charmides-第4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！





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



power　of　drawing　characters；　are　wanting　in　them。　　But　the　Platonic



dialogue　is　a　drama　as　well　as　a　dialogue；　of　which　Socrates　is　the　central



figure；　and　there　are　lesser　performers　as　well：the　insolence　of



Thrasymachus；　the　anger　of　Callicles　and　Anytus；　the　patronizing　style　of



Protagoras；　the　self…consciousness　of　Prodicus　and　Hippias；　are　all　part　of



the　entertainment。　To　reproduce　this　living　image　the　same　sort　of　effort



is　required　as　in　translating　poetry。　　The　language；　too；　is　of　a　finer



quality；　the　mere　prose　English　is　slow　in　lending　itself　to　the　form　of



question　and　answer；　and　so　the　ease　of　conversation　is　lost；　and　at　the



same　time　the　dialectical　precision　with　which　the　steps　of　the　argument



are　drawn　out　is　apt　to　be　impaired。







II。　　In　the　Introductions　to　the　Dialogues　there　have　been　added　some



essays　on　modern　philosophy；　and　on　political　and　social　life。　　The　chief



subjects　discussed　in　these　are　Utility；　Communism；　the　Kantian　and



Hegelian　philosophies；　Psychology；　and　the　Origin　of　Language。　　（There　have



been　added　also　in　the　Third　Edition　remarks　on　other　subjects。　　A　list　of



the　most　important　of　these　additions　is　given　at　the　end　of　this　Preface。）







Ancient　and　modern　philosophy　throw　a　light　upon　one　another：　　but　they



should　be　compared；　not　confounded。　　Although　the　connexion　between　them　is



sometimes　accidental；　it　is　often　real。　　The　same　questions　are　discussed



by　them　under　different　conditions　of　language　and　civilization；　but　in



some　cases　a　mere　word　has　survived；　while　nothing　or　hardly　anything　of



the　pre…Socratic；　Platonic；　or　Aristotelian　meaning　is　retained。　　There　are



other　questions　familiar　to　the　moderns；　which　have　no　place　in　ancient



philosophy。　　The　world　has　grown　older　in　two　thousand　years；　and　has



enlarged　its　stock　of　ideas　and　methods　of　reasoning。　　Yet　the　germ　of



m