2018年6月15日 談 Herbert Simon 和Allen Newell,以及《 The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds By Michael Lewis》(有中文本)

漢清講堂

題目：主題是"摯友"。談 Herbert Simon 和Allen Newell,以及《 The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds By Michael Lewis》(有中文本)。

與談人： 鍾漢清先生

時間 2018年6月15日 10：00~12:30
地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓
電話：（02） 23650127

張貼者： Hanching Chung 於 上午12:21

2018年7月15日 談Walter Benjamin 兩篇：《譯者的職責 》《談愛德華‧幅克斯的幾本中譯作品》

漢清講堂




題目：談Walter Benjamin 相關的兩篇論文和報告：《譯者的職責 》和 《談愛德華‧幅克斯的幾本中譯作品》

與談人： 鍾漢清先生




時間 2018年7月15日 10：00~12:30

地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓

電話：（02） 23650127











Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator” [1923], in Illuminations (1968)


Bibliographical note: Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator” [first printed as introduction to a Baudelaire translation, 1923], in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn; ed. & intro. Hannah Arendt (NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1968), pp.69-82; and Do. [another edn.] (London: Fontana 1973). The copy-text is The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti (London: Routledge, 2000), with some additions and pagination added here from Zohn, op. cit. (1968).

Accessed at North Carolina State University [online at 24.06.2008; no longer available at 08.02.2010.] See also Arendt’s Introduction, attached.


In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. Not only is any reference to a certain public or its representatives misleading, but even the concept of an “ideal” receiver is detrimental in the theoretical consideration of art, since all it posits is the existence and nature of man as such. Art, in the same way, posits man’s physical and spiritual existence, but in none of its works is it concerned with his response. No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener.

Is a translation meant for readers who do not understand the original? This would seem to explain adequately the divergence of their standing in the realm of art. Moreover, it seems to be the only conceivable reason for saying “the same thing” repeatedly. For what does a literary work “say”? What does it communicate? It “tells very little to those who understand it. Its essential quality is not statement or the imparting of information - hence, something inessential. This is the hallmark of bad translations. But do we not [69] generally regard as the essential substance of a literary work what it contains in addition to information - as even a poor translator will admit - the unfathomable, the mysterious, the “poetic,” something that a translator can reproduce only if he is also a poet? This, actually, is the cause of another characteristic of inferior translation, which consequently we may define as the inaccurate transmission of an inessential content. This will be true whenever a translation undertakes to serve the reader. However, if it were intended for the reader, the same would have to apply to the original. If the original does not exist for the reader’s sake, how could the translation be understood on the basis of this premise?

Translation is a mode. To comprehend it as mode one must go back to the original, for that contains the law governing the translation: its translatability. The question of whether a work is translatable has a dual meaning. Either: Will an adequate translator ever be found among the totality of its readers? Or, more pertinently: Does its nature lend itself to translation and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it? In principle, the first question can be decided only contingently; the second, however, apodictically. Only superficial thinking will deny the independent meaning of the latter and declare both questions to be of equal significance . It should be pointed out that certain correlative concepts retain their meaning, and possibly their foremost significance, if they are referred exclusively to man. One might, for example, speak of an unforgettable life or moment even if all men had forgotten it. If the nature of such a life or moment required that it be forgotten, that predicate would not imply a falsehood but merely a claim not fulfilled by men, and probably also a reference to a realm in which it is fulfilled: God’s remembrance. Analogously, the translatability of linguistic creations ought to be considered even if men should prove unable to translate them. Given a strict concept of translation, would they not really be translatable to some degree? The question as to whether the translation of certain linguistic creations is called for ought to be posed in this sense. For this thought [70] is valid here. If translation is a mode, translatability must be an essential feature of certain works.

Translatability is an essential quality of certain works, which is not to say that it is essential that they be translated; it means rather that a specific significance inherent in the original manifest itself in its translatability. It is plausible that no translation, however good it may be, can have any significance as regards the original. Yet, by virtue of its translatability the original is closely connected with the translation; in fact, this connection is all the closer since it is no longer of importance to the original. We may call this connected a natural one, or, more specifically, a vital connection. Just as he manifestations of life are intimately connected with the phenomenon of life without being of importance to it, a translation issues from the original - not so much for its life as from its afterlife. For a translation comes later than the original, and since the important works of world literature never find their chosen translators at the time of their origin, their translation marks their stag of continues life. The idea of life and afterlife in works of art should be regarded with an entirely unmetaphorical objectivity. Even in times of narrowly prejudiced thought there was an inkling that life was not limited to organic corporeality. But it cannot be a matter of extending its dominion under the feebler scepter of the soul, as Fechner tried to do, or, conversely, of basing its definition on the even less conclusive factors of animality, such as sensation, which characterize life only occasionally. The concept of life is given its due only if everything that has a history of its own, and is not merely the setting for history, is credited with life. In the final analysis, the range of life must be determined by history rather than by nature, least of all by such tenuous factors as sensation and soul. The philosopher’s task consists in comprehending all of natural life through the more encompassing life of history. And indeed, is not the continued life of works of art far easier to recognize than the continual life of animal species? The history of the great works of art tells us about their antecedents, their realization in the age of the artist, their potentially eternal afterlife in succeeding generations. Where this last manifests itself, it is called fame. [71] Translations that are more than transmissions of subject matter come into being when in the course of its survival a work has reached the age of its fame. Contrary, therefore, to the claims of bad translators, such translations do not so much serve the work as owe their existence to it. The life of the originals attains eh~ to its ever-renewed latest and most abundant flowering.

Being a special and high form of life, this flowering is governed by a special, high purposiveness. The relationship between life and purposefulness, seemingly obvious yet almost beyond the grasp of the intellect, reveals itself only if the ultimate purpose toward which all single functions tend is sought not in its own sphere but in a higher one. All purposeful manifestations life, including their very purposiveness, in the final analysis have their end not in life, but in the expression of its nature, in the representation of its significance. Translation thus ultimately serves the purpose of expressing the central reciprocal relationship between languages. It cannot possibly reveal or establish this hidden relationship itself; but it can represent it by realizing it in embryonic or intensive form. This representation of hidden significance through an embryonic attempt at making it visible is of so singular a nature that it is rarely met with in the sphere of non-linguistic life. This, in its analogies and symbols, can draw on other ways of suggesting meaning than intensive - that is, anticipative, intimating - realization. As for the posited central kinship of languages, it is marked by a distinctive convergence. Languages are not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical relationships, interrelated in what they want to express.

