Aesthetic quests of early French romanticism. Joseph Joubert

Mankovskaya Nadezda Borisovna Doctor of Philosophy Chief Researcher at Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 119019, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 mankowskaya.nadia@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Joseph Joubert (1772-1824) as an aesthetician was distinguished by an extraordinary breadth of research range. His interests included all the main aesthetic problems that worried the early French Romantics – the essence of art, its self-worth; the problems of imitation and image, the relationship between art and nature; the creative imagination of the artist, reality and illusion; trends in the synthesis of arts, analysis of its various types, the predominance of the spiritual over the material in them. A special role in his reflections belongs to the issues of artistic style, closely related to his concept of aesthetic taste, the priority of the beautiful, sublime, ideal, perfect in art. As a strict moralist, Joubert attaches special importance to the interrelationships of aesthetics and ethics, the educational role of art, and the specifics of its perception.

Thanks to his broad and flexible mind, Joubert managed to paradoxically combine in his aesthetics a number of ideas of the enlighteners – in his youth he was for some time the literary secretary of Denis Diderot, communicated with Mercier, Fontaine, Retief de la Breton – and new romantic views, largely inspired by his close friendship with Rene de Chateaubriand [see: 1; 2]. The motives of vague passions, memory, melancholy, sensitive touching, and enthusiasm, characteristic of early French romanticism, become prevalent in his work. However, unlike Chateaubriand, Joubert does not reject pagan Antiquity [see: 3], nor does he share the acutely critical attitude of most Romantics towards the aesthetics of classicism. Both in theory and in artistic practice, he managed to build bridges between the artistic and aesthetic priorities of the last third of the XVIII and the first third of the XIX centuries, to create an original aesthetic concept, many lines of which are striking in their relevance in the XXI century. Although, due to his political indifference, Joubert did not enjoy the same fame as his contemporaries from the romantic camp Rene de Chateaubriand, Pierre Simon Ballanche, Benjamin Constant, Germaine de Stael, who actively participated in social life, today, over the fleeting historical circumstances, we can appreciate the strength and depth of his aesthetic thought.

Joubert's artistic thinking is aphoristic, replete with maxims and "thoughts" in the style of Montaigne. Due to his increased self-criticism, the author did not intend his works for publication (only a few early youth articles were published), although he did not exclude their posthumous publication [see: 4]. The first publication of "thoughts" was published in 1838 thanks to Chateaubriand. However, the complete edition of the "Diaries" appeared only a hundred years later, in 1938. The fragmentarity, the external lack of systematics in the diary entries does not contradict the conceptual unity of the aesthetic views of their author, although they sometimes contain some internal contradictions. In their significance for early French Romanticism, they are comparable to the role of Alfred de Vigny's "Diary" for late Romanticism [see: 5] – both of these works contain the quintessence of aesthetic ideas relevant not only for their time, but in many ways do not lose their significance for understanding the aesthetic situation in Europe of the XIX and the following – XX and XXI centuries.

Art as an imaginative multiplication of life

Central to Joubert's aesthetics is the idea that art attracts people because they cannot ignore what is worthy of the name of a masterpiece: after all, "without the intervention of an extraordinary talent, everything beautiful remains unrecognized" ^{[6, p. 324]}. He proceeds from the fact that art, philosophy, wonderful ideas, all the efforts of the mind and all the ingenuity pursue only one goal: to expand the limits of human capabilities. Transposing this position to the artistic and aesthetic sphere, Joubert sees the prospect of expanding classical ideas about art in shifting attention from mimesis, imitation in the traditional sense of the word as reproduction, copying, to multiplication, image. He considers imitation to be one of the means, not the goal of art. "I would prefer to say that art is multiplication, because then it would be defined by its effect and benefit. Indeed, art exists solely in order to multiply the number of things that excite our senses with the help of images: art is useful only insofar as it surrounds us with beautiful things, that is, pleasant, useful, sweet, delightfully exciting us and capable of giving us happiness" ^{[6, p. 311]}. Starting with the imitation of visible objects or those imitated by others, the artist comes to embody his own views in his work, thereby approaching the pinnacle of art. Based on this, Joubert formulates the "great, main, only rule" of artistic creation, intuitively observed by all major masters – a rule, he emphasizes, self-evident, like all principles arising from the essence of things: "It is possible to imitate only through images. When giving a word to a passionate person, the poet must put into his mouth expressions that are no more than a semblance of words that a passionate person would utter in life. The paints chosen by the artist for any subject should also be only a semblance of genuine paints. A musician should use only the likenesses of real sounds, and not the sounds themselves. The same rule should guide the actor in choosing intonations and gestures" ^{[6, p. 312]}. Joubert refers to the opinion of Abbot Dubot that a copy of the object should arouse in us a copy of the passion that the object itself would arouse [see: 7, p. 44]. And he comes to the conclusion that the object of art is not imitation, but an image; the main goal and task of the artist is to correctly express what exists in life or imagination: after all, a person first of all imitates himself. And if we use the term "reproduction", then we mean by it the disclosure of the inner world of the artist, his ideas about beauty, emotions, thoughts and aspirations – everything that he carries in his soul. Thus, "the purpose of poetry is not imitation, but completion, decoration, or rather, the ability to move <...> So, a person could carve out of marble or paint a body more beautiful than the Lord God himself was able to create from the flesh, because the flesh is unyielding and resists; saying "a more beautiful body", I want to say "more appropriate to the divine pattern or prototype" (an important remark for art)" ^{[6, pp. 340, 351]}.

The spirituality of art. The role of imagination

Art seems to Joubert to be a kind of ladder leading up, leading to a higher world, to the realm of spirituality. The main purpose of art is to give spirituality to people and give pleasure to the best part of their souls – they "sometimes themselves are large mirrors in which you can see the reflection of a holistic picture of the spiritual world" ^{[6, p. 358]}. A work of art can be recognized as such only if the soul of its author shines through in it. If the creator is not visible in the creation, then this art or skill in itself – lines and paints, ink, paper, the appearance of the work – "this is a tasteless and cooled dish" ^{[6, p. 368]}. Sometimes the artist's soul slumbers, indulges in idleness or remains absent-minded, but even then it pleases, because its presence is felt: even flaws can be liked if the soul manifests itself in them. After all, there is no beauty without it.

