聖經網
Applied Theology 實踐神學 >> A.L.17 On Translation 翻譯散譚

韋列論翻譯

 

  現代的華人,洋文學了多少,中文卻是丟掉了,甚至以為是羞恥。也許,再過些時候,華人到中國去,不懂中文,還需要請人作翻譯;不免請洋人作翻譯,那可有意思了,而且有人還能以為光榮呢!
   過去的年代,洋人中的宣教士,真箇夠這樣的資格。現在因為華人競學洋文,宣教士學了中文,就無“用文之地”,所以差會索性不要求他們花那種時間了。
   洋人對中文學得通,學得好的,我們都知道的,有蘇格蘭宣教士理雅各(James Legge, 1815-1897),在香港牧會並作英華書院的校長三十年,把中國古典文學譯成英文。1873年回英國以後,作牛津大學的第一位中文教授。

   晚近的英國東方語文學者中的韋列(Arthur David Waley, 1889-1966),不僅是漢學家,也通日文及其他東方語文。他出版翻譯的170首中文詩,多首日文詩集,並別的文學巨著。韋列曾任大英博物館助理書畫部主任,後任倫敦亞非研究院教席。以下是韋列談翻譯文學作品注意的事,雖然不是嚴格的專門性論著,只是散談,卻深有見地,可為有志文學者參考。作者要求較苛,說話也較苛,讀者該諒解。

  我現在要說的,似乎淺顯,卻不是真箇淺顯,否則人就不會屢屢疏失,甚而故犯了。

  翻譯的目的不同,體裁自亦有別。如果譯法律文件,只需作到達意該就可以了;如果譯文學作品,在顧及文理之外,還要求能抒情;因為在原作中,作者注入了他的情感:激憤,憐惜,歡悅。在作品中,涵有他的韻律,他的強調,他特意的選字遣詞。如果譯者在讀時體會不到,只是簡單的來上一串無節奏的字典意義,或以為是“忠於原作”,自詡“信”譯,實是誤傳。

  在薄伽梵歌Bhagavad Gita 或譯世尊歌) 近結尾的地方,有一段極美而有力。武士有修(Arjuna) 得到天神的指示,勝過了他一切的游移不決。因為那是在戰爭中,他必須要奮戰,雖然對敵是他的親屬或朋友。他的話,被譯成幾種不同的標準譯文:

一 啊,那永不差失的一位!靠你的恩典,我的無知被銷
  滅,並且我已經得著記(屬於我的責任),我(現在)不
  再疑惑,我現在將作奮戰,如你所告訴我的。

二 被銷滅了我的夢幻;靠爾恩典,毗濕奴(Achutya),
  知識已被我得著。我立定不再疑惑;我將遵爾言而行。

三 我的迷亂已消逝遠去;我已得著記憶,靠爾恩典。
  啊,從不錯失者!我站定不再疑惑。我要行爾言。

四 我的夢幻已被銷滅;我已得著記憶,靠爾恩惠;
  啊,那堅定的一位,我被堅定,我疑已去;我要行爾言

  譯例一的缺點,在無韻律之美,加上毫無理由的顛倒語詞次序,並且並不必要的加上括弧內的補文。任何讀者如果讀詩到此地步,還需要人告訴他詩中有修所記起的跟他立願去作的是甚麼,此君必然是粗心得出奇,也就不值得去俯就他。
   譯例二比較好些;但Achutya這個稱號,對譯文讀者並不表達任何意義,似乎依其餘三位譯者的作法意譯較好。但是四位譯者都力求保持梵文語風,譯作“得以記憶”,以代替“記得”,是否有任何理由?
   譯例三,如果在“消逝”之後沒有“遠去”二字,會使韻律好一些;贅加“遠去”並不會增加美感。但照我想來,譯例三 (巴特耐教授譯)是四者中最好的。
   譯例四給“我被建立”所破壞。雖然,在原文語源上是對的,但不可能是“我持此立場”的說法;其意思是:“我已決定”。

  建議譯法大致如下:

  你,不朽壞的神!
  已破碎了我的幻夢,
  靠你恩典我記起了,
  我持定立場,我不復猶疑,
  我願行你命令。

  我不諱言,這只聊勝於原作的無力迴響;但我想,比以上的譯例略為有力而合韻律。無疑的,所有四個譯者,都懍於他們是在應付一首美妙的詩中最微妙的一刻,但我不認為他們的譯文能表達出這種情感。
   在關鍵性的一段或行間,從開始譯者會實際感到那是極重要的,要把它譯得準確,不是搬移或粗略約意可以了事的。在源氏物語中的“浮舟”將近章末有這樣一段:浮舟在兩個情人中間無法決擇,定意自己投河。她女婢右近的好主意,反使他煩惱。

  這一段照字直譯是這樣:

右近,近躺臥處,那樣作。“只有當人思想事物,因為那人的靈魂思想事物時迷失,實在易於有可怕的夢。當你決定如此或如彼就接近成功了。”這樣,她嘆口氣。[浮舟]展開軟布在她臉上,躺著,就是如此。

  這裏所說的夢,顯然是指浮舟的母親在前一夜裏所得那“說起來怕人”的那夢(正如譯注者所指出的)。

  我對這段的翻譯:

右近來陪她小坐。“人如果像你這樣,折磨自己,我們都知道會有甚麼結果:靈魂脫離軀殼,在那裏游蕩,因此給你母親得那些惡夢。沒有甚麼好疑慮的。自己打定主意或這或那,自會凡事大吉。至少是但願如此。”說著,嘆口氣。浮舟用柔軟的床單蒙著臉躺在那裏。

