charmides-第2部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





essays　on　subjects　having　an　affinity　to　the　Platonic　Dialogues　have　been



introduced　into　several　of　them。　　The　analyses　have　been　corrected；　and



innumerable　alterations　have　been　made　in　the　Text。　　There　have　been　added



also；　in　the　Third　Edition；　headings　to　the　pages　and　a　marginal　analysis



to　the　text　of　each　dialogue。







At　the　end　of　a　long　task；　the　translator　may　without　impropriety　point　out



the　difficulties　which　he　has　had　to　encounter。　　These　have　been　far



greater　than　he　would　have　anticipated；　nor　is　he　at　all　sanguine　that　he



has　succeeded　in　overcoming　them。　　Experience　has　made　him　feel　that　a



translation；　like　a　picture；　is　dependent　for　its　effect　on　very　minute



touches；　and　that　it　is　a　work　of　infinite　pains；　to　be　returned　to　in　many



moods　and　viewed　in　different　lights。







I。　　An　English　translation　ought　to　be　idiomatic　and　interesting；　not　only



to　the　scholar；　but　to　the　unlearned　reader。　　Its　object　should　not　simply



be　to　render　the　words　of　one　language　into　the　words　of　another　or　to



preserve　the　construction　and　order　of　the　original；this　is　the　ambition



of　a　schoolboy；　who　wishes　to　show　that　he　has　made　a　good　use　of　his



Dictionary　and　Grammar；　but　is　quite　unworthy　of　the　translator；　who　seeks



to　produce　on　his　reader　an　impression　similar　or　nearly　similar　to　that



produced　by　the　original。　　To　him　the　feeling　should　be　more　important　than



the　exact　word。　　He　should　remember　Dryden's　quaint　admonition　not　to



'lacquey　by　the　side　of　his　author；　but　to　mount　up　behind　him。'　



