ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

In this paper 1 , I return to a topic that I have studied several other occasions, namely Leibniz's reading of the political chapters of Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670; hereafter TTP) 2 . I am interested in how Leibniz situated himself in relation to Spinoza's conception of ecclesiastical right and church-state relations, or to what Spinoza, using a standard expression, called jus circa sacra, the "right concerning sacred matters." My aim is to find and consider whatever meager textual material available for reconstructing Leibniz's actual position vis-àvis Spinoza on this most central question in seventeenth-century political philosophy. 3 I will show that Leibniz did, albeit very briefly and in a somewhat hidden fashion, confront Spinoza on the topic of jus circa sacra, or at least made preparations for doing so by identifying weak points in Spinoza's argumentation, while reading the TTP for a second time around the end of 1675.

My aim is to provide some historical and textual foothold for a study-Leibniz's reading of Spinoza's political philosophy-that otherwise easily reduces to the abstract comparison of philosophical positions, with little historiographical justification. With respect to the general theme of this volume, i.e. Leibniz's theory of natural law, and the question of how it compares to that of Spinoza, the general point I want to make is a somewhat negative one. Leibniz's recommended two approaches to Spinoza's political philosophy as laid out in TTP XVI-XX, but none them explicitly addressed the question of natural right. The first approach, which I have studied elsewhere, consisted in simply ignoring Spinoza's position and keeping conspicuously silent about a theory that he did not know how to really get a grip on 4 . The second approach, an aspect of which I will study here, consisted in recommending that Spinoza's political theory be confronted on the terrain of the biblical exegesis involved in his theory, and not the philosophical-conceptual framework of his natural law theory. This confirms a general impression that Leibniz largely considered refuting Spinoza's TTP, including the last five chapters on political issues, to be a task for a biblical scholar rather than a political philosopher or natural law theorist.

Spinoza's main discussion of church-state relations can be found in chapter XIX of the TTP. 5 Here, Spinoza sets out to demonstrate, as the title of the chapter goes, "that the right concerning sacred matters [jus circa sacra] belongs completely to the supreme powers, and that the external practice of Religion must be accommodated to the peace of the Republic, if we want to obey God Rightly" 6 . Leibniz read the TTP twice, but what he wrote about the work is generally very limited and, to my knowledge, he never explicitly addressed Spinoza's position on this specific issue 7 . When he read the TTP for the first time late 1670, his brief notes-some 16 lines-mainly concern the role Spinoza granted Ezra in the constitution of the canon of the OT and the transmission of the biblical texts, that is to say, themes regarding the textual status of the Bible that Spinoza discusses mostly in chapters VIII and IX of the TTP 8 . Leibniz makes no reference to any of the political chapters of Spinoza's work, that is to say chapters XVI-XX. Some correspondence from the time does make some general remarks about Spinoza's political philosophy, in particular regarding his proximity to Hobbes, but nothing that indicates any deeper critique over and above the scandalized reaction of Leibniz's mentor Jacob Thomasius, whose refutation of the TTP, the Adversus anonymum, de libertate philosophandi from May 1670, Leibniz may have read before he read the TTP itself 9 . 4 See notably Laerke, "Leibniz on Spinoza's Political Philosophy", op. cit., pp. 105-34. 5 To this, we should add § 46 in chap. 8 of the Tractatus politicus, on "national religion". On this, see M. Laerke, "Spinoza on National Religion", in: Y. Melamed and H. Sharp (eds.), A Critical Guide to Spinoza's Political Treatise, Cambridge, [forthcoming]. 6 For commentary, see P.-F. Moreau, "Spinoza et le jus circa sacra", in: P.-F. Moreau, Spinoza. État et religion, Lyon 2005, pp. 63-70; M. Laerke, "La controverse entre Grotius, Hobbes et Spinoza sur le jus circa sacra. Textes, prétextes, contextes et circonstances", in: Revue de Synthèse 137:3-4 (2016), pp. 399-425. 7 The possibility remains that Leibniz addressed the issue in the letter or letters he presumably wrote to Spinoza around 1672, as a follow-up to his letter to Spinoza from November 1671. This letter does not mention the TTP, but Spinoza responded by sending a copy of his work (Letter XLVI, G IV 233/C II 395). Moreover, according to a letter from Spinoza to Schuller, Leibniz wrote additional letters, most likely trying to engage Spinoza in a discussion of the TTP (see Spinoza, Letter LXXI, G IV 305/C II 466). The correspondence is unfortunately lost. 8 See G. W. Leibniz, "Leibniz' Marginalien zu Spinozas Tractatus theologicopoliticus im Exemplar der Bibliotheca Boineburgica in Erfurt, also zu datieren auf 1670-71", ed. U. Goldenbaum, in: M. Fontius, H. Rudolph et G. Smith (eds.), Labora diligenter, op. cit., pp. 105-7, trans. as "Leibniz' Marginalia on the Back of the Title of Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-politicus", ed. U. Goldenbaum, in: The Leibniz Review 18 (2008), pp. 270-72. For Spinoza, see TTP VII, G III 126-40/C II 202-24. 9 See J. Thomasius, Adversus anonymum, de libertate philosophandi, Lipsiae, May 1670, reprinted in J. Thomasius, Dissertationes LXIII, ed. Chr. Thomasius, Halae Magdeburgicae 1693, pp. 571-84. Without However, Leibniz read the TTP a second time during his time in Paris. There is some incertitude as to what prompted him to engage in this reexamination of the work and when exactly he did. The Academy edition (vol. VI, iii) suggests a conjectural dating around the end of 1675 or the beginning of 1676, a dating that I have myself tended to follow without being entirely sure that it may not have been somewhat earlier 10 . Leibniz met and befriended a member of Spinoza's inner circle, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus, in the fall of 1675. Some notes that Leibniz wrote down during or after one or several conversations he had with Tschirnhaus about Spinoza briefly refer to topics that also appear in the TTP 11 . Moreover, via Hermann Schuller, Tschirnhaus reports to Spinoza that Leibniz "thinks very well" of the TTP, making it clear that Leibniz spoke to his new friend about the book 12 . There are however biographical circumstances that may have been more important than Leibniz's encounter with Tschirnhaus, namely his exchanges with the French erudite Pierre-Daniel Huet concerning the latter's apologetic work, the Demonstratio evangelica, completed around the end of 1676 but only published in 1679 13 . Spinoza himself learned of Huet's refutation in progress via Leibniz (the information was related in a letter from Tschirnhaus written in May 1676). 14 There is also reason to believe that Leibniz contributed to the fact that Huet made "the author of the liberty to philosophize" one of his explicit opponents; he undoubtedly discussed Spinoza work with the French erudite 15 .

While reading the TTP this second time, Leibniz did so pen in hand, mostly writing out passages. His extensive excerpts take up a non-negligible twenty-six pages in volume VI, III, of the Academy edition. About one page of those excerpts concerns chapter XIX. Those notes provide actual textual grounding, however flimsy, for proposing a comparison between Leibniz and Spinoza, but they also indicate the scope of a historically pertinent investigation. Hence, I will take my point of departure in that page of excerpts for my discussion of indicating when he had read it, Leibniz refers to it in his letter to Thomasius from 21/31 January 1672, A II, I, 320. 10 The dating is not based on material evidence. The excerpts are on Paris paper, formally placing the notes between March 1672 and October 1676. There is no possible way of verifying which edition of the TTP Leibniz was using (see A VI, III, 248). For a conjectural date, the Academy editors refer to circumstantial evidence: first, that Leibniz visited Spinoza's former teacher Franciscus Van den Enden in Paris around 1674; second, that a brief comment in the margins about not approving of Spinoza's position that "God is the nature of things" (A VI, III, 269-70) testify to knowledge of Spinoza's metaphysics not available to him before meeting Tschirnhaus in October 1675-an interpretive claim which is, at best, contestable. This does not in itself imperil the conjectural dating. If, however, as I suspect, Huet's Demonstratio evangelica was the principal context for Leibniz's second reading of the TTP, it is perfectly possible that we must place it at a somewhat earlier date, from the time when Leibniz first met Huet late 1672 onward. On the personal relations and exchanges between Leibniz and Huet, see Leibniz's position on Spinoza's conception of the "right concerning sacred matters," or jus circa sacra 16 .

