Brigitte Lépinette

Translation and terminology. Apropos of two Spanish versions of Dumarsais’ Logique (Madrid, 1800)

Cette etude qui releve du domaine de la traduction philosophique (lato sensu) a pour objet deux versions de la Logique de Dumarsais ([1769]1797) editees en Espagne (1800). Nous montrons que ces deux Logicas, oeuvres de deux traducteurs differents, qui eurent chacun des fins egalement differentes, comme le prouvent le contexte bibliographique et les metatextes respectifs, manifestent la presence dune terminologie espagnole divergente pour les termes cle de la theorie de la connaissance que lauteur francais exposa dans les pages initiales de sa Logique. La premiere de ces traductions, qui attribue a la logique un role dintroduction aux sciences, choisit des termes systematiquement calques sur ceux de Dumarsais tandis que J. M. Alea (1781-1826) argumente lemploi dune terminologie specifique, non concordante avec celle du texte source. Ces infidelites terminologiques (et in fine ideologiques) de J. M. Alea peuvent sexpliquer par le desir de ce traducteur de mettre a jour une theorie de la connaissance quil voudra rendre conforme a celle de Condillac.Framed in the field of philosophical translation (lato sensu), this article deals with two different versions of Dumarsais’ Logique ([1769] 1797, Paris), both published in Madrid in 1800. We argue that these two Logicas, which were translated by two different persons, had distinct purposes. This is evidenced by their respective bibliographical contexts and metatexts and by their translators’ use of different sets of Spanish terminological equivalents for the concepts that, as set out in the first few pages of his Logique, are key in Dumarsais’ theory of knowledge. In the first of these translations, which envisions logic as having an introductory role in the acquisition of scientific knowledge, terms are systematically borrowed from the source text. On the other hand, in the second translation, by J. M. Alea (1781-1826), we find an entirely different set of terminological equivalents, none of which coincide with those used in the first text. J. M. Alea’s terminological (and philosophical) infidelities may be explained by the translator’s desire to update Dumarsais’ theory of knowledge by using the alternative terminology of Condillac.Framed in the field of philosophical translation (lato sensu), this article deals with two different versions of Dumarsais‟ Logique ([1769] 1797, Paris), both published in Madrid in 1800. We argue that these two Logicas, which were translated by two different persons, had distinct purposes. This is evidenced by their respective bibliographical contexts and metatexts and by their translators‟ use of different sets of Spanish terminological equivalents for the concepts that, as set out in the first few pages of his Logique, are key in Dumarsais‟ theory of knowledge. In the first of these translations, which envisions logic as having an introductory role in the acquisition of scientific knowledge, terms are systematically borrowed from the source text. On the other hand, in the second translation, by J. M. Alea (1781-1826), we find an entirely different set of terminological equivalents, none of which coincide with those used in the first text. J. M. Alea‟s terminological (and philosophical) infidelities may be explained by the translator‟s desire to update Dumarsais‟ theory of knowledge by using the alternative terminology of Condillac. Resume