Temple Stanyan

Statut : Author

1678-1752

Notes : Temple Stanyan entra, comme queen’s Scholar, la Westminster School en 1691, et fut élu en 1695 à Christ Church, Oxford; il parait pourtant qu'il n'y fut pas diplomé. Frère cadet de Abraham Stanyan (diplomate et auteur d’une étude importante sur la Suisse très appréciée par Gibbon), Temple Stanyan fit, comme son frère, une carrière politique de « whig », aux côtés de Charles Townshend, ministre du gouvernement Walpole. Il fut nommé secrétaire sous Viscount Townshend, au gouvernement de Horace Walpole et sous-secrétaire sous Addison jusqu'au 20 avril 1717. Du 5 février 1719 il participa dans plusieurs conseils aux côtés de son frère Abraham. Temple Stanyan inscrit « The Grecian History » dans une perspective qui n’est ni celle des histoires universelles (où le monde grec fait partie d’un plan d’ensemble bien plus vaste) ni celle des travaux d’érudition (traduction, édition ou commentaire d’une source grecque). L’œuvre peut être ainsi considérée ainsi comme la première histoire générale du monde grec, conçue comme un récit autonome et continu. Particulièrement sensible à la politique, Stanyan souligne l’attachement des Grecs à la liberté. Dans ce domaine, l’Angleterre lui paraît pourtant plus proche de la « perfection », grâce à l’absence de luttes politiques destructrices. Dédiée « To the Right Honourable John Lord Sommers, Baron of Evesham » elle est publiée en un volume, en 1707, avant que Stanyan n’en donne la version complète en deux volumes en 1739. « The Grecian History » sera rééditée en 1766 et 1781. The Grecian History, From the Original of Greece, to the End of the Peloponnesian War. Containing the Space of about 1684 Years, by Temple Stanyan, Esq. (The second edition Revis’d and Enlarg’d London, Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S.Draper, 1739, 2 vols.) Preface The Affairs of Greece have lain under such a general Suspicion, that I think I ought not to publish any Account of them, without premising something concerning the Truth of History (…) And it was in regard to this, that I was deterr’d at my first Entrance upon the Grecian Story, especially when I found the Ancients themselves so confounded, that few of them dated it from the same period (…) It is to be imagin’d that the Grecians had for so long a Tract of Time receiv’d no Footsteps of the former Ages ; the Dispute is, at what time they came to be so plain, that they might trace them with Ease, and tread in them with Safety. If we enquire a little into the Origine of History, we shall find the innate Desire of Glory put Men upon finding out ways to Transmit their Names to Posterity, even before the Invention of Letters. They left their Images as an Inheritance to their Sons ; their most remarkable Atchievements were fign’d by Hieroglyphicks, or painted and engrav’d on their Walls ; and their Songs, tho’very rude, and ill-modell’d, preserv’d the memory of their great Captains, and were fresh Incentives to their Posterity. When Writing was in Use, they erected Stones with Inscriptions on them: And Eusebius says, that Hermes Trismegistus wrote his Doctrine on Pillars, left, upon the Inundation of the Nile, it should be lost. It must be own’d, it was very late before Letters were receiv’d in Greece ; and even after that, there was not the same Care taken, as in other Nations, to apply the Use of them to History. The Aegyptians, who pretended to the greatest Improvements, as well in this, as in other Parts of Learning, commited the Care of their publick Memoirs to their Colleges of Priests : Yet as an Instance of the general Defect in the History of the first Ages, they could not, even in Herodotus’s time, give any certain Account of the building their Pyramids, nor of their great Monarch Sesotris. The Persian Historians were the Magi, the most considerable among them both for Knowledge and Station : And in Rome the Pontiffs had the Charge of making their Annals. So that the Grecians were the only People of Note, who were careless in this respect, and for many Ages follow’d only their first, Tradition. It was this made them attribute such immoderate things to Antiquity, that any Man excell’d in Virtue or Power, he was in Process of Time elevated into a Deity; the Distance of Time magnifying things almost in the same Proportion, as the distance of Place lessens them. And whatever Traditional Stories were, they were undoubtedly their first Historians. Hence it was, that their History became so vitiated by so many Different and Monstrous Relations of their Gods and heroes (…) But notwithstanding the Spirit of Romance, which runs through the Grecian Story, one may venture to say of the first Grecians, what Monsieur de St.Evremond * does of the Romans, that They had so many real Excellencies to be admir’d for, that there was no need of having Recourse to Fables (…) For it is a Natural Observation of Salust, that we are too apt to take our