A state is an organization that establishes its system of law in a certain territory and acts in this system as one of the subjects of law.
This is one of the many definitions that people give to the word "state". I chose it for its brevity and connection with the subject we are studying - law. According to tradition, later I will give a longer and scientific definition, but first let it be like this.
Today there are 194 officially in the world recognized states A. Officially recognized means they are recognized by most other states. The youngest - South Sudan, which appeared on the world map in 2011. There are also a dozen unrecognized or partially recognized states: Taiwan, Transnistria, Kosovo, Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Donetsk People's Republic(DPR), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and others.
The state is somewhat similar to a legal entity. We can say that this is also a fiction - a subject that cannot be touched or seen and which exists only on paper and in the minds of people. It arises when a group of people in a certain territory decides that they have their own state. And as long as they believe that this state exists and act based on this attitude, this state exists.
The state, like a legal entity, has its own employees - the president, members of parliament, judges, and officials. They make laws, make judicial decisions, protect borders, detain offenders, and sell and buy government property. But they do all this on behalf of the state, and it turns out that at the same time the state itself passes laws, makes deals and does much more.
Thus, the state, although it exists only in our minds, becomes the same subject of law as individuals and legal entities. In addition, the state not only acts in the legal system together with individuals and legal entities, but also creates this legal system itself, issuing laws and regulations.
The concept of "state" is sometimes identified with the word "country". In some cases, these words actually act as synonyms. But each has its own connotation: a country is usually called a certain territory with a population, and a state is an organization that governs this territory and this population. These concepts are sometimes mixed, and sometimes, on the contrary, they are opposed: “I love my country so much and hate the state” (rock band Lumen).
Signs of the state
In modern legal science a state is defined through its characteristics. Accordingly, the scientific definition of a state looks like this: A state is an organization that has the following characteristics:
- leadership that is separated from the bulk of the population and has power over it;
- special apparatus of control and coercion;
- territory;
- population;
- sovereignty;
- the generally binding nature of state acts (laws, court decisions, etc.);
- monopoly on legitimate violence;
- presence of state treasury and taxes.
A leadership that is separate from the general population and has power over that population is the most important sign states In the primitive world there was no such leadership. People simply chose a smart and experienced person, who carried out his main duties, but at the same time resolved disputes and conflicts. People were not obliged to obey the leader and could remove him at any time. Such a person had no more power than the leader of a street gang or the leader of a group of hikers and mountaineers - everyone obeys them as long as they see fit. But in a modern state there is one or many leaders whose instructions everyone must follow. Sometimes there is a procedure by which people can change leaders they do not like, and sometimes there is not - and then the population is forced to either submit or rebel. Sometimes the sign of “leadership separated from the bulk of the population...” in the scientific literature is called " presence of public power".
Special apparatus (mechanism) for control and coercion- These are government bodies through which management governs society. After all, it is not enough to simply give an order - people must carry it out correctly and be afraid to violate it. Therefore, the state creates separate organizations with special powers - state bodies (state agencies). Ministries, departments, prosecutors, courts, police - all these are government bodies. All together they form the same " state machine control and coercion", which is also sometimes called " state mechanism" or "state apparatus".
WITH territory all clear. The state has strictly established state borders within which it exists.
WITH population It's also simple. The state must govern someone. At a minimum, at least only officials who will govern each other should live on its territory. But usually there is some other population engaged not in management, but in other matters, for example, in the production of goods and services.
Sovereignty- supremacy state power within the country and independence in relations with other states. I will tell you more about sovereignty later.
Generally binding nature of state acts- I hope everything is clear with this too. Only the state can establish laws, regulations and court decisions that are binding on everyone.
The phrase " monopoly on legitimate violence"sounds scary. In fact, this is just the right to force citizens to carry out decisions made by the state. After all, in a sense, any situation where a person is forced to do something that he does not want is violence. Many people do not want to pay taxes, serve in army, go to prison for a crime. Only the state can force them to do this, and no one else. No person without the appropriate authority can put a person in prison himself, even if he has committed a crime. This is the function of special people: the state appoints them and gives them instructions, equipment and buildings.The word "legitimate" means "legitimate, generally accepted, legal" - that is, the inhabitants of the country recognize such violence as correct and acceptable.
Availability of state treasury and taxes- a necessary feature of the state, because the maintenance of this organization requires money. Those who work for the government must receive a salary, as well as have jobs, cars, computers and other things. In order to form a treasury, periodic fixed payments - taxes - are collected from all citizens and organizations on the territory of the state.
Is there some more optional features of the state: symbols (flag, coat of arms, anthem); official language; currency unit; army; international recognition. These signs are called optional because the state can exist without them. Some states do not have an army (for example, Iceland or Andorra), some use foreign currencies (for example, Zimbabwe - US dollars, Montenegro - euros). But the majority still have these optional characteristics.
Another optional feature of a state is the presence of a constitution. Speaking about the sources of law, I have already mentioned the Russian Constitution, but other states also have similar documents. The Constitution is a document that specifies the principles on which the state, its constituent parts, authorities and main legal norms are based. For any state, the Constitution is a kind of instruction for assembly and operation. It is usually adopted by popular vote, and the entire legal system is based on this document. However, there are states without a constitution, for example, Great Britain, Sweden, Israel.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is one of the most controversial and ambiguous concepts in political and legal science. This word has many meanings and is found in different phrases. Many have seen the expressions “sovereign”, “state sovereignty” and “popular sovereignty”, but do not fully understand what they are.
In Russia in Lately The concepts of “sovereignty” and “independence” are often confused. In fact, the term “sovereignty” is closer in meaning to the concept of “power”.
The simplest definition of this word: sovereignty is the supremacy of state power in internal affairs, independence of the state in external affairs and the unity and completeness of state power. Let me explain the meaning of each of the elements of this definition.
1) Supremacy of State Power. This means that the power of the state on its territory is higher than any other power. No one can cancel the effect of officially existing laws or establish their own laws within state borders. Let's say, if some state X has occupied part of the territory of state Y, and in the occupied territory everyone submits to state X, this means that the sovereignty of state Y does not extend to the occupied territory. If in state Z terrorists, mafia, religious sect or other organization established control over a certain territory and actually introduced their own rules and laws there, this means that the sovereignty of state Z does not extend to this territory.
Also, the supremacy of state power means that the state has the right to intervene in any situation: in disputes between husband and wife, employer and employee, children and parents, in religious procedures, traditions, customs. The power of the employer or parents, political, religious or trade union leaders, personal life, morality, religion - they all mean nothing compared to the power of the state.
2) Independence and independence of state power in the international arena. The state (more precisely, its leadership) decides for itself with whom to be friends and with whom to quarrel, which international organizations to join and with whom to conclude international treaties. No one has the right to tell a state how it should conduct its foreign policy - naturally, as long as it does not invade the territory of another state or otherwise cause harm to someone.
3) Unity and completeness of state power. An official, judge or deputy does not have his own piece of power, but represents the entire power of the state. They perform every action on behalf of the state, and it is the state, as a result of their actions, that acquires rights and bears responsibilities.
The word "sovereignty" was first coined by the French philosopher and jurist Jean Bodin (1530-1596). In his time, the king essentially identified himself with the state - it is not without reason that in Russian and some other languages the word “state” comes from the word “sovereign” (aka “gospodar”, aka “mister”, aka “lord”). The state belonged to the king, just as a piece of land belonged to its owner. The king could do absolutely everything in his state: he could appoint anyone to any position, pass any law and do whatever he wanted with any person. Bodin therefore proposed that the king has absolute, permanent and indivisible power over his subjects, just as God has power over all men. Moreover, the king, in theory, received power from the hands of God. The king himself was called "sovereign" (from the French word souverain - "supreme", "supreme"), and his power - "sovereignty".
Soon, however, revolutions began to sweep away one monarchy after another. In their place, republics appeared, and then it turned out that no one had absolute and indivisible power. As a result, the idea of sovereignty was transformed: it was decided that this power belongs only to the people, who themselves have the right to decide how to live, what laws to put into effect, and who to elect as leaders. And if people elect leaders, then these leaders, unlike kings, themselves do not have any sovereignty, since their power is not constant and not absolute. So power or sovereignty still remains with the people. This is how the idea of popular sovereignty arose. In other words, only the people themselves have complete power over the people (“popular sovereignty”), and to implement it they create state bodies, elect their representatives to them, and they exercise this power (“state sovereignty”). This is a complex combination: the people have power over themselves, but transfer it to the state.
Quote on this topic from the Russian Constitution: "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people"(Part 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The main problem of the idea of sovereignty is the sacralization of the state, i.e. turning it into an object of worship, endowing it with sacred properties. There's something about this religious worldview: the people transfer to the leaders of the state a certain magical power - sovereignty, and they must preserve and protect it. Because of this, the same problems arise as five hundred years ago. Previously, kings and kings believed that they received power from the hands of God, acted on his behalf and therefore could do whatever they wanted. And today, any civil servant with a fragile psyche - from a local police officer to the president - can imagine something similar. A person thinks that he received his power from the hands of the people and the state. Therefore, anyone who does not agree with his actions is considered an enemy of the state and the people, who has encroached on the most sacred thing - sovereignty.
