charmides-第4部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





certain　freshness　and　a　suitable　'entourage。'　　It　is　strange　to　observe



that　the　most　effective　use　of　Scripture　phraseology　arises　out　of　the



application　of　it　in　a　sense　not　intended　by　the　author。　　（c）　Another



caution：　　metaphors　differ　in　different　languages；　and　the　translator　will



often　be　compelled　to　substitute　one　for　another；　or　to　paraphrase　them；



not　giving　word　for　word；　but　diffusing　over　several　words　the　more



concentrated　thought　of　the　original。　　The　Greek　of　Plato　often　goes　beyond



the　English　in　its　imagery：　compare　Laws；　（Greek）；　Rep。；　etc。　　Or　again　the



modern　word；　which　in　substance　is　the　nearest　equivalent　to　the　Greek；　may



be　found　to　include　associations　alien　to　Greek　life：　　e。g。　（Greek）；



'jurymen；'　（Greek）；　'the　bourgeoisie。'　　（d）　The　translator　has　also　to



provide　expressions　for　philosophical　terms　of　very　indefinite　meaning　in



the　more　definite　language　of　modern　philosophy。　　And　he　must　not　allow



discordant　elements　to　enter　into　the　work。　　For　example；　in　translating



Plato；　it　would　equally　be　an　anachronism　to　intrude　on　him　the　feeling　and



spirit　of　the　Jewish　or　Christian　Scriptures　or　the　technical　terms　of　the



Hegelian　or　Darwinian　philosophy。







（7）　As　no　two　words　are　precise　equivalents　（just　as　no　two　leaves　of　the



forest　are　exactly　similar）；　it　is　a　mistaken　attempt　at　precision　always



to　translate　the　same　Greek　word　by　the　same　English　word。　　There　is　no



reason　why　in　the　New　Testament　（Greek）　should　always　be　rendered



'righteousness；'　or　（Greek）　'covenant。'　　In　such　cases　the　translator　may



be　allowed　to　employ　two　wordssometimes　when　the　two　meanings　occur　in



the　same　passage；　varying　them　by　an　'or'e。g。　（Greek）；　'science'　or



'knowledge；'　（Greek）；　'idea'　or　'class；'　（Greek）；　'temperance'　or



'prudence；'at　the　point　where　the　change　of　meaning　occurs。　　If



translations　are　intended　not　for　the　Greek　scholar　but　for　the　general



reader；　their　worst　fault　will　be　that　they　sacrifice　the　general　effect



and　meaning　to　the　over…precise　rendering　of　words　and　forms　of　speech。







（8）　There　is　no　kind　of　literature　in　English　which　corresponds　to　the



Greek　Dialogue；　nor　is　the　English　language　easily　adapted　to　it。　　The



rapidity　and　abruptness　of　question　and　answer；　the　constant　repetition　of



（Greek）；　etc。；　which　Cicero　avoided　in　Latin　（de　Amicit）；　the　frequent



occurrence　of　expletives；　would；　if　reproduced　in　a　translation；　give



offence　to　the　reader。　　Greek　has　a　freer　and　more　frequent　use　of　the



Interrogative；　and　is　of　a　more　passionate　and　emotional　character；　and



therefore　lends　itself　with　greater　readiness　to　the　dialogue　form。　　Most



of　the　so…called　English　Dialogues　are　but　poor　imitations　of　Plato；　which



fall　very　far　short　of　the　original。　　The　breath　of　conversation；　the



subtle　adjustment　of　question　and　answer；　the　lively　play　of　fancy；　the



power　of　drawing　characters；　are　wanting　in　them。　　But　the　Platonic



dialogue　is　a　drama　as　well　as　a　dialogue；　of　which　Socrates　is　the　central



figure；　and　there　are　lesser　performers　as　well：the　insolence　of



Thrasymachus；　the　anger　of　Callicles　and　Anytus；　the　patronizing　style　of



Protagoras；　the　self…consciousness　of　Prodicus　and　Hippias；　are　all　part　of



the　entertainment。　To　reproduce　this　living　image　the　same　sort　of　effort



is　required　as　in　translating　poetry。　　The　language；　too；　is　of　a　finer



quality；　the　mere　prose　English　is　slow　in　lending　itself　to　the　form　of



question　and　answer；　and　so　the　ease　of　conversation　is　lost；　and　at　the



same　time　the　dialectical　precision　with　which　the　steps　of　the　argument



are　drawn　out　is　apt　to　be　impaired。







II。　　In　the　Introductions　to　the　Dialogues　there　have　been　added　some



essays　on　modern　philosophy；　and　on　political　and　social　life。　　The　chief



subjects　discussed　in　these　are　Utility；　Communism；　the　Kantian　and



Hegelian　philosophies；　Psychology；　and　the　Origin　of　Language。　　（There　have



been　added　also　in　the　Third　Edition　remarks　on　other　subjects。　　A　list　of



the　most　important　of　these　additions　is　given　at　the　end　of　this　Preface。）







Ancient　and　modern　philosophy　throw　a　light　upon　one　another：　　but　they



should　be　compared；　not　confounded。　　Although　the　connexion　between　them　is



sometimes　accidental；　it　is　often　real。　　The　same　questions　are　discussed



by　them　under　different　conditions　of　language　and　civilization；　but　in



some　cases　a　mere　word　has　survived；　while　nothing　or　hardly　anything　of



the　pre…Socratic；　Platonic；　or　Aristotelian　meaning　is　retained。　　There　are



other　questions　familiar　to　the　moderns；　which　have　no　place　in　ancient



philosophy。　　The　world　has　grown　older　in　two　thousand　years；　and　has



enlarged　its　stock　of　ideas　and　methods　of　reasoning。　　Yet　the　germ　of



modern　thought　is　found　in　ancient；　and　we　may　claim　to　have　inherited；



notwithstanding　many　accidents　of　time　and　place；　the　spirit　of　Greek



philosophy。　　There　is；　however；　no　continuous　growth　of　the　one　into　the



other；　but　a　new　beginning；　partly　artificial；　partly　arising　out　of　the



questionings　of　the　mind　itself；　and　also　receiving　a　stimulus　from　the



study　of　ancient　writings。







Considering　the　great　and　fundamental　differences　which　exist　in　ancient



and　modern　philosophy；　it　seems　best　that　we　should　at　first　study　them



separately；　and　seek　for　the　interpretation　of　either；　especially　of　the



ancient；　from　itself　only；　comparing　the　same　author　with　himself　and　with



his　contemporaries；　and　with　the　general　state　of　thought　and　feeling



prevalent　in　his　age。　　Afterwards　comes　the　remoter　light　which　they　cast



on　one　another。　　We　begin　to　feel　that　the　ancients　had　the　same　thoughts



as　ourselves；　the　same　difficulties　which　characterize　all　periods　of



transition；　almost　the　same　opposition　between　science　and　religion。　



Although　we　cannot　maintain　that　ancient　and　modern　philosophy　are　one　and



continuous　（as　has　been　affirmed　with　more　truth　respecting　ancient　and



modern　history）；　for　they　are　separated　by　an　interval　of　a　thousand　years；



yet　they　seem　to　recur　in　a　sort　of　cycle；　and　we　are　surprised　to　find



that　the　new　is　ever　old；　and　that　the　teaching　of　the　past　has　still　a



meaning　for　us。







III。　　In　the　preface　to　the　first　edition　I　expressed　a　strong　opinion　at



variance　with　Mr。　Grote's；　that　the　so…called　Epistles　of　Plato　were



spurious。　　His　friend　and　editor；　Professor　Bain；　thinks　that　I　ought　to



give　the　reasons　why　I　differ　from　so　eminent　an　authority。　　Reserving　the



fuller　discussion　of　the　question　for　another　place；　I　will　shortly　defend



my　opinion　by　the　following　arguments：







（a）　Because　almost　all　epistles　purporting　to　be　of　the　classical　age　of



Greek　literature　are　forgeries。　　（Compare　Bentley's　Works　（Dyce's



Edition）。）　　Of　all　documents　this　class　are　the　least　likely　to　be



preserved　and　the　most　likely　to　be　invented。　　The　ancient　world　swarmed



with　them；　the　great　libraries　stimulated　the　demand　for　them；　and　at　a



time　when　there　was　no　regular　publication　of　books；　they　easily　crept　into



the　world。







（b）　When　one　epistle　out　of　a　number　is　spurious；　the　remainder　of　the



series　cannot　be　admitted　to　be　genuine；　unless　there　be　some　independent



ground　for　thinking　them　so：　　when　all　but　one　are　spurious；　overwhelming



evidence　is　required　of　the　genuineness　of　the　one：　　when　they　are　all



similar　in　style　or　motive；　like　witnesses　who　agree　in　the　same　tale；　they



stand　or　fall　together。　　But　no　one；　not　even　Mr。　Grote；　would　maintain



that　all　the　Epistles　of　Plato　are　genuine；　and　very　few　critics　think　that



more　than　one　of　them　is　so。　　And　they　are　clearly　all　written　from　the



same　motive；　whether　serious　or　only　literary。　　Nor　is　there　an　example　in



Greek　antiquity　of　a　series　of　Epistles；　continuous　and　yet　coinciding　with



a　succession　of　events　extending　over　a　great　number　of　years。







The　external　probability　therefore　against　them　is　enormous；　and　the



internal　probability　is　not　less：　　for　they　are　trivial　and　unmeaning；



devoid　of　delicacy　and　subtlety；　wanting　in　a　single　fine　expression。　　And



even　if　this　be　matter　of　dispute；　there　can　be　no　dispute　that　there　are



found　in　them　many　plagiarisms；　inappropriately　borrowed；　which　is　a　common



note　of　forgery。　　They　imitate　Plato；　who　never　imitates　either　himself　or



any　one　else；　reminiscences　of　the　Republic　and　the　Laws　are　continually



recurring　in　them；　they　are　too　like　him　and　also　too　unlike　him；　to　be



genuine　（see　especially　Karsten；　Commentio　Critica　de　Platoni