Editing Jean de La Bruyère (section)

==Literary activity==

When La Bruyère's ''Caractères'' appeared in 1688, [[Nicolas de Malézieu]] predicted at once, that it would bring "''bien des lecteurs et bien des ennemis''" (many readers and many enemies). That proved to be true.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

Foremost among the critics were [[Thomas Corneille]], [[Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle]], and [[Isaac de Benserade]], who were clearly critical of the book. They were joined by innumerable others, men and women of letters as well as of society, who are identifiable by manuscript "keys" compiled by the scribblers of the day.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

The friendship of Bossuet and protection of the Condés sufficiently defended the author, however, and he continued to insert fresh [[portrait]]s of his contemporaries in each new edition of his book, especially in the fourth edition (1689). Those whom he had attacked were powerful in the [[Académie française]], however, and numerous defeats awaited La Bruyère before he could make his way into becoming a member among their ranks.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

He was defeated three times in 1691, and on one memorable occasion, he had but seven votes, five of which were those of Bossuet, [[Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux|Boileau]], [[Jean Racine|Racine]], [[Paul Pellisson]], and [[Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy|Bussy-Rabutin]].{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

It was not until 1693 that he was elected, and even then, an epigram, which, considering his admitted insignificance in conversation, was not of the worst, ''haeret lateri'':

:"Quand La Bruyère se présente
:Pourquoi faut il crier haro?
:Pour faire un nombre de quarante
:Ne falloit il pas un zéro?"

His unpopularity was, however, chiefly confined to the subjects of his sarcastic portraiture and to the hack writers of the time, of whom he was wont to speak with a disdain only surpassed by that of [[Alexander Pope]]. His description of the ''[[Mercure galant]]'' as "''immédiatement au dessous de rien''" (immediately below nothing) is the best-remembered specimen of these unwise attacks; and would,<!-- OK here: don't correct it--> of itself, account for the enmity of the editors, Fontenelle and the younger Corneille.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

La Bruyère's discourse of admission at the academy, one of the best of its kind, was, like his admission itself, severely criticized, especially by the partisans of the "Moderns" in the "[[Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns|Ancient and Modern]]" quarrel.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

La Bruyère died very suddenly, and not long after his admission to the academy. He is said to have been struck dumb in a gathering of his friends, and, being carried home to the [[Hôtel de Condé]], to have expired of [[apoplexy]] a day or two afterward. It is not surprising that, considering contemporary panic about poisoning, the bitter personal enmities that he had excited, and the peculiar circumstances of his death, suspicions of foul play should have been entertained, but there was apparently no foundation for them.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

The ''Caractères'', a translation of [[Theophrastus]], and a few letters mostly addressed to the prince de Condé, complete the list of his literary work, with the addition of one curious, and much-disputed, posthumous treatise.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}

Two years after his death, a certain ''Dialogues sur le Quiétisme'' appeared, alleged to have been found among his papers, incomplete, and to have been completed by its editor. As these dialogues are far inferior in literary merit to La Bruyère's other works, their genuineness has been denied. A straightforward and circumstantial account of their appearance was given by the editor, the Abbé du Pin, however. He was a man of acknowledged probity and he knew of the intimacy of La Bruyère with Bossuet, whose views in his contest with [[François Fénelon|Fénelon]] these dialogues are designed to further, at so short a time after the alleged author's death, and without a single protest on the part of his friends and representatives, all of which seems to have been decisive in the acceptance of authorship.{{sfn|Saintsbury|1911|p=30}}