Is there a substance more precious than true spirituality? – the French romantic asks a rhetorical question. And immediately translates it into the plane of the philosophy of art, reflecting on the ways of expressing the spiritual principle in it. So, in architecture, "the greatness of material bodies, such as buildings, is measured from right to left or from left to right, while in spiritual matters, greatness is determined from the bottom up. <...> Or: the length of the palace is measured from east to west or from south to north; the length of the work, the book is measured from earth to heaven" ^{[6, p. 353][1]}.

It is spirituality and sublimity that give beauty to feelings, Joubert is convinced. And everything spiritual is subtle, because it comes from the soul, "the soul is the very subtlety" ^{[6, p. 344]}. Subtlety is evidence of talent; where there is no subtlety, there is no art. The beauty of the soul, talent, inspiration, enthusiasm and the power of imagination distinguish a true artist, they are an essential attribute of the creative process of creating a work of art.

In the power of the artist's imagination, Joubert sees the key to art as multiplication, not copying of what exists: "Imagination is, first of all, the ability to endow with flesh and face that which does not possess them. Imagination is an artist. It draws in and out of our soul, addressing the souls of other people. It puts on images" ^{[6, p. 331]}. The French romantic emphasizes the active nature of the imagination as an intermediary link between feelings and pure reason, replenishing both of these principles, fleshing out the thoughts of the mind and spiritualizing what touched the senses. In his imagination, he sees a thread connecting mind with matter: "it perfects the latter and helps the former, ordering the world alien to it" ^{[6, p.341]}. As a moralist, Joubert proceeds from the fact that for a moral person endowed with both soul and body, imagination gives the most intense and least fraught with harmful consequences. Imagination enriches the human mind, which is attracted not so much by objects as by space, a space where it can freely act and roam. At the same time, there are truths accessible only to the imagination, and perhaps these truths are the most beautiful, because only an idea can be beautiful, Joubert notes. Therefore, without imagination, there is no poetry, as well as all fine arts. They should represent objects not as they appear to the eye, but as they appear to the mind: "in other words, the mind should see them as they are, and the phrase should describe them as they appear to the imagination, because the thing and the author, the thinker and the thought should stand behind the word" ^{[6, p. 363]}. At the same time, Joubert does not identify thought as the embodiment of stability with idea as the apotheosis of insightful clarity: "Thought arranges, idea creates, creates. One is a combination of already known elements, the other is an insight, discovery, identification of hitherto unknown properties and qualities. The fruit of thought is a work, the fruit of an idea is a creation" ^{[6, p. 321]}. The heavenly gift of genuine poetry comes only from the soul; beyond the control of thought, poetry comes along with dreams, it is the daydreams of a wise man. The hand of the creator should not be visible in his creation, Joubert emphasizes, thought should remain viable outside the mind that gave rise to it, that is, outside the theories and intentions of the author – he should not have the need to back up the work with explanations, notes, prefaces, etc.: "Words should be well separated from paper: that is, it is easy to attract attention, to fall into memory..." ^{[6, p. 354]}.

In the spirit of the ideas of Lessing's treatise "Laocoon. On the boundaries of painting and poetry", in which the author saw one of the advantages of the latter in that it can do without detailed descriptions, appealing to the imagination of readers, Joubert notes that in no case should one draw a detailed portrait of the heroine of the novel; then everyone will be able to imagine her as he pleases, as he likes It's nice to see her and he'll be crazy about her. And he concludes: imagination is so necessary in literature and in life that even people who are deprived of it and constantly blaspheme it are forced to develop it in themselves. After all, anyone who calls a cat a cat in any circumstances is a sincere and, perhaps, a decent person, but a mediocre writer (however, even a kitten playing with a piece of paper that seems to him to be a mouse touches it lightly, afraid to destroy the illusion). To write well, there is little true and exhaustive word, it is not enough to be clear and understandable: you need to please, charm, seduce and captivate all eyes with illusions.

The role of artistic illusion

Artistic illusion is one of the necessary attributes of art as a multiplication. Joubert considers illusion to be an integral part of reality, which inevitably follows from it as a consequence of the cause, so that the absence of illusion distorts the form and functions of a thing. In his opinion, illusion plays the same role in life as metaphor in speech: we see, feel, and believe only because reality appears to us in some form. It is in illusion, the play of imagination, that the early romantic sees a single source of art and their possible synthesis: "Illusion. The Lord created it and placed it between berries, fruits, meat food and the sky, which gave birth to taste; between flowers and smell, which gave birth to smells; between hearing and sounds, which gave birth to harmony, melody, etc., between vision and objects, which gave birth to colors, perspective and beauty" ^{[6, p. 320]}. Thus, the picture is best viewed from a point from which all the painted objects seem voluminous; the building – from the point from which all the projections seem flat; this imaginary plane, the result of a deception of vision caused by a harmonious combination of irregularities, gives the imagination more pleasure than the surface that is smooth and smooth in reality. And this last one would have won if it seemed rough and concave. "In a word, there is no pleasure in art without illusion" ^{[6, p. 312]}.

Illusion for Joubert is by no means synonymous with delusion, but a particle of nature that does not distort objects, but sheds light on them, giving artistic truth. At the same time, illusions tend to cloud our minds, generate the vague, invisible – all that forms the unique flavor of the art of romanticism. "Vague ideas illuminate the mind, just as the air, passing light through itself, illuminates the eye" ^{[6, p. 330]}. In art, everything vague needs to be sketched with light strokes – after all, there is nothing worse than dark clarity, because its light only exposes chaos, non-existence, Joubert is convinced. He formulates one of the key provisions of aesthetics and artistic practice of the art of Romanticism that beauty necessarily implies a combination of visible and invisible beauty. Reflecting on the origin of art, Joubert proceeds from the fact that it would not have arisen without the idea of the ancient people about the invisible and inaccessible: at first they began to paint what could not be seen, sang so that they could be heard in the distance – such, from his point of view, are the origins of painting and music. At the same time, it is emphasized that the invisible is not identical to the dark and foggy as such. Thus, the darkness of a beautiful literary style stems from its perfection, from the choice of unusual words, unusual phrases: "beauty never fascinates so much as when we, straining our attention, understand its language only half" ^{[6, p. 322]}. If you strip words of all ambiguity, uncertainty and inaccuracy, they will turn into single digits, and then the game will disappear from speech, and with it eloquence and poetry: the mobility of the spiritual sphere will not be able to find its expression. With his characteristic paradoxism, Joubert concludes: "One of the greatest benefits that contribute to the accurate use of words is their ambiguity, variability, that is, flexibility" ^{[6, p. 332]}.

