Machiavelli, perhaps, did not realize how much this expression of his explains the nature not only of power, but of any personality in general.
Schools and universities still teach that personality is part of the individual. That is, a certain set of properties and qualities inherent in it. And if suddenly a person suffers for some reason, then you just need to correct something in his personality, and then everything will be ok. It is with this idea that people usually come to psychotherapists and say, I’ve brought myself to grief - let’s correct me as soon as possible. It’s as if a psychotherapist - some kind of tuner who opens the panel, clicks the toggle switches and buttons, and that’s it - the device works as it should again.
In fact, personality is a way of interaction. And since we interact with different people, there can be many such ways. Somewhere we behave like a child, somewhere like a strict parent, somewhere we ingratiate ourselves, somewhere we are rude. Roughly speaking, personality is not inside us, but where we come into contact with someone. That is, it is, relatively speaking, between me and the person with whom I interact. If this person disappears from attention, my given personality also disappears. When another person appears in contact, my personality also appears, but it’s different.
And it’s not a matter of social role, as we are taught at the institute. Indeed, with one person I am a stern boss, and with another I am a vulnerable patient. But the trick is that with one person I really experience myself as firm and strong-willed, and with another – as soft and pliable. These are all different selves.
This is why the Gestalt therapist works through contact. Only in it can his personality meet the personality of the client - one way of interaction with the other. And in this meeting there is a mutual exchange of experience, which leads to a psychotherapeutic effect - the client begins to interact with the world around him in a way that finally pleases him.
But I will return to the king and retinue. Based on the fact that personality is created through contact, any king becomes a king only when others see him as a king. This means that it is not necessary to be a real king - it is enough for the retinue to see it that way. So that people themselves can project royal qualities onto a person: majesty, power, nobility and anything else that is considered royal. That is, independently endow him with such properties, believe in them and see them.
Often all that remains for him is to simply become an object convenient for projections - to show or at least hint with his actions. For example, posture, facial expressions, voice. And from this, the “retinue – monarch” interaction will emerge, which can become fixed and even intensify. Then in communication, the more one appears as the personality of a subject, the more the second appears as the personality of a king. And vice versa.
So show business stars appear thanks to projections. They are as stars as they allow stardom to be projected onto themselves. For example, young fans can consider their idol sexy, consider him a god of sex and dream about sex only with him. In fact, he may generally be impotent, and the entire halo of sexuality around him is nothing more than the repressed sexual energy of pimply girls. It's the same with others. Often what makes a sectarian preacher pious is his frantic parishioners who do not take credit for their good qualities. Business gurus are under-businessmen who dream of success, but devalue their own achievements. And so on. Sometimes all a star needs is not to stop fans from projecting stardom onto him.
What Machiavelli once said was later revealed by Freud in the concepts of “transference” and “countertransference”.
How does this actually happen? Using the example of a king and a courtier, this nonverbal interaction looks like this:
Courtier: “Your Majesty, with you I experience myself as a courtier of the king!”
King: “Magnificent, my courtier! I like to experience my royalty with you. Keep up the good work."
Playing tricks means doing trifles. Biryulka - pipe, pipe; small toy, decoration; In the game, spillilets are evenly cut straws. The game is to use a crochet hook to pick out the spillikins, one by one, without moving the others.
To play a king is to behave like an honorable, important person without being one. The more widely known expression is the retinue plays the king / the retinue makes the king. There are two meanings of this expression: 1) the environment, the design is more important than the essence; 2) the environment of an important person or leader shapes his image.
The game is not worth the candle - about a task, an activity that does not justify the effort expended. An expression from the speech of gamblers, tracing paper from French. Initially, it was said that the winnings were very small, which did not cover the cost of the candles that burned out during the game.
Where Makar did not drive the calves was very far. The name Makar in many proverbs is associated with a poor, unhappy person. Perhaps Makar is a poor, landless peasant, forced to graze other people's calves on the most abandoned and desolate pastures. The place where even Makar never drove his calves is even further away. Before the revolution, the expression was used jokingly about political exile.
The horse is not lying down (simple, often ironic or disapproving) - nothing has been done yet, the work is still far from starting. The origin of the turnover is associated with the habit of horses to wallow before allowing a collar or saddle to be put on, which delayed work.
