Plan

Introduction

1. Historical development moral standards and morality

2. Realistic depiction of a person

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

In modern times (from the 16th-17th centuries to the beginning of the 20th century), the capitalist economy has spread throughout the entire globe, and with it the bourgeois way of life and the rational consciousness of Western man. The socio-political framework of the New Age is more or less clear. The chronology of mental history is not drawn so clearly.

The main events of the era - political revolutions, the industrial revolution, the emergence of civil society, the urbanization of life - captured for us in the gallery of portraits individual people and human groups. Like any epoch, the New Age shows an enormous variety of mental life. Historical psychology has yet to master this empirical richness, generalize and give a description of the Man of economic, liberal, conservative or revolutionary consciousness, types of bourgeois, peasant, intellectual, proletarian, psychologically analyze important events period. It is not easy to approach the vast material of recent centuries, even if only in European history. Therefore, the topic of the essay is relevant in the sense that the work of J. La Bruyère "Characters" is an illustration of life in a critical period of transition from one social formation to another.

This era is dismantled by the sciences of modern man, which is already expressed in the designations of the period: capitalism, bourgeois society, the industrial era, the time of bourgeois revolutions and movements of the proletariat.

From sociology, the psychologist receives the information he needs about the structure of society and the order of functioning of its individual element, about social communities, institutions and stratifications, standards of group behavior, known as personal orientations, social characters, basic personality types, about worldview values, methods of education and control, and other social tools that continuously forge a social unit from inclinations Noto 5ariens.

Efforts are close to historical psychology historical sociology to show a person in a changeable, but historically determined unity of social life. This section of sociology examines the types of collective structures in time, including the characteristic forms of relationships between individuals, as well as with public institutions. A variant of historical sociology, adjacent to historical psychology, was proposed by the German scientist N. Elias (1807-1989) in the book “On the Process of Civilization. Socio-genetic and psychogenetic research”. The author interprets the rules of everyday behavior not so much as restrictions imposed on a person, but as a psychological being of the latter.

In order to move from historical sociology to historical psychology, it is necessary to consider a person not as an element of the social whole, but as an independent system, including a substructure social relations. The fusion of two neighboring areas of research is facilitated by the rootedness of macrosocial (early sociological) thinking in the human sciences.

Personality is a totality public relations or collective ideas, the foundations of her consciousness consist of learned norms of knowledge , therefore, consciousness changes to these foundations with appropriate external influences and transformations of the social environment. The metaphor, coming from the latest natural science, is taken up by microsociology and, to some extent, understanding psychology. The first (its creators - Zh. Gurevich, J. Moreno) gropes for the "volcanic soil" of sociality in elementary attractions between members of small groups, the second (founder - M. Weber) defines sociality from the point of view of a research device, i.e. cognizing individual, his experience, values. Weberian sociology gravitates toward psychoanalysis - doctrines that take human nature beyond the limits of macrosocial laws; it performs the function of criticizing sociological classics. Generalizations of the scientist, according to Weber's terminology, are ideal types, logically built definitions of an aspect of social reality, theoretical standards in describing empirical material.

The psychologist uses schemes that mark up the social space. On the scale of social macrophenomena, a person appears as a miniature fragment of society. Meanwhile, man himself acts for sociality as a moment of unpredictability and freedom. Sociology arises when a mass of norms and ideas is separated from direct communication and fixed in state, economic, private law codes and regulations of civil society. In contrast to the feudal-caste right of exceptions and privileges, liberal democracies strive for strict enforcement of the law, therefore, for a universal, fixed, independent of real faces norm.

The phenomena that mark the onset of capitalism appear so uniformly and synchronously in different areas of human existence that there is reason to look for a common basis (at least a trend) for them in the psyche, behavior, and human relations.

From the work of La Bruyère one can make a portrait of a man living in the seventeenth century. In his work, the author defines human vices, reveals their root causes, characteristic of that time. And the purpose of this work is to give general characteristics moral life of that period. The goal set predetermined tasks:

Get acquainted with the work of J. La Bruyère;

Reveal character traits phenomena of that time;

Describe the basic moral standards and human vices shown by the author on the pages of his work.

1. Historical development of moral norms and morality.

The characters of people are, according to La Bruyère, not self-sufficient varieties of the human race, but the direct results of the social environment, varying in each individual case their constant basis. The avaricious existed both in ancient Greece and in absolutist France, but the very content of avarice and its manifestations are radically changing under the influence of a changed social environment. the main task Therefore, the writer's idea lies not so much in the very depiction of stinginess, but in the study of the causes that gave rise to its given form. Since the difference in characters is the result of different real conditions, the writer is interested in these conditions themselves and their psychological equivalent. La Bruyère draws a character against the background of a given environment, or, conversely, in his imagination recreates for some particular character the environment that gave birth to him. So the consciousness of the personal dignity of a representative of the class of feudal lords took place within the framework of the code of noble honor. However, strictly guarding his honor, the feudal lord trampled on the dignity of other people - serfs, townspeople, merchants, etc. in a narrow circle of aristocrats. The dual nature of the moral norms of the feudal lord acted in the most rude way: he could be “faithful to the word” in relation to the overlord, but “loyalty to the word” did not extend to peasants, townspeople, merchants; he could sing "lady of the heart" and rape serf girls; to humiliate themselves in front of a nobleman and "bend into a ram's horn" of his subjects. Cruelty, brutal violence, robbery, disregard for other people's lives, parasitism, a mocking attitude towards the mind - all these moral qualities coexist perfectly with the idea of ​​noble dignity and honor.

The lady, according to La Bruyère, could be a model of secular etiquette, and she, without shame, undressed in front of the servants, could show the most unbridled anger; in relation to a maid, etc.

Along with historical development, the morality of the bourgeois is gradually losing its individual positive aspects. It, according to Hegel's apt expression, is left, as it were, by the "spirit of history." Social practice ruling class, seemed to confirm the pessimistic ideas about the “vicious” nature of man: “everything changes - clothes, language, manners, concepts of religion, sometimes even tastes, but a person is always angry, unshakable in his vicious inclinations and indifferent to virtue.” Bravery, fidelity, honor - these and other moral institutions become purely formal, lose their living connection with historical development. Feudal morality is emasculated, acquiring the character of a requirement of etiquette, external "decency". Good tone, fashion-yes, manners formalize aristocratic morality. Honor becomes a purely formal moral principle in content. This character of the aristocratic moral code was cruelly ridiculed during the period of the impending bourgeois revolutions. In the French bourgeois revolution, M. Robespierre, for example, demanded to replace honor with honesty, the power of fashion with the power of reason, decency with duties, good tone with good people, etc. the tribute that vice pays to virtue, ”Labruyère noted sarcastically, observing the mores of the French aristocracy. Where aristocratic morality has survived to the present day, the inert and formal nature of its norms is especially obvious.

The dual nature of the moral norms of the bourgeois has historically acted quite openly, without embellishment. This also left its mark on those aristocratic "virtues" that were subsequently admired by the reactionary romantics, who idealized morality. The shrewd La Bruyère understood this when he wittily formulated the bitter aphorism: "Our virtues are most often artfully disguised vices." Especially hypocritical was the behavior of spiritual feudal lords, forced by necessity to preach "Christian virtues." Preaching disinterestedness, they are distinguished by exceptional love of money, praising moderation and mortification of the flesh, indulge in gluttony and strive for luxury; preaching abstinence-debauchery; demanding sincerity, they lie and deceive.