Some lawyers propose abandoning the concept of sovereignty altogether, believing that this will not do any harm modern states. After all, sovereignty in the classical sense has long since died. “We cannot say that France is not a state,” says international lawyer and human rights activist Vladimir Zhbankov. “It is obvious that it is a state. But it does not print its own currency; two-thirds of French legislation is in one way or another related to the law of the European Union.. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about sovereignty in the form in which Bodin, Hegel understood it, or as Soviet science understands it (which is now taught in universities under the name “theory of state and law”) - it is impossible to talk about such sovereignty. the term "competence" is a set of subjects of competence and powers. Subjects of competence are where we can act, powers are what we do. This term is more correct in legal terms, because sovereignty is associated with the sacralization of power - as paternal, divine, etc. d." ( Vladimir Zhbankov "Sovereignty is the key to dictatorship").
Even Russia, despite all the closedness of our state, has signed thousands of international treaties and joined hundreds of international organizations. All of them de facto limit its sovereignty. If our leadership signed the corresponding agreement, then Russia cannot violate generally recognized human rights, cannot deny entry to citizens of a certain state without a visa, does not have the right to violate someone’s copyrights or establish road signs, not responding international standards. Of course, Russia assumed all these obligations voluntarily. But if a man voluntarily gives up some part of his power, can he be said to have retained absolute and unified power? It seems to me that not quite.
In addition, in almost any state, power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial, and some powers are given to the level of regions and cities. That is, the power of the state falls into several levels and types and ceases to be similar to the sovereignty that Jean Bodin likened to the power of God. Of course, theorists may object that power may be divided into several parts, but sovereignty remains complete and unified. But then the very concept of sovereignty loses all meaning, because it ceases to mean something other than itself.
Why is the state needed?
People see the purpose and meaning of the existence of the state differently. First opinion: the state was created so that some people could subjugate other people; second: the state was created to unite people, solve their problems and conflicts that arise between them.
These two approaches seem opposite, but are not mutually exclusive and are even combined in most states. Even under an authoritarian regime, the state not only allows the dictator and his friends to rob the people with impunity, but also helps people at the very least: it maintains order, resolves disputes between citizens, and sometimes builds schools and hospitals. And even in the most legal and democratic state there are officials and people close to them who benefit from their position.
Therefore, we can say that the essence of the state is both the first and the second. It’s just that the more developed, legal and democratic it is, the more the second essence strengthens and the first decreases.
Meanwhile, most Throughout history, humanity has managed without a state. The ancient gatherers and hunters, and even the first farmers and cattle breeders, had no need for it. But then states appeared in almost all parts of the planet inhabited by people. Why did this happen?
To understand this, we need to compare the life of a primitive society and modern civilization.
Let's imagine a small village where several hundred people live, engaged in subsistence farming (that is, each family grows its own food). All the people in the village know each other. Life here is simple and predictable and governed by a small number of rules - the Ten Commandments are enough. There is no money and transactions, employers and workers, buyers and sellers. If someone behaves badly (for example, stealing someone else's thing or hitting someone), then the neighbors can simply get together and punish him. If a village is attacked by enemies, all residents take up arms and defend themselves. People manage their entire lives themselves and may not transfer power over themselves to anyone.
After that, let's imagine any modern city where millions of people live, thousands of cars drive, factories, shops, banks, communication and energy transmission systems operate, millions of goods and services are sold and bought every day. Here life is much more complex and varied. The ten commandments alone cannot regulate traffic, the conclusion of a lease agreement, or the wage system. And the neighbors will clearly not be enough to identify and punish the lawbreaker. In such a society one cannot do without the state: there must be people who establish uniform rules of behavior for everyone and force them to comply with them. These people form the state.
Anarchists and Marxists paint an idealistic picture of a future in which the state disappears and people work voluntarily and treat each other well. I'm afraid this is hardly possible. More precisely, it is possible only in two cases: either we degrade to living in the agricultural communities described above, or people will change so much that everyone will start thinking about common good more than about my own. “If men were angels, government would be unnecessary,” said James Madison, one of the authors of the American Constitution and the fourth President of the United States. Maybe someday this will really happen, but today, while people are not angels, we still need the state.
The state does not have any one goal or task. It controls society in many directions at once. In legal science, several main areas are identified and called " functions of the state".
The functions of the state are divided into internal And external. Internal functions are what the state does within its borders, external functions are how the state interacts with other states.
The main internal functions are economic, political, legal and social.
Legal function the most simple and obvious. The state, as I already said, establishes its legal system in a certain territory. Deputies in parliament develop and pass laws, ministries and departments issue by-laws, officials and police monitor the implementation of laws and bring violators to justice, and courts resolve legal conflicts. If the state does not fulfill its legal function, crimes go unpunished and people do not feel protected: contracts are not fulfilled, crime rates rise, and society ultimately descends into chaos.
Economic function state is that its representatives stimulate the development of the economy in an optimal manner. The main way is that the Central Bank prints the required amount of money, necessary for people for exchanging some goods for others. In addition, officials manage state-owned enterprises or issue preferential loans to small businesses, prohibit or allow the import and export of goods or set customs duties on them, increase taxes on some areas of the economy and reduce them on others. Ideally, all this will encourage people to produce more goods and services, exchange them more actively with each other, or sell them abroad. Thanks to this, prosperity and living standards will increase. If the state did not comply economic function, it would be difficult for people to exchange some goods for others and produce new goods. Because of this, the level of production would gradually begin to fall, and after it the standard of living.
Political function state is manifested in ensuring democracy, protecting stability and harmony in society, containing national and class contradictions. Referendums and elections must take place in the state to determine what exactly people want. People should also have the right to organize rallies and demonstrations, create political parties And public organizations. If the state does not perform a political function, then people feel that they cannot participate in government decision-making, and rightly believe that nothing depends on their opinion in this country.
Social function lies in the fact that the state maintains the necessary standard of living, tries to provide its citizens with housing, work, medical care, and education. The state builds and maintains hospitals, shelters, schools and other places that satisfy certain needs of the people. I think the consequences of failure to fulfill social functions are obvious to everyone: an increase in the number of sick people, homeless people, orphans and a deterioration in living conditions for a significant part of society. If the state performs social functions well, it is called a “welfare state.”
And the external ones include following functions states. The first is mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries. In particular, Russia concludes agreements with other countries on the most various issues and is a member of various international organizations. Second - participation in solving global problems(non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, environmental crisis and etc.). Third - security national security . This is the protection of state borders, maintaining the army in combat-ready condition and repelling attacks from other states. Fourth - protection of citizens located outside the state. If with Russian citizen If a problem occurs abroad, he can contact the Russian consulate, where he should receive assistance. For example, if one of you loses your passport in a foreign country, the Russian consulate should give you a free “certificate of entry (return) to the Russian Federation” - a document with which you can leave foreign country and return to your homeland.
The state can perform these functions in two forms: legal And organizational.
Legal form - this is the adoption of rules of conduct that are mandatory for all. Those. the state adopts certain rules of law: who should pay and how much taxes, who should be punished and how for what offenses, how to conduct elections and referendums. A organizational form- This is the direct management of society. For example, when civil servants indicate who should do what in a particular situation, or do something themselves: they detain an offender, levy a fine, seize property.
Separation of powers
One of the most important principles of a developed state is the separation of powers. Closely related to this principle are the forms of government in different states, which I will talk about in the next post. Therefore, it is better to immediately understand this topic.
Even the ancient Greeks and Romans understood that it was dangerous to give power into the hands of one person or group of people, but it was better to distribute different responsibilities among different people. In Ancient Athens, the People's Assembly adopted laws and the most important state decisions, the Council of Five Hundred and the colleges of strategists and archons directly governed the city, and legal disputes were resolved by the Areopagus. Something similar happened in Republican Rome: there power was divided between the consuls, the Senate and the comitia (people's assemblies).
Later this principle was somehow forgotten. In the Middle Ages, emperors, kings and tsars came to power everywhere - the same sovereigns with absolute power that I talked about. They made the laws themselves and appointed all the officials and judges. At the same time, they could repeal any law or court decision, and remove any person from office - that is, they retained full power.
In modern times, when republics began to emerge in place of monarchies, the idea that power should be distributed among several groups of people reappeared.
It would seem, why is the principle of separation of powers needed in conditions of democracy? Perhaps it is enough that the leader of the country does not receive power by inheritance, but is elected by the people? For example, people elect a president - so let him decide what laws to pass, how to govern the country and how to resolve legal disputes. And if people don’t like it, then they will certain time will elect another president. Many, by the way, perceive the power of the president this way - they say, the country has a leader, why else would there be a State Duma or a Constitutional Court.
