Bulgakov's story dog's heart"- the writer's bitter satire on the surrounding reality of the 1920s. Post-revolutionary Moscow, with its order and inhabitants, does not "inspire" Bulgakov, he does not at all share the enthusiastic hopes for a bright future, to which the whole country is now striving.
Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky, a brilliant scientist and doctor, does not share these hopes either. This middle-aged man, who has devoted his whole life to science, takes on and plays (to a certain extent) the role of God - he turns the rootless dog Sharik into citizen Sharikov.
It is how Preobrazhensky is perceived by the starving Sharik, whom the professor picked up on the street. Not without reason in the portrait of a scientist, given through the perception of a dog, the main role is played by the words "priest", "magician", "sorcerer". However, we see that these characteristics are always presented in a reduced, ironic context - Bulgakov very much doubts the possibilities of Preobrazhensky (whose name and location of the house - on Prechistenka - refer us to the biblical legend about the creation of man) to be God: “- Hee-hee! You are a magician and a sorcerer, Professor, - he said embarrassedly. “Take off your pants, my dear,” commanded Philip Philipovich and got up.
The scene of Sharik's "transformation" is described in the same "parodic gospel" vein. Bulgakov emphasizes in every possible way that this is not a sacred ceremony, but a “cynical operation”, the purpose of which is to rejuvenate a person by transplanting the gonads: “Philip Filippovich climbed into the depths and pulled out his seminal glands from Sharik’s body with some scraps in several turns. Bormental, completely wet with zeal and excitement, rushed to a glass jar and removed from it other, wet, sagging seminal glands.
The image of the professor is thus ambiguous. Philip Philipovich is a complex and contradictory nature. In addition to everything, Preobrazhensky is forced to live in a critical era - he, a child of noble Russia, exists in Soviet Russia, not understanding and not accepting its orders.
According to his convictions, Philip Philipovich is a humanist who believes that any creature, person or animal, can only be influenced by affection. Violence, and even more so, terror will not lead to any results, only, perhaps, to retaliatory terror: "Terror cannot do anything with an animal, no matter what stage of development it is at."
According to Philipp Filippovich, the existence of a person, personal and social, should be based on an indestructible postulate - respect for the individual, for her inner dignity. It is this "sacred law" that is mercilessly trampled under Soviet Russia, and Preobrazhensky categorically does not accept this. In his opinion, the priority of the interests of the state over the interests of the individual leads to the destruction of the same state and the people living in it. And the professor sees disrespect for a person everywhere and, above all, in his own house.
In addition, Preobrazhensky is deeply convinced that everyone should mind their own business. Otherwise, a catastrophe is inevitable: “... when he hatches all sorts of hallucinations out of himself and starts cleaning the sheds - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself. You can't serve two gods!
However, even this “genius in theory” tends to make mistakes “in practice”. Bulgakov shows that the claims of an unconditionally talented professor to the role of a creator are ridiculous. The operation performed by the professor on Sharik gave amazing results - no one expected that the dog would turn into a man and that this man would not succumb to any influence.
Every day, Philip Philipovich watched with horror what his “brainchild” was turning into - a mixture of the dog Sharik and the drunkard Klim Chugunkin. And more and more, Preobrazhensky became convinced that the genes of the proletariat were destructive and that his "homunculus" was socially dangerous, posing a threat, first of all, to the professor himself: "... the old donkey Preobrazhensky ran into this operation as a third-year student."
Bulgakov emphasizes that this intelligent and educated person had to understand and objectively assess his capabilities. By failing to do so, Preobrazhensky endangered himself and his loved ones.
With the help of this thought, the writer again refers us to the events that recently took place outside the window of the professor's Prechistensky apartment - to the revolution of 1917, the "ideological center" of which was also intellectuals who decided to make balls out of balloons. And they did not foresee the devastating consequences of their "experiments".
Professor Preobrazhensky is able to admit that he was mistaken, that he took on an unbearable role: “Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil.” And that, in essence, his "brilliant discovery" "costs exactly one broken penny." Moreover, the hero decides to destroy the "result of his experiment" - to turn Sharikov into a dog again. Are the ideological inspirers of the revolution capable of doing this?
Of course, there is a deep subtext hidden behind the plot of the story. "Heart of a Dog" is not only and not so much a story about a scientific experiment in a laboratory, but a bitter story about a "revolutionary experiment" on a national scale. According to Bulgakov, after the events of 1917, the Sharkovs turned into "masters of life" in the most unnatural way. But the "noble" place did not give them a "noble" origin - these people lack knowledge, education, elementary human culture in order to fulfill the role assigned to them.
