The meaning of the lyrics of the song "Sitting in a circle beneath an azalea." (Kak v krujok usevschis pod azaliey) the performer of the song "Vladimir Vysotsky"

Don't grab at strangers' waists,

Breaking free from your friends' embrace.

Remember how to Australia's shores,

The now-deceased Cook did sail.

How, gathered 'neath azaleas' shade,

From dawn till dusk, a gruesome spree,

In sunny Australia they ate,

Each other, those fierce cannibals.

But why did the aborigines eat Cook?

The reason's lost, science stays mute.

To me, it seems a simple case:

They felt like eating – and ate Cook.

Some say their chief, a stubborn bloke,

Cried out that Cook's ship held tasty coke.

A mix-up happened – that's the untold part,

They craved the coke, but ate Cook's heart.

There was no trick, no hidden scheme,

They came unseen, a silent stream,

Unleashed their bamboo club with might –

Thwack! – right between the eyes – no more Cook in sight.

But wait, another theory's spread,

That Cook was eaten out of respect, they said.

The sorcerer, a sly and wicked fella,

Incited them: "Get him, boys! It's Cook, the fella!"

"Who eats him up, no salt, no onion,

Will be strong, brave, and kind, just like our Cook-ion!"

Someone grabbed a rock nearby,

Hurled it, the snake, and Cook did die.

And now the savages are fraught with grief,

Wringing their hands, their weapons cleave,

Burning their bamboo clubs in a heap –

Regretting deeply that they'd eaten Cook.

Не хватайтесь за чужие талии,

Вырвавшись из рук своих подруг.

Вспомните, как к берегам Австралии,

Подплывал покойный ныне Кук.

Как в кружок, усевшись под азалии,

Поедом с восхода до зари,

Ели в этой солнечной Австралии

Друга дружку злые дикари.

Но почему аборигены съели Кука?

За что - неясно,- молчит наука.

Мне представляется совсем простая штука:

Хотели кушать - и съели Кука.

Есть вариант, что ихний вождь - большая бука,-

Кричал, что очень вкусный кок на судне Кука.

Ошибка вышла - вот о чем молчит наука,-

Хотели кока, а съели Кука.

И вовсе не было подвоха или трюка,

Вошли без стука, почти без звука,

Пустили в действие дубинку из бамбука -

Тюк!- прямо в темя - и нету Кука.

Но есть, однако же, еще предположенье,

Что Кука съели из большого уваженья.

Что всех науськивал колдун - хитрец и злюка:

- Ату, ребята! хватайте Кука!

Кто уплетет его без соли и без лука,

Тот сильным, смелым, добрым будет, вроде Кука!-

Кому-то под руку попался каменюка,-

Метнул, гадюка, и нету Кука.

А дикари теперь заламывают руки,

Ломают копья, ломают луки,

Сожгли и бросили дубинки из бамбука,-

Переживают, что съели Кука.

Vladimir Vysotsky's song "Sitting in a Circle Under the Azalea" mocks the tendency of some people to seek complex explanations where everything is much simpler. Under the guise of a story about the death of James Cook, the author ironically presents various versions of what happened, bringing them to the point of absurdity.

The first version is banal hunger. The natives, having gathered in a circle under the azalea, simply ate Cook because they were hungry. Vysotsky deliberately simplifies the situation, discarding possible details and motives.

The second version is a mistake. The leader of the tribe, mistaking Cook for the cook, ordered him seized. And again the humor lies in the absurdity: the confusion that led to the tragedy makes fun of prejudice and shortsightedness.

The third version is murder out of banal cruelty. The natives, armed with clubs, dealt with Cook without further ado. This emphasizes the primitiveness and ruthlessness inherent in the stereotypical image of "savages."

The fourth version is murder out of "respect." The cunning sorcerer convinced his fellow tribesmen that by eating Cook, they would gain strength and courage. This version ridicules fanaticism, gullibility, and the willingness to believe in absurd ideas.

The final scene is the repentance of the natives. Realizing that they killed Cook in vain, they regret what they did. This ironic ending emphasizes the absurdity of all the versions presented.

Thus, Vysotsky's song is not a historical reconstruction, but a satirical reflection on human stupidity, prejudice, and the tendency to look for complex explanations where everything is much simpler.