Chapter 3

The relation between the translation and its source text

The Specimina philosophiae are preceded by a notice to the reader:

R. Des Cartes Lectori suo S.D.Haec specimina Gallice a me scripta, & ante septem annos vul-gata, paullo post ab amico in linguam Latinam versa fuere, acversio mihi tradita, ut quicquid in ea minus placeret, pro meojure mutarem. Quod variis in locis feci: sed forsan etiam aliamulta praetermisi; haecque ab illis ex eo dignoscentur, quodubique fere fidus interpres verbum verbo reddere [my italics]conatus sit; ego vero sententias ipsas saepe mutarim, & nonejus verba, sed meum sensum emendare ubique studuerim.Vale!1

If we take this little letter at face value, we can draw a number of interestingconclusions. It was written by Descartes in 1644. A friend of his hadtranslated the Discours and Essais (Descartes ignores the omission of theGeometrie) into Latin shortly after their first publication, and subsequentlygiven his translation to the author for correction. Descartes has made anunspecified number of changes in the text, but there may be many placesthat have remained as they were (although, it is implied, they would havewarranted correction). The use of ‘forsan’ suggests that Descartes did notrevise the text systematically, and wishes to excuse himself for any errorsthat he has missed. He then claims that the errors that have passed intoprint can be distinguished from the corrected passages by comparing the textto the French original, because the translator had been quite faithful ‘almosteverywhere’, but Descartes had ‘often’ changed the ‘sententias’ (which mayrefer to sentences as well as to the thoughts expressed in them, in which caseit is very close to sensus), trying ‘everywhere’ (in the light of the preceding,this must mean ‘in all cases of correction’) to correct not the translation assuch but the meaning of the text.

The italicized words in the notice to the reader refer to Horace’s ArsPoetica (ll. 131–135):

Publica materies privati iuris erit, sinon circa vilem patulumque moraberis orbem,nec verbo verbum curabis reddere fidusinterpres, nec resilies imitator in artum,unde pedem proferre pudor vetet aut operis lex.

1 Cf. the claim on the title-page that the Specimina are ‘Ex Gallico translata, & abAuctore perlecta, variisque in locis emendata.’

27

introduction

We should be careful not to read a condemnation of Courcelles’s trans-lating style into Descartes’s quotation from Horace.2 After all, Horace isgiving advice to those who aspired to adapt Greek drama to the stages ofRome, not to translators of philosophical prose—and even if Horace hadcondemned all faithful translations, Descartes was quite capable of using aclassical quotation without paying too much attention to its original con-text. Furthermore, the commercial aspect of the notice to the reader makesit unlikely that the author would have distanced himself from the translationwith the publisher’s permission.

The two poles between which every translator has to take position—usually presented as the two main roads—, namely verbum verbo and itscounterpart ad sensum (hence the use of the word sensus at the end of thenotice to the reader), have been the subject of much heated discussion in theWestern world since classical antiquity. Cicero, Jerome, Willem van Moer-beke, George of Trebizond, Leonardo Bruni, Erasmus, Luther, Du Bellay,Etienne Dolet, Pierre Daniel Huet: they all took a stand and defended itin prefaces, letters and treatises. In general, it is clear that in seventeenth-century Western Europe, a translator who so wished enjoyed the freedom,especially in the case of contemporary non-religious prose, to adapt thesource text to the genius of the target language or to his own rhetorical pur-poses, and to do so in ways that modern translators find difficult to believe.3

Etienne de Courcelles made his position known in a letter of advice toone of his students:

Versiones quae fiunt de verbo ad verbum (ut loquuntur) nonprobo, nisi in duobus casibus. Unus est quando auctoritasscriptoris et gravitas materiae requirit ut ad singula verba etphrases accurate attendatur. Quod in Biblijs factum est aprobatissimis interpretibus. Alter est, cum versio adornaturin usum tyronum qui proprio Marte linguam aliquam addi-scere student; quibus indubium est quin ejusmodi versio kat¨

p�dac longe commodior sit quam liberior. Extra hos casusexistimo potius paraphrastice vertendum, et quid genius lin-guae in quam transferimus permittat considerandum. (. . . )Liberiores versiones longe sunt amoeniores et lectoribus gra-tiores.4

Indeed, many things can be said of the translation of the Discours andEssais, but de verbo ad verbum is not one of them, at least not in general.

2 Adam and Tannery make this mistake (AT VI, p. vi), apparently confusing theirown opinion with Descartes’s.

3 For information on translation theory and practice in the early modern period, seeBotley 2004, Vialon 2001, Ballard 1996, Steenbakkers 1994, Ternes 1994, Rener 1989,Schoneveld 1983, Kitagaki 1981, Akkerman 1980.

4 Courcelles to Arnold Poelenburg, 23 May 1654 (Rotterdam Municipal Library, Col-lection Remonstrantse Gemeente, MS no. 920).

28

chapter 3

Unfortunately, this means that Descartes’s promise that his own correctionswill be easy to recognize is also beside the truth. The differences betweenthe translation and the source text are numerous, but each of them has tobe weighed carefully to determine whether the author or the translator wasresponsible for it.5 Apparently, we should not take the Horace quotationliterally; Descartes probably intended to authorize the translation whilegiving a reason for his corrections, and perhaps to encourage his readers(be they his followers or critics) to trace the changes, as some have indeeddone.6

It is remarkable that the differences between Discours and Speciminahave never been researched systematically.7 Since the downfall of Latin asthe international academic language, the Latin text has generally been ig-nored, even by editors and translators of the French text who notice thepresence of Descartes’s interventions in passing. Yet the translation can beregarded as a more recent authorized version which, moreover, has had afar wider audience until well into the nineteenth century. It was the Speci-mina, not the Discours, that was received by philosophers for two centuriesor more.8 In the seventeenth century, four editions of the French text ap-peared, against fourteen Latin editions (as well as a single edition of theEnglish version and three of the Dutch).9 Seventeenth-century Cartesiansand eighteenth-century historians of philosophy alike all used the Speciminaphilosophiae.10

5 The same is true of the French translations of the Meditationes and Principia, whichDescartes also revised to some extent and authorized. This is discussed further on p. 66sq.

6 Johannes de Raey compared the Dissertatio to the Discours, although perhaps notsystematically, when giving classes on the Dissertatio at Leiden University (UL Leiden,MS BPL 907). Jacobus Revius’ criticism of the translation is discussed below, pp. 43–48.

7 Adam and Tannery have made a very feeble attempt, indicating ten differences (notall of them useful) in their Latin text without listing or discussing them or referring tothem in their French text. Gilson has done a more thorough job in his commentary onthe Discours (1925), but is still far from systematic, and of course misses the two Essais.After the 1987 conference on the Discours and Essais, Gregory voiced his regret thatthe Specimina did not receive the attention they deserve, placing them at the top of hisdesiderata list of authorized Descartes translations to be studied (Gregory 1992, p. 99);Marion in turn pointed out that a close comparison between the Specimina and theirsource text was needed for the study of philosophical reception as well as Descartes’svocabulary in both languages. (Marion 1988, p. 20)

8 A few examples will represent the international readership: the Italian CartesianTommaso Cornelio (see Dibon 1990(a), pp. 299–304); the Leiden professor Wolfert Sen-guerd (his notes on the Dissertatio are in his copy, UL Leiden 1402 E 18); Jan Hen-driksz. Glazemaker, who used the Specimina as well as the French text for his Dutchtranslation (see Thijssen-Schoute 1967(b), p. 242, and Otegem 2002, pp. 83–98); Leib-niz, who quotes from Diopt. VIII 22 in his De speculo conburente (Leibniz s.a.); Hegel(Marion 1996, p. 10 n. 11, and 1988 p. 21); and Nietzsche, whose Menschliches Allzu-menschliches bears a motto translated from Diss. 3 (p. 122), ‘aus dem Lateinischen desCartesius’—with one or two interesting divergences from the Latin text (see also Rethy1976).

9 Otegem 2002, p. 3.10 Marion 1988, p. 20sq.

29

introduction

The present edition does not limit itself to indicating the changes (pos-sibly) made by Descartes: mere translator’s liberties are also important inso far as they have changed the meaning and thus influenced the receptionof the text, and deliberate strategic changes made by the translator deservespecial attention.

Adam and Tannery refrained from indicating the translation’s divergencesin notes to their edition of the French text, because this would have en-tailed ‘soit une minutie excessive, soit des exclusions arbitraires’.11 Theywere right. In the present edition, the notes that indicate the differencesin the source text teem with minutiae that will seem useless to many areader. Languages will not be subject to the laws of logic or mathemat-ics, and perfect translations do not exist. On the other hand, a decep-tively small difference can create a philosophically interesting nuance oreven a wholly different argument. As Steenbakkers has aptly pointed out,‘in deciding whether a particular reading constitutes a deviation from thesource text rather than a passable equivalent, a certain margin must beallowed for. Such decisions are to some extent bound to be subjectiveand in a few cases even arbitrary.’12 Which is why consulting the Frenchtext will still be necessary for readers who wish to study the divergencesin a particular passage in detail. To illustrate the limits of my findingsas published here: in their discussion of Descartes’s determination theory,Freudenthal and McLaughlin find fault with Courcelles’s translations of ‘lafait aller’, ‘fait descendre’, and ‘faisoit tendre’ with ‘agebat’, ‘propellit’,and ‘ferebatur’.13 This is a good example of a nuance that had escapedme. There will be other cases where someone more versed in the detailsof the issues at stake may point out significant divergences that I havemissed. I hope that these specialists will then proceed to publish theirfindings and fill in the gaps, hopefully finding my research a useful start-ing point.

I have not opted for a bilingual edition because French texts are readilyavailable, and such an edition would still have to be equipped with a com-plicated comparison system, or leave the user to do all the work herself.Besides, making a good edition of the French text as well would have costtoo much time (although it is a shame that a work of such importance stilllacks a proper critical edition).

After having established the correct text of the Specimina philosophiae, Ihave compared it to the text of the first edition of the Discours and Essais(to be precise: I have used the copy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek inMunich, Rar. 1849). This was necessary because of the lack of a goodmodern edition; and it was safe, since Van Otegem has established that

11 AT VI, p. vii.12 Steenbakkers 1994, p. 130.13 Damerow et al. 2004, p. 132. The passage concerned is in Diopt. II, p. 161sq.

30

chapter 3

there are no variants in the 1637 edition.14 The divergences are indicatedin the third apparatus, whose technicalities are explained on p. 78.

For reasons stated above, I have cast my net wide. Besides a variety ofdifferences which have consequences for the meaning of the text, I have alsooccasionally included minor divergences, usually stylistic in nature, thatshed light on the translator’s handling of the text (such as the rendition of‘vn peu difficiles’ with ‘aspera et impedita’15 or that of ‘bas Breton’ with‘barbara Gothorum lingua’16) or on the parallel philosophical vocabulariesin French and Latin. The translation of ‘des choses reelles’ with ‘entiaquaedam’ in Diss. IV,17 for instance, has been included for this reason andnot because it is a deviation from the source text.

On the other hand, I have omitted a large number of apparent differencesthat in the end do not constitute actual deviations, because they wouldonly hinder the reader in her use of the apparatus. This concerns occasionswhere the translator has split up Descartes’s impossibly long periods, leftout or added words that are not strictly necessary for the meaning, randomlychanged the order in enumerations, changed a pronoun to a noun, mademinor rhetorical changes e.g. in addressing the reader or varying the choiceof words, switched from active to passive or vice versa, made trivial changesin mood, number and tense, added or omitted insignificant modal verbs orsuperlatives, and generally humoured what he saw as the genius of Latin.

I have used Courcelles’s translation of two of Episcopius’ sermons fromDutch into Latin18 in order to form an idea of his way of translating; evenif he was not the translator of our text, he is an example of contemporarypractice. I found many stylistic differences: additions, omissions, para-phrases, embellishments, changes of construction, double and single render-ings, simplifications, and changes of the order in enumerations. Some ofthese changes also affect the meaning of the text. The same list of cate-gories applies to a significant part of the divergences that we find in theSpecimina when we compare them to the Discours and Essais.

The divergences from the source text

Practical adaptations; the second translatorSome of the differences result from practical adaptations to the intendedacademic use of the book. The French text had no marginal summaries

14 Otegem 2002, p. 15.15 P. 154, l. 28. (Diopt. I, 2)16 P. 109, l. 5. (Diss. I)17 P. 130, l. 19sq.18 Episcopius 1650, pp. 431–440: Conciones duae de caussis incredulitatis Iudaeorum,

some pages of which I have compared to the source text in Episcopius 1666 (1646),pp. 152–180 (2nd numbering). The translation was occasioned by the Latin edition ofthe Opera; Episcopius had died in 1643. I would have preferred to use a translation fromFrench into Latin, but have not found any by Courcelles.

31

introduction

and no paragraph structure worth mentioning; the translation was meticu-lously divided into numbered sections with corresponding marginalia (or, asEtienne de Courcelles calls them in a letter to Lambertus van Velthuijsen,hermae, because they show the reader the way).19 This was no doubt donefollowing the example of the Principia, long after the translation had beenmade. There are indications that the table of contents was translated onlyat this point, and by a different translator from the main text. There is asmall but conspicuous difference in the use of accents,20 and there are nu-merous striking divergences in choice of words. Some examples: in Diss. V,‘difficultez’ becomes ‘perplexarum opinionum’ in the table of contents andmarginal, ‘quaestionibus’ in the body of the text. The latter consistentlyhas conspicillum in the Dioptrice, whereas the former two always use con-spicilium. Perspicilla pulicaria only occurs in the table and marginalia.21

The style of the summaries usually is less elegant: constructions like ‘adeos videndum’ (Diopt. I, 5) occur far more often, and in Diopt. I, 3 thevery medieval expression ‘in instanti’ is used, where the body of the texttwice has the impeccable phrase ‘nulla mora interposita’—although in allfairness, it should be noted that the gallicism transparens is neatly avoidedin the summary of Met. II, 6, but not in the text. The elegant solutionchosen in the marginal of Met. VII, 4 (where the French paraphrase ‘cesfeux qui s’attachent aux mats des nauires sur la fin des grandes tempestes’is efficiently and gracefully rendered with ‘ignes Castor et Pollux vocati ’)also speaks for the education and talent of the hermae translator.

