PFSCL XLIII, 84 (2016) Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture: The Complicated and Contradictory Order of the Remarques sur la Langue Française S KYE P AINE (T HE C OLLEGE AT B ROCKPORT ) Claude Favre de Vaugelas is unequivocal when discussing the complete lack of organization in his 1647 linguistic treatise, Remarques sur la Langue Française. In its preface he states: Peut-être qu’on trouvera étrange, que je n’aie observé aucun ordre en ces Remarques n’y ayant rien de si beau ni de si nécessaire que l’ordre en toutes choses. (Vaugelas, 30) Despite the definitive aucun that modifies ordre, the end of this quote is marked by a longing, mournful apology for the absent, beautiful, and necessary order. The conflicted and contradictory attitude toward textual organization seen in this quote is telling and representative of the work as a whole. A closer study of the Remarques reveals that the text is partially organized in several veiled, revelatory, and narratively pleasing ways that ultimately reflect Vaugelas’ dynamic and innovative view on reason. Many scholars have acquiesced to the author’s insistence that there is no organization to his text. Several of his contemporaries decried the lack of order and some of his followers and critics would go as far as revising the text and publishing it in a more ordered format. 1 Many twentieth-century studies of Vaugelas echo Trudeau’s summation of the Remarques as a “petit ouvrage mal ordonné” (Trudeau, 193). Some critics, however, have championed a term that hints at the true depth of Vaugelas’s structural approach: random ordering. Despite the inherent paradox, this expression has become widely accepted by Vaugelasian scholars. Most notably, Wendy Ayres-Bennett has championed the term and 1 Please consult Ayres-Bennett & Sejido Les Compilations and Coski for more on these contemporary interpretations of Vaugelas. Skye Paine 50 has outlined the precedents as well as the legacy of this form of organization. She even goes as far as to declare: … the 17 th century French volumes of short, randomly ordered observations which treat points of doubtful usage on which the best speakers and writers are said to make mistakes do constitute a new genre. (Ayres-Bennett, Reading, 246) Although the Remarques represent the high point of this new variety of book, the fact remains that in order to permit the concept that a text can be both random and ordered means that one must allow for something not entirely reasonable. This kind of acceptance is well within the bounds of Vaugelas’s work because the author constantly questions the role of rationality in his treatise. He presents la raison as something surprisingly fluid and this unexpected dynamism is at the very core of his text dedicated to bon usage. In the preface he writes: “En un mot l’usage fait beaucoup de choses par raison, beaucoup sans raison, et beaucoup contre raison” (Vaugelas, 18). Modern linguistic scholars utilize this relational definition as a means of distancing Vaugelas from grammarians who promoted a more rigid system of understanding language. 2 While many have written about how Vaugelas relates la raison to the work’s content (good usage), no one has yet applied this adaptable take on rationality to the form (the organization) of the Remarques. The link between the concepts of order and reason invite this kind of analysis. Ultimately, viewing the structure of the Remarques through this lens further justifies the term “random ordering” and shows how Vaugelas ingeniously reflects the subject matter by arranging his lessons par raison, sans raison and contre raison. A Hero Against Reason The first item after the introductory preface is entitled “Héros, Héroïne, héroïque” and it is an apt means to begin an analysis of the complex and contradictory ordering of the Remarques. This observation simply explains how one should not make the liaison with the article and that the “H” is not aspirated. However, a careful analysis of how Vaugelas describes and places the word héros throughout the text illustrates his complicated use of reason as an organizing construct. Furthermore, an examination of this choice 2 This debate has largely been framed by Chomsky and his take on Vaugelas in his publication of Cartesian Linguistics in 1966. Consult Chomsky and then read Hillman for the most eloquent rebuttal of Chomsky’s interpretation. Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture 51 uncovers a deeper meaning to this work and Vaugelas’s subtle narrative talent in engaging his readers. Defining reason within the context of the Remarques is a difficult task. Ayres-Bennett alludes to this when she writes that “a major problem is that the term raison has more than one meaning both in Vaugelas’s work and in the assessments of various critics” (Ayres-Bennett, Development, 2). Vaugelas defines and ultimately rejects two guidelines for organizing linguistic texts dedicated to transmitting short lessons. First is alphabetical, which has the advantage “de faire trouver les matières plus promptement” (Vaugelas, 30). Secondly, he proposes that one could organize items according to the nine parts of speech: articles, nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. He makes a direct mention of reason when addressing this form of sequencing, saying that it is seen as “une autre espèce d’ordre à garder plus raisonnable et plus utile” (Vaugelas, 30). With these descriptions of a more rational structure for his treatise we have our working definition for raison in terms of the juxtaposition of items in the Remarques. If they are ordered by letter or by parts of speech, then they are placed par raison and if they are explicitly positioned against these two principles then they are contre raison. The choice to make héros the first item in the Remarques supports Vaugelas’s insistence that he has not observed any order. It illustrates organization contre raison because starting with the eighth letter he eschews any hope of alphabetical organization. He is also clearly avoiding any grouping by parts of speech because this lesson on the pronunciation of a noun is followed by an explanation of the gender of période and then the adverbial status of quelque. Perhaps the least raisonnable thing about the choice of héros as the first item is that he gives the exact same lesson on not aspirating an “H” around 100 pages later in the text. This shows a willful desire to go against the two forms of reason that he outlines in the preface. Ordering the text against the two forms of rational structure occurs in many instances and it challenges us to contemplate why Vaugelas rejects these logical means of sequencing. For example, the alphabetically linked “Epithete,” “Epigramme,” and “Epitaphe”—entries concerning noun gender—are separated by four pages. In his preface, he dismisses alphabetical order saying that it “ne contribue rien à l’intelligence des matières que l’on traite” (Vaugelas, 30). He rejects juxtaposition by part of speech to avoid alienating his audience, since it is improbable that “Tous ceux qui n’ont nulle teinture de la langue Latine en peuvent tirer du profit” (Vaugelas, 31). Finally, he concedes the lack of organized structure gives him “moyen d’en ajouter toujours de nouvelles, ce que je n’eusse pu faire si j’eusse suivi l’un des deux ordres” (Vaugelas, 31). To summarize, Vaugelas leaves the organi- Skye Paine 52 zation of his Remarques random because it is best for the readership, most convenient for the writer, and it does not detract from the comprehension of the lessons. A Hero with Reason However, closer study reveals that Vaugelas’s declaration of disorganization is overstated and that the organization is more reasonable than he admits. Larry Hillman alludes to the fact when he suggests, “The failure of most readers to recognize the extent to which reason operates Vaugelas’s decisions is the result… of not going beyond the Preface” (Hillman, 191). Looking beyond the introductory section, we see that Vaugelas does on occasion abide by the two reasonable forms of organization he claims to eschew. In the second instance of héros (“De l’h dans les mots composés”), Vaugelas places the term per raison in that it is within a series of items concretely linked by alphabet and part of speech. Alphabetically, the second appearance of the word occurs in the third of three lessons on the letter “H” itself: “H aspirée ou consonne et h muette; ” “Règle pour discerner l’h consonne d’avec la muette; ” and “De l’h dans les mots composés.” This kind of roughly alphabetical ordering is found throughout the second part of the text. For example, one section has every heading begin with L (Lors, Lequel / Laquelle, Lairrois / Lairray) and another starts with In- (Intrigue, Incendie, vomir des Injures). Sometimes the same word will repeat in two separate, yet consecutive, remarks like when Monde is followed by Monde avec le pronom possessif or when Résoudre neutre & actif is paired with Résoudre conjugué. These alphabetically linked remarks attest to the fact that true randomness was avoided and the vestiges of reason are never totally absent. 3 The second appearance of héros is most evidently par raison when one notes that it is clustered with a group of items all dedicated to the same issue of pronunciation. Ayers-Bennett notes that Vaugelas will have certain items linked by parts of speech or by the common lesson they give when she writes: 3 An earlier version of the text, the so-called Arsenal Manuscript, could partly explain why there are alphabetically linked items in the Remarques. Ayres-Bennett notes that it is “broadly alphabetical” (Ayres-Bennett, Development, 3) and thus the occasional lapse into organization by letter could be seen as the vestiges of an earlier draft that he did not take the care to properly randomize. For more on this, consult Ayers-Bennett, Wendy. “A Study in the Genesis of Vaugelas’s Remarques sur la Langue Françoise: The Arsenal Manuscript.” Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture 53 It should be noted that occasionally related observations do follow in succession (e.g. Si on, & si l’on; On, l’on, & t’on, devant on, & devant que l’on). (Ayres-Bennett, Evolving, 355) It is worth highlighting a few other examples of this grouping to illustrate its relative frequency, such as the “Y” section (Y, pour lui, Y Devant En, Y, Avec les Pronoms) and the sequence of seven interrogative pronouns (Qui répété plusieurs fois, Quant & moi, Quand à moi, Quand à moi, Quant & quant moi, Quoi, pronom, Qui, en certains cas). This last example is particularly notable as it is also broadly alphabetical. Sequential ordering The second placing of héros is also remarkable for contradicting yet another form of textual organization that Vaugelas explicitly rejects in his preface. He claims that his goal was to: Faire des remarques qui sont toutes détachées l’une de l’autre, et dont l’intelligence ne dépend nullement ni de celles qui précèdent ni de celles qui suivent. (Vaugelas, 31) Yet, the second mention of hero is immediately followed by an item (entitled “Comment il faut prononcer et orthographier les mots français venant des mots grecs, dans lesquels mots grecs il y a une ou plusieurs aspirations, en effet ou en puissance”) that pertains precisely to the word héros. This could be defined as sequential ordering that occurs when the end of one lesson introduces the next, thereby creating a kind of suite. In this case the very same héros that showed how he went against reason now exemplifies order by reason since it is a part of an eight-page, four-Remarque suite of commentaries on pronunciation. Vaugelas often announces this sequential ordering with statements such as, “La remarque suivante fortifiera encore celle-ci” (Vaugelas, 222), or “La remarque suivante servira à confirmer davantage cette vérité” (Vaugelas, 227). These connected items again refute Vaugelas’s claims that the order of the book is completely without reason and that all items are completely detached from one another. A Hero Without Reason The interplay between the deliberate appearance of unplanned organization and occasional lapses into outright rational juxtaposition implies a level of intentionality that Vaugelas himself is loath to accept in his preface. Skye Paine 54 Consider the third form of ordering: “without reason.” Sans raison defines the purposeful connection of items outside of the two rational means of organization already explored (alphabetical or by part of speech). In this way it is neither with nor against reason but lies somewhere in between the two, marrying the purpose of the former to the rejection of an overly pedagogical approach of the latter. It brings more substance to Vaugelas’s decision to “randomly order” the work and it adds narrative depth to a text often dismissed as a descriptivist reference book. As with the other two forms of ordering, it is best understood through the word héros. It is one of the truly curious facts of Vaugelasian studies that his choice of héros as the first word has gone nearly unmentioned. Vaugelas’s contemporary, Dupleix, disparages this choice as frivolous in the Académie’s Commentaires: I’eusse bien desiré, pour la reputation d’vn homme si celebre qu’est l’Auteur de ces Remarques, il eût debuté mieux & plus heureusement en commençant son ouvrage par celle-cy: où il a employé deux pages & demie pour nous dire des choses si basses & des raisons si frivoles contre vne regle generale. (Commentaires, 1) While Dupleix is correct in assigning some importance to Vaugelas’s choice of a first word, it is possible that he missed the point entirely. Perhaps it was chosen not because of the lesson—one that is repeated and explained in better depth much later in the text—but because the word itself was important and had some narrative impact. Had Vaugelas chosen to open with periode (the second item), or quelque (the third) it would send a much different message to the reader. Vaugelas’s choice to evoke heroism indicates that he was thinking how to best engage his audience, one that was living in a literary age where heroism was constantly discussed and defined. The decision to start with héros demonstrates order without reason because it was not placed there by pure hazard (random) or solely according to the two accepted forms of rational organization (order). The intentionality of héros merits further study. First we should put it in the literary and social context of the era. If we take the example of Don Rodrigue in Le Cid (first performed in 1636), a hero of this place and time is defined by his bravery and unwavering subservience to duty. Placed as it is immediately after the preface, the message Vaugelas appears to send is that the reader owes his stanch fidelity to bon usage, which the preface informs us is “le maître et le souverain des langues vivantes” (Vaugelas, 9). Through subservience to good usage, one can attain linguistic heroism. The choice of héros is even more interesting when one considers that it is one of many times that Vaugelas himself questions good usage. He notes that it is “contre la règle générale,” which is “infaillible presque en tous les Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture 55 autres mots souffre exception en celui-ci, et il faut dire le héros” (Vaugelas, 41). He continues with a common theme that is found throughout the Remarques: Usage is strange and sometimes unreasonable, but it must always be followed. He says