Titre texte cible
Référence au texte source
Référence à la version anglaise de 1733
DILWORTH 1961 (20037)
Philosophical Letters (Letters Concerning the English Nation)
The text used as the base for this translation is that ofJore(Rouen, 1734) as established fromGustave Lanson. (p. xv)
...the book first appearedin an English translation by John Lockman (p. vii)
TANCOCK 1980 (20058**)
Letters on England
...fortunately in this case the work of deciding on a definitive text has been doneby Gustave Lansonin his masterly edition.[...] [He] uses the first French edition published in 1734 byJorein Rouen. (p. 19)
an English version, Letters concerning the English Nation by M. de Voltaire, ha[s] appeared in London in 1733. (p. 8)
STEINER 2007
Philosophical Letters, Or Letters Regarding the English Nation
The French text is the one published by Gallimard, with notes prepared byFrederic Deloffre(1986). It is the text published originally byJorein 1734. (p. xxi)
I had have the benefit of consultingthe first English translationof the Philosophical Letters, which appeared in London in 1733, shortly before the first French edition appeared.(p. xxi)
A Paris on voit l’univers composé de tourbillons, de matière subtile; à Londres on ne voit rien de cela. Chez nous [Jore ><Thiriot: Chez vous], c’est la pression de la lune qui cause le flux de la mer; chez les Anglais, c’est la mer qui gravite vers la Lune. Chez vos Cartésiens , tout se fait par une impulsion qu’on ne comprend guère; chez M. Newton c’est par une attraction dont on ne connaît pas mieux la cause. A Paris, vous vous figurez la terre faite comme un melon; à Londres elle est aplatie des deux côtés. (GF,146)
At Paris the Universe is seen, compos’d of Vortices of subtile Matter, but nothing like it is seen in London. In France, ‘tis the Pressure of the Moon that causes the Tides; but in England ‘tis the Sea that gravitates towards the Moon. According to your Cartesians, every Thing is perform’d by an Impulsion, of which we have very little Notion; and according to Sir Isaac Newton, ‘tis by an Attraction, the Cause of which is as much unknown to us. At Paris you imagine that the Earth is shap’d like a Melon, or of an oblique Figure; at London it has an oblate one. (1733 (Cronk), 61)
In Paris one sees the universe composed of vortices of subtile matter; in London one sees nothing of the sort. With us, it’s the pressure of the moon that causes the rising of the tide; with the English, it’s the see gravitating toward the moon. According to your Cartesians, everything is done by means of an impulse that is practically incomprehensible; according to Mr. Newton it is by a kind of attraction, the reason for which is no better known. In Paris you picture the earth as shaped like a melon; in London it is flattened on both sides. (D, 60)
In Paris they see the universe as composed of vortices of subtle matter, in London they see nothing of the kind. For us it is the pressure of the moon that causes the tides of the sea; for the English it is the sea that gravitates towards the moon. For your Cartesians, everything is moved by an impulsion you don’t understand, for Mr. Newton it is by gravitation, the cause of which is hardly better known. In Paris you see the earth shaped like a melon; in London it is flattened on two sides. (T, 68)
...; in Paris, they imagine a universe composed of vortices of subtle matter; in London none of this; we think it is the pressure of the moon that causes the fluctuations of the tides; the English believe that the ocean gravitates toward the moo. Your Cartesians believe that everything happens by an impulse that one scarcely understands; for Mr. Newton, the cause is an attraction whose cause is no better understood. In Paris, the earth is shaped like a melon; in London, it is flattened at both sides. (S, 47)
Il crut longtemps qu’il était nécessaire de fuir les hommes, et surtout sa patrie, pour philosopher en liberté. Il avait raison; les hommes de son temps n’en savaient pas assez pour l’éclaircir, et n’étaient guère capables que de lui nuire. (GF, 148)
He was a long Time of Opinion, that it would be necessary for him to fly from the Society of his Fellow Creatures, an especially from his native Country, in order to enjoy the Happiness of cultivating his philosophical Studies in full Liberty.
Des Cartes was very right, for his Contemporaries were not knowing enough to improve and enlighten his Understanding, and were capable of little else than of giving him Uneasiness. (1733, 63)
For a long time he believed that in order to philosophize freely he would have to escape from society, and especially from his native country. He was right; the men of his time knew too little to help him clarify his ideas, and were in fact capable of little more than doing him harm. (D, 62)
For a long time he believed it necessary to avoid the company of men, and especially his own country, so as to meditate in freedom. He was right; the men of his time did not know enough to enlighten him, and could scarcely do anything but harm him. (T, 69 )
He thought for a long while that, to philosophize freely, he had to fly from mankind and especially from his country. He was right; the men of his time knew too little to enlighten him and were at best able only to harm him. (S, 48 )
Le superstitieux vient à son tour et dit qu’il faut brûler, pour le bien de leurs âmes, ceux qui soupçonnent qu’on peut penser avec la seule aide du corps. Mais que diraient-ils si c’étaient eux-mêmes qui fussent coupables d’irréligion ? En effet, quel est l’homme qui osera assurer, sans une piété absurde, qu’il est impossible au Créateur de donner à la matière de la pensée et du sentiment. (V, 135-136)
The superstitious Man come afterwards, and declares, that all those must be burnt for the Good of their Souls, who so much as suspect that ‘tis possible for the Body to think without any foreign Assistance. But what would these people say should they themselves be prov’d irreligious ? And, indeed, what Man can presume to assert, without being guilty at the same Time of the greatest Impiety, that ‘tis impossible for the Creator to form Matter with Thought and Sensation ? (1733, 58-59).
Then, in his turn, comes the superstitious man, and he says that those who suspect that thought is possible with the sole aid of the body ought to be burnt for the good of their souls. But what would such people say if it were they themselves to assert, without an absurd impiety that it is impossible for the Creator to give thought and feeling to matter! (D, 57)
The superstitious come in their turn and say that those who suspect that one can think with the body alone should be burnt for the good of their souls. But what would they say if it were themselves who were guilty of irreligion? And indeed what kind of man will dare to affirm, without absurd impiety, that it is impossible for the Creator to endow matter with thought and feeling? (T, 66)
The superstitious come next and say that we must, for the sake of their souls, burn those who suspect that one can think with the body alone. But, what would they say if it were they to be condemned for heresy? Indeed, unless he was possessed by impious folly, who would dare to assert that the Creator is incapable of giving to matter both thought and feeling? (S, 44)
Locke a développé à l’homme la raison humaine, comme un excellent anatomiste explique les ressorts du corps humain. (GF, 132)
Mr. Locke has display’d the human Soul, in the same Manner as an excellent Anatomist explains the Springs of the human Body. (1733, 56)
Locke has unfolded to man the nature of human reason as a fine anatomist explains the powers of the body. (D, 54)
Locke has expounded human understanding to mankind as an excellent anatomist explains the mechanism of the human body. (T, 63)
Locke explained human reason to man as an excellent anatomist explains the mechanism of human body. (S, 42
;...il [Locke] consulte surtout son propre témoignage, la conscience de sa pensée. (GF,132)
Above all he consults himself; the being conscious that he himself thinks. (1733, 56)
Above all, he consults his own experience, the consciousness of his own thought. (D,54)
... he consults especially his own experience, the consciousness of his own thought. (T, 64)
... and above all he paid attention to his own observations, the awareness of his own ideas. (S, 42)
Quant à nos pères de l’Eglise, plusieurs dans les premiers siècles ont cru l’âme humaine, les anges et les dieux corporels. GF, 131)
What regard to the Fathers of the Church, several in the primitive Ages believ’d that the Soul was human, and the Angels and God corporeal. (1733, 55)
As for our Fathers of the Church, several of them in the earlier centuries believed the human soul, the angels, and God himself to be corporeal. (D, 53)
As for our Fathers of the Church, several of them in the earliest times believed the human soul, the Angels and God were corporal. (T, 63)
As for our Church fathers, many in the first centuries believed that the human soul, the Angels and God were corporeal. (S, 41)
Un Français qui arrive à Londres trouve les choses bien changées en philosophie comme dans tout le reste. Il a laissé le monde plein, il le trouve vide. (GF, 146)
A Frenchman who arrives in London, will find Philosophy, like everything else, very much chang’d there. He had left the World a plenum, and he now finds it a vacuum. (1733, 61)
A Frenchman arriving in London finds quite a change, in philosophy as in all else. Behind him he left the world full; here he finds it empty. (D, 60)
A Frenchman arriving in London finds things very different, in natural science as ineverything else. He was left the world full, he finds it empty. (T, 68)
A Frenchman arriving in London finds changes in philosophy as in other matters. He left a universe that was filled; he discovers the void; ... (S, 47)
... cependant il [Descartes] abandonna à la fin ce guide [la géométrie] et se livra à l’esprit de système. Alors sa philosophie ne fut plus qu’un roman ingénieux, et tout au plus vraisemblable pour les ignorants. (GF,150)
Nevertheless he at last abandon’d this Guide [Geometry], and gave entirely into the Humour of forming Hypotheses; and then Philosophy was no more than an ingenious Romance fit only to amuse the Ignorant. (1733, 65)
... he abandoned that guide [geometry] in the end, however, and gave himself up to the systematizing spirit. From then on, his philosophy was no more than an ingenious romance, at best seeming probable to the ignorant. (D, 64)
... he finally abandoned this guide [mathematics] and gave himself up to a fixed system. Thereafter his philosophy was nothing more than an ingenious novel, at the best only plausible to ignoramuses. (T, 71)
... yet finally he abandoned this guide [geometry] and surrendered to the desire for system. At this point his philosophy became no more than an ingenious tale, at more merely plausible for ignorant people. (S, 50)
Il [Descartes] poussa ses erreurs métaphysiques jusqu’à prétendre que deux et deux ne font quatre que parce que Dieu l’a voulu ainsi. Mais ce n’est point trop dire qu’il était estimable même dans ses égarements: il se trompa, mais ce fut avec méthode, et avec un esprit conséquent. (GF, 151)
He push’d his metaphysical Errors so far, as to declare that two and two make four, for no other Reason but because God would have it so. However, ‘twill not be making him too great a Compliment if we affirm that he was valuable even in his Mistakes. He deceiv’d himself, but then it was at least in a methodical Way. (1733, 65-66)
He carried his errors in metaphysics so far as to assert that two and two make four only because God was willed it so. But it is not too much to say that he was admirable even in his aberrations. When he was wrong, at least he was systematically wrong, and with logical coherence. (D, 64)
He carried his metaphysical errors to the point of maintaining that two and two only make four because God has willed it so. But it is not too much to say that he was admirable even in his errors. He was wrong, but at least methodically and with a logical mind; ... (T, 72)
He pushed his metaphysical mistakes so far as to insist that two and two make four only because God wished it thus. Yet it is not too much to say that even in his mistakes he is admirable; he erred, but it was at least systematically and with consistency (S, 50)
