8 Further changes in etiquette. XIX century

The ethics and aesthetics of the 19th century represent the arena of struggle of various directions, the essence of which, in general, consists in the persistent assertion that reality is gloomy, depressing, life is a constant suffering. And only art serves as a means of liberation from oppressive reality.

Over the course of a century, the opposition of art to reality poured into various forms, but their essence remained the same - hopelessness, pessimism, and increasing spiritual emptiness.

The French writer of the theory of Gauthier formulated the theory of “art for art”, in which he asserted that “real beauty is useless, and all that is useful is disgusting. Art has no purpose. The goal of art is art. ”

In general, in the bourgeois philosophy of the 19th century, utilitarianism, positivism, and vulgar materialism became the most important directions in the study of ethics and aesthetics. With all the differences of these schools, they had a common basis in understanding the person and his behavior. Morality is the adaptation of the individual to the environment in public conditions, it is a direct continuation of the biological instinct of self-preservation. The value of morality is that, through religion, science, public opinion, it educates a person, changes its biological mechanism and, thus, makes a person capable of communicating with other people. Self-assertion of an individual, based on the principle of benefit, is always self-serving, and there is no reason to be more useful to others than to himself. Such an understanding of the nature of goodness and beauty found its attitude in the art of your time (in particular, in French literature, with its endless descriptions of everyday life and crude naturalism).

The problem of “aesthetization of evil,” or rather the non-morality and elitism of “high art”, was of great interest to Friedrich Nietzsche, who made a “great reassessment of values”. Morality is the “disease of the will”, it is the creation and inheritance of slaves, the masses, a symptom of weakness, insignificance, disgrace, destruction of the aesthetic. Beauty is the saving illusion of heroic pessimism, art is the lot of great personalities, “joyful repose” of a “superman” free from morality. The “blond beast” that Nietzsche glorifies is the quintessence of refined aristocracy, artistry, aestheticism and cruelty. “The highest power and magnificence of man” can only be achieved through the destruction of the “morality of slaves” that prevails with the time of the birth of Christianity. “The will to power,” as Nietzsche understood it, is the equivalent of the mighty biological law “the right of the strong.” Morals containing at least a hint of equality must be destroyed.

Nietzsche's ideas were developed by “aesthetes” of the end of the XIX century. The juxtaposition of good and beauty is developed to the utmost, to the juxtaposition of art (as the highest truth) - life itself (as the embodiment of everything vulgar and base).

Contemporaries wrote that a person who knows the courtyard, always controls the expression of his face, looks, gestures; he is hidden and impenetrable, knows how to keep his temper in check, hide passions, sometimes act against his own feelings.

Some thinkers of that time revive the ancient theory of beauty as the basis of our life. Art has not and should not have anything to do with either truth or morality, it is meant to serve pleasure and only pleasure. “The artist is not a moralist. Vice and virtue are the material for his work ... Any art is completely useless ”- these are the paradoxes of Oscar Wilde, one of the brightest representatives of aestheticism.

However, supporters of aestheticism quickly became convinced that their reappraisal of values ​​did not really change anything. Having lost their illusions, late romantics begin to aesthetize reality, from which their predecessors turned away with contempt. Denouncing the ordinary vice as vulgarity and deformity, they sing the “satanic”. In art and morality, Flaubert asserts that “a nearly inclining to madness tendency toward that which is born of our rotting flesh is a disgusting savor of decay.”

In the twentieth century, the spiritual heirs of aestheticism turned amoralism into “gold mine” “art for the masses”; violence and sexual aggression as ordinary vices of modern society have lost the features of Satanism and have closed with the roughest naturalism, the defect has ceased to be refined, it has ceased to be the fun of aristocracy.

Even at the dawn of capitalism, much reasonable and democratic was said about the norms of human relations. The thinkers of that time argued that etiquette, forms of politeness are reasonable only when they soften and facilitate relationships between people, that all excesses related to the external side of behavior degrade human dignity. A free person, in their opinion, should be able to naturally and naturally stay in any house, which is an indicator of equality of rights and respect by citizens of each other.

