Abstract
A partir do balanço feito pelos juristas a respeito das “tradições jurídicas”, seus usos e suas premissas, seja fazendo uso de conceitos como “recepção” ou “transplante jurídico”, este texto busca enfrentar este debate com a noção de “tradução”, num movimento de aproximação entre as tarefas do tradutor e do historiador, enquanto um intérprete das diferentes linguagens do passado. Tomando o fato de que, de acordo com teóricos da tradução, ela sempre implica em um processo de “perda” (Steiner), de “negociação” (Eco) ou até mesmo de “manipulacão” (Aslanov), a relação entre as “tradições jurídicas” no tempo e no espaço deve ser sempre lida a partir das contingências históricas complexas específicas, envolvendo os interesses presentes na cena histórica que presidem a “tradução” de uma dada “tradição” jurídica para um outro contexto geográfico ou temporal. Exemplo deste procedimento foi o modo como o jurista brasileiro do século XIX, Teixeira de Freitas, fez sua peculiar adaptação do legado jurídico do direito civil estrangeiro para a cena brasileira, em sua ‘Consolidação das Leis Civis’.
Highlights
How do “legal traditions” relate? Some answersIt is necessary to countenance the problem calmly and cautiously. Many respond to this question by going to the opposite extreme of the debate, thinking that the answer is to reject every European (or American) cultural aspect, viewed as a synonym to oppression and cultural domination
Based on insights from jurists regarding “legal traditions” – their uses and premises, whether drawing on concepts such as “reception” or “legal transplantation” – this text seeks to address this debate through the notion of “translation,” that is, the movement of approximation between the tasks of the translator and the historian, as an interpreter of the different languages of the past
Observing the notion that, according to theorists, translation always involves a process of “loss” (Steiner), “negotiation” (Eco) or even “manipulation” (Aslanov), the relationship between “legal traditions” in time and space must always be read from the perspective of specific complex historical contingencies, involving the interests present in the historical context that preside over the “translation” of a given legal“ tradition ”into another geographical or temporal context.”
Summary
It is necessary to countenance the problem calmly and cautiously. Many respond to this question by going to the opposite extreme of the debate, thinking that the answer is to reject every European (or American) cultural aspect, viewed as a synonym to oppression and cultural domination. Nor is anything accomplishedby refuting the fact that a historian of Latin American law cannot deny that the categories and theoretical frameworks that came from Europe or the United States shaped our institutions, our teaching and our circulation of ideas. Following a “cautious” line in this debate around the relationship between different legal “traditions,” it may be worth starting from some responses, which as we shall see, seem insufficient to address the problem of how “legal traditions” relate over time. To put it another way, we need to perceive how each era relates to the legal culture of its past. The concept of “translation” can be valuable in taking a step forward in this debate, able to provide the historian with the right tools to interpret this complicated problem of the relationship among legal traditions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