With this attempt at an explication our study appears to rejoin, after futile detours, the traditional theory of translation. If the kinship of languages is to be demonstrated by translations, how else can this be done but by conveying the form and meaning of the original as accurately as possible? To be sure, that theory would be hard put to define the nature of this accuracy and therefore could shed no light on what is important in a translation. Actually, however, the kinship of languages is brought out by a translation far more profoundly and clearly than in the [72] superficial and indefinable similarity of two works of literature. To grasp the genuine relationship between an original and a translation requires an investigation analogous to the argumentation by which a critique of cognition would have to prove the impossibility of an image theory. There it is a matter of showing that in cognition there could be no objectivity, not even a claim to it, if it dealt with images of reality; here it can be demonstrated that no translation would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the original. For in its afterlife - which could not be called that if it were not a transformation and a renewal of something living - the original undergoes a change. Even words with fixed meaning can undergo a maturing process. The obvious tendency of a writer’s literary style may in time wither away, only to give rise to immanent tendencies in the literary creation. What sounded fresh once may sound hackneyed later; what was once current may someday sound quaint. To seek the essence of such changes, as well as he equally constant changes in meaning, in the subjectivity of posterity rather than in the very life of language and its works, would mean - even allowing for the crudest psychologism - to confuse the root cause of a thing with its essence. More pertinently, it would mean denying, by an importance of thought, one of the most powerful and fruitful historical processes. And even if one tried to turn an author’s last stroke of the pen into the coup de grâce of is work, this still would not save that dead theory of translation. For just as the tenor and the significance of the great works of literature undergo a complete transformation over the centuries, the mother tongue of the translator is transformed as well. While a poet’s words endure in his own language, even the greatest translation is destined to become part of the growth of its own language and eventually to be absorbed by its renewal. Translation is so far removed from being the sterile equation of two dead languages that of all literary forms it is the one charged with the special mission of watching over the maturing process of the original language and the birth pangs of its own.

If the kinship of languages manifests itself in translations, this is not accomplished through a vague alikeness between adaptation [73] and original. It stands to reason that kinship does not necessarily involve likeness. The concept of kinship as used here is in accord with its more restricted common usage: in both cases, it cannot be defined adequately by identity of origin, although in defining the more restricted usage the concept of origin remains indispensable. Wherein resides the relatedness of two languages, apart from historical considerations? Certainly not in the similarity between works of literature or words. Rather, all suprahistorical kinship of languages rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole-an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language. While all individual elements of foreign languages - words, sentences, structure - are mutually exclusive, these languages supplement one another in their intentions. Without distinguishing the intended object from the mode of intention, no firm grasp of this basic law of a philosophy of language can be achieved. The words Brotand pain “intend” the same object, but the modes of this intention are not the same. It is owing to these modes that the word Brot means something different to a German than the word pain to a Frenchman, that these words are not interchangeable for them, that, in fact, they strive to exclude each other. As to the intended object, however, the two words mean the very same thing. While the modes of intention in these two words are in conflict, intention and object of intention complement each of the two languages from which they are derived; there the object is complementary to the intention. In the individual, unsupplemented languages, meaning is never found in relative independence, as in individual words or sentences; rather, it is in a constant state of flux -until it is able to emerge as pure language from the harmony of all the various modes of intention. Until then, it remains hidden in the languages. If, however, these languages continue to grow in this manner until the end of their time, it is translation which catches fire on the eternal life of the works and the perpetual renewal of language. Translation keeps putting the hallowed growth of languages to the test: How far [74] removed is their hidden meaning from revelation, how close can it be brought by the knowledge of this remoteness?

This, to be sure, is to admit that all translation is only a somewhat provisional way of coming to terms with the foreignness of languages. An instant and final rather than a temporary and provisional solution of this foreignness remains out of the reach of mankind; at any rate, it eludes any direct attempt. Indirectly, however, the growth of religions ripens the hidden seed into a higher development of language. Although translation, unlike art, cannot claim permanence for its products, its goal is undeniably a final, conclusive, decisive stage of all linguistic creation. In translation the original rises into a higher and purer linguistic air, as it were. In cannot live there permanently, to be sure, and it certainly does not reach it in its entirety. Yet, in a singularly impressive manner at least it points the way to this region: the predestined, hitherto inaccessible realm of reconciliation and fulfillment of languages. The transfer can never be total, but what reaches this region is that element in a translation which goes beyond transmittal of subject matter. This nucleus is best defined as the element that does not lend itself to translation. Even when all the surface content has been extracted and transmitted, the primary concern of the genuine translator remains elusive. Unlike the words of the original, it is not translatable, because the relationship between content and language is quite different in the original and the translation. While content and language form a certain unity in the original, like a fruit and its skin, the language of the translation envelops its content like a royal robe with ample folds. For it signifies a more exalted language than its own and thus remains unsuited to its content, overpowering and alien. This disjunction prevents translation and at the same time makes it superfluous. For any translation of a work originating in a specific stage of linguistic history represents, in regard to a specific aspect of its content, translation into all other languages. Thus translation, ironically, transplants the original a more definitive linguistic realm since it can no longer be displaced by a secondary rendering. The original can only be there anew and at other points of time. It is no mere coincidence [75] that the word “ironic” here brings the Romanticists to mind. They, more than any others, were gifted with an insight into the life of literary works which has its highest testimony in translation. To be sure, they hardly recognized translation in this sense, but devoted their entire attention to criticism, another, if a lesser, factor in the continued life of literary works. But even though the Romanticists virtually ignored translation in their theoretical writings, their own great translations testify to their sense of the essential nature and dignity of this literary mode. There is abundance of evidence that his sense is not necessarily most pronounced in a poet; in fact, he may be least open to it. Not even literary history suggests the traditional notion that great poets have been eminent translators and lesser poets have been indifferent translators. A number of the most eminent ones, such as Luther, Voss, and Schlegel, are incomparably more important as translators than as creative writers; some of the great among them, such as Hölderin and Stefan George, cannot be simply subsumed as poets, and quite particularly not if we consider them as translators. As translation is a mode of its own, the task of the translator too, may be regarded as distinct and clearly differentiated from the task of the poet.

