe?>, ga <<?noajiyHcTa
MepcHw>, a TaK, ITo6bI no-HaCTOmeMy, -3TO HeT]" (64). However, when the
professor asks him to explain "And what exactly is this 'real thing'? [A KaK
3TO ?no-HaCTOMueMy??]" (64), Sharikov has no answer. His rejection of
bourgeois culture is simply a rejection of that which inconveniences or taxes

27. This echoes the professor, who insists that Sharikov call Zina by her first name and
patronymic but who himself does not know Zina's patronymic.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 508 Slavic and East European Journal

him, such as the theater, which bores him, and which he therefore proclaims
to be "counter-revolution" (66). There is no great idea, no "real thing" be
hind his jargon. Sharikov, in his rise to power, wants only to reverse posi
tions, to become the exploiter, and, like the professor before the operation,
to silence those around him: "Sharikov maliciously and ironically began to
glare at the professor. Filipp Filippovich in his part cast him a sidelong
glance and grew silent. [...] the meal ended in silence [IElapHKoB 3J106H0 H
HpOHH'IeCKH HaIaa KOCHTbCS Ha npo4eccopa. DHujiHnn I HiHH-I HOBHLI B
CBOIO oIepeIb OTHpaBHa emy KOCOll B3FJ1IA H yMOJIK. [...] B MOjIiaHHH
3aKOHxIHJIC,I o6e,1]" (68).
The professor asserts that his power comes from maintaining the bound
aries of his "cultured" world with etiquette and "kindness"; Shvonder claims
to free people by breaking down these boundaries, abolishing bourgeois eti
quette and educating. But both do battle only with authority from above.
When the professor's dining room is threatened, he protects it with a written
resolution, which exempts him. And Shvonder can only fight this resolution
by attaining documents for Sharikov: "A document is the most important
thing in the world [,ZoKyMeHT-caMaA BsaHaI BeIb Ha cBeTe]" (56). With
documents comes power, and, with power, the dog-man becomes increasingly
exploitative and violent. He brings home another document attesting that he
is director of a subsection for purging cats, and the professor notes that his at
tention will soon turn to humans. The dog-man then uses his new document
to coerce a young typist into living with him. The pre-operation dog felt sorry
for the typist, who was exploited by her lover, a powerful Soviet official. With
a voice and a document the dog-man becomes that powerful Soviet official,
lying to the typist and exploiting her without pity. To protect the typist, the
professor once again turns not to his professed weapon of kindness but in
stead threatens to kill the dog-man if the typist is harmed. Soon this threat is
reversed when the dog-man pulls a gun on the professor. But the dog-man's
violence is again not met with kindness; the professor and Bormenthal wres
tle Sharikov to the ground, anesthetize him, and reverse the operation. Only
because the dog-man is outnumbered is he at last silenced: "In the apartment
that night there was an utter and most terrifying silence [B KBapTHpe B 3TOT
Beliep 6bJIa noJIHeRmas H yKaCHeuieaA THim1Ha]" (88).28

Conclusion: "Bad Words Are Not Allowed!"

This "silent" ending is followed by an epilogue, in which Shvonder brings
the police to investigate the alleged murder of the dog-man. A week has passed,
new glass has been installed in all the cabinets, and the professor is once again
healthy, energetic, and courteous (he immediately apologizes for meeting the

28. Many scholars see the reversal of the operation as a suggestion that the only solution to
current societal problems was to "reverse" the revolution, e.g. Doyle 480.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 509

group in his robe). As in the initial scene with the house committee, the profes
sor's courtesy seems to provide him with power over his visitors, as made ob
vious in the official's embarrassed reaction to the professor's apology. When
they demand that he produce Sharikov, the "human being [lienoBeK]" (89), the
professor protests: "'You mean he spoke?' asked Filipp Filippovich, 'This
doesn't yet mean that one is a human being' [To ecTb OH FOBOp1I4i? -C1cpOCHJ
(DIUHnI n DHJIIIIIOBHI. - 3To eiwe He 3HaniHT 6bITb IeJOBeKOM]" (89-90). The
professor has defined "human being" to exclude the imperfect, vulgar beings
who are shut out of his apartment. They do not speak correctly, and therefore
are not human. In support of the professor, the devolving creature enters and
delivers his final warning not to say "bad words." The professor has once again
"cleaned up" the language spoken in his apartment, but not with kindness or ci
vility. He does so with force and suppression of speech.29
Nevertheless, many scholars have interpreted Preobrazhensky as a thinly
veiled spokesman for the author; Sheelagh Duffin Graham writes: "That the
Professor is meant to be a sympathetic figure and these views, therefore, to be
taken as close to the author's own is indicated" (29). Such scholars take
Preobrazhensky at his word that he controls only with kindness; they see the
experiment as a foolish blunder of a good man.30 Diana Burgin calls him a "ro
mantic hero," whose "fate is certainly unjustly deserved" (494, 501). Ellendea
Proffer calls the professor "brilliant, honest, decent, and misguided" (133).
This view of the "good doctor" has colored scholars' interpretations of the end
ing. Christine Rydel asserts: "Perhaps Bulgakov saves the doctor in the end be
cause [...] he does not deserve to die; Preobrazhenskii is never cruel and usu
ally kind-except when dealing with proletarians and bureaucrats" (307).
Helena Goscilo also argues that the ending valorizes the professor: "Not only
has Preobrazhenskii vindicated Sharik's belief in his magical prowess and
beneficence, but he has passed honorably the stringent moral test of acknowl
edging his colossal blunder" (289-90). And Nadine Natov argues that Profes
sor Preobrazhensky learns the lesson of every accidental mad scientist, don't

