In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, CritiqueJosé R. Maia NetoAntony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, editors. Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, Critique. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2004. Pp. 589. Cloth, €90.00.Pierre Bayle is an early modern philosopher who has received relatively little attention given the philosophical relevance and historical influence of his work. Fortunately this situation has been rapidly (...) changing in recent years. This volume, edited by Antony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, is a good sample of the volume, quality, scope, and polemical nature of current Bayle scholarship. The book contains twenty-five articles by the main Bayle scholars from France, Italy, England, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. It also contains an introduction by the editors, who give an overview of current scholarship, summarizing its main trends and achievements, and a useful name index. The articles are organized in five sections, each dealing with some aspect of Bayle's life and thought.The first set of articles, gathered under the heading, "Interlocutors, Friends and Enemies," deals with Bayle's personal relations as a Huguenot exiled in the Netherlands. Luisa Simonutti deals with Bayle's relations to one of the radical Reformed groups in Holland, the Quakers. Although Bayle disagreed with their religious views, he respected and maintained [End Page 476] healthy intellectual exchanges with them. Hans Bots examines Bayle's view of the "republic of letters," of which he was a major architect—a republic whose right to citizenship required the suspension of religious, political, and national partisanship and engagement in free intellectual debate. H. H. M. van Lieshout contests the entrenched view that Bayle lived as a recluse scholar in Rotterdam. Both she and Bots show how Bayle's main work, the Dictionary, exhibits his life committed to the "republic of letters." Finally, Hubert Bost focuses on Bayle's activity as a journalist, crucial in this republic but also revealing the difficulty of the pursued ideal of neutrality.The next three sections of the book deal with Bayle's thoughts on religion and philosophy. Anna Belgrado denies the late Bayle scholar Elizabeth Labrousse's thesis that Bayle's thought is wrought with Protestantism. Bayle's views on the Jews, the Middle Ages, and women are examined, respectively, by Myrian Yardeni, Gregorio Piaia, and Maria-Cristina Pitassi, who concur in concluding that, although not free from the prejudices of his time, Bayle's views are more complex and balanced than those of his contemporaries.Bayle's political views and in particular his view on tolerance receive a good deal of attention in the volume. Stefano Brogi explains Bayle's attack on the "rational theologians" (Le Clerc), at first sight puzzling given their defense of religious tolerance, pointing out Bayle's radical opposition between faith and reason. According to Jean-Michel Gros, it is this radical separation of philosophy from theology that renders Bayle's view of tolerance so modern, unlike Locke's, for instance, which still has a theological ground. Jonathan Israel explains another apparent puzzle: Bayle's defense of absolute monarchism despite his philosophical and religious ideas, which were no less radical than Spinoza's. Bayle, unlike Spinoza, does not support republicanism because of his pessimistic view of human nature. John Christian Laursen shows that the political menace posed by the Millenarians explains Bayle's unusual lack of tolerance towards them.One of the most influential contemporary Bayle scholars, Gianluca Mori, summarizes his view of Bayle as a philosophical atheist, and he is contested in this by Jean-Luc Solère, who argues that for Bayle, materialism does not provide a coherent metaphysical system alternative to the Christian one, so that Bayle's position amounts to a radical skepticism with regard to reason. In his contribution to the volume, Mori argues that Bayle's skepticism is restricted, and is not relevant to the issue of theism versus atheism. He replies to Solère's objections to his interpretation in an appendix to his article. Mori's interpretation relies on the method of reading Bayle's text as containing irreligious views hidden beneath apparently orthodox claims. Thomas Lennon relies on the opposite approach to argue... (shrink)

Untitled Article Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.3 476-478 Antony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, editors. Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, Critique. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2004. Pp. 589. Cloth, €90.00. Pierre Bayle is an early modern philosopher who has received relatively little attention given the philosophical relevance and historical influence of his work. Fortunately this situation has been rapidly changing in recent years. This volume, edited by Antony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, is a good (...) sample of the volume, quality, scope, and polemical nature of current Bayle scholarship. The book contains twenty-five articles by the main Bayle scholars from France, Italy, England, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. It also contains an introduction by the editors, who give an overview of current scholarship, summarizing its main trends and achievements, and a useful name index. The articles are.. (shrink)

