Exclusive Conversations The Art of Interaction in Seventeenth Century France Elizabeth C Goldsmith Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Exclusive Conversations The Art of
Interaction in Seventeenth Century

France Elizabeth C. Goldsmith
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/exclusive-conversations-the-art-of-interaction-in-seve
nteenth-century-france-elizabeth-c-goldsmith/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Art of Suffering and the Impact of Seventeenth

Century Anti Providential Thought 1st Edition Ann
Thompson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-art-of-suffering-and-the-
impact-of-seventeenth-century-anti-providential-thought-1st-
edition-ann-thompson/
François Boucher and the Art of Collecting in

Eighteenth Century France 1st Edition Jessica Priebe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/francois-boucher-and-the-art-of-
collecting-in-eighteenth-century-france-1st-edition-jessica-
priebe/
Baroque Figures of Excess in Seventeenth Century

European Art and German Literature 1st Edition Peter J
Burgard
https://ebookmeta.com/product/baroque-figures-of-excess-in-
seventeenth-century-european-art-and-german-literature-1st-
edition-peter-j-burgard/
The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century, 2nd

Edition Maarten Prak
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-dutch-republic-in-the-
seventeenth-century-2nd-edition-maarten-prak/
The Metaphysics of Resurrection in Seventeenth Century
Philosophy 1st Edition Jon W. Thompson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-metaphysics-of-resurrection-in-
seventeenth-century-philosophy-1st-edition-jon-w-thompson/
Imagining the Nation in Seventeenth Century English

Literature 1st Edition Daniel Cattell
https://ebookmeta.com/product/imagining-the-nation-in-
seventeenth-century-english-literature-1st-edition-daniel-
cattell/
Footprints of the Dance an Early Seventeenth Century

Dance Master s Notebook An Early Seventeenth Century
Dance Master s Notebook 1st Edition Jennifer Nevile
https://ebookmeta.com/product/footprints-of-the-dance-an-early-
seventeenth-century-dance-master-s-notebook-an-early-seventeenth-
century-dance-master-s-notebook-1st-edition-jennifer-nevile/
Church Life: Pastors, Congregations, and the Experience

of Dissent in Seventeenth-Century England Michael
Davies
https://ebookmeta.com/product/church-life-pastors-congregations-
and-the-experience-of-dissent-in-seventeenth-century-england-
michael-davies/
Voice, Slavery, and Race in Seventeenth-Century

Florence 1st Edition Wilbourne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/voice-slavery-and-race-in-
seventeenth-century-florence-1st-edition-wilbourne/
« Exclusive Conversations »
« Exclusive
Conversations
The Art of Interaction in
Seventeenth-Century France
ELIZABETH C. GOLDSMITH
Uflfl University of Pennsylvania Press • Philadelphia •1988

Cover illustration from the 1664 court festival "Les Plaisirs de l'île enchantée," un-
identified artist. Reproduced courtesy of the Harvard Theatre Collection.
Copyright © 1988 by the University of Pennsylvania Press

All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Goldsmith, Elizabeth C.
Exclusive conversations: the art of interaction in seventeenth-
century France / Elizabeth C. Goldsmith.
p. cm.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-8122-8102-0
1. French literature—17th century—History and criticism.
2. Conversation in literature. 3. Social interaction in literature.
4. Courtesy in literature. 5. France—Social life and customs—17th
century. 6. France—Court and courtiers—History—17th century.
7. Salons—France—History—17th century. I. Title.
PQ249.G64 1988 87-30788
840'.9'355—del 9 CIP
Designed by Adrianne Onderdonk Dudden

Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
The Principle of Exclusivity 9
The Territory of Conversation 12
1 Seventeenth-Century Guides to Interaction 17

Redefining the Space of Conversation 22
Written Conversation: The Epistolary Manuals 28
2 Excess and Euphoria in Madeleine de Scudery V

Conversations 41
Euphoric Conversation 47
Refocused Encounters 54
How to Repay Louis XIV 59
Teaching Conversation at Saint-Cyr 66
3 History, Social Identity, and Talk:

The Writings of Bussy-Rabutin 77
Memoirs as Conversation 84
Refashioning a World 88
Letters to Louis XIV 97
vi Contents
4 Sociability and Intimacy in the Letters of Madame de

Sévigné 111
Conversation as Frame: The Trial of Foucquet 115
Talking in the Garden 123
The Conduct of Intimacy 132
5 Teaching Sociability Through Literature: The Works of

Edme Boursault 143
Modern Image-Making: Le Mercure galant 145
Esope à la ville, Esope à la cour 149
Boursault's Epistolary Experiments 151
Babe is Metaphors of Exchange 152
Treize lettres: A Manual of Female Passion 161
Afterword 171
Selected Bibliography 175
Index 183
A cknowledgments
This book would not have been possible without the partici-
pation of friends, colleagues, and institutions. A Summer-Term Re-
search Support Grant from Boston University in 1980 gave me the
time to develop my initial formulation of the project, and a grant from
the American Philosophical Society in 1982 funded some indispensable
research at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. A Folger Library Fel-
lowship in 1985 allowed me to spend a summer working with the col-
lections there and to profit from discussions with other Folger readers
and librarians. I am also grateful for the patient assistance provided by
the staff of the Houghton Library and the Department of Rare Books
and Manuscripts of the Boston Public Library.
Parts of chapters two and three appeared in Papers on French Seven-
teenth-Century Literature (XIII, 24) and French Forum (VIII, 3), respec-
tively. They are reprinted here by permission.
I wish to thank Nelly Furman, Jeff Kline, Phil Lewis, and Alain
viii Acknowledgments
Seznec for their encouragement and assistance in obtaining the above-

mentioned grants. Finally, my greatest debt is to Art Goldsmith,
whose criticisms and sometimes tough advice have been as important
to the completion of this book as his good humor and utterly partisan
support.
« Exclusive Conversations »
Introduction
From Castiglione to Miss Manners, courtesy literature has al-

ways told readers how to interact in social situations. In seventeenth-
century France, social deportment was the key, not only to success, but
to acquiring a personal identity. For members of court society the rep-
resentation of self was always a highly social event, and styles of social
interaction were matters of serious political and philosophical specula-
tion. Elite culture during the reign of Louis X I V was based, perhaps
more than at any other moment in European history, on ritualized in-
teraction. T h e art of social existence encompassed an elaborate reper-
toire of skills, the most important of these being conversation.
This book examines the changes in the theory and practice of con-
versational interaction during the second half of the seventeenth cen-
tury, changes that occurred in the wake of what used to be called "the
decline of the nobility," and what historians more recently have de-
scribed as the cultural transformation of a nobility into an aristoc-
racy—a change in the definition of what constituted elite status. 1 My
2 Introduction
use of the term interaction is based on Erving Goffman's studies of

"focused interaction," or the mutual dealings that occur when individ-
uals agree to sustain for a time a single focus of attention. 2 T h e word
"conversation," though, has a more specific historical meaning in this
study. In the seventeenth century the verb "converser" retained its latin
sense of "to frequent"or "live with," and the noun "conversation" con-
veyed a sense of place that it no longer has today. Conversation created
its own social space with carefully marked boundaries; to "be some-
body" one had to be "in the best conversations." 5 Conversation was an
artifact as much as an activity, and it was through conversation that all
other cultural forms were assigned or denied a place in "le monde." In
the classical written portrait, the best compliment one could pay one's
subjects was to praise their conversation; no skill was more important
for enhancing one's social status. T h e successful self-promotion of a
Vincent Voiture would become emblematic of how conversational
skills could replace and even supersede the more traditional qualifica-
tions for privilege and favor.
In different ways, all of the writers studied here viewed their own
texts as conversations. My point of departure in Chapter 1 is a body of
material—for the most part the most frequently reprinted conduct
books and collections of model conversations and letters—discussing
conversation as the principal activity or skill necessary for social sur-
vival. These works present their readers with scenarios for interaction
and motives for learning them. I view these manuals chronologically,
showing how they record important changes in the way people were
taught to interact, changes that reflect an expansion of the realm of
sociability codes to include private conversation and the conduct of
intimacy.
Against this background of some thirty normative texts, I look at
the works of four writers who had close ties to both the Versailles court
and the Paris salons. These authors' lives as well as their works illus-
trate different responses to the problem of fashioning verbal models for
the enactment of new social relationships. Scudery, Sevigne and Bussy-
Rabutin were as famous in their own day for their mastery of the art
of conversation as they were for their writing. All three worked to
realize the aesthetic ideal of salon culture: to write as they spoke, and
to make of writing an extension of worldly talk. Others describe them,
3 Introduction
and they describe themselves, as obsessive speakers. In her model con-

versations Madeleine de Scudery sets u p an economy of interaction
with verbal excess as its central principle. Madame de Sevigne and
Bussy-Rabutin, when cut off from the verbal contacts that sustain
them, reconstruct their social selves through correspondences which
they fashion as conversations.
Chapter 2 studies ideal interaction as envisioned by Madeleine de
Scudery in her ten volumes of written conversations. These books are
rarely studied separately from her novels, and until recently Scudery
scholars have assumed that all of the conversations were excerpted
from them, whereas in fact many were written for the new collection.
H e r conversations function in this study as an example of the code of
sociability in its purest enactment, within and against which the other
writers evolve their own versions of interaction.
Chapters 3 and 4 look at different adaptations of conversation in the
correspondences of the two most admired letter writers of their time,
Madame de Sevigne and Bussy-Rabutin. Bussy-Rabutin's personal ex-
perience of exile, and the rhetorical techniques he uses to reassert con-
trol over it, reflect some broader political changes that were being set
in motion under Louis XIV. Sevigne's letters display a more complex
and changing definition of her public and private selves. Unlike her
cousin Bussy, she has occasion to feel that the norms of sociability are
not always appropriate for communicating intimacy. This is particu-
larly visible in her letters to her daughter, whose move to Provence in
1671 marked the beginning of a long and passionate correspondence.
Chapter 5 studies the writings of Edme Boursault, an author who
is little known today but w h o was extremely popular in his time. T h e
unifying thread in his very disparate assortment of works is his fasci-
nation with the phenomenon of publicity, and the ways in which this
peculiar blend of information, gossip and courtly flattery could be used
as both an artistic and political tool. By the standards of seventeenth-
century elite culture, Boursault was an outsider, a professional writer
who neither belonged nor apparently aspired to the "parasitic bour-
geoisie," Erich Auerbach's term for the non-noble members of "la cour
et la ville. 4 A middle-class writer who worked for pay, he was excep-
tionally sensitive to changing styles of behavior and verbal interaction.
Boursault's representations of sociability reveal how aristocratic codes
4 Introduction
of conduct were being modified by a more heterogeneous public to

accommodate new ideas about what a meaningful and authentic con-
versation was supposed to be.
* * *
In the salons and court of seventeenth-century France, rules

of social conduct were refined and adapted to the demands of courtly
politics. Ambitious courtiers, wanting to exploit the increasing oppor-
tunities for members of the noblesse de robe and the commercial classes
at the court of Louis XIV, learned to use courtesy codes in refashioning
their social selves. N o one seeking to enhance his or her social status
would have underestimated the potential of etiquette as a political tool.
T h a t politesse could be used as an instrument of power was demon-
strated daily in the increasingly codified interaction at court, and in the
elaborate deference rituals surrounding the person of the king. Para-
doxically, at a time when traditional signs of social status were becom-
ing less rigid, the norms for behavior in polite society were becoming
more hierarchical.'
T h e proliferation of conduct manuals, collections of model conver-
sations and letters, and other prescriptive texts on proper social behav-
ior during the seventeenth century in France was largely a response to
the demands of a growing public eager to learn the art of sociability.
"Il serait inutile de dire combien la société est nécessaire aux hommes,"
writes La Rochefoucauld, "tous la désirent et tous la cherchent, mais
peu se servent des moyens de la rendre agréable et de la faire durer." 6
It was one thing to find oneself in good company, and quite another
to know what to do when you got there. Conduct literature offered a
growing number of readers a system of rules, methods, and techniques
for making social interaction both agreeable and lasting. T h e courtesy
book was a genre that had developed as a literary form in Renaissance
Italy, where the art of civility was regarded as a branch of rhetorical
theory. 7 T h e works of Renaissance Italian writers such as Castiglione,
Guazzo and Della Casa reflected a new social mobility characterizing
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Italy. Personal effort was be-
coming a viable means of improving one's social standing. Noble birth,
writes Castiglione, gives the courtier a great advantage, but it is a "mat-
ter for congratulating one's ancestors rather than oneself." 8 Other, ac-
5 Introduction
quirable qualities are more important for winning the rank of a good,
if not perfect, courtier.
T h e strategies for acquiring the traits of a cultivated person were
aimed at exclusion as much as inclusion. Renaissance courtesy litera-
ture had created a strategically vague definition of the perfect social
self, asserting that the ideal courtier must have a "certain something"
that could only be acknowledged by an elite public qualified to recog-
nize this elusive virtue. Ease or naturalness, named "sprezzatura" by
Castiglione, was the sine qua non of social success. "Sprezzatura" was
the courtier's test, a test he knew he had passed when he received the
approbation of the group he was imitating. It was essential that the
courtier's techniques be impossible to define precisely, because only by
remaining meticulously evasive about the requirements for admission
to superior status were those who had it able to maintain the exclusivity
of their group.
Renaissance courtesy theory in England focused more intently on
the relationship between courtly behavior and private ambition, and it
was this relationship that concerned seventeenth-century French writ-
ers of conduct books as well. 9 Cultural transformations caused by
unprecedented social mobility turned everyone's attention to the tech-
niques of personal image-making. T h e disruption and questioning of
traditional status systems made ambitious people more aware of the
symbolic systems at work in social interaction, and made privileged
individuals more concerned with how to justify their status. In the
culture of the ruling elite in France we see a phenomenon similar to
what has been studied in the status systems in Elizabethan high society,
where the symbolism of deportment and gesture came to compete with
and sometimes dominate more practical motives for interaction. 10 In
France, where elite culture was much more dominated by the court
and crown than in England, the competition for status and prestige was
more intense. Collective judgment and public opinion assumed tre-
mendous importance in determining individual worth, as society's
members looked for confirmation of their own moral status in daily-
interactive rituals. Cynical observers such as La Bruyère saw in the
constant process of personal evaluation a system motivated solely by
self-interest: "L'on dit à la cour du bien de quelqu'un pour deux rai-
sons: la première, afin qu'il aprenne que nous disons du bien de lui; la
seconde, afin qu'il en dise de nous." 11
6 Introduction
Whatever one's motives for learning it, the art of talk was the most
important of the courtly skills. This is true for the Italian Renaissance
courtier as well as his descendant, the habitué of Paris salons. Casti-
glione writes that it was the evening conversations that made the court
of Urbino superior to all others, and Guazzo describes conversation as
the most natural expression of civilized man: "conversation is not only
profitable, but moreover necessary to the perfection of man, who must
confess that he is like the bee which cannot live alone." 12 While their
Italian predecessors had said that conversational skill was the natural
foundation for the formation of the courtier, French courtesy literature
gave it a more transcendant role in determining the worth of a person
in society. T h e French classical ideal of honnêteté gave particular em-
phasis to the honnête homme's manner of interaction in conversation and
letter-writing. In the theorizing about honnête behavior we find Renais-
sance definitions of sociability refashioned in response to new social
pressures.
T h e most important modification of Renaissance notions of cour-
tesy in France was the extension of its space to what we now call the
salon, and what was known in the seventeenth century as the alcôve or
ruelle. T h e salon emerged in the first half of the seventeenth century as
a new, exclusive space for the nurturing of elite culture. By the end of
the previous century the traditional occupation for the nobility in
France, the profession of arms, was widely viewed as an inadequate
and limiting basis for the justification of elite status. Treatises on the
philosophical and moral foundations of the nobility turned to the Ital-
ian model of a nobility of birth buttressed by learning and personal
culture. 13 T h e abbé de Pure's comment on a special, superior place
reserved for the précieuse emphasizes the challenge to traditional signs
of status that salon culture posed:
quand on entre dans une ruelle, comme les duchesses ont leur rang
dans le cercle, ainsi la précieuse a le sien; et si la belle place est
fortuitement occupée par quelque personne de condition, vous
voyez le chagrin dans toute la ruelle, comme une profanation d'un
autel qui était destiné à la précieuse. 14
When the Marquise de Rambouillet had her city residence re-