Who are you coming? (archaic book or joke) - in what direction are you moving, developing? An expression from the Church Slavonic text of the Bible, where the phrase literally means “Where are you going?”
A book with seven seals (book) - about something absolutely incomprehensible, inaccessible to understanding, hidden from the uninitiated. An expression from the Bible, from the Revelation of St. John the Theologian: “And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And no one could open it” (Apocalypse, 5, 1-3, etc. .places).
Kondrashka grabbed (grabbed, hit, knocked) someone (simple joke) - someone died suddenly, passed away (about apoplexy, paralysis). There are several versions of the origin of the phrase: 1) the phraseological unit goes back to the name of Kondraty Bulavin, the leader of the popular uprising on the Don in 1707; 2) Kondrashka in the expression is a euphemistic name for death, serious illness, paralysis, characteristic of popular superstition.
Like water off a duck's back (disapproved) - anyone is absolutely indifferent to anything, doesn't care about anything; something has absolutely no effect on anyone. Due to the fatty lubricant of the feathers, water easily rolls off the goose. Such observations were transferred into healer formulas, proverbs, and sayings.
Leavened patriotism (disapproved) - falsely accepted love for the fatherland, indiscriminate praise of everything that is one’s own and censure of what belongs to others. There are two versions of the origin of the turnover: 1) an original Russian turnover. The first to use it in “Letters from Paris” (1927) was P. A. Vyazemsky: “Many recognize patriotism as unconditional praise for everything that is theirs. Turgot called it lackey patriotism... we could call it leavened patriotism”; 2) this expression was first used by A. N. Mukhanov in 1832.
Smoking incense to someone (bookish irony) - flattering, exaggerated praise of someone. The expression is a tracing paper from Greek. Incense is a fragrant substance for smoking that was burned in the temple in honor of the deity and in the courts of kings. The smoking of incense was accompanied by praise.
Wheel of Fortune (book) - blind fate, vicissitudes, impermanence of human happiness. In Roman mythology, the goddess of blind chance, happiness and misfortune, Fortuna, was depicted blindfolded, standing on a ball or wheel and holding a steering wheel in one hand and a cornucopia in the other. The rudder indicated that Fortune controls a person’s destiny, the cornucopia - the well-being, the abundance that it can give, and the ball or wheel emphasized its constant variability.
Colossus with feet of clay (bookish, often ironic or disparaging) - something majestic, powerful in appearance, but weak, easily destroyed in essence. The expression goes back to the biblical story about the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, who had an ominous dream. He saw a huge image whose head was made of gold, its chest and arms were made of silver, its belly and thighs were made of copper, its knees were made of iron, and its feet were made of clay. A stone falling from the mountain hit the colossus on its clay feet, and it turned to dust. The king gathered priests and soothsayers, and one of them interpreted this dream as a fatal omen of the impending destruction and death of the Babylonian kingdom under the attacks of the Persians.
Caliph for an hour - 1) about a person who received power by chance, for a short time; 2) about a person who accidentally and briefly became someone, engaged in a business that is not typical for him (usually prestigious). The expression goes back to the Arabic fairy tale “A Waking Dream, or Caliph for an Hour” from the collection “A Thousand and One Nights”.
How to give something - definitely, definitely. The expression is based on the tradition of giving travelers something to drink. Giving water is a simple and easy task, so the phrase was used to mean “quickly, easily.” At the beginning of the 19th century. the form appears as if they will give you something to drink; the modern form took shape by the mid-19th century.
Crocodile tears are fake tears, insincere regrets. The expression arose in Russian as a result of the literal translation of the complex German word Krokodilstranen. The first entry is in Weismann's "German-Latin and Russian Lexicon" in 1731. The appearance of the corresponding formation in the German language is associated with the belief that when a crocodile devours a person, he cries (cf. in the "Azbukovnik" of the 18th century: Crocodile beast watery... When a person is about to eat, then he cries and sobs, but does not stop eating).
Columbus's egg (Columbus's egg) is an ingenious solution to a difficult problem, an unexpectedly simple and courageous way out of a difficult situation. The expression originated from a Spanish folk joke. The sages tried in vain to place the egg upright, in a standing, vertical position on the table. But only the simpleton Juanelo thought of hitting the end of the egg on the table - the shell cracked and the egg was set. This is where the expression Huevo de Juanelo "Janelo's Egg" comes from. This expression was sometimes translated into Russian as Vanyusha's egg (in Spanish - Juanelo, and in Russian - Vanya, Vanyusha). Bezzoni, in his History of the New World (1565), attributes this anecdote to Christopher Columbus. In response to an ironic remark that the discovery of America did not present much difficulty, Columbus invited his interlocutor to place an egg. When he failed, Columbus set the egg himself, saying that it would not be difficult.
Knock out a wedge with a wedge (drive out) (colloquial) - get rid of something (bad, heavy), acting as if it does not exist, or resorting to exactly what caused it. The proverb is associated with wood splitting, in which logs are split by driving a wedge into a crack made with an ax. If the wedge gets stuck in the wood without splitting it, then you can knock it out (and at the same time split the log) only with a second, thicker wedge.
To ride like cheese in butter is to live in complete contentment and prosperity. The word cheese in this expression means the word "cottage cheese". The popular comparison with cheese rolling in butter reflects the types of milk processing. Cheese, cottage cheese and cow butter are peasant symbols of well-being in life.
C-section. Usually the explanation is this. Caesarean section is a translation of the Latin sectio caesarea, from sectio - “section” and caedo - “cut”. This is what our permanent assistant, Latin specialist N.I. Bereznikova, wrote to us: “caesareus means precisely “Caesar” - that is, Caesar. There is a legend that Caesar - the one who is Gaius Julius - was born precisely thanks to this operation. And The operation has been known for a long time - even Hippocrates owned this technology. However, it was very risky, it was rarely possible to save the life of both the mother and the fetus, so each such case was included in the annals of medicine. And then there is such a famous character! A lifetime legend! What about him? were not told after the deification! And the unusual birth fit well with this legend
When you mention any royal person, a magnificent outfit, a crown and a crowd of people around come to mind. There is no other way - the royal retinue has at all times been an indispensable attribute, and to some extent even a sign of the power of a representative of the dynasty. Machiavelli’s phrase, which became the title of this article, became popular for a reason: a lot depended on the retinue. But, unlike their European “brothers in the crown,” the Russian emperors surrounded themselves with more than just gentlemen with a high title: their retinue consisted of senior officers and generals.
Adjutants General
But this did not happen right away. Before the reign of Peter I, the retinue was, to put it mildly, service personnel with certain powers. Since 1713, the butler turned into a chief marshal, the bed servant became a chief chamberlain, the charmer became a mundan, and the room nobleman became a chamberlain cadet. The rest of the court ranks underwent similar changes, as a result of which the usual retinue turned into a hodgepodge of military ranks. Peter I was also of the opinion that, in addition to the crowd surrounding him, there should be at least two people in its number whom he could trust as he trusted himself. Therefore, in the same 1713, he specially introduced two positions of adjutant general, which were immediately filled by “sovereign men”: Pavel Yaguzhinsky and Anton Devier. They were later the first to receive equally important positions: Yaguzhinsky became the Prosecutor General of the Empire, and Devier became the Chief of Police of St. Petersburg.
Anna Ioannovna decided that two adjutant generals were not her size, and increased their number to ten. History is silent whether these people were loyal to their empress to the last drop of blood, or were simply glad of the “grain places”. Anna Ioannovna appointed only battle-tested generals to the position - either she was stroking her ego (it’s nice to command people who had earned the respect of soldiers during hostilities), or she decided that they were the ones who were better able to cope with the responsibilities assigned to them than others. However, the generals were not burdened by the new position - the lack of hassle, simple tasks such as accompanying the empress into society and the excellent salary more than compensated for their damaged pride in some places. One of the first adjutant generals under Anna Ioannovna was Ernst Biron’s brother, Gustav. However, despite the warm place and dust-free work, he stayed with the empress for only three years: deciding not to abuse the hospitality and not caring about patronage (or maybe he was pretty guilty - who will sort them out behind the scenes), Gustav, three years after his appointment, left for The Russian-Turkish War, where he showed himself in all his glory: he distinguished himself in battles more than once, earned the respect of both the command and his subordinates, and eventually received the rank of general-in-chief.
