Quotes by larochefoucauld. Biographies, stories, facts, photos

Clever and cynical French duke - this is how Somerset Maugham described La Rochefoucauld. Refined style, accuracy, laconicism and a severity in assessments, not indisputable for most readers, made La Rochefoucauld's Maxims, perhaps, the most famous and popular among collections of aphorisms. Their author went down in history as a subtle observer, clearly disappointed in life - although his biography evokes associations with the heroes of the novels of Alexandre Dumas. This romantic and adventurous hypostasis of him is now almost forgotten. But most researchers agree that the foundations of the gloomy philosophy of the duke lie precisely in his complex fate, full of adventures, misunderstanding and disappointed hopes.

Family tree

La Rochefoucauld is an ancient aristocratic family name. This family dates back to the 11th century, from Foucault I Senor de Laroche, whose descendants still live in the family castle of La Rochefoucauld near Angoulême. The eldest sons in this family have served as advisers to the French kings since ancient times. Many who bore this surname went down in history. François I La Rochefoucauld was the godfather of the French king Francis I. François III was one of the leaders of the Huguenots. François XII became the founder of the French Savings Bank and a friend of the great American natural scientist Benjamin Franklin.

Our hero was the sixth in the La Rochefoucauld family. François VI Duke de La Rochefoucauld, Prince Marciillac, Marquis de Guercheville, Comte de Larocheville, Baron de Verteuil, Montignac and Cayusac was born on September 15, 1613 in Paris. His father, François V Comte de La Rochefoucauld, was the chief wardrobe master of Queen Marie de Medici, was married to the equally eminent Gabrielle du Plessis-Liancourt. Shortly after the birth of François, his mother took him to the Verteil estate in Angumua, where he spent his childhood. My father stayed to make a career at court and, as it turned out, not in vain. Soon, the queen bestowed upon him the post of lieutenant general of the province of Poitou and 45 thousand livres of income. Having received this position, he began to struggle diligently with the Protestants. All the more zealous because his father and grandfather were not Catholics. François III, one of the leaders of the Huguenots, died on St. Bartholomew's Night, and François IV was killed by members of the Catholic League in 1591. François V converted to Catholicism, and in 1620 he was awarded the title of duke for his successful struggle against the Protestants. True, until the time when the parliament approved the patent, he was the so-called "provisional duke" - the duke of the royal charter.

But even then, the ducal splendor already demanded large expenses. He spent so much money that his wife soon had to demand a separate property.

The upbringing of children - François had four brothers and seven sisters - was taken care of by the mother, while the duke, on the days of his short visits, devoted them to the secrets of court life. From an early age, he instilled in his eldest son a sense of noble honor, as well as feudal loyalty to the Condé house. La Rochefoucauld's vassal relationship with this branch of the royal house has been preserved since the days when both were Huguenots.

Marsillac's education, common to a nobleman at the time, included grammar, mathematics, Latin, dance, fencing, heraldry, etiquette, and many other disciplines. Young Marsiyak treated his studies, like most boys, but he was extremely partial to novels. The beginning of the 17th century was a time of immense popularity of this literary genre - chivalrous, adventurous, pastoral novels were published in abundance. Their heroes - sometimes gallant warriors, then impeccable admirers - served then as ideals for noble young people.

When François was fourteen years old, his father decided to marry him to Andre de Vivonne - the second daughter and heiress (her sister died early) of the former chief falconer Andre de Vivonne.

Disgraced Colonel

In the same year, François received the rank of colonel in the Auvergne regiment and in 1629 took part in the Italian campaigns - military operations in northern Italy, which France conducted as part of the Thirty Years War. Returning to Paris in 1631, he found the courtyard greatly changed. After the "Day of the Fooled" in November 1630, when Queen Mother Marie de Medici, who demanded Richelieu's resignation and was already celebrating victory, was soon forced to flee, many of her followers, including the Duke de La Rochefoucauld, shared disgrace with her. The duke was removed from the administration of the province of Poitou and exiled to his home near Blois. François himself, who, as the eldest son of the duke, bore the title of Prince of Marsillac, was allowed to remain at court. Many contemporaries reproached him for arrogance, since the title of prince in France was due only to princes of the blood and foreign princes.

In Paris, Marciillac began to visit the fashionable salon of Madame Rambouillet. In its famous "Blue Drawing Room" influential politicians, writers and poets, aristocrats gathered. Richelieu dropped in, Paul de Gondi, the future Cardinal de Retz, and the future Marshal of France Comte de Guiche, Princess of Condé with their children - Duke of Enghien, who would soon become the Grand Condé, Duchess de Longueville, then Mademoiselle de Bourbon, and Prince of Conti , and many others. The salon was the center of a gallant culture - all novelties of literature were discussed here and conversations were held about the nature of love. To be a regular at this salon meant to belong to the most refined society. Here the spirit of the novels loved by Marsiyak soared, here they tried to imitate their heroes.

Having inherited his hatred for Cardinal Richelieu from his father, Marsillac began to serve Anne of Austria. The beautiful, but unhappy queen was the best match for the image from the novel. Marsillac became her loyal knight, as well as a friend of her maid of honor, Mademoiselle D 'Otfort and the famous Duchess de Chevreuse.

In the spring of 1635, the prince, on his own initiative, went to Flanders to fight the Spaniards. And upon his return, he learned that he and several other officers were not allowed to remain at court. Their disapproval of the 1635 French military campaign was cited as the reason. A year later, Spain attacked France and Marsillac again went to the army.

After the successful end of the campaign, he expected that he would now be allowed to return to Paris, but his hopes were not destined to come true: "... I was forced to leave for my father, who lived in his estate and was still in severe disgrace." But, despite the ban on appearing in the capital, he secretly paid a farewell visit to the queen before leaving for the estate. Anne of Austria, whom the king forbade even to correspond with Madame de Chevreuse, gave him a letter for the disgraced duchess, which Marciillac took to Touraine, the place of her exile.

Finally, in 1637, father and son were allowed to return to Paris. Parliament approved the ducal patent, and they were to arrive to complete all formalities and take the oath. Their return coincided with the height of the royal scandal. In August of this year, a letter left by the queen to the brother-king of Spain, with whom Louis XIII was still at war, was found in the monastery of Val-de-Grasse. The Mother Superior, under threat of excommunication, told so much about the queen's relationship with the hostile Spanish court that the king decided on an unheard-of measure - Anna of Austria was searched and interrogated. She was accused of high treason and secret correspondence with the Spanish ambassador, the Marquis Mirabel. The king was even going to take advantage of this situation to divorce his childless wife (the future Louis XIV was born a year after these events in September 1638) and imprison her in Le Havre.

The matter went so far that the idea of ​​an escape arose. According to Marciillac, everything was ready for him to secretly take the queen and Mademoiselle D'Atfort to Brussels. But the charges were dropped and such a scandalous escape did not take place. Then the prince volunteered to inform the Duchess of Chevreuse about everything. Therefore, his family categorically forbade him to see her.To get out of the situation, Marsillac asked the Englishman Count Kraft, their mutual acquaintance, to tell the duchess to send a faithful person to the prince who could be informed about everything. and Marsillac departed for his wife's estate.

There was an agreement on an urgent warning system between Mademoiselle D'Autfort and the Duchess de Chevreuse. La Rochefoucault mentions two books of hours - in green and red bindings. One of them meant that things were going for the better, the other was a signal of danger. It is not known who confused the symbolism, but, having received the book of hours, the Duchess de Chevreuse, believing that everything was lost, decided to flee to Spain and left the country in a hurry. Passing Verteil, the family estate of La Rochefoucauld, she asked the prince for help. But he, for the second time listening to the voice of prudence, limited himself only to giving her fresh horses and people who accompanied her to the border. But when this became known in Paris, Marsillac was summoned for interrogation and was soon taken to prison. In the Bastille, thanks to the intercessions of his parents and friends, he stayed only a week. And after his release, he was forced to return to Vertey. In exile, Marsillac spent many hours at the works of historians and philosophers, enriching his education.

In 1639, war broke out and the prince was allowed to join the army. He distinguished himself in several battles, and at the end of the campaign Richelieu even offered him the rank of major general, promising a bright future in his service. But at the request of the queen, he abandoned all the promising prospects and returned to his estate.

Court games

In 1642, preparations began for a conspiracy against Richelieu, organized by the favorite of Louis XIII, Saint-Mar. He negotiated with Spain to assist in the overthrow of the cardinal and the conclusion of peace. Anne of Austria and the king's brother, Gaston of Orleans, were devoted to the details of the conspiracy. Marsillac was not among the participants, but de Tu, one of Saint-Mar's close friends, turned to him for help on behalf of the queen. The prince resisted. The conspiracy failed, and its main participants - Saint-Mar and de Tu - were executed.

On December 4, 1642, Cardinal Richelieu died, and Louis XIII followed him into another world. Upon learning of this, Marsillac, like many other disgraced nobles, went to Paris. Mademoiselle D'Autfort returned to court, the Duchess de Chevreuse came from Spain. Now they all counted on the Queen's special favor. However, very soon they found a new favorite, Cardinal Mazarin, near Anne of Austria, whose position, contrary to the expectations of many, turned out to be quite strong.

Deeply hurt by this, the Duchess de Chevreuse, the Duke of Beaufort and other aristocrats, as well as some parliamentarians and prelates united to overthrow Mazarin, forming a new, so-called "Arrogant conspiracy."

La Rochefoucauld found himself in a rather difficult position: on the one hand, he had to remain loyal to the queen, on the other, he did not want to quarrel with the duchess at all. The conspiracy was quickly and easily revealed, but although the prince sometimes attended meetings of the "Arrogant", he did not experience much disgrace. Because of this, for some time there were even rumors that he allegedly himself contributed to the disclosure of the conspiracy. The Duchess de Chevreuse once again went into exile, and the Duke de Beaufort spent five years in prison (his escape from the Château de Vincennes, which actually took place, was very colorfully, although not entirely true, described by Father Dumas in his novel Twenty Years Later ).

Mazarin promised Marsillac the rank of brigadier general in case of successful service, and in 1646 he went into the army under the command of the Duke of Enghien, the future Prince of Condé, who had already won his famous victory at Rocroix. However, Marsillac was very soon seriously wounded by three rounds from a musket and sent to Verteil. Having lost the opportunity to distinguish himself in the war, he, after recovering, focused his efforts on securing the governorship of Poitou, which was once taken from his father. He took office as governor in April 1647, having paid a considerable sum of money for it.

Experience of disappointment

For years, Marsillac had waited in vain for royal favor and gratitude for his loyalty. “We promise in proportion to our calculations, and we carry out the promised in proportion to our fears,” he later wrote in his Maxims ... Gradually, he drew closer and closer to the Condé house. This was facilitated not only by his father's connections, but also by the relationship of the prince with the Duchess de Longueville, sister of the Duke of Enghien, which began in 1646, during the military campaign. This blonde, blue-eyed princess, one of the first beauties at court, was proud of her unblemished reputation, although she was the cause of many duels and several scandals at court. One of such scandals between her and her husband's mistress, Madame de Montbazon, Marsillac helped to settle before the Fronde. Himself, wishing to win her favor, he was forced to compete with one of his friends - Count Miossan, who, seeing the success of the prince, became one of his sworn enemies.

Relying on the support of Condé, Marciillac began to claim “Louvre privileges”: the right to enter the Louvre in a carriage and a “stool” for his wife - that is, the right to sit in the presence of the Queen. Formally, he did not have any rights to these privileges, since they relied only on the dukes and princes of the blood, but in fact the monarch could welcome such rights. For this reason, many again considered him arrogant and arrogant - after all, he wanted to become a duke during his father's life.

Having learned that during the "distribution of stools" he was still bypassed, Marsiyak dropped everything and went to the capital. At that time, the Fronde had already begun - a broad social and political movement led by aristocrats and the Paris Parliament. Historians still find it difficult to give him an exact definition.

At first inclined to support the queen and Mazarin, Marsillac now sided with the fronders. Soon after arriving in Paris, he made a speech in Parliament, which was called "The Apology of Prince Marsillac", where he expressed his personal claims and reasons that prompted him to join the rebels. Throughout the war, he supported the Duchess de Longueville and then her brother, the Prince of Condé. Upon learning in 1652 that the Duchess had made herself a new lover, Duke Nemur, he broke up with her. Since then, their relationship has become more than cool, but the prince nevertheless remained a loyal supporter of the Great Conde.