Immorality was widespread not only among the upper strata. Gross cruelty, arbitrariness and contempt for human life. Historical chronicles convincingly show that in practice the morality of one's own class played an insignificant role in the behavior of the aristocratic nobility.

The profound inconsistency of social progress gave the development of morality a tragic irony. The class of feudal lords, trying to retain power, intensifies the exploitation of the serfs, and act under the pressure of the lowest, vile passions. These actions, even from the point of view of the generally accepted morality of that era (“fathers-children”), were immoral in nature, led to rampant cruelty, atrocities, bullying and bloodshed. However, this intensification of exploitation, in the end, provoked the resistance of the peasants. It could go in two directions: firstly, for the reduction or complete destruction of feudal exploitation and, secondly, through an increase in the profitability of the peasant economy and a reduction in the relative size of that part of the income that the feudal lord appropriated. BF Porshnev in his study convincingly shows that the peasantry made a lot of efforts in this second direction. The historical consequences of these efforts, outwardly rather inconspicuous and ordinary, were of enormous historical significance. They contributed to the development of productive forces and, in the end, were one of the prerequisites for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. Thus, the moral vices of the ruling class, through a whole chain of social dependencies, act as the "levers" of historical development.

The moral progress that took place in the era of feudalism was historically limited. The stamp of inertia and patriarchy that lay on the morality of this era could only be overcome by going beyond the feudal way of life. However, the anti-feudal revolutions of the serf peasantry, which put forward the most advanced moral ideals for their time and moral rules, could not lead to the establishment of a new system. The most noble, far-reaching moral goals and ideals of these revolutions could not be realized in the epoch of feudalism. Usually uprisings ended in defeat, drowned in blood. Of course, the main line of social progress was marked by the class struggle of the oppressed peasantry. The resistance of the serfs, which grew as the internal contradictions of the feudal mode of production developed, forced the top to reorganize and move to a higher level of feudal exploitation. Thus, the peasant uprisings were not historically fruitless, but, on the contrary, were a powerful stimulus for historical progress. Nevertheless, their limitedness and unreality of achieving their ultimate goals, moral ideals, also affected the role they played in the moral progress of mankind. Having exhausted the meager possibilities that feudalism gave to moral progress, the further progressive development of morality could only take place on new social ground, with new driving forces and social contradictions.

The social system that replaced feudalism was capitalism. Where, due to specific historical conditions, the emergence of a new way of life was slowed down, the moral progress achieved within the framework of feudal society is suspended. Marking on the spot begins. The worst features - inertness, patriarchy - begin to prevail over the moments of development in the morality of the people. Individual successes in moral development, like a chameleon, change their historical coloring and role. From engines social development they become his obstacle. Moral progress not only slows down, but also goes back, turns into a regression. Thus, each new socio-economic formation that replaced the old one was that new social level on which only further advancement of the moral progress of mankind was possible. Moreover, social progress destroys, along with the old social forms, those aspects of the former moral relations that can be perceived by subsequent generations as positive, attractive. However, separate "losses" in moral development do not at all reject its ascending, progressive character. Separate, private losses - the inevitability inherent in everything ascending spiritual development. That is why the criterion of moral progress cannot be reduced to a metaphysical idea of ​​the “preservation” of everything morally positive that has existed in history. Moral progress is not a repository where each generation of people handed over their norms and principles, noble for that time, leaving their vices behind the threshold. The upward development of morality in its very essence is a process, and can only be understood as a process. Attempts to preserve in history all that morally “good” that grew up in different eras, at the expense of destroying the “bad” that this “good” encountered, is nothing more than a decrepit illusion of moralists. Contradiction is an internal feature of moral progress, which is peculiarly manifested in the normative, changeable opposition of “good” and “evil”.

2. Realistic image of a person.

The most significant literary work of the last quarter of the XVII century. is the book of La Bruyère "Characters and manners of this century"

Jean de La Bruyère (1645-1696) came from a family of poor townspeople, who may have had a noble title in the past, but completely lost it by the time the writer was born. Ironically tracing his clan to one of the participants in the Crusades, La Bruyère shows complete indifference to class categories: “If the nobility of origin is virtue, then it is lost in everything that is not virtuous, and if it is not virtue, then it costs very little ". However, La Bruyère had to experience the oppression of class prejudices all his life.

In 1684, on the recommendation of Bossuet, he received the position of educator of the grandson of the famous commander Conde - a man with great ambition, boundless pride and indomitable temper. The Palais de Condé at Chantilly was a kind of little Versailles. Regular visitors his there were the most prominent people of France - politicians, financiers, courtiers, military men, spiritualists, writers, artists, who passed in a row before the eyes of the insightful La Bruyère. In the words of Sainte-Beuve, La Bruyère took "a corner seat in the first box in the great spectacle of human life, in the grandiose comedy of his time." The fruit of acquaintance with this "comedy" was the only book of La Bruyère mentioned, which immediately received wide, albeit somewhat scandalous, fame.

As a model for his work, La Bruyère chose the book of the Greek writer Theophrastus, who lived at the end of the 4th century. BC e. At first, La Bruyère conceived of giving only a translation of Theophrastus' Characters, adding to them several characteristics of his contemporaries. However, with each subsequent edition (during the life of the author there were nine of them), the original part of the book increased, so that the last lifetime edition included, according to the author himself, already 1120 original characteristics (instead of 418 of the first edition), and characteristics of Theophrastus were already published as an appendix.

In a speech about Theophrastus, delivered by La Bruyère in 1693 upon his entry into the Academy and prefaced by the 9th edition of his book, he gives an apology for this writer, seeing in his manner of individualizing human vices and passions the most adequate form of depicting reality. However, La Bruyère reforms and complicates this manner: “Theophrastus’ characteristics,” he says, “demonstrating a person with a thousand of his internal features, his deeds, speeches, behavior, teach what his inner essence is; on the contrary, new characteristics, revealing at the beginning the thoughts, feelings and actions of people, opened vayut the root causes of their vices and weaknesses, help to easily foresee everything that they will be able to say and do, teach more Not wonder at the thousands of bad and frivolous deeds that fill their lives.

La Bruyère's characterizations are extremely specific; these are precisely the characters and customs of this age - a long gallery of portraits of courtesans, nobles, bankers, navel heights, monks, bourgeois, hypocrites, misers, gossips, talkers, flatterers, hypocrites, vain - in a word, the most diverse representatives of various strata of society. "Characters" La Bruyère grow into a grandiose pamphlet for the whole era. Criticism of La Bruyere is no longer connected with the ideology of the opposition circles of the feudal nobility, but with the mood of the radical bourgeois-democratic strata, which are beginning to express discontent of the broad masses with the absolutist regime.

La Bruyère's book is divided into a number of chapters: "City", "Court", "Lords", "Sovereign", etc. Its composition corresponds to the internal classification of portraits, the criterion of which is social belonging. The chapter "On material goods" performs, as it were, the role of an introduction and contains the fundamental principles of the author.

The internal state of a person, his spiritual complex is demonstrated by La Bruyere on his external properties and manifestations. The bodily appearance of a person is shown as a function of his inner world, and this latter is given as the result of external influence, as a psychological product of social existence. This -- realistic image individual as part of a particular society.

The desire to convey the social phenomenon in its entirety leads La Bruyère to a very deep insight into reality. The "yard" and "city", the capital and the countryside, the nobles and the bourgeoisie, officials and peasants are equally accessible to his review. But from whatever social environment La Bruyère chooses material for his judgments, he is interested in the ordinary, the typical, the most general in its most concrete and individual diversity. If he draws a hypocrite, then this is a real hypocrite from the time of Louis XIV. Having given a portrait of a hypocrite, La Bruyère theoretically substantiates its reality in a number of accompanying maxims, clarifying the typicality of this phenomenon, analyzing and dissecting it by showing how hypocrisy manifests itself in a priest, a nobleman, a bourgeois, a marquise. A dozen illustrations, each of which is a complete portrait, ends with a generalizing maxim: "A hypocrite is one who, under an atheist king, would be an atheist."

