Brullé « L’ostrogoth » identifié

On connaissait jusqu’ici peu de choses sur l’encyclopédiste Brullé, sinon qu’il était l’auteur des articles IMPRIMERIE et PROTE, qu’il était contremaître dans l’imprimerie d’André-François Le Breton, l’éditeur de l’Encyclopédie, s’attirant par là l’inimitié de Diderot. Grâce à la découverte de deux documents aux Archives nationales, nous savons maintenant que son nom complet était Louis-Claude Brullé, qu’il avait reçu une formation d’imprimeur, qu’il n’était ni riche ni pauvre, et qu’il vivait modestement dans un appartement de la rive gauche où il mourut en 1772. Nous pouvons supposer en outre que s’il avait censuré l’Encyclopédie, c’était à cause de ses convictions royalistes et catholiques, ainsi que par loyauté envers Le Breton.Brullé “L’ostrogoth” identifiedLittle was know previously about the Encyclopedist Brullé except that he was the author of the articles IMPRIMERIE and PROTE, that he supervised the printing shop of André- François Le Breton, the publisher of the Encylopédie, and that he had helped his employer censor the Encyclopédie and thus earned the enmity of Diderot. Thanks to the discovery of two documents in the Archives Nationales, we now know that his full name was Louis- Claude Brullé, that he was trained as a printer, that he was neither rich nor poor, and that he lived modestly in an apartment on the Left Bank, where he died in 1772. Also we suspect that he was motivated to censor the Encyclopédie because he was a royalist and a sincere Catholic as well as a loyal employee of Le Breton

La vie agitée de l’abbé De Gua de Malves et sa direction de l’Encyclopédie

Cet article présente la vie de Jean-Paul de Gua De Malves et les rapports de celui-ci avec l’Encyclopédie. Savant et mathématicien, De Gua devint membre de l’Académie royale des sciences et professeur au Collège royal de France peu après la trentaine, mais impulsif, querelleur et dépourvu d’esprit pratique, il démissionna bientôt des deux institutions. Aujourd’hui il est mieux connu comme premier directeur de l’Encyclopédie, fonction qu’il occupa pendant quelque treize mois en 1746 et 1747. Selon nous, son influence sur l’Encyclopédie ne fut pas grande et la suggestion de Condorcet, selon laquelle De Gua aurait conçu les grandes lignes de l’Encyclopédie sans pouvoir participer à son « exécution », ne peut être retenue. On peut certes reconnaître l’influence possible de deux idées de De Gua sur l’Encyclopédie, à savoir celle d’une encyclopédie écrite par des « spécialistes » et celle d’une encyclopédie faisant la part belle sur les arts mécaniques, mais ces idées ne lui étaient pas propres et leur réalisation pratique dans l’Encyclopédie, loin d’être engagée en 1747 ou même en 1751, fut l’un des accomplissements majeurs de Diderot, de D’Alembert et de leurs collaborateursThe Busy Life of abbé De Gua De Malves and his Direction of the EncyclopédieThis article deals with the life of Jean-Paul De Gua De Malves and his relationship with the Encyclopédie. Du Gua, who was a scholar and a mathematician, became in his earlythirties a member of the Académie royale des sciences and professor at the Collègeroyal de France, but as he was impulsive, quarrelsome and completely unpractical, hesoon resigned from both institutions. Today he is better known as the first director of theEncyclopédie, for thirteen months from 1746 to 1747. In our opinion, his influence on theEncyclopédie was not very great and Condorcet’s suggestion that De Gua laid down themain principles of the work without being able to take part in their application is notcredible. We can see a possible influence of two of De Gua’s ideas, namely that of anencyclopaedia written by “specialists” and emphasizing mechanical arts. But these ideas were not specifically his, and their application, far from being underway by 1747, or even 1751, was one of the major achievements of Diderot, D’Alembert and their collaborator

