ORGULHO E PRECONCEITO: o feminino na obra de Jane Austen - Lúcia Helena Galvão

Good evening everyone! Good evening! Welcome! I hope this is a pleasant chat tonight. For me, it's a talk that I have particular affection for. Because for some time I was trying to convince the philosophers of New Acropolis that Jane Austen also has philosophy. So today we are going to talk a little about why a book that is now completing 200 years, the most important book of hers, which is Pride and Prejudice, still touches so many people, still causes so many reactions. Good evening! I find it interesting because we realize that the impact that things generate

in time is an undisputed testimony of the quality of how much they touch the human heart. Very hardly what is called a sweetened romance, would cross 200 years. Jane Austen has admirers all over the world. She is much more than what is popularly known as a sweetened romance. There is a long list of movies made about her books, of a slightly variable quality. And maybe this has contributed to passing the image of what is a little-depth romance. But in fact, although there are some very good movies, I particularly like Pride and Prejudice, Reason and Sensibility,

but nothing replaces reading Jane Austen. The style, the way she writes is something very interesting. Her idea is to generate in each novel a gallery of human profiles, from the most bizarre to the most honored and complete. She has a characteristic that more or less follows this line, all her work, which we will see is a small work, which always has a center, which is not always the protagonist. In the case of Emma, for example, she is not the protagonist, she is not the point of stability. She always has a point of stability, which is

a sober, honored, noble human being, and a series of bizarre characters gravitating around. So what she intends to do there is almost a gallery of human profiles. Good evening, welcome. And very well described. She exaggerates a little, almost caricatures human profiles, in such a way that we have a panel, of more or less all the possibilities. You will say, well, but this was the 18th, 19th century, only the figurine changes. Human beings have not changed so much in behavior. The profiles she describes are very similar to those we find on the street today. And one

of the most interesting elements, that I like about Jane Austen, in addition to this depth to describe the characters, is the way she puts the idea of ​​a noble, ceremonial life, a beautiful way of expressing herself, as respect for the other, which is one of the things I think is most important for us to recover in our historical moment. We lived in a time, a few decades ago, where we thought that all forms were broken. It is said that because of the trauma of the wars, whatever it is, that there came a time when all

forms were abolished, without building any other to put in place. And we became an amorphous society, without any kind of courtesy, without any kind of mutual respect demonstration, an absolutely amorphous society, without any tool. Because you will see that these forms, she makes it very clear, are a way of protecting man from himself, from brutality, vulgarity, stupidity. It is almost a protocol for society to humanize itself. Forms are a civilizing protocol. We have a very curious and totally inadequate habit of thinking that forms are very materialistic things. Thinking in form is very materialistic. So much

so that when a body dies, the first thing it loses is the form. The form is the impact of an idea on matter. And what she seeks to show is how forms are not guilty of the vulgarity of men. Quite the opposite. Vulgarity tends to deform. The form, when it is exercised consciously, it ennobles man. Therefore, you will realize that she does not have a protagonist who is of great material strength, at a time when England is very stratified according to wealth. The characters of Jane Austen, the protagonists, are all people of not very high

positions, but all very, very much in line with this idea of ​​the beautiful form, of the noble form. We will understand a little symbolically what this expresses. It has always been my dream to think about moving forward with this, because she is rekindled. She justifies, she explains, she demonstrates. Her characters justify themselves. They say why they are what they are, why they believe in what they believe. She does not have characters who follow a form by mechanisticity. She has a way to believe in them and know what they mean. So she has wonderful characters. Who

knows, I can convince you to get to know her a little better. From what I'm seeing, I imagined she was more known in Brazil. Someone who is very special, interesting. I'm not telling you that it's a reading like any book of philosophy, but from a romantic point of view, a wonderful entertainment. Very interesting and with a lot to learn. Right? So, for you to have an idea, today England has two museums in honor of Anne Austen. These are stamps that were made. We are living this year the bicentenary of Pride and Prejudice. 200 years of

Pride and Prejudice. Which is her most important book. Particularly for me, if I consider her work as a whole, it would be Reason and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice. They are my favorites. Reason and Sensibility, a lot because it has the most beautiful female character I've ever read in any novel in my life. Eleanor Dashwood. A perfect lady. If you want to meet a perfect lady, meet the protagonist of Reason and Sensibility. Well, so for you to see, today there are clubs. Have you heard of that movie called Jane Austen's Reading Club? It talks about

a reading group in the United States. In the whole world there are these groups. They meet to try to understand her, to discuss her works. Look, it's the only thing we have of her. She lives there between the 18th and 19th century. She dies very young. 42 years old, very young. No one knows exactly what was her cause of death. She had a degenerative disease that at the time there was no way to diagnose. She dies and is buried in the Winchester Cathedral. A beautiful medieval cathedral. Her brother was a reverend there. This is the

only representation of Jane Austen. It is a drawing that was made by her sister Charlotte. Both she and Charlotte, neither of them married. At a time when they were asked to marry, particularly Jane Austen was formally asked to marry, she accepted and gave up the next day. Neither of them agreed to marry, that it was not for love. They were two romantic at a time when marriage was very conventional. It had nothing to do with love. Both died single. Her sister Charlotte was older than her, she died much older than her. Jane Austen died very

young. Her father was an Anglican reverend. Let's say it was a middle-class family. They were not poor. She had a great advantage, the fact that her father was a tutor. What was a tutor? It was a time when life, school education, the education of a young man was very different. Schools were not as common as we know them today. Jane Austen herself, together with her sister, attended a school for only one year. Only one year. They were enrolled in a school. How did you educate the young? A reverend, someone cult, brought the young into your

house and raised them there. We have a little chair in the back. She raised them in your house, together with her children, as children. And she transmitted her knowledge to them. Her father, Reverend Austen, was very cult. And he had several apprentices who lived inside the house. Evidently, along with these apprentices, who were paid to educate, ended up being educated. And they were educated. And they had a very large group, eight children. There were eight children. Jane Austen is the penultimate. If you see her there, she is the penultimate. The same drawing made by Cassandra.

So only two women, in the middle of six men, two of her brothers, who ended up having a lot of social prominence, became emirates. Francis and Charles became emirates. And she spent all her life living with the family. When her father dies, her and her mother's financial conditions become very precarious. They live at the expense of her brother. Until at some point, her health begins to decline and she dies. But since she was very young, if you consider that before 21 years old, she had already written Pride, Prejudice, Reason and Sensitivity. Stimulated by her father,

stimulated by her brother. Now, it's interesting because Jane Austen's name only appeared on the cover of a book after she died. They put a lady on the cover. After Pride and Prejudice began to be very successful, her brother sent to write the same author of Pride and Prejudice. When she dies, they will publish her last two novels, and then her brother sends to put on the cover of the book that the author of those books was Jane Austen and had just passed away. That is, only after death did they know who wrote these novels. So,

evidently, it is a complication, a very big difficulty for a lady, a woman, to stand out in literature. It was something uncommon. And she was always very inspired. There are the list of books published by Jane Austen. There is a youth novel about her and some loose papers of her youth, which were never published at the time. But these are her official novels. Pride and Prejudice, Reason and Sensitivity, by order of publication. Pride and Prejudice was what popularized her. She was still alive, she saw Pride and Prejudice making a huge success, without anyone knowing that

she was the writer. Because this could not be revealed. Then Reason and Sensitivity, Persuasion, Emma, Abadie de Nortandier and Mansfield Park. These last two published, she was no longer alive when the last two were published. So she is considered in England, you will see that in England there is a cult of Jane Austen's memory for something that I think is very fair. She is a perfect expression of the English spirit. She embodies the English spirit. In terms of behavior, conception, even humor. She embodies the English spirit very well. She is considered one of the best