Sharikov again ceased to be a harmless Sharik, but is a “reverse” experiment possible on a national scale? The author leaves this question open.
What mistake did Professor Preobrazhensky make in the story "Heart of a Dog"? and got the best answer
Answer from Nina Duke[guru]
Bulgakov masterfully shows the psychological type of a Russian scientist who has not yet encountered all the "charms" of the Bolshevik regime. Carried away by his developments, the professor did not notice that he had gone too far and created a representative of harsh power. And this is the deep meaning of the story. The Russian intelligentsia, in search of universal happiness, went on an experiment, the monstrous result of which they did not expect. The newly appeared Sharikov literally squeezes the scientist out of the world. The professor, in late remorse, laments his mistake: “I cared about something completely different, about eugenics, about improving the human race. And now I ran into rejuvenation." Realizing his fatal mistake, Professor Preobrazhensky performs a new operation to free humanity from this nightmare. He returns Sharikov to its previous state. In our time, the question of the responsibility of each person for the results of his work is very acute. Numerous irresponsible experiments on nature led to a catastrophe in ecology.Scientific discoveries in the 20th century made it possible to create a superweapon that does not make sense to use, because then the whole planet will die.We constantly feel the results of social experiments. The purely scientific curiosity of Professor Preobrazhensky leads to the birth of an unusual creature - the monster Sharikov! In the new society, slaves come to power who have not changed their slavish nature in anything. people dependent on them. The Sharkovs received power earlier than the foundations of culture and education.
Answer from Milianna Kurashinova[newbie]
He created Sharikov, a monster dangerous to society .... for all mankind. Like this O
Answer from Dasha emelina[guru]
made a bad man out of a good dog,
Answer from Ludmila Privalova[guru]
He himself admits: "Tell me, colleague, why artificially fabricate Spinoza, at a time when any woman can give birth to him at any time? After all, Madame Lomonosov gave birth to this famous one in Kholmogory!"
Answer from Diana Ermakova[guru]
Violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. But in life, such experiments are irreversible. And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
Answer from Seal[guru]
created Sharkov
Answer from Olesya Milovanova[guru]
turned a dog into a human.
Answer from Ly[guru]
He claimed to be a god...
Answer from 3 answers[guru]
Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: What mistake did Professor Preobrazhensky make in the story "Heart of a Dog"??
Mikhail Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917, showed the grave consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, whether it be nature or society. Using the example of the failure of the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 1920s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? WITH scientific point On the other hand, this experience has been very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but capacious description: “Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is enlarged (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab to the heart in a pub.” And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an ever-hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois”.
The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most deplorable consequences. The type that appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of the operation, “small in stature and unsympathetic in appearance,” turned the well-established life of this house upside down. He behaves defiantly rude, arrogant and arrogant.
The newly appeared Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov. puts on patent-leather shoes and a poison-colored tie, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of Shvonder's house committee, he registers himself in Preobrazhensky's apartment, demands the "sixteen arshins" of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he reads a book recommended by Schwonder, the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. And even makes critical remarks about the correspondence ...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are miserable attempts that in no way contribute to the mental and spiritual development of Sharikov. But from the point of view of Shvonder and Sharikov like him, it is quite suitable for the society they are creating. Sharikov was even hired in government agency. For him, to become, albeit small, but the boss means to change outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a government car, and controls the fate of a secretary girl. His arrogance becomes boundless. For days on end, obscene language and balalaika strumming are heard in the professor's house; Sharikov comes home drunk, sticks to women, breaks and destroys everything around. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental unsuccessfully try to instill in him the rules of good manners, to develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov likes only the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave at the table in a cultured way, Sharikov notes with irony that this is how people tortured themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that Sharikov's humanoid hybrid is more of a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey ... Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to disastrous results. In the story “Heart of a Dog”, the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into a dog again. He is content with his fate and himself. But in real life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.
In his story “Heart of a Dog”, Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that has taken place in Russia is not the result of a natural socio-economic and spiritual development society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about the upbringing of a new, free person by the same methods. the main idea writer that bare progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people
- New!
The story of Mikhail Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917, showed the grave consequences of human interference in the natural course of development, whether it be nature or society....
- New!
M.A. Bulgakov had a rather ambiguous, complex relationship with the authorities, like any writer of the Soviet era who did not write works praising this authority. On the contrary, it is clear from his works that he accuses her of the devastation that has come ...
- New!
The story "The Heart of a Dog", it seems to me, is distinguished by the originality of the solution of the idea. The revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of natural socio-economic and spiritual development, but an irresponsible and premature experiment ....
The story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1925, M. Bulgakov did not see printed, as it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by the OGPU during a search. "Heart of a Dog" - the last satirical story of the writer. Everything, that...
