University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Study Of The Origin, Content, And Literary Significance Of The 'Eloges Academiques' Of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert

(USC Thesis Other)

A Study Of The Origin, Content, And Literary Significance Of The 'Eloges Academiques' Of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright by HOPE HASKELL HAYTON 1959 A STUDY OF THE ORIGIN, CONTENT, AND LITERARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IzLOGES ACADEMIQUES OF JEAN LE ROND D'ALEMBERT by Hope Haskell Hay ton A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY O F THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (French) June 1959 UNIVERSITY O F S O U TH E R N C A LIFO R N IA GRADUATE SCHOOL. U N IV E R S ITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7 , C A LIF O R N IA This dissertation, written by ..................................H Q fie..H askeJ.i..hiay.J‘ .C !.n .......................... under the direction of h.&c....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements fo r the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Da,,............ ..................................................... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE P Chairman ........ kj«£U hi, CONTENTS j CHAPTER ] I I . INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ! I TE. ELOGES ACADEMIQUES................................................................................... j HE. THE COMPOSITION AND PUBLICATION OF D’ALEMBERT’ S ELOGES . TV- D'ALEMBERT’S ROLE IN THE FRENCH ACADEMY ................................ I 2. THE PATTERN OF D’ALEMBERT'S £LOGES................................................. Y E. D’ALEMBERT'S EARLIEST ELOGES ........................................................... i ------------------------------ j Montesquieu | L'Abbe Mai let I Du Marsafs I BernoulI I Jean Terrasson ! VTT. ELOGES OF THE GREAT PULPJT-ORATORS .............................................. Mass I I Ion I Fenelon j Bossuet | Fllchier I I VTTT. ELOGES OF OTHER CHURCHMEN................................................................ Surian Saint-Pierre L’Abbe de Choisy JX. POETS OF THE GRAND SIECLE ................................................................ Despreaux [Bolleau] Charles Perrault Jean Segrais | X. FOUR PLAYWRIGHTS...................................................................................... j Destouches Nivelle de La Chauss^e La Motte Crib!I Ion CHAPTER X L A LAWYER AND A SOLDIER . De Sacy Milord MarechaI [Keith] ; XTT. ELOGE OF MARIVAUX . . . ;XnT. D’ALEMBERT AND FONTENELLE XEE. CONCLUSION............................ •BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Jean Le Rond D’Alembert (1717-1783), though universally recognized as one of the most bri I 1 1 ant luminaries of I ’Age des Lumieres, has been strangely neglected, perhaps because of the very diversity of his t a l ents. There exists, for example, no single synthetic biography of D’Alembert that Is in any degree adequate. D'Alembert f ir s t acquired fame as a geometrician and physicist. His renown in these domains was firm ly established through the attach ment of his name to certain principles of physics and to certain mathe matical devices. He is likewise s u ffic ie n tly remembered as the author of the great Dlscours PreIim inaire, introducing the work which became the very symbol of the French Enlightenment, the EncycIop&dle. Musicolo gists remember him for his treatises on music and harmony. Historians remember him for his polemical writing against the Jesuit Order. Ana lysts of eighteenth-century sen sib ility know D’Alembert as the trag i cally unrequited lover of Julie de Lespinasse. His role as ’’ liaison o ffic e r ” between various intellectual centers throughout Europe has re ceived some consideration. Thus far, however, he has earned but slight recognition for the writings he produced as secretaire perpetuel of the French Academy. During his I Iterary career, D’Alembert wrote over sixty 6 loges academiques, many of which he delivered in person before the general 2 assembly. In performing this o ffic ia l task with s k ill and distinction he proved himself a worthy successor to Fontenelle ( |6 9 9 -|7 4 0 j who, as secretaire perpfetuel of the Academy of Sciences, was the f ir s t to d e li ver vies des savants in the guise of eloges academiques. Several contemporary writers, including Grimm, Diderot, and Vol- J ta lre , mention D’Alembert's eloges favorably. Later on, Larroumet took: I I the Marivaux eulogy as the basis for his work on that e igh teen th-centuryj playwright. Sim ilarly, Sainte-Beuve, in preparing his causeries, referred to D'Alembert's miniature biographies as valuable source ma te ria l. Bertrand, in his study of the eminent scientist-phiIosopher D’Alembert, speaks approvingly of him in this same regard. Thus far, however, no c r itic has thought to consider these Sloges as a significant self-contained I Iterary unit. The purpose of this dissertation Is to examine D'Alembert’ s eloges as thoroughly as possible In terms of their origins, content, style, 1 and significance in the French I Iterary tradition, A review of the ; eulogistic genre, from the establishment of the French Academy In 1635 i ; to the early years of the eighteenth century, will provide the prelim i- 1 i nary background. An Investigation of the traditional types of Eloges j | acad&miques, with their modification under Duclos, will conclude the j f ir s t section. Since the eloge hlstorique as developed by D’Alembert j Is the object of Immediate interest, another chapter w ill be devoted to that particular form of eulogy. Several chapters w ill be devoted to the study of Individual eloges according to the rank or profession of the deceasedacademlclans. Cer tain strikingly original eulogies w ill be considered In separate 3 chapters. The last part of this dissertation w ill Include an account of D’Alembert’ s relations with Fontenelle and a comparison of the eulo gistic writings of these two men. Fin ally, It will be shown that D'Alembert, with his wide perspective, original ideas, and keen percep-j tion, transformed the &loge academique into something closely akin to a; j new Iite ra ry genre, which foreshadowed certain later developments in Iiterary criticism and biographical writing. CHAPTER H ELOGES ACADEMIQUES The term eloge academique Is almost self-explanatory. In the general meaning It Is simply a eulogy delivered, or intended for delivery, at some learned academy. Thus, the eloge academique is a particular form of public praise, usually of an individual, and less frequently of a group of persons. It may, moreover, even constitute high commendation of some specific action or Idea. As such, the academic eulogy Is as old as the academies themselves. Its origin in modern times must be traced at least as far back as the early academies in Renaissance Italy.* In France, however, the real beginnings of the iloge academique were practically simultaneous with the founding of the French Academy j In the early part of the seventeenth century. Within a few years eulo-i i i ;g!es of the kind just described became the dominant type of academic I ' j joratory. Since 161j.O, when the lawyer, Olivier Patru, delivered the | I i f i r s t extravagantly panegyrical discours de reception, the eloge acade- ; j mlque has been more or less constantly Identified with a particular form of Insincere and fulsome fla tte r y . A splendid analysis of this *The most celebrated was the Accademla della Crusca, founded in Florence in 1582. The purpose of Its establishment was to ”4purer la langue et la lltte ra tu re ItaIien n es ,w The Accademla della Bologna ( I69O) was one of the ear I lest sclent I f I c institutions of the Renaissance period. Larousse du Sg6 Slecle, ed. Paul Auge, I (Paris, 1928), 29. seventeenth-century eloge academique Is given by Maurice Hougardy In his La Parole en Publlque; Essai sur la Rhetorfque et I 'Eloquence i Aujourd'hui et dans le Passei I L'eloquence academique s'est proposee d'abord sous la forme de i'eloge: non pas I'llo g e tempere de discernement critique, mais la louange fastueuse, magniflant les merites, excusant les Imperfections, 1 et pour ainsi dire malheureuse de se sentlr Impuissante a d e lfle r davantage. i La lecture des discours academiques revele que non seulement I'academlclen decede, dont le successeur dolt fa ire le panegyrlque, avalt toutes les vertus, mais que le nouvel elu, des lors q u 'II a franchl le seuiI des Quarante, est devenu I ' irreprochable perfection, j Du m erne coup, la nature de I'eloge et son caractere commandent le choix des mots, la construction des phrases, I'arrangement des idees, de fagon que les discours itendent sur I'Immortelle assemblee la double caresse d'une pensee louangeuse et d'une forme chatoyante. C'est ici surtout que le mot "academique" applique a I'Eloquence a fin l par prendre un mauvais sens et par se dire en mauvaise p a rt. 2 Hougardy goes on to admit that the academic eulogy underwent con siderable modification from the time of Its Inception by Patru up to the Revolution. The eloges of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert, which form the sub- 1 :ject of this dissertation, bear an outward family resemblance to the jearliest dlscours de reception and to their adjuncts, the eloges de con-j cours. Yet, as a matter of fact, D'Alembert's eloges academiques, In their whole structure, purpose, and tone, have l i t t l e in common with their seventeenth-century forebears. ; The modifications that took place may be most easily classified by considering the main forms of eloge academique which gradually developed within the French Academy and Its younger s ister, the Academy of Sciences. 2 (Paris, 19i)-6), pp. 176-177. The body of academic eulogies up to 1789 fa lls quite neatly into three traditional types: I'eloge de reception, I'eloge de concours, and l'eloge hlstorlque. Since D'Alembert's Iloges may be d e fin ite ly j classified in this la tte r group, the &Ioge historique w ill become the I principal interest of our study. W e shall discover, however, that this; particular form of the academic eulogy has close historical relations with the f i r s t two types. The eloge academique, or dlscours de reception, was the oration delivered by a new member on the occasion of his o ffic ia l and formal admission Into the august assembly of the Forty Immortals. In r e a lity , however, this dlscours de reception was frequently a panegyric, f,au style recherchS, redondant, sur des motifs souvent fu tile s et generale- ment peu sinceres” (p. 177). The director of the French Academy usually replied, eulogizing the life and achievements of the recently-elected academician. It has already been stated that O livier Patru was the ;f ir s t member to deliver a dlscours de reception. On the day of his o ffic ia l entrance Info the French Academy he created a sensation by presenting a eulogistic oration In which he expressed appreciation for i the high honor bestowed upon him. So pleased were Patru's colleagues jwith this gallant and generous gesture that they made of his eloge de reception a precedent to be followed in the future by a ll newly-elected members of the French Academy ( Larousse, U , 889; 2 , 1+21). Except for a few brief years during the Revolutionary period, this tradition has continued unbroken to the present day. The dlscours de reception were eventually printed in Innumerable volumes en titled Memo I res which Hougardy describes thus: 7 Les dlscours de reception pr§sentaient des developpements fastidieux, non tant par I'incessante tonalite Iouangeuse ou ii leur f a l l a l t se tenlr que par I ’ Impossfbi I Ite des auteurs a renouveler la forme de j l ’ eloge oblige. A ce point de vue, lire un discours d'Academie equivaut a les lire tous. II en est du moins alnsl jusqu’ a Fenelon, j qul ne cralgnlt pas de substltuer a la louange r ltu e lle des vues sur | les conditions de I'oeuvre lltte r a lr e . A la suite de F&neion, La ‘ Bruyere, Voltaire et Buffon renoncerent au dlscours d’ eioge. Celui-ci comportait Invarlablement des compliments au ro i, a Richelieu, fondateur de I ’Academie, a toute |a Compagnie, et a I ’ academiclen auquel le nouvel Immortel succedait. Faut-iI dire que cette eloquence est necessaIrement monotone et froide? (pp. JOl-302) The eloges de concours are also of seventeenth-century origin. At , the outset, these competitive orations could be called lloges only by j stretching the term to its extreme lim its. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, however, they were to become eulogies In the s t r ic t est sense of the term. The eloges de concours were, in fact, the direct result of a suggestion and monetary bequest made to the French Academy by Guez de Balzac ( 1597- I 69I4 .) ( Larousse, I , 189). In 165]+ this dis tinguished academician Instituted the pri x d’£Ioquence; and for the continued financial support of this oratorical contest, he generously gave to the ccmpany a large sum of money. The interest on this amount was to be presented to a man of letters whose eloge d’ el oquence had been', (judged the best oration by the Forty Immortals. It must be pointed out,: however, that the prlx d’ lloquence was not awarded in monetary form in j ; | .its e arlie st period. In his monograph "Les Transformations du Prix d’Eloquence" Felix Hemon describes the original prix thus: Le prix consistait primltivement en "un c ru c ifix , ben!tier, ou quelque autre sembjable piece d’argenterie ou de vermeil dore." Plus tard, les laur^ats regurent une medal lie d’ or qul portalt d’ un cote I ’ image de saint Louis, de I ’ autre une couronne de laurier avec la devise de I ’Academie: "A I f JmmortaI I t e . "3 ^Revue Politique et L itt e r a ir e ,' 8 avri I 1882, p. ij.18. 8 Judging by what Himon te lls us, Balzac In presenting his prix d1eIoquence conceived a two-fold purposes to encourage les amateurs de I belles-lettres to consecrate their b r illia n t minds and creative talents to God, and to deliver scholarly orations for the benefit of the iAcademy. Because of their high moral value and sp iritu al tone, these dlscours academiques resembled sermons. Commenting upon their peculiar ; | I nature Hemon states: Pourqu'on ne se trompSt point sur le caractere de ce prix, destinl a exciter les personnes de lettres a consacrer a Dieu les lumieres de leur esprit, et a composer de temps en temps des tra ites de piete pour sa gloire, un reglement s tip u la lt que ce discours— il serait plus exact de dire des sermons— approuves par deux docteurs de I'orthodoxe Sorbonne devaient §tre precedes d'une epigraphe empruntee a I'E criture Sainte, et terminee par une courte prlere a Jesus-Christ. D 'a ille u rs , Balzac avalt prle d'Indlquer lul-mfme dix sujets de dlscours a tra ite r , ’’success! vement et perpetueI Iement.” II s u fflra , je pense, pour les caracteriser d'Indlquer le sujet du sixleme: ”Ave Maria, gratia plena.'” (pp. J+l8- 419) Because of unforeseen d iffic u ltie s arising In the French Academy, Balzac's wishes were not made effective until some time after his death. In I6 7I Mile de Scudery became the f i r s t person to win the coveted prix ; id' e 1oquence. With regard to her academic eulogy H£mon remarks: ”Sa mldltatlon sur la gloire humalne et divine e ta lt plus ediflante que ivraiment eioquente” (p. iq.1 9). Balzac's prix d'eloquence quickly proved most attrac tive and j desirable to many men of letters, but particularly to the members of the clergy. The principal contestants and, In frequent instances, the win ners In the concours academiques were prominent representatlves of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not surprising, therefore, that their eloges d '4 1oquence gradually developed into moral sermons, or religious panegyrics, which followed a comparatively uniform pattern as to content, 9 tone, and style. Hemon points outs ! Pendant toute cette longue periode, les sermons ont succede aux sermons, les lieux aux Iieux communs, avec une regularlte que le lecteur aura It droit de trouver monotone. Rien ou presque rien n'a paru qul fasse honneur aux Iettres. Si I'on est Itonne d'une chose, c'est qu'un genre si faux a it pu se maintenir pres d'un siecle. Avec quelle curiosite ironique les Iibres esprits du XVlITe siecle: devaient conslderer ce legs venerable du passe, ces textes, "faits pour le slminaire de Saint Sulpice.'" (Citation d'une le ttre de Voltaire a Thomas, le 22 septembre, 1765.) (pp. ii.I8-lj.l9) In l69ij one of these erudite clergymen, M. de Clermont-Tonnerre, the Bishop of Noyon, was elected to the French Academy. Five years later he established a "prix de poesie"; but in 1755 la fondation de Balzac, le prix d'eloquence, and la fondation de Clermont-Tonnerre, le prix de polsle, were combined, henceforth to be presented In alternate years (p. 120). M. de CIermont-Tonnerre was under the deep conviction that "le principal objet de I'Academie est de consacrer le nom de I ' incomparable Louis a I ' immortaI Ite" (p. 120). Consequently, he prescribed that the subject matter of the lloges poetlques be the g lo rific a tio n of the royal monarch. As a result of this stipulation, the contestants for the prix ide poesie soon excelled In delivering extravagant eulogies, replete with i " ' ~ 'hyperbole and excessive praise of Le Roi So IeI I . Concerning these !effusive panegyrics Paul L. Mesnard makes this comment in his history , of the French Academyi La fla t t e r ie qui redigeatt les textes, sur lesquels devaient s'exer- cer les poStes de concours, leur donnait quelquefols une forme singullerei . . . Le nouvel encouragement, I'elan plus v if donne par M. de Clermont-Tonnerre a cette ardeur de la passion monarchIque produisit pour le premier concours qui sulvlt sa fondation, c 'e s t-a - dire pour celui de 1701, un sujet plus hard! et plus mervelIIeux encore: "Que le roi possede dans un degre si eminent toutes les 10 vertus, qu’ ll est impossible de juger quelle est ceI Ie qui f a i t son principal caractere. In the f ir s t decade of the eighteenth century certain academicians began to reveal a changed attitude toward the King. Refusing to con- .! sider him In fa llib le , they no longer wished to lavish undue praise upon the Monarch In their lloges academiques. The Abbe de Saint-Pierre ( I65B-17^1-3) > bolder and more outspoken than his co I I eagues, even went so| far as to suggest a definite reform in his Discours sur la Polysynodie ■ (1718). According to him, the contestants In the concours academiques ! should have the privilege and the liberty of selecting as subjects of their eulogies truly great men and national heroes, rather than Louis 2EZ. To prove the fu ll strength of his convictions in this important matter, Saint-Pierre prepared for the proposed innovation a specific plan, Projet pour rendre I ’Academie des Bons Ecrivains plus u tile a I*E ta t. The Abbl's real purpose Is clearly explained by Mesnardt Son projet . . . fut une sincere proposition de reforme et non une Iptgramme. Les innovations qu’ il imaginait, ces vies des hommes | i 11 ustres, que I ’Academie aural t ecrites pour perfect! onner le~moeursl de la nation, ces Inscriptions qu’el le aurait compos4es a la louange'j des bons reglements et des bons etablIssements que font tes bons I ro ts, pouvafent quelquefots fa 1 re sourlre; mais devaient surtout fa lre aimer tant de candeur, fa ire estimer une passion si vrale du j ! bien public. (p. 5^) 1 i 1 i It must be noted that Saint-Pierre’ s Discours sur la Polysynodie ! appeared in print just three years afte r the death of Louis XEZ, but in r e a lity this work was a clever satire and a severe attack upon the I jdeceased King and his monarchy. So violent became the reaction of the jother academicians to Saint-PIerre's outspoken criticism and flagrant ^L’ HIstoIre de I ’Acadimie Frangaise depuis sa Fondation Jusqu’ a 1830 (Par is, J925) , p. j l ± . _________ 1 _______________ ..............._I Z Z I L disloyalty that all of them, except Fontenelle, voted to expel the Abbe1 j from their distinguished assembly. After his death, Saint-Pierre was | welcomed back in s p irit to the fold of the Forty Immortals. Mesnard j describes this memorable occasion In this passage: L'abbi de Saint-Pierre ne devait que beaucoup plus tard etre r lc o n c lli! avec I'Acadlmle. Ce fut seulement, a la rlception de Ma I esherbes en 1775 que d'Alembert put louer cet homme de blen, et dlplorer la condamnatlon qui I'a v a it frapp!, Ce jour ou I'e s p rit des; reformes politiques eta tt salue par I'Acadlmie avec tant d’entousiasme: dans la personne d'un grand cltoyen, eta It le plus opportun qu'on eut | pu cholsir pour la rlhabiI Itation de Saint-Pierre. Son eloge fut prononce a sa veritable date; car ses utopies appartenaient plutot a I cette epoque qu'a ceIle ou elles avaient ete prematurlment revees. II avait eu beaucoup des aspirations de la seconde mol t i l du dix-huitieme siecle, les plus honnltes et les plus sinceres, sinon toujours les molns chlmeriquesj e t, dans I'Acadlmle de Louis XEZ, il avait ete le prlcurseur de I'Sge qui a l l a i t suivre. . . . (p. 56) In 1755 the Acadlmie nominated Duel os as the eighth secretaire perpetuel. It was only afte r his election, however, that the Quarante ImmorteIs gave any consideration to the revolutlonary ideas of the’ deceased Abb! de Saint-Plerre, As a loyal and enthusiastic friend of !the ph iIosophes , Duclos used his personal influence and o ffic ia l authority to Institute a drastic reform with respect to the subjects jselected by the contestants for the prix de concours. Instead of the jlengthy orations on religious themes and the monotonous homilies on j ;moral questions, the new secretary substituted eulogies of great men, ! the most eminent personalities in the world of p o litic s , science, and literatu re. Although Duclos' reform eventually created a precedent for the lloge hlstorlque, it did not produce any Immediate effect or radical change in the traditional tone and style of the lloge de concours, Hlmon so aptly states: i C 'l t a l t une rlvolution en apparencej au fond ce n ' l t a l t qu'une 12 i evolution de I'eloquence academique. La forme seule avait change, j car I'eloge e ta lt I'h e r itie r direct et tres reconnaIssable du Sermon.; Genre equivoque par excellence, II tenalt a la fo is du panegyrique etj de I'h ls to ire , de la dissertation et de I'oraison funebre. (p. 1+19) ■ Commenting upon this change, which actually became effective in j 1759, Luclen Brunei also emphasizes the fact that the new or trans formed eloge de concours retained much of Its original nature: Revolution serait peut-Stre en e ffe t trop fo rt, et I * on a raison de dire qu'entre les anciennes oeuvres couronnles et les nouvelles il y a plus qu'un a ir de fam ille. Toutefols ce qui est change, c'est I'essentiel; ce n'est pas la forme, c'est bien 1'esprit e t le fond: i I'eloge est encore un sermon, une pridlcation, mais qui n'a p 1 us rien! de chretien, une pridlcation lafque, ph i losop hi q ue, po litiq u e . ' 5 From the time of D'Alembert's admission to the French Academy in 17F1+ to his election as secretaire perpetuel on the death of Duclos In 1772, there was an Intimate association between the two men. Both were; actively engaged in a ll matters pertaining to the Quarante Immortels; both were eager to Inspire their fellow members with the Ideals of the llbre penseurs. Like his Illu strio u s predecessor, D'Alembert f e lt con- ; vinced that the lloge de concours could most effe ctive ly serve a dual 1 purpose: to render national homage to des hommes 11 lustres and to dis-j j seminate I'e s p rit philosophlque. j On August 25, 1771, D'Alembert delivered before the French Academy ! an address In which he set forth the purpose and meaning of Duclos' j ! 1 reform. The secretal re stated In parts Depuls plusleurs annles, messieurs, I'Academie a cru devoir renoncer, au moins pour un temps, aux sujets de morale qu'elle propo sal t pour prix d 'lloquencej I Is avalent I ' Inconvenient d 'o f f r lr trop de matiere a une rhetorique tr lv ia le et a d'Inslpides declamations. C Les PhI Iosophes et I'Academie Francalse au Dix-Hulteme Siecle (Paris, 1661+), p. 6 7 . 1 1 3 I Le part! que nous avons prls, et dont les autres socletls litte ra lre s ont suivl 1'exemple, de proposer au concours les eloges des hommes I I lustres qul ont honor! la p a trfe , a paru obtenlr votre approbation, et m§me §tre pour vous un objet Interessant; vous nous 1'avez prouve par un empressement plus marque pour asslster au jugement de ces prix. . . . Une autre preuve du prix que vous attachez, messieurs, j aux couronnes remportees dans ce nouveau genre de concours, c'est qu'elles sont devenues ce qu'elles etalent rarement autrefois, un t lt r e pour devenlr Juge, apres avoir ete athlete. . . . L'Academle a tUche, messieurs, . . . de prendre les sujets de ses eloges dans tous les etats et dans tous les talens, depuis le guerrlerj jusqu'au philosophe, depuis le monarque jusqu’ au simple homme de ! lettres. Elle a cru rempllr en cela les voeux de la nation. Elle a plus f a i t encore, et toujours d'apres les vues dont vous lul avez paru anlmes. Parml les citoyens respectables que nous avons exposls a la j veneration publlque, II en est plusieurs qul n'ont pas trouve dans leurs contempora I ns toute la justice q u 'ils avalent droit d'en attendre: nous nous sommes crus obllgls d'acqultter envers ces hommes I 1 Iustres la dette de leur siecle, et de consoler, ou peut-etre meme d'apaiser leurs mines, en accumulant sur leur tombeau les honneurs qu’ auralent merltls leurs personnes.^ D'Alembert's story of the eloge d'lloquence gives us also a clear account of the lloge hlstorique, which through the successive e ffo rts, f i r s t of Fontenelle, then later of Thomas and D'Alembert, became a flourishing lite ra ry genre In the second half of the eighteenth century.; A fter the Inception of Duclos' reform the f ir s t contestant for the prix id'lloquence was Antolne-Llonard Thomas (1732-1785), a professor at the ' jCollege de Beauvais near Paris. Quite early in his public career, this ! Iman of letters displayed unusual I Iterary talent and oratorical ab ility.! At a youthful age Thomas published a notable work, Rif IectIons Phi Io- sophfques ( 1756) , In which he strongly opposed some of the philosophical ideas expressed In V o ltaire 's poem, De la Religion Naturelle (1756). Later, however, Thomas refuted this mediocre writing of his early man hood and fin a lly became one of V o lta ire 's friends. ^OEuyres. .Completes de D'Alembert. TV (Paris. 1822). 310. Thomas wrote eight lloges hlstorlques, five of which deserve spe- j clal notice because they successively gained the much-coveted prIx j d' eIoq uence for their distinguished author.^ "L'EIoge du Marechal de Saxe," the f ir s t prlze-wlnnlng eulogy, was delivered before the French 1 Academy In 1759 j the "Eloge de Marc-Aure le," the last oration to earn the prix d' e loque rce, was given In 1770. Mlcard explains the Implica- : tlons of Thomas' unusual success tn these words: La reforme de Duclos ne pouva11 avoir son pie in e ffe t que s ' i l se j trouvalt un ecrivain capable de realiser par ses oeuvres ce qu'en attendalt Ie parti des philosophes. Thomas fut cet ecrivain: d'un genie essentleI Iement oratolre, les concours academiques lul permlrent d'exercer ses talents. II y donna Ilbre cours a son gotit pour les IIeux ccmmuns genereux am p llflls en developpements de large composi tion et pour les sentences ou s'exprlme le phiIosophe epris de la , phllosophle des Jumieres, On peut dire que I*oeuvre entlere de Thomas n'est qu'une longue suite de dlscours. . . . La tentative de Duclos trouva done son hlros en la personne de Thomas et Thomas lul doit sa gloire, laquelle fu t, a cette epoque, | nous le verrons, nationale et mondiale. (pp. I2l|.-I25) i It has already been noted that In the French Academy the Duclos reform for transforming the llog-e de concours into an eloge hlstorlque ! , was greatly hampered by pious precedent and competitive prizes. In the! ; i I Academy of Sciences, however, the historical eulogy had long since been; i established, and In a much purer form than the eulogistic oration of | Thomas. The true In itia to r of the eloge hlstorlque was the eminent sclentIst-phIlosopher, Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757). At the beginning of his varied career, he was a protagonist in the 7 For a complete lis t of Thomas' hIoges see Etienne Mlcard, Un Ecrivain Acadimfque au XV11T6 Siecle: Antoine-Leonard Thomas (1732- T755) (Parts, 192:5), pp. 293-295. celebrated Querelle des Anclens et des Modernes. He must also be remem bered as a forerunner of the Encyclopedistes. Through such prose works as Dialogues des Morts (1683) and Entretlens sur la Plural I t ! des Mondes ( I 685), Fontenelle revealed the dominant purpose of his life : to combat jsuperstition, to make the study of science more popular, and to further j I I a ll phases of its development in every way possible. Francois Marie j I 1 i Arouet de Voltaire expressed sincere admiration for his elder contempo- I rary, Fontenelle, thus: j On peut le regarder comme P e s p rlt Ie plus unlversel que Ie siecle j de Louis ZESZ a lt produit, II a ressemble a ces terres heureusement situees qui portent toutes les especes de fru its . . . . Les eloges quf 11 prononga des acadimiciens morts ont le merite slngulier de rendre les sciences respectables et ont rendu tel I ’ auteur. Enfln on Pa regard! comme le premier des hommes dans P a rti nouveau de repandre de la lumiere et des graces sur les sciences abstraites, et If a eu du merite dans tous les autres genres qu*I I a j tra it!s . Tant de talents ont e t! soutenus par la connalssance des langues et de P h is to lre : et, II a ete, sans contredit, au-dessus de tous les savants qul n'ont pas eu le don d»! nventIon. 8 | At the youthful age of th irty -fo u r Fontenelle was elected to the j | i Academy of Sciences. Eight years later he became Its secretaire per- Ipetuel, a position which he held with dignity, tact, and courage for j over forty years ( 1 699- 17i+l). Throughout this long period of o ffic ia l j a c tiv ity , Fontenelle delivered sixty-nine eloges academiques, most of j which were printed In four different groups within his lifetim e. Some years after his death all the 11oges were published In a two-volume work ( I 766). Professor Arthur T ille y , an English c r it ic , aptly compares -ontenelle’ s academic eulogies with the life sketches found in contempo- jrary biographical dictionaries: 1 ^OE uvres Comp Ietes, ed. L. Moland, XTV ( I 878) , 72-73* 16 j These so-called lloges are re a lly short biographies, resembling those in the Supplements to the Dictionary of National Biography, In so far as they were written not long afte r the death of the "b!ographees,” \ and in many cases from personal knowledge. ' j I It would appear that Fontenel ie conceived a dual motive in deliver-! 1ng his feloges before the Acadlmle des Sciences: to make his colleagues! and the general public better acquainted with certain members already deceased, and to bring to the attention of his contemporaries the j j valuable s c ie n tific writings bequeathed by those former academicians to I ; I posterity. In Identifying himself with the subject of his eulogy, this i noted sclentist-phllosopher dramatically portrayed each former member asj a living personality. The lives of the men described by Fontenelle were as quiet and ; ;modest as his own. Nevertheless, through his sincere and accurate iaccount of tasks d ilig e n tly performed, of s c ie n tific investigations Ifa ith fu lly recorded, and of d iffic u ltie s bravely overcome, these humble ! I ^scientists with their b r illia n t minds and dedicated hearts were brought ; ;to life once more. They became living heroes, worthy of respect and ;emulatlon. Moreover, by sympathetic characterization and well-chosen j i anecdotes, Fontenelle revealed the personal influence and moral quali- ! ties of these deceased academicians apart from th eir s c ie n tific contri- ! jbutlons. As stated in the Introduction, MlI y a dans ces nobles vies une sorte de morale en action tout entiere emprunt6e aux savants e t a I'Academie des sciences. 9 ____ The Decline of the Age of Louis :XIVj or French L ite ra ture 1687- 1715 (Cambridge, England, 1929, p. ^ 17. “ Franclsque B o u lIiler, ed., Eloges de Fontenelle avec une In another succinct comment B o u llller refers to Fontenelle as a j I moralist and compares his eIoges with La Bruyeres Caracteres (1688): Nous voudrlons falre connaTtre encore davantage le m lrite de Fontenelle comme moralIste. Entre tant de pensees, d’observations, de: critiques morales qu’ on trouve a chaque page dans les EIoges, et qul souvent seralent dlgnes de prendre place a cot& de celles de La i Bruyere, nous sommes embarrassis de cholsir. (p, xiv) ; For each pen-portralt Fontenelle s k ilfu lly developed a certain ! i pattern, f ir s t presenting the family background of his subject, giving I a brief account of his academic and professional training, and fin a lly | i evaluating his achievements. B o u llller speaks of Fontenelie's unprecedented success In these terms: . . . les Eloges ou les vies des savants de Fontenelle sont un des j melIleurs llvres de notre litte ra tu re ; ce sont des modeles que ses ' successeurs, malgre leur esprit et leur science, ne devaient pas Igaler. (p. xxx) Professor TiI ley fu lly agrees wlth BoulI Ile r In his laudatory lestlmate of the k Ioges, maintaining that Fontenelle, as a w riter of I t ; r leuloglstlc prose, demonstrated most noteworthy qualities: keen in t e lll- j \ I I ; jgence, sympathetic understanding, lucid expression, a sincere manner, j | jand an informal tone. Fontenelle’ s vies have become models of academic i i : jeloquence, which were Imitated with varying degrees of success by such | 3 future members of the Academy of Sciences as D'Alembert, Condorcet, Cuvier, and D’Arago. The Importance of these eIoges as the f i r s t of a new 11terary genre must not be forgotten. His Vies des Savants, later known as L'HlstoIre Introduction et des Notes, by Bernard Le Bovler de Fontenelle, (Paris, s .d .), p. v l l i . I ________________________________________ de I'Acadlmle Royale des Sciences (1702-1733)* received most favorable j comment from Voltaire: j I Son Histoire de I'Acadlmie je tte tres souvent une clarte lumineusej sur les mlmolres les plus obscures. II fu t le premier qui porta j cette elegance dans les seances. Si quelquefois il y repandit trop d'ornement, c ' l t a i t de ces molssons abondantes dans lesquelles les fleurs croissent nature I I ement avec les Ip is . j Cette Histoire de I'Academie des Sciences serait aussi utile q u'elle est blen f ai te, s' t I n'avaft eu a rendre compte que de verlfesi dlcouvertes; mais II f a l l a i t souvent qu* i I expliqOat des opinions i combattues les unes par les autres, et dont la plupart sont detrulte^j M. de Fontenelle, dans ses Eloges des Academiciens, f a it un Iivre j plein d'esp rit et de raison, et qui rend les sciences respectables. (XEZ, 73) Fontenelle's spiritual successor was Jean Le Rond D'Alembert ( I 7 I7- 1783). As a member of the Academy of Sciences a fte r I74l» he becameone : of Fontenelle's friends. D'AJembert, however, was soon to enter the j Acadlmle Fran^aise, where he joined the Illu strio u s group of the Forty ’ Immortals in 1754. I n 1772 he was elected their secretaire perpltuel. It is quite possible that he may have derived the chief inspiration for : his own lloges academiques from those of Fontenelle. This question iwiI I be discussed at length In another chapter. Another of Fontenelle's younger friends was Nicolas C a ritat de j Condorcet (174-3“ 1794), who became an eminent scientist and philosopher. | At the youthful age of sixteen, he delivered before the faculty of the jCol lege de Navarre In Paris an erudite thesis dealing with a complex Imathematical subject. D'Alembert and other scholars predicted a b r i l- I |I I ant future for Condorcet. They were not disappointed; he eventually entered the Academy of Sciences. Jean Chretien Ferdinand Hoefer relates this interesting Information about the election of Condorcet: | II n'avait pas vlngt-deux ans lorsqu'iI prisenta a I'Acadlmle un essai L. s. ur I® _ _ ”caj cu l_ I n teqra I . " Cet fecr 11 f ut examine en. maLJ.765..- .par.-Unue._ *9 commission, dont le rapporteur, D'Alembert, d lt que I'oeuvre annongait les plus grands talents et m eritait les encouragement de I'Academie.^ Condorcet was nominated to the Academy of Sciences in I7&9, becom ing the secretaire perpetuel in 1 773* He was likewise an active member; of the French Academy from 1782 until his untimely death in 1794. Dur- : ing his terms of office In both academies, Condorcet delivered bio graphical sketches of certain deceased members. Thus I t may be fa ir ly stated that as an eloglste academique of the late eighteenth century, ;Condorcet followed In the direct line of Patru on one hand, and of i Thomas, Fontenelle, and D'Alembert on the other. Moreover, like the last two academicians mentioned, Condorcet formed a strong connecting Mink In the I Iterary history of the two most Important French royal academies, from their origin under Louis XDZ to their temporary eclipse !by order of Napoleon. Up to this point we have seen that the eloge academique began as a panegyrical dlscours de reception delivered In the French Academy, This! essentially vacuous but strong tradition continued In one form or ianother right up to the Revolution, but Its supremacy was already chal lenged at an early date. The prize for eloquence In itia te d by Guez de ' Balzac, and carried on by other academicians, produced a sermonizing i i eulogy that would have culminated In the impasse of reiterated fla tte r y j of the king. However, Saint-Pierre and, more e ffe c tiv e ly , Duclos suc ceeded in making the subjects for these competitive eloges more varied In choice and less limited In scope. ^ ^Nouvelie Biographle Generale Depuis les Temps les Plus Recules Jusqu'a Nos Jours, avec les Renseignements Bib Iiographlques et I'lndTca- tion des Sources a Consulter, XL (Paris, 1855), 460. ~ ~ 20 The acknowledged master prize-winner of this period was, of course, A.ntoi ne-Leonard Thomas. Meanwhile, however, Fontenelle produced a b r fl- i liant series of biographical eulogies of eminent scientists in the I I Academy of Sciences. His Vies des Savants answered, well ahead of their formulation, the desiderata of Saint-Pierre and Duclos for the competi-i tive eulogies of the French Academy. | For many years D’Alembert and his young friend, Condorcet, were active members of the two major royal academies, the French Academy and ! the Academy of Sciences. What is more, both were b r illia n t scientists and eminent men of letters. Of the two men, D'Alembert was the true continuator of the lloge academique. In Chapter HE we shall discover that knowingly and with misgivings he became Fontenelle's rival in the writing of eloges hlstorlgues. As one of the Forty Immortals, however, ■ D’Alembert did not confine his eulogies to men of science; and In this fact lies much of their special interest. CHAPTER TEE THE COMPOSITION AND PUBLICATION OF D’ALEMBERT’ S ELOGES The correspondence of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert provides the most valuable source of Information concerning the circumstances which led to the writing of his eloges academlques, circumstances closely related; I : 1 to his long years of a c tiv ity with the two principal royal academies: :Academie des Sciences ( I yip I — 1783) and Acadfemie Frangaise (175-U— 1783). Mm e du Deffand, D'Alembert’ s patroness, became personally acquainted with many distinguished members of both academies. Conse- i quentiy, after D'Alembert’ s election to the Academy of Sciences, she entertained high hopes that through her own influence and the moral support of other loyal friends her b r illia n t and ambitious prot£gd would eventually become Fontenelle’ s successor as secretaire perpetuel I 1 n 1 ' 1 of that body. This fact is noted by Jean Philibert Damlron in his j j ! |history of philosophy in eighteenth-century France: j I ! | ! ! D’ apres une de ses lettres a Mme du Deffand, des amis [de D’Alembert] avaient songe a le falre el Ire secretaire perpltuel de I ’Academie des Sciences, mals II se refusa a ce projet.* D'Alembert was well aware that certain academicians were b itte rly antagonistic toward a ll IIbres-penseurs, and p artic u la rly to those phIlosophes associated with the Encyclopldle. In the le tte r to which *Memo!res Pour Servlr a I ’ HIstoire de la Phllosophle au -xviu 0 Siecle, IT (Paris, 18^8), I 5. 22 Damiron refers, D'Alembert asked Mm e du Deffand to cease all effo rts to j i i have him chosen successor to Fontenelle. Furthermore, he attempted to j prove that he did not have the necessary qualifications for such an Important office: Je suis tres-sensibIe a toutes vos bontes . . . mais je vous supplie j de ne point penser a la place de secretaire de PAcademie. Quand cette place serait aussi facile a obtenir qu'elle I'e s t peu, je n'en serais pas plus dispose a fa!re aucune demarche pour y parvenir. J'y I suis blen moins propre que vous ne Pimaginez: e lle demande beaucoup j de sujetion et d'exactitude, et vous me connaissez assez pour savoir ! que m a liberte est ce que j'aime le mieuxj e lle demande d 'a ille u rs beaucoup de connaissances de chimie, d'anatomle, de botanique, e tc ., : que je n'ai point, et que je n'ai guere d'empressement d'acquerir; e lle met dans le cas de louer souvent des choses etdes personnes fo rt mediocres, et je ne sals comment on peut se resoudre a louer ce qulne mSrite pas de P e tre , nl comment on en vlent a bout: cette a ffa ire-la est troo d i f f i c il e pour moi. Le public d 'a ille u rs est accoutume, depuls Fontenelle, a voir faire cette besogne d’ une certaine manlere, | qul ne serait point du tout la mlennej et II y a trop de risque a voulolr lui falre changer d 'allu re quand une fois 1 1 en a prfs une, bonne ou mauvalse [le 3 septembre, I 753] • ^ Both the content and tone of this le tte r are revelatory. The pointed reference to Fontenelle Is proof that from the outset D'Alembert ifeared that competition with his elder colleague was inevitable and that; I v i ■it could become embarrassing. Moreover, his expressed desire for com parative tranquility and rela tiv e anonymity may indeed be p a rtia lly de circonstance, but not entirely so. By temperament D'Alembert was the I most timid and the least aggressive of all the encyclopedistes. W e must! then consider the misgivings mentioned In his le tte r largely genuine. Through the personal contacts of his patroness, Mme du Deffand, and with the help of her friend, the president Henault of the French Academy, D'Alembert succeeded in gaining entrance to the select group of Forty O CEuvres Completes, 2 (Paris, 1822), 37-38. 23 ; immortals (I751+). In spite of his natural reticence and the prejudices! of his enemies, D'Alembert was elected secretaire perpetueI of the j AcadSmle Franqalse upon the death of Duclos In 1772. That he had as pired to this office cannot be denied. Quant a lul [D'Alembert], quolque son credit au sein de I'Academie des Sciences, loin de f li c h i r , s'afferm tt, et que sa reputation de glometre s 'e ta b ltt de plus en plus par divers traltes ou de memolres , qu'iI publla de 1752 a I7&I, . . . ce fut surtout vers I'Acad&mie Franqaise qu'I I tourna ses vues pour cette dlgnlte dont II avalt I ’ ambItlon. , I , La plus qu’ allleurs e lle pouvait lul assurer le c rid tt, I'influence! qu'I I recherchait avant tout aupres de cette classe d’esprlt a laquelle II s’ adressalt. (Damlron, H , 15) W e must now Investigate the circumstances which led the eulogist to write the great body of his lloges academlques. Aspiring to the secre ta ria t of the French Academy, he began to compose eulogies long before ; his election to that office. Damlron states: II [D’Alembert] s 'e t a lt aussl, com rne d’ avance, exerce dans un genre qul pouvait un jour le designer pour les fonctions de secretaire perpltuel. En e ffe t ses Eloges de Jean BernoulI I i , de I'Abbe Terrasson et surtout de Montesquieu, semblaient devoir preparer et a ; I'occasion sa candidature a cette charge. (H I, ll|-15) After becoming secretaire perpetuel D'Alembert, like Fontenelle, \ his counterpart In the Academy of Sciences, soon discovered that among ! his responsibilities was that of bringing the Hlstolre de I'Academie Franqalse up-to-date. In a le tte r to his friend Frederick of Prussia i the newly-elected secretary mentioned this Important work begun by two charter members, Pelllsson and D'O IIvet: Je suis degoute d 'lc r ir e , e t, malgre le peu de cas que votre majeste f a i t de la geometrie, je m e refugferals dans cet asile, si m a pauvre tete pouvait encore supporter I'applicatlon qu'elle exlge. Je vals cependant essayer la continuation de I'h ls to lre de I'Academie Franqaisej mais ccmblen de peIne II faudra que je m e donne pour ne pas dire m a pens&ej heureux m§me s i, en la cachant, Je^puis au molns la lalsser entrevolr [ le lii aoQt 17721. (OEuvres Completes. 3Z. 526) 2k On August 25, 1772, D’Alembert read before the general assembly his Preface aux Eloges, In which he clearly Indicates what he con sidered the twofold purpose of his Histoire de i ’Academie Frangaise: L’ ouvrage que je me propose de continuer doit avoir deux objets; le recit des fa its generaux qui concernent I ’Acadlmie, e t l ’ eloge des membres qu'elle a perdus. Le premier objet offre jusqu’ ici peu d’ evenemens. Bien loin de nous plaindre de cette s t l r i l i t l histo- rique, regardons-la comme le bien le plus desirable pour une compag- nie lit te r a ir e : la secheresse de ses annates [ it a lic s mine] est le tlmoignage precieux de sa tranquiI Iite interieure: heureux ie corps dont i ’ histoire est courte, ainsi que les peupies dont I ’ histqire ennuie’ Le second objet, I ’ lloge des acadlrru ciens, offre plus de champ, de v a rie tl et d’ in tlr e t, mais n’ est pas sans ecueiI pour I ’ historien, Ceux dont il dolt parler sont dlja juges sans retour par ce public redoutable, qui commence queiquefois par I t r e juste: tous ies noms de nos prldlcesseurs sont inscrits dans le grand livre de la posterity, a la place qu’ ils mlri ten t>;,et cette place n’ est pas toujours egalement favorable a leur mlmoire. This significant Preface f ir s t appeared in p rin t in a compilation of D’Alembert’ s eulogies, Eloges 1 us dans les Seances Publiques de I ’Acadlmie Francoise ( 1779)• These published lloges academiques even tually became Volume One of Histoire de l*Acad§mie Frangaise ( Larousse, |T, 25). In the f i r s t edition of the Eloges jus dans les Seances Publiques, I | the Preface was followed by a brief Avertissement in which D’Alembert I gave some specific Information about his academic eulogies: La continuation que nous avons entreprise de I ’Histoire de I ’Acadlmie Francoise, ne s’ est pas bornee aux Eloges qu’ on va lire de queiques- uns de ses Membres. Nous en avons f a i t un tres-grand nombre d’ autres, & si grand que nous n’ osons presque I ’ avouerj mais nous nous bornons aujourd’ hui a publier ceux qui ont dlja I t l soumis au jugement Public dans les Seances de 1’Academie, ^OEuvres Completes, I E (1821), 154. ^ P a r is , 1779), p. ij. 25 ; This passage is of particular interest because it clearly i nd i catesj that, whatever D'Alembert’ s in itia l repugnance for the academic eulogy | may have been, he had definitely overcome it and his natural tim idity as well. Furthermore, he had found the genre s u fficien tly profitable to write many more eloges than he could immediately deliver in the public assemblies of the French Academy, Since the academic eulogy was delivered in a public gathering, there is every reason to accept as d e fin itiv e D’Alembert’ s chronology of; his Iloges. In fact, consultation of other contemporary sources bears out this premise. References to individual eIoges are found in the Mlmoirs of Bachaumont and the lettres of Mm e du Deffand, Grimm, Diderot, I and Voltai re. There is ample evidence to indicate that D’Alembert’ s 4 loges i i h f stor i ques made a mostfavorable impression, especially upon his friends who frequented the more elegant Parisian Iite ra ry circles. Mme jdu Deffand was one of certain contemporaries who, in their writings, ; I j jmade specific reference to D’Alembert’ s 4 Ioges, f ir s t on the occasion of their delivery in the Academy, and later at the time of their appear-! ance in print. To her English friend Walpole, Mm e du Deffand wrote: I Quel ouvrage faites-vous? quel sujet traitez-vous? Les lloges sont ici a la mode; a chaque slance publique d’Acadlmie, d’Alembert en l i t un; lundi dernier, Jour de la reception du Marlchai de Duras, II Iut celui de Bossuet, Evlque de Meaux; il y a placl celui de Monsieur de Toulouse [ I ’Evgque de Toulouse], qui fut si pathetique qu’ il tira des larmes du loul v if, et de tous ses adorateurs. La louange aujourd’ hui est fo rt a la mode, les talents presents n’en mlritent guere [mercredi, le 17 mai 1 7 7 5 ] .5 5|-lorace Walpole, Horace Walpole’ s Correspondence with Madame du Deffand . . ed. W . S. Lewis and Warren Huntinq Smith (New Haven. 1939), 32,. 16 ? , _________________________ ___ _______________________________ “ 26 1+ has already been mentioned that the f i r s t published edition of I those eIoges which D’Alembert actually delivered appeared in 1779. \ However, they had been previously printed piecemeal in the I Iterary periodical, Le Mercure de France, a fact to which Mm e du Deffand refers in another letter to Walpole: Le Mercure de France est insupportable depuls que c'est La Harpe qui en est charge. Nous y avons cependant deja vu deux des eloges que D’Alembert prononga a L’Academie, qui ont eu un succes Inou7, I ’ un e ta it de Fenelon, I ’ autre de La Motte. Le jour de Saint-Louis, qui eta It le 25, II a debite celui de CrlbfI Ion, et du President de Rose. On les donnera vraisembIablement dans Le Mercure, alnsl que tous ceux qu’ iI a fa its et fera. Son style est fronlque, II y jo in t un ton comlque; Jes auditeurs en sont charmls, les lecteurs ne sont pas de meme. L’ orgueil de nos beaux esprits est revoltantj les louanges outrees et les honneurs ridicules qu’ I is veuient qu’on rende a Voltaire demontrent l ’ exces de ieur orgueil; iIs veuient faire un corps dans I ’etat, forcer a les craindre, a Ieur rendre hommage, et Jamais I Is n’ en ont moins merite. Vous n'avez point chez vous des gens aussi ridicules que le sont presque tous nos Academiciens [dimanche, le 30 aoOt, 1778]. (2 1, 68) It is not d if f ic u lt to account for the decided change in Mme du Deffand’ s attitude toward D’Alembert, both in this second le tte r and in the one to follow. No longer did she consider herself his admirer and patroness. She was now writing as a disillusioned, vindictive old lady, remembering b itte rly that her favorite protege had remained loyal !to her young rival and one-time le c tric e , Julie de Lesplnasse, in their ; notorious parting of the ways/’ After that unhappy event Mm e du Deffand I i ; jentertained nothing but scorn and contempt for D’Alembert and his [ friends, the encyclopedlstes, many of whom were now distinguished mem bers of the French Academy and, likewise, habitues of Mile de Lespinasse’ s salon. ^Mme du Deffand gave her version of this quarrel In the correspond ence wi th W a I po I e, Y I, 79- M l. Mm e du Deffand’ s final reference to D'Alembert is specifically connected with the publication of his Eloges I us dans les Seances Pu- bIiques, although she does not mention the actual t it le of the printed , work. Her comments are more concise, but permeated with an even stronger feeling of animosity toward the eminent secretaire perpetuel of the Academie Francaises II paraTt un recueii des eloges, que D’Alembert a ius a I ’Acadimie, des Academiclens qui ont eu quelque celebrite. RIen n’ est plus fastldieux, Je vous I'assure; le style est fro ld , g§ne; il veut etre fin et epigrammatfque, et il n'est que p lat, commun et recherche; en- 1 fin on ne salt que lir e , et j'a i le malheur de ne point aimer I ’ his- tolre, la morale et la poesie [ le 9 janvier 1779]. (Walpole, 2T, 103) In this same year ( 1779)> Condorcet published his Eioges des Acad&miciens de i ’Academie Royale des Sciences. The publication of his young friend's work not only gave D'Alembert great personal pleasure, but probably an added stimulus for the continued writing of his own Histoire de I'Academie Francaise. On two occasions In his correspond ence with the sage of Ferney, D'Alembert expressed high esteem for Condorcet and sincere praise of his Eloges des Academiclens: . . . Condorcet demeure rue de Louls-Je Grand, vis-a-vis la rue d'Antin. Vous pouvez compter sur son zele. Vous recevrez, dans le courant du mois, un ouvrage de sa fa^on, qui, je crois, ne vous dfeplaira pas. Ce sont les Eloges des academiclens des sciences morts, avant |e commencement du slecTe, et que Fontenelle avait laisses a fa ire . Vous y trouverez, si je ne m e trompe, beaucoup de savoir, de i philosophie et de goGt [ le premier fevrier 17731. (CE uvres Com- j pletes, 3Z, 219) Raton [Voltaire] dolt avoir recu un ouvrage qui i ’ aura console un moment de toutes les Infamies qui avfilssent la litte ra tu re ; ce sont les Eloges des anciens acadfemiciens, par M. de Condorcet. Quelqu’ un m e demandait I'autre Jour ce que je pensais de cet ouvrage; je repondis en ecrivant sur le frontlspice, justice, justesse, savoir, clarte, precision, goQt, elegance et noblesse. Bertrand LD'AIembert] se fla t t e que Raton aura et& de son avis [ le 27 fevrier 1773]. . . . (OEuvres Completes, E, 223-22U) For severaI reasons, D'Alembert found d i f f i c u l t y In making steady 28 progress with the compilation of his H isto ire. Apart from being fu lly | i occupied with his o ffic ia l duties In both academies, he was forced to contend with a strong current of b itte r opposition from writers and mem-j bers of the ant 1-p h i1osophe group. The following somewhat gauiois para graph from one of his letters reveals, along with D’Alembert’ s personal ; regard for Voltaire, a deep concern for the future fate of his H isto i r e : Je n'ai presque point f a i t d’ a r tlc le , dans mon Histoire de l ’Academle, ou Je n'aie eu occasion soit de parler de vous comme j'en pense, so I t de vous c ite r en matlere de goQt. Je ne sais si cette rapsodie paraTtra Jamals; mais, comme je suis tres-resolu d’ y dire la v ir it e , sans attaquer d’ ailleu rs tes sottises regues, je vous promets qu'elle ne sera pas imprimee en France. C’ est bien assez de me chStrer moi-m£me a mol t i l , sans qu’ un commls a la douane des pensees vienne m e chStrer to u t-a -fa it. Vous savez que la destruction des chats est la besogne des chaudronniers. Ne trouvez-vous pas qu'on tra ite les gens de Iettres comme des chats, en les livran t, pour etre chatres, aux chaudronniers de la litterature? or le pauvre Bertrand [D’Alembert] pense comme Raton [V o lta ire ], et ne veut pas §tre livre aux chau dronniers [ie 6 a v r ll, 1773]. (CE uvres Completes, V, 221+) In a sim ilar tone, D'Alembert expressed these same fears while writing to his royal friend, Frederick of Prussia: Oblige de renoncer a cette Itude palsible, mais fatigante [la geome- t r le ] , je m’ amuse a ecrire I ’ histoire de I'Academie FrangaIse, dont J’ al I'honneur d’ etre le secretaire, et dans iaqueile, pour mon j malheur, J’ ai a parler d’ une foule d'acadfemic!ens mediocres, morts depuis le commencement du siecle. Je ne sais si cet ouvrage sera jamais f i n i , encore molns s’ I I paraftra de mon vivantj si tous ceux I dont j ' a i a parler ressembI a lent a votre majeste, I'lc r lv a ln serait j soutenu par sa matlere; mais, quand Je pense que J'ai d’ un cote de j mauvais auteurs a dissequer, et de I'autre de plats censeurs a satis- i fa ire , la plume m e tombe des mains presque a chaque Instant [le 9 a v r ll, 1773]. (CE uvres Completes, Z , 33^) Correspond!ng with Frederick a month later, D'Alembert added this somewhat cynical postscript: Je n'aurai done, sire, grace a Dieu et a vous, aucune Idee tris te qui me trouble dans la confection de I ' Histoire de I'Acadlmle Francalse; Je m e sers du mot confect I on, parce que Je regarde cette histoire comme une espece de pilule que le secretaire est oblige de fa ire et d'avaler. Je tachera! neanmolns, comme de raison, de la dorer le m i e ux q u' I I m e sera possIbIe, e t pour m o I -mime, e t pour ceux qui __ 2 9 : voudront en goOter apres mol; je ferai comme Simonide qui n'ayant rlen a dire de je ne sals quel athlete, se jeta sur les louanges de ! Castor et de Pollux [le ll* m a i , 1773]. (CE uvres Completes, 2 , 337) The f ir s t volume of D'Alembert's Hjjstojns was f in a lly published early in 1779. Several months a fte r its appearance, the author wrote again to his German friend, this time in a more cheerful mood. D'Alembert mentioned his 4 loges, explaining his purpose in preparing them and the manner in which his H Istol re was being received by the general public: j Je ne sais si votre majestl a re^u le volume de mes £ loges acade- miques, que j 'a i adress& il y a trols mols a M. de Catt Lson secre- talre (C E uvres Completes, 2 , 202)]} je n'ai point eu de nouvelles de son arrlv&e, quolque Je n'ale pas perdu un moment pour envoyer ce volume a votre majestl, aussitot qu'iI a paru. J'ai tSchl, s ire, dans ces iloges, de pelndre et d'appr^cfer de mon mleux les talens des hommes dont J'avais a parler, et d'y m ettrq'le plus de variete qu'I I m'a ete possible, relatlvement a Ieur glnle et a Ieur carac- tere, Cet ouvrage a et& re^u assez favorablement, mais les autres suffrages ne sont rien pour mol, si Je n'ai pas le bonheur d'obtenir celui de votre majestl [ Ie 30 avriI 1779]. (CE uvres Completes, 2 , 1*15) -------------------------------- W e have already stated that the f i r s t volume of the Histoire was published under the t i t l e Eloges I us dans les Seances Publiques de ; I'Acadimie Frangalse (1779). The five remaining volumes, with a new | t i t l e , Histoire de 1'Acadlmie Frangaise, were printed under the per- : sonal supervision of Condorcet in 1785, four years a fte r D'Alembert's I demise. j A recently-published biographical dictionary of French authors provides some significant facts and an Interesting evaluation of i J D'Alembert's eulogies which we shall consider In another chapter: Le premier volume avalt pour t it r e , Eloges de Plusleurs Savants. Condorcet publia les cinq autres [comme oeuvre posthumej a p a rtir de 1787. D'Alembert y a p a rli trop souvent de tout, de Voltaire sans j cesse, meme de Mile de Lesplnasse, . . . et non assez des personnes 30 dont II s'agissalt, se montrant dans ce genre d 'e c rit Inferieur a Fontenelle, auquel II ressemble pourtant, mais dont l resprft avait suivl la marche Inverse puisqu'II e ta lt a lle de la litte ra tu re a la science. On I'a d 'aille u rs q ualifle de singe de Fontenelle. Les eloges de Bossuet, Fenelon, Massillon, Bolleau, Destouches, Marivaux ont ete remarques part IcuIierement e t, selon Condorcet, ses vues sont profondes. L'Eloge de Montesquieu, place en t£te du tome 2 de L'EncyclopedIe, et r§lmprlm§ souvent avec L'Esprlt des Lois, fournit une excellente analyse de cet ouvrage (175771 Les eloges de Fenelon, et de Massillon, ont ete plusieurs fois aussi reprodults avec des oeuvres de ces auteurs. Mais II ne semble louer les morts que pour faire la satire des vlvants, comme I'a note M etra.7 After the eulogist's death In 1783 one of his former colleagues, Charles Pougens, became personally responsible for the publication of a two-volume work, CEuvres Posthumes de D'Alembert (1799). Early In the nineteenth century ( 1805), there appeared the f i r s t complete edition of D'Alembert's works. What Is now considered the d efin itiv e edition was published by A. BlI In in 1821-22. *^J. Balteau et a l . , DIctionnaIre de Blographle Franqaise, I i( Par i.s* \333.'U JM 5-Q 6a___ __________________________________________ CHAPTER US D'ALEMBERT’ S ROLE IN THE FRENCH ACADEMY There Is no doubt that, except for the five eIoges written prior ?to his election as secretaire perp&tuel, D’Alembert penned his eulogies to be read In person before the assembled members of the French Academy.j |Some consideration should be given to the concrete circumstances under j which his eloges academlques were delivered. Since they were pieces de | ! clrconstance, It is quite obvious that their tenor and style must have been greatly influenced by these same circumstances. j j | To c la rify D’Alembert's a c tiv itie s as secretary and eulogist, we j | i ; I shall present a brief description of the actual physical setting of the j i I French Academy and the procedures of Its o ffic ia l assemblies during the j | I jla tte r part of the eighteenth century. Louis XTV gave the Forty Immor- i |taIs their permanent home In the spacious hails of the Palais du Louvre described in this passage: i Elle [ I 1Academie Frangaise] y occupait deux grandes pieces du rez-de-chaussee, qui font partie aujourd'hui du Musle de la sculpture frangaise, et s ’ appelient la salle du Puget et celie des Coustou. La j premiere servait d'antichambre. . . . Les receptions se flre n t d’ abord dans la salie des seances; mais en 1713* quand on eut remplacl ies sieges ordinalres par des fauteuiIs qui tenaient plus de place, et sans doute aussi quand I'affluence du public devint plus considerable, on se transporta dans la premiere salle qui pouvait contenir plus de monde. Le milieu e ta it occupe par une table longue "orn&e d’ un beau tapis". A Pune des extremites se tenait ie dlrecteur, entre le chancelier et Ie secrltaire perp&tuel; a I'extremity opposle, Ie reel piendaI re, et les academlciens des deux cotes.I ^Alfred Franklin et a l . , L 'ln s titu t de France (Paris, 1907), pp. 32 Continuing his account of this historic mlse en scene, Franklin gives further detai I as to the customary procedures for a reception de 1 Academie Frangaise: Tout e ta it regll d'avance avec un soln minutleux. Quand tout le monde est assis, I'hulssier va chercher le r!ciplendalre, qu! attend dans une piece voislne et le conduit a sa place; le dlrecteur ote son chapeau, pour lui faire savoir q u 'iI peut prendre la parole; I'o ra - teur garde le sien pendant q u 'il parle et ne se dlcouvre que quand II d it; Messieurs, ou quand il prononce le nom du Roi. Les chaises des assistants entourent la table; les dames, qui sont admlses depuis 1702, occupent des tribunes qu’on a menagles dans lesfenetres. (p. 108) It may be wise for us to note b rie fly the popularity and Impor tance of these assemblies academiques. According to the contemporary record of Louis P e tit de Bachaumont, the sessions were well attended, even before D’Alembert's election to the secretariat of the French Academy 1 La foule s’ empressait d'assister a la seance publique de I ’ acadlmie franQoise, le jour de Saint Louis, augmentant d'annie en ann&e, et I a ; garde ordinaire de six Suisses ne sufflsant pas, on I'a renforcle cette fois-ci d'un detachement d’ invalides, command! par un off icier. Malgre cette barrlere formidable, le tumulte augmentait, la salle ne pouvait plus contenir les spectateurs, lorsque M. Duclos, secretaire, mattre des c!r!monies de I ’ acadlmie, a f a i t fermer les portes [le 25 aoOt I 768].2 After D'AJembert's election as secretary, the public sessions held by the Academy became even more popular, principally because of the growing Importance of the salons lltte ra ire s and the rising Influence of the mouvement phllosophique. Bachaumont vividly describes the open ing moments of a typical rlception academique with D'Alembert in charge.: 10 6 -108. ^Memolres Secrets pour Servlr a I'H lsto lre de la Republlque des Lettres en France, depuis I 762 Jusqu'a nos Jours: ou, Journal d'un Observateur, Tv (London, I78J+), 90. 33 M. D’Alembert, Ie secretaire perpetuel, a proposl a ses confreres des dispositions nouvelles. On est convenu de renforcer la garde, et d'elever de fortes barrieres qui pulssent en imposer au public. Cet apparel I, au lieu de presenter la simple et modeste entree de paisible sanctuaire des muses, semblait annoncer le temple escarpi de la gloire q u 'll f a l l a l t gagner par escalade. Au reste, la foule des curieux augmentie encore cette fols a ju s tifie cette formidable precaution ' [ le 27 avriI 1775].5 With a light touch of satire Bachaumont completes his account of ithis motley crowd of interested spectators who frequented the public assemblies of the French Academy, the most distinguished I I terary in s tf- | i tution of elghteenth-century Europe: j ’ j Ces assemblies sont devenues des fetes a la mode, auxquelles il est du bon ton de ne pas manquer, meme de la part des femmes les plus qualifiees de la cour. On sent qu'en consequence toutes les regies doivent etre interverties, et que I ’ heure de la slance trop scholas- i tique, (a trois heures et demie) a du etre reculee. On a commence fo rt tard, pour donner le temps au beau sexe d’arriv er et de j s ’arranger [ le 27 avrll 17751. (2EX, 201+) j From the correspondence or memoirs of contemporary writers, it may ; j ! |be discovered to what extent D’Alembert’ s success in his double role of j jsecretaire and 4 loglste can be attributed to his calm temperament and iattractfve personality. Fortunately for us, several of these men of letters have le ft Illuminating vignettes concerning this distinguished scientist-phllosopher. In his Journal et Memoires de Charles Colle, " ' 1 " j C o lli described D’Alembert as one possessing the highest qualities of mi nd and heart: Ce D’Alembert est un homme de merite et d’esprit en meme temps; II est de I'Acadimie des sciences; c ’est lui qui a f a it la preface du Dictionnaire de 1’Encyclopidle auquel il tra v a ilie avec Diderot et quelques autres; II est^grand giometre, mitaphysicien et grand ralsonneur; II e c rit tres-bien et tres-Iigerement malgre cela. On ne doute pas qu’ iI ne soit batard de madame de Tencin, qui ne I ’ a Jamais ( 1786), 20k. 3k voulu reconnottre, meme en secret, qui ne lul a rlen donne, rien I laisse, et qui a toujours eu avec lui les procides les plus durs et | les plus Inhumains. C'est pourtant un homme qui rlu n lt toutes les j qualit&s du coeur a celles de 1*esprit- et qui passe pour avoir meme i une probite delicate [septembre 1751]* Three years later Colle expressed his continued belief that D'Alembert, newly-elected to the French Academy, revealed the potential j qualities of leadership: i 1 Le 19 du courant, D’Alembert fut re 9u a I'Academie franfolse. . . .! ^ i Le compliment de M. D'Alembert est simple et noble? il seroit a j souhaiter que tous les gens de lettres soutinssent la dignite de Ieur I etat comme D'Alembert? ils seroient plus respectes q u 'iIs ne le sont. ! Son dlscours fut tre s -fo rt applaudi, et I'Impression a f a it voir' qu1iI m eritoit de I'e tre [decembre 1754]. (p. kk3) Reference has already been made to Mm e du Deffand, for many years 'leader of a well-known salon and D'Alembert's patroness. In her corres-: pondence with Voltaire this distinguished lady, like Colle, also extols j her protege's brillian ce of mind, largeness of heart, and sense of judg ement: j . . . M. d'Alembert . . . c'est le plus honnete homme du monde, qui I a le coeur bon, un excellent es p rit, beaucoup de Justesse, du gout sur bien des choses. . . .5 For a more detailed evaluation of D'Alembert's character and per- I i ! | , ; Isonality we must turn to the revealing correspondence of the German ! | w riter and c r it ic , Frederick Melchoir Grimm. This rabid Francophile, jwho was a close friend of Diderot's, penned the following words only a few months a fte r D'Alembert's decease: ^Charles Colle, Nouvelle Edition (Paris, 1868), p. 350. ^[Marle de Vichy-Chamrond Marquise] du Deffand, Lettres a Voltaire ( ”ColIectI on des Chefs-d'CEuvre Meconnus"? Paris, 1922), p] 65, 35 Les personnes qui ont vecu le plus intimement avec M. d’Alembert le trouvaient bon sans bontl, sensible sans s e n s ib ilite , vain sans orguell, chagrin sans tristesse, et ils expliquaient des contra dictions si etranges par ce mSlange de froideur, de faiblesse et d 'a c tiv lte , qui caracterisaIt si essentiellement son ame et toutes ses habitudes. II e ta it Juste, humain, bienfaisant, mais c 'e ta it pour ainsl dire sans trouver de p la ls ir a I ’etre [jan vier 178^ 4 -]. Continuing his account, the German w riter describes in charac ter is tIc a 1 Iy-ambiguous and uncharitable terms what people considered D’Alembert's ct) I ef defect: On I'accusait d'affecter tres-passionnlment la gloire d'etre le chef du parti encyclopediste, et d'avoir commls, pour les interets de cette gloire, plus d' une injustice, plus d’ une noirceur Iit te r a ir e . Cette accusation serait un peu longue a dlscuter: ce qu'on ne saurait nier, c’est que les passions qu'inspire l ’esprit de parti etaient bien surement celles dont il pouvait §tre le plus susceptible; car il n'en est point qui conviennent mieux aux clmes froldes; mais on peut assurer en m§me temps que, comme il f i t beaucoup de bonnes actions sans bonte, c'est aussi sans aucune mechanceti q u 'i 1 eut 1'espece de torts dont se plaignent les prltendues victimes de sa tyrannie et de ses petites persecutions phi losophiques. fxI I I r i+ 6o) Grimm goes on to say that, although D'Alembert may have been guilty of perfidy, deliberate or otherwise, he nevertheless contributed much in his efforts to awaken the intellectual life and to increase the Iiterary' influence of the two most important royal academies: Quo! q u 'iI en soit, on ne peut contester a sa m&moire I'honneur d'avoir contribue beaucoup a la consideration qu'eurent longtemps les gens de lettres, d’ avoir obtenu la plus grande Influence dans les deux: Academies dont il e ta it membre, de I'a v o ir conservee pour ainsi dire ! jusqu'a la fin de ses jours, et d'§tre devenu en quelque maniere le chef visible de I ' I I lustre egllse dont Voltaire fut le fondateur et le> j soutien. (XI I I} I4 . 60) | At this point we must present a few pertinent facts relative to I jD'Alembert’ s entrance into the French Academy, his la te r election to ^[Frederick Melchior] Grimm et a I . , Correspondence L itte ra ire , Philosophlque et C ritique, ed. Maurice Tourneux, X l ± i (Paris, 1880), pp. I+ 5 9 - 2 4 . 6 O. 36 the secretariat, and his long association with his colleagues. The most complete account of D'Alembert's o ffic ia l induction, as well as an analysis of his discours de reclpiendaI re , is given by Grimm.! The German c r itic states that this speech of acceptance contained f i a t - 1 tering references to the deceased Surlan, Bishop of Vence, whose fauteuiI D'Alembert was about to occupy. Commenting further, Grimm notes that D’Alembert's closing words were in sincere praise of the founder and the royal patrons of the French Academy: II [D'Alembert] a fin ! par les eloges du cardinal de Richelieu, de Louis xlV , du roi et de I ’Academiej mais ce sont des iouanges sans fadeur et tournees d'une maniere pfquante. Tout son discours est parseme de tra its b r ill ants, de reflexions sages, de verites coura- geuses, releves par un style ferme et agreable [le 31 dlcembre 17541.^ Despite his In itia l favorable evaluation, Grimm’ s further remarks clearly reveal a tone of sharp criticism . In his opinion D'Alembert's oration lacked order and coherence} and his close Imitation of Voltaire's thought and style became frig id and wearisome, while his memory was not always accurate or trustworthy (XC, 207). Grimm concedes In his final statement that D'Alembert's address, jdespite its weaknesses, was superior to many other discourses delivered |before the French Academy: I l ya d'autres tra its plus frappants, mais qui echappent a m a i m&molrej cela jpourra faire perdre au discours de M. d'Alembert un peu j ; de son succes a I ' impress ion, mais cela n'empichera pas qu'on ne le j llse avec p ia is ir et qu'on ne le distingue de la foule des autres discours accademlques [ le 31 decembre I 75I4 .]. (TT, 207) It Is not d if f ic u lt to discover the main theme of D’Alembert's discourse. Since Surlan had been noted for his pulpit oratory, his 7TT (1877), 206. 57 : successor expressed hfs own thoughts on the subject of eloquence. From \ D’Alembert's point of view, eloquence Is not an acquired a b ilit y , but an Innate talent. To the degree that it reveals lofty Ideas expressed with sim plicity and feeling, eloquence becomes sublime: L’&Ioquence est le talent de faire passer avec rapidlte et d’ imprimer avec force dans I ’ ame des autres Ie sentiment profond dont on est penetre. Ce talent sublime a son germe dans une sen slb ilite rare pour le grand et pour Ie vrai. La meme disposition de I ’ ame, qui nous rend; susceptlbles d’ une Imotion vlve et peu commune, s u fflt pour en fa ire I so rtir I ’ image au dehors: II n’ y a done point d’art pour t ’ &loquence, puisqu’ il n’ y en a point pour sentlr. (OEuvres Completes, 12, 305) D’Alembert delivered his discours de r&clpiendalre on December 19, 1754. As stated In Chapter I , the director of the French Academy usually replied to the discourse of the newly-elected member. Grimm comments quite unfavorably upon the reply of Gresset, the director at the time of D’Ajembert’ s reception. Strange as i t may seem, D’Alembert, the eminent mathematician, a member of the AcadSmie des Sciences and of many other s c ie n tific in s ti tutions, considered his election to the august assembly of the Forty Immortals the highest of all his academic honors. At the time of D’Alembert’ s election Duclos was the secretary of ithe French Academy, A very aggressive and tactless o ffic e r, Duclos ifrequently became embroiled with other academicians, even In the open ! i assemblies. Jean Francois Marmontel, who in 1783 succeeded D’Alembert as secrltalre perplfuel, has le ft us an eye-witness account of an unseemly quarrel Involving both Duclos and D’Alembert.® In spite of their conspicuous differences of opinion on many ^CE uvres Completes de Marmontel, I (Paris, 18 1 9 ), 236- 237. 38 subjects, both men were of one mind in their jo in t effo rts to stimulate the esprit phiIosophique within the circle of the Forty Immortals. j With passing time Duclos gradually learned to trust and admire D'Alem- : bert, occasionally requesting him to o ffic ia te as secretaire. According to Grimm’ s account, D'Alembert even performed the duties and functions From the memoirs of at least one contemporary w riter, Bachaumont, we learn that the general sessions of the Academy were frequently ; closed with a clever epigram, a subtle parody, or a witty remark from D’Alembert, who quickly won the respect of his colleagues. During one jof his rare absences the Forty Immortals concluded their deliberations ' ; i In a rather despondent mood; j Le siance a fin i sechementj M. D'Alembert qui est en possession d’ egayer I ’Acad&mie par queIque caricature du jour, etant encore aupres du ro i de Prusse ] le 25 aotit 1763].'® Those early years of active participation in the a ffa irs of the jFrench Academy were a period of apprenticeship for the important and jfuture office of D'Alembert as secretaire perpetuel. As Joseph Bertrand! jstates In his study of D'Alembert's life and work, j A I'Academie des sciences, comme a I ’Acadlmie frangaise, avant m §rne i d'en §tre secrltafre perpetuel, il [D'Alembert] prenait la parole a ! j presque toutes les reunions publiques et se chargeait, avec une | complaisance empressie, de lire les discours des laureats et les pieces de po&sie couronn&es. Souvent m&me, les jours de reception, sans avoir de rdle o f fic ie l, il ouvrait la seance par quelques reflexions, ou quelques conseils sur des sujets de morale, de poesie, ou d 'h is to ir e .1 1 g of directeur. I0I (1784), 269. 1‘D’Alembert (Paris. 1889). 101. 39 On April 9 j 1772, eighteen years afte r his entrance to the French Academy, D'Alembert was o f f ic ia lly appointed to the secretariat. Sev- i eral specific references to this memorable event are found In the cor- ■ respondence of certain eighteenth-century French writers. It was only natural that V o ltaire, the influential leader of the phIlosophes, should be overjoyed at his friend's promotion. In a le tte r to the young Condorcet, the patriarch of Ferney remarked: Notre ami [D'Alembert] est secretaire perpetuel de I'Academie Francaise. Les ennemls de la philosophie ont f a i t une belle defense; mais les soldats de Gedeon vaincront toujours les Madlanites, en les - eblouissants a force de lumiere [ le 10 avrll 1772] . ^ The newly-elected secretary was fu lly aware of his heavy responsi b ilit ie s . He also f e lt grave concern with respect to the future pro gress of the mouvement phIlosophIque within the French Academy Its e lf. This Is evident in a le tte r which D'Alembert wrote soon after his appointment to his royal acquaintance, Frederick the Great of Prussia: Je ne feral point a votre majesty le detail des traverses de tout genre que la philosophie et les lettres essuient; ce detail ne fe r a lt; que l 'a f f li g e r , pulsqu'elle ne^peut y apporter de remede; e lle se contente de proteger dans ses Etats les sciences et les arts, de gemir sur Ie sort q u 'Ils eprouvent a llle u rs , et d'encourager par ses lemons et par son exemple ceux qui les cultivent [ Ie t6 mai 1772]. | (C E uvres Completes, 2, 323) j It may be well understood that V o ltaire, too, was deeply troubled 1 |over the sharp schism between the philosophes and the anti-philosophes. Furthermore, he was convinced that "tous les gens de lettres, except^ peut-etre quelques charlatans heureux, et quelques faqulns sans aucun mSrite" ( x l v i m , 1 33)* were being persecuted for no just cause or reason. An Incident which took place in the French Academy only a few 12XLV.l I I ( 1 882 ), 68-69. U O ; weeks before D'Alembert became secreta i re had aroused V o lta ire 's Indfg- ; i nation to fever pitch. On March 6, 1772, the Forty Immortals elected two new members to j complete their ranks. On March 9 the King, who either h ea rtily dis liked or greatly feared the members of the French Academy, used his royal prerogative to rescind the action of this illu strio u s and demo cratic organization (V oltaire, X L V III, 132, footnote). Writing to Condorcet, the sage of Ferney mentioned with bitterness this unfortunate event. At the same time, however, he reaffirmed his strong conviction that their mutual friend, D’Alembert, would eventually succeed In creating an atmosphere of calm and unity among the Forty : Immorta1s j J'ai i t i tentl de me mettre dans une grande colere a J'occasion de ce j qui s'est passe a I'Academie Franijaisej mais, quand je consldere que j M. D'Alembert a bien voulu §tre notre secretaire perpltuel, je suis de bonne humeur, parceque je suis stir qu'I I mettra les choses sur un tres bon pied. Les ouragans passent et la philosophie demeure [le 10 mai 1772]. C m a i l , 92). W e shall now observe D'Alembert more in d e ta il, presiding over the j : genera I assemblies and delivering his eulogies before the Forty Immor tals, W e are indebted to Grimm for a revealing glimpse of D'Alembert, ! Iwho so e ffe ctive ly played the dual role of secretaire perpetuel and | jelogiste acadlmlque; but once more we must be on guard against the j b e littlin g , not to say sp ite fu l, tone of Grimm's account: Nous n'avons vu aucun p o rtra it de M. d'Alembert qui fOt bien ressem- blant, et cette ressemblance n 'e ta it pas fa c ile a safs lr; la forme de ses tra its avalt quelque chose de fo rt commun, et sa physlonomie un caractere passablement Indlcis. Un Lavater etit cependant aper^u dans les rep!Is de son front, dans Ie mouvement Inquiet de ses sourciis, dans la partle inflrieure d'un nez tout a la fofs gros et polntu, plusleurs traces d'une expression assez fortement prononc&e. II avalt les yeux p etits, mais Ie regard v lf j la bouche grande, mais son sourilre avalt de la finesse, de I'amertume et je ne sals quo! d'Imperleux. Cel 1 + 1 qu’ I I e ta it le plus aise de dlmller dans I'ensemble de sa figure, c 'e ta it I'habltude d'une attention penetrante, I 1 orfgInaI Ite naTve d'une humeur moins trls te qu'Irascible et chagrine. Sa nature e ta it petite et flu e tte j le son de sa volx si c la ir , si percant, qu'on Ie soupgonnalt beaucoup d'avoir ete dispense par la nature de fa ire a i la philosophie Ie sacrifice cruel qu'Origene crut lul devoir, . . . ! Son extirieu r I t a i t de la plus extreme s lm p lic lti; ii I t a i t presque toujours h a b illl, comme Jean-Jacques, de la tlte aux pieds, d'une seuie couleur; mais les jours de cerlmonie et de representstions acadlmtques II a ffe c fa it de s 'h a b ille r, comme tout Ie monde, avec une ! perruqus a bourse et un noeud de ruban a la Soublse. Ce n'est que dans les Ileux ou il pouvait se croire mofns connu qu 'II n 'e ta it pas f§che sans doute de se distinguer par un costume parti culler, devenu pour ainsi dire le manteau philosophique, manteau qui n'est pas toujours a I'abri du rid icu le, mais qui ne laisse pas d'avoir son prix, et dont I'usage est mime assez commode [janvier 178!+]. (Z T E E , 1+59) To the rather uncharitable gaze of Grimm, such was the man who for nearly twenty years brought dignity and distinction to the public gath erings of the French Academy, In the second half of the eighteenth cen tury these assemblies publiques had become one of the most popular forms of Intellectual entertainment for the monde l i t t l r a i r e . Furthermore, they were attracting the attention of prominent people beyond the boundaries of Paris and France. During the long years of D'Alembert’ s idose association with the Forty Immortals, royal dignitaries visited ; j the renowned republlque des le ttre s . It has already been noted that on more than one occasion D'Alembert acted as presiding o ffic e r, even : I before his election as secretary in 1772. From Mm e du Deffand's corres pondence with Horace Walpole we tearn of the Swedish King's v is it to the two royal academies at Paris: Le Rol de Suede [Gustave] fut mardi a Versailles. . . . Ce nouveau Rol est enchant! du nStrej il a bien raison; I I en a regu toutes les marques d'amitle et de consideration possibles. . . . Ce Rol fut hler a I'Academie des Sciences; II ne fu t point harangul, mais d'Alembert f i t un discours rempli de son eloge; I'on d lt q u 'i 1 est admirable, . . . Aujourd'hul I 1 va a I'Acadlmie frangaise, ou il entendra encore son panegyrique dlrectement ou indirecfement, et toujours par d'Alembert. (Walpole, TTT. 36) h2 V o ltaire's memorable pilgrimage to the French Academy, afte r an absence of many years, proved a day of personal triumph for D'Alembert, j as well as a glorious victory for the enthusiastic representatives of the mouvement philosophique. From the pen of Bachaumont we have a ! graphic report of this event. On April I, I778j Voltaire arrived at the Louvre In a unique con veyance described thus: . , , dans son carrosse couleur d’ azur, parseme d’ eto iles, peinture bizarre qu'on f a it dire a un plaisant que c’ e ta it Ie char de I’ empyreei [ ie I •er avriI 1778].13 With a dramatic touch Bachaumont continues his account of the warm welcome accorded the celebrated but a ilin g patriarch by the distinguished ;Forty Immortals: L’acad&mie est ailee au devant de M. de Voltaire pour le recevoir. II a e t l conduit au siege du directeur, que cet o ffic le r et I'academie; I ’ ont p ri 6 d’ accepter. On avait place son portrait au-dessus de son fauteull. La compagnie sans tir e r au sort, sulvant I ’ usage, a com mence son tra v a il, en le nommant, par acclamation, directeur du trimestre d’ avril . . . [le i ie r avriI 1778], (XI, 175- 176) According to his usual custom, the distinguished secretaire per- I ; lp§tueI closed this particular session with an eloge academlque con- jsidered by some I Iterary c ritic s as one of his best. Bachaumont : concludes his firsthand report with this pertinent comment: I . . . M. D’Alembert a rempii la seance par la lecture de I ’E1oge de DesprSaux [Boileau], dont it avalt d&ja f a i t part dans une ceremonie pub I (que, et ou II avalt inserrfe des choses flatteuses pour le philosophe prlsent [ le I I © *" avrll 1778], (XE, I 76) With his calm determination and executive a b ility , D’Alembert was highly successful In making the assemblies both interesting and profitable} but I t was not without some d iffic u lty that he achieved his 13X r (I7 8U), 175.___________________________ _____ _____________________ purpose. When D’Alembert did not receive the fu ll co-operation of his colleagues he often sought the advice and assistance of Marmontel. ; Dans le temps que d’ Alembert e ta it secretaire de I ’Academie ■ Frangaise, II avait fo rt a coeur de rendre interessantes nos assem blies publiques, et celles de nos stances particulIeres ou les sou- verains asslstaient, Personne ne contribuait autant que lul a les bien remplir. Cependant quelquefols II n’ y pouvait s u fflre , et c ' l t a i t pour lul un chagrin veritable que de s’ y voir abandonne. Alors II recourait a moi, se plaignant de la negligence de tant de gens de lettres qui composaJent I ’Academie, et m e conjurant de I ’ aider a soutenir I ’ honneur du corps. Dans ces occasions pressantes, je composais des morceaux de poeslei ou de prose, que j'adaptais aux circonstances, comme les trots dis cours en vers sur I ’ eloquence, sur I ’ h istoire, sur I ’ espirance de se ■ survivre. Ce dernier, iu a la reception de Duels, successeur de V o ltaire, eut le merite de I ’ a-propos, et f i t sur I ’ assemblie une vive Impression. (Marmontel, I , 344) Having observed D'Alembert as secretaire perpetuel, we shall con- ! sider him In his role as eloglste off Icfel of the French Academy. From contemporary records i t is evident that D’Alembert read some of his eloges in the presence of the Forty Immortals even prior to his election as their secretary in 1772. On August 25, 1771, D'Alembert delivered the ”Eloge de Fenelon” before the general assembly. Comment ing upon the manner In which this discourse was given and the reception! it received, Bachaumont notes: II [D’Alembert] a Iu ensulte le discours, . . . dont le sujet e ta it ! I ’Eloge de M. Fenelon. On y a trouve de tres belles choses, mais II n’ est pas sans defauts, L’orateur qui salt lir e , en a f a i t passer de bien mediocres et de bien maladroites. Quand sa polntrlne est fatiguee, II n’ a qu'a terminer la phrase ou II s ’ arrete par une cer- talne Inflexion de volx, aussltot les audlteurs ermervellles applau- dlssent a la ronde, et lui donnent le temps de reprendre haleine. II a f a i t halte a la seconde partfe, et s ’ est f a it donner une boutellle de la liqueur philosophique. Le geomettre a bu un verre de son I I I - , ment, et il est arrive tres heureusement a la fin [ Ie 25 aout 1 771] . I^ (1784), 304. U k In creating such a precedent in the assembly of the French Academy,; D'Alembert greatly enhanced his personal reputation, f i r s t as a man of letters and later as secrltalre perpetuel. Grimm pointedly remarks i that In th eir printed form D'Alembert's eulogies did not prove nearly as popular as when they had been delivered by th eir author to a large and enthusiastic a u d i e n c e . ^ It must not be assumed that these panegyric discourses always gained the unqualified approval of every member present In this aca- i demic assembly. D'Alembert's frank allusions to unsavory current events, his sarcastic ridicule of mediocre contemporary writers, and his outspoken condemnation of the anti-philosophes frequently created grave concern among some of his sympathetic listeners and angry resent ment within the ranks of his b itte r enemies. Nevertheless, his friends; never failed to manifest their delight in his inimitable a b ilit y as eIogiste, nor to express their disappointment at his rare absences from these gatherings. Grimm cleverly comments: Mats si I'on eCit retranche de ces discours tout ce qui a pu blesser des censeurs trop d lff I d l e s , beaucoup de iecteurs, sans voulolr en convenlr, n'en seralent-iis pas aussi fSches que I'eOt e fh a coup sOr | le suisse de la porte, qui, a une des dernleresseances, disait si I nafvement a son camarade: Stl monslu t'Alempert lire auchourt'hui, ponj ponj car iy it r e touchours pourlesque. Si t'epigramme tres-inno- cente du pauvre suisse pouvait a ffllg e r M. d'Alembert, II s'en consolerait sans doute en se rappilant que les poStes de la calotte oserent bien appeier dans le temps les Eloges de Fontenelle des panegyrlques grotesques, mi-funebres et mI-burIesques [fe v rie r 1779]. r m , 2 \'h ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- While presenting his eloges D'Alembert never failed to hold the 1 V n r (1880), 211-212. b5 ; attention and Interest of his audience. These scholarly eulogistic j discourses delivered before the Forty Immortals were sim ilar in con- 1 struction, style, and tone to his b r illia n t wconversation pieces" exchanged with friends at Informal gatherings. In contrast to his 1 description previously quoted, Grimm makes a laudatory reference to D’Alembert as a conversationalist in a biographical sketch written a few months a fte r the eulogist’s death: La socletl de M. d'Alembert fu t plusleurs annees une des socletis les ; plus brillantes qu’ i I ftit possible de r^unir. . . . Sa conversation | particuliere o f fr a it tout ce qui peut instruire et dilasser I'e s p rit, II se pr&tait avec autant de faci11te que de complaisance au sujet qui pouvait plaire le plus glneralementj il y portalt de la bonhomie e t de la nafvetl, avec un fonds presque in&puisable d’ idees et d’anecdotes et de souvenirs curieux; II n’ est pour ainsi dire point de matlere, quelque seche ou quelque friv o le qu’ e lle ftit en elle-m£me, qu’ II n’ eut Ie secret de rendre Interessante. II p artalt tres-blen, contalt avec beaucoup de precision, et fa ls a !t j a i l l l r le t r a it avec une gr§ce et une prestesse qui lul etaient particuI ieres [jan vler 1781+]. (X III U61) Thus far we have observed D’Alembert In his dual role of secre- taire perpetuel and eIoglste o f f I c i e I . In the fin a l paragraphs of this ; Ichapter we shall discuss b rie fly two special matters pertaining to D’Alembert’s relations with the French Academy: the contrast between jDuclos and D’Alembert, and the "Mazarfn de la L Itte ra tu re ” charge. The fact has been mentioned that D'Alembert differed widely from ;hIs predecessor, Duclos, In character, personality, and administrative : a b ility . Duclos was the uncouth, tactless autocrat; D’Alembert, the polished diplomat, yet the democratic leader of a distinguished repub- 11 que de le ttre s . The striking contrast between these two men, both eminent academiclens, Is s k ilfu lly explained by Damlron in his study of I the mouvement philosophique: Duclos, dans I ’Acadlmfe, e ta it peu agreable de sa personne, et s ’ I I ___ 1 + 6 faut en croire certains m!moIres du temps, de deux choses qu'on I ’ a i d it §tre, "droit et a d r o it,” II serait sans doute injuste de lul contester la premiere, mals II serait d i f f i c i l e de lul accorder la j seconde, et de trouver dans ce franc-parleur parfols grossler, dans ; ce sans-g@ne et cette brusquerfe, non seulement de propos mais aussi de conduite, qu’ on lui p r!te, cette d!licatesse polie et cette I blenvei I Iance plelne d’ !gards, qui, aupres d’ hommes de goQt et de choix, est la premiere des hablletes. Duclos blessait et choqualt souvent. . . . D'Alembert dans les m!mes fonctlons, apportalt de tout autres qualites, e t c’ est un t!moignage dont I ’honorait en le rempla^ant son j successeur [MarmonteI] qu’ i I se dlstinguait par la douce e g a l l t e d ’ un : caractere toujours v ra I, toujours simple, parcequ’ II ! t a l t !loIgne de : toute jactance et de toute dissimulation, mele de force et de : falblesse, mais dont la force e ta it de la vertu et la falblesse de la j bonte. 16 Their methods for propagating the mouvement philosophlque were e n tire ly d ifferen t, as Franklin points out in this passages Duclos et d’Alembert ont e t! I ’ un et I ’ autre secretaires perpetuels de l ’Acad!mie, pendant pres de trente ans, et Ms ont occup! ces fonctions avec un grand eclat. I Is appartenaIent au m!me p a rti, mais avec des nuancess Duclos I t a l t plus mesur! et, maIgre ses allures brusques, plus mattre de lu i, plus polftique, plus dIspos! a des transactions pour §tre plus assure du succes, mais intraltable quand II s’ aglssalt des privileges de la compagnle, . . . Mais celul qui tlen t la plus grande place dans I ’ histolre de I'Aca-! d&mie, au X V llfe siecle, encore plus que V o ltaire , qui v lv a lt presque I toujours a I ’Itranger, c’est d'Alembert. (lll+ -ll5 ) In his position as secretaire perpltuel D’Alembert usually manl- Ifested a s p ir it of tolerance, even toward those academicians who were !n^ Violent opposition to the philosophe group. Nicholas C arltat de | Condorcet described the real nature of D'Alembert's attitude in these words t II [D’Alembert] dispute rarement, e t Jamais avec algreur. Ce n’ est pas qu’ I I ne so lt, au mofns quelquefols, attach! a son avlsj mais II est trop peu Jaloux de subjuguer les autres pour !tr e fo rt empress! de les amener a penser comme lul. |6 X U (I861+), 18-19. k l D 'aiIleu rs, a I ’ exception des sciences exactes, II n’ y a presque rien qui lul paralsse assez c la lr pour ne pas lalsser beaucoup de liberte aux opinions, et sa maxlme favorite est que, presque sur tout, on peut dire tout ce qu'on veut. ^ 7 There were, of course, certain hostile partisans of the anti-phi lo-; sophe group who seized every opportunity to disparage D'Alembert. They: questioned the sincerity of his attitude} they doubted the honesty of his motives} and they condemned the tolerance of his democratic s p ir it. ; His enemies called him the Mazarin de la litte ra tu re because of his arbitrary manner in conducting the assemblies and his habit of c r i t i cizing a few men of letters. The basic reasons for this severe and harsh censure are developed in the following statement: II semble qu'on a ft voulu lul fa lre porter la peine d'avolr pu It r e appetl le Mazarin, le dictateur, de la litte ra tu re , de s 'lt r e comporte a I'Acadlmie jusqu'a un certain point, p eu t-ltre en despote et avec dogmatism'e, et d'avolr alme a y fa lre la parade, comme le prefendait Bachaumont. ” 11 aval t Ipouse I'Acadimie,” assure Marmontel,; On a retenu I'eplgramme de Gilbert dans sa satire sur le XVI I 1° siecle: ”Chancelier du Parnasse— qui se c ro it un grand homme et f i t une preface,” Lecteur trop habile, au dire des maIveI I I ants, malgri sa volx de fausset, II ne fa ls a lt pas vouloir seulement ses EIoges avec une diction lente et calculee, mais aussi les discours et les pieces de polsie des laureats, C 'e ta lt Jouer a I'a r t is t e , appeler par la, Indirectement, ('attention sur tous ses ouvrages non-sclentlfiques,! dont on aural t pu molns parler. (Balteau, I , li+I I ) ! Nevertheless, it may be safely stated that, although D'Alembert, ;the eminent secretaire perpltuel, was a man of firm conviction and i j [determined Ideas, he could not be considered the Mazarin de la 1 1 ttlra - j ture Francalse. Until a few days before his demise on October 29, 1783, D'Alembert was actively associated with the Forty Immortals. In recording his ^OEuvres de D'Alembert: Sa Vie, Ses CEuvres, Sa Phllosophle (Paris, 1853), p. 6. ------ 48 death, Bachaumont reminds us of the fact that for Jean Le Rond | D’Alembert the office of secretaire perp&tuel of the Acadlmie Frangaise! was the greatest of all the high honors bestowed upon him during a long; and illustrious career, A citation from this contemporary journalist may serve as a f it t i n g conclusion to this chapters M. D’Alembert est mort hler, a 7 heures du matin. II e ta it ne en 1717} il e ta it des acadlmies des sciences de Paris, de Berlin, et de ! Petersbourg, de la societe royale de Londres, de I ’ in s titu t de Bologne, de I ’ acad^mie royale des belles Iettres de Suede, des socletis royales des sciences de Turin et de Norvege. Mais entre tant de titre s honor!f1ques, celul qui le f l a t t a l t le plus e ta it sa j qua Iite de secretaire de I ’ acad&mie frangaise, que, malgre ses in firm itie s, qui depuis quelque temps le mettaient hors d’ eta t de la remplir, II n’ a jamais voulu abdlquer [ le $0 octobre 1783]. l8Z Z m (1784), £29-230. CHAPTER 2 THE PATTERN OF D'ALEMBERT'S ELOGES In his nonsclent I f I c works, D’Alembert occasionally discusses what should be the purpose, nature, and scope of the eloge academique. From these passages we can discover the basic pattern of his own eulo- I gies. D’Alembert penned his f ir s t remarks on this subject when he col laborated with Denis Diderot in the publication of the Encyclopedie, ou iDictionnaire Raisonne des Sciences, des Arts, et des Metiers . . . . Defining the term feloge acadlmique he remarks; II y en a de deux sortes, d’ oratoires et hlstoriques. Ceux qu’ on prononce dans I'academie fran^oise sont de la premiere espece,J D’Alembert then clearly indicates in what respects the IIoges hlstoriques d iffe r from the £loges oratoires, pointing out that in the Academy of Sciences, as we I I as in the other academies (with the excep- ; jtionof the French Academy), the eulogies are always delivered by the o ffic ia l secretaries of the various august assemblies. Furthermore, j .these 11 oges, unlike those given in the French Academy, may contain the j biogrqnhies of the deceased academicians. Because the lloges historiques are biographical in nature, they may become memoirs and serve as source material for Iite ra ry history. I jTherefore, in D'Alembert’s opinion they must be tru thful. If , however, I I I i !V (Paris, 1755), 527. 50 the truth becomes distorted, the eloges may degenerate into satiresi Ces eloges etant historiques, sont proprement des memoires pour servir a I'h ls to ire des lettres: la verite dolt done en fa ire le caractere principal. On doit neanmolns I ’ adoucir, ou m§me la taire quelquefois, parceque c’ est un eloge et non une satire que I ’ on dolt fa lre ; mais II ne faut jamais la deguiser ni I ’ alterer. (Diderot, 2, 527) It is not d if f ic u lt to see that the &loge historique of the Academy of Sciences was the model adapted to his own needs when D’Alembert accepted the responsibility of delivering eulogies before the French Academy. This radical modification of the traditional eloge I academique is clearly brought out in the following passage, which is probably the most comprehensive and detailed d efin itio n of this par ticu lar 1i terary genre to be found In the works of D’Alembert or any of his predecessorst Dans un eloge academique on a deux objets a pelndre, la personne et I ’ auteur: I *une et I'au tre se peindront par les fa its . Les re fle x ions philosophlques dolvent surtout §tre I ’ 3me de ces sortes d 'ecrits eI Ies seront tantot melees au r e d t avec art et brievete, tantot rassemblees et developpees dans des morceaux p artic u llers, ou elles formeront comme des masses de lumiere qui serviront a ec la ire r le reste. Ces reflexions, separees des fa its ou entrem§lees avec eux, auront pour objet ie caractere d'esprlt de I ’auteur, I ’espece et le degrS de ses talents, de ses lumieres et de ses connaissances, Je contraste ou I ’ accord de ses e crits et de ses moeurs, de son coeur et , de son esp rit, et surtout le caractere de ses ouvrages, leur degre de : merite, ce qu’ ils renferment de neuf ou de slnguller, le point de perfection ou I ’ academicien ava11 trouve la matiere qu'I I a t r a it ie , et le point de perfection ou II I ’ a lafssee; en un mot, I ’ analyse raisonnee des e c rits , car c’ est aux ouvrages qu’ 11 faut prlnclpalement s ’ attacher dans un eloge academique. (Diderot, V, 527) Though emphasizing the Importance of a knowledge of a w rite r's life and character as the firm basis for a f a ir evaluation of his I Iterary productions, D’Alembert would not give praise to poor or mediocre w rit ings. The portrayal of the author's personality Is only the means to an end, a well-balanced judgment and objective interpretation of his works: . . . car c’ est aux ouvrages qu’ I I faut prlncipalement s'attacher ; dans un eIoge academique se borner a peindre la personne, meme avec les couleurs les plus avantageuses, ce seroit fa ire une satire indirecte de I ’ auteur et de sa compagniej ce seroit supposer que I ' academicien e to it sans talents, et qu’ 11 n’ a ete regu qu'a titr e d’ honn§te homme, t it r e , tres estimable pour la societe, mais insuffisant pour une compagnie litte r a ir e . Cependant comme II n'est pas sans exemple de voir adopter par des academiciens des hommes d’ un talent tres foible, soit par faveur et malgre e lle , soit autrement, c’ est alors le devoir du secretaire de se rendre pour ainsi dire mediateur entre sa compagnie et le public, en p a llia n t ou excusant 1’ indulgence de I ' une sans manquer de respect a I ’ autre, et m§me a la verite. Pour cela, II doit reunir avec choix et presenter sous un point de vue avantageux ce qu’ iI peut y avoir de bon et d 'u tile dans les ouvrages de ceiui qui est oblige de louer, Mais si ces ouvrages ne fournissent absolument rien a dire, que faire alors? Se taire, Et s i, par un malheur tres-rare, la conduite a deshonore les ouvrages, quel parti prendre? louer les ouvrages. (Diderot, 3Z, 527-528) D’Alembert’ s classic essay, Reflexions sur les Eloges Academiques (1759), constitutes his most extensive statement on this subject of the' academic eulogy. In the Introductory paragraphs he expresses the hope that the academicians selected for these eulogies w ill not prove unworthy of the homage accorded them: , , , nous esperons que les gens de lettres qui sont I ’objet des eloges suivans ne paraftront pas Indignes de I ’ hommage que nous leur rendons. On verra un des plus grands mathematiciens de son siecle, un philosophe pratique du premier ordre, un sage legislateur du genre, humain, un grammairien de geniej enfin, ce qui est presque aussi rare,: et peut-itre plus estimable, un theoioglen toi&rant et modere, e tc ., etc. (D'Alembert, OEuvres Completes, TT. 151) D’Alembert is fu lly aware that in selecting a wide group of sub jects for his eulogies he has been c ritic ize d by some people. In thetr opinion, only those academicians who through their In te lle c t and a b ility have enlightened th eir contemporaries and have brought honor to their country are worthy of high commendation: Quelques censeurs se sont eleves contre cette m u ltip lic ity fastidieuse d'eloges. Si on les en c ro it, ceux qui par leurs lumieres et leurs 52 talens ont eclalre leurs contemporaIns, et honore leur patrie, sont les seuls dlgnes de nos hommages; mais a quoi bon, disent-M s, transmettre a la posterite des noms inconnus a leur propre siecle, et Jeur accorder so Ienne1 Iement une place dans les tastes litte ra ir e s , ou I'on ne pensera jamais a les chercher. (D'Alembert, C E uvres Completes, H , 150) Admitting that in certain Instances he may not have selected the most distinguished or the best-known members of the French Academy, D'Alembert insists that mankind would be better informed and history more interesting had former generations le ft for posterity the biog raphies of men of letters, rather than the statues of great men or panegyrics of worthless kings: Nous avouerons sans peine que I'usage dont on se plaint a ses abusj et quel usage n’ a pas les siens? mais les abus nous paralssent si legers en comparaison des avantagesj Si les anciens qui elevaient des statues aux grands hommes, avaient eu le m&m e sofn que nous d'ecrirela vie des gens de iettres, nous aurions, II est vrai, quelques memolres Inutiles, mais nous serions plus instrults sur les progres des sciences et des arts, et sur les decouvertes de tous les §ges, histolre plus Interessante pour nous que ceI Ie d'une foule de souveralns qui n'ont f a i t que du m a I aux hommes. (CEuvres Completes, xn , 150) The Importance of this passage for us lies In the type of man D'Alembert selected as a suitable subject for his eulogy and his motive In preparing It. The eulogist firm ly believes that this deceased academician must have defin itely contributed something of permanent value to his own generation, as well as to posterity. Moreover, D'Alembert Intended that the eIoge should present an impartial appraisal; i of a truly great man and an objective evaluation of his notable achieve ments. Furthermore, this panegyric must reveal information of didactic value to the reader. Continuing his customary logic, D'Alembert states that the results of a man's personal efforts should form the basis upon which he merits 53 recognition and praise. The eulogy must therefore be an account of his; lifework. It must also be strongly biographical In nature, portraying j the subject both as an individual and as a w riter: C'est par les actions qu’ iI faut louer ceux qui le m lritentj I ’eloge d’ un homme de lettres dolt done etre le rScit de ses travaux. Mais il est peut-§tre aussi u tile de fa ire connattre ce qu'il a ete, et de peIndre I ’ homme en m£me temps que I ’ ecrlvain, au risque de changer quelquefois le panegyrique en histolre. En montrant d’ un c6te aux lecteurs Instrults ce que les sciences ou les lettres dolvent a celui , qu’ on loue, le point ou il les a trouvees, et celui ou il les a laissees par ses veil let, on interessera de I'autre les lecteurs philosophes par le contraste ou par 1’ accord de ses ecrits et de ses moeurs. (CEuvres Completes, TT. I 5 I) W e must note carefully that with D’ Alembert there are certain limitations to the principle that an author's personality tr a its , as well as his creative effo rts , ought to command the attention of the thoughtful reader. An analysis of the I 1terary productions Is indis pensable. When necessary, the author's undesirable characteristies, his weaknesses, and his vices, must remain Inconspicuous, since the chief purpose of an &Ioge academique is to make lite ra ry works worthy of respect, and not of scorn: Le caractere des hommes celebres n'est pas moins digne de fix e r nos regards que leurs talensj cette regie a cependant quelques re s tr ic tions. L'analyse des ecrits est Indispensable dans I'ilo g e historique! d'un homme de Iettresj a I ’egard du caractere et des moeurs, s 'I I est; du devoir de I'h lsto rlen de ne pas cacher les defauts qui font rentrer les gens de lettres dans la classe ordinaire de I'humanity, il est encore plus necessaire de t ir e r le rideau sur les vices qui ont quelquefois terni I ’ eclat des talens. Le but des eloges I i t t e - j ralres est de rendre les lettres respectables, et non de les a v ilir , (OEuvres Completes, H , 151) In his concluding statements D’Alembert firm ly maintains that If an author’ s personal character and reputation are suspect, only his I Iterary achievements must be considered. If , on the other hand, the w rite r’ s character and conduct are beyond reproach, but his writings 5 U are without merit, then a discreet silence should be maintained: ! SI done par un malheur qui n'est pas sans exemple, la conduite a dishonor! ies ouvrages, quel parti prendre? louer ies ouvrages. Et j si d'un autre c6te la conduite est sans reproche, et Ies ouvrages sansj merite, que dire alors? se taire. On oublie qu'on doit parler d'un homme de lettres, ou plut&t on en f a it Indirectement la s a tire , quand I on se borne a celebrer en lui I'homme vertueux, t it r e tres-estimable dans la societe, mais tres-peu Iltte r a ir e . Que penserait-on d'un general d'armee, dans I'eloge duquel on ne trouverait ni batailles gagnees ni v ilie s prises? (cEuvres Completes, I E , 150 In the last part of his Reflexions D'Alembert presents at length j certain concepts as to the form and style of the eloge historique. It must not resemble an oratorical discourse or a monotonous narrative. Scattered throughout the eloge w ill be appropriate philosophical reflec tions which may become the soul and the substance of this new Iite ra ry .genre. D'Alembert goes on to teI 1 us that he has varied the style and tone of each eulogy, not only to relieve any monotony, but also to make the eloge resemble as closely as possible the author under discussion. To gain this v a r l lt ! de ton et de s ty le , the eulogist has even imitated the oratorical manner employed by the academician in his discours de reception, or perhaps he has quoted from the author's actual works: Les eloges que je pubiie sont interessans par la celebrite de ceux qui en sont P o b je t. J'ai tlch! de donner a chacun la variete de ton: et de style si necessaire a ce genre d'ouvrage pour en rompre la monotonie, pour rendre en mime temps chaque eloge plus analogue e t, J'ose le dire, plus ressembiant a celui qui en e ta it I ’objet, II n'a pas fa llu louer du mime ton I'abbe de Choisy et Bossuet, Fenelon et Desprlaux, La Motte et I'abbe de Saint-Plerre. J'ai quelquefois emprunte le style des dffferens academiclens qui, dans leurs discours de rlceptlon, ont pay! a leurs succeseurs le trib u t de louanges ordfnaires, ou qui ont f a it dans leurs ouvrages un !loge p a rtic u lie r de quelques uns de leurs confreres. Quelquefois J'ai f a it parler ceu» m£me dont J'avats a entretenfr mes lecteursj enfin je n'al rlen n!glig! pour soutenir et 1nteresser I'attention des gens de lettres, m£me dans Ies articles les plus courts; car il en est plusieurs qui, par leur nature, ne comportaient que tres-peu d'ltendue. (C E uvres j Completes, H , 153) 55 From our point of view, this passage may be the most significant one from the Reflexions because I t reveals D'Alembert's method of w rit-! i ing his eloges, a method suggesting elements that w ill be found In the i s ty lis tic technique of Sainte-Beuve and in that of his spiritual suc cessors such as Lytton Strachey and Andre Maurois. In the closing paragraphs of his essay D'Alembert explains the pur- • pose of the supplementary material, the copious notes attached to many > of his eulogies? Les notes faites sur les eloges, et qui en sont pour ainsi dire le supplement, peuvent se lire de suite; elle s renferment, ou des fa its qui nous ont paru Interessans pour les gens de lettres, ou des remarques, aussi utiles que nous avons pu Ies fa ire , sur des objets de litte ra tu re et de philosophle. Elies contiennent aussi quelque fo is , mais tres-rarement, des details purement grammaticaux, r e ia tifs aux ouvrages dont certains academiciens se sont occupes. (CE uvres Completes, IE , 155) For several reasons D'Alembert found i t necessary to append notes to his eloges. In the f ir s t place, he lacked su fficien t time to deliver extensive eulogies in the general assembly. Consequently, he was forced to omit from the oral version much valuable, as well as factual, information. His colleagues would have manifested only slight ; interest in the heavily-detailed biography of an obscure, deceased Immortal about whose life and achievements they were to ta lly Ignorant. ;As one of the most influential ph ilosophes, on several occasions the eulogist would no doubt have ta c tfu lly avoided revealing certain facts, inimical either to the reputation of the subject of his eloge or to the cause of which he was such a formidable protagonist. More than ten years after the Reflexions was published, D'Alembert delivered before the general assembly his noteworthy Pi scours lu a I'Academie Frangaise, le 25 aoOt 1771, avant la distribution des Prix 56 d*£loquence et de Poesie. In this address he reiterated a basic concept: previously expressed in the RefJexions: through the eloges academiques j deceased members of the French Academy were receiving belated honor and j just recognition— fa ir and noble tributes which they rig h tfu lly deserved and should have won from their contemporaries: L'Academfe a tache, messieurs, je dirais presque a ffe c t!, de prendre les sujets de ses eloges dans tous les etats et dans tous les talens, ; depuis le guerrier jusqu'au philosophe, depuis le monarque jusqu'au ■ simple homme de lettres. Elie a cru remplir en ceI a les voeux de la nation. Elie a plus f a it encore, et toujours d'apres les vues dont vous lui avez paru an!m!s. Parmi Ies citoyens respectables que nous avons exposes a la veneration publique, il en est plusfeurs qui n'ont pas trouve dans leurs contemporaIns toute la justice qu1iIs avaient droit d'en attendre: nous nous sommes cruscbliges d'acqultter envers ces hommes I I lustres la dette de leur siecle, et de con^iler, ou peut-!tre m!me d'apaiser leurs m8nes, en accumulant sur leur tombeau Jes honneurs qu'auraient merit!s leurs personnes. (CEuvres Completes, TV, 311) Another piece of writing In which D’Alembert mentions the !loge academique is his celebrated Preface, which he f ir s t delivered before the French Academy on August 25, 1772. A few years later ( 1779), he had i t printed at the beginning of his Eloges I us dans les Seances Publiques de l*Acad!mie Franco!se. As noted e a rlie r, a fte r the Preface came an Avertlssement sur les Eloges qui suivent, containing certain passages of: j ; particular interest in our present discussion. In an introductory paragraph of the Preface, the secretaI re pre sents two objectives for continuing the history of the French Academy: L’Ouvrage que Je m e propose de continuer, dolt avoir deux objetsj le re c it des fa its genlraux qui concernent I'Academie, & I'Eloge des Membres qu’ e lle a perdus. Le premier objet offre jusqu’ Ici peu d'evenemens. . . . Le second objet, I'Eloge des Academiciens, offre plus de champ, de varie t! & d’ In te r!t. . . ,2 2(Parls), pp. v j - v ij . 57 It is in the Avertlssement that D'Alembert makes his final and complete statement concerning his eIoges and their composition: Tout ce que nous avons d it des Academiciens dont il est question dans ce Volume, est tir e , soit de leurs Ouvrages, soit de Memoires imprimes ou manuscrits que nous avons consultls, soit de leurs con versations, que nous avons recu e illies nous-m4mes, ou que nous tenons de ceux qui ont le plus vecu dans leur Societe. Nous avons simplement appele par ieur nom la plupart de ces AcadS- miciens, Bossuet, Massillon, Despr&aux [Boileau], & cj nous en avons us4 autrement pour quelques autres; la c4lebrit4 plus ou moins grande de ceux dont nous avions a parler, I'usage e ta b li, le ton general de chaque Eloge, enfin une forte de convenance, bien ou ma1 apper^e, nous ont guides dans ce partage, Si nous avons eu to rt, la faute est Iegere & la correction fa c ile , (pp. i i j - i v ) The f ir s t of these paragraphs Just cited deserves our special attention because it states succinctly the essential steps in a pro cedure that was to become the basis of lite ra ry criticism as practiced by Sainte-Beuve and his followers. This same procedure was later to be the basis of our modern biographical genre. In the closing passages of the Avertissement D'Alembert discusses his style of w riting, mentions the chronological arrangement of his 4 1oges, and refers to certain specific changes made in the printed ver sion of these particular Sloges academiques: Un Volume qui ne contient que des Eloges, court le risque de parottre bien monotone. N'ayant que frop sent! cet inconvenient, nous avons t&chl, suivant nos foibles moyens, de varier le plus qu'iI nous a et4 possible le style de ce Recuei I , & de ne pas louer du m£me ton I'Abbe de Choisy & Bossuet, Fenelon & Despreaux [Boileau], La Motte & i'Abbe de Saint-Pierre. L'essential auroit ete de donner a chacun de ces morceaux le caractere de ceux que nous avions a pelndre; mais c 'e t o it - la le plus d i f f i c il e . Aussi ne nous flattons - nous pas d'y avoir rlussi. Nous avons eu so in de marquer la date de chaque lecture, parce qu '1 I y a dans plusieurs de ces Eloges [comme il est a is l de s'en appercevoir) des choses uniquement relatives au moment ou iIs ont ete I us. Nous avons aussi fa it en quelques endroits un p e tit nombre _____ 58 d'additions, qui n'ont point ete lues a I'Academie. La Critique dira I sans doute qu’ iI eut mieux valu faire des retranchemens, & la Critique; pourra bien avoir raison. (pp. iv -v j) I The unusual quality of D'Alembert’ s Interest in biography comes out in the declaration that while writing the eloges his essential aim was to give to each selection ’Me caractere de ceux que nous avions a pe i ndre, " It i s d I f f i cul t to s^/ exact I y what D'AI ember t rea I 1 y implies by the term "caractere." The phrase "cast of mind" probably best inter prets his real Intent. In any case, this concern to preserve and to communicate a genuine "physiognomy" proved an innovation fraught with more possibilities than D'Alembert perhaps suspected at the time he was composing his eIoges. A further study of the passages just cited indicates that D'Alembert, like the panegyrist Thomas, used the eulogy proper more or less as a point of departure for the Iite ra ry biography of an author and a c ritic a l evaluation of his works. As we shall see later, the "petit nombre d'additions" appended to the eloges grew into a series of ; special notes, the extent of which sometimes surpassed the actual length of the eulogy Its e lf. It w ill be almost impossible to determine in some cases what part of the written subject matter represents the I veritable or original eIoges, since we possess no stenographic notes of i the manuscripts D'Alembert actually read In the French Academy. W e may summarize the basic principles dictating the pattern of D'Alembert's e 1oges thus: I. The eloge academique must retain a dual purpose: the portrayal of an author, both as an Individual and as a man of letters} and the balanced and objective evaluation of his intellectual or i 1terary 5 9 achievements. j 2. The 4 1oge academique must be biographical In nature, since ! only through an acquaintance with the man himself Is the reader able to ! Interpret correctly and evaluate objectively the writings or the accom- ; plishments of the person under consideration. 3. The eloge academique must always remain a f a ir and objective appraisal of the subject and his accomplishments. Therefore, i t should : contain a fu ll measure of truth and fa ls ify , If at a l l , only by omission; of certain facts. Otherwise, the eulogy becomes a satire. Ij.. The biographical element, although extremely Important, must be used only as a means to a much more Important end, the c ritic a l evaluation of an author’ s I Iterary productions or a man's intellectual achievements. 5. The subjects of the eulogies w ill be selected from personnages whose contributions to their own generation and posterity have proved of lasting value. Consequently, they must be chosen from many different professions and represent varied walks of life . 6. The form and tone of the eloge may vary with the type of sub ject selected and with his particular style of writing. 7. The copious notes appended to the eloges comprise both supple- | I mentary factual information and new primary source material. ! It Is quite clear that, In a ra tio n a lis tic way wholly character is tic of his own personality and of the group of thinkers with whom he was associated, D’Alembert had a very d efinite conception of what he Intended to do In his eloges. Taking the eloge hlstorlque as conceived by Fontenelle, the secretary of the French Academy, D’Alembert extended 6o Its scope, then analyzed Its desired content In a more detailed and precise manner. By force of circumstances, D'Alembert had to preserve the essential; character of a eulogy, namely, praise and commendation. Thus, If the eulogist could not give sincere praise, he should be silen t. Here, however, D'Alembert subtly circumvented the problem of privileges con ferred by noble rank. He pointed out repeatedly that to praise an individual elected to an illustrious body of men of letters simply because of his noble birth was In r e a lity a way of damning him as a w riter or thinker, and hence as a member of the French Academy. This f i r s t requisite, praise, led d irectly to a second requirement, that of provoking thought. Not only must the eloge eulogize the man; I t should single out for particular commendation his writings, whether purely I Iterary, erudite, or even controversI a I . Thus the eulogy usually became an effective vehicle for stimulating thought and dis pensing new Ideas. It was undoubtedly D'Alembert's emphasis on a man's lite ra ry , s c ie n tific , or professional accomplishments that accounted for his reiterating the Importance of the observations philosophlques in such a eulogy. D'Alembert's insistence upon the "philosophical observation" went even further, bringing us to the very heart of his conception of the eloge academique. The eulogy, he te lls us, is to become part of I Iterary history, since he considers the aim of the e I oge to be c ritic a l eva I uat Io n ~ th a t Is, aesthetic and moral judgment. Here D'Alembert Is hampered by two circumstances: ( l ) the very nature of the eulogy, praise by definition, a stricture referred to above; and (2) the blenseances of polite society 6 1 as a whole, and of the French Academy in particular. As we shall see late r, D’Alembert was able to use various ruses to ; circumvent many of these restrIctIons. Among the more obvious devices • were those of actually modifying the oral text once the eulogy was printed, and, s t i l l more Important, the supplementing of the published text with copious notes. Because these "appendices" were not an : ! integral part of the eloges proper they did not have to be so exclusive-* ly laudatory In tone. i The supplementary notes Illu s tra te a much more important phase of D’Alembert's conception of the eloge since they are the vehicle of biographical detail and anecdote. D’Alembert, perhaps the f i r s t to do so among French c ritic s , states e x p lic itly that in order to appreciate fu lly a man’ s professional and Intellectual accomplishments, the reader should know something about his life and person. D'Alembert makes It repeatedly evident that, even though manifesting a marked Interest In biographical material, he must keep it subordinated to his principal objective— throwing Into re lie f the subject’ s works. He goes to great length to te ll us where and how he obtained this biographical fnforma- 'tion about the subjects of his lloges. In reading the actual eulogies, we understand much more clearly the Importance which D’Alembert attaches to the style of a man’ s writing as the "master key" to his thoughts and personality. When D'Alembert states that "L’ essentiel auroit ete de donner a chacun de ces morceaux [eloges] le caractere de ceux que nous avions a pelndre" (Eloges I us dans ies Seances Publiques, p. v), he is attempting to achieve what we would call empathy wi th the subjects of a I I his eulogies. He Is 62, demonstrating in a way perhaps unparalleled before his own time an especially profound understanding of Georges Louis Leclerc de Button’ s ; ! 3 celebrated dictum: 1 ,Le style est de I ’ homme m§me.,t i There now remains for us the task of seeing how D’Alembert applied: his basic principles in the individual eloge. ^CE uvres Completes de Button, ed. A. Richard (Paris, I835)j 10. CHAPTER 3ZT D’ALEMBERT'S EARLIEST ELOGES As a necessary introduction to the detailed study of the e 1oges academiques, we must consider certain eulogies which D'Alembert wrote prior to his association with the French Academy. The fundamental difference between these two groups of eulogies is that the pre-Academy: ones were intended exclusively for publication, and the eloges acade- miques were written to be delivered orally before the general assem blies. Altogether, there are five pre-Academy eIoges. The f ir s t three D'Alembert wrote especially for Diderot's Encyclopediej the fast two he published in his Melanges de Litterature, d'Hfstoire et de Phliosophie. The bibliographic history of these pre-Academy eloges Is Interest ing from several aspects. At the beginning of Volume Five ( 1755) of the Encyclopedie there is an Avertissement des Editeurs which was ! written Jointly by Diderot and D'Alembert, the final paragraph of which I contains this information: L'Encyclopedie a perdu M. I ’Abbe Langlet du Fresnoy. Nous prions ies personnes qui I'ont connu particulierement de nous faire parvenlr des memoires pour son eloge que nous comptons placer a la tete du sixieme volume. C'est un devoir que nous proposons de rendre dans la suite a tous ceux qui auront bien voulu nous aiderj devoir que nous souhait- erons de n’ avoir jamais a remplir. M. de Montesquieu sera le premier envers Jequel nous nous en acquitterons. Sa famllle a eu la bonte de nous fournir pour cela les memoires dont nous avions besoin, et de mettre en meme temps un a rtic le que ce grand homme nous destinait. (p. I i ) Then follows the f ir s t and very important eloge, that of 6b Montesquieu. A comparison of this original version with the one appear-; ing in the definitive edition, OEuvres Completes de D’Alembert (1821- 1822), reveals few differences as to format or content. In the Encyclopedie, D'Alembert' s "Ana I yse de I'E sprit des Lois" is printed as a continuous footnote to the 11oge Its e lf. The eulogist gives the reason for this arrangement in the final paragraph of his "Analyse": "Nous 1’ avons separ&e du reste de son eloge pour ne pas interrompre la suite de notre recit" (2, x11 I ). In the 1821 — 1822 edition, however, the "Analyse" appears as an appendix to the eloge. When D’Alembert wrote the original version of his eulogy he prepared an Introductory paragraph which served as a preface, but this portion was eliminated In the CEuvres Completes. In this introduction D'Alembert clearly states his purpose in writing the "Eloge de Montesquieu": L 'lnteret que Ies bons citoyens prennent a I ’Encyclopedi e, et le grand nombre de gens de lettres qui lul consacrent leurs travaux, semblent nous permettre de I a regarder comme un des monuments Ies plus propres ; a etre depositaires des sentiments de la patrle, et des hommages qu’e lle dolt aux hommes celebres qui I ’ont honoree. Persuades nlanmolns que M. de Montesquieu e ta it en droit d'attendre d’ autres panegyrlstes que nous, et que la douleur publlque eut mlrite des interpretes plus &Ioquents, nous eusslons renferme au dedans de ; nous-m§me nos justes regrets et notre respect pour sa m^moirej mais I'aveu de ce que nous lul devons est trop precleux pour en lalsser auxi autres, Blenfalteur de I ’ Humanlte par ses ecrits, II a daigne l'§ tre ■ aussi de cet ouvrage; et notre reconnaissance ne veut que tracer quelques lignes au pled de sa statue. (2, i l i ) Another difference between the earlie st and later versions of the "Eloge de Montesquieu" lies in the closing paragraphs, where D'Alembert discusses the eminent author as a poet. In the Encyclopedie text this evaluation Is quite b rief, but In the other editions there are several l jadditional paragraphs with excerpts from Montesquieu’s poetry. 65 Volume Six of the Encyclopedle was published In 1756, and once more Its editors printed an Avertlssement des Editeurs. In their Pref ace Diderot and D'Alembert state that tributes to the memories of deceased colleagues would be included in that particular volume. Following the editors' statement there appears a brief obituary notice of Langlet du Fresnoy, as well as a biographical sketch of the deceased Abbl Edmonde Mallet. This a rtic le , under a new t i t l e "Eloge de M a lle t,” appeared in the same form in the edition of 1821-1822. However, a eulogy of Langlet du Fresnoy never appeared in a later vol um e of the Encyclop&die. Volume Seven of the Encyclopedie (1757) contained D'Alembert's much more important "Eloge de Du Marsais." In the closing paragraph, eventually omitted In later editions, he gave the names and qualifica tions of possible successors to Du Marsais. Having severed his edito rial association with Diderot after the publication of Volume Seven, D'Alembert discontinued writing eIoges for the Encyclopedle. W e shall now consider the five pre-Academy k Ioges in the order of their appearance In the Encyclopedie and the Me Ianges, "Eloge de Montesquieu" Although this is the f I r s t 4 loge contributed by D'Alembert to Diderot's monumental work, I t is a we I I-deveI oped study of Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu's career and personality, as we Ii as a shrewd, c ritic a l evaluation of his writings. It Is a worthy tribute to j one whom D'Alembert considered a b r illia n t lite ra ry light and, what is more, a forerunner and a lly of the mouvement ph1losoph1que. 66 The eulogist gives detailed attention to the outstanding events in Montesquieu's life and to the training for his public career. It must be noted, however, that D'Alembert always related the biographical facts either to the interpretation of Montesquieu, le phi iosopha, or c ritic a l appraisal of his writings, D'Alembert begins his account with a description of Montesquieu's noble birth and his proud, centuries-old ancestry. Thinking no doubt of his own obscure origin,^ D'Alembert adroitly comments: Ces details paraltront peut-§tre diplaces a la tite de 1'eloge d'un philosophe dont le nom a si peu besoin d'ancitresj mais n'envlons point a leur memoire I'e c la t que ce nom ripand sur e lle .^ In saying that Montesquieu's achievements add lustre to his fore bears, rather than vice versa, D'Alembert Is expressing a firm convic tion which he w ill reiterate more than once in later eloges. Pointing out that at a very early age Montesquieu had already chosen his life career, D'Alembert states: ", . . son pere donna tous ses soins a cultiver ce ginie naissant, objet de son esperance et de sa tendresse" (OEuvres Completes, -LI-1,, ). D'Alembert mentions further that Montesquieu, though only twenty ;years of age, was already gathering material for what would eventually :become his chef-d'oeuvre, the "Esprit des Lois." Montesquieu accepted his f ir s t public office in I7I1+. Although ^Larousse (2, I 32) states: "II e ta it enfant naturel de Mm e de Tencln et du commissaire d 'a r t ille r le Destouches, A sa naissance il avalt ete expose sur les marches de la chapelle de SaInt-Jean-le-Rond. Elevl par la femme d'un pauvre v it r ie r , II ne cessa jamais de la considerer comme sa mere, bien que Mm e de Tencin I ' eut volontiers, reconnu pour son f i l s lorsqu'II fut devenu cllebre." p ___ C E uvres Completes, I I I (1821), l+i+O. 67 D'Alembert does not comment at length upon his subject's work as presi- ; dent of the parliament of Bordeaux, he does throw light on Montesquieu'^ character and personality as a civil servants Place entre le trone et le peuple, II remplit en sujet respectueux et en maglstrat pleln de courage I'emplo! si noble et si peu envle de falre parvenir au souverain le crl des malheureux; et la misere publique representee avec autant d'habilete que de force, obtint la justice qu'elle demandait. (OEuvres Completes, TTT, I4 I4 .I ) Montesquieu Joined the circle of the Forty Immortals on January 2!+,; 1728. Soon after this memorable event he began his grand tour of Europe and England. D'Alembert explains the main purpose of Montesquieu's ambitious undertaking thus: Son but I t a i t d'examlner partout le physique et Ie moral; d'etudier les lois et la constitution de chaque pays; de v is ite r Ies savans, les ecrivains, les artistes celebresj de chercher surtout ces hommes rares et slngullers dont le commerce supplee quelquefois a plusieurs ann&es d'observatlons et de sljour. (CEuvres Completes, I I I , I4 I4 .5) D'Alembert continues with a lengthy description of Montesquieu's travels, in which he makes frequent and tellin g comments on the trav eler's Impressions of the countries visited and of the notable people encountered along his Itinerary. One of the most illuminating comments : prefers to Montesquieu's two sojourns in England. Much to his regret, ;Locke and Newton were no longer living. However, he often visited their royal patroness, the Queen of England, who, in D'Alembert's words, "cu ltlvait la philosophie sur le trone, et qui goQta, comme elie j le devait, M 0ntesquieu,r (OEuvres Completes, TTT, lii+7). Summing up the Impressions which Montesquieu gathered from his profitable v is it to London, the eulogist remarks: II forma a Londres des liaisons intimes avec des hommes exerces a m&dlter, et a se pr&parer aux grandes choses par des etudes profondes; il s 'In s tru is it avec eux de la nature du gouvernement, et il parvlnt a la bien connattre. (OEuvres Completes, TTT, . ¥ l7)_.___________________ I 68 D'Alembert speaks but b rie fly of Montesquieu's retirement to his J country estate of La Brede. With respect to the eminent w riter's enjoyment of this secluded l if e , the eulogist mentions: * . . . il y joult en palx de cette solitude que le spectacle et le tumulte du monde sert a rendre plus agreable; II vecut avec Iul-m§me, apres en itr e sorti si longtemps; et ce qui nous Interesse le plus, II mit la derniere main a son ouvrage sur la cause de la grandeur et de la decadence des Remains, qui parut en 1 7 3 4 . (OEuvres Completes, ; nr; w n Montesquieu spent his final years in Paris, where he received both acclaim and criticism because of his many I Iterary achievements. Early in 1755 the public learned the sad news of Montesquieu's declining health, which had never been robust. In a dignified and affectionate tone D'Alembert describes the passing of Montesquieu, ”bIenfaiteur de I'humanite par ses e c rits ” (CE uvres Completes, I I I , iji+oV La fin de Montesquieu ne fu t point fndlgne de sa vie. Accabll de douleurs cruelles, eloigne d'une famiIle a qui il e ta it cher, et qui n'a pas eu la consolation de lui fermer les yeux, entoure de quelques amis, et d'un plus grand nombre de spectateurs, il conserva jusqu'au dernier moment la paix et I 'e g a li t l de son 3me. Enfin, apres avoir s a tls fa lt avec decence a tous ses devoirs, plein de confiance en I'§ tre eternel auquel II a l l a i t se rejoindre, il mourut avec la tranquil I Ite d'un homme de bien, qui n'avait jamais consacrl ses talens qu'a I'avantage de la vertu et de I'humanltl. (OEuvres Com pletes, m , 456) From D'Alembert we also learn of the great grief caused by Montesquieu's death— f ir s t in France, then throughout a ll Europe and England. He mentions particularly the memorial service held in the j 'French Academy, which was well attended In spite of the inclement i weather. With a touch of regret, D'Alembert writes these significant words: On auralt dQ dans cette tris te ceremonie, placer I'Esprit des Lois sur son cercueil, comme on exposa autrefois vis-a-vis le cercueiI de j RaphaSl son dernier tableau de la TransfIguration. Cet apparel I j simple et touchant eOt ete une belle oralson funebre. fTTT, )|R7)_____ 69 W e may consider the Montesquieu eulogy, although not an IIoge academlque, a model for the major eloges which D’Alembert delivered or wrote In the following years. Though wisely selective in his choice of j biographical data, D’Alembert is already striving to portray Montesquieu1 as the complete man, for he states: Jusqu’ icI nous n’ avons consider! Montesquieu que comme Icrivain et phi Iosophe; ce serait lui dlrober la moitie de sa gloire, que de £ asser sous silence ses agrimens et ses qualites personneI Ies. fTTT, ' 57) Can we not discover in this passage the nucleus of one principle upon which Sainte-Beuve based his Iiterary criticism — namely, the eval uation of an author’ s personality as recorded by his friends? D'Alembert describes Montesquieu’s character in such terms as: "d'une douceur et d'une gaiet! toujours egales.” His conversation was ’’ legere, agrlable et instructive par le grand nombre d'hommes et de peuples qu'll avalt connus" (TTT, 457). Comparing Montesquieu's conversational a b ility with his style of writing, the eulogist continues: Elie e ta it couple comme son style, pleine de sel et de sal I Iies, sans amertume et sans satire. Personne ne racontait plus vivement, plus promptement, avec plus de grlce et moins d'apprlt. . . . (TTT, 1+51) D'Alembert Is also Impressed with Montesquieu's power of self discipline, seen especially in his Intellectual and ITterary pursuits: Quoique capable d'une mlditation profonde et Iong-temps soutenue, il n'lpu isait jamais ses forces, 11 q u itta it toujours le travail avant que d'en ressentir la moindre impression de fatigue, (JET, 457-458) Fully aware of the honors and acclaim bestowed upon him, Montesquieu was neither selfish nor proud. On the contrary, he mani fested deep concern over the misfortunes of some men of letters: . . . II a os!, mime dans des circonstances dll I cates, protlger a la 70 cour des hommes de lettres persecutes, cilebres et malheureux, et leur a obtenu des graces. ( I l l , i+58) D'Alembert fin a lly evaluates Montesquieu, the person, as a dIgnI — ; fled scholar and great humanitarian. Turning to his subject’ s I Iterary achievement, D'Alembert, like other c ritic s , believes that Montesquieu’s real purpose In writing Les ;Lettres Persannes was to present "une satire fine de nos moeurs," Hav- ; ing described, with examples, the way in which the philosopher used his; Oriental tales as an effective weapon for subtle attacks upon con tempo- ; rary French foibles and customs, the eulogist refers to certain of Montesquieu’ s remarks which seem to bear upon the renaissance of the mouvement ph11osophIque. In D’Alembert’ s opinion, this section would probably be the most significant part of Les Lettres Persannes: La pelnture des moeurs orientates reelles ou supposees, . . , n’est que le moindre objet de ces lettres; elie n'y sert, . . . que de pretexte a une satire fine de nos moeurs, e t a des matleres impor- tantes que I ’ auteur approfondlt en paraissant gllsser sur elles, . . . A cette pelnture vlve, II [Montesquieu] oppose, dans I ’apologue des Troglodites, le tableau d’ un peuple vertueux. . . . Ailleurs II montre la philosophie long-temps etouffee, reparaissant tout a coup, regagnant par ses progres le temps qu’e lle a perdu, penetrant jusque chez les Russes a la volx du genie qui I ’ appelle, tandls que chez d’autres peuples de I ’Europe, la superstition, semblable a une atmos phere &pa!sse, emp§che la lumiere qui les environne de toutes parts, d’arriver jusqu’ a eux. Enfin, par les prfncipes qu’ II e ta b llt sur la nature des gouvernemens anciens et modernes, II pr&sente le germe de ces Idees lumineuses, developpees depuis par I ’auteur dans son grand ouvrage. ( i n , Ub2-kk3) j D’Alembert concludes his c ritic a l evaluation of Montesquieu’ s f ir s t Important work with a brief discussion of verisimilitude as found jin Les Lettres Persannes. Although considering tt "un leger defaut," the eulogist is nevertheless convinced that Montesquieu did not use this 11terary device "sans desseln et sans adresse." Furthermore, D’Alembert feels that Montesquieu was ju s tifie d in his use of this s ty lis tic devlcej 71 . . , en relevant nos ridicules et nos vices, II a voulu sans doute aussi rendre justice a nos avantagesj il a senti toute la fadeur d*un ! eloge direct, et il nous a plus finement loues en prenant si souvent notre ton pour medire plus agreablement de nous, ( H I , kk3) | Despite the fact that Les Lettres Persannes was published anony mously, the name of its author eventually reached the ears of the gen eral public, and fin a lly the members of the French Academy. At this particular moment, Montesquieu was being nominated for election to this sacrosanct circle. The b itte r opposition to Les Lettres Persannes, generally considered a dangerous satire on French government and society^ greatly weakened Montesquieu's chances of ever becoming a member of the French Academy. Fortunately, its director at this time, M. le Marechal d'Estrees, respected Montesquieu for his independent s p ir it and I Iterary genius. Consequently, as D'Alembert points out, this distinguished member ”se conduisit dans cette circonstance en courtisan vertueuxet d' une 3me vraiment elevee,” D'Alembert then goes on to record the man ner in which D'Estrees supported Montesquieus . . . 1 1 ne craignit ni d'abuser de son credit ni de le compromettre; il soutint son ami et ju s tifia Socrate, Ce tr a it de courage si precieux aux lettres, si dlgne d'avolr aujourd'hui des imltateurs, et sf honorable a la memoire de M. le marechal d'Estrees, n'a pas d C i etre oublle dans son iloge. (n r, w o Montesquieu was fin a lly ejected to the French Academy on January ! 2I4 ., 1728, According to D'Alembert, Montesquieu's dlscours de reception j honoring the deceased M, de Sacy, whom he replaced, was one of the best ! ever delivered on such an occasion. Comparing the usual type of 11oge academlque with Montesquieu's discours de reelplendaire, the eulogist continues 1 . , . le merite en est d'autant plus grand, que les recipiendaires, g&nls Jusqu'alors par ces formules et ces eloges d'usage auxquels une espece de prescription ies ass u jS fit, n'avaient encore.ps|_Jranchfr____ 72 ce cercle pour tra ite r d'autres sujets, ou n'avaient point pense du moins a les y renfermer; dans cet etat meme de contralnte il eut 1'avantage de rfeussir. (X U , Uk-5) In one section of his discours Montesquieu states his principal thesis: le grand homme, I'honnete homme— the worthy man of letters Is the one who successfully combines In his person virtue and talent; Vous aimez, messieurs, les hommes vertueuxj vous ne faltes grace au plus beau genie d'aucune quality du coeurj et vous regardez les talents sans la vertu comme des presents funestes, uniquement propres a donner de la force ou un plus grand jour a nos vices.3 In this passage D'Alembert could quite easily discover the "seed thoughts" of what would later become basic principles of the mouvement philosophique, Montesquieu devotes the la tte r part of his dI scours de reception to the traditional panegyric of the French Academy's three most eminent patrons--RIche 11eu, Seguier, and Louts X33Z: As for Montesquieu's glowing tribute to the famous Cardinal, D'Alembert remarks somewhat facetiously: Entre plusieurs tra its dont b r lIle son discours, on reconnattralt I'&crivain qul pense, au seul portrait du cardinal de Richelieu, qui apprlt a la France le secret de ses forces, et a I'Espagne cejui de sa faiblesse; qul ota a I'Allemagne ses chafnes et lui en donna de nouvei I'es^ Tl faut admirer Montesquieu d'avoir su vaincre fa d lffleu ItS de son sujet, et pardonner a ceux qui n'ont pas eu le mime succes. ( m , Uk5) Concluding his account of Montesquieu's election to the French Academy, D'Alembert comments favorably upon the new academician's sense of responsibility and his willingness to renounce all civic duties and functions in order to become a man of letters in the fu lle s t sense of the word. ^[Charles Louis de Secondat] Montesquieu, OEuvres de Montesquieu, New Edition (Paris, 1819), ~VTTt 222-223. The eulogist next discusses Montesquieu's f ir s t historical work, Sur la Cause de la Grandeur et de la Dicadence des Romains. Along with his c ritic a l evaluation, D'Alembert presents his own philosophy of history, which he believes Montesquieu had already applied with skill and conviction in the Grandeur et de la Decadence des Romains. Finally, D'Alembert states that Montesquieu was most successful in his concise and compact style of writing history: Comme I'auteur ne s'appesantit point sur les details, et ne s aislt que les branches fecondes de son sujet, I I a su renfermer en tres-peu d'espace un grand nombre d'objets distInctement apercus et rapidement present&s sans fatigue pour le lecteurj en laissant beaucoup voir, il iaisse encore plus a penser, et I I auralt pu in titu le r son Itv r e : Histoire Romaine, a I ' usage des hommes d’Etat et des phiiosophes. m r n m 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Intensive study and the extensive travels undertaken by Montesquieu In preparation for the writing of th e'tsp rit des Lois" are well described by the eulogist. It was while engaged in these a c tiv i ties that Montesquieu rose In D'Alembert's opinion "par degrls au plus beau t lt r e qu'un sage puisse meriter, celui de legislateur des nations” cur, hk9)' Having commented upon the content of Montesquieu's second impor tant historical work, the eulogist refers to "le pretendu defaut de methode," a supposed lack of organization in the “Esprit des Lois." D'Alembert, however, defends Montesquieu against this criticism by statIng: II faut distinguer le d&sordre reel de ceiui qui n'est qu'apparent, Le desordre est reel, quand I'analogie et la suite des idees n'est point observeej quand les conclusions sont erigees en principes, ou les precedent} quand le lecteur, apres des detours sans nombre, se retrouve au point d'ou II est parti. Le d&sordre n'est qu'apparent, quand I'auteur mettant a leur vlritab le place les idees dont II f a it usage, iaisse a suppleer aux lecteurs les idees IntermSdiaIres. , , . Cur, 4 5 0 ) T it- Coupled with Montesquieu's weak method Is a certain vagueness in style, but in D'Alembert's opinion Montesquieu's writings were well understood by that particular group of readers for whom he wrote. The eulogist then remarks that Montesquieu, through wide reading of authors such as Tacitus and Plutarch, adapted the style of classical antiquity to his own use in his second major work: . . . Montesquieu sait en temperer I'a u s te rltl, et procurer aux lecteurs des momens de repos, . . . soit par des allusions delicates, soit par ces coups de plnceau energiques et briilans qui peignent d'un seul t r a it les peuples et les hommes. ( I l l , 1 + 51) At the time of its publication the "Esprit des Lois" received a most hostile reception on the part of many people. Several pamphlets denouncing its author for having sown the seeds of subversion and Irreligion were written by "ies ennemis publics et secrets des lettres et de la phllosophie" ( 111, i+53)* The "Defense de I'E sp rit des Lois" (1750) was Montesquieu's own reply to these v it r io lic attacks. D'Alembert's favorable appraisal of this work is worthy of note: Cet ouvrage, par la moderation, la verity la finesse de plaisanterie qui y regnent, doit §tre regarde comme un modele en ce genre. Montesquieu, charge par son adversaire d'Imputatlons atroces, pouvait le rendre odieux sans peine; il f i t mieux, il le rendlt ridicule. . . . Mais ce qui ajoute encore au merite de ce morceau precieux, c'est que I'auteur s'y est peint Iui-m§me sans y penser; ceux qui I'ont connu croient I'entendre, et la posterite s'assurera, en I Isanti sa defense, que sa conversation n'&tatt pas Inflrieure a ses ecritsj eloge que blen peu de grands hommes ont mlrite. C U E , k5k) D'Alembert, in the closing paragraphs of his eloge, turns his attention to one of Montesquieu's decidedly secondary works, "Le Temple de Gnide," an erotic poem with a pastoral setting. In its style, "anim&, figure et po&tique," it resembles Fenelon's Telemaque. However, the eulogist's criticism of Montesquieu's only poetical writing Is quite negative ( H I , b59-k& 0). ytp Concerning this work D’Alembert nevertheless remarks that the dis tinguished author of Les Lettres Persannes is clearly revealed in the preface to "Le Temple de Gntde" and that In the work its e lf Montesquieu; may be satirizing certain of his enemies. D'Alembert adds that he agrees with La Harpe in his unfavorable opinion of Montesquieu’ s poetical a b ility . The eulogist then concludes, his discussion of Montesquieu’s poetry with a lengthy passage from La Harpe’ s evaluation of"Le Temple de Gnide," Here is one interesting excerpts "Je ne sals si I'auteur de I ' Espr i t des Loi s attachait quelque importance au Temple de Gnide, comme les possesseurs des plus beaux palais se plaisent quelquefois dans une petite maison d'un gotit mldiocre; mais ce qui est certain, c'est que la posterity ne l'a recu que comme une bagatelle ingenieuse, decoree du nom d’ un homme de genie." ( H I , i+ 63) "Eloge de I ’Abbe M allet" W e now turn to D’Alembert's second pre-Academy eulogy. His account of the Abbe M allet's life until the period of his association with the encyclopedistes is a pious, almost sanctimonious summary of a model iclergyman. Having firmly established M allet's virtue, D'Alembert comes to the heart of his I 1oge. F irst he speaks of the clergyman’ s colIabo- . ration with Diderot in the preparation of the Encyclopedi e : . . . nous crCimes que I'abbe Mallet, par ses connaIssances, par ses talens et par son caractere I t a i t tres-propre a seconder nos travaux, II voulut bien se charger de deux parties considerables, celle des J belles-lettres et ce I ie de la theoiogie. C U E , i+78) 1 Not only is D’Alembert Impressed with M a lle t’ s sterling character and literary a b ility ; he admires also the Abbe’ s tolerance in matters of religion, as well as his fearless attitude toward the enemies of the 76 Encyclopldie. Although M allet’s articles on religion met with the censor's approval, their illustrious author became the target of b itte r personal attacks. However, the elderly Bishop of Mirepoix, never a great admirer of the encyclopedlstes, vindicated M allet's reputation by giv ing him an ecclesiastical promotion. The effect of the Bishop's action upon the AbbS's enemies is carefully noted by D'Alemberts Un ev&nement si humillant pour les ennemis de I'abbe M allet, montra clairement que leur credit I t a i t egal a leurs lumieres, et fo rt au-dessous de I'opinion qu'ils voulafent en donner. Cm, 479) Another instance of the Abbe M allet's consistent attitude In the matter of religious tolerance was his r&le in the affa ire de I'Abbi de Prades.^- The professors at the Sorbonne were prepared to condemn Prades; without a t r ia l. D'Alembert states, however: . . . I'Abbe Mallet, moins prevoyant et plus equitable, fut avec beaucoup d'autres d'un avis contraire, mals le nombre I'emporta. Cm, 4 7 9 ) The eulogist also admires Mallet for his love of freedom and his loyalty tothe principles of monarchical government, "deux objets que ; les auteurs de 1'Encyclopedle se feront toujours une gloire d'avolr devant ies yeux" (111,479). Furthermore, D'Alembert remarks that the Abbe's objective, impartial attitude Is clearly revealed In his a r t i- i cIes. In his closing paragraph the eulogist again pays a tribute to the I 4 t t L'Abbe de Prades (1720-1782), one of Diderot's collaborators in the publication of the Encyciopldle, delivered before the theological professors at the Sorbonne a thesis containing some quite heretical j ideas. He was excommunicated by the Pope and fin a lly fled , f i r s t to {'Holland, then to Germany, 77 Intellect and personality of the Abb4 Mallets Son esprit ressemblait a son style; II I'a v a it juste, net, facile et sans affectation; mais ce qui doit prtncipalement fa ire le sujet de son iloge, c'est I ' attachement qu1 I I montra toujours pour ses amis, sa candeur, son caractere doux et modeste. ( H I , 1+80) D'Alembert emphasizes once more the Abba's religious tolerance and adds that a second striking tra ft was his love of peace. To the eulo gist the greatest evidence of M allet's being an enlightened prelate was his attitude toward religious persecution: Ennemi de la persecution, tolerant mime autant qu'un chretien doit I'e tre , il ne voulait employer contre l'erreur que les armes de I'Evangile, la douceur, la persuasion et la patience. II ne cher- chait point surtout a gross Ir a ses propres yeux et a ceux des autres, la liste dija trop nombreuse des incr&dules, en y faisant entrer, par une maladresse si commune aujourd'hui, la piupart des Icrivains celebres. (HUE, 1+80) Turning to M allet's 11terary works, those which he did not write especially for the Encyclopldle, D'Alembert mentions f i r s t the didactic writings. He then remarks that these works do not present any great o rig in ality; nor do they possess much Iite ra ry value, since they were "destines a I ' instruction de la Jeunesse'r f i l l , 1+77). In conclusion, D'Alembert gives this c ritic a l evaluation of the ; Abbe's prose style: Ainsi dans les ouvrages dont nous parlons I'auteur se borne a exposer avec netteti les preceptes des grands mattres, et a les appuyer par des exempies choisis, t ir i s des auteurs anciens et modernes. f i l l , | 1+78) j The intrinsic importance of the Mallet eulogy clearly lies In the fact that it is purely an &loge de cfrconstance. The Abb& himself is merely a pretext for D'Alembert's defense of the EncycI opedie, the phi Iosophes, and their aggressive work. Whatever M allet's virtues may have been, he was hardly an Inspiring subject, either imaginatively or 78 intellectually. Here, for the f ir s t time, we see that D’Alembert is using the eloge s tr ic tly for interested means as an instrument of adroit phllosophe propaganda. As for Its iiterary value, the "Eloge de I'Abb! Mai le t” may be best considered a creditable piece of "high class" hack-writing. "Eloge de Du Marsais" In marked contrast to the "impersonal" Mallet eulogy is the "Eloge de Du Marsais," which appeared in Volume Seven of the EncycIopl- die ( 1757). The subject of D’Alembert’ s third pre-Academy eulogy "comes to life " as M allet, for example, does not. In tone and s p ir it the Du Marsais I Ioge is as engaging and Impassioned as that of Mallet is dull and perfunctory. When introducing Du Marsais, D’Alembert states his Intention of giving only a few biographical details concern ing his subject. As a matter of fa c t, however, the eulogist reveals much about the character of his friend. Consequently, the "Eloge de Du Marsais" is one in which D’Alembert, his statement to the contrary notwithstanding, is defin itely more interested in a w riter's person- 1 a Iity than in his lite ra ry achievements. Like most men of letters, Du Marsais led a quiet life of poverty j and obscurity. For this reason, D'Alembert expresses his intention of j presenting "I'analyse raisonnle de ses ouvrages." Moreover, by means I of this eulogy he wishes to pay generous tribute to one whose Intellec tual a b ility and Iiterary talents were not sufficiently recognized by his contemporaries: Par la nous acquitterons, autant q u 'II est en nous, les obligations que I'Encyclopldie et les lettres ont eues a ce phllosophe; nous 79 devons d’autant plus d’honneur a sa memoire, que le sort lui en a | plus refuse de son vivant, et I ’ histoire de ses ecrits est le plus j beau monument que nous puissions lui consacrer. ( H I , 481) The eulogist then reveals for the f ir s t time one of the motives j leading him to write his § Ioges: Cette histoire remplira d 'ailleu rs le principal but que nous nous proposons dans nos Moges, d’en faire un objet d' Instruction pour nos; lecteurs, et un recueiI de m&molres sur I ’l t a t present de la philoso- phle parmi nous. (XHt, 481) For a complete understanding of D'Alemberts pre-Academy e I oges we must remember that his real purpose for writing them remained j chiefly propagandistics to defend the editors and coI Iaborators of Diderot’ s Encyc1 opedie, and to further le mouvement phiIosophique. With respect to Du Marsais’ lif e , D’Alembert mentions only briefly his subject’ s early boyhood, his passion for books, and his burning determination to overcome a ll obstacles to success. Du Marsais pur sued his formal education at the Oratorian School in his home town of Marseilles. Unlike other ecclesiastical orders of the Catholic Church, D’Alembert had great respect for the Peres de 1’Oratolre. Concerning Du Marsais’ profitable years spent at this religious institution the eulogist comments: . . . II entra m§me dans cette congregation, une de celles qui ont le mieux cuitiv4 les lettres, et la seuie qui a it produit un j phiiosoohe celebre, parce qu’ on y est moins esciave que dans les autres, et moins obligl de penser comme ses superieurs. (TTT, 481- 482) D’Alembert records the chief, but hardly memorable events of Du M arsais’ early years In Paris, events which fin a lly led him as a tutor into the home of the notorious financier, Law, whose son was seventeen years old at that particular time. Several of his friends accused Du Marsais of selfish and ulterior motives In accepting this new post. 80 D’Alembert may have been thinking of his own disappointing experiences, particularly with Mm e du Deffand, when he wrote: Tout le fru it que du Marsais retlra d'avoir demeure dans cette malson [Law], ce fu t, comme II I * a e c rit iul-m£me, de pouvolr rendre des services Importans a plusieurs personnes d’ un rang tres-sup6rieur au sien, qul depuls n’ ont pas paru s ’ en souvenir; et de connattre, ce sont encore ses propres termes, la bassesse, la servitude et I ’ esprit d’ adulatlon des grands. (TTT, U93) D’Alembert continues with an even more tragic commentary which is, strange as It may seem, quite modern in tone and s p ir it. In making specific reference to Du Marsais’ b itte r disillusionment with the teaching profession, he states: II avait Iprouvfe par lui-m£me combien cette profession si noble et si u tile , qui a pour objet I ’Education de la jeunesse, est peu honor&e parmi nous, tant nous sommes eclair&s sur nos int&rSts; mais la situation de ses affaires, et peut-£tre I ’ habitude, lui avaient rendu cette ressource Indispensable; il rentra done encore dans la m Sm e carriere, et toujours avec un egal succes. f i l l , L\.95) Du Marsais’ next tutorial appointment was in the home of Marquis de Beaufremont, to whom he gave several years of useful service. Stat ing that ft was at this period that Du Marsais began to reveal his linguistic a b ility , D’Alembert remarks: Du Marsais . . . entra chez le marquis de Beaufremont; le sejour qu’ i I y f i t . . . est une des epoques les plus remarquables de sa vie. . . . II donna occasion a du Marsais de se devoiler au public pour ce qu’ il S ta it, pour un grammalrien profond et phiiosophe, et pour un esprit createur dans une matiere sur laquelle se sont exerc&s tant d’excellens ecrivains. D U , 1+95) Having completed his teaching responsibilities in the home of the Marquis de Beaufremont, Du Marsais opened a private school for young men in Paris. Unfortunately, this venture did not prove successful, with the result that Du Marsais found himself in desperate financial circumstances. At this extremely c ritic a l moment Diderot and D'Alembert discovered this worthy and capable man. The eulogist 81 describes with sympathy and understanding this tragic crisis in Du Marsais1 life . In a tone of sincere appreciation D’Alembert expresses hissatis- facfion with the numerous articles which Du Marsais supplied the Ency- cIopld i e, and particularly for the enlightened s p ir it in which they were written: . . . les articles qu’ iI lui a fournis, . . . feront a jamais un des principaux ornemens de cet ouvrage, et sont superleurs a tous nos eloges. La phiiosophie saine et Iumineuse qu’ Ils contiennent, le savolr que I'auteur y a rlpandu, la precision des regies et la justesse des applications, ont f a it regarder avec raison cette partie de I ’Encyclopldie comme une des mleux tra ltle s , (H E , 500) Encouraged by his success with the Encyclopldie, Du Marsais wrote a le tte r to Versailles asking for royal recognition and favor. In a biting comment D’Alembert records the result of this request: Cette lettre touchante eut I'e f f e t qu'elle devait avoir a la cour, ou les interlts personnels Itouffent tout autre in te rlt, ou le m lrlte a des amis timides qui le servent falblement, et des ennemis ardens, atte n tlfs aux occasions de lui nuire, Les services de du Marsais, sa vieillesse, ses in firm itls , les prieres de son ami, ne purent rien obtenir. On convint de la justice de ses demandes, on lui temoigna beaucoup d’envie de 1’ obIIger; ce fut tout le fr u it quT I I re tira de la bonne volonte apparente qu’ on lui marquait. ( i l l , 501) Through his selection of particular events in Du Marsais’ life , D’Alembert’ s chief motive was to expose the unhappy lot of too many worthy and capable men of letters. Moreover, he also disclosed the Indifference, the irresponsiblIity, and even the hypocrisy of those In high places who should have been their true friends and loyal patrons. His frank comment is almost an indictment of this type of patronage: La plus grande injure que Jes gens en place puissent faire a un homme de lettres, ce n’ est pas de lui refuser I ’ appui q u '1 I a droit d’ attendre d'eux, c’ est de le laisser dans I ’ oppression ou dans I ’ oubll, en voulant parattre ses protecteurs. L’ IndIffIrenes pour les talens ne les offense pas toujours, mals e lle les revolte quand e lle cherche a se couvrir d’ un faux a ir d’ in tlrS t; heureusement e lle se 82 demasque bient&t elle-mlme, et les moins clalrvoyans n'y sont pas long-temps trompls. ( i l l , 501) In a final statement concerning Du Marsais' reputation among his contemporaries, D'Alembert quotes from his good friend Voltaire: Enfln il I t a i t . . . du nombre de ces sages obscurs dont Paris est plein, qui jugent sainement de tout, qui vlvent entre eux dans la paix et dans la communication de la raison, ignor&s des grands, et trls-redoutes de ces charlatans en tout genre qul veulent dominer sur les esprIts. " ( m , " 505)----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Although D'Alembert gives most of his attention to Du Marsais, the grammarian and philosopher, he does devote one lengthy paragraph to an interpretive evaluation of his subject as a personality whose "quaiites dominantes de son esprit Ita ie n t la n e tte tl et la justesse, portles I ' une et I'autre au plus haut deg rl.,f Referring also to Du Marsais' gentle and quiet nature, the eulogist makes one of his frequent illum i nating philosophical remarks: . . . et son §me toujours egale paralssait peu agitle par les dlfflrens evlnemens de la vie, mime par ceux qui semblalent devoir 1'affecter le plus. Quoique accoutuml a recevoir des louanges, il en I t a i t tres-peu fla tte ; faiblesse, si e'en est une, pardonnable aux philosophies mime, et bien naturelle a un homme de lettres qul n'avait point recuellli d'autre recompense de ses travaux, (~t~tT, 502) The eulogist mentions another of his subject's characteristics quite peculiar to those In the teaching prof ess i on— an excessive atten tion to detaiI : L’ habitude qu'I I avalt prise d'envisager chaque Idle par toutes ses i faces, et la nlcessitl ou II s ' l t a l t trouvl de parler presque toute sa vie a des enfans, lui avaient f a it contracter dans Ja conversation une diffusion qul passalt quelquefois dans ses ec rlts , et qu'on y remarqua surtout a mesure q u 'ij avan^a en Sge. (TTT, 502) D'Alembert concludes his character analysis with a striking com ment upon Du Marsais' ignorance of human nature which resulted from his secluded life . This lack of contact with his fellow men, coupled with 83 an unusual a b ility to think and speak freely upon many different topics, produced in Du Marsais* personality a naivete, ”souvent : pjaisante, qui etit passe pour slmpliclte dans tout autre que I u I , et on eOt pu i ’ appeler le La Fontaine des philosophes” ( i l l , 502). The eulogist then turns to an Investigation of Du Marsais* I i t e r ary achievements, apart from his articles prepared for the Encyc I opedie.j This writer*s f ir s t work, polemic in nature, was a thesis on the liberties of the Galilean clergy, Exposition de la Doctrine de I'E glisej Gallicane par Rapport aux Pretentions de la Cour de Rome. D'Alembert remarks that Du Marsais treated with tact and im partiality d iffic u lt and intricate problems relative to the Catholic Church, but that he prudently withheld the publication of the Expos!tion. Commenting upon the eventual fate of this controversial piece of writing, D'Alembert states: Ceux enfre les mains desquels le manuscrit de I'auteur est tomb! apres sa mort, moins timldes ou plus heureux que lu i, en ont f a it part au public. Les ouvrages pleins de verltes hardies et utiles, dont le genre humain est de temps en temps redevabie au courage de quelque homme de lettres, sont aux yeux de la posterit! la gioire des gouvernemens qui les protegent, la censure de ceux qui ne savent pas les encourager, et la honte de ceux qui les proscrivent. ( I I I , 487) Du Marsais' second Important work was the incomplete manuscript, ”Response a la Critique de I'H Istoire des Oracles.” Fontenelle had i stoutly claimed that oracles were simply the results of superstition ' | and that they continued to exist even afte r the birth of Jesus Christ. Twenty years later, Baltus, a Jesuit priest, set out to refute Fonteneile's convictions concerning oracles.5 |n a tone tinged with ^Le Pere Jean-Francois Baltus (1667-174?) was a p ro lific w riter on | eccjesiasticaI subjects. His most important work, Reponse a I'H Istoire 8 2 * sarcasm and contempt D'Alembert comments: II [Baltus] soutint, avec toute la moderation qu'un th!ologlen peut se permettre, que Fontenelle avalt attaqu! une des prlnclpales preuves du chrIstI anisme, pour avoir prefendu que les pr!tres paVens etaient des Imposteurs ou des dupes. Cependant en avan^ant une opinion si slngullere, le critique avalt eu I ’ art de Her son systeme a la religion, quolqu'il y soit reellement contralre par les armes qu'I I peut fournir aux Incredules. ( I l l , i+87) In commenting upon Fontenelle’ s restrained attitude toward Pere Baltus, D'Alembert takes occasion to express his admiration for the eminent author of the Hlstolre des Oracles. Possessing youthful enthusiasm and a desire to win lite ra ry fame, Du Marsais undertook to defend Fontenelle against the vicious attacks of Baltus. In his "Defense” Du Marsais accused the Jesuit wrl ter of factual inaccuracies and plagiarism. Unfortunately, Baltus’ friends put forth every e ffo rt to malign Du Marsais and to impede the publica tion of this highly controversial work. As for this most unhappy incident In his friend’ s life , D'Alembert states: Cet evenement de sa vie fut la premiere epoque, et peut-etra la source des injustices qu'i I essuya. ( i i i , 1*88) With such violent opposition, Du Marsais had no alternative but to abandon the printing of his "Defense de 1'HJstoIre des Oracles." D'Alembert then turns to the c ritic a l evaluation of Du Marsais' important linguistic works: ( l) Exposition d'une Mlthode Raisonn&e pour apprendre |a Langue La tine (1722), (2) Les Virltables Prlnclpes de ta Grammalre, ou Nouvelle Grammaire Raisonn&e pour apprendre la Langue Latine (J729), and ( 3) T ra it! des Tropes (l730)« des Oracles de Fontenelle ( 1707)» was an attempt to refute the belief that the oracles of pagan times were demon manifestations. 85 Du Marsais began his f i r s t work on linguistics while he was a tutor In the home of the Marquis de Beaufremont. In fact, the Expos 1- > tion d’ une Mlthode Raisonnle Is Du Marsais' own particular method of teaching the classical language, specifically Latin. It may be said with ju stificatio n that Du Marsais' linguistic technique, based on ” 1’ usage et la raison,” is none other than the forerunner of our con temporary "direct” method for teaching modern languages. Upon this matter D’Alembert remarks: Cette manlere d’ enseigner le latfn aux enfans est une imitation exacte de la fa£on dont on se rend famiiieres les langues vlvantes, que I ’ usage seul enseigne beaucoup plus vite que toutes les methodes. C’ est d’ afljeurs se conformer a la marche de la nature. Le iangage s'est d'abord e ta b li, et la grammaire n’est venue qu’ a la suite, ( m , 497) Contrasting the "new method” devised by Du Marsais with the standard method in current practice, D’Alembert continues: . . . dans la mefhode ordinaire on enseigne le latin a peu pres comme un homme qui, pour apprendre a un enfant a parler, commencerait par lui montrer ia mecanlque des organes de la parole; du Marsais imlte au contralre celul qui enseignerait d'abord a parler, et qul expliquerait ensuite la mecanlque des organes. fTTT, 497) In his concluding remarks on the old and the new methods, i D'Alembert adds this favorable criticism : Rlen ne paraTt plus philosophique que cette mlthode, plus conforme au> developpement nature I de I'e s p rit, et plus propre a abreger les ' d i f f i c u l t y . (HE, 498) : i The eulogist points out that Du Marsais’ "unorthodox” linguistic method was in re a lity a criticism of the teaching technique already fn vogue. Consequently, his new approach to language study met with severe disapproval on the part of some contemporary writers. W e can almost see D’Alembert's sardonic smile as he adds a postscript to the effect that nearly thirty years after the publication of the Exposition 86 d’ une Methode Raisonnle, at the moment of taking over the grammar sec- ; tion of Diderot’ s EncycIopldie, Du Marsais had become quite famous, ”un grand mattre, et presque comme un oracle. . . . w Encouraged by his f ir s t success, Du Marsais published the preface : to another work on linguistics, Les Vlritables Principes de ia Grammaire. The author intended this contemplated book to be a revised and more complete edition of his Exposition d’ une Mlthode Raisonnle. Although Du Marsais failed to complete this monumental treatise, he did publish under the t i t l e T ra itl des Tropes one valuable a r t ic le from his original preface. D’Alembert intimates that the subject material of this essay, ”un chef-d'oeuvre en son genre,” became the basis of a r t i cles which Du Marsais later contributed to the Encyclopldle ( I I I , i+99). According to the eulogist, the Trai t l received a cool reception from the general public. Its abstruse subject matter Interested only a limited number of readers; moreover, its ambiguous t i t l e created fur ther indifference. To Illu s tra te the readers' attitude, D’Alembert relates this amusing incident: Queiqu’ un voulant un jour lui [Du Marsais] faire compliment sur cet ouvrage, lui d It qu’ fl venalt d’ entendre dire beaucoup de bien de son Hlstoire des Tropes: il prenait les tropes pour un nom de peuple, ( .L ll, 1+ 9 9) j Of the several unpublished works le ft by Du Marsais, D’Alembert refers to only one, "Rif Iections sur les Oplrations de I ’Esprit” : Ce t r a it ! contient sur I ’a rt de raisonner tout ce qu’ I I est utile d’ apprendre, et sur la metaphysique tout ce qu’ il est permis de savoir. (TTT, 500) This last 11oge written for the Encycloped ie Is another example of D’Alembert’s potential a b ility as a eulogist and literary c r itic . More over, In defending Du Marsais, the eulogist is pleading his own cause 87 of the obscure intellectu al, a man of letters repressed and sometimes victimized by a tyrannous social system. For the f ir s t time, the eulo-i gist reflects on les grands in a manner sharply outspoken, rather than i timid or circumspect. Furthermore, D'Alembert, obviously we I I-acquainted with Du Marsais, Is giving his readers firsthand information and not dusty documents released by the Du Marsais family or manuscripts dis covered in gloomy archives. "Eloge de Bernoulli" As the subject of the fourth pre-Academy eulogy D'Alembert chose Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748), member of a renowned family of Swiss mathe maticians and scientists. Although unacquainted with this celebrated mathematician, D'Alembert is prompted by personal esteem and in te llec tual indebtedness to write this eloge. For several reasons, this particular eulogy Is of special interest and worthy of our consideration. The f i r s t , and perhaps most s ig n ifi cant, is found In the opening paragraph. Having stated his Intention to omit all unimportant biographical details, D'Alembert presents the framework of his "Eloge de Bernoulli": Je commence sa vie ou commence sa reputation, et son histoire n’ y perdra que peu d'annles. Je dls son h is to ire , car je la promets encore plus que son &loge. . . . T U l 7 ~ M ~ j In using the term son histoire D'Alembert e x p lic itly defines one of his chief motives for writing h i s 11oges. By acquainting his read ers with the basic facts of the subject's life , then interweaving them with a c ritic a l evaluation of his 1iterary achievements, the eulogist fin a lly presents a f a ir , balanced, and objective appraisal of the 88 w riter, rather than an exaggerated panegyric, devoid of meaning and sincerity. | Through an evaluation of Bernoulli's achievements D'Alembert reveals the sc ie n tis t’ s character and personality: , . . on ne peint point les hommes quand on les peint sans faiblessej Ster au vrai m&rite quelques taches Ilgeres, c 'est peut-§tre lui faire tort, et c'est sDrement en faire a la verite. Ainsi dans I'a b rlg l qua je vais donner de la vie de Bernoulli, c'est-a-dire de ses travaux, I'homme iI lustre se fera souvent admirer, I'homme s’ y montrera quelquefois. ( m , 338) The equanimity with which the eulogist, in spite of a ll his obvi- ; ous admiration for Jean Bernoulli, speaks of the rather shameful con duct of Jean and his rival brother, Jacques, Is a striking example of D'Alembert's deep conviction that "on ne peint point les hommes quand on les peint sans faibiesse." Jacques, the older brother, had given Jean his f ir s t lessons In geometry. Unfortunately the pupil became only too quickly the equal In mathematical genius of his instructor. Until Jacques’ death in 1705 there was a continuous riv a lry and a somewhat disgraceful public compe titio n between these two. In a most direct manner D'Alembert points out their worst errors. Referring to the heated disagreement over the famous problem of the isoperlmeters, the eulogist comments: ; Cette altercation produisit, de la part des deux freres, plusieurs Merits, ou I'aigreur sembie quelquefois prendre la place de I'emula tion; mais pulsque I ' un des deux avalt tort, ii f a i l a l t bien que I ' un des deux se fSchSt. (in :, 3hh) One year after Jacques' decease Jean published his own solution to this complicated problem in physics, the manuscript of which he had kept under seal for some years in the Academy of Sciences. Jean had not intended to have his solution revealed until his older brother made 89 public his own analysis. According to D’Alembert, the two solutions were "entierement la m£me quant aux principes” ( i l l , 3b5) • Another reason for the interest of this § Ioge lies in the fact that D’Alembert, like his eminent predecessor Fontenelle, is attempting to disseminate s c ie n tific knowledge In a popular manner, for he formu lates the problems of the catenary and brachystochronIc curves in admirably nontechnical language. Having aroused the curiosity and interest of his readers with a clear statement of these Intricate prob lems, D’Alembert merely continues his enumeration of Bernoulli's greater achievements, such as the calculus of exponential functions and various applications of higher mathematics to physics. D'Alembert then goes on to praise his favorite subject— geometry— as a pure science. This unusual panegyric is, in a sense, the most moving part of the eulogy, for I t strongly suggests D'Alembert’ s own credo of faith in the achievements of abstract reason as the true key to c Iv 11 Izatlon. Following a lengthy discussion of la g§omltitle D'Alembert turns to another topic dear to his heart--recognItlon of scholars for their con trib u tio n to society. He suggests that all men of letters should be treated with more respect and less rid icu le: Un historien est lou§ de tra v a llle r a illu s tre r sa nation: quel respect ne merite pas un p e tit nombre de g£nfes rares qul, en mon- trant jusqu'ou peuvent a lle r les forces de I ’ esprit, ont §clair& I ’ univers et f a i t honneur a i'humanit&? II a fa llu des siecles pour les produlre, et on ne peut esperer de les voir de temps en temps renattre, qu’ en ne tra ita n t point Jeurs disciples de faineans laborieux. Crrr, 35b) Concluding this broad, comprehensive declaration, the panegyrist again expresses his deep faith in the power of the human In tellect to 90 further the welfare of mankind. It is D'Alembert’ s firm belief that j i without these hommes respectables I les talens de toute espece, les noms cllebres en tout genre, seraientj oublies ou proscritsj la barbarie renaTtraft bientSt, et avec e lle tous les maux qu’ elle tratne a sa suite. (nr, 35k) In the latter section of his 4 loge D'Alembert refers to Bernoulli's only nonsclentific work, his Latin verses: II fa is a it quelquefois pour se delasser, des vers latins, peut-itre aussi mal qu'un homme ne a Pik i n fera it des vers frangais, mais assez bien cependant pour pouvoir tenir un rang honorable parmi la foule des modernes qui ont mieux aime parler une langue morte que ia ; ieur. ( H I , 358) It Is quite possible that in this unfavorable evaluation of Bernoulli's poetry, D'Alembert is making his f ir s t public statement of his uncompromising stand with the Modernes against the Anciens. Since the "Eloge de Bernoulli" is the f ir s t in which D'Alembert selected a scientist by profession for his subject, we shall mention a few features of the eulogist's style. As has been stated, he had two principal motives in writing this eulogy: ( l) to pay personal tribute to the memory of an illustrious scientist, and ( 2) to make popular the knowledge of highly s c ie n tific subjects. Consequently, one would I I : : expect, and rig h tly so, D'Alembert's language to be direct, though occasionally quite technical. He does not digress from his main topic,| nor does he relate any interesting anecdotes relative to his subject's life . For this reason the "Eloge de Bernoulli" has an impersonal tone similar to that of Mallet. D'Alembert does not give much consideration to philosophical reflection, as he did so s k ilfu lly in two e a rlie r &loges of Montesquieu and Du Marsais. Toward the close of this eulogy, however, D’Alembert 91 does express himself quite freely on a topic of interest to a ll philo- ; sophers. While mentioning Bernoulli's discussion with Fatio, an j | Italian geometrician, the eulogist compares the scie n tific mind with thej literary. He believes that great mathematicians recognize a type of intellectual indolence which prefers the e ffo rt of discovering a i s cien tific truth to the less agreeable discipline of tracing that same truth in the writings of other scientists. Moreover, D’Alembert con siders reading more necessary to the study of literature than to scien t i f i c Investigation for this reason: ". . . la difference de ieurs objets et des qualites qu’ elles exigent, en est sans doute la cause” ( H E , 3b6). Taking geometry as a concrete example, D’Alembert continues his comparison by explaining the difference between the "exact sciences" and the "fine arts." In so doing, he makes a clear distinction bet ween the s c ie n tific and the literary mind: La g&om&trie ne veut que dlcouvrir des verit&s, souvent d iff i d le s a atteindre, mais factles a reconnaftre des qu’ on les a salsis; et elle; ne demande pour cela qu’ une Justesse et une sagacite qul ne s ’ acquie-; rent point. . . . au contraire, le merite principal de I ’ lloquence ! et de la poesie consiste a exprimer et a peindre; et les talens naturels, absolument necessaires pour y rlu ssir, ont encore besoin d’ Stre ecla irls par I ’fetude re flic h ie des excel lens modeles, e t, pour ainsl dire, guides par I'experience de tous iessiecies. ( i l l , 3k&) The climax to this comparative analysis is D’Alembert's pointed contrast of Newton, the s c ien tist, with V irg il and Bossuet, men of le tte rs : Quand on a 1u une fois un probieme de Newton, on a vu tout, ou I'on n’ a rien vu, parce que la v lrit& s’ y montre nue et sans reserve; mais quand on a lu et relu une page de Virgile ou de Bossuet, il reste encore cent choses a voir, Un be I esprit qui ne l i t point, n’ a pas moins a craindre de passer pour un Icriva in rid icu le, qu’ un glometre qui l i t trop, de n’ Stre jamais que midiocre. (TTT, 3J 4 . 6) 92 It is quite evident that D'Alembert Intended this h Ioge to have | propagandistlc as well as didactic value. Referring to the b itte r j attacks upon Bernoulli on religious grounds as the result of his thesisj that "les corps dans leur accrolssement souffraient une d&perdition \ continueile de parties, success!vement rempiacees par d'autres,” D'Alembert commends the geometrician for his brave stand against preju diced and bigoted citizens: Plus jaloux de sa superiority que des Inter£ts de la religion, car II : n'est pas nlcessaire d'en avoir pour la faire servir de masque a la haine, ils [les ennemis] prefendirent que ['opinion de Bernoulli eta it dangereuse, contraire au dogme de la resurrect!on, et favorable aux objections des sociniens. Bernoulli n'eut pas de peine a montrer le ridicule d'une imputation si odieuse, et s 'I I tra ita ses adver- saires avec toute la franchise heivltique et geometrique, il faut avouer que jamais indignation ne f ut plus Juste. (TTT, 3^-7) Despite his approval of Bernoulli's conduct which was worthy of serving "de modele a tous les gens de lettres injustement attaqu^s," D'Alembert would have us remember that the hallmark of all philosophes was tolerance. Therefore, he comments s t i l l further upon the Swiss scientist's attitude at this c ritic a l moment* Beaucoup plus moderS que ses adversaires, il crut devoir s'abstenir de les dlvoiler aux yeux d'un peuple trop accoutuml a ne point dis- tinguer la religion d'avec ses ministres, et toujours dispose a secouer le joug sacre q u 'ils lui imposent: II se contenta de jeter sur leurs imputations le ridicule et I'odieux qu'iI aurait pu i repandre sur leurs opinions et sur leurs personnes. (TTT, 3^ 4 - 8) "Eloge de Jean Terrasson" The last of the pre-Academy eulogies is as colorless and impersonal as the "Eloge de I'AbbS M allet." In the Terrasson eulogy D'Alembert is f u lf i ll in g , simply out of a sense of duty, one of his responsibilities as associate editor of the EncycI oped i e— that of writing obituary 93 notices and eulogies of Its deceased collaborators. In his opening remarks D’Alembert enunciates a principle which he ] will consistently follow* an eloge must be the interpretation of a whole man— his character, his way of lif e , and his personal influence. Furthermore, it should contain a c ritic a l evaluation of his In te llec tual and I Iterary achievements. The eulogist continues his eulogy with a detailed account of Terrasson’ s importance, both as a phiIosophe and as a man of letters, and with an analytical evaluation of his major lite ra ry contributions. Although including l i t t l e in the way of biographical material, D’Alembert does present certain facts and particular events, in order ; to complete his portrait of Terrasson, the man. Terrasson made and lost a fortune under the influence of the notorious Scot, John Law. Referring Indirectly to this fact, D’Alembert comments upon the philosophical attitude manifested by Terrasson toward: material wealth. He further points out that Terrasson, unlike many other contemporary men of letters, shunned an easy-going way of life . In making these remarks, the eulogist no doubt had in mind his own ! precarious financial situation. He does admit, however, that men of ; letters should be interested in matters of business, but only for the purpose of reasonable financial security* . . . ce n’est pas que le commerce du monde ne soit nlcessaire aux gens de lettres, surtout a ceux qui travail lent pour plaire a leur siecle ou pour le peindre; mais ce commerce, devenu gln&raI et sans choix, est aujourd'hui pour eux, ce que la dlcouverte du Nouveau Monde a et4 pour I'Europej II est fort douteux qu’ I I leur a it f a it autant de bien que de m a i. crrr, 372) D'Alembert is likewise impressed with Terrasson's a b ility to avoid the society of those w dont I'orgueil perce a travers leur 9 4 accuel I mime." The eulogist also believes that the Abbe’ s attitude toward his feI low men is that of the Icrivain-phi Iosophe— in other words, of D’Alembert himself: Mais il [Terrasson] estimait beaucoup les grands d’ une societe simple1 et almable, qui cultivent sans pretention les sciences et les beaux-arts, qui les aiment sans vanity, et qui, s * I I est permis de parler le langage du temps, ne font point servi r leur naissance et leurs titre s de sauve-garde a leur esprit. ( I,.LI, 372)° As for Terrasson’ s concern with government and p o litics, D’Alembert adds this postscripts Surtout, ce qui I ’occupait le moins, c’ etaient les demeles des princes et les affaires d'Etat, dont les phllosophes ne par lent guere que pour m&dire de ceux qui gouvernent, quelquefois maI a propos, et toujours Inutllement. ( I l l , 373) It Is in the "Eloge de Du Marsais" that we find D’Alembert using for the f ir s t time the term nafvetfe to describe the dominant charac te ris tic of a humble, sincere, and ingenuous person; but the eulogist attributes this same personality tr a it to Terrasson. In his final : remarks on the character of his subject, D’Alembert reiterates a thought that is expressed ear 11er in the 6 Ioge— that Terrasson's repu tation as a ph?Iosophe was even greater than his renown as a m an of ; letters: Enfin, ce qul met le comb Ie a I ’eloge de I'abbe Terrasson, sa philosophie e ta it sans bruit, parce qu'elle e ta it sans effo rt; peut-itre en a v a it-il eu moins de mlrite a I'acquerir: . . . ! ■ D’aJlleurs, . . . II n’ avait pas besoin d’ avertir les autres qu'I I j n 'it a i t ni complaisant de personne, ni esclave de son amour-propre; i tout le monde le voyait assez, et II aimalt mieux renfermer sa | philosophie dans sa conduite, que de la borner a ses discours. ( I l l , I 373-374) I £ The tone, and even the very terms of thfs statement, are very similar to D'Alembert's declaration in the Du Marsais eloge. Terrasson was a member of both the Academy of Sciences and the French Academy. However, D’Alembert mentions only his election In j 1732 to the former organization. Later on the Abbe became its secre tary. The breadth of Terrasson’ s knowledge and his I Iterary talents gave his colleagues reason to believe that he would carry out his o f f i cial duties with honor and distinction. UnfortunateIy, he did not prove too successful. He suffered a double misfortune: he was chosen j secretaire perpltuel at an advanced age, and he succeeded the eminent Fontenel1e. D’Alembert begins his c ritic a l evaluation of Terrasson’ s writings by commenting on the Abbe’ s f ir s t literary achievement, hi s Disserta tion sur I'llia d e de Homere, ou a 1’ Occasion de ce Ppeme on Cherche les; Regies d’ une Poltique Fond&e sur |a Raison et sur les Exemples des Anclens et des Modernes (1715). Having remarked that this work appeared at the height of a dispute over Homer, the eulogist concludes | that this controversy proved to be a . . . dispute aussi peu utile que presque toutes les autres, et qui n’ a rien appris au genre humain, si non que madame Dacier avait encorei moins de loglgue que La Motte ne savait de grec.7 ( H I , 37b) In actual fact Terrasson’ s Djssertation was a defense in support , of his stand with les Modernes. Despite this long and heated quarrel, j j Terrasson’ s f ir s t work received a favorable reception. Accounting for the Abbl's success D’Alembert remarks: 7 Mm e Dacier ( I 65I+-I720), a classical scholar, settled in Paris in I 692 and there wrote translations and commentaries of Greek and Roman authors. She bravely defended the Anciens against the fierce attacks of La Motte, a partisan of the Modernes. In 1714 she published her famous polemic writing, Des Causes de la Corruption du GoOt. , . , I'ouvrage de I'abbl Terrasson eut un succes dont I ’ auteur fut dlgne par sa moderation, et surtout par le merite q u 'il eut d'avoir ; porte dans les belles-lettres cet esprit de lumiere et de philosophies si u tile dans les matieres mime de goOt, quand ii remonte a leurs j vrais principes. r i l l , 37h) The eulogist, however, does point out one weakness in Terrasson's f ir s t 1iterary achievement: "Le seul cas ou il soit dangereux, c'est Jorsqu'igare par une fausse metaphysique, Jl analyse froidement ce qui , dolt itr e senti" ( i l l , 37W . L'Abbe Terrasson's second work, although of an en tirely different nature, was also a defense. In his Trots Lettres sur le Nouveau Systeme de Finances (1720) he boldly vindicated the daring financial system of John Law. D'Alembert carefully points out that, although Terrasson gained for a time increased wealth from the sale of his book on the Scottish financier, he eventually suffered in a catastrophe which he In no wise could have foreseen. Concluding his c ritic a l remarks on Terrasson's Trols Lettres, D'Alembert again pays tribute to the sincerity and good faith of a philosophe after his own heart: Ce n'est pas que pour it r e rulnS, on en soit toujours plus honnite hommej mais le phllosophe dont nous parlons, rulni par le systeme q u 'Il avalt defendu, prouvait au moins qu' i 1 I'a v a it defendu de bonne; fo i. (.l.i.l, 375) The eulogist considers Terrasson a veritable wrI ter, "destine a s'exercer sur les genres les plus opposes." In 1731 the Abbe published Sethos, a philosophical novel, modeled after Fine Ion's Tilimaque. According to the eulogist, this work was well-written and fa ir ly good in many respects. He states, however, that the Abbe's novel received only a lukewarm reception: Le melange de physique et d'erudition que I'auteur y avait repandu, et par lequel il avait cru instruire et plaire, ne fut point du gotlt d'une nation qui sacrifie tout a I'agriment, et que I ’ abbi Terrasson 97 avait molns etudte en homme du monde qu'en philosophe. (-LLL, 375) Admitting that in Its lack of agr&ment Terrasson's work Is infer- j ior to his model, TeIemaque, D'Alembert remarks that there Is nothing j in Fenelon's didactic novel comparable to the numerous characters, high! moral tone, we I I-deveI oped reflections, and the discourses— sometimes even sublime— he found in Terrasson's Sethos. L 'Hi s to? re de DIodore de Sicile ( 17J 4 I4 .) Is the last of Terrasson's I writings to be mentioned in this eloge. D'Alembert Intimates that the ; Abbl, in undertaking this translation of an Italian work, was again defending the Modernes: Ce n'est pas plaider de trop bonne foi la cause des modernes, que de croire leur assurer la sup&rloritS en les opposant a DIodore de S ic ile , historien crldule, Icrivain du second ordre, et que d'ailleurs une traduction peut encore defjgurer, C'est Homere qu'il faut com parer a Milton, Demosthene a Bossuet, Tad te a Gui chard in ou peut-itre a personne, Seneque a Montaigne, Archimede a Newton, Aristote a Descartes, Platon et Lucrece au chancelier Baconj et pour lors le proces des anclens et des modernes ne sera plus si facile a juger. ( n r , 376) In summarizing the three 6 1oges which D'Alembert prepared for the . i Encyclopedic, we notice a curious diversity of purpose and tone. The Montesquieu eulogy Is essentially impersonal. Nevertheless, i t repre- ■ 1 sents a generous tribute to the distinguished contemporary for whom ! D'Alembert entertained such great respect. As far as we know, he had l i t t l e — if any— direct contact with Montesquieu. However, he succeeds In combining biographical material most effe ctive ly with a sensitive interpretation of Montesquieu, the moral and political philosopher, which he ties in with a perceptive and critic a l evaluation of Montesquieu, the man of letters. It Is quite obvious that, despite the impersonal note, D'Alembert greatly admired Montesquieu and was eager 98 i to en list him In the ranks of the ph1losophes. The eulogy of Montes- j quieu is, in fact, one of D’Alembert’s best. j The ”Eloge de I ’Abbe M allet” is the poorest of the three Encyclo- j pedie eulogies. Quite perfunctory in tone, it is nothing more than a • piece of standard hack-writing, completed in order to f u l f i l l certain editorial assignments. In striking contrast to the Mallet eulogy is the ”Eloge de Du Marsais,” a deeply personal tribute to one of D'Alembert's most zealous; colleagues. W e find In this eulogy that the biographical element is much more predominant; we see D’Alembert becoming more interested in a personality than he is in the man’ s Iiterary productions. For the f ir s t time, we discover the eulogist taking an interest in his subject similar to the way a novelist becomes absorbed in his characters. Though D’Alembert's interest In Du Marsais as an exemplar of the phiIo- sophe movement is clearly evident, his attention to the details of his |subject's career very often d efin itely exceeds the propagandistIc ! 