confiding young friend was not intended by nature for the drama, and he
declared it to him without disguise. Bailly heard the fatal sentence
with more resignation than could have been expected from a youth whose
budding self-esteem received so violent a shock. He even threw his two
tragedies immediately into the fire. Under similar circumstances,
Fontenelle showed less docility in his youth. If the tragedy of _Aspar_
also disappeared in the flames, it was not only in consequence of the
criticism of a friend; for the author went so far as to call forth the
noisy judgment of the pit.

Certainly no astronomer will regret that any opinions either off-hand or
well digested, on the first literary productions of Bailly, contributed
to throw him into the pursuit of science. Still, for the sake of
principle, it seems just to protest against the praises given to the
foresight of Lanoue, to the sureness of his judgment, to the excellence
of his advice. What was it in fact? A lad of sixteen or seventeen years
of age, composes two tolerable tragedies, and these essays are made
irrevocably to decide on his future fate. We have then forgotten that
Racine had already reached the age of twenty-two, when he first
appeared, producing _Theagenes and Charicles_, and the _Inimical
Brothers_; that Crébillon was nearly forty years of age when he composed
a tragedy on _The Death of the Sons of Brutus_, of which not a single
verse has been preserved; finally, that the two first comedies of
Molière, _The three rival Doctors_ and _The Schoolmaster_, are no longer
known but by their titles. Let us recall to mind that reflection of
Voltaire's: "It is very difficult to succeed before the age of thirty in
a branch of literature that requires a knowledge of the world and of the
human heart."

A happy chance showed that the sciences might open an honourable and