Louis de Voyer, marquis d’Argenson (1694–1757), of Charles
Pinot Duclos (1704–1772), of Stephanie Félicité de Saint-Aubin,
Madame de Genlis (1746–1830), of Pierre Victor de Bésenval
(1722–1791), of Madame Campan (1752–1822) and of the cardinal
de Bernis (1715–1794), may perhaps be selected for mention;
of those bearing on literary and private history, the memoirs
of Madame d’Épinay (1726–1783), those of Mathieu Marais
(1664–1737) the so-called Mémoires secrets of Louis Petit de
Bachaumont (1690–1770), and the innumerable writings having
reference to Voltaire and to the Philosophe party generally.
Here, too, may be mentioned a remarkable class of literature,
consisting of purely private and almost confidential letters,
which were written at this time with very remarkable literary
excellence. As specimens may be selected those of Mademoiselle
Aissé (1694–1757), which are models of easy and unaffected
tenderness, and those of Mademoiselle de Lespinasse (1732–1776)
the companion of Madame du Deffand and afterwards of
d’Alembert. These latter, in their extraordinary fervour and
passion, not merely contrast strongly with the generally languid
and frivolous gallantry of the age, but also constitute one of its
most remarkable literary monuments. It has been said of them
that they “burn the paper,” and the expression is not exaggerated.
Madame du Deffand’s (1697–1780) own letters, many of
which were written to Horace Walpole, are noteworthy in a very
different way. Of lighter letters the charming correspondence
of Diderot with Mademoiselle Voland deserves special mention.
But the correspondence, like the memoirs of this century, defies
justice to be done to it in any cursory or limited mention. In
this connexion, however, it may be well to mention some of the
most remarkable works of the time, the Confessions, Rêveries,
and Promenades d’un solitaire of Rousseau. In these works,
especially in the Confessions, there is not merely exhibited
passion as fervid though perhaps less unaffected than that of
Mademoiselle de Lespinasse—there appear in them two literary
characteristics which, if not entirely novel, were for the first time
brought out deliberately by powers of the first order, were for the
first time made the mainspring of literary interest, and thereby
set an example which for more than a century has been persistently
followed, and which has produced some of the finest
results of modern literature. The first of these was the elaborate
and unsparing analysis and display of the motives, the weaknesses
and the failings of individual character. This process, which
Rousseau unflinchingly performed on himself, has been followed
usually in respect to fictitious characters by his successors. The
other novelty was the feeling for natural beauty and the elaborate
description of it, the credit of which latter must, it has been
agreed by all impartial critics, be assigned rather to Rousseau
than to any other writer. His influence in this direction was,
however, soon taken up and continued by Bernardin de Saint-Pierre,
the connecting link between Rousseau and Chateaubriand,
some of whose works have been already alluded to. In particular
the author of Paul et Virginie set himself to develop the example
of description which Rousseau had set, and his word-paintings,
though less powerful than those of his model, are more abundant,
more elaborate, and animated by a more amiable spirit.
18th-Century Philosophy.—The Anglomania which distinguished the time was nowhere more strongly shown than in the cast and direction of its philosophical speculations. As Montesquieu and Voltaire had imported into France a vivid theoretical admiration for the British constitution and for British theories in politics, so Voltaire, Diderot and a crowd of others popularized and continued in France the philosophical ideas of Hobbes and Locke and even Berkeley, the theological ideas of Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury and the English deists, and the physical discoveries of Newton. Descartes, Frenchman and genius as he was, and though his principles in physics and philosophy were long clung to in the schools, was completely abandoned by the more adventurous and progressive spirits. At no time indeed, owing to the confusion of thought and purpose to which we have already alluded, was the word philosophy used with greater looseness than at this time. Using it, as we have hitherto used it, in the sense of metaphysics, the majority of the Philosophes have very little claim to their title. There were some who manifested, however, an aptitude for purely philosophical argument, and one who confined himself strictly thereto. Among these the most remarkable are Julien Offroy de la Mettrie (1709–1751) and Denis Diderot. La Mettrie in his works L’Homme machine, L’Homme plante, &c., applied a lively and vigorous imagination, a considerable familiarity with physics and medicine, and a brilliant but unequal style, to the task of advocating materialistic ideas on the constitution of man. Diderot, in a series of early works, Lettre sur les aveugles, Promenade d’un sceptique, Pensées philosophiques, &c., exhibited a good acquaintance with philosophical history and opinion, and gave sign in this direction, as in so many others, of a far-reaching intellect. As in almost all his works, however, the value of the thought is extremely unequal, while the different pieces, always written in the hottest haste, and never duly matured or corrected, present but few specimens of finished and polished writing. Charles Bonnet (1720–1793), a Swiss of Geneva, wrote a large number of works, many of which are purely scientific. Others, however, are more psychological, and these, though advocating the materialistic philosophy generally in vogue, were remarkable for uniting materialism with an honest adherence to Christianity. The half mystical writer, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin (1743–1803) also deserves notice. But the French metaphysician of the century is undoubtedly Étienne Bonnot, abbé de Condillac. Condillac (1714–1780), almost the only writer of the time in France who succeeded in keeping strictly to philosophy without attempting to pursue his system to its results in ethics, politics and theology. In the Traité des sensations, the Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines and other works Condillac elaborated and continued the imperfect sensationalism of Locke. As his philosophical view, though perhaps more restricted, was far more direct, consecutive and uncompromising than that of the Englishman, so his style greatly exceeded Locke’s in clearness and elegance and as a good medium of philosophical expression.
18th-Century Theology.—To devote a section to the history of the theological literature of the 18th century in France may seem something of a contradiction; for, indeed, all or most of such literature was anti-theological. The magnificent list of names which the church had been able to claim on her side in the 17th century was exhausted before the end of the second quarter of the 18th with Massillon, and none came to fill their place. Very rarely has orthodoxy been so badly defended as at this time. The literary championship of the church was entirely in the hands of the Jesuits, and of a few disreputable literary freelances like Élie Fréron (1719–1776) and Pierre François Guyot, abbé Desfontaines (1685–1745). The Jesuits were learned enough, and their principal journal, that of Trévoux, was conducted with much vigour and a great deal of erudition. But they were in the first place discredited by the moral taint which has always hung over Jesuitism, and in the second place by the persecutions of the Jansenists and the Protestants, which were attributed to their influence. But one single work on the orthodox side has preserved the least reputation; while, on the other hand, the names of Père Nonotte (1711–1793) and several of his fellows have been enshrined unenviably in the imperishable ridicule of Voltaire, one only of whose adversaries, the abbé Antoine Guénée (1717–1803), was able to meet him in the Lettres de quelques Juifs with something like his own weapons. It has never been at all accurately Voltaire (theology). decided how far what may be called the scoffing school of Voltaire represents a direct revolt against Christianity, and how far it was merely a kind of guerilla warfare against the clergy. It is positively certain that Voltaire was not an atheist, and that he did not approve of atheism. But his Dictionnaire philosophique, which is typical of a vast amount of contemporary and subsequent literature, consists of a heterogeneous assemblage of articles directed against various points of dogma and ritual and various characteristics of the sacred records. From the literary point of view, it is one of the most characteristic of all Voltaire’s works, though it is perhaps not entirely his. The desultory arrangement, the light