In literature, Joubert is attracted not by the views of the authors, not by their statements, like dense and tangible things that excite the reader's mind, prompting him to act, but by the invisible and disembodied: "when reading great writers, you always feel an invisible, hidden juice, salt, a fragile foundation and some elusive fluid, more nutritious than anything else"^{[6, p. 324]}. Both in literature and in painting, the magic of chiaroscuro has a special value for the romantic, which does not clarify anything, but gives the work an appearance of clarity due to the concentration of dark places in some parts of the book or painting and their absence in others and is born not due to light in the proper sense of the word, but from the opposition of the vague to the dark. It is these artistic qualities of the work that can give the recipient light and happiness, bring him to the highest stage of aesthetic perception – contemplation.

The main purpose of art is to bring pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, and delight. This applies not only to the recipient, but also to the creator of art – despite all the difficulties of the artist's work, it gives him pleasure. Therefore, in art, the useful should flow from the pleasant, and not the pleasant from the useful. It is pleasure, not benefit, that puts the French romantic at the forefront when discussing the essential purpose of art. Its magical, enchanting effect, which causes delight – the soaring of the soul – presupposes an indispensable condition for any charm: lightness, short-lived, fluidity of aesthetic pleasure.

Art and nature

Joubert is convinced of the intrinsic value of art ("the most beautiful sounds, the most beautiful words are self–valuable..." ^{[6, p. 313]}) - it should resemble only itself, reveal its own specifics, without copying the outside world. It is precisely because of this that art shocks people more than nature, he believes. Addressing one of the "eternal" questions of European aesthetics about the relationship between art and nature, Joubert distances himself from the Renaissance-enlightenment view of art as a window into nature, tending to the classic ideas that art as the fruit of human reasonable efforts is higher than nature: "Art is the second nature created by people. I call it nature, because it is eternal; people everywhere paint, sing, build" ^{[6, p. 325]}. Arguing with adherents of "naturalness" in art, he warns against its interpretation as exclusively something produced by nature itself without human participation, and cites the sound of the flute voice as an example. In art, to be natural means to be sincere; what is natural in it is ideal, because the nature that opens up to art is ideal nature, as a true romantic concludes Joubert. And he explains this with artistic examples: "The perfect red color, the perfect blue color. If the main thing in the picture is the ideal, the details must be accurate. <...> In every work of art, the ideal must be present: at the top, at the bottom, in the center or in a corner – anywhere!" ^{[6, p. 347]}. To write perfectly is to become like an ideal person, whose abilities are in perfect harmony. "This is possible in that state of mind when all passions reach their apogee and come into perfect balance" ^{[6, p. 309]}.

Categories of romantic aesthetics

From Joubert's romantic concept of art as multiplication and its core – spirituality, orientation to the ideal beginning, his ideas about the main aesthetic categories – the beautiful, the perfect, the sublime, the comic - arise.

Starting a conversation about beauty, Joubert states that the exclamation "It's beautiful!" is the most vague and most understandable of all phrases. The French romantic defines beauty as something that is similar to his idea: it is a spirit aspiring to the ideal, intelligible to the senses: this radiance and splendor, sparkle and brilliance is what is closest to the divine. He considers even sound beautiful only when its only source is spirit, not chance. A thing can be considered truly beautiful if all things of the same kind are reflected in it in one way or another. Continuing the Neoplatonic philosophical and aesthetic line [see: 8], he argues that "the beautiful is one, but we consider everything that approaches the truly beautiful to be beautiful; so, only one word directly denotes one or another idea, but we find many other words that are close in meaning" ^{[6, p. 308]}.

Joubert distinguishes between the beautiful as deep, true and beautiful as superficial, external, devoid of spiritual content. He considers physical beauty from the point of view of the proportionality of body parts, their shapes; the concept of grace is applied to clothes, movements and manners with their moderation; feelings become beautiful due to their sublimity, spirituality.

Unlike an ordinary work, which needs only a plot, a beautiful work of art needs a seed, which, like a plant, will itself sprout in the mind of the reader, seeking the idea of a feeling that is invariably awakened by the beautiful, Joubert is convinced. He suggests judging the greatness, virtue and learning of the people based on whether they know the beautiful in art. After all, the spheres of beauty and the sublime free people from the power of time, throw off the yoke of the epoch and allow them to achieve perfection at any time, although not all centuries are favorable to this anyway. In accordance with the Aristotelian artistic principle of "neither subtract nor add", Joubert emphasizes that there should be no incompleteness in the perfect, excellent, and efforts to add anything would be in vain. As for the sublime, it is it that makes a person human, and it also shows him his place in the world.

By analogy with the distinction between the beautiful and the beautiful, Joubert differentiates the comic and the funny. In literature, he believes, only a genius can show the truly comic, but any witty person can do the funny, since everything can be made funny, but not everything is comic: after all, the comic is not created, it exists in life itself, it needs to be found ready and used, whereas the funny manifests itself only in books, speeches, thoughts. The comic is rooted in the depths of the human soul, it is true, the funny lies on the surface of actions and motives, it is a kind of masquerade. Therefore, "the one who laughs at evil in all its manifestations does not have a completely healthy moral sense" ^{[6, p. 360]}.

The role of the art form

Reflections on the main aesthetic categories are closely connected in Joubert's aesthetics with the problems of form in their embodiment in art. Referring to the ancients, who believed that a masculine, productive, active principle was inherent in the form, he proceeds from the fact that it is the form that gives all works of art life and a kind of individuality: "thanks to it, a piece of marble becomes a statue, and paints become a face, legs, hands and almost a soul... Words coming off from paper, phrases separating from one another – and the play of harmony and colors in style. Objects strike the eye with form; art strikes attention with it, and words – memory" ^{[6, p. 333]}. Joubert understands by form that which distinguishes a thing from all other things, which separates the individual from the universal and gives it an independent life. The most beautiful form seems to him to be the one that, most sharply differentiating an object from all others, least violates its harmony with the whole. Sometimes the place of the shape can be occupied by a quality that distinguishes one material from another – for example, an interspersed gold or a diamond stand out for its brilliance.

Joubert considers the science of forms to be widely interpreted rhetoric, and its subject is equally widely understood forms of speech. These concepts include both figures of language and speech, as well as the art of drawing and coloring – "the art of clearly and skillfully outlining and pleasantly painting our feelings and thoughts" ^{[6, p. 370]}. He is interested in the question of how the figures of rhetoric are formed, how they should be combined or separated, which of their forms are the most beautiful. He draws attention to the fact that there are forms in themselves so pure that they can be successfully used both hollow and full: and there are substances in themselves so valuable that they should be admired, in whatever form they are clothed. Among the latter, the most precious is true spirituality.

