charmides-第3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！





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



pictured　in　female　forms；　but　they　are　not　so　described　in　language；　a　ship



is　humorously　supposed　to　be　the　sailor's　bride；　more　doubtful　are　the



personifications　of　church　and　country　as　females。　　Now　the　genius　of　the



Greek　language　is　the　opposite　of　this。　　The　same　tendency　to



personification　which　is　seen　in　the　Greek　mythology　is　common　also　in　the



language；　and　genders　are　attributed　to　things　as　well　as　persons　according



to　their　various　degrees　of　strength　and　weakness；　or　from　fanciful



resemblances　to　the　male　or　female　form；　or　some　analogy　too　subtle　to　be



discovered。　　When　the　gender　of　any　object　was　once　fixed；　a　similar　gender



was　naturally　assigned　to　similar　objects；　or　to　words　of　similar



formation。　　This　use　of　genders　in　the　denotation　of　objects　or　ideas　not



only　affects　the　words　to　which　genders　are　attributed；　but　the　words　with



which　they　are　construed　or　connected；　and　passes　into　the　general



character　of　the　style。　　Hence　arises　a　difficulty　in　translating　Greek



into　English　which　cannot　altogether　be　overcome。　　Shall　we　speak　of　the



soul　and　its　qualities；　of　virtue；　power；　wisdom；　and　the　like；　as　feminine



or　neuter？　　The　usage　of　the　English　language　does　not　admit　of　the　former；



and　yet　the　life　and　beauty　of　the　style　are　impaired　by　the　latter。　　Often



the　translator　will　have　recourse　to　the　repetition　of　the　word；　or　to　the



ambiguous　'they；'　'their；'　etc。；　for　fear　of　spoiling　the　effect　of　the



sentence　by　introducing　'it。'　　Collective　nouns　in　Greek　and　English　create



a　similar　but　lesser　awkwardness。







（4）　To　use　of　relation　is　far　more　extended　in　Greek　than　in　English。　



Partly　the　greater　variety　of　genders　and　cases　makes　the　connexion　of



relative　and　antecedent　less　ambiguous：　　partly　also　the　greater　number　of



demonstrative　and　relative　pronouns；　and　the　use　of　the　article；　make　the



correlation　of　ideas　simpler　and　more　natural。　　The　Greek　appears　to　have



had　an　ear　or　intelligence　for　a　long　and　complicated　sentence　which　is



rarely　to　be　found　in　modern　nations；　and　in　order　to　bring　the　Greek　down



to　the　level　of　the　modern；　we　must　break　up　the　long　sentence　into　two　or



more　short　ones。　　Neither　is　the　same　precision　required　in　Greek　as　in



Latin　or　English；　nor　in　earlier　Greek　as　in　later；　there　was　nothing



shocking　to　the　contemporary　of　Thucydides　and　Plato　in　anacolutha　and



repetitions。　　In　such　cases　the　genius　of　the　English　language　requires



that　the　translation　should　be　more　intelligible　than　the　Greek。　　The　want



of　more　distinctions　between　the　demonstrative　pronouns　is　also　greatly



felt。　　Two　genitives　dependent　on　one　another；　unless　familiarised　by



idiom；　have　an　awkward　effect　in　English。　　Frequently　the　noun　has　to　take



the　place　of　the　pronoun。　　'This'　and　'that'　are　found　repeating　themselves



to　weariness　in　the　rough　draft　of　a　translation。　　As　in　the　previous　case；



while　the　feeling　of　the　modern　language　is　more　opposed　to　tautology；



there　is　also　a　greater　difficulty　in　avoiding　it。







（5）　Though　no　precise　rule　can　be　laid　down　about　the　repetition　of　words；



there　seems　to　be　a　kind　of　impertinence　in　presenting　to　the　reader　the



same　thought　in　the　same　words；　repeated　twice　over　in　the　same　passage



without　any　new　aspect　or　modification　of　it。　　And　the　evasion　of



tautologythat　is；　the　substitution　of　one　word　of　precisely　the　same



meaning　for　anotheris　resented　by　us　equally　with　the　repetition　of



words。　　Yet　on　the　other　hand　the　least　difference　of　meaning　or　the　least



change　of　form　from　a　substantive　to　an　adjective；　or　from　a　participle　to



a　verb；　will　often　remedy　the　unpleasant　effect。　　Rarely　and　only　for　the



sake　of　emphasis　or　clearness　can　we　allow　an　important　word　to　be　used



twice　over　in　two　successive　sentences　or　even　in　the　same　paragraph。　　The



particles　and　pronouns；　as　they　are　of　most　frequent　occurrence；　are　also



the　most　troublesome。　　Strictly　speaking；　except　a　few　of　the　commonest　of



them；　'and；'　'the；'　etc。；　they　ought　not　to　occur　twice　in　the　same



sentence。　　But　the　Greek　has　no　such　precise　rules；　and　hence　any　literal



translation　of　a　Greek　author　is　full　of　tautology。　　The　tendency　of　modern



languages　is　to　become　more　correct　as　well　as　more　perspicuous　than



ancient。　　And；　therefore；　while　the　English　translator　is　limited　in　the



power　of　expressing　relation　or　connexion；　by　the　law　of　his　own　language



increased　precision　and　also　increased　clearness　are　required　of　him。　　The



familiar　use　of　logic；　and　the　progress　of　science；　have　in　these　two



respects　raised　the　standard。　　But　modern　languages；　while　they　have　become



more　exacting　in　their　demands；　are　in　many　ways　not　so　well　furnished　with



powers　of　expression　as　the　ancient　classical　ones。







Such　are　a　few　of　the　difficulties　which　have　to　be　overcome　in　the　work　of



translation；　and　we　are　far　from　having　exhausted　the　list。　　（6）　The



excellence　of　a　translation　will　consist；　not　merely　in　the　faithful



rendering　of　words；　or　in　the　composition　of　a　sentence　only；　or　yet　of　a



single　paragraph；　but　in　the　colour　and　style　of　the　whole　work。　



Equability　of　tone　is　best　attained　by　the　exclusive　use　of　familiar　and



idiomatic　words。　　But　great　care　must　be　taken；　for　an　idiomatic　phrase；　if



an　exception　to　the　general　style；　is　of　itself　a　disturbing　element。　　No



word；　however　expressive　and　exact；　should　be　employed；　which　makes　the



reader　stop　to　think；　or　unduly　attracts　attention　by　difficulty　and



peculiarity；　or　disturbs　the　effect　of　the　surrounding　language。　　In



general　the　style　of　one　author　is　not　appropriate　to　another；　as　in



society；　so　in　letters；　we　expect　every　man　to　have　'a　good　coat　of　his



own；'　and　not　to　dress　himself　out　in　the　rags　of　another。　　（a）　Archaic



expressions　are　therefore　to　be　avoided。　　Equivalents　may　be　occasionally



drawn　from　Shakspere；　who　is　the　common　property　of　us　all；　but　they　must



be　used　sparingly。　　For；　like　some　other　men　of　genius　of　the　Elizabethan



and　Jacobean　age；　he　outdid　the　capabilities　of　the　language；　and　many　of



the　expressions　which　he　introduced　have　been　laid　aside　and　have　dropped



out　of　use。　　（b）　A　similar　principle　should　be　observed　in　the　employment



of　Scripture。　　Having　a　greater　force　and　beauty　than　other　language；　and　a



religious　association；　it　disturbs　the　even　flow　of　the　style。　　It　may　be



used　to　reproduce　in　the　translation　the　quaint　effect　of　some　antique



phrase　in　the　original；　but　rarely；　and　when　adopted；　it　should　have　a



certain　freshness　and　a　suitable　'entourage。'　　It　is　strange　to　observe



that　the　most　effective　use　of　Scripture　phraseology　arises　out　of　the



application　of　it　in　a　sense　not　intended　by　the　author。　　（c）　Another



caution：　　metaphors　differ　in　different　languages；　and　the　translator　will



often　be　compelled　to　substitute　one　for　another；　or　to　paraphrase　them；



not　giving　word　for　word；　but　diffusing　over　several　words　the　more



concentrated　thought　of　the　original。　　The　Greek　of　Plato　often　goes　beyond



the　English　in　its　imagery：　compare　Laws；　（Greek）；　Rep。；　etc。　　Or　again　the



modern　word；　which　in　substance　is　the　nearest　equivalent　to　the　Greek；　may



be　found　to　include　associations　alien　to　Greek　life：　　e。g。　（Greek）；



'jurymen；'　（Greek）；　'the　bourgeoisie。'　　（d）　The　translator　has　also　to



provide　expressions　for　philosophical　terms　of　very　indefinite　meaning　in



the　more　definite　language　of　modern　philosophy。　　And　he　must　not　allow



discordant　elements　to　enter　into　the　work。　　For　example；　in　translating



Plato；　it　would　equally　be　an　anachronism　to　intrude　on　him　the　feeling　and



spirit　of　the　Jewish　or　Christian　Scriptures　or　the　technical　terms　of　the



Hegelian　or　Darwinian　philosophy。







（7）　As　no　two　words　are　precise　equivalents　（just　as　no　two　leaves　of　the



forest　are　exactly　similar）；　it　is　a　mistaken　attempt　at　precision　always



to　translate　the　same　Greek　word　by　the　same　English　word。　　There　is　no



reason　why　in　the　New　Testament　（Greek）　should　always　be　rendered



'righteousness；'　or　（Greek）　'covenant。'　　In　such　cases　the　translator　may



be　allowed　to　employ　two　wordssometimes　when　the　two　meanings　occur　in



the　same　passage；　varying　them　by　an　'or'e。g。　（Greek）；　'science'　or



'knowledge；'　（Greek）；　'idea'　or　'class；'　（Greek）；　'temperance'　or



'prudence；'at　the　point　where　the　change　of　meaning　occurs。　　If



translations　are　intended　not　for　the　Greek　scholar　but　for　the　general



reader；　their　worst　fault　will　be　that　they　sacrifice　the　general　effect



and　meaning　to　the　over…precise　rendering　of　words　and　forms　of　speech。







（8）　There　is　no　kind　of　literature　in　English　which　corresponds　to　the



Greek　Dialogue；　nor　is　the　English　language　easily　adapted　to　it。　　The



rapidity　and　abruptness　of　question　and　answer；　the　constant　repetition　of



（Greek）；　etc。；　which　Cicero　avoided　in　Latin　（de　Amicit）；　the　frequent



occurrence　of　expletives；　would；　if　reproduced　in　a　translation；　give



offence　to　the　reader。　　Greek　has　a　freer　and　more　frequent　use　of　the



Interrogative；　and　is　of　a　more　passionate　and　emotional　character；　and



therefore　lends　itself　with　greater　readiness　to　the　dialogue　form。　　Most



of　the　so…called　English　Dialogues　are　but　poor　imitations　of　Plato；　which



fall　very　far　short　of　the　original。　　The　breath　of　conversation；　the



subtle　adjustment　of　question　and　answer；　the　lively　play　of　fancy；　the