I remember exactly the date when the cup of my philological patience, so to speak, was overflowed: this happened on December 23, 1992. In the morning I heard from the mouth of a Russian radio announcer something like this: "But the main benefit of those in power is the lack of freedom of speech and publicity." And in the evening of the same day, the handsome host of Vesti with a charming smile said from the TV screen: "However, the balance of interests of the press and those in power is possible." I remembered how many times I had recently heard or read about these very "powers that be", as a venerable academician mentioned them from the rostrum at a recent scientific conference at the Academy of Sciences - and inwardly exclaimed: "For God's sake, how many can you do?! Why does Alexander Solzhenitsyn read Dahl every day, but our newsreaders and journalists don't even look at Ozhegov?" And what should they open, for example, the 23rd edition of this dictionary on page 578 and read: "the ruler, - aya, - ee (obsolete): 1) the powers that be -persons invested with power; 2) the power that is the highest power." Almost the same interpretation is found in the " Dictionary of the Russian Language in 4 volumes: "Outdated. those in power - persons relieved by the authorities; authorities. The ruling power is the highest governmental power" (Ed. 2-E. T. III. M., 1984. p. 365).
So what does that mean, you might ask? And this means that the word "ruler" in modern Russian is outdated and occurs only as part of two phraseological, that is, stable, combinations; there are authorities (which ones?) powers that be, there is power (what?) Preeminent, but there's no preeminent (what?) power.
Having inwardly raged and complained about the fact that so few people, even by profession obliged to speak normalized Russian, consider dictionaries as their desktop books, I continued-
page 37
I cooled down and wondered why the distorted form of this phraseology has spread so much.
The result of my reflections was a short article "The powers that be or the powers that be?" which I took to the most appropriate magazine, in my opinion - "Journalist". There my article was approved, accepted and ... not published. It was published in the journal " Science and Life "(1993. N 2. pp. 52-53). Then I once again turned to this topic and published the theses of the report "From the history of Biblicisms in the Russian language" in the Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference " Bible Translation in the Literatures of the peoples of Russia, the CIS and the Baltic States "(Moscow, 1999). But, as it turned out, it didn't end there. At about the same time, the pages of Nezavisimaya Gazeta had a whole discussion about the expression we are interested in.
On February 14, 1998, the Pochta section of this newspaper published a letter from E. Yu.Vanina, a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in which she reproached all those who write to the authorities who are in power, to the authorities who are in power. "But it is correct," writes the author of the letter, "that" those in power", that is, "those who hold power", "power" is an object, so it is always put in the accusative case (...) It is hardly necessary to prove that unprofessionalism and basic illiteracy are incompatible with the status of a serious publication that your newspaper claims to be." The newspaper's editorial board responded that it "takes note of the comments and apologizes to readers." Thus, the editorial staff joined the number of numerous supporters of the version of the powers that be.
This story had a continuation. A week later, Nezavisimaya Gazeta's readers 'mail published an article by two major Russian philologists, E. A. Zemskaya and M. S. Grinberg, entitled" The Powers that be or the powers that be?" Referring to dictionaries of the Russian language and giving other weighty arguments, scientists argued that the editorial board was too hasty with apologies, that it is still correct to speak and write the authorities.
It would seem that the authority of E. A. Zemskaya and M. S. Grinberg could put an end to this discussion. However, this did not happen. Nezavisimaya Gazeta published a rather harsh letter from V. G. Andreev on May 29, 1999, under the headline "Once again about the 'powers that be'". The author, himself a proponent of the option the powers that be, writes: "Several times I called NG, asked, and then begged the editorial staff to pay attention to this phrase. However, this oversight (variant of the powers that be - Yu. V.) is repeated with enviable regularity again and again. In this regard, I have a suggestion-to hang a small poster over the desks of editors, proofreaders and correspondents of your newspaper with the following content::
page 38
In the phrase "those in power", the first word (power) does not have a plural and does not incline!".
I must say, the editors did not follow the author's advice. Moreover, she answered quite definitely: "Unfortunately, the incorrect phrase" those in power " still penetrates the newspaper. The proofreaders of the newspaper should mercilessly banish it from the newspaper page. And we would recommend that Mr. Andreev follow the norms of the Russian language and use the phrases "the powers that be" and "the powers that be"."
The issue seems to have been closed. But then the most interesting thing happened. Having accidentally read a discussion in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, our leading linguist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. A. Dybo responded to it, and responded with an article that, in my opinion, is the most interesting of all that has been written so far about the authorities in power. This article ("Once again about the 'powers that be'") has not yet been published, but V. A. Dybo kindly allowed me to refer to its manuscript, for which I am extremely grateful.
So, let's think again: what is the correct way to say, or, more precisely, how should we say: the powers that be or the powers that be? 7 And why do so many people prefer the option of those in power?
I, like E. A. Zemskaya and M. S. Grinberg, believe that the first reason is the contamination of this expression with a very close in meaning and form stable combination of those in power (those who have power). Hence the interpretation of the expression power holders as power holders - those who hold power.
I must say that V. A. Dybo considers the hypothesis of contamination of these two expressions erroneous. He believes: "The internal form of the verb hold is absolutely transparent, the semantics are dictated by this internal form: hold, have, own" (V. A. Dybo. Once again, about the "powers that be". Manuscript, p. 3). He quite rightly writes: "Upon closer examination, it (the problem of the correctness or incorrectness of one of the variants of the expression we are interested in. - Yu. V.) is so closely related to the history of the Russian and Church Slavonic languages that the current use of these forms runs the risk of being unexplained without considering these aspects of their history " (Ibid., p. 2). Let's really turn to the history of the language.
In fact, in accordance with the internal form of the verb prederzhati in the Old Russian language, one of its meanings was "hold". I. I. Sreznevsky writes about this (Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language, St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 1643). The same meaning is given by the Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries. Here you can find examples of the use of this verb in the most direct, specific meaning
page 39
"hold, hold, restrain with your hands", "hold, support something": a person is held by three men (i.e., he was held, held by three people); pillars are thicker than before (i.e., held, supported) komaru (Vol. 18, Moscow, 1992, p. 188).
This verb also had another meaning: "to have power, strength, advantage", that is, in other words, "to dominate". In this sense, the verb prederzhati is used, of course, without a direct complement, for example: "Behold, iron now prevails," that is, " now has power, iron reigns supreme "(Ibid., p. 188). The noun prederzhanie, formed from this verb, had two meanings: "region, possessions" (the second meaning), but first of all "dominion, dominion", for example:" impurity that lives in chlovetseh and the devil prederzhanie "(i.e.," dominion, dominion of the devil") (Decree, op. cit.p. 187).
However, most often in the Old Russian language, the verb prederzhati was used in the meaning "to own, to hold in one's hands, in one's power". The file of the Old Russian dictionary, stored at the V. V. Vinogradov Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, contains extracts from various monuments of Old Russian writing, where you can find such expressions as predrzhashchyu v vsyu vlast, predrzha tsardom, predrzhashchyu monastery and even predzhyati selo or predrzhashchiia vse doma (the spelling of monuments is close to modern). And in the Great Chethi Minei, you can read about one person who holds power. As you can see, it is said almost exactly as most modern announcers say. What do they say correctly? Still, no, it's wrong. And here's why. There is no verb to hold in the modern Russian language, it was not used even in the XIX century, so the participle prezhashchy cannot be freely used now.
V. A. Dybo, however, notes :" The verb itself to hold is not alien to the Russian language, in unrelated use it is noted in dialects, see Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects, issue N31, p. 76". Well, in this case, the free, unrelated use of the participle of power can be considered dialecticism, but not the literary norm.
And the main reason is that the expression powers that be is not just stable, it belongs to the category of so - called "winged words", in other words, it is a quote. This can be found in the book "Winged Words" by N. S. Ashukin and M. G. Ashukina (Moscow, 1988, p. 53). Here you will read that the expression powers that be is a quote from the New Testament text-the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. Chapter XIII of this Epistle begins with a call to Christians in their civil life to "show their reverence for God in obedience to the authorities established by God" (A. P. Lopukhin. Tol-
page 40
kova Bibliya, 2nd ed. Stockholm. 1987. Vol. 3. P. 502). In the Bible, this passage reads: "Let every soul obey the powers that be." The same quote in the interpretation of the word ruler is given in his dictionary by Vladimir Dahl.
