>Mersenne, Roberval, NaudéPoorfags>Racine, GassendiVillage elite>Corneille, Racine, Molière, Boileau, Fermat, Pascal, La BruyèreBourgeois>Fénelon, Descartes, SavarySmall nobles>BossuetNobility of the robe>La Rochefoulcaud, Honoré d'UrféAristocratsWhat gives?
Bump
>>15625455Interesting I don’t know much about this period of history who are the reactionaries?
>>15625455Based meds
>>15626355I'd consider labels that weren't consciously held or attacked by the actors of an era anachronistic, but I guess I could try to make them fit. Politically I think it would definitely be people like La Rochefoucauld, high aristocrats that filled the ranks of the Malcontents and the Frondeurs and thought that the king should rely on them to rule instead of favorites and bureaucrats. The catch however is that it's their train of thought that later led people like Fénelon to lay out the usual criticism of absolutism (described as despotism) that we read all the time.On the opposite side you have defenders of the state that succeeded just enough to rock the world of the aristocracy but not enough to red of the various excesses of the monarchy like exemptions everywhere and a wonky financial system based on annuities and indirect loans by aristocrats screened by dealers that routinely got hanged when the public raged against them.A minority fully understood (at least implicitely) the change in values that was occuring. Things the nobility hated (self-interest for example) started getting rehabilitated as they were not the caste to look up to anymore. People like Savary represented the practical side of this. He wrote a best-seller merchant handbook.But the rejection of modernization and materialism was still much more widespread, and the dominant theology leaned towards augustinian pessimism. This current spread through much of french society in the next century and its infamous rigor had a sizeable role to play in the decline of french faith and demography.
>>15626355The interesting part is that what looks like the description of a classical stagnant absolutist society is at the same time describing a society which was less literate but not by much than England relative to its size and which had a cultural scene that ressembled what is described in the OP. So clearly it's an important part of european history with some aspects that still puzzle me.
>>15626776> A minority fully understood (at least implicitely) the change in values that was occuring. Really? Was it a dramatic time of shifting values Also how are you so knowledgeable about this time period is it your speciality
>>15626807> some aspects that still puzzle me.What aspects puzzle you exactly?
>>15626776> the dominant theology leaned towards augustinian pessimism. This current spread through much of french society in the next century and its infamous rigor had a sizeable role to play in the decline of french faith and demography.How is Augustine pessimistic and how did it lead to atheism?
>>15627057Yes, it kind of fit with the general trend of the Enlightenment, except it started much earlier than people imagine. Concepts like amour-propre, ambition, intérêt were reevaluated, while others like honor and courage saw their worth diminish as their main proponents, the aristocrats, did things like insulting their enemies in the most vulgar ways all the while calmly negotiating with them behind closed doors and acting as lackeys in the king's court.Like previously stated there was still a lot of pushback against values that could be likened to crude materialism (in the greedy sense), but this kind of criticism is still a commonplace even nowadays, and it persised during the Enligthenment with iconoclasts like Rousseau.No, I'm an amateur, but since its one of my favorite historical periods I read a lot about it and I quite like its authors.>>15627063The apparent contradiction between the two descriptions I gave in my post. >>15627064The interpretation of XVIIth century augustinians focused on the fallen and iredeemable nature of man, which of course only faith could cure. Their common opinion on grace of could also be deemed pessimistic. And for those who believe that politics is the way to bring about general human welfare, the relativistic view they had of it ("a meridian decides the truth") would look like some kind of deflection.These debates are not exactly the purpose of this thread, but it's easy to see how this type of christianry would end up more stringent than the jesuit kind and have a counterproductive effect on the common people.
