The reception of Bošković’s theory of forces in Paris may be traced in the scholarly journals and books published in Paris between 1754 and 1803, being marked by the following five names: Gerdil, Berthier, Para du Phanjas, Saury, and Lalande. Preceding this reception were another two missed opportunities. Six months after Bošković had been elected corresponding member of the Académie Royale des Sciences, in December 1748, the Parisian Journal des Sçavans mentioned the treatise De viribus vivis (1745) in the review of Bošković’s work, but failed to bring attention to the novelty of his ideas of force and matter in nature. In July 1750, the Journal de Trévoux, a monthly of the Paris Jesuits edited by Guillaume-François Berthier, reviewed only the first part of Bošković’s treatise De lumine (1748) and completely ignored the second part of the treatise in which Bošković for the second time expounded his theory of forces, more elaborately than in 1745. The first critique of Bošković’s theory of forces in French was submitted by Barnabite Hyacinthe-Sigismond Gerdil, born in the Savoy Alps, professor at the University of Turin, in Discours, ou dissertation sur l’incompatibilité de l’attraction, et des ses différentes loix, avec les phénomènes (1754) which he published in Paris. On the basis of Dissertationis de lumine pars secunda (1748), he outlined Bošković’s theory of forces in seven theses and formulated his six objections to it, mainly against the law of continuity, points of matter and potentially infinite repulsive force at the infinitely small distances. His fourth objection was constructed as a double-purpose one: to refute the dependence of Bošković’s force on distance, but also side with Bošković against »action on distance« (actio in distans). His third objection was best formulated, and as such, most probably, prompted Bošković to respond to this objection in De lege virium in natura existentium (1755), in which he metaphysically discussed the transition between esse and non esse. He termed Bošković’s natural philosophy »a new system of attractions and repulsions« (un nouveau systême sur les attractions et les répulsions) and »system of indivisible points« (systême des points indivisibles). What Bošković proudly called »my own theory«, Gerdil, with all due respect for the famous scientist, assessed merely as »a new hypothesis«. Lastly, by comparing Bošković’s views with those of Buffon and Fontenelle, fellows of the Académie Royale des Sciences, Gerdil positioned Bošković’s theory of forces within the Parisian, French and European context. In January 1756, Berthier’s Journal de Trévoux published an extensive review of the first volume of Benedikt Stay’s didactic poem Philosophia recentior with preface, notes and supplements by Ruđer Bošković and an epistle by Kristofor Stay. The reviewer gave detailed account of the role of the three authors, with special emphasis on Bošković’s texts which he found essential for the understanding and significance of the whole editorial project. By presenting Bošković as an ardent Newtonian, he strongly argued against his sentence about the soul of animals, yet ignored his two philosophemes submitted in the same place, i.e. in the first supplement: points of matter and law of forces. He also failed to warn about the history of Bošković’s theory of forces (1745–1754). By reviewing other topics in Bošković’s supplements, he pointed out the novelty of Bošković’s view of the force of inertia, but failed to recognise the novelty in the supplements on space, time and motion. In addition, he announced that the tenth book of Stay’s epic »on more recent philosophy« would discuss forces and principles of bodies »according to the particular system of father Bošković« (selon le systême particulier du P. Boscovich). In March 1757, Berthier’s journal took a somewhat more critical approach to­wards Bošković, because the review of the first volume of Giovanni Battista Scarella’s work Physica generalis (1754) included a direct polemical attack on Bošković, which may be said to have surpassed that of Scarella in his paragraph »Systema P. Buskovik«. The reviewer’s exposition of Bošković’s »system of attractive and repulsive forces« was correct, yet Bošković’s main conclusion on the structure of matter was misinterpreted by the thesis: space and unextended points compose the continuum of a physical body. From this perspective he then presented Scarella’s objection to Bošković. Under Scarella’s influence the reviewer regarded Bošković’s theory of forces as hypothesis. He unrightfully remarked that Bošković had not given any thought to the objections that might be submitted against his main conclusions on force and matter. However, if declaratively, he recognised Bošković’s inventiveness, and expectedly protected