“At present, everyone has their own right,” Sharikov tells Professor Preobrazhensky, and behind the harmlessness of the phrase lies the very essence of “Sharikovism.” After all, in fact, this phenomenon is by no means new, it has always been and, unfortunately, its eradication is not expected. But what is “Sharikovism”? Before answering this question, we need to follow the character of “Heart of a Dog” who received the dubious honor of giving his name to a problem as ancient as the world.
So, before us is Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, a man obtained by transplanting the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the murdered Klim Chugunkin into a stray dog. That is, in fact, two personalities in one.
The first half of the character is Sharik, or rather a homeless dog, who was named so by the “typist of the IX category” Vasnetsova. In essence, there are no special vices to be found in him, but there are enough reasons for pity and sympathy: a burned side, the threat of starvation, naive dreams of summer, sausage skins and special medicinal herbs. And how touching are the thoughts of a dog in front of the mirror when he, already fed and cured, looks for the features of a purebred aristocratic dog in his mongrel appearance. “I am handsome. Perhaps an unknown incognito prince,” he thinks, and, reading these lines, it is absolutely impossible not to smile. But not because it’s funny, but because it’s so reminiscent of the fun of a child who imagines himself as a driver and enthusiastically “steers” a train from a pair of stools.
Sharik is a creature who can sincerely feel sorry for him (the same typist Vasnetsova), who can be loyal and experience real gratitude. And even if this gratitude looks servile, it is there, it is not hypocritical - where does hypocrisy come from next to the bitter lot of a tramp?
And the shortcomings that are also present in the future person are completely forgivable for a dog on the street. A dislike for cats, excessive curiosity, which resulted in a torn stuffed owl, a certain amount of cunning and impudence - all this is harmless. Moreover, without these qualities (except for hatred of cats), a stray dog cannot survive. He must be able to sniff out something edible in the garbage, and steal a tasty morsel from a gaping person, and stand up for himself in competition with other stray dogs. Here, after all, the law of the jungle works in full force: it is not for nothing that Sharik prophesied his inevitable death because of his burned side.
A very clear evidence of Sharik’s kindness is the phrase that flashed through his thoughts, in the thoughts of a deathly frightened dog, confident in his doom, when he was stunned with chloroform to heal his wounded side. “Brother flayers, why are you taking me?” - there is only resentment here and nothing more. Sharik even calls the flayers, the fierce enemies of stray animals, “brothers.”
But the second half of Professor Preobrazhensky’s brainchild is, in some way, the same devil who stands behind the left shoulder of every person. During his lifetime, Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin had two convictions for theft, was sentenced to hard labor on probation, abused alcohol and made a living playing the balalaika in taverns. He also died in a very typical way - from a stab wound. Especially for people like Chugunkin, there is a definition of “declassed element”.
We can safely say that the unfortunate experimental dog was very unlucky with an organ donor for transplantation. Sharik, who can safely be compared to a child, has received a criminal, a playmaker and a thief as a neighbor in his body. In addition, he is also a scoundrel, completely devoid of any sense of gratitude to the one who actually resurrected his worthless essence, who gave him a chance to live a little longer in this world.
Although, if you take a closer look, it becomes clear that gratitude is nowhere to come from. Judge for yourself - what did he see in his life, this same Klim Chugunkin? - Tavern ragamuffins, strolling girls, drunken brawls - the usual and terrible in their everydayness dirt of the city bottom. This is a swamp that does not let go of an accidentally fallen victim from its sticky embrace, but for the original inhabitants it is no less familiar than a cozy apartment is for a person, and a nest in a high tree is for a bird. The disgusting and ugly creatures of this swamp swarm in the rotten mud, devour each other and do not even try to find a better fate for themselves. But at the same time, they see those who live differently. Urban lumpen, tavern-groomed, bosota - their whole life passes from drinking to heavy sleep, from hangover to odd jobs, then back to drinking. Sometimes the vicious circle expands with theft, robbery, robbery (additional livelihood), a fight, a fleeting romance with a shabby girl of unknown freshness. And with this, the habitat of thousands of Klimov Chugunkins closes, like a magic circle, not letting anyone or anything inside. But he doesn’t hide the rest of the world. Expensive shops, lovely young ladies, sparkling cars (a rare and expensive dream come true), apartments with many rooms - these are just a small part of the reasons for fierce, black envy. And black envy is incapable of generating good feelings even for the one who pulled you out from the brink of death. And again in the text we find sketches of several very in apt words description of Chugunkin’s soul: “two criminal records, alcoholism, “divide everything,” a hat and two chervonets were missing.”
Sharing someone else’s property is also their special skill that has reached the level of art. And also an argument to justify your own insignificance: why bend your back for years, if you can right now demand your share from someone who is richer. Motive? Yes, because all people should be equal. Oh, the lumpen especially strongly supported this slogan of the revolution - it gave them a sense of their own importance, justified their thirst for someone else's, free goods. “Why are we worse?!” - the Klim Chugunkins were surprised - and reveled in the opportunity to sleep on feather beds, eat silverware from expensive china, wear patent leather shoes and sculpt partitions in apartments that once belonged to the rich.
However, let's return to Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. For all his vileness, this character deserves close consideration. There is no need to justify him in any way - he didn’t deserve it, but it should be understood, because otherwise the “Sharikovism” will not be known in all its abomination, which means we will not receive the proper immunity to it.