The revival of realism for francophone literature has been widely addressed. The essay argues that this comeback stems not only from a social crisis, but from an urgent need to justify the social world. If this new realism can be said to emerge at the end of the 1980s, then its driving force is a melting away of universalism – a loss of claims to global legitimacy, or to speak with a validity encompassing all of human experience, that manifests itself (...) as a fundamental problem in representing the world. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, CritiqueJosé R. Maia NetoAntony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, editors. Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, Critique. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2004. Pp. 589. Cloth, €90.00.Pierre Bayle is an early modern philosopher who has received relatively little attention given the philosophical relevance and historical influence of his work. Fortunately this situation has been rapidly (...) changing in recent years. This volume, edited by Antony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, is a good sample of the volume, quality, scope, and polemical nature of current Bayle scholarship. The book contains twenty-five articles by the main Bayle scholars from France, Italy, England, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. It also contains an introduction by the editors, who give an overview of current scholarship, summarizing its main trends and achievements, and a useful name index. The articles are organized in five sections, each dealing with some aspect of Bayle's life and thought.The first set of articles, gathered under the heading, "Interlocutors, Friends and Enemies," deals with Bayle's personal relations as a Huguenot exiled in the Netherlands. Luisa Simonutti deals with Bayle's relations to one of the radical Reformed groups in Holland, the Quakers. Although Bayle disagreed with their religious views, he respected and maintained [End Page 476] healthy intellectual exchanges with them. Hans Bots examines Bayle's view of the "republic of letters," of which he was a major architect—a republic whose right to citizenship required the suspension of religious, political, and national partisanship and engagement in free intellectual debate. H. H. M. van Lieshout contests the entrenched view that Bayle lived as a recluse scholar in Rotterdam. Both she and Bots show how Bayle's main work, the Dictionary, exhibits his life committed to the "republic of letters." Finally, Hubert Bost focuses on Bayle's activity as a journalist, crucial in this republic but also revealing the difficulty of the pursued ideal of neutrality.The next three sections of the book deal with Bayle's thoughts on religion and philosophy. Anna Belgrado denies the late Bayle scholar Elizabeth Labrousse's thesis that Bayle's thought is wrought with Protestantism. Bayle's views on the Jews, the Middle Ages, and women are examined, respectively, by Myrian Yardeni, Gregorio Piaia, and Maria-Cristina Pitassi, who concur in concluding that, although not free from the prejudices of his time, Bayle's views are more complex and balanced than those of his contemporaries.Bayle's political views and in particular his view on tolerance receive a good deal of attention in the volume. Stefano Brogi explains Bayle's attack on the "rational theologians" (Le Clerc), at first sight puzzling given their defense of religious tolerance, pointing out Bayle's radical opposition between faith and reason. According to Jean-Michel Gros, it is this radical separation of philosophy from theology that renders Bayle's view of tolerance so modern, unlike Locke's, for instance, which still has a theological ground. Jonathan Israel explains another apparent puzzle: Bayle's defense of absolute monarchism despite his philosophical and religious ideas, which were no less radical than Spinoza's. Bayle, unlike Spinoza, does not support republicanism because of his pessimistic view of human nature. John Christian Laursen shows that the political menace posed by the Millenarians explains Bayle's unusual lack of tolerance towards them.One of the most influential contemporary Bayle scholars, Gianluca Mori, summarizes his view of Bayle as a philosophical atheist, and he is contested in this by Jean-Luc Solère, who argues that for Bayle, materialism does not provide a coherent metaphysical system alternative to the Christian one, so that Bayle's position amounts to a radical skepticism with regard to reason. In his contribution to the volume, Mori argues that Bayle's skepticism is restricted, and is not relevant to the issue of theism versus atheism. He replies to Solère's objections to his interpretation in an appendix to his article. Mori's interpretation relies on the method of reading Bayle's text as containing irreligious views hidden beneath apparently orthodox claims. Thomas Lennon relies on the opposite approach to argue... (shrink)

RésuméLes querelles constituent une activité « routinière » plutôt qu’extra ordinaire du monde lettré et savant. Nous montrons ici qu’elles ont un rôle à jouer dans le domaine de la critique historique. Notre apport est double. En nous intéressant aux enjeux épistémologiques de l’écriture baylienne de la querelle, nous transposons sur le terrain de l’historiographie l’apport des études récentes sur la productivité des querelles scientifiques. Nous présentons une perspective nouvelle de compréhension des querelles comme activité structurante de la république (...) des lettres, tant sur le plan social qu’intellectuel. Ce faisant, nous prenons position dans le débat sur le « pyrrhonisme » historique de Bayle en montrant que les querelles sont centrales dans une démarche historio graphique consciente de ses limites comme de ses pouvoirs d’investigation. (shrink)

Résumé Les querelles constituent une activité « routinière » plutôt qu’extra ordinaire du monde lettré et savant. Nous montrons ici qu’elles ont un rôle à jouer dans le domaine de la critique historique. Notre apport est double. En nous intéressant aux enjeux épistémologiques de l’écriture baylienne de la querelle, nous transposons sur le terrain de l’historiographie l’apport des études récentes sur la productivité des querelles scientifiques. Nous présentons une perspective nouvelle de compréhension des querelles comme activité structurante de la (...) class='Hi'>république des lettres, tant sur le plan social qu’intellectuel. Ce faisant, nous prenons position dans le débat sur le « pyrrhonisme » historique de Bayle en montrant que les querelles sont centrales dans une démarche historio graphique consciente de ses limites comme de ses pouvoirs d’investigation. (shrink)

Les discours de la morale à l’époque moderne exigent d’être pensés aux confins d’une anthropologie des moeurs, de l’histoire et de la philosophie, de l’épistémologie et de la littérature. C’est ce qu’ont mis en lumière les recherches contemporaines portant aussi bien sur l’histoire des mentalités et sur les rapports entre anthropologie et littérature que sur la dimension éthique des pratiques artistiques et la pensée morale. Dans ce contexte, comment aborder la réflexion morale sous l’Ancien Régime sans s’intéresser à ses fondements (...) philosophiques, aux différentes définitions dont elle fait l’objet ou à ses prolongements artistiques et littéraires? Théologiens, philosophes, moralistes, artistes, hommes et femmes de lettres sont autant de figures de la République des Lettres qui prennent la plume pour interroger la topique des vices et des vertus, qui échappent progressivement au domaine religieux pour investir celui de la philosophie et devenir ainsi l’objet d’un questionnement général sur l’homme et sur l’idée d’humanité. Ces actes du onzième colloque « Jeunes chercheurs du CIERL « proposent un regard critique sur la frontière entre vice et vertu : d’une laïcisation à une relativisation de la morale, elle semble se faire de plus en plus ténue et poreuse, donnant ainsi à voir les effets de tension qui parcourent la réflexion morale, et ce, dès la Renaissance. (shrink)

