The controversy around the French classicism of the XVII century. Historiography of the issue.

Zaótseva Nataliya Vladimirovna PhD in Art History Director General, "Voyager" LLC 194100, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Kharchenko, 1, kv. 34 nvzaytseva@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Issues of style in art are fundamental issues of modern aesthetics, since style is put forward in a number of main categories of art, acting as a principle of the organization of aesthetic form. It is no coincidence that over the past century, the attention of numerous foreign and domestic researchers has been drawn to the XVII century - the beginning of the history of literature and art of modern times ^[1]. 

The discussion about classicism is partly a discussion about the formation of the mentality of modern times, and, more importantly, "the ability of an intellectually developed person to perceive the world in different stylistic systems, as well as in different historical layers of his vision"^{[2, p. 83]}.  Therefore, in the XVII century, researchers see the roots of many modern problems and, in particular, stylization, styling, eclecticism of modern art ^{[3, p. 171]}. 

Indeed, the XVII century seems to be the most grateful material for a discussion about style and the possibility of coexistence of two or more aesthetic concepts, because at this time two great styles arise that will develop and transform in the following centuries and will determine the development of European art for many decades - classicism and Baroque.  

      The controversy that has developed around the question of French classicism of the XVII century over the past hundred years, in Soviet times remained outside the sphere of attention of domestic scientists. Understanding the imperfection of the concept of classicism, the complexity and even the paradoxical nature of the epoch, Russian science has launched a discussion in the plane of "baroque" - "classicism" ^[4]. Having accepted the concept of classicism proposed by the XIX century, many of the scientists overlooked the revision of the classical theory, which was carried out around the same time in European science.  And since in recent years modern researchers have raised both terminological and aesthetic problems of French classicism, it seems relevant to consider the controversy around the classical tradition and the correctness of the use of the term "classicism" in relation to French art of the XVII century. 

     It is necessary, first of all, to turn to the lexical analysis of the terms "classical" and "classicism". In French, they correspond to "classiqu" and "classicisme". The appearance of the term "classical" dates back to the XVII century and over the following centuries it received additional lexical meanings from "exemplary" to "classical authors who are based in the work of aesthetic rules of rigor and clarity of style, imitation of ancient authors." 

     Vladislav Tatarkevich in the article "Four meanings of the word "classical" ^{[5, pp. 6-16]}, published in 1958, performs a lexical analysis of the controversial term.  Based on this analysis, it becomes obvious that until the XIX century there was no meaning of the word "classical" in the modern sense. The first lexical meaning of "classical" as "first-class" or "best" term acquires in the Middle Ages. The second - the synonym of "antique" appears in the Renaissance era. The third - "the one who follows the antique manner" appears at the beginning of the XIX century in the era of Romanticism as an opposition to the romanticism of the old tradition. And the last meaning of "classical" - "an author whose works have the qualities of harmony, measure and balance" appears in the second half of the XIX - early XX century ^{[5, p.185]}. The lexical analysis performed by V. Tatarkevich clearly demonstrates that we are dealing with a late exogenous concept. Thus, "classical" is rather a qualitative term that gives an assessment of works of art or an era in relation to another era.

"Classicism", according to P. A. Tresova, "is not a qualitative, but a functional concept, it expresses a certain tendency of artistic thinking based on the desire for simplicity, clarity, rationality, logic of the artistic image" ^[4]. Classicism is based on a literary and historical concept. This is a historical term that was invented in the era of Romanticism by the Romantics themselves, who wanted to distance themselves from the previous era. They opposed their aesthetic concept based on feelings and the expression of passions to the ideas of harmony, measure and reason. Thus, this term appears as the antithesis of Romanticism.

       At the end of the XIX century, these ideas were picked up by historians and publicists of the Third Empire as some universal ideas that characterize the flourishing of French culture. Claude Dijon wrote about the social and political crisis that prompted the creation of such a concept in the book "The German Crisis in the French Consciousness of 1870-1914" ^[6].  During this historical period, classicism began to be contrasted with the Baroque in order to highlight French art, emphasize its originality and its inherent features, such as purity of style, conciseness, rigor. Therefore, the term "classicism" begins to be used in relation to the century of Louis XIV to denote a certain peak of national art. 