Klim Chugunkin becomes a distorting mirror, disfiguring all the features that Poligraf Poligrafovich inherited from the dog. Even the typist Vasnetsova, whom Sharik felt so sorry for at the beginning of the story, at the end becomes a victim of the newly-minted “head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals.” Although the “cunning” Sharikov is trying to hide his fraud behind his desire for good for the unfortunate woman. It’s good, at least it didn’t come down to declarations of love, otherwise the vile trace of the half-human trapper would have remained here, stinking no less strongly than himself. By the way, what a terrible flesh the eternal hostility of cats and dogs has taken on! Previously, a dog could chase a meowing victim, drive it up a tree, and bark. But it is unlikely that he could cause real harm to the cat. After all, she also has teeth and claws and is capable of perfectly standing up for herself, defending herself from anyone, provided that this “someone” walks on four legs. Neither tooth nor claw can save you from a person; Even quick paws are a very bad remedy against him. He is more cunning, he is armed, he is ruthless even without the heart of a dog, and with him... “they will go to the Polts, we will turn them into squirrels for work credit.” I wonder what if it came to hunting stray dogs? However, the resourceful ingenuity of the balalaika player Chugunkin would probably have told Sharikov how to maintain a “clear conscience” here too. And cats - why stand on ceremony with them? Especially if you were a dog in the past.
In general, not in the past. The human form became just a screen for the animal essence of Poligraf Poligrafovich. No wonder fleas tormented him even when the transformation was complete. They, primitive, guided only by the simplest instincts, cannot be confused. All the time, starting from that blizzard evening when the stray dog first crossed the threshold of the professor’s apartment, and right up to last paragraph story, an animal lived under the same roof with the surgical genius Philip Philipovich. Only his character changed from good to terrible.
From his homeless life, Sharik-Sharikov retained his cowardice, combined with a readiness to bite at the right opportunity. When Dr. Bormenthal took the impudent man by the throat, he tucked his tail between his legs and whined. But there were also anonymous letters with absurd accusations, and threats with a revolver, and an instant change in behavior - as soon as Polygraph Poligrafovich acquired documents. It’s also not surprising - which of the powerless stray dogs would miss opportunity take revenge on the offender? Figuratively speaking, documents are the same fangs, only prepared and sharpened specifically for a person, making it possible to tear him to pieces without being found guilty and without going to jail. People also have laws that are not very different from animals. Only if the law of the jungle does not recognize allies, then human law welcomes them and even partially gives birth to them.
Sharikov's main ally is the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. And since we are not considering Sharikov, but “Sharikovism,” we should study him as if under a magnifying glass, for Shvonder generates “Sharikovism” no worse than Poligraf Poligrafovich himself.
Firstly, Shvonder has no name. Only a last name, and even then it’s more like a nickname, and at the same time like the biting and unpleasant word “trash.” You can’t think of a better illustration for the saying “from rags to riches.” He, too, underwent a transformation, rising from a galosh thief to the chairman of a housing association. What is typical is that if you give him free rein, he will continue to steal galoshes even now.
Shvonder is a typical child of his time. While absolutely useless as a productive unit, it is very much in its place where it is necessary to subtract and divide. In any case, the house manager would have had a death grip on Preobrazhensky and would probably have bitten off the eyesore of the supposedly extra room. But the professor found powerful patrons, and Shvonder had to behave quite like a dog: tuck his tail and squeal in fear, and when the immediate danger to the skin receded, assert himself at least by yapping after him. Let's remember the note in the newspaper signed “Shv...r”. The same one: “Everyone knows how to occupy seven rooms until the shining sword of justice flashes over him with a red ray.” Speaking beautifully is the hobby of the lumpen, who has reached the leadership of even the most insignificant structure.
Through Polygraph Poligrafovich, Shvonder hopes to find the weak spot of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The professor himself is a high-flying bird, but Sharikov is supposedly registered in his apartment at sixteen arshins and his petty mongrel psychology can easily be influenced. Let Preobrazhensky still have seven rooms, but the conscious element Poligraf Poligrafovich will also live there, who from reading the correspondence of Marx and Kautsky took away the main thing for himself: “Take everything, and divide it.” Otherwise, your head will swell.
Shvonder sees Sharikov as his twin, brother. And therefore he accepts lively participation in shaping the fate of the product of the experiment. And he gives him a name and subsequently gives him a position. And that’s all Sharikov needs - he grows in his own eyes, he has more and more courage and impudence to stick out his chest in front of Bormenthal and Preobrazhensky. After all, in fact, here there is an exact repetition of the domestication of the tramp. There was a homeless dog Sharik - he became the professor's favorite, there was a rootless product of medical experience - he became the head of cleaning. Only now Sharikov is tamed by Shvonder.
And now we can talk about “Sharikovism”. So what is it? Accidental ingratitude or long-established social phenomenon? More likely, the second one. Because at all times there have been denunciations and envy of those who have succeeded. There was always vindictiveness and a readiness to bite from behind, and even if it was scary to do this, then at least the opportunity to bark at a person.
Is it really only in Poligraf Poligrafovich that one can find petty conceit, the dimensions of which are many times greater than the actual significance of the position occupied. Why go far for examples? How many petty officials are there who consider themselves the rulers of this world, how many watchmen imagine themselves superior to the director? Is it really only on the pages of “Heart of a Dog” that we encounter the primitiveness of judgments hiding under the guise of everyday experience and wisdom?