  右近,當然不是一個土包子。但跟浮舟相比,是處於極低下的社會階層(雖然,即使在照字直譯時我也不曾想提出), 這在使用動詞時表達出來。我們必須使她顯然用婢女的口氣同女主人講話;但要記得,她是浮舟的老乳母的女兒,是她的心腹女婢。我們必須表明她這種好心腸但無用的主意,絮聒得浮舟趨於無望。是不是我捉摸過甚破壞了這深刻的一段?我不以為如此。在約二十五年之後,我又再翻看過,仍然不想作任何修改,甚至感覺如果右近說的是英語,她大概也會如此說法。

  沒有別的譯文可以拿來跟我的這段比對。如果有的話,或許會使我忽然感覺我譯的是一團糟。我所想到的是我譯過一段日本“能”劇卒塔婆小町:

  啊,她從何等絢斕中失落!
  怎地冬天的蒼白
  冠戴了她的頭?
  何處去了那可愛的髮綹,雙結
  青絲螺髻?
  稀疏的枯髮,如今失去了鬈曲
  在枯槁的皮肉上,
  那雙彎彎的蛾眉,消褪了
  遠山黛色。

  這是我在一九二一年所譯如此,不能算是劣詩。但是在最近我讀到布洛克譯的卒塔婆小町,刊於祁尼(Donald Keene)的文選中,我的信念有些動搖了。他對這段的譯文如下:

  怎地那般的嬌艷失去了?
  甚麼時候她變了?
  她的頭髮一團經霜的草
  覆頸的青螺在哪裏?
  顏色消褪了從雙彎的峰巒
  在她眉間。

  我立即覺得,我的譯文是無可救藥的冗贅複言,並且不合試圖改進原文。我並不對布洛克(Brock) 的譯作完全滿意; 如果我的譯法太過於詩意,他的則失之於太散文化;無論如何也難以使我信服“在她眉間”之句堪為佳詠。

  在中國小說西遊記裏,有很美妙的一段。唐三藏在涅槃之後,看到他褪卸的塵軀隨水流逝去:

三藏驚愕注視。悟空笑著說道:“師父,那是你!”豬八戒說:“是你,是你!”沙僧撫掌喊道:“是你,是你!”那渡者也應聲和道:“你去矣,可喜,可賀!”

  海倫.赫斯(Helen Hayes)一九三零年的意譯本,這樣說:

一具屍體沖過他們旁邊。師父看了怕起來。但孫悟空在前面說:“師父,不要緊張,那不是別人的屍體,是您自己的。”那舵手也歡然應聲說道:“這屍體是你自己的,你該知道喜樂!”

  原文的活力,在於重複那兩個簡單的字“是你”。如果覺得那重複乏味,改成只有兩人在說話,我以為是把整段給糟蹋了。第二點要注意的是那渡者說:“可賀”,他用的是日常道喜的話,像人遇到一個官員升遷等喜事所用的,竟出人意表的用到三藏的褪卸凡體而升證佛果。海倫赫斯譯作“你該知道喜樂,”太遠離常套(對話必須合於口語),從來沒有人用那種方式跟人說話的。

  這裏引到了語態的問題。當翻譯散文體對話的時候,應該使人物說話合於譯文思路。應該聽到他們的語聲,就像小說家聽到他塑造的人物談話,那聲音是顯明而真確的。但翻譯的人,無論是譯東方,或歐洲語文,似乎多不照這原則去作。

  且以碧翠蘭耐(Beatrice Lane)所譯的日本“能”劇土雲為例。一個名叫小蝶的侍妾的對話,被譯成:“領了醫生所給的藥,我,小蝶,已經來到了。求如此告訴他。”你可曾聽到任何人這樣說話嗎?準確的翻譯應該是:“請稟報大人,小蝶從侍醫長那裏給他送藥來了。”
   此類翻譯的洋涇濱,並不需要文學天才才可避免,只需要簡單的養成聽辨談話語態的習慣就成了。不能夠參閱原文的讀者,自然會涉想到,這類古怪譯文,是由於譯者可佩的力求對原作的語態精確,以為得以直參作者的思想而自慰。甚至有人對我說,好讀的譯文,不可能傳達原文的真意。實際上,就上例來說,如果把這古怪譯文跟原作對照,就會發現,那全然是在武斷的作怪,毫不表示原本的語風。事實上,在表現自己思想時寫得極好的人 (除非他在某種程度上習於翻譯),往往在面對外文原本時,全然失去正常的表達能力。我曾經審編過一本書,由幾位考古學家翻譯德國同行的文章;所有的譯者在表達自己思想的時候,都是傑出的作家,所譯的材料,完全是技術性的和具體性的,譯者都能確切了解;但他們每一個都譯得一無是處,只是極可憐的洋涇濱翻譯出品;面對德文語句,使他們全然走調離轍。
   我用“習於翻譯”的語辭,因為我相信,即使翻譯文學作品(不僅資料),也有甚多可以學習的。一個譯者,終究不必須是創作天才。譯者的身分,就像是音樂演奏者,不是作曲家。他必須對字句和韻律具有起碼的感覺力。但我相信,這種感覺力,可以極大的激發並增進,正像音樂的感覺力,明顯的可以這樣作。