André-François Le Breton, initiateur et libraire en chef de l’Encyclopédie

Dans cet article, nous proposons en premier lieu une actualisation de l’article sur Le Breton publié par l’un de nous, Frank Kafker, dans Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture en 1976. En même temps, tout en nous concentrant sur l’engagement de Le Breton dans l’Encyclopédie, nous situons ses réalisations dans un contexte plus large. En particulier, nous le comparons aux autres libraires associés de l’Encyclopédie et aux autres libraires de son époque afin de faire ressortir sa spécificité en tant qu’homme d’affaires.The aim of this article is first of all to update the article on Le Breton published by one of the authors (Frank Kafker) in Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture in 1976. At the same time, while concentrating on Le Breton’s involvement in the Encyclopédie, we situate his activity in a wider context. We compare him in particular to the other booksellers associated with the Encyclopédie and with other contemporary booksellers in order to bring out what made him different as a businessman

Diderot et Laurent Durand, son éditeur principal

Quoique peu connu, Laurent Durand (1712-1763) fut l’un des libraires français les plus importants du dix-huitième siècle. Il fut en outre l’éditeur principal de Diderot, responsable de la publication de plusieurs des ouvrages clandestins les plus notoires de celui-ci. Les rapports professionnels compliqués entre les deux hommes constituent l’objet de cet article. Entre autres choses, nous essayons d’expliquer le brusque affaiblissement de leurs relations commerciales après 1749 et de préciser l’engagement de Durand – mytérieusement tiède par rapport à celui de ses trois associés Briasson, David, et Le Breton - dans la publication de l’Encyclopédie.Diderot and his main publisher Laurent DurandAlthough little known, Laurent Durand (1712-1763) was one of the most important book-sellers of eighteenth-century France. He was also Diderot’s primary publisher, responsible for the publication of several of the latter’s most notorious clandestine works. The complex professional ties between the two men constitute the focus of this article. Among other things, we attempt to explain why their commercial relationship abruptly declined after 1749 and to clarify Durand’s involvement in the publication of the Encyclopédie, which was curiously weak compared with that of his three co-publishers Briasson, David, and Le Breton

L’Admiration d’Adam Smith pour l’Encyclopédie

Cet article traite des rapports, surtout d’admiration, du philosophe et économiste écossais Adam Smith avec l’Encyclopédie. Dans un premier temps, nous nous concentrons sur la recension élogieuse de l’Encyclopédie par Smith pour l’Edinburgh Review de 1755-1756. On en vient ensuite à son achat de l’Encyclopédie et de certains textes apparentés, soit pour la bibliothèque de l’université de Glasgow, soit pour sa propre bibliothèque. Enfin, nous analysons des références à l’Encyclopédie dans l’oeuvre de Smith. En éclairant la carrière intellectuelle de Smith, cette étude offre un regard nouveau sur les Lumières françaises et sur la réception de l’Encyclopédie à l’étrangerAdam Smith’s Admiration for the EncyclopédieThis article discusses the relationship (above all admiration) of the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, and Diderot and D’Alembert’s Encyclopédie. It first concentrates on the very favourable review of the work that Smith wrote for the Edinburgh Review in 1756-7; then it discusses his acquisition of the volumes of the Encyclopédie and certain associated texts for both Glasgow University Library and his own personal library; finally we analyse references to the work in Smith’s writings. We thus hope, in addition to throwing light on Smith’s intellectual career, to provide a new understanding of the French Enlightenment and the foreign reception of the Encyclopédi

The Encyclopedists as individuals: a biographical dictionary of the authors of the Encyclopédie

