SOURCE: "The Paradox of the Fable in Eighteenth-Century France," in Neophilologus, Vol. LXI, No. 4, October 1977, pp. 510-17.

[In the following excerpt, Runte observes that in the century after La Fontaine's death, fabulists and other writers tended to characterize his work in the fable genre his work as immoral and as imprecise in style.]

The fable enjoyed a popularity in eighteenth-century France which is confirmed not only by the numerous collections of fables and the over two hundred authors who contributed to them, but by the fact that their audience was universal.¹ Fables were quoted, recited in society as well as at the Académies, and were reprinted in correspondence and journals such as the Mercure, L 'Almanach des Muses, L 'Annee littéraire, Le Journal encyclopedique and Les Etrennes du Parnasse.² Lanson's statement that "tout le monde, en ce temps-la, parle par paraboles ou par fables,"³ is substantiated by Le Jeune, an eighteenth-century fabulist, who commented: "Sans parler des fabulistes de profession, il est peu d'auteurs de poésies mélées [sic] qui n'aient seme leurs recueils de fables ou de pieces [sic] soit disant telles."⁴ An indication of the number of fables printed is included in Appendix I. We may conclude with Lottin that "autant la Fable etoit negligde en France avant La Fontaine, autant elle a été cultivde depuis …"⁵

Despite the important role the genre played in the eighteenth century, it is largely ignored today. This is the first paradox. The lack of appreciation for the eighteenth-century fable dates back to that century. Since Bioleau omitted it from his Art poétique, the fable has been considered a secondary genre.⁶ This in turn contributed to the proliferation of the fable. The problem of literary merit may be expressed in terms of quality obscured by quantity. The very merits of the genre which encouraged the eighteenth-century writer to create fables were the faults which led to its denigration. The fable was fashionable, simple and did not require lengthy meditation or concentrated effort. Thus the fable became the preferred genre of nascent poets and minor authors. The protective veil of allegory inspired independent wits of the century to use the form. However, this led to the replacement of an eternal truth or moral concerning a universal flaw in mankind by satire which was aimed at individuals and social institutions.⁷ Thus the value of these fables diminished in proportion to the time separating the reader from the writer. Finally, the presence of a model, such as La Fontaine, was a stimulus to the author who wished to undertake a first literary endeavor. However, the presence of this model of near perfection not only discouraged eighteenthcentury fabulists but engendered a series of paradoxes which led to the ultimate decline of the genre.

The presence of a model caused a problem stated by the fable writer Imbert: "Le genre le plus difficile aujourd'hui, c'est sans contredit celui de la Fable. 11 semble qu'il soit permis d'écrire la Tragédie après Corneille et Racine, la Comédie après Molière, et qu'il soit défendu de faire des Fables après La Fontaine."⁸ La Fontaine was thought to have attained a pinnacle of perfection to which no other author could aspire. Fabulists felt constrained to apologize for their efforts in a genre already so well exploited. Calling themselves glaneurs in an already-harvested field, fabulists sought a secondary place in literary history.⁹ They characterized their plight as that of the ordinary horse being compared with Pegasus, of the crow compared with the warbler or the canary with the nightingale.¹⁰ Critical opinions such as that of La Harpe: "Nommer la Fable, c'est nommer La Fontaine; le genre et l'auteur ne font plus qu'un,"¹¹ had the effect of paralyzing the poets. This led further to a "perpétuel souci de se justifier."¹² With no more than a glance at the titles of the recueils nearly all of which boast of being Fables nouvelles, the statement that "de Furètiere à Madame de Genlis, il n'est pas un fabuliste qui ne se pique pas de nouveaute,"¹³ can be given superficial verification.¹⁴ Faced with the accepted superiority of La Fontaine, the fabulist proclaimed his invention.

While the newness of the fable would appear to add further dimensions to the genre and free it from the stagnation of servile imitation, the effect was paradoxically the opposite. This is partially due to the fact that fabulists sought to be innovative only in the areas in which they felt La Fontaine had been the least successful. It is also due to the fact that they set up rules to avoid these pitfalls and in following them, the fabulists became enslaved to their own precepts of originality.

