dr heidegger's experiment litcharts

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literature › Analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment

Analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on May 23, 2021

A mendicant, a hedonist, a ruined politician, and a scandalous widow all answer the summons of their friend, a doctor, in Nathaniel Hawthorne ’s 1837 tale “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment.” He calls these ageing friends to his study to participate in an experiment—one that intrigues them because “They were all melancholy old creatures” (67) and because the experiment Dr. Heidegger has in mind appeals to their vanity. Watching them experience its results seems to appeal to his sense of entertainment. Is that entertainment a mere masquerade, a magician’s trick, an evening of intoxication due to alcohol and vivid imaginations, or something more than any of these labels suggests? Does the tale offer a cynical statement about humans and their history, or does it actually comment upon the magical effects of fiction?

The magic of the evening centers around the ageold quest for the Fountain of Youth. Dr. Heidegger—a bachelor whose fiancée died on the eve before their wedding because she accidentally took one of his medicines, who practices his science not in a laboratory but in a study complete with a mirror and a big black book of magic, and who has somehow managed to age gracefully—invites to his home the friends he labels “venerable” (67). Those supposedly respectable individuals, however, include Mr. Medbourne, a once-successful merchant who has lost everything because of risky speculation; Colonel Killigrew, who has made a life of pleasure seeking and now suffers the physical ailments of the debauched; Mr. Gascoigne, a politician who has lost all credibility because of his disreputable deals; and the widow Clara Wycherly, a once-beautiful woman of questionable sexual morals who once was lover to all three men but now has become a wrinkled recluse. Dr. Heidegger announces that he would like to share with them another of his “experiments with which I amuse myself” (67) and even offers a convincing preview to persuade them to agree to participate. Dr. Heidegger restores a withered, dead rose to life by dipping it in what he calls the Water of Youth. In spite of Dr. Heidegger’s performance, the group believes it can be nothing more than “a very pretty deception” (70), and as if to emphasize that point for Hawthorne, the narrator asks the reader twice, “Was it illusion?” (72, 75).

Nathaniel Hawthorne/Boston Literary District

But before Dr. Heidegger’s guests have the opportunity to contemplate the validity of the results, he pours them large wine glasses full of the Waters of Youth, and they imbibe. He, however, remains but a scientific observer, a voyeur of sorts, for he says—or perhaps warns—“For my part, having had much trouble in growing old, I am in no hurry to grow young again” (70). He also issues an explicit edict before he allows them to drink heartily of the waters: “It would be well that, with the experience of a lifetime to direct you, you should draw up a few general rules for your guidance, in passing a second time through the perils of youth. Think what a sin it would be if, with your peculiar advantages, you should not become patterns if virtue” (71). But they barely heed his words or his sarcasm or even pause to consider the fact that he refuses to join them. Instead, immediately after the first round, they begin to feel the effects of the concoction and beg for another round because they want to feel and look even younger. They begin to see each other and themselves as much younger and begin to act accordingly. The narrator says of the politician’s ramblings that no one could tell whether they were “relating to the past, present, or future . . . since the same ideas and phrases have been in vogue these fifty years” (72). His emphasis on time—and repetition—seems calculated to slant the reader toward a view that the text demonstrates that the present is no better than the future. An accentuation of such a conclusion is the behavior of all four: They repeat the unwise actions of their youth, for the men begin fighting over Clara. In their struggling, they knock over the vase containing the Water of Youth, and all of its contents spill on the floor, where it revives a dying butterfly.

To restore the civility of his friends, Dr. Heidegger must step in and break up the fight. As he does so, the rose—now out of the water—withers and dies and the butterfly, too, falls to its death again. They only foreshadow what soon becomes of the four guests: They too revert to their aged status. Dr. Heidegger announces that they have taught him a lesson: “I would not stop to bathe my lips in [the Water]” (75). He expresses pure dismay at their actions, their mere repetition of the past, as if their life knowledge has had no effect upon their second chance at youth. They, however, have learned nothing—either from their lives or from their recent experience with the experiment. They tell Dr. Heidegger that they will themselves go to Florida and find and drink constantly the Waters of Youth. They seek a recaptured vitality that Dr. Heidegger has already proven they will waste. Or has the tale merely woven its magic for a fleeting time to suspend its players and its readers in the land of imagination? Have the artist and his art been but illusion, with no moral to convey?