designed in the first decade of the seventeenth century, she gave archi-
tectural proportions to a new concept of exclusivity. Unlike the salons
7 Introduction
of predecessors such as Marguerite de Valois, her chambre bleue was

carefully conceived as separate f r o m the court society of the Louvre
and other royal residences. C o n t e m p o r a r y accounts delightedly report
her aversion to court ceremonial, and Tallemant suggests that the p u r -
pose of her infrequent visits to the antechambers of the Louvre was to
amuse herself w i t h observing how refreshingly different her o w n idea
of "divertissement" was:
Elle disait qu'elle n'y trouvait rien de plaisant, q u e de voir c o m m e

on se pressait pour y entrer, et q u e quelquefois il lui est arrivé de
se mettre en u n e c h a m b r e pour se divertir du méchant ordre qu'il y
a pour ces choses-là en France. C e n'est pas qu'elle n'aimât le diver-
tissement, mais c'était en particulier. 1 5
While most of the habitués of both court and salon preferred to pass
freely between both places, the social milieu of the salon was increas-
ingly viewed as the more hospitable environment for perfect sociability.
"Le monde," the seventeenth-century designation for elite society, sug-
gests a notion of restricted exclusivity that is at the same time all-
encompassing, it encloses everything (of any importance) within its
boundaries. P u r e writes that f r o m within the confines of a ruelle or
alcove it is also possible to see everything that is outside more clearly:
" O n voit, mais clairement, dans une ruelle, le mouvement de toute la
terre; et trois ou quatre précieuses, débiteront dans un après-midi tout
ce q u e le soleil peut avoir vu dans ses divers tours de différentes sai-
sons" (I, 67). Salon culture proposed to redefine the criteria for inclu-
sion and exclusion, and create a "grand m o n d e purifié," as Chapelain
called the Rambouillet circle. 1 6 T h e normative literature of conduct, a
literature that was most prolific d u r i n g the reigns of Louis XIII and
Louis XIV, d o c u m e n t s these efforts to systematize the ways in which
m e m b e r s of society interact.
* * *
T h e French nobility suffered severe challenges to its tradition-

ally accepted social functions and privileges during the late sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries. Ellery Schalk has described the "prise
de conscience" of the noble classes in the last decades of the sixteenth
century, in the wake of social disruptions caused by the wars of reli-
gion. 1 7 A wave of anti-noble feeling directed against the excesses of the
8 Introduction
military nobles was accompanied by members of the nobility them-

selves questioning the adequacy of their traditional military function as
a justification for privilege. By the 1650's a more modern view of no-
bility, based on birth but also giving an entirely new emphasis to edu-
cation, personal cultivation, and techniques for social interaction had
replaced the medieval code of valor. At the same time, as members of
the middle class grew in wealth and power, they also aspired to this
new style of life that was neither characteristically bourgeois nor tra-
ditionally noble. To "live nobly" was to eschew both the petty greed of
the merchant and the barbaric behavior of the old noblesse d'epee.1* Dur-
ing the seventeenth century, as state institutions became increasingly
centralized, there were efforts to reestablish traditional status systems
while taking into account the more sophisticated norms of social behav-
ior that had been cultivated by the newly educated middle classes.
Prominent families, who in the last decades of the sixteenth century
had been able to get away with calling themselves noble, under the
regime of Richelieu were summoned to register proof of their claim.
Yet at the same time royal bureaucrats were learning to use codes of
etiquette and civility as a means of creating systems of privilege that
undermined the traditional social hierarchy.
T h e most important of the new catalogue of courtesies were rules
having to do with speech and gesture. Richelieu was so effective in his
manipulation of courtesy to control speech that insolence and breaches
of politesse came to be regarded as crimes against the state. 19 The tyran-
nical conduct codes at Versailles were to carry this method of control-
ling speech to its most rigid extreme until the 1680's when in an effort
to create a salon to escapc his own court, the king began constructing
new residences where a select group of courtiers could flee the oppres-
sive ceremonial of Versailles.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century in France, the very
idea of a noble class defined by its cultural sophistication was new; but
in the long run, challenges to traditional ways of justifying privilege
probably helped to prolong rather than weaken the dominance of noble
culture. 2 0 Political and social policies under Richelieu and Mazarin
forced a broadened definition of aristocratic identity, which at the same
time assured the survival and enrichment of the cultural ideology of the
nobility. Progressive social formations such as the salon, which led the
way in admitting non-noble members to the social elite, at the same
9 Introduction
time insured that a newly defined noble culture continued to thrive.

Salons acted as a kind of social laboratory, where nobles and non-nobles
alike proposed to discover new definitions of what it meant to be "nat-
urally" superior. 21 Faced with the evident loss of their exclusive claim
to power and privilege, members of the noblesse d'epée mustered elabo-
rate defensive justifications to sustain the superiority of the aristocratic
image. One of the most important results of this intellectual effort was
the concept of the honnête homme, a modification of the perfect courtier,
who promoted a new definition of noble conduct, rejecting the ancient
connection of noble virtue and military valor. Domna Stanton's study
of honnêteté and nineteenth-century dandyism has shown how both
were essentially aesthetic artifacts designed to sustain an aristocratic
view of social identity. 22 While the seventeenth-century nobility was
losing its exclusive claim to political and economic superiority, its ex-
istence as a cultural artifact was both strengthened and modified.
The Principle of Exclusivity

In an essay on the nobility as a prototypical elite society, the
social theorist Georg Simmel has examined some of the aesthetic prin-
ciples underlying the concept of status. 23 Social interaction within all
exclusive groups is typically heavily motivated by considerations of
style, and the nobility has historically provided a continuous example
of the view that a social circle can be an artistic structure. By maintain-
ing as its primary criterion for admittance a mark of status granted by
birth, the traditional artistocracy claims for itself a uniquely insular
form, in which each part is granted meaning by the whole, and which
ritually displays to the world its utter self-sufficiency. T h e nobility sus-
tains its aesthetic attraction precisely because of the clarity and totality
of its closure. For it is not just the individual who is attractive, although
the individual display of superior care and cultivation of the body and
social forms has historically been an important element in the fascina-
tion that a noble can exert over outsiders. More important, it is the
"collective image" of the nobility that makes it a powerful cultural ar-
tifact, dependent, writes Simmel, "on the aesthetically satisfying form
of autonomy and insularity, of the solidarity of parts—all of which are
analogues to the work of art" (p. 209).
Exclusive groups counterbalance their collective sense of superior-
10 Introduction
ity with the conviction that they themselves are a community of

equals. 24 Communication among the members of the group must be
based on the principle of reciprocity, with each speaker contributing to
the equanimity of the circle as a whole. Interaction within exclusive
groups always works to create the impression that there is no ultimate
end outside the social process itself. The sociability impulse destroys
idiosyncracy in order to guarantee perfect balance among members of
the group. Simmel writes that the court society of the ancien régime
exemplifies an extreme form of "pure" sociability, a system of codes
whose radical closure was a response to the fact that individual oppor-
tunities for status and glory were being significantly reduced. At such
moments in the history of the aristocracy, he remarks, "the substance
itself becomes form, and the meaning of life is no more than the pres-
ervation of specific status honors and of good demeanor—as finally
occurred in the nobility of the ancien régime" (p. 209).
When we look at seventeenth-century discussions about proper so-
cial conduct, we see that an important requirement is that individual
participants present themselves in balanced relation to others, and that
it is only the group support provided by this ambiance of mutual gen-
erosity that gives value to the contribution of any single member. The
pleasure of conversation, writes La Rochefoucauld, is often destroyed
by one individual demanding gratification at another's expense. "Il faut
éviter de contester sur des choses indifférentes, faire rarement des ques-
tions inutiles, ne laisser jamais croire qu'on prétend avoir plus de raison
que les autres, et céder aisément l'avantage de décider."25 In this system
the self exists primarily because of the place it occupies and the role it
plays within the group. Because the presentation of self is so carefully
orchestrated, there is little concern with individuals as isolated or
lonely beings; individual selves seem to come into existence as they
enter the group.
Erving Goffman's studies of ritual presentations of the self in to-
day's world is another rich resource that can help us understand the
ritualization of interaction in the society of Louis XIV. Goffman writes
that in certain social situations, codes of conduct can become the most
important measure of individual worth: "An environment, in terms of
the ceremonial component of activity, is a place where it is easy or
difficult to play the ritual game of having a self. Where ceremonial
practices are thoroughly institutionalized it would appear easy to be a
11 Introduction
person. Where they are not established, it would appear difficult to be

a person." 2 6 During the seventeenth century in France, ceremonial
practices of social interaction were catalogued, examined, and restruc-
tured. Above all, they were talked about, and it was through the filter
of conversation that new ideas about la vie civile came into being.
Social anthropology also provides a useful vocabulary for studying
the functions of conversation. T h e concept of potlatch applies to an
essential feature of seventeenth-century courtesy, namely, that success-
ful interaction must be conducted according to the principle of pure
reciprocity, not exchange, of gift-giving, not trade. T h e classical ideal
of civility, it would seem, depends on a kind of perpetual verbal pot-
latch within a circumscribed social circle. Social contact is a kind of
constant circulation of verbal gifts. Marcel Mauss's description of an
American Indian tribe operating with a considerable surplus of goods
sounds like a description of the Versailles court. T h e r e is one season,
he writes, when "they are in a perpetual state of effervescence":
T h e social life becomes intense in the extreme . . . This life consists

of continual movement. T h e r e are constant visits . . . T h e r e is feast
upon feast, some of long duration. O n the occasion of a marriage,
on various ritual occasions, and on social advancement, there is
reckless consumption of everything which has been amassed with
great industry from some of the richest coasts of the world during
the course of summer and autumn. Even private life passes in this
manner . . ? 1
T h e organizing principle behind this kind of "agitation without dis-

order" (Madame de Lafayette's famous phrase describing the dynamic
of court society) is reciprocity, or rather, reciprocity in one of its ex-
treme forms. Marshall Sahlins writes of the two poles of reciprocity—
the pure gift and self-interested seizure—and of "generalized recipro-
city," which combines the aristocratic ideal of sociability with the prin-
ciple of potlatch. In generalized reciprocity, individual members of a
group "give" freely. Their gifts are either material possessions or more
abstract kinds of contributions to collective life, such as hospitality,
ceremonial gestures, or speech. N o payment is demanded in return,
and in fact all mention of a counter-obligation is scrupulously avoided.
This does not mean that there is none, but it is crucial to the success
of the interaction that no reckoning is ever overtly made. There must
12 Introduction
be a sustained pretense that t h e resources being offered are a b u n d a n t ,

even unlimited. 2 8 La R o u c h e f o u c a u l d writes of ideal interaction in
m u c h t h e same t e r m s , m a i n t a i n i n g that c o n t r i b u t i o n s m u s t seem to be
freely given: "Il faut contribuer, autant q u ' o n le p e u t , au divertissement
des personnes avec qui on veut vivre; mais il ne faut pas être t o u j o u r s
chargé d u soin d'y c o n t r i b u e r " (pp. 186-87). W h a t is i m p o r t a n t in con-
versation is that all participants allow t h e f o r m and flow of talk to con-
t i n u e w i t h o u t p a y i n g too m u c h attention to w h a t is being said or
w e i g h i n g too carefully t h e value of each contribution: "on doit entrer
i n d i f f é r e m m e n t sur tous les sujets agréables qui se p r é s e n t e n t , et ne
faire jamais voir q u ' o n veut entraîner la conversation sur ce q u ' o n a
envie d e dire" (p. 193). Curiously, this radically civilized version of so-
ciable interaction seems m o r e analogous to t h e social structures char-
acterizing primitive cultures t h a n to those of c o n t e m p o r a r y society.
The Territory of Conversation