Pierre Bayle réalise une triple opération sur le concept de critique : 1. il généralise la critique ; 2. il lui donne le caractère d'instance où est établie la vérité ; 3. il en fait ainsi un tribunal particulier qui a son droit propre et ses procédures. Cette triple opération repose elle-même sur deux gestes. Le premier concerne le rapprochement de deux sens de la critique : la critique philologique et la critique publique. Le second geste concerne l'extension du champ (...) de la vérité et de la certitude au domaine des faits, et plus seulement à celui de la raison. Pierre Bayle étend ainsi la méthode cartésienne à l'histoire. Cette extension hétérodoxe du cartésianisme joue un rôle notable, d'une part dans l'application des notions de vérité et de certitude au domaine des faits et, d'autre part, dans l'identification des notions de raison et de critique. Ces deux gestes de Bayle constituent un nouvel espace : l'espace intellectuel comme lieu de la critique, c'est-à-dire l'espace de la république des lettres. Pierre Bayle has accomplished a triple operation on the concept of criticism : 1. he has generalised criticism ; 2. he has given it the character of a trial which establishes the truth ; 3. he has thus made it into a special tribunal with its own law and procedures. This triple operation is itself based on two actions. The first is to do with the bringing together of two meanings of criticism : philological criticism and public criticism. The second concerns the extension of the field of truth and certainty to the realm of fact, and no longer simply that of reason. Pierre Bayle thus extends Cartesian method to apply it to history. This heterodox extension of Cartesianism plays a significant role, on the one hand in the application of notions of truth and certainty to the realm of fact, and on the other hand in the identification of notions of reason and criticism. Bayle's two actions constitute a new space : the intellectual space as the location of criticism, in other words, a space which is the republic of letters. (shrink)

Pierre Bayle réalise une triple opération sur le concept de critique : 1. il généralise la critique ; 2. il lui donne le caractère d'instance où est établie la vérité ; 3. il en fait ainsi un tribunal particulier qui a son droit propre et ses procédures. Cette triple opération repose elle-même sur deux gestes. Le premier concerne le rapprochement de deux sens de la critique : la critique philologique et la critique publique. Le second geste concerne l'extension du champ (...) de la vérité et de la certitude au domaine des faits, et plus seulement à celui de la raison. Pierre Bayle étend ainsi la méthode cartésienne à l'histoire. Cette extension hétérodoxe du cartésianisme joue un rôle notable, d'une part dans l'application des notions de vérité et de certitude au domaine des faits et, d'autre part, dans l'identification des notions de raison et de critique. Ces deux gestes de Bayle constituent un nouvel espace : l'espace intellectuel comme lieu de la critique, c'est-à-dire l'espace de la république des lettres. Pierre Bayle has accomplished a triple operation on the concept of criticism : 1. he has generalised criticism ; 2. he has given it the character of a trial which establishes the truth ; 3. he has thus made it into a special tribunal with its own law and procedures. This triple operation is itself based on two actions. The first is to do with the bringing together of two meanings of criticism : philological criticism and public criticism. The second concerns the extension of the field of truth and certainty to the realm of fact, and no longer simply that of reason. Pierre Bayle thus extends Cartesian method to apply it to history. This heterodox extension of Cartesianism plays a significant role, on the one hand in the application of notions of truth and certainty to the realm of fact, and on the other hand in the identification of notions of reason and criticism. Bayle's two actions constitute a new space : the intellectual space as the location of criticism, in other words, a space which is the republic of letters. (shrink)

Cet article explique la persistance de l’exclusion des femmes dans la Troisième République en étendant l’argument de Carole Pateman et de Geneviève Fraisse, suivant lequel cette exclusion est inhérente au projet républicain. L’article se fonde sur : 1) l’absence de revendication de suffrage féminin durant les années 1870, en considérant surtout l’échec de la campagne suffragiste de 1872 mise en œuvre par Léon Richer et Maria Deraismes ; 2) la persistance chez les républicains du modèle familial, dérivé de Rousseau (...) ; 3) le caractère de l’illégitimité présumée de la participation féminine, en considérant l’idée des égéries à cette époque ; enfin, la nature de la liaison entre Léonie Léon et Gambetta telle que leurs lettres nous la révèlent, pour démontrer qu’il s’agissait d’une relation foncièrement politique néanmoins limitée par l’ordre sexuel de l’époque, car l’exclusion politique de la femme restait inhérente à la mentalité républicaine. (shrink)

« Un coworking sans communauté n’existe pas. » Qu’est-ce qui sépare les nous du tiers-lieu de ceux de la start-up (plus ou moins nationalisée)? Qu’est-ce qui distingue les bretelles (d’un nous relativement dilaté, diffracté ou bifurquant) des autoroutes (du je au cœur du développement personnel comme du nous des team buildings et atelier de we design)? L’auto-affectation d’un soi mis au pluriel tente, par un simple jeu pronominal, de cacher son intention de relier tout le monde. À travers les reflets (...) de ces belles âmes dans leurs variations esthétiques, cet article se propose de penser les réactualisations de la standardisation psychique mondiale en montrant comme elles brouillent de quel entre-nous ça parle. On part d’une série de citations des stars de la république des lettres. Direct, on multiplie les formes de déterritorialisations énonciatives comme autant de traversées d’un nous attaché à son incertitude d’échelle et excité par ses anachronismes : expérience originelle de l’autre comme soi, atelier alter-constructiviste, méditation auto-décentrante, réunion anti-facilitatrice, contre-point sur la situation actuelle. (shrink)

Expert en documents arabes dans la « République des Lettres », Abraham Ecchellensis se livre dans son oeuvre à un essai de synthèse caractéristique de son temps : il tente de concillier l'attente de connaissances des savants de son temps avec son engagement catholique et controversiste, et avec son identification, en tant que maronite, comme porte-parole de la culture arabe, y compris musulmane. Il fournit au public des traductions de textes philosophiques et scientifiques arabes musulmans qui lui paraissent (...) participer d'une « sagesse » universelle. Mais une curiosité désintéressée pour l'islam ne peut s'afficher : elle doit prendre les formes de la controverse anti-protestante ou de l'apologie catholique. Chez Ecchellensis cette posture s'accompagne d'une expurgation de toute terminologie islamique dans la langue arabe, et d'un recours à la littérature arabe chrétienne élaboré aux premiers siècles de l'Hégire. (shrink)

Dans l’édition historique et critique de Leibniz, la série I ( Correspondance générale, politique et historique ) est la série la plus volumineuse, la plus avancée et aussi la moins connue. Le fait qu’à côté des noms célèbres et des grandes problématiques qui concernent les autres séries de correspondances (philosophie ainsi que mathématiques et physique), elle contienne une foule de petites nouvelles et de correspondants de « second rang » a conduit dans le cours de l’édition à une critique fondamentale. (...) Cependant, non seulement parce que la multitude des thèmes reflète l’état du discours de l’époque, en deçà même du mainstream, et qu’entrent en scène nombre de « lettrés » dont l’activité serait autrement oubliée. Mais la conservation exceptionnellement bonne du fonds épistolaire rend aussi possible de suivre en détail le parcours des nouvelles. L’édition de Leibniz devient ainsi une ressource pour la République des Lettres et un atelier pour les recherches sur la culture épistolaire de l’époque. (shrink)

Les lettres présentent, par rapport au reste de l'œuvre de Platon, un double intérêt : là seulement le philosophe parle à la première personne, là seulement il se décrit en action. Les Lettres nous présentent un autre Platon que celui des dialogues, celui qui, tout jeune homme, veut jouer un rôle politique à Athènes et qui, plus tard, cherche à réaliser à Syracuse les projets politiques qu'on trouve exposés d'abord dans la République, puis dans le Politique et (...) dans les Lois. Par là, Platon ouvre une tradition qui se maintiendra après lui, comme en font foi, entre autres, les exemples de Descartes auprès de Christine de Suède, de Voltaire auprès de Frédéric II de Prusse ou de Diderot auprès de Catherine II de Russie : celui du philosophe conseiller du chef d'Etat. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Pierre Jurieu's Contribution to Bayle's Dktionnaire KARL C. SANDBERG PIERRE BAYLE'S VIEWSon faith and reason1as they appear throughout his Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697) may be reduced to two basic points. First, the doctrines of Christian theology are vulnerable to a great number of rational objections which would seem to destroy them. Second, reason itself is not a reliable guide in areas of speculative knowledge and should be made (...) to bow to the authority of revelation. This position in its essence is neither irreligious nor antireligious. On the contrary, it is closely related to the general stream of seventeenth-century fideism,~ and is only the logical extension of views which Bayle had expressed as a Protestant controversialist in his early writings2 Moreover, recent studies of Bayle in his milieu have presented compelling evidence that Bayle himself lived, wrote, and died as some kind of believing member of the Reformed Church. 4 It is not less certain, however, that Bayle's Dictionnaire was one of the most powerful antireligious influences of the Enlightenment, s for the eighteenth-century rationalists found in it such a tone of polemics coupled with such an abundant display of the rational insufficiencies of Christianity, that they could not take Bayle's ostensible fideism seriously. This paradox leads one to wonder why Bayle as a believer should so insist upon the disparity he found between faith and reason if he did not intend to lead an attack upon religion in general. What would account for the presence of the penetrating rational critique of Christian doctrines except a desire to discredit them? A partial answer might be suggested by Bayle's method of exposition and disputa1By faith is meant the belief in the speculative doctrines of Calvinist Protestantism, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Providence, and in the authority of revelation. By reason is meant essentially the Cartesian method, whose criterium of truth is incontrovertible evidence. See Richard Popkin, "Pierre Bayle's Place in 17th-century Scepticism," in Pierre Bayle, le philosophe de Rotterdam, ed. Paul Dibon (Amsterdam: 1959). 8During his participation in the Protestant-Catholic controversies of 1682-1687, Bayle became keenly aware that no Christian dogma was susceptible of rational proof. See his Commentaire Philosophique (1686)in his Oeuvres diverses (The Hague: 1737), II, 438. He had, however, previouslybeen convinced of the frailty of reason as a guide in speculative areas (but not in practical matters of morality). See his NouveUes de la Republique des Lettres, September, 1684, in Oeuvres diverses, I, 132-133. These works will hereafter be abbreviated CP, OD, and NRL, respectively. Other abbreviations to be used are DHC, Dictionnaire historique el critique; LFam, Lettres de M. Bayle ~ sa famille; SCP, Supplement du Commentaire philosophique (1687); PDC, Pens~es diverses sur la eomOte (1682); CC, La Cabale ehimdrique (1691). All of these works except the Dictionnaire are found in the Oeuvres diverses. The fourth edition of the Dictionnaire (1730) is the one cited here. 4See Paul Dibon, ed., Pierre Bayle, le philosophe de Rotterdam (Amsterdam: 1959), and Elizabeth Labrousse, Pierre Bayle, Vol. I, "Du Pays de Foix i~la cit~ d'Erasme" (La Haye: 1963). 6Paul Hazard, La Pens~e europ$enne au XVIII~me si~cle de Montesquieu (~ Lessing (Paris [1946], I, 44. [59] 60 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY tion, for in examining any question he felt intellectually obligated to set forth the strong and weak points of both sides. One can never boast of having proved a point, he said, without having stated and answered the strongest objections of one's opponent. ~ What subsequent readers found heterodox was possibly only Bayle's statement of his opponent's position. This answer is insufficient, however, because as Bayle had previously become aware of irreconcilable differences between faith and reason in the course of his early thought and writings, he had been extremely reluctant to voice the implications of his disquieting discoveries (1682-1687).7 Ten years later in the Dictionnaire, on the other hand, he seemed to go out of his way to state them with all possible clarity and vigor. It was this change in emphasis in the expression of his thought which was responsible for the great antireligious... (shrink)