novelists and the creator of modern romance. From the way we understand romance today, the creator was Jane Austen. Copied of all the forms you can imagine. The number of books made trying to copy Jane Austen, is an endless gallery, none of them ever made a success. Because she did not just write stories, she knew how to give a requiem, a nuance of humor, of irony, and at the same time of the depth of the human soul. She never criticizes anyone, but she makes you establish a very well-founded opinion about your characters, for yourself. Only for

the things she teaches. So they are really very interesting and pleasant to read her novels. Here, just as a curiosity, two museums in England, in honor of Jane Austen. This is the largest one, Chawton. And this second one, also from a time when she lived in this house for six years, Beth. That is, gathering everything that has already been gathered about her in life, which is little. From figurines to information. There is a biography written by her nephew, gathering everything that could be gathered about her. In other words, in England, I think I'm going to

take a trip there to give this lecture. I think she is very well known there. It seems, at least. One thing I'm not going to read all this text to you, this is written by a literary critic, specialized in Jane Austen. There is a common place in relation to her. It is always said that she is a writer who writes romantic comedies, on the one hand, and on the other hand, from a few years ago, just how curious, how she changes the point of view. The contemporaries and later, right after her death, Victorian era, which

is after her life, she lives in the time of King George IV, feminists criticized Jane Austen. They said she put a stereotyped woman. 100 years later, feminists love Jane Austen. They say she puts a revolutionary woman. And that her novels would be of a feminist stature. This is very funny. I usually joke with my students that this is the law of Silvio Santos. Whoever looks for it, finds it here. Everyone finds what he is looking for. In fact, I think neither one thing nor another. I would not say in any way that her books could

not be called romantic comedy. Because, in fact, she wants to go much more than just laughing, although sometimes it is very funny. I wouldn't even say she is a feminist. Because, in fact, she puts a question of the condition of human dignity, which transcends sex. Some people could say, in a feminine talk by Jane Austen, I could only talk about male characters of Jane Austen, using at the same time or even more. Because she describes the human profile. She does not limit herself to women, although her protagonists are female. But sometimes the central character of

a book, such as in Emma, is not Emma. It is the knight she loves, which is the balance point of romance. She is the protagonist, but she is a caricature character. She is not the center of romance. So this is interesting. We have some concepts, sometimes a little molded, to the interests of our historical moment. I think Jane Austen would laugh at that. She was neither feminist, nor intended to make comedy. You know, I even put this there at some point, that Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote, was considered a comedy in his time. And he

was outraged by that. One of Don Quixote's first impressions, he asks to be put on the cover page. After the darkness, I wait for the light. As if he said, I hope one day they understand me. Because it is difficult to consider something more profound from the point of view of knowledge of the human soul, as Don Quixote, who is considered the greatest novel in history. But people thought it was a comedy of customs. I don't think Jane Austen is a comedy of customs. What I think is that she deals with two themes that are

very clear to me. First, as I told you, the new gallery of human profiles. And secondly, the importance of the ceremonial form in life as a civilizing element. And we will get to know these two traits a little. So I particularly like this critic, because he says something that I find interesting, in that part of the outline. In other words, he describes a positive vision of celebration of life, representing happiness and ideals. Indeed, Jane Austen is considered the author of sweetened novels, inspired by one thing. Everything always has a happy ending. But that doesn't mean

that there is not in the middle of the way a whole set of very rich circumstances to be learned. The happy ending is a demonstration of hope that all human things can be reconciled. The happy ending is part of the human myth. In the end, all things will harmonize. So, continuing. I put this as my own theory. I am a admirer of Jane Austen for many years. So I consider that I have the right to have my own theories. And then you consider as you wish. It is a classic view of Eastern philosophy that says

that consciousness is born by contrast. In the contrast between two colors, you perceive both. If the whole world were silver, you wouldn't perceive silver. You realize that it ends here and black begins. The sound and silence are also like that. The value of the things we lose, we only realize when we lose. What I realize is that Jane Austen is a woman, and she creates a circle of types of caricatures to highlight the center, which is a noble character. What she wants to highlight is nobility. So she generates, almost as if it were a stage,

with a series of bizarre things revolving around, as if it were Jung's psychoanalytic vision. A center, a self, and countless small egos gravitating around, which are distortions of this center. In fact, I took a little Jung to talk about Jane Austen, because there are things that serve a lot. She always puts, all her novels have a point of gravitation, which is human nobility. And bizarre things revolving around. These bizarre things are also very well described. They are extrapolations of very common human types. And you will identify many people you know. I took only two novels

as an example, although my temptation was to take all six, but we were going to leave here at midnight. So I took only pride, prejudice, reason and sensitivity. You can already see how she works with her characters. Imagine this then. If you take, for example, reason and sensitivity, you have this line, he is a North-Eastwood. Certainly, alone, she reigns absolute. Then you have around all the bizarre creatures in the world. I put some names there. You will take pride and prejudice a little differently. And you have as the center the two sisters, Lizzie and Jane

Bennett. The two complement each other. And around all the things, all the ridiculous things you can imagine. All human extrapolations, both male and female. In fact, well balanced. There are equally male and female characters. So if we analyze it this way, you will realize that we understand very well Jane Austen. Because when she puts these extrapolations, she reinforces the value of the nobility of her central character. And it gives you almost subliminally the idea of ​​nobility. What is it? How is it to live in a noble way? The nobility totally disassociated from possession of materials.

For her, nobility is really a matter of posture before life. You know that symbolically the so-called blue blood meant a blood mirrored in the color of the sky, inspired in the color of the sky. If the blue blood meant a person who was inspired by spiritual values. It was not that he had many values from a financial point of view, but that he had value from a human point of view. There was no price, there was value. The origin of nobility had nothing to do with possessions. And she is inspired by this idea of ​​nobility.

Which will institute a spirit that, although very decadent, still exists in England. I really like a contemporary philosopher, a professor named Roger Vernon Scruton. Very good. For those who do not know a DVD that exists on the internet called Why Beauty Matters, watch it so you can know it. It's a wonderful character. He says that England was great not for material resources, nor for extension, it was great from a historical point of view for the cult that nobility did. This gave strength to her. And now that this cult begins to decay, England begins to warm

up, begins to vulgarize itself. So that the young people who seek nobility are going to other places. Here this idea begins to corrupt itself. The day the English stop believing that there is something noble inside, England will be destroyed. Because materially it has nothing. It does not justify itself as a power. He says that in our days. It is all kind of criticism that you can imagine he receives. But it is so well founded, I do not know if he likes Jane Austen, but he remembers me, Jane Austen remembers. So this is my theory to

understand Jane Austen. A center and several points of peripheral gravitation. As I told you, in the time of Jane Austen, this King George IV was absolutely corrupt. There was a lot of confusion. She clearly realized this. She even visits the palace of Buckingham with her father. And the king's advisor asks her to dedicate a romance to the king. Because the king liked pride and prejudice. And she is tremendously opposed to this. Because she did not like the king. In fact, during her time, she was still regent prince. Because her father went crazy, George III. He

assumes as regent prince until his father's death. And he was totally devastated and corrupt. And she did not like the way he lived. But she was pressured, by the pressure of her father and brothers, to dedicate Emma to George IV. She is very opposed, because she did not like George IV. And she realized that this gravitational center of the conscience of the English society, of nobility, which was the king, when the king corrupted himself, everything in society tended to become eccentric, to get lost. And humanity, without being very aware of this, began to decay. She

had a very clear notion of this. She writes to her sister Charlotte. Today these letters are in the museum. She realizes this tendency of people to get lost. Unconsciously, they do not know why they lost the center. There was no truly noble king. In fact, George IV was not noble. He is the predecessor of Queen Victoria, of the famous Victorian period. So one of the things we have to consider is exactly the fallacy of generalization. What is the fallacy of generalization? From the point of view of philosophy, if one day we have the opportunity, I

will still give a lecture about it. There are ten classic fallacies, which are those crazy ones that we say, which are incoherent, there is no logic, but we do not know. Do you know the fallacy of the snowball? Or the skid? It is that one that you come to a person and say, if I open an exception for you, I will have to open it for everyone. If you see something more illogical than that, if I open an exception for you, it is for you, because it deserves it. Everyone is another story. I will see

one by one. There is no logic in that. But you never said that? Confess here, secretly, between us. The ten classic fallacies are a primordial of nonsense, that everyone says. And one of them is this fallacy of generalization. So you say that at the time of Queen Victoria, there were social conflicts, there was misery, there was infant mortality. It was very similar to what Victor Hugo shows in France. There was, in fact. But everything is dual. If everything there were bad, England would not have progressed to the states of social stability that it had after.