Well, not many of our contemporaries have read the Apostle Paul. But if those who haven't read it want to check me out, they'll take it, for example. If they find the Bible published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1990 on page 1240 of the Epistle to the Romans, they will probably be somewhat surprised. Here it is written: "Let every soul be subject to the highest authorities..." (13: 1). Where are the powers that be? Don't be surprised. In your hands you have a translation of the Bible into Russian, and the expression we are interested in is from the Church Slavonic text.
But even more perplexing may be the meticulous reader who wants to get to the roots and turns to the earliest Slavic translations of the Epistle to the Romans. In the so-called "Christianopolitan" Apostle of the XII century, he reads: "Let every soul obey the lords who preeminently rule." The same words are found in many lists of the Apostle of the XIV-XVII centuries. In a slightly different form, they were also included in the first complete Old Russian so-called Gennady Bible of 1409, created in Novgorod at the court of Archbishop Gennady. Here the passage that interests us reads as follows:"Let every soul obey the lords who preeminently rule."
This version of the translation obviously existed in Russia for quite a long time, as it is reflected in the first epistle of Ivan the Terrible to Prince Kurbsky: "Why did you also despise the Apostle Paul, for you said: Let every soul obey the lords who rule before" (V. A. Dybo. Decree. op. p. 6). According to G. Voskresensky, author of the fundamental study " The Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and his fate before the XV century "(Moscow, 1879), it is the version of vladyka prevladushchim (or prevladushchim ) Most likely, it goes back to the translation of the Apostle, made in the second half of the IX century by the first teachers of the Slavs Cyril and Methodius.
There are other versions of the translation: vlastelem vyshnim (vlastel in Old Russian means "ruler"), vlastem vyshnim (almost like in modern Russian translation), not quite clear (may have arisen as a result of a typo) vlastem former, etc.
A natural question arises as to why the translators translated this passage of the Epistle to the Romans in different ways: either as the lords of the pre-ruling (pre-ruling), or as the ruler (vlastem) of the highest. To answer this question, let's turn to the original Greek text. In the Greek text, there is a combination here, where the first word is the dative plural of a noun with the meaning "power, might", which in Greek could mean not only a function, but also a "social institution", that is
page 41
there are authorities. It is clear that translators could have used the nouns vladykam, vlastem, and vlastelem in its translation. All of them correspond quite precisely to the meaning of the word used in the original. The second word in the phrase we are interested in is the dative plural of the participle of the real voice of the present tense from the verb, one of the meanings of which in Greek is "to rise, to surpass, to exceed". Therefore, the translation of this passage into Russian, indeed, can have the form of vyshnim, which we find in a number of Church Slavonic translations of the Apostle.
However, the authoritative dictionary "A Greek-English Lexicon", compiled by G. J. Liddell and R. Scott, cites among the metaphorical meanings of the Greek verb of interest to us also the meaning of "prevail" that is, " to prevail, dominate, prevail "(Vol. 2, p. 1863). The Church Slavonic translation of this verb in this sense can be the verb prevlasti ("to rule, to rule"), which indicates both the" Dictionary of the Old Russian Language "by I. I. Sreznevsky (Vol. 2. Part 2. Moscow, 1989. p. 1621) and the" Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries " (Vol. 18. Moscow, 1992. P. 155). True, both of them cite as illustrations the translation of the beginning of the 13th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and, as it were, perform the operation of reverse transformation of the participle prevladushchiyim into the infinitive. It is obvious that the verb prevlasti was not widely used in the Old Russian (and Church Slavonic) language. But it is no less obvious that the translation of the expression vladikam prevladayushchim (prevladuyushchiyim) that interests us is also quite adequate to the original Greek text. Moreover, it is even preferable, since it preserves the verbal character of the translated Greek form.