Although the Encyclopédie is one of the landmarks of eighteenth-century thought and one of the most famous encyclopedias of all time, most of its collaborators are scarcely known. This is unfair and misleading: the editors, Diderot and d’Alembert, were able directors and prolific contributors, but they needed the help of many others to complete such an ambitious and trying enterprise. This biological dictionary also seeks to deepen our knowledge of the Encyclopedists. Scholars frequently generalise about the contributors’ social background, politics, religious beliefs, and other matters without being able to speak knowledgeably about many more than a dozen Encyclopedists. But, as we shall see, the Encyclopedists do not lend themselves to stereotypes. They were not a sect of like-minded thinkers, even though contemporaries and later historians believed otherwise. Some of them met at such salons as the baron d’Holbach’s and madame d’Epinay’s or at such learned societies as the Paris Académie royale des sciences or the Académie française; but others did not know each other, and they certainly did not try to co-ordinate policies. Even if they had, they would have failed. These biographical profiles indicate that the Encyclopedists were not united by a common social background, occupation, or ideology. Dissimilarities among the Encyclopedists are not surprising considering how they came to write for the enterprise. At the start, the publishers and their first editor, Jean-Paul de Gua de Malves, recruited people to help them revise and translate Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopaedia. After Diderot and d’Alembert had assumed the editorship, the work took on a polemical purpose – to reform the Old Regime. But it also remained a general encyclopedia requiring contributors with a knowledge of such non-controversial subjects as the harp, wood engraving, or bridge building. Also, on controversial subjects, the editors accepted contributions that differed from their own opinions. Scholars pursuing research in prosopography, social history, and many facets of the eighteenth century will find something of value in profiles of so many men of letters, clergymen, artisans, physicians, and scientists. Acknowledgements Preface A chart of biographical information on the Encyclopedists Dates of publication of the volumes of the Encyclopédie The symbols used in the Encyclopédie to designate some authors Abbreviations Biographical dictionary Inde

The Encyclopedists as individuals

Although the Encyclopédie is one of the landmarks of eighteenth-century thought and one of the most famous encyclopedias of all time, most of its collaborators are scarcely known. This is unfair and misleading: the editors, Diderot and d’Alembert, were able directors and prolific contributors, but they needed the help of many others to complete such an ambitious and trying enterprise. This biological dictionary also seeks to deepen our knowledge of the Encyclopedists. Scholars frequently generalise about the contributors’ social background, politics, religious beliefs, and other matters without being able to speak knowledgeably about many more than a dozen Encyclopedists. But, as we shall see, the Encyclopedists do not lend themselves to stereotypes. They were not a sect of like-minded thinkers, even though contemporaries and later historians believed otherwise. Some of them met at such salons as the baron d’Holbach’s and madame d’Epinay’s or at such learned societies as the Paris Académie royale des sciences or the Académie française; but others did not know each other, and they certainly did not try to co-ordinate policies. Even if they had, they would have failed. These biographical profiles indicate that the Encyclopedists were not united by a common social background, occupation, or ideology. Dissimilarities among the Encyclopedists are not surprising considering how they came to write for the enterprise. At the start, the publishers and their first editor, Jean-Paul de Gua de Malves, recruited people to help them revise and translate Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopaedia. After Diderot and d’Alembert had assumed the editorship, the work took on a polemical purpose – to reform the Old Regime. But it also remained a general encyclopedia requiring contributors with a knowledge of such non-controversial subjects as the harp, wood engraving, or bridge building. Also, on controversial subjects, the editors accepted contributions that differed from their own opinions. Scholars pursuing research in prosopography, social history, and many facets of the eighteenth century will find something of value in profiles of so many men of letters, clergymen, artisans, physicians, and scientists. Acknowledgements Preface A chart of biographical information on the Encyclopedists Dates of publication of the volumes of the Encyclopédie The symbols used in the Encyclopédie to designate some authors Abbreviations Biographical dictionary Index<br/

La vieillesse et la productivité intellectuelle des Encyclopédistes

Kafker Frank. A. La vieillesse et la productivité intellectuelle des Encyclopédistes. In: Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, tome 28 N°2, Avril-juin 1981. pp. 304-327

Les Encyclopédistes et la Terreur

Kafker Frank. A. Les Encyclopédistes et la Terreur. In: Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, tome 14 N°3, Juillet-septembre 1967. pp. 284-295

Paris, centre principal de l’entreprise encyclopédique

Comme l’a remarqué le penseur politique britannique James Bryce, "l’action et la réaction constantes exercées réciproquement par des groupes d’hommes de talent... donnent parfois naissance à des oeuvres qu’un homme de génie solitaire n’eût guère pu produire". Cette remarque vaut-elle pour l’Encyclopédie, la première en date des encyclopédies écrites par plus qu’une poignée de collaborateurs ? Les dix-sept volumes d’articles furent-ils l’oeuvre d’hommes de lettres, d’hommes de science, d’érudi..