In the world of wise thoughts, a statement by françois larochefoucauld. Francois VI de La Rochefoucauld - aphorisms, quotes, sayings

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 somber 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

Biography

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, princess of the royal blood.

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, published under the title 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 work 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. The court psychology of the era of absolutism is the most adequate reflection of the Maxims of La Rochefoucauld, but their meaning is broader, they are relevant in our time.

Biography

Francois VI de La Rochefoucauld (Francois VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld) was born on September 15, 1613 in Paris. Originally from the old noble family of Poitou. Until the death of his father (his father died in 1650) he held the title of Prince de Marsillac. His origin determined his future fate: he found himself in the center of palace intrigues. La Rochefoucauld was a brilliant courtier and French writer. He was distinguished by his wit, boldness of judgment and, taking part in the political life of his country, found himself in a party hostile to Cardinal Richelieu, his order from Paris in 1637. Then he was briefly imprisoned in the Bastille. Despite military exploits in the battles with the Spaniards, he was again excommunicated from the court, where he returned after the death of Richelieu (1642) and Louis XIII (1643), but again showed his independence and became a desperate opponent of Mazarin. The feeling of hatred for Mazarin was also associated with his love for the Duchess de Longueville. She was called the inspirer of the civil war (Fronde). And La Rochefoucauld was forced to join the Fronde, which existed in the years 1648-1653 (a social movement against absolutism). This movement was headed by the Prince of Condé, and it consisted of people of different social status.

"Maxims" have been one of the most popular works for several years in a row. It is not surprising, because the aphoristic clarity of thinking, as well as the fact that La Rochefoucauld did not disguise the desire to note the "common human" shortcomings. In 1665, La Rochefoucauld published Reflections, or Moral Sayings. And from 1665 to 1678, 5 revised and supplemented editions were published.

La Rochefoucauld gained considerable experience by becoming a member of the Fronde. All these political games convinced him of only one thing: selfishness is the main motivating factor for a person.

The poet died in Paris in 1680.

Biography

La Rochefoucauld took an active part in the political life of France, was an opponent of Richelieu and Mazarin, played a prominent role in the “Fronde” movement, and stood at the center of great intrigues.

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.

After Richelieu's death in 1642, 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, who for many years played an important role in the life of La Rochefoucauld, but disappointed in her affection, La Rochefoucauld became a gloomy misanthrope; his only consolation was his friendship with Madame de Lafayette, to which he remained faithful until his death.

In 1652, near Paris, the fronder army suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the royal troops. La Rochefoucauld was seriously injured and nearly lost his sight. The war brought ruin to La Rochefoucault, and he retired from political activity.

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.

The result of the extensive life experience of La Rochefoucauld was his "Maxims" - a collection of aphorisms - this is the fruit of great erudition, an expert on ancient philosophy, a reader of Descartes and Gassendi. The first edition of Maxim was published anonymously in 1665.

Refined style, accuracy, laconicism made La Rochefoucauld's Maxims the most famous and popular among the collections of aphorisms. Their author went down in history as a subtle observer, witty and perceptive philosopher with impeccable style, but clearly disappointed in life.

At the beginning of 1680, La Rochefoucauld's health deteriorated, and it became clear that he was dying. Madame de Lafayette spent every day with him. On the night of March 16-17, 1680, at the age of 66, he died in Paris in the arms of his eldest son.

Biography

La Rochefoucauld? an old French noble family from the province of Poitou. Founder - Foucault de La Roche - according to family traditions, the grandson of South II de Lusignan. Princes de Marsillac from 1500, earls from 1517, dukes and peers of France from 1622.

La Rochefoucault François is a French writer. A duke and a brilliant courtier. La Rochefoucauld took the most active part in the political life of France of that era, was an opponent of Richelieu and Mazarin, played a prominent role in the “Fronde” movement, and stood at the center of great intrigues.