However, in such a situation a number of problems may arise.
First, the president can seize power forever. For a person with unlimited powers, this is not difficult to do. If you pass laws, you can stipulate that a presidential candidate must collect a million signatures of citizens or some other almost impossible requirement. If judges listen to you, you can initiate criminal cases against opposition politicians. If officials and police officers are subordinate to you, you can expel observers from polling stations who record violations. That is, such a president has many ways to remain in power forever.
Secondly, the lack of separation of powers prevents effective decision-making. For example, officials may ask the president to order judges not to offend them. After this, most disputes between citizens and officials will be resolved in favor of the officials. Investigators and police officers can ask for the same thing - and then judges will begin to hand down guilty verdicts in 99% of cases. And if officials can also influence legislation, then they will ask to adopt the laws that are most convenient for them - those that give them more power and less responsibility.
To avoid such sad consequences, the French thinker of the 18th century. Charles Montesquieu developed the idea of separation of powers. He identified the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and considered the first to be the main one. “Everything would perish if in one and the same person or institution, composed of dignitaries, nobles or ordinary people, these three powers were united: the power to create laws, the power to enforce decisions of a national nature, and the power to judge crimes or lawsuits of private individuals."(“On the Spirit of Laws” by C. Montesquieu).
The principle of separation of powers means that there should not be one supreme power in the country. Everyone who works for the state is divided into three unequal parts. Several hundred deputies form the parliament - this is the legislative body. He is engaged in making laws - the main rules by which society lives. If a country is large, there are usually several tens of thousands of judges who form the judiciary. They decide which law should be applied and how it should be applied when there is a legal conflict. Finally, several hundred thousand civil servants (ministers, officials, police officers) form executive branch, which directly governs society on the basis of laws.
The legislative branch in all developed countries is considered the main one. Parliament usually has many deputies representing a wide range of social strata and political ideologies. All deputies have equal rights and come to joint decisions through negotiations and compromises. Due to their large numbers and diversity, it is more difficult for these people to seize power and establish a dictatorship. Therefore, parliament itself usually has broad powers and controls other branches of government.
The executive branch is structured differently. All its representatives form hierarchical system, headed by a president or prime minister - and how exactly the entire vertical will operate depends on the desire of this person. Representatives of the executive branch have weapons, equipment, strict discipline and a system of subordination of inferiors to superiors, therefore it is the most dangerous for democracy. Accordingly, in most states the executive branch itself does not control anyone, but is in a subordinate position.
The principle of separation of powers is sometimes called a system of "checks and balances." Ideally this system looks like in the following way. Officials (executive power) are controlled by members of parliament ( legislature) - by passing laws within which officials act. At the same time, officials are controlled by judges (judicial power). Judges resolve disputes between officials and citizens and ensure that officials do not break the law. In addition, members of parliament control judges - after all, parliament also passes laws on the basis of which judges make decisions. And judges, in turn, control members of parliament: in particular, one of the judicial bodies - the Constitutional Court - decides whether the constitution was violated when a particular law was adopted.
Thus, different branches of government, to one degree or another, limit, restrain and control each other. Thanks to this, everyone must strictly fulfill their duties, no one can put pressure on others or seize power.
The system described above is a horizontal separation of powers. There is also a vertical separation of powers. It is believed that in unitary states power is divided between two levels: national and local, and in federal states - between three (national, regional and local). Each level of government also has its own powers and jurisdiction. But I’ll tell you more about this later.
The principle of separation of powers is embedded in the constitutions of many countries. In Russia it was proclaimed in Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, the separation of powers regime is written in a very strange way. We have a head of state - the president, who does not belong to any of the listed branches of government, but at the same time has extremely many powers. He nominates the judges of the superior courts and appoints all other judges. The president determines who will be in the government and can dismiss him at any time. Finally, the head of state can dissolve the State Duma if deputies are dissatisfied with the work of the government or do not want to appoint the chairman of the government proposed by the president. At the same time, in order to remove the president himself from office, the simultaneous consent of the State Duma, the Federation Council, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court is required.
In this situation, the principle of separation of powers does not work, because the president becomes a subject of power who is not controlled by anyone, but who himself controls everyone else. The result is ineffective government work, the adoption of bad laws and unfair court decisions, many of which I have already talked about. Sooner or later this design will need to be changed.
Above I have already quoted James Madison's aphorism: “If men were angels, government would be unnecessary.” This phrase reflects the meaning and purpose of the creation of the state. But this aphorism also has a continuation, which very accurately reflects the need for separation of powers: “And if people were ruled by angels, there would be no need for any control over the government.”
Summary
A state is an organization that establishes its system of law in a certain territory and acts in this system as one of the subjects of law. A more scientific definition: a state is an organization that has the following characteristics: a leadership that is separated from the bulk of the population and has power over it; special apparatus of control and coercion; territory; population; sovereignty; the generally binding nature of state acts; monopoly on legitimate violence; availability of state treasury and taxes.
Sovereignty is the supremacy of state power in internal affairs, the independence of the state in external affairs and the unity and completeness of state power. There are a number of problems with the idea of sovereignty; many lawyers propose abandoning this concept, since it leads to excessive sacralization of the state and encourages irresponsibility among civil servants.
The state governs society in several directions at once. Scientists have identified several such areas and called them “functions of the state.” The functions of the state are divided into internal and external. Main internal functions: economic, political, legal and social. Main external functions: mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries; participation in solving global problems; ensuring national security; protection of citizens located outside the state.
The state can carry out all its functions in two forms: legal and organizational. The legal form is the adoption of rules of conduct that are binding on everyone. Organizational form- This is the direct management of society.
The idea of separation of powers is that there should not be one supreme power in the state. Everyone who works for the state is divided into three unequal parts: the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Different branches of government control each other in one form or another. The principle of separation of powers is embedded in the constitutions of many countries. However, in Russia the regime of separation of powers is spelled out very strangely. We have a president - a subject of power whom no one controls, but who himself controls everyone else.
The next article from the series "Jurisprudence for Dummies" - "
About Latin, we smoothly move on to talking about Russian swearing.
Surprised? Me too. But I really want to swear...
Meanwhile, between Latin and Russian obscenities there are both common features and differences.
What is common?, you ask... I will answer: the Latin language is not officially used anywhere, with very rare exceptions, which I talked about in the article about Latin. Mat, as you understand, too.
And the difference is that they study Latin, but don’t really know it, they don’t teach swearing anywhere, but they know everything perfectly... Our people, naturally... Even those who are offended by obscene language, who blush, cover their ears and never “expressed” - when they hear “three-story”, they understand everything perfectly well without an interpreter.
Russian swearing - some of my own thoughts
Sometimes I have a question - “Why?”. Why, for example, when talking about the male genital organ, we can use someone else’s term “penis”, and this is perceived normally, but we cannot use our three-letter word - “u”, “th” and “x”. After all, we are talking about the same thing... And words are just combinations of sounds. This means that one combination is perceived adequately, but the other is not. Why?!
What is it about these combinations that makes them taboo? Who came up with these rules and when? And why, in order to express certain actions, we are forced, instead of our Russian words, to resort to words borrowed from a foreign language: “penis”, “vagina”...
Naturally, to answer these questions it was necessary to understand how mating appeared in the first place and, in fact, curse words.
How did Russian swearing appear?
The answer to this question would clarify a lot.
Once upon a time, Russian linguists and historians disseminated two versions of the appearance of swearing: the first - the Russians adopted swearing from the Tatar-Mongols during the Tatar-Mongol yoke, and the second - swearing - supposedly a product of Slavic paganism. Somewhat later, additional hypotheses appeared.
Let's take a quick look at them.
Russians adopted swear words from the Tatar-Mongols
Well, of course, the Tatar-Mongols! Who else could teach us such obscenity? I can just see how the Tatars, together with the Mongols, arrived in Rus', saw what was going on here, and out of frustration began to swear...
In fact, this theory is based on the coincidence of a single word, “eble.” In Turkic it simply meant getting married. The Tatar, capturing the girl, said that he was “eble” her, that is, he was taking her as his wife. But for any Russian whose daughter, wife, or sister was taken away, he committed violence against a woman, and as a result this word acquired a meaning known to us.
And it seems like a folding version, and it sounds plausible, but it is absolutely not true.
The fact is that there are no obscenities in either the Turkic language or the Mongolian language. But the most important argument against this version is the Novgorod birch bark letters with obscenities. And these letters are much older than the arrival of the Tatars in Rus'.
Mat - a product of Slavic paganism
Here is the brief gist of the version: mat is the language of spells of some pagan priests of the ancient Slavs. With its help, special magical rituals were performed, evil spirits were expelled, healing was performed, etc.
But indeed, it is known that on the temples dedicated to certain pagan gods, the idols had pronounced phallic features. Not without reason.
