Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds Page B

was
galante;
on becoming more mature, she became a
bel esprit.
These were as strictly defined and observed as changes of dress on a particular day of the different seasons. A woman endeavouring to attract lovers after she had ceased to be a
galante
would have been not less ridiculous than her wearing velvet when all the rest of the world were in
demisaison.
”
    So, lively and romantic language, expressions of attachment, could be used in the epoch of
bel esprit
without any fear of misunderstanding by society or the “loving” partner. Did Hume recognize this where Mme de Boufflers was concerned? Did he imagine that there was more to her sentiments than the regard of an ardent spirit? Walpole appears to have been aware of the convention: in a letter of July 11, 1766, he describes her as “a
savante, philosophe,
author,
bel esprit.
” As for Hume’s own response, there is the curious episode of the encounter that did not take place during their burgeoning attachment.
    In the springtime of 1763, Hume had the opportunity to see his correspondent for the first time when she came to England on what became a celebrity tour. She traveled to London on April 17, confiding to her cousin and escort Lord Elibank that the true purpose of her journey was to meet Hume.
    In London, “Madame Blewflower” (as the mob called her) was the sensation of the moment, with the pick of the
beau monde
vying to entertain her. She visited Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill. She stayed with several dukes, and a play was put on in her honor. When she visited Dr. Johnson, the sage hurried to show her to her coach; this was considered a remarkable tribute.
    Elibank did his best to get Hume to London: “You cannot in decency neglect the opportunity of gratifying this flattering curiosity, perhaps passion, of the most amiable of God’s creation.”
    However, Hume did neglect it. Mme de Boufflers had intended only a two-month sojourn, but lingered on in hope of the absent Hume’s emerging. He had gone visiting in Yorkshire, and it was not until July 3 that he sent his rather feeble and evasive excuses for not seeking her out. “I am only afraid that, to a person acquainted with the sociable and conversible parties of France, the showy and dazzling crowds of London assemblies would afford but an indifferent entertainment, and that the love of retreat and solitude, with which the English are reproached, never appears more conspicuously, than when they draw together a multitude of 500 people.”
    Frustrated, she eventually returned to Paris on July 23.
    The philosopher and
l’Idole
still did not come face-to-face until several months after his transfer to Paris. She was away in the country suffering from measles and then depression, occasioning from Rousseau a pretty sympathy. “Ah! How could melancholy dare take up her abode in so beautiful a soul, adorned with a garment which so admirably becomes its wearer.”
    However, once they did get together, some of Hume’s letters suggestthey grew so close that he felt the need to assure her of his rectitude. He probably again misinterpreted her
bel esprit.
The role she had for him was fond courtier, always subordinate to her governing relationship with the prince. (A recognized term had been coined for the constant but chivalrous attendant,
cicisbeo,
also used to mean a hanger-on.) While formally rejoicing in the role, Hume lacked commitment to the time it implied, as well as the willingness (and ability?) to make the needed emotional investment.
    The death of Mme de Boufflers’s husband in October 1764 shook her world to its foundations. Without the cover provided by marriage, her remaining with Conti risked being seen as improper: she was desperate to marry him. He was equally determined not to wed her.
    Hume’s part now evolved from fond courtier to compassionate adviser. Seemingly with some relief, he stepped back, and became objective,