29. The dog's final words bring us back to his thoughts on street signs in the pre-operation
scenes, when we first learn that the dog can read; whenever a sign with these words occurred,
violence was sure to follow: "the first letters on the white sign would quite conveniently add up
to the word 'No ba...,' which meant 'No bad words allowed and no tipping.' Here from time to
time fistfights broke out, and people would punch each other in the kisser [nepBbie 6yKBbi Ha
?ejibix njiaKarax Hpe3BbiHairHO v?o6ho cna^biBajincb b cjiobo ?HenpHJiH...?, hto o3HaHajio
?HenpHjiHHHbiMH cjioBaMH He Bbipa^caTbca h Ha nan He #aBan>?. 3#ecb nopoio bhhtom
3aKHnajiH apaKH, mo/jen 6hjih KynaKOM no Mop#e]" (8).
30. Edythe Haber is an exception to this, noting that, in his defense of material things, the
professor shares "spiritual underpinnings" with the dog-man (220), and that, in his eugenics
work, "Preobrazhensky shares the radicals' readiness to subordinate the individual living crea
ture and traditional ethics to the abstract goal of improving humanity" (214). However, she sees
the professor as redeeming himself through his relationship with Bormenthal and his effort to
dissuade him from crime (221-27).

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 510 Slavic and East European Journal

mess with mother nature: "Preobrazhenskii bitterly admits his mistake -it is
impossible to force nature; one needs to move parallel with it [C roperibo
Hlpeo6paweHCKIHI HpH3HaeT CBOLO OEur6Ky -Hemb351 4OpCHpOBaTb npupoAy,
HaIO HATH HapasuienlHo C HeH]" (80). However, the novel does not end with
the professor's lengthy exposition on the foolishness of his actions and the
brilliance of natural evolution (this takes place two chapters before the epi
logue). The novel ends instead with the professor plunging surgically gloved
hands into jars filled with human brains. It would seem that the professor has
learned little from the experience. His power has returned, and with it the de
sire to change minds.
Scholars who interpret the ending positively draw on Bulgakov's nostalgia
for his childhood home, which was very like the lovingly depicted Turbin
home in White Guard; they view Preobrazhensky's apartment as a similar
refuge from the vulgar world. Maria Shneerson is perhaps the most ardent in
this interpretation: "Filipp Filippovich's apartment is only a little island, pre
served by a miracle in the dark stormy sea [...] misfortune threatens HOME
[KBapTHpa unuinna HJiHnnroiHiIa-Bcero Jillhlib OCTpOBOK, TlygOM coxpaH
4BmHHCIA B TeMHOM BblOKHOM MOpe [...] JOMY yrpowaeT 6ea]" (145). But
in Bulgakov's work beautifully furnished apartments are not always a refuge
for those who love home and family. In Master and Margarita, Margarita is
miserable in her luxurious penthouse. And Berlioz's coveted apartment does
not make him a hero any more than Professor Preobrazhensky's sparkling
dining room does. After Berlioz's death, his uncle displays a flawed human
nature by caring more about claiming the apartment than claiming his
nephew's body, and Aloisy Mogarych plays Judas in an attempt to acquire the
Master's cozy retreat. If anything, a love for comfortable apartments and ma
terial luxury signals a worsening of the human character in much of Bul
gakov's work.31 As Haber notes, the professor has no love offamily, a crucial
element of home for Bulgakov (213).
On the other hand, the enforced closeness of Soviet housing does nothing
to transform people into "new men," as Woland comments in Master and
Margarita: "On the whole, they remind me of their predecessors... only the
housing shortage has had a bad effect on them" (Bulgakov 1996, 104). The
Soviet experiment sought to rebuild walls, both figurative and literal, and
thereby to transform human beings. However, all attempts to build lasting
walls on earth are doomed to failure, as Yeshua tells Pilate nearly two millen
nia before the Soviet experiment. At the end of Master and Margarita,
Woland speculates on the destruction of the Writers' House, hoping that they
will build a better one. But, at the end of the novel, the writers continue their
experiments with human minds, interpreting the devil's visit scientifically and
returning to their state-assigned task of transforming humankind with words.