Everything is dual. I usually comment with my students, if you are going to present a tropical fruit to a foreigner, for example, a banana. Just an example, because I know that bananas are everywhere in the world. But imagine, you want to present a tropical fruit. You will not present a rotten banana, you will present it in the fullness of your maturity. But you are hiding it, because the banana rots. Yes, it rots like all living beings. But this is not the best time to meet it, nor is it the best angle. If we want to

study the pre-Victorian and Victorian period, we will realize that there is also a series of values, of social conventions, that made English have a very strong self-love. There was social inequality, there were still the consequences of the Industrial Revolution, a lot of infant mortality, a lot of injustice, a lot of misery. There was. But these values, you will see what they did historically. For your works, I will know you. Because 100 years later, England was not good only for the queen, it was good for the English too. So it means that these values were valid,

because they prevailed over time. And they were able to overcome these social contradictions. A bit redundant, right? Values valid. True values, somehow efficient. So a trait does not define everything. Always question, people. Philosophy is for that. Is this so bad? There was nothing good? Everything in the world is dual. And if you take the positive aspect of everything, everything helps you to grow. So today it is fashionable to speak badly of the Victorian era. There are things to learn in the Victorian era. As in any other time. Jane Austen is from before Queen Victoria. Protocols

and canons are civilizing. They are protections of man against himself. This is a very interesting thing. We have two cores of consciousness within us. The instinctive animal that guarantees our survival. And the human that guarantees our life as human beings. This works for survival instinct and perpetuation instinct. And this works for human life itself. So it's aesthetic, ethical, harmony, goodness. It works for the ideal of good. If you are not able to make the human prevail over the animal, the animal enslaves you, bestializes you. So you will realize that if we are human, we will

not be able to rebuild historically the beginning of human civilizations. Social protocols were created to protect man from himself. That is, instinctive bestiality. The tendency is to use the other human being as a pleasure object. I create a convention. Human beings marry. I consider the other's feelings. I do not consider each other as a body. But as another human being as important as you. All social protocols were created as a civilizing tool. To help man, understanding why, to dominate his own animal self. But it only has value when it is conscious. With the passing of

time, with the historical decadence, people begin to fulfill this protocol as a sign of social status. With a certain snobbery, this creates prejudice against protocols. Have you ever seen something that has more prejudice today than courtesy? If a knight is courteous like a lady, you immediately think, she has money or she is beautiful. If she has some interest, for nothing, just because he is a knight, she is not. Today courtesy is considered to be synonymous with hypocrisy. Young people have a very large rejection of this concept. Courtesy is humanity. It does not necessarily have to

have an interest behind it, or should not have. What should rule courtesy? The fact that I am a human being and I want to leave a human trace in the world. Animals leave instinctive traces, men leave a civilizing trace. So that you can look and know that it was a human being who passed by. Courtesy is not a synonym for hypocrisy. The fact that often the two things have been confused does not mean that it cannot manifest itself. All the central characters of the geniast are very courteous. And none of them is hypocritical. Now, hypocrites

exist in the mountains, around, exactly to generate this contrast. Courtesy is a symbol of what we dream of being, that is, human beings. And she will use this idea of social protocols very well. I put a great ceremonialist for you. When we talk about ceremony in our historical moment, we only think of religious ceremony. You will realize that this ceremony, this sacralization of life, from the point of view of a Confucius, for example, had nothing to do exclusively with religion. It had to do with everything you do. From the way you sit at the table

and eat with people around you, the respect that people have around you, so that they do not seem like an animal wanting to devour food first than everyone else. When you sit at the table, you know that the whole process of courtesy, of etiquette, do you know that etiquette is the little ethics? It comes from that. Etiquette is the little ethics. It was not a freshness to show that you have a social status. It is the little ethics adapted to the day-to-day. You will see Confucius, he said that all life should leave a ceremonial trace.

Here it passed in the human being. Sacred is the function of giving meaning. When you do things as a human being does, you invoke values. When you do it anyway, you invoke instincts. And then you can't control them, you can't deal with them. So he has in his work protocols for you to greet an older person, a person of the same age as you, younger, protocols to sit at the table, protocols to meet people in the morning, to wake up, to sleep, protocols even with yourself. Because it's not just about pre-English to see. It's something

for you to do in front of your own soul. As Plato said, you are what you do when the last door closes behind you. So see how interesting this phrase by Confucius is. Returning to the observance of rites, superimposing oneself on the individual, constitutes benevolence. Do not look unless you agree with the rites. Do not listen unless you agree with the rites. Do not speak unless you agree with the rites. Do you understand that? Rites as a social protocol. Sometimes a person has a physical problem and people are so instinctive that no one resists to

be like that, looking. Have you noticed that? They do not control themselves. They do not have the ability to impose will, to impose courtesy on their instinctive impulses. Do not look if your look is going to hurt. A person, I don't know, he's in a situation of constriction, control yourself, don't look. A person is in a situation that will expose him to a ridiculous, to humiliation, from the classical protocol point of view, do not look. Looking is rude. Ah, I don't control. If you don't control, you are not the owner of yourself. Who has the

rules of your life in hand? Do not speak, neither more nor less, than what can add to what you hear. Socrates spoke about this, from the Three Seasons, that the word must be good, fair and true, otherwise do not speak. That is, do not act, if it is not to express something that is valid to be seen. And don't think it's just for the other, it's for yourself. You are seeing yourself doing it. That reinforces elements in you. You are also worthy of respect. Respect comes from respicere, to know how to see. To know what

is behind the action, what are your principles. Hence the biblical principle, for your works I will know you. Socrates says, act so that I may see you. Move, that by your gestures I will symbolically know what your values are. So, Confucius is well known for this aspect, deeply protocol and ceremonial. I know this text will scare you by its size, but we will read it quickly. It is a preciousness to enter the Genial, as it is said. It is part of the collection of writings of Carl Jung. Where he talks about this symbolic question within

the human psyche. One interesting thing you should notice, in our historical moment, when things are no longer seen, as symbols, we consider that everything is the same thing. But in fact, a person with a little more wisdom, can clearly analyze who is a human being, by half a dozen symbols that he expresses, passing before him. In ancient Greece this was done. Through the way you speak, how you look, how you express yourself, much of what you believe, consciously or unconsciously, expresses itself. I usually play with my students, which is also a joke that is valid

to do, if you want. A serious joke. Which is to imagine that you will be presented as a new human being, a person you do not know. Try to erase your image in your memory, and open your eyes in front of a mirror. And see the first impact you have on yourself. A person with this posture, with this look, with this positioning, does she believe in what? Is she a safe person? Does she know where she is going? Does she own herself? Does she have references, does she know what she is looking for in life?

All this is expressed symbolically. Even our own personality, our own body, is a symbol. And we should see through them what they mean. Do you realize that? Everything you look at in the world is a symbol. And we should be able to look and see through it. If you observe, for example, one day I was talking about a chair. Have you ever stopped to think? I have no idea who invented this utility object. It must be one of the most well-known in the history of humanity. But have you ever stopped to think how this is?

