Mazarin (Italian Mazarini, French Mazarin) Giulio (1602-1661), cardinal since 1641, first minister of France since 1643. Italian by birth. He fought the Fronde. Achieved the political hegemony of France in Europe.
Was in the diplomatic service of the Pope (1626-1636). In 1643-1661 (with interruptions) he headed the French government. Signed the Peace of Westphalia (1648); concluded with England a peace and trade treaty (1655), a military alliance (1657), as well as the Pyrenean peace treaty with Spain (1659). Giulio was born in Piscina, in Abruzzo, on June 14, 1602, and was baptized in the church of St. Sylvester of Rome. His father, the Sicilian nobleman Pietro Mazarin, was a fairly wealthy man, belonged to the clientele of the powerful Roman family Colonna. Mother, Hortensia, née Bufalini, came from a rather famous house of Citta di Castello. Giulio Mazarin received a good education. First, he was sent to the Roman college of the Jesuits, where he showed excellent abilities. Then, for three years, Mazarin listened to lectures on philosophy, theology and canon law at the Spanish universities of Alcala and Salamanca. Having received the title of Doctor of Laws, Giulio joined the ranks of the papal army as a soldier and rose to the rank of captain, after which he moved to the diplomatic service. Pleasant treatment of people, subtle diplomatic game and skillful conduct of business brought him fame in circles close to the papal throne. In 1624 he became secretary of the Roman embassy in Milan, which at that time belonged to Spain. An important frontier for Mazarin's subsequent career was the dispute over the "Mantuan inheritance". Vincenzo II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, died in 1627. His inheritance was to pass to the representative of the lateral branch of the Gonzaga, the French duke Charles I de Nevers. Spain supported with arms the claims of a representative of another side branch of the Gonzaga: Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, an enemy of France, who cut off part of the Marquisate of Monferrato from the inheritance in his favor. Emperor Ferdinand II also took part in the division of the inheritance. Pope Urban VIII, in order to reconcile the warring parties, sent Nuncio Mazarin's assistant to the war zone. Entering into the confidence of both and constantly plying between the armies of opponents, to whom he read papal bulls, the young diplomat managed to persuade Richelieu and the Spanish general A. Spinola, viceroy in Milan, to accept an agreement that he was allowed to prepare and his own diplomatic skills, and good knowledge (through spies) of the internal situation in Spain and France, and the unwillingness of Paris to get involved in the Thirty Years' War. It was then that Mazarin first met Richelieu, who remembered him. On May 10, 1630, a meeting was held in Grenoble with the participation of Louis XIII and Richelieu, at which the issue of further actions was decided. The ambassador of the Duke of Savoy and Mazarin, who by that time had become a papal legate, also arrived here. Their proposals were to induce France to abandon support for the rights of the Duke de Nevers to Mantua and withdraw troops from Susa, Piñerol and Casale (where the French garrison was stationed under the command of Marshal de Thouars). In exchange, Spain and the empire took upon themselves the obligation to withdraw their troops from the area of hostilities. This proposal could in no way suit the French side, since, under the guise of neutralizing Mantua, they were essentially imposing the status quo on it. Mazarin went to Vienna, taking with him the refusal of France. In the middle of the summer of 1630, Louis XIII and his first minister returned to the idea of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Mazarin was invited to the camp of the king, who was told that Louis XIII had no other goals in Northern Italy than to ensure the rights of the Duke of Mantua. If Vienna and Madrid agree to respect these rights, then the King of France will withdraw his troops from the area. Peace negotiations began in the German city of Regensburg (Ratisbonne). On behalf of France they were led by Father Joseph and Brular de Leon. The same Mazarin, who traveled between Regensburg, Vienna and Lyon, where Louis XIII was located and where Cardinal Richelieu often visited from the active army, mediated the negotiations. In Lyon, Mazarin was introduced to Louis XIII, after which he talked with Cardinal Richelieu for more than two hours. The latter was satisfied with the conversation with IT
an alliance and tried to win over Mazarin to his side; a number of historians believe that he succeeded. On September 8, the negotiators concluded a truce until October 15. But when the truce expired, Richelieu ordered the troops to resume hostilities. By October 26, the troops of the French Marshal de Lafors reached Casale, where the Spanish garrison of Thouara held out courageously. A firefight had already broken out, when suddenly a rider appeared, brandishing a scroll. He shouted: "Peace! Peace! Stop it!" It was Mazarin who delivered to Marshal de Lafors the consent of General de Cord to lift the siege of the citadel and withdraw troops from the city without any conditions. The legate also announced the signing of a peace treaty in Regensburg. The marshal, at his own peril and risk, agreed to accept the proposal of the Spanish general, giving the order to cease fire. Notified of the decision, Richelieu approved it. The war ended, and the diplomats got down to business again. As a result, following the amended Treaty of Regensburg, the "Cherasko Agreement" (1631) and the secret Turin Accords (1632) were signed, which brought France an obvious foreign policy success: the Duke de Nevers was recognized the rights to Mantua and Montferrat, and France retained Pignerol and the valley Perouse. Giulio Mazarin played an important role in the peaceful outcome of the conflict in Northern Italy. Since that time, Richelieu has been closely watching the ambitious Italian, imbued with more and more sympathy for him. One of the first to draw Richelieu's attention to Mazarin was the French diplomat Servien, who wrote to the cardinal that "this Sieur Mazarin is the most worthy and most skillful minister of all who have ever served His Holiness." The Venetian envoy Segredo wrote to his government: “Giulio Mazarin, the most illustrious gentleman, is pleasant and handsome; courteous, dexterous, impassive, tireless, cautious, intelligent, prudent, secretive, cunning, eloquent, persuasive and resourceful. In a word, he has all the qualities which are indispensable to skilful mediators, his first experience is the experience of a truly masterful one: whoever appears with such brilliance in the world will no doubt play an important and prominent role in it. Being strong, young and strongly built, he will long enjoy honors in the future and all he lacks is wealth to go further." Urban VIII was satisfied with the diplomatic successes of Mazarin, and in 1633, with the assistance of Cardinal Barberini, he, as a papal vice-legate, was appointed to an important position in Avignon; although he was not ordained to the priesthood. In 1634, Urban VIII sent Mazarin as nuncio to Paris to prevent another clash between France and Spain. By that time, the Habsburg coalition had gained the upper hand in the Thirty Years' War, the head of the anti-Habsburg bloc Gustav II Adolf died, and the Swedes were finally defeated at Nordlingen. Now the head of the same coalition was France, which declared war on Spain in 1635. In general, Mazarin's mission was contrary to Richelieu's policy and therefore was not crowned with success. But the nuncio managed to acquire the favor of both the French king Louis XIII, and his first minister, and the "grey eminence" under Richelieu, the influential father Joseph. Already in those years, Richelieu became for Mazarin the ideal of a statesman. And then the cardinal included the nuncio among his proxies. In 1636, Mazarin was recalled to Rome because the pope was dissatisfied with his mission in Paris. However, he had already decided to link his fate with France and acted in Rome as Richelieu's secret agent. In 1638, Father Joseph died, Richelieu, wanting to compensate for the loss of his closest assistant, achieved the return of Mazarin to Paris. Mazarin left the papal service and accepted French citizenship. In the French capital, Mazarin made a dizzying career. He became Richelieu's confidant, his closest collaborator. Being always in a good mood, diplomatic and courteous, able to carry on conversations on any topic and carry out any assignment, the Italian made a good impression on the royal couple. In 1641, Richelieu achieved an unheard-of decision by the Vatican. He made Mazarin, an unborn Italian
Not even a clergyman, a cardinal. On December 2, 1642, the seriously ill Richelieu, during a meeting with Louis XIII, named Cardinal Mazarin as his successor. "Your Majesty has Cardinal Mazarin, I believe in his ability to serve the king," the minister said. Richelieu died on 4 December. On the same day, Louis XIII summoned Mazarin and announced that he was appointing him head of the Royal Council. “I retained in my Council the same people who had already served me there, and called to my service Cardinal Mazarin, in whose abilities and loyalty I had the opportunity to be convinced ...”, the king wrote to provincial governors and parliaments. Louis XIII himself died in 1643. The heir to the throne was not yet five years old. Queen Anne of Austria became regent under him. Her favorite was Mazarin. Anna of Austria violated the will of her late husband, according to whose will, in the event of his son's minority, the regency council was to rule the country. She became the sole ruler of France as a result of the decision of the Parlement of Paris, which cassated the will of Louis XIII. In fact, power passed into the hands of Mazarin, whom she appointed first minister, to the great displeasure of the princes and other nobles. With kind treatment, courtesy and generosity, tireless diligence, Mazarin reconciled with himself, however, these people. The victory of the French troops at Rocroix aroused the enthusiasm of the French; poets began to glorify the new ruler. But this did not last long. With the beginning of Anna's regency, all the aristocrats expelled under Richelieu returned to the capital. They hoped to return the awards and restore former privileges. Not having achieved the desired, they went into opposition to the first minister, who in 1643 suppressed the rebellion of the feudal nobility - the "Conspiracy of the Important". Mazarin enjoyed the full support of Anna of Austria. Some historians believe that they were in a secret marriage. The regent helped her favorite endure the ordeal of political