During the residence of M.de Luxembourg at Montmorency, M.de Choiseul sometimes came to supper at the castle.He arrived there one day after I had left it.My name was mentioned, and M.de Luxembourg related to him what had happened at Venice between me and M.de Montaigu.M.de Choiseul said it was a pity I had quitted that track, and that if I chose to enter it again he would most willingly give me employment.M.de Luxembourg told me what had passed.Of this I was the more sensible as I was not accustomed to be spoiled by ministers, and had I been in a better state of health it is not certain that I should not have been guilty of a new folly.Ambition never had power over my mind except during the short intervals in which every other passion left me at liberty; but one of these intervals would have been sufficient to determine me.This good intention of M.de Choiseul gained him my attachment and increased the esteem which, in consequence of some operations in his administration, I had conceived for his talents; and the family compact in particular had appeared to me to evince a statesman of the first order.He moreover gained ground in my estimation by the little respect I entertained for his predecessors, not even excepting Madam de Pompadour, whom I considered as a species of prime minister, and when it was reported that one of these two would expel the other, Ithought I offered up prayers for the honor of France when I wished that M.de Choiseul might triumph.I had always felt an antipathy to Madam de Pompadour, even before her preferment; I had seen her with Madam de la Popliniere when her name was still Madam d'Etioles.Iwas afterwards dissatisfied with her silence on the subject of Diderot, and with her proceedings relative to myself, as well on the subject of the Fetes de Raniere and the Muses Galantes, as on that of the Devin du Village, which had not in any manner produced me advantages proportioned to its success; and on all occasions I had found her but little disposed to serve me.This however did not prevent the Chevalier de Lorenzi from proposing to me to write something in praise of that lady, insinuating that I might acquire some advantage by it.The proposition excited my indignation, the more as I perceived it did not come from himself, knowing that, passive as he was, he thought and acted according to the impulsion he received.I am so little accustomed to constraint that it was impossible for me to conceal from him my disdain, nor from anybody the moderate opinion I had of the favorite; this I am sure she knew, and thus my own interest was added to my natural inclination in the wishes I formed for M.de Choiseul.Having a great esteem for his talents, which was all I knew of him, full of gratitude for his kind intentions, and moreover unacquainted in my retirement with his taste and manner of living, I already considered him as the avenger of the public and myself; and being at that time writing the conclusion of my Contrat Social, I stated in it, in a single passage, what Ithought of preceding ministers, and of him by whom they began to be eclipsed.On this occasion I acted contrary to my most constant maxim;and besides, I did not recollect that, in bestowing praise and strongly censuring in the same article, without naming the persons, the language must be so appropriated to those to whom it is applicable, that the most ticklish pride cannot find in it the least thing equivocal.I was in this respect in such an imprudent security, that I never once thought it was possible any one should make a false application.
One of my misfortunes was always to be connected with some female author.This I thought I might avoid amongst the great.I was deceived; it still pursued me.Madam de Luxembourg was not, however, at least that I know of, attacked with the mania of writing; but Madam de Boufflers was.She wrote a tragedy in prose, which, in the first place, was read, handed about, and highly spoken of in the society of the Prince of Conti, and upon which, not satisfied with the encomiums she received, she would absolutely consult me for the purpose of having mine.This she obtained, but with that moderation which the work deserved.She besides, had with it the information Ithought it my duty to give her, that her piece, entitled L'Esclave Genereux, greatly resembled the English tragedy of Oroonoko, but little known in France, although translated into the French language.Madam de Boufflers thanked me for the remark, but, however, assured me there was not the least resemblance between her piece and the other.I never spoke of the plagiarism except to herself, and I did it to discharge a duty she had imposed on me; but this has not since prevented me from frequently recollecting the consequences of the sincerity of Gil Blas to the preaching archbishop.