Philosophical Letters; Or, Letters regarding the English Nation, John Leigh, Prudence L. Steiner

Abstract

540 Reviews Given thebreadth of generic variety in thevolume, approaches to the texts range from narratological readings tohistorically contextualized treatments, including considera tions of the commercial history of thebook, aswell as social and political history. As loana Galleron argues in the introduction to the anthology-and the essays support her contention-the development of the preface over the long eighteenth century demonstrates the emergence of an increasingly erudite orientation, but one that none the less allows at times for the voicing of strong opinions (p. I3). As Galleron asserts, many of the analyses in the volume rely upon the decoding of prefaces, particularly in relation to theworks that they introduce. For example, Marie Emmanuelle Plagnol-Dieval's reading of Mme deGenlis uncovers her rewritingof the textsofRousseau and Voltaire fora post-Revolutionary, Napoleonic audience. Mme deGenlis emerges as a scholarlywriter with an ideological agenda engaged in a critique of theEnlightenment and a celebration of the regime of Louis XIV (pp. I04-06). Celine Masbou likewise presents a fineexample of an analysis of a scholarly preface inher study of Father Brumoy's presentation ofLe Theatre desGrecs. Masbou high lightsBrumoy's strategy toobtain a fairjudgement ofGreek theatre fromhis reading public (p. I97). She argues thathe attempts toprovide a contextualized understanding by asking his audience to imagine how Sophocles orEuripides might respond to a play by Racine. In employing what Masbou terms 'transportation', Brumoy demonstrates forhis reader how important a cultural and historical context is to theunderstanding of theatre (pp. I99-200). The wide variety of texts in the volume presents a tantalizing panorama of the evolution of thepreface in the long eighteenth century. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS JULIA SIMON Philosophical Letters; or,Letters regarding theEnglish Nation. By VOLTAIRE. Ed. by JOHNLEIGH, trans. by PRUDENCE L. STEINER. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett. 2007. xxv+ I58 pp. L7.95. ISBN 978-0-87220-88I-0. This new translation ofVoltaire's Lettres philosophiques ispresumably aimed princi pally at a student audience, mainly in theUnited States, though those anywhere who cannot read French and do not have access to the original English version, re-edited in I1993by Nicholas Cronk, will find ituseful. The introduction isboth stimulating and concise, though not too short, almost perfectly fitted-one feels-to the target audience. The amount and length of the notes is also just right, given the need to provide aminimum of background information to satisfy an inquisitive student (or general) reader. Finally, a short bibliography gives such a reader a few ideas forfurther study,vitalwith an author on whom somuch has been written. Unfortunately, there are some problems, firstof all regarding accuracy-surely a vital concern in view of thepresumed targetaudience, the relatively fewnotes, and lighteditorial parapherna lia.The very firstnote informsus that 'Stanislaus Leszcynski' was formerly 'kingof Poland' (correct) and 'the son-in-law of Louis XV' (quite wrong; he was actually his father-in-law). The bibliography indicates thatVoltaire en son temps,edited by Rene Pomeau, was published in two volumes at Oxford in I985, whereas the firstedition was published there (in fivevolumes) between I985 and 1994, and the second, revised version (in twovolumes) in 1995. It is also bizarre toclaim that 'no one, itseems, ever replied toVoltaire's Philosophical Letters' (p. xix): theQuakers certainly did! (See Andre-Michel's Rousseau's L'Angleterre et Voltaire (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, I976).) According tonote 4, theEncyclopedie was 'first published in 175 I' (p. 13 I), a statement correct only ifitrefers toVolume I-all dix-huitiemistes (though not all stu dents or general readers) know that it tookyears beforeDiderot finallybrought out all MLR, 103.2, 2oo8 541 thevolumes. To focus on such relativelyminor shortcomings may seem petty,but the edition-despite itsobvious strengths-does show further,similar,weaknesses. When the introduction states that 'Voltairewas one of the first,ifnot the first,toappreciate Shakespeare' (p. xiii), this would make sense iftheword 'Frenchmen' were added after 'first'. More seriously, the same page of the introductionmisquotes itsown transla tion,commenting-' "He created the theatre," saysVoltaire': in the letter 'On tragedy' we read: 'hecreated the true theater' (p. 69), which isactually a ratherdifferentpropo sition (and a differentspelling of 'theatre'). One also has some reservations about the translation.Admittedly, as stated inother reviews, it is fluid...