Les Lumières de Leibniz mettent en oeuvre une méthode inédite en histoire de la philosophie : le perspectivisme historique. En prenant Leibniz pour guide dans la république des lettres, le livre propose une perspective immanente sur quatre controverses philosophiques du XVIIe siècle.

Le Consistoire de Rotterdam ayant condamné plusieurs articles lors de la première parution du Dictionnaire historique et critique, les éditions ultérieures contiendront des « Éclaircissements ». Bayle, par sa maîtrise de l’écriture cryptée, va faire de ces textes, officiellement de justification et d’autocensure, un plaidoyer pour la liberté de philosopher.Dans ses premiers textes, comme les Pensées diverses sur la comète, il a pratiqué un art d’écrire d’autant plus efficace qu’il était presque revendiqué comme tel dans des « Avis aux lecteurs (...) ». Il appartient en effet à une génération d’écrivains qui tente de donner à un certain public quelques clefs de lecture permettant, en contournant la censure, de faire perdre à celle-ci une partie de sa nocivité et de sa raison d’être. Cette « pédagogie » se déploie dans les Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, dans son Dictionnaire. Ce sont ces clefs qui peuvent rendre encore le lecteur contemporain apte à déjouer les pièges de ces étranges « Éclaircissements ».The Rotterdam Consistory having sentenced a few articles on the occasion of the first edition of the Critical and Historical Dictionary, the later editions will contain a few explanations. Bayle, through his mastery of crypted writing will turn those texts – supposed to be of justification and self-censorship – into a plea for the freedom to philosophize.In his first texts, for instance in Several Thoughts on the Comet, he exercized an art of writing all the more efficient as it had been almost claimed as such in « Advices to the readers ». Indeed, he belongs to a generation of writers attempting to give some kind of audience a few keys for reading that should enable, by by-passing censorship, to deprive it of part of its noxiousness and raison d’être. Such a paedagogical approach unfolds itself in the News from the Republic of Letters and his Dictionary. Such keys still enable the contemporary reader to thwart the traps of those strange « Explanations ». (shrink)