Many of the separate headings from the table of contents were mergedduring translation to form the section summaries (up to six at a time).Suitable headings for e.g. Diopt. I, 1 and Met. I, 1 had to be added, becausethere was no corresponding text in the table. However, hermae like that ofDiopt. II, 5 (‘Et quantum cum in aquam ingreditur.’) show that the textwas not in general adapted to suit the independent summaries instead ofthe running text of the original ‘tables des principales difficultez’. On a fewoccasions, the translator did think to replace a pronoun by a noun whenthe reference had become unclear, such as ‘Figuras’ instead of ‘celles’ inDiopt. VIII 15.

In general, the translation is quite literal, although some headings havebeen shortened drastically,22 while others have had information from themain text added.23 That the translator did not always read the section inquestion carefully is clear from e.g. the heading (freshly written, not trans-lated) ‘Primi capitis argumentum.’ for Met. I, 2, where in fact the argument

19 Courcelles 1999, p. 170.20 See p. 81.21 For more examples (the list is not exhaustive), see Diopt. VI 24, VIII 18 and X 2;

Met. I 8 and VI 4.22 E.g. Met. I, 9 and IX, 7.23 E.g. Met. III, 18 and VII, 2.

32

chapter 3

of the entire Meteora is expounded. Mistakes like those in the hermae ofDiopt. II, 4 (corrected in the errata list), VI, 2 and Met. V, 5 also showthat this translator, like Courcelles, sometimes had trouble understandingwhat Descartes meant, or quite possibly was negligent because of a press-ing deadline. Errors such as the use of ‘tres’ instead of ‘sex’ (Met. VI, 8)and ‘diversorum radiorum puncta’ where ‘diversorum punctorum radii’ isneeded (Diopt. V, 4) clearly indicate that the translator was in a hurry.

When the words ‘the translator’ occur outside this section, the translatorof the main text is meant.

Latin styleThe uniquely elegant, yet powerful style of Descartes’s French prose wasrecognized and applauded by his contemporaries. Plemp’s misgivings aboutthe possibility of rendering it in Latin were justified.24 We have alreadyseen that the Specimina are not a literal translation. Thus, when JacobusRevius25 decided to show that the Latin text is not an accurate renderingof the thoughts (detrimental, in his view) expressed in the Discours, hefound ample ammunition; and, we might add, by giving his own verbumverbo translations of certain passages, unwittingly made it clear that thereis much to be said for Courcelles’s style. On the other hand, if we takeBruni’s proud promise to the readers of his Politica translation, that theycould ‘ut ille in Graeco scripsit, sic in Latino perlegere’26 as the standard ofad sensum translations, it becomes painfully clear that the Specimina fallshort of the mark. Despite the liberties the translator takes, the result oftenlacks elegance and clarity of expression.

The translator is rather careless with word order and the construction ofhis sentences; so much so, occasionally, that one has to consult the Frenchtext in order to understand the translation.27 The same is true of his neg-ligent treatment of demonstrative pronouns.28 Quite a few of the mistakesin period construction29 and choice of words30 could have been preventedif the translator had taken a bit more time; apparently, the job was done inhaste.

We should keep in mind that Latin was a living language in seventeenth-century Western Europe, and that many deviations from the standard ofclassical Latin are not mistakes. The modern approach to Neo-Latin is still

24 See above, p. 1. Other contemporaries about Descartes’s French style: Chapelainto Balzac, 29 December 1639, CM VI p. 341sq.; Sorbiere 1660, p. 691. See also Lojacono1996, p. 548sq, and Cahne 1980.

25 See below, pp. 43–48.26 Hankins 1994, p. 155sq.27 E.g. in Diss. IV (p. 130); Diopt. I 8, V 9; Met. II 4, V 1, VII 7, VIII 13 (see the

second apparatus).28 E.g. in Met. III 3, IV 3, 4 (see the second apparatus).29 E.g. Diopt. I, 8; Met. VI 11, VIII 14 (see the second apparatus).30 E.g. ‘in latitudine, quam in longitudine’ instead of ‘in altitudine, quam in latitudine’

to translate ‘en leur hauteur qu’en leur largeur’ in Met. V, 2.

33

introduction

hindered by the fact that scholars and readers have all been brought up withthe classical ideal, as well as by the paucity of general studies of Neo-Latinas a language, not to mention dictionaries. I have exercised restraint innormalizing the text, but the reader will find a helping hand in the secondapparatus,31 where solecisms and idiosyncrasies are pointed out (unless theyoccur regularly, in which case they are discussed in this introduction).

The wording in the Specimina is often distinctly unclassical, for instancewhen ‘ex certo intervallo’ is used instead of ‘certo intervallo’, when ‘unos’ isused distributively in the sense of ‘singulos’, or ‘ut ita’ where one would ex-pect ‘ita ut’.32 Sometimes a noun takes on different genders in the presenttext, such as ‘diameter’ (f./m.) in Diopt. VII, 19 and IX, 6. The form‘tapeto’ from tapete in Diopt. II, 9 is not known to us from antiquity, its firstoccurrence being in Bede’s works. Next to both classical fourth-declensionforms tonitrus (m.) and tonitru (n.), Courcelles even uses a third form, thisone from the second declension: tonitruum (n.), not known from classicaltexts. This last form also occurs in the summaries, as well as the mascu-line fourth-declension form. All occurrences are found in close proximityto one another.33 The feminine and masculine forms of dies are used indis-criminately (a trait that our translator has in common with Julius Caesar).The use of ‘magis’ and ‘maxime’ with the adjective or adverb instead ofcomparative and superlative occurs very often throughout the Specimina.34

Futhermore, our translator is fond of placing the noun between the parts ofits compound numeral: ‘quatuor capillamentorum millium’ (Diopt. VI, 6).He also tends to use adjectives in a way normally reserved for participles:‘propter triangula similia’ equals ‘propter similitudinem triangulorum’, forinstance.35

Like many Neo-Latin authors, our translator takes liberties or, if oneprefers, has problems with the correct combination of tenses, and with thatof subjunctive versus indicative, including an occasional cum with subjunc-tive that is purely temporal.36 The use of pluperfect instead of perfect tense,with which Beyssade finds fault in Descartes, is also a peculiarity of thepresent text; however, it is actually not uncommon in classical Latin.37 Thesame is true of the use of ‘Id quod’ instead of ‘Quod’ at the beginning of asentence (Beyssade comments on Spinoza’s use of it).38 The use of adeo utin the sense of ita ut is very frequent; it also occurs in Descartes’s originaltexts. Many adjective ablatives are found in the Specimina that end in -i,

31 See p. 78.32 Diopt. V 12, V 6, and II 6 a.o., respectively.33 Met. VII, 5–10bis.34 Examples include ‘maxime generaliter sumptas’ and ‘maxime generalibus’ in Diss. II,

and ‘magis (. . . ) obscura’ in Diopt. V, 12.35 P. 204, l. 22 (Diopt. VIII, 3).36 E.g. Diopt. X 8, Met. III 18, and Met. VI 8 respectively. See IJsewijn 1998, p. 410sq.37 M. Beyssade 1999, p. 58. For an example in our text, see Met. IV, 2.38 M. Beyssade 1999, p. 57; cp. e.g. p. 137, l. 6 (Diss. V).

34

chapter 3

where the classical norm demands the form ending in -e; this characteristicis common in Neo-Latin texts.39 Another trait of our text is the use, al-ready common in later antiquity, of a gerund in the ablative where a presentparticiple would suffice, such as ‘cogitando’ and ‘disponendo’ for ‘cogitans’and ‘disponens’.40 Beyssade notices the same phenomenon in Spinoza. Inits turn, the gerund is often replaced by a participle in the perfect tense(e.g. ‘condensatus’ and ‘dilatatus’ in Met. VI 14)41 or an ablative abso-lute in the perfect tense, such as ‘factis laminis’ and ‘rota expolita’ whereone would expect ‘laminas faciendo’ and ‘rotam expoliendo’.42 Courcelles’spredilection for the ablative absolute also manifests itself in impractical con-structions like the one discussed in a note on Diopt. IX 4, where a simpleparticipium coniunctum would have been more elegant and effective.

Neologisms are a delightful attribute of many seventeenth-century texts.43

Curious readers will find a list of all postclassical words (and classical wordswith new meanings) occurring in the Specimina in Appendix 3. Indicatingthe neologisms’ origins, however, would have exceeded the scope of this the-sis. Their meaning, if necessary (for quite a few have found their way intomodern languages virtually unchanged), is given in the second apparatusat their first occurrence. Some of the words on the list were coined fornew inventions and discoveries, such as alembicus, typographus and Mexi-cani,44 while other neologisms seem ‘unnecessary’ in comparison (depressusfor ‘flat’, efformo ‘to form’). Quite a few unclassical words and phrasesused in our text stem directly from medieval scholasticism: in instanti, in-dividuum, forma substantialis. Some classical words are used in a differentsense, for instance destillo and planta.

Gallicisms also occur in the Specimina, for instance ‘bona mens’ in thefirst sentence of Diss. I or the loose use of debere throughout the text (a goodexample is p. 205, l. 26 (Diopt. VIII, 4)). In many cases, e.g. those of fluxuset refluxus and in particulari, it is not certain if a word or phrase is actuallya gallicism or a reminder of medieval Latin (although it could be arguedthat the two are essentially the same). Sometimes the French languageinterferes with the construction of a sentence (such as the construction atthe beginning of Met. V, 3, or in the case of the superfluous ‘iique’ inDiopt. VII, 19), with a verb’s mood (e.g. in Diopt. IX, 5 (p. 222, l. 8)) orwith a noun’s gender (e.g. vapor in Met. II, 6; cp. the reversed cases in thePrincipes described in AT IX–2, p. vi).

Indications of time and date have been translated literally: the mod-ern European system is transplanted into the Latin language. Thus, ‘hora

39 See IJsewijn 1998, p. 407; Hobbes 1999, p. CII.40 P. 113, l. 20; p. 117, l. 3. (Diss. II)41 P. 284, ll. 26 and 27.42 P. 233, ll. 11 and 12. (Diopt. X 7)43 See IJsewijn 1998, pp. 382–391.44 See Fattori 1997, p. 269sq. Fattori is mistaken in labelling aeolipila an early modern

neologism; it occurs in Vitruvius.

35

introduction

circiter octava’45 means ‘at about eight in the morning’ instead of ‘at abouttwo in the afternoon’, and 4 February is simply ‘Quarto Februarii’, not‘pridie Nonas Februarias’.46

Stylistic devicesModern scholars never cease to marvel at the stylistic liberties that earlymodern translators seem to take so easily. Or, as Mund-Dopchie puts itin her study of atlas translations: ‘Si nous confrontons a present les textesfrancais qui se veulent plus nettement des translations du modele latin,nous constatons immediatement que leurs auteurs cherchent a rendre lecontenu du message, sans se preoccuper de la forme dans laquelle celui-ciest exprime.’47 As Rener’s impressive study48 has shown, however, theseliberties should not in general be interpreted as signs of carelessness onthe translator’s part; they result from his use of a time-honoured set oftools which ultimately serve to make the author’s message both clear andagreeable to his new audience.

A good example of such a tool is the doublet or double rendering, afavourite with translators (and authors, for that matter) since Cicero’s day.It may be used to mend either the translator’s incertainty as to the mean-ing of the word in the source text, or the lack of a proper synonym in thetarget language, or just to give the translation a certain roundness andeuphony. A few examples from our text are the translation of ‘vne insen-sibilite’ with ‘Immanitas (. . . ) et durities’;49 ‘euidemment’, which becomes‘certo et evidenter’;50 the clumsy translation of ‘les exces’ with ‘extremasvias, sive (ut ita loquar) (. . . ) nimietates’;51 or the strange rendering of‘constanment’ with ‘indubitanter atque incunctanter’52 and of ‘inflexibles’with ‘immoti (. . . ) et rigidi’.53 The double rendering of ‘raisonnemens’ with‘ratiocinationes sive judicia’ in Diss. IV54 seems rather careless.

The counterpart of the doublet is the single rendering, which Courcellesnonchalantly uses to truncate any of Descartes’s own double renderingswhich he finds redundant.55 Instances of this procedure—which occurs lessoften than its opposite—are found in Met. VI 6, where ‘condense & reserre’and ‘se reserrent & se condensent’ are both rendered with the sole verbcondenso;56 in Diopt. II 7 where ‘la raison ou proportion’ becomes ‘propor-

45 P. 280, l. 8 (Met. VI, 9).46 P. 279, l. 1 (Met. VI, 8).47 Mund-Dopchie 1994, p. 204.48 Rener 1989.49 P. 109, l. 19. (Diss. I)50 P. 116, l. 21sq. (Diss. II)51 P. 120, l. 15. (Diss. III)52 P. 120, l. 29. (Diss. III)53 P. 219, l. 5sq. (Diopt. IX, 3)54 P. 131, l. 21.55 Cahne rightly remarks: ‘Le redoublement de certaines constructions reste une mar-

que specifique de l’ecriture de Descartes.’ (Cahne 1980, p. 214)56 P. 277, ll. 11, 15.

