دانلود کتاب La traduction juridique au Moyen Âge: Moyen d’appropriation et de réinvention culturelle des “Institutiones” de Justinien 1er

To date, no one has studied the methods used in translating the compilations of Roman law made in thirteenth-century France. This dissertation seeks to remedy, at least in part, this situation and spark an interest in the subject by examining two translations of Justinian I's Institutes. The first is anonymous, cannot be dated precisely, and is in prose. The second is attributed to Richard d'Annebaut, dates from 1280, and is in verse.

Our study is a two-pronged examination of medieval translation. Using these two translations as test cases, we discuss the premiss that medieval translation favours the appropriation and reinvention of texts and test Rita Copeland's theory explored in her Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts, that medieval translations can be divided into two categories, primary and secondary. This is the first time that medieval translated legal texts have been submitted to such an examination.

The thesis is divided into three sections. The first is prolegomonenary in nature, consisting of a short analysis of certain factors favouring the open interpretation of medieval texts. The second examines the theoretical framework in which translation operated during Roman times and the Middle Ages. This includes a discussion of some of the basic theoretical principles of medieval translating, the important place occupied by glosses in translation, and the distinction made by Copeland between the two categories of translation (primary and secondary). The last section describes the text of the Corpus Iuris Civilis and its transmission during the Middle Ages, proposes a detailed discussion of the two translations, and verifies whether in fact it is possible to apply Copeland's theory of categories to the two French translations of the Institutes. The verification reposes on an analysis of certain translational aspects such as the comments made by d'Annebaut in his prologue and epilogue and the glosses present in both his and the anonymous translations. This enables us to state that the former is a primary translation whereas the latter is far harder to categorize.

Our method of analysing the glosses, in particular, also enables us to examine the degree of appropriation and reinvention found in the two translations. The primary function of the glosses is to comment on and adapt the text to the particular conditions of its reception, hence the name we have given them: “explanatory glosses”. We have divided them into four categories: encyclopedic, moralizing, those introduced by the formula “si come” or an equivalent, and pedagogical. They tend to explain the Institutes to the reader. Thus they are directed towards the vernacular rather than the Latin version. Through them, the translator is able to play a fourfold role: he is translator, glosser, teacher, and textual interpreter. Finally, in a wider perspective, they contribute to the survival of the Institutes in medieval France.