him in the view that the theory of forces relates »only to the elements of matter, and not to spiritual substances«. François Para du Phanjas, former professor at the Jesuit College in Besançon, emerged as the third critic of Bošković’s theory of forces when in Théorie des êtres sensibles (1772) he advocated the infinite divisibility of matter. In doing so he refuted five opinions in favour of the finite divisibility of matter, including »Bošković’s points without contact« (les points sans contact de Boscovitz). In a special sub-chapter, in six theses Phanjas explicated Bošković’s theory of forces in the manner it is exposed at the beginning of Bošković’s Theoria. In the first thesis, he wrongly asserted that Bošković’s elements of matter were heterogeneous. In the fourth and fifth theses, he misunderstood the dependence of Bošković’s force on distance, moreover, he interiorised force into elements in a manner in which Bošković had never envisaged the action of force in nature. Although he refuted Bošković’s main philosophemes, notably the law of continuity, he admitted the Ragusan scholar being »the only one who managed to reconcile the nonextension of elements with the extension of bodies«. For Bošković’s natural philosophy he proposed a new distinct term »incontiguity« (incontiguïté) meaning ‘mutual incontiguity of points of matter’, but this proposition found no followers. The approach of Jean Saury, former professor of philosophy at the University of Montpellier (ancien Professeur de Philosophie en l’Université de Montpellier), in his three textbooks published in Paris differed radically from the earlier mentioned three critics of Bošković’s theory of forces. In his Élémens de Métaphysique (1773), in chapter »Du tems et de l’éternité«, by leaning on Bošković’s doctrine of space and time he argued against Bossut’s concept of the apsolute space, but at the same time concluded that Bošković with his doctrine did not excel others in explaining »the nature of duration«. In the fifth and closing volume of his textbook Cours complet de Mathématiques (1774), Saury devoted last four chapters to Bošković’s theory of forces in which he first explained the law of continuity, followed by a faithfully copied tripartite structure of Bošković’s Theoria. Rarely seen among the Boscovichians, he presented Bošković’s theory of forces in a manner deduced by Bošković himself: first the law of forces, then the conclusion of the structure of matter. However, contrary to Bošković, he argued that the first elements of matter had »very small extension« (une très-petite étendue), and that Bošković’s repulsive force acted only among the first elements of matter. His explanation ‘reconciled’ Bošković’s theory of forces with Newton’s mechanics, but in a way different from Bošković. He used the drawing of Bošković’s curve of forces, and accepted Bošković’s modification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation. With regard to the applications of Bošković’s theory of forces to mechanics, Saury focused on three only: equilibrium states for the system of three points, generation of the velocity of fluid while flowing through the aperture, mechanical principles of the reflexion and refraction of light. In the last chapter he elaborated the third part of Bošković’s Theoria almost in its entirety. Saury’s selected remarks on Bošković’s philosophemes clearly show his profound knowledge and devoted adherence to Bošković’s ideas in physics and chemistry. He rarely departed from Bošković’s view, e.g. when he failed to include ‘componibility in infinity’ (componibilitas in infinitum) among the general properties of bodies, when he avoided the use of Bošković’s term ‘tenuity of light’ (tenuitas luminis), or when he offered a different explanation of the increase of weight following the calcination of antimonite. He adopted two important philosophemes which Bošković had interwoven into the defence of his theory of forces: against action on distance and against the use of final causes in the research of nature. With Bošković he also shared the opinion on man’s incapability for »perfect knowledge on the interior of bodies« (la connoissance parfaite de l’intérieur des corps). Although in the text of his course of mathematics he recurrently referred to »the theory«, even »our theory« and »our curve of forces«, Saury viewed Bošković’s system of natural philosophy as a »physical hypothesis, and not geometrical truth« (comme une hypothese physique, et non comme une vérité de Géométrie), revealing the author of the theory in a note at the end of his book. In sum, in the fifth volume of Saury’s textbook Cours complet de Mathématiques, Bošković’s Theoria experienced a specific adaptation in French, which in 57 pages in octavo included translations, paraphrases and commentaries of its selected passages. Bošković’s strong influence is evidenced again in the first volume of Saury’s texbook Cours de physique expérimentale et théorique (1777). In the first five chapters of the section »Théorie des Forces Physiques«, encompassing 141 pages in octavo, in greater detail than in the textbook of mathematics and with lesser mathematical apparatus, Saury exposed Bošković’s theory of forces and its applications to physics and chemistry. This time, in the closing note he did not mention Bošković as the author of theory, but in the preface he ended the list of his sources with the following three names: »Boscovich, Mako, Scherffer«. His objection to Bošković’s points of matter placed Saury alongside the Austrian Jesuit Karl Scherffer, professor at the University of Vienna at the time. Saury’s mathematics textbook was the only one to which Bošković reacted in public in the prose supplement of the Paris edition of his epic Les Éclipses (1779), in which Bošković for the first and last time in French published a concise, yet insightful self-review of his Theoria, appended information on a French translation of Theoria, and argued against Saury’s assessment that his theory was »a physical hypothesis«. In a succession of texts between 1766 and 1803, Bošković’s theory of forces was promoted by the French astronomer Lalande, official correspondent with Bošković on behalf of the Académie Royale des Sciences after Mairan’s death in 1771. Prompted by the public defence of the philosophical thesauri of Professor Giacinto Stoppini at the Collegium Romanum he had attended in August 1765, in January 1766 in Journal des sçavans, Lalande published a rarely successful review of Bošković’s Theoria, aware that the novelty of Bošković’s natural philosophy had not caught the attention of the Journal des Sçavans, nor of the scholarly circles of Paris. In his review he presented Bošković’s main philosophemes, and by the choice of applications pointed to the fertility of Bošković’s theory in the various fields of physics and chemistry. In the exposition of Bošković’s mechanics he omitted the key topic: the system composed from three points of matter. He offered no explicit standpoint on Bošković’s attitude towards Newton’s laws of motion. He pointed out that Bošković explained the arc of his repulsive force with the help of integral calculus. He clearly warned his readers that as a text Bošković’s Theoria had its defending dimension, and also proved himself as defender of Bošković’s points of matter. He added a short note on the reception of Bošković’s Theoria »at the universities in Germany and Italy«. In his review, Lalande recurrently emphasised that Bošković’s natural philosophy had a complex methodological and philosophical background, specific methodology and philosophy of science which Bošković developed in his reasonings on force and matter. In September 1766, in the same journal, Lalande reviewed the Venetian edition of Bošković’s epic De Solis ac Lunae defectibus (1761), to which he added the French translation of Bošković’s bibliography. Some of Bošković’s works Lalande accom panied with his own notes varying in quality: in Bošković’s mathematics textbook he singled out the treatise De transformatione locorum geometricorum (1754) which discusses »the law of continuity and misteries of the infinite«, but the treatise De lege virium in natura existentium (1755) he wrongly described as containing »the first thoughts« of Bošković’s theory of forces. In the third volume of the second edition of Astronomie (1771), Lalande regularly pointed to Bošković’s achievements in astronomy, but in the discussion on »other hypotheses on attraction« he warned about the original thoughts on »attraction, repulsion, cohesion, and elasticity« that Bošković deduced from a unique law. In this way, indirectly, the French astronomer confirmed that his view of the forces in nature was close to that of Bošković, yet differed from that of d’Alembert. On the fifth anniversary of Bošković’s death, in February 1792, for Journal des sçavans Lalande wrote a review of Bajamonti’s Elogio dell’Abate Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich (1789) which turned into a new interpretation of Bošković’s professorship at the Collegium Romanum. Within this approach Bošković’s Theoria was appraised as a master-piece combining metaphysics and mechanics, while Bošković’s influence on Priestley was exaggerated. Finally, in Bibliographie astronomique (1803) Lalande included Bošković’s 34 works in astronomy, and of the rest only Theoria. In a reference to its first edition, he epitomised in a sentence his lasting efforts in favour of Bošković’s theory of forces: »There are great ideas in this work.« (Il y a de belles idées dans cet ouvrage.)