  一位我所仰慕的法國學者,最近在論到翻譯者的時候,寫道:“他們應該隱沒在原作的後面,讓原作真箇被了解,讓原作自己說話。”除了在罕有的淺白具象陳述語例(如:“貓追老鼠”)之外,很不容易在另一種語文中,找得到字字對等的語詞。這樣,翻譯變成了在不同的語詞裏面,選擇最近似的。例如:在英文我們不能說“讓他們隱沒在原作的後面”,大致應該說:“他們應該隱沒自己,讓原作說話。”諸如此類,我常常發現,我要自己說話,而不是原作。我曾千番百次面對著原作,完全了解它的意思,只是不知該如何重新煉鑄成譯文:不僅要具有正確的字典意義,還要有原文的強調,語氣,和辯力。

  不過,那位法國學者又說:“只講究美感,會失去翻譯的真實。”我寧願說,翻譯者的真實功夫,是從“講究美感”開始。在此之前,外文知識自然是必要的根基,但那是屬於語文學的範圍,與我所討論的翻譯藝術無關。當然,有些作品只表現邏輯意義,不關感情。但特別在東方,是絕無僅有。甚至在哲學作品中,也經常訴之於情感多於邏輯。當我譯中文詩約六年之後,僅憑本能的引導,發現我自己無意的順從一種規律:把[譯文]重音放在每一個中文字音上,重讀的語音自合符節。例如在

  深山無人徑

甚至可以把多至三個的輕音節來分開重音,像在

  依然弄扁舟。

  這會給予我們一種感覺,就好像是賀浦金 ( Gerard Manley Hopkins) 所說的,“鬆弛韻律”(未經複案)。我未用韻腳。因為我想,湊合韻腳, 會把譯文帶得遠離原作。但在每行末一字的恰當選用,同樣重要,雖不押韻,仍等於使用韻腳。在自由詩體中,各行間的音韻關係,其重要性不減於傳統的標準韻節。雖然如湊韻的詩匠們,有時確實搞到幾乎令人難以置信的地步。一位譯者(姑隱其名)譯了以下二行詩:

  那個小孫,十二歲減五,
  不能紡線也不會深掘土。

信不信由你,原作所說的只是

  兒女不知耕績苦。

  同時,雖然這位譯者搞得一團糟,不過我不懷疑他該用韻腳,因為此君身經親歷的是寫押韻詩。翻譯的人必須選用他得心應手的工具。這叫我想起林紓(琴南)的話。這位翻譯大家,曾把許多歐洲小說譯成中文。當有人問他,為何用古典文言譯迭更斯的作品,而不用今體白話文的時侯,他回答說:“因為我所擅場的是古文。”

  從這位特出人物的故事,我們實在可以學習很多翻譯的功課。我願用些篇幅來討論。讓我來引述他所譯孝女耐兒傳的序文,作為引論:

余嘗臥病,獨處室內數旬。經日家人往來,穿戶過室,步履雜沓可聞。余雖不見其面目,聞聲可知過我室者其誰。余有數友,時挈西書過我,譯述朗誦於予。予雖不諳西文,然習聞可辨其文體正確不爽,猶識辨家人之履聲也。

  林紓(1852-1924)本來是以論評作家著名。他的古體文, 文體簡潔清新而有力。他的從事翻譯,多少是偶然的。在一八九三年,一位年輕朋友王子仁剛從法國留學歸國,帶來一本大仲馬的小說巴黎茶花女遺事,用日常的白話口語傳譯給他;林紓就開始轉譯成文言文。這似是件頗不尋常的事。因為雖然有些中國短篇傳奇是用文言寫的,但小說從無例外的是白話體。譯文刊行後,極為成功。

  在以後的二十五年,他有大約一百六十種譯作問世。他對王子仁極為愛戴,但並未再合作翻譯。王似乎早亡。但王有兩個懂法文的姪兒,跟林合作翻譯了幾種作品。在二十年後,其中之一曾幫助林翻譯貝納丁(Beranrdin de Siant-Pierre)的保祿與維琴尼。在從事翻譯約二十五年的時間,他至少用了十六個翻譯同工。這些人多是年輕有為,曾受過高深教育,被送到海外,學習海事工程等實用學科,他們不久就專注於外交或政府生涯,自然不能長久跟林同勞於譯事。

  當然,林紓的譯作方式有其缺點。在“門外步聲”的比喻中,或多或少的承認,他的不懂外文,有些像瞎子入畫廊;朋友們可以告訴他,關於圖畫的一切情事,除了實在的景象如何。自然這種譯法,會引致細節上的誤意;他不斷的收到從全中國各地讀者寄來的正誤表。使他成為一個卓越翻譯家的因素,是他極有力和生動的文體,和對傳達給他的故事的強烈感受。在他所譯容琪(Charlotte Mary Yonge) 的大鷹與鴿子序文中,他寫道:“書中人物立刻化為予之至近至親。彼陷困窘,予亦失望;彼遇成功,予亦得意。予似不復為生人,第傀儡隨著者之牽引而已。”

  他的翻譯極為迅速。在一九零七年中,他發表的譯作有司各脫的 The TalisonThe Betrothed; 迭更斯的孝女耐兒傳,和滑稽外史; 歐文 (Washington Irving) 的拊掌錄; 有馬禮遜(Arthur Morrison)的The Hole in the Wall,還加上道爾 (Conan Dole) 及其他通俗作家所寫的一些故事。