As for artistic forms, Joubert considers visible or hidden symmetry to be the basis of their beauty, which is an obvious or secret reason for the pleasure they give. Symmetry, on the other hand, has a center that is the focus of repetition, that is, two similar extremes, differences and contrasts that excite the aesthetic sense^[2].

The French romantic sees an equally important source of the beauty of forms in their expressiveness and mobility. He mentions a street singer who sang terribly, but fascinated the audience, because his singing was expressive: it was felt that he himself was excited by his singing and enjoyed it, and these feelings were transmitted to others. Mobility, on the other hand, Joubert considers an indispensable property of everything attractive: the same features can be pleasant in movement and disgusting in immobility.

Enthusiasm and sensitivity

as the movers of romantic art

It is possible to create and perceive works of art only through enthusiasm, the early romantic is convinced, and the idea of enthusiasm for life and creativity will become one of the main ones for French Romanticism as a whole. Enthusiasm, according to Joubert, is the opposite of both composure and frenzied madness: "Enthusiasm is always calm, always unhurried and does not leave the depths of the soul. The explosion of feelings is not enthusiasm at all and has nothing to do with enthusiasm; there is much more frenzy in it. Enthusiasm loves gradualism. He is in us, he follows our gut in everything and is like him in everything" ^{[6, pp. 371-372]}. Enthusiasm is necessary for the paints of a great artist, but it must be hidden and almost imperceptible. It is this kind of enthusiasm, combined with light and lightness, that forms the basis of what is called charm, Joubert believes.

In the understanding of most romantics, enthusiasm does not contradict melancholy at all – these are the two poles of a romantic personality. Joubert describes melancholy as a feeling of sadness that has no name. This is the prerogative of sensitive souls. Like R. de Chateaubriand and P.S. Ballanche, he associates melancholy with a state of loneliness, as well as the impact on the emotional sphere of some natural phenomena – cold, rain. He writes that during rain, a certain semi-darkness lengthens all objects, causing the body to shrink and making the soul infinitely more sensitive: "From humidity, fortress walls, trees, rocks darken and make a stronger impression. And the loneliness and silence with which the rain surrounds man and animals, forcing them to shut up and not leave the shelter, complete the distinctness of these impressions" ^{[6, pp. 309-310]}. Cold affects the body in the same way as rain, but on the soul in a different way: in cold weather, everything seems smaller, thinner, more elusive, everything glides past our frozen senses.

According to Joubert, it is the emotional sphere that is the cause of poetry, whereas knowledge is only the reason for it: "A reason without a reason is worthless. A reason without a reason is still worth something" ^{[6, p. 328]}. One of the most important goals of art is to touch the soul, to touch the heart and feelings, while overly emphasizing the thought – and in fact it is "a thing as real as a cannonball" ^{[6, p. 331]} – "making it oval, round or square, in a word, too rough" ^{[6, p. 331]}. 370], you risk erecting an undesirable barrier between the aesthetic object and the recipient, making it difficult, on the one hand, to perceive and understand, on the other hand, to approach, get to know and comprehend art and thereby damage touchiness.

However, talking about various shades of sensitivity, Joubert, unlike other French romantics, seems to catch himself and switch to his characteristic moralizing tone, recalling that in former times (meaning the Enlightenment era – N.M.), when a certain character reigned, if not in morals, then at least In our minds, the priority was given not to sensitivity, but to commitment. And he gives his verdict: "Sensitivity!.. This is quicksand, which cannot serve as the basis for virtue – a stable, durable, eternal thing. Pleasure is fluid" ^{[6, p. 361]}. Joubert's ethical attitudes are most often prioritized in relation to the aesthetic principle. He proceeds from the fact that nothing but moderation can give grace to feelings, while their beauty is associated with sublimity and spirituality. The freedom of feelings and actions, so characteristic of the heroes of other early romantics – B. Constant, J. de Stael, and for the life behavior of these authors themselves, and even more so for the creations of late French Romanticism, is alien to Joubert.

Associative memory and suggestion

One of the visionary lines in Joubert's aesthetics, the theme of memory, is closely connected with the problems of imagination, illusions, emotional receptivity, and sensitivity [see: 9]. Anticipating in many ways the artistic and aesthetic discoveries of Henri Bergson and Marcel Proust related to associative memory, he compares the work of consciousness with the habits of a hunting dog that finds its way back, returns on its own trail, and concludes that the experience is completely disembodied, as soon as it leaves a trace or smoke, as soon as possible starting on a search, guessing the direction of the path by its fragments, to catch up with it when it has already disappeared. Memories and reflections on pleasures are sweeter than the pleasures themselves, he notes – we squeeze these memories in our arms, caress them, subordinate them to our power. Joubert likens reminiscence to the shadow of a memory. It is in emotional memory that he sees the source of the artist's imagination.

As for the ways in which art influences recipients, the French romantic sees the most important of them in suggestion – this idea of his will later be perceived and developed in aesthetics and the art of symbolism. He means by suggestion the power of suggestion, the ability and ability to inspire, in other words, "to transform others into us, to occupy their minds with our thoughts, their soul with our feelings, to inspire them with our fervor, to convey to them our impulse, so that they would be imbued with it, to charm them, to subordinate them to our authority, to enslave them so much so that, despite the difference in climate and temperament, they look at things through our eyes, see the world as we see it. <...> There is a full–fledged, tangible power of suggestion, similar to the power of earthly fire; there is another - elusive, subtle, tangible, but invisible, like ether. The first is a weapon of passion, the second is wisdom" ^{[6, p. 323]}. Joubert prefers the inexpressible power of suggestion, touching the finest strings of the human soul.

Aesthetic education

Turning directly to the issues of aesthetic perception, Joubert expresses thoughts that are still relevant today. He is convinced that not only the artist's skill creates a picture, the viewer's abilities are also very important; perhaps they are half the point: the viewer's consciousness and the artist's consciousness need each other. Unlike the child's consciousness, which cares only about events, in adulthood they care only about the impression, that is, about the disposition of the soul and mind of a story, narrative, fictional events – because in the consciousness of recipients, not so much the idea of beauty is defined and constant, but the idea of the feeling that it constantly awakens. So, for the success of an epic poem, for example, it is necessary that its ideas and plot are partially familiar to the reader, that is, the author must appeal to an audience inclined to listen to what he wants to tell. Thus, Joubert concludes, both the author and the readers must necessarily have an epic mindset: "one half of an epic poem should be in the poet's head, and the other half in the readers' head" ^{[6, p. 368]}.