that “il n’y a rien de si bizarre que l’usage qui est le maître des langues vivantes” (Vaugelas, 41) and then insists that “il n’y a point de raison” (Vaugelas, 41). This early confrontation with usage serves to illustrate what he already explained in the preface when lamenting that the abandonment of face was “digne de risée” (Vaugelas, 24) and that poitrine is no longer a part of bon usage for reasons that are “extravagante et insupportable” (Vaugelas, 24). Vaugelas illustrates similar difficulties with varying severity throughout the text, often characterizing the sovereign usage as a tyrant instead of as a king. 4 This apparent rebellion is actually the means by which Vaugelas shows his total dedication. He is faithful to usage not because it is always right, but because it is always right to be faithful to usage. His fealty to bon usage is not simply the mark of a good subject, but the mark of a hero who fights on behalf of his feudal master. He sets the example that others must follow by his complete and utter dedication to the lord of language. Much like the Cornelian hero, he may recognize that a dilemma exists, but his allegiance to his lord erases any possibility or consideration that this dilemma could sway his actions in any way. The only explicit mention of heroism as a concept in the Remarques is found in the preface that immediately precedes héros in the text. It appears in a section where Vaugelas writes about the authors who are against his work and against those who work for purity in French. He explains that one of the reasons that he does not name these rebellious enemies is that “il n’y a rien de beau et d’héroïque comme de se rétracter généreusement dès qu’il apparaît qu’on s’est trompé” (Vaugelas, 21). It is his belief that his detractors will eventually succumb to usage because “il faut se soumettre malgré qu’on en ait à cette puissance souveraine” (Vaugelas, 22). He is letting these authors know that it is not too late to submit to their duty and transform themselves into linguistic heroes. 5 4 For example, in the item entitled Recouvert et Recouvré he states that “l’usage est le roi, pour ne pas dire le tyran” (Vaugelas, 48) and he later laments the loss of the word Magnifier which is lost to “la tyrannie de l’usage” (Vaugelas, 108). 5 On the subject of submission, it is an interesting and curious fact that Vaugelas’s item on La Soumission comes immediately after Fronde. Although his text predates the chaos and disorder of “La Fronde” by several years, it is an intriguing coincidence. Given the slingshot’s enduring symbolism as an arm of resistance this could indeed be intentional. Skye Paine 56 Other examples of juxtaposition sans raison are akin to héros in the way that they use structural dynamism in a narratively revelatory manner. While Vaugelas maintains the illusion of randomness, one can always find some intentionality and hidden order. Prochain and Proches (Vaugelas, 89-90) are another example. They are next to each other in the text, clearly alphabetically linked and are therefore listed according to a rational system. However, it is worth noting that Libéral Arbitre (Vaugelas, 89) precedes them both. Certainly the raging debate about grace and free will was not alien to Vaugelas, nor to the salons that he attended and for whom he wrote. The connection between Libéral Arbitre and Pouvoir Prochain is implied in the pairing of Arbitre and Prochain, and it is highly unlikely that Vaugelas would have overlooked this. Though it is not the purpose of this article to ascribe to the author a position in the debate about grace, it is interesting to witness how he plays on the audience’s capacity to connect words and thoughts. He may have even acted subconsciously, but this kind of link and thematic sequence suits the manner in which he meant the Remarques to be read. Vaugelas is able to maintain the surprising pleasure of an outwardly random text while creating organization in accordance with his own subtle design. Vaugelas also utilizes the organization sans raison to insert subtle humor, for example, in pairing taxer and supplier. (It is well-known that Vaugelas was constantly in need of patronage and money throughout his life. 6 ) Although he attained a respected position, it is nevertheless true that he died in a state of poverty while serving as a tutor to the sons of Thomas François de Savoie. More pertinent to the pairing noted above is an anecdote concerning an interaction between Vaugelas and one of his major benefactors, the Cardinal Richelieu. When the author was working on the dictionary of the Académie Française, Richelieu asked, “Eh bien! Vous n’oublierez pas dans le Dictionnaire le mot de pension” (Chassang, V), to which Vaugelas apparently quipped, “Non, Monseigneur… et moins encore celui de reconnaissance” (Chassang, V). This story makes a concrete link between the content of Vaugelas’s work and his life and it lends credence to the belief that an author’s perspective and experience can affect even the driest of reference books. Finally, this story adds dimension to the pairing of taxer and supplier in the Remarques. One is a word that caused Vaugelas to give money to the government, and the other is a word that allowed him to receive money from it. 6 For more on this, consult Combaz’s Biography, Claude Favre de Vaugelas: Mousquetaire de la Langue Française. Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture 57 The Insidious Menace of Bad Usage The most revealing example of organization sans raison comes early in the book with the word insidieux. Its placement immediately after sortir in the text is fortuitous and deliberate because this verb is an example that Vaugelas uses to illustrate the insidiousness of bad usage. Once again, he mirrors the content in his deceptively desultory form. He declares that sortir is not an active verb and then laments: “C’est pourquoi, sortez ce cheval…est très mal dit, encore que cette façon de parler se soit rendue fort commune à la Cour, et par toutes les provinces” (Vaugelas, 61). The fact that he identifies fault with the Court is the critical aspect of this quote. In doing so, Vaugelas indicates that mauvais usage has worked its way into the very center of good speech. Not only has bad usage infiltrated the Court, but it also spreads very easily: Il faut remarquer, que de toutes les erreurs sui se peuvent introduire dans la langue, il n’y en a point de si aisée à établir que de faire un verbe actif. (Vaugelas, 61) Because this mistake is so easy to adopt, and because it is used in the best circles, it is therefore more dangerous than something that is overtly wrong. In a word, sortir perfectly manifests insidiousness, which plays an integral role in the dangerous nature of mauvais usage in the Remarques. This decision to pair words in which one defines the misuse of the other is a clear demonstration of Vaugelas’s intentional ordering sans raison. Returning to a more direct study of the text’s organization, it is revelatory that insidieux is the very first of several accepted neologisms found in Vaugelas’s work. 7 He embraces the word and claims that it should be used “parce que nous n’avons point de mot qui signifie celui-là, outre qu’il est beau et doux à l’oreille” (Vaugelas, 61). It is important to note that he is alone in his appreciation for this new word. In the Commentaires, Ménage disagrees with Vaugelas’s attribution of the word to Malherbe; Patru declares that, “Ce mot à mon aussi ne vaut rien; ” Corneille adds that “il ne peut jamais estre que désagreable & dégoûtant; ” and Bouhours similarly notes, “ce mot n’a pas réüssi, & … la prédiction de M. de Vaugelas s’est trouvé fausse” (Commentaires, 84). The final judgment of the Académie reads: 7 Ayres-Bennett discusses how Vaugelas distinguishes himself from others in terms of his acceptance of new words: “Vaugelas’s attitude to neologism is more flexible than many commentators” (Ayres-Bennett, Development, 127). This flexibility is ultimately part of his rigid insistence that one must follow good usage at all costs. Skye Paine 58 Monsieur de Malherbe n’a esté suivi de personne quand il a voulu establir insidieux, & ce mot pour lequel M. de Vaugelas avoit auguré si favorablement n’a point fait fortune. (Commentaires, 84) While the presence of the word in the modern lexicon indicates that Vaugelas was ultimately correct, it is nonetheless remarkable how isolated his opinion appears in its contemporary context. In this light, the choice to have insidieux be the first of the neologisms in the Remarques appears defiant. He is simultaneously attributing it some kind of structural importance while tacitly provoking those who believe that the word has no place in good French. 8 Bookended Équivoque The book ends with a series of entries comprised of long-form observations on purity, style, barbarisms, solecisms, and ambiguity. Of particular interest is the final item: des équivoques. Vaugelas announces that the use of equivocal statements is “le plus grand de tous les vices contre la netteté” (Vaugelas, 343) and it can hardly be seen as a random choice to close his work with this particularly dangerous enemy of usage. This placement also creates something of a bookend when one once again considers the very first item, héros. He concludes that initial lesson with the following words: Il s’est rencontré encore une chose assez plaisante pour autoriser la prononciation irrégulière de héros; c’est qu’au pluriel, si on le prononçait selon la règle et que l’on ne fît pas l’h aspirante, on ferait une fâcheuse et ridicule équivoque, et il n’y aurait point de différence entre ces deux prononciations les héros de l’Antiquité et les zéros de chiffre. (Vaugelas, 42) Thus he ends the first item and ends the entire book with the same insistence on the avoidance of equivocal statements. This is another way in which Vaugelas reinforces the importance of content through the subtle manipulation of form. It is worth considering this particular opening équivoque a bit more. Only through good usage can one avoid confusing a hero with a zero. The meaning of these two words could not be more disastrously different. Moreover, one must abide by this guiding principle despite the fact that it is against the reasonable implementation of a larger rule. Once again, 8 It is a word of such