  他最著名的翻譯作品,大概是迭更斯的小說。他翻譯了迭更斯所有的主要創作。我曾經把一些譯文段節來跟原作對照,從表面上看來,他把迭更斯的作品譯成古典文言文,似乎有些古怪;不可避免的,迭更斯變成了另外一個作家。在我的印象中,是成了一個更好的作家。他的過度修飾,誇張渲染和冗贅絮聒的文弊消失了;原作的風趣仍在,但轉變成一種精密簡潔的風格。每一處迭更斯偏於豐肥繁茂的敗筆,林紓都使其成為優雅而有力。

  在這點上,你會懷疑林紓是否該算為一個譯者。但就他所譯的迭更斯小說而論,從任何程度來看,都不該指為“述意”或“改編”。無論如何,他是個傳導者,把歐西小說,最大量的介紹到中國。中國小說久停滯在說古書的風格,不復為當代小說所樂用,藉著林紓,得以振墮起衰,重獲生機。

  說過從林紓的成就所學的功課。首先,不論是直接的,或間接的譯者,都必須以文為樂。我要舉的另一個例子,是艾克頓 (Harold Acton) 與李義西合作翻譯警世四故事,他們很像林紓跟他的翻譯同工間的合作方法,成品有多大的差別!
   譯者的古典或今代風格,並無多大關係。有的作家,自幼受聖經薰陶,使用聖經體的風格,自得心應手。我要說到魯斯(Gordon Luce)的緬甸皇朝琉璃宮紀史。他刻意經營前後一致的古典譯文,和翻譯劣手無原則的間雜經文語調( 例如:“這兩個”寫成“這雙”) ,實有天壤之別。

  第二點,要考慮選些甚麼書來譯。約在一九一零年,小說家兼翻譯家曾樸,往北京訪林紓,向林解釋,他的譯作,只不過是在汗牛充棟的唐代傳奇中,加上些洋材料,製造的新唐傳奇。曾樸說,這種作法,對於中國文學前途,並無足輕重。他建議林紓,列出一些傑作,依年代,國別,文學宗派編選,然後照次序有系統的逐一翻譯。林紓解釋說,他自己不懂洋文,無法開定如此一張清單;除了照他既有的方法以外不知別途;他的朋友們帶給他的書都是名著,他想,也無需有一個預定的次序。

  看來曾樸在此以前不曾見過林紓。如果知道一點林紓的個性,他會知道按日程行事翻譯,對林某來說是不可思議的。而且照我所知,林紓從事翻譯的主因是他喜愛譯事,絕不曾著意於影響“中國文學前途”,雖則他豐富的譯述生平,改革了中國小說。

  說到節目和程序的價值,這又是個顯然的問題。文化宣傳成為一部分人的新注意點。一些政府資助的機構,忙著開列一些必需翻譯的作品名單;一群年輕小伙子,粗通語文知識,但常是毫無文學才華,被牽來從事翻譯。他們對所作的,全無特殊熱誠,唯一吸引他們注意的是躋身官定“名著”翻譯榜。我有一種感覺,這種制度不會多麼順利。關鍵在於譯者必須對其所譯作品感到興奮,為之日夜思維,感覺必須把它譯成本國文字,激動到一種程度,必待譯作完成而後方得安息。“名著”未必恆常是名著,可能隨時息其著名。也許得列名著之林,是因為各種外在的和比較臨時的因素。說來似是不久之前,我童年時讀過一首題為“開始拔錨”的詩,算為“名作”,必須得背誦它。也許,有一天,那首詩會再復著名,亦未可知。但在此時,讓譯者博覽慎選,找他自己感覺興奮而渴想著筆翻譯的作品,如果今天還未被列為“名著”,很可能在明天。

  日本人的信念,寄於由委員會集體翻譯。最古的日本文選萬葉集英譯,似乎是二十人分工合譯(內中只有一個非日人), 在一九四零年譯竣出版。結果極為優越。但我確信,事實上這得歸功於那唯一的西洋人賀奇生(Ralph Hodgson),在譯工的最後階段,顯然是授權他自由裁奪。叢書的次一種是日本“能”劇(一九五四年出版),似是由十八人執筆; 但可確知沒有賀奇生那樣的西洋詩人,如我推想在譯前集時的那樣便宜行事。結果,劇中的抒情部分,簡直全成了散文,武斷的分行刊印,當作詩體:

  在這幾年來
  我過了一個村居生活。

  日本文學由外人主譯,使日本委員會感到“遺憾”。適得其反,我相信,幾乎經常是譯者寫出他自己的語文比較好些。譯者並不可能善於運用另一種外文的所有智源,詞彙已難以應付,講到韻律,幾乎可以確定準會一敗塗地。

  這篇譯事散論主要的是談到東方,因為那是我自己經驗所在。但我所說的,幾乎全都同樣適用於歐洲語文。我恐怕有點兒自命唯我獨醒的態度。我對一些別人的譯文挑剔毛病,有時還認為文章是自己的好。但是,我認為那是出乎自然,各人都是偏愛他自己的作品。譯者終究是使譯作適合自己的口味和感覺力,自然喜歡自己的譯文過於別人的,正像他喜歡穿自己的鞋來走路一樣。

注:引文係自英譯。
  原作者韋列(Arthur David Waley,1889-1966)

 

 

薩若岩(William Saroyan, 1908-1981)是美國小說及劇作家,父親原是亞美尼亞移民。十五歲就輟學,以讀書及寫作自修教育。他十三歲開始寫作,共發表了約四十本書及劇本。善用口語對話寫作,所以其中人物活潑逼真,多以自己的生活經驗為背景。他的劇本你的一生(1939)獲普立玆獎;但拒絕接受。不過,同一作品獲劇評圈獎,他卻接受了,理由是那不涉及金錢。

