Homepage List My Twelfth Piece of Translation Exercise (passage from "Jane Eyre") (a complete version of the original Article No.51, written on January 4, 2014, completed with the supplement of "Translation of the same passage copied from a book for comparison")

53. My Twelfth Piece of Translation Exercise (passage from "Jane Eyre") (a complete version of the original Article No.51, written on January 4, 2014, completed with the supplement of "Translation of the same passage copied from a book for comparison")

The original passage (Charlotte Bronte's own Preface to her Second Edition of "Jane Eyre" (《簡愛》)):

【Preface

A preface to the first edition of 'Jane Eyre' being unnecessary, I gave none: this second edition demands a few words both of acknowledgment and miscellaneous remark.

My thanks are due in three quarters.

To the Public, for the indulgent ear it has inclined to a plain tale with few pretensions.

To the Press, for the fair field its honest suffrage has opened to an obscure aspirant.

To my Publishers, for the aid their tact, their energy, their practical sense, and frank liberality have afforded an unknown and unrecommended Author.

The Press and the Public are but vague personifications for me, and I must thank them in vague terms; but my Publishers are definite: so are certain generous critics who have encouraged me as only large-hearted and high-minded men know how to encourage a struggling stranger; to them, that is, to my Publishers and the select Reviewers, I say cordially, Gentlemen, I thank you from my heart.

Having thus acknowledged what I owe those who have aided and approved me, I turn to another class; a small one, so far as I know, but not, therefore, to be overlooked. I mean the timorous or carping few who doubt the tendency of such books as 'Jane Eyre': in whose eyes whatever is unusual is wrong; whose ears detect in each protest against bigotry - that parent of crime - an insult to piety, that regent of God on earth. I would suggest to such doubters certain obvious distinctions; I would remind them of certain simple truths.

Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns.

These things and deeds are diametrically opposed: they are as distinct as is vice from virtue. Men too often confound them: they should not be confounded: appearance should not be mistaken for truth; narrow human doctrines, that only tend to elate and magnify a few, should not be substituted for the world-redeeming creed of Christ. There is - I repeat it - a difference; and it is a good, and not a bad action to mark broadly and clearly the line of separation between them.

The world may not like to see these ideas dissevered, for it has been accustomed to blend them; finding it convenient to make external show pass for sterling worth - to let white-washed walls vouch for clean shrines. It may hate him who dares to scrutinise and expose, to rase the gilding and show base metal under it, to penetrate the sepulchre and reveal charnel relics; but hate as it will, it is indebted to him.

Ahab did not like Micaiah, because he never prophesied good concerning him, but evil; probably he liked the sycophant son of Chenaannah better; yet might Ahab have escaped a bloody death, had he but stopped his ears to flattery, and opened them to faithful counsel.

There is a man in our own days whose words are not framed to tickle delicate ears; who, to my thinking, comes before the great ones of society much as the son of Imlah came before the throned kings of Judah and Israel, and who speaks truth as deep, with a power as prophet-like and as vital, a mien as dauntless and as daring. Is the satirist of 'Vanity Fair' admired in high places? I cannot tell; but I think if some of those amongst whom he hurls the Greek fire of his sarcasm, and over whom he flashes the levin-brand of his denunciation, were to take his warnings in time, they or their seed might yet escape a fatal Ramoth-Gilead.

Why have I alluded to this man? I have alluded to him, Reader, because I think I see in him an intellect profounder and more unique than his contemporaries have yet recognised; because I regard him as the first social regenerator of the day, as the very master of that working corps who would restore to rectitude the warped system of things; because I think no commentator on his writings has yet found the comparison that suits him, the terms which rightly characterise his talent. They say he is like Fielding: they talk of his wit, humour, comic powers. He resembles Fielding as an eagle does a vulture: Fielding could stoop on carrion, but Thackeray never does. His wit is bright, his humour attractive, but both bear the same relation to his serious genius that the mere lambent sheet-lightning playing under the edge of the summer-cloud does to the electric death-spark hid in its womb. Finally, I have alluded to Mr Thackeray, because to him - if he will accept the tribute of a total stranger - I have dedicated this second edition of 'JANE EYRE.'

CURRER BELL

December 21st, 1847】


My Chinese translation:

【序

《簡愛》(Jane Eyre)初版沒有需要,因此我不寫序;這次第二版要寫些答謝說話和其他種種的聲明。

我的答謝有三方面。

公眾方面:感謝他們極度細心地傾聽這個沒有甚麼花巧舖張的平實故事。

媒體方面:感謝它們向一個寂寂無聞唯滿懷大志者投以公平誠實的選票。

我的印刷商方面:感謝他們向一個無人認識及推薦的作家施以練達、能量、現實觸覺和坦然寬大胸襟的幫忙。

對我來說,媒體和公眾只是泛泛的大眾,我感謝他們時亦須用上泛泛之語;可是我的印刷商卻是明確的個體,還有某些慷慨的書評家都是。他們一直給我鼓勵──唯有心胸廣闊和目光遠大人士才懂得向一個掙扎求存的陌生人給予的那種鼓勵。我懇切、由衷地向他們──我的印刷商和其中一些書評家──說:先生們,多謝!

