Final answer:
The French 'moralistes' of the XVIIth century differ from Renaissance humanists. They were more conservative, focusing on the necessity of societal control and the inherent flaws in human nature, unlike humanists who believed in improving humanity through classical education and piety.
Step-by-step explanation:
The French moralistes of the XVIIth century, while focused on human behavior and ethics, are distinct from Renaissance humanists in several ways. Renaissance humanism, particularly in its northern European 'Christian humanism' form, emphasized a blend of classical learning and early Christian teachings aimed at improving the human soul and reforming the church. Italian humanism also revered the value and dignity of humans, promoting a balance of ancient cultural studies and devout Christianity to achieve a 'good life' and beneficial societal change.
Conversely, the moralistes, who came later, were more pessimistic about human nature. For instance, conservative thinkers like Joseph de Maistre refuted the Enlightenment belief in inherent human goodness and rationality, positing instead that human nature was marred by original sin. His advocacy for strong hierarchies and the church's role in regulating moral behavior was at odds with the humanists' confidence in human potential and the pursuit of secular knowledge to enhance society.
In summary, while both groups took interest in human affairs, their underlying beliefs and purposes diverged significantly. The moralistes were less optimistic about human nature and heavily favored structured societal control, distancing them from the humanist ideal of improving human life through classical learning and inner piety.