————————————————————————

The phrase "Judge, my friend, no more than a boot", unfortunately, became winged, began to live, so to speak, independent life, to be used where it is necessary and where it is not necessary. A.S. Pushkin, however, is not so simple. The last lines of his poem (as if the moral of the fable) somewhat neutralize negative effect from the given phrase:

I have a friend in mind:
I don't know what subject it is.
He was a connoisseur, although he is strict in words,
But the devil bears him to judge the light:
Try it to judge the boots!

The poet here notes that the work of a shoemaker is worthy of respect as the work of a professional craftsman. Moreover, he stigmatizes the one who himself, speaking modern language, has not mastered a single profession (it is not known “what subject he is an expert in”), allows himself to judge everything in the world. The poet ironically remarks: “Try to judge boots!”
____________________________________

More comments:

ivanova_ffm (93.194.80.115):
Interesting, thanks.
I would like to note that, in my opinion, in the story with the shoemaker, the point was not that he teaches the artist, but that he was pushed to do it. After all, if he, choosing a picture, said what he likes in it and what not, that would be one approach.
Well, how would that artist come to him to choose boots and, choosing, say something about the combination of colors, and when the shoemaker agreed with him, he would undertake to advise him on how thick the thread for the sole should be.
So I don’t see any lordly arrogance in Pushkin’s words.

My answer:
Thanks for the comment. However, why are you distorting my position towards strengthening? I said: "Pushkin has a slightly arrogant, lordly attitude towards the common people." And what do you write: "I don't see any lordly arrogance in Pushkin's words." Do you catch the difference? These are the nuances in the interpretation of the opponent's words that can lead to an incorrect assessment of his position.

In addition, I wrote a little lower to justify Pushkin's words:
“The phrase “Judge, my friend, no more than a boot”, unfortunately, has become winged, began to live, so to speak, its own independent life, used where it is necessary and where it is not necessary. A.S. Pushkin, however, is not so simple. The last lines his poems (as if the moral of the fable) somewhat neutralize the negative effect of this phrase:

I have a friend in mind:
I don't know what subject it is.
He was a connoisseur, although he is strict in words,
But the devil bears him to judge the light:
Try it to judge the boots!

The poet here notes that the work of a shoemaker is worthy of respect as the work of a professional craftsman. Moreover, he stigmatizes the one who, in modern terms, has not mastered a single profession (it is not known “what subject he is an expert in”), allows himself to judge everything in the world. The poet ironically remarks: “Try to judge boots!”

You, of course, have the right to interpret Pushkin's parable in the narrow sense in which you interpreted it. However, readers, as a rule, do not interpret it so cleverly. After all, the quintessence of the parable is in the words "Judge, my friend, not over the boot." These words, I repeat, began to live their own independent life and they are more often used to put someone in their place, to point him to his place, in the spirit of the saying "know your cricket hearth."
_____________________

It must be stated: the parable of the shoemaker as presented by Pushkin is not entirely perfect; there is some ambiguity in it, inconsistency. See in the main part: one specialist (shoemaker) is trying to teach another specialist (artist). And what do we see in the moral of the fable, in the last five lines?

I have a friend in mind:
I don't know what subject it is.
He was a connoisseur, although he is strict in words,
But the devil bears him to judge the light:
Try it to judge the boots!

The author of the parable criticizes a certain "friend", about whom he does not know whether he is a specialist in at least some business, directly pointing out that this "friend" does not have the moral right to judge even boots, since they were made by a specialist, an expert his business (shoemaker).

There, experts, so to speak, grappled, although they are different, but SPECIALISTS, not amateurs. And here, in a quintuple, the author condemns empty man who tries to judge everything in the world.
In a word, the moral of the parable is this: an amateur is worthy of contempt (that even he has no right to judge about boots) ... But where does “Judge, my friend, not more than a boot”? Somehow the main part of the parable does not fit with the resolution. Don't find?

________________________________________ _______________

A.P. CHEKHOV IN THE STORY "IN THE ESTATE" DESCRIBES A SIMILAR POSITION AND CONDEMNS IT:

“- As you wish, sir,” said Rashevich, “from the point of view of brotherhood, equality, and so on, Mitka the swineherd is perhaps the same person as Goethe or Frederick the Great; but stand on scientific grounds, have the courage to look the facts straight in the face, and it will become obvious to you that the white bone is not a prejudice, not a woman's invention. white bone, my dear, has a natural-historical justification, and to deny it, in my opinion, is as strange as denying the antlers of a deer. We must face the facts!

You are a lawyer and have not tasted any other sciences than the humanities, and you can still deceive yourself with illusions about equality, brotherhood and so on; I am an incorrigible Darwinist, and for me such words as breed, aristocracy, noble blood are not empty sounds. (…)

Let me appear before the grubby man not as Pavel Ilyich, but as the formidable and strong Richard Lion Heart. Let's stop being delicate with him, that's enough! Let us all agree that as soon as the grubby one comes close to us, we will throw words of disdain right into his mug: "Hands off! Cricket, know your heart!" Straight to hell! - continued Rashevich with delight, pointing in front of him with a bent finger. - Fuck it! In the face!

