ed pensions in his grand manner, omitting to pay
them after the second year. Regnard seems to have written to let his
countrymen know where he had been,--not to tell them what he had seen.
Had he made ever so good a book out of his really remarkable journey,
little notice would have been taken of it. Voyages and travels were
looked upon as a dull branch of fiction,--not nearly so amusing or
improving as cockney excursions from one town of France to another in
the neighborhood, described after the manner of Bachaumont and Chapelle:
not sentimental journeys, by any means; eating, drinking, and sleeping
are the points of interest:--

"Bon vin, bon gite, bon lit,
Belle hotesse, bon appetit."

Even Regnard, who had seen so much of the world, tried his hand at this
kind of travel-writing and failed lamentably.

At thirty, Regnard closed a chapter in his life, and turned over a new
leaf. He gave up wandering and gambling, the ruling passions of his
youth, and settled himself comfortably for the rest of his days. For
occupation and official position, he bought an assistant-treasurership
in the _Bureau des Finances_. His house in the Rue Richelieu became
famous for good company and good things, intellectual as well as
material. In the country his _Terre de Grillon_ was planted with so much
taste that the lively persons who liked to visit there called it a
_Sejour enchante_. In laying out his grounds, his intimate, Dufresny,
was doubtless of use to him. This spendthrift poet, reputed
great-grandson of Henri Quatre and the _belle jardiniere_, had great
skill in landscape gardening, admitted even by those who found his
verses tedious. He it was, probably, who introduced Regnard to the
stage. For several years they supplied the Theatre Italien with amusing
trifles,--working together in one of those literary partnerships so
common among French playwrights. The "Joueur" broke up this business
connection. Dufresny accused Regnard of having stolen the plot from him,
and brought out a "Joueur" of his own. Regnard insisted that Dufresny
was the pirate. The public decided in favor of Regnard. Dufresny's play
was hopelessly damned, and no appeal ever taken from the first sentence.
The verdict of the _bel-esprits_ was recorded in an epigram, which ended
thus:--

"Mais quiconque aujourd'hui voit l'un et l'autre ouvrage
Dit que Regnard a l'avantage
D'avoir ete le 'bon larron.'"[F]

Dufresny had more wit than dramatic