The full official title of L’Encyclopédie is L’Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des
métiers, translated to “The Encyclopedia, or Classified Dictionary of Sciences,
Arts, and Trades” (Britannica). It consists
of 28 books, 17 of which are volumes. The remaining 11 books, called plates,
contain illustrations and graphics that correspond to the volumes. Throughout
this semester, I plan to begin with Volume 1 and continue through the volumes
as far as I can.

The first entry in the first volume
of L’Encyclopédie is simply the
letter “A”, “the character or figure of the first letter of the Alphabet in
Latin, French, and in almost all of the languages of Europe” (3). The very last
entry of the first volume is “Azymites”, or “the name that the schismatic
Greeks give to the Roman Catholics”(914). So, as a reference, there are a total
of 911 pages worth of entries in the first volume, and there are 16 volumes
that follow. I repeat: there is an incredible
amount of information contained in this work. I have included pictures of both the first (page 3) and last (page 914) entry pages of the first volume.

I found that the Watkinson also has
an English translation of the plan of L’Encyclopédie,
published shortly after the work itself, called The Plan of the French Encyclopedia, in which this preface is
included (of course, I could have read the University of Michigan translation,
but reading a three-hundred-year-old book is much more fun). Upon comparing
what I read in French and its English translation, I found that the two
versions say slightly different things. For the most part, the gist is the
same, but a budding philologist like myself would find such differences
noteworthy. My principal observation is that the French version seems more
proper than its English counterpart. I attribute this to two factors: first,
French tends to be a formal language, and historically, the French have been
pickier about use and preservation of their language (that’s why they
established L’Académie Française). Second, I speak better English than I
do French, so it is possible that complex words and phrasing I use in English
may be more familiar to me than they are in French. Either way, I found that
the French manuscript seems to say essentially the same thing in a fancier way
and in more words than the English one.
In terms of
content, the authors present their own qualifications for undertaking the task
of compiling this work as well as what they intend to include in its volumes.
The opening sentence states that they, the authors, are presenting this work to
the public as “L’Ouvrage d’une société de Gens de Lettres,” or a publication of
a “learned body.” With this, Diderot and d’Alembert begin to address an
important critique of the work: “how is it possible that two persons can be
[qualified] to treat all of the arts and sciences?” They reassure readers that
“this is not the work of a single hand or two,” but will have many contributors
from this “learned body” (see this list of contributing authors). The work will embrace two perspectives: first, as an encyclopedia, and second,
as a philosophical dictionary. As an encyclopedia, the work will demonstrate
the connections between and organization of all human knowledge and
disciplines. The Philosophical Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Trades will
explore the base principles and essential details of each science and art in
human existence.
My next post will concern the
authors’ division of knowledge, which is a very integral part of the work and
its context, so it deserves its own post.
Stay tuned and bon weekend!
Christina
No comments:
Post a Comment