When La Bruyère draws a miser, he again gives several variants of the same type: a miser-nobleman, a miser-official, a miser-merchant. "Court" is represented by the types of flatterer, braggart, insolent, talker, dandy, arrogant bully, swaggering aristocrat. All these are living people, excellent educational material for getting to know the authentic court of Louis XIV. "Nothing else is needed for success at court as true and natural shamelessness." The “city” is represented in Lab-ruyère by the images of a “philistine in the nobility”, a money ace, an obsequious official, a cutesy marquise, a charlatan doctor, a rogue merchant. All these types of bourgeois are multiplied, differentiated and divided into dozens of variants by La Bruyère. The king himself appears on the pages of his book. And, finally, as a terrible contrast to the king and the court, the peasantry appears at La Bruyère. None of French writers the end of the century, it was not possible to draw such a stunning picture of the fate of the French people, which is at the same time an angry philippic against the modern social order: , bent over the earth, which they dig and break with invincible stubbornness; they have the gift of articulate speech and, when straightened, reveal a human form; and, in fact, it turns out that these are people. At night, they retire to lairs, where they satisfy their hunger with black bread, water and roots; they free other people from the need to sow, plow and harvest in order to live, and therefore deserve the right not to be left completely without the grain that they have sown.

These wonderful lines of La Bruyère about the peasants are quoted by Pushkin in his Journey from Moscow to Petersburg. “Fonvizin,” writes Pushkin, “who traveled fifteen years before in France, says that, with a hundred clear conscience, the fate of the Russian peasantry seemed to him happier than the fate of the French farmer. I believe. Let us recall the description of La Bruyère.

La Bruyere's attitude to the people is quite clear and unambiguous: "The fate of a worker in the vineyards, a soldier and a stonemason does not allow me to complain that I do not have the blessings of princes and ministers." This opposition of the people to the powerful of this world makes La Bruyère strive to determine his own social orientation: “The people have no mind, but the aristocrats do not have a soul. The first has a good essence and has no appearance, the second has only appearance and gloss. Do I need to choose? I don't hesitate. I want to be a man of the people."

Ascertaining the presence of social evil, expressed primarily in the inequality of classes, La Bruyère tries to determine its root cause. This root cause turns out to be a material interest - money. The colossal power of money, which turns family, moral and political relations into exchange value, is quite clear to La Bruyère. People who are in love with a young lady “are no longer parents, friends, citizens, Christians; maybe they are no longer people; they are money-holders.”

La Bruyère gives a complex range of human destinies directed by this all-powerful power.

“Sozius from the livery little by little, thanks to income, moved to participation in farming; through bribery, violence, and the abuse of his power, he finally rose to a considerable height; due to his position, he became an aristocrat; he lacked only to be virtuous; but the position of the church elder did this last miracle. This portrait, like many others like it, contains a ready-made plot. realistic novel. The image of a parasite living behind account of the impoverishment of the masses exploited by him, especially attracts the author with his odiousness and causes a number of portraits.

“This boy, so fresh and blooming, from whom such health emanates, is the lord of the abbey and ten other benefices; all this together brings him a hundred and twenty thousand livres of income, so that he is completely littered with gold. And in another place there live one hundred and twenty poor families who have nothing to keep warm in winter, who have no clothes to cover themselves, often there is no bread; they are in extreme poverty, which is involuntarily ashamed. What an uneven distribution!”

Money makers become heroes of the day, the world turns into an arena where, for the sake of material well-being in a bloody battle, human vices arise and human virtues perish. La Bruyère passionately rebels against this state of affairs, attacks him with devastating criticism and tries to find a way out. But strong in negation, he immediately weakens as soon as he has to draw a positive ideal. A correct diagnosis does not yet give him the means to make a prognosis. “The present belongs to the rich, and the future belongs to the virtuous and gifted” - this, in fact, is the only formula of the writer, beyond which he fails to go. La Bruyère wants the world to be ruled by reason, and sketches out a program for a rationally arranged state. A virtuous king, an ideal ruler embodying the idea of ​​an enlightened monarchy, should become the seat of the state mind. In the chapter "On the Sovereign" La Bruyère gives a lengthy list of qualities necessary for the head of state. This is by no means a portrait of Louis XIV, it is an image of a utopian ruler constructed by a moralist. “It seems to me,” La Bruyère concludes, “that a monarch who would combine these qualities in himself would be worthy of the name of the Great.” In this ideal portrait, La Bruyère, as it were, tries to give his pupil, and perhaps himself Louis XIV, a model worthy of emulation.

In political matters, for all the naivete of his views, La Bruyère is still at the forefront. His positive role- in the fact that he stood up against arbitrariness and tyranny for a rational, albeit monarchical, state; in the fact that, within the limits of the possible, he showed absolutism the abyss to which he had arrived; in the fact that, humanistically striving to alleviate the disasters of his country, he diplomatically laconic portrait and accurate depiction of the human psyche.

The main thing in the "Characters" is reflections on the spiritual warehouse of a person, on his "mood" crazy and hearts. At the same time, La Bruyère believes that character is not built on any one psychological trait (for example, stinginess or narcissism). La Bruyère is irritated in a manic, one-quality character by impoverishment his content, the inability to absorb all the versatility of a person.

These tendencies are manifested in the fact that the writer often deduces the properties acquired by a person not from his inner world and not even from the influence of other people on him, but from the influence of the social environment in in general. He associates character with a way of life. Thus, the manners and actions of a person who has received a prominent position are determined, in the writer's mind, by dignity. And a man, by nature cheerful and generous, under the influence of circumstances becomes gloomy, stingy, obsequious, callous in La Bruyère. Entering into conflict with the theoretical canons of classicism, La Bruyère objects to the interpretation of the human character as something immutable. He is sure that people throughout their lives become unlike themselves. The once pious, intelligent and educated cease to be such with age, and, on the contrary, those who began with the pursuit of pleasures acquire wisdom and moderation. Due to the recognition of the principle of character development, its variability, La Bruyere's qualities "acquired" play a special role. Their importance grows compared with innate traits.

La Bruyère does not deal with man in general. First of all, he pays great attention to the belonging of a person to a certain social stratum. In this regard, the theme of wealth and poverty, property contrasts, which is very closely related to the theme of class hierarchy and legal inequality, is very significant for him.

The most important for La Bruyere is the question of the differences that exist in a feudal society between the privileged estates and the huge mass of people deprived of privileges: between nobles, nobles, ministers, officials, on the one hand, and people of low rank, on the other hand. another. La Bruyère talks about peasants who “save others from the need to plow, sow, harvest and thereby fully deserve the right not to be left without bread” and who are nevertheless doomed to poverty, hard work and a half-starved existence, reduced to the position of "wild animals" living in a "den". He also speaks of nobles, drowning in luxury, spending days and nights in reprehensible amusements, who do not wish good to anyone, hiding depravity and malice under the guise of courtesy.

Class inequality in a feudal society is fixed for La Bruyère by property inequality, associated with an increase in the role of the bourgeoisie in society and the importance of money. Wealth, in turn, supports class privileges and a hierarchy of tops and bottoms typical of a feudal society.

The thought of poor people accompanies author"Characters" all the time, no matter what he thought about. He reports on the families of the poor who "nothing warm up in winter nothing"cover up on gotu” and sometimes even nothing to eat, whose poverty is terrible and shameful. At the thought of them, La Bruyere's "heart shrinks." The beggars and the destitute are present in Characters next to people “blooming and radiant with health”, people “who are drowning in excesses, bathing in gold, eating as much in one sitting as needed to feed hundreds of families.” All methods of enrichment seem to La Bruyère "ugly", associated with embezzlement, fraud, and the ruin of others. People, absorbed by self-interest and gain, "perhaps not even people," the author of "Characters" is convinced.

La Bruyère's denial of wealth and nobility, the inclusion of images of a nobleman and a commoner, a rich man and a poor man in the depicted world, give additional meaning to his ideal image of a sage, so typical of the classic worldview. It is not accidental that La Bruyere remarks that intelligence and abilities are not needed at court, since they are replaced by courtesy, the ability to keep up a conversation, etc., that a fool who has acquired wealth is not at all uncommon, and that "Idiots" do not achieve wealth by "labor or enterprise." The remark about labor, which is not needed at all in the presence of nobility and which can be dispensed with when accumulating wealth, deserves special attention. A sage for La Bruyère is not only one who is smart, but also one who works. Hard work is an essential quality of a sage. It brings him closer to the "man of the people", to the peasant, for the main content of the latter's life is work.

The idea of ​​the insufficiency of his intellectual advantages for the "wise man" is supported by the argument about "dignitaries" and "smart people". Distinguishing between those who "have nothing but the dignity" and those who "have nothing but the mind", La Bruyère contrasts the "virtuous person" with both. In the second chapter of "Characters" the writer talks about the "heroes" who come across among judges, among scientists, and among courtiers. But neither the hero nor great person do not, according to La Bruyère, stand for one "truly moral person." Morality as an ethical dignity becomes in the "Characters" the main measure of conduct. Only that which is “disinterested”, which is alien to everything egotistical, seems noble, that which is at ease, soft and cordial, simple and accessible, “driven by kindness” is revered as true generosity.

The fate of a person seems to La Bruyère so bleak that getting to know her, in his opinion, can only discourage life. The writer underestimates the power of the mind, does not believe in its ability to control human behavior. In youth, says La Bruyer, a person lives by instincts; in adulthood, the mind develops, but its efforts are, as it were, nullified by passions, congenital vices; in old age, the mind comes into full force, but it is already cooled by years of failures and sorrows, undermined by the decrepitude of the body.

La Bruyère's pessimism is also connected with the conviction that at times takes possession of him in the inability of the world to develop and improve. The writer sometimes believes that only clothes, language, manners, tastes change, but the person remains angry and unshakable in his vicious inclinations. The author of "Characters" believes, however, that one should not be "indignant" at the fact that people are callous, ungrateful, unjust, arrogant - "such is their nature." And if so, then the fight against vices is meaningless. Reconciliation with reality takes on the coloring of traditionalism in "Characters". La Bruyère denounces the craft of a card sharper as a dirty occupation based on deceit. But an indirect and partial justification for it is that it has existed for a long time, it has been dealt with “at all times”. Almost the same is the case with the omnipotence of money in modern society. La Bruyère declares this omnipotence absolute, not conditioned by specific circumstances, referring to the rich who ruled over people in the ancient world.

The features of traditionalism in "Characters" are closely connected with the calls of La Bruyère "to be cured of hatred and envy." A person must renounce admiration for the highest ranks, from groveling and humiliation. But calls for a sense of one's own dignity, for pride are interspersed with statements about the aimlessness of the struggle to change the world, to change the established class hierarchy. You should be content with little, says the author of "Characters".

In connection with this, the image of the bearer of wisdom in Lab-ruyère acquires a special semantic connotation. Wisdom must reconcile with the successes of the "evil", with the preference given to the unworthy. The Wisdom of the Sage is in maintaining neutrality. He must limit himself to the role of a spectator. He is doomed to passivity.

La Bruyère is the direct predecessor of the 18th century Enlighteners, a writer who paved the way for them, and a thinker whose sharp contradictions in his mind are deeply rooted in the soil of the French reality of the end XVII century- a period full of complex and painful contradictions, a kind of transitional period from one era to another.

Conclusion

Human nature has not changed since the time of La Bruyère. And although the court is no longer called the court and the head of state is no longer the king, but a person invested with power, the flatterers and confidants surrounding him retain all the same character traits. And the idea is still true that people's mood, their admiration and inspiration are caused by success and that "it takes a little for a successful villainy to be praised as a true virtue." “Do not expect sincerity, frankness, justice, help, services, benevolence, generosity and constancy from a person who recently appeared at court with the secret intention of exalting himself.” He has already ceased to call a spade a spade, for him there are no more rogues, swindlers, fools and impudent - he is afraid that a person about whom he will involuntarily express his true opinion will not prevent him from moving forward ... he does not only a stranger to sincerity, but also does not tolerate it in others, for the truth hurts his ear; with a cold and indifferent look, he avoids talking about the court and courtiers, for he is afraid of being considered an accomplice of the speaker and incurring responsibility.

Doesn't this portrait evoke memories of a very recent time in you? We say: "achieve the goal" instead of "make a career", but the words may be different, but the essence remains the same. The characters of people are determined and shaped by their relationships.

“We, so modern now, will seem obsolete in a few centuries,” wrote La Bruyère. And he asked himself what future generations would say about extortion of taxes in the era of the “golden age”, about the luxury of financiers, about gambling houses, about crowds of militant people who were kept by the favorites. But we, for whom La Bruyère is an old classic, read it without being surprised. In the people around us, we found the same traits of character, and on top of that, others, even more amazing. And in turn, we are only afraid that our grandchildren would not be shocked by our morals. History will show them the people of our time, destroying from the height of fast-winged machines in a few minutes entire civilizations that have been created over the centuries. It will demonstrate a similar economy in which some peoples are dying of starvation in front of others who do not know where to find the application of their forces.

Descendants will know that our streets were so crowded that moving in us seemed more difficult and slower than on foot; that our houses were not heated during the winter; that men and women shattered their health and mind with disgusting intoxicants; that huge sums were spent on the cultivation of a plant whose leaves smoke all the peoples of the earth; that our conception of pleasure was reduced to a nocturnal revelry in crowded places, to the contemplation of how sad creatures like ourselves drink, dance and smoke. Will our descendants be shocked by this? Will they refuse to follow the habits of this crazy world? Far from it. They will indulge in folly even worse than ours. They will read La Bruyère just as he read Theophrastus. And they will say: “Given that this book was written two thousand years ago, it is simply amazing that they are so similar to us ...”

* People place little value on virtues and idolize the perfection of the body and mind. He who, calmly and not for a moment doubting his modesty, will tell you about himself that he is kind, constant, sincere, faithful, just and not a stranger thanks, he dares not say that he has a sharp mind, beautiful teeth and delicate skin: that would be too much.

True, two virtues - courage and generosity - lead everyone in admiration, because for their sake we forget about life and money - two things that we highly value; that's why no one calls himself aloud brave or generous.

No one, especially without proper reason, will say that he is endowed with beauty, generosity, nobility: we value these qualities so highly that, attributing them to ourselves, we will not say it out loud.

* What discord between mind and heart! The philosopher does not live as he himself teaches to live; a far-sighted and prudent politician easily loses power over himself.

* Reason, like everything in our world, wears out: science, which serves as food for it, at the same time depletes it.

* Small people are often weighed down many useless virtues: they have nowhere to apply them.

* There are people who do not bend under the weight of power and favors, quickly get used to their own greatness and, occupying the highest positions, do not lose their heads from this. Those whom blind and indiscriminate fortune undeservedly burdens with their benefits, enjoy them immoderately and arrogantly; their their glances, gait, tone and manner betray for a long time the surprise and delight into which their own elevation plunged them, and they are filled with such unbridled arrogance that only a fall can bring them to reason.

* A tall and strong man, with broad shoulders and a chest, easily and naturally carries a huge load, and he still has one hand free; a dwarf would be crushed by half the weight. It is the same with high positions: they make great people even greater, insignificant people even more insignificant.

* There are people for whom oddities are only beneficial: they swim across such seas where others are wrecked and drowned; they achieve success in ways in which it is not usually found; their eccentricities and follies bring to them the fruits that only the deepest wisdom brings to others. Keeping close to the mighty of this world, to whom they devote all their time, for they place their cherished hopes on them, they do not serve them, but amuse them.

Our whole trouble is that we do not know how to be alone. Hence - cards, luxury, frivolity, wine, women, ignorance, slander, envy, desecration of one's soul and oblivion of God.

* A person, apparently, is not enough of his own society: darkness and loneliness instill in him anxiety, unreasonable anxiety and absurd fear, or at best boredom.

* Boredom came into our world along with idleness; it largely explains the human propensity for pleasure, gambling, society. He who loves work does not need strangers.

* Most people use the best time of life to make the worst even sadder ..

* There are works that begin with alpha and end with omega. They have everything: good, bad and disgusting; they do not forget any genre. How exquisite they are, how pretentious! They are called the fruits of the game of the mind. Our behavior is the same game: when we start something, we certainly want to reach the end. Sometimes it’s better for us to step back and find ourselves another occupation, but it’s more difficult to continue what we started, which means it’s more honorable; so we go on, obstacles only aggravate our resolve, vanity spurs us on and gets the better of a mind that succumbs and surrenders. This subtle motive can be found in our most moral deeds—even in deeds of faith.

Literature

1. History world literature in 8 volumes, vol. 2 - M.: Enlightenment, 1992-346s.

2. History French literature in 4 volumes, T1 -M.: Enlightenment, 1987 - 347p.

3. J. D. Labruyère. Characters or manners present century.- M.; Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1964 - 225 p.

4. Sh. L e t urn o. The evolution of slavery- M. Enlightenment, 1993 - 328 p.

5. A. Morois Literary portraits- M.: Progress, 1970 - 454s.

6. B. F. Porshnev. Feudalism and the masses - M .: "Science", 1964-279s.

7. skins ov V. A. Historical psychology - 2nd edition, revised .. - M .: Meaning, 1997. - 505s.

The most significant literary work of the last quarter of the XVII century. is the book of La Bruyère "Characters and manners of this century"

Jean de La Bruyère (1645-1696) came from a family of poor townspeople, who may have had a noble title in the past, but completely lost it by the time the writer was born. Ironically tracing his clan to one of the participants in the Crusades, La Bruyère shows complete indifference to class categories: “If the nobility of origin is virtue, then it is lost in everything that is not virtuous, and if it is not virtue, then it costs very little ". However, La Bruyère had to experience the oppression of class prejudices all his life.

In 1684, on the recommendation of Bossuet, he received the position of educator of the grandson of the famous commander Conde - a man with great ambition, boundless pride and indomitable temper. The Palais de Condé at Chantilly was a kind of little Versailles. Regular visitors his there were the most prominent people of France - politicians, financiers, courtiers, military men, spiritualists, writers, artists, who passed in a row before the eyes of the insightful La Bruyère. In the words of Sainte-Beuve, La Bruyère took "a corner seat in the first box in the great spectacle of human life, in the grandiose comedy of his time." The fruit of acquaintance with this "comedy" was the only book of La Bruyère mentioned, which immediately received wide, albeit somewhat scandalous, fame.

As a model for his work, La Bruyère chose the book of the Greek writer Theophrastus, who lived at the end of the 4th century. BC e. At first, La Bruyère conceived of giving only a translation of Theophrastus' Characters, adding to them several characteristics of his contemporaries. However, with each subsequent edition (during the life of the author there were nine of them), the original part of the book increased, so that the last lifetime edition included, according to the author himself, already 1120 original characteristics (instead of 418 of the first edition), and characteristics of Theophrastus were already published as an appendix.

In a speech about Theophrastus, delivered by La Bruyère in 1693 upon his entry into the Academy and prefaced by the 9th edition of his book, he gives an apology for this writer, seeing in his manner of individualizing human vices and passions the most adequate form of depicting reality. However, La Bruyère reforms and complicates this manner: “Theophrastus’ characteristics,” he says, “demonstrating a person with a thousand of his internal features, his deeds, speeches, behavior, teach what his inner essence is; on the contrary, new characteristics, revealing at the beginning the thoughts, feelings and actions of people, open the root causes of their vices and weaknesses, help to easily foresee everything that they will be able to say and do, teach more Not wonder at the thousands of bad and frivolous deeds that fill their lives.

La Bruyère's characterizations are extremely specific; these are precisely the characters and customs of this age - a long gallery of portraits of courtesans, nobles, bankers, navel heights, monks, bourgeois, hypocrites, misers, gossips, talkers, flatterers, hypocrites, vain - in a word, the most diverse representatives of various strata of society. "Characters" La Bruyère grow into a grandiose pamphlet for the whole era. Criticism of La Bruyere is no longer connected with the ideology of the opposition circles of the feudal nobility, but with the mood of the radical bourgeois-democratic strata, which are beginning to express discontent of the broad masses with the absolutist regime.

La Bruyère's book is divided into a number of chapters: "City", "Court", "Lords", "Sovereign", etc. Its composition corresponds to the internal classification of portraits, the criterion of which is social belonging. The chapter "On material goods" performs, as it were, the role of an introduction and contains the fundamental principles of the author.

The internal state of a person, his spiritual complex is demonstrated by La Bruyere on his external properties and manifestations. The bodily appearance of a person is shown as a function of his inner world, and this latter is given as the result of external influence, as a psychological product of social existence. This is a realistic depiction of a person as part of a certain specific society.

The desire to convey the social phenomenon in its entirety leads La Bruyère to a very deep insight into reality. The "yard" and "city", the capital and the countryside, the nobles and the bourgeoisie, officials and peasants are equally accessible to his review. But from whatever social environment La Bruyère chooses material for his judgments, he is interested in the ordinary, the typical, the most general in its most concrete and individual diversity. If he draws a hypocrite, then this is a real hypocrite from the time of Louis XIV. Having given a portrait of a hypocrite, La Bruyère theoretically substantiates its reality in a number of accompanying maxims, clarifying the typicality of this phenomenon, analyzing and dissecting it by showing how hypocrisy manifests itself in a priest, a nobleman, a bourgeois, a marquise. A dozen illustrations, each of which is a complete portrait, ends with a generalizing maxim: "A hypocrite is one who, under an atheist king, would be an atheist."

When La Bruyère draws a miser, he again gives several variants of the same type: a miser-nobleman, a miser-official, a miser-merchant. "Court" is represented by the types of flatterer, braggart, insolent, talker, dandy, arrogant bully, swaggering aristocrat. All these are living people, excellent educational material for getting to know the authentic court of Louis XIV. "Nothing else is needed for success at court as true and natural shamelessness." The “city” is represented in Lab-ruyère by the images of a “philistine in the nobility”, a money ace, an obsequious official, a cutesy marquise, a charlatan doctor, a rogue merchant. All these types of bourgeois are multiplied, differentiated and divided into dozens of variants by La Bruyère. The king himself appears on the pages of his book. And, finally, as a terrible contrast to the king and the court, the peasantry appears at La Bruyère. None of the French writers of the end of the century managed to draw such a stunning picture of the fate of the French people, which is at the same time an angry philippic against the modern social order: the color of their skin, charred by the sun, bent over the earth, which they dig and dig with invincible stubbornness; they have the gift of articulate speech and, when straightened, reveal a human form; and, in fact, it turns out that these are people. At night, they retire to lairs, where they satisfy their hunger with black bread, water and roots; they free other people from the need to sow, plow and harvest in order to live, and therefore deserve the right not to be left completely without the grain that they have sown.

These wonderful lines of La Bruyère about the peasants are quoted by Pushkin in his Journey from Moscow to Petersburg. “Fonvizin,” writes Pushkin, “who traveled fifteen years before in France, says that, with a hundred clear conscience, the fate of the Russian peasantry seemed to him happier than the fate of the French farmer. I believe. Let us recall the description of La Bruyère.

La Bruyere's attitude to the people is quite clear and unambiguous: "The fate of a worker in the vineyards, a soldier and a stonemason does not allow me to complain that I do not have the blessings of princes and ministers." This opposition of the people to the powerful of this world makes La Bruyère strive to determine his own social orientation: “The people have no mind, but the aristocrats do not have a soul. The first has a good essence and has no appearance, the second has only appearance and gloss. Do I need to choose? I don't hesitate. I want to be a man of the people."

Ascertaining the presence of social evil, expressed primarily in the inequality of classes, La Bruyère tries to determine its root cause. This root cause turns out to be a material interest - money. The colossal power of money, which turns family, moral and political relations into exchange value, is quite clear to La Bruyère. People who are in love with a young lady “are no longer parents, friends, citizens, Christians; maybe they are no longer people; they are money-holders.”

La Bruyère gives a complex range of human destinies directed by this all-powerful power.

“Sozius from the livery little by little, thanks to income, moved to participation in farming; through bribery, violence, and the abuse of his power, he finally rose to a considerable height; due to his position, he became an aristocrat; he lacked only to be virtuous; but the position of the church elder did this last miracle. This portrait, like many others like it, contains a ready-made plot of a realistic novel. The image of a parasite living behind account of the impoverishment of the masses exploited by him, especially attracts the author with his odiousness and causes a number of portraits.

“This boy, so fresh and blooming, from whom such health emanates, is the lord of the abbey and ten other benefices; all this together brings him a hundred and twenty thousand livres of income, so that he is completely littered with gold. And in another place there live one hundred and twenty poor families who have nothing to keep warm in winter, who have no clothes to cover themselves, often there is no bread; they are in extreme poverty, which is involuntarily ashamed. What an uneven distribution!”

The creators of money become the heroes of the day, the world turns into an arena where, for the sake of material well-being, human vices arise in a bloody battle and human virtues perish. La Bruyère passionately rebels against this state of affairs, attacks him with devastating criticism and tries to find a way out. But strong in negation, he immediately weakens as soon as he has to draw a positive ideal. A correct diagnosis does not yet give him the means to make a prognosis. “The present belongs to the rich, and the future belongs to the virtuous and gifted” - this, in fact, is the only formula of the writer, beyond which he fails to go. La Bruyère wants the world to be ruled by reason, and sketches out a program for a rationally arranged state. A virtuous king, an ideal ruler embodying the idea of ​​an enlightened monarchy, should become the seat of the state mind. In the chapter "On the Sovereign" La Bruyère gives a lengthy list of qualities necessary for the head of state. This is by no means a portrait of Louis XIV, it is an image of a utopian ruler constructed by a moralist. “It seems to me,” La Bruyère concludes, “that a monarch who would combine these qualities in himself would be worthy of the name of the Great.” In this ideal portrait, La Bruyère, as it were, tries to give his pupil, and perhaps Louis XIV himself, a model worthy of imitation.

In political matters, for all the naivete of his views, La Bruyère is still at the forefront. His positive role is that he stood up against arbitrariness and tyranny for a rational, albeit monarchical, state; in the fact that, within the limits of the possible, he showed absolutism the abyss to which he had arrived; in the fact that, humanistically striving to alleviate the disasters of his country, he diplomatically laconic portrait and accurate depiction of the human psyche.

The main thing in the "Characters" is reflections on the spiritual warehouse of a person, on his "mood" crazy and hearts. At the same time, La Bruyère believes that character is not built on any one psychological trait (for example, stinginess or narcissism). La Bruyère is irritated in a manic, one-quality character by impoverishment his content, the inability to absorb all the versatility of a person.

These tendencies are manifested in the fact that the writer often deduces the properties acquired by a person not from his inner world and not even from the influence of other people on him, but from the influence of the social environment in in general. He associates character with a way of life. Thus, the manners and actions of a person who has received a prominent position are determined, in the writer's mind, by dignity. And a man, by nature cheerful and generous, under the influence of circumstances becomes gloomy, stingy, obsequious, callous in La Bruyère. Entering into conflict with the theoretical canons of classicism, La Bruyère objects to the interpretation of the human character as something immutable. He is sure that people throughout their lives become unlike themselves. The once pious, intelligent and educated cease to be such with age, and, on the contrary, those who began with the pursuit of pleasures acquire wisdom and moderation. Due to the recognition of the principle of character development, its variability, La Bruyere's qualities "acquired" play a special role. Their importance grows compared with innate traits.

La Bruyère does not deal with man in general. First of all, he pays great attention to the belonging of a person to a certain social stratum. In this regard, the theme of wealth and poverty, property contrasts, which is very closely related to the theme of class hierarchy and legal inequality, is very significant for him.

The most important for La Bruyere is the question of the differences that exist in a feudal society between the privileged estates and the huge mass of people deprived of privileges: between nobles, nobles, ministers, officials, on the one hand, and people of low rank, on the other hand. another. La Bruyère talks about peasants who “save others from the need to plow, sow, harvest and thereby fully deserve the right not to be left without bread” and who are nevertheless doomed to poverty, hard work and a half-starved existence, reduced to the position of "wild animals" living in a "den". He also speaks of nobles, drowning in luxury, spending days and nights in reprehensible amusements, who do not wish good to anyone, hiding depravity and malice under the guise of courtesy.

Class inequality in a feudal society is fixed for La Bruyère by property inequality, associated with an increase in the role of the bourgeoisie in society and the importance of money. Wealth, in turn, supports class privileges and a hierarchy of tops and bottoms typical of a feudal society.

The thought of poor people accompanies author"Characters" all the time, no matter what he thought about. He reports on the families of the poor who "nothing warm up in winter nothing"cover up nakedness and sometimes there is even nothing to eat, whose poverty is terrible and shameful. At the thought of them, La Bruyere's "heart shrinks." The beggars and the destitute are present in Characters next to people “blooming and radiant with health”, people “who are drowning in excesses, bathing in gold, eating as much in one sitting as needed to feed hundreds of families.” All methods of enrichment seem to La Bruyère "ugly", associated with embezzlement, fraud, and the ruin of others. People, absorbed by self-interest and gain, "perhaps not even people," the author of "Characters" is convinced.

La Bruyère's denial of wealth and nobility, the inclusion of images of a nobleman and a commoner, a rich man and a poor man in the depicted world, give additional meaning to his ideal image of a sage, so typical of the classic worldview. It is not accidental that La Bruyere remarks that intelligence and abilities are not needed at court, since they are replaced by courtesy, the ability to keep up a conversation, etc., that a fool who has acquired wealth is not at all uncommon, and that "Idiots" do not achieve wealth by "labor or enterprise." The remark about labor, which is not needed at all in the presence of nobility and which can be dispensed with when accumulating wealth, deserves special attention. A sage for La Bruyère is not only one who is smart, but also one who works. Hard work is an essential quality of a sage. It brings him closer to the "man of the people", to the peasant, for the main content of the latter's life is work.

The idea of ​​the insufficiency of his intellectual advantages for the "wise man" is supported by the argument about "dignitaries" and "smart people". Distinguishing between those who "have nothing but the dignity" and those who "have nothing but the mind", La Bruyère contrasts the "virtuous person" with both. In the second chapter of "Characters" the writer talks about the "heroes" who come across among judges, among scientists, and among courtiers. But neither a hero nor a great man is worth, according to La Bruyère, one "truly moral man." Morality as an ethical dignity becomes in the "Characters" the main measure of conduct. Only that which is “disinterested”, which is alien to everything egotistical, seems noble, that which is at ease, soft and cordial, simple and accessible, “driven by kindness” is revered as true generosity.

The fate of a person seems to La Bruyère so bleak that getting to know her, in his opinion, can only discourage life. The writer underestimates the power of the mind, does not believe in its ability to control human behavior. In youth, says La Bruyer, a person lives by instincts; in adulthood, the mind develops, but its efforts are, as it were, nullified by passions, congenital vices; in old age, the mind comes into full force, but it is already cooled by years of failures and sorrows, undermined by the decrepitude of the body.

La Bruyère's pessimism is also connected with the conviction that at times takes possession of him in the inability of the world to develop and improve. The writer sometimes believes that only clothes, language, manners, tastes change, but the person remains angry and unshakable in his vicious inclinations. The author of "Characters" believes, however, that one should not be "indignant" at the fact that people are callous, ungrateful, unjust, arrogant - "such is their nature." And if so, then the fight against vices is meaningless. Reconciliation with reality takes on the coloring of traditionalism in "Characters". La Bruyère denounces the craft of a card sharper as a dirty occupation based on deceit. But an indirect and partial justification for it is that it has existed for a long time, it has been dealt with “at all times”. Almost the same is the case with the omnipotence of money in modern society. La Bruyère declares this omnipotence absolute, not conditioned by specific circumstances, referring to the rich who ruled over people in the ancient world.

The features of traditionalism in "Characters" are closely connected with the calls of La Bruyère "to be cured of hatred and envy." A person must renounce admiration for the highest ranks, from groveling and humiliation. But calls for a sense of one's own dignity, for pride are interspersed with statements about the aimlessness of the struggle to change the world, to change the established class hierarchy. You should be content with little, says the author of "Characters".

In connection with this, the image of the bearer of wisdom in Lab-ruyère acquires a special semantic connotation. Wisdom must reconcile with the successes of the "evil", with the preference given to the unworthy. The Wisdom of the Sage is in maintaining neutrality. He must limit himself to the role of a spectator. He is doomed to passivity.

La Bruyère is the immediate predecessor of the Enlighteners of the 18th century, the writer who paved the way for them, and the thinker whose sharp contradictions in his mind are deeply rooted in the soil of French reality at the end of the 17th century - a period that -full of complex and painful contradictions, a kind of transitional strip from one era to another.

» Jean La Bruyère. Characters

© Jean De La Bruyère

Characters or mores of the present age
(excerpt)

De La Bruyère Jean (1645-1696)- French writer and moralist. He came from a petty-bourgeois family, was a lawyer, official, tutor for the children of aristocrats.

The Characters and Morals of the Present Age is a collection of epigrams, reflections and portraits. Borrowing the idea of ​​"Characters" from Theophrastus (4th century BC), La Bruyère set out to reflect the social mores of his age. During the life of La Bruyère, 9 editions were published, gradually supplemented by the author. He is so realistic in depicting details and features that contemporaries did not believe in the abstractness of his characteristics and tried to guess living people in them. Undoubtedly, the author partly copied his portraits from real faces, but many of La Bruyère's images also have a collective meaning.

On the virtues of man

Can even a very gifted and endowed with extraordinary virtues not be filled with the consciousness of his insignificance at the thought that he will die, and that no one in the world will notice his disappearance and others will immediately take his place?

Many people have no other virtues than their name. Look at them closely and see how insignificant they are; but from a distance they inspire respect!

I have no doubt that men appointed to various offices, each according to his ability and ability, do their job well; but still I dare to suggest that there are still many people in the world, known and unknown, who could do just as well: I came to this idea by observing those who have risen not because much was expected of them, but only by chance, and, however, extraordinary distinguished themselves in their new posts.

How many wonderful people, gifted with rare talents, died without being able to draw attention to themselves! How many of them live among us, and the world is silent about them and will never speak!

How infinitely difficult it is for a person who does not belong to any corporation, does not seek patrons and adherents, keeps to himself and cannot provide other recommendations than his own outstanding merits - how difficult it is for him to break out to the surface and become on a par with a fool who is favored by fate.

Few people will, on their own initiative, think about the merits of their neighbor. People are so busy with themselves that they don’t have time to look at others and judge them fairly. That is why those who have many virtues, but even more modesty, often remain in laziness.

Some do not have enough abilities and talents, others lack the opportunity to show them; therefore men should be given credit not only for the things they have done, but also for the things they could have done.

It is easier to meet people who have intelligence than the ability to use it in business, appreciate the intelligence in others and find useful use for it.

There are more tools in the world than masters, and if we talk about masters, then there are more bad ones than good ones. What would you say about a person who would take it into his head to saw with a planer and plan with a saw?

An ungrateful craft has been chosen by one who tries to create for himself big name. His life is coming to an end, and the work has barely begun.

© De La Rochefoucauld Francois. Maxims. Blaise Pascal. Thoughts. De La Bruyère Jean. Characters, M.. 1974.

In each of the 16 chapters, he sets out his "characters" in strict sequence, where he writes the following: "Everything has long been said." It is extremely difficult to convince others of the infallibility of one's tastes; most often, a collection of "nonsense" is obtained.

Most unbearable is mediocrity in "poetry, music, painting and oratory."

There are as yet no great works composed collectively.

Most often, people are guided "not by taste, but by predilection."

Do not miss the opportunity to express a laudable opinion on the merits of the manuscript, and do not build it only on someone else's opinion,

In vain does a writer want to acquire admiring praise for his work. Fools admire. Smart people approve with restraint.

High style reveals this or that truth, provided that the theme is sustained in a noble tone.

"Criticism is sometimes not so much a science as a craft that requires endurance rather than intelligence."

"It is ungrateful to create a big name, life is coming to an end, and the work has barely begun."

Outward simplicity is a wonderful dress for prominent people.

It’s good to be a person “about whom no one asks if he is famous?”

Character is reflected in every act of a person.

False greatness is arrogant, but is aware of its weakness and shows itself a little.

A man's opinion of women rarely coincides with the opinion of women.

Women should be looked at, "not paying attention to their hair and shoes."

There is no sight more beautiful than "than a beautiful face, and there is no music sweeter than the sound of a beloved voice."

Women's treachery is useful in that "it cures men of jealousy."

If two women, your friends, quarreled, "then you have to choose between them, or lose both."

Women know how to love stronger than men, "but men are more capable of friendship."

"A man keeps someone else's secret, a woman keeps hers."

The heart inflames suddenly, friendship takes time.

We love those to whom we do good, and we hate those whom we offend.

"There is no excess more beautiful than the excess of gratitude."

"There is nothing more colorless than the character of a colorless person."

A smart person is not pushy.

To be delighted with oneself and one's mind is a misfortune.

The talent of the interlocutor is distinguished "not by the one who speaks himself, but by the one with whom others willingly speak."

"Do not reject praise - you will be considered rude."

“The father-in-law does not love the son-in-law, the father-in-law loves the daughter-in-law; the mother-in-law loves the son-in-law, the mother-in-law does not love the daughter-in-law: everything in the world is balanced. “It is easier and more useful to adapt to someone else’s temper than to adapt someone else’s temper to your own.”

"The tendency to ridicule speaks of the poverty of the mind."

Friends mutually strengthen each other in their views and forgive each other for minor shortcomings.

Do not give advice in secular society, you will only hurt yourself.

"A dogmatic tone is always the result of deep ignorance."

"Do not try to expose a rich fool to ridicule - all ridicule is on his side."

The wealth of other people is acquired at the cost of peace, health, honor, conscience - do not envy them.

In any business, you can get rich by pretending to be honest.

The one who was exalted by luck in the game "does not want to know his equals and clings only to nobles."

It is not surprising that there are many gambling houses, it is surprising how many people who provide these houses with a livelihood. "It is unforgivable for a decent person to play, to risk a big loss is too dangerous boyishness."

“The decline of people of judicial and military rank lies in the fact that they measure their expenses not with income, but with their position.”

The capital society is divided into circles, “like small states: they have their own laws, customs, jargon. But the age of these circles is short-lived - two years at the most.

The vanity of metropolitan women is more disgusting than the rudeness of commoners.

"You have found a devoted friend if, having ascended, he did not get to know you."

A high and difficult position is easier to take than to keep. "It is as dangerous to make promises in court as it is difficult not to make them."

Insolence is a property of character, a congenital defect.

“Two paths lead to a high position: a trodden straight road and a detour around the path, which is much shorter,”

Do not expect sincerity, justice, help and constancy from a person who has come to court with the secret intention of exalting himself. “The new minister has many friends and relatives overnight.” "Court life is a serious, cold and intense game." And the luckiest one wins.

"The slave depends only on his master, the ambitious - on everyone who is able to help his exaltation."

"Good wit - bad man". There is only one step from cunning to swindle; it is worth adding a lie to cunning, and you get swindle.

Nobles recognize perfection only for themselves, but the only thing that cannot be taken away from them is large possessions and a long line of ancestors. "They do not want to learn anything - not only the management of the state, but also the management of their home."

Doorman, valet, footman judge themselves by the nobility and wealth of those they serve.

It is dangerous to participate in a dubious undertaking, it is even more dangerous to be with a noble at the same time. He'll get out at your expense.

Courage is a special attitude of mind and heart, which is transmitted from ancestors to descendants.

Do not trust in the nobles, they rarely take the opportunity to do us good. "They are guided only by the dictates of feeling, succumbing to the first impression."

“It is best to remain silent about the mighty of this world. To speak well is almost always to flatter, to speak ill is dangerous while they are alive, and vile when they are dead.

The most reasonable thing is to come to terms with the form of government under which you were born.

The subjects of a despot have no homeland. The thought of it is supplanted by self-interest, ambition, servility.

“A minister or an ambassador is a chameleon. He hides his true temper and dresses the right one in this moment mask. All his plans, moral rules, political tricks serve one task - not to be deceived himself and deceive others.

The monarch lacks only one thing - the joys of private life.

The favorite is always alone, he has no attachments or friends.

"Everything flourishes in a country where no one makes a distinction between the interests of the state and the sovereign."

In one respect people are constant: they are evil, vicious, indifferent to virtue.

"Stoicism is an empty game of the mind, a fiction." The person actually loses his temper, despairs, is forced by a cry. “Cheaters tend to think that everyone else is like them; they do not deceive, but they themselves do not deceive others for a long time.

"Stamped paper is a disgrace to mankind: it was invented to remind people that they have made promises, and to convict them when they deny it."

"Life is what people most strive to preserve and cherish least."

There is no such flaw or bodily imperfection that children would not notice, as soon as they discover it, they take precedence over adults and cease to reckon with them.

"People don't live long enough to learn from their own mistakes."

"Prejudice reduces the greatest man to the level of the most limited commoner."

Health and wealth, saving a person from bitter experience, make him indifferent; people, themselves afflicted by sorrows, are much more compassionate towards their neighbor.

“A man of mediocre mind seems to be carved out of one piece: he is constantly serious, he cannot joke.”

High positions make great people even greater, insignificant people even more insignificant.

"An old man in love is one of the greatest deformities in nature."

"Finding a vain person who considers himself happy is as difficult as finding a humble person who considers himself too unhappy."

“The manner of gestures, speech and behavior is often the result of idleness or indifference; a great feeling and a serious deed return a person to his natural appearance.

“The great surprises us, the insignificant repels us, and habit “reconciles with both.”

“The title of comedian was considered shameful by the Romans and honorary by the Greeks. What is the position of actors with us? We look at them like the Romans and treat them like the Greeks."

“Languages ​​are just a key to science, but contempt for them casts a shadow on it too.”

“You should not judge a person by their face - it only allows you to speculate.”

"A person whose mind and abilities are recognized by everyone does not seem ugly, even if he is ugly - no one notices his ugliness." “A narcissistic person is one in whom fools see an abyss of virtues. This is something between a fool and an impudent one, he has something of both.”

"Loquacity is one of the signs of narrow-mindedness."

The more our neighbors are like us, the more we like them.

"The flatterer is equally low opinion of himself and of others."

"Freedom is not idleness, but the ability to freely dispose of one's time and choose one's occupation." He who does not know how to properly use his time is the first to complain about his lack.

A lover of rarities does not value what is good or beautiful, but what is unusual and outlandish, and he alone has it.

“A woman who has become fashionable is like that nameless blue flower that grows in the fields, chokes the ears, destroys the crop and takes the place of useful cereals.”

“A wise man wears what the tailor advises him to wear; to despise fashion is as foolish as to follow it too much."

"Even the beautiful ceases to be beautiful when it is out of place."

“The parishioners are charged more for marriages than for christenings, and christenings are more expensive than confessions; thus a tax is levied on the sacraments, which, as it were, determines their relative dignity.

"Torture is an amazing invention, which without fail destroys the innocent if he is in poor health, and saves the criminal if he is strong and enduring."

“To the orders made by the dying in their wills, people treat them like the words of oracles: everyone understands and interprets them in his own way, according to own desires and profit."

"People have never trusted doctors and have always used their services." Until people stop dying, doctors will be showered with ridicule and money.

Charlatans deceive those who want to be deceived.

“Christian preaching has now become a spectacle,” no one thinks about the meaning of God’s word, “because preaching has become, first of all, fun, a game of chance, where some compete, while others bet.”

"Speakers are like the military in one respect: they take more risks than people of other professions, but rise faster." How great is the advantage of the living word over the written.

Enjoying health, people doubt the existence of God, just as they do not see sin in the vicinity of a special light morals; as soon as they get sick, they leave the concubine and begin to believe in the creator.

"The impossibility of proving that there is no god convinces me that he exists."

“If the need for anything disappears, the arts, sciences, inventions, mechanics will disappear.”

La Bruyère ends the book with the words: “If the reader does not approve of these Characters, I will be surprised; if he approves, I will still be surprised.