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, Millicent, ed. New Essays on Hawthorne’s Major Tales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cameron, Sharon. The Corporeal Self: Allegories of the Body in Melville and Hawthorne. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. Crews, Frederick C. The Sins of the Father: Hawthorne’s Psychological Themes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Fogle, Richard Hurter. Hawthorne’s Fiction: The Light and the Dark. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964, pp. 41–58. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment.” In Selected Short Stories, edited by Alfred Kazin, 67–76. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1966. Kazin, Alfred. “Introduction.” In Selected Short Stories, edited by Alfred Kazin. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1966. Male, Roy. Hawthorne’s Tragic Vision. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1957. Miller, Edwin Haviland. Salem Is My Dwelling Place: A Life of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1991. Scanlon, Lawrence E. “The Very Singular Man, Dr. Heidegger.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 17 (December 1962): 253–263. Stein, William Bysshe. A Study of the Devil Archetype. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1953. Von Frank, Albert J. Critical Essays on Hawthorne’s Short Stories. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1991. Wallace, James D. “Stowe and Hawthorne.” In Hawthorne and Women: Engendering and Expanding the Hawthorne Tradition, edited by John L. Idol, Jr., 92–103. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Share this:

Categories: Literature , Short Story

Tags: American Literature , Analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , appreciation of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , characters of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , commentary of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , criticism of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , essays of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , guide of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , Literary Criticism , Nathaniel Hawthorne , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment appreciation , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment criticism , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment guide , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment plot , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment structure , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment summary , Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment themes , notes of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , plot of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , summary of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment , themes of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment

Related Articles

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Dr. Heidegger's Experiment

30 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Story Analysis

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Summary: “dr. heidegger’s experiment”.

“Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” is a short story about a doctor who invites four elderly friends to his study to participate in a curious experiment that temporarily restores their youth. The story explores themes of Youth and Old Age , Humans Versus Nature , and Good and Evil . It invites questions like: Does age affect an individual’s potential for happiness? If given a second opportunity to relive youthful years, would a person remediate their failures?

“Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” was written by American short story writer and novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864). It first appeared anonymously in Lewis Gaylord Clark’s literary magazine The Knickerbocker under the title “The Fountain of Youth.” Later, it was included in Twice-Told Tales (1837), one of Hawthorne’s most popular books, along with The Scarlet Letter (1850) and The House of the Seven Gables (1851). This guide refers to the illustrated Kindle Edition of “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” published in May 2022. The edition is prefaced by a biography of Nathaniel Hawthorne, a summary of the book, and a list of characters.

Dr. Heidegger , an old and “very singular man” (13), invites Mr. Medbourne, Colonel Killigrew, Mr. Gascoigne, and Widow Wycherly to meet him in his “dim, old-fashioned” (13) study. The guests are all “melancholy old creatures, who had been unfortunate in life, and whose greatest misfortune it was that they were not long ago in their graves” (13). The narrator attests to having heard fantastic stories about the doctor, who is known for his mysterious experiments and collection of magical objects. Among the antique furniture that decorates his study are a “bronze bust of Hippocrates” (13), a closet with a skeleton inside of it, a mirror believed to hold the spirits of the doctor’s deceased patients, a portrait of the doctor’s ex-lover, and a book of magic that causes ghostly events to occur when lifted. The young woman in the portrait is Sylvia Ward, a woman Dr. Heidegger almost married 50 years ago. His bride, however, “being affected with some slight disorder [had] swallowed one of her lover’s prescriptions, and died on the bridal evening” (15). The doctor kept the rose she gave him to wear on their wedding day in his book of magic.

To begin the experiment, Dr. Heidegger shows his guests a dried rose and asks if they believe it possible that a “rose of half a century” (17) could ever bloom again. Widow Wycherly is the first to express doubt, arguing that the rose, like her wrinkled face, can never bloom again. Despite her disbelief, Dr. Heidegger drops the withered rose into a vase full of water. The guests watch as the “dried petals stirred, and assumed a deepening tinge of crimson, as if the flower were reviving from a deathlike slumber” (17). Initially, the guests think it’s a magic trick. They call it “a very pretty deception” (17) until Dr. Heidegger reveals that the water is from the famous Fountain of Youth in Florida.

Colonel Killigrew asks about the water’s effect on humans. The doctor invites the guests to try it for themselves, excusing himself from the experiment, because he is in “no hurry to grow young again” (18). Before they drink the water, “apparently impregnated with an effervescent gas, for little bubbles were continually ascending from the depths of the glasses, and bursting in silvery spray at the surface” (18), Dr. Heidegger cautions the four guests to utilize their wisdom in “passing a second time through the perils of youth” (19). Again, the guests disregard the doctor’s words and continue to drink the “liquor of youth” (20). Almost immediately, the guests’ physical and mental states improve.