In bourgeois society, noble titles and corresponding ceremonial appeals were abolished, and it was possible to appeal to any person without the words “Your Excellency,” “Your Excellency,” etc. The place occupied by a person on the office ladder, as a rule, has ceased to determine his appearance, clothing, and other signs of difference. Difficult representation rules depending on rank, etc. disappeared.

Etiquette forms more and more simplified, democratized. At the same time, penetrating into all sectors of society, they became, gradually, a single, universal language of communication. Nowadays, it is safe to say that etiquette is divided not according to national, religious or class status, but according to whether the carrier of this etiquette belongs to a civilized society. And it’s not so important whether you are a citizen of which country - developed or developing. It is important whether you consider yourself to be the cultural part of humanity, whether you share the common human norms of living together.

In general, the opposition of good and beauty, moral and aesthetic - is one of the indicators of the crisis, the decline of a certain social order. The concepts of hedonism (a teaching that declares pleasure as the highest virtue and meaning of life) serves at all times and among all nations as an excuse for decomposition, moral degradation of society, whose civilization is decaying. Hedonism of imperial Rome, papal Rome of the 15th - 16th centuries, the “gallant” Paris of the time of Louis XV, the European decadence of the end of the 19th century with all its distinction reveals common features: the negation of moral norms (and not some specific norms, but the negation of morality in general), the transformation of art into a kind of drug, the search for oblivion in carnal pleasure.

The convergence of the concepts of good and beauty, morality and aesthetics is typical for periods of rise, flourishing of this or that society. The principle of “kalokagatia”, for example, originated in the days of ancient Greece and bears the imprint of the “undifferentiated unity” of the ancient polis. And the Russian concept of “beautiful” (as a unity of internal and external, as a synonym for beauty, and kindness, and mind) - is rooted in the ancient Russian community, the principles of fraternity and collectivism, which is still disturbed by the souls of people and make them sad about the Russian “ the golden age. ”

The main measure of a person at this time becomes an honor - a concept that, as it were, embraces the whole moral code of a secular feudal lord: “to lose honor and lose life”.

In the epoch of the Middle Ages, it was “the knightly honor” (“point d'honneur”) that became the hallmark and the main support in the life of a noble man. “I swear by the pope’s entrails,” declares one of the heroes of P. Merimet’s novel “The Chronicle of the Reign of Charles IX”, “the most precious thing a nobleman has is his honor, and in order to wash off the stain, he must not stop before what. "

The law of honor followed strictly. Even when the execution of a nobleman was executed, the honor that should have been given to the rank and title of this person was strictly taken into account. Here is how, for example, the execution of the Saint-Paul constable was arranged: “The scaffold erected for him is decorated with a rich carpet on which lilies are woven; a pad that is placed under his knees, and a bandage that is blindfolded to him from scarlet velvet, and the executioner has never executed a single convict. ” Such were the privileges of the sacrifice - a noble person.

For example, the Spanish king, Philip III, sacrificed his life in the name of etiquette. Sitting by the fireplace, in which the flames flared up too much, he did not allow any of the courtiers to put the flap and did not move away himself (the courtier, who was to watch the fireplace, was absent). The king decided not to move from his place, although the flame already burned his face: in this resilience, he saw a manifestation of his royal honor. For his arrogance, Philip III was severely punished. Having suffered severe burns, he died a few days later. However, in the memory of contemporaries, he remained a man of honor, to the end followed the norms of etiquette.

In many ways, the harsh rigor of the etiquette of that time can also be explained by the fact that etiquette at that time served as a specific way of self-preservation of the upper class, which in relation to other segments of society was not numerous at all. Etiquette was a special sign system, with the help of which the nobility was separated from more “lower” cultures - peasants and the urban population. Etiquette was designed to give a representative of the nobility a sense of their own exclusiveness, to raise a consciousness of their own superiority. Etiquette thus made it possible to distinguish the people of "their circle" from all others, and in this sense it really was a "label", a "label." Transmitted over several centuries from generation to generation, the norms of etiquette reinforced the existing estate hierarchy at the level of the usual, ordinary, everyday forms of behavior.