（Dedication　to　the　Aeneis。）　　He　must　carry　in　his　mind　a　comprehensive　view



of　the　whole　work；　of　what　has　preceded　and　of　what　is　to　follow；as　well



as　of　the　meaning　of　particular　passages。　　His　version　should　be　based；　in



the　first　instance；　on　an　intimate　knowledge　of　the　text；　but　the　precise



order　and　arrangement　of　the　words　may　be　left　to　fade　out　of　sight；　when



the　translation　begins　to　take　shape。　　He　must　form　a　general　idea　of　the



two　languages；　and　reduce　the　one　to　the　terms　of　the　other。　　His　work



should　be　rhythmical　and　varied；　the　right　admixture　of　words　and



syllables；　and　even　of　letters；　should　be　carefully　attended　to；　above　all；



it　should　be　equable　in　style。　　There　must　also　be　quantity；　which　is



necessary　in　prose　as　well　as　in　verse：　　clauses；　sentences；　paragraphs；



must　be　in　due　proportion。　　Metre　and　even　rhyme　may　be　rarely　admitted；



though　neither　is　a　legitimate　element　of　prose　writing；　they　may　help　to



lighten　a　cumbrous　expression　（Symp。）。　　The　translation　should　retain　as



far　as　possible　the　characteristic　qualities　of　the　ancient　writerhis



freedom；　grace；　simplicity；　stateliness；　weight；　precision；　or　the　best



part　of　him　will　be　lost　to　the　English　reader。　　It　should　read　as　an



original　work；　and　should　also　be　the　most　faithful　transcript　which　can　be



made　of　the　language　from　which　the　translation　is　taken；　consistently　with



the　first　requirement　of　all；　that　it　be　English。　　Further；　the　translation



being　English；　it　should　also　be　perfectly　intelligible　in　itself　without



reference　to　the　Greek；　the　English　being　really　the　more　lucid　and　exact



of　the　two　languages。　　In　some　respects　it　may　be　maintained　that　ordinary



English　writing；　such　as　the　newspaper　article；　is　superior　to　Plato：　　at



any　rate　it　is　couched　in　language　which　is　very　rarely　obscure。　　On　the



other　hand；　the　greatest　writers　of　Greece；　Thucydides；　Plato；　Aeschylus；



Sophocles；　Pindar；　Demosthenes；　are　generally　those　which　are　found　to　be



most　difficult　and　to　diverge　most　widely　from　the　English　idiom。　　The



translator　will　often　have　to　convert　the　more　abstract　Greek　into　the　more



concrete　English；　or　vice　versa；　and　he　ought　not　to　force　upon　one



language　the　character　of　another。　　In　some　cases；　where　the　order　is



confused；　the　expression　feeble；　the　emphasis　misplaced；　or　the　sense



somewhat　faulty；　he　will　not　strive　in　his　rendering　to　reproduce　these



characteristics；　but　will　re…write　the　passage　as　his　author　would　have



written　it　at　first；　had　he　not　been　'nodding'；　and　he　will　not　hesitate　to



supply　anything　which；　owing　to　the　genius　of　the　language　or　some　accident



of　composition；　is　omitted　in　the　Greek；　but　is　necessary　to　make　the



English　clear　and　consecutive。







It　is　difficult　to　harmonize　all　these　conflicting　elements。　　In　a



translation　of　Plato　what　may　be　termed　the　interests　of　the　Greek　and



English　are　often　at　war　with　one　another。　　In　framing　the　English　sentence



we　are　insensibly　diverted　from　the　exact　meaning　of　the　Greek；　when　we



return　to　the　Greek　we　are　apt　to　cramp　and　overlay　the　English。　　We



substitute；　we　compromise；　we　give　and　take；　we　add　a　little　here　and　leave



out　a　little　there。　　The　translator　may　sometimes　be　allowed　to　sacrifice



minute　accuracy　for　the　sake　of　clearness　and　sense。　　But　he　is　not



therefore　at　liberty　to　omit　words　and　turns　of　expression　which　the



English　language　is　quite　capable　of　supplying。　　He　must　be　patient　and



self…controlled；　he　must　not　be　easily　run　away　with。　　Let　him　never　allow



the　attraction　of　a　favourite　expression；　or　a　sonorous　cadence；　to



overpower　his　better　judgment；　or　think　much　of　an　ornament　which　is　out　of



keeping　with　the　general　character　of　his　work。　　He　must　ever　be　casting



his　eyes　upwards　from　the　copy　to　the　original；　and　down　again　from　the



original　to　the　copy　（Rep。）。　　His　calling　is　not　held　in　much　honour　by　the



world　of　scholars；　yet　he　himself　may　be　excused　for　thinking　it　a　kind　of



glory　to　have　lived　so　many　years　in　the　companionship　of　one　of　the



greatest　of　human　intelligences；　and　in　some　degree；　more　perhaps　than



others；　to　have　had　the　privilege　of　understanding　him　（Sir　Joshua



Reynolds'　Lectures：　Disc。　xv。）。







There　are　fundamental　differences　in　Greek　and　English；　of　which　some　may



be　managed　while　others　remain　intractable。　　（1）。　　The　structure　of　the



Greek　language　is　partly　adversative　and　alternative；　and　partly



inferential；　that　is　to　say；　the　members　of　a　sentence　are　either　opposed



to　one　another；　or　one　of　them　expresses　the　cause　or　effect　or　condition



or　reason　of　another。　　The　two　tendencies　may　be　called　the　horizontal　and



perpendicular　lines　of　the　language；　and　the　opposition　or　inference　is



often　much　more　one　of　words　than　of　ideas。　　But　modern　languages　have



rubbed　off　this　adversative　and　inferential　form：　　they　have　fewer　links　of



connection；　there　is　less　mortar　in　the　interstices；　and　they　are　content



to　place　sentences　side　by　side；　leaving　their　relation　to　one　another　to



be　gathered　from　their　position　or　from　the　context。　　The　difficulty　of



preserving　the　effect　of　the　Greek　is　increased　by　the　want　of　adversative



and　inferential　particles　in　English；　and　by　the　nice　sense　of　tautology



which　characterizes　all　modern　languages。　　We　cannot　have　two　'buts'　or　two



'fors'　in　the　same　sentence　where　the　Greek　repeats　（Greek）。　　There　is　a



similar　want　of　particles　expressing　the　various　gradations　of　objective



and　subjective　thought（Greek）　and　the　like；　which　are　so　thickly



scattered　over　the　Greek　page。　　Further；　we　can　only　realize　to　a　very



imperfect　degree　the　common　distinction　between　（Greek）；　and　the



combination　of　the　two　suggests　a　subtle　shade　of　negation　which　cannot　be



expressed　in　English。　　And　while　English　is　more　dependent　than　Greek　upon



the　apposition　of　clauses　and　sentences；　yet　there　is　a　difficulty　in　using



this　form　of　construction　owing　to　the　want　of　case　endings。　　For　the　same



reason　there　cannot　be　an　equal　variety　in　the　order　of　words　or　an　equal



nicety　of　emphasis　in　English　as　in　Greek。







（2）　The　formation　of　the　sentence　and　of　the　paragraph　greatly　differs　in



Greek　and　English。　　The　lines　by　which　they　are　divided　are　generally　much



more　marked　in　modern　languages　than　in　ancient。　　Both　sentences　and



paragraphs　are　more　precise　and　definitethey　do　not　run　into　one　another。



They　are　also　more　regularly　developed　from　within。　　The　sentence　marks



another　step　in　an　argument　or　a　narrative　or　a　statement；　in　reading　a



paragraph　we　silently　turn　over　the　page　and　arrive　at　some　new　view　or



aspect　of　the　subject。　　Whereas　in　Plato　we　are　not　always　certain　where　a



sentence　begins　and　ends；　and　paragraphs　are　few　and　far　between。　　The



language　is　distributed　in　a　different　way；　and　less　articulated　than　in



English。　　For　it　was　long　before　the　true　use　of　the　period　was　attained　by



the　classical　writers　both　in　poetry　or　prose；　it　was　（Greek）。　　The　balance



of　sentences　and　the　introduction　of　paragraphs　at　suitable　intervals　must



not　be　neglected　if　the　harmony　of　the　English　language　is　to　be　preserved。



And　still　a　caution　has　to　be　added　on　the　other　side；　that　we　must　avoid



giving　it　a　numerical　or　mechanical　character。







（3）　This；　however；　is　not　one　of　the　greatest　difficulties　of　the



translator；　much　greater　is　that　which　arises　from　the　restriction　of　the



use　of　the　genders。　　Men　and　women　in　English　are　masculine　and　feminine；



and　there　is　a　similar　distinction　of　sex　in　the　words　denoting　animals；



but　all　things　else；　whether　outward　objects　or　abstract　ideas；　are



relegated　to　the　class　of　neuters。　　Hardly　in　some　flight　of　poetry　do　we



ever　endue　any　of　them　with　the　characteristics　of　a　sentient　being；　and



then　only　by　speaking　of　them　in　the　feminine　gender。　　The　virtues　may　be



pictured　in　female　forms；　but　they　are　not　so　described