4 Etiquette in the era of antiquity

Moral consciousness (both of the individual and the people as a whole) is reflected not only in religion, but also in the secular form of moralizing - ethical science. Religion and ethics are two layers, two varieties of the theoretical level of moral consciousness that interpenetrate and interfere with each other. Considering various religious doctrines, studying the ethical concepts of different eras, one can learn a lot about the mores and etiquette norms of a particular people.

Each nation has formed its own rules of behavior, which, for all their diversity and constant variability, have common features. Many factors influence the lifestyle, way of life, communication of people: natural conditions, climate, economic processes, the whole previous history, and the development prospects of the people and the country.

The peoples living in the neighborhood often have not only similar climatic zones, but also a certain, to a certain extent, common history. The mutual influence, interpenetration of cultures occurs through trade, scientific, productive and other ties in a peaceful environment, and through direct aggression and occupation during wars, civil strife. The closer peoples live to each other in a geographical space, the more the temporary, cultural space affects them. Therefore, it is not by chance that it is customary to talk about the civilization of the West and the civilization of the East - as the two largest cultural and historical formations in the history of mankind.

Each of these civilizations has a long history. Each developed its own traditions - in the sphere of production, and in the sphere of art, and in religion, and in education, and in everyday life, and in the way of thinking as such. And, of course, every civilization has its own standards of behavior and communication between people, their ideas about how a person should dress, talk, move “in public”. That is, quite simply, every civilization has its own etiquette.

By Western civilization, it is customary to mean the Old World - Europe. European etiquette, a fairly uniform phenomenon, uniform. But this unity was not formed immediately. Initially, etiquette forms bore a clear imprint of folk traditions, then they acquired a class character, which makes it possible to speak not about “French” or “English” etiquette, but about etiquette of “noble” or “bourgeois”, etiquette of “court” or “etiquette of commoners”.

The formation and development of etiquette, its various norms and rules, the change of etiquette over time are reflected in folklore and in the works of writers, thinkers, philosophers of various eras.

It has already been noted that etiquette as an integral part of a person’s external culture, as a collection of certain ethical principles is inextricably, limitedly related to the concept of aesthetic, beauty. A complex system of relations between the ethical and aesthetic, which is characterized not only by unity, but also, at times, by inconsistency, has developed historically. This relationship is reflected in the history of philosophical thought, where ethical and aesthetic concepts are merged, sometimes together, and it is impossible to talk about the evolution of morals without mentioning theories about beauty.

Consider the idea of ​​beauty in antiquity.

The earliest, first written, norms of behavior appeared in Mesopotamia. Literary texts of ancient Sumer allowed to highlight "the first moral ideals." According to the Sumerians, high moral qualities were divine destiny. The sun god Utu and the goddess of truth, justice and mercy Nanshe monitored the observance of the norms of behavior: “On the first day of each new year, Nanshe judged people for their deeds. Her anger cause:

· The one who goes by the way of vice, to arbitrariness ...

· Those who do not comply with the established rules violate contracts ...

· One who looks favorably on the place of death ...

· The one who replaces a heavy weight with a light weight ...

· The one who substitutes a large measure with a small measure ...

· He who, having eaten something not belonging to him, does not say: “I ate it” ...

· The one who drank and does not say: “I drank it” ...

In ancient Greece, both ethical and aesthetic norms are the properties of being itself, the cosmos, the world of gods, nature, and people. Patterns of behavior through mythmaking are declared acts of the gods, which are not critically interpreted, and, therefore, always have a dual, contradictory nature. For example, Apollo is beautiful. Beautiful and cunning Hermes. And if he deceives Argus, then this does not prevent him from being a model of behavior and the embodiment of cosmic harmony.

From the depths of the centuries came the understanding of beauty as an inherent quality of life itself, the very world of nature and things. But already in the epic of Homer for the first time a new understanding of beauty appears: beauty is not so much the things themselves, but the beauty of relationships that arise between things and phenomena. The beautiful can relate not only to the thing itself, to production, it also characterizes the areas of life, consciousness, all manifestations of the public and personal life of the Greeks. The criterion of the beautiful is often its vital meaning or connection with traditions: what is in harmony with traditions, which contributes to the affirmation of aristocratic consciousness, is wonderful.