The appearance of scientific journals in the second half of the seventeenth century not only presented new opportunities for the dissemination of knowledge, but also offers the historian a privileged view of the shared knowledge within the scientific community. The Journal des Sçavans, founded in 1665, proclaimed its ambition to disseminate news about books and people concerning the République des lettres. Given the reportedly high interest in and opposition to the rise of Cartesianism among contemporary philosophers, this paper (...) explores the discussion of Cartesianism within the pages of the Journal. It is shown that debates on Cartesianism formed only a small portion of the articles in the Journal. Although the majority of commentaries referred to the metaphysical foundations of Cartesian philosophy, a considerable number of instances were found referring to empirical tests of the theory. Finally, as the Journal does not mention the condemnations or censorship of Cartesianism, we cannot speak of a general feeling of hostility against Cartesian philosophers among the editors or intended audience of the Journal. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Pierre Jurieu's Contribution to Bayle's Dktionnaire KARL C. SANDBERG PIERRE BAYLE'S VIEWSon faith and reason1as they appear throughout his Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697) may be reduced to two basic points. First, the doctrines of Christian theology are vulnerable to a great number of rational objections which would seem to destroy them. Second, reason itself is not a reliable guide in areas of speculative knowledge and should be made (...) to bow to the authority of revelation. This position in its essence is neither irreligious nor antireligious. On the contrary, it is closely related to the general stream of seventeenth-century fideism,~ and is only the logical extension of views which Bayle had expressed as a Protestant controversialist in his early writings2 Moreover, recent studies of Bayle in his milieu have presented compelling evidence that Bayle himself lived, wrote, and died as some kind of believing member of the Reformed Church. 4 It is not less certain, however, that Bayle's Dictionnaire was one of the most powerful antireligious influences of the Enlightenment, s for the eighteenth-century rationalists found in it such a tone of polemics coupled with such an abundant display of the rational insufficiencies of Christianity, that they could not take Bayle's ostensible fideism seriously. This paradox leads one to wonder why Bayle as a believer should so insist upon the disparity he found between faith and reason if he did not intend to lead an attack upon religion in general. What would account for the presence of the penetrating rational critique of Christian doctrines except a desire to discredit them? A partial answer might be suggested by Bayle's method of exposition and disputa1By faith is meant the belief in the speculative doctrines of Calvinist Protestantism, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Providence, and in the authority of revelation. By reason is meant essentially the Cartesian method, whose criterium of truth is incontrovertible evidence. See Richard Popkin, "Pierre Bayle's Place in 17th-century Scepticism," in Pierre Bayle, le philosophe de Rotterdam, ed. Paul Dibon (Amsterdam: 1959). 8During his participation in the Protestant-Catholic controversies of 1682-1687, Bayle became keenly aware that no Christian dogma was susceptible of rational proof. See his Commentaire Philosophique (1686)in his Oeuvres diverses (The Hague: 1737), II, 438. He had, however, previouslybeen convinced of the frailty of reason as a guide in speculative areas (but not in practical matters of morality). See his NouveUes de la Republique des Lettres, September, 1684, in Oeuvres diverses, I, 132-133. These works will hereafter be abbreviated CP, OD, and NRL, respectively. Other abbreviations to be used are DHC, Dictionnaire historique el critique; LFam, Lettres de M. Bayle ~ sa famille; SCP, Supplement du Commentaire philosophique (1687); PDC, Pens~es diverses sur la eomOte (1682); CC, La Cabale ehimdrique (1691). All of these works except the Dictionnaire are found in the Oeuvres diverses. The fourth edition of the Dictionnaire (1730) is the one cited here. 4See Paul Dibon, ed., Pierre Bayle, le philosophe de Rotterdam (Amsterdam: 1959), and Elizabeth Labrousse, Pierre Bayle, Vol. I, "Du Pays de Foix i~la cit~ d'Erasme" (La Haye: 1963). 6Paul Hazard, La Pens~e europ$enne au XVIII~me si~cle de Montesquieu (~ Lessing (Paris [1946], I, 44. [59] 60 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY tion, for in examining any question he felt intellectually obligated to set forth the strong and weak points of both sides. One can never boast of having proved a point, he said, without having stated and answered the strongest objections of one's opponent. ~ What subsequent readers found heterodox was possibly only Bayle's statement of his opponent's position. This answer is insufficient, however, because as Bayle had previously become aware of irreconcilable differences between faith and reason in the course of his early thought and writings, he had been extremely reluctant to voice the implications of his disquieting discoveries (1682-1687).7 Ten years later in the Dictionnaire, on the other hand, he seemed to go out of his way to state them with all possible clarity and vigor. It was this change in emphasis in the expression of his thought which was responsible for the great antireligious... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:How Germany Left the Republic of LettersKasper Risbjerg EskildsenA common culture of scholarship existed across Europe from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. This culture possessed its own institutions, traditions, and rituals that connected its members across borders and religious divides. A professor from Lisbon, a librarian from Hanover, and a schoolmaster from Turku would all speak nearly the same language and wear nearly the same clothing. They would (...) share many of the same dreams, celebrate many of the same heroes, and have similar memories from their youth and adult life. They were convinced that they belonged to the same cultural group and were normally willing to make personal and economic sacrifices when called upon by members of this group. Long before the emergence of European nation-states, the community of scholars formed what Benedict Anderson has called an imagined community, united by the forces of language, culture, and writing.1From around 1500, the community of scholars went by the name respublica litteraria—the Republic of Letters. Italian humanists already used the metaphor in the early fifteenth century, and with Erasmus of Rotterdam's Antibar-barorum liber, it became commonplace within Europe.2 To Erasmus and his [End Page 421] circle the Republic of Letters signified the natural community between all students of creation, divine reason, and Greek and Roman antiquity. It gathered scholars across space and time and set them apart from the hordes of ignorant barbarians. To most early modern scholars, however, respublica litteraria signified much more than a community of reason and knowledge. They used the metaphor to describe every aspect of the culture of scholarship that connected its members and demarcated them from surrounding society. Universities, academies, and secret societies were talked about as parts of the Republic of Letters. Scholarly letters and conversations tête-à-tête, books, lectures and seminars, rituals and traditions were all included. The metaphor demarcated invisible borders between learned and lay, tacitly known to insiders but rarely strictly defined.3The Republic ChallengedDuring the last decades of the seventeenth century the metaphor of the Republic of Letters lost much of its force and elasticity. Scholars used and debated the metaphor more than ever before, but these heated and emotional discussions were not necessarily—as is assumed in much of the work on the eighteenth century4 —a sign that the metaphor and the culture it represented had gained ground. The discussions were, much rather, a symptom of crisis. The end of the great religious wars and the emergence of modern centralized states forced scholars to rethink their role in society and their relationship to the new military and administrative elites. Philosophical skepticism and philological criticism threatened established academic teachings and methods.5 Debates about the Republic of Letters reveal the scholars' efforts to answer these political and intellectual challenges. In her studies of learned Huguenots who, after 1685, were spread across Europe, Anne Goldgar has described how the alienated community of scholars at the turn of the eighteenth century came increasingly under pressure.6 The Huguenots felt marginalized in their adopted [End Page 422] homes, lost income and patronage, and suffered a decline in social prestige. According to Goldgar, these external pressures resulted in stronger internal bonds, as exiled scholars rallied around the ideal of the borderless Republic of Letters. But already before Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Huguenot scholars defined a French version of the republic—La République des Lettres—in strong opposition to the forces suppressing the Protestant minority. In 1684 Pierre Bayle defiantly declared from his Dutch refuge,It is not a matter of religion, but of science: therefore one should put an end to all boundaries that divide men into different camps, and consider only that which unites them, namely their rank as noblemen in the Republic of Letters. In this sense all scholars should regard themselves as brothers, and consequently one another as family. They should say:We are all equal We are all relatives } as children of Apollo.7Protestant Northern Europe did not witness the same religious and political conflicts that France did.8 Scholars there were also ridden by crisis at the turn... (shrink)