importance to the text that one could dedicate another article exclusively to the role of insidiousness in spreading bad usage. Most often, as it is with sortir, that which is insidieux is also barbare and originates from the provinces. Vaugelas’s Pleasant Mixture 59 Vaugelas reinforces the idea that true heroism in language comes from submission to good usage and that failing to do so results in erasing oneself. Vaugelas’s Dictionary In Combaz’s biography of Vaugelas, he mentions that the linguist had also been working on the Dictionnaire de l’Académie and that people considered his two works so connected that they called the Remarques “le dictionnaire de M. de Vaugelas” (Combaz, 61). This is a meaningful appellation since it implies the possibility that one can have true authorship over a reference book. The better arrangement of words is one of the few ways that one can actually “write” a dictionary. Given his complete deference and submission to bon usage in the content of his work, the form is the primary way in which he can make his voice as a writer heard. The concept of the Remarques as a dictionary hints at the hybridity of Vaugelas’s work, which is both a reference book and a work that betrays the guiding hand of a true author. He does this primarily through his innovative “random ordering” with its careful adherence to order by, against, and without reason. He planned unpredictability with his lack of order, yet he was careful to allow for some linked passages that could create more lengthy consideration. The occasional logically connected items allow one to absorb a concentrated tutorial with several illustrated examples. The disjointed items jog the very same reader’s mind and leave him with the feeling that he can never know what will come next. Finally, Vaugelas juxtaposes other items with such art and care that they almost imperceptibly communicate a deeper message. Ultimately, Vaugelas’ complicated and dynamic method of composition creates a good reading experience. In his preface, his commentary concludes on the lack of order in his Remarques by referring to his placement of items as an “agréable mélange” (Vaugelas, 31). This word, agréable, indicates that he is not only describing and promoting good usage, but that he is also trying to please his readership. 9 9 Recent scholars have worked to identify exactly who his reading public was. It is believed that it was largely composed of the women and men who frequented the salons. They have mentioned that he himself frequented Mme Rambouillet’s Chambre Bleue and it is generally agreed that he had this audience in mind while composing the Remarques. In terms of the structure, they have insisted that the “random ordering” is in place to reflect contemporary hostility to anything considered overly scholastic or pedantic” (Ayres-Bennett, Reading, 264). Skye Paine 60 The concept of a pleasant mixture further accentuates the hybridity inherent in Vaugelas’s structure. Only a few pages after he had admitted and lamented the fact that his text has aucun ordre, he states that “il y a une certaine confusion qui a ses charmes aussi bien que l’ordre” (Vaugelas, 31). The fact that Vaugelas even considers the charm of his reference book is another indicator of how much he thinks like a writer and not as a mere descriptivist. In this quote the mournful tone is absent, and we see that he embraces the agreeable mixture between rationality and irrationality that marks his work. In his organization, he does not choose between confusion and order, but uses both to most effectively serve his goal of promoting good usage. WORKS CITED Ayres-Bennett, Wendy. “An Evolving Genre: Seventeenth-Century Remarques And Observations On The French Language.” Interpreting the History of French. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi, 2002. 353-368. ______. “Reading The Remarqueurs: Changing Perceptions Of ‘Classic’ Texts.” Historiographia Linguistica 33.3 (2006): 263-302. ______. “A Study in the Genesis of Vaugelas’s Remarques sur la Langue Françoise: The Arsenal Manuscript.” French Studies 37.1 (1983): 17-34. ______Vaugelas and the Development of the French Language. London: The Modern Humanities Research Association, 1987. Ayres-Bennett, Wendy and Magali Seijido. “Les Compilations raisonnées des Remarques et Observations sur la langue française.” French Studies 65 (2011): 347-356. Chassang, Alexis. Remarques sur la Langue Française de Vaugelas. Paris: Cerf, 1884. Combaz, André. Claude Favre de Vaugelas: Mousquetaire de la Langue Française. Paris: Klincksieck, 2000. Coski, Christopher. From Barbarism to Universality: Language and Identity in Early Modern France. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2011. Hillman, Larry H.. “Vaugelas and the ‘Cult of Reason’.” Philological Quarterly 55: 2 (Spring: 1976): 211-23. Streicher, Jeanne, ed. Commentaires sur les Remarques de Vaugelas: Volume 1. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. Trudeau, Danielle. Les Inventeurs du Bon Usage: 1529-1647. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1992. Vaugelas, Claude Favre de. Remarques sur la Langue Française. Paris: Éditions Ivrea, 1996.