charmides-第3章

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





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　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　se