The task of the translator consists in finding that intended effect [ Intention ] upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original. This is a feature of translation which basically differentiates it from the poet’s work, because the effort of the latter is never directed at the language as such, at its totality, but solely and immediately at specific linguistic contextual aspects. Unlike a work of literature, translation does not find itself in the center of the language forest but on the outside facing the wooded ridge; it calls into it without entering, aiming at that single spot where the echo is able to give, in its own language, the reverberation of the work in the alien one. Not only does the aim of translation differ from that of a literary work-it intends language as a whole, taking an individual work in an alien language as a point of departure but it is a different effort altogether. The intention of the poet is spontaneous, primary, graphic; that of the translator is derivative, [76] ultimate, ideational. For the great motif of integrating many tongues into one true language is at work. This language is one in which the independent sentences, works of literature, critical judgments, will never communicate - for they remain dependent on translation; but in it the languages themselves, supplemented and reconciled in their mode of signification, harmonize. If there is such a thing as a language of truth, the tensionless and even silent depository of the ultimate truth which all thought strives for, then this language of truth is - the true language. And this very language, whose divination and description is the only perfection a philosopher can hope for, is concealed in concentrated fashion in translations. There is no muse of philosophy, nor is there one of translation. But despite the claims of sentimental artists, these two are not banausic. For there is a philosophical genius that is characterized by a yearning for that language which manifests itself in translations. “ Les langues imparfaites en cela que plusieurs, manque la suprême: penser étant écrire sans accessoires, ni chuchotement mais tacite encore 1’immortelle parole, la diversité sur terre, des idiomes empêche personne de proférer les mots qui, sinon se trouveraient, par une frappe unique, elle-même matériellement la vérité . [The imperfection of languages consists in their plurality, the supreme one is lacking: thinking is writing without accessories or even whispering, the immortal word still remains silent; the diversity of idioms on earth prevents everybody from uttering the words which otherwise, at one single stroke, would materialize as truth.]” If what Mallarmé evokes here is fully fathomable to a philosopher, translation, with its rudiments of such a language, is midway between poetry and doctrine. Its products are less sharply defined, but it leaves no less of a mark on history.

If the task of the translator is viewed in this light, the roads toward a solution seem to be all the more obscure and impenetrable. Indeed, the problem of ripening the seed of pure language in a translation seems to be insoluble, determinable in no solution. For is not the ground cut from under such a solution if the reproduction of the sense ceases to be decisive? Viewed negatively. this is actually the meaning of all the foregoing. The traditional [77] concepts in any discussion of translations are fidelity and license - the freedom of faithful reproduction and, in its service, fidelity to the word. These ideas seem to be no longer serviceable to a theory that looks for other things in a translation than reproduction of a meaning. [Benjamin discusses the ’untranslatability’ of connotation, etc.] Finally, it is self-evident how greatly fidelity in reproducing the form impedes the rendering of the sense. Thus no case for literalness can be based on a desire to retain the meaning. Meaning is served far better - and literature and language far worse - by the unrestrained license of bad translators. Of necessity, therefore, the demand for literalness, whose justification is obvious, whose legitimate ground is quite obscure, must be understood in a more meaningful context. Fragments of a vessel which are to be glued together must match one another in the smallest details, although they need not be like one another. In the same way a translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the original, must lovingly and in detail incorporate the original’s mode of signification, thus making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are part of a vessel. For this very reason translation must in large measure refrain from wanting to communicate something, from rendering the sense, and in this the original is important to it only insofar as it has already relieved the translator and his translation of the effort of assembling and expressing what is to be conveyed. In the realm of translation, too, the words ?? a??? ? ?????[in the beginning was the word]” apply. On the other hand, as regards the meaning, [78] the language of a translation can - in fact, must - let itself go, so that it gives voice to the intentio of the original not as reproduction but as harmony, as a supplement to the language in which it expresses itself, as its own kind of intentio . Therefore it is not the highest praise of a translation, particularly in the age of its origin, to say that it reads as if it had originally been written in that language. Rather, the significance of fidelity as ensured by literalness is that the work reflects the great longing for linguistic complementation. A real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not block its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforced by its own medium to shine upon the original all the more fully. This may be achieved, above all, by a literal rendering of the syntax which proves words rather than sentences to be the primary element of the translator. For if the sentence is the wall before the language of the original, literalness is the arcade.

Fidelity and freedom in translation have traditionally been regarded as conflicting tendencies. This deeper interpretation of the one apparently does not serve to reconcile the two; in fact, it seems to deny the other all justification. For what is meant by freedom but that the rendering of the sense is no longer to be regarded as all-important? Only if the sense of a linguistic creation may be equated with the information it conveys does some ultimate, decisive element remain beyond all communication - quite close and yet infinitely remote, concealed or distinguishable, fragmented or powerful. In all language and linguistic creations there remains in addition to what can be conveyed something that cannot be communicated,; depending on the context in which it appears, it is something that symbolizes or something symbolized. It is the former only in the finite products of language, the latter in the evolving of the languages themselves. And that which seeks to represent, to produce itself in the evolving of languages, is hat very nucleus of pure language. Though concealed and fragmentary, it is an active force in life as the symbolized thing itself, whereas it inhabits linguistic creations only in symbolized form. While that ultimate essence, pure language, in the various tongues is tied only to linguistic elements and [79] their changes, in linguistic creations it is weighted with a heavy, alien meaning. To relieve it of this, to turn the symbolizing into the symbolized, to regain pure language fully formed in the linguistic flux, is the tremendous and only capacity of translation. In this pure language - which no longer means or expresses anything but is, as expressionless and creative Word, that which is meant in all languages - all information, all sense, and all intention finally encounter a stratum in which they are destined to be extinguished. This very stratum furnishes a new and higher justification for free translation; this justification does not derive from the sense of what is to be conveyed, for the emancipation from this sense is the task of fidelity. Rather, for the sake of pure language, a free translation bases the test on its own language. It is the task of the translator to release in his own language that pure language which is under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re-creation of that work. For the sake of pure language he breaks through decayed barriers of his own language. Luther, Voss, Hölderlin, and George have extended the boundaries of the German language. And what of the sense in its importance for the relationship between translation and original? A simile may help here. Just as a tangent touches a circle lightly and at but one point, with this touch rather than with the point setting the law according to which it is to continue on its straight path to infinity, a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the sense, thereupon pursuing its own course according to the laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux. Without explicitly naming or substantiating it, Rudolf Pannwitz has characterized the true significance of this freedom. His observations are contained in Die Krisis der europäischen Kultur and rank with Goethe’s Notes to the Westöstlicher Divan as the best comment on the theory of translation that has been published in Germany. Pannwitz writes: “Our translations, even the best ones, proceed from a wrong premise. They want to turn Hindi, Greek, English into German instead of turning German into Hindi, Greek, English. Our translators have a far greater reverence for the usage of their own language than for the spirit of the foreign works. [80] . The basic error of the translator is that he preserves the state in which his own language happens to be instead of allowing his language to be powerfully affected by the foreign tongue. Particularly when translating from a language very remote from his own he must go back to the primal elements of language itself and penetrate to the point where work, image, and tone converge. He must expand and deepen his language by means of the foreign language. It is not generally realized to what extent this is possible, to what extent any language can be transformed, how language differs from language almost the way dialect differs from dialect; however, this last is true only if one takes language seriously enough, not if one takes it lightly.”

The extent to which a translation manages to be in keeping with the nature of this mode is determined objectively by the translatability of the original. The lower the quality and distinction of its language, the larger the extent to which is information, the less fertile a field is it for translation, until the utter preponderance of content, far from being the lever for a translation of distinctive mode, renders it impossible. The higher the level of a work, the more does it remain translatable even if its meaning is touched upon only fleetingly. This, of course, applies to originals only. Translations, on the other hand, prove to be untranslatable not because of any inherent difficulty, but because of the looseness with which meaning attaches to them. Confirmation of this as well as of every other important aspect is supplied by Hölderlin’s translations, particularly those of the two tragedies by Sophocles. In them the harmony of the languages is so profound that sense is touched by language only the way an aeolian harp is touch by the wind. Hölderlin’s translations are prototypes of their kind; they are to even the most perfect renderings of their texts as a prototype is to a model. This can be demonstrated by comparing Hölderlin’s and Rudolf Borchardt’s translations of Pindar’s Third Pythian Ode. For this very reason Hölderlin’s translations in particular are subject to the enormous danger inherent in all translations: the gates of a language thus expanded and modified may slam shut and enclose the translator with silence. Hölderlin’s translations from Sophocles were his last [81] work; in them meaning plunges from abyss to abyss until it threatens to become lost in the bottomless depths of language. There is, however, a stop. It is vouchsafed to Holy Write alone, in which meaning has ceased to be the watershed for the flow of language and the flow of revelation. Where a text is identical with truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be “the true language” in all its literalness and without the mediation of meaning, this text is unconditionally translatable. In such case translations are called for only because of the plurality of languages. Just as, in the original, language and revelation are one without any tension, so the translation must be one with the original in the form of the interlinear version, in which literalness and freedom are united. For to some degree all great texts contain their potential translation between the lines; this is true to the highest degree of sacred writings. The interlinear version of the Scriptures is the prototype or ideal of all translation.

[End.]

[ back ]

[ top ]

包浩斯群英(BAUHAUS, 1919-1933)|漢清講堂；Weimar, the cradle of modernism | DW

 包浩斯群英(BAUHAUS, 1919-1933)|漢清講堂；Weimar, the cradle of modernism | DW


陳珍吾兄過世，我作一片子，說是要紀念他的：

206 包浩斯群英(BAUHAUS, 1919-1933):簡介與導讀 2018-01-10 漢清講堂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywF5VAkBsxM&t=72s


53:36
206 包浩斯群英(BAUHAUS, 1919-1933):簡介與導讀 2018-01-10 漢清講堂

CHECK-IN
Weimar, the cradle of modernism
The Bauhaus, the 20th century's most influential architecture and design school, was founded in Weimar in 1919. Host Lukas Stege traces its legacy, from the Bauhaus University to the new Bauhaus museum and more. 博物館開張日：2019年4月

Weimar, the cradle of modernism | All media content | DW | 24.03.2018

The Bauhaus, the 20th century's most influential architecture and design school, was founded in Weimar in 1919. Host Lukas Stege traces its legacy,…

DW.COM

記念一位好朋友：彭淮棟在漢清講堂：7片 連接文章

記念一位好朋友：彭淮棟在漢清講堂：7片 連接文章

懷念彭淮棟 （1953~2018）先生 —友情 (影片、文字檔及補充)

悼彭淮棟 (張宗智；聯合報 記者王彩鸝； Wenchien Wu；錢永祥、吳家恆)

彭淮棟先生 (著名譯者) ：＜譯歷自述＞；你要翻譯，就必.......

47:43
譯藝獎 2015 彭淮棟 譯歷自述
236 views2 years ago



42:46托馬斯．曼《浮士德博士》裡的音樂 彭淮棟 (前篇)
801 views2 years ago







46:32托馬斯曼《浮士德博士》裡的音樂 --座談會 彭淮棟 (後篇)
288 views2 years ago









39:35
紀念 Peter Gay, part III-- 彭淮棟 談：《威瑪文化》




25:24
210 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):紀念座談會 2018-02-24





12:17209 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):自修德文與音樂







4:20208 懷念彭淮棟先生 （1953-2018）: The Farewell

懷念彭淮棟 （1953~2018）先生 —友情 (影片、文字檔及補充)

 懷念彭淮棟 （1953~2018）先生 —友情 (影片、文字檔及補充)

208  懷念彭淮棟先生 （1953-2018）: The Farewell

208 懷念彭淮棟先生 （1953-2018）: The Farewell

痛失英才!!!

YOUTUBE.COM

209 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):自修德文與音樂

209 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):自修德文與音樂

…《浮士德博士》第十五章起頭說，音樂在德國的崇…

YOUTUBE.COM

210 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):紀念座談會 2018-02-24

210 懷念彭淮棟先生(1953-2018):紀念座談會 2018-02-24

著手《魔山》，乃至作序之時，何曾夢見翻譯《浮士德》…

YOUTUBE.COM

漢清講堂

2018年2月24日 (禮拜六)10點到11點，
地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓

電話：（02）  23650127

email： hcsimonl@gmail.com

近百張slides的文字檔

懷念彭淮棟 （1953~2018）先生 —友情
Italian Journey (in the German original: Italienische Reise [ˌitalˈi̯eːnɪʃə ˈʁaɪzə]) is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's report on his travels to Italy from 1786–88, published in 1816–17. The book is based on Goethe's diaries. It is smoothed in style, lacking the spontaneity of his diary report, and augmented with the addition of afterthoughts and reminiscences.


 彭淮棟
做為家人、朋友
做為學習者，學生
做為譯者
做為編譯者/記者、編輯

https://vimeo.com/253200905
很好。
只有一抱怨："八里"。
一補充：給宋朝一點空間，或可參考：劍橋中國文學史（卷上）：1375年之前
The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature. Volume Ⅰ: 1375，聯經，2016：彭淮棟負責第六章　北與南：十二與十三世紀

蔣勛：記憶消失太快，人會很焦慮

“我母親臨終時我抱著她，讓我知道我多麼希望她不要走，可是她就是走。你一生總會碰到一個這樣的時刻……”作家蔣勛對Lens講起生命中的無常、愛和孤獨。在他看來，美就是“你的身上不止是自己”，生活和文化的記憶不.....

VIMEO.COM

24日#懷念彭淮棟先生，須要確認彭兄當過此周刊的副社長或副總編輯。臺大楊雲萍教授捐的十幾本，足供我確認。

Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe (1942) v Goethe*/Thomas Mann (1945；p.63 尼采小說)：
*打造藝術並無痛苦可言，但就像永遠在滾一塊總是必須重新往上推的的石頭。

彭淮棟先生譯書，有時可達"會通"境界。譬如說，他覺得Edward Said 的回憶錄《鄉關何處》的某章，類似《魔山》的。又譬如，Thomas Mann 書信的某句(1945)，出自歌德Goethe的：「打造藝術並無痛苦可言，但就像永遠在滾一塊總是必須重新往上推的的石頭。」 (參考 彭淮棟 《浮士德博士》(導讀和譯註本)頁63「 尼采小說」一節；比較Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe (1942) )


BRIEF LIVES :
INTIMATE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE FAMOUS BY THE FAMOUS








2018.2.19  清晨  去 Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Girtin
驚訝 他只活27歲Thomas Girtin  ( 1775 – 1802)，然而作品精緻，數量"可觀"，
好友Turner (1775-1851)在他 早死要說，"Had Tom ㄗGirtin lived I should have starved".
這只是開玩笑，其實世界對所有人和作其品，都是多多益善的。

British Museum

This atmospheric watercolour depicts Lanercost Priory in Cumbria, northwest England, and was painted by Thomas Girtin, born #onthisdayin 1775. Girtin went on painting tours of the north of the country, recording the landscapes and rural scenes he encountered, including many ruins of priories and abbeys. This picture was made when Girtin was just 18, perhaps copied from an illustration. Lanercost priory was destroyed during King Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries in 1538, along with hundreds of other ecclesiastic buildings in England.



