How the English aristocracy dresses in our time. English nobility in the 17th century. What words do not speak English aristocrats

We introduce our friends to excerpts from the "significant" book by the Englishwoman Kate Fox, published in 2011 under the title Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behavior ("Watching the English: hidden rules of behavior").

This book made a splash in the author's homeland, immediately after its publication caused a flurry of enthusiastic responses from readers, critics and sociologists. Keith Fox, a hereditary anthropologist, managed to create a funny and amazingly accurate portrait of English society. She analyzes the quirks, habits and weaknesses of the English, but she writes not like an anthropologist, but like an Englishwoman - with humor and without pomp, witty, expressive and accessible language. So the chapter is:

What English aristocrats say and don't say

Language codes show that class in England has nothing to do with money and even less with the way of doing things. Speech is an end in itself. A person with an aristocratic accent who uses an upper class lexicon will be defined as high society even if he or she lives on a meager salary, does paperwork, and lives in God knows what apartment. Or even if she or he is unemployed, poor and homeless.

The same system of linguistic values ​​applies to a man with a working-class pronunciation who calls a sofa a Settee, a napkin Serviette, and an afternoon meal a Dinner, even if he is a multimillionaire and owner of a country estate. In addition to speech, the English have other indicators of class, such as: preferences in clothing, furniture, decorations, cars, pets, books, hobbies, food and drink, but speech is an indicator of instantaneous and most obvious.

Nancy Mitford coined the term 'U and Non-U' - in reference to upper-class and non-upper-class words - in an article published in the Encounter in 1955. And although some of the words of her class indicators are already obsolete, the principle remains unchanged. Some shibboleths* have changed, but there are still enough of them in everyday speech to unmistakably recognize this or that class of English society.

___________________

* Shibboleth (Hebrew - "flow") - a biblical expression, figuratively denoting a characteristic speech feature by which a group of people (in particular, ethnic) can be identified, a kind of "speech password" that unconsciously betrays a person for whom the language is non-native .

The simple binary Mitford method is not, however, an entirely sufficient model for a precise distribution of linguistic codes: some shibboleths help to simply separate aristocrats from everyone else, but others, more specifically, to separate the working class from the lower middle or middle middle and upper middle classes. In some cases, paradoxically, the word-codes of the working class and the upper class are remarkably similar, and differ significantly from the speech habits of the classes that lie between them.

What words do not speak English aristocrats

There are, however, a few words which are perceived by the English aristocracy and upper middle classes as unmistakable shibboleths. Say one of these words in the presence of the upper classes of England and their on-board radar sensors will begin to flash, indicating the need for an immediate downgrade to the middle class, and in the worst case (more likely) - below, and in some cases - automatically - to working class level.

This word is especially hated by English aristocrats and the upper middle class. Journalist Jilly Cooper recalls a conversation between her son and a friend that she unwittingly overheard: "Mom says the word pardon is worse than fuck." The boy was absolutely right: this is clearly a common word worse than a swear word. Some even call the suburbs where the owners of this lexicon live Pardonia.

Here's a good class test: when talking to an Englishman, say something too low to be heard. The lower middle and middle class person will ask again with "Pardon?", the upper middle class will say "Sorry?" or "Sorry - what?" or "What - sorry?" And the upper class will just say "What?" Surprisingly, the working class will also say “Wha’?” - with the only difference being that it will drop the 'T' at the end of the word. Some at the top of the working class may say "Pardon?", erroneously claiming that it sounds aristocratic.

Toilet is another word that makes the upper classes shudder or exchange knowing glances when some would-be careerist says this. The correct word for celebrity restroom is "Loo" or "Lavatory" (pronounced lavuhtry with the stress on the first syllable). "Bog" is sometimes acceptable, but only if it's said in a tongue-in-cheek tone, as if it were in quotation marks.

The working class recklessly says "Toilet" as do most of the lower and middle middle classes, with the only difference being that it also omits the 'T' at the end. Commoners can also say "Bog", but obviously without quotation marks.

Representatives of the lower middle and middle classes with a claim to a more noble origin of the word will replace it with such euphemisms as: "Gents", "Ladies", "Bathroom", "Powder room", "Facilities' and "Convenience"; or playful euphemisms such as: "Latrines", "Heads" and "Privy". Women tend to use the first group of expressions, men - the second.

In the language of the inhabitants of Pardonia, "Serviette" is a napkin. This is another example of gentlemanism, in this case a misguided attempt to elevate one's status with a French catchphrase. It has been suggested that the word "Serviette" was taken up by squeamish lower-middle class people who found "Napkin" (napkin) too similar to "Nappie" (diaper) and, to sound more elegant, replaced the word with a euphemism of French origin. .

Whatever the origin of the word, "Serviette" is now hopelessly regarded as a sign of lower-class speech. Mothers of upper-class children get very upset when their children, following the best impulses of lower-class nannies, learn to say "Serviette" - they have to be re-learned to say "Napkin".

The very word "Dinner" is not dangerous. Only its inappropriate use by the working class in relation to the lunch meal, which should be called nothing more than "Lunch", is vicious.

Naming an evening meal "Tea" is also a working-class habit. In high society, the evening meal is called "Dinner" or "Supper". Dinner is bigger than Supper. If you're invited to Supper, it's likely to be an informal family meal, perhaps even in the kitchen. Sometimes a similar detail can be reported in the invitation: “Family supper”, “Kitchen supper”. The upper and upper middle classes use the word Supper much more often than the middle and lower middle classes.

'Tea' is taken around 4:00 pm, as is the custom in high society, and consists of tea and cakes & scones (they pronounce the second word with a short O) and perhaps mini sandwiches (which they pronounce as 'sanwidges', not 'sand-witches').

These features of the perception of time parameters create additional problems for foreign guests: if you are invited to the Dinner - at what time should you honor the hosts with your visit - at noon or in the evening, and come to the Tea - this is by 16:00 or 19 :00? In order not to get into an awkward position, it is better to ask again at what hour you are expected. The answer of the inviter will also help you accurately determine his social status, if you wish.

Or, while visiting, you can follow how the hosts call their furniture. If a piece of upholstered furniture designed for two or more people is called “Settee” or “Couch” by them, this means that the owners of the house belong no higher than with the middle layer of the middle class. If it's Sofa, they represent the upper middle class or above.

However, there are exceptions here: this word is not as strong an indicator of the working class as "Pardon", since some young upper-middle class people who have picked up the influence of American films and television programs may say "Couch", but they are unlikely to say "Settee" - perhaps as a joke or to deliberately get on the nerves of his class watching parents.

Do you want to practice class forecasting more? Pay attention to the furniture itself. If the subject of discussion is a new-made set of a sofa and two armchairs, the upholstery of which is matched to the tone of the curtains, the owners probably use the word “Settee”.

Just wonder what they call the room in which is "Sofa" or "Settee"? "Settee" will be in a room called "Lounge" or "Living room", while "Sofa" will be in "Sitting room" or "Drawing room". Previously, "Drawing room" (short for "Withdrawing room") was the only acceptable term in relation to the living room. But many in the upper classes found it too pretentious and pompous to call a small living room in an ordinary house with a terrace "Drawing room", so "Sitting room" became an acceptable expression.

You can occasionally hear from the middle middle and upper middle classes "Living room", although this is not approved, but only representatives of the lower middle class will call it "Lounge". This is a particularly useful word for middle-class people who seek to pass themselves off as upper-middle: they may have learned to avoid "Pardon" and "Toilet" by now, but they are often unaware that "Lounge" is also a deadly sin.

