Reading “Dom Juan” (Part Two)

11 Sunday Aug 2019

Posted by michelinewalker in Comedy, Molière, The Human Condition

Tags

Brett B. Bodemer, Dom Juan, Master & Man, Molière, Pascal, Sganarelle, Sganarelle & Dom Juan, W. G. Moore

Sganarelle par Dugazon (théâtre-documentions.com) (BnF)

DON JUAN, son of Don Louis
SGANARELLE, valet of Don Juan
DONNA ELVIRA, wife of Don Juan
GUSMAN, horseman (écuyer) to Elvira
DON CARLOS, brother of Elvira
DON ALONSE, brother of Elvira
CHARLOTTE, peasant-girl
MATHURINE, peasant-girl
PIERROT, peasant
THE STATUE OF THE COMMANDER
LA VIOLETTE, a lackey of Don Juan
RAGOTIN, a lackey of Don Juan
M. DIMANCHE, merchant
LA RAMÉE, swordsman (spadassin)
ENTOURAGE OF DON JUAN
ENTOURAGE OF DON CARLOS AND DON ALONSE
A GHOST

Set in Sicily

Dom Juan and Sganarelle

At the end of my first reading of Molière‘s Dom Juan (Part One), I quoted Sganarelle, Dom Juan’s valet, a role played by Molière. La Grange played the role of Dom Juan.

When Sganarelle hears Dom Juan say that he wishes his father, Dom Louis, were dead, he is indignant, but Dom Juan does not allow him to speak about “le Ciel,” heaven. Sganarelle’s living depends on Dom Juan. So, when Dom Juan dies, he thinks of his wages: Mes gages ! mes gages ! mes gages ! (My pay! My pay! My pay! ) (Sganarelle I. vi; I. 6). However, although Dom Juan will not accept remonstrances, Sganarelle manages to wrap the truth inside a lie. Such a response demonstrates ingenuity.

Will Moore writes that Dom Juan is “master” and Sganarelle, “man,” and that exchanges between master and man are:

… a dialogue on humanity. The master is inhuman in his scorn of others. The man is all too human. [1]

Man says:

Oui, Monsieur, vous avez tort d’avoir souffert ce qu’il vous a dit, et vous le deviez mettre dehors par les épaules. A-t-on jamais rien vu de plus impertinent? Un père venir faire des remontrances à son fils, et lui dire de corriger ses actions, de se ressouvenir de sa naissance, de mener une vie d’honnête homme, et cent autres sottises de pareille nature. Cela se peut-il souffrir à un homme comme vous, qui savez comme il faut vivre? J’admire votre patience, et si j’avais été en votre place, je l’aurais envoyé promener. Ô complaisance maudite,à quoi me réduis-tu ?
Sganarelle à Dom Juan (IV. v, pp. 56- 57)
[Yes, Sir, you are wrong to have suffered what he said to you and you should have thrown him out on his ear. Has anyone ever seen such impertinence? For a father to come and reproach his son, to tell him to correct his actions, to remember his birth, to lead the life of an honorable man, and a hundred others stupidities of a like nature! That it should be borne by a man like you, who knows how one must live! I marvel at your patience; and f I had been in your place, I would have sent him packing. O evil complicity! To what have you reduced me?]
Sganarelle to Dom Juan (IV. 5, p. 50)

We meet Sganarelle in Act One, Scene One. Dom Juan is out of hearing, so Sganarelle tells Guzman that his master is forever marrying. He also points to the dichotomy in Dom Juan himself. Dom Juan “un grand seigneur, méchant homme.” Act One, Scene One also allows Molière to tell about Dom Juan’s numerous marriages.

Molière’s plots are as simple as possible. When the curtain rises, Dom Juan has abandoned Done Elvire, whom he took away from a convent and we are told that six months earlier he killed the Commandeur. Molière’s Dom Juan does not contain a seduction scene nor a duel, which is consistent with bienséances (étiquette), a rule in seventeenth-century theater.

However, the play ends with the death of Dom Juan. The statue of the Commandeur comes alive at the end of Act Three. The Commandeur, is the stone guest. Dom Juan invites him to dinner the following day and, to Sganarelle’s horror, the statue comes to dinner and invites Dom Juan to dine with him the following day, which is when the Commandeur takes his hand and throws him into a fiery abyss. In Act One, Scene Two, Sganarelle asks Dom Juan whether he fears revenge on the part of the Commandeur. Dom Juan doesn’t, but Sganarelle believes friends and relatives might be angry. In Act One, Scene Three, Done Elvire visits Dom Juan. Dom Juan will not go home to his wife. She will therefore focus on revenge.

For the most part, I will skip Act Two (summary), the scene where Dom Juan nearly drowns, but is saved by Pierrot and falls in love with two peasant-girls: Charlotte and Mathurine, promising each one that he will marry her. Pierrot loves Charlotte. This scene contains a comedic element. Dom Juan runs from girl to girl whispering to each that she’s the one. At the end of Act Two, La Ramée warns that twelve horsemen are looking for Dom Juan.

Pierrot, Charlotte, Dom Juan et Mathurine par Edmond Hédouin (théâtre-documentions.com) BnF

Master and Man

However, I would like to contrast “master” and “man,” or master’s religion and man’s religion.

In Act Three, Scene One, Dom Juan says:

Je crois que deux et deux sont quatre, Sganarelle, et que quatre et quatre sont huit.
Dom Juan à Sganarelle (III. i, p. 36)
[I believe that two and two makes four, Sganarelle, and that four and four makes eight.]
Dom Juan to Sganarelle (III. 1, p. 31)

Dom Juan is an atheist, but Sganarelle believes in God and marvels at what the human body can do:

Mon raisonnement est qu’il y a quelque chose d’admirable dans l’homme, quoi que vous puissiez dire, que tous les savants ne sauraient expliquer. Cela n’est-il pas merveilleux que me voilà ici, et que j’aie quelque chose dans la tête qui pense cent choses différentes en un moment, et fait de mon corps tout ce qu’elle veut? Je veux frapper des mains, hausser le bras, lever les yeux au ciel, baisser la tête, remuer les pieds, aller à droit, à gauche, en avant, en arrière, tourner…
Il se laisse tomber en tournant.
Sganarelle à Dom Juan (III. i, pp. 36-37)
[Well, my argument is that there is something admirable in man, no matter what you might say, which all the learned men cannot explain. Is it not a marvel that I am here, and that I have something in my head which makes me think a hundred different things at once, and that can make my body do what it would? That I can clap my hands, raise my arms, lift my eyes to Heaven, lower my head, move my feet, go to the right, go to the left, forwards, backwards, turn …
He falls while turning.
Sganarelle to Dom Juan (III. 1, p. 32)

Pascal wrote that there were two entries to the soul: the mathematical and the intuitive mind [EBook # 18269]). L’esprit de finesse does not exclude l’esprit de géométrie (mathematical). On the contrary. Sganarelle is uneducated, but it turns out that he is right and that Dom Juan is wrong. Molière is true to the legend in which a statue, the Stone Guest, kills Dom Juan. Valets are not necessarily inferior to their master. Even the humble can sense what they cannot formulate. Sganarelle runs out of words and wishes Dom Juan had stopped him.

Oh dame, interrompez-moi donc si vous voulez, je ne saurais disputer si l’on ne m’interrompt, vous vous taisez exprès, et me laissez parler par belle malice.
Sganarelle à Dom Juan (III. i, p. 36)
[Oh! Damn, interrupt me, if you please: I cannot argue with you if you don’t interrupt me: and you’re being silent as a stump out of deliberate malice.]
Sganarelle to Dom Juan (III, 1, p. 32)

In Act Three, Scene Two, Dom Juan and Sganarelle meet a beggar. The beggar gives them directions, but he is poor and needs money. Dom Juan asks him to swear. The poor man refuses the money, but Dom Juan leaves a Louis d’or behind pour l’amour de l’humanité, for the love of humanity. (III. ii. p. 32)

In Act Three, Scene Three, Dom Juan saves Dom Carlos, Done Elvire’s sister, whom he doesn’t know. In Scene Four, Done Elvire’s other brother, Dom Alonse, enters and recognizes Dom Juan. Dom Carlos succeeds in delaying the revenge. In Act One, Guzman was surprised that a man of Dom Juan’s rank would leave a wife he married despite l’obstacle sacré of a convent.

These two scenes soften Molière portrayal of Dom Juan, but in Scene Five, as our pélerins continue walking in the direction of the city, they inadvertently reach the commandeur‘s monument. Dom Juan asked Sganarelle to invite the commandeur for supper the next day. Dom Juan remains defiant. In fact, this seems bravura, but it could also be mindlessness, insouciance, or perhaps a sense that one cannot escape one’s fate. Why else would Dom Juan silence Sganarelle? He may well feel guilty, but the consequences are unavoidable, by Dom Juan’s own mathematical standards: “two and two makes four.”

Which takes us to an essay by James Doolittle on the “humanity” of Molière’s Dom Juan and a reference to Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote.

We close here. There will be a third and final part.

RELATED ARTICLES

Reading Don Juan (Part One) (6 August 2019)
Molière page

Sources and Resources

Pascal‘s Pensées are Gutenberg’s [eBook # 18269)
New Criticism, definition
Finesse et Géométrie, Encyclopédie de l’Agora
Dom Juan is a toutmolière.net publication
Don Juan’s translation is by Brett B. Bodemer

Molière plays featuring Sganarelle are:

Le Médecin volant (The Flying Doctor) (1659)
Sganarelle, ou le Cocu imaginaire (The Imaginary Cuckold) (1660)
L’École des maris (The School for Husbands) (1661)
Le Mariage forcé (1664)
Dom Juan (1665)

____________________
[1] W. G. Moore, Molière, a New Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956 [1949]), p. 96.

