Voltaire was not the only rival to show hostility.  Destouches, in the Envieux, ou la Critique du Philosophe marie (XII), Le Sage, in Gil Blas (Book VII, chapter XIII), as well as Crebillon fils, in the work already mentioned, were among the number.

Marivaux’s admission to the French Academy had long been a matter of grave doubt to his friends, for he was too honest for intrigue and too proud to sue for favours, and there was much opposition on the part of many members, who declared that their purposes were at war, as they had assumed the task of composing the language, while he seemed to aim at its decomposition; but Mme. de Tencin had set her mind upon making of him an academician, and spared no pains to accomplish her purpose.  The influence of this brilliant, scheming, unprincipled, and headstrong woman, aided by Bouhier, president of the parliament of Dijon, and likewise a warm supporter of Marivaux, gained the day, and she had the pleasure of seeing her old friend, upon his fifty-fifth birthday, February 4, 1743, received within the ranks of the forty Immortals.  Voltaire, although a dangerous competitor, was not received until three years later; Piron, Le Sage, and Crebillon fils, never.

Strangely enough, this painter of gay and brilliant society succeeded to the fauteuil of an ecclesiastic, l’abbe d’Houtteville, and was welcomed by another, Languet de Gergy, archbishop of Sens.  At his death his place was filled by still another, a certain abbe de Radonvilliers.  The task of the archbishop was not one of the easiest, for it devolved upon him to eulogize an author, many of whose works, by reason of his ecclesiastical position, he was not supposed to have read.  The acquaintance that he shows with them, however, is rather too intimate to credit his assertion that his judgment is drawn from hearsay:  but with due deference to public opinion and his supposed position, the archbishop lauds rather the character of the man than the excellence of the author, declaring that it is not so much for the multitude of his books, though welcomed by the public with avidity, that Marivaux owes his election, as it is to “l’estime que nous avons faite de vos moeurs, de votre bon coeur, de la douceur de votre societe, et, si j’ose le dire, de l’amabilite de votre caractere."[159]

Along with much praise of the author’s ability, with flattering comparisons such as these:  “Theophraste moderne, rien n’a echappe a vos portraits critiques....  Le celebre La Bruyere parait, dit-on, ressusciter en vous...” are criticisms upon the immoral influence of certain of his works, particularly the Paysan parvenu, which claim to have a moral aim.  The archbishop suggests that his descriptions of licentious love are painted in such “naive and tender colors” that they must create upon the reader an impression other than that intended by the author, and that the young may be led to follow the example of the “paysan, parvenu a la fortune par des intrigues galantes,” in spite of his recommendations of sobriety.[160]