is well known, that the *^ Memoirs are read, and the Maxims are known by heart." It may be doubted, however, whether the " Memoirs" are often read at the present day, notwithstanding the extravagant compliment of Bay le, that "there are few people so bigoted to antiquity as not to prefer the * Memoirs' of La Rochefoucauld to the * Commentaries of Cœsar.' " In fact, their interest appears to have passed away with that of the times of which they treat.
The book of " Maxims" no doubt results from the observation of La Rochefoucauld's earlier years, combined with the reflection of his later life. He appears to have taken considerable pains with their composition, submitting them frequently for the approval of his numerous circle of friends, and altering some of them, according to Segrais, nearly thirty times. They were first published in 1665, with a preface by Segrais, which was omitted in the subsequent editions; several of which appeared, with various corrections, during the author's life.[1]
Scarcely any work, as Mr. Hallam observes, has been more highly extolled or more severely censured. Dr. Johnson has pronounced it almost the only book written by a man of fashion, of which professed authors had reason to be jealous. Rousseau calls it, (Conf. b. 3,) " livre triste et désolant," though he goes on to make a naive admission of its truth, " principalement dans la jeunesse où l'on n'aime pas à voir l'homme comme il est." Voltaire's account of it, in his " Age of Louis XIV.," is perhaps the most gen-
- ↑ They were first translated into English in 1689, under the title of " Seneca unmasked," by the celebrated Mrs. Aphara Behn, who calls the author the Duke of Rushfucave. The work, as is the case With all the English translations of the " Maxims," is full of faults.