The work of M. A. Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction XX century. Its main theme can be considered the theme of “the tragedy of the Russian people”. The writer was a contemporary of all those tragic events that took place in Russia in the first half of our century. But most importantly, M. A. Bulgakov was an insightful prophet. He not only described what he saw around him, but also understood how dearly his homeland would pay for all this. With bitter feeling, he writes after the end of the First World War: “... Western countries lick their wounds, they will get better, they will get better very soon (and will prosper!), and we ... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the October days, for everything!” And later, in 1926, in his diary: “We are a wild, dark, unfortunate people.”
M. A. Bulgakov is a subtle satirist, a student of N. V. Gogol and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the writer's prose is not just satire, it is fantastic satire. There is a huge difference between these two types of worldview: satire exposes the shortcomings that exist in reality, and fantastic satire warns society about what awaits it in the future. And the most frank views of M. A. Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “Heart of a Dog”.
The story was written in 1925, but the author did not wait for its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw her only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. Main character story - Professor Preobrazhensky, who is the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual, - conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: to create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain into a dog. The theme of the new Faust sounds in the story, but, like everything else with M.A. Bulgakov, it has a tragicomic character. Moreover, the action of the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the surname Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes all the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new man, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the "proletarian" - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of the most complicated operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, who has completely inherited the “proletarian” essence of his “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois”. And then - street expressions: “do not push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of small stature and unsympathetic appearance appears. The hair on his head grew coarse ... The forehead struck with its small height. Almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows, a thick head brush began.
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a dog's disposition, whose "basis" was a lumpen proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, arrogant, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormental and a humanoid being is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirt-front ...” - “Do not throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask for the hundredth time. I don't want to hear another swear word. Don't give a damn about the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are watching her in the dark. Look!” - the professor is indignant. “Something you me, daddy, hurt me painfully,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said whiningly ... “Why don’t you let me live?” Despite the dissatisfaction of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitively and stupidly: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, messing around, doing all sorts of outrages, confident that "at present everyone has his own right."
Of course, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is not trying to depict this scientific experiment in itself in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. It is not only about the scientist's responsibility for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary changes and a revolutionary invasion of life.
The story "Heart of a Dog" carries an extremely clear author's view of everything that happens in the country.
Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M.A. Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society by revolutionary, that is, justifying violence, methods, to educating a new, free person by the same methods. He saw that in Russia they were also striving to create new type person. A man who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received huge rights from the state. Such a person is suitable for new government because he will put in the dirt those who are independent, smart, high in spirit. M. A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization Russian life interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can also hit the “experimenters”, do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control ? It is these questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov poses in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we still experience for ourselves?
"Friendship and enmity"
"Friendship and enmity"
Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Gagara"
Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"
Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Defeat"
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"
Daniel Pennak "Eye of the Wolf"
Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
Oblomov and Stolz
The great Russian writer, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, published his second novel, Oblomov, in 1859. It was a very difficult time for Russia. The society was divided into two parts: the first, a minority - those who understood the need to abolish serfdom, who were not satisfied with the life of ordinary people in Russia, and the second, the majority - "masters", wealthy people whose life consisted of idle pastime, living off the property they owned peasants. In the novel, the author tells us about the life of the landowner Oblomov and about those heroes of the novel who surround him and allow the reader to better understand the image of Ilya Ilyich himself.
One of these heroes is Andrei Ivanovich Stolz, a friend of Oblomov. But despite the fact that they are friends, each of them represents in the novel his life position that is opposite to one another, so their images are contrasting. Let's compare them.
Oblomov appears before us as a man "... about thirty-two or three years old, of medium height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, ... an even light of carelessness glimmered all over his face." Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... his complexion is even, swarthy and no blush; eyes, although a little greenish, but expressive. As you can see, even in the description of appearance, we can not find anything in common. Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles, they owned several hundred souls of serfs. Stolz's father was half German, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.
Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood, as they studied together in a small boarding school located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhlev. Stolz's father was a manager there.
“Perhaps Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well from him if Oblomovka had been five hundred versts from Verkhlev. The charm of the Oblomov atmosphere, way of life and habits extended to Verkhlevo; there, except for Stolz's house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and immobility. But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: “From the age of eight he sat with his father for geographical map, sorted out the warehouses of Herder, Wieland, biblical verses and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, philistines and factory workers, and read with his mother sacred history, taught Krylov's fables and dismantled Telemachus according to the warehouses. Concerning physical education, then Oblomov was not even allowed out into the street, while Stolz
“Tearing himself away from the pointer, he ran to destroy bird nests with the boys,” sometimes, it happened, disappearing from home for a day. Oblomov from childhood was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, which took away from him the need for his own actions, others did everything for him, while Stoltz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor.