"La fonction littéraire a pu s'exercer dans le champ de la philosophie en développant le projet antique d'un Art poétique conforme à l'idéal de la République de Platon. Poètes, éducateurs, et philosophes se partagent la postérité de la Poétique d'Aristote, qui fonde progressivement une esthétique philosophique. Si Platon est le premier Socrate musicien en politique, Jacopo Zabarella incarne le lettré logicien, l'humaniste de la théorie péripatéticienne de la science et des arts, au seizième siècle. Tandis que Shaftesbury adoucit les (...) moeurs d'une époque en proie au fanatisme grâce aux leçons de Marc Aurèle et d'Horace. L'exemple d'Hellen Keller, sourde, muette, et aveugle avant l'âge de deux ans, nous montre quelles sont les nécessités liées à l'absence de l'expérience sensible. Le monde se partage à la condition d'une esthétique cognitive, grâce à la langue et à la littérature."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 38.1 (2000) 123-124 [Access article in PDF] Steven Nadler. Spinoza. A Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiii + 407. Cloth, $34.95. Nadler's book is a comprehensive biography of Spinoza. It gives, within the limits of the information available, a full presentation of the life and personality of Spinoza; ample information about the different milieus in which Spinoza grew up and lived; (...) about the vicissitudes of the public life which marked his life and work; about the ways in which Spinoza's work evolved and, although it is not meant to be an "intellectual biography" (xiii), a general description of his thought. It is a welcome addition to the growing literature on Spinoza.The book begins with the story of the Jewish Portuguese community of Amsterdam, constituted by former Maranos who emigrated from the Iberian peninsula. Becoming in a very short time a flourishing community, it was unique in many ways, and the author nicely shows this. He explains how it had to rebuild its Judaism practically ex nihilo, and how this fact caused many of the inner tensions and rifts that marked its history. Nadler tells minutely the way that led to Spinoza's famous excommunication and the roles played by the main personalities involved in this dramatic event, which was not only a rupture with the community, but actually with Judaism in general.The author proceeds to examine the life of Spinoza outside the Jewish community. [End Page 123] We learn about the religiously and politically radical milieu within which Spinoza, a twenty-four-year-old man cut off all family and community ties, now lived; about the famous Spinoza circle of friends and disciples; and, most extraordinary of all, about his rather rapid ascent to a position of prominence in the Dutch and the European République des lettres.Nadler skillfully presents the concrete context of Spinoza's work and gives a chronological account of the way his philosophy gradually took shape. One gets the right feeling about the manner in which it was intertwined with the political events, the ideological and theological controversies that often threatened to tear apart the Dutch society, and to which Spinoza's work is to a large extent a reaction.The specifically philosophical and scientific context of Spinoza's work receives extensive treatment as well. The author discusses the work of Boyle, Huygens, and others with whom Spinoza had scientific exchanges. Most importantly, Nadler describes the Cartesian context of Spinoza's philosophy—Descartes' own philosophy and the Cartesian movement in the Netherlands. He gives an ample account of Spinoza's many connections within this context; he describes Spinoza's many correspondents and recounts many episodes, not all of them well known.Nadler's work is essentially based on the existing material and the extensive work done in unearthing Spinoza's life and background. He does it in quite an impressive way—he seems to have covered all the relevant material and to have studied all the relevant fields. It is a work of compilation—but in the best sense of the word. It makes manifest that an enormous amount of work has been done on these topics in this century and particularly in the last twenty years or so. Nadler succeeds—this is certainly a tour de force—in integrating this enormous amount of material into a coherent whole in which he also manages to keep the right amount of literary fluency and readability. Not the least of the book's merits is that it is never boring.Although I would recommend the book without any reservation to anyone who is interested in Spinoza—both beginners and veterans—I must make two brief critical remarks: 1. There seems to be some bias in favor of the Jewish background of Spinoza. Sure enough, the book is divided into two almost exactly equal parts which recount, respectively, Spinoza's life before and after the cherem (which, as a matter of fact, divides his short life into more or less equal parts). Yet—and without taking sides in the ongoing... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Bayle, Saint-Evremond, and Fideism:A Reply to Thomas M. LennonGianluca MoriIn a recent article published in this journal Thomas M. Lennon returns to the controversial question of Bayle's attitude towards religion. The point he debates is the particular use that, in expounding his conception of the relationship between faith and reason, Bayle makes of a passage from Saint-Evremond. In Lennon's view the correct interpretation of this point would show that (...) Bayle's fideism is to be "taken at face value" without any hint of irony and with no suspicion of dissimulation or insincerity.1 This would cast doubt on and greatly weaken the interpretation I proposed in my Bayle philosophe.2 My aim here is to respond briefly to Lennon's arguments and to clarify even more briefly what in my opinion is the right perspective in which to consider Bayle's position on this topic.The context in which Bayle quotes Saint-Evremond is to be found in the Eclaircissements he added to the second edition of his Dictionnaire historique et critique (1702) to counter the Dutch religious authorities' harsh criticism of the first edition. In particular the Walloon Consistory accused Bayle of taking a skeptical position that undermined the most important dogmas of Christian faith. In response Bayle wrote the Eclaircissement sur les Pyrrhoniens, a clumsy mosaic of quotations from the Scriptures and from patristic and profane texts, with which he sought to show that his skeptical fideism was not in the least heterodox but indeed the position that most closely reflected true Christianity. The quotation from Saint-Evremond, almost at the end of this text, is taken [End Page 323] from the Conversation du Maréchal d'Hocquincourt et du Père Canaye (written in about 1654).3 The final passage gives a clear idea of the general tone: after having disputed with a churchman the need to subject one's intellect to the yoke of faith, the marshal concludes by saying that he is ready to be crucified "without knowing why." Father Canaye replies: "No reason! That is the true religion. No reason! God has granted you a fine grace, mylord." So, and here Lennon obviously agrees (229), Saint-Evremond's is a text with no shadow of mystical inspiration, indeed strongly tending in the libertine direction, as is clear from the blatant way it pours scorn on the fideist approach.In my interpretation Bayle's use of this quotation does not at all demonstrate his atheism or unbelief, for in my view that question is undecidable. However, the quotation from Saint-Evremond is sufficient—and this is the onlyreason I mentioned it4 —to show that Bayle's approach to fideism is in no way innocent and naive as is sometimes claimed. On the contrary, his texts on this subject contain what amounts to provocations aimed at orthodox readers (to which they immediately reacted). This, together with other more important reasons, leads me to believe that Bayle's professions of Christian faith, though frequent, are generally far from being above suspicion: indeed, almost every line of them raises questions about their actual significance.The provocation contained in the quotation from Saint-Evremond appears in all its rhetorical weight if we associate this text with three other passages from Bayle's works. The first is from the Nouvelles de la république des lettres of December 1686, in which Bayle stresses the unedifying nature of the religious maxims contained in Saint-Evremond's Conversation (which, incidentally, he himself had just had printed in the collection Le Retour des pièces choisies).5 The second is taken from a letter by Jean d'Oulès to Bayle, written in 1696, in which the author deals with exactly the same passage from the Conversation that was later to be reproduced in the Eclaircissement. In this letter d'Oulès quotes the full passage which he considers to be a "naughty text" deliberately written to throw ridicule on the fanatical fideism of Pierre Jurieu.6 The third passage is from Bayle's Continuation des pensées diverses of 1704 in which, shortly after the death of Saint-Evremond, he publicly reveals the poet... (shrink)