Social philosophers of t h e ancien régime t h o u g h t sociable talk
was t h e activity that b o t h sustained and created t h e reality of "le
m o n d e . " Conversation was t h e best indicator of t h e w o r t h of an indi-
vidual or of an entire g r o u p , enabling m e m b e r s of society to both mea-
sure and c o n s t r u c t their personal status. Polite dialogue was t h e best
f o r m for giving an aesthetic d i m e n s i o n to sociability. Like the laws of
etiquette w h i c h can construct a closed system of self-referentiality, t h e
aristocratic ideal of conversation saw it as generating its o w n self-
sufficient content. Sociable conversation, w h i c h focuses on t h e play of
relations it establishes b e t w e e n individuals rather t h a n on t h e refer-
ences it carries to t h e w o r l d outside the circle, m u s t also maintain a
careful balance b e t w e e n m e m b e r s of t h e g r o u p . It is essential that per-
sonality traits always be shaped and displayed in relation to the o t h e r
speakers. As La Rochefoucauld remarks, too m u c h expressed differ-
ence destroys t h e necessary illusion of unanimity. 2 9 N e i t h e r t h e individ-
ual participants nor t h e specific content of their speech can be given
m o r e weight t h a n t h e play of conversation as f o r m .
T h i s systematic emphasis on f o r m over substance in t h e c o n d u c t of
sociable dialogue carries w i t h it certain risks. M e m b e r s of the g r o u p
m u s t be careful to exclude rhetorical expressions w h i c h d r a w attention
to, r a t h e r t h a n disguise, relations of p o w e r w i t h i n t h e social circle. In
13 Introduction
a study of the disruptive power of flattery in the discourse of classical

civility, Jean Starobinski has analyzed the "narcissisme de groupe"
characterizing the doctrine of honnêteté. Like Simmel, Starobinski em-
phasizes the importance of a perfectly balanced system of group inter-
action in salon culture. "L'idéal de l'honnêteté," he writes,"c'est la
réciprocité parfaite, . . . Le commerce qui s'engage ainsi est celui du
même avec le même; la différence est réduite au point de n'être plus
génératrice de conflit mais de jeu . . ,"30 Consequently, he observes, the
most potentially disruptive forces for honnête conversation are situa-
tions which reveal the real differences existing between members of the
group, if only by expressing the specificity of an individual experience
or personality. This can happen, for example, when flattery draws too
much attention to differences in status, or when the play of coquettish
conversation is menaced by an aggressive display of passion.
When the illusion of reciprocity can no longer be easily maintained,
interaction becomes more focused on individual needs. Such disrup-
tions constitute a substitution of personal interest for mutual pleasure
in social interaction. As La Rochefoucauld comments, "Ce qui fait que
si peu de personnes sont agréables dans la conversation, c'est que cha-
cun songe plus à ce qu'il veut dire qu'à ce que les autres disent" (p. 191).
But the intrusion of private self-interest into the world of sociable liv-
ing seems to have been increasingly difficult to repress during the
course of the seventeenth century. This development, as we shall see,
is documented in conduct manuals from the end of the century that
allow much more room for individual expression in their discussions of
ideal conversation. Changes in ideas about how sociable communica-
tion should work coincide with a shifting distribution of wealth and
power within the larger social group to which members of court and
salon culture belonged. In the evolution of seventeenth-century codes
of interaction we see reflected the changing position of the French ar-
istocracy and the reorganization of social hierarchies in the first modern
state. 31
NOTES
1. See for example François Billacois, "La Crise de la noblesse européenne

(1550—1650)," Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 23 (1976), pp. 258-77; and
14 Introduction
Ellery Schalk, From Valor to Pedigree: Ideas of Nobility in Sixteenth- and Seven-
teenth-Century France (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).
2. Encounters (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1961), p.7.
3. Furetière's 1690 dictionary defines conversation: "entretien familier
qu'on a avec des amis dans les visites, dans les promenades . . . se dit dans le
même sens des assemblées de plusieurs personnes savantes et polies."
4. Erich Auerbach, Scenes From the Drama of European Literature (New
York: Meridian Books, 1959), p. 167.
5. See Norbert Elias, The Court Society (New York: Pantheon, 1983), pp.
78-116, for a discussion of some social functions of this increasingly ceremon-
ialized etiquette system. He focuses on early eighteenth-century court society
as described by Saint-Simon. By this time aristocrats were given few a priori
advantages over middle-class courtiers in the competition for favor at court.
Elias's discussion of the desperate status-consumption ethos of this society is
suggestive of how the constant "motivation bv rank, honor and prestige" ap-
plies also to the exchange of visits, dinners, and talk (pp. 64-68).
6. Maximes, ed. J . Truchet (Paris: Gamier, 1967), p. 185.
7. See Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 28-35.
8. The Book of the Courtier (Middlesex: Penguin), p. 56.
9. Frank Whigham has studied the symbolic systems of Elizabethan con-
duct literature in Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy
Theory (Palo Alto, Ca.: Stanford University Press, 1984).
10. Whigham, "Interpretation at Court: Courtesy and the Performer-
Audience Dialectic," New Literary History X I V (1983), pp. 628-29.
11. Les Caractères (Paris: Gamier), p.232.
12. Cited in John Lievsay, Stefano Guazzo and the English Renaissance (Dur-
ham: University of North Carolina, 1961), p. 15.
13. Schalk's study of changing definitions of nobility in early modern
France includes a useful svnthesis of recent historical research on the subject.
From Valor to Pedigree, see especially chapters 6 and 8.
14. La Précieuse ou le mystère des ruelles (Paris: Droz, 1938), I, p.67.
15. Historiettes (Paris: J . Techener, 1854), II, p. 486.
16. Cited in Maurice Magendie, La Politesse mondaine et les théories de l'hon-
nêteté en France au dix-septième siècle (1925; rpt. Genève: Slatkine, 1970), p.124.
17. From Valor to Pedigree, ch. 4.
18.George Huppert has analyzed the ideological and cultural formations of
this new "gentry" class in Les Bourgeois Gentilhommes: An Essay on the Definition
of Elites in Renaissance France (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).
19. See Orest Ranum's essav, "Courtesy, Absolutism, and the Rise of the
French State, 1630-1660 " Journal of Modern History 52 (1980), pp. 426-51. In
this regard, the violence of the Fronde can be viewed as "an escalation of in-
solence into popular revolts and civil war" (p.442).
20. Schalk comments that the idea that conversation was the principle skill
a young nobleman should learn "would have horrified most of the moralist
nobles of the sixteenth century" (p. 132). In a recent study of the nobility in
Normandy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, James Wood has
shown how noble reactions to social mobility helped to preserve rather than
15 Introduction
undermine the position of the class as a whole. The Nobility of the 'Election' of
Bayeux, 1463-1666 (Princeton, N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1980).
21. Carolyn Lougee's study of the class status of salon habitués has shown
that salon society, "by accommodating into the aristocratic elite those w h o ben-
efitted from the emergence of non-feudal fortunes, parried the threat those
fortunes posed to the traditional aristocracy itself." Le Paradis des femmes:
Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in Seventeenth-Century France (Princeton,
N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1976), p.212.
22. Domna C . Stanton, The Aristocrat as Art (New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1980).
23 .On Individuality and Social Forms (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1971), pp.199-213.
24. Simmel speaks of "pure" sociability: "Inasmuch as it is abstracted from
sociation through art or play, sociability thus calls for the purest, most trans-
parent, and most casually appealing kind of interaction, that among equals."
P. A. Lawrence, ed., Georg Simmel (Sunburv-on-Thames: Nelson, 1976), p.86.
25. Maximes, p. 191.
26. Interaction Ritual (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), p.91.
27. The Gift ( N e w York: W. W. N o r t o n , 1967), pp.32-33.
28. Stone-Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc., 1972), 191-96.
29. " C o m m e il est malaisé que plusieurs personnes puissent avoir les
mêmes intérêts, il est nécessaire au moins, pour la douceur de la société, qu'ils
n'en aient pas de contraires. O n doit aller au-devant de ce qui peut plaire à ses
amis, chercher les moyens de leur être utile, leur épargner des chagrins, leur
faire voir qu'on les partage avec eux quand on ne peut les détourner . . ."
(p. 188).
30. "Sur la flatterie," Nouvelle revue de la psychanalyse 4 (1971), pp. 132, 134.
31. T h e most comprehensive history of seventeenth-centurv theories of
civiiity in France before 1660 is Magendie, La Politesse mondaine. Two more
recent studies analyzing the aesthetics of the honnête homme are, Jean-Pierre
Dens, UHonnête homme et la critique du goût: esthétique et société au 17e siècle (Lex-
ington: French Forum, 1981), and Stanton, The Aristocrat as Art. For summary
discussions of the place of conversation within the social system of honnêteté see
Dens, "L'Art de la conversation au 17e siècle," Lettres romanes 27 (1973), pp.
215-24, and Stanton, pp. 139-46.
1
« • »
Seventeenth-Century Guides to
Interaction
Nicolas Pasquier's Le Gentilhomme is a useful point of depar-

ture, for it was written early in the century and relies on traditional
definitions of status relations, yet at the same time displays an un-
abashed confidence in the effectiveness of some new social climbing
techniques. Published in 1611, this book of manners presents a list of
qualities that young noblemen must strive to attain. Le Gentilhomme is
divided into four books, the first two being general remarks on con-
duct, the third an extended discussion of military strategy and the war-
rior's code of honor, and the fourth on proper behavior in the presence
of the prince. Pasquier's itemization of noble virtues is closely derived
from the traditional code of a warrior nobility—with an emphasis on
military prowess and valor—and he bases his image of "le gentil-
homme" on the nobility's historic role as a knightly class. 1 In fact, Pas-
quier seems to see potential hostilities lurking behind the facade of
every social interaction. Much of the section on entregent discusses con-
flictual situations and the proper means of resolving disputes: (". . . les
18 Seventeenth-Century Guides to Interaction
qualités des injures, l'état qu'il faut faire du démenti, qu'il ne faut of-
fenser, le sujet des combats et querelles, l'origine des seconds, avec un
discours des duels . . .").2 As a gentleman's principle concern in society
is with his reputation, he must know how to respond with restraint to
threatening situations, and Pasquier's enumeration of the highest social
virtues conveys this fundamental self-discipline: "Modestie," "Foi,"
"Vaillance," "Tempérance," "Justice," "Prudence," "Oisiveté et travail,"
"Sobriété," "Libéralité" (pp.76-102).
In the conduct of conversation, metaphors of combat also prevail.
Social climbing is a kind of military campaign, for which the gentleman
trains by learning defensive and offensive tactics. He is advised to use
his words sparingly and only when necessary—like weapons: "Sa pa-
role soit modérée, rare et chiche, afin de ne lui faire point perdre sa
trempe pour trop la mettre en oeuvre: qu'il fasse plutôt paraître la né-
cessité de parler que la volonté . . . car une parole jetée à la légère ne
se peut retenir non plus que la flèche décochée" (p.69). He must sur-
round himself as much as possible with people he wants as allies. By
imitating them and winning them to his cause, the gentleman will come
to resemble these members of the "compagnie des bons" (p.42). His
campaign will be won when he is securely accepted into the circle of
those whose behavior he has been imitating. By identifying himself
with the elite, the gentleman will be protected from the dangers of
médisance: "Quand il procédera en sa conversation de cette grâce, nul
ne pourra mal parler de lui . . ." (p.72).
In his survey of seventeenth-century conversation theory, Chris-
toph Strosetski has noted that the use of the word "conversation" to
mean simply a group of people or "assemblée" was common in the first
part of the century. 3 This is certainly the way that Pasquier uses it. In
his manual, "conversation" is synonymous with "compagnie", and to
learn about conversation techniques is to learn how to surround oneself
with certain people. One is judged by the company one keeps: "Ainsi
la conversation de ceux avec lesquels il fréquente d'ordinaire, donne
jugement certain de l'assiette de son âme, si elle tend au bien ou au mal
. . ." (p. 42). Pasquier does not assign a specific section of his book to
the art of conversation, but places it under the rubric "parler." What is
important is the quality of the people one is with, not the manner in
which one interacts with them. Pasquier's guide reflects the relatively
fluid definition of elite status that characterized the late sixteenth and
early seventeenth centuries; the label "gentilhomme" is something one

can come to deserve by means of careful social maneuvering, but a
maneuvering that often sounds like a transposition of military disci-
pline to the social arena. To enter the most exclusive status group, the
social climber must learn how to make his actions conform to those of
the group, until he is accepted as the inevitable result of a kind of
natural law:
. . . la raison veut que ceux qui par une longueur de temps hantent
les uns avec les autres, ayent par une conformité de moeurs les
âmes, les coeurs, et les volontés étroitement enchaînés et liés ensem-
blement: et la nature nous apprend que volontiers toute chose s'unit
avec son semblable (p.42).
Nicholas Faret's L'Honnête homme ou Fart de plaire à la cour, first

printed in 1630, was the most popular conduct guide of the century.
Closely modeled after Castiglione, Faret's book clearly addresses itself
to the aspiring courtier, and its purpose, as the title indicates, is to
teach its readers how to succeed at court. But Faret's title gives a new
name to the model courtier, and in his text Pasquier's "gentilhomme"
refers only to those who are noble by birth. 4 Like Pasquier, Faret
acknowledges that "les armes" is the classic gentleman's profession,
but his idea of social relations is not structured around metaphors of
combat; in fact, Faret discusses military prowess only as an accom-
plishment that might enhance one's already established status as a gen-
tilhomme on the road to honnêtetéFaret attacks the fanfaronnerie" to
which he says most men fall prey in their impatient desire for the ap-
proval of other honnêtes gens. Too much attention is given, he says, to
quarrels and confrontations; as a consequence, sociability is still dom-
inated by the rhetoric of combat.
Plusieurs de nos vaillants s'imagineraient ne l'être point, s'ils ne

faisaient mille grimaces et mille contenances farouches . . . Tous
leurs discours sont d'éclaircissements, de procédés, et de combats,
et qui retrancherait de leur entretien les termes d'assaut et d'es-
crime, je crois qu'ils seraient réduits, pour leur plus sublime
science, aux compliments de la langue française. Leur fanfaronnerie est
même montée jusqu'à ce degré de brutalité, que de mépriser la
conversation des femmes, qui est l'un des plus doux est des plus
honnêtes amusements de la vie (p. 15).6
By rejecting military metaphors for social interaction, Faret