An example of such an understanding of beauty is the philosophy of Pythagoras, in which the basic aesthetic law of being is called numerical harmony.

In the texts of Aeschylus (similar in views to Pythagoras), the category of beauty is used to assess the attitude of a person to the customs and customs of the century. It is wonderful to protect the Motherland, to die, to win in a war, to learn the wisdom of old people. For the Greek, myth was reality, religion - reality, faith merged with understanding, the real - with the ideal. Any division of good and beauty was possible only with the presence of this common, unifying basis. The ability to discover beauty in all things and phenomena, in the structure of the cosmos and in moral perfection can be explained by the conditions of life of ancient society. The integrity of the ancient Greek city-state, which in consciousness was identified with the cosmos, did not allow self-determination of the individual, opposing the real and the ideal, the utilitarian - pure enjoyment of beauty.

Heraclitus interpreted the nature of the beautiful somewhat differently - the beautiful manifests itself in relations with other phenomena. For example, the most beautiful monkey is ugly compared to man, but even the most beautiful man is ugly compared to god; the highest, from the point of view of man, virtue is only a weak resemblance of the idea of ​​God. The relative character of the beautiful and moral, according to Heraclitus, is also caused by various customs: what is considered moral and beautiful in some nations, immoral and ugly in others, something that is praised and praised by some, condemned by others. This is particularly evident in religious and family-marriage relations.

The ideas of relativity, relativity, the beautiful develop in the teachings of the Sophists. Morality is modified along with the changing conditions of life.

In this era (V century BC), ideas about the intrinsic value of beauty and the independence of morality from the will of the gods also develop. A striking figure among those who defended these ideas was Socrates. The accusation, which was put forward against him at the trial, was a characteristic phrase: “Socrates sins and transgress the measure of due ...”. Socrates, of course, not

He was the first to start shaking the basics (meaning the basics of the ancient Greek understanding of beauty as a phenomenon originally inherent in the cosmos itself). Simply, the personality of Socrates was very bright, and his contribution to the debunking of recognized gods, traditions and customs is unique. The ethics of Socrates is built on a new principle: true benefit and true bliss are associated with activity, the activity of the person himself. Morality is declared the result of knowledge, virtue is the inner property of man.

Plato considers the personality, its cultural and moral character, as a product of the development of society and the state. In politics and art, Plato defended the traditions of the past, did not accept new trends. Predilection for the traditions of Plato is due to his belief in the inviolability of the moral foundations of the aristocratic state. The analysis of the nature of the beautiful and moral (which in ancient Greece was called by a single word “kalokagatia”), done by Plato in many of his works, leads him to a global instructive conclusion: “The beautiful is difficult. It seems I have learned! ”

Aristotle, in his teaching about man, considers virtues as qualities that are acquired in the process of human life and activity. Virtues are a means to an end (but the highest goal of Aristotle, the highest human virtue, is contemplation, which is loved for its own sake). A person who lives on the principle of kalokagatiya is a measure of truth, virtue and beauty.

In the future, with the decline of ancient culture, the norms of human behavior in society are rethought. Cyrenaica in Greece proclaimed the sole purpose of human existence - pleasure, denying all other norms and principles of being. The Roman poet Ovid, developing these ideas in his “Art of Love,” said: “Everyone thinks about his enjoyment.” “Should I say that virtue is everywhere mixed with vice? Friendship, loyalty - only empty sounds ... Try to please your beloved husband. Nothing will make it easier for you to achieve your goal like a husband’s friendship. ” Ovid does not deny advice and women: “What should a woman do if her lover is more thoughtless than she? Perhaps, and she may have several lovers? It seems incredible to us, but it is the absolute truth. ” Ovid praises the pleasures of love, recalling the frailty of life: “Years pass like water. Gone will not return to its source. The past hour passed forever. ”

However, there is an inevitable logic of the behavior of the “catcher of pleasures”: his satiated sensuality can be spurred only by ever more refined pleasures, which, in the end, leads to perversion. In “Satyricon” Petronia flashes a continuous kaleidoscope of perverted, devastating sensuality - each successive pleasure whips up like a whip, forcing you to be inventive in search of delights. The poet Eumoll says: “Everything that is allowed is disgusting, and sluggish, lost souls tend to the unusual ...” Epicurus, on the contrary, sings the serenity of the spirit that is achieved by virtues, and, above all, by wisdom.

The most categorical in contrasting the internal and external world - the Stoics. Beautiful and ethical for stoic can only be internal endurance and beauty. Everything external is insignificant and transient. Marcus Aurelius wrote: “What is needed is to decompose objects that seem attractive to us, figuring out their low value and throwing off the brilliant attire with which they adorn themselves. The only good is spiritual freedom and virtue taken “by themselves”.

In ancient literature, we often encounter the customs and rules of behavior of the time. For example, in the Scandinavian “Zaae”, it is described in some detail about the customs of feasts, and special attention is paid to the rules of pronouncing toasts.

Many, even very ancient, treatises and books are devoted to one or another code of conduct. So, Homer in the Odyssey describes the morals of gods and heroes. Their actions and ways of thinking are offered as a role model for mere mortals. It is interesting that at the same time there is still no stable moral code. Simply, there are heroes, they commit heroic acts, and do not think about their moral content.

Hesiod in the book “Works and Days” also pays a lot of attention to morals and traditions. For example, he writes out the rules of conduct for women, the norms that a man’s wife must observe. And Hesiod, unlike Homer, already has a moral position, there are already certain, formulated rules of human behavior. Its code is based on labor, justice, thrift, prudence, legality.

“The sign of grace is propriety, the sign of panache is overkill”, - the Athenian orator Isocrates talked about the standards of propriety (436 - 338 BC).

The famous “seven wise men” of ancient Greece formulate their etiquette norms: “Honor the elders”, “Curb your anger” (Chilo), “Hurry up to please your parents” (Thales), “Speak of the gods: they are” (Bias), “Prefer the old laws but fresh food ”(Periander),“ Nothing is too much ”(Solomon), etc.

Ancient culture was aware of itself as an urban culture. The Hellenes, even in the era of fragmentation, recognized themselves not only as members of a certain urban community (polis), but also as representatives of one of the Hellenic tribes. Each form of consciousness involved certain behavioral stereotypes that were updated depending on obligations. And in a cultural context, the ethical identity itself, with its fundamental opposition, “Hellenic barbarian,” had an increased relevance.

During the period of antiquity, philosophers had a great influence on the minds and souls of people (citizens of the polis), to whom at that time they attributed all those who devote themselves to intellectual pursuits. Moreover, this influence spread not only through conversations, treatises and public speeches. The subject of discussion and the role model became the daily life of the philosopher, the peculiarities of his behavior, speech, etc. Thus, the life and manners of the teacher became for students and followers a kind of etiquette code.

Conscious cultivation of the rules that determine the external forms of behavior - etiquette, a number of researchers refer to the period of antiquity (ancient Greece and Ancient Rome). It was at this time that the first attempts at special training of people are observed . beautiful behavior . The very “beautiful behavior” at that time almost coincided with the virtues of the ancient man , with his ideas of morality and citizenship. The combination of the beautiful and the moral (noble) was designated among the ancient Greeks by the concept, as already mentioned, “kalokagatia” (Greek “kalos” - beautiful, “agathos” - good). The basis of kalokagatia was perfection and physical composition, and spiritual and moral warehouse. Along with beauty and power, she embodied justice, chastity, courage, and rationality. In this sense, in antiquity there was no etiquette as the actual external form of the manifestation of human culture, since there was no opposition itself between external and internal (etiquette and moral).

The rules of everyday behavior only in the most general form oriented the person towards the manifestation of his personal virtues. Behavioral norms did not indicate how to act in specific situations, and gave only a general direction of activity, representing everyone with the maximum freedom to choose behavior.

The main thing for the ancient Greeks was to live intelligently , simply according to the precepts of the ancestors and the laws of the state, avoiding excesses and extremes. In other words, the most important principles determining their strategy of behavior were the principles of “rationality” and “golden mean” (“reasonable measure”).

The norms of behavior were focused on human rationality, prudence and carried the charge of expediency. A good upbringing was considered to be an upbringing that teaches a person, first of all, to think independently, to reflect, and, knowing how to think, he will figure out where and how to behave, what type of behavior to prefer. It is no coincidence, therefore, it was precisely in the era of antiquity that dialogues became so popular as a form of searching for the most correct, true answer to the questions posed. Let us recall at least Plutarch's “Table Talks”, built on the principles of dialogue, the wise men’s dispute, ascertaining which human behavior in certain life circumstances would be more preferable. And preferred were those behaviors that were practical, expedient, reasonable! So, for example, when discussing the question “why, having risen from the bed, you should immediately remove the bed”, the conversation participants came to the conclusion: “... this instruction is most likely directed against daytime sleep: in the morning you should immediately eliminate the situation, prone to sleep; it is necessary to rest at night, and having risen in the morning, to work, not being like a dead body: after all, there is no more use from a sleeping person than from a dead person ”.

In addition, it was not the appearance of the act that was considered important, not its form, but its meaning and content. The philosopher Thales said: “It’s necessary not to look good, but to be good.”

At this time, formed in particular, the idea of ​​courtesy. (The moral prototype of what later became known as manners). According to the concept of Aristotle, she is of three kinds: “The first kind is in circulation: for example, in how they appeal to everyone they meet and greet them by extending a hand. The second is when they come to the aid of every distressed person. And, finally, the third kind of courtesy - when they are hospitable in a feast. ” A peculiar example of the courtesy of the third kind and

act of nobility can serve Julius Caesar: "... when someone

at dinner old oil was served instead of fresh oil, and the rest of the guests refused it, he alone took it even more than usual, in order not to show that he was reproaching the owner for negligence or impoliteness. ”

The most important principle of the culture of antiquity - the principle of the "golden mean", "reasonable measure" - in a somewhat transformed form became one of the basic principles of etiquette, the rules of good tone.

Aristotle described it in detail in his writings: “To be a worthy person is to possess virtues ... virtue is a certain middle between opposing passions .... excess and lack are inherent in depravity, and possession of the middle is virtue .... virtue is a consciously elected warehouse (soul), consisting in possession of the middle in relation to us, with a certain judgment, which will be determined by a reasonable person who wants to be a worthy person, because in any case it is difficult to keep the middle ”.

In the real life of ancient society, this principle of “reasonable measure” was not always able to be observed, especially during the period of the Roman Empire. Cheerfulness, the desire for good and pleasures inherent in ancient man, often turned into excesses in eating, entertainment, etc., about which there is a lot of historical evidence. So, for example, Suetonius tells that the Roman Emperor Claudius “was greedy at all times and places before eating and drinking ... He left the table not earlier than, heavy and sweating, and then he went backwards to in a dream, his stomach was relieved by inserting a feather into his gaping mouth. ” And the emperor Viteel arranged "feasts three times a day, or even four, at the morning breakfast, afternoon breakfast, lunch and dinner." Underdevelopment of etiquette standards contributed to the fact thatthat a common form of Roman self-consciousness was a communal self-consciousness. There is no confrontation with the barbarians. A slave, subject to certain rules, was attributed to the Roman community. The concept of "Roman" has never been ethnic in the proper sense of the word.

On the one hand, the one who learned one of the civil languages ​​of the Roman Empire opened the way to the formation and perception of the cultural tradition common to all Romans, the local versions of which remained very diverse. On the other hand, the infusion of such diverse options and cultural traditions eroded the foundations of moral categories and the rules of conduct of the empire, which led to a decline in morals.

In general, the culture of this period was a closed male culture. Women were considered low-development beings, so they were not allowed to the cultural, political, civic life of society. The philosopher Thales (and according to some sources - Socrates) even said that he “... is grateful for three things: the first is that he is a man, not an animal; secondly, that he is a man, not a woman; thirdly, that he is a Hellene, and not a barbarian ”.

Личностным образцом того времени был образец мужского типа поведения, благородного человека, героя, несущего в себе единство нравственных, гражданских, эстетических черт. Благородство связывалось прежде всего с аристократическим происхождением. Благородного мужчину должна была отличать красивая речь и учтивость. “Имеется в виду не какая-нибудь риторика, но речь, отличающая верхние слои общества от простонародья”. Именно культура речи на протяжении следующих столетий была одним из наиболее ярких проявлений этикетной культуры человека, своеобразной “этикеткой”, подчеркивающей его классовую и культурную принадлежность.

Учтивость проявлялась во всем: учтивый человек не стремился выйти на первый план, вел себя сдержанно, проявлял тактичность по отношению к гостям, не задавал лишних вопросов.

The noble man “is generous and broad by nature, observing, however, the middle between plebeian throwing money into the wind and petty attachment to money. He himself provides good deeds, but he is ashamed to accept them. For a good deed he gives even more good deed so that he can have superiority in everything. ”

In addition, he avoids sudden movements and speaks calmly. He prefers “to own things beautiful and not useful, for this is characteristic of a self-sufficient person”.

But still the main distinguishing feature of a noble person is a concern for honor, a desire for fame and honor.

В условиях беспрерывных войн военный успех и военная доблесть оказывались естественным путем к славе. Подъем по лестнице должностей или, что, по сути, то же самое, почестей делался источником еще большей славы. Должность становилась достоянием фамилии, которая получала право хранить изображения прославленных предков. Подвиги членов фамилии делали ее “знатной”, то есть знаменитой, а слава предков обязывала потомков не только ее блюсти, но и стараться ее превзойти.

Вместе с тем безудержное стремление к первенству и славе нередко принимало извращенные и даже комические формы. Достаточно вспомнить исторический анекдот о том, как Алкивиад отрубил хвост своей собаке, чтобы привлечь к себе внимание афинян. Или трагический пример истории с Геростратом, который поджег храм Артемиды Эфесской с целью прославиться. И это ему вполне удалось, его имя стало нарицательным.

“Заботе о собственной чести неизбежно сопутствует и боязнь прослыть смешным... Незаслуженным бесчестием аристократ пренебрегает, хотя никому не позволит себя задевать, ибо спокойно сносить обиду пристало рабу....Он не выказывает свою силу над теми, кто стоит ниже его, зато держится величественно с людьми высокопоставленными”.

A distinctive feature of the aristocrat is contempt for physical labor, as well as any paid occupation. He should avoid the stigma of professionalism, and this, of course, makes him related to the nobles and gentlemen of subsequent eras. In peacetime, he loves sumptuous dinners, singing, music, fresh clothes, voluptuous baths and a soft bed.

Описанный образ представителя этого праздного аристократического класса противопоставляется типу простака (или, как его еще называли, “неотесанного”), который контрастно оттенял черты благородного человека. Ученик Аристотеля Феофраст изобразил его в своем произведении под названием “Характеры” следующим образом: “А неотесанный вот какой человек....Сапоги носит непомерно большие и выше колен, так что видна его нагота. На улицах города ничто его не удивляет и не поражает, только когда увидит быка, осла или козла, то останавливается и внимательно разглядывает. Доставая что-нибудь из кладовой, он тут же наестся и хлебнет неразбавленного вина... Завтракает на ходу, задавая корм скотине... В бане он поет и сапоги подбивает гвоздями”.

В целом в Римской империи высшие слои общества приходят к мысли о необходимости выделиться, занять особое положение в обществе и подчеркнуть его с помощью особой этикетной атрибутики в одежде, украшениях, в оформлении застолий и поведении за трапезой и т.д., закрепив все это в особых правилах приличия. Так начинают складываться основы собственно этикетного поведения.

In ancient Rome, simply “Caesar” addressed Julius Caesar. With the strengthening of imperial power, special rules began to be worked out for addressing the monarch and the rules governing the life of the court. Byzantine emperor Constantine began to introduce hierarchical relations among the aristocracy and introduced titles that were mandatory when referring to persons belonging to the nobility. Accordingly, the rank and title of each court had to participate in the ceremonies, performing strictly defined functions.