Chapter XVI: Of Freethinkers.853 (2)

(47.) Many millions of years, nay, many thousand millions of years, in a word, as many as can be comprehended within the limits of time, are but an instant compared to the duration of God, who is eternal; the extent of the whole universe is but a point, an atom, compared to His immensity. If this be so, as I affirm it is, for what proportion can there be between the finite and infinite, I ask what is the length of manʼs life, or what the extent of that speck of dust which is called the earth, nay, of the small part of that earth man owns and inhabits?—The wicked prosper whilst they live.—Yes, some of them, I admit. Virtue is oppressed and vice remains unpunished on this earth.—This happens sometimes, I acknowledge it.—This is unjust.—No, not at all. You should have proved, to warrant this inference, that the wicked are absolutely happy, that virtue is absolutely miserable, and that vice always remains unpunished; that the short time in which the good are oppressed and the wicked prosper is of some duration, and that what we call prosperity and good fortune is something more than a false appearance, a fleeting shadow; and that this atom, the earth, in which virtue and vice so seldom meet with their deserts, is the only spot of the worldʼs stage where people receive rewards and punishments.[892]

I cannot more clearly infer that because I am thinking I am a spirit, than conclude from what I do or do not, according as I please, that I am free. Now freedom implies the power of choosing,[893] or, in other words, a voluntary determination for good or evil, so that virtue or vice consists in the doing a good or a bad action. If vice were to remain absolutely unpunished, it would be a real injustice, but for vice to remain unpunished on earth is merely a mystery. However, let us suppose, with the atheist, that it is an injustice; all injustice is a negation or privation of justice, and therefore every injustice presupposes justice. All justice is in conformity to a sovereign reason, and thus I ask, when was it against reason for crime to remain unpunished? At the time, I suppose, when a triangle had not three angles. Now, all conformity to reason is truth; this conformity, as I said just now, always subsisted, and is of the number of those truths we call eternal. But this truth either is not and cannot be, or else it is the object of an intelligence; this intelligence is therefore eternal, and is God.

The most secret crimes are discovered so simply and easily, notwithstanding the great care which the guilty take to prevent their being brought to light, that it seems God alone could have detected them. These discoveries are so frequent, that those who are pleased to attribute them to chance, must acknowledge, at least, that in all ages, chance seems to have been very regular in its operations.

(48.) If you suppose every man on earth, without exception, to be rich and to want nothing, I infer that every man on earth is extremely poor, and in want of everything. There are but two sorts of riches which comprehend all the rest, money and land; if all people were rich, who would cultivate land or toil in mines? Those who live away from any mines could not toil in them, and those who dwell on barren lands, where only minerals are found, could hardly gather any fruits from them. Trade is the expedient people would have recourse to, I suppose. But if riches should be abundant, and no man under the necessity of living by labour, who will transport your ingots, or anything that is bought and sold, from one place to another? Who will fit out your ships and sail them? Who would travel in caravans? Everything that is necessary and useful would then be wanting. If necessity no longer existed on this earth, we would need no longer arts, sciences, inventions, handicrafts. Besides, such an equality of riches and possessions would establish the same equality in all ranks and conditions of men; would banish all subordination, and reduce men to be their own servants and to receive no help nor succour from one another; it would make the laws idle and useless, bring in a universal anarchy, and produce violence, outrages, murders, and impunity.

If, on the other hand, you suppose all men to be poor and indigent, then the sun in vain rises on the horizon; in vain it warms and fructifies the earth; in vain the heavens shed their benign influence on it; in vain rivers water it with their streams; in vain the fields abound with fruits; in vain seas, rocks, and mountains are ransacked and rifled of their treasures. If you grant that, of all men who are scattered throughout the world, some have to be rich and others poor, then necessity must naturally unite and bind them together and reconcile them; some will have to serve and obey, invent, labour, cultivate the earth, and make improvements; others enjoy life, live well, assist, protect, and govern the masses. Order is restored, and Providence appears.

(49.) Suppose authority, pleasure, and idleness to be the share of some men, and subjection, care, and misery the lot of the rest, then either the malignity of men must have thrown things into this disorder, or else God is not God.

A certain inequality in the condition of men is conducive to the order and welfare of the whole, is the work of God, or presupposes a divine law; but too great a disproportion, and such as is generally seen amongst men, is their own work, or caused by the law of the strongest.

Extremes are faulty, and proceed from men; all compensation is just, and proceeds from God.

* * * * *

If these “CHARACTERS” are not liked, I shall be astonished; and if they are, my astonishment will not be less.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Pascalʼs _Pensées_ were published in 1670, six years after their authorʼs death; La Rochefoucauldʼs _Maximes_ appeared in 1665, and of both works from five to six editions had been sold before the “Characters” saw the light. I have borrowed the definition of these authorsʼ labours from La Bruyèreʼs “Prefatory Discourse concerning Theophrastus,” which came out at the same time as the “Characters,” and served as an introduction.

[2] Preface to La Bruyèreʼs “Characters,” page v.

[3] Preface to La Bruyèreʼs “Speech upon his Admission as a Member of the French Academy, June 15, 1693,” which preface was published for the first time with the eighth edition of the “Characters,” in 1694.

[4] Preface to La Bruyèreʼs “Characters,” page i.

[5] Preface to La Bruyèreʼs “Speech upon his Admission as a Member of the French Academy, June 15, 1693.”

[6] Preface to La Bruyèreʼs “Speech upon his Admission as a Member of the French Academy, June 15, 1693.”

[7] Sir Walter Scott, in his introduction to Drydenʼs “Absalom and Achitophel,” says: “He who collects a gallery of portraits disclaims, by the very act of doing so, any intention of presenting a series of historical events.”

[8] It was the custom in Paris, at the time La Bruyère wrote, for any gentleman or lady to leave part of their gains on the table, to pay, as it were, for the cards; hence the allusion.

[9] All the passages on pages _15_ and _16_ between inverted commas (“ ”) have been taken from La Bruyèreʼs “Prefatory Discourse concerning Theophrastus.”

[10] See the Chapter “Of the Great,” page 230, § 25. When, in the Chapter “Of Certain Customs,” page 408, § 14, he speaks of his “descent from a certain Godfrey de la Bruyère,” he does so jocularly.

