《林语堂等论翻译》.ppt

Appreciation of Translation From E to C,林语堂论翻译(1933),,.,.,林语堂论翻译:忠顺美 翻译是一种艺术凡艺术的成功，必赖个人相当之艺才，及其对于该艺术有相当之训练 翻译的艺术所依赖的是：第一是译者对于原文文字上及内容上透彻的了；第二是译者有相当的国文程度，能写清顺畅达的中文；第三是译事上的训练，译者对于翻译标准及技术的问题有正当的见解 翻译标准包括三方面第一是忠实标准；第二是通顺标准；第三是美的标准忠实就是“信”，通顺就是“达”，至于翻译与艺术文（诗文戏剧）的关系，当然不是“雅”所能包括的这三个标准就是：第一，译者对于原文方面的问题，也就是译者对原著者的责任第二，译者对中文方面的问题，也就是译者对中国读者的责任第三是译者与艺术的问题，也就是译者对艺术的责任 一、忠实，一要达意，二要传神，三是比较忠实，而不是绝对忠实凡文字有声音之美，有意义之美，有传神之美，有文气、文体、形式之美译者或顾其义而忘其神，或得其神而忘其体决不能把文义、文神、文气、文体及声音之美完全同时译出一字有一字的个性，在他国语言觅一比较最近之字则有，欲觅一意义、色彩、个性完全相同的字则没有。

例如中文极平常之“高明”、“不通”、“敷衍”、“对付”、“切磋”、“隔膜”、疏通“，都是不可译之字二、通顺，即如何将西文之思想译成中国文字 第一，译者必将原文全句意义详细、准确的体会出来，吸收心中，然后依此全句意义按中文语法译出 第二、行文时须完全根据中国心理一语有一语之语性，语法句法如何，皆须跟从一定之习惯，平常所谓”通“与”不通“，即其句法是否跟从其习惯凡与此习惯相反者，即所谓“不通” 三、翻译与艺术文以上所论翻译之忠实与通顺问题，系单就文字上立论，求译文必信必达的道理但是还有翻译艺术上之问题，也不能不简略考究一下翻译于用之外，还有美一方面须兼顾的，理想的翻译家应当将其工作做一种艺术以爱艺术之心 爱它，以对艺术谨慎不苟之心对它，使翻译成为美术之一种(translation as a fine art)，,.,且所译原文，每每属于西洋艺术作品，如诗文小说之类，译者不译此等书则已，若译此等书则于达用之外，不可不注意于文字之美的问题 译艺术文最重要的，就是应以原文之风格与其内容并重不但须注意其说的什么，并且须注意怎么说法凡译艺术文的人，必先把其所译作者之风度神韵预先认出，于译时复极力发挥，才是尽译艺术文之义务我们可以说翻译艺术文的人，须把翻译自身事业也当做一种艺术。

这就是Groce所谓翻译即创作，not reproduction, but production之义林语堂的翻译论发表于1933年，距今已七十余年，主要针对汉译英讨论翻译林语堂是作家学者和典籍译家，曾英译或编译了论语、老子、庄子等典籍他在对翻译的性质、过程、标准与译者的责任等方面观点对典籍英译同样很有参考意义以罗新璋（1984：856）来说：林语堂将严复的“译事三难”的理论继承下来，加以发展，不仅奠下了我国翻译理论的基础，还启发了后来的翻译工作者50年代和60年代的翻译理论基本上没有超出严复和林语堂这两位大家所讨论过的范畴，所异者只是表达方式而已Chuangtse, Mystic and Humorist: Lin Yutangs Introduction Jesus was followed by St. Paul, Socrates by Plato, Confucius by Mencius, and Laotse by Chuangtse. In all four cases, the first was the real teacher and either wrote no books or wrote very little, and the second began to develop the doctrines and wrote long and profound discourses. Chuangtse, who died about 275 B.C., was separated from Laotses death by not quite two hundred years, and was strictly a contemporary of Mencius. Yet the most curious thing is that although both these writers mentioned the other philosophers of the time, neither was mentioned by the other in his works.,.,On the whole, Chuangtse must be considered the greatest prose writer of the Chou Dynasty, as Chu: Yu:an must be considered the greatest poet. His claim to this position rests both upon the brilliance of his style and the depth of his thought. That explains the fact that although he was probably the greatest slanderer of Confucius, and with Motse, the greatest antagonist of Confucian ideas, no Confucian scholar has not openly or secretly admired him. People who would not openly agree with his ideas would nevertheless read him as literature.,.,Nor can it be said truly that a pure-blooded Chinese could ever quite disagree with Chuangtses ideas. Taoism is not a school of thought in China, it is a deep, fundamental trait of Chinese thinking, and of the Chinese attitude toward life and toward society. It has depth, while Confucianism has only a practical sense of proportions; it enriches Chinese poetry and imagination in an immeasurable manner, and it gives a philosophic sanction to whatever is in the idle, freedom-loving, poetic, vagabond Chinese soul. It provides the only safe, romantic release from the severe Confucian classic restraint, and humanizes the very humanists themselves;,.,therefore when a Chinese succeeds, he is always a Confucianist, and when he fails, he is always a Taoist. As more people fail than succeed in this world, and as all who succeed know that they succeed but in a lame and halting manner when they examine themselves in the dark hours of the night, I believe Taoist ideas are more often at work than Confucianism. Even a Confucianist succeeds only when he knows he never really succeeds, that is, by following Taoist wisdom. Tseng Kuofan, the great Confucian general who suppressed the Taiping Rebellion, had failed in his early campaign and began to succeed only one morning when he realized with true Taoist humility that he was no good, and gave power to his assistant generals.,.,Chuangtse is therefore important as the first one who fully developed the Taoistic thesis of the rhythm of life, contained in the epigrams of Laotse. Unlike other Chinese philosophers principally occupied with practical questions of government and personal morality, he gives the only metaphysics existing in Chinese literature before the coming of Buddhism. I am sure his mysticism will charm some readers and repel others. Certain traits in it, like weeding out the idea of the ego and quiet contemplation and seeing the Solitary explain how these native Chinese ideas were back of the development of the Chan (Japanese Zen) Buddhism.,.,Any branch of human knowledge, even the study of the rocks of the earth and the cosmic rays of heaven, strikes mysticism when is reaches any depth at all, and it seems Chinese Taoism skipped the scientific study of nature to reach the same intuitive conclusion by insight alone. Therefore it is not surprising that Albert Einstein and Chuangtse agree, as agree they must, on the relativity of all standards. The onl。