Does it embody two archetypes? Because on Earth it anchors itself with four legs. Stability. And in heaven it is totally receptive. Generosity. It is as if you had taken these two archetypes, stability and generosity, tied them together and brought them to the world. And created this object. Upward reception, downward stability. It is a symbol, the chair. But when you sit in a chair, you can know that this idea could be applied to you too. The whole universe is learning, the whole universe is pedagogical. Well, if even an object can teach you something, what will the

posture of a human being say? You say, either make a person sit like this, or she sit in a good posture. Well, imagine someone you consider a noble person. Someone you have a lot of respect for. If this person entered this room at that moment, would you sit like this? Without having consciousness, you would automatically align. This is a body posture that denotes respect. Your psyche generates this form. Without you sometimes even noticing it. So it is symbolic. And someone can see through it. This is the so-called good posture that Jane Austen says so much.

So see this text from Jung, how interesting. The human person needs symbolic life, and urgently needs it. We only live banal, common, rational or irrational things. But we do not have symbolic life. Where do we live symbolically? In no part, except where we participate in the ritual of life. Very little. But who among many of us participates in the ritual of life? Very few. But we have a pre-mental need for it. Only symbolic life can express the need of the soul. The daily need of the soul, well understood. And because people do not have it,

they cannot get out of this living wheel. From this scary, massive and banal life, where they are. Nothing more than. The protocol of the first small acts. In Greece this was called the Canons of Apollo. The canons of everyday beauty. The way you look, the way you greet. The kind, hearty and not hypocritical way you talk to people. Really interested in them. The way you organize the little things in your room, in your bed. Respect for the objects that serve you. All this is symbolic and demonstrates the level, the beauty of the character of the

person who passed by. And every time you see that, you reinforce your own identity. Look, what a beautiful, harmonious environment. And this reinforces in you your own identity. Because beauty will receive this feedback. And it will remind you who you are. This strengthens you. So in a society where we have no symbolic understanding, we are loose and without identity. We are nothing more than. Banalized. Without knowing what a human being really is. No wonder we believe that we are just an animal with a little reason. The way we live is much more than that, really.

Now yes. Let's go to our dear Jane Austen. Otherwise you will tell me that I am talking about Confucius, Jung, everything in the world, except Jane Austen. As I told you, this novel, which is the second to be published, but it is the first to be written in quotes, because Susan is the previous. But Susan was not published. So it's the first to be written. By a young woman living in a small town of not much expression. She creates a novel that is a primordial from the point of view of creating a main character, great

use. Reason and Sensibility, at first, tells the story of two sisters. They are Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. And then one means reason and the other sensitivity. But in fact you will realize that Marianne, at first, seems to express her feelings better. She does not express feelings. She expresses impulsivity. She is impulsive, uncontrolled. While Elinor has deep feelings. Very well dosed, controlled by reason. You will see that Kant says that there is only moral value in a love that can be commanded by reason. I love because I want and sustain this love for life. She has

a capacity for control of her emotions, adequate expression, a huge mercy to not express her suffering, to not reach others. And people all gravitating around her, in a totally disordered way. She sustains a life protocol practically without references. No one in her circle was like that. I consider Elinor Dashwood, from the point of view of romance, an ideal lady. I do not know a character of this greatness. She is sober and serene in the face of adversity. She loses her father. Her inheritance is with the male heirs. She loses everything she had. She is forced

to live in a very limited way. Control and lucidity in the material plane. She is able to open her hands of everything material. She controls the accounts. It was her, her mother and her sister. The two totally distracted and she the center. A young girl. Controlling the accounts, managing life, not allowing anyone to get in the way of what she had. She was a center of lucidity within the family. Prudent towards emotional fantasies. She falls in love with the young Eduard Ferraz. And everyone says, he's crazy about you. She says, look, he gives some signs,

but he hasn't shown enough yet. I don't let myself be dragged by fantasies. This is very prudent. Because later Eduard will really ask a lot of things. To then go back to her. And she can control herself. Because she does not feed fantasies. She does not feed fantasy expectations. She has the boundaries all the time. Because she knows that her emotional state depends on the stability of the family. So she can't put herself at risk of crumbling and crumbling. She does not run the risk of crumbling. By mercy, by compassion. She knows that people around

her depend on her. Elinor is sincere and absolutely loyal to her feelings. Absolutely loyal. She loves Eduard Ferraz and loves him all her life. When he discovers that he had a romance with another woman. She is the first to go there and get a job. So that he can have an income and marry another. Loyal, faithful to his feelings. But sober. Principles are always above impulses for her. Always, always, always. Throughout the work. She puts principles and values ​​above impulses. And her trajectory is interesting. Because Principle is her sister. She despises all women. You have

no feelings. You do not love. And in the end, it is one of the most beautiful things that there is. Because Marianne comes to her. Marianne suffers a great love disappointment. For her impulsivity. Marianne comes to her. Elinor says to her, you still suffer a lot for the loss you had. From Willoughby, who was a knight she loved. She says, I don't suffer much for that. I suffer a lot for having lost the opportunity to learn with you. I suffer a lot for not being like you. The rest is manageable. But an example like yours.

And not having seen, not having followed. I suffer a lot for that. It's interesting because in the end everything converges. And everyone sees that her position was really perfect. Surprises by the lucidity and the posture, the sobriety, the nobility. She is understanding of other people's mistakes. And respectful of her needs. So you will see that she lives with the profiles of the world. The most bizarre female and male men. She has a wisdom to understand deeply people. She does not create fantasy. But she does not charge people more than they can give. And she relates

to them according to what they can give. And she is courteous. And if people need a little attention, she gives attention. If people need to feed a little of their vanity, she lets people do that. But in control. Knowing all the time what things really are. But by courtesy, keeping. Without hurting anyone's feelings. It is very interesting because Marianne was not even there for anyone's feelings. And she did the duties of courtesy for the sister, for the mother, for everyone. With the neighborhood. She kept everything harmonious in that universe. The mother and sister were actually

totally discentered. And she maintained this balance with everyone at the time. Because she didn't think so much about herself. She was always observing the needs of others. It is very, very interesting. Sages in the knowledge of people. But unable to expose them. In fact, the man of her life, who was Eduard Ferras, when he was a boy, lived in the house of a tutor. And he fell in love with the niece of this tutor. And he made a marriage promise to this niece. That she was a totally disheveled girl. That was Lucy Steele. And this

Lucy Steele took this promise seriously. And he spent years waiting for Ferras to marry her. And Ferras falls in love with Eleanor. But he had his word given to this Lucy Steele. And Lucy comes to her at a certain moment. The two meet and confess. I have a secret romance, let me tell you. And he talks about the love of her life. As promised, he will marry the other. And she there, lucid. Observing, seeing what she knew. Seeing that she was trying to maneuver her. Seeing that she was hypocritical. But there, controlling. And she still

thinks. What would a woman's impulse be in a situation like this? This Eduard is an idiot, he's cheating on me. She thinks. He was going to be very young and didn't see what this woman was. This must have been a youthful impulse. She doesn't accept judging things by emotions. She judges by lucidity. She goes there and says. No, this age he had when he lived with this tutor, he was a teenager. He didn't see what this woman was. He must be in a mess. And he has compassion for him. Being that he was the man

of her life and attracted him. She has compassion for him. He got into a mess, let me help him. He is there, in control of all situations. She sees that it is Lucy. He is trying to maneuver her. He realizes and takes into account that he is letting himself be taken. But all the time aware of the hypocrisy of the other. All the time aware of what the other is trying to generate in her. And there, controlling, administrating. But with the utmost courtesy. With the utmost firmness that you can imagine. She is a lady. She

does not hurt anyone's feelings throughout the book. It's something impressive. It is interesting, I want to show you. For a philosopher, it is a prodigy. Imagine what a virtuous human being is. This helps you in your imagination to create a model for yourself. If you do not create a precious model for yourself, you will absorb the models of society, which is the heroine of the novel of the Eighteen. Or you fill your ideals with imagination, or the fantasy will drag you to the collective. That's why I read this book and I think it's wonderful. Because

Elinor is very inspiring. She is a woman. The female archetype. Embodied in a lady. She is very harmonious. A woman capable of overcoming her own pain to help others. She knows that Edward is committed to her woman. When everyone finds out, everyone is more upset than she is. She has known for a long time. And she is still trying to help the man of her life to find a job to marry another. And she really does it. She is always there administrating. When people find out that she has known for a long time, then comes

the awareness of people to realize the value she had. She is very happy. Because no one until then realized the value she had. Everyone suffering. Her sister suffering from love disillusions. She almost dies. She makes everyone suffer. And she suffering from love disillusions and dealing with it intimately so as not to make anyone suffer. Her mother does not realize. Her sister does not realize. I will not make her suffer. I will suffer. And the sister falls apart. She almost dies. And she there, living the same thing. The sister had a love disillusion and she too.

