Language reforms in France of the XVII century and the formation of gallant aesthetics.

Zaуtseva 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

The study of language as a carrier of a new aesthetic ideal in the first half of the XVII century in France and language reforms as a consequence of the emergence of a gallant ethos are at the intersection of sociolinguistics, history and cultural studies.  For almost three centuries, French has been not only the language of international communication, like Latin. He carried a new aesthetic, introduced new literature, gave an opportunity to join a new manner of behavior and lifestyle in general. French has become not so much the language of educated people, like Latin, as the language of secular educated people: "it is a polite and gentle language, like the nation itself, which is very well-mannered" ^{[1, p.3]}. In a word, he expressed the ideals of gallantry, good manners and upbringing, which foreigners came to Paris to study.  

 The role and influence of French culture and the French language on the artistic and intellectual life of Russia are demonstrated by numerous scientific conferences, especially over the past decades, which indicates the relevance of the topic: the International Conference "The French in the intellectual and scientific life of Russia of the XIX century" (Paris 2011), the XXII Tsarskoye Selo Scientific Conference "Russia - France. Alliance of Cultures 2016, III International Scientific Conference "France and Russia: around Blaise Pascal" 2018 and so on. However, while numerous studies highlight various aspects of cultural interaction and influence, the reason for such influence is overlooked.

            To explain the phenomenon of the spread of the French language and the influence of French culture not only in Russia, but also in other European countries, it is necessary to return to the language reforms of the XVII century, when the language becomes a reflection of a new aesthetic. Language reforms, in turn, cannot be considered outside the context of the process of the formation of the monarchy of the classical model and the social transformation of society that accompanied these processes. Norbert Elias designated them as a process of transformation of the knightly estate into a courtier, when outdated medieval stereotypes go into the past, the noble estate masters a new courtly role, a gallant ethos is formed, which eventually led to a change in social identity ^{[2, p. 103]}. A person of medieval-Renaissance consciousness, who thinks in the category of home, family, duchy or county, is replaced by a person of the new time, who already refers himself to a certain social group. According to Eleri Sharek, in the 1660s there was a transition from a family mentality to a collective mentality and new social groups appeared ^{[3, p. 122]}. 

            Simultaneously with this socio-economic process, ideological processes took place. The ideas of centralization of the state are spreading more and more, and as a result, in 1634 Richelieu created an Academy, the purpose of which, in the words of Jean Chaplin (1595-1674), was to "work on the purity of the language and raise it to the highest level of eloquence" ^{[4, p. 34]}.  Since the beginning of the XVII century, the historical provinces of France have gradually been deprived of local particularism, including linguistic. Madeleine de Scudery, arguing that true nobility is born only at court, remarks: "All France speaks French, and yet, as you move away from the Court, it subtly changes. When you arrive two hundred leagues from Paris, you find different dialects among the common people and, at least, a foreign accent among noble people who have never left their country. Often this is some other way of speaking. The same goes for the customs of courtesy. They are diverse, but they can only be really good at court. Unless these people are there all the time. For we need a model for all things"^{[5, p.178]}.

            All these social processes come into conflict with existing linguistic norms. Therefore, the process of completing the formation of a classical–style monarchy with a strong royal power cements the ruling elites not only with a new aesthetic or ideology, but the need for language reforms and language unification is brewing: "In a monarchical state, you need to learn to speak the only language - the language of the court, in which all the most worthy things in the kingdom are collected" ^{[6, p. XX]}.

            The next important factor that influenced the reforms is the emergence and spread of Descartes' philosophy. The basis of the new worldview is rationalism, which marks the transition from the Renaissance emotional and imaginative perception of the world to a rational one. Even Francois de Malherbe with his method, proclaiming the language triad "purity, clarity and accuracy", paved the way for a new language culture, the foundations of which were laid by his follower Claude Favre de Vaujla (1585-1650) ^{[7, p. 12]}. He was the mouthpiece of language reforms, and his book "Notes", published by in 1647, it was reprinted many times and dispersed both in France and abroad ^[6].  Realizing that language is an absolutely living thing, Vozhla foresaw that his "Notes" would cease to be relevant in a few years. However, their influence was so great that for almost a century all philologists and writers refer to them as an unconditional authority.  

 Criticism of Scipio Duplex ^[8], Francois de La Mothe Le Vaill?^[9], Marie de Gournay^[10] and partly Gilles Menage ^[11], who advocate greater freedom and less strict rules, did not change the given vector of language reforms.