1requlrements of the 4 loge its e lf, it is here that we find the chief difference between the "Eloge de Montesquieu” and that of Du Marsais. ! The tone of the former is impersonal; i t is the tribute of one superior jmind to another. The latter reveals the fact that D'Alembert has become personally ” !nvolved” with his subject. There Is l i t t l e doubt that one of the main reasons for this difference is the parallel which D’Alembert found between his own struggles and character tra its and those of Du Marsais. Furthermore, the eulogist's personal acquaintance with his subject may have influenced the tone of this 4 loge. Whatever the causes, we here find D'Alembert beginning to write something that 99 is far closer to pure biography than I t is to the academic eulogy, or j I even to literary criticism. j Turning to the two pre-Academy Iloges which appeared after j D'Alembert's connection with the Encyctoped ie , those of Bernoulli and Abb! Terrasson, we find it d iff ic u lt to determine the eulogist's pre cise motives in choosing these particular men as subjects. His personal: admiration for Fontemeile, who so successfully made s c ie n tific informa tion popular, may have Inspired him to single out the Swiss mathemati cian. Furthermore, in writing this eloge D'Alembert was paying tribute to Bernoulli, who for many years had been an Intellectual mentor in absentia. The "Eloge de Bernoulli" in tone and mood fa lls somewhere between the eulogies of Montesquieu and Du Marsais. The "Eloge de Jean Terrasson" lacks the glow of real inspiration and the author’ s personal touch. Comparable to the one on the Abb! M allet, this eulogy appears to be a similar piece of occasional writing. ‘However, D'Alembert may have possessed a certain degree of admiration for Terrasson, who had been so outspoken a defender of Fontenelle's Hlstoire des Oracles, because we know that the eulogist stood firm jy on the s ide of the Modernes in the Querelie des Anciens et des Modernes. D'Alembert's primary object in writing these earliest lloges was twofold. By boldly defending certain col Iaborators and sympathetically! I considering certain figures outside the immediate philosophe group, he wished to further the cause of the philosophes and their major organ, the Encyclopedle. Secondly, the eulogist was undoubted Iy preparing for the possible day when he might be writing &loges on a grander scale. It is quite evident that while writing the eulogies of Montesquieu, 100 Du Marsais, and Bernoulli, D'Alembert became extremely interested in j his subjects as independent entities and as live personalities. Conse- | quently, he expanded their eIoges into pieces of far more Intrinsic value than just perfunctory "editorial copy" to be used as propaganda material. Moreover, in each of these three eulogies, D'Alembert reveals! a further motives to present a sympathetic and objective account of the; subject's life and a well-balanced evaluation of his accomplishments In! the world of literature. To the extent that D'Alembert was successful In reaching his third goal, he may already be considered a forerunner of Sa i nte-Beuve. CHAPTER Y U I j ELOGES OF THE GREAT PULP IT-ORATORS j Strange as I t may seem In the light of D’Alembert's determined anticlerical attitude, more than half of his Iloges are devoted to the j lives and Iiterary careers of academicians from the clergy. The sub- i ; jects are religious men in eleven of' these eulogies which may rightfully! be called "major” In one sense or another; they are: Flnelon, Bossuet, Massillon, Dangeau, De Choisy, Flechter, Clermont-Tonnerre, Dubois, D’Olivet, Fleury,and Du Marsais. As may be expected, D’Alembert treats these figures in a more detailed and with a broader perspective than he ! does the "minor" c le r ic s .* In the eIoges of such eminent preachers as Bossuet and Massillon, tj^jy-e are ten or more pages of textual material and numerous pages of Padded notes. With such minor personalities as Chamillart or Roquette, I however, the eulogies themselves seldom comprise more than one or two I ; ipages with few notes. ! i Of the major clerical figures, Bossuet, Flnelon, Massillon, and ! F|lchler were the greatest pulpit-orators of their time. W e shall con sider these four In this chapter. ^The minor ones Include SaInt-Pierre, Clsar d’Estrees, Jean d’Estrees, Jacques Testu, Huet, Charles Boileau, Clerembault, Genest, Chamillart, Abel lie , Mongin, Nesmond, Gedoyn, Dubos, Roquette, Languet de Gergy, HouttevIIle, Alary, Surlan, Paradis de Moncrif, Segny, Soublse, Naurlal, Trublet, Poucet de la Riviere, and Bussy-Rabutin. 102 ’’Eloge de Massillon” j The eulogy of Jean-Bapfiste Massillon (1663-17^4-2) was the earliest | of this group to be delivered by D’Alembert before the French Academy j (August k , 177k). D’Alembert does not present a complete biography of Massillon. He j uses most effectively only salient I terns and incidents from the prel- ' , I ate’ s life as a basis for his evaluation of the man and for an objective! criticism of his literary achievements. D'Alembert makes only a few pertinent remarks concerning the preacher's lowly birth and humble family background. In doing so, the eulogist Is doubtless thinking sadly and regretfully of his own igno minious origin. Moreover, he seems to be making an adroit plea for a king of ’’natural equality of tale n ts ,” a favorite theme to which he frequently turns In other eulogies: II [Massillon] eut pour pere un citoyen pauvre de cette petite v ille , L'obscurite de sa naissance, qui releve tant I'e c la t de son merite personnel, doit etre le premier tr a it de son eloge; et I ’ on peut dire , de lui comme de cet i I lustre Romaln qui ne devait rlen a ses a’feux: vldetur ex se natus ( il n’ a Ite f il s que de lui-m§me). Mais non- seulement son humble origine honore infiniment sa personne, elle | honore encore plus le gouvernement e c la ir i, qui en I ’ alla n t chercher ' ! au milieu du peuple pour le placer a la t£te d’ un des plus grands I dioceses du royaume, a brave le prejuge assez commun, m§me de nos j Jours, que la Providence n’a pas destinl aux grandes places le genie | qu’ elle a fa it naftre aux derniers rangs. Si les dIstributeurs des dignltes eccIesiastIques n’ avaient pas eu la sagesse, ou le courage, ou le bonheur d’ oublier quelquefois cet apophthegme de la vanity humaine, le clergl de France eClt ete privl de la gloire dont II est aujourd’ hui si f l a t t l , de compter I ’ feloquent Massillon parmi ses ev^ques.^ Although D’Alembert evaluates his subject both as a pulpit-orator p N _ OEuvres Completes, _1_LL, 210-211. Hereafter a ll references are to C E uvres Comp I fetes ulnless otherwise noted. 103 and as a man of letters, he speaks In detail only of Massillon’ s special preparation for his religious vocation. As a young man of seventeen Massillon began his professional studies In a local schoolj later on he attended one In Marseilles. These two educational Institutions, both under the direction of an ecclesiastical order, Les Peres de j I ’Oratolre, produced a beneficial and lasting influence upon the youth-j f ul Mass!I I on. In order to understand the eulogist’ s conception of Massillon’ s j ! personal debt to the Oratorians, it is essential to recall certain ! details concerning that religious group. The history of the Oratolre, La Congrlgation des Peres de I ’ Oratoire de Jesus, goes back to the six-; I teenth century and to Rome. Philip Nlri (15*5— •595)» a devout priest, was the o ffic ia l founder of the Oratorians. Having studied in Rome with members of the Augustlnian order, he earnestly and fa ith fu lly imi tated their worthy example In the practice of asceticism, religious instruction, and good works. After his ordination in 1551 he took an |even more active part In humanitarian endeavors, his chief concern i |being to strengthen the faith of wavering Catholics and to convert the | i !p a rtia lly civilized pagans. i ! ! * I j The French counterpart of the Italian Peres de I'Oratolre was j founded in Paris in 161 I by Cardinal Pierre de Berulle (1575-1629). In establishing his religious community, this prelate was eager to improve the moral and spiritual standards of the ecclesiastical profession, as well as to honor the life and death of Jesus Christ. Within the Cardi n al’s lifetime over f i f t y groups of the Oratorlan order were founded In various parts of France. The followers of Berulle had the privilege of 104 : teaching in their own Institutions, a responsibility which their Italian predecessors had never been permitted to perform. By I7&7 there were eighty seminaries and colleges under the direction of the French Ora torians. From their earliest beginnings, the Oratorians in France had been j b itte rly opposed by the Jesuits. Toward the end of the seventeenth cen-: I tury the former group became interested in Jansenism, with the result ithat it was even more severely attacked than before by the Jesuit order.■ However, when the Jesuits were suppressed in I7&7, they were required j to hand over several of th eir educational institutions to the Peres de I ’ Oratoire. | In his most important polemic work, Sur la Destruction des Jesuitesi en France, D’Alembert makes an incisive and penetrating comparison of these two religious groups. It Is not d iff ic u lt to understand why the I author, an influential leader of the ph iIosophe group and an a lly of iVoItaire, albeit a rather timid one in combatting I'infSme, should i ! think so highly of the Oratorians, when we read these commendatory 1 j words s | Si quelque ordre, nous le dirons en passant, eGt pu esplrer de le j ! disputer aux Jlsultes dans les sciences et les lettres, et peut-etre j de I ’emporter sur eux, c ’ est cette congregation de I ’ Oratolre. . . . La llberte dont on y jo u lt sans Itr e jamais I I I par des vceux, la permission de penser autrement que ses superieurs, et de faire usage de ses talens a son g rl, voila ce qui a donne a I ’Oratolre des prldicateurs excel lens, des savans profonds, des hommes iI lustres de toute espece. (IE, 24) From the passage just cited we can also discover a possible motive for D'Alembert’ s choice of Massillon as one of the prelates to be accorded fu ll treatment in his Iloges. Although a loyal representative of the Catholic Church, Massillon was quite exceptional In having 105 obtained his ministerial training in an atmosphere where freedom of enlightened thought prevailed, and in an intellectual climate where rela tively unrestricted opportunities were available for the development of personal a b ility and individual talents. In fact, we conclude that D'Alembert presents in his Mass!I ion eulogy the Oratoi re as a model of what a religious order should really be: Ses humanitls finies, il entra dans I'Oratoire a I'age de dixsept ans. Resolu de consacrer ses travaux a I'Egiise, il prefera aux liens indIssolubles qu'il aurait pu prendre dans quelqu'un de ces ordres religieux si multiplies parmi nous, les engagemens libres que l'on contracte dans une congregation, a laquelle le grand Bossuet a donni ce rare lloge, que tout le monde y oblit sans que personne y commande. Mass!I Ion conserva jusqu'a la fin de sa vie le plus tendre et le plus precieux souvenir des lemons qu'il avait re<jues et des principes q u 'il avait puises dans cette societe vraiment respectable, qui sans intrigue, sans ambition, aimant et culttvant les lettres par le seul desir d'etre u tile , s'est f a it un nom distingul dans les sciences sacries et profanes; qui perslcutee quelquefols, et presque toujours peu favorisee de ceux meme dont e lle aurait pu esperer I'appui, a f a it , maIgre ce fatal obstacle, tout le bjen qu'il lui &tait permis de fa lre , et n'a jamais nui a personne, m em e a ses ennemls; enfln qui a su dans tous les temps, ce qui la rend encore plus chere aux sages, pratiquer la religion sans petitesse, et la precher sans fanatisme, C m , 211) Upon completing his ecclesiastical studies under the supervision of the Oratorians, Massillon began a period of internship in his home province. Although s t i l l quite inexperienced, the young prelate had the distinction of delivering funeral orations for two archbishops. What D'Alembert has to say about Massillon's f ir s t attempts at pulplt-oratory is rather interesting: . . . ces deux discours, qui n '6taient a la verite que le coup d'essai d'un jeune homme, mais d'un jeune homme qui annonfalt dlja ce i qu'il fut depuis, eurent le plus b rilla n t succes. L'humble orateur, effraye de sa reputation nafssante, et craignant, comme II le d is a it, Ie dlmon de I'o rg u e iI, resolut de lui echapper pour toujours, en se j vouant a la retrai te la plus profonde, et m erne la plus austere. II ajla s'ensevelir dans I'abbaye de Septfons, ou l'on suit la meme j regie qu'a la Trappe, et iI y p rit I'habit, (TTT, 212) 106 While s t il l a novice in the Trapplst monastery, Massillon penned an important o ffic ia l letter for the Abbot, "plus religleux qu'elo- quent," to the Cardinal de NoaiIles of Paris. Upon learning the author’ s name, Cardinal de NoaiIles was determined that a b r illia n t young man of such potential a b ility and promise should at once become his protegl. In D'Alembert’ s own words, the Cardinal intimated to the Abbot, "qu'il ne f a l l a i t pas qu’ un si grand talent, suivant I'expres- sion de I ’ Ecriture, demeurcit cache sous le boisseau," D'Alembert then describes the manner in which the Cardinal put into effect his plans for the young Massillon (T IT , 212). Although the young prelate was ordained In 1 6 81, he did not v is it Paris until I696. Three years later, on the invitation of the Cardinal de NoaiIles, he returned to the capital, residing there and at Versailles for the next twenty years. During this long period of a c ti v ity , Massillon attained his greatest success both as a pulpit-orator and as a man of letters. D'Alembert comments at length upon Massillon’s preaching, f ir s t in the French capLtai, and then at the royal court. Carefully pointing out that from the beginning Massillon received great acclaim, D'Alembert states the prelate's two guiding principles of pulpit-oratory: preaching In a manner different from that of his fellow clergy, and touching the hearts of irreligious men and women: A peine commen^a-t-iI a se montrer dans les egllses de Paris, qu'il e ffa 9a presque tous ceux qui b rilla ie n t alors dans cette carriere. II avait declare qu 'il ne precherait pas comme eux, non par un sentiment presomptueux de sa superiority, mais par I'Idee, aussi juste que reflechie, qu'il s 'e ta it fa ite de I'eloquence chretienne. II e ta it persuade que si le ministre de la parole divine se degrade en annonfant d'une maniere triv ia le des verites communes, II manque aussi son but en croyant subjuguer, par des raisonnemens profonds, des audlteurs qui pour la plupart ne sont guere a portee de le suivrej que si tous ceux qui I'ecoutent n'ont pas le bonheur d'avoir 107 des lumieres, tous ont un coe ur ou le predicateur dolt a lle r chercher ses armesj qu'il faut, dans la chaire, montrer I'homme a lui-meme, molns pour le revolter par I'horreur du p o rtrait, que pour I'a f f lig e r par la ressemblance; et qu'enfin, s 'll est quelquefols u tile de I'effra yer et de le troubler, II I'est encore plus de faire couler ces larmes douces, bien plus efficaces que celles du desespoir. ( n r , 212-213) Continuing his discussion of Massillon's pulpIt-oratory, D'Alembert refers to . . . cette Eloquence qui va droit a l'§me, mais qui I'a g ite sans la renverser, qui la consterne sans la f l e t r i r , et qui la penetre sans la dechirer. The eulogist, probably relying on a number of eyewitness accounts reported to him by elders, comments further: Sa diction, toujours fa c ile , llegante et pure, est partout de cette slmplicite noble, sans laquelle il n'y a ni bon goGt, ni veritable eloquence; slmplicite qui etant reunie dans Massillon a I'harmonie la plus sedulsante et la plus douce, en emprunte encore des graces nouvelles; e t, ce qui met le comble au charme que f a it eprouver ce style enchanteur, on sent que tant de beautes ont coule de source, et n'ont rien coGte a celul qui les a produites. (TTT, 213) At this point It Is well to recall once again the principle of selectivity which D'Alembert exercised in the biographical portions of his eloges. The relative brevity imposed upon an academic eulogy made such selectivity absolutely necessary from the outset. With a sure touch, the eulogist chooses those events and circumstances that were crucial In forming the great pu1pit-orator and writer that Massillon was to become. Besides this s e le c tiv ity — basic to the compilation of any jblography— there were factors which influenced D'Alembert's choice of 1 |detaII. When he could plead a personal or philosophical cause without Ideforming or forcing his primary source material, he was not averse to I | do Ing so. His emphasis on Massillon's humble origin Is certainly motf- Ivated by a personal memory, while the expanded treatment of the 108 prelate’ s education under the Oratorians had obvious anti-Jesutt and pro-ph iIosophe overtones. There were s t i l l other, more disinterested forces at work in dic tating D’Alembert’ s choice of biographical material. He was interested in facts and events, not only because of their intrinsic importance, but also as a revelation of certain aspects of personality or tempera ment that either made his subject "come alive" or permitted a more objective evaluation of both his character and his professional achieve ments. In describing Massillon’ s life during the long, active years spent at Paris and Versailles, D'Alembert selects for his special attention (l) the prelate’ s importance and success as a pulpit-oratorj (2) Massillon’ s personal influence, f ir s t upon the aging Louis XEE, then upon the boy-king, Louis XEj and fin a lly and inevitably (3) his elec tion to the French Academy on February 25, 1719. Three years a fte r his arrival in Paris, at the season of the Advent (1699), Massillon was invited to preach at the court of Ver sailles. D'Alembert describes this memorable occasion in a few rapid sentences, taking pains to point out an attendant circumstance which throws the whole nature of the event into high reliefs Louis XlX e ta it aiors au comble de sa puissance et de sa gloirej vainqueur et admlrl de toute I ’Europe, adore de ses sujets, enivre j d'encens et rassasie d’ hommages. (H E , 2\k) ! In the face of this D’AJembert te lls us: i i Massillon p rit pour texte le passage de l'E criture qui semblait le moins f a it pour un tel prince, Bienheureux ceux qui pleurent, et sut t lr e r de ce texte un eloge d’autant plus neuf, plus adroit et plus fia tte u r, qu’ il parut dicte par I ’Evangile m§me, et tel qu'un apStre | I 1 aura it pu fa I re. (H E , 214) I 109 Having noted that at the close of this moving address Louis XIV burst into tears, D’Alembert speaks at length of those conspicuous qualities— utter sim plicity, outspoken truthfulness, quiet dignity, emotional and intellectual appeal—which earned for Massillon such great favor and deep respect at the royal court. In his final comments D’Alembert again mentions Louis I E ' s personal reaction to Massillon's powerful preaching: . . . et le monarque, qui aurait pu s o rtir de sa chapelle mecontent de la lib e rtl de quelques autres predicateurs, ne s o rtit jamais des sermons de Massillon, que mecontent de lui-m§me. C'est ce que le prince eut le courage de dire en propres termes a I'orateurj eloge le plus grand qu'il pGt lui donner. . . . f i l l , 215) Altogether there were six court sermons In the f ir s t series which Massillon delivered at Versailles, during the Advent in 1699. Mention has already been made of D'Alembert's comments upon the prelate's open ing sermon, Sur le Bonheur des Justes, the text of which was taken from the Beatitudes. On the following day—All Saints' Day—Massillon preached what is probably his most famous sermon, Sur la Mort du Plcheur, et la Mort du Juste. Unfortunately, D'Alembert has not le ft any c ritic a l remarks concerning this particular oration. Besides containing a vivid description of the contrasting, deathbed scenes of the lost sinner and the righteous man, this particular sermon has many striking examples of Massillon's dramatic oratorical effects, jOnly twice more, during the Lenten seasons of 1701 and I 70I4 ., did the I ...... j d is ti ngu i shed prelate appear before Louis X H . It was only to be iexpected that Massillon's phenomenal success would bring him many ene- jmies, particularly from the ranks of rival preachers. D'Alembert could 1 1 jhardly omit some mention of this fact: Des succes si multiplies et si eclatans eurent leur e ffe t ordinaire; iIs fire n t a Massillon des ennemls implacables, surtout parmi ceux qui se regardaient comme ses rivaux, et qui voulant que la parole divine ne fCit annoncee que par eux, se croyaient apparemment dis penses de prlcher d'exemple contre l'envle. Leur ressource e ta it de termer la bouche, s’ iI e ta it possible, a un concurrent si redoutabie; mais iis n'y pouvaient reussir qu'en accusant sa doctrine; et sur ce point delicat, Massillon ne laissait pas m§me de pretexte a leurs dispositions charitables. (m , 215- 216) Although fu lly aware that several of his predecessors had been "adroltement ecartes de la chaire de Versa!I Ies,” Massillon remained calm and unperturbed— an indication of his genuine s p irit of tolerance, even toward his personal enemies; Mais les sentimens de Massillon, exposes chaque jour a la critique d'une cour attentive et scrupuleuse, n'offraient pas m §m e le nuage le plus leger aux yeux ciairvoyans de la haine; et son orthodoxie i rrlprochab le etait le desespoir de ses ennemis. ( H I , 2 16) Upon the death of Louis XIV in 1715} Massillon was chosen as the o ffic ia l preacher to the new boy-king, Louis XZ,and as consecrated Bishop of Clermont. In 1719 the distinguished ecclesiastic was elected to the French Academy. However, Massillon was seldom seen at the Academy's general assemblies, much preferring to devote his time and attention to his pastoral duties at Clermont; Massillon venalt d'etre sacre evique; aucune place a la cour, aucune a ffa ire , aucun pretexte enfin ne pouvait le retenir loin de son troupeau. L'abbe Fleury, observateur inexorable des canons, ne v lt, en recevant son nouveau confrere, que les devoirs rigoureux que I'Episcopal lui imposait; les devoirs de I'academlcien dlsparurent entlerement a ses yeux. . . . (TTT, 217-218) | In a laudatory tone D’Alembert describes the last years of j Massillon, who was by then the enlightened prelate and beloved Bishop of Clermont. The former pulpit-orator of Paris and the court-preacher at Versailles Is portrayed as a sincere leader and a successful, self-deny ing administrator of his bishopric. Massillon played an ideal role as an unassuming parish priest who consistently put into practice the Golden Rule, even to the point of trying to conciliate b itte r enemies. In fa c t, D'Alembert praises Massillon on grounds as s t r i c t ly humanitar ian as circumstances would permit. The voice of the ph iIosophe is dis tin c tly heard in these passages: II donna tous ses soins au peuple heureux que la Providence lui avait confie. . . . II consacrait avec tendresse a I ’ instruction des pauvres, ces m§mes talens tant de fois accueillis par les grands de la terre, et preferait aux bruyans eloges des courtisans, I'attention simple et recueillie d'un auditoire moins b rilla n t et plus docile. Les plus eloquens peut-§tre de ses sermons sont les conferences qu'il fa is a it a ses cures. II leur pr^chait les vertus dont ils trouvaient en lui I'exemple, le desinteressement, la sim plicite, I'oubli de sol-m&me, I ’ ardeur active et prudente d'un zele &clalre, bien differente de ce fanatisme qui ne prouve que I'aveugIement du zele, et qui en rend m§me la sincerite tres-douteuse. Une sage moderation e ta it en e ffe t son caractere dominant. II se p la is a it a rassembier a sa maison de campagne des oratoriens et des jesuites; II les accoutu- mait a se supporter mutueI Iement, et presque a s'aimer; II les fa is a it jouer ensemble aux echecs, et les exhortait a ne se faire jamais de guerre plus serleuse. ( II' 1, 218) The preacher's death on September 28, 17^4-2, was an irreparable loss, both to pul pit-oratory and to humanity, D'Alembert considered this prelate one of the very few worthy leaders of the Catholic Church. The eulogist's final comments are tributes of high praise to the f ir s t of that line of distinguished puIpit-orators that also included Bossuet, Bourdaioue, Fenelon, and FItchier. The "enIightened" tone of these remarks does not mar their warmth and sincerity: II [Massillon] avait joui, des son vivant, de cette oraison funebre | qu'il ne peut plus entendre. Des qu'il paraissait dans les rues de Clermont, le peuple se prosternait autour de lui en criant: vlve notre pere. Aussi ce vertueux pr§lat d is a it-il souvent, que ses confreres ne sen talent pas assez quel degre de consideration et d'autorite ils pouvaient tire r de leur eta t, que ce n 'e fa it ni par le faste, ni par une devotion minutieuse, encore moins par les grimaces et les intrigues de I'hypocrisie, qu'ils pouvaient se rendre chers a I'humanity et redoutables a ceux qui I'oppriment, mais par ces vertus j dont le coeur du peuple est le Juge, et qui^dans un ministre de la j vraie religion retracent a tous les yeux i'E tre juste et bienfajsant dont iI est I ' i mage (IT T , 219) A fter this painstaking biographical Introduction, D’Alembert pro ceeds to a c r it ic a l evaluation of M assillon’ s w ritings: Le Grand Car£me, Le P etit CarSme, and Les Oralsons Funebres. Concerning the f i r s t and last of these groups, D’Alembert offers only one or two gen eral comments. However, he does make specific references to the second group. Le Peti t Car£me comprises a co llectio n of sermons for Lent delivered In 1718 in the presence of the eig ht-year-old Louis 2 2 . These sermons, composed in less than three months, were prepared for the special benefit of the young monarch. He also mentions the fact that Le Peti t Car§me, modeled a fte r T&limaque, was likewise a subtle attack upon Louis 2 3 2 . In comparing the sermons of Le Grand Carlme with those found in Le Peti t Car&me, D'Alembert points out these differences: Ces sermons, composes en moins de trols mois, sont connus sous le nom de Pet i t Cargme. C'est peut-§tre, sinon le chef-d'oeuvre, au moins le vrai mode Ie de I ’ eloquence de la chaire. Les grands sermons du m§me orateur peuvent avoir plus de mouvement et de vihemence; I ’ eloquence du P etit CarSme est plus inslnuante et plus sensible; et le charme qui en resulte augmente encore par I ’ interSt du s u jat, par le prix in e s ti mable de ces Je^ons simples et touchantes, qui destinees a penetrer avec autant de douceur que de force dans le coeur d ’ un monarque enfant, semblent preparer le bonheur de plusieurs m illions d’ hommes, en annon^ant au jeune prince qui doit regner sur eux, tout ce q u 'ils ont d ro it d’ en attendre. C’est la que ! ’ orateur met sous les yeux des souverains les ecuells et les maiheurs du rang supreme. ( H I , 216-217) The eulogist continues his lite ra r y evaluation with remarks upon certain unfavorable judgments leveled against these p articu lar sermons. \ According to some c r it ic s , M assillon's religious orations were too uni form, overly organized, excessively monotonous in style and tone, and too j jrepetltious In thought. D'Alembert himself frankly admits that in a ll of h is sermons Massi I Ion revealed one basic weak ness--a. Iddk , of. .v.arJ.e±y_ _ _ 113 in content material ( H I , 222). While commenting favorably upon the moral value of Le Peti t Car§me not only to the youthful monarch, but also to his courtiers, D'Alembert seeks to ju stify Massillon's procedure of repetiton of thought: Quelques censeurs severes, ont neanmoins reproche a ces excellens discours un peu d'uniformite et de monotonie. Ils n'offrent guere, dit-on, qu'une verite a laquelle I'orateur s'attache et revlent tou jours, la bienfaisance et la bonte que les grands et les puissans du siecle doivent aux petits et aux faibles. . . . Mais sans examiner la justice de ce reproche, cette verite est si consolante pour tant d'hommes qui gemissent et qui souffrent, si precieuse dans I 'in s t it u tion d'un jeune roi, si necessaire surtout a faire entendre aux oreilles endurcies des courtlsans qui I ' environnent, que I'humanite doit benir I'orateur qui en a plaide la cause avec tant de perseve rance et d'inter&t. Des enfans peuvent-ils se plaindre qu'on parle trop long-temps a leur pere du besoin qu 'ils ont de lui, et du devoir que la nature lui f a it de les aimer? ( i l l , 217) Finally, D'Alembert compares Massillon with Seneca, reiterating his former opinion, that criticism of Massillon's sermons Is largely without ju stific atio n . The comparison is rather a curious one, and we wonder whether the "minimizing" view taken of a pagan classic may not have been D'Alembert's way of helping the Modernes in the famous QuereI Ie. After a l l , to champion a modern churchman against a classic pagan was diplo mat IcaI Iy sound: On a f a it la m§me critique de Seneque', mais avec bien plus de justice. Seneque, uniquement jaloux d'etonner son lecteur par la profusion d'esprit dont il I ’ accable, le fatigue d'autant plus, qu'on sent qu'il s'est fatigue lui-mime par un Italage si fastueux de ses richesses, et qu'il ne les montre avec tant de luxe qu'apres les avoir ramassees avec e ffo rt: Massillon, toujours rempIi du seul inter^t de son j j auditeur, semble ne lui presenter en plusieurs manieres la verite dont il veut le convaincre, que par la crainte qu'il a de ne la pas graver assez fortement dans son Smej et non-seulement on lui pardonne ces douces et tendres redites, mais on lui sait gre du motif touchant qui les m ultiplier on sent qu'elles partent d'un coe ur qui eprouve le p la is lr d'aimer ses semblables, et dont la sen sib ilite vive et pro- fonde a besoin de se repandre. ( i l l , 222) In the third group of Massillon's religious orations, Les Oraisons I Ilf. Funebres, those generally mentioned as the most outstanding are: Le Pri nee de Conti (1709), Le Grand Dauphln ( 171 I ), and Louis XIS (1715). D'Alembert’ s c ritic a l comments on these funeral orations are more detailed and less favorable than those on the CarSmes: Ce grand orateur pronon^a, soit avant que d'etre evique, soit depuis qu'il le fut devenu, quelques oraisons funebres, dont le merite fut eclipse par celul de ses sermons. S'I I n'avait pas dans le caractere cette in fle x ib ility qui annonce la verite avec rudesse, il avait cette candeur qui ne permet pas de la deguiser. A travers les louanges qu'il accorde dans ces discours, soit a la bienseance, soit m§me a ia justice, le jugement secret qu'il porte au fond de son coeur sur celui qu'il est charge de celebrer, echappe, sans qu'il y pense, a sa franchise naturelle, et surnage, pour ainsi dire, maIgre Jui; et on sent en le lisant qu'il est tel de ses heros dont il aurait f a it plus volontters I'h is to ire que I'eloge. ( i l l , 223) The last clause Is obviously h eartfelt, for D'Alembert's eulogies were subject to much the same limitations as Massillon's Oraisons Funebres. Throughout his eloges it is clear that D'Alembert always wanted to write "piut&t I'h is to ire que I'e lo g e .” "Eloge de Ffenelon" Three weeks after delivering his eulogy of Massillon, on August 25, 1774, D'Alembert read before the general assembly his eulogy of Francois de Salignac de La Mothe Fenelon ( 1 651 — 17 15). In this second eulogy of puIpIt-orators D'Alembert follows the ! same principle of selectivity as in his "Eloge de Massillon"; he choose^ j certain biographical facts concerning his subject and then describes a I few dominant character tra its . Finally, with this carefully-selected j material D'Alembert develops a portrait of Fyneion, completing his eulogy with a c ritic a l evaluation of the Archbishop's Iiterary accom plishments. Referring to an eloge of Fenelon previously delivered by 115 La Harpe In the French Academy, the eulogist clearly defines his method: Obliges, comme historlen de cette compagnle, de louer aussi le ver- tueux Fenelon, nous ne chercherons point a etre eloquens, et nous n'aurons point d'efforts a faire pour nous en abstenir; nous nous bornerons a r e c u s illlr quelques fa its , qui, racontes sans ornement, formeront un eloge de Flnelon aussi simple que lui. La slmplicite d’ un tel hommage est la seule maniere qui nous reste d'honorer sa mlmolre, et peut-£tre celle qui toucherait le plus sa cendre, si elle pouvait jouir de ce que nous sentons pour e lle . ( H , 1+87) The reason for D'Alembert’ s praise of Fenelon's simpIici te In such exaggerated terms may reside in the fact that the eulogist found in his eminent subject a kindred s p ir it, a personality in many ways similar to his own. By means of quotations from F&nelon himself and through well-chosen anecdotes concerning the prelate's life , D'Alembert describes "quelques tra its de cette vertu simple, humaine, et surtout indulgente, que I'archevSque de Cambrai savait encore mieux prattquer que d e fin ir” ( H , 1+87). In another passage replete with admiration for Flnelon's simpllcite D'Alembert brings a subtle yet pointed indictment against the haughty attitude and hypocritical manner manifested by some members of his distinguished audience: Malheur a ceux a qui ce tr a it attendrissant ne p arattra it pas assez noble pour §tre raconte devant une assembl&e si respectable et si digne de I'entendre.' • The full Import of this sharp criticism may be better understood If we remember that when D'Alembert read his "Eloge de Fenelon" a J second time, the King of Prussia— Frederick the Great— was present In the general assembly of the French Academy. D’Alembert's most striking Illu stratio n of Fenelon's simple sin cerity Is the brief account of the worthy prelate's encounter with a 116 disloyal ecclesiastic. Quoting from the eulogist’ s record of the inci-; dent we reads La simpllcite de sa vertu obt! nt le trlomphe le plus fla tte u r et le plus doux dans une occasion qui dut itr e blen chere a son coeur. Ses! ennemis, car, a la honte de I'human!tl, F&nllon eut des ennemis, avaient eu la detestable adresse de placer aupres de lui un eccle- siastique de grande naissance, qu 'il croyait n 'itre que son grand-vicaire, et qui e ta it son esplon. Cet homme, qui avait consent! a faire un metier si viI et si I3che, eut le courage de s ’en punir; apres avoir observe long-temps I ’Sme douce et pure qu’ il e ta it charge' de noircir, II vint se jete r aux pieds de Fenelon en fondant en Jarmes, avoua le rQIe indigne qu’on lui avait f a it jouer, et alia cacher dans la re tra ite son desespolr et sa honte. (IE, 1+88) D'Alembert is careful to point out that despite a benevolent, tolerant attitude towards others— even to his worst enemies— Fenelon was his own most severe judge. Fenelon had accused Moliere of having taken him as the prototype of the principal character i n Le Misanthrope, "avec une austerite odieuse et rid ic u le ." La critique pouvait n’ itr e pas juste; mais le motif qui la d ic ta lt honore la candeur de son Sme. Cette critique est mime d’ autant plus j louable, qu’ on ne peut I'accuser d’ avoir ete interessee; car la vertu douce et indulgente de Finilon e ta it blen ilolgnee de ressembler a la vertu sauvage e t inflexible du Misanthrope. (IL, i+ Q 9 ) Voltaire, D'Alembert's great friend, also considered the prelate’ s '"amour pour la vertu” an outstanding characteristic. In a comparison of the two pulpit-orators, Fine I on and Massillon, he wrote: ", . . un ; iFenllon, Je second des hommes dans I'eloquence, et le premier dans I 'a rt de rendre la vertu a i m a b l e . ” ^ In his eulogy D'Alembert makes specific reference to the greatest tragedy of Finelon’ s lif e — his prolonged controversy with Bossuet over % (1877), 79. quiltisme and his eventual expulsion from Versailles! Sa disgrace a la cour, qui avait commence par ses opinions mystiques,; fut consommee sans retour par son roman de TlIemaque, ou Louis XIV crut voir la satire indirecte de son gouvernement. . . . QH, 1 + 92) As if further proof of Fenelon’ s sincerity was s t i l l necessary, D’Alembert remarks upon the benevolent attitude shown by the prelate, even in the midst of public censure: II [Flnelon] eta it alors exi le a Cambral pour cette a ffa ire du quiltisme. . . . L'archevlque de Cambrai . . . penetre du sentiment de ses devoirs, b lnit I ’ heureuse faute qui I'a v a it enfin rendu a son egl ls^ et regarda comme un bienfalt ce que d’ autres auraient regarde . comme un malheur. (ZEE, 1+92) The latter part of this eulogy is devoted to an evaluation of Flnelon’ s writings. Specifically mentioned are Dialogues sur I'E lo- quence, Lettre a I'Academle Francaise, Maximes des Saints, TelEmaque, and Dialogues des Morts. The most attractive feature of Fenelon’ s style Is his a b ility to create a mood of tranquility and peace. Le charme le plus touchant de ses ouvrages est ce sentiment de quietude et de paix qu 'il fa it goGter a son lecteurj c ’ est un ami qui: s ’approche de vous, et dont I'cime se repand dans la vQtre; il tempere, il suspend au moins pour un moment vos douleurs et vos pel ness on pardonne a I'human!te tant d'hommes qui la font haFr, en faveur de Fenelon qui la fa it aimer. (XE, 1+91) : To illu strate the accuracy of D’Alembert's evaluation, we cannot do better than to quote from Telemaque a beautiful descriptive passage in which this "sentiment de quietude et de paix" Is most effectively j revealed: j On arrive a la porte de la grotte de Calypso, ou Tilemaque fut surpris de voir, avec une apparence de slmplicite rustique, tout ce qui peut charmer ies yeux, . . . La, on trouvait un bois de ces arbres touffus qui portent des pommes d'or, et dont la fle u r, qui se renouvelIe dans toutes les saisons, repand le plus doux de tous les parfums; ce bois semblait couronner ces belles prairies, et formalt j une nuit que les rayons du soleil ne pouvaient percer: la, on 118 n'entendait jamais que le chant des olseaux, ou le bruit d'un ruisseau qui, se p rlcip itan t du haut d'un rocher, tombait a gros j bouillons, pleins d'4cume, et s'enfuyalt au travers de la prairie.4 i As for F4neIon's few c ritic a l writings on the subject of I Itera- I ture, D'Alembert states they are "plein de gotit, de finesse et de lumleres." He then adds this enlightening comment: Nourri de la lecture des anciens, II salt d'autant mieux les admirer, qu'il ne les admire pas toujours. Dans les auteurs qu'il cite pour , modeles, les tra its qui vont a I'Sme sont ceux sur lesquels il aime a se reposerj il semble alors, st on peut parler ainsi, respirer doucement I'a i r natal, et se retrouver au milieu de ce qu'il a de plus cher. ( H , 491) D'Alembert feels that Flnelon's Dialogues sur I'Eloquence and the Lettre a I'Acadfemle Francaise contain "les principes les plus sains sur I'a r t d'lmouvolr et de persuader." Concluding his appraisal of these two works, D'Alembert gives us one of his frequent coups de grSce: II [Fenelon] y parle de cet art en orateur et en phllosophe; des rhlteurs qui n'etaient ni I ' un ni I ’ autre, I ' attaquerent et ne le refuterent pas; Ils n'avaient etudie qu'Aristote qu 'ils n'entendaient: guere, et II avait 4tudi4 la nature qui ne trompe jamais. (XL, 4 9 0 ' Fenelon's works on quietisme, though Jess reasoned and arguments- j ; tive, are the best written of all his I Iterary achievements. Although j S D'Alembert did not completely agree with Fenelon's theology, he whole- I i | j heartedly supported this prelate's stand against Bossuet in the que- | re lle quletlste. Fenelon's most Important writing on this subject was his Maximes des Saints, eventually condemned by the Pope. In note 5 to the "Eloge de Fenelon" D'Alembert clearly implies that despite this I I severe censure from the Vatican, Fenelon never re a lly considered I ^ Les Aventures de Tll4maque, f i l s d'Ulysse, New Edition (Phtladel- j phia, I&64), pp. 9-10. ” _ _ ___________________ J 19 himself a heretic or that he was in opposition to any of the doctrines : of the Catholic Church ( I E , 499). In this frank, outspoken statement closing with a sharp criticism ; of Bossuet, we find a striking example of D’Alembert’ s abI 11ty to interpret I I I urninatingly primary source material. On more than one occasion, the eulogist deliberately refrained from Including excessively controversia I information in the eloges to be delivered before the gen-- eraI assembly. When preparing them for publication, however, he added facts appended In the form of numbered notes. At the beginning of his discussion of Telemaque, D’Alembert refers to the famous lettre secrete, which although addressed to Louis XT2, was probably never received or read by him. In laudatory terms, the eulogist comments upon this letter: Cette^Iettre est Ic r lte avec I'&loquence et la liberte d’ un ministre de I ’Etre supreme, qui plaide aupres de son roi la cause des peuplesj 1’ clm e douce de F§n4lon sembie y avoir pris la vigueur de Bossuet, pour dire au monarque les plus courageuses verites. Nous ignorons si; cette lettre a e tl I ue par Lou is Z E Z ; mais qu'elle e ta it digne de I ’ §tre.’ qu’ elle le serai t d’etre Jue et medltee par tous les rolsj ( X I , 4 9 3 ) W e can readily discern D'Alembert's tremendous admiration for Fenelon as a great humanitarian and as a forerunner of the Age des I Lumieres, in his audacious condemnation of the abuses of absolute mon- ! archy. Although the reputation of T$ Iemaque remained consistently the same In other parts of Europe, It fluctuated In France. Accounting for this unusual phenomenon, D'Alembert remarks: Quand I ’ ouvrage parut, la nouveautl du genre, I'in te rS t du sujet, les graces du style, et plus encore la critique Indirecte mais con- tinuelie d’ un monarque qui n’ e ta it plus le dieu de ses sujets, enleverent tous les suffrages. La corruption qu’ amena la regence et qui rendit la nation moins sensible aux ouvrages ou la vertu respire, le parti violent qui s'Sleva contre Homere, dont le T&llmaque 120 paraissait I ’ imitation; enfin la monotonie qu'on crut y apercevoir dans [a diction et dans les idies, le firen t rabaisser assez long-temps a la classe des ouvrages dont le seul merite est d’ ins- truire agreablement la jeunesse. (IE, k93) D’Alembert concludes his explanation of the ea rlie r unpopularity of TeIemaque by stating that this work was attracting more attention in his own time, "qui, plus ic la lre que le precedent sur les vrais prln- cipes du bonheur des Etats, semble les renfermer dans ces deux mots, agriculture et tolerance" ( H , U93) * In his final remarks on Te I emaque' the eulogist speaks of la sensibi11te— an element found to a certain degree in a ll of Fenelon’ s writings, but most apparent in the works dedicated to the young prince, le Due de Bourgogne. In his appraisal of another work, the Dialogues des Morts, D’Alembert makes this observation with respect to the matter of fe e l ing, or sensi biI 1te : Ce sentiment respectable paratt surtout avoir dicte ses Dialogues des Morts. Tous ont de la vie et de I ' i n t i r i t . Mais ceux qu’ i I a p a rti- culierement consacres a I ' instruction de son 11 eve, ont une energie douce et tendre, que I'Importance de I'objet inspire a I ’Scrivain et lui f a it trouver au fond de son coe ur. ( H , 1 + 9^) In these didactic works written for the special benefit of the royal prince Fenelon speaks much more of la morale nature Ile than he does of the orthodox religion, "dont II [Fenelon] e ta it un si digne m inistre." Finelon’ s interpretation of Christianity as a social gospel, rather than an orthodox religious creed, would naturally create a pro found impression upon D’Alembert. I | The piece is concluded with a reference to Fine Ion’ s election to l i ( j the French Academy. In a b itte r and sarcastic tone, D’Alembert j severely condemns those academicians who were so bold as to vote 121 against the prelate’ s admission to the general assembly: Quelque Illustres qu’ ils eussent !te par leur naissance, par leurs dignit!s, par leurs ouvrages mime, nous ne pourrlons parler de leur rang ou de leurs talens qu’ avec doulerj nous sentirions, en prenant la plume, notre coeur se resserrer et se f l e t r i r , et peut-Stre n’ aurions-nous la force de tracer que ces tristes mots: I I donna unel boule noire a Finilon. err, 4 9 5 ) D'Alembert gathered his factual material for this iloge from two sources. It Is quite evident, as the citations and anecdotes clearly prove, that the eulogist depended to a great extent upon the prelate's own writings. Furthermore, in the copious notes D'Alembert drew upon a valuable biography written by one who had become acquainted with the eminent Fenelon through personal contact.^ Ramsay presents a detailed account of Fenelon's life as a philoso pher, prelate, and academician. In a brief preface the biographer Indicates the purpose and s p irit of his work: Monsieur de Fenllon . . . m'ayant honor! piusieurs annees avant sa mort d'une amiti! particuIiere, j'a i cru devoir, par respect pour sa mlmoire, et par amour du bien public, ecrire cette histoire de sa vie. Comme mon dessein est de faire connaTtre ce prelat par ses actions, par ses sentiments, et par ses ouvrages, on ne trouvera dans! cette histoire que des fa its instructifs, qui interesseront tous ceux; qui aiment la v lrite et la vertu, (p. 3) No doubt I t was from the closing paragraph of this preface that D'Alembert gained much of his inspiration for the writing of his own i biographical eulogy of Fenelon. Ramsay concludes thus: : Pour rendre ia narration courte, simple, et rapide, je passe iegerement sur les choses moins importantes, et j'e v ite les reflex ions trop longues, aussi bien que les !loges vagues, et les ornements superflus. Je rapporte piusieurs lettres origlnaies, afin que Monsieur de Cambray se peigne et se raconte lui-mgme. (p. 3) ^Andre Michel de Ramsay, Histoire de la Vie de Monsieur Frangois de Salignac de la M o tte-F en lIo ~ Archevfeque de Cambray (The Hague, (1723). 122 w Eloge de Bossuet” In striking contrast to Massillon and Fenelon, considered by D'Alembert to be predlcateurs vertueux et tolerants, is Jacques-Benigne Bossuet ( 1627-170l+) , the subject of our third eIoge, whIch was read before the French Academy on May 15, 1775- Although D'Alembert may have counted Bossuet among the eminent pul pit-orators of the preceding century, he certainly did not evaluate him as un prelat tolerant et modere. The eulogist gives considerable attention to Bossuet’ s preparation for the ministry and then to the most outstanding events In his public career. He s k ilfu lly portrays his subject as a notable personality, an impressive orator, a forceful adversary, and an eminent man of letters. From early childhood Bossuet demonstrated aptitude for In te llec tual pursuits; "I I se llvra des son enfance a I'etude avec I'avldftS d'un genie naissant, qui saisissait et d^vorait tout." Bossuet's first teachers, the Jesuit priests, were quick to discover their pupil’ s great potentialities. They put forth every e ffo rt to win him to their ranks, but without success. This e lic its the following comment from D’Alembert: Aussi m irent-Ils en oeuvre, suivant leur usage, les plus adroltes Insinuations pour I ’ a ttir e r dans leur compagnie, a laquelle I Is ont acquis par ce moyen tant d'hommes celebres dans les lettres, dont les ouvrages sont aujourd’ hul tout ce qui reste a cette societe de son ancien eclat, comme II ne reste de tant d'hommes puissans qui ont disparu, que le peu de bien qu’ lls ont f a it a leurs semblables. Deja ces peres se fla tta le n t d’ ajouter a leurs nombreuses conquetes celle du jeune Bossuet, la plus brlIlante peut-§tre dont I Is eussent 1 jamais pu s'honorer. . . . (H , 2 1 4 -6 ) An uncle who understood the Jesuits’ subversive intentions even tually took his nephew to Paris, where the young man began his Intensive 123 preparation for an ecclesiastical career. Having mentioned the fact that Bossuet became thoroughly acquainted with the writings of r e l i gious and secular authors, D’Alembert points out one great weakness in his course of study— a failu re to learn mathematics, particularly geometry. Bossuet did not believe this acquisition of scien tific information would prove of any value in his ministerial career. On the other hand, D’Alembert, an eminent mathematician in his own rig ht, is firmly convinced that a mastery of geometry Is necessary In the mental development of all scholars aspiring to intellectual greatness. He expresses a conviction to be reiterated in future § Ioges, that In the study of geometry a student may acquire a better a b ility to reason and understand human nature: Bossuet pouvait-ii ignorer que 1’ habitude de la demonstration, en nous faisant reconna'Ttre et saisir I ’ 4vldence dans tout ce qui en est susceptible, nous apprend encore a ne point appeler demonstration ce qui ne I ’est pas, et a discerner ies limftes qui, dans le cercle si e tro it des connaissances humaines, s&parent la lumiere du crepuscule, et le crepuscule des tlnebres? (x e , 2i+a) D’Alembert admits rather reluctantly that " I ’ induI gent Fenilon, si oppose d’ ailleurs a Bossuet, t r a it a i t les mathematiques avec encore plus de rigueur que lui?” ^ It is quite evident that In this passage Just quoted D’Alembert is also making a direct attack upon all those who would ignore the prog- : | ress apparent In various field s of knowledge, and particularly the new s cien tific discoveries of the seventeenth century. ^"he eulogist then adds that Fenelon once wrote these words of advice: ” 11 [Fenelon] ecrivaiten propres termesa un Jeune homme q u ’ 11 d irig e a it, de ne point se lalsser ensorceler par les a ttra lts dlabolIques jde Ia geometrie, qui eteindralent en lui I'e s p rlt de la grSce. (T T , |2 iB ) ____________ \2k D’Alembert Is quick to note Bossuet's attitude toward philosophy—i particularly carteslanlsme, which, at that moment, was being severely attacked! : Les attaques violentes que cette philosophie essuyalt alors, de la part des theologlens m£me, bien loin d’ effrayer Bossuet^ contri- buaient peut-itre, sans qu’ iI le sOt, a echauffer son zele pour la j raison persecutee. (IT, 2I48) Commenting further upon the ultimate fate of Descartes' philosophy; D'Alembert makes a lengthy and Impassioned plea for freedom of thought, closing with this dramatic statement: Plus I ’ autorite agitera le vase ou les verites nagent p§le-m&le avec les erreurs, plus el Ie retardera la separation des unes et des autres; plus e lle verra s'lloigner ce moment, qui arrive pourtant tot ou tard, ou les erreurs se precipitent enfin d'eI Ies-m§mes au fond du vase, et abandonnent la place aux verites. (XL, 21+9) This excursus has no direct connection with Bossuet himself, but it does have a great deal to do with the struggle for the intellectual freedom that lay at the very heart of the Age des Lumferes. From the moment that Bossuet began his public ministry his reputa-i tion steadily increased, to the extent that on June 8, I6 7I, he was elected to the Academy. At the same time, he became tutor to the Dauphin. Concerning the wisdom of the King's choice, D'Alembert com ments thus* Le moyen le plus sOr peut-itre d'apprecler les rois, c'est de les 1 Juger par les hommes a qui 11s accordent leur confiance. Louis X32 ! donna . . . pour prlcepteurs les deux plus I I lustres prelats de I'SgJIse de France, Bossuet et Fen§lon. . . . ( H , 252) After having f u lf ille d his preceptorial responsibilities with the Dauphin, Bossuet was given the bishopric of Meaux—Louis TTV*s reward for services ably and loyally rendered at Versailles. In his new eccle siastical position, the worthy prelate dedicated himself wholeheartedly 125 to the cause of religion. D'Alembert very vaguely and evasively gives his reason for not paying much attention to this phase of Bossuet's colorful career. His final statement on this matter is a classic exam ple of his subtle cleverness In avoiding any dangerous or controversla I topic which might greatly offend the members of his august audience; . . . ses victoires en ce genre appartiennent a I'h is to ire de I'Eglise, et non a celle de I'Academie, et meritent d’etre appreclees par de meiIleurs juges que nous. ( H , 255) In his description of Bossuet, the individual, D'Alembert speaks of his ,f3me noble, active, pleine de force et de chaleur, avec un caractere ferme et impetueux, et surtout avec des talens !minens.,f Nevertheless, with such a dynamic personality and outstanding a b ility for leadership, It is not surprising that the prelate madebitter enemies. The way in which D'Alembert accounts for this fact fa in tly suggests the tone and language of a modern psychoanalyst; Peut-§tre a v a it-il le defaut de fa ire trop sentir aux talens mediocres cette superiority qui les ecrasaitj trop sdr de terrasser pour se crolre oblige de plaire, II negligeait de temperer I'e c la t de sa gloire, par une modestie qui la lui aurait f a it pardonner. Mals Bossuet, dont I'clme e ta it assez grande pour §tre simple, r£servait sans doute la slmpllclte pour le fond de son coeur, et croyait trop au-dessous de lui de se parer, aux yeux de ses ennemls, d'une vertu qu'ils auraient accusye de n 'itre que le masque de I'o rgueil. (IT , 257) This passage Is a good example of D'Alembert's a b ility to delineate the character of his subject with c la rity and subtlety, a quality that s to be very conspicuous in Sainte-Beuvian criticism. Probably the most painful and tragic experience in Bossuet's color- jful career was his long and bi tte r quarrel with Fynelon over the question of quletisme. D'Alembert records this unhappy event with feeling and junderstand Ing, but not with complete Im partiality. It is quite apparent jthat his personal sympathies are e n tirely w ith Fynelon;________________ _ 126 La clrconstance de la vie de Bossuet qui dtit £tre la plus affligeante pour lui, est ( ’ obligation qu' I I crut devoir s'imposer, de combattre ; dans la personne de Fenllon la vertu m§me, et la vertu qui s'egarait. : Mais les opinions de l ’ archev§que de Cambrai sur le quiefisme, lui parurent d’ autant plus dangereuses, que celui qui les repandait e ta it bien propre a slduire par Ja douceur de ses moeurs et par le charme de son eloquence: on disait de lui, en le comparant a I'evique de Meaux, que ce dernier prouvait la relig io n , et que FinSlon la fa Isa i t a j mer. ( H , 257) In his declining years Bossuet led a quiet, busy life as the Arch bishop of Meaux, Unreservedly he devoted himself to the care of his diocese. Weary of the world and its tinsel glories, the venerable prel ate wished for nothing more than to be laid to rest at the feet of his saintly predecessors. Occasionally he would enter the pulpit to speak simple words of spiritual comfort and wisdom to his humble parishioners. D’Alembert draws for us a striking contrast between the former eccle siastical leader at the royal court and the unassuming country priest ( H , 261- 262). The eulogist did not hold any great degree of admiration for Bossuet, particularly because of the prelate's b itte r polemic quarrels and his ml Ii tant defense of the CatholIc Church. In a I I fat rness to his subject, however, D'Alembert did recognize Bossuet's sterling qualities and the sincerity of his convictions. Too, he realized the prelate's rugged personality had become mellowed through the v lc is s i- | tudes of a long and active public life . Consequently, his final tribute) to Bossuet the man is sincere praise of a great Christian and religious leader, commendation which the eulogist rare Iy extended to any eccle siastic of the Catholic Church (IT , 262). So much for the evaluation of Bossuet the man. Now let us con sider the pulpit-orator, an ecclesiastical polemist, and an eminent man 127 of letters. Like his colleague Massillon, Bossuet displayed from early child hood a marked predilection for religious eloquence. In his adolescence he was commanded to appear "comrne un orateur precoce a I 1 hotel de Rambouillet, ou le merite en tout genre i t a i t somme de comparattre, et juge bien ou mal." Concerning the outcome of this dramatic occasion, the eulogist adds: II y f i t devant une assemblee nombreuse et choisie, presque sans preparation, et avec les plus grands appIaudissemens, un sermon sur un sujet qu’ on lui donna; le pr&dicateur n'avait que seize ans, et i 1 I t a i t onze heures du soir, ce qui f i t dire a Voiture, si fecond en jeux de mots, qu'i I n’ avait jamais entendu pr@cher si t 6t ni si tard. ( IE , 2k9) Apart from his rare g i f t of religious eloquence, Bossuet possessed the intellectual talents of a theologian, with the result that he brought about a drastic change in pulpit-oratory: Le ton de la chaire changea des quTI 1 y parut; il substitua aux indicences qui I'avl 11ssalent, au mauvais gotlt qui la degradait, la force et la digniti qui convient a la morale chrltienne. fTT, 2i|.9) Endowed with a prodigious memory, Bossuet never wrote out his ser mons In complete form. His usual method was to lis t on paper the main topics of his sermons. With respect to the publication of Bossuet’ s orations, D'Alembert informs us: Les sermons qu’ on a imprimes de lui, restes d’ une multitude immense, car jamais ii ne prScha deux fols le m§me, sont plut&t les esquisses j | d’ un grand mattre que des tableaux termlnls; ils n’ en sont que plus j pr&cieux pour ceux qui alment a voir dans ces desseins heurtSs et rapides les tra its hardis d’ une touche Iibre et fie re , et la premiere seve de I'enthousiasme createur. Cette fecondite pleine de chaleur j et de verve, qui dans la chaire ressemblait a I ' Inspiration, | subjuguait et entratnait ceux quf I ' IcoutaIent. ( I I , 250) I Bossuet delivered his f ir s t sermons at Metz, where he occupied the i archbishopric. On occasional v isits to Paris he would preach from one 128 of the pulpits in the French capital ( H , 265). Word of Bossuet's b r illia n t success eventually reached Louis XEZ, who forthwith extended to the prelate a permanent invitation to the , royal court and rewarded him for his long service there with the bish opric of Condon. Because of this new appointment, Bossuet’ s office as | the King's principal pulpIt-orator was given to Bourdaloue, a younger man. To Illu s tra te the older prelate's generous s p ir it — revealed only under certain circumstances— D’Alembert comments: Bossuet, qui voyait s’ elever dans Bourdaloue un successeur digne de lui et form! sur son modele, remit le sceptre de I eloquence chr4- tienne aux mains de I ' i I lustre rival a qui il avait ouvert et trac! cette glorieuse carriere, et ne fut ni surpris ni jaloux de voir le disciple s’ y 4 1ancer plus loin que le mattre. (XE, 250- 251) Despite his new responsibilities, Bossuet began to devote his ^attention and talents to another form of religious eloquence— funeral | joratory. Although D’Alembert’ s evaluation of the prelate's oraisons 1 | f unebres is generally favorable, he considers that ,rl ’4 loquence de I ’ orateur n’est pas toujours Ig a le .” In speaking of Bossuet's particu- i lar style, he adds: "Son audacieuse independance, . . . lui f a it nl- | gliger quelquefois la noblesse m4me des expressions. . . . " D’Alembert i considers his occasional carelessness in the use of language as a v ir - : tue rather than a fa u lt: j . . . heureuse n4gligence, puisqu'elle anime et prlcipite cette marche vigoureuse, ou il s’ abandonne a toute la vlhemence et t ’ energie de son Sme. . . . ( H , 251) The emotional and dramatic appeal of Bossuet’ s great funeral ora tions is w ell-illu s trated in passages from the prelate’ s Oraison i — —- Funebre de Henrlette-Anne d’Angleterre, which is considered one of his best. When referring to the recent death of the Queen’ s mother 129 and then to Henriette’ s own sudden and untimely death, the Impassioned \ pulplt-orator exclaims: 0 vanlte,' o neant.' 6 mortels Ignorants de leurs destinees’ L’eut-ellei cru, I l ya dlx mols? Et vous, messieurs, eussiez-vous pens§, pendant qu’e lle versait tant de larmes en ce lieu, qu'elle ddt sit&t vous y rassembler pour la pleurer elle-m§me?7 The most striking feature of Bossuet’ s funeral oratory Is the element of sincerity combined with deep pathos. Commenting upon this sens IbI I 11£ the eulogist writes: Cet orateur si sublime est encore pathltlque, mais sans en @tre moins1 grand, car I ’ elevation, peu compatible avec la finesse, peut au con- traire s’ a llie r de la manlere la plus touchante a la s e n s ib ilitl, dont e lle augmente i'in te r § t en la rendant plus noble, Bossuet, d lt un celebre ic riv a ln , obtint le plus grand et le plus rare des succes, celul de fa Ire verser des larmes a la cour. . . . (XL, 251) The effect of Bossuet’ s empathy Is clearly evident in the ora?son funebre Just quoted. The members of Bossuet’ s Illustrious audience are brought to tears afte r hearing this dramatic statement: 0 nult desastreuse* Q nuit effroyable, ou re te n tit tout a coup, com m e un eclat de tonnerre, cette etonnante nouvelle: Madame se meurt, Madame est mortej (Bossuet, pp. 121-122) With respect to Bossuet as a m ilitant theologian, the eulogist ; expresses himself in bold and decisive terms. In almost every state- ! ment D'Alembert reveals his strong dislike for the Catholic Church and : ; _ | i its o ffic ia l representatlves. While Bossuet was gaining an enviable reputation as a pulpit orator at Metz, he engaged in his f i r s t polemic controversy with a protestant minister, Paul Ferry ( I 59I - I 669). With all the influence and force of his dynamic personality, Bossuet refuted the heretical catechism that Ferry published for new converts. It ! | ^Oraisons Funebres, New Edition (P a ris ,[ 1885] ) , p. 102. 130 would be expected that in so doing Bossuet earned the warm approval of Rome (IE, 250). | Bossuet and Ferry, longtime friends, retained a warm regard for I. each other, even after their theological quarrel. The magnanimous a11i— | tude on the part of the two clergymen was a "rare et dlgne exemple a j i o f f r l r aux controversistes de toutes les religions" (IE, 250). Reference has already been made to the meeting of certain in flu- I ential clergymen in 1682— by royal command. D'Alembert t e ll s us that j i t Bossuet's sermon on the unity of the church which was delivered at the ! opening session of this auspicious conference met with criticism and even coarse jokes ( H , 270). One direct result of this ecclesiastical ' j gathering was Bossuet's notable work, Defense de I'Egllse Gallicane, | considered by D'Alembert to be one of the prelate's best I Iterary j achievements. The work was condemned by the Catholic Church, and the ! belligerent attitude of Its author was severely censured. To what extent the papal condemnation affected Bossuet Is recorded by D'Alembert Cet ouvrage, en mettant Ie combje a la gloire §p!scopale et theo- loglque de I'evSque de Meaux, le prlva d'un chapeau de cardinal, que lui avait o ffe rt le pape. . . . Bossuet, aussl fldele sujet que digne evSque, renonca sans peine a un honneur qui ne pouvait rien ajouter a la consideration publtque dont il joulssalt dans I ’Egllse: i II eOt plus iI lustre la pourpre que la pourpre ne I'eOt decorlj et son nom manque bien plus au sacre college, que Ie t lt r e d'lminence a son nom. C n , 256) As a result of the violent controversy between the aggressive Bossuet and the gentle Flnelon their close bonds of friendship were severed: ! Bossuet, Inexorablement attache a la saine doctrine, y sac riflcia i sans balancer I'a m itll qu'iI avalt temolgnee Jusqu'alors a I'arch- ev§que de Cambraf. II e c rlv lt contre lui avec toute la force que I'I n t l r S t de la foi devalt Insplrer a son defenseurj peut-§tre m§me I ' ardeur re I Igleuse 1'empor t a - t-e lle quelquefois a des expressions____ 1 31 peu m!nagees contre son vertueux adversalrej celul-ci du moins se crut offense, et s’en plaignif avec cette douceur qui ne I ’ aban- j donna It jamais. (TT. 257-258) D’Alembert goes on to state that in the opinion of many people Bossuet’ s assault upon F&nelon was not prompted so much by religious i convictions as by a feeling of personal jealousy. In proving that his j : noble adversary was entertaining decidedly heretical Ideas, Bossuet hoped to acquire F!nelon’ s more lucrative ecclesiastical post, the ! ; archbIshopric of Cambrai (TT. 258).® It Is worth noticing that to i ! I D’Alembert this accusation lacked any element of truth ( H , 273). The eulogist does not expatiate much on this famous theological battle. Instead, he only mentions one of Bossuet's rare conciliatory | gestures. Imbued with a desire to reconcile a ll the dissenting prot- estants, Bossuet undertook a correspondence with Leibnitz. The German : : philosopher's reaction to the prelate’ s suggestions was far from ! encouraging: Mais Leibnitz, plus tolerant que controversiste, et plus philosophe j que protestant, t r a it a i t cette grande affaire de religion comme II ; | et)t t r a it ! une negoclation entre des souverains. (HI, 258) i ; The eulogist speaks b rie fly of the Jansenlst, Antoine Arnauld ; | ! I ( 16 12— 1 69J -J -), and of the Jesuit, Louis Malmbourg ( 1620— 1 686). The fo r- I ■ r | mer’s work, De la Frequente Communion (|6I;3), Is twofold In nature. It Is a severe Indictment of the Jesuits, as well as the author’ s own In terpretation of the Augustlnlus by Jansen!us. Because of this polemic ®Such an accusation could be Intimated only In very guarded lan guage when D’Alembert delivered this !loge before the French Academy. In the copious notes attached to the text he makes a more detailed statement (IT, 272). I writing and his bold support of Jansenism, Arnauld was eventually i i relieved of his teaching post at the Sorbonne. j Arnauld also severely criticized Bossuet for two major failures as | Archbishop of Meaux: ( l) he lacked the moral courage to point out to iLouts SEZ his conspicuous faults; (2) he manifested but l i t t l e support j for the Jansenists against the Jesuits, However, as D'Alembert so . j aptly states, ; [Arnauld] emport6 et comme subjugue par ses opinions th&ologiques, il | ne voyalt rlen dans I ’ univers audela des malheureuses disputes, trop j nuisibles a son repos, et trop peu dignes de son genie. ( I E , 260) In the case of Maimbourg, D'Alembert calls him a ”6crivaln sans consequence, mais vll Instrument des ennemis de Bossuet.” Maimbourg isatirlzed many of his enemies under fic titio u s names. The best-known work of Maimbourg, L'HIstoIre du Luthlranlsme, is in re a lity , . . , le portrait Imaginaire de Bossuet, sous le nom du cardinal Contarini, dont il exposait la th&ologle et la conduite accommodante i en termes qui Indlquaient l ’ev^que de Meaux avec plus de clarte que de finesse. Un portrait si ressemblant eut Ie succes dont II e ta it digne, persome n’ y reconnut Bossuet; et Maimbourg, dlja miserable I historien, fut de plus un calomnlateur ridicule. fTT. 261) | After praising the fecundity of Bossuet's sermons and the flowing i : Istyle of his pulpit oratory, D'Alembert comments again, even more favor-; ably and specifically, upon the prelate's oraisons funebres. Of the \ six funeral orations delivered, the eulogist considers these four the most successful* Henriette de France (1669), Henriette d'Angleterre ( I 67O), La Princesse Palatine (1685), and Le Prince de Conde ( I687) Crr, 265). Concerning the funeral oration of the English Queen, D'Alembert does not accept the c ritic a l judgment of many writers— namely, that the portrait of Cromwell Is the most noteworthy portion of the discours e ._ 133 In D'Alembert's opinion, j le tableau energlque que trace I'orateur de la politique profonde de Cromwell, est un morceau dlgne de T a d te , et bien au-dessus du por tr a it purement oratoire de I ' usurpateur. . . . (XL, 266) D'Alembert does take exception to Bossuet's use of tr ite expres sions not In keeping with the nobility of the subject or the sad solem nity of the occasion. Concluding his c ritic a l evaluation of Bossuet's , ! i pulplt-oratory, the eulogist Intimates that the worthy prelate could elevate the meaning and tone of any colloquial expression through his j genius and natural eloquence: AinsI ce grand orateur, quolqu'il semble negliger et dedaigner mime P a r t du style, en est pourtant un modele, au molns par I'adresse et le bonheur qu' I I a eu d'ennoblir alnsl plus d'une fols la fam llla rite de ses expressions. (IE, 267) The panegyrist makes a lengthy, but quite general comment upon Bossuet's Discours sur 1'Histoire Universelle, which he calls "I'ouvrage cilebre” ( IE , 254). In the copious notes attached to this I 1oge Is an Interesting com-j ;par Ison between the I Iterary achievements of Flnelon and those of ;Bossuet. D'Alembert points out that the la tte r's writings breathe 1 i iprinciples of benevolence, tolerance, and love— always topics of uni versal appeal. Fenelon's works, unlike those of Bossuet, gained much j jmore Interest In the eighteenth century, at a period when there was an Increasing appreciation for humanitarian Christian virtues and useful knowledge and when there was a greater dislike for theological quarrels. Bossuet's 11terary reputation, on the other hand, gradually diminished j jdurlng the Enlightenment. In this passage D'Alembert explains the jprelate's decline in popularity: j II faut s'en prendre, et a la dlfference des clrconstances, et a celle 13k de I'es p rit des deux slecles, Dans le siecle precedent, la contro- verse e ta it en honneur; le public y prenait part, les courtlsans m§me s'y interessaIent; les gens de lettres epousaient un des deux partis. Les disputes theoloqiques sont maintenant negligees et ignorees. (TT, 285) Furthermore, D'Alembert states that of Bossuet's numerous volumes read for more than sixty years, only three works s t ill retain interest for contemporary readers: L'HistoIre Unlverselle, a few pulpit sermons, and the Ora I sons Funebres, because MIes productions de ce prelat elo quent ont beaucoup perdu de leur anclen I c l a t . ” In his final c ritic a l remarks D'Alembert points out that i t w i11 be the responsibility of posterity to evaluate f a ir ly Bossuet's true merit and to assign him a permanent place in the ranks of great men of letters ( H , 285). ”Eloge de Flechier” Almost three years after delivering his "Eloge de Bossuet” D'Alembert turned to another of this prelate's famous contemporaries In the pulpit, Esprit Flechier (|6 3 2 -I7 I0 ). In certain respects, the "Eloge de Flechier,” which was read in the French Academy on January 19,; 1778) Is the most Interesting of the four eulogies under conslderation, Flechier's parents were poor, humble tradesfolk. Despite their ! rightful and honorable claim to noble ancestry, these people refused to consider themselves gent IIshommes, but rather gens de bien, "distinc- tion assez peu recherch&e, et bien molns chere a la depravation humaine que les hommages si souvent rendus par la bassesse a la dignite sans talens et sans vertus” (TT, 320). Here a conviction is reiterated that the Intrinsic worth of a man 135; and the lasting value of his contribution to society lie In the ster ling quality of his character and the excellence of his talents, ratherj than In the social status of his parents or in the nobility of his ancestral heritage. The young Flechier acquired his early education under the super vision of a distinguished uncle, Pere Hercule Audifret (1603-1659), director of a college controlled by the Congregation des Peres de la Doctrine Chretienne. This, was a semireIigious organization similar to I that of the Peres de I ’ Oratoire, and both groups were active and hated rivals of the powerful Jesuits. As Massillon learned the principles of practical Christianity and religious tolerance from the Peres de I 1Ora to I re , so did Flechier In a similar manner gain much benefit from the years he spent studying under the Influence of the Peres de la Doctrine Chretienne. D’Alembert, In fact, compares favorably the atmosphere of the latter organization under Audifret's direction, with that of the Oratolre. Unfortunately ; for F llc h ler, a fte r his uncle's death the climate of liberal thought i ; and religious tolerance changed to one of prejudice and despotism. Les doctrinaires ne proflterent pas long-temps du m &m e avantagej car | apres la mort d’ Hercule Audifret, un autre gSn&ral, qui almait mieux j commander a des esclaves que de gouverner des hommes libres, voulut asservlr ses confreres par de nouveaux reglemens, auxquels Fllchler ne jugea pas a propos de se soumettre* Ainsi la Doctrine chretienne, j par la tyrannle de son chef, perdlt sans retour un des hommes qui I I ’ auralent le plus Illu s tre e j e ffe t naturel du despotisme qui a tant I Itouff§ de talens dans les cloTtres, et qui en a banni ou ecarti tant j d’autres. (IE, 321) | The voice of the m ilitant philosophe Is here clearly discernible. 1 I j Flechier eventually found his way to Paris, where wles talens I I cachis dans les provinces vlennent, quand I Is I ’ osent ou quand I Is le 136 peuvent, se montrer et s’ essayer." To make himself known In the capi- i tal Flechier decided to begin his public career as a poet. Being with-; out patronage or private Income, the aspiring young man was soon forced; to seek a more practical means of livelihood. For a brief period he accepted a most obscure and thankless post, described in gentle, humor-, ous language: . . . II fut r&duit a se confIner dans une paroisse ou cet homme, destini a -b r ille r un jour par son eloquence, fut charg§ de I ’ obscur emploi de faire le catechisme aux enfans, et des exhortations fami- lieres a quelques v ie ille s devotes qui venaient dormlr au lieu de I ’ entendre. Q j , 32F 322) It Is not In the least surprising that the potential prelate, quickly dissatisfied with a task so devoid of interest and Inspiration, should soon seek another type of remunerative occupation better suited to his taste and a b ility . He fin a lly accepted an appointment as p ri vate tutor In the home of an Important state o ffic ia l, M. de Caumartln. In terms which appear amazingly "modern,” D’Alembert explains why Fllchier could not find happiness and satisfaction In the honorable teaching profession: . . . tres-respectabIe sans doute par son objet, mals trop degradle parml nous, grSce a la sottlse des parens, et souvent a la bassesse i de ceux qui exercent en mercenaires une profession si noble. ( I I , 322) At long last, Flichier discovered the vocation for which he was soj I I admirably sulted--that of a clergyman and, more Important, of a pul pi t-orator. F llc h le r’ s growing reputation as a man of letters Jed to his elec tion to the French Academy on the same day as Racine’s, January 12, I 673. Judging by the applause from the general assembly, the f ir s t discours de reception, delIvered by F I4ch!er, was d e fin ite ly b etter. _ 137 In a lengthy passage the eulogist vividly describes Racine’ s personal reaction to what was for him a tragic experience. Concluding his remarks, D’Alembert gives us the final opinion of posterity, as to the relative excellence of the two speeches: . . . II [Racine] supprima, sans regret et sans murmure, cette production Infortunee [son discours de reception]; mats II dut Stre consol!, s’ I I en avalt besoin, par I ’ oubll ou tomba blentQt le dls- cours de Fl!chler, comme tous les ouvrages qui n’ ont que le merite local et passager du moment de I'a-propos. Cette petite disgrSce acadlmlque, arrivee au grand Racine, dolt soulager ceux qui pourront en essuyer une semblable; II est vrai qu’ II s ’en trouvera peu qui solent aussi sQrs que lui de la falre oublier. ( I I , 328) Lou Is XIV fInaI Iy rewarded FI!chIer with two eccIesIastIcaI pro- motions: f ir s t as Bishop of Lavaur, and then a l i t t l e later as Bishop of Ntmes— a far more affluent and Important posi tlon ttian the former. I In a gracious letter to the Monarch the prelate at f i r s t refused to accept the second bishopric. Commenting upon this correspondence, : D’Alembert pays tribute to F l!c h !e r’ s sincerity and unselfishness, Christian virtues— the eulogist te lls us— seldom found in leaders of the Catholic church (TT, 331). Fl!chier fin a lly accepted the bishopric of Ntmes, but only after | being fu lly convinced that this higher appointment would present a much ; greater opportunity to serve his fellow men. At the time he took | office many Calvinists were living in the v ic in ity of Ntmes. Their lot was a most unhappy one, especially since the Edict of Nantes had just been revoked (1685). Consequently, . . . il e ta it necessaire de donner pour pasteur a ces clmes algries, et exalt!es par l ’ id!e du martyre, un prelat dont les lumieres, l ’!loquence et ia douceur fussent egalement propres a d!tru ire leurs pr!jug!s et a calmer leurs murmures. Personne n’ en e ta it plus I capable que Fllchler; aussi rem pllt-il les esperances qu’ on avait | con^ues de sa sagesse et de ses talens. . . . fTT, 331) 138 F llc h le r’ s attitude toward the riformes— "un pere qui parle avec tendresse a ses enfans egares"— Is a ll the more remarkable, because it demonstrated a certain way of life . In effect, It was a code of moral conduct— "une phllosophle Iclalree par I ’ humanitl et par la religion | | m§me"~almost unknown In the seventeenth century, but which a few : enlightened persons were beginning to follow In the Age des Lumleres ! (31, 331). j Flechier demonstrated similar concern for the welfare of his I i Catholic parishoners, even to the liberating of a helpless glrl-nun, j | "a qui la nature donnalt le besoln d'aimer," from the domination of unreasonable parents and the cruel treatment of a heartless I mother-superior ( H , 333-331+). It would appear that In presenting I i i Fl&chfer the man, D’Alembert wishes to bring Into clear r e lie f those 1 t | distinctive qualities of heart and mind which set him apart as "un ; i | prelat vertueux, un homme de Dieu," and "un phllosophe chr&tien." i i ; I j D’Alembert Is Impressed by two other notable character tra its : j | ! Flechler’ s willingness to admit his obscure origin, and his understand able pride in personal achievement. The prelate’ s attitude may have | reminded the eulogist of his own ignominious birth; his courageous efforts to surmount the handicaps of poor health, poverty, and obscur ity; and his relentless struggle to win what he most desired— recogni tion and commendation from his contemporaries. To illu strate the frank yet clever way In which Flichler frequently expressed and demonstrated his firm conviction that as a free moral agent man Is master of his own fate, D’Alembert relates several humorous anecdotes from the prelate’ s lif e . 139 Fiechler's death on February 1 6 , 1710, was deeply mourned by Catholics and protestants alike. Yet the only public tribute to the j j deceased clergyman came from the lips of the gentle Archbishop of j CambraI: Le seul Finilon f i t en deux mots I ’ eloge funebre de I'ivique de j Ntmes: Nous avons, d i t - I I , perdu notre mattre. Ains I, Ie seul de ! tous les confreres de Flechier qui lui fOt alors superieur, car Bossuet n'exlstalt plus, fut le seul dont la modestie rendit hommage j aux talens de celul qui avalt Im lti ses vertus. (XT, 33^) ! It has already been mentioned that In the Reflections sur les j ; i Eioges Acadlmiques D'Alembert stated that the subjects of his eulogies ; would be justly worthy of praise— gens de Iettres representative of different a b ilitie s and varying professions. Among others, he intended to select un phllosophe pratique du premier ordre, un sage legislateur du genre; humaln, un grammairlen de ginlej enfin, ce qui est presque aussi rar^; et peut-itre plus estimable, un theologlen tolerant et modere. . . . err, 15 1 ) Thus Flech Ier, a long wlth MassiI I on and Fine I on, could be ri ghtfulIy considered w un theologlen tolerant et modere. n In his evaluation of Flechler’ s I Iterary achievements, D’Alembert | discusses only the more important works. The p ro lific writer produced..,1 ; poetry, memoirs, sermons, funeral orations, panegyrics of saints, cor- ' i respondence, and secular history. i Discussing these writings in the order in which D'Alembert refers to them, we must mention f ir s t the Cursus Regius, a Latin poem which was written to commemorate Louis XTV»s celebrated carrousel of 1662: Cette description f i t d’ autant plus d'honneur au po£te, qu'I I e ta it tre s -d iffic ile d'exprimer dans la iangue de I'anclenne Rome un genre de divertissement et de spectacle que I'anclenne Rome n'avait pas connu, et pour lequel V irg ile e t Ovide auraient e t i presque obligis de creer une Iangue nouvelle. (IX, 321) ...................................................... ll+o A second reason for the fame which came to the author of Cursus Reg 1 us Is far less praiseworthy than the f ir s t: Ausst Ie succes de i ’ ouvrage fu t-I I tres-grand, du moins aupres de cette classe de litterateurs qui croient qu’ on peut falre de bons vers dans une Iangue morte, et que Despreaux [Bolleau] appelalt les i singes modernes de la la tfn lte anclenne. ( H , 321) It Is quite evident that the c ritic a l remarks just quoted const!- * tute an attack upon neo-Latin verse and the Anclens— two of D *AIemberf'sj pet aversions. In this passage we also see a marked sim ilarity between D’Alembert's evaluation of F llc h le r’ s Latin poems and those of the j Swiss scientist Bernoulli, whose eloge had been f ir s t printed In the Melanges some twenty years earlier. D’Alembert consistently showed his dislike of neo-Latin!ty, although In theory and practice he held to the; basic principles of French neoclassiclsm. If we remember that this term Is the name applied to the whole eighteenth-century trend of im!ta-: tion— not only of antiquity, but of Corneille, Racine, Moitere, and others— then we must conclude that D'Alembert was almost as much a neo- classlclst as his friend Voltaire. In this same citation D’Alembert is cleverly using Bolleau to combat the champion of the Anclensj j Passing more rapidly over Fiechler’ s attempts to write verses in |French, D’Alembert rather cynically considers them "plus medlocres, ! ! peut-itre parce qu'on I t a l t plus en etat de les Juger"j however, he Jexplains the reason fcr the popularity of these poems, despite their |evident mediocrity: I . . . cependant I Is furent re^us avec une Indulgence qui pouvait mime passer pour justice, parce qu’ alors on n'en lls a lt guere de meilleurs; Corneille vie!I IIss ait, Despreaux [Bolleau] se montralt a peine, et I Racine n’ exlstalt pas encore. (XC, 321) } At one time Flechier was tutor to the son of M. Caumartin, a Ih l counselor of state and a magistrate. In I665 Caumartin received the j King’s orders to v is it Auvergne to preside over the grands J o u r s ^ In j I that province. He was accompanied on this Important mission by his son and Flechier, who recorded In writing his firsthand impressions of the 1 journey. What l i t t l e D’Alembert has to say about the Memo!res sur les ; Grands Jours tenus en I665- I 666 Is rather unfavorable (xr, 538-339). The Ora I sons Funebres (1680) represents the best of Fl^chier's j religious works. When s t il l a young man, the prelate had displayed ! natural talent as a puI pit-orator. In referring to a funeral oration which the youthful Flechier prepared In Just ten days before Its delivery, D'Alembert commentst w. . . cet heureux coup d'essai dut annoncer a I ’orateur le vral genre de travail et de glolre auquel la nature I ’ avalt destlnl " C rr, 3 3 8 ). It was with the Ora Ison Funebre de Turenne that Flechier won fame as an eloquent pulplt-orator. The prelate's unusual success eventually brought him into prominence as a rival of Bossuet’ s. Concerning the relative reputations of Fllchler and Bossuet, D’Alembert records quite 1 clearly the final decision of contemporary public opinion! Mals si les contemporains de ces deux orateurs hesiterent quelques instans entre eux, Ms se reunirent blent&t pour preferer la sublimlte! inigale de l ’ev£que de Meaux a I ’ elegance continue, mats un peu 1 frolde, de I ’ evSque de NTmes, (TT, 339) i j Unlike certain other seventeenth-century prelates, FlSchler retained his excellent reputation as a pul pit-orator throughout his i J ^The meaning of this legal term Is explained thus: ,f0n appelait j grands Jours des commissions extraordlnalres, que le rol Ita b lis s a lt jautrefois pour a lle r dans les provinces ecouter les plalntes des jpeuples, et falre justice; commissions qui par malheur n’ exlstent plus, I quo!qu’ el les n’ alent pas cesse d’ Stre necessaires,,f _(tXj 358-339) ..... li+2 entire career, a fact which D'Alembert explains by praising Flechier's deep respect for sincerity of heart and truthfulness of speech. j Flechier's funeral orations were all the more worthy of praise I since they were delivered before the formulation of certain basic . principles of pulpit eloquence. Commenting upon F llc h ier's oratorical | style as "non-seulement pur et correct, mals plein de doucuer et I d'elegance," D'Alembert mentions "une harmonle douce et fa c ile , quoiquej i pleirie et nombreuse." Fllchier reveals himself as "tres-sensible au charme qui rlsulte de I'heureux arrangement des paroles," a direct result of his earlie r experience in writing verse ( IE , 323-5210. Having highly praised Flechier's rhetorical style, D'Alembert adds one unfavorable criticism to the prelate's excessive use of antithesis: II rls u lte de ces contrastes symetrises et accumulls, une monotonle qui, . , . fatigue enfin le lecteur, et qui f in l r a i t par le glacer, si elle n 'etait de temps en temps rompue et rechauffle par quelques tra its d'une s e n s lb llltl touchante, dont la douce chaleur donne a toute la masse un Jiger souffle de v Ie. ( IE , 32^-325) To Illu strate the way In which F llc h ie r’ s pulpit manner actually helped to reveal "cette s e n s lb llltl touchante, cette telnte de pathl- ; tlque," D'Alembert includes a description of the prelate's physical ! 1 appearance and platform conduct. In his final appraisal of Flechier as’ i I a pulplt-orator D'Alembert voices contemporary opinion, with this per- , ti nent comment: j j . . . I'auteur [Flechier] semble avoir conserve dans ce genre d i f f l - : d i e la seconde place que son slecle lui avalt donnle. On fera plus ou moins grand I'fn te rv a lle entre Bossuet et lu i, selon qu'on sera plus ou moins entratnl par I'lloquence Impltueuse de I'un, ou seduit par I'harmonieuse lllgance de I'autre. ( IE , 325) Fllchier's sermons, now completely forgotten, are considered far |In fe rio r to the funeral orations; and his panegyrics of saints form the ........................................................................... iij-3 least creditable portion of all his religious writings. The saints themselves were so fa r removed from contemporary times that they failed to excite the readers’ Interest. On the contrary, J . . . les oral sons funebres, . . . nous offrant des hommes avec qui i nous avons v&cu, piquent bien autrement notre curlosltl sur les tra its j dont I ’ orateur peindra son hlros, et sur I ’ art qu’ II emploiera pour en couvrir les taches. ("IT, 326) Concerning this prelate’ s religious writings— particularly the j ora I sons funebres—D'Alembert mentions a comparison, then current, of i i Fllchler with Racine and of Bossuet with Corneille, made by "Ceux qui j aiment a falre des comparaisons, au risque de ne pas tracer toujours des portraits fo rt ressembIans." This standard comparison Is quite false, because no two men could have been more different than Flechier and Racines the same holds true for Bossuet and Corneille. Flechier enfln, souvent Ingenieux, rarement sensible, modele d'une harmonle savante et rlg u llere, est dans I ’Eloquence ce qu’ un ex cellent compositeur de sonates est dans la musiquej Racine, toujours sensible, ne pensant jamais a parattre Ingenleux, nous enchantant par son harmonle, sans qu’ II semble I ’ avoir cherchee, produit par ses vers te m£me e ffe t sur I ’ Sme et sur I ’ o re ille , que la m&lodie vocale la plus expressive et la plus touchante. (IT, 327) In this eloge the c ritic a l remarks, for the most part, are quite ; ? | genera I. W e find, however, that In the passage just quoted the eulogist; displays a marked a b ility to evaluate the relative merits of four great! |men of letters. He makes the appraisal in the form of a simple, but ; 1 1 I Iumlnatlng and strlklngly-original comparison. He then mentions iFjichler’ s correspondence: . . . un recuell de lettres, ou le luxe de I'e s p rit se montre encore plus que dans ses pieces d’ lloquence, parce que I ’ esprit y est encore moins a sa place. . . . err, 328- 329) D'Alembert adds a final personal tribute to one whom he considers un prejat vertueux et moder4t . . . un negligence almable est le merlte du style Ip is to la ire , et Flechier ne se permettait pas plus d’ etre neglige dans une lettre que dans une oralson funebre. Mats s 'I I est rarement simple, mime en Icrivant a ses amis, II est au moins toujours noble avec les grands, toujours honnlte avec ses egaux et ses inferleurs, toujours plein de j zele pour I'Egllse et pour I'E ta t, en un mot toujours cltoyen, tou- j jours homme et toujours ev&que, mlrlte si precieux dans de pareilles ‘ lettres, qui les dispense d'en avoir un autre. CTT, 329) i ; i Mention Is made of two of Flechier's minor works: L'HistoIre de | Theodose le Grand (1679) and L'HistoIre de Xlmenes (1693). The former, | a didactic work, was undertaken at the request of Bossuet and MontausieH j I !who as the precepteurs of the young royal heir, "vouialent, avant tout, | falre de leur eleve un monarque religieux, qui pOt au moins craindre Dieu, s 'I I croyait n'avolr rien a redouter des hommes ,r ( H , 329). This eulogy is certainly a sympathetic Interpretation of an inter esting personality. It Is a moderate and not-too-partisan evaluation of! Fl&chler, who Is presented as a worthy companion to Massillon and F&nelon, rather than as an academlclen. In no way does D'Alembert sug gest that the prelate was an eminent w riter, even though he was prolific;: Except for the Ora?sons Funebres, which made Fllchler nationally famous, the eulogist shows no great enthusiasm for any of his other 11terary 'works. It seems quite evident, therefore, that In writing thIs feloge, D'Alembert's main purpose was to present Flechier as an enlightened j prelate who would have at least tolerated the philosophes, rather than to present an outstanding man of letters. The eulogist does this quite successfully, by speaking at length of Flechier’ s early training under the Peres de la Doctrine Chretienne and then by describing the prelate's virtues and a b ilitie s as an eloquent pul pit-orator. It is in D'Alembert's sympathetic account of Flechier's conci11atory work as ' .................... ' 1 4 5 Archbishop of NTmes that we see revealed the prelate’ s most conspicuous qualities. The portrait that "comes through" has unity and consider able convincingness. I t is a clear case of biography triumphing over | pure Iy-11terary criticism. It Is likewise further proof that ! D'Alembert may Justifiably be considered a forerunner of SaInte-Beuve. j These four representative Iloges of major clergymen fa ll natural I y j into two groups: ( l) Massillon, Fenelon, and Flechier— the enlightened| prelates; (2) Bossuet— the orthodox ecclesiastic who becomes a j I repoussoir for the virtues of the prelates Just mentioned. The eulogy of Fiechier seems to form a striking antithesis to the one of Bossuet, W e may safely conclude that the iloges of Massillon, Fine Ion, and Flichler were written principally to serve the ph iIosophe j i cause, whereas the personality and a c tiv itie s of Bossuet made such an assimilation Impossible. D’Alembert's motive is clearly shown In the selection of his biographical material for Massillon, Finelon, and Flichler. He speaks at length of their educational training directed \ by liberal-minded, enlightened religious teachers, rather than by I prejudiced and bigoted Jesuits. In the delineation of their most domi-1 i | nant character tra its , the eulogist reveals them as "spiritual fathers"! | who are, in the fu lle s t meaning, des prilats vertueux, tolerants, et | icla i r i s . D’Alembert is likewise deeply impressed with a similar attitude manifested by these three notable seventeenth-century clergymen toward their fellow men. They were humanitarians to a very great degree. They were forerunners of the Age des Lumieres, in their sincerity of purpose, their tolerant attitude toward enemies, and their warm charity llj.6 for the less fortunate. The eulogist even expresses admiration for Massillon, F&neion, and Fl&chier as true "shepherds of the flock," but on the basis of their morale nature 1le rather than on their orthodox ' creed of Christianity. | It Is evident that D’ Alembert also uses these lloges as points de I : dlpart for b itte r attacks upon the Catholic Church and the Jesuits, as well as for the discussion of such polemic matters as Jansenisme and . I j quletlsme. I D'Alembert’ s c ritic a l evaluations of the literary achievements of j Massillon and Fenelon are quite sim ilar In tone and mood. I t must be noted, however, that the eulogist says very l i t t l e about Fllchier as a ; man of letters, but a great deal concerning him as a prelat vertueux. ; | j I The "Eloge de Bossuet" was written In sharp contrast to the three j | 1 1 j other eulogies. It Is quite obvious that D'Alembert admires his sub- ! ject only as a pulpit-oratorj he heartily dislikes him as a representa-j ; tive of ecclesiastical authority and Is not too enthusiastic about him : | as an Individual. The eulogist can find in Massillon, Flnelon, and Fl&chler character tra its , attitudes, and Ideas sim ilar to his own. In ! Bossuet he can discover no responsive chord. Thus, the eulogy of the I | eminent Archbishop of Meaux becomes In re a lity a convenient faqade from behind which D'Alembert w ill, In a more audacious manner than ever before, hurl his verbal assaults upon the enemies of the mouvement philosophIque. This he does in various ways. In mentioning Bossuet's lack of scien tific training during his early years, D'Alembert takes occasion to condemn those who would disparage the spread of factual knowledge. When he c ritic ize s Bossuet for his negative attitude toward 147 cart4sianisme, he pleads earnestly for freedom of thought and enlight ened minds. D’Alembert assiduously avoids making any highly Inflammatory statements in his eulogy which could quickly create In the general ' | assembly an atmosphere of heated controversy or b itte r dissension. He cleverly evades the question of Bossuet's victories as a m ilitant j i defender of the Catholic Church by stating that, as a logical part of j i i ecclesiastical history, they will be Judged by persons better qualified than the members of the French Academy. j The 4 loges discussed in this chapter are something more than criti- caI evaluations; they are we 11-developed short biographies. Although D'Alembert does not describe the physical features, manners, or ges- ! tures of the clergymen, he does present a detailed, almost psychologi cal study of their Individual charactertstics and personalities. j What he does represents an expansion of the techniques of the i literary "salon portrait" which was popular In the seventeenth century ; and became even more popular in the eighteenth. In reading D'Alembert's i I condensed biographies we are le ft largely In the dark as to the physi- | | | cal appearance and comportment of his subjects. His descriptive ; : I j phrases are made up largely of abstract modifiers that tell us about the moral and intellectual make-up of his subject— as is usually the case in the salon portrait. W e very seldom "see" the person in the way we "see" certain of the Caracteres of La Bruyere or certain of the per sonages so unforgettably portrayed in the Mlmolres of De Retz or of Sa !nt-S!mon. Despite his failure to present "visual Images" of his subjects, we 1 1 + 8 believe that In his jiloges D’Alembert was more successful than his predecessors In developing the elements of pure biography and character CHAPTER 3Z m ELOGES OF OTHER CHURCHMEN For the most part, D'Alembert's h Ioges of churchmen other than the: ones mentioned in the preceding chapter are quite brief and colorless. In these shorter eulogies if seems that D'Alembert is simply fu lfillin g ! one of his responsibilities as secretaire perp^tuel, the continuation of Peliisson and D'OlIvet's Histolre de I'Academie Francaise. Only three of these eulogies w ill be discussed; they are of Jean-Baptiste Surlan, Archbishop of Vencej the Abb6 Charles-Irenee Castel de SaInt-Pierre; and the Abbe Francois Timoleon de Choisy. Surian's importance lies in the fact that D'Alembert took his place in the French Academy. Saint -Pierre Interests us because of his original ideas and his ioonoclastic attitude toward certain age-old traditions of the French Academy. In the eulogy of De Choisy we have both the biographical portrait and the c ritic a l evaluation of an unusual man— an extraordinary example of the abbe mondain— that indispensable figure; in the pre-RevoIutionary French society. nEloge de Surian” On December 19, I75b> D'Alembert formally occupied the fauteuiI le ft vacant by the deceased Archbishop of Vence ( 1 670— I 752+). On that occasion he delivered the usual discours de reception, a panegyric of his predecessor, which later provided the nucleus of his more fu lly 150 developed ffEloge de Surlan." In the opening paragraph of the eulogy D’Alembert makes special reference to this facts . . . je prie le lecteur de trouver bon que je remette ici sous ses yeux I ’ eloge que j'a i consacre a la memoire de ce respectable prelate dans mon discours de reception. C m , 1 *56) The fact that D'Alembert did not know Surlan personally made him feel poorly qualified to pay homage to the memory of the deceased prel ate. In a somewhat apologetic tone, he continues: Quelque faible que cet lloge puisse paraftre, je ferals peut-etre encore plus mal aujourd’ hui, et je ne puls que plaindre la memoire dei M. I ’ev^que de Vence d’ avoir ete rld u ite , et dans son successeur et dans son historlen, a un si mediocre panSgyrique. ( i l l , U3&) Since about half of D'Alembert’ s eloge Is a verbatim reprint of his original dI scours de reception, we shall follow his general order of the discussion of Surlan. First of a l l , D’Alembert states that Surlan’s fine reputation and high honors were the direct result of his unimpeachable character. He then praises the particular quality of Surian’ s pul pi t-oratory, mentions ing also his personal indebtedness to the eminent Massillon: " . . . e lie [ I'e loquence] fut touchante et sans a rt, comme la religion; et la v e r ltlj II [Surlan] semblalt I ’ avoir formee sur le modele de ces discours nobles et simples par lesquels un de vos plus 11 lustres ; confreres Inspirait au coeur tendre et sensible de notre monarque encore enfant, les vertus dont nous goCitons aujourd’ hui les f r u it s .” ! C U E , 1 * 37) D’Alembert considers Surlan an enlightened prelate, "trop eclalre pour n’ @tre pas modeste.” He Is also deeply Impressed with the Arch bishop’ s sim plicity, sincerity, and nobility of heart and mind. Surlan likewise proved himself un prelat eclalre et modere in religious mat ters, because he maintained a consistent attitude of moderation: ” . . il savait que les opinions des hommes leur sont du molns aussl I cheres que leurs passions, mais sont encore moIns_jJurabIes^jjuand _on _ _ les abandonne a elles-m£mesj que I'erreur ne r£siste que trop a l ’6preuve des remedes violensj que la moderation, la douceur et le temps detruisent tout, excepte la verlte." ( I l l , U.37) W e do well to remember that these quoted passages are actual excerpts of D’Alembert’ s original discours de reception and that the eulogist Is addressing an attentive, c ritic a l audience. W e must also remember that as secretaire perpetuel D’Alembert f e l t a constant, con suming desire to support the mouvement philosophique in every way possible. Consequently, I t is quite evident that in using Surlan as an example of the prelat vertueux, eclaire, et moderfe, he is from the very outset delivering a plea for Intellectual enlightenment and religious tolerance on the part of the Forty Immortals: ”0u pourrals-je, messieurs, rlclamer avec plus de force et de succes contre cette Injustice cruelle, qu’ au milieu d’ une compagnle qui renferme ce que la religion a de plus respectable, I ’ Etat de plus grand, les lettres de plus celebre? La religion doit aux lettres et a la phllosophie 1’ affermlssement de ses prlncipes; les souverains, I ’ affermlssement de teurs droits, combattus et vfoles dans des slecles d’ Ignorances les peuples, cette lumlere generale qui rend l ’ autorit§ plus douce, et I ’ obeissance plus fld e le . ” ( i l l ,, >\37-h3^) A desire for religious tolerance In no wise had democratic over tones for D'Alembert— a state of a ffa irs , however, that no one finds to be true of Voltaire and Diderot. The last section of this eIoge consists of new material which D'Alembert appended to his original dlscours de rlception. Referring to Surian’ s early training under the Oratorians, he speaks once more with sadness of the general decline of this worthy institution. He fin a lly expresses a fervent hope for Its eventual recovery: . . . puisse cette socletl d’ hommes honnites et paislbles, qui, dans des temps de trouble et de persecution, a donnl tant d'exemples de moderation et de sagesse, en donner de plus efflcaces encore dans les temps de caime et de I urniere ou nous vIvons, et condamner egalement, par ses prlncipes et par sa conduite, cet absurde fanatisme de 152; religion, si nuisible aux progres de la religion m!me.’ Cm , U38) In the closing paragraph of his eulogy, D’Alembert gives a con crete example of the prelate’ s tolerant attitude in matters of religion, An elderly priest, one of Surian's friends, had been condemned to exile for his active belief in Jansenism. Surlan severely reproved his fellow clergymen for their heartless treatment of the aging Bishop of Sens C U E , 14.38). As o ffic ia l spokesman for all the philosophes eclalres, D’Alembert; concludes his ,rEloge de Surian" with a bold statement In defense of freedom of thought and religious tolerance: La phllosophie, si Indulgente pour les opinions des hommes, surtout en matiere de religion, ou la conscience seule dolt Stre leur guide, soit aveugle, soit e c la ir !, ne saurait desapprouver dans aucune secte I ' IntoIerance ecclesfastique, puisqu’ e lle est la suite n!cessaire de la lib e rt! de conscience autorisee aujourd’ hui par plusleurs gouverne- mens. . , . (X U , 438) This lloge shows clearly the tone peculiar to D’Alembert’ s pane gyrics and the manner in whi ch he made them serve the cause of the Lumleres. lfEloge de Sa 1 n t-P Ie rrew Of much greater interest than the preceding eulogy is the one of Saint-PIerre, which was read before the French Academy on February 16, I775> anc* which Is one of D’Alembert’ s best on the minor clergymen. This most colorful personality proves an excellent subject for an eloge academique. As pointed out in Causerles du Lund i , Saint-Pierre was a tireless reformer and a "transit!on" figure: I l j II appartient^proprement au dix-septleme siecle et a la transition de j cette ipoque a la sulvante. Le regne de Louis XTV a lt trop dur!: la derniere partle de ce regne produislt un bon nombre d'esprlts, tres-sensi bIes aux defauts, aux abus et aux exces d'un si long regime, qui passerent a une politique tout opposee et reverent une ameliora tion sociale moyennant la palx, par de bonnes lols, par des reformes dans I'E tat et par toutes sortes de proced&s et d' Ingredients phi lan— trophlques. * Speaking further of Saint-Pierre as a reformer, the nineteenth century c r itic continues* I I y en avait qui etaient reformateurs en avant et par les moyens propres aux socletes modernes, discussion, lib e rti d'examen, suffrage eclair^, lumieres graduees et InterSt bien entendu, progres dans I'e g a llte , le blen-£tre et la morale c iv ile . L'abbe de Saint-Pierre, jusque dans ses utoples, e ta lt de ces derniers. (Sainte-Beuve, 22, 2 2 +7- 2 1 + 8) As an obvious corollary of the foregoing, Saint-Pierre Is an ecrlvai n-phllosophe and therefore, In D'Alembert’s opinion, a precursor of the philosophes. As for the biographical element, the eulogist gives very few facts concerning SaInt-PIerre's life . He does discuss In broad terms the Abb&'s personality, his convictions relative to problems of national importance, his influence In the French Academy, and his reputation as a man of letters. In his Introductory paragraphs, D'Alembert pofnts out that l i t t l e is known regarding Saint-PIerre's boyhood or early education. During his school days, however, he began to show "un tr a it de generosite peu :commun, plus interessant pour nous que les prix qu'I I remporta ou ne remporta point dans ses classes" (TTT, 250), Later on, when living In Paris, the young prelate gave further evidence of this magnanimity of heart and mind. i 1 1 1 i ' | | C[har les] A[ugust!n] Sa Inte-Beuve, 5th ed., 2 2 (Paris, 1872), 2i+7. \5b Saint-Pierre befriended a penniless but b r illia n t mathematician, Varignon by name, whom he had previously known at the Jesuit college in; his home town of Caen. Though extremely poor himself, the young Abbe Invited Varignon to share with him a small lodging in one of the Paris suburbs. From his meager Income Saint-Pierre gave a generous amount to Varignon so he could be entirely free to pursue his favorite study— geometry. D'Alembert character IsticaI Iy describes these ambitious young men and their association thus: L'abbe de Saint-Pierre et Varignon, enfermes dans leur solitude et n'etant plus condamnes et reduits, comme dans leur college, a I'etude d’ une phllosophie pire que I'ignorance, renoncerent bientSt au pitoyable jeu de I'ergotlsme scolastique, des que leur esprit Juste et sollde etlt connu et goDt& des alimens plus substant ie I s j I Is etaient occupls chacun de leur cSte d'objets Interessans et utiles, Varignon de giometrie, et I'abb& de Salnt-PIerre, de politique et de morale. f i l l , 251) D'Alembert then says that the celebrated Fontenelle was their frequent house-guest, and more than forty years later the distinguished secretary of the Academy of Sciences referred to ” les douceurs qu’ il goOtait dans cette petite societl, si v lr I tab Iement ph i I osoph I que” (X d , 251). This detailed account of Saint-Pierre and Varignon's life together has even greater significance, for the eulogist again refers obliquely to the d iffic u ltie s which he had himself experienced and which face all; poor, unknown, and ambitious young men of genius and in tellect in their efforts to gain from the world financial security and to win recogni tion for their outstanding a b ilitie s . Yet, almost In the same breath jand with a wistful tone he suggests that in their final hour of triumph ! Saint-Plerre and Varignon, like Fontenelle, may have thought back with 1 regret to t he I r youthful^ days of peaceful obscurltyt .................. ...... 155 C’ est alnsi, . . . que le sage Fontenelle, un des hommes qui a le plus Joul de la cile b rite lltte ra ir e , parlalt a soixante ans, et dans le temps de sa plus brillante reputation, du bonheur si peu envie d'etre ignore, et se rappelait la douce et paislble obscurlte de sa premiere jeunesse, avec un regret qui ne corrigera pourtant aucun homme de lettres de la dangereuse ambition de meriter la gloire et I *envf e. ( i l l , 251) Besides his uncommon generosity, Saint-Pierre also possessed another rare qua Iit y — huml11ty— for he was "inaccessible . . . aux plaisirs et aux chagrins de la vanite, la plus chere affection de presque tous les hommes " (H E , 253). The Abbe's utterly unselfish attitude was the result of his tre mendous interest In people and his urgent desire to help them achieve happ i nessi En un mot, le deslr de voir heureux ses semblables et d'y contribuer de tout son faible pouvolr, dominant tellement en Iu I, que ce senti ment eteignait en quelque manlere tous les autres. SI on lul a reprochi de n'avoir tendrement alme personne, c’ est qu'Il cherlssait tous les hommes, sans distinction; il n’ exceptait, ou plutSt II n’oubliait que lul; et ceux qui accusaient sa bienvei11ance d’ itr e frolde et banale, ne pouvaient au molns la taxer d’ itr e s o lita ire et personneIle. c m , 253) Although not using the specific term "humanitarian," D'Alembert seems to have In mind that particular attribute as he describes Saint-Plerre's benevolent feeling toward his fellow mens II croyalt de plus . . . que si un des plus tristes fru its de la vieillesse est de prendre de Jour en jour plus mauvaise opinion des hommes, I ’ experience dolt apprendre en mime temps a avoir pi tie de leur faiblesse, et que la devise de I ’ homme vertueux est renfermee dans ces deux mots, donner et pardonner, Cm, 2 5 3 ) This Instinctive love of mankind naturally led Saint-Pierre to jenjoy the company of congenial people. Although In no sense of the |term un abbi mondaln, this prelate was an excellent conversationalist; jbut I j . . . I I ne parlalt Jamals que sur les choses qu’ Il sava 1 1 le mteux. 156 Outre ses connaIssances polltlques qui etaient fo rt etendues, il avalt dans la t@te beaucoup de fa lts et d'anecdotes, les contait bien,| quoique tres-simplement, et surtout avec la plus exacte v e r itl; car il se serai t f a i t un scrupule d’ en alterer la moindre ci rconstance, m Sm e pour y ajouter plus d’ agrement ou d’ In tlr& t. On n'est pas, d I salt-! I, obligi d'amuser, mais on I'e s t de ne tromper personne. Ceux qui avalent la patience et J’ equit§ de I'entendre, ne s'en repentaient pas, et se trouvaient souvent payes sans sf y itr e atten- dus, de I ’ e ffo rt de courage qu'ils croyaient avo Ir fa it. ( H I , 25b) The eulogist seems to evaluate his subject both as a reformer and as a man of letters. In discussing the Abbe's achievements, he selects those writings In which Saint-Pierre Interprets his r£ves, describes his utopies, and explains his projets. Saint-Pierre*s main concern was for reform on the national level: Occup& dans tous ses ecrits a combattre sans menagement, quoique sans humeur, tout ce qui peut nuire a ce bien public, le seul objet de ses dlsirs et de ses veilles, notre philosophe se declare hautement I ’ ennemI de la guerre, de I ’ exces des impSts, des vexations exerc&es par la force contre la faiblesse, . . . (TTT, 256) The worthy Abbe exhorted those In power to prefer the welfare of of their subjects to the empty glory of war conquests. Like the phiIosophes of the eighteenth century, Saint-Pierre manifested respect for legitimate authority, enlightened by wisdom and justice. As secretary to Louis XIV' s foreign ambassador, Cardinal de PoIIgnac, Saint-Pierre accompanied this o ffic ia l to the important Con gress of Utrecht in 1712. A year later he published his famous Projet de Palx Perpltuelle, "celul de tous ses ouvrages quTI I [Saint-PIerre] affectionnait le plus." The Abbe proposed "une espece de s§nat de I'Europe destini a conserver cette paix, sinat quTI I appelait diete europeene" ('TTT. 257). In explaining the reason for the fa ilu re of Saint-Pierre's f ir s t i project, D’Alembert reveals a keen understandi ng of what has always been 157 and always will be the major deterrent to any effective plan for world i peace: RIen n’est beau que le v r a i; et le malheur de ces projets metaphy- siques pour le blen des peuples, c’ est de supposer tous les princes equltables et moderes, c’ est-a-d ire, de supposer a des hommes tout-pulssans, pleins du sentiment de leur force, souvent peu e- c la irls , et toujours asslegls par adulation et par le mensonge, des dispositions que la contralnte des lols et la crainte de la censure Insplrent m @ m e st rarement aux simples partlculiers, Quiconque en formant des entreprlses pour le bonheur de I ’ human!te, ne f a i t pas entrer dans ses calculs les passions et les vices des hommes, n’ a imagine qu’ une tres-louable chlmere, (TTT, 257) Thinking, no doubt of the b itte r animosity existing between the phiIo— sophe and the anti-ph ilosophe groups within the peaceful walls of the French Academy, D’Alembert asks this rhetorical question In a tone of sarcastic humor: On a demand! pourquoi un Icriva in a qui les projets coQtalent si peu, et qui pour detruire a perpetuite la guerre entre les nations, avait Imagine cette diete europlenne, que nous ne verrons Jamais, n’ avait pas imagine de m£me, pour faire cesser la guerre entre les auteurs, une diete I I t t l r a i re , qui ne se tiendrait pas davantage, A u ra it-II cru un conststoire de beaux-esprits plus d i f f i c il e a concilier qu’ une assembl!e de rols, et la van lti humaine plus chatoulIleuse pour un , peu de fumle, que la puissance supreme pour de grands Inter!ts? ('TTT, ; 258) Although there Is l l t t j e evidence that Saint-Pierre was actively | engaged In pastoral work, he did display interest In certain features ! i ! of ecclesiastical l if e , particularly with respect to the problem of I ; celibacy. D’Alembert Introduces his discussion of this matter with a routine disclaimer: Toujours de bonne fo i, mals quelquefois peu mesure dans ses projets et dans ses vues, il e c riv lt contre le cellbat des pr!tresj et quelque llolgnls que nous soyons d’ approuver ses assertions sur ce sujet, nous devons a sa mlmoire de falre connaTtre au moins comblen ses Intentions etaient pures. (TTT, 258) W e are told In a footnote to note 8 (TTT, 271) that Saint-Pierre jhad expressed his views on the celibacy Jaws of_ the Catholic Church 158 the end of an a rtic le entitled irCelIbat,f In D id e ro ts EncycIopedle. j However much D’Alembert may have privately disagreed with Salnt-Plerre j on this subject, he was forced, nevertheless, to admire the Abbe's frankness. Deprived of the joys of marriage and a happy home life , Saint- Pierre solved his personal problem of celibacy in an unusual, but most satisfactory manner: he undertook to support and educate several orphan children. It is particularly in Saint-Pierre’ s philosophy of education that D'Alembert recognizes the true reformer and practical humanitarian. Speaking of the method by which the Abbe trained his young charges, the eulogist comments: . . . mals dans leur Education ii ne donnait rien a la vanite ni a I'opinion, et tout a I'avantage le plus sGr pour ces creatures Infortunees; II negljgeait de leur faire enseigner les langues, la danse, la musique, enfin toutes les choses qu'on peut regarder comme le luxe de I'iducation; il leur fa is a it apprendre un metier u tile et solide, qui pOt les mettre a I'abri de I'indigence; encore cholsissait-iI parmi ces metiers ceux qui etant d'une necessite indispensable, doivent en consequence subsister toujours, et que par : cette raison il Jugeait propres a faire vlvre dans tous les temps ceux qui les embrassent. . . .2 C U E , 258-259) ; i One of the most Important phases of Salnt-Pierre's colorful career | was his election to the French Academy on March 3, 1695» and his exclu- sion from the general assembly on May 5, 1718, With no natural g ift I for eloquence and no training In the art of oratory, he delivered only a mediocre discours de rlciplendalre on the Jour de rlception. (TTT, 252) In Chapter H of this dissertation was given an account of Salnt-Plerre's expulsion from the French Academy as the result of his p ___ In the last part of note II of this eloge (TTT, 274-275) are iSaint-Plerre's suggested reforms in college education. 159 two most unpopular works: PI scours sur la Polysynodie 715) and Pro Jet pour rendre 1'Academie des Bons Ecrivains plus u tile a I ’Etat ( I 72I4 .). Consequently, at this point we need add only D’Alembert’ s com-: ment as to the Abbe’ s reaction to this public disgrace: L'abbe de Saint-Pierre, exempt de haine et de rancune, continua de bien vivre avec ceux qui I ’ avaient excluj il ne cessa pas meme d'envoyer ses productions a I ’AcademJe, comme s’ iI en ePt toujours e ti membre, et comme s’ i I etit mis encore quelque prlx a son suffrage. Without any specific statement upon any Individual work, D’Alembert speaks quite unfavorably of the Abbe’ s prose style in general. Saint-Pierre made no attempts to cultivate the art of writing, despite his reputation for being a serious scholar. It was his profound knowledge of French history and language which gained him entrance Into the French Academy. Even after his election he put forth no e ffo rt to Improve his writing a b ility . Devenu membre d'une compagnle dont I ’ objet principal est la perfection du style, II ne se crut pas oblige pour cela de donner plus de soln a sa maniere d 'ic rire ; II composa beaucoup d’ ouvrages dans lesquels, uniquement occupi du fond, q u’ I I croyait excellent, 11 negllgeait absolument la forme. Ce n’ est pas qu’ I I n'en connDt Ie prlx, et qu’ iI n'en senttt mime la necessiti pour se procurer plus de lecteurs: mais iI ne se croyait pas le talent d’orner ce qu’ il avait a direj et iI ne voulalt pas forcer la nature, craignant que les efforts Inutiles quiI fe ra lt pour la dompter, ne fussenf autant de momens perdus pour ses cheres speculations morales et politiques. Entendant un Jour une; femme a finable s'exprimer avec beaucoup de grices sur un sujet f r i - vole, quel dommage, d l t - i l , qu'elle n'ecrive pas ce que ie pense.' ( m , 252) ------------------------------------------------------------------- i ! j The real motive for SaInt-Plerre’ s unusual and negative attitude toward the acquisition of better style in writing Is given in these words: Car I ' u t i l l t e e ta it le seul but de ses travauxj Jamals personne, mime parml les auteurs qui se donnent pour les plus Indifferens sur la | renommie, ne fut molns occupe de sa propre gloire, e t moins sus- | ceptible des Illusions les plus secretes de I ' amour-propre. f i l l , | 252-253)______ ____ ________________ i6o Saint-Pierre manifested the same Indifference toward the art of i I j pulpit-oratoryt | . . . on ne sera point surpris que les sermons les plus vantls j fussent a ses yeux de pures declamations ou, a I'en croire, le \ moindre in te rlt du predicateur avalt Ite de convertlr ceux qui ! I'ecoutalent. ( i l l , 260) I It may seem a paradox— especially if we remember the Abbe's nega- I tlve attitude— that, although " P a r t oratolre ayant eu pour lul si peu j de charmes," Saint-Pierre devised a project for Improving sermons, Moyen de rendre les sermons utlles ( I I I , 260- 261). j With respect to Saint-Pierre's reputation as a man of letters, D'Alembert gives us this further piece of Interesting Information: La Iangue franchise lul est redevable d'un mot precieux, celui de blenfa Isance, dont II e ta it juste q u' I I fOt PInventeur, tant il avalt pratlqui la vertu que ce mot exprime, II est aussi I'auteur d'une autre expression, qui d'abord n'avalt pas f a i t la mime fortune,! parce qu'elle n’ Interesse pas autant I'human I t l , mals qui commence enfln a prendre faveur, parce qu'elle exprime d'une maniere tres-heureuse un des principaux travers des hommes, et surtout de la nation francalse; c'est le mot de glo rio le, si blen adapte a cette vanfte puerile, qui excitee, nourrIe', TrrTtle mime par les plus fu tile s objets, ne v it, si on peut parler de la sorte, que de la \ fumle la plus legere et la plus prompte a s'exhaler, ( i l l , 255- 256) : Despite Saint-Pierre's emphasis upon I ' u t lIi te as the sole motive ; ! for writing and upon le fond as of more Importance than the style, his I literary achievements were read but l i t t l e when published, and even ! ; i ; less In the future years. D'Alembert accounts for the public's lack of ! Interest in the Abbl's writings thus: Tout a concouru a Ja dlsgrSce qu'ils ont eprouveej des idees quelque- fois Impracticables, quelquefois minutleuses,* des v e rltls mime, qui peu communes encore, lorsqu'I I Ic r iv a lt, sont maintenant usees et triv ia le s , voi la pour le fond: la forme est molns attrayante encore; longueurs, defaut de methode, negligence de style, et jusqu'a la singular!te de I ' orthographe, qui s u fflr a lt toute seule pour rendre j cette lecture penlble. ( i l l , 255) i | As examples of the strangeness of Saint-Plerre*s spelling, we find 161 In his Memoire pour Diminuer le Nombre des Proces (1725) such terms assj _ — — — . ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------— 1 nation Fransolse, blenfalcteur des homes, Ie blen pub Iiq , and metodes. i In his Abrege du Projet de Paix Perpetuelle (1729) we discover such ! peculiarities as moiens, a Iez, and prevoi ans. Although D'Alembert does not consider Saint-Pierre a man of le t ters of the f ir s t rank, he has only admiration for his personality and ; characteri | Mais la passion du blen public, qui partout inspire I'auteur, demandej gr©ce pour lul aux ©mes honn§tes. Quelquefols m ©m e cette passion si i noble donne de I'energie et de la chaleur a son style; et si sa plume1 n'est jamais ©llgante, au moins plus d'un endroit de ses ouvrages prouve que I'©me s u ffit pour ©tre eloquent. f i l l , 255) Strangely enough, the Abb&'s 11terary reputation was much higher ! in countries abroad than It was in France, proving that, even in the world of literature, many varying shades of contemporary opinion may exist, Les etrangers, qui en le lisant ne sont pas frappes comme nous des d©fauts de I'ecrivain, et qui n'en appreclent que mfe.ux le cl toyen et le sage, ont pour lul la plus grande estime, et nous reprochent le peu de Justice que nous lul rendons. (X U , 255) The nEloge de Saint-Pierre" Is doubtless D'Alembert's best deveI - 1 | oped eulogy of a lesser churchman. With consummate skill and keen per-| I 1 | ception he combines a few biographical facts, a character analysis, andj I a 11terary evaluation to bring Into bold re lie f a lovable, original i personality and an ecr i va i n-ph f 1osophe, "Eloge de I'Abbe de Choisy" L'Abbe de Choisy ( l6iji+“ 172i+), the subject of our third e 1 oge, which was read before the French Academy on August 25, 1777, Is a most co*or"ful example of the eighteenth-century worldly ecclesiastic.________ I 6 2 ; In striking contrast to the really eminent prelates of the time, there was a large group of abbes mondalns who, under the protective mantle of priesthood, often displayed the worst of humanity’ s weak- j nesses and vices in their personalities, attitudes, and actions. Evi d e n tly , D’Alembert intended that this prelate should exemplify the abbe; _ _ _ _ _ , mondaln, against whom Montesquieu and Voltaire had already fulminated. W e shall see that De Choisy's curious, twisted personality and his mostj ; unusual way of life made him a biographical subject of great interest, : | The 4 Ioge begins with a detailed account of the Abbl's early yearsj De Choisy's father, afte r long service for the state, eventually gained the I I I will of Mazari n, who fInaI Iy re I i eved him of a ll court respons i- biI I ties. ’ ; i II avait appris d’ un politique philosophe, que les grandes places sont comme les rochers escarpes, qu'I I n’ y a que les aigles et les reptlIes qui y parviennentj et la nature ne I'a v a lt f a i t ni aigle, ni I repti le. ( H I , 23-21+) In striking contrast to his father was De Choisy’ s mother, a dls- , tingutshed woman of unusual a b ility . In fact, she could have well ■ | quail fled as one of Mollere’ s femmes savantesj A true "social climber,’1 Mme de Choisy enjoyed the special favor of Louis ZEE, who graciously granted her a fa lrly -la rg e yearly pension. Such was the lady's g ra ti- j tude for this royal recognition that she repeatedly advised her children to cultivate the King's patronages "Croyez-mol, leur d is a it-e lle sou- vent, II n’ est rlen de tel que le tronc de I ’arbre” (TTT, 2l+), With keen perception and In a sarcastic tone, D’Alembert condemns Mm e de Choisy for her policy of social climbing and opportunism. Com menting upon her driving ambition for her children, he states: . . . e lle leur Insplrait pour les grands seigneurs Ie plus profond___ 163 respect, en leur repetant tous les jours cet apophthegme de la vanitei gothlque, qu'en France on ne connaTt de noblesse que celle de I'ip e e ; j maxime que I forguetIleuse Ignorance avalt consacr§e chez nos absurdesj afeux, et qu’ a la honte m§me de notre siecle, qui pretend avoir | secoue tant de prejuges, on trouverait encore secretement, mais ! fortement etabl ie dans plus d'une tite importante. ( i l l , 2J+-25) ! After a further remark upon Mm e de Choisy's advice to her children, the eulogist adds these condemnatory words: j Elle aurait dti ajouter a ce consei I celul de ne pas confondre aupres des grands les egards qu'on ne doit jamais leur refuser, avec j I'adulation qu'on ne doit a personne; mais il est a presumer que cette mere si peu cjlorieuse, n’ e ta lt pas fo rt delicate sur la dis tinction de la deference et de la bassesse; distinction que les Smes elevles sentent d'eIles-mimes, et qu’ en vain on voudrait apprendre aux autres. r i l l , 25) This m aterialistic philosophy of life the mother persistently inculcated into the impressionable mind of her growing son Timolion. : The course of his entire career and the pattern of his adult personal- j j Ity were immeasurably affected by her matriarchal s p ir it, her lack of ; i moral and religious standards, and her unscrupulous maxims for winning : fame and fortune. D'Alembert’ s dwelling upon the peculiar role played : ; i : by this mother makes this eloge sound almost like a modern psychiatric j j I case-history. | | The panegyrist goes deeper Into this problem of "momism'' in the j notes when he discusses thestrange matter of De Choisy's travestism. 1 i What surprised D'Alembert even more than the prelate's insistence upon wearing feminine a ttire was the fact that he boldly went anywhere and everywhere dressed In that strange manner: II prl t tant de gotlt pour cet habillement, qu' I I ne le quitta presque pas Jusqu'a la fin de ses Jours; mais ce qui n'est pas moins a f f Ii — 1 geant, et ce qui prouve la friv o je Indulgence de la nation fran^aise pour les choses mime les plus ridicules, c'est qu’ apres s'Stre moque d'abord d'une si etrange mascarade, en peu de temps on s'y accoutuma si bien, qu’ on le recevait partout en habit de femme, sans presque y faire attention: il ne craignait pas mime de se montrer a Versailles avec ce slnguller travestissement. . . . (JJ..1,, 37) ; In spite of an aimless, dissolute existence, the young man s t i l l f e lt under some obligation to carry out his parents’ wishes, de remplir sa vocation ecclesiastique, qui neanmoins ne paraissait pas fort clairement indlquee, soit par son goOt, soit par sa maniere de vivre et de penser. ( i l l , 25) Upon the completion of his religious training at the Sorbonne, De Choisy, who was wun peu confus de |a vie qu'II avalt menee jusqu’ a Io rs ,: car ses remords se bornaient encore a la honte,'* decided to v is it other! : I parts of Europe, particularly Italy. Soon after his return to France he became seriously I I I . Terrified at the thought of possible death, he sought spiritual aid from a colleague which led him f ir s t to a con version and then back to health. As a result of this Illness, De Choisy seems to havegained a conviction that his mission in l if e should: be that of converting others. He eagerly accepted an invitation to accompany the King’ s o ffic ia l ambassador on an expedition to Siam for the purpose of persuading the ruler of that far-away country to accept : Christian!ty. L’ abbe de Choisy, dont la ferveur e ta it sincere, et qui crut de bonne: foi cette mission serieuse, desira de contribuer a une conversion si eclatante, et de partager I ’ honneur de cette brlllante victo irej il demanda instamment d’Stre envoy& a Siam, pour expier, dIsai t — I I , par | la conquSte de I ’ auguste proselyte, les ecarts de sa vie passee. ! cut, 2 8 ) j The Abb&’ s JournaI Is an account of this memorable journey, which D’Alembert considers De Choisy’ s best Iiterary achievement and to which he frequently refers in his e 1oge. Unfortunately for De Choisy and his companions, this venture ended in disappointment and failure because the Jesuits were already well established In Siam and held the country more or less under their 165, t control. In an undertone of sarcasm, the eulogist relates the way in which the Abbe attempted to "compensate" for the debcicIe of this mis sionary enterprise: Ne pouvant a Siam §tre apStre comme il le d es irait, et ne se sentant pas le courage d’ y Stre martyr, II crut au moins sanctifier le sSjour q uTI I y f i t , en I ’ employant a se faire pr§tre, car il ne I ’l t a i t pas encore; il n’ evait m§me que la tonsure lorsqu'il arriva a Siam. . . . ( m , 30) This description of De Choisy’ s ordination is a cI ass Ic'examp Ie of D'Alembert’ s way of expressing his scorn of the abbe mondain; Nous ne rapportons cette circonstance singuliere que pour lui tenir compte des reflexions edifiantes qu’ iI f a it dans le m §m e Journal sur cette ordination, et de la frayeur religieuse avec iaquelle II en parle. Le nouveau pr£tre e ta it si penetre de la sainteti de son etat, qu’ i 1 n’ osa dire sa premiere messe qu’ au bout d’ un mols sur le vaisseau qui le reportait en France. Ce delai, qui lul avait semble tres-long pour sa ferveur, aurait pu parattre a un directeur severe, un peu court pour sa preparation. II rempilt d’aiIleurstres-assidO- ment sur ce vaisseau les fonctions de son ministere, par les fre - quentes predications qu’ iI fa is a it a I ’ equipage; son journal nous assure qu’ il y reussissait a merveille, et que ses exhortations pro- duisalent beaucoup de f r u it parml les matelots. (n r, 3 0 ) Soon a fte r his return to France De Choisy was forced to re tire from Versailles when he incurred the disfavor of Louis XIV. The eulo- i gist cleverly remarks: . . . 11 [De Choisy] vint se jeter a Paris dans le s&mlnaire des Missions etrangeres, ou II nous assure qu’ apres une deml-heure d’oraison au pled des autels, il eut le bonheur d’ oubller sa dis grace. ( m r , 30- 3T) | In these various accounts of De Choisy’ s reactions to the events and vicissitudes of his l if e , D’Alembert Is actually revealing the shallow, insincere, and unprincipled character of his subject. He ! makes us well aware of his contempt for such Catholic leaders as those represented by a typical abbe mondain. 1 j De Choisy’ s urgent desire to be accepted again in court circles I (6 was prompted by a motive of materialism and self-glory: Nlanmolns, quelque bonne contenance qu 'iI s'effor<jat d'opposer a l f Infortune, II sentaft trop pour son malheur que la faveur I t a i t le : seul blen qui pQt le rendre heureux, et que la religion ne fa is a lt j tout au plus que le consoler; ll e ta lt done toujours secretement tentl de retourner a Versailles, et ne cherchait qu'un pritexte pour y reparattre avec decence. ( i i t , 3 0 With this purpose In mind the Abbe wrote a life of David, wun panlgyrique du roi de France sous le nom du rol dTIsrael” and a trans- ■ I at!on of the Psalms. So pleased was the Monarch with these I Iterary productions that he lifted his ban of disapproval against De Choisy. This return to royal favor eventually resulted in De Choisy's election to the French Academy ( i l l , 31-32). Although D'Alembert speaks rather favorably of De Choisy's a c tiv i-; ties In this Institulon, never does he consider the prelate Important as a distinguished man of letters. it is quite evident that he Is p r i marily interested In his subject as an abb! mondaln. De Choisy died at the ripe old age of eighty years. The fact that; his fellow academicians loved him more during his lifetime than they :mlssed him afte r his demise is clearly explained by the eulogist (TTT, 35). The basic weaknesses of De Choisy's personality and character pre-i vented him from being anything more than a self-centered, worldly-minded ecclesiastic. The eulogist reveals his firm conviction that virtue should be Its own reward. With an eloquent tribute to Fontenelle, by comparison D'Alembert condemns De Choisy in these words: j II eOt ete a souhal ter pour l'abbe de Choisy, qu* I I se ftlt montre I aussl digne de cet elogej mais avec des qualites aimables pour la i society, II lui manqua la plus essentielle pour lui-mlme, la seule qui donne du prlx a toutes les autres, la d ig n ltl de son etat, sans laquelle ies agrimens n'ont qu'un eclat friv o le , et ne sont guere_____ 16? qu’ un defaut de plus. (,1,11, 35- 36) j i De Choisy’ s perverted personal habits, his immature nature, and his lack of moral consciousness were the principal causes for his f a i l - ; ure to become a worthy and highly-respected religious leader. Although | the eulogist does mention the Abbi’s good-hearted, gentle manner, he d efinitely qualifies this characteristic as ”cette douceur qui tlent \ I plus a la faibiesse et a I'amour du repos, qu'a un fond de bienveiIlanc^ pour ses semblables " ( m , 36). With a nature fa c ile , De Choisy prided himself at having only friends and no enemies. Once more the eulogist puts his finger on another fundamental weakness in the prelate’ s personality: . . . et pour 4tre digne et capable d'aimer, II faut avoir dans le caractere une consistance et une energie dont l'abbe de Choisy ne se piquait pas. La veritable amltife, d it un philosophe, est un sentiment profond et durable, qui ne peut ni Stre grav4 dans un coeur de sable, i ni se conserver dans une Sme d’ argile. (X U , 36) The eulogist speaks of De Choisy’ s Irresponsible attitude toward jspirltual matters and ecclesiastical duties. In his last hours the Abbe; i lexpressed deep regret for his wasted years and fru itle ss life . j i ! [D'Alembert entertains serious doubts as to the sincerity of this death- I j •bed repentance: Peut-itre le sentiment religieux que l ’ abbe de Choisy exprfme par ces paroles e t a i t - I I plus commande par les clrconstances qu’ inspire par j un vraI detachement des honneurs et des biens de ce monde: mais sa | resignation est au moins tres-digne d’ un p ritre repentant et modeste; heureux d’ avoir accepte dans cette louable dIsposi11 on queIques morti fications passageres, en expiation des fautes qu'iI s'est si souvent reprochees. (X U , 36) Is the biographer motivated by a deep feeling of sympathy for De Choisy, whom he portrays In the passage just quoted as a pathetic type i |of individual, or Is he Inspired by a sentiment of utter contempt for a j 16 8 typical abb§ mondain when he makes this final plea on De Choisy's behalfs Ne soyons pas plus severes a son egard que la bonte suprSme, qui sans, doute aura recu de lui avec indulgence cette penible expiation, en Iui pardonnant meme les regrets involontaires que pouvalt laisser dans son coeur un sacrifice si douloureux C m , 36)? If we remember the laudatory tone In which D'Alembert composed the lloges of Massillon, Fenelon, and Flechier— the abbes vertueux, tole- rants, and ec la I res—we must conclude that he Is condemnatory in his eulogy of De Choisy, the typical abbe mondain. W e shall then realize that the passage just quoted Is a masterpiece in miniature of bathos and sardonic writing. The JournaI was the Abbe's most notable work for he possessed that rare a b iIIty of . . . faire conversation avec son lecteur, d'§tre pour lul, . . . une compagnie de reserve, toujours pr§te a lui servir de ressource en quelque situation qu'iI se trouve. . . . C'est surtout une lecture de convalescent, parce qu'elle donne a I'clme ou piutSt a 1'esp rit, le degre de mouvement necessaire pour le bercer legerement sans ie fatiguer. (TTT, 29) One of the basic principles of eighteenth-century lite ra ry c r i t i cism was that a Iiterary work worthy of the name should have some degree of didactic value. From this point of view, De Choisy's JournaI was something less than a chef-d'ce-uvre t "Le caractere propre des bons: j ecrivains est de faire penser beaucoup, ceiut de l ’ abbe de Choisy est j d’ en d is tra ire , et presque d'en empgcher"f i l l , 29). D’Alembert makes a few general statements relative to De Choisy's several histories of French kings, pointing out that these accounts of I j royaIty were written in a pleasing style, but that their factual au- j | thenticity was a matter of serious question ( I I I , 33). 169 An eleven-volume work, L'Histoire de I 1 Eg I Ise, covering the period from the dawn of Christianity to the death of Louis XEZ, is De Choisy's most serious historical writing in the opinion of D’Alembert, who some what facetiously points outs Le plus grand merite de cet ouvrage est, comme dans tous ceux de l ’ abbe de Choisy, I ’ agrement et la vlvacite de la narration; II n’ y faut pas chercher la profondeur des recherches ni J’ exactitude des fa its ; aussi pretend-on que 1’ auteur disait en ria n t, quand II eut fini son dernier volume: J’ ai achevS, grgce a Dieu, I ’Histoire de I ’Egllse; je vafs presentement m e mettre a I ’ etudier. f i l l , 54-35) The last work mentioned by the eulogist, De Choisy's Memolres pour servir a I'H istoire de Louis YTV, was posthumously printed. Concerning this writing D’Alembert remarks: ", , . ces memoires, quoique fort nigliges pour le style, sont peut-^tre Ie plus agreable de ses ou vrage s" . ( H I , 35). In this last publication, as in the Abbe's previous works, were discussed the same basic weaknesses: inaccurate characterization and inattention to historical fact, D’Alembert Is far less interested in De Choisy's Iite ra ry achievements than he Is in the man’ s curious per sonality. The eulogist has written a genuine psychograph— a psychologi cal portrait which, though necessarily incomplete in d etail, seeks to present to the reader (or listener) a "total likeness." Biography is here definitely triumphant! J A few final comments are now In order relative to the impressions i i D'Alembert has le ft us of the other lesser clergymen. For the sake of convenience and c la rity , we shall classify these men into two groups. i I First there were those clergymen whose character and intellectual I I ja b ilitie s were not consistent with their holy calling and academic j standing. Then there were others whose 11 terary talents and _______ 170 irreproachable conduct in both public and private life made them worthy religious leaders and esteemed members of the French Academy. Included in the f ir s t group is the hated Cardinal Dubois, for some time the director of the French Academy. The eulogist speaks of this clergyman in the following terms: Cet article sera court sur ce qui concerne le cardinal Dubois, dont la vie, tres-peu litte r a ir e , fournit a peine aux annales academiques deux ou trois fa its isoles et fu g ltifs , assez peu propres a les enrichir. Nous joindrons a ces fa its , . . . quelques legers acces- soires, pour en remplfr le vide et y semer le peu d'interSt que nous sommes capables d’ y repandre. Puissent les accessoires obtenir grSce pour le principal, e t surtout pour le ton, quelquefois peu louangeur, que nous obligera de prendre I ' academicien dont nous avons a parlerj (IHE, I) Saint-Simon himself could hardly have been more devastating’ The panegyrist then speaks of Dubois’ personal feeling of self-importance upon his election to the French Academy. The Cardinal insisted upon being addressed as Monse1gneur, the f ir s t and only member in the general assembly ever to demand this special honorary recogni tion. The reason for Dubois' insistence is explained thus: Ce titr e fut un grand objet de nlgociation entre la compagnle et le reelpiendaire. II exigeait Ie Monse i gneur, sinon comme ev§que, d i s a i t - l l, au moins comme cardinal, et pour ne pas contrister, c’elait son expression assez peu serieuse, tous ses amis et confreres du sacre college. (TTT, 2-3) It was the capable and tactful Fontenelle who took charge of this d iff ic u lt situation. Le philosophe Fontenelle, charge de ia reception, se soumit, avec une d o c ilitl qui lui coQta peu, a cette mince pretention de la vanite humainej II donna en souriant et a petit bruit, le Monseigneur tant desire au cardinal academicien, qui y mettait ou fej gna!t d* y mettre uresi grande Importance. G H , 3) As for the 1iterary achievements of minor churchmen possessing but | mediocre talent, D’Alembert’ s c ritic a l comments are not too numerous or 171 specific. Boileau's brother Charles was an Abb! whose sermons "[sont] devenus assez rares aujourd'hul par leur mediocrite" (TT, 288). In his his lloge of Abbe Dubos, a p ro lific w riter, the eulogist makes this j statement: i i ' Neanmoins, dans aucun des sujets qu'i I a traites, il n'a montri cette superiority de ginie qui tire un ecrivain, je ne dis pas de la foule, car I'abbe Dubos ne dolt pas y Stre mis, mais des auteurs estlmables j i assis au second rang. CUT, 203-204) I Despite the fact that, even In these less important eulogies of the minor clergymen, D'Alembert speaks out against certain of the Jesuits and the Catholic Church, he s t il l expresses sincere praise for many of these same types of people. Here, for example, is a tribute to ' i i ;Henri de Nesmond, Archbishop of Toulouse: j Mais il f i t un usage encore plus respectable de ses talens, dans les discours pleins de force et d'onctlon par lesquels i I Instruisait son peuple. Charge du gouvernement d1un diocese dont une grande portion S tait plongee dans I'heresie, il sut par ses instructions, et plus encore par la sage douceur de son zele et par la saintete exemplaire de sa vie, ramener a I'Eglise un grand nombre de ces enfans Igares. (n r, 6 o ) Of another minor clergyman, formerly a Jesuit, D'Alembert wrote: . . . II I t a i t pleux, II e ta it savant: on va voir neanmoins qu’ I I n'avait ni les prejuges de sa robe, nl ceux de I'erudition; qu'I I voyait le christlanIsme en pr!tre e c la ir! et en phllosophe citoyen, et qu'iI eta i t aussi exempt du fanatlsme litte ra ir e que du fanatisme re Ii gleux. c m , 310) ! D'Alembert also admires such churchmen as Soublse who because of jheavy ecclesiastical duties could not devote much time to Iiterary pur- j i i jsults, but who encouraged other men of letters (T IT , 503-504). 1 ! Despite his severe denunciations, his b itte r prejudices, and his jpersonal animosity toward everything that would Impede the progress of the mouvement philosophlque, D’Alembert admits that there were many churchmen who not only brought glory to the Academy, but manifested in... 172 their private and public lives a form of religious piety compatible with the best in Christianity and enlightened inte Ilectu a1ism. Indeed, an extract from the "Eloge de Nesmond” serves as a fittin g conclusion for this chapter: Nous remarquerons le i, et i'h is to ire de I ’Academle en fournit la preuve, que les prelats qu'elie a admis parmi ses membres, et que par. consequent e lle en a jugis dignes par ieurs talens, ont ete presque fous des hommes distingues et respectables par Ieur charlte et leur bienfaisance; e'est-a-d ire, par les vertus que i'E tre supreme a le plus recommandees aux chrettens, et surtout a ses ministres: argu ment fclcheux contre 11 imbeci I I I te et I ' hypocr i s ie , si interessees a faire regarder la religion comme incompatible avec les lumieres. ( H I , 60) CHAPTER IS POETS OF THE GRAND SIECLE The history of the long and momentous reign of Louis xlV contains many colorful pages. Some of the brightest ones record the rapid de velopment of a national literatu re, particularly rich In the areas of drama and poetry. D'Alembert was probably well aware of this fact, for he selected several seventeenth-century poets as subjects of his eloges. W e shall consider his evaluation of three representatIve poets of the grand s ie c le , or the §ge d 'o r : Boileau, the o ffic ia l exponent of classic poetry; Perrault, the e ffic ie n t administrator and professional poet; and Segrais, the soclety-wlt and amateur w riter of verse. In these portraits D'Alembert has included additional factual material which, though secondary in nature, serves as an Interesting background. With s k ill and perception he reveals something of the subtle intrigue, the personal animosity, and the professional riv a lry which influenced the lives, attitudes, and even the works of Iiterary men. He gives us glimpses of the royal court at Versailles, that great stage where every man was an actor and where each played his part. i | nEloge de Despreaux" i j For several reasons the eulogy of Nicolas Boileau Despreaux1 ( 1636- I | I 7 I I ), which was read before the French Academy on April 25, 1774, is of i i l ! 1 | Hereafter referred to as Boileau. \7k considerable significance. In the f ir s t place, It Is D’Alembert's c ritic a l evaluation of one whom he called ,rchef de I ’ ecole poetique francaise” ( H , 356). Then too, this eulogy Includes D'Alembert's I 11- erary judgment of several other Important seventeenth-century men of letters. Taking Boileau as a focal point, the eulogist considers a group of contemporary writers whose a b ilitie s and achievements he dis cusses with frankness and authority. He gives some Interesting comments on the three great playwrights—Corneille, Racine, and Mollere. In par ticu lar, his evaluation of Racine as a poet and of the role played by Boileau as his mentor and teacher is judicious and adroit. The com parison of three poets, Boileau, Racine, and Voltaire— "nos trois plus grands mattres en poesle"— is, to say the least, original, If not pro vocative. The e 1oge of Boileau also presents a valuable study of the panegyrist's personal point of view toward the celebrated QuereIle des Anciens et des Modernes. In this particular eulogy minimum attention Is devoted to biogra phy. On the other hand, Boileau's significance as a man of letters is emphasized. Nevertheless, D’Alembert is interested in a few facts of Boileau’ s early life . Unlike Massillon, Bossuet, and other illustrious contemporaries, Bolleau manifested no indications of unusual a b ility or Intellectual capacity in his early formative years. I Cet homme, qul devalt jouer un si grand role dans les lettres, et y j prendre un ton si redoutable, paraissalt dans son enfance pesant et I taciturne; non de cette taciturnite d' observateur qui decele un fond j de malice, mais de cette taciturnite s terile qui n’ annonce qu'une j bonhomie insipide et sans caractere. Son pere disait de lu i, en le j comparant a ses autres enfans: pour c e lu l-c i, c’ est un bon gar£on I qui ne dlra jamais de maI de personne. (Y f, 35?) j As if sensing anew his own childhood loss In being without a true 175 father's encouragement and love, the eulogist continues: On sent a quelle m&diocriti sans ressource un pere croit son f i l s condamne, quand il se borne a lui donner un eloge si modeste. Tous les freres de Despreaux marquaient des talens precoces, et semblaient promettre d'etre de grands hommes; lu! seul ne promettait rien, et a tenu ce que promet talent ses freres. (XL, 352) Young Boileau received l i t t l e , if any, affection or consideration from members of his family, D'Alembert Is unusually— for a mid-eight eenth-century c r it ic — preoccupied with childhood circumstances. He speaks of Boileau's sleeping quarters thus: On lui donna pour logement, dans la maison paternelle, une guerite au-dessus du grenier, et quelque temps apres on I'en f i t descendre pour le loger dans le grenier meme, ce qui lui fa is a it dire qu»iI avait commence sa fortune par descendre au grenier. II ajoutait que si on lui o ffr a it de renaTtre aux conditions onereuses de sa premiere jeunesse, II aimerait mieux n'etre jamais ne, ( U , 382) With such an unhappy childhood experience Boileau developed— unconsciously perhaps— a pattern of thinking which in his mature years became his celebrated esprlt satirique. D'Alembert relates another Incident of Boileau's boyhood: La seuie ressource du jeune Desprlaux, si maltraite dans la maison paternelle, e ta it d 'a lle r quelquefols a la grand'salle du Palais, ou deja II fa is a it beaucoup rire les clercs par ses pjaisanteries. Si I'on ne savait combien la haine est ImbScile dans ses vengeances, on auralt peine a croire que les ennemis de notre po^te lui aient serleusement reproche ces amusemens tres-innocens d'une jeunesse malheureuse. ( H , 382-383) Like other celebrated men, Boileau f ir s t entered the legal profes- I sion according to a family tradition of long standing. After some training under the direction of a relative in Paris, he soon realized that he would never be happy or successful practicing law. The climax | came when he fe ll asleep while preparing an important legal document. D'Alembert gives a graphic account of the young man's dismissal— in deep Idlsgrace— from his uncle's office: 176 Outr& d’ 1ndI gnation, le g reffler renvoya Desprlaux [Boileau] a son j pere, en plalgnant ce pere infortune d'avoir un f i l s Imbecile, et en ! l'assurant que ce Jeune homme, sans emulation, sans ressort, et presque sans instinct, ne serait qu'un sot tout le reste de sa vie. ( H , 353) | It Is not at all surprising that the unfortunate effects of such "conditioning" from early childhood to young manhood would be seen later In Boileau’ s personality and attitude toward life . Describing the manner in which the distraught young man eventually found his de- ! sired vocation, D’Alembert concludes: II Iutta ainsi pendant quelques annees contre la nature, frappant a toutes les portes qu’ e jle avait fermles pour lui. II devint enfin ce qu'elle voulait, il fut po£te: et comme pour dementir des ses pre miers essais la prldiction de son pere, II debuta par &tre poSte sati- rique. ( H , 353) The biographic "preparation” Is quite elaborate. Much of this detailed material, however, Is found not In the eulogy Its e lf, but In the copious notes appended to It. In some cases, as with Boileau, D'Alembert attaches great importance to these facts of biography. In his opinion, this biographical information is a necessary and invalu able means of understanding the subject fu lly and of evaluating his Iiterary achievements correctly. Dare we suggest that in doing this the eulogist— unconsciously of course— is laying the foundation for j Sainte-Beuve's method of 1 1terary criticism? j Upon the death of his father in 1657 > Boileau Inherited a modest income which made him financially independent. During that same year the young poet completed his f ir s t satire. He considered the problem of finding a patron, or protector, of vital Importance to his future I Ite r ary career. Consequently, he began serious efforts to win the confi dence and esteem of the influential Duke of Montausier, who was also the gouverneur—we would say ’’special guardian”— of the Grand Dauphin, heir to the French throne. Of far more importance to Boileau was the fact that Montausler, a man of high intellect and great literary a b ility , not only frequented the HStel de Ramboulllet, but that he had also be friended such celebrated men of letters as Chapelain and Corneille. Unfortunately this distinguished courtier was also a stern individual who seemed to have a strong aversion for verse satire. DrAlembert's account of the way in which Boileau overcame this obstacle by adroit fla tte ry is, In its e lf, a masterly bit of ironic writing (TT, 35k) • Boileau’ s next step was to win recognition and favor from the King himself. As we know, he succeeded so admirably that, along with Racine, he was appointed a royal historiographer. The young poet soon dis covered that this post was not at all to his liking. He ”ne s 'e ta it charg4 qu’ avec repugnance d’ un travail si peu assort! a ses talens et a son gotit” ( H , 3&0). What is more, with the passing years, Boi leau became so disillusioned with the climate of Versailles that he even tually retired altogether from court life . Coming now to Boileau's literary achievements, we shall discuss firs t his satires. Most of them were directed against mediocre writers or strange figures who haunted Versailles. Such was not always the |case, for on more than one occasion his vlctime was an honored member of I I the French Academy. This fact "lui fermerent long-temps I'entree de I jcette compagnie, que ses rares talens auraient dC i lui ouvrir beaucoup i jpjus tSt" (TT, 371). With the personal recommendation of Louis ZT2, 1 Boileau was fin a lly elected to the general assembly on July 3, I68J 4. The embarrassed Boileau praised "tant d'hommes qu’ I I avait 178 maltraites" and "dans cette clrconstance, . . . I * eloquence n'eDt ete guere de saison." D'Alembert then adds this striking statement; "Son discours n 'e ta it qu'un tissu de sarcasmes maI deguisis, qui deplurent a ses confreres, et ne plurent guere a ses auditeurs" ( H , I4 .31) - Even though Boileau had a wide reputation as a s a tir is t, in real ity he was a pleasant, normal individual described In these graphic words ; [Boileau], quoique d'une humeur brusque et sincere, portait rarement dans la societe ia causticity dont on accusait ses e crits j sa con versation e ta it douce, et n'avait, comme II le dlsait lui-m§me, _ n _ i_ ongles ni griffes. Des actions de genlroslte bien connues, et les secours q u 'i I a souvent donnes a des families indigentes, ont fa it dire de lui qu*fI n 'e ta it cruel qu'en vers. ( H , 371) D’Alembert is also Impressed with Boileau's tolerant attitude toward religion, for he remarks that, "Simple et vrai dans cette pra tique comme dans tout le reste de ses actions, il n'y porta jamais ni hypocrisle, ni vain scrupule" (TT, 370* Although D'Alembert does not consider the Satires as Boileau's best Iiterary achievement, he Is favorably impressed with his sincerity and honesty, . . . c'est que le poSte n'attaque jamais le mauvais goQt et les mauvais ecrivains qu'avec l'arme de la pIaisanterte, et ne parle jamais du vice et des mechans qu'avec indignation. (T T , 385) Mention is made of several men of letters, contemporary or other- iwise, whom Boileau castigated in his satirical poems. The eulogist j I | | stoutly refutes the accusation that Boileau was unfair in his appraisal |of one notable contemporary w riter, Moiiere, to whom he addressed both I a satire and an epftre. To prove his point he relates this incident: Ceux qui ont reproche a Despreaux [Boileau] d'avoir ete injuste a I'egard de Quinault et de La Fontaine, I'ont encore accuse, mais avec j beaucoup molns de raison, de n'avoir pas rendu assez de justice a 179 Moliere. II serait suffisamment disculpe de cette imputation par la reponse qu* i I eut le courage de faire a Louis X E , qu! lui demandait quel e ta it I'ecrivaln auquel il croyait le plus de genie; Sire, c'est Mol 1 ere, repondit Despreaux [Boileau] sans heslter, et sans aucun retour d'amour-propre sur lul-mlme, quoiqu'assurement II ne fOt pas dispose a ceder iegerement le trSne a ses rivaux. (TT, 3^3) D'Alembert does reprove Boileau for fa ilin g to appreciate Molierefe genius as a playwright. In the satire dedicated to Moliere, Boileau "se borne a lui demander ou I I trouve la rime. . . . 1 1 On the contrary, Boileau should have rig h tfu lly asked of Moliere, ”ou il avait trouve les chefs-d'oeuvre dont il avait deja enrich! la scene, dans le temps ou cette satire fut ecrite, I'EcoIe des Maris et 1'Ecole des Femmes” (XT, 363). It is quite evident that in his discussion of Boileau's b e littlin g appraisal of Moliere the dramatist, D’Alembert is likewise delivering his own, and indeed far more generous, estimate of the celebrated actor-playwri ght: . . . II eClt encore §te plus digne de Despreaux [Boileau] de prevoir et de dem§ler dans ces chefs-d'oeuvre ceux qui devaient les suivre et presque les effacer, le Misanthrope, les Femmes Savantes, I'Avare, et surtout le Tartuf e, cet ouvrage unique au 't'h'SSt re, d' une uti I i te qui devrait reconciIi er avec les spectacles les veritables gens de bten, et auquel Louis K IV eut le courage, maIgre les clameurs de I'hypo- crlsle Interessee, d'accorder une protection qui est un des plus beaux tra its de la vie de ce monarque. (TT, 3^3) Early In his career Boileau realized the f u t i l i t y of gaining a secure reputation as a man of letters through the writing of satire alone, a I 1terary genre which he knew fu ll well lacked both great and lasting appeal. Referring to the s a tiris t's eventual decision to ! devote his entire attention and talents to other types of writing, D'Alembert makes it quite clear that Boileau "produisit ces ouvrages, qui assurent a Jamais sa renommee” ( H , 355). He then indicates the 180 three most Important works which gave Boileau a permanent place in the world of literature— namely, the EpTtres, the Lutrln, and the Art Poetique. For Boileau’ s Epttres D'Alembert has only sincere commendation. The circumstances under which the poet wrote his fir s t ep ttre, dedi cated to Louis Xl V, are of special interest. The young inexperienced King, eager for fame, hoped to win It by waging war upon Holland. Colbert, his minister of finance, realizing how disastrous such a costly venture would be to the nation, attempted to dissuade the Monarch from this hazardous project. D'Alembert completes the story thus: Colbert, qui savait combien la guerre la plus giorieuse est funeste aux peuples, voulait en ditourner le monarque. II engagea Despreaux [Boileau] a seconder des vues si louables, en adressant a Louts X E sa premiere ip ttr e , ou il prouve que la vraie grandeur d'un roi est de rendre ses sujets heureux, en les faisant jouir de tous les avan- tages de la pa ix. ( H , 359) W e can easily imagine the muted tone of sarcasm In which D'Alembert read to his distinguished audience the sequel to this anecdote: "Le roi . . . loua beaucoup I'e p ttre , et f i t la guerre" (XC, 359). The subject matter of the Lutrin, the second of Boileau's principal works, Is mentioned only b rie fly , "ou, avec si peu de matiere, il a repandu tant de v a rie ti, de mouvement et de grSces. . . . (TT, 355) As we would expect, i t is to Boileau's Art Poitlque that D'Alembert |devotes most of his attention. He considers this masterly treatise on j poetic a r t — le code du bon goOt— is equal, if not superior, to the Ars Poe11ca by Horace, To ju s tify this point of view D'Alembert explains that Boileau's Art Ppitiquels i . . . superleur mime a celui d'Horace, non-seulement par I'ordre si 181 n4cessaire et si parfait que le poSte francais a mis dans son ouvrage,; et que le poSte latin semble avoir n4glige dans le sien, mais surtout ■ parce que Desprlaux [Boileau] a su fa ire passer dans ses vers les beautls propres a chaque genre dont II donne les regies, , , , QU, 355) The discussion is continued with a detailed comparison of Boileau and other theorists who had made fu tile efforts to devise for the French language un code du bon goOt pour P a rt poetique. Concluding his detailed but quite uninspired criticism of the Art Poltique, D’Alembert states that Boileau fu lly merited the t i t l e of "fondateur et chef de I'lc o le poetique frangaise." At the same time, he incidentally inflicts a sharp attack upon scholasticism. It must be carefully noted that all these c ritic a l comments should be considered only as an extremely poor example of gratuitous propaganda on D’Alembert's part. Although he fu lly recognizes Boileau's significant contribution to seventeenth-cen tury literature— une 4cole de poesle— he cannot consider le legislateur du Parnasse one of the most eminent poets. W e come now to a consideration of Boileau's relations with and attitude toward certain contemporary writers. His most distinguished disciple was Racine, who, according to most c ritic s , far surpassed his teacher In literary genius, D'Alembert's comment, however, Is tact fu lly noncommittal on this point: Nous dlrons seulement que Despreaux [Boileau], inferteur ou egal a | son 4 1 eve,.conserva toujours sur lui cet ascendant qu' un amour-propre < brusque et naff dolt prendre sur un amour-propre timlde et sensible, I car celui de Racine eta lt de cette dernlere espece. L'auteur de J Phedre et d'Athalie eut constamment, solt par deference, soit par i adresse, la complaisance de laisser la premiere place a celul qui se | vantait d'avoir |te son maTtre. (IE, 356) i j i The panegyrist then expresses a deep personal sentiment, almost a wish, that there could be a warmer relationship between men of letters 182 of his own time, especially for the sake of their collective reputation.! Is he thinking perhaps of the s p irit of suspicion, animosity, and hypo- j crisy too often f e lt and demonstrated among many distinguished members of the general assembly when he writes: Heureux les gens de lettres, ceux du moins qui, par Ieurs talens, ont des droits reels a I'estlme publique, s 'ils oouvaient sentlr, a I'exemple de Racine et de Despreaux [Boileau], combien leur union mutuelle peut ajouter a cette estime, et combien au contraire les jalousies et les haines peuvent leur faire perdre de consideration et de glolrej Le moyen de voir echapper le laurier qui les attend, est d'etre ardens a se I'arracher. ( U , 356-357) As to the degree and extent of Racine’ s indebtedness to Boileau, we have D’Alembert's definitive Judgment, found in the notes appended to thi s k Ioget L'avantags inestimable dont les conseiIs de Despreaux [Boileau] ont ete pour Racine, doit, ce me semble, quand on comparers ces deux grands poltes, sinon faire pencher la balance pour Despreaux[ Boileau], du moins y ajouter quelque polds en sa faveur. IJ est douteux que Racine, sans Despreaux [Boileau], eDt ete Racinej II est certain que Despreaux [Boileau] a ete par lui-mime. ( H , 390) In the discussion of a somewhat related topic— the b itte r riv alry between Racine and Corneille— D'Alembert declares that Boileau himself manifested an Impartial attitude toward the merits of both playwrights (IT, 357). It is quite evident that the panegyrist considers a c ritic a l lappralsal of Racine a secondary topic of great importance, for he con- j I tlnues with a pertinent evaluation of Racine's verse, referring specifi cally to Its most conspicuous qualities. He f ir s t points out that under Boileau's skilled Instruction Racine learned w a faire des vers d i f f i - |c!lementw and better s t il l ’’a faire d! f f icl I ement des vers faciles." I --------------------------------- ----------— — jD'Alembert then adds this comment: ”, . . car cette f a c ility , si I 8 5 dlllcieuse pour I'es p rit et pour l'o r e llle , est un des principaux charmes que la lecture de Racine f a lt Iprouver " On, 357). Another particular quality of Racinlan verse Is: . . . cette espece d'abandon et de negligence heureuse, qui semble faire nattre les vers librement, et pour ainsi dire d'eux-memes, sous la plume du poSte, comme unebelle suite d'accords sous la main d’ un muslclen qui prelude de gin ie. (IE, 357) D'Alembert fin a lly leads up to a conclusion which was probably not accepted by many contemporary c ritic s nor, indeed, by any la te rc ritic s that Boileau, Racine, and Voltaire are the three greatest masters of French poetry. Having made this sweeping statement, he develops a detailed and rather unusual comparison of these eminent poets: Ne pourralt-on pas dire, pour exprimer les differences qui les caractlrisent, que Despreaux [Boileau] frappe et fabrlque tres-heu- reusement ses versj que Racine je tte les siens dans un espece de moule p a rfa lt, qui decele la main de I'a r tis te sans en conserver I'em- preinte; et que Voltaire, lalssant comme echapper des vers quicoulent de source, semble parler sans art et sans etude sa langue naturelle? ( H , 357-358) It is in the closing lines of a lengthy discussion that D'Alembert, by means of a most effective simile, presents conclusive reasons for his comparative evaluation of Boileau, Racine, and Voltaire: Enfin ne pourralt-on pas ajouter, en cherchant dans les chefs-d'oeuvre; des beaux-arts un objet sensible de comparalson entre ces trols grands ecrivains, que la manlere de Despreaux [Boileau], correcte, ferme et ; nerveuse, est assez blen reprlsentle par la belle statue du Gla- dlateur; celle de Racine, aussi correcte, mats plus moeIleuse et plus I arrondIe, par la Vlnus de ftlldlcis; et celle de Voltaire, aisle, svelte et toujours noble, par I ' Apollon du Belvldere? (TT, 358) j This whole triadic comparison lies at the very heart of elght- jeenth-century French neoclassiclsm. By means of a most effective and I junusual simile, D'Alembert brings out dominant characteristfcs of neo- i i jclassic poetry, which are so well illustrated in the contributions of !three c e I e b r a t e d wrlters. Sim ilarly, through inference, he shows us____ 181; the ’’common denominators” In the best poetry of the neoclasslc period and that of antiquity. To describe certain qualities peculiar to Boileau’ s verse, D’Alembert uses the terms "correcte ferme et nerveuse. What could suggest a closer sim ilarity to the v ir ile , restrained, yet re a lis tic physiognomy of the Glad Iator statue than the opening couplets of Boileau’ s Satire a Mol fere? Rare et fameux esprit, dont la fe r tile velne Ignore en ecrivant le travail et la peine; Pour qui tient Apollon tous ses tresors ouverts, Et qui sals a quel coin se marquent les bons vers; Dans les combats d’esprit savant maTtre d’escrime, EnseIgne-moi, Moliere, ou tu trouves la rlme.^ Taking this comparison one step further, D'Alembert Indicates that the classic pattern of Raclnlan verse reveals more fullness and grace. It appeals both to the human emotions and In te llect, as do the long, flowing, sensuous lines of the beautifully sculptured Venus of Medicis. Certainly, few persons would quarrel with quch a character Ization of the mellifluous verse of Racine— the master of feminine psychology. "Spontaneous,” "rhythmic," and "noble" are the adjectives which D’Alembert selects to describe the verse of one whom he considers the greatest of all neoclasslc poets. Granting that the author of La :Henriade does dfsplay great s k ill In the techniques of writing neo classlc verse, we cannot conclude, as D'Alembert seems to do, that Vol- ; taire Is greatly superior or even equal to either Boileau or Racine. Nowhere Is the eulogist's special pleading In favor of his eminent friend's virtues more flagrantly obvious than in this provocative com parison. Yet we must not forget that In the eighteenth century even 2 OEuvres Completes de Boileau, I (Paris, 1870), 70, lines 1-6. 185 Voltaire's worst enemies recognized In him great a b ility as a poet. Even today some of his light, improvised verse preserves qualities of natural ease that may merit at least a modicum of D’Alembert’ s fulsome praise and p a rtia lly ju s tify his striking comparison. Restricting his comparative evaluation to Boileau the poet and Racine the playwright, D’Alembert states that both writers usually com posed their Iiterary works f ir s t in prose and eventually transposed them Into verse form, a strange procedure Indeed, La nature du glnie de ces deux grands poStes, forme d’ une heureuse comblnafson de verve et de sagesse, les autorlsait a cette marche lente et mesuree. Mais ce ne serait pas un conseil a donner a tous ceux qui ecrivent en vers, Combien en e s t-il dont les productions seraient dessechees dans leur germe par cette methode propre a faire avorter plus d’ un poSte? (IE, 3&b-3&5) Although Boileau was generous in his praise of Racine, his pupil, he was far less so of another young contemporary playwright, Crebillon. D'Alembert presents some Illuminating information in his "Eloge de Crebillon." Stating that only the elderly Boileau failed to commend the author of Rhadamiste, he remarks! "II [Boileau] s'exprima sur cette piece avec plus de durete qu1iI n'avait fa it dans ses satires sur les productions les plus meprisables a ses yeux." Boileau's adverse c r i t i cism of Crebillon, as of certain other contemporary men of letters, was motivated by unhappy memories of the past, the frustrations and illness ; !of old age, and principally by an intense feeling of Jealousy toward the Jyoung writers who would eventual ly take his place in I Iterary prominence. ■ D 'allleurs, ce juge inexorable, encore plein du souvenir des hommes de I glnle avec Iesquejs II avait vicu, des Moliere, des Racine et des I Corneille, ne voyaft qu'avec d&dafn leurs successeurs. La Motte j n’e ta it a ses yeux qu'un bel esprit sans talent, Rousseau qu’ un ver- I sificateur sans Idees, et Crebillon qu'un poSte barbare; le merite de j Fontenelle e ta it perdu pour lui, et I ’ auteur de la Henri ade n’ecrivaft 186 pas encore. Despreaux [Boileau] eGt f a it volontlers a la generation lltte ra lr e naissante le mime compliment que le vleux et impol! Nestor f a it aux princes grecs dans I 'I I lade: Je vous conseille de m'ecouter, car j'a i frequente autrefois des hommes qui vala lent mieux que vous. (_LU, bbO) The eulogist concludes his statement thus: . . . on ne devalt pas attendre de Despreaux [Boileau], vleux et malade, I'equite que Despreaux [Boileau], Jeune et plein de sante, n'avait pas toujours eue pour les poites ses confreres. . . . ( I n , 550) Turning now to his more specific evaluation, we find that D'Alembert detects a decided weakness— une cote faible — in the works of th is famous poet. Boileau himself acknowledged this f a IbI esse, compar ing it to the talon d'AchlIle. It is found "dans la partie du sentiment dont il [Boileau] paratt avoir ete prive," This missing but indispen sable quality is appraised thus: C 'S tait, . . , une espece de sens qui manquaft a cet I I lustre ecri- vain. Car si Ie poBte doit avoir Ie tact sGr et Ie goGt severe pour connattre ce qu'il dolt saislr ou rejeter; si I ' Imagination, qui est pour lui comme le sens de la vue, doit lui representer vivement les objets, et les rev^tir de ce coloris b riIla n t dont il anime ses tableaux, la sen sib lllte, espece d’ odorat d'une finesse exqulse, va chercher profondlment dans la substance de tout ce qui s 'o ffre a e lle , ces emotions fugitives, mais delicieuses. dont la douce Impression ne se f a it sentir qu'aux seules Gmes dignes de I'eprouver. (TT, 36I) From these two passages It is evident that, for D'Alembert at least, the terms sentiment and senslblI Ite have the same connotation— sensitiveness, or the capacity to respond to emotions and sense Impres- : sions. He believes that I a sens i bl11te is an inherited tendency, rather jthan an acquired a b ility , as this statement indicates: j j La senslblI I t l , ce present de la nature, d ira i-je precfeux ou funeste, I poursuit sans cesse, si I'on peut parler a in s i, ceux qui ont le bo- | nheur ou Je malheur d'etre nes pour en recevoir les Impressions pro- j fondes. o r, 361) j j D'Alembert describes the dramatic effect which this "heaven-born" 187 g ift would have upon both the authors and their Works. Dare we suggest that to a certain degree D’Alembert Is equating le sentiment or 1 a sensi bl11te wlth a creative instinct or Imagination, when he writes: AussI inseparable de leur existence que I ’ air qu'iis respirent, e lle s ’ empare comme malgre eux de toutes leurs productions, e lIe les penetre, elle y donne le mouvement et la vie, e lle y repand surtout ce tendre In te rit qui f a it aimer I'auteur et jouir de son §me encore plus que de son genie. ( H , 361) To discover the effect produced by the absence or the presence of le sentiment in a poetic work, D’Alembert invites his readers to compare the fable Le Bucheron et la Mort as related by both Boileau and La Fontaine. "Veut-on connattre par un exemple frappant la difference que le charme ou la privation du sentiment peut mettre dans deux ouvrages?” He replies: "La senslblIite respire a chaque vers dans la fable de La Fontaine; chaque vers de celle de Despreaux [Boileau] semble f ie f r i par la secheresse" ( H , 3^1). D'Alembert has Included these two poems and a similar one by Jean- Baptiste Rousseau in the notes. W e shall b riefly compare all the ver sions of Le Bucheron et la Mort, since these concrete examples do much to help us understand D'Alembert’ s views on this Important matter of sent ? ment and sens ibi 11te. As an introduction to the f ir s t two versions he makes this somewhat facetious remark: Quoique tous nos lecteurs sachent ou doivent savoir par coeur la fable admirable du BQcheron dans La Fontaine, nous la mettrons I d sous leurs yeux, en m Sm e temps que celle de Despreaux [Boileau]; maiheur a qui ne sen tirait pas I'enorme distance de I'une a I'autre. CH, 401) Even more subtle Is his cursory preface to the last fable: I j A ces deux fables, nous en ajouterons une troisieme sur Ie m£me sujet, | par un autre poBte tres-ceIebre, Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, qui, aussi j depourvu de senslblIIte que I 'e t a l t Despreaux [Boileau], a reussi tout aussi m a 1. ( H , 401-^02) 188 In a comparison of the physical descriptions of the old bOcheron as given f ir s t by Jean de La Fontaine and then by Boileau, we are immedi ately Impressed by the verbal Imagery of the former version, Imagery that Is definite evidence of what D'Alembert calIs la sens Ib!I Ite . With La Fontaine we ’’see” the aged man, for he truly comes to life . Such is not the case In Boileau's versions Un pauvre Bucheron, tout couvert de ramee, Sous Ie falx du fagot aussi blen que des ans, . . Le dos charge de bols, et le corps tout en eau, . Un pauvre bOcheron, dans I'extreme vleillesse. . , La Fontaine, with great s k ill, gives us a clear picture of the slow, painful, and eventually fu tile efforts of the woodcutter to carry his heavy burden homeward: Gemlssarit et courbe, marchalt a pas pesants, Et t3chait de gagner sa chaumlne enfumee. Enfin, n’ en pouvant plus d 'e ffo rt et de douleur, I I met bas son fagot, II songe a son malheur. (3-6) In sharp contrast are Boileau's descriptive phrases— cold, general, and abstract— which completely fa il to produce any vivid or lasting Impression upon the reader's mind or imagination: Marchoit en haletant de peine et de detresse. Enfin, las de so u ffrir, Jetant la son fardeau, Plut6t que de s'en voir accable de nouveau, II souhaite la mort, et cent fols il I'appelle. (3-6) i Boileau's account of the bOcheron's hopeless despair is in l if e - ! jless, impersonal, matter-of-fact language to ta lly dlpourvu de sentiment, jas the last two quoted lines Indicate. On the contrary, La Fontaine's I ! 3FabIes Cholsies I _ T ' j ^CEuvres Completes de Boileau, TFT (Paris, 1873), 55, lines 1-2. 189 dramatic Interpretation with its rhetorical questions indicates proof of creative imagination. His conclusion of the story reaches a dramatic climax; with Boileau there is no rising crescendo, simply a dull state ment of facts. The bflcheron story as related by Jean-Baptiste Rousseau Is an equally colorless, unimpassioned account of an extremely moving incident as the opening lines will showj Le malheur vainement a la mort nous dispose; On la brave de loin, de pres c’ est autre chose. Un pauvre bticheron, de mai extenul, Charge d'ans et d'ennuis. de forces denue, Jetant bas son fardeau, maudissait ses s o u ffranees.5 Through failure to possess this invaluable ingredient, la sens i b I I [ te , Boileau found it d iff ic u lt , if not Impossible, toevaluate fa ir ly either Qulnault or La Fontaine. Nevertheless, D’Alembert cannot understand why Boileau made not the slightest reference to La Fontaine In the Art Poetique: , . . pourquoi mime, dans son Art Poetique, ou II n’ a pas dldaigne de parler du madri gal et du rondeau, n’ a - t - l I pas d it un mot de la fab Ie, comme s 'I I eOt craint d’ avoi r a Iouer I'ecrivain qui, parmi nous, a cree ce genre, et I ’ a cree tellement, qu*I I y est encore incomparable apres les efforts de tant de fabulistes pour approcher de lui; ecrivain dont la simplicity na’fve, si fine et si vra I e tout ensemble, e ta it bien fa lte pour Itr e sentie et cllebree par un aussi excellent Juge que Despreaux [Boileau], . . . (XE, ?62) ; Af ter stati ng that Boileau also f a I led to di scover any or i gi naIi ty ; in La Fontaine's fab Ies, D'Alembert adds his own warm tribute to this Incomparable fabulist: i I ___ ! . . . parml les Scrivains c^lebres du siecle de Louis XTV, si La j Fontaine n'est pas le plus grand, II est au moins le plus singullere- 5 ! C E uvres de Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, New Edition (Paris, 1795), IE , 190 ment original, Ie plus desesperant pour le peuple imitateur, en un mot, si on peut parler de la sorte, celul que la nature aura Ie plus de peine a refa I re. (TT, 3^*3) Although D'Alembert has fulsome praise for Boileau, he remembers to: mention at length the famous Querelle des Anclens et des Modernes, In which the poet wholeheartedly supports the Modernes: SI Desprlaux [Boileau] abandonnalt les anciens sur la philosoohie, on salt avec quelle chaleur II a defendu leur cause en matiere de lltterature et de goOt. Cette controverse, assez semblable a une dispute de religion, par I'aigreur et ia haine qu'on y mlt de part et d'autre, est aujourd'hu! rebattue jusqu'a I'ennui, et nous n'avons garde de la renouveler dans cet eloge. (TT, 366) Despite this disclaimer, the eulogist continues with a lengthy, polemi cal discussion of this notorious I Iterary dispute. In the closing paragraphs of this % Ioge D’Alembert reverts to a secondary topic— les satires. There w ill always be, so he states, a decided difference of opinion as to whether or not 11terary satire may be fu lly justified. He does admit in a lengthy diatribe that ,fla classe desecrivains satirlques trouvera toujours des motifs d'encouragement, bienpropres a favorlser Ia propagation de I'espece " ( U , 372). The panegyrist has sincere misgivings as to the intrinsic or per manent value of satire. Whether or not criticism , whose usefulness Is :beyond doubt, must necessarily be harsh and offensive in order to prove ;beneficlal is the great question In D'Alembert's mind. He wonders jw he ther satire Is not more effective in discouraging and s tiflin g I f te r— pry talents than in correcting them. He questions whether sincere, con structive, didactic criticism may not prove a far more satisfactory m eans jof encouraging these same natural and acquired 1 1 terary talents. . . . si douze beaux vers de I ' Art Poetique de Despreaux [Boileau] ne sont pas plus utiles au progres de I'a r t , que ceux ou les noms de 191 Chapelain et de Cotin sont tant rip&tisj enfin si Ie public, mime en s'amusant d'une critique injurieuse, s'engage a en estimer i'auteur, et si le mepris n'est pas beaucoup plus souvent Ie revenu de la satire! pour celui qui en f a it profession, que pour celui qui la souffre et la dedaIgne. ( H , 373) According to D'Alembert, of a ll the ecrivains satiriques, Boileau is one of the most impartial. Nevertheless, he is not altogether inno cent of certain unfairness. To illu s tra te this fact, the eulogist des cribes the way in which Boileau selects the subjects of his satires: II avait toujours sous la main, pour la plus grande commodity de la satire, quatre ou cinq noms dlfferens, Ia plupart de mime mesure et de mime rime, et q u 'iI substituaft les uns aux autres dans ses vers, selon qu'iI e ta it bien ou maI avec ceux qui les portaient; e t par malheur la plupart de ceux qui portaient ces noms, etaient des hommes tres-estimables. (XU, 374) He mentions what to him Is the most harmful effect of Boileau's sat ire s: Le plus grand inconvenient que ses satires aient produit, si nlanmoins on peut appeler Inconvenient ce qui ne f a it reellement de mal a personne, c'est d'avoir donnl I'essor a un nombreux essalm de misl- rabjes imitateurs, qui croyant avoir herite de sontalent, n'ont pas mime herite de son algulllon, et qui tichent, pour emprunter ici une heureuse expression de Montaigne, d 'itr e plres q u 'ils ne peuvent. (XC, 374) As for his personal reaction to this most unfortunate situation, ;the eulogist adds this striking and final comment: Despreaux [Boileau], s 'i I revenalt parmi nous, rouglrait des enfans nains et contrefaits qui osent I'appeler leur pere, e t qui se croient i descendus de lui parce qu’ ils portent quelques mechans lambeaux de sa I i vree. ( H , 374) "Eloge de Charles P erra u lt” Since this kioge Is D'Alembert’ s personal tribute to the leader of the Modernes in the famous Quereile, i t may lo g ica lly follow the Boileau eulogy. I t Is also an o ff ic ia l recognition of one who, in public service 192 and In the world of literatu re, did much for the encouragement of arts and letters. D’Alembert gives only a few basic facts concerning the life and personality of Charles Perrault (1628-1703) and not too much c ritic a l evaluation of him as a man of letters. Despite these limitations, the "Eloge de Charles Perrault" is one of D'Alembert's character isti c pieces of writing, as well as an Interesting and informative commentary upon certain phases of Iiterary history during the seventeenth century. Like many other writers, Perrault o rig in ally prepared for the legal profession. Very soon a fte r embarking upon his career he was persuaded by Colbert to undertake an entirely different vocation. II [Colbert] le cholslt pour tenir la plume dans une petite acadlmle composle de quatre ou cinq hommes de lettres qui s’ assembI a Ient chez lui deux fols la semainej ce fut le berceau de cette savante compagnie; qui est devenue depuls s£ cSlebre sous le nom d'Academle des inscrip- tions et b elle s -le ttre s . As a child of only eight years, Perrault displayed a remarkable talent for writing poetry. The young lad composed such excellent verses that one day his tutor, "lui demandalt, avec un air de connaisseur, qui i I es lui avait donnes." Perrault manifested even greater Interest In jphilosophjc discussions, for "I I [Perrault] almait tant a dlsputer, que i ; lies jours de congl, si chers a la jeunesse des colleges, lui paraissaient i : des jours morts" ( H , 226). Because of a heated quarrel with one of his; teachers, he le ft school before completing his formal studies. After commenting upon the fact that the young man continued a rigid course of ^Thls Institution was f ir s t called La Petlte Acadlmle and was founded In I 663 by Colbert. He chose four charter members whose main responsibility was "de composer les inscriptions et devices des momuments ^jevis par Louis ZTY et des medal I les frappees en son honneur" ( Larousse, 193 "self-education," D'Alembert states: Charles Perrau 11 a plus d'une fois avoue que cette seconde education qu'iI s ' l t a i t donnee, lui avait §t& sans comparaison plus u tile que la premiere. Ce qu'on apprend seul et sans secours, est toujours ce qu'on salt le mieuxj et peut-§tre ne salt-on parfaitement que ce qu'on apprend de la sorte. Combien d'hommes iI Iustres en tous genres n'ont eu d'autre mattre qu'eux-m§mes, et n'en ont ete que plus grands? ( U , 227) In this passage D'Alembert does not appear to disparage formal education as such. He intimates, however, that a self-taught person— like himself, for Instance— with in itia tiv e , ambition, and native a b il ity could reach a greater degree of success than one whose conventional educatioh may have deprived him of freedom in both thought and action. Collaborating with another I Iterary-minded student, Perrault attempted to put into "vers burlesques le sixieme livre de I ' £ne i de, " which, as D'Alembert w ittily points out, "pour leur honneur, est tombe dans I'o u b li, e t dont nous apprendrions en pure perte Ie t lt r e a nos lecteurs" ( H , 227). The major work of the members of the Academy of Inscriptions and Letters was to devise medals and mottos for Louis XEZ; and "celles que Charles Perrault proposait, Ita ie n t presque toujours p r iflr e e s ." That he was well fitte d for this type of 11terary e ffo rt In both natural talent and pleasing personality Is D'Alembert's candid opinion (TTt 227- i228). i | Of the several medals devised by Perrault, the most famous was | "celle de |a medal lie frapp^e a I'occasion du logement donne par le roi i ja I*Acad$mi e Fran9aise, dans Ie Louvre m§me." Furthermore, "Colbert, jeclalre par les sages conseils de Charles Perrault, f i t sentir au roi j que ^protection due au genie est un des plus nobles apanages de I9U I'autorlte suprSme" ( H , 228). Some time later with the assistance of his brother Claude, des cribed as "homme d’ un m lrite rare, et que tous les tra its de Despreaux [Boileau] n'ont pu reussir a rendre r id ic u le ,” Perrault was Influential In founding another royal academy— namely, the Acad&mle des Sciences. Originally this organization was patterned a fte r that of the French Academy with " I'ig a llte parfaite entrs ses membres, et qui aural t dO conserver cette forme, la seule convenable a une societe lit te r a ir e ." It Is evident that in writing these lines D’Alembert had in mind what he considered to be the ideal rlpublique des lettres et des sciences ( H , 228). Shortly after the establishment of the third academy, Colbert, aided by Perrault, created a fund of one hundred thousand I Ivres to be distributed annually, "par ordre du roi aux hommes de lettres celebres, soft de France, solt des pays etrangers." However praiseworthy this philanthropic project may have been, the men thus honored were not always wisely chosen. II est vral enfin, qu’ on auralt pu mettre, a quelques &gards, plus de discernement et de lumleres dans cette repartition de graces, et ne pas confondre avec les talens Iminens plusleurs talens mediocres. (IE, 229) In the appended notes are given the names of those thus honored ; with pensions. D’Alembert then adds: Cette lis t ju s tifle notre r&flexion sur le melange qu'on y a f a it de la m§dlocrite avec le mferite superieur. Nous avons mis en Itallque ' les noms qu'on aura It pu en retrancher, du moins parml les Francals. j ( I t , 259) | No doubt, he was thinking of Boileau and Perrault as the principal duelists In the celebrated Querelle when he says: 195 Despreaux [Boileau] eOt ajoute a ces noms [en italique] ceux de Chapelain7 et de Perrault; mais Despreaux etlt ete I njuste. Chapelain et Perrault, quoique tres-mauvais poites I ' un et I'a u tre , etaient d'ailleurs des hommes de beaucoup de merite, par I ’ etendue de leur litteratu re, par la variete de leurs connaIssances, et m Sm e par leur goOt, qui se trompait, a la v l r i t l , sur leurs propres ouvrages, mais qui jugeait tres-bien ceux des autres. (XL, 259) D’Alembert clearly places the evaluation of Iiterary achievement and professional reputation upon a broad basis. Certainly a man of letters needsnot of necessity possess creative a b ility or unusual in te l lectual talents. Despite the mediocrity of his own accomplishments, Chapelain, in D'Alembert’ s opinion at least, could s t ill be "un homme de beaucoup de merite" by reason of his success as a Iiterary c ritic ; and such was definitely the case with Charles Perrault. O After the establishment of the Academy of Sciences "Colbert, qui goOtait de plus en plus I'e s p rit et le caractere de Charles Perrault," gave his e fficien t assistant another administrative responsibility, "surintendant des b8t!mens." In a few well-phrased sentences, D'Alembert presents a perceptive analysis of his subject’ s personality and capabiI I ties: II se conduisit dans cette place avec le desinteressement d'un homme de bien, I ' inteI I igence d' un homme fnstruit et eclaire, et la sagesse d'un homme d'esprit, qui connaissaIt tout I ' amour-propre des hommes en; place. II informalt Colbert de tout, I ' Instruisait de tout sans parattre I'in s tru ire , et presque sans que Colbert s'en doutat, et il le mettait en etat de se parer aupres du roi de toutes les connais- I 7jean Chapelain ( I595-J674) , a French poet, was one of the original jmembers of the French Academy established between 1629-1635. His epic 'poem La Puce Ile excel led the I Ii ad according to pub Iic opinion. How- jever, his reputation as a poet received a severe blow from Boileau's jsatires ( Larousse, H , 13M- | The Acadlmie des Sciences was founded by Colbert in I 666 and reorganized by Louis XTV in 1 699 (Larousse, I , 28). 196 sances qu' I I avalt puisees dans ces entretiens secrets. (ZEE, 229-230)1 On Noverrber J> , I 6 7I, Perrault was elected to the French Academy as | a direct result of his Invaluable contributions "aux lettres, aux ; sciences, aux arts." Concerning the new member's discoirs de reclpien- da1 re, D’Alembert relates: II y f i t , le jour de sa reception, un discours de remerctment, dont cette compagnie fut si contente, qu’elle p rit la resolution de rendre publiques a I ’ avenir les receptions de ses membres. (ZEE, 231) In a further remark about this memorable event the hope is expressed that the Academy will seek to Improve the quality of Its eloges acade- mi ques: II est vrai qu'elle se f i t un devoir trop ginant d’ a s s u jltlr ces receptions a des formules de complimens et d'eloges depuis long-temps uses et monotones,, et dont II faut esperer qu'elle osera enf i n s'affranchir un jour. (IE, 231) While closely associated for many years, d iffic u ltie s and jealousy arose between Colbert and Perrault, until the la tte r, "tres-capabIe de reconnaissance, mais incapable de bassesse," retired altogether from public service. In spite of Colbert's protestations, Perrault "in struit par I'experience, prSfera son repos et la liberte a de nouveaux honneurs; let de nouveaux orages." Perrault devoted much of his leisure time to the education of his two sons. No doubt with thoughts of regret at not I having a family of his own, D'Alembert makes this comment: II [Perrault] Sprouva dans les douceurs de ce nouveau genre de vie, comblen les plaisirs purs, goCltes par un pere au sein de sa fam llle, sont preferables aux illusions de la faveur et aux chimeres de la vanity. (ZEE, 231) During his retirement, Perrault was also engaged in the composition of several IJterary works. The Poeme sur le Slecle de Louis le Grand and I the Parallele des Anciens et des Modernes, the only two discussed by 197 D’Alembert, may well be called the "sparks" which ignited the heated querelle between Perrault and Boileau. Despite his wholehearted support' of the Modernes, D'Alembert, with ju s tific a tio n , makes this criticism : Quant au fond de la dispute, les deux adversaires, comme dans la plupart des querelles, ont a Iternativement to rt et raison; Perrault, trop peu verse dans la langue grecque, trop exclusivement frappe des d&fauts d’Homere, n’ est pas assez sensible aux beautls superieures de ce grand poBte, et ne f a it pas assez de gr3ce a ses ecarts en faveur de son g&nie: Despreaux [Boileau], sans cesse a genoux devant son idole, la difend quelquefois aussl maI, et presque toujours aussi durement que les heros de I ' I Iiade s’ insultent les uns les autres. ( H , 232) Boileau's resentment against Perrault extended to the French Academy: . . . qui aurait dti, selon lui, faire subir a I ’ heres i arque une punition exemplaire; mais qui, se bornant a rendre aux anciens I'hommage qui Ieur est dO, croyalt devoir laisser a ses membres la liberte de les apprecier a leurs risques et perils. ( I E , 233) The panegyrist continues with a fu ll account of Boileau's angry outbursts against the French Academy, concluding with this rather witty remark: L'Academie ne f i t que rire de ces incartades poetiques, et donna du moins au satfrique J'exemple du sang-froid, qu'iI est un peu facheux de perdre pour de pare!Is objets. (TT, 233-23W Boileau's b itter animosity toward the author of the Poeme sur le Siecle de Louis le Grand also arose from a personal, secret cause, !"plus puissante que son devouement pour les anciens." The eminent jligislateur du Parnasse had f e lt deeply hurt because in his poetic works Perrault had failed to mention Corneille and Racine. D'Alembert's com ment reveals his own loyalty to the neoclassic tradition and his fa ir I jand objective judgment of both Perrault and Boileau: SI le grand poSte, en cette circonstance, se montra un peu trop sensible, son adversaire s 'e ta it montr§ fo rt Injuste. Oter Despreaux [Boileau] et Racine au^s^ecje de Louls -le - Grand, c'est Ster au s iecle 198 d'Auguste Horace et V irg ile, ( H , 23b) The animosity between these two academicians was ”de plus ancienne date que I'lpoque de la querelle sur les modernes.” Charles Perrault ; and his brothers had failed to keep silent on those occasions when their writer friends were being severely criticized by Boileau in his satires. As D'Alembert tersely remarks, ”Ils s'expliquaient avec liberte sur le satlrlque, qui, de son cSte, ne les menageait pas.” (X E , 2 3 i+ ) In spite of an unwavering loyalty to the cause of the Modernes, D'Alembert entertained respect and admiration for the two antagonists, Boileau and Perrault, who were "faits pour s'estimer I ' un I'autre; Ie premier par son rare talent, le second par son savolr et ses lumieres, et tous deux par leur probite" (IE, 236), After some time, the two contestants became reconciled, thanks to the combined efforts of mutual friends. In D'Alembert's opinion, how ever, this reconciliation was sincere only on the part of Perrault, ” 11 supprima m£me plusieurs tra its qu'I I r&servalt encore aux anciens.” Concerning the hypocritical attitude of Boileau, the eulogist remarks: Quant a Despreaux [Boileau], II e c riv it a Perrault, apres ieur raccommodement, une Iettre qu'il appeiait de rlc o n c iIia ti on; mais dans laquelle, a travers les complfmens qu'il s'efforce de lui fa ire , il n'a pu s'emp§cher de montrer encore ce reste de maI Ignite ou de f l e i , I dont il est si d if f ic ile a un satirique de profession de se defaire entierement. (IE, 236) | Soon after this rapprochement Perrault published another work that Iwas also mentioned in this feloge. Speaking of the author's purpose in ! |writing the Histoire des Hommes I I lustres du Siecle de Louis XTV, D'Alembert remarks: Debarrasse de Despreaux [Boileau], mais toujours partisan zele de son siecle, Perrault en c&l6bra |a glolre dans cet ouvrage, qui f i t egaIement honneur a ses lumieres et a son impartiality. fTT, P3A ) __ 199 In his appraisal of the Histoire D'Alembert feels that I t could have revealed "plus d’ InterSt et de coiorls, mais non plus de slncerite et de justice." However, he points out that " l Tauteur avoue m Sm e qu’ il s’ est refuse les ornemens, pour donner plus de verite a son re c it, en ne louant que par le simple exposl des f a lt s ." ( U , 236-237) By means of a direct quotation from Perrault’ s Hfstolre, D'Alembert suggests that the author had one main purpose in mind: to produce eIoges of worthy men based on authentic information and objective evalu ation. As subjects for two of his eIoges, Perrault chose Arnold and Pascal, whose strong sympathies for the Jansenists made them b itte r enemies of the Jesuits? but he was forced to remove th e ir names from his work for the time being. Upon the death of Louis XTV, however, "on s ’ est empresse de remettre leurs noms a la place d'ou on les avait arraches, et qu’ ils n'auraient jamais du perdre" ( H , 2 3 7 ). D'Alembert also speaks favorably of Perrault’ s Memo ires, published sixty years after their author's demise. He refers to the "grand a ir de franchise" pervading this autobiographical work. He also expresses the wish that future writers of memoirs will imitate Perrault, "qu’ ils parleraient d’ eux-m§mes avec cette sincerite nafve qui ajoute tant de prix aux talens" CH, 237-238). Concluding his evaluation of the iMemoires, D’Alembert leaves this striking statements i I Les bons esprlts ne s’ Interessent guere moins a voir au nature I, et comme en negligl, ceux qui ont eclaire leurs contemporains, que ceux qui les ont gouvernes bien ou maI. L’ hlstoire des premiers est ceIle des progres et des chefs-d’ oeuvre de I ’esprit humain; I ’ histoire des i autres n'est souvent que celle de nos malheurs et de nos crimes. (XE, ! 