In 1662 he published "Memoirs", and in 1665 "Maxims and Moral Reflections", at first anonymously. From 1665 to 1678, 5 revised and supplemented editions were published. The invariable success of "Maxim" is explained by the aphoristic clarity of the author's thinking. The aristocrat's point of view is not masked by the desire to note the "universal" shortcomings and character traits, which served as an invariable subject of discussion in the salons, whose visitors showed their wit in discussing the issues of morality, religion and the nature of emotions put forward by Cartesian philosophy.

The personal experience of a complex political game of "Machiavellianism" of the Fronde era determined the main views of La Rochefoucauld, for whom the main stimulus of human activity is selfishness: a person loves, because it is pleasant if he is loved too, a person is merciful, because it is unpleasant for him to see suffering, etc. etc., in a word, “all virtues are lost in the calculation, like rivers in the sea”, and “vices are included in the composition of virtues, like poisons in the composition of medicines.” extremely concise ideological formulas, his accuracy in characterizing the subject, etc. The main method of La Rochefoucauld is correctly indicated by French criticism - he reduces the virtue in question to a related disadvantage: generosity or courage - to vanity, honesty - to the desire to instill confidence for selfish purposes. As a historical and cultural figure, La Rochefoucauld is a typical indicator of the general decadent moments in the ideology of the French aristocracy of the 17th century. The Duke of La Rochefoucauld realized that absolutism had won a victory over that part of the feudal nobility that resisted it. Moreover, he was convinced that she would sell her claims to political power for the benefits that absolutism would provide her. During his stormy life, La Rochefoucauld had to witness how imaginary these virtues turned out to be in the new socio-political conditions. Hence - the extreme pessimism, the misanthropy of La Rochefoucauld, which generalized his disillusionment with his class stratum. The decomposition of the latter, the weakening of social ties in it, determined the extreme individualism of La Rochefoucauld, his focus on personal experiences, which are subject to heightened introspection. La Rochefoucauld's conviction in the corruption of human nature is only formally connected with Jansenism, a popular religious movement at that time, in essence, it is a product of the crisis of the worldview of feudal-aristocratic groups that opposed absolutism.

Biography

Arochefoucault François de, a French moralist writer and a brilliant courtier, was born in 1613 in Paris in the family of a duke, the origin predetermined his future fate, throwing him into the thick of palace intrigues. La Rochefoucauld took an active part in the political life of France of that era, he found himself in a political party hostile to Cardinal Richelieu (only after the death of the latter did La Rochefoucauld play a prominent role at court) and was forced to join the Fronde, a broad social movement against absolutism that existed in 1648. 1653 biennium and consisted of people of different social status, headed by the Prince of Condé.

For many years, the Duchess of Longueville played a large role in his personal life, for the love of which he more than once renounced the impulses of ambition. Disappointed in 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. Moving away from the court, La Rochefoucauld maintained a close relationship with the salons of Madame Sable and Madame de Lafayette. The last years of La Rochefoucauld were overshadowed by various adversities, the death of his son, and diseases.

In 1662 he published "Memoirs", and in 1665 "Reflections, or Moral sayings" (1665), better known as "Maxims". From 1665 to 1678, 5 revised and supplemented editions were published. The invariable success of "Maxim" over the course of several years is explained by the aphoristic clarity of the author's thinking. The point of view of the aristocrat is not masked by the desire to note the "universal" shortcomings, which served as an invariable subject of discussion in secular salons. The personal experience of the political game of the era of the Fronde determined the main views of the author - the main motivating factor of a person is egoism: a person loves, because it is pleasant if he is loved, etc. The main aphorism of La Rochefoucauld: "All our virtues are hidden vices."

La Rochefoucauld had a chance to witness how imaginary these virtues sometimes turned out to be in the new socio-political conditions. Hence his extreme pessimism and misanthropy, which characterize his disillusionment with his class stratum and his constant conviction in the corruption of human nature.

