ну в общем, это оказалась коротенькая статья (эссе), так что пересказывать нет особого смысла Сперва удалось найти только русский текст, но потом нашелся оригинал в зоне ru, а потом и гутенберговская подборка статей Оруэлла в Австралии. На первый взгляд тексты идентичные Всё нарытое тут
Спойлер
Эссе «The Sporting Spirit» было написано английским писателем Джорджем Оруэллом в декабре 1945 года. Поводом к его появлению стал футбольный матч между московским клубом «Динамо» и лондонским Arsenal, устроенный в столице Великобритании с целью укрепления дружбы между двумя народами. Однако в реальности все произошло с точностью до наоборот. Матч спровоцировал усиление антисоветских настроений в британском обществе и в итоге стал своего рода предтечей фултонской речи Уинстонна Черчилля, ознаменовавшей собой, как известно, начало «холодной войны». Этот давно забытый эпизод являет собой прекрасное свидетельство того, сколько политической мощи таит в себе большой спорт.
Дж.Оруэлл СПОРТИВНЫЙ ДУХ Теперь, когда визит футбольной команды «Динамо» подошел к концу, появилась возможность открыто сказать то, над чем многие задумывались задолго до приезда динамовцев. Спорт не перестает быть источником зла, и если этот визит и повлиял каким-либо образом на англо-советские отношения, то только в сторону их ухудшения. Пресса и не пыталась скрыть тот факт, что как минимум два из четырех матчей оставили после себя крайне неприятный осадок. Очевидцы рассказывали мне, что во время встречи «Динамо» и Arsenal произошла стычка между британским и русским игроком и публика была крайне недовольна реакцией арбитра на это происшествие. А со слов приятеля, побывавшего на матче в Глазго, я знаю, что эта игра с самого начала превратилась в массовую драку. А могло ли быть иначе? Я всякий раз удивляюсь, когда слышу, что спорт якобы способствует укреплению доброй воли и взаимопониманию между народами и что если бы люди из разных стран имели возможность выяснять отношения на полях для футбола или крикета, они гораздо реже брались бы за настоящее оружие. Практически все современные виды спорта предполагают соревновательность. Главное в большом спорте – это победы. Фактически ты обязан из него уйти, если не можешь сделать ради выигрыша все возможное. Если ты вышел погонять мяч на лужайке во дворе, команды формируются произвольно и ты можешь спокойно размяться в свое удовольствие, не пудря мозги себе и другим патриотическими сантиментами. Но как только речь заходит о престиже, как только выясняется, что ты занимаешься спортом ради чьей-то там чести и в случае твоего проигрыша на нее ляжет пятно позора, в тебе сразу просыпаются глубинные первобытные инстинкты. Каждый, кому доводилось выступать за школьную футбольную команду, знаком с этим ощущением. Международные соревнования – это квази-война. Но самое главное – не поведение спортсменов, а реакция публики и тех, кто за ней стоит. Целые народы начинают исходить желчью из-за этих абсурдных игрищ. А ведь многие всерьез полагают (особенно те, кто находится на стадионе), что умение бегать, прыгать и пинать мячик есть мерило достоинств всей нации. Даже такая спокойная игра, как крикет, в которой требуется не столько сила, сколько изящество, может выступить в роли яблока раздора. Вспомним, как в 1932 году англичане возненавидели команду Австралии за ее бесчеловечную тактику: австралийцы целились мячом в соперника, чтобы нанести ему травму. Футбол же намного хуже, ведь в нем и дня не проходит без серьезных травм, а у каждой национальной школы есть свой стиль игры, к которому другие относятся с большим недоверием. Но самый ужасный вид спорта – это бокс. Поединок белого и цветного боксеров при смешанной аудитории – одно из самых кошмарных зрелищ, которые только можно себе представить. Всеобщее помешательство англичан на спорте, конечно, ужасно, но еще хуже обстоят дела в странах, лишь недавно появившихся на карте, для которых понятия «национальная команда» и «национальное самосознание» пока в новинку. В таких странах, как Индия и Бирма, при проведении футбольных матчей перед трибунами приходится выставлять мощные полицейские кордоны, чтобы обезумевшая толпа не выскочила на поле. В Бирме мне довелось увидеть, как болельщики одной из команд прорвались через оцепление и в решающий момент вывели из строя вратаря другой команды. Первый же серьезный футбольный матч в Испании, прошедший лет пятнадцать назад, привел к массовым уличным беспорядкам. Как только футболисты начинают видеть в сопернике кровного врага, они забывают, что играть нужно по правилам. В большом спорте нет места справедливой игре. Зато в нем в избытке присутствуют ненависть, зависть, хвастовство, полное неуважение к каким бы то ни было правилам и садистское удовлетворение от лицезрения насилия. Иначе говоря, это та же война, только без стрельбы. Вместо того чтобы растекаться мыслию по древу, доказывая, что на футбольном поле сражаются высоконравственные рыцари, а Олимпийские игры – важный шаг к всеобщей дружбе народов, не лучше ли спросить себя, откуда в современном мире возник этот культ спорта. Большинство игр, в которые мы играем, были придуманы еще в древности, однако с античных времен и до XIX столетия никому не приходило в голову принимать их близко к сердцу. Даже в английских частных школах до конца XIX века к спорту никто не относился серьезно: доктор Арнольд, считающийся основателем системы современных частных школ, полагал, что спорт – не более чем пустая трата времени. Затем в Англии и США спорт обрел способность притягивать толпы болельщиков и возбуждать дикарские страсти, в него пришли большие деньги. Вскоре эта зараза распространилась и на другие страны. Наибольшую же популярность завоевали виды спорта, предполагающие непримиримое соперничество и насилие, – бокс и футбол. Нет сомнений, что это связано с подъемом национализма, с этой идиотской современной привычкой идентифицировать себя с более крупными единицами, наделенными силой и властью, и сравнивать весь мир с собственным болотцем, которое, разумеется, лучше всех прочих. И еще: коллективные игры процветают в городских сообществах, члены которых ведут, как правило, сидячий образ жизни и почти лишены возможности работать на природе. В сельских сообществах мальчик или молодой человек выплескивает накопившуюся энергию в ходьбу пешком, плавание, игру в снежки, лазанье по деревьям, верховую езду, а также на жестокие по отношению к животным развлечения: рыбную ловлю, петушиные бои и выкуривание крыс из нор. В большом городе к услугам тех, кому нужно куда-то деть свою физическую энергию и садистские импульсы, имеются командные игры. В Лондоне и Нью-Йорке к играм относятся очень серьезно. Также относились к ним в Древнем Риме и Византии. Спорт существовал и в Средние века, причем многие игры, вероятно, отличались жестокостью, но тогда никому не приходило в голову смешивать их с политикой или предаваться из-за них коллективной ненависти. Если вы хотите усугубить существующую в мире напряженность, устройте серию футбольных матчей между евреями и арабами, немцами и чехами, индийцами и британцами, русскими и поляками, итальянцами и югославами – и не забудьте позвать болельщиков обеих сторон на стотысячные трибуны. Я, конечно, не имею в виду, что спорт – одна из причин мировых конфликтов. Я думаю, что мировые турниры на уровне сборных есть лишь побочный продукт национализма. Тем не менее, если вы берете одиннадцать человек, вешаете на них ярлык «чемпионы страны», посылаете на футбольное поле сражаться против команды другого государства и во всеуслышание объявляете, что на кону честь нации, не думаю, что этим вы улучшаете международную обстановку. Именно поэтому я надеюсь, что мы не отправим британских футболистов в СССР в ответ на визит «Динамо». Если нам все же придется кого-то туда послать, давайте выберем какую-нибудь заштатную команду, которая гарантированно проиграет все матчи, но никто не сможет сказать, что они представляют весь английский футбол. В отношениях между нашими странами и так не все ладно, так зачем же заставлять молодых людей ставить друг другу подножки под рев разъяренной толпы?