She is there, in the center. Serving as a nurse to the sister, consoling the mother, and managing the situation. Absolutely sober. Epictetus, sorry, it was not Epictetus, it was Seneca, who was a great Roman philosopher, from a Stoic school, who spoke about the value of serenity. That's because today we do not consider serenity another value. I think the value is pure adrenaline. Take things to the last instance and emotional uncontrol. This is animalistic, this is not human. Epictetus had this sobriety in consideration, which is very important. This sobriety is the balance of feelings. Deep feelings

are sober. These passionate explosions are all passing. It is the polarity of superficial feelings, passion and hatred. Epictetus and Seneca and Marco Aurélio, who were the great theorists of Stoicism, took this issue of sobriety very seriously. Then he says that one day a person came to him and said, you have no feelings, you are an apathetic. Then he says he turned and answered, you are mistaken, I only have feelings. This is something else. Up there, the human nobility. Feelings that are guided by deep principles, sober, but that are guaranteed for life. No feeling of anger

changes throughout history. They are guaranteed for life. Sober, serene and lasting. This is the characteristic of true human feelings. While passions are oscillating and guarantee nothing. Capable of understanding social conventions as human needs, to make coexistence viable. When she stays, for example, we will see some bizarre characters, very superficially, she stays at a lady's house, Mrs. Jennings, who is that kind of kind neighbor, kind, but stingy, and who likes to get into everyone's life, she realizes she needs someone to listen to her. My time is not so precious, let me stop for a while and

listen to her. The sister went up the stairs and left her hostess talking to herself. And she says, no, I'm not that important, my time is not so precious, she needs to be heard. Let me sit here and listen to her. This will give her a great achievement that someone will hear her. She had to fulfill the social conventions in the place of the sister, for both of them. When the sister's conscience falls, she says, how much I enslaved you! To do for two what was fair. I never did. I enslaved you to be courteous

to me and to you. In other words, people needed to seem very important, she made people seem important. And she treated people with all consideration, seeing people from the point of view that they wanted to be seen. Although she knew that was a mask. Her sister-in-law was the most snobbish figure in the world and wanted to talk about her glories. She listened with consideration. Although she knew, she did not pamper, and knew exactly what her sister-in-law was. But it was a matter of affection, she needs so much of it, why am I going to take

it away from her? There's nothing else? She wants to appear important, let me hear. But always very sober, very serene, without adulation, without pampering. Nothing, nothing, nothing. And she is extremely polite, courteous, formal, protocol. All the social conventions she practiced, she understood and knew why. And justified. I do this because so-and-so will be fine. Everything, the way of sitting, the way of walking, the way of speaking, the way of treating people, everything of her. She drank the tea that Mrs. Jennings liked the most. And for me, whatever, and for her, I will have the pleasure

of being able to show myself, the way she likes it the most. All the conventions very well thought out and knowing what result she would generate. This really is the meaning of the human protocol. This is civilizing. It is not for English to see, it is not a formality, but it is to generate a human result, which I know what it will be. And therefore I respect that. Because if there is no human result, I do not respect. She is very selective, she knows what is worth doing and what is not. Formal by discernment and

not by hypocrisy. She is formal because she knows where it will take her. And not by hypocrisy. In a society where all formalities were fulfilled by manipulation. Then, on her return, you will see that there is a gallery. We've seen that, we're coming back. I'm coming back. I took just a few, but they are very funny. Her sister, Marianne, who is the girl with a lot of passion, in love, inconsequential, impulsive, passionate, who spends 90% of the romance thinking that she is the one who is right. Selfish, does not think of anyone's pain. She thinks

her pain is greater than everyone's. And demands that people are around her, taking care of her emotions. She is the sensitivity of the title. In fact, of susceptibility. The true feelings are those of Eleanor. Her passions are uncontrolled, which almost lead to death. She and the whole family. And it's interesting how she becomes aware of it, thanks to her sister. When the situation arises, when the two situations are compared, she becomes aware that she suffered more than passion, suffered from selfishness. She was a good person, but totally passionate. The Jennings represent that stereotype of the

attentive neighbor. Good and productive, but superficial and inconvenient. The actresses of this film are wonderful. When you look at her face, you can see what they are. Look how interesting. They talk all the time, they talk banality. They are good, they are well intended, but absolutely superficial and senseless. And Eleanor manages to maintain a good relationship with them all the time. She pays the price. She keeps them at a certain limit, does not let them invade. But she keeps a good relationship with them all the time. Lucy Steele is a character that I think is

wonderful. Lucy Steele, who is this one below, she is hypocrisy, she is a politician. She is hypocritical to the bone. Of course, Jane Austen exaggerated a little. But she is the stereotype of hypocrisy. She is an English politician of the 18th century. She has a personality for each person she confronts, to please, to manipulate. She manipulates people, always thinking that ... She quickly realizes what people like. And what people like becomes the most important thing in her life. And from that, she goes on piling up social positions. When she meets a noble family person who

has children, children are the most beautiful in the world. And so she conquers the esteem of families. She goes on piling up social positions. And Eleanor looks at her and sees clearly what she is and what she wants to look like. But she is all stereotyped. Smart manipulator and goes into the fringes of human passions to get her interests. A very, very caricature type. She is manipulative. Then we have Fanny, who is married to the brother of Eleanor and Marianne, who was the one who inherited all the fortune from her father. They were in misery.

Fanny is a socialite. Egoist, absolutely indifferent to human pain. Indifferent to the fact that the sisters-in-law were almost in misery. Wanting to show a social caste as if she were very noble. Absolutely vulgar and rude in her feelings. Fools, cruel and selfish. But she is stereotypical. She really describes all the psychological details of the way she looks. Always like this. Superior. The way she walks. All thought out to demonstrate the four corners of the world how superior she is to the rest of humanity. Also a very caricature figure. But you will see that until today

it is still very common. In this time of England it seems that she was also a very popular type. It was said who she was by the way she walked and looked at people on the street. Fanny was that. And more. There are many other male characters, including. She puts all the range of human alienations. For money. For vanity. For interests. For weakness. For lack. All range of human weaknesses. And Elinor, unbeatable in the middle. Unbeatable. Until you see that all these things converge for her. To recognize the value she had. Without her doing anything

more than what her conscience commands. So there is the final end where she can be happy forever with the man of her life. But everything converges for her. And she simply does what she considers her duty. She never manipulates, never simulates, never is appropriate, never. So it's very, very beautiful. A very interesting character. Now, formal. All the time formal. What is adequate, what is noble. What does not hurt people. What should be said, what should not. All the time formal. I don't know if you know a story that I really like to tell. I tell

you this because we have this prejudice in relation to formality. Which is one of the things we deal with in philosophy. It is said that there was a king who had a dream. And he called one of his counselors to try to decipher. Who was an albino, an albino. Then the counselor came and said. Our Majesty, what a horrible dream! This dream means that you will see all your relatives die. Then the king was outraged. How absurd! How do you tell me something like that? Guard! Give him ten slaps on this man! Call another counselor.

Then comes another counselor and tells him the same dream. The counselor says. What a beauty, Majesty! What a good albino! What? What is it? This dream says that you will live more than all your relatives. Oh! What a good albino! Guard! Give him ten gold coins! But the first one who had taken ten slaps was there at the door. He was outraged. Then the second one passed by and said. I'll tell you, you're a manipulator. Why? You said the same thing. I won ten slaps, you won ten gold coins. Then he explains to the other.

Look, you have to understand. The truth is like a precious stone. It is beautiful, it must be given. But you can't lose shape. Because even a precious stone, one thing is to put it in a box, put a bow, put a card and a flower together. Another thing is to throw it in someone's face. It can be an emerald, it can be a stone. So the truth must be given. The goodness must be given. But don't neglect the shape. It is as important as the content. It is an adequate way for you to break the

resistances and to be successful in delivering your gift. Do you realize that? Everything we teach when we talk about oratory, is an adequate way for what you have to say to reach your listener. So that you don't barge into the ranks of personality, into the existence of your listener. So we despise shape a lot in our everyday life. We can say that Danielson is a culture of form, of good form, of beautiful form. And that's the truth. Pride and Prejudice. If there is a fanatic for Danielson, it is because of Pride and Prejudice in the

first place. This is best seller, I don't know how many films I've heard about this book. Anyway, it is the book by which she became recognized, admired, although anonymous at the time of publication. Pride and Prejudice has a different detail, because it places two sisters as the center. A family that are all six sisters, and she places as the center the two oldest. And these two oldest complement each other. They were not so good alone. They had weaknesses, had weaknesses. But one of the weaknesses of one complemented the virtues of the other. We can say

that these two sisters, who are Lizzie, Jane and Bennet, are like Yin and Yang. Lizzie is very strong. And Jane is very sweet. And the two together were also the family's foundation. Because the family, to vary, is totally sultry. The whole family is very sultry. So you will see that Lizzie has a characteristic. She was not as beautiful, at least according to history, she was not as beautiful as the sister, but she was of intelligence, precision, finesse, a capacity to express herself properly, a depth to judge people. Very interesting. She represents this aspect of sagacity,

intelligence, and resistance to adversity. A very strong character. She seduces the famous Mr. Darcy. Mr. Darcy must be the dream of romanticism of most women in humanity. She seduces Mr. Darcy without any intention of seducing him. Just being firm, deep, which was rare in a woman of that time. Very mature, very intelligent, despite being a 20-year-old girl in the romance. So Lizzie is intelligent, sensible, respectful in relation to conventions. But frank. Very frank. Despite being careful with her walking, protocol with good posture. It is very interesting because there were certain conventions that we lost. For

example, when you were going to introduce a person to someone, you could not, a strange person, come and speak directly to someone. You had to have a third person who was a known intermediary. Who guaranteed the other that you were trustworthy, was honored, was worthy of being known. It was like a card. And when she speaks, when she does these things, she understands why. But this cannot be done, it has to be like that. Very similar to Eleanor in this aspect. Every convention she meets, she knows why. And when she doesn't know why, she doesn't

meet. Then she becomes a little bold and a little daring. It is a very beautiful passage that she is facing Mr. Darcy and a very, very foolish and superficial lady of society. And Mr. Darcy is talking about what a trapped woman is. A trapped woman is a woman who speaks several languages, who knows several arts, who knows how to dance, who knows I don't know what. There are very few that I know, no more than ten. Then she comes and says, admire that you know ten, I don't know any. You must be a monstrous being

to see yourself. He gets like this. But it was the woman who said something like that. Admire that you know ten, I've never seen any. That is, what is superfluous, what is banal, she is absolutely daring and punctual and sincere. Not that. But what she considers fair, she is a lady too. Very polite, knows how to position herself very well. She values ​​people more for what they are than for what they have. She refuses the richest man in society, which was Darcy, because he did not comply with the protocols that she considered of a fair

man. She had disrespected certain things that she did not accept. And she clearly despises him. I don't respect you because of this, this and this. Despite all your wealth. She despises people for their value and not for their price. What makes her an odd character at this moment. Loyal and valuable in adversity. Great companion, a really thinking brain of the family. A smart and strong woman. With a very well placed posture in front of life. But she has this weak point. She is critical. She is very imprudent in judging others based only on appearances. Sometimes

her hurry to not want to get involved with others, is not a good thing. She does not want to get involved with people who do not respond to her principles. She makes her a little hard and a little unfair. Now you will see that Jane is pure sugar. She has all these virtues that she maintains. She is good, fair, loyal in feelings. She is a lady. Now Jane is an interesting thing because the whole book Lizzie tries to convince her to criticize someone. And she does not. But she says, I didn't do that. No, you're

looking bad. Ask him, there must be another angle that you're not seeing. He must have an explanation for that. No. But it's possible. Do you think there is no one bad in the world? Completely bad? No. There is something you are not seeing. She is always polarizing in kindness, in good intentions. This makes her sometimes become a little naive. And also without the initiative of the other. Because the other is punctual. She is a little more shy. But the two together are sweetness and precision. Strength and softness. The two together are a point of gravity.

They are perfect. They are impeccable. In their vision of people, in their maturity. Two girls. This novel will put all the bizarre things in the world. The characters are very funny. The characters of the secondary school. Each one more crazy than the other. All the stereotypes, the eccentricities that the human being can generate. For those who have seen at least the movie, must remember some of these. These crazy characters. I got this version from 2005. Because it really is the one I like the most. Who has not watched the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice

with Keira Knightley? For me it is better. For those who like the BBC version. I really like this version. It is a primordial historical remake. A very beautiful movie. Her mother, Miss Bennet, is the craziest creature in the world. For her there is only one thing. Marry the girls. Hysterical, unbridled. Absolutely uncontrolled. Emotional control. Subject to constant hysterical crises. It is the emotional imbalance released to her own will. She plays the role of the hysterical. Her sisters. There are five in total. I said six. I added one more sister. She has Lydia, who is the

youngest. Who only thinks about one thing. Marriage. It is the total freedom of instincts. She does not respect any social convention. She ends up running away from a boy who did not love her. Without marriage. She compromises the whole family. This was a disgrace to the whole family. She compromised the sisters. She compromised the whole family. She is the empire of instincts. Without any sense. Without any measure. This would be considered very normal today. But at the time it was a scandal. Kitty is the stereotype of Maria going with the others. Since the sister has

a very strong personality, Lydia, she is just like the sister when she is with the sister. When she is far away, she is something else. According to the personality that is next to her. That is, the one who wants to be in the shadow of someone who drags her. Also a very common stereotype. She does not want to take positions. She wants to take the shadow of someone who takes them. So Maria goes with the others. She swears according to the other person's personality. Mary, who is the last one, was the least beautiful of the

sisters. So she has a complex that does not reveal her shadow. She tries to compensate for this by showing prominence in terms of knowledge. She reads directly, reads all the books in the library. She has a very poorly placed intellectualism. Superficial, inadequate. Because she doesn't like ideas. She is using ideas as a tool to compensate for her inferiority. She is a mess behind the other things she says. She wants to use intellectualism as a way to stand out. Since she has no other attributes. How many people do we know like this? Very common profiles. All

the time. And she is always inhabiting around the two sisters. Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who was a nobleman at the time. In English tradition, you only put the name of the person. The first name and the surname. She was a nobleman. She was a tyrant. She wanted everyone to do everything she wanted. And her poor daughter. She was a girl who was completely erased from the point of view of personality. Submissive to her mother. Two profiles. The tyrant and the submissive. Everything was spinning. She couldn't stand the boldness of Lizzie. She answered everything she asked.

