Voltaire discusses the article ‘Mânne’ for the Encyclopédie. He notes that the article seems quite good to him, and that the philosophs and the curious can be happy with it. Voltaire notes, however, that a good apothecary would have said more and demonstrated the superiority of ‘mânne grasse’ over ‘mânne maigre’.

He then goes on to say that he is very happy to be in Lausanne when d’Alemberts theologian is in Geneva. He remarks upon d’Alembert’s saying that he might see the lake again this winter, noting that he should come and bring Diderot with him so that they may play his Les Fils naturel.

Voltaire ends by asking d’Alembert to tell Madame Du Deffand that he is thinking of her even though he does not write, and to pass on his compliments to President Henault.

The manuscript is an autograph letter written in response to D16563. Dorat reflects on the badly intentioned individuals adamant to antagonise Dorat and Voltaire, with their efforts proving fruitless. The manuscript is accompanied by Dorat’s epistle dedicated to Diderot. On the 19th mme Gallatin wrote to Frederick of Hesse-Cassel ‘Nôtre ami [Voltaire] se porte bien, il m’envoya tout de suitte des plantes de Légumes pour rétablir mon jardin [after its destruction by the storm]. Pour des fruits malgré L’envie que j’aurois d’en manger il faut m’en passer, il n’en reste nulle part.’ Nôtre ami m’a chargé de vous présenter son profond respect. Mon marie et mes filles prie Vôtre Altesse Sérénissime de recevoir les leurs. Vous recevrez incessamment les deux premiers Tomes de L’anciclopédie, vous les aurez 15 jours avant personnes au monde (h*, Marburt). Enclosed with the first volume, received 9 January 1771, was the following note ‘Son Altesse Sérénissime est priée instamment que ce Livre ne sorte pas de ses mains pendant 3 semaines ou un mois. Je n’ay pas pûs L’avoir sans cette condition, La chose étant de la plus grande importance pour notre ami. Je ferois partir les 2 autres volumes successivement dans peu de jours. Mille respects’ (h*, Marburg).

Reichardt begins by raising his objections to Goethe’s last note concerning the representation of Voltaire in Rameaus Neffen, a text after Diderot. He objects to the selection, sequence, and formulation of the characteristics and then questions whether Louis XIV represented the French royal character more that Henry IV. He concludes by mentioning the very active ministerial governments under Mazarin and Richelieu.

The collection features authors such as: Voltaire; Claude Joseph Dorat; Jean-François Marmontel; and Denis Diderot.

Whether the essays were written to support the author’s theological studies, as material to be presented in convocations, or in response to the scientific revelations or debates of the time is unclear; however, a reader with initials “J.W.M” read, notated, and provided short comments on the contents. Cilley provided a few ink drawings, including a chart showing the geologic strata and time periods, as well as an image of the human heart. Many essays contain citations to theological writings of the period. Among the many philosophers and writers covered are Aristotle, Benedict Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, d’Alembart, Diderot, Voltaire, Alexander Pope, David Hume, Hugh Miller, and Enoch Pond.

In 1863, Dupanloup opposed the condidacy of Emile Littré due to his atheism and prevented his election to l’Académie française. In 1871, Littré was again a candidate and this time was elected, angering Dupanloup who then resigned. He was encouraged to reconsider his resignation by [François] Guizot and composed this letter in 1872 to explain his reasons for resigning. He notes that he still feels that the election of Littré was a ‘very regretable error’ on the part of l’Académie française before discussing their election of atheists in the past. Dupanloup first turns to Voltaire, whom he calls a ‘great wrecker’, adding that he thought it clever to wage war on Christianity and hide in l’Académie française behing auxiliaries more advanced than himself, and that Voltaire tried to get his fellow atheists [Denis] Diderot, [Claude Adrien] Helvétius, and [Paul-Henri Thiry] Baron D’Holbach elected as well but failed to succeed despite putting pressure on [Jean le Rond] D’Alembert. He notes that Voltaire had counted on the protection of Madame de Pompadour but that she could not help. He concludes that l’Académie française did not allow itself to be undermined by atheism in the eighteenth century and those that claimed to be Professors of Atheism, such as [Pierre Jean Georges] Cabanis and [François-Joseph-Victor] Broussais were never able to break through, and that this was one more reason for him to believe that he had to resign.

De Lacretelle writes that he has just read an articel in the Journal des Débats written by a ‘wide-awake muse’. He adds that he likes the generous anger against the defamers of Voltaire and says that he enjoys seeing that there is still a brilliant and passionate defender of ‘this poor 18th century which Barbarians have drowned in blood and which other Barbarians want to bury in mud.’ He concedes that he is far from being comparable to Voltaire and Diderot and that there is an old quarrel between himself and Jules Janin. De Lacretelle continues by saying that Diderot has created a dreadful word which surpasses in cynicism and atrocity what language and ‘the revolutionary reign’ have produced. He concludes by saying that he would like to have the recipient as a secon in the ‘little war’ attempted in the name of deepest friendship.

Voltaire writes that he has received d’Alembert’s letter dated 1 December and thanks him for his excellent work honouring the memory of du Marsais. He adds that he can never thank him enough for backing him up with his eloquence and reasoning as they say he did about the infamous murder of Servetus and the virute of tolerance in the Geneva article (which Voltaire notes he eagerly awaits). Voltaire then writes that wretches have tried to justify the assassination of Servetus and that these wretches are priests, though he admits that he has not read any of their works. One of these priests, whom Voltaire calls a rascal, asked the Council of Twenty-Five of Geneva for communication of the trial which, Voltaire writes, ‘will make Calvin forever execrable’ and the boarded viewed with contempt. He then asks d’Alembert who the other young priest is that wants to pass him off as a loan shark, questioning whether d’Alembert borrowed at usury from the Battle of Kollin, noting that d’Alembert had condessed that at the battle of the 5th everyone had to advance him money. Discussion then turns to war and Voltaire writes that the Austrians avenge and humiliate them terribly, noting that they have made thirteen attacks at the same time on the Prussian intrenchments, and that these attacks lasted six hours. He writes that ‘never was a victory more bloody and more horribly beautiful’, quipping that the French are more expeditious, completing their business in 5 minutes. Voltaire then discusses Frederick II, King of Prussia, remarking that Frederick always sends him verses, sometimes in despair and sometimes as a hero, and that he tries to be ‘a philosopher in my hermitage’ upon receiving them. He adds that Frederick achieved what he always wanted (to beat the French) but that the Austrians laugh at him. ‘Our shame of the 5 gave him glory’, Voltaire writes, ‘but he will have to be content with this passing glory, too easily purchased. He will lose his states with those he has taken.’ In response to d’Alembert’s suggestion that Voltaire writes a biography of Frederick II, Voltaire writes that Frederick will allow noone to write his story except for himself. Concluding the letter, Voltaire writes that there are aspects of the eulogy of du Marsais that will do great good as ‘it only takes five or six philosophers who agree to overthrow the colossus.’ He adds that he does not wish to prevent people from going to mass or hearing sermons but that it is ‘a question of snatching the fathers of families from the tyranny of imposters, and of inspiring the spirit of tolerance,’ noting that the ‘vine of truth’ has already been well cultivated by d’Alembert, Diderot, Bolingbroke, David Hume, etc. He ends by sending d’Alembert the good wishes of Marie-Louis Denis [née Mignot] [née Mignot] and asking if her ever sees the blind clairvoyant, charging d’Alembert with informing the clairvoyant that Voltaire is still very attached to her if so.