La Fontaine was criticized as being unoriginal, a circumstance freely admitted by that author himself.¹⁵ La Motte led the campaign for originality both in criticism and in poetic interpretation. He advised fabulists to seek "vérités nouvelles"¹⁶ and suggested: "Introduisons a notre choix les Dieux, les Génies et les Hommes … Personnifions les vertus et les vices; animons selon nos besoins tous les Etres … Les acteurs les moins usitez [sic] et les plus bizarres deviennent naturels et meritent même la préférence sur d'autres" (p. xxviii). La Motte's advice was taken to heart and we find in Madame de Genlis a herbarium divided by genus and species, in Pesselier, "L'Œil et la pantoufle," in Grécourt, "Le Pot de chambre et la trophee," and in Dorat, "Le Bureau et la toilette," all engaged in philosophical dissertations.¹⁷ In reaction to a fable by Aubert in which a cabbage represents an atheist, Le Jeune remarked: "Pourquoi ne changerois-je pas une citrouille en ministre d'Etat?"¹⁸ Critics such as Saillard (p. 155) and Collins have pointed out the disastrous effects of such novelty on the genre as well as the coldness and inappropriateness of the use of metaphysical and symbolic beings in the fable.¹⁹ The paradox extends beyond the fact that originality failed and became novelty to constitute a vicious circle when the eighteenth-century fabulist looked to foreign sources for inspiration. He often chose themes from English and German fabulists rather than imitate La Fontaine. These fabulists had in turn either used the same sources as had La Fontaine or they were directly inspired by La Fontaine himself.²⁰

The problem of discovering new truths was stated by Grozelier wh, asked: "… ou en trouver aujourd'hui?"²¹ The solution, as has already been indicated, was to substitute temporal and specific maxims for those of eternal and universal application.

The second fault which the eighteenth-century fabulist found in La Fontaine was that he appeared to place the value of amusement over that of education in the sense of teaching a moral lesson. La Motte felt that his predecessor had written the fable and then sought a moral which might justify its existence (p. xi). D'Ardenne echoed this argument and formulated the following rule: "La fable est faite pour la moralité … La fable est la vase, et la moralité la liqueur."²² Le Monnier declared that La Fontaine was not always attentive in formulating morals which were truly pure and healthy.²³ J.-J. Rousseau went even further to declare La Fontaine immoral.²⁴ The result of this discussion was a concentration on the idea rather than its presentation. While the fable contained a greater emphasis on the moral (often including several morals per fable),²⁵ it contained less action and the dialogue tended to become dissertation. This represents another paradox because La Fontaine was praised for his dramatic qualities. Equally sought by the eighteenth-century fabulist was brevity, a quality which La Fontaine, on the advice of Patru, had sought as well. However, in concentrating on the idea, the fable expanded and we find, for exeample, that the fable, "Le Corbeau et le renard," has 62 lines in Le Noble as compared with 15 in La Fontaine.²⁶ Saillard's conclusion is well-suited to the case: the eighteenth-century fabulists "ont sacrifié la forme au fond" (p. 156).

The last major fault that was discovered in La Fontaine was his negligence in style. La Motte criticized La Fontaine for using archaic words. In his own works he replaced such usage with vocabulary which had overtones of preciosite. He substituted for "les lunettes," "le supplement a notre lumiere," for "la géographie," "le voyage sedentaire," and for "la rave," "un phenomene potager."²⁷ One might agree with Voltaire who remarked: "Feu M. de la Motte qui ecrivait bien en prose, ne parlait plus français quand il faisait des vers."²⁸

D'Ardenne outlined the complete poetics for the fable. For example, he permitted alexandrins but called short lines the "vrais avortons de la Poésie" (p. 43). D'Ardenne's definitions gave rigidity to the genre and rather than being the rules of success, became the impediments to free creation.²⁹ A second result of the attention paid to rules was the neglect of the actual genre.³⁰ In many cases the introduction outweighed both in length and merit the fables which followed.³¹ Chaponnière notes that this was a common situation in the eighteenth century where a critical statement "… précède l'œuvre, I'annonce, la provoque et l'oeuvre la trahit et perit avant elle" (p. 397). Le Monnier foresaw the criticism of his own century and prefaced his works with the remark: "… les dissertations et l'esprit ne peuvent pas remplacer le génie" (p. vii).

