{"title":"Nicolas Gueudeville's Enlightenment Utopia","authors":"R. Leo","doi":"10.3366/more.2018.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nicolas Gueudeville's 1715 French translation of Utopia is often dismissed as a “belle infidèle,” an elegant but unfaithful work of translation. Gueudeville does indeed expand the text to nearly twice its original length. But he presents Utopia as a contribution to emergent debates on tolerance, natural religion, and political anthropology, directly addressing the concerns of many early advocates of the ideas we associate with Enlightenment. In this sense, it is not as much an “unfaithful” presentation of More's project as it is an attempt to introduce Utopia to eighteenth-century francophone audiences—readers for whom theses on political economy and natural religion were much more salient than More's own preoccupations with rhetoric and English law. This paper introduces Gueudeville and his oeuvre, paying particular attention to his revisions to Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan's 1703 Nouveaux Voyages dans l'Amérique Septentrionale. Published in 1705, Gueudeville's “revised, corrected, & augmented” version of Lahontan's Voyages foregrounds the rational and natural religion of the Huron as well as their constitutive aversion to property, to concepts of “mine” and “yours.” Gueudeville's revised version of Lahontan's Voyages purports to be an anthropological investigation as well as a study of New World political economy; it looks forward, moreover, to his edition of Utopia, framing More's work as a comparable study of political economy and anthropology. Gueudeville, in other words, renders More's Utopia legible to Enlightenment audiences, depicting Utopia not in terms of impossibility and irony but rather as a study of natural religion and attendant forms of political, devotional, and economic life. Gueudeville's edition of Utopia even proved controversial due, in part, to his insistence on the rationality as well as the possibility of Utopia.","PeriodicalId":41939,"journal":{"name":"MOREANA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MOREANA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/more.2018.0029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Nicolas Gueudeville's 1715 French translation of Utopia is often dismissed as a “belle infidèle,” an elegant but unfaithful work of translation. Gueudeville does indeed expand the text to nearly twice its original length. But he presents Utopia as a contribution to emergent debates on tolerance, natural religion, and political anthropology, directly addressing the concerns of many early advocates of the ideas we associate with Enlightenment. In this sense, it is not as much an “unfaithful” presentation of More's project as it is an attempt to introduce Utopia to eighteenth-century francophone audiences—readers for whom theses on political economy and natural religion were much more salient than More's own preoccupations with rhetoric and English law. This paper introduces Gueudeville and his oeuvre, paying particular attention to his revisions to Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan's 1703 Nouveaux Voyages dans l'Amérique Septentrionale. Published in 1705, Gueudeville's “revised, corrected, & augmented” version of Lahontan's Voyages foregrounds the rational and natural religion of the Huron as well as their constitutive aversion to property, to concepts of “mine” and “yours.” Gueudeville's revised version of Lahontan's Voyages purports to be an anthropological investigation as well as a study of New World political economy; it looks forward, moreover, to his edition of Utopia, framing More's work as a comparable study of political economy and anthropology. Gueudeville, in other words, renders More's Utopia legible to Enlightenment audiences, depicting Utopia not in terms of impossibility and irony but rather as a study of natural religion and attendant forms of political, devotional, and economic life. Gueudeville's edition of Utopia even proved controversial due, in part, to his insistence on the rationality as well as the possibility of Utopia.
尼古拉斯·古德维尔1715年对《乌托邦》的法语翻译经常被认为是“美丽的内景”,一部优雅但不忠的翻译作品。Gueudeville确实将文本扩展到了原来长度的近两倍。但他将乌托邦描述为对宽容、自然宗教和政治人类学等新兴辩论的贡献,直接解决了许多早期启蒙思想倡导者的担忧。从这个意义上说,这与其说是对莫尔项目的“不忠”介绍,不如说是试图向18世纪的法语读者介绍乌托邦——对他们来说,关于政治经济和自然宗教的论文比莫尔自己对修辞和英国法律的关注要突出得多。本文介绍了居德维尔及其作品,特别注意他对拉洪坦男爵1703年的《新航海记》(Nouveaux Voyages dans l’Amérique Septementrionale)中路易·阿曼德·隆德阿尔塞(Louis Armand de Lom d‘Arce)的修订。Gueudeville出版于1705年,“修订、更正和扩充”版的Lahontan的《航海记》突出了休伦人理性和自然的宗教,以及他们对财产、“我的”和“你的”概念的构成性厌恶。Gueudeville修订版的Lahontan的《Voyages》声称是一项人类学调查,也是对新世界政治经济学的研究;此外,它还期待着他的《乌托邦》,将莫尔的作品视为对政治经济学和人类学的可比研究。换言之,盖德维尔让启蒙运动的观众能够阅读莫尔的《乌托邦》,将乌托邦描绘成对自然宗教和随之而来的政治、宗教和经济生活形式的研究,而不是不可能和讽刺。格乌德维尔的《乌托邦》版本甚至被证明是有争议的,部分原因是他坚持乌托邦的合理性和可能性。