Love to everyone 💕

A. VIVALDI: «Filiae maestae Jerusalem» RV 638
[II.Sileant Zephyri],
Ph.Jaroussky/Ensemble Artaserse

Dom Juan (théâtre-documentions.com) BnF

Jesuits & Jansenists

02 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in France, Religion

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Augustinus, Casuistry, Cornelius Jansen, Cum Occasionum, Jansenism, Jean Duvergier, Pascal, Port-Royal, Provincial Letters, Unigenitus

Les Lettres provinciales

Blaise Pascal

In 1656-1657, Blaise Pascal (Louis de Montalte) wrote his eighteen Provincial Letters in defense of the Jansenists of the abbey of Port-Royal-des-Champs, located near Paris, and Port-Royal abbey in Paris. Jansenism had been brought to France by Jean Duvergier de Hauranne (1581 – 1643), afterwards the abbot of Saint-Cyran-en-Brenne. Duvergier had studied theology in Leuven /Louvain where he met and befriended Cornelius Jansen (28 October 1585 – 6 May 1638), the father of Jansenism. During his stay in Louvain, Duvergier and Jansen opposed the Jesuits to protect Belgian theologian Michael Baius or Michel de Bay (1513 – 16 September 1589) whom Jesuits suspected had been influenced by Calvinism.

The Jesuits or Society of Jesus was founded in 1540. Jesuits were therefore a new order that could have helped curb the spread of Protestantism. (See « La Querelle entre jansénistes et jésuites », Jésuites de la province de France. FR) Changes were needed, but not to the point of using moral irresponsibility to benefit Roman Catholicism. Extremes are extremes.

In 1653, Pope Innocent X issued the bull Cum Occasionum condemning as heretical five propositions contained in Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus. The Augustinus, a long work that is considered the Jansenists’ “book,” was published posthumously in 1640. It should be noted, however, that the Augustinus was the work of Cornelius Jansen and that it was published several years after he and Jean Duvergier de Hauranne were students in Leuven, Holland. In fact, by 1640, the two friends had long been separated. Cornelius Jansen had spent a few years in France after he and Jean Duvergier graduated with a degree in theology from the University of Leuven. Moreover, as noted above, the book was published two years after Cornelius Jansen’s death. Cornelius Jansen died in an epidemic.

It should also be noted that, after serving as abbot of Saint-Cyran-en-Brenne, Jean Duvergier, known as Saint-Cyran, had settled at the abbey of Port-Royal-des-champs, a Cistercian abbey. The Cistercian order was established in 1204 and its rule was more severe than the Rule of Benedict, precepts observed by Benedictine monks. In 1623, he had become the spiritual director of the nuns living and working at Port-Royal-des-champs, one of whom was the abbess Angélique Arnauld (8 September 1591 in Paris – 6 August 1661) who had also introduced certain reforms in her community. The Cistercians also owned the Port-Royal Abbey in Paris.

Port-Royal-des-Champs

Engraving, Magdeleine Horthemels, c. 1710

Petites Écoles

Port-Royal, Paris

Les Petites Écoles de Port-Royal (1637 -1660)

Pascal as student and Educator

From 1637 until 1660, Cistercians operated a school at Port-Royal-des-Champs. Pascal had been a student at the Petites Écoles de Port-Royal, excellent schools because of the intellectual calibre of its teachers, messieurs, and its small classes. Jean Racine, the author of Phèdre (1778), had also studied at the Petites Écoles de Port-Royal. Later, Pascal himself would be an educator. He wrote a new method of teaching children to read.

As a former pupil of Port-Royal-des-Champs, Pascal, who sympathized with the Jansenists, defended the Port-Royal abbeys threatened by the bull Cum Occasionum. However, his motivation was, to a large extent, loyalty to his former teachers, the nuns of Port-Royal and to its messieurs or solitaires, teachers and men who retreated to one of the Port-Royal abbeys. More importantly, however, Pascal attacked the moral laxity of Jesuit casuistry.

However, in his Provincial Letters, Pascal did discuss the matter of grace, albeit briefly. According to the Jansenists, humans could not ensure their salvation. Jansenists believed in predestination. It had been and remains a Roman Catholic’s perception, that although humans are born stained with the original sin, baptism and grâce suffisante FR make it possible for them to be saved through good deeds, which is what I was taught. Jansenists differed. In order to be saved, humans had to be granted grâce efficace FR or efficacious grace and God chose those on whom he would bestow efficacious grace.

Saint Augustine and Pelagius

I suspect that initially St. Augustine, or Augustine or Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430), believed humans could expiate the original sin, if granted grâce suffisante. French 17th-century Jansenists maintained, however, that grâce efficace or efficacious grace, was required to be saved. This was cause for despair as it negated free will.

The quarrel between Jansenists and Jesuits therefore echoed an earlier quarrel between St. Augustine and Pelagius (fl. c. 390 – 418). Pelagius had opposed predestination. In fact, according to Wikipedia’s entry on the Church Fathers, “early Church Fathers consistently [upheld] the freedom of human choice. They consistently upheld the freedom of human choice.” Initially, Augustine of Hippo may have understood predestination as no more than foreknowledge. God as God knew how humans would live. This is what I was taught as a child. However, St. Augustine would grow to support predestination as a denial of free will, hence the title of Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus, the Jansenists’ book.

Pascal’s Target: Casuistry

The Lettres provinciales did support the doctrines of Jansenism, but Pascal’s main target was the moral irresponsibility advocated by the Jesuits, or casuistry. Pascal also emphasized the Jesuit’s rejection of the teachings of the Church Fathers which, by extension, was a rejection of Roman Catholicism in its totality. This was not the intention of the Jesuits.

After speaking with a Jesuit, our naïve character, visits a neighbour who is known as an opponent of Jansenism, but who turns out to share the Jansenist’s view of grace and predestination.

“To ascertain the matter with certainty, I repaired to my neighbor, M. N-, doctor of Navarre, who, as you are aware, is one of the keenest opponents of the Jansenists, and, my curiosity having made me almost as keen as himself, I asked him if they would not formally decide at once that ‘grace is given to all men,’ and thus set the question at rest. But he gave me a sore rebuff and told me that that was not the point; that there were some of his party who held that grace was not given to all; that the examiners themselves had declared, in a full assembly of the Sorbonne, that that opinion was problematical; and that he himself held the same sentiment, which he confirmed by quoting to me what he called that celebrated passage of St. Augustine: ‘We know that grace is not given to all men.’” (Letter I/1)

—ooo—

In my post on Pascal’s Provincial Letters, I wrote that we would take a closer look at the methods used by Jesuit casuistry. We will. A few examples are needed, but what I would like to bring to the fore are:

the Jesuits’ rejection of the doctrines of the Church Fathers,
the fact that Jesuits tolerated duels and homicides, and
other precepts.

: Conversion of Saint Augustine Fra Angelico (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it. Sandro Botticelli (Caption and photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rejection of the Teachings of the Church Fathers

Provincial Letters pdf (complete text)
probabilism

“We leave the fathers [Church Fathers],” resumed the monk, “to those who deal with positive divinity. As for us, who are the directors of conscience, we read very little of them and quote only the modern casuists.” (p. 40) (Letter VI/6)

“For example, three popes have decided that monks who are bound by a particular vow to a Lenten life cannot be absolved from it even though they should become bishops. And yet Diana avers that notwithstanding this decision they are absolved. ‘And how does he reconcile that?’ said I. By the most subtle of all the modern methods, and by the nicest possible application of probability,” replied the monk. (p. 44) (Letter VI/6)

Here the monk being interviewed by a naïve character invokes “probability” and lists modern authorities. The new authorities and proponents of casuistry are Luis de Molina, Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, Gabriel Vasquez and Leonardus Lessius. Also linked to casuistry were Étienne Bauny of France and Antonino Diana, an Italian. Numerous “authorities” are also named as one reads the 18 letters. (See Casuistry, Wikipedia.)

However, if our narrator or candid character refers to an authority, he is trivialized and disapproves:

“When Diana [Antonino Diana] quotes with approbation the sentiments of Vasquez, when he finds them probable, and ‘very convenient for rich people,’ as he says in the same place, he is no slanderer, no falsifier, and we hear no complaints of misrepresenting his author; whereas, when I cite the same sentiments of Vasquez, though without holding him up as a phoenix, I am a slanderer, a fabricator, a corrupter of his maxims.” (p. 109) (Letter XII/12)

More on Probabilisme

‘A person may do what he considers allowable according to a probable opinion, though the contrary may be the safer one. The opinion of a single grave doctor is all that is requisite.’ (p. 39) (Letter VI/6)

“Can you doubt it?” he replied, ‘We have bound them, sir, to absolve their penitents who act according to probable opinions, under the pain of mortal sin, to secure their compliance ‘under the pain of mortal sin’”

‘When the penitent, says Father Bauny,’ follows a probable opinion, the confessor is bound to absolve him, though his opinion should differ from that of his penitent.’” (p. 40) (Letter VI/6)

Homicide

The justification of homicide is particularly surprising.