[11] Compare “Preface,” page iv., “I did not hesitate,” till page v., “and more regular.”

[12] In his “Introduction to the Reader,” printed before “Absalom and Achitophel,” and published in 1681, Dryden openly admits: “I have laid in for those, by rebating the satire, where justice would allow it, from carrying too sharp an edge. They who can criticise so weakly as to imagine I have done my worst, may be convinced at their own cost that I can write severely with more ease than I can write gently.” La Bruyère would never have ventured to speak so plainly, and this difference between the French and English author seems very characteristic of the two nations. Compare also Drydenʼs poetic delineation of Buckingham as Zimri to La Bruyèreʼs portrait of Lauzun as Straton.

[13] Perhaps no author is more quoted in Littréʼs _Dictionnaire de la langue française_ than La Bruyère is.

[14] M. G. Servois, in his bibliographic Notice of La Bruyèreʼs works, &c., vol. iii., first part, quotes a passage from the London correspondent of the _Histoire des Ouvrages des savants_ (see page 19, note 3) in affirmation of this statement, and seems to think this translation to have been the first edition of the one mentioned in No. 4.

[15] Wattʼs “Bibliotheca Britannica.”

[16] According to M. Servois, this edition is mentioned in Lowndesʼ “The Bibliographerʼs Manual,” but I have not been able to find it there.

[17] I imagine I can observe slight traces of La Bruyère in Swiftʼs “Account of the Empire of Japan, written in 1728,” beginning with the words: “Regoge was the 34th emperor of Japan;” in nearly all he wrote for the Tatler; in many of the portraits to be found in the Examiner, for example in the portrait of “Laurence Hyde, late earl of Rochester,” beginning with the words: “The person who now presides at the Council, etc.” Compare also “A Short Character of Thomas, Earl of Wharton;” the “Narrative of Guiscardʼs Examination;” and in the “True Relation of the Intended Riot,” the passage beginning with “the surprising generosity, and fit of housekeeping the German princess has been guilty of this summer.” Swift, moreover, possesses a far more trenchant style than the French author, but I imagine the latter did as much execution, though he used a rapier, whilst Swift employed a bludgeon.

[18] There are few portraits in Shaftesburyʼs “Characteristics;” one of the few exceptions being the portrait of “a notable enthusiast of the itinerant kind,” supposed to be Van Helmont; now and then, however, he seems to have borrowed a few ideas of La Bruyère, as for example, in the second section of “A Letter concerning Enthusiasm,” his remarks on criticism and ridicule. Compare also Shaftesbury in section 2, saying: “The vulgar, indeed, may swallow any sordid jest, any mere drollery or buffoonery; but it must be a finer and truer wit which takes the men of sense and breeding,” to La Bruyèreʼs Chapter “Of Works of the Mind,” §§ 51, 52; the whole of this “Letter” is somewhat like La Bruyère, as in section iv. the crafty beggars, addressing some one they meet in a coach, and of whose quality they are ignorant. In Shaftesburyʼs “Sensus Communis, an Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour,” part 1, section 3, his remarks about true raillery; and the opening of the second part, section 1: “If a native of Ethiopia were of a sudden transported into Europe,” etc., as well as in the “Soliloquy,” the allegory of the love-spent nobleman, and in the “Moralists” the portraits of Palemon, Philocles, and Theocles, and the opening of the third part, “it was yet deep night,” appear somewhat like reminiscences of the French author.

[19] “English Philosophers:” Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. By Thomas Fowler, President of Corpus Christi College: London, 1882.

[20] It will, of course, be impossible to give “chapter and verse” for every passage of the “Spectator” which is faintly like one of La Bruyèreʼs observations, nor do I mean to say that Addison, Steele, and the other contributors to the English paper borrowed literally, and without acknowledgment, from the French author. But what I intended to convey was that, though the humour of the Spectator and its Sir Roger de Coverley, Sir Andrew Freeport, Will Honeycomb, Captain Sentry, &c., are pre-eminently English, several of the remarks and portraits to be found there are more or less inspired by a careful study of La Bruyère. Compare for example Addisonʼs paper about the opera, Spectator No. 5, to § 47 of La Bruyèreʼs Chapter “Of Works of the Mind;” and the remarks in No. 10 of the Spectator, about the occupations of the female world, and Nos. 144, 156, and No. 265 of the same paper, with some paragraphs of La Bruyèreʼs Chapter “Of Women.” Nos. 45, 57, 77, 88, 98, 100, 129, 193, 236, 238, and 494, appear to me somewhat like several of La Bruyèreʼs paragraphs. The “fair youth” in No. 104 of the “Spectator” is not unlike a reverse picture of La Bruyèreʼs portrait of Iphis in the Chapter “Of Fashion,” page 389, § 14; whilst the remark in No. 226, “Who is the better man for beholding the most beautiful Venus,” &c., reminds one of La Bruyèreʼs remark on obscene “pictures painted for certain princes of the Church,” in his Chapter “Of Certain Customs,” page 409, § 17. Steeleʼs opinions about corporal punishments (Spectator, No. 157) are very much in advance of those of La Bruyère on the same subject; the English author remarks about Louis XIV. (Spectator, No. 180 and 200) should be compared with La Bruyèreʼs glorification of the same monarch.

[21] I have consulted the edition of Dr. R. Southʼs sermons, eleven vols., the first six published by H. Lintot, 1732; the last five by Charles Bathurst, 1744. In the sermon preached at Westminster Abbey, February 22, 1684-85, on Prov. xvi. 33: “The lot is cast into the lap,” &c., the passage about Alexander the Great, in his famed expedition against Darius, the remarks about Hannibal and Cæsar, Agathocles, the potter who became King, Masaniello, and finally what the Doctor says about Cromwell: “and who, that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell first entering the Parliament House, with a threadbare, torn cloak, and a greasy hat (and perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne, be invested in the royal robes, and want nothing of the state of a king, but the changing of his hat into a crown,” seem like some expressions of La Bruyère. Compare also sermon x.: “Good Intentions no Excuse for Bad Actions,” full of pithy characteristics in word-painting, and his sermons: “The Fatal Imposture and Force of Words,” Isaiah v. 20, “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil,” which are very La Bruyèresque, and somewhat like several paragraphs of the Chapter “Of Certain Customs.” See also in “The Nature and Measures of Conscience,” a sermon preached Nov. 1, 1691, the portrait of the “potent sinner upon earth,” and a sermon on “Pretence of Conscience no Excuse for Rebellion,” preached before Charles II., 13th January, 1662-63, the anniversary of the “execrable murder” of Charles I., in which South says, “I wonder where the blasphemy lies which some charge upon those who make the kingʼs suffering something to resemble our Saviourʼs.” Compare finally the portrait of the “cozening, lying, perjured shop-keeper” in the second sermon, “On Avarice as contradictory to Religion,” with La Bruyèreʼs tradesman in his Chapter “Of the Gifts of Fortune,” § 43.