The Excerpts from TTP XIX

I give below a full translation of Leibniz's excerpts from TTP XIX. In order to maintain comparability with Spinoza's text, I translate with a constant side-glance to Edwin Curley's recently published translation of the TTP. I indicate in footnotes when Leibniz's text deviates from mere copying or close paraphrase. Moreover, contrary to the Academy edition, I insert square brackets ("[…]") whenever Leibniz jumps in Spinoza's text:

That the right concerning sacred matters belongs completely to the supreme 'powers, and that the external practice of Religion must be accommodated to the peace of the Republic, if we want to obey God Rightly. […] He notes this: Moses wanted to inflict punishment upon those who violated the Sabbath before the covenant, and hence, while they were still their own masters (see Exodus [16:27]), in the same way as after the covenant (see Numbers 15:36) […]. Jeremiah 29:7 "Take thought for the peace of the city to which I have led you as captives," he says, "for its welfare will be your welfare." […] When the Hebrew State was destroyed revealed religion ceased to be law. Even the Hebrews were told that each person should love his neighbor just as himself (see Leviticus 19:17-18) 17 , except if they had broken the law (Leviticus 5:1 18 , [Deuteronomy] 8:8-9 and 17:7) 19 . It was said to the Jews: hate your enemy, love your neighbor [+ i. e. the gentile; this is bad +] (Matthew 5:43) 20 […] But Christ saw that [his word] was to be dispersed throughout the whole world, taught them that they should love everyone 21 . […] He asks with what right the disciples of Christ have preached. He responds by the right of the power Christ received over the unclean spirits (see Matthew 10:1) 22 . But above we have warned that everyone is bound to 16 Leibniz, Aus Spinozas Tractatus Theologico-politicus, late 1675 (?), A VI, III, p. 648-74. 17 Cf. Leviticus 19:17-18: "[17] You are not to hate your relative in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor if you must, but you are not to incur guilt on account of him. [18] You are not to seek vengeance or hold a grudge against the descendants of your people. Instead, love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." 18 Cf. Leviticus 5:1: "If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible." 19 Leibniz paraphrases and abbreviates. Spinoza has: "[…] nevertheless they were bound to inform the Judge of anyone who had broken the law (see Leviticus 5:1 and Deuteronomy 13:8-9) and to kill him if he was judged to be punishable by death (Deuteronomy 17:7)". Cf. Deuteronomy 13:8-9: " [8]You are not to yield to him, listen to him, look with pity on him, show compassion to him, or even cover up for him. [9] Instead, you are surely to execute him. You must be the first to put him to death with your own hand, and then the hands of the whole community" and Deuteronomy 17: 2-7: "[2] You may discover that a man or woman living in one of your cities that the Lord your God is about to give you has done evil in the eyes of the Lord your God by transgressing his covenant. [3] He may be following and serving other gods by bowing down to them-that is, to the sun, the moon, or to any of the heavenly host (something I did not command.) [4] When it is reported to you or you hear of it, you are to investigate it thoroughly. When the truth has been established that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, [5] summon the man or the woman who did this evil thing to your city gates, and then stone the man or the woman to death. [6] Based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, they must surely die, but they are not to die based on the testimony of one person. [7] Let the witnesses be the first to begin executing them, then the rest of the people are to follow. By doing this you will purge evil from among you." 20 I here indicate the clause "id est gentilem" as an additional, critical remark, because Spinoza's text speaks nowhere of the gentile. See below for further discussion of this point. 21 Leibniz substantially modifies the original text. Spinoza has: "[…] and after Christ saw that they were to be dispersed throughout the whole world, he taught them that they should treat absolutely everyone with piety" (my italics). 22 Slight paraphrase. Spinoza has: "Suppose someone asks now 'By what right could Christ's disciples, who were private men, preach religion?' I say they did this by right of the power they'd received from Christ over keep faith even with a tyrant, excepting someone who has been given an unquestionable aid against tyrants by a certain revelation of God. This is why no one can take this as an example except if he has the power to perform miracles. Christ says: "do not fear those who kill the body" (see Matthew 10:28), but Proverbs 24:21 say: "my son, fear God and the king" 23 . It follows from this that the power given to the disciples could not be taken as an example 24 . […] Moses did not choose any successor to the sovereignty, but distributed all his functions so that his successors seemed to be his deputies, who were administering the state as if the king were absent, not dead. In the second state the Priests held this right absolutely […] 25 .

Leibniz's excerpts call for some interpretive remarks. They contain variations and comments on Spinoza's text that are worth mentioning. Most importantly, however, they provide good indications of the topics Leibniz considered contentious or interesting enough to merit attention.

1. Leibniz does not dwell upon Spinoza's general topic, the jus circa sacra. He simply reports the title of the chapter. This might however have sufficed for Leibniz for placing Spinoza squarely within a determined tradition of ecclesiastical right. Historically, the expression must be traced back to discussions among Dutch philosophers and theologians in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Indeed, it is the key expression around which the theological-political discussions turned in the Dutch Republic throughout the long seventeenth century, beginning with Dirk Coornhert and Justus Lipsius to Johannes Wtenbogaert and Hugo Grotius all the way up to Dutch Hobbesians such as Lucius Antistius Constans (pseud.), Pieter van der Hoof and, of course, Spinoza. While Leibniz rarely discusses these authors in this context, and it is unclear how well he knew this tradition when rereading the TTP 26 , his relative familiarity with it can be gleaned from later texts, such as a passage in the Essais de théodicée where he discusses the pseudonym Constans, the work of Van den Hoof, Spinoza, and the political implications of the disputes between Arminians and Cartesians in Holland. He also recounts how he met both Spinoza and Pieter Van den Hoof in person while traveling in the Netherlands in late 1676 27 . It was common for all the writings in this tradition to defend some version of what is sometimes dubbed "Erastianism", arguing in unclean Spirits (see Matthew 10:1)". Cf. Matthew 10:1: "Then Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they could drive them out and heal every disease and every illness." 23 Leibniz here paraphrases an argument by simply noting the supporting references. Spinoza has: "This is also clear from the fact that Christ told his disciples that they shouldn't fear those who kill the body (see Matthew 10:28). If he'd said this to everyone, the state would be established in vain, and that saying of Solomon-my son, fear God and the king (Proverbs 24:21)-would have been impious. That's far from true." 24 Slight paraphrase. Spinoza has: "So it must be confessed that the authority Christ gave his disciples he gave to them only, and that others cannot take them as an example." 25 Leibniz, Aus Spinozas Tractatus Theologico-politicus, late 1675 (?), A VI, III, 273-74. 26 Leibniz corresponded with Lambert van Velthuysen in the early 1670s and claimed knowledge of some of the latter's work, including the Hobbesian treatise Epistolica dissertatio de principiis justi et decori, continens apologiam pro tractate Clarissimi Thomae Hobbii de Cive (Amsterdam 1651) (see A II, I, 62). But Velthuysen's Dissertatio does not address the jus circa sacra directly. When writing to Graevius in June 1671, Leibniz also mentions "La Courius," referring to Pieter van den Hoof (Pierre de la Court) and his Interest van Holland (Amsterdam 1662), yet another Hobbesian political work not directly concerned with ecclesiastical right (A II, I, 192-93). Although he does mention it once, in 1689, and sent a copy of it to Hermann von der Hardt in 1694 (see A I, V, 432; A I, 10, 480, I have not found any clear indication that Leibniz ever read Grotius's De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra (1647), arguably the single most important text of this tradition (I am grateful to H. Rudolph for the references). Some later texts do however suggest familiarity with the arguments it contains. See notably Leibniz various ways how the Church must be institutionally subordinated to the State in order to assure the complete integrity of public institutions in the name of the indivisibility of sovereignty, arguing that any concession of power to an institution independent of the state represents a threat to public security 28 .

2. Leibniz generally focuses on issues regarding biblical interpretation, including comparative questions regarding the relations between OT and NT passages. The excerpt lifts out no less than eleven biblical references, eight from the OT, three from the NT29 . This is best explained, I think, by the context of, and motivation for, Leibniz's second reading of the TTP. As mentioned above, Leibniz may have engaged in the rereading in the context of his exchanges with Pierre-Daniel Huet about the latter's work in progress on the truth of the Christian religion, the Demonstratio evangelica. Leaving to one side an auxiliary argument concerning pagan philosophy that caused him some trouble among his readership, Huet's argument essentially consisted in an extended comparative analysis of the two testaments, attempting to show in excruciating detail how the OT displayed "prophetic agreement" with the NT, thus vouching for the authenticity and divinity of the Scriptures 30 . I do not find it unlikely that Leibniz reread the TTP specifically in view of contributing to Huet's principal argument with which he was in general agreement [START_REF]Leibniz to Burnett[END_REF] . This would partly explain why Leibniz's notes focus on Biblical exegesis and on topics that in large part concern the relations between the two testaments, such as Spinoza's dubious use of the Gospel of Matthew to explain OT circumstances, or the way that Spinoza appeals to Solomon to clarify the meaning of Christ's commands.

3. As for specific issues addressed in the excerpts, Leibniz first turns to the way that Spinoza establishes that loving one's neighbor and hating one's enemy was the foundation of the Hebrew State, and how this changed with the teaching of Christ. Leibniz's excerpt here includes a rare critical remark. Spinoza claims, referring to Matthew 5:43, that "it was said to the Jews: hate your enemy, love your neighbor". Leibniz passes judgement on the argument: "that is to say, the gentile. This is bad [male]"! I shall return in more detail to this comment in the next section. I here content myself with an editorial remark: the Academy edition here indicates "this is bad" (male) in square brackets as a comment on Spinoza's text made by Leibniz. In conformity with the editorial principles of this older volume, where only additional remark clearly marked out as such by Leibniz in the manuscripts were highlighted as such, the preceding clause, id est gentilem, figures in the edition as an integral part of the excerpt. [START_REF] Rudolph | Schepers for pointing this out to me[END_REF] . For our purposes, however, it is important to realize that Spinoza's text speaks nowhere of the "gentile" and says nothing that would warrant a characterization of the phrase as a paraphrase. In this context it must therefore be considered an inserted, interpretive comment and indicated as such, along with the "male". 4. In the same context, Leibniz moreover reports Spinoza's idea that Christ taught his disciples to "treat absolutely everyone with piety" as meaning that they "should love everyone". This understanding of Spinoza's notion of piety as being primarily an injunction to love is not unwarranted. Hence, elsewhere in the TTP, Spinoza clearly affirms that "the whole law consists only in this: loving one's neighbor. So no one can deny that one who, according to God's command, loves his neighbor as himself is really obedient, and according to the law, blessed" and that "this command itself is the unique standard of the whole universal faith. Only through it are we to determine all the doctrines of that faith, the beliefs everyone is bound to accept" 33 . It is, incidentally, also a conception that Leibniz and Spinoza have in common, although they do not follow the same argumentative path to reach the conclusion or, for that matter, have the same concept of love 34 .