And is indiscriminateness in goals and means only literary fiction? Of course not. The story with the typist Vasnetsova could well have been taken from real, not book life. There are so many of them in the world - women who are not considered human by all sorts of “benefactors”, who are quite capable of giving Fildepers stockings and promising pineapples, but only in exchange for dog-like, unconditional devotion. Shvonder's anonymous letters seem like childish babble compared to the tricks that people use, not in books, to get the coveted living space. Cat hunting is simply nothing compared to the persecution that a person is capable of inflicting on his fellow man. From skin dead cat at least they will sew a coat, but the person will simply be mixed with dirt. There is no practical benefit, but self-satisfaction is upper class.
Singing in a choir instead of doing business is also familiar to each of us, not only from the words of Bulgakov. And this is also one of the manifestations of Sharikovism. In dogs it looks like howling at the moon. A person, as usual, has an ideological basis for everything. The house committee, headed by Shvonder, cannot help but sing. Then their service to proletarian ideals will be incomplete. Jackals that have torn their prey to pieces always announce their success with a joyful squeal. And if Professor Preobrazhensky declares that the devastation in the country is precisely because people sing in chorus instead of doing business, then this statement comes from his, the professor, bourgeois irresponsibility. “If there was a discussion now,” the woman began, worried and blushing, “I would prove to Pyotr Alexandrovich...” Of course, engaging in verbal duels is much easier than building that very housing that is always lacking for class-conscious proletarians engaged in vigorous revolutionary activity.
“Sharikovism” is omnipresent and all-pervasive. Every person, regardless of the conditions and circumstances of his birth and upbringing, has his own Polygraph Poligrafovich. Only some manage to take him by the throat, like Bormenthal, while others simply release the creature to freedom and themselves do not notice that the heart beating in their chest is no longer human, but canine.
Well, all that remains is to draw a conclusion, to give the final formulation of “Sharikovism.” Having studied Polygraph Poligrafovich, taking a closer look at Shvonder, comparing what is described in the story with the realities of life, we can do this.
“Sharikovschina” is petty vindictiveness, when the inability to bite can well be compensated for by yapping from afar. This is raking in the heat with someone else's hands and being ready to squeal and tuck your tail at any moment.
“Sharikovschina” is a reluctance to break out of one’s limited and often dirty habitat. This demonstrative darkness - “there is absolutely no need to learn to read when the smell of meat is already a mile away.” This is the ability to draw primitive conclusions, subordinated to selfish interests, even from the most intelligent things.
“Sharikovism” is ingratitude in all its forms, even towards those who gave you life. This is painful pride - “I didn’t ask you.” This is selfishness and unwillingness to understand people who differ in their way of thinking. It is much easier to declare them irresponsible - blaming someone else for their poor mind is always easier than admitting their own poor mind.
“Sharikovism” is elementary everyday meanness. This is a carrot and stick method for an obviously defenseless person. You should be mine. And if today you give up cars and pineapples, then tomorrow you will be laid off.
We could continue, but everything is already clear. Clear - and scary. After all, “Sharikovism” is not only the focus of abomination and vices. It is also the surest way to survive among people. Anyone who lives according to the method of Polygraph Poligrafovich is invulnerable. He will be able to get out of any trouble, he will defeat any opponent, he will overcome any obstacle.
And in his eyes, victory will be cheap - what could be more useless than another person? Elephants are also necessary creatures.
“Sharikovism” cannot be obeyed. Because, as Professor Preobrazhensky wisely noted: “Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people.”
Essay on the topic: WHAT IS “SHARIKOVSHNIKA”
Searched on this page:
- what is Sharikovism
- Sharikovism
- this is Sharikovism
- Sharikovism these days
- What is Sharikovism?
“...the whole horror is that he has
not a dog's, but a human's
heart. And the worst thing of all,
that exist in nature."
M. Bulgakov
When the story “Fatal Eggs” was published in 1925, one of the critics said: “Bulgakov wants to become a satirist of our era.” Now, on the threshold of the new millennium, we can say that he became one, although he did not intend to. After all, by the nature of his talent he is a lyricist. And the era made him a satirist. M. Bulgakov was disgusted by the bureaucratic forms of governing the country; he could not stand violence either against himself or against other people. The writer saw the main trouble of his “backward country” in lack of culture and ignorance. And he rushed into battle to defend that “reasonable, good, eternal” that the minds of the Russian intelligentsia sowed. And Bulgakov chose satire as a weapon of struggle. In 1925, the writer finished the story “Heart of a Dog.” The content of the story - an incredible fantastic story of the transformation of a dog into a man - was a witty, clever and evil satire on the social reality of the 20s.
The plot was based on the fantastic operation of the brilliant scientist Preobrazhensky with all the unexpectedly tragic consequences for him. Having transplanted the testicular glands and pituitary gland of the brain into a dog for scientific purposes, the professor received homo sapiens, who a little later was named Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. The “humanized” stray dog Sharik, always hungry, offended by all and sundry, revived in himself the person whose brain served as donor material for the operation. He was the drunkard and hooligan Klim Chugunkin, who accidentally died in a drunken brawl. From him Sharikov inherited both the consciousness of his “proletarian” origin with all the corresponding social mores, and the lack of spirituality that was characteristic of the philistine, uncultured environment of the Chugunkins.
But the professor does not despair, he intends to make his ward a person of high culture and morality. He hopes that with affection and his own example he can influence Sharikov. But that was not the case. Polygraph Poligrafovich desperately resists: “Everything is like at a parade... A napkin is here, a tie is here, and “excuse me,” and “please,” but for real, this is not.”