[22] The Abbé Claude Fleury, the learned author of the _Histoire Ecclésiastique_, who succeeded La Bruyère as a member of the French Academy, said of his predecessor in his opening speech: “Il savait les langues mortes et les vivantes.”

[23] See the Chapter “Of Mankind,” page 289, note 2.

[24] See the Chapter “Of the Great,” page 242, § 53.

[25] Some of the passages of this “Prefatory Discourse” will be found in the Introduction.

[26] In a lecture read before the Academy of Sciences and Literature of Berlin, the 23d of August 1787, and printed in the memoirs of that Academy, Formey told this story on the authority of M. de Maupertuis, who is said to have heard it from the lady herself, the wife of the financier, Charles Rémy de July, to whom she brought a dowry of more than 100,000 _livres_.

[27] See note 3, page 4.

[28] See the Chapter “Of Society and Conversation,” page 122, § 66, and note 1; about Fontenelle, see in the same Chapter the character of Cydias, page 127, § 75.

[29] This he stated openly in the speech he delivered at his reception at the Academy, the 15th of June 1693; his enemies would certainly have contradicted him if it had not been the truth.

[30] See the Chapter “Of the Court,” page 201, note 2.

[31] In the Introduction are to be found some extracts from this preface.

[32] La Bruyèreʼs bitter feelings appear in such paragraphs as § 43, page 56; in the Chapter “Of the Town,” page 166, § 4; in that “Of the Great,” pages 223 and 224, §§ 11 and 12; page 232, § 33; and in the Chapter “Of Opinions,” page 334, § 19. Molière felt a somewhat similar bitterness; at least in the dedication of _les Fâcheux_ he says to Louis XIV.: “Those that are born in an elevated rank may propose to themselves the honour of serving your Majesty in great employments; but, for my part, all the glory I can aspire to, is to amuse you.” Compare also Shakespeareʼs hundred and eleventh Sonnet beginning—“Oh! for my sake do you with Fortune chide.”

[33] See the Chapter “Of Society and of Conversation,” page 120, §§ 56, 57.

[34] See in the Chapter “Of the Great,” page 230, § 26, which seems to me to prove this fear.

[35] “We have wished to warn and not to bite; to be useful and not to wound; to benefit the morals of men, and not to be detrimental to them.” This quotation is taken from one of the letters of Erasmus to Martin Dorpius, in which the former replies to some criticisms on his “Praise of Folly.” The preface to the “Characters,” altered and augmented several times by the author himself, is found for the first time, in its present form, in the eighth edition of his work.

[36] The first edition of the “Characters,” published in 1688, contained 420 characters, the fourth edition 771.

[37] This mark, a ((¶)) between double parentheses, as well as the same mark between single parentheses, was first employed in the fifth edition (1690) of the “Characters,” and in all the following ones. But the mere ¶ without any parentheses was used by La Bruyère in all editions to denote the beginning of a paragraph.

[38] This refers to the sixth (1691), seventh (1692), and eighth (1694) editions. The fifth edition contained 923 characters, the sixth 997, the seventh 1073, and the eighth 1120. The ninth edition (1696) was published about a month after the death of La Bruyère.

[39] This seems to allude to La Rochefoucauldʼs “Maxims.”

[40] M. de La Bruyère adopts the chronology of Suidas, a Greek lexicographer who flourished during the latter end of the eleventh century; according to the Hebrew chronology the world had only existed 5692 years when the “Characters” were first published in 1688.

[41] _Abile_ in the original, in the sense of the English word “able,” and used as a noun, was already then considered antiquated.

[42] _Sentiment_, in the original, was during the seventeenth century not seldom employed in French for “opinion,” as “sentiments” are at present in English.

[43] This magistrate is said to have been Pierre Poncet de la Rivière, Count dʼAblys (1600-1681), a barrister, a councillor of state, and member of the royal council of finances, whose absurd moral treatise, _Considérations sur les avantages de la vieillesse dans la vie chrétienne, politique, civile, économique et solitaire_, was published under the pseudonym of the Baron de Prelle, in the month of August 1677, about one month before the death of the Lord Chancellor dʼAligre, and more than three months before President Lamoignonʼs decease.

[44] At that time so-called collections of anecdotes, such as _Boléana_, _Ménagiana_, and _Segraisiana_, were greatly in vogue.

[45] It is said that the great dramatic poet Pierre Corneille (1606-1684) is alluded to as one of those poets.

[46] All the “Keys” pretend this is a hit at the “Dictionary of the Academy,” and they may be right; for the Dictionary, only published in 1694, six years after the “Characters” first saw the light, had been expected for more than forty years. But most likely La Bruyère was thinking of the tragedy-ballet of _Psyché_ (1671), words by Pierre Corneille and Molière, music by Quinault and Lulli; of the opera which in 1680 Racine and Boileau, joint _historiographes_ of Louis XIV., began, and which never saw the light; and of the newly-acted _Idylle sur la Paix_ and the _Eglogue de Versailles_ (1685), written by Quinault, Racine, and Molière.

[47] Even in La Bruyèreʼs lifetime doubts were already expressed about the Iliad being written by Homer.

[48] This Roman orator was Cicero.

[49] La Bruyère adds in a footnote: “Even merely considered as an author.”

[50] Almost every one felt during the seventeenth century a dislike for Gothic architecture.