It is interesting to note that in the so - called Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible made in the late fourth and early fifth centuries by Jerome, the passage we are interested in is translated as potestatihus suhlimioribus: "to the highest authorities." Sublimioribus is a dative plural of the comparative degree of the Latin adjective sublimis with the meanings "high, lofty, towering". This adjective correlates with the verb sublimo - "to raise high, to lift up, to lift up, to exalt, to exalt high" (I. H. Dvoretsky. Latin-Russian Dictionary, Moscow, 1976, p. 965). Jerome found a variant of the translation that reflects the shades of meaning "high-standing, supreme" and "towering, highly exalted", i.e. "dominating".
Another version of the translation of the passage we are interested in is found in the so-called Chudov List of the New Testament, which was kept in the Kremlin Chudov Monastery. Here it is translated as: the powers that be. Chudovsky's list contained a translation of the New Testament texts.
page 42
books of Metropolitan Alexy (c. 1293-1378), later regent under the infant Dmitry Donskoy. Alexy made his translation during his stay in Constantinople around 1355 from the Greek list, which, according to G. Voskresensky, differed from those previously known in Russia. G. Voskresensky believes that the oldest translation, dating back to Cyril and Methodius, is distinguished by " accuracy, fidelity to the original and clarity with more or less freedom of translation "(Decree. op. p. 232), while the distinctive feature of Alexy's translation is "its literal proximity to the original Greek text "(Edict op. p. 253). However, in this case, we do not find the translation literally close to the original Greek. Why did Alexy, who knew both Greek and Church Slavonic perfectly well, translate this passage as those in power?
V. A. Dybo explains this as follows: "The point here is probably in the word vlast, which in the Church Slavonic language did not mean "power as a social institution", but only "power as an action, function" (and also as a territory, preserved in the Russian volost). If Alexy translated this passage as * Let every soul obey the highest authorities, it was perceived by the Slavs as we would perceive the phrase " let every soul obey the highest dominions (or dominions)". This is probably why the translators preferred to replace the abstraction "power as a social institution" with an understandable concrete embodiment of power - "ruling persons"" (V. A. Dybo. Edict. op. p. 9).
This explanation seems indisputable. Dictionaries of the Old Russian language record the plural of power meaning both "authorities", that is, "social institutions", and "persons invested with power" (see: Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries. Vol. 2. p. 222; Dictionary of the Old Russian language of the XI-XVI centuries. Vol. I. p. 446). So it is unlikely that an Old Russian reader of the middle of the XIV century (the time of Alexy's translation) would have misunderstood the expression vlastem vyshimy.
More interesting is another question: why did Alexy use the form prederzhashchim instead of the previously used form prevladayushchim (prevladushchiyim)? The reason for this could be the rarity of the use of the verb prevlasti in the Old Russian language. Therefore, perhaps Alexy used the participle from the more common verb prederzhati, which, like the verb prederzhati, has the meaning "to rule, to rule", and is also a full tracing of the Greek verb.
But the question of why Alexy used the expression power of the powers that be instead of the expected power of the powers that be remains unanswered. Perhaps he simply had some other list of the Apostle that has not come down to us.
page 43
The version of the translation by the power in power was included in the first complete printed Bible published by Ivan Fyodorov in 1580-1581 (the so-called Ostrog Bible). V. A. Dybo expresses a very interesting and well-founded hypothesis that the author of this version was not Ivan Fyodorov himself, but Maxim the Greek, who in 1520 translated the Explanatory Apostle from Greek (V. A. Dybo). Dybo. Decree, op. cit. p. 8). The vlastem prederzhashchim variant has been preserved in all later printed editions of the books of Holy Scripture in Church Slavonic.
