La Rochefoucauld François: “Maxims and moral reflections” and Test: “The sayings of La Rochefoucauld”

“The talents with which God has endowed people are as diverse as the trees with which he adorned the earth, and each has special properties and bears only its own fruits. That is why the best pear tree will never give birth to even the worst apples, but the most gifted person gives in to a task, albeit an ordinary one, but given only to those who are capable of this task. And therefore, composing aphorisms without at least a little talent for an activity of this kind is no less ridiculous than expecting that bulbs will bloom in a garden bed where no bulbs are planted tulips." - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

“While intelligent people are able to 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

François VI de La Rochefoucauld (French François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, September 15, 1613, Paris - March 17, 1680, Paris), Duke de La Rochefoucauld - French writer, author of works of a philosophical and moralistic nature. He belonged to the southern French family of La Rochefoucauld. Activist in the wars of the Fronde. During his father's lifetime (until 1650), he bore the title of courtesy Prince de Marcillac. 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 noble noble families in France. The military and court career for which he was destined did not require college training. La Rochefoucauld acquired his extensive knowledge already in adulthood through independent reading. Arriving in 1630 to court, he immediately found himself in the thick of political intrigue.

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 upon him disgrace, exile to his possessions and short-term imprisonment in the Bastille. After the deaths of Richelieu (1642) and Louis XIII (1643), Cardinal Mazarin, who was very unpopular among all segments of the population, came to power. The feudal nobility tried to regain their lost rights and influence. Dissatisfaction with Mazarin's rule 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 frontiers - the Prince of Condé, the Duke de Beaufort and others and could closely observe their morals, selfishness, lust for power, envy, selfishness 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 of the Fronde were partially bought with concessions and handouts, and partially subjected to disgrace and punishment.

La Rochefoucauld, among the latter, was forced to go to his possessions in Angoumois. It was there, far from political intrigues and passions, that he began to write his “Memoirs,” which he initially did not intend for publication. In them he gave an undisguised picture of the events of the Fronde and characteristics of its participants. At the end of the 1650s. he returned to Paris, was favorably received at court, but completely withdrew from political life. During these years, he became increasingly attracted to literature. In 1662 The Memoirs were published without his knowledge in a falsified form; he protested this publication and released the original text in the same year. La Rochefoucauld's second book, 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 published the first author's edition, which was followed during his lifetime by four more. La Rochefoucauld corrected and supplemented the text from edition to edition. The last lifetime edition was 1678. contained 504 maxims. In posthumous editions, numerous unpublished ones were added to them, as well as those excluded from previous ones. "Maxims" have been translated into Russian several times.

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

MAXIMS AND MORAL REFLECTIONS

NOTICE TO THE READER

(To the first edition of 1665)

I present to the readers this picture of the human heart, entitled "Maxims and Moral Reflections." It may not please everyone, for some will probably think it is too much like the original and too little flattering. There is reason to believe that the artist would not have made his creation public and it would have remained within the walls of his office to this day if a distorted copy of the manuscript had not been passed from hand to hand; It recently reached Holland, which prompted one of the author’s friends to give me another copy, which he assured me was quite consistent with the original. But no matter how true it may be, it is unlikely that it will be able to avoid the censure of other people, irritated by the fact that someone has penetrated into the depths of their heart: they themselves do not want to know it, therefore they consider themselves entitled to prohibit knowledge to others. Undoubtedly, these “Reflections” are full of the kind of truths with which human pride is not able to reconcile, and there is little hope that they will not arouse its enmity or incur attacks from detractors. That is why I am placing here a letter written and given to me immediately after the manuscript became known and everyone tried to express their opinion about it. This letter, in my opinion, sufficiently convincingly answers the main objections that may arise regarding the “Maxims”, and explains the thoughts of the author: it irrefutably proves that these “Maxims” are just a summary of the teaching of morality, which is in agreement in everything with the thoughts of some Fathers of the Church that their author really could not have been mistaken, having entrusted himself to such proven leaders, and that he had not done anything reprehensible when, in his reasoning about man, he only repeated what they had once said. But even if the respect that we are obliged to have for them does not pacify the ill-willed and they do not hesitate to pronounce a guilty verdict on this book and at the same time on the views of holy men, I ask the reader not to imitate them, to suppress with reason the first impulse of the heart and, curbing selfishness as much as possible , not to allow his interference in the judgment about the “Maxims”, for, having listened to him, the reader, no doubt, will react unfavorably to them: since they prove that selfishness corrupts reason, it will not fail to restore this very reason against them. Let the reader remember that the prejudice against “Maxim” precisely confirms them, let him be imbued with the consciousness that the more passionately and cunningly he argues with them, the more immutably he proves their rightness. It will truly be difficult to convince any sane person that the zoiles of this book are possessed by feelings other than secret self-interest, pride and selfishness. In short, the reader will choose a good fate if he firmly decides to himself in advance that none of these maxims applies to him in particular, that although they seem to affect everyone without exception, he is the only one to whom they have no effect. concerns. And then, I guarantee, he will not only readily subscribe to them, but will even think that they are too lenient towards the human heart. This is what I wanted to say about the content of the book. If anyone pays attention to the method of its compilation, then I should note that, in my opinion, each maxim should be titled according to the subject it treats, and that they should be arranged in a greater order. But I could not do this without violating the general structure of the manuscript handed to me; and since sometimes the same subject is mentioned in several maxims, the people to whom I turned for advice decided that it would be best to compile an Index for those readers who would like to read all the reflections on one topic in a row.