Like "Dinner," the word "Sweet" is not in itself an indicator of class, but its inappropriate use is. The upper middle class and the aristocracy insist that the dessert served at the end of the meal be exclusively "Pudding", but never words such as "Sweet", "Afters" or "Dessert", all of which are declassed. and unacceptable term. "Sweet" can be freely used as an adjective, and if as a noun, then only in relation to what the Americans call "Candy", that is, caramel candy and nothing else!

The dish that ends the meal is always "Pudding", whatever it is: a slice of cake, creme brulee or lemon ice cream. Asking "Does anyone want a sweet?" at the end of a meal will lead you to being immediately classified as mid-middle class and below. "Afters" - will also turn on the class radar and your status will be downgraded.

Some American-influenced, upper-middle-class youths begin to say "Dessert," which is the most acceptable word of the three and the least identifiable word in the working-class vocabulary. However, be careful with this term: in the highest circles, "Dessert" traditionally means a dish of fresh fruit, which is eaten with a knife and fork and is served at the very end of the feast - after what is commonly called "Pudding".

If you want to talk posh - first you have to abandon the very term "Posh". The correct word for superiority, aristocracy is "Smart". In the upper circles, the word "Posh" can only be pronounced ironically in a joking tone, showing that you know that this is a word from the vocabulary of the lower strata.

The antonym of the word "Smart" in the mouths of those who are above average is the word "Common" - a snobbish euphemism for the working class. But be careful: using this word too often, you yourself indicate that you belong to nothing more than the average level of the middle class: constantly calling things and people "Common" means your irrepressible protest and attempt to distance yourself from lower classes. Alas, only people dissatisfied with their status flaunt snobbery in this form.

People of aristocratic upbringing, relaxed about their status, will prefer to use such polite euphemisms about the people and phenomena of the working class as: "Low-income groups", "Less privileged", "Ordinary people", "Less educated", "The man in the street", "Tabloid readers", "Blue collar", "State school", "Council estate", "Popular".

"Naff" is a more ambiguous term, and in this case more appropriate. It can mean the same thing as "Common", but it can simply be synonymous with "Tacky" and "Bad taste". "Naff" has become a generalized generic expression of disapproval, along with which teenagers often use their favorite heavy insults like "Uncool" and "Mainstream".

If these young people are "Common", then they will call their parents "Mum & Dad". "Smart" kids say "Mummy & Daddy". Some of them are used to "Ma & Pa", but those are too old-fashioned. Speaking of their parents in the third person, "Common" children will say "my Mum" & "my Dad" or "me Mam" and "me Dad" while "Smart" children will call them "My mother" and " My father".

But these words are not infallible indicators of class, as some upper-class kids now say "Mum & Dad" and some very young working-class kids might say "Mummy & Daddy." But if a child is older than 10 years old, say 12, then he will still call his parents "Mummy & Daddy" if he grew up in "Smart" circles. Adults who still call their parents "Mummy & Daddy" are definitely from the upper class.

_________________

**ETC. - an abbreviation for the Latin "et cetera", so this subtitle in Russian sounds like "and so on and so forth."

In the language of mothers, whom their children call "Mum", a handbag is "handbag" and perfume is "perfume". In the language of mothers, whom their children call "Mummy" - a handbag is "Bag", and perfume is "Scent". Parents who are called "Mum & Dad" will say "Horse racing" about horse racing; parents from the world - "Mummy & Daddy" - just say "Racing".

Representatives of the "Common" society, wanting to announce that they are going to a party, use the expression go to a "do"; middle-class people will use the word "Function" instead of "Do", and those in "Smart" circles will simply call the technique "Party".

"Refreshments" are served to "Functions" of the middle class; guests of the "Party" of the first echelon drink and eat "Food & Drink". The middle class and below get their food at Portions; those from the aristocracy and the upper middle class about servings are called "Helpings". Commoners will call the first course "Starter" and above-average people will call it "First course", although this is a less reliable indicator of status.

The middle class and those below call their house "Home" or "Property", the patio in their house - "Patio". Upper-middle class and above will use the word "House" when referring to their home, and "Terrace" when referring to their patio.

What is an aristocrat? The man who bothered to be born.
Pierre de Beaumarchais
An aristocrat should set an example for people. Otherwise, why do we need an aristocracy?
Oscar Wilde

Motto:"Aristocracy is destiny."

Values: family, duty, honor, etiquette, traditions, self-respect, monarchism, land ownership (according to Bernard Shaw: “He who believes in education, criminal law and sports, lacks only property to become the most perfect modern gentleman”).

Epic trailer for the series "Downton Abbey":

Attitude:“Eccentricity… This is the justification for all aristocracies. It justifies leisure classes, inherited wealth, privileges, rents, and all such injustices. If you want to create something worthy in this world, it means that you need to have a class of people who are well-to-do, free from poverty, idle, not forced to spend time on stupid everyday work, which is called the honest fulfillment of one's duty. We need a class of people who can think and - within certain limits - do what they like. (Aldous Huxley)

1. The place and importance of the aristocracy in Edwardian society

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the aristocracy to the society of the end of the Belle Epoque, especially in such a small English town as our Erbie. Despite the fact that in 1909 impending social changes are already felt inevitably and the oppression of Victorian conventions has considerably weakened, the aristocracy still retains its positions and strives to hold them in every possible way. Shy voices are heard “Why is everything for some and nothing for others?”, And so far they are not stronger than the squeak of a mouse, especially in our outback.
So, the prestige of the aristocracy is high. Much is expected of aristocrats, and in many ways, that they will be better than others. Often this attitude is unconscious. They are significant figures in the minds of people, those who lay down models of social behavior.
Aristocrats and aristocrats are princes and princesses, kings and queens from fairy tales, which everyone is guided by. They are drawn to aristocrats, they want to possess their grace of manners and elegance, they strive to imitate them, they dream of breaking into their class. Public attention is riveted to them. Everyone is interested in how they look, how they behave and what they do. They dictate fashion. Their mistakes cause a heap of gossip. Now only Hollywood stars are of such interest.
In general, the aristocracy has a kind of magical attraction. She has charisma, which is at the core of this class. This is an elite society of snobs, in which they hold tightly to each other, which is why family ties are so important in the circle of aristocrats.
Each aristocrat is clearly aware of his uniqueness, importance and specialness, he holds his head high, because behind him are generations of ancestors who made history, owned lands, and were at the helm of the state.
The aristocracy is the guarantor of the existing world order. This is the icing on the cake that crowns it, for which, in essence, it was created.

2. To be, not to seem: how to play an aristocrat in our game
Have you already understood that the Aristocrat in our game is a Role with a capital R?
An aristocrat performs certain social duties, bearing the brunt of social expectations. Every aristocrat clearly understands what his duty is, and that this duty must be fulfilled at all costs. In Up and Down Stairs, there is a remarkable dialogue between the chauffeur Spargo and his flighty hostess. When she tries to get into the car in the seat next to the driver, he points out to her that she is a lady, which means that she must behave like a lady, otherwise he will no longer consider her a noble lady. Pretty eloquent, isn't it?

