법과 철학 사이에서 -헤겔 <법철학> 국역본에 대한 촌평: 계약론 부분을 예증 삼아-

Abstract

In this article I have mainly examined two Korean translations of Hegels

Philosophy of Law with a view to legal terms and concepts. The examination

has been concentrated on the second section (Contract) of the first part (The

Abstract Law) of the book, encompassing §§ 72-81. Besides, I have also

touched upon other classical books on legal themes, covering Montesquieus De

lEsprit des lois, Adam Smiths Lectures on Jurisprudence: Part I, and Max

Webers Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, and a recent book on the European history.

Although the examination is inevitably partial, the result, indeed, shows a clear

picture. The translators, not being jurists, normally did not refer to the legal

informations which were urgently needed. They usually translated legal terms and

concepts in a wanton way, transmuting them arbitrarily and so rendering readers

to understand incorrectly or falsely. The explanations given by the translators in

the footnotes also serve readers with some unclear or wrong informations.

Sometimes, as is the case with Hegel, the original text itself offers a complex of

confused ideas, which causes the translators much more trouble. Apparently, they

did not try to get over a painful encounter with this situation. It is difficult to

understand why they failed to refer to the legal sources which they could easily

find and which could help them without much ado.

It goes without saying that interdisciplinary cooperations must be practiced

with open hearts if we really want to have good translations. And the jurists

ought to endeavor more eagerly than ever before to initiate translations which

academics of other fields have hitherto taken on.