>>15627248>Yes, it kind of fit with the general trend of the Enlightenment, except it started much earlier than people imagine. So you think the enlightenment really began in the 17th century rather than the 18th >Concepts like amour-propre, ambition, intérêt were reevaluated, while others like honor and courage saw their worth diminish as their main proponents, the aristocrats, did things like insulting their enemies in the most vulgar ways all the while calmly negotiating with them behind closed doors and acting as lackeys in the king's court.Honestly some examples would be useful here as I’m not very knowledgeable about this time period
>>15627413No, I simply wrote that ideas common to the Enlightenment era began to spread in the XVIIth century already. >Honestly some examples would be useful here as I’m not very knowledgeable about this time periodExamples of two-faced nobiliary behavior I assume? All of the Fronde. Basically prime minister Mazarin is made public enemy number one, yet he manages to break off his opponents one by one by simply granting their petty requests. This naturally left the people dumbfounded as they were made to believe the pamphlets published about Mazarin and that the frondeurs were great defenders of liberty and the state against the italian embezzler.
>>15627617>>15627617>No, I simply wrote that ideas common to the Enlightenment era began to spread in the XVIIth century already. Right I agree with you I think that’s a interesting perspective that the nascent ideas and conceptual landscape of the 17th century anticipated the enlightenment of the 18th >Examples of two-faced nobiliary behavior I assume?I was hoping for an example to help illustrate what you meant by >Concepts like amour-propre, ambition, intérêt were reevaluatedWith regard to the two faced nobility wasn’t this always the case with scheming and political rival factions?Not sure what makes it so distinct to the the 17th century.For example the political machinations previously were no different no?Also great high iq thread I’m learning a lot and appreciate your replies
>>15627678I was hoping for an example to help illustrate what you meant by>>Concepts like amour-propre, ambition, intérêt were reevaluatedOh it's nothing too complicated, shunned striver or bourgeois values were seen under a new light basically. Opinions about ambition roughly going from "it's the sin of the pride and a pagan remnant" to "it's a natural force driving us to accomplishment though it could hurt others when pushed too far" for example. Something you could get from Hume or Smith.>With regard to the two faced nobility wasn’t this always the case with scheming and political rival factions?The ideals were not the same. The parliamentary project that the nobility aided looked like the kind you'd find in England. In Bordeaux they even supported pseudo-Levellers (obviously for totally opportunistic reasons, which illustrates my point some more). That's different from a war of religions (though it was historiographically categorized as political after the fact) or a battle between pro-french or pro-english dukes where nationalist appeals were the closest you could get to populism.The means weren't the same either, since it was the age of the printing press.And finally as opposed to previous periods there was a new model of elites that aristocrats could be compared to.>Also great high iq thread I’m learning a lot and appreciate your repliesYou're welcome.
>>15625455>What gives?i don't know
>>15629434Refreshing honesty
>>15627931>In Bordeaux they even supported pseudo-LevellersWho are you referring to?
>>15627931>And finally as opposed to previous periods there was a new model of elites that aristocrats could be compared toI don’t get what you mean by this can you elaborate
>>15625455Bump
I have read some Rochefoulcaud sayings during my French for Reading studiesAre there any easy to read books on these people in French?
>>15629574The republican parti de l'Ormée which notably got the support of Condé. They also seeked Cromwell's but I think he was not too keen on being hostile to France at that moment. The leveller Sexby was sent there as an emissary.>>15629577The kings/queens of the century elevated Concini, Luynes, Richelieu, Mazarin, Fouquet, Colbert etc. Most of them were by no means upstarts but still not up to the standards of the aristocracy. They received privileges like governments (a charge consisting in leadership of provinces and a very lucrative one) which were held by certain dynasties for centuries. Even at the middle of society it was now possible to be noble through certain positions or control provinces as an intendant, or collect taxes as a private company of farmers general. Homines novi were thriving basically and not just in culture.
>>15629894If you mean in general, Jean Rohou on litterature, Dupâquier on the demography, Joël Cornette on the monarchy, and Lucien Bély on society and diplomacy (definitely the most well-rounded).If you're looking biographies Rohou has written some, but generally they're provided in the introduction of modern editions anyway. If you liked La Rochefoucauld you could read La Bruyère next. It's still more or less moralism and "disjoint" texts but from a different background and with a different purpose. It starts with a translation of Theophrastus and follows on its steps.