But Oblomov and Stolz are already over thirty. What are they now? Ilya Ilyich turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life slowly passes on the couch. Goncharov himself speaks with some irony about Oblomov: “Ilya Ilich’s lying down was neither a necessity, like a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like a lazy person: it was his normal state." Against the background of such a lazy existence, Stolz's life can be compared to a seething stream: “He is constantly on the move: if society needs to send an agent to Belgium or England, they send him; you need to write some project or adapt a new idea to the case - choose it. Meanwhile, he travels to the world and reads: when he has time - God knows.
All this once again proves the difference between Oblomov and Stolz, but if you think about it, what can unite them? Probably friendship, but other than that? It seems to me that they are united by an eternal and sound sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his sofa, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and rich life. “Life: life is good!” Oblomov argues, “What is there to look for? interests of the mind, heart? Just look where is the center around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are the dead, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society! ... Don't they sleep sitting all their lives? How am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with triplets and jacks? Maybe Ilya Ilyich is right, because it can be said that people who live without a specific, lofty goal simply sleep in pursuit of satisfying their desires.
But who more necessary than Russia, Oblomov or Stolz? Of course, such active, active and progressive people as Stolz are simply necessary in our time, but we must come to terms with the fact that the Oblomovs will never disappear, because there is a part of Oblomov in each of us, and we are all a little Oblomov in our souls. Therefore, both of these images have the right to exist as different life positions different perspectives on reality.
Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Duel between Pierre and Dolokhov. (Analysis of an episode from L.N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace", vol. II, part I, ch. IV, V.)
Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy in the novel "War and Peace" consistently pursues the idea of the predestination of a person's fate. You can call him a fatalist. Brightly, truthfully and logically, this is proved in the scene of the duel between Dolokhov and Pierre. A purely civilian man - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a bully, a rake, a fearless warrior. But Pierre could not handle weapons at all. Just before the duel, Nesvitsky's second explained to Bezukhov "where to press."
The episode, which tells about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov, can be called "Unconscious act". It begins with a description of a dinner at the English Club. Everyone is sitting at the table, eating and drinking, proclaiming toasts to the emperor and his health. Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, Bezukhoye are present at the dinner. Pierre "does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, heavy and insoluble." He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? “Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov’s beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul.” And after the toast uttered by his "enemy": "To health beautiful women, and their lovers," Bezukhov understands that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the plot of which occurs when Dolokhov grabs a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it uncertainly, timidly, one might even think that the words: "You ... you ... scoundrel!., I challenge you ..." - inadvertently escape from him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and the seconds do not realize this either: Nesvitsky - Pierre's second and Nikolai Rostov - Dolokhov's second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits in the club all night, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill an opponent, but this is only an appearance, his soul is restless. His opponent, on the other hand, "looks like a man preoccupied with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming business. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night." The count still doubts the correctness of his actions and thinks: what would he do in Dolokhov's place?
Pierre does not know what to do: either to run away, or to bring the matter to an end. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov does not want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time because of the unconsciousness of the act, which Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: "For about three minutes everything was already ready, and yet they hesitated to start. Everyone was silent." The indecision of the characters is also conveyed by the description of nature - it is sparing and laconic: fog and thaw.
Began. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had the semblance of a smile. He is aware of his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre, on the other hand, walks quickly, straying off the beaten track, he seems to be trying to escape, to finish everything as soon as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, while at random, shuddering from a strong sound, and injures his opponent.
Dolokhov, shooting, misses. The wound of Dolokhov and his unsuccessful attempt kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in action and a denouement, which is what all the characters experience. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back his sobs, clutching his head, goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov, on the other hand, does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was done. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house in a friendly way and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of "judge" and "executioner" at the same time, he repents of what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism disarms, already before the duel he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helen's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Perhaps I would have done the same in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even probably I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helen's insignificance and meanness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his act, this woman is not worth it to take a sin on her soul - to kill a person for her. Pierre is afraid that he almost ruined his own soul, as he already did his life, by connecting it with Helen.
After the duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov found out that "Dolokhov, this brawler, breter, Dolokhov lived in Moscow with an old mother and a hunchbacked sister and was the most gentle son and brother ...". Here one of the author's statements is proved, that not everything is so obvious, understandable and unambiguous, as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think about it, know or assume. The great philosopher Leo Tolstoy teaches to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. The scene of Dolokhov's duel with Pierre Bezukhov Tolstoy gives a lesson: it is not for us to judge what is fair and what is unfair, not everything obvious is unambiguous and easily solved.