struggle. The cardinal won a victory over opponents and thanks to such personal qualities as composure and the ability to negotiate compromises. The author of a multi-volume history of French diplomacy, Flassant, wrote that Mazarin's character was "woven from ambition, greed and cunning; but since the latter is often accompanied by uncertainty, Mazarin was cowardly. Knowing people's weakness for wealth, he comforted them with hopes. His heart was cold; it knew neither hatred nor friendship, but the cardinal showed these qualities in his own interests and for the purposes of his policy. Unfailingly calm, he seemed to be far from the passions that often agitate people. No one could ever wrest from him either a secret or an immodest word. He broke his word to private individuals without a twinge of conscience, but boasted of fidelity to treaties in order to smooth over the distrust that France in this respect aroused under the government of Richelieu. Waiting was the method favored by Mazarin; and he successfully used this method both in public affairs and in solving personal problems that he had. Mazarin untied the knots in politics slowly and carefully, while Richelieu solved difficulties with a blow from a soldier's sword or an executioner's axe. Mazarin pretended to be compliant in order to more reliably ensure victory, and Richelieu defied storms and tempests. The first knew the diplomatic kitchen perfectly, the second often neglected it, overwhelmed by immense pride. Richelieu was a vile intriguer. Mazarin - a fearful intriguer. "As a result of the Thirty Years' War, France entered a period of economic and financial crisis. Circumstances required Mazarin to take tough and, of course, unpopular measures. He introduced new taxes, which caused general discontent. In the spring of 1648, Mazarin struck at " the nobility of the mantle", canceling the flight - a fee that guaranteed the heredity of the acquired positions. The first stage of the most acute internal political crisis in France, called the Fronde, began. The movement was headed by the most prominent representatives of the French aristocracy - Prince Condé, Duke of Orleans, Cardinal de Re
ts, - trying to wrest power from the hands of the hated minister. The movement against the absolute power of Anna of Austria and her favorite resulted in a real civil war. Only in February 1653 did Mazarin succeed in becoming the master of the situation. Aristocrats - participants in the rebellion were deprived of titles, positions, pensions. But the civil war cost France dearly. Foreign trade was disorganized. Her fleet was virtually destroyed. In a number of departments of the country, where famine and epidemics were especially rampant, the population was significantly reduced, and the birth rate fell. The difficult economic and financial situation of the country caused general discontent in French society. Many of these problems were solved during Mazarin's lifetime. He drew political conclusions from the events of the Fronde period. The cardinal believed that it was in the public interest to satisfy many of the demands of the opposition. Among them: a ban on the usurpation of the power of the king by the prime minister; restriction of the rights of parliament; condemnation of the arbitrariness of tax collectors; easing the position of the peasants in the countryside, and to this end, increasing taxes on industrialists and merchants; refusal to sell positions; the creation of a Council of State, in which all classes of French society would be represented; liquidation of Protestantism in France. And yet, the cardinal focused not so much on the domestic as on the foreign policy of the country. Diplomacy was his favorite pastime. Mazarin was a master of the art of negotiation. His mind was alive in Italian and flexible in French; manners - soft, delicate; speech - laconic, but always reasoned; the desire for compromise is constant, but cautious. He preferred the quiet of offices, avoided showing himself in public, was laconic, and was ready to let anyone speak as much as he liked, so long as he was not interfered with. All these personal qualities of the cardinal allowed him to consistently implement Richelieu's program. At the same time, Mazarin was not popular with the French, who easily forgave "their" Richelieu that they did not forgive the "stranger", the "insidious Italian". Having come to power, Mazarin sought as soon as possible, albeit on favorable terms for France, to conclude peace with the Habsburgs. Therefore, in France, it was believed that the policy of the cardinal was determined by the Roman curia (the pope did not want the complete collapse of the empire). But the true line of the cardinal was not at all to promote the empire. Mazarin followed the course of Richelieu and often repeated his idea that the war in Germany is not so much a religious war (Catholics with Protestants), but rather against the exorbitant political ambitions of the House of Austria. Internal political circumstances also prompted Mazarin to conclude peace as soon as possible. Therefore, after a series of victories and diplomatic tricks for the benefit of France, on October 24, 1648, the Peace of Westphalia was concluded, which ended the pan-European conflict - the Thirty Years' War, which was fought fiercely in Germany. The Peace of Westphalia marked the beginning of the history of European congresses. The treaty was signed in the cities of Osnabrück (between Sweden and the emperor) and Münster (between France and the emperor), located in Westphalia, and is therefore called the Peace of Westphalia. The Peace Congress opened on December 4, 1644. Almost all the states of Europe were represented on it, except for England and Russia. It was the first time that a forum of this magnitude was held, so the resolution of procedural issues was extremely delayed. Decision-making was hampered by the fact that while the diplomats were arguing, the armies continued to fight, and the members of the congress tried to use every victory of the power as an argument in their favor. All the efforts of the imperial ambassador, the skilful diplomat Trauttmansdorff, were aimed at satisfying the appetites of Sweden, split it from France and create more favorable conditions for negotiations for the empire. However, Sweden remained firmly attached to the French chariot, which was driven by Cardinal Mazarin. The latter, inciting the Elector of Brandenburg against the exorbitant claims of Sweden to the territory along the southern coast of the Baltic, parried the Swedish claims; those
By doing so, he forced Sweden to go along with France. The final peace terms were signed in Münster on October 24, 1648, where commissioners from Osnabrück had arrived shortly before. Territorial changes were the result of the Peace of Westphalia in Europe. France received Alsace (except Strasbourg) and secured the three bishoprics it had previously acquired - Metz, Toul and Verdun. The French demand for "natural frontiers" was thus put into practice. The political fragmentation of Germany was consolidated. Both branches of the Habsburgs - Spanish and Austrian - were weakened. France and Sweden were recognized as guarantors of the terms of the peace treaty. By this time, Anglo-French relations began to deteriorate. Even before the execution of King Charles I, the French government, believing that England, engaged in internal struggle, was completely exhausted, banned the import of English woolen and silk products into France (1648). In response, the English Parliament banned the import of French wines. Cardinal Mazarin, who at that time was in power in France, tried to get concessions from England in this matter. But the French chargé d'affaires in England, Krull, suffered a complete setback. The English answered him that, "despite their former faith in the king, they can easily do without him; they can just as easily do without French wine." The customs war began. It came to the mutual capture of merchant ships and even to hostilities without a formal declaration of war. No matter how unpleasant these events were for the French, Mazarin and Colbert, who was then an assistant to the all-powerful Cardinal, were forced to seek the restoration of normal diplomatic relations with England. French merchants, who were robbed by English corsairs, pushed their government to such an agreement. In a note written in 1650, Colbert complained to the king about the difficulties experienced by French trade: “Since the English have been at war with us by unfavorable circumstances ... our trade will hardly recover while it suffers from the revenge of the English ... To improve trade, two conditions are necessary: security and freedom, and these can only be achieved by restoring good neighborly relations with England. The point on which the English especially insist, - Colbert concluded, - is the recognition of their republic, in which the Spaniards are ahead of us. even closer alliance as a result of the actions of the Spanish ambassador in England. Both God and people will forgive France that she is forced to recognize this republic in order to prevent the hostile plans of the Spaniards, who are doing all sorts of injustices and ready to do all sorts of base things in order to harm us. The cardinal himself was ready to "decide on baseness", that is, to recognize the republic for a decent reward, in other words, for an alliance with England against Spain. Mazarin decided with all the more zeal to improve relations with England that his enemies, the supporters of the Fronde, were not averse to agreeing with the republic, although they feared whether this would be worthy of the honor of true Catholics and good Frenchmen. Mazarin himself, an admirer of strength and an admirer of Machiavelli, had no such doubts. Realizing that in 1652 it was no longer Parliament, but Cromwell, who was actually in charge of foreign affairs, Mazarin entered into negotiations with him through intermediaries. Soon he was informed in the name of Cromwell that the republic only demanded that the king of France recognize it and immediately appoint his ambassador to England. At the same time, the subjects of the republic must be paid compensation for the losses incurred during the time of maritime privateering. In the event that the struggle between Mazarin and the Fronde did not turn out in favor of the cardinal, Cromwell kindly offered Mazarin asylum in England. These conditions were very far from the desires of the cardinal. But the position of Mazarin and the royal court became more and more difficult. The opposing princes joined their efforts with the revolutionary movement in the city of Bordeaux, which dreamed of restoring its former liberties in alliance with the English Republic. The Spaniards also made every effort to persuade the British to ally with them. Under such conditions, Mazarin did not have