She was well-answered. She was not used to anyone like that. She didn't let her decide things in her life. So it's a big shock between Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Charlotte Lucas, who was Lizzie's best friend. She is the needy. The one who wants to be loved at any cost. She accepts a ridiculous marriage to not be single. For fear of being a stigma in society. She is a single woman. She marries the most cartoon character in the book. Mr. Collins. He was a totally crazy reverend. These are patterns of female behavior. She is dissecting. Sometimes

like this, sometimes like that. Sometimes you see several of these characteristics in one person. She dissects. She puts in different characters. As if she were putting in contrast. The center is this. The periphery is these elements. Then you will see the behaviors. The way she speaks. The way she treats herself. She portrays the thoughts. The second intentions behind the acts. Very common things in the feminine world of all time. Only the Victorian dress has changed. The rest is more or less the same thing. This was a final placement. As I told you, I brought only

two novels. Just so we could get to know each other a little. To talk about the six would be complicated in a lecture. So you understand why the English love Jane Austen so much. Even today, with all the decline in values, that it is not only English, it is from the world. How this means to them, almost an expression of what they have of the most intimate as a collective identity. Which is an important thing. We realize our collective identity and respect it. Because it gives strength. Philosophically, the will, the determination of the human being,

is based on two things. Decision on the mental plane and perseverance and constancy on the physical plane. This from the individual point of view. You know who you are and keep pace with the things you consider consistent in your life. Decision on the mental plane and perseverance and constancy. If I want to keep your pace, or I hold you, if I want to disturb you, or I hold you on the physical plane. You lose the pace, but you resume it soon after. Or I enter your mental plane and make you doubt who you are. Then

it's more complicated. You say, I'm a person who seeks goodness and justice. Is it? Is there anything better for you to seek? Look, no one is looking for that, it should not be so good. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Only you are looking for that. If you stop to think, will it? You've already messed up everything. You've already lost the rhythm, you've lost the direction. And then, until you resume, you will have a very big wear to resume. In the same way that this is done individually, this is a collective

practice over time with the nations. You want to weaken a people? Or you will enter it, break everything, burn everything, make a war, destroy everything that it has, that is, break your rhythm. But you know that this does not always work, because Germany was all destroyed and then became a power. Japan was all destroyed and then became a power, that is, it resumes. Or you enter the identity of this people and make them be ashamed of what it is. That is, on the mental plane. Shame on national symbols, only used in the World Cup. Shame

on national folklore, it's all caipirice. Shame on all national traditions, it's all old stuff. It breaks there. You will realize that in a little while this people has no capacity for cohesion, has no self-love, has no self-confidence. You break everything like that. Do you understand that? This is a very interesting process. I knew many years ago, I went to an interview in Goiás Velho with a group of catireiros. They were old people in the age range of 70 years old. I remember that at the time it was a very precarious, very old camera. We filmed

it. He was crying saying, my son, my grandson, do not want to learn the catireiro. They only listen to the sartanejo. They think that catireiro is old stuff. Catireiro will die with me. And I was thinking, my God, how people do not realize that behind this there is a loss that is not only individual, but collective. An identity, a certain sense of loving what we are, to ennoble what we are. A certain recognition that does not make me sad. That despises the identity of others. On the contrary, to respect others, you have to respect yourself.

Who does not respect himself, does not respect anyone. You realize that this English profile is very entrenched in the posture of Jane Austen. I took a scene for you to try to explain this. I do not know if I will be happy. It was a last presentation of those games of the United Kingdom, which are Commonwealth Games. I discovered this by chance, because I was looking for a certain singer that I like a lot. And she was singing at the opening of these games. And I found it very interesting. Because it was a wonderful presentation.

First the person sang, then the English army entered, marching, doing juggling with those Scottish skirts. Very beautiful presentation. Suddenly the Air Force entered with those fighters, blowing smoke with the color of the flag of England. It was a great show. But all that was just the preamble. Do you know what was really important? The arrival of the Queen. Everyone was anxious. You saw in the audience, people looking at the tunnel. Is she coming? The real show was the arrival of the Queen. When the Queen arrived, everything stopped. All that noise stopped. A carriage entered, which

was a carriage that even admired me, as modest as it was. A little thing, sober, simple. And an old woman came down to me, an extremely sober and simple old woman, with a black scarf, a beige and light dress. Simple, too simple. She takes the hand of a knight, goes as if it were a lever. Then comes a young man, he is right here, a little boy, with that Irish style, with a very discreet flower bouquet. She arrives, delivers the bouquet, she takes the bouquet, smiles, puts it against her chest and kisses him. People go

to delirium. It's like England was there, kissing her children. People go to delirium. You need to realize. She stays there for ten minutes. She gets in her carriage and leaves. The whole show was for this moment, the climax. You realize that people feel identity. We have a queen. We have a center. We have nobility. Simply a person who does not need to be exceptionally virtuous, but who gave herself the sacrifice of being discreet and sober to represent a spirit, to be a symbol. She knows that the English need this symbol. It's good that she's alive,

because her descendants, we will not go into these details, did not get the spirit well. But she is a point of gravitation of British consciousness. Roger Scruton talks about it. The day this queen dies, I do not know if it will be from England. His descendants did not get the idea well. It's like England kissing your children. She gets in her carriage and leaves. Do you know what it feels like to me, in a society like ours and many others in the world, that it's like we were that boy who had that bouquet of flowers

in hand and had no one to give it to. An empty center. Do you know that you collectively feel like you have no mother? It's something like that. We have an empty center. No one gives himself the sacred duty to be a little nobler to represent the collective imaginary. A symbol. No one gives himself this sacred duty. To be a little nobler, a little more discreet, occupy a role that people need. In the myth of King Arthur, Arthur arrives in Guinevere when he says goodbye to her and says we meet again when we owe nothing

to history. At that moment we have to represent an idea. You can't think about the staff. So it's there. Giving himself the sacred duty, sacrificing personal interests, personal spontaneities, to embody a symbol. I don't know if you saw that movie Elizabeth. Very interesting that she realizes this. England needs a symbol. She says, you and me. She feels the devotion of Catholics to the Virgin and says, I will represent the archetype of the Virgin. You and me, the Virgin Queen. That is, she understands the symbol. She understands the power of the symbol, which was what Jung

said. There is a very beautiful movie that he talks about, Mysteries of the Heart, a DVD that was made, with footage of him still alive. He says, people despise psychological chaos as a source of destruction. They think humanity will be destroyed by hunger, by misery. Humanity will be destroyed by lack of symbols. It is a psychological chaos where nothing stands still. This idea is very interesting. People don't realize how heavy it is. England has the size it has, the weight it has, because it has a queen. Sometimes it is empty. I was at a shopping

mall talking a little about Renaissance art. You realize that it is an art that is all engraved in perspective for a center, which always represents the sacred. You take certain contemporary experiences, the center is empty. It is as if this existential emptiness that we are in was shown. Without having anyone to deliver our bouquet of flowers. If you don't find this center outside, symbolically represented, you also don't find it inside. Because inside us there is also a queen. Something sacred, a center around which everything gravitates. We deliver the bouquet of the nobility of our life.