238) D'Alembert makes no mention of Perrault’ s Contes, for which he is mainly remembered by posteri ty . He does speak brf e fIy and wi t hout praise 200 of Perrault's poetic w o r k , Les Para I IeIes, and also refers t o a few j other fugitive verses, "qui ne sont pas indignes d 'llo g e .” Such a one is the poem, Sur la Pelnture, "ou il exprime d'une maniere assez heureuse et mime assez poitique, les beautes que le temps ajoute aux tableaux.” After quoting a few lines from this poem In which there is an effective, sustained metaphor describing ”Time” as an old man, D'Alembert makes this favorable comment: II ne s’ en faut presque rien que ces vers ne sofent d’ un poitej I*Image du Temps qui donne aux chefs-d'oeuvre des grands artistes le ! dernier tra it de pinceau, et qui efface jusqu'au souvenir des mauvais ouvrages, est noble et pittoresque; un peu plus d'harmonie e t d'elegance dans 11 expression, eOt rendu ce tableau digne des grands maTtres. ( I T , 235- 236) In reading this mild commendation, we must remember another evalua tion found in the appended notes: ”Chapelain et Perrault, . . . tres-mauvaIs poStes I ' un et I'a u tre ” (TE, 239). This eulogy Is a we 11-deveI oped piece of writing In which D’Alem bert uses the elements of biography and Iiterary criticism In balanced proportions. He wishes to impress his listeners and readers with sev eral important facts of his subject's life and work. First of a I I , ;Perrault was well prepared In native a b ility , personality, and experi ence for his various responsibilities and a c tiv itie s . Even though he Tailed to reach great fame through his own I Iterary achievements, he : I contributed much to the cause of arts, sciences, and literature through his administrative work with the three academies and his a b ility as a c rltic . Chape lain et Perrault . . . etaient d 'ailleu rs des hommes de beaucoup j de m irite, par I'etendue de leur litte ra tu re , par la variete de leurs ! connalssances, et m &m e par leur goOt, qui se trompalt, a la verite, j sur leurs propres ouvrages, mais qui jugeait tres-bien ceux des j autres. J I T , 239)________________________„ ________________________ I 201 If Is quite natural for D'Alembert to devote much of his 4 1oge to the famous Quere lie . W e are inclined to believe, however, that he may : be on the horns of a dilemma— he heartily approves of Perrault's "for ward look" and yet he has commendatory words for Boileau, the o ffic ia l theorist of the neoclassic school. In the notes appended to this eulogy--as If i t were his own final judgment on the relative merits of the two major contestants— D'Alembert quotes an authoritative and sig nificant statement from his good friend Voltaire: Personne, a notre avis, n'a port! un jugement plus sain sur cefte contestation, que I'illu s t r e auteur du siecle de Louis XEZ. "On a reproch! a Perrault, d? t - i I , d'avolr trouvi trop de defauts dans les anciens; mals sa grande faute est de s'§tre f a it des ennemis de ceux m§me qu'il pouvait opposer aux anciens; cette dispute a et& et sera long-temps une affaire de parti, comme elle I 'e t a it du temps d'Horac^" ( 3 1 , 2 i 0 ) In the "Eloge de Charles Perrault" D'Alembert discusses one or two, other important topics only loosely related to his principal subject. He outlines certain basic c rite ria for the impartial and objective selection of worthy academicians; he also dwells upon the historical significance of Perrault's election to the French Academy. Two facts which have been noted in previous chapters are also mentioned b riefly In this eIoge : Perrault's new type of discours de reelpiendaire, and the admission of the general public to the Academy assemblies, l j ! i "Eloge de Jean Segrafs" There could be no greater contrast to Boileau and Perrault than Jean Regnault de Segrais (162^-1701). As a professional poet and acade- I jmiclan he earns only slight praise from D'Alembert, but as a soclety-wit 1 |and 11terary advisor, he was a made-to-order character for biographical 202 exploitation. Consequently, he is the subject of one of the eulogist's most Illuminating life sketches. At a very early age Jean Segrais manifested great interest in the poetic art. D'Alembert speaks rather snidely of "son talent, ou, si I ’ on veut, son ardeur pour la po§sie,w which Segrais demonstrated when s t il l an adolescent. This young man's ardeur pour la polsie may have inspired him with a secret desire: . . . de soutenir sur le Parnasse l'honneur de la Normandie, a qui la France e ta it alors redevable des deux plus grands po6tes, ou plut6t des deux seuls qu'elle eftt encore produits, Malherbe et Corneille. (IE, 192) In I 6I4 .8 Segrais made a pilgrimage to Paris, the goal of every aspiring young litte ra teu r of the time. He was fortunate in obtaining a secretarial position in the home of the Duchess of Montpensier, with whom he remained for nearly twenty-five years. This royal lady, fre quently called Mademoiselle or la grand Mademoiselle, was a niece of Louis XEEPs, She possessed masculine qualities In her physical appear ance and temperament, and she was proud, ambitious, and intellectual. Frustrated In her secret hope of becoming the wife of Louis YTV and ;Queen of France, she eventually decided to marry the Duke of Lauzun, a iperson far inferior to her in every way. Because of Segrais' outspoken ;disapproval of this proposed marital alliance, M m e de Montpensier dis- j ; \ 1 missed her faithful and capable secretary. As was to be expected, this strong-minded lady insisted upon marrying the Duke, but I t was not too long before she dismissed him, too. Following their separation Mm e de Montpensier entered upon a life of seclusion, during which time she wrote her Mlmolres. With respect to her marl age manqu6 and her auto- fa i ographleal work ^ D'AI embert makes this comment: _______________________ 203 L’ evenement f i t voir, mais trop tard, que Segrais avait mieux pense qu’ e lle ; neanmolns, et peut-etre par cette raison m§me, e lle ne lui pardonna pas, et le ressentiment qu’ e lle eut toujours d'un si sage et * si inutile consell, s’ est conserve dans ses Memoirss, ou elle appelle Segrais une manlere de be I esp rit; jugement de princesse, et de princesse Irri tie , a qut la m&diocrite de son genie, si marquee dans les ouvrages que nous avons d’e lle , n’ avait pas acquis le droit d’ assigner les places au m&rite et aux talens. d r, 1 9 3 ) The society-wit was soon warmly welcomed by another distinguished lady, "par une femme plus fa ite pour I ’ apprecler, par madame de La Fay ette, qui e c riv it sous ses yeux les deux romans cllebres de la Princesse de Cleves et de Za7de. " D’Alembert takes note of the valuable assist ance which the authoress received from Segrais in this interesting pas sage : Elle trouva dans les conseiIs et dans la critique de cette maniere de be 1 espri t , des secours qui furent tres-u tiles a la perfection de ces deux charmans ouvrages; les secours m §m e furent assez grands, pour qu’on a it souvent attrib u i I ’ un et I ’ autre roman a Segrais. . . . fTT, 193) Segrais always recognized M m e de La Fayette as the authentic author of these two successful novels. What is more, he did so "avec la Isincerite la plus tranche, sans emprunter, comme ont f a it tant d’ autres en pareil cas, le voile transparent de cette modestie hypocrite, qui a jsoin de m a I jouer la discretion . . . " ( H , 1 93 - 19il-). In actual fact, the Princesse de Cleves was Mme de La Fayette’ s autobiography. It Is quite possible, therefore, that during the course i of their close association and collaboration, this distinguished lady and Segrais grew to be intimate friends. Through the personal influence and Intellectual prestige of this socially prominent patroness he became acquainted with notable people attached to the King’ s court. He spent more than th irty years "dans le tourbillon du monde et de la cour." 20k However, at the close of a long and successful public career, the poet was content to retire to Caen, "pour y cultlver les lettres en paix et en llb e rtl" (IE, 195)• W e are indebted to D’Alembert foi- an illuminating description of Segrais’ social and professional a c tiv itie s in his home town: II s’ y maria avantageusement, et s’ y forma une sociefe agreable et choisiej il rassemblait chez lul les membres les plus estimables de I'academie de Caen, a laquelle il redonna une espece de vie, apres la langueur ou e lle eta it tomble par la mort de M. de Matlgnon, son pro- tecteur. ( I E , 195) D’Alembert also speaks of Segrais’ spirited interest in the work of this organization and of his cordial relationships with Its members, who: "aimaient fort a J’ entendre, et disaient de lui, qu’ iI n’ y ava i t qu*a Ie monter et le laisser a lle r ," It is quite significant that the eulogist makes no mention of any Ii terary or i nteI IectuaI contribution which Segrais may have made to the Academy of Caen. In a veiled tone of sar casm, D’Alembert Intimates that, although an academician, the poet s t i l l played the role of une manlere de be I e s p rit: Mais cette espece de pendule savante, pour emprunter leur comparaison,: avait un double mferite, assez rare dans celles de son espece, celui de r&pondre sans verbiage et sans Icarts a ce qu’on lui demandait, et celui de s’ arrSter quand on le jugeait a propos, ou quand e lle jugeait elle-m@me qu’ elle avait parle assez long-temps. ( I E , 195) While enjoying the pleasures of his provincial retreat, Segrais was; jstrongly urged to enter the household of the Duke of Maine,^ na qui on Icherchait un instituteur digne de cet emploi par ses moeurs et par ses g Louis Auguste de Bourbon, Due du Maine (1670-1736), the second chi Id of Louis AlX and Mm e de Montespan, was born wi th a club foot. The Duke of Lauzun placed him in the care of Mm e Scarron, wife of the comic poet. Under the name of Mm e de Maintenon, she eventually became the wife of Louis XIV in a secret marriage (Larousse, 12 [1931], 607). 205 talens." Accounting for the poet's refusal to obey th is royal command, ; D'Alembert says: Le repos et I ' Ind&pendance dont jo u lss a it notre litte r a t e u r ph ilo - sophe, lui parurent preferables au p&nible honneur d'elever un prince, et surtout a la d l f f l c u l t e presque Insurmontable de l'e le v e r avec succes, . , . C E E , 195) Segrais' refusal to accept this new resp o n sib ility was u tte rly ignored by the representatIves of the young Duke's fa th e r, Louis STS, "prince si accoutume, par I'hommage de ses courtisans, a regarder ses ; d ls irs comme des ordres, et I'honneur d'approcher de lui comme la j fe lic ite supreme" ( H , I9&). D'Alembert appears to approve of the poet's independent a ttitu d e toward the King's command. Despite the fact that Segrais even pleaded his Increasing deafness as valid reason for not wishing to become a royal tutor, on Insista neanmoins, en lui representant qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'ecouter son eleve, mais de lui parler. L' explrience, rSpondit-II, m'a appris qu'il faut avoir a la cour de bons yeux et de bonnes ore I I Ies[ (TT. 1 96) He f in a lly decided to remain at Caen "au m ilieu de quelques amis a qui :il e ta it cher, et dont il p re fe ra it la societe a la faveur des rots" (XE, 196). During his "sunset years" Segrais suffered a prolonged illness. \ l The aged poet accepted this painful and depressing experience "comme un j b ie n fa it du c ie l, dont i I prof i fa pour reveI I Ier en lui Ies sen11 mens de piete qui avaient toujours f a i t la regie de sa v ie ." In laudatory terms the eulogist describes his subject's a ttitu d e toward re lig io n (T T } 202). W e may r ig h t f u lly expect D'Alembert to say much about the private 2 06 itves and religious convictions— sincere or otherwise— of those indi viduals whom he selected from the ranks of the clergy as subjects of hi s eIoges. Yet we are surpri sed, and pieasant1y so, to f i nd him evaI - ; uating the spiritual life of a man of letters in such a sympathetic and concise manner. It would seem that, when the eulogist refers to the poet’ s piety as sage et &clafree and whe n he ca I Is Segrai s un versi f i ca- teur chretlen, he is rendering a tribute sim ilar to those which he extended to such men as Fenelon, Flechier, and Massillon— prelats ver- tueux, tolerants et illumines. Segrais gave definite evidence of an esprit tolerant et illumine in his bold attitude toward an important and traditional practice of the Catholic Church. According to him, one of the worst features of the state religion was that law which "en permettant a seize ans les voeux monastiques, Iivre aux clottres et au desespoir de malheureuses victimes d’ une devotion ardente et prematuree" ( H , 202). D'Alembert believed Segrais was fu lly ju stifie d in his opinion that this arbitrary system of religious training was, in effect, "un des plus grands fl&aux de la religion et de I ’E taf." To Segrais this law seemed a ll the more barbarous, since he knew of no one who had not entertained a passing fancy at sometime or another: ; . . . de s’enchatner a la piete dans quelque ordre religieuxj fantaisie qui, de nos jours, grlce aux progres des lumieres, est devenue beau- coup molns commune, et diminue m @ m e assez sensiblement pour faire esperer aux chr&tiens Icla ires que les voeux seront desormais moins j pr&coces et plus refllch is . ( I E , 202) Concluding his discussion of Segrais’ firm belief in religious to l- jerance, D'Alembert points out: | Segrais appelait cet acces de ferveur passager e, la petite verole de 207 I'e s p rit, en ajoutant qu'il en avait ete attaque comme ies autres, et en g&missant sur le sort des infortun&s qui n'avaient pas eu comme lui: le bonheur d'echapper a cette funeste epidlmie, (XE, 202) Continuing his typically "enlightened" anti-conventual diatribe, D'Alembert speaks of this question at much greater length in the appended notes, "I'Sge propre aux voeux monastlques . . . " and "cette fantaisie passagere de se faire molne, qui est orcli nairement la fo lie de la jeunesse." With a strong conviction born of hatred for the Catho lic Church and Its special representatIves, the Jesuits, he closes his remarks with a dramatic and impassioned appeal for religious tolerance ( IT , 208). Thus far we have seen that D'Alembert is preoccupied with his sub ject mainly as a rather clever and engaging personality. To this end, consequently, he has used his biographical material in a most interest ing and effective manner. The "Eloge de Jean Segrais," in re a lity , Is the portrait of a typical seventeenth-century society-wit, a lady's man, and a 11terary advisor. Segrais, the poet, Is of l i t t l e consequence? but Segrais, the engaging "man about town," becomes a person whose pleasing manners and conversational a b ility make him popular with his friends. In the appended notes D'Alembert provides an Interesting side light concerning Segrais* speech habits. Although he had come to Paris as a young boy and remained there many years, he consistently retained I'accent de^sa province, et m §m e un peu le jargon bas-normand; ce qui I donna lieu a Mademoiselle de dire a quelqu'un qui alI a 11 en Normandie j avec Segrais: Vous avez la un fort bon guide, II salt parfaitement la j 1 Q Larousse, ZT (1933), 27I+, c la rifie s the meaning of this citation: !"Apres avoir f a it de bonnes etudes chez les Jesuits, II [Segrais] rename la I'e ta t eccl&siastique pour se liv re r a la I i tte ra tu re ." 208 langue du pays. ( H , 205) Segrais, as a socie+y-wit, became famous for his sparkling mots which later appeared in a printed collection, Segra i s i ana. Most of these witty sayings lost "dans cette compilation, froide et informe, I ’ agr&ment qu'ils avaient dans la bouche de I ’ auteur" ( H , 198). The most significant of several passages from Segraisiana is his outspoken complaint against the too numerous gens de qua I i te elected to the French Academy. To this pointed criticism, D’Alembert gives hearty approval, "ce grand nombre de places mortes, si on I ’ en croit, f a it beaucoup de tort a cette compagnie." He also agrees with Segrais’ statement from Segra i s i ana : "L’ academie a besoin de grammairiens, de critiques, de savans dans les lancues, et de gens experimentes dans les beaux-arts" (IE , 199). In other words, D’Alembert is indicating an unusual fact— a poet, living in the reign of Loul s Z E , firmly believed that the French Acad emy, then in its early years, should function as a true republique des lettres. Concluding his remarks upon Segrais’ conception of the Ideal French Academy, the eulogist reminds us that he, too, had expressed simi lar convictions In the preface to his h Ioges, "au risque de scandaliser, non les poStes vraiment dignes de ce nom, mais une foule de versifica- teurs subalternes . . ( U , 199). j j W e have already referred to Segrais’ collaboration with M m e de La i jFayette In the writing of her two novels, La Princesse de Cleves and jZaPde. It is a fact of literary history that these prose works were originally published under Segrais’ own name. Accounting for this !unusuai arrangement, D'Alembert states: 209 II est vrai que ces deux romans parurent d'abord sous le nom de Segraiss il en parlait meme, dans les premiers temps, comme de son ouvrage, par management pour le prejuge barbare qui regnait alors, et dont la nation n’ est peut-§tre pas encore trop d^sabusee, qu’ une femme de qualite se dlgradait par le titr e d1 auteur, et a v ilis s a it son nom en le mettant sur la mime liste que celui des Corneille et des Racine. . . . (IE, 19^) When these two novels became such popular reading matter at the royal court, the name of their real author was divulged. Mm e de La Fayette revealed her identity "au risque d’ eprouver les tra its de I ’ envie, au lieu de ceux du ridicule, et Segrais passa tout au plus pour I ’ avoir aidee de ses avis " (IE, I9U). M m e de La Fayette’ s chief success as a novelist, particularly with her second novel, lay in her a b ility to disclose with understanding and sympathy that which Is hidden in the human heart. Those readers who share this "empathy" with the novelist will find in ZaFde "comblen cette expression simple et vraie d'un sentiment doux et profond est preferable a la nature factlce ou exageree de tant de romans modernes." D’Alembert points out that only women can express such tender, human feelings, "ces f 1 nesses de passion, peu faftes pour I'time violente des hommes, de ceux m §me qui savent le mieux sentir et exprimer I ’amour" ( I I , 19I4 .). W e may note in passing that by the beginning of the eighteenth cen tury this type of homage to womankind was not unusual. Many years after his collaboration with Mme de La Fayette, Segrais ! himself wrote several novels which showed no trace of that Indispensable lingredlent, la sensibillte exqulse, nor any degree of unusual Iiterary jmerit. He gives his final evaluation of Segrais the collaborator In I these words: i j II n’est pas le premier ecrivain a qui on a f a it honneur des 210 productions d'autrui, et qui n'a que trop montre, par ses propres ouvrages, qu’ il n 'e fa it pas assez riche de son propre fonds pour avoir des presens a faire. fTT, 195) As a translator Segrais made his chief contributions by translating V e r g il’ s Aeneid and Georgies into French verse. For a preface to each of these volumes, he composed a group of eglogues in which "sans i t r e traducteur de V irg ile , il avait essaye d'etre son im itateur." Summing up his subject’ s a b ility as a poet and translator, D’Alembert adds this unfavorable c ritic is m : "Mais soit im itateur, soit traducteur, il faut convenir que Segrais est reste fort inferleur a son modele" QU, 196). He mildly praises the poet's efforts as a translator in these words: Le principal merite du traducteur, e ’ est d’ avoir senti que V irg ile perdrait trop a n’ i t r e rendu qu’ en prose; mais II devaft s e n tir en m£me temps que e’ e t a it aux Desprlaux [Boileau] et aux Racine a le fa ire parler en vers. ( H , 197-198) A fter admitting that Segrais’ pastoral poems "celebrees par [Boileau]" were s t i l l popular with a few readers, the c r itic concludes that these eg Iogues "ecrites d’ un style tratnant et fa ib le , n’ offrent guere que la monotonie et la langueur presque inseparables aujourd'hui du genre pastoral." Like Boileau, D'Alembert accounts for the fa ilu re of most French poets to produce effective eg Iogues thus: "Ce genre est en e ffe t si lloigne de nos moeurs, qu’ il paraTt impossible d’ y faire goOter, a des lecteurs francais, la verite et la simpllcite de la j nature. . . . " (TT, 196) j J D'Alembert notes perfunctoriIy that Segrais’ meager collection of I jpoesl es fug I fives sometimes contain "quelques bons vers " (ZEE, 197). j | The biographer has much to say about the poet's relations with the i jwrlters of his own time. Segrais sometimes complained that contemporary 1 I I 21 I poets were "si peu recherches" and he believed that his own si eele had become "bien prosaTque" (XE, 200). D'AJembert then makes a comparison between the professional repu tation enjoyed by poets of Segrais' century with that of contemporary poets--those of the eighteenth century. The low esteem In which the 11tterateurs were held was the logical result of their mediocre a b ility . With frequent references to Segraisiana, D'Alembert comments further upon the influential literary cabales which, In Segrais' own words, "ne servent de rien pour faire durer un ouvrage " (IE , 200). D'Alembert's most severe criticisms are directed against Segrais' negative attitude toward two eminent contemporary writers— namely, Racine and Boileau, Indicating that the la tte r had spoken favorably of Segrais, "dans ces memes satires ou I I a si fo rt maltraite des ecrivains beaucoup plus estimables," he then addst "On a peine a concevoir com ment Segrais a pu manquer a ce point de proced& pour son fidele et presque seui panegyriste" (IE , 201). Segrais' extreme loyalty to hjs native Normandy was the only rea son— and a poor one at that— for the poet's Inexcusable failure to ^recognize Boileau, who had criticized Mademoiselle de Scudery and ;Corneille In his writings. Under no circumstances could there be any Justification for Segrais' unreasonable behavior, because j . . . le d ls ir de venger et de louer les poites normands, ses compa- triotes, ne devait pas rendre Segrais Injuste a I'egard de cet | Illu s tre ecrivain, qui ne lui avait pas, il est vral, donnl toujours j I'exemple de la plus exacte equitl dans ses jugemens, mais a qui | notre polsie, notre litte ra tu re et le bon goQt do!vent une reconnais- | sance eternelle. (XE, 201) ■ To summarize this final appraisal, we find that Segrais was "un I I 212 homme de beaucoup d'esprit, de moeurs aimables et honn§tes" and "un excellent litte ra te u r, et surtout un philosoche tres-estimable dans. . . sa conduite." W e must note that this Is not unqualified commendation, for D’Alembert adds that in no way should he be counted "au nombre de nos plus celebres poStes" (HI, 203). The primary importance of the "Eloge de Jean Segrais" lies in its value as a piece of we I I-deve I oped biographical writing. W e f ir s t become acquainted with Segrais, a member of two distinguished house holds. Despite a lack of detailed comment concerning Segrais' personal association with Mm e de Montpensier and M m e de La Fayette, D'Alembert does speak at length of the poet's collaboration as Iiterary advisor, particularly with Mm e de La Fayette. He has effectively used certain I terns of biographical Interest to reveal Segrais' exceptional individu alism and his strong convictions on certain religious matters. Similar ly, by using appropriate quotations from Segraisiana, the eulogist pre sents a well-rounded portrait of Segrais, the soclety-wit. The poet's literary achievements are nothing more than mediocre, states D'Alembert, his professional reputation resting mainly upon some scattered bon vers from the eglogues. The severest criticism centers around Segrais' almost unforgivable refusal to appreciate wholeheartedly! | the two most-celebrated contemporary men of letters, Boileau and Racine. Hidden within this sharp indictment we discover once more D'Alembert's consistent loyalty to the neoclassic tradition in both poetry and drama. To a certain extent, the "Eloge de Jean Segrais" is quite similar Jto the one on Du Marsais— although more readable— for it Is another of ! |D*Alembert's "catchaII" IIoges. In both the context and the appended 213 notes the biographer Introduces sometimes interesting and sometimes int4ress& information on several topics not directly related to his ; principal subject. Nevertheless, we s t i l l consider the "Eloge de Jean Segrais" an illuminating biographical study— an eighteenth-century portrait of a fascinating seventeenth-century figure. W e would not be wrong in giving to this chapter a su b title—A Study in Contrasts. No trio of Ii tt&rateurs could present a greater divergence both in personality and in literary achievements that Boileau, Perrault, and Segrais. F irst there is Boileau, the literary tyrant, a classical scholar, and a professional man of letters who manifests in his writings seme of the best and some of the less com mendable characteristics of the neociassic tradition. Then comes Perrault, the distinguished, energetic, and well-trained administrator whose reputation in the world of Iiterature does not rest upon his original writings. Finally, we have the likeable Segrais, a man of letters in name rather than in solid literary achievements. Boileau’ s most lasting claim to literary fame comes from his appli cation of basic concepts of versification, originally devised In part by Malherbe. So effectively did Boileau put into practice his rules that jhis verses proved unusually suitable as models for aspiring young poets.! ! | On this point D’Alembert remarks: . . . e’ est sur les vers de Despreaux [Boileau] qu’ fls do!vent, si I'on peut parier de la sorte, modeler leurs premiers essais, pour se p lie r de bonne heure a cette correction si n&cessairej comme les Jeunes eleves en peinture, pour acquerir la precision et la purete du dessin, doivent se former sur des figures dont les contours soient j austeres, et les muscles fortement exprim£s. (TT, 35&) | It is quite apparent that D’Alembert reveals a greater degree of 2\k admiration for Boileau, "fondateur et chef de I'ecole poetlque fran- i ijalse" and the author of the Art Poetlque, than for Boileau, " I * ecr I va I n - satlrlque." The reason for this decided preference may reside in the widely different personalities of D'Alembert and Boileau. The seven- jfeenth-century c r itic is harsh, outspoken, and quite fearless in his willingness to denounce his enemies or to c ritic iz e mediocre men of le t ters and, on occasion, even eminent ones. In direct contrast is D'Alembert— more tactful, less aggressive toward his enemies, and far I more subtle In his condemnation of those he cannot respect or admire. He seems to suggest this personal attitude when he writes: Car II faut blen remarquer, entre Despreaux [Boileau] et ses malheu- reux successeurs, cette difference tres-fScheuse pour eux, qu'I I a commence par des satires, et fin l par des ouvrages immortels; et qu'au; contra ire I Is ont commend par de mauvais ouvrages, et fin i par des satires plus d§plorables encore; conduits a la mechancete par I'lmpuis- sance, c'est le desespoir de n'avoir pu se donner d'exlstence par eux-m§mes qui les a ulceres et dechatnes contre I'existence des autres. ( I I , 37U-375) According to D'Alembert, the greatest weakness In Boileau's verse Is a lack of sens?bl11tl — the necessary and invaluable requisite of a truly creative mind. He lessens the severity of his criticism by stat- j i n g : | I On peut, II est v ra I, d&sirer ce dernier sens a Despreaux; mais il possede si super!eurement tous les autres, qu'a peine s'apercoit-on d u? j sens qui lui manque. On le regrette m Sm e d'autant moins, que les maitieres traltees par ce grand poSte ne paraissent pas I'e x lg e r; Je dis qu'elles ne paraissent pas I'exlger, ¥t_ Je m e garde blen d'ajouter qu'elles en interdisent I'usage. (IE, 361) In the "Eloge” of Boileau D'Alembert takes the opportunity to dis cuss such "secondary" topics as Corneille, Racine, Mol I ere, and the Querelle. His c ritic a l evaluation Is complete, objective, and quite Just and impartial for the most part. The copious notes, as well as the 215 [ fu ll textual m aterial, make the Boileau eulogy a valuable tre a tise on j some aspects of seventeenth-century lite ra ry history. Two major facts give l i f e and interest to the "Eloge de Charles j P errault": the subject's Invaluable contributions to the establishment of two royal academies, and his active p articipation in the QuereI Ie des Anciens et des Modernes, Of the three eulogies, the "Eloge de Jean Segrais" is the bio graphical masterpiece, for it is the liv e ly account of a very mediocre man of le tte rs who, through his own persistence and engaging personality, eventually "made good" not In the world of lite ra tu re , but in the haut monde of Caen, Paris, and Versailles. CHAPTER X FOUR PLAYWRIGHTS D'Alembert displayed Interest in the theater of his own time by selecting several eminent contemporary dramatists as subjects of his e loges. From the total number, four of the best and most representative have been selected for discussion. The playwrights are: Destouches and! Nivelle de La Chaussee, writers of comedy; La Motte and Cr&blllon the Elder, w riters of tragedy. "Eloge de Destouches” Despite the fa c t that tragedy sank to a low level In eig ht eenth-century France, the comic genres were much a liv e . The whole body ! of eighteenth-century comedy was equal to, If not more successful than, ; the total comic output of the preceding era. ; During D'Alembert's time there were several f i r s t - r a t e w riters of j ! ■comedy, although no single one attained the dramatic stature of a Moliere, There was a generous degree of experimentation In comedy, and! even In the "tw ilig h t zone" between comedy and tragedy. Of the v ario u s 1 experiments, one of the most character Is t ic was the comidie larmoyante. Moliere had stoutly maintained that there was no room for pathos and tears in comedy. However, during the eighteenth century the growth of an extensive sentimental trend in both arts and In letters became c learly apparent. M oliere's precept was taken less and less seriously; 217 and In the cornedie larmoyante, comic w riters made a determined e ffo r t toj mix laughter and tears, to touch the spectator’ s heart as well as his j in te lle c t. Thus the importance of D’Alembert's "Eloge de Destouches" j lie s — at least for the modern reader — largely in the fact that the sub je c t is presented as the forerunner, If not the innovator, of the tear- j ful comedy. This iloge was delivered before the French Academy on “ I August 25, 1776. As in some other eulogies where attention is focused mainly upon the 11terary accomplishments of the writers in question, thej life of Philippe Nericault Destouches ( 1680-175^+) Is sketched in with but I IttJe d e ta iI. Few facts are known concerning his early years which were not happyl ones. The young man’ s parents Insisted that he become "homme de robe, et ia nature ne le voulait pas." Preferring to obey his natural In stincts rather than his fa th e r’ s a rb itrary wishes, Destouches f i n a l ly ran away, . . . i I se sauva en gimlssant de la maison paternelle, qu’ il au ralt desire de ne q u itte r Jamais. C’est ainsi que la tyrannie des peres a plus d ’ une fois prodult dans les fam ilies le mime dlsordre que le despotisme dans Jes Stats, en formant les victimes de ('oppression a j | rompre mime les liens chers et sacres qui les attachaient au pouvoir I ligitfm e. ( I'l I , 1 j . o ! j . ) j Forced now to make his own liv in g , the desperate young man joined a I jgroup of itin e ran t comedians, whose profession was much despised by the i Jsociety of that time. Despite his unfortunate s itu atio n , Destouches was jdetermined to adhere to a rig id code of exemplary conducts I . . , il eut Ie courage d ’ avoir des moeurs, et d’ opposer au cruel a r r i t lance contre son e ta t, la dicence exemplaire de sa vie, quoiqu'il n’ eClt a espirer d'autre ricompense d'une conduite honnite et sage que j cette conduite mime. ( n i ) W As If more convincing evidence were necessary, D’Alembert continues with 218 this remark: ; I La vertu n’ a jamais plus de drott a nos hommages, que lorsqu’ e lle se j montre dans toute sa purete sans oser m£me se f la t t e r d’ obtenlr un peu d’ estime, seul avantage dont le vice ne I ’ a it pas encore to u t-a -fa lt i privee. ( i n , I 4 O I 4 . ) j After wandering from town to town, Destouches, now head of the troop of comedians, eventually arrived with his players in Switzerland, ! where the Marquis de Puisieux was French Ambassador, It also happened that the ambitious young Destouches delivered before this distinguished ; i 1 :gentleman a eulogistic oration, ,rpleine d’ esprit et de finesse." Con- j vinced that Destouches was destined by nature "a quelque chose de mleux qu’ a representer, au fond de la Suisse, des comedies francaises," De Puisieux offered the actor a post as private secretary, which he gladly accepted (XEE, J 4 O i 4.-I 1. 0 5 ). With financial security and more leisure time, Destouches began to ■ write verse, "sur des objets, qui pour I ’ ordinaire tentent peu les jeunes versificateurs, sur des objets edifians." In order to receive iprofess Iona I advice and moral encouragement, the aspiring poet submitted! Isome of his verse, "ces productions chretiennes et poetiques," to the I I I jcrltical eye and satirical mind of Boileau. D'Alembert gives a verbatim! j i jaccount of the reply and then adds: I j Les fautes que Despreaux [Boileau] relevait, avec une c i v i l i t l si p&nible, dans les vers quMI avait regus, semblent prouver que le po8te novice ne donnalt pas encore par ses premiers essais de brI I — lantes esp&rances. Mais le legislateur du Parnasse n'en fut que plus habile a deviner, en lui annongant ses succes futurs, suppose neanmolns que cet arbitre severe par I at en cette circonstance comme Destouches parlait sur la religion, c'est-a-dI re, qu’ il ecriv tt ce qu’ I I pensalt. . . . Quolqu’ il en soit, Destouches ne tarda pas a v e rifie r cette prediction, Ironique ou sincere. C m , J 4 .05-I4 .06) 219 It was during his soujourn in Switzerland that Destouches began to write comedies. His f ir s t one, Le Curieux Impertinent, "qui fut j o u e I dans tout le pays, et re£u avec transport," was followed by several i | | 'others which met with varying degrees of success. 1 | In 1717 the young playwright was asked by the Due d'Orleans to j |accept a more responsible diplomatic assignment In London, where he j j 'la te r secretly married an attractive English lady. Upon his return to iFrance after an absence of six years, Destouches anticipated a promo tion; but with the sudden death of the regent, his aspirations for fur- ! ther advancement quickly faded. The philosophic Destouches resigned ^without bitterness from the diplomatic service. Happily settled in the | jsmall town of Metun near Paris, the former government representative j j I |late r refused to become French Ambassador at the Russian court. Com- j Imentlng upon this refusal, D'Alembert seems to echo the closing lines of! ICandide: 1 I------------ I I . . . II [Destouches] ne balanfa pas a refuser cette place* mais II j la refusa en veritable sage, c'est-a-dine, sans ostentation comme sans e f fo r t ; il prefers Ie p la is ir de cultiver son jardin a I'honneur d'al ler jouer a huit cents Ileues un role Important. ( I l l , i+IO) An unusual but direct result of Destouches'unwlI I Ingness to go to Russia was a series of attacks In the form of b itte r satires launched j I against him and other contemporary writers. D'Alembert describes these satirical poems "des vers si detestables" In severely condemnatory language: . . . ces pltoyables satires, si ripandues autrefois sous Ie nom de brevets de calotte, 1 mlprisees aujourd'hu! au point de n'oser plus *A calotte Is a small black cap worn by priests and cardinals. In 220 meme se montrer, et regardees avec justice comme les plus mlserables productions de la mechancete sans esprit et sans goGt. ( 1.1.1, i+10) Even Fontenelle did not escape these barbed attacks. Fortunately ■for Destouches, he was completely Immune— no doubt, because of his Iso lated residence, w ce phllosophe s o lita ire , renferml dans son ermltage champltre." D’Alembert expresses a sincere wish that Destouches’ calm ! j a 111 tude, ’’cette Incurie si sage de notre palslble acadlmlclen," may | prove "une u tile le^on aux hommes estlmables que poursuit la basse j ienvle" ( H I , J+lO-it-l I ). Prior to his re tra lte philosophlque, Destouches became a member of ! the French Academy, an honor which he merited a ll the more, since the ; I Ipald claque was not yet an Institution. W e have observed that D'Alem- i l : I : j I Ibert frequently does not accept altogether the French Academy’ s official! •appraisal of Its members’ I Iterary accomplishments. He does, however, ! jfully endorse the assembly’ s opinion of Destouches as a man of letters l(m, 4H ). | Following his election to the French Academy, Destouches completed two notable plays, Le Phllosophe Marie and Le Glorleux. The la tte r Is considered his masterpiece. He also wrote several other plays which nsans essuyer de chute humlllante, furent mldlocrement accuelI 11es." B itterly disappointed over the cool reception given his later dramas, the aging playwright turned his attention to religious matters, "des 1702 there was formed wun rlglment de la calotte"— "une Institution burlesque, fondle . . . par quelques Jeunes o fflc le rs et courtIsans." As a form of amusement and escape from boredom they wrote poems, ". . . fustlgeant en termes satlrlques les dlfauts ou les aventures scan- daleuses des rielplendalres" ( Larousse, I , 861). Thus, brevets de caIotte became the name for these satires which were circulated at Ver sa! I'fes In notebook form during the eighteenth century. 221 sentimens de religion qul avaient toujours i t e dans le fond de son coeur” ( m , i+1 6) . Several highly respected people who supported Destouches in his ! new a c tiv itie s were much surprised that he should have selected as his ■chief b a ttle fie ld ”un journal principalement destin i a des e x tra its de 'romans et de comedies, a des logogryphes et des enlgmes.” To this valid c ritic is m , the doughty theologian replied that he had chosen the Mercure; because this perio dical, ”par la f u t i l i t e mime de son objet, It a i t plus; lu que Ies autres, et surtout de ceux q u 'il avait resolu de convertlr, et qur i I se f l a t t a i t de conf rondre." To this D'Alembert adds, In his inimitable, subtle manner: II supposait, et nous souhaitons q u 'iI ne se solt pas trompe, que des > tite s occupies de comedies, de romans et d'enigmes, accuei llera ien t avec le mime empressement ses graves dissertations, et trouveraient encore, apres leurs lectures friv o le s , du goQt et de I ' i n t l r i t pour une lecture si serieuse. f i l l , i+17). As a poet and a C hristian, Destouches attempted to silence his iadversaries by various methods. One of the most e ffe c tiv e was the e p i- j gram, of which he wrote several hundred. Some of these semlrel igious I s a tiric a l verses were printed In the Mercure. Destouches attacked the j heretics along with the unbelievers, for he wrote, rtdes ipigrammes sati-^ I j Iriques contre Luther, Calvin, Bayle et Desbarreaux" ( i l l , I4 .27). Despite his lack of theological training Destouches, Inspired with the burning zeal of an evangelist, also wrote lengthy dissertations on obscure prophecies. These prose works, however, were no better than his satirical Ipigrammes which D'Alembert considered ” le delassement de ses travaux , . . et I'amusement phiIosophIque de ses promenades s o li taires” ( I I I , I4 .26). 22a I II* Is extremely d i f f i c u l t , I f not Impossible at the present moment,! | to account fo r the great degree of attention which the eulogist gives toj Destouches’ late conversion. D’Alembert d e fin ite ly has no word of com- j j mendation for the playwright’ s polemic works } on the contrary, he r i d l - : cules the semi re IIglous epigrams and the theological theses. However, j | in attaching such Importance by way of rid ic u le to these works, D’Alem- : bert may once more be attacking his old enemy I ’ InfSme, 1 There Is another possible explanation; D’Alembert’ s unusual and j : j quite exaggerated Interest In Destouches’ religious writings could be a defense of the legitimate stage and its actors. W e may remember that V o lta ire did a sim ilar service for Adrienne Le Couvreur who was denied a Christian burial because she had been an actress, a profession that j ■ |was despised. j | i Death came to Destouches at the height of his religious a c tiv itie s .! j i jSeveral years la te r, a grateful king gave the children of the deceased i ; lauthority to have th e ir Illu s trio u s fa th e r’ s dramatic works printed at I ! ithe royal press In the Louvre. This posthumous edition contained two ! | • fa rc es : the Fausse Agnes and the Tambour Nocturne. In describing the j actual nature of these plays, D’Alembert makes this Interesting, Implied comparison between the frankly gay farce and the increasingly " te a r fu l” comedies of the eighteenth century; Ce ne sont guere a la vef-ite que deux farces, mals pleines de mouve- ment et de gaiet&, et propres au moins a s a tis fa ire cette nombreuse partie des spectateurs, quI ne va chercher au theatre qu’ un amusement f a i t pour le delasser, et qui ne se pique pas de r a f f in e r beaucoup sur ses p la is irs . Le merlte de ces sortes de pieces, quoique tr e s -in fe - rie u r a celul d’ un comique noble et d& licat, ne Iaisse pas d'avoir son prix dans un temps ou Thalle a presque oublie de r lr e , et souvent mime ne s a lt pas pleurer. ( I l l , 419) 223 In this direct allusion to Thalie, the Muse of Comedy, the eulogist suggests that the pure comedy of laughter Is being replaced by a tear fu l, sentimental, and even grave comedy, a new genre, as the comedle Iarmoyante and the drame. Destouches' f ir s t great success, as we have seen, had been Le Curleux Impertinent. This was followed by another we I I-received play, L1Ingrat, the principal character of which was Geronte, a prototype of the author's father. In comparing Destouches' Geronte with Moliere's Tartufe, D'Alembert notices a marked sim ilarity in personality and a t t i tude. At the same time he points out the different impressions which Tartufe and Geronte made upon their respective audiences: Le public, en rendant justice aux details de la comedle de I ' Ingrat, trouva le rSle principal trop odieuxj ce n 'lt a l t pas le vraf defaut de la piece, car le Tartufe n'est pas moins odieux que I*Ingrat, et le tableau que Mollere en a tracl est le chef-d'oeuvre du theatre; mats c'est que I ' hypocris Ie, si dltestable par la masque dont e ile se couvre, est en m ®m e temps ridicule par la transparence du masque, et I'es t si bien, que dans son pieux ressentiment contre ceux quI la devoilent et qui I'Immolent, son tourment secret est moins de sentir qu'on la halt, que de sentir qu'on la mlprlsej I'ingrat au contralre, qui ne pense pas m§me a £tre corned ten comme le tartufe, repousse le rire pour n'exciter que I ' indignation, et lafsse par consequent peu de: prise au polte comique, qui doit inspirer pour le vice encore plus de mepris que de haine. Destouches sentit la verite de ce principe, et ne s'en Icarta plus dans toutes ses autres pieces: I'aversion que les mechans Inspirent, d i s a i t - i l, peut fla tte r leur detestable amour-propre, parce que cette aversion tien t a la crainte; le moyen le ^ ■ de les decourager, est de les hum!tier par le ridicule. fiTTj j The interest and importance of this striking passage lie In the i fact that I t is a finely-drawn comparison of the hypocri te and the 1ngrat. According to D'Alembert's analysis, Tartufe Is a richer and jsafer type for comic treatment because of his persistent attempts to jhide his real, despicable self behind a mask of hypocrisy. G&ronte, who 22k Is not clever enough to attempt to fool anyone, Is only despised and ridiculed by his audience. As a youth Destouches had suffered harsh treatment at the hands of an unreasonable, extremely ambitious father. Fortunately, in his declining years the old man Veconnut alors les larmes aux yeux ses in justices, aveu rare et presque herofque pour un pere 8ge qui a t o r t ” ( n r , 1+07). Despite the fact that Destouches’ third comedy, L’ lrresolu, re ceived a rather cool reception, I t was "ecrite d’ a ille u rs avec soin, et soutenuepar quelques situations ccmiques.w A fte r mentioning L' I rreso I u was s t i l l being performed on occasion, D’Alembert adds this thought: Tout le monde en a retenu le dernier vers que d i t l ’ lrresolu, apres avoir enfin choisi pour femme une des deux personnes entre les- quelles II a balance dans tout le cours de la piece: "J'aurais mieux f a i t , je crols, d'epouser Celimene.,t (TTT, 14.08) This Is a b r i l li a n t comic stroke upon which he expatiates fu rther: C'est un de ces tr a its qu'on aime a c it e r , un de ces tr a its qui seuls valent tout u n r 6 le , et qui tout naturels qu’ ils paraissent, sont blen plus rares dans nos comedies modernes, que des scenes entleres de Jargon sans talen t, et de p ersifflag e sans gaiete, applaudies par la multitude qui ne les entend pas, et s iffle e s par les gens de goGt qui n’ ont que trop le malheur de les entendre. ( m , 1 +08) D’Alembert makes a critical evaluation of the relative popularity of Destouches’ next two plays, Le Medisant and Le M&chant: Le Medisant, qui fut mieux re^u dans sa nouveaute que I ’ Irresolu, et par cette raison honori de plusieurs satires, s'est aussi malntenu jusqu'a prlsent sur la scene. II est vrai qu'une autre comedie, dont le sujet est a peu pres le meme, celle du Mlchant, ecrite avec tant de superiority, et I ' une de cel les dont no'tre theatre comique peut encore se faire honneur dans sa chute et dans sa disette, a rendu le public plus frold sur le Medisant, qui depuis cette epoque a reparu plus rarement et avec moins d'avantage. . . . (Z E E , 1+08) Upon returning from England, Destouches wrote his two most Importani 225 playss Le Philosophe Marie and Le Glorieux. The former, a cornedfe de moeurs et de caractere, enjoyed "un succes presque sans exemple." Its general theme was somewhat autobiographical. II [Destouches] s’ e ta it marie en Angleterre avec une personne almable, mais ce mariage exigealt alors le secret, et le secret fut viole, En accommodant ce sujet au theatre, Destouches y ajouta tout ce qui pou- valt le rendre piquant sur la scene} I'amende honorable falte a I'amour et au mariage par un philosophe [Ariste] qui, apres avoir longtemps brave I 1un et I'a u tre , a fin i par s'enchaTner secretement a leur charj la crainte qu* i I a de rendre publique sa defaite, toute chere qu'elle est a son coeur; les incartades et les brusquerles d’ un tra itan t, oncle du phi losophe [Geronte], qui n'approuve nullement I'union contractee par son neveu, parce qu’ elle derange ses vues financieres pour I'e ta b lir avantageusement, et pour le rendre riche sans se soucier de le rendre heureux; enfin le rSle, episodique a la verity, mais neuf et original, d’ une femme capricieuse et bizarre [Celiante], . . . rSle qui je tte dans la piece de 1'action et du mouvement, et y prodult des scenes gaies et the§trales. C 'etalt encore dans sa f am i I Ie que I ’ auteur avait trouve ce caractere. II le dessina d'apres une belle-soeur qu'iI avait, et dont I ’ humeur fan- tasque lui fournlt les tra its les plus plaisans de ce tableau; mais il eut grand so in, com rne on I ’ imagine aisement, de garder le secret a son' modele. ( I l l , 2 + 1 I — iq . 12) Sainte-Beuve himself could scarcely have related in a more adroit manner* the biographical facts connected with this 11 terary production,' Unfortunately for Destouches, at the premiere of his Le Philosophe Marie, his sister-in-law quickly recognized her prototype in Celiante. Her reaction was quite similar to that of other women In like circum stances s . . . cette femme irrite e se vengea comme e lle put, . . . elle etouffal pourtant enfin, non la violence, mais I'explosion de sa colere, par la; j crainte qu'on lui insplra, que le poite Incorrigible ne trouvSt dans J cette colere m£me I'heureuse matiere d'une nouvelle scene comlque, et i ne lui fQt* ainsi redevable d»un second succes, aussi f^cheux pour e lle | que le premier. (TTT, lj.12) | For us today Le Philosophe Marie appears weak In dramatic action i land complicated Intrigue. It does, however, reveal the author's skill i iln character portrayal, particularly of Ariste and Celiante— this 226 strange, capricious woman, "qui neanmoins aime autant qu'une femme ca- prlcieuse peut aimer" ( i l l , i+12). In fact, we may suggest that the playwright possesses to a re arkable degree a psychological perception 2 of human nature. There Is in this comedy a passage that nearly cries out for com mentary from D'Alembert. It is one which could, mutatis mutandi, almost be taken as the playwright's own Impression of the quarrel raging around the whole parti phiIosophlque. It is Glronte who f ir s t poses the ques- Qu'est-ce qu'un philosophe? Un fou, dont le langage N'est qu'un tissu confus de faux raisonnements; Un esprit de travers, qui, par ses arguments, Pretend, en plein midi, faire voir des etoiles; Toujours, apres I'erreur, courant a pleines voiles, Quand il croit follement suivre la verit&j Un bavard, Inutile a la socletl, Coiffe5 d'opinions, et gonfle d'hyperboles, Et qui, vide de sens, n'abonde qu'en paroles. (TV. i I i . I4 .Q-F7) Ariste, however, interrupts his uncle's diatribe with this quite convincing statement: Moderez, s 'iI vous p la tt, cette injuste fureur: Vous 6tes, Je le vols, dans la commune erreur; Vous pelgnez un pedant, et non un philosophe. ( 58- 60) Geronte replies with this pointed remark: "Mais je les crois tous deux ta llie s en m &m e etoffe" (6 l). W e can readily see how wholeheartedly D'Alembert should have ap proved of Ariste's reply: j For specific examples see: (a) Ariste's speech to Damon concern- jing M llite , his wife. C E uvres Dpamatiques de N. Destouches, New Edition, qx (Paris, 1820) X I I I . (b) Damon's direct condemnation of Celiante and jher capricious nature (11, 111), 227 Non. La philosophle est sobre en ses discours, Et croit que les meilleurs sont toujours les plus courts; Que de la v irite I ’ on atteint I ’excellence Par la reflexion et le profond silence. Le but d’ un philosophe est de si bjen agir, Que de ses actions II n’ a it point a rougir. II ne tend qu’ a pouvoir se mattriser soi-meme: C’est la qu’ I I met sa glolre et son bonheur supreme. Sans vouloir imposer par ses opinions, II ne parle jamais que pas [sic] ses actions. Loin qu’en systemes vains son esprit s’ alambique, litre vrai, juste, bon, c’ est son systeme unique. Humble dans le bonheur, grand dans I'adversite, Dans la seule vertu trouvant la voluptl, Falsant d’ un doux lo is ir ses plus cheres del ices, Plaignant les vicieux et detestant les vices; Voi la le philosophe; et s 'iI n’ est ainsi f a it , II usurpe un beau titre et n'en a pas I ’ e ffe t. (62-79) W e wonder what motives led D’Alembert to evade such a golden oppor tunity for propagandizing the cause nearest to his heart, le mouvement philosophique. Le Glorieux Is praised by D’Alembert In these glowing terms: Quelques annees apres, Destouches donna le Glorieux, qui re^ut, comme le Philosophe marie, les plus grands applaudlssemens, par le naturel et la varlete des caracteres, par le contraste des situations, par le comlque noble et de bon goOt qui anime toute la piece, enfin par les scenes touchantes que I'auteur a su menager au milieu de ce comlque, et qui, loin d’ y produire une bigarrure choquante, repandent sur 1’ ouvrage une sorte de dignlte que |a gaiete du fond n’ a f f a ib lif pas. ( H I , i+ 1 2 ) The main reason for the 11terary importance of the GI orleux is that It Is the f ir s t clear precursor of the cornedie larmoyante: I Ajoutons, a la louange de Destouches, que le Glorieux est la premiere comldie ou le pathitique, quf paraTt si Itranger a ce genre, a lt osi s’ introdulre avec succes. (IT T , i+12) I I D’Alembert compares the Glorieux with Tartufe, showing clearly that "tollere did not introduce into his comedy any pathos, lest he weaken "le sentiment profond de haine qu’ I I voulait accumuler et concentrer sur le principal personnage." Destouches, having no such desire to portray 228 the dire effects of an overwhelming passion, possessed le merite de sentir tout le parti qu'I I pouvait tire r de ce sujet, pour y mller I 'i n t e r l t qui produit les larmes, avec les tra its que le ridicule f a it naTtre. II a su en e ffe t a II Ier et fondre si heureuse- ment dans la piece le pathetique et le comique, que le GlorIeux est tout a la fois, et I'epoque de ce nouveau genre, et Ie mode Ie de I'a r t et de la mesure que demande I T a I II age dangereux de deux sentimens si d i sparates. (TEE, 413) For later writers of the comldie larmoyante D'Alembert has a word of criticism. Destouches made the element of in te rlt subordinate to that of ga i e te , ”si essentielle a la vraie comedie.,t His successors, however, gave to the pathetigue a major role and to the comlque only a secondary one which ne peut guere le jouer qu'avec desavantage; car s’ iI est d if f ic ile d'amener I ’ inherit avec les ris , il I ’est bien plus encore d’exciter le rire au milieu des larmes, (H E , 413) This change in balance eventually resulted In the disappearance of the precious gaiety which Destouches avait su conserver dans ses pieces, et qui dans celles de ses successeurs n’ a, si on ose le dire, qu’ un rire d’ apprlt et de commande, a dlsparu enfin presque entierement de notre theltre, pour falre place au drame purement bourgeois; genre indecls et pour ainsi dire hermaphrodIte, dont I'avantage, II est vrai, est de nous o f f r lr un inherit plus proche de nous, mais dont I'ec u ell, plus redoutable qu'on ne pense, est I'extrlme fa c ilite d’ y Itr e mediocre, et que par cette raison il ne faut ni proscrire dans les bons ecrivains, ni encourager dans les autres. (TTT, 413) Undoubtedly, we must consider this quotation one of the key pas sages in this lloge. Here D'Alembert shows quite plainly the close I jrelationship between the comedle larmoyante and the drame, as conceived by Diderot. He is quick to discover the besetting weakness of the drame which is Its inherent flavoring of mediocrity, both as to subject and as to treatment. By developing a marked contrast In the personality of two male 229 characters, the playwright successfully interjects le sentiment doux et tendre into the Glorieux, The Count of Tufiere, Glorieux, Is an extremely seIfIsh,conceited young man who seeks to win the heart of Isabel, daughter of Lislmon, a wealthy bourgeois.^ Glorieux's father, through a series of misfortunes, has lost his noble rank and family for tune. The Count is well aware of these facts. He does not know, how ever, that both his father and sister, under assumed names, are acting as servants In the Lisimon household. Finally Lycandre, the father, reveals his true identity to his daughter and son; then he informs them he Intends to make himself known to Isabel and Lisimon. Thus does Destouches cleverly create an ideal situation for the element of pathos and tears. Although the angry and humiliated, but s t i l l selfish son begs his father to defer this fateful plan, Lycandre, unmoved, replies: J'entends. La vanite m e declare a genoux Qu’ un pere infortune n’ est pas digne de vous. Oui, oui, j ’ ai tout perdu par I ’ orguell de ta mere, Et tu n’ as herite que de son caractere. cnz. m .56-59) Another reason for the importance of the GlorIeux is indicated In this passage: Plus d’ un vers de cette piece a f a it proverbe, ce qui est le plus grand honneur que des vers de comedle puissent obtenir; quelques uns m6me de ces vers meritent, par la noblesse la plus touchante, d 'itr e places parmi les tra its sublimes de la scene francaise. (n r, i+l3) D’Alembert takes for an example the f ir s t couplet from Lycandre’ s speech which we have quoted. The play offers many more such as: ” 11 jest bon quelquefois de s'aveugler so!-m§me, / Et blen souvent I ’erreur jest le bonheur supreme” (IT . lv .95-96). I 3 | Pasqutp, the valet, describes quite frankly the real character of [his vain and foolish young master (I. I v. 5-20). 230 D’Alembert makes one Interesting observation about the plot of the play. Destouches had o rig in a lly planned that in the denouement the young Count would be ju s tly punished for his pride and f a ls it y by seeing Isabel become the wife of his r i v a l , P h llln te , Unfortunately, for the playwright, the celebrated actor QuinauIt-Dufresny, who was to play the Glorieux, declared ”qu’ FI ne consentirait jamais a jouer le role d'un homme econduit et puni," Much against his w i l l , Destouches was forced to revise the plot, 1 11 I la defigura en gemissant, pour lu! procurer I ’ avantage d’ i t r e jouee comme II le d e sira it. " Other playwrights had sim ilar d i f f i c u ltles : On a d it de quelques autres pieces, que les rSles avaient efe f a its pour les acteursj dans le Glorleux, les acteurs semblaient avoir ete fa it s pour leurs roles, et presque les avoir fa its eux-mlmes. Si I'on en c ro lt les plaintes des gens de le ttre , plus d'un comedlen les a forces a mutller ainsi leurs ouvrages, et ne les a pas aussi bien dldommages. ( I'Il, i+lF) Toward the end of his IIoge D'Alembert begins a lengthy discussion of Destouches and Dufresny, another contemporary playwright, "qui b r i l l a i t a peu pres dans le mime temps sur la scene." Both men, b itte r riv a ls , were quite unjust in their accusations of each other. In D'Alembert's opinion Dufresny committed an unpardonable sin: Mais Dufresny, loin de reconnattre les talens de son antagoniste, lui refu s alt jusqu'a I ' espri t ; et I'on en sera moins etonne, quand on saura qu'I I osaft mime le refuser a Moliere; c'est du moins de quoi I'accusalt Destouches, qui, de son cSte, et comme par rep resallles | d 'in ju s tic e , refusal t le bon sens a Duf resny. ( i l l , J 6) Certain men of letters outside of France gave Destouches a place of Importance, "immediatement apres celul qui, de leur aveu comme du n6tre, i |occupe seul le premier rang, I'unique et inimitable M o lie re ." D'Alembert explains further in what way he personally considers Destouches in fe rio r 231 to MolIere and far superior to contemporary writers of comedy: Plus occupe en glneral des caracteres que de I'In trig u e , notre acade- micfen est in flrie u r sur ce point au seul Molier e, qui a si heureuse- ment riuni ces deux genres de m&rite; le comique de tous les autres, plus attachant par I*Intrigue que par les caracteres, est plus assorti a des convenances purement nationales, a notre maniere d'Stre, de voir et de sentir, a nos ridicules propres, a nos travers particuliers, Le 6 1 or i eux, le Medisant, 11 I rreso I u, sent, ainsi que le Mi san thrope, le . Tartufe et I ' Avare, a peu pres Tes m&mes de Lisbonne a Paris et de Paris a Pltersbourgj tous les peuples y reconnaissent les originaux que la nature leur a mis sous les yeux. . . . ( H I , 1+20) In his notes D’ Alembert adds a final word of praise for Destouches, who possesses the a b ility to use most effective language: " [il] a si bien su tir e r parti du langage et du ton de ce qu'on appelle parmi nous la bonne compagnie" f i l l , 1 + 29). The closing paragraph of this eIoge Is a generous tribute to the great Moliere, who was never seated among the Forty Immortals: Heureux qui salt, comme Moliere, joindre a la verite des caracteres la chaleur de I ’ action, a la peinture des sottises locales le tableau des moeurs humaines, a la justesse du dialogue la plaisanterie la plus vive et la plus gale.’ Peintre fidele et interessant, non-seulement de sa nation, mais de toutes les autres, non-seulement de son slecle, mais des sulvans, II pourra mettre sur ses tableaux I ’ inscrIption qu'un artiste grec mettait sur Jes siens: A I a p o s te r!ti; et il n'aura point a craindre le mot de Fontenelle sur une mauvaise ode qui avait ce m Sm e t itr e : Cel a n’ ira pas a son adresse. ( I l l , 1+21) This &loge Is a fully-developed criticism in which the author uses biographical facts not simply for their own anecdotal interest, but to help his listeners and readers understand more clearly the particular nature of Destouches' plays. Possibly, the only exception is the some what baffling matter of D’Alembert’ s Inslstance upon Destouches' con suming interest in religion during his old age. I There Is another reason for the excel lent quality of this c ritic a l j piece. The hors d'oeuvre for which Destouches is the pretext are purely 232 literary ones In this Instance. Therefore, they are much more pertinent to the main subject than is the case in many of the other eloges. In fact, we may be grateful that D'Alembert takes this opportunity to dis cuss Moliere and to reveal his clear-sightedness with respect to the pi tfa lIs of the cornedie larmoyante and the drame. "Eloge de Nivelle de La Chaussee" In the matter of the tearful comedy Destouches remained a precursor. The real Innovator was Pierre-Claude Nivel le de La Chaussee ( 1692— I 75^4-)- During the eighteenth century there arose a disagreement regarding the melange des genres because It represented such a departure from the neo classic tradition. With keen perception, D'Alembert realized that the new type of play foreshadowed by Destouches' effo rts would gradually become more popular with audiences living In an age already very d iffe r ent from that of Louis > ( IV and Mol iere. Concerning D’Alembert's point of view, we have this interesting comment from Clarence D. Brenner and Nolan A. Goodyear: He [D'Alembert] took a middle ground, and defended the comedle Iarmoyante because comedy of character had already been brought to its apogee by MolIere, because the original characters and types, being necessarily limited in number, had already been described, and because there was need of rejuvenating the art by new conceptions and combina tions. The fact Is that comedy as represented by Mol iere, which had struggled along In the hands of lesser geniuses and had lost one by | one tts Molleresque qualities, is fin a lly dead; emotion has been sub- j stituted for laughter, and situations and conditions for character.4 ! While this observation places D'Alembert quite accurately in an I [intermediate position, the reasons for his taking the "middle ground" ! . ! Eighteenth-Century French Plays (London, 1927), p. 262, 233 are not entirely those recorded In the passage. In approving of the melange des genres, D'Alembert was in agreement; with two of his distinguished fel Iow ph i 1osophes: Diderot and, to a lesser degree, Voltaire. Consequently, he could hardly avoid praising the most flagrant me Iangeur of his time, La Chauss&e, He sincerely admired this playwright for his participation in a I Iterary revolt, "la rlv o Ite du haut et bas Parnasse confre les heresies anti-poetiques de La Motte,w In commending his subject for such an attitude, D'Alembert demonstrated his basic loyalty to the neoclassic tradition. The comldie larmoyante as conceived by La Chaussee is a comedle de caractere et de moeurs in which there are ( I) an Interplay of le comique et le pathetique— that is, le melange des genres; and (2) a pervading element of sens IbI 11t§. There is a thin plot usually based upon either mistaken identity, a slight misunderstanding, or the fateful result of an unwise decision. In some cases, as with Le Prljuge a La Mode, the plot centers around a social prejudice and Its attendant ethical prob lems. In La Chausslds comedies Iarmoyantes, we shall discover the same moods, character types, and s im i 1ar mot Ifs as In the popular novels of the time. Pierre Trahard clearly points out this resemblance In his jstudy of ei ghteenth-century sensibl 1 1 t e t I j . . . I'auteur du Pr6jug6 a la Mode se borne a transposer sur la scene j ce que le public applaud it dans le roman; la matiere est pr§te, il j I'u t ilis e . Ses com&dies, Jou&es entre 1733 et 173k, sont contempo- j raines des comedies de Marivaux et des romans de P r e v o s f . 5 i ^Les MaTtres de la SensiblI Ite Francaise au XVTIIe Siecle ( 17 15— 1789) (Paris, I93I-), T L , 9. ‘ ! 2 3 1 + Accounting for the playwright’ s success, Trahard also states: Pour comprendre le succes r e la tif de La Chaussee, II ne faut pas s l- parer celul-ci de Marivaux, ni surtout de Prlvost et de Voltaire, car il travaille dans le mime sens que ces trois Icrivainsj modestement II appule leur e ffo rt, et, s’ i I prltend falre a son tour oeuvre orlginale, c'est parce qu’ I I franchit le pas qui slpare la sensiblI Ite de la senslblerie. ( U , 9-10) Before we discuss this crucial aspect of La Chaussie’ s plays, we must firs t consider his c ritic a l works. As a very young person he became deeply interested in books and literature. II s’ y Iivra avec une passion si vraie, qu’ iI se contents long-temps du p la is ir si doux et si pur qu’ elles font goOter a ceux qui les cultivent pour elle-mlmes et dans le silence, sans aucun motif de glot re et d’ amour-propre. ( H I , 387-398) La Chaussle showed his f ir s t and secret attempts at creative w rit ing, productions poltiques, to several friends among whom was La Motte, "qui, entre autres qua I Itls estlmables, avait ceI Ie d’ encourager et de falre valoir les talens naissans." Later on, however, their friendship became less cordial: M. de La Chaussie, quelque sensible qu’ i I ftlt a I ’ami t i l de cet inglnieux Icrivain, ne crut pas que sa reconnaissance dOt s ’ ltendre jusqu’ a trahir les in tlr lts du bon goOt, lorsqu'iis lui semblaient menaces. ( I l 1, 388) Several years later the aspiring young I Ittlra te u r showed his strong disapproval of La Motte’ s "heretical” rejection of certain tra d i tional ideas concerning poetry. L'EpTtre de Clio a M. Bercy, La jChaussee’ s f ir s t publication, was an attack upon "les paradoxes de La ^otte sur la polsie" (TTT, 388). | Concerning the literary quality and polemic value of what proved to |be a highly successful critic a l work, D’Alembert mentions, | ! "le m lrIte mime de la nouvelle Ip ttre , ou la polsie I t a i t vengle comme j elle devait I ’ lt r e , c’est-a-dire, en vers ilegans et harmonieux." i ( m , 388).......................................... ......__...................... .............................. .............. 235 . Gustave Lanson speaks of the Epttre thus In his great study of La Chaussle’ s life and work: L'Epttre a C1io continue la guerre dlclarle par La Chaussee a La Motte et aux corrupteurs de la langue framjaise. II ne s'ag lt plus d’ un ouvrage partlculter, mais de I'ensemble meme des theories que soute^ nait La Motte, suivi de Fontenelle, de Terrasson, de Trublet. . . . La Chaussle had read his Epttre privately to a few friends before Its publication in 1751, so^e time after La Motte's death. Voltaire commended thts c ritic a l work most highly because, as Lanson remarks, Aussi f i t - I I bon accuell a I ' Epttre de C lio : cette condamnatlon des novateurs en f a it de langage venait a son heure, Elle raI 1ia les suffrages de tous ceux qui s' InteressaIent a la conservation de la belle langue francaise; elle f i t un nom a son auteur. (p. 101) According to this explanation, we may conclude that D’Alembert's effusive praise of La Chaussee’ s verse Is probably not his own Impartial judgment, but rather an echo of V o lta ire ’ s a I together-extravagant e s ti mate. Encouraged by the overwhelming popularity of his Epttre, and upon the advice of flatterin g friends, La Chaussle began his dramatic career. His f ir s t play entitled La Fausse Antipathie, a three-act comedy, lacked verisimilitude in treatment and plot. Nevertheless, continues D’A!embert, . . . quelques situations singulieres, quelques scenes comlques, et une sorte de mouvement dans la marche de la piece, mlriterent a ; I'auteur un nombre de reprlsentations suffisant pour I ’encourager a del j nouveaux effo rts. (T O , 389) Even though the playwright called a later comedy, Mllanide, his masterpiece, Le Prejugl a La Mode, "dont le succes comp let passa ses i 6 j Les Origines du Drame Contemporain; Nivelle de La Chaussle et la fcomldie Larmoyante (Paris, 1903), p. 98. 236 dlslrs et ses esperances," is generally considered La Chaussee's real chef-d'oeuvre and the best example of the cornedie larmoyante. The Pr&Juge is a I so a comfedie de moeurs et de caractere. Its mot 1f re I a tes to a well-established precedent of the haut monde: the Impropriety of a husband In admitting at least to the public that he truly loves his wife and wishes to remain faithful to her. The melange des genres appears in the emotional reactions of Durvat and Constance under d iffe r ent situations, with the amusing attempts of friends and relatives to dissuade DurvaI from his avowed purpose. The hallmark of a ll of La Chaussee's characters in his comedies larmoyantes Is their sensIbi I 1te, which Lanson aptly defines as "une possibility permanente de sensations" (p. 235). I n both the Destouches eIoge and in this one D'Alembert considers the term sentiment synonymous with senslbiI 1te, an ingredient which he greatly admires in the Prejuge, "et surtout la chaleur et le sentiment qui anirrent les derniers actes" (ZEI, 389). This sens!bi11ti easiIy degenerates Into a mawkish senti mentality, On pp. 2JU.0-2i+1 Lanson comments; D’ abord tous les personnages sont senslbles. II n'y a point de doute la-dessusj ils sont tous marques de certains signes faci les a recon- naTtre et a interpreter. Le plus visible est la faculte des larmes; ils sont tous de I'&toffe de Melanide, qui, ayant pleure dlx-sept ans dans un desert, peut encore pleurer sans intermittence pendant les cinq actes du drame. Hommes et femmes, vieux et Jeunes, premiers roles et comparses, des qu'ils entrent en scene, des qu’ ils ouvrent la j bouche, ils ont I'o e il humide, des sanglots dans la volx, les senti- j ments montls tres haut sur de representstions d'evenements possibles J ou des conceptions d'ldees abstraites. Ils debutent par le langage mou11le et exclamatlf. La toile s'est levee: Damon paraTt avec Constance; deux mots Insignlfiants sont dits, et Damon s'ecrie en aparte: "Epouse vertueuse autant qu'Infortunle1"' 7 OEuvres de Monsieur Nivelle de la Chaussee, de I'Acadlmie Franooif^ New Edition (Parts, 1762j, I . ' X t.6. 237 In the final act Durval does not beg his wife's forgiveness in the manner of an Impassioned hero from Corneille or Racine, but rather with sickly sentimentality: II [Durval] est a vos genoux . . . C'est ou je dois mourir . . . Laissez-mo! dans les larmes, Expier mes exces & venger tous vos charmes, (2 .v. 10 0 -102) » D'Alembert mentions other qualities in the play: "I'odeur de vertu . . . dans I'ouvrage d'un bout a I'a u tre ” and "un grand nombrede! vers heureux " (JDI, 389). Lanson points out a close relationship between la sens!b?Ii te and la vertu: Dans les neuf comedies larmoyantes de La Chaussee, il n’ est pas, je crols, un personnage qui ne presente ces deux caracteres d is tin c tifs de I'homme sensible: le don des larmes, et la poursuite de la sensation agreable, qui sont donnes, I ' un comme le signe, et I'autre comme le principe de la vertu. Tous les autres caracteres de la sensiblIIte, . . . s'ensulvent, et se rattachent a ceux-la: il est aise de les retrouver dans chaque role de chaque piece de La Chaussee. (pp. 2b2-2k3) One or two passages from the Prejuge w ill indicate what the eulo gist may have considered vers heureux, lines which breathe I'odeur de vertu: La mode n'a point droit de nous donner des vices, Ou de legitimer le crime au fond des coeurs. II s u f f it qu'un usage interesse les moeurs, Pour qu'on ne dolve plus en etre la victimej L'exemple ne peut pas autoriser un crime. Cn. I. li+8- 152) S 'iI est un fort heureux, c ’ est celui d'un ipoux, Qui rencontre a la fols dans I'objet qui I ’ enchante, Une epouse ch^rie, une amie, une amante. Quel moyen de n'y pas fixe r tous ses deslrsj II trouve son devoir dans le seln des plalslrs. (ZEE. i 1. 58- 62) So great was La Chaussee’ s propensity for moralizing that he was frequently nicknamed "Pere La Chaussee." W e are inclined to question the correctness and the sincerity of 238 D’Alembert’ s effusive praise when we discover extreme ineptitudes even in La Chaussee's most successful cornedie larmoyante. In the early scenes of the f ir s t act a strange inconsistency arises when Constance, admitting her marital unhappiness, promises her father that she will encourage his niece Sophie to marry Damon. Sophie, who has clear evi dence that Constance is not happy with Durval, refuses to be coerced. When she asks Constance the direct question, "Are you happily married?” Constance warmly replies: "Oui , Madame, je le suis" (I. I 1.I4 .5). Later In a private conversation Constance again pours out her un happiness to Sophie. It seems strange that Durval should so suddenly change his mind about Constance and then inform Damis that he has decided to "fall in love with his wife." La Chaussee has put nothing into the plot that indicates Durval w ill have such a dramatic change of attitude, despite his prfejugls bourgeois. This situation appears quite ambi guous. Durval informs Damis that since he fears the humiliation that a reconciliation must bring he is wavering in his decision. There seems to be lit t le logic in this point of viewand in this vacillation If he is sincere. The scene in which Constance discovers the love-letters and then faints is, to say the least, mawkishly melodramatic. When Durval finds out that he Is their author, although upset, he s t il l puts all the! i i biame for the misunderstandings on his wife. There Is nothing consist ent about Durval’ s actions or speeches until the last act when quite suddenly during the masquerade party he changes his mind again about Constance. These incidents suggest a few of the ineptitudes which D’Alembert might have mentioned. 239 Shortly a fte r the successful presentation of the Pr§jug! Its author1 was elected to the French Academy. Like another contemporary play wright, CrebiI Ion the Elder, La Chaussee delivered h i s d iscours de reciplendalre In verse, "croyant, d l s a i t - i l , q u 'il ne pouvait mieux employer le iangage des dleux que dans le sanctualre des Muses" (U H , 399). A fter the playwright's decease his fauteuiI was occupied by Jean Q Pierre de Bougainville (1722-1763), a member of the phIlosophe group who had been one of La ChausseeTs enemies. D'Alembert points out an unusual but most commendable feature of M. de Bougainville's discours de reception. The la tte r praised the lite ra ry achievements of his pre decessor "avec autant de zele et presque d'enthousIasme, que s ' i I eOt eu a prononcer I'oraison funebre de son ami le plus ch er." Le devoir du ric ip ie n d ia ire 1 'o b lig ea lt sans doute a louer celui dont il prenait la place; mais sous la plume d'un orateur moins honnite et moins juste, la passion e t le ressentlment auralent f a i t I ’ eloge tres-court et peut-£tre tres-equ i voque. (TTT, lj.00) Concluding his miniature panegyric of M. de Bougainville, D'Alem bert explains clea rly his reason for praising one of La Chaussee's fo r mer enemies. At the same time he defines his c rite rio n for selecting the subjects of his 11 oges: Tout ce qui honore les le ttre s , surtout de la part de nos confreres, m lrite d’ avoir une place distinguee dans cet ouvrage; et c 'e s t pour cette raison que nous n'avons pas cru devoir passer sous silence ce t r a i t de courage et d'lqultfe ph I I osoph i que. (H E , i+OO) i j W e must remember that D'Alembert expressed this compliment concern- I jlng one whom he considered an enemy of La Chaussee and an outspoken I l i i j D j This distinguished Ii tterateu r was secretary of the Academy of In scriptions; he became a member of the French Academy In 175^-4-. His older brother was the celebrated Louis Antoine, the famous French navigator, j ( Larousse, I , 802) _ _ .......... ......... 2 b 0 partisan of the mouvement phiIosophique. Returning now to La Chaussee's plays, we find that Me I a n i d e seems j to have Impressed the eulogist very favorably: . . . piece qu'on peut mettre au nombre des plus intlressantes du TheStre-Fran<£a i s, et qui joint au m lrlte de la verity, de la sensibility et de la vertu, celul des details et du style. . . . ( H E , 390) La Chaussle had won great acclaim from the favorable presentation of four successive plays. As a result of this personal triumph, he was faced with an overwhelming wave of professional jealousy on the part of his rivals. To offset this d iffic u lty , La Chaussle arranged for his Mllanlde to be performed without any previous notice to the public. The way in which this "anonymous" comedy was received D'Alembert describes thus: . . . e lle [Me I an i de] fu t refue avec transport, comme I'ouvrage d'un jeune Inconnu q u 'il e ta it juste d'accueiI I I r avec bontej et quand le veritable pere se declara, cette meme envie qui avait dlja pris I'enfant sous sa protection, voyant bien qu'il I t a i t trop tard pour I'lto u ffe r , se dltermina glnereusement a le laisser vivre. (in, 390) Voltaire employed "cette Innocente ruse, et avec le mime succes" Iwhen he presented his own Merope a few years later. It would seem that ; i I D'Alembert hardly dares to miss one occasion— appropriate or otherwise— to praise his Illustrious friend, for he makes this quite sta rtlin g , if ! not altogether valid, literary assessment: Alnsi nous devons peut-ltre a cette heureuse clrconspectlon deux des meilleurs ouvrages qui solent au theStre, e t qu'une cabale acharnee auralt pu opprlmer dans leur nalssance. , . . ( i l l , 390) I Looking closer at Ml I an Ide, we shall attempt to discover some of the features D'Alembert found so attractive In this play which La Chaussee considered his chef-d'oeuvre. 2 1 + 1 Occasionally we find a few significant couplets. Early in the play Dorisee, Rosalie's mother, describes one of her daughter's suitors; thus: ! . , , Tant de vivacite Designe un grand courage, & beaucoup de drolture; Ces coeurs-la sont toujours honneur a la nature. D 'ailleurs, je ne crois pas qu'on puisse, a dix-huit ans, Avoir moins de defauts avec plus d ' a g r e m e n s . 9 i I It is quite likely that the eulogist would consider this passage good character Ization on the part of La Chaussee. D'Alembert finds that Me Iani de is permeated with the qualities of v e rlte , s e n s !b illte , and vertu. In a speech to his friend Rosalie, Darviane reveals his strongest characterist!c, la sens!blIi t l t Plus Je sens vivement, plus je sens que je suis. L 'e g a lltl d'humeur vient de I ' indifference; Et quoi que vous puissiez dire pour fa defense L' insensIbI I Ite ne scauroit etre un bien. Quoi! jamais n 'itre emu, n 'itre affecte de rfen, Rester au mime point tout le terns de sa vie, Tandls qu'autour de nous, tout change, tout varie; ; Borner, ou pour mieux dire, aneantlr son goClt; | Ne voir, ne regarder, & n'envlsager tout ; Qu'avec les mimes yeux, que sous la mime forme; | N'avolr qu'un sentiment, qu’ un p la is ir uniforme; | Etre toujours soi-mimej Y peut-on resister? I Est-ce la vivre? Non. C'est a peine exister, (1.1.16-28) ; i Such outpourings Illu s tra te all too clearly the following declara-; ' ti on by Lanson: Le document le plus considerable que La Chaussee fournisse a I'h ls - toire des moeurs est le caractere partic u lier qu'il donne a la vertu, II ne la prisente Jamais que sous la forme de la sensib11i t i . On date le plus souvent de J.-J. Rousseau I ' envahIsement de la societi et de la littir a tu r e par la s e n s ib lIiti, dont on f a it commencer le regne au milieu du slecle. II faut remonter plus haut, jusqu'a la fin du premier tiers du X V llle siecle. . . . La Chaussee ne presente pas un honnite homme, pas une femme vertueuse (et II n'en presente ^CEuvres de Monsieur Nivel le de La Chaussee . . H , I . 1. 1 0 6 -110. 2h2 guere d'autres), qui ne soient sensi bIes par-dessus tout. Son theStre tout entier est une peinture et un eloge de la se n s ib lIite, et en manlfeste le triomphe, au moins dans la litte ra tu re , longtemps avant que Rousseau a lt paru. . . . (p. 232) Had D'Alembert lived a century or so later, he would certainly have accepted Lanson's perceptive analysis of the typical eight eenth-century hom m esensibleetv That he fu lly approved of what contemporary spectators and readers considered a v ita l moral ele- : ment in La Chaussee's comedies Is clearly evident from this statement: Les differentes pieces de M. de La Chaussee, que nous avons nommies jusqu'a present, ont surtout le merite propre et d is tin c tif d'etre une §coie de moeurs et de principes honnStesj elles respirent la vertu et la font aimer. (TEE, 393) At best, some of these principes honnites are hidden away in a compact single line or in a well-turned couplet, as these illustrations from lanide will indicate: Les amans sont entr'eux un peuple bien bizarre. . . . (TTT.iv,Q) Un moment d'imprudence a souvent f a it verser Des larmes que le terns n'a pC i faire cesser. (TV.v. 12-13) L'Ecole des Meres, coming after Me I an Ide, was equally we I I re ceived. It contained, however, an allusion which D'Alembert thought quite objectionable and about which he comments: On est seulement fSche que, dans un vers de cette comldie, les gens de lettres se trouvent indicemment m§Ies avec les chevaux, les chiens: eT les pagodes, dont le marquis a rempIi la maison de son pere. Cm, 39i)T o D'Alembert always recognized the responsibility and dignity of his high office, both as a man of letters and as secretaire perpetuel. It j These are the lines to which D'Alembert objects: "Je ne im'attendois pas de trouver mon logis / Plein de chevaux, de chiens, id'auteurs & de pagodes” (La Chaussee, H , T H . i.1*4-45). 2h3 is not surprising that he elaborates further concerning La Chaussee's lack of bon goOt and concludes with a lengthy diatribe on the responsi b ilitie s of authors to their exalted profession: M. de La Chaussee oubiia dans ce moment ce qu'il devait a la noblesse d'un etat qu'il aurait dO cherir et considerer plus que personne, puisqu'il avait eu le courage de faire a cet etat le sacrifice de sa fortune. Eh! qui fera respecter les lettres, si ceux qui doivent y avoir le plus d 'in t e r lt sont les premiers a les avl I i r! Trop d'lcrivains, il est vrai^ degradent par leurs moeurs la dignite d'une profession qu'ils ne relevent guere d’ allleurs par leurs talensj mais un grand nombre d'hommes de lettres, qui ont jo in t les vertus au genie, reclament I'estime pub Iique-pour cette classe de citoyens, plus estimable peut-gtre que toutes les autres, pourvu qu'on I'en visage dans la total ite de ses membres, et que les parties nobles, s ' i I est permis de s'exprimer de la sorte, fassent oublier les par ties honteuses. . . . M. de La Chaussee I t a i t d'autant plus digne de penser ainsi, qu'il a lui-mime toujours fa it honneur aux lettres par la conduite la plus estimable. f i l l , 391) W e shall not discuss La Chaussee's remaining relatlvely-unimportant plays, for they are evaluated in much the same complimentary manner. Toward the end of his eIoge D'Alembert deals with more general topics: the Ii terary cabaIes and an appraisal of La Chaussee's contribution to eighteenth-century dramatic literatu re. With so many popular stage product! ons to his credit, It is not surprising that La Chaussee became the target of b itte r criticism and violent attacks from contemporary men of letters. On the subject of professional riv alry, especially as I t affected La Chaussle, D'Alembert. jhas strong convictions: \ ' ■ I La r iv a lIte ne commence a Itr e Iqui table que Iorsqu'elle n'a plus j sous les yeux I'objet de sa haine. Aussi, tant que M. de La Chaussle I fut exposl a ses coups, elle f i t tous les nobles efforts dont elle est j capable, pour obscurcir la glotre qu'il s 'e ta lt acquise, (T IT , 393) i j D'Alembert then explains that this criticism was aimed not so much i (at La Chaussee's characters, plots, and style as at his melanges des 2kh genres, in fact a new form of play— namely, la comedie larmoyante. . . . elle [la r iv a lite ] prodigua aux comedies de M. de La Chaussee les noms de tragique bourgeois, de comlque larmoyant, et jusqu'a celut de sermonj . enf in on ne Iu! epargna aucune des Ipithetes, fine- ment ou grossierement injurieuses, dont ia malignite ou la sottise purent s’ aviser. ( i l l , 393) In spite of this adverse criticism , La Chaussle's comedies Iarmoyantes continued to remaln tres-goQtees with the theatre-going pub lic. "On r i a i t un moment des epigrammes, et on retournalt pieurer au Prljugl a la mode et a Mlianide." ( I I 1, 39k) — — j In D’Alembert's final evaluation of La Chaussee are given the reasons which prompted the playwright to create a new genre of comedy. La Chaussle realized that on the contemporary stage pure comedy could never reach the same standard of excellence as It had formerly enjoyed: 11 [La Chaussee] avait senti que la comedie proprement dite, celle qui nous fait rire de nos sottises et de nos travers, devenait de jour en jour plus dangereuse a tra lte r, et par la disette des sujets, et par les d iff ic u lt ls de I'exlcutlonj que les caracteres qui sont susceptlbles de ridicule en grand, et qui pr^tent d’ ailleurs au mouvement et a I'In trig u e , sont presque entierement Ipuislsj qu'il ne nous reste guere a peindre que des ridicules fu g itifs , des ridicules de societl et de mode, plus fa its pour les sages que pour le parterre, et pour les gens du monde que pour Ie public. . . . (H E , 396) D'Alembert suggests a comparison between the mediocre quality of the contemporary thl^tre comlque and that of the Immortal Moliere. He ' also Implies that, because of their overly-sophisticated attitude and perhaps their different type of in te lle c tu a lity , the spectators of La Chaussle's century would have failed either to grasp Mol Imre's keenly perceptive characterization of human nature or to appreciate the logic and cleverness of his robust humor. W e wonder whether D'Alembert Is lightly facetious or slightly sarcastic, when he remarks: . . . grSce a notre dllicatesse, ie rire Icla tan t nous paratt aujourd’ hul bourgeois et Ignoblej que si nous consentons a r ire , c’ est tout au plus du bout des levres et a lapolnte de I'e s p ritj qu’ en nous soumettant, comme par Indulgence, a ce rire si fin , si noble et si faible, nous voulons en mime temps qu'un auteur comlque ; nous reveille et nous occupe par une action soutenue, vive et anlmee,j peu compatible avec ce p la ts lr froidement Inglnleux. . . . ( i l l , 39^) Consequently, because contemporary playwrights realized their own limitations as well as those of their audiences, they gradually devi ated from the traditions established by Moliere: . . . II y avait par consequent beaucoup plus de ressource, pour ceux qui ne se sentalent pas le glnle de Moliere, a tra ite r des sujets toujours fournis, a ]a verity, par la classe moyenne des citoyens, mais dans lesquels on pOt jolndre la v lvacitl de Paction a celle de P in tlr S t. (TTT, 396) D’Alembert concludes his comparison of the th lltre comique In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with another reference to La Chaussee's comldie larmoyante: Telles furent, sans doute, les reflexions qui dlterminerent M, de La Chaussee a embrasser le genre qu’ on lui reprochalt: elles etalent fo rtifle e s par le talent qu’ il se sentalt pour le tra ite r; car II avait pour maxlme, dans sa condulte l i t t l r a i r e comme dans tout le reste de sa vie, que Phomme sage est celul dont les desirs et les efforts sont en proportion avec ses moyens. (TTT, ~395) When we compare D’Ajembert's remarks on the development of pure comedy Into tearful comedy with those of Brenner and Goodyear already quoted, we find that these c ritic s agree that ’’there was need of re juvenating the art [ le theatre comlque] by new conceptions and combina-: Pons." From our study of La Chaussle’ s 11oge we concur with Brenner and Goodyear that D’Alembert defended the comldie larmoyante, because "comedy of character had already been brought to Its apogee by MolIere” (p. 262). What these writers fa ll to point out Is that despite D’Alem bert’ s acceptance of the ccmldle larmoyante, he s t i l l manifested a dis tinct preference for the comldie pure, as his own statement concerning 2 1 + 6 La Chaussee's success clearly Indicates: Mals solt que la nature I'eOt f a it plus slrJeux que plaisant, ou qu’ i I: sol t aussi d i f f i c il e au theStre que dans la socletl defalre rlre et pleurer tout a la fois, II etit mieux fa it de ne point alte re r, par cette discordance de tons, I ’ unite et I'e f f e t de ses ouvragesj et quolqu'appuye d’ autorltls tres-respectables, il semble avoir prouve ce que nous avons dtt allleurs, que ie p la ls lr trouble et maI decide, qui resulte de ce milange bizarre des ris et des larmes, est bien in flrie u r au p lalslr seul de s'atten d rir et de pleurer, m§me sur des hommes qui n'ont pas 1’ honneur d’etre princes. ( i l l , 396- 397) Summarizing D’Alembert’ s evaluation of La Chaussee, we find his appraisal somewhat ambiguous, for in almost the same breath he speaks in complimentary terms of the new genre of comedy and of his preference for the Molleresque comedy in the neoclassic tradition. Today we can accept only with serious reservation D'Alembert’ s exaggerated apprecia tion of La Chaussee's cornedle tarmoyante. Reading Me Iani de now, we find I f almost Impossible to understand his fulsome praise of what we con sider only a mediocre work. In our estimation the characters are not true to I ife } the plot lacks verisI mi 11tudej and, despite their emotion and tears, these personages express their thoughts and feelings In an a r t i f i c i a l , monotonous, and unimpassioned manner. W e are forced to admit, however, that Me I an ide and the Pr£juge, with their author’ s em phasis upon senslbilltfe, vertu, and amour, must have struck some deeply responsive chord in the audiences of eighteenth-century Fr ance. To ithese enthusiastic spectators, La Chaussee’ s characters, representatlve i of the contemporary haut monde and haute bourgeoisie, appeared re a lis tic and plausible— much more "flesh and blood people" than the classic heroes and heroines of Greek and Roman mythology. In D'Alembert's time there was a divergence of opinion as to the intrinsic merits and the permanent value of this comedy based upon the 2 4 7 melange des genres. As for his personal reaction toward the com&die larmoyante, D’Alembert found himself in an extremely ambiguous position. By in te l lectual training and literary experience, he belonged to the classic school. By nature sensitive, responsive, and affectionate, he was im pressed with the amour, vertu, and sensibiIi tl of the comldies Iarmoyantes. Then, too, since his friends Diderot and Voltaire had placed th eir stamp of approval upon La Chaussle's dramatic works, how could D'Alembert possibly condemn them? "Eloge de La Motte" La Chaussle's early friend and later opponent, the embattled Antoine Houdar de La Motte (1672-1730, was an outspoken partisan of the Modernes and a p ro lific w riter. It is not surprising, therefore, that D'Alembert should consider him an Important man of letters. His eulogy was read in the French Academy on April 27, 1775* The record of La Motte's early years Is almost a stereotyped pat- i tern of the biographies of many contemporary writers. Like other re nowned men who f ir s t chose the bar as their vocation, he eventually changed to a literary career. The ambitious La Motte believed that he would win greater fame as a man of letters than as a lawyer, Unfor- j tunately, he failed to realize that b itte r disappointment— even hopeless fa ilu re — might be his only reward. From personal experience, D'Alembert i i wisely poi nts out* I Mals II n'avait vu, dans son enthousiasme naissant, que les laurlers qui semblatent I'attendret il ignorait les 4cueiIs dont sa route a 1 1 a 11 ©tre sem&e, et il avalt besoin que I'experience I'en 2kB in stru isttj I'experience fu t prompte et cruelle. ( I l l , 122) | At the age of only twenty-one, La Motte produced his f ir s t major work, a three-act ccmedy, Les Ori g i naux. Its f ir s t performance proved j a complete deb8cle at the TheStre Ita Iie n , . , . qui n’ etant alors qu'un theatre de farces, ne laissait pas m§me a I'auteur infortun4 la consolation de croire que les spectateurs avaient 4t4 d iffic ile s . (TTT, 122) So completely crushed was the playwright by this unexpected blow to his pride that he withdrew to a Trappist monastery. He had no real inclina tion to give up his Iiterary career for an obscure monastic l if e , and he eventually returned to the society of his former friends. Soon afte r, he produced the libretto for L'Europe Galante, a delightful opera set to music by Campra, the noted composer of Notre Dame Cathedral. La Motte was securely on the road to success with the performance of his second opera, La Pastorale d'lsse, "qui n'eut pas moins d'applau- dissemens que I Europe galante" ( i l l , 122). For some time the dramatist and the poet, Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, ; .had been b itte r rivals for a fauteulI le ft vacant in the French Academy,; Unfortunately, as the result o f a supposed Iy-serious misdemeanor, ! Rousseau lost not only the election to the general assembly, but his reputation and friends. Furthermore, he was condemned to permanent jbanishment by the French government, although he was later permitted to return to his native land.'' D'Alembert considers that the playwright's discours de reception, ! I I i In the notes appended to this 4 1oge the reasons are given for Rousseau's lack of popularity with contemporary writers, a dislike dem onstrated by the members of the French Academy ( H I , 12^). 