[51] Probably Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757) is meant here. This author had made excellent classical studies in a Jesuit college, but attacked the ancients in his _Discours sur LʼEglogue_ and in his _Digression sur les anciens et les modernes_, published together with his _Poésies Pastorales_ in 1688. The paragraph beginning “A man feeds” and ending “nurses” was only printed for the first time in the fourth edition of the “Characters,” published in 1689.

[52] It is generally thought that Charles Perrault (1628-1703), a member of the French Academy, is alluded to, but this seems more than doubtful.

[53] Those “able men” were the dramatist Jean Racine (1639-1699) and the satirist Nicolas Boileau Despréaux (1636-1711).

[54] Zoilus, a Greek grammarian, flourished about 356-336 B.C., and assailed Homer, Plato, Isocrates, and other Greek authors with merciless severity.

[55] According to all the “Keys,” this is said to be an allusion to the Abbé de Dangeau (1643-1723), a member of the French Academy, and a brother of the better known marquis. But why and wherefore this Abbé has been singled out, has not reached posterity. Some say the President Cousin, the editor of the _Journal des Savants_, was meant.

[56] Ζηλωτής means “envious.”

[57] In his _Recueil de divers ouvrages en prose et en vers_, 1676, Charles Perrault defended the _Alceste_ of Quinault and attacked the _Alcestis_ of Euripides. Unfortunately his criticism contained several errors, which Racine noticed in the preface of _Iphigénie_, accusing Perrault at the same time of having carelessly read the work he was censuring.

[58] This was meant for Henri-Joseph de Peyre, Count de Troisvilles (1642-1708), pronounced Tréville, a very intelligent and highly-cultivated nobleman, brought up in his youth with Louis XIV., whose talents he rather undervalued. He was on intimate terms with the Port-Royalists, and after several alternate fits of devotion and dissipation, ended his days devoutly and penitently.

[59] The Abbé de Dangeau, a pedantical purist mentioned already, page 13, note.

[60] In the seventeenth century fireworks were in French _feu gréçois_, literally “Greek fire.”

[61] The _Cid_, the dramatic masterpiece of Pierre Corneille, was first performed in 1636. Cardinal Richelieu tried to get up a cabal to crush it, but was unsuccessful; he also persuaded the Academy to publish a severe criticism on it, which is too favourably spoken of by La Bruyère. Boileau says in his ninth satire:—

“En vain contre le Cid un ministre se ligue,
Tout Paris pour Chimère a les yeux de Rodrigue.
LʼAcadémie en corps a beau le censurer,
Le public révolté sʼobstine à lʼadmirer.”

[62] _Courageux_ and _courage_ were not seldom used in the seventeenth century for “heartfelt” and “heart,” whilst _main dʼouvrier_, “hand of a workman,” was sometimes employed instead of _main de maître_, “hand of a master.”

[63] The dramatist Edme Boursault (1638-1701) had had a literary quarrel with Boileau, who attacked him in his ninth _Satire_, to which Boursault replied by his comedy _La Satire des Satires_. But they had been reconciled more than a year before the “Characters” were published.

[64] Father Bouhours (1628-1702), a literary Jesuit of some reputation and talent, published in 1689 his _Pensées ingénieuses des anciens et des modernes_, in which he several times praised the “Characters.” La Bruyère, not to be behind-hand, inserted the learned fatherʼs name in his fifth edition, published in 1690.

[65] Roger de Rabutin, Count de Bussy (1618-1693), a friend of our author, enjoyed a certain literary reputation in the seventeenth century, now completely lost. He is only remembered by his licentious and satirical _Histoire amoureuse des Gaules_, for which he was banished from the court for more than twenty years.

[66] Damis was meant for Boileau.

[67] There had been a whole family of printers of that name, though only André was alive when the “Characters” appeared. At that time books in France and in England were almost always sold bound.

[68] By “newsmonger” our author alludes to the manufacturers of manuscript newspapers, containing all kinds of social and political scandal, eagerly sought for, and who were severely punished when caught. The English translator of 1702 gives for _nouvelliste_ “journalist,” and says in his “Key:” “The author of the Works of the Learned of Paris,” etc. The _Histoire des Savants_, edited by H. Basnage (1656-1710), was published in Holland. Mr. N. Rowe, in his translation published in 1713, also uses the word “journalist,” and says in the “Key:” “On the authors of Journals, or accounts of books and News, published in France, Holland,” etc.

[69] La Bruyère speaks here of himself.

[70] In the seventeenth century, _bel esprit_, plural _beaux esprits_, in the original, meant a man of intelligence, but began already in La Bruyèreʼs time to have the meaning of “witling.”

[71] Jean Guez de Balzac (1594-1655), one of the first members of the French Academy, wrote, besides his over-praised “Letters,” a _Socrate Chrétien_, the _Prince_, a panegyric on Louis XIII., and _Entretiens ou Dissertations littéraires_.

[72] Voiture (1598-1648), also a member of the French Academy, is chiefly known by his “Letters” and some namby-pamby poetry, amongst which is the well-known sonnet on “Uranie,” which was by many preferred to the sonnet on “Job” by Benserade, and gave rise to a pretty literary quarrel in the seventeenth century. Voiture and Balzac are now deservedly buried in oblivion.

[73] The letters of Madame de Sévigné (1626-1696) were not published until 1726, or thirty years after La Bruyèreʼs death, though perhaps he might have seen some of them in manuscript. Among the ladies celebrated for their epistolary style in the seventeenth century were Madame de Maintenon, Mademoiselle de Scudéry, Madame de Bussy-Lameth, and above all Madame de Boislandry. See the Chapter “Of Opinions,” § 28, “A Fragment.”

[74] Publius Terentius Afer (194-158 B.C.), a celebrated Latin comic dramatist.

[75] Some commentators on La Bruyère think that the words “vulgar tongue (_jargon_) and barbarisms” refer to Molière having put peasants on the stage, and letting them speak their dialect. See § 52.

[76] Malherbe (1555-1628) was one of the greatest purists amongst the authors of his time. Théophile de Viau (1591-1626), a writer of tragedies and a poet, was by some of his contemporaries thought to be a rival of Malherbe.

[77] In the original _il feint_, the Latin _fingit_, he shapes, imagines.

[78] Ronsard (1524-1585), the chief of the “Pleiad” or constellation of seven authors, was the most celebrated poet of his time, and the author of the _Franciade_.