Every day Sharikov becomes more and more dangerous. Moreover, he has a patron in the person of the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. This fighter for social justice reads Engels and writes articles for the newspaper. Shvonder took patronage over Sharikov and educates him, paralyzing the professor’s efforts. This unfortunate teacher did not teach his ward anything useful, but he managed to hammer home a very tempting idea: whoever was nothing will become a dog. For Sharikov, this is a program for action. Very short term he received the documents, and after a week or two he became a co-worker and not a private, but the head of the department for clearing the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is what it was - a dog-criminal one. You need to see and hear, and with what emotions he talks about his activities in this “field”: “Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled.” However, Poligraf Poligrafovich is not content with cats alone. He viciously threatens his secretary, who for objective reasons cannot respond to his advances: “You will remember me. Tomorrow I’ll make you redundant.”
In the story, fortunately, the story of Sharik’s two transformations has a happy ending: having returned the dog to its original state, the professor, refreshed and as cheerful as ever, goes about his business, and the “dearest dog” does his thing: lies on the rug and indulges in sweets reflections. But in life, to our great regret, the Sharikovs continued to multiply and “strangle and strangle,” but not cats, but people. Material from the site
M. Bulgakov’s merit lies in the fact that he managed to use laughter to reveal the deep and serious idea of the story: the threatening danger of “Sharikovism” and its potential prospects. After all, Sharikov and his associates are dangerous to society. The ideology and social claims of the “hegemonic” class contain the threat of lawlessness and violence. Of course, M. Bulgakov’s story is not only a satire on “Sharikovism” as aggressive ignorance, but also a warning about its likely consequences in public life. Unfortunately, Bulgakov was not heard or did not want to be heard. The Sharikovs were fruitful, multiplied, took an active part in social and political life countries.
We find examples of this in the events of the 30s-50s, when innocent and irresponsible people were persecuted, just as Sharikov once caught stray cats and dogs as part of his job. The Soviet Sharikovs demonstrated dog-like loyalty, showing anger and suspicion towards those who were high in spirit and mind. They, like Bulgakov’s Sharikov, were proud of their low origins, low education, even ignorance, defending themselves with connections, meanness, rudeness and, at every opportunity, trampling people worthy of respect into the dirt. These manifestations of Sharikovism are very tenacious.
We are now reaping the fruits of this activity. And no one can say how long this will last. In addition, “Sharikovism” has not disappeared as a phenomenon even now, perhaps it has only changed its face.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
WHAT IS “SHARIKOVSHCHINA”
“At present, everyone has their own right,” Sharikov says to Professor Preobrazhensky, and behind the harmlessness of the phrase lies the very essence of “Sharikovism.” After all, in fact, this phenomenon is by no means new, it has always been and, unfortunately, its eradication is not expected. But what is “Sharikovism”? Before answering this question, we need to follow the character of “Heart of a Dog” who received the dubious honor of giving his name to a problem as ancient as the world. So, before us is Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, a man obtained by transplanting the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the murdered Klim Chugunkin into a stray dog. That is, in fact, two personalities in one. The first half of the character is Sharik, or rather a homeless dog, who was named so by the “typist of the IX category” Vasnetsova. In essence, there are no special vices to be found in him, but there are enough reasons for pity and sympathy: a burned side, the threat of starvation, naive dreams of summer, sausage skins and special medicinal herbs. And how touching are the thoughts of a dog in front of the mirror when he, already fed and cured, looks for the features of a purebred aristocratic dog in his mongrel appearance. “I am handsome. Perhaps an unknown incognito prince,” he thinks, and, reading these lines, it is absolutely impossible not to smile. But not because it’s funny, but because it’s so reminiscent of the fun of a child who imagines himself as a driver and enthusiastically “steers” a train from a pair of stools. Sharik is a creature who knows how to sincerely feel sorry (for the same typist Vasnetsova), who can be devoted and experience true gratitude. And even if this gratitude looks servile, it is there, it is not hypocritical - where does hypocrisy come from next to the bitter lot of a tramp? And the shortcomings that are also present in the future person are completely forgivable for a dog on the street. A dislike for cats, excessive curiosity, which resulted in a torn stuffed owl, a certain amount of cunning and impudence - all this is harmless. Moreover, without these qualities (except for hatred of cats), a stray dog cannot survive. He must be able to sniff out something edible in the garbage, and steal a tasty morsel from a gaping person, and stand up for himself in competition with other stray dogs. Here, after all, the law of the jungle works in full force: it is not for nothing that Sharik prophesied his inevitable death because of his burned side. A very clear evidence of Sharik’s kindness is the phrase that flashed through his thoughts, in the thoughts of a deathly frightened dog, confident in his doom, when he was stunned with chloroform to heal his wounded side. “Brother flayers, why are you taking me?” - there is only resentment here and nothing more. Sharik even calls the flayers, the fierce enemies of stray animals, “brothers.” But the second half of Professor Preobrazhensky’s brainchild is, in some way, the same devil who stands behind the left shoulder of every person. During his lifetime, Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin had two convictions for theft, was sentenced to hard labor on probation, abused alcohol and made a living playing the balalaika in taverns. He also died in a very typical way - from a stab wound. Especially for people like Chugunkin, there is a definition of “declassed element”. We can safely say that the unfortunate experimental dog was very unlucky with an organ donor for transplantation. Sharik, who can safely be compared to a child, has received a criminal, a playmaker and a thief as a neighbor in his body. In addition, he is also a scoundrel, completely devoid of any sense of gratitude to the one who actually resurrected his worthless essence, who gave him a chance to live a little longer in this world. Although, if you take a closer look, it becomes clear that gratitude is nowhere to come from. Judge for