      Empiricism is an inductive method of cognition, established in scientific thought in the XVIII century, in the XIX century carries out the transfer of the principles of research from the natural sciences to art studies. Since the end of the XIX century, art criticism and philosophical thought has tried to reduce the analysis of art transformations to a certain scheme, for which the concepts of styles are introduced into scientific circulation: Gothic, classicism, Baroque. Based on this principle, the concept of style goes from analyzing the mass of samples to generalization, as a result, style is perceived as a pattern of shaping. The school of Heinrich Weflin was founded on the system of formal signs and elements of the organization of works of art, which proceeded precisely from this approach: "An excellent task of the scientific history of art is to keep alive at least the concept of such a uniform vision, overcoming incredible confusion and setting the eye in a firm and clear attitude to the visible" ^{[7, p. 10]}. 

    Classicism is perceived at this time as "imitation of antiquity, the cult of verisimilitude, beauty, the search for an order system, clarity, balance, based on the perfection of forms and cost savings" ^[8]. The well-established and logical scheme of French classicism or the "golden age" of French art, proposed in the works of scientists of the late XIX - early XX century, has been firmly included in textbooks, starting with Auguste Despres ^[9]. and ending with Gustave Lanson's "History of French Literature" ^[10], one of the most authoritative works of the XX century. In them, the art of the Louis XIV era was defined as "classical art" with a coherent system of orders and rules. Everything that did not fall under the definition of "classical" in the XVII century was referred to as "precious" without an exact formulation of what it is ^{[11, p. 19]}.  

     However, this scheme had a number of disadvantages. First of all, it was based on the concept of the unchangeable and permanent world, on the philosophy of Aristotle. In art, this was expressed in following some ideal antique models.

    The second controversial aspect is the primacy of reason, rationalism, which was interpreted as it was understood in the XIX century. However, the understanding of rationalism by Descartes himself and his contemporaries was different than in the XVIII and, even more so, in the XIX century.  The complex aesthetics of the XVII century cannot be reduced only to rationalism. A. F. Losev warns about this, arguing about rationalism and empiricism of the XVII century: "it is possible to characterize with the help of such categories the very complex and intricate aesthetics of the XVII and XVIII centuries only on the basis of the predominance of one principle over another, but not on the basis of exclusivity and not on the basis of the unconditional difference of the aesthetic systems created here" ^{[12, p.336]}. 

    The third aspect that will be criticized is the search for rules in the classical doctrine and their subordination both in social life (the hierarchy inherent in society) and in art, for example, the rules of unity in the theater.  Since a number of works of art created at that time did not fall under this concept. The study of the social structure of French society demonstrates how the hierarchy of the outgoing feudal past was replaced by the monarchy of the classical model. 

   Revision of the theory of classicism of the XIX century begins already in the first decades of the XX century. Under the influence of the "school of Annals", the concept of a cultural model is introduced into scientific circulation, a person with his mental warehouse, a system of values and thoughts is put in the foreground, a new method of studying the system in a holistic anthropo-socio-cultural existence is being developed, the realization comes that the style is not reduced to a set of individual parts, therefore it is necessary to study it holistically. 

     In relation to the XVII century, the process of rethinking the harmonious model of classicism begins with specific authors who until then seemed to be the pillars of the theory of classicism - Boileau, Moliere, Racine, Corneille. Thus, the writer, a specialist in the literature of the XVII century, Professor Rene Bray of the University of Lausanne, was one of the first in the book "The Formation of the classicist doctrine in France" ^[13], published in 1926, expresses the opinion that the classicist doctrine existed long before Boileau and its origins lie in Renaissance Italy. At the same time, Rene Bray is forced to note the curious fact that numerous authors attributed to the pillars of classicism, such as Racine, Corneille, Moliere, La Fontaine, unanimously speak about the desire to please the public, and Boileau himself does not object to this. Thus, the harmonious classicist doctrine of following the rules is somewhat blurred by a different aesthetic, the desire to please the public, which almost all these authors formulate in the preface to the publications. 

