刘荣跃

按：经常有人问我，怎样才能提高翻译水平？其实答案很简单，就是多实践，多摸索。但不少人对此不太意识，以为外语好就能搞好翻译，这是一种误解。翻译这种“再创作”有其特殊的规律，只有在实践中多加摸索才会有实质性的提高，只有这样才能真正“悟”出其中的“道”来。这在笔者与研究生的那篇对话中有详细说明。这里提供一篇翻译练习材料供有兴趣的英语学习者或译者参考，不一定都恰当。

 

原文：

 

The Child is Father to the Man

 

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　by George Bernard Shaw

 

Is he? Then in the name of common sense why do we always treat　children on the assumption that the man is father to the child? Oh,　these fathers! And we are not content with fathers: we must have　godfathers, forgetting that the child is godfather to the man. Has it　ever struck you as curious that in a country where the first article　of belief is that every child is born with a godfather whom we all　call “our father which art in heaven,” two very limited individual　mortals should be allowed to appear at its baptism and explain that　they are its godparents, and that they will look after its salvation　until it is no longer a child. I had a godmother who made herself　responsible in this way for me. She presented me with a Bible with a　gilt clasp and edges, larger than the Bibles similarly presented to my　sisters, because my sex entitled me to a heavier article.　I must have　seen that lady at least four times in the twenty years following. She　never alluded to my salvation in any way. People occasionally ask me　to act as godfather to their children with a levity which convinces me　that they have not the faintest notion that it involves anything more　than calling the helpless child George Bernard without regard to the　possibility that it may grow up in the liveliest abhorrence of my　notions.

A person with a turn for logic might argue that if God is the Father　of all men, and if the child is father to the man, it follows that the　true representative of God at the christening is the child itself.　But such posers are unpopular, because they imply that our little　customs, or, as we often call them, our religion, mean something, or　must originally have meant something, and that we understand and　believe that something.

However, my business is not to make confusion worse confounded, but to　clear it up. Only, it is as well to begin by a sample of current　thought and practice which shews that on the subject of children we　are very deeply confused. On the whole, whatever our theory or no　theory may be, our practice is to treat the child as the property of　its immediate physical parents, and to allow them to do what they like　with it as far as it will let them. It has no rights and no　liberties: in short, its condition is that which adults recognize as　the most miserable and dangerous politically possible for themselves:　namely, the condition of slavery. For its alleviation we trust to the　natural affection of the parties, and to public opinion. A father　cannot for his own credit let his son go in rags. Also, in a very　large section of the population, parents finally become dependent on　their children. Thus there are checks on child slavery which do not　exist, or are less powerful, in the case of manual and industrial　slavery. Sensationally bad cases fall into two classes, which are　really the same class: namely, the children whose parents are　excessively addicted to the sensual luxury of petting children, and　the children whose parents are excessively addicted to the sensual　luxury of physically torturing them. There is a Society for the　Prevention of Cruelty to Children which has effectually made an end of　our belief that mothers are any more to be trusted than stepmothers,　or fathers than slave-drivers. And there is a growing body of law　designed to prevent parents from using their children ruthlessly to　make money for the household. Such legislation has always been　furiously resisted by the parents, even when the horrors of factory　slavery were at their worst； and the extension of such legislation at　present would be impossible if it were not that the parents affected　by it cannot control a majority of votes in Parliament. In domestic　life a great deal of service is done by children, the girls acting as　nursemaids and general servants, and the lads as errand boys. In the　country both boys and girls do a substantial share of farm labor.　This is why it is necessary to coerce poor parents to send their　children to school, though in the relatively small class which keeps　plenty of servants it is impossible to induce parents to keep their　children at home instead of paying schoolmasters to take them off　their hands.

It appears then that the bond of affection between parents and　children does not save children from the slavery that denial of rights　involves in adult political relations. It sometimes intensifies it,　sometimes mitigates it； but on the whole children and parents confront　one another as two classes in which all the political power is on one　side； and the results are not at all unlike what they would be if　there were no immediate consanguinity between them, and one were white　and the other black, or one enfranchised and the other　disenfranchised, or one ranked as gentle and the other simple. Not　that Nature counts for nothing in the case and political rights for　everything. But a denial of political rights, and the resultant　delivery of one class into the mastery of another, affects their　relations so extensively and profoundly that it is impossible to　ascertain what the real natural relations of the two classes are until　this political relation is abolished.

 

 

参考译文：

 

孩子为成人之父[1]

 

孩子真的为成人之父吗？那么我们到底为何总把成人看作是孩子之父呢？啊，这些父亲！再说我们对父亲们也并不满意：我们得有教父才行，却忘了孩子就是成人的教父。在一个以孩子刚出生就要有一位教父为首要信条的国家——人们都把教父称为“我们的天父”——竟然会让两个思想十分狭隘的人出现在洗礼上，并解释说他们是孩子的教父教母，会始终关注孩子的拯救问题，直到他成人为止——对此你是否觉得过奇怪呢？我就有过一个教母，她即这样对我担负着责任。她送给我一本《圣经》，扣子和边缘都是镀金的，书比同样送给我妹妹的大一些，因为我是个男孩，应该得到更有份量的东西。在随后的二十年里，我一定至少见过她四次。她从没以任何方式向我提到过拯救的事。如今有人也偶尔轻率地请我作他们的孩子的教父，让我确信他们丝毫没有意识到，这不仅仅是给无助的孩子命名为乔治·伯纳德的问题，他们并没考虑到他长大后有可能对我的想法深恶痛绝。

一个讲求逻辑的人也许会争论说，假如上帝为所有人之父，又假如孩子为成人之父，那么洗礼时上帝的真正使者必然是孩子本身。但这些使人为难的问题并不受欢迎，它们意味着我们微不足道的习俗——或者我们常称为的宗教信仰——是富有意义的，或最初一定是富有意义的，并且我们也明白和相信那种意义。

然而，我所要做的不是把事情弄得更加混乱，而是要使其变得明了。只是，开始不妨以现行的思想和实践为例——这让人们看到，在孩子问题上我们是非常混乱不堪的。总体说来，不管我们有无理论，在实践上我们就是把孩子当作其亲生父母的所有物，允许他们对孩子为所欲为。孩子既无权利又无自由：总之其处境在成人看来，就政治[2]上而言对于他们自身是最可怜、最危险的了，即处于受奴役的状况。要缓和这种状况，我们得指望父母对孩子怀有的天生情感，指望舆论民意。为了自己的名誉，父亲不能让儿子穿得破破烂烂。另外，在很大一部分人当中，做父母的最终都要依靠他们的孩子。因此人们会对奴役儿童的事予以阻止，这样的事在手工业与工业奴役[3]时期都是不存在的，或者没有这么严重。一个个极其糟糕的情况可分为两类，而它们实际上都属于同一类：即，一类是父母过分放纵于对孩子的宠爱，另一类是父母过分放纵于对孩子的肉体折磨，两者都能使其获得感官上的享乐。有一个“防止虐待儿童协会”，它有效地让人们不再相信：母亲比继母或者父亲比监管奴隶的人更值得信赖。还有一个越来越强大的法律机构，人们希望它阻止父母无情地让孩子去为家里赚钱。这样的法律机构总是受到父母极力反抗，即便在工厂奴役处于最恐怖的时候；眼下要进一步普及此种法律机构并不可能——如果受其影响的父母在议会不能控制多数选票。在家庭生活中，有大量的活是孩子们做的，女孩充当起育婴女佣和一般仆人，男孩则充当起小差使。在乡下，男孩女孩都分担了大量的农活。这便是必须强制穷人家的父母让孩子去上学的原因；虽然在雇有很多仆从、人数相对较少的阶层里，要父母把孩子留在家里而非花钱让老师把他们带走，是不可能的事。

因而，似乎父母与孩子的感情纽带并不能让孩子免受奴役，对于权利的否绝涉及到成人的政治关系。这种感情纽带有时使得奴役被强化，有时又使其被削弱；但总体上，孩子和父母是作为两个阶层彼此面对的，在这当中所有的政治权力都偏向于一边；假如他们之间根本不存在直接的血缘关系，结果也并非完全不同，一方是白色[4]一方是黑色，或者一方被赋予公民权一方被剥夺公民权，或者一方被视为上流高雅一方被看作粗陋简单。就此而论也并非说“天性”微不足道，而政治权利却比什么都重要。不过否定政治权利，结果会让一个阶层受制于另一个阶层，这会广泛而深远地影响到两者的关系，以致要想确定这两个阶层真正的自然关系是不可能的，除非将这种政治关系予以废除。

 

 

 

翻译导读：

 

直译与意译的有机结合

 

多少年来，人们一直在探索着翻译的原则和方法问题，提出了种种理论。但对于初学者或自学者，有些理论自然是很抽象的，缺乏可操作性。对于他们，个人认为直译与意译这个古老的原则仍然是切实可行的。

就翻译而论，笔者始终坚持直译与意译有机地相结合的原则，既不过左也不过右。也就是说既不“归化”得过分，也不“异化”得过多，力求把握好这个度。而这个度，就是读者的接受水准。过于归化了，读外国人写的东西就像读中国人写的一样，我并不赞成。我很赞同一位名家的观点：我们不仅要让读者知道原作说了什么，而且要知道是怎么说的。这“怎么说的”就是原作的表达方式，作为文学翻译就应该把好的形式（风格的重要特征）传达出来。如果全部都归化了，把那些很好的表达方式都化掉了，必然会失掉不少外国文学所特有的洋味和韵味，我对此不敢苟同。“武装到牙齿”好不好？它表达得多么形象，如果把它也归化，译成“全副武装”之类，二者的效果会一样吗？另一方面，如果过于异化了，难免又会造成生硬、死译等弊病。这个度确实不好把握，需要译者在大量的翻译实践中去摸索提高，不是说说或者读点别人的翻译理论就能解决的。

在2009年第三期《中国翻译》中关于《作者自述》的翻译里，笔者曾提到将有意对句子的处理进一步谈谈翻译问题。句子处理得如何，直接影响到一篇文章、一本书的翻译质量，这是不言而喻的。译者在翻译过程，每时每刻都面临着如何处理好各个词句的问题。下面即具体举出一些实例，谈谈笔者的看法，供参考。

这篇文章选译自英国著名剧作家乔治·伯纳·肖（即肖伯纳，1856－1950）的《论父母与孩子》一书。作者同时也是一位散文家，他的散文以酣畅矫健著称，充满机智与雄辩，代表着英国散文中的质朴自然的优良传统。该作品阐明了父母与孩子应有正常的关系，孩子所拥有的权利，并充分表现出作者对孩子的深切关爱，显示了他那颗充满慈爱的心，以及对虐待儿童这一行为的谴责。

笔者在翻译中，即采用了直译和意译有机地相结合的方法。你是不可能只采用其中一种方法的。文章标题的翻译笔者即采取直译的方法，因为这样更能传达出英国人的思维方式和表达方式，也能引起读者的阅读兴趣。如果把这句英国谚语意译成“三岁看到老”，就显得比较抽象，原文的韵味荡然无存。只要读者能够接受，笔者总是尽量让译文保持原文的风貌——如前所说，我们不仅要译出意思，而且还要译出风格特征来。下面从第一段里举出几个例子。

原文：“Then in the name of common sense why do we always treat　children on the assumption that the man is father to the child?”这一句不难理解，但如果完全直译出来，就会显得不那么简炼。笔者译为：“那么我们到底为何总把成人看作是孩子之父呢？”其中的“in the name of common sense”指“究竟，到底”，“on the assumption that”指“假设，假定”。译文中虽然没有“假设”这样的词，但“看作是”已包含了这个意思。

原文：“She presented me with a Bible with a　gilt clasp and edges, larger than the Bibles similarly presented to my　sisters, because my sex entitled me to a heavier article.”拙译：“她送给我一本《圣经》，扣子和边缘都是镀金的，书比同样送给我妹妹的大一些，因为我是个男孩，应该得到更有份量的东西。”“because my sex entitled me to a heavier article”这部分如果直译成“因为我的性别使我有资格得到更有份量的东西”，显然行不通。翻译在很多时候，就是把类似不能直译的地方“化”过来，亦即意译过来。毕竟各个民族的思维方式不同，在一种语言里能够理解的东西，如果直译成另一种语言就不好理解了。

原文：“People occasionally ask me　to act as godfather to their children with a levity which convinces me　that they have not the faintest notion that it involves anything more　than calling the helpless child George Bernard without regard to the　possibility that it may grow up in the liveliest abhorrence of my　notions.”这个句子处理起来相对难一点。拙译：“如今有人也偶尔轻率地请我作他们的孩子的教父，让我确信他们丝毫没有意识到，这不仅仅是给无助的孩子命名为乔治·伯纳德的问题，他们并没考虑到他长大后有可能对我的想法深恶痛绝。“they have not the faintest notion”——他们没有最微弱（弱小）的概念（观念，想法）——他们丝毫没有意识到。“it involves anything more　than”——它涉及的任何事超出了——这不仅仅是……的问题。“in the liveliest abhorrence of”——对……怀有最强烈的憎恨——对……深恶痛绝。从这句的翻译中看出，不仅译一篇文章、一本书需要直译和意译有机地结合，而且译一个句子也时常需要如此。而比较难于处理的和考验译者的，往往是那些需要作意译处理的地方。

下面把其他一些词句的处理提出来，供读者进一步参考。至于有关直译的地方，通过对照阅读即可看出，毋须提出。

“A person with a turn for logic”——一个讲求逻辑的人。

“my business is not to”——我所要做的不是……

“Thus there are checks on child slavery”——因此人们会对奴役儿童的事予以阻止。

“the children whose parents are　excessively addicted to the sensual luxury of petting children, and　the children whose parents are excessively addicted to the sensual　luxury of physically torturing them.”——一类是父母过分放纵于对孩子的宠爱，另一类是父母过分放纵于对孩子的肉体折磨，两者都能使其获得感官上的享乐。

　　“But a denial of political rights, and the resultant　delivery of one class into the mastery of another, affects their　relations so extensively and profoundly”——不过否定政治权利，结果会让一个阶层受制于另一个阶层，这会广泛而深远地影响到两者的关系。

 

 

[1] 英国谚语，意译是“三岁看到老”。含有“孩子的经历决定了其成人后的性格”的意思。

[2] 政治是指“政府、政党、集团或个人在国家事务方面的活动。”此处即指个人在这方面的活动。

[3] 指在手工业、工业生产中雇佣或使用奴隶的行为。下面“工厂奴役”指在工厂生产中雇佣或使用奴隶的行为。

[4] 指政治上白色的，反动的，极端保守的。黑色则与之相反。