Francois VI de La Rochefoucauld - aphorisms, quotes, sayings. Francois VI de La Rochefoucauld - aphorisms, quotes, sayings of La Rochefoucauld quotes about love

The time when Francois de La Rochefoucauld lived is usually called the "great age" of French literature. His contemporaries were Corneille, Racine, Moliere, La Fontaine, Pascal, Boileau. But the life of the author of "Maxim" bore 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 fellow writers were forced to look for noble patrons in order to exist, the Duc de La Rochefoucauld was often weary of 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 labors. And when writers and critics, his contemporaries, were absorbed in heated debates and sharp clashes, defending their understanding of the laws of drama, our author recalled and reflected on those and not at all on literary skirmishes and battles. La Rochefoucauld was not only a writer and not only a moral philosopher, he was a military leader, a political figure. His very life, full of adventure, is now perceived as an exciting story. However, he himself told it - in his Memoirs.

The La Rochefoucauld family was considered one of the most ancient in France - it began in the 11th century. The French kings more than once officially called the seigneurs 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 peer. These highest titles made the French feudal lord a permanent member of the Royal Council and Parliament and a sovereign master in his possessions, with the right to judiciary. Francois VI Duke de La Rochefoucauld, who traditionally bore the name of Prince de Marsillac until his father's death (1650), was born on September 15, 1613 in Paris. He spent his childhood in the province of Angoumua, in the castle of Verteil, the main residence of the family. The education and training of the Prince de Marcilac, as well as his eleven younger brothers and sisters, was rather careless. As befitted the 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 contemporaries, becomes one of the most learned people in Paris.

In 1630, Prince de Marcilac 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 sent to his estates. His father, Francois V, who fell into disgrace for participating in the rebellion of the Duke of Gaston of Orleans, "the permanent leader of all conspiracies", had lived there for several years. The young prince de Marsillac sadly recalled his stay at court, where he took the side of Queen Anne of Austria, whom the first minister, Cardinal Richelieu, suspected of having connections with the Spanish court, that is, of treason. Later, La Rochefoucauld will speak of his "natural hatred" for Richelieu and of the rejection of the "terrible form of his government": this will be the result life experience and established 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, a friend of the queen, a famous political adventurer, escape 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, assimilating the idea that the "unjust rule" of Cardinal Richelieu was intended to deprive the aristocracy of these privileges and former political role.

On December 4, 1642, Cardinal Richelieu dies, and in May 1643, King Louis XIII. Anna of Austria is appointed regent under the young Louis XIV, and unexpectedly for everyone, Cardinal Mazarin, the successor of Richelieu, turns out to be at the head of the Royal Council. Taking advantage of the political turmoil, the feudal nobility demanded the restoration of the former rights and privileges taken from it. Marsillac enters into the so-called conspiracy of the Arrogant (September 1643), and after the disclosure of the conspiracy, he again goes to the army. He fights under the command of the first prince of the blood, Louis de Bourbron, Duke of Enghien (since 1646 - Prince of Condé, later nicknamed the Great for victories in the Thirty Years' War). In the same years, Marcillac met Condé's sister, the Duchess de Longueville, who would soon become one of the inspirers of the Fronde and would be a close friend of La Rochefoucauld for many years.

Marsillac is seriously wounded in one of the battles and forced to return to Paris. While he was fighting, his father bought him the position of governor of the province of Poitou; The governor was the governor of the king in his province: all military and administrative control was concentrated in his hands. Even before the departure of the newly-made governor to Poitou, Cardinal Mazarin tried to win him over to his side 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, was in revolt: taxes were placed on the population with an unbearable burden. A riot was also brewing in Paris. The Fronde has begun. The interests of the Parisian parliament, which led the Fronde at its first stage, largely coincided with the interests of the nobility, who joined the insurgent Paris. Parliament wanted to regain its former freedom in the exercise of its powers, the aristocracy, taking advantage of the king's infancy and general discontent, sought to seize the supreme positions of the state apparatus in order to completely control the country. The unanimous desire was to deprive Mazarin of power and send him out of France as a foreigner. The most famous people of the kingdom were at the head of the rebel nobles, who began to be called Fronders.

Marsillac joined the Fronders, arbitrarily left Poitou 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 Rochefoucauld speaks in it of his right to privileges, of feudal honor and conscience, of services to the state and the queen. He accuses Mazarin of the plight of France and adds that his personal misfortunes are closely connected with the troubles of the fatherland, and the restoration of trampled justice will be good for the whole state. In La Rochefoucauld's Apology, a specific feature of the political philosophy of the rebellious nobility was once again manifested: the conviction that its well-being and privileges constitute the well-being of all France. La Rochefoucauld claims that he could not call 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. Negotiations for peace began between the court and the Fronders. Parliament, frightened by the scale of the general indignation, abandoned the 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 lasting to anyone, for it did not satisfy anyone: Mazarin remained the head of the government and pursued the former absolutist policy. A new civil war was caused by the arrest of the Prince of Condé and his associates. The Fronde of Princes began, lasting more than three years (January 1650-July 1653). This last military uprising of the nobility against the new state order assumed a wide scope.

The duke de La Rochefoucauld goes to his domain and collects a significant army there, which unites with other feudal militias. The united forces of the rebels headed for the province of Guyenne, choosing the city of Bordeaux as the center. In Guyenne, popular unrest did not subside, which was supported by the local parliament. 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 its help to the rebels. Following feudal morality, the aristocrats did not at all consider that they were committing high treason by entering into negotiations with a foreign power: ancient 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 battles 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, because the princes were still in prison. The amnesty extended to the duke himself, but he was deprived of the post of governor of Poitou and was ordered to go to his castle of Verteil, ravaged by royal soldiers. La Rochefoucauld accepted this demand with magnificent indifference, notes a contemporary. A very flattering description is given by La Rochefoucauld and Saint Evremond: “His courage and worthy behavior make him capable of any business ... Self-interest is not characteristic of him, therefore his failures are only a merit. will not go down."

The struggle for the release of the princes continued. Finally, on February 13, 1651, the princes received their freedom. The Royal Declaration restored them to all rights, positions and privileges. Cardinal Mazarin, obeying the decree of the Parliament, retired to Germany, but nevertheless continued to rule 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. 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: Conde broke with the rest of the Fronders, left Paris and began to prepare for civil war, the third in such a short time. The royal declaration of 8 October 1651 declared the Prince of Condé and his supporters to be traitors to the state; 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 near the city walls in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine (July 2, 1652), La Rochefoucauld was seriously wounded by a shot in the face and almost lost his sight. Contemporaries remembered 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, having received orders to leave Paris, split. The matter was completed by a new diplomatic trick of Mazarin, who, having returned to France, pretended that he was again going into voluntary exile, sacrificing his interests for the sake of general reconciliation. This made it possible to start peace negotiations, and the young Louis XIV on October 21, 1652. solemnly entered the rebellious capital. Soon the triumphant Mazarin 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 severe state of health after being wounded did not allow him to participate in political speeches. He returns to Angumua, takes care of a derelict household, restores 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 numerous copies was printed without the knowledge of the author in Brussels and caused a real scandal, especially among Condé and Madame de Longueville.

"Memoirs" of La Rochefoucauld merged into common tradition memoir Literature XVII centuries. 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 activity 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 reflections recent years and understand the historical meaning of the common cause to which he made so many useless sacrifices. He did not want to write about himself. Prince Marsillac, who appears in the Memoirs usually in the third person, 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 narrative.

La Rochefoucauld repeatedly speaks of the impartiality of his story. Indeed, he describes events without allowing himself too personal assessments, but his own position is quite clear in the Memoirs.

It is generally accepted that La Rochefoucauld joined the uprisings as an ambitious man offended by court failures, and also out of a love of adventure, so characteristic of any nobleman of that time. However, the reasons that led La Rochefoucauld to the camp of the Frondeurs were more general in nature and were based on firm principles to which he remained true throughout his life. Having learned the political convictions of the feudal nobility, La Rochefoucauld hated Cardinal Richelieu from his youth and considered unfair the "cruel manner of his rule", which became a disaster for the whole country, because "the nobility was belittled, and the people were crushed by taxes." Mazarin was the successor of Richelieu's policy, and therefore, according to La Rochefoucauld, he led France to destruction.

Like many of his associates, he believed that the aristocracy and the people were bound by "mutual obligations", and he considered his struggle for ducal privileges as a struggle for general well-being and freedom: after all, these privileges were obtained by serving the homeland 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 "an innumerable number of unfaithful people" ready for any compromise and betrayal. You can't rely on them, because they, "first joining a party, usually betray it or leave it, following their own fears and interests." By their disunity and selfishness, they ruined the common, sacred in his eyes, cause of saving France. The nobility turned out to be incapable of fulfilling the great historical mission. And although La Rochefoucauld himself joined the Fronders 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, finishing the first book of "Memoirs", is characteristic: the greatness of Richelieu's intentions and the ability to put them into practice should drown out private discontent, his memory must be given praise, so justly deserved. The fact that La Rochefoucauld understood the enormous merits of Richelieu and managed to rise above personal, narrow caste and "moral" assessments testifies not only to his patriotism and broad state outlook, but also to the sincerity of his confessions that he was guided not by personal goals, but thoughts about the welfare of the state.

The 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 a person in general: private historical phenomenon becomes 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 living there since the late 1650s. Gradually, his former guilt is forgotten, the recent rebel receives complete forgiveness. (Evidence of the final forgiveness was his award to the members of the Order of the Holy Spirit on January 1, 1662.) The king appoints him a solid pension, his sons occupy profitable and honorable positions. He rarely appears at court, but, according to Madame de Sevigne, the sun king always gave him special attention, and sat next to Madame de Montespan to listen to music.

La Rochefoucauld becomes a regular visitor to the salons of Madame de Sable and, later, Madame de Lafayette. It is with these salons that the Maxims are associated, which forever glorified his name. The rest of the writer's life was devoted to working on them. "Maxims" gained fame, 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 an honorary title, as if out of timidity. It is possible that the reason for the refusal was the unwillingness to glorify Richelieu in a solemn speech upon admission to the Academy.

By the time La Rochefoucauld began work on Maxims, society had experienced big changes: the time of uprisings is 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 various social status - courtiers and writers, actors and scientists, military and statesmen. Here the public opinion of the circles that somehow participated in the state and ideological life of the country or in the political intrigues of the court took shape.

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 brought together people close to Jangenism. After the failure of the Fronde, opposition to absolutism was quite clearly manifested in many salons, taking 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 " Summary 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 because it had its own, special view of the moral nature of man, different from the teachings of orthodox Catholicism , who entered into an alliance with the absolute monarchy. The 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 Jansenists and freethinkers, not without reason seeing in these teachings deaf political opposition.

Along with the salons of scientists and philosophy, there were also purely literary salons. 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, La Rochefoucauld's Self-Portrait, his first printed work, was also published in the second edition of the collection "Portrait Gallery".

Among the new genres with which moralistic literature was replenished, the genre of aphorisms, or maxims, was the most widespread. Maxims were cultivated, in particular, in the salon of the Marquise de Sable. The Marquise was known as a smart and educated woman, she was involved 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 the topics of morality, politics, philosophy, even physics. But most of all, 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 by pondering their thoughts. Interlocutors were required to be able to give a subtle analysis of feelings, precise definition subject. The intuition of the language helped to choose the most suitable from the many synonyms, to find a concise and clear form for his thought - the form of an aphorism. The mistress of the salon herself owns the book of aphorisms Teaching Children and two collections of sayings published posthumously (1678), On Friendship and Maxims, in Peru. 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 Falsity of Human Virtues". This is how La Rochefoucauld's "Maxims" originally arose. The parlor game suggested to him the form in which he was able to express his views on human nature and sum up his long reflections.

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

"Maxims" demanded intense and continuous work from the author. In letters to Madame de Sable and Jacques Esprey, La Rochefoucauld communicates more and more new maxims, asks for advice, waits for approval and mockingly declares that the desire to write maxims spreads like a runny nose. On October 24, 1660, in a letter to Jacques Esprit, he confesses: "I real writer, once he began to talk about his works. "Segré, Madame de Lafayette's secretary, once noted that La Rochefoucauld reworked individual maxims more than thirty times. All five editions of Maxim published by the author (1665, 1666, 1671, 1675, 1678 .), bear traces of this hard work. It is known that from edition to edition La Rochefoucauld was freed precisely from those aphorisms that directly or indirectly resembled someone else's statement. a lot of strength, had something to say to his contemporaries - he was a man with a well-established worldview, which had already found its original expression in the "Memoirs". La Rochefoucauld's "Maxims" were the result of his long reflections on the past years. The events of a life so fascinating, but also tragic, because it fell to the lot of La Rochefoucauld only to regret the unattained ideals, were realized and rethought by the future famous moralist and became the subject of his literary work.

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

La Rochefoucauld François: Maxims and Moral Reflections and Test: Sayings of La Rochefoucauld

"The gifts with which the Lord has endowed people are as diverse as the trees with which he adorned the earth, and each has special properties and bears only its inherent fruits. That is why the best pear tree will never give birth to even the worst apples, and the most gifted person he succumbs to a matter, albeit an ordinary one, but given only to those who are capable of this business.And therefore, to compose aphorisms, without having at least a slight talent for this kind of occupation, is no less ridiculous than to expect that in a garden where no bulbs are planted, bulbs will bloom tulips." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

"While smart people can express a lot in a few words, limited people, on the contrary, have the ability to talk a lot - and say nothing." - F. La Rochefoucauld

Francois VI de La Rochefoucauld (fr. François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, September 15, 1613, Paris - March 17, 1680, Paris), Duke de La Rochefoucauld - French writer, author of philosophical and moralistic works. He belonged to the southern French family of La Rochefoucauld. The leader of the Fronde wars. During the life of his father (until 1650) he bore the courtesy title Prince de Marsillac. Great-grandson of that François de La Rochefoucauld, who was killed on the night of St. Bartholomew.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld belonged to one of the most distinguished noble families in France. The military and court career to which he was destined did not require college education. La Rochefoucauld acquired his extensive knowledge already in adulthood through independent reading. Got in 1630. to the court, he immediately found himself in the thick of political intrigues.

Origin and family traditions determined his orientation - he took the side of Queen Anne of Austria against Cardinal Richelieu, who was hated by him as a persecutor of the ancient aristocracy. Participation in the struggle of these far from equal forces brought him disgrace, deportation to his possessions and a short-term imprisonment in the Bastille. After the death of Richelieu (1642) and Louis XIII (1643), Cardinal Mazarin came to power, very unpopular in all segments of the population. The feudal nobility tried to regain their lost rights and influence. Dissatisfaction with the rule of Mazarin resulted in 1648. in open rebellion against royal power - the Fronde. La Rochefoucauld took an active part in it. He was closely associated with the highest-ranking Fronders - the Prince of Condé, the Duke of Beaufort and others, and could closely observe their morals, selfishness, lust for power, envy, self-interest and treachery, which manifested themselves at different stages of the movement. In 1652 The Fronde suffered a final defeat, the authority of the royal power was restored, and the participants in the Fronde were partially bought with concessions and handouts, partially subjected to disgrace and punishment.

La Rochefoucauld, among the latter, was forced to go to his possessions in Angumois. It was there, away from political intrigues and passions, that he began to write his Memoirs, which he did not originally intend to publish. In them, he gave an undisguised picture of the events of the Fronde and a description of its participants. At the end of the 1650s. he returned to Paris, was favorably received at court, but completely departed from political life. During these years, literature began to attract him more and more. In 1662 Memoirs came out without his knowledge in a falsified form, he protested this edition and released the original text in the same year. The second book of La Rochefoucauld, which brought him world fame- "Maxims and Moral Reflections", - was, like "Memoirs", first published in a distorted form against the will of the author in 1664. In 1665 La Rochefoucauld released the first author's edition, followed by four more during his lifetime. La Rochefoucauld corrected and supplemented the text from edition to edition. The last lifetime edition of 1678. contained 504 maxims. Numerous unpublished editions were added to them in posthumous editions, as well as those omitted from previous editions. Maxims has been translated into Russian more than once.

François de La Rochefoucauld
Reflections on various topics
Translation by E.L. Linetskaya
1. ABOUT THE TRUE
The true property of an object, phenomenon or person is not diminished when compared with another true property, and no matter how objects, phenomena or people differ from each other, the true in one is not diminished by the true in the other. With any difference in significance and brightness, they are always equally true, because this property is unchanged in both large and small. Military art is more significant, noble, brilliant than poetic, but the poet bears comparison with the commander, as well as the painter with the legislator, if they are truly who they say they are.
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 are not diminished. 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 man has several true properties, that one has only one; the former is perhaps more remarkable, for it differs in properties which the latter does not have, but that in which they are both true is equally remarkable in both. Epaminondas (7) was a great military leader, a good citizen, a famous philosopher; he deserves more honor than Virgil, (8) because he has more true qualities; 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 a boy sentenced to death by the consul for gouging out the eyes of a crow is (9) less pronounced than the cruelty of Philip II, (10) who killed his own son, and perhaps less burdened with other vices; however, the cruelty shown to a 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 in size 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 beauty of Chantilly befits the greatness of the Prince of Conde, and the beauty of Liancourt - an ordinary nobleman, despite the fact that both are true. It happens, however, that women who have a beauty that is brilliant, but lacks regularity, outshine their truly beautiful rivals. The point is that taste is the judge female beauty, easily susceptible to prejudice, besides the beauty of the most beautiful women subject to instant change. However, if the less beautiful ones outshine the perfect beauties, then only for a short time: just the peculiarities of lighting and mood clouded the true beauty of features and colors, making clear what is attractive in one, and hiding the truly beautiful in the other.
2. ABOUT FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS
When I speak of friendships here, I do not mean friendship: they are very different, although they have some common features. Friendship is loftier and more worthy, and the merit of friendly relations lies in the fact that they are at least a little like it.
So, I will now consider only those relations that should exist between all decent people. There is no need to prove that mutual affection is necessary for society: everyone strives and is drawn to it, but only a few truly try to cherish it and prolong it.
A person seeks worldly blessings and pleasures at the expense of his fellow men. He prefers himself to others and almost always makes them feel it, thereby violating and even ruining the good relations that he would like to maintain with them. We should at least deftly hide the predilection for ourselves, since it is inherent in us from birth and it is impossible to get rid of it completely. Let us rejoice in someone else's joy, respect and spare someone else's pride.
In this difficult matter, the mind will be of great help to us, 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 warehouse, only if it turns out to be a guarantee of strong friendly relations, if they are strengthened and supported by common sense, evenness of spirit and courtesy, without which mutual goodwill is impossible.
If sometimes it happens that people who are opposite in mind and spirit are close to each other, then the explanations for this must be sought in considerations of outsiders and, consequently, Short-lived. It sometimes happens that we make friends with people who are inferior to us in birth or dignity; in this case, we should not abuse our advantages, often talk about them, or even just mention them for any purpose other than mere notification. Let us convince our friends that we need their pointer, and pointing them out, 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 by common desire, have fun together or even get bored together. Between them, nothing should change even when they part. They should get used to doing without each other, so that meetings do not sometimes turn into a burden: we must remember that the one who is convinced that he cannot bore anyone with him is most likely to get bored with others .. It is advisable to take care of the entertainment of those with whom we want to support good relations, but you can not turn this concern into a burden.
There can be no friendly relations without mutual helpfulness, but it should not be excessive, should not become slavery. Let it be at least outwardly voluntary, so that our friends will believe that by pleasing them, we are also pleasing ourselves.
It is necessary to forgive friends with all their hearts for their shortcomings, if they are laid down by nature itself and are small in comparison with their merits. Not only should we not judge these flaws, but we should also notice them. Let us try to behave in such a way that people themselves see their bad qualities and, having corrected themselves, consider this their own merit.
Courtesy is required condition in relations between decent people: she teaches them to understand jokes, not to be indignant and not to outrage others with too harsh or arrogant tone, which often appears in those who ardently defend their opinion.
These relations cannot exist without a certain mutual trust: people must have that expression of calm restraint, which immediately dispels the fear of hearing rash words from them.
It is difficult to win the affection of 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 have the same talents, but that they all be pleasant in communication and observe the harmony as strictly as different voices and instruments in the performance of a musical piece.
It is unlikely that several people have the same aspirations, but it is necessary that these aspirations at least not contradict each other.
We must meet the desires of our friends, try to render them services, protect them from grief, suggest that if we are not able to avert misfortune from them, then at least we share it with them, imperceptibly dispel sadness, not trying to instantly drive it away, occupy their attention to subjects pleasant or entertaining. You can talk about what concerns them alone, but only with their consent, and even then without forgetting the boundaries of what is permitted. Sometimes it is nobler and even more humane not to delve too deeply into their hearts: 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 relations help decent people get used to each other and prompt them with many topics for sincere conversations.
Few people are so prudent and accommodating as not to reject other practical advice on how to behave with their friends. We are willing to listen only to those edifications that are pleasing to us, because we eschew the undisguised truth.
Looking at objects, we never come close to them; we should not come close to our friends. Ayudis want to be seen from a certain distance, and they are usually right not to want to be seen too clearly: we all, with few exceptions, are afraid to appear before our neighbors as we really are.
3. BEHAVIOR AND BEHAVIOR
The manner of behaving must always be in accordance with the appearance of a person and his natural inclinations: we lose a lot by appropriating a manner that is alien to us.
Let each one endeavor to learn what conduct suits him best, adhere strictly to that conduct, and improve it as best he can.
For the most part, children are so sweet because they do not deviate from their nature in anything, for they still do not know any other behavior and other way of holding themselves than those inherent in them. As adults, they change them and spoil everything: it seems to them that they should imitate others, but their imitation is clumsy, 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 an image alien to him and an innate mind, borrowing them from just anyone. People make experiments on themselves, not realizing that what is appropriate for one is not at all appropriate 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 in the same way, without copying each other, if they both follow their nature, but this is a rare case: people love to imitate, they often imitate without noticing it, and give up their property for the property of someone else. , going to them, as a rule, to the detriment.
I do not at all want to say that we should be content with what nature has given us, that we have no right to follow examples and acquire qualities that are useful and necessary, but not inherent to us from birth. Arts and sciences adorn almost all people capable of them; benevolence and courtesy to all; but 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 rank too high for us, often take up a craft for which nature did not destine us. And this rank, and this craft, befits a manner of behaving, not always similar to our natural manner. A change in circumstances often changes our behavior, and we put on a grandeur that looks forced if it is too emphasized and contradicts our appearance. What is given to us from birth, and what we have acquired, must be merged and combined into one inseparable whole.
It is impossible to speak in the same tone and in an unchanging way about different things, just as it is impossible to walk with the same gait at the head of a regiment and on a walk. But, changing the tone according to the subject of the conversation, we must maintain complete ease, as we must maintain it when we move in different ways, idly strolling or leading a detachment.
Other people not only willingly give up their own manner of holding on for the one that they consider befitting the position and rank they have achieved, they, just dreaming of exaltation, begin to behave in advance as if they had already exalted themselves. How many colonels behave like the marshals of France, how many judges pretend to be chancellors, how many townswomen play the part 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 traits that are unusual for them, alien, sin against their own nature and betray themselves more and more. Few people are free from this vice and have a hearing so subtle as to never be out of tune.
A lot of people with a fair amount of merit are nevertheless unpleasant, a lot of people with much less merit are liked by everyone. This is due to the fact that some imitate someone all the time, while others are what they seem to be. In short, with any of our natural shortcomings and virtues, we are all the more pleasing to those around us, the more consistent our appearance and tone, manners and feelings with our appearance and position in society, and the more unpleasant, the greater the discrepancy between them.
4. ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONVERSATE
Pleasant interlocutors are so rare because people think not about those words that they listen to, but about those that they long to utter. The person who wants to be heard should in turn listen to the speakers, give them time to speak, showing patience, even if they rant in vain. Instead of, as is often the case, to immediately dispute and interrupt them, it is necessary, on the contrary, to be imbued with the point of view and taste of the interlocutor, to show that we appreciated them, to start a conversation about what is dear to him, to praise everything in his judgments, worthy of praise, and not with an air of condescension, but with complete sincerity.
We must avoid arguing about unimportant subjects, not abuse questions that are mostly useless, never show that we consider ourselves smarter than others, and willingly leave the final decision to others.
One should speak simply, clearly, and as seriously as the knowledge and disposition of the listeners allow it, without compelling them to approve or even responding to it.
Having thus paid due courtesy, we can also express our opinion, not without prejudice and obstinacy, emphasizing that we are looking for confirmation of our views from others.
We will remember ourselves as little as possible and set an example. Let us try to understand thoroughly what are the passions and the capacity for understanding of our interlocutors, and then we will take the side of the one who has no such understanding, adding our own thoughts to his thoughts, but so modestly that he believes that we borrowed them from him.
The one who does not exhaust the subject of the conversation and gives the opportunity to others to think up and say something else is prudent.
In no case should you speak in an instructive tone and use words and expressions that are excessively high for the subject of the conversation. You can stick to your opinion if it is reasonable, but, while remaining with it, let's not hurt other people's feelings or be indignant at other people's speeches.
We get on a dangerous path if we try to control the flow of the conversation all the time or talk about the same thing too often. It is up to us to pick up any conversation that pleases our interlocutors, without turning it into a subject on which we are eager to speak.
Let us firmly remember that, no matter what virtues a person is filled with, not every conversation, even excellently intelligent and worthy, can inspire him; with everyone it is necessary to talk about subjects close to him, and only when it is appropriate.
But if you say the word by the way - great art, by the way, to remain silent is an even greater art. Eloquent silence can sometimes express both consent and disapproval; sometimes silence is mocking, sometimes it is respectful.
Finally, there are shades in facial expression, in gestures, in habits, which often add pleasantness and refinement to a conversation, or make it tiresome and intolerable. Few people 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 is, if necessary, to change any of them, it is better to talk casually than pompously, listen, keep quiet and never force yourself to talk.
5. ABOUT FRANKNESS
Although sincerity and frankness have much in common, there are still many differences between them.
Sincerity is sincerity, showing us as we really are, it is love for truth, aversion to hypocrisy, a thirst to repent of our shortcomings, in order to honestly admit them, thereby partially correcting them.
Frankness does not give us such freedom; its limits are narrower, it requires more restraint and caution, and we are not always in control of it. Here already we are talking not about us alone, our interests are usually closely intertwined with the interests of other people, so frankness must be extraordinarily circumspect, otherwise, by betraying us, it will betray our friends, raising the price of what we give, sacrificing their good.
Frankness is always pleasing to the one to whom it is addressed: it is a tribute that we pay to his virtues, a property that we entrust to his honesty, a pledge that gives him rights to us, bonds that we voluntarily impose on ourselves.
I should not at all be understood as if I am trying to eradicate frankness, which is so necessary in society, because all human affections, all friendships are based on it. I'm just trying to put limits on 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 circumspect, so that it does not succumb to cowardice or self-interest. I am well aware how difficult it is to establish precise limits within which we are allowed to accept the frankness of our friends and in turn be frank with them.
Most often, people indulge in frankness out of vanity, out of an inability to remain silent, out of a desire to attract trust and exchange secrets. It 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 devoted to us, that he does not hide anything from us, and that we can pour out our soul to him both by choice of the heart and by sound reflection. To such a person we must confide everything that concerns only us; must show our true essence - our merits are not exaggerated, as well as our shortcomings are not underestimated; we must make it a firm rule never to make half-confessions to him, for they always put the one who makes them in a false position, not in the least satisfying the one who listens. Half-confessions distort what we want to hide, kindle curiosity in the interlocutor, justify his desire to find out more and untie his hands in relation to what has already been learned. It is more prudent and honest not to speak at all than to keep silent.
If the matter concerns the secrets entrusted to us, then we must obey other rules, and the more important these secrets are, the more circumspection 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 on the nature of the secret itself and on its importance. We most often conform to our own judgment as to what it is permissible to speak about and what it is necessary to keep silent about. There are few secrets in the world that are kept forever, because the voice of scrupulousness, demanding not to give out someone else's secret, ceases with 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 what we swore never to reveal to anyone, yet it is not in our power to tell them the secret we have been told, 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. What can I say, there is no more cruel test of loyalty 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 inviolably preserve the property of others entrusted to him. He is obliged not only to watch his words and voice, but also to beware of rash remarks, he is obliged not to betray himself in any way, so that his speech and facial expression do not lead others to the trail of what he needs to be silent about.
Often, only with the help of outstanding discretion and firmness of character, 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 know absolutely everything about us: such an exclusive right should not be given to anyone. There are meetings and circumstances beyond their control; 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 false claims, we have only one thing left: to sacrifice their friendship in the name of duty, thus making a choice between two inevitable evils, because one of them can still be corrected, while the other is irreparable.
6. ABOUT LOVE AND ABOUT THE SEA
The authors who undertook to describe love and its whims are so diverse; the 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 countless benefits to people, as well as countless troubles, that the happiest swimming is nevertheless fraught with terrible dangers, that the threat of reefs and storms is great, that it is possible to suffer a shipwreck even in the harbor. But, having enumerated everything that can be hoped for and everything that should be feared, these authors have said too little, in my opinion, about the similarity of love, barely smoldering, exhausted, obsolete with those long calms, with those annoying lulls that are so frequent in equatorial seas. People are tired of a long journey, they dream of its end, but although the land is already visible, there is still no fair wind; heat and cold torment them, sickness and fatigue weaken them; water and food have run out or taste bad; some try to fish, even catch fish, but this activity does not bring any entertainment or food. A person is bored with everything that surrounds him, he is immersed in his thoughts, constantly bored; he still lives, but already reluctantly, longs for desires to lead him out of this painful languor, but if they are born from him, then they are weak and useless to anyone.
7. ABOUT EXAMPLES
Although good examples very different from the bad ones, 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) turn us away from vice more than the most worthy deeds of great people bring us closer to virtue. How many fanfarons produced the valor of Alexander! How many crimes against the fatherland did the glory of Caesar sow! How many cruel virtues have been nurtured by Rome and Sparta! How many insufferable philosophers Diogenes created, (3) rhetoricians - Cicero, (4) loafers Pomponius Atticus standing aside, (5) bloodthirsty avengers - Marius (6) and Sulla, (7) gluttonous - Lucullus, (8) depraved - 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 inclined to err that we resort to them equally in order to leave the path of virtue, and in order to get up.
8. DOUBTS OF JEALY
The more a person talks about his jealousy, the more unexpected features he discovers 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 finally thought out and furious, now looks completely different. A person tries to form a firm judgment for himself, but he cannot: he is in the grip of the most contradictory feelings and unclear to himself, at the same time longs to love and hate, loves while hating, hates while loving, believes everything and doubts everything, is ashamed and despises himself and for what, that he believed, and for having doubted, he tirelessly tries to come to some kind of decision and does not come to anything.
Poets should liken the jealous Sisyphus: (1) the work of both is fruitless, and the path is hard and dangerous; the top of the mountain is already visible, he is about to reach it, he is full of hope - but all in vain: he is denied not only the happiness of believing what he wants, but even the happiness of finally being convinced of what is most terrible to be convinced of; he is in the grip of eternal doubt, which alternately depicts good and sorrow for him, which remain imaginary.
9. ABOUT LOVE AND ABOUT LIFE
Love is like life in everything: they are both subject to the same perturbations, the same changes. The young time of both is full of happiness and hope: we rejoice in our youth no less than in love. Being in such a rosy mood, we begin to desire other benefits, already more solid: not content with the fact that we exist in the world, we want to advance in the field of life, we puzzle over 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 we cannot bear it when others claim what we liked ourselves. Such a competition is always fraught with many worries and sorrows, but their impact is softened by the pleasant consciousness that we have achieved success: our desires are satisfied, and we do not 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: having barely achieved what we want, we immediately begin to strive for new goals, as we quickly get used to what has become our property, and the acquired benefits no longer seem so valuable and attractive. We imperceptibly change, what we have achieved becomes part of ourselves, and although the loss of it would be a cruel blow, its possession does not bring the former joy: it has lost its sharpness, and now we are looking for it not in what was so ardent until recently. wished, but somewhere on the side. Time is to blame for this involuntary inconstancy, which, without asking us, particle by particle absorbs both our life and our love. Whatever the hour, it imperceptibly erases some feature of youth and fun, destroying the very essence of their charms. 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 an age when the end is already in sight. 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 pleasures, they continue to live for sorrows. Jealousy, distrust, fear of boredom, fear of being abandoned - these painful feelings are as inevitably associated with fading love as diseases are with too long a life: a person feels alive only because he is in pain, loving - only because he experiences all the torment love. The drowsy numbness of too long attachments always ends only in bitterness and regret that the connection is still strong. So, every decrepitude is grievous, but the most unbearable of all is the decrepitude of love.
10. ABOUT TASTES
In other people more crazy than taste, others have more taste than intelligence. (1) Men's minds are not so varied and whimsical as tastes.
The word "taste" has various meanings, and it is not easy to understand them. One should not confuse the taste that draws us to any object, and the taste that helps us understand this object and determine, according to all the rules, its merits and demerits. It is possible to love theatrical performances without possessing a taste so subtle and elegant as to judge them correctly, and it is possible, without loving them at all, to have enough taste for a correct judgment. Sometimes taste imperceptibly pushes us towards what we contemplate, and sometimes violently and irresistibly carries us along.
For some, taste is erroneous in everything without exception, for others it is mistaken only in certain areas, but in everything accessible to their understanding, it is accurate and infallible, for others it is bizarre, and they, knowing this, do not trust him. There are people with unstable taste, which depends on the case; such people change their minds out of frivolity, admire or get bored just because their friends admire or miss them. Others are full of prejudices: they are slaves of their tastes and revere 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 certainty, and they seek confirmation of their taste in the arguments of reason and sanity.
Some, following a motive that they themselves do not understand, immediately pass sentence on what is presented to their judgment, and in doing so they never make a mistake. These people have more taste than intelligence, for neither pride nor inclination has power over their innate insight. Everything in them is in harmony, everything is tuned in a single way. Thanks to the harmony reigning in their souls, they judge sensibly and form a correct idea of ​​​​everything for themselves, but, generally speaking, there are few people whose tastes are stable and independent of the generally accepted tastes; the majority only follows other people's examples and customs, drawing almost all their opinions from this source.
Among the various tastes listed here, it is difficult or almost impossible to find such good taste who would know the true price of everything, would always be able to recognize the true merits and would be comprehensive. Our knowledge is too limited, and the impartiality, so necessary for the correctness of judgments, is for the most part inherent in us only in those cases when we judge objects that do not concern us. If we are talking about something close to us, our taste, shaken by passion for the subject, loses this balance, which is so necessary for it. Everything that has to do with us always appears in a distorted light, and there is no person who would look with equal calmness at objects dear to him and at objects that are indifferent. When it comes to what offends us, our taste obeys the dictates of selfishness and inclination; they suggest judgments 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. ON 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. How many people live by shedding the blood of the innocent and killing them! Some are like tigers, always ferocious and cruel, others are like lions, preserving the appearance of generosity, still others are like bears, rude and greedy, fourth like wolves, predatory and ruthless, fifth like foxes, who earn their livelihood by cunning and have chosen deceit as a craft.
And how many people look like dogs! They kill their relatives, run to hunt to amuse the one who feeds them, follow the owner everywhere or guard his house. There are among them brave hounds who devote themselves to war, live by their prowess and are not devoid of nobility; there are wild dogs who have no other virtues than rabid malice; there are dogs that are not useful, 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 at the same time very malicious; there are peacocks that can boast of beauty, but they bother with their cries and spoil everything around.
There are birds that attract with their colorful colors and singing. There are so many parrots in the world who chat incessantly, who knows what; magpies and ravens that pretend to be tame in order to steal safely; birds of prey living by robbery; peace-loving and meek animals that serve as food for predatory animals!
There are cats, always alert, treacherous and changeable, but able to caress with velvet paws; vipers, whose tongues are poisonous, and everything else is even useful; spiders, flies, bugs, fleas, obnoxious and disgusting; toads, which are terrifying, although they are only poisonous; owls afraid of the light. How many animals hide from enemies underground! How many horses have done a lot of useful work, and then, in their old age, abandoned by their owners; oxen that labored all their lives for the good of those who put the yoke on them; dragonflies who only know what to sing; hares, always trembling with fear; rabbits who get frightened and immediately forget about their fright; pigs blissful in filth and abomination; decoy ducks, betraying and bringing their own kind under a shot; crows 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 - the constant companions of summer, May beetles, reckless and careless, moths flying into the fire and burning in the fire! How many bees honoring their ancestor and earning their living so diligently and intelligently; drones, lazy vagrants who strive to live off bees; ants, prudent, thrifty, and therefore needless; crocodiles shedding tears in order to pity the victim, then devour it! And how many animals are enslaved only because they themselves do not understand how strong they are!
All these properties are inherent in man, and he behaves towards his fellows exactly as the animals we have just talked about behave towards each other.
12. About the origin of ailments
It is worth thinking about the origin of ailments - and it becomes clear that they are all rooted in the passions of a person and in the sorrows that burden his soul. The golden age, which knew neither these passions nor sorrows, did not know bodily ailments either; the silver one that followed him still kept its former purity; the bronze age had already given rise to both passions and sorrows, but, like everything that had not left its infancy, they were weak and not burdensome; but in the Iron Age they acquired their full power and malignancy and, corruptible, became a source of ailments that have been exhausting mankind for many centuries. Ambition breeds fevers and violent insanity, envy - jaundice and insomnia; laziness is guilty of sleeping sickness, paralysis, pale infirmity; anger is the cause of suffocation, plethora, pneumonia, and fear of palpitations and fainting; vanity leads to madness; avarice gives rise to scab and scab, despondency - thin-skinned, cruelty - stone disease; slander, together with hypocrisy, produced measles, smallpox, scarlet fever; We owe jealousy to Antonov fire, plague and rabies. The sudden disfavor of those in power strikes the victims with apoplexy, litigation entails migraines and delirium, debts go hand in hand with consumption, family troubles lead to a four-day fever, and cooling, which lovers do not dare to confess to each other, causes nervous attacks. As for love, it has given rise to more ailments than the rest of the passions put together, 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 remain silent: she must always be treated with due respect and fear.
13. FALSE
People are deluded in different ways. Some are aware of their delusions, but strive to prove that they are never deceived. Others, more simple-hearted, are mistaken almost from birth, but do not suspect it and see everything in a wrong light. That one understands everything correctly with the mind, but is subject to the delusions of taste, this one succumbs to the delusions of the mind, but the taste rarely betrays him; Finally, there are people with a clear mind and excellent taste, but these are few, because, generally speaking, there is hardly a person in the world whose mind or taste would not harbor some kind of flaw.
Human error is so ubiquitous because the evidence of our senses, as well as taste, is inaccurate 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 the mind and taste. Human pride is flattered by everything that appears before it in the guise of virtue, but since our vanity or imagination is affected by various incarnations of it, we prefer to choose only the generally accepted or easy as a model. We imitate other people, not thinking about the fact that one and the same feeling does not stick to everyone and that it is necessary to surrender to it only to the extent that it befits us.
People are even more afraid of delusions of taste than delusions of the mind. However, a decent person should unprejudicedly approve everything that deserves approval, follow what is worthy of following, and not boast of anything. But this requires extraordinary insight and an extraordinary sense of proportion. We must learn to distinguish good in general from the good that we are capable of, and, obeying innate inclinations, it is reasonable to limit ourselves to what our soul lies in. If we tried to succeed only in the field in which we are gifted, and followed only our duty, our tastes, just like our behavior, would always be correct, and we ourselves would always remain ourselves, judge everything according to our own understanding and strongly defended their views. Our thoughts and feelings would be sound, tastes - our own, and not appropriated - would bear the stamp of common sense, for we would adhere to them not by chance or established custom, but by free choice.
People are mistaken when they approve of what is not worth approving, and in the same way they are mistaken when they try to flaunt qualities that are in no way befitting to them, although they are quite worthy. That official dressed in power, who most of all boasts of courage, even if it is characteristic of him, falls into error. He is right when he shows unshakable firmness towards the rebels, (1) but he is mistaken and becomes ridiculous when he fights duels every now and then. A woman may love the 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 must evaluate the environment at its true value, prompting the taste to find in everything that we consider a place not only deserved, but also consistent with our inclinations. However, almost all people are mistaken in these matters and constantly fall into error.
The more powerful the king, the more often he makes such mistakes: he wants to surpass other mortals in valor, in knowledge, in love successes, in a word, in what anyone can claim. But this thirst for superiority over all 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 the chariot race only with kings, let him compete only in what is worthy of his royal dignity. However brave, learned, or amiable a king may be, there will be found a great multitude of men just as valiant, learned, and amiable. Attempts to surpass every single one will always be wrong, and sometimes doomed to failure. But if he devotes his efforts to what constitutes his duty, if he is magnanimous, experienced in the affairs of quarrelsome and state, just, 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 already have only kings. He will not fall into error, planning to surpass them in such righteous and beautiful deeds; indeed this competition is worthy of a king, for here he claims true greatness.
14. ABOUT SAMPLES CREATED BY NATURE AND FATE
No matter how changeable and whimsical fate is, nevertheless it sometimes renounces its whims and inclination to change and, having united with nature, creates together with it amazing, extraordinary people who become models for future generations. The task of nature is to reward them with special properties, the task of fate is to help them manifest these properties on such a scale and under such circumstances that would correspond to the plan of one and the other. Like great artists, nature and fate embody in these perfect creations everything that they wanted to portray. First, they decide what a person should be, and then they begin to act according to a strictly considered plan: they choose a family and mentors, properties, innate and acquired, time, opportunities, friends and enemies, highlight virtues and vices, exploits and mistakes, are not lazy for events it is important to add insignificant things 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.
With what brilliant properties nature and fate awarded Alexander, wanting to show us an example of the greatness of the soul and incomparable courage! If we recall in what illustrious family he was born, his upbringing, youth, beauty, excellent health, remarkable and varied abilities in military science and in the sciences in general, advantages and even shortcomings, the small number of his troops, the enormous power of enemy troops, the brevity of this wonderful life , the death of Alexander and who succeeded him if we remember all this, will it not become clear with what art and diligence nature and fate selected these countless circumstances for the sake of creating such a person? Is it not clear how deliberately they disposed of numerous and extraordinary events, setting aside for each the day assigned to him, in order to show the world a model of a young conqueror, even greater in his human qualities than in resounding victories?
And if we think about the light in which nature and fate present Caesar to us, do we not see that they followed a completely different plan) when they invested in this man so much courage, mercy, generosity, military prowess, insight, quickness of mind, condescension, eloquence, bodily perfections, lofty virtues needed both in days of peace and in days of war? Is it not for this that they have labored so long, combining such amazing talents, helping to show them, and then compelling Caesar to go 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 among the most famous, influential and uncompromising citizens of Rome, reconciles for a while with the most significant in order to use them for his exaltation, and then, having deceived and blinded 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 did she save on land and at sea, so that he was never even slightly wounded! How persistently she supported the plans of Caesar and destroyed the plans of Pompey! (1) How cleverly she forced the freedom-loving and arrogant Romans, jealously guarding their independence, to submit to the power of one person! Even the circumstances of Caesar's death (2) were chosen by her so that they were in agreement with his life. Neither the predictions of clairvoyants, nor supernatural signs, nor the warnings of his wife and friends could save him; fate chose the day of his death when the Senate was to offer him the royal diadem, and the murderers - the people he saved, the man whom he gave life! (3)
This joint work of nature and fate is especially evident in the personality of Cato; (4) they, as if on purpose, put into him all the virtues characteristic of the ancient Romans, and contrasted them with the virtues of Caesar, in order to show everyone that, although both possessed equally vast intelligence and courage, the thirst for glory made one a usurper, the other an example of perfection. citizen. I have no intention of comparing these great men here - enough has already been written about them; I only want to emphasize that, however great and wonderful they may be to our eyes, nature and fate would not be able to put their qualities in their proper light, if they did not oppose 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 homeland: one - who did not know restraint in plans and boundaries in ambition ; the other - severely closed in adherence to the institutions of Rome and deified freedom; both famous for their high but different virtues, and, I dare say, even more famous for the confrontation that fate and nature have taken care of in advance. How they fit together, how united and necessary are all the circumstances of Cato's life and his death! To complete the image of this great man, fate wished to bind him inextricably with the Republic and at the same time took away 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 that I have already spoken about, again gave us dissimilar models in the person of two wonderful commanders. We see how, competing in military prowess, the Prince of Condé and Marshal Turenne (5) perform innumerable and brilliant deeds and reach the heights of well-deserved glory. They appear before us, equal in courage and experience, they act, not knowing bodily or mental fatigue, now together, now apart, now one against the other, they experience all the vicissitudes of war, win victories and suffer defeats. Endowed with foresight and courage, and owing their success 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, and use the same talents in different ways. Marshal Turenne, less ardent and more cautious in his designs, knows how to restrain himself and shows just as much courage as is necessary for his purposes; Prince Conde, whose ability to grasp the whole in the twinkling of an eye and perform true miracles is unparalleled, carried away by his unusual talent, as it were, subordinates events to himself, and they dutifully 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 with their talents to compensate for everything that the army lacked for the successful conduct of the war. The death of Marshal Turenne, quite worthy of his life, accompanied by many amazing circumstances and happened at a moment of extraordinary importance - even it seems to us the result of fear and uncertainty of fate, which did not have the courage to decide the fate of France and the Empire. (6) But the same fate which deprives the Prince of Condé, on account of his alleged failing health, of the command of the troops just at the time when he could do such important deeds, does it not enter into an alliance with nature in order to we have now seen this great man leading privacy who exhibits peaceful virtues and is still worthy of glory? And is he, living far from battles, less brilliant than when he led the army from victory to victory?
15. ABOUT COQUETS AND OLD MEN
Understanding human tastes is not an easy task at all, and the tastes of coquettes are even more so: but, apparently, the fact is that they are pleased with any victory that flatters their vanity in the least, so there are no unworthy victories for them. As for me, I confess that what seems most incomprehensible to me is the tendency of coquettes to old men who were once known as ladies' men. This inclination is so inconsistent with nothing and at the same time common that one involuntarily begins to look for what the feeling is based on, which is very common and, at the same time, incompatible with the generally accepted opinion about women. I leave it to the philosophers to decide whether nature's merciful desire to comfort old people in their pitiful condition is hidden behind this, and whether she sends coquettes to them with the same foresight by which she sends wings to decrepit caterpillars so that they can be moths. But, and without trying to penetrate the secrets of nature, it is possible, in my opinion, to find sound explanations for the perverted taste of coquettes for old people. First of all, it comes to mind that all women adore miracles, and what miracle can satisfy their vanity more than the resurrection of the dead! It gives them pleasure to drag old men behind their chariot, to adorn their triumph with them, while remaining unspotted; nay, old men are just as obligatory in their retinue as dwarfs were obligatory in former times, judging by the Amadis. (1) The coquette, with whom the old man is, has the humblest and most useful of the slaves, has an unpretentious friend and feels calm and confident in the world: he praises her everywhere, enters into the confidence of her husband, being, as it were, a guarantee in the prudence of his wife, in addition, if she enjoys weight, she renders thousands of services, delving into all the needs and interests of her home. If rumors reach him about the true adventures of the coquette, he refuses to believe them, tries to dispel them, says that the light is slanderous - why would he not know how difficult it is to touch the heart of this purest woman! The more he manages to win signs of favor and tenderness, the more devoted and prudent he becomes: his own interest induces him to modesty, for the old man is always afraid of being dismissed and is happy that he is generally tolerated. It is not difficult for the old man to convince himself that if he, contrary to common sense, has already become the chosen one, then 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 hadn’t met him, she would never have known love, she asks not to be jealous and trust her; she admits that she is not indifferent to secular entertainment and conversation with worthy men, but if sometimes she is friendly with several at once, it is only out of fear of betraying her attitude towards him; that he allows himself to laugh a little at him with these people, prompted by a desire to say his name more often or by the need to hide his true feelings; that, however, his will, she will gladly give up on everything, if only he was satisfied and continued to love her. What old man would not succumb to these flattering speeches, which so often mislead young and amiable men! Unfortunately, due to a weakness, especially characteristic of old men who were once loved by women, he forgets too easily that he is no longer both young and 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 sorrows. And let him become a common laughing stock - this is sometimes still a lesser evil than the hardships and sufferings of a languishing life that has fallen into decay.
16. DIFFERENT TYPES OF MIND
A powerful mind can have any properties that are generally inherent in the mind, but some of them constitute its special and inalienable property: its insight knows no limits; he is always equally and tirelessly active; vigilantly distinguishes the distant, as if it were before his eyes; embraces and comprehends the grandiose with the imagination; sees and understands the scanty; thinks boldly, broadly, efficiently, observing a sense of proportion in everything; he grasps everything down to the smallest detail, and thanks to this he often discovers the truth hidden under such a thick cover that it is invisible to others. But, despite these rare properties, the most powerful mind sometimes weakens and becomes smaller if it is taken over by addictions.
A refined mind always thinks nobly, expresses its views without difficulty, clearly, pleasantly and naturally, exposing them in a favorable light and coloring them with appropriate ornaments; he knows how to understand the taste of others and banishes from his thoughts everything that is useless or that might not please others.
Mind flexible, docile, insinuating knows how to get around and overcome difficulties, in necessary cases easily adapts to the opinions of others, penetrates into the peculiarities of the mind and passions of those around him, and, observing the benefit of those with whom he enters into intercourse, does not forget and achieves his own.
A sound mind sees everything in its proper light, evaluates according to merit, knows how to turn circumstances to the most favorable side 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 mercenary mind: you can perfectly understand business without chasing your own benefit. Some people act cleverly in circumstances that do not affect them, but are extremely awkward when it comes to themselves, while others, on the contrary, are not particularly smart, but they know how to benefit from everything.
Sometimes the mind of the most serious warehouse is combined with the ability for pleasant and easy conversation. Such a mind is appropriate for both men and women of any age. Young people usually have a cheerful, mocking mind, but without any hint of seriousness; so they are often tedious. The role of a note-taker is very ungrateful, and for the sake of the praise that such a person sometimes earns from others, one should not put oneself in a false position, constantly causing annoyance to these same people when they are in a bad mood.
Mocking is one of the most attractive as well as the most dangerous properties of the mind. A witty mockery invariably amuses people, but just as invariably they are afraid of the one who resorts to it too often X. Nevertheless, mockery is quite permissible if it is good-natured and directed mainly at the interlocutors themselves.
The tendency to joke easily turns into a passion for buffoonery or mockery, and you need to have a great sense of proportion in order to constantly joke without falling into one of these extremes. Joking can be defined as a general gaiety that captivates the imagination, causing it to see everything in a funny light; it can be mild or caustic, depending on the temperament. Some people know how to make fun in an elegant and flattering way: they ridicule only those shortcomings of their neighbors, which the latter readily admit, under the guise of censure they present praise, pretend that they want to hide the dignity of the interlocutor, and meanwhile skillfully expose them.
The subtle mind is very different from the crafty mind and is always pleasant in its ease, grace and observation. The crafty mind never goes straight to the goal, but looks for secret and roundabout ways to it. These tricks do not remain unsolved for long, invariably inspire fear in others and rarely bring serious victories.
There is also a difference between an ardent mind and a brilliant mind: the former grasps everything faster and penetrates deeper, the latter is distinguished by liveliness, sharpness and a sense of proportion.
The soft mind is indulgent and accommodating and everyone likes it, if only it is not too bland.
The mind systematically plunges into the consideration of the subject, not missing a single detail and observing all the rules. Such attention usually limits his options; however, sometimes it is combined with a broad outlook, and then the mind, which has both these properties, is invariably superior to others.
"Smart mind" is a term that has been overused; although this kind of intelligence may have the properties enumerated here, it has been attributed to such a great variety of bad rhymes and boring hacks that now the words "fair intelligence" are 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 shows in the tone and manner of pronouncing them; but since the tone and manner are impossible to describe, I will not go into particulars that are inexplicable. Everyone uses these epithets, knowing full well what they mean. When one speaks of a person - "he is smart", or "he is certainly smart", or "he is very smart", or "he is undeniably smart", only the tone and manner emphasize the difference between these expressions, similar on paper and yet related to different minds.
Sometimes it is also said that such and such a person has "the mind is always in the same way," or "diverse mind," or "comprehensive mind." One can be a fool in general with an undoubted mind, and one can be an intelligent person with the most insignificant mind. "Indisputable mind" is an ambiguous expression. It may imply any of the properties of the mind mentioned, but sometimes it does not contain anything definite. Sometimes you can talk pretty smart and act stupid, have a mind, but extremely limited, be smart in one thing, but incapable of another, be undeniably smart and good for nothing, undeniably smart and, moreover, obnoxious. 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, it seems to me that they can be distinguished by such signs: so beautiful that everyone is able to understand and feel their beauty; not devoid of beauty and at the same time boring; beautiful and well-liked, although no one can explain why; so subtle and refined that few people are able to appreciate all their beauty; imperfect, but embodied in such a skillful form, so consistently and gracefully developed, that they are quite admirable.
17. ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THIS CENTURY
When history informs us of what is going on in the world, it tells about incidents both important and insignificant; bewildered by such confusion, we do not always pay due attention to the unusual events that mark every age. But those that are generated by this century, in my opinion, overshadow all the previous ones in their unusualness. So it occurred to me to describe some of these events in order to draw to them the attention of those who are inclined to reflect on such topics.
Marie de Medici, Queen of France, wife 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 both the king, her son, and the whole kingdom for several years. It was she who made Armand de Richelieu a cardinal and the first minister, on whom all the decisions of the king and the fate of the state depended. Her merits and demerits were not such as to inspire fear in anyone, and yet this monarch, who knew such greatness and surrounded by such splendor, 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 owes her his elevation. Her other children, who sat on 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, starvation.
Ange de Joyeuse, (4) Duke and peer of France, marshal and admiral, young, rich, amiable and happy, renounced so many worldly blessings 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 dominated him in his youth. When the war ended, he said goodbye to the world for the second time and put on a monastic dress. Ange de Joyeuse lived long life, full of piety and holiness, but the vanity that he overcame in the world, here in the monastery, overcame him: he was elected abbot of the Parisian monastery, but since some disputed his election, Ange de Joyeuse decided to go on foot to Rome, regardless on their decrepitude and all the hardships associated with such a pilgrimage; nay, when on his return there were again protests against his election, he again set out on his journey and died, before reaching Rome, from weariness, 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 on either their own people or foreigners, and having no accomplices at court. This group of conspirators took possession of the royal palace at Lisbon, overthrew the Dowager Duchess of Mantua, regent, who ruled for her infant son, (6) and revolted the whole kingdom. During the riots, only Vasconcelos, (7) the Spanish minister, and two of his servants died. 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 dissatisfied with the enthronement of a new monarch. He wore the crown for fourteen years, showing neither greatness nor special virtues during these years, and died in his bed, leaving a serenely calm kingdom as a legacy to his children.
Cardinal Richelieu ruled France autocratically 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 his beloved cardinal Saint-Mar to the vengeful malice of the cardinal 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 state posts, and the king, whose distrust and hatred of Richelieu at that time reached the highest intensity, just as blindly obeys the will of the dead, as he obeyed the living.
Is it possible not to marvel that Anne-Marie-Louise of Orleans, (9) niece of the King of France, the richest of the uncrowned princesses of Europe, stingy, harsh in manners and arrogant, so noble that she could have become the wife of any of the most powerful kings, having lived to forty-five years old, she thought of marrying Puyguillem, (10) the youngest of the Lauzin family, an unpretentious person, a man of mediocre mind, whose virtues were exhausted by impudence and insinuating manners. What is most striking is that Mademoiselle made this insane decision out of servility, due to the fact that Puyguillem was in favor with the king: the desire to become the wife of a favorite replaced her passion. Forgetting your age high birth , not loving Puyguilleme, she nevertheless made him such advances that would have been inexcusable even from a younger and less well-born person, moreover, passionately in love. One day Mademoiselle told Puyguilleme that she could only marry one single person in the world. He began to insistently ask her to reveal who it was; still not being able to say his name aloud, she wished to inscribe her confession with a diamond on the window pane. Understanding, 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, Puyguillem 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 perfect success, and in the evening Mademoiselle wrote on paper the words: "It's you." She sealed the note herself, but it was a Thursday, and she was not able to deliver it until after midnight; therefore, not wanting to yield to Puyguilleme in scrupulousness, and fearing that Friday would be an unlucky day, she took his word that he would break the seal only on Saturday - then the great secret would become known to him. Such was Puyguillem's ambition that he took for granted this unheard-of favor 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 is well aware 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 bring down thunder and lightning on Puyguilleme for daring to tell him about his claims, but, on the contrary, allowed them to continue to be fed; he even consented to a delegation of four dignitaries asking his permission for such an incongruous marriage, and that neither the Duke of Orleans nor the Prince of Condé would be notified of this. The news, quickly spreading in the world, caused general bewilderment and indignation. The king did not immediately feel the damage he had done to his highest name and prestige. He simply thought that, in his greatness, he could one day afford to exalt Puyguilleme above the noblest nobles of the country, to intermarry with him, despite such blatant inequality, and make him the first peer of France and the owner of an annuity of five hundred thousand livres; but this strange plan attracted him most of all because 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 loves and considers worthy. Within three days, Puyguillem could well, taking advantage of the rare favor of fortune, marry Mademoiselle, but, driven by vanity no less rare, he began to achieve such wedding ceremonies that could only take place if he were of the same rank with Mademoiselle: he wanted the king and queen to witness his marriage, adding a special splendor to this event by their presence. Filled with unparalleled arrogance, he was engaged in empty preparations for the wedding, and meanwhile missed the time when he could really affirm his happiness. Madame de Montespan (11), although she hated Puyguillem, she resigned herself to the king's inclination towards him and did not oppose this marriage. However, the general rumors brought her out of inaction, she pointed out to the king what he alone did not see, and prompted him to listen to public opinion. He heard about the bewilderment of the ambassadors, listened to the lamentations 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 Puyguilleme 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: forbidding over pressure public opinion and reluctantly Puyguillem to marry Mademoiselle, he does not at all want this prohibition to interfere with his happiness. The king insisted that Puyguillem marry secretly, and promised that the disfavor that should follow such an offense would last no more than a week. Whatever the true feelings of Puyguillem during this conversation, he assured the king that he was happy to turn out of everything promised to him by the monarch, since this could somehow damage the prestige of his majesty, especially since there was no such happiness in the world that would reward him for a week's separation from the sovereign. Touched to the depths of his soul by such humility, the king did not fail to do everything in his power to help Puyguillem take advantage of Mademoiselle's weakness, and Puyguillem, for his part, did everything in his power to emphasize what sacrifices he was ready for for his master. At the same time, he was by no means guided only by disinterested feelings: he believed that his course of action had forever disposed the king to him and that now he was guaranteed royal favor until the end of his days. Vanity and absurdity brought Puyguilleme to the point that he no longer wanted this marriage, so profitable and exalted, because he did not dare to furnish the festivities with the pomp of which he dreamed. However, what pushed him most of all to break with Mademoiselle was an insurmountable disgust for her and unwillingness to be her husband. He expected to derive significant benefits from her passion for him, believing that, even without becoming his wife, she would present him with the principality of Dombes and the duchy of Montpensier. That is why he initially refused all the gifts that the king wanted to shower him with. But Mademoiselle's miserliness and bad temper, together with the difficulties involved in giving Puyguillem such vast possessions, showed him the futility of his plan, and he hastened to accept the bounty of the king, who gave him the governorship of Berry and an annuity of five hundred thousand livres. But these benefits, so significant, by no means satisfied the claims of Puyguilleme. He expressed his displeasure aloud, and his enemies, especially Madame Montespan, immediately took advantage of this to finally pay him off. He understood his position, saw that he was threatened with disfavor, but he could no longer control himself and, instead of correcting his affairs with a gentle, patient, skillful treatment of the king, he behaved arrogantly and impudently. Puyguillem went so far as to shower reproaches on the king, uttered harshness and taunts to him, even broke his sword in his presence, while declaring that he would never again expose it in the royal service. He fell upon Madame de Montespan with such contempt and fury 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 Pignerol fortress; after spending many hard years in prison, he knew what a misfortune it was to lose the favor of the king and, because of empty vanity, to lose the blessings and honors that the king bestowed on him - in his condescension and Mademoiselle - in the baseness of his nature.
Alphonse VI, the son of the Duke of Braganza, of whom I have spoken above, the Portuguese king, was married in France to the daughter of the Duke de Nemours, (13) very young, with neither great wealth nor great connections. Soon this queen plotted to annul her marriage to the king. By her order, he was taken into custody, and the same military units that had guarded him the day before as their overlord now guarded him like a prisoner. Alphonse VI was exiled to one of the islands of his own state, saving his life and even his royal title. The queen married the brother of her ex-husband and, being regent, gave him full power over the country, but without the title of king. She calmly enjoyed the fruits of such an amazing conspiracy, without violating good relations with the Spaniards and without causing civil strife in the kingdom.
A certain merchant of medicinal herbs, named Masaniello, (14) rebelled the Neapolitan commoners and, having defeated the powerful Spanish army, usurped the royal power. He autocratically disposed of the life, freedom and property of those who were under his suspicion, took possession of the customs, ordered all their money and all property to be taken away from the tax-farmers, and then ordered that these untold riches be burned in the city square; not a single person from the disorderly crowd of rebels coveted the good, acquired, according to their concepts, sinfully. This amazing reign lasted two weeks and ended no less amazing than it began: the same Masaniello, who so successfully, brilliantly and deftly accomplished such extraordinary deeds, suddenly lost his mind and died a day later in a fit of violent insanity.
The Queen of Sweden, (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 only because he was tired of reigning.
The lieutenant of the infantry unit, a man without roots and unknown, (17) surfaced at the age of forty-five, taking advantage of the unrest in the country. He overthrew his rightful sovereign, (18) kind, just, indulgent, courageous and generous, and, having secured the decision of the royal parliament, ordered that king's head be cut off, turned the kingdom into a republic, and for ten years was the lord of England; he kept other states in greater fear, and disposed of his own country more autocratically than any of the English monarchs; having enjoyed 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 rightful kings. They owed much to the valor and foresight 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 present Prince of Orange, (20) an inexperienced ruler and unsuccessful general, what it denied to his predecessors. She not only returns his possessions to him, but also allows him to seize power, as if forgetting that he gave the man who, alone against everyone, defended the freedom of the republic, to be torn to pieces by the mob.
The Spanish power, which has spread so widely and inspired such reverence to all the monarchs of the world, now finds support only in its rebellious subjects and is supported by the patronage of Holland.
The young emperor, (21) weak-willed and trusting by nature, a toy in the hands of narrow-minded ministers, becomes in one day - just at the time when the Austrian royal house is in complete decline - the master of all German sovereigns who fear his power, but despise his person; he is even more unlimited in his power than was Charles V. (22)
The English king, (23) cowardly, lazy, occupied only with the pursuit of pleasure, forgetting the interests of the country and those examples that he could draw from the history of his own family, for six years, despite the indignation of the whole people and the hatred of Parliament, maintained 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 seizing full power in England and expanding the borders of his country at the expense of the Flemish and Dutch cities and ports, which he stubbornly refused. But just when he received considerable 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 it was both profitable and wise 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 along 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 to this proposal very coldly, like his brother, the Duke of York. Then the Prince of Orange, seeing what obstacles stood in the way of his plan, also decided to abandon it. But one fine day, the English Minister of Finance, (25) motivated by selfish interests, fearing the attacks of members of Parliament and trembling for his own safety, persuaded the king to intermarry with the Prince of Orange, giving him his niece, and to oppose France on the side of the Netherlands. This decision was made with such lightning speed and kept so secret that even the Duke of York learned about the upcoming marriage of his daughter only two days before it took place. Everyone was thrown into complete bewilderment by the fact that the king, who had risked his life and crown for ten years to maintain friendly relations with France, suddenly abandoned everything that this alliance tempted him to do - and did so only for the sake of his minister! On the other hand, the Prince of Orange, too, at first did not show any particular interest in the mentioned marriage, which was very beneficial for him, thanks to which he became heir to the English throne and could become king in the future. He thought only of strengthening his power in Holland and, in spite of the recent military defeat, expected to establish himself as firmly in all the provinces as, in his opinion, he had established himself in Zeeland. But he soon became convinced that the measures he had taken were insufficient: a funny 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 goods were being sold and a large crowd had gathered, the auctioneer called out a collection of geographical maps and, since everyone was silent, declared that this book was much rarer than those present believed, and that the maps in it were remarkably accurate: they even marked that river, the existence of which the Prince of Orange did not suspect when he lost the battle of Kassel. (26) This joke, met with universal 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 terminate the alliance with France, thereby wanted 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, ostensibly 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 camp of the enemy. But after a month and a half it became clear that all the assumptions related to 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 specifically against her; the English parliament, continuing to attack the ministers, prepared to attack the king; Holland, weary of the war and full of anxiety for her freedom, repents that she trusted the young ambitious, the crown prince of the English crown; the French king, who at first considered this marriage as hostile to his interests, managed to use it to sow discord among the enemy powers, and now could easily capture Flanders, if he did not prefer the glory of the conqueror to the glory of the peacemaker.
If this age is no less rich in amazing incidents than past centuries, then, it must be said, 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 the religion and examples taught by the current reigning monarch, fought them in every possible way, even she has now become the scene of atrocities, in no way inferior to those that, as history and legend say, were made in ancient times. Man is inseparable from vices; at all times he is born selfish, cruel, depraved. But if the persons whose names are known to all lived in those distant centuries, would they now begin to remember the shameless libertine Heliogabalus, (27) the Greeks who bring gifts, (28) or the poisoner, fratricide and child-killer Medea? (29)
18. ABOUT IRREGULARITY
It is not my intention here to deal with the justification of impermanence, especially if it springs from mere frivolity; but it would be unfair to attribute to him alone all the changes to which love is subject. Her original attire, smart and bright, falls off her as inconspicuously as spring color with fruit trees; people are not to blame for this, only time is to blame. At the birth of love, the appearance is seductive, feelings agree, a person craves tenderness and pleasure, wants to please the object of his love, because he himself is delighted with him, with all his might, he strives to show how infinitely he appreciates him. But gradually the feelings that seemed forever unchanged become different, there is neither the former ardor nor the charm of novelty, the beauty that plays such an important role in love seems to fade or cease to seduce, and although the word "love" still does not leave the lips, people and their relations are no longer the same as they were; they are still true to their vows, but only at the behest of honor, out of habit, out of unwillingness to admit to themselves their own inconstancy.
How could people fall in love if at first sight they saw each other as they see after years? Or to be separated if this original look remained unchanged? Pride, which almost always rules our inclinations and knows no satiety, would always find new reasons to please itself with flattery, but constancy would lose its price, would mean nothing for such serene: relations; the present tokens of benevolence would be no less captivating than the former ones, and memory would not find any difference between them; impermanence would simply not exist, and people would still love each other with the same ardor, because they would have all the same reasons for love.
Changes in friendship are caused by almost the same causes 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 temper, equally does not spare either one or the other. People are so weak-hearted and fickle that they cannot bear the burden of friendship for a long time. Of course, antiquity has given us examples of it, but in our day real friendship occurs almost less frequently than real love.
19. REMOVING FROM THE LIGHT
I would have to fill too many pages if I were to start listing now all the obvious reasons that prompt old people to move away from the world: changes in the state of mind and appearance, as well as bodily infirmity, imperceptibly repel them - and in this they are similar to most animals - from society like them. Pride, the inseparable companion of selfishness, takes the place of reason here: being no longer able to please themselves with what pleases others, old people know by experience both the price of joys so desired in youth, and the impossibility of indulging in them in the future. Whether by a whim of fate, or because of the envy and injustice of those around them, or because of their own mistakes, the old people are unable to find ways to gain honors, pleasures, fame, which seem so easy to young men. Once having gone astray, leading to everything that exalts people, they can no longer return to it: it is too long, difficult, full of obstacles that, weighed down 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; with the greater ease they convince themselves that the dead were much more devoted to them than those who remained alive. They are no longer involved in those main benefits that previously kindled their lusts, they are almost uninvolved even in glory: the one that was won deteriorates over time, and it happens that people, aging, lose everything they had gained before. Every day takes away a grain of their being, and there is too little strength left in them to enjoy what has not yet been lost, not to mention the pursuit of what they want. Ahead they see only sorrows, illnesses, withering; everything has been tested by them, nothing has the charm of novelty. Time inconspicuously pushes them away from the place from which they would like to look at others and where they themselves would present an impressive spectacle. Some lucky people are still tolerated in society, others are frankly despised. They are left with the only prudent way out - to hide from the light what they once, perhaps, put too much on display. 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 leave 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 who have wisdom use the rest of their days to their advantage and, having little connection with this life, become worthy of another and better life. Others at least get rid of extraneous witnesses to their insignificance; they are immersed in their own ailments; the slightest relief serves them as a substitute for happiness, and their weakening flesh, more reasonable than themselves, no longer torments them with the torment of unfulfilled desires. Gradually they forget the world, which so readily forgot them, they even find in solitude something comforting for their vanity and, tormented by boredom, doubts, cowardice, drag out, obeying the voice of piety or reason, and most often out of habit, the burden of a weary and joyless life.

LAROCHEFOUCAULT, FRANCOIS DE(La Rochefoucauld, Francois de) (1613-1680). French politician of the 17th century and 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 bore the title of Prince of Marsillac. From 1630 he appeared at court, participated in the Thirty Years' War, where he distinguished himself in the battle of Saint-Nicolas. From his youth, he was noted for his wit and boldness of judgment and, by order of Richelieu, was expelled from Paris in 1637. But, while on his estate, he continued to support the supporters of Anna of Austria, whom Richelieu accused of having links with the Spanish court hostile to France. In 1637 he returned to Paris, where he helped the well-known political adventurer and friend of Queen Anne, the Duchess de Chevreuse, escape to Spain. He was imprisoned in the Bastille, but not for long. Despite military exploits in battles with the Spaniards, he again shows independence and is again absent from the court. After the death of Richelieu (1642) and Louis XIII (1643), he is again at court, but becomes a desperate opponent of Mazarin. The feeling of hatred for Mazarin is also connected with love for the Duchess de Longueville, a princess of royal blood, who was called the inspirer of the civil war (Fronde). The old Duke of La Rochefoucauld bought for his son the post of governor in the province of Poitou, but in 1648 his son left his post and came to Paris. Here he became famous for delivering a speech in parliament, printed under the heading Apology of the Prince de Marcilac which became the political creed 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 the Duke de La Rochefoucauld. He led the fight against Mazarin in the southwest of the country, his headquarters was the city of Bordeaux. Defending this area from the royal troops, La Rochefoucauld accepted help from Spain - this did not embarrass 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 leaders of the Fronde of Princes. On July 2, 1652, near Paris, in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, the Frondeur army was decisively defeated by the royal troops. La Rochefoucauld was seriously injured and nearly lost his sight. The war brought devastation to La Rochefoucauld, his estates were plundered, he retired from political activity. For almost ten years he worked on memoirs, which are among 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 associates in the struggle for the rights of the nobility preferred the role of a court noble to certain feudal rights. Relatively calmly enduring his ruin, he wrote bitterly 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.

La Rochefoucauld devoted the last two decades of his life to literary activity and actively visited 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 lifetime editions of his book (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 impromptu recorded, they are the fruit of great erudition, a connoisseur of 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 self-love, the instinct of self-preservation, and morality is determined life situation. But La Rochefoucauld cannot be called 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 Maksimov La Rochefoucauld, but their meaning is wider, they are relevant in our time.

Anatoly Kaplan