Electronic versions of several editions of the Académie dictionary are planned. See also our versions of the 5th edition (1798) and the 6th edition (1835). Eventually, they will form a common database that will permit users to consult each edition separately or, in order to trace development of the dictionary over time, all versions at once.

• Go to the Headword Search Form (Public Access)

• Go to the Fulltext Search Form (Restricted to ARTFL subscribers)

• History of the 1st Edition

• Organization of the 1st Edition--grouping of words

• Spelling

• A short bibliography

• Technical history

The 1st edition of the Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française was published in 1694, some sixty years after the founding of the Académie by the Cardinal Richelieu. The Dictionary was then presented to the King, Louis XIV, as a monument to his glory and to the power of the French language which had experienced such great development during this reign. (See the text of the dedicatory epistle, "Au Roy".) The Académie thus fulfilled one of the intentions of its original founder and contributed to a particularly fecund moment in the history of lexicography.

From the time of its inception, the Académie had maintained the idea that work on an authoratative French dictionary was one of its primary duties. As the text of the preface in this edition explains:

"Aprés que l'Académie Françoise eut esté establie par les Lettres Patentes du feu Roy, le Cardinal de Richelieu qui par les mesmes Lettres avoit esté nommé Protecteur & Chef de cette Compagnie, luy proposa de travailler premierement à un Dictionnaire de la Langue Françoise, & ensuite à une Grammaire, à une Rhetorique & à une Poëtique.

Elle a satisfait à la premiere de ces obligations par la composition du Dictionnaire qu'elle donne presentement au Public, en attendant qu'elle s'acquitte des autres."

The Academicians thus entered into competition with two recently published dictionaries, by Richelet (1680) and Furetière (1690). In fact, they presented a copy of their work to the King on the same day that the Dutch publisher Leers presented his second edition of Furetière's text.

In light of this intensive lexicographical activity, the Academicians were particularly careful to specify the character of their dictionary and the sources of its authority. They defined their work as a record of the French language in its state of greatest perfection, written by the nation's greatest writers. The Academy Dictionary thus defined polite French usage, excluding specialized fields such as the arts and sciences:

"C'est dans cet estat [of perfection] où la Langue Françoise se trouve aujourd'huy qu'a esté composé ce Dictionnaire; & pour la representer dans ce mesme estat, l'Académie a jugé qu'elle ne devoit pas y mettre les vieux mots qui sont entierement hors d'usage, ni les termes des Arts & des Sciences qui entrent rarement dans le Discours; Elle s'est retranchée à la Langue commune, telle qu'elle est dans le commerce ordinaire des honnestes gens, & telle que les Orateurs & les Poëtes l'employent; Ce qui comprend tout ce qui peut servir à la Noblesse & à l'Elegance du discours."

In defining its dictionary in this way, the Academy opposed the more inclusive tendencies of both Richelet and Furetière. The Academy Dictionary was a normative lexicon that sought to legislate patterns of language usage. It adhered to the notion of linguistic purity as one of its guiding principles.

The fact that this dictionary was composed by a team of forty of France's most prominent men of letters was a major claim to authority, but it was also an obstacle to its completion. Originally, the Academy confided the task to the grammarian Vaugelas, but at his death, work was stalled on the letter "C". It was then decided that the work would be carried out collectively, although this, too, had disadvantages. The preface alludes, for example, to the disruptions of the years of the Fronde when some of the members left Paris. Thus, they made no regular progress until after 1651. Composition continued until 1673, followed by an extensive review process:

"[...] On peut dire que c'est seulement depuis l'année 1651. que l'on y a travaillé serieusement. La premiere composition en fust achevée vers le temps de la mort de Monsieur le Chancelier, qui arriva le premier jour de l'année 1673. Ce fut alors que le Roy ayant bien voulu se declarer le Protecteur de l'Académie, & luy donner dans le Louvre l'appartement où elle tient ses assemblées, elle se vit élever au comble du bonheur dont elle jouït presentement. Elle a depuis travaillé regulierement trois fois la semaine deux heures par chaque seance, & elle ne s'est occupée à autre chose qu'à revoir ce qui avoit esté fait. Ce second travail n'a pas moins cousté de temps à l'Académie que le premier, & cela ne se peut pas faire autrement, à cause de la maniere de travailler des Compagnies en general & de l'Académie en particulier, où tous ceux qui la composent disent successivement leur avis sur chaque mot & ou la diversité des opinions apporte necessairement de grands retardemens."

Successive editions appeared at intervals of roughly twenty years. See also the presentation of the 5th Edition which weathered the turmoil of the Revolutionary years, and our newest addition, the the 6th Edition (1835).

One of the particularities of the 1st Edition of the Academy Dictionary is that all words do not appear in alphabetical order. In their preface, the Academicians explain why they have chosen to group words by etymological root:
"Comme la Langue Françoise a des mots Primitifs, & des mots Derivez & Composez, on a jugé qu'il seroit agreable & instructif de disposer le Dictionnaire par Racines, c'est à dire de ranger tous les mots Derivez & Composez aprés les mots Primitifs dont ils descendent [...]. Dans cet arrangement de Mots, on a observé de mettre les Derivez avant les Composez, & de faire imprimer en gros Caracteres les mots Primitifs comme les Chefs de famille de tous ceux qui en dependent, ce qui fait qu'on ne tombe gueres sur un de ces mots Primitifs qu'on ne soit tenté d'en lire toute la suite, parce qu'on voit s'il faut ainsi dire l'Histoire du mot, & qu'on en remarque la Naissance & le Progrez; & c'est ce qui rend cette lecture plus agreable que celle des autres Dictionnaires qui n'ont point suivi l'ordre des Racines."

In effect, by grouping words in this way, the 1st Edition reveals interesting affiliations between words and shows many historical connections between related words that are lost in later editions of the Academy Dictionary. Thus, as the authors claim, there is a certain pleasure in reading this text. (See, for example, the range of words that appear under "SENS" or "MOUVOIR".)

But this organizational structure is also a frustrating one since, in many cases, it is difficult to locate specific entries. The 1694 printing compensated for this problem in two ways. There was an index at the end of each volume that listed the proper root for individual words, and, in the text itself, there were numerous cross-references to direct readers to the appropriate heading. The second edition (1718) adopted a strict alphabetical plan.

In the electronic version of this dictionary, the search mechanism allows users to find sub-entries without knowing the corresponding main root word. Thus, the index and cross-references are unnecessary (although the cross-references still appear in the text). However, in order to preserve the idea of the word groups, the main root word is presented in upper-case letters after sub-entry headwords. In order to see the entire group, the user can simply click on this headword. When the user searches for a word that is considered to be a main root, the result will yield the entire group of definitions (main entry and derived words).

The Preface of this edition, 9 pages, unnumbered.

Timothy Murray, "The Académie Française", in A New History of French Literature, ed. Denis Hollier (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 267-273.

Alain Rey, "Linguistic Absolutism", in A New History of French Literature, ed. Denis Hollier (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 373-379.

Initial load of the 1st edition was completed on 27 May 1997.

The indexing of headwords was revised on 28 May 1997 to accomodate the special handling of etymological groups. We welcome commentary on our treatment of this peculiarity of the text.

All of the structure of the document, headwords, sub-headwords, and cross-references were automatically identified from typographic conventions, so we are expecting some false article identifications and some missing articles. Please do report problems to mark@gide.uchicago.edu.

Return to Academie Dictionaries home

Return to the Dictionnaires d'autrefois home