5. Next, Leibniz focuses on the way that Spinoza rules unlawful even the deposition of tyrants and how he argues that one must fear and obey the secular authorities despite certain biblical passages that could suggest the contrary. Spinoza invokes Solomon's injunction in Proverbs 24:21 to "fear both the Lord and the King" in order to refute a possible reading Christ's recommendation to "stop being afraid of those who kill the body but can't kill the soul," that he considers too strong 35 . Hence, Spinoza is attempting disprove that this verse in the Gospel can be considered a general recommendation to Christians about not yielding to the coercive power of temporal authorities. It is striking how Spinoza pits Solomon against Christ, invoking the authority of Solomon to determine the extension of Christ's recommendation, arguing that the passage in Proverbs induces us to take the passage in Matthew to address the disciples only, rather than the community of all believers.

6. Finally, Leibniz takes an interest in how Spinoza analyzes the difference between the first and the second Hebrew State. The first was governed by Moses who maintained sovereignty even after his death, when priests governed on his behalf in absentia, as it were. In the second state, sovereignty was, on the contrary, absolutely held by a class of priests. The broader point Spinoza is trying to make is that, no matter whether the practice of religion is grounded in natural or revealed divine law, in natural or prophetic light, reason or scripture, in order to gain force of law it will have to be backed by sovereign power. In order to provide further scriptural evidence for this point, Spinoza also compares two distinct stories in the OT about Hebrews who broke the Sabbath, one that took place before, and one that took place after Moses became king. In the first, God complained about people refusing to keep his commandments, but there is no mention of punishment 36 . In the second story, however, taking place after the ratification of the covenant, the offender was brought to "Moses, Aaron, and all the people" and stoned to death 37 .

In sum, Leibniz seems little concerned with Spinoza's philosophical argument and mostly focuses on the details of the exegetical evidence brought to the table, and in particular 33 TTP XIV, G III 174/C II 265. 34 See Laerke, Leibniz lecteur de Spinoza, op. cit., pp. 240-46. 35 Matthew 10:28. 36 For Spinoza's text, see TTP XIX, C III 230/G II 335: "[…] the fact that religion acquires the force of law only from the right of the state also explains why Moses was not able to inflict any punishment on those who violated the Sabbath before the covenant, and hence, while they were still their own masters (see Exodus 16:27). After the covenant (see Numbers 15:36), i.e., after each person surrendered his natural right, the Sabbath acquired the force of a command from the right of the state." Cf. Exodus 16:27 [26-30]: "[26] For six days you are to gather it [i.e. manna], but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there won't be any. [27] Nevertheless, that seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they did not find any. [28] Then the LORD asked Moses, 'How long will you people refuse to keep my commandments and my instructions?' [29] You see that the Lord has given you the Sabbath, and so on the sixth day he gives you food for two days. Let each person stay where he is; let no one leave his place on the seventh day. [30] So the people rested on the seventh day." 37 Cf. Numbers 15:32-36: " [32] As it was when the Israelis were in the wilderness, they found a man who was gathering wood on the Sabbath day. [33] The ones who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses, Aaron, and all the people. [34] Then they confined him until it could be declared what should be done to him. [35] Then the LORD told Moses, "The man is certainly to die. The entire community is to stone him to death outside the camp." [36] So the whole community brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones so that he died, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." on the way in which Spinoza mobilizes reflections on the history of the Hebrew State, the political savvy of Moses, and the words of Christ and the apostles about love and enmity to substantiate his position regarding the subordination of the church to the state. Leibniz is interested in Spinoza's reasons for rejecting the legitimacy of rebellion against tyrants, and in the exceptions there might be. He is moreover interested in the role Spinoza assigns to Moses and the justification he provides for Moses's legislative power, before and after he covenant. Finally, he highlights the difference Spinoza detects between the power priests had in the first Hebrew State and the power they had in the second. The latter two points are both concerned with the legitimacy of the coercive power held by authorities in the Hebrew State, i.e. the coercive powers that Moses and, later, his priestly successors held in virtue of the Covenant.

The Critical Comment

I now return to the only critical comment in Leibniz's excerpts. It merits particular attention, partly because of the extreme rarity of such critical comments in the excerpts. In the section to which he adds his comment, Spinoza is explaining how, in the Hebrew State, the preservation of freedom and sovereignty required of the Hebrews that they adapt the divine command to "love your neighbor" so that it excluded enemies, while Christ later expanded it to prescribe that we treat "absolutely everyone with piety" and "love our enemies" too, by reference to Matthew 5:43-44: "You have heard that it was said, 'You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you". From these two examples, showing two differing interpretations of the same divine command in distinct political contexts, Spinoza concludes that "all these things show, with utmost clarity, that religion was always adapted to the advantage of the republic" 38 . It is in this context that Leibniz, after jotting down the reference to Matthew, adds: "That is to say, the gentile. This is bad [id est gentiles. Male]". It is not quite clear what it is that Leibniz here considers "bad", for what reason and in what sense we should understand the "badness" in question, as moral, or philosophical, exegetical or other. But we can consider some options.

One possible exegetical explanation would take Leibniz's remark to be criticizing how Spinoza uses NT criticism of alleged OT positions as an interpretive authority to determine what those positions in fact were, thus using Christian criticisms to determine the authentic nature of Jewish teachings. This is an objection that modern scholarship-Akkerman/Lagrée/Moreau and Curley both take it up in their respective Latin/French and English editions of the TTP-has raised in the context of this passage 39 . It is possible, however, that Leibniz already had the same concern and that the "male" then simply refers to what Leibniz considered a misuse of the Gospel of Matthew. Another possible explanation concerns the other comment Leibniz makes about the phrase in Spinoza: "id est gentiles." Spinoza never says anything about gentiles or pagans in this context. Spinoza rather says that Matthew's words were addressed to Jews only: "It was said to the Jews…". However, if we turn to the Gospel itself, the precept to "hate your enemy and love your neighbor" is not attributed to Jews in particular but arguably also applies to gentiles, or pagans. Hence, if we read the relevant passage in context, Matthew goes on to argue in verse 46-47 that this precept already applied to pagans (publicani): "If you love those who love you, what reward will you 38 TTP XIX, G III 233/C II 338. 39 See C II 338, note 13 by Curley: "Arguably it's problematic to cite New Testament criticism of the Old Testament as an authority on the OT teachings. There's no problem finding OT evidence that the Hebrews were commanded to love their neighbors (including resident aliens and strangers.) See Leviticus 19:17-18, 19:34, Deut. 10:18-19. The problem, as ALM note, is to find a passage in which the Hebrews were commanded to hate their enemies. But it would appear that Spinoza thought there were passages in the Psalms which encouraged hatred of other nations. See xvii, 77, and the annotation there. Deut. 30:6-7 seems similar in spirit." get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" Thus, it is possible that Leibniz, in his comment, reproached Spinoza for unduly restricting the position described by Matthew to Jews only. In both these scenarios, the "male" refers to a perceived specific misinterpretation of a biblical passage.

There is however also a certain likelihood that, possibly in combination with any of the points above, we should see a more substantial theological concern being expressed in the exclamation "male". According to Spinoza, the positions described in Matthew 5:43-44, i.e. the Hebrew one according to which we should only love our neighbors but hate our enemies and the Christian one according to which we should "treat absolute everyone with piety" (or "love everyone" as Leibniz paraphrases Spinoza's text) go to support the claim that "religion was always adapted to the advantage of the republic"40 . Now, it is hardly an evident conclusion that the teachings of Christ do in fact recommend the same kind of adaptation of religion to the needs of the state that the Hebrews according to Spinoza engaged in. Quite to the contrary, Matthew 5:43-44 rather supports the opposite conclusion, namely that, while the Hebrews tightly linked the meaning of religion to the interests of the state, the Christians broke up that relation, making the divine injunction to love your neighbor entirely independent of state interest. Hence, it could seem, those verses do not, as Spinoza argues, provide testimony to a continuous tradition recounted throughout both the OT and the NT according to which religion was always adapted to the state. Quite to the contrary, it indicates a break with the Hebrew tradition in the Gospel of Matthew, where the fundamental command of religion is separated from the interests of the state and takes on a more universal character.

Spinoza has an explicit reply to such an objection of which Leibniz also takes note, adding some plausibility to the idea that we should read his comment along those lines. Hence, Spinoza claims, the biblical injunction that the disciples should spread their teaching "throughout the whole world" should be understood as a command destined for the disciples only. It is not a general blueprint for the way that the church should expand or an indication that church doctrine is something to be taught without concern for borders and state interests. This is the point Spinoza makes when pitting Solomon's command to "fear God and King" against Christ's "do not fear those who kill the body". He is arguing that Solomon's command applies universally, whereas Christ's recommendation pertains to the disciples only. In that case, there is no discontinuity between the two teachings in the OT and NT, but only a difference in scope, the latter being limited in scope, the former universal.