In this regard, Joubert raises the issue of the perception of novelty in art. Here he largely relies on the ideas of Voltaire as a follower of the new in the artistic field, that novelty is not perceived immediately, not by everyone, not everywhere: "About beauties, thoughts, feelings, flashes of imagination that are completely new. They are unexpected. Their novelty is disconcerting. It's scary to make a judgment about them and compromise your views. They will not be approved soon. People wait for time to show, and do not dare to enjoy them, and then they are surprised that they began to admire these things much later than the moment when they saw them for the first time" ^{[6, p. 338]}. However, even here Joubert's defense of the new in art and life is limited by moral limits. He sagaciously talks about times without rules, when virtue is valued less and less, and life becomes the very bridge without railings, from where passionate people rush into the abyss of vice consciously, and drunkards unconsciously: "Good times make us better than we are, bad times make us worse" ^{[6, p. 350]}. In this regard, Joubert refers to the world of the ancients^[3] as more commensurate with the volume of human knowledge: ancient sages towered over the world and things with their minds. The modern pursuit of novelty, the unusual, the striking elevates things above our mind, as a result of which "we voluntarily turn into dwarfs in order to create giants, we belittle ourselves in order to magnify our views" ^{[6, p. 329]}.

And here, in Joubert's aesthetics, the problem of aesthetic evaluation in art arises, the criterion of which is taste. He proceeds from the fact that a sane person seeks solidity, a witty one seeks visibility, a refined one seeks joy for his taste. The first one has enough material, the second one has enough forms, the third one needs delight and medicine, that is, pleasantness and benefit. He considers infallible the taste that knows how to distinguish content from form, to separate the vices of form from the perfection of content and the vices of content from the perfection of form, as well as to distinguish good from evil in art, bad from the worst and good from the best – for such recognition, a person needs aesthetic experience. In this context, Joubert refers to the ancient Greeks, whom, in his opinion, the form of speeches worried more about the content, and reflections served as a pretext for eloquence, since all their actions were governed by taste, a sense of beauty: "Even their philosophers are none other than excellent writers with a more strict taste" ^{[6, p. 340]}.

The subject of the judgment of taste, in Joubert's words, is "the salt of the work", that is, what we would call today form-content^[4]. Everything else should be judged by the mind itself, which does not tend to eat continuously ("gluttony is the enemy of taste" ^{[6, p. 355]}). It was rationality that was preferred in the era of classicism, when art focused more on what gives food to the mind than on what delights the taste itself, as a result of which, according to Joubert, dryness prevailed in the classical artistic and aesthetic atmosphere. The criterion for evaluating literature in the aesthetics of classicism was primarily reason and conscience, while taste acted as a kind of literary conscience: "Taste helps them determine whether a book has the desired pleasantness, reason – whether it corresponds to patterns, decency, and conscience – whether it should be praised or censured..." ^{[6, p. 370]}. Joubert, like other early romantics, considers the criterion for evaluating taste to be the extra-rational impression that a work of art makes and, most importantly, the aesthetic pleasure it gives. And the latter is very diverse – because aesthetic taste "feels, smells, combines, etc." ^{[6, p. 361]}.

Features of the literary style

The spiritual fullness of art and the beauty of its forms serve as a starting point for Joubert in his analysis of art forms and the inherent tendencies of Romanticism in their synthesis, rooted in a common basis for them: "Poetry is created by the sky, or perspective. The music is created by the echo. There is no painting without chiaroscuro. There is a dream or fantasy everywhere. Finally, the soul, or the mind and the spiritual world, etc. Space" ^{[6, p. 333]}. The sphere of interests of this French aesthetician and aesthete includes literature, theater, painting, architecture, and music. Speaking as a philosopher of art, he pays the most attention to literature as a pen artist.

Joubert proceeds from the fact that "our works are us", so readers want first of all to see in them the soul of the author, her strengths and weaknesses, knowledge and misconceptions, wisdom and illusions. He attaches significant importance to the personality of the writer, saying that for some people literature is work, business, life, for others it is entertainment, fun, game. For the former, it is service, duty, duty, inspiration; for the latter, craft, trade, calculation, free and easy chatter. Some write to make public what they consider to be good for everyone, others to inform the world about what they consider to be good for themselves. Thus, Joubert concludes, "some strive for perfection, while others strive for relevance; the goal of some is truth, others benefit" ^{[6, p. 335]}. Unconditionally taking the side of the former, the French romantic offers a kind of typology of writer's attitudes^[5]. To the first type he refers "kings or conquerors" who use for good or evil what has been accumulated by others; to the second – "legislators and judges", or reformers aimed at getting rid of the troubles of the present and the dangers of the future based on the wisdom of past centuries and their own; to the third – literary speculators, thoughtless eclecticists, preoccupied only with their own reputation and pursuing neither good nor bad goals. Joubert considers Virgil, Fenelon, Bossuet, La Fontaine, Racine, Chateaubriand to be genuine "kings" writers.

The problems of style are at the center of Joubert's reflections on literature. Giving them priority, he proceeds from the fact that "the truth is in style. This is a necessary quality, it alone is enough to make a writer worthy of approval" ^{[6, p. 337][6]}.One of the signs of a good style is that in the reader's perception it should sort of separate from the paper, just as in a good painting paints and images separate from the canvas. When you remember a beautiful poem, a statement, a phrase, "you always see them written in the air, they stand before your eyes; you read them in space, as it were"; and an ordinary passage is inseparable from the book, pops up in memory along with the page" ^{[6, p. 345]}.

Speaking about the fact that Homer intended his creations for singing, Sophocles for reciting, Herodotus for storytelling, and Xenophon for reading, he concludes that such a different orientation of literary creativity could not but give rise to numerous differences in style: "The style of the peoples is similar to their clothes. The periods of the Romans were spacious and long, like their togas. The phrases of the Greeks fit them and in many ways resembled ours. Their clothes clung more tightly to the body than the Roman ones. Our dress is shorter than the chiton of the Greeks, and is sewn from separate patches" ^{[6, p. 318]}.