2k9 delivered on February 8, 1710, was "un modele en ce genre.” He points out here that this newly-elected academician was to ta lly blind. II [La Motte] sut, dans son discours, tire r le plus heureux parti de cette maiheureuse situation, pour int£resser toute I ’ assemblee, et pour remercier ses confreres d’ une maniere aussi fine que nouvelle. (xrr, ii+5) La Motte always received "les plus grands appIaudissemens" when he delivered a discours academique. D’Alembert graphically describes one memorable occasion thus: Personne ne lis a it, ou plutSt ne r e c ita it , car on sait qu 'il e ta it aveugle, d'une maniere plus seduisante et plus magique; glissant rapidement et a petit bruit sur les endroits faibles; appuyant avec intelligence, quolque sans affectation, sur les tra its les plus heureux; mettant enfln dans sa lecture cette espece de ponctuation delicate, qui f a it sentir les diff6rens genres de merite par des inflexions aussi fines que variles; mais surtout evitant avec le plus grand soln cette emphase qui rlvolte I'auditeur en voulant forcer son suffrage, et qui manque son e ffe t en cherchant a I ’ augmenter. ( H I , \33-\3k) Because of his outstanding success with opera, La Motte decided to produce another play, this time a tragedy. Fearing a repetition of his experience with the Ori ginaux, the playwright presented his new drama anonymously. Even his enemies were so delighted with Les Macchab&es that they considered I t a posthumous work by the Immortal Racine. Se cure in his continued success, La Motte fin a lly divulged his secret much to the consternation of his rivals and the delight of his friends. D’Alembert considers this comparison of La Motte wi th the great seven teenth-century playwright positively ridiculous (TTT, 125-126). | Rom ulus, performed under its author’ s name, appeared shortly after the Macchabees and for a brief period proved a greater triumph than La Motte’ s f ir s t tragedy. When Voltaire's Brutus was presented, RomuI us soon declined In popularity. As would be expected, D’Alembert accounts 250 for this phenomenon by stating that Brutus was far superior to RomuI us: . . . cette derniere piece [ Brutus] a blen plus de force, de grandeur st d 'effet, et surtout cette magie de style, qui charme egalement les spectateurs et les lecteurs. ( I l l , 126) Ines de Castro, La Motte's third tragedy proved his most success ful. Nevertheless, like all of the dramatist’ s works, it revealed a conspicuous weakness, "la faiblesse du style et du co lo ris .” D’Alembert modifies his sweeping criticism with these words; . . . mais cette faiblesse se f a it presque oublier par plusieurs expressions de sentiment, vraies, simples et penetrantes; par le soin que I ’ auteur a eu de fa ire toujours parier a ses acteurs, si non le langage de I'eloquence, au molns celul de leur situation. . . . ( i l l , 127) Whereas D’Alembert condemns Marivaux for fa ilin g to create an ap propriate, varied form of language suitable to different occasions and consistent with the personalities of his characters, he commends La Motte for causing his actors to speak "sinon le langage de I ’eloquence, au molns ceiui de leur s itu a tio n .” La Motte's great triumph with Ines came principally as the result of an innovation, which he described thus: Les enfants que j ’ai hasardes sur la scene, et les circonstances ou je les fais paraTtre, ont paru une nouveaute sur notre th e a tre .^ The two children make a dramatic appearance immediately after Ines, their mother, has disclosed to King Alphonse that she Is the secret wife, of his son and heir, Dorn Pedre. Knowing that the Monarch has threatenedj to k ill her husband for his continued refusal to marry his father’ s step-daughter, Constance, Ines utters these moving words; Eh bien, Seigneur, suivez vos barbares maximesj l2 lnes de Castro (Paris, 1725), p. v i t i . 251 Ou vous amene encore de nouvelles victimes. Immolez sans remords, et pour nous punir mieux, Ces gages d'un hymen si coupable a vos yeux. ( I . i v. I 0—1 3) Consommez votre ouvrage; et que les m!mes coups Rejoignent les enfants et la femme et I'lpoux. (19-20) As to the outcome of La Motte's nouveaute, D'Alembert leaves this account: Dependant, a la premiere representation, le succes de la scene fut douteux un moment. Le parterre, peu accoutume a voir de petlts enfans dans une scene tragique, hesfta d’ abord s 'iI devalt rire ou pleurer; mais II f i n i t par les app I aud i ssemens et les larmes. ( I'll, 1 1 + 8- 1 1 + 9) W e can easily discover the reason for the spectators' confused feelings. La Motte had intended this play to be patterned afte r a Cornelian tragedy; yet the spectators knew that children had never been on the stage in the classical tradition. With the success of Ines de Castro came a series of satires d i rected against Its author by people who toujours si ciairvoyante sur les dangers de la vanite, n 'e ta it pas fclchee que La Motte vtt I 'l c l a t de sa glolre utilement temper! par quelques momens salutaires de mortification. . . . In his eulogy of Boileau, D'Alembert discussed at length the satire, a I Iterary genre quite distasteful to him. He speaks of the satires on I nes de Castro In a similar condemnatory manner (H U , 128). La Motte wrote his next play, OEdipe, In prose to establish his new theory: . . . des tragidies ecrites de la sorte se rapprocheraient inflnlment plus que les tragedies en vers, de la simpliclte et de la v l r i t ! de la nature; qu'un auteur tragique, delivre de la contrainte de la versi- j fic a t I on, sera it oblige, , . . de mettre dans son ouvrage plus de [ mouvement et de v ie. . . . cm , 129) I I : La Motte's second innovation was contradictory not only to the traditions of Greek and Roman dramafi sts, but also to the t heor ie s of 252 the French neoclassfclsts, Corneille and Racine. In his disapproval of OEdipe D'Alembert, although at heart s t i l l a strong partisan of the Modernes, was actually showing himself favorable to the Anciens, because; he makes an Interesting though unfavorable comparison of La Motte with a promising contemporary author, Voltaire. Despite his adverse criticism of La Motte's tragedie en prose, D'Alembert considers other literary achievements of his quite commend able, especially in opera. He even claims that as a lyric poet, La Motte excelled Boileau and Racine. He accounts for the few less suc cessful librettos thus: ", . . les chutes de La Motte . . . furent plut6t la faute de la musique que des paroles lf G H , 123). There is no doubt that the eulogist could discuss this matter of lyric poetry for librettos with a good degree of authority. Not only had he written several articles on music for Diderot's Encyclopidie; he had also pub lished an Important and popular work on the same subject. W e must mention b rie fly the famous guerre des bouffons, in which D'Alembert, a partisan of the Picclnistes, saluted an a lly in La Motte. At one time the dramatist had refused to write the script for one of Rameau's operas, a fact which may account for the eulogist's fulsome praise of La Motte as lib re ttis t. While writing for the theater La Motte also published a volume of odes, qui eurent d'abord un grand nombre de panegyristes et quelques censeurs, et qui btentSt apres eurent beaucoup de censeurs, en conservant quelques apologistes. From the tone of his further remarks, it Is evident that D'Alembert Is not favorably impressed with La Motte's attempt to write a different 255 genre of poetry* ! [Rousseau] avalt bien plus que lul [La Motte] le talent de la grande j pofesle, M art de mettre les verltes en Images, I ’ o re ilie sensible et sevepe, enfln cet heureux choix de mots, si essentlel a la versifica- | t i on, et surtou t a ceI Ie de I * ode. . ! . Cm, 1 2 U ) In his admiration for Rousseau D'Alembert demonstrated his fu ll agreement with other contemporary c ritic s , although posterity has not accepted their same generous appraisal. D'Alembert closes his eloge with a general evaluation of La Motte; , he a Iso compares him with Fontenelle, a topic which wiI I be dlscussed i n i another chapter. The eulogist boldly calls La Motte’ s innovation of la tragldie en prose the "nouvelle heresie." As for the playwright’ s other revolu tionary ideas, he comments* La Motte semble avoir voulu apprecier la poesie, comme le geometre mesure les corps, en les depoulIlant de toutes les qualites senslblesj mals le glometre qui en use ainsi fait, son m ltier, et ie poSte qui veut I ’ imiter, f a it tout le contra ire du sien. ( H I , 130) Apart from the librettos and a few quotable verses from his fables and odes, La Motte showed no conspicuous talent for writing poetry. D'Alembert accounts for his subject's fai lure to produce any superl or ; poetic genre thus* "II voulalt faire des vers, et sentait que la nature ne I'av ait pas f a it po8te.” Unfortunately, La Motte appeared to i find a certain compensation In b e littlin g the achievements of eminent poets, even to the point of satirizing their works. D’Alembert explains ! this unhappy predicament in these words* que lul r e s ta lt-il done a faire?de soutenlr, avec tout I ’ art dont il etait capable, que 1’ harmonle et les Images n’etaient point ne- cessaires a la poesie, la chaleur et I ’enthouslasme a Mode, la vers if 1 cation a la trag&dle, et la naTvete a la fable. La MoTte s'est f a it une po&tlque d’ apres ses talens, comme tant de gens se font une 25b morale sulvant leurs Interets. Ne croyons point a ses opinions; mais pardonnons-Iul de les avoir soutenues: II n'est guere d'ecrivain qui n 'ait cherche comme lul a rabaisser le genre de mer!te qu'il sentait lul avoir et& refuse par la nature, C U E , 1 3 3 ) This passage Is a piece of telling criticism . In the phrase, "i I n'estj d'&crlvain . . . par la nature,” D'Alembert expresses a cruel, but nevertheless, universal truth. Any person desperately trying to hide his In fe rio rity will attempt to compensate for his deficiencies by vari ous means; and one of the most effective is to underrate deIiberately, if not maliciously, the superior qualities and greater achievements of other people. Concerning La Motte's prose works, D’Alembert states, "ses ecrits en prose peuvent etre regardes comme des modeles de s tyle." Not for one moment, however, would he wish to suggest that La Motte is in any degree superior or even comparable to Voltaire, for In his appended notes he remarks: Le talent de blen ecrire en prose est un merite que presque aucun poSte n'avait auparavant La Motte, et qu’ II aurait encore de prefe rence a tous les poBtes, si Voltaire ne lui avait enlevl cet avan- tage. (H T , l6i+) W e come now to La Motte's satirical works. In the Mari vaux eloge I D'Alembert discusses parodies of Homer's I I lad and Flnelon's T&l£maque. ; Here, however, he speaks only of the I Iiad travesty and in a most con demnatory tone (TTT, 130 — 131). D'Alembert also expresses his opinion on topics of secondary im portance. Concerning La Motte's Interest In religion, he states: " [ I I ] avait un esprit si propre a se pller a tout, qu'II e ta it meme thSolo- gien quand II le voulalt." The playwright wrote articles for the clergy; and " [ II e ta it] I'auteur tacite de plusieurs autres ecrits que 255 ses ennemis auralent dechires, s’ iIs en avaient connu le veritable pere. . . " ( H I , 13b). As the center of b itte r criticism from all sides, La Motte would have been fu lly Justified In using an effective method of re ta lia tio n . However, he attempted no other form of vindication. To illu s tra te the dramatist's magnanimity, D'Alembert refers to La Motte's commendation of Voltaire's f ir s t tragedy, CEdipe ( 17■8)* . . . II [La Motte] n'hesita point a dire dans son approbation, que cet ouvrage promettait au theatre un digne successeur de Corneille et de Raci ne. (~rI I ; 13 5 -1 36) He then adds this somewhat extravagant remark; II [La Motte] n'a pas assez vecu pour savoir a quel point il d is a it vraij mais II n'y en a que plus de merite a avoir devine si juste, et plus de noblesse a I'avoir predit. ( i l l , 1 36) The fu ll significance of this passage Is made clear in the tight of two Important facts. La Motte recognized In Voltaire a contemporary dramatist of unusual a b ility . His "new-fangled" ideas on the tragedy notwithstanding, the playwright accepted D’Alembert's friend as a worthy successor to Corneille and Racine. Then, how do we account for D'Alem bert's rather ambiguous criticism of La Motte, the theorist and the partisan of the Modernes? First of a l I , we must remember that the eulogist greatly disliked the And ens because of their orthodox attitude; : toward religion and their adherence to neo-Latinlty. Likewise, he con sistently and outspokenly supported Voltaire who, always conservative | In his Iiterary tastes, heartily disapproved of La Motte's tragedies en | prose. This lloge is primarily a c ritic a l evaluation of a 11terary theorist, rather than a creative man of letters or a dominant 2 5 6 personality. While condemning La Motte for what should be considered a( foolish and unsuccessful Innovation, la tragedie en prose, D’Alembert commends him for his loyal support of Fontenelle in the famous Querelie. From an analysis of this somewhat paradoxical evaluation, we may con clude that D'Alembert is attempting to straddle a literary fence. In other words, at one and the same time, he censures La Motte for reject ing the standards of neoclassicism and then applauds him for condemning neo-Latinity, an element so conspicuous In the writings of the Anci ens, ; such as Boi leau and Mm e Dacier. According to D'Alembert, La Motte the poet excelled In only one genre, " ly ric 1 ' poetry— that is, musical librettos. However, the eulo gist clearly echoes the voice of contemporary public opinion when he considers his subject's poetry quite Inferior to that of a contemporary, Jean Baptiste Rousseau, In his discussion of La Motte's failure to attain the ranks of the most eminent writers, D'A|embert frankly admits that the playwright, despite all his prodigious effo rts , possessed only mediocre I ! terary talent and meager Intellectual a b ility . La Motte's greatest weakness resulted from the fact that he found it d iff ic u lt either to recognize or to accept his limitations. W e must remember, however, that D'Alem bert was fu lly cognizant of the playwright's generous attitude toward ! contemporary writers of superior merit, especially to Voltaire, j The "Eloge de La Motte" appears to be somewhat different from the i jeulogles studied thus far. It may be rig h tly called a"catchall" In jwhlch D'A|embert expresses his opinion about several matters of current (interest. In his discussion of La Motte's tragedies en prose he takes 257 the opportunity to compare them unfavorably, of course, with those of Corneille, Rac!ne, and Voltaire. In his comparison of La Motte with Fontenelle, D'Alembert returns to one of his favorite topics, the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. The eulogist has a chance to speak at some length of Rameau and the guerre bes bouffons when he com ments upon La Motte's success In writing librettos. Although a champion of the Modernes, D'Alembert cannot accept the radical Ideas of La Motte the theorist. As Voltaire's loyal friend he supported, In principle at least, the traditions of neoclassicism. It Is all the more remarkable, therefore, that D'Alembert should attempt to straddle such a high 11terary fence when he praises, "aI I in one breath,” La Motte, Jean-Baptlste Rousseau, and Rousseau's vlolentenemy, Volta Ire, In D'Alembert's correspondence with Frederick of Prussia there Is an interesting reference to the La Motte eulogy: M. de Catt [secretaire au roi] remettra a votre majeste un Eloge de La Motte, . . . qui contient, a ce que Je crois, un jugement sain sur les ouvrages de cet auteur. (2, 1+1J+) Despite this disarming statement we must conclude that as a well organized piece of eulogistic writing and a concise, critical evalua tion of a particular figure, the "Eloge de La Motte” is not one of |D'Alembert's most successful efforts. i I ”Eloge de Cr&blllon” D'Alembert evidently saw a golden opportunity to compare the rela tive dramatic a b ilitie s of Voltaire and Prosper Jolyot de C rlblllon, | the Elder ( l67i+~17&2). In this e Ioge which was read before the French 258 Academy on August 25, 1778* he showed much more Interest in Crebillon the professional man of letters than In Crebillon the Individual. Only a thin thread of biography Is woven into the lite ra ry p o rtrait of Crebillon, "cet homme, qui devalt §tre un de nos premiers auteurs tragi ques " ( i n , 5U 6 ). The dramatist’ s early life followed a pattern similar to that of other men who eventually won literary fame. The fact that he was edu cated under the Jesuits gives D’Alembert sufficient reason to make another b itte r attack upon this religious organization. He then com ments upon contemporary education, "peu propre a former de grands hommes," and concludes his discussion with an ambiguous compliment to the Jesults: On est convenu cependant, soit par egard, soit par indulgence pour I ’ amour-propre des mattres, de leur accorder quelque part dans la gloire que Ieurs disciples ont su meriter par eux-m£mes, et malgrl I'education qu’ ils ont re^ue. En ce cas, la societe des jlsu ltes, quelque illustr&e qu’ elle soit par les hommes celebres qui lul ont appartenu, auralt encore plus a se g lo rifie r de ses eleves que de ses membres. (X U , 5kh) The youthful Crebillon revealed des le college les talens qui devaient lul faire un nom, et en meme temps I ’ amour qu’ I 1 a montri jusqu’ a la fin de ses jours pour une vie independante et libre de toute espece de contra!nte. Needless to say, the Jesuit teachers at Dijon, as elsewhere, put forth every e ffo rt to make proselytes of some pupils. . . . I Is [les j&suites] s ’ etudiaient a blen connattre Ieurs disciples | pour en tlre r tout le parti possible, relatlvement aux differens I projets qu’ Il pouvaient former sur eux. I Is avaient pour cet e ffe t j dans chaque colllge un reglstre secret, sur lequel I Is ecrivaient le j nom de chaque Ic o lie r, avec une note en latin sur ses talens, son j esprit et son caractere. Fontenelle, par exemple, qui avait aussi j etudle chez eux dans la v ille de Rouen sa patrie, avait pour note. . . . (Jeune homme accompli a tous egards, et le modele de ses condis- clples.) La note de Crfebillon n’ e ta lt pas to u t-a -fa lt si honorable? 259 elle porta!t. . , , (Enfant pleln d'esprit, mais Insiqne vaurien). ! ( H I , 5k b -5 k 5 ) In language reminiscent of Rousseau1s Em i Ie , D’Alembert also explains that the Jesuit appraisal of Crebillon was quite incorrect. Even though he had a preference to the contrary, Crebillon was expected to become a lawyer. Upon this point D’Alembert sharply c r i t i cizes those selfish parents who deny their children the privilege of choosing their own careers. Even more severely does D'Alembert censure other parents who consider the literary profession a dishonorable and despised one because of social prejudices. At Paris Crebillon worked for some time with a lawyer who dis played great interest in the theater. Soon the young apprentice ,rse dedommageait de cette fastidleuse occupation en allant souvent aux spectacles.'1 Finally he was advised by his employer de renoncer a la chicane, au barreau, a la maglstrature m£me, de suivre I'impulsion de son genie, et de savoir desobelr a ses parens pour Illu s tre r un.jour le nom q u 'ils portaient. (H E , 5^5-546) Strange as It may seem, Crebillon's f ir s t play, a tragedy, proved a failu re, with the result that he vowed "de ne plus fa ire de vers de : sa vie." D'Alembert hastens to add this facetious remarks "Les amans et les poStes oublient bientot Ieurs sermens ,f (HL, 547). Cr&b i I Ion proved no exception to this rule! An extended c ritic a l evaluation of Crebillon's major achievements is in the main portion of this eulogy. D'Alembert speaks of his sub j e c t ' s election to the French Academy and of the notorious quarrel with I jVoltaire. Finally, he pays a warm tribute to Cr&biI Ion the man. ! Although I domenle, Crebillon's f ir s t play to reach the stage (1705); 260 met with fa ir success, It had a weak plot: "L'action neanmolns en etait' faible et le style n 4g lig !.w Nevertheless, the panegyrist adds this rather favorable comment: . . mais quelques beautls de detail firent excuser et le vice du plan, et les defauts de ('execution " (X U , 5h7). In the notes reference Is made to an unusually severe criticism of ; Idomenle, supposedly expressed by Bolleau, who stated that, "la piece e ta it I'ouvrage de Racine ivre." The eulogist, however, chal lenged the veracity and fairness of this appraisal with a sharp reply ( i l l , 5&7). Two years later Cr4billon presented his Atree et Thyeste, a work which D'Alembert prefers to Idomenee. This play contained a new feature, the element of horror, for which Cr4billon eventually became famous. For his part, D'Alembert severely condemns this innovation: . . . I'horreur du cinquieme acte n'est absolument que degoOtante et sans Int4r4t; elle se f a it sentlr tout a coup, et presque sans itre prepar4e, au moment ou AtrSe presente a Thyeste le sang de son f il s ; et ce moment affreux, que rlen ne repars et n'adoucit, rlv o lte avec raison le spectateur. (X U , 5h7) Following Atrle et Thyeste came Electre, "dont Ie succes fut aussi grand que m e rit!,w In 171 I Crebillon presented Rhadamlste, his master piece, whIch D'Ajembert appraises In great d etail. He describes the spe cial characteristIcs of Rhadamiste thus: Cette piece [ Rhadamlste] est d'un dessin f ie r et hardi, d'une touche , orlginale et vlgoureuse. Les caracteres de Rhadamlste, de Z4nobie et j de Pharasmane, sont traces avec autant d’ 4nergle que de chaleur; I'action est Interessante et anlm!e, les situations frappantes et theStralesj le style a d'aiIIeu rs une sorte de noblesse sauvage, qui semble §tre la qualite propre de cette tragedie, et la dlstinguer de j toutes les autres. (TTT, 5US— 5^+9) D'Alembert points out that the f ir s t act in Crebillon's chef-d'oeuvre Is too long and that I t lacks c la rity and warmth of feel ing. The last three acts are far superior, revealing as in Corneille's 26! ; Rodogune "des beautes theatrales du premier o rd re ." Among several most I j e ffe c tiv e scenes, "celle ou Zenobie declare en presence de son Spoux j i son amour pour Arsame, est une des plus belles qui soient au theatre” j (TIT. 5^4-9). If any scene at a I I from Rhadami ste can sti I I hold some : Interest for the present-day reader, i t is this one cited by D'Alembert.! i Among a ll the contemporary w riters, only the eld erly Boileau j | failed to compliment Crlblllon on his outstanding success with I Rhadami ste. The eulogist describes Boileau's attitude thus: ” 11 i s'exprima sur cette piece avec plus de durete qu'iI n'avait f a it dans ! ses satires sur les productions les plus mlprisables a ses yeux" ( i l l , j : 550). D'Alembert believes that Boileau's adverse criticism of Crebillon, j as of some other Ii tterateurs, was motivated to a certain extent by j b itte r memories of the past, illness, the frustrations of old age, and ; principally by professional jealousy toward those younger writers who i would one day take his place (-LLL) 550). | I Greatly encouraged over the spectacular success of Rhadamiste in I j _ _ _ _ _ j Paris and V ersailles, Crlbi I Ion was strongly urged by his friends to I I present himself at the royal court, "pour y jouir de son triomphe, et i pour y recevoir les grSces que son peu de fortune lui rendait neces- saires.” Unfortunately, like other ambitious, hopeful men before him, Crlbillon received anything but a cordial reception at Versailles ( H I , 550-551). To replenish his depleted purse and to win more laurels fo r his professional fame, Crebillon added two more plays to his repertoire* I iXerces ( I7li+) and Semi ramls (1717). All writers, and especial I y 262 dramatists— despite their many talents and creative genius— do reach a j saturation point, Mune espece de midi jusqu'ou leur g lo lre s'eleve, et j i au-dela duquel e lle ne f a i t plus que d ! c lin e r .,f Having attained his ! j highest peak of success with Rhadamlste, C rlb illo n faced only d i s i l l u sionment with the two plays which followed; both were fa ilu re s . Outre les defauts p a rt!c u lle rs a chacune de ces tragedies, on ; reprochait a C rlb illo n d 'e tre monotone dans ses sujets et dans sa i maniere, et de ne pouvolr s o rtir de cette horreur tragique qu'on a vait toleree, ou m @ m e applaudie dans ses premieres pieces, mais dont ; on e t a it fatigue et rebut! dans les dernieres. ( I IT, 551) j | Hoping to silence the c r it ic s of Xerces and Semiramis, CrebiI Ion ' presented Pyrrhus (1 726), In which the element of horror was less vio lent than in his e a r lie r tragedies. Concerning C rlb illo n 's personal attitu d e toward this ”watered-down" tragedy, D'Alembert w rites: ] Personne ne mourait dans cette piece, I'auteur s 'e t a i t f a i t cette ; violence: mais comme II ne se trouvait dans toute sa force, et, pour i alnsi d ire, a son aise, que sur une scene ensangIantee, II n'avait I t r a v a i I l ! , d i s a i t - I I , qu'avec une sorte de degoQt a cette ombre de tragedie, q u 'il ne put mime achever qu'au bout de cinq ans~ C U E , 551 ) A fter the fa ilu re of his last three plays Crebillon, without b i t terness of heart, went Into retirement. There was another reason: j : i II renon^a presque entiepement au commerce des hommes, non par humeur i ou par mlsanthropie, mais par amour pour cette Iib erte q u 'il regardait! comme le seul bien qui lui r e s t it . f i l l , 553) W e now turn to the problem of C r ib illo n ’ s election to the French Academy. Even at the moment of his greatest triumphs he was not con sidered an acceptable candidate for this honor. There were powerful cabales lit t e r a ir e s who only saw in Cr ebi I Ion ,fun homme qui menafalt de les fa ire blent6t oublier tous par I'e c la t de sa renomm!e,M Their hos t i l e attitu d e was further aggravated by the fact that Crebillon had written, though he had wisely never published, ,rune satire Ingenieuse et 263 ; i j plquante" against certain contemporaries, "qui joulssaient alors, a j tort ou a droit, de quelque reputation dans les le ttre s ." In descrlb- ! Ing this satirical work, D’Alembert suggests that Crebillon should be I | forgiven this unseemly outburst against personal enemies and mediocre writers ( i l l , 553-55)+) • spite of all opposition, Crebillon was eventually elected to the French Academy in 173!- Crebillon’ s dI scours de reception was delivered In verse form, I"une singularity qui n'avait point encore eu d’exemple." The c ritic s ; comments on the subject matter of the oraison academtque are not favor- i ab le : II [Crebillon] conserva dans son discours le fond, deja si use, de tous ceux dont nos assemblies avaient tant de fois re te n ti, et ne f i t que replter en vers plus Inerglques qu'elegans, les compllmens d’ usage qu'on entendal t depuis si long-temps en prose. ("ITT, 558-559): D’Alembert considers this the most dramatic feature of Crebilion’s: dlscours: Une autre circonstance du discours de C rlbillon, c'est qu'au moment ! ou I I prononfa ce vers: "Aucun fie l n’ a jamais empolsonne m a plume,” 1 le public, par des appIaudIssemens r e ite r ls , confirma le temoignage j qu’ il se rendalt a lul-meme. C nr, 559) j | D’Alembert Is deeply interested in and impressed with his subject’s! i I ] magnanlml ty, a characterlst I c not frequently found In writers of that i I i time. In his notes he again praises Crebillon for possessing ” le sang froid d’ un philosophe qui plaint ses semblables d’ etre medians, et qui, en craignant leur commerce, ne peut se rlsoudre a les ha7r" (TTT, 572). This statement reveals quite subtly D’Alembert’ s b itte r, personal re sentment against his enemies, particularly the anti-philosophes. In 1733 the dramatist was chosen as royal censor, a responsibility which eventually led him into d lffIc u ItIe s with Voltaire who, violently 26k \ 1 jealous, determined to ruin his r i v a l ’ s splendid reputation. His j i strategy was to write plays on subjects Identical to those utilized by ; j Crebillon which he hoped would prove far superior to Crebillon’ s and I 3 more popular with the theater-public, y The dramatist, however, vieux et delaisse, refused to take any retaliatory measures: Les partisans de Crebillon le proclamerent de mime comme le vrai et le seul h e r itie r d u sceptre de Corneille et de Racine, et le pI a- | cerent de leur autorite sur le tr&ne de ces deux grands hommes. C TTT, 555) V oltaire's partisans considered his works equal if not superior to; those of his riv al. Upon the insistence of his faithful supporters, Crebillon fin a lly broke twenty-two years of silence and retirement to produce another tragedy, Cat I 11na. Even though the great publicity and I | royal patronage were given to this play, it failed to meet the expecta-: tions of Its author or his enthusiastic sponsors. Cat!Iina did have certain propaganda value In the b itte r Cr&bi I lon-Voltaire quarrel (H E , 556). With frequent references to Voltaire and his "counterfeit" plays, ;D’Alembert continues his account of this acrimonious "lite ra ry b a ttle ,"; iThroughout the eloge he attempts to evaluate his subject in an unbiased ■ I manner. Nevertheless, he appears almost compelled to admit frankly the! j superiority of Voltaire as a playwright to Crlbi Non: Comme la v e r lti est la base de nos eloges, et que notre premier devoir est d'§tre justes, pourquoi era Indrions-nous d’ avouer, dans I'Sloge mime de C rlbillon, que la nouvelle Slmlramls, pleinement vlctorieuse apres les plus rudes attaques,est aujourd'hul regardie comme une de 13 ^Voltaire produced his Semi ram Is (I7i|8) and a version of the Electra theme In Oreste (l750Ti Catal ina appeared under the t i t l e of Rome Sauvie ( 1752), and Atree et Thyeste as Les Pliopldes (1771). 265 nos plus belles tragedies? qu'Oreste, long-temps dechire par la satire, partage maintenant avec fc Ie"ctre les honneurs de la scene, et j lul enleve ceux de la lecture? qu'enf i n CaHJJ_na a disparu devant | Rome sauveej quTon crolt entendre dans ce be I ouvrage le mime Clceron qui tonnalt pour la patrle dans la tribune aux harangues, et j que Cesar s'y montre avec cette superiority d'cime et de genie qui devait bientSt lul soumettre les vainqueurs de I'univers? C m , 556- 557) D’Alembert continues his bold defense of his friend before a group of distinguished academicians, some of whom had been V o ltaire's enemies1 and Crebillon's partisans, or vice versa. In retrospect, almost all eighteenth-century tragedy Is lifeless and without interest, be it tha t ; of La Motte, C ribillon, or Voltaire C U E , 557). Concluding his account of this literary dispute, D’Alembert pleads earnestly for harmony among the hostile factions of his contemporary wor Id, I'Age des Lumleres. '^ Summarizing his c ritic a l views of Crebillon, D'Alembert states that while Racine, Corneille and Voltaire portrayed characters of a particular race— or people from various nations—Crlbi I Ion described only mankind in general. In pointing up Mla perversite humaine dans toute son a tro c lte ,” the playwright was adhering to a tradition of ; i ; classic dramat that there must be a conspicuous element of horror In i i ;every tragedy. Ce but general et unique des pieces de Cribillon leur donne un ton de couleur sombre, par lequel elles se ressemblent toutes. fTTTj 565) This sameness makes C rlb ilio n 's dramatic works Inferior not only to those of the seventeenth-century Racine and Corneille, but also to ^ln his plea, however, D'Alembert makes one final thrust at the ant I-Vo ItaIreans when he refers to France’ s proposed mausoleum for C rlbillon's remains and Catherine the Great's suggested "memorial" to house Voltaire's I Ibraryl _____________________________________________ 2 66 his contemporary, Voltaire, whose tragedies are free from "cet air de famille qu’ il est si d i f f i c il e a un auteur d 'eviter dans ses produc tions." In Crebillon's plays the eulogist discovers another type of monotonous sim ilarity, des situations thlg trales; but he hastens to explain that despite these faults, Cr&bi I Ion was not, at least, ce que tant d’ autres [Icrivains] ont ete depuis, noi r et f ro Id ; dernier degr& de la m idlocritl dramatique, et la plus tris te preuve qu’ un poSte tragique puisse donner de la n u llite de talent la plus i ncurable. cur, 564) To complete this comparison of Crebillon's tragedies with the mediocre plays produced by some of his successors, D'Alembert uses a rather fine metaphor from nature, one of those poetic touches occa sionally discovered In his c ritic a l evaluations ( I I I , 564). In a lengthy closing paragraph D'Alembert reaffirms his favorable opinion of his subject. Although he agrees that Crebillon's v e rs ific a -i tion Is not above average and that his plots are monotonous, he con cludes with this sincere tribute: . . . I'inergle de ses caracteres, et le coloris vigoureux de ses ta bleaux, produiront toujours un grand e ffe t au thlS tre, ou son slecle semble lul avoir donnl une place que la posterity lui conserva, et ou | | il sera toujours nomml parml nos meiIIeurs poites tragiques. (TTT, ! 565) I : ; Despite an Interesting and quite favorable presentation of a con temporary playwright, D'Alembert has failed to develop a we I I-organ I zed lioge. He has included too much Irrelevant material: lengthy remarks upon Jesuit education, comparison of Corneille with Racine, reiteration of other favorite literary themes, a rather tiresome diatribe of for gotten mediocre writers, and prejudiced comments upon the continued h o s tlIIty of the anti-phIlosophe group. I j Possibly the most conspicuous feature of this eulogy is t h a t ___ 267 I D’Alembert publicly approves of V o ltaire’ s " lite ra ry and moral triumph" | over Crebillon. In the correspondence between the eulogist and his royal friend, Frederick of Prussia, there is a specific reference to this 4 loge that Is worthy of comment. In a letter dated October 9? I7785 D’Alembert refers to the events which took place in the last general assembly, held on August 25, 1778. F irs t, the secretaire per- petueI proposed that the "Eloge de M. de V o ltaire” be selected as a subject for the prix de po4sie in the ensuing year. Then D’ Alembert -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- j presented to the French Academy "le buste tres-beau et tres-ressembI ant de M. de Voltaire, le seul que nous ayons encore dans notre salle d'assemblee. . . . ” Describing further this g ift, the donor adds a personal comment: . , . ce buste a la v ! r i t ! n'est qu’ en terre,car je ne suis pas assez riche pour le donner en marbrej mais j'a i eu le p la ls lr de le voir expos! dans la salle d’ assemblee a la seance publique du 25 aotlt, et honor! des appIaudIssemens et des larmes de toute l'assembl!e. (Y5 k \ k ) What may be considered the climax to this momentous session of the !French Academy was the C r!btIlion eulogy delivered by the secrltaire i perpetuel in person. Here Is his own account: | Je lus a la m!me seance I 'Eloge de C r lb l I Ion, ou je trouvai plusieurs i occasions de parler a son iI lustre vainqueur, en rendant d’ ailleurs I Justice au valncu. Le public m e parut s a tis fa it de tout ce qui s’ ! t a i t pass! dans cette s!ance. . . . (2, Iflif) Certainly the triumphant championing of Voltaire at the expense of Cr!b!llon was hardly a laudable performance, for the la tte r was well-nigh forgotten by 1778. Voltaire had died that very year, ac claimed by all of Europe. Thus, D’AIembert’ s ’VIctory" is really too jeasyj he is rather gratuitously flaying a dead donkey. The "Eloge de j Cr!b I I lon"_Is not one of D’ Alembert’ s better eulogies. _____________ CHAPTER X I A LAWYER AND A SOLDIER Louis de Sacy, an eminent French lawyer, and George Keith, a sol dier of Scottish parentage, are the subjects of two most successful j 11oges, at least from a biographical point of view. Although they were . not 11tterateurs In the s tric t sense of the word, they did manifest a lively interest in men and letters. Moreover, they became staunch par tisans of the philosophe group. "Eloge de Sacy” When presenting this eulogy to the French Academy on June 26, 1776, .D’Afembert made this introductory statement: L’lloge que vous allez entendre, messieurs, est molns celui d’ un ecrlvaln du premier ordre, que d’ un acadlmicien sage et vertueux, qui | joign it a des ouvrages estlmables une honn§tet6 de m oe urs et de | princlpes blen preferable aux me!IIeurs ouvrages. ( I l l , 61- 62) i Then he begins his k loge of Louis de Sacy ( I 65I4 .- 1727)» who was a ! j lawyer "par etat et par devoir” and a writer "par a t tr a it et par goGt” | ( i l l , 63-64). Like that of Perrault, the De Sacy feIoge Is D’Alembert’ s j public tribute to a particular type of academician— a scholar who, though not a writer by profession, represented in various ways the js p lrlt of the Age des Lumieres. The panegyrist clearly explains his subject’ s relative Importance In this paragraph: SI |e nom de Sacy n’ est pas au rang de ces noms immortels, dont I ’Academie et la littferature s’ honorent, les qualltes de son Sme et la dignity de sa condulte ont rendu son souvenir cher a cette compagnie, 269 et son exemple prlcieux aux gens de lettres. (HTT» 62) D’Alembert is principally interested in De Sacy as a man of ster- I ling character and engaging personality. It Is evident that in present-; ing this lawyer as a "model academician," the eulogist Is trying once more to prove the validity of one of his favorite axioms— virtue is its own reward— because he adds this corollary: II [De Sacy] prouva enfin, que pour jouir de ce bonheur qu’ on cherche tant et qu'on trouve si peu, !a sagesse vaut mieux que le genie, I ’ estime que I ’ admI r a t !on, et les douceurs du sentiment que le bruit de la renommee. fTTT, 62) Despite a successful legal career, De Sacy acted upon a sincere desire to direct some of his interests and talents into another channel, "comme l ’ orateur romain [Ciceron], entre les affaires et la phllosophie, entre le barreau et la I I tte ra tu re ." His debut, however, In the world of Iitterature was as a translator of classical works. In speaking of this "ingrat et plnible metier de traducteur," D’Alembert refers to the authoritative opinions of Montesquieu and Boileau. He then adds: . . . le travail de la traduction serait pour tous les autres une Piche moisson de princlpes et d'idees, et une excellente ecole dans I'a r t d’ lc rlre , , . , Que n'est-I I plus sulvl par nos Jeunes I I ttera-i teurs, don t la plupart se h§tent de prendre la plume sans avoir apprisi a la tenir, et d'etre auteurs avant de penserj ( I I 1, 63-61+) De Sacy's f ir s t lite ra ry e ffo rt was the translation of Pliny’ s Letters. He was much criticized by some contemporary writers for "I'affectation d'esprit et le style peu naturel" (H U , 61+). More favor able, however, Is D'Alembert's opinion of this work: Aussi agreabIe a lire que I ’ original, e lle [la traduction] est en mime temps molns fatigante, parce que le traducteur, en rendant toute la finesse de Pline, la rend avec plus de simplicity que lul; I'e s p rit de I'auteur s ’ y montre avec d'autant plus d'avantage, qu'il y est degage de I'a p p rit qui le depare trop souvent dans Pline mime. . . . DTT 65) 270 The success of this translation eventually resulted in De Sacy's election to the French Academy. Several years later, he translated the I Trajan panegyric by Pliny the Younger. Accounting for the popularity of! De Sacy’ s second Iiterary achievement, the eulogist writes: Le desir et le besoln de voir les hommes heureux, qui se montrent a chaque I Igne de I ’ouvrage, le p o rtrait d’ un prince qui n'est pas loue par la fla t t e r ie , I ’ esprit et l ’ 4loquence m 4m e de I'orateur, car I I est quelquefois iloquent, quoique toujours Ingenieux, fire n t re- ; chercher avec empressement la version de M, de Sacy par tous ceux qui ne pouvalent lire Pline qu’ en francais. ( H I , 67) Because of a "monotonle qui f i n i t par 4tre penible au lecteur," De Sacy's second translation eventually lost Its In itia l popularity. The most interesting and fascinating part of this eulogy Is the account of De Sacy’ s long and Intimate association with Mm e Marquenat de CourceJ les de Lambert ( 161+7— 1733)> * who frequently welcomed into her home plusieurs c&lebres ecrivalns, a la t§te desquels etatent Fontenelle et La Motte, et qui unissalent la philosophie aux charmes de la Iitte ra tu re, I'urbanite aux talents, I ’ estlme rlclproque a la r i val I t§. iThls distinguished, hIghIy-intellectual woman selected the honored ;guests for her salon thus: i Madame de Lambert, qu'on accusalt de n'aimer que I ’esprit, et qui honorait ce reproche des sots d’ une attention dont el le aura it pu se 1 ^M m e de Lambert was le ft a widow at a comparatively young age. She became especially interested in the monde litte ra lr e of the French capi tal. Larousse describes her a c tiv itie s thus: ’'En 1 698, elle s 'In sta lla a 1'hStel de Nevers, re^ut dans ses salons Ja society lettree de son temps, et obtint une grande influence dans les elections academiques, Elle ecrIvi t pour sa f iIle et pour son f i l s deux 4 legants manueIs de morale mondaine: Lettre d’ une dame a son f i l s sur la vraie g lo ire , qui parut malgre e lle , en 1726, et Avis a m a f l l l e , qui a l la lt paraTtre de m§me, lorsqu’ e lle publla elle-m§me ensemble les deux ouvrages, sous le 11 tre de Avis d'une mere a sa f l l l e et a son f i l s ( 1728). (Z3Z, 3 1 I ) 271 dispenser, y r&pondait en admettant dans cette petite academie, plus I I lustre que nombreuse, ce qu'iI y avait de plus distingue a la cour par le rang e t par la naissance, Cur, 67) In the notes attached to this eulogy there Is a long passage from another 11oge of this gracious lady, accused by some of possess i ng trop ;djes£rjt. Here in part is Fontenelle's opinion of his celebrated hos tess: . . . et madame de Lambert elle-m£me, tres delicate sur Ies discours et sur I'opinion du public, craignait quelquefois de donner trop a son gotit: e lle avait le soin de se rassurer, en faisant reflexion que dans cette m§me maison, si accusee d'esprit, elle y fa is a it une dlpense tres noble, et y recevait beaucoup plus de gens du monde et de condition, que de gens illustres dans les le ttre s .2 D'Alembert adds his own tribute to Fontenelle's for he, too, had known this great lady personally: On n'ecoutait point dans cette maison, ou plutSt on n'y connaissait pas cette philosophie dure et In juste, qui, ordonnant aux femmes un silence humiliant pour elles et tris te pour nous, les condamne a cacher avec autant de soin leurs connaissances et leurs lumieres que leurs sentimens et leurs affections. On croyait au contraire, et on avait le bonheur de I'eprouver a chaque instant aupres de madame de Lambert, qu'une femme honnSte, delicate et sensible, pleine d'Sme, d'esprit et d'agrements, e ta it le lien et le charme le plus doux d'une societl si heureusement assortie, rare assemblage de savoir et de graces, de finesse et de profondeur, de polttesse et de lumieres. CUE, 67- 68) j As in the case of Segrais and Mm e de Lafayette, De Sacy and Mm e de jLambert entered upon a close association of Iiterary collaboration. ! jllnder her guidance he wrote his f ir s t creative work, the Traite de i I ' Am f 114 , dedicating I t to his patroness, w dont il e ta it en e ffe t I'ami, beaucoup plus que les autres gens de lettres qu'elle avait rassembles.” It is very evident that in the close relationship of Mm e de Lambert with De Sacy, D'Alembert sees a parallel to his own long and Intimate ^CE uvres de Fpntenelle (Paris, 1825), H , kOJ. 272 friendship with Julie de Lespinasse. In explaining further that the > association of De Sacy with Mm e de Lambert was much more than just a "professional partnership," he comments significantly: Le commerce de ceux-cl [les autres gens de lettres] ne lui e ta it qu'agreablej celul de M. de Sacy e ta it bien plus pour e lle , il lui e ta it necessalre. Si I'e s p rit des Fontenelle et des La Motte lui o ffr a lt plus d'agrlment et plus de ressources, elle trouvalt dans M. de Sacy une senslbillte qul a l la lt plus a son coeur, et une 3me qui rlpondait mieux a la slenne. ( I l l , 68) There was Indeed, as we shall discover in other &loges, a close feeling of empathy between D'Alembert and his subject'. On her part W m e de Lambert, "sous les yeux de ce digne ami," pro duced her famous manuel de morale mondaln, the Avis d'une Mere a son f il s et a sa f 1 I le. Concerning the I Iterary value of this lady’ s w rit ing, the eulogist remarks: . . . ouvrage ou la delicatesse du gotit est jointe a celle du senti ment, la connalssance du monde aux plus touchantes lemons de vertu, et les graces plquantes du style aux expressions nafves de la tendresse maternelle. ( I l l , 68) To appreciate the fu ll Import of these commendatory words, we must remember that D'Alembert himself was one of the distinguished guests whom Mm e de Lambert frequently entertained. His praise is fu lly ju s t!-: fled, for the manuel de morale mondaln does possess intrinsic value. iWe are happily surprised to discover that In many cases Madame de Lam- jbert's "words of wisdom" are equally convincing today and that her style i |of writing Is both concise and smooth. In the opening paragraphs of the Avis to her son she expresses this pertinent truth: II n’ y a que deux temps dans la vie ou la v § ritl se montre utllement a nous: dans la jeunesse, pour vous Instrulre; dans la vlelllesse, pour nous consoler. Dans le temps des passions, la verite nous abandonne.5 273 j Does not M m e de Lambert demonstrate evidence of a truly democratic frame of mind In this remark upon human relationships? Peu de gens savent vlvre avec leurs inferleurs. La grande opinion quei nous avons de nous-mSmes, nous f a it regarder ce qul est au au-dessous ; de nous comme une espece a part. Que ces sentiments sont contra I res a I'humanite! SI vous voulez vous fafre un grand nom, II faut etre accessible et affable. La possession des armes n'en dispense point. (p.i+2) This devoted, enlightened mother Is giving advice to a fine young son who w ill eventually become un homme d'epee. With the acquisition of s k ills in the art of war, Mm e de Lambert wishes him to possess also the "finer graces" of un honnSte homme. One of these necessary manly v ir tues she describes thuss La polItesse est un desir de plaire aux personnes avec qul I'on est obllgl de vivre, et de faire en sorte que tout le monde solt content de nous; nos superieurs, de nos respects; nos egaux de notre estlme, et nos inferleurs de notre bontl. (p. 3 0 Mm e de Lambert's Avis to her daughter Is equally practical and discerning. As we would expect, it covers a wider range of topics and is presented In a more intimate, affectionate tone. The mother's views on the type of formal education which her daughter should pursue are quite modern indeed. Her suggestions as to the choice of basic subjects; resemble the professional advice which a present-day teacher-counseI lor might offer to a bright, young highschool student. What does Mme de ; j i i jLambert say about the Importance of taking history? I ( j II est bon que les jeunes personnes s'occupent de sciences sol ides, i L'histoire Grecque et Romaine eleve I'Slme, nourrit le courage par les grandes actions qu'on y volt. II faut savolr l'h is to ire de Francet II n'est pas permis d'ignorer I'H istoIre de son pays. (p. 80) j ^QEuvres de Madame La Marquise de Lambert, New Edition (Amsterdam. I7 6 6 ),_ p7_ L---------------------------------------------------------------- 27k Mme de Lambert*s Insistence upon the importance of philosophy and ethics In her daughter’ s school curriculum must certainly have met with D’Alembert’ s hearty approval: Je ne bISmerois pas mime un peu de philosophie, surtout de la nouvelle, si on en est capable. Elle vous met de la precision dans I'e s p rlt, demlle vos Idees, et vous apprend a penser juste. Je voudrais aussi de la morale: a force de Iire Clceron, Pline, et les autres, on prend du goOt pour la vertu. (p. 80) Concerning the study of foreign languages— of which she approves— and literature, she makes this unique statement: La poesie peut avoir des Inconvenients: j ’ aurois pourtant peine a interdire la lecture des belles tragedies de Corneille. Mais souvent les meiIleures vous donnent des Iegons de vertu, et vous laissent I ’ impression du vice, (p. 81) On the contrary, the mother’ s warning against the harmful effects of novel reading, the highIy-objectionable ”yellow-back" literature of the eighteenth century, seems now somewhat incongruous: La lecture des romans est plus dangereuse: je ne voudrois pas que I ’on en f t t un grand usage; ils mettent du faux dans I'e s p rit. Le roman n’ etant jamais pris sur le v r a i, a I Iume I ’ imagination, a ffo ib lit la pudeur, met le desordre dans le coeur; et pour peu qu’ une jeune personne a lt de la disposition a la tendresse, hSte et p rlcipite son penchant. , , . Mats il faut autant qu’ on peut s ’accoutumer a des lectures solides, qui ornent I'e s p rit, et fo r tifie n t le coeur: on ne peut trop Iv tte r cel les qui laissent des impressions d lff I d le s a effacer. (pp. 81-82) What wise, devoted mother does not encourage her daughter to cul- 1 tivate an "inner beauty" of heart and s p i r i t , as well as physical attractiveness’ . Mm e de Lambert must have been a true mother in this respect: Vous n’lte s pas nle sans agrSments; mais vous n’ Stes pas une beauti: cela vous oblige a fa ire provision de m lrite ; on ne vous fera grSce sur rlen . . . . La beauti inspire un sentiment de douceur qui previent. Si vous n’ avez point ces avances, on vous Jugera a la rigueur. Qu’ I I n’ y a it done rien dans votre a ir , ni dans vos manieres, qui fasse sentir que vous vous ignorez: I ’ a ir de conflance revolte dans une figure mediocre, Que rlen ne sente I ’ art nl dans vos dis cours, ni dans vos adjustements, ou quTiI y soit difficiIem ent apper^u: L’ art le plus delicat ne se f a it point sentir, (pp. 67- 68); From these citations it Is evident that this eighteenth-century manuel de morale mondaln is far saner and more perceptive than many other contemporary "guidebooks In manners and morals," W e believe, furthermore, that D’Alembert's praise of its content and style is altogether justified. He continues his eloge with a favorable reference to the f ir s t work which De Sacy wrote under Mm e de Lambert's patronage: Le Traite de I'A m itie, par la peinture que I'auteur y f a it de ce sentiment qu'I I connalssait si bien, par I'in te re t avec lequel il en trace les devoirs, par les consolations qu'il salt en tire r pour adoucir les maux de la vie, prouve comblen M. de Sacy eta it digne de la preference que madame de Lambert lui avait accordee, (in, 68) There Is one weakness in De Sacy's essay, "un defaut qui re fro ld it un peu ses lectures. . . . ” The author wishes to be tout a la fols sensible et philosophe, deux qualities qul peut-etre ne sont guere compatibles dans un ouvrage de cette espece, . . . ou la raison dolt parler le langage de I ’ Sme, et ou II n’est permis a la sagesse m§me de s'exprimer qu'avec chaleur. ( I l l , 68) D'Alembert is ju s tifia b ly convinced that De Sacy the philosopher must, unfortunately, exhibit in his Trai t4 an objectivity not compatible with a subjectivity revealed in the spontaneous effusions of true friendship. It is probably In this respect that he considers De Sacy's; work far inferior to that of Montaigne. The eulogist compares De Sacy's style with Montaigne's, . . . cet ecrivain partout aiIleurs si penseur et si profond, [qui] n'est plus que tendre et sensible, quand il parle de son amitie pour La Boetie.4- ^Etienne de La Bo&tle (1550-1565), "Collegue de Montaigne au 276 D’Alembert Is far more favorably Impressed with Montaigne's warm, personal tone In his eulogy of La Boetle than with De Sacy's cold, quite; Impersonal mood in the Tra?te . In comparing De Sacy and Montaigne, "le j plus philosophe des ecrivains," D'Alembert intimates that the difference In personality of these two men may account for the dissim ilarity in their writings. In other words, De Sacy lacks that "creative touch," a form of senslbl I I te which Montaigne evidently possessed CUE, 68- 69). ' Looking more closely at these two pieces of writing, we grasp quite: readily the fu ll significance of this c ritic a l evaluation. De Sacy does not develop his ideas around a central, specific theme and he writes in the third-person singular, except when he occasionally employs the rhe torical "we." Montaigne, on the other hand, speaks frequently of his Intimate friendship with La Boetle; and through a consistent use of the pronoun "I" he clearly sets a definite pattern and a personal tone for :his essay. From a comparison of the two works, we must conclude, as D'Alembert evidently did, that the Tralte is l it t l e more than De Sacy's impersonal exposition of genera I views on the subject of friendship: II [De Sacy] offre plutSt le tableau paisible d'une affection douce, | que le tableau anlme d'une affection vtve, ou le tableau reflechi d'ure | affection profonde. (H Z , 69) i To corroborate D'Alembert's judgment, we may add that in De Sacy's j i statement he suggests that few people fu lly appreciate the Implications and responsibilities of friendship. Those who wil lingly become friends must expect to make adjustments, both In attitudes and In p e r s o n a l I ties. 5 partement de Bordeaux, il inspfra une amitie passlonnle a ce phi losophe, leque1 voyait en lui 'une Sme qul montrait un beau visage a tout sens'" (Larousse, 32, 278). 277 Montaigne’ s De I ’Ami t i l Is an affectionate tribute— almost elegiac ; In mood— to a beloved, deceased friends Son coeur seul [ Ie coeur de Montaigne] lui a dlcte les expressions simples et p6netrantes, qui rendent si delicieuse et si douce la lecture de ce dlvln morceau des Essais. ( i l l , 68) The famous ,fparce que c 'e ta it lu i” passage from Montaigne's essay Is then quoted. D'Alembert further compares De Sacy’ s Tra i te with a similar work by: another person, un celebre philosophe de nos jours, Helvetius, [qui] tres-digne d 'ailleu rs par ses vertus d’ lnsplrer et de sentlr I ’ amitJS, a mleux su la meriter que la connaTtre. ( I l l , 69) This reference to Claude Adrien Helvetius^ (1715-1770 Is charac te ris tic of D’Alembert. It Is his way of renderlng public homage to a fellow philosophe whose works had been o ffic ia lly condemned. He became,: In fact, the most obliging friend in the whole group around Diderot in Paris, and Voltaire In Switzerland. D’Alembert's statement Is also an adroit way of pointing out the Inconsistency in Helvetius’ o f t- r e ite r ated principle of self-in te re s t in alI things. Even his concept of ! ;frlendshlp Is based upon purely selfish motives, In D’Alembert's opin- | | ’ i on. ^Tra116 de I'Am!tie (Paris, 1703), p. 23). ^In his youth Helvetius was greatly Influenced by the writings of John Locke. This French philosopher’ s major work, De I'E sp rit, created 111ve1y discussion and wide difference of opinion, for "La philosophie d'Helvetlus est un sensualIsme absolu. II Imet ce paradoxe que tous les esprits sont egaux et que les differences qu'on remarque sont le rls u l- tat de I'education. En morale, vertu et vice sont des choses relatives; lies actions vertueuses sont celles qul contribuent au bonheur glneral jd'une nation" (Larousse, TTT [1930], 991). 278 : II [Helvetius] ne cherche, II ne volt dans I'am itie que le meme motif,! qul, selon lu i, sert de base a toutes nos actions, le besoln mutuel et I 'i n t e r l t propre. ( i l l . 69) ! I Continuing his tria d ic discussion, the eulogist compares De Sacy | with Helvetius and Montaigne In this statement: Moins rlgoureux et molns trlste observateur du coeur humaln, mais ne 1 sachant pas aussi, comme Montaigne, faire verser des larmes a ceux qui: le IIsent, M. de Sacy n'est peut-etre dans son ouvrage, ni assez tendre pour les Smes sensibles, ni assez penseur pour les phi losophes.; c m , 6 9 ) Apparently, the Impartial c r itic does not think too highly of De Sacy's f ir s t original I Iterary achievement; but as the friend of both Mm e de Lambert and De Sacy, he believes the Trai t! de I'Ami tie has a certain meri t: Cet ouvrage neanmolns, malgre la vlgueur ou la mollesse de touche qu'on y desire, eut un succes m erit!, par la morale salne et delicate! qui en f a it la base, par I'ellgance et la purete du style, et surtout par I'honnetete de caractere dont II porte I ' empreinte. On jugea que: si I'auteur s 'e ta it pelnt dans son livre avec trop peu d'energle, du moins 11 s 'e ta it peint au nature I; et ceux qui lurent M. de Sacy avec le moins d'Jn terlt, ne purent se refuser a celul que sa personne e ta it si digne d'insplrer. ( i l l , 69) His fin a l words on this subject are, In th eir s im p lic ity , perhaps ias moving a tribute as can be found In any of his iloges: | C'est que le premier merlte d'un auteur est d'etre vrai; Stre elo quent n'est que le second. On sent que M. de Sacy, quand il parle de j I'am itie et de la vertu, parle de ce qul le touche et de ce qu'il j alme; et tout Icrivaln qui exprime avec slm p llclt! et v !rite le senti-j ment honn^te qui est au fond de son lime, n'a pas besoln d'eloquence pour faire partager ce sentiment a ses lecteurs. Cm, 69- 70) Like his Tra1te de I 'Amit l e , De Sacy's next work, the Tra i t! de la GIoI r e , was patterned after a similar writing by Cicero. This second work was less popular than the f ir s t . Son clm e [ I'clme De Sacy] douce et modeste e t a it plus fa lt e pour connattre les besolns du sentiment que ceux de I ’ amour-propre, et le p la is lr de vlvre dans le coeur de son ami, que celul d»ex Is ter dans 279 1'opinion des autres. (H U , 70) As a loyal friend, an esteemed man of letters, and a person highly j i respected by everyone, D'Alembert praises his subject unreserved Iy, ! i II mourut le 26 octobre 17^7, 3g6 de solxante-treI ze ans, chargl de travaux et de vertus, lalssant a ses amis le plus cher souvenir, aux gens de Iettres le plus dIgne modele, aux gens de bien les plus justes regrets. (X U , 71) The most striking section of this 6 loge is the final paragraph In j which D'Alembert, with deep, personal feeling, speaks of De Sacy's close association with Mme de Lambert: "plus 3gee que lui de sept ans, et dont I'am itie fidele et pure avait f a it la douceur de sa vie, . . . " Throughout the entire paragraph he is thinking of his own nineteen years of intimate friendship with his dear J u lie ,? who preceded him in death. With b itte r regret, D'Alembert remembers that he must experience a lonely old age and eventually face his final hour without the comfort- ; Ing presence of the woman whom he has loved so long and so hopelessly. As he compares his present situation and his grim, future fate with :De Sacy's, he sadly remarks: Ainsi la nature, qui avait tant f a it pour le bonheur de M. de Sacy, y j i mit le comble par une vieillesse heureuse et paisible, exempte de ce j sentiment douloureux que laisse au fond du coeur une perte eternelle et irreparable; sentiment dont I'Impression est d'autant plus profondej que I T3me trouve une espece d 'a t tr a it a s'y iiv re r, et de douceur a eh \ gotlter I ’ amertume. . . . Cm, 70 Despite his loneliness and dejection, D'Alembert Is inclined to consider death "ce malheur de I'humanite" as "un bienfait de la nature," since It gives to those bereft of loved ones the hope of being reunited 7 The fact that Julie had died on May 23, only one month before D'Alembert delivered the De Sacy Ilo g e , would probably account for his deep emotion. 280 with them In the hereafter. To him Mme de Lambert's undying affection for her deceased friend is convincing proof, for he continues: 1 Madame de Lambert, qui survecut encore si x annees a M. de Sacy, entretint et nourrit toujours ce sentiment cher a son coeur. Elle y i jo ig n it un espoir plus ccnsolant encore, celui que la divin ite i bienfaisante donne aux Smes vertueuses, de se riu n lr un jour pour | n'avoir plus a pleurer leur separation; espoir en e ffe t si propre a soulager ies maux des coeurs sensibles; espoir dont la malheureuse humanite avait un besoin si pressant, qu'elle a couru, pour ainsi ■ dire, au-devant de lu i, avant que la bonti supreme et eternelle voulOt bien le lui presenter el le-m@me. ( i l l , 71) Strange indeed are these personal reflections! They come directly: : from the pen of a philosophe e c l a i r ! , from the heart of one who pro- i fessed no religious fa ith whatever. Nevertheless, It is quite clear that D'Alembert Is expressing— of course, in guarded language— some sort of personal conviction, or at least a desperate sp iritu al hope. In thinking of these two friends, D'Alembert expresses his belief that | human love and f id e lity like De Sacy's w ill triumph over death and even j overcome doubt and scepticism about immortality: Un sentiment profond et plein de vie, prlvS d'un objet chir! qu' I I ne retrouvait plus, et ne pouvant supporter I'td&e accablante d'Stre j aneanti pour jamais, a Inspirfe, interesse, eclaire la raison, pour | lui fa ire embrasser avec transport cette attente precieuse d'une ] i existence immortelle, dont le premier desir n'a pas dQ nattre dans | une t£te froide et philosophe, mais dans un coeur qui avait aime. (nr, 70 In certain respects, the "Eloge de Sacy” d iffers rather widely from those we have thus far examined. Here D'Alembert has chosen for his subject one whom he mgst have known personally, because both men were distinguished and frequent guests at Mm e de Lembert’ s b r illia n t lite ra ry receptions. Consequently, this eulogy becomes much more the j Intimate portrait of two esteemed friends than it does the c r it ic a l, ! * ! ! impartial evaluation of a w riter and his 11terary accomplishments. The I 2 8 1 j mention of his hostess leads D'Alembert into a discussion of Mm e de j Lambert's own intellectual accomplishments and fin a lly into a personal > account of her intimate association with De Sacy. Most remarkable is I | the concluding paragraph of this eulogy, for here the dignified, e f f i - | cient, impersonal secretary of the august French Academy becomes a j human being, baring his heart for a brief moment before his d tstin - j j guished audience. j In his c ritic a l evaluation of De Sacy's works, D'Alembert implies ; that he counts his subject only a mediocre writer; but he takes the I Trai te de I 'Ami tle as an appropriate point of departure for a lengthy j j and most favorable consideration of Montaigne's De I'Ami t ie . So pre- | ! occupied is the eulogist with this altogether "unequal" comparison of i jDe Sacy and Montaigne that he continues i t in his copious notes. I J Finally, he gives this definitive statement: ", . . le T ra fti de i I I'Ami ti & de M. de Sacy, tres-estimable d 'a ille u rs , est fo r t inferieur au chapitre de Montaigne sur le m£me sujet . . . *' (TTT, 76), Could I t i j be that through such fulsome praise of De I ' Am i 11e D'Alembert is a t- S ! tempting to prove that Montaigne was also a precurseur lointain of the 1 mouvement philosophique? This seems a plausible explanation, espe c ia lly when we recall that he adds, a fte r quoting verbatim from the De I ' Ami t i & in the context of his eulogy: "C'est ainsi que le plus philo sophe des ecrlvalns a exprfmfe ce q u 'iI sentait pour son ami [La Boltie]" (in :, 69). f In the notes D'Alembert has discussed at length Irrelevant topics,! j classical writers, and elections at the French Academy; but we considerj the eulogy its e lf one of his better ones. j 282 "Eloge de Milord Marechal" i Several unusually interesting features make this eulogy of Milord Marechal (George Keith) quite unique. Although It is not an & Ioge academique, i t does prove excellent reading. In contrast to De Sacy, i | George Keith (1693-1778), like Bernoulli, was a foreigner and a native j of a country which had been on very close terms with France fo r many i j years. I | It has been impossible to find fu ll biographic data concerning j the "Eloge de Milord M arlchaI." However, from the correspondence of | I ; D'Alembert with Frederick of Prussia, we have gathered a few meager j facts. He begins with a le t te r dated April 30, 1779, the beginning j paragraph of which reads: ! Sire, M. le baron de Goltz a bien voulu se charger de fa ire parvenir j a votre majesty le faib le monument que Je vlens d'eriger a la memolre | du vertueux et respectable milord Marechal, Je serais bien fla tte I que cet §loge pOt obtenir le suffrage de votre majestej j'a i tSche d'y peindre avec verite le digne milord qul en e ta it i ’ objet, et i j'au ra i du moins la satisfaction, si Je n'al pas rlu ssi, d'avoir j exprime dans cet 4loge les sentimens de respect et d'admiration dont i Je suis penetre depuls si long-temps pour le heros philosophe qui j j honorait de son amlti& ce veritable sage. (2, k ^ 5) j This statement clearly Indicates that Keith was the highly | esteemed friend of both correspondents. It is not surprising, there- j fore, that D'Alembert would select this distinguished so Idier-phI Ioso- pher as the subject of an eloge. In this le tte r to Frederick, the eulogist mentions a copy of his Eloges ius dans les Seances PublIques which he had sent to his German friend three months previously. Then he returns to the matter of the Keith eulogy. Since he stated at the opening of his letter that he had I Just written the "Eloge de Milord Marechal” he could not have possibly j 283 included I t in the f i r s t edition of his Eloges I us dans les Seances Publlques. D'Alembert probably did not read this trib u te to his Scot- I tish frie n d in the general assembly, because he was not elected to the | | French Academy. However, the eulogy appeared In the la te r editions of D'Alembert's complete works. This eIoge was w ritten not long before D'Alembert's death. He was In poor health when he wrote I t , a fa c t which he mentions In his le tte r I Nevertheless, Keith's eulogy is one of his fin e s t. i At the very beginning the biographer Inserted a footnote to the | e ffe c t that he had gathered a ll his factual material e ith e r from the jM arlchaI himself, "qu'iI a p a r t i cullerement connu,” or from Keith's most Intimate friends In Spain, France, and the Prussian domains. Frequently D'Alembert speaks of the Marechal In terms of fulsome praise. Here Is one of his early remarks* Cet lloge est un tr lb u t, a la v l r l t ! bien doux, qu'exlge de mol I'ami t i l dont milord Marlchal m'a honor!, et la tendre v !n !ra tio n que m'avait fnspirle cet homme de moeurs antiques et pures, que les beaux slecles de la p ro b it! romalne aura lent envte au notre. . . . (TTT, 685) Likewise he often refers to the mutual a ffe c tio n , understanding, and respect fo r Keith and Frederick, the distinguished royal patron of I many eminent IcrIvains-phIlosophes. Keith, s t r i c t l y un homme d 'lp le , was even less a I Itte ra te u r than a man such as De Sacy; nevertheless, In D'Alembert's estimation, he became a person worthy of consideration and e u lo g is tic praise. A keen student of human nature, D'Alembert was quick to detect in his Scottish friend, un v lrlta b le philosophe, "par son caractere, par son esprit, par ses vertus" ( i l l , 685). Thus, we discover his second 2 8 4 ; reason for choosing Keith and fo r counting him a valuable and Influen tia l lay member of the mouvement philosophique. Apart from D’Alembert's s e If - p o r t r a lt and hts correspondence, this | k Ioge probabIy constitutes his most autobiographical piece of w ritin g , i for In no other eulogy does he speak so fre e ly of himself. The Keith eulogy is highly biographical in nature; almost a complete life -sketch i i Is presented. D’Alembert, however, does not do this in consistent, IchronoIogicaI order. Rather, he recounts the principal events of the s o ld ie r's l i f e in a way to reveal his outstanding personality, to des- jcrlb e his relations with the phi losophes, and to In terp ret his attitudes I on some p o litic a l problems as well as his views on certain highly debatable matters of contemporary interest. The eulogist s k i l f u l l y presents the salie n t facts of K eith 's early days. Much more fortunate than D'Alembert, the Scottish s oldier ac quired at birth wealth, an old and honorable family tra d itio n , and a distinguished hereditary t i t l e . He did not, however, overestimate the in trin s ic value of these i n i t i a l advantages, as his biographer points j I out, n atu rally with great s a tis fa c tio n ( i l l , 685- 686), j 1 I t was In the army of the illu s trio u s Duke of Mai borough that Keith, s t i l l a lad, obtained his f i r s t taste of a m ilita r y career, one fo r which he demonstrated marked aptitude. Possessed of an innate sense of modesty, he never boasted of his outstanding a b i l i t i e s in this d i rection, ” 11 ne p a r la lt pas plus de ses taIens m llit a ir e s que de sa noblesse,” So favorably impressed is D’Alembert with his fr ie n d ’ s sin - j c e rity and unselfishness that he speaks at length of these inestimable ch aracteristies ( I f f , 686). j 285; Upon the death of the English Queen Anne, the youthful soldier decided to cast his future lot with the Jacobites; but while many of his m ilitary associates escaped with the Pretender to France, Keith remained with his brother in Scotland to raise a larger army against the English. In some detail the eulogist relates many incidents of j Keith’ s harrowing experience as a Jacobite fu g itiv e , ,rtoujours j i | poursuivi et toujours tranquille, dans les montagnes et les petites j i t l e s au nord de I ’Ecosse." By dwelling upon his subject’ s p o litical I a c tiv itie s , D'Alembert intends to point out other of Keith’ s sterling j qualities, especially as a soldier of democratic s p ir it and fearless i courage. He quotes from Keith’ s personal account of his adventures and then adds this comment: ! C'est alnsi que notre palslble phi losophe, au milieu des p ir iIs eminens qul menacaient sa vie, plalsantait sur ces perils mime, et ; sur la d iffic u lte d’ y echapper. ( I l l , 688) I l j I Despite unswerving loyalty to th eir fel low countrymen, the Keith j brothers soon awoke to the f u t i l i t y of their e ffo rts , "de ranimer le parti mourant de la maison Stuart” ( i l l , 689). Consequently, they ! i ; ifled to Europe, where afte r eventually renouncing all further p a r tic i- 1 I ■ pation in the Jacobite rebellions, they were ”gentlemen adventurers” for the next f i f t y years. D'Alembert says much about George Keith’ s extensive travels and varied experiences In the d ifferen t European countries. W e must remem ber that when the eulogist presents this abundant biographical material he has this motive in mind: to portray the character and personality j of Milord Marlchal. The Scottish soldier f i r s t visited Avignon "ou il se p la is a it 2 8 6 | beaucoup." While accounting tor Keith's favorable impressions of this j i j important center of Roman Catholicism, the eulogist remarks sarcasti- ca I I y i N'ayant pas le bonheur d’ itr e catholique, il [Keith] semblait ne ; devoir pas cherir de preference une terre pon tificalej mais comme il j e ta it fort accommodant en matiere de religion, et que monseigneur le ; v ic e -llg a t, d i s a i t - i l , ne le tourmentait pas sur la sienne, 11 laissait en paix celle des autres, et n'avait point Ia-dessus de j violence a se faire. ( i l l , 689-690) I t Keith was sim ilarly impressed with another Catholic stronghold, Spain. He developed an empathy for the people of this country because j he found In the Spanish "un caractere de noblesse et de franchise i O d’ autant plus f a it pour lui plaire que ce caractere e ta it le sien." i With his belief In religious tolerance, the Marechal could overlook their "spiritual blindness": | . . . il pardonnait aux Espagnols, en faveur de ces rares qualites, le credit qu'I Is accordaient aux pr@tres et aux moines, I ' inquisition sous laquelle I Is gemlssaient, et cette deplorable superstition qui | | en est la suite malheureuse. f i l l , 6 9 1) I Keith volunteered his m ilita ry services in a Spanish war against i 1 .Austria, but his request was denied because of his protestant fa ith . j !Later on, however, he was permitted to join the Spanish army fighting I the Moors. In his explanati on as to why Phi 11p Y was w illin g to accept assistance from an "in fid e l" in his war against the Moors, but not against the Austrians, the eulogist concludes with an inimitable, sar castic "aside": } Q A sore point with D'Alembert is the fact that Keith admittedly preferred Spanish to French cuisine, ", . . trop Justement celebre dans toute I'Europe, pour que le jugement d'un si faib le connaisseur puisse j blesser notre amour-propre, et alarmer nos prltentions sur ce grave et important avantage." ( I l l , 6 91) Mais peut-£tre la cour d'Espagne e t a it- e lle persuadee qu'un chr&tien, orthodoxe ou non, qul p erit dans une guerre contre les infideles, obtient, s 'F 1 est necessaire, le pardon de ses erreurs, en acqu&rant la paIme du martyre. c m , 691) That these quoted passages and other statements in the eIoge con s titu te another of D’Alembert's subtle, If not devastati ng, attacks upon I ’ 1 nfSme Is quite clear. During the early years of George Keith’ s European tour, his younger brother James was in Paris studying mathematics at the Academy I I of Sciences, to which he was later elected a member. D’Alembert may I have met the Keith brothers for the f ir s t time at a session of this | | I celebrated organization. Not as a scientist did James win lasting famejl he enlisted as a soldier in the army of Peter H I and eventually became the most successful general of his time. In one of the heaviest cam paigns he was severely wounded in the knee. D’Alembert, always deeply affected by human s u f f e r i n g , ^ gives a graphic account of the way In which the older Keith hastened across Europe to his young brother's aid. In so doing, D'Alembert brings into bold re lie f other facets of George's admirable personality: family loyalty and sympathetic under standing f i l l , 692). n Soon a fte r D'Alembert began his career as a mathematician, he was persuaded by some of his friends to change to a more lucrative profes sion, medicine. The result of this decision is described thus: "Pour se livrer entierement a ce nouveau genre de travail [la medeclne], D'Alembert abandonna d’ abord I'ltu d e des mathematiquesj II crut m£me eviter la tentation en faisant transporter chez un ami le peu de livres | qu’ II avait; mais peu a peu, et presque sans qu 'il s'en aper^ut, ces ' livres revinrent chez lui I ’ un apres I ’ autre, et, au bout d'un an d'itude de medecine, il r&solut de se liv re r entierement a son gout dominant et presque unique" (Hoefer, I [1852], 760). From this state ment we understand more clearly why D’Alembert showed such interest in James Keith's war wounds. : 288 Italy was the next country to which the Marichal travelled. Liv ing for some time in beautiful Venice, "dans une mediocrite que tout | autre auralt appelSe Indigence,” the aging Scottish soldier demon- [ strated the attributes of the philosophe eclalre et vertueux; Sa situation n'avait point alt&re la pa Ix et la serlnite de son Sme. Les lettres qu’ fI &crivait de Venise a ses amis, etaient assaison- n§es de la plaisanterle la plus philosophique. ( i l l , 693) i i j It was now the turn of the younger Keith, ”aussi attache a son jdigne frere qu’ iI en e ta it alme, . . . " t o come to the rescue of his I ' | older brother. Having recently enrolled as a high-ranking o ffic e r In I ' 1 i j the German army, James persuaded George to come to live with him In i j B e r l i n , A t this point In his narrative, the eulogist inserts a clever remark quite characteristic of the distinguished Marechal: Mon fre re , d l s a i t - i l , s ’ est llo lg n l de ses glaces pour m *attirer vers lut; il est Juste que je m'lloigne ausst de mon sole I I pour 1 * a I ler trouver, c m ;m ) ------------------------------------------------ I Frederick of Prussia extended a warm welcome to both James, later | i I governor of Berlin, and George, who quickly became "estime et cheri ! i d’ un monarque, juste appreciateur des hommes” (HIE, 69!+). Peter ( Wilding records the delightful associations which the Keith brothers ! i ! |enjoyed with their royal patron: j I The years that Keith [James] now spent in Prussia were the happiest of his life . He and his brother had the signal honor of dining almost daily at the royal table at Sans-Souci— an honor to which few men dared to aspire, since there were rarely more than twelve guests, (p. 203) 1 George Keith manifested unfailing allegiance to his newly-found l0James landed at Hamburg In September, I7b7, while George reachedj Berlin during the summer of 1 yi+8 (Peter Wilding, Adventurers in the j Eighteenth Century [New York, 1938] , pp. 201-202). ! 289! I frie n d s, despite his r e la tiv e ly easy-going temperament. To show how j wholeheartedly this distinguished foreigner supported his illu s trio u s benefactor, D'Alembert relates this Incident: j l| [Keith] se b ro u llla avec un homme de le ttr e s , qul, vfvant comme | lui dans la s o c lite Intlme de ce prince, e t a it le frondeur eternal de j toutes ses actions et de toutes ses paroles. Je ne veux pas, lui d i t | milord M arlchaI, I t r e I'ami d'un homme qul mange tous les Jours a la table du r o l, et y ramasse du f I e I pour le rlpandre. ( I l l , 70^1 I Frederick, whose wide and varied associations with many d iffe re n t types of people were sometimes disappointing, to say the least, was f u l l y cognizant of K eith 's irreproachabIe in te g rity and deeply appre- i c ia tiv e of his personal loyalty. Again D'Alembert shows sincere ad- j miration for his two acquaintances; he repeats an Illum inating remark i which the German sovereign made on one occasion about th e ir mutual frie n d , "un eloge qui les honorait egalement tous deux": I J ' a 1 tant eprouve, d is a it ce monarque, la p e r fid ie , I ’ 1ngratItude et I la michancete des hommes, que je sera Is~ p e u t-ltre excusable de ne | plus croire a la vertu: le bon milord, c 'e s t alnsl qu'I I I'appela11 toujours, m'a force d'y crolre encore; ce sentiment me console, et je lui en a I I»oblI gat ion. ( i l l , 6qin ; | There Is no doubt whatever that the e u lo g is t's detailed and j | praIseworthy account of the warm relationship existing between the I Prussian King and the Scottish soldier is likewise fulsome praise for | Frederick himself. I t was during D'Alembert's extended v i s i t to Germany that he f i r s t became acquainted with the Marichal, then a gentleman of sixty-odd years. Very seldom does the eulogist describe the physical features of the one about whom he Is speaking or w ritin g . Occasionally, however, he w ill point out a certain s trik in g aspect or character 1st Ic manner- i Ism. Here is his f i r s t Impression of George Keith: j 290; Avec la contenance la plus modeste, milord Marechal avait I ' a i r noblei et distingue; son maintien annon^ait a la fols et la digntte de son ame, et la simp l i c i t ! de ses moeurs. f i l l , J06) i Keith lived to be ninety-three years old, despite discrepancies ini : his statements concerning his age. D’Alembert elaborates upon this i I I polnt In his notes: ; j . . . milord Marechal, dans ses variations sur son 3ge, e ta it bien j j lloigne, . . . de vouloir parattre a ses amis plus jeune que la j nature ne I ’avait f a it . S 'iI avait eu la petitesse de chercher a les; tromper la-dessus, il aura It plutSt penche a leur donner I'opinion contraire: car souvent I Is I'ont vu, dans ses dernieres annees, se plaindre de ne pouvoir marcher sans soutien, et en m!me temps a lle r chercher, par distraction, d’ un pas ferme et rapide, le soutien qu'iI demandait, et qui ne lui e ta it pas fort necessaire. (ur, 709) Such a delightful description of the somewhat eccentric old Scot- | i tish soldier indicates once more D'Alembert's s k ilfu l use of biographic! I I i material, as well as his preoccupation with his subject's fascinating i ; ' persona Ii ty. For th irty years or more, the German Monarch and the soldier con- i i j tinued their close association and warm friendship. A few years before I his death, George Keith, with a deep nostalgia for his homeland and i I countrymen, obtained permission to return to Scotland from his patron, "qui perdait avec peine un homme tel que l u i . ” The actual parting I between Frederick and Keith D'Alembert describes thus: j J'etals alors a Berlin, et je fus temofn des adieux du grand prince et du vertueux milord. Tous deux s’ embrasserent les larmes aux yeux: Souvenez-vous, lui d it le r o l , si vous ne vous plaisez pas en Ecosse, que vous avez IcI un ami a qui vous manquerez toujours, et dont vous I ferez cesser les regrets quand vous le voudrez. t 1 1 1 T fa951 j 1 | Even afte r saying his last farewell the old soldier received an affectionate letter from Frederick begging him to come back to Berlin, Keith eventually did return, nchez un souverain dont II pouvalt parler i 1 • < j librement, sans avoir a cralndre d'offenser jamais, ni I'austere y e ritl, 291 ni la majeste royale, et sans deguiser des sentimens que toute I'Europe, partagea i t avec I ui" c m , 697). Frederick did a ll in his power to make Keith's closing years happy I and peaceful; he even b u ilt for his friend a beautiful residence near i ! ! the royal palace of Sans-Souci. He probably would have died In the j | arms of his beloved Frederick had not the King been fighting elsewhere.j ; Q U I, 698) During the M arshal's ea rlie r years in Germany he was given sev eral important diplomatic posts. Since he was not well qualified by capability or experience for ambassadorial work," he was not conspicu ously successful. Unfortunately, during his brief two-year term as j | German provincial governor of NeuchStel, he found himself unwittingly j ! close to the center of heated polemic quarrels and in the climate of ' ; religious antagonism, D'Alembert is mainly concerned with the meeting I i of Keith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who in 17^3 had fled from France toi I his native Switzerland. i ' I ; To understand the fu ll significance of the remarks concerning this fugitive, we must recall D'Alembert's association with Diderot. | After visiting his friend Voltaire in Switzerland, D’Alembert published1 In Volume Seven (1757) of the Encyclop&die an a rtic le , ’’Geneve”, which hastened Rousseau's public break with his philosophe friends. In spite of a generally favorable impression of the Swiss capital and its inhabi tants, the eulogist, no doubt at V o ltaire 's instigation, severely cen sured the famous r&publique des abeiIles for certain shortcomings, ! F irs t of a l l , he pointed out that the cultural and intellectual life of; the Calvinistlc Genevois suffered frcm the absence of a municipal thea-I 2 9 2 ter. More important was the way D'Alembert c r it ic iz e d th e ir re lig io u s i l i f e , although he did so with a rather snide, introductory remark: j II nous reste a p arler de la re lig io n de Geneve; c 'e s t la p a rtle de cet a r t ic le qui interesse peut-§tre le plus les philosophes. Nous allons done entrer dans ce d e ta il; mais nous prions nos lecteurs de se souvenir que nous ne sommes ici qu'historiens, et non controver- sistes, et que raconter n'est pas approuver. (1 2 , 1+19) ! Rousseau's pamphlet, Lettre a D'Alembert sur les Spectacles (1753), served an Important and dual purpose; I t was a d ire c t reply to the : la t t e r 's condemnatory a r t ic le in the Encyclopedie and the public an nouncement of a complete break with his ph i losophe friends. Four years ; la te r, the publication of Emile, replete with revoIutIonary and h e re ti-' : cal ideas, had such far-reaching and unfavorable repercussions that Its i ! author was eventually forced to fle e France. Rousseau sought sanctuary | in the German-control led province of NeuchMel, whose eld erly governor, | i the Marechal Keith, was an intimate friend of the enlightened King J ! Frederick of Prussia. i The unhappy fu g itiv e settled down In the secluded v illa g e of Motiers, not fa r from the Swiss border, and only fourteen miles from the governor's o f f ic ia l residence. Despite differences in personality, I Keith and Rousseau became fast friends. Unfortunately, they did not i a I ways remaln so. At this point In our discussion, we shall fill in D'Alembert's account of the e x ile 's stay In NeuchStel with certain comments found in Rousseau's accounts. Here are his f i r s t impressions of his eminent benefactor: i i j Mon premier mouvement, en voyant ce venerable v ie l l la r d , fu t de m 'attendrir sur la malgreur de son corps, dlja decherne par les ans; I mais en levant les yeux sur sa physiononne animee, ouverte et noble, 293 je m e sentis salsi d'un respect mile de confiance qui I ’ emporta sur tout autre sentiment. Rousseau then describes the cordial welcome he received on his j i f ir s t v is it to Keith’ s homes i Au comp Iimenttres court que je lui fis en I'abordant, ii rlpondit en i parlant d’ autre chose, comme si j'eusse ete la depuis huit Jours. ! . . . Pour mol, je vis dans I'o e il percant et fin de milord je ne sais quo! de si caressant que, m e sentant d'abord a mon aise, j ’ a lla ij I sans faqon partager son sofa et m'asseoir a cote de lui. Au ton ; fam ilier qu'iI a pris a I ’ instant, je sentis que cette liberte lui ! fa ls a it p la is ir , et qu'iI se disait en lul-m§me: "Celui-ci, n'est pas un Neuchcl te I oi s. ” (IE, 2JQ) A few months later in a le tte r to a friend, Rousseau speaks at great length of his gratitude to Keith: li [Keith] m'a a c c u e illi, il m'a honorl dans mes disgraces, plus peut-§tre qu’ iI n'eut f a it durant m a prosperite. Les grandes Smes nej portent pas seulement du respect au m lrite j el les en portent encore au malheur. Sans lui J’ etols tout aussl mal re<£u dans ce pays que j dans les autres, et je ne voyois plus d’ asile autour de moi, Mais un; bienfait plus precieux que sa protection est I'am itie dont il ■ m’ honore, et qu’ assurement je ne perdrai point. II m e restera, ce- | lu i-la j ’ en reponds [le 27 mars 1763]. In the notes to his Keith % Ioge D’Alembert also refers to the : Marechal’ s concern over Rousseau's welfare: ' La seule satisfaction que le gouverneur philosophe de NeufchStel eprouva dans cette place, d'aiMeurs si peu agreable pour lui, fut d’ adoucir pendant quelque temps Ie sort du citoyen de Geneve. . . . ; CUE, 716) I I ■ I How do we account for the changed relationship which eventually I came about between Keith and Rousseau? The facts are presented by the 1 two men themselves. In 1763 Keith, old and discouraged, returned to Berlin, much to Les Confessions de J.-J. Rosseau (Paris, 19> H , 277-278. * ^Correspondence Generale de J.-J. Rousseau, ed. Theophile Dufour, I S (Paris, 1928), 198. ' ' Rousseau’ s b itte r disappointment. From then on Rousseau's troubles ’ multiplied with such speed that by I 7^5 was ° nce more a "man without a country," To this separation the exile made several references. | Writing to a friend, he remarked: j Pour comble de misere Je perds Mylord MareschaI, et Je reste sans appui et qui pis est sans ami, parmi le peuple le moins almant de la vertu qui soit sur la terre [ le JO avrll 17&3]. (Correspondence, IX , 267) 1 i Until the notorious quarrel with his philosophe friends, I t Is quite evident that Rousseau spoke of the Marechal only with deep fe e l- ; ing, writing perhaps his most glowing tribute in the Confess!ons (XT, ; ; 30^)• That Keith reciprocated this affection is often revealed in his i j correspondence with Rousseau, as this passage from one le t te r Indicates} i i | Mon amitie pour vous est tres-vraie et tres-durabIe. Elle durera | j aussi longtemps que Jean-Jacques sera homme de bien, Je repondrai de ! m a t£te que c'est pour toujours [ le 2 fevrier I76i+], (Correspon- j dance, X [ 1923], 31I4) j Some months later, Rousseau again expressed his undying loyalty toi Keith in such lavish terms that I t would have been almost criminal to ' | doubt his constancy or his sincerity [ le decembre I 76J 4 .]. (Correspon- I dance, XIl [1929], 122-123). All too quickly, however, when the I sweeping tide of events turned against him Rousseau, apparently without; any compunction, spoke of his former benefactor In the most derogatory Ianguage. Early in 1766 Rousseau fled to England where he was given protec- | tion by David Hume, the celebrated Scottish philosopher and a close j friend of K eith's. Soon a fte r his a rriv a l Rousseau learned of a libel-j I ; ous letter supposedly written against him by Frederick. This sham c o r - ; I I respondence freely circulated in Paris and later printed In London was 1 295! eventually attributed to Horace Walpole, one of Hume’ s acquaintances. 1 In a le tte r to Keith Rousseau mentioned this distressing discovery and ! then made a very significant remark: Je vols cette prltendue le ttre du Roi de Prusse, et j 'y reconnois a | I*instant le style de M. D’Alembert, autre ami de M. Hume, et mon j enneml d’ autant plus dangereux qu’ iI a soin de cacher sa halne [le | 10 mat I 766]. (Correspondance, XV [ 1931]» 226) | Becoming firmly convinced that Hume was the ’’ring leader" and D’Alembert the "moving s p ir it" of a defamatory plot, Rousseau wrote further to Kelth: Mais que devins-je Jorsque je vis dans les paplers publics . . . | la pretendue lettre du roi de Prusse, que je n'avols pas encore vue, j cette fausse lettre imprlmle en fran^ols et en anglols, donnee pour vraie, mime avec la signature du ro i, et que j ’ y reconnus la plume de ! D’Alembert, aussl surement que si Je la lui avojs vu ecrire. | Je m e souviens qu'un Jour, questionne sur mon compte par M. Hume, ! . . . je lui dls que M. D'Alembert e to it adroit et rusl. I I m e j ! contredlt avec une chaleur dont je m’ lto n n a i, ne sachant pas alors I | qu’ Ils etolent si bien ensemble, et que c ’e to lt sa propre cause qu’ I Ij j defendott [le 10 juI I let I 7 6 6 ] . (Correspondance, XV, 311 - 312 ) | j To Rousseau’ s later statement accusing Hume of further machlna- i i | tlons, "ses proced&s secrets so t trop IncroyabIes," Keith replied with; la stout defense of his friend's Impeccable integrity: j ! Je savols deja votre explication avec M. Hume, et suIs tres affligfe , que voussoyez brouIJles ensemble. Comme J’ a I vu presque toutes ses I demarches, Je ne puls encore me persuader qu’ il n'a pas agl de bonne fol [ le 2b aoQt 1766]. (Correspondance, XET [1931], 2I4) ! Keith continued to assure Rousseau that Hume had only words of j sympathy and praise for th e ir exiled friend. He then closed his letter] S with another expression of sincere friendship: ", . , ce qu I est sQr c’ est que pendant que je vis, je conserverai pour vous une vraie j amitie" (Correspondance, XVI, 25). j The persecuted paranoid exile would not be appeased. Persistently’ clinging to his own deluded opinion, Rousseau begged Keith not to men- I tion Hume further, whom he had described in a most uncomplimentary man ners Vous n'avez point connu cet homme, personne ne I*a connu, ou plutSt il n'est plus le mime. II n’ a jamais hai que moi seulj mals aussi | quelle halne! un mims coaur pourrait sufflre a deux comme cel Ie-I a. II a marche jusqu'ici dans les tinebres, il s'est cache, mais ; maintenant il se montre a decouvert [ le 7 septembre I 766]. (Correspondance, XV1, 55) Rousseau clearly misjudged the character and in teg rity of the Scottish philosopher. Because of his loyalty to his friend Hume, Keith: ; eventually severed all connections with one whom he could no longer i ! ! help. S t ill completely unconvinced that he was in the wrong, Rousseau j accepted the Marechal's decision with dismay, for he exclaimeds j C'en est done f a i t , Milord; j 1 a I perdu pour jamais vos bonnes grSces et votre a m itli, sans quTiI m e soit mime possible de savoir et j d'imaglner d'ou m e vlent cette perte [ Ie 1 9 mars 1767]. I i (Correspondance, XVT, J > 6 1) ) In the manner and tone of a spoiled child Rousseau persistently accused Keith of misguided Judgment, He concluded what was probably j I his last le tte r with this rather melodramatic plea: . . . je n'ai point perdu votre bienveiI lance parceque je n'ai point ! mirite de la perdre, et que vous nTite s ni injuste ni inconstant. On vous aura figure sous mon nom un fant&me; je vous I'abondonne, et J’ aftends que votre Illusion cesse, blen sQr qu'aussitot que vous m e verrez tel que je suis, vous m'almerez comme auparavant [ le 19 mars 1767]. (Correspondance, XV1, 362) From this detailed information of Keith's personal contacts with Rousseau, we can more readily understand the fu ll significance of D'Alembert's references to this strange relationship and to certain j financial assistance which Rousseau had received from the Marichal In | England: j I La v iri te nous oblige de dire, et ce n'est pas sans un regret bJe.n___ 297 sincere, que le bienfalteur eut depuis fo rt a se plaindre de celui q u '1 I avait si noblement et si promptement obligl. Mais la mort du coupable, et Ies Justes raisons que nous avons eu de nous en plaindre nous-m£mes, nous obligent de t ir e r le rideau sur ce detai I affligeant, I dont les preuves sont maIheureusement consignees dans des lettres authentiques. f i l l , 703) ! As if to provide fresh evidence of his subject's magnanimous s p ir it , D’Alembert comments further: ! Ces preuves n’ ont ete connues que depuis la mort de milord MarechaIj j car il gardait toujours le silence sur les torts qu'on avait avec lui: et son coeur indulgent ne iui permit jamais la medisance, ni m @ m e la plainte. ( m , 703) In the eloge Its e lf D'Alembert makes only general references to | the unfortunate Keith-Rousseau-Hume a ffa ir. However, In his revelatory! notes he frankly acknowledges his deep regard for the two Scots and his personal dislike for Rousseau; I | Le respect que nous devons a la v lr ite et a la memoire de M. Hume, j I nous oblige de dire que [ ’ equitable milord donnait a Rousseau le t o r t j qu'II avait si evidemment, aux yeux m£me de ses partisans les plus | zelis. Milord Marechal conserva so Igneusement toute la correspon- | | dance** q u 'iI avait eue a ce sujet avec ces deux iI Iustres ecrivains, j ; et que peut-&tre il faudrait supprirtier, pour I'honneur du phiiosophe ! j aenevois, si celui du phiiosophe ecossais n’ y I t a i t pas Interesse. ! j ( m , 717) I j i In the same degree that Keith showed reluctance to speak of : 'another's faults and mistakes, he was quick to admire and commend human; j j courage and noble deeds: "On les oublie trop t 8 t , d l s a i t - i l, et on ne I les loue pas assez. " He praised especially those who had suffered mar tyrdom to defend the moral freedom of their country: M, . . la haine de I'oppression et du pouvoir a rb itra ire e ta it le sentiment qui domlnait dans son Sme . . ( in , 703). | '^Keith never revealed the slightest feeling of recrimination for I Rousseau's abusive letters: "Aussi pardonnait-iI si bien a Rousseau, j que par son testament I I lui a Iegu6 la montre qu ' I I portalt toujours; j e lle a ete envoyee a sa veuve " ( H I , 717). .......................................................... D'Alembert Is successful as a biographer, particularly in the s k ill with which he uses facts and incidents in Keith's life as a basis ; for an interesting character analysis. He has much to say about the I | Marechal's warm friendship with Frederick, not an easy man with whom to ! | be on intimate terms. Keith remained firmly loyal to his German friend I and he gave him moral support on every occasion. Lest his readers j j I should entertain the slightest misconception as to Keith’ s hidden : strength of character, D'Alembert makes this remark in his notes: La haine de milord Marechal pour les detracteurs de l ’ illu s tre monarque a qui il e ta it attache par sentiment et par reconnaissance, | prouvait assez que I ’ indulgence qu’ I I avait d’ aille u rs pour les ; fautes d’ autrui n'etaft en lui ni falblesse, ni pusi I lanimi te. ('i l l , | 717-718) | D'Alembert was deeply Impressed with Keith's tranquil temperament j indicative of a philosophical turn of mind. For this reason, he could | pIa ce Ke i th in the phI Iosophe group. j Cette tranquil Iite si desirable et si rare tenait a celle de sa j conscience, ou II pouvalt toujours descendre en palx, sans avoir a craindre d'etre ni humiIie ni trouble en presence de ce tlmoln ! severe, que tant d'autres craignent d'Interroger. (nr, 70k) j ! | It was also Keith’ s attitude toward religious matters which ; 1 : attracted his biographer's attention. Although nominally a protestant, the Mar&chal was tolerant, even to a fa u lt, of other people's religiousj convictions. In the presence of those individuals professing some blind b elief, aveugle croyance, or a foolish scepticism, imbecile i ncreduli t e , Keith manifested tact and wisdom: II gardait lui-m§me sur ce sujet un silence qui lui coQtait peu, et ne le rompalt Jamais que pour recommander a ses amis de toutes les ! sectes cette charit& mutuelle, le premier de tous les preceptes religleux, Cependant il se laissait a lle r, mals sobrement et rare- ment, a d'Innocentes pI a Isanteries sur des superstitions absurdes et j sans consequence. ( I l l , 707) I 299: It is not d if f ic u lt to understand why D'Alembert, the b itte r and relentless enemy of I ' Inf^me, would warmly approve of his friend's j : innocentes pI aisanteries sur des superstitions absurdes et sans con- j I sequence. With this thought in mind, he relates an amusing Incident of i j Keith's colorful life . No doubt, because of his long and energetic support of the Jacob- j ; Ite cause, the Marechal had received from the Holy See numerous indul gences, ", . . pllnieres et perpetuelles que ses ancStres catholiques lui avaient laissees, et dont il fa is a it part a ses amis.1 ' It would be ! hard to find in any other of D'Alembert's eloges a passage more snidely! ' I sarcastic, humorous, and sincerely laudatory than his personal account I of what eventually happened to some of Keith's "papal g ifts ": ! ! 