Cover not available

In:A Comparative History of the Literary Draft in Europe
Edited by Olga Beloborodova and Dirk Van Hulle
[Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages XXXV] 2024
► pp. 47–59

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

1.1.3
The eighteenth century

The progressive emergence of eighteenth-century European literary manuscripts

 | CNRS | Institut des Textes et Manuscrits Modernes (ITEM)
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 8 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxxv.03fer
Abstract
The eighteenth century used to enjoy a bad reputation among scholars interested in literary drafts, suffering from its situation between two great moments in the history of the literary manuscript: the medieval period, when the manuscript tradition was the sole possible channel of a work’s dissemination, and the “contemporary” period of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the importance accorded to the manuscript was that of a valuable testimony to “the genius of the author”. Fortunately, new developments in scholarship have changed this situation in the course of the last few decades. The present chapter sets out to analyse the emergence into greater prominence, in the field of eighteenth-century studies, of drafts, sketches and manuscripts. The movement toward a growing interest in such documents has been nourished by textual genetics, an innovative critical approach which has led scholars to ascribe to them greater meaning in the interpretation of the author’s action.
Article outline
  • Introduction: Why study the draft manuscripts of Enlightenment authors?
  • Against an idée reçue
  • The impulse behind genetic criticism
  • A new landscape of “working manuscripts”
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Bahier-Porte, Christelle. 2011. “Dans l’atelier de Lesage: l’histoire de La Tontine, des manuscrits au livre (1708–1739).” RHLF 4: 819–832. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernardi, Bruno. 2006. La Fabrique des concepts. Recherches sur l’invention conceptuelle chez Rousseau. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnet, Jean–Claude. 2019. “Le fonds Mercier de la bibliothèque de l’Arsenal.” In Ecrire en Europe de Leibniz à Foscolo, ed. by Nathalie Ferrand, 233–244. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouza, Fernando. 2010. Hétérographies. Formes de l’écrit au siècle d’or espagnol, preface by Roger Chartier. Madrid: Casa de Velasquez. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bustarret, Claire. 2004. “A Study of Paper in the Manuscripts of two French Philosophers of the XVIIIth Century: Montesquieu and Condorcet.” In XXVIe Congrès de l’Association internationale des historiens du papier, Sept. 2002, IPH Congress Book, vol. XIV, 268–281. Rome: ICPL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Usages des supports d’écriture au XVIIIe siècle : une esquisse codicologique.” Genesis 34: 37–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cadioli, Alberto. 2018. “Ripercorrere gli autografi di Parini.” In I Manoscritti italiani del Settecento. Un approcio genetico, ed. by Christian Del Vento and Nathalie Ferrand, 117–125. Florence: Ed. Le Lettere.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casanova, Giacomo. 2013. Histoire de ma vie, vol. I, ed. by Gérard Lahouati and Marie-Françoise Luna. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chartier, Roger. 2015. La Main de l’auteur et l’esprit de l’imprimeur XVIe-XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Gallimard, Folio-Histoire.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Châtelain, Jean-Marc. 2009. “Sur le statut du manuscrit littéraire au XVIIe siècle.” In Génétique matérielle, génétique virtuelle. Pour une approche généticienne des textes sans archives, ed. by Patrick Dandrey, 33–47. Laval: PUL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contini, Gianfranco. 1992. La critica degli scartafacci e altre pagine sparse [The criticism of jotting pads]. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, Jacques, and Jan Herman. 2011. “Observations critiques de M. le C. Gordon de Percel sur son livre de l’usage des romans. Un manuscrit inédit de Lenglet Dufresnoy (partie I).” LIAS. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 38 (1): 149–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulet, Henri. 1976. “Prolégomènes à une édition critique de La Nouvelle Héloïse, IVe partie.” In Les Manuscrits : transcription, édition, signification, ed. by Louis Hay, 21–36. Paris: Presses de l’ENS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crébillon, Claude. 2001. Œuvres complètes, ed. by Jean Sgard, Vol. III, introduced and critically edited by Régine Jomand-Baudry, 275–297. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristofolini, Paolo. 1999. “Ecdotica di edizioni mancate. Il caso della scienza nuova.” In Genesi, critica, edizione, ed. by Paolo D’Iorio and Nathalie Ferrand, 181–188. Pisa: Annali della Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, Quaderni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cronk, Nicholas. 2012. “Voltaire et le don du manuscrit.” Genesis 34: 19–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Del Vento, Christian and Nathalie Ferrand (eds). 2018. I Manoscritti italiani del Settecento. Un approcio genetico. Florence: Ed. Le Lettere.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Del Vento, Christian. 2019a. La biblioteca ritrovata. La prima biblioteca di Vittorio Alfieri. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019b. “Manuscrits d’auteur, norme linguistique et ‘critique des variantes’ dans la tradition italienne.” Genesis 49: 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delon, Michel. 2007. Sade au travail. Paris: Textuel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. La 121e journée. L’incroyable histoire du manuscrit de Sade. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Didier, Béatrice, and Jacques Neefs (eds). 1986. Diderot. Autographes, copies, éditions. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 1991. La Fin de l’Ancien Régime. Sade, Rétif, Beaumarchais, Laclos. Manuscrits de la Révolution I. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 1992. Chantiers révolutionnaires. Science, musique, architecture. Condorcet, Grétry, Pâris. Manuscrits de la Révolution II. Saint–Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 1994. Sortir de la Révolution. Casanova, Chénier, Staël, Constant, Chateaubriand. Manuscrits de la Révolution III. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farge, Arlette. 1989. Le goût de l’archive. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrand, Nathalie. 2000. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, du copiste à l’écrivain : les manuscrits de La Nouvelle Héloïse conservés à la Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale.” In Écrire au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, ed. by Almuth Grésillon and Jean-Louis Lebrave, 191–210. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Un manuscrit retrouvé de La Nouvelle Héloïse.” LIAS. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 38 (2): 357–389.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012a. “Brouillons d’Héloïse.” Revue de la Bibliothèque nationale 42: 71–79.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2012b. Brouillons des Lumières, Genesis 34. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris Sorbonne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2019a. Ecrire en Europe de Leibniz à Foscolo. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019b. “Expériences du manuscrit.” In Ecrire en Europe de Leibniz à Foscolo, 7–38. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Dans l’atelier de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Paris: Editions Hermann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer, Daniel. 2011. Logiques du brouillon. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferret, Olivier, Alexandre Guilbaud, and Irène Passeron. 2012. “Pleins et déliés dans les manuscrits de D’Alembert.” Genesis 34: 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fichant, Michel. 2019. “L’écriture philosophique de Leibniz: points de vue génétiques.” In Ecrire en Europe de Leibniz à Foscolo, ed. by Nathalie Ferrand, 61–100. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flourens, Pierre. 1860. Des manuscrits de Buffon. Paris: Garnier frères.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graffigny, Françoise de. 1985–2016. Correspondance de Madame de Graffigny, ed. by J. Alain Dainard et al. 16 vol. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grésillon, Almuth. 1994. Eléments de critique génétique. Lire les manuscrits modernes. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grésillon, Almuth, and Jean-Louis Lebrave (eds). 2000. Écrire aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Genèses de textes littéraires et philosophiques. Paris: CNRS-Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guitton, Édouard. 1994. “L’itinéraire des Bucoliques.” In Sortir de la Révolution. Casanova, Chénier, Staël, Constant, Chateaubriand. Manuscrits de la Révolution III, 59–73. Vincennes: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 1993. “L’écriture vive.” In Les Manuscrits des écrivains, ed. by Louis Hay, 10–32. Paris: CNRS Éditions-Hachette.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurlebusch, Klaus. 2000. “Rarement vit-on tant de renouveau. Klopstock et ses contemporains : Tenants d’une ‘esthétique du génie’ et précurseurs de la littérature moderne.” In Écrire aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Genèses de textes littéraires et philosophiques, ed. by Almuth Grésillon and Jean-Louis Lebrave, 169–189. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ionescu, Cristina. 2012. “Dans les coulisses de La Fille d’Aristide. Le manuscrit théâtral et les Graffigny Papers sous l’œil de la critique génétique.” Genesis 34: 83–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn, Didier, and Annette Lorenceau. 1994. “Le manuscrit autographe du Salon de 1767.” In Les Œuvres complètes de Diderot : éditer les manuscrits, ed. by Jean Varloot, Michel Delon, et al., 267–288. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahouati, Gérard. 2012. “Le long travail (le manuscrit de l’Histoire de ma vie de Casanova).” Genesis 34: 97–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Love, Harold. 1993. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mele, Flora. 2010. Le Théâtre de Charles-Simon Favart: histoire et inventaire des manuscrits. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, Louis-Sébastien. [1801] 2009. Néologie, ed. by Jean-Claude Bonnet. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moureau, François (ed.). 1993. De Bonne main. La communication manuscrite au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Universitas / Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. La Plume et le plomb. Espaces de l’imprimé et du manuscrit au siècle des Lumières. Paris: PUPS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musitelli, Pierre. 2019. “Genèses littéraires dans la correspondance de Pietro et Alessandro Verri.” Genesis 49: 87–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pink, Gillian. 2018. Voltaire à l’ouvrage. Paris: CNRS–Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potocki, Jean. 2006. Œuvres, ed. by François Rosset and Dominique Triaire, vol. IV, 1 and 2. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Manuscrit trouvé à Saragosse, ed. by François Rosset and Dominique Triaire. Paris: GF-Flammarion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, Brian. 2009. Manuscript Culture in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rieucau, Nicolas. 2013. “Comment dater un manuscrit sans le comprendre? Le cas des archives Condorcet.” Dix–huitième siècle 45: 681–718. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, Stéphane. 2007. “Introduction.” In Buffon, Œuvres, ed. by Stéphane Schmitt, LII–LIV. Paris: Gallimard, coll. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sgard, Jean. 2011. “Note sur les archives ‘Prévost’.” RHLF 2: 449–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staël, Germaine de. [1800] 1991. De la littérature. Paris: GF-Flammarion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starobinski, Jean. 1989. “Approches de la génétique des textes: introduction pour un débat.” In La Naissance du texte, ed. by Louis Hay, 207–212. Paris: Corti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutherland, Kathryn. 2015. “Les manuscrits de Jane Austen: sur la page et dans la durée.” Genesis 41: 187–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varloot, Jean. 1976. “Difficultés d’une standardisation de la transcription dans le cas d’œuvres complètes à base multiple.” In Les Manuscrits: transcription, édition, signification, ed. by Louis Hay, 119–131. Paris: Presses de l’ENS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. “Texte et recherche.” In Éditer Diderot, ed. by Georges Dulac, IX–XV. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voltaire. 2009–2018. Corpus des notes marginales de Voltaire, ed. by Natalia Elaguina et al. Vols. 1–9. Oxford, Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue