[Footnote 106: Voltaire asserts that this idea is a mistake. He assures us (Siècle de Louis XIV., chap. 32.) that the marquis de Fénélon, the archbishop's nephew, declared the contrary, and related that the writing of Telemachus was his uncle's recreation, when exiled at Cambray. Voltaire considers this statement supported by his notion that no priest would have made the loves of Calypso and Eucharis the subject of a work to be placed in a young prince's hands. His assertion, however, is liable to many objections. Fénélon was exiled in 1697. Telemachus was put into a printer's hands in Paris in 1698; and was published in Holland in 1699, the year in which the brief of the pope, condemning the Maxims of the Saints, was issued. This interval, which did not include, when the months are numbered, more than a year and a half, was employed by the archbishop in composing replies to Bossuet's attacks; and we discover no moment of leisure for Telemachus. Nothing can be more futile than Voltaire's other objection. The loves of Calypso and Eucharis are, indeed, touched with the tenderness and warmth that characterised Fénélon, but are such as he would consider exemplifying the temptations and corruptions of a court, and suited both to warn his pupil against them, and to show him the path of escape. Fénélon was in the habit of composing fables for the instruction of the prince, while a child, and dialogues for the same purpose, as he advanced in age. There is every reason to believe that he prepared Telemachus to be put into his hands at the dawn of manhood. This idea is the great charm of the work. It excuses its monitorial tone; it explains the nature of the instruction it conveys. It is a monument of the principles of government and morals which he deemed adapted to the sovereign of a great kingdom. As merely a work written to amuse himself, it is pedantic, and, in parts, almost childish; as a manual for the young and ardent prince, who was destined to succeed Louis XIV., to consult when entering into life, it is the best book that was ever written.] [Footnote 107: Le Tellier, archbishop of Rheims, remarked on this, that Fénélon did right, thinking as he did; and he did right, with his opinions. The worldly-mindedness of Le Tellier was so open as to cause him to say good things himself, and to be the cause of them in others. It was he who said of our James II., "There is a good man, who lost three kingdoms for a mass." He said no man could be honest under five hundred a year. Inquiring of Boileau concerning a man's probity, the satirist replied, "He wants an hundred a year of being an honest man."]