附件二

pointdepressedΜηχανική

22 Φεβ 2014 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

96 εμφανίσεις

附件二:

首届“外教社杯”

江苏省高校外语教师翻译大赛
英译汉试题


将下列段落译成汉语:

It is surely no coincidence that Montesquieu should lay out
his touristic

method during that part of his text that pertains to his
lengthy
stay in

Rome. For of all the cities visited by Montesquieu,
Rome is the one most

clearly
not
dominated by some central
cathedral spire or other tall monument.

The city of the seven hills
offers a number of different perspectives,

none of which is
man