If we presuppose that Leibniz's exclamation "male" reflects opposition to Spinoza's somewhat dubious interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, it would express his unwillingness to allow for the kind of continuity between the OT and the NT with regard to the subordination of religion to the state that Spinoza is defending by means of it. On this reading, contrary to Spinoza-or rather Spinoza as Leibniz read him-, Leibniz did not think that "religion was always adapted to the advantage of the republic". Quite to the contrary, it applied to Jews and the gentile but did not apply not in the reign of Christ in which the lawful command to love both your neighbor and your enemy broadened the scope of Christian obligation well beyond the confines of the individual state and its limited interests. Moreover, it is a law that holds force over and above civil law. It is not unlikely that Leibniz's exclamation "male" reflects an objection of this more substantial kind, and thus reflects a broader concern with the idea that religion and the divine law upon which it rests should be considered as subordinated to the interests of the state, even in a Christian state.

This would also go some way in explaining the motivations for other excerpts made by Leibniz, which explore the limits of the biblical support for the general argument that Spinoza advances, addressing questions such as whether it is legitimate to punish a breach of the Sabbath before the Covenant, the status of revealed law in the case of a state breakdown, the conditions of rightful deposition of tyrants, and the merely delegate power that the priest class maintained in the Hebrew State even after the death of Moses. These are all limit situations where the alignment between religion and state interests defended by Spinoza are either not yet in place, strongly put to the test, or simply break down. It is possible that Leibniz made excerpts related to those topics exactly because they represented situations where it seemed possible to contest and poke holes in Spinoza's exegetical argumentation in favor of submission of the church to the state.

Conclusion

On this last reading, Leibniz's critical comment on TTP XIX provides a key to understanding how Leibniz situated himself with regard to issues in TTP XIX. In that chapter, Spinoza aims a establishing that there can be no such thing as an independent church, but that institutionalized religion is, for all intents and purposes, under the sovereign control of the secular authorities. If the philosophically substantial analysis of Leibniz's critical remark is correct, then that remark reflects important resistance to such subordination of the state to the church. This, of course, is by no means surprising. Leibniz always insisted on separating the temporal and spiritual kingdoms in a way that separated the church from the state, for "one should not confound church and nation," as he writes to Burnett 41 . Indeed, Leibniz believed, if church and state were assigned their respective domains of authority nothing prevented their co-existence as equally sovereign, one within the other, imperium in imperio as he puts it in the 1686 Examen religionis Christianae 42 . Hence, as he argues in some notes on a memorandum by Edme Pirot, rather than "subject the universal church to sovereigns," one should "find a middle way [juste temperament] between ecclesiastical and secular power" 43 . In these other texts, it is however a result he reaches based on reflections on natural law theory, using an elaborate conceptual apparatus that, surprisingly, Leibniz never mobilizes in the context of his reading of the TTP. This suggest that that, for Leibniz, countering Spinoza on this point was not so much a question of refuting a new political theory on philosophical grounds, but mainly a question of refuting the new, critical biblical exegesis that Spinoza used to support his position. Leibniz did not address Spinoza's political chapters by discussing natural law theory because he believed the most appropriate response should rather be theological and exegetical. While this does not provide the whole story, it helps understanding why Leibniz, who did not see himself as a biblical scholar on account of his lack of Hebrew, never undertook the task of refuting Spinoza's theological-political position, but instead left the completion of that important task to an erudite theologian such as Pierre-Daniel Huet.

  to Burnett, 6 July 1706, GP III, 310-11, and Leibniz to Burnett, 29 December 1707, GP III, p. 314, in comparison with H. Grotius, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, 2 Vols., ed. and trans. H.-J. van Dam, Leiden 2001, Vol. I, Chap. 4, Sect. 6, pp. 246-47.

27

See Leibniz, Essais de théodicée, §375-76, G VI, 338-39.

On the seventeenth century Dutch tradition of jus circa sacra, see D. Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration. A Study of the Disputes in Dutch Calvinism from 1600 to 1650, Cambridge 1938; J. Lecler, Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme, Paris 1994, p. 651-74; M. Laerke, "La controverse entre Grotius, Hobbes et Spinoza", op. cit.

The references include: Exodus 16:27; Numbers 15:36; Jeremiah 29:7; Leviticus 19:17-18; Leviticus 5:1; Deuteronomy 13:8-9; Deuteronomy 17:7; Matthew 5:43; Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:28; Proverbs 24:21.

TTP XIX, G III 233/C II 338.


Mogens Laerke

Introduction

This chapter proposes a very condensed overview of some three centuries of Spinoza reception in France, from around 1670 to 1970. It is not the best known part of Spinoza's reception. That prize goes to Germany. Yet, Spinoza's presence in the history of French philosophy is pervasive, deep, and varied. Moreover, from the first reactions to Tractatus theologico-politicus by French biblical scholars in the late 1670s to Martial Gueroult's monumental 1968-74 commentary on part I and II of Ethica, this presence gives a fascinating lesson in the way that the reception of particular philosophers both shapes and reflects the more general history of philosophy developing in parallel to it. This chapter presents some of the most important figures and stages in that inextricable double history of both Spinozism from the viewpoint of French philosophy and French philosophy from the viewpoint of Spinozism. Before delving into this complex story, however, three preliminary remarks are in order.

First, I readily admit that the separation of sections strictly according to centuries I have adopted below is artificial and that the periodizations it suggests should be considered flexible at best. Nonetheless, each century presents us with a relatively determined set of interpretative controversies around which Spinoza commentaries tend to cluster. These controversies emerge and recede from history as a result of a multitude of factors relating to both intellectual context and historical circumstances. Here, I shall mainly focus on the intellectual context, that is to say, on the ways in which the reception of Spinoza was shaped by other philosophers and by their engagement with Spinoza's philosophy in their writings. It is important to realize, however, that these intellectual contexts did not exist in a vacuum but were constantly affected and shaped by the political, institutional, societal, and cultural circumstances of their construction.

Second, I shall not engage in writing book history, but it is important to realize that the reception of Spinoza's philosophy-as is the case for any past philosopher-is inseparable from the concrete history of his publications. The reception is importantly shaped by the availability of the original texts and the existence (or absence) of translations. Tractatus theologico-politicus was quickly translated into French by Gabriel de Saint-Glain and circulated more or less clandestinely from 1678 onward under various titles, like Traité des cérémonies superstitieuses des Juifs, tant anciens que modernes. The first known translation of Spinoza's Ethics into French was done by Henri de Boulainvilliers, a French nobleman and libertine, around 1712. The translation, careful and insightful, is a testimony to the depth with which the French libertine tradition of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century sometimes appropriated Spinoza's philosophy for its own subversive goals. Boulainvilliers's translation was, however, made for private use and was only discovered and published in 1907. The first published French translation of Ethica appeared much later in Émile Saisset's edition of the works in 1842. It is also worth noting that, until quite late, the reception almost entirely focused on Tractatus theologico-politicus and Ethica. Tractatus de intellectus emendatione only joined the canon of essential Spinoza texts in the nineteenth-century reception, where it was perceived as a kind of methodological preface to Ethica. The Tractatus politicus was largely ignored until the second half of the twentieth century. As for the Korte Verhandeling, it was not discovered and published until 1862 in Van Vloten's Latin translation of the Dutch manuscripts; a French version appeared in 1878, in a translation by Paul Janet.

Third, and finally, from a reflexive point of view, the French reception of Spinoza has itself been the object of growing literature over the last half century. I have drawn heavily on this literature when writing this chapter. But, even though I shall not engage with it on any deeper level, it is worth noting that the second-order history of how the French Spinoza reception has been studied over the last century or so is interesting in its own right and reflects general philosophical conjunctures in French thought as much as does the first-order history of that reception itself. So let me mention just a few highlights in the development of the historiography of Spinoza's French reception. Most importantly, in 1954, Paul Vernière-a literary scholar later best known for his work on Diderot-published a monograph of some 900 pages on the first hundred years of French reception of Spinoza, up to the French Revolution. Spinoza et la pensée française avant la Révolution is an enormous piece of original research that remains entirely unsurpassed. Still, a valuable addition on the eighteenth century reception, prolonging the heritage from Vernière, is Yves Citton's L'Envers de la liberté of 2006. The first hundred years' reception of Spinoza in France has also received more attention recently from historians of philosophy in the wake of Jonathan [START_REF] Israel | Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750[END_REF]Radical Enlightenment (French translation in 2005). Indeed, in the French context, Israel's work has been an important catalyst for a wealth of sophisticated studies on early Enlightenment figures, currents, and texts, and prompted renewed interest in authors such as Boulainvilliers, Nicholas-Antoine Boulanger, and many other reputedly minor figures (see e.g. [START_REF] Secretan | Qu'est-ce que les Lumières "radicales[END_REF]. As for the later reception, three relatively recent edited volumes, dedicated to the general reception of Spinoza, including French, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, provide some very helpful but somewhat eclectic guidance to the complex story of French Spinozism in the longue durée-a story which however remains to be written in a more unified form [START_REF] Bloch | Spinoza au XVIII e Siècle[END_REF]1993;[START_REF] Tosel | Spinoza au XIX e siècle[END_REF]. For the twentieth century, Warren Montag and Ted Stolze's volume of English translations of various pieces by French Spinoza scholars in their 1997 The New Spinoza have made essential parts of recent French Spinoza scholarship available to an Anglophone audience, but has unfortunately also contributed-somewhat inadvertently-to the common misconception that twentieth-century French Spinozism must principally be understood in a structuralist or poststructuralist setting. Recently, the reception of Spinoza in twentieth-century France has been scrutinized from a somewhat different perspective in an excellent book by Knox Peden, which studies a lineage of anti-phenomenological Spinozists from Cavaillès to Deleuze, via Desanti, Gueroult, and Althusser (Peden 2014).