With the outbreak of unrest, the Queen Mother and Mazarin left the capital and began a siege of Paris, which resulted in a peace signed in March 1649, which did not satisfy the fronders, for Mazarin remained in power.

A new stage of the confrontation began with the arrest of Prince Condé. But after the liberation, Condé broke with the other leaders of the Fronde and waged further struggle mainly in the provinces. By a declaration dated October 8, 1651, he and his supporters, including the Duke of La Rochefoucauld (he began to wear this long-awaited title since the death of his father in 1651), were declared treason. In April 1652, the Prince of Condé with a significant army approached Paris. At the battle of the Parisian suburb of Saint-Antoine on July 2, 1652, La Rochefoucauld was seriously wounded in the face and temporarily lost his sight. The war is over for him. He then had to undergo treatment for a long time, in one eye it was necessary to remove a cataract. Eyesight recovered slightly only towards the end of the year.

After the Fronde

In September, the king promised amnesty to all who lay down their arms. The Duke, blind and bedridden with gout attacks, refused to do so. And soon he was again officially declared guilty of high treason with deprivation of all titles and confiscation of property.

He was also ordered to leave Paris. He was allowed to return to his possessions only after the end of the Fronde, at the end of 1653.

Things fell into complete decay, the ancestral castle of Verteil was destroyed by the royal troops on the orders of Mazarin. The duke settled in Angumua, but sometimes visited his uncle, the Duke of Liancourt, in Paris, who, judging by the notarial deeds, gave him the Hotel Liancourt to stay in the capital. La Rochefoucauld now spent a lot of time with the children. He had four sons and three daughters. Another son was born in April 1655. His wife devotedly looked after La Rochefoucauld and supported him. It was at that time that he decides to write his memoirs in order to tell the details of the events that he witnessed.

In 1656, La Rochefoucault was allowed to finally return to Paris. And he went there to arrange the marriage of the eldest son. He was rarely at court - the king did not show him his favor, and therefore he spent most of his time in Vertea, the reason for this was also the significantly weakened health of the duke.

Things improved a little in 1659, when he received a pension of 8 thousand livres as compensation for losses incurred during the Fronde. In the same year, the wedding of his eldest son, François VII, Prince Marcia-ka, with his cousin, Jeanne-Charlotte, the wealthy heiress of the Liancourt family.

From that time on, La Rochefoucauld settled with his wife, daughters and younger sons in Saint-Germain, then still a suburb of Paris. He finally made peace with the court and even received the order of the Holy Spirit from the king. But this order was not a testament to the royal favor - Louis XIV patronized only his son, never forgiving the rebellious duke to the end.

At that time, in many matters, and above all financial, La Rochefoucauld was helped a lot by his friend and former secretary Gourville, who later succeeded in the service of both the jur of the quartermaster Fouquet and the Prince of Condé. A few years later, Gourville married La Rochefoucauld's eldest daughter, Maria-Caterina. This misalliance at first gave rise to a lot of gossip at court, and then such an unequal marriage began to be passed over in silence. Many historians have accused La Rochefoucauld of selling his daughter for the financial support of a former servant. But according to the letters of the Duke himself, Gourville was in fact his close friend, and this marriage could well be the result of their friendship.

Birth of a moralist

La Rochefoucauld was no longer interested in a career. All the court privileges, which the duke so persistently sought in his youth, he handed over in 1671 to his eldest son, Prince Marsillac, who was making a successful career at court. Much more often, La Rochefoucauld visited fashionable literary salons - Mademoiselle de Montpensier, Madame de Sable, Mademoiselle de Scuderi and Madame du Plessis-Genego. He was a welcome guest in any salon and was reputed to be one of the most educated people of his time. The king even thought about making him the Dauphin's tutor, but he did not dare to entrust the upbringing of his son to the former fronder.

In some salons, serious conversations were conducted, and La Rochefoucauld, who knew Aristotle, Seneca, Epictetus, Cicero well, read Montaigne, Charron, Descartes, Pascal, took an active part in them. Mademoiselle Montpensier was engaged in the compilation of literary portraits. La Rochefoucauld "wrote" his self-portrait, which modern researchers have recognized as one of the best.

“I am full of noble feelings, good intentions and an unshakable desire to be a truly decent person ...” he wrote then, wanting to express his desire, which he carried through his whole life and which few people understood and appreciated. La Rochefoucauld noted that he was always loyal to his friends to the end and faithfully kept his word. If we compare this essay with his memoirs, it becomes obvious that in this he saw the reason for all his failures at court ...

In Madame de Sable's salon they were carried away by "maxims." According to the rules of the game, the topic was determined in advance, for which each one composed aphorisms. Then the maxims were read out in front of everyone, and the most accurate and witty ones were chosen from them. The famous "Maxims" also began with this game.

In 1661 - early 1662, La Rochefoucauld finished writing the main text of the Memoirs. At the same time, he began work on the compilation of the collection "Maxim". He showed new aphorisms to his friends. In fact, he supplemented and edited La Rochefoucauld's Maxims for the rest of his life. He also wrote 19 small essays on morality, which he collected together under the title "Reflections on Various Subjects", although they were first published only in the 18th century.

In general, La Rochefoucauld was not lucky with the publication of his works. One of the manuscripts of the Memoirs, which he gave to friends to read, came to a publisher and was published in Rouen in a greatly modified form. This edition caused a huge scandal. La Rochefoucauld lodged a complaint with the Paris Parliament, which, by decree of 17 September 1662, prohibited its sale. In the same year, the author's version of the Memoirs was published in Brussels.

The first edition of "Maxim" was published in 1664 in Holland - also without the knowledge of the author, and again - from one of the handwritten copies that circulated among his friends. La Rochefoucauld was furious. He urgently published another version. In total, during the duke's lifetime, five Maxim publications approved by him were published. Already in the 17th century, the book was published outside of France. Voltaire described it as "one of those works that most contributed to the formation of taste in the nation and gave it a spirit of clarity ..."

The last war

Far from doubting the existence of virtues, the duke became disillusioned with people who seek to bring almost any of their actions under virtue. Court life, and especially the Fronde, gave him a lot of examples of the most cunning intrigues, where actions do not correspond to words and everyone ultimately seeks only for his own benefit. “What we take for virtue often turns out to be a combination of selfish desires and actions, skillfully chosen by fate or our own cunning; so, for example, sometimes women are chaste, and men are valiant not at all because they are really characterized by chastity and valor. " With these words, his collection of aphorisms opens.

Among contemporaries "Maxima" immediately caused a great response. Some found them excellent, others cynical. “He does not believe at all in generosity without secret interest, or in pity; he judges the world by himself, "wrote the Princess de Gemines. The Duchess de Longueville, having read them, forbade her son, the Comte Saint-Paul, whose father was La Rochefoucauld, to visit the salon of Madame de Sable, where such thoughts are preached. The Count began to invite Madame de Lafayette to her salon, and gradually La Rochefoucauld also began to visit her more and more often. This was the beginning of their friendship, which lasted until their death. Due to the venerable age of the duke and the reputation of the countess, their relationship almost did not cause gossip. The Duke visited her house almost every day, helped to work on novels. His ideas had a very significant impact on the work of Madame de Lafayette, and his literary taste and light style helped her create a novel, which is called a masterpiece of 17th century literature, The Princess of Cleves.

Almost every day, guests gathered at Madame Lafayette's or La Rochefoucauld's, if he could not come, talked, discussed interesting books. Racine, La Fontaine, Corneille, Moliere, Boileau read their new works with them. Due to illness, La Rochefoucauld was often forced to stay at home. From the age of 40 he was tormented by gout, numerous wounds made themselves felt, and his eyes hurt. He completely retired from political life, however, despite all this, in 1667, at the age of 54, he volunteered to fight the Spaniards to take part in the siege of Lille. His wife died in 1670. In 1672, a new misfortune fell upon him - in one of the battles, Prince Marsillac was wounded, and the Count of Saint-Paul was killed. A few days later, it was reported that La Rochefoucauld's fourth son, Chevalier Marsillac, had died of his wounds. Madame de Sevigne, in her famous letters to her daughter, wrote that at this news the duke tried to restrain his feelings, but tears themselves flowed from his eyes.

In 1679, the French Academy noted the work of La Rochefoucauld, he was invited to become a member, but he refused. Some believe the reason for this is shyness and shyness in front of an audience (he read his works only to friends when there were no more than 5-6 people present), others - the unwillingness to glorify Richelieu, the founder of the Academy, in a solemn speech. Perhaps it is the pride of the aristocrat. A nobleman was obliged to be able to write gracefully, but being a writer was beneath his dignity.

In early 1680, La Rochefoucauld got worse. Doctors talked about an acute attack of gout, modern researchers believe that it could be pulmonary tuberculosis. From the beginning of March it became clear that he was dying. Madame de Lafayette spent every day with him, but when the hope of recovery was finally lost, she had to leave him. According to the customs of that time, only relatives, a priest and a servant could be at the bedside of a dying person. On the night of March 16-17, at the age of 66, he died in Paris in the arms of his eldest son.

Most of his contemporaries considered him an eccentric and a failure. He failed to become what he wanted - neither a brilliant courtier, nor a successful fronder. Being a proud man, he preferred to consider himself incomprehensible. The fact that the reason for his failures may lie not only in self-interest and ingratitude of others, but partly in himself, he decided to tell only in the very last years of his life, about which most could learn only after his death: “The gifts that God gave people are as varied as the trees with which he adorned the earth, and each has special properties and bears only its inherent fruits. That is why the best pear tree will never give birth to even crappy apples, and the most talented person gives in to a work, although ordinary, but given only to those who are capable of this work. That is why it is no less ridiculous to compose aphorisms without even a little talent for this kind of occupation than to expect that tulips will bloom in a garden where no bulbs are planted. " However, no one has ever disputed his talent as a compiler of aphorisms.

François de La Rochefoucauld is a French writer, moralist, and philosopher. Born in Paris on September 15, 1613, he was a descendant of a famous ancient family; before his father-duke died in 1650, he was called Prince de Marsillac. After spending all his childhood in Angoulême, as a 15-year-old teenager, La Rochefoucauld moved with his parents to the French capital, and later his biography was associated with life at court. By the will of fate, even in his youth, La Rochefoucauld plunged into palace life, full of intrigues, joys, achievements and disappointments associated with social and personal life, and this left an imprint on all of his work.

An active participant in political life, he sided with the opponents of Cardinal Richelieu, joining the Fronde, which was headed by the Prince of Condé. Under the banner of the struggle against absolutism, people with different social status participated in this social movement. La Rochefoucauld was directly involved in the battles and even received a gunshot wound in 1652, which caused great damage to his eyesight. In 1653 he received the title of duke from his deceased father. In the biography of La Rochefoucauld there was a period of estrangement from court society, during which he, however, did not lose good relations with women who were considered outstanding representatives of their time, in particular, with Madame de Lafayette.

In 1662, the "Memoirs of La Rochefoucauld" was first published, in which, on behalf of a third person, he narrates about the military and political events of the Fronde times, 1634-1652. His work is a very important source of information about this period of the struggle against absolutism.

For all the significance of the Memoirs, the work of François de La Rochefoucauld is even more important for the creative path, the quintessence of his everyday experience is considered to be the collection of aphorisms "Reflections, or Moral sayings", which received great fame under the name "Maxims". The first edition was published anonymously in 1665, and a total of five editions were published until 1678, each of which was supplemented and revised. The common thread in this work is the idea that the main motives of any human actions are selfishness, vanity, the priority of personal interests over others. In essence, it was not new; many thinkers of that time were very far from idealizing human behavior. However, the success of La Rochefoucauld's creation was based on the subtlety of the psychological analysis of the mores of society, accuracy, skill of examples illustrating his position, aphoristic clarity, laconism of language - it is no coincidence that "Maxims" have great literary value.

François de La Rochefoucauld developed a reputation as a misanthrope and pessimist, which was promoted not only by his good knowledge of people, but also by personal circumstances, disappointment in love. In the last years of his life, troubles haunted him: ailments, the death of his son. On March 17, 1680, the famous aristocrat and denouncer of human nature died in Paris.