胡適譯葛德的 Harfenspieler (1952年9月10日) 誰不曾含著悲哀咽他的飯！ 誰不曾中夜嘆息，睡了又重起， 淚汪汪地等候東方的復旦， 偉大的天神呵，他不曾認識你。
Gothe's Harfenspieler
Wer nie sein Brod mit Thränen as,
Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte
Auf seinem Bette weinend sas,
Der kennt euch nicht, ihr himmlischen Mächte.


本文 根據胡適之先生年譜長編 和 胡適的嘗試後集 比較好 嘗試後集 中的:

Carlyle's Translation
Who never ate his bread in sorrow,
Who never spent the midnight hours
Weeping and waiting for the morrow,
He knows you not, ye heavenly powers.


養蜂者說，取得30克蜂蜜，蜂約須作200萬朵花的遠征、努力。(NHK的"街道漫步"Auckland 2015.2.23)

我們或許可以「套」彭淮棟先生自己在《貝多芬—阿多諾的音樂哲學‧ 譯跋》（2009年孟春，p.372）結尾說的，來說明他一輩子努力以赴的編譯事業：
雖然理論「灰色」，雖然(世界上)有許多哲學「做夢也想不到的事情」，但《貝多芬—阿多諾的音樂哲學》還是能豐富我們對音樂與貝多芬音樂的欣賞和理解，阿多諾功不唐捐。


郭嵩焘作胡文忠公 (林翼) 行狀，記胡公"嘗言國之需才，猶魚之需水，鳥之需林，人之需氣，草木之需土，得之則生，不得則死。才者無求於天下，天下當自求之。
({養知書屋文集}十七，49。)  胡適日記：1948.8.10

阿多諾作《啟蒙運動的辯證》，索西方問題之本於希臘哲學，曼寫《浮士德博士》，討問題之根於千年之上的德國歷史。 —彭淮棟 《浮士德博士》(導讀和譯註本)頁58「 『詩人與思想家之國』淪為地獄」一節
《浮士德博士》第廿五章讀來極似阿多諾《新音樂的哲學》與後來的《美學理論》（「從和聲觀念解放，結果成為兌換覺的反叛」）的精華濃縮，另成別趣。—同上書頁68「 小說結構」一節




1973年暑假：品田山(十峻之一)、池有山、桃山和喀拉業山(台灣百岳四大鳥山之一)等四座百岳，武陵(農場)四秀。



1973年夏，化工(主事)、外文(彭淮棟)、工工(苗、鍾)等系的朋友登武陵四秀。

Hanching Chung 新增了 2 張相片。

3月8日 8:59

1973年夏，化工(主事)、外文(彭淮棟)、工工(苗、鍾)等系的朋友登武陵四秀。

台中縣沙鹿、大甲.......
Bob Dylan 的詩歌與音樂......
《音樂與音響》；中興堂華格納音樂；自修音樂/鋼琴
約1974年，彭先生翻譯的音樂文章在《音樂與音響》月刊發表， 稿費好， 很鼓勵人。 再過約15年，張繼高先生主持《美國新聞與世界報導》週刊， 彭掛"副社長"他跟我說張先生的一些行事包括稿費從不會怠慢因為他體諒人

美國新聞與世界報導
台北市 : 美國新聞與世界報導中文周刊雜誌社


Der Ring des Nibelungen 等等 2天 1974

Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Nibelung's Ring / The Ring of the Nibelung) is called "ein Bühnenfestspiel für drei Tage und einen Vorabend" (a stage festival drama for three days and a preliminary evening).

"1974年12月29 K DURANT的《哲學史話》。上山讀KANT。...... 和匡漢上公墓聊天。和阿堂 (林世堂)聊到晨四點。英格 (蔡英文)說一個人只能執於一。讀劍橋。睡阿碰 (彭淮棟)床。他漏夜讀書....."
 (這學年我住台中家，所以在學校沒舖位)

2015.3.25
朋友聚會，很難得。林世堂博士(宏星技研材料唱股份有限公司創辦人)是阿彭的室友，與他近40年未謀面，這次知道我們約11點在我處見面，當然來參加。
之前，我向阿彭調幾本《浮士德博士》來增加軍備：第一本簽書是給世堂的。

世堂曾經到阿彭的老家，竹東軟橋路某號， 住過，他說生平所見星空之燦爛，以那次為最。阿彭也住過林家石牌世堂老家；他記得世堂1976年的畢業設計---。世堂則說設計還保留，只缺請劉廣仁 (現加拿大某大都市的都發局主管)代畫的透視圖。

約1975某個黃昏，我倆穿拖鞋出發到北港看媽祖進香…..整條路的人一見媽祖出駕，全跪拜迎接……我半夜還帶他往台南，清晨抵達，到公園旁的台南二中，找我初中謝立沛老師，讓他招待台南美食。
(2015 阿彭太太胡玉玲說，窗外的桑樹要結果了。)


這一次參加他的新書發表會，會後才知道，我還邀請他到我台中老家打牙祭，他對中華路底，師專---現在稱教育大學等都還記得，而我倒是忘了這些事。

80年代初，一陣子他在寶藏巖租屋，而我們住永和，很容易通。有一次，他跟太太與《新新聞》的主筆王健壯兄到我家大聊.....

1990   顧頡剛讀書筆記（共15冊）本書是顧頡剛先生一生治學、讀書所作筆記，從1914年起，至1980年逝世，從無間斷。因之，他的讀書筆記，是他全部著述的重要組成部分。依據筆記的範圍大致分成載籍、史事與傳記、地理與民族、名物制度、文學藝術、語言文字、民俗學、哲學與宗教、蘇州史事等九大類。內容含蓋中國古代文化的政治、社會、經濟、宗教、思想各個層面，充滿了新材料與新見解。
全書分十卷精裝15冊定價6000元


Der Zauberberg, 1924
1973他看了《魔山》英譯本，數年之後花一整個暑假，不眠不休將它翻譯

Der Zauberberg, first German edition, 1924
(1973不知道他看了托瑪斯．曼《魔山》英譯本，數年之後一整個暑假，不眠不休將它翻譯，賣給遠流公司、出版。

Thomas  Mann《魔山》台北：遠景，1979； 《浮士德博士》台北：漫遊者，2015
導論與註解結筆於2014年10月，合計譯書生涯首尾36載


牛津Past Masters系列，1984譯《紐曼》、《柯立芝》、《但丁》等冊。





托瑪斯．曼、歌德

他說，他大聲跟許多朋友說，他喜歡哥德和托瑪斯．曼的作品，所以國外朋友遇有相關著作，都會寄給他。譬如說，托瑪斯．曼的《書信集》兩巨冊Letters of Thomas Mann 1889 1955，他20年前的禮物，讀了，此次做《浮士德博士》的注解，大有幫助。
(他弄不清楚：外國作家 (如Rilke等等) 創作之餘，還可寫出數以萬記的信。我沒告訴他，托瑪斯．曼在美國的信，都是口述的，我讀過此類報導。)

Michel Foucault. What is Enlightenment?
聯經。系列：思想 第一期



1985~1987年是彭懷棟翻譯的"奇蹟期"

1984；1985

鑄辭：默會致知
The term "tacit knowing" or "tacit knowledge" is attributed to Michael Polanyi in 1958 in Personal Knowledge. In his later work The Tacit Dimension he made the assertion that "we can know more than we can tell."[

鑄辭：「余未入聯經，已為聯經翻譯博藍尼《意義》、《博藍尼講演集》、《科學，哲學與社會》諸作。博藍尼談知識、思想，而時涉政治，數次提及東歐dissident。其時中文尚無dissident觀念，無論翻譯，余考索英文字根，幾經敲磨，譯為「異議分子」。博藍尼書中多處使用context與frame，余亦取定為「脈絡」、「框架」。管見所及，上述三詞皆原文之中譯首例。」


牛津Past Masters系列，譯《喬治 艾略特》 彭淮棟1985
Middlemarch - Wikipedia


 Raymond Williams (1966), 《文化與社會: 1780年至1950年英國文化觀念的發者》1985
.
Culture and Society 1780-1950

目錄  · · · · · · 作者前言 編者前言 導論：複雜的慧見(艾琳·凱利) 俄國與一八四八 刺猬與狐狸 赫爾岑與巴枯寧論個人自由 輝煌的十年 一、俄國知識階層之誕生 二、彼得堡與莫斯科的德國浪漫主義 三、別林斯基 四、赫爾岑 俄國民粹主義 托爾斯泰與啟蒙 父與子 索引 譯後記 編後記
俄羅斯思想家  1987俄国思想家 2011

In a famous essay,The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History,  the Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin divided thinkers into two categories, hedgehogs and foxes. The distinction comes from a saying of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus : "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History

巴頓‧亞倫《南部非洲短篇小說精選》？彭淮棟，圓神出版社 ，1987



美國新聞與世界報導(周刊)


彭淮棟 V 吳魯芹《英美十六家》

高迪默‧納丁尼(Gordimer Nadine)《我兒子的故事*》彭淮棟，九歌出版社，1992

作者: 安妮．法蘭克
出版社: 智庫文化
出版年: 1996-1


約1995年，我託德國歸國的張旺山博士精選哥德的《義大利遊記》送彭兄。
所以對於他日後『談歌德的慾望』（《聯合文學》），不會意外。

緣起：
Auden, W.H. and Elizabeth Mayer. “Introduction.” Goethe: Italian Journey. London: Penguin, 1970，508頁。這篇導論很值得一讀，文末有譯者的翻譯論。 1962年的譯本，由Collins 出版。我記得也出版過Auden單讀翻譯的部分，可能只百來頁。 Goethe: Italian Journey. London: Penguin, 1970. 副標題是著名 (藝術史名家多有專文討論)的一句：Et in Arcadia ego. 我在2011年查過中國的兩翻譯本，錯誤處類似。

GOETHE ON ART By JOHN GAGE
引Italian Journey 一段：阿西西的Minerva 小廟：五臟俱全；guidebook.....
Goethe on Art - Page 99 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com.tw/books?isbn=0520039955
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, ‎John Gage - 1980 - ‎Art
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe John Gage ... I had learned from Palladio and Volkmann1 that a noble Temple of Minerva was still standing [at Assisi] in perfect repair. Thus I left my vetturino at Madonna del ... Maria della Minerva, and he accompanied me to the top of the town, for it lies on the side of a hill. At last we reached ...



Some journeys – Goethe's was one – really are quests. Italian Journey is not only a description of places, persons and things, but also a psychological document of the first importance.
— W. H. Auden, Epigraph on Italian Journey

1997

約1997年，將一本80年代暢銷近200萬本的Quality Is Free 的新版Quality Is Still Free 《熱愛品質》，請他翻譯，我們的交情，當然他自己說費用多少，就奉送。我印象深刻的是他在第一段，機場的情境時卡住了，經我稍解釋，他就下筆如有神，很快交稿。他說，翻譯這本書，第一次接觸到 Starbucks。這待查，因為那是1996年的書。


穆易斯『身心桃花源:當洋醫生遇見赤腳仙』/彭淮棟/張老師, 1995,
聯合文學，1999

Gracián y Morales, Baltasar, 1601-1658.
彭淮棟 臺北市 : 智庫 2000

Said, Edward. (1999).《鄉關何處*》（Out of Place），彭淮棟譯，台北：立緒。2000

J. S. McClelland麥克里蘭著《西洋政治思想史*》彭淮棟譯，台北：商周，2000

這部政冶思想史可以說是從底下寫起，注意統治者。也兼重被治者。我向來認為，歷來論者對人民——有時稱為暴民——所下的功夫一直不夠。政治的素材是人，一位思想家對這素材的觀點一定會影響他對政治可能及應有境界的想法。不過，我發現這樣的寫法很不容易維持，因為思想家關于政治共同體素材的看法往往深藏在他們的著作文字之中，這些文字篇章必須擺到刑架上拷問，才吐露實情。而人人都知道，拷問逼供得到的案情挺不可靠。

如何打敗可口可樂 中文書 , 翟若適(Carl Djerassi)   彭淮棟 , 聯合文學 , 出版日期: 2003

現實意識
The Sense of Reality

作者: 以撒．柏林
: 臉譜 出版社
: 2004

《現實意識》涵括了九篇文章，其中八篇都是第一次發表，且範圍上天下地，極其廣泛：主題包含有史上的現實主義；政治判斷；社會主義；馬克思主義的本質與影響；因浪漫主義掀起的文化革命；俄羅斯的藝術投入；以及民族主義的起源與實踐。


音樂的極境：薩依德音樂評論集 薩依德   彭淮棟 , 太陽社 , 2009

《論晚期風格：反常合道的音樂與文學》麥田，2010
On Late Style: Music and Literature Against the Grain


　薩依德認為莎士比亞與威爾第的晚年作品呈現了一種祥和與睿智的氣味。但他在《論晚期風格》這本書中考察了貝多芬、湯瑪斯．曼、理查．史特勞斯、惹內和莫扎特的晚年作品，指出他們的特質迥異於那種超脫世俗的靜穆。 　　他們的晚期風格，不僅不是和諧與解決，而是冥頑與難解，更是未解決的矛盾，在他們的晚年作品中並非表現得成熟與圓融，反而表現得更孤僻，更不守常規，展現了精神上的自我放逐，一種刻意不具建設性的、逆行的創造。

動物權與動物福利小百科
, 馬克．貝考夫/編著   錢永祥，彭淮棟，陳真 , 桂冠  : 2002



Bart Moore-Gilbert《後殖民理論》台北：聯經，2004

美的歷史 安伯托．艾可   彭淮棟 , 聯經，2006

醜的歷史 , 安伯托．艾可   彭淮棟 , 聯經，
2008
作者: 安伯托·艾可
出版社: 聯經出版公司
出版年: 2006- 2008

貝多芬：阿多諾的音樂哲學

, 聯經出版公司 , 出版日期: 2009

新音乐的哲学（第五版）2017

新音乐的哲学（第五版）

作者: [德]泰奥多尔•W. 阿多诺（Theodor W. Adorno）
出版社: 中央编译出版社
原作名: Philosophie der neuen Musik
译者: 曹俊峰
出版年: 2017，早的一篇是1940—1941年写成的《勋伯格与进步》，第二篇是时隔七年之后写成的《斯特拉文斯基与倒退》，后一篇是在两篇文章结集出版时（1948年）撰写的“导论”，目的是要说明为何要选择新音乐中的两个极端的代表人物作为论述的对象、概括论述新音乐总的发展趋势和特征以及《新音乐的哲学》所用的方法。

無盡的名單
中文書 , 安伯托．艾可/編著   彭淮棟 , 聯經，2012

我們或許可以「套」彭淮棟先生自己在《貝多芬—阿多諾的音樂哲學‧ 譯跋》（2009年孟春）結尾說的，來說明他一輩子努力以赴的編譯事業：
雖然理論「灰色」，雖然(世界上)有許多哲學「做夢也想不到的事情」，但《貝多芬—阿多諾的音樂哲學》還是能豐富我們對音樂與貝多芬音樂的欣賞和理解，阿多諾功不唐捐。


2015

劍橋中國文學史（卷上）：1375年之前

彭淮棟負責第六章　北與南：十二與十三世紀
The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature. Volume Ⅰ: 1375聯經，2016　　傅君勱（Michael Fuller）、林順夫,





譯藝獎2015 彭淮棟譯歷自述- YouTube


彭淮棟譯歷自述 2015年8月31日
忝列譯林，忽忽半生，享不虞之譽於謬賞之識與不識者。花甲之年，卻顧所來徑，強不知以為知，處處皆是，譯筆舛誤，亦何可勝數，惶愧何似。而結褵30載，碌碌為稻梁謀，得暇輒埋首案頭，開門七事無一用，全賴髮妻玉玲含辛持家，不知此生何以為報。
譯路既長，可記之人之書之事蓋夥，唯區區素乏記性，加以老懶相尋，難追往者，何莫寧為吉人，權且忘其所忘，憶其所憶。


＊《魔山》 1976，或1977年，5月某日，自台北返回新竹縣竹東鎮軟橋里，午後獨座家中客廳，四顧岑寂，忽有所思，取稿紙，並The Magic Mountain，列置桌上，審視全書首頁，而走筆譯其首句，而首段，而逐頁。此即《魔山》翻譯之始，亦即區區生平譯事之發軔。 次日復返台北羅斯福路與基隆路之交圓環附近山麓租住處，從此埋首魔山數寒暑。猶記當時已放棄台灣大學外文研究所學業，幽隱斗室，夜以繼日，數日即易一原子筆，向晚時分至公館麵店囫圇一餐，復歸伏案，一燈熒曖，往往至曙。余本農家子，淪跡台北，每值軟橋家中田疇有事，插秧割稻，歸而力作如故。

當時使用六百字稿紙，譯畢粗估50萬字，初稿高積案頭如小丘，謄錄一過，順便增刪潤飾。二次謄錄既了，猶未盡如意，遂手抄第三次，且寫且改，作為清稿。
余譯《魔山》，純由興趣，實則螻蟻撼樹，少不更事，愚勇以赴。英文版《魔山》其厚如磚，譯稿如山，經此磨難，從此譯書每覺輕盈，至《西方政治思想》與《浮士德博士》，始感大山崎嶇。


《魔山》主角漢斯．卡斯托普在深山療養院，訪客而成居民，每於夜闌人靜，藏身院中圖書室放唱片欣賞音樂，遍聆名曲，Thomas Mann使出看家本領，假卡斯托普之耳之思揮灑其音樂素養，浩瀚兼精深，區區當時於西方古典音樂略識之無，強充解人，極汲深綆短之窘，有愧作者，更愧讀者。然卡斯托普聆樂，其情其景，一譯難忘，2000年譯薩依德自傳《鄉關何處》，傳主自述早年窺探其父庋藏之音樂寶庫，每常寅夜竊播唱片，痴醉自娛。關於其事之孕思，薩依德未見著墨，然筆者一見而憶卡斯托普療養院子夜聆曲銷魂，兩文機杼如出一轍。所異者，薩依德全以理性研析音樂，Thomas Mann則假卡斯托普之聽樂與書中人文主義者塞特布里尼之批判，初申其音樂曖昧而具魔性之論。


譯畢《魔山》，寫萬言譯序＜湯瑪斯．曼和《魔山》＞，詳述此書緣起、成書經過、旨趣及意義，歲月綿渺，久已渾然不省所言何物，日前重披此序，見此一段，如睹預言：


1947年的《浮士德》，書中敘述者認為藝術家的成長過程乃人類命運的典範，而音樂藝術家可為各種廣泛論題的典範; 藝術的、文化的、人及其心靈在現代的處境。我們可以異議這種認定，但是，寫一位音樂家脫棄心智的清醒制約，實在就寫活了一個脫棄清醒而放縱原始本能的社會－－曼由前世紀後半葉活到本世紀上半葉，親歷一、二次世界大戰; 雖常自居尼采的傳人，但也認清尼采對現代思想與藝術，尤其德國政治的影響。讀者若了解德國對本世紀歷史的左右力量，則可見那位音樂家主角的病態與毀滅呈現的不僅是納粹治下的德國，簡直就表達了現代文明現代人，書中敘述者的看法大致可以成立。



著手《魔山》，乃至作序之時，何曾夢見翻譯《浮士德》之日，無論譯自德文。＜湯＞序繫年1979年5月，《浮士德》導論與註解結筆於2014年10月，合計譯書生涯首尾36載，當時逞其愚勇痴撼巨著於而立之年，今日賈其餘勇唐突又一傑構於知命之歲，區區之Thomas Mann緣可謂既有其始，亦克有終。