facilitates the participation of women in a new definition of elite so-
ciability. Indeed, Pasquier's reader was never advised, as Faret's is re-
peatedly, to seek the company of women. By the middle of the century,
prescriptive literature on honnêteté was citing conversation with culti-
vated women as the most exacting means of achieving a social educa-
tion. Feminine conversation, writes Faret, is "the most difficult and the
most delicate," for women have less tolerance than men for "mistakes"
in interaction. T h e ultimate "théâtre de la conversation des femmes" is
Anne of Austria's circle, but the discerning courtier should also con-
sider leaving the court to attend other salons: "Il faut donc descendre à
la ville et regarder qui sont celles d'entre les dames de condition que
l'on estime les plus honnêtes femmes, et chez qui se font les plus belles
assemblées, et s'il se peut, se mettre dans leur intrigue . . ." (p.90). 7
In a book addressed to male readers, Faret's emphasis on the value
of conversing with women inspired others to write conduct books
teaching women how to converse. In the decade following the appear-
ance of Faret's work, three important works on female honnêteté were
published and reprinted: Du Bosc's L'Honnête femme (1633-36), fol-
lowed by two manuals by Grenaille, L'Honnête fille (1639-40) and
L'Honnête veuve (1640). Du Bosc, an ecclesiastic, is especially concerned
with mediating between the conflicting value systems of worldly soci-
ability and Christian virtue, but he argues passionately for the need for
women to be educated in conversational rhetoric and the social skills of
polite society. We are not living, he says opening his section on conver-
sation, in a world where innocence and simplicity are highly regarded,
and women must learn how to mask their speech if only to protect their
virtue. A woman's good reputation is based on her intellect as well as
her virtue, and the forum where one gains and protects one's reputation
is in conversation:
le principal but de la conversation est de se mettre dans la créance

d'avoir de l'esprit et du jugement: c'est pour cette raison qu'on a
besoin d'autre chose que de bonne humeur, et qu'il faut pour le
moins avoir autant d'adresse que de vertu. . . . il n'est pas assez
d'être vertueuse, . . . il faut persuader . . . 8
Grenaille echoes Du Bosc's arguments in his precepts for l'honnête

fille, encouraging girls to cultivate "la délicatesse de l'esprit" if only to
better defend themselves against a male rhetoric of seduction. To apply

the principles of honnêteté to girls, he says, is simply to give them the
means of assuming their rightful place in the economy of interaction:
"Elle [l'honnêteté] rend à chacun les devoirs qu'il peut mériter, et en
reçoit l'honneur qui lui est dû légitimement." 9
As women began to play a more important role in the definition of
elite sociability, styles of interaction advocated for l'honnête homme were
increasingly those that could be also viewed as appropriate for their
female counterparts. Faret's manual rejects the image of the aristocrat
as warrior, but retains, for example, the obsessive attention to reputa-
tion that was already evident in Pasquier's Le Gentilhomme. A good rep-
utation is won through carefully cultivated connections—through
continuous association with people whose public image one would like
to emulate. Faret warns his readers against solitude; the isolated indi-
vidual is unprotected, because having given nothing to the group he
can expect nothing in return:
C'est pourquoi tous nos soins doivent être employés à gagner de

bonne heure, et par de bonnes voyes, l'opinion des honnêtes gens;
puisque tout le monde sait combien elle est importante à nous ac-
courcir le chemin qui nous peut conduire à la haute réputation. Un
homme seul dans une grande cour comme la nôtre ne saurait tout
faire lui-même, et s'il n'est aidé de plusieurs, il se sentira souvent
accablé de vieillesse devant que d'être seulement connu de ses
égaux (pp. 58-59).
Precisely why the kind of social interaction that one finds in the
company of honnêtes gens is superior to other forms of verbal exchange
is studied much more closely by Faret than Pasquier. In his discussion
of conversation, Faret remarks that the courtier's need to please others,
and his ability to assume a variety of social masks, can be intolerably
painful unless he is able to take refuge in the society of true honnêtes
gens, from which the pressures of complaisance are banished. It is only
in this company that the courtier will feel in harmony with the reflec-
tion of himself he sees in the eyes of others:
C'est bien certes une fâcheuse contrainte à une âme bien libre,
d'être souvent parmi des humeurs si différentes, et si contraires à la
sienne . . . Mais aussi lorsqu'il se trouvera parmi d'honnêtes gens,
et qui comme lui auront toutes les parties de la générosité, il se
récompensera pleinement de ses mauvaises heures (p.72).
In order to maintain a satisfactory self-image, then, the honnête

homme m u s t seek to participate in an exclusive system of exchange that
returns to him the approbation he gives to others: " . . . les louanges
q u e l'on d o n n e à autrui ont encore cet avantage, qu'elles nous acquiè-
rent les acclamations et les louanges de ceux q u e les nôtres ont obligés"
(p.43). H e r e Faret offers an explicit definition of ideal social interaction
as a kind of balanced reciprocity, which, because of a posited equiva-
lence between each interlocutor, engages the individual in an ambiance
of m u t u a l generosity.
Redefining the Space of Conversation

In his Nouveau traité de la civilité qui se pratique en France, first
printed in 1671, Antoine de Courtin extends the principles of courtesy
to a broader public than Faret had envisioned, as indeed these prin-
ciples were being studied by an increasingly varied audience. For
Courtin, civility is a style of existence applicable to any social situation.
Courtin's use of the w o r d civilité, like Faret's d e p a r t u r e f r o m gentil-
homme in favor of honnête homme, provides a key to changing attitudes
about the links between status and behavior. For Courtin, civilité is a
way of life, almost a natural order, rather than a tool or even an "art of
pleasing," as Faret had understood it. Courtin views civilité as so thor-
oughly integrated into the fabric of social existence that "learning" it is
largely a question of learning a taxonomy. Civility is a science that
teaches the proper order of things: "Aussi est-elle définie, une science
qui enseigne à placer dans son véritable lieu ce que nous avons à faire
ou à dire." 1 0
While Courtin's manual, like those of Pasquier and Faret, is osten-
sibly addressed to a y o u n g gentleman about to enter court, Courtin
specifies, unlike his predecessors, that he is writing for all honnêtes gens,
and his use of the t e r m is broader than it was in Faret's text. In his
preface he notes that, while he published his treatise in response to a
friend w h o had a son about to be introduced at court, it should prove
useful to readers in any circumstances, including older and more ex-
perienced readers w h o simply have not been properly educated to the
principles of interaction that must be observed in "le commerce du
monde." While Faret's title describes "l'art de plaire à la cour," Courtin's
proposes a far wider application of "la civilité qui se pratique en
France." He also points out that he has attempted to accommodate the

interests of both sexes in his book: "on a même jugé à propos de dire
quelquechose de la civilité des dames, afin de le rendre plus utile aux
deux sexes."11 In extending the principles of civility to a wider range of
social situations, Courtin also chooses to focus on the rules of inter-
action between people of unequal status. The major concern for his
readers, it would seem, is how to fit in properly in any social situation;
how to consistently behave according to one's social position relative to
that of one's interlocutor.
Courtin deals with this problem in lengthy discussions of tech-
niques for "le bon discernement" (p. 12 et seq.). For his reader, it will
not be enough to learn how to imitate the best models; one must also
learn the art of unmasking others, of interpreting what one sees. For
Courtin, masking and unmasking seem to be part of a game that poses
no threat to identity. Faret had spent a great deal of time discussing
the art of masking as self-protection. Control of one's gestures, facial
expressions, and body movements give the courtier control over his
public image, freeing him from being "a slave to his inclinations"
(p.70). Pushed too far, though, self-masking could crush identity: ". . .
quelque habile et complaisant que soit un homme, il est bien difficile
qu'à la fin il n'engendre du chagrin à se contrefaire ainsi, et se donner
si souvent la torture" (p.72). Faret's courtier, then, must learn to carry
off this necessary process of dissimulation, and then seek relief in the
company of honnêtes gens."12
Courtin, unlike Faret, defines different types of interaction accord-
ing to each speaker's position as an autonomous individual within a
large, heterogeneous society where social groups seem to "happen" ac-
cording to the ability of individual participants to assume the proper
roles. Conversation takes place from one participant to another: "Toute
la conversation des hommes se passe ou d'égal à égal, ou d'inférieur à
supérieur, ou de supérieur à inférieur" (p. 20). Faret, on the other hand,
writes of conversations as prefabricated spaces into which one enters,
"la conversation des égaux," or "la conversation des femmes" (p. 88),
reflecting the sense of the word less prevalent after the middle of the
century. Courtin enumerates dozens of examples of behavior suitable
for specific moments, inviting his readers to imagine themselves as in-
dividual actors in his model situations, and to learn literally how to
position themselves in each scene. These scenes are described with
painstaking specificity. For example, if you are walking with a "supe-

rior" person in a garden, you must be careful to always be slightly
"beneath" him, that is, on his left, and if you are in a room you must
always let the person of superior status be closer to the door or the bed
(p. 85). Within the confines of Courtin's elaborately choreographed sit-
uations, successful interaction means making something happen by
first setting u p the situation correctly, rather than simply introducing
oneself into an already defined space.
Courtin and other authors of conduct manuals writing after Faret
continue to give prominence to the role of conversation in the conduct
of sociable life. For Faret, in fact, conversation is one skill among oth-
ers of equal importance, while for Courtin it is in conversation that the
most salient qualities of the individual are tested. 1 ' Gradually, ideal
conversation moves to a place outside ceremonial, as though the other
rules of deportment and demeanor had become too burdensome to al-
low enough space for the most important skill of all. Conversation be-
comes a means of escaping an overly-complex status system, while in
fact posing no real threat to that system. After the publication of a book
of conversations by the Chevalier de Méré in 1668, many theoretical
discussions of the art of sociable living appeared in the form of model
conversations rather than in conduct manuals. In his discourse " O n
conversation," Méré stresses that he is giving a looser definition to the
word: "J'appelle conversation, tous les entretiens qu'ont toutes sortes
de gens, qui se communiquent les uns aux autres . . ." H Furthermore,
he notes, the company in which one finds the best conversation is often
not to be sought at court. Le grand monde occupies an undefinable space,
or rather, a space that it creates for itself with each social encounter:
. . . il est bon de se souvenir que cette cour qu'on prend pour mo-
dèle, est une affluence de toute sorte de gens; que les uns n'y font
que passer, que les autres n'en sont que depuis peu, et que la plu-
part quoi qu'ils y soient nés ne sont pas à imiter . . . Mais le grand
monde qui s'étend par tout est plus accompli, de sorte que pour ce
qui regarde ces façons de vivre et de procéder qu'on aime, il faut
considérer la Cour et le grande Monde séparément, . . . (p. 111).
By emphasizing this separation, Méré points to an important dis-

tinction between his idea of the honnête homme and Castiglione's perfect
courtier, who is always aware that the purpose of his social accomplish-
ments is to make of himself a model for the prince. Conversation
among Méré's honnêtes gens has become utterly self-contained. 15 T h e
space occupied by "le grande monde," defined with such careful inde-
terminacy by Méré, is much more vast than the clearly circumscribed
court, but at the same time it is more exclusive. In order to sustain a
vision of civility and personal accomplishment that is radically elite,
the space in which it is enacted can no longer be the court, frequented
now by "all kinds of people." More precisely, Méré considers the rules
of sociability to be no longer observable in the overtly competitive at-
mosphere of court interaction. It is no longer enough to propose, as
Faret had, a list of precepts to help the reader "qui se veut rendre agré-
able dans la cour" (p. 6). In fact, Méré's honnête homme seems to be
fleeing the turbulence of court interaction and seeking a milieu which
is completely separate from it. While Faret had opened his treatise with
warnings of the dangers of court life, he nonetheless viewed it as a
territory occupied by the best as well as the worst of "le monde." Méré,
on the other hand, states flatly that true honnêtes gens must leave the
court to find ideal conversation.
Pour ce qui est des Maisons Royales, les entretiens en sont fort
interrrompus; on y va moins pour discourir, que pour se montrer
. . . Aussi la plupart qui ne s'y rendent que pour leur intérêt par-
ticulier, me semblent plutôt de fâcheux négotiateurs que des gens
de bonne compagnie (p. 122).
Méré's definition of conversation is similar to that of Madeleine de