While the eighteenth-century fabulist had carefully defined his moral purpose, his choice of subject and his form, all of which he criticized in La Fontaine, he nevertheless looked to the master fable writer as a positive example of je ne sais quoi.³² La Fontaine, "cet homme inimitable," possessed one characteristic which the eighteenth-century fabulist longed to reproduce.³³ It was and perhaps still is, undefinable. Aubert praised this "je ne sais quoi" and called it "naïveté."³⁴Le Journal littéraire defined naïveté as "le sublime du naturel, "³⁵ while Marmontel said that te combination of the sublime and the natural was "génie,"³⁶ the distinctive quality of "ce peintre né, dont l'instinct nous enchante."³⁷

The eighteenth-century fabulist was in a tenuous position. On the one hand, he declared La Fontaine inimitable, and on the other he attempted to define and reproduce the characteristics of an essence which escaped him. Throughout the century La Fontaine's naïveté was accepted by the critics of the genre as a product of genius and poetic inspiration. Marmontel and Chamfort were exceptions. They believed that La Fontaine's art was the product of serious meditation and profound study of the human race.³⁸ He had learned the art of dissimulating Art. La Fontaine veiled his efforts with seeming negligence to flatter the amourpropre of the reader and draw him into profound thought with a story of delightful simplicity. These critics at least, gave hope to the eighteenth-century fabulist. However, in calling La Fontaine's negligences an artistic veil, Chamfort and Marmontel provided a key to understanding the paradox of why a fable, perfect in form as that produced in the eighteenth century, should have met with less success than the technically imperfect creation of La Fontaine.

While critics could devote their energies to theorizing about the origins of the "je ne sais quoi," the fabulist had to try to reproduce it.

La Motte called it "le Riant" and said that it existed in the juxtaposition of opposites such as the small and the large as well as in the ennoblement of animals by the conferring of titles such as "Maître Corbeau" (pp. xxxvxxxvi). La Motte's attempt was greeted with much adverse criticism by such authors as Sabbatier de Castres who said of his fables: "On y remarque presque partout un badinage forcé et des contorsions pour enfanter ce rire aimable que La Fontaine produit sans effort, comme sans y penser."³⁹ Aubert followed La Motte's precept and met the same defeat: "M. l'Abbé Aubert expose à ses lecteurs quelle peine il s'est donnée pour gâter La Fontaine."⁴⁰ Dreux du Radier felt that in limiting his examples to that which is pleasant in nature and in improving upon them, he would achieve La Fontaine's naïveté.⁴¹ However, a brief comparison of his fable, "Le Paysan accusé de magie," with the original, La Fontaine's "La Cigale et la fourmi," would suffice to explain the poetic failure of this lawyer. Le Noble admitted that he could not match La Fontaine's "enjouement" but hoped to substitute "le plaisant," both terms being undefined in his work.⁴² Le Noble's work was described by Dreux du Radier as "… stérile abondance … [qui] touche rarement."⁴³ Finally, D'Ardenne indicated that this "je ne sais quoi" resulted in surprise, admiration and pleasure and must therefore stem from newness, singularity and the "merveilleux" (p. 8). However, we might agree with Saillard that "D'Ardenne rappelle La Motte; chez l'un comme chez l'autre le poète vaut moins que le critique" (p. 149).

This series of paradoxes leads to one conclusion. Despite or rather because of their efforts to define the fable, the eighteenth-century fabulists became ensnared in a double trap. On the one hand they eliminated inspiration in their attempts to remove irregularity of composition and versification. On the other hand, they defined the qualities of the fable but misapplied in an exaggerated fashion the very elements which should have led them to success. They ended up with what Collins has aptly termed "prettiness of conceit rather than force" (p. 8). Chamfort's verbs capture the situation with eloquence; he notes that "La Motte fit des fables," and La Fontaine "peint … raconte … instruit … enchante."⁴⁴

Thus, the paradox of the fable's lack of success in the eighteenth century can be explained in the following terms: originality became novelty,⁴⁵ morality changed in definition and became particular and temporal rather than universal and eternal,⁴⁶ and correctness of style became rigidity.