 

家破何歸

 

  巴黎八月的天氣依然十分炎熱。
  由午睡裏醒來,她記起了父親的諾言:午睡後大家來吃桃子。於是她下床走到桌子旁邊,跟她父親對面坐下。
  父親告訴她,他的年齡是三十六歲,但在與六歲的她對面一比較,似乎顯得特別蒼老。圍繞在他嘴巴四周的是一大把紅褐色的鬍子;這麼多的鬍子,是她所未曾見過的。他兩臂也長滿長毛,上身穿一件藍白條的運動衫,下面是藍色工褲,沒有穿襪,也沒有穿鞋;這跟她在紐約所見的人們,都穿襯衫,打領帶,外加上衣的情形大不相同。也許就是這一點,使她對父親感到興趣;要不然,這人除了實質上是她父親以外,對她是完全陌生的。
  自然,他們從前曾一起生活過;但現在她已經忘記了。這一次她來到巴黎他的家—如果這裏可算是一個家—很可能有個較長時間的共聚,但也可能只是今昨兩日就結束。
  今天早上,當他帶她在附近蹓躂的時候,她的眼睛停留在水果攤前面的一箱桃子上;他就給她買了一公斤桃子。現在他們在屋裏對坐著,七個桃子,放在當中大盤子裏,顆顆絳紅可愛。只有一顆較小的桃子,在果蒂處綻開了一條裂縫,深到桃核。他揀了最大而又最美的一顆放在她的面前;然後自己取了那顆裂了口的小桃子,慢慢的剝去薄皮,剝了將近一半時,他開始吃著。兩個人都沒有說話。忽然,他呆望著手裏已經吃了半邊的桃子。她也不禁俯過身來,向那隻桃子瞧著。
  在露出半邊的桃核上有個小洞,先是兩條細小的觸鬚由洞裏伸出來;接著,在觸鬚後面來了個褐色而有環節的頭;再跟著是兩支強有力的腿抓住了洞口。它停了一會兒,似在察看外面的新世界。
  他跟她也都聚精會神的注視這位桃核裏的居民。它現在開始爬出洞口,沿著吃過的一邊桃肉緩緩爬行。小女孩子似乎從未見過這種活潑潑的帶褐色有觸鬚和數不清的腳的動物。他把桃子放回大盤子去,那小動物爬離桃子後,就到了盤子上面,停住不動。
  “它是誰?”小女孩問。
  “葛絲通。”
  “它住在哪裏?”
  “常常是住在桃核裏。可是現在這顆桃子被摘下來出售,而且讓我吃去了半邊,這樣,它就無家可歸了。”
  “你要把它弄死嗎?”
  “不,我為甚麼要弄死它?”
  “它是蟲子啊!”
  “不,它是葛絲通,偉大的離家游子。”
  “看見蟲子由蘋果裏爬出來,人們都會驚叫的,你怎麼不害怕?”
  “自然不。如果外面每次由屋裏出來,人們就大驚大叫,你說我們會高興嗎?”
  “他們會對你驚叫?”
  “一點不錯。所以,你說我們對這小蟲該驚叫嗎?”
  “它跟我們不同呀!”
  “它也是生物啊!而現在它失去了可愛的家了。”
  “它現在怎麼辦?”
  “我可不知道!”
  “我們不要弄死它,這是我們可以幫助它的一件事。 是嗎?”小女孩說。
  “我們還能作些甚麼?”
  “把它放回桃核裏去?”
  “不,它的家已經毀了。”
  “它可以住在我們的家裏嗎?”
  “它不會快樂的。我想它一定會哭。你吃一顆桃子吧!”
  “我要吃核裏有小蟲的桃子。”
  “好,我們找找看;如果蒂上有裂口的,就會有小傢伙在裏邊。”
  女孩在盤裏細選那些桃子:“都沒有裂口的呢!”
  “那你就隨便吃一隻吧!”
  “不,我要吃你剛才吃的那種桃子。”
  “好,我跟你說真話:這種有小傢伙的桃子不是好桃子,所以店裏早就揀掉了,剛才我吃的,可能是偶然碰到的一顆。現在這剩下的六顆都是好的。你吃吧!”
  “我不要吃好的桃子,我要有小傢伙的!”
  “好吧!我們去看看,是不是可以再找到一顆。”
  “到哪兒去?”
  “你要不要跟我一道去?或者你在這裏等我?我只要五分鐘就回來。”
  “假如有電話來我該怎麼說?”
  “不會有電話的。呃,假如真的有電話,你先問看,是誰打來的。”
  “要是媽打來的呢?”
  “你就告訴她,我替你買桃子去了;還有要說甚麼你自己說吧。”
  “要是她要我回去,我該怎麼講?”
  “如果你想回去,你就告訴她。”
  “你願意我回去嗎?”
  “自然不!但最重要的還是你自己願意怎麼樣,而不是我願意你怎麼樣。知道嗎?”
  “為甚麼那是最重要的呢?”
  “因為我願你喜歡在哪裏就在那裏,不要勉強。”
  “我要在這裏。”
  “好,那我馬上就回來。”
  他穿上鞋襪出去了。她看著盤裏的小蟲;它正繞著盤子爬行。離開了桃核它似乎一切都不對勁,不知道怎麼辦才好。
  電話鈴響了。是她媽媽的電話。她媽媽說,已經叫司機開車來接她,要她去參加一個小同伴的小派對,然後明早一起飛返紐約。
  “讓我跟你爸爸講話!”她媽媽在電話裏說。
  “他出去買一個桃子。”
  “一個桃子?”
  “一個桃子帶著小傢伙的。”
  “你跟你爸爸一起才不過兩天,就學得這樣像他。”
  “很多桃子裏都有小傢伙的;我知道,我已經看見他們跑出來。”
  “是小蟲嗎?”
  “不是小蟲,是葛絲通。”
  “誰?”
  “葛絲通!偉大的離家游子。”
  “有蟲的桃子還不扔掉!他是不是跟你在開玩笑?”
  “不是開玩笑的!”
  “好吧,好吧!不要為著有蟲的桃子跟我生氣了。”
  “葛絲通還在這兒,在它毀了的屋子外邊。我沒有跟你生氣。”
  “那個生日派對會使你快樂的。”
  “好。”
  “我們飛回紐約也會使你高興的。”
  “好。”
  “見過了你的爸爸,你是不是覺得高興?”
  “當然,我很高興。”
  “他很有趣嗎?”
  “是的。”
  “他有些瘋狂嗎?”
  “是的。啊,不!他只是不怕桃子裏的小蟲等等。你說那是蟲子,是真的嗎?”
  “完全是真的。”
  “我們該把它弄死嗎?”
  “沒錯,乖寶貝!你把我想壞了。這兩天,就跟兩年那麼長。回頭見吧!”
  小女孩再看看盤子裏的葛絲通,現在她越看,越不喜歡它了。它是小蟲;它本來就是微不足道的小蟲,無家可歸的在盤子裏到處漫游,多愚笨,多可笑,多無用!蟲子是醜惡的,是不乾淨的東西。
  父親回來了,手裏拿著兩隻桃子。
  “媽來電話,她叫司機來,要我去參加一個小派對。”
  “一個小派對?”
  “是的。在紐約有許多這樣的小派對。”
  “司機要帶你再回這裏來嗎?”
  “不。我們明天要回紐約。”
  “啊!”
  “我喜歡你這裏。”
  “我也喜歡你在這裏。”
  “你為甚麼一個人住在這兒?”
  “這是我的家呀!”
  “很好的家;但跟我們的家有點不一樣。”
  “我相信,是不一樣。”
  “這有點像葛絲通的家。”
  “葛絲通怎麼樣了?”
  “我弄死了它。”
  “真的?為甚麼?”
  “人家都是要把蟲子打死的。”
  “噢...喂,我替你找到了你要的桃子。”
  “我不再要桃子了。”
  “好。”
  他開始替她整理行李,穿上衣衫。司機來了。他帶著她走出門外。他想緊緊的摟住她一會兒,但他沒有那樣作。最後僅僅握了握手,就像跟一個不大相識的人分別一樣。
  注視著那寬大的轎車開走。他毫無目的的在街上漫游,漫游,有如方才在盤子裏的小蟲。

   (原載The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1962,佚名譯)

  讀過這篇文章後,你有何感想?

  建議你作些事:
  1. 就本文的主題,作成一篇論文。
  2. 就作者對本文的處理,照自己的意見,寫一篇評論。
  3. 為本文寫一個結局,或“後記”,“二十年後”。
  4. 照原文重譯。
  5. 試析認文中與聖經有關的語句。
  6. 把本文當作一個比喻。
  7. 把本文改寫成自轉或見證。

 

  GASTON  William Saroyan(1908-1981)

William Saroyan(1908-1981)was the son of an Armenian immigrant, who left school at 15, and educated himself by reading and writing. He has been writing since he was thirteen years old and has published almost forty books and plays. His mastery of the vernacular makes his characters vibrantly alive. Most of stories have strong autographical elements. He refused the Pulitzer Prize for The Time of Your Life but accepted the Drama Critics Circle Award for the same play “because there was no money involved.”

  They were to eat peaches, as planned, after her nap, and now she sat across from the man who would have been a total stranger except that he was in fact her father. They had been together again (although she couldn't quite remember when they had been together before) for almost a hundred years now, or was it only since day before yesterday? Anyhow, they were together again, and he was kind of funny. First, he had the biggest mustache she had ever seen on anybody, although to her it was not a mustache at all; it was a lot of red and brown hair under his nose and around the ends of his mouth. Second, he wore a blue-and-white striped jersey instead of a shirt and tie, and no coat. His arms were covered with the same hair, only it was a little lighter and thinner. He wore blue slacks, but no shoes and socks, He was barefoot, and so was she, of course.
  He was at home. She was with him in his home in Paris, if you could call it a home. He was very old, especially for a young man—thirty-six, he had told her; and she was six, just up from sleep on a very hot afternoon in August.
  That morning, on a little walk in the neighbor-hood, she had seen peaches in a box outside a small store and she had stopped to look at them, so he had bought a kilo.
  Now, the peaches were on a large plate on the card table at which they sat.
  There were seven of them, but one of them was flawed. It looked as good as others, almost the size of a tennis ball, nice red fading to light green, but where the stem had been there was now a break that went straight down into the heart of the seed.
  He placed the biggest and best-looking peach on the small plate in front of the girl, and then took the flawed peach and began to remove the skin. When he had half the skin off the peach he ate that side, neither of them talking, both of them just being there, and not being excited or anything—no plans, that is.
  The man held the half-eaten peach in his fingers and looked down into the cavity, into the open seed. The girl looked too.
  While they were looking, two feelers poked out from the cavity. They were attached to a kind of brown knob-head, which followed the feelers, and then two large legs took a strong grip on the edge of the cavity and hoisted some of the rest of whatever it was out of the seed, and stopped there a moment, as if to look around.
  The man studied the seed dweller, and so, of course, did the girl.
  The creature paused only a fraction of a second, and then continued to come out of the seed, to walk down the eaten side of the peach to wherever it was going.
  The girl had never seen anything like it—a whole big thing made out of brown color, a knob-head, feelers, and a great many legs. It was very active too. Almost businesslike, you might say. The man placed the peach back on the plate. The creature moved off the peach onto the surface of the white plate. There it came to a thoughtful stop.
  "Who is it?" the girl said.
  "Gaston."
  "Where does he live?"
  "Well, he used to live in this peach seed, but now that the peach has been harvested and sold, and I have eaten half of it, it looks as if he's out of house and home."
  "Aren't you going to squash him?"
  "No, of course not, why should I?"
  "He is a bug. He is ugh."
  "Not at all. He is Gaston the grand boulevardier."
  "Everybody hollers when a bug comes out of an apple, but you don't holler or anything."
  "Of course not. How should we like it if somebody hollered every time we came out of our house?"
  "Why would they?"
  "Precisely. So why should we holler at Gaston?"
  "He is not the same as us."
  "Well, not exactly, but he's the same as a lot of other occupants of peach seeds. Now, the poor fellow hasn't got a home, and there he is with all that pure design and handsome form, and no-where to go."
  "Handsome?"
  "Gaston is just about the handsomest of his kind I've ever seen."
  "What's he saying?"
  "Well, he's a little confused. Now, inside that house of his he had everything in order. Bed here, porch there, and so forth."
  "Show me."
  The man picked up the peach, leaving Gaston entirely alone on the white plate. He removed the peeling and ate the rest of the peach.
  "Nobody else I know would do that," the girl said. "They'd throw it away."
  "I can't imagine why. It's a perfect good peach."
  He opened the seed and placed the two sides not far from Gaston. The girl studied the open halves.
  "Is that where he lives?"
  "It's where he used to live. Gaston is out in the world and on his own now. You can see for yourself how comfortable he was in there. He had everything."
  "Now what has he got?"
  "Not very much, I'm afraid."
  "What's he going to do?"
  "What are we going to do?"
  "Well, we're not going to squash him, that's one thing we're not going to do," the girl said.
  "What are we going to do, then?"
  "Put him back?"
  "Oh, that house is finished."
  "Well, he can't live in our house, can he?"
  "Not happily."
  "Can he live in our house at all?"
  "Well, he could try, I suppose. Don't you want to eat a peach?"
  "Only if it's a peach with somebody in the seed."
  "Well, see if you can find a peach that has an opening at the top, because if you can, that'll be a peach in which you're likeliest to find somebody."
  The girl examined each of the peaches on the big plate.
  "They're all shut," she said.
  "Well, eat one, then."
  "No. I want the same kind that you ate, with somebody in the seed."
  "Well, to tell you the truth, the peach I ate would be considered a bad peach, so of course stores don't like to sell them. I was sold that one by mistake, most likely. And so now Gaston is without a home, and we've got six perfect peaches to eat."
  "I don't want a perfect peach. I want a peach with people."
  "Well, I'll go out and see if I can find one."
  "Where will I go?"
  "You'll go with me, unless you'd rather stay. I'll only be five minutes."
  "If the phone rings, what shall I say?"
  "I don't think it'll ring, but if it does, say hello and see who it is."
  "If it is my mother, what shall I say?"
  "Tell her I've gone to get you a bad peach, and anything else you want to tell her."
  "If she wants me to go back, what shall I say?"
  "Say yes if you want to go back."
  "Do you want me to?"
  "Of course not, but the important thing is what you want, not what I want."
  "Why is that the important thing?"
  "Because I want you to be where you want to be."
  "I want to be here."
  "I'll be right back."
  He put on socks and shoes, and a jacket, and went out. She watched Gaston trying to find out what to do next. Gaston wandered around the plate, but everything seemed wrong and he didn't know what to do or where to go.
  The telephone rang and her mother said she was sending the chauffeur to pick her up because there was a little party for somebody's daughter who was also six, and then tomorrow they would fly back to New York.
  "Let me speak to your father," she said.
  "He's gone to get a peach."
  "One peach?"
  "One with people."
  "You haven't been with your father two days and already you sound like him."
  "There are peaches with people in them. I know. I saw one of them come out."
  "A bug?"
  "Not a bug. Gaston."
  "Who?"
  "Gaston the grand something."
  "Somebody get a peach with a bug in it, and throws it away, but not him. He makes up a lot of foolishness about it."
  "It's not foolishness."
  "All right, all right, don't get angry at me about a horrible peach bug of some kind."
  "Gaston is right here, just outside his broken house, and I'm not angry at you."
  "You'll have a lot of fun at the party."
  "OK."
  "We'll have fun flying back to New York, too."
  "OK."
  "Are you glad you saw your father?"
  "Of course I am."
  "Is he funny?"
  "Yes."
  "Is he crazy?"
  "Yes. I mean, no. He just doesn't holler when he sees a bug crawling out of a peach seed or anything. He just looks at it carefully. But it is just a bug, isn't it, really?"
  "That's all it is."
  "And we have to squash it?"
  "That's right. I can't wait to see you, darling. These two days have been like two years to me. Good-bye."
  The girl watched Gaston on the plate, and she actually didn't like him. He was all ugh, as he had been in the first place. He didn't have a home anymore and he was wandering around on the white plate and he was silly and wrong and ridiculous and useless and all sorts of other things. She cried a little, but only inside, because long ago she had decided she didn't like crying because if you ever started to cry it seemed as if there was so much to cry about you almost couldn't stop, and she didn't like that at all. The open halves of the peach seed were wrong, too. They were ugly or something. They weren't clean.
  The man bought a kilo of peaches but found no flawed peaches among them, so he bought another kilo at another store, and this time his luck was better, and there were two that were flawed. He hurried back to his flat and let himself in.
  His daughter was in her room, in her best dress.
  "My mother phoned," she said, "and she's sending the chauffeur for me because there's another birthday party."
  "Another?"
  "I mean, there's always a lot of them in New York."
  "Will the chauffeur bring you back?"
  "No. We're flying back to New York tomorrow."
  "Oh."
  "I liked being in your house."
  "I liked having you here."
  "Why do you live here?"
  "This is my home."
  "It's nice, but it's a lot different from our home."
  "Yes, I suppose it is."
  "It's kind of like Gaston's house."
  "Where is Gaston?"
  "I squashed him."
  "Really? Why?"
  "Everybody squashes bugs and worms."
  "Oh. Well. I found you a peach."
  "I don't want a peach anymore."
  "OK."
  He got her dressed, and he was packing her stuff when the chauffeur arrived. He went down the three flights of stairs with his daughter and the chauffeur, and in the street he was about to hug the girl when he decided he had better not. They shook hands instead, as if they were strangers.
  He watched the huge car drive off, and then he went around the corner where he took his coffee every morning, feeling a little, he thought, like Gaston on the white plate.