Our virtues are most often skillfully disguised vices.

What we take for virtue often turns out to be a combination of selfish desires and actions, skillfully selected by fate or our own cunning; so, for example, sometimes women are chaste, and men are valiant, not at all because chastity and valor are actually characteristic of them.

No flatterer flatters as skillfully as selfishness.

No matter how many discoveries have been made in the land of selfishness, there are still plenty of unexplored lands left there.

Not a single cunning man can compare in cunning with selfishness.

The longevity of our passions is no more dependent on us than the longevity of life.

Passion often turns an intelligent person into a fool, but no less often endows fools with intelligence.

Great historical deeds, which blind us with their brilliance and are interpreted by politicians as the result of great plans, are most often the fruit of the play of whims and passions. Thus, the war between Augustus and Anthony, which is explained by their ambitious desire to rule the world, was perhaps caused simply by jealousy.

The passions are the only speakers whose arguments are always convincing; their art is born, as it were, from nature itself and is based on immutable laws. Therefore, a simple-minded person, but carried away by passion, can convince more quickly than an eloquent, but indifferent person.

Passions are characterized by such injustice and such self-interest that it is dangerous to trust them and one should beware of them even when they seem quite reasonable.

There is a continuous change of passions in the human heart, and the extinction of one of them almost always means the triumph of the other.

Our passions are often the product of other passions that are directly opposite to them: stinginess sometimes leads to wastefulness, and wastefulness to stinginess; people are often persistent out of weakness of character and courageous out of cowardice.

No matter how hard we try to hide our passions under the guise of piety and virtue, they always peek through this veil.

Our pride suffers more when our tastes are criticized than when our views are condemned.

People not only forget benefits and insults, but even tend to hate their benefactors and forgive offenders.

The need to repay good and avenge evil seems to them like slavery, which they do not want to submit to.

The mercy of the powerful is most often just a cunning policy, the goal of which is to win the love of the people.

Although everyone considers mercy a virtue, it is sometimes generated by vanity, often by laziness, often by fear, and almost always by both.

The moderation of happy people stems from the calmness bestowed by constant good fortune.

Moderation is the fear of envy or contempt, which becomes the lot of anyone who is blinded by his own happiness; this is vain boasting of the power of the mind; finally, the moderation of people who have reached the heights of success is the desire to appear above their fate.

We all have enough strength to endure the misfortune of our neighbor.

The equanimity of the sages is simply the ability to hide their feelings in the depths of their hearts.

The equanimity that those sentenced to death sometimes show, as well as the contempt for death, only speaks of the fear of looking it straight in the eyes; therefore, it can be said that both are for their minds like a blindfold for their eyes.

Philosophy triumphs over the sorrows of the past and future, but the sorrows of the present triumph over philosophy.

Few people are given the ability to comprehend what death is; in most cases, it is not done out of deliberate intention, but out of stupidity and established custom, and people most often die because they cannot resist death.

When great men finally bend under the weight of long-term adversity, they show that before they were supported not so much by the strength of spirit as by the strength of ambition, and that heroes differ from ordinary people only by greater vanity.

It is more difficult to behave with dignity when fate is favorable than when it is hostile.

Neither the sun nor death should be looked at point-blank.

People often boast of the most criminal passions, but no one dares to admit to envy, a timid and bashful passion.

Jealousy is to some extent reasonable and just, for it wants to preserve our property or what we consider to be such, while envy is blindly indignant at the fact that our neighbors also have some property.

The evil we cause brings upon us less hatred and persecution than our virtues.

To justify ourselves in our own eyes, we often convince ourselves that we are unable to achieve our goal; in fact, we are not powerless, but weak-willed.

A.L. Verbitskaya

Sometimes La Rochefoucauld’s mostly laconic “Maxims” acquire an expanded character and approach the genre of a miniature or a study of a philosophical nature, while carrying elements of connotation that make these texts the property of fiction.

An example of this is maxim 563, dedicated to self-love.

The author, as a representative of the classicist movement, arranges the text of this maxim in a strict order corresponding to classicist laws, where the preamble, the main part and the ending flow logically and organically into one another.

The preamble: “L"amour-propre est l"amour de soi-même et de toutes choses pour soi" - lays out the theme of the narrative, the semantic center of which is the lexeme L"amour-propre. Further narration is concentrated around this thematic core. It is different extreme integrity and unity, which is created through the use of the pronoun “il”, representing the lexeme L "amour-propre.

The uniform, distant repetition of this lexeme gives the maxim a linear development, where the entire system is aimed at a comprehensive description of selfishness. Therefore, the lexical field is distinguished by the richness of lexeme rows, where verbs, nouns, and adjectives are distinguished:

Wed: ... il rend les hommes idolâtres d "eux-mêmes... les rendrait les tyrans des entres si la fortune leur en donnait les moyens.

However, in this system, the leading thematic principle is the subject of action (L "amour-propre - il). This dual unity is distinguished by high pragmatic dynamics, its influencing principle is directed at the reader, who then himself needs to draw a conclusion - to have self-love is good or bad. With With this goal, the author personifies the subject, endows him with an action of which only a human being is capable.

Wed: il rend les hommes idolâtres...
Il ne se repose jamais hors de soi...
Il y conçoit.. . il y nourrit.
Il y élève sans le savoir un grand nombre d"affection et de haines...

Verbs very often carry a direct action; they are open and presuppose the presence of an object of action, as if the resulting action of the subject.

Compare: Là il est souvent invisible à lui-même, il y conçoit, il y nourrit et il y élève sans le savoir un grand nombre d"affection et de haine.

De cette nuit qui le couvre naissent les ridicules persuasions qu"il a de lui-même, de là vient ses erreurs, ses ignorances, ses grossièretés et ses niaiseries sur son sujet.

At the same time, due to the high potential of abstraction, lexemes resulting from the action of the subject are most often presented in the plural, thereby emphasizing that selfishness as a human quality can actively influence the environment, both positively and negatively. The unidirectionality of the plot line, which is realized in the increased frequency of repetitions of one semantic plan, as well as the dynamics in the development of the text line due to the accumulation of action verbs, gives rise to a certain connotation, which carries the features of the aesthetic concept of French classicism.

Words, due to the purist doctrine of Malherbe, were cleared of secondary semantic layers. And the word was used as a logical sign. Therefore, the insignificant presence of traditional lexical means of artistic expression in texts of this order is completely symptomatic.

In this type of text, like nowhere else, the law of the semantic norm of discourse operates, which A.Zh. Greimas qualified it with the term “isotopy”. From his point of view, “in any message or text, the listener or reader wants to see something integral in terms of meaning.” Here isotopy finds its expression in a strong redundancy of morphological categories. This redundancy, as shown earlier, is created by the accumulation of lexemes of different orders.

However, as the analysis shows, the metasemic plan (tropes) is still inherent in this type of La Rochefoucauld’s maxims. But due to strict classicist canons, metasemic layers are interspersed into the narrative outline in very modest proportions, not dominating the neutral lexical field, but organically woven into the narrative outline, thereby removing the presence of ambiguities and ambiguities, making communication quite effective. In this regard, what is primarily interesting is the aesthetic function of personification. It becomes the main metasemic device, making the abstract description of the essence of self-love more visual and expressive.

Compare: En effet, dans ses plus grands intérêts et dans ses plus importantes affaires, où la violence de ses souhaits appelle toute son attention, il voit, il sent, il entend, il imagine, il soupçonne, il pénètre, il devine tout ...

Such linear series, where personification is built in the form of a list of acts of analytical order, are performed by their subject, which are then synthesized into a response action.

Compare: il voit, il sent, il entend, il imagine, il soupçonne, il pénètre, il devine tout.

The use of personification to demonstrate the analytical-synthesizing thought processes of the subject, enhanced by the effect of gradation, introduces an element of so-called conventional redundancy, which regulates in a certain way the internal structure of a given discourse, that is, making it connotatively marked.

