怎樣辨別英文寫作的好壞﹖

埃文河天鹅

莎士比亚，不要把他神化。我觉得应该把他的作品跟他同时代人的作品比较。当时，马洛和琼生的声誉不在他之下。文艺复兴时的作家和诗人不少，作品质量也是良莠不齐。我读过几个人的作品，的确更喜欢莎士比亚的优雅、流畅和雄辩。但是其它作家也得也真的不赖，只是莎士比亚的光环把他们比下去了。

莎士比亚的剧本中好像只有仲夏夜之梦是他自己想的情节，其它的都是有来头的。甚至于，他在剧本中还原封不动地引用别人的话。

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/drampoet.html

参考87-91, 德莱顿对四个人的评价。

埃文河天鹅

[87] To begin then with Shakespeare; he was the man who of all Modern, and perhaps Ancient Poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the Images of Nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, but luckily: when he describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learn'd; he needed not the spectacles of Books to read Nature; he look'd inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every where alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of Mankind. He is many times flat, insipid; his Comick wit degenerating into clenches; his serious swelling into Bombast. But he is alwayes great, when some great occasion is presented to him: no man can say he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high above the rest of the Poets,

Quantum lent a solent, inter viberna cupressi.

[88] The consideration of this made Mr. Hales of Eaton say, That there was no subject of which any Poet ever writ, but he would produce it much better treated of in Shakespeare; and however others are now generally prefer'd before him, yet the Age wherein he liv'd, which had contemporaries with him, Fletcher and Johnson never equall'd them to him in their esteem: And in the last Kings Court, when Ben's reputation was at highest, Sir John Suckling, and with him the greater part of the Courtiers, set our Shakespeare far above him.

埃文河天鹅

[89] Beaumont and Fletcher of whom I am next to speak, had with the advantage of Shakespeare's wit, which was their precedent, great natural gifts, improv'd by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of Playes, that Ben. Johnson while he liv'd, submitted all his Writings to his Censure, and 'tis thought, us'd his judgement in correcting, if not contriving all his Plots. What value he had for him, appears by the Verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first Play which brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their Philaster: for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully: as the like is reported of Ben. Johnson, before he writ Every Man in his Humour. Their Plots were generally more regular then Shakespeare's, especially those which were made before Beaumont's death; and they understood and imitated the conversation of Gentlemen much better; whose wilde debaucheries, and quickness of wit in reparties, no Poet can ever paint as they have done. This Humour of which Ben. Johnson deriv'd from particular persons, they made it not their business to describe: they represented all the passions very lively, but above all, Love. I am apt to believe the English Language in them arriv'd to its highest perfection; what words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous then necessary. Their Playes are now the most pleasant and frequent entertainments of the Stage; two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakespeare's or Johnsons: the reason is, because there is a certain gayety in their Comedies, and Pathos in their more serious Playes, which suits generally with all mens humours. Shakespeares language is likewise a little obsolete, and Ben. Johnson's wit comes short of theirs.

埃文河天鹅

[90] As for Johnson, to whose Character I am now arriv'd, if we look upon him while he was himself, (for his last Playes were but his dotages) I think him the most learned and judicious Writer which any Theater ever had. He was a most severe Judge of himself as well as others. One cannot say he wanted wit, but rather that he was frugal of it. In his works you find little to retrench or alter. Wit and Language, and Humour also in some measure we had before him; but something of Art was wanting to the Drama till he came. He manag'd his strength to more advantage then any who preceded him. You seldome find him making Love in any of his Scenes, or endeavouring to move the Passions; his genius was too sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully, especially when he knew he came after those who had performed both to such an height. Humour was his proper Sphere, and in that he delighted most to represent Mechanick people. He was deeply conversant in the Ancients, both Greek and Latine, and he borrow'd boldly from them: there is scarce a Poet or Historian among the Roman Authours of those times whom he has not translated in Sejanus and Catiline. But he has done his Robberies so openly, that one may see he fears not to be taxed by any Law. He invades Authours like a Monarch, and what would be theft in other Poets, is onely victory in him. With the spoils of these Writers he so represents old Rome to us, in its Rites, Ceremonies and Customs, that if one of their Poets had written either of his Tragedies, we had seen less of it then in him. If there was any fault in his Language, 'twas that he weav'd it too closely and laboriously in his serious Playes; perhaps too, he did a little to much Romanize our Tongue, leaving the words which he translated almost as much Latine as he found them: wherein though he learnedly followed the Idiom of their language, he did not enough comply with ours. If I would compare him with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge him the more correct Poet, but Shakespeare the greater wit. Shakespeare was the Homer, or Father of our Dramatick Poets; Johnson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing; I admire him, but I love Shakespeare. To conclude of him, as he has given us the most correct Playes, so in the precepts which he has laid down in his Discoveries, we have as many and profitable Rules for perfecting the Stage as any wherewith the French can furnish us.

