Censure et traductionPourquoi deux traducteurs espagnols d’un texte de Dumarsais et d’un autre de Condillac ont-ils procédé à des ‘aménagements’ idéologiques dans leurs sources?

  1. Lépinette, Brigitte
Revista:
Estudios de Lingüística del Español (ELiEs)

ISSN: 1139-8736

Año de publicación: 2015

Número: 36

Páginas: 559-584

Tipo: Artículo

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios de Lingüística del Español (ELiEs)

Resumen

This article analyzes the translations of two books of logic: Dumarsais 1769 (1800, J. M Alea) and Condillac 1775 (1794, V. de Foronda), in which the translators have made modifications that mean ideological changes, in some cases, of certain entity. Our goal has been to highlight the causes and types of such changes. With regard to Logique by Dumarsais translated by Alea, we conclude that these changes are due to the following fact: the ‘model’ of Dumarsais is still close to Cartesianism. Designed for a 'clientele' that rejects fundamental abstraction and empirism of Condillac, the translated text, however, can not ignore the dominant position –ideologically speaking– of this philosopher. Therefore, Alea corrects some concepts from his source. As for the translation of Foronda, the reason for the changes made is different. Disciple of Condillac, the translator can not avoid to reformulate the doctrine of the philosopher for his young recipient, although, at the same time, he recognizes the inherent orthodoxy to religion can not be absent. We are in this case facing a conceptual construction that lacks of ideological homogeneity, in which the empirical modernity overlaps an orthodox doctrine. Both cases –Alea’s and Foronda’s– are thus parallel. The two translators are at the centre of an ideology that, because it has evolved (case of Dumarsais translated very late) and because it is radically different from the previous ones (case of Condillac, proposing a completely new thought), should be modified with the purpose of either renewing this ideology in some aspects or mitigating its radicalism. Consequently, one can neither speak of concealment nor censure, but only of transformation and free reuse of a source text, whose translations, no doubt for this reason, did not interest censors of the Index of prohibited books.