31. For a discussion of home in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, see Singleton 117^42.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 511

Similarly, at the end of Heart of a Dog, Professor Preobrazhensky continues

his efforts to change the human mind.
Julie Clarke argues that we fear the Frankenstein monster because he is
both dead and alive, human and non-human: "Liminal beings are thus per
ceived as polluting, since they are not one thing or another" (35). Scholars ex
ploring the image of the monster return to this idea again and again; Jeffrey
Cohen, for example, calls the monster a "harbinger of category crisis" (6). We
fear the monster because it is a mixture of things that are not naturally mixed;
in creating the monster, the scientist crosses previously established bound
aries, and the unnatural, the "supernatural" is created. In Heart of a Dog we
have two definitions of human being, two definitions of the natural, and there
fore two definitions of the supernatural. When the professor and Shvonder
meet, each believes the other has crossed the line. The professor is enraged
by the house committee's attempts to pollute the pure space of his apartment,
and Shvonder is horrified by the professor's resistance to merging with the
outside world. Each sees the monster in the other. As the dog-man gains
power, they shift their attention to him. Each believes that he should be able
to transform the dog-man into a human being. But the creature continues to
exist in "category crisis." For the professor he represents the unthinkable:
power that refuses to clothe itself in etiquette and culture. For Shvonder he
represents the impossible: bourgeois exploitation that clothes itself in Bolshe
vik words. The monster is silenced in the end, and the professor and Shvon
der no longer have to listen to "bad words." However, each fails to learn the
novel's lesson- that at the center of the human -and canine -heart is a self
interest and desire for power that cannot be overcome with "nice" words.

REFERENCES
Adams, Mark B. "Eugenics in Russia 1900-1940." The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Ger
many, France, Brazil, and Russia. New York: Oxford UP, 1990.
Bogdanov, Alexander. Red Star: The First Bolshevik Utopia. Trans. Charles Rougel. Blooming
ton: Indiana UP, 1984.
Boym, Svetlana. Commonplaces: Mythologies of Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1994.
Bulgakov, Mikhail. Master and Margarita. Trans. Diana B?rgin and Katherine Tiernan O'Con
nor. New York: Vintage, 1996.
-. Sobach'e serdtse. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1994.
B?rgin, Diana L. "Bulgakov's Early Tragedy of the Scientist-Creator: An Interpretation o? The
Heart of a Dog." Slavic and East European Journal 22 A (1978): 494-508.
Clark, Katerina. Petersburg, Crucible of Cultural Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1995.
Clarke, Julie. "The Human / Not Human in the Work of Orlan and Stelarc." The Cyborg Exper
iments: The Extensions of Body in the Media Age. London: Continuum, 2002. 33-53.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. "Monster Culture (Seven Theses)." Monster Theory: Reading Culture.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1996. 3-25.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 512 Slavic and East European Journal