靳乾

回复 埃文河天鹅 的帖子

呵呵，好巧，这三段我翻译过，天鹅君可以来帮我纠纠错误。
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_67e5d7a00100ntnw.html
这样回复是不是有点打断主题帖？建议天鹅君弄个莎士比亚专帖之类的，只是阅读权限不要高于30哟。

海外逸士

想到一個用中文頭腦思考的例子﹕
(河)水帶(走)(落)葉。中國人會這麼翻譯﹕WATER  BRINGS  LEAVES。句子為討論方
便而簡化了。因為BRING 在字典裡有“帶”的意思。這個用法就是用中文頭腦思考
的結果。有知道BRING 是“帶來”的意思﹐就用動詞TAKE﹐帶去。但是﹐即使改用
了TAKE﹐還是在用中文頭腦思考。用英文頭腦思考時﹐這裡的動詞應該用CARRY。WATER
CARRIES  LEAVES  AWAY。因此﹐有的句子用中文頭腦看﹐有兩個解釋﹐但用英文
頭腦看﹐只可能有一個解釋。

[我認為模仿的那句應該將shines改為rises或awakes]
動詞AWAKE是不可取的。用詞要恰當﹐不可過頭。RISE 可以的。至於SHINE 已經包
含BRIGHT 和WARM 的意思﹐是用中文頭腦思考的結論。後面兩個詞可以看作進一步
具體地描述SHINE 的效果。文學寫作手法之一有重複使用同一詞﹐以加強描述效果
的。

Sentiment always dwells in parting.
一般模仿只是模仿句型。但不是所有情況都合適的。以語感看﹐這句句子太生硬。
如果這樣說﹐會更妥當﹕PARTING  ALWAYS  ROUSES  SENTIMENT。

Louisa

回复 海外逸士 的帖子

谢谢海老指点。
PARTING  ALWAYS  ROUSES  SENTIMENT。
听上去就舒服多了。

埃文河天鹅

回复 靳乾 的帖子

我大体看了一下，感觉翻译得很好。有空我再好好看一下。

我只是不太同意德莱顿的看法，主要原因是我基本没有读过Fletcher, Beaumont和Jonson的作品，不好评价。对于Fletcher, 一般的评论说他是宣扬统治者的声色犬马和骄奢淫欲。这一点从两个高贵的亲戚中就能体现出来。而且这一倾向这一点迎合了德莱顿的品味。对于Beaumont，我只读了他的Salmacis and Hermaphroditus, 也没有感觉出他的语言的完美来，如德莱顿说的那样。

埃文河天鹅

片山孤村的《思索的惰性》鲁迅译
于文艺则侧重民谣的价值，而以莎士比亚那样，一见毫不受什么法则所束缚者，为戏曲的理想的。

一见不受任何法则所束缚，原文不知道怎么说的。我们知道，莎士比亚创作在形式上并无创新，十四行诗斯宾塞有之，长诗斯宾塞有之和戏剧的无韵诗马洛有之。只是在内容和表现力，他的确技高一筹。

埃文河天鹅

还没有呢。算了，不要了。