6 Etiquette of the New Time XVII - XVIII centuries

In the era of the Middle Ages, in the era of the complete domination of the church in the spiritual life of society, the main idea becomes the idea of ​​the insignificance of man in the face of an almighty god. Any manifestation of earthly activity is the result of the evil will of man; therefore, the earthly should be rejected as false, evil and ugly. “The unattainable moral pattern for the flock of Christ” is a hermit who is saved from the temptations of the world. The proverb of antiquity “in a healthy body is a healthy spirit” is contrasted with the church-Christian wisdom: “physical weakness is a necessary condition of the strength of the spirit”.

This value system, fueled by religious fanaticism, was itself the fruit of universal and cruel suppression of human activity.

Such a system of values ​​could not exist further, as global changes were approaching in relation to the world outlook and the assessment of the place of a person in this world.

The Renaissance epoch began - the epoch of the maturing of capitalism and the gradual formulation of its ideology, its system of spiritual values. Not God, but man, is established gradually in the center of the universe, and the measure of all things is human nature. Ethical and aesthetic thought is initially found in poetry, in a bizarre fusion of artistic, philosophical, artistic, scientific and fiction literature, similar to the treatises “On Heroic Enthusiasm” by J. Bruno, “On Enjoyment, as a True Benefit” by Lorenzo Valli, the novel “Gargantua and Pantagruel ”Rabelais and the“ Experience ”of Michel Montaigne.

Lorenzo Valla, in his teaching, takes human nature as the source, believing that selfishness, that is, in essence, a sense of self-preservation, is inherent in man. Man, by nature, strives for pleasure and tries to avoid suffering. It is in this “spring” of all human actions. “The blessing of all that is useful to me,” is the postulate of Walla. In the treatise, he mocks the falsehood, hypocrisy and, most importantly, the unnaturalness of the monastic virtues. The highest value is not just a person, but the “I” is the closest and most valuable for everyone. "First of all, think about yourself, secondly - about your loved ones, and lastly - about all the others."

Thinkers, poets, artists of the Renaissance (Pico de la Mirandola, J. Bruno, Leonardo da Vinci, Durer, Petrarch, Francois Rabelais) glorify the beauty, strength, unlimited possibilities of man. In contrast to the ancient and medieval thinkers in the “hierarchy of values” of the authors of the Renaissance period, the first place is the good, the second is beauty and somewhere later the virtue. Lorenzo Valla, however, is ready to give primacy to beauty, because it is always associated with health: “Now let me tell you about the benefits of the body, of which the most important thing is health ...” “And no one will deny that men and women are born with beautiful appearance and the tendency to mutual disposition, to enjoy, looking at each other and living together. ”

The best features of the humanism of the Renaissance expressed Michel de Montaigne (1533 - 1592). The great moralist of France Montaigne was a fan of the golden mean and the existing order of things, which he considered necessary for the peace of mind of each individual. The fruit of his observations were the famous “Experiments” that came out in Paris in 1580. The main feature of Montaigne’s morality was the pursuit of happiness. Here he was greatly influenced by Epicurus, Seneca and Plutarch. The teachings of the Stoics helped him to develop that moral balance, that philosophical clarity of the soul, which the Stoics considered the main condition of human happiness. According to Montaigne, man exists not in order to create moral ideals for himself and try to approach them, but in order to be happy.

Considering, like Epicurus, the attainment of happiness as the main goal of human life, he appreciated moral duty and virtue as much as they did not contradict this supreme goal; all violence against his nature in the name of an abstract idea seemed to him madness. Montaigne considers the most important duties of a person duties towards himself. They are exhausted by the words of Plato, cited by Montaigne: “Do your job and know yourself!” The last duty, according to Montaigne, is the most important, because in order to do your job successfully you need to study your character, your inclinations, evaluate your strengths and abilities, - explore yourself.