Plan
Introduction
1 Biography
2 Literary heritage
2.1 Maxims
2.2 Memoirs

3 Family and children
Bibliography

Introduction

François VI de La Rochefoucauld (fr. François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, September 15, 1613, Paris - March 17, 1680, Paris), Duke de La Rochefoucauld - the famous French writer and philosopher-moralist, who belonged to the southern French family of La Rochefoucauld. Fronde warrior. During his father's lifetime (until 1650) he held the title of Prince de Marsillac. The great-grandson of that François de La Rochefoucauld who was killed on the night of St. Bartholomew.

1. Biography

He was brought up at the court, from his youth he was involved in various intrigues, was at enmity with the Duke de Richelieu, and only after the death of the latter began to play a prominent role at the court. He took an active part in the Fronda movement and was seriously wounded. He occupied a brilliant position in society, had many secular intrigues and experienced a number of personal disappointments that left an indelible mark on his work. For many years, the Duchess de Longueville played a large role in his personal life, for the love of which he more than once renounced his ambitious motives. Disappointed with his affection, La Rochefoucauld became a grim misanthrope; his only consolation was his friendship with Madame de Lafayette, to which he remained faithful until his death. The last years of La Rochefoucauld were overshadowed by various adversities: the death of his son, diseases.

2. Literary heritage

2.1. Maxims

The result of the extensive life experience of La Rochefoucauld was his "Maxims" ( Maximes) - a collection of aphorisms that make up an integral code of everyday philosophy. The first edition of Maxim was published anonymously in 1665. Five editions, increasingly enlarged by the author, appeared during the lifetime of La Rochefoucauld. La Rochefoucauld is extremely pessimistic about human nature. The main aphorism of La Rochefoucauld: "Our virtues are more often than not skillfully disguised vices." At the heart of all human actions, he sees pride, vanity and the pursuit of personal interests. Depicting these vices and painting portraits of ambitious and egoists, La Rochefoucauld mainly has in mind the people of his circle, the general tone of his aphorisms is extremely poisonous. He especially succeeds in cruel definitions, apt and sharp as an arrow, for example, the dictum: "We all have a sufficient share of Christian patience to endure the suffering ... of other people." The purely literary significance of "Maxim" is very high.

2.2. Memoirs

No less important work of La Rochefoucauld was his "Memoirs" ( Mémoires sur la régence d'Anne d'Autriche), first edition - 1662. The most valuable source about the times of the Fronde. La Rochefoucauld describes political and military events in detail, he speaks of himself in the third person.

The story of the pendants of Queen Anne of Austria, which formed the basis of the novel The Three Musketeers, was taken by Alexander Dumas from the Memoirs of François de La Rochefoucauld. In the novel Twenty Years Later, La Rochefoucauld is brought out under his former title - Prince de Marsillac, as a man trying to kill Aramis, who is also in favor of the Duchess de Longueville. According to Dumas, even the father of the Duchess's child was not La Rochefoucauld (as rumors insisted in reality), but Aramis.

3. Family and children

Parents: Francois V(1588-1650), Duke de La Rochefoucauld and Gabriella du Plessis-Liancourt(d. 1672).

Wife: (from January 20, 1628, Mirebo) Andre de Vivonne(d. 1670), daughter of André de Vivonne, Senor de la Berodier and Marie Antoinette de Loménie. Had 8 children:

1. Francois VII(1634-1714), Duke de La Rochefoucauld

2. Charles(1635-1691), Knight of the Order of Malta

3. Maria Ekaterina(1637-1711), known as Mademoiselle de La Rochefoucauld

4. Henrietta(1638-1721), known as Mademoiselle de Marsillac

5. Françoise(1641-1708), known as Mademoiselle d'Anville

6. Henri Achilles(1642-1698), abbot de La Chaise-Dieu

7. Jean Baptiste(1646-1672), known as Chevalier de Marsillac

8. Alexander(1665-1721), known as Abbot de Verteuil

Fornication: Anna Genevieve de Bourbon-Condé(1619-1679), Duchess de Longueville, had a son:

1. Charles Paris de Longueville(1649-1672), Duke de Longueville, was one of the candidates for the Polish throne

Bibliography:

1. Officially considered the legitimate son of the husband of Anne Genevieve de Bourbon-Condé, Duke of Henry II de Longueville, who recognized him as his own.

LAROCHFUCO, FRANCOIS DE(La Rochefoucauld, Francois de) (1613-1680). French politician of the 17th century. and a famous memoirist, author of famous philosophical aphorisms

Born September 15, 1613 in Paris, a representative of a noble family. Until the death of his father, he held the title of Prince of Marsillac. From 1630 he appeared at the court, participated in the Thirty Years' War, where he distinguished himself in the battle of Saint-Nicolas. From his youth he was distinguished by his wit and boldness of judgment, and by order of Richelieu he was expelled from Paris in 1637. But, being in his estate, he continued to support the supporters of Anne of Austria, whom Richelieu accused of having connections with the Spanish court hostile to France. In 1637 he returned to Paris, where he helped the famous political adventurer and friend of Queen Anne, Duchess de Chevreuse, to flee to Spain. Was imprisoned in the Bastille, but not for long. Despite military exploits in battles with the Spaniards, he again shows independence and is again excommunicated from the court. After the death of Richelieu (1642) and Louis XIII (1643), he was again at court, but became a desperate opponent of Mazarin. The feeling of hatred for Mazarin is also connected with the love for the Duchess de Longueville, the princess of the royal blood, who was called the inspirer of the civil war (Fronde). The old duke of La Rochefoucauld bought the post of governor in the province of Poitou for his son, but in 1648 the son left his post and came to Paris. Here he became famous for giving a speech in parliament, printed under the heading Apology of Prince de Marsillac, which became the political credo of the nobility in the civil war. The essence of the declaration was the need to preserve the privileges of aristocrats - as guarantors of the country's well-being. Mazarin, who pursued a policy of strengthening absolutism, was declared an enemy of France. From 1648 to 1653, La Rochefoucauld was one of the main figures of the Fronde. After the death of his father (February 8, 1650), he became known as Duke de La Rochefoucauld. He led the fight against Mazarin in the south-west of the country, his headquarters was the city of Bordeaux. Defending this area from the royal troops, La Rochefoucauld received help from Spain - this did not bother him, because according to the laws of feudal morality, if the king violated the rights of the feudal lord, the latter could recognize another sovereign. La Rochefoucauld proved to be the most consistent opponent of Mazarin. He and the Prince of Condé were the leaders of the Princes' Fronde. On July 2, 1652, near Paris in the Saint-Antoine suburb, the army of the fronders was decisively defeated by the royal troops. La Rochefoucauld was seriously injured and nearly lost his sight. The war brought ruin to La Rochefoucauld, his estates were plundered, he withdrew from political activity. For almost ten years he worked on memoirs, which have become one of the best memories of the Fronde. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not praise himself, but tried to give an extremely objective picture of events. He was forced to admit that most of his comrades-in-arms in the fight for the rights of the nobility preferred the role of a court nobleman to certain feudal rights. Having relatively calmly endured his ruin, he wrote with bitterness about the greed of the princes. In his memoirs, he paid tribute to the state mind of Richelieu and recognized his activities as useful for the country.

The last two decades of his life, La Rochefoucauld devoted himself to literary activity and actively attended literary salons. He worked hard on his main piece Maxims- aphoristic reflections on morality. A master of salon conversation, he polished his aphorisms many times, all the editions of his book during his lifetime (there were five of them) bear traces of this hard work. Maxims immediately brought fame to the author. Even the king patronized him. Aphorisms are by no means recorded impromptu, they are the fruit of great erudition, an expert in ancient philosophy, a reader of Descartes and Gassendi. Under the influence of the materialist P. Gassendi, the author came to the conclusion that human behavior is explained by selfishness, the instinct of self-preservation, and morality is determined by the life situation. But La Rochefoucauld was not a heartless cynic. Reason allows a person, he believed, to limit his own nature, to restrain the claims of his egoism. For selfishness is more dangerous than innate ferocity. Few of La Rochefoucauld's contemporaries revealed the hypocrisy and cruelty of the gallant age. Court psychology of the era of absolutism is the most adequate reflection Maximov La Rochefoucauld, but their meaning is broader, they are relevant in our time.

Anatoly Kaplan

Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Reflections on various topics
Translated by E.L. Linetskaya
1. ABOUT THE TRUE
The true property of an object, phenomenon or person is not diminished by comparing it with another true property, and no matter how different objects, phenomena or people differ from each other, the true in one is not diminished by the true in the other. For any difference in significance and brightness, they are always equally true, because this property is invariable in both large and small. The art of war is more significant, noble, brilliant than poetic, but a poet can be compared with a commander, as well as a painter with a legislator, if they are truly who they claim to be.
Two people can be not only different, but also directly opposite in nature, like, say, Scipio (1) and Hannibal (2) or Fabius Maximus (3) and Marcellus, (4) nevertheless, since their properties are true, they stand comparison and do not diminish. Alexander (5) and Caesar (6) give away kingdoms, the widow donates a penny; no matter how different their gifts may be, each of them is truly and equally generous, for he gives in proportion to what he possesses.
This person has several true properties, he has only one; the first is perhaps more remarkable, for it differs in properties that the second does not, but what they both are true in is equally remarkable in both. Epaminondas (7) was a great military leader, a good citizen, a famous philosopher; he is worthy of greater honor than Virgil, (8) for there are more true qualities in him; but as an excellent general he is no greater than Virgil as an excellent poet, for the military genius of Epaminondas is as true as the poetic genius of Virgil. The cruelty of the boy, who was sentenced to death by the consul for gouging out the eyes of a crow, (9) is less obvious than the cruelty of Philip II, (10) who killed his own son, and, perhaps, is less burdened by other vices; however, the cruelty shown to the dumb creature is on a par with the cruelty of one of the most cruel rulers, for different degrees of cruelty basically have an equal truth of this property.
No matter how different the size of the castles in Chantilly (11) and Liancourt, (12) each of them is beautiful in its own way, therefore Chantilly with all its various beauties does not overshadow Liancourt, and Liancourt - Chantilly; the beauties of Chantilly befitting the greatness of the Prince of Condé, and the beauties of Liancourt befitting an ordinary nobleman, despite the fact that both are true. It happens, however, that women with a beauty of brilliant, but devoid of correctness, outshine their truly beautiful rivals. The fact is that taste, which acts as the judge of female beauty, is easily susceptible to prejudice, and besides, the beauty of the most beautiful women is subject to instantaneous changes. However, if less beautiful and overshadow perfect beauties, then only for a short time: just the peculiarities of lighting and mood clouded the true beauty of features and colors, making it clear what is attractive in one, and hiding the truly beautiful in another.
2. ABOUT FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP
When I speak of friendship here, I do not mean friendship: they are very different, although they have some common features. Friendship is more lofty and worthy, and the merit of friendly relations is that they are at least a little like her.
So, I will consider now only those relations that should exist between all decent people. There is no need to prove that mutual affection is essential for society: everyone strives and gravitates towards it, but few truly try to nurture it and prolong it.
A person seeks worldly benefits and pleasures at the expense of his neighbors. He prefers himself to others and almost always makes them feel this, thereby violating and even ruining the good relations that he would like to maintain with them. We should at least cleverly hide the attachment to ourselves, since it is inherent in us from birth and it is impossible to completely get rid of it. Let's rejoice in someone else's joy, respect and spare someone else's pride.
In this difficult matter, the mind will help us a lot, but it alone will not cope with the role of a guide on all the paths along which we must go. The connection that arises between the minds of the same kind will only be the guarantee of strong friendly relations, if they are strengthened and supported by common sense, evenness of spirit and courtesy, without which mutual benevolence is impossible.
If sometimes it happens that people who are opposite in mind and spirit are close to each other, then the explanation for this must be sought in outside considerations and, consequently, short-lived. It sometimes happens that we make friends with people who are inferior to us by birth or dignity; in this case, we must not abuse our advantages, talk about them often, or even simply mention them for purposes other than mere notification. We will convince our friends that we need their guidance, and while pointing out to them, we will be guided only by reason, protecting as much as possible other people's feelings and aspirations.
So that friendly relations do not become a burden, let everyone retain their freedom, let people either not meet at all, or meet at a common desire, have fun together, or even get bored together. Between them, nothing should change even when they part. They should get used to getting along without each other, so that meetings do not sometimes turn into a burden: we must remember that most likely the one who is convinced that no one can get bored with him is likely to bore his neighbors .. It is advisable to take care of the entertainment of those with whom we want to support good relations, but this concern cannot be turned into a burden.
There can be no friendship without mutual servility, but it should not be excessive, it should not become slavery. Let it, at least in appearance, be voluntary, so that our friends believe that, by pleasing them, we also please ourselves.
You need to wholeheartedly forgive your friends for their shortcomings, if they are inherent in nature itself and are small in comparison with the merits. Not only should we not judge these flaws, but we should also notice them. Let's try to behave in such a way that people themselves see their bad qualities and, having corrected themselves, consider it their own merit.
Courtesy is a prerequisite in relations between decent people: it teaches them to understand jokes, not to be indignant or outraged others in a too harsh or arrogant tone, which often appears in those who ardently defend their opinion.
These relationships cannot exist without some mutual trust: people should have that expression of calm restraint, which immediately dispels the fear of hearing rash words from them.
It is difficult to win affection for someone who is always smart in one way: a person with a limited mind quickly gets bored. It is not important that people follow the same path or possess the same talents, but that they are all pleasant in communication and just as strictly observe the harmony as different voices and instruments when performing a piece of music.
It is unlikely that several people have the same aspirations, but it is necessary that these aspirations at least do not contradict each other.
We need to meet the desires of our friends, try to provide them with services, protect them from grief, instill that if we are not able to ward off misfortune from them, then at least we share it with them, imperceptibly dispel sorrow, without trying to instantly drive it away, occupy their attention with objects pleasant or entertaining. You can talk about what concerns them alone, but only with their consent, and even then not forgetting about the boundaries of what is permitted. Sometimes it is more noble and even more humane not to delve too deeply into their heart's secret places: sometimes it is unpleasant for people to show everything that they see there, but it is even more unpleasant for them when outsiders discover what they themselves have not yet properly discerned. First, let good relationships help decent people get comfortable with each other and suggest many topics for sincere conversations.
Few are so prudent and accommodating as not to reject other practical advice on how to behave with your friends. We agree to listen only to those edifications that are pleasing to us, because we shun the blatant truth.
Looking at objects, we never come close to them; we must not come close to our friends. Ayudi want to be viewed from a certain distance, and they are usually right, not wanting to be seen too clearly: we all, with few exceptions, are afraid to appear before our neighbors as we really are.
3. ABOUT THE MANNER TO KEEP YOURSELF AND ABOUT BEHAVIOR
The manner of behaving should always be in harmony with the person's appearance and his natural inclinations: we lose a lot by appropriating a manner that is alien to us.
Let everyone try to learn what kind of behavior suits him best, adhere strictly to this behavior and, to the best of his ability, improve it.
For the most part, children are so nice because they do not deviate from their nature in anything, because they do not yet know other behavior and other demeanor to behave, besides those inherent in them. As adults, they change them and this spoil everything: it seems to them that they should imitate those around them, but their imitation is inept, it bears the stamp of uncertainty and falsehood. Their manners, as well as their feelings, are changeable, for these people try to appear different from what they really are, instead of becoming what they want to appear.
Everyone longs to be not himself, but someone else, longs to appropriate for himself a look alien to him and an inappropriate mind, borrowing them from just anyone. People make experiments on themselves, not realizing that what is appropriate for one is not at all for another, that there are no general rules for behavior, and that copies are always bad.
Of course, two people can behave in many ways the same, not at all copying each other, if they both follow their nature, but this is a rare case: people like to imitate, they often imitate, without noticing it, and abandon their property for the sake of the property of someone else. going to them, as a rule, to their detriment.
I do not mean to say that we should be content with what nature has awarded us, we have no right to follow examples and assimilate qualities that are useful and necessary, but not peculiar to us from birth. Arts and sciences adorn nearly all capable people; benevolence and courtesy to everyone's face; but even these acquired properties must be combined and harmonized with our own qualities, only then will they imperceptibly develop and improve.
We sometimes reach a position or dignity too high for us, often we take up a craft for which nature has not intended us. Both this dignity and this craft deserve a demeanor that is not always similar to our natural demeanor. Changes in circumstances often change our behavior, and we assume a grandeur that looks forced if it is overly emphasized and contradicts our appearance. What is given to us from birth and what we have acquired must be merged and united into one indissoluble whole.
It is impossible to speak in the same tone and in an unchanging manner about different things, just as it is impossible to walk with the same gait at the head of the regiment and on a walk. But, changing the tone depending on the subject of the conversation, we must maintain complete ease, as we must keep it when we move in different ways, idly strolling or leading a detachment.
Some people not only readily abandon their inherent demeanor for the sake of the one that they consider befitting the position and rank they have achieved, but, just dreaming of elevation, they begin to behave in advance as if they have already been elevated. How many colonels behave like marshals of France, how many judges pretend to be chancellors, how many townspeople play the role of duchesses!
People often cause hostility precisely because they do not know how to combine demeanor and behavior with their appearance, and tone and words with thoughts and feelings. They violate their harmony with features that are unusual for them, alien, sin against their own nature and change themselves more and more. Few are free from this defect and have a hearing so subtle that they can never be fake.
A lot of people with a fair amount of merit are nevertheless unpleasant, a lot of people with much less merit is liked by everyone. This is due to the fact that some all the time imitate someone, while others are as they seem. In short, for any of our natural flaws and merits, we are the more pleasant to others, the more our appearance and tone, manners and feelings agree with our appearance and position in society, and the more unpleasant, the greater the discrepancy between them.
4. ABOUT ABOUT CONVERSATION
Pleasant interlocutors are so rare because people think not of the words they listen to, but of those that are eager to pronounce. A person who wants to be listened to must, in turn, listen to the speakers, give them time to express themselves, showing patience, even if they are talking in vain. Instead of, as is often the case, immediately dispute and interrupt them, it is necessary, on the contrary, to imbue with the point of view and taste of the interlocutor, show that we have appreciated them, start a conversation about what is dear to him, praise everything in his judgments, worthy of praise, and not with an air of condescension, but with complete sincerity.
We must avoid disputes about irrelevant matters, not overuse questions that are mostly useless, never show that we think we are smarter than others, and willingly provide others with a final solution.
One should speak simply, understandably and to the extent that the knowledge and disposition of the listeners allow it, without forcing them to approve and not even responding to it.
Thus, having paid tribute to courtesy, we can express our opinion, not without prejudice and stubbornness, emphasizing that we are looking for confirmation of our views from others.
We will remember ourselves as seldom as possible and set ourselves up as an example. We will try to thoroughly understand what are the attachments and the ability to understand from our interlocutors, and then we will take the side of the one who does not have this understanding, adding our own thoughts to his thoughts, but so modestly that he believes that we have borrowed them from him.
The one who does not exhaust the subject of the conversation itself acts prudently and allows others to think up and say something else.
In no case should you speak in an instructive tone and use words and expressions that are too high for the subject of conversation. You can adhere to your opinion, if it is reasonable, but, while remaining with it, we will not hurt other people's feelings or be indignant at other people's speeches.
We will be on a dangerous path if we constantly try to control the flow of the conversation or talk about the same thing too often. We should pick up any conversation that pleases our interlocutors, without turning it to a subject about which we yearn to speak.
Let us firmly remember that, no matter what merits a person may be, by no means every conversation, even superbly intelligent and worthy, can animate him; with each one should talk about subjects close to him and only when it is appropriate.
But if you say a word by the way - great art, by the way to keep silent - art is even greater. Eloquent silence can sometimes express both agreement and disapproval; there is a mocking silence, there is also a respectful silence.
Finally, there are shades in facial expressions, in gestures, habits, which often make the conversation pleasant and sophisticated, or make it boring and unbearable. Few know how to use these shades. Even the very people who teach the rules of conversation sometimes make mistakes. In my opinion, the surest of these rules - if necessary, change any of them, it is better to speak casually than pompously, listen, keep quiet and never force yourself to talk.
5. ABOUT honesty
Although sincerity and frankness have a lot in common, there are still many differences between them.
Sincerity is sincerity, which shows us what we really are, it is love for the truth, aversion to hypocrisy, a thirst to repent of our shortcomings, so that, honestly admitting them, thereby partially correct them.
Frankness does not give us that freedom; its framework is narrower, it requires more restraint and caution, and we do not always have the power to dispose of it. This is not about us alone, our interests are usually closely intertwined with the interests of other people, so frankness should be extraordinarily prudent, otherwise, by betraying us, it will betray our friends too, increasing the value of what we give, sacrificing their benefit.
Frankness is always pleasant to the one to whom it is addressed: it is a tribute that we pay to his virtues, an asset that we entrust to his honesty, a pledge that gives him rights to us, a bond that we voluntarily impose on ourselves.
I do not need to be understood as if I am trying to eradicate the frankness that is so necessary in society, for all human affection, all friendship is based on it. I'm just trying to set limits to her so that she does not violate the rules of decency and fidelity. I want frankness to always be straightforward and at the same time prudent, so that it does not succumb to cowardice or self-interest. I am well aware of how difficult it is to establish precise boundaries within which we are allowed to accept the frankness of our friends and, in turn, be frank with them.
More often than not, people indulge in frankness out of vanity, out of an inability to remain silent, out of a desire to gain trust and exchange secrets. It so happens that a person has every reason to trust us, but we have no such reason; in these cases, we pay by keeping his secret and getting off with unimportant confessions. In other cases, we know that a person is incorruptibly loyal to us, that he does not hide anything from us, and that we can pour out our souls to him both by our heart's choice and by sound thought. To such a person, we must trust everything that concerns only us; should show our true essence - our merits are not exaggerated, as well as disadvantages are not underestimated; should take it as a firm rule never to make him half-confessions, for they always put in a false position the one who does them, not in the least satisfying the one who listens. Semi-confessions distort what we want to hide, stir up curiosity in the interlocutor, justify his desire to find out more and untie his hands in relation to what has already been recognized. It is wiser and more honest not to speak at all than to under-speak.
If it comes to the secrets entrusted to us, then we must obey other rules, and the more important these secrets, the more discretion and ability to keep our word are required of us. Everyone will agree that someone else's secret must be kept, but opinions may differ about the nature of the secret itself and its importance. We most often conform to our own judgment about what it is permissible to talk about and what it is necessary to keep silent about. There are few secrets in the world that are kept forever, for the voice of scrupulousness, demanding not to give out someone else's secret, becomes silent over time.
Sometimes we are bound by friendship with people whose good feelings for us have already been experienced; they were always frank with us, and we paid them the same. These people know our habits and connections, they have studied all our habits so well that they notice the slightest change in us. They may have learned from another source that we have vowed never to divulge to anyone, nevertheless, it is not in our power to tell them the secret that was told to us, even if it concerns these people to some extent. We are confident in them as in ourselves, and now we are faced with a difficult choice: to lose their friendship or break a promise. Needless to say, there is no more cruel test of fidelity to the word than this, but it will not shake a decent person: in this case, he is allowed to prefer himself to others. His first duty is to keep the property of others entrusted to him indestructible. He is obliged not only to monitor his words and voice, but also to beware of rash remarks, he is obliged not to give himself away, so that his speech and facial expression do not lead others on the trail of what he should be silent about.
Often, it is only with the help of extraordinary discretion and firmness of character that a person manages to resist the tyranny of friends, who for the most part believe that they have the right to encroach on our frankness, and are eager to learn absolutely everything about us: such an exclusive right should not be given to anyone. There are meetings and circumstances that are not subject to their supervision; if they begin to blame it, well, let us meekly listen to their reproaches and try to calmly justify ourselves to them, but if they continue to make wrong claims, we have one thing to do: sacrifice their friendship in the name of duty, thus making a choice between the two inevitable evils, for one of them can still be corrected, while the other is irreparable.
6. ABOUT LOVE AND ABOUT THE SEA
The authors, who took on the description of love and its whims, are so diverse; frets compared this feeling with the sea, that it is very difficult to supplement their comparisons with new features: it has already been said that love and the sea are fickle and treacherous, that they bring people countless benefits, as well as countless troubles, that the happiest voyage is nevertheless fraught with terrible dangers, that the threat of reefs and storms is great, that shipwreck is possible even in the harbor. But, having listed everything that can be hoped for, and everything that should be feared, these authors, in my opinion, said too little about the similarity of love that is barely smoldering, exhausted, obsolete with those long calm, with those boring lulls that are so frequent in equatorial seas. People are tired of a long journey, dream of its end, but although the land is already visible, there is still no tailwind; heat and cold torment them, illness and fatigue weaken them; food and water have run out or taste unpleasant; some try to fish, even catch fish, but this activity does not bring either entertainment or food. A person is bored with everything that surrounds him, he is immersed in his thoughts, constantly bored; he still lives, but reluctantly, longs for desires to take him out of this painful languor, but if they are born to him, then they are weak and useless.
7. ABOUT EXAMPLES
Although good examples are very different from bad, yet, if you think about it, you see that both of them almost always lead to equally sad consequences. I am even inclined to believe that the atrocities of Tiberius (1) and Nero (2) more turn us away from vice than the most worthy deeds of great people bring us closer to virtue. How many fanfares have spawned the valor of Alexander! How many crimes against the fatherland were sown by Caesar's glory! How many cruel virtues were cultivated by Rome and Sparta! How many obnoxious philosophers did Diogenes create, (3) ruffians - Cicero, (4) the idlers Pomponius Atticus, who stand on the sidelines, (5) bloodthirsty avengers - Mary (6) and Sulla, (7) gluttons - Lucullus, (8) libertines - Alcibiades ( 9) and Anthony, (10) stubborn - Cato (11). These great examples have spawned countless bad copies. Virtues border on vices, and examples are guides that often lead us astray, for we ourselves are so prone to delusion that we equally resort to them both in order to get off the path of virtue, and in order to get up.
8. Doubts of Jealousy
The more a person talks about his jealousy, the more unexpected traits he reveals in the act that caused him anxiety. The most insignificant circumstance turns everything upside down, revealing something new to the eyes of the jealous. What, it seemed, was already completely thought out and enraged, now looks completely different. A person tries to form a firm judgment for himself, but cannot: he is at the mercy of feelings that are most contradictory and unclear to himself, at the same time longs for both love and hate, loves hating, hates loving, believes everything and doubts everything, is ashamed and despised of himself and for that, that he believed, and because he doubted, he tirelessly tries to come to some decision and does not come to anything.
Poets should liken a jealous person to Sisyphus: (1) the work of both is fruitless, and the path is difficult and dangerous; the top of the mountain is already visible, he is about to reach it, he is full of hope - but everything is in vain: he is denied not only the happiness of believing what he wants, but even the happiness of finally being convinced of what is most terrible to be convinced of; he is in the grip of eternal doubt, alternately portraying blessings and sorrows for him, which remain imaginary.
9. ABOUT LOVE AND ABOUT LIFE
Love is like life in everything: they are both subject to the same disturbances, the same changes. The youthful time of both is full of happiness and hope: we rejoice at our youth no less than love. Being in such a rosy frame of mind, we begin to desire other benefits, already more solid: not content with the fact that we exist in the world, we want to advance in the field of life, we puzzle ourselves how to win a high position and establish ourselves in it, we try to enter in the confidence of the ministers, to become useful to them and cannot stand it when others claim what we liked. Such competition is always fraught with many worries and griefs, but their impact is mitigated by the pleasant consciousness that we have achieved good luck: our desires are satisfied, and we have no doubt that we will be happy forever.
However, most often this bliss quickly comes to an end and, in any case, loses the charm of novelty: hardly having achieved what we want, we immediately begin to strive for new goals, since we quickly get used to what has become our property, and the acquired benefits no longer seem so valuable and alluring. We change imperceptibly, what we have achieved becomes a part of ourselves and, although the loss of it would be a cruel blow, the possession of it does not bring the former joy: it has lost its sharpness, and now we are looking for it not in something that has recently been so ardent wanted, but somewhere on the side. This involuntary impermanence is guilty of time, which, without asking us, particle by particle absorbs both our life and our love. Every hour, it imperceptibly erases some line of youth and fun, destroying the very essence of their charm. A person becomes more sedate, and affairs occupy him no less than passion; in order not to wither away, love must now resort to all sorts of tricks, which means that it has reached the age when the end is already visible. But none of the lovers wants to forcibly bring it closer, because on the slope of love, as well as on the slope of life, people do not dare to voluntarily leave the sorrows that they still have to endure: having ceased to live for pleasure, they continue to live for sorrows. Jealousy, distrust, fear of getting bored, fear of being abandoned - these painful feelings are as inevitably associated with fading love as illness - with an overly long life: a person feels alive only because he is in pain, loving - only because he is experiencing all the torment love. The drowsy numbness of too long attachments always ends in bitterness and regret that the connection is still strong. So, any decrepitude is grievous, but the most unbearable is the decrepitude of love.
10. ABOUT TASTE
Some people have more mind than taste, others have more taste than mind. (1) Human minds are not as varied and whimsical as tastes.
The word "taste" has different meanings, and they are not easy to understand. We should not confuse taste, which attracts us to any object, and taste, which helps to understand this object and determine, according to all the rules, its advantages and disadvantages. One can love theatrical performances without having a taste so subtle and graceful as to judge them correctly, and one can, without loving them at all, have enough taste for a correct judgment. Sometimes taste imperceptibly pushes us towards what we contemplate, and sometimes it violently and irresistibly carries us along.
For some, taste is erroneous in everything without exception, for others it is mistaken only in some areas, but in all that is accessible to their understanding, it is accurate and infallible, for others it is bizarre, and they, knowing this, do not trust him. There are people with erratic taste, which depends on the occasion; such people change their minds out of frivolity, admire or miss, just because their friends are delighted or bored. Others are full of prejudice: they are the slaves of their tastes and respect them above all else. There are those who are pleased with everything that is good, and unbearable with everything that is bad: their views are distinguished by clarity and definiteness, and they seek confirmation of their taste in the arguments of reason and sanity.
Some, following an impulse that they themselves do not understand, immediately pass judgment on what is presented to their judgment, and in doing so they never fail. These people have more taste than intelligence, for neither pride nor inclinations have power over their innate insight. Everything in them is harmony, everything is tuned in the same way. Thanks to the consent reigning in their souls, they reasonably judge and form a correct idea of ​​everything, but, generally speaking, there are few people whose tastes would be stable and independent of the generally accepted tastes; most only follow other people's examples and custom, drawing from this source almost all of their opinions.
Among the various tastes listed here, it is difficult or almost impossible to find such a good taste that would know the true value of everything, would always be able to recognize the true merits and would be all-encompassing. Our knowledge is too limited, and the impartiality, which is so necessary for the correctness of judgments, for the most part is inherent in us only in those cases when we judge things that do not concern us. If we are talking about something close to us, our taste, shaken by an addiction to the subject, loses this balance, which it needs so much. Everything that relates to us always appears in a distorted light, and there is no person who, with equal calmness, would look at objects that are dear to him and at objects that are indifferent. When it comes to what touches us, our taste obeys the direction of self-love and inclination; they suggest judgments that are different from the previous ones, give rise to uncertainty and endless changeability. Our taste no longer belongs to us, we do not have it. It changes against our will, and a familiar object appears before us from a side so unexpected that we no longer remember how we saw and felt it before.
11. ABOUT THE SIMILARITY OF PEOPLE WITH ANIMALS
People, like animals, are divided into many species, as dissimilar to each other as different breeds and species of animals are dissimilar. How many people feed on shedding the blood of innocent people and killing them! Some are like tigers, always fierce and cruel, others are like lions, preserving the appearance of generosity, others are like bears, rude and greedy, some are like wolves, predatory and merciless, fifth are foxes, who feed by cunning and have chosen deceit as a craft.
And how many people look like dogs! They gnaw their relatives, run to hunt to amuse the one who feeds them, follow the owner everywhere or guard his house. Among them there are brave hounds who devote themselves to war, live by their valor and are not devoid of nobility; there are violent mastiffs who have no other virtues than fierce anger; there are dogs that are of no use, which often bark, and sometimes even bite, and there are just dogs in the hay.
There are monkeys, monkeys - pleasant to handle, even witty, but very malicious at the same time; there are peacocks that can boast of their beauty, but they bother with their screams and spoil everything around.
There are birds that attract with their variegated colors and singing. How many parrots there are in the world who chatter incessantly, no one knows what; magpies and ravens, who pretend to be tame in order to steal without fear; birds of prey living by robbery; peaceful and meek animals that serve as food for predatory animals!
There are cats that are always alert, cunning and changeable, but they know how to caress them with velvet paws; vipers, whose tongues are poisonous, and everything else is even useful; spiders, flies, bugs, fleas, obnoxious and disgusting; toads, terrifying, although they are only poisonous; owls afraid of the light. How many animals hide from enemies underground! How many horses have remade a lot of useful work, and then, in old age, abandoned by their owners; oxen who labored all their age for the benefit of those who put the yoke on them; dragonflies, who only know what to sing; hares, always trembling with fear; rabbits who get scared and immediately forget about their fear; pigs, blissful in filth and abomination; decoy ducks, betraying and bringing their own kind under the shot; ravens and vultures, whose food is carrion and carrion! How many migratory birds that change one part of the world for another and, trying to escape from death, expose themselves to many dangers! How many swallows - constant companions of summer, May beetles, reckless and careless, moths flying into the fire and burning in the fire! How many bees that honor their ancestor and obtain food so diligently and wisely; drones, lazy vagabonds who strive to live off bees; ants, prudent, thrifty and therefore not knowing the need; crocodiles shedding tears to pity the victim, then devour it! And how many animals enslaved just because they themselves do not understand how strong they are!
All these properties are inherent in man, and he behaves in relation to his own kind in the same way that animals behave with each other, about which we have just spoken.
12. ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF HALF
It is worth pondering the origin of ailments - and it becomes clear that they are all rooted in a person's passions and in sorrows that aggravate his soul. The Golden Age, which knew neither these passions nor sorrows, did not know bodily ailments; the silver one that followed him still retained its former purity; the copper age had already given birth to both passions and sorrows, but, like everything that did not come out of an infant state, they were weak and not burdensome; but in the Iron Age they gained their full power and malignity and, pernicious, became the source of ailments that have been exhausting mankind for many centuries. Ambition breeds fever and violent insanity, envy - jaundice and insomnia; laziness is to blame for sleeping sickness, paralysis, pale sickness; anger is the cause of suffocation, plethora, pneumonia, and fear of palpitations and fainting; vanity leads to madness; stinginess gives rise to scabies and scab, dullness - thinness, cruelty - stone disease; slander, together with hypocrisy, gave birth to measles, smallpox, scarlet fever; we owe to jealousy Antonov's fire, plague and fury. The sudden disfavor of those in power strikes victims with apoplectic strokes, litigation entails migraines and delirium, debts go hand in hand with consumption, family disagreements lead to a four-day fever, and chill, in which lovers do not dare to confess to each other, causes nervous seizures. As for love, it gave rise to more ailments than other passions combined, and there is no way to list them. But since she is at the same time the greatest giver of blessings in this world, we will not revile her and simply keep silent: she should always be treated with due respect and fear.
13. ABOUT ERRORS
People are deluded in different ways. Some are aware of their delusions, but they try to prove that they are never mistaken. Others, more simple-hearted, are mistaken almost from birth, but do not suspect this and see everything in a wrong light. He understands everything correctly with the mind, but is subject to delusions of taste, this one succumbs to delusions of the mind, but the taste rarely changes him; Finally, there are people with a clear mind and excellent taste, but there are few of them, because, generally speaking, there is hardly a person in the world whose mind or taste would not harbor any flaw.
Human delusion is so ubiquitous that the evidence for our senses, as well as our taste, is imprecise and contradictory. We see the environment not quite as it really is, we value it more or less than it is worth, we associate with ourselves not as, on the one hand, befits it, and on the other, our inclinations and position. This explains the endless delusions of mind and taste. Human vanity is flattered by everything that appears before him in the guise of virtue, but since our vanity or imagination is affected by its various incarnations, we prefer to choose as a model only the generally accepted or not difficult. We imitate other people without thinking that one and the same feeling is by no means appropriate for everyone and that one should surrender to it only to the extent that it befits us.
People fear the delusion of taste even more than the delusion of the mind. However, a decent person should openly approve of anything worthy of approval, follow what is worthy of following, and not boast of anything. But this requires extraordinary insight and an extraordinary sense of proportion. We need to learn to distinguish goodness in general from the goodness of which we are capable, and, obeying innate inclinations, it is reasonable to limit ourselves to what our soul lies with. If we tried to succeed only in the area in which we are gifted, and followed only our duty, our tastes, just like our behavior, would always be correct, and we ourselves would invariably remain ourselves, judge everything according to our own understanding and would defend their views with conviction. Our thoughts and feelings would be sound, our tastes - our own, not appropriated ones - would bear the stamp of common sense, for we would stick to them not by coincidence or by established custom, but by free choice.
People are mistaken when they approve of something that is not worth approving, and in the same way they are mistaken, trying to flaunt qualities that are in no way befitting them, although quite worthy. The bureaucrat, clothed with power, who most of all boasts of courage, even if inherent in him, falls into error. He is right when he shows unshakable firmness towards the rioters, (1) but he is deluded and ridiculous when he fights a duel every now and then. A woman may love sciences, but since not all of them are available to her, she will succumb to delusion if she stubbornly pursues what she was not created for.
Our reason and common sense should evaluate the environment at its true value, prompting the taste to find everything that we consider, a place not only deserved, but also consistent with our inclinations. However, almost all people make mistakes on these issues and constantly fall into delusions.
The more powerful the king, the more often he commits such mistakes: he wants to surpass other mortals in valor, in knowledge, in love success, in a word, in what anyone can claim. But this thirst for superiority over everyone can become a source of delusion if it is irrepressible. This is not the kind of competition that should attract him. Let him imitate Alexander, (2) who agreed to compete in chariot racing only with kings, let him compete only in what is worthy of his monarchical dignity. No matter how courageous, learned, or amiable the king may be, a great number of people will be found just as brave, learned and amiable. Attempts to surpass every single one will always be wrong, and sometimes doomed to failure. But if he devotes his efforts to what constitutes his duty, if he is magnanimous, experienced in the deeds of abuses and statesmen, fair, merciful and generous, full of concern for his subjects, for the glory and prosperity of his state, then he will win in such a noble field. there will be only kings. He will not delude himself into surpassing them in such righteous and wonderful deeds; indeed, this competition is worthy of a king, for here he claims true greatness.
14. ABOUT THE SAMPLES CREATED BY NATURE AND FATE
No matter how changeable and whimsical fate, nevertheless, she sometimes abandons her whims and inclination to change and, having united with nature, creates, together with her, amazing, extraordinary people who become models for future generations. The business of nature is to reward them with special properties, the business of fate is to help them manifest these properties on such a scale and under such circumstances that would correspond to the intention of both. Like great artists, nature and destiny embody in these perfect creations whatever they wanted to portray. First, they decide what a person should be like, and then they begin to act according to a strictly deliberate plan: they choose a family and mentors, properties, innate and acquired, time, opportunities, friends and enemies, set off virtues and vices, exploits and blunders, do not be lazy to events it is important to add insignificant ones and arrange everything so skillfully that we always see the accomplishments of the chosen ones and the motives of accomplishments only in a certain light and from a certain angle of view.
What brilliant qualities the nature and destiny of Alexander awarded, wishing to show us an example of the greatness of the soul and incomparable courage! If you remember in what illustrious family he was born, his upbringing, youth, beauty, excellent health, remarkable and varied abilities for military science and science in general, advantages and even disadvantages, the small number of his troops, the enormous power of the enemy troops, the brevity of this wonderful life , the death of Alexander and who inherited him if you remember all this, will it not become clear with what skill and diligence nature and fate selected these countless circumstances for the sake of creating such a person? Is it not clear how deliberately they arranged numerous and extraordinary events, allotting to each of them a day intended for him in order to show the world an example of a young conqueror, even greater in his human properties than in loud victories?
And if you think about the light in which nature and fate present Caesar to us, won't we see that they followed a completely different plan) when they invested so much courage, mercy, generosity, military prowess, insight, liveliness of mind, condescension in this person, eloquence, bodily perfection, high dignity, necessary both in the days of peace and in the days of war? Was it not for this that they worked so long, combining such amazing gifts, helping to manifest them, and then forcing Caesar to turn against his homeland in order to give us a model of the most extraordinary of mortals and the most famous of usurpers? Through their efforts, he with all his talents is born in the republic - the mistress of the world, which is supported and affirmed by her greatest sons. Fate prudently chooses enemies for him from the most famous, influential and unyielding citizens of Rome, reconciles for a while with the most significant in order to use them for his elevation, and then, by deceiving and blinding them, pushes them to war with him, to that very war. which will lead him to the highest power. How many obstacles she put in his way! How many dangers she saved on land and at sea, so that he was never even lightly wounded! How persistently she supported Caesar's designs and destroyed Pompey's designs! (1) How cleverly she compelled the freedom-loving and arrogant Romans, jealously guarding their independence, to submit to the authority of one man! Even the circumstances of Caesar's death (2) were chosen by her so that they were in harmony with his life. Neither the predictions of clairvoyants, nor supernatural signs, nor the warnings of his wife and friends could save him; the day of his death, fate chose the day when the Senate was to offer him the royal tiara, and the murderers - the people he saved, the man to whom he gave life! (3)
This joint labor of nature and fate is especially evident in the personality of Cato; (4) they, as it were, deliberately put into him all the virtues characteristic of the ancient Romans, and opposed them to the virtues of Caesar, in order to show everyone that, although both were equally broad-minded and courageous, the thirst for glory made one a usurper, the other a model of the perfect citizen. I have no intention of comparing these great people here - enough has been written about them; I just want to emphasize that no matter how great and wonderful they may be to our eyes, nature and fate could not have exposed their qualities in the proper light, if it had not opposed Caesar to Cato and vice versa. These people certainly had to be born at the same time and in the same republic, endowed with dissimilar inclinations and talents, doomed to enmity by the incompatibility of personal aspirations and attitudes towards the fatherland: one - who did not know restraint in plans and boundaries in ambition ; the other, sternly withdrawn in adherence to the institutions of Rome and deifying freedom; both renowned for their lofty but different merit and, I dare say, even more renowned for the confrontation that fate and nature had taken care of in advance. How they fit in with each other, how united and necessary all the circumstances of Cato's life and his death! To complete the image of this great man, fate wished to inextricably link him with the Republic and at the same time took his life and freedom from Rome.
If we look from the past centuries to the present century, we see that nature and fate, being all in the same union, which I already spoke about, again presented us with examples unlike each other in the person of two wonderful generals. We see how, competing in military prowess, the Prince of Condé and Marshal Turenne (5) perform countless and brilliant deeds and reach the heights of well-deserved glory. They appear before us, equal in courage and experience, they act without knowing physical or mental fatigue, now together, now separately, now against each other, experience all the vicissitudes of war, gain victories and suffer defeats. Endowed with clairvoyance and courage and owing their successes to these properties, they become more and more great over the years, no matter what failures befall them, they save the state, sometimes strike it blows and use the same talents in different ways. Marshal Turenne, less passionate and more cautious in his designs, knows how to restrain himself and shows just as much courage as is necessary for his goals; Prince of Condé, whose ability to embrace the whole in the twinkling of an eye and perform true miracles is unparalleled, carried away by his unusual talent, as it were, subjugates events to himself, and they humbly serve his glory. The weakness of the troops that both commanded during the last campaigns, and the power of the enemy forces gave them new opportunities to show valor and their talents to compensate for everything that the army lacked for a successful war. The death of Marshal Turenne, quite worthy of his life, accompanied by many amazing circumstances and happened at a moment of extraordinary importance - even it seems to us the result of fear and uncertainty of fate, which did not have the courage to decide the fate of France and the Empire. (6) But the same fate that deprives the Prince of Condé because of his supposedly weakened health, the command of the troops just at the time when he could do things so important - does she not enter into an alliance with nature in order to do we now see this great man of private life, showing peaceful virtues and still worthy of glory? And is he, living far from battles, less brilliant than when he led an army from victory to victory?
15. ABOUT COCKETS AND OLD MEN
To understand human tastes is not an easy task at all, and even the tastes of coquettes are even more so: but, apparently, the fact is that they enjoy any victory that flatters vanity at least in the least, so there are no unworthy victories for them. As for me, I confess that the most incomprehensible thing seems to me the tendency of coquettes to old men who were once reputed to be ladies' pleasers. This tendency is so inconsistent with anything and at the same time common that one involuntarily begins to look for what the feeling is based on, which is very widespread and, at the same time, incompatible with the generally accepted opinion about women. I leave it to the philosophers to decide whether there is behind this a merciful desire of nature to console the old people in their wretched state, and whether she sends them coquettes out of the same foresight for which she sends wings to decrepit caterpillars so that they can be moths. But, even without trying to penetrate the secrets of nature, it is possible, in my opinion, to find sensible explanations for the perverted taste of coquettes for old people. First of all, it comes to mind that all women adore miracles, and what a miracle can please their vanity more than the resurrection of the dead! It gives them pleasure to drag the old people behind their chariot, to decorate their triumph with them, while remaining unblemished; moreover, old men are as obligatory in their retinue as dwarfs were obligatory in the past, judging by Amadis. (1) The coquette, with which the old man is, has the most humble and useful of slaves, has an unassuming friend and feels calm and confident in the world: he praises her everywhere, enters into confidence in her husband, being, as it were, a guarantee in the prudence of his wife, in addition, if she uses weight, she renders thousands of services, delving into all the needs and interests of her home. If rumors about the true adventures of the coquette reach him, he refuses to believe them, tries to dispel them, says that the world is evil-speaking - why should he not know how difficult it is to touch the heart of this purest woman! The more he manages to win signs of affection and tenderness, the more devoted and prudent he becomes: his own interest prompts him to modesty, for the old man is always afraid of getting a resignation and is happy that he is generally tolerated. It is not difficult for an old man to convince himself that if, contrary to common sense, he has become the chosen one, it means that he is loved, and he firmly believes that this is a reward for past merits, and does not cease to thank love for her long memory of him.
The coquette, for her part, tries not to break her promises, assures the old man that he always seemed attractive to her, that if she had not met him, she would never have known love, asks not to be jealous and trust her; she admits that she is not indifferent to social entertainment and conversation with worthy men, but if sometimes she is friendly with several at once, it is only for fear of betraying her attitude towards him; that he allows himself to laugh a little at him with these people, prompted by the desire to pronounce his name more often or by the need to hide his true feelings; that, however, his will, she will gladly give up everything, if only he was satisfied and continued to love her. What an old man would not succumb to these caressing speeches, so often misleading young and amiable men! Unfortunately, due to a weakness, especially characteristic of old men whom women once loved, he too easily forgets that he is no longer young and no longer amiable. But I'm not sure that knowing the truth would be more useful to him than deceit: at least, he is tolerated, amused, and helped to forget all his sorrows. And let it become a common laughingstock - this is sometimes still a lesser evil than the hardships and sufferings of a languishing life that has come into decay.
16. ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MIND
A powerful mind can have any properties generally inherent in the mind, but some of them constitute its special and inalienable property: its insight does not know its limits; he is always equally and tirelessly active; vigilantly discerns the distant, as if it were before his eyes; captures and comprehends the grandiose; sees and understands the scanty; thinks boldly, broadly, efficiently, observing a sense of proportion in everything; grasps everything to the smallest detail and because of this often reveals the truth, hidden under such a thick veil that it is invisible to others. But, in spite of these rare properties, the most powerful mind of a monk once becomes weak and shallow if addictions take possession of him.
A graceful mind always thinks nobly, expresses its views without difficulty, clearly, pleasantly and naturally, exposing them in a favorable light and coloring them with appropriate decorations; he knows how to understand someone else's taste and expels from his thoughts everything that is useless or that might not please others.
The mind is flexible, docile, insinuating knows how to get around and overcome difficulties, in necessary cases it easily adapts to other people's opinions, penetrates into the peculiarities of the mind and preferences of others and, observing the benefits of those with whom it enters into intercourse, does not forget and achieves its own.
A sane mind sees everything in the proper light, evaluates what it deserves, knows how to turn circumstances in the most favorable direction for itself, and firmly adheres to its views, for it does not doubt their correctness and solidity.
The business mind should not be confused with the selfish mind: you can be well versed in business, without chasing your own profit. Some people deftly act in circumstances that do not affect them, but are extremely awkward when it comes to themselves, while others, on the contrary, are not particularly sharp, but they know how to benefit from everything.
Sometimes the most serious mind is combined with the ability to pleasant and easy conversation. Such a mind is appropriate for both men and women of all ages. Young people usually have a cheerful, mocking mind, but without any shade of seriousness; therefore they are often tiresome. The role of a notebook amusement player is very ungrateful, and for the sake of the praise that such a person sometimes earns from others, you should not put yourself in a false position, constantly causing annoyance to these same people when they are in a bad mood.
Mockery is one of the most attractive as well as the most dangerous properties of the mind. Witty ridicule invariably amuses people, but they also invariably fear someone who uses it too often. Nevertheless, ridicule is quite permissible if it is gentle and directed mainly at the interlocutors themselves.
A penchant for jokes easily turns into a passion for buffoonery or mockery, and you need to have a great sense of proportion to constantly joke without falling into one of these extremes. Playfulness can be defined as general gaiety that captivates the imagination, forcing it to see everything in a funny light; it can be soft or sarcastic, depending on the nature of the character. Some people know how to joke in an elegant and flattering form: they ridicule only those shortcomings of their neighbors, which the latter willingly admit, under the guise of censure they praise, pretend that they want to hide the dignity of the interlocutor, and yet skillfully expose them.
The subtle mind is very different from the evil mind and is always pleasant for its ease, grace and observation. The crafty mind never goes straight to the goal, but seeks secret and roundabout ways to it. These tricks do not remain unsolved for long, invariably inspire fear in others, and rarely bring major victories.
There is also a difference between an ardent mind and a brilliant mind: the first grasps everything faster and penetrates deeper, the second is distinguished by liveliness, sharpness and a sense of proportion.
A soft mind is indulgent and agreeable and everyone likes it, if only it is not too superfluous.
The mind systematically plunges into consideration of the subject, not missing a single detail and observing all the rules. Such attention usually limits his possibilities; however, sometimes it is combined with a broad outlook, and then the mind, which possesses both of these properties, is invariably superior to others.
"A fair mind" is a definition that has been overused; Although this kind of mind may have the properties listed here, it has been attributed to so many bad rhyming and boring scribblers that now the word "good mind" is more often used to ridicule someone than to praise.
Some of the epithets attached to the word "mind" seem to mean the same thing, nevertheless there is a difference between them, and it is reflected in the tone and manner of pronouncing them; but since tone and manner are impossible to describe, I will not go into particulars that defy explanation. Everyone uses these epithets, perfectly understanding what they mean. When people talk about a person - "he is smart", or "he is, of course, smart", or "he is very smart", or "he is undeniably smart", only tone and manner emphasize the difference between these expressions, similar on paper and yet related to the minds of a different warehouse.
Sometimes it is also said that such and such a person has "the mind is always in the same way", or "the multifarious mind", or "the all-embracing mind." One can be generally a fool with an unmistakable mind, and one can be an intelligent person with the smallest mind. "Indisputable mind" is an ambiguous expression. It can mean any of the mentioned properties of the mind, but sometimes it does not contain anything definite. Sometimes you can speak quite cleverly, but act stupid, have a mind, but be extremely limited, be clever in one thing, but incapable of another, be indisputably clever and useless for anything, undeniably clever and, moreover, bearable. The main advantage of this kind of mind, apparently, is that it happens to be pleasant in conversation.
Although the manifestations of the mind are infinitely varied, they, it seems to me, can be distinguished by the following characteristics: so beautiful that everyone is able to understand and feel their beauty; not devoid of beauty and at the same time boring; beautiful and loved by everyone, although no one can explain why; so delicate and refined that few people are able to appreciate all their beauty; imperfect, but enclosed in such a skillful form, so consistently and gracefully developed that they deserve admiration.
17. ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THIS CENTURY
When history informs us about what is happening in the world, it tells equally about important and minor incidents; confused by such confusion, we do not always pay due attention to the unusual events that mark every century. But those generated by this century, in my opinion, overshadow all the previous ones with their unusualness. So it came to my mind to describe some of these events in order to attract the attention of those who are inclined to reflect on such topics.
Marie de Medici, Queen of France, consort of Henry the Great, was the mother of Louis XIII, his brother Gaston, Queen of Spain, (1) Duchess of Savoy (2) and Queen of England; (3) proclaimed regent, she ruled over the king, her son, and the entire kingdom for several years. It was she who made Armand de Richelieu a cardinal and first minister, on whom all decisions of the king and the fate of the state depended. Her merits and demerits were not such as to instill fear in anyone, and, however, this monarch, who knew such greatness and was surrounded by such brilliance, the widow of Henry IV, the mother of so many crowned persons, by order of the king, her son, was taken into custody henchmen of Cardinal Richelieu, who owed her his rise. Her other children, who sat on the thrones, did not come to her aid, did not even dare to give her shelter in their countries, and after ten years of persecution, she died in Cologne, in complete abandonment, one might say, by starvation.
Ange de Joyeuse, (4) Duke and Peer of France, Marshal and Admiral, young, wealthy, amiable and happy, gave up so many worldly benefits and joined the Capuchin order. A few years later, the needs of the state called him back to worldly life. The Pope released him from his vow and ordered him to stand at the head of the royal army that fought the Huguenots. For four years he commanded the troops and gradually again indulged in the same passions that ruled over him in his youth. When the war ended, he said goodbye to the world for the second time and put on a monk's dress. Ange de Joyeuse lived a long life filled with piety and holiness, but the vanity that he won in the world, here in the monastery, overcame him: he was elected abbot of a Parisian monastery, but since some people challenged his election, Ange de Joyeuse decided go on foot to Rome, despite its decrepitude and all the hardships associated with such a pilgrimage; moreover, when, upon his return, there were again protests against his election, he set off a second time and died, not reaching Rome, from fatigue, grief and old age.
Three Portuguese nobles and seventeen of their friends staged a rebellion in Portugal and the Indian lands subject to it, (5) without relying either on their own people or on foreigners and having no accomplices at court. This group of conspirators took possession of the royal palace in Lisbon, overthrew the Dowager Duchess of Mantua, regent who ruled for her young son, (6) and revolted the entire kingdom. During the riots, only Vasconcelos, (7) the Spanish minister, and two of his servants were killed. This coup was carried out in favor of the Duke of Braganza, (8) but without his participation. He was proclaimed king against his own will and was the only Portuguese unhappy with the enthronement of a new monarch. He wore the crown for fourteen years, showing neither special greatness nor special dignity over the years, and died in his bed, leaving a serene kingdom to his children.
Cardinal Richelieu arbitrarily ruled France during the reign of the monarch, who handed over the whole country into his hands, although he did not dare to entrust his person. In turn, the cardinal also did not trust the king and avoided visiting him, fearing for his life and freedom. Nevertheless, the king sacrificed the cardinal's vengeful anger to his favorite Saint-Mar and did not prevent his death on the scaffold. Finally, the cardinal dies in his bed; he indicates in his will whom to appoint to the most important government posts, and the king, whose distrust and hatred of Richelieu reached at that time the highest intensity, just as blindly obeys the will of the dead as he obeyed the living.
Is it possible not to wonder that Anne-Marie-Louise of Orleans, (9) the niece of the king of France, the richest of the uncrowned European princesses, stingy, harsh and arrogant, so noble that she could become the wife of any of the most powerful kings, having lived to forty-five years old, she decided to marry Puigillem, (10) the youngest in the Lozen family, an unprepossessing person, a man of a mediocre mind, whose virtues were exhausted by insolence and ingratiating manners. The most striking thing is that Mademoiselle took this insane decision out of servility, due to the fact that Puigillem was at the mercy of the king: the desire to become the wife of a favorite replaced her passion. Forgetting her age and high birth, not loving Puigillem, she nevertheless made such advances to him that would be unforgivable even on the part of a younger and less well-born person, who was also passionately in love. Once Mademoiselle told Puigillem that she could marry only one person in the world. He began to persistently ask her to reveal who he was; Not being able to say his name aloud, she wished to inscribe her confession with a diamond on the window pane. Realizing, of course, whom she had in mind, and perhaps hoping to lure out of her a handwritten note that could be very useful to him in the future, Puigillem decided to play a superstitious lover - and this should have pleased Mademoiselle very much - and declared that if she wants this feeling to last forever, then you should not write about it on the glass. His idea was a success, and in the evening Mademoiselle wrote on paper the words: "It's you." She sealed the note herself, but it was on Thursday and she could only deliver it after midnight; therefore, not wanting to yield to Puiguillem in scrupulousness and fearing that Friday would be an unlucky day, she took his word from him that he would break the seal only on Saturday - then the great secret would become known to him. Such was Puigillem's ambition that he took for granted this unheard-of mercy of fortune. He not only decided to take advantage of Mademoiselle's whim, but also had the audacity to tell the king about it. Everyone knows very well that, possessing high and extraordinary virtues, this monarch was arrogant and proud, like no one else in the world. Nevertheless, he not only did not rain down thunder and lightning on Puigillem for what he dared to tell him about his claims, but, on the contrary, allowed them to continue to feed; he even agreed that a delegation of four dignitaries should ask his permission for such an incongruous marriage and that neither the Duke of Orleans nor the Prince of Condé should be informed of this. The news, spreading quickly in the world, caused general bewilderment and indignation. The king did not immediately feel the damage he caused to his highest name and prestige. He simply believed that, according to his greatness, he could afford one fine day to raise Puigillem above the noblest nobles of the country, to intermarry with him, despite such glaring inequality, and make him the first peer of France and the owner of an rent of five hundred thousand livres; Most of all, this strange plan attracted him by the fact that it made it possible to secretly enjoy the general amazement at the sight of what hitherto unheard-of blessings he showered on a person whom he loved and considered worthy. Within three days, Puigillem could well, taking advantage of the rare grace of fortune, marry Mademoiselle, but driven by vanity no less rare, he began to achieve such wedding ceremonies that could take place only if he were of the same rank as Mademoiselle: he wished that the king and queen would be witnesses of his marriage, giving a special splendor to the event with their presence. Filled with unparalleled arrogance, he was busy with empty preparations for the wedding, and meanwhile he missed the time when he could really assert his happiness. Madame de Montespan (11), although she hated Puigillem, resigned herself to the king's inclination towards him and did not oppose this marriage. However, general rumors brought her out of inaction, she pointed out to the king what he did not see alone, and prompted to listen to public opinion. He learned about the bewilderment of the ambassadors, listened to the complaints and respectful objections of the Dowager Duchess of Orleans (12) and the entire royal house. Under the influence of all this, the king, after long hesitation and with the greatest reluctance, told Puigillemu that he could not give open consent to his marriage to Mademoiselle, but immediately assured him that this external change would not affect the essence of the matter: heart of Puigillem to marry Mademoiselle, he does not at all want this prohibition to interfere with his happiness. The king insisted that Puigillem marry secretly, and promised that the disfavor that would follow such an offense would last no more than a week. Whatever the true feelings of Puigillem in this conversation, he assured the king that he was happy to find himself from everything the monarch had promised him, since this could somehow damage the prestige of his majesty, especially since there is no such happiness in the world that would reward him for a week's separation from the sovereign. Deeply moved by such obedience, the king did not fail to do everything in his power to help Puigillem take advantage of Mademoiselle's weakness, and Puigillem, for his part, did everything in his power to emphasize what sacrifices he was ready to make for the sake of his master. In this case, it was not only disinterested feelings that guided him: he believed that his way of acting had always endeared the king to him and that now he was guaranteed monarch's favor until his death. Vanity and absurdity drove Puigillem to the point that he no longer wanted this such a profitable and exalted marriage, because he did not dare to arrange the festivities with the pomp of which he dreamed. However, what most of all pushed him to break with Mademoiselle was an irresistible disgust for her and unwillingness to be her husband. He hoped to derive significant benefits from her passion for him, believing that, even without becoming his wife, she would present him the principality of Dombes and the Duchy of Montpensier. That is why he at first refused all the gifts that the king wanted to shower on him. But Mademoiselle's parsimony and bad character, together with the difficulties involved in transferring such vast estates to Puigillem, showed him the futility of his plan, and he hastened to accept the generosity of the king, who presented him with the governorship of Berry and a rent of five hundred thousand livres. But these such significant benefits by no means satisfied Puigillem's claims. He expressed his displeasure aloud, and his enemies, especially Madame Montespan, immediately took advantage of this to finally settle with him. He understood his position, saw that he was threatened with disfavor, but he could no longer control himself and, instead of improving his affairs by gentle, patient, skillful treatment of the king, he behaved arrogantly and insolently. Puiguillem went so far as to shower the king with reproaches, uttered harshness and barbs to him, even broke his sword in his presence, while declaring that he would never again strip it in royal service. He fell upon Madame de Montespan with such contempt and rage that she had no choice but to destroy him, so as not to perish herself. Soon he was taken into custody and imprisoned in the Pignerola fortress; After spending many difficult years in prison, he knew what a misfortune it was to lose the king's mercy and, out of empty vanity, to lose the blessings and honors that the king bestowed on him - by his indulgence and Mademoiselle - by his low nature.
Alphonse VI, the son of the Duke of Braganza, about whom I spoke above, the Portuguese king, married in France with the daughter of the Duke de Nemour, (13) very young, with neither great wealth nor great connections. Soon, this queen conspired to dissolve her marriage to the king. By her order, he was taken into custody, and the very military units that had guarded him the day before as their master, now guarded him like a prisoner. Alphonse VI was exiled to one of the islands of his own state, keeping him alive and even the royal title. The queen married the brother of her former spouse and, being regent, transferred to him all the power over the country, but without the title of king. She calmly enjoyed the fruits of such an amazing conspiracy, without breaking good relations with the Spaniards and without causing civil strife in the kingdom.
A certain herbal seller named Mazaniello (14) revolted the Neapolitan commoners and, defeating the powerful Spanish army, usurped the royal power. He arbitrarily disposed of the life, freedom and property of those who were on his suspicion, took possession of the customs, ordered to take away all their money and all property from the tax farmers, and then ordered to burn these innumerable riches in the city square; not a single person from the disorderly crowd of rebels is not coveted for the good, acquired, according to their concepts, is sinful. This amazing reign lasted two weeks and ended no less amazingly than it began: the same Mazaniello, who so successfully, brilliantly and deftly performed such extraordinary deeds, suddenly lost his mind and died a day later in a fit of violent insanity.
The Swedish queen, (15) who lived in peace with her people and with neighboring countries, loved by her subjects, revered by foreigners, young, not overwhelmed by piety, voluntarily left her kingdom and began to live as a private person. The Polish king (16) from the same house as the Swedish queen also abdicated the throne just because he was tired of reigning.
The lieutenant of an infantry unit, a rootless and unknown man, (17) surfaced at the age of forty-five, taking advantage of the turmoil in the country. He overthrew his legitimate sovereign, (18) kind, just, condescending, courageous and generous, and, having secured the decision of the royal parliament, ordered the head of this king to be cut off, turned the kingdom into a republic and was the ruler of England for ten years; he held other states in greater fear and ruled his own country more autocraticly than any of the English monarchs; enjoying all the fullness of power, he quietly and peacefully died.
The Dutch, throwing off the burden of Spanish rule, formed a strong republic and for a whole century, protecting its freedom, fought with their legitimate kings. They owed a great deal to the valor and prudence of the princes of Orange, (19) but they always feared their claims and limited their power. In our time, this republic, so jealous of its power, gives into the hands of the current Prince of Orange, (20) an inexperienced ruler and an unfortunate commander, what it refused to his predecessors. It not only returns his possession, but also allows him to seize power, as if forgetting that he gave the mob to be torn apart by a man who alone defended the freedom of the republic against everyone.
The Spanish empire, which is so widespread and has inspired such reverence for all the monarchs of the world, now finds support only in its rebellious subjects and is kept under the patronage of Holland.
The young emperor, (21) weak-willed and trusting by nature, a toy in the hands of dull ministers, becomes in one day - just at the time when the Austrian reigning house is in complete decline - the sovereign of all German sovereigns who are afraid of his power, but despise his person; he is even more unlimited in his power than Charles V. (22)
The English king, (23) cowardly, lazy, busy only with the pursuit of pleasures, having forgotten about the interests of the country and about those examples that could be gleaned from the history of his own family, for six years, despite the indignation of the whole people and the hatred of parliament, remained friendly relationship with the French king; he not only did not object to the conquests of this monarch in the Netherlands, but even contributed to them by sending his troops there. This friendly alliance prevented him from gaining full power in England and expanding the borders of his country at the expense of Flanders and Dutch cities and ports, which he stubbornly refused. But just when he received significant sums of money from the French king and when he especially needed support in the fight against his own subjects, he suddenly and without any reason renounces all past obligations and takes a hostile position towards France, although just in this time was both profitable and reasonable for him to keep an alliance with her! Such an unreasonable and hasty policy instantly deprived him of the opportunity to derive the only benefit from a policy no less unreasonable and lasting six years; instead of acting as an intermediary helping to find peace, he himself is forced to beg for this peace from the French king on a par with Spain, Germany and Holland.
When the Prince of Orange asked the English king for the hand of his niece, the daughter of the Duke of York, (24) he reacted very coldly to this proposal, like his brother, the Duke of York. Then the Prince of Orange, seeing what obstacles stand in the way of his plan, also decided to abandon it. But one fine day, the English Minister of Finance, (25) prompted by selfish interests, fearing attacks from members of parliament and trembling for his own safety, persuaded the king to intermarry with the Prince of Orange, marrying his niece for him, and oppose France on the side of the Netherlands. This decision was made so lightning fast and was kept in such a secret that even the Duke of York learned about the upcoming marriage of his daughter only two days before it took place. Everyone was plunged into complete bewilderment that the king, who had risked his life and crown for ten years in order to maintain friendly relations with France, suddenly abandoned everything that this alliance enticed him with - and did so only for the sake of his minister! On the other hand, the Prince of Orange, too, at first did not show much interest in the mentioned marriage, which was very beneficial for him, thanks to which he became the heir to the English throne and in the future could become king. He thought only of strengthening his power in Holland and, despite the recent military defeat, hoped to be as firmly established in all the provinces as, in his opinion, was established in Zealand. But he soon became convinced that the measures he had taken were insufficient: an amusing incident revealed to him something that he himself could not discern, namely his position in the country, which he already considered his own. At a public auction, where home belongings were sold and a lot of people gathered, the auctioneer shouted out a collection of maps and, since everyone was silent, said that this book was much rarer than those present believed, and that the maps in it were excellently accurate: they even that river, the existence of which the Prince of Orange did not know when he lost the Battle of Kassel. (26) This joke, met with general applause, was one of the main reasons that prompted the prince to seek a new rapprochement with England: he thought in this way to appease the Dutch and add another powerful power to the camp of the enemies of France. But both the supporters of this marriage and its opponents, apparently, did not quite understand what their true interests were: the English Minister of Finance, persuading the sovereign to marry his niece to the Prince of Orange and dissolve the alliance with France, wanted thereby to appease parliament and protect himself from his attacks; the English king believed that, relying on the Prince of Orange, he would strengthen his power in the state, and immediately demanded money from the people, allegedly in order to defeat and force the French king to peace, but in fact - to spend it on his own whims; the prince of Orange plotted, with the help of England, to subjugate Holland; France feared that a marriage that ran counter to all her interests would upset the balance, throwing England into the enemy camp. But after a month and a half it became clear that all the assumptions associated with the marriage of the Prince of Orange did not come true: England and Holland forever lost trust in each other, because each saw in this marriage a weapon directed precisely against her; the English parliament, continuing to attack the ministers, was preparing to attack the king; Holland, weary of the war and full of anxiety for its freedom, regrets that it trusted the young ambitious, Crown Prince of the English crown; The French king, who at first considered this marriage as hostile to his interests, managed to use it in order to sow discord among the enemy powers, and now he could easily seize Flanders if he did not prefer the glory of a peacemaker to the glory of a conqueror.
If this century is no less abundant in amazing incidents than the past centuries, then, I must say, in terms of crimes it has a sad advantage over them. Even France, which has always hated them and, relying on the peculiarities of the character of its citizens, on religion and the examples taught by the current ruling monarch, fought them in every possible way, even she has now become an arena of atrocities that are in no way inferior to those that, as history and legends say , were committed in ancient times. Man is inseparable from vices; at all times he is born self-interested, cruel, depraved. But if persons whose names are known to everyone lived in those distant centuries, would they now remember the shameless libertine Heliogabalus, (27) the Greeks bringing gifts, (28) or the poisoner, fratricide and infanticide Medea? (29)
18. ABOUT INCONSISTENCY
I have no intention here of justifying impermanence, all the more so if it stems from frivolity alone; but it would be unfair to attribute to him alone all the changes to which love is subject. Her initial dress, smart and bright, falls off her as imperceptibly as the spring bloom from fruit trees; people are not to blame for this, only time is to blame. At the birth of love, appearance is seductive, feelings agree, a person longs for tenderness and pleasure, wants to please the object of his love, because he himself is delighted with him, with all his might, seeks to show how infinitely he appreciates him. But gradually the feelings that seemed forever unchanged become different, there is neither the former fervor, nor the charm of novelty, beauty, which plays such an important role in love, seems to fade or cease to seduce, and although the word "love" still does not leave our lips, people and their relationships are no longer what they were; they are still true to their vows, but only out of honor, out of habit, out of unwillingness to admit to themselves their inconstancy.
How could people fall in love if at first glance they saw each other the way they see them over the years? Or part if this initial view remained unchanged? Pride, which almost always rules over our inclinations and does not know satiety all the time, would find new reasons to indulge itself with flattery, but constancy would lose its value, would mean nothing for such a serene: relationship; the present signs of favor would be no less captivating than the old ones, and memory would not find any difference between them; impermanence simply would not exist, and people would love each other with the same ardor, for they would have all the same reasons for love.
Changes in friendship are caused by almost the same reasons as changes in love; although love is full of animation and pleasantness, while friendship should be more balanced, stricter, more exacting, both are subject to similar laws, and time, which changes both our aspirations and our disposition, equally spares neither one nor the other. People are so weak-minded and fickle that they cannot bear the burden of friendship for a long time. Of course, antiquity gave us examples of it, but today, true friendship is almost less common than true love.
19. ABOUT REMOVING FROM THE LIGHT
I would have had to write too many pages if I now began to list all the obvious reasons that induce old people to move away from the light: changes in the state of mind and in appearance, as well as bodily weakness, imperceptibly repel them - and in this they are similar to most animals - from society like them. Pride, an inseparable companion of self-love, takes the place of reason: being no longer able to please themselves with what others are enjoying, old people know from experience both the value of the joys so desired in their youth, and the impossibility of indulging in them in the future. By a whim of fate, whether because of the envy and unfairness of others, or because of their own mistakes, but the old people are not available ways of gaining honors, pleasures, fame that seem so easy to young men. Once they have gone astray from the road leading to everything that glorifies people, they can no longer return to it: it is too long, difficult, full of obstacles that they, burdened by years, seem insurmountable. Old people grow cold towards friendship, and not only because, perhaps, they never knew it, but then) also because they buried so many friends who did not have time or did not have the opportunity to betray friendship; the more easily they convince themselves that the dead were much more loyal to them than the survivors. They are no longer involved in those main benefits that previously inflamed their desires, almost not even involved in glory: the one that was conquered decays over time, and it happens that people, getting old, lose everything they had gained before. Every day takes away a particle of their being, and in - they have too little strength left to enjoy what has not yet been lost, not to mention the pursuit of what they want. Ahead they see only sorrows, ailments, wilting; everything has been tested by them, nothing has the charm of novelty. Time imperceptibly pushes them away from the place from where they would like to look at others and where they themselves would be an impressive sight. Some lucky ones are still tolerated in society, others are openly despised. They are left with the only prudent way out - to hide from the light what they once, perhaps, too paraded. Realizing that all their desires are fruitless, they gradually acquire a taste for dumb and insensitive objects - for buildings, for agriculture, for economic sciences, for scientific works, because here they are still strong and free: they take up these occupations or abandon them. , decide how to be and what to do next. They can fulfill any of their desires and no longer depend on the light, but only on themselves. People with wisdom use the rest of their days to their advantage and, almost not connected with this life, become worthy of a different and better life. Others, however, at least get rid of outside witnesses of their insignificance; they are immersed in their own ailments; the slightest relief serves them as a substitute for happiness, and their weakening flesh, more rational than themselves, no longer torments them with the torment of unfulfilled desires. Gradually they forget the light, which so readily forgot them, find in solitude even something comforting for their vanity and, tormented by boredom, doubt, cowardice, drag out, obeying the voice of piety or reason, and more often out of habit, the burden of a painful and joyless life.