1 i j Quelque temps avant sa mort, il m'en envoya douzej je voudrais bien | les avoir payees par un hommage plus dlgne du donateur. J'aurai dui moins la satisfaction que m'envieront tres-peu de panegyristes, de j n'avoir presque pas une Iigne qui so 11 a mol dans le faible monument j que je viens de consacrer a la memoire respectable e t cherie de ce j I phiiosophe vertueux. . . . C m , 708) I i I D'Alembert, himsejf an excellent conversationalist, was well im- i ! J j , I j pressed with Keith's a b ility as a raconteur. However, he points out — — j I : ;that the Mar&chal's anecdotes and jokes were always selected with good i taste: j II [Keith] repetait souvent un mot qu 'iI avait ou! dire a Fontenelle, . . . J ' aT cent ans, d is a it ce phiiosophe, je suis Frangals, et Je mourra? avec ia consolation de n'avoir Jamals donnfe le molndre r i d i cule a la plus petite vertu. M i l , 7ri5] Keith's sociability extended to his liking for children, except "les enfans merveiI Ieux dont on avait hSte et surcharge I'education," j *^t| n his notes D'Alembert quotes from Keith's facetious letter In j which he "bequeathed" the Indulgences to his friend. It Is a master- ' piece of humor and subtle sarcasm that del i.ghted D'Alembert, 300 Quoting the MarechaI' s own words, D'Alembert makes a statement that j could appropriateIy find a place in a present-day textbook on child j i i psycho Iogy: j ; I On n'en tera que des sots, d i s a l t - i l encore; leur pauvre petite t§te I i tourmentee et fatiguee par les marches forcees qu'on lui f a it faire j i des les premiers Jours du voyage, n’ arrivera pas a moitie chemin. | Cm, 719) | | Keith was neither a w riter nor an in te llectu al. Nevertheless, in | his close association with Frederick and other distinguished friends, : in his open-minded attitude, and in his love of reading, the eminent Scot became s p iritu a lly , if not professionally, a worthy member of the ph i Iosophe group. D'Alembert intimates that the eminent Marechal through a lifetime of "seIf-educati on" acquired the priceless a b ility to judge, "avec la plus equitable impartial I t i les evenemens, les i I hommes et les Iivres " ( m , 705). j ! Summarizing this study, we may say without reservation that the j "Eloge du Ml lord Marechal" Is d e fin ite ly one of D'Alembert's best ! pieces of biographical writing. It Is evident, however, that to a c e r - ! | tain extent the eulogist exploits his subject's life -s to ry for propa- i j ganda purposes. The fact of Keith's noble Scottish ancestry leads D'Alembert to one of his pet topics— criticism of a purely " a r t if ic ia l" aristocracy. In speaking of the Marechal's close association with the German Monarch, he repeatedly and effusively praises Frederick, whose i friends included Voltaire and other distinguished phiIosophes from j various European countries. D'Alembert's amusing account of Keith's j I notorious induIgences becomes a subtly-disguised satire of the Catholic! Church, In his comments upon the Rousseau episode, D'Alembert Is i s I [attempting to ju s tify his own point of view in the celebrated quarreh, 301 Like the De Sacy eulogy, the MarechaI 1s eloge Is of particular interest because of Its biographical import. D’Alembert's masterly character portrayal of an eighteenth-century "gentleman adventurer" and a phiiosophe vertueux et eclalre proves him to be a biographer of no mean talent, There was a certain sim ilarity between D’Alembert and Keith in tastes, temperament, and outlook on life . Consequently, the evaluation of Keith is probably somewhat biased. D'Alembert leaves this Impression with his readers In the final paragraph of this Illum i nating 11 oge O H , 708- 709). The Keith eulogy is even more autobiographical In tone than is that of De Sacy. Using the firs t person pronoun, D'Alembert frequently refers to his contacts with Keith, Frederick, and other contemporarIes. For this reason, as well as for the others already mentioned, the "Eloge de Milord Marechal" must be considered one of D’Alembert's best. CHAPTER ZEE i ELOGE OF MAR IVAUX i ! ! j | Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de Marivaux' ( I 688- I 763) ' s now r e ~ | I I igarded as one of the authentic glories of eighteenth-century letters. I } j The Pjeiade edition (1949) of his novels and tales and the recent edi tion of his Thefitre Complet (1946) are definite testimony to this fact. |However, this situation was not always so, for even in his own lifetim e! Marivaux’ s reputation was curiously ambiguous. On this point Gustave Larroumet, the nineteenth-century student of Marivaux— who, Incidenta1 Iy, 1 draws quite heavily on D'Alembert for source m aterial— has neatly summed ! I 1 ■up the matter thus: j I % | | Marivaux appartient a cette fam llle peu nombreuse d'ecrivains qui, j I avec des qualites de premier ordre, et generalement reconnues, n’ ont ! obtenu de leurs contemporains qu’ une reputation fncertaine, et qui, longtemps apres leur mort, soul event encore de's Jugements opposes. | ! Durant sa longue carriere d’ auteur dramatique, de moraliste et de I romancier, ses diverses tentatives echouent aussi souvent qu’ elles ! reussissent. . . . Apres sa mort, ceux de ses contemporaIns qui j essaient de marquer sa place, le jugent sans aucune bienveI I Iance. i | At f i r s t glance D’Alembert seems favorably impressed with Marivauxfsj Bachaumont records the circumstances under which this eulogy was delivered in the French Academy: M La seance a ete term!nee par la lecture qu'a f a it M. B aIlly d’ un Eioge de Marivaux, ouvrage posthume de M. d’Alembert, ou le confrere est encore plus satiris e que louij le toutj a I a manlere du d&funt, tres-souvent bouffonne. Ce morceau auroit pu j passer pour la petite piece destinie a falre rire I ’ assemblie, si la ! longueur d'une heure entiere de lecture, n’ etlt au contraire contribue a ! la falre b S iiler [ le 24 aoQt 1 785] (2KEZ [ 1786], 191). 1 j SMarlvauxj Sa Vie et Ses CEuvres, New Edition (Paris, 1894), P. I. ! 303 , literary achievements. W e shall discover that he never praises his sub-1 Ject unequivocally. Introducing Marivaux, D'Alembert explains clearly the reason for ! ;hIs lengthy biography of one who, In his own time, was generally con- jsidered far inferior to such men of letters as Boileau, Massillon, and jeven Crebi1 Ion the Elder: i | Les ouvrages de Marivaux sont en si grand nombre, les nuances qui les distlnguent sont si delicates, son caracter e m @ m e avait des tra its si ' varies et si fu g itlfs , qu’ I I paraft d i f f i c i l e de fa lre connattre en , lui I'homme et I'auteur, sans avoir recours a une analyse subtile et detalI lee, qui semble exlaer plus de deveIoppemens, de details, et par consequent de paroles, que le p o rtrait energfque et raplde d’ un grand homme ou d’ un grand ecrivain. ( H I , 5 7 7 ) Concerning Marivaux's early life and formal education, D’Alembert Isupplies l i t t l e Information. For a time the young man followed courses |for the legal profession, but neglected to acquire a b ility In classical languages. This fact was later on greatly exploited by some of iMarivaux's enemies. D’Alembert comments somewhat Iro nically that many ! jwornen w riters, without knowledge of Greek or Latin, I | | . . . ecrlvent et s'exprlment avec le naturel le plus almable, et pourraient donner d'excellentes legons de style et de godt a plus « d’ un orguellleux et pesant litte ra te u r. (H U , 578) i I t Is D'Alembert's candid opinion that Marivaux would have derived ! ! | no benefit whatever from knowing Cicero and VergII by heart, for he remarks fu rth er: , . . le genre d’ esprlt que la nature lui [Marivaux] avait donne, ne lui permettait ni d'&crtre, ni de penser comme un autre, solt ancien, solt moderne. ( I E I , 578) As If to give added support to this conviction, D'Alembert then repeats Marivaux's own words, which have since been frequently quoted by other 11terary c ritic s : 30k J'aime mieux, dIsa11— FI quelquefols avec la naTvete de son caractere, ! et la singular! te de son style, §tre humblement assls sur le dernier banc dans la petite troupe des auteurs originaux, qu'orgueiIleusement place a la premiere Iigne dans le nombreux betail des singes l i t t e - ; raires. (H E , 578) ! In a f a ir ly recent publication Marcel Arland quotes this same i lassertion and then adds an interesting comment with reference to | |D'Alemberts ; ! i J'aime mieux, disalt Marivaux — si i'on en croit d'Ajembert— , §tre I humblement assls sur le dernier banc . . . ? HumbIement? Mats d'Alembert d it aussi de Marivaux: "I I avait le maIheur de ne pas estimer beaucoup Mol iere, et le malheur plus grand de ne pas s'en cacher. II ne cralgnaft pas m @ me, quand on le mettait a son alse sur cet a rtic le , d'avouer naTvement qu'iI ne se croyaIt pas inferteur a | ce grand pelntre de la nature." Passonsj nous ne sommes quittes ni j ! avec I'hum ilite ni surtout avec la naTvete de Marivaux.^ j i Marivaux's e a rlie s t and least successful plays were written I j between 17 12 and 1720. During these years of a c tiv ity , the young dramatist was making himself well-known in the social and Iite ra ry c ir - jcles of the French capital. D'Alembert mentions only b rie fly this phasej j j | of his subject's lif e . However, from Arland's study we can easily f i l l ' |in this period with detailed Impressions of the aspiring playwright's I jcontacts with many eminent people— namely, Fontenelle, Montesquieu, La IMotte, Henault, Mm e de Tencin and Mm e de Lambert. The dramatist's Iite ra ry reputation had been well established for some time before his election to the French Academy on February li+, I 7I 1 .3. Never had Marivaux deliberately sought this distinction, although he was re a lly far more deserving of the honor than were some men of letters already seated In the general assembly. Concerning his entree " 1 into the Academy which "a et£ le seuI evenement un peu remarquable de j ^Marlvaux (Paris, 1950), pp. 102-103. 305! sa vie" (TTT, 617), Arland adds this interesting postscripts Mais enfin c'est f a i t , II est acadlmlcien: je doute qu’ iI en solt mlcontent, II appartient a ce corps iI lustre, qui I Ta prefer! a Voltaire, pour la joie d’ un salon et le scandale des Lettres. Un tel i honneur comporte des obligations, auxquelles Marivaux n’ entend pas se | derober. Done, avec toute ia g ravit! qui sied, II compose, lui j aussi, des oeuvres academiques, II en donne lecture a ses collegues,! j maJs, sem ble-t-il, sans grand success et m!me, selon d’Alembert, "II eut un Jour le degout de voir qu’ on ne i ’ ecoutait pas, et termlna brusquement." (pp. 2I4 . 6- 2I+7) i ! As he continues his account of Marivaux’ s election to the French j Academy, D’Alembert mentions that his subject’ s nomination for this high office was strongly opposed by a group of jealous Ii tterateurs. | However, he points out that in the rlpublique des lettres there should 1 be fauteuiIs for all types of Iite ra ry men, even for Marivaux who mightJ not be one of the best academicians: Si Marivaux n’ e ta it un modele ni de style ni de godt, du moins II j avait rachete ce defaut par beaucoup d’ esprit, et par une maniere j ! qu’ II n'avait empruntee de personne. (TTT, 591) j j i In the appended notes further information is given on Marivaux's | i i election to the French Academy. At the time the doors of the general assembly opened for Marivaux, they closed firm ly against Voltaire: j j : j On avait tres-grande raison de se recrier contre cette preference | incomprehensIble; il e ta it en e ffe t bien etrange de n’ avoir pas mis encore Ie plus celebre ic riv a in de nos Jours a une place ou le public s’ !tonnait depuis trente ans de ne le pas voir, et nos predicesseurs ont trop f a it durer ce scandale, que nous ne saurions trop avouer et trop rlparer. (TTT, 6 1 6) Many years had passed since Marivaux’ s entree to the French Academyj yet D’Alembert’ s continued resentment over the assembly’ s choice of Marivaux instead of Voltaire is clearly disclosed in the pas sage just quoted. It is another Instance of the eulogist’s consistent 1 determina11 on,on every possible occasion and under all circumstances, 1 to champion the cause of his influential ph i I osophe friend. . in this....... 306 particular case his ’’righteous Indignation” was more ju s tifie d than us ua I . ! D'Alembert is deeply impressed with the warm friendship which developed between Marivaux and Fontenelle who had pour lui un goDt et une estime dont on a voulu trouver la source dans ! une ressemblance pretendue entre le genre d'esprit de ces deux e cri- vains, qui sont nianmoins bien differens. (X U , 593) I ! I n this comparison of his two friends D’Alembert mentions the j ;s im iIa ritIe s and differences which give to each man his own brand of importance and distinction. Upon the matter of their shortcomings as |writers, he remarks* ; . . . mais du moins les defauts qu'on leur reproche a tous deux, ont, ! dans I * un et dans I ’ autre, une sorte de grSce qui tient a leur I caractere, et qui partout ai Ileurs ne serait que caricature et g ri- j | mace. Cm, 593) I i I This phrase, ” Ies defauts . . . ont dans I ' un et dans I'a u tre, unej ;sorte de grSce qui tient a leur caractere” Is a clear echo of the axiom expressed by D’Alembert e a rlie r in his ”Reflections sur les Eloges | Acadlmiques" to the effect that an author’ s style is usually the tru th -' Iful reflection of his in te lle c t and personality (TT, 152). Concluding his discussion of the two w riters’ relative merits, D’Alembert presents; thIs striking sim ile: Leur maniere d'ecrire est comme ces plantes etrangeres et dllicates, qui ne pouvant vivre tout au plus que dans le sol ou elles sont nees, s ’ alterent et se f litr is s e n t en passant de ce sol dans un autre. cm , 5 9 1 + ) D’Alembert elaborates on Marivaux’s personality, particularly as It! was reflected In his attitude toward his friends and enemies. His ; I sociable grace revealed its e lf to best advantage in his conversational manner which, similar to his style of writing, seemed at f ir s t ”amu- I sante par sa s In g u Ia rIte ." Later on I t became boring, "par sa monotoni^ m^taphysique, et par ses expressions peu nature Iles" ( I I I , 592). As |for the numerous c ritic s who attacked Marivaux with the subtle, cruel |weapon of satire, D’Alembert again compares him with Fontenelle: | Ainsi Marivaux, a I ’ exemple de son iI Iustre ami Fontenelle, ne j rlpondlt jamais a la satire que par le mepris et le si lence, et : montra toujours a ses dltracteurs une moderation dont ils n'ont que ; trop abuse, ( H I, 597) | I On Marivaux’ s attitude concerning religious matters, D’Alembert ' iadds this brief comment: L’ hypocrisie et le faux zele, si communs et si revoltans de nos jours, ne trouvalent guere plus de grSce a ses yeux, que I'lmpiete scandaleuse et afflchle. f i l l , 600) D’Alembert concludes his 11oge wi th pertinent references to Marivaux's long Illness, grief for his deceased wife, and his eventual death. It is quite evident that D’Alembert was thinking of his own | |very personal loss in the death of Julie de Lespinasse when he wrote his final paragraph— a sincere tribute to womanhood: j C’est surtout lorsque le temps des passions est fin i pour nous, que ; nous avons besoln de la societe d’ une femme complaisante et douce, j | qui partage nos chagrins, qui calme ou tempere nos douleurs, qui sup-; ! porte nos defauts, Heureux qui peut trouver une te lle amie] plus ! I heureux qui peut la conserver et n’ a pas le malheur de lui survivre. I J (H E , 601) So much for the biographical element in this eulogy. Let us now follow D'Alembert in his discussion of Marivaux as dramatist and noveI Ist. At the age of eighteen Marivaux wrote his f ir s t play, a three-act comedy In verse form, Le Pere Prudent (1706). Although D'Alembert con-1 slders this work "presque une fo lle de Jeune homme," he recognizes that! i ! It possessed certain significance. i En e ffe t, on aper^olt dlja dans cette piece, quoique fa I b lenient, ce que Marivaux promettalt d’ etre, et ce qu'iI a 6te depuis. On y volt a la fois et les motifs d'encouragement, et les objets de critique qu’ un ami d’ un goOt stir y aurait trouvesj c'est une espece de chrysa- | lide, si nous pouvons parler ain si, ou des yeux exerces peuvent j d&m@ler au microscope le germe de ses talens et de ses defauts. ( i l l , 607) The next play, La Mort d’Annibal, a fiv e -a c t tragedy, had l i t t l e {success when performed on the stage. Despite Marivaux’ s excellent | jcharacter i zat i on of a fearless hero, this drama, written fifte e n years latter Le Pere Prudent, lacked color and action. The failu re of La Mort ; I | ;d*Anntba I was an important factor in Marivaux’ s later decision to turn i jto comedy ( H I , 580)* Soon after the f ir s t performance of AnnibaI, La Motte presented his Romulus, considered by D’Alembert as "fatble d'fnterS t, de conduite et de s ty le ,” Marivaux undertook to defend his friend La Motte against the many c ritic s and to praise Romulus, even comparing I t favorably with the great plays of Corneille and Racine. By using as a basic motif la surprise de 1’ amour, Marivaux was accused of writing ”une comedie en vingt faipons dif ferentes. ” Besides, j icontinues D’Alembert, i ! i on dolt . . . convenir que cette ressemblance est, dans sa monotonie, aussl variee qu’ e lle le puisse it r e , et qu’ iI faut une abondance et une espece de succes, dans une route si etro ite et si tortueuse. II se savait gr§ d’ avoir le premier frappe a cette porte, jusqu’ alors Inconnue au theatre. ( I U , 583) W e should mention in passing the condemnatory, if not Insulting, tone of the rather ambiguous phrase, avec une espece de succes. As for the c ritic s who facetiously contended that Marivaux’ s main 1 topic— la surprise de 1’ amour— was only ’’cette guerre de chicane, . . . j que I ’Amour se f a i t a Jul-m£me, , . , et qui f l n i t brusquement par Je j 309 | mariage," D'Alembert promptly replies: j . , , dans cet amour qui s’ Ignore, et qui peu a peu se d!couvre a |ul-m!me, I 1auteur salt m!nager avec art la gradation la plus d !lie e , | quolque tres-sensIbIe au spectateur. (VI 1, 583) | Cette gradation compensates for the lack of movement and physical {action In Marivaux's comedies. The playwright was fu lly aware of this jcrlticism , "cet a ir de famiIle qu'on reprochait a ses pieces," In (D'Alembert's opinion, however, Marivaux succeeded in defending his use | i | |of a basic theme for his twenty comedies ( i l l , 583-58i+). i I Marivaux's style of writing, "peu naturel et a ffe c t!," came in for {more comment than the plays themselves. As for its appropriateness, D'Alembert observes: , , . ce singulfer jargon, tout a la fois precieu x et fam iller, recherche et monotone, est, sans exception, celui de tous ses per- | sonnages, de quelque etat qu'Ms puissent §tre, depuis les marquis jusqu'aux paysans, et depuis les mattres jusqu'aux valets. (TTT, ! 584) | ; | Marivaux's characters often converse as clever foreigners who, j ! speaking In an unfamiliar language, j I se sont f a it de cette langue et de la leur un Idiome p a rtic u lie r, | | semblable a un metal Imparfalt, mais faussement !c la ta n t, qui aurait I e t! form! par hasard de la r!union de plusieurs autres, ( i l l , 585) Despite this marivaudaqe, D'Alembert remarks that, as in the Mere ! ConfIdante, there Is a tone of sin cerity— "le coeur parle quelquefois un moment son vrai langage." This happens only when Marivaux refrains from projecting his own personality into the scene. With Justification, the eulogist believes "II y a, dans toutes les comldies de notre acadlmiclen plus a sourire qu'a s’ attendrir, et plus de finesse que d ' i n t l r ! t" cm,| 585). ! i A close examination of Marlvaux's plays w ill v erify every phase of ! D’Alembert’ s criticism . The characterization, though good, is a r t l f l - j c la l; and the plot, despite clever intrigue, Is never really dramatic or tru ly moving. D’Alembert considers that Marivaux's novels are of a higher I i t e r ary quality than his plays. In expressing this judgment, he reveals an i"ultramodern" point of view because no other contemporary seems to have I jso openly declared Marivaux's superiority In this genre. D’Alembert's j I i jfavorable judgment Is all the more surprising when we remember that in ‘Marivaux's time, novels were largely considered a most objectionable type of "ye11ow-paper back" lite ra tu re ’ Explaining the salient d if f e r ences between Marivaux's romans and com4di es, D'Alembert states* Les romans de Marivaux, superieurs a ses comldies par I ’ i n t e n t , par les situations, par le but moral qu’ iI s’ y propose, ont surtout le merite, avec des defauts que nous avouerons sans peine, de ne pas | tourner, comme ses pieces de theStre, dans le cercle e tro lt d’ un amour | deguisl, mais d’ o f f r i r des peintures plus variees, plus generates, | plus dlgnes du pinceau d’ un phiiosophe. f i l l , 586) Here D'Alembert Is thinking particularly of his subject’ s most ! successful novels, Mar 1anne and Le Paysan Parvenu: . . . ouvrages ou I ’ esp rit avec des fautes, et I ’ int4r4t avec des ! ecarts, valent encore mieux que la froide sagesse et la mediocrlte I ralsonnable, CUE, 613) | In comparing these works, D'Alembert observes that Marianne was the f i r s t choice of most readers, "parce q u 'ils y trouvent plus de finesse et d 'in te r e t," while Le Paysan Parvenut ", , , par le but moral que I'auteur s'y propose, et par une sorte de gaTte, qu’ I I a t§chl d'y rlpandre" (TTT, 6 1 3)* The c r itic Is well Impressed with the second novel's moral tone. i Recalling his own Ignominious b irth , D’Alembert writes: . . . fo b Jet principal de I'auteur, comme I I le d 1+ lui-m4me,. a.ete : de falre sentir le ridicule de ceux qui rougissent d’ une naissance obscure, ef qui cherchent a la cacher, f i l l , 6 1 3) Although D'Alembert believes that in each novel Marivaux intended ; to present un but moraI, he does not say to what extent his subject was successful as a moralist. The eulogist counts Marianne an excel lent roman de moeurs, but not; completely written in good taste. i t L'auteur n'a pas dedaigne de peindre jusqu'a la sottise du peuplej sa; curiosity sans objet, sa charite sans delicatesse, son inepte et ! offensante bonte, sa durete compatissante, f i l l , 586) i Quite ambiguous is D'Alembert's evaluation of Marivaux's best novel, but he Is equivocal In all his comments upon Marianne. He points out that Marivaux, to create an atmosphere of verisim ilitude, s'est permis que'lques details ignobles, qui detonnent avec la finesse; de ses autres dessinsj mais cette finesse, . . . demande greice pour ses bam bochadeset le peintre du coeur humaln efface le peintre du I peupIe. Again, D'Alembert comments upon Marivaux's love scenes thus: . , . les tableaux m§me q u 'iI f a i t des passions, ont en general plus I de delicatesse que d'lnergie; que le sentiment, si I'on peut s'expri-; mer de la sorte, y est piutSt pe i nt en miniature, q u 'il ne I ' e s t a j grands tra i ts ; et que si Marivaux, comme I'a tres-bien dit un e c ri- ; vain celebre [V o lta ire ], connaissait tous les sentiers du coeur, II ! en Ignoralt les grandes routes. ( I 1 ,1, 58?) D’Alembert Is inclined to recognize a serious weakness In | Marivaux's failure to portray human passion a grands t r a it s j yet at the same time, he shows reluctance to agree with V o lta ire ’ s frank criticism (XXSU.V [ 1880], 21 ). Mai's II faut observer que si I ’ auteur [Marivauk] f a it tant de chemlns dans ce p etit espace, ce n’ est pas pricisement en repassant par la m Sm e route, c’ est en traipant des Itgnes tres-proches les unes des Bambochades are " l i t t l e sprees" or "slight escapades." 312! i i autres, et cependant tres-distlnctes pour qui salt les demelerj espece de m lrite que I'on peut comparer, . . . a celui de ces maftres d'&criture, qui ont P a r t d'enfermer un long discours dans un cercle fo rt 6troi t. (TTT, 587) Here again D'Alembert becomes d efinitely ambiguous In his attempt to speak favorably of Marianne and at the same time to accept Voltaire's adverse criticism . A third "flaw” in the rovel is the protracted length of some epi sodes— for example, the re Ii g ieuse scene which, occupying more than one volume, "d I stra 11 trop le Iecteur de I'o b je t principal" (T IT , 61J 4). j This Is a rather foolish and unwarranted Indictment, for D'Alembert should have known that, at least with Marivaux, the nun episode Is really a novel In Its own rig ht. In his notes D'Alembert also points out that Marivaux's novels are i ncompIete s . . . dlfaut qui dolt dlminuer beaucoup le p laslr qu'on peut prendre a cette lecture, ou dlgoQter du molns d'en falre une secondej et malheur a tout roman qu'on n'est pas tent§ de re I ire" ('TTT, 615)1 Moreover, he detects In Marianne a d efinite element of autobiography: Ce tableau, i . . f a i t d'autant plus d'honneur a Marivaux, que dans cette peinture il a tracfe le portrai t de son Sme, et expriml ce que j lui-mSme avait plus d'une fols sent!. ( I l l , 6li|.) In the phrase, " ! I a trace le p o rtrait de son tme," D'Alembert discloses his admiration for Marivaux as an Individual and especially that senslbi 11te so s k iIfu lly revealed In his subject's novels. D'Alembert regards the absence of a strong plot in the Marianne novel less of a weakness than In a Marivaux play, where complicated Intrigue and dramatic action are far more necessary. F in ally, he gives reasons for believing that In 11terary achievement Marivaux was more 3'3 i successful as novelist than dramatist: j Le theatre demande du mouvement et de Paction, et les pieces de Marivaux n'en ont pas assez. La com&dle est un spectacle national et , populalre, et les pieces de Marivaux sont d’ un genre peu propre a la | multitude, Dans ses romans, les peintures sont, a la verlt§, plus : fines encore que dans ses com&dles, mais on a le temps de les envisa- i ger plus a son alse; les tableaux d’ ailleurs sont plus varies, et par | consequent revel I lent davantage. Telle est, a notre avis, la raison j de la preference que les romans de Marivaux ont obtenue sur ses I comedies, (in, 615) I j Less well-known than his novels, but s t i l l of interest Is Mari- j •vaux’ s Imitation of the literary periodical published by the English essayists Addison and Steele. Unfortunately, this French version was i not well received; consequently, It had only a brief existence of one ! iyear, 1722-23. In D’Alembert’ s opinion, however, Le Spectateur was probably the work to which Marivaux devoted wIe plus d’ esprlt, le plus de v a r l l t l , le plus de tra its , et ou m£me I I a le plus outre les defauts ordinaires de son langage” (TTT, 589). So Impressed Is D’Alem- l ! bert with the change in Marivaux’ s prose style that he makes this fur- ; ■ i i ther observation about one particular essay in Le Spectateur: j - ! L'Sme honn§te et tendre d’ un pere a fflig e s ’ y montre avec tant i d’ i n t e r i t e t de vertu, I ’expression de sa douleur est si naturelle e t ! j d’ une Sloquence si simple, qu’ on serait tente de croire cette lettre ! | d'une main etrangere, si I ’ auteur n'eOt pas et& le plus Incapable de j tous les hommes de se faire honneur du travail d'autrui, ( m , 589) I Lanson seems to have corroborated D'Alembert’ s judgment, for he remarks: Le ton qu’ I I [Marivaux] prend dans son Spectateur Frangais (1722), pour parler de la vertu de la fam ille, ce ton apotre, declamatoire et sincere, f a it penser a Diderot et a Rousseau, (pp. 235"236) From his periodical, several of Marivaux’ s best essays were reprinted In a volume en titled , Esprit de Marivaux, collection fa lte avec plus de dlscernement et de goOt, que tant 31 b\ d'esprl ts de nos ecrivains, souvent re c u e illis par des hommes qui 1 n'en avaient guere, (n r, 589) According to D'Alembert, a father's le tte r on his son's Ingratitude Is | the most striking essay and possibly Marivaux's best piece of w riting, i i although the least well-known. This letter Is the heartbroken plea of : a devoted parent, i Infirme, accabll d’ annees, relegue a la campagne, ou I ’ on a I Ivre m a vieillesse a la direction de deux ou trois domestiques, sans charity j pour mon 3ge, ni pour mes Infirm ltes.5 ! I A victim of his son's selfishness and inhumanity, the unhappy man : reveals his frustration and despair. In one instance he declares melo-i ! ! dramatIcaI Iy : j | | Helas, ce qui m 'affllge le plus, ce qui f a it toute I'amertume de mes j j peines, c'est que le maTtre dont je parle, vous le d lra is -je , [ Monsieur? C'est qu'II est mon fils ? (Lesbros, p. 97) i | I I I ! Repeatedly the father pours out his deep, constant love for this j ! t | unworthy son, as In this passage: I , i . . . votre coeur ne m e connatt plus, et m a tendresse subsiste encore: je n'ai pu cesser d'Stre votre pere: comment avez vous f a it j pour cesser d'etre mon f i l s . (p. 100) i 1 j D'Alembert's enthusiasm for the Lettre d'un Pere a son F ils be- ; comes more in te llig ib le when we consider Its special quality which Lanson defines thus: i | . . . cela f a it I'e f f e t d'un tableau de Greuze ou d'un drame de Beaumarchais. . . . C'est une sorte de nouvelle, ou d'anecdote, ou ! I'evenement n'est que le pretexte aux reflexions morales; une sorte de sermon laTque, imitant le mouvement du langage p a rll et la rapi- dite violente de la passion exaltee, m£le de sentencieuses maximes et d'ardentes apostrophes. (p. 236) i ^Louis Lesbros de la Versane, Esprit de Marivaux; ou Analectes de ! Ses Ouvrages (Paris, 17^9), P* 97* ~ ~ ! 315! Lanson d e fin ite ly has in mind a sensibIerie of the kind found In j i the Beaumarchais drames though not in his two Figaro comedies. It was, ; however, a kind of s en sitiv ity which Diderot had greatly admired, as jshown by his extravagant "Eloge de Richardson." Moreover, It was "heavy handed" and, in the worst sense, "English." Thus, D'Alembert |appears to bel le his own more delicate concept of sentiment when he i iadmires in this essay a Diderotesque sen slb illte not found in his sub- j je c t's major works. Indeed, Marivaux's type of sen sitivity Is usually I ; ; fa r lighter, more delicate, more w itty, and even more archly self-con- !scious than the tone and mood of his Lettre would indicate. It Is thlsj | conspicuous fact which leads Arland to make an unfavorable comment uponj I v ^ j jMarivaux's Lettre d'un Pere a son F 1 1st | i i i * 1 1 C'est une page tres noble dans sa forme comme dans son Inspiration; j I e lle vient d'une belle time et d'un bel ecrivainj mais e lle m e semble, ! i je m e risque a le dire, trop p arfaite, trop accomplie, et m Sm e un peui j plaisante. (pp. 222- 223) I ! ! ! In another passage Arland specifically states that he does not concur with D'Alembert In his extravagant praise of Le Spectateur ! | (P. 221). This error In Judgment touches upon the question, at once d iffic u lt land fascinating, of the character of D'Alembert's own sen sib ility. Wasj j Jhe actually deceived by the kind of tearful and exaggerated sensiblerie common to both Marivaux's Lettre and to Diderot's Pere de FamiIle? Did he re a lly fa il to recognize the.true quality of Marivaux's s e n s lb illte , the frequently deep-probing sen sitivity of his novels and comedies? It! j is very d if f ic u lt to say, ! What we must remember is that the "Eloge de Marivaux" is a work of! j D'Alembert's old age— in fact, one of his very last product Ions, _.Thus, 316: he had already suffered the harrowing experience of being Julie de Lespinasser executor and of discovering that through all the years of devotion to her he had been playing not second, but thIrd fiddle. W e ! f I : know that he never recovered from this blow, for he sounds an unmis- i i i j I takable note of b itte r anguish in his two famous eIoges addressed to j the deceased J u lie . ^ At the same time, his language Is often sim ilar to j i i I that of Marivaux's Lettre, declamatory In nature. Nevertheless, there j is much in the pieces to Julie which far surpasses anything in that letter. i During most of his life D'Alembert suffered a pathological tim idi-| j ty, especially In the affa irs of the heart. His tim idity should have I I made him recognize Instinctively the frequent Justesse of Marivaux's I i ; usual vein of sens I bl I 1 te which was constantly brought into play when | I : the dramatist's reluctant lovers were constantly being forced to admit ; their true sentiments. Throughout this §Ioge we sense the fact that j i D'Alembert entertains a certain close feeling for Marivaux, Although j very d iffic u lt to define sharply, if is a hidden, "subterranean" sym- J i pafhy which the eulogist apparently fears to let rise to the surface ! too open Iy. j ! | There may be s t i l l another reason for D'Alembert's strangely am biguous attitude toward his subject. As we have already noticed, he had suffered the ravages of a personal tragldie passlonnelIe. In Its intensity, his real life experience was perhaps comparable to a few f i I I J 6The eulogies in memory of Julie are: "Aux Manes de Mademoiselle j de I'Espinasse [22 Jul I let l776]wI n I H , 728-733; and "Sur la Tombe de j Mademoiselle de I'Espinasse [2 septembre 1776]" In XEE, 73^-739* ! 317, i moving episodes in Marivaux's Marianne; but it tar exceeded any sltua- } tton to be found In his plays. Is It not possible, therefore, that j D'Alembert may have f e lt that Marivaux's neologisme In expressing his I | sen sib ility necessarily betrayed a certain superficiality? May i t be j Just the weariness of an older man with the elegant conventions of I salon gallantry? These questions are d iff ic u lt to answer. Undoubtedly I all these elements enter in some way or another into the peculiarly ambiguous and occasionally lopsided judgment which D'Alembert places on‘ Marivaux's sensibi11ti. ! On a s tr ic tly ’'professional ” level, D'Alembert undoubtedly con- I I sidered himself obliged to b e litt le Marivaux's 11terary tale n t— at j least to a certain degree— In order to prove his unswerving loyalty to | Voltaire. Furthermore, the sage of Ferney would hardly have known how ! to appreciate either D'Alembert's or Marivaux's type of sens IbiI Ite . j English readers compared Le Spectateur very favorably with La j Bruyere's Caracteres. D’Alembert does not accept this evaluation. He i adds this comment, with a certain ju stifications j j I . . . II nous sera permis de ne pas penser comme eux, et de croire ! sans vanitl que nous sommes sur ce point des juges plus competens. (HI, 615) | Marivaux's e a rlie s t works were a burlesque of H0mer's Iliad and a parody of Fine Ion's Tillmaque. D'Alembert compares the I I lad travesty with Scarron's burlesque of V erg il's AEneId, both of which he considers evidence of poor 11terary taste. There may have been some excuse for the seventeenth-century s a tir is t, but definitely none for M a r i v a u x . ^ ?Even though an active partisan of the Modernes, D'Alembert could 1 not, with good consci en ce, sanction Marivau'x attempts to r id ic u le the Severely criticized by both the reading public and c ritic s and w peut-&tre par remords de conscience," Marivaux failed to complete his j T&limaque Travesti ( M l , 60I+-605). I Why D'Alembert should discuss in such detail and condemn so se verely two of Marivaux's least significant works is d iff ic u lt to under- | stand, A sensitive man, D'Alembert possessed an inveterate dislike of | satire, a fact which he openly acknowledged in his Bol1eau 11oge. I Moreover, as secretaire perpetuel, he may have thought that academi- j cians and all other men of letters should demonstrate a moral responsi-: i i j b i li t y in the matter of good taste. Therefore, in his opinion, Marivaux had almost committed an act of libel against Homer and j I Fenelon. At f ir s t glance, It would appear that the eulogist never com-i I | mended the opportunistic philosophy that "the end ju s tifie s the means."! i | However, he was not altogether consistent, for sometimes he himself j i i ! acted like a s a tiris t. On more than one occasion, D'Alembert became | j I almost cruelly sarcastic in his condemnation of mediocre writers and inj his b itte r attacks either upon the i nf Sme or the an 11-ph iIosophes. | l D'Alembert counted Marivaux one of the most representative writers | of his time, and Larroumet seems to agree: j Peu d'auteurs ont lalss& dans leurs oeuvres plus profondSment que lui I'empreinte de leur temps, de leurs goCits, du milieu ou I Is ont vicu. (p. II) Marivaux could proudly claim as his friends such men as La Motte, Montesquieu, and Fontenelle— a ll of whom, in one way or another, were precurseurs of the phiiosophe group. Consequently, D’Alembert easily J Anclens by means of his burlesques. thought of his subject as one of the writers man!festi ng 1Tespr11 I c l a l r l , although in re a lity Marivaux never gave active support to the Imouvement phi Iosophlque. Despite these good reasons for D'Alembert's I choice, we have yet to account for the marked ambiguity in this eloge jand the equivocal evaluation of Marivaux's Iiterary achievements. In the f ir s t place, D'Alembert would have hardly dared to praise ! ! I his subject too unstintingly for fear of offending V o ltaire , who was j extremely jealous of Marivaux, the successful playwright. Then, too, the leader of the phllosophes b itte r ly resented the fact that not he, I but Marivaux, had been elected to the French Academy, Thus did D'Alem- I jbert find himself on the horns of a serious dllemmaj loyalty to Vol- j ita lre and commendation for his r iv a l, Marivaux. Concerning the attacks !which Voltaire frequently hurled against his enemy, the eulogist re- I marks t j | I Ces satires et ces Spigrammes, . . . le revoltaient toujours, lors | m @ m e qu'elles aura lent pu lui £tre I nd i f f erentes. . , , Personne, enj j consequence, n 'e ta it plus a tte n tif que lui a n'offenser jamais qui ! i que ce so it, ni dans la societ&, ni dans ses ouvrages. r i l l , 597) I ! 9 I i i | Remembering that Marivaux wrote two parodies, we find D'Alembert'sj | i ideclaration somewhat paradoxical. However, he Justifies his point of j view by stating in his notes: . . . II [Marivaux] se croyalt molns crlminel, parce q u 'iI n'avalt travestl que des morts, a qui la louange et la critique etaient Indifferentes; e'en e ta it assez pour mettre sa morale a couvert, mais non pas pour ju s t if ie r son goOt, ( II i , 620) As a matter of fact, in Marivaux's time his travesties were hardly noticed. Therefore, D'Alembert is re a lly making a mountain out of a j m olehill, when he condemns so severely the I I iade Travestl and the Tllemaque parody, "ces deux outrages a la memo I re de deux grands poBtes" 3 2 0 ! (..I.i.l, 6oi+). D’Alembert used his "Eloge de Marivaux" as an effective medium for expressing his personal opinion on current topics closely related to | j the philosophes. F irs t, he daringly states that Marivaux’ s ignorance [ | of classical Iiterature did not prove detrimental to his becoming a suc cessful man of letters— a bold and novel idea, Indeed! Then, through I i the detailed account of Marivaux’ s d iffic u ltie s in reaching the French j |Academy, D'Alembert once more is propagating one of his favorite con- ; cep t s : I ’Academie Francaise une vraie rlpublique des le ttre s ’ ! For the most part, other topics discussed by D'Alembert are more j [relevant to his main subject. His full-dress discussion of Marivaux's j two 11 terary genres— namely, the novel and the com&die de moeurs— is Interesting and informative. He also includes descriptions of the two | main Parisian theaters; of Sylvia, the Italian actress; and of the |adored Adrienne Couvreur— a ll of which provides appropriate background j j for the evaluation of Marivaux himself. j As for Le Spectateur, D'Alembert confines his remarks principally j j to the Lettre. Despite favorable opinions expressed by other than ' French readers on his lite ra ry achievements, Marivaux did not recipro- i j cate this praise: II preferait sans h is ite r nos ecrivains a ceux de toutes ies nations, tant anciennes que modernes; et I ’ anglomanie, si reproch&e a quelques Iitterateu rs de nos jours, n ' l t a i t assurlment pas son defaut. (TTT, 590) In the Marivaux eloge there Is defin itely a personal note that Is I j rare in D’Alembert’ s eulogies. Here, he refers indirectly to the most ! dramatic experience of his private l if e , the long years of intimate _lrJ-e.nd.sh.lp-. w.I.th lu lle de Lespinasse. He also revea Is f or Mar I vaux_a....... 321 ! I fellow feeling— "sur le plan de la sens i bl 1 I f e. " Consequently, it Is j sensitivity revealed in Marivaux's works which most forcibly Impresses j the eulogist. However, the c r it ic , Arland, seriously questions the j extreme Importance of Marivaux's s e n s ib llite : j M. Trahard salue en Marivaux I ' un des mattres de la s e n s fb ilitl moderne, Un maftre, c'est, II me semble, trop dire; car II eut peu d*Influence. Disons plut&t un precurseur, sans oubller toutefois la J i singular!te de sa figure. I ; i ,fl I avait des moments de sensi b I I I te", e c rit d’Alembert, songeant a j certains reel ts du Spectateur. Des fom ents1 '? On ne peut guere I : s'abuser davantage. Sans doute, ces tendres recits se trouvent balancls par les tra its s p iritu e ls , les scenes pjaisantes et le ch a r-1 I mant vagabondage de I'auteur. . . . (pp. 22J>-22k) ! I Except for his unreserved commendation of Le Spectateur essays, J jD ’Alembert Is quite equivocal In appraising Marivaux’ s other 1 Iterary I | I j achIevements. For instance, he evaluates the novels as far superior to j i ! the playsj and yet in both genres, he discovers un defaut de nature I. ! i . I | In considering Marivaux's professional attitude toward contemporary i i | writers, we find that he fa ile d to recognize certain men of letters, j I . I some of whom were far superior to him, both in 11terary talents and creative genius. Dufresny, a mediocre w riter, was "le seul de ses contemporains que nous lui ayons entendu louer." Regarding Marivaux's estimate of e a rlie r writers, D'Alembert adds this comment: Corneille et Montaigne Ita le n t, apres Dufresny, les seuls auteurs que Marivaux daignait louer quelquefols; et Montaigne encore plus que Corneille, par cette seule raison, aue la maniere d'ecrire de Montaigne e ta lt plus a Iu I. . . . (TTT, 6 I 5- 616) D'Alembert believed that Marivaux’ s greatest "crime" was his re- i fusal to accept Moliere as his spiritual father, "le createur de notre j theatre comique" (X U , 615). In fact, the dramatist had the audacity to consider Marianne's seducer, Climal, "un caractere beaucoup plus fin 322 ! que le Tartufe," With good reason does the c r itic comment tersely: j M Le Tartufe de Marianne est peut-etre un mellleur Tartufe de roman; mais jcelul de Moliere est a coup sOr un mellleur Tartufe de comidie” ( l'l I , |590). I It Is somewhat d if f ic u lt to account for D'Alembert's excessive iattention to Marivaux's Inexplicable attitude toward certain eminent i I writers. Since we have only the eulogist’ s word upon this matter, we !are inclined to believe that D’Alembert Is actually b e ltttlin q j Marivaux’ s a b ilit ie s , and in an underhanded manner. The "EIoge de Marivaux" Is undoubtedly one of D'Alembert’ s most Ielaborately-deveI oped pieces of writing. Despite his fa ilu re to point lout any personal contacts made with the subject, he certainly succeeds In making him come alive. That i t would be a d iff ic u lt matter to jevaluate Marivaux's 1iterary accomplishments D'Alembert fu lly realized,! j because ear Iy in his I loge he stated: Nous avons cru qu' I I importalt a sa mlmolre de fa ire IcI de bonne grSce, et pour lul et pour nous-m§mes, une espece d’ amende honorable j de ce fo r fa it lltte ra ir e ,® afIn que la critique, flechle et dlsarm&e | par cette confession, nous permette de ne plus parler, dans le reste i de cet eloge, que des ouvrages qul I ' ont rendu vralment estimable. Nous n’ ignorons pas cependant q u' i I nous sera blen d i f f i c il e encore j d’ apprecler Marivaux au gre des inexorables zelateurs du bcngoOt; ils | ne nous pardonneralent pas de nous exprimer froldement sur I'etrange I nlologisme qul depare m§me ses mellleures productions: aln si, en reclamant pour lul et pour son historien une indulgence dont I Is ont igalement besoln I ’ un et I'au tre, nous pouvons dire ce que Cic&ron disaft a ses Juges dans une affa ire &plneuse. , . . (Je sens comblen la route ou je m'engage est d i f f i c il e et hasardeuse,) (I lJ, 579) The Marivaux feloge Is the f ir s t c ritic a l and comprehensive con sideration of this wrfter in French 11terary history. Moreover, ft has 8 , ! The " fo rfa it llt te r a ir e " Is a reference to Marivaux's mediocre travesties of the AEneld and the Iliad . 323, become the point of departure for all subsequent major works on ! i Marivaux, from Salnte-Beuve to Marcel Arland. W e can only regret that D’Alembert ”cou!d not let himself go” and speak of Marivaux without furtive, sidelong glances toward Ferney, Had he done so, later c ritic s might only have had to nod In fu ll agreement.’ CHAPTER YTTT D’ALEMBERT AND FONTENELLE i i I i ; The Academy of Sciences, one of Louis XGZ's academies, was | established in 1666 under the personal guidance of Colbert, the King’ s | minister of finance. That same year Jean-Baptiste Duhamel ( 162lt.-i706), ! •a scholarly prelate, became its f ir s t secretaire perpetuel. Before j resigning from his office some years later, he had already selected as j I j his successor Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757), who took over his new duties in 1699. Concerning Fontenelle’ s promotion to the secretariat T ille y rig h tly remarks* | I t was an ideal choice, for though he [Fontenelle] was a master of no science, he was well acquainted with a l l, and though he made no origi- i nal contributions to knowledge himself, he could explain In lucid and | 11 terary language the contributions of his colleagues. Added to this,j j he had the diligence, tact, and courtesy which help to make a good | secretary. (p. i+16) j Fontenelle had been an active member of the French Academy since j i I 6 9I. Consequently, he naturally brought to his new responsibilities ! in the Academy of Sciences the fru its of valuable experience gained in the parent institution. Literary history records the fact that for many years Fontenelle was to ju s tify In a pre-eminent manner Duhamel’ s choice of successor* *These royal academies were established in the following order* Acadimie Fransaise, 1635 Acadimie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, I655 Acadimie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, I663 Acadimie des Sciences, 1 666, _______ _______ 325! A i'Academie des sciences, il remplit 1+3 ans, avec I'appIaudissement ! universel, les fonctions de secretaire perpetuel. Pendant ce temps-la, de 1699 a 1 7 1 +1, 11 a f a it r!gu I ierement les !loges des acadlmlciens morts dans le courant meme de I'annee, et publle non molns e>ectement, chaque annle, un resume c la tr, elegant et precis des travaux de I'Acadimie en t!te de chaque volume de ses memoires. I (BouiI Iie r, pp. I i - I I i ) ’ i I In one of his eloges Fontenelle has drawn a complete portrait of his distinguished predecessor whom he generously presents as an Ideal i i | | secretaire perpetuel (OEuvres de Fontenelle, I , 132). BouiI Iie r, how- j , ever, compares Fontenelle and Duhamel in a manner which would have delighted D'Alemberts ; Quel contraste cependant entre ces deux secretaires! I f un p ritre j pieux, I'autre anlme deja de I'e s p rit du dlx-huifieme siecles I ' un j encore partisan de l'ancienne philosophie de I'ecole, I'a u tre attach! i a la philosophie nouveile, . . . I ' un fafsant encore parler la { science en la tin , I'autre d!ja dans la langue de Voltaire' (p. I l l ) I I During the year 1739— 17^+0 a b r illia n t mathematician In his early j ! twenties presented two papers before the Academy of Sciences. W e can i I i readily imagine with what paternal pride and professional admiration ! i Fontenelle listened to D'Alembert's erudite mathematical expositions j | and with what enthusiasm the sec rltalre perpetuel we I corned this youth- j | ful candidate to the ranks of the s c ie n tific academy the following | | I j year. Thus began a warm acquaintance, based upon mutual respect and | common interests, a friendship which continued until Fontenelle’ s death I some seventeen years later. It is particularly In the iloges acadlmiques that D'Alembert speaks of Fontenelle, and usually in the most laudatory terms. For many years Fontenelle sought entrance to the French Academy. Making his f ir s t attempt In 1 688, he was superseded by a mediocre candidate, the Abbe Testu de Mauroy, who later became the subject of one of I 326 D’Alembert's more tepid eloges. Because Fontenelle boldly supported the Modernes he gained many b itte r enemies, some of whom did everything possible to prevent his election. Eventually, however, the intrepid 2 writer won a coveted fauteutI in the general assembly. D’Alembert, who later was to encounter sim ilar obstacles, came to understand thoroughly the reason for Fontenelle's great tribulations with the French Academy. Furthermore, he could well appreciate the fact that his senior colleague consistently manifested un esprit e c la lre , despite professional d iffic u ltie s and personal humiliation. Many are the complimentary references to Fontenelle In D’Alembert's eulogies. That he was attracted to the scientist-philosopher as a per son of moral integrity and intellectual b rillian ce is quite evident. In the La Motte e I oge the c r it ic compares his subject with Fontenelle In order to present a more detailed character p o rtra it of his esteemed senior colleague. D'Alembert considered the friendship existing I between these two contemporary writers "dlgne surtout d'etre proposee pour modele aux gens de le ttre s ,f and their interest In the mouvement | phI Iosophique highly commendable: M Tous deux pleins de justesse, de : lumieres et de raison, se montrent partout suplrieurs aux prejuges, jsoit phI Iosophiques, soit litte ra ire s . . . " ( i l l , 137). j ‘ I Probably the warmest public tribute to Fontenelle appears In the ! eloge of an extraordinary abbe mondaln. Accounting for the fact that De Choisy’ s death was not greatly lamented by his fellow academicians, i o ^This whole problem of Fontenelle's election to the French Academy and other related matters are discussed fu lly In D'Alembert's Important "Eloge de Despreaux [Bolleau]" In D 3, 35l-^J-0« 3271 D'Alembert remarks somewhat cynically; i i II avait ete plus al m & d’ eux pendant sa vie, qu'i I nfen fu t regrette j apres sa mortj c'est qu'etant doyen de I'Acadimie lorsqu'II mourut, j il eut malheureusement pour successeur dans le decanat un homme bien j plus f a it pour honorer ce t it r e , I * i I lustre Fontenelle, qul en a joui plus de trente annies, et trop peu de temps encore au g ri de nos i voeux, dlgne Nestor d'une compagnie lit t e r a lr e , rendant les lettres | egalement respectables par ses ouvrages et par ses moeursj objet de ) I'estime de la nation, et connaissant le prix de cette estime; j | jouissant enfin de cette consideration personnelle, qui ne s'accorde j ni au rang, ni au genie mime, mais a la vertu seule, et dont on doit i itr e d'autant plus jaloux, qu'on est plus expose par ses talens ou I par ses dignitis au jugement de ses contemporains. f i l l , 35) Thus far we have gathered D'Alembert's impressions of Fontenelle as a f rlend. W e shaI I now consider his opin ion of his coI Ieague as secretalre and eIog i ste. In thls duaI role Fontenelle's work proved ’ extremely valuable, a fact of which his young protege became well j aware. As far as our study Is concerned, Fontenelle’ s most permanent j contribution to the Academy of Sciences was his series of biographical ; sketches. Apart from his major writings devoted en tire ly to the battlej for reason and sanity, his Vies des Savants helped to dispel the dark ; i : I clouds of Ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry s t i l l hanging over the Age ; i des Lumieres. There is substantial evidence to indicate that D T A | embert was we I I ; | acquainted with Fontenelle's vi es. Doubtless, he occasionally heard i i the secretary deliver In person these biographical sketches before the j Academy of Sciences, and later on he read them with great pleasure. In the essay, "Reflections sur les Eloges Acad&mlques,” D'Alembert speaks of an lloge based upon biographical facts and objectively written, one j I which would establish the valid reputation and recognized achievements : of an academician. This "remodelled" eloge academique must have > didactic value, which was already present to a creditable degree l_n_„the 328 biographical sketches Fontenelle wrote. Le ton d'un eloge hlstorlque ne doit itr e ni celul d'un discours oratolre, ni celui d'une narration aride. Les reflexions philo- ; sophiques sont I'Sme et la substance de ce genre d 'ecrits; tantot on j les entremllera au recit avec art et brievete, tantSt elles seront j rassemblees et developpees dans des morceaux particul iers, ou elles ; formeront comme des masses de Iumiere qui serviront a eclairer le I reste. C'est en cel a que I TI I I us t re secretaire de I ’Academie des j sciences a surtout excelle; c'est par la qu1i I fera princlpalement ! Ipoque dans I'h is to ire de la philosophie; c'est par la enfin qu'I I a ! rendu si dangereuse a occuper aujourd’ hul la place qu’ ll a rendu si j 1 dangereuse a occuper aujourd’ hui la place qu'il a remplie avec tant de succes, (IT, 151-152) In the last few lines of this passage, does not D'Alembert subtly confess his sense of Inadequacy as Fontenelle's spiritual successor? Even though there is apparently no other specific reference, we believe! j | j that D’Alembert, in accepting the secretariat of the French Academy, j ! consciously determined to continue Fontenelle's tradition of delivering! ] i eloges academlques similar in purpose, nature, and tone to the already ! popular vies des savants. W e must now investigate Fontenelle's eulo gies to discover the way D'Alembert fa ith fu lly imitated their basic j pattern and to what extent he modified or ignored it. In 1699 Fontenelle became the secretaire perpetuel of the Academy of Sciences, a new responsibility that he took quite seriously. In i 1702 he published Volume One of his RenouveI Iement de I'Acadimie des I — Sc 1ences, an o ffic ia l history of that Institution. With the edition of | 1 70S he included his biographical sketches of twelve academicians i | deceased since 1699.^ I ; ! When Fontenelle composed his vles he had in mind a dual purpose* ! ^Boulllier adds this piece of information: "Avant ie reglement de 1699, II n'y avaIt point de discours en assemblle pubiique en I'honneur! | des academiciens mortsn (p. i i i ) . to disseminate scien tific knowledge, and to give social status or pres tige to the scientists themselves. That he became the f i r s t ”science j historian” of his time Is an established fact: j On ne connaissalt vraiment, avant le X V I I I c siecle, que I'h is to ire de | la peinture, de la musique, et de la mSdecine. I ncontestab.l ement, j Fontenelle a donnl son impulsion a I ’ histoire des sciences, j That he was equally Important as a ”scientfst-biographer” Is I Ike— jwise true: . . . II appartient a un siecle ou la science n’ a pas perdu le con- ' tact avec le monde, ou le savant n’ est pas encore devenu un universi- ta ire , ou un fonctionnaire. D’ ou le souci chez Fontenelle de ne i jamais separer dans ses Eloges le savant et I'homme, (Vendryes, P. 389) W e must remember that during Louis X E f s long and b r illia n t reign other professional groups received more public acclaim than did the i scientists who were busy in their secluded laboratories or away on long j j ; expeditions. Fontenelle, through the medium of his vies, sought to j i | rectify this unhappy situation. He was able to gain posthumous recog- ; nition for the deceased scientists as professional men and, above a l l , i jas esteemed citizens— something which they had only scantily obtained 1 ' ! Ifrom their contemporaries. In the rehab ilitation of deceased scientists; Fontenelle was obviously serving those s t i l l alive. Upon this important; i matter Boui1 tie r correctly observes: I S'I Is ont i ’ amour de la science et un nature I desinteressement, I Is ont aussl I ’ amouf* de la patrie. Je remarque combien souvent Fontenelle insiste dans ses £ Ioges sur ce sentiment de I'amour de fa patrie, et comme II se p la tt a cel&brer dans ses heros I ’ Sme et les vertus du cltoyen. (pp. x i i - x l i i ) I Coming now to the form of FontenelleTs eulogies, we find, with an j I I Joseph Vendryes, ”Hommaqe a la Mimoire de Fontenelle,” Annales de j PUnfverslte de Paris, 3»389-390» jui I let-septembre 1957. ’ "_____ occasional variation, the following basic pattern: a summary of "vital; sta tis tic s "; a few appropriate, we I I- integrated anecdotes; and an ; evaluation of s c ie n tific achievements. What Is meant by the term : "vital sta tis tic s " BouiI Iie r explains in this passage* i ! Rien n'y ressemble a ce qu’ on appelle en rhetorique un exorde, non I plus qu'a une peroraison, La date, le lieu de la naissance, la fam iIle, I'education regue, voila I'entree en matiere, le debut presque uniforme, et sans autre preambule, de tous Ies EIoges, a | I'exception cependant de celui du Czar Pierre I 61-, qui exigeait plus de solennite. . . . (p. xxvi) Fontenelle’ s admiration for his subjects did not induce him to distort biographical facts, misinterpret character tra its , or to make i i Incorrect evaluations. On the contrary, he drew these "true to life " j sketches from the proper perspective and with the correct balance. As i | for the real nature of Fontenelle’ s lloges BouiI Iie r points out* i j j Fontenelle lui-meme leur donne le nom de vies ou d’ histoires, qui j leur convlent mleux que celui d’ eloges. Ces eloges, d i t - i l , ne sont | qu’ historIques, c’ est-a-dlre vrais, II ne veut pas m§me qu'on les j accuse d’ §tre flatteurs. "Tant nos eloges, d i t - i l en terminant la j I vie de Tournefort, sont loin d’ it r e fla tte u rs !" (p. xxv) j I I j With almost every v ie , Fontenelle Includes some suitable anecdote.! i j Occasionally, he inserts a few personal comments, sometimes provocative! lor philosophical. In the Cassini feIoge, for instance, he refers to the! noted astronomer's increasing blindness thus* ; Son aveuglement m @ m e ne tui avatt rien 6 t l de sa gaiete ordinaire. Un grand fonds de religion, e t, ce qui est encore plus, la pratique de la religion, aidaient beaucoup a ce calme perpetuel. Les cieux, I qui racontent la glolre de leur createur, n’ en avaient Jamais plus parle a personne qu’ a lui, et n’ avaient jamais mieux persuade. i (OEuvres de Fontenelle, I , 280) j j Could I t be that this passage Inspired D’Alembert when he wrote the | eloge of the blind academician, La Motte? \ For simplicity of language and straIghtforward exposition, I 331 : I Fontenelle’ s a b ility is unexcelled, especially when he begins to des- j cribe the scientists’ methods of work or to explain the importance of Ith e ir discoveries. Nothing in D’Alembert is comparable to his elder |col league's vivid account of L i t t r l ' s labors. Almost breathless with ! jfear and excitement, we stand near this eminent surgeon-anatomist as he j |performs an extremely complicated operation. Again, in the dead of |b itte r ly cold winter nights we watch him and his assistant dissect, 'naturally behind closed doors, more than two hundred human corpses. BouiI IIe r neatly sums up Fontenelle's method of presenting the scien- ' 1 j t l s t ’ s life and work thus: I j » j Dans la vie de la plupart d'entre eux, comme dans la slenne, il y a I bien peu d'evlnements, a part leurs travaux, leurs experiences et I leurs decouvertes en astronomie, en a Igebre ou en geometrie. Cepen- dant il salt nous interesser aux plus modestes, aux plus obscurs, par I ’ analyse de leurs recherches et de leurs decouvertes, par le simple re c it de leur vie laborieuse, des obstacles dont ils ont eu a ; triompher, par les anecdotes et par les tra its bien choisis qui | peignent leur caractere et leurs vertus, (p. v i i ) Fontenelle speaks of s c ie n tific achievements only in general terms and in nontechnical language. He neither compares nor contrasts the writings of different scientists, contemporary or otherwise. In almost! i i every case the biographer simply descr1bes the work without evaluating i | Its content and style. Rightly so, for we must remember that Fontenel le intended only to disseminate knowledge and to honor unappreciated sclent Ists. Fontenelle gives his evaluation and c ritic a l judgments in a non- aggressive, dispassionate tone and manner. Consistently he displayed this Olympian attitude toward the sharp differences existing In scien t i f i c thought and opinion. Concerning the heated controversies among ! 332; sclentl sts— for example, the long and b itte r quarrel between the Bernoulli brothers— Fontenelle made several pertinent comments, but with an Im partiality which BouiI IIe r describes in this passage: I L’ equlte, non pas sans doute exempte de blenveiI Iance, mals plus j encore de toute trace d'algreur, m§me quand il s ’ agit d'adversaires, | une haute impartial Ite sont la regie de tous ses jugements sur les grandes controverses scientifiques de l'4poque, et sur ceux qul, dans ' un camp ou dans un autre, y ont Jou4 le principal rQle. Point de ! tra its amers de satire. Les travers et les defauts sont quelquefois tndlquis, mats de la fa<pon la plus discrete et ccmme pour faire mieuxj ! ressortir les m4rites et les qualites. (p. xxv) : i Certainly BouiI Iie r could never have commended D’Alembert in the same ! way for h is im partiality and nonaggress I ve tone,’ j ! S W e must now consider the circumstances which led D'Alembert to ! i j write his 4 1oges. Upon his election to the secretariat of the French ! Academy he discovered that one of hIs major responsibilities would be i | to continue the o ffic ia l history of this organization, o rig in ally begun | ; by Pellisson and D’ OIIvet. Through the performance of this task he j seized a golden opportunity to continue in his own Academy a tradition established by his colleague in the Academy of Sciences, W e must ! i } point out, however, that these two secretaries addressed assemblies I i i i | composed of quite d iffere n t types of academicians. Fontenelle read his vies to an audience of scholars occupied with only one general area of knowledge— science, D’Alembert delivered his eloges to a group repre senting extremely varied Interests and professions and frequently to open sessions attended by the general public. Fontenelle’ s scientists were united in a common purpose and related a c tiv itie s , whi le D'Alem b e rt’ s Forty Immortals occasionally manifested sharp divergence of I | opinion on many vital matters, D'Alembert tried to make Voltairean j 333 rationalism the off i cla i view of the French Academy, and natural Iy he provoked resistance. ! Fontenelle and D’Alembert themselves revealed d istinct differences t | in personality. D’Alembert, somewhat timid and decidedly hypersensl- i I five , was frequently on the defensive in the French Academy. Fontenelle, ja calm extrovert, almost always retained the respect and co-operation | i of his audience. I : | How did these differences and particular circumstances affect ' ' D’Alembert In his writing of the feloges academlques7 In the f ir s t (place, he had a much wider choice of academicians from whom to select j | j Shis subjects. The Acadimie Frangaise was nominally reserved for hommesL i de le ttre s . W e must remember, however, that In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the term " le tte rs ” did not designate exclusively j a r tis tic I I terature. Therefore, we have had to consider the e I oges of several prelates, poets, playwrights, a lawyer, and a soldier. Thus the biographical material has naturally taken on deeper significance, j \ j while the Iife-sketches themselves have inevitably varied greatly in i j length, Fontenelle’ s vi es were complete In themselves. Since D’Alem- ; |bert, on the contrary, sometimes delivered eloges de cjrconstance and since he was limited for time In the general assembly, he placed all the "overflow" or supplementary material in notes. These he printed for t he f I rs t 11 m e wi th his Eloges I us dans les Seances Publ Iques ( 1779). \ | In these "appendices," which are valuable adjuncts to the eulogies I • I (themselves, the secretary Included more biography and more anecdotes, j 1 ' ! as well as much significant information on secondary topics. Frequently; i he expressed strong personal convictions on h1ghIy-controvers!a I ! 33k matters relating either to personalities or hotly-debated subjects In j j the worlds of literature, p o litic s , philosophy, and religion. j I W e have previously remarked that Fontenelle, through hi s vies, ! | | | wished to disseminate sc ie n tific knowledce and to make the scientists' j I “ I I j I lives better known to the public. The secretary of the French Academy,! | with sim ilar motives, had yet another purpose In mind: to employ his j | I j eulogies as subtle, effective media for propagating le mouvement philo-j I sophlque. In the § 1oges proper, D’Alembert refers either indirectly or; guardedly to Important contemporary problems. In the notes, however, i j he frequently expresses his own outspoken opinions on those major | I Issues which sharply divided not only the members of his audience, but j also many of the other thinkers and writers of his time. Yet the con- ! nections between D'Alembert's eulogies and those of his elder colleague are patent. In the history of French lite ra tu re , it Is an undisputed fact that Fontenelle was the Innovator of the eIoge hi storIque t ". . . un genre d'exercices que Fontenelle a cree indiscutablement et ! j jauquel II a confer^ d'emblfee une certaine forme de perfection” I | (Vendryes, p. 388). Equally incontrovertible Is the fact that D'Alem- ! bert consciously took Fontenelle as his model. ! | W e have seen that the very circumstances surrounding D'Alembert's task forced a number of important modifications upon the genre, especially In regard to variety of subject matter and relative impor tance of the figures treated. Even more tellin g s t i l l are the effects upon his IIoges of the changed Intellectual climate In which D'Alembert moved. He could not preserve the Olympian calm of Fontenelle during those years when the Encycl op&dfe— wi th which, whether he liked 1 1 or j 335 not, his own name was to be permanently associated— was struggling for existence and the parti p h i1osophique was waging on many fronts the ■fight against superstition and intolerance. Since s c ie n tific discov eries seldom provoked strong public reaction one way or the other, Fontenelle could afford to remain au dessus de la melee. In do Ing so ; he showed wisdom, because by this means and despite his moderation he I jwas able to preserve in his vies certain aspects of the classical pane-; gyric. By the time D'Alembert takes hold of the genre, he obviously finds i the need for eulogistic praise at any price a most irr ita tin g require- j jment. With his hypersensitive nature he could never bring himself to express fulsome fla tte ry in the cynical manner of his friend Voltaire. iD'Alembert must add qualifiers and correct the " o f f ic ia l” compliment I i !which he is forced to make publicly. By appending facts and reflec- s jtions he neutralized the fla tte ry . It is evident that in D'Alembert's hands the 11oge Is about to become something other than an h I oge, something other than o ffic ia l j Ipraise, destined to be delivered orally to a sizable assembly. D'Alem- I bert definitely wished to exploit what we would call the "pub lic ity j outlet" afforded him by his position as secretary of the Academy. He desired to reach far more persons than just his fellow Immortals and their immediate audience. It was his earnest intention to see his eIoges not only on the printed page, but published with copious addi tional material. The eulogist Is Indeed much less desirous of being heard than being read, for he had far more "axes to grind" than did Fontenelle. He was fighting for a particular credo and against certain very concrete \ institutions and organizations. Above a l l , he was the impassioned ; partisan of a number of phiIosophe friends, especial ly Voltaire. The men discussed in D'Alembert’ s § Ioges are not only much more varied in character, achievements, and intrinsic Interest than are the j subjects of Fontenelle’ s exclusively s c ie n tific pantheon; D’Alembert's j own Interests, Ideas, and passions were far more diversified and far \ more controversia I than those of Fontenelle. Fontenelle's sim plicity of aim and method— combined with his great | tact and extraordinary expository g i f t — makes the Vies des Savants a j i i ! true classic. Had D'Alembert simply Imitated Fontenelle, he might have! le ft a commendable supplement to the Vies, but i t would have revealed l i t t l e character of Its own. He possessed too f e r t ile and original a mind to imitate slavishly his senior colleague. Follow Fontenelle's example he certainly did, but his was another case of Imitation o rig i- naIe. D'Alembert's eloges have been considered largely in terms of an j I imitation of Fontenelle’ s vj_es. Their true interest and intrinsic j i lvalue, consequently, have never been rig h tly appreciated. It is only I j i | by emphasizing D'Alembert's o rig in a lity , which transformed the imita- j tion, that we come to understand fu lly his eloges. This we have sought to do in deta! I in the preceding chapters. There now remains the sum marizing of our findings. CHAPTER X E E j | | CONCLUSION i i | ! In what specific ways does D'Alembert modify and under what c ir - | cumstances does he actually transform the el oge historique as bequeathed! to him by Fontenelle? i : F irs t, we find that in D'Alembert's eulogies the biographical jelements are far more extensive and complex than in his forerunner's I ” 1 Ives.M If the subject of hi s 4 1oge I s a timeserver of Ii ttle or no consequence, D'Alembert can be even more perfunctory than Fontenelle In giving simply a lis t of v ita l s ta tis tic s . When the subject is a per- isonage of real Importance or a less-known figure who, for some particu-j lar reason, holds D'Alembert's interest, then he goes far beyond bio- i graphical facts. Not only does he incorporate accounts of outstanding j events In his subject's life ; he also includes anecdotal material In j I the actual body of the eulogy. Moreover, he frequently does this with a very sure sense of making his subject come alive. Again and again we find D'Alembert becoming strongly attracted to his subjects' lives, simply as human pageantry or as examples of the variety and complexity of mankind. In short, consciously or unconsciously, the eulogist Is creating a separate lite ra ry genre— namely biography, as I t wi I I be j practiced hesitantly by Salnte-Beuve and then boldly by such writers as! Andrl Maurois. i What distinguishes this type of "full-blown" biography from simply 338 | j "PIutarchean" chronicle Is the biographer's concern with the in te r - i re la tin g of external events, character t r a it s , states of mind, and, ! u ltim a tely , the achievements or fa ilu re s of the person under consldera- i i j tion. This method necessarily involves a delicate and selective pro- i i cess. What do we find but just such a procedure In D'Alembert's ■account of the Bernoulli brothers' quarrel with Its resultant e ffe c t on I _ I I the conduct of th e ir whoJe s c ie n tific accomplishments, or in the euIo- | [g is t's almost poignant insistence on Boileau's unhappy childhood 'experience? With what te llin g Irony does D'Alembert f i r s t present and | then demolish the Abb! de Cholsy's twisted personality*. In the eulogy j of George Keith, does not D'Alembert develop, unconsciously or other wise, an admirable psychograph? With what subtle s k ill does the eulo gist attempt to account fo r Marivaux's peculiar Iite r a r y achievements in terms of his origins, frequentations, and temperament.' j ! ! j W e have mentioned the name of Sainte-Beuve, which Is closely linked with the origin of a special form of w ritin g — a combination of biograph^ and lite r a r y c ritic is m , D'Alembert frequently Is obviously led on ; ^simply by his sheer c u rio sity to discover everything possible concern- i Ing his subject. Nevertheless, he usually begins with the premise i that in order to understand f u l l y the a r t i s t i c , lit e r a r y , s c ie n t if ic , or any other achievements of a man, we must know something about his bio graphical context. This fa c t Is especially s ig n ific a n t In his eloges of predom inant!y-lIterary figures. W e have pointed out the remarkably clear way In which D'Alembert realized the importance of Buffon's statement, "Le style est de I'homme m£me" (I, 10). Not only does the eulogist believe that style is the one| ...................... 339 essentiaIiy-personaI contribution to even the most purely s c ie n tific j w riting--which is a ll that Buffon was re a lly saying— he goes much fu r ther In considering this personal element the very key to a man's I in d iv id u a lity and character. Thus, D'Alembert c learly anticipates one whole aspect of Sainte-BeuvIan c r it ic a l practice. The eulogies, by th e ir very nature, were conducive to D’Alembert's j j insistence upon the "appreciation des beautes" rather than on negative I I c ritic is m . This opinion may have led him to desire f i r s t of a I I to understand rather than to c r it ic i z e his subject. Furthermore, this jd e sire , combined with his concept of style as something organic, bringsj : | I him even closer to Salnte-Beuve, who in r e a lit y has scarcely Improved j ! |upon D'Alembert's presentation of Fenelon, Massillon, or, most of a l l , ! Mar Ivaux. I ! Another interesting SaInte-Beuvian adumbration Is the manner In I ! ! •which D’Alembert uses a given figure as the point of departure for con-! si dering a whole group of persons and w ritings. For example, the eulogy-pIus-notes of Boileau is a ctu ally a well-developed essay on the : various Important w riters associated with or p itte d against Boileau. ; I In other words, this p a rtic u la r eloge, in miniature to be sure, closely; resembles the kind of synthetic presentation Sainte-Beuve was to do In • extenso in his Port Royal. Let us remember that the eulogy of Boileau | | i is not the only such example. j Yet In reading D'Alembert's lloges we are s t i l l a long way from the Causerles du Lundl or Chateaubriand e t Son Groupe. Why Is the gap ^See also the § Ioges of Montesquieu, La Chaussle, and Marivaux, 3 b o s t i l l so wide. This brings us to the more negative aspects of the eloges. Notwithstanding his origlnaI Ity and s e n s itiv ity , D’Alembert j was— by force of his o f f ic ia l position and also of his adoration of V o lta ire , If not by personal taste— s t i l l rather s la v ish ly neoclassical : in his o rien tatio n . Despite his distaste for s a tir e , the eulogist j s t i l l considers Boileau the ’Meg is Iateur du Parnasse” ; and he counts C o rn e ille, Racine, and V o lta ire as forming an almost sacred t r in it y . Likewise, despite his profound hatred of neo-Latin verse, D’Alembert is; s t i l l w illin g to pay lip -service to the Latin classics. For example, he can solemnly regard Jean-Baptiste Rousseau as a modern Pindar. There are also the more general prejudices which color D’Alembert's ilo g e s , although not always In a necessarily deleterious way. D’Alem bert was generally a n tic le ric a l and esp ecially a n ti-J e s u it, as was his mentor, V o lta ire . Like V o lta ire , he lacked any desire to demolish the church as a social In s titu tio n . Thus, he expresses fa r more sincere ■ admiration of true C hristian v irtu e In the Iloges of Fenelon, F lech ier, j land Massillon than we would expect to find. Then le t us remember i the true character of many of the eighteenth-century French c I er I cs ’ . More serious perhaps, because they are less quickly detected, are j I D’Alembert’ s purely ad hominem d is lik e s which result from his almost : blind admiration of V o lta ire . He seems to have singled out especially C rlb illo n and Marivaux as the victims of his blind p a r t i a l i t y fo r the leader of the philosophes. Yet how disdain and hatred can, on occasion, sharpen a c r i t i c ’ s perceptions! W e wonder if these prejudices may not j jaccount for the fa c t that D’Alembert’ s "Eloge de Marivaux” still remains 3kl the most te llin g contemporary analysis of that w rite r’ s work. D’Alembert’ s too-obvious p a r tia lity for Vo ltaire, along with his anticlericaIism , has probably done more to obscure the real worth of his eulogistic writings than any other single factor. This situation is most unfortunate, because It has kept almost a lI previous c ritic s from discovering the intrin sic importance of these e 1 oges. Besides the noteworthy innovations which we have here discussed, let us not forget that D’Alembert frequently did with equal efficacy what his model, Fontenelle, did with such conspicuous success. His style is not as uniformly smooth and easy as that of the vies des savants, but i t is beautifully a rtic u la te , oftentimes rising to heights that Fontenelle seldom achieved. Furthermore, the eulogist’ s exposi tory g ifts , like those of his forerunner, were of the f i r s t order. D’Alembert was a far more remarkable and original scientist than Fontenelle. Consequently, In the essay on Bernoulli we find D'Alembert adhering to that b r illia n t s c ie n tific French tradition in which accu racy, combined with elegance and sim plicity, Is amply sustained, A modern commentator has correctly stated: Le XVI I fe siecle fu t, pour les rapports entre la science et la litte ra tu re , un Sge d’ or: les Icrivains animSs par I ’ esprit encyclopedlque cherchaient pour leur philosophie des arguments scientifIquesj les savants se plquaient d’ &legance dans leurs exposes techniques. Certains auteurs connurent la gloire dans les deux domaines: Buffon est I'exemple de plus Ic la ta n t de cette reussitej mais d’ autres jouirent egalement de ce double success alnsi I ’Acade- mie des Sciences, puis I ’Acadlmie Fran^aise consacrerent les merites de Jean Lerond d’Alembert.2 2 Jean Mayer, "D'Alembert et I ’Acadimie des Sciences," Literature and Science (Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Congress, Oxford, England), 1954, p. 203. 3k2 Likewise, another commentator has remarked: . . . les Eloges . . . de FonteneIle sont un des meiIleurs IIvres de | notre litte ra tu re j ce sont des modeles que ses successeurs, maIgri j leur esprit et leur science, ne devalent pas egaler. (B o u iIIie r, | p. xxx) I ! Yet we cannot help wondering If this judgment, which simply i I re-echoes that of a host of ea rlie r c ritic s , may not be somewhat i nac- j curate. W e wonder, for example, if a selection of the very best of I ! D'Alembert’ s eulogies, carefully put together in a single anthology, i along with Just enough judicious commentary to make the text easily i in te llig ib le , would not stand up very well alongside the Fontenelle I achievement. Certainly the subject matter would be far more varied and; | the presence of a sensitive and passionate character more Immediately j f e lt . | i Such an anthology of "Selected Eulogies" would of necessity begin j i with the great piece on Montesquieu. Then, to confound those readers i | who cry "blind an tIc Ie rIc a Iis m ," the eulogies of Fenelon, Massillon, ! i ; | and Bossuet would follow. Among the eIoges of a more purely Iiterary | nature, the Marivaux piece s t i l l remains the most outstanding, although I those of Boileau, La Motte, La Chaussee, Destouches, and CribII Ion pere i i all contain sufficient liv e ly and valuable material to warrant their \ inclusion. Perhaps the most fascinating group of eloges would be those In which, for one reason or another, the living figures of men such as j Segrals, F&nelon, De Choisy, De Sacy, and Keith, emerge as more Inter- i | j jesting than their individual achievements. I | i Some of these la tte r eIoges would be found worthy of the pen of an! Englishman who presented his gallery of picturesque nineteenth-century ! i figures under the t i t l e of Eminent Victorians. In the preface to his. notable work, Lytton Strachey makes this striking statements I The art of biography seems to have fallen on evil times in England. j W e have had, i t is true, a few masterpieces, but we have never had, I like the French, a great biographical tradition; we have had no j Fontenelles and Condorcets, with th eir incomparable eloges, compress ing into a few shining pages the manifold existences of men.-' :Had Strachey been able to read such an anthology of eulogies as we have 1 imagined, we feel certain that he would not have omitted the name of the person without whom Condorcet’ p eIoges could not have come into j existence— namely, Condorcet's sponsor and mentor, D'Alembert. He is, indeed, the trai t d'union between Fontenelle and Condorcet, as on a 'different level he is the link between Fontenelle and Salnte-Beuve. i It is to be hoped that, as a resul t of this study, the exact in- I I ! idebtedness of both Condorcet and Sainte-Beuve to D'Alembert may become |the subject of seme future investigation. It might then be revealed that D'Alembert was a strategic transiton figure linking pre-Revo I ut i on-j i ary and post-RevoIutIonary lite ra ry trends in a way only dimly surmised I up to the present time. '’(New York, [ 19 18 ])» P. vi. B I B L I O G R A P H Y I i BIBLIOGRAPHY j i ] i i Literary Works of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert i \ Elements de Musique Theorique et Pratique, suivant les Prlnclpes de M. j Rameau. Par Is, 1752. ! -------------------------- i ’ Melanges de Litterature d'Hlstolre et de Philosophie. Paris, 1753• I Sur la Destruction des Jfesuites en France. n ,p ., 17^5- Eloges I us dans les Seances Publiques de I ’Acad&mle Francoise. Paris, 1779. ;HlstoIre de I'Academie Frangaise. 6 vols. Paris, 1785-1787. ! i OEuvres Posthumes de D'Alembert, ed. Chas. Pougens. 2 vols. Paris, : a n m ' O 7 9 9 7 : ; I | ' Select Eulogies of Members of the French Academy, trans. John Aiken. j London, 1799. jCEuvres Philosophiques, Historiques et Litteraires, 10 vols, Paris, ! 1805. i OEuvres Completes de D'Alembert. 5 vols. Paris, 1821-1822. iTrols Mois a la Cour de Frederic . . . , ed. Gaston Maugras. Paris, ; ----------------------------------------------------- C E uvres et Correspondences Inedites de D'Alembert, ed. M. Charles Henry et a I . Paris, 1837. Books and Articles Quoted Arland, Marcel. Mari vaux. Paris, 1950. Bachaumont, Louis P etit de. Memotres Secrets pour Servir a I'H fstoire | de la R&publique des Lettres en France, depuls 1762 Jusqu'a nos j Jours; ou, Journal d'un Observateur. 36 vols, London, 1781 - 1789. j Balteau, J[ules], et al, Dictionnaire de Biographle Frangaise. 7 vols.j Paris, 1933-1956. 3h6\ Bertrand, Joseph Louis Francois. D'Alembert. Paris, 1889. j Bolleau, [Nicolas Despreaux], OEuvres Completes de Bolleau. 1 |. vols. Paris, 1870-1873. j Bossuet, [Jacques Benigne], Oraisons Funebres, New Edition. Paris, [1885]. B o u llller, M. Franclsque, ed. EIoges de Fontenelle avec une Introduc tion et des Notes. Paris, n.d. Brenner, Clarence D ., and Nolan A. Goodyear. Eighteenth-Century French; PI ays. London, 1927. j Brunei, Lucien, Les Philosophes et I'Academie Frangalse au Dix-Huitieme Siecle. Par I s^ 1881).. Button, [Georges Louis Leclerc de], OEuvres Completes de Button, ed. A. Richard. 20 vols. Paris, 1835* ; Coll6, Charles. Journal et Mfemoires de Charles C o lle, New Edition, 2 j vols. Paris'] 1868. j I Condorcet, [Nicolas Caritat de], ed. C E uvres de D'Alembert; Sa Vie, j Ses OEuvres, Sa Philosophle. Paris, 1853. j Damiron, Jean P hilibert. Memo?res pour Servlr a I'H is to ire de la ! Phi losophie au XVI I le Si&cleT] 3 vols. Paris, 1858 -1861).. j Destouches, [Philippe] N[ericault], OEuvres Dramatiques de N. ! Destouches, New Edition. 6 vols. Paris, 1820— 18 2 f. j Diderot, [Denis], EncycI opedie, ou Dlctionnaire Raisonne des Sciences, des Arts, et des Metiers . . . et quant a la Partie Mathematique, par M. D'Alembert. Paris, 1751“ 1705. Du Deffand [Marie de Vichy-Chamrond Marquise]. Lettres a Voltaire In ; Collection des Chefs-d'CE uvre M&connus. Paris, 1922. Fenelon, [Francois de Salignac de La Mothe] de, Les Aventures de Tel&maque f i l s d'Ulysse, New Edition. PhI IadeIph i a, 1864. Fontenelle, [Bernard Le Bovier de], CEuvres de Fontenelle. 3 vols, Paris, 1825. Franklin, Alfred, et al. L 'ln s titu t de France. Paris, 1907. Grimm, [Frederick Melchior], et al. Correspondance L itte r a lr e , I Philosophlque et Critique, ed. Maurice Tourneux. 16 vols. Paris.! 1877- 1882. 1 3 h 7 Hemon, Felix. "Les Transformations du Prix d1EIoquence," La Revue Politique et L itt& ra ire , 8 avri I 1882, i+l6-l;20. Hoefer, Jean Chrltien Ferdinand, ed. Nouvelle Bioqraphie Genera Ie Depuis les Temps les Plus Recules Jusqu’ a Nos Jours, avec les Renseignements BlbIiographiques et I'Indication des Sources a Consu I ter\ I4 .6 vols. Par is^ 1852-1866. Hougardy, Maurice. La Parole en Publique; Essal sur la Rhltorique et I ’Eloquence Aujourd’ hui et dans le Passed Paris, 19^6. : Lambert, Marquenat de Courcelles de. C E uvres de Madame La Marquise de Lambert, New Edition. Amsterdam, 1766. La Fontaine, [Jean de]. Fables Choisies, 3 vols. Paris, 1930-1933. La Motte, Antoine Houdar de, Ines de Castro. Paris, 1723. Lanson, Gustave. Les Origlnes du Drame Contemporain; Nivelle de La Chaussee et le a Com6dle Larmoyante. Paris, 1903. Larousse du j&S* 5 Slecle, ed. Paul Auge. 6 vols. Paris, 1928-1933* Larroumet, Gustave. Marivaux; Sa Vie et Ses CE uvres, New Edition. Paris, 1891;. Lesbros de la Versane, Louis, Esprit de Marivaux; ou Analectes de Ses Ouvrages. Paris, I 769. Lespinasse [Julie de], Lettres de Mile de Lespinasse. Paris, [1891;]. Marmontel, [Jean Francois], OEuvres Completes de Marmontel. 7 vols. Paris, 1819-1820. jMayer, Jean. "D’Alembert et I ’Academie des Sciences," Literature and i Science (Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Congress, Oxford, England), 1954, 202-205. iMesnard, Paul [L.] Histoire de I ’Academie Fran$alse depuls sa Fondation jusqu’ a I 63O. Part s, 1857. Micard, Etienne. Un Ecrlvain Acad&mique au ZgEU 0 Siecle; Antoine- Leonard Thomas (1732-1785). Par is, 1925. ‘ Montesquieu, [Charles Louis de Secondat]. OEuvres de Montesquieu, New Edition. 9 vols. Paris, 1 8 19. Nivelle de la Chaussee, [Plerre-ClaudeJ. OEuvres de Monsieur Nivelle de La Chauss&e, de t ’AcadSmle Fran^otfe, New Edition. 5 vols. Paris, 1762. Ramsay, Andri Michel de. Histoire de la Vie de Monsieur Francois de j SaI 1gnac de la Motte-FeneIon, Archeveque de Cambray. The Hague, I T m . I Rousseau, Jean-Baptiste. OEuvres de Jean-Bapt1she Rousseau, New Edi- j tlon, J 4 vols. Paris, 1795* Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Correspondance Glnerale de J.-J . Rousseau, ed. Theoflle Dufour. 20 vols. Par Is , 1924-193^U I j ___________ . Les Confessions de J.-J. Rousseau. 2 vols. Paris, 1913. Sacy, [Louis de], Tra1te de I TAmi t ie . Paris, 1703. Sainte-Beuve, C[harles] A[ugustin], Causeries du Lundl, 5fh ed. 15 vols. Paris, [1857-1872]. Strachey, Lytton. Eminent Victorians. New York, [ 19 18]. Ti I ley, Arthur. The Decline of the Age of Louis X lV ; or French Litera ture 1687-1715. Cambridge, England, 1929^ Trahard, Pierre. Les Mattres de la Sensibllite Franchise au XVllTe Siecle (1713-1789). 1 + vols. Paris, 1931-. I Vendryes, Joseph. "Hommage a la Memolre de Fontenelle," Annales de 1 * Uni vers 1te de Paris, 3*389-390, juiIlet-septembre 1957. Voltaire, Fran9oise Marie Arouet de. OEuvres Completes, ed. L. Moland. 52 vols. Paris, I877- I 885. jWalpole, Horace. Hprace Walpolef s Correspondence with Madame du Deffand . . . , ed. W . S. Lewis and Warren Hunting Smith. 7 vols. New Haven, T939. i Iwilding, Peter. Adventurers in the Eighteenth Century. New York, 1938.! Works Consulted Adam, Antoine. "Fontenelle Ecrivain," Annales de I'U n iv e rs itl de Paris, 3 :1 +02- 1 4 .05, jui I let-septembre 1957. Arnold, Matthew. "Essay on the Literary Influence of Academies," Essays in Cr i t i ci sm. London, 1891. Babbitt, Irving. Masters of Modern French Criticism . Boston, 1912. Becker, Carl Lotus. The Heavenly City of the XVI n th Century Phi loso- phers. New Haven^ 1932. ' 3 h 9 Bedier, Joseph, and Paul Hazard, eds. Litterature Frangaise. 2 vols. Paris, l9l|-8-19^-9. i B&lin, Jean Paul. Le Mouvement Ph I I osoph I que, de 17^8 a 1789 (Uni versity of Paris thesis). Paris, 1913* Bertaut, Jules. La Vie L itte ra ire en France au X V llle Siecle, Paris, I95U. Bertrand, Joseph Louis Francois. L’Acadlmie des Sciences et les Acadl- miciens, de 1666 a 1793. Paris, 1869. B illy , Andri. Sainte-Beuve, Sa Vie, et Son Temps. 2 vols. Paris, 1952. Bloomberg, Blanche R. "The C ritic a l Technique of Sainte-Beuve con sidered in Its Relationship to the Modern Biography, as exemplified; by Lytton Strachey and Andre Maurols." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, University of Southern C alifo rn ia, 1938. CaugiIhem, Georges. "Fontenelle, Philosophe et Historien des Sciences," Annales de I'Unlversite de Paris, 3*38l+-390, j’ui I I et-septembre 1957. Cousin d'Aval Ion, Charles Yves. D’Alembert1 ana; ou Recueil d’Anec- dotes . . . . Paris, 181J. Charles, Jean, ed. Esprit, Maximes et Principes de D’Alembert. Geneve, 1789. iCraig, Horace Sidney. "Sainte-Beuve, A Study in the Formation of his Mind." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 191+1. ! ;Dupont-Sommer, Andre. "Fontenelle Historien des Religions," Annales de : I ’ Universite de Paris, 3*390-396, JuiI Iet-septembre 1957~ ■ Faguet, Emile. Etudes L itte ra ire s ; le xvn Siecle. Paris, 1890. I i : :Fe!!ows, Otis Edward, and Norman L. Torey, eds. The Age of Enlighten- i ment; An Anthology of XVI I I th Century French Literature. New York, W ----------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------------- Giese, William F. Sainte-Beuve; A Literary P o rtra it. Madison, 1931. (University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, No.37) La Grand EncycI opedie, ed. [Andre] Berthelot. 31 vols. Paris. 1886- 1902] l Green, Frederick Charles. Minuet; A C ritic a l Survey of French and English Literary Ideas in the xviI Ith Century. New York, 1935. 350 Grubbs, Henry Alexander. Jean-Baptiste Rousseau; His Life and Works. Princeton, 1 9^4-1 • Havens, George R. Age of Ideas in XVI I I th Century France. New York, 1955. Jaslnskl, Rene. Hlstoire de la Litterature Fran<jaise. 2 vols. Paris, I9U7- Kerviler, Rene de. Essai d’ une Bibliographie de I ’Acad&mie Frangaise, Paris, 1877. La Harpe, Jean Francois de. Cours de Litterature Ancienne et Moderne, 3 vols. Paris, 1870. Lanson, Gustave. Hjstoire de la Litterature Frangaise; Remaniee et Completee pour la Periode I850-I950j Tuffrau Edition. Par i s, I 952i MacClintock, Lander. Sainte-Beuve1s C ritic a l Theory and Practice after 182+0. Chicago, 1910. Marivaux, [Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de], OEuvres Choisies de Marlvaux. 2 vols. Paris, 1877. ___________ . Theatre Complet de Marivaux, ed. Jean GIraudoux. 2 vols. Paris, 194^. Martin, Kingsley. French Liberal Thought in the XN/lllth Century. London, 1954. jMaurois, Andri. "Le Double Centenaire de Fontenelle,” Annales de I ’ Universlte de Paris, 3 *2+06— 2+15, j'uf 1 I et-septembre 1957. | Michaud, Joseph, ed. Blographie Universelle,* Ancienne et Moderne. 1+5 vols. Paris, n.d. |Mott, Lewis Freeman. Sa inte-Beuve. London, 1925. 'iMueller, Maurice. Essai sur la Philosophie de Jean D’Alembert. Paris, • 1926. Nisard, D ls ir l. Hlstoire de la Litterature Frangaise. 4 vols. Paris, 1 886. Pel I Ison, Maurice. Les Hommes de Lettres au XVI I Ie Siecle. Paris, 1911. Pe I IJsson[-Fontanler, Paul], and D’Olivet [ Pierre-Joseph]. Hlstoire de I ’Academie Francaise. Paris, 1858. Ptntard, Renl. ”Fontenelle et la Soci&te de Son Temps," Annales de 1 ’ Un 1 vers i t£ de Par I s , 3:396-4.01, jui I let-septembre 1987.__________ 351 Rambaud, Louis. L'Eloquence Frangaisej La Chaire, le Barreau, la Tribune. 2 vols. Lyon, 1949. Saint-Pierre, Charles Irenee Castel de. Mimoire pour diminuer le Nombre de Proces. Paris, 1725. Seche, Leon, Sainte-Beuve. 2 vols. Paris, I9l4. Segrais, Jean Regnault de. Segraisiana; ou Melange d*l-listoire et de L i tterature. Paris, I 722. Segur, [Pierre Maurice de], Julie de Lespinasse. Paris, n.d. Thomas, Antoine-Leonard. Essai sur les Eloges, suivi des Eloges. 2 vols. Paris, 1829. Urwin, Kenneth. A Century of Freedom; A Survey of the French "Philoso phers. " London, 1946. Villemain, Abel. Cours de Litterature Frangaise. 5 vols, Paris, 1355. ~

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Les 'Suites Romanesques' De Jean De La Varende. (French Text)

PDF

Father Jean-Baptiste Labat And French Travel Literature

PDF

Agrippa D'Aubigne'S Les 'Tragiques': The Conquest Of Profaned Time

PDF

La Notion D'Espace Dans Un Choix De Romans Francais De La Deuxieme Moitiedu Dix-Huitieme Siecle. (French Text)

PDF

The Poetry Of Henry Murger: Themes And Style In "Les Nuits D'Hiver"

PDF

Les 'Contes Moraux' De Marmontel. (French Text)

PDF

The Old French Fabliau: A Classification And Definition

PDF

A Study Of Images In The Poetry Of Jonathan Swift

PDF

Les Trois Visages De Roger Martin Du Gard: Le Romancier, Le Dramaturge, L'Homme. Une Etude Des Contrastes De Contenu Et De Style Dans Les Romans, Pieces De Theatre Et Les Ecrits Personnels De Ro...

PDF

Rhetoric And Fancy As A Basis For Narrative In The Novels Of Jean Giraudoux

PDF

The Act Itself And The Word: A Study Of Abstraction Versus The Concrete In The Work Of Albert Camus

PDF

Narrative And Lyric Originality In The Old French Versions Of "La Vie De Saint Eustache"

PDF

La Nature Dans Le Theatre De Francois De Curel

PDF

Albert Camus And The Kingdom Of Nature

PDF

The Reception Of American Literature In Germany, 1861-1871

PDF

Ezra Pound Versus "Hugh Selwyn Mauberley": A Distinction

PDF

The Literary Kinship Of Leo N. Tolstoy And Romain Rolland: A Comparativestudy Of The Epic Dimensions Of 'War And Peace' And 'Jean-Christophe'

PDF

Studies In The Influence Of The 'Commedia Dell'Arte' On English Drama: 1605-1800

PDF

The Role Of Nature In The Novels, Novelettes, And Short Stories Of Edouard Estaunie

PDF

Imagination And Reality In Wallace Stevens' Prose And Early Poetry

Asset Metadata

Creator Hayton, Hope Haskell (author)

Core Title A Study Of The Origin, Content, And Literary Significance Of The 'Eloges Academiques' Of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program French

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Literature, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Knodel, Arthur J. (committee chair), Belle, Rene F. (committee member), Crittenden, Walter M. (committee member), Templeman, William D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-43172

Unique identifier UC11358002

Identifier 5904390.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-43172 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 5904390.pdf

Dmrecord 43172

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hayton, Hope Haskell

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA