Alexander Pope - Translating the Classics 汉译

It is certain no literal Translation can be just to an ex-cellent Original in a superior Language: but it is a great Mistake to imagine (as many have done) that a rash Paraphrase can make amends for this general Defect; which is no less in danger to lose the Spirit of an Ancient, by deviating into the modern Manners of Expres-sion. If there be sometimes a Darkness, there is often a Light in Antiquity, which nothing better preserves than a Version almost literal. I know no Liberties one ought to take, but those which are necessary for transfusing the Spirit of the Original, and supporting the Poetical Style of the Translation: and I will venture to say, there have not been more Men misled in former times by a servile dull Adherence to the Letter, than have been deluded in ours by a chimerical insolent Hope of raising and im-proving their Author. It is not to be doubted that the Fire of the Poem is what a Translator should principally re-gard, as it is most likely to expire in his managing: However it is his safest way to be content with preserving this to his utmost in the Whole, without endeavoring to be more than he finds his Author is, in any particular Place. ’Tis a great Secret in Writing to know when to be plain, and when poetical and figurative; and it is what Homer will teach us if we will but follow modestly in his Footsteps. Where his Diction is bold and lofty, let us raise ours as high as we can; but where his is plain and humble, we ought not to be deterr’d from imitating him by the fear of incurring the Censure of a meer English Critick. Nothing that belongs to Homer seems to have been more commonly mistaken than the just Pitch of his Style: Some of his Translators having swell’d into Fustian in a proud Confidence of the Sublime; others sunk into Flatness in a cold and timorous Notion of Simplicity. Me thinks I see these different Followers of Homer, some sweating and straining after him by violent Leaps and Bounds, (the certain Signs of false Mettle) others slowly and servilely creeping in his Train, while the Poet him-self is all the time proceeding with an unaffected and e-qual Majesty before them. However of the two Extreams one could sooner pardon Frenzy than Frigidity: No Au-thor is to be envy’d for such Commendations as he may gain by that Character of Style, which his Friends must agree together to call Simplicity, and the rest of the World will call Dulness. There is a graceful and digni-fy’d Simplicity, as well as a bald and sordid one, which differ as much from each other as the Air of a plain Man from that of a Sloven: ’Tis one thing to be tricked up, and another not to be dress’d at all. Sim-plicity is the Mean between Ostentation and Rusticity.

论古典作品的翻译

固然，逐字的直译对于一部以高贵语言著成的优秀原作很难做到公允：但是那种以为（有这种看法的并不乏人）只消采用某种粗率的释义法便足以补救这种流弊的认识，也是一种绝大的错误；随处滥用今语表达，同样会使古代的精神丧失无遗。古代固有黑暗，古代亦有光明，这种地方在相当接近于直译的译文中反易得到保存。我以为，文字上的灵活自由主要取决于这种作法对于原作精神的传达与译品诗风的保持，是否有其必要；我甚至认为，陷入字面追逐、拘泥刻板、亦步亦趋的迷途的舌人，这在过去固然不少，抱有提高与增进原作之狂妄不实的错误愿望的译家，这在我们中间也实繁有徒。应当相信，翻译人对一篇诗作之最须着意处，恰是其中的灵火一点，稍稍处理不当，便有熄灭之虞：然而最稳妥的作法仍在译者应满足于将这种特质尽量保持于整个篇章，而不应费力于增益原作所无的东西，不过求正确于个别细节。文章的三昧主要在于懂得如何使平淡与秾丽各适其时；这点荷马是我们最好的老师，只要我们肯虚心追随，是一定会受益的。遇荷马高雅勇猛处，我们也应尽量轩轩高举，遇其平淡谦冲处，我们也应仍其平淡等等，决不可遽畏吾国之一二批评家言，遂致不敢如此。荷马诗中之最遭人误解处，实莫过于其风格之恰当的高度：一些译家一味迷信荷马处处无不崇高，于是肆意铺陈，涉人浮夸；另一些译家又以为其佳处唯在简朴，因而过事拘谨，流于板滞。荷马的这些追随者的确很不相同：有的汗流奋力，飞步追奔（这岂非迹近蛮勇！），有的则曳裙其后，拖沓在地，而诗人自己则始终庄严前行，步履从容。然而两个极端之中，与其失之僵冷，宁可失之狂热：著作家有因前一种风格而博来之赞许，恐怕未必值得深羡，其友人尽不妨许之为简朴，他人便会要直称之为枯燥了。甚即简朴，也非一格；有优雅与庄严之简朴，亦有秃兀与龌龊之简朴，此其间之不同，亦犹如朴素者之外观与邋遢人之外观不同：装饰打扮与衣履不完究竟是两回事。而简朴乃是介乎炫饰与粗鄙之间的一种品性。