(naïve character, italics)

“Be this as it may, however, it seems that, according to Sanchez, a man may freely slay (I do not say treacherously, but only insidiously and behind his back) a calumniator, for example, who prosecutes us at law?” (p. 56) (Letter VII/7)

“Certainly he may,” returned the monk, “always, however, in the way of giving a right direction to the intention: you constantly forget the main point. Molina supports the same doctrine; and what is more, our learned brother Reginald maintains that we may despatch the false witnesses whom he summons against us. And, to crown the whole, according to our great and famous fathers Tanner and Emanuel Sa, it is lawful to kill both the false witnesses and the judge himself, if he has had any collusion with them. Here are Tanner’s very words: ‘Sotus and Lessius think that it is not lawful to kill the false witnesses and the magistrate who conspire together to put an innocent person to death; but Emanuel Sa and other authors with good reason impugn that sentiment, at least so far as the conscience is concerned.’ And he goes on to show that it is quite lawful to kill both the witnesses and the judge.” (p. 56) (Letter VII/7)

“And, in point of fact, is it not certain that the man who has received a buffet on the ear is held to be under disgrace, until he has wiped off the insult with the blood of his enemy?” (p. 56) (Letter VII/7)

“Nay,” he continued, “it is allowable to prevent a buffet, by killing him that meant to give it, if there be no other way to escape the insult. This opinion is quite common with our fathers. (p. 56) (Letter VII/7)

“But, father, may not one be allowed to kill for something still less? Might not a person so direct his intention as lawfully to kill another for telling a lie, for example?” (p. 58) (Letter VII/7)

“He may,” returned the monk; “and according to Father Baldelle, quoted by Escobar, ‘you may lawfully take the life of another for saying, “You have told a lie”; if there is no other way of shutting his mouth.’ The same thing may be done in the case of slanders. (p. 58) (Letter VII/7)

Stealing

(naïve character, italics)

“Lessius, among others, maintains that ‘it is lawful to steal, not only in a case of extreme necessity, but even where the necessity is grave, though not extreme.’” (Letter VIII/8)

“For after all, now, is it not a violation of the law of charity, and of our duty to our neighbour, to deprive a man of his property in order to turn it to our own advantage? Such, at least, is the way I have been taught to think hitherto.” (Letter VIII/8)

“That will not always hold true,” replied the monk; “for our great Molina has taught us that ‘the rule of charity does not bind us to deprive ourselves of a profit, in order thereby to save our neighbour from a corresponding loss.’” (Letter VIII/8)

Homicide, again

In his letter XIII, Pascal repeats much of what he wrote in Letter VII/7. He fully realizes that he is repeating. As an educator, he emphasized the need to repeat, a need that is consistent with the modern theory of information. It is part of his “art de persuader,” the art of persuasion. One has to read Pascal’s Pensées, published posthumously, to grasp Pascal’s art de persuader.

Conclusion

There is so much to discuss, but a post is a post. However the book, Les Provinciales, is easy to read and short. The fate of Jansénisme resembles the fate of the Huguenots in France. Jansénisme was not a religion; it was a mere movement. But it was condemned by the papal bull Unigenitus, issued by Clement XI on 8 September 1713. Absolutism meant: one king, one language and one religion.

Pascal discusses numerous subjects, such as duels and usury, in his examination of the moral laxity of 17th-century French Jesuits.

In closing, I would like to point out that the quarrel between Jansenists and Jesuits in 17th-century France is one episode, just one, in the history of the Jesuits and that both Jesuit casuistry and Jansenism were condemned.

My best regards to all of you. ♥

RELATED ARTICLES

Pascal’s Provincial Letters (27 March 2015)
Jansenism, a Church Divided (24 March 2015)
Pascal & Leibniz: Details (19 March 2015)
Pascal’s “Roseau pensant” (19 April 2014)
Phèdre’s “Hidden God” (8 October 2012) (Jansenism)
Casuistry, or how to sin without sinning (5 March 2012)
Pascal & the Two Infinites (27 September 2011) (relativity)
Pascal on the Human Condition (25 August 2011) (the US)

Sources and Resources

Provincial Letters pdf
Lettres provinciales ebooksgratuits.com FR
Lettres provinciales (Gallica, BnF) (National Library of France) FR
Pascal’s Pensées are Gutenberg [EBook #18269]
Port-Royal (Petites Écoles) FR
Divine grace
grâce suffisante FR
grâce efficace FR
original sin
casuistry
Jansenism
predestination

Philippe Jaroussky, countertenor, sings “Ombra mai fu” (Serse) G. F. Händel

Pascal, Jean Domat
French sanguine

Pascal’s “Provincial Letters”

27 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in France, Religion

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Bible Moralisée, Illustrated Manuscript, Jansenism, Lettres provinciales, Pascal, Provincial Letters, Religion, Saint Thomas, Thomistes

Prefatory miniature from a moralised Bible of “God as architect of the world”, folio I verso, Paris ca. 1220–1230. Ink, tempera, and gold leaf on vellum 1′ 1½” × 8¼”. Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna 2554. God shapes the universe with the aid of a compass. Within the perfect circle already created are the spherical sun and moon and the unformed matter that will become the earth once God applies the same geometric principles to it. A view of the earth influenced by Ancient Greek Geometry and icons of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (Caption and photo credit: Wikipedia)

Comments

As I wrote on 24 March 2015, the Church is a human institution. However, Jesus of Nazareth, a historical figure, is considered by most Christians as the son of God. Jesus was a Jew who lived in Palestine, then occupied by Rome. He is a prophet in the Muslim world, but Christians usually think of him as the Son of God made flesh to redeem humankind. Most Christians believe in the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. God is their redeemer. He took away the Original Sin.

The Human Condition

According to the Bible, we are mortals because Adam and Eve disobeyed God the Father, or the Trinity. They ate the forbidden fruit, which means that they made love. Their making love is the original sin and Christians are expected to atone for this sin. Christians therefore baptize newborns so they are absolved of the original sin. Baptism predates Christianity and, more importantly, Jesus is called the Saviour.

Jesus had many followers

During his short life, Jesus, the son of God, told parables that touched his followers who grew more and more numerous. After his death, they starting calling themselves Christians. In the image featured above, taken from an illuminated manuscript, a Bible moralisée, God the father is depicted as the architect of the world, literally. It is believed that we owe God (the Trinity) the creation of the world: Die Schöpfung, as in the title of Joseph Haydn‘s oratorio, composed in London, England.

The Heritage: Music, the Arts, Literature, etc.

Moreover, think of the cultural heritage: feasts, Christmas and Easter, a multitude of works of art, including Books of Hours, music, literature rooted in the Bible: thousands of works. Dante‘s (c. 1265–1321) Divine Comedy and John Milton‘s[i] (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674) Paradise Lost are major representatives of texts emanating from the Bible.

Portrait of Dante by Sandro Botticello

A Revolution

Humble as he was, the son of a carpenter, Jesus started a revolution, one of the most important revolutions ever. Contrary to the Jewish Bible, the New Testament does not preach retaliation: the lex talionis (retaliate). Yet the New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament from which Christians have borrowed extensively to tell the story of Man. Telling the story of Man is the purpose of texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an. They are aetiological texts.

Religions and Worshipping

Although Christ is not the founder of a Church, many among humans are Christians and go to church on Sundays. They practice a religion. It is normal to worship and gather with other worshippers. We are social beings, so we get together. As for worshipping, it may bring serenity and hope where there is fear and despair. Voltaire stated that: “To believe in God is impossible; not to believe in Him is absurd.” (Brainy Quotes). Voltaire also said that if God did not exist, we would invent Him.

Jansenism, defended by Pascal, was condemned as was casuistry (used by Jesuits).

Blaise Pascal (Photo credit, Wikipedia)

The Provincial Letters (1656 – 57)

We will now look at the divisions of the Lettres provinciales, the Provincial Letters. I will send examples and Related Articles in another post. My computer is too slow. I have to give it a rest. The Lettres provinciales contains two parts. From Chapters 1 to 10, it features a dialogue between a naïve polemicist and Jesuits. It then becomes a narrative.

1. Methods

Probabilisme

Pascal was an expert at calculating odds. He developed the probability theory with Pierre de Fermat.[2] Probabilism is a method Pascal would understand. It is probable that if one priest will not absolve a sin, another priest will. (Chapters 5 & 6)

Direction d’Intention: The Goal justifies the Means

This is Machiavellian. If the goal is a worthy cause, the means used to achieve this good are acceptable. The sin has been removed. (Chapters 7 & 8)

Dévotion aisée, ambiguity and restriction mentale

The Jesuit explains that it is easy to love God. First, pray to the Virgin Mary. Moreover, one can get out of trouble by being ambiguous (the distinction between grâce suffisante and grâce efficace is difficult to understand or ambiguous). Be ambiguous. As well, one can lie yet say the truth but giving part of an answer aloud and saying the rest to himself or herself. Question: Were you at her house yesterday? Answer: No, I was not at her house yesterday morning. (Chapter 9)

The Morality of Casuists

There is no for real penance for sins committed to be absolved. We need simply be contrite or regret our actions. (Chapter 10).

2. The Polemicist defends himself

Pascal (under his pseudonym) is accused of slander (calomnie) and deception (imposture). (Chapters 10 & 11) Pascal’s character answers that he has to ridicule the errors of his adversaries and to generalize. (Chapter 12) The accusations he is subjected to confirm the casuists’ extreme permissibility, such as homicide, (Chapters 13 & 14) and slander (15 & 16).

3. Conclusion

Père Annat, a Jesuit and the confessor to the king of France, has been following the debate. Once again grace is discussed as are the five points in Jansenius‘ Augustinus the Pope condemned. Pascal and Père Annat are both of the opinion that these points could be attacked but they agree that the Augustinus (1640) should not be looked upon as the work of Jansenius. In the Provinciales, Pascal is not attacking Jansenism as much as he is attacking casuistry.

In other words, it is unlikely that Pascal would not have defended his friends at Port-Royal on grounds other than the depraved conduct of casuists, which brings the matter to a close and makes him the winner if a winner there is. Casuistry went into disrepute. The death of his sister Jacqueline also brought an end to Pascal’s polemics (Chapters 17 & 18).

Conclusion

Pascal was a beautiful human being. Chateaubriand called him an “effrayant génie,” (Génie du Christianisme; a frightening genius). T. S. Eliot described him as “a man of the world among ascetics, and an ascetic among men of the world.” (See Pascal, Wikipedia.) Pascal was humble, good and I detect a sense of humour. He discredited casuistry with extreme finesse. The beauty of the text is in the way it is written. Pascal weighs every word.

As you know, his father needed a calculator, so he quickly invented one. He then created public transportation: the carrosse à cinq sols FR, the fine-penny horse-drawn carriage. There were lines and a schedule. He and his dear friend the Duc de Roannez set up the system in 1661 and it worked for seventeen years. The service was discontinued temporarily but would return. Pascal died in 1662, aged 39.

Sources and Resources

Lettres provinciales, PDF (texte intégral) FR
Provincial Letters, PDF (complete text) EN

____________________

[1] Unless otherwise noted, quotations are from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[2] The pioneer was Gerolamo Cardano, a 16th-century Italian mathematician

Die Schöpfung (The Creation), an excerpt

Port-Royal Abbey, Paris (Wiki)

Jansenism: a Church Divided

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in Religion, The Human Condition

≈ Comments Off on Jansenism: a Church Divided

Tags

Grace, Jansenist, Jesuit Casuistry, Original Sin, Pascal, The Human Condition

Michelangelo‘s painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pascal studying the cycloid, by Augustin Pajou, 1785, Louvre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jansenists and Jesuits

We will not look at Pascal’s Provincial Letters (1656-1657) yet, as we should examine the context in which Blaise Pascal attacked the Jesuits. There is a history to the debate at the center of which is free will. Jansenists believed in predestination, which was the negation of free will and which would be condemned under pain of excommunication. As for the Jesuits of 17th-century France, their practice of casuistry permitted the commission of horrendous sins, including homicide (Chapters 13, 14). Eventually, both Jansenism and casuistry would be considered unacceptable. However, the degree of moral irresponsibility casuistry allowed was so offensive that Pascal attempted to rescue his friends at Port-Royal-des-Champs, Jansenists, by attacking casuistry vehemently, but with finesse.

Casuistry and Machiavellianism

Luis de Molina
Protestantism
Machiavellianism
ruthlessness of families

Casuistry was developed by Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina (1535-1600), the author of Divine Grace and Human Liberty (1588) and De liberi arbitrii (shortened title), works defending free will. Casuistry made it possible to sin without sinning. One ‘method’ was direction d’intention. If one sinned but had good intentions, one had not sinned. Direction d’intention was Machiavellian, because the end justified the means. This is what Niccoló Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) teaches The Prince (Il Principe), 1532. (See Niccoló Machiavelli, Wikipedia.)

In an earlier post, I noted that Machiavelli lived in a jungle: the Medici family, whose members could have perished had it not been for their ruthlessness. (See House of Medici, Wikipedia). They ruled Florence when Italy was a group of city-states headed by powerful families: the House of Medici, the Gonzaga, the Este, the Sforza, etc. Moreover, the various families tried to have members named Pope so they could control the Church. In such a world, a prince had to be ruthless.

Port-Royal

the rise of Protestantism and two rites (Western and Eastern)
fanaticism
Casuistry
jurisprudence (casuistry in Law)

The Cistercians nuns of Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey and Port-Royal Abbey in Paris also lived in a jungle. Christianity was no longer unified. There were Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Huguenots (French Calvinists), etc. Moreover, Catholicism itself had long been divided into two rites: the Roman and the Orthodox rites. If the Roman Catholic Church were further fragmented, could Roman Catholicism survive? Hence casuistry.

Reforms were needed, such as forbidding the sale of indulgences, allowing divorce in certain cases, not levying a heavy tithe on the very poor. Greater toleration of different faiths may also have contained the growth of Protestantism, but Jansenists themselves were far too stern. They believed in predestination, depriving Christians of a way a ensuring the salvation. The religious wars, ushered in by the Renaissance were pitiless.

However, saving Roman Catholicism did not require Casuistry, nor did it require the austerity (an extreme) of Jansenism. Casuistry was so relaxed a form of Catholicism that it allowed homicide. (Letters, Chapters 13 & 14.) Jesuit Casuistry in 17th-century France could forgive a large number of sins, if not most. There is an acceptable form of casuistry in the field of Law. Casuistry is often compared to jurisprudence, a study of cases.

According to Britannica, “Greek and Roman philosophers, Jewish rabbis, Christian preachers and teachers, and Islamic jurists (see also Sharīʿah) are among those who have used casuistry to solve real-life moral puzzles. The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero wrote the first known “case book” on situations in which duties seem to conflict.”[1]

But as I wrote above, Jesuit casuistry was an extreme as was the notion of predestination.

Grace

The controversy between Jansenists and Jesuits did not center as much on “grâce suffisante” compared to “grâce efficace,” a theoretical debate, as it did on moral irresponsibility: casuistry! Whether or not grace was suffisante (sufficient) or efficace (efficacious) was unlikely to unleash so impassioned a rebuttal as Pascal’s eighteen 18 Provincial Letters.

“Grâce suffisante” (sufficient grace) is defined as follows:

“‘Grâce donnée généralement à tous les hommes, soumise de telle sorte au libre arbitre qu’il [free will] la rend efficace ou inefficace à son choix, sans aucun nouveau secours de Dieu.’” (Pascal, see Grâce suffisante, French Wikipedia.)

(Grace generally bestowed on every human, subjected to free will in such a way that free will chooses to make it effective or not, without new recourse from God.)

“Grâce efficace” (efficacious grace) is defined as follows:

“Position théologique défendue par saint Augustin, et dont les Jansénistes se sont servis dans leur polémique contre les Jésuites. Selon sa definition, les hommes n’accèdent au salut [humans can be saved]” ne peuvent gagner le Paradis que si Dieu leur a accordé la grâce [only if God has given them grace]. Seule cette grâce divine peut les soutenir dans la foi. Ce dogme, développé à l’origine par Augustin d’Hippone dans son débat des thèses du moine britannique Pélage, s’oppose à la thèse des Jésuites qui attribuaient au libre-arbitre et aux œuvres la prérogative du salut. (See Grâce efficace, French Wikipedia.)

These definitions are based on the belief that human beings are born guilty of the original sin and must expiate. That is the source of the problem. According to the first definition, which is not clear, man is given sufficient grace. But, according to the second definition, only God can grant enough grace to open the door to Paradise and God chooses whom he will save, which is predestination.

This dogma, predestination, was refuted by Augustine of Hippo in his early debates with British monk Pelagius (354 – 418)[2] who also opposed predestination. Pelagius believed that man could ensure his salvation through good deeds. Later, however, Augustine of Hippo grew to believe he needed grace to fight sin, especially original sin which he believed was “transmitted by concupiscence.” (See Caption, below.) Augustine was flesh and blood, or all-too human.

Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it. Sandro Botticelli (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Augustine of Hippo: an Opponent of Pelagius

However, Augustine of Hippo became an opponent of Pelagius who was declared a heretic at one of the Councils of Carthage and whose doctrine, Pelagianism, was condemned. Pelagius is the author of De libero arbitrio (On Free Will; 416 CE).

Pascal’s main target was Spanish nobleman and Jesuit Antonio Escobar y Mendoza (1589 – July 4, 1669) who was the author of Summula casuum conscientiae (1627) and some eighty other books. Ten years after the death of Antonio Escobar, in 1679, his books were condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

As for Pascal’s letters, they were destroyed immediately by order of King Louis XIV. Later in the 17th century, Jansenism would be condemned by the Church in the apostolic constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius, promulgated by Pope Clement XI in 1713. The nuns of Port-Royal-des-Champs where forcibly evicted in 1709 and sent to other convents. The buildings of Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey were razed that same year.

Removal of Nuns from Port-Royal-des-Champs

Port-Royal-des-Champs

Port-Royal Abbey, in Paris, was not destroyed, but it was used for various purposes and was dechristianized during the French Revolution. Casuistry, which Pascal had discredited, was condemned.

Yet, if there was a winner, it was Pascal. His Lettres provinciales (1658-1659) dealt a fatal blow to casuistry and constitute a literary masterpiece, condemned by Louis XIV.

The Church is a human institution founded in the name of Christ during the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE). Its founder is converted Roman Emperor Constantine I. (See Constantine the Great, Wikipedia) Constantine I settled in Constantinople, the former Byzantium and future Istanbul (1929).

Conclusion

Pascal’s Lettres provinciales were seemingly written to a person living outside Paris, in one of the French provinces: Normandy, Bretagne, etc. For protection, Pascal used the pseudonym Louis de Montalte. But Jansenism did not disappear quickly. Quebec was a mostly Jansenist province of Canada until the 1960s. Catholics were pious and feared God.