Hyperbole also becomes a kind of marker of connotation here. This metaseme is necessary for the author in order to show the power of pride that guides human behavior.

In this discourse, the function of hyperbole begins to be performed by those lexemes that are capable of carrying a whole range of semes that form a very wide stylistic field. And, finding themselves in a favorable discursive environment, they create a deviation from the zero form, which in turn contributes to the stylistic coloring of the text.

Compare: L "amour-propre... les rendrait les tyrans.., il les rend les hommes idolâtres d"eux-mêmes, ...il y fait mille insensibles tours et retours.

At the same time, as analysis shows, hyperbolic images are sometimes created due to the concentration of abstract order seeds in one lexeme.

Wed: les tyrans.

Sometimes, on the contrary, La Rochefoucauld introduces lexemes of a specific order into the text (cf.: mille insensibles tours et retours), which Rabelais was fond of at one time and which create an atmosphere of sincerity and supposed verisimilitude of the story being told.

Metaphor is very modestly represented in these types of texts. Its function is to compress abstract semantics in order to create concrete imagery.

Compare: On ne peut sonder la profondeur ni percer les ténèbres de ses abîmes.

As the analysis shows, the presence of metaphors in these types of texts is absolutely necessary, since they remove the overall abstract tone and make the discourse more concrete and expressive.

A kind of decoration that enlivens the development of discourse is comparison.

Wed: ... “il ne se repose jamais hors de soi et ne s"arrête dans les sujets étrangers comme les abeilles sur les fleurs."

It is introduced by the conjunction comme and establishes the non-triviality of equivalence relations between words, and also, like metaphor, introduces concrete imagery, so necessary for discourse of an abstract nature.

De La Rochefoucauld Francois (1613-1680)- French writer-moralist, Duke, belonged to one of the most noble families in France.

“Maxims” was first published in 1665. In the preface, La Rochefoucauld wrote: “I present to the readers this image of the human heart, called “Maxims and Moral Reflections.” It may not please everyone, for some will probably think it is too much like the original and too little flattering. Let the reader remember that the prejudice against “Maxim” precisely confirms them, let him be imbued with the consciousness that the more passionately and cunningly he argues with them, the more immutably he proves their rightness.

Maxims

Our virtues are most often
elaborately disguised vices

What we take for virtue often turns out to be a combination of selfish desires and actions, skillfully selected by fate or our own cunning; so, for example, sometimes women are chaste, and men are valiant, not at all because chastity and valor are actually characteristic of them.

No flatterer flatters as skillfully as selfishness.

No matter how many discoveries have been made in the land of selfishness, there are still plenty of unexplored lands left there.

Not a single cunning man can compare in cunning with pride.

The longevity of our passions is no more dependent on us than the longevity of life.

Passion often turns an intelligent person into a fool, but no less often makes fools.

Great historical deeds, which blind us with their brilliance and are interpreted by politicians as the result of great plans, are most often the fruit of the play of whims and passions. Thus, the war between Augustus and Anthony, which is explained by their ambitious desire to rule the world, was perhaps caused simply by jealousy.

The passions are the only speakers whose arguments are always convincing; their art is born, as it were, from nature itself and is based on immutable laws. Therefore, a simple-minded person, but carried away by passion, can convince more quickly than an eloquent, but indifferent person.

Passions are characterized by such injustice and such self-interest that it is dangerous to trust them and one should beware of them even when they seem quite reasonable.

There is a continuous change of passions in the human heart, and the extinction of one of them almost always means the triumph of the other.

Our passions are often the product of other passions that are directly opposite to them: stinginess sometimes leads to wastefulness, and wastefulness to stinginess; people are often persistent out of weakness of character and courageous out of cowardice.

No matter how hard we try to hide our passions under the guise of piety and virtue, they always peek through this veil.

Our pride suffers more when our tastes are criticized than when our views are condemned.

People not only forget benefits and insults, but even tend to hate their benefactors and forgive offenders. The need to repay good and avenge evil seems to them like slavery, which they do not want to submit to.

The mercy of the powerful is most often just a cunning policy, the goal of which is to win the love of the people.

Although everyone considers mercy a virtue, it is sometimes generated by vanity, often by laziness, often by fear, and almost always by both. The moderation of happy people stems from the calmness bestowed by constant good fortune.