對一直幫忙和認同我的人道謝過後,我轉向另一群人,以我現在所知是一小群人,但不能因為人數少而可以忽略。我說的是那群怕事或挑剔的少數人,他們對像《簡愛》(Jane Eyre)這類書的傾向抱持懷疑的態度。他們眼見的凡是不一般的事情總認為是錯的;他們聽見的每一聲對偏見──罪惡之母──的抗議都認為是對塵世間向上帝虔敬之心的侮辱。我會向這些懷疑者建議一些明顯的區別,我會點醒他們一些簡單的真理。

傳統慣例不是道德規範,自以為是的正義不是宗教。攻繫前者不代表是攻繫後者,揭起「法利賽人」(Pharisee)的面罩不代表是拿開放在「荊棘王冠」(Crown of Thorns)上褻瀆之手。

這些事情和行為是完完全全對立的:它們的區別就像邪惡和美德間的分明。大眾經常混淆了它們:它們不應該被混淆,外表不可以錯誤地當成真理。只為取悅和大大偏幫少數人的狹隘的人為規條不應替代基督救贖世界的教旨。那裡,我重覆一聲,有一個分別,把它們區分清清楚楚是好事而不會是壞事。

世界不願意看到這些思想接合一起,因為它已經習慣了把它們混和起來,認為這可以方便藉炫耀外表以通過金錢價值的估量,藉塗上白漆的牆壁以保證神廟的乾淨。世人可能憎恨他這般大膽──大膽地審視和暴露、刮去表面塗層以顯露下面的金屬、鑽探進石墓以暴露墓室的遺骨。可是憎恨歸憎恨,世人當感激他的。

「亞哈」(Ahab)不喜歡「米該雅」(Micaiah),因為他對他的預言總沒有好的而只有邪惡的結果,他大概是比較喜歡「基拿拿」(Chenaannah)那個喜愛阿諛奉承別人的兒子吧。然而,如果當初「亞哈」(Ahab)能關上愛聽阿諛奉承的耳朵而張開耳朵傾聽真誠忠告的話,他原是可以逃過死亡的災劫。

今天有一個人,他的說話沒有被規限了只向纖弱易損的耳朵訴說。我認為他是當今社會偉大人物中的一員,就像「音拉」(Imlah)的兒子是「猶大」(Judah)及「以色列」(Israel)王座上君主的一員一樣。他說的真理是如此穩固,他的力量是如此像預言家和如此至關重要,他的風度是如此無畏無懼和膽識過人。著作《名利場》(Vanity Fair)的諷刺作家是否得到大眾至高無上的擁戴?這個我不敢說,但我認為:如果那群曾被他投擲以嘲諷的「希臘之火」的、以及曾被他照射以無比鋒利的「當頭棒喝」的人當中一些人,如果他們當初能及時接受他的警告的話,他們或他們的後代原是可以逃過致命的「拉末-基列」(Ramoth-Gilead)。

為甚麼我要暗示這一個人?讀者們,我暗示他是因為我認為自己看到他的睿智比同時代人已經認知的更加深邃和更加獨特;是因為我把他看成是重建現今社會的第一人,是工作軍團中將扭曲制度下的事物回歸正直的大師級人物;是因為沒有任何評論他著作的書評家能找到與他相襯的比較、找到可以確切勾勒出他才智的術語。大眾說他像「菲爾丁」(Fielding):無論是機智、幽默、喜劇力量都像。他與「菲爾丁」(Fielding)的相似如同鷹與禿鷲的相似:「菲爾丁」(Fielding)會俯身向腐肉但「薩克雷」(Thackeray)永遠不會。(譯註:Thackeray是"Vanity Fair"的作者,"Jane Eyre"第二版就是獻給他的。)他的機智是耀眼的,他的幽默是引人入勝的,然而兩者都與他嚴肅穩重的天才息息相關:就像在夏日雲層邊緣下方嬉戲的、普通不過的片狀閃電與隱藏在雲層肚腹內可置人死地的電荷的關係一樣。最後:我一直暗示的人是「薩克雷」(Thackeray)先生,因為──如果他願意接受一個完全陌生人的奉獻──我把這本《簡愛》(Jane Eyre)第二版獻給他。

CURRER BELL(譯註:Charlotte Bronte發表"Jane Eyre"時使用的筆名。)