 Noel Franse, the royal preacher and chaplain in the book "On the courtesy of the French language to speak cleanly and write correctly"^[12], published in 1665, Gilles Menage (1613-1692) in the "Review of the Language" ^{[13, p.76]} continue the research of the Leader. The Jesuit Andre Renaud (?-1702) in the book "The manner of speaking French in different styles"^[14] at the end of the century, he sums up and speaks not only about grammar, but already about the established style, which was established both in France and in Europe, as well as about the aesthetic principles that influenced the language.  The books by Nicolas Andri de Boisreguard (1658-1742)^[15], Paul Taleman (1642-1712)^[16], devoted to new aspects of language reforms, continue the unification of the language in a given vector.

Language reforms affect the entire intellectual elite, both men and women. Gender differences in language are minimized. Rene Bari (?-1680) in the "Rhetoric of the French language", published in 1653, addresses the female circle of readers ^[17], since women invade the inherently masculine space - literature, criticism, moreover, the first female philologists appear. Marguerite Bufe (?-1680) is a philologist, an erudite woman, in her book "New remarks on the French language" sets the task of teaching ladies to speak and read French correctly ^[18].

At the end of the XVII century, Vozhl's "Remarks" were again republished with comments and recognition that the author had created a masterpiece of his kind. The introductory article of the reprint is a panegyric and a statement of the role that Vozhla played in the reforms of the French language ^[19]. Finally, in 1704, the French Academy published a book in which it summed up the century, continuing to clarify the grammatical rules ^[20].

The main distinguishing feature of the new reformed language is that it is formed in the space of salons and courtyards, where different social groups met and several language streams collide. The language of educated people until the beginning of the XVII century was Latin, accessible to a narrow circle of scientists. Outdated Latin rhetoric has influenced spoken French. Therefore, the reformers of the language faced a difficult task - to clear the language of Latin rhetoric, because "the Latin language likes to use words that are opposite and play with their sound and rhythm. The French language is not intended at all for this kind of beauty, since it is more serious or to a greater extent the enemy of pretentiousness" ^{[21, p. 186]}.

The second language stream is the vernacular spoken by a part of the nobility. It should be noted that the knightly estate, on the basis of which the formation of the court society took place, remained mostly poorly educated. Rare pockets of Renaissance culture around an enlightened ruler were rather an exception.  In a letter to Olon, Charles de Saint-Evremont notes this: "I know that in my time, among noble people, only those who were destined for a church career were taught, besides, they were most often content with Latin from the breviary. Those who were destined for a court or military career went honestly to the Academy. There they learned to get on a horse, dance, fight, play the lute, vaulting, a little math and that's it! [...] Latin! In my time! Latin for a noble person would be a disgrace!" ^{[22, p. 137]}.  Telemann de Rio says of the Duke de Montausier, who read a lot as an exception: "He practiced intellectual pursuits too much for a noble man, or at least he did it too seriously" ^{[23, p. 250]}. Chapuzot, confirming this idea, writes in 1674: "All our young aristocrats have not heard of Latin and do not study in colleges. And it is true that they enjoy and benefit from comedy in the language they hear around them" ^{[24, p. 29]}.

Therefore, Nicolas Fare in the "Project for the arrangement of the Academy", talking about the language reform of the Vozhla, notes: "Monsieur de Vozhla tried in his "Remarks" to clear the language of garbage, which he acquired either in the mouths of the people, or in the court crowd, as well as in the filth of crooks or in the poor use of ignorant courtiers, or due to the delusion of those who say the right things correctly from the pulpit, but in a way that should not be to speak"^{[25, p. 20]}.

The language is perceived by the Leader and his followers not as a dogma, but as a living space that is not exhausted by books, since one of its most important components is pronunciation, which can be learned only in communication" ^{[6, p. XX]}. The new gallant culture is a culture of secular communication, which is why "reading is not enough to speak well, since pronunciation, which is part of a living language, requires visiting the yard. The yard is the only school of an infinite number of terms that are constantly included in the practice of small talk and rarely in books," writes Vozhla ^{[6, p. XX]}.

 Very quickly, the correct language becomes a sign of belonging to the ruling elite. The Chevalier de Mer asserts in the middle of the XVII century as an immutable truth that a person who wants to be considered noble or gallant from now on had to not only learn external manners, but also speak the language of the upper world ^{[26, p.141]}.  This view of language is quickly established in the court and secular environment, in communication and correspondence. Describing the language of a particular writer, they talk about his belonging to the court or the world. This is how Bussy-Rabutin writes to Madame de Sevigne about the writer and theologian Rene Rapin, noting his easy witticisms and the language of a "very noble courtier" ^{[27, p. 433]}.