Etiquette was a very complex, detailed and extensive system of norms and values, often ambiguous and confusing, which was impossible to learn without special training.

Each human manifestation was given its own independent meaning and required a professionally honed attitude. Therefore, the professionalization that is characteristic of etiquette during this period is not surprising. Numerous professional staff accompanied any etiquette situations.

The complexity of etiquette was also manifested in the numerous etiquette attributes that framed etiquette situations. Things like a handkerchief, a flower, a glove, a ribbon, etc., were given a lot of importance. Manipulations with them were very expressive and multivalued, especially in the relationship of lovers, a knight with a court lady. The finest color shades of clothing, flowers, decorations were full of meaning. The thing was a kind of substitute for the person himself, so the person who valued his reputation was not safe from the point of etiquette propriety to give personal belongings, especially those concerning the body. It is no coincidence that it was at this time (1604) that the tragedy “Othello” was born in the work of Shakespeare, the main conflict in which, in essence, arose because of the scarf lost by Desdemona.

Etiquette norms change over time. They have become simpler, more democratic. Democratization of etiquette began with its liberation from patriarchal traditions, from the rigid dependence of “fathers - children” from all human relationships. This was the first stage in the democratization of etiquette. Such radical changes concerned, first of all, those in power, the nobles and the rich.

With the emergence, development and strengthening of the power of the bourgeoisie, good manners begin to adapt to the changed social conditions. Etiquette ceases to be the privilege of aristocrats. Its norms are simplified, freed from excessive pretentiousness, senseless standardization and rigorous rigidity.

The second stage in the democratization of etiquette can be called his liberation from the “power of the court,” his release to the general population. Court etiquette, its complexity and professionalization, created the need for manuals and guidelines.

The first known treatise on behavior was published in 1204. It was written by the Spanish priest Pedro Alfonso and was called “Discipline Clericalis”. This book was clergy oriented. It set out the rules of behavior at the table, the order of conducting conversations, receiving guests, etc. Later, on the basis of this book, etiquette manuals were published in England, Holland, France, in the Germanic and Italian lands.

But the most famous in court circles, first in Italy, and then in all of Europe, was the book by a contemporary and friend of Raphael, Count Baltassare de Castiglione, under the characteristic title “The Court”, written by him in 1517. Count Castiglione was in the service of Guido Ubaldo, Duke of Urbinsky, then at the heir of his Francesco Marie della Rovere, and wrote this book in remembrance of those conversations he had heard from his first master. This courtyard was considered one of the most brilliant in Italy. It is in this book that the “model of the perfect courtier” is most fully and precisely created.

“... Tall growth is useless, for it is accompanied by lethargy of the mind. In addition, a man of medium height is more agile in various sports competitions, and this is highly desirable ... A court member is required to have noble ancestors ... The only courtly occupation is a knight's activity ... It is enough to participate in tournaments, ride a horse, throw a spear, play into the ball. The nobleman is not a bully and will not seek out reasons for a duel. He will throw the glove only if necessary and then he will not allow himself unworthy weakness. Although the court should not be engaged in any craft other than knightly, it is different in everything that it will not undertake ... Particularly befits a court grace and some negligence that hides art and leads one to assume that everything is given to him easily ... Perfect court speaks Latin and Greek, reads poets, orators, historians, writes poetry and prose, plays various musical instruments, draws. But he can play music only by succumbing to persuasion ... referring, as it were, down to his art ... In a conversation, the courtier avoids evil and poisonous hints: condescends to the weak, except for those who are too entered; will not laugh at those who deserve punishment rather than ridicule at people who are powerful and rich, as well as at defenseless women. ” In turn, “a secular woman should be soft and delicate, sufficiently educated to participate in conversations, entertain guests by playing any musical instrument other than the flute, and, of course, it is easy and beautiful to dance. An unmarried woman can bestow her favor only on the one with whom she could marry. If she is married, she can only offer her heart to a fan. Men should constantly remember their duty to protect the honor of women, as well as the fact that bodily communication defiles our desire for Beauty, embodied in a beautiful woman. ”