Pascal’s Letters are still read. They are a masterful satire, a model to Voltaire’s Candide. Casuistry was also ridiculed by Molière and La Fontaine. In Molière’s Tartuffe (1664 – 1669), Tartuffe, who feigns devotion, tries to seduce Elmire saying that he knows how take sin away. (See Casuistry, or how to sin without sinning.) Molière rewrote Tartuffe twice before it was considered acceptable.

We looked at the Lettres provinciales mainly as a biting satire of casuistry, which it is. However, as we have seen, Pascal’s work has other dimensions. Humans are born guilty of the original sin and must be baptized promptly and, according to Jansenism, despite a virtuous life, they will not be saved, unless God has chosen to save them.

The Church being a human institution founded in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, it may be important to consider that Jesus told such parables as the Prodigal Son and the Woman Caught in Adultery. He preached forgiveness and unconditional love. It may also be very useful to remember that Jesus of Nazareth has been called our Saviour and our Redeemer.

Finally, despite circumstances,

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blessed:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

– Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

Detail from The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

RELATED ARTICLES

Pascal & Leibniz: Details (19 March 2015)
Molière’s Tartuffe & Northrop Frye (21 July 2014)
Casuistry, or how to sin without sinning (5 March 2012)
Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism, an Inspiration (7 January 2012)
Machiavelli & Reynard the Fox (19 October 2011)

Sources and Resources

Provincial Letters, complete text, Internet Archive EN
Lettres provinciales, texte intégral, Ebooks gratuits.pdf FR
Tartuffe.pdf, complete text EN
Tartuffe, complete text, Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg EN
Tartuffe.pdf, texte intégral, FR

____________________

[1] “casuistry”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 21 mars. 2015
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/98890/casuistry>.

[2] “Pelagius”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 21 mars. 2015
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449072/Pelagius>.

Marin Marais: Le Badinage

Sandro Botticelli (Wiki)

Pascal and Leibniz: Details

19 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in Enlightenment, Philosophy, Science

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Calculators, Efficacious Grace, Le Pari Fatal, Leibniz, Leibniz's Wheel, Pascal, Pascal's Wager, Sufficient Grace, Sufficient Reason, The Pascaline

Baise Pascal, Versailles (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Portrait of Blaise Pascal made by François II Quesnel for Gérard Edelinck in 1691 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Blaise Pascal and Gottfried Leibniz

Voltaire‘s Candide was a satire of Leibniz‘ metaphysics, but not a criticism of Leibniz himself or all of his theories (1 July 1646 – 14 November 1716). Gottfried Leibniz, who lived in Leipzig, was a great mathematician, inventor, logician and diplomat. He believed in God and assumed that God was good, hence his “best of all possible worlds.” It was a noble thought, but nearly three centuries later, we remain very short of good.

Sufficient reason[1]

The word “sufficient” reminded me of Pascal (19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662: aged 39) who, despite illness, chronic pain, and his rather short life, contributed so much to the world of ideas and to science. While I was writing my posts on Candide, a monument to humankind, I was puzzled by Leibniz’s use of the word “sufficient.”

I remembered telling my students that after Étienne Pascal, Blaise Pascal’s father, lost his wife, he left Clermont-Ferrand, where Blaise was born and settled in Paris, where he often had guests who were prominent scientists.

Given that his son Blaise could not travel, due to ill health, whenever a scientist was in Paris, Étienne tried to introduce him to his son who was a child prodigy. In fact, the work done by Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 or 1607 – 12 January 1665) and Pascal into the calculus of probabilities laid “important groundwork” for Leibniz‘ formulation of the calculus. (See Leibniz, Wikipedia.)

At this point, allow me a slight digression.

The Calculator

As scientists, both Pascal and Leibniz invented calculators.

Blaise Pascal’s father was a tax farmer, the name given tax collectors during the ancien régime. This was a position one could purchase as was the case with many positions in 17^th– and-18^th-century France. Louis XIV was forever in need of money to pay for Versailles and finance his wars. Selling positions was yet another avenue allowing Louis to replenish France’s empty vaults.

As tax collector, Pascal’s father needed a calculator, so his son Blaise invented the Pascaline, an ancestor to our calculators and to computer science. It was a helpful machine and there are a few Pascalines left for everyone to see.

But Leibniz also invented a calculator, his Leibniz’s Wheel. Under Wikipedia’s entry on calculators, the reader is told that Leibniz’s calculator was never “fully operational.”

“Schickard [mostly] and Pascal were followed by Gottfried Leibniz who spent forty years designing a four-operation mechanical calculator, inventing in the process his Leibniz wheel, but who couldn’t design a fully operational machine.”

However, the Leibniz’ wheel entry tells a different story.

“Invented by Leibniz in 1673, it was used for three centuries until the advent of the electronic calculator in the mid-1970s.”

I wouldn’t dare refute that statement as we may be looking at two slightly different machines (“inventing in the process”). But I will point out that the “abacus,” was “a calculating tool that was in use centuries before the adoption of the written modern numeral system and is still widely used by merchants, traders and clerks in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.” (See Abacus, Wikipedia.) It “was known to have been used by Sumerians and Egyptians before 2000 BCE.” I should think that humans have always had some sort of calculator. (See Calculator, Wikipedia.)

Let us return to the word ‘Sufficient’

Pascal may have provided an element to Leibniz’s vocabulary: the word “sufficient,” as in “sufficient reason.” This no one can prove, but it is either ‘probable’ or quite a coincidence. I should note that Pascal did not support fully the use of reason to arrive at scientific truths, in which he differed from Leibniz, at least initially. For Pascal reason, or “l’esprit de géométrie,” was the other half of “l’esprit de finesse,” a form of instinct or intuition (le cœur),[2] from which emanates the seminal idea that leads to an important discovery or further knowledge. Beautiful melodies are mostly inspired.

Cornelius Jansen, Évêque d’Ypres

Jansenism

Pascal was a Jansenist. Jansenism is neither a religion nor a sect; it is a concept within Catholicism that would later be condemned as heretical.[3] Jansenists believed in predestination, which meant that although one lived a virtuous life, virtue could not lead to salvation. Those who believed in God and lived a virtuous manner had been granted sufficient (suffisante) grace, but only efficacious (efficace) grace ensured one’s salvation. Therefore, however good a person could be, salvation was an arbitrary gift. It could not be attained, except by the chosen ones.

Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey (destroyed by fire) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sufficient and Efficacious Grace

In other words, according to the Jansenists, who lived at Port-Royal-des-Champs and Port-Royal Abbey, in Paris, were friends of Pascal, there were two forms of grace: la grâce suffisante (sufficient grace) and la grâce efficace FR (efficacious grace), only one of which, la grâce efficace could ensure salvation and God, if He existed, which Pascal set out to prove in his unfinished Pensées (Thoughts), selected those who would be saved.

To complicate matters, Jesuits, also attacked by Voltaire, had devised a system that allowed people to sin without sinning. (See RELATED ARTICLES.) Nothing could excuse casuistry and it was injurious to all who lived a good life. In 1646, Pascal became a Jansenist and, a few years later, in 1656-67, when Jansenism was first condemned, he wrote his Provincial letters, 18 letters and a possible 19^th, the masterpiece that inspired Voltaire’s Candide.

Cornelius Jansen‘s (28 October 1585 – 6 May 1638) is the founder of Jansenism, as his name suggests. His Augustinus (1640) was published posthumously in Louvain/ Leuven, Belgium and sparked a controversy.

I will not enter into details. Suffice it to repeat that one could not be saved even if one had led a virtuous life. Such thinking is extremely pessimistic, but given Jesuit Casuistry (la casuistique), the faithful defended the monks of the Port-Royal-des-Champs abbey, one of whom was Pascal. The issues raised by Jansenism were:

Pelagianism (man can save himself; but not according to the Augustinus);
the Original Sin (we are born guilty and are therefore in need of salvation);
the Divine Grace.

Divine Grace

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following description of grace: “Grace in Christianity is the free and unmerited favour of God as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowing of blessings.”

The Following are quotations from Wikipedia

In Islam, according to “Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar, dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at Zarqa Private University in Zarqa, Jordan: ‘Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah.’

This stance is supported by hadith: according to Abu Huraira, prophet Muhammad once said that ‘None amongst you can get into Paradise by virtue of his deeds alone … not even I, but that Allah should wrap me in his grace and mercy.’”

In Hinduism, “one Hindu philosopher, Madhvacharya, held that grace was not a gift from God, but rather must be earned.”

Pascal’s Wager: Le Pari fatal

Neither Jansenists nor Muslims can earn salvation. They cannot erase the original sin. Consequently, they may despair. Existentialism claims the opposite. Humankind makes itself, which cannot be entirely the case. Yet, quite astonishingly, Voltaire was an early existentialist. He stated that “[m]an [was] free at the moment he wishe[d] to be.”

As for Pascal, he lived virtuously wagering that he was among the chosen ones. The text of the Wager is in Sources and Resources, below.

However, the wager can be summarized. According to Pascal, we cannot know whether or not God exists. For him, God existed. He was a man of faith. But had he not been a man of faith, he would nevertheless have wagered that God existed. By doing so, one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

The Theory of Probability and the Pari fatal

Here we sense that Pascal and his friends, the duc de Roannez FR but mainly Pierre de Fermat contributed in the development the theory of probability. It is possible to calculate the odds. The following quotation is in French, but the wager can be summarized. One has nothing to lose by wagering that God exists and everything to lose by not waging He exists. (See The Wager.)

« Vous avez deux choses à perdre : le vrai et le bien, et deux choses à engager : votre raison et votre volonté, votre connaissance et votre béatitude ; et votre nature a deux choses à fuir : l’erreur et la misère. Votre raison n’est pas plus blessée, en choisissant l’un que l’autre, puisqu’il faut nécessairement choisir. Voilà un point vidé. Mais votre béatitude ? Pesons le gain et la perte, en prenant croix que Dieu est. Estimons ces deux cas : si vous gagnez, vous gagnez tout ; si vous perdez, vous ne perdez rien. Gagez donc qu’il est, sans hésiter. »

“if you win, you win everything; if you lose, you do not lose anything. So bet that God is, without hesitating.”

Conclusion

In a world where Jesuits could take sin away from sinners, it is understandable that Christians in France should have chosen to defend Jansenism. Casuistry allowed kings and aristocrats to have a mistress without remorse. If one’s intentions were good, one could kill, rape and pillage. Pascal therefore took the defense of Jansenism and the priests of Notre-Dame-des-Champs, Cistercian nuns and monks. They avoided sins, were truly devout, and lived according to their vows.

Voltaire was not a Jansenist, but he believed in God. Many humans believe in God because they see orchids, the amaryllis, dawn, and glorious sunsets. The birth of a child seems a miracle. However, Jansenism did not give anyone the chance to go to heaven and imperiled happiness. Humans must atone. Therefore, happiness during this brief lifetime could point to eternal damnation.

Antoine Arnauld

Jean du Vergier

Leibniz visited with Antoine Arnauld, who succeeded Jean Duvergier de Hauranne as abbot of the Port-Royal-des-Champs abbey. As a diplomat, Leibniz was invited to Paris in 1672. (See Leibniz 1666-1674.) Leibniz had visited France earlier but, in 1672, he met with Antoine Arnauld, the superior at Port-Royal des Champs.

The “sufficient” of “sufficient reason” may well be related to the “sufficient” of “sufficient grace.” But more importantly, neither concept support the likelihood of a “best of all possible worlds.”

RELATED ARTICLE

Casuistry, or how to sin without sinning (5 March 2012) ←

Sources and Resources

Les Provinciales.pdf FR
Les Pensées, Internet Archives FR
The Provincial Letters.pdf EN
Les Pensées is Gutenberg [EBook#18269] EN
The Wager

(My computer was hacked and has not been fully repaired. So this post is not altogether complete. I must discuss free will, Les Provinciales [the syle], original sin, etc. Les Provinciales were published under a pseudonym: Louis de Montalte.)

My best regards to everyone.

Marin Marais: Sonnerie de Ste Geneviève

Thoughts on Descartes & the Latest Events

07 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in Extremism, Philosophy, Rationalism, Terrorism

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Descartes, Immanuel Kant, mental content, Pascal, reason, tabula rasa, The Discourse on Method, The Middle East

Black Stork in a Landscape, ca. 1780 India, probably Lucknow, Colonial British Watercolor on European paper (Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY)

The Tabula rasa: a Rupture

I mentioned René Descartes‘ (15 February 1564 — 8 January 1642) concept of tabula rasa (Discours de la méthode)[1] in a post entitled “There are limits,” says Pope Francis (19 Jan 2015). If I may, I will return to this subject and point to one of history’s most significant ruptures with mental content: Descartes’ tabula rasa. In order to seek truth in the sciences, Descartes cleared the table. He needed a clean slate, proceeded methodically —Descartes uses four steps— guided by reason. In other words, Descartes discarded all that he had learned since birth. The tabula rasa, is the clearing (se raser means to shave) of the table (tabula).

Descartes was a polymath and therefore combined several intellectual abilities, from philosophy to science. However, he defined himself as a scientist, un géomètre, and did so from the moment he wrote his first work, his Regulæ ad directionem ingenii, (the rules for conducting one’s reason; 1628), written in Latin.

Le Discours de la méthode

The Discourse on Method

The Discourse on Method (1637)

In the Discourse, Descartes finds it unavoidable to rid his mind of all knowledge acquired since birth, as this knowledge is not necessarily based on reason, but “desires and our preceptors.”

“And because we have all to pass through a state of infancy to manhood, and have been of necessity, for a length of time, governed by our desires and our preceptors (whose dictates were frequently, while neither perhaps counselled us for best), I farther concluded that it is almost impossible that our judgments can be so correct as they would have been, had our reason been mature from the moment of birth, and had always been guided by it [reason] alone.” (Discourse, p. 10)

Consequently, among Descartes’ personal four rules in seeking the truth,

“[t]he first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.” (Discourse, p. 15)

However, Descartes knew that clearing off the table and marching ahead was dangerous. Galileo (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) had been found guilty of heresy in 1633. Galileo supported Copernicus‘ heliocentrism (the sun is at the centre of the universe) and had determined that the planet earth moved. He had to abjure his findings and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life: 9 years.

Similarly, if Descartes’ quest for the truth in the sciences was to be guided by reason alone, it could lead to observations that might contradict the teachings of the Church, which meant that he too could be tried and found guilty of heresy.

Raif Badawi was condemned to a harsh sentence, possibly death, for asking that liberals in Saudi Arabia be tolerated.

At any rate, the Discourse on Method was not written in France.

“I was in Germany, attracted thither by the wars in that country which have not yet been brought to a termination; and as I was returning to the army from the coronation of the emperor, the setting in of winter arrested me, and was besides fortunately undisturbed by my care or passions, I remained the whole day in seclusion¹ with full opportunity to occupy my attention with my own thoughts.”
¹ literally in a room heated by means of a stove.—Tr. (p. 10)

In fact, Descartes (adjectival form: Cartesian) spent most of his life in the more tolerant Dutch Republic.

Mental Content

The tabula rasa could be considered a conscious removal of knowledge acquired since birth. Descartes could do this. But his rationalism was critiqued and criticized. As Pascal (19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662) wrote, there are two entrances to the soul, l’esprit de finesse and l’esprit de géométrie, which I will translate as instinct and “pure reason,” a term I am borrowing from Immanuel Kant‘s Critique of Pure Reason(1781). Kant critiqued Descartes. Descartes, however can at least be credited with setting about his research using an uncluttered mind.

One cannot expect a tabula rasa on the part of persons whose thinking is rigid: extremists, fundamentalists, terrorists, racists, etc.

There is nothing reasonable about the burning alive of an innocent Jordanian pilot, locked in a cage. There is nothing reasonable in the pain he was subjected to. Nor is there anything reasonable in filming the dreadful event for a father to view and die a thousand times.

I pity the converts who have flocked to the Middle East only to watch the raping and killing of children, serial cold-blooded beheadings and the burning alive of captured Jordanian Lieutenant Muath al-Kasasbeh. In the 21st century, no faith should allow depravity incarnate, and this is depravity incarnate.

I have already quoted King Abdullah II:

“King Abdullah of Jordan described ISIS today [5 February 2015] as a ‘criminal and misguided group which is not related in any shape or form to our great faith.’” (Daily Mail, UK)

As for Safi al-Kasasbeh, Muath al-Kasasbeh’s father, he is asking for revenge.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/father-of-burned-jordan-pilot-muath-alkasasbeh-demands-revenge-20150205-136fmg.html

We can all understand, but revenge has its price…

The Muslim world has just had its 9/11. So has Japan.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters, Francisco Goya (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Raif Badawi

Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is again before a court. I believe there’s hope for Mr Badawi. He has not been flogged since King Salman ascended to the throne. King Salman is an absolute monarch. He may pardon Mr Badawi. However, ideally, a court should find Raif Badawi innocent.

Saudis are attached to their customs, customs Europeans and other people may look upon as barbaric, but… In view of the burning alive of a Jordanian pilot and the grief of his father and family, the people of the Middle East may feel more divided on the subject of torture, but I am speculating. All we know is that ISIS crossed the line, and that the conflict has taken on new dimensions.

Human Rights

Freedom of speech is a Human Right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]

Moreover, flogging Raif Badawi is torture and, therefore, a second infringement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Flogging can kill and it has.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/what-actually-happens-when-you-get-flogged-death

At the moment, however, humanity is in violation of several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Conclusion

We have a better self both as individuals, i.e. individually, and as nations, collectively. At the individual level, it’s called the soul, the conscience, compassion… That has been trampled upon. At the collective level, our better self has at times been called “justice.” Justice? That has also been trampled on and it varies from country to country:

Vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà.
Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error beyond.
Pensées, Blaise Pascal (posthumous)

My dear mother once remarked that I was fortunate to work in a morally superior institution: a university. I told her the truth. Universities are human institutions and, therefore, they are at times very difficult milieus. My universities have asked me to do what they have also prevented me from doing.

And if King Salman does not release Raif Badawi, love has died. Or is reason faltering?

I apologize for recycling images.

I hope this was my last post on this subject and wish all of you a good weekend.

RELATED ARTICLES

Thoughts on Descartes & the Latest Events (7 January 2015)
Muath al-Kasasbeh burned alive: fathers grieve (4 February 2015)
Comments on Racism (2 February 2015) (mental content)
President Obama in Saudi Arabia (29 January 2015)
An Incident in Quebec: Raif Badawi (25 January 2015)
An Appeal to King Salman of Saudi Arabia (23 January 2015)
On Freedom of Speech: from Pope Francis to Raif Badawi (21 January 2015)
“There are limits,” says Pope Francis (19 January 2015)
Raif Badawi: Flogging Postponed (16 January 2015)
“Je suis Raif:” an Appeal to King Abdullah (14 January 2015)
Paris Besieged: an “Assault on Reason” (12 January 2015)

Sources and Resources

Descartes’ Œuvres complètes, Le Discours de la méthode is the Gutenberg Project [EBook #13846] (V. Cousin; 1824 – 1826) (FR)
Descartes Discourse on Method is an Internet Archive publication (EN)
Pascal’s Pensées is the Gutenberg Project [EBook #18269] (EN)
Pascal’s Pensées is an Internet Archive publication (Édition princeps des Pensées, publiée en 1669 – 1670 par MM. de Port-Royal.) (FR)

Photo credit: Internet Archives (Descartes)

_________________________

[1] René Descartes, André Bridoux (ed), Œuvres complètes (Éditions Gallimard, Collection de la Pléiade, 1953). (my copy)

[2] The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights /Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme (UDHR) was adopted on 10 December 1948 and ratified on 16 December 1949.

Maher Zain – Number One For Me | Official Music Video

Ensaf Haidar, Raif Badawi’s Wife

The Versatile Blogger Award: the Rules

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in Sharing

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

France, Montesquieu, Nomination, Pascal, Publishers, Versatile Blogger

I was nominated for this award by tuttacronaca on 28 January 2013. “Versatile” is a word people have often used to describe me. I have taught many subjects. I therefore became a “versatile” teacher. As for my students, if I mentioned Montaigne and Montesquieu when teaching Pascal, they thought I was “jumping around.” I wasn’t. All three wrote about the relativity of laws.

I thank tuttacronaca most sincerely. He is an extremely versatile blogger. In fact so are most of my readers. They read my posts despite the diversity of subjects. Diversity was Jean de La Fontaine‘s motto.

Choosing nominees is not easy. For instance, two of my nominees for the Versatile Blogger could have been Sunshine award nominees. And two of my Sunshine Award nominees could have been Versatile Blogger nominees. But most of my Sunshine award nominees are versatile bloggers and vice versa.

Nominating a WordPress colleague for an award is a way of telling that colleague that I enjoy his or her posts. I simply wish I could have nominated more of my WordPress colleagues.

There are rules

I apologize. I forgot to provide the rules.

First, you must link back to me. You may do this by writing a comment when you receive this post.

Second, You must reveal seven facts about yourself.

Third, You must nominate ten other blogs.

My nominees are:

Clanmother http://clanmother.com/
ABC of Spirit Talk http://abcofspiritalk.wordpress.com/
George b. http://euzicasa.wordpress.com/
Jueseppi B. http://theobamacrat.com/
Sherene Schmidtler http://printsensephotography.com/
David Kanigan Lead.Learn.Live. http://davidkanigan.com/
Becoming Madame http://becomingmadame.wordpress.com/
AshiAkira http://ashiakira.wordpress.com/
Nitin Vaghela http://remediesforhealth.wordpress.com/
Fiammisday http://fiammisday.com/

About me

In my opinion, we should pay more attention to the education of little children.
Facts are essential, but my main goal as a teacher was to encourage students to widen their horizon and see the many facets of subjects we were discussing.
Living in France had a permanent influence on the manner I dress, cook, live and think.
I have had fine friendships with exceptional men.
I fear extremists.
I am a pianist and an artist, which may demonstrate versatility.
My chief cause is peace.

I love you all.

composer: Joseph Haydn (31 March 1732 – 31 May 1809)

piece: Serenade

The Versatile Blogger Award

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in Sharing

≈ Comments Off on The Versatile Blogger Award

Tags

France, Montesquieu, Nomination, Pascal, Versatile Blogger, Versatile Teacher

Nominating a WordPress colleague for an award is a way of telling that colleague that I enjoy his or her posts. I simply wish I could have nominated more of my WordPress colleagues.

My nominees are:

Clanmother http://clanmother.com/
ABC of Spirit Talk: http://abcofspiritalk.wordpress.com/
George b. http://euzicasa.wordpress.com/
Jueseppi B. http://theobamacrat.com/
Sherene Schmidtler http://printsensephotography.com/
David Kanigan Lead.Learn.Live. http://davidkanigan.com/
Becoming Madame http://becomingmadame.wordpress.com/
AshiAkira http://ashiakira.wordpress.com/
Nitin Vaghela http://remediesforhealth.wordpress.com/
Fiammisday http://fiammisday.com/

About me

In my opinion, we should pay more attention to the education of little children.
Facts are essential, but my main goal as a teacher was to encourage students to widen their horizon and see the many facets of subjects we were discussing.
Living in France had a permanent influence on the manner I dress, cook, live and think.
I have had fine friendships with exceptional men.
I fear extremists.
I am a pianist and an artist, which may demonstrate versatility.
My chief cause is peace.

I love you all.

composer: Joseph Haydn (31 March 1732 – 31 May 1809)

piece: Serenade

Phèdre’s “Hidden God”

08 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in French Literature, Literature, The Human Condition

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

Blaise Pascal, Jansenism, Lucien Goldmann, Pascal, Pensées, Phaedra, Phèdre, Port-Royal-des-Champs

Phèdre and Thésée, by Léon Bakst, 1923

I believe I should write more on Jean Racine‘s Phèdre (1677).

In 1955, Jewish Romanian scholar Lucien Goldmann (1913, Romania – 1970, Paris) published a study of Pascal and Racine he entitled Le Dieu caché ; étude sur la vision tragique dans les Pensées de Pascal et dans le théâtre de Racine, Paris : Gallimard, 1955. The Hidden God; a study of the Tragic Vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s Theater. The notion of a “hidden god” is an insightful description of Pascal’s Pensées and also constitutes a bold depiction of Racine’s Phèdre inability to help herself.

Phaedra is at the mercy of an unkind destiny and her depravity stems largely from her mother’s, Pasiphaë. Pasiphaë sinned by engaging in sexual intercourse with a bull. Consequently, Phaedra and Ariadne are half sisters to the Minotaur, a zoomorphic monster, a monster combining human and animal characteristics. It is as though they were stained.

Yet Phèdre is the granddaughter of Helios, the Sun, the daughter of Minos, king of Crete and son of Zeus. So, despite her mother’s bestiality, one hopes that Phaedra will be redeemed by other and nobler ancestors, but her sense of guilt turns them into judges.

Blaise Pascal

Jansenism & Port-royal-des-champs

Phèdre’s inability to fight destiny is linked with Jansenism. The theological doctrine of Jansenism is often associated with philosopher, theologian and scientist Blaise Pascal (19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662), the author of the masterful Lettres provinciales, eighteen letters written under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte. Pascal was motivated to write Les Provinciales (1656-1657) when fellow Jansenist and friend Antoine Arnauld, from Port-Royal-des-Champs, was condemned by the Sorbonne‘s Faculty of Theology for views that were considered heretical.

But, although Pascal, a Jansenist, wrote Les Provinciales, as explained below, we are looking at a seventeenth-century revival, by Cornelius Jansen, of a doctrine rooted in the theology of Augustine of Hippo and which had a location, the convent of Port-Royal-des-Champs, near Paris.

Jean Racine, by François de Troy

Racine at Port-Royal-des-Champs

Racine, the author of Phèdre, was educated at Port-Royal-des-Champs and had therefore been exposed to Jansenism. Jansenists believed in predestination and emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace. (Jansenism, Wikipedia). So Phèdre is helpless. She says that “Le crime d’une mère est un pesant fardeau” (A mother’s crime is a heavy burden), a burden she fears her children will also bear (III, 3, 364) as one bears the original sin and as she bears her own mother’s depravity. Moreover, she is not rescued by divine grace (or efficacious grace). Phèdre’s god is a “hidden god.”

Augustine of Hippo and Cornelius Jansen

Jansenistic theology is rooted in the theology of St Augustine (354 – 386) or Augustine of Hippo. However, as indicated above, its “modern” father is Cornelius Jansen or Jansenius, (28 October 1585–6 May 1638), the Dutch Bishop of Ypres (Belgium). It did not spread beyond France and, to a very large extent, it was a reaction against Jesuit casuistry which, quite literally, allowed one to sin without sinning. (See Related Articles, at the foot of this post.

Pelagianism: a Heresy

The debate centered on the matter of grace and, by extension, on the topic of free will. An extreme and heretical view was that of Pelagius (c. 350 – c. 420). Pelagius believed that all Christians could be saved using their free will. This doctrine, called pelagianism, was condemned because it negated the need for divine grace and also negated the original sin. It therefore had affinities with the laxity of seventeenth-century Jesuits.

Pelagius was opposed to Augustine of Hippo’s conviction that salvation was not possible without divine grace (called grâce efficace). Inextricably linked with Augustine’s teaching is the concept of predestination which limits a Christian’s ability to save himself. Jansenism took this view to an extreme replicating Augustine’s insistance that Christian salvation depends on divine grace.[i]

I will go no further on the above, as the entire debate gets too complicated. Simply expressed and put in a nutshell, Jansenism conveys a very pessimistic view of a Christian’s ability to determine his or her fate, which is at the heart of Phèdre’s despair. She views herself as the worst of sinners in a universe filled with gods who are her ancestors and will not help her. Again, her god is a hidden god.

Jansenism was crushed by the bull Unigenitus, issued by Pope Clement XI in 1713.

_________________________

[i] The best information I have gathered on the quarrel between Jansenists and the Jesuits is La Querelle entre les jansénistes et les jésuites, featured on the website of the Jesuits of France and written in French.

Henry Purcell (1659-95)

The Fairy Queen, Z.629 (1692)
“O let me weep” (The Plaint)

Philippe Jaroussky

415PX-~1

8 March 2012

WordPress

Pietà

El Greco

A Few Words on Sprezzatura

21 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in French Literature, Salons

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Baldassare Castiglione, Book of the Courtier, Cicero, France, honnête homme, Pascal, Plato, Salons

Sprezzatura

In The Aristocrat as Art,[i] Domna Stanton states that “the quintessential prototype of the honnête homme was the Greek philosopher, the incarnation of virtue, of the golden mean, and the source of such fundamental notions as human sociability. It was only as eminently social beings, devoid of pedantry, that Greek philosophers earned the label honnête: ‘People can only imagine Plato and Aristotle in the long robes of pedants,’ protested Pascal.”

The Music Party (1738) Jean-André Portail, J Paul Getty Museum

In seventeenth-century France, l’honnête homme practiced a degree of sprezzatura, an art that did not seem to have been learned or “art that does not seem to be art.” For instance, as François VI, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac (15 Septembre 1613 – 17 March 1680) wrote « L’honnête homme ne se pique de rien. » Maximes 203 (L’honnête homme [the courtier] never boasts [or is never “piqued”] about anything).[ii] We can therefore assume that, conversely, l’honnête homme is also capable of containing his anger: un peu de retenue (take it easy).

In this respect, Molière‘s Philinthe (Le Misanthrope) is the embodiment of honnêteté. At court or in one of the salons of seventeenth-century France, he would not tell a woman that she has applied too much makeup. This would be the truth, or what Alceste the misanthrope calls sincerity, but it would also be offensive. In such cases, l’honnête homme practices a morally acceptable form of mental reservation, so as not to hurt another human being, in which he is behaving according not only to the dictates of honnêteté, but also according to a moral or ethical code. « Le style c’est l’homme même. » (Georges-Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon)

There can therefore be communion between galant behaviour and the respect due every human being, whatever his or her place in society. It is called charity and there cannot be grace, grazia, sprezzatura, honnêteté, where there is no charity or compassion. In seventeenth-century France, deceptive appearances, Pascal’s puissances trompeuses, were considered the greatest of ills. It remains however that honnêteté, cannot be altogether superficial. One cannot play honnête homme no more than one can feign devotion.

In Molière‘s Tartuffe, no one is fooled by the falsely devout Tartuffe, except Orgon, a pater familias who needs to be tyrannical with impunity and his mother. Everyone else knows that Tartuffe is a faux-dévot (falsely devout) except Orgon who needs a casuiste under his roof so he can sin with impunity while Tartuffe eats heartily and coveits his wife. He tells her that he knows how to lift scruples; that if she fears offending God (le Ciel [heaven]), this is an obstacle he can remove. (IV.5)

If every member of Orgon’s family, other than Orgon himself, can detect hypocrisy where hypocrisy there is, l’honnête homme will quickly see affectation in a would-be honnête homme, which would exclude this would-be honnête homme from the state of grace he would like to achieve. Grace has to be natural or internalized in the manner most of us internalize what we are taught as children. L’honnête homme is an honest man and among his virtues, we find a sense of justice and the realization that one has duties or obligations.

Virtus, humanitas, justice, and obligations

Baldassare Castiglione himself, the author of El Libro del Cortegiano (1528), quotes Quintilian‘s De Oratore (95 CE) who in turn quotes Plato‘s Phædrus:

“In Book II, Quintilian sides with Plato’s assertion in the Phædrus that the rhetorician must be just: ‘In the Phædrus, Plato makes it even clearer that the complete attainment of this art is even impossible without the knowledge of justice,’ an opinion in which I heartily concur.” (Quintilian 2.15.29, quoted in Wikipedia)

Castiglione had also read Cicero‘s (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) recently translated (1511) De Officiis (On Duties or On Obligations). According to Cicero, our courtier has duties or obligations.

Noble Birth and sprezzatura: inneism (adjective: innate)

In Italy, the common belief was that the courtier had to be an aristocrat. Yet Castiglione notes that honnêteté coud be innate, but that one could also be innately incapable of honnêteté:

Truth it is, whether it be through the favour of the starres or of nature, some there are borne endowed wyth suche graces, that they seeme not to have bene borne, but rather facioned with the verye hand of some God, and abounde in all goodnesse bothe of bodye and mynde. As againe we see some so unapte and dull, that a man wyl not beleve, but nature hath brought them into the worlde for a spite and mockerie. (First Book of The Book of the Courtier)[iii]

Consequently, noble birth did not guarantee sprezzatura. It is altogether possible to be “borne endowed wyth suche graces” just as it was entirely possible for nature to deny an individual the possibility to acquire sprezzatura. “As againe we see some so unapte and dull, that a man wyl not beleve, but nature hath brought them into the worlde for a spite and mockerie.” (quoted above)

Seventeenth-Century French salons

In this respect, it should be noted that one of the goals of French seventeenth-century salons, before and after runaway préciosité consisted in teaching aristocrat good manners. One does not clean one’s teeth at table using a hunting knife as a toothpick. Many aristocrats were soldiers whose manners left a great deal to be to be desired.

In fact, when Catherine de Rambouillet, “l’incomparable Arthénice (an anagram of Catherine),” (1588 [Rome] – 2 December 1665), opened her salon, rue Saint-Thomas- du-Louvre (between the Louvre, the King’s castle before Versailles was built, and the Tuileries), she provided a meeting-place for individuals who wanted to be in refined surroundings and speak well. Court had yet to be courtly. For instance, Marie de’ Medici, Henri IV’s wife, was not the sort of person well-mannered individuals would invite to dinner. For one thing, she spoke atrocious French.

So both aristocrats and bourgeois found their way to la chambre blue d’Arthénice, Madame de Rambouillet’s blue room, and mingled with one another. Pascal, La Fontaine, Charles Perrault, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, etc. were honnêtes hommes, but not aristocrats. There is an aristocracy above aristocracy: an aristocracy of the mind and of the soul.

Speech: l’Âge de l’éloquence

Speaking well, éloquence, was central to honnêteté.[iv] Quintilian (c. 35 – c. 100) was the author of Institutio oratoria (95 CE) and Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC) De Oratore (55 BCE). L’honnête homme, practiced contenance, réserve, retenue, discrétion, sagesse, modération, but above all he spoke and wrote well. Buffon was elected to the Académie française (1753) mostly one the basis of his Discours sur le style (“Discourse on Style”), which he had pronounced before the Académie française. Let us hear him speak about writing: “Writing well consists of thinking, feeling and expressing well, of clarity of mind, soul and taste…. The style is the man himself” (“Le style c’est l’homme même”). Buffon had detractors, but if one cannot express a thought, does the thought exist… Thoughts have to be formulated.

Richelieu and the French Academy

It is in no way surprising that the first French academy was l’Académie française, established in 1635 by le Cardinal Richelieu. The French Academy, the first of the five academies, ruled over matters pertaining to language. Richelieu could not let language be didacted by salonniers and salonnières, people who attended seventeenth-century Salons (see Catherine de Rambouillet), where Préciosité flourished. A calamity!

With respect to language, see The Book of the Courtier.

However, the points I want to make are

that, it all likelihood, sprezzatura, in France, went beneath the surface. If the courtier had put on an act, everyone would have known, and he would have fallen from grace, so to speak.
I also wish to state that some people had the ability to learn grace, honnêteté, sprezzatura, while others didn’t: nature played a role;
that one’s aristocratic lineage did not guarantee the possibility of attaining elegance and sociability, i.e. some aristocrats were rotten apples from, perhaps, the moment of conception;
that, conversely, as the French believed, a bourgeois could become an honnête homme, honnêteté being independent of lineage;
that humanitas and virtus are linked to honnêteté;
that the good orator (language) was an honnête homme;
that nonchalance (the term is misleading) is a form of reserve, retenue and often appropriately-applied restriction mentale, as mentioned above;
that the idea of courtly behaviour evolved as it travelled from Italy to its various destinations, and, finally,
that courtly behaviour predates The Book of the Courtier. It belongs to a tradition. It is chevaleresque behaviour: chivalry and it dates back to Græco-Roman Antiquity.

I will therefore close by quoting, once again, Wikipedia’s entry on Baldassare Castiglione.

[t]he perfect gentleman had to win the respect and friendship of his peers and of a ruler, i.e., be a courtier, so as to be able to offer valuable assistance and advice on how to rule the city. To do this, he must be accomplished—in sports, telling jokes, fighting, poetry, music, drawing, and dancing—but not too much. To his moral elegance (his personal goodness) must be added the spiritual elegance conferred by familiarity with good literature (i.e., the humanities, including history). He must excel in all without apparent effort and make everything look easy.

[i] Domna C. Stanton, The Aristocrat as Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), p. 14.

[ii] # 203: He is really wise who is nettled at nothing. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9105/9105-h/9105-h.htm

[iii] Baldassare Castiglione, Sir Thomas Hoby (tr.) and Sir Walter Raleigh (ed.), The Book of the Courtier (London: David Nutt Publisher, 1900[1561]). http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/courtier/courtier1.html

[iv] Marc Fumaroli, L’Âge de l’éloquence (Paris: Albin Michel 1994 [1980]).

—ooo—

Scarlatti, Domenico (26 October 1685 – 23 July 1757)

Sonatas K1, K2, K3, for harpsichord