In 1775, a title appeared specifically for the retinue. He was introduced by Catherine II, and the aide-de-camp, having taken his rightful place in the retinue, also snatched a place in the Table of Ranks: there the rank was comparable to an army colonel. Only officers who managed to distinguish themselves in some way during military service could occupy it. The status of the adjutant general increased: now only a person with the rank of lieutenant general or higher could boast of it.
Each representative of the imperial family himself determined the number of people in his retinue, but over time its number steadily increased. Alexander I was surrounded by 71 people, Nicholas I - 179, and Alexander II - more than 400. Only under Alexander III did the environment noticeably thin out: only 105 people remained in the retinue. Nicholas II decided that this was not enough for him, and again “increased” his retinue, although not by much: in 1914 it consisted of 171 people, including more than 60 major generals and rear admirals - they also began to be accepted for court positions . But on the other hand, there were fewer high-born nobles: if under Alexander I, “rootless” occupied a third of the places of the total number of adjutants general, then in the circle of Nicholas II only every fourth could boast of a noble family.
Gossip for the night
The question arises: was this environment really necessary, and in such numbers? After all, in fact, at first the retinue was nothing more than just a “point of compliance with the title.” Since the advent of adjutant generals and adjutant wings, each emperor changed their duties to his own taste and color. What remained common was only presence at various kinds of ceremonies, and also round-the-clock duty in some palace - where the crowned person deigned to spend time. Usually this happened no more than once a month.
It was not for nothing that Alexander II “increased” the number of adjutants. It was with their help that he tracked the process of “implanting” his reforms into the Russian mentality. Most of the retinue was not at court - they all dispersed to the provinces, where they controlled the actions of local officials, not letting them down. They wrote reports to the capital about the work being carried out and planned, about how the highest commands were being carried out and about the mood of the people. The retinue was mostly experienced people who would show themselves much better “on the spot” than wiping their pants in the palace corridors: the adjutants could give practical advice after seeing the situation with their own eyes. So Alexander’s reforms, including the abolition of serfdom and other serious changes, proceeded relatively smoothly also thanks to the efforts of his adjutants.
But in addition to matters of national importance, the retinue had other duties, more extravagant. Thus, Elizaveta Petrovna, fearing for her own life to the point of panic, very often changed the location of her own bedroom. Fleeing from a possible conspiracy, the empress could quietly hide in the evening, without informing even trusted people; Therefore, the task of the adjutants was not to lose the crowned alarmist in the twilight. In addition, Elizabeth loved to listen to some old woman from the market at night, thereby learning the city rumors and the mood of the people. Thanks to this whim, the duties of the aide-de-camp included “supplying” new old women with fresh rumors to the empress’s chambers. It also happened that some dignitary “prepared” the talkative granny in a certain way, specifically pointing out to her those topics that she must touch upon in a night conversation and give the empress food for thought.
I had to be cunning so as not to lose my place. Thus, in one of his conversations with Catherine II, the Russian ambassador to sunny Italy mentioned that he had met at court a count who played the violin amazingly. Of course, Catherine wanted to listen to the musician’s performance, and Potemkin immediately volunteered to take him to Russia. As usual, he himself did not carry out the order, and sent an aide-de-camp to Italy. He set off in a luxurious carriage. Having reached Florence, he explained to the count the purpose of his visit, and was expelled in disgrace - the count considered such an invitation insulting. Knowing the cool disposition of the favorite, to whom it was impossible to show up without a violinist, the adjutant found a talented performer in Milan, who was just finishing his studies. For a decent sum, he agreed to play the role of the count violinist, successfully performed in front of Catherine, and even rose to the rank of colonel at court. Apparently, the fraud was never discovered.
There were also funny things. Paul I once noted that a man passing by his window did not bow (apparently he simply did not notice the emperor). The very next day, the police chief, warned by the adjutant general, gave out orders - do not just walk past the imperial palace, but be sure to take off your hat and bow. After some time, Pavel noted a sharp change in people’s behavior, to which the adjutant cheerfully reported that they were following your instructions. The emperor got angry, scolded the initiator, and ordered everything to be corrected. Soon the police chief was already giving other orders - to walk past the imperial palace without bowing, and not to take off your hat.
To be included in the circle of the monarch’s closest people is very honorable. And it seems unlikely that anyone would agree to voluntarily give up such a convenient position. But history is familiar with the names of such people. Among them is Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy. He was a personal friend of Alexander II, so his appointment as adjutant was taken by the courtiers as a matter of course. But Tolstoy refused this title, not having been in office for even a year. In his resignation letter, he spoke of himself very self-critically, noting that he was an unimportant military man and a bad official, and therefore it was better for him to be a good writer. The friend-emperor granted the request, and soon the world became acquainted with the works of Tolstoy the writer.
I believe that Machiavelli's phrase can be reinterpreted. Just as a retinue makes a king, so a king makes a retinue. A strong monarch will have people in it who are ready to give their lives and the prosperity of the state for him. A tangle of intrigues immediately forms behind the weak one’s back, and eventually a strong one will take his place. However, this applies not only to royalty - each of us has our own “retinue”, our own social circle. Some of them become adjutant general, while for others a chamber cadet is enough. Still others will withdraw themselves, preferring personal dreams to everything else. All that remains is to determine your own importance in this retinue, and think - are you really that same chamber cadet?
“It is the retinue that makes the king,” the great Italian politician and thinker Machiavelli once said. This motto was adopted by the rulers of all countries, and history has repeatedly proven its correctness. For example, we can recall the life and glorious reign of Peter I the Great. All his reforms aimed at the Europeanization of old Russia were possible only if he had a loyal retinue ready to fulfill the will of the young tsar at any cost. It is known that the “chicks of Petrov’s nest,” as A.S. Pushkin later called them, were selected by the tsar for a long time.
But in the end, it was thanks to them that those changes in politics and the very style of life that turned a backward country into one of the leading ones in Europe were possible. Perhaps one of the most striking examples characterizing the loyalty of those around the Tsar is associated with the rebellion of Peter’s royal sister, Sophia, who aroused disgruntled archers into unrest. In that distant time, the archers were elite royal troops, associated in the minds of Russians with old Russia, for the inviolability of which Sophia so advocated.
The princess’s plan included a complete seizure of power (she was considered a regent for her minor brothers-heirs - Ivan and Peter). The archers, who were completely displeased with the behavior of young Peter, demanded the death of the king. On the night of the riot, close friends of 17-year-old Peter managed to warn him about the impending offensive, which gave him time to escape to the territory of the “amusing troops” (the future Petrovsky and Mikhailovsky regiments). After some time, he returned to Moscow fully armed, and the riot was suppressed. It is not surprising that later the vindictiveness of enemies often fell not so much on the king himself as on his entourage.
As can be seen from this example, a good retinue is not only a guarantee of excellent work, but also, if necessary, saving lives and identifying dissatisfied people. There are historical facts that tell how people in the sovereign’s retinue risked their own lives to save him.
This is confirmed by the history of the French king Henry IV, who at that time was the king of the rebellious Navarre, a small state adjacent to France. His marriage to Princess Margaret of Valois, the sister of Charles IX Valois, who occupied the throne, ended in the bloody Night of St. Bartholomew, when the “faithful” Catholic French massacred the Huguenot Navarrese who had gathered for the wedding of their king. Henry himself unexpectedly found himself a prisoner of the Louvre. During this time, on the orders of the Queen Mother Catherine de Medici, his retinue was not allowed to visit him - because they were afraid that the nobles of the Navarre court loyal to their king would arrange his escape. Moreover, several times the life of the future king of France was in danger: they tried to stab him with the help of his own wife, poison him by soaking the pages of a book with poison, and finally they decided to kill him while hunting under the pretext of an accident.
But the Queen Mother's evil plan failed. The Navarreans loyal to the king, risking their lives, bribed Catherine's servants and thus learned all the latest events taking place in the Louvre. On the day of the hunt, they also went after the royal motorcade, although keeping a respectful distance from it, which, however, did not prevent the Navarrese from successfully monitoring the progress of the royal hunt. Arriving at the fishing site first, they managed to neutralize the people hired to kill Heinrich. When the cortege reached the place and the hunt began, the Navarrese helped the king and queen hide in the wilds of the forest and manage to travel a sufficient distance before the French discovered the absence of their spouses.
Thus, thanks to the loyalty of his retinue, Henry of Navarre was able not only to get out of captivity, but also to stay alive. After the death of Henry III of Valois, Charles's younger brother, Navarrese took the French throne. As you can see, a faithful retinue often plays a leading role in the endless spectacle of human relations. And how many facts does history know when the courage of vassals saved the life and honor of their masters, even at the cost of their own lives!
But time passed, centuries replaced each other, and the great feats of knightly valor remained in the past. Since modern times, people have preferred to resolve problems and destroy enemies through diplomacy and litigation. If earlier poison, arrows, and swords were used, then it became necessary to be wary of slander and manipulation of facts. However, human relationships in their essence do not change, and therefore the loyalty of the environment is still highly valued.
Image
The king is on the throne, surrounded by loyal knights with drawn swords. They are his most faithful and devoted servants. These are people whom the king can trust with his life. He rules well because his knights are always nearby and ready to defend the well-being of the state at any moment.
For example, in the 19th century, Great Britain was shocked by a trial related to the name of one of the most famous London bankers, John Neilson. His opponent brought a serious charge against him - state embezzlement through dummies. The banker was threatened with complete confiscation of property and imprisonment for up to 7 years. In short, the banker’s career and good name were on the verge of disaster. Moreover, for Neilson himself this accusation was completely unexpected. Neither attempts to reach an agreement with the enemy who sued, nor the collected facts of the banker’s innocence could help - the court was not on his side.
John guessed that the facts presented by the prosecution were well fabricated, but he could not prove it. In addition, none of the famous lawyers wanted to take on this losing case and put their own reputation at risk. It seemed that nothing could be changed - and Neilson’s fate was sealed.
Perhaps this story would have ended with his complete collapse if Neilson had not gathered the right entourage around him at one time. His assistants were the only ones who did not believe in their leader’s involvement in the thefts. They decided to help him save his good name. While public attention was focused on the scandalous investigation, they carefully checked all the facts discrediting Neilson. And within a few weeks, Great Britain, with bated breath, watched the unfolding legal battle. By collecting all the unknown facts and double-checking the known ones, John Neilson's subordinates were not only able to completely prove his innocence, but also obtain a trial against his accuser.
This story should teach the leader some wonderful worldly wisdom: one man in the field is not a warrior. Even the most powerful person needs the right environment: support in difficult times, and true friends who are ready to sincerely rejoice and share common success.
The environment often plays an important role in the psychological mood of the leader. No person can calmly withstand complete loneliness. Perhaps this is why managers, famous for their inaccessibility and severity, are never satisfied with themselves, nor with their employees, nor with the work performed.
The realization that there is a reliable rear that can always cover, help out in a difficult situation, or simply help defuse the situation, turns work into a creative, living process, constantly changing, but invariably successful. On the other hand, the lack of a loyal entourage is not only the risk of one day becoming a king without a kingdom, but also a psychologically extremely difficult condition that turns work into hard labor.
Many leading companies, no matter what they do, were born as groups of like-minded people. The leader of such a group headed the started enterprise, the rest became his closest assistants - his entourage, but at the same time their friendly relations were preserved. Having “their” people at the enterprise, it will be easier for any manager to learn about the mood within the team and thus learn about dissatisfaction.
The story of Australian entrepreneur Nick Terrence, who lived at the beginning of the last century, once again confirms the correctness of this statement. He began his career as a poor farmer in the arid zone of Australia. Together with several friends who decided to realize the dream of their own large farm, he took out a loan from a Sydney bank, with which he purchased a large plot of land, and began to breed a rare variety of sheep, famous for their fine wool. The work was difficult, but despite this, the hard work of Terrence and his friends brought success to the new farm.
A few years later, Terrence was already able to hire workers in the fields and in raw material processing workshops. The farm was turning into a prosperous one - and it seemed that Nick’s dream was about to come true. But discontent among farm workers grew, actively fueled by his competitors. And Nick soon encountered a problem, which his assistants helped him solve. After talking with the workers, they were able to discover that a certain competing farm was paying one of the workers to incite discontent. The conflict was resolved on time, and the employee was fired.
Thus, one of the most important factors for success is a well-selected and proven team, on which the manager can always rely.