36

chapter 3

tio’;57 and in Diss. VI, where the translation of ‘selon son inclination & sonpouuoir’ with ‘quod in sua facultate esset’58 certainly causes a loss of mean-ing. The same can be said of the single rendering of ‘tres pure & tres viue’with ‘purissimae’ in Diss. V, where the spiritus animales are compared toa flame—their vivacity is an essential characteristic.59

Another device, popular with translators but notably treacherous, is vari-atio: rendering a recurring word with different synonyms. Used to preventboredom in the reader, it often turns out ill in technical texts. Some exam-ples of successful variation in the Specimina are the translation of ‘espais’with ‘crassius’ and then ‘tumidiores’,60 that of ‘on obserue’ with ‘obser-vatur’, ‘notatur’ and ‘animadvertimus’,61 and the use of both ‘cardines’ and‘polis’ to render ‘poles’.62 Tendre is a pivotal and very specific term in Des-cartes’s theory of light as exposed in the Dioptrique; its importance lies inits distinction—however problematic—from actual motion. Courcelles wasinsufficiently aware of this and could not resist the temptation to translatethis verb that kept returning with a variety of Latin equivalents, or so hethought. ‘Affectant’63 is not a bad rendition, but ‘tendere’64 (which nor-mally means ‘to go’ and is indeed used to denote actual motion in Diopt. I8,65 translating ‘prend son cours’), ‘feruntur’66 and ‘properant’67 are mis-leading, and ‘pergere’68 is a definite mistake.69 By the same token, ourtranslator would have done better to render ‘empescher’ with ‘impedire’both times in Diopt. II, 2:70 the variation ‘auferre’ gives the false suggestionthat the motion of the ball is halted altogether. The importance of thispoint is highlighted by Descartes’s reply to Bourdin on the passage in ques-tion: the philosopher stresses that he has not said that the ball’s motion isstopped.71

Sometimes the translator indulges in ornatus or embellishment. A fewexamples: ‘des cours, & des armees’ becomes ‘exercitus, urbes aulasqueexterorum principum’;72 the simple ‘materiaux’ is turned into ‘lapides, ligna,

57 P. 164, l. 31.58 P. 143, l. 35.59 P. 138, l. 37.60 P. 153, ll. 22 and 23. (beginning of Diopt. I)61 P. 260, ll. 12, 15, 19. (Met. IV, 4)62 P. 229, ll. 19 and 27. (Diopt. X, 5)63 P. 157, l. 3. (Diopt. I, 7)64 P. 157, l. 15, and several other instances in this chapter. (Diopt. I, 7)65 P. 159, l. 14.66 P. 158, l. 5. (Diopt. I, 8)67 P. 157, l. 4. (Diopt. I, 7)68 P. 157, l. 23. (Diopt. I, 7)69 Descartes also uses the verb tendre frequently in Met. VIII to signify the (tendency

to) motion of rays of light. Most occurrences are rendered with tendere, but it is note-worthy that the philosopher himself is less careful here and uses aller on a few occasions.

70 P. 161, l. 22sq.71 Descartes to Mersenne for Bourdin, 29 July 1640 (CM IX p. 506, ll. 110–112; AT

III p. 110, ll. 19–22).72 P. 110, l. 25sq. (Diss. I)

37

introduction

caementum, aliaque aedificanti utilia’;73 and the salt particles that touch thetongue ‘de pointe’ are now ‘in cuspides erectae et telorum instar vibratae’.74

In enumerations, the order is often changed, mostly without any dis-cernible reason. The reversal of ‘les couleurs & la lumiere’ to ‘lumen etcolores’75 could be explained by the Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder, but nosuch ground is apparent in the changes of ‘du lait, ou du sang, ou de lachair’ to ‘lac, carnem, aut sanguinem’,76 of ‘O, ou P’ to ‘P vel O’,77 or inthe switch of the two ny clauses in ‘car sans cela les images qu’ils forment,ne scauroient estre ny bien semblables a leur original, ny bien distinctes’,which becomes ‘id enim nisi fiat, imagines, quas formant, nunquam satisdistinctae erunt, nec fideliter corpus, a quo emanant, repraesentabunt’.78

Sometimes a word, clause or idea moves through the sentence. A simpleexample is found at the very beginning of the Dioptrique, where ‘Toute laconduite de nostre vie’ is rendered as ‘Totius vitae nostrae regimen’.79 A bitmore complex is a case in Diss. II where ‘& obscur’ is omitted after ‘confusa’,while ‘et obscuratur’ is added at the end: ‘ut videatur potius ars quaedamconfusa, cujus usu ingenium quodammodo turbatur et obscuratur’.80 InDiopt. VIII 15, the phrase ‘ut cuivis inquirenti liquebit’ has been transferredfrom the statement that circle, straight line and parabola do not suffice toconstruct a telescope lens, to the claim that after these three, there is noline simpler than ellipse and hyperbola.81

The imagery used in the source text is sometimes changed or removedin the Latin version. Thus Descartes’s phrase ‘estudier (. . . ) dans le liuredu monde’ is drily rendered as ‘quidnam in mundo ab aliis ageretur in-spexissem,’82 although the first occurrence of this commonplace had beenleft intact.83 One of the metaphors from architecture used in Diss. II ischanged: ‘les ouurages composez de plusieurs pieces, & faits de la mainde diuers maistres’ is turned into ‘illa opera quibus diversi artifices, interse non consentientes, manum adhibuere’.84 The addition of a simile alsooccurs, such as that of ‘tabulatorum instar’ in the description of a cloudformation.85

As we have already seen, Courcelles—like most translators of his day—thinks lightly of apparent details such as changing, omitting or adding a con-

73 P. 119, l. 15sq. (Diss. III)74 P. 248, l. 22sq. (Met. III, 2)75 P. 155, l. 32. (Diopt. I, 5)76 P. 294, l. 13sq. (Met. VII, 13)77 P. 193, l. 19. (Diopt. VII, 5)78 P. 192, ll. 5–7. (Diopt. VII, 2)79 P. 153, l. 5.80 P. 116, l. 10sq.81 P. 211, l. 15.82 P. 111, l. 18sq. (Diss. I)83 P. 110, l. 23sq. (Diss. I)84 P. 112, l. 2sq.85 P. 290, l. 13. (Met. VII, 5)

38

chapter 3

junction, a pronoun or a modal verb, switching from active to passive voiceor from plural to singular and vice versa, changing tenses and modifyingexpressions of quantity. Moreover, the Specimina contain many translator’sliberties that defy classification as well as explanation. Some instances arethe rendering of ‘vn bord de panne ou velours’ with ‘holoserico’86 and thatof ‘la reigle a este prise plus longue que la corde’ with ‘restis (. . . ) regulabrevior est’.87 The change of the ‘Canibales’ into ‘Americanos’ in Diss. IIbrings with it the loss of a reference to Montaigne’s Essais.88

A category of divergences that is both enjoyable and easy to explain isformed by the adaptations to suit the taste of academics familiar with theclassics, such as the added reference to the painter Apelles in Diss. I, orthe change in that same chapter of ‘les extrauagances des Paladins de nosromans’ into ‘deliria antiquorum Heroum’. The reference (not present, orat least not clear, in the French text) to Lipsius’ Manuductio ad Stoicamphilosophiam in Diss. III also fits into this category.89

The fact that the French text was intended mainly for a non-academicaudience also affects Descartes’s use of technical terms, as does the lack ofan established philosophical vocabulary in the vernacular. The phrasing ofthe Discours and Essais is usually non-technical and rather simple in thisrespect. In a way, this suited Descartes quite well, since he used radicallydifferent principles from those of traditional philosophy, and wanted to doaway with scholastic terminology for good (despite his futile claims to thecontrary). In his reply to Morin’s objections, the philosopher alleges thathe has applied the scholastic distinction between lux and lumen in theDioptrique.90 Thomas Aquinas had been the first to distinguish lux, light aspresent in luminous bodies, from lumen, light as received by other bodies.The use of the single term ‘lumiere’ in the Essais, and the utter carelessnesswith which it is translated as either lux or lumen, illustrate the fact thatthe distinction simply doesn’t fit the Cartesian theory.91 In Diopt. I 2, onemight say that the distinction is tentatively made in the translation;92 in I3, III 3, V 5, IX 593 one might say that Courcelles uses the ‘wrong’ term(including corpora luminosa vs. pellucida, although he uses the ‘correct’corpora lucida in Met. II 6);94 and in V 5, it becomes clear that neither ofthe scholastic terms would fit the concept of the source text.

The difference between the French and Latin vocabularies shows in thetranslation of ‘les formes ou natures’ with ‘formas substantiales’ (where the

86 P. 219, l. 25. (Diopt. IX, 4)87 P. 208, l. 16sq. (Diopt. VIII, 11)88 P. 115, l. 6. See Gilson p. 179.89 P. 122, l. 16sq. See Gilson p. 253sq.90 Descartes to Morin, [13 July 1638] (AT II, pp. 203sq., 209–211).91 This is proven further in the Principia philosophiae, e.g. III 9, 10, 21 (AT VIII,

pp. 83 and 86).92 P. 154, l. 16.93 P. 155, l. 9sq.; p. 168, l. 13; p. 175, ll. 8–10; p. 221, l. 28.94 P. 246, l. 9sq.

39

introduction

French really is a translation of the Latin technical term),95 the rendition of‘plusieurs soleils’ with ‘Parhelii’96 and in the addition of the more technicalexplanation ‘prismatis sive’ in ‘particula ejus vitri quod volumus examinare,in formam prismatis sive trianguli polita’.97 On a few occasions, the Latintext maintains the Latin words used in the source text for want of a Frenchtechnical term, such as ‘Retina’ and the phrase ‘visionem fieri per axem’.98

On the other hand, the translator tries to avoid a group of words thatsmack of medieval philosophy in Latin (although many were in fact coined inlater antiquity), while their French descendants are considered acceptable.Thus, ‘comme possibles’ is paraphrased with ‘tanquam si aliquando contigis-sent’ and ‘n’estre pas intelligible’ with ‘intelligi non posse’.99 In cases wherehe cannot—or does not—avoid the use of a technical term considered ugly,Courcelles sometimes adds an excuse: ‘Philosophico vocabulo impossibiliaappellantur’; ‘certitudo, ut loquuntur Philosophi, moralis’.100

When it comes to technical terms from handicrafts and the like, our trans-lator has some difficulty finding Latin equivalents: ‘taille-douces’, ‘trampe’and ‘ressort’ are laboriously paraphrased.101 Other words are new to theFrench language as well, such as ‘trauades’ (the Portuguese sailor’s term ismaintained in the translation)102 and ‘aualanche’, apparently a word Des-cartes has picked up in the Alps and uses three times in Met. VII (all threeare rendered with Latin descriptions).103

Another stylistic difference concerns the use of personal pronouns. TheLatin translator has a tendency to weed out Descartes’s frequent pronouns‘ie’ and ‘vous’, replacing them with passive constructions or ‘nous’. In theDissertatio this sometimes affects the personal presentation of the fabula,e.g. when ‘que ie n’esperois point pouuoir acquerir qu’a faux titres’ becomesthe rather weak ‘non nisi falso nomine (. . . ) acquiri posse videbatur’.104 Farmore often, Courcelles changes the way in which the reader is addressed:‘il vous est bien sans doute arriue’ becomes ‘Nemo nostrum est, cui nonevenerit’; ‘ie desire que vous pensies’, ‘cogitemus’; and ‘il faut que ie vousdie’, ‘subjungenda sunt’.105 This procedure occasionally mitigates the ar-

95 P. 106, l. 2. (Diss. I)96 P. 315, l. 7. (Met. X, 1)97 P. 226, l. 26. (Diopt. X, 1)98 Diopt. V, summaries of 1 and 8.99 P. 108, l. 20; p. 129, l. 22sq. (Diss. I and IV)

100 P. 121, l. 26; p. 130, l. 4. (Diss. III and IV) Cp. the similar phrase added byLuynes, the French translator of the Meditationes, when maintaining the terms negatioand privatio in Med. IV. (See Armogathe 1997, p. 62.) Because of their very nature, thePrincipia abound with scholastical terms, which the French translator Picot often triesto paraphrase in a more elegant way. (See Watson Rodger 1996, pp. 608–612; Meschini1996(b), p. 587; M. Beyssade 1996, p. 51.)

101 P. 172, l. 3sq.; p. 232, l. 20; p. 232, l. 23; p. 233, l. 5. (Diopt. IV 6, X 6, X 6, X 7)102 P. 288, l. 19. (Met. VII, 3)103 P. 290, l. 23; p. 291, l. 12; p. 293, l. 30. (Met. VII 5, 7, 11)104 P. 110, l. 15sq. (Diss. I)105 P. 154, l. 27; p. 155, l. 9; p. 169, l. 19. (Diopt. I 2, I 3, IV 1)

40

chapter 3

rogance that appears in the text: ‘ut intelligamus’ is likelier to please thereader than ‘afin de vous pouuoir faire entendre’.106

Likewise, the translator regularly omits phrases like ‘vous scaues que’and ‘il faut remarquer, que’, while incidentally adding a ‘notandum est’of his own. In general, his tendency toward circumlocution is balancedby the times when he shortens the text to produce a lapidary translation.He usually does this by discarding unnecessary elements; and although onoccasion his decisions are questionable when it comes to loss of meaning,the result is often more pleasing than the somewhat long-winded sourcetext. Examples include the debatable translation of ‘que cela seul estoitsuffisant pour les empescher d’auoir aucune affection pour d’autres choses’with ‘ut nihil etiam amplius optarent’107 and the fortunate wording ‘si eumin naturae cognitione aequarent’ for ‘s’ils auoient autant de connoissancede la Nature qu’il en a eu’,108 or ‘facile ad figuram talis vitri mutantur’ for‘peuuent aysement asses changer leur figure, pour l’accommoder a celle d’vntel verre’.109

The Specimina translator often changes the construction of periods fromhypotaxis to parataxis and tends to divide Descartes’s interminable sen-tences into more manageable ones. His use of capitals and punctuation ismore or less independent from that of the source text.