The Seventeenth Century

The publication of the Tractatus theologico-politicus in 1670 reverberated far beyond the borders of the United Provinces. Spinoza's ideas about the Bible and its interpretation were hard to ignore but even harder not to ignore. As the French intellectual Henri Justel wrote about the proliferation of mediocre refutations, if done in that way, "it is pointless to undertake the apology of the Christian religion which must be strongly defended or not defended at all" (Leibniz 1923-: I, ii, 247). The task required, as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz noted, "a man equal to Spinoza in terms of erudition but superior to him in his respect for Christianity" (Leibniz 1923-: II, I, 208). Such men were hard to come by, but a couple of serious candidates emerged from the French context.

One way of coming to grips with Spinoza's biblical scholarship was to drown his argument in a deluge of superior erudition. This was the strategy of Pierre-Daniel Huet, tutor to the Dauphin and later Bishop of Avranches, a prodigiously learned former student of the humanist Samuel Bochart. Possibly on the suggestion of Leibniz, Huet's voluminous defense of the Christian religion, the Demonstratio evangelica, was presented as a refutation of the anonymous author of the libertas philosophandi [START_REF] Laerke | À la recherche d'un homme égal à Spinoza. G. W. Leibniz et la Demonstratio evangelica de Pierre-Daniel Huet[END_REF]. Spinoza himself heard of Huet's work from Tschirnhaus in 1676 (Ep. 80 | G IV/331/20-25). He was curious and asked for a copy (Ep. 83 | G IV/335/9-13). Huet's treatise was already complete at that time, but its publication was delayed by unforeseen trouble with the Royal Censorship, so Spinoza died before having the opportunity to read it [START_REF] Shelford | Of Scepters and Censors. Biblical interpretation and censorship in seventeenth-century France[END_REF]. It was published in 1679. The Demonstratio was presented as a geometrical demonstration of the divinity of Scripture. On the basis of a few definitions and axioms concerned with terms such as "authenticity," "history," "prophecy," and "true religion," Huet showed in excruciating detail the prophetic agreement between the Old and the New Testament. He moreover attempted to show how most of the main pagan deities were in fact pre-figurations of Moses. In the reception, unfortunately, this pan-Mosaic argument somewhat eclipsed his geometrical demonstration of Christianity and was often met with derision (Laerke 2014: 107-203).

Another way to approach the Tractatus critically was to acknowledge the merits of Spinoza's historical analysis of the Bible, but attempt to use his insights in favor of the Christian religion rather than the contrary. The most prominent example was the Oratorian Richard Simon's Histoire critique du Vieux Testament. It did not go well: when completed in 1678, the book was immediately banned, seized, and burned by the French royal censors. A new edition was not published until 1685, in Holland. And yet Simon was not writing in favor of Spinoza. In the Tractatus, Spinoza showed how the Old Testament was a text collated from multiple sources and written long after the events it recounts. Simon, for his part, attempted to save the authenticity of the Holy Scripture by appealing to a theory of "inspired scribes," thus maintaining the original doctrine of divine inspiration [START_REF] Simon | Histoire critique du Vieux Testament[END_REF][START_REF] Gibert | L'Invention critique de la Bible XV e -XVIII e siècle[END_REF].

After the publication of Spinoza's Opera posthuma early 1678, Ethica quickly eclipsed the Tractatus as the center of attention. The public commentary was, as elsewhere, dominated by a relentless stream of refutations. The first were written by exiled philosophers based in Holland, like Noel Aubert de Versé, a religiously volatile intellectual whose L'Impie convaincu appeared in Amsterdam in 1685 [START_REF] Hubert | Les Premières réfutations de Spinoza[END_REF]. Another, very different, example is Pierre Poiret, a Cartesian and non-conformist protestant, follower of the mystic Antoinette Bourignon. His refutation, entitled Fundamenta atheismi eversa, was appended to the second edition of his Cogitationes rationales de Deo, anima et malo, also published in Amsterdam in 1685. The most popular strategy was to attack the basis of Spinoza's philosophy in order to make the whole edifice crumble. This is why the majority of refutations focused on the first book of Ethica and on Spinoza's metaphysics of substance, attributes, and modes. François Lamy, for example, argued in Le Nouvel athéisme renversé on Cartesian grounds that the conceptual independence of the attributes asserted by Spinoza was incompatible with the affirmation of a single substance [START_REF] Lamy | Le Nouvel athéisme renversé ou Réfutation du sistème de Spinoza[END_REF][START_REF] Stetter | Françis Lamy's Cartesian Refutation of Spinoza's Ethics[END_REF].

The best-known among Spinoza's first francophone refutations, however, was and remains Pierre Bayle's long article in the Dictionnaire historique et critique of 1697, substantially expanded in the 1702 edition. According to Bayle, any reader of Spinoza's metaphysics of substance and mode was confronted with a stark choice: either Spinoza understood by the foundational relation between "substance" and "modes" what the previous Aristotelian and Cartesian tradition understood by it, namely something comparable to a relation between a "subject" and its "predicates" or "properties," in which case Spinozism got entangled in irresolvable self-contradiction ; or Spinoza understood by it some other kind of relation, not explained within his philosophy, in which case Spinozism should be rejected as unintelligible and meaningless (Bayle 1820: XIII, 416-68).

As the turn of the century approached, the reception of Spinoza became more and more caught up in local French debates, mostly about the status of a declining Cartesianism which was further threatened by the possible association with Spinoza. A very public attempt at making that association involved Leibniz. Already from 1679 onward, in correspondence and personal notes, the German philosopher often suggested that "Descartes's deepest convictions are not too far from Spinoza's opinions" [START_REF] Leibniz | Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe[END_REF]-: VI, iv, 1478). It was not until 1697, however, that he expressed this opinion both in public and in French, instigating a brief but intense philosophical brawl with the "Prince of the Cartesians," Pierre-Sylvain Regis. The controversy took off when the Journal des Sçavants published a letter to Father Claude Nicaise where Leibniz claimed that "Spinoza did nothing but cultivate certain seeds in Mr. Descartes's philosophy" (Leibniz 1875-90: II, 563;Laerke 2014: 285-301;[START_REF] Laerke | All the Forms of Matter. Leibniz, Regis and the World's Infinity[END_REF]). Leibniz's main concern was with what he saw as the necessitarian implications of a marginal passage in Descartes's Principia philosophiae (III, art. 47) according to which "matter must successively assume all the forms of which it is capable" (AT VIII 103 / CSM I 257-8).

The danger of being associated to Spinozism however also, and particularly, extended to the occasionalist branch of Cartesianism, incidentally something which was not lost on Leibniz either (Leibniz 1875-90: III, 545: IV, 515, 530; VI, 545; Laerke 2013). As early as 1684, Aubert de Versé already put considerable energy into showing that the doctrine of the "visionary" Nicholas Malebranche led to Spinozism (Aubert de Versé 1685: 142-3, 240). Another philosophically more interesting, and today better known, example is the correspondence between Jean-Jacques Dortous de Mairan and Malebranche from 1713-4, where Dortous de Mairan pointed out the similitudes between Spinoza's understanding of the attribute of extension and Malebranche's notion of "intelligible extension," first developed in one of the "clarifications" added to the fourth edition of La Recherche de la vérité, published in 1678, and subsequently a key component in the Oratorian's epistemology of "vision in God" (Malebranche 1678: 534-43;[START_REF] Rodis-Lewis | Dortous de Mairan fut-il spinoziste?[END_REF][START_REF] Grene | Malebranche's First and Last Critics: Simon Foucher and Dortous de Mairan[END_REF][START_REF] Moreau | Le Bord du précipice. Dortous de Mairan entre Malebranche et Spinoza[END_REF]. Dortous de Mairan's reading did, however, not have any contemporary impact: the correspondence was not discovered and published until the mid-eighteenth century (Malebranche 1841). In any case, these are just a few examples of how Spinoza and Malebranche were very often associated in the early French reception (Vernière 1954: 268;[START_REF] Carbone | Spinoza-Malebranche: À la croisée des interpretations[END_REF]).

The Eighteenth Century

The early eighteenth century produced a substantial atheist literature, often circulated sous le manteau. Spinoza's presence in these texts takes many forms but, as a general rule, they tend to accentuate the anticlerical aspects of his thinking. The most famous example is the Traité des trois imposteurs, also entitled L'Esprit de Spinoza, a text perhaps written by one of Spinoza's first biographers, Jean Maximillian Lucas. The treatise circulated in manuscript as early as 1678 but was first printed in 1719 (Charles-Daubert 1999). It takes up the old argument, stemming from the Middle Ages, that the three main figures of the three monotheist religions-Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed-were in fact mere impostors who posed as prophets in order to gain or consolidate political power [START_REF] Moreau | Le Traité des trois imposteurs[END_REF]. The printed version of 1719 defended the thesis by means of arguments drawn from modern authors including Gabriel Naudé, Thomas Hobbes and Spinoza.

Other sympathetic expositions of Spinoza from the period were disguised as refutations. A good example is Boulainvilliers's Essay de métaphysique dans les principes de Benoît Spinoza. It already circulated in manuscript from the time it was written around 1712, but was first published in 1731, ostensibly as a Réfutation de Spinoza along with the more sincere refutations by Lamy and Fénélon (Boulainvilliers 1731). Boulainvilliers knew Spinoza well for having studied Tractatus theologico-politicus extensively and having produced a full French translation of Ethica for his own use [START_REF] Spinoza | [END_REF]. His own exposition, he claimed, aimed at making Spinozism accessible by "stripping it of this mathematical dryness that makes it impossible to read, so that the system, now rendered in a common language and reduced to ordinary expressions, can be stated in way that will stir up indignation similar to my own and procure, by these means, true enemies of such pernicious principles" (Boulainvilliers 1731: 155). The Essay was widely used as an authoritative presentation of Spinoza's thinking throughout the Enlightenment.

The image of Spinoza in the later Enlightenment was deeply ambiguous. On the negative side, the mathematical paradigm of scientific knowledge adopted by Spinoza declined along with Cartesianism while the empiricist program defined by John Locke and Isaac Newton began to take center stage. In his Traité des systèmes of 1847, Étienne Bonnot de Condillac presented Spinoza's geometrical method as the prime example of a vain and outdated "spirit of systems" that had to be replaced by a more empirically oriented "systematic spirit," claiming that the demonstrations of Ethica "contain nothing that may lead to the knowledge of things" (Condillac 1798: 321). On the positive side, the materialist Spinoza inherited from the seventeenth century was more favorably received, but also profoundly transformed. One very characteristic feature of the French reception was the way that Spinozism was associated with the burgeoning life sciences, opening up the possibility of rethinking it within a vitalist framework (Vernière 1954: 555-611;[START_REF] Citton | Envers de la liberté. L'invention d'un imaginaire spinoziste dans la France des Lumières[END_REF]).

The most important example of this development was Denis Diderot's conception of a "modern" Spinozism. In his entry on "Spinosa" in vol. XV of the Encyclopédie, published in 1765, Diderot presented Spinoza in traditional manner as "the first who has reduced atheism to a system […] following the method of the geometers," a "ridiculous" and "incomprehensible" doctrine that Bayle had "ruined from one end to the other" (Diderot et d'Alembert 1751-72: XV, 563-74). His exposition was for the main part modeled on the standard commentaries of Bayle, already referenced above, and Johann Jacob Brucker in his Historia critica philosophiae (Brucker 1742-4: VI.2, 682-706). In a second article entitled "Spinosiste," however, Diderot distinguished between the original Spinozism and a new "modern" Spinozism according to which "matter is sensible" and in which the material world "turns into a big, sentient and living body in a great space" (Diderot et d'Alembert 1751-72: XV, 474). Diderot further elaborated this neo-Spinozism during the 1760s, arguing in the Entretien entre d'Alembert et Diderot that "there is not more than one substance in the universe, in man, in animals" and in Le Rêve de d'Alembert that "there is only one individual; it is the totality" (Diderot 1875-7: II, 117, 139).

The Nineteenth Century

The first French translation of Spinoza's works (excepting the Tractatus politicus, the Hebrew Grammar, and, of course, the Korte Verhandeling,not yet discovered) was published by Émile Saisset in 1842 (2 volumes; revised edition in 3 volumes, 1861). Saisset, however, was no Spinozist. He was a so-called spiritualist eclectic out of the school of Victor Cousin, the allpowerful chair in the history of modern philosophy at the Sorbonne, director of the École Normale Supérieure, member of the French Academy, director of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, minister for public instruction, and president of the agrégation. Towering over the philosophical institution of nineteenth-century France, Cousin was trying to steer a politically difficult course between, on the one hand, republicanism and burgeoning socialism on the left and, on the other hand, conservative, clerical philosophy on the right. Text edition played an essential role in this effort because contemporary philosophical positions and the relations between them were articulated via competing commentaries on past philosophy. Cousin's established Descartes as the founder of a new French spiritualism focusing on the cogito, depicting him principally as psychologist exploring consciousness. For that reason, he had begun his philosophical crusade to reform the French philosophical landscape by publishing a new, complete edition of Descartes's works already in the 1820s (Descartes 1824-6; Antoine-Mahut 2019).

Spinoza's philosophy, by contrast, was universally condemned as fatalist and pantheist. But the way in which it was rejected, the exact reasons why, and the consequences it had for other philosophical doctrines, were all questions which there was intense disagreement among the philosophical factions of the day. Saisset's translation must be understood against this background: the project was undertaken not to promote Spinoza, but to appropriate him and strategically refute him so as to simultaneously promote the philosophical agenda of spiritualist eclecticism and allow the Cousinian school to neutralize accusations of Spinozism coming from the right. This meant, first of all, refuting the claim that "rationalism necessarily leads to pantheism" (Saisset 1859: I, 2;[START_REF] Moreau | Saisset, lecteur de Spinoza[END_REF]2008). For, according to the anti-Cousinians among the clergy, Spinoza's pantheism was not only the high point of atheism, materialism and fatalism, but the logical outcome of all rationalism, including Descartes's. Cousin's own principal strategy for anticipating this argument was to dissociate Spinoza from his Cartesian heritage and depict him as an "essentially Jewish" philosopher, an oriental thinker and not a Cartesian one, "an indian muni, a persan sufi, an enthusiast monk." Taking up a perspective on Spinozism not too far removed to that of the German Idealists but more negative, Spinoza's philosophy was for Cousin not true rationalism, which had to be grounded in the self-evidence of the cogito, but rather a "mystical hymn" that "erased personhood from existence." Spinoza, "far from being atheist, as he is accused of, [had] the sense of God to such a degree that he loses the sense of man" (Cousin 1838: II, 163-6). This reading allowed Cousin to dissociate Spinoza from Descartes and argue that the philosophy of the cogito constituted the most efficient antidote to Spinozism (Moreau 1978[START_REF] Moreau | In naturalismo: Leibniz, Spinoza, et les spiritualistes français[END_REF][START_REF] Vermeren | La philosophie au présent: le juif Spinoza (l'institution philosophique et la doctrine maudite du juif Spinoza)[END_REF]Cotten 2008).

Views dissenting from Cousin's did, however, also emerge from within the school of spiritualist eclecticism. In particular, when the important Leibniz editor Count Louis Alexandre Foucher de Careil in 1854 published Leibniz's annotations to Johann Georg Wachter's curious 1706 kabbalistico-Spinozist treatise Elucidarius cabalisticus under the decidedly misleading title Réfutation inédite de Spinoza, and later, in 1862, issued a second edition which also included Leibniz's 1678 annotations on Ethica, his aim was not only to demonstrate, against the philosophers of the clergy, that Leibniz's rationalism did not lead to Spinozism, but also, in disagreement with Cousin, to demonstrate that Leibniz's brand of rationalism represented a more efficient antidote to Spinozism than Descartes's (Leibniz 1854(Leibniz , 1862;;[START_REF] Moreau | Les enjeux de la publication en France des papiers de Leibniz sur Spinoza[END_REF][START_REF] Laerke | Interview med Pierre-François Moreau[END_REF]Laerke 2008: 63-5).

The Twentieth Century

In 1893, Victor Delbos, later professor at the Sorbonne from 1896 until a premature death in 1916, published a large volume entitled Le Problème du mal dans la philosophie de Spinoza, dedicated to Spinoza's moral philosophy and its later reception in European philosophy, mainly German. Delbos was criticized for not denouncing Spinoza's pantheism and fatalism in sufficiently strong terms, like his spiritualist predecessors did. And yet, Delbos was no Spinozist, but a devoted Catholic. It was, however, a central part of Delbos's historiographical project to give "neutral" accounts as Étienne Gilson later put it (Gilson 1960: 42). Delbos, a neo-Kantian indebted to the German historiographical tradition, thus attempted to make a clean break with the philosophically engaged historiography of the spiritualist tradition and make room for a more disinterested or "scientific" approach to past philosophy.

The most prominent heir of Delbos was Martial Gueroult, although the latter only adopted the systematic part of Delbos's program while putting to one side the historical part which was rather taken up by Paul Vernière (Laerke 2019). Gueroult's two volumes on Spinoza, published in 1968 and1974, dedicated to the first two books of the Ethica, presented a painstakingly detailed reconstruction of the argumentative structure of Spinoza's work, following the method of "structural analysis" that Gueroult had conceived already in the 1920s and already applied to numerous other philosophers, including Maimon, Fichte, Malebranche and, most famously, Descartes. Gueroult's reading of Spinoza was partly caught up in his protracted controversy with Ferdinand Alquié about the aims and methods of the history of philosophy, ongoing since Gueroult's grumpy denunciation of Alquié's 1950 doctoral thesis on Descartes as "novelistic" (Anon. [START_REF] Dussort | Soutenances de Thèses [summary of Ferdinand Alquié's thesis defense[END_REF]. Whereas Alquié, a historian of philosophy close to existentialist and surrealist milieus, favored a hermeneutics seeking out the fundamental "gesture" of the philosophers, Gueroult preferred a more textbased approach (Macherey 2014: 13-32;Peden 2014: 65-94;Laerke [forthcoming]). Gueroult's "structural analysis" converged with, but should not be confused with, the "structuralism" associated with figures such as Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes and Louis Althusser. If anything, Alexandre Matheron's Individu et communauté chez Spinoza of 1969 represents the closest one will get to an application of the structuralist method to the history of philosophy [START_REF] Matheron | Individu et communauté chez Spinoza[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Matheron | Études sur Spinoza et les philosophies de l'âge classique[END_REF]. As Sylvain Zac put it, Matheron had "done for Spinoza what Lévi-Strauss did for kinship systems" (Bove and Moreau 2000: 180).

Gueroult exerted outsize influence on the way that history of philosophy was practiced as a discipline in France in the second half of the twentieth century. The resurgence of Spinoza studies during that same period was, however, equally marked by Althusser. Althusser's writings on Spinoza are notoriously scarce, essentially a list of scattered remarks including a few pages in the auto-biographical L'Avenir dure longtemps, and-as the most important source-the first part of a text entitled "L'Unique tradition materialiste," first published in 1993 (Althusser 1992: 208-11;Althusser 1993: 75-97;[START_REF] Moreau | Althusser et Spinoza[END_REF]. This gave Althusser's followers and students considerable latitude to interpret his claim to have "taken the detour through Spinoza in order to understand Marx" (Althusser 1992: 352), something which partly explains the richness of his legacy, mediated through former students and future prominent French Spinozists such as Pierre Macherey, Étienne Balibar, André Tosel, and Pierre-François Moreau (see [START_REF] Balibar | Spinoza et la politique[END_REF][START_REF] Balibar | Spinoza politique. Le transindividuel[END_REF][START_REF] Macherey | Hegel ou Spinoza[END_REF][START_REF] Macherey | Avec Spinoza[END_REF]Macherey , 1994-98;-98;Moreau 1994, etc.). We should be wary of adjoining-as happens only too often-Gilles Deleuze to this group. Deleuze's influential thesis on Spinoza et le problème de l'expression, published in 1968, came out of a different context. Deleuze followed Gueroult's lectures at the Collège de France and appreciated the latter's work on Spinoza when it was published [START_REF] Deleuze | Spinoza et la méthode générale de M. Gueroult[END_REF]. But his own book predated the publication of Gueroult's, was written under the supervision of Alquié and adopted an approach not too far from Alquié's focus on the philosophers' fundamental "gestures"-in Deleuze's reading of Spinoza captured in a governing, but diffuse conception of "expression."

Conclusion

As it should be self-evident, the brief narrative outlined above is highly selective and perhaps a little idiosyncratic: it picks out what I see as highlights or representative examples of Spinoza's French reception but is nowhere near exhaustive. I can only hope that these few remarks will prompt others to undertake more detailed study of the topic, still largely unexplored in the English-language literature. In his 1893 thesis on Spinoza, Delbos observed that if the internal force of a doctrine is measured by the degree of organization it implies, one could also say, conversely, that its historical influence is measured by the degree of disorganization it can sustain without becoming fundamentally denaturalized […]. No single life absorbs or retains everything within it, but seeds of life move away and spread out as best they can, deploying, in a variety of meanings, their secret energy. This is the fate of all the great doctrines; it has in particular been the fate of Spinoza's doctrine. (Delbos 1893: vi-vii) It was a passage that Vernière enthusiastically cited in his 1954 volume on the eighteenth century reception, even adding that "maybe the life and efficacy of a doctrine requires incomprehension, alteration, amalgamation. Orthodoxy in philosophy is a seed of death" (Vernière 1954: 3, 701). It is also a perspective that, more recently, Moreau has appropriated to describe his own approach to Spinoza and Spinozism (Laerke and Moreau 2004: 70). As I have argued in some detail elsewhere, it is not, I think, a coincidence that it has been among French Spinoza scholars that such principles, stressing the productivity proper to the reception of a past philosophy, have taken root in France (Laerke 2019). Just like its more famous German counterpart, the French reception of Spinoza displays an astonishing variety of interpretation within which, however, the features of the Dutch Jew never, or seldom, disappear from view, testifying to the remarkably plastic nature of his doctrine.


Chengyi Shen

Daniel Brito

Julien Diaz

Clarisse Bordes

Tomographic imaging of a carbonate core using different ultrasonic seismic sources at the laboratory scale : piezoelectric vs point-like pulsed-laser

Carbonate rocks are of particular interest in exploration geophysics due to the prosperity of carbonate reservoirs in oil & gas industry. Such rocks are generally heterogeneous, anisotropic, porous and fractured, with complicated sedimentary compositions. Imaging their petrophysical properties can therefore be challenging with classical techniques. We propose here to proceed to the V p seismic tomographic imaging of a circular section of a carbonate core of diameter 10.7 cm based on the first arrival travel times of seismic waves. A point-like pulsed-laser and a piezoelectric transducer are alternatively used as seismic sources and a laser vibrometer records the travelling waves at the periphery of the carbonate core. V p images obtained with both sources are then analyzed and compared to an X-ray CT-scan tomography.

INTRODUCTION

Reproduction of seismic explorations at laboratory scale [START_REF] Bretaudeau | Small-scale modeling of onshore seismic experiment: A tool to validate numerical modeling and seismic imaging methods[END_REF][START_REF] De Cacqueray | Elastic-wave identification and extraction through array processing: An experimental investigation at the laboratory scale[END_REF][START_REF] Holzhauer | Experimental quantification of the seismoelectric transfer function and its dependence on conductivity and saturation in loose sand[END_REF] is a promising approach that could lead to significant progress in the development and evaluation of imaging methods for complex media, such as monitoring at the nearsurface and the crust scales, especially in case that difficulties are encountered during quantitative analyses on seismic exploration data. Besides, a high-resolution seismic dataset recorded in laboratory can reveal small-scale geophysical properties such as elastic wave velocities, porosity or permeability that could be efficiently retrieved by numerical inversions on seismic attributes (Dupuy et al., 2016a,b). To some extent, results obtained at laboratory scale may be transferred to the field scale through upscaling methods [START_REF] Backus | Long-wave elastic anisotropy produced by horizontal layering[END_REF][START_REF] Tiwary | Comparison of seismic upscaling methods: From sonic to seismic[END_REF][START_REF] Capdeville | 2-D nonperiodic homogenization to upscale elastic media for P-SV waves[END_REF][START_REF] Dvorkin | Rock-physics transforms and scale of investigation[END_REF][START_REF] Bailly | Upscaling of elastic properties in carbonates: A modeling approach based on a multiscale geophysical data set[END_REF]. The quality of the inversion relies strongly on seismic attributes estimations, which in turn depends on several factors such as the seismic source quantification, the sensitivity of the receivers and the acquisition setup (Dupuy et al., 2016a). Seismic tomography is one of the widely-used inversion methods to image the interior of geological elements at various scales. In this work we proceed to a high-resolution V p seismic tomography of a carbonate core using an original experimental set-up where two kind of seismic sources are successfully used (pulsed-laser and piezoelectric transducer) and a moving laser vibrometer acts as receivers.

X-RAY CT-SCAN

The carbonate core of 10.7 cm in diameter used in the present study was first processed in TOTAL CSTJF (Centre Scien-tifique et Technique Jean Féger) by means of X-ray CT-scan tomography through a medicine scanner from General Electric's Discovery® series. Fig. 1 displays the image of one slice from the CT-scan dataset, the spatial resolution being ∼260 µm. The color scheme reveals the linear attenuation coefficients scaled to the color range [0,255]. Red colors imply stronger X-ray attenuation while blue color weaker ones. The slice shows a relatively high contrast between the light-red side and the blue side, the latter indicating lower density or/and stronger porosity given the associated weaker attenuation. We focus on probing this core slice with ultrasounds.

Week attenuation Strong attenuation

A slice of X-ray CT-scan image on the carbonate core

Figure 1: CT-scan tomography slice of the carbonate core. The slice features a moon-like area on the right and appears to be heterogeneous. The CT-scan images manifests the "beam hardening" artifact [START_REF] Ketcham | Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery: applications to the geosciences[END_REF] forming the "red ring" around the core, which is the most common default of an uncorrected X-ray CT-scan reconstruction.

EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

We developed an experimental prototype allowing dense seismic scanning around core samples under a cylindrical coordinate system. After experimental calibrations on an aluminum core [START_REF] Shen | Études expérimentales et numériques de la propagation d'ondes sismiques dans les roches carbonatées en laboratoire[END_REF], the angular error of the prototype's rotational platform was estimated to be less than 1 • per cycle.

Two types of seismic source are used in the laboratory-scale experimentation: a piezoelectric source (PZT hereafter, effective diameter = 10 mm, central frequency f c ≈ 0.5 MHz) and a pulsed-laser source (PL hereafter, diameter 1 mm, f c ≈ 1 MHz). Despite the availability and simplicity of PZT sources for laboratory-scale geophysical experiments, those planar sources are not ideal to stick them correctly on the curved surface of a cylinder core, even harder to guarantee the stability of the PZT on the surface to ensure a constant and reproducible coupling. Another important constraint of the PZT sources lays in the seismic field measurement uncertainty induced by the relative large size effect of the source as compared to the wavelength [START_REF] Dellinger | Do traveltimes in pulsetransmission experiments yield anisotropic group or phase velocities?[END_REF]. In terms of numerical modelling, a PZT may not be always simplified to a pointsource, adding some difficulties to the source representation when accurate wave propagation modeling is expected.