Trailer for the series “Up and down stairs” about the life of English aristocrats in the 30s:

Let's try to break it down into points.
1) An aristocrat feels the boundaries of his class well- if he steps over them, he risks losing the respect that people of the lower classes have for his special position. As Bernard Shaw wrote: “Both masters and servants are tyrants; but the masters are more dependent.” Play with servants, don't ignore them, this is the most important part of your life.
2) An aristocrat can sometimes behave eccentrically(for example, attending a servants' ball or going incognito to boxing matches, because this is so delightfully low!). However, there is an abyss between eccentricity and vulgarity. In English history, there were ill-bred aristocratic tyrants, with whom everyone had to put up, but we will not play them.
3) Every aristocrat _knows_ how to behave. So for our game you will have to master the extensive rules of etiquette, the role will require preparation. And you need to master the rules well: the atmosphere is very important in our game, and we ask the players to help in every possible way in creating it. So if you're not sure - don't show up, the pseudo-aristocrats at the games are damn tired. In our masterful dreams, the aristocrat has tact and good taste; he is delicate; he is always well dressed; he holds his back straight and has a keen sense of his own place in space, while carrying himself with genuine dignity. He knows how to keep up the conversation and knows the rule of five Ps (weather, nature, travel, poetry, pets). We know that a spherical player in a vacuum should play it :), but hope dies last.
4) In addition to etiquette, every true aristocrat appreciates traditions.
His world is literally built on them. He inherited them from his ancestors, and although he feels bound by them from time to time, traditions still form an essential part of his identity. He always played cricket on this field, and so did his grandfather. He always read by the fireplace in this armchair, which was brought from Europe by his great-grandfather. There has always been a stable on his estate (and there will be!). And we will always protect our tenants, even if it is not profitable for us, because even their great-great-grandfathers were tenants of our glorious ancestors. Or we will suffer, because now we need to drive them from our land in order to sell part of it and not go bankrupt. Still, the new century is on its heels: modernization, mechanization ...
5) Aristocrats are born conservative. In diapers, instead of rattles, they shake a scepter and an orb :) Traditionally, they support the Conservative Party of Great Britain, as their ancestors supported the Tory Party. They are for the most part in favor of the monarchy (some eccentrics flirt with liberal ideas, but they are not taken seriously). They disapprove and are afraid of the socialists, because they want to take away their privileges and land.
6) An aristocratic society is patriarchal, conventions are important in it, the emancipation of women is not welcome in it (I remember that Queen Victoria called for flogging suffragettes). Gentlemen “cultivate the land” (that is, they try to preserve and increase the fortune inherited from their ancestors), and ladies “give birth in pain” (that is, they focus on the family, home improvement, leisure activities, and on embodying beauty).
7) For an aristocrat, reputation and good name are of great importance.
8) And, of course, aristocracy is something innate, therefore, those who have become an aristocrat (for example, by purchasing a title) are treated with suspicion or with hidden contempt. Nouveaux riches of all stripes in England do not favor.

3. Aristocrats in Erbie - who are they?
In our little Erbie, on the border of Yorkshire and Lancashire, the aristocracy will be represented by the family Baronet John Alistair Thornton of Thornton Hall, which in the town is simply called Big house, as well as some noble guests of Lord and Lady Thornton.
The Thorntons are a family that received the title of baronets in the 17th century, a surname highly respected in the county. They are known to be caring owners.
(And yes, our Erbie really exists on this side of reality, like Thornton Hall, admire!)

Foggy and mysterious Thornton Hall

Baronet Thornton lives in the Big House with his wife lady Agatha, three daughters - Victoria, Alice and Madeleine and wife's sister, lady Persephone Talbot, who recently came to stay with Lady Agatha of Wales.

Eternal Femininity in vintage photos - for inspiration
Beautiful Lady of the Belle Epoque

A flower in the foam of lace, sitting on a sofa

In Erbie, Cotton Cottage is also home to The Dowager Baroness Thornton, Lady Julia Margaret. She is already very old, but it is still better for her not to get caught on the tongue. So, who will play Margot?

In the Big House, the arrival of a new heir is awaited with trepidation. A cousin from a neighboring county and a good friend of the baronet, Anthony Thornton, who was supposed to inherit Thornton Hall due to the absence of sons from the baronet, recently died suddenly from an incomprehensible illness. Solicitors found an unknown Reginald Thornton, a London lawyer, not a doctor (!), who is currently the only heir of the Thorntons in the male line. He wrote that he would soon arrive in Erby with Aunt Elizabeth. This event caused a lot of gossip and excitement.

The video sets us in the right romantic mood. And Thornton is as good as Downton! Almost...

It is known that once another aristocratic family lived near Erby - some Viscount Fontaine, however, this family died out, there were no heirs left, and they say that ghosts are now found in their abandoned mansion ...

Buuu... Not a pleasant place. The locals avoid...

The ability for social mimicry allowed the English nobility to survive all the social conflicts and revolutions of the 17th-20th centuries, and although in the late 20th and early 21st centuries the English nobility ceased to play such an influential role as, say, even under Queen Victoria, it still supplies the British establishment by their descendants, who determine the political and economic course of modern Britain through hidden mechanisms.

Read the previous post:

Aristocracy yesterday, today, tomorrow: French aristocracy.

The French aristocracy is the most characteristic social group, which can be fully considered a kind of “golden section” for defining aristocracy as a social and cultural phenomenon. Like in all other countries of feudal Europe, in France the nobility (chivalry) and its upper stratum ) arise even during the collapse of the Empire of Charlemagne. Almost all the servants of this or that Sovereign, his tributaries - they all formed the estate of feudal nobles, among which the largest and most influential - dukes, marquises and counts - began to stand out.

The English nobility, unlike the French nobility, has never been something single and homogeneous. After 1066, when the Normans of William the Conqueror defeated the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, two aristocracies and elite groups formed in England: the Anglo-Saxon - the "old nobility" and the Normans, who came as conquerors along with their duke. The split in the English nobility lasted until the Crusades, and even until the Hundred Years' War, when it was difficult to draw a line between the old and the new nobility of England.

At the end of the XII century. part of the nobles of England actively supported Richard the Lionheart and left with the King to fight "for the Holy Sepulcher" in the III Crusade, the other part remained in England and became the support of Richard I's brother, Prince John, who later became King John Landless. Actually, the struggle of King John the Landless with his brother Richard I, and later with the English barons, led to the fact that they put forward and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which limited a number of rights of the English monarch. Actually, the long struggle of the English kings and the English nobility for rights, privileges and power began with it. Among the special articles in the Magna Carta was an article on the “revocation of allegiance”, when the vassal-seigneurial agreement was broken at the initiative of one of the parties.

The Crusades, then the plague and the Hundred Years' War severely undermined the morale and ability of the English nobility. But if the French nobility had a 40-year truce between the Hundred Years War and the Italian Wars, then the English nobility did not have this time lag. Immediately after the signing of the armistice with France, England plunged into the "War of the Roses" - the confrontation between the Lancasters and the Yorks.

Perhaps this war for the English crown wiped out the English nobility even more than the plague of the XIV century and the Hundred Years War. The English nobility could replenish the thinned ranks in only two ways - by co-opting merchants and philistines into the nobility, and by including foreign nobles in the service of the English kings. The British chose both of these methods, especially since the corresponding possibilities soon turned up. Under the Tudors, and especially under Elizabeth I, England tried to break out into the oceanic expanse, where it entered into a long and exhausting struggle with the largest maritime powers: Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

Having a much smaller fleet than its competitors, the government of Elizabeth I Tudor, without thinking about the moral side of the issue, began to use pirate squadrons to fight Spain. The most distinguished in the fight against the Spanish fleet was Captain Francis Drake, for which he was granted a patent of nobility. The strange, even accidental victory of England over the Great Armada broke the power of Spain in the Atlantic, and England was left with only two competitors - the Netherlands at sea and France on land. It was the fight against them that took almost 180 years from the reign of James I to George III of Hanover.