Under the influence of the water of youth , the guests beg for more, and the doctor continuously fills their glasses. The liquor “seemed to have wrought a change on their whole systems. Their eyes grew clear and bright; a dark shade deepened among their silvery locks” (19). Widow Wycherly finds her way to the mirror to see if she has truly become beautiful again after receiving a compliment from Colonel Killigrew. Mr. Gascoigne, a “ruined politician [and] man of evil fame” (13), talks about “patriotism, national glory, and the people’s right” (21). Colonel Killigrew, who wasted his youth pursuing pleasures, sings a “jolly bottle song” (22) and gazes upon Widow Wycherly’s “buxom figure” (21). Mr. Medbourne, who was once a prosperous merchant but lost all his riches by “frantic speculation” (13), thinks of a new business endeavor.

The guests drink until sunset, by which time they are in the “happy prime of youth” (22), feeling like “new-created being[s] in a new-created universe” (22). Dr. Heidegger observes his guests as they become more joyful. The three friends celebrate their dramatic transformation, even as they begin to behave like noisy children. They ridicule Dr. Heidegger’s old appearance. Soon the three men are so enamored by Widow Wycherly’s beauty that they compete over who gets to dance with her. Mr. Medbourne brings up that she had promised him her hand 50 years ago. Eventually, the three men become entangled in a physical fight over Widow Wycherly, repeating their behavior of years ago. The narrator remarks that “the tall mirror reflected the figures of the three old gray, withered grandsires, ridiculously contending for the skinny ugliness of a shriveled grandam” (26).

As they tussle, they break the vase holding the water of youth, causing the remains to waste on the floor and the rose to wither again. With each passing moment, the guests feel their charm fading away. The narrator questions, “[W]as it an illusion?” (28). Dr. Heidegger retrieves his shriveled rose from the floor and proclaims, “I love it as well thus as in its dewy freshness” (28). Dr. Heidegger claims that he learned a lesson from the experiment and says that he would not drink the water of youth, not even if “the fountain gushed at [his] very doorstep” (28).

With no water of youth left, the four friends decide to travel to Florida to drink from the Fountain of Youth morning, noon, and night.

Related Titles

By Nathaniel Hawthorne

Ethan Brand

My Kinsman Major Molineux

Rappaccini's Daughter

The Ambitious Guest

The Artist of the Beautiful

The Birthmark

The Blithedale Romance

The Hollow of the Three Hills

The House of the Seven Gables

The Marble Faun

The Maypole Of Merry Mount

The Minister's Black Veil

The Scarlet Letter

The Wives of the Dead

Young Goodman Brown

Featured Collections

View Collection

American Literature

Good & Evil

Short Story Collections

• Paired Texts
• Related Media
• Teacher Guide

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

• CommonLit is a nonprofit that has everything teachers and schools need for top-notch literacy instruction: a full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and formative data. Browse Content Who We Are About

Dr. Heidegger's Experiment

By nathaniel hawthorne.

Return to the Nathaniel Hawthorne library , or . . . Read the next short story; Drowne's Wooden Image

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• When did American literature begin?
• Who are some important authors of American literature?
• What are the periods of American literature?
• What was Nathaniel Hawthorne’s family like?

Doctor Heidegger’s Experiment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• The Literature Network - "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment"

Doctor Heidegger’s Experiment , story by Nathaniel Hawthorne , published in Twice-Told Tales (1837).

Elderly Dr. Heidegger and four of his contemporaries participate in his scientific experiment on aging. Dr. Heidegger applies water from the Fountain of Youth to a faded rose; the flower regains its freshness and beauty. After drinking some of the fabled water, each of the three male participants gradually reverts to young manhood and all three woo the sole female among them, whose youthful beauty also has been revived. When the vial of water is spilled accidentally, the rose withers, and the experimenters gradually are transformed to their previous aged appearances.

Lisa Svenby

June 23, 2008

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment”

Biographical Information:

            Although important dates can be found online regarding Hawthorne’s life, there are some events and interactions that seem more relevant to the literature and impact Hawthorne has left for today’s reader.  Several incidents and relationships impacted the type of person he was and the type of writer he became.

