Van Effen, Spectators, and The Republic of Letters in 1723
La 2e décennie des “Spectators” en anglais et en français a vu une réévaluation du Spectateur français de Marivaux et une précision sur cette forme périodique en général. Le résultat était un modèle pour la critique rationnelle de la littérature, ainsi qu’un nombre de nouveaux ‘Spectators’ comme Le Nouveau Spectateur francais (1723-25) du journaliste Justus van Effen.
- 1 Paul Hazard, La Crise de la conscience européenne (1685‑1715), Paris, Boivin, 1935.
1If the revocation of the Edit de Nantes and the Glorious Revolution provoked what Paul Hazard has termed the ‘Crise de la conscience européenne,’1 it was witnessed, and invigorated, by an explosion of journalistic activity in England and on the continent at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. The exodus of hundreds of thousands of French protestant refugees and the consequential exportation of French culture, and authors, to England, Holland, and the rest of the continent resulted in a truly cosmopolitan period for Western Europe. At the same time, increased censorship in France and the relative freedom of the press in Holland provided a more desirable haven for French journalists such as Pierre Bayle, Jean Leclerc, Henri Basnage de Beauval, and others who found a home for their journalistic activity there. Holland also enjoyed a close cultural and political relationship with England and its increasingly lively, liberal press emanating from London’s Fleet Street, as journalism became the preferred medium for the transmission of ideas and for the so-called ‘discovery of the English and English letters by an interested continental reading public’. Among the new generation of Francophile-Anglicists, one of the most noteworthy intermediaries between the French and English was the Dutchman Justus van Effen (1684-1735), with his French translations of English authors, his ‘Dissertation sur la poésie anglaise’ (1717), and especially his many and varied periodicals in French. Among the new and vibrant periodical forms of the period, the English Spectator stands out. An early example of cross-national influences in 18th century press is Van Effen’s first ‘spectator’ in French, Le Misanthrope (1711-12), which he began two short months after the English paper in 1711.
- 2 Eugène Hatin, Histoire politique et critique de la presse, Paris, Poulet-Malassis et de Broise, 8 v (...)
- 3 Marianne Couperus, L’Étude des périodiques anciens: Colloque d'Utrecht, Paris, A G Nizet, 1973, p. (...)
- 4 Alexis Lévrier, Les Journaux de Marivaux et le monde des ‘spectateurs’, Paris, Presses de l’Univers (...)
2The form of the Spectator evolved from journalistic endeavors by the likes of Defoe, Swift, Steele and Addison’s own Tatler, and others from London’s Fleet Street; it also profited from journalism on the continent. Notions of ‘genre’ are a bit more difficult to define in the ever-changing environment of 18th-century journalism. Early ‘spectatorial’ journals are more identifiable by their contents that include short works in prose and verse, letters to the author, social, political, and literary criticism, and so on. The author-editors themselves often referred to their work as a paper or ‘flysheet’ indicating the printed form it took. French literary historians show the same hesitation; many, like Gilot in his work on Marivaux’s journals, prefer the term ‘feuille volante.’ Hatin classifies spectators as ‘journaux de genre.’2 More recent studies by Couperus and others classify them as ‘spectateurs,’3 using Addison and Steele’s journal as the model for the genre, much as Bond does in his authoritative edition of The Spectator. Lévrier adds the important aspect of the authorial voice, preferring the term ‘feuille périodique à forme personnelle.’4 All agree that spectators provide an important tool for the diffusion of ideas, as well as an excellent forum for literary criticism.
3While the model came from England, censorship still dominated France, so Holland’s relatively censor-free press provided early spectators in French; in addition to these, translations of the English Spectator began appearing in 1714. A year later, the Regency saw a gradual loosening up of censorship, resulting in a number of spectators in English, French, and Dutch, during which time Van Effen began his second spectator, La Bagatelle (1718-19), in Amsterdam.
4By the third decade of the 18th century, there was a new ‘Spectator’ in Paris who already had some journalistic experience with the Mercure de France: Marivaux launched his Spectateur français for an eager French reading public in 1721. Doubtless profiting from renewed interest in spectators, Van Effen began preparing a new edition of his Bagatelle with Le Cène, who published the first volume in 1722, and he also completed a translation of the Guardian, which would appear in 1723. But spectators did not enjoy universal approval from literary critics. Van Effen would be obliged to participate in a rather heated discussion concerning the nature and value of English and French spectators with his own Nouveau Spectateur français.