Behavior of a person towards himself is followed by duties towards other people and society. The principle by which these relations should be regulated is the principle of justice; each person should be rendered according to his merits, not forgetting justice, first of all, in relation to himself. He was far from the deification of man in the spirit of Italian humanists. His thesis: “man is a product of nature, its part” means that man is neither better nor worse than other creatures of nature. Self-glorification of man, the desire to put him in the center of the universe are no more than the arguments of a gosling who imagines himself as the center of the world. Apart from a man by nature, neither good nor evil, Montaigne sees the highest spiritual values ​​in humanity, honesty, justice. He speaks of the “natural virtue” characteristic of “people of a simple title, not spoiled by falsehood and hypocrisy of high society relations”, and finds that ordinary people and wise men are among the worthy representatives of the human race. The hardness of moral principles does not contradict the cheerful, full-blooded worldview. Speaking about the relationship of external (physical) and internal (spiritual) beauty, Montaigne emphasizes: “One should not define the inner being of a person by his features and facial expression and foresee his destiny ... Appearance in itself does not prove anything, although it should give some significance can. And if I had to scourge someone, I would be much more lashing those villains who violate their promises with their temper, seemingly written by nature on their faces: I would punish the evil hiding behind an attractive face. ”

According to Montaigne, the goal of education is to make a child, first of all, a person in general, with a developed mind, strong will, a noble character who would know how to enjoy life and stoically suffer unhappiness. This section of the “Experiments” of Montaigne had the greatest influence on all subsequent pedagogy.

The ideology of the bourgeoisie XVII - XVIII centuries. took from the richest heritage of the Renaissance some thoughts. For example, on the affirmation of the natural, rather than the social basis of the unity of good and beauty: man is a part of nature, and all his qualities and deeds are in harmony with his nature. The best covenant of the Renaissance - the dream of the harmony of the individual, of the inseparability of the connection between good and beauty - remained incomprehensible at that time.

In the teachings of David Hume (England) the norm is refined taste - the only legislator in the field of morality, and in the field of art. Virtue and beauty are interrelated and represent a combination of useful and pleasant for both the individual and for society. Relative harmony is observed in the world and in society, not so, of course, perfect as the one that was supposed to be the source of the creator.

Beauty in English philosophy takes a subordinate position: the materialist Hobbes simply neglects it, Locke sees the sense of beauty in softening manners, the basis of the "sublime" is the desire for self-preservation, and the "beautiful" is the desire for sociability. Both aspirations are rooted in human nature and manifest themselves in selfishness and in the feeling of love towards their fellow human beings. “Lovely everything that arouses love.”

In an era when the bourgeoisie fought against absolutism, the nobility and the clergy, the encyclopaedists' theory of the connection between common and personal interest based on the individual’s “initial egoism” was popular. J.-J. Rousseau wrote that art, like science, led to the deterioration of morals, they “decorate with iron garlands of colors chains of people”. "Man is naturally good," but that which "comes out good from the hands of the creator is degenerated in the hands of man." Rousseau sharply contrasts the ethical principles in man. Ethics manifest natural corruption, naturalness, freedom. And in aesthetics, which Rousseau identifies with aristocratic art, is perversity, falsity, moral degradation. The fanciful, cutesy, noble art imbued with eroticism relaxes and corrupts; on the contrary, true, close and comprehensible art to the people, distinguished by courageous and strong beauty, brings up the citizens of the Fatherland.

According to Diderot, the spheres of good and beauty have a common origin - the development of feelings and the activity of the mind. “When we perceive relationships in morals, we are morally beautiful.” Didro believes that beauty should be moral, and “to make virtue pleasant, vice hateful, ridiculous parties are protesters — this is the intention of every honest person who takes a pen, brush, or cutter.”

With the development of bourgeois relations, the bourgeois worldview deepens and deepens. Contrary to what the theorists wrote, the utilitarian approach led to the devaluation of goodness and beauty, not to “soften and refinement of morals”, but to their increasing coarseness. The place of rigidity is indifference.

The largest German thinker Immanuel Kant thought, in this regard, about the nature of good and beauty. From his point of view, the ethical and aesthetic are non-historical in nature, and are not influenced by the person. The highest, pure principles of goodwill Kant contrasted to the world of necessity, the world of the laws of nature. A person’s freedom, his goodwill activity is not limited to anything but the inner self-worth of a person. Freedom of action and decision making served as a guarantee for Kant, a condition of personal responsibility for everything that was done by man. “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could be the basis of legislation,” - this is Kant’s well-known categorical imperative. Art, in his opinion, “is a way of representation, which in itself is expedient, and although without purpose, but still contributes to the culture of the soul’s ability to communicate between people”.

The 17th century, marked by the first revolutions of a European scale, was discovered by the New Age, which continued, accompanied by a whole strip of bourgeois revolutions, right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

The originality and problems of the epoch could not but affect the content, features of the functioning and development of etiquette, which was sensitive to the socio-cultural changes in time.