Speaking about the archetype of the English nobility, let's say right away that it initially differed from the French in that it always strove for autonomy from the royal power, while in France the petty and middle nobility always supported the King in the fight against the big lords, which for England was not typical. In addition, the British Isles were located at the crossroads of trade routes, and London, along with being the capital of the Kingdom of England, has always been a major trading center, which cannot be said about Paris, which was not a port city and was not at the crossroads of trade routes. Hence the specificity of the English nobility, which, although it did not consider trade a worthy occupation for the aristocracy, did not shy away from trading through figureheads from merchants or philistines. In this the English lords are very similar to the Roman patricians, who hired free Romans to manage their estates or conduct the business of their patrons in Rome. Unlike the French nobility, the English nobility, in addition to land rent, also had income from housing and trade, although this type of income was most widespread only in the 18th century.

The relative poverty of the English kings, and the brief age of English absolutism under the Tudors, made the English Court less attractive to the English nobility than the French Court was to the French aristocracy, and the English nobles preferred to receive either landholdings from the crown, or began to participate in the development of the colonies after discovery of the New World. That is, the English nobility, initially split into different groups since the time of William the Conqueror, synthesized in itself a purely noble archetype of behavior: war, hunting and service to the crown are the lot of an aristocrat, but they did not shy away from making a profit in addition to land rent, in the form of renting land or the creation of manufacturing industries on them, which was completely uncharacteristic of their colleagues in the nobility in France. This type of additional income was especially characteristic of the era of the birth of English industry in the 16th century, and the colonial conquests of England with their long sea voyages, in isolation from the crown authorities, also inspired this. No wonder the most famous pirates were the English Morgan and Drake.

The fundamental difference between the English nobility and the French was not only that many English aristocrats descended from different merchant families, petty nobility and judicial families, but also that England, one of the first countries in Europe, began to move to the formation of an elite, based on scientific and rational methods. Of course, even among the English nobility there were families that had a noble origin, for example, the Dukes of Norfolk (genus - Howards) or relatives of the Tudors - the Dukes of Somerset (genus - Seymours), but this is rather an exception to the rule for the late English aristocracy.

It was in England that the aristocratic elite began to form not only on the basis of origin, material wealth, as was typical for other noble classes and aristocracies in Europe, but one of the most important characteristics and markers of belonging began to be considered elite education and upbringing, which were inseparable from each other in English educational tradition. Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Westminster school - everyone knows about them today, but it was the English nobility, "merchants in the nobility" who understood the importance of education and upbringing in certain traditions of the entire English elite, in order to obtain a holistic caste of gentlemen cemented by common ideals - lords and peers of England. Eton College was founded back in the "War of the Roses" in 1440. In Russia, the Imperial Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum and His Majesty's Corps of Pages were founded only in 1811 and 1803.

These tendencies of the English nobility's commitment to pragmatism and rationalism in the accepted models of social behavior were also supported by powerful closed structures, both Masonic lodges and closed elite clubs. The latter was generally peculiar and took root only in England; in other countries, clubs as structures influencing politics did not take root, with the exception of the not-good-memory club from Saint-Jacques in the monastery of St. Jacob in Paris. But this was already created by French extremists in the "image and likeness" of those political clubs that dominated England from the time of Cromwell to Victorian England.

Another distinguishing feature of the English aristocracy was its adaptability to new ideas, and the lack of integrity in worldview and religious issues. The expression of Lord Palmerston, the head of British foreign policy under Queen Victoria at the beginning of her reign, can serve as a model for the pattern of thinking of the English elite: "England has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, England has only permanent interests." This religious and ethical relativism of the English nobility was largely facilitated by the fact that England was one of the first countries in Europe, along with the Netherlands and Switzerland, to adopt Protestantism. It was these states that became the three anti-Catholic centers in Europe, and it was in them that the power of the bourgeois plutocracy was established, replacing the power of the noble aristocracy.

In fairness, it should be noted that the Huguenots of France and southern Germany, who fled from Catholic repressions, also found refuge on the Island, and it was from them that the English nobility replenished. The most famous are such surnames as Schombergs or Montreuses. Of course, the Scottish clans, which became part of the British aristocracy after the accession of the House of Stuart, became the largest group that joined the English nobility. Just as in France, a separate group of British nobility is made up of bastard families descended from different monarchs of Britain. But if in France they were given the definition of bastard princes, then in England they had to be content with ducal titles and peerages, without the right to social equality with the legitimate princes of the British Kingdom.

Salons. Secular communication takes place primarily in the salon. A salon is a person, most often a woman, and an address. The scale of the salon changes depending on the day of the week and the time of day. A woman who will not let anyone into her house except her closest friends right after noon, from four to six receives social acquaintances by dozens, and in the evening, perhaps, arranges dances for hundreds of guests. Thus, the salon is an extensible space.

The Vicomte de Melun, who visited the salon of the Duchess de Rosen, testifies that two completely different worlds coexisted in this salon. Numerous evening guests were an audience "very noisy and frivolous". On the contrary, he believes, from four to six, the duchess received “serious” people: there were few women among them, politicians and writers predominated, such as, for example, Wilmain, Sainte-Beuve, Salvandi. Clara de Rosan inherited from her mother, the Duchess de Duras, a passion for people with a sharp mind: “At this time of the day, Madame de Rosan showed not only kind hospitality, but also the ability to describe a person or a book in one word and give each of the guests the opportunity to show off her mind ". Ladies, as a rule, were not admitted to these afternoon meetings, and therefore, out of jealousy, they called Madame de Rosan "bluestocking."

Communication with close friends or secular acquaintances was allotted for the afternoon (called "morning") and the evening. Morning hours in the proper sense of the word were devoted to sleep or household chores. The private space turned into a communal space only after breakfast. This breakfast - a meal that took place in the middle of the day and which others called "lunch" - at the time described, in contrast to the 18th century, did not belong to public life. In the 18th century, in the salon of Madame du Deffand, lunch, which took place at half past one, and dinner, which began at ten o'clock in the evening, were very important stages of secular communication: “Lunch - a meal, perhaps a little more intimate - sometimes serves as a prelude for readings or literary disputes, which are allotted time in the afternoon.

The habit of receiving guests on a certain day of the week from two to seven took root in ladies' society only under the July Monarchy. At first, the owner of the salon called this day she chose "my four hours." The author of the book "Paris Society" notes in 1842 that at four o'clock in the afternoon every lady returns home to her living room, where she receives secular people, statesmen, artists.

There is no place for a husband at these receptions; it became more fitting for him to attend a similar meeting in the house of some other lady. Perhaps this is the remnant of an aristocratic tradition? After all, to expose marital ties to society was considered a purely bourgeois affair.

Morning receptions were divided into "small" and "large" in the same way as evening. The Marquise d'Espard invites the Princess de Cadignan with Daniel Artez to "one of those "small" evening receptions where only close friends are allowed and only if they received a verbal invitation, and for everyone else the door remains closed." The opposite of "small" evenings is - big receptions, balls, etc.

Based on the study, salon sociability was not an exclusive property of high society; she served as a model for the entire middle class. In general, at that time, a family that had reached the level of the petty bourgeois knew two ways to mark this: hire a maid and appoint their own day for receptions.

The life of the salon at all levels of society was built in the same way. Evenings in the salons of the petty and middle bourgeoisie were, judging by the descriptions, nothing more than caricatured imitations of evenings in high society. Narrators depicting these bourgeois evenings often emphasize their contrast with evenings in chic salons and draw portraits of hostesses with particular irony. Ladies from the petty bourgeoisie are most often accused of vulgarity. Here is a typical example of such a ruthless comparison: Cuvillier-Fleury, tutor to the Duke of Omalsky, tells how he spent the evening of January 23, 1833. First, he goes to the director of the Lyceum Henry IV, where he accompanies his pupil every day. The mistress of the house, Madame Gaillard, "is a beautiful woman, but it is clear that she put on her gloves at least a dozen and a half times." Then Cuvillier-Fleury finds herself in the living room of an aristocrat - "white-armed, in an elegant toilet, she is always well-groomed, dresses with exquisite simplicity, combed, perfumed and utterly courteous."

The wives of many officials, employees, directors of lyceums, professors host receptions.

Secular skills, which had a caricature connotation among people of the poor and humble, played the role of one of the most important tools in the process of teaching cultured, refined manners. It is easy to laugh at bourgeois women who played pranks on high society ladies. However, the imitation of the great world, the assimilation of its manners, is a matter much more useful and respectable than many scoffers believed.

The conversations that took place at these receptions played an important role in salon life. “The course of the conversation,” writes the Countess Delphine de Girardin in 1844, depends on three things - on the social position of the interlocutors, on the agreement of their minds and on the situation in the living room. She especially dwells on the meaning of the situation: the salon should be like an English garden: even though at first glance it seems that disorder reigns in it, this disorder is “not only not accidental, but, on the contrary, created by the hand of a master.”

An entertaining conversation will never start "in the living room, where the furniture is arranged strictly symmetrically." Conversation in such a living room will revive no less than three hours later, when disorder gradually reigns within its walls. If this happens, after the departure of the guests, the hostess of the house should in no case order the servants to put the chairs and armchairs in their places; on the contrary, you need to remember the location of the furniture, conducive to conversation, and save it for the future.

A true master of conversation should be able to move and gesticulate. For this reason, Delphine de Girardin condemns the fashion for "dunkers" - whatnots for trinkets - cluttering salons, but, on the other hand, recalls how important it is to provide the guest with some small items that he can mechanically take in the course of a conversation and with whom he will no longer part: “The busiest politician will spend many hours in your house talking, laughing, indulging in the most charming reasoning if you guess to put a penknife or scissors on the table near him.”

This means that the old tradition of organizing "circles" has come to an end. For many years in a row, the guests sat in a circle around the mistress of the house. This created a lot of problems: how would a newly arrived guest find a place in this circle? how to get out of it? Madame de Genlis, in her Ancient Court Etiquette, commissioned by Napoleon, defends the circle in the form in which it existed under the Old Order. However, she notices that modern young women behave immodestly: they want to greet the mistress of the house at all costs and thereby violate the harmony of the circle. Under Louis XV and Louis XVI, guests tried to move as little as possible; the mistress of the house from afar greeted the newly arrived guests with a nod of her head, and this completely satisfied them. In the era of the Restoration, the ladies still sat in a circle. January 26, 1825 Lady Grenville wrote: “Every day I go to no less than two evenings. They begin and end early, and they all look alike: about fifty of the elect are talking, sitting in a circle.

Meanwhile, addiction to the "circle", especially if the mistress of the house had an imperious character, most often did not contribute to the ease and pleasantness of pastime. Otnen d "Ossonville recalls how, in 1829, as a twenty-year-old youth, he visited the salon of Madame de Montcalm: "With a wave of her hand, she indicated to the one who entered the living room the chair or chair intended for him in a row of other armchairs and chairs arranged in a fan around a certain throne, or rather a royal chair in parliament, which she herself serenely occupied; if the one who coined the expression "to lead a circle" meant to say that the regulars of this or that salon obey his mistress, then this expression was entirely suitable for Mrs. de Montcalm: she “led” her “circle” with a firm hand.” In Madame de Montcalm’s drawing room, you not only could not choose your place as you wish, you also did not have the right to chat freely with your neighbors: strike up a conversation with them , the mistress of the house would immediately call you to order.

One of the first ladies who felt the need to get rid of “the remnants of ceremoniality generated by the old manner of seating guests in a circle” was Madame de Catellane during the Restoration era: she so wanted her guests to feel at ease in her salon that she herself never occupied two consecutive days of the same place; she was the first to start arranging furniture "anyhow", and with her light hand it became fashionable. Juliette Recamier paid great attention to the arrangement of chairs in her salon in Abbey-au-Bois. They were arranged differently depending on what the guests were to do - talk or listen to the reading of some new work (or recitation of a theatrical monologue). For conversation, chairs were arranged in five or six circles; these were places for ladies; the men, as well as the mistress of the house, had the opportunity to walk around the entire living room. This arrangement gave Madame Recamier the opportunity to immediately lead the newcomers to people close to them in their interests. For reading, armchairs and chairs intended for ladies were arranged in one large circle (or several concentric circles); the reader was placed in the center, and the men stood along the walls.

All this was done in order to make the guests feel at ease, because where there is no ease, it is impossible to conduct a conversation: “Everyone uttered a phrase - a successful phrase that he did not expect from himself. People exchanged thoughts; one learned an anecdote, previously unknown to him, the other found out some curious detail; the wit was joking, the young woman showed charming naivete, and the old scholar an inexorable spirit; and in the end it turned out that, without thinking about it at all, everyone was talking.

How was the topic chosen for the conversation? The interest of the regulars of secular salons in modern times was often satisfied with the help of a chronicle of incidents. Here in the first place was the most famous criminal case of that era - the trial of Marie Lafarge, which took place in September 1840 in Tulle. The widow Lafarge was accused of poisoning her husband with arsenic. The newspapers published a full account of the proceedings of the court, all of France discussed the Lafarge case, and the high society was no exception.

The Lafarge trial was all the more agitated by society people because many of them had not so long ago met the defendant in Parisian salons: she was of a fairly good family. To avoid clashes between Lafargists and anti-Lafargists (the former claimed that Lafarge was innocent, the latter that she was guilty), the hostesses of the house took special precautions: according to the Siecle newspaper, an invitation to a certain country estate ended with the words: “About the Lafarge trial - not a word!".

Secular people were especially keenly interested in legal proceedings when people of their own circle acted as the accused. Thus, in November 1837, general attention was drawn to the case brought by Dr. Koref against Lord Lincoln and his father-in-law the Duke of Hamilton. The doctor treated for five months and finally cured Lord Lincoln's wife, who was debilitated and suffering from catalepsy. For his labor he demanded four hundred thousand francs; Lord Lincoln was willing to pay him only twenty-five thousand.

In May 1844, the habitues of the salons of the Faubourg Saint-Germain could not recover from amazement. The eighty-nine-year-old old woman whom everyone used to call "Countess Jeanne" died. And only after her death it was discovered that this old lady, who belonged to the most noble families, was none other than the Comtesse de Lamothe, once sentenced to corporal punishment and branding for her involvement in the story with the queen's necklace.

