The fact that a pig is certainly dirty, and that "Rusish Schweine" is also extremely lazy is, of course, a "historical axiom". This is written about in all the memoirs of foreigners who have visited here, in Russia, who with strange persistence and consistency (it would seem: if you don’t like it - don’t go!) Since the time of Tsar Pea, they were drawn to Muscovy, to Russia, to the Russian Empire, and, having left, dissected our shortcomings and condemned the features. Horror, what a country! Lazy men! For thirty years they sit on the stove, what can I say. For centuries, mind you, since the time of Ilya Muromets. The national idea is not to do anything and not deny yourself anything!
The most curious thing is that such an opinion, which has a long gray beard, was formed not on the basis of any specific facts and manifestations of Russian everyday life, but, so to speak, in aggregate. When the brand was placed on the people's forehead, “accusatory” episodes pulled from the historical context were used to confirm and substantiate it. Sleep, you bastards, on the stove! Excuse me, gentlemen, but where is the people who do not sleep?
And already on the stove, not on the stove - this is a matter of convenience and interior. It was simply warmer and more comfortable to sleep on the stove. By the way, it's healthier too. Many doctors are inclined to believe that sleeping on top of the calcined, slowly giving off heat bricks of the Russian stove is an excellent prevention of colds, prostatitis, rheumatism and others. They worked in the field, sometimes in the rain, and with wet feet. The dry heat of the Russian stove calmed and healed. And to listen to foreigners, it turns out, it is almost indecent to sleep on the stove.
"Work is not a wolf, it won't run away into the forest!" This proverb is by no means an indicator of chronic laziness, but just the ability to distinguish between immediate and future needs. There is something that needs to be done here and now, without delay. Always and in every economy there are things that are obligatory, but not urgent. You will still have to make them, but not necessarily this second, because they are "not wolves", they will not disappear by themselves, "they will not run away into the forest."
That is, if you wish, you can see anything in sayings and fairy tales. If you know for sure that the people are lazy, you will definitely find confirmation of your prejudice.
Ivan the Fool from folk tales does not have a life at all, but a continuous "freebie", a kind of lucky lottery ticket, a kind of "irreplaceable patch", like the Strugatsky brothers. He smiled, scoffed, and as a result - at least half a kingdom, his wife is a princess with good prospects, his father-in-law is henpecked and popular love. For what such merits are all these "unearned income"?
It's embarrassing to talk about Emelya. He not only slept on our popular, shamefully iconic stove, he moved on it! Rolls-Royce in domestic version. Emelya lived as a typical pike Alphonse, and over time, an elderly patroness placed her dear friend in new caring hands. I passed it on like a baton to a respectable royal family. For what?!
Promotional video:
This method of dissecting folklore speaks of the extreme hostility of the researchers, nothing more. Everything can be smeared with cynicism, like a fence with tar, and not notice that our heroes are cute humor, enterprise, passion, courage, kindness and many other valuable qualities. Not a single nation will refuse such a "gentleman's set", will never consider it an indicator of mental and physical laziness. By the way, about Emela. In the end, he caught the pike himself, with his personal peasant labor.
Labor, including peasant labor, has never been easy. It is not surprising, therefore, that for centuries a fabulous dream of rest, luck, at least some relaxation in heavy daily duties has lived for centuries. This dream is truly international, and the tales of all the peoples of the world sound in unison. In Germany and Scandinavia, no help was expected from pikes. There were other magical helpers, that's all!
The popular game "catch the gnome" was popular among the Europeans. Gnomes, as all decent people know, necessarily have numerous treasures - pots of gold.
Naturally, in many fairy tales, the main character (himself is poor, his wife is poor, seven children are one poorer than the other) wandered at night through the forest in the predominant habitat of gnomes, hoping to catch at least one. Later, the dwarf had to be tortured, tickled, deceived, so that he could pay off with a golden pot. In this case, as follows from the Northern European fairy tales, there were champions and folk heroes. By the way, Emelya never had a chance to pry the pike. But in Scottish folklore, there is such a moment: the protagonist tortured the gnome to death. Overdid it.
And what about the soldier from Andersen's Ogniv? How have we forgotten about the soldier! Fire, of course, not a pike, not a self-assembled tablecloth, not a bake, but the result is the same - wealth, a princess and a kingdom to boot. Doesn't it look like anything? Or Hans the blockhead from German folklore, and at the same time from the collection of Andersen's fairy tales - the great storyteller took the folk story, ennobled it, made a literary fairy tale … But what about? About the miraculous receipt by the hero of the same princess, half-kingdom and heaps of gold for free.
As for Ivan the Fool, European folklore had enough of its own "poor Yoricks", and no one considered them either stupid or lazy. On the contrary, their life was very difficult and dangerous.
Unfortunately, Russian culture is characterized by an ironic and critical attitude towards itself, its history and achievements. On the one hand, this is a good quality, a kind of hygiene of the soul, thanks to which a vaccination is made against arrogance, arrogance and megalomania. But as you know, "medicine for a poison is different in dose."
Self-criticism should not be reduced to self-flagellation! Pushkin once said: "We are lazy and incurious" - and we accepted these words as a sentence. Yes, filthy people. Lazy, incurious - no craving for knowledge, no mind. This sad diagnosis is echoed from abroad by a powerful support group: "Lazy, lazy, lazy!" They do not slander, they simply quote "our everything." Here we hung our noses, hunched over in shame - lazy. And they also remembered Emelya, and Ivan the Fool, and the work that "will not run away into the forest" … Well, that's enough, gentlemen, to kill yourself! Alexander Sergeevich, of course, is "our everything", the heritage of national and world culture, but not every statement he made was historical and objective. After all, he talked with his wife, and with friends, and with children. He conducted business negotiations with publishers, while he got irritated and argued about royalties - the breadwinner of a large family, where to go. About whom did Pushkin say - "we"? Whom did you mean? Arina Rodionovna blundered or did the picky censor bring it? Maybe just a lousy mood happened, and everything around became "… and küchelbecker, and sickening"?
In any case, it is absolutely unacceptable to take Pushkin's expressions out of the context of his life, in which he always showed the most ardent patriotism, and a lot of respect for the Russian people, and attention to its history. You should not forever use this phrase to illustrate the myth of endless domestic laziness.
Creation of a myth
“The main thing is to repeat what you want to inspire the masses, and it will be effective! The masses are stupid and naive! " - A. Hitler. From the book "Hitler's Table Talks"
We have already written a lot about Margeret. It would seem difficult to learn from his work something about the work ethic of the Russians. But if you wish, it will work. As it turns out from sayings, so it will turn out from Margeret's book. Often it is he who is called the European who was the first to realize that the Russians did not know how to work. This is incorrect even in fact, - half a century before Margeret, Herberstein wrote about Russian lazy people, 30 years before - Staden. But for some reason it is he who is required. In fact, Margeret's memories did not make Europeans feel like a story about something extraordinary. All that Margeret wrote about is the death of Ivan the Terrible, characterized as a terrible tyrant, the tragedy of Boris Godunov, the "miraculous accession" of False Dmitry I, armed Poles in Moscow, the death of an impostor, famine, riots, bloody battles, the beginning of foreign intervention, internal strife,the struggle for power in a huge country - the reader of that time saw all this "from his own window" at best, and experienced it himself at worst.
Indeed, before the eyes of the first readers of Margeret, the death of Charles IX, one of the organizers of St. Bartholomew's Night, the death of the clan of the Dukes of Guise, the assassination of the last Valois-Henry III, the "happy accession" of Henry Bourbon, famine, mutiny, peasant uprising in the south of the country, the introduction of the Spanish garrison to Paris, anarchy, fierce power struggle.
By the beginning of the 17th century, civil and religious wars had been going on in France for about 40 years. During this time, the state and territorial integrity of France was under threat many times. The country had a polycentric system of power. In addition to the king, some areas were ruled by the Catholic League, others were subordinate to the Huguenots, headed by Henry of Bourbon (the future Henry IV), and, finally, "local government" operated in Paris.
Bloody battles between fellow tribesmen who performed under various political and religious banners; uprisings of peasants and townspeople against lords, royal and local authorities; robberies and murders carried out by mercenary detachments invited to help by warring factions; complete degradation and disintegration of political power, and, as a consequence, collapse and anarchy in the country; the physical extermination of civilians in the course of hostilities, the extinction of entire districts due to terrible natural disasters, hunger, epidemics - this is what the readers of Margeret's book have observed over the years in their own country.