I can't do that," Meyer said, turning away.
- Why not? - Rashevich asked vividly, anticipating an interesting and lengthy argument. - Why not?

Because I myself am a tradesman.

Having said this, Meyer blushed, and even his neck swelled up, and even tears glistened in his eyes.

Rashevich was terribly embarrassed and, stunned, as if caught in the act of a crime, looked at Meyer in bewilderment and did not know what to say. Zhenya and Iraida blushed and bent down to the music; they were ashamed of their tactless father. A minute passed in silence, and it became unbearably ashamed, when suddenly, somehow painfully, tensely and inappropriately, the words sounded in the air:

Yes, I am a tradesman and I am proud of it.

Then Meyer, awkwardly stumbling over the furniture, said goodbye and quickly went into the hall, although the horses had not yet been brought up.
- And it will be dark for you to go today, - muttered Rashevich, following him. - The moon now rises late.

Both stood on the porch in the dark, waiting for the horses to be brought in. It was cold.

The star has fallen ... - Meyer said, wrapping himself in his coat.
- A lot of them fall in August.

When the horses were brought in, Rashevich looked attentively at the sky and said with a sigh:

A phenomenon worthy of Flammarion's pen...

After seeing the guest off, he walked around the garden, gesticulating in the dark with his hands and not wanting to believe that such a strange, stupid misunderstanding had just happened.
________________________________________ ___

Notes
1. SHOEMAKER. Published in Sovremennik, 1836, volume 3.
The poem is directed against N. Nadezhdin.

In the manuscript, the epigraph:
But it is evident from everything that he is a seminarian.
Dmitriev.
This is a slightly altered (from Dmitriev: “it can be seen from the verses”) verse from a scene translated by Dmitriev from Molière's The Learned Women.

2. “Judge, my friend, no more than a boot.” With this verse, Pushkin responds to the epigraph to Nadezhdin’s article about “Poltava”: “Take labor no more than your strength” (from Horace, translated by Merzlyakov).
The epigram is based on the story of Pliny the Elder in his book " Natural history about the Greek painter Apelles.

A shoemaker once looked for a picture
And in the shoes he indicated an error:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited the gallery folk artist Ilya Glazunov, who turned 79 today and congratulated him on his birthday. Near the gallery, the head of government was met by the birthday boy and Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Alexander Avdeev.
The gallery presents over 700 works, including monumental historical paintings, portrait painting And theatrical scenery to Russian classical operas. A large section of the exposition is devoted to the artist's illustrations for the works of Russian classic writers.
While touring the gallery, Putin lingered at several paintings, including the 1972 work Prince Oleg and Igor.
The prime minister was struck by the sword held by the prince. "The sword is a bit short, it looks like a penknife in the hands," Putin said.
The artist agreed and said that he would have to finish the painting.
"They (with a sword) seem to be cutting sausage," Putin added.
Glazunov noted the prime minister's good eye.
"I notice the details," Putin said.

Taking up the brush at once, the artist corrected himself.

Here, akimbo, the shoemaker continued:
"I think the face is a little crooked...

Considering the painting "Eternal Russia", which was created in 1988 and depicts all prominent representatives Russia for a long period, Putin asked Glazunov: "Why did they put Joseph Vissarionovich (Stalin) in the top three with Trotsky?" Glazunov said that he built the picture from a historical point of view, and Trotsky played big role in the history of Russia.

Isn't that chest too naked?"...

The painting also depicts Saints Boris and Gleb. The prime minister noted that Boris and Gleb are, of course, saints, "but you have to fight for yourself, for the country, but they gave it away without a fight."
"This cannot be an example for us - they lay down and waited to be killed," Putin expressed his point of view.

Alas, we will not wait for the finale: for Glazunov to say something like this to "Himself" is an impossible thing.

But seriously, this is another series of the play "we are blacks."

In a white state, where European courtesy is observed, the above situation is simply impossible. It is impossible not for ethical, aesthetic, ideological, or whatever reasons, but for formal ones. ON THE PROTOCOL, if you will.

Well imagine. Premier European country visits an exhibition of contemporary art, or, even better, an exposition of such, dedicated to the anniversary of a local genius. There is a premiere through the halls, on the walls - dicks, poop, ripped belly and other modern art. The prime minister “does not blink an eye”, smiles, makes jokes within the permitted limits, does not show education. In front of a canvas with toothy dicks - “Of course, I’m not well versed in contemporary art, but it reminds me a bit of a meeting of the budget committee.” Politically incorrect pictures are carefully bypassed, disgraceful does not notice. If he looks into the artist's studio - again, nothing but smooth courtesy and light irony. As a last resort - "my mother, most likely, would not hang this in her bedroom." Next, the artist is hung around the neck of the Small State Medal of the second degree and allocate a decent pension. And that's it.

For an official of his level CANNOT HAVE an OPINION on some subjects. A list of which is attached to the documents on taking office. To these subjects, he can publicly show only one attitude - "a half-bow, a smile, the polite irony of a high-ranking amateur."

And here art - any - to such subjects concerns without fail. Even if you are a connoisseur of Renaissance painting, it doesn't matter. For there is ORDER.

Of course, this is for whites. For blacks and Soviets, there was the "Stalinist style" - when the "first person" not only allows himself, but also systematically TEACHES everyone around: a steelmaker - how to temper steel in a Stalinist way, a collective farmer - how to scatter manure in a Marxist-Leninist way, teachers - how to teach mathematics, without falling into excesses, but the artist - how and what to draw. But this is the norm for a state lowered below the plinth, and by no means rising from any knees.

And here - "the sword is short." And a slavishly bent serf-undercoat - "we'll fix it right away, sir." This is - - -

A shoemaker once looked for a picture
And in the shoes he indicated an error:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited the gallery of People's Artist Ilya Glazunov, who turned 79 today, and congratulated him on his birthday. Near the gallery, the head of government was met by the birthday boy and Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Alexander Avdeev.
The gallery presents over 700 works, including monumental historical paintings, portraiture and theatrical scenery for Russian classical operas. A large section of the exposition is devoted to the artist's illustrations for the works of Russian classic writers.
While touring the gallery, Putin lingered at several paintings, including the 1972 work Prince Oleg and Igor.
The prime minister was struck by the sword held by the prince. "The sword is a bit short, it looks like a penknife in the hands," Putin said.
The artist agreed and said that he would have to finish the painting.
"They (with a sword) seem to be cutting sausage," Putin added.
Glazunov noted the prime minister's good eye.
"I notice the details," Putin said.

Taking up the brush at once, the artist corrected himself.

Here, akimbo, the shoemaker continued:
"I think the face is a little crooked...

Looking at the painting "Eternal Russia", which was created in 1988 and depicts all the brightest representatives of Russia over a long period, Putin asked Glazunov: "Why did they put Joseph Vissarionovich (Stalin) in the top three with Trotsky?" Glazunov said that he built the picture from a historical point of view, and Trotsky played a big role in the history of Russia.

Isn't that chest too naked?"...

The painting also depicts Saints Boris and Gleb. The prime minister noted that Boris and Gleb are, of course, saints, "but you have to fight for yourself, for the country, but they gave it away without a fight."
"This cannot be an example for us - they lay down and waited to be killed," Putin expressed his point of view.

Alas, we will not wait for the finale: for Glazunov to say something like this to "Himself" is an impossible thing.

But seriously, this is another series of the play "we are blacks."

In a white state, where European courtesy is observed, the above situation is simply impossible. It is impossible not for ethical, aesthetic, ideological, or whatever reasons, but for formal ones. ON THE PROTOCOL, if you will.

Well imagine. The prime minister of a European country visits an exhibition of contemporary art, or, even better, an exposition of such, dedicated to the anniversary of a local genius. There is a premiere through the halls, on the walls - dicks, poop, ripped belly and other modern art. The prime minister “does not blink an eye”, smiles, makes jokes within the permitted limits, does not show education. In front of a canvas with toothy members - "of course, I'm not well versed in contemporary art, but this reminds me a little of a meeting of the budget committee." Politically incorrect pictures are carefully bypassed, disgraceful does not notice. If he looks into the artist's studio - again, nothing but smooth courtesy and light irony. As a last resort - "my mother, most likely, would not hang this in her bedroom." Next, the artist is hung around the neck of the Small State Medal of the second degree and allocate a decent pension. And that's it.

For an official of his level CANNOT HAVE an OPINION on some subjects. A list of which is attached to the documents on taking office. To these subjects, he can publicly show only one attitude - "a half-bow, a smile, the polite irony of a high-ranking amateur."

And here art - any - to such subjects applies without fail. Even if you are a connoisseur of Renaissance painting, it doesn't matter. For there is ORDER.

Of course, this is for whites. For blacks and Soviets, there was the "Stalinist style" - when the "first person" not only allows himself, but also systematically TEACHES everyone around: a steelmaker - how to temper steel in a Stalinist way, a collective farmer - how to scatter manure in a Marxist-Leninist way, teachers - how to teach mathematics, without falling into excesses, but the artist - how and what to draw. But this is the norm for a state lowered below the plinth, and by no means rising from any knees.

And here - the "sword is short." And servilely bent serf-undercoater - "I'll fix it right away, sir." This is - - -

encyclopedic Dictionary winged words and expressions Serov Vadim Vasilievich

Let the shoemaker judge no higher than the boot

Let the shoemaker judge no higher than the boot

From Latin: Ne sutor supra crepidam judicet[ne sutor supra krapidam yudicet].

The words that, according to legend, the famous ancient Greek painter uttered Apelles in response to the remarks of an uninvited profane adviser.

Quoted as advice to critics to only speak their mind on matters they understand and not to judge what they are ignorant of. A. S. Pushkin ("Shoemaker"):

A shoemaker once looked for a picture

And he pointed out the error in the shoes;

Taking up the brush at once, the artist corrected himself.

Here, akimbo, the shoemaker continued:

“I think the face is a little crooked...

Isn't that chest too naked?"...

Here Apelles interrupted impatiently:

“Judge, my friend, no higher than the boot!”