Like many other translators, Courcelles frequently feels the need to clarifyhis author by stating more explicitly what he thinks is meant, at times byadding a complete gloss.110 This involves the danger of misrepresentation,but can also bring some much-needed illumination to obscure passages, oramount to harmless circumlocution. To start with some instances of usefulexplanation: in Diss. III, the translation of ‘on croit vne chose’ with ‘aliquidbonum vel malum esse judicamus’ and the addition of ‘usu’ a few lines latermake it clear that only moral issues are being discussed.111 The additionof ‘inter vigilandum’ in Diss. IV and the more specific ‘hi radii’ for ‘ils’ inDiopt. IX 6 help prevent misunderstandings as well.112 The translator alsothought it wise to explain ‘que toute composition tesmoigne de la depen-dance’ as ‘in omni autem compositione unam partem ab altera, totumque apartibus pendere’;113 to clarify Descartes’s discussion of the problems withlarge lenses by adding ‘quae in majoribus vitris esse debent’ and ‘ex quibussolis constant minora’;114 and to add ‘aquae’ in ‘illae aquae particulae exquibus sal commune componitur’.115 Many of Courcelles’s interpretations

106 P. 167, l. 5sq. (Diopt. II, 12)107 P. 122, l. 13. (Diss. 3)108 P. 147, l. 27sq. (Diss. VI)109 P. 219, l. 6. (Diopt. IX, 3)110 Steenbakkers 1997, p. 6; Hankins 1994, p. 159sq.111 P. 128, ll. 8–10.112 P. 131, l. 6; p. 224, l. 14.113 P. 128, l. 22sq. (Diss. IV)114 P. 226, l. 8. (Diopt. IX, 8)115 P. 247, l. 21. (Met. II, 8) The nature of salt particles had been revealed in Met. I, 8.

41

introduction

are harmless but unnecessary, e.g. the translation of ‘naturellement’ with‘ob majorem gravitatem’ in Met. III 3 and the addition of ‘quae ideo albaremanserant’ in Met. VI 11.116 In one case, however, the integrity of thetranslation is seriously damaged by his interventions. In Met. I 8, Descartesdescribes an experiment which proves that boiled water freezes sooner thanwater which has not been boiled. His correspondence with Mersenne provesthat the description is not very clear:

J’admire aussi que vous parliez de marquer ce que vous trou-verez de faux contre l’experience en mon livre; car j’ose as-surer qu’il n’y en a aucune de fausse, pource que je les ayfaites moy-mesme, et nommement celle que vous remarquezde l’eau chaude qui gele plustost que la froide; ou j’ay dit nonpas chaude et froide, mais que l’eau qu’on a tenue long-tempssur le feu, se gele plustost que l’autre; car pour bien faire cetteexperience, il faut, ayant fait bouillir l’eau, la laisser refroidirjusqu’a ce qu’elle ait acquis le mesme degre de froideur quecelle d’une fontaine, en l’eprouvant avec un verre de tempera-ment, puis tirer de l’eau de cette fontaine, et mettre ces deuxeaux en pareille quantite et dans pareils vazes.117

The translator has equally misunderstood the passage and introduces non-sense into the text by adding ‘calentem’ and changing ‘que d’autre’ to‘frigida et cruda’: ‘Experientia etiam docet aquam calentem, quae igni ap-posita diu bulliit, frigida et cruda celerius congelari’.118

Even without additions and circumlocution, the translation sometimessurpasses the source text in clarity. Gilson points out that in Diss. II,‘sapientia’ is actually more precise than its original ‘capables de distinguerle vray d’auec le faux’.119 The analogy of the tub of must in Diopt. I, 7benefits from its drastic restructuring by the translator, who has removedthe hypothesis which it illustrates from the actual simile, completing themetaphor first and then moving on to the theoretical part.120 On the sim-plest level, the translator can improve upon the source text by making aconfusing reference explicit.121

There is a handful of passages in which Courcelles has corrected or clar-ified the text after taking a close look at the relevant woodcut,122 but a

116 P. 249, l. 8; p. 281, l. 25.117 Descartes to Mersenne, [1 March 1638] (CM VII, p. 81; AT II, p. 29).118 P. 242, ll. 10-12.119 P. 114, l. 30; Gilson p. 177sq.120 P. 157, ll. 1–14.121 P. 274, l. 17sq.: in the French text, ‘elles’ seems to refer to ‘les vapeurs’. (Met. VI 1)122 The most striking examples are p. 304, l. 25sq., and p. 317, l. 27 (Met. VIII 10, X

4). In Diopt. VIII 5 (p. 206, l. 4) Courcelles makes a Verschlimmbesserung, because hehad neglected to correct the erratum in fig. 28 (the ‘K’ had not been added yet). Thetranslator did not waste much time on the errata in any case: as far as can be judged

42

chapter 3

missed correction (discussed in Appendix 2)123 shows that his attentionwas not constant.

Not unexpectedly, there are as many occasions where the Latin text is lessclear or precise than the French, such as the translation of ‘a proportion’with ‘multo’ in Diopt. VI 6, or the confusing ‘imagines, secundum ejus[scil. Perspectivae] praecepta pictae’ where not the paintings as a whole aremeant, but the representation of certain objects in them.124

The addition of words like ullus, omnis and multo and the change ofsubjunctive to indicative125 are two of the ways in which statements becomebolder in translation. This curious phenomenon—the translator gets carriedaway by the argument, so to speak—also manifests itself in a specific type ofembellishment. Especially the Dissertatio has some striking examples: theaddition of ‘otiosus’ and ‘sedens’ in ‘doctor aliquis otiosus in Musaeo sedens’;the embroidery ‘caeco (. . . ) et fortuito quodam casu’ upon the simple ‘lafortune’; the harsher translation of ‘a parler sans iugement de celles qu’onignore’ as ‘ad copiose et sine judicio de iis quae nescimus garriendum’; andthe change of the child that was ‘instruit en l’Arithmetique’ into ‘qui primastantum Arithmeticae regulas in ludo didicit’.126

The opposite of this procedure, however, occurs more frequently, andDescartes’s original claims may be weakened by the omission of a beaucoup,tres or fort, or the addition of a plerumque or quantum fieri potest. Likewise,the plan to make ‘vne lunete la plus parfaitte qui puisse estre’ is toneddown drastically with the translation ‘aliquod specillum’,127 and Descartes’sjudgement on experimenters is not quite as harsh in the Specimina as it isin the French text.128

Strategic adaptations; Revius’ criticismWhile the stylistic modifications discussed in the previous section sometimesaffect the purport of the text, this is presumably not the translator’s inten-tion. There are, however, specific changes in meaning that were very prob-ably made on purpose. A clear example occurs in Diss. III, where we find anumber of possibly interrelated divergences from the source text. Courcellesmust have realized how some readers would react to Descartes’s provisionalethics as proposed in this part of the Discours, and made a few strategic cor-rections, comparable to those made by Picot in the Principes.129 He leaves

from the translation, there are four which he certainly had not corrected, and four whichhave been corrected, but possibly based on the context or the illlustration instead of theerrata list.

123 P. 380, n. 17.124 P. 182, l. 27; p. 191, ll. 5-7. (Diopt. VI 24)125 Small additions happen passim. Change to indicative for instance on p. 290, l. 13.

(Met. VII, 5)126 P. 111, l. 2sq.; p. 112, l. 14sq.; p. 115, l. 33–116, 1; p. 118, l. 17sq. (Diss. I, II, II, II)127 P. 220, l. 10. (Diopt. IX, 5)128 P. 149, ll. 4sq., 13sq. (Diss. VI)129 See Meschini 1996(b), p. 588.

43

introduction

out the weak ‘vraysemblablement’ in the parable of the lost travellers; thiscould well be connected to the omission of another ‘vraysemblablement’ abit earlier,130 which our translator may have thought was contrary to therejection of verisimilitude in Diss. II. The same is true of the rendition of ‘lesplus vrayes opinions’ with the more convincing ‘quid revera sit optimum’and, in the same sentence, of ‘les plus probables [opinions]’ with ‘illud (. . . )quod optimum videtur’.131 Diss. III contains two more explicit translationsand an omission that could also testify to the translator’s awareness of pos-sible objections.132

A specific category of strategic interventions is concerned with the factthat Descartes was a Roman Catholic, and rather naıve in theological mat-ters. The translator obviously saw it as his duty to protect his author andplease his readers by purging the text of some offensive passages. And if hewas not Courcelles, his adaptations at least show that he was more versed intheology than Descartes was, and that he was a Protestant well aware of thethings that would offend a Dutch and international Protestant audience.133

The interferences did not go unnoticed. In the course of the 1640s, theinfluential theologian Jacobus Revius (1586–1658) watched the growing pop-ularity of Cartesian philosophy among Leiden students with concern. He feltespecially responsible because he was the regent of the States College, wherebursar students were taught philosophy and theology. One of his contribu-tions to the controversy over Cartesian philosophy was Methodi Cartesianaeconsideratio theologica, published in 1647.134 This work criticizes Descartes’smethod as explained in the first three parts of the Discours, the metaphysicsof the fourth part having been replaced by Revius with those of the Me-ditationes. The theologian focusses on revealing Descartes’s inconsistenciesand the noxious nature of his method. One of the instruments Revius usesis the Latin version of the Discours: he censures the translator’s libertiesin general, and especially his tendency to tone down certain phrases andto camouflage the author’s papist ideas. He often gives a literal translationof the French text, although he attacks the Specimina version as if it wereDescartes’s own when it suits his purposes.135 I do not include all his alter-native translations in the third apparatus, but he is cited or quoted when hehas something to say on a divergence worth mentioning in the apparatus.

Revius’ attacks are often futile and based on a deliberately over-literalreading of Descartes’s words. This proves that the translator’s care inadding interpretations or nuances was not unnecessary. The triviality of cer-

130 P. 120, l. 11; p. 121, l. 8. (Diss. III)131 P. 121, l. 10. (Diss. III)132 P. 122, l. 31–123, 2, 5sq., 26.133 Compare the case of Richard le Blanc’s translation of Cardanus’ De subtilitate as

discussed in Epee 2001, p. 133.134 Revius 2002, further indicated as ‘Revius’. See also Verbeek 1992, p. 49sq.135 E.g. the word ‘vendito’ for ‘prens’ (p. 106, l. 17) and ‘plures’ for ‘plusieurs’ in Diss. 1

(p. 107, l. 1). See below, p. 48 at n. 154.

44

chapter 3

tain points is well illustrated by the passage on the lecture of all good booksin Diss. I.136 Revius also points out the omission of ‘vraysemblablement’ inthe travellers parable mentioned above, the adaptation of the second ruleof the method in part II,137 and the change of the heated room to a lofty‘solitude’ in part III.138

Revius repeatedly catches Courcelles in the act, so to speak, of suppress-ing Descartes’s careless phrasings in theological matters. The philosopherprobably had no idea that his decision to leave his books would offend piousProtestants—no Bible?—, but the translator did, and changed ‘mes liures’into ‘scholasticis studiis’, only to be exposed in the Consideratio theologi-ca.139 Descartes displays the same nonchalance in describing his decisionto remain in his parents’ faith.140 The French text immediately provokedobjections from Mersenne’s circle, and Descartes replied:

Enfin pour ceux qui vous ont demande de quelle Religionj’estois, s’ils avoient pris garde que j’ay ecrit en la page 29, queje n’eusse pas cru me devoir contenter des opinions d’autruyun seul moment, si je ne me fusse propose d’employer monpropre jugement a les examiner lors qu’il seroit temps, ils ver-roient qu’on ne peut inferer de mon discours, que les infidelesdoivent demeurer en la religion de leurs parens.141

It was undoubtedly the translator’s idea to add the words ‘quam optimamjudicabam’ in order to prevent precisely this objection. Again, the ploy isdetected by Revius, who severely criticizes the addition itself:

interpres hisce praemittit: quam optimam judicabam, in quonon possum satis mirari ejus imprudentiam, nequid graviusdicam; quomodo enim quae optima esset religio judicare po-terat, eo tempore quo ratio, ut audivimus, eum obligabat INIUDICIIS SVIS INCERTUM esse?142

The theologian’s harshest condemnation is reserved for Courcelles’s attemptto veil the doctrine of implicit faith, which seems to underlie the paragraphon theology in part I:143

136 P. 107, ll. 16sq., 30sq.137 P. 116, l. 27.138 P. 123, l. 24.139 P. 111, l. 22. (Diss. I)140 P. 119, l. 26. (Diss. III)141 Descartes to Mersenne, [spring 1637] (CM VI, p. 261; AT I, p. 367). The passage

on page 29 of the 1637 edition is p. 123, ll. 2–6. (Diss. III)142 Revius p. 145.143 P. 109, ll. 21–28. It is interesting to note that the only remark on the translation as

such in the Specimina copy with Joachim Jungius’ annotations concerns this very passage.Ludtke 1937 (b), p. 418sq.: ‘bei dem Worte ‘indoctis’ macht [Jungius] die Bemerkung ‘inGall. ignorantissimis”.

45

introduction

Cogor hoc loco, super fide latini interpretis libelli de Methodo,judicium lectoris flagitare. Is enim pro ignorantissimis, quavoce Cartesius usus erat, substituit indoctos, quasi illius sen-sus sit, tam illiteratos quam literatos, modo credant, salvosesse posse, quod verum, sed nihil ad Cartesium. (. . . ) Omninode industria involutus est ab interprete totus iste paragraphus,eo fine, ut pontificiorum dogma de laicorum ignorantia, siveimplicita fide (quod in Gallico textu pellucet velut laternaPunica), nonnihil occultaretur.144

Descartes’s original text gave malignant readers room for heretical interpre-tations of several passages on God and the possibilities of humankind; thetranslator eliminated them with care.145 Perhaps his humourless act of van-dalism against Descartes’s elegant metaphor in Met. I, 2, where the authorplays God, should also be viewed in this light.

