Correspondance. Tome XII. 20 juin 1751–18 août 1752. Lettres 1723–1906 (review)

Early in this volume Mme de Graffigny actually declares herself to be happy! (For reviews of preceding volumes, see FS 63 (2009), 211–212.) Two projects that she has long pursued have been realized. The marriage of her niece with the tax-farmer Helvétius is finally approved and achieved, so fractious Minette is off her hands. At the same time, thanks to the huge success of her play Cénie, she can at last afford to live better. She has found for lease what she calls a ‘palais’ — an attractive little house (evocatively described p. 59) backing onto the Jardin du Luxembourg. She is able to refurbish it in modest style, while the abutting greenery offers her visual pleasure, calm, walks at her door, and shade from the hated summer heat. As she writes to Panpan: ‘Je defie tout l’univers de jouir aussi delicieusement que moi. [. . .] On court apres les grands mouvemens de l’ame, et ce sont les paisibles qui marquent le bonheur’ (p. 91). She awaits only her correspondent’s forthcoming visit. But Panpan when pressed finds reasons not to stir from home in Lorraine. Illnesses return. She worries that the house may be sold. She wearies of the constant procession of visitors, and the round of invitations and commissions, which swallow up her time. Even her young favourites Bret and Turgot have ceased to please. Rarely does she find what she calls ‘l’esprit aimable’ (p. 101). By December her state has radically changed. ‘Je n’aime rien du tout de ce qui m’environne [. . .] jusqu’a me degouter de la vie’ (p. 216). What she needs most, as ever, is ‘un ami’. But in the name of ‘amitié’ she prises away from Panpan any rival for his affections (currently Lomont, Mme de Boufflers, or Saint-Lambert), while repeatedly berating him for his lack of spine. He should follow her example, for, as she claims with some truth, ‘J’ai eté foible [. . .et] je me suis rendue forte’ (p. 378). One must learn to ‘contempler tranquilement les differentes idées des hommes sans qu’elles aient le droit de nous affecter’ (p. 435). Happily for us, however, even with success and age Graffigny’s letters still exhibit expressive energy rather than stoic calm.

It is perhaps with a sense of her new status that she composes a moral essay for the annual Académie Française competition, which Duclos tells her she almost won. But she still seeks income, despite the substantial advance from Duchêne for the new expanded Péruvienne, handsomely published with every assistance from Malesherbes (pp. 28, 41). Her theatre projects include La Baguette, a fairy-tale comedy intended for the Italians, and Les Saturnales for the Vienna court. Each topic she proposes to others (including in the latter case the fascinating but ‘fanatique’ Jean-Jacques Rousseau), but eventually opts for her own version. Submitted anonymously, however, La Baguette is rejected (pp. 306–307). Graffigny chooses not to reveal her name (dignity comes before money), but resolutely sets about revising the piece for resubmission. Along with the usual admirable scholarly apparatus, this volume of the Correspondance has a particularly good Introduction.