----------------- смотрим на языке оригинала на австралийском сайте:
THE SPORTING SPIRIT Now that the brief visit of the Dynamo football team has come to an end, it is possible to say publicly what many thinking people were saying privately before the Dynamos ever arrived. That is, that sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will, and that if such a visit as this had any effect at all on Anglo-Soviet relations, it could only be to make them slightly worse than before. Even the newspapers have been unable to conceal the fact that at least two of the four matches played led to much bad feeling. At the Arsenal match, I am told by someone who was there, a British and a Russian player came to blows and the crowd booed the referee. The Glasgow match, someone else informs me, was simply a free-for-all from the start. And then there was the controversy, typical of our nationalistic age, about the composition of the Arsenal team. Was it really an all-England team, as claimed by the Russians, or merely a league team, as claimed by the British? And did the Dynamos end their tour abruptly in order to avoid playing an all-England team? As usual, everyone answers these questions according to his political predilections. Not quite everyone, however. I noted with interest, as an instance of the vicious passions that football provokes, that the sporting correspondent of the russophile NEWS CHRONICLE took the anti-Russian line and maintained that Arsenal was NOT an all-England team. No doubt the controversy will continue to echo for years in the footnotes of history books. Meanwhile the result of the Dynamos' tour, in so far as it has had any result, will have been to create fresh animosity on both sides. And how could it be otherwise? I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn't know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles. Nearly all the sports practised nowadays are competitive. You play to win, and the game has little meaning unless you do your utmost to win. On the village green, where you pick up sides and no feeling of local patriotism is involved, it is possible to play simply for the fun and exercise: but as soon as the question of prestige arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a school football match knows this. At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe–at any rate for short periods–that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue. Even a leisurely game like cricket, demanding grace rather than strength, can cause much ill-will, as we saw in the controversy over body-line bowling and over the rough tactics of the Australian team that visited England in 1921. Football, a game in which everyone gets hurt and every nation has its own style of play which seems unfair to foreigners, is far worse. Worst of all is boxing. One of the most horrible sights in the world is a fight between white and coloured boxers before a mixed audience. But a boxing audience is always disgusting, and the behaviour of the women, in particular, is such that the army, I believe, does not allow them to attend its contests. At any rate, two or three years ago, when Home Guards and regular troops were holding a boxing tournament, I was placed on guard at the door of the hall, with orders to keep the women out. In England, the obsession with sport is bad enough, but even fiercer passions are aroused in young countries where games playing and nationalism are both recent developments. In countries like India or Burma, it is necessary at football matches to have strong cordons of police to keep the crowd from invading the field. In Burma, I have seen the supporters of one side break through the police and disable the goalkeeper of the opposing side at a critical moment. The first big football match that was played in Spain about fifteen years ago led to an uncontrollable riot. As soon as strong feelings of rivalry are aroused, the notion of playing the game according to the rules always vanishes. People want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated, and they forget that victory gained through cheating or through the intervention of the crowd is meaningless. Even when the spectators don't intervene physically they try to influence the game by cheering their own side and "rattling" opposing players with boos and insults. Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting. Instead of blah-blahing about the clean, healthy rivalry of the football field and the great part played by the Olympic Games in bringing the nations together, it is more useful to inquire how and why this modern cult of sport arose. Most of the games we now play are of ancient origin, but sport does not seem to have been taken very seriously between Roman times and the nineteenth century. Even in the English public schools the games cult did not start till the later part of the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school, looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States, games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism–that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige. Also, organised games are more likely to flourish in urban communities where the average human being lives a sedentary or at least a confined life, and does not get much opportunity for creative labour. In a rustic community a boy or young man works off a good deal of his surplus energy by walking, swimming, snowballing, climbing trees, riding horses, and by various sports involving cruelty to animals, such as fishing, cock-fighting and ferreting for rats. In a big town one must indulge in group activities if one wants an outlet for one's physical strength or for one's sadistic impulses. Games are taken seriously in London and New York, and they were taken seriously in Rome and Byzantium: in the Middle Ages they were played, and probably played with much physical brutality, but they were not mixed up with politics nor a cause of group hatreds. If you wanted to add to the vast fund of ill-will existing in the world at this moment, you could hardly do it better than by a series of football matches between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Russians and Poles, and Italians and Jugoslavs, each match to be watched by a mixed audience of 100,000 spectators. I do not, of course, suggest that sport is one of the main causes of international rivalry; big-scale sport is itself, I think, merely another effect of the causes that have produced nationalism. Still, you do make things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions, to do battle against some rival team, and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation is defeated will "lose face". I hope, therefore, that we shan't follow up the visit of the Dynamos by sending a British team to the USSR. If we must do so, then let us send a second-rate team which is sure to be beaten and cannot be claimed to represent Britain as a whole. There are quite enough real causes of trouble already, and we need not add to them by encouraging young men to kick each other on the shins amid the roars of infuriated spectators.
Now that the brief visit of the Dynamo football team has come to an end, it is possible to say publicly what many thinking people were saying privately before the Dynamos ever arrived. That is, that sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will, and that if such a visit as this had any effect at all on Anglo-Soviet relations, it could only be to make them slightly worse than before.
Even the newspapers have been unable to conceal the fact that at least two of the four matches played led to much bad feeling. At the Arsenal match, I am told by someone who was there, a British and a Russian player came to blows and the crowd booed the referee. The Glasgow match, someone else informs me, was simply a free-for-all from the start. And then there was the controversy, typical of our nationalistic age, about the composition of the Arsenal team. Was it really an all-England team, as claimed by the Russians, or merely a league team, as claimed by the British? And did the Dynamos end their tour abruptly in order to avoid playing an all-England team? As usual, everyone answers these questions according to his political predilections. Not quite everyone, however. I noted with interest, as an instance of the vicious passions that football provokes, that the sporting correspondent of the russophile News Chronicle took the anti-Russian line and maintained that Arsenal was not an all-England team. No doubt the controversy will continue to echo for years in the footnotes of history books. Meanwhile the result of the Dynamos' tour, in so far as it has had any result, will have been to create fresh animosity on both sides.
And how could it be otherwise? I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn't know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles.
Nearly all the sports practised nowadays are competitive. You play to win, and the game has little meaning unless you do your utmost to win. On the village green, where you pick up sides and no feeling of local patriotism is involved. it is possible to play simply for the fun and exercise: but as soon as the question of prestige arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a school football match knows this. At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe — at any rate for short periods — that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.
Even a leisurely game like cricket, demanding grace rather than strength, can cause much ill-will, as we saw in the controversy over body-line bowling and over the rough tactics of the Australian team that visited England in 1921. Football, a game in which everyone gets hurt and every nation has its own style of play which seems unfair to foreigners, is far worse. Worst of all is boxing. One of the most horrible sights in the world is a fight between white and coloured boxers before a mixed audience. But a boxing audience is always disgusting, and the behaviour of the women, in particular, is such that the army, I believe, does not allow them to attend its contests. At any rate, two or three years ago, when Home Guards and regular troops were holding a boxing tournament, I was placed on guard at the door of the hall, with orders to keep the women out.
In England, the obsession with sport is bad enough, but even fiercer passions are aroused in young countries where games playing and nationalism are both recent developments. In countries like India or Burma, it is necessary at football matches to have strong cordons of police to keep the crowd from invading the field. In Burma, I have seen the supporters of one side break through the police and disable the goalkeeper of the opposing side at a critical moment. The first big football match that was played in Spain about fifteen years ago led to an uncontrollable riot. As soon as strong feelings of rivalry are aroused, the notion of playing the game according to the rules always vanishes. People want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated, and they forget that victory gained through cheating or through the intervention of the crowd is meaningless. Even when the spectators don't intervene physically they try to influence the game by cheering their own side and “rattling” opposing players with boos and insults. Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.
Instead of blah-blahing about the clean, healthy rivalry of the football field and the great part played by the Olympic Games in bringing the nations together, it is more useful to inquire how and why this modern cult of sport arose. Most of the games we now play are of ancient origin, but sport does not seem to have been taken very seriously between Roman times and the nineteenth century. Even in the English public schools the games cult did not start till the later part of the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school, looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States, games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism — that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige. Also, organised games are more likely to flourish in urban communities where the average human being lives a sedentary or at least a confined life, and does not get much opportunity for creative labour. In a rustic community a boy or young man works off a good deal of his surplus energy by walking, swimming, snowballing, climbing trees, riding horses, and by various sports involving cruelty to animals, such as fishing, cock-fighting and ferreting for rats. In a big town one must indulge in group activities if one wants an outlet for one's physical strength or for one's sadistic impulses. Games are taken seriously in London and New York, and they were taken seriously in Rome and Byzantium: in the Middle Ages they were played, and probably played with much physical brutality, but they were not mixed up with politics nor a cause of group hatreds.
If you wanted to add to the vast fund of ill-will existing in the world at this moment, you could hardly do it better than by a series of football matches between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Russians and Poles, and Italians and Jugoslavs, each match to be watched by a mixed audience of 100,000 spectators. I do not, of course, suggest that sport is one of the main causes of international rivalry; big-scale sport is itself, I think, merely another effect of the causes that have produced nationalism. Still, you do make things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions, to do battle against some rival team, and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation is defeated will “lose face”.
I hope, therefore, that we shan't follow up the visit of the Dynamos by sending a British team to the USSR. If we must do so, then let us send a second-rate team which is sure to be beaten and cannot be claimed to represent Britain as a whole. There are quite enough real causes of trouble already, and we need not add to them by encouraging young men to kick each other on the shins amid the roars of infuriated spectators.
1945 THE END
____BD____ George Orwell: ‘The Sporting Spirit’ First published: Tribune. — GB, London. — December 1945. Reprinted: — ‘Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays’. — 1950. — ‘The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell’. — 1968. ____ Machine-readable version: O. Dag Last modified on: 2015-09-24
у аффтара местами более жестко и конкретно
надо бы почитать, однако...
так что пересказывать нет особого смысла
Сперва удалось найти только русский текст,
но потом нашелся оригинал в зоне ru,
а потом и гутенберговская подборка статей Оруэлла
в Австралии.
На первый взгляд тексты идентичные
Всё нарытое тут