Scudéry, who made important contributions to the literature of con-
duct in her novels and in a vast collection of conversations partially
excerpted from her fiction and published between 1680 and 1692. She
also insists on a loose, evasive definition of ideal conversation, stating
instead that there are many forms of dialogue that cannot be properly
called by that name:
Lorsque les hommes ne parlent précisément que pour la nécessité

de leurs affaires, cela ne peut pas s'appeler ainsi . . . un plaideur
qui parle de son procès à ses juges, un marchand qui négocie avec
un autre, un général d'armée qui donne des ordres, . . . tout cela
n'est pas ce qu'on doit appeler conversation. 16
All of her counterexamples are of individuals of unequal status en-

gaging in dialogue with a practical end, two situations which she found
incompatible with ideal sociability.
Both Méré and Scudéry also tried to promulgate a new notion of
sociable exchange that would reject any similarity to the scholastic idea
of "dialogue." Other theoreticians of social conduct viewed sociability
as simply a sub-genre of traditional rhetoric, and organized their rules
for conversation and letter exchange accordingly. René Bary, who in
1653 wrote an important treatise on modern rhetoric, decided in 1664
to publish a book on conversation. H e had been unwilling to print the
book, he says, until pressure from his friends, particularly his female
acquaintances, persuaded him of the usefulness of such a work. 17 T h e
book is comprised of 100 conversations in the form of short dialogues,
in which all interlocutors contribute to the exchange in regular alter-
nation. T h e main purpose of his collection, he says, is moral instruc-
tion. 18
Bary's idea of moral instruction could hardly be further from the
notion of conversation as presented by Scudéry or Méré. Their idea of
honnête conversation is closer to what Kenneth Burke calls "pure per-
suasion," which "involves the saying of something not for an extra-
verbal advantage to be got by the saying, but because of a satisfaction
intrinsic to the saying." 19 While both the scholastic and the more
worldly models of interaction can be detected in conduct books pub-
lished throughout the second half of the century, the scholastic model
was gradually replaced by a looser concept of sociability. 20 This was
accompanied by an increasingly negative attitude toward the useful-
ness of any sort of "rules" at all in the conduct of conversation.
François de Callières's two conversation books, published in 1690
and 1693, illustrate this development. In Des Mots à la mode (1690), he
presents the reader with a transcription of a salon conversation, "une
fameuse conversation qui se fit il n'y a pas longtemps chez une femme
de qualité." 21 While Courtin had been concerned with expanding the
system of differentiation to include all social interaction, Callières ar-
gues that such a scientific view of status distinctions has been rendered
inoperable. T h e speakers in Callières's conversations observe that
everyone now borrows each other's manners, gestures, and, especially,
styles of speech, so that conversation is often nothing more than a ram-
pant verbal display. It is impossible to participate in a group discussion
that is not riddled with neologisms, vulgar turns of phrase, and osten-
tatious forms of address—all improperly used. T h e art of social inter-
action, it would seem, has been lost to an obsessive concern with titles
and other verbal signs of privilege. T h e acquisitive discourse of the
bourgeoisie has made dangerous incursions into the social life of
the elite. T h e most pernicious example of this that is put forward is the
bourgeois usurpation of noble titles, but Callières notes that members
of the aristocracy also abuse their titles by parading them immodestly:
"Je voudrais encore que les gens de qualité apprissent à se corriger d'un
défaut très grand . . . qui est de prôner sans cesse leur rang et leur
naissance à ceux qui ne la leur contestent pas" (p. 139). What has been
lost, the company eventually agrees, is a "sens commun" that would
put a stop to these abuses of language (p.20).
While the speakers in Scudéry's and Méré's conversations seem to
feel that the boundaries of their model world are secure, discussions of
polite interaction in books purporting to teach the uninitiated were be-
coming more skeptical. Morvan de Bellegarde, while calling politesse
"un précis de toutes les vertus morales," warns that most people who
seem to have acquired these virtues in fact have only "borrowed" their
appearance:
Bien des gens passent pour polis, qui n'ont que l'écorce de la poli-
tesse: ils se cachent, mais sous des dehors empruntés qui éblouis-
sent . . . Il ne faut donc pas faire un grand fonds sur cette politesse
purement extérieure, qui ne consiste que dans de certaines manières
composées . . . il faut qu'elle ait ses racines dans le coeur, et qu'elle
soit fondée sur de véritables sentiments. 22
In a second volume of conversations published three years after his

first one, Callières presents the same group of speakers, this time re-
flecting on lessons learned since their earlier conversation. T h e y return
to the idea of "common sense", proposing that it is the only principle
that may be able to effectively exclude from conversation "les façons
de parler bourgeois." 25 Callières compares this sort of speech to coun-
terfeit money, " . . . la fausse monnaie qui s'était introduite dans le
commerce des jeunes gens, mais qui est décriée, et qui n'a plus de cours
parmi ceux qui parlent bien" (p. 2). T h e new mission of polite society,
he says, is to prevent any further weakening of this system of verbal
commerce by refusing to honor the false coin of bourgeois speech,
which has value only for those who are unable to recognize it as coun-
terfeit. At the end of this conversation the hostess reads a letter she has
just received, saying it will provide the best example of the kind of
discourse the group is trying to be rid of. After critiquing it word by
word, they rewrite it in a more suitable style, and in the end agree that
they have succeeded in doing justice to the thoughts that had been
hidden and distorted in the first version by the misuse of langugage.
The key to their process of reconstruction, however, was the complete
absence of rules. By following their "common sense," the company
claims, they were able to purge the text of its false rhetorical display
and restore its message in a simple style exemplifying "politesse":
Autrefois . . . on examinait avec soin les conditions de ceux à qui

on écrivait; on s'en formait divers degrés auxquels on écrivait dif-
féremment . . . La civilité a augmenté parmi nous à mesure que la
politesse s'y est introduite, et c'est cette politesse qui a établi sage-
ment la mode d'écrire en billet, où on supprime toutes sortes de
souscriptions et de cérémonies dans les lettres . . . (p.227-29).
The business of civility here seems to be simply a process of veri-

fying credentials. In their discussion of both speech and writing, the
members of the group set out to distinguish authentic from inauthentic
discourse, the authentic speakers being those who have so thoroughly
digested the rules of "politesse" that they can now pretend to abandon
them.
Written Conversation: The Epistolary Manuals

The choice of a letter test to illustrate the principle of "poli-
tesse" in verbal communication reflects a widespread interest in epis-
tolary writing, an interest that was rapidly increasing at the end of the
seventeenth century. In fact, epistolary manuals became at least as im-
portant as conduct books in providing readers with models for verbal
communication in society. Reflecting an increasing interest in the letter
as a practical means of communication and as an art form, epistolary
manuals studied chronologically also document significant changes in
thinking about how language functions in conversation, both written
and spoken. 24
French epistolary manuals of the seventeenth century define letter

correspondence as a written equivalent of polite conversation. Richelet
begins his introduction to a collection of exemplary letters with a re-
mark on the writer's need to cultivate the illusion of this equivalence:
"Lorsqu'on veut faire une lettre, il faut bien se persuader, qu'écrire et
parler à un absent, c'est la même chose . . ,"25 T h e principal objective
of both letter and conversation is to construct a balanced verbal dia-
logue, with each interlocutor "giving" and "taking" in equal measure.
Above all, the good letter writer, like the good conversationalist, al-
ways has the interlocutor in mind. T h e most important consideration
in composing a letter, writes Paul Jacob, is the person you are address-
ing: "L'essai d'une bonne lettre ou d'un bon discours est de bien
connaître les personnes à qui on écrit, et leur préparer toujours ce qui
leur est plus propre." 26
Yet, while the authors of letter manuals seem to agree that letter
exchange is a representation of conversation, they also cite differences
between speech and writing that make any total equivalence impos-
sible. T h e objective of making a letter seem like speech, and the result-
ing problems posed to epistolary writers and readers, is a common
topic of conduct literature. Count Ludovico's definition of writing in
The Book of the Courtier is echoed in many of the later French conduct
books:
. . . writing is none other than a kind of speech which remains in

being after it has been uttered, the representation, as it were, or
rather the very life of our words . . . writing preserves the words
and submits them to the judgment of the reader, who has the time
to give them his considered attention. 27
Letter exchange imitates conversation, but the written word cannot

easily "escape" the reader, as speech can the listener. Written dialogue
is forced into a kind of orderly economy, and the "politesse" of letter
conversation can be more closely scrutinized for evidence of those "vér-
itables sentiments" whose reality Bellegarde finds so difficult to
confirm. Vaumorière says that conversation "nous accoutument insen-
siblement à nous exprimer avec facilité," but when it comes to writing,
he reluctantly admits otherwise: " . . . que l'on ne flatte point, il faut
écrire plus exactement qu'on ne parle. Nous devons considérer que les
yeux sont plus fidèles que les oreilles. Ce que nous voyons sur le papier,
demeure exposé à notre critique, et la plupart des choses que l'on nous
dit se dérobent à nos reflexions." 28
T h e earliest French secrétaires were written for the education of
young princes and aspiring courtiers; Etienne du Tronchet's Lettres mis-
sives et familières (1569), is the first of this type. T h e y are typically di-
vided into two sections, general precepts for the letter writer and
illustrative examples of various types of letters. T h e readers are invited
to copy the models in order to learn, and, as the manuals are usually
written by court secretaries who have been asked to write letters for
others, the proven value of a letter is often noted by the author, as in
this preface by François de Rosset: "Si tu es versé aux affaires de la
cour, tu y pourras remarquer la qualité de ceux qui parlent aux lettres,
qui ne portent aucun nom sur le front, et que j'ai presque toutes faites
par le commandement ou à la prière des personnes illustres, qui s'en
sont servies en divers sujets." 29 Echoing Pasquier's precepts for learn-
ing how to speak in courtly circles, the early authors of model letter
collections emphasize that the best way to learn to write is by imitat-
ing. In a collection of his own letters which he offers to readers instead
of a list of rules, Jean de Lannel suggests how individual readers of
model texts thus become linked to one another; "Ceux qui sauront bien
vous imiter, se rendront incontinent dignes d'être eux-mêmes imi-
tées." 30
Letter dialogue, like conversation, depends on each interlocutor
working to sustain a balanced exchange. This means that the writer
must pattern the text of a letter after the correspondent's discourse. As
Puget de la Serre writes, it is important to respond to a letter point by
point, so as to make your "lettre de réponse" a mirror image of the
message it is answering. 3 ' In deciding what to say and how to say it,
the letter writer must always be guided by the addressee. Thus one of
the most important qualities of a good letter writer is the ability to
change, to use different voices according to the situation and the person
being addressed. As Paul Jacob states in Le Parfait secrétaire: "Le plus
expédient est de faire de sa plume ce que faisait Protée de sa personne,
la changeant en toutes les formes possibles, à la diversifier selon la né-
cessité du sujet, et la qualité de la personne . . ."' 2 Accordingly, Jacob
divides his model letters into sub-genres defined by the occasion
("Lettres de consolation, de conjouissance, d'étrennes," etc.), and also
provides a model response for each type, with accompanying "pré-

ceptes" for both letter and response.
Both Jacob and Puget de La Serre model their precepts for episto-
lary discourse on classical rhetoric. Puget de La Serre states that a letter
should be divided into three parts, analogous to the Ciceronean parts
of speech. 33 Whether writing a dedicatory epistle or a love letter, the
writer's purpose is to persuade, to "enter" the interlocutor's mind: "La
perfection de l'éloquence consistant à faire entrer des vérités dans l'es-
prit humain, et les y rendre maîtresses absolues de toutes les affections,
soit par amour, soit par plaisir, soit à vive force de persuasion" (Jacob,
p. 35). Jacob is quick to warn, however, against the degeneration of
sociable rhetoric into abject flattery, which he describes as a formidable
threat to true civility; "C'est le vrai visage de la cour, aussi bien que du
siècle, et que les hommes ne devraient point recevoir puisqu'il renverse
et confond toutes les marques de l'amitié et de la société civile par ses
charmes trompeurs qui empêchent le discernement" (pp. 37-38).
The art of persuasion is to be used in written conversation only as
a means of assuring the illusion of reciprocity, of dialogue as a balanced
exchange of gifts. Of all the occasions for letter writing discussed by
Jacob, the exchange of news is the one he views as "le premier et le
plus agréable" (p. 160), for it is in the "lettre de nouvelles" that one can
most clearly see written dialogue as an exchange of gifts, and epistolary
rhetoric as the art of giving what is desired, and of making desirable
what is given:
. . . si celui à qui nous envoyons des nouvelles nous les a deman-

dées, on dira que c'est avec ardeur que nous désirons lui satisfaire,
lui proposant la chose en telle sorte que son esprit soit toujours en
suspens et en attente . . . s'il n'en a fait aucune demande, nous l'en
rendrons désireux par quelque insinuation (pp. 162-64).
In many of the epistolary manuals written after 1670, the defini-

tions of letter communication are different than those presented in ear-
lier texts. Ortigue de Vaumorière, writing in 1688, remarks that a letter
is structured like an oration, and should be divided into parts accord-
ingly, but he goes on to say: "Après avoir dit que l'on peut garder cet
ordre, j'ajoute qu'il vaut mieux y renoncer que de le faire paraître. Rien
ne doit sentir la contrainte ni l'affectation dans une lettre, tout y doit
avoir l'air de liberté qui règne dans l'entretien ordinaire." 34 Jean Léonor
de Grimarest's 1709 manual abandons the analogy with oratory com-
pletely; in his preface he attacks his precursors for neglecting the im-
portance of sentiment:
. . . on a pris les lettres pour des ouvrages d'esprit et d'éloquence;

on leur a donné des parties distingués, comme à un discours ora-
toire: et l'on n'a pas fait reflexion que la nature doit y paraître à
découvert, et dégagée de tout ornement étranger . . . ils ont négligé
les sentiments et ils doivent dominer dans une lettre. 35
While letter writing continues to be considered an expression of

civility, and the skilled writer of them someone who has mastered so-
ciability, certain types of letters, such as the "lettre de compliment,"
are now thought artificial and thus unworthy of polite society. La Fev-
rerie remarks: "Quelle ridicule et bizarre civilité, que celle des compli-
ments! Il entre encore de la ruse et de l'artifice dans cette sorte de
combat, et je ne m'étonne pas si les hommes francs et sincères sont si
peu propres, et regardent nos compliments comme un ouvrage de la
politique, comme un effet de la corruption du siècle, comme la peste
de la société civile." 36 Terms like "sincère," "franc," "simple," are now
given more importance in discussions of the qualities essential to letter
dialogue. La Fevrerie writes that these traits are the only ones neces-
sary for a reader to adequately judge a love letter, which cannot be
appreciated by anyone but the person to whom it is addressed:
Il est dangereux de les intercepter, et de les communiquer à qui que

ce soit qu'aux intéressés, qui en connaissent l'importance. Le don
de pénétrer et de bien goûter ces lettres n'appartient pas aux esprits
fiers et superbes, mais aux âmes simples, pures, et sincères, à qui
l'amour communique toutes les délices (pp. 37-38).
In learning how to write any type of letter one must avoid copying
letters presented as models. Whereas the earlier manuals had recom-
mended that readers learn by imitating, the later ones warn against
this. 37 Puget de La Serre's manual consisted almost entirely of model
letters to be studied and adapted to the reader's needs. The authenticity
of the models, moreover, was not an issue; though his collection in-
cludes both fictional and real letters, we are not told which is which. 38
The model letters presented in manuals later in the century tend to be
highly specific, that is, written for more precise occasions than those
found in earlier manuals, so that they would not be easily copied.
While Jacob's manual had divided letters into general sub-genres and
added an appropriate response for each model, Vaumorière's models
have long titles referring to a distinct occasion (e.g. "Reproche à un
homme de la cour, au sujet de l'indifférence qu'il a pour ses amis, de-
puis qu'il est élevé à une grande dignité."). Grimarest emphasizes that
the number of occasions for letter dialogue is limitless, and cannot be
adequately systematized (p. 58).
The underlying change in attitudes toward sociable dialogue in all
of these later modifications is new emphasis on the personal, on a dis-
course marked by the traits of the individual writer and reader. 39 Let-
ters, writes La Fevrerie, "n'ont point de règles précises et certaines
. . ." (p. 19-20). This, he says, is because they are true images of their
writer and must communicate the uniqueness of the writer's situation
(p.20). Richelet, in his collection entitled Les Plus belles lettres des meil-
leurs auteurs français, adds introductory biographical notes to the indi-
vidual texts, many of which had been printed before in other epistolary
manuals. Presented in this way, the letters are not simply models of
style, but also tell the story of their authors' lives. 40
With this new emphasis on the expression of private sentiment and
personal circumstances in letter dialogue, it is not surprising that in-
creased attention is given to the love letter as a new form of authentic
communication. For La Fevrerie, the love letter is the purest form of
the genre, resulting from the desire of one person to reveal her or his
most private thoughts to another:
J e crois même que l'Amour a été le premier inventeur des lettres