[79] Clément Marot (1495-1544), the favourite poet of Francis I., was born twenty-nine years before Ronsard, who lived about forty years longer than Marot.

[80] Rémy Belleau (1528-1577), Jodelle (1532-1573), and du Bartas (1544-1590), were all poets of the school of Ronsard and belonging to the “Pleiad.” Du Bartasʼs chief work has been translated into English by “silver-tongued” Joshua Sylvester (1563-1618), under the title of “The Divine Week and Works;” and Spenser speaks of “his heavenly muse,” and of his filling “the world with never-dying fame.”

[81] Honorat de Bueil, Marquis de Racan (1589-1670), the favourite pupil of Malherbe, is chiefly known by his pastoral dialogue, _Les Bergeries_. La Bruyère praises Malherbe and Racan for their pure style, but the fabulist Jean de la Fontaine says of them:—

“Malherbe avec Racan parmi le chœur des anges,
Là-haut de lʼEternel célébrant les louanges
Ont emporté leur lyre.”

[82] François Rabelais (1459-1553), author of the _Chroniques de Gargantua et de Pantagruel_.

[83] La Bruyère writes “Montagne,” and so it is even now pronounced. Montaigneʼs (1533-1592) “Essays” are known everywhere.

[84] The author who “thinks too little” is said to have been the Port-Royalist, Pierre Nicole (1625-1695), though some imagine Balzac was meant; the author who thought “with too much subtlety” seems to have been Father Malebranche (1638-1715), who attacked Montaigne in his _Recherche de la Vérité_ (1674).

[85] Jacques Amyot (1513-1593), the translator of Plutarch. Nicolas Coëffeteau (1574-1623), bishop of Marseille, is best known by his translation of the Roman historian, Florus.

[86] The letters H. G. stand for _Hermes Galant_, “Hermes” being the Greek for Mercury, and there existing since 1672 a kind of monthly review, called the _Mercure Galant_, edited by Donneau de Visé, Thomas Corneille, and Fontenelle, and printing some news from the court and the army, a few literary articles, and as many advertisements as possible. Since 1677 its title changed to _Mercure de France_.

[87] Boileau, La Fontaine, and Saint Evremond were, like La Bruyère, no lovers of the opera.

[88] The Abbé Perrin and his brother-in-law, the Marquis de Sourdéac, the first regular directors of opera in France, ruined themselves in less than three years through their expensive decorations and machinery. In 1672 Lulli and his son-in-law Francine obtained permission to manage another opera-house, but spent far less money on decorations than their predecessors had done. Our author calls Lulli “Amphion,” a Greek musician who is said to have built Thebes by the music of his lute.

[89] At that time there was a regular theatre for puppet-shows, founded by Pierre dʼAttelin, better known as Brioché.

[90] In 1670 Corneille and Racine had each a tragedy, _Bérénice_, represented; _Pénélope_, a tragedy of the Abbé Genest, was played in 1684.

[91] One of those busybodies is said to have been a certain M. Manse, engineer of the waterworks of Chantilly, the seat of the Condés; and he pretended to have chiefly organised the festival given by the Prince de Condé, a son of the great Condé and the father of La Bruyèreʼs pupil, the Duke de Bourbon, to the Dauphin, the son of Louis XIV., at Chantilly during the month of August 1688. This entertainment lasted eight days; hence the necessity of a theatre.

[92] The “hunt on the water” took place on the sixth day of the festival, when some living deer and other animals were thrown alive into a large lake, which the ladies, in boats, tried to catch by means of ropes, and which, when caught, were set at liberty.

[93] On the first day of the feast a splendid “collation” was given by the Prince to the Dauphin, at the cross-way of “La Table,” amidst a temple of verdure erected for the occasion. Any meal taken between the dinner and supper hours, or any festive repast, was called in Louis XIV.ʼs time a _collation_.

[94] “Another wonderful _collation_ given in the Labyrinth of Chantilly,” says a note of La Bruyère. An engraving still exists of the table, its decorations and ornaments.

[95] This compliment to the Prince de Condé only appeared for the first time in the fourth edition of the “Characters,” published in 1689, when the whole court was still talking about the entertainment.

[96] This is said to be a hit at the partisans of Quinault, who could see no charms in anything except in his operas.

[97] In the original, _esprit fort_, which sometimes meant “a man who does not care for the opinions of the world,” and sometimes “a freethinker.”

[98] La Bruyère puts in a note: “A rebellion was the ordinary ending of tragedies.”

[99] Some commentators think this is an allusion to the tragedies of Quinault, but they were already buried in oblivion when he died in 1688: it seems rather to refer to those of Jean Galbert de Campistron (1656-1713), who, during ten years, from 1683 to 1693, produced almost yearly a tragedy, none of which have come down to posterity.

[100] Molière often put peasants on the stage; but he never made of them, nor of intoxicated persons, his principal characters: the “sick person” is said to be a hit at Argan in Molièreʼs _Le Malade imaginaire_. See also page 21, § 38.

[101] This is an allusion to the actor Baronʼs _LʼHomme à bonnes fortunes_ (1686) and the _Débauché_ (1690); this latter comedy, acted before the court the very year the above paragraph first appeared, was a complete failure, and has never been printed. Intoxicated people were often represented on the stage in La Bruyèreʼs time.

[102] In the original _comédies_, a word employed for tragedies as well as for comedies.

[103] Cinna in the tragedy of that name, Felix in _Polyeucte_, and Rodogune in _Rodogune_ are examples of this.

[104] The original has _nombreux_, the Latin _numerosus_.

[105] Three tragedies by Corneille. Though he himself calls the last tragedy by the name given above, its real title is _Horace_.

[106] Mithridates, the hero of Racineʼs tragedy of that name; Porus, a character in the _Alexandre_, and Burrhus in the _Britannicus_ of the same author.

[107] In the comparison between Corneille and Racine there are some reminiscences of a _Parallèle de M. Corneille et de M. Racine_, published in 1686 by a certain author, de Requeleyne, Baron de Longepierre.

[108] Sophocles (495-406 B.C.), Euripides (480-406 B.C.)