In order to overcome the disadvantages of the conventional PZT sources, [START_REF] Scales | Laser characterization of ultrasonic wave propagation in random media[END_REF] proposed to investigate wave propagation in geophysical media with an alternative seismic source: the PL source. A laser can generate a mechanical wave when hitting a target either by ablation or thermoelastic effect, whose major advantages include the non-contact and the point-like features that counterbalances the weakness of the PZT sources. The deployment of sources and receivers using Laser Doppler Velocimetry or LDV [START_REF] Shen | Études expérimentales et numériques de la propagation d'ondes sismiques dans les roches carbonatées en laboratoire[END_REF] around the core is one of the key elements of the core-scale tomography. The configuration will have a strong impact on the uniformity and the rate of illumination inside the core by seismic probes. Experimentally, it is rather difficult to be extremely precise on the location and the effective energy of a PZT source in contact with the carbonate whereas it is straightforward with the PL source.

Tab. 1 summarizes the two source-receiver configurations that were used in our experiments. The same core slice is subjected to 2D scans. The PZT and the PL sources are respectively applied on the same section. Fig. 2 pictures the two source-receiver deployments. The PZT source is used in Fig. 2 a), where each source is divided into 7 secondary sources according to the receiver spacing so that each secondary source is connected with a unique receiver. The PZT source is then modelled in the following way: the two external secondary sources (for example src11 and src17 in Fig. 2 a)) will be linked to most of the receivers which are located outside the cylindrical beam of the PZT; the other secondary sources (for example src12 to src16 in Fig. 2 a), only the sources with odd indices are displayed for readability) will be connected to the receiver right on the opposite side of each source. Regarding the PL sources in Fig. 2, 8 aluminum flakes are stuck onto the carbonate core and each flake receives 9 distinct pulsed-laser sources. Since the laser source is punctual when well focused, it is much more convenient to model it in space as shown in Fig. 2 b), where each single source will be simply linked to all the receivers concerned. Meanwhile, Fig. 2 outlines the illumination rate inside the core by the source-receiver arrangements: they correspond actually to the rays in a homogeneous The tomography grid is gradually refined to reach finally 75×75 where the grid side-length approximates 1.72 mm. A boot-like pattern is reconstructed instead. The pattern features lower V p and is positioned differently compared to the moon-like pattern in the CT-scan.

SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHIES

A multi-level First Arrival Travel-time Tomography (FATT) tool is used to estimate the elastic V p in the carbonate core slice. FATT is a ray-theory based [START_REF] Virieux | Ray tracing for earthquake location in laterally heterogeneous media[END_REF][START_REF] Kravtsov | Geometrical Optics of Inhomogeneous Media[END_REF][START_REF] Cerveny | Seismic ray theory[END_REF] indirect inversion method that will minimize the difference between the observed First Arrival Travel-times (FAT) and the simulated FAT. We added a multi-level feature into the tomography tool: the tomography will be performed on progressively refined multi-grids. FAT are carefully picked on the seismograms from both of the two experimental configurations and the results of multi-level FATT are shown in Fig. 3 &4. Fig. 3 displays six of the multi-level tomographic images from the core-probing configuration a) featuring six PZT sources and 73 receivers for each source. At first glance the images of each grid appear to have similar patterns, with a boot-like lower velocity pattern in the upper right part of the core domain. Another lower velocity area is visible in the lower part, which is connected with the boot-like pattern. Two main higher velocity areas can be distinguished: the first one neighboring the boot-like pattern on the upper right corner, the second one surrounded by the lower velocity patterns. Despite the overall similarity among the six images, local differences can be seen if we look into the details of each pattern. The outline profile of the slice is efficiently achieved after the very first multi-level iterations. The further refinement of the grid will mainly contribute to local improvement, namely the resolution on smaller objects. The whole velocity model shares some common points with the CT-scan image in Fig. 1. However, the position of the boot-like lower velocity pattern is too close to the core center compared to the moon-like pattern on the edge of the CT-scan image.

Similarly, Fig. 4 illustrates six multi-level tomographic images from the core-probing configuration b) featuring 8×9 laser pulsed sources and 12∼13 receivers for each source. Similar to Fig. 3, the images in Fig. 4 show the same outline profile, with a moon-like lower velocity pattern in the upper right part of the core domain and some patches featuring higher velocities in the center and on the left. As the grid refines, the tomography change in details, focusing on smaller and smaller objects. We can see contrast enhancement of V p model as the grid goes finer. The whole velocity model shares good resemblance with the CT-scan image in Fig. 1. Not only the lower velocity pattern is moon-like as in Fig. 1, but also the position of this pattern is well constrained. If we look into the details of smaller patterns in Fig. 4, we see that their contours get better and better determined with the grid refinement. These detailed patterns do not always match with the patterns that can be seen in Fig. 1 b), even if some similarities express vaguely. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the physical quantity expressed by Fig. 1 is the attenuation coefficient to X-ray of the material, which can hold a nonlinear relation with the elastic wave velocity; the FATT reconstructed a fairly precised V p model under the core-probing configuration b) with respect to Fig. 3 from configuration a). The resolution is considerably improved by this core-probing configuration, making the whole tomographic velocity values more reliable.

ERROR ANALYSIS

The ending of the multi-level FATT depends actually on the errors in FAT data. Here we will address exclusively the uncertainty in FAT pickings. [START_REF] Hermans | A shallow geothermal experiment in a sandy aquifer monitored using electric resistivity tomography[END_REF]; [START_REF] Nguyen | Characterization of seawater intrusion using 2d electrical imaging[END_REF] proposed and used a "reciprocal error" estimation in electric resistivity measurements, which can also be applied to estimate errors efficiently on our FAT pickings for both the two configurations of Fig. 2: among the valid source-receiver groups, there are 15 reciprocal couples in the configuration a) while 28 in the configuration b). Fig. 5 shows that the FAT picking error medians are respectively 0.07 µs and 0.12 µs for the two configurations. These error estimations have been taken into consideration during the multi-scale FATT to avoid largely over-estimated tomography: the RMS errors yielded by the final FATT are smaller than the FAT picking error medians.

On the other hand, we can compare directly the FAT of the two configurations illustrated in Fig. 2. Even though all the rays are not comparable due to the difference of the source-receiver arrangements, nearly 90 couples of comparable rays are found, which is enough for a quantitative comparison of the FAT from the two sources. Fig. 6 displays the FAT for each comparable ray couples as well as their differences: the pulsed-laser source and the PZT source yield similar FAT curves following the comparable rays; the majority of the absolute half differences between the two are beneath 0.5 µs. This indicates that the two datasets, one from the PZT source and the other from the PL source, are consistent with each other. FAT difference (µs)

Figure 6: Differences between the FAT of comparable ray couples from the two configurations featuring respectively the PZT and the PL sources: the FAT curves follow a similar trend and the FAT differences are small (median≈0.16 µs)

CONCLUSIONS

The tomography results and error analysis show that the PL source is successfully applied onto a laboratory-scale geophysical experiment aiming at elastic V p assessment of a heterogeneous carbonate core. The tomography result from the PL source is consistent with the X-ray CT-scan images. In parallel, a PZT source is also used in the same experimental context. The First Arrival Travel-times from the two ultrasonic sources follow a similar trend, which indicates that both of them allowed to measure correctly the arrival time of direct Pwaves to a certain extent. Despite the similarity of FAT from the two datasets, the tomography result from the PZT source is different from both the one from the PL source and the CTscan image. The lack of illumination in the PZT-beam corridors and the near-surface areas between neighbor PZT sources has certainly contributed to this difference. The flexibility of the point-like pulsed-laser source makes it more convenient to achieve a better illumination inside the medium. In addition, the modelling in space of a pulsed-laser source is straightforward, which can reduce considerably the uncertainties of source locations compared with the PZT source.

In terms of short-term perspectives, first, other seismic attributes, such as the amplitude and frequency, may be explored to estimate other geophysical properties including Quality Factor and porosity; second, more advanced inversion methods such as the Full Waveform Inversion could also be applied to laboratoryscale datasets.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: The two experimental configurations: a) employs the PZT source while b) features the PL source. Receivers are Laser Doppler Vibrometer laser beams for both. Obviously,a) shows lower ray densities than b). In terms of ray distribution, the PZT source seems to deteriorate the homogeneity of ray distribution along the source beam as shown in a); configuration b) featuring the pulsed-laser source shows a more homogeneous ray distribution.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure3: V p tomography on the carbonate core slice featuring a moon-like area. The experimental configuration is depicted in Fig.2 a), with the PZT source. The tomography grid is gradually refined to reach finally 75×75 where the grid side-length approximates 1.72 mm. A boot-like pattern is reconstructed instead. The pattern features lower V p and is positioned differently compared to the moon-like pattern in the CT-scan.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: V p tomography from the experimental configuration depicted in Fig. 2 b), with the PL sources. A moon-like pattern is successfully reconstructed with a relevant position.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: FAT picking error assessments by reciprocal sourcereceiver couples. The errors are half the absolute differences between the reciprocal travel-times. Blue scatter points and box plot correspond to the PZT source; red ones show thus the results from the PL source. The straight ray-lengths are added as an extra dimension to better distinguish the scatter points.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

C. Shen wants to thank IPRA (Institut Pluridisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée) and ED SEA ( École Doctorale des Sciences Exactes et leurs Applications) of UPPA for financial support of his PhD. We would like to thank particularly TOTAL and the project ALBION for supporting this project.