            One of the defining events occurred even before he was born.  Hawthorne’s first ancestors living in America were involved in the persecution of Quakers and those thought to be witches in Salem, Massachusetts.  It seems that this ancestral history left some burden of guilt on him, which resulted in a rather obsessive (at times) interest in Puritan thought, Puritan leaders, and Puritan history.  In taking a look at the books he read through the Salem Athenaeum (public lending library…see bibliography), this deep interest is extremely clear.  This interest is clearly played out in his most famous novel, The Scarlet Letter , but is also evident mostly in the morality issues presented in the short stories that were read in class.

            A couple of childhood events also deeply impacted his writing career.  His father died when Hawthorne was only four years old, which left him to be raised by his mother who never remarried.  When he was nine, he suffered a leg injury, which made him an invalid for a period of two years, during which he read voraciously.  He said that this time resulted in his “cursed habits of solitude” (Wright). 

            In college, Hawthorne was friends with some notable historical/literary figures, including Franklin Pierce and Henry David Longfellow.  Also during college, his decision regarding a career was made, although he knew that writing would never ensure him financial stability.  In a letter to his mother, he said, “I do not want to be a doctor and live by men’s diseases, nor a minister and live by their sins, nor a lawyer and live by their quarrels.  So I don’t see that there is anything left for me but to be an author” despite the fact that every writer he knew was “seeped in poverty” (Wright). 

            After college, Hawthorne wanted to get his writing career started, so moved back with his mother and sisters with whom he lived for nearly twelve years.  This was a very trying time for him, a “dismal and squalid chamber” (Wright), but during this time, he again read constantly and published his first work.  A list of items that he checked out from the Salem Athenaeum with his mother’s library card is extensive.  He could not get his first work, Fanshawe , printed by a publisher, so he used his own money to publish the work.  Many critics had negative things to say about the story (undeveloped) and the characters (weak and unbelievable), but there were also critics who said that the story showed much promise in Hawthorne’s writing style.  Hawthorne, unfortunately, took the negative comments to heart and decided to find and destroy every copy of the volume he could find, and because of that, Fanshawe is one of the most valuable and rare titles in American literature (Wright).

            Around the age of 30, he met Sophia Peabody, and they married in 1842 when he was 38.  If you are interested in Hawthorne’s love for his wife, and his attitude toward females and feminism, there seems to be many criticisms and analyses of Hawthorne’s attitude toward women in his literature, and some of those are listed on the bibliography. [KEY BOOK-LENGTH WORKS HERE ARE DEAREST BELOVED BY T. WALTER HERBERT; BIOGRAPHIES OF SOPHIA PEABODY HAWTHORNE BY MEGAN MARSHALL AND PATRICIA VALENTI; AND HAWTHORNE’S FULLER MYSTERY BY THOMAS MITCHELL.  ANOTHER FASCINATING BIOGRAPHICAL SPECUALTION IS NINA BAYM’S “HAWTHORNE AND HIS MOTHER” IN THE MARCH 1982 ISSUE OF AMERICAN LITERATURE .] 

            Hawthorne did of course know Emerson, Thoreau, and Alcott as well.  In fact, when he moved to Concord after his marriage, he lived across from the Emerson home, where Thoreau was currently in residence.  During the first two months of living in Concord, he and Thoreau spent much time together, and despite Hawthorne’s spurning of the Transcendentalist thought, he seemed to take pleasure in the friendship, and even accepted Thoreau’s suggestions in his writing.  He only lived in Concord for three years, from 1842-1845, and then he returned to Salem.  He did return to Concord later in life.

            In the 1850’s, Hawthorne and Herman Melville met and had an instant connection and friendship which has also been analyzed heavily.  Their friendship is recorded through journals and letters, and more information can also be found on this relationship (see bibliography).  In short, the two deeply influenced each other’s writing and confidence.  It was Hawthorne’s suggestions that really made Moby Dick the novel that it became, and Melville dedicated the novel to Hawthorne.  Melville also critiqued Hawthorne’s book Mosses from an Old Manse , and had wonderful things to say about the book.

            Financially, Hawthorne only found some stability after his friend Franklin Pierce was elected as President of the United States.  During the election campaign, Hawthorne wrote Pierce’s biography, which helped bring his friend to the forefront of society’s attention, although it did anger his abolitionist contemporaries.  Although he did this freely and didn’t expect any recompense from his friend, in 1853 Pierce appointed him as Counsel to Liverpool, which afforded Hawthorne a higher place in society.  He and Sophia were able to travel and live comfortably after that point.

