哲学词典:它是作为一个整体运作的,还是散文中的大杂乱?

Q4 Arts and Humanities Montesquieu.it Pub Date : 2012-12-01 DOI:10.6092/ISSN.2421-4124/5161
Marc Hersant
{"title":"哲学词典:它是作为一个整体运作的,还是散文中的大杂乱?","authors":"Marc Hersant","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.2421-4124/5161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From a philological point of view, a Dictionnaire philosophique never existed as such in Voltaire’s mind: it is but a posthumous ‘work’ created by the editors of his complete works (published at Kehl in 1784) who collected all the editions of the alphabetical works of Voltaire, and other short texts published elsewhere or unpublished at all. In this paper, the author shows how the question whether the Dictionnaire is a ‘rhapsody’ of various texts or a well-structured and coherent unity is anachronistic and distorting in so far as the concept of ‘literary work’ has profoundly changed since the Eighteenth century. He defends the legitimacy of the Kehl’s edition (and of the Nineteenth century editions by Beuchot and Moland that conformed with it) against the criticism of modern philologists. What is more, he justifies it not only historically, but also as a way of reading Voltaire’s polemical prose that still enables us to appreciate the richness and complexity of his thought.","PeriodicalId":36096,"journal":{"name":"Montesquieu.it","volume":"25 1","pages":"205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Il Dictionnaire philosophique: opera a pieno titolo o un «guazzabuglio in prosa»?\",\"authors\":\"Marc Hersant\",\"doi\":\"10.6092/ISSN.2421-4124/5161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From a philological point of view, a Dictionnaire philosophique never existed as such in Voltaire’s mind: it is but a posthumous ‘work’ created by the editors of his complete works (published at Kehl in 1784) who collected all the editions of the alphabetical works of Voltaire, and other short texts published elsewhere or unpublished at all. In this paper, the author shows how the question whether the Dictionnaire is a ‘rhapsody’ of various texts or a well-structured and coherent unity is anachronistic and distorting in so far as the concept of ‘literary work’ has profoundly changed since the Eighteenth century. He defends the legitimacy of the Kehl’s edition (and of the Nineteenth century editions by Beuchot and Moland that conformed with it) against the criticism of modern philologists. What is more, he justifies it not only historically, but also as a way of reading Voltaire’s polemical prose that still enables us to appreciate the richness and complexity of his thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Montesquieu.it\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Montesquieu.it\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2421-4124/5161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Montesquieu.it","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2421-4124/5161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从语言学的角度来看,伏尔泰心目中从来没有这样的一本哲学词典:它只是伏尔泰全集(1784年在凯尔出版)的编辑们在他死后创作的一部“作品”,他们收集了伏尔泰按字母顺序排列的所有版本的作品,以及其他在其他地方出版或未出版的短篇文本。在这篇论文中,作者展示了这个问题,即词典是各种文本的“狂想曲”还是结构良好、连贯一致的统一体,是多么的不合时宜和扭曲,因为自18世纪以来,“文学作品”的概念已经发生了深刻的变化。他反对现代语言学家的批评,为凯尔的版本(以及与之相符的19世纪博霍和莫兰的版本)的合法性辩护。更重要的是,他不仅在历史上证明了这一点,而且作为一种阅读伏尔泰论战散文的方式,这仍然使我们能够欣赏他思想的丰富性和复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Il Dictionnaire philosophique: opera a pieno titolo o un «guazzabuglio in prosa»?
From a philological point of view, a Dictionnaire philosophique never existed as such in Voltaire’s mind: it is but a posthumous ‘work’ created by the editors of his complete works (published at Kehl in 1784) who collected all the editions of the alphabetical works of Voltaire, and other short texts published elsewhere or unpublished at all. In this paper, the author shows how the question whether the Dictionnaire is a ‘rhapsody’ of various texts or a well-structured and coherent unity is anachronistic and distorting in so far as the concept of ‘literary work’ has profoundly changed since the Eighteenth century. He defends the legitimacy of the Kehl’s edition (and of the Nineteenth century editions by Beuchot and Moland that conformed with it) against the criticism of modern philologists. What is more, he justifies it not only historically, but also as a way of reading Voltaire’s polemical prose that still enables us to appreciate the richness and complexity of his thought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Montesquieu.it
Montesquieu.it Arts and Humanities-History
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Contesti smithiani: transizione, progresso e conflitto Considerazioni su Voltaire studioso di Pietro il Grande e della Russia «Orgogliose come demoni»: le monache ribelli di Port-Royal L’esperienza e la certezza. Postille a Pascal, Opere complete. Prima tra-duzione italiana , testi francesi e latini a fronte, a cura di M.V. Romeo, Firenze-Milano, Giunti-Bompiani, 2020, XXXIX-3133 pp. Lavoro e libertà nelle speculazioni di Gianvincenzo Gravina, di Giambattista Vico e di Francesco Longano
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1