Notes

¹ This is demonstrated by the fact that in collections alone, we find 93 fabulists in Lottin [Hérissant], Le Fablier franqois ou élite des meilleures fables depuis La Fontaine (Paris: Lottin le Jeune, 1771); 50 in the anonymous Nouveau Fablier français (Paris: Capelle and Renand, 1805); and 30 new names not mentioned in the first Fablier in the anonymous Nouvelle Encyclopédie poétique (Paris, 1819).

² That more fables were read than printed is attested to by La Harpe's comment on the fables of the Duc de Nivernois [Louis-Jules Barbon Mancini-Mazarini]: "Il a fait quantité de fables qu'il a la complaisance de lire quelquefois à l'Académie et à ses amis, et la discrétion de ne pas imprimer" (G. Saillard, Essai sur la fable en France au XVIIIe siécle [Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1912], p. 119).

³ Gustave Lanson, L'Art de la prose (Paris: Nizet, n.d. [1908]), p. 181.

⁴ Le Jeune [pseud. Quérard], Fables nouvelles, morales et philosophiques (Paris: Duchesne, 1765), p. 9.

⁵ Lottin, p. iii.

⁶ The omission of the fable was a frequently-discussed subject in the eighteenth century. Pierre-Claude-François Danau felt it was an oversight: "Les écrivains les plus attentifs ont eu de telles distractions; celle-ci serait la plus grave dont on aurait à plaindre Boileau" (Œuvres complètes de Boile au-Despréaux [Paris: Mame, 1809], p. xliv). However other critics such as Ximènes said: "Malheureux! Il n'étoit plain [sic] que de sa grandeur;/Et cette grandeur même, odieuse, insipide, / De son âme un moment n'a pu remplir le vide" (C. A. Walckenaer, ed. (Œuvres de La Fontaine [Paris: Nepveu, 1820-21], vol. XVI, p. 119). The Abbé Edme Mallet's prediction was verified: "… pour peu qu'on ait à se plaindre de M. Despréaux, on lui fera bientôt un crime de ce silence, on y trouvera de l'affection et de la malignité" (Principes pour la lecture des poètes [Paris: Drand, 1745], vol. II, p. 189).

⁷ G. Saillard, Essai sur la fable en France au XVIIIe siècle (Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1912), p. 12. All further references to this work will be made in the text.

⁸ Barthélemy Imbert, Fabies nouvelles (Amsterdam and Paris: Delalain, 1773), p. i.

⁹ For examples of the image of the glaneur see the prologue in Péras, Fables nouvelles (Paris, 1761), p. 4; see also Père Nicolas Grozelier, Fables nouvelles (Paris: De Saint and Saillant, 1760), vol, 1, p. 2; and Antoine-François Le Bailly, Fables nouvelles (Paris: Cailleau, 1784), pp. ix-xii.

¹⁰ For an example of the winged horse see Guillaume-Antoine Le Monnier, Fables, contes et épîtres (Paris, 1733), pp. vi-vii. See the warblers and the nightingale in Jean-François Guichard, Fables et autres poésies (Paris, 1802), p. 9. [N.B. This image may come from Gellert's "Le Serin et le rossignol", in M. Benninger, ed. Choix des plus belles fables qui ont paru en Allemagne (Kehl, 1782); see also Jean-Louis Grénus, Fables diverses, critiques, politiques et littéraires (Paris: Bossange, Masson and Besson, 1807), p. 131].

¹¹Jean-François de La Harpe, Lycée ou cours de littérature ancienne et moderne (Paris: Didier, 1834), vol. 1, p. 719.

¹²Paul Chaponnière, "La Critique et les poétiques au dix-huitième siècle", Revue d'Histoire littéraire de la France, 23 (1916), 398. Further references to this article will appear in the text.

