The more deeply rooted the belonging, the more "authentic" it is, the more ineradicable it is, the more it is based on idioms that seem deep but are perhaps very insignificant, real idioties, both in the French [and Russian] sense of the word, and in the Greek sense, where idion means "one's own." The more a thing belongs to us as our property, the more we actually belong to it; But this does not mean that such a thing is in some special way "inexhaustible". Sexuality is one of these things, along with language. John tells us that the maidservant was young, and perhaps this is not an accidental detail.

We are all obsessed with language and sex. This is undoubtedly true. But why should we always talk about this in the tone of the obsessed? Perhaps there are better options. Peter now sees that he has failed to deceive the people in the courtyard, and he continues to deny his teacher, no longer in order to convince them, but in order to sever the ties by which he was bound to Jesus, and at the same time to make new ties with those around him: "But he began to swear and to swear, I do not know this man of whom you speak" (Mark 14:11). 71).

We are talking about a truly religious relationship (from the Latin religare - "to bind"). And so Peter resorts to oaths, just as Herod did in his overly generous offer to Salome. Strong expressions and angry gestures are addressed not to Peter's interlocutors, but to Jesus himself. Peter makes Jesus his sacrifice in order to stop being a kind of small sacrifice himself, as first the handmaiden makes of him, then the whole group. What these people do to Peter, Peter would like to do to them in return, but he cannot. He is not strong enough to triumph over them through revenge. Therefore, he tries to reconcile with his enemies by making an alliance with them against Jesus, treating Jesus to please them and in front of them, just as they themselves treat him. In the eyes of these faithful servants, Jesus must necessarily be a villain, since it was decided to arrest him, because he was being brutally interrogated. And the best way to make friends in an unfriendly world is to join in their enmity, to learn from others their enemies. In such cases, we always say the same thing to these others: "We are all from the same clan, we form the same group, because we have the same scapegoat."

At the heart of Peter's denial, of course, is fear, but, above all, shame. Like impudence (which Peter had shown a little earlier), shame is a mimetic feeling, one might say the main mimetic feeling. To experience it, I must look at myself through the eyes of someone in front of whom I am ashamed. That is, you need to imagine intensively, and this is the same as slavishly imitating. To imagine, to imitate—these two terms are actually the same. Peter is ashamed of Jesus, whom everyone despises, ashamed of the model he has chosen for himself, and therefore ashamed of himself.

The desire to be accepted is inflamed by the obstacles that arise in front of him. Therefore, Peter is ready to pay very dearly for the admission that the maid and her friends refuse him, but the intensity of his desire, aroused by the intensity of situational interaction, belongs entirely to this place and time. This is nothing more than one of those petty baseness that everyone commits and that no one remembers after they have committed it. We shouldn't be amazed that Peter betrayed his teacher like that, so lowly, we all do the same thing. What is striking is that of the structure, persecutory and sacrificial, which we find in its entirety in the scene of the renunciation, and which is rewritten in its entirety, as accurately as in the murder of John the Baptist or in the story of the Passion.

It is in the light of this structural identity between all three episodes that I think some of Matthew's words should be interpreted; And their legal meaning can be considered nothing more than an external shell. What Jesus is telling people is the structural equivalent of all persecutory behaviors:

Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, but whoever killeth shall be liable to judgment. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment; Whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Cancer,' shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever says, "foolish," is liable to hell fire (Mt 5:21-22).

The best way to avoid being crucified is to ultimately do what everyone else does and participate in the crucifixion yourself. Thus, Peter's denial is one of the episodes of the Passion, a kind of vortex, a small whirlpool in a wide stream of victimized mimeticism, which carries everyone to Golgotha.

The amazing power of this text is also manifested in the fact that anyone who does not realize its true meaning immediately feels the consequences for himself and reproduces the structure of Peter's denial himself. Most often, this deviation from the true meaning looks like an appeal to the "psychology of the prince of the apostles," that is, Peter. But to understand someone's psychology always means to blame him. Peter's accusation usually ends with an acquittal with a tinge of reproach: although not a completely bad man, Peter is not quite good; it cannot be counted on; He is changeable, impulsive, a little weak-willed. In short, he is like Pilate, and Pilate is like Herod, who is like anyone. In the final analysis, there is nothing more monotonous, nothing more simplistic than this mimetic psychology of the Gospels. Perhaps this is not psychology at all. When viewed from a distance, it looks like an infinite variety of the world - so fascinating, exciting, satiating. And when viewed from a distance, it is always composed of the same elements, like our own existence, which, in truth, does not fascinate us in the least.

Thus, the same eternal religion is formed anew around the fire, flavored with sacrifices, protecting the inviolability of the language and household gods, the purity of the family cult. Peter is attracted to all this, and it is quite "natural". We ourselves should be attracted to this, since we reproach the God of the Bible for depriving us of all this. He deprived me out of pure malice, we say. Indeed, one would have to be very evil to expose the persecutory aspect of this age-old religion that still holds us under its grip on countless tethers. Indeed, the Gospel does not almond with the shameful persecutors that we all remain. Even today, in our most banal behavior, as we sit around a fire, it recognizes the ancient gesture of Aztec priests or witch-hunters throwing their prey into the fire.

Like all defectors, Peter demonstrates the sincerity of his conversion by denouncing his former friends. We are used to looking at the moral side of renunciation, but we need to see its anthropological aspect as well. With his curses and curses, Peter invites those around him to enter into a kind of conspiracy with him. Every human group bound by an oath forms a conspiracy, but first of all we apply the word to a group that conspires to kill a person. In the same way, this word is applied to the rites of exorcism, to magical practices directed against someone else's magic...

In many initiation rites, the test consists of some act of violence - the killing of an animal, and sometimes a person, who is considered an opponent of this group as a whole. To achieve belonging to a group, you need to turn its opponent into your victim. Peter resorts to oaths, that is, to religious formulas, in order to give his renunciation the force of initiation, which opens him the entrance to the group of persecutors.