            Toward the end of his life, he and Sophia returned to Concord.  His health was failing in his last years, and on May 18, 1864, he died in his sleep while on a train ride with Pierce.  He is buried along with Emerson, Thoreau, and Alcott in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Concord, MA.

Science and Literature

            Because we can actually see some of what Hawthorne actually read, we know that he was at least somewhat knowledgeable about the topics of natural science, metaphysics, philosophy, zoology, homeopathy, psychiatry, optical studies, electricity, and magnetism.  It seems that he lived during an exciting time of transition in the sciences.  Pseudosciences like phrenology and mesmerism were still popular but being debunked.  Study of the natural world was progressing quickly and at the time of “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment” being published (1838), Darwin was nearly on the scene.  A shift in the accessibility of science writing also began at this time, and instead of “ordinary” people being able to read and appreciate science writing, it began to be understood only by the elect few.  In addition to these changes, the social sciences were becoming more commonplace, and for Hawthorne, the study of the human brain, human behavior, and human relationship would have been particularly interesting.

            Hawthorne lived at an exciting time in literature history as well.  The two main philosophies of the time, Romanticism and Transcendentalism, produced a flurry of writings.  The New England Renaissance, initiated primarily by Emerson, resulted in new styles of writing and thought, distancing Americans from their British contemporaries, which was instrumental in America developing its own identity in literature.  Hawthorne himself is best known for portraying the society of the Puritans so accurately, and for helping to create the genre of science fiction and the obligatory “mad scientist.”

Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment

Summary :  Dr. Heidegger, a scientist, invites four elderly friends to visit.  Each of the friends has made poor choices in their younger lives that have resulted in a depression of sorts.  They all yearn for death or for a reliving of their “glory years.”  As the five of them lounge in his study, we get a visual of what the room looks like.  Primarily, the contents of the study seem to be mostly magical/mystical, including a mirror, supposedly inhabited by the souls of the previous (dead) patients of the host.  Dr. Heidegger introduces his idea, which is to have his guests participate in an experiment.  He shows a liquid elixir, into which he puts a dead rose.  The rose seems to revive before their eyes.  Dr. Heidegger explains that the liquid is from the fountain of youth in Florida, discovered by Ponce de Leon.  He asks them all to drink the liquid, and to consider that they may have learned from their past mistakes, and that in growing young again, they might (this time around) be model citizens.

The four of them drink, and seem to feel younger.  They drink more, and seem to grow even younger and more energetic.  As this continues, the three male guests began to flirt and even accost the female guest, with whom they had all previously carried on affairs.  In essence, they seem to have reverted to their former selves, “sinful” behavior and all.  In their enthusiasm, one of them knocks over the container of elixir and it spills onto the ground.  In conclusion, Dr. Heidegger proclaims that he has indeed learned from the experiment and states that he wouldn’t choose to drink of the elixir for anything in the world.  The guests, who have by now returned to their present-day old age, are very upset and resolve to make a pilgrimage to Florida, where they spend the rest of their lives chasing after eternal youth.

Analysis A – typical reading

            Most critics of this story will focus on the last words of Dr. Heidegger:  “…and lo! The Water of Youth is all lavished on the ground.  Well, I bemoan it not: for if the fountain gushed at my very doorstep, I would not stoop to bathe my lips in it; no, though its delirium were for years instead of moments.  Such is the lesson ye have taught me!”  Basically, most will see this story as a lesson on the follies and inherent character of humanity.  If we use the four guests as examples of the rest of humanity, we are all people who resort to any means possible (lust, greed, deceit, envy, pride) to achieve fleeting “happiness.”  Despite the loss of these things as we get older, we are so obsessed with this fleeting feeling, that given the chance to go back and make new choices, we are unable or unwilling to do so.

            These two choices, that we are unable or unwilling to change, are vastly different views on the state of humanity.  If humans are unable to make different choices, then this supports the idea of fate or predestination (that our fate/character is already set and cannot be altered). 

            The other alternative, that people are unwilling to make moral choices, supports the idea that humanity is inherently evil and that most will not make the effort to do “good.”  This obviously is a much more pessimistic view on humanity, while the previous view is more pessimistic about God or a creator.

