勒-迪克 论修复 中英文对照版.pdf

仅供学习参考，请勿转载如媒体需要，请联系译者！仅供学习参考，请勿转载如媒体需要，请联系译者！ 同济大学建筑系同济大学建筑系 陆地陆地 副教授副教授 本译文部分参考了刘东洋老师的译文！本译文部分参考了刘东洋老师的译文！ P195 Restoration “le mot et la chose“ EUGÈNE -EMMAMUEL VIOLLET- LE-DUC 论修复： “其词其事”论修复： “其词其事” 尤金尤金-艾玛纽尔·维奥莱艾玛纽尔·维奥莱-勒勒-迪克迪克 From EUGÈNE-EMMAMUEL VIOLLET-LE-DUC, “Restoration,” in The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from the Dictionnaire Raisonné, trans, Kenneth D. Whitehead (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1990), 195, 209-12, 214-15, 216, 222-23; originally published as “Restoration,” in Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du Ⅺe au ⅩⅥe siècle, vol.8 (Paris: B. Bance, 1854), 14-34. Copyright © 1990 by George Braziller, Inc. Reprinted by permission of George Braziller, Inc. 译自尤金-艾玛纽尔·维奥莱-勒-迪克， 《论修复》 ，载《建筑学基础： 《词典》选集》 ，由 肯尼斯·D·怀特海德从法文译为英文（纽约：乔治·布拉齐尔出版公司，1990 年） ，194-227 页；原载于《法国 11-16 世纪建筑词典》 ，第八卷（巴黎：B. Bance 出版社，1854 年） ，14-34 页。

RESTORATION, s.f. Both the word and the thing are modern. To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to reestablish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time. The idea that the constructions of another age can actually be restored is an idea that dates only from the second quarter of our own century, and it is not clear that this kind of architectonic restoration has ever been clearly defined. Perhaps this is an opportune occasion for us to get a clear idea of exactly what is meant and what ought to be meant by a restoration. For it would seem that many ambiguities have come to surround the meaning that we assign and ought to assign to this particular activity. “修复（RESTORATION） ” ，无论这个词还是这件事都近乎（s.f.（(Latin=near the end） ） 是现代的。

修复一幢大厦既不意味着维护，也不是修理，也不是重建；修复意味着以一种过 去的完成状态（finished state）而进行的重建，这种完成状态也许在任何既定时代事实上都 不曾存在过能够将另一个时代的建筑物真的修复出来，这种思想仅仅始于 1850 年之后 在此之前，人们从未清楚的定义过这种建构性的修复（architectonic restoration） 也许，我 们在这里应该借机澄清一下修复一词到底意味着什么， 应该意味着什么 因为对于这种特殊 的活动而言，我们赋予它的意义以及应该赋予它的意义似乎有着太多含糊不清之处 We have said that both the word and the thing are modern; and, in fact, neither any civilization nor any people in history has ever carried out restorations in the sense in which we understand that term today. 我们前面说了，修复这个词以及修复这件事都是现代的；事实上，历史上，没有哪种文 明或是哪个民族曾以我们对这个词所理解的方式而实施修复。

P196 In Asia, in the past as still today, whenever a temple or a palace fell into ruin or decay as a result of the ravages of time, either it was simply rebuilt or else another one was built in its place. This does not mean that the ancient edifice itself even had to be destroyed; that was normally left to the action of time itself; time would surely not fail to wear it down little by little as if the edifice belonged to time. The Romans rebuilt; they did not restore. The proof of this is that there is not even a Latin word that corresponds to our word restoration in the sense in which we understand the word today. Instaurare, reficere, renovare--none of these words means “to restore“ but rather “to reestablish“ or “to rebuild anew.“ When the emperor Hadrian set out to reinstate in good condition a number of the monuments of ancient Greece and Asia Minor, he went about it in a way that today would have surely stirred up against him all the archaeological societies of Europe; and this was the case even though Hadrian had some credentials in the matter of antiquarian knowledge. Nevertheless, the reestablishment of the Temple of the Sun at Baalbek cannot be considered a restoration; it is rather a rebuilding done in accordance with the principles that obtained at the time of the rebuilding. The Ptolemies, who prided themselves on their archaism, nevertheless did not respect the forms of construction of the ancient Egyptian dynasties, but instead went about the reconstructing they did in accordance with the manner current in their own day. Similarly, the Greeks did not do restorations--that is to say, they did not reproduce the old forms of the buildings of theirs that were falling or had fallen into ruin and decay; they believed themselves entirely justified in putting the stamp of the present moment upon whatever buildings needed to be rebuilt. To erect a triumphal arch such as the Arch of Constantine using fragments taken from the Arch of Trajan was neither a restoration nor a reconstruction; it was an act of vandalism, a resort to barbarian plunder. To cover the architecture of the Temple of Fortuna Virilis in Rome with stucco was, again, not anything that we could consider a restoration; it was rather a mutilation. 在亚洲， 无论是过去还是如今， 每当一座庙宇或是宫殿由于时光的蹂躏而变为废墟或是 残败的时候，人们要么简单的重建它，要么在原地修建另一幢建筑。

这并不意味着那个古老 的建筑就是要被摧毁的，通常，这种毁坏是由时光自身的行为而造成的时光肯定能一点一 点的把大厦消磨掉，彷佛那个大厦就属于时光似的古罗马人也重建建筑，但他们并不修复 建筑对于这一事实的证明就是，在拉丁文中没有一个能和我们如今对“修复修复”一词理解的 意义真正对应的词汇 拉丁文中的 “新建 （新建 （Instaurare）） ” 、“整修 （整修 （reficere）） ” 、“翻新 （翻新 （renovare）） ” 都不是“修复”的意思，而是“重建”或是“重建一新”的意思当哈德良大帝（Hadrian） 着手将古希腊和小亚细亚的许多古迹恢复到（reinstate）一种良好状态时，他所采用的方式 肯定会令欧洲如今的所有考古学会感到愤怒； 尽管哈德良对于文物知识还是颇有依据的， 但 这就是当时的做法。