Analyzing the style of literary works of the Greeks and Romans, Joubert prefers the former because of its inner harmony, arising only from the combination and coordination of words, rejecting all unnecessary and not needing rhetorical tricks. So, reading Plato is like mountain air – it sharpens our senses and instills a good literary taste. The ancient Greek authors had a subtle, absolute hearing, he emphasizes, whereas the Romans ironically qualify as "hard of hearing" writers who did not immediately perceive beauty and therefore had to resort to the vague verbosity of oratorical techniques. Excess always has a detrimental effect on language – an excess of its everyday loud sound, its natural energy, its habitual brilliance and luxury: language suffers from the noise accompanying its decline.

Turning to reflections on the style of contemporary French literature, Joubert complains that his sophistication and sophistication camouflage the lack of true, vital content of the works. Devoting all his attention without reserve to the figure of speech in order to delight and seduce the reader, the writer stops halfway, trusting an unreliable guide and taking the road to meaning as a haven. The French aesthetician concludes that "there are only two kinds of beautiful words: those that are full of sound, meaning, soul, warmth and life, and those that are transparent" ^{[6, p. 333]}.

As for the first type, Joubert proceeds from the fact that "only thoughts, thoughts taken separately, characterize the writer. No wonder they are called brilliant and quoted. They can be said to illuminate the head and face. The rest gives an idea only of the hands" ^{[6, p. 356]}. Comparing the work of the writer and the philosopher as thinkers, the French romantic says that the logic of style requires greater intellectual and emotional efforts than the logic necessary to bring parts of any, even the most complex philosophical system, into full agreement, because there are an infinite number of words, their combinations, and ways of forming the latter. The system, no matter how big it is, cannot embrace all this endless multitude of details. "In addition, thoughts occupy some space and, therefore, consist of many points; it is enough that they touch only at one of these points. However, every element of style is so light and subtle that it can be said to avoid contact. Nevertheless, this contact must be complete, because it is given to be either absolute or none. In any word, there is only one single point that can respond to the neighboring word. Therefore, a great writer needs the penetration of the mind and a sense of proportion more than a great philosopher" ^{[6, pp. 310-311]}. However, he notes, the poetics of the philosophical style has not yet been created, which is ideally the art of painting objects devoid of a body: the genius of philosophy is the gift of seeing them through the vision of the mind and the imagination of the soul. As for the literary style, it needs to be woven, embroidered, it serves as a kind of weft of the text.

Extending his ideas about the intrinsic value of art to a literary work, Joubert concretizes them, developing the idea of a second kind of beautiful style associated with its transparency. He emphasizes that sounds and words are valuable in themselves, therefore, when pronouncing them, it is necessary to observe natural pauses: "By pressing and attaching them to each other, we liken them to translucent balls that, barely touching each other, flatten, lose transparency, and stick together, forming a single viscous mass"; "I would like to the thoughts in the book followed each other like luminaries in the sky, harmoniously, harmoniously, but at the same time freely and independently, without touching each other, without mixing, so that they do not lose consistency, connection, correspondence. Yes, I would like them to follow each other, not clinging, not holding on to each other, so that each of them could exist independently. There is no tightness, but also no inconsistency; the smallest fraction of it is monstrous" ^{[6, pp. 313, 330]}. Based on this, Joubert believes that the use of idioms is justified only if the gaps between them are observed, they need to be placed in speech like folds in a drapery: style as such needs space and fresh air, contributing to its transparency, which returns words to their pristine luster and purity, renews them, grinds them. Transparency does not lie, erroneous judgments take away its transparency from the language: "Let the poems be made of glass, either transparent when they reveal the soul, colored when they depict embarrassing passions (and, so to speak, fervor) – (the flame has a color) – or let the colors of the human mind shine through them" ^{[6, p. 340]}.

As for the plan of a literary work, it is, of course, necessary, Joubert believes, but not rigid, but approximate – it is necessary to provide in advance only its beginning, end and middle, that is, its tonality, caesura, pauses, and its purpose: the color depends on the first word, the tone depends on the introduction; the middle determines rhythm, tempo, volume, proportions: "A truly magnificent style is always associated with some fluidity, oiliness and unsteadiness" ^{[6, p. 325]}. Joubert likens the writer to a spider weaving his web – the writer strands his hints and comparisons on tightly stretched threads woven by all his previous cultural experience^[7].

Joubert distinguishes between the concepts of literary style and writer's handwriting. In his judgments about style, he focuses on its strength, flight, precision, and enthusiasm. Literary handwriting depends on the language and the natural character of the writer – after all, every great author has his own words, his own special grammar, his own genre, his own quirks and preferences. In this perspective, he considers the use of spoken and everyday words in the literary test.

As a true romantic, Joubert is committed to folklore and folk speech. He likens spoken words to the springs of style, touching the reader and penetrating into his soul, inspiring confidence in the author and clarifying unusual thoughts – "thanks to them, great thoughts, so to speak, are in circulation in society and thus are likened to high-grade gold and silver coins with familiar images" ^{[6, p. 314]}. Spoken words convey sincerity to the style; in addition, they make what is said seem more true – because clarity is closely related to truth, and these words, Joubert is convinced, are the clearest of all.

As for everyday words, they often have a hidden meaning, the breadth and importance of which are felt unaccountably: "it is like a ray of light in a fog or a fire in groundwater, a fire that can only be judged by the temperature of the water. This is a firefly lamp, a lamp illuminating a single point, but bright" ^{[6, pp. 375-376]}.

Joubert pays considerable attention to such elements of style as comparisons, metaphors, epithets, aphorisms. It is not enough to be justified by comparison, he believes, he also needs to be clear. Therefore, the object being compared with should be more familiar than the one being compared. The most successful comparison is where creatures of different natures are compared, such as "the speaker is an eagle, the poet is a swan." The most unfortunate comparisons are those where the thing is compared with a person, and the body with the soul, instead of comparing the soul with the body, and the person with the objects of the surrounding world (for example, "stormy sea – an agitated heart, whiteness – innocence"). Such comparisons, Joubert emphasizes, do not teach anything, they only limit and shorten, rather than expand the reader's perception (like a muscle contraction: a strong but unpleasant sensation), whereas any comparison should expand the horizons of the mind, not narrow it, move from the abstract to the concrete, from the invisible to the visible.

In metaphor, Joubert sees the antithesis of logical thinking, which allows you to express a thought, mood or feeling as briefly and quickly as possible. The epithet, slipping along with the noun, seems to him the most insinuating of all judgments. Such aphoristic characteristics are crowned by Joubert's vision of the essence of aphorism as the most reliable form of speech corresponding to the square in architecture^[8]. Unlike aphorisms, generally accepted truths are usually given a certain roundness, streamlining, shape that combines strength with grace, brilliance with simplicity.