The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1962)

 

 

譯事趣譚

 

  基督按立

  讀到一份中文刊物,其中有篇文章,說基督被“按立”。
  先是給嚇了一跳;我想,那是新神學理論又出現了;或是甚麼學者玩出奇招,把“按立”的禮儀,給推到創世記之前,算是鑽研教會史的新發現?
  再想想,不禁莞爾,繼則搖頭嘆息:又是翻譯作怪!原來是ordian這個字,是“任命”的意思,教會任聖職人員,有按手禮,所以中文譯作“按立”。但這字也是“命定”,或“規定”的意思,所以翻譯不可膠柱鼓瑟。聖經倒說過,基督為大祭司“是起誓立的”(來七:21)。 誤譯按立,雖然不足以構成褻瀆主名,但足以騰笑外邦。

 

  神是牧師

  有一位朋友,正直敬虔。他倒是受了“按立”的,也稱為“牧師”,或“Pastor”,但拒絕“Reverend”的尊稱, 更絕對禁戒自稱,視之為犯罪!
  原因在哪裏?
  他根據聖經!因為詩篇第一百十一篇9節說:“Holy and reverend is His name”(King James Version)。既然“Reverend”是神的尊名,牧師又怎可用來自稱?豈不是奪取神的榮耀了?因此,他終其一生,堅持奉行此原則。現在NIV譯awesome,當然敬虔的人必須用KJV。
  雖然有些人知道聖經原文不是用英文寫的,但仍然是堅信King James Version是“逐字默示”神口授筆錄的翻譯, 尊重到敬畏的程度。
  事實上文字是活的,是一直在改變的。 就如:cunning 這個字,是skillful(創二五:27 作“善於”出三一:4 作“巧”)的意思; 但今天你說某人“cunning”,就很難算是稱讚了,說不定輕則爭論,重可鬥毆呢!

 

  目不識十

  “目不識丁”是中國人譏諷人的話,意思是有眼睛卻認不得字,連最簡單的字也不識。信不信由你,世界上儘多“目不識十”的人。“十”字豈不是同“丁”一樣簡單?
  Delta 譯成“三角”或“三角洲”, 是取其形似的譯法。“十字架”也是如此。 全然不懂中文的人,只知道cross這個字,或crux,卻總無法知道其同“十”的關係,怎也想不到其數字的意義。
  使徒保羅對哥林多的基督徒說:“我曾定了主意,在你們中間不知道別的,只知道耶穌基督並祂釘十字架(林前二:2)。如果對不通華文的人講,該考慮到如此表達的傳通效果。

 

  耶穌誰知

  有一次,去飯店用餐,看見穿制服的墨西哥侍者,胸前佩戴的名牌寫著:“Jesus”。當然,完全不表示他是基督徒。問起來,原來西班牙語Jesus的發因是“海索”。
  這使我想起,威克里夫譯經會的創立人金綸.屯送(William Cameron Townsend, 1896-1982), 早年曾去戈地瑪拉作售經佈道員。遇到一個青年人,就用剛學來的西班牙語問說:“你認識主耶穌嗎?”
  那人黑臉上露出迷惘的神色,回答說:“我自己也是乍來本地,我不認得那個人!”原來西班牙語中的“主”(Senor),也是“先生”的意思;而在拉丁美洲,“耶穌”(Jesus)只不過是個通行的名字。(見于中旻譯:金倫叔Uncle Cam
  當然他準備好,以為很得體的那套個人佈道詞,完全沒有用上,佈道整個失敗了。他回到住處,極為灰心,在禱告中,幾乎要向神辭職。原因是他沒有弄清楚文化的背景。
  翻譯不僅是翻譯語文,還要超越文化。

 

-- www.AboutBible.net -- .于中旻 著 by JAMES C M YU.