In the 18th century, the expression the powers that be (and the variant the powers that be ) is quite often found in various authors and with reference to the source of the quote, and simply as a stable combination. It is not uncommon for writers of the XIX century, for example, Turgenev, Mamin-Sibiryak, N. Uspensky, Chekhov and many others. Dictionaries note that the expression of those in power in the works of the XIX-XX centuries has an ironic connotation of meaning. This is indeed the case. For example: "since, if we talk about documents, I am armed only with a passport and nothing else, then unpleasant clashes with the authorities in power are possible, but this is a passing problem" (Chekhov. Letter to A. S. Suvorin, April 15, 1890); "Bolotov's hotbed of enlightenment was not a subject of special concern either for the peasants or for the local authorities in power" (N. Uspensky. New location). The same can be said about the version of the power in power, for example: "The times were the most liberal, and the ruling authorities even condescendingly flirted with the protesting elements "(Mamin-Sibiryak. Birthday boy). However, in the speech of the characters, this expression could be devoid of an ironic connotation, for example:" This act "(he slapped his hand on the papers lying on the table) was drawn up by me, and the authorities in power were invited to witness " (Turgenev. Steppe King Lear).
The ironic connotation when using the expression the powers that be (and the power that is) arose quite naturally: this phrase shared the fate of a large layer of Church Slavonic vocabulary, the stylistic assessment of which gradually changed in the XVIII-XIX centuries. And if earlier (for example, in the works of M. V. Lomonosov and G. R. Derzhavin) Church Slavonisms belonged to a high style, by the end of the XIX century they were already considered as evidence of artificial, officiously pompous speech and were ironically evaluated negatively.
I must say that the classics allowed themselves some liberties in handling the expression we are interested in. So, in K. Fedin, there is a variant of the hand of power: "The people demand the hand of power" (Fedin. The first joys). The conjugated form of phraseology was also used: "I guessed that it was probably both the old woman and this beauty-
page 44
Central Asia is afraid of any harassment from the "powers that be" and hastened to reassure them "(Kuprin. Olesya). In this example, it is interesting to note that the author puts the participle powers that be in quotation marks, once again emphasizing its quotative character. In general, we can say that in the XVIII and XIX centuries, every literate, and illiterate Orthodox knew where these words came from, because they could not only be read in the Bible, but also heard in church during worship.
In the XX century, especially in its second half, the source of the quote was forgotten. The "free" treatment of a stable combination of powers that be in the press of the 90s became commonplace. Here are examples of such liberties from only one, and very solid, newspaper: "The powers that be made a fuss very timely" (Izvestia. 1992. March 23); "Provocations and perestroika can arise at any moment and without initiating the authorities" (Izvestia. 1992. June 12).
It is interesting that the version of the powers that be is often taken by the authors in quotation marks. The following example is indicative: "Various thoughts immediately got into smart heads, for example, about the hereditary, apparently, dullness and lack of education of the "powers that be in Russia" " (Moscow. coms. 1992. June 12). According to Vadim Poegli, the author of the material "Magnificent Yeltsin", where this statement is taken from, there is a stable phrase in Russian "those in power in Russia", which, judging by the quotation marks put by the author, is a quote from some authoritative source. Here, indeed, it is appropriate to use the apt Russian word: "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is." The same can be said about Arnold Pushkar, who in his article "He wanted to scare us" writes the following:: "In general, if Vorontsov, with his obsession with the physical destruction of communists, the destruction of those who hold power, wanted to become the hero of the day, then he miscalculated" (Izvestia. 1992. 24 Feb.). The author invented his own phraseology power holders, trying to use quotation marks to give it the authority of a well-known quote.
So do we need to show a "creative approach" to the phraseological unit of the powers that be, analyze the" internal form " of the verb to hold and, in accordance with our linguistic conclusions, use this stable expression in the form that we personally think corresponds to the norms of the Russian language? I am convinced that this should not be done. First of all, we need to remember the source of this phraseology and do not forget that this is a quote. And misrepresenting quotes is not the best way to "show your education". You should not be "creative" in this case for other reasons. First, because Oshi-
page 45
b) from the point of view of the history of both the Russian and Church Slavonic languages, the expression "powers that be" cannot, in my opinion, be considered erroneous. And secondly, it is already firmly established in the Russian literary language. Are we going to prove Turgenev, Chekhov, and other classics wrong (especially since they are right)? Too easily and simply in recent years, we have agreed to break the threads that connect us with our cultural heritage, including those imprinted in the language. And this is not at all as safe for our souls as it may seem at first glance.
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2014-2025, LIBRARY.SE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Serbia |