This image of a secular person well complements and specifies the Giovanni case in the book “Galateo, or the Book of Good Manners”, which appeared in Italy in 1558. Recommendations made in it about the manner of dressing, talking, and behaving at the table were widely spread in Italy and were approved by the court circles. This book, in particular, said: “Everyone should dress in accordance (in agreement) with his age and position in society. If you do not do this, then you can see the scornful looks of the people around you; refrain, as far as possible, from producing sounds that offend human hearing, by gnashing of teeth or by chomping. At the table, never wipe dirty fingers on the tablecloth so as not to spoil the appetite of others. They should also not be dried with bread; a person should not brag about his origin, wealth, eminence, honorable occupations, as well as his mind; you should not speak too slowly, stretching the words, nor too quickly, swallowing them. You need to speak calmly, with dignity, so that you understand; man ... must do everything beautifully, gracefully, be amiable. ”

In the era of the Royal Courts, the game was so inherent in all European culture, and indeed life itself, that it is very difficult to separate the really serious from the playful, from what the British call “pretending” (“pretending”, “pretending”). Jean de La Bruyere, the moral philosopher of the Renaissance, criticizing the court manners, wrote the following about it: “A man who knows the court always controls his face, his look, his gestures; he is hidden and impenetrable, knows how to conceal ill will, smile at enemies, keep his temper in check, hide passions, think one thing and say another and act contrary to his own feelings. This subtle pretense is nothing but ordinary duplicity. ”

For such a game, which was court life, the form in which it was clothed was more important, but not the content itself. Это легко заметить на примере любовной игры аристократов, для которой было характерно преувеличенное отношение к различным деталям и цвету костюма, отдельным взглядам, интонациям, драгоценным украшениям, к другим атрибутам, которые выступали знаками тех или иных отношений. “Когда Гийом де Машо в первый раз увидел свою неведомую возлюбленную, он был поражен тем, что она надела к белому платью лазурно-голубой чепец с зелеными попугаями, ибо зеленый – это цвет новой любви, голубой же – цвет верности. Впоследствии, когда расцвет этой поэтической любви уже миновал, он видит ее во сне: ее образ витает над его ложем, она отворачивает от него свое лицо, она одета в зеленое, что означало жажду новизны. Поэт обращает к ней балладу упреков...”

The more etiquette was formalized, the more the external form hung over the content of the values ​​it asserted, the more it acquired the character of a game and became more and more expressive in aesthetic terms.

The comprehensive embellishment of life was spread, of course, above all, at the royal court, where all the conditions were for this - free time, wealth, etc. Therefore, court etiquette at this time not only became more complicated, acquired complex and intricate forms, but often turned into many forms of art.

Дворец, замок, церковь, городские улицы – все служило своеобразными театральными декорациями. Бытие дворянина, аристократа представляло собой вполне доступное зрелище. Особенно это касалось одежды высшего сословия. Она отличалась особой роскошью и разнообразием, проявляющимся в качестве и количестве ткани, как правило, расшитой золотом, в украшениях и драгоценностях, в фасонах, которые менялись в зависимости от моды. В костюме знати постоянно воспроизводилась многообразная символика, акцентирующая строгую соподчиненность рангов, ситуаций, чувств в различиях и отделке, в прическах, головных уборах и т.п. Огромную смысловую нагрузку несла символика цвета, света, блеска. В культуре все больше утверждался принцип публичности и театрализации жизни. Это проявлялось и в том, что огромное значение в культуре приобретает в это время любительский аристократический театр, где даже Людовик XIII танцевал в балетных партиях. Театр считался “наилучшей школой манер” и универсальным средством общественного воспитания, позволяющим выработать у молодых людей благозвучное произношение, свободу жеста, благородство походки, внешнюю элегантность и изысканные манеры.

During the reign of Louis XIII, court festivities spill onto city streets, and the townspeople begin to enter the palace. Such publicity of spectacular forms of culture in many respects contributed to the penetration of etiquette norms, “good tone” rules into the culture of the urban population, into the environment in which new, more democratic forms and standards of decency originated.

Only in the 20th century, when the notion of the “third estate” is replaced by a phenomenon called the “middle class”, does real democratization of etiquette occur. It was at this time that the third stage of democratization ended, when he finally lost his estate character, ceased to be etiquette to the power of those who held them. Developed fundamentally new forms of good communication tone.

Finishing the analysis of the development of Western European etiquette, it makes sense to consider such a phenomenon as “court diplomacy”.

Francie de Carriere is a classic in the field of court diplomacy. Considering the ways to success in relations with foreign courts, he wrote: “The art of negotiating with sovereigns is so important that the welfare of the greatest powers often depends on the skills of those who negotiate.”

In order to succeed in your own court and successfully play the role of a diplomat in foreign yards, you must first of all like, make yourself love, win people's hearts. How to achieve the location of others?

The book de Career appeared in 1716 under the title “On ways to negotiate with sovereigns, or on the benefits of negotiation, on the choice of ambassadors and residents, as well as on the qualities necessary to succeed at these posts”, in the same year was translated into English , and in 1919 it was republished in England under the abbreviated title “Practice of Diplomacy”. She enjoyed great success in many countries.

De Quarry believes in the great mission of diplomats, who always assume that you can take up arms no sooner than the possibilities of reasonable conviction are exhausted, and therefore are peacekeepers.

Aristocratic knightly traditions are fading, replaced by a peaceful strategy.

What qualities are required from diplomats?

· A diplomat cannot be a man of unpleasant appearance;

· Too tall or short;

· A diplomat must be of a noble family, because it enhances its importance in the eyes of others and serves as a show of respect for the sovereign to whom he is sent;

· If it is difficult to combine noble birth and personal merit in one person, preference is the last;

· A diplomat must have a fortune - this protects him from the temptation of rich gifts: “The Romans and the Athenians never allowed people who did not have sufficient fortune to the high posts”;

· The diplomat should resort to bribing as a means to achieve the goal, while still being incorruptible;

· Should be kept on the secret salary of people who have more dexterity than money; who master the art of penetrating everywhere;

· Whistleblowers must be sought among people who are selfish, talkative, disgruntled and incontinent.

Gifts must be presented skillfully and at ease, so that they can be accepted, while respecting the rules of decency. The ambassador should be generous: “A richly laid table allows you to discover what is being done in the country” - these words sound like the motto of the diplomats. A good table dulls the vigilance of fellow laborers, encourages them to be frank. Wine will unleash their tongues, and then they can reveal an important secret. The ambassador himself should not lose his head from guilt, but on the contrary, make others lose their clarity of mind. An ambassador who does not live on a grand scale will not receive valuable information, in this case a lush way of life is useful.

Women can provide invaluable assistance in these matters - secrets can leak through them, “The powerful charms of their charms sometimes affect the most important decisions.” Taking advantage of other people's passions, diplomats must command their own and keep their hearts in check.

“It’s not true that a good ambassador is surely a master in the art of deceiving,” said de Career. Just the opposite: the ambassador must be a man of honor, that is, decent. Lies are unsafe, but withholding a part of the truth is perfectly acceptable. The book teaches how to skillfully negotiate, tacking between deception and sincerity, warns against credulity - it is better to pretend that you believe everything, deceiving a deceiver. The author believed that:

· The ambassador should speak much less than listen: “Wisdom and long speeches usually go apart”;

· It should not be allowed to be visible, while remaining cold and secretive: “It’s not worth it.”

· Evidence of trust can be given if it is in the public interest: “Trust can be successfully used in other circumstances”;

· The ambassador should be able to unravel the thoughts and motivations of others, reincarnating into any guise and not allowing anyone to reveal the true course of their thoughts.

In walking around he is even, courteous and accessible, and where his honor is affected, we are inflexible; in a situation that requires quick fixes, it’s bold and resolute.

In an effort to accomplish anything, the ambassador should devote people into his ideas little by little, seeking their support in matters that would have seemed unthinkable to them, being familiar to them in full at once.