Moderation is the fear of envy or contempt, which becomes the lot of anyone who is blinded by his own happiness; this is vain boasting of the power of the mind; finally, the moderation of people who have reached the heights of success is the desire to appear above their fate.

We all have enough strength to endure the misfortune of our neighbor.

The equanimity of the sages is just the ability to hide their feelings in the depths of their hearts.

The equanimity that those sentenced to death sometimes show, as well as the contempt for death, only speaks of the fear of looking it straight in the eyes; therefore, it can be said that both are for their minds like a blindfold for their eyes.

Philosophy triumphs over the sorrows of the past and future, but the sorrows of the present triumph over philosophy.

Few people are given the ability to comprehend what death is; in most cases, it is not done out of deliberate intention, but out of stupidity and established custom, and people most often die because they cannot resist death.

When great men finally bend under the weight of long-term adversity, they show that before they were supported not so much by the strength of spirit as by the strength of ambition, and that heroes differ from ordinary people only by greater vanity.

It is more difficult to behave with dignity when fate is favorable than when it is hostile.

Neither the sun nor death should be looked at point-blank.

People often boast of the most criminal passions, but no one dares to admit to envy, a timid and bashful passion.

Jealousy is to some extent reasonable and just, for it wants to preserve our property or what we consider to be such, while envy is blindly indignant at the fact that our neighbors also have some property.

The evil we cause brings upon us less hatred and persecution than our virtues.

To justify ourselves in our own eyes, we often convince ourselves that we are unable to achieve our goal; in fact, we are not powerless, but weak-willed.

If we didn’t have shortcomings, we wouldn’t be so pleased to notice them in our neighbors.

Jealousy feeds on doubt; it dies or goes berserk as soon as doubt turns into certainty.

Pride always compensates for its losses and loses nothing, even when it abandons vanity.

If we were not overcome by pride, we would not complain about the pride of others.

Pride is common to all people; the only difference is how and when they manifest it.

Nature, in caring for our happiness, not only intelligently arranged the organs of our body, but also gave us pride, apparently in order to save us from the sad consciousness of our imperfection.

It is not kindness, but pride that usually prompts us to admonish people who have committed wrongdoings; we reproach them not so much in order to correct them, but in order to convince them of our own infallibility.

We promise in proportion to our calculations, and we fulfill our promises in proportion to our fears.

Selfishness speaks all languages ​​and plays any role - even the role of selflessness.

Self-interest blinds some, opens the eyes of others.

He who is too zealous in small things usually becomes incapable of great things.

We do not have enough strength of character to obediently follow all the dictates of reason.

A person often thinks that he is in control of himself, when in fact something is in control of him; While he strives for one goal with his mind, his heart imperceptibly carries him towards another.

Strength and weakness of the spirit are simply incorrect expressions: in reality there is only a good or bad state of the organs of the body.

Our whims are much more bizarre than the whims of fate.

The attachment or indifference of philosophers to life was reflected in the peculiarities of their selfishness, which can no more be disputed than peculiarities of taste, like a penchant for some dish or color.

We evaluate everything that fate sends us depending on our mood.

What gives us joy is not what surrounds us, but our attitude towards the environment, and we are happy when we have what we love, and not what others consider worthy of love.

A person is never as happy or as unhappy as he seems to himself.

People who believe in their own merits consider it their duty to be unhappy in order to convince others and themselves that fate has not yet given them what they deserve.

What could be more crushing to our complacency than the clear understanding that today we condemn things that yesterday we approved.

Although the destinies of people are very different, a certain balance in the distribution of goods and misfortunes seems to equalize them among themselves.

No matter what advantages nature bestows on a person, she can create a hero out of him only by calling on fate to help.

The philosophers' contempt for wealth was caused by their innermost desire to take revenge on unjust fate for not rewarding them with the blessings of life; it was a secret remedy from the humiliations of poverty, and a roundabout way to the honor usually brought by wealth.

Hatred towards people who have fallen into mercy is caused by a thirst for this very mercy. The annoyance at its absence is softened and pacified by contempt for all who use it; we deny them respect because we cannot take away what attracts the respect of everyone around them.

In order to strengthen their position in the world, people diligently pretend that it has already been strengthened.

No matter how much people boast of the greatness of their deeds, the latter are often the result not of great plans, but of simple chance.

Our actions seem to be born under a lucky or unlucky star; to her they owe most of the praise or blame that falls to their lot.

There are no circumstances so unfortunate that a smart person cannot derive some benefit from them, but there are no circumstances so happy that a reckless person cannot turn them against himself.