Boulevard, jockey club and secular circles. The journalist Hippolyte de Villemessant, who became famous for having thought to perfume the pages of the Sylphide magazine with spirits from Guerlain, writes in his Notes: “About 1840, the English phrase High Life was not yet known. To find out to which class a person belongs, they did not ask if he belongs to high society, they only asked:

"Is he a man of the world?" Anything that wasn't secular didn't exist. And everything that existed in Paris, every day, about five o'clock, used to flock to Tortoni; two hours later, those who had not dined at their club or at home were already sitting at the tables of the Parisian café; finally, from midnight to half past two, the section of the boulevard between Rue Gelderskaya and Rue Le Peletier was full of people who sometimes moved in different circles, but always had the same beads, knew each other, spoke the same language and had a common habit of meeting each other every evening. .

This definition of "all Paris" during the July Monarchy is not at all like the one given to him by Madame de Gonto in the Restoration era: "all persons presented to the court." In 1840, when defining a good society, no one even remembers the court. And secular society at that time was no longer identified with good society: from now on it includes the Boulevard, and its most noticeable center is the Tortoni cafe.

What is a boulevard? This word, like the words "Saint-Germain Faubourg" or "Faubourg of the Highway d" Antin, has two meanings - geographical and symbolic. The boulevard was a busy artery that ran from the Place de la République to the Madeleine church and included several boulevards : Bon Nouvel Poissonnière, Montmartre, Boulevard des Italiens, Boulevard des Capucines... All these streets already existed in the 17th century, but they came into fashion only around 1750.

However, most often only the Boulevard d'Italie was called the Boulevard, which earned the reputation of the most elegant street in Paris during the era of the Directory. Part of this boulevard was then called "Little Koblenz" because it became a meeting place for emigrants who returned to France. During the Restoration period, the segment of the Boulevard d'Italie from the intersection with the rue Thébou (at this crossroads opposite each other were the Tortoni cafe and the Parisian cafe) to the Madeleine church was named Ghent Boulevard after the city where Louis XVIII spent the Hundred Days. Therefore, fashionistas were nicknamed "gents". They walked only along the right side of the Boulevard, towards the Madeleine.

The boulevard symbolized a certain style of life led by men who belonged to a secular society. First of all, this life proceeded in cafes and mugs. If in summer these gentlemen used the boulevard itself as an "al fresco salon", in winter they met in more sheltered places: near Tortoni, in the Parisian cafe, the English cafe and circles such as the Union, the Jockey Club, the Agricultural Circle.

Life on the boulevards takes place not only in cafes. There is a lively trade going on here. Around 1830, “bazaars” (department stores) appeared: the Industrial Bazaar on Poissonnière Boulevard, the Bouffle Bazaar on Italian Boulevard and the Bon Nouvel Palace, where, in addition to all kinds of stalls, there was a concert hall, an exhibition hall and a diorama. During the July Monarchy, the trade in luxury goods, which at first took place around the Palais-Royal, gradually moved to the boulevards. Before the holidays, fashionistas crowd at Suess, in the Panorama passage, buying gifts: trinkets, jewelry, porcelain, drawings and paintings. Giroud, mentioned by Rudolph Apponi, whose shop is located on the corner of Boulevard des Capucines and the street of the same name, also sells gifts: toys, works of art, bronze figurines, luxury stationery, leather haberdashery, etc.

In addition, the Boulevard offers Parisians all kinds of entertainment. At 27 Italian Boulevard, at the intersection with Michodier Street, there are Chinese baths. Opened shortly before the Revolution, they were a luxurious holiday destination from 1836 to 1853. Entrance to the baths is very expensive, from 20 to 30 francs, they are visited primarily by the rich from the Highway d'Antin. There are steam rooms, aromatic baths, massages, and of course, all this is complemented by an exotic setting - Chinese-style architecture and decoration: a roof in the form of a pagoda, grotesque oriental figurines, hieroglyphs, bells and lanterns.

Another place of entertainment is the Frascati gambling house at the intersection of Montmartre Boulevard and Richelieu Street. In 1796, this beautiful mansion built by Brongniard was bought by Garqui, a Neapolitan ice cream man, who wanted to paint its walls in the Pompeian style - frescoes of people and flowers. Garkey turned the mansion into a kind of casino with a cafe, dance hall and gambling hall. In this gambling hall, unlike the gambling dens of the Palais-Royal, only elegant ladies and gentlemen were allowed. The game started at 4 pm and went on all night. At two o'clock in the morning, the players were served a cold supper. But at Frascati's, you could just have dinner or a glass of wine after leaving the theater. From 1827 to December 31, 1836 - the date the gambling houses in Paris were closed - there was also a gambling department. In 1838 the building was destroyed.

Finally, there were all sorts of spectacles on the boulevards at the service of the Parisians. The largest number of theaters was located on the Boulevard Temple.

Elegant gentlemen rode around Paris, along the Champs Elysees, into the Bois de Boulogne, along the Boulevard on horseback. They learned horseback riding in arenas: in the arena on Dufo Street or in the arena on Chaussé d'Antin Street, opened after 1830 by Count d'Or, the former chief bereytor of the Saumur cavalry school, because the arena in Versailles is the only place where you can was to learn the French manner of riding, after the July Revolution it was closed.

The first races, organized according to the rules, in the English manner, took place in France in 1775 at the initiative of the Count d "Artois and attracted the public to the Sablon Plain for several years. Then they ceased to be successful, and interest in them reawakened only when the Count d "Artois ascended the throne under the name of Charles X: now the races began to be held on the Champ de Mars. But they gained particular popularity after the Society of Competitors for the Improvement of Horse Breeds was created in France in 1833, and in 1834 the Jockey Club.

Interest in equestrian sport intensified at the end of the Restoration era. English influence played a decisive role here: after many French nobles lived for some time in England as emigrants, everything English became fashionable.

In 1826 there lived in Paris an Englishman named Thomas Brien, who, seeing that young French fashionistas were not at all versed in horses, decided to take advantage of this. He organized the Society of Horse Racing and in 1827 compiled a small textbook containing the British rules for racing, which allowed elegant gentlemen to talk about fashionable sports with knowledge of the case. On November 11, 1833, the Society of Competitors for the Improvement of Horse Breeds was formed in France with the direct participation of Brian.

The members of the Jockey Club were secular people, not writers and not those in power. Therefore, political disputes were forbidden. High society, in principle, put itself above differences of opinion: in the Jockey Club one could meet legitimists, such as the Marquis de Rifaudiere, who fought a duel in 1832, defending the honor of the Duchess of Berry, Bonapartists, such as, for example, the Prince of Moscow, supporters of the Duke Orleans, such as the future Duc de Morny.

Alton-Sheh, enumerating the advantages of circles, first of all mentions the certainty that only people from good society can be found there. There you can play without fear of cheaters, while in other places, for example, in a Parisian cafe, everyone was admitted indiscriminately. Consequently, in the Jockey Club it was allowed to ruin friends without remorse!

Other advantages were of a practical nature: members of the Jockey Club had the opportunity to enjoy luxury and comfort for a rather modest price (among other things, the club had eight toilet rooms and two bathrooms), and the food here was better than in a restaurant. For dinner, which for the gentlemen who then went to the theater or to society began to be served from six o'clock, it was necessary to sign up in the morning; fifty or sixty of its members gathered at the Jockey Club every evening. Life here went on in the same rhythm as in the world. The saloons were empty until noon; the people who cut the coupons came at three o'clock. At 5 o'clock, when lovers of walks returned from the Bois de Boulogne, a whole crowd gathered in the club.

The Encouragement Society and the Jockey Club definitely contributed to the development of equestrian sports. The first steeplechase took place in 1829, the first steeplechase in March 1830. In 1830, the esplanade of the Champ de Mars was expanded, but at the races in those days, the horses did not run simultaneously, but in turn. Since 1833, the Society of Competitors has dreamed of turning the lawn at Chantilly into a hippodrome. Since the castle belonged to the Duke of Omalsky, Louis Philippe was asked for permission, and he reacted favorably to this plan. So, in 1834, a hippodrome was opened in Chantilly. The races in May 1835 were a great success.

In the era of the Restoration, there were many circles that united secular gentlemen. But the fate of the first two - the Circle on the Rue Grammont (1819) and the French Circle (1824) - was not easy, because it was difficult to obtain official permission, and the circle on the Rue Grammont existed only thanks to the connivance of the authorities; in 1826 both circles were banned. Finally, in 1828, the Martignac government came to their aid and issued permits. At this time, the most famous circle, the "Union", was created. Its founder was the Duke de Guiche, an admirer of English customs, who also led the two previous circles.

"Union" became the second circle on the Rue Grammont. From 1828 to 1857 he occupied the Levy mansion at the corner of Rue Grammont (house 30) and Italian Boulevard (house 15), and then moved to the Madeleine Boulevard. We were accepted into this circle with great distinction. The entrance fee was 250 francs, the annual fee - the same amount. The membership fee for the Rue Grammont circle was only 150 francs a year. Each candidate required the recommendation of two members of the club (for the circle on the Rue Grammont, one was enough). Admission took place by "general vote", in which at least twelve members had to take part. One black ball out of twelve meant a refusal (on Grammont Street - three balls). The club had three hundred permanent members (five hundred in the circle on the Rue Grammont), but foreigners temporarily residing in Paris could become members for six months by paying a fee of 200 francs.

The Union was more luxurious than the Jockey Club and brought together aristocrats and members of the diplomatic corps. After 1830, it became a stronghold of legitimism: retired officers of the royal guard, dignitaries of the former court and those nobles who were against the new order entered it at that time. Business people from the Chaussé d'Antin quarter were not allowed into the circle. If Baron James Rothschild was accepted, it was not as a banker, but as a diplomat. The Union can perhaps be called the most elite of the Parisian circles.

The agricultural circle, colloquially called "Potato", was founded in 1833 by the agronomist Mr. de "La Chauviniere. At first it was called the Agricultural Association, then the Rural Athenaeum and finally the Rural Circle, until in 1835 it received its final name - the Agricultural Circle He was located in the Nelsky mansion on the corner of the Voltaire embankment and Beaune street. This circle brought together people interested in economics and social ideas. Among its members we meet representatives of famous aristocratic families, people who became famous in the field of economics and agriculture, as well as people of nobility , but "won a place for themselves with their honesty and intelligence."

The agricultural circle did not become a real club until 1836; from now on they gather there to play, read newspapers and talk. At the same time, the circle became legitimist, methodically rejecting those who were somehow connected with the new regime. The Agricultural Circle included many politicians of the Restoration era, from the Baron de Damas to M. de Labouillerie, including M. de Chastellux and Comte Begno.

The agricultural circle differed from other clubs in the lectures which, beginning in 1833, were given within its walls, first by M. de La Chauviniere and then by M. Menneschet. The lectures dealt with "important scientific, economic and artistic problems": sugar production, railways, magnetism, horse breeding, prisons, Raschel and tragedy, etc.

Under the July Monarchy, the evolution from high society to demi-monde and the Boulevard was most evident in the Jockey Club. The Jockey Club had a reputation for being newfangled and keeping up with the times. Perhaps because he was not legitimist. Or rather, perhaps, it was not Legitimist because it was more modern, focused on horses, that is, on fashion. Neither generosity or a diplomatic post, as in the "Union", nor an interest in agriculture, as in the Agricultural Circle, did not give the right to join the Jockey Club - this required "a big name, a brilliant life, a love of equestrian sports and prodigality” characteristic of the dandy. With the Jockey Club, the light settles on the Boulevard. The club, which promoted a lifestyle centered on horses and entertainment, served as a link between high society and the theater world.

This new style of sociability would be even more pronounced in less prestigious circles, whose members indulged in the pleasures of the Boulevard, not even hiding behind an interest in equestrianism or anything else. Let us mention the Small Circle, which met in the Parisian cafe - it included, in particular, Captain Gronow, a rich and well-born Englishman, who, after serving under the command of Wellington, settled in Paris. Members of the Small Circle were not only persons who were also members of the Union and the Jockey Club, but also people from various circles of society and various parties: “The roots were not always common, but the habits, tastes, and most importantly The Small Circle could offer its members something far from the most trivial and not the most boring - an atmosphere tinged with liberalism.

Theatre, circus and opera. Theaters played an important role in the secular life of the aristocracy.

“It was considered good form to appear on Mondays at the French Theater, and on Fridays at the Opera, but to have fun everyone went to the theaters on the Boulevard.” Although secular people preferred music, they did not neglect the theater either. In particular, they certainly bought a subscription to the French Theater.

Famous celebrities went to the French Theater: Talma, Mademoiselle Mars, Mademoiselle Georges and the rising star Rachel. Talma, born in 1763, died in 1826 in a halo of fame, which he owed to the patronage of Napoleon.

Members of high society were interested in the romantic drama, and between 1830 and 1835 they eagerly watched romantic dramas at the French Theater and at the Porte Saint-Martin Theater, which at that time was headed by Harel, a friend of Mademoiselle Georges, who had previously directed the Odeon. Henri III and his Court, Christina, Antony, Alexandre Dumas's Nelskaya Tower, Ernani, whose premiere on February 25, 1830 made so much noise, Marion Delorme and Angelo, Tyrant of Padua, were staged. Hugo, Chatterton Vigny. Marie Dorval, Bocage and Frédéric Lemaitre performed successfully at the Porte Saint-Martin Theatre. Frédéric Lemaitre, in 1833, began to play in Robert Macer's Foley Dramatic, a role in which he had become famous ten years earlier, when he played at the Funambühl Theater in the play "Inn at Adré".

Often the audience did not sit out until the end of the theater evening - the programs were so rich. In the French theater, they often gave a five-act tragedy and a comedy, also a five-act, in one evening. A single title appeared on the poster only in those cases when the play either belonged to the pen of a famous and fashionable author, or promised large fees.

Secular people also visited the boulevard theaters, among which the Zhimnaz-Dramatic, opened in 1820, enjoyed particular success. In 1824, the Duchess of Berry honored it with her patronage: on this occasion, it was renamed the Theater of His Highness. Until 1830, the duchess regularly visited her theater and thereby introduced it into fashion. Scribe was the regular author of Gimnaz, and Virginie Dejazet was the leading actress, who played seventy-three roles in it. Thin, fast, she played agile soubrettes and travesty. Buffay shone there from 1831 to 1842.

In the boulevard theaters, the public went to comic plays on Etienne Arnal, who performed in crude farces in Vaudeville, and on parodies. The success of a play was measured by the number of parodies written on it. The theater "Variety" specialized in this genre with actors Pottier, Berne and Audrey.