There is also documentary evidence
For example, in the work of V.A. Chudinov “The Oldest Slavic Text on the Territory of Eurasia” describes a figurine found at the Brekhat-Ram site, dating back to the Paleolithic era, on which a text was found describing a ritual called PERUN’S GAME.
In this text there is a recommendation for a man in relation to a woman - “FUCK AT HOLY TIMES”, and the male genital organ is called “FUCK”.
However, the ancient Slavs had fun games. And if we consider that this text describes a Christmas ritual, we can assume that the words given above had a sacred meaning for the Slavs. I would say magical, or rather sacred. For on the one hand, spells and rituals using obscenities were intended to confront dark forces, or interactions with them, and on the other hand, influenced the emotional and energetic essence of a person, thereby strengthening him.
It should be understood that such “sacred” vocabulary should not have been used in vain. Only in certain situations. Otherwise, its influence would lose its power.
Taboo on swearing
And now it becomes clear how this taboo appeared. It was imposed during the period of the baptism of Rus': the church did its best to eradicate paganism and everything connected with it. So much for the ban.
But since we Russians have a very unique nature, it was not possible to eradicate anything. Ban - yes, eradicate - they ran into the wrong people. So we are left with mermaids, goblins, mermans, brownies, navya and swear words.
Of course, this is a very superficial version, but it explains almost everything. And personally, it seems more plausible to me.
However, these are not all versions of the origin of Russian swearing.
We have Russian swearing from the Hungarians
There is another people in Europe, besides the Russians, who have been swearing for a thousand years - and with the same Russian obscenities.
Here's what I managed to find:
For the first time about Hungarian mats Russian historians We found out quite recently - and were extremely surprised: after all, Hungarians are not Slavs, but Finno-Ugric peoples. Yes, and we weren’t under any “ Tatar-Mongol yoke", for they left the Volga for Central Europe centuries before the birth of Genghis Khan and Batu.
And then the conclusion is drawn that the Hungarians’ mats are absolutely identical to the Russians’ mats because they are Finno-Ugric mats. Hmm... Well, if we accept as true that Hungarians, Estonians, Finns and Russians are one and the same Finnish ethnic group, then it’s quite a version. The Russians, however, partially assimilated with the Slavs (it’s probably hard to understand who). But studies of the gene pool of the Russian nation, conducted in 2000-2006 by the Russian Academy of Sciences, showed that in terms of genes, Russians are absolutely identical to the Finnish ethnic group: Mordovians, Komi, Estonians, Finns and Hungarians.
And toponyms again... All of Central Russia (historical Muscovy) is the land of the Finnish peoples, and all its toponyms are Finnish: Moscow (of the Moksha people), Ryazan (of the Erzya people), Murom (of the Murom people), Perm (of the Perm people ) etc.
Justification for the version
Within the framework of this version, there is an assumption that in the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups, it was the Ugrians who could have given birth to mats. That is, the Hungarians and those who remained to live in the lands of the future Muscovy are related peoples to them. The following are the arguments:
The Ugric group of languages today includes only Hungarian and Ob-Ugric Khanty and Mansi. In the past, this group was much more powerful, including, presumably, the Pecheneg people, who went with the Hungarians to Central Europe and along the way settled widely over the Crimea and in the steppes of the Don (they were allegedly exterminated by the Tatars). In Muscovy itself, the main ethnic group was the Mordovian ethnic group Moksha (Moksel in its language), which gave the name to the river Moksva (Moks Moksha + Va water), changed in the Kiev language to the more euphonious “Moscow” for the Slavs. And the Erzya ethnic group (with the capital Erzya and the state Great Erzya, later changed to Ryazan). In the Perm group of Komi and Udmurts, the state of Great Permia stood out. All this - historical territory the original distribution of mats.
Well, maybe, maybe... But then why is there no confirmation of swearing in ancient Estonia and Finland? They still don’t swear there. And what are these “Hungarians and related peoples who remained to live in the lands of the future Muscovy”?
And one more thing: somehow it doesn’t fit with me that Russians and “hot Finnish guys” are one and the same thing... But even if that’s the case, then how are Ugrians, that is, Hungarians, related?
There are other versions
Contrary to expectations, there were quite a lot of them. Some with a church slant, saying that everything comes from demons, some even with a political bias - they all seemed incomprehensible to me. For this reason, I will not publish them here.
In my amateurish opinion, this is the most acceptable version: swearing is a product of Slavic paganism. It is not for nothing that in our time there is a belief that swearing scares away all otherworldly evil spirits. Even the participants in the “Battle of Psychics” confirmed this.
What is Russian swearing?
A somewhat late question, I should have started with it. I'm not talking about the definition that may be on Wikipedia, no. I didn't look there. I'm talking about the essence.
I never thought about it, but recently I came across an interesting thought: Russian swearing consists of only three words. The first word symbolizes masculinity. The second is female. The third is the union of the male and female principles (the creation of life).
Based on my wealth of experience and deep knowledge in this field, I tried to expand the trio to at least a quartet, but it didn’t work out.
Yes, there are a few more words, but they belong to the category of swear words and are not obscenities. It’s just that they are taboo together with swearing and are already perceived by us as swearing.
Here is one example - a word denoting a “misguided” woman is mistakenly included among swear words, which is not such and comes from the verb “to wander,” that is, to be mistaken, to be mistaken.
And the apparent multitude of swear words in most cases is a set of multivariate modifications of the three main words.
For example, let’s take a word denoting the feminine principle... In addition to its direct meaning, it is variably used in completely different ways. related areas and can replace the concepts: “steal”, “beat”, “lie”...
I don’t remember if I told this joke somewhere...
There is a worldwide philological conference. The origin of the word “steam” is being discussed... A representative of the Italian delegation claims that this word Italian origin, they say, in ancient times there was a place on the Tiber River where all the merchants gathered and bargained. And so, supposedly, merchants there began to lose goods. That's where it came from - to shave.
Question from the audience from the Russian delegation: - Excuse me, but did anything accidentally go missing in your city of Pisa?
The uniqueness of Russian swearing
I can imagine how warily you read the article, if you read it at all, waiting for me to start swearing. Calm down, I’ll start right now.
What is unique (this is not a checkmate yet), you ask? One aspect is the multivariate modifications of each word, which allows it to be used to designate a variety of concepts that are not even closely related in meaning. Well, in what other language is this possible?
And the second aspect is versatility, which directly follows from the first and allows you to build entire sentences and even phrases using just one swear word.
Let's take the shortest of swear words - the one that consists of three letters and denotes masculinity. But so that the last readers don’t run away from me, let’s replace the first letter “ X"on the letter" b" It will turn out to be a “buoy”. A completely normal word: “Don’t swim behind the buoys”... This is the modified word I use in the next example...
I remember from my cadet youth, we were doing something there at the training ground and the officer who arrived to check our work said: - “ On b yay up b yay on b did you get it? Ras b shout at b yay k b yum!»
How poetic!
Is Russian obscenity necessary?
As I wrote above, swearing carries a huge emotional and energetic charge. But it cannot be used in vain - all strength is lost. Mat is exactly what is needed in emergency, critical situations. It's like a kind of capacitor. Under normal conditions, the body uses energy slowly, like a battery. But at a critical moment the mat works like a capacitor - it discharges instantly. And this burst of energy works wonders.
I read an interesting comparison on one of the sites:
Slavic culture
Here you are standing on the battlefield, wounded, exhausted and, staggering, leaning on your sword. And your enemies are attacking you. For them and even for you, the outcome of the meeting is obvious. But you raise your head, look at them for a long time and say: “Well, come here, damn it, so get over you!!” And a miracle happens. A wild power is revealed in you. And your sword whistled like the blades of a helicopter, and the heads of your enemies rolled with an astonished expression on their faces. Then you yourself are surprised. This is what a mat is, this is why it is needed.
Imagine that the mat is used constantly in ordinary speech, by the way, it was true - in order to combat swearing, it was proposed to introduce swear words into everyday use, to stop considering them swear words... And then what?
Slavic culture
You stand on the battlefield, wounded, exhausted and staggeringly leaning on your sword. And your enemies are attacking you. For them and even for you, the outcome of the meeting is obvious. But you raise your head, look at them for a long time and say: “Well, come on, damn it, so get over you. And then do the same again.” But a miracle does not happen. There is no longer any energy in these words. These words sound like: the weather has turned bad. You don't have a hidden reserve. And they take you lukewarm and rape your wife in front of your eyes, and take your children into slavery.
Yes... Our history is difficult and who knows, maybe thanks to swearing we survived and survived as a people. The idea is not mine, but there is something in it!
And finally
Like this small excursion in Russian mat. Do not touch the exhibits with your hands!
In Rus' they have been fighting against swearing since the 10th century. First the clergy, who tried to eradicate paganism and everything accompanying it, then the rulers. So, in 1480, Prince Vasily III, along with prohibition, demanded that Muscovites stop swearing. Then Ivan the Terrible ordered to “click on the auction” so that the Muscovites “would not swear and would not reproach each other with all sorts of obscene and nasty speeches.”
In 1648, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich conceived the idea of “getting rid of the infection” and gave a royal decree so that “they should not sing demonic songs, swear, and use any obscene barking... And if people teach someone to scold with swearing and all sorts of barking - and to those people for such opposite Christian law for the fury of being from Us in great disgrace and cruel punishment.”
But for some reason all attempts were unsuccessful. Well, what can I say, even if the luminary of Russian poetry, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, wrote poems using profanity.
Some of them were even included in collections of essays - “Once a violinist came to a castrato”, “The Cart of Life”, etc. Pushkin himself called obscene expressions a “Russian title”. So, sending the text of the poem “The Cart of Life” in a letter to Vyazemsky, he wrote: “You can print it, omitting the Russian title.”
At the end of June at State Duma supported a bill providing for increased punishment for using swear words in the family and in public places. Tighten responsibility for obscene language they have tried more than once - both under tsarism and after the revolution. Lidia Malygina, Associate Professor of the Department of Stylistics of the Russian Language, Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University, scientific director of the system, spoke about how unprintable words penetrated public life here and in the West, about the history and meaning of the obscenity “KP”. distance learning
– If there were no problem, there would be no law. The question arises: who originally taught Russian people to swear?
– One of the common versions is the Tatar-Mongols. But in fact, this vocabulary has nothing to do with them. Russian mat of Slavic origin. Four roots known to every Russian person can be found in Macedonian, Slovenian, and other Slavic languages.
Most likely, swearing was an element of pagan cults associated with fertility, for example, with the spell of cattle or the call of rain. The literature describes in detail this custom: a Serbian peasant throws an ax into the air and utters obscene words, trying to make it rain.
- Why similar words have become taboo?
– When Christianity came to Rus', the church began an active fight against pagan cults, including swear words as one of the manifestations of the cult. Hence the strong taboo nature of these forms. This is what distinguishes Russian obscenities from obscenities in other languages. Of course, since then the Russian language has actively developed and changed, and with it Russian swearing. New ones have appeared swear words, but they are based on the same four standard roots. Some previously harmless words have become obscene. For example, the word "dick". “Her” is a letter of the pre-revolutionary alphabet, and the verb “poherit” was used to mean “cross out.” Now this word is not yet included in the category of swear words, but it is already actively approaching this.
– There is a myth about the uniqueness of Russian obscene language. Is it so?
– The comparison with the English language is interesting. Obscene words have always puzzled British philologists with their nature. As early as 1938, the linguist Chase emphasized: “If someone mentions sexual intercourse, it does not shock anyone. But if someone says an ancient Anglo-Saxon four-letter word, most people will freeze in horror.”
The premiere of Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion in 1914 was highly anticipated. A rumor was started that, according to the author's plan, the actress playing the main female role should utter an obscene word from the stage. Answering Freddie's question whether she was going to walk home, Eliza Dolittle had to very emotionally say: “Not bloody likely!” The intrigue remained until the last moment. During the premiere, the actress still uttered an obscene word. The effect was indescribable: noise, laughter, whistling, stomping. Bernard Shaw even decided to leave the hall, deciding that the play was doomed. Now the British are complaining that they have actually lost this favorite curse word, which has already lost its former power, because the word has begun to be used too often.
Lidia MALYGINA - Associate Professor of the Department of Stylistics of the Russian Language, Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University Photo: "KP" Archive
– Probably, after the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the situation changed a lot, and obscene words literally poured onto the pages of the press?
- Certainly. Think about Great Britain at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Back then, even the legs of the piano were covered in covers so that they would not evoke random erotic associations! In the second half of the twentieth century, contraception developed rapidly and the pornography industry grew. Marriage for life and fidelity between spouses began to look like old-fashioned prejudices. And heterosexuality in marriage has ceased to be a prerequisite. It is noteworthy that at this time the attitude towards obscene words also changed. Two linguistic collections dedicated to obscene language appear. The first was published in the USA in 1980. The second was published in the United Kingdom and the USA in 1990. These reference books already contain several articles about vulgarisms. Examples of the use of obscene language were given in plain text.
– And yet they were punished for swearing. There is a well-known case when, at the height of anti-war protests in the United States in 1968, a young man who did not want to serve under conscription was prosecuted for wearing a jacket with the inscription: “F... the draft!”
- Yes. Another well-known case is the 12-minute radio program “Obscene Words.” Satirist George Carlin listed seven words that should not be said on the radio, and then began to discuss the problem. One of the listeners was driving in a car with a child and accidentally heard the program. He immediately called the show's editor and complained.
Another famous scandal was caused by newspapers in the late 1970s. published an obscene statement that a player uttered to a referee during a sporting competition: “f... cheating cunt.” And even in works of art, the rudest words began to appear without any disguise. In the guide to St. Petersburg, Western authors do not hesitate to explain Russian vulgarisms, for example, b... (whore) – which is usually rendered as simply b... ( short version words - Ed.) – and plays an equivalent role to ‘f...’ in English for those who use it as a verbal stutter.
– Russian journalists also like to use obscene words and expressions, slightly disguising them so as not to formally violate the law banning swearing in the media...
– Yes, softer expressions instead of rude ones often cover up easily guessable ones in the text obscene language, swear words and curses: “Dick Lawyer: UEFA for yourself!”; “Hugh Hefner and Dasha Astafieva: Hugh knows her...”; “And he stole 2 billion worth of deposits... But he himself ended up in complete “khopra””; or “Russia in CHOP” - heading special report about private security companies or the title of a film about weight loss “I’m losing weight, dear editors!”
– Are there other languages, besides Russian, in which obscene vocabulary is divided into ordinary swear words and strictly taboo words, the use of which is prohibited in any situation and in any context?
– In this sense, the Russian language is unique. Although, for example, the obscene vocabulary of the Spanish language is also associated with the sexual sphere, unlike German (in German this is the sphere of excrement). But in the Spanish language there is no such taboo, therefore the first academic dictionaries of the Spanish language contained similar vocabulary, but the dictionaries of the Russian language did not. In general, the first dictionary fixation of obscenities dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. We are talking about the third edition of Dahl's dictionary, edited by Baudouin de Courtenay. But such activities of dictionary compilers quickly ended, since the Soviet government banned the use of obscenities, and the third edition of Dahl’s dictionary was sharply criticized.
There are a lot of myths around Russian swearing that do not correspond to reality. For example, Russian linguists and historians have spread two myths about swearing: that Russians began to swear in response to the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” and that swearing is supposedly “a product of Slavic paganism.”
Our ancestors divided some words into:
1. Swear words are words from the mother, i.e. her blessing!
2. Swear words- these are words used on the battlefield to intimidate the enemy!
3. Foul language is the very bad thing you shouldn’t say!
All these points were reduced by the enemies of our Race to one thing and now mean the same thing, that is, bad words!
A lot has been written about the dangers of swearing. A long time ago I read an article by one writer, I no longer remember his name. He attacked the mat with noble anger. For a long time and convincingly he proved how disgusting and disgusting this was. In conclusion, he cited the only case of the usefulness of swearing known to him.
I will retell this incident too. A freight train is traveling, but it is carrying people. I don’t remember why, but there was a man on the other side of the carriage. He is holding on with all his might. It's about to fall off and die. The men in the carriage are trying to open the door and get him in. But the door is jammed and it won’t budge. The men are already exhausted and have mentally come to terms with the loss, but they continue to fiddle around. And then the unexpected happened.
A modest, quiet girl will shout: “Oh, you guys, fuck you! Anu got it!” And a miracle happened. Wild strength was revealed in men. The muscles tensed in one impulse, the door flew off, and the man was saved. Then they asked the girl how she decided to say such a thing. And she blushed, looked down and couldn’t utter a word out of shame.
Here the author hit the nail on the head, without even suspecting it. The point is that the mat is designed for exceptional cases. In Russia, swear words are also called swear words. Here you are standing on the battlefield, wounded, exhausted and, staggering, leaning on your sword. And your enemies are attacking you. For them and even for you, the outcome of the meeting is obvious. But you raise your head, look at them for a long time and say: “Well, come here, damn it, so get over you!!” And a miracle happens. A wild power is revealed in you. And your sword whistled like the blades of a helicopter, and the heads of your enemies rolled with an astonished expression on their faces. Then you yourself are surprised. This is what a mat is, this is why it is needed.
Our ancestors knew and understood the power of swearing very well. They carried it for centuries, and maybe even millennia, but they were not fools. Mat is exactly what is needed in emergency, critical situations. The ban creates a reserve of energy, like a battery, or more precisely, like a capacitor. Because the battery releases energy slowly, and the capacitor discharges instantly. This burst of energy works wonders. Any nation, people and even tribe have forbidden words, words that are tabooed. This general property people, or more precisely, the property of a community of people. Fighting this property is as stupid as creating a new person. Why is Russian swearing so developed? Yes, because our history is difficult. Who knows, maybe thanks to swearing they survived and survived as a people.
To combat swearing, they propose to introduce swear words into everyday use and stop considering them swear words. And that will be? Here's what. You stand on the battlefield, wounded, exhausted and staggeringly leaning on your sword. And your enemies are attacking you. For them and even for you, the outcome of the meeting is obvious. But you raise your head, look at them for a long time and say: “Well, come on, damn it, so get over you. And then do the same again.” But a miracle does not happen. There is no longer any energy in these words. These words sound like: the weather has turned bad. You don't have a hidden reserve. And they take you lukewarm and rape your wife in front of your eyes, and take your children into slavery. Reducing swear words to ordinary ones discharges the people, making them sluggish and flabby.
MYTHS AND TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIAN MATE
There are a lot of myths around Russian swearing that do not correspond to reality. For example, Russian linguists and historians have spread two myths about swearing: that Russians began to swear in response to the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” and that swearing is supposedly “a product of Slavic paganism.”
In fact, the Slavs never swear. Including Belarusians and Ukrainians, as well as Poles, before the Russian occupation of 1795, the worst curses were only “curva” (corrupt girl) and “cholera” (disease). Neither Kievan Rus, nor the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, nor the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth have preserved a single document with obscenities and not a single order from the authorities on the fight against swearing, although in Muscovy there is a huge abundance of such documents.
If it were not for the Russian occupation, then Belarusians (Litvins), Ukrainians and Poles would not be swearing today. Today, however, Poles still hardly swear, and Slovaks and Czechs do not swear at all.
And this is quite normal, because most peoples of the world do not know swear words - just as the Slavs, Balts, Romans, and Germans did not know them. Their sexual vocabulary is extremely poor (compared to Russian), and many languages do not use sexual themes at all when using foul language. For example, the French “con” conveys the name of both the male and female genital organs with different articles, and the limit of foul language in the French is to simply call the opponent with this word. And only in English language and only at the beginning of the twentieth century, and only in the USA, did the curse “mother fucker” appear, which has no analogue in Europe, and which was a copy of Russian obscenities - it was introduced into the US language by emigrants from Russia (see V. Butler “The Origin of Jargon in the USA", 1981, New York).
Thus, swearing is not at all a “product of Slavic paganism,” for the pagan Slavs did not swear.
The statement that “in ancient Rus' they swore” is also a myth. IN Kievan Rus no one swore - they swore only in Muscovy, but that was not Russia.
First mentions of strange habit Historians find Muscovites using obscenities in 1480, when Prince Vasily III, along with Prohibition, demanded that Muscovites stop swearing. Then Ivan the Terrible ordered to “click on the auction” so that the Muscovites “would not swear and would not reproach each other with all sorts of obscene and nasty speeches.”
Then the German traveler Olearius, who arrived in Muscovy, noted with regret the wide prevalence of swearing: “Little children, who do not yet know how to name either God, or mother, or father, already have obscene words on their lips.”
In 1648, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich conceived the idea of “getting rid of the infection” and gave a royal decree so that “they should not sing demonic songs, swear, or use any obscene barking... And if people teach someone to scold someone with swearing and all sorts of barking - and to those people for such opposite Christian law for the fury of being from Us in great disgrace and cruel punishment."
Moscow priest Yakov Krotov notes:
“Throughout the 17th and most of the 18th centuries, Muscovy was calm about swearing. A simple example: near the Savinno-Storozhevsky Zvenigorod Monastery, located three kilometers from Zvenigorod, a stream flows, and in all scribe books, starting from the end of the 16th century, when the first one was compiled, scribes quite normally recorded the name of this stream flowing through the land that belonged to the monastery. The first letter was "p", the second half ended in "omoy". Who came here to wash from Zvenigorod, several kilometers away? Not quite clear. But, one way or another, in late XVIII centuries when it is held general survey Russia, compiling a complete map Russian Empire, by decree of Catherine the Great, all names that contain obscene language and obscene roots are replaced with more euphonious ones. Since then this Zvenigorod stream has also been renamed.”
Until now, on the maps of Muscovy-Russia there were thousands of toponyms and hydronyms created on the basis of swear words.
There was nothing like this at that time either in Belarus-Lithuania or in Rus'-Ukraine then - the people there did not know curse words.
This circumstance could seemingly be explained by the fact that the Belarusians and Ukrainians were never under the Horde, and the Muscovites lived in the Horde for three hundred years, and then seized power there, annexing the Horde to Muscovy. After all, Soviet historians used to think so: that the Muscovites’ curses were supposedly their response to the “Tatar-Mongol yoke.”
For example, Vladimir Kantor, a fiction writer and member of the editorial board of the Russian journal Voprosy filosofii, recently wrote:
“But in Russia, during the Tatars, the word “eble” appeared, which is a derivative for us, Russian people, understandably, associated with defamation of the mother and so on, in Turkic it simply meant to get married. The Tatar, capturing the girl, said that he was “eble” her, that is, he was taking her. But for any Russian commoner whose daughter, wife, or sister was taken away, he committed violence against a woman, and as a result, this word absolutely acquired the character of rape. What are swear words? This is the language of the raped, that is, of that lower layer who always feels outside the zone of action of high culture and civilization, humiliated, insulted, raped. And like any raped slave, he is ready to use this violence against his comrade, and if it works out, of course, against a noble one.”
At first glance, the version seems foldable. However, she is wrong.
Firstly, the current Tatars of Kazan (then Bulgars) were just like that “languishing from the Tatar yoke” (for Kazan was in equally vassal of the Tatars, like Moscow), but for some reason they did not give birth to the world.
Secondly, the Tatars of the Horde were not Turks, but were a mixture of Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes. For this reason, they annexed the Finns of Suzdal-Muscovy (Mordovians, Moksha, Erzya, Murom, Merya, Chud, Meshchera, Perm) to the Horde and sought to unite all the Finno-Ugric peoples who left the Volga for Europe, including those who reached Hungary, the people which they considered “ours by right.”
Thirdly, there was no “Tatar yoke”. Moscow paid the Tatars only a tax (half of which it kept for itself for the labor of collecting it - on which it rose) and exhibited its Moscow army for service in the army of the Horde. It never happened that the Tatars captured Muscovy girls as wives - these are modern inventions. They were captured as slaves during wars, but in the same way, hundreds of thousands of Slavs were captured as slaves by the Muscovites themselves (for example, 300 thousand Belarusians were captured by the Muscovites as slaves in the war of 1654-1657). But a slave is not a wife.
Generally speaking, this whole version of Vladimir Kantor is “sucked up” only on two dubious grounds: the presence in the Turkic language of the word “eble” (to marry) and the myth about the notorious “Tatar yoke”. This is very little, especially since other main swear words in the Russian language remain without explanation. How were they formed?
Although I must note that this hypothesis of Cantor is already a kind of breakthrough in the topic, because earlier Soviet historians generally wrote that the Muscovites simply adopted swear words from the Tatar-Mongols, they say they taught the Muscovites to swear. However, there are no obscenities in either the Turkic language or the Mongolian language.
So, there are two serious circumstances that completely refute Cantor’s hypothesis about the origin of one of the Russian mats from the Turkic word “eble” (to marry).
1. Excavations by academician Valentin Yanin in Novgorod led in 2006 to the discovery of birch bark letters with mats. They are much older than the arrival of the Tatars in the Suzdal principality. Which puts a BOLD CROSS on the general attempt of historians to link the obscenities of the Muscovites with the language of the Tatars (Turkic).
Moreover, these mats on the birch bark letters of Novgorod are adjacent to elements of Finnish vocabulary - that is, the people who wrote them were not Slavs (colonists encouraged by Rurik, who sailed from Polabye and built Novgorod here), but local semi-Slavicized colonists of Rurik, Finns (or Sami, or miracle, all, muromoy).
2. There is another people in Europe, besides the Muscovites, who have been swearing for a thousand years - and with the SAME RUSSIAN cuss words.
These are Hungarians.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF RUSSIAN MATES
For the first time, Russian historians learned about the Hungarian mats quite recently - and were extremely surprised: after all, the Hungarians are not Slavs, but Finno-Ugrians. And they were not under any “Tatar-Mongol yoke,” for they left the Volga for Central Europe centuries before the birth of Genghis Khan and Batu. For example, Moscow researcher of the topic Evgeny Petrenko is extremely discouraged by this fact and admits in one of his publications that “this completely confuses the issue of the origin of Russian obscenities.”
In fact, this does not confuse the question, but rather provides a complete answer.
The Hungarians have been using mats absolutely similar to those of Muscovy since the time they came to Europe from the Volga.
It is clear that Cantor’s hypothesis about the origin of one of the Russian mats from the Turkic word “eble” (to marry) is in no way applicable to the Hungarians, because the Turks did not force their girls to marry. And there are no Turks around the Hungarians in Central Europe.
Evgeniy Petrenko notes that the Serbian swear expression “ebene sluntse in pichku” appeared historically recently - only 250 years ago, and was adopted by the Serbs from the Hungarians during the period when Serbia came from the Turkish yoke to the rule of Austria-Hungary under Empress Maria Theresa. The Hungarian chronicles of the Middle Ages are filled with such obscenities that did not exist anywhere else and among no one else around (Slavs, Austrians, Germans, Italians, etc., including Turks). The Hungarian colonial administration then carried them to the Serbs, Hungarian army and the Hungarian aristocracy.
Why are the Hungarians’ swear words absolutely identical to the Muscovite swear words?
There can be only one answer: THESE ARE FINNO-UGRIAN MATS.
Let me remind you that Hungarians, Estonians, Finns and Russians are one and the same Finnish ethnic group. The Russians, however, were partly Slavicized by the priests of Kyiv, who instilled Orthodoxy among them. But studies of the gene pool of the Russian nation, conducted in 2000-2006 by the Russian Academy of Sciences (which we previously described in detail), showed that in terms of genes, Russians are absolutely identical to the Finnish ethnic group: Mordovians, Komi, Estonians, Finns and Hungarians.
Which should not be surprising, since all of Central Russia (historical Muscovy) is the land of the Finnish peoples, and all its toponyms are Finnish: Moscow (of the Moksha people), Ryazan (of the Erzya people), Murom (of the Murom people), Perm (of the Perm people) etc.
The only “blank spot” remains the question of the ancient presence of mats in Estonia and Finland. Judging by the fact that the birch bark letters of Novgorod with mats could most likely be written by the Sami (and not the Chud or Muroma), who also inhabited Estonia and Finland, the Estonians and Finns too must have had mats since ancient times. This nuance needs clarification.
On the other hand, in the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups, it was the Ugrians who could have given birth to mats. That is, the Hungarians and those who remained to live in the lands of the future Muscovy are related peoples to them. The Ugric group of languages today includes only the Hungarian language and the Ob-Ugric Khanty and Mansi. In the past, this group was much more powerful, including, presumably, the Pecheneg people, who went with the Hungarians to Central Europe and along the way settled widely over the Crimea and in the steppes of the Don (they were allegedly exterminated by the Tatars). In Muscovy itself, the main ethnic group was the Mordovian ethnic group Moksha (Moksel in its language), which gave the name to the river Moksva (Moks Moksha + Va water), changed in the Kiev language to the more euphonious “Moscow” for the Slavs. And the Erzya ethnic group (with the capital Erzya and the state Great Erzya, later changed to Ryazan). In the Perm group of Komi and Udmurts, the state of Great Permia stood out. All this is the historical territory of the original distribution of mats.
Thus, the very term “Russian swearing” is absurd. For they are not Russians at all (in the understanding of Rus' as the Kievan State), but Finnish. Those who remained in the language of the native Finnish population of Muscovy as subjects of their pre-Slavic language.
ESSENCE OF MATES
What is the essence of Russian obscenities?
It is clear that Russian researchers of the issue have always been confused by the fact that the Russians have mats, while the Slavs and other Indo-Europeans do not have them at all. Therefore in this issue Russians have always, under the shadow of some kind of “inferiority complex,” instead of scientific consideration, tried to justify themselves or “make amends.” They tried to drag the Slavs into swearing - they say, this is Slavic paganism. But it didn’t work out - because the Slavs never swear, and the Russians are not Slavs. They tried to show that Russian obscenities were invented for a reason, but in response to the yoke of the Tatars. And it didn’t work out: the Hungarians had exactly the same mats, but they didn’t have any “Tatar yoke”.
In fairness, it should be said that the Russians are truly an unfortunate people of the former Finnish ethnic groups, whose fate over the last thousand years has been simply terrible.
At first, he was conquered as a slave by the younger princes of Kyiv, who simply did not get their principalities in the Rus of Kyiv. Since there were no Slavs here in future Muscovy, the princes and their squads treated the local Finnish population as slaves. Exactly Kyiv princes introduced in Muscovy serfdom(that is, slave ownership), which was wild in Kyiv in relation to the peasants of their own ethnic group. Let me remind you that neither in Ukraine nor in Belarus-Lithuania there was ever serfdom before the Russian occupation of 1795, and besides Muscovy, serfdom existed in Europe only in one place - in Prussia, where, in exactly the same way, the Germans made local foreign Prussians slaves and local Slavs.
Then these Finnish lands enslaved by Kievan Rus fell under the rule of the Horde of Trans-Volga Tatars, whose capital was located near present-day Volgograd. They created the Empire of the Turks and Finno-Ugrians, therefore mentally Suzdal lands were drawn to the Horde, and not to the Indo-European Rus of Kyiv and Lithuania-Belarus of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the country of the Western Balts). Moreover, the princely elite of the lands of the future Muscovy found in the Horde a very successful justification for their slave-holding power over the local Finnish population: Eastern traditions elevated rulers to the rank of God, which the Europeans never had, including Byzantium and the Russian Orthodox Church of Kyiv, which baptized Rus'.
These two main arguments turned Muscovy away from Rus' and Kyiv forever and created a new eastern type of state - a complete satrapy.
Therefore, the Finno-Russians (Muscovites) had every reason to swear at everyone: they lived freely only in their national Finnish states (of which only Finnish place names remained) until the arrival of the Kyiv enslavers. And then came a thousand years of complete slavery: first, slavery as part of Kievan Rus, then the same slavery, but when the Tatar enslavers sat on top of the Kyiv enslavers, and then the enslavers began to be called “Moscow Sovereigns.” Until 1864 (the abolition of serfdom), the people remained in the state of enslaved natives, that is, slaves, and the aristocracy despised them with the same degree of contempt as the British and French despised the African blacks they conquered in the 19th century.
Yes, from such a thousand-year oppression of Kievan Rus, the Horde and then Muscovy-Russia, there is enough hatred in the Finnish people to give birth to obscenities - like native slang of foul language towards the oppressors.
But... We see that these mats existed among the Finno-Ugrians even before their enslavement by their neighbors from the West and the East. And they exist among the Hungarians, who very successfully escaped from the Volga to Europe, avoiding the fate of their fellow tribesmen.
This means that the mats of the Finno-Ugric peoples did not originate as a response to the enslavers, but as something internal, purely primordial and without any external influence. Because the Finno-Ugric people ALWAYS swore.
Some researchers express the following point of view: swearing is part of some mystical culture, in a series of conspiracies or curses. Including some (A. Filippov, S.S. Drozd) find that the series swear words in essence does not mean something offensive, but a wish for death. For example, going to “n...”, as they write, means the desire to go to where you were born, that is, to leave life again into oblivion.
Is it so? I doubt.
Did the Finno-Ugric peoples in the past, during the era of the birth of swearing, have such a mystical culture in which sexual themes of swearing would have been used? Personally, it’s hard for me to imagine this. Yes, sexual themes are present among all ancient peoples - but as symbols of fertility. And in our case we're talking about about something completely different. And there is simply no “mystical culture” or “pagan cults” here.
It seems to me that the Moscow priest Yakov Krotov finds the essence of the obscenities most correctly:
“One of the modern Orthodox publicists, Abbot Veniamin Novik, published several articles against foul language, against swearing. In these articles, he emphasizes that swearing is associated with materialism. There is a kind of play on words here, with dialogue. “Why should release, and swearing, foul language, this is often justified as an emotional release, have to happen,” writes Abbot Veniamin, “at the expense of other people? A swearer certainly needs someone to hear him. Swearing is, first of all, a symptom evolutionary underdevelopment. Biologists know that in the animal world there is a bright expressed connection between aggressiveness and sexuality, and some “especially gifted” (hegumen Veniamin writes sarcastically) individuals use their genitals to intimidate the enemy. And some equally gifted representatives of the homo sapiens family do the same verbally. Exhibitionists are simply more consistent." This is a refutation and rebuff of profanity from the perspective of a modern, well-educated person."
Exactly.
The Indo-Europeans did not swear because their ancestral ethnic group was formed as more progressive and excluded in communication the ape habits of “using your genitals to intimidate the enemy.” But the ancestral ethnic group of the Finno-Ugrians, who are not Indo-Europeans, was formed in a different way - and used monkey habits.
That's the whole difference: Russians and Hungarians swear because they are not Indo-Europeans. And because their ancestors developed differently than the Indo-Europeans - in a completely different cultural environment.
Moreover, the use of swear words in communication necessarily retrospectively means that in the distant past the ancestors of Russians and Hungarians used these swear words as an illustration of ACTIONS - that is, the Finno-Ugric people used to show their genitals to their opponent as a SIGN OF INSULT. And various other indecent ACTIONS.
Does it seem wild? But this is no more savage than the very fact of almost COMPLETE approval of obscenities in Russia - primarily by cultural figures. How, for example, should one react to such statements: GALINA ZHEVNOVA, editor-in-chief of the joint editorial office of Gubernskie Izvestia, shares with readers: “I have a positive attitude towards swearing. Russian people have two ways of letting off steam. The first is vodka, the second is swearing. Let it be better to swear.”
Why don’t other nations have “ways to let off steam” only in the form of vodka and swearing? And why is swearing “better” than vodka?
WHAT IS MAT BETTER THAN VODKA?
In Russia they don’t understand that swearing destroys the foundations of Society. Swearing, being an animal behavior of “using one’s genitals to intimidate the enemy,” is already antisocial. But swearing has evolved compared to animals: the very name “swearing” means insulting the opponent’s mother in sexual violence from the speaker's side. What animals don't have.
For Finno-Ugric peoples (Russians and Hungarians) this is perhaps their own normal local traditional form communication. But for Indo-Europeans this is unacceptable.
Each of us was a child and knows that all sorts of nasty things easily penetrate into children's brains. Likewise, the swear words of the Hungarians and Russians were introduced into Europe not through our adult Europeans, but through children who had contact with the children of these peoples who spoke swear words. This fact alone shows that swearing enters the minds of people through the corruption of our children and, in essence, differs little from child pornography or the corruption of minors.
Let them always use obscenities in Russia. But why should we be like them? Our ancestors did not know these foreign obscenities.
It is very bad when sexual education of children begins with their knowledge of obscenities and their meaning. This is exactly what happened to me: teenagers taught me swear words and explained their meaning - they were the discoverers for me of the mystery of the relationship between a man and a woman - through swear words.
This is fine? This is absolutely abnormal.
Therefore, the editor's opinion seems completely erroneous Russian newspaper that swearing is better than vodka. Our children don’t drink vodka at the age of 10, but learn swearing. For what?
Russian publicists say with pride and joy that Russian obscenities completely replace any transmission of thoughts and concepts. Olga Kvirkvelia, head of the Russian educational Christian center“Faith and Thought”, a Catholic, in a Radio Liberty program in February 2002 said about swearing: “In principle, swearing is like a good swearing, real, not the street one that we hear today, it’s just a sacred language that can be used to tell really absolutely everything. I became interested in swearing when I accidentally heard in the Novgorod region, in a village, how my grandmother explained to my grandfather how to plant cucumbers. There were only non-obscene pretexts, which is understandable perfectly. She didn’t swear, she very kindly, very friendly explained how to plant cucumbers correctly. This is a language that, unfortunately, we have practically lost and turned into something vulgar, disgusting, vile and bad. Actually this is not true. And this reflects very deep layers of consciousness.”
I'm shocked. Why can’t grandma talk normally about planting cucumbers in normal human terms, but replaces them all with sexual terms? Olga Kvirkvelia sees this in “sacred language.” What is “sacred” about it, besides the animal display of its genitals?
She also says that “This is a language that, unfortunately, we have practically lost.” It turns out that the Finno-Ugric language of Russians and Hungarians is the language of complete obscenities, where all concepts are replaced by them?
Unfortunately, everything bad and nasty tends to spread around like a disease. So Russia brought its mats to the neighboring peoples of the Belarusians, Ukrainians, Balts, Caucasians, peoples it conquered Central Asia who speak their own language, but insert Finnish obscenities through each word. Thus, Finnish “sacred words” became the everyday vocabulary of distant Uzbeks. Moreover, they began to swear in the USA - already in English, and it is quite normal in the film “Police Academy” to see a plot, the action of which takes a long time to unfold against the backdrop of Russian writing. telephone booth inscriptions made from the familiar three letters “x..”. Who wrote it there? Yankees?
But there is nothing like this anywhere else in the world: writing obscenities on the walls. And even Vysotsky noticed: in public French toilets there are inscriptions in Russian. Writing obscenities on a wall is tantamount to the animal behavior of displaying your genitals. This is what the “sacred” eastern neighbors do, like monkeys. This is the exhibitionism of our eastern neighbor.
Is this the norm of behavior for us Europeans, including Belarusians and Ukrainians? Of course not, because we cannot express anything sacred, that is, sacred, simply because our ancestors did not know curse words. These swear words are foreign and foreign to us.
In our European languages There are enough means to express any concepts without obscenities, just as there are no obscenities in the works of Lev Tolstov. He did not use the “sacred language”, but created literary masterpieces of world culture and the Russian language. Which already means that the Russian language will not lose anything without these obscenities. But he will only get richer
Russian swearing, as a phenomenon of national language and culture, has its roots in ancient times. The word mat itself, according to some philologists and linguists, comes from the word mother. Mother (the word) has not been used before outside the verbal construction Yo... your mother. Only after Catherine the Second introduced restrictions on the use of obscene expressions in society, the word mother acquired a slightly different meaning. And by the eighteenth century, affectionate derivatives of this word appeared - mother, mommy, mommy, mother, and so on.
Other scientists (including famous explorer Russian swearing A. Plutser-Sarno) it is believed that the word mat meant shout, the cry of animals during the period of mating flirtations or the process of copulation itself.
Why did the Russian rulers send swear words, which have always been used in Everyday life to designate their mental states into the category of unacceptable and prohibited can be explained, perhaps, only by European influence. To the extent that foreign culture, primarily German and French, and their words and expressions penetrated into Russia and were adopted by the ruling class, to the extent that traditionally Russian words and expressions disappeared in this environment.
Gradually, exclusively the lower classes of Russian society began to use obscenities in their speech, where the expression “fuck - dig” was used on a par with “give us our daily bread today.” But among the nobles senior clergy swearing has gone into the realm of dark legends and historicisms. And if one of the nobles did not refrain from using a “strong” word in his speech, then this was considered bad form and ignorance. In French, please. Just not as Russian men say. This is how the taboo of swearing was introduced. And he himself began to be considered obscene language. It was among the nobility that swear words were considered prohibited swearing. It was there that he acquired his “bad” fame, as something base and overly negative.
But, nevertheless, despite official prohibitions and moral protests, the mat survived. Moreover, it has developed and grown stronger. This was greatly facilitated by Russian educators and writers, who unearthed piles of hitherto unknown literature and philological emeralds among dusty historical evidence. The expressions dug up in this way were used by the writers themselves in friendly correspondence, where they wanted to outdo each other in the art of selective Russian swearing. Writers such as Pushkin, Lermontov, Barkov, Alexei Tolstoy, the Zhemchuzhnikovs, Yesenin and many others made a special contribution to the popularization of swearing.
IN modern Russia there is also a taboo on swearing. Everyone swears and yet, well, or almost everyone, stands for the complete eradication of swearing, cutting down the defenders of obscene language with the penultimate words.
Everyday mate, which we meet here and there has nothing in common with literary swearing. Today’s swearing has become so boring that you involuntarily don’t notice it at all. Gradually, swear words are losing their social function expressions of dissatisfaction and protest and pass into the category of everyday words and expressions. This is also facilitated by the extraordinary flexibility of the “cuss words”. Separate words can express almost anything, including concepts and phenomena that are opposite in meaning and meaning.
Actually, everyone swears and swears. Even young, unintelligent children are attracted to the simple philosophy of swear words. But only a few of this number swear in an ornate, lengthy, competent, funny manner and in accordance with all the rules of the Russian language. Proper swearing is a big science that requires detailed and in-depth study.
Mat can be expressed in individual words, in phrases containing up to five obscene words, and maybe in bends. There are several types of obscene bend.
Thus, there are small obscene bends, large obscene bends, large Petrovsky bends, small sea and large sea bends, and so on.
The obscene bend is the simplest and at the same time rigid and extensive scheme according to which the construction of an abusive sentence is carried out.
The bend is distinguished by its strength. It is difficult to replace one word with another.
Obscene bends (large and small) differ, first of all, in the number of irregular words they contain. A small bend should include from fifteen to twenty words (prepositions and conjunctions are not included in their number). Large, respectively, contains thirty or more words. The number of obscene words is known to reach one and a half hundred or even more. Such works folk art They look colorful and are usually voiced in patter.
There are also unverified rumors about the existence Big Petrovsky Bend, which contains several hundred fastened phrases and is a model for constructing nine-story mats. It seems that this work can be attributed mostly to the realm of legends and legends. Although you can often find something similar. A paraphrase of Peter's curse.
Skilled swearers were highly revered in Russia and were invited to all mass celebrations, in order to please the ears of tipsy hosts and guests with his rollicking abuse. Talking in curves back then was like having a flashing light on your car today. That is, those who possessed such talents could almost freely enter any establishments and attend any events. Today, championships and competitions are often held among bearers of the “great and mighty.”
So, ladies and gentlemen, learn Russian. You might find it useful.