[109] Cassius Longinus (213-273), a Greek orator, philosopher, and author, is chiefly known by his “Treatise on the Sublime,” which is generally attributed to him. In it he states that there are five principal sources of the sublime, and that the third is nought but the figures of speech turned about in a certain manner. Boileauʼs translation of this “Treatise” appeared in 1674, and in his preface he described but did not define the sublime, a definition also not found in Longinus.

[110] The original has _capable_, in the sense of the Latin _capax_.

[111] According to Boileau, Longinus does not understand by “sublime” a sublime style, but something extraordinary and marvellously striking, which causes a work to enrapture, delight, and transport us. A sublime style always requires grand, eloquent words; but the sublime may be found in a single thought, a single figure of speech, a single phrase. Longinus himself says that anything which leaves us food for thought, which almost carries us away, and of which the remembrance is lasting, is sublime.

[112] In rhetoric there is a difference between a metaphor and a comparison.

[113] The above paragraph is said to refer to the polemical writings interchanged between the Jesuits and Jansenists, and seems not quite fair to Pascalʼs _Lettres Provinciales_.

[114] Some “Keys” mention the names of Bouhours and Bourdaloue, whilst more modern commentators think that La Bruyère only wished to give a paragraph on the French prose of his time.

[115] The original has _artisan_, which even in La Bruyèreʼs time meant an artisan, when used without being qualified; our author employs it, however, for “artist.”

[116] Some annotators say a certain Abbé Bourdelon (1653-1730), a completely forgotten critic, was meant; others think it was a hit at Ménage (1613-1692), who had the good sense not to recognise himself in this portrait, and is said to have been also the original of Vadius in Molièreʼs _Femmes Savantes_.

[117] This author was the Abbé de Villiers, who published in 1682 a poem in four cantos, _LʼArt de Précher_, in which he tried to imitate _LʼArt poétique_ of Boileau, and in 1690 _Réflexions sur les défauts dʼautrui_, which were very successful; some suppose Father Bouhoursʼ _Pensées ingénieuses des anciens et des modernes_ (1689) hinted at; whilst M. G. Servois, the able editor of La Bruyère in the _Grands Ecrivains de la France_ (1865-1878), thinks that possibly the “author” was Jacques Brillon, a lawyer and indefatigable imitator, who in his youth may have been presumptuous enough to have asked La Bruyèreʼs advice on some of his literary works, the _Portraits sérieux_, etc., the _LʼOuvrage nouveau dans le goût des Caractères de Théophraste et des Pensées de Pascal_, the _Théophraste moderne_, etc., which three books appeared, however, after La Bruyèreʼs death, from 1696 to 1700. Adrien Baillet, an erudite scholar and fertile author, is also mentioned by some “Keys.”

[118] It is now generally supposed that by the satirist described Boileau is meant, for he sometimes commences grand subjects, as in his satires _Sur lʼHomme_ or _Sur la Noblesse_, but he never enters deeply into the matter, and treats of _Les Embarras de Paris_ or _Le Repas ridicule_.

[119] Those names stand for Varillas (1624-1695) and Maimbourg (1610-1686), two voluminous historians, the first of whom is known for the inaccuracy of his facts, the second by his pretentious style, though Madame de Sévigné and Voltaire do not entirely condemn the latter, and Bayle, in his _Dictionnaire_, praises his knowledge and accuracy. “Handburg” is the German for “Maimbourg.”

[120] _Glorieux_ in the original, which in La Bruyèreʼs time, and even later, had the meaning “conceited.” One of N. Destouchesʼ (1680-1754) best comedies is called _Le Glorieux_.

[121] The original has _un honnête homme_, which meant, in La Bruyèreʼs time, “a gentleman, a well-mannered man,” but never “an honest man,” which is in French _un homme de bien_.

[122] “The stammerer” was meant for the son of Achille de Harlay (1639-1712), chief president of the parliament of Paris, and is said not to have stammered, but to have been very idle, and without any oratorical talents. Yet, in 1691, at the age of twenty-three, he was appointed advocate-general, through the influence of his father. Hence his appearance in the sixth edition of the “Characters,” also published in 1691. Mdlle. de Harlay, a daughter of the first president, was sent to a convent in 1686 on account of her affection for Dumesnil, a singer at the Opera.

[123] Xanthus was M. de Courtenvaux, the eldest son of the Minister for War, M. de Louvois, and is said not to have excelled either in good looks or bravery.

[124] V ... stands for Claude François Vignon (1634-1703), a son of an artist of the same name; C ... is Pascal Colasse, a pupil of Lulli, whose opera, _Achille et Polyxène_, was played a short time before the “Characters” were first published (1687); _Pyrame_, written by Pradon (1632-1698), was acted in 1674; he had brought out several other tragedies before the first appearance of La Bruyèreʼs book. At that time Pierre Mignard (1635-1695), the celebrated artist, and Pierre Corneille (1606-1694) were still alive, and Lulli (1633-1687), the great musician, had only been dead a few months.

[125] Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536), one of the most celebrated scholars and learned men of his time.

[126] By this bishop some say was meant M. de Harlay (1625-1695), archbishop of Paris; others think the archbishop of Rheims, Le Tellier (1642-1710), the brother of Louvois, was designated. See also page 141, note 1.

[127] The original has _collier dʼordre_, the collar of the order of the Holy Ghost.

[128] Trophime, it was supposed, stood for our authorʼs friend Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704), the eminent theologian, preacher, and bishop of Meaux, but he never became a cardinal. So general was this supposition, that in all editions of the “Characters” published after the authorʼs death the name of “Bénigne” was put instead of “Trophime.” Some “Keys,” however, mention the name of Etienne le Camus (1632-1707), bishop of Grenoble, who became a cardinal in 1686.

[129] Lord Stafford is meant here; he was a relative to the Duke of Norfolk, very rich and very eccentric, and married in 1694 a daughter of the Count de Gramont. Some think the Count dʼAubigné, the brother of Mdlle. de Maintenon, is spoken of.

[130] La Bruyère adds in a footnote, “an agate.”

[131] In the original _il ne se plaint non plus_. _Plaindre_ had sometimes the meaning of “to be sparing,” and Le Sage employs it in _Gil Blas_ in that sense.