The French romantic pays special attention to the stylistic features of poetry. The main difference between poetry and prose, in his opinion, is that it almost does not need a real basis, because poetry is hungry for space, tends to the sphere of the miraculous, and everything belonging to reality narrows the horizon. Therefore, everything in the poem must be created from nothing or almost nothing, "she needs three worlds: heaven, earth and hell. And no less" ^{[6, p. 344]}. Joubert extends the advantages of poetic language over prose to drama, considering, contrary to modern romantic trends associated with the departure from Alexandrian verse as too pathetic in favor of iambic non-rhymed verse, devoid of grandiloquence and imitating colloquial speech, that tragedy in prose is like an opera without music or a theater without an audience. Developing his thought about the advantages of the pictorial multiplication of the world over the copyist imitation of it, Joubert sees the purpose of poetry not in imitation, but in completion, embellishment of existence and at the same time the ability to move the reader, bring him emotional joy^[9].

Summarizing his judgments about literary style, Joubert goes beyond it into the field of philosophy and ethics, distinguishing two stylistic streams tending to these spheres: "One style is nothing more than a shadow, a vague image, a sketch of thought, the other is a semblance of a body or a sculptural portrait. The first is appropriate to metaphysics, full of riddles, and pious feelings containing something infinite. The second one is more consistent with moral laws and maxims" ^{[6, p. 319]}. Two kinds of writers correspond to these two styles. Those who tend to philosophical generalizations are like painters, they "imprint their thought on paper, paint it, paint in oil and, one might say, paste it on the page, just as an image is applied to a canvas," whereas moralists "carve their thought, press it into paper or elevate it above by giving it relief and complete certainty. These are sculptors" ^{[6, p. 320]}. Two kinds of eloquence correspond to these literary attitudes – "metaphysicians" strive for peace and light, "moralists" devote themselves to expressing human passions full of fervor and active movement.

The relationship between ethics and aesthetics

Joubert himself, as a strict moralist, is committed to the ethical orientation of literary creativity. Despite his reverence for Greek Antiquity with its cult of the beautiful naked body, Joubert emphasizes: "Believing that a person is beautiful, artists are mistaken: a naked person is terrible. Heaven did not make man beautiful, but gave him the opportunity to decorate himself. Each part of the body is individually beautiful; but their totality, without clothes or ornaments, shows everywhere unchanged skin and ugly joints; "a naked man is no more than a monkey, devoid of fur and wrinkles. His body acquires beautiful proportions only when he is dressed or when his posture hides his clumsiness" ^{[6, pp. 357, 375]}. Joubert proceeds from the fact that a person's individuality is expressed only in his face: a woman's naked body can be judged not so much about her personality as about her gender. Only clothes can emphasize the value of a face, reveal the beauty of a person and give him grace and grace: "Clothes for the eye are like a soft feather bed for a tired person. The eye rests on it, not disturbing anyone's peace" ^{[6, p. 358]}.

Based on this position, Joubert in the article "What is chastity?" ^[10], reflecting on the priority of spiritual, invisible beauty over bodily, visible, advocates moral asceticism, considers carnal desires to be vicious. One of the paradoxes in his aesthetics is connected with such a rigorous moral attitude. Contrary to the inherent attraction of French romanticism to the novel form both in the philosophy of art and in artistic practice itself (it is enough to recall the famous novels and novels by R. de Chateaubriand, J. de Stael, B. Constant, A. de Vigny, A. de Musset), Joubert in the article "Accusatory speech against novels" ^[11], inheriting the tradition of skepticism towards this genre, widespread in the XVIII century, as corrupting morals and spoiling taste, he criticizes it – Leonce, the hero of de Stael's novel "Delphine" (1802), appears in the article as one of the examples of immoral behavior ^[12]. This novel is preceded in letters by an epigraph reproducing the maxim of the author's mother: "A man should be able to challenge public opinion, a woman should submit to it." The whole structure of the book testifies to de Stael's rejection of such instruction. It is characterized by criticism of generally accepted moral norms related, in particular, to the rejection of divorce by the Catholic Church, their condemnation by public opinion, ignoring the feelings of a "living being". The passionate love of the intelligent, determined, independent Delphine for Leonce is a tragic feeling that fatally cripples her life, drying up her heart: ideal lovers cannot connect because of the indissolubility of Leonce's marriage with the virtuous and submissive, but unloved Matilda. When he becomes a widower, their union turns out to be impossible: Delphine has already become a nun. The passions in this novel are fatally accompanied by suffering, enveloping the feeling of love in a romantic melancholic flair. As a moralist, Joubert does not accept de Stael's freedom-loving emancipatory ideas in the sphere of personal life, which are embodied both in her own fate and in the life vicissitudes of her literary heroes and heroines. And he categorically concludes: "If novels happen to have such a great influence on mores and habits, then this happens not so much to the honor of books as to the shame of the era" ^{[6, p. 351]}.

When it comes to ethical principles, Joubert often gives them priority over the aesthetic principle. He believes that the love of art should not obscure his mission to serve the world around him, society, people and their moral principles, and not vice versa. He proceeds from this postulate in his arguments about the relationship between sculpture and painting. He condemns those sculptors who, subordinating everything, including morality, to sculpture, and out of love for sculptures, yearn for ancient nudity, gymnastic exercises, athletes, "because art is more important to them than morals, and statues are more expensive than their own children" ^{[6, p. 341]}. In his opinion, contrary to the myth of Pygmalion, it is impossible to love a statue – it is enough for us to remember its shape – but you can love a painting. Painting, according to Joubert, is a more Christian art, more in tune with the soul of a Christian than sculpture with its pagan roots. Picturesque lines, colors, and proportions are more easily imprinted in the mind due to their flat location. But more importantly, painting is able to express a pure idea. In sculpture, the idea takes the form of reality, acquires physicality. it becomes embodied, and not only depicted, as in painting. In sculpture, the idea is entirely expressed externally, in painting it must go into depth. Developing his idea of the priority of the spiritual, hidden, invisible over the visible in relation to these types of art, Joubert, using the example of the work of Raphael and Grez, justifies the priority of painting over sculpture by the fact that in the former beauty is hidden, and in sculpture it is revealed. And he exclaims: "Sculpt the devil, paint God! Fear loves to look at the terrible; it wants to see it apart from itself! Love prefers to embrace its object rather than contemplate it. Fear always has its eyes open. Love's eyes are closed" ^{[6, p. 362]}.

Turning to the conversation about another kind of fine art – architecture, Joubert proceeds from the fact that, by painting places, she is called upon to paint people: the building should testify to who lives in it, and marble, glass – to tell what is hidden behind them. He sees the difference between architecture and other types of art in the tradition of Jean-Baptiste Alberti in the fact that beauty in it should be combined with benefit. If the artisan would limit himself to a pillar to support the roof, then the artist will erect a column. At first, he sees it in his dreams, and decides to cut corners, whereas an artisan, for whom only the necessary is important, would make it quadrangular. The artist thinks about pleasure, he works not only in the name of benefit, but also in the name of honor and glory. However, in his creative work, a balance between beauty and benefit is necessary: so, columns under a roof with a ridge would be inappropriate and ridiculous. Moreover, much depends on the purpose of a particular architectural structure. "In a word, show the order of the universe everywhere, and you will combine business with pleasure" ^{[6, p. 361]}, concludes Joubert.

In Joubert's philosophy of art, intentions are also outlined for the synthesis of arts – he sensitively captures in this regard those trends that are already inherent in the romanticism of his time, and gives them an impetus for development in the future^[10]. He talks enthusiastically about the arts, holding hands and supporting each other: "Every sound in music needs an echo; every figure in painting needs the sky; we sing with the help of thoughts and draw with the help of words – therefore, every phrase and every word in our works needs its own horizon and its own echo" ^{[6, p. 312]}. There are seven letters in music, twenty-five notes in the alphabet, he pointedly remarks. Dance and pantomime can be no less meaningful than literature – they are able to perfectly convey the meaning of an excerpt from Stern and even some chapters of Montesquieu, for example, the chapter on despotism. The same applies to painting: you can draw a face with all its features on a surface the size of a fingernail, whereas to describe it with words, it would take a whole page, and even then it would not be possible to give a correct idea of it.

The desire for cooperation and interpenetration of the arts testifies, according to Joubert, to the harmony of the soul of a genuine artist, his talent, "which sometimes soars up, then falls down, and fills the air with beautiful sounds, forming a kind of beautiful staircase, do we not draw a creature joyfully frolicking between heaven and earth, carefree and covered with a thousand feelings Finally, do we not draw an idle mind that, like a bee, flies at random and, lingering on a thousand objects along the way, but not stopping for a long time on any one, caresses all the flowers and buzzes for its pleasure" ^{[6, p. 363]}.

Conclusion

"All my life I have loved only the truth. I have reason to think that in relation to many great things she revealed herself to me" ^{[6, p. 311]}, Joubert wrote in his diary. One cannot disagree with this self-assessment of his, at least in relation to the artistic and aesthetic sphere. Indeed, he discovered much of what will be fully manifested with the flourishing of the theory and artistic practice of Romanticism, and then the symbolism that inherits it in France – the priority of the spiritual, ideal principle in art; emphasis on the role of imagination and emotional memory in the creative process, fueling the artist's increased interest in the wonderful, mysterious, mysterious, non-rational, invisible, invisible; ideas of the suggestive influence of art and, finally, trends in the synthesis of arts as one of the lines of Joubert aesthetics.

Moreover– he formulated fundamental aesthetic positions that are of lasting importance for aesthetics as a science: the idea of the artistic perfection of a work, the indissolubility of form and content in it; contemplation as the highest phase of aesthetic perception, aesthetic pleasure as the main goal of art; the impossibility of the phenomenon of art itself outside of its perception by the recipient, the versatility of aesthetic experience; the cultivation of aesthetic taste as a sense of beauty that allows an adequate aesthetic assessment of art. Joseph Joubert has written a worthy page in the history of the aesthete, and romantic in particular.

Notes

1. The architecture of the temple should be based on movement from the bottom up, at the heart of the theater building is movement from right to left, Joubert develops his idea [see: 6, p. 360].

2. "In order for us to understand well, keep in mind and perceive as a whole the parts of one work, they must be repeated," writes Joubert ^{[6, p. 354]}. In the 20th century, the idea of repetition as a philosophical concept was picked up and developed in his book "Difference and Repetition" by the French postmodern philosopher Gilles Deleuze.

3. "... antiquity for me is everything that happened before 1715," Joubert notes ^{[6, p. 364]}, believing that the watershed between classical and new literature was marked by the year of Louis XIV's death.

4. The term of V.V. Bychkov. See for more details: ^{[13, pp. 388-396]}.

5. It is contained in Joubert's diary entry, made by him on April 21, 1812 [see: 6, p. 365]. It is noteworthy that 23 years later, in 1835, in the preface to his drama Chatterton, A. de Vigny also described three types of poets that somehow correlate with Joubert's – a "genuine poet", a dreamer and contemplator living a spiritual life; a lightweight "writer" who has a literary gloss in his business acumen in literature; crowned with laurels of a "great writer" with his inherent common sense and social pathos [see: 14, pp. 153-154; see also: 15].

6. Perhaps J. Joubert was influenced by F. Buffon's idea that style is the person himself [see: 16, p. 172; see also: 17; 18].

7. This metaphor will be accepted by French symbolists. Thus, Stefan Mallarmé likened the artist to a sacred spider weaving wonderful lace from his own spiritual threads, thereby gaining the key to his own personality, as "the center of myself, where I hold on like a sacred spider on the main threads already twisted by my mind, and on their interweaves I will weave magnificent lace, already today I I see it, it exists in the womb of beauty" ^{[19, p. 391]}. Let us also recall the spider with a human face in the painting by Odilon Redon [see: 20, pp. 122-143].

8. In his own aphorisms, Joubert is sometimes very sarcastic: "The critic is very similar to those people who, wanting to laugh, bare their rotten teeth every time," he stamps his opponents ^{[6, p. 335]}.

9. On this occasion, Joubert remarks: "I'm tired of books where it's only about the material. One might think that only miners, masons, carpenters, weavers, surveyors or bankers think and write about science. I do not know if this method of self–study and teaching others is conducive to the prosperity of crafts, but it is certainly disastrous for uplifting the spirit, and dangerous for hearts, morals, etc. In the end, what did nature give us – a pig's snout to dig in the ground, or hands to throw seeds into this earth? To sow and harvest is our main duty towards the earthly world," writes Joubert ^{[6, pp. 323-324]}.

10. During the XIX-XX centuries, the trends of art synthesis will constantly increase, and two centuries after the providences of J. Joubert, modern multimedia mixes will be brought to life.