yourself - what did he see in his life, this same Klim Chugunkin? - Tavern ragamuffins, prowling girls, drunken brawls - the usual and terrible in their ordinariness dirt of the city bottom. This is a swamp that does not let go of an accidentally fallen victim from its sticky embrace, but for the original inhabitants it is no less familiar than a cozy apartment is for a person, and a nest in a high tree is for a bird. The disgusting and ugly creatures of this swamp swarm in the rotten mud, devour each other and do not even try to find a better fate for themselves. But at the same time, they see those who live differently. Urban lumpen, tavern-groomed, bosota - their whole life passes from drinking to heavy sleep, from hangover to odd jobs, then back to drinking. Sometimes the vicious circle expands with theft, robbery, robbery (additional livelihood), a fight, a fleeting romance with a shabby girl of unknown freshness. And with this, the habitat of thousands of Klimov Chugunkins closes, like a magic circle, not letting anyone or anything inside. But he doesn’t hide the rest of the world. Expensive shops, lovely young ladies, sparkling cars (a rare and expensive dream come true), apartments with many rooms - these are just a small part of the reasons for fierce, black envy. And black envy is incapable of generating good feelings even for the one who pulled you out from the brink of death. And again in the text we find a description of Chugunkin’s soul, sketched out in a few very apt words: “two criminal records, alcoholism, “divide everything,” a hat and two ducats were missing.” Sharing someone else’s property is also their special skill that has reached the level of art. And also an argument to justify your own insignificance: why bend your back for years, if you can right now demand your share from someone who is richer. Motive? Yes, because all people should be equal. Oh, the lumpen especially strongly supported this slogan of the revolution - it gave them a sense of their own importance, justified their thirst for someone else's, free goods. “Why are we worse?!” - the Klim Chugunkins were surprised - and reveled in the opportunity to sleep on feather beds, eat silverware from expensive china, wear patent leather shoes and sculpt partitions in apartments that once belonged to the rich. However, let's return to Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. For all his vileness, this character deserves close consideration. There is no need to justify him in any way - he didn’t deserve it, but it should be understood, because otherwise the “Sharikovism” will not be known in all its abomination, which means we will not receive the proper immunity to it. Klim Chugunkin becomes a distorting mirror, disfiguring all the features that Poligraf Poligrafovich inherited from the dog. Even the typist Vasnetsova, whom Sharik felt so sorry for at the beginning of the story, at the end becomes a victim of the newly-minted “head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals.” Although the “cunning” Sharikov is trying to hide his fraud behind his desire for good for the unfortunate woman. It’s good, at least it didn’t come down to declarations of love, otherwise the vile trace of the half-human trapper would have remained here, stinking no less strongly than himself. By the way, what a terrible flesh the eternal hostility of cats and dogs has taken on! Previously, a dog could chase a meowing victim, drive it up a tree, and bark. But it is unlikely that he could cause real harm to the cat. After all, she also has teeth and claws and is capable of perfectly standing up for herself, defending herself from anyone, provided that this “someone” walks on four legs. Neither tooth nor claw can save you from a person; Even quick paws are a very bad remedy against him. He is more cunning, he is armed, he is ruthless even without the heart of a dog, and with him... “they will go to the Polts, we will turn them into squirrels for work credit.” I wonder what if it came to hunting stray dogs? However, the resourceful ingenuity of the balalaika player Chugunkin would probably have told Sharikov how to maintain a “clear conscience” here too. And cats - why stand on ceremony with them? Especially if you were a dog in the past. In general, not in the past. The human form became just a screen for the animal essence of Poligraf Poligrafovich. No wonder fleas tormented him even when the transformation was complete. They, primitive, guided only by the simplest instincts, cannot be confused. All the time, starting from that blizzard evening when the stray dog first crossed the threshold of the professor’s apartment, and right up to the last paragraph of the story, the animal lived under the same roof with the surgical genius Philip Philipovich. Only his character changed from good to terrible. From his homeless life, Sharik-Sharikov retained his cowardice, combined with a readiness to bite at the right opportunity. When Dr. Bormenthal took the impudent man by the throat, he tucked his tail between his legs and whined. But there were also anonymous letters with absurd accusations, and threats with a revolver, and an instant change in behavior - as soon as Polygraph Poligrafovich acquired documents. This is also not surprising - which of the powerless stray dogs would miss an opportunity to take revenge on the offender? Figuratively speaking, documents are the same fangs, only prepared and sharpened specifically for a person, making it possible to tear him to pieces without being found guilty and not going to jail. People also have laws that are not very different from animals. Only if the law of the jungle does not recognize allies, then human law welcomes them and even partially gives birth to them. Sharikov's main ally is the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. And since we are not considering Sharikov, but “Sharikovism,” we should study him as if under a magnifying glass, for Shvonder generates “Sharikovism” no worse than Poligraf Poligrafovich himself. Firstly, Shvonder has no name. Only a last name, and even then it’s more like a nickname, and at the same time like the biting and unpleasant word “trash.” You can’t think of a better illustration for the saying “from rags to riches.” He, too, underwent a transformation, rising from a galosh thief to the chairman of a housing association. What is typical - give him free rein - he will continue to steal galoshes even now. Shvonder is a typical creation of his time. While absolutely useless as a productive unit, it is very much in its place where it is necessary to subtract and divide. In any case, the house manager would have had a death grip on Preobrazhensky and would probably have bitten off the eyesore of the supposedly extra room. But the professor found powerful patrons, and Shvonder had to behave quite like a dog: tuck his tail and squeal in fear, and when the immediate danger to the skin receded, assert himself at least by yapping after him. Let's remember the note in the newspaper signed “Shv...r”. The same one: “Everyone knows how to occupy seven rooms