The repeated assassination attempts on King Henry and, finally, his demonstrative assassination in 1610, three years after the publication of Margeret's book, showed sufficiently the crisis and political weakness of the central government. It was due to historical, political analogies that the book was interesting to its readers of the 17th century.
Probably, a lot of exhausted Frenchmen were glad to realize that not only in their state there are times that are of little use for life.
For France of that time, Margeret's book could well have become a kind of survival guide in troubled times, using the example of a distant, but such a similar country. Needless to say, the French themselves did not consider themselves lazy. They perfectly understood all the difficulties and enormous exertion of forces that is required of every person in such an uncomfortable period in history. And they did not read the story of idlers, but a report on the neighbors' troubles, realizing that the troubles are like two drops of water.
The French themselves wrote quite openly about what was done in France in those years: for example, the historical works of Augustin Thierry. And in fiction, let us recall at least the famous book by Merimee "Chronicle of the reign of Charles IX".
But what is curious: none of the French have ever shown that Margeret described something painfully familiar to his contemporaries! No attempt at analogy.
And it's the same in Russia! Margeret's work in Russia is well known and translated into Russian as early as 1830. The book in Russian translation was published in 1831-1834, 1837, 1859, 1913. In Russia, by the way, Margeret's notes were considered a rather valuable, but superficial source of historical information. Professor of St. Petersburg University, the famous historian N. G. Ustryalov quite correctly noticed the weaknesses of the book. He wrote that "… judging by the syllable, one might think that the author has never talked with the muses." Judging by his biography, Margeret more "talked" with horses and weapons, which is understandable, given his peculiar profession.
Please note: no one in Russia perceives the amateur notes of a mercenary warrior as the greatest revelation in the study of Russian character. But no one finds anything offensive or offensive in the memoirs! And why? Because there was no insult, no ridicule, no censure.
It is all the more surprising that it is Margeret's work that is so often cited to "prove" Russian laziness.
Margeret points out that there is an extremely large amount of bread and honey on sale in Russia. It notes the extreme cheapness of meat, thanks to the large number of cattle and sheep, the abundance and variety of excellent fish - sterlet, beluga, sturgeon, white fish, salmon, trout. “There is no such wealth in Europe,” the author concludes. The author does not investigate the questions of where all this abundance comes from, whose works “… there is an enormous amount of bread and honey on sale”.
But it is not this passage that is cited, but a particularly popular saying: “… Despite the abundance and cheapness of food, the common people are content with very little: otherwise they could not satisfy the costs, because they do not know any industry, are very lazy, do not like work and are so devoted drunkenness, as much as possible."
It would seem that this is it, firsthand confirmation of our unsightly national characteristics. But wait a second, who are the judges? The author on the stage! Before us is a bright publicist, honest and objective in his research? Where there!.. If we find fault with him, we can easily prove that the author not only "… did not talk with the muses," but was not friends with common sense either. Where does the "people who do not like work, devoted to drunkenness and idleness" receive an abundance of cheap food supplies, by what "pike command" or by the witchcraft of a captured dwarf? Who created wealth, "… the likes of which do not exist in Europe"? What loafers and drunks have collected the state treasury, the treasures of which he, together with the soldiers of his company, so cleverly plundered from the vaults in the Kremlin? However, this question is certainly awkward …
Why such a long conversation about Margeret? Because of the surprising banality of his opuses. First, a typical, if I may say so, case: the superficial perception by foreign travelers and memoirists of the Russian way of life and culture led to the fact that their numerous notes turned into a kind of haphazard vinaigrette of personal momentary impressions.
Secondly, it is a vivid example of how only what is needed to create a black myth about Russia is extracted from a thick composition. Margeret wrote a lot of things … But only this particular place is pulled out of all his works to prove Russian laziness. Lawyers call this approach "the presumption of guilt" - that is, the a priori confidence that Russians are necessarily "bad" in something. See ?! Margeret also spoke!
Margereta cannot be regarded as the first Russophobe to tell the world about Russian laziness. Perhaps, having risen from the grave, he would have refused such a role with anger - as if the person was not petty and not mean.
In the 20th century, the myth of genetic laziness and popular stupidity found a "methodological foundation" in Max Weber's work "Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism."
This book draws a value divide between Western - Protestant and Eastern - Slavic Orthodox ethics.
The essence of the differences, according to Weber, is as follows: hard work and profit is an approved Protestant value, and therefore Western peoples are hardworking and oriented towards enrichment, and the Christian orthodox (Orthodox) value is suffering and futile work, for which a Christian will receive a reward in the next, afterlife. Of course, since there is no motivation for work, there is no quick enrichment - no one is working. You see how simple and wonderful everything is!
This thesis about "Protestant ethics" is adored by our modern liberals. It is very "scientific"! Here's a small personal example.
My good college friend, a person who has not just two higher education in the humanities - MGIMO and the Civil Registry Office, but who studies history a lot and with interest - is a vivid example of Weber's zombie.
As soon as he sees the golden domes and crosses from the window of his Mercedes, let’s talk “competently” about how the Russian Orthodox Church was hindering the development of Russia. And how cool we would live, choose Svet-Vladimir in due time as the state religion Catholicism or, in extreme cases, Islam.
On the word "Islam" we usually clash, because as an example from the opposite, he immediately receives "prosperous" Iran and Iraq, where, like ours, with natural resources everything is "above the roof". Better then, some kind of "Shintoism" or "Zen Buddhism" - that's how Japan and South Korea have economies "rushing", pardon the vulgarism, and moreover, neither you oil, gas, nor timber, nor coal. Nothing at all, and besides, it is not hot at all in winter.
Not Cuba, which no heavenly climate helps to flourish, but a 100% Catholic country, by the way.
Well, let's return to the author of the brilliant idea of "Protestant ethics" Mr. Weber. The inventor of this elegant explanation of our national shame - idleness - is a remarkable person in himself.
Emil Maximilian Weber is a professor of economics at several German universities, one of the founders of the German Sociological Society. Since 1918 Professor of National Economy in Vienna. In 1919 he was an adviser to the German delegation at the Versailles negotiations. It is difficult to imagine a German who at this time would have been kind to Europe in general and Russia in particular … As a rule, failures in practice greatly contribute to the development of theoretical activity. Weber called his concept, born on the wreckage of defeated Germany, "understanding sociology."
Sociology analyzes social action and tries to explain its cause. Understanding according to Weber is a reconstruction of the meaning that the person himself put into his actions. Unlike his contemporaries, Weber did not seek to build sociology along the lines of the natural sciences, referring it to the humanities or, in his terms, to the cultural sciences.
This was a very correct and promising position. It is the humanities that presuppose absolutely subjective assessments of phenomena, since the assessment scale cannot be measured in any known units. The task of the humanities scientist is to analyze precisely these subjective opinions. Weber knew Russian quite well and studied Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century. In addition to his main book, he wrote two large articles "On the Situation of Bourgeois Democracy in Russia" and "The Transition of Russia to Sham Constitutionalism." Judging by the articles, he did not experience any fierce enmity or special love towards Russia and the Russians.
At the center of Weber's social philosophy is the idea of freedom, meaningful, so to speak, "culturally and sociologically." He interpreted it in the spirit of her exclusively Protestant understanding - as the freedom of a "person", an individually defined personality, acting, as they say, in sound mind and firm memory, with God in the heart and mind in the head, and therefore completely responsible for their actions …
In its classical form, such freedom is no longer a matter of the future and not of the present, but of the past, albeit not so distant. Weber attributes its classical era to the days of early capitalism. First of all - to the times of the Great Geographical Discoveries, when "… the vast expanses of freedom have expanded," on the one hand, and on the other hand, connects it with the era of the Reformation, from which, according to his concept, the "spirit of capitalism" was born: radical Protestantism with its " economic ethics ".
According to Weber, the West owes to this “Protestant ethics both its economic growth and a truly democratic way of social and political life. Very nicely laid out, isn't it? A free society of free people, endless expanses of democracy, respectful parity between the individual and the state - this is the crown of European achievements. True, this crown at the time is only a Protestant head …
Author: Andrey Kleshnev