《俄國思想家》
兵役之後，至台北秋雨印刷公司任職英文文案，得識玉玲。區區愚拙，玉玲慧質，區區如船之得錨，此生自是而有安頓。玉玲持門戶，勝一大丈夫，余不知修幾多世，得與共枕。
當時聯經出版公司迻譯牛津Past Masters系列，余抽暇譯其中紐曼、柯立芝、但丁等冊。
1985年，應林載爵兄之召，備員聯經編輯部，專職審閱＜現代名著譯叢＞譯稿，逐字逐句核對原文與中譯，獲益良多，且得以多閱名著，眼界大開，並由是而益知譯事之難，睹他人之失，惕自己之過。當時常思孔子「吾欲寡過」一語，深感翻譯無功，寡過為得。


時錢永祥兄在聯經編輯部兼任顧問，不以區區拙淺，建議翻譯Russian Thinkers，余不揣鄙陋而應命，約歷一年又半，以題材深得我意，作者文采又賞心，余於至難之中，得譯事之至樂。
然外成必有內助。書將出，作＜譯序＞，末段興感：
      憶自民國七十四年除夕起筆，歷十八年而具形狀，其間與書中人物同其大夢，於我是歲月暗換，然現實仍是活生生的現實，日間上班，入夜則伏案，快然自足而多疏家務，多謝吾妻玉玲擔待。
此段感念，余至今時刻在心。


其時余猶新婚，每日自聯經下班抵家，飯後即伏案至午夜，玉玲曾以淡色素描，畫一長髮少女閉目嗑睡，頭微側，睫毛低垂，嬌態可掬，旁註「不要讓愛情睡著了」，語簡意遠，柔情萬種，余雖魯鈍，睹之旖旎溢懷，愛愧交集。今再記此事，以為天下專顧己事而忘忽賢妻者戒。

＊自鑄新詞
字典有大用，而尺有所短。譯者於原文不見於中文辭書之字詞，允宜細考其義，自運鑪錘，創發新詞，不惟豐富中文，亦且嘉惠讀者。
．余未入聯經，已為聯經翻譯博藍尼《意義》、《博藍尼講演集》、《科學，哲學與社會》諸作。博藍尼談知識、思想，而時涉政治，數次提及東歐dissident。其時中文尚無dissident觀念，無論翻譯，余考索英文字根，幾經敲磨，譯為「異議分子」。博藍尼書中多處使用context與frame，余亦取定為「脈絡」、「框架」。管見所及，上述三詞皆原文之中譯首例。




．1986年9月，US News & World Report中文版由聯合報發行，次年，余應邀審稿，繼而不次升任副總編輯。

其時台灣各界於美國政治、財經、保健各層面之用語至為陌生，余閱稿之際，頻見issue、market share、survival、survival rate等詞，而中譯者每為束手，為一勞永逸計，區區悉心詳究諸詞原義，而審定為「議題」、「市場占有率」、「存活」、「存活率」。諸詞如今皆成常語。

＊吳魯芹
余在聯經處理譯稿，鑑於西方人物、作者、書名之中譯向來雜異，每閱一稿，必擇既有譯法之可取者而用之，以劃一聯經譯品之人物、作者、書名，兼利讀者。
1986年初，《聯合文學》囑譯《巴黎評論》作家訪談Writers at Work，首篇為＜莎岡訪問錄＞。余譯畢次篇＜羅伯．潘．華倫＞，遍尋訪談所提人物、角色、書名之現有中譯，以便採納，忽記吳魯芹《英美十六家》既廣論歐美名家，必有可用，遂至書局捧讀此書，書中正有羅伯．潘．華倫篇，讀之駭異。該篇所記羅伯．潘．華倫書房擺設，乃至吳對詩人所提問題，問題之順序，提問之遣詞用字，及詩人答問之內容與用語，無不與《巴黎評論》雷同。......


結語
翻譯雖小道，非大能莫辦。《文心雕龍》第二十六「積學以儲寶，酌理以富才，研閱以窮照，馴致以懌辭」，雖論神思，其言學、理、才、辭，用於翻譯，實極妥貼。
余不倚翻譯為衣食，以久涉此道，略知甘苦，深不以流俗卑視譯者為然。使無譯者，何來譯品，若無能手，何來佳譯。漢清兄眼界宏廓，素重翻譯，復獨排俗見，品題譯者而勵之獎之，卓識慧見，海內一人，漢清講堂「譯藝獎」，海內一獎也。




"When young, one is confident to be able to build palaces for mankind, but when the time comes one has one's hands full just to be able to remove their trash."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Portrait of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe by Angelica Kauffmann, 1787
Neoclassical painter, Angelica Kauffmann.

Goethe in the Roman Campagna
by J. H. W. Tischbein (1787)
Neoclassical painter, Angelica Kauffmann. Tischbein accompanied him to Naples and painted one of the most famous portraits of Goethe, Goethe in the Roman Campagna, which was never completed. During the journey, the two later separated due to their "incompatible" interests.

57/5000
View of the temples of Paestum

Veduta dei templi di Paestum, di Christoph Heinrich Kniep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paestum



結語 翻譯雖小道，非大能莫辦。《文心雕龍》第二十六「積學以儲寶，酌理以富才，研閱以窮照，馴致以懌辭」，雖論神思，其言學、理、才、辭，用於翻譯，實極妥貼。 余不倚翻譯為衣食，以久涉此道，略知甘苦，深不以流俗卑視譯者為然。使無譯者，何來譯品，若無能手，何來佳譯。漢清兄眼界宏廓，素重翻譯，復獨排俗見，品題譯者而勵之獎之，卓識慧見，海內一人，漢清講堂「譯藝獎」，海內一獎也。

Goethe's Italian Journey between September 1786 and May 1788

The Gulf of Naples from Vesuvius,
by Goethe's artist friend Christoph Heinrich Kniep [9]

Goethe-Herme im Hof der Scaligerburg in Malcesine

Goethe had erected in the meadows along the River Ilm outside Weimar.  Goethe, 1777 ““the Altar of Good Fortune may at first sight look like a Brancusi but was in fact designed by ... The monument was a birthday present for Charlotte von Stein. Its meaning derives from the dedication to ‘Agathe Tyche’, the ‘Goddess of Chance’,

Tyche is not portrayed here as a person, however. Goethe chooses for his monument an explicitly symbolic stylistic form. This refers to familiar symbols from the time of the Renaissance. According to them, the solid stone cube embodies stability and consistency, also the incorruptibility of Justice.
The monument becomes his stabiliser. It is there to remind him daily of what he had learned from Charlotte von Stein.
‘May this beautiful notion of power and restraint, of caprice and law, of freedom and measure, of flexible order, excellence and deficiency bring you great joy’.

Painting No. 199, Oil by Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944, Russia) 1914