nothing else but to agree to English sentences. In December 1652, the quartermaster of Picardy de Bordeaux was sent to England with a letter from the king to the English Parliament. The treaty with France was finalized a little later, in 1655, after long delays, during which Cromwell managed, playing on the Franco-Spanish contradictions, to obtain a number of concessions from France. In 1657, the countries also entered into a military alliance. Not only flexibility and realism distinguished Mazarin. He was not devoid of diplomatic fantasy either. In 1657, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation died. Mazarin decided to take advantage of the situation and put "his man" on the vacant throne. The cardinal proposed Count Neuburg, then Elector of Bavaria. But his proposals were not accepted. Then he took an incredible step - he nominated Louis XIV, who was a German prince under the Westphalian Treaty. In promoting his candidate, the cardinal spared no expense. In the autumn of 1657, Louis XIV personally came to Metz. But everything turned out to be in vain. The German rulers did not want to see the French monarch on the imperial throne. The representative of the Austrian Habsburgs, Leopold I, was elected emperor. Among the diplomatic victories of Mazarin, the Pyrenean Peace of 1659, which ended the war between France and Spain, should be especially noted. The French territory expanded significantly, although the French returned to Spain the areas of Catalonia, Franche-Comté and fortresses in the Netherlands that they had captured during the hostilities. Part of Flanders with several fortresses, the main territory of the County of Artois, the County of Roussillon, went to France. The new Franco-Spanish border ran along the Pyrenees. The Spaniards renounced their claims to Alsace and Breisach captured by the French, confirmed the rights of Louis XIV to the kingdom of Navarre. Mazarin signed an obligation not to provide assistance to Portugal, which was at war with Spain. The peculiarity of the Iberian peace was that it provided for the marriage of Louis XIV with the Spanish Infanta Maria Theresa. True, the cunning cardinal introduced into the text of the document, signed by both parties, an essential reservation, which later played a large role in the history of international relations in Europe. The dowry of the Infanta - 500 thousand golden ecu - was paid on time - within a year and a half. If this requirement was not met, Maria Theresa renounced her rights to the Spanish throne. Mazarin's calculation was simple and obvious. Spain at this time was ruined. The court did not have enough money even to maintain the royal carriage. Therefore, the Spaniards could not pay the dowry of the Infanta on time. In this case, French diplomacy kept a free hand in Spanish affairs and, most importantly, in solving the most important issues: the succession to the throne of Spain. Events showed that the cardinal was not mistaken in his calculations. In 1660, Mazarin turned fifty-eight years old, and after so many upheavals, so many worries and efforts, his health was shaken. Therefore, he increasingly spent time in his chambers, among amazing carpets, paintings by the best masters and a collection of rare books. His palace was full of treasures collected over the years, and art now became his only passion. Mazarin collected books and old manuscripts, loved music and theater. He opened an academy of arts, arranged an Italian opera. In the inventory list compiled after the death of Mazarin, there were 200 statues, antique works of marble, 450 paintings by famous masters, a huge amount of precious stones, 30 thousand books. Mazarin owned the most beautiful diamonds in Europe. Part of his treasures became the property of the king, part of the Mancini family. The cardinal, under the name of Mazarinievskaya, transferred his huge library to the college of the Four Nations founded by him. With a flexible and sharp, purely Italian mind and cunning, with remarkable insight and deep knowledge of people, Mazarin had great diligence and indomitable energy. Having set a goal for himself, he stubbornly pursued it, but he never acted recklessly, but always carefully weighed every step. Limitless
o selfish by nature, greedily seeking influence and wealth, he did not forget the interests of royalty and always put them in the foreground. Ambition, Mignet says, was stronger than pride in him, and he philosophically endured failures and insults. He replaced the Richelieu scaffold with the Bastille. Louis XIV admired Mazarin's ability to manage public affairs and his diplomatic victories, and only after his death did the king take full power into his own hands. Until the death of the cardinal, Louis XIV always listened to his advice. For example, the first love of the young king was Maria Mancini, Mazarin's niece, who was distinguished by her extraordinary beauty. Louis asked permission from his mother and the first minister to marry her. Although this would officially make Mazarin a royal relative, he opposed the marriage for political reasons, because such a marriage could violate the interstate agreement on the marriage of Louis XIV and the Spanish Infanta. And the cardinal convinced his august pupil that the cardinal's niece was not a suitable wife for him. This and other facts testify to the state mind of Mazarin and his lack of aristocratic snobbery. He enjoyed power itself, and not kinship with the highest nobility. At the beginning of 1661, he became so exhausted that he was forced to leave Paris. On February 7, he was transferred to the Château de Vincennes. Once, during the visit of Anna of Austria, he threw back the blanket, exposing his withered legs, and said: "Look, madam, these legs lost their rest, bestowing it on Europe." Suffering severely, Mazarin did not forget about his niece Maria Mancini and prepared her wedding with Constable Colonna. On February 25, the marriage contract was signed. March 9, 1661 Mazarin died. To Louis XIV, he left a calm and powerful France, which entered the era of the heyday of absolutism. The foreign policy of France in the post-crisis years, skillfully pursued by the head of government, was very effective: the Peace of the Pyrenees of 1659 with Spain, the peace and trade treaties of 1655 and the military alliance of 1657 with England established the political hegemony of France on the continent. The League of the Rhine concluded in 1658 gave France great influence in Germany and undermined the importance of Austria. France no longer had rivals in Europe to reckon with; the French court was the most brilliant in Europe; the French king was feared by all European sovereigns; French became the official language of diplomacy and international treatises.
Mazarin (Mazarini, French Mazarin), Giulio, famous French minister, successor to Richelieu (1602-1661). Originally an Italian, Mazarin studied philosophy and theology. During the Mantua War, as a secretary, he accompanied Cardinal Panchirol and participated in the negotiations that led to peace in Gerasco between France and Italy (1631), and showed brilliant diplomatic skills. Having entered the clergy in 1632, Mazarin soon became an envoy in Paris. In 1640, Richelieu transferred him to the French service, and in 1641 he obtained a cardinal's hat for his services in various missions. Dying, Richelieu pointed out to the king Mazarin as his most worthy successor.
Lacking the ingenious initiative of Richelieu, Mazarin was distinguished by greater resourcefulness, cunning and resourcefulness, and with extraordinary energy and firmness overcame all the difficulties that his position presented to him. When Queen Anne of Austria after death Louis XIII(1643) became regent, she appointed Mazarin as her first minister. Soon he gained not only the confidence, but also the love of the queen, who secretly married him. When the importants (the court noble party), who hated Mazarin, plotted against his life, Anna expelled them from her court. But his enemies continued to intrigue against him.
Portrait of Cardinal Giulio Mazarin
led by a prince Condé and Cardinal Retz, the party of nobles (Fronde), which he joined parliament, dissatisfied with the financial edicts of Mazarin, began a fierce struggle with a powerful minister. When an uprising broke out in the provinces, Mazarin had to flee to Luttich, but from there he continued to manage the affairs of France. At the end of 1651, Mazarin returned to France with 7,000 soldiers recruited by himself. Meanwhile, the participants in the Fronde estimated the head of Mazarin was valued at 50,000 francs, a hail of pamphlets and satyrs (mazarinades) rained down on him, and the young king Louis XIV again had to agree to the removal of his minister. Only after Conde was driven back to the Netherlands, Mazarin made a solemn entry into Paris (1653).
From then on he ruled with almost unlimited power; he took back all the concessions he had made at a difficult moment, and began to energetically continue the work begun by Cardinal Richelieu to strengthen royal power and expand French borders. In the internal administration, Mazarin, who patronized the sciences and arts, left the Mazarin Library and the College of the Four Nations, did nothing for public education and for the development of trade and industry. Through heavy taxes, he tried to cover military expenses and maintain the splendor of the court, and at the same time amassed for himself an enormous fortune (50 million francs).
Mazarin owes his glory entirely to his foreign policy, in which two significant facts for France can be noted: after the Thirty Years War of Westphalia, France acquired Alsace, its borders expanded to the Rhine, and it gained dominant influence in West Germany. By Peace of the Pyrenees (1659), through the marriage of Louis XIV with the Spanish Infanta Maria Theresa, France opened up the prospect of the Spanish throne.
Literature about Mazarin
Bazin, "History of France in the Ministry of Mazarin" (1842)
Cheruel, "History of France in the Ministry of Mazarin" (1883)
Cousin, The Youth of Mazarin (1865)
Masson, Mazarin (1886)
| Bishop of Metz | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 29, 1653 - December 11, 1658 |
Pescina, Italy
Vincennes, France
- Tomb of Cardinal Mazarin [d]
- Pontifical Gregorian University
- University of Alcala [d]
- University of Rome La Sapienza
Giulio Mazarini, born Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino(Italian: Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino), in French Jules Mazarin(fr. Jules Mazarin; the 14 th of July (1602-07-14 ) - 9th of March, Vincennes) - church and politician and the first minister of France in 1643-1651 and 1653-1661. He took over the post under the patronage of Queen Anne of Austria.
Biography
Born July 14, 1602 in the family of a small landowner Pietro Mazzarini in the town of Peshine in the region of Abruzzo (Italy). The noble family of Mazarin served the powerful family Colonna, including Giulio Mazarin himself. The young Giulio first studied at the College of Rome in 1608-1616, and in 1619-1621 he was in Spain, where he studied law at the university in Alcalá de Henares. In 1628, Mazarin, after serving for several years under several Italian condottieri, became secretary of the papal nuncio in Milan. Even then, he showed elegance, charm and showed an unusually subtle and quick mind.
Despite this, Gondi, who never received the promised cardinal cap, enters into an alliance with the Paris Parliament and the Duke Gaston of Orleans, and Anna of Austria receives a petition for the release of Prince Condé from imprisonment in Le Havre, where he was transferred. In such a situation, the cardinal was forced to go into exile in Cologne, which his rivals took advantage of and forced the queen to release Condé. But, being in exile, Mazarin constantly corresponded with the Queen, and the rapidly growing King Louis XIV was under his influence. It was said that Mazarin managed affairs from Cologne in the same way as from the Louvre.
In 1651, Louis XIV reached the age of majority. At the same time, Gondi goes over to the side of the queen, and she deceives the prince of Condé, who is forced to once again challenge the royal authority. The latter is initially defeated by Turenne and the army of mercenaries that arrived from Germany, led by the cardinal, but the "former parliamentary frondeurs" go over to the side of the prince due to the queen's strong desire for the return of Mazarin. As a result, Conde takes Paris and this forces the king to hold an emergency meeting in Pontoise, as a result of which Mazarin agreed to retire to Bouillon. But the population of Paris, tired of the Fronde, forced Conde to flee to Flanders, and as a result, in October 1652, the king entered Paris, thereby defeating the Paris Parliament. On February 3, 1653, Mazarin triumphantly enters Paris to the furious applause of the city dwellers, the Fronde ends with the victory of the royal court.
Patron and bibliophile
The Cardinal loved society - preferably smart, fine dining, a mind-numbing game in which he invariably won. He found much less pleasure in prayers and did not like to lie in bed for a long time in the morning: he always lacked time, and perhaps even religious zeal. He read, listened, smiled, drew and wrote something tirelessly, like most exceptional people, Mazarin slept little, never completely trusted anyone and skillfully played on human weaknesses and circumstances. In the heart of a complex environment, he created his own world, which reminded him of another great city, where his family and dear friends lived, brilliant, rich, civilized people whom Giulio longed to see again.
The cardinal's collection of books laid the foundation for France's oldest public library, now known as the Bibliothèque Mazarin.
Although in 1653 the Fronde ended with the victory of the court, one of the main problems of France at that time was the war with Spain. The fact is that Prince Conde fled from Paris to Flanders and acted in the ranks of the Spanish army against France. At first, King Louis won several victories over the Spaniards, including at Landrecy, and Cardinal Mazarin managed to conclude an agreement with the Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell, and form the anti-Habsburg League of the Rhine in Germany.
At the same time, Cardinal Mazarin established management in public affairs, bringing Chancellor Pierre Séguier, Minister of War Michel Letelier, Foreign Minister Henri de Lomeny and Superintendent Nicolas Fouquet closer to him.
In July 1658, Louis XIV fell ill with scarlet fever and there was a danger of the resumption of the Fronde in connection with the escape from prison in Nantes of Paul de Gondi, accused of having links with Condé. At the same time, the noble opposition raises its head, and peasant riots take place, which went down in history as the "Jacquerie Sabotier". At the same time, Mazarin tried to strengthen centralization in the state by sending quartermasters to the provinces, and this coincided in time with the threat of financial bankruptcy of France.
However, the king recovered and immediately the question arose about his family life. Although the Cardinal's niece, Maria Mancini, was in a romantic relationship with Louis XIV, the Bourbons needed to conclude a dynastic marriage. The original bride was Henry IV's granddaughter Princess Margaret Violante of Savoy. But the brother of Anna of Austria, King Philip IV of Spain, needed to establish peace between France and Spain and, accordingly, offered the hand of the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain to the nephew king. As a result, in November 1659, the Iberian Peace was concluded between France and Spain, and the peace treaty itself was signed by Cardinal Mazarin, who predicted that Spain, ravaged by the war, would not be able to pay the dowry on time. In June 1660, the wedding of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain took place. In the same year, Prince Conde returned to Paris, where he was restored to his rights and, having reconciled with Cardinal Mazarin, put forward claims to the Polish throne.
The end of the state activity of the cardinal
After the conclusion of the Peace of the Pyrenees, Cardinal Mazarin, who is at the pinnacle of glory and greatness, was surrounded by honor as a hero. He restored inner peace in the country, ensured its external security, but this is not yet the solution to all state problems: there were financial difficulties, indomitable nobility and Jansenist strife. Moreover, Cardinal Mazarin had the intention to become a priest again, but not in order to retire from business, on the contrary, to become the pope. His thoughts were also occupied by historical events in Eastern Europe (Olive Peace of 1660) and the Ottoman Empire (sending volunteers, starting in 1654, to Crete). However, fate decreed otherwise.
At the beginning of 1660, in Bidassoa, in Paris and in many other places, those around him watched the deteriorating health of Cardinal Mazarin. He suffered from gout, like the Duke Gaston of Orleans and the Prince of Condé, he suffered from ulcers on his legs, he had bad digestion. The cardinal used his vast knowledge to prepare perfumes and pills for neuralgic colic, kidney pain due to stones, and lung ailments, often progressing to pulmonary edema. He grew thinner and weaker, he had to resort to the help of rouge to give freshness to his face. He was increasingly carried by four servants on a chair, in an armchair or on a mattress, he was frail and, apparently, was on the verge of death, although he was only fifty-eight years old (then it was the beginning of old age), but he completely retained his intellect, insight, patience, the ability to conduct a dozen intrigues at the same time, write or dictate up to forty letters a day.
Estimates of contemporaries. Testament of Mazarin
Mazarin died of illness on 9 March 1661 at Vincennes. Before his death, he recommended his steward and assistant, Colbert, to Louis XIV. During the life of Mazarin, Louis XIV, now considered one of the most powerful monarchs in history, was only a nominal king (even after he came of age).
Already for his contemporaries, Mazarin became a legendary figure. After the death of the cardinal, a cruel joke spread: during the autopsy, it was as if they found a piece of clay instead of a heart in his chest. Meanwhile, it is known that sometimes Mazarin showed tolerance unexpected for his position (for example, he admired Pascal's Letters to a Provincial).
Mazarin became the subject of the memoirs of many of his contemporaries. He is usually portrayed as cunning and cynical, but talented and educated. Francois de La Rochefoucauld wrote about him: "His mind was vast, industrious, full of deceit, his character was flexible."
“Mazarin is a cautious, dexterous, subtle person who wants to be considered a courtier and sometimes portrays a courtier quite well; he is moderate in all his passions, or rather, we can say that he has only one all-embracing passion: this is his ambition. He subordinates all other passions to her, and there is exactly as much love and hatred in him as necessary to achieve the goal, but he wants one thing - to rule. He has great projects worthy of his exorbitant ambition, a resourceful, clear, lively mind, the most extensive knowledge in the field of all affairs of the world, I do not know anyone who would be better informed; he is industrious, diligent and makes incredible efforts to maintain the fortune, and will do everything possible to increase it. And yet he made many mistakes in governing the country and admits it; praising Mazarin to you, I do not want to exalt him, but I think I will be right if I say that this is a great man.
Mazarinades have also been preserved. Here is one of them:
Go report to the Vatican -
About my furniture that was auctioned off
About plundering our tapestries
And our gems...
About two hundred of their bathrobes,
About the abuse of spirits,
About your old and new outfits
About a luxurious palace, about their horses;
About the fact that because of you there are continuous losses,
About his pants, filthy mr ... nom.
The offspring of the late Concini, Mazarin, and that says it all,
The rabble will tear you apart
And gutting everything inside of you,
Pouring your blood over the pavement;
Your erect phallus
Raised in the air on a long pole
In the capital of Gaul,
Becomes a toy of lackeys.
Quite often in the descriptions of the character of Mazarin there is a mention of his love for cats, which he kept in abundance.
At the same time, Cardinal Mazarin left behind a political testament as advice to Louis XIV about governing the country. This is how the king regarded the will of the cardinal. “I must observe the rights, immunities and privileges of the Church; […] as for the nobility - this is my right hand, and I must appreciate it [...]; as for members of parliament, they should be respected, but, most importantly, that members of this profession should not be allowed to abuse their freedom […]; as a good king, I must relieve the lot of my people […] in all cases of taxation […]; I must see to it that everyone knows that I am master…”
- Belarusian education and reformation. F. Skorina, S. Budny, S. Polotsky, K. Narbut and others.
- Philosophical ideas of the national movement of the XIX-XX centuries.
Literature
1. Belarusian education and reformation. F. Skorina, S. Budny, S. Polotsky, K. Narbut and others.
Francysk Skaryna (1490?-1541?). The views of F. Skaryna can be judged by his prefaces and afterwords, in which the author sought, with the help of biblical texts, to introduce ordinary people to literacy and knowledge, to justify and substantiate the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance about the religious and moral autonomy of a person, his dignity, based not on origin and social status, but on personal intellectual and moral virtues, citizenship and patriotism.
Ontology and epistemology. In his views on the origin of the world, F. Skorina, as a deeply believing Christian, adheres to the theological concept of creationism, according to which the world and man were created by God “out of nothing”. He does not consider the problem of being in detail. Questions of knowledge of God occupy F. Skaryna to a greater extent. This circumstance is connected with his interpretation of the Bible. In this regard, the problem of being acquires for him not an ontological, but rather an epistemological aspect. In the "Legend to the first books of Moses, recommended by Being" F. Skorina argues that of all the books of the Old Testament, the books of Genesis are the most difficult to understand. Their knowledge is available only to a select few, for all other people the questions of the creation of the world are the subject of faith.
The greater part of the Bible can be known both logically and by an applied method, knowledge "in plain sight." F. Skorina here is a follower of K. Turovsky and K. Smolyatich, who asserted the human right to a thorough understanding of the meaning of biblical texts.
F. Skorina in every possible way distinguishes between faith and knowledge. In particular, he singles out biblical wisdom and philosophical wisdom, which he understood as knowledge of things. In this, he appears as a successor to the ideas of the supporters of "dual truth" (a philosophical doctrine that distinguishes between faith and reason, divine truth and scientific truth).
The Bible for F. Skaryna is not only the unconditional authority of faith, but also an invaluable object of knowledge, a source of secular knowledge (natural science, historical and legal, philosophical), a guide for studying the seven liberal arts (grammar, logic, rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy). But the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. Knowledge is given by God in "many and different ways".
In the "Small road book" F. Skorina appears before us as an astronomer. He introduces amendments to the Julian calendar, determines the time of the entry of the Sun into each constellation of the zodiac, reports six lunar and one solar eclipses.
Having noted that the issues of biblical ontology are difficult to understand, agreeing with the creationist formulation of the emergence of the world, F. Skorina, distinguishing between faith and knowledge, comes to the conclusion that it is necessary for the "commonwealth" person to master wisdom and sciences.
Teaching about man. The philosophical positions of F. Skaryna are clearly anthropocentric in nature and generally coincide with the tradition of the Renaissance. The scientist considers man as a rational, moral and social being. Claiming that every person from birth has equal rights, F. Skorina focuses on the issues of his moral perfection, the meaning of life and dignity, freedom, civic engagement, common and individual good. The scientist revises the medieval Christian doctrine of the meaning of human existence, where earthly life does not represent a value in itself, but is only a stage to eternal life. Speaking about the meaning of life, he emphasizes the multivariance of life positions and value orientations of a person. Being sympathetic to the real morality of a person, F. Skorina opposes morality to it as a sphere of due, directs the "commonwealth" person to an active socially useful life. He believes that people from birth are endowed with the same inclinations. Human dignity must be judged not by origin, but by moral and intellectual qualities, by what benefit this or that person has brought to his “homeland”.
The moral ideal of F. Skaryna is a humanistic-Christian concept of life, in the center of which is the concept of good. According to F. Skaryna, a reasonable, moral and socially useful life of a person is the highest good. F. Skaryna has priority in social thought, in posing and solving the problem of "man - society". Deciding the question of the ratio of the common good (the "commonwealth" good) and the individual, he strongly prefers the first. Man is a social being, and only in society can he realize himself. In this regard, a person is simply obliged to learn to “live together” (together, in society). Only the idea of the common good can unite people.
On the other hand, F. Skorina constantly talks about the need for continuous improvement of human nature, which will contribute to the harmonization of social life. Following Socrates and Plato, Skorina argues that a virtuous person is equivalent to a knowledgeable person. This meant that virtue could be taught and, in this regard, the moral ideal was realistically achievable.
Giving unconditional priority to spiritual values, F. Skorina, as a thinker of the Renaissance, does not oppose them to the values of carnal, earthly joys, but advocates the need for harmony between the spiritual and the earthly.
F. Skorina considers philanthropy to be the highest principle of relations between people. It is noteworthy that he extends this norm of human relations not only to Christians, but also to representatives of other faiths. In this regard, philanthropy acquires in him a universal universal character.
He is also the founder of the national-patriotic tradition in the history of social thought. F. Skorina is a patriot of his homeland. He proved this by his selfless activity for the good of the homeland. Medieval thinking was known to be cosmopolitan. For F. Skorina, the interests of her people are higher than religious ones. Love for the motherland is expressed by F. Skorina in an elegantly literary form: birds flying through the air know their nests; fish swimming in the sea and in the rivers smell their own vira; bees and the like harrow their hives; it is the same with people, and where they were born and nourished, according to the Bose, to that place they have a great caress.
Thus, F. Skorina considers a person mainly from the moral side. Its main purpose is to do good deeds for others, to serve the common good. Only in this case does a person realize himself as a member of society.
Political and legal views. F. Skorina stood at the origins of the so-called bourgeois legal worldview. He understood that religion is a powerful regulator of social life. However, in the conditions of the formation of new social relations, it clearly could not cope with the role of an unconditional social regulator, which it was in the Middle Ages. New socio-economic conditions required new mechanisms for managing society. According to F. Skorina, law should be such a mechanism.
He distinguishes between unwritten and written laws. At first, people lived according to the unwritten laws of mutual trust and justice. Only with the complication of social relations do written laws arise. From the above, we can conclude that F. Skorina is a supporter of the theory of "natural law", which was understood as a set of eternal and unchanging principles, rules, values arising from human nature itself. These natural, unwritten laws figure in him under the name "natural law." According to F. Skorina, “natural law” should be the fundamental basis of written law, which, being a human institution, is not formed among peoples simultaneously and primarily depends on the level of development of forms of state life. He considers law itself in interrelation and unity with morality, since they have a single basis - a “born” law, written by God “in the heart of a single person” and imprinted in his mind.
Following the tradition of ancient philosophy: for a sage, the right is superfluous because he does, out of his own conviction, what others do under fear of the law, F. Skorina argued that a moral person can do without legal laws. For laws and law, F. Skorina puts forward a number of mandatory criteria that are still relevant today. The law should be “honorable, just, possible, necessary, sustenance, near birth, servant of the customs of the earth, convenient to the hour and place, obvious, not having closeness in itself, not to the belongings of a single person, but written to the Commonwealth good.” The law will be respected in society if it is fair. An unjust law embitters a person, allows him to be permanently (permanently) violated. Justice (from lat. justitia), thus, in F. Skorina acquires the status of an ethical and legal category.
Justice and the common good in F. Skaryna are not only ethical concepts, but also universal legal categories. Here the author expresses a brilliant conjecture of the possible coincidence of law and law on the basis of justice (justice), the common good and reason.
From a practical point of view, such a formulation of the issue ensured humane legal proceedings, which, according to F. Skorina, are based on the same justice. The thinker also claims that a judge needs to be not only a highly moral and impassive professional, but also an adviser. Long before the emergence of detailed legal theories in Europe, F. Skorina declares law and law to be the basis for the harmonious development of society. Lawlessness, imperfect justice destroy the public peace. Lawlessness is the greatest social vice and is comparable only to the concept of sin, therefore it is God's punishment. Law is the greatest public good.
Of interest is Skorinov's classification of law. As already mentioned, he distinguishes between unwritten and written law. The latter is subdivided into divine, ecclesiastical and zemstvo law. Divine law is set forth in the Bible, ecclesiastical - in the documents of councils, zemstvo, or secular - by the most enlightened people and sovereigns. The idea is also expressed about the great role of the people both in law-making and in public life: “On the right of every assembly of people and every city, if by faith, by the combination of kindness and by goodness, the Commonwealth is multiplied by the good.”
F. Skorina presents the following classification of zemstvo law. First, he talks about the "common law", which fixes the general principles of the life of society. Then F. Skaryna follows pagan law, which refers to the rules for conducting hostilities between states. As a man of her time, F. Skorina witnessed numerous wars and believes that they should be conducted in accordance with legal norms - notify the enemy in advance of the start of hostilities, fulfill the conditions of the peace (truce), respect the institution of negotiations, etc. Immediately after pagan law comes knightly or military law. It is a kind of, in modern terms, the charter of the army, since it regulates the combat formation of troops, tactics of conducting combat operations, and behavior on the battlefield. Further, he singles out royal, local, maritime and merchant law.
This classification testifies to F. Skorina's deep understanding of the need for legal regulation of the most important spheres of life and society, which can make it more stable and harmonious.
Although F. Skorina is a representative of his time in his views on society as a whole, some of his ideas are still relevant today. This is especially true of his methodology for creating laws, the need to build relations between the main social groups, classes and estates on the basis of public consent and mutual concessions.