Nonetheless, the translator did not quite straighten out all Descartes’stheological faux pas. Mersenne had voiced some concern over a passagewith a distinctly Pelagian ring to it, in which his friend joyfully claimedthat people only need correct judgement in order to do what is right.146

However, the statement remains unchanged in the Latin version. The sameis true of a passage on creation in Diss. V, which Descartes explains in thesame letter to Mersenne.147

Revius’ Consideratio theologica was refuted by the young Dutch CartesianJohannes Clauberg (1622–1665) in his Defensio cartesiana (1652). Clauberguses the Specimina’s notice to the reader to counter Revius’ attacks on thetranslation:

10. Liber hic Gallice primum conscriptus est ab authore Gallo,postea ab amico ejus in linguam Latinam versus. Nec solumCartesius versionem illam multis in locis mutavit, sed etiamsensum suum emendare studuit, uti testatur in Praefatiun-cula ad lectorem. Hoc notato patet injuriam fieri tam In-terpreti quam Cartesio a Jacobo Revio, quando in Consi-deratione Theologica passim de illius fide queritur, & hujusmentem esse negat, quam editio Latina monstrat.11. Dum vero in eadem Praefatiuncula Cartesius fatetur, seforsan etiam alia multa praetermisisse; item, Interpretis verbanon emendasse, facile intelligimus fieri potuisse, ut vocabulaquaedam, quorum minor est cura Philosophi quam rerum,manserint incorrecta. Proinde non debebant Cartesio deho-

144 Revius p. 124sq.145 P. 129, l. 17 (Diss. IV); p. 130, l. 28 (Diss. IV); p. 191, l. 27 (Diopt. VII, 1).146 P. 123, ll. 12–16. (Diss. III) Descartes to Mersenne, [spring 1637] (CM VI, p. 260;

AT I, p. 366sq.).147 P. 134, l. 6sq.

46

chapter 3

nestamenta linguae Latinae & Grammaticationem tam salseobjicere Revius Stat. p. 73.148 Lentulus p. 215.149 150

Tucked away in a footnote to ‘Interpretis verba non emendasse’ in section11 is a daring defence of the Specimina translation, a reference to a Biblecommentary by the renowned Leiden Orientalist and theologian Louis deDieu (1590–1642). Commenting on Acts 13: 41, De Dieu explains that acertain Hebrew word has been misread by the Septuagint translators:

Non est autem quod turbetur quisquam, quod errorem huncnon emendaverit Evangelista noster. etsi enim in verbis, in retamen ipsa nullus error, nulla varietas. ubi quidem Aposto-li receptam in Ecclesiis Graeci textus lectionem mutare, necoperae precium, nec utile duxere. (. . . ) Sensus itaque recteconstat, imo mentem Prophetae quasi per commentarium ex-plicat.151

Revius’ vicious attack on the translator’s adaptation of the ‘ignorantissimis’passage is again countered with a reference to the notice to the reader. Thistime, Clauberg gives a more specific interpretation: Descartes had beennaıve in his original text, but had made strategic changes in the translationin order to defend it from detractors.

Adhaec injuriam facit [Revius] Interpreti pag. 18.19. quemvult ab Authoris mente aberrasse, de industria totum para-graphum involvisse. Jam enim supra, in praefatiuncula hujusde Methodo Dissertationis ad Lectorem, Cartesium audivimusdicentem, fidum interpretem verbum verbo reddere conatum,se vero sententias ipsas saepe mutasse, & non ejus verba, sedsuum sensum emendare ubique studuisse. Ergo frustra totiesclamat Revius, se Gallicum textum, qui Authoris sit, sequi.Latinus enim, quantum ad sensum, etiam Authoris est, utmodo vidimus. Et sicubi in Gallico, nil mali suspicans can-

148 Revius [1650], another anti-Cartesian text, in which the theologian repeatedly quotesfrom the Dissertatio de methodo and Dioptrice, attacking the translation once: ‘Taceojam dehonestamenta latinae linguae, istius chaos, & chaos formam, quorum Cartesiusinterpretem suum, tantus doctor, commonefacere debuisset, & pergo ad materiae Carte-sianae essentiam . . . ’ The unclassical genitives are on p. 133sq. (Diss. V)

149 Lentulus 1651: a detailed refutation of the Dissertatio de methodo and the Principia,based in part on Revius’ Consideratio. Lentulus never refers to the French text—heprobably didn’t read French. On p. 215 he quotes from Diss. VI (p. 146, l. 23): ‘Saepiusse a proposito avocandum iri (donemus illi hanc grammaticationem: ut quod juris inrebus innovandis, idem & in grammatica & latinitate a Ciceronianismo repurganda sibisumat) praevidet . . . ’

150 Clauberg 1691, p. 944. The argument of section 10 is repeated by Baillet (seeChapter 1, p. 10).

151 Dieu 1634, p. 133sq.

47

introduction

didus animus, non ita se expresserat, ut Zoılorum152 dentesevitaret, in Latino id corrigere laboravit.153

Clauberg is quick to point out Revius’ inconsistency in his treatment of theLatin text: ‘Observet Lector Revium, qui saepe alias ab Interprete Latinorecedens ad Gallicam editionem provocat, hıc praeter morem Latinae in-haerere, quod majorem in ea cavillandi occasionem nancisci sibi videre-tur.’154

Naturally, this does not stop Clauberg from committing his own incon-sistencies: although he often quotes the Specimina as Descartes’s text, healso repeatedly takes his refuge to the French text in order to clarify theauthor’s meaning.155

Translating errorsWe have seen a number of errors in interpretation manifesting themselves inflawed double and single renderings, variations and explanatory additions.Dozens of these errors occur throughout the Specimina. Some of them resultfrom mere carelessness or a misunderstanding of the passage at hand, suchas the translation of ‘au haut de l’air’ with ‘in aere’ and that of ‘entre lesbords de ces feuilles’ with ‘in oris foliorum’, to mention two seemingly inno-cent examples from Met. VI.156 In Met. VIII, Courcelles treats Descartes’spainstaking calculations of the angle under which rays of sunlight producethe primary rainbow with typical nonchalance when he renders ‘42 degres,ou vn peu audessous’ with ‘duorum fere et quadraginta graduum’.157

A similar corruption of the original text manifests itself in three places inDiss. IV.158 In the French text, the author searches for the source of an ideathat he has; a source that remains abstract until it is finally identified withGod. In the Specimina text, the source of the idea is already personifiedat its very first appearance; for although the forms ‘quonam’ and ‘eo’ couldtheoretically be neutral, it is much more natural to read them as masculinepronouns that can only refer to God—who has thus entered the argumentbefore his existence has been proven.

In Met. VIII 9, Descartes claims that ‘la grosseur, la figure, la situ-ation, & le mouuement des parties des cors qu’on nomme colores’ caninfluence the motion of subtle matter particles in various ways to pro-duce different colours. Our translator not only omits the crucial factorof movement—possibly thinking that this had already been covered by the

152 ‘Detractors’, ‘faultfinders’: the Greek sophist Zoilos was known as an unreasonablecritic of Homer.

153 Clauberg 1691, p. 956.154 Clauberg 1691, p. 994. The occasion is Revius’ attack on Diss. II, ‘tum in quaerendis

. . . ’ (p. 117, l. 4sq.).155 Clauberg 1691, pp. 945, 947, 1003, 1005, 1008, 1023, 1033, 1039.156 P. 279, l. 5; p. 283, l. 14. (Met. VI, 8 and 12)157 P. 303, l. 26. (Met. VIII, 9)158 P. 127, ll. 14–20. (Diss. IV)

48

chapter 3

term ‘situation’—but makes the astonishing mistake of translating ‘des par-ties des cors’ with ‘corporis’, which turns the statement into nonsense.159

Nonetheless, we should not judge Courcelles too harshly, for some ofhis mistakes must have been much easier to make without the benefit ofknowing the larger framework of Descartes’s oeuvre. The translation of‘pour conduire par ordre toutes leurs pensees’ in Diss. II is a good example.We know that rendering this with ‘ad rationes omnes circumspiciendas’160

is inadequate to say the least. But if we take the context into consideration,and the fact that the method had not been explained at this point in thetext, then there is no mistake, only a free translation.

Descartes’s sonorous invocation of ‘vn homme qui marche seul, & dansles tenebres’ not only loses much of its power in the phrase ‘eorum qui noctuet in tenebris iter faciunt’,161 but is also stripped of the aspect of solitudewhich is so essential to Descartes’s thought.

Both the hermae translator and Courcelles make the mistake of intro-ducing the word vis in a general sense at the beginning of Met. II.162 Inthe summary of II 1 and the main text of II 2, the French text states thatthe sun makes the particles of terrestrial matter float up into the air. Thetranslation with ‘vi Solis’ seems practical enough, but is actually quite con-fusing: the main text of II 1 denies that there is a vis Solis which attractsthe terrestrial particles.163 In this last case, the term vis is used technically.The French text is clearer: ‘que le soleil ait en soy quelque force qui lesattire’. A modern translator with a good grasp of Descartes’s philosophywould have steered clear of this mistake.

These and other errors, spread throughout the Specimina, prove thatDescartes did not revise the text as a whole.

Probable authorial interventions and other striking divergencesIt should be noted that many of the divergences from the source text dis-cussed above (apart from the translating errors), although in keeping withcontemporary translation practice, could theoretically be corrections madeby Descartes. But there are a few dozen differences from the French textthat require our special attention.164 Foremost among these are five signif-icant changes which have been made in Diss. IV, and which can be linkedto the Meditationes de prima philosophia. Because of this connection, it ishighly likely that Descartes himself was responsible for these interventions.

159 P. 303, l. 9.160 P. 114, l. 25sq. Cf. Revius’ version: ‘ad cogitationes suas rite et ordine instituendas’

(Revius, p. 143)161 P. 115, l. 18. (Diss. II)162 P. 243, l. 3 and l. 25.163 P. 243, l. 11sq.164 All the divergences listed here are marked with an asterisk ad loc. in the third appa-

ratus. I therefore give page and line numbers only for the passages from the Dissertatio,which are not as easy to locate as those from the Dioptrice and Meteora.

49

introduction

Diss. IV: Sed quia tunc veritati quaerendae non autem rebusagendis totum me tradere volebam [added]165

Descartes emphasizes the same aspect in Syn. Med. (AT VII p. 15);Resp. V (AT VII p. 350sq.); Princ. phil. I, 3 (AT VIII p. 5). SeeGilson p. 284.

Diss. IV: Et quia videbam veritatem hujus pronuntiati; Ego co-gito, ergo sum sive existo adeo certam esse atque evidentem [‘ceteverite’]166

Compare the identical use of ‘pronuntiatum’ in Med. II (AT VIIp. 25). See Pariente 1987, pp. 238–245.

Diss. IV: de cogitatione, sive Idea Naturae quae perfectior eratquam mea [added]167

Compare the use of ‘ideas, sive cogitationes’ in Med. III (AT VIIp. 35, l. 21), and see next addition.

Diss. IV: Nota hoc in loco et ubique in sequentibus, nomenIdeae generaliter sumi pro omni re cogitata, quatenus habettantum esse quoddam objectivum in intellectu. [marginalnote added]168

Armogathe169 has signalled the connection between this additionand the preceding one, referring to Descartes’s correspondence withVatier:

Il est vray que i’ay este trop obscur en ce que i’ay ecrit del’existence de Dieu dans ce traite de la Methode, & bien quece soit la piece la plus importante, i’auoue que c’est la moinselabouree de tout l’ouurage; (. . . ) I’auoue aussi que cette ob-scurite vient en partie, comme vous auez fort bien remarque,de ce que i’ay supose que certaines notions, que l’habitudede penser m’a rendu familieres & euidentes, le deuoient es-tre aussi a vn chacun; comme par exemple, que nos idees nepouuant receuoir leurs formes ny leur estre que de quelquesobjets exterieurs, ou de nous-mesmes, ne peuuent representeraucune realite ou perfection, qui ne soit en ces objets, ou bienen nous, & semblables; sur quoy ie me suis propose de donnerquelque eclaircissement dans vne seconde impression.170

Armogathe rightly points at the preface to the Meditationes as well:

165 P. 125, l. 26.166 P. 126, l. 11sq.167 P. 127, l. 25.168 P. 127, ll. 27–29.169 Armogathe 1997, p. 66.170 Descartes to [Vatier], [22 February 1638] (AT I p. 560sq.).

50

chapter 3

Alterum est, [scil. the second noteworthy objection against themetaphysics of the Discours] ex eo quod ideam rei me perfe-ctioris in me habeam, non sequi ipsam ideam esse me perfecti-orem, & multo minus illud quod per istam ideam repraesen-tatur existere. Sed respondeo hıc subesse aequivocationem invoce ideae: sumi enim potest vel materialiter, pro operationeintellectus, quo sensu me perfectior dici nequit, vel objective,pro re per istam operationem repraesentata, quae res, etsi nonsupponatur extra intellectum existere, potest tamen me esseperfectior ratione suae essentiae. Quomodo vero, ex hoc soloquod rei me perfectioris idea in me sit, sequatur illam remrevera existere, fuse in sequentibus exponetur.171

The argument is explained further in Med. III (AT VII p. 40sq.) and Resp. I(AT VII 102sq.). The term ‘res cogitata’ was not originally used by Des-cartes, but had been introduced by Caterus in Obj. I (AT VII p. 92).

Diss. IV: Quod si denique adhuc aliqui sint quibus rationes jamdictae nondum satis persuaserint Deum esse, ipsorumque ani-mas absque corpore spectatas esse res revera existentes [‘del’existence de Dieu & de leur ame’]172

This change is probably connected to the first objection against theDiscours mentioned in the preface to the Meditationes; the point iselaborated in Med. VI (AT VII p. 78) and Resp. II (AT VII p. 169sq.).Part of Descartes’s discussion with ‘S.P.’ is also related.173

Next, there are a few interventions which can be linked to objections thatwere raised after the publication of the French text:

Diss. IV: in idea circuli [‘d’vne Sphere’] aequalis a centro distantiaomnium ejus circumferentiae partium [‘toutes ses parties’]174

Petit glibly notes: ‘. . . qui sont vos deux exemples et vos parollesmesmes que quelques uns, trop rigoureux, veulent reprendre et dire:toutes les parties de la superficie d’une sphere, au lieu que vous avezdit: toutes les parties d’une sphere.’175 But it is quite likely that Des-cartes categorically ignored Petit, and that Courcelles independentlyrectified the obvious error.

Diss. VI: Rationes enim mihi videntur in iis tali serie connexae, utsicut ultimae demonstrantur a primis quae illarum causae sunt, itareciproce primae ab ultimis, quae ipsarum sunt effecta probentur[‘le sont [scil. demonstrees]’]176

171 Praef. Med. (AT VII p. 8).172 P. 129, l. 33–130, 1.173 AT I p. 513sq., II p. 37sq. On ‘S.P.’, see p. 3.174 P. 129, l. 13sq.175 Petit 1925, p. 73.176 P. 151, l. 3.

51

introduction

Morin had raised objections to Descartes’s reasoning, to which thephilosopher replied as follows:

Vous dites aussi que prouuer des effets par vne cause, puisprouuer cette cause par les mesmes effets, est vn cercle logique,ce que i’auoue; mais ie n’auoue pas pour cela que c’en soitvn, d’expliquer des effets par vne cause, puis de la prouuerpar eux: car il y a grande difference entre prouuer & expli-quer. A quoy j’adioute qu’on peut vser du mot demonstrerpour signifier l’vn & l’autre, au moins si on le prend selonl’vsage commun, & non en la signification particuliere que lesPhilosophes luy donnent. I’adjoute aussi que ce n’est pas vncercle de prouuer vne cause par plusieurs effets qui sont con-nus d’ailleurs, puis reciproquement de prouuer quelques autreseffets par cette cause. Et i’ay compris ces deux sens ensem-ble en la page 76 par ces mots: Comme les dernieres raisonssont demonstrees par les premieres qui sont leurs causes, cespremieres le sont reciproquement par les dernieres qui sontleurs effets. Ou ie ne dois pas, pour cela, estre accuse d’auoirparle ambiguement, a cause que ie me suis explique inconti-nent apres, en disant que, l’experience rendant la pluspart deces effets tres-certains, les causes dont ie les deduis ne seruentpas tant a les prouuer qu’a les expliquer, mais que ce sont ellesqui sont prouuees par eux. Et ie mets qu’elles ne seruent pastant a les prouuer , au lieu de mettre qu’elles n’y seruent pointdu tout, afin qu’on scache que chacun de ces effets peut aussiestre prouue par cette cause, en cas qu’il soit mis en doute, &qu’elle ait deja este prouuee par d’autres effets. En quoy ie nevoy pas que i’eusse pu vser d’autres termes que ie n’ay fait,pour m’expliquer mieux.177

Descartes characteristically defends his problematic choice of words againsthis opponent without flinching, but it is possible that he decided to changeit in the translation. On the other hand, a coincidental variation by thetranslator cannot be excluded.

Met. IX 1: Suntque ea corpora, quae sic efficiunt ut partes mate-riae subtilis volvantur aeque celeriter, ac secundum lineamrectam feruntur, quae alba proprie appellantur [‘les font rouller encete sorte’ (scil. les petites parties de cete matiere)’; see next case]

Met. IX 2: cum e contra hi vapores valde rari sunt, particulaemateriae subtilis non satis multis eorum particulis occur-runt, ut aeque celeriter in orbem ac secundum lineam re-ctam moveantur: ideoque coelum non nisi caeruleum videri debet

177 Descartes to Morin, [13 July 1638] (AT II p. 197sq.).

52

chapter 3

[‘Au lieu que si elle (scil. la matiere subtile) n’en (scil. de vapeurs)rencontre asses pour faire ainsi tournoyer ses parties’.]This divergence, like the preceding one, adds the actual explanationof the appearance of white, which is not in the French text—eventhough Descartes claims that it is there in his reply to Ciermans:

Tertio notandum est, globulos istos, vitri, aeris, aliorumuecorporum poris contentos, propendere semper, vel certe vtplurimum, vt in vnam aliquam partem rotentur, & quidemvt rotentur eadem celeritate, qua secundum lineam rectamferuntur, quoties nulla peculiaris adest causa, quae celeritatemistam augeat vel imminuat; vt monui in pag. 272 Meteor.178

Page 272 in the 1637 edition is the source text of the present passage.Perhaps Descartes was unaware that his explanation was incompletewhen he wrote to Ciermans, and made the additions in a later stage;more likely, he only added the (provisional) reference to page 272when he was preparing his letter to Ciermans for publication, at thesame time planning or making the additions in the translation.

Descartes’s correspondence also provides us with insights into a more prac-tical aspect of his work’s reception: the attempts of several lens grinders toproduce hyperbolical lenses following his guidelines, and his dealings withthem. The Dioptrique pretends to be a practical guide for craftsmen, butthe correspondence makes it clear that this is no more than a guise. Boththe Amsterdam grinder hired by Constantijn Huygens and, a year later, theFrench mathematician Florimond Debeaune (1601–1652) are given detailedinstructions, in which Descartes describes a number of conditions that haveto be taken into consideration (and which the Dioptrique omits), and anumber of circumstances that can be safely ignored (although the Diop-trique suggests otherwise). In fact, both the text and the illustrations ofDiopt. X are highly misleading. Three passages from Descartes’s correspon-dence will serve to illustrate the point.179

A few months after the publication of the Dioptrique Descartes wrote toHuygens:

Mais puisqu’il vous plaist en scauoir mon opinion, ie vousdiray franchement que tant s’en faut que i’espere qu’il en

178 Descartes to Ciermans, [23 March 1638], AT II p. 77sq.179 See also Burnett 2005. Besides the displayed quotations, the most relevant sources

are: Huygens to Descartes, 18 September 1637 (Roth p. 55sq.; AT I, p. 641sq.); Descartesto [Huygens], [January 1638?] (AT I, pp. 505sq., 650sq.; Roth p. 64sq.); Descartes toHuygens, 8 February 1638 (AT I, p. 655sq.; Roth p. 69sq.); Debeaune to Roberval,16 October 1638 (CM VIII, p. 141); Descartes to Debeaune, 20 February 1639 (AT IIp. 512sq.); Descartes to Ferrier, [summer 1639?] (AT II, pp. 373–376); Descartes toMersenne, [21 January 1641] (CM X p. 425, AT III p. 286); Hobbes to Cavendish, 8February 1641 (CM X, p. 504); Descartes to Mersenne, 4 March 1641 (CM X p. 533sq.;AT III p. 331sq.).

53

introduction

viene a bout, auec des machines qui ayent moins de faconque la miene, qu’au contraire ie me persuade qu’on y doit en-core adiouster diuerses choses, que i’ay omises, mais que iecroy n’estre point si difficiles a inuenter que l’vsage ne les en-seigne. [Descartes describes the difficulties to be expected inthe choice of glass, correct grinding, and desired size of thelens.] Au reste la machine que i’ay descrite me semble as-sez simple, principalement si on considere qu’elle ne consistequ’en la partie qui est seule en la page 145, et que le roulleau& les planches se peuuent faire fort petites a comparaison dela piece B K & des piliers qui la soutienent, car ie les ay faitpeindre dix fois plus courts, a comparaison du reste, qu’il nefalloit, affin que la figure pust mieux en mon papier.180

Descartes later revealed similar information to Debeaune:

Il n’y a point de doute que le rouleau & les deux planchesn’ont point besoin d’estre mises en la machine, pourueu queles deux cubes Z & Y coulent chacun entre deux barres, ainsique vous mandez; aussi ne les y ay-ie decrites, qu’afin d’enfaire mieux conceuoir le fondement, & non point afin qu’onles obseruast de point en point. Comme, au contraire, i’en ayobmis plusieurs qui doiuent y estre obseruees, a cause qu’ellesne seruent point a en faire entendre le fondement.181

Mersenne had asked about the instrument described in Diopt. X 1 (fig. 47).Descartes compares its description to that of the lens making machine:

7. Ce n’est pas faute d’y avoir pense, que j’ay omis, en maDiop., de mettre qu’on peut examiner les refractions en re-gardant par les trous de l’instrument, au lieu d’y faire passerle rayon du Soleil, mais pour ce que cete facon n’est pas sigeometrique: car le filet, ou quoyque ce soit qu’on mette surla regle, pour marquer ou se termine la veue, en accourcittant soit peu la ligne. Et c’est autre chose d’escrire que depratiquer: comme, mesme pour la machine, j’ay conseille aMr de Beaune de la faire tout autrement que je ne l’ay de-scrite: a cause qu’en escrivant on doit principalement, ce mesemble, avoir soin de faire entendre la chose, et en pratiquantd’y chercher des facilitez, qui ne peuvent ou mesme ne doiventpoint toutes estre escrites.182

180 Descartes to Huygens, 5 October 1637 (AT I, pp. 433sq., 644sq.; Roth p. 58sq.). Seefig. 54.

181 Descartes to [Debeaune], [November/December 1638?] (AT II, p. 452sq.).182 Descartes to Mersenne, 9 February 1639 (CM VIII p. 301, AT II p. 505sq.).

54

chapter 3

Upon hearing of a plan to ask cardinal Richelieu to fund a lens grindingproject based on the Dioptrique, Descartes expresses his concern that theattempt will fail without his further guidance, and the craftsman mightblame him.183 Meanwhile, there are rumours of several attempts in theRepublic to compete with Huygens’ artisan, and of a revolutionary telescopefrom Naples; the philosopher’s remarks about securing Dutch and Frenchpatents for Huygens’ grinder remind us of the commercial interests thatwere at stake, besides the scientific ones.184 Eventually, neither Debeaunenor the Amsterdam lens grinder succeeded.

Three divergences in the Dioptrice which far exceed normal translator’sliberties, should be viewed in the light of these attempts to create bettertelescope lenses. The Latin version adds a hint on the limitations of tradi-tional lens grinding, and is much clearer on the nature of the text and itslimits when it comes to practical use.

Diopt. VIII 15: Saltem quantum ex motuum quibus descri-buntur simplicitate potest judicari: Nam si qui forsan arti-fices vitra sphaerica commodius expoliant quam plana, hoccontingit ex accidenti, et ad hujus scientiae theoriam, quamsolam explicandam suscepi, non spectat. [added]Debeaune actually had major problems with the plane surface; ATquote a later source that confirms this difficulty.185 Debeaune appar-ently abandoned Descartes’s theory for this reason, and went on toexperiment with concavo-convex lenses.

Diopt. X 7: Si vero utamur motu solius mymphuris, centrumvitri centro patinae jungentis [‘& les polissant auec le seul mou-uement du tour sur vn modelle’], omnes figurae defectus qui in patinareperientur, circulos in vitro describent; et vitri medium in quominimus erit motus, nunquam satis atteretur. [added]The same problem is signalled in Descartes’s letter to Huygens dated11 December 1635.186

Diopt. X 10: Particularia plura inter poliendum observanda hıcomitto; ac etiam nolim in praxi eadem omnia quae descripsiobservari; quia non tam ipsas machinas, quam machinarumfundamenta et causas explicare conatus sum. [‘ny aussy(scil. ie ne vous parle) de plusieurs autres choses que i’ay tantost

183 Descartes to Mersenne, [25 January 1638] (CM VII p. 38, AT I p. 500sq.); Descartesto [Huygens], [January 1638?] (AT I, pp. 505sq., 650sq.; Roth p. 64sq.).

184 See Descartes to [Huygens], [January 1638?] (AT I pp. 505sq., 650sq.; Roth p. 64sq.);Descartes to Huygens, 8 February 1638 (AT I, p. 655sq.; Roth p. 69sq.); Descartes toMersenne, 15 November 1638 (CM VIII p. 209; AT II p. 445); Descartes to Debeaune,20 February 1639 (AT II p. 513).

185 Descartes to Mersenne, 4 March 1641 (CM X p. 533sq.; AT III pp. 331–333).186 AT I, pp. 337, 600; Roth p. 14.

55

introduction

dit estre requises en la construction des lunetes, car il n’y en a au-cune que ie iuge si difficile qu’elle puisse arrester les bons esprits’]

One seemingly insignificant divergence may reflect a reaction to a ratherdifferent kind of reception of Descartes’s work:

Met. I 9: ne videar sponte Philosophis aliquam in me dispu-tandi occasionem dare velle [‘pour ne point rompre la paix auecles Philosophes’]

But most of the changes in the Specimina philosophiae cannot be traced toexternal circumstances or connected with other texts. Some of the interven-tions listed below may after all be translator’s liberties, but they all have incommon that they are of such a technical nature, so large or so significantthat they exceed the translator’s normal practice as it has been outlined inthe previous sections.

Diss. I: invitantque nos hoc pacto vel ad ea suscipienda quaesupra vires, vel ad ea speranda quae supra sortem nostramsunt [added]187

Diss. I: hoc est ob scientiarum non verarum cognitionem[added]188

Diss. II: opiniones quas homo aliquis sola ratione naturaliutens, et nullo praejudicio laborans, de rebus quibuscunqueobviis habere potest [‘les simples raisonnemens que peut faire na-turellement vn homme de bon sens touchant les choses qui se pre-sentent’]189

Especially the addition of ‘et nullo praejudicio laborans’ is interest-ing, but the translation of ‘les simples raisonnemens’ with ‘opiniones’lacks precision.

Diss. II: sed ut veterem domum inhabitantes, non eam antediruunt, quam novae in ejus locum exstruendae exemplarfuerint praemeditati; Sic prius qua ratione certi aliquid pos-sem invenire cogitavi, et satis multum temporis impendi inquaerenda vera Methodo [‘que ie n’eusse auparauant employeassez de tems a faire le proiet de l’ouurage que i’entreprenois, & achercher la vraye Methode’]190

Diss. II: tum in quaerendis mediis, tum in difficultatum par-tibus percurrendis [‘partout’]191

187 P. 108, l. 21sq.188 P. 110, l. 15.189 P. 113, l. 5sq.190 P. 115, ll. 22–25.191 P. 117, l. 4sq.

56

chapter 3

Diss. II: has proportiones solas mihi esse considerandas putavi, etquidem maxime generaliter sumptas [added]192

Diss. II: Quippe cum a simplicissimis et maxime generalibus incepis-sem, ordinemque deinceps observarem, singulae veritates quasinveniebam regulae erant, quibus postea utebar ad alias difficilioresinvestigandas [two additions]193

Diss. III: quaecunque aliis promisimus, modo ne bonismoribus adversentur [‘quelque dessein qui n’est qu’indifferent’]194

Diss. III: nec ullum iter ab aliis tritum, nec etiam versusquam partem eundum sit agnoscant [added]195

Diss. IV: quidquid entis in nobis est [added]See Gilson p. 362.196

Diss. V: Notandumque est loquelam, signaque omnia quae exhominum instituto cogitationes significant [added], plurimumdifferre a vocibus et signis [‘les mouuemens’] naturalibus quibuscorporei [added] affectus indicantur [‘& peuuent estre imitezpar des machines aussy bien que par les animaux’ omitted]197

This omission is treated as a translator’s liberty by Dibon,198 whichcould be correct. The addition of ‘signaque . . . significant’ relies onthe mention of sign language in the source text a few lines earlier.

Diopt. I 6: Verumtamen quoniam haec actio nil nisi lumen est, no-tandum neminem praeter eos, qui per tenebras instar felium cernunt,saltem si qui sint, illam in oculis suis habere [added]

Diopt. I 7: Deinde cogitemus, quum consensu Philosophorum fereunanimi vacuum in rerum natura non detur, et tamen omnia cor-pora [‘que nous aperceuons au tour de nous’ omitted], vel ex-perientia teste plurimis poris pervia hient, necessario hos meatusmateria quadam repletos esse

Diopt. VI 10: ut anima singula loca cognoscat, quae jacent in recta,aut quasi recta linea R V, vel S X, vel T Y [added]

Diopt. VI 21: Et Astronomi cum suis machinis illa dimetientes, satisexperiuntur hoc, quod ita jam majora, jam minora appareant, nonex eo contingere, quod modo sub majori, modo sub minori angulo

192 P. 117, l. 26.193 P. 118, l. 13.194 P. 120, l. 20sq.195 P. 120, l. 32–121, 1.196 P. 130, l. 18.197 P. 141, l. 9sq.198 Dibon 1990(b), p. 538.

57

introduction

videantur, sed ex eo quod longius dissita judicentur, quia tam ver-sus horizontem quam versus verticem sub eodem semperangulo ea conspici deprehendunt. [added]

Diopt. VII 14: punctum enim X, multo remotius ab oculoputandum est, quam in figura potuit exhiberi [added]

Diopt. VIII 2: Et quoties in posterum absolute foci mentio fiet, sem-per exterior intelligendus erit. [‘interieur’]

Diopt. VIII 13: quamvis eorum axes in eandem rectam noncoıncidant, modo tantum sint paralleli [added]

Diopt. VIII 18: Ut si ex: gr: radii G G veniant ex centro Solis, I Iex sinistra ejus circumferentiae parte, et K K ex dextra, postquampertransiverint vitrum Hyperbolicum D E F, magis ab invicem re-movebuntur quam prius; (hoc est, angulus M F L, major eritangulo I F K, et ita de caeteris) et contra, postquam pertran-siverint Ellipticum A B C, magis ad invicem accedent, (hoc est, an-gulus M C L, minor erit angulo I C K) adeo ut hoc Ellipticumpuncta L H M sibi invicem propiora reddat, quam Hyperbolicum;Et quidem tanto magis propinqua reddit quanto crassius est. [twoadditions]

Diopt. X 3: Sed si malimus ope vulgaris circini plura puncta perquae tendit quaerendo, illam delineare: sumptis punctis H D Met I [O 44 50ab AT I 56E ], ut supra, alterum pedem hujus circiniponamus in puncto H [added]

Met. II 2: sed magis subtiles, spiritus aut aquas vitae componunt;quia facile ardent ut ipsae, vapores autem nunquam [added]See Gilson 1930, p. 112.

Met. III 3: ita necessario implicantur, ut pars virium hujus materiaesubtilis debeat impendi in iis diversimode flectendis, alioqui enim abinvicem non possent separari; et ideo tunc illas, nec tam facile, nectam velociter movere, id est ex uno loco in alium transferrepotest. [added]

Met. IV 6: Nam communiter omnia corpora crassa et ponderosa, utterra quae est ad D, [added] diutius receptum calorem servant,quam subtilia et levia, ut aer qui est ad P [added] [‘& ceuxqui sont durs la retienent aussy plus long tems, que ceuxqui sont liquides’ omitted]. Atque hoc efficit ut vapores qui tuncversus P existunt non effluant versus Q et R, quemadmodum iiqui sunt in alia parte effluunt versus I et M [added]

58

chapter 3

Met. IV 8: Ventosque istos ab initio veris (quo tempore suntvalidissimi) ad Solstitium aestivum, paulatim deficiente ma-teria languescere; Mense vero Junio nondum ibi terras etaquas satis esse calefactas, ut materiam novi venti suppedi-tent; Sed paulatim Sole ad Tropicum Cancri commorante,magis et magis illas incalescere, tandemque idcirco Etesiasproducere, quum magnae illius et pertinacis diei, quae adsex integros menses ibidem extenditur, Meridies paululuminclinat. [‘mais qu’il (scil. le Soleil) ne peut y eschauffer les terres& les eaux asses fort pour en esleuer d’autres vapeurs qui causentdes vens, que quelques semaines apres, lorsque ce grand iour de sixmois, qu’il y fait, est vn peu au dela de son midy.’]

Met. V 2: Et quantum ad guttas aquae, illae formantur cum materiasubtilis, circa exiguas vaporum partes fusa, non quidem satis viriumhabet ad efficiendum, ut se extendentes atque in gyrum vertentes,unae alias loco pellant [added]See Met. II, 3.

Met. V 13: Atque haec crusta satis crassa fieri potest, et tamenpondere non obstante, in aere suspensa remanere; quoniam a reliquatota nube sustinetur. Cujus rei memores esse infra oportebit,ad ea quae de parheliis dicentur intelligenda. [added]

Met. VI 9: Statim agnovi has laminas primo exiguos glaciei globulosfuisse, eo modo dispositos quo ante dixi; et pressos validissimo vento,satis caloris secum rapiente: adeo ut hic calor omnia illorum capil-lamenta liquefecerit, et humore inde orto omnes eorundem poros itaimpleverit, eo mox ibi rursus congelato, [added] ex albis qualesantea fuerant, omnino pellucidi facti sint. Atque hunc ventum ipsoseodem tempore ita compressisse, ut nullum interjectum spatium re-maneret; hoc est ut nulla in uniuscujusque circuitu esset pars,quae non aliquem ex sex vicinis attingeret; [added] simulquehunc eundem ventum superficies foliorum, quae ex his globuliscomponebantur [‘leurs superficies’ (scil. des pelotons)], super etsubter labendo complanasse

Met. VI 11: Plures aliae ejusmodi rotulae postea deciderunt, binaeuno axe conjunctae: vel potius, quoniam isti axes erant initio satiscrassi, tot exiguas columnas crystallinas dixisses, quarum singulaesingulis rosis, sex folia habentibus, et nonnihil eminentibusultra basin suam, erant exornatae. [added]The translating error ‘singulae singulis rosis’ (see note ad loc.) showsthat if Descartes made this addition, he did not take a close look atthe whole sentence. The same is true of the error ‘in’ (a mistransla-tion of ‘entre’) in the next passage:

59

introduction

Met. VI 12: Et praeterea ipse etiam calor, in oris foliorum dum acce-dunt ad invicem, major reperitur quam alibi, adeo ut facile duosradios cujusque ex stellulis quae ibi occurrunt, liquefaciat;Et frigus [‘& cete chaleur ayant a demi fondu les parcelles de glacequi y sont, le froid’] quod huic calori succedit, statim ac duo fo-lia se mutuo contingunt, stellulas istas quatuor tantum radiosreliquos habentes unam alteri conglutinat. [‘les peut aysementcoller ensemble’ (scil. les parcelles de glace qui y sont)]

Met. VI 19: Non etiam Manna, nec alii hujusmodi succi, quinoctu ex aere decidunt, rore vel vaporibus constant, sed ex-halationibus solis. [‘Ce sont aussy des exhalaisons qui composentla manne, & les autres tels sucs, qui descendent de l’air pendant lanuit; car pour les vapeurs, elles ne scauroient se changer en autrechose qu’en eau ou en glace.’] Atque hi succi, non modo in diversisregionibus sunt diversi, sed etiam in quibusdam [added] non nisicertis corporibus adhaerent

Met. VI 22: facillime judicabimus omnia illa magis incerta et dubiaesse, quam ut hominum ingenio praenosci queant; saltem in his re-gionibus, ubi magna terrarum et marium inaequalitas, ven-tos admodum inconstantes producit: in locis enim ubi certisanni temporibus iidem semper venti recurrunt, haud dubiepluviae impendentes facilius praenoscuntur. [added]

Met. VII 3: praesertim paulo ultra Promontorium Bonae Spei, ubivapores magna copia [added] ex mari Aethiopico surgentes, quo-niam est latissimum et Solis radiis maxime incalescit, facillime ven-tum Occidentalem [‘vent d’abas’] efficere possunt, qui cursum na-turalem (ab Oriente scilicet in Occasum) [added] aliorum, quosmare Indicum emittit sistens, illos in nubem cogit; quae nubes quo-niam oritur ex inaequalitate, quae est inter haec duo maria vastis-sima, et hanc terram quae etiam est valde lata, [added] multomajor evadere [‘incontinent’ omitted] debet

Met. VII 8: Atque ita aperta hac nube, magno impetu in terramruit, unde statim rursus ascendit, se celerrime [added] circuma-gendo; quoniam alius aer, aut alia corpora ipsi occurrentiaimpediunt [‘a cause qu’il trouue de la resistence de tous costes,qui l’empesche’], ne secundum lineam rectam moveri pergat, aequevelociter ac agitatio ejus requirit; quo fit ut turbinem componat.

Met. VII 16 (summary): Cometas, nec trabes per aliquot dies incoelo lucentes [‘qui semblent de feu’]

Met. IX 7: Et cur refractiones, quae in humoribus oculi fiunt, nobisIridis colores ubique non exhibeant. [added]

60

chapter 3

Met. IX 7: hıc autem eos omnes qui ad partem retinae F G f perve-niunt, non nisi per partem N humoris crystallini transire, ideoquerotationem quam ibi acquirunt posse sentiri. [added]

Met. X 4: Quum enim annuli glaciei latitudo (quae secundum nu-bis crassitiem sumenda est) non valde magna supponatur, differ-entia, quae est inter lineas 4 K, 5 K, et 6 K, non multum in rationemvenit. [added]

Changes made certainly by DescartesThe cases in which we can be absolutely certain that Descartes was re-sponsible for the divergence from the source text, can be counted on thefingers of one hand. All these corrections are mentioned in the correspon-dence.

Mersenne had drawn his friend’s attention to an error in Diopt. VI, wherethe 1637 edition reads ‘obiet’ instead of ‘oeil’.199 This has been correctedaccordingly in the Specimina.200

The other three corrections, more substantial in nature, are interrelated.Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665), Gilles Personne de Roberval and EtiennePascal (1588–1651), who had already fiercely criticized the Dioptrique andGeometrie, found fault with the demonstration in Diopt. VIII, 3 and 12in December 1639. Descartes wrote to Mersenne, who had passed on thecriticism:

13. Vos Geometres n’ont gueres non plus a reprendre dansmes escritz, s’ilz s’attachent a la demonstration touchant lapropriete de l’ellypse et de l’hyperbole, que j’ay mise en maDioptrique. Car ceste propriete n’ayant jamais este trouveepar aucun autre que par moy, et estant la plus importantequi se scache touchant ces figures, il me semble qu’ilz n’ontpas grande grace a dire qu’il y a quelque chose en cela quiressent son apprentif; car ilz ne scauroient nier que cet apren-tif ne leur ayt donne lecon en cela mesme. Il est vray pour-tant que l’explication s’en peut faire beaucoup plus briefve-ment que je ne l’ay faite; ce que je pourrois dire avoir faita dessein, pour monstrer le chemin de l’Analyse, que je necroy pas qu’aucun de vos Geometres scache, et a laquelle les

199 Descartes to Mersenne, 9 January 1639 (CM VIII p. 264; AT II pp. 481, 735sq.; notethat the autograph has been preserved): ‘Vous avez raison qu’en la p. 66, l. 4, [actuallyl. 14] il faut lire oeil pour obiet ; mais en la p. 125, l. 1, j’ay mis mesure, c’est a diretems ou cadence, au sens qu’on la prend en la musique.’ Let us note in passing thatthe riddle presented by the word ‘mesure’ (which is not on p. 125) can now be solved,thanks to searchable computer files (Descartes s.a.): the word occurs, in the sense meantby Descartes, on p. 205, l. 1 (AT VI p. 280, l. 29).

200 P. 189, l. 4. (Diopt. VI 20)

61

introduction

lignes BF, NM des figures aux pages 94 et 105 sont neces-saires; car c’est le seul employ de ces lignes qui rend monexplication trop longue. Mais la verite est que j’ay manquepar une negligence qui m’est fatale en toutes les choses faciles,ausquelles ne pouvant arrester mon attention, je suis le pre-mier chemin que je rencontre: comme icy, la verite estanttrouvee par l’Analyse, l’explication en estoit bien facile, et lechemin le plus a ma main estoit celuy de cete mesme Ana-lyse. Toutesfois je me suis aperceu de ma faute des avantque le livre fust publie, et l’ay corrigee des-lors en mon exem-plaire, en effacant tout depuis la 1re jusques a la 25me ligneinclus en la page 93, et despuis la 9me jusques a la 28me in-clus en la page 104. J’ay remis en l’une et l’autre ces mesmesmotz en la place des effacez: Premierement, a cause que tantles lignes A B et N I, que A L et G I sont paralleles, lestriangles A L B et I G N sont semblables, d’ou il suit queA L est a I G comme A B est a N I; ou bien, pource queA B et B I sont esgales, comme B I est a N I. Puis sy ontire, etc. Et en la page 94, ligne 6 et 7, j’ay efface ces motz:B F a N M, et B F a N M comme. Mais ca [sic] este pourune seconde impression, car cela ne me sembla pas valoir lapeyne d’estre mis dans les Errata, et il n’y a jamais eu per-sonne qui ayt escrit de Geometrie, en qui on ne puisse trou-ver de telles fautes. Je n’attens plus, apres cela, sinon qu’onreprenne aussy les fautes de l’orthographe et de l’impression,que le libraire et moy avons commises en tres-grand nom-bre.201

In view of the bitterness of the debate which had preceded, one mightsuspect that Descartes’s account is not entirely truthful. However this maybe, a shortened version of it returns in the correspondence with Mersennehalf a year later:

8. En la page 104 de ma Dioptrique, j’ay efface depuis laligne 10, ou sont ces mots: si on tire du point B, jusquesa l’antepenultiesme ligne, ou sont ces mots: De plus, si ontire; et j’ay mis, au lieu de cela: a cause que tant les lignesA B et N I que les lignes [‘les lignes’ is an addition comparedto the other letter] A L et G I sont paralleles, les trianglesA L B et I G N sont semblables. D’ou il suit que A L est aI G comme A B est a N I; ou bien pource que A B et B I sontegales, comme B I est a N I. Puis si on tire etc.202

201 Descartes to Mersenne, 25 December 1639 (CM VIII, p. 706sq.; AT II, p. 637sq.).202 Descartes to Mersenne, 11 June 1640 (CM IX, p. 398; AT III, p. 79).

62

chapter 3

All three of the corrections are found in the Specimina, with a small additionin the two identical passages: ‘les triangles’ has been rendered as ‘triangularectangula’.203 Descartes also had a new woodcut made, which reflects thedivergences (fig. 26).

Non-interventionsSo far we have concentrated on the ways in which the translation differsfrom its source text, trying to sift out the authorial interventions. Thethings that have not been changed, however, are equally interesting if wewant to establish the extent to which Descartes has intervened, either toemend the translation as such or to adjust his own text. The many largeand small translating errors (variations gone awry, misinterpretations, etc.)that went unnoticed, or at least uncorrected, clearly indicate that his effortswere limited. The same is true of Courcelles’s sins against Latinity, whichDescartes was quite capable of correcting.

Although Descartes did change a number of passages as to their con-tent, there are also a great many which raised respectable objections be-cause they were controversial, obscure, or apparently incomplete, but forwhich the author did not use the translation to clarify his meaning. Ithad been his original intention to add the objections and replies for thispurpose; except for the few cases signalled above, this function was nottransferred to the Specimina. This need not surprise us: after all, mostof the problems were caused by Descartes’s chosen strategy, which wasto work with hypotheses and analogies instead of starting from his prin-ciples. Likewise, his problematic and obscure use of the concept of de-termination raised substantial objections, but would not have been easyto fix.

Some much-needed explanations, on the other hand, would have beeneasy to add; reception of Descartes’s counter-intuitive claim in Diopt. II 9,that light travels more easily through water than through air, would havebenefited greatly from the addition that the ball model does not apply tothis aspect, ‘quoniam actio luminis non est in ipsis corporibus aeris et aquae,sed in materia subtili eorum poris contenta.’204

We have already seen that Mersenne had raised objections to several pas-sages from a theological point of view, and that the text was not changed.Furthermore, the learned Minim had problems repeating the experimentsdescribed by his friend. Of course, Descartes patiently explained the nec-essary circumstances that he had omitted in the text, but he did not deemit necessary to add them in the Latin version, or to point out that his de-scriptions were incomplete. For instance, Mersenne had asked about the

203 P. 204, l. 18; p. 209, l. 2. The other correction (mentioned in the first letter only) ison p. 205, l. 2.

204 Descartes to Mersenne for Hobbes, [18 February 1641] (CM X, p. 513; AT III,p. 315).

63

introduction

experiment with the cow’s eye described in Diopt. V 2; Descartes explainedthat it had to be an old cow, and how exactly the incisions had to be made,but did not change the text.205 In the case of the experiment with a vase ofboiled versus one with unboiled water, the philosopher is so far from revisingthe description that he allows his translator to make it incomprehensible.206

One might have expected Descartes to add at least one explicit referenceto the Meditationes and Principia, but he did no such thing, apparentlytrusting that his readers would realize that the original text had been pub-lished seven years earlier and had in some ways been overtaken by morerecent publications. Thus, although the philosopher did make some changesin Diss. IV that correspond with the Meditationes, the metaphysics of theDiscours are left intact as a whole; and in several places in the Specimina,it is still said or implied that Descartes’s principles have not been pub-lished.207

The woodcutsThe fact that it was a gifted mathematician who drew the illustrations forthe Discours and Essais does not imply that all the angles and proportionsare exact. Van Schooten’s style, however, is admirably clean and elegant,especially when compared to that of the craftsman who copied the wood-cuts for the Latin edition, and whose work is often clumsy and smudged. Asto the inexact angles and proportions: only one has been corrected in the1644 woodcut.208 In one case, an addition was made in the text to explainthe limitations of the illustration.209 In a much more important illustration,however—the essential part of the machine described in Diopt. X—the pro-portions shown are equally misleading, but no explanation was added.210

In the increasingly unpleasant exchange of objections and replies betweenDescartes and Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), the woodcut in Diopt. II, 4plays a small but significant part. In his third letter, the Englishman writesto Mersenne:

Is vero, quo animo in Discursu secundo Dioptricorum pag. 18supponit [sic] rectam HF esse duplam AH [p. 162, l. 30sq.(Diopt. II, 4)], in schemate tamen apposito [fig. 3] facit [sic]eam paulo majorem quam est ipsa AH, ipse scit. Tu vero, miPater, id scire potes, si consideres quod, ita faciendo, lineaFI extra circulum cecidisset, et per consequens pila in aquamprojecta in elevatione anguli ABC deberet reflecti; quod est

205 Descartes to Mersenne, 31 March 1638 (CM VII p. 124sq.; AT II, pp. 86–88).206 Above, p. 42.207 E.g. p. 148, ll. 4–9 (Diss. VI); p. 260, ll. 13-15 (Met. IV 4).208 Fig. 9: the perpendicular was not a perpendicular in the French edition.209 Diopt. VII, 14; see above, p. 58.210 See Descartes to Huygens, 5 October 1637, quoted above, p. 53sq.

64

chapter 3

contra experientiam. Nunquid is turbat de industria, ut videa-tur aliquid probare in sequentibus?211

Beneath the harsh words, Hobbes makes a good point here. Descartes’sreply, directed mainly at the harsh words, doesn’t solve the problem:

Ce qu’il reprend en la Dioptrique, page 18, fait voir seulementqu’il ne cherche que les occasions de reprendre, puisqu’il meveut imputer jusques aux fautes de l’imprimeur. Car j’ay parleen ce lieu-la de la proportion double, comme de la plus simple,pour expliquer la chose plus facilement, a cause que la vrayene peut estre determinee, pource qu’elle change a raison dela diversite des sujets. Mais si, dans la figure, la ligne HFn’a pas este faite justement double de la ligne AH, c’est lafaute de l’imprimeur, et non pas la mienne. Et en ce qu’ildit estre contre l’experience, il se trompe entierement, a causequ’en cela l’experience varie, selon la variete de la chose quiest jettee dans l’eau, et de la vitesse dont elle est meue. Etje ne me suis pas mis en peine de corriger en ce lieu-la lafaute de l’imprimeur, pource que j’ay cru aisement qu’il ne setrouveroit point de lecteur si stupide, qu’il eust de la peine acomprendre qu’une ligne fust double d’une autre, a cause quela figure en represente une qui n’a pas cette proportion, ny quifust aussi si peu juste, que de dire que pour cela je meritoisd’estre repris.212

A year and a half later, anonymous (at least to us) objectors again targetedthe same woodcut, along with a few others. Descartes replied to Mersenne:

Ceux qui reprenent les figures de ma Dioptrique et Geometrie,sont aussy ridicules, et ne font paroistre qu’une ignorance oumalignite puerile. Car, pour la figure de l’oeil [fig. 11], ellevaut beaucoup mieux comme elle est, que si elle representoitun oeil d’homme, tel qu’il se peut voir au naturel, a causequ’elle en distingue mieux les parties. Et en la figure de lapage 19 [fig. 6], si l’angle est plus grand qu’il ne doit, c’estaussy affin qu’on le voye mieux. Et en la page 17 [Diopt. II,4], j’ay parle de la proportion double, a cause qu’estant plussimple que les autres, elle est plus facile a concevoir, au lieuque la figure [fig. 3] en exprime une autre qui approche plus dece qui se void par experience, affin de monstrer que ce mesmediscours se doit entendre de toute sorte de proportions.213

211 Hobbes to Mersenne for Descartes, 30 March 1641 (CM X, p. 575sq.; AT III, p. 348).212 Descartes to Mersenne for Hobbes, [21 April 1641] (CM X, p. 590; AT III, p. 356sq.).213 Descartes to Mersenne, [13 October 1642] (CM XI, p. 300; AT III, p. 583).

65

introduction

In the 1644 edition no significant changes were made either in these wood-cuts or in the corresponding text. In general, many of the errors in VanSchooten’s woodcuts were not corrected in the new version, although somewere (among them the errata in figures 23 and 28); and some new mistakesslipped in, for instance in figures 6 and 18. There are stylistic differencesin the illustrations as well: some plants added in the background, a shadowadded or left out. Some divergences do affect the meaning of the illustra-tion; in the cases of figures 45 and 72, it is impossible to tell if the changeswere made consciously, let alone by whom.

The change of the demonstration in Diopt. VIII, 3 and 12214 is reflectedin the pertaining woodcuts (figures 26, 34).

Constantijn Huygens contributed to the correction of the illustrations.Descartes wrote to him: ‘Ce qui n’empesche pas toutefois que ie n’estimebeaucoup la correction que vous faites de ma perspectiue, en laquelle i’auoueque Schooten et moy auons failli, et si on en fait iamais vne autre impres-sion i’auray soin qu’elle soit corrigee.’215 There is indeed a striking error inperspective in the part which interested Huygens the most: the descriptionof the machine in Diopt. X. Fig. 53 still has the same shortcomings as thewoodcut of 1637, but the addition in fig. 54 serves to make the situationclearer.

ConclusionLooking back at the notice to the reader with which we started out, we cansay that most of it has been confirmed, except the claim that the translationis literal. In fact, the translator has used his liberties to their full extent. Wecannot prove that Descartes did not make any corrections in the translationas such, but it is certain that he didn’t revise it in any systematical way.We have confirmed both his statement that he made several adjustmentsto the original content, and his suggestion that this revision was far fromthorough.

One might have expected the philosopher to make more use of the oc-casion to clear away the stumbling-blocks which the objectors had pointedout to him. But in the end, Descartes’s attitude towards them is adequatelysummed up in his Epistola ad R.P. Dinet (1642):

Addo me nolle ut mihi credatur de veritate eorum quaepromitto, sed ut ex iis Speciminibus quae jam dedi judicetur.Non enim ibi unam aut alteram, sed plus sexcentis quaestio-nibus explicui, quae sic a nullo ante me fuerant explicatae; acquamvis multi hactenus mea scripta transversis oculis inspe-xerint, modisque omnibus refutare conati sint, nemo tamen,quod sciam, quicquam non verum potuit in iis reperire. Fiat

214 See above, pp. 61–63.215 Descartes to Huygens, 20 April 1637 (Roth p. 44, AT I p. 630).

66

chapter 3

enumeratio quaestionum omnium, quae in tot saeculis, quibusaliae Philosophiae viguerunt, ipsarum ope solutae sunt, &forte nec tam multae, nec tam illustres invenientur.216

Let us end this chapter with a brief comparison between the Speciminaphilosophiae and the other translations which were authorized by Descartes:the Meditations metaphysiques (1647) and the Principes de la philosophie(1647).217

The Meditations metaphysiques are preceded by a word from the publisherto the reader, part of which is very similar to the notice preceding theSpecimina:

On trouuera partout cette version assez iuste, & si religieuse,que iamais elle ne s’est escartee du sens de l’Auteur. [. . . ] ils[les traducteurs] ont (comme il estoit iuste) reserue a l’Auteurle droit de reueue & de correction. Il en a vse, mais pour secorriger plutost qu’eux, & pour eclaircir seulement ses proprespensees. Ie veux dire que, trouuant quelques endroits ou illuy a semble qu’il ne les auoit pas rendues assez claires dansle Latin pour toutes sortes de personnes, il les a voulu icyeclaircir par quelque petit changement, que l’on reconnoistrabien tost en conferant le Francois auec le Latin.218

This translation, made by Luynes and Clerselier, is discussed at length byMichelle and Jean-Marie Beyssade.219 The divergences from the source textwhich they have found are entirely similar to the ones in the Specimina, asare the difficulties in determining who is responsible for them. There areno certain authorial interventions.

The apparent carelessness with which Picot translated the Principia hasbeen lamented by AT, Lojacono and Watson Rodger, among many oth-ers.220 Again, the differences from the original text (as signalled by WatsonRodger) show a close resemblance to those found in our text. The mostimportant difference from the Meditations lies in the relative certainty ofat least one authorial intervention: the changes in the laws of collision inPrinc. II, 46–52.221 In the letter to Picot which is printed as a preface,Descartes compliments his friend on the ‘version nette & accomplie’—inWatson Rodger’s opinion, an expression of his friendship rather than of his

216 AT VII, p. 579.217 The Geometria (1649) was not authorized. Descartes gives his reasons in letters to

Mersenne (4 April 1648; CM XVI p. 208, AT V p. 142sq.) and Carcavi (17 August 1649;AT V p. 392).

218 AT IX-1, p. 2sq.219 M. Beyssade & J.-M. Beyssade 1989; introduction to Descartes 1990; M. Beyssade

1994.220 AT IX-2; Lojacono 1996; Watson Rodger 1996. See also Meschini 1996(b),

M. Beyssade 1996.221 AT IX-2, p. viiisq.

67

introduction

true judgement.222 Watson Rodger may well be right in supposing that Des-cartes did not bother to correct Picot’s version because he disliked editorialwork (which is undoubtedly true); however, the suggestion that this hadanything to do with the envisioned ‘mere’ French audience is convincinglydisproved by the very care he bestowed on the Discours and Essais, and hisneglect of the Latin translation.

222 Watson Rodger 1996, p. 621.

68