Died La Rochefoucauld in Paris in 1680.

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 Memoirs by François de La Rochefoucauld.

Biography

Francois de La Rochefoucauld (09/15/1613 - 02/17/1680) was a famous French philosopher who belonged to the ancient French family of La Rochefoucauld. 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. François was brought up at court and from his youth was involved in various court intrigues. Taking over from his father hatred for the cardinal

Richelieu often feuded with the duke and only after the death of the latter began to play a prominent role at court. During his life, La Rochefoucauld was the author of many intrigues. They were attracted in 1962 by "maxims" (apt and witty statements) - La Rochefoucauld began work on his collection "Maxim". "Maxims" (Maximes) - a collection of aphorisms that make up an integral code of everyday philosophy. La Rochefoucauld's friends contributed to the release of the first edition of Maxim, sending one of the author's manuscripts to Holland in 1664, thus infuriating François. On contemporaries "Maxims" made an indelible impression: some found them cynical, others excellent. In 1679, the French Academy offered La Rochefoucault to become a member, but he refused, probably considering that the nobleman was unworthy to be a writer. Despite a brilliant career, the majority considered La Rochefoucauld an eccentric and a failure.

Biography

The French writer is a moralist. Participated in palace intrigues against Cardinal Richelieu. In his "Memoirs", covering the events of 1624-1652, he opposed absolutism.

The main work of La Rochefoucauld - "Reflections, or Moral sayings and maxims" - the philosophical result of his observations on the mores of French society. He considered selfishness and selfish calculation ("interest") to be the main driving forces of human behavior.

This idea, expressed by T. Hobbes and very common among many thinkers of that era, acquires special novelty from the writer due to his subtle psychological analysis of the mores of the French aristocracy and, above all, those conscious, and more often unconscious, tricks with the help of which genuine motives and interests are masked fictitious ethical ideals.

La Rochefoucauld is a master of the aphoristic style.

Biography (ru.wikipedia.org)

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 somber 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.

Literary heritage

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.

Memoirs

No less important work of La Rochefoucauld was his "Memoires" (Memoires sur la regence d'Anne d'Autriche), the 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.

Family and Children

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

Wife: (from January 20, 1628, Mirebaud) André de Vivonne (d. 1670), daughter of André de Vivonne, lord de la Bérodier and Marie Antoinette de Loménie. Had 8 children:

* Francois VII (1634-1714), Duke de La Rochefoucauld
* Charles (1635-1691), Knight of the Order of Malta
* Maria Catherine (1637-1711), known as Mademoiselle de La Rochefoucauld
* Henrietta (1638-1721), known as Mademoiselle de Marsillac
* Françoise (1641-1708), known as Mademoiselle d'Anville
* Henri Achilles (1642-1698), abbot de La Chez-Die
* Jean Baptiste (1646-1672), known as the Chevalier de Marsillac
* Alexander (1665-1721), known as Abbot de Verteuil

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

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

The time when François de La Rochefoucauld lived is commonly referred to as the "great age" of French literature. His contemporaries were Cornel, Racine, Moliere, Lafontaine, Pascal, Boileau. But the life of the author of "Maxim" bears little resemblance to the life of the creators of "Tartuffe", "Phaedra" or "Poetic Art". And he called himself a professional writer only as a joke, with a certain amount of irony. While his brothers in the pen were forced to look for noble patrons in order to exist, the Duke de La Rochefoucauld was often weighed down by the special attention that the sun king gave him. Receiving a large income from vast estates, he did not have to worry about remuneration for his literary works. And when writers and critics, his contemporaries, were engrossed in heated disputes and sharp clashes, defending their understanding of dramatic laws, our author recalled and pondered not at all about those literary fights and battles. La Rochefoucauld was not only a writer and not only a philosopher-moralist, he was a military leader, a politician. His very life, full of adventure, is now perceived as an exciting story. However, he himself told it - in his "Memoirs".

The family of La Rochefoucauld was considered one of the most ancient in France - it dates back to the 11th century. French kings more than once officially called the lords de La Rochefoucauld "their dear cousins" and entrusted them with honorary positions at court. Under Francis I, in the 16th century, La Rochefoucauld received the title of count, and under Louis XIII, the title of duke and peerage. These supreme titles made the French feudal lord a permanent member of the Royal Council and Parliament and a sovereign master in his domain, with the right to legal proceedings. François VI, Duke de La Rochefoucauld, who traditionally bore the name of the Prince de Marsillac before his father's death (1650), was born on September 15, 1613 in Paris. He spent his childhood in the province of Angumua, in the castle of Verteil, the main residence of the family. The upbringing and education of the Prince de Marsillac, as well as his eleven younger brothers and sisters, was rather sloppy. As befits provincial nobles, he was mainly engaged in hunting and military exercises. But later, thanks to his studies in philosophy and history, reading the classics, La Rochefoucauld, according to his contemporaries, becomes one of the most learned people in Paris.

In 1630, the Prince de Marsillac appeared at court, and soon took part in the Thirty Years War. Careless words about the unsuccessful campaign of 1635 led to the fact that, like some other nobles, he was exiled to his estates. His father, François V, had already lived there for several years, having fallen into disgrace for participating in the rebellion of Duke Gaston of Orleans, "the constant leader of all conspiracies." The young Prince de Marsillac sadly recalled his stay at court, where he sided with Queen Anne of Austria, whom the first minister, Cardinal Richelieu, suspected of having connections with the Spanish court, that is, of high treason. Later, La Rochefoucauld would say about his "natural hatred" for Richelieu and his rejection of "the terrible way of his government": this will be the result of life experience and formed political views. In the meantime, he is full of chivalrous loyalty to the queen and her persecuted friends. In 1637 he returned to Paris. Soon he helps Madame de Chevreuse, the friend of the Queen, a famous political adventurer, to flee to Spain, for which he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Here he had the opportunity to communicate with other prisoners, among whom there were many noble nobles, and received his first political education, having mastered the idea that the "unjust rule" of Cardinal Richelieu was intended to deprive the aristocracy of these privileges and its former political role from a century.

On December 4, 1642, Cardinal Richelieu dies, and in May 1643, King Louis XIII. Anne of Austria was appointed regent under the minor Louis XIV, and, unexpectedly for everyone, Cardinal Mazarin, the successor of the Richelieu cause, was at the head of the Royal Council. Taking advantage of the political turmoil, the feudal nobility demands the restoration of the former rights and privileges taken from them. Marsillac enters into the so-called Conspiracy of the Arrogant (September 1643), and upon the disclosure of the conspiracy he is sent back to the army. He fights under the leadership of the first prince of the blood, Louis de Bourbron, Duke of Enghien (from 1646 - Prince of Condé, later nicknamed the Great for victories in the Thirty Years' War). In the same years, Marciillac met the sister of Condé, the Duchess of Longueville, who would soon become one of the inspirers of the Fronde and for many years will be a close friend of La Rochefoucauld.

Marsillac is seriously wounded in one of the battles and is forced to return to Paris. While he was fighting, his father bought him the post of governor of the province of Poitou; the governor was the viceroy of the king in his province: all military and administrative management was concentrated in his hands. Even before the departure of the newly-made governor to Poitou, Cardinal Mazarin tried to win him over with the promise of the so-called Louvre honors: the right of a stool to his wife (that is, the right to sit in the presence of the queen) and the right to enter the courtyard of the Louvre in a carriage.

The province of Poitou, like many other provinces, rebelled: taxes were imposed on the population an unbearable burden. A riot was brewing in Paris as well. The Fronda began. The interests of the Parisian parliament, which headed the Fronde at its first stage, largely coincided with the interests of the nobility, who joined the rebellious Paris. Parliament wanted to regain its former freedom in the exercise of its powers, the aristocracy, taking advantage of the king's youth and general discontent, sought to seize the highest positions of the state apparatus in order to completely rule the country. There was unanimous desire to deprive Mazarin of power and expel him from France as a foreigner. At the head of the rebellious nobles, who began to be called fronders, were the most eminent people of the kingdom.

Marsillac joined the frondeurs, left Poitou without permission and returned to Paris. He explained his personal claims and reasons for participating in the war against the king in the "Apology of Prince Marsillac", which was pronounced in the Paris parliament (1648). La Rochefoucault speaks in it about his right to privileges, about feudal honor and conscience, about services to the state and the queen. He blames Mazarin for the plight of France and adds that his personal misfortunes are closely related to the troubles of his homeland, and the restoration of trampled justice will be a blessing for the entire state. La Rochefoucauld's Apology once again revealed a specific feature of the political philosophy of the rebellious nobility: the conviction that its well-being and privileges constitute the well-being of all of France. La Rochefoucauld claims that he could not have called Mazarin his enemy before he was declared an enemy of France.

As soon as the riots began, the Queen Mother and Mazarin left the capital, and soon the royal troops laid siege to Paris. Peace negotiations began between the court and the fronders. The parliament, frightened by the size of the general indignation, refused to fight. The peace was signed on March 11, 1649 and became a kind of compromise between the rebels and the crown.

The peace signed in March did not seem to anyone to be lasting, for it did not satisfy anyone: Mazarin remained the head of government and pursued the old absolutist policy. A new civil war was sparked by the arrest of the Prince of Condé and his associates. The Fronde of Princes began, which lasted more than three years (January 1650 - July 1653). This last military uprising of the nobility against the new state order took on a wide scale.

The Duke de La Rochefoucauld went to his domain and gathered there a significant army, which united with other feudal militias. The united rebel forces marched into the province of Guienne, choosing the city of Bordeaux as the center. In Guienne, popular unrest, which was supported by the local parliament, did not subside. The rebellious nobility was especially attracted by the convenient geographical position of the city and its proximity to Spain, which closely followed the emerging rebellion and promised the rebels its help. Following feudal morality, the aristocrats did not at all believe that they were committing high treason by entering into negotiations with a foreign power: the old regulations gave them the right to transfer to the service of another sovereign.

Royal troops approached Bordeaux. A talented military leader and a skilled diplomat, La Rochefoucauld became one of the leaders of the defense. The fighting went on with varying success, but the royal army was stronger. The first war in Bordeaux ended in peace (October 1, 1650), which did not satisfy La Rochefoucauld, for the princes were still in prison. The duke himself was granted amnesty, but he was stripped of his post as governor of Poitou and was ordered to go to his castle of Verteuil, devastated by the royal soldiers. La Rochefoucauld accepted this demand with splendid indifference, notes a contemporary. La Rochefoucauld and Saint-Evremont give a very flattering characterization: “His courage and dignified behavior make him capable of any business ... will not go to meanness. "

The struggle to free the princes continued. Finally, on February 13, 1651, the princes were freed. The Royal Declaration restored them in all rights, positions and privileges. Cardinal Mazarin, obeying the decree of Parliament, retired to Germany, but nevertheless continued to govern the country from there - "just as if he lived in the Louvre." Anna of Austria, in order to avoid new bloodshed, tried to attract the nobility to her side, giving generous promises. The court groups easily changed their composition, their members betrayed each other depending on their personal interests, and this drove La Rochefoucauld into despair. The Queen nevertheless achieved a division of the dissatisfied: Condé broke with the rest of the fronders, left Paris and began to prepare for a civil war, the third in such a short time. The Royal Declaration of October 8, 1651 declared the Prince of Condé and his supporters to be high traitors; among them was La Rochefoucauld. In April 1652, Condé's army approached Paris. The princes tried to unite with the Parliament and the municipality and at the same time negotiated with the court, seeking new advantages for themselves.

Meanwhile, the royal troops approached Paris. In the battle at the city walls in the Saint-Antoine suburb (July 2, 1652), La Rochefoucauld was seriously wounded by a shot in the face and nearly lost his sight. Contemporaries recalled his courage for a very long time.

Despite the success in this battle, the position of the fronders worsened: discord intensified, foreign allies refused to help. Parliament, ordered to leave Paris, split. The case was completed by a new diplomatic trick of Mazarin, who, upon returning to France, pretended to go into voluntary exile again, sacrificing his interests for the sake of universal reconciliation. This made it possible to begin peace negotiations, and the young Louis XIV on October 21, 1652. solemnly entered the rebellious capital. Soon the triumphant Mazarin also returned there. The parliamentary and noble Fronde came to an end.

Under the amnesty, La Rochefoucauld had to leave Paris and go into exile. The serious health condition after being wounded did not allow him to participate in political speeches. He returns to Angumua, takes care of a dilapidated economy, recovers his ruined health and reflects on the events he has just experienced. The fruit of these reflections was the "Memoirs", written during the years of exile and published in 1662.

According to La Rochefoucauld, he wrote "Memoirs" only for a few close friends and did not want to make his notes public. But one of the many copies was printed in Brussels without the author's knowledge and caused a real scandal, especially among the entourage of Condé and Madame de Longueville.

La Rochefoucauld's Memoirs became part of the general tradition of 17th century memoir literature. They summed up a time full of events, hopes and disappointments, and, like other memoirs of the era, had a certain noble orientation: the task of their author was to comprehend his personal activities as serving the state and prove the validity of his views with facts.

La Rochefoucauld wrote his memoirs in "idleness caused by disgrace." Talking about the events of his life, he wanted to sum up the thoughts of recent years and understand the historical meaning of the common cause to which he made so many useless sacrifices. He didn't want to write about himself. Prince Marsillac, who usually appears in the third person in the Memoirs, appears only occasionally when he takes a direct part in the events described. In this sense, La Rochefoucauld's Memoirs are very different from the Memoirs of his “old enemy” Cardinal Retz, who made himself the protagonist of his story.

La Rochefoucauld repeatedly speaks of the impartiality of his story. Indeed, he describes events, not allowing himself too personal assessments, but his own position is manifested in the "Memoirs" quite clearly.

It is generally accepted that La Rochefoucauld joined the uprisings as an ambitious offended by court failures, and also out of a love of adventure, so characteristic of every nobleman of that time. However, the reasons that brought La Rochefoucauld to the Frondera camp were more general in nature and were based on firm principles to which he remained faithful throughout his life. Having mastered the political convictions of the feudal nobility, from his youth, La Rochefoucauld hated Cardinal Richelieu and considered his "cruel way of government" unjust, which became a disaster for the whole country, for "the nobility was humiliated, and the people were crushed by taxes." Mazarin was the successor of Richelieu's policy, and therefore he, in La Rochefoucauld's opinion, led France to death.

Like many of his like-minded people, he believed that the aristocracy and the people were bound by "mutual obligations," and he regarded his struggle for ducal privileges as a struggle for universal well-being and freedom: after all, these privileges were obtained by serving the motherland and the king, and returning them means restoring justice, the very one that should determine the policy of a reasonable state.

But, observing his fellow fronders, he saw with bitterness "countless unfaithful people", ready for any compromise and betrayal. You cannot rely on them, because they, "at first adhering to any party, usually betray it or leave, pursuing their own fears and interests." With their disunity and selfishness, they ruined the common, sacred in his eyes, the cause of the salvation of France. The nobility turned out to be unable to fulfill a great historical mission. And although La Rochefoucauld himself joined the frondeurs after he was denied ducal privileges, his contemporaries recognized his loyalty to the common cause: no one could accuse him of treason. Until the end of his life, he remained devoted to his ideals and objective in relation to people. In this sense, an unexpected, at first glance, high assessment of the activities of Cardinal Richelieu is characteristic, finishing the first book of "Memoirs": the greatness of Richelieu's intentions and the ability to implement them should drown out private discontent, his memory should be praised so justly deserved. The fact that La Rochefoucauld understood Richelieu's enormous merits and was able to rise above personal, narrowly caste and "moral" assessments, testifies not only to his patriotism and broad public outlook, but also to the sincerity of his confessions that he was not guided by personal goals, but thoughts about the welfare of the state.

Life and political experience of La Rochefoucauld became the basis of his philosophical views. The psychology of the feudal lord seemed to him typical of man in general: a particular historical phenomenon turns into a universal law. From the political topicality of the Memoirs, his thought gradually turns to the eternal foundations of psychology, developed in the Maxims.

When the Memoirs were published, La Rochefoucauld was living in Paris: he has been settling there since the late 1650s. Gradually, his previous guilt is forgotten, the recent rebel is fully forgiven. (Evidence of the final forgiveness was the conferment of him as a member of the Order of the Holy Spirit on January 1, 1662) The king assigns him a substantial pension, his sons occupy lucrative and honorable positions. He rarely appears at court, but, according to Madame de Sevigne, the sun king always gave him special attention, and sat down to listen to music next to Madame de Montespan.

La Rochefoucault becomes a regular visitor to the salons of Madame de Sable and, later, Madame de Lafayette. With these salons and associated "Maxims", forever glorified his name. The rest of the writer's life was devoted to working on them. The Maxims became famous, and from 1665 to 1678 the author published his book five times. He is recognized as a great writer and a great connoisseur of the human heart. The doors of the French Academy open before him, but he refuses to participate in the competition for the honorary title, as if out of timidity. It is possible that the reason for the refusal was the reluctance to glorify Richelieu in the solemn speech at the admission to the Academy.

By the time La Rochefoucauld began to work on the Maxims, great changes had taken place in society: the time of the uprisings was over. Salons began to play a special role in the public life of the country. In the second half of the 17th century, they united people of different social status - courtiers and writers, actors and scientists, military and statesmen. Here the public opinion of the circles took shape, one way or another participating in the state and ideological life of the country or in the political intrigues of the court.

Each salon had its own face. So, for example, those who were interested in science, especially physics, astronomy or geography, gathered in the salon of Madame de La Sablière. Other salons united people close to Yangenism. After the failure of the Fronde, opposition to absolutism was quite clearly manifested in many salons, which took various forms. In the salon of Madame de La Sablière, for example, philosophical freethinking prevailed, and for the mistress of the house, François Bernier, the famous traveler, wrote "A Brief Exposition of the Philosophy of Gassendi" (1664-1666). The interest of the nobility in free-thinking philosophy was explained by the fact that they saw in it a kind of opposition to the official ideology of absolutism. The philosophy of Jansenism attracted visitors to the salons by the fact that it had its own, special view of the moral nature of man, different from the teachings of Orthodox Catholicism, which entered into an alliance with an absolute monarchy. Former fronders, having suffered a military defeat, among like-minded people expressed dissatisfaction with the new order in elegant conversations, literary "portraits" and witty aphorisms. The king was wary of both the Jansenists and the free-thinkers, not without reason seeing in these teachings a deaf political opposition.

Along with the salons of scientists and philosophers, there were also salons that were purely literary. Each was distinguished by special literary interests: in some the genre of "characters" was cultivated, in others the genre of "portraits". In the salon, Mademoiselle de Montpensier, daughter of Gaston d'Orléans, a former active fronder, preferred portraits. In 1659, in the second edition of the collection Gallery of Portraits, La Rochefoucauld's Self-Portrait, his first published work, was also published.

Among the new genres that replenished moralistic literature, the most widespread was the genre of aphorisms, or maxims. Maxims were cultivated, in particular, in the salon of the Marquise de Sable. The marquise was reputed to be an intelligent and educated woman, she was engaged in politics. She was interested in literature, and her name was authoritative in the literary circles of Paris. In her salon, discussions were held on topics of morality, politics, philosophy, even physics. But most of all the visitors to her salon were attracted by the problems of psychology, the analysis of the secret movements of the human heart. The topic of the conversation was chosen in advance, so that each participant prepared for the game, pondering his thoughts. The interlocutors were required to be able to give a subtle analysis of feelings, an accurate definition of the subject. A flair for language helped to choose the most suitable from a variety of synonyms, to find a concise and clear form for my thought - the form of an aphorism. The owner of the salon herself owns the book of aphorisms "A Teaching to Children" and two collections of sayings published posthumously (1678), "On Friendship" and "Maxims". Academician Jacques Esprit, his man in the house of Madame de Sable and friend of La Rochefoucauld, entered the history of literature with a collection of aphorisms "The Falsehood of Human Virtues." This is how La Rochefoucauld's Maxims originally arose. The salon game suggested to him a form in which he was able to express his views on human nature and summarize long reflections.

For a long time, there was an opinion in science about the lack of independence of La Rochefoucauld's maxims. In almost every maxim, they found borrowings from some other sayings, looked for sources or prototypes. At the same time, the names of Aristotle, Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca, Montaigne, Sharron, Descartes, Jacques Esprit, and others were mentioned. They also spoke about popular proverbs. The number of such parallels could be continued, but external similarity is not evidence of borrowing or dependence. On the other hand, indeed, it would be difficult to find an aphorism or thought that is completely different from everything that preceded them. La Rochefoucauld continued to do something and at the same time started something new, which attracted interest in his work and made The Maxims, in a sense, an eternal value.

The Maxims demanded intense and continuous work from the author. In letters to Madame de Sable and to Jacques Esprit, La Rochefoucauld communicates more and more maxims, asks for advice, awaits approval and mockingly declares that the desire to compose maxims spreads like a runny nose. On October 24, 1660, in a letter to Jacques Esprit, he confesses: "I am a real writer, since I started talking about my works." Segre, Madame de Lafayette's secretary, once noticed that La Rochefoucault's individual maxims were revised more than thirty times. All five editions of Maxim published by the author (1665, 1666, 1671, 1675, 1678) bear traces of this intense work. It is known that from publication to publication La Rochefoucauld freed himself precisely from those aphorisms that directly or indirectly resembled someone's statement. He, who experienced disappointment in his comrades-in-arms in the struggle and witnessed the collapse of the case, to whom he gave so much strength, had something to say to his contemporaries - he was a man with a fully formed worldview, which had already found its original expression in the Memoirs. La Rochefoucauld's Maxims were the result of his long reflections on the years he had lived. The events of a life so fascinating, but also tragic, for La Rochefoucauld only had to regret the unreached ideals, were realized and rethought by the future famous moralist and became the subject of his literary work.

Death found him on the night of March 17, 1680. He died in his mansion on the rue Seine from a severe attack of gout, which tormented him from the age of forty. Bossuet took his last breath.

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 military leader, 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 a 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 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 virtues, 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 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 as well, 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 standing 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 follow it. 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 happiness to believe what he wants, but even happiness to finally be 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 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 available 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 generous, experienced in the affairs of abusive and government officials, 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 put so much courage, mercy, generosity, military prowess, insight, liveliness of mind, condescension into 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 labored for 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 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, sometimes together, sometimes apart, then one against the other, they 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 a consequence 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 befits 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 the 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 now 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 began to list now 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 selfishness, 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 honor, pleasure, 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, burdened by years, seem insurmountable to them. 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 activities 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.