Finally, there was one more place where not only people from the people, but also secular people willingly went - the Olympic Circus. Perhaps fashionistas were attracted by the technical innovations that abounded in each performance? Or beautiful horses? The Ojaimpi circus belonged to the Franconi family. Antonio Franconi was from Venice, and in 1786 he teamed up with Astley, an Englishman who had opened a horse ride in Paris fifteen years earlier. In 1803, the association broke up, and Franconi became the sole owner of the troupe. In 1805, Antonio gave way to his sons - horse trainer Laurent and mime Henri, nicknamed Kotik. Both of them were married to riders. In the era of the Empire, they represented the Napoleonic epic: “The French in Egypt”, “The Bridge in Lodi” ... During the Restoration, the numbers were called “Furious Roland”, “Attack on the stagecoach”, and after the Spanish war, the circus represented “The Capture of the Trocadero”. On this performance, on the orders of Louis XVIII, the whole army was to attend. The Duke of Orleans willingly took his children to the Olympic Circus, especially since Laurent Franconi gave his sons riding lessons. In 1826, the circus on the Rue du Temple burned down. The Franconi rebuilt it on the Temple Boulevard, collecting 150,000 francs by subscription in two months.

The new hall was huge, in battle scenes five or six hundred people could perform in it, both on foot and on horseback. It communicated with a racetrack designed for horse rides. In 1827, management passed into the hands of Kotik's son, Adolf. He continued to show military episodes. After 1830, he created The Poles (1831), The Siege of Constantine (1837) and took advantage of the surge of love for Napoleon caused by the return of the ashes of the Emperor to recreate the great moments of the imperial epic. The performances ended with an apotheosis in the form of living pictures: a farewell at Fontainebleau or the death of Napoleon was depicted.

Secular people went to listen to music at the Opera and at the Italian Theater, which was also called the Opera Buff. At the Opera they sang in French; performances were on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, with Friday being the most fashionable day. In the Italian theater, according to an agreement concluded back in 1817, they sang only in Italian and only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. The season at the Opera Buff lasted from October 1 to March 31, the season at the Opera was somewhat longer. The Opera became especially popular in April and May, when there were almost no private balls in Paris, and the Italian theater was closed.

Until 1820, the Opera was located on the Rue Richelieu, then, after the assassination of the Duke of Berry, on the Rue Le Peletier. Louis XVIII ordered the destruction of the building on the threshold of which the crime had occurred and the construction of a new one nearby. As for the Italian Theatre, it moved many times: from 1815 to 1818, performances were given in the Favart Hall, built in 1783, from 1819 to 1825 in the Louvois Hall, after which the Italians returned to the Favard Hall, which burned down in 1838 . Then the Opéra-buff occupied the Vantadour Hall, then moved to the Odeon, and then returned again to the Vantadour Hall, located on the site of the current Renaissance Theater. The Favard Hall, rebuilt after a fire, was given to the Opéra-Comique in 1840.

Opera on Rue Le Peletier seated 1054 spectators. A seat in a box cost 9 francs, as in the French Theater, the most expensive Parisian theater was the Italian Opera. - there the place cost 10 francs. However, in the era of the Restoration, high society believed that they should not pay for their seats. The manager of the fine arts, Sausten de La Rochefoucauld, complained to King Charles X about the abuses of the royal retinue, ruining the treasury: "The whole court wants to go to the Opera for free." He tried to fight privileges: "I even managed to get the Duke of Orleans to subscribe to the box for a year, it befits him and is beneficial to us."

The July Monarchy restricted entry by counterfeits. Yes, and the king did not have the right to visit the theater for free: he subscribed to the three best boxes on the front stage and paid 18,300 francs a year for this. The highest example has been set. Secular people, as a rule, after Louis-Philippe hired a box for a year.

The Italian theater was a more sophisticated place than the Opera. Not at the expense of the elegance of the outfits: the ladies appeared here and there in ball gowns and diamonds. But in the Italian theater the spectators felt themselves in their own circle, that is, among true lovers of music from high society; unlike the Opera, silence and order reigned here. Being late for the beginning of the performance, coming to the second act, sitting down in an armchair with noise, laughing and talking loudly - all these liberties taken at the Opera were not in use at the Italian theater. In addition, it was considered indecent to applaud in the boxes, only the stalls could clap their hands: so the atmosphere remained chilly for the singers.

Of course, the Opera Buff was a public place, but the press often described it as a private salon. Theophile Gauthier writes directly: "Before talking about birds, let's say a few words about the utterly rich gilded cage, for the Opera buff is equally a theater and a salon." And he begins to paint the comfort of the Vantadour Hall in 1841: the railings in the boxes are convex, soft, the chairs are elastic, the carpets are thick, there are many sofas in the foyer and corridors. By the way, part of the theatrical decoration was indeed privately owned: these are the salons adjacent to the boxes, hired by mutual agreement of the owners of the theater and wealthy spectators, furnished and decorated to the taste of the employers. The number of lodges of the first and second tiers was increased by the gallery and stalls.

Some of these salons were even more luxurious than the hall. In the salon of Madame Aguado, whose banker husband invested in the upkeep of the theatre, the eyes were presented with “a beautiful ceiling and walls upholstered in white and yellow semi-brocade, dark red silk curtains and a carpet of the same color, mahogany chairs and armchairs, a velvet sofa , a rosewood table, a mirror and expensive knick-knacks.

At the end of the Restoration era, a kind of stratification of the public took place: the aristocrats preferred the Italian theater, the bourgeois were more willing to attend the Opera. Especially since Dr. Veroy, who directed the Opera from 1831 to 1835, made it his goal to open its doors to the bourgeoisie: he wanted to make seat subscriptions one of the criteria for belonging to an elegant society. In a short time, the number of season tickets sold tripled, and in order to get a season ticket, one had to sign up on a waiting list. In conclusion, I will say that the Comic Opera, which staged exclusively works by French authors (Adan's The Postman from Longjumeau was a resounding success in 1836), did not attract high society too much, it was more readily attended by the middle bourgeoisie, who considered love for foreign music snobbery.

Private concerts began to play an important role in the salon life of the 30s of the 19th century in Paris. One should not think that mediocre music sounded in the salons. The secular people were true connoisseurs: "The ears of the era have become very picky," says the "Siecle" on January 19, 1843, speaking of "the thirst for melodies that seized the salons."

Usually in salons only recognized celebrities were interested. The presence of recognized celebrities in the salon plays the role of bait, so the mistresses of the house willingly reincarnate as theater directors. In invitations, they indicate: "You will hear Mr. ..." - exactly like on the posters of performances. Less often, the reverse movement occurred - the salons recognized talents, which then received recognition on the professional stage.

Performing in the salon provided celebrities with undoubted advantages: on the one hand, they received a generous reward, and on the other, they fell into high society and, perhaps, experienced the illusion of belonging to it.

But the disposition of high society towards an artist does not at all mean that this artist has become a member of it. Tenor Dupre was convinced of this from his own experience. In 1837 he had a huge success at the Opera, where he sang the part of Arnold in Rossini's opera William Tell. Dupre decided to take advantage of his fame to create a position in society. He opened his salon in 1841, on the Thursday of the third week of Lent. He was waiting for aristocrats, bankers and artists, but "Saint-Germain Faubourg remained indifferent." Secular people could applaud the artist on stage and invite him to perform in their salons, but this did not mean at all that they would accept the invitation of this celebrity. For the rich man who pays to have a famous artist perform in his house is showing his love of art, but in doing so, in a way, continues - even if the situation is no longer the same as under the Old Order - the tradition of the nobility to put actors and musicians on a par with servants and suppliers.

Being themselves accepted everywhere, famous actors and theatrical entrepreneurs could not host high society, in any case, ladies.

Thus, comparing the position of celebrities in the era of the Restoration and under the July Monarchy, it can be noted that significant changes have taken place. The desire of the “light” to separate the “wheat from the chaff” has reached its apogee.