Dimensions of others from our own Standard, and conceive every thing feign’d, which exceeds our own Power. But what I say of these first Heroes, I would have understood only of the modest Part of their Characters ; for some things ascrib’d to them, are too gross to bear any Colour of Probability. What I have endeavour’d in this short Survey, has been to purge them, as much as possible, from the fabulous Aspersions of the Poets, who, by advancing them so far above the Standard of Humanity, have brought their real Merit in question, and eclips’d those Virtues they intented to adorn. If they still seem to act too much above the Condition of Men, I may be allow’d to appeal in their behalf to a later Race of Heroes of our own Nation: And it is not the last part of their Vindication, that we see the Wonders of past Ages so gloriously attested by those of the present. I dare not from hence take Occasion to enter into a thorough Defence of Antiquity: I know it would require a much abler Advocate ; and I am sensible how far it has already suffer’d in my following Account of it. I can only pretend to have been cautious in affirming any thing, where I doubted my Authority : And tho’, among the several Opinions of Authors, I have mark’d out what seem’d to me the most probable, yet there is still Room left for the Reader to pass his own Judgment. Here it may not be improper to say something of the chief Authors, from whom this History is collected in order to show how far we may depend upon its Credibility (…) The first from whom we receive any tolerable Light into the Grecian Affairs, is Herodotus, who is stiled the Father of History, either because he was the first who reduc’d it into any thing of Form, or at least the first whose Writings in that kind have been preserv’d (…) His chief Care was to please rather than instruct; and therefore instead of the Wars between the Grecians and Barbarians, which he promises to treat of, he entertains you with a Collection of Antiquities, which he delivers upon the Credit of the Aegyptian Priests, and gives you a Narrative of all he knows. So that half of his Book is Digression and Parenthesis: And in this Liberty he has been too faithfully imitated by his Successors, many of whose Works are such perfect Grotesques, that in perusing them you often lose the principal design. The heaviest charge against him is his Fabulousness, and Credulity (…) Thucydides soon gave another Turn to History; and tho’his Emulation was first rais’d by the Applause that was given to Herodotus, he did not think to follow his Example (…) His stile is grave, masculine and elevated; his Reasoning strong and profound, always just, and to the purpose ; and his Expression is so close and pointed, that his Words are in a manner Sentences. This Energy and Conciseness in his Diction is said to have render’s him in some Passages too hard and obscure. He’s also charg’d with reviving Words which were grown obsolete, and with adopting new ones, and with being over-careful to avoid saying any thing in the Common Way. Perhaps he had a little too much Affectation of this Kind: But Cicero and others, who have censur’d him upon these Accounts, have at the same time spoke of him as the compleatest Model of the Grecian History. But whatever Objections there may be to his Stile and Composition, there are none to his Veracity (…) It is a good saying, That an Historian ought to be of no country ; and Nobody has verify’d it more than Thucydides : So that if he had not told you he was an Athenian, you would not discover it by his Writing (…) In short, he has no Friends nor no Enemies; and is almost a single Instance of One, who has wrote with so much Spirit, and so little Passion (…) He has throughout the whole of his History, acted with so much Sincerity, Candor and Disinterestedness, that perhaps no Heathen Writer ever equall’d him : And the only thing to be with’d for more than what he has perform’d, is, that he had taken in a larger Compass of Time. His Loss was in great measure repair’d by Xenophon, who continu’d his History in so pure and easy, so sweet and unaffected a Stile, that from thence he obtain’d the Name of the Attick Bee. The Admirers of the Sublime charge him with being too much upon the Level: But it was his great Artifice to speak properly, and yet not vulgarly (…) In short he was the only Grecian, who knew how to support the Dignity of History with the Plainness of Expression. Diodorus Sicilus is to be valu’d for his laborious Collections; and tho’he takes in too many of the Fables of his Predecessors, and adheres too much to the Traditions of the Aegyptian Priests, he serves very well to supply, and compare with others. Monsieur de la Mothe le Vayer * had such an Opinion of him, that he declares, He would freely travel to the end of the World, if he were sure of finding that Part of him which is lost, and envies Posterity the bare Probability of recovering so great a Treasure. Plutarch has also pretended us with many rich and uncommon Cleanings from the Ancients; he has drawn his Heroes in their full Proportion, and, in their Lives, compris’d the History of the most remarkable Occurrences. He is generally cautious and impartial ; but as he was a great Collector, he is not always consistent and of a Piece, either as to Matter, or Stile. Besides one may too easily discover the old Man in him; he loves a Story, tho’never so foreign to his Subject; he tells it with too many Circumstances, and with too great Air of Superstition. I have always thought he would make an excellent Abridgment: For where he speaks to the purpose, few speak better ; and he has scarce been equall’d in the Justness of his Characters, and to the Wisdom of his Reflections. It is not the least Part of his Merit, that he was preserv’d so many Sayings of the Greatest Men; and I have been cautious of omitting any that were material, because, as he says himself, A Jest or an Apothegm often shews a Man more than a Battle. The lives of Nepos deserve Mention in this Catalogue: But they seem to be only Characters drawn from his general History, and are too short to give us any thorough Image of Antiquity. And in this respect Justin’s Abridgment of Trogus Pompeius serves chiefly to make us regret the Loss of the Original. To these authors I have added the Assistance of our Countrymen, sir Walter Raleigh, Dr Howel, and the learned Sir John Marsham* , who, in his Canon Chronicus, has taken a great deal of Pains to reconcile the different Aera’s of the first Ages. And among the Moderns, I am particularly oblidg’d to Monsieur Tourreil *, who, in his Preface before some of Demosthenes’s Orations, has laid out an admirable Plan of Greece (…). Having mention’d the chief Materials of which this History is compos’d, it may be necessary to shew in what manner I have digested them. As to the method I have made use of, I could not meet with any more clear and easy, than that laid down in the English Collection of the Roman History* ; which I have therefore follow’d in my Division of Books and Chapters, and whatever else the Subject would admit of. But as the Affairs of Greece and Rome were very different, so they could not be related altogether after the same manner. Rome you see at one View, as well in its Progress, as its Rise. For tho’in Process of Time thus branch’d out into so many Colonies, they were all subject to her as their Head (…). Which makes their Affairs admit of a more clear and even Thread of History, than those of the Grecians; who, besides that they had to do with most Parts of the then known World, were among themselves so many distinct Republicks, almost wholly independent one of another, differing in their Laws and Customs, jealous of each others Superiority (…). So that in this respect, one may say of them, as Florus did of the Romans, that Theirs is not the History of one People but of Mankind. ’Tis, True, the several States of Greece agreed in the main as to the one thing they contented for, which was Liberty; but they had most of them different ways to obtain, and preserve it: And hence proceeds such a Variety, and Intricacy in their Affairs, that it is no easy Task to marshal so many Events in due Order of Time and Place, and out of them to collect an intire unbroken Body of History. As to what further relates to this Undertaking, the Reader will find Greece consider’d under two States : It is first divided into Kingdoms, the principal of which are treated of separately in the First Book, and carry’d down to the Abolition of the Regal Power. The second Book considers it as form’d into settled Common-wealths, and relates its Affairs in a more united Manner (…). Yet tho’I have been particularly cautious of perplexing the Reader by too many different Views, I have not neglected the use of Chronology: In which I have chiefly follow’d the Authority of Arch-Bishop Usher* . Astronomical Niceties cannot be expected, where a general Knowledge of the Time is sufficient (…). I have all along intermix’d as much as of the Antiquities, as I thought necessary to illustrate the Story. And as I found my self oblig’d to say something of Arts and Learning, in writing of a Country wherein they were suppos’d to have receiv’d their Birth, I have assign’d the general Periods of Poetry, and Philosophy, and mention’d the greatest Proficients in them, with a short Account of their Persons and Writings. Histoire de Grèce, traduite de l’Anglois de Temple Stanyan [par Diderot], (Paris, Briasson, 1743, 3 vols.) Denis Diderot (1713-1784) began his studies at the Collège d’Harcourt in Paris. He studied in succession theology, philosophy and law, and in 1732 became master of arts of the University of Paris. After leading a bohemian life for several years, Diderot devoted himself from 1747 to the creation of the Encyclopédie, whose first volume appeared in 1751. In 1766, with the