CHARACTERS. 



309 



AGREEMENT in temper, in 

 cast of genius, and in prin- 

 ciples, had formed that solid union 

 between our two academicians 

 which does so much honour to their 

 memory. Perhaps it may be inte- 

 resting to examine in what these 

 two writers, so similar in various 

 respects, differed in others. Both 

 of them, replenished with judge- 

 ment, knowledge, and good sense, 

 constantly display a superiority to 

 prejudices, as well philosophical 

 as literary ; both attack them with 

 that modest timidity under which 

 the wise man Avill always shield 

 himself when combating received 

 opinions; a timidity which their 

 enemies termed hypocritical gentle- 

 ness, because hatred gives to pru- 

 dence the name of cunning, and to 

 art that of falsehood. Both of them 

 have carried too far their decided, 

 though apparently moderate, revolt 

 from the gods and laws of Parnas- 

 sus ; but La Motte's free opinions 

 seem more closely connected with 

 his personal interest in supporting 

 them; and Eontenelle's, with the 

 general interest he took in the pro- 

 gress of reason in all departments. 

 In the writings of both are to be 

 found that method ^vhich is so satis- 

 factory to correct minds, and that 

 artful ingenuity which gives so much 

 delight to delicate judges; but this 

 last quality in La Motte is more de- 

 veloped ; in Fontenelle it leaves 

 more to be guessed by the reader. 

 La Motte, without ever saying too 

 much, forgets nothing that his sub- 

 ject offers, dexterously makes use of 

 the whole, and seems to fear that he 

 should lose some of his advantages 

 by too subtle a concealment of his 

 meaning: Fontenelle, without ever 

 being obscure, except to those who 

 ^0 not deserve that an author should 



be clear, gives himself at the same 

 time the pleasure of reservation,and 

 that of hoping to be thoroughly un- 

 derstood by readers worthy of un- 

 derstanding him. Both, too little 

 sensible of the charms of poetry 

 and the magic of versification, have 

 sometimes become poets by the 

 force of ability; but La Motte some- 

 what more frequently than Fonte- 

 nelle, though he has often the 

 double defect of weakness and 

 harshness, whileFontenelle has only 

 that of weakness: but the latter is 

 almost always lifeless in his verses ; 

 whereas La Motte sometimes in- 

 fusessoul and interest into his. Both 

 were crowned with distinction at 

 the lyric theatre ; but Fontenelle 

 was unfortunate on the French thea- 

 tre, because he was absolutely des- 

 titute of that sensibility which is 

 indispensable to a tragic poet, and 

 of which nature had bestowed some 

 sparks on La Motte. 



Fontenelle and La Motte have 

 both written in prose with great 

 clearness, elegance, and even sim- 

 plicity; but La Motte with a more 

 natural, Fontenelle with a more 

 studied simplicity; for this quality 

 may be studied, and then it be- 

 comes manner, and ceases to be a 

 model. What renders Fontenelle 

 a mannerist in his simplicity is, that 

 in order to present refined, or even 

 grand ideas, under a more simple 

 form, he sometimes falls into the 

 dangerous path of familiarity, which 

 contrasts with and trenches upon 

 the delicacy or grandeur of the 

 thought; an incongruity the more 

 sensible, as he seems to affect it: 

 whereas the familiarity of La Motte 

 ( for he, too, sometimes descends to 

 it) is more sober and measured, 

 more suited to its subject, and on a 

 level with the things treated of» 