. . . La grande affaire a toujours été celle du coeur. L'amour qui a
d'abord uni les hommes, ne leur donna point de plus grand désirs
que ceux de se voir et de se communiquer, lorsqu'ils étaient séparés
par une cruelle absence (p. 30-31).
Changes made by Richelet in successive editions of his letter collec-

tion reveal this interest in new styles of sentimental communication.
As in the case of many of the later manuals and epistolary collections,
Richelet's third edition, published in 1705, multiplies the number of
letter categories and includes more references to specific people and
situations. The longest new section he calls "lettres passionnées." All
but one of the letters in this section are written by women, and in-
cluded are several letters taken from Lettres portugaises. Richelet pro-
vides prefatory remarks "sur la manière de faire les lettres passionnées,"
stressing the point that the purpose of a passionate letter is to elicit
compassion from the reader. To that end, one must learn to "make the
heart speak" (p. 86).
Descriptions of the love letter genre always warn, though, that this
is one rhetorical art that cannot be taught. T h e love letter is the form
least ruled by convention. Grimarest exempts it from other rules of
epistolary style, and Du Plaisir writes that a "lettre passionnée" ex-
presses the lover's true thoughts more clearly than speech: "On ne
garde point de règle dans les lettres passionnées; la véhémence, l'in-
égalité, les doutes, les tumultes, tout y a place; et de même qu'ailleurs
on écrit comme on parle, ici on écrit comme l'on pense." 41 Writers who
may have otherwise mastered the epistolary art are often unable to pro-
duce a good love letter. Méré, noting that even Voiture did not write
any memorable love letters, says "il n'y a point de sujet qui souffre
moins les fausses beautés" (1,58). H e concludes that Voiture's love let-
ters were insincere. T h e love letter is a kind of litmus test of textual
purity, it is considered to be the only epistolary form in which the
writer's feelings cannot be disguised.
A love letter, then, cannot be imitated; to learn to write one it is
only necessary to be sincere. This is why, for La Fevrerie, there are no
good love letters in novels. A fictional love letter is automatically in-
ferior:
on ne trouvera pas à prendre depuis L'Astrée jusqu'à La Princesse de

Clèves, de lettres excellentes . . . toutes les lettres en sont mé-
diocres, et la raison est, que ces sortes de lettres ne sont pas origi-
nales. Ce sont des fantaisies . . . Ces auteurs n'ont écrit ni pour
Cyrus, ni pour Clélie, ni pour eux, mais seulement pour le pub-
lic . . . (pp. 36-37).
For La Fevrerie, a letter, like its author, can never be pleasing to

everyone; it is vain for a letter writer to seek the approval of a general
audience; "D'ailleurs comme nos manières ne plaisent pas à tout le
monde, il est impossible que les lettres qui en sont pleines, aient une
approbation générale" (pp.21-22). O n the other hand, a purportedly
"real" letter correspondence, written with no view to publication,
would have much to teach any reader interested in the sincere expres-
sion of human emotions. T h e conventional frame of an epistolary
novel, beginning with the publication of Lettresportugaises and Lettres de
Babet in 1669, will cater to this reader's taste for "true" letter dialogue,
published only by accident, in circumstances beyond the writer's con-
trol.
T h e question of control over what one is writing is central to the
production as well as the publication of love letters at this time. What
is valorized in the style of a "lettre passionee" is an esthetic of excess, a
form of expression exceeding the limits of prescribed behavior, partic-
ularly when the letter is written by a woman. It is not surprising, then,
to find Richelet presenting anonymous letters by women as examples
of the best passionate letters, for simply writing such a letter in the first
place is proof of a female author's loss of self-control. T h i s fundamental
transgression that a love letter written by a woman was thought to
represent could result in the displacement of feminine discourse from
the controlled economy of sociability to a much larger and more dan-
gerous public marketplace. 42
T h e new interest in epistolary exchange as an expression of the
writer's unique self stands in obvious contrast to earlier definitions of
both written and spoken dialogue as an interlocking system of mutual
obligation, wherein imitation was the principle of conduct enabling
individuals to learn how to interact. T h i s shift in the normative codes
for social interaction was accompanied by several changes in the society
at large. T h e literature of sociable living was read by a much more
diverse audience at the end of the century than at the beginning, and
it was increasingly difficult to sustain the illusion of "le monde" as a
circle of equals. 43 T h e growing power of the state was eroding aristo-
cratic privileges, while the increasing wealth of the bourgeoisie was
giving it access to marks of status which had previously been granted
only to the nobility. As we saw in Callieres's conversation book it was
impossible to exclude specific signs of one's individual status on "the
outside" from the discourse of "insiders" in salon culture. With the
rules of entry and exit, of inclusion and exclusion becoming increas-
ingly diffuse, the ideology of sociability was gradually being replaced
by a new ideal of sincerity.
In a recent study of the letter book as a literary institution from the
Renaissance to the end of the eighteenth century, Janet Altman dis-
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
cursed eaters of raw flesh. Away then with favorites of the Khan,
slaves to Mongols!” and the conflict would begin.
In 1255 Novgorod disturbers summoned Yaroslav as prince to their

city. Nevski was astounded when he heard that his son had been
driven away in disgrace, and that his place had been given to
Yaroslav. Why could Yaroslav serve Novgorod better than Vassili,
unless because Yaroslav was in disgrace at the Horde, and under
the Khan’s anger? Nevski moved at once against Novgorod. In
Torjok, where he met his son, he learned still newer details of the riot
from Novgorod men, who had come out to [281]meet him. The city
was terribly excited, disorder had taken unusual proportions.
Yaroslav had fled when he heard that his brother was coming. The
posadnik at that time was Anani, a well-known opponent of Vladimir.
The adherents of Vladimir, who were, of course, favorable to Nevski,
strove to allay the excitement, and bring back Vassili, but they also
had an object apart from this: their leader was Mihalko Stepanovitch,
whom they wished to make posadnik; therefore they accused Anani
of causing the disturbance, and tried to expel him from office.
Mihalko appeared boldly against his opponents, and the people were
divided. It seemed to uninformed observers as if Mihalko’s adherents
were seeking merely for the profit of boyars. “Were they not mainly
those rich men, who cared not for poor folk, while Anani’s adherents
were simple men, standing up bravely for liberty and the honor of
Novgorod?” The excitement became greater and greater. Nevski,
having drawn near, sent a command to Novgorod to put an end to
the riot, and give him Anani. Through this the excitement was not
decreased, but heightened immensely,—nay, it became general. The
outbreak was involved by the fact that Anani, though a known enemy
of Vladimir, proved to be innocent this time. The disturbers on both
sides had abused his name greatly. One party promised to die for
him, the other to throw him into the river, and drown him. Some
declared that the whole riot was made to protect their good guardian
and defender, while others represented him falsely as the banisher
of Vassili, and the father of every known evil. Those in arms against
Mihalko encamped at Nikola, and swore to die for Anani.
When Nevski was approaching, they asked of one another, “What

shall we do?” and finally resolved not to surrender any of their
people. The “small folk” kissed the cross, declaring: “We will defend
Novgorod rights and live or die for them.” When Nevski commanded
them to surrender Anani, all were confused, and, not knowing what
course to pursue, they went to Dolinot, the archbishop, and
counseled. They knew Nevski’s persistence, they knew that when he
had once taken a position he would not retire from it, and to the
demand these words were added: “If ye will not yield me Anani, I am
no longer your prince, I will march straight against you.” They
decided at last to beg Dolinot, [282]and Klim, the commander, to go to
Nevski in the name of all Novgorod, and say to him: “Come, Prince,
to thy throne and give no ear to offenders. Work thy displeasure on
Anani and others.”
The two men went to Nevski as ambassadors. All waited their return
with impatience. The prince listened neither to Klim nor to Dolinot.
When they returned and announced their failure, there was sorrow
on both sides. In the meeting which followed, people said with one
voice: “It is a sin for those men who have brought us to quarrel with
Nevski.” They came almost to bloodshed, and if blood did not flow
the whole merit belonged to Anani. Mihalko with his men was ready
to fall on Anani’s adherents, but Anani sent secret observers to note
all that was happening. When the adherents of these two men came
to blows, and the mob rushed to burn the house of Mihalko and kill
him, Anani stopped them, saying: “Brothers, if ye wish to kill him, ye
must take my life from me first.”
The third day after this, Nevski’s forces stood fully armed before
Novgorod. On the fourth day he sent again a message to the city, but
now it was changed somewhat: “Remove Anani from office, and I will
forgive you.” All yielded willingly, and Anani himself before others.
They gave the office to Mihalko, making peace with Nevski on his
own terms. Prince Vassili was seated in Novgorod again, and his
return should have pleased the city, since his reign was not without
profit. The Riga Germans, and also the Swedes, had begun new
attacks on the Novgorod borders, and frequent raids were made by
the Lithuanians. Vassili won victories over all these enemies. The
Lithuanians were crushed; the prince pursued them far west of
Toropets. The Germans withdrew before the Pskoff warriors, and the
Swedes were badly defeated.
This new attack of the Swedes disturbed Nevski, hence he came to

Novgorod with large forces, and commanded the city to assemble
fresh regiments. The point of his intended attack was kept secret.
Cyril, Metropolitan of Russia, came with him, and conducted the
prince and his troops to Koporye. From there he sent him on his
journey, after blessing the warriors, who learned then that their
campaign was to end in that region where in summer the sun does
not set for six months, and in winter does not rise for the same
[283]length of time. This locality—the country of the Lopars, later
called Lapland by Germans—was the remotest part of Novgorod
possessions, and was visited rarely, for it had not been assailed
hitherto by the enemies of Russia, but about this time the Swedes
were endeavoring to take those lands from Russia, and connect
them with Sweden.
This was among Nevski’s most striking campaigns. Marching along

difficult cliffs and through dense forests he finally reached the sea.
The wearied Novgorod men now refused to go farther, though they
had made but half the journey, so Nevski sent them home and
finished the campaign with his own personal followers, who were as
untiring and fearless as their prince. He won all the seacoast, and
returned bringing a multitude of prisoners, and leaving the country
behind him in fear and obedience. Nevski’s men had before this
pushed through the gloom of Yatoyag forests; they had made paths
through wooded swamps in Lithuania; they had suffered from
blizzards in Trans-Volga regions; they had endured all kinds of
hardship and toil in campaigning, but they had seen nothing like that
which they experienced in this war against Chuds and Lopars (Fins
and Lapps). Nevski had now marked with his sword, for the use of
coming ages, the Finnish boundary of Russia.
Whenever Nevski went to the Horde he was distinguished beyond

other princes; they did not detain him too long; they granted his
requests, and dismissed him with honor. When he brought with him
Yaroslav, his brother, as he had brought Andrei earlier, the Khan
forgave Yaroslav, who after that remained quietly in his own
possessions. And when an order came from the Khan to send forces
beyond the Terek near the foot of the Caucasus, the Russians were
freed from this service at Nevski’s request.
The prince suffered more and more from those visits to the Horde. In
former days he seemed stern and serious after each of them, but
now he seemed worn and exhausted. His health did not promise
long life to him. The demands of the Mongols were increasing, and
soon a decision was published which brought all men to despair
when they heard it. No one had power to set aside or change this
decision. The Khan commanded to take a great census, to count all
his subjects, and increase his income by imposing [284]a head tax.
This time Nevski’s intercession was useless. The greedy master of
the Horde insisted on his decision, adding that such was the will of
the Grand Khan. Mangu had in fact commanded to enumerate all
men and things under Mongol dominion.
Officials of the Horde appeared first in Ryazan and in Murom. There
they counted the people and described the land minutely. Dues were
imposed upon all men except the clergy. Town and village property,
and occupations were described in this census. The officials went
thence to Suzdal, Rostoff, and Vladimir. One year and a second had
passed before they finished. They did this work with great care,
without haste, and most accurately. Next inspectors appeared to
ensure the close gathering of the tribute and taxes. All this time an
ominous sound was heard coming from Novgorod, though there had
been order in the city since the second installation of Nevski’s son,
Vassili, now sixteen years of age and well conversant with the affairs
of that place.
Nevski was observing the census carefully everywhere, in places

ruled by others as well as by himself. His labor in studying this work
took much of his time and strength.
In the winter of 1257–1258 the Mongols were sent to Novgorod to

enumerate the inhabitants and property of that place. When the
officials were leaving Vladimir, Nevski gave them as assistants a
number of his own men, but he did not go himself, since he wished
to hear from his son before further action. While he was waiting for
news, the chief Mongols came rushing back to Vladimir in anger.
How they had been offended in Novgorod no man could learn from
their account and their outcries. With a great din they attacked the
prince, saying that they had gone to Novgorod believing in his word,
but if they were to be treated in this way they would throw aside
everything and go back to the Golden Horde straightway.
Nevski, seeing clearly the danger, summoned his brothers, Boris

from Rostoff, and Andrei from Suzdal, but only with great difficulty
could he detain the Mongols. At last, however, they consented to
return to Novgorod, if accompanied by Nevski and his brothers. The
Grand Prince, upon approaching Novgorod, was surprised that his
son did not come out to meet him. Most of the Mongols had followed
their superiors to Vladimir, only a few [285]had remained in the city;
these declared that no census had been made, and added: “We
know not what is happening.”
The posadnik, Mihalko, had been killed,—Anani had died a few

months earlier. Some said that Prince Vassili had declared to the
people his willingness to die for the liberties of Novgorod; others said
that he was not in the city. A second posadnik had been chosen, and
killed. Klim, the commander, they had driven out of Novgorod.
When Vassili heard that his father was coming, he had in fact said to
the people: “They are bringing fetters to put on us. Let us die for the
liberties of Novgorod!” He had been taught these daring words by
boyars. But after uttering them his courage failed and he fled to
Pskoff with these same boyars.
Nevski wished to march against Pskoff without waiting, but the

Mongols would not permit it; they feared to part with him. Novgorod
then sent the following message to the Mongols: “Honor from us to
the Khan, and to you. We have gifts for him, and for you also.”
Nevski now turned to Pskoff with this message: “Send back my son
and all the traitorous boyars immediately.” The guilty men were sent
back, and, knowing that Nevski was not mild with offenders, they
looked for dire punishment. “To evil men an evil end,” said the
people. “These boyars have brought Prince Vassili to sorrow.” All in
the city expected that one would be hanged, and another beheaded.
The authors of these troubles were, in fact, cruelly punished. Some
had their eyes put out, some had a hand cut off, others had their
nostrils torn away, their tongues cut out, or their ears taken off;
Vassili was put under guard and sent to Suzdal.
The Mongol officials, well pleased with this punishment, and with the
rich gifts of the city, promised to make no complaint to the Khan; they
would either be silent, they said, touching what had been done, or
would mention it mildly. So those officials were pacified, and brought
to good humor.
Novgorod had chosen Misha as posadnik, but he had been

murdered during the disturbance. They now selected Michael; a third
man, Jiroha, was appointed as commander to succeed Klim, who
had been driven from Novgorod. The people begged [286]Nevski not
to leave them without a prince. Many Novgorod men had recently
visited Vladimir; some of these had gone on errands, and some had
been sent by Nevski to see how obedience was rendered the
Mongols in that city. Hearing from the people there all the terrors of
Nevruya’s “promenade” they knew well the meaning of a Mongol
census invasion. Some of these men, on returning, informed their
friends that if Novgorod would not yield to the census, a Mongol host
would come quickly, and bring woe to the city; others reported dread
tidings: Mongol forces were marching already. Novgorod grew quiet
at once, and the leading citizens decided to permit the census to be
taken. Because of this decision, Nevski was able to satisfy the
Mongols, and he begged them not to delay or defer, but to carry out
the Khan’s will immediately. They consented, but required that the
Grand Prince himself should stay with them.
When the census officials appeared to begin their work again in

Novgorod and districts around it, the promise to yield was as if it had
never been given. When the officials stepped out of sleighs, and
were assigned the best houses to live in, and the Mongols made
ready to pass from street to street, and from house to house, an
ominous murmur went up throughout Novgorod. In all districts near
the city there was disturbance and uproar. Men ridiculed the
Mongols, and spoke evil words to their faces. The censors, in alarm,
asked Nevski to protect them. He sent guards to their houses, and
among these the son of the posadnik. But neither posadnik nor
commander had meaning for Novgorod malcontents. Not only were
common people terribly excited, but the chief men fell into two
parties opposed to each other. The Khan’s officials threatened to
abandon their task altogether. Nevski was forced to stay with them
always. The people grew still more excited: “We will die for Holy
Sophia!” was their watchword. The Mongol officials turned to the
boyars, repeating suggestively: “Permit us to take the census, or we
will leave Novgorod!” The boyars laid all blame on the people. The
Mongols turned then to Nevski, with these words: “Why should we
stay here longer? Your people will kill us.” On the square louder and
louder were heard threatening voices. “Let us resist to the death!
Whoso is just let him join us!” The crowd of people felt sure of their
rights and complained: “The rich command [287]to count our heads.
They make everything easy for themselves, but evil for small folk.”
There was a roar throughout the city: “We will die for justice!” All at
once a report was spread that the Mongols were to move on the
Kremlin from two points. There was a rush to the cathedral from all
parts, and a cry rose: “Let us go to Saint Sophia. We will lay down
our heads there!”
Meanwhile the Mongols were only thinking of how to save

themselves. Nevski, greatly fearing lest the people might kill them,
did not think it wise to detain them longer. Not merely had they not
finished the census, they had barely begun it. Still, in spite of the
turmoil, no riot took place in that boisterous Novgorod, accustomed
to disorder and bloodshed. No “pagan eater of raw flesh” was
attacked, either inside its walls or beyond them.
At the beginning of 1259, new envoys from the Horde arrived at

Vladimir, men so important that even the people remembered their
names, which were Berkai and Kasatchik. They were sent to
command the Khan’s men, and to finish the census in Novgorod.
Again Nevski was forced to accompany census officials. On the way
to Novgorod he joined with his own forces Rostoff regiments, and
also the regiments of Suzdal. Berkai and Kasatchik had demanded
this aid to protect them. They approached the city with a great force
of warriors. This time the Novgorod men were alarmed, but they
yielded only when they found resistance to be vain. The new envoys
did not return to the Horde till the work had begun in their presence
and they felt sure that their subordinates would be able to complete
it. These men went along each street from house to house,
describing accurately all the land, houses, goods, and people.
But Novgorod showed a no less desperate opposition than earlier,

an opposition which was strong, protracted and stubborn. Both sides
were prepared for a bloody conclusion. On one side was the dense
population of a city in which all carried weapons; on the other the
armies of the Grand Prince and the Khan’s commanders. Two
almost equal forces stood opposed to each other, and had reached
the utmost bounds of excitement. They had come to that moment
beyond which a bloody encounter must take place. But at this critical
juncture an idea flashed on Nevski which averted the peril. He
begged the Khan’s envoys [288]to go from Novgorod, and he would
assume all responsibility. They did this, and then he declared to the
people that he had exhausted all means and methods of saving
them. He would leave them now to the Khan, they might meet his
anger in their own way. Thereupon he commanded his troops to
leave the city immediately, and he himself walked forth from the
fortress. The Novgorod men had waited for his order to the troops to
attack them, and now to their amazement he had commanded those
troops to march out of the city. This command produced terror. All
bowed down at once before Nevski, and implored him not to leave
them. They promised to yield to his will absolutely. This ended the
trouble. The Mongols were recalled, and their work began in good
earnest. Later on the delight of Great Novgorod was unbounded
when the Khan’s agents finished the census, and vanished.
The struggle and anxieties of this period, ending with the completion
of the Novgorod census, took much time and strength from Nevski.
Only in 1260 was there, as the chronicler tells us, “any peace for
Christians.”
In the beginning of 1261, Nevski’s youngest son, Daniel, was born to

him. After that year the prince had no respite from suffering.
The worst of the Mongol yoke was not that every man’s head, and
every horn and hoof of his cattle was registered, not that Mongol
inspectors were stationed in all parts of the country; the heaviest
weight of the yoke came when the Khan farmed Russian taxes to
men from Khiva, Turkestan and Bukhara. Among partners and aids
of those tax-farmers were Jews and Armenians, persons of various
languages and religions. These traders in tribute, a people unheard
of in Russia till that time, began a work which greatly intensified
Mongol oppression. They became real torturers, squeezing the last
copper coin from the people. They imposed grinding interest for
arrears of tribute. They were worse than the most cruel usurer. Men
who were unable to pay they sold into slavery or beat savagely with
whips and clubs. This terror extended from end to end of the country.
From those galling oppressions came riots. The riots were
suppressed most unsparingly, and with bloodshed. No longer could
safety and peace be connected with any place. There were disorders
in Suzdal, in Pskoff, even in Pereyaslavl Beyond the Forest. [289]
These uprisings were not against Mongols directly. The people beat
tax-farmers and their assistants, not the Khan’s men, hence the
Khan could not be angry in the same degree; still his anger might be
looked for, and reports were often current that regiments from the
Horde were marching “to pacify” Russia.
At this juncture news came that Germans, the Knights of Livonia,
were advancing with a numerous force to attack Pskoff. Nevski sent
his own personal troops to Dmitri, his son, Prince of Novgorod at that
time, and ordered his brother, Yaroslav of Tver, to go also; he went
then to the Horde to try to save the Russian people from some of
their new and great afflictions. The gifts which he took with him were
more valuable than any he had given earlier, and his petitions were
the simplest, and the most reasonable. But at the Horde they gave
Nevski to understand that they were dissatisfied. They let him know
that they were not pleased with him personally. Berkai was different
from what he had been while Batu was still living or while he was
struggling with Sartak for mastery. He was curbed now by no man;
besides, he was angered by military failure beyond the Caucasus,
where he was warring with Hulagu, his strong cousin. He detained
Nevski without need all that winter, then he detained him during the
following summer, and only late in autumn could the prince set out
for home, sick and broken, to die before reaching Vladimir. He came
to Nizni-Novgorod, and when they brought him to Gorodets his last
hour was near. At that place he took the monk’s habit, and on
November 14, 1263, his life left him.
The death of Nevski fell on Russia like a thunderbolt. It was a

national calamity expected by no man, for with all his great services
Nevski died when only forty-two years had passed over him. Even
when burying him people could not believe that he had left them
forever. His name, his very coffin seemed sacred.
When the great Peter had founded St. Petersburg on the Neva,
concluded peace with the Swedes and restored the ancient
patrimony of Ijora, he brought Nevski’s bones to the capital, where
they repose in the monastery of Alexander Nevski, and are honored
at present and will be for the ages to come as relics of a saint and a
hero. There is no better saint in the whole Russian calendar, and no
greater statesman or warrior in its history than Alexander Nevski. By
his wisdom and by his policy of yielding with apparent [290]resignation
to the tyranny of the Mongols, he suppressed revolts which would
have perhaps brought about the abolition of native government, with
the substitution of Mongol for Russian princes. Such substitution
would have endangered the language, religion and race of the
Russian people. This had to be avoided at every sacrifice. No man
knew the relative strength of the Mongols and Russians better than
Alexander Nevski; no man was more devoted to Russia than he; no
man was more respected by his own; therefore his words had
weight, and when he explained that resistance would be ruin and
submission was the only road to salvation the people believed and
obeyed him. In this way he rescued Novgorod and many another city
from utter destruction, and saved the lives of untold thousands.
Above all his influence remained; it curbed passion and instilled
patience and courage into the minds of men, and the knowledge that
violence only made the yoke more oppressive.
About the time of Nevski’s death, Moscow began to increase in size

and importance. Daniel, his youngest son, received this town, then
very small, and a few villages around it, as his inheritance.
In Yuri Dolgoruki’s principality of Vladimir was laid the foundation of

Moscow, and all that distinguished Vladimir from Rostoff and Suzdal
distinguished Moscow in a higher degree. The advantage of Vladimir
over earlier cities consisted in this, that there were none of those
“ancient strong families” which held themselves separate from
others. The Vladimir principality was settled by people who had
come from many places and established themselves there during
that historical period when out of a varied multitude of Slav stocks
and families were formed one Russian people. This from the very
first was the place of all Russia, this was Vladimir’s distinction. This
must be said in a higher degree touching Moscow, the youngest and
most recent of places subjected to Yuri, and formed later than others
into a well-ordered region. When Dolgoruki’s inheritance had
become a strong state under princes succeeding him, the cities
therein became so assimilated to Vladimir that they recognized no
longer the pretensions to primacy of Rostoff and Suzdal. In the days
of Big Nest the appellation Great Russia was connected somewhat
loosely with Vladimir. This appellation, before which not only
[291]Rostoff and Suzdal yielded, but Lord Novgorod, was forced to
incline, became permanently connected with Moscow, when that city
rose to power finally. If, after the death of Andrei Bogolyubski, Rostoff
and Suzdal boyars insisted on calling Vladimir an adjunct, they could
not pretend that Moscow depended on the boyars of any place,
since Yuri Dolgoruki had raised it against boyars in general. The
tradition was that Moscow had been founded by Dolgoruki, and then
seized from him by boyars with violence which he punished with
immediate death.
The distinction of Vladimir rule lay in the fact that the power of the
prince acted firmly. Dolgoruki, and still more his son Andrei
Bogolyubski, put an end to boyar control, which in other principalities
was strong, and in some of them absolute, almighty. The struggle of
boyars to uphold the ancient, and for them useful order of rule, their
struggle for exceptional rights above other men, had in the Vladimir
land dropped to the place and the character of intrigue and of
treason, against which the people rose almost unanimously. The
power of the prince thus appeared with single effect, and the people
hastened to make it a state power. By precisely this aid of the people
Big Nest had overcome the proud and powerful “great ones,” who
stood against the “small people.” He had ended every claim of the
boyars, claims hostile to all rule which favored the people. He had
earned the love of earth-tillers and other workers by the fact that he
permitted no town or district to be governed through boyar authority,
but sent his own faithful servants to manage, and went himself yearly
with his family and trusted persons to see what was taking place,
and to personally give justice to all men. These servants differed
greatly from boyars; they were just as much subject to the Vladimir
prince as were the rest of the people. It was for their profit to
strengthen and support the native prince who was ruling.
In the Vladimir principality the whole social structure was built upon
land. The interests of all coincided. All, from small to great, earth-
tillers, artisans, clergy, merchants, warriors up to the prince himself,
formed one solid power, and this was Great Russia. When Big Nest,
near the end of his life, was opposed by his eldest son, Constantine,
and resolved on a radical change, he turned for support to the
people. He desired strength from the whole land as a unit. He did not
assemble simply boyars in [292]an affair of such magnitude, he did
not turn to his confidants only, he called boyars, merchants, and all
classes of people. Such a union of the prince and the people ruled
by him was confirmed by kissing the cross, and was a pledge of
future union and consequent greatness. This union was the special
distinction, and formed the main force of Great Russia. This
belonged not to Rostoff and Suzdal, where, through ties with Great
Novgorod and the old time, the boyar spirit was still strong. Not to
the earliest cities did the trait belong at its best, but to later places,
and most of all to the youngest, for this trait depended much on the
general success attained not immediately, but slowly, with pain and
great labor, by the princes of Vladimir, and later on by the princes of
Moscow.
At first while they were bringing into Vladimir the new type of rule to
replace the old boyar order, the men pushed aside and driven out
opposed it in every way possible. They complained of the prince’s
agents and servants, they invented keen sayings against this new
system. At that time none of the powerful men of the ancient order
were reconciled with the new, and some fled from the country. But in
the days of Daniel, son of Nevski, when Moscow was becoming
prominent, the complete solidarity of prince and people, and the
devotion of the people to an established princely line, became the
chief trait of Moscow, the coming capital of Russia. The sturdy,
industrious, persistent and peace-loving people were delighted to
have the youngest son of Nevski, who was but two years of age
when his father died, as Prince of Moscow and the country
surrounding it. That region invited new settlers, who came in large
numbers from all sides, because there was peace there and order,
while north and south was disturbance and turmoil. This great
advantage of being a peaceful and modest place was at that time the
preëminence of Moscow, where Daniel, who alone of all the brothers
had inherited the “sacred virtues” of his father, ruled quietly and
unobserved.
Following Nevski’s death in 1263, there was a dreary interval during

