Francois La Rochefoucauld - maxims. Maxims and moral reflections of La Rochefoucauld's maxims

La Rochefoucauld Francois duc de ( fr. La Rochefoucauld ) (1613-1680), famous French politician, moralist writer, prominent participant in the Fronde.

Destined from childhood for a military career, he receives a baptism of fire in Italy (1629), then actively participates in the war with Spain (1635-1636). In peacetime, he becomes the confidant of Queen Anne of Austria, participates in a conspiracy against Cardinal Richelieu (1637), for which ends up in prison, followed by exile to his estate in Poitou. Having returned to the army in 1639, he gets the opportunity to return to court only after the death of Richelieu in 1642, hoping for the patronage of the queen, who, however, prefers Cardinal Mazarin to him. When the Fronde began in Paris in 1648, he became one of its leaders, was seriously wounded (1652), as a result of which he retired to his estate, where he began writing “Memoirs” (first edition - 1662). He later reconciled with the king and subsequently led a social life, becoming a regular at the salons of Madame de Sable and Madame de Lafayette. According to tradition, he received the title of Duke de La Rochefoucauld only after the death of his father in 1650, until that time bearing the name of Prince de Marcillac. In 1664, the first edition of the “Reflections, or Moral Sentences and Maxims” that glorified the author appeared (the fifth, last lifetime edition, containing 504 maxims, was published in 1678).

The Memoirs of the Duke de La Rochefoucauld were published in 1662 (complete edition 1874), although somewhat earlier they appeared under the title Civil Wars in France from August 1649 to the end of 1652. with numerous distortions, deletions and additions from other authors. The name of the falsified publication is not accidental: the Duke writes at the very beginning of his work that he planned to describe events in which he often had to participate. According to the author, he wrote his “Memoirs” only for his loved ones (as Montaigne once did); 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.

The life and political experience of La Rochefoucauld formed the basis of his philosophical views, which he briefly outlined in his “Maxims”, thanks to which he was recognized not only as a subtle psychologist and observer, an expert on the human heart and morals, but as one of the outstanding masters of artistic expression: La Rochefoucauld's fame as a writer is associated precisely with this aphoristic genre, and not with his memoirs, which are inferior in sharpness and imagery to the memoirs of his contemporary Cardinal de Retz.

When analyzing human nature, La Rochefoucauld relies on the rationalistic philosophy of Descartes and the sensualistic views of Gassendi. Analyzing the feelings and actions of a person, he comes to the conclusion that the only driving force of behavior is selfishness and selfishness. But if a person’s behavior is determined by his nature, then his moral assessment turns out to be impossible: there are neither bad nor good deeds. However, La Rochefoucauld does not abandon moral assessment: in order to be virtuous, it is necessary to control one’s natural instincts and restrain the unreasonable manifestations of one’s selfishness. La Rochefoucauld, with remarkable artistic skill, is able to give his ideas a polished, filigree form that is difficult to convey in other languages.

It was thanks to the work of La Rochefoucauld that the genre of maxims or aphorisms, which originated and cultivated in French salons, became popular.

Lit: Razumovskaya M.V. The life and work of François de La Rochefoucauld. // La Rochefoucauld F.de. Memoirs. Maxims. L.: “Nauka”, 1971, pp. 237-254; Razumovskaya M.V. La Rochefoucauld, author of Maxim. L., 1971. 133 p.

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.

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.

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 unable 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, with sufficient, in my opinion, convincingness, 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 consulted such a proven guide, 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 passionate and cunning he argues with them. All the more irrefutably proves them right. It will truly be difficult to convince any sane person that the zoiles of this book are controlled 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 controlled 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.

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.

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.

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 powers that be 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.

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 eye; 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.

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.

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.