    This question so captures Rene Bray as a researcher that in the next book "Boileau. A man of action" ^[14] he consistently destroys the legend of Boileau's classicist doctrine and his merits. Boileau's "poetic art", in his opinion, represents a brilliant synthesis of established ideas, without originality, without nuances, without depth, without method, full of numerous historical errors. The value of "Poetic art" consists only in "verses-maxims that condense thoughts, in satire that gives them life, in the temperament of the poet that animates them." Boileau, he believes, struggled with heroic poetry, burlesque, precision and heroic novels, but he was not the only one in this struggle and, moreover, this literature was already a thing of the past. Boileau's success was great, however, his influence is limited, which leads to the conclusion that "his work could neither create nor change the trends that inspired classical literature"^{[14, p. 151]}. 

    To somehow explain the aesthetics of classicism, Rene Bray directly connects it with Cartesianism and rationalism of thinking: "The XVII century was drawn towards the rules by necessity obeying them, by this submission it legitimized obedience to the cult of reason"^{[13, p. 113]}. However, Henri Reir warns about the danger of such modernization in the understanding of rationalism in the book "What is Classicism?"^[15], published in 1933. Noting the rationalism inherent in classicism, he nevertheless clarifies that in no case can it be "identified with the cult of reason and logic"^{[15, p. 84]}.  

    The ideas of updating and deepening the classicist doctrine, initiated by Rene Bray, were continued by the journalist and poet Francie Bomal. In the books "Feminism in the time of Moliere"^[16] and "Moliere is a precious author"^[17], published in 1923 and 1924, Francisco Bomal consistently expresses a revolutionary idea for that time about the preciousness of the aesthetics of Moliere, traditionally ranked among the pillars of classicism.  According to Bomal, the same Moliere who laughed at the preciosities is in itself a precioso author. It should be noted that in the first half of the XX century, "precision" was understood as the art that does not fit into the framework of classicism, salon art. Being in the court and salon environment, Moliere chooses precise plots, precise ideas and precise language. Later, a specialist in the French theater Claude Burki will continue this idea and in numerous works will call Moliere a gallant author or, using the historical vocabulary of the gallant era, "precious" ^{[18, pp. 189-198]}. 

     As we have seen since the 30s of the XX century, attempts to reduce classicism to rationalism, and the complex processes that took place in the aesthetics of this time to a simple classicist scheme lead to the fact that individual "non-classical" authors begin to fall out of this scheme, whose work, on closer examination, turns out to be close to a different aesthetic. 

     However, the question remains open as to what classicism is, since it is impossible to reduce it only to rationalism. Was this attempt at purification from alien aesthetics, baroque exaggeration, hyperbolicity, whims of fantasy, this striving for naturalness and truthfulness classicism? Simultaneously with the critical analysis and rethinking of the belonging to classicism of individual authors, the researchers turn to the question of the validity of the term "classicism" and the important question of the aesthetics of classicism. 

     In 1929, Daniel Morne's monograph "The History of French Clarity" was published ^[19], dedicated to the transformation of the French language in the first half of the XVII century. The author suggests using the term "clart?" instead of the "overloaded and unclear term "classicism" - clarity. Daniel Morne, revealing the identity of socio-cultural processes taking place in France in the first half of the XVII century, demonstrates the synthesis of language theory and social processes, namely the formation of a secular society under the influence of which language reforms begin. Based on the lexical analysis of literary works, he argues that Malherbe, Vozhla, Guez de Balzac are not classics, but purists who believe that they prefer a poor, but concise, flexible grammar language to a picturesque, but vague language, a language that has become the basis of new literature. In his opinion, the great writers of 1660-1680 did not create a classicist doctrine, it appears much later. 

     Following Daniel Morne, who replaced the term "classique" with the term "clarity", Bernard Dorival ^[20], speaking about the overload and bias of the term "classicism", tries to introduce another new term "atticisme" - atticism instead of it. This term, in his opinion, means "economy of the means used, fear of complexity, taste for simplicity, scholarship, instinctive and intentional atticism"^{[20, p. 6]}.

    In the book "Precision refinement in French poetry of the XVII century", published in 1964, Yuspo Fucuyi, dealing with the issues of precision, not only raises the question of the validity of the use of the term "classicism", "the vague concepts of which have been discussed for more than a century", but also points to contradictions in views on classicism, the heterogeneity of this trend in questions of aesthetics. Because along with classical and baroque aesthetics, salon aesthetics flourished at this time ^{[21, 190]}. Thus, according to the author, there was a different literature, a different aesthetic at the same time as the classical one, which does not conflict with it, the aesthetic feature of which is a change of tone, gallant gaiety. 

    It can be stated that by the middle of the XX century the question was raised about the inaccuracy of the term "classical" in relation to the era of Louis XIV and for all researchers it becomes obvious that there is a different aesthetic in the art of the XVII century. 

    Continuing the ideas of Yuspo Fukui about the existence of a second aesthetics, Patrick Dandray again asks the question "What is classicism?" ^[22].  He speaks about the term "classicism" as not quite correct: "To classify one epoch or one work as classical, it means to attach an assessment to an objective name, to combine criterion and subject under one word"^{[22, p. 43]}. In his opinion, this concept does not have the same meaning that we put into the terms "romanticism" or "realism", which do not carry an evaluative moment. The formula "French classicism", on the contrary, gives a certain epoch, namely the second half of the XVII century, the meaning of the absolute and superiority. 

At the same time, Patrick Dundray offers a different explanation for the existence of two aesthetics. Speaking about the classical canons, the author asks a reasonable question, was the author of the classical era puzzled to make his work conform to these laws? There are two ways to understand the canon: as an academic norm, which is based on authority that forms rules and order, and as a game of happy proportionality, embodied in a system of harmonious relationships between the components of one work and external reality, when the rule becomes the "golden rule". These two aesthetic logics have two origins - the state and the individual. Official art, which includes the artistic and literary field in the movement of rationalization and statistic, and lyrical individualized art ^{[22, p. 44]}. Having thus identified two trends and two aesthetics, the author comes to the conclusion that classicism participates in the logic of the "golden rule" and the harmony of proportions. Aesthetic logic, which rules the generation of the 1660s, is rather a system of proportionate order ^{[22, p. 51]}. 

    Allen Mero, in his introductory article to the 1999 exhibition, discussing the style in art in the Mazarin era ^[23], following Bernard Dorival, again suggests replacing the polemical term "classicism" with the term "atticisme" - atticism. In his understanding, atticism is a desire to change art, "a revolution that does not shake the foundations, but is obvious, which, however, went unnoticed" ^{[23, p. 10]}. The author asks the question do we need any terms in order to designate the art that arises between 1645-1660? If so, then the term "atticism" is preferable to all the others, so as not to get confused in the debate about doctrine. This term reminds that this epoch "was the ideal of clarity and grace, and sometimes approached, without knowing it, the most exquisite examples of ancient art" ^{[23, p. 11]}.  Thus, Alain Mero tries to combine the aesthetics of classicism and another aesthetics that is obviously present in this era: "This arrhythmia, the reception of the principle of "about the elusive", which brings a work of art to life. In Parisian atticism there is that wit and that smile that allow him to distance himself from his great models" ^{[23, p.35]}. This "quiet revolution" meant the birth of a new style, a new art.  

     As we can see, arguing about the importance of a correct term, all researchers demonstrate a new philosophical and philosophical foundation, a new look at the meaning and purpose of creativity, which arises in the XVII century. Terminological accuracy is incredibly important for them, because the term leads to aesthetics. In their reasoning, terminological inaccuracy appears as an inaccuracy of the aesthetic concept. 

    The classicist concept deprives art of a full-blooded life, therefore, Columbia University professor Jules Brody in "Classical Readings" suggests returning to classicism what was withdrawn from it in the XIX century ^{[24, p. 14]}. Jules Brody follows the path of the Annals school and sees in the birth of classicism the influence of Neoplatonism, its "metaphysical base: ideas, a system of values, intellectual prerequisites that will help us understand and explain the classicist mentality. Since the absence of this reduces the doctrine of classicism to a system of rules"^{[24, p. 14]}. 

    This is how he views the dilemma between beauty and grace, rules and taste. In his opinion, taste is a form that puts the "spirit of refinement" in the field of aesthetic judgment, it is an intellectual intuition that has the right to be evaluated. Jules Brody believes that French classicism is inseparable from the concept of absolute beauty. However, in the absolute, he sees not the Aristotelian category unchangeable and universal, but the Platonic idea of beauty: "It can be beauty, perfection of style, an example of attractiveness, good taste, the only road that leads the mind to the truth"^{[19, p.13]}. In his opinion, a classicist writer should live in a double faith: "the one that convinces him of the existence of the absolute and another, the same blind, irrational and naive, which says that the human mind is able to rise to the heights of perfection, find it and bring its colors into his works"^{[24, p. 14]}. 

    Analyzing the creative work of the Pleiades and the literary dispute over the "Sid", Jules Brody comes to the conclusion that there are two cultures - the culture of humanism and the scientific one, the founder of which was Descartes, whose work "Reasoning about Method" became a revolution that breaks with the Renaissance past ^{[24, p.56]}. Consequently, he explains the presence of two aesthetics in the French art of the XVII century, on the one hand, by the humanistic heritage and the new Cartesian stream, on the other. 

    In parallel with the research in the field of literature and aesthetics in the XX century, there is a revolutionary shift in the field of studying the social processes of France of the XVII century, the formation of the monarchy of the classical model and court society. At this time, numerous works on the history of secular salons are published. The beginning of this direction was laid by two scientists - Maurice Magendi and Norbert Elias.

   The fundamental work of Maurice Majendie "Secular courtesy and theories of nobility in France of the XVII century from 1600 to 1660" ^[25], published in 1925, considering the genesis of secular and court society, introduces the concept of "l'honn?tet?" (nobility) into scientific circulation as a category of moral and spiritual life, transitioning from the heroic Renaissance ideal to the ideal of a gallant man. 

   Books by the German sociologist and historian Norbert Elias "On the Process of Civilization: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic studies" ^[26], as well as "Court Society: A Study on the Sociology of the King and the Court Aristocracy"^[27] were written simultaneously with the books of Majendi, however, become the property of science only in the 70s of the XX century.

    These works change the vector of research, as they show the emergence of a new cultural model with revolutionary philosophy, aesthetics, ethics, gender relations. They study the processes of transformation of the knightly estate into the court, as a result of which the ideals of nobility and gallantry act as a kind of cement connecting a socially heterogeneous society and consolidating it at the royal throne. Against this background, the dispute about classicism takes a new turn and the problem begins to be considered in a holistic anthropo-socio-cultural aspect. 

    It is not only about the legitimacy of the use of the term or the dispute about aesthetics, but about the allocation of a new gallant ethos, which is formed in France of the XVII century under the influence of socio-political processes. Therefore, many researchers, for example, Paul Benichou in his work "The Morality of the Great Century"^[28], pay attention to the external superficial fascination with antiquity inherent in classicism: "A new power appeared under the antique clothes, feeding on the general progress of life and social relations, which had nothing to do with the ancient heritage" ^{[23, p. 300]}.  

    The new gallant ethos expresses itself in literature and art. The art of being liked becomes the axis around which a new gallant aesthetics develops. Continuing the line of Maurice Magendi, Bernard Tokan in the book "The Idea of the natural in France in the second half of the XVII century" ^[29] takes the next step towards revising the classicist doctrine, enriching it with new concepts, in particular, the ideas of l'honn?tet? (nobility), the theory of "the art of liking". In his opinion, the ideas of the natural embody the aristocratic ideal, which tends to stand out "not at the expense of the triumphant assertion of the anarchic or heroic self, but at the expense of refinement of manners"^{[29, p. 249]}, therefore, since the second half of the XVII century, the aesthetics of taste and the art of pleasing dominate in society and at court. Because of this, strict rules were often opposed to pleasure, "however, things should not be simplified, since great artists have always repeated that rules were only a means to please based on observation, and that the great rule was the art of liking" ^{[29, p. 356]}. 

    Following him, Jean Pierre Den in the book "The Noble Man (l'honn?te homme) and criticism of the aesthetic tastes of society in the XVII century" ^[30] writes about the complex aesthetic views of this era, which do not allow it to fit into a classicist scheme, since the writers of the second half of the XVII century were looking for more opportunities to please the chosen public than to follow the prescriptions Aristotle ^{[30, p. 249]}. He traces how the concepts of "grace" and "beauty" are contrasted in the literature of this time by Vozhl, Menage, Roger de Peel: "Beauty is liked by its rules, grace without rules." Based on this, Jean Pierre Den distinguishes two aesthetic approaches. Beauty is characterized by objectivity, grace by subjectivity. Beauty is static, regular, abstract. Grace, on the contrary, is individual, has a private character. Because of this, the author comes to the conclusion that there were two aesthetics in the XVII century: aesthetics of feeling and aesthetics of reason. Supporters of the classicist doctrine assert a system of external rules and strive to universalize it. Secular writers, on the contrary, viewed the rules as unnatural, violating the order of things. 

    According to Jean Pierre Den, not two philosophies are opposed, but two social worlds: "The gap between two cultural concepts, one humanistic, the other secular, cannot be more apparent. Both by temperament and taste, a noble man and a scientist are at opposite poles" ^{[30, pp. 38-40]}. The culture of "scientists" is mainly a book culture, which leads to closing on itself. The culture of a noble person is a secular culture, which is a declaration of the new, a refusal to repeat the past and traditional values that are studied in offices and colleges" ^{[30, p. 71]}. Thus, like Jules Brody, the existence of two aesthetics in the French art of the XVII century, as well as Jean Pierre Den explains two cultural concepts - humanistic and secular. 

  After these works, a different gallant aesthetic begins to be clearly visible behind the classic facade, which is based not on following the rules, but on the art of liking. 

    However, finally only A. Adam in the article "Baroque and Precision"^[31] proposed to clarify the protracted terminological dispute, to abandon the term "precision", which has been used since the end of the XIX century to refer to salon art.A. Adam explains his departure from the concept of "fine literature" by the fact that in that era they said "gallant" or "flirtatious". The term "gallant", in his opinion, is most consistent with authenticity: "This gallant poetry, the expression of a gallant society, has a very clear character. It is modern, it is modern feelings, it is a modern lifestyle that it expresses. Greek and Latin models don't inspire her. She leaves them for the University, which she despises. Her models are Ariosto, this is Tass, this is Spanish literature of the golden age. It is not aimed at greatness, but at charm. It is written, first of all, for ladies and for refined society. Its purpose is to entertain them, because it is mainly a game" ^{[31, p. 278]}.  

    A. Adam warns of the danger of using inaccurate terms, since this leads to a distortion of aesthetics ^{[32, p.280]}. In his opinion, the aesthetics of rules and regularity was never the only and universally recognized doctrine in the XVII century. The main conclusion that Adam makes was that the XVII century cannot be exhausted by classicism and there were two aesthetics: classicist and gallant, and there was no contradiction between them ^{[31, p. 284]}.

     Remy Seselen also speaks about two aesthetic concepts in the article "From a noble man to a dandy - or from the aesthetics of imitation to the aesthetics of expression" ^[28]. In his opinion, a noble man of the beginning of the XVII century is a product of imitation, the result of a synthesis of nature and art, with an aesthetic that wants art to be an imitation of "beautiful nature" ^{[33, p.11]}. He identifies two poles at which two principles of evaluating a work of art are formed: "One, who seeks only art and rules; another who does not think about it at all, and who aims only to discover instinctively and through reflection what should be liked in all individual plots"^{[33, p.124]}. That is, on the one hand, there are professionals who turn to rules and laws, and on the other hand, representatives of the world, for whom their own taste and reason are more important.       

     Finally, the works of Allen Vial put a relative end to the dispute over classicism. Analyzing the literature and art of the XVII century, Allen Viala comes to the conclusion that classicism is a phenomenon only in the field of art, gallantry is a socio-cultural phenomenon.However, over time, the terms "gallant, gallant art" were pushed into the background by the terms "classicism" and "precision". He attributes the emergence of the term "classicism" to the beginning of the XIX century, the period of the controversy of the adherents of Romanticism. Classicism is what the romantics fought against and what they proposed to replace. In his opinion, "Classicism" is not a scientific concept, this term is polemical in itself ^{[11, p.22]}. 

   The reasons for the slipping, disappearance of the term gallant, its substitution by other categories is devoted to the article by Viall "What is a classic?" ^{[11, pp. 11-24]}. According to the author, in classical Athens and Rome there was no literary and aesthetic doctrine as a single and "classicist" ^{[11, p. 12]}. This was not the case in France either, unless it was roughly manipulated under the model in order to find unity in the works of different authors.

   Alain Viala performs a lexical analysis of the term "classicism" and shows when there was an overflow of concepts: "Classicism was a means of cultivating national feeling. After the defeat in 1870, the policy of revenge required the mobilization of minds"^{[34, p. 131]}. Historians of the XIX century, morally crushed by the defeat in the Prussian war, were attracted by the time of Louis XIV as a time of French domination and the primacy of the national spirit, which served as an impetus for the creation of the theory of classicism.   

   To the question "Is it worth changing the usual terminology?" Alain Viala answers that it is possible to call things by familiar names. But it should be taken into account in this way that the name attracts aesthetics, and, consequently, there is a danger of discovering in the exogenous aesthetics of classicism the endogenous aesthetics of gallantry. 

   The flow of concepts and terminological inaccuracy are rather typical cases in transitional epochs. What Yu.M. Lotman also wrote about, speaking about the post–revolutionary syndrome: "When society passes through this critical point (revolution - N. Z.), and further development begins to be drawn not as the creation of a new world on the ruins of the old one, but in the form of organic and continuous development, history comes into its own again. But here there is a characteristic shift: interest in history has awakened, and the skills of historical research are sometimes lost, documents are forgotten, old historical concepts do not satisfy, and there are no new ones. And here the usual techniques offer crafty help: utopias are invented, conditional constructions are created, but not of the future, but of the past. Quasi-historical literature is being born, which is especially attractive to the mass consciousness, because it replaces the difficult incomprehensible, not amenable to a single interpretation of reality with easily assimilated myths"^{[35, c13]}.

   So it was in France in the XIX century . the complex picture of the art of the XVII century was replaced by the conventional construction of French classicism, understandable and pleasant to the mass consciousness, which was flattered by the idea of the "golden age" or "great century" of French culture. The same things that did not fit into the framework of classicism, salon or secular literature, court art were classified as "precision art", without an exact definition of what it is.

 Thus, since the 30s of the XX century, in studies devoted to the study of French literature and art of the XVII century, a departure from the theory of classicism of the XIX century is planned.

The first stage of this turn is the study of the creativity of the "pillars of classicism", which demonstrated that their work has nothing to do with hierarchical academism and reverence for norms. The desire to please the public, which was initially perceived as the main paradox in the theory of classicism, is further formulated by researchers as the presence of a different aesthetic. 

The next stage - the term "classicism" itself is criticized as late, evaluative, giving this era the meaning of the absolute. As a result, many researchers come to the conclusion that in France of the XVII century there was no literary and aesthetic doctrine as a single and "classical" one.  

   Finally, the third stage of the study is an appeal to a unified anthropo-socio-cultural concept of history, the use of sociological methods to highlight the gallant ethos, on the basis of which it is concluded that classicism is a phenomenon in the field of art, gallantry is not only an artistic phenomenon, but also a social one. 

   In the report "Precision and Gallantry: towards a new cartography"^{[36, p. 18]} Delphinia Denis sums up the discussion that lasted almost a century and a half. In her opinion, there is no more possible confusion on the part of terminological correspondence. Gallantry is an endogenous concept, corresponding to the vocabulary of contemporaries who persistently strive to distinguish it from parasynonyms, and try to give an accurate definition of its various manifestations.