This copy, produced by Gouroff, rector of the University of St Petersburg, is addressed to Beuchot. It is a copy of a manuscript said to have been held in the archives of the Bastille which was is missing from the folder ‘Autographes 288’ at the National Library of Russia.

The copy differs from the printed version of the text in two key ways: the section on Rousseau is less developed, and the conclusion is different as it does not include the letter to P. Tournemine.

In this addition ot the Memoire, Voltaire describes having hear Francesco Algarotti speak about Sir Isaac Newton.

In the mémoire, Voltaire claims that his Histoire Universelle has been disfigured by Jean Néaulme in Berlin and Duchesne in Paris. He notes that it is not his fault if there have been unworthy popes, bad princes, and bad bishops, and neither is it his fault that people at court are ignorant. He asks the recipient to get rid of the existing copies of the work if possible, and asks to make public the purity of his conduct before the King, adding that he is threatened with an outburst from the Archibishop of Paris.

The letter has been encoded, with the numerical code running beneath the text.

Voltaire details the attack on Decroze by Ancian, providing an account of when the attack happened, who was involved, and the injuries sustained by Decroze.

Voltaire details the attack on Decroze by Ancian, providing an account of when the attack happened, who was involved, and the injuries sustained by Decroze.

Voltaire details the attack on Decroze by Ancian, providing an account of when the attack happened, who was involved, and the injuries sustained by Decroze.

The memoire begins by noting that the father of Decroze brought his case to the Lieutenant on 31 December who called two witnesses that same day. The case was then passed to the public prosecutor of the King on 5 January for him to give his conclusions, but the prosecutor refused to take the case. Decroze’s father was was unhappy about this, saying that theft of a life was equitable to theft of property, and saying that he would issue a summons to the lieutenant which would oblige the public prosecutor of the King to give a verdict. He did this, but the prosecutor refused to take the case until 11 January, by which time the attackers had had time to flee to other countries.

The memoire begins by noting that the father of Decroze brought his case to the Lieutenant on 31 December who called two witnesses that same day. The case was then passed to the public prosecutor of the King on 5 January for him to give his conclusions, but the prosecutor refused to take the case. Decroze’s father was was unhappy about this, saying that theft of a life was equitable to theft of property, and saying that he would issue a summons to the lieutenant which would oblige the public prosecutor of the King to give a verdict. He did this, but the prosecutor refused to take the case until 11 January, by which time the attackers had had time to flee to other countries.