[132] This is said to apply to a certain M. de Mennevillette, _receveur-général_ of the clergy, whose son married Mdlle. de Harlay.

[133] In the original _drap de Hollande_, because the best cloth came from Holland. Colbert induced some Dutch and Flemish weavers to settle in France, where they made a cloth called _Toile Colbertine_, of which Molière wore a doublet as the Marquis in _les Fâcheux_. Colberteen is also mentioned in “The Fopʼs Dictionary” (1690), and in Congreveʼs “The Way of the World.”

[134] The _lumen gloriæ_ is, according to Roman Catholic theologians, “The help God affords to the souls of the blessed, to strengthen them that they may be able to see God ‘face to face,’ as St. Paul says (1 Cor. xiii. 12), or by intuition; as they say in the schools; for without such a help they could not bear the immediate presence of God.”

[135] A certain preacher, Charles Boileau, was meant; others think it was a canon of Notre-Dame, called Robert.

[136] The man of learning is Mabillon (1632-1707), a scholarly Benedictine, and author of _De Re diplomatica_, _De Vetera analecta_, and other works.

[137] The original has _homme de bien_. See page 43, note 2.

[138] Montaigne, Saint-Evremond, and the latest French writer on Alexander, M. Jurien de la Gravière, happily still alive, and formerly Minister for the French Navy, think more favourably than La Bruyère did of the talents of the youthful king of Macedonia.

[139] Æmilius is the Prince de Condé (1621-1686). The whole of the above paragraph is filled with reminiscences from Bossuetʼs _Oraison funèbre du Prince de Condé_, delivered in the year 1687.

[140] The battle of Rocroi was won in 1643, when Condé was only twenty-two years old, whilst those of Freiburg, Nordlingen, and Lens were gained, respectively, in 1644, 1645, and 1648.

[141] An allusion to the siege of Lerida, raised by Condé in 1647.

[142] La Bruyère forgets the wars of the Fronde (1648-1653) and the part Condé took in them, as well as in the wars of Spain against France, from 1652 till 1659.

[143] His grandson and his nephew married illegitimate daughters of Louis XIV.

[144] An allusion to his bad and hasty temper.

[145] La Bruyère adds in a note, “Sons and grandsons, descendants of kings.” This seems a reminiscence of the Homeric Διογενῖς, Διοτρεφεῖς, Βασιλεῖς.

[146] This compliment was addressed to the princes of the Condé family, of whom one, the Prince de Conti (1629-1661), was in command of the army in Catalonia, though he had never served. Compare the saying of Mascarille in Molièreʼs _Les Précieuses Ridicules_: “People of quality know everything without ever having learned anything.”

[147] Charles Castel, Abbé de Saint Pierre (1658-1743), a member of the French Academy, whence he was ejected in 1718 on account of his _Discours sur la Polysynodie_, a work in which he proposed a kind of Constitution for the French nation.

[148] Celsus is the Baron de Breteuil, who was sent in 1682 on a diplomatic mission to the dukes of Parma and Modena, but failed, and was disowned.

[149] The “two brothers” are said to have been the counsellors of the parliament, Claude and Michel le Peletier, and the quarrel was about a question of precedence.

[150] The “two ministers” were Louvois and de Seignelay, a son of Colbert, and the chief cause of their falling out seems to have been the more or less assistance which should be given to James II. against England.

[151] Menippus is the Marshal François de Villeroy (1644-1730), the favourite of the king and of Mademoiselle de Maintenon, only known as a perfect courtier when La Bruyère published his book, but who later on proved himself an incapable general. In the _Mémoires_ of the Duke de Saint-Simon, he is called _glorieux à lʼexcès par nature_. See also page 43, note 1. Some commentators say Menippus was the Marquis de Cavoye (1640-1716), one of the handsomest men and one of the greatest duellists of the court.

[152] The original has _de mise_, which was also used by Voltaire and Rousseau, but seems now to have become antiquated.

[153] _Montre la corde_ in the original.

[154] When the “Characters” first made their appearance in 1689, Louis XIV. no longer resided in the Louvre, but at Versailles. The greatest nobles, in order to pay their court to the king, lodged in some wretched rooms in the palace.

[155] The first part of this paragraph, referring to “false greatness,” is said to apply to the Marshal de Villeroy; the second, alluding to “true greatness,” to Marshal Turenne (1611-1675).

[156] An allusion to a fashion of the time La Bruyère wrote, when the ladies wore shoes with very high heels and enormous head-dresses, called _Fontanges_; the latter were invented by Marie-Angélique Scoraille de Roussille, Duchesse de Fontanges (1661-1681), who was one of the mistresses of Louis XIV. Our author refers to them in his chapter “Of Fashion,” § 12.

[157] Some of the ladies at court, in order to hide the hollowness of their cheeks, used, it is said, to hold small balls of wax in their mouths.

[158] Lise is generally supposed to have been Catherine-Henriette dʼAngennes de la Loupe, Countess dʼOlonne, one of the most dissolute ladies of the court of Louis XIV., who was fifty-five years old when this paragraph appeared (1692), and died in 1714. Many particulars about her are related in Bussy-Rabutinʼs _Histoire amoureuse des Gaules_.

[159] This is said to allude to a certain Mademoiselle de Loines, who fell in love with a crooked, ill-looking, dwarfish limb of the law.

[160] The memoirs of the time of Louis XIV. teem with examples of young men of the highest families who considered it no disgrace to live at the expense of rich and amorous old crones, and even to receive money from young ladies.

[161] The original has _dans une ruelle_. _Ruelle_ means literally “a small street,” hence the narrow opening between the wall and the bed, on which bed superfine ladies, gaily dressed, were lying when they received their friends, and thus _ruelle_ came to mean “any fashionable assembly.” In Dr. Ashʼs “Dictionary of the English Language,” London, 1755, _ruelle_ is still defined “a little street, a circle, an assembly at a private house.”

[162] _En cravate et en habit gris_, says the French, which was the usual dress of dandified magistrates, although they were strictly forbidden to wear any other clothes but black ones.

[163] Only officers of the kingʼs household were allowed to wear gold-embroidered scarfs.

[164] This alludes to the Count dʼAubigné, a brother of Madame de Maintenon, who was no favourite at court. See also the portrait of “Theodectes” in the chapter “Of Society and Conversation,” § 12, page 106.