appearance of the six final volumes, this enormous project was completed, but the work was banned from circulation in the region of Paris (already in 1752 a decree of Council had censured the two first volumes, while from 1759 the whole work was condemned by Parliament). A prolific author, his works display the richness of his intellectual formation. A deist in his Pensées philosophiques (1746) and in the Bijoux indiscrets (published anonymously in 1748), he adopted an atheistic materialism in the Lettre sur les aveugles à l’usage de ceux qui voient (1749), which earned him several months of imprisonment at Vincennes. Devoting himself to the experimental sciences in Pensées sur l’interprétation de la nature (1753), Diderot criticised mechanical materialism in his Réfutation de l’Homme d’Helvétius. Developing his own philosophical positions, he expressed the principles of a natural morality in Le rêve de d’Alembert (1769) and in the Supplément au voyage de Bougainville (posth., 1796). In his plays for the theatre, Le fils naturel (1757), Le père de famille (1758) and Est-il bon ? Est-il méchant ? (1781), Diderot expressed the idea that individual virtue and happiness are compatible with the general good, while establishing himself as the theoretician of a theatre devoted to the realities of the age. In a number of articles inserted into the Encyclopédie, and in the Salons (1759 to 1781), together with the critical reviews published in the Correspondance littéraire of Grimm, Diderot discusses questions of aesthetics, defending those artists who seek to be ‘true’, exalting the ‘genius’ of Shakespeare or Homer. Finally Diderot left to be published posthumously an important narrative work, La Religieuse (1796), an epistolary novel ; and two philosophical dialogues, Le neveu de Rameau (1805) and Jacques le fataliste et son maître (1796). His translation of Temple Stanyan was made from the second edition of the original. The translation appeared in three volumes in July 1743, published by Antoine-Claude Briasson, who was the publisher later associated with the Encyclopédie. Diderot’s name appears only in the certification of approval by the censor Maunoir, reproduced in volume III. Living from day to day, the 29-year old Diderot was paid 300 francs for his labours. In a letter of the 24th December 1742 sent from Langres, where he had gone to visit his parents and ask for an allowance from his father, he describes to his mistress Antoinette Champion the excellent impression that his occupation as a translator had made on his parents, hitherto very concerned about his prospects : « My dear beloved, these proofs of my book, which are sent to me three times a week, are doing wonders. My father and my mother, who did not seem very inclined to let me return [to Paris], have become incessantly the first to urge my return, convinced that I am occupying myself there with something useful, and disabused of I know not how many evil rumours that they have heard ». In 1745 Diderot published, again anonymously, the Essai sur le mérite et la vertu by Shaftesbury and, in 1746, an Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire universel des arts et des sciences, translated from the English dictionaries of Chambers and Harris, with additions. Recensions françaises HISTOIRE DE GRECE, traduite de l’Anglois de Temple Stanyan, in-12. 3.Vol. A Paris, chés Briasson, 1743, MERCURE DE FRANCE, Aoust 1743, p. 1802-1803 (le même texte a été publié par LE JOURNAL DE TREVOUX, juin 1743, p. 1136-1137) L’ouvrage, que nous annonçons au Public, est écrit avec toute la force & le discernement qu’on peut attendre d’un homme profond dans l’Histoire ancienne, & d’un esprit supérieur, qui a longtemps médité la matière, & qui n’a rien épargné pour découvrir la vérité, soit par ses recherches, soit par la comparaison des Auteurs, les uns avec les autres, soit encore par l’étude des anciens Monumens. C’est le travail d’un Politique, à qui le Gouvernement de la Grèce unie ou divisée, a été d’autant moins difficile à pénetrer, qu’il est plus instruit des maximes des Peuples qui vivent sous l’Etat Républicain. La Puissance des Grecs a précédé celle des Romains, & en a été comme le prélude ; il est donc très important de connoître les intérêts, les vûës & les actions des uns, pour lire les progrès des autres ; ainsi nous avons tout lieu de croire que le Public sera bien aise d’avoir cet important Ouvrage, imprimé dans le même goût & dans la même forme que l’Histoire Romaine, traduite de l’Anglois d’Echard ; pressé comme elle dans la narration, & entièrement disposé pour y être joint. Le Traducteur de Stanian a aussi lieu d’esperer que sa Traduction n’affoiblira pas la réputation que l’Original s’est acquis si justement en Angleterre. HISTOIRE DE GRECE, traduite de l’Anglois de M.TEMPLE STANYAN. A Amsterdam, aux dépens de la Compagnie. 