¹³ Saillard, p. 157. See also Jean-Marie-Bernard Clemont, "Fables de Mancini-Nivernois", Le Journal littéraire (Paris:A. Cl. Forget, 1796), vol. I, p. 306: "Tous ceux qui ont ecrit des fables depuis La Fontaine se sont empresses d'avertir le lecteur qu'ils s'etoient bien gardes [sic] de pretendre imiter cet homme inimitable."

¹⁴ Despite the obvious errors of oversimplification and generalization we may say that the following fabulists attempted to create in a manner different from that of La Fontaine: D'Ardenne, Aubert, Barbe, Bellegarde, Billardon de Sauvigny, Bret, Cazotte, Chamfort, Delaunoy, Desmay, Dorat, Madame de Genlis, Grécourt, Grozelier, Guichard, Fénelon, Furètiere, La Motte, Le Jeune, Nivernois, Pavilion, Pesselier, Rivery, and Madame de Villedieu.

Those who tended to imitate La Fontaine include: the Baron Dutramblay de Rubelles, Ganeau, Grénus, Imbert, Le Bailly, Le Beau, Vitallis, Le Brun, Le Monnier, Le Noble, and Richer.

¹⁵ See Jean de La Fontaine, (Œuvres complètes, ed. Groos and Pilon (Paris: Gallimard, 1964), vol. 1, p. 8.

¹⁶ Antoine Houdar de La Motte, Fables nouvelles (Paris: Grégoire Dupuis, 1719), pp. xi, xxviii. All further references to this text will be included in the article.

¹⁷ See the Comtesse Stéphane-Félicité Ducrest de Saint-Aubin, Herbier moral ou recueil de fables nouvelles et autres poésies fugitives (Paris: Moutardier, n.d.); Charles-Etienne Pesselier, Fables nouvelles (Paris:

Prault Père, 1748); Abbé Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Willart de Grécourt, Contes et chansons (Paris: E. Dentu, 1886); and Claude-Joseph Dorat, Fables nouvelles (The Hague and Paris: Monory, 1773), Book 11, Fable XVI.

¹⁸ Le Jeune, p. 16. For a further example of a similar fault see Esprit-Jean de Rome Sieur d'Ardenne, "Les Melons et la citrouille", Recueil de fables nouvelles precedees d'un discours sur ce genre de poésie (Paris: Ph. N. Lottin and J. H. Butard, 1747), p. 164.

¹⁹ William Lucas Collins, La Fontaine and other French Fabulists (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood, 1882), p. 8. Further references to this work will be made in the text. It should be noted that although the use of these images was highly recommended by such poets as Aubert, they did not uniquely fill his works. In a collection of 50 fables by that author we find only 6 which deal with symbolic or metaphoric subjects while there are 7 with human characters, 5 with flowers or trees, and the remainder with animal subjects.

²⁰ For example, the fable "D'un Paon et de la pie", by Antoine-François Le Bailly (Fables nouvelles [Paris: Cailleau, 1784]) came from Lessing's fable, "Les Paons et les comeilles", which, like La Fontaine's "Le Geai pare des plumes du paon," came from Phaedrus.

²¹ Nicolas Grozelier, Fables nouvelles (Paris: De Saint and Saillant, 1760), vol. 1, p. vii.

²² D'Ardenne, Recueil de fables nouvelles, p. 64. Further references to this work will be made in the text.

²³ Abbé Guillaume-Antoine Le Monnier, Fables, contes et épîtres (Paris: Ch. Ant. Jombert Père, L. Cellot and Cl. Ant. Jombert Fils aine, 1773), p. xii. Further references to this work will be made in the text.

²⁴ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile ou de 1'education (Paris: Bézial, n.d.), pp. 114-115.

²⁵ See for example Antoine Furètiere, Fables morales et nouvelles (Paris: Claude Barbin, 1671), no pagination.

²⁶ See for example Bathélemy Imbert's comment: "Si vous le trouvez long/ … Faites-le court en ne le lisant point" (Fables nouvelles [Amsterdam and Paris: Delalain, 1773], p. 4).

