1835 Autograph Letter Signed by Napoleonic General Guillaume de Vaudoncourt Concerning His Contributions to William Duckett’s Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture

On offer is a substantial autograph letter signed by French Napoleonic general, military historian and cartographer Frédéric François Guillaume de Vaudoncourt, written from Poissy–Saint-Léger on December 5, 1835. Addressed to M. Héreau (who is almost certainly Edme-Joachim Héreau, editor of William Duckett’s monumental Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture), the letter offers a remarkably detailed account of the editorial negotiations, scholarly disagreements and division of authorship behind one of nineteenth-century France’s most ambitious encyclopedic undertakings.

This is not a letter of recommendation, it is an assertive and occasionally acerbic defence of Vaudoncourt’s intellectual territory within the Dictionnaire. He reminds Héreau that Duckett had discussed the project with him long before its prospectus appeared and that he had been among its earliest active collaborators.

Vaudoncourt argues that subjects connected with the historical and geographical fields he had already established should continue to be entrusted exclusively to him. Dividing closely related subjects among several writers, he warns, would create discrepancies and contradictions of the sort that had already disappointed the public. Unlike philosophy and metaphysics, where differing opinions might be expected, he insists that history, geography and the physical sciences must be constructed from the best available sources and treated according to a consistent scholarly method.

Central to his argument is his previously published article on the Celts, which he states had appeared in the twelfth volume of the Dictionnaire. Vaudoncourt describes the article as having been based upon important original materials relating particularly to Northern Europe and its ancient languages. He further claims that the work had been submitted to an Academy and judged in 1828 to be of exceptional usefulness and capable of giving archaeological studies a new direction.

That foundational article, he explains, established his interpretation of the relationships, history and geography of the peoples then grouped under the broad designation “Celts,” including the Finns, Gauls and Germanic peoples, with associated discussions of the Franks, Goths, Suebi and Scandinavians. Although these classifications reflect early nineteenth-century scholarship rather than present-day archaeology and linguistics, the letter provides valuable evidence of how European ethnic origins were being researched, organized and debated during the formative decades of modern historical and archaeological study.

Vaudoncourt reports that his articles on the Finns and Franks were already completed and that he had likewise prepared material concerning the Gauls, Germans and Goths, along with related subjects. He emphasizes that he had planned and written these interconnected entries together so that they would form a coherent body of scholarship rather than a collection of unrelated compilations.

The letter also discusses the proposed contents of the Dictionnaire under the letter “F.” Vaudoncourt argues that the Battle of Fère-Champenoise, an important engagement of the 1814 campaign in France, deserves inclusion. He maintains that the ancient Frisians do not require an independent article because they were already treated within his discussions of the Cimbri and Germanic peoples. If the editors wanted only a conventional compilation comparing later Frisian history with that of Germany and Holland, he dismissively declares that such work is not his affair.

He therefore claims responsibility for the articles concerning the Battle of Fontenoy, the Finns and the Franks, invoking both fairness to himself and the need for consistency in the arrangement and composition of each branch of the encyclopedia. His remarks reveal the practical tensions created when a large serial reference work attempted to coordinate numerous specialists while maintaining continuity across hundreds of interdependent subjects.

Vaudoncourt closes by stressing that a writer must not allow an inadequate or unworthy work to leave his hands. Literary reputation, he suggests, is secondary to his desire to contribute usefully to a genuinely useful publication. He asks Héreau to respond as quickly as possible and adds in a postscript that he is arranging materials connected with Duckett and the Revue rétrospective. A contemporary docket records that the letter was answered on December 7.

Beyond its association with a prominent Napoleonic officer, the manuscript is an unusually revealing document of nineteenth-century intellectual and publishing history. It places Vaudoncourt directly within the working editorial circle surrounding Duckett’s celebrated encyclopedia and records, in his own hand, his understanding of authorship, scholarly authority, source criticism and editorial consistency. Its references to specific published and proposed entries make it particularly valuable for the study of French encyclopedism, early archaeology, historical geography and the organization of knowledge during the 1830s.

Guillaume de Vaudoncourt: Frédéric François Guillaume de Vaudoncourt (1772–1845) was a French artillery officer, general, cartographer and prolific military historian. He served in the French and Italian armies during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, was promoted to general of brigade in 1809 and participated in the Russian campaign of 1812. Following Napoleon’s fall, he became involved in European liberal and constitutional movements and spent periods in exile before returning to France. His numerous publications included studies of Hannibal, the campaigns in Italy, the Russian campaign, the crossing of the Berezina and the European wars of 1814–1815. He also edited the Journal des sciences militaires and contributed to major historical and encyclopedic publications.

Edme-Joachim Héreau: Héreau (1791–1836) was a French writer, journalist, scholar of Russian literature and editor associated with the Revue encyclopédique, the Bulletin universel des sciences et de l’industrie and Duckett’s Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture. His editorial position and direct involvement in assigning and supervising articles make him the evident recipient of Vaudoncourt’s arguments concerning the “F” entries.

Condition: Very Good+. Densely written in Vaudoncourt’s hand and signed at the conclusion, with a contemporary docket recording its receipt and reply.