The language becomes an elitist feature, like a sword or a wig. In the book "The Courtesy of the French language", Noel Franse writes that just as an animal differs from a person in speech, so a noble person differs from a commoner in the ability to speak correctly and cleanly ^{[12, p. 35]}. Charles Sorel is ironic about this in the "Laws of Gallantry": "You should always use the most courteous terms that have become a habit at court, expelling everything too pedantic, outdated, you never use it, except as a joke. [...] There is absolutely no need to dig into what grammarians and book creators will say. The most desirable terms are those that are the newest and used by influential people"^{[28, p. 365]}. Francois de Calli?re in the book "Buzzwords or a new way of speaking" ^{[29, p. 2]} demonstrates how a new emerging gallant ethos is distanced through language. In the traditional form of dialogue, several characters converse: a marquise, a duchess, a young court duke, who are opposed by a military commander. Through the mouth of this character, the author criticizes newfangled words. If we skip the didactic passages, then all the dialogues demonstrate the already established traditions of the court language. The Duchess declares that bourgeois and noble people differ in language as well as in origin. To the reproach of the pretentiousness of the language, she objects: "Do you want noble people to speak like commoners?" ^{[29, pp. 20, 42]}.

    Overcoming local particularism, the language unites representatives of the elites in the capital and the province, as the writer Charles Sorel writes, "when you are at Court or in the capital, you need to get rid of the provincial accent in everything" ^{[29, p. 228]}.  This could be achieved, according to Vozhl, either by constantly being at court, or by studying the works of ancient and modern authors. However, the provincials could not always be at the royal court, and acquaintance with the literary heritage requires long-term efforts. By virtue of this  Vozhla comes to the conclusion that philologists are needed, whose role is to popularize new forms, meanings and grammatical norms. The yard produces words, but only if the term coincides with the literary basis, a philologist has the right to introduce it into circulation ^{[6, p. XXI]}.

All this leads to the fact that there is a need for books that explain the new grammatical rules. In the first half of the XVII century, such books were published in large numbers. Only in the review of book publications for 1667, the first two chapters are devoted to publications on the grammar of the French language, various dictionaries, as well as the rhetoric of the French language ^[30]. This indicates the huge demand for this literature in society. So in the book by Francois de Calli?re, published in 1694, the problem of bourgeois who, having established themselves at court, do not imitate the accepted manner of conversation and give rise to ridicule from secular people is discussed. One of the characters, the young duke, indignant at this, speaks about the numerous publications that have been published and continue to be published to help such people ^{[31, p.12]}.

In addition to specialized philological publications, in books on etiquette and the ability to behave in light, the authors introduce chapters on the art of conversation, give examples of conversations and refined expressions, tell about representatives of the third estate who, thanks to the correct language, were able to climb the social ladder ^{[1, p. 206]}.

Correct speech develops into a good tone, which is the same in relation to people standing higher and lower in position. Language begins to demonstrate a person's social position, or rather his belonging to certain circles and embody the aesthetics of a new gallant ethos and a new manner of behavior.  Talking about language, the reformers of the XVII century are not limited to grammatical rules, they talk about concepts such as style and taste.  From the language of gallant aesthetics begins to formulate its laws and principles. It is no coincidence that the philologist Claude Fauvre Vozhla proclaimed the most important principle of the new aesthetics - "the principle of the elusive." In contrast to the classical canons of beauty, new demands are being put forward - grace, something elusive without which any phenomenon of life and art loses its luster. And he called the correct turns of speech "bonne maniere" (good manners). 

Another important requirement of the new aesthetics was the prince of refinement. In relation to the language, Vozhla uses the word "delicat", which means refined in the highest sense. His follower, the Jesuit monk Dominique Buur (1628-1702), in the book "How to understand Intellectual Works correctly", develops a discussion about refinement as the main principle of language and a gallant person ^{[32, p. 213]}. Chevalier de Mer writes about this: "The beauty of language is not less pleasant than the beauty of thoughts [...] it depends much more on the refinement of taste and mind than on the knowledge of words and the ability to speak"^{[33, p. 636]}.

The following aesthetic principle of clarity, conciseness and purity is asserted simultaneously with the spread of Cartesian philosophy. The philosopher writer Remon de Saint-Mar wrote about Descartes: "This method, which seemed to have been created for philosophy, flowed into literature, where more clarity appeared. Ideas were no longer drowned in expressions, there was less excess in our conversations"^{[34, p. 277]}. Continuing the line of Malherbe and Vozhl in their works on the theory and rhetoric of the French language, their followers put forward this aesthetic requirement - the use of words "soft, precise and energetic" ^{[35, p. 5]}.

Clarity of expressions, as opposed to pretentiousness, becomes a sign of good taste, "since they speak in order to express an idea and write in order to present what they are talking about" ^{[12, p. 188]}.  Linguistic purism and the desire for conciseness are finding more and more supporters, combining with the rationalism inherent in Cartesianism: "Only mediocre people who do not know the real beauty of language use wordplay, thinking that these cold hints will become a wonderful decoration of speech. These childishness should not be placed in serious works at all... they are excused with difficulty by respectable people, only in jest, in free conversation," writes another philologist, Abbot Bellegarde (1648-1734) ^{[35, p. 184]}. In his opinion, the purity of speech, the selection of words and expressions is a reflection of clarity of thought: "Not only thoughts are important, the expressions by which these thoughts are expressed are extremely important. [...] We need to choose the most appropriate words to express the idea we want to present. It is necessary to look for words that are pleasant to the ear, that are soft or sublime"^{[1, p. 41]}.

These aesthetic requirements were fundamentally important, since the educated reading public at that time was fond of Italian literature. The reason for this fascination lies in the views that were established in the XVI century on Italy as the cradle of European culture, existing cultural contacts and, as a consequence, a fascination with baroque splendor. The struggle with pretentiousness or purism characterizes the literary disputes of this time.

Margarita Buffet in the book "On the need to speak your language well" states: "The necessary qualities are clarity and purity of conversation, brevity or accuracy, its plausibility and fidelity"^[36]. The Jesuit priest Claude Bufier, in The Grammar of the French Language, notes that throughout Europe, if not all over the world, noble people demonstrate a passion for the French language and believes that it is distinguished from other languages by three things "richness, clarity and conciseness"^{[48, pp. 27-31]}.

 Comparing French with Spanish and Italian, French philologists criticize their pomposity, pretension to greatness, excessive hyperbole, love of loud and diminutive words, addiction to wordplay, as well as flat witticisms "even in matters significant and serious" ^{[37, pp. 20, 26]}. Paying tribute to the great Italian literature (Ariosto, Tass, Guarini, Boccaccio, Petrarch), the writer and philologist Abbe Andre Renaud, nevertheless, writes that Italians strive more to create a beautiful picture of thought than a reliable portrait that can be similar ^{[37, p.27]}. Madame Delembert talks about the dangers of learning Italian, which is "which is poorly honed. In their works, wordplay reigns, imagination without rules, which opposes the judgments of the mind" ^{[38, p. 144]}.

In the dispute about language and style, contrasting themselves with foreigners, French writers, moralists and philologists formulate another aesthetic principle of "natural". In their opinion, the French "even in fiction have something more real and plausible", their expressions are noble and restrained ^{[37, pp. 15, 18]}. The literary style, as well as the manner of conversation, are combined with the idea of naturalness, which is inherent in the whole gallant culture: "If Nature wanted to speak, she would speak in French…Our manner of speaking is the most natural in the world"^{[37, p. 32]}.

Andre Renault reproaches Italians for the lack of naturalness, creating a style "colorful and powdered". In his opinion, Italians resemble an artist who decided to put a lot of gold on his painting. The objects are rich, the painting is decorated, but the artist cannot give it any natural appearance ^{[37, p. 32]}.

 Secular communication, numerous literary salons, which have been in fashion since the beginning of the XVII century, determine the convergence of literary and colloquial speech: "A word is born before writing and it is necessary that what is written is consistent with colloquial speech," says philologist Rene Bari ^{[17, p. 7]}. A person entering the world had to be able not only to speak correctly, to talk beautifully, but also to write elegant letters ^{[17, p. 57]}. From secular naturalness in communication and speech comes the demand for naturalness in literature: "As there is nothing more natural in a person than speech, so nothing should be more natural than its expression. The letter as a true picture should present to our view in the same manner as it reaches the ears [...] Our letter is a written conversation and should have great ease ^{[39, pp. 17-23]}. A secular epistolary genre is developing, it resembles a conversation stretched in time and space.

The term "natural" appears more and more often in literary rhetoric and criticism. Thus, the historiographer of the king and the writer Paul Pelisson believes that most writers tend to a pompous and sublime style, which is much easier than writing calmly and naturally ^{[40, p. 27]}. Naturalness requires additional work, since it is devoid of stilted cliches and speculation on the sublime. In the dialogues, De Vise, describing the poem he liked as "very natural" (fort naturels), emphasizes that this is the main quality of secular poetry ^{[41, p. 210]}.

 Thus, the discussion around language flows into a discussion about style, and it, in turn, about the superiority of new literature. In this respect, a series of literary disputes is indicative. For example, Chaplin's dispute with Vincent Voiture in 1639 about Italian and Spanish poetry, the reason for which was Ariosto's poem. The dispute broke out around Petrarch's preference for Cervantes. Voiture, with his work, "scattered all the stilted Petrarkism to dust" and appreciated the genius of Cervantes, who showed how Petrarkism collided with reality ^{[42, p. 87]}. Chaplin in this dispute refers as an arbitrator to Guez de Balzac "Monsieur Voiture cannot bear that I prefer Italian poetry to Spanish" ^{[43, p. 87]}.. 415]. Balzac answers him: "Is it possible, having at least a drop of taste, to prefer Spanish poets to Italian ones, and choose the beauty of some kind of Lope de Vega to reasonable compositions?" ^{[44, p. 171]}. However, soon he writes "About characters and moralizing in comedy" ^{[45, p. 265]}, in which he opposes everything unnatural, exaggerated, in other words, what characterizes Baroque literature. He complains that "our poets are looking for brilliance and power where clarity and softness are needed"^{[45, p. 265]}. And he claims that there is nothing close to life in these works: artificial characters, borrowed passions, obscurity of action.  In continuation of this, one can cite the example of the dispute that unfolded after Voiture's death around his poem in the new style "Urania" and the poem of the more sublime and high-flown "Job" Benserad.

In the same vein, as a search for theoretical justifications for the assertion of a new aesthetics, it is possible to consider the dispute between the "ancient" and the "new". This is a dispute about tradition and progress, taste and absolute ideals or ideas, the assertion of the superiority of the French language and literature over the best examples of the past and the justification of the aesthetic superiority of modern French writers over the "ancient". This is a dispute between those who saw the decline in the modern monarchical state in comparison with the "golden age" of the past and those who proposed the concept of historical evolution. Charles Perrault, Fontenelle, and Udar de Lamothe opposed the unconditional authority of antiquity.

  Gradually, the idea of the superiority of the French language and, as a result, the superiority of the new gallant model is being established.  Louis Auguste Aleman (1653-1728) in the book "A New Review or the Civil War in France about the language" speaks about the dominance of French at all courts. In his opinion, the French language established "a universal monarchy not only over other languages, but also over other nations"^[46]. And the book of the writer Francois Charpentier (1620-1702) is called "On the superiority of the French language"^[47]. The Jesuit, philosopher and philologist Claude Bufier (1661-1737) writes about this in "New Aspects of the grammar of the French language"^[48].

Andre Renaud repeats the same idea: "Our language is the only one that combines all the beauties of all other languages"^{[49, p. 35]}. That is why, the author concludes, French is spoken at all courts. Comparing with Latin, Andre Renault justifiably argues that if you combine all those who speak French, there will be many more of them than those who speak Latin. In his opinion, the French language at the moment, instead of Latin, has the right to claim universality. Samuel Chapuzot states in 1674 that all Asia and all European countries speak French and at foreign courts they take credit for the ability to speak as they speak in the Louvre ^{[50, p. 62]}.

It is as the language of a new gallant ethos, embodying new aesthetic ideals, modern models of behavior and a view of the world, that the French language is spreading throughout Europe. Chapuzot claims that many foreigners come to France in order to learn the secular appearance and language of noble people, because now there are almost no courtyards in Europe where aristocrats do not speak French^{[51, p. 49]}. Gilles Menage, in the introduction dedicated to the Chevalier de Mer, speaking about the superiority of the French language, very accurately connects it with the monarchy and the attractiveness of the gallant model: "Thanks to the conquests of our king, who pushed the borders of the French empire from all sides, the wonders of his life, which attracts everyone to France from all parts of the world, our language is being studied by everyone today foreigners ^{[52, p. 4]}.

  The reforms of the French language, on the one hand, were the result of the establishment of new aesthetic principles in the consciousness, on the other hand, influenced the aesthetic principles of art of that time.  Simplicity, naturalness and purity of style, clarity of expressions that convey exactly the thoughts come to French literature and later transferred to art as a whole. The successes of linguistic and literary reforms for contemporaries are associated with the political successes of France, because "the greatness of the empire and the elegance of the language always go hand in hand" ^{[50, p. 61]}.