XVII century in European culture is considered to be the century of dry rationalism, which had deep roots in the economic, technical, scientific activities of the era.

At this time, scientific knowledge became the dominant form in the public consciousness, which all other forms of human behavior were oriented towards.

Science, knowledge began to be considered as the highest value. Developments in the field of physics, mathematics, mechanics began to be actively used in explaining social processes. Society is studied as a wisely arranged mechanism (T. Hobbes), acting under the laws of mechanics.

The peculiar natural science point of view on the area of ​​social and cultural life of society, for all its limitations and straightforwardness, nevertheless allowed one to come to interesting positions and conclusions.

Thus, the ideas of the movement of endless transformations and the many-sidedness of being and its incarnations, developed at that time in physics, with reference to etiquette led to the actual recognition of non-dogmatism, variability, mobility of the prisoners in it, as well as general recognition of the many-sidedness and variability of cultural forms (in particular , morals). In this regard, R. Descartes in his “Discourses on Method” wrote: “It is more useful to get acquainted with the customs of other nations in order to more reasonably judge our own, and not assume that everything that does not agree with our customs is ridiculous and contrary to reason.”

The rationalism prevailing at that time and the natural science analysis of reality also contributed to the fact that knowledge itself placed emphasis on their manufacturability, which fully applied to knowledge of the rules of etiquette (as well as the rules themselves). Etiquette in this regard was considered as a kind of toolkit. With it, there is a containment of human affects (feelings, emotions, states of strong excitement), inappropriate in society. It is not by chance that one of the tasks of education, according to R. Descartes, was to teach a person how to suppress his feelings, restrain them, in order to get the maximum effect with the minimum expenditure of energy.

This can be confirmed by the image of Mrs. General, described by Charles Dickens in the novel “Little Dorrit,” for which “elegant equanimity” most of all testified to a good upbringing. “In a conversation with Mrs General, it was necessary to avoid everything that could shock her. Misfortunes, sorrows, crimes - all these were taboo topics. The passion was supposed to freeze in the presence of Mrs. General, and the blood - to turn into water. ”

By the way, in a milder form, these features of impassibility are preserved in modern English rules of decency, in which an open, relaxed manifestation of feelings is considered a sign of bad manners. “The words“ keep yourself in your hands ”can truly be called their first commandment. The better a person knows how to control himself, the, in their opinion, he is worthier. In joy and in sorrow, with success and failure, he must maintain a “rigid upper lip”, that is, remain unperturbed, at least externally, and even better - if internally. From childhood in Englishman educate the ability to self-control. He is taught to calmly endure cold and hunger, overcome pain and fear, curb sympathy and affection. He is told that “a person must be a captain of his own soul”.

The essential feature of the New Age epoch was the idea of ​​a person’s personal beginning, his autonomy, sovereignty.

The new time introduced new accents in understanding the role and place of the individual in the life of society. The focus of attention of the era was the individual person, his personal qualities. Man began to be viewed as an autonomous subject of his own activity with free will: “Man is the blacksmith of his own happiness!” The German philosopher Immanuel Kant formulated this idea in his famous “categorical imperative”: Treat the person in his face and in the face of any other to the goal and never - just as a means. ”

The attitude to man as self-worth has also been expressed in the fact that at this time, the value of human dignity, which fixes the sovereignty of the individual, allows her to realize herself free, independent and responsible for her “I”, comes to the fore in the series of moral values.

And in this respect, the etiquette of the New time, based on the spiritual values ​​of personal dignity, was one of the forms of self-affirmation of the person, her “I”. Self-esteem has become the base in etiquette.

Awareness of the self-worth of the individual led to the need to pay more attention to issues of social education, the most important part of which was etiquette and good manners.

This is evidenced by numerous treatises, reflections and letters about education, which at that time amounted to a whole literary genre. These are “Thoughts on education” by J. Locke (1693), and “Characters, or“ Mores of the Present Century ”by Jean de La Bruyere (1688), and the later“ Letters to Son ”of Lord Chesterfield (1739 - 1768) and others.

The peculiarity of these instructions in finding good manners and good manners lay in a number of points.

Firstly, among all the qualities that a well-bred person should have had, preference was given to the four most important. The English philosopher John Locke in the “Letters on education” presents them as follows: “... Every gentleman who cares a little about raising his son, seeks to ensure that his son, in addition to the condition he leaves him, the following four things: virtue, wisdom, good manners and knowledge ... Teach a gentleman to dominate his inclinations and subdue his inclinations to reason. If this is achieved and, through constant practice, it has become a habit, then the most difficult part of the task is accomplished. ” In turn, the English statesman, diplomat, moral philosopher Lord Chesterfield explains it this way: “Being pleasant in society is the only way to make your stay in it enjoyable for yourself. Mind and knowledge are the first and most necessary conditions in order to be liked in society, but this is not enough; know that these qualities will never be properly appreciated unless their courtesy and manners are joined. ”

Secondly, with continued attention to the external, formal manifestations of upbringing, etiquette took more and more natural forms of behavior. В наставлениях акцентировалось внимание на необходимость различать манеры и манерность, подчеркивался приоритет простоты, культурной естественности поведения над лицемерными, искусственно-подражательскими нравами.

Так, Джон Локк писал по этому поводу: “Изящная манера и форма во всем – вот что украшает человека и делает его привлекательным. В большинстве случаев манера действовать имеет большее значение, чем само действие, и от нее зависит вызываемое последним удовольствие или неудовольствие...

Если душа человека, находящегося в обществе, поглощена тем, чтобы беспокойно следить за каждой мелочью в своем поведении, то вместо того, чтобы благотворно действовать на его душу, поведение его становится принужденным, неловким, лишенным всякой грации.

... Всякое притворство, откуда бы оно ни проистекало, всегда неприятно... Простота и безыскусственность натуры, предоставленной самой себе, гораздо лучше искусственной неприятной манерности и подобных заученных приемов плохой светскости. Отсутствие какого-либо светского качества или изъян в наших манерах, не отвечающий идеальным требованиям изящества, часто не замечаются и не вызывают осуждения. Но всякая неестественность нашего поведения бросает только свет на наши недостатки и всегда привлекает чужое внимание, отмечающее в нас отсутствие здравого смысла или искренности.

Манерность есть неловкое искусственное подражание тому, что должно быть непосредственным и непринужденным, и потому лишена той красоты, которая свойственна только естественному; ибо здесь между внешним действием и внутренним душевным настроем всегда существует разлад...”

А лорд Честерфилд, обращаясь к сыну, добавляет: “Надо не только уметь быть вежливым, что само по себе совершенно необходимо, высшие правила хорошего тона требуют еще, чтобы вежливость твоя была непринужденной... Помни, что только человека вежливого и такого, у которого вежливость эта непринужденна (что, собственно говоря, и есть признак его хорошего воспитания), любят и хорошо принимают в обществе, что человек дурно воспитанный и грубый просто непереносим, и всякое общество старается от него избавиться, и что человек застенчивый неминуемо становится смешон”.

И, в-третьих, новым моментом в воспитании приличного человека, джентльмена, было осуждение светского высокомерия и требование вежливости и приветливости в обращении с людьми различных (а не только высшего) рангов.

“Высокомерие – вот единственная причина того, что мы так дерзко заносимся перед низшими и так постыдно пресмыкаемся перед высшими, – замечает французский философ-моралист Жан де Лабрюйер – Этот порок, порожденный не личными заслугами и добродетелями, а богатством, высоким положением, влиятельностью и ложной ученостью, равно внушает нам и презрение к тем, у кого меньше этих благ, чем у нас, и чрезмерное почтение к тем, у кого их больше”.

Дж. Локк также посвящает этому вопросу ряд своих размышлений. Он пишет: “...способ внушать и поддерживать в молодежи чувства гуманности заключается в том, чтобы приучать ее к вежливости в разговоре и обращении с низшими и простонародьем, особенно с прислугой. Довольно часто приходится наблюдать, что дети в семьях джентльменов говорят с домашней прислугой языком господ, властным тоном, употребляют пренебрежительные клички, как будто это люди другой, низшей расы и низшей породы. Внушается ли это высокомерие дурным примером, преимуществом положения или природным тщеславием, безразлично: это всегда следует предупреждать и искоренять и на его место внедрять мягкое, вежливое и приветливое обращение с людьми низшего ранга... Нельзя допускать, чтобы дети утрачивали уважение к человеку из-за случайностей внешнего положения. Нужно внушить им, что, чем больше им дано, тем они должны быть добрее, сострадательнее и мягче к своим собратьям, состоящим ниже их и получившим более скудную долю в жизни”.