Because otherwise life becomes eccentric, it can generate madness. Madness is a kind of eccentricity. Loss of a center, loss of a reference, according to which your life gravitates and represents nobility for you. And when I went to this scene, guess who I thought of? Jane Austen! Jane Austen is a worthy subject of the queen. That's why the English like her so much. She represents this archetype. Her heroines are archetypes, symbols of what nobility is, of what a worthy human being is, who could occupy the center without any problem. Her fundamental characters are centers, they are

like queens. And if you understand this, you will realize the appeal she has for 200 years. Anything else is nonsense. For me, this is the reason for the fascination of Jane Austen. She is a queen, a worthy subject of the English nobility. That's why the English understand each other so much, they think so much when she comes. Although I think this archetype she represents is universal. It serves all humanity. But for England it is a pride. I brought you just two more little sentences and we're done. This one, once again, is confusing. He talks about

knights, but we could also talk about ladies, about all human species. The virtue of the knight is like the wind. The virtue of the common man is like the grass. May the wind blow on the grass. And it will certainly bend. You realize, when you look at certain political and economic chaos that we live in at the moment, you realize that all these countries that have economic stability, they were already there. They have leveraged it. You will see the English society at that time, when you say economic, it was chaos. The life expectancy of the

common man, of the people, was 22 years old. Child mortality was crazy. Why did they get out of there? There was an idea behind it that leveraged. We look and say, this mess will not have come out. If you have a powerful, noble, vertical idea, you have. Because ideas shape the world. Just as the world loses its shape when it loses what shapes it, which is the spiritual. Ideas shape the world. If there is a noble idea, pull it up. And with the passage of time, you see that there is a way out. The way

out is up, like a ladder. It's no use wanting to go forward. You have to go up to the next step. Look up. If there are values behind it, you don't know how, but things are pulled and go to another level. All these countries went through economic chaos that would not distinguish from any very poor and current country. You realize that behind the economic explanations and structuralist conditions, whatever it is, those who took them from there were values. A deep belief in these values. When Japan was out of the war, the emperor came there and

opened the jewels of Amaterasu, the goddess of the sun, and said, we are descendants of the sun. We are noble, we are descendants of the sun, we will not leave. And they left. I think without Amaterasu, they would not have left. Let's not despise the value of symbols in human life. We don't know the power that has this. And finally, almost, the penultimate scene, another piece of Jung, so you can see how beautiful, strong and real this is. The absence of symbols generates the hallucination of loneliness. And a loneliness that cannot be mitigated by anything.

Symbol represents outside your own center. And loneliness is a lack of yourself. And if you don't have a center, you miss yourself. It is a loneliness that is not mitigated by anything. The simple fact that someone lives a symbolic life has an extraordinarily civilizing influence. These people are much more civilized and creative because of symbolic life. Only rational people have little influence. Everything in them is a discourse. And with discourse you don't go far. Isn't it beautiful, people? And it's not obvious that it's really like that. It's not obvious. Think about it when you read

a novel like this. Try to understand more than mere appearances. And finally, as we are talking about symbols, I brought a symbol for you. The idea of ​​this lecture is to be in a small cycle of two weeks talking about a feminine ideal. This is a symbol. Throughout history, the sea is very much associated with the feminine ideal. The waters are symbols of the material world. And it is said that the most beautiful way to slip through the material world is the one of the swan. No gesture ceases to be beautiful, courteous, generous. But it

is a strong bird. It gives some bites that are capable of tearing pieces. It is strong, it is consistent, but there is no movement in vain. It slides through the waters of life all the time demonstrating the ethics that are the beauty of the soul, the aesthetics that are the beauty of the body. It would be the ideal of the swan. It is very common in the universal imagination for ladies to feel swans. Or at least to pretend that. And this symbol is sometimes highly structuring. It is humanizing. We have to understand that symbols build

men. They are not mental fictions. They are tools for the construction, for the structuring of the human psyche. I could say, without fear of making mistakes, that the female characters of Jane Austen, the central characters, are cis. And she sees and seeks this in a very conscious way. And she ironizes everything that comes out of this center. That's why it is so structuring and so beloved. No one would love entertainment so much. For 200 years? No. Time is a good judge. He judges what is futile and what is profound. Well, that's it. I hope I

have generated at least one curiosity of yours in relation to... Don't read Jane Austen, because this is secondary. Everyone knows what they can or can't read. But about the symbolic need of the human being. To see through things. If you don't just settle for appearances. That this can generate a reflection, a change of posture in front of life. Let's know what is really important in what we live. The idea of ​​the ceremonial, of the way that expresses the human ideal. That expresses good, beautiful and fair. The ways have to serve that. You have to wrap

this precious stone well. So that it manifests itself in the world in an adequate way. That's it. I open to questions, if there are any questions. I have a question for you. If you don't mind. Why did you choose the feminine and not the masculine? Why? I'm a woman, that's why. Actually, I dreamed for a long time of doing this lecture. I didn't think exactly that way. I started talking about Jane Austen. But as Melissa was making an idea of a programming more focused on the feminine, I took only the feminine aspect. But it would

be possible to do the same with the male. But I hope a knight does it. You know, right, Victor? I hope a knight does it. That would have more property to do this. But at first I didn't think about doing this. I thought about talking about the work as a whole. What else, people? Any more questions? Next week we will talk a little about the feminine. But from the point of view of Greek-Roman mythology. Gods and heroines. The gods and the heroines that inspired them. It's a very beautiful lecture. Very interesting. What about the two-weeks?

We usually have lectures several days a week. You can take a look at the booklet. But this feminine cycle is two-weeks. And I'm not going to do the masculine cycle. It's Victor who will do it. There is much more. There is much more. What? There is much more. And the feminine cycle is two-weeks. Certainly. You can explore about several aspects. There is a lot of variety. We even have a DVD lecture on YouTube. For those who are interested. It's about the feminine ideal. You know that most of our lectures are released on YouTube. It's a

good program to watch at the weekend. There are very interesting themes. One of them is the feminine ideal. There is a myth, a book by Biver, which is a myth of the first woman who had a body covered with red hair. She didn't submit to Adam and ran away. Then Eve was created. There are many possibilities. According to Helena Blavatsky, a great philosopher, any of these symbolic traditions can be faced in three aspects. Historical, mythical and mystical. There may be a myth. It may be the human being not knowing how to deal with his animal

part. But there may also be something historical. It is that moment when a man begins to conquer a human condition. He is leaving the animal condition. That moment when he is verticalizing towards the human condition. He leaves behind the animal condition. He joins the human. So there are many possibilities. It is a Kabbalistic myth linked to the Old Testament. The limit myth. You talked about... I'm a writer, I'm a writer, I'm a writer. I'm a writer. I'm a writer. I'm a writer. I had a class, I was a Russian. A great woman. Certainly. The story

is marked by great women. Helena Blavatsky. I was a person who nobody knew. A voice, a person who knew. I met two great women. They passed and pursued humanity. I think that maybe it fits more... In other classes. Because it is a question of... How did the women get to the bottom of the story of the love of the sea? In fact, the whole human being was stoned. It was reduced to very little. In fact, brilliant female characters, we would have a lot to talk about. I don't know if you've ever watched a film called

Ágora, which tells the story of Patia de Alexandria. Too much. Too much. Ágora tells the story of a great philosopher, Patia de Alexandria. Brilliant. It is very worth knowing. There were very great women in history. In fact, history is the story of the victorious, as they say. Of those who prevail historically and erase many people. There are many good people there that we have never heard pronounce their name. The idea of ​​making the lecture is exactly to spread and teach people to see it correctly. Because I can't stand the number of people saying that... Khalil

Gibran, Jane Austen, is a thing for lovers. To write love letters. A lack of knowledge and a superficial vision. Ok? I have a question. My story is about the women. Which one? My story is about the women. And the question is this. How much are women absent from the construction of the history of society? Not in the sense of participation, but in the historical record. I'm very concerned about... She did a vast research. She is an anthropologist, a scholar. And she did a vast research. And she saw how much... She found the historical record about

women in diaries. In things that are not common. Not in books. Not in cases. But she found beautiful things. And there are beautiful things. Because of this secondary role that women have in society. You will realize that in history this has often happened. The historical record was flawed. But I think that in our historical moment something even worse happens. They put in the woman's head that for her to have value she has to imitate the man. So the woman abandons the feminine. The feminine was abandoned by women. So we are a society set on one

leg. If you consider that sexism is not the imposition of the man over the woman. It is the masculine values ​​over the feminine. So women can be sexist. When they think that to be successful they have to be equal to a man, they are sexist. They consider that the female role, the yin and yang, is inferior. So the wheel is crooked, because a piece is smaller. So the worst for me is this. When women deny. So the feminine. Because then the situation gets complex. Who will live it? I don't understand it anymore. Well, that's it.

I thank you very much for your presence. And until next time.