²⁷ In Saillard, pp. 40-41.

²⁸ François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Œuvres complètes (Paris: Garnier, 1880), vol. XXXIII, p. 253.

²⁹ See for example the Père Nicolas Grozelier, Fables nouvelles (Paris: De Saint and Saillant, 1760), vol. I, p. v: "lls ont établi les règles … Ainsi j'ai dû me conformer à ces règles, au lieu d'en proposer de nouvelles". See also Antoine-François Le Bailly, Fables nouvelles (Paris: Grégoire Dupuis, 1719), p. vii: "… que pourrois-je dire d'intéressant sur la nature de l'Apologue, après la dissertation aussi ingénieuse que solide, dont La Motte a fait précéder ses Fables?"

³⁰ Se e Saillard, p. 43: "… s'ils trouven t très raremen t la poésie, c'est sans doute parce que la nature leur avait refuse ce don, mais aussi parce qu'ils ont suivi trop servilement les préceptes de leur Maître et cru que la poésie était simple affaire de règles."

³¹ For example, D'Ardenne's dissertation on the fable of 79 pages precedes a mere 50 fables and takes up more than half his work in length.

³² Claude-Joseph Dorat, Fables nouvelles (The Hague and Paris: Monory, 1773), pp. xiv-xv.

³³ See for example Jean le Rond d'Alembert who called La Fontaine the author "le plus desesperant pour le peuple imitateur, en un mot, si on peut parler de la sorte, celui que la nature aura le plus de peine à refaire" ("Eloge de Despréaux", in F. Vézinet, Le XVIIe Siècle jugé par le XVIIIe [Paris: Vuibert, 1924], p. 80).

³⁴ Abbé Jean-Louis Aubert, Fables nouvelles avec un discours sur la maniere de lire les fables ou de les r&iter (Amsterdam and Paris: Duchesne, 1756), pp. 11-12.

³⁵ Clément, Le Journal littéraire (1796), p. 306.

³⁶ Jean-François Marmontel, Elements de littérature (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1846), vol. 1, p. 36.

³⁷ Marmontel, Les Charmes de 1'étude: épître auxpoetes (Avignon: Rastoue, 1835), p. 25. (Written and crowned by the Académie Française in 1760, published in 1761.)

³⁸ Marmontel, "Fable", Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des metiers (Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann, 1966), vol. VI [1756], p. 348; and Sébastien-Roch-Nicolas Chamfort, "Eloge de La Fontaine", in Les Trois Fabulistes Esope, Phèdre et La Fontaine (Paris: Delance, 1796), vol. III, p. 211.

³⁹ Antoine Sabbatier de Castres, Dictionnaire de littérature (Paris: Vincent, 1770), p. 145.

⁴⁰ Anonymous article in L 'Almanach des Muses (Paris: Delalain 1778), p. 298.

⁴¹ Jean-François Dreux du Radier, Fables nouvelles et autres pieces en vers (Paris: F. G. Merigot, 1744), p. xxi.

⁴² Eustache Le Noble, Contes et fables (Lyon: Claude Rey, 1697), vol. 1, no pagination.

⁴ Dreux du Radier, p. xx.

⁴⁴ Chamfort, passim.

⁴⁵ Originality was also often no more than a boast. Fréron wrote about La Motte: "Auriez-vous jamais pense, dit M. d'Aquin A Fréron, que La Motte put grossir ce servile troupeau du Parnasse, qui s'engraisse dans les pfturages d'autrui? Je ne l'aurais jamais cru moi-même, si je n'avais lu ses fables" (Saillard, p. 31). The same might be said of La Motte's theater for which La Fontaine served as a direct source.

⁴⁶ See for example Edme Billardon de Sauvigny who stated: "C'est à vous, hommes libres, ou qui aspirez a le devenir, que je consacre ce Recueil d'Apologues. Notre revolution lui sert de base; tout s'y rapporte … c'est un cours historique de morale" (Recueil d'Apologues et de faits historiques, mis en vers et relatifs aux revolutions franfaise, am&ricaine, etc., etc. [Paris: Laran, 1796], p. vii).