Symon (Semyon, Simeon) Budny (1530-1593). Since Budny entered the history of Russian philosophical thought as one of the most prominent ideologists and figures of the Reformation period. All his work as a theologian and philosopher was condemned by representatives of Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism.
Contemporaries-theologians put Simon Budny on a par with such famous figures of the Reformation as Jan Hus and Miguel Servet. His works were known not only in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, but also in the Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland, England, and Russia.
The ontology of Semyon Budny stems from his antitrinitarianism. Having rejected the Trinity, S. Budny develops the doctrine of God as the Absolute. Simeon Budny does not deny the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, however, in his opinion, they are not consubstantial with God the Father. In his "Creed" the author proves that God has eternity, omnipotence, immutability, inseparability, infinity, and creation. With his infinite power, he created from nothing the heavens, and the earth, and the seas, and angels, and people, and animals. God created the whole world without the help of the Son, who was born from a woman who belonged to the human race.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity proceeds from a single divine essence, which acts as an intrapersonal relationship of three interrelated substances-hypostases - God the Father (beginningless beginning). God the Son (Logos or Absolute meaning) and God the Holy Spirit (life-giving principle). These three substances (hypostases) have equal size and inseparability, although, apparently, they are consubstantial. Despite its consubstantiality, each element of the Trinity has its own ontological meaning: God the Father is the pre-foundation of pure being, God the Son (Christ) is the Logos-Word-Law (the conceptual design of being), God the Holy Spirit is the creative principle based on synthesis pure being and the Logos-Word-Law.
In the creation of the world, according to Christian philosophy, three equivalent substantive principles participate at the same time, which perform their own special functions: the Being of God the Father acquires meaning thanks to God the Son (Logos-Word-Law), while the creation of the world occurs with the help of God the Holy Spirit.
S. Budny expresses the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity could arise only as a result of the combination of philosophy and theology. The first Christian philosopher-apologists Justin, Aristides. Tertullian, and then Augustine "Blessed" simply invented these three hypostases of God. Criticizing the proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity and their modern defenders. S. Budny notes that in the original text of Holy Scripture there is not a single place where it would be stated that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
In polemics with his opponents (both Catholics and Protestants), he finds an ally in Orthodoxy, which, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, believed that the Holy Spirit comes only from God the Father, and not from God the Son. However, the main argument in the discussion for S. Budny is the logic of reason. In a letter to the famous Protestant theologian from Switzerland, G. Bullinger, in 1563, he shows that it follows from the Catholic and Protestant doctrine of the Trinity that the Holy Spirit is the common offspring of God the Father and God the Son. But God the Son was born not only from God the Father, but also from God the Holy Spirit by virtue of their consubstantiality. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is logically untenable.
S. Budny criticizes those places in the Bible that speak of the birth of Christ. He rejects, first of all, the divine origin of Christ, considering him only a great preacher-prophet and a highly moral person. S. Budny thus excludes Christ from the transcendental principle, rejects him as a whole. Therefore, the concept of God is inapplicable to him.
Does not have an independent essence and the third hypostasis - God the Holy Spirit. It is an attribute of God, his creative power. A part of a whole cannot act as a whole. S. Budny draws an analogy between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit, which depends on the body. The spirit of man cannot replace the man himself. If this is allowed, then the human spirit ceases to be it. So is the Holy Spirit. He cannot be both God and Spirit at the same time.
Consistently destroying the entire system of evidence of the supporters of the Trinity, S. Budny presented God as an impersonal principle. God is the pre-foundation of being, the spirit is its attribute, its creative force. Supporters of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity put forward 10 evidence confirming the existence of the Trinity. Refuting this evidence, S. Budny cites 18 episodes from the Bible, confirming, in his opinion, that God in the Bible is God the Father, and not the Trinity. However, S. Budny does not agree with the evolutionists, who, based on the understanding of God as an impersonal principle, made a conclusion about the emergence of the world without divine participation.
In general, starting from the fundamental ideas of providentialism and creationism in medieval thinking, S. Budny believes that God not only created the world, but also controls it.
On the whole, the doctrine of the Absolute undermined from within both providentialism and creationism. Having subjected the dogma of the Trinity to philosophical and theological criticism, substantiating the earthly origin of Christ, S. Budny laid the foundation for the most daring philosophical conclusions.
Epistemology. Faith and reason. Dialectics. The rationalistic analysis of the Bible undertaken by S. Budny inevitably led him to solve the problem of the relationship between faith and reason. Having rationalized and naturalized the Bible, the philosopher resolutely gives preference to reason (in the connection faith - reason). Only with the help of the mind can one know religious and worldly secrets. In this, the views of S. Budny continue the traditions of K. Smolyatich and K. Turovsky on a non-literal reading of biblical texts. The essential difference is the pronounced rationalism of S. Budny. If K. Smolyatich and K. Turovsky declared their right to a thorough understanding of the Holy Scriptures, then S. Budny is already embarking on his systematic rationalistic criticism, the purpose of which is to establish the truth. An important component of the rationalistic method of S. Budny is the requirement of textual comprehension of the Bible. Not conjectures-allegories, he declares, but a strict analysis of the text will allow one to know the truth. This requires an unambiguous understanding of the words of the text, assigning to it a meaning that is adequate to the objects themselves. It is necessary to judge objects not by their names, but to deduce names from their essence.
He understands truth itself as the adequacy of human reason and experience. Therefore, the truth is achieved on the basis of a large factual and historical material, which allows a person to comprehend a comprehensive picture of being. This is the first feature of S. Budny's epistemology.
Since the truth of Holy Scripture is presented in a folded form, it can be revealed only with the help of dialectical reason. In support of his thought, S. Budny cites the example of Christ and the apostles, who perfectly mastered the dialectic of cognition of the world.
From this follows the second feature of the epistemology of S. Budny, which lies in its dialectic. He presents dialectics itself not as an invention of the ancient Greeks, but as a natural gift. Dialectics is not sophistry, which often leads a person to epistemological dead ends. Dialectics is also not scholastic logic, which oversimplifies the world and knowledge about it. People should beware of such an understanding of dialectics, so as not to be deceived and not to deceive others. Only with the correct use of dialectics does it have a genuine character and help in comprehending the truth.
The third feature of the epistemology of S. Budny is its naturalism, which follows from Christology, in which the human nature of Christ is substantiated. S. Budny naturalizes such a concept as the afterlife, biblical miracles, etc. Rejecting the supernatural situations described in the Bible, he not only calls for help ordinary common sense and facts, but also refers to the data of science of that time, seeks to explain them as natural - natural phenomena.
For the epistemology of S. Budny, along with rationalism, naturalism and dialectics, is also characteristic. such an (originally philosophical) method of cognition as the principle of doubt. This is the fourth feature of his epistemology. Nothing, including the Holy Scriptures, a person should take on faith. It emphasizes the need to test everything with which a person deals, otherwise delusions are inevitable. Man is free to err and err. However, this is not a deliberate distortion of the truth, not an evil force, but a manifestation of intellectual freedom, without which the process of finding the truth is basically impossible. Only a thorough test of faith by reason and the data of experience is a condition for determining the truth or falsity of philosophical and theological problems.
Such a rationalistic position of S. Budny undermined the dogmatic method of philosophical thinking that prevailed in the middle of the century. It is noteworthy that the principle of doubt S. Budny not only extends to theological issues, but also considers it useful for natural science research, knowledge of the surrounding world as a whole.
S. Budny, in this regard, strongly prefers individual reason, self-knowledge of a person. He himself does not claim to be absolute truth, but others, in his opinion, should not have such a right. Man, the thinker asserts, must be freed from the power of scholastic authorities. He has the right to freely express his views, and in discussions he must observe tolerance towards his opponents (tolerance for other people's opinions and beliefs).
In discussions, passions must be avoided, as they drown out the truth. S. Budny believes that all interested scientists and non-scientists, teachers and students, rich and poor, can participate in discussions. He noted: where there is no freedom of discussion, there is no freedom at all. The views of S. Budny on the role of individual reason, protection of the human right to intellectual freedom were not only an integral part of the European philosophies of the Renaissance, but, ahead of time, prepared the rationalism of the New Age.
The doctrine of man and society. The views of S. Budny on a person and society correlate (correlate) with the main directions of the Renaissance-Reformation anthropocentrism, where a person is not just an object of philosophizing, but also turns out to be the central link of universal existence.
Man, according to S. Budny, is reasonable, holy, righteous and autocratic. Living and inanimate nature obeys him as the main value on earth. However, being autocratic by nature, man falls into sin. S. Budny develops a whole doctrine of ways to get rid of sin. He proceeds from the dualistic (material and spiritual at the same time), in his opinion, human nature. A person consists of two parts - a body that has fallen into sin, and a soul. If the body dies, the soul loses its individual-personal content. Having realized itself in a particular person during life, it forever ceases to be his soul after death. S. Budny does not say that the soul dies with the body. She deindividualizes and no longer knows anything about herself or the world around her, no longer interferes in earthly affairs, cannot move to another body. Therefore, a person can overcome sin only by a righteous life, good deeds, and the fulfillment of Christian moral commandments. Despite his original sin, he must not lose faith in salvation. The doctrine of the soul and body, which denied the immortality of the individual soul, was a serious philosophical achievement of the thinker. From the unity of the soul and the body, in which it (the soul) depends on the body, is its attribute, and not an independent substance, European materialism later followed. .
Justifying the existing forms of feudal dependence, S. Budny demanded a humane attitude of the owners towards the peasants. He believed that hardworking and obedient peasants should be encouraged with freedom. These views were not shared by such well-known anti-trinitarians in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as Martin Chekhovits (1523-1613) and Yakub from Kalinovka (1523-1613), a disciple of Peter from Goniendz, who preached social equality, common property, and the abolition of serfdom. This found support among the peasants and artisans. At the Protestant Synod of 1568, the nobility was told: “You have no right to eat bread obtained later by your subjects, but you yourself must work. Nor should you live on estates granted to your ancestors for the shedding of blood. Sell your estates and property and distribute the proceeds to the poor.
S. Budny, in his views on society, proceeds from the well-known social teaching of Plato, according to which each estate should do its own thing. Relations between estates, according to S. Budny, are regulated by law. He sharply opposes lynching, personal revenge, which he considers the greatest sin. The punishment of criminals is the prerogative (right) of the courts, the government and the state.
A person also has the right to self-defence. If at the same time he kills the criminal, then such an action is not punished.
S. Budny is generally against violence in resolving interstate issues. At the same time, he believes that wars in which the homeland is defended are just. Unjust are those in which the war is waged for foreign lands, in order to satisfy the claims of the rulers. He stands for peace between peoples and social class harmony in the state. Ideas that destroy society must be regarded as ungodly.
His views on world history deserve attention. S. Budny gives a higher assessment of the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire than that of the Western Roman Empire. The first developed in the bosom of ancient Greek civilization, and the second - in Latin, which is lower than Greek. .
Simeon of Polotsk (1629-1680). On the place of philosophy in the life of man and the state. S. Polotsky divides philosophy into “reasonable” (logic), “natural” (physics) and “moral” (ethics). Like the ancient Greeks, he understands philosophy as wisdom, and the philosopher as a sage who knows and knows how to live in the world. As a bee collects honey from flowers, not paying attention to their beauty, so the philosopher (sage) extracts the truth in order to carry it for the benefit of all people, the scientist emphasizes.
Philosophy is of great importance in the life of every person, especially in his moral development.
If people lived according to Christian moral precepts (that is, wisely and fairly), then philosophy, according to S. Polotsky, they would not need. However, the world and man are imperfect, the essence of things is not on the surface. Philosophy can and should move a person to perfection and knowledge, therefore it is simply internally necessary for him. Philosophy teaches us to focus on the main thing and be distracted from the vain, not to be afraid of the strong, to humbly endure adversity, to live in peace with people, and makes it possible to foresee the course of events. It also helps a person to determine the meaning of life, which, as many people think, is not in wealth, but in wisdom, Polotsky believes.
Surprisingly, being a deeply religious person, he puts philosophy above religion. Especially when it comes to the formation of a person. Nature gives us life. But it also gives life to animals, he writes. If it were not for philosophy, man would be like an animal. With the help of philosophy, he is likened to an angel. Philosophy is useful not only for the individual, but also for the state. Like Plato, he believes that only on a philosophical (wise) basis can a state be built. It, like no other science, helps to "arrange" a strong statehood.
The doctrine of being and cognition. According to the philosophical tradition, Simeon of Polotsk believed that the world consists of three parts: the primitive world (God), the macrocosm (nature) and the microcosm (man). God is an active and creative spiritual principle, which creates everything “out of nothing”. As a result of creation, two parts of the world arise: the material, he also calls it the elements (earth, water, air, fire) and the spiritual. The world of separate things and bodies is formed from the elements (macrocosmos - nature), and on the basis of the spiritual part - angels (incorporeal beings) and the human soul. The combination of material and spiritual parts form a person (microcosm). Solving the problem of the relationship between soul and body, the philosopher gives preference to the soul, since the body is mortal, and the soul is immortal.
As for the cognizability of the world, the primitive (God) is unknowable. You just need to believe in him. The other two parts, nature and man, are knowable. He compares nature with a book that is available to read and study for every person. In cognition, both the senses and the mind play a huge role. Sensory knowledge is the first and necessary step in the comprehension of nature and man. A person is, according to the scientist, a city with five entrance gates (sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste), through which he acquires primary knowledge.
However, animals also have feelings. A person surpasses them with his mind, which S. Polotsky, as a rule, associates not with the ability for abstract conceptual and logical thinking, but with the condition-possibility to act morally. Therefore, the center of the mind is in the human heart. His task is to keep good thoughts, since "from good thoughts, there are good derivatives of good deles, from evil packs evil."
S. Polotsky argues that rational knowledge is not infallible. In accordance with the consideration of the mind in conjunction with morality, he calls the errors of the mind sins.
The first sin of the human mind is ignorance. Its reasons lie in the unwillingness to learn, in the absence of conditions for learning and perseverance in overcoming its difficulties. The second is in thoughtlessness (in thoughtlessness, in uncritical borrowing of knowledge). The third is in speed of judgment (in hasty conclusions). Fourth - in the impermanence of the mind. Fifth - in stubbornness (in unwillingness to admit one's views are erroneous) Sixth - in the sophistication of the flesh (in the direction of the mind to satisfy bodily pleasures. When a person lives not with the mind-heart, but with the body) Seventh - in the desire to know what benefits a person least of all .
S. Polotsky notes that intellectual abilities are improved in the process of useful practical activity and study. Therefore, both good deeds and a bookish word are of great importance for knowledge. Like for any scientist, the goal of knowledge is the truth. He considers the truth itself from the epistemological, semantic and moral-praxeological (practical) side. From the epistemological - the truth is understood as a mental reflection. adequate to reflect. With semantic - when the meaning of the word most accurately reproduces the object or phenomenon itself. And with moral and praxeological - if human deeds coincide with moral laws.
The thinker is a supporter of the doctrine of dual truth. Religious truth is the subject of faith, philosophical truth is achieved with the help of reason.
Teaching about man. A philosopher from a Christian-humanistic and educational position seeks to solve the problem of a person, whom he defines as a “friendly” (social and active) being. He advocates an active, socially useful lifestyle. Severe asceticism is alien to him (especially he opposes fasting that exhausts the human mind). , destroy strength, give birth to the spirit of despondency and sadness) and inactive pastime, for human inactivity destroys time. A person must leave behind good deeds, boldly intervene in the course of events, try to change them.
Like other representatives of the domestic humanistic and educational thought, S. Polotsky considers a person in relationship with the social community (family, community, state), outside of which his formation as a person cannot take place.
S. Polotsky repeatedly emphasizes the role of self-education in the formation of a citizen. Parental virtues are not inherited. What he will become in the future depends on the person himself, on his good deeds.
Intellectual abilities are not inherited either. Through zeal, constant reading, the human mind becomes sharp, although at birth it was not like that, the scientist says. At the same time, the role of the family and parents in the moral formation of a person is great. The father has a direct responsibility to raise the child to be virtuous, primarily by the strength of his moral example.
The thinker is saddened by the fact that man sometimes behaves worse than the beast. Even animals help out their relatives in trouble, which is not always observed in relations between people who “dig a hole for each other, and try not to help out the one who has fallen into it, but to fall asleep faster.” Therefore, it is good in a family if a person has a friend, the scientist claims. Not everyone can be a friend, but only the one who boldly condemns your shortcomings in the eyes, helps in need and good deeds, and does not leave sadness in the days. And, on the contrary, you need to avoid people who are with you in fun, but leave you in difficult times.
One of the main virtues of S. Polotsky is wisdom and education. But it turns into its opposite, into immorality, if a person is wise and enlightened, and "the one who does good is still deprived." Wisdom, enlightenment and education must be realized in deeds - such is the requirement of the philosopher. Inaction is not only immoral, but also criminal, he believes.
Man has a freedom that does not depend on either fate or the stars. He is free to act morally and immorally. If he does evil, it does not depend on fate or the position of the stars in the sky, but on himself. Therefore, a person is responsible for his actions. To prevent evil from childhood, it is necessary to educate virtues in him.
Enlightenment and virtue, diligence in work (both intellectual and physical) for the benefit of people and the homeland forms a person's personal dignity, S. Polotsky believes.
The political ideal of Simeon of Polotsk is a strong and enlightened monarchy, where "the law is respected." The idea of the need to limit royal power by law, its functioning on the basis of law, as you can see, is characteristic of domestic socio-political thought. The monarch must be a sage, but this is clearly not enough for state and civil well-being, good, fair laws are also required. In the system of legal support of peaceful state life, the thinker occupies a prominent place in legal proceedings. The scientist critically assesses the contemporary judicial practice corroded by gratuitousness (bribery), lies, fear of condemning the strong and rich, injustice. The court, in his opinion, should be decided on the basis of Christian morality and classical legal norms, regardless of the property and social status of the defendants.
Being one of the close tsarist advisers, S. Polotsky set as the main foreign policy task "the radiation of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia", substantiated the need for Russia to go to the Baltic and Black Seas.
As a humanist, S. Polotsky honors a person not for his wealth, but for moral virtues, wisdom and enlightenment. In the spirit of early Christian morality, he condemns wealth, sees in it the source of sin; so the son, in anticipation of the possession of the inheritance, wishes his father a speedy death; the rich do not share brotherly with the poor and beggars, but exhaust their treasures in drunkenness and fornication.
K. Narbut (1738-1807). Among the representatives of the early Enlightenment, Kazimir Narbut should be noted. Several handwritten notes of his lectures, "Logic" (which played the role of a textbook in the last third of the 18th century), "Selected Philosophical Judgments ...", written in collaboration with textbooks, have come down to us.
Philosophical views. The essence of scholasticism is the subordination of all effective rational knowledge and science to the truths of revelation and faith. accepted a priori as the highest criterion of truth. K. Narbut was one of the first to argue against scholasticism. He emphasized the need to distinguish between philosophy and theology, since the former must be free in the search for truth. The task of philosophy is to find the causes of things. It is the science of all things and phenomena of the world.
The philosophical ideas of Descartes are closest in spirit to K. Narbut.
Philosophy acquired freedom starting with Descartes, emphasizes K. Narbut. He understands philosophy itself as the science of God and all natural things. It consists of six parts: natural theology (the science of God), ontology (the science of the properties inherent in all things), psychology (the science of the human soul), logic (the science of achieving truth), physics (the science of natural bodies), moral philosophy (the science of good and evil). He proves that philosophy is connected with all other special sciences and they simply need it. Medicine and rhetoric are especially in need of philosophy.
Like most thinkers of this era, in philosophy K. Narbut is a deist and a dualist. The world was created by God, but then he does not interfere either in nature or in human affairs. Nature develops according to its own laws. The philosopher, he argues, needs to follow reason, not big names. This is the philosophy of freedom. It is justified by the need for constant verification of the methods by which a person proves both the truth and falsity of judgments. Truth is the result of human knowledge. It is achieved in four ways: by internal spiritual consciousness, inferences, internal and external experience (internal experience is a person’s ability to think rationally; external experience is a sensual stage of knowledge) and on the basis of the experience of other scientists.
True knowledge is knowledge that is consistent with objects and phenomena. The criterion of truth is in the reliability and clarity of ideas.
Socio-political views. In the doctrine of society, K. Narbut proceeds from the theory of natural law. He assigns the main role in the socio-political structure to the state. People originally lived in a state of natural law, then it is replaced by civil law. Only in the state can the idea of the common good be realized. The state is its guarantor. The state itself arises from the need to protect public order, it is a product of the general will and consent. There can be no person outside of society. People live happily in a society where everything is based on the observance of laws and respect for authority.
Man must constantly strive for happiness. Such aspirations turn into a desire for universal happiness. If the task of legislation is to consolidate the natural rights of citizens, then the authorities must ensure their implementation. Private property is a sacred human right.
Francysk Skaryna
Francisk Lukich Skorina (1490, Polotsk - 1551, Prague) - Belarusian scientist, philosopher, physician (Doctor of Medicine), first printer and educator, founder of East Slavic book printing, translator of the Bible into the Belarusian edition (revision) of the Church Slavonic language.
He received his primary education in Polotsk. Presumably, in 1504 he became a student at the University of Krakow - however, the exact date of admission to the university has not been established. In 1506, Skaryna graduated from the faculty of "seven free arts" (grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music) with a bachelor's degree, later received the title of licentiate of medicine and a doctorate in "free arts".
After that, Skorina studied for another five years in Krakow at the Faculty of Medicine, and defended the degree of Doctor of Medicine on November 9, 1512, having successfully passed the exams at the University of Padua in Italy, where there were enough specialists to confirm this defense. Contrary to popular belief, Skorina at the University of Padua did not study, but arrived there precisely for the examination for a scientific degree. On November 6, 1512, Skaryna passed trial tests, and on November 9, he brilliantly passed a special exam and received signs of medical dignity.
In 1517, he founded a printing house in Prague and published the Psalter, the first printed Belarusian book, in Cyrillic. In total, during the years 1517-1519, he translated and published 23 books of the Bible. Skaryna's patrons were Bogdan Onkov, Yakub Babich, as well as the prince, voivode of Trok and the Grand Hetman of Lithuania Konstantin Ostrozhsky.
In 1520 he moved to Vilnius and founded the first printing house on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). In it, Skaryna publishes the Small Travel Book (1522) and The Apostle (1525).
What Francysk Skaryna actually did in Prague in the last years of his life is not exactly known. Most likely, he practiced as a doctor.
The exact date of his death has not been established, most scholars suggest that Skaryna died around 1551, since in 1552 his son Simeon came to Prague for an inheritance.
Fonts and engraved headpieces from the Vilna printing house Skaryna were used by book publishers for another hundred years.
Francysk Skaryna occupies a special place in the Belarusian Renaissance. Skaryna not only made a revolution on the Belarusian land, similar to the Gutenberg revolution, the great humanist was the first to understand how the Belarusian people should enter the family of European peoples without losing their identity.
Skaryna also makes an attempt to revise the orthodox Christian interpretation of the problem of human existence. The Belarusian humanist affirms the inherent value of human life. Skaryna wanted to help ordinary people learn the wisdom of science. To this end, each of Skaryna's books was accompanied by a preface and an afterword, which form the basis of his literary and journalistic heritage. In them, the first printer expressed his social and educational views, called for strengthening the rule of law, explained incomprehensible words and appeals, including religious legends, as well as various information on history, geography, ethnography, and philosophy. In the preface to the "Proverbs of Solomon" he says that the main destiny of man lies in a perfect earthly life. In the comments to "Ecclesiastes" Skaryna fixes the multiplicity of meaning-life positions of a real person, the pluralism of his value orientations. For Skaryna, the highest good is earthly good, i.e. intellectually rich, morally perfect and socially useful life on earth. He considers a person as if in three dimensions - as a rational, moral and social being. Skaryna's ethical concept is based on the idea of the necessity and possibility of continuous improvement of human nature. He firmly believes that this is what determines the perfection of social life. According to the Belarusian humanist, the concept of morality has a dual basis - individual reason and divine revelation. The natural moral law is "written in the heart of every person", it is given to him by God along with reason and free will, thanks to which a person has the opportunity to make his moral choice. Skorina saw the origins of morality in the person himself, his mind, personal relationship to God. According to Skaryna, a person's happiness lies in doing good deeds for others, "learning wisdom and truth", and doing science. Without wisdom and without good customs it is impossible to live with dignity on earth. A person, according to Skaryna, carrying out a direct, intimate dialogue with God, does not need the mediation of the church and is able to achieve moral heights through his own efforts, personal faith in God, and independent study of the Bible. “Every person,” the thinker writes, “having a mind, knows, even disobedience, murder, adultery, hatred, litigation, injustice ... and other similar evil being.”
Symon Budny and Vasily Tyapinsky became the successors of Skaryna's traditions.
Conclusion
The worldviews of F. Skaryna are secular, social and ethical in nature, humanistic in nature. In the center are social and moral issues. He solved them, relying primarily on the Bible. In it, he singled out two types of laws - “innate”: divine, existing in the soul of a person from birth, thanks to him he distinguishes between good and evil, does good to his neighbor; and “written”: it arises out of necessity and reflects the change in people’s lives in different eras and in different countries. It equalized the laws of the worldly and divine, the Holy Scripture lost the aura of inviolable holiness, became available to every thinking person. There was no need for the mediation of the church, and the person himself "He turned out to be the creator of his own destiny. The essential virtue of a person for Skaryna is reason. He called for turning it for the benefit of his people, the state. He is a patriot, for him serving the fatherland is more important than church sacrifices, more important than faith itself. Patriotism, a sense of duty to the motherland give moral and national the nature of Skaryna's worldview, make him a herald of Renaissance ideals in East Slavic society.
Briefly, his ideas can be summarized as follows:
patriotism;
calls on people to faithfully serve their Motherland;
state - an organization of the population, which occupies a certain territory and is subject to the same authority;
the goal of the state is to achieve the common good, a better standard of living;
the relationship between the rich and the "wretched" must be built on the basis of "brotherly love";
society should be built on the principles of peace and harmony;
the law must be usable, useful to the population, conform to customs, time and place;
was a supporter of the concept of natural law;
did not recognize the harassment of the clergy on the leadership of lawmaking and judicial practice;
adhered to the idea of the supremacy of the people in lawmaking;
was a supporter of peace among peoples ("eternal peace").