WELL SUMMARIZED

Analysis B – this is all one big hoax

**Most of these ideas have been taken from the Scanlon article mentioned in the bibliography.**

            Scanlon theorizes that this whole story is sort of a joke.  First of all, when looking at the names of the guests, Scanlon looks to find historical figures that match these names.  He DOES find matches, and even discovers that based on the readings of Hawthorne, he would have been aware of at least 4 of the five historical people.  Here are historical people Hawthorne could have based his characters on:

            Killigrew – a playwright “little disturbed by moral scruples”

            Wycherly – writer who spent 7 years in prison, unable to pay off debts that he had run up as a man of fashion.

            Gascoigne – comedic writer, who at one point was charged with various crimes, including manslaughter and atheism.

            Medborne – actor/dramatist who died in Newgate Prison, due to his acquaintance with Titus Oates, one who planned to overthrow the King

            Heidegger – John James Heidegger… “Acquired an early taste for elegant and refined pleasures, which united to a strong inclination for voluptuousness.”  He was eventually appointed as master of the revels for George II.  His tendencies toward voluptuousness led to his being charged as the “principal promoter of vice and immorality”

            As you can see, all are connected to the theater, which in itself is a statement about the “masquerade” that might be occurring in this story.  Most significant, I believe, is that the historical Heidegger was the “master of revels,” much like the scientist is the master of revels in the story.

            Another part of Scanlon’s argument is based on the idea that the elixir that Heidegger gives his guests is a hoax…that in fact it is just normal champagne and that they just think they are getting younger via a placebo effect.  There is much evidence of this throughout the story, including the following passages and items:

§   Many times throughout the story, the elixir is called liquor, cordial, draught, intoxicating, and spirits.

§   The elixir is served in champagne glasses, and has the looks and effervescent quality of champagne.

§   “Assuredly there was an almost immediate improvement in the aspect of the party, not unlike what might have been produced by a glass of generous wine…They gazed at one another, and fancied that some magic power had really begun…for she (Wycherly) felt almost like a woman again.” (p. 5)

§   “Was it delusion?  Even while the draught was passing down their throats, it seemed to have wrought a change on their whole systems.” (p. 5)

§   “As for the Widow Wycherly, she stood before the mirror courtesying and simpering to her own image…She thrust her face close to the glass to see whether some long-remembered wrinkle or crow’s foot had indeed vanished…At last, turning briskly away, she came with a sort of dancing step to the table.  ‘My dear doctor,’ cried she, ‘pray favor me with another glass!’” (p. 6…note that it never says that she saw any changes, but that she went instead for more of the “elixir”.)

§   “Yet, by a strange deception, owing to the duskiness of the chamber, and the antique dress which they still wore, the tall mirror is said to have reflected the figures of the three old, gray withered grandsires, ridiculously contending for the skinny ugliness of a shriveled grandam.” (p. 7)

§   “The Water of Youth possessed merely a virtue more transient than that of wine.  The delirium which it created had effervesced away.” (p. 8)

In addition to the above passages, Hawthorne repeatedly uses the word “venerable” to describe both the doctor and his guests, although from what we know of the definition of the word and what we know of the guests, the word “venerable” does not seem to be accurate.  Could it instead be meant for irony only?  Lastly, Scanlon makes reference to the fact that Heidegger either intentionally or accidentally killed his finance and probably several of his patients, and so we have to wonder if this scientist is in fact a serious scientist trying to find the answers to natures’ questions, or a bumbling unskilled scientist/doctor, trying out his concoctions on hapless victims.  If Hawthorne meant him to be a bumbling scientist, then this experiment too was meant to be a hoax on the reader and a statement about the character of scientists.  ALSO EXCELLENTLY SUMMARIZED.

Analysis C – what this story says about science and scientists.

            There are some basic scientific principles at work in this story.  The most obvious, I suppose, is that Heidegger is the observer rather than an active participant of the experiment.  He has a hypothesis he is testing, he chooses his “lab rats” carefully, and he comes to a conclusion.  Will people who have in essence ruined their lives make different choices if they have the chance to go back and make new ones?  The answer, of course, is no.  Throughout the experiment, Heidegger seems rather cool and unaffected, which also makes a statement about science.  Ideally, scientists WILL remain detached from the experiment, as it will make them more objective in the reading of the results.  However, when we take into account the fact that the “lab rats” are actually humans, the effect is chilling.  What type of person could remain so unaffected when his friends are the ones being experimented on?  Does science make the scientist immoral?  Does it take out the human element of life?  At the very least, with whatever analysis you agree, Hawthorne is stressing the morality issue, and that scientists need to proceed with moral caution, lest they forget the human aspect or the spiritual aspect of nature and humanity.

EXCELLENT QUESTIONS HERE—WE MAY NEED A REMINDER OF THE KEY FACT ABOUT HEIDEGGER’S YOUNGER LIFE, THAT HE INADVERTENTLY KILLED HIS FIANCEE THROUGH AN EXPERIMENT.  IF YOU COMPARE HIM TO HAWTHORNE’S OTHER “MAD SCIENTISTS,” HE COMES OFF SOMEWHAT BETTER (IT COULD BE ARGUED) BECAUSE OF WHAT HE POTENTIALLY LEARNED FROM THAT FOLLY.  HIS CURRENT EXPERIMENT PROVES THAT PEOPLE ARE THE SAME OLD OR YOUNG, WAY TOO SMITTEN WITH SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO MAKE CAREFUL CHOICES?     

Bibliography

Bunge, Nancy. Nathaniel Hawthorne: a Study of the Short Fiction . New York, NY: Twayne,

Gibbens, Victor E. "Hawthorne's Note to "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment"" Modern Language

Notes 6th ser. 60 (1945): 408-409. JSTOR . EBSCO. UI Library, Moscow, ID. 17 June

2008. Keyword: Dr. Heidegger.

Jones, Buford. ""The Hall of Fantasy" and the Emerson - Hawthorne - Thoreau Relationship."

Modern Language Association 5th ser. 83 (1968): 1429-1438. EBSCO. UI Library, Moscow, ID. 18 June 2008. Keyword: Hawthorne Emerson. [IS THIS USEFUL?]

Kesselring, Marion L. New York. New York Public Library. Hawthorne's Reading . New York,

NY: New York Public Library, 1949.

Scanlon, Lawrence E. "That Very Singular Man, Dr. Heidegger." Nineteenth-Century Fiction 3rd

ser. 17 (1962): 253-263. JSTOR . EBSCO. UI Library, Moscow, ID. 17 June 2008.

Keyword: Dr. Heidegger.

Stoehr, Taylor. Hawthorne's Mad Scientists . Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1978.

Wright, Sarah B. Nathaniel Hawthorne . New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc., 2007.

Information on Hawthorne and his wife:

Norko, Julie M. "Hawthorne's Love Letters: the Threshold World of Sophia Peabody." American

Transcendentalist Quarterly os (1993): 127-139. MLA International Bibliography . EBSCO. UI Library, Moscow, ID. 22 June 2008. Keyword: Hawthorne Sophia.

Person, Leland S. "Hawthorne's Love Letters: Writing and Relationship." American Literature: a

Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography os 59 (1987): 211-227. MLA International Bibliography . EBSCO. UI Library, Moscow, ID. 22 June 2008. Keyword: Hawthorne Sophia.

NICE WORK HERE POSTULATING THE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS OF READING THIS STORY.  YOUR REFERENCES TO THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS STORY AND BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT HAWTHORNE’S COMPLEX ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN DESERVES FOLLOW-UP—ALSO MAYBE A WORD OR TWO ABOUT HOW SCIENTISTS AND WRITERS ARE ALIKE IN THEIR ISOLATION AND NEED TO BE OBSERVERS, RATHER THAN PARTICPANTS IN LIFE?

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Heart of a Dog

Mikhail bulgakov.

Ask LitCharts AI: The answer to your questions

In the early days of the Soviet Union, a mad scientist ( Prof. Preobrazhensky ) implants a human pituitary gland into a stray dog ( Sharik ) and accidentally turns him into a man. In Heart of a Dog , Mikhail Bulgakov uses this fictional experiment as a metaphor for what he sees as the failures of the Russian Revolution and communist Bolshevik government. Just as the professor’s unruly experiment upends his life, Bulgakov suggests, the Bolsheviks destroyed Russian society through their unruly communist experiment in social equality.

The novel opens with the perspective of a wounded dog, who howls as he freezes to death in the harsh Moscow winter. The cook in a Soviet government cafeteria threw a pot of boiling water at him, scalding his side. The dog curses the cook, a dishonest scoundrel who serves rotten meat. He watches a young typist ( Vasnetsova ) run out of the cafeteria into the snowstorm and pities her. She pets him and nicknames him “Sharik” (which means “Little Ball”).

Then, a well-dressed gentleman (Prof. Philip Philippovich Preobrazhensky) marches over and feeds Sharik a horsemeat sausage. Thrilled, the mangy Sharik follows the gentleman through Moscow back to his huge, elegantly-decorated department. But when Prof. Philip and his beautiful young maid Zina lead Sharik to an operating room, Sharik realizes what’s happening. He tries to run away and bites Prof. Philip’s assistant, Dr. Bormenthal , who puts him to sleep with a noxious gas.

