詩歌能被翻譯嗎

在歐洲，少數人認為詩歌是不能翻譯的：（1）意大利作家（如埃科）所引用的熟語—譯者即背叛者（traduttore, traditore. A translator is a traitor）（2）德萊頓《奧維德書信集》譯序中引用的鄧漢姆的評論—詩具有壹種微妙的精神，當妳把它從壹種語言移入另壹種語言的時候，那種精神就會完全消失。妳如果不把壹種新的精神加入譯文，那來，譯出來的東西除了壹堆渣滓外就什麽也沒有了。（Sir John Denham (who advised more liberty than he took himself) gives his reason for his innovation, in his admirable preface before the translation of the second Aeneid. “poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit be not added in the transfusion, there will be nothing but a Caput mortuum, ”） The poetical works of John Dryden, Volume 5 p9 （3）雪萊《為詩壹辯》的批評—譯詩是待勞無益的，把壹個詩人的創作從壹種語言譯成另壹種語言，猶如把壹朵紫羅蘭投入坩堝，企圖由此探索它的色澤和香味的構造原理，其為不智壹也。（Hence the vanity of translation; it were as wise to cast a violet into a crucible that you might discover the formal principle of its color and odor, as seek to transfuse from one language into another the creations of a poet. The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will bear no flower—and this is the burden of the curse of Babel.）（4）弗洛斯特所謂詩就是翻譯中失去的東西。（You've often heard me say – perhaps too often – that poetry is what is lost in translation. It is also what is lost in interpretation.）Louis Untermeyer，Robert Frost: A Backward Look 據泰特勒Tytler《翻譯原理》，鄭振鐸《譯文學書的三個問題》（1921）極簡略地介紹了前三種說法。戴望舒回應了鄧漢姆的評論，《詩論零劄》（1944）寫道：“說‘詩不能翻譯’是壹個通常的錯誤，只有壞詩壹經翻譯才失去壹切。因為實際它並沒有‘詩’包涵在內，而只是字眼和聲音的炫弄，只是渣滓。真正的詩在任何語言的翻譯裏都永遠保持它的價值。而這價值，不但是地域，就是時間也不能損壞的。翻譯可以說是詩的試金石，詩的濾羅。不用說，我是指並不歪曲原作的翻譯。”

在歐洲，少數人認為詩歌是不能翻譯的：（1）意大利作家（如埃科）所引用的熟語—譯者即背叛者（traduttore, traditore. A translator is a traitor）（2）意大利克羅齊《美學》的論點：與這個道理相關的壹個道理是翻譯的不可能性：如果翻譯冒充可以改造某壹表現品為另壹表現品，如移瓶註酒那樣，那是不可能的。在已用審美的辦法創作成的東西上面，我們如果再加工，就只能用邏輯的辦法；我們不能把已具審美形式的東西化成另壹個仍是審美的形式。每壹個翻譯其實不外乎（壹）減少剝損，以及（二）取原文擺在熔爐裏，和所謂翻譯者親身的印象融合起來，創造壹個新的表現品。就第壹個情形說，表現品始終還是原文的那壹個，翻譯既有幾分欠缺，就不是真正的表現品；就第二個情形說，表現品確有兩個，但是兩個內容不同。‘不是忠實而醜，就是不忠實而美’這壹句諺語可以見出每個翻譯者所必感到的兩難之境。非審美的翻譯，例如字對字的翻譯，或是義譯，對於原文都僅能算註疏。（3）英國約翰·鄧亨《埃尼德》譯序的評論—我覺得譯詩的壹個大毛病就在於死譯。讓這個謹慎給那些從事於忠實的事的人保守著；但是無論什麽人如以此為譯詩的宗旨，他所做的實在不是必要的，並且他也永不能成就他的試驗；因為他的事業不僅是譯壹種文字而為別壹種文字，乃是譯這首詩而為別壹首詩；而詩呢，則是具有壹種奧妙的精神的，由這種文字而轉於那種文字上時，他就完全蒸散了；如果沒有壹種新的精神，加在譯文裏，那麽，除了無用之物以外，更沒有什麽東西存留著呢。（I conceive it is a vulgar error in translating poets, to affect being fidus interpres; Let that Care be with them who deal in Matters of Fact, or Matters of Faith ; but whosoever aims at it in Poetry, as he attempts what is not required, so shall he never perform what he attempts; for ‘’tis not his business alone to translate language into language, but poesie into poesie’ and poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit be not added in the transfusion, there will be nothing but a Caput mortuum,） Richard Steele,Joseph Addison, The guardian. No. 164 p303 Poems and translations: with The sophy, a tragedy. Written by the Honourable Sir John Denham p15（4）雪萊《為詩壹辯》的批評—譯詩是待勞無益的，把壹個詩人的創作從壹種語言譯成另壹種語言，猶如把壹朵紫羅蘭投入坩堝，企圖由此探索它的色澤和香味的構造原理，其為不智壹也。（Hence the vanity of translation; it were as wise to cast a violet into a crucible that you might discover the formal principle of its color and odor, as seek to transfuse from one language into another the creations of a poet. The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will bear no flower—and this is the burden of the curse of Babel.）（5）弗洛斯特所謂詩就是翻譯中失去的東西。（You've often heard me say – perhaps too often – that poetry is what is lost in translation. It is also what is lost in interpretation.）Louis Untermeyer，Robert Frost: A Backward Look （6）柏格森《形而上學導言》—又如將壹首詩譯成各種語言，這些譯文在聲色氣勢等方面彼此修飾訂正，從而提供壹個對於原詩越來越真實的形象，但它們仍然永遠無法表現原詩的內在含意。從壹定的角度所取的肖像，以壹定符號所構成的譯文，與所取的那個角度所要攝制的或者說符號所要表達的那個對象相比，永遠是不完滿的。P3 （7）約翰遜：詩實在是不能譯的；所以唯有詩人能保留文字的佳妙。倘若我們能夠在譯本中尋找原作品的妙處，我們可以不必費神去學習他國的文字了。因為詩的美妙除在本國的原著外，決不能被別國保留著，但是我們能夠研究這文字而領會詩的好處。‘You may translate books of science exactly. You may also translate history, in so far as it is not embellished with oratory, which is poetical. Poetry, indeed, cannot be translated; and, therefore, it is the poets that preserve the languages; for we would not be at the trouble to learn a language, if we could have all that is written in it just as well in a translation. But as the beauties of poetry cannot be preserved in any language except that in which it was originally written, we learn the language.’ Johnson to Boswell, Life of Johnson