- 5 Camusat labels the Spectateur français a ‘petit esprit’ and an ‘écrivain à la douzaine.’ Van Effen (...)
5The impending controversy came to a head in 1723 when Marivaux’s Spectateur français fell prey to attacks by François Camusat in tome II of the Bibliothèque française.5 In addition, the reviewer criticizes shortcomings of spectators generally, including Van Effen’s Misanthrope and Bagatelle, and calls into question the works of one of the most prominent French writers and notable ‘Modernes’ of the period, Houdar de La Motte. Furthermore, Camusat specifically dismisses Le Je ne sais quoi, a collection or compilation also from 1723 by Cartier de Saint-Philippe: ‘…mais que peut-on espérer d’un Écrivain, qui a puisé son érudition dans La Bagatelle, & qui ne cite guères que le Misantrope, les Madrigaux de M. le Brun, & autres Livres pareils?’ (tome II, p. 247)
- 6 Van Effen, ‘Lettre à l’auteur [Camusat] de la Bibliothèque française sur l’extrait qu’il a donné du (...)
6Since Van Effen was revising his Bagatelle for publication and translating the Guardian, he was effectively without a journal at that moment, so he responded with a pamphlet: ‘Lettre à l’auteur de la Bibliothèque française sur l’extrait qu’il a donné du Je ne sais quoi,6 a pamphlet in which he discusses acceptable methods of literary criticism, as well as the intrinsic value of the works attacked by Camusat. Although he defends the right of a journalist to criticize a work of literature, he nevertheless insists on a fair and equitable method of criticism. After establishing the necessary qualifications for a good journalist, he analyzes Camusat’s rather haphazard review of Le Je ne sais quoi and proceeds point by point with textual examples in order to refute Camusat’s attacks on the title and on the author’s choice of texts. Since La Bagatelle and Le Misanthrope were haughtily dismissed in Camusat’s review, Van Effen defends these and other anonymous works by the same author (of course, Van Effen himself). An important point raised in his letter-pamphlet concerns Camusat’s alleged lack of critical method, which Van Effen then demonstrates by textually reviewing several articles from the Bibliothèque française. His systematic analysis shows inconsistencies in the plan and specific errors in the execution of Camusat’s reviews calling into question that journalist’s qualifications. Van Effen insists that one must provide proof in literary criticism, just as one must show equity in judgment, and that good criticism should benefit both the writer and the public.
- 7 See La Bibliothèque française, ou histoire littéraire de la France, 1723-1746, Amsterdam, tome III, (...)
7His pamphlet was met with a more virulent response in tome III of the Bibliothèque française, also probably by Camusat,7 with remarks that can be characterized as anything but the ‘fair and equitable method’ recommended; in fact, the response is a frontal assault on the character and works of Van Effen. With vague generalities, the reviewer of the Bibliothèque française article rejects all flysheets, and, on his own authority, contemptuously reduces Van Effen’s Misanthrope to nothing. He categorically rejects Van Effen’s reasoned arguments and attempts to put the debate on the level of the ‘Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns,’ with the reviewer as the stalwart protector of the Ancients and Authority.
- 8 Quintessence des nouvelles, La Haye, 1689-1730, 4 janvier 1724.
8To this new critique, Van Effen answered with another pamphlet: ‘Réplique à l’auteur de la Bibliothèque française;’ he gives the same, measured logic of the first pamphlet, including a point-by-point textual refutation of Camusat’s new attacks. However, this time the debate was also considered in the Quintessence des nouvelles,8 and this proved to be a better tool or medium to open up the discussion to the Republic of Letters.
9Let us note at least three important points to come out of this exchange: first, an extended discussion of the nature of the spectatorial journal; second, a discussion of the appropriate approach to literary criticism, and third, a model for the proper use of spectators for literary criticism. Clearly, this was a discussion for the press to have about the press, as well as an invitation to look at the Spectator as critic. Now, it seems apparent from the title ‘Spectator’ that a journal of that name should express a point of view, which suggests we follow the description of the spectator as a ‘feuille périodique à forme personnelle.’ So a spectator is not just a collection of short works in prose and poetry, such as the aforementioned Le Je ne sais quoi, but this type of periodical can provide a commentary on literary works, authors’ styles, and different genres, among other things. And from the English and French language spectators of this period, it is clear that this periodical can also be a forum or medium for the critical exchange of ideas – social, moral, as well as literary. We should also note that Camusat’s, and later Desfontaine’s denigration of the spectatorial journal did not herald the end of the spectator as a journalistic form, quite to the contrary. In just a few months there was a marked rise in the number of spectators in French: Le Spectateur suisse appeared in September 1723, Le Spectateur inconnu a month later, and Van Effen’s Nouveau Spectateur français in December of the same year.
- 9 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, ou Discours dans lesquels on voit un portrait naïf des mœurs de ce (...)
- 10 Ibid.
- 11 Characteristically, Van Effen re-enforces the point of his essay in the quote from Virgil’s Enéide,(...)
10In his third spectator, Van Effen brings together his thoughts on literary criticism in general and on the English and French spectators in particular. He begins his journal with praise for the original model, pointing to ‘l'excellence du Spectateur anglais’ to which he himself aspires: ‘En un mot, le Spectateur anglais contient, pour ainsi dire, la fleur de l'esprit et la force de la raison des plus beaux génies de la Grande Bretagne.’9 While he also praises the Spectateur français (‘Cet auteur a de l'esprit, du feu, du style.’),10 he gives a more ‘cautious’ evaluation of the Parisian emulator:11
- 12 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, p 2.
Par tout ce que jusqu'ici il nous a découvert de son génie, il paraît propre à donner des idées de la superficie [je souligne] de la morale et à guérir les hommes d'un certain ridicule extérieur qui ne vient pas toujours d'un principe de vice et d'extravagance, mais qui empêche à coup sûr la raison et la vertu de briller de tout le lustre qui leur est naturel.12
- 13 Ibid., p. 2-3.
- 14 Ibid., p. 5.
- 15 Ibid., p. 5.
- 16 See, for example, Frédéric Deloffre, Une Préciosité Nouvelle, Marivaux et le Marivaudage, Paris, 19 (...)
- 17 Marivaux’s journals have been studied in depth by Deloffre and Gilot, and most recently, by Lévrier (...)
11And he states further, ‘Ses idées, qui ne paraissent pas les fruits d'une recherche bien profonde, ne sont pas même toujours extrêmement nettes et sûres, et il n'est pas rare que l'expression occupe bien plus de place chez lui que le sens.’13 After considerations of the intended reading public, Van Effen encourages the Spectateur français to engage in more banter or ‘badinage’ with his French readers, pointing out, ‘Le Spectateur français ne se sert pas de ces sages fourberies autant qu'il le devrait.’14 He insists: ‘Les Français sont passionnés pour les idées riantes et comiques; on pourrait se servir avec succès de cette passion même. On pourrait badiner [je souligne] avec eux sur leur propre ridicule en faisant toujours du bon sens la base de la raillerie.’15 Of course, most Marivaux scholars, notably Deloffre,16 but also many others, would characterize Marivaux’s style, his ‘marivaudage,’ as a ‘badinage,’ even at times a ‘badinage à froid,’ which Marivaux has mastered so well and which pervades his entire works, including his journals.17
12In the first number, we should also note Van Effen’s desire to imitate this ‘bel esprit,’ whom he even later refers to as his ‘confrère parisien:’
Malgré la grande différence que j'ai cru devoir mettre entre les deux Spectateurs, j'ai pourtant rendu justice à celui qui paraît en France; cet auteur a du génie, et peut‑être se portera‑t‑il un jour à en faire l'usage que je viens de décrire. Parmi ses discours j'en trouve d'écrits d'une manière si brillante et si agréable que je me ferai un plaisir d'en insérer de temps en temps quelques‑uns dans mon ouvrage, que je tâcherai de varier autant que les bornes de mon génie me le permettront. J'ai imité la hardiesse de ce bel esprit en me donnant les airs de prendre le titre de Spectateur; c'est une démarche qui mérite d'être justifiée.
13In Number 2 of Le Nouveau Spectateur français, Van Effen discusses the nature of literary controversies in an effort to illustrate the proper manner to conduct literary criticism, and he considers Marivaux’s treatment in the press, specifically La Bibliothèque française and Le Mercure de France. Unlike Van Effen’s two previous spectators, Le Misanthrope, a weekly half‑sheet, and the lighter, often more frivolous Bagatelle, a quarter‑sheet published twice a week, Le Nouveau Spectateur français was a full sheet which appeared every two weeks. The longer format allowed him to develop his ideas on critical methods and give a more in-depth analysis of specific authors and works. In addition, the tone of Le Nouveau Spectateur français was more serious, much like the English Guardian or Le Mentor moderne, which he had just translated.
14Van Effen argues that a worthy work of literature should be able to withstand examination by any critic; he continues to insist on a fair and equitable, rational approach to literary criticism. During this period of the ‘Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns,’ he had seen the tyranny of certain factions who distorted the arguments of their adversaries and who turned away from real literary discussion to matters of party politics. The right of the author to defend himself, should, he concludes, be permitted in all cases, and as a critic himself, Van Effen consistently defends the right to criticize literature in all of his journals, noting the beneficial effect on writer and public alike. He observes with regret, however, that some journalists are biased in their approach to criticism. A common problem for Van Effen (as well as for us) was the critic who did not consider both sides of a given work, but rather preferred to attack its shortcomings and to ignore its positive attributes. Van Effen notes that this is especially true of journalists, in whose profession criticism plays a major role, and by the very nature of that profession, journalists should be of great service to their reading public, but often they abuse their privileged position. Moreover, some critics pretend to faithfully voice the judgment of the public at large, but frequently this is only a public of one. Van Effen comes to the defense of his fellow Parisian Spectator, pleading for reason instead of ‘décision.’
- 18 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, p. 29.
J'ai remarqué dans le Mercure que plusieurs beaux esprits en France ne sont pas fort scrupuleux observateurs de la plupart des règles que j'ai tâché d'établir. Mon confrère, le Spectateur de Paris, est inondé dans cette pièce d'un déluge de décisions injurieuses; je ne sais pas les raisons qui peuvent lui avoir attiré des ennemis si impétueux, mais je sais bien que leur conduite me paraîtrait extrêmement méprisable quand cet auteur n'aurait pas un fort grand mérite. Je soupçonne toujours que des gens qui décident ne savent pas raisonner. Quel effort de génie faut‑il pour traiter un homme de petit esprit et d'écrivain à la douzaine? Un crocheteur s'en acquitterait aussi bien qu'un bel esprit, et ce style lui conviendrait beaucoup mieux.18
15Le Nouveau Spectateur français expresses the hope that his work will always serve as a defense against the kind of arbitrary decision that is the enemy of rational literary and moral criticism.
16Number 3 considers specific examples from Marivaux’s second Spectateur français, which Van Effen analyses following his own guidelines of textual criticism established in the previous number. He judges Marivaux’s characterization of a woman of the world – ‘jeune, aimable, aimée’ – who attempts to be virtuous, to be representative of the author’s talent and insight as a Spectator. The journalist’s quarrel with the portrait lies not in the literary execution of the coquette, but in its rather unconvincing pretention as a portrait of virtue. He gives textual examples by which he finds the character presented as too artificial, too affected. He continues, ‘Toute cette lettre pèche par un excès d'esprit,’ pointing out examples of what he considers pompous nonsense which renders the description less than believable as a moral portrait.
- 19 Ibid., n° 3, 6, 8, and 9.
- 20 Ibid., see n° 12, 13, 14, and 15.
- 21 Jean Sgard has identified this early example of autobiographical fiction by Van Effen which was rep (...)
- 22 See op. cit., Lévrier, p. 340-41.
17Now, as the first ‘Spectator’ in French, Van Effen’s positive influence on the genre, and on Marivaux, has been noted before, but it should also be noted that Van Effen did not hesitate to profit from his Parisian colleague as well: Le Nouveau Spectateur français lifts entire numbers from Marivaux’s Spectateur français to illustrate his points of criticism, as well as to fill out his own journal. 19 Critics have observed that Marivaux did not always seem to be very comfortable with the tight, concise spectatorial essay and that some of his spectators, such as those which include the ‘Histoire d’une Dame Âgée,’ are more accurately novelistic sketches. Although this innovation may not be typical of spectators, Van Effen readily recognizes the instructional potential of this longer historiette. Furthermore, Marivaux’s ‘Histoire d’une Dame Âgée’20 inspired Van Effen’s autobiographical fiction in Numbers 25 through 28, the ‘Lettre d’un homme d’âge.’21 It is almost as if Marivaux was Van Effen’s collaborator from the very beginning. So, Marivaux, whom Van Effen calls ‘Mon confrère,’ has much more than just a passing influence on Le Nouveau Spectateur français.22
- 23 He analyzes La Ligue in numbers 18 and 19. See my study ‘La Henriade Revisited,’ Studies on Voltair (...)
18The question remains, how does Le Nouveau Spectateur français work as criticism? In addition to Marivaux’s Spectateur français, Van Effen applies his ideas of literary criticism to the nine extant cantos of ‘La Ligue,’ which would later become La Henriade, from the young, epic poet Arouet de Voltaire,23 and he gives an extensive review in numbers 21 through 24 of the complete works of one of the best-known French poets of the times, Antoine Houdar de La Motte. Considering La Motte’s generous reaction, all three authors could easily echo what he wrote later in his ‘Discours à l’occasion de la tragédie de Romulus:’
- 24 Antoine Houdar de La Motte, Œuvres complètes, Paris, 1754, Geneva, Slatkine Reprints, 1971, p. 139- (...)
Je dois cependant rendre ici justice à un de mes censeurs. J’ai vu dans le Spectateur français, imprimé depuis quelques années en Hollande, une critique de tous mes ouvrages, dont l’auteur me paraît aussi équitable qu’éclairé, et de qui la modestie n’est pas douteuse, puisque, approuvé du public, il s’obstine encore à lui cacher son nom […] Je n’ai pas voulu perdre cette occasion de remercier sincèrement mon critique et de lui apprendre que, depuis ses réflexions sur mes ouvrages, il a un nouvel ami dont il ne se doutait peut-être pas. 24
19If journalism can be considered one of the ‘tools of transfer’ for cultural interaction between France and Britain, then the spectator is certainly an important one of those tools. The debate in 1723 over the spectator led to the continuation of a strong tradition of spectators in French as Lévrier’s book shows. And if we look at just the three to four year period starting with 1723, Van Effen took advantage of four spectators in a relatively short period of time, which certainly suggests the validity of the Spectator as critic: 1) A new edition of La Bagatelle (1722-24) 2) His translation of the Guardian (1723) by the authors of the now famous English Spectator, with a defense of spectators in Van Effen’s ‘Préface’ 3) Le Nouveau Spectateur français (first as flysheets in 1723-25, then in volume, 1725-26), and finally 4) A new edition of Le Misanthrope (1726).
- 25 Van Effen defends Dr. Paul Maty against La Chapelle’s attacks; see my monograph The Life and Works (...)
- 26 ‘Lettre de M. G. M. à un de ses Amis de Paris sur les Écrits publiés contre Mr. le Docteur Pingré’ (...)
20If the reader will permit a rather gross generalization, indeed simplification, of the socio-historico-political moment, I think it is fair to say that by the end of the third decade of the 18th century, Europe saw the continuing political and economic decline of Holland and the subsequent rise of England on the European stage. The Dutchman Van Effen’s role in the Republic of Letters also changed: he did continue editing reviews in French, such as L'Histoire littéraire de l'Europe (1726‑27), and he did continue to be engaged in literary disputes throughout his career. While the debate on ‘fair and equitable criticism’ continued, and continues today, Van Effen also continued to defend his position. For example, he was once again drawn into a very public literary controversy in 1730 with La Chapelle,25 to whom he responded with two pamphlets, the ‘Essai sur la manière de traiter la Controverse…,’ and the ‘Suite de l’essai sur la manière de traiter la controverse.’ In 1731, he rose to the defense of Doctor Pingré26 with his ‘Lettre de M. G. M. à un de ses amis de Paris sur les écrits publiés contre M. le Docteur Pingré,’ which he published in the Bibliothèque française. However, it is also true that the cosmopolitan times had changed; Holland and Van Effen were to play a smaller role in the affairs of Europe. Van Effen did write one final spectator: he spent the last five years of his life writing his Dutch Spectator, De Hollandsche Spectator (1731-35), which is considered to be a masterpiece of Dutch prose.
- 27 See D. F. Bond, p. xcvi and the following.
21What Bond describes as ‘a distinctively eighteenth-century genre,’27 spectators played a significant role in the development of the English and the French press. In spite of some differences in reading publics, English and French spectators served as an important tool for the diffusion of ideas beyond national and linguistic borders, as well as an excellent forum for literary criticism. However, the spectator itself had to change with the times as journals and their publics continued to evolve. Still, Van Effen’s points on literary criticism and his call for fair and equitable literary criticism continue to be applicable today.
1 Paul Hazard, La Crise de la conscience européenne (1685‑1715), Paris, Boivin, 1935.
2 Eugène Hatin, Histoire politique et critique de la presse, Paris, Poulet-Malassis et de Broise, 8 vols, 1859-61 p. 127
3 Marianne Couperus, L’Étude des périodiques anciens: Colloque d'Utrecht, Paris, A G Nizet, 1973, p. 120.
4 Alexis Lévrier, Les Journaux de Marivaux et le monde des ‘spectateurs’, Paris, Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, collection « Lettres françaises », 2007. See chapter IV.
5 Camusat labels the Spectateur français a ‘petit esprit’ and an ‘écrivain à la douzaine.’ Van Effen examines this critique in numbers 1 and 2 of Le Nouveau Spectateur français and considers a specific example of Marivaux’s Spectateur français in number 3.
6 Van Effen, ‘Lettre à l’auteur [Camusat] de la Bibliothèque française sur l’extrait qu’il a donné du Je ne sais quoi, p. 246, etc., du Tome II de sa Bibliothèque,’ (Pamphlet 1723).
1741) and ‘Réplique à l’auteur de la Bibliothèque française’ (Pamphlet 1724) both pamphlets are reprinted in Le Je ne sais quoi by Cartier de Saint-Philippe, Utrecht, J. Broedelet, 1741.
7 See La Bibliothèque française, ou histoire littéraire de la France, 1723-1746, Amsterdam, tome III, p. 160 and the following; he gives a specific critique of Le Misanthrope and La Bagatelle on pages 166-76.
8 Quintessence des nouvelles, La Haye, 1689-1730, 4 janvier 1724.
9 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, ou Discours dans lesquels on voit un portrait naïf des mœurs de ce siècle, La Haye, Jean Néaulme, 1725-6, 2 vols, t. 1, p. 2.
11 Characteristically, Van Effen re-enforces the point of his essay in the quote from Virgil’s Enéide,
Sequitur non passibus aequis.
Il suit, mais non à pas égaux. (II, 724).
12 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, p 2.
13 Ibid., p. 2-3.
14 Ibid., p. 5.
15 Ibid., p. 5.
16 See, for example, Frédéric Deloffre, Une Préciosité Nouvelle, Marivaux et le Marivaudage, Paris, 1955, Armand Colin, 1971.
17 Marivaux’s journals have been studied in depth by Deloffre and Gilot, and most recently, by Lévrier, who considers spectators in French from 1711-34, including all three French spectators by Van Effen, in his Journaux de Marivaux et le monde des ‘spectateurs’.
18 Le Nouveau Spectateur français, p. 29.
19 Ibid., n° 3, 6, 8, and 9.
20 Ibid., see n° 12, 13, 14, and 15.
21 Jean Sgard has identified this early example of autobiographical fiction by Van Effen which was reprinted in 1729 as Réfléxions de T * * * sur les égarements de sa jeunesse; see his new edition, Paris, Desjonquières, 2001.
22 See op. cit., Lévrier, p. 340-41.
23 He analyzes La Ligue in numbers 18 and 19. See my study ‘La Henriade Revisited,’ Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 256, 1988, p. 1-20.
24 Antoine Houdar de La Motte, Œuvres complètes, Paris, 1754, Geneva, Slatkine Reprints, 1971, p. 139-41
25 Van Effen defends Dr. Paul Maty against La Chapelle’s attacks; see my monograph The Life and Works of Justus van Effen (p. 97) for both his ‘Essai sur la manière de traiter la Controverse, en forme de Lettre adressée à Monsieur De La Chapelle,’ Visch, Utrecht, 1730, and his ‘Suite de l’essai sur la manière de traiter la Controverse, en forme de lettre à Monsieur De La Chapelle,’ Visch, Utrecht, 1730.
26 ‘Lettre de M. G. M. à un de ses Amis de Paris sur les Écrits publiés contre Mr. le Docteur Pingré’ in the Bibliothèque française, 1731, t XV, 2e partie, article VI, p. 312-49.
27 See D. F. Bond, p. xcvi and the following.Haut de page
Pour citer cet article
James L Schorr, « Van Effen, Spectators, and The Republic of Letters in 1723 », Études Épistémè [En ligne], 26 | 2014, mis en ligne le 09 décembre 2014, consulté le 30 avril 2017. URL : http://episteme.revues.org/308 ; DOI : 10.4000/episteme.308Haut de page
Haut de page
Études Epistémè is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.