until the shining sword of justice flashes over him with a red ray.” Speaking beautifully is the hobby of the lumpen, who has seized control of even the most insignificant structure. Through Polygraph Poligrafovich, Shvonder hopes to find the weak spot of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The professor himself is a high-flying bird, but Sharikov is allegedly registered in his apartment at sixteen arshins and his petty mongrel psychology can easily be influenced. Let Preobrazhensky still have seven rooms, but the conscious element Poligraf Poligrafovich will also live there, who from reading the correspondence of Marx and Kautsky took away the main thing for himself: “Take everything, and divide it.” Otherwise, your head will swell. Shvonder sees Sharikov as his twin, brother. And therefore he takes an active part in shaping the fate of the product of the experiment. And he gives him a name and subsequently gives him a position. And that’s all Sharikov needs - he grows in his own eyes, he has more and more courage and impudence to stick out his chest in front of Bormenthal and Preobrazhensky. After all, in fact, here there is an exact repetition of the domestication of the tramp. There was a homeless dog Sharik - he became the professor's favorite, there was a rootless product of medical experience - he became the head of cleaning. Only now Sharikov is tamed by Shvonder. And now we can talk about “Sharikovism”. So what is it? Accidental ingratitude or a long-established social phenomenon? More likely - the second one. Because at all times there have been denunciations and envy of those who have succeeded. There was always vindictiveness and a readiness to bite from behind, and even if it was scary to do this, then at least the opportunity to bark at a person. Is it really only in Poligraf Poligrafovich that one can find petty conceit, the dimensions of which are many times greater than the actual significance of the position occupied. Why go far for examples? How many petty officials are there who consider themselves the rulers of this world, how many watchmen imagine themselves superior to the director? Is it really only on the pages of “Heart of a Dog” that we encounter the primitiveness of judgments hiding under the guise of everyday experience and wisdom? And is indiscriminateness in ends and means just a literary fiction? Of course not. The story with the typist Vasnetsova could well have been taken from real, not book life. There are so many of them in the world - women who are not considered human by all sorts of “benefactors”, who are quite capable of giving Fildepers stockings and promising pineapples, but only in exchange for dog-like, unconditional devotion. Shvonder's anonymous letters seem like childish babble compared to the tricks that people use, not in books, to get the coveted living space. Cat hunting is simply nothing compared to the persecution that a person is capable of inflicting on his fellow man. At least a coat will be made from the skin of a killed cat, but a person will simply be mixed with dirt. There is no practical benefit, but self-satisfaction is of the highest class. Singing in a choir instead of doing business is also familiar to each of us, not only from the words of Bulgakov. And this is also one of the manifestations of Sharikovism. In dogs it looks like howling at the moon. A person, as usual, has an ideological basis for everything. The house committee, headed by Shvonder, cannot help but sing. Then their service to proletarian ideals will be incomplete. Jackals that have torn their prey to pieces always announce their success with a joyful squeal. And if Professor Preobrazhensky declares that the devastation in the country is precisely because people sing in chorus instead of doing business, then this statement comes from his, the professor, bourgeois irresponsibility. “If there was a discussion now,” the woman began, worried and blushing, “I would prove to Pyotr Alexandrovich...” Of course, engaging in verbal duels is much easier than building the very housing that conscious proletarians, engaged in vigorous revolutionary activity, always lack. “Sharikovism” is omnipresent and all-pervasive. Every person, regardless of the conditions and circumstances of his birth and upbringing, has his own Polygraph Poligrafovich. Only some manage to take him by the throat, like Bormenthal, while others simply release the creature to freedom and themselves do not notice that the heart beating in their chest is no longer human, but canine. Well, all that remains is to draw a conclusion, to give the final formulation of “Sharikovism.” Having studied Polygraph Poligrafovich, taking a closer look at Shvonder, comparing what is described in the story with the realities of life, we can do this. “Sharikovschina” is petty vindictiveness, when the inability to bite can well be compensated for by yapping from afar. This is raking in the heat with someone else's hands and being ready to squeal and tuck your tail at any moment. “Sharikovschina” is a reluctance to break out of one’s limited and often dirty habitat. This demonstrative darkness - “there is absolutely no need to learn to read when the smell of meat is already a mile away.” This is the ability to draw primitive conclusions, subordinated to selfish interests, even from the most intelligent things. “Sharikovism” is ingratitude in all its manifestations, even towards those who gave you life. This is painful pride - “I didn’t ask you.” This is selfishness and unwillingness to understand people who differ in their way of thinking. It is much easier to declare them irresponsible - blaming someone else for the poorness of their mind is always easier than admitting their own poverty of mind. “Sharikovism” is elementary everyday meanness. This is a carrot and stick method for an obviously defenseless person. You should be mine. And if today you give up cars and pineapples, then tomorrow you will be laid off. We could continue, but everything is already clear. Clear - and scary. After all, “Sharikovism” is not only the focus of abomination and vices. It is also the surest way to survive among people. Anyone who lives according to the method of Polygraph Poligrafovich is invulnerable. He will be able to get out of any trouble, he will defeat any opponent, he will overcome any obstacle. And in his eyes, victory will be cheap - what could be more useless than another person? Elephants are also necessary creatures. “Sharikovism” cannot be obeyed. Because, as Professor Preobrazhensky wisely noted: “Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people.”The theme of disharmony, brought to the point of absurdity due to human intervention in the laws of social development, was revealed with brilliant skill and talent by Mikhail Bulgakov in the story “The Heart of a Dog.” This idea is realized by the writer in an allegorical form: the simple, good-natured dog Sharik turns into an insignificant and aggressive humanoid creature. It is this experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky that forms the basis of the story.
Professor Preobrazhensky, no longer a young man, lives alone in a beautiful, comfortable apartment. The brilliant surgeon is engaged in profitable rejuvenation operations. But the professor plans to improve nature itself, he decides to compete with life itself and create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain. For this experiment he chooses street dog Sharika.
The eternally hungry miserable dog Sharik is not stupid in his own way. He evaluates the life, customs, and characters of Moscow during the NEP with its numerous shops, taverns on Myasnitskaya “with sawdust on the floor, evil clerks who hate dogs,” “where they played the accordion and smelled of sausages.” Observing the life of the street, he draws conclusions: “Janitors are the most vile scum of all proletarians”; “The chef comes across different people. For example, the late Vlas from Prechistenka. How many lives I saved.” Seeing Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, Sharik understands: “He is a man of mental labor...”, “this one will not kick.” I
And now the professor performs the main task of his life - a unique operation: he transplants the human pituitary gland from a man who died a few hours before the operation to the dog Sharik. This man, Klim Petrovich Chugunkin, twenty-eight years old, was tried three times. “Profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” As a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appeared, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “ancestor”. Bulgakov describes his appearance this way: “A man short and unattractive appearance. The hair on his head grew coarse... His forehead was striking in its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows.” The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word: “bourgeois.”
With the appearance of this humanoid creature, the life of Professor Preobrazhensky and the inhabitants of his house becomes a living hell. He organizes wild pogroms in the apartment, chases (in his canine nature) cats, causes a flood... All the inhabitants of the professor’s apartment are completely at a loss, there can’t even be any talk of accepting patients. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirtfront...” The owner of the house is indignant: “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I never hear a single curse word again. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look! Sharikov says to him in response: “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me... Why aren’t you letting me live?”
The “unexpectedly appeared... laboratory” creature demands to assign him the “hereditary” surname Sharikov, and he chooses a name for himself - Poligraf Poligrafovich. Having barely become some semblance of a person, Sharikov becomes impudent right before our eyes. He demands from the owner of the apartment a document of residence, confident that the house committee, which protects the “interests of the labor element,” will help him with this. In the person of the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, he immediately finds an ally. It is he, Shvonder, who demands the issuance of the document to Sharikov, arguing that the document is the most important thing in the world: “I cannot allow an undocumented tenant to stay in the house, and not yet registered with the police. What if there is a war with imperialist predators? Soon Sharikov presents the owner of the apartment with a “paper from Shvonder”, according to which he is entitled to a living space of 16 square meters in the professor’s apartment.
Shvonder also supplies Sharikov with “scientific” literature and gives him Engels’s correspondence with Kautsky to “study”. The humanoid creature does not approve of either author: “Otherwise they write and write... Congress, some Germans...” He draws one conclusion: “Everything must be divided.” And he even knows how to do it. “What is the method,” Sharikov answers Bormental’s question, “it’s not a tricky thing. But what about this: one is settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of pants, and the other wanders around, looking for food in trash bins.”
Polygraph Poligrafovich quickly finds a place for himself in a society where “those who were nothing will become everything.” Shvonder arranges for him to be the head of the department for cleaning the city from stray animals. And so he appears before the astonished professor and Bormenthal “in leather jacket from someone else’s shoulder, in worn leather pants and high English boots.” A stench spreads throughout the apartment, to which Sharikov remarks: “Well, well, it smells... it’s known: it’s in the specialty. Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled...”
We are no longer surprised that he took up the pursuit of stray dogs and cats, despite the fact that yesterday he himself belonged to their number. Consistently “developing,” he writes a libelous denunciation against his creator, Professor Preobrazhensky. Sharikov is alien to conscience and morality. He lacks normal human qualities. He is driven only by meanness, hatred, malice...
In the story, the professor succeeded in turning Sharikov back into an animal. But in real life The Sharikovs won, they turned out to be tenacious. That is why we are talking today about such a phenomenon as Sharikovism. At the heart of this social stratum are self-confident, arrogant, convinced of their permissiveness, semi-literate people (if they are worthy of the title of people at all). This new social class became the mainstay totalitarian state, in which slander, denunciations, and simply dullness were encouraged. Militant mediocrity is the basis of Sharikovism. In the story, Sharikov again turns into a dog, but in life he went through a long and, as it seemed to him, glorious path, and in the thirties and fifties he continued to poison people, as he once did, in his line of work - stray cats and dogs.
The heart of a dog in alliance with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why the story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations.
“Now, when our unfortunate Motherland is at the very bottom of the pit of shame and disaster into which the “great social revolution” drove it, many of us are beginning to have the same thought more and more often. It’s simple: what will happen to us next...” Mikhail Bulgakov
If the reader looks into the Brief literary encyclopedia to get a certificate about Mikhail Bulgakov, then first of all he learns that the future one was born in 1891 “in the family of a professor.” There is a slight inaccuracy here: Bulgakov’s father, an associate professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy, became a professor only in 1907. But nevertheless for us it is important fact biography of the writer. After all, one of the main characters of the story “Heart of a Dog” is a most intelligent man, Professor Preobrazhensky.
In the story, it unfolds before us real picture new Soviet life. It just so happened that the dream of the leaders of the Russian Renaissance came true in an ugly form. "Really appeared in Russia" new person", he received the name "homo soviticus". Writers began to explore this phenomenon in their works. And a number of parody works appeared by such outstanding satirists as Zoshchenko, Erdman, Kataev.
"Homo sovieticus" fit perfectly into the new political and social conditions. The Bolshevik regime perfectly reflected its “genotype.” Such a person believed that he was right, was aggressive and intolerant of other people's opinions.
Mikhail Bulgakov could not ignore this phenomenon and created a whole series of portraits of “homo soviticus”. Almost at the same time, his satirical stories “Fatal Eggs”, “Diaboliada” and “Heart of a Dog” were published.
"SHARIKOVSHNIKA". Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is one of the most significant writers and playwrights of the 20th century. Diverse in theme and style, his work is marked by the greatest artistic discoveries. Seeing and sharply criticizing all the shortcomings of the bourgeois system, the writer also did not recognize an idealized attitude towards the revolution and the proletariat. Topical criticism of the phenomena of social and political life of that time reaches its peak in the story “Heart of a Dog”, filled with bright grotesque and satirical images and paintings.
Having affirmed the cultural and spiritual values of humanity all his life, Bulgakov could not calmly relate to how, before his eyes, these values were lost, deliberately destroyed, and lost their meaning for a society subject to “mass hypnosis” of revolutionary changes. The story “The Heart of a Dog” was called by critics “a poignant pamphlet on modernity.” But time has shown that the issues raised in the work are relevant not only for the era in which Bulgakov lived and worked. The phenomena described in the story and the images created by the author remain relevant today.
The writer perceived the revolution as a dangerous experimentation with living life, when an accidental discovery is used as the basis for a thoughtless experiment that leads humanity to disaster. And the main danger lies not in the changes themselves that occur to people, but in the nature of these changes, in the way, by what methods these changes are achieved. Evolution also changes a person, but the difference is that evolution is predictable, but experiment is not, since it always contains unaccounted possibilities. M. Bulgakov shows us what dramatic consequences this can lead to. Professor Preobrazhensky transplants the human pituitary gland into a mongrel named Sharik, resulting in a completely new creature - a homunculus named Sharikov.
“A new area is opening up in science: without any retort of Faust, a homunculus was created. The surgeon's scalpel brought into being a new human unit." A unique experiment was carried out on humans. But how terrible this experiment will be, the heroes have yet to find out.
What happens when all these human and animal qualities are combined in a new being? “Here’s what: two criminal records, alcoholism, “divide everything”, a hat and two ducats are missing... - a boor and a pig...” Sharikov, who is prevented by his creator from living the way he wants, seeks to destroy his “dad” with the help of political denunciation.
Of course, an important role was played here by people from the breed of “simplifyers and equalizers”, in whose person the revolutionary idea appeared in its hypertrophied form. Such people seek to abolish the complex culture created by European humanity. Shvonder is trying to subordinate Sharikov to his ideology, but does not take into account the fact that in Poligraph Poligrafovich the human race itself has degraded, and therefore he does not need any ideology. “He doesn’t understand that Sharikov is a more formidable danger for him than for me,” says Preobrazhensky. “Well, now he’s trying in every possible way to set him against me, not realizing that if someone, in turn, sets Sharikov against Shvonder himself, then all that will be left of him is his horns and legs.”
Bulgakov was very concerned about such consequences of combining revolutionary experiment with the psychology of the human crowd. Therefore, in his work he seeks to warn people about the danger threatening society: the process of formation of balls can get out of control and it will be disastrous for those who contributed to their appearance. The blame in this case falls equally on the “fools” and the “clever” Preobrazhenskys. After all, the idea of an experiment with a person, born in a scientist’s office, long ago went out onto the street, embodied in revolutionary transformations. Therefore, the writer raises the question of the responsibility of thinkers for the development of ideas put into practice.
It is no coincidence that Sharikov so easily finds his social niche in human society. There are already masses of people like him, only created not in the laboratory of a scientist, but in the laboratory of a revolution. They begin to indiscriminately crowd out everything that does not fit into the framework of their ideology - from the bourgeoisie to the Russian intelligentsia. The Sharikovs gradually occupy all the highest echelons of power and begin to poison life normal people. Moreover, they take upon themselves the right to manage this life. “This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.”
An opponent of all violence, Professor Preobrazhensky recognizes only affection as the only possible way of influencing a rational being: “Nothing can be done with terror,” he says... “This is what I affirm, have asserted, and will continue to assert. They are in vain to think that terror will help them. No, no, no, it won’t help, no matter what it is - white, red and even brown! Terror is completely paralyzing nervous system*. And yet his attempts to instill basic cultural skills in Sharikov fail.