1847年12月21日】


Translation of the same passage copied from a book for comparison:

【原序

《簡愛》的第一版不需要寫序,因此我沒寫;第二版則需要幾句話來表達我的謝忱以及幾項意見。

我的謝忱分為三部分。

對於讀者,我感謝他們包容地傾聽了一個樸實無華的故事。

對於報界,我感謝它為沒沒無聞的有心人,開闢了一個能接受公平評判的場地。

對於我的出版商,我感謝他們以他們的圓融練達、豐沛衝勁、實用眼光和坦然寬容,來幫助一位沒有名氣且無人推薦的作者。

報界和讀者群,對我來說只是一些模糊的人物,我只能以模糊的詞語來感謝他們;然而我的出版商們卻是明確的,幾位寬大的評論家也是,他們如此鼓勵我,只有寬宏大量而心靈高尚的人,才懂得這麼鼓勵一個掙扎中的陌生人。對於我的出版商和那些出類拔萃的書評家們,我由衷地說,先生們,我打心裡謝謝你們。

對於那些曾經幫助過我,贊許過我的人致謝之後,我現在要轉向另一群人:就我所知,這是很小的一群,然而也不能因此而忽略。我指的是些膽小懦弱、吹毛求疵的少數,他們對像《簡愛》這類作品的旨趣,都抱著懷疑態度。在他們眼裡,只要是不尋常的,就是錯誤;對於偏執──罪惡之母──的所有抗議,在他們耳裡聽來,都是一種對虔信──上帝在人間的攝政王──的侮辱。對於這些懷疑者,我要指出幾點明顯的區別,還要提醒他們一些簡單的事實。

傳統並不等同於道德,偽道並不等同於宗教;抨擊前者並不等於攻伐後者,揭去法利賽人的假面具,並不等於對荊冠舉起不敬之手。這些事情與行為,是截然相反的,就跟罪惡與美德的殊分一樣。人們太常混淆它們,它們不該被混為一談:表象不該被誤以為是真相,凡人心胸狹隘的教條,只能讓少數人自以為是、自命不凡,不該拿來代表基督的贖世教義。那之中──我要再說一遍──是有差別的,在它們之間不客氣且清楚地畫出分界線來,是件好事,不是壞事。

世人也許不喜歡見到這些概念被分割開來,因為他們已經習慣於混淆它們,覺得把外表虛飾當作真正價值、以刷白的牆壁來代表潔淨聖地是方便的。他們也許會痛恨那個敢於細察與揭露,敢於掀起鍍金表層現出底下劣質金屬,敢於探進墳墓裡掘出屍骸的人,可是,儘管痛恨,他們還是受惠於他。

亞哈不喜歡米開亞,因為米開亞對他從來不作吉利的預言,只說凶事;也許他比較喜歡伽拿那的愛諂媚的兒子,然而亞哈本可以逃過一場血難的,只要他肯停止傾聽阿諛奉承,接受忠實勸戒。

我們這時代,有個人,他說的話,不是用來呵撫嬌嫩的耳朵的;在我認為,他的地位高過社會上的許多偉傑,就像音拉之子勝過那些猶大和以色列君王一樣。他說出的真理如音拉之子一樣深刻,說話的氣魄也一樣像先知般強而有力,態度也一樣大無畏而勇敢。寫《浮華世界》的那位諷刺小說家,受到崇高的敬仰嗎?我不知道;但是我認為,那些被他投擲譏諷的火藥,投射譴責的閃電的人之中,若是有幾人能夠即時接受他的警告,那他們或是他們的子孫或許還能免於基列拉末的致命劫難。

為甚麼提起這個人?讀者,我提起他,是因為我認為我在他身上,見到了一位比同代人到目前為止所認可的還要精深、還要獨特的智者;因為我把他視為當代社會改革家當中的第一位,是要把扭曲的體系恢復到清廉正直的那群奮鬥者當中的領袖;還因為我認為評論他作品的人,尚未找到適合他的比喻,尚未找到能夠正確描述他的才華的字眼。他們說他像費爾丁;指的是他的智慧、幽默和喜劇才能。然而他與費爾丁之相似,就如同老鷹與兀鷹之相似;費爾丁會撲向腐肉,薩克萊卻從不如此。他的智慧是明燦的,他的幽默是迷人的,而這兩者與他的嚴肅天才之間的關係,就如同夏季雲層邊緣搖曳耍弄的片狀閃電,與蘊藏在雲層深處的致命電光的關係。最後,我提起薩克萊先生,是因為我要將這第二版的《簡愛》獻給他──如果他願意接受一位素不相識的陌生人的獻禮的話。

卡拉•貝爾
一八四七年十二月二十一日】

(Written on January 1, 2015)