But Philip is only healing Sharik’s scalded side, and Sharik awakens clean, bandaged up, and pain-free. He follows Philip into his office, where he naps while one strange-looking patient after another drops their pants and pays Philip a huge sum of money. It turns out that Philip is a surgeon who transplants animal organs into humans in the hopes of rejuvenating them.

Later that day, four angry young communists led by a man named Shvonder visit Philip and introduce themselves as the building’s new management committee. They explain that Philip’s seven-room apartment is too big and demand that he give up some of his space. He angrily refuses. He calls one of his patients, an influential government official, and gets the management committee to leave him alone.

Over the next several days, Sharik naps and lounges around in Philip’s apartment while Philip and Bormenthal dine extravagantly and complain about the state of Moscow under the new communist government. Sharik eats voraciously, admires himself in the mirror, and starts hanging out with the cook Darya Petrovna in the kitchen.

One evening, Bormenthal frantically tells Philip that someone has died. The two men lock Sharik in the bathroom and scramble to set up the examination room. Then, they put Sharik to sleep and start the operation. Philip replaces Sharik’s seminal vesicles (part of the reproductive system) and pituitary gland (an important gland in the brain) with human organs he brings in jars.

The next chapter is Dr. Bormenthal’s journal. After the operation, he and Philip expect Sharik to die. Instead, Sharik’s condition improves. He sheds his fur, starts moaning, and walks on his hind legs. His tail falls off, he starts speaking Russian, and he increasingly looks like a human. Philip is astonished, and the newspapers are starting to gossip about his experiments. Soon, Sharik starts laughing, smoking, wearing clothes, and swearing at everyone around him. Bormenthal and Philip realize that he’s becoming human—and he’s taking on the attributes of the organ donor who gave him his pituitary gland, a lowlife thief and balalaika player named Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin .

With his humanization complete, Sharik becomes vile and offensive over the following weeks. He starts sleeping in the kitchen, playing the balalaika, harassing Zina and Darya, and wearing the same ugly clothes as all the other men in Moscow. He criticizes Philip’s elitism, insists on being treated as an equal, and conspires with Shvonder to get government papers listing his absurd new name, “Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov.”

Then, Sharikov sees a cat. He chases after it, breaks a window, and locks himself in the bathroom with the faucet on. The apartment starts to flood, and the doorman Fyodor climbs through the window to fix the faucet. Bormenthal has to send all of Philip’s patients home while they clean up the water. Sharikov doesn’t apologize—he starts complaining about the cat instead. He keeps up his bad manners, getting drunk at dinner and loudly criticizing Philip’s elitism and taste in theatre. Philip declares that Sharikov is obviously “on the lowest rung of development” and doesn’t deserve to be an equal to civilized, educated men like himself and Bormenthal.

Over the next week, Philip starts to plan something in secret. He tries to kick Sharikov out of his apartment, but Sharikov has government papers saying he now has a right to a portion of Philip’s apartment. Meanwhile, Bormenthal and Philip lament their failed experiment and plot to get rid of Sharikov. They debate whether Sharikov’s problem is that he’s part dog, or that he’s all too human. When they learn that Sharikov tried to sexually assault Darya Petrovna in her sleep, Bormenthal attacks Sharikov and promises to teach him a lesson when he sobers up in the morning.

But in the morning, Sharikov has disappeared. Three days later, he returns with new clothes and a new job as a government cat-catcher. After a few more days, Vasnetsova, the young typist from the beginning of the novel, comes to the apartment. Sharikov has lied about being a war hero and convinced her to move in with him. But Philip tells her the truth, and she leaves in tears. The next morning, Philip learns that Sharikov has reported him to the government for his anti-communist outbursts. He and Bormenthal confront Sharikov, who pulls a gun on them. Bormenthal and Philip subdue Sharikov and take him back into the examination room.

In the epilogue, the reader learns what they’ve done: they’ve turned Sharikov back into a dog. The police come to investigate Sharikov’s disappearance, and Philip introduces them to his dog. He claims that Shvonder registered Sharik, the dog, for a government job as an animal-catcher in order to get back at him. That night, Sharik lazes on the rug, feeling grateful for his beautiful life and wondering why the doctors kept operating on him. And Philip, “the superior being,” is back to his old peaceful self.

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.