Doyle, Peter. "Bulgakov's Satirical View of Revolution in 'Rokovye iaitsa' and Sobach'e
serdtser Canadian Slavonic Papers 20.3 (Sept 1978): 467-82.
Fusso, Suzanne. "Failures of Transformation in 'Sobac'e serdtse.'" Slavic and East European
Journal 33.3 (Fall 1989): 386-99.
Glenny, Michael. "Introduction." Heart of a Dog: A Novel by Mikhail Bulgakov. New York:
Harvest, 1968.
Gorham, Michael S. "Mastering the Perverse: State Building and Language 'Purification' in
Early Soviet Russa." Slavic Review 59.1 (Spring 2000): 133-53.
-. Speaking in Soviet Tongues. DeKalb: Northern Illinois UP, 2003.
Goscilo, Helena. "Point of View in Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog." Russian Literature Triquar
terly 15 (1978): 281-91.
Graham, Sheelagh Duffin. "Bulgakov's 'Sobach'e serdtse': a Polemical Povest.'" Journal of
Russian Studies 33 (1977): 27-31.
Haber, Edythe. Mikhail Bulgakov: The Early Years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1998.
Ioffe, Solomon. "Tainopis' v Sobach'em serdtse Bulgakova." Novyi zhurnal 168-169 (1987):
260-74.
LeBlanc, Ronald D. "Feeding a Poor Dog a Bone: The Quest for Nourishment in Bulgakov's
Sobach'e serdtse."" The Russian Review 52.1 (Jan 1993): 58-78.
Lenin, Vladimir II'ich. "Ob ochistke russkogo iazyka. Vymyshleniia na dosuge, to est' pri
slushanii rechei na sobraniiakh." Sochineniia. Moscow: Partizdat TsK VKP, 1935. 662.
McGuire, Patrick L. Red Stars: Political Aspects of Soviet Science Fiction. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI
Research Press, 1985.
Mondry, Henrietta. "Beyond Scientific Transformation in Bulgakov's The Heart of a Dog."
Australian Slavonic and East European Studies 10.2 (1996): 1-10.
Natov, Nadine. "Ot teksta k stsene: povest' 'Sobach'e serdtse' Mikhaila Bulgakova i ee teatral'
naia interpretatsiia." Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v S.ShA. 24 (1991): 43-131.
Nikol'skii, S. V "Na grani metafor i alliuzii (o nekotorykh zashifrovannykh motivakh v anti
utopiiakh Bulgakova)." Izvestiia Akademii Nauk, Seriia literatury i iazyka 58.1 (Jan.-Feb
1999): 11-19.
Piotrovskii, Iurii Aleksandrovich. "Povest' M. Bulgakova Sobach 'e serdtse i traditsii russkoi lit
eratury." Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, Seriia 2, Vypusk 2 (no. 9) (Apr
1994): 64-73.
Proffer, Ellendea. Bulgakov, Life and Work. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis, 1984.
Ruud, Charles A. "The Printing Press as an Agent of Political Change in Early Twentieth
Century Russia." Russian Review 40.4 (Oct 1981): 378-95.
Ryazanova-Clarke, Larissa, and Terence Wade. The Russian Language Today. London: Rout
ledge, 1999.
Rydel, Christine. "Bulgakov and H. G. Wells." Russian Literature Triquarterly 15 (1978):
293-311.
Shargorodskii, Sergei. "Sobach'e serdtse, ili Chudovishchnaia istoriia." Literaturnoe obozre
nie 5 (1991): 87-92.
Shneerson, Mariia. "Chto mozhet vyiti iz etogo Sharikova." Grani 42.150 (1988): 136-62.
Singleton, Amy C. No Place Like Home: The Literary Artist and Russia's Search for Cultural
Identity. Albany: State U of New York P, 1997.
Smith, S. A. "The Social Meanings of Swearing: Workers and Bad Language in Late Imperial
and Early Soviet Russia." Past and Present 160 (Aug 1998): 167-202.
Stites, Richard. Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian
Revolution. New York: Oxford UP, 1989.
Trimmer, Eric J. Rejuvenation: The History of an Idea. London: Robert Hale, 1967.
Trotsky, Leon. "The Struggle for Cultured Speech." Problems of Life. Problems of Everyday
Life and Other Writings on Culture & Science. New York: Monad Press, 1973. 53-56.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bad Words Are Not Allowed! 513

A6CTpaKT
3pHK JlaypceH
"HeHpHIJIHMqHbIMH CJIOBaMH He BbipawKaTbCA: I3bIK H MeTaMOp03bI B (<Co6aibem
cepdqe>> M. l3yJIraKoBa"