which the princes struggled for the possession of Vladimir. Nevski
was succeeded by Andrei, his brother, who lived only a few months.
Yaroslav of Tver, brother of Andrei, then became Grand Prince. In
the early years of his reign the people of Novgorod were involved in
a stubborn war with Danes and the Knights of Livonia. During these
troubles they lived in peace with [293]Yaroslav, but in 1270 they rose
against him, and he was forced to ask aid of the Mongols. They
promised assistance, and had sent forward a considerable army
when, through the influence of Vassili, Yaroslav’s brother, it was
suddenly recalled. The Grand Prince and his warriors then marched
alone against Novgorod, but at the instance of the Metropolitan of
Kief, he made peace with the rebellious boyars.
In 1272 Yaroslav died, and was succeeded by Vassili, who lived

somewhat less than three years. Then Dmitri, son of Nevski, became
Grand Prince. While the principality was thus passing from the
possession of one prince to that of another, the Mongols were taking
full advantage of the quarreling, confusion and disorder brought
about by constant change. They pillaged the provinces near by, and
in 1278 burned Ryazan.
In 1281 Dmitri’s brother, Andrei, conspired against him, and going to

the Horde obtained, through bribes and flattery, the title of Grand
Prince. Troops were sent from Sarai, and dependent princes were
ordered to join their forces to Andrei’s and march against Dmitri, but
they refused. Because of this refusal, Andrei’s own warriors lost
courage and deserted him, and he fled. The Mongols, meanwhile,
ravaged Murom and many large towns. Pereyaslavl resisted and
received dire punishment. It was sacked and most of the people
were slaughtered.
Andrei now went to Sarai a second time and brought an army

against Dmitri, who fled to Pskoff, and the Mongols seated Andrei on
the throne of Vladimir. Again Russian towns were pillaged. Suzdal
and Moscow suffered greatly, churches were sacked and precious
vessels broken. If people resisted they were slaughtered. Dmitri,
driven from Vladimir, wished to return to Pereyaslavl, his capital, but
he was attacked by Andrei and fled to Tver, where Michael made
peace between the brothers, and Dmitri, after struggling for three
years to hold his own, promised to abdicate all claim to the Grand
Principality. Shortly after this he fell ill and died (1294).
During all these troubled years Moscow had been slowly gaining
power and influence. Daniel, called by the people, who loved his
peaceful and gentle life, “Holy Daniel,” was the first Prince of
Moscow, the first real heir to it, and he became the founder of the
Moscow line of princes, as well as the founder of the city’s
[294]greatness. Nevski’s youngest son received the smallest portion,
but, though no one could even dream of it in Daniel’s day, it was to
excel in glory and importance every other capital in Russia. Vladimir,
Kief and Novgorod all paled before Moscow. After Daniel had united
to his capital places on the border and had acquired Pereyaslavl, his
portion, by its size and good order, surpassed every other. He was
not Grand Prince; the glory of his name, which was to be handed
down from generation to generation, was not in a resounding title, or
in mighty deeds. His entire reign passed in comparative peace, but
to him specially fell the honor of maintaining the illustrious memory of
his ancestors, so that they might be renowned among Russians till
the remotest generation. The glory of his name is connected forever
with Moscow. While his brothers were struggling with one another
and with their uncle for the Grand Principality of Vladimir and the
title, not one of them left a permanent inheritance to their children,
not one of them became famous. Daniel, called simply “the Moscow
prince,” collected an entire principality around his inconsiderable
town, and amassed such an inheritance for his descendants that not
only his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, but his own
children were called Princes of All Russia.
We have few facts concerning Daniel; they are not to be found in

Russian chronicles. He was among the best of the princes—a man
who worked in the gloomy days of Mongol oppression.
Daniel’s work was continued by his son Ivan, surnamed Kalitá

(Purse). As his father had gathered around Moscow a whole
principality and his residence had become the capital of a coming
empire, so Ivan began to gather round Moscow all the unconnected
parts of the country, and in his day the city appeared as the center of
Great Russia, its genuine capital, and Vladimir ceased to be
important. Though without the splendid virtues of his father, he, more
than any of his brothers, resembled him. A churchgoer, he loved
home and economy,—the latter he carried to excess even. His
predecessors had struggled for the Grand Principality, but Ivan left
this work to Yuri, his brother, and improved that which his father had
left him. To things beyond Moscow, Ivan paid no attention. During
twenty-five years his name was mentioned rarely. Meanwhile he was
toiling at the heritage left by Nevski and winning strength in it. One of
his great works consisted [295]of clearing the whole principality of
thieves, evil-doers and robbers. There was no such order anywhere
in that day as in Moscow, and the city increased through immigration
and otherwise beyond all places.
Besides other advantages, the central position of this principality

helped it immensely. In it the roads crossed in every direction. The
great water system began in its borders. Craftsmen, traders and
people of all kinds came readily to settle in Moscow. Land-tillers
found it more to their profit to live there than in places torn by
quarrels. Hence Moscow was made up of men from every part of
Russia. Next to Moscow was Tver, but there was less strength in
Tver and less order. The turmoils of Novgorod were felt in Tver
somewhat, and Tver was more exposed to raids from Lithuania. The
place was, moreover, distinguished for an almost frivolous and
insolent demeanor toward Mongols; hence in Moscow there was less
danger from Mongols. All these causes taken together made Tver
less desirable to immigrants than Moscow.
In 1304 died Andrei, brother of Nevski. After his death, two men
were rivals for the dignity of Grand Prince. Yuri, son of Daniel,
through the glory of his grandfather, Nevski, and the newly won
greatness of Moscow, where he and his brother Ivan were ruling,
looked on himself as the senior. But the senior in fact, if descent
were decisive, was Michael of Tver, the youngest brother of Nevski.
Both Yuri and Michael hastened to occupy the throne of Vladimir,
and each strove to incline Novgorod to his side. Michael hurried off
to the Horde to win the patent, but found that Yuri had preceded him.
The boyars of Andrei, the recent Grand Prince, were in favor of
Michael, and the men who had served with Andrei were convinced
that the throne would fall to their candidate. But Yuri succeeded in
occupying Vladimir, and Novgorod was divided. Though that city
contained many followers of Yuri, it did not reject Michael. The
Novgorod men declared to both candidates that they would accept
him who obtained the Khan’s patent; still they murmured at Michael.
Why was he sending officials to Novgorod while he lacked
confirmation?
Maxim, the metropolitan, was friendly to Michael; he revered Ksenia,

Michael’s widowed mother, as one of God’s chosen people; and
respected Michael’s wife, Princess Anna, because she had [296]many
Christian virtues. Yuri seemed to him not in the right as compared
with his senior. Seeing the general movement of warriors and
regiments on both sides, he was greatly alarmed, and, wishing for
agreement, he not only threatened Yuri, but implored him to make
peace. Maxim thought that he had succeeded, but he did not know
Yuri, who never dropped any claim that he cherished. He would give
no word not to go to the Horde. When the metropolitan tried to win a
promise he answered:
“I am not going to the Horde for a patent, but for another object.”
This wily prince, who was ambitious and unprincipled, stopped at

nothing to obtain power, which was dearer to him than all things else.
He knew well that the Horde was all-powerful, and the Khan was its
master in Russia. The word of the Khan was his sword; on this
sword Yuri’s trust was unswerving, and he used every means to
wield it; hence he set out for Sarai. While on the journey Michael’s
adherents came very near seizing Yuri. He escaped, however, and
by a roundabout road reached the Horde in safety, but only after
much effort.
The Mongol magnates charmed the prince with their readiness to

feast and make friends with him. “Give more than Michael, and the
yarlyk (patent) will be thine,” said they. So the princes strove to
surpass each other in making presents to the Khan’s wives and
favorites, as well as to Horde magnates. It proved, however, that
Michael had more gold to spend than had Yuri. Yuri halted, and
going to Michael, he said: “Let us strive no longer. I will not ruin my
heritage. Let Vladimir be thine.” Soon after this the Khan gave the
patent to Michael, who returned home eight months later.
While the princes were at the Horde there was great activity in
Russia. Boris, Yuri’s brother, sent by him to seize Kostroma, had
been captured and taken to Tver. Novgorod men had expelled
Michael’s boyars, who strengthened Nova-Torg, and then planned to
attack Pereyaslavl and take it from Moscow. Akinfi, a Moscow boyar,
having quarreled with Rodion Nestorvitch, a boyar who had come
from Kief to Moscow with seven hundred followers and had received
the first place in service, left Moscow in anger to seek a better place,
which he found with the Tver prince, who made him the first among
boyars. Akinfi assisted in [297]planning the campaign, and led the
troops against Pereyaslavl. But in Tver there were many well-
wishers of Moscow, and they gave warning of Akinfi’s adventure.
The army which Ivan hurriedly led from Moscow was successful.
Akinfi’s troops were defeated and he lost his life in the struggle; with
him fell his son-in-law and many warriors. His sons, Ivan and Feodor,
fled to Tver with few attendants. As Rodion Nestorvitch, who had
sustained a leading part in this unsparing and decisive conflict, was
leaving the battle-field, he raised his rival’s head on a lance-point
and held it up before Ivan of Moscow. Ivan’s name, mentioned this
once, was not mentioned earlier in Russian chronicles, and was left
unmentioned thereafter for a long time. In the quarrels with Tver and
Vladimir not Ivan, but Yuri, his brother, is prominent.
The Grand Prince Michael, on returning from the Horde, settled

down in Tver and ruled both the Grand Principality and Novgorod

Exclusive Conversations The Art of Interaction in Seventeenth Century France Elizabeth C Goldsmith Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exclusive Conversations The Art of Interaction in Seventeenth Century France Elizabeth C Goldsmith Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exclusive Conversations The Art of

Interaction in Seventeenth Century

The Art of Suffering and the Impact of Seventeenth

François Boucher and the Art of Collecting in

Baroque Figures of Excess in Seventeenth Century

The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century, 2nd

Imagining the Nation in Seventeenth Century English

Footprints of the Dance an Early Seventeenth Century

Church Life: Pastors, Congregations, and the Experience

Voice, Slavery, and Race in Seventeenth-Century

Uflfl University of Pennsylvania Press • Philadelphia •1988

Copyright © 1988 by the University of Pennsylvania Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Designed by Adrianne Onderdonk Dudden

1 Seventeenth-Century Guides to Interaction 17

2 Excess and Euphoria in Madeleine de Scudery V

3 History, Social Identity, and Talk:

4 Sociability and Intimacy in the Letters of Madame de

5 Teaching Sociability Through Literature: The Works of

Seznec for their encouragement and assistance in obtaining the above-

From Castiglione to Miss Manners, courtesy literature has al-

use of the term interaction is based on Erving Goffman's studies of

and they describe themselves, as obsessive speakers. In her model con-

of conduct were being modified by a more heterogeneous public to

In the salons and court of seventeenth-century France, rules

When the Marquise de Rambouillet had her city residence re-

of predecessors such as Marguerite de Valois, her chambre bleue was

Elle disait qu'elle n'y trouvait rien de plaisant, q u e de voir c o m m e

T h e French nobility suffered severe challenges to its tradition-

military nobles was accompanied by members of the nobility them-

time insured that a newly defined noble culture continued to thrive.

The Principle of Exclusivity

ity with the conviction that they themselves are a community of

person. Where they are not established, it would appear difficult to be

T h e social life becomes intense in the extreme . . . This life consists

T h e organizing principle behind this kind of "agitation without dis-

be a sustained pretense that t h e resources being offered are a b u n d a n t ,

The Territory of Conversation

a study of the disruptive power of flattery in the discourse of classical

1. See for example François Billacois, "La Crise de la noblesse européenne

Nicolas Pasquier's Le Gentilhomme is a useful point of depar-

early seventeenth centuries; the label "gentilhomme" is something one

Nicholas Faret's L'Honnête homme ou Fart de plaire à la cour, first

Plusieurs de nos vaillants s'imagineraient ne l'être point, s'ils ne

By rejecting military metaphors for social interaction, Faret

le principal but de la conversation est de se mettre dans la créance

Grenaille echoes Du Bosc's arguments in his precepts for l'honnête

better defend themselves against a male rhetoric of seduction. To apply

C'est pourquoi tous nos soins doivent être employés à gagner de

In order to maintain a satisfactory self-image, then, the honnête

Redefining the Space of Conversation

France." He also points out that he has attempted to accommodate the

painstaking specificity. For example, if you are walking with a "supe-

By emphasizing this separation, Méré points to an important dis-

Méré's definition of conversation is similar to that of Madeleine de

Lorsque les hommes ne parlent précisément que pour la nécessité

All of her counterexamples are of individuals of unequal status en-

In a second volume of conversations published three years after his

Autrefois . . . on examinait avec soin les conditions de ceux à qui

The business of civility here seems to be simply a process of veri-

Written Conversation: The Epistolary Manuals

French epistolary manuals of the seventeenth century define letter

. . . writing is none other than a kind of speech which remains in