1744. in-12. Tom. I. pagg. 216 sans l’Epitre Dédicatoire à Milord Sommers, & sans la Préface. Tom. II, pagg. 350. Tom. III. Pagg. 250 sans compter la Table des Matières. BIBLIOTHEQUE FRANÇOISE, OU HISTOIRE LITTERAIRE DE LA FRANCE, t.XXXIX, première partie, A Amsterdam, Chez H. Du Sauzet, M.DCC.XLIV, p. 329-349. Cette Histoire de la Grèce nous paroit si bien écrite que nous craindrions de la louër trop peu en disant qu’elle est fort au dessus de ce que nous avons jusqu’ici dans ce genre en notre Langue. En effet on a trouvé bien des defauts à l’Histoire Universelle de la Grèce de Marcassus* . Cet Auteur ne nous donne pas une idée assez juste des Grecs dans le commencement de son Histoire. L’ordre des tems n’y est nullement observé. L’Historien ne s’est occupé qu’à decrire des Guerres, sans faire mention de toutes les choses considerables qui sont arrivées en differens endroits de la Grèce. Il ne dit rien des Grands-Hommes qui y ont paru, & qui ont excellé soit dans les Sciences, soit dans les Arts. Il a mal-à-propos passé sous silence les origines fabuleuses de la plupart des Peuples de la Grèce. Les Harangues de son Ouvrage sont disposées & écrites dans le même stile qu’il les avoit trouvées dans les Anciens Historiens. Enfin le Style de MARCASSUS est très vicieux. On trouvera toute cette Critique dans la Préface d’un autre Ouvrage de même genre dont l’Auteur est Anonyme, au moins pour nous. Cet Ouvrage est l’Histoire générale de la Grèce . Il n’est guère plus estimé que l’Histoire de Marcassus. L’Anonyme qui le critique si fort, est tombé lui-même dans de fort lourdes fautes. On en peut voir la preuve dans Bayle , qui le relève sur les Faits, qui n’auroient pas dû faire illusion à cet Historien. Peut-être que l’Histoire de Grèce de M.Stanyan ne seroit pas à l’abri de quelque censure, si elle venoit à être épluchée par un Critique, qui auroit les connoissances, le jugement & l’esprit du célèbre Philosophe de Rotterdam ; mais ce que nous en pouvons dire avec vérité, c’est que le fonds de l’Ouvrage nous paroit extrêmement bien entendu, & qu’il n’a rien perdu par la Traduction ; dont le Style est précisément celui qui convient à l’Histoire, & pour tout dire à un Abrégé historique comme celui-ci. Avouons pourtant que ce n’est que par la Traduction même que nous jugeons de son mérite. Pour en parler plus sûrement il faudroit la confronter avec l’original Anglois, qu’il seroit difficile de trouver dans une Province assez écartée. La préface de M.Stanyan est fort intéressante. Il y parle avec autant d’esprit que de raison des Affaires de la Grèce, tant pour ce qui regarde l’Histoire ancienne de ce Païs, que pour ce qui concerne des tems moins réculés. Ce n’est pas notre dessein d’insister sur tout ce détail. Nous avons en quelque sorte plus d’intérêt de savoir au juste quel est proprement le dessein de notre Auteur ; (…) Il nous met devant les yeux, dès l’entrée de sa Préface, combien les Affaires de Grèce sont suspectes, & il n’ose en rendre compte, sans prévenir son Lecteur sur le respect qu’un Historien doit à la Vérité. (…) Il me semble qu’en voilà tout autant qu’il en faut pour faire juger que cet Ouvrage mérite d’être lû par ceux-là même qui savent le mieux l’Histoire de la Grèce, & celle des Grands-Hommes que ce Païs fameux a produits. LE JOURNAL DES SAVANTS, éd. de Paris, août 1743, p. 451-462 ; sept. 1745, p. 547-555 ; avril 1746, p. 231-238 Avril 1746, p. 238 … Les sçavans ne trouveront pas dans cette Histoire tous les détails et toutes les recherches qu’ils pourroient désirer. Cependant malgré la briéveté, que notre Auteur paroît affecter en écrivant, il s’arrête assez souvent à discuter les sentimens différens des Anciens Historiens ; lorsqu’ils ne sont pas d’accord sur les circonstances des faits importans, il se donne la peine de les concilier ou de les réfuter, quand leurs traditions ne lui paroissent pas conformes à la vérité. Quoique cette Histoire soit extrêmement compliquée par la multiplicité des événemens qui arrivent quelquefois en même temps, dans les différens Etats de la Grèce, M.T.S. a trouvé le secret de ranger tous les faits dans un si bel ordre, & les transitions d’un événement à l’autre sont si naturelles & si bien ménagées qu’on ne peut s’empêcher d’admirer l’art qui règne dans tout le tissu de la narration. (…) Enfin cette Histoire est d’autant plus intéressante, que l’Auteur ayant évité à dessein les détails inutiles, qui peuvent jetter de la langueur dans le style, il présente sans cesse à l’esprit du lecteur des objets dignes de son attention. On y trouve à chaque page des traits frappans que notre Auteur a recueilli avec soin dans les excellens originaux sur lesquels il a travaillé : on y voit les portraits des hommes les plus illustres, leurs sentimens, leur réflexions & leurs bon mots. Il nous reste à parler de la traduction françoise. Nous ne pouvons nous empêcher de dire qu’elle est écrite avec un peu de négligence, & qu’elle n’est pas exempte de fautes contre les règles de la langue (…).

Traductions :