Fate arranges everything for the benefit of those whom it protects.

© François De La Rochefoucauld. Memoirs. Maxims. M., Nauka, 1994.

The time when François de La Rochefoucauld lived is usually called the “great century” 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 Duke de La Rochefoucauld was often burdened by the special attention that the Sun King showed him. Receiving a large income from vast estates, he did not have to worry about remuneration for his literary works. And when writers and critics, his contemporaries, were absorbed in heated debates and sharp clashes, defending their understanding of dramatic laws, it was not at all about those and not at all about literary fights and battles that our author recalled and reflected on his rest. La Rochefoucauld was not only a writer and not only a moral philosopher, he was a military leader and a politician. His life itself, full of adventures, 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 dates back to the 11th century. The French kings more than once officially called the lords of 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 the sovereign master of his domains, with the right of legal proceedings. François VI Duke de La Rochefoucauld, who until his father's death (1650) traditionally bore the name Prince de Marcillac, was born on September 15, 1613 in Paris. His childhood was spent in the province of Angoumois, in the castle of Verteuil, the main residence of the family. The upbringing and education of the Prince de Marcillac, as well as his eleven younger brothers and sisters, was rather careless. As befits provincial nobles, he was mainly engaged in hunting and military exercises. But later, thanks to his studies in philosophy and history, and reading the classics, La Rochefoucauld, according to contemporaries, became one of the most learned people in Paris.

In 1630, Prince de Marcillac 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 several other nobles, he was exiled to his estates. His father, François V, had lived there for several years, having fallen into disgrace for his participation in the rebellion of Duke Gaston of Orleans, “the permanent leader of all conspiracies.” The young Prince de Marcillac sadly recalled his stay at court, where he took the side of Queen Anne of Austria, whom the first minister, Cardinal Richelieu, suspected of connections with the Spanish court, that is, of high treason. Later, La Rochefoucauld will speak of his “natural hatred” for Richelieu and his rejection of the “terrible way of his rule”: this will be the result of life experience and formed political views. In the meantime, he is full of knightly 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 and 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, having internalized the idea that the “unjust rule” of Cardinal Richelieu was intended to deprive the aristocracy of centuries of given privileges and their former political role.

On December 4, 1642, Cardinal Richelieu died, and in May 1643, King Louis XIII died. Anne of Austria is appointed regent for the young Louis XIV, and unexpectedly for everyone, Cardinal Mazarin, the successor of Richelieu's work, finds himself at the head of the Royal Council. Taking advantage of the political turmoil, the feudal nobility demands the restoration of the former rights and privileges taken from them. Marcillac enters into the so-called conspiracy of the Arrogant (September 1643), and after the conspiracy is discovered, he is sent back 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 his victories in the Thirty Years' War). During these same years, Marcillac met Condé's sister, 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.

Marcillac is seriously wounded in one of the battles and is forced to return to Paris. While he was at war, his father bought him the position of governor of the province of Poitou; the governor was the king's viceroy in his province: all military and administrative control was concentrated in his hands. Even before the newly appointed governor left for Poitou, Cardinal Mazarin tried to win him over with the promise of the so-called Louvre honors: the right of a stool for his wife (that is, the right to sit in the presence of the queen) and the right to enter the Louvre courtyard in a carriage.

The province of Poitou, like many other provinces, was in revolt: taxes placed an unbearable burden on the population. A revolt was also brewing in Paris. The Fronde had 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 rebellious Paris. Parliament wanted to regain its former freedom in the exercise of its powers, the aristocracy, taking advantage of the king’s minority and general discontent, sought to seize the highest positions of the state apparatus in order to have undivided control of the country. There was a unanimous desire to deprive Mazarin of power and expel him from France as a foreigner. The rebel nobles, who began to be called fronders, were led by the most eminent people of the kingdom.

Marcillac joined the frondeurs, left Poitou without permission and returned to Paris. He explained his personal grievances and reasons for participating in the war against the king in the “Apology of the Prince of Marcillac,” which was delivered in the Parisian Parliament (1648). La Rochefoucauld speaks in it about his right to privileges, about feudal honor and conscience, about services to the state and the queen. He blames Mazarin for the difficult situation in France and adds that his personal misfortunes are closely connected with the troubles of his homeland, and the restoration of trampled justice will be a benefit for the entire state. In La Rochefoucauld's Apology, a specific feature of the political philosophy of the rebellious nobility once again manifested itself: the conviction that its well-being and privileges constituted the well-being of all of 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 besieged Paris. Negotiations for peace began between the court and the frontiers. Parliament, frightened by the size of the general indignation, abandoned the fight. 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 durable to anyone, because it did not satisfy anyone: Mazarin remained the head of the government and pursued his previous absolutist policy. A new civil war was caused by the arrest of Prince Condé and his associates. The Fronde of Princes began, which lasted more than three years (January 1650-July 1653). This last military uprising of the nobility against the new state order took on a wide scale.

The Duke de La Rochefoucauld goes to his possessions and gathers a significant army there, which unites with other feudal militias. The united rebel forces headed to the province of Guienne, choosing the city of Bordeaux as the center. In Guienne, popular unrest did not subside, which was supported by the local parliament. The rebel nobility was especially attracted by the convenient geographical location of the city and its proximity to Spain, which closely monitored 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 skilled diplomat, La Rochefoucauld became one of the leaders of the defense. The battles went on with varying degrees of success, but the royal army turned out to be 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 duke himself was subject to an amnesty, but he was deprived of his position as governor of Poitou and was ordered to go to his castle of Verteuil, which had been ravaged by the royal soldiers. La Rochefoucauld accepted this demand with magnificent indifference, notes a contemporary. La Rochefoucauld and Saint-Evremond give a very flattering description: “His courage and dignified behavior make him capable of any task... Self-interest is not characteristic of him, therefore his failures are only a merit. No matter what difficult conditions fate puts him in, he never will not do anything base."

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 Parliament, retired to Germany, but nevertheless continued to govern the country from there - “just as if he lived in the Louvre.” Anna of Austria, in order to avoid new bloodshed, tried to attract the nobility to her side, making generous promises. Court groups easily changed their composition, their members betrayed each other depending on their personal interests, and this led La Rochefoucauld to despair. The queen nevertheless achieved the division of the dissatisfied: Condé broke with the rest of the frontiers, left Paris and began to prepare for a civil war, the third in such a short time. The royal declaration of October 8, 1651 declared the Prince of Condé and his supporters to be traitors to the state; La Rochefoucauld was among them. In April 1652, Condé's army approached Paris. The princes tried to unite with 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 frontiers worsened: discord intensified, foreign allies refused help. Parliament, ordered to leave Paris, split. The matter was completed by a new diplomatic trick by Mazarin, who, having returned to France, pretended that he was again going into voluntary exile, sacrificing his interests for the sake of universal reconciliation. This made it possible to begin peace negotiations, and 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.

According to the amnesty, La Rochefoucauld had to leave Paris and go into exile. His serious health condition after being wounded did not allow him to participate in political speeches. He returns to Angumua, takes care of the farm, which has fallen into complete disrepair, restores his ruined health and reflects on the events he has just experienced. The fruit of these thoughts was the Memoirs, written during the years of exile and published in 1662.

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

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

La Rochefoucauld wrote his memoirs in the "idleness caused by disgrace." Talking about the events of his life, he wanted to sum up the thoughts of recent years and understand the historical meaning of the common cause to which he made so many useless sacrifices. He didn't want to write about himself. Prince Marcillac, who usually appears in the Memoirs 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 main character 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 appears quite clearly 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 every nobleman of that time. However, the reasons that brought La Rochefoucauld into the camp of the frondeurs were of a more general nature and were based on firm principles to which he remained faithful throughout his life. Having adopted the political beliefs of the feudal nobility, La Rochefoucauld hated Cardinal Richelieu from his youth and considered the “cruel manner of his rule” unfair, which became a disaster for the entire country, because “the nobility was humiliated, and the people were crushed by taxes.” Mazarin was a continuator of Richelieu’s policy, and therefore he, according to La Rochefoucauld, led France to destruction.

Like many of his like-minded people, 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 earned 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 “countless multitudes of unfaithful people”, ready for any compromise and betrayal. You cannot rely on them, because they, “at first joining a party, usually betray it or leave it, following their own fears and interests.” With their disunity and selfishness they ruined the common, sacred in his eyes, cause of saving France. The nobility turned out to be unable to fulfill the great historical mission. And although La Rochefoucauld himself joined the frondeurs after he was denied ducal privileges, his contemporaries recognized his loyalty to the common cause: no one could accuse him of treason. Until the end of his life, he remained devoted to his ideals and objective in his attitude towards people. In this sense, the unexpected, at first glance, high assessment of the activities of Cardinal Richelieu, which ends the first book of the Memoirs, is characteristic: the greatness of Richelieu’s intentions and the ability to implement them should drown out private discontent; it is necessary to give his memory the praise so rightly 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 political outlook, but also to the sincerity of his confessions that he was guided not by personal goals, but thoughts about the good of the state.

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

When the Memoirs were published, La Rochefoucauld was living in Paris: he has been living there since the late 1650s. His previous guilt is gradually forgotten, and the recent rebel receives complete forgiveness. (Evidence of his final forgiveness was his award as a member of the Order of the Holy Spirit on January 1, 1662.) The king assigns him a substantial 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 him 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. “Maxims” are associated with these salons, 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 major writer and a great expert on the human heart. The doors of the French Academy open before him, but he refuses to participate in the competition for an honorary title, supposedly out of timidity. It is possible that the reason for the refusal was the reluctance to glorify Richelieu in a ceremonial speech upon admission to the Academy.

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

Each salon had its own personality. For example, those who were interested in science, especially physics, astronomy or geography, gathered in the salon of Madame de La Sablier. Other salons brought together people close to Yangenism. After the failure of the Fronde, opposition to absolutism was quite clearly evident in many salons, taking various forms. In the salon of Madame de La Sablière, for example, philosophical free-thinking reigned, and for the mistress of the house François Bernier, the famous traveler, wrote “A Summary of the Philosophy of Gassendi” (1664-1666). The interest of the nobility in free-thinking philosophy was explained by the fact that it was seen as a kind of opposition to the official ideology of absolutism. The philosophy of Jansenism attracted salon visitors because it had its own special view of the moral nature of man, different from the teachings of orthodox Catholicism, which entered into an alliance with the absolute monarchy. Former frondeurs, having suffered a military defeat, among like-minded people, expressed dissatisfaction with the new order in elegant conversations, literary “portraits” and witty aphorisms. The king was wary of both the Jansenists and the freethinkers, not without reason seeing in these teachings dull political opposition.

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

Among the new genres with which moralistic literature was replenished, the most widespread was the genre of aphorisms, or maxims. Maxims were cultivated, in particular, in the salon of the Marquise de Sable. The Marquise was reputed to be an intelligent and educated woman, and 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 topics of morality, politics, philosophy, even physics. But most of all, visitors to her salon were attracted by problems of psychology, 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 thinking through his thoughts. The interlocutors were required to be able to give a subtle analysis of feelings and an accurate definition of the subject. The sense of language helped to choose the most suitable one from a variety of synonyms, to find a concise and clear form for one’s thoughts - the form of an aphorism. The owner of the salon herself is the author of a book of aphorisms, “Instructions for Children,” and two collections of sayings, published posthumously (1678), “On Friendship” and “Maxims.” Academician Jacques Esprit, his man in the house of Madame de Sable and friend of La Rochefoucauld, entered the history of literature with a collection of aphorisms, “The Falsehood of Human Virtues.” This is how La Rochefoucauld's "Maxims" originally arose. The parlor game suggested to him a form in which he could express his views on human nature and sum up his long thoughts.

For a long time, there was an opinion in science that La Rochefoucauld’s maxims were not independent. In almost every maxim they found borrowings from some other sayings, and 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 popular proverbs. The number of such parallels could be continued, but external similarity is not proof of borrowing or lack of independence. On the other hand, it would indeed be difficult to find an aphorism or thought completely different from everything that preceded it. La Rochefoucauld continued something and at the same time began something new, which attracted interest in his work and made “Maxims”, in a certain sense, eternal value.

“Maxims” required intense and continuous work from the author. In letters to Madame de Sable and Jacques Esprit, La Rochefoucauld communicates more and more new maxims, asks for advice, waits for approval and mockingly declares that the desire to make maxims is spreading like a runny nose. On October 24, 1660, in a letter to Jacques Esprit, he admits: “I am a real writer, since I began to talk about my works.” Segre, Madame de Lafayette's secretary, once noted that La Rochefoucauld revised 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 got rid of precisely those aphorisms that directly or indirectly resembled someone else’s statement. He, who experienced disappointment in his comrades in the struggle and witnessed the collapse of the cause to which he had devoted so much effort, had something to say to his contemporaries - he was a man with a fully developed worldview, which had already found its initial expression in “Memoirs.” La Rochefoucauld's "maxims" were the result of his long reflections on the years he had lived. The events of life, so fascinating, but also tragic, because La Rochefoucauld only had to regret unattained ideals, were realized and rethought by the future famous moralist and became the subject of his literary work.

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