[165] The “lady” is said to have been Madame de la Ferrière, the wife of a _maître des requêtes_, and Dorinna a certain Mdlle. Foucault, a relative of some well-known _conseiller au parlement_, who was in love with a Doctor Moreau.

[166] The original has _questionnaire_, a word then already antiquated, and which meant a man applying the _question_ or rack.

[167] Roscius seems to have been intended for a portrait of the celebrated actor Michael Baron (1653-1729), whilst the names of Lelia, Cesonia, Claudia, and Messalina probably allude to some of the ladies of the court who intrigued with actors. During the eighteenth century the names of the Maréchale de la Ferté, and of her sister the Countess dʼOlonne (see page 61, note), both of very dissolute manners, were mentioned as having been the originals of Claudia and Messalina, whilst Claudia was also, according to some, a portrait of Marie-Anne Mancini, Duchesse de Bouillon, though it is not probable that La Bruyère intended to allude to her. Bathyllus and Cobus stand for Le Basque, Pécourt, or Beauchamps, dancers at the Opera; Draco is Philibert, a German flute-player of those times; Lelia or Cesonia are supposed to have been a certain widow of the Marquis de Constantin.

[168] Is this not an allusion of our author to some nunneries not in very good repute at the time?

[169] This applies, it is said, to the Maréchale de la Ferté, mentioned on page 67, note 2, and to the Duke dʼAumontʼs second wife, who died in 1711, sixty-one years old.

[170] At the time La Bruyère wrote, nearly every fashionable lady had, besides her father-confessor, a spiritual director, who was her “guide, philosopher, and friend.” Boileau, in his tenth satire, says:—

“Mais de tous les mortels, grâce aux dévotes âmes,
Nul nʼest si bien soigné quʼun directeur de femmes.”

[171] _Placer des domestiques_, in the original; _domestique_ was used for any person belonging to the household of some great nobleman, even if he were himself a noble; it also meant “a household.”

[172] A note of La Bruyère says that this refers to “assumed piety.”

[173] Those ladies are supposed to have been the Duchesse dʼAumont, already mentioned; the Countess de Lyonne, the wife of a minister of state; the Duchess de Lesdiguières, and the Countess de Roucy.

[174] Our authorʼs note says, “A pretended pious woman.”

[175] It was then the custom for people who had a lawsuit to go and solicit their judges in person.

[176] In La Bruyèreʼs time many ladies had a great reputation for learning, such as Madame de Sévigné, and her daughter, Madame de Grignan, who greatly admired Descartesʼ philosophy; Madame de la Fayette; and a sister of Madame de Montespan, who was Abbess of Fontévrault. Montaigne was of opinion that women had no need of learning, and Molière, in his _Femmes Savantes_, holds the golden mean.

[177] Such were, for example, the heroines of the Fronde, who only cared for ambition. Saint Simon in his _Mémoires_ speaks of the Maréchale de Ciérambault, “who only left off gambling whilst at meals;” the Princess de Harcourt, who took usually the sacrament after having gambled until four in the morning; and the Duchesse dʼAumont, whom we have already mentioned.

[178] “Most women have no characters at all,” says Pope in the Second Epistle “Of the Characters of Women.” The late Rev. Whitwell Elwin thinks this “a literal rendering” of La Bruyèreʼs § 65 “Of Men.” I imagine it inspired by the above paragraph.

[179] To deceive some one is now in French _en imposer à quelquʼun_, but until the last hundred years _imposer_ was used, which meant “to deceive” and “to impose respect.”

[180] Glycera is said to have been Madame de la Ferrière, whom we have already mentioned. See page 66, note.

[181] Pierre du Puget, lord of Montauron, who died in 1664, first president of the _bureau des finances_ at Montauban, was celebrated for his riches and vanity. P. Corneille dedicated his tragedy _Cinna_ to him. Michael Particelli, lord of Esmery, became, through the patronage of Cardinal Mazarin, _surintendant des finances_, and died in 1650.

[182] Venouse is not Venuzia, the native town of the Roman lyric poet Horace, but Vincennes; the road from Paris to Vincennes was a favourite spot for walking.

[183] The Faubourg Saint-Germain is meant by the “grand suburb.”

[184] Canidia, a Neapolitan lady, is said to have been loved by Horace, and to have deserted him. Out of revenge the poet, in his _Epodes_ v. and xvii., depicted her as an old sorceress who could unsphere the moon. Canidia is supposed to allude to La Voisin, who was burned at the stake in Paris, in 1680, for having poisoned several people.

[185] In the original _affranchi_, freedman.

[186] All the “Keys” say that “the husband” of this paragraph and the following one was a certain Nicolas de Bauquemare, _président de la deuxième chambre des requêtes au palais_.

[187] Wives of a similar kind seem to have been Madame de Montespan, Madame de Sévigné, and Madame de la Fayette.

[188] This paragraph refers again to the _président_, mentioned on page 80, note 2, and to his wife, who was always called “DʼOns-en-Bray,” pronounced “DʼOsembray,” after a property belonging to her husband.

[189] _Stupide_ had, in La Bruyères time, the meaning of “stupefied” as well as of “stupid.”

[190] It might have been expected that some of the “Keys” would have told us who Emira was, but this anecdote is either invented by La Bruyère or founded on a fact only known to him.

[191] La Rouchefoucauld, in the _Maximes_ (1665), makes almost the same remarks, and so does Pascal in the _Pensées_ (1670). It often happens that those two authors agree in their expressions and thoughts with La Bruyère, who carefully studied them before publishing his _Caractères_.

[192] _Discordia fit carior concordia_ is a saying of the Latin poet Publius Syrus (104-41 B.C.)

[193] In the chapter “Of the Affections,” La Bruyère has borrowed a goodly number of ideas of Senecaʼs treatise _De beneficiis_; this is one of them.

[194] An imitation of another line of Publius Syrus: _Ita amicum habeas, posse inimicum fieri ut putes_.

[195] This paragraph was not very clear in the original. We have followed M. Destailleurʼs explanation.

[196] In the original _déterminément_, an adverb employed by the best authors of the seventeenth century, but now antiquated.

[197] This is called _la légitime_ in French.