The 18th century introduced significant moments into the culture of decency, it was the century of pragmatism, where the usefulness of a person’s actions, actions, personal qualities was a criterion of his activity.

The bourgeoisie introduced into the public consciousness a new system of values ​​and virtues, on the basis of which the norms and rules of etiquette grew. And above all, the principles of individualism and utility lay at the heart of this system.

The ideal of integrity is “a person who is self-made-man”. A person in this world appears as a lonely person who, for the sake of his own benefit (benefit) and security, is forced to reckon with the people around him and take into account not only his own interests, tastes, preferences, etc.

Сами правила этикета признаются лишь в той мере, в какой признается их полезность как регулятора общественных связей людей. Причем в этих правилах акцент переносится с формальной, внешней стороны на внутреннюю, содержательную. Происходит замена хороших манер – хорошими людьми, понятия чести – честностью и т.д.

Щедрость, расточительность, праздность дворянского образа жизни постепенно сменяется добродетелями трудолюбия и бережливости.

Если для дворянина обязательным к выполнению был только долг чести, все же другие долги он мог и не платить, без ущерба для собственной чести, то для буржуа его честь была связана с умением жить без долгов или, если это все же случалось, не порочить свое доброе имя их неуплатой в срок.

Образцом воспитанности в этом смысле выступал человек, “заслуживающий кредита”, а кодекс приличий в это время пополнился новым правилом: “В срок и полностью выплачивай свои долги!”

Этикет в это время становится и средством достижения успеха как в бизнесе, так и в частной жизни.

Владение правилами хорошего тона было тем средством, которое позволяло занять определенное положение в обществе, составить удачную партию в браке и т.д. Особенно это относилось к женщинам. Для них достаточно было научиться производить нужное впечатление – воплощенной женственности и хороших манер, чтобы завоевать популярность в светском обществе, занять в нем достойное место и в конечном счете удачно выйти замуж, что, по сути, и являлось главной жизненной задачей каждой девушки.

Эту особенность этикета хорошо раскрыла в своем романе “Унесенные ветром” М. Митчелл через образ Скарлетт, которая “готова была всегда казаться скромной, уступчивой и беспечной, раз эти качества столь привлекательны в глазах мужчин. Что мужчины находят в них ценного, она не понимала... Она просто знала: если она поступит так-то и так-то или скажет то-то и то-то, мужчины неминуемо отзовутся на это таким-то или каким-то весьма для нее лестным образом. Это было как решение простенькой арифметической задачки...”

Вопросам этикетного воспитания девушек уделялось очень много времени. С этой целью в дом, где подрастали юные леди, как правило, нанимали пожилую даму, хорошего происхождения и хорошего воспитания, привыкшую вращаться в хорошем обществе, которая должна была заниматься образованием и воспитанием девочек и сопровождать их при выездах в свет.

При этом требования приличий, относящихся к поведению леди, были очень строгими. Особую строгость и пуританизм они приобрели в викторианской Англии.

В буржуазной культуре этикет становится более открытой и демократичной системой, а в этикете все большее значение стали приобретать личностные характеристики и добродетели человека, его нравственная позиция.

Все это нашло свое отражение в формировании нового образца эпохи – джентльмена. В Европе воспитанный человек издавна обозначался словом “джентльмен”. Оно появилось в Англии и уже оттуда распространилось по всему миру.

Однако внешний лоск поведения не обманывал уже современников. Так, в своей книге “Характеры”, опубликованной в 1688 году, Ж. Лабрюйер, характеризуя человека двора, писал, что “придворный всегда владеет лицом, взглядом, жестами; он скрытен и непроницаем, умеет таить недоброжелательство, улыбаться врагам, держать в узде свой нрав, прятать страсти, думать одно, а говорить другое, и поступать наперекор собственным чувствам. Это утонченное притворство не что иное, как обыкновенное двуличие”.

“In a man who is poorly educated, courage becomes rudeness, scholarship by pedantry, wit by jesting, simplicity by unhealthy, good-nature by flattery,” D. Locke defended the rules of etiquette, and certainly was right about something.

Education, culture, aristocracy, courtesy, the ability to behave in society - not everyone was taught all this, but only the elect. And good manners became a sign of superiority, enlightenment as opposed to rudeness and vulgarity of commoners. It is not surprising that the enlighteners of the eighteenth century considered court etiquette as a means of power, separation, and even greater distance from the people.

J.-J. Rousseau condemned not only court etiquette, but also secular forms of courtesy, and even theater as an art form corresponding to such tastes. He believed that "before art hewed our manners and taught our passions to speak in a ready language, our customs were rough and simple, but natural."

Protesting against the conventions of society and the licentiousness of morals, Rousseau condemns any form of social inequality, but, condemning, does not try to understand the duality of the civilization process: “Now, when clever tricks and delicate taste have reduced the art of liking to certain principles, our morals reigned low , deceptive monotony ... politeness without end requires something, decency orders, we follow customs without end, and never - to our own mind ... ”

This radicalism became the theoretical justification for the abolition of etiquette (as rules of behavior) in general. The great French Revolution contributed to the “moral transformation”. True, the revolutionaries did not deny some of the rules of courtesy.

“Poverty removes etiquette,” said George Sand. People from the “common people,” referred to the etiquette of aristocrats with mockery. This was evidenced by the mores of the period of the Great French Revolution. At this time, the old norms of relationships between people were ruthlessly eradicated. A free citizen had to take off his headgear only when his head was hot or when he spoke publicly. The letters should have been written not “your humble servant, servant”, etc., but “your fellow citizen, brother, friend, comrade, etc.”. Instead of an appeal to “you” by the decree of November 8, 1793, an appeal was made to “you”.

Deputy Shalye introduced to the Convention a draft resolution on republican forms of politeness, dress, and customs. “Republican politeness,” the draft said, “is the politeness of nature itself.” By this she contrasted the refined and conditional politeness of the aristocracy. Shalye abruptly rebelled against “exaggerated, artificial, prim courtesy, aristocratic elegance and ceremoniality, which were cultivated by tyrants in order to impose and rule”.

But the Charter of the Great French Revolution - the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - hardly touched the rights of women. “The husband is obliged to patronize the wife, and the wife is to obey the husband.” The wife was supposed to follow her husband, the husband could forbid his wife to work, could dispose of her property and read her letters. The main place of a married woman is the house. Relations between households had to comply with certain rules, without violent passions, emotions. They were supposed to be politely respectful both between husband and wife, and between parents and children.

At the same time, external decency was not determined by the sincere warmth in the relationship. Very often, nothing connected the husband and wife, even intimate relationships, but this did not prevent the spouses from being polite and observing the strictest norms of etiquette (perhaps that is why the prescriptions were so strict).

As is characteristic of social upheavals in general, the Great French Revolution invaded not only the lifestyle of the nobility, whose leadership role, strictly speaking, attempted. She made significant changes in the life and manners of commoners.

The life of ordinary people throughout the whole of Europe has always been significantly different from the life of aristocrats and the rich. And while the aristocrats with disgust avoided the poor and the peasant, they, in turn, answered them with mockery and mockery (true, for the eyes).

Peasant life, as, indeed, and the life of a poor urban artisan, has changed little in Europe since the feudal states. The subsistence economy served as the basis of life and life, and determined the peculiarities of culture and behavior. Patriarchalism pervaded the life of a commoner: the cult of the elder reigned in the family, obedienceless obedience to him was observed, outside the family - the undivided power of the feudal lord, who was also perceived as purely patriarchal: as a wise, cruel but fair father who gives life, patronizes, protects, leads .

The etiquette norms of the feudal society were built according to the type of “fathers” and “children” - and the commoner felt himself to be a “child” of both the feudal lord and the elder (foreman of the workshop or village headman), he was also the “child” of the Lord.

In folk cultural and ritual life, centuries-old traditions, rooted in ancient beliefs and myths, and later rites and laws introduced by the Christian religion, miraculously intertwined.

What is not the norm of the label - the prohibition to speak during a meal? But this is based on the ancient belief that while eating a soul can fly out of the mouth - and therefore the mouth cannot be opened wide and for a long time. Many nations have developed a complex ritual of cutting hair and styling hair. This is caused by the belief that hair is an organic part of the head and is connected to the brain. Careless handling of hair can damage a person's mind.

Christian ideas of obedience and humility are regulated there, where ancient myths have not penetrated.