Racine begins by saying that he had received the verse attached to Heerkens’ letter, but that he has not yet received the beginning of the work which Heerkens had told him would be returned to him by one of his friends. He then goes on to discuss the “impertinent” article on Rousseau in Bayle’s supplement. He notes that Heerkens will find in Trévoux’s second brief of the month a letter from him in which he states that such slanders that hatred has dictated deserve only contempt. Racine then discusses a “violent fermentation” in the minds of the public, stating his hope for peace. He concedes, however, that given the King’s last response to the reprimands that this still seems very far away. He then comments on Damiens’ attempt to assassinate Louis XV of France the day before he wrote this letter on 5 January 1757. Racine notes that much is known of Damiens’ family and life story, but little of the plot itself, and quotes the King who remarked that if the blow is struck from abroad it is but a scratch, but if the blow comes from his people it is a deep wound. Racine concludes by discussing the seven octavo volumes that constitute Voltaire’s Histoire universelle, adding that Voltaire’s bold reflections and lively style encourage Racine to read all that he writes. He notes that Voltaire imposes on the ignorant, but will never impose on the savants who will not seek in him the truth of history.

The manuscript is an autograph letter written in the hand of Anne Marguerite Feydeau and recounting the story of Anne Marguerite Feydeau, a nun of the Cistercian convent of Willancourt, in Abbeville. It comprehensively discusses the speculatively unfounded allegations made against Feydeau’s conduct, including undue indulgence in entertainment, the excessive company of male visitors and negligence of her fellow nuns in need. Feydeau refutes most of the accusations and illustrates how the slander inflicted significant distress, compelling her to relocate on multiple occasions.

The manuscript is an autograph letter recounting the story of Anne Marguerite Feydeau, a nun of the Cistercian convent of Willancourt, in Abbeville. It comprehensively discusses the speculatively unfounded allegations made against Feydeau’s conduct, including undue indulgence in entertainment, too frequent company of male visitors and negligence of her fellow nuns in need. Feydeau refutes most of the accusations and illustrates how the slander inflicted significant distress, compelling her to relocate on multiple occasions.

In this letter, the writer addresses Madame, reflecting on past misunderstandings and the maligning of their reputation. They express disappointment over false attributions and slanderous claims made against them, particularly regarding the works of literature. The writer also conveys gratitude for Madame’s generosity and support, notably in helping a deserving physician. Despite their own misfortunes and the ill-treatment they have experienced, they commend Madame for her benevolence and reaffirm their respect and admiration.

D’Argens discusses Voltaire’s actions towards Frederick the Great, and defends him because his enemies published writings under his name in order to discredit him. He adds that it would have been good for Voltaire if he had followed his advice or at least heeded it now and notes that if Voltaire behaved well with the Margravine in Bayreuth, it would easily be possible that everything could be put right again.

Voltaire begins by asking Marie-Anne de Vichy-Chamrond, marquise Du Deffand for a topic of conversation, saying that he likes to talk to her but does not have a subject on which to write. He states that he is neither devout nor ungodly, and that he is a lone farmer buried in a barbaric country, likening those in Paris to monkeys and those in Ferney as bears. He notes that he avoids both where possible, but that the teeth and claws of persecution have lengthened until his retirement and wish to poison his last days. Voltaire then claims that the King, who is not jealous of either his verse or prose, will not believe his persecutors and will not use his powers to expatriate a 65-year-old patient who has only done good in the country he lives in. He then turns to Jean-Philippe-René de La Bléterie whom he reports is a Janesnist seeking the protection of the Duc de Choiseul. He speaks of his dislike of La Bléterie because he insulted Voltaire in the notes of his translation of Tacitus. Voltaire questions why anyone seeking the favour of the Duc de Choiseul should insult him in passing. He concludes with a discussion of the ‘innocent and cheerful pieces’ that the Marquise spoke to him about, asking how he should send them to her, and musing on whether sending them to her would result in malicious jokes and slander.

Voltaire writes that he only received the Baron’s two letters yesterday, adding that it is true that Rousseau and two or three others in Paris have been slandering him. Voltaire notes that he thanks them as absurd, self-destructing lies only harm their authors. He then discusses the rumours, writing that Rousseau had claimed that he had come to Leiden to profess atheism and that he had had a very heated argument with Sgravesende. Voltaire notes that his friend and master Mr. Sgravesende was so indignant about this that he publicly worte: ‘je déclare qu’un mensonge si impudent n’a point été imaginé par un Hollandois. C’est ce que je soutiens pour l’honneur de notre nation.’ Voltaire then turns to his works, noting that a very fine edition has been begun, and that they will contain nothing that is unworthy of an honest man. He ends the letter by stating that he is leaving for England but will return to Leiden in June.

Voltaire begins by stating that the recipients must have received his refutation of the ‘calumnies’ which Rousseau had provided to be inserted in their journal. He states that he expects justice in the form of the publication of his refutation, but asks that the article concerning Mr. Saurin is cut as he was already pitied enough. Voltaire concludes by saying that he is to be pitied for having to sustain such a humiliating combat, but that to leave the calumnies unanswered would be even more humiliating. He scoffs that he has been accused of irreligion and satire by Rousseau and quips that it is like being accused of theft by Cartouche [the highwayman Louis Dominique Bourguignon].