B Co6axibem cep&qe (1925) MHxaHJIa JyjraKoBa Hpo4eccop H1peo6paweHcKHi

nepeCaKHBaeT IaCTb M03ra aJIKOrOJ1HKa H YrOJIOBHHKa KI>HMa B MO3r 6poqAieii
co6aKH. flpo4eccop 6iji o3a6oqeH BOHIpOcaMH eBreHHKH "o6 yJIy'IHIeHH1 qeJloBeq
ecKolI HpHpOabI", HO ero 3KCHepHMeHT He IPHBenJ K yJly'flleHHIO HH IeJlOBexiecKoH, HH
co6a,lbeii HpHpO,bI. BMeCTO 3TOrO <<?JIIHOCTb>> co6aKH HOCTeieHHO 3aMeHAleTCM
JIHIHOCTbLO goHopa. B o'eJIOBexieHHOM TeJie co6aKH KJIHM OCTaeTCA TeM we
aJIKOrOJIHKOM H yrOJIOBHHKOM; OH HipHo6peTaeT TOJIbKO JIBe HOBbIe B03MOKHOCTH,
OTCYTCTBYIOIHe paHbmIe: 3aKOHHbIH qOCTYIH B Hppo4eCCOpCKyIO KBaPTHpY H
B03MO)KHOCTb BbIpaaKaTb CBOH MbICJIH B ee CTeHax. K Bceo6LLeMy y)Kacy HIpOH3
HOCHMbIe ,gaHHbIM CyWeCTBOM CJIOBa OTpa)KaIOT TOJIbKO ero HHTepeC K BJiaCTH H
caMoyro)K,geHHIO. B)ypwya3HbIi ripo4eccop HIpeo6paweHcKHi H ero KOMMyHHCTHIw
eCKHHI OIIHIOHeHT TOBaPHI1I 1HBOHgep Ha1HHaIOT HpOBO4HTb KaKKAbIR CBOIO KaMHaHHIO
rIo npeBpaLeHHInO qeJIOBeKa-co6aKH B HOJIHOUeHHYIO HeHOBe'ecKyIO IHqHOCTb TaK,
KaK Ka)KJbIH 113 HHX 3TO ce6e rpeacTaBiieT. rlpo4eccop ribITaeTCAi HpHo6uuHTb 3TO
C034aHHe K UHBHJ1H3aUHH C HOMOBIIO CTpOrHX ipaBHJI, 3THKeTa H BbICOKOM
KyJIbTypbI. ToBapHI IWIHBOH4ep xo-IeT H3MeHHTb ero riocpe,CTBOM HOBOrO HMeHH,
Ha)jIexKcauHx )IOKYMeHTOB H KOMMyHHCTHxIeCKOH HporaraHJbI. OAHaKo, HeCMOTpA Ha
BCe HX yCHIiHA, KIHM OCTaeTCA KIHMOM. OH BHOCHT B HX XKH3Hb HeBoo6pa3HMbIH
xaoc, H rpo4eccop HIPHXO2iHT K BbIBOgy, WTO eAHHCTBeHHbIii cnoco6 BOCCTaHOBHTb
MHp B CBoell KBapTHpe-3TO HIpOBeCTH4 HIOBTOpHYIO <<o6paTHyIo>> oHepai4lo. Hociieq
HHMH CJIOBaMH BHOBb CTaBmeII HOCJIymHOH co6axIKii CTaJ1o ripeyrynpeKgeHHe
HoceTI4TeJieI: "HeHIp4JIH'IHbIMH CJIOBaMH He BbI6ipaxaTbCA (91). MHorHe HCcJIeao
BaTeJIH Co6aqbeoo cepoqa 6buIH 03a60oeHbI aHJa[H30M JHTepaTYPHOO B03geCTBH5
IlOBeCTH HAJIH o6ACHeHHeM OHOH KaK aIiNerOpHH peBOJIIOUHH. OAHaKO B gaHHOH
CTaTbe yTBepxKgaeTC3, xITO HOCIiegHHe CJIOBa, HpOH3HeCeHHbIe JaHHbIM CyWeCTBOM,
yKa3bIBaLOT Ha qpyroe nIpO'qTeHHe HOBeCTH. )TO, nio onpe,eiieHHIo KaTepHbI KJlapK,
cBoeo6pa3Hoe HacTyHiiJeHHe "iipoJieTapcKoll JIHHrBHCTHKH": HOHIbITKa H3MeHHTb
CO3HaHHe JIogeR riyTeM H3MeHeHH5 Hx pe-im. B OTJIH'IHe OT HipegbIY1UHX pa6oT,
I1bITaEOi"HXCA ripegCTaBHTb rIOBeCTb, KaK 6HTBy To6pa (nIpo4eccop) CO 3JIoM
(HIBOH4ep), B qaHHOH CTaTbe yTBepK7aeTCs, ITO Co6albe ceplqe-3TO cpa)KeHHe
AByX COBpeMeHHbIX "flpoMeTeeB", Ka)gbIH 143 KOTOpbIX HEbITaeTC5 C03JaTb 'eJIOBe'
ecKoe CyiieCTBO C HIOMOLUbLO "XOpOmEHX" CJIOB. TOBapHiU IHBOH4ep BepHT, xITO MO)KeT
C03gaTb HOBOrO COBeTCKOrO 'leJiOBeKa H CBo6OAHyIO JIH'HOCTb, a ripo4eccop
Ilpeo6pa)KeHcKHr, "HeHaBHCTHHK iipoJieTapHaTa" (22), C'IHTaeT, ITO cnoco6eH
BOCHIHTaTb OCBo6owKeHHOrO xama H4 BOCCTaHOBHTb M4pOHOp5I2AOK, pa3pymeHHbIl
IHJIOXHMH I CJIOBaMH.

This content downloaded from

130.241.16.16 on Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:52:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms