Political terms cannot be called ideologically neutral; on the contrary, they are most often an instrument of actual political struggle or an expression of the system of power relations existing in society. T&P studied the works of the largest contemporary political historians to find out what certain terms meant at different times and what is behind them now.

The word "patriot" comes from the Roman patriota ("compatriot"), which in turn comes from the Greek πατρίς ("fatherland").

From the 1720s, the term “patriotism” appeared in English political rhetoric, which from the very beginning was associated with the “common good”, but at the same time had the character of opposition to the government. Throughout the second half of the 18th century, radicals and conservatives in the British Parliament fought for the right to use patriotic rhetoric. The political context of the concept of "patriot" was constantly changing throughout the 18th century, and with it the meaning of the term. Thus, in the policy article of British conservatism "The Patriot" of 1774, the literary critic and publicist Samuel Johnson sharply criticizes the patriots.

Hugh Cunningham analyzes in detail the semantic leaps that the concept of "patriot" underwent in England in the 18th century. In 1725, an opposition group emerged within the Whig party, calling itself the Patriot Party, which subsequently united a number of deputies from both parties - the Liberal and the Conservative. Her activities were directed against the corrupt head of government, unofficially named the first prime minister, Robert Walpole. Representatives of the non-factional party called themselves "patriots" to show that they cared about the common good, thus trying to legitimize their opposition.

The argument in favor of the oppositionists was the large number of court proteges in parliament, who, in their opinion, threatened the freedoms of the country's citizens, transferring power from parliament to ministries. The ideology of the party in the 1720s and 30s of the philosopher and statesman Henry St. John Bolingbroke in a number of journalistic works, in particular, in the message "The Patriot King", addressed to the Prince of Wales.

"Love of the fatherland" was one of the key concepts for Enlightenment thinkers. Philosophers have contrasted loyalty to a country with loyalty to a church or monarch."

As Cunningham points out, Bolingbroke's idea, which comes from ancient Greek notions of the common good learned through the writings of Machiavelli, is that degradation and corruption can only be avoided by maintaining a balance between democracy, aristocracy and tyranny (in the British context, between the king, the House of Lords and the House of Commons). The king had to play a special role, because he stands above the parties, and is also the guarantor of the country's prosperity, supporting the commercial class. Bolingbroke was a well-known conservative and Jacobite, but many of his ideas later influenced enlightenment thinkers and the ideologues of the American Revolution. He argued for the existence of systematic opposition to the government in order to avoid a court oligarchy. The Patriot Party fought against tyranny, so the concept of "patriot" is beginning to be associated with opposition to the government, to the court, and also to the monarch, who attacks civil liberties. Subsequently, it was this idea of ​​patriotism that was used by the American colonists in the struggle for independence.

"Love of the fatherland" was one of the key concepts for Enlightenment thinkers. Philosophers have contrasted loyalty to a country with loyalty to a church or monarch. They believed that clerics should not teach in public schools because their "homeland" is in heaven. Back in the 17th century, Jean de La Bruère wrote that there is no fatherland with despotism. This idea was continued in the famous Encyclopedia of 1765 by Louis de Jaucourt. Fatherland cannot be combined with despotism, because the moral good is based on love for the fatherland. Thanks to this feeling, the citizen prefers the common good to the private interest. Under the condition of a state free from tyranny, a citizen feels himself part of a community of equal compatriots.

Patriotism was considered by philosophers mainly as one of the benefactors. Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of the Laws that the common good is based on love for the law and love for the fatherland. In the preface to The Spirit of the Laws in 1757, he makes it clear: love for the fatherland is love for equality, that is, not a Christian and not a moral virtue, but a political one. While the engine of the monarchy is honor, the engine of the republic is the political (civil) benefactor.

In 1774, Samuel Johnson published The Patriot, an essay in which he describes and criticizes the current ideas of the time about what a patriot is. The first feature he highlights is opposition to the court. Also, a patriot often expresses his love for the people as a single homogeneous community, which, according to Johnson, is wrong, since there is a heterogeneous mass of rich and poor, privileged and lower classes, and it is necessary to clearly understand which part of the people the patriot is addressing. If he addresses not the upper classes, who are obliged to regulate the lower ones, but directly to the poor and unenlightened, who are easily deceived, then such patriotism cannot be called love for one's country. The patriot cares about the rights and constantly reminds the people of the right to protect against encroachments on what is rightfully theirs. Johnson denounces wasteful promises of rights and freedoms for the sake of momentary political goals - for example, to get into Parliament. A true patriot understands that one cannot unconditionally obey the will of the voter, because the opinion of the crowd is changeable.

Johnson's article was written before the 1774 Parliamentary elections. It can be seen from the article that Johnson's reasoning is not of an abstract theoretical nature, but is directly related to the current political context. Johnson mentions in the text the radical John Wilkes, who sharply criticized the government and George III, and also fought for more democratic representation in Parliament. In 1774, the first attempts by the American colonists to fight for independence began. Wilkes advocated the independence of the American colonies, which is also mentioned in the text of Johnson, who speaks contemptuously of patriots who question the authority of the state over the territory.

Thus, by the 1770s in England, a new connotation of the concept of "patriot" was being formed. A patriot is a politician or journalist who fights for democratic reform, against the tyranny of the monarch and for the independence of the American colonies. An important role here belongs to John Wilkes, who in his political struggle actively used the rhetoric of "love of the fatherland" and justified democratic reforms with the ancient liberal tradition in England.

Johnson nevertheless tries to "clear" the meaning of the term "patriot" from undesirable associations with radicals, noting that there are still "true patriots." Already in 1775, after Wilkes' victory in the election, Johnson makes his famous dictum, perhaps the most famous English-language saying about patriotism: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." The scoundrel meant John Wilkes and his supporters. Johnson himself was best known as the compiler of The Dictionary of the English Language. In the 1775 edition, he added a new context to the definition of patriot in the dictionary: "An ironic nickname for one who seeks to sow discord within Parliament." By 1775, the conservatives lost the linguistic war to the radical liberals, it was easier for them to abandon this concept altogether. Reformist John Cartwright wrote in 1782 that a true patriot should not be one who opposes a corrupt ministry, but one who seeks the restoration of outraged rights and a radical transformation of the state system, after which the tyranny of George III will be eliminated.

In the early 1790s, The Patriot, a radical newspaper, spoke out against the despotic arbitrariness of royalty. If tyranny threatens the liberties of the citizens, then free Englishmen must rise up in opposition under the banner of that liberal tradition which has been characteristic of the English state since ancient times. All over the country, "patriotic societies" and "patriotic clubs" are springing up against attacks on rights and freedoms. During the struggle of the American colonists for independence, radical patriotic rhetoric was used in the fight against the British monarch. The ideologues of the independence movement and the Founding Fathers of the United States called themselves "patriots".

During the French Revolution, patriotic rhetoric was one of the key tools of political propaganda. One of the most famous slogans of the revolution is "The Fatherland is in danger!"

Contemporary scholar Peter Campbell distinguishes between ideology and rhetoric. An ideology is a set of principles that can motivate people to do something. Rhetoric is a speech construction strategy aimed at achieving the desired goals. According to Campbell, the patriotism of the 1750s and 1760s had not yet taken shape as an opposition ideology in France, so people with diametrically opposed views on the state structure could be called patriots. By the 1770s, it becomes obvious that the ancient republican ideal, when representative power is in the hands of the privileged class, is impossible. During the French Revolution, patriotic rhetoric was one of the key tools of political propaganda (one of the most famous slogans of the revolution is "The Fatherland is in danger!"). "Love for the fatherland" was interpreted as a struggle for a non-caste nation with equal rights. In 1892, the Parisian battalion of "Patriots of 1789" was formed. To prove the difference in the political rhetoric of France before the revolution and after, Campbell cites an example from the Abbé de Very: after the revolution it was no longer possible to say "I serve the king" - they said "I serve the state."

During the twenty-two years of the war with France, from 1793 to 1815, the liberal patriotic language was actively used by official English propaganda to achieve the desired goals. After Napoleon came to power, the British government called on society to defend the freedom of the nation (a nation of free people), which is threatened by an unauthorized tyrant (a word that is especially unpleasant for the English ear). Thus, the government simultaneously played on the connection between liberalism and patriotism and, at the same time, tried to instill a loyalist use of the term, when being a patriot meant defending the state in the face of an invader. Fear of a foreign invader becomes an important means of accumulating the official patriotic language. The main result of the war years is a shift towards the loyalist use of the word "patriotism" in England.

M. Odessky and D. Feldman note that until the end of the 18th century, the term "patriot" was not common in Russia. His consumption marked his acquaintance with enlightenment literature. However, in the reign of Paul I, this term is already being avoided due to associations with the Jacobin terror of the time of the French Revolution. For the Decembrists, patriotism was not only part of revolutionary rhetoric, but also part of nationalist discourse. In other words, both loyalty as opposed to serving the fatherland, and the betrayal of the court elite in relation to the national identity of Russian culture were condemned.

Under Nicholas I, write M. Odessky and D. Feldman, the concept of "patriotism" with the help of the theory of official nationality is equated with the concept of allegiance. To serve the fatherland meant to serve the sovereign-autocrat. The liberal political thought of Europe was opposed by the national identity of Russia, expressed through the concept of "nationality". Outdated by that time in the European context, the religious concept of power, which justifies absolutism, receives a new justification in the "true faith" - Orthodoxy. The ideology of official patriotism soon begins to cause rejection among the intellectual elite of Russian society. To characterize the superficial, ostentatious glorification of national identity, the term "leavened patriotism" is coined. The concept of "patriotism" almost completely loses its liberal and revolutionary connotations and becomes negatively colored for liberal intellectuals.

The appearance of the term "intelligentsia", according to M.P. Odessa and D.M. Feldman, from the very beginning was associated with opposition to official patriotism"

Cunningham believes that, contrary to popular belief, patriotism in the radical democratic sense continued to exist in the language well into the 19th century. Another context for this concept comes in the 1830s during the Charstist movement of the working class. Now the radicals consider those who oppose social slavery to be true patriots. At the center of this context is the fundamental idea that, after the English Industrial Revolution, Parliament ceased to speak for the people and therefore represent their interests, as mandated by the constitution. However, this context also quickly disappeared from the political language of the radicals in Great Britain, and from the second half of the 1840s, patriotism was less and less associated with opposition to the government.

In France, however, the situation was different, as revolutionary traditions and revolutionary rhetoric were constantly updated there throughout the 19th century. So in 1868, Gustave Flaubert wrote to George Sand: "The patriots will not forgive me this book, nor will the reactionaries!" In 1871, during the Paris Commune, he wrote to his niece Caroline: “Communard and Communist Kordom alone. His wife is petitioning for his release and promises that he will emigrate to America. On the third day they also took other patriots.

Since the 1870s, patriotism in Britain has shifted sharply to the side of right-wing conservative imperialist rhetoric. One of the most important characteristics of the democratic patriotic discourse was its internationalism - the patriots of different countries considered each other like-minded people in the struggle against the reactionary despotic power. In the second half of the 19th century, the patriotism of the radicals was embodied in the international labor movement, as well as in support of the North in the American Civil War. At the same time, the patriotism of the radicals shifted the focus from domestic to foreign policy.

In 1877-78, a completely new kind of patriotism appeared in British political rhetoric - "jingoism". The name comes from one of the patriotic songs of those years, sung in London pubs, with negative statements about Russia. The key point here was the so-called "Eastern Question": is it worth supporting the Ottoman Empire for the sake of national interests to the detriment of the interests of the Russian Empire. From the very beginning, Jingoism was associated with the so-called "conservative Russophobia" (there was also a "left Russophobia", characterized by anxiety about the reactionary policy of the Russian Empire).

Through the efforts of the Worksmen's Peace Association and the Peace Society, British military intervention was prevented. Nevertheless, a wave of jingoism took hold of British public policy for some time, causing concern in liberal and democratic circles. Patriotism was now associated with the militaristic policies implemented by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, and liberals and socialists were defeated in the fight for patriotic rhetoric. Since that time - not only in England - conservative patriotism has been established, which has become an important instrument of imperialist policy.

In Russia, in the era of Alexander III, the negative connotation of the term "patriotism" only intensifies. The appearance of the term "intelligentsia", according to M.P. Odessa and D.M. Feldman, from the very beginning was associated with opposition to official patriotism. Ironically referred to by the liberal intelligentsia as “official patriotism,” this kind of patriotism from the last third of the 19th century meant extremely aggressive, xenophobic rhetoric directed against any dissent. While the government harassed hostile groups through legislation and repression, the government-sponsored "patriotic" intelligentsia came out with extremely aggressive rhetoric in the press. Thus, the religious inequality fixed by law, mainly in relation to Russian Jews, among the “official patriots” resulted in aggressive anti-Semitism, initiating pogroms.

The term "patriotism" in the context of Soviet journalism in the 1970s and 80s acquires a pronounced chauvinistic, ethno-nationalist connotation

M.P. Odessa and D.M. Feldman also examine in detail the ideologeme "patriot" in the history of the Soviet state. During the Civil War, Bolshevik propaganda used a modified slogan of the French Revolution: "The socialist fatherland is in danger!" The addition of the word "socialist" meant a hidden rhetorical maneuver: the "fatherland" of the world socialist movement, born of the October Revolution, is in direct danger of military intervention. This is how the conservative and left-radical concepts of patriotism were combined.

In the 1930s, along with the concept of "building socialism in a single country," this combination of national and international only intensified. The culmination of this ideological construct was the nationalization of Stalinist policies in the post-war period. May 24, 1945 Stalin announces the "leading role" of the Russian people in the USSR. Thus, the Soviet state returned to the concept of conservative patriotism of the era of pre-revolutionary Russia with pronounced features of ethnic nationalism and aggressive militaristic rhetoric. This is precisely what George Orwell means when, in his famous essay "Notes on Nationalism", he calls the modern form of nationalism "communism", comparing it with nineteenth-century British "jingoism". In the sense in which "Russophiles" and "fellow travelers" consider the USSR the birthplace of all socialists and, therefore, must unconditionally support any foreign policy steps of the Soviet Union, no matter what they cost to other states.

The return of the liberal patriotic discourse of the 19th century can be traced among the Soviet intelligentsia of the “thaw” era. Again there is a contrast between the "loyal" model of patriotism and the idea of ​​serving the fatherland, not the state. When the era of the "thaw" was replaced by the era of "stagnation", the intelligentsia developed two camps: "national-patriotic" and "liberal". Their confrontation sharply intensified in the era of "perestroika".

The term "patriotism" in the context of Soviet journalism in the 1970s and 80s acquires a pronounced chauvinistic, ethno-nationalist connotation. At the same time, M.P. Odessky and D.M. Feldman note that the “loyal” and xenophobic traditions that were ridiculed by the liberal intelligentsia of the era of “perestroika” were by no means obvious, and the majority perceived the term patriotism primarily from the point of view of love for the fatherland and readiness to defend one’s country before a foreign invader. Just as the radical opposition in England once lost the struggle for the use of patriotic rhetoric to conservatism, the perestroika liberal intelligentsia lost on their own to abandon another patriotic discourse, using the term "patriotism" in its most familiar meaning - chauvinistic.

An example of modern usage:

“Linguistic and Regional Observations. I have long noticed that local fascists like to call themselves patriots, and foreign patriots - fascists.

PATRIOT stress, word forms

patriot

patriot,

patriots,

patriot

patriots

patriot

patriots

patriot

patriots

patriot

patriots

patriot,

patriots

+ PATRIOT- T.F. Efremova New Dictionary of the Russian Language. Explanatory- derivational

PATRIOT is

patriot

patri about t

m.

1) He who loves his fatherland, is devoted to his people, is ready for sacrifices and deeds in the name of the interests of his Motherland.

2) unfold One who is devoted to smth., passionately loves smth.

+ PATRIOT- S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language

PATRIOT is

patriot

PATRIOT, -a, m.

1. A person imbued with ~ism. true p.

2. trans. , what. A person devoted to the interests of a affairs, deeply attached to smth. P. of his factory.

| well. ~ka, -and.

+ PATRIOT- Dictionary of foreign words

PATRIOT is

PATRIOT

a, m., odush

1. A man inspired by patriotism. Genuine p.

2. trans., what. A person devoted to the interests of some business, passionately loving something P. city. P. plant. Patriot - female p..

+ PATRIOT- Small academic dictionary of the Russian language

PATRIOT is

patriot

BUT, m.

The one who loves his fatherland is devoted to his people, his homeland.

Gemma exclaimed that if Emil felt himself a patriot and wished to devote

all one's strength for the liberation of Italy - then, of course, for such a lofty and sacred cause one can sacrifice a secure future. Turgenev, Spring Waters.

The word "patriot" first appeared during the French Revolution of 1789-1793. Patriots then called themselves fighters for the people's cause, defenders of the republic, as opposed to traitors, traitors to the motherland from the camp of monarchists. M. Kalinin, On communist education.

|| trans.; what.

One who is devoted to smth., passionately loves smth.

Patriot of Leningrad. Patriot of his factory.

Patriots of native ships, With lion's courage in the chest - Guardsmen of the Soviet fleet Always and everywhere ahead! Lebedev-Kumach, Marine Guard.

By the second month of combat work, they (pilots) all --- became patriots of their cause. Simonov, From the Black to the Barents Sea.

(From Greek πατριώτης - countryman, compatriot)

+ PATRIOT- Compiled dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

PATRIOT is

patriot

PATRIOT

(Greek). A man who passionately loves his fatherland and people, trying to be useful to them.

The word "fatherland" meant among the ancients the land of the fathers, terra patria. The fatherland of each person was that part of the earth that his domestic or national religion consecrated, that land where the remains of his ancestors were buried and where their souls lived. The small fatherland was a small enclosed space of land belonging to the family, where there were graves and a hearth; the great fatherland was the civil community, with its pritanee, its heroes, the sacred fence, and the whole territory, the boundaries of which were outlined by religion. "The sacred land of the fatherland," said the Greeks. And this was not an idle word: this land was really sacred to people, because their gods lived here. State, civil community, fatherland - these words were not abstract concepts, like those of our contemporaries, it was a whole, consisting of local gods, daily worship and beliefs that dominated the soul.

This explains the patriotism of the ancients, that strong feeling which was for them the highest virtue and to which all other virtues adjoined. Everything that could be most dear to a person was united with the fatherland. In it he found his well-being, his security, his right, his faith, his god. Losing it, he lost everything. It was almost impossible for private gain to be at odds with public gain. Plato says: "The Fatherland gives birth to us, nourishes and educates us," and Sophocles: "The Fatherland preserves us."

Such a fatherland was not only a place of residence for a person. Let him leave these holy walls, cross the sacred boundaries of the region, and for him there is no longer any religion, nor any kind of social union.

Everywhere outside the borders of his fatherland he is outside the right life, outside the law; everywhere outside the homeland he is deprived of gods, deprived of spiritual life. Only in his own country does he feel the dignity of a man and has his duties; only here can he be a human person.

The fatherland binds a person to itself with sacred bonds; one must love him as one loves religion, one must obey him as one obeys God. “You need to give yourself completely to him, invest everything in him, devote everything to him.” It must be loved in glory and in humiliation, in prosperity and in misfortune; love him both for his good deeds and for his severity. Socrates, unjustly condemned to death by his fatherland, loves him, nevertheless, just as much. He must be loved, as Abraham loved his Lord, to the point of being ready to sacrifice his own son to him. Most importantly, you need to be able to die for the fatherland. A Greek or Roman does not die out of devotion to one person or out of a sense of honor, but he gives his life for the fatherland, because an attack on the fatherland is an attack on religion; and here man really fights for his altars, for his hearths, pro aris et focis, because if the enemy took possession of the city, then his altars were overthrown, his hearths were extinguished, his graves were defiled, the gods were exterminated, and the cult was destroyed. Love for the fatherland is the piety of the ancients.

Exile was not only a prohibition to stay in the city and removal from the fatherland, it was at the same time a prohibition of the cult; it included what modern nations call excommunication. To expel a person meant, according to the formula adopted by the Romans, to excommunicate him from fire and water. By fire here one must understand the fire of sacrifices, and by water - cleansing water. Exile placed man, therefore, outside of religion. In Sparta, also, if a person was deprived of the rights of a citizen, then he was excommunicated from the fire. The Athenian poet puts into the mouth of one of his characters a terrible formula that strikes the exile: “Let him run,” the sentence read, “and let him never come close to the temples, let none of the citizens speak to him and take him to his place in house; let no one allow him to participate in prayers and sacrifices, let no one give him cleansing water. Every house was defiled by his presence. The person who accepted the exile became unclean from contact with him. “Whoever eats or drinks with him, or who touches him,” the law said, “must be cleansed.” Under the yoke of this excommunication, the exile could not take part in any religious ceremony, for him there was no longer any cult, no sacred dinners, no prayers; he was deprived of his part in the religious heritage.

It must be taken into account that for the ancients, God was not omnipresent. If they had some vague idea about the deity of the entire universe, then it was not this deity that they considered their providence, they did not turn to him with prayers. The gods of each person were those gods who lived in his house, in his city, in his region. The exile, leaving behind his fatherland, also left his gods. He did not find anywhere a religion that could console him and take him under its protection; he did not feel more caring providence over himself, the happiness of prayer was taken away from him. Everything that could satisfy the needs of his soul was removed from him.

Religion was the source from which civil and political rights flowed; all this was lost by the exile, losing his fatherland. Excluded from the cult of the civil community, at the same time he also lost his domestic cult and had to extinguish his hearth. He no longer had the right to own his property, all his property and land were taken away in favor of the gods or the state. No longer having a cult, he no longer had a family; he ceased to be a husband and father. His sons were no longer under his dominion; his wife was no longer his wife and could immediately choose another spouse for herself. Look at Regulus captured by the enemy; Roman law likens him to an exile. When the senate asks for his opinion, he refuses to give it, because the exile can no longer be a senator; when both his wife and children rush to him, he repels their embrace, because the exile has no more wife or children.

Thus, the exile, along with the loss of the religion of the civil community and the rights of the citizen, also lost his home religion and family. He no longer had a hearth, no wife, no children. After his death, he could not be buried either on the land of the civil community or in the grave of his ancestors, because he became a stranger.

It is not surprising that the ancient republics almost always allowed the guilty to flee from death. Exile did not seem to be an easier punishment than death. Roman jurists called it the heaviest punishment.

municipal spirit

What we have learned so far about ancient institutions, and especially about ancient beliefs, may give us an idea of ​​the profound difference that has always existed between the two civil communities. Even if they were very close, next to each other, yet they always constituted two completely different societies, and between them lay something more than the distance that now separates two cities, more than the borders that separate two states; they had different gods, different religious

ceremonies, various prayers. Participation in the cult of the civil community was forbidden to a member of the neighboring community. They believed that the gods rejected the worship of anyone who was not their fellow citizen.

True, these ancient beliefs gradually softened and changed over time, but they were in full force in the era when societies were taking shape, and the imprint of these beliefs remained on them forever.

The following two things are easily understood: firstly, such a private religion, inherent in each city separately, was supposed to establish a strong and almost unshakable order; and indeed, it is astonishing how long this social system has existed, despite its shortcomings and all the possibility of disintegration. Secondly, this very religion was to make it completely impossible for many centuries to establish any other social form than the civil community.

Each civil community, by virtue of the requirement of the religion itself, had to be completely independent. Each civil community had to have its own special laws, since each had its own religion, and laws stemmed from religion. Each had to have its own supreme justice, and there could be no court higher than the court of the civil community. Each was to have its own religious festivals and its own calendar; the months of the year could not be the same in two cities, since each had its own special religious rites. Each civil community had its own currency; At first, coins were usually designated with religious emblems. Each had its own measure and weight. Nothing in common was allowed between the two communities. The division was so deep that even the possibility of marriage between the inhabitants of two different cities could hardly be imagined. Such an alliance has always seemed strange and for a long time was considered even illegal. The legislation of Rome and Athens apparently resisted recognizing it. Almost everywhere, children born of such a marriage were considered illegitimate and were deprived of their citizenship rights. In order for the marriage between the inhabitants of two cities to be legal, it was necessary to have a special agreement between these cities (jus connubii, е́πιγαμ iα).

Around the territory of each civil community was a line of sacred borders, this was the border of its national religion and the possessions of its gods. On the other side of the border, other gods reigned and the rites of a different cult were performed.

The most striking characteristic of the history of Greece and Italy before the Roman conquest is the fragmentation, carried to the extreme limits, and the spirit of isolation of each civil community. Greece never succeeded in forming a unified state; neither Latin nor Etruscan cities, nor Samnite tribes could ever form into a dense whole. The ineradicable fragmentation of the Greeks was attributed to the geographical properties of their country, and it was said that the mountains, cutting through the country in all directions, established natural boundaries between different regions; but between Thebes and Plataea, between Argos and Sparta, between Sybaris and Croton, there were no mountains. They were not between the cities of Latium, and between the two cities of Etruria. The physical properties of a country have some influence on the history of peoples, but the influence of beliefs is incomparably more powerful. Something more impassable than mountains lay between the regions of Greece and Italy; then there were sacred boundaries, then there was a difference of cults; it was a barrier that the civil community erected between their gods and strangers. She forbade a stranger to enter the temples of her city deities, she demanded that her gods hate strangers and fight against them.

On this basis, the ancients could not only establish, but even imagine any other organization than the civil community. Neither the Greeks, nor the Italians, nor even the Romans themselves for a very long time could come up with the idea that several cities could unite together and live on equal terms under one government. Between two civil communities there could be an alliance, a temporary agreement in view of the benefit presented or to avoid danger; but this was not a complete union, because religion made of each city a separate whole, which could not be part of any other. Isolation was the law of the civil community.

How then, given the beliefs and religious customs that we have seen, could several cities unite to form one state? Human association was understood and seemed right only if it was founded on a religious basis. The symbol of this association was to be a sacred meal shared together. Several thousand citizens could still, perhaps in the extreme, gather around one pritanei, read prayers together and eat sacred dishes together. But try, with such customs, to make one state out of all of Greece! How is it possible to celebrate sacred dinners and all those religious rites at which all citizens must be present? Where will the pritaney be placed? How to perform the rite of annual cleansing of citizens? What will become of the inviolable frontiers that once separated forever the area of ​​the civil community from all other territory? What will become of the local cult, the deities of the city, the heroes of every region? On the land of Athens, the hero Oedipus, who is hostile to Thebes, is buried. How then to unite together in one cult and under one administration the religion of Athens and the religion of Thebes?

When these beliefs weakened (and they weakened only very late in the minds of the people), then it was no time to establish new state forms. Separation and isolation were already sanctified by habit, profit, strengthened by old malice, memories of the previous struggle. There was no return to the past.

Each city greatly valued its autonomy - that is how he called the totality, which meant its right, its cult, its administration - all its religious and political independence.

It was easier for one civil community to subjugate another than to annex it to itself. Victory could make the same number of slaves out of all the inhabitants of a given city, but it was powerless to make them fellow citizens of the victors. To merge two civil communities into one state, to merge a victorious people with a defeated people and unite them under one government - this is a fact that is never found among the ancients, with one single exception, which we will talk about later. If Sparta conquers Messene, it is not to make Messenians and Spartans one people; she drives out or enslaves the conquered and takes their lands for herself. Athens does the same with Salamis, Aegina, Melos.

No one ever thought of giving the vanquished the opportunity to enter the civil community of the victors. The civil community had its own gods, its own hymns, its own holidays, its own laws, which were for it the precious heritage of their ancestors; and she was wary of sharing them with the vanquished. She did not even have the right to do so: could the Athenians allow the inhabitants of Aegina to enter the temple of Pallas Athena? so that they honor Theseus with a cult? took part in the sacred dinners? that they, as pritanes, keep the sacred fire on the public hearth? Religion forbade it. And therefore, the defeated people of the island of Aegina could not form one state with the people of Athens. Having different gods, the Athenians and Aeginians could not have the same laws, nor the same authorities.

But could not the Athenians, leaving, at least intact, the conquered city, send their authorities to its walls to rule? Such a fact would absolutely contradict the principles of the ancients: only a person who was a member of it could manage a civil community. Indeed, the official at the head of the civil community had to be the religious head, and his main duty was to perform sacrifices on behalf of the entire civil community. Therefore, a foreigner who did not have the right to make sacrifices could not be a government official. Without performing any religious duties, he did not have any legal authority in the eyes of the people.

Sparta tried to put her harmonists in the cities, but these people were not rulers; they did not judge and did not appear at public meetings. Having no legal connection with the population of cities, they could not stay in them for a long time.

As a result, it turned out that each winner was given one of two things: either destroy the conquered city and occupy its territory, or leave it its full independence; there was no average. Either the civil community ceased to exist, or it remained

sovereign state. Having its own cult, it had to have its own administration; only by losing one, she lost the other, and then her very existence ceased.

This complete and unconditional independence of the ancient civic community could only end when the beliefs on which it was founded had completely disappeared; only after the concepts were modified and several revolutions swept over the ancient world, only then could the idea of ​​a larger state governed by other laws appear and be realized. But for this, people had to find other principles and a different social connection than it was in ancient times.



A, m. patriote, German. Patriot gr. patriotes countryman. 1. A person considered in relation to his belonging to his homeland, fatherland; usually with an additional evaluative moment: a zealot for the benefits of the fatherland, a faithful son of the fatherland. Exchange. 133.… … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

PATRIOT- (Greek). A man who passionately loves his fatherland and people, trying to be useful to them. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. PATRIOT Greek. patriotes, from patra, patria, fatherland. A man who loves dearly ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

patriot- Fatherland lover Dictionary of Russian synonyms. patriot lover of the fatherland (outdated) Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011 ... Synonym dictionary

Patriot- (Kaliningrad, Russia) Hotel category: 3 star hotel Address: Ozernaya Street 25A, Kaliningrad … Hotel catalog

PATRIOT- PATRIOT, patriot, husband. (Greek patriotes countryman). A man devoted to his people, loving his fatherland, ready to make sacrifices and accomplishing feats in the name of the interests of his homeland. Soviet patriots vigilantly guard the borders of their native country. Bolsheviks... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

PATRIOT- PATRIOT, patriot, lover of the fatherland, zealot for its good, lover of the fatherland, patriot or fatherland. Patriotism male. love for homeland. Patriotic, domestic, domestic, full of love for the motherland. Patrimonial, paternal, otny, paternal, ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

PATRIOT- PATRIOT, ah, husband. 1. A person imbued with patriotism. True p. 2. trans., what. A person devoted to the interests of a affairs, deeply attached to something n. P. of his factory. | female patriot, i. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu.… … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

PATRIOT- The Patriot, USA, Columbia Tristar, 2000, 164 min. historical drama. Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, director and producer, are an established team of blockbuster producers (Stargate, Godzilla, Day... ... Cinema Encyclopedia

patriot- PATRIOT, a, m. Zubril. From school… Dictionary of Russian Argo

Patriot- Some people do not care about either the glory or the disasters of the fatherland, its history is known only from the time of the book. Potemkin, have some understanding of the statistics of only the province in which their estates are located; with all that, they consider themselves patriots, ... ... Wikipedia

patriot- great patriot true patriot true patriot fiery patriot true patriot passionate patriot ... Dictionary of Russian Idioms

Books

• Patriot, Rubanov Andrey Viktorovich. Andrey Rubanov is the author of the books "Plant and it will grow", "Shameful deeds", "Psycho-worker", "Prepare for war" and others. Finalist for National Bestseller and Big Book Awards. The main character ... Buy for 614 rubles
• Patriot, Rubanov, Andrey Viktorovich. Andrey Rubanov is the author of the books "Plant and it will grow", "Shameful deeds", "Psycho-worker", "Prepare for war" and others. Finalist for National Bestseller and Big Book Awards. The protagonist…

Recently, patriotism has become increasingly important in our country. It pops up in almost any debate about politics, and opponents inevitably blame each other for not having this feeling. But what, in essence, is patriotism, and have people always loved their homeland?

Ancient Greece: Country of the Fathers

The word "patriotism" comes from the Greek "πατρίς" ("patris") - patronymic, or "country of the fathers." However, Greek patriotism was built on somewhat different foundations than modern. The ancient Greeks perceived as their homeland, which must be loved and protected, only their small commune-polis, where people for the most part were relatives to each other. Such a "patriotic" feeling based on kinship is often found even among animals.

But the Greeks had another reason for love for the Motherland. The fact is that only the indigenous inhabitants of the Greek policy could have the rights of a full-fledged citizen, and then only those who owned land on its territory. These rights implied that citizens could (and more often were obliged) to participate in public life: sit in court, make laws and political decisions, engage in religious worship, and so on. In return, they had to participate in the wars waged by the policy, and provide themselves with ammunition. This function, in principle, also belonged to the sphere of public life of the city-state.

The source of patriotism was the fact that citizens own the land (by and large, the policy itself) and protect it from foreign invaders. So their patriotic self-sacrifice was directly related to their own interests and the interests of their families. The ancient Greeks, although they had an idea of ​​themselves as Hellenes and opposed the Hellenes to the barbarians, still did not perceive the whole of Hellas as their homeland, and they treated Greeks from other policies basically in the same way as representatives of other peoples.

Ancient Rome: Citizenship of War and Peace

Xuan Che / flickr.com

Approximately the same system worked in ancient Rome. The Roman Senate, the main political body of the Roman Republic, was an assembly of householders, each of whom represented the interests of himself and his family, over which he had almost absolute power.

It should be noted that this method of government and, accordingly, the model of patriotism played a huge role in the decline of Rome. The fact is that as the borders expanded and included more and more people in the area of ​​​​influence of Rome, the republic became more and more difficult to manage, since the conquered peoples had an ambiguous status in this system. On the one hand, they were obliged to provide troops and resources to support wars, and on the other hand, they did not have the right to make state decisions. In this regard, in Rome there was a constant struggle between the patricians (the nobility leading their lineage from the founders of the city), the plebeians (the inhabitants of Rome who did not belong to the families of the founders) and the allies (subjugated peoples), because all of them were obliged to participate in wars, but only patricians had the rights of full-fledged citizens.

Therefore, over time, as the territory of the Republic increased, the inclusion of new peoples in its area of ​​influence and, as a result, the complexity of the management system, the army began to acquire more and more importance - people who performed the main civic duty in the Republic. The army, on the other hand, was directly connected with its commander, whom it could support or not support in the struggle for power. As a result, a struggle began between the Senate and civil institutions - on the one hand, and military leaders - on the other. A successful military campaign was one of the best ways to gain popularity with the people and win them over to their side, since it provided the city with a flow of wealth and slaves. This means that it contributed to the improvement of the situation of its citizens.

It is no coincidence that the strengthening of popular military leaders was feared. Moreover, the Senate itself, as the population of the Republic increased, was separated from an increasing number of citizens, and therefore no longer represented their interests. Actually, that's why the senators at one time killed Caesar, who became incredibly popular after the conquest of Gaul and Egypt. However, this did not prevent, but, on the contrary, even accelerated the process of transfer of power from the people and the Senate to the brilliant military leader (primarily Caesar's heir Octavian). Gradually, the Republic, in which the Senate and the people ruled, turned into an Empire with an emperor at the head. Rome actually became imperial property, passed down by inheritance, and citizenship lost its meaning. And if before that citizenship could be obtained almost in exceptional cases and only for special merits, then after that it began to be issued to entire provinces.

As a consequence, Rome's highly developed urban civic culture began to decline as participation in public life no longer helped lobby, advance, or gain status and respect, so the wealthy began to move into the countryside and freely arrange their lives. there, in their domain. This is how feudalism began to emerge, which subsequently divided Europe into thousands of small patches.

Middle Ages: Patriarchy instead of patriotism

The feudal system that was established in Europe, like the polis system that preceded it, was based on personal relationships. Only in the policy these relations were horizontal relations of neighborhood and kinship - there all citizens took part in the management of public life. Feudal relations are vertical, i.e. a vassal to his lord, who makes decisions for both of them in exchange for the promise of protection and support.

However, the lord could not make decisions for the vassal of his vassal - this is one of the basic political rules of feudal Europe. This was due to the fact that there is no personal relationship between them, they are mediated by a third person. But with this third person, both his vassal and his liege have mutual obligations, but at the same time they do not have mutual obligations towards each other.

Thus, with the help of a hierarchy of personal relationships between vassals and lords, the entire feudal system is built, culminating in and uniting God as the highest lord, whose immediate vassals are kings. All the rest are subjects of kings, doing their will, as well as the will of God. And this citizenship was completely independent of nationality or language. In this regard, the divided Europe realized itself as a single cultural space. The main line of division into friends and foes was not a nation and not citizenship, but religion, because the Gentiles do not obey that God, who is the highest sovereign for all Europeans, so they cannot be trusted.

Modern Times: Birth of a Nation

As you can see, in the eras described above, love for one’s place of birth or for one’s country (although it would be more correct to call it a community) had purely pragmatic grounds and grew on personal connections and trust in one’s compatriots, who were also neighbors, friends or relatives. This situation began to change for reasons similar to those that led to the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire. We are talking about an excessive increase in the number of subjects in states and the inability to control them through a minimum number of intermediaries.

Sooner or later, the larger, richer and more successful proto-state formations absorbed the smaller ones, turning into large and clumsy bureaucratic systems in which there was too much distance between its lower and upper layers. The nobility, being close to the king, had a much greater influence on him, which allowed her to lobby her own interests at the expense of the interests of the people, gradually abandoning her main civilian tasks - military service and administrative work. As a result, the king and the nobility lost contact with the people.

The people, however, increasingly felt their national unity, based primarily on the use of a common language, which in turn was built on the language used by the bureaucratic system. The participation of people of humble origin in this bureaucratic system also made it possible to perceive oneself as part of the state.

On the one hand, people from the lower strata were now able to change their position on the social ladder through participation in this system. And on the other hand, this change of position was limited precisely by the borders of the state or, as in the case of the colonies, by the borders of the colony. At the same time, a restriction was imposed in the form of knowledge of the language that all other bureaucrats use, so that it was easier for representatives of the dominant nationality to build a career than for representatives of subordinate language groups. In addition, a unified education and cartography contributed to the formation of national self-identification, broadcasting to all citizens a certain image of the state, about which they had a very vague idea before, since their world was limited to the nearest villages.

It turned out that the power was isolated from the people, but the people, who had no influence on power and politics, at the same time performed almost all the main state functions that used to belong to the authorities: first of all, administrative management and military service.

At the same time, the people, who are in vassal relations with the aristocracy, realizing themselves as one, also felt themselves to be a source of power. In contrast to the previously prevailing notion that the source of power is the monarch. Accordingly, if the people are the source of power, they can overthrow their rulers, as long as they do not satisfy them. However, for this, he must first realize himself as a single people.

Long XIX century: Society against the state

Pieter Brueghel the Younger, via Wikimedia Commons

This is exactly what happened during the French Revolution, when the people went against the king, the country rebelled against the state. If before the French fought for God and the king, now they fought for France. And it should be noted that this nascent patriotism had an extremely critical attitude towards the existing system.

Realizing themselves as a nation, the French, invading more and more new states during the Napoleonic Wars, spread nationalist ideas throughout Europe like an infection. The Germans, in response, recognized themselves as Germans, the Spaniards recognized themselves as Spaniards, and the Italians as Italians. And all these peoples began to consider themselves sources of power in their states. Nationalism was originally an exclusively revolutionary and liberal idea, and European monarchs, by then already connected by strong family ties with each other and still, following the Roman emperors, perceived their countries as their own, feared him.

It is no coincidence, for example, that in Germany, fragmented into hundreds of small principalities, princes, barons and kings suppressed nationalist uprisings aimed at uniting the country. Or we can remember how Russia put down the Hungarian uprising for national independence in Austria-Hungary.

However, the process of the emergence of national identity was already launched, and European monarchs partly used it for their own purposes even during the Napoleonic Wars. Paradoxically, the royal houses of all Europe, mainly descended from German or French princes and kings and ruled giant multinational empires, were forced to somehow write themselves into the emerging national myths.

Ultimately, the monarchs of multinational empires, in order to retain power, themselves began to reproduce national myths that reinforce the dominance of the titular nation over all the others. Thus, for example, the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” appeared, which was intended to combine the Russian national myth with the idea of ​​autocracy, which, in turn, protects the state religion. This gave rise to internal, hitherto non-existent, inter-ethnic contradictions within states. Which ultimately led to regular national uprisings and the collapse of all European empires.

Modern Times: From Love to Hate

rolffimages / bigstock.com

The national idea, originally critical and progressive, quickly (somewhere in a century) turned into its complete opposite. Patriotism has turned into chauvinism. Love for one's homeland and for one's people has become hatred for others. Ultimately, this transformation resulted in the main tragedy of the 20th century - the Second World War, Nazism and the Holocaust - because the patriotic feeling of the Germans and their allies, offended by the results of the First World War, got out of control and turned into the idea of ​​national superiority.

Therefore, when we talk about patriotism, it is worth remembering the origins of this concept: the good-neighbourly, almost family relations of people living together who cared for their homeland and each other. Patriotism is a concept that fundamentally contains a critical attitude to the surrounding reality and the desire to transform it for the better, to make your community better. Moreover, it does not matter at all who the members of this community are, as well as their nation, language, culture, religion, etc. The main thing is an attempt to jointly create a better society, and not a blind belief in our own superiority on the sole basis that we belong to this or that group and possess this or that set of characteristics. Patriotism is what unites people, but there is always a danger of its transformation into its complete opposite, which, on the contrary, splits society. This is not a blind belief that your country or nation is the best, but the desire to make it the best, so that you can be proud of it.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.