but in a few words. Have any of you been more fortunate? In any other man, one would be apt to believe that jealousy had something to do with it,—but in him,—with such a reputation, with such elevated sentiments-"

"Perhaps it is on that very account," said the Abbé de la Broue, "that he is so sparing of his praises. No matter how much we may admire Father Bourdaloue,―Monsieur de Condom knows very well that we admire him much more,-that we place him much higher. Thence his embarrassment. Public opinion acknowledging none his equals, he feels that he cannot praise any one without indirectly exalting himself. Thus, he says a few words in order to be just, and stops there, in order to remain humble."

"That is it!" was the general acclamation.

Was it really this? We shall not decide. Who knows whether Bossuet himself would have been able to do so? There is often but a hair's-breadth between modesty and pride; from pride to jealousy the distance is still shorter.

It is true, that Bourdaloue was not, strictly speaking, a rival for Bossuet. It is too common to consider the latter as an orator only. In certain respects this was correct, and his reputation for oratory is well founded, but in a historical point of view it is a mistake. In 1675, six or seven years after he had ceased to preach regularly,-Bossuet the orator, was considered far be hind Bossuet the controversialist, the savant, the advocate of Gallicanism, Father of the church, as he was called at the time of the famous assembly of '82, and as La Bruyère did not in '95 scruple to call him to his face in the Academy.* It is one of those facts, in history, which escape your attention,

* In his discourse upon the occasion of Bossuet's reception. "Let us anticipate the language of posterity, and call him a Father of the Church." Upon which Maury observes, that he might have said he hief

unless it be particularly directed to them,—but to prove which, comes a crowd of evidence, as soon as you think of looking for it. From the moment that Bossuet ceased preaching, the eloquence of the pulpit was considered, if not beneath him, at least beneath the position which he occupied in the church of France. Even his funeral orations, the most beautiful of which belong to a later period than this, were, in the eyes of the public, scarcely more than incidental productions. They were highly praised, it is true,—but no one appeared to think that anything more was expected, and it was far from entering the minds of any that his reputation was ever, in any way, to depend upon these discourses. And as he kept but too faithfully during the last nineteen years of his life, his resolution,-expressed in 1685, in the funeral oration of the Prince de Condé,-"no more to solemnize the death of others,"—this opinion had time to become universal. Three years after his death, the Abbé (afterwards Cardinal) de Polignac,* succeeded him in the Academy, and in the ostentatious discourse, in which it was the custom for each one to set forth, with so much pomp, the smallest merits of his predecessor, he says but a few words of the oratorical triumphs of the illustrious deceased. The Abbé de Clérambault, director of the Academy, is still more brief; he contents himself with saying, that Bossuet "had allowed his rivals to obtain that supreme rank in sacred eloquence, which he was fully able to have secured." Seven years later, in the funeral oration of the Dauphin, Massillon describes Bossuet as a man "of great and felicitous genius,—the ornament of the episcopacy,-a bishop in the midst of a court,

a man possessing every talent, and cognizant of every science,

of the Fathers, since he was the chief in eloquence. But La Bruyère was not alluding to eloquence at this time;-the whole of the passage proves this.

*The author of "Anti-Lucretius."

-and the Father of the seventeenth century, who, if he had been born in the early ages of the Church, would have been the light of their councils, and would have presided at Nicoa and Ephesus." Splendid eulogies, it may be perceived, but not a word of his reputation as orator, unless Massillon intended to include in the vague expression, " a man possessing every talent," the little that he considered there was to say on that point. It is true, that Father de la Rue,-charged with the funeral oration of Bossuet at Meux,-entered more into detail, and was more just, but opinion was otherwise formed, and La Rue himself, in this discourse, does not appear to think it of much importance to set forth the oratorical merits of a man whom he considers as possessing so many other titles to immortality.

This was, accordingly, the reputation of Bossuet, at the commencement of the eighteenth century;—these were the intrenchments,-if the expression may be used,-behind which it was to await the shocks of a period of irreligion and audacity. The shocks were severe, the defeat prompt and easy. More and more forgotten as an orator, the bishop of Meaux was at the same time crushed by some as the author of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,*-by others as the persecutor of Fénélon, -by the infidels as a Christian,-by the Ultramontaines, as a Gallican,-in fine, by everybody, from every sort of motive,

* It is very difficult to know exactly the part he had in this. Some historians accuse him of having advised it; others, particularly the Cardinal de Bossuet, declare, that he was not even consulted. One thing is certain, that he had contributed more than any other, either to excite the suspicions of the king against the Protestants, or to inspire him with the idea, that he had the right and the power to do what he did. Another thing still more certain, is, that no one thanked Louis XIV. more loudly for it, nor accepted more fully the legality of the act, than Bossuet. See his " Policy gathered from the Scriptures,” Book vii., Chap. 9 and 10. “Those who would not have a prince use severity in matters of religious principle, are in an impious error.”

whether just or unjust. The Protestants said not a word; the surest method of allowing the numerous pages which he had written against them, to be forgotten. And in the midst of the assaults of which religion was the object, the most zealous admirers of Bossuet, if there were any left, had quite enough to do, without devoting themselves to his defence.

However, towards the beginning of the last half of the century, when the philosophical party found itself powerful enough to give its adversaries a little respite, the latter felt, as it were, a pang of remorse, for having so entirely abandoned such a man to their opponents. But the reëstablishment of Bossuet as a savant, a controversialist, or as one of the Fathers of the church, was not to be dreamed of; besides the Encyclopedia was then in existence. So an expedient was sought for,-one was happily found, and Bossuet the orator arose radiant from the ruins of the other Bossuet. Some details in respect to this revolution are to be found in Maury, who had a great deal to do with it. Laharpe has also written its history,—at least so far as he is concerned. He confesses that he resisted a long time before recognizing the superiority of Bossuet; but once convinced of it, he says he was floored by admiration, (herrassé d'admiration,) and so completely floored, we may add, that it seems to us he went rather too far in his description of it.

However, he was not the only one, and we would fain repeat here, what Fénélon said to his uncle," that one may be infatuated with a great man as well as with a fool." The pristine glory of the name of Bossuet having gradually reappeared, and being shed altogether upon one part of his former titles to greatness, the necessary result of this was a little exaggeration in the praises which were bestowed upon him.

We might discuss this matter much further, but we will leave it. What we wished to show, was, that it is the same in regard

to Bossuet's reputation, as in regard to many old institutions, which have so thoroughly changed, that their name has come to designate something entirely different from its first meaning. Certainly, if his funeral orations contain beautiful ideas upon the instability of human greatness, the history also, of these discourses, contains a lesson which is not wanting in significance! If their author could revisit the world, what would be his reflections, on perceiving that his glory now principally depends upon that, which was formerly considered but as a slight accessory!

The explanation of the Abbé de la Broue was accordingly approved of, and the council separated.