La Fureur de nuire: Échanges pamphlétaires entre philosophes et antiphilosophes (1750–1770) (review)

This study of the ‘brochures’, ‘facéties’, ‘libelles’ and ‘satires’ that were exchanged between the opposing clans of philosophes and antiphilosophes between 1750 and 1770 fills a gap in our understanding of the nature of pamphlet literature, which is usually seen in the context of political conflict during the ancien régime (e.g. the Fronde and the Revolution). Olivier Ferret’s aim is to show the coherence of the approach adopted by both clans in a literary pamphlet war and to describe the poetics of this genre of polemical literature. Voltaire’s contemporaries may well have distinguished between ‘high’ literature and ‘une pratique ‘basse’ de laquelle participe l’activité pamphlétaire’ (p. 101), but the decision to include many of these texts in the collections of his works that emerged during his lifetime—Ferret gives a full list in an appendix—suggests his attachment to the form. In the third and fourth chapters of this work, Ferret deals, in great detail, with the kinds of editorial choices that characterize the genre and the various rhetorical devices that define it, but he is unable to conclude with a definition of its poetics because of the difficulty of defining a genre that essentially borrows from others. Ferret does not impose a definition that would be inaccurate. Instead, he concludes his structural analysis with the suggestion that ‘l’esthétique de ces pamphlets est [. . .] étroitement liée à leur visée pragmatique dans la mesure où il s’agit de plaire pour mieux nuire’ (p. 363). This opens up his study to the crucial question of the reception of these pamphlets by the public and the unwieldy concept that is ‘opinion publique’. Ferret’s approach to the concept is pleasingly nuanced: he acknowledges Habermas’s distinction between the literary public sphere and the political public sphere; he also underlines the importance of the distinction between opinion as it relates to someone’s reputation and opinion in terms of critical reflection, and shows that the pamphlets he studies clearly attempt to cultivate the former. While the presentation of the interaction between these various concepts is less clear, Ferret’s conclusion regarding the effect of these texts is important as it suggests that the form and content of non-political texts can tell us much about the politics of the philosophes: ‘Les pamphlets se trouvent ainsi mis au service d’une démarche politique dont l’efficacité réside peut-être moins dans le contenu véhiculé par les textes que dans les implications idéologiques de la pratique littéraire à laquelle ils se rattachent’ (p. 411). Overall, Ferret’s study is impressive because it is well-researched and comprehensive. It provides a very useful basis for our understanding of pamphlet literature and invites further reflection on the influence of this genre on public opinion. Juxtaposing his findings with the more overtly political pamphlets that followed his period of study (beginning with the pamphlet war that surrounds Chancellor Maupeou’s reforms in 1771) could help us to understand the nature of public opinion—which still evades us—as it developed and became a significant force in public life.