Michael Schippan legt mit seiner Studie die erste umfassende deutschsprachige Darstellung der russischen Aufklarung (prosvescenie) vor. Vor allem in der zweiten Halfte des 18. Jahrhunderts nahm das Russische Zarenreich teil an der europaischen Emanzipationsbewegung des "Siecle des Lumieres", eignete sich durch Ubersetzung und Spracherwerb das Gedankengut des "lateinischen Europa" an und formte es den Bedurfnissen des euro-asiatischen Landes entsprechend um. Unter prosve'enie wurden sowohl Bildung, Zivilisation, Europaisierung und menschliche Selbstvervollkommnung als auch die Teilhabe an der europaischen Geistesbewegung der Aufklarung verstanden. (...) Zwei herausragende Herrscher gaben entscheidende Anstosse: Zar Peter I., der nach 1700 vor allem aus militarischen Grunden heraus umfassende Reformen einleitete, und Katharina II., die zum inneren Zirkel der aufgeklarten europaischen Monarchen gezahlt wurde. Nicht nur in den beiden "Hauptstadten" St. Petersburg und Moskau, sondern auch in einigen Gouvernementszentren Zentralrusslands sowie in Sibirien wurde ein reges kulturelles und geistiges Leben begrundet.Schippan untersucht in institutions- und personengeschichtlicher Perspektive, welche neuen weltlichen Bildungs- und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen geschaffen wurden und wie zunehmend private Vereinigungen gebildeter Adliger und Vertreter anderer Stande entstanden. Zudem werden zentrale Debatten der Aufklarung in Russland in ihrer Wechselwirkung mit den Diskursen der europaischen "Republique des lettres" beleuchtet, so die Diskussionen uber Russland und Asien, Krieg und Frieden, okonomische Landeserschliessung und Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft, Theologie und Religion sowie Geschichtsschreibung. (shrink)

The expression “République des lettress” is still used today. It appears in most recent dictionaries of the French language, and it even occasionally occurs in ordinary conversation or in the press, a pompous and ironic circumlocution to designate the Parisian literary “milieu.” This archaistic and pejorative survival masks (somewhat similarly to the word “rhetoric”) the attention that researchers are now according to the older meaning of this surviving expression, and to the concept of an international exchange of ideas that (...) it represented for scholars of the Ancien Régime. As proof that this scientific interest is recent, Paul Hazard, in the famous Crise de la conscience européenne (1936), devotes not a single line to the “Republic of Letters,” while in the chapter dealing with Pierre Bayle he cites the “Nouvelles de la République des Lettres” (1684), the learned periodical published in Amsterdam by this erudite Calvinist, apparently without feeling a need to explain a title that seemed self-evident. For the history of ideas, this notion was not a subject for history. It resided outside the field of perception of a discipline that was completely devoted to a sort of chemistry of pure ideas, removed from the literary form that carried them, and a fortiori from institutional circuits, and forms of sociability and dialogue that “invent” and spread them, and even more so from the awareness that “scholars” might have had of the solidarity that united them and of the meaning they might be able to attribute to it. (shrink)

L’objectif de cet article est de mettre en lumière quelques éléments tirés des écrits politiques de John Milton et de John Locke, en fonction de leur attitude à l’égard des différents médias. Dans son argumentation contre la censure, John Milton doit démontrer que toutes les anciennes instances de censure, citées souvent à son époque, peuvent être interprétées comme des exemples d’un autre phénomène. Cependant, John Milton reconnaît, en analysant les lieux communs dans la République de Platon ainsi que dans (...) certains textes bibliques, la portée et la signification des formes nonconceptuelles, nonimprimées, nonverbales de communication ; il les décrit comme des signes d’un comportement enfantin, féminin ou inculte, comme des phénomènes sans importance d’un point de vue de liberté politique incarnée dans la liberté de la presse. La position de John Locke est la même. Je montrerai l’enchaînement des idées, similiaire à celui de Milton, dans ses ouvrages Deux traités du gouvernement et Lettre sur la tolérance, en focalisant mon analyse sur le concept d’adiaphora. (shrink)