Offering something, the ambassador should try to interest the partner so that he sees, first of all, the benefit for himself, at the same time, in order to get what he wants in more important matters, to make concessions to secondary ones! Such a maneuver usually yields positive results: quite a few people are ready to give up their opinion on the most important point, if their validity is recognized in some other issues.

The art of dealing with people requires a certain amount of knowledge, and to demonstrate this knowledge follows the language that distinguishes the court from the tradesman. It is important to have a sufficient understanding of the country's legislation, of the sovereign's genealogy, since it is necessary to reckon with his kinship ties; at the same time one should be aware of who owns the power in the country; knowledge of its history is also necessary.

Thus, diplomats have the advantage of being educated, while the knightly class is more easily favored, dam, which is also important: after all, the best way to succeed is to like it. Therefore, it is desirable that the sovereign be informed that his representative is a success in a foreign society, and that the representatives of the state with which the ambassador is negotiating were convinced that he occupies a high position in his own country.

When asked whether the ambassador should always listen to his sovereign, de Career answers in his book as follows: “It is well known that the ambassador’s duty is not to fulfill the obviously unjust commands of the sovereign, but in doubtful cases it is not necessary to try to penetrate their hidden meaning.” In such a moral there is always a loophole that opens the way to success: the ambassador does not need absolute integrity, if she does little in public affairs. If it is not about personal interests, but about the welfare of the country, you can not be very discriminating in the methods, especially if the opponents themselves resort to unjust means.

Such behavior of diplomats is typical for Italian, French, and English courtyards.

The yard, persistently avoiding any professional occupations, creates a new profession - the profession of a diplomat. Such an occupation does not prejudice the honor, but it requires a lot of money and a position in society associated with a noble origin. “Honor causes respect as a source of genuine nobility,” wrote Cervantes in his book on Don Quixote.

Mandeville most severely managed the knightly traditions and manners of the 18th century, describing people of honor in his fable “On Bees”, arguing that a person of honor should not deceive or lie; he must punctually return what he takes during the game, although the creditor has nothing to show as evidence of the debt; at the same time, however, he can drink, swear and borrow from all the artisans and merchants of the city, not paying attention to their insistent demands to pay the debt. A man of honor must be faithful to his sovereign and the country while he is in their service, but if he believes that he is not valued, he can leave them and harm as much as possible.

A man of honor should never change his religion for reasons of profit, but may be lecherous and not profess any religion at all.

He should not encroach on the honor of his wife, daughter, sister of a friend or a person trusted by his care, that is, dependent on him, but he can sleep with all the other women of the world. Despite the controversial actions of a person who placed honor first in his life, he brings results that are useful to society. Praise of high birth, awakened in people pride and encouraged them to praiseworthy deeds, the only reward for which is glory. Such is the logic of behavior and the actions of a person of that time arising from it.

Honor “requires preferences and differences” and is therefore suitable for managing a hierarchical society. It would be difficult, without resorting to the notion of honor, to oblige people to "carry out all difficult and demanding tasks, without having in mind any other reward than the noise generated by these deeds."

Montesquieu wrote about this, who considered that “honor is an expression of interest in one’s own image in the eyes of others”, and the virtues that it brings up “always tell us less about our responsibilities to others than about our responsibilities to ourselves. If we have already taken a position in society, honor does not allow us to act as if we considered ourselves unworthy of this position. The fear of losing one's position in society leads, for example, to speak the truth, since such a person seems brave and free. The desire to stand out also teaches us courtesy, which argues in favor of his highbornness. ”

Such morality makes one care, first of all, about the beauty of actions, about their attraction and originality, requires more strictly to fulfill duties, not only stipulated by law.

Flattery flourished especially at court, which was by no means considered a vice. The flatterer likens his own tastes to the tastes of the one who is flattered. The flatterer calls the vices of the praised virtues, tries for his own sake to achieve his disposition. Of course, such methods bring success only when the one who is flattered is gullible, and this, as a rule, is inherent to vain people.

Thus, thanks to Frances de Carrier, rules and norms of behavior appeared, related to relations between states on the one hand, and a set of skills, rules and skills for achieving success in society and, later, in a business career.