206 - FÉNELON (François de Salignac de La Mothe), 1651–1715.

FÉNELON (François de Salignac de La Mothe), 1651–1715. Letter from the author: “Fr. Ar. Duke of Cambray,” Cambrai, July 29, 1714. An important letter regarding the reception of the papal bull *Unigenitus* and the Jansenist crisis, addressed to Father Le Tellier, confessor to Louis XIV (See Fénelon, *Correspondance*, ed. Jean Orcibal, in collaboration with Jacques Le Brun and Irénée Noye, vols. XVI–XVII, The Final Years, 1712–1715, Geneva, Droz, 1999; letter to Fr. Le Tellier dated July 29, 1714, listed in the Chronological Table of Letters, No. 1877). Fénelon confidentially forwarded to the powerful Jesuit Michel Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, the reply he had just sent to Cardinal de Rohan, one of the principal architects of the adoption in France of the Unigenitus constitution. Promulgated by Clement XI in September 1713 at the request of Louis XIV, the constitution condemned 101 propositions drawn from Pasquier Quesnel’s *Réflexions morales* and immediately caused a deep rift within the French episcopate. Rohan had chaired the commission tasked with preparing the bishops’ assembly for its acceptance. Here, Fénelon firmly defends the full and complete acceptance of the papal decision. Above all, he warns against any “relative acceptance”—that is, an acceptance accompanied by reservations or explanations that would subordinate its authority to the judgment of the bishops: far from bringing the recalcitrant prelates back into unity, such a compromise would, in his view, amount to “diminishing the Holy See and the episcopal college.” This issue was precisely at the heart of the 1714 negotiations, as Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, and his supporters sought a formula that would allow them to accept the bull while subjecting it to certain explanations. In this regard, Fénelon invoked the precedent of the “Peace of Clement IX,” the compromise reached in 1668–1669 that had temporarily quelled the first Jansenist crisis: ““One would have to be very weak and very incorrigible if the disastrous example of the compromise in which Clement IX was caught off guard did not serve as a lesson against ambiguous and specious expedients.”” In his view, the ambiguities that had made this peace possible must under no circumstances be repeated. The letter is all the more interesting because it dates from the final months of Fénelon’s life; he died in Cambrai in January 1715. Having himself faced the Roman condemnation of his *Maximes des saints* in 1699, the Archbishop of Cambrai here emerges as one of the most determined defenders of papal authority and of the acceptance of *Unigenitus*. At the time, he was working to bring Noailles and the recalcitrant prelates back into obedience, going so far as to consider convening a national council to put an end to the resistance. A valuable account of the negotiations conducted at the highest levels of the Church and the monarchy during the last major religious crisis of Louis XIV’s reign: Here, Fénelon corresponds with two of its principal figures, Rohan and Le Tellier, and proclaims that he would be willing to give his life “for sound doctrine and for the peace of the Church,” while categorically rejecting “ambiguous and specious expedients” that might compromise the authority of the Holy See. Tear at the top with very minor loss of text at that spot. Includes its original certificate of export for cultural property from the Ministry of Culture. Enclosed is a letter from the same, sent from C[ambrai], June 1, 1713, 2 pp. and 1/4 in-8, addressed to his grandnephew Gabriel-Jacques de Salignac de La Mothe-Fénelon (1688–1746), affectionately nicknamed “Fanfan”. Having just recovered from a “bile fermentation” alleviated by quinine, Fénelon affectionately reassures his grandnephew and urges him to accept the trials of illness with patience. “G[od] will do it in His time and not in ours. Oh, how good suffering is for disabusing us and accustoming us to remain humble and dependent on G[od].” These spiritual reflections are intertwined with very practical concerns: the money he offers his nephew to take without ceremony, the upbringing of a “little boy” whom he is keeping an eye on, advice regarding a lawsuit, and above all, concern for a “sick maid” nearing childbirth—most likely his niece, Madame de Chevry. He also asks his correspondent to secure recommendations for Blondel, mentions the Abbé de Beaumont, who cared for him during his illness, and entrusts Fanfan with a few messages for Father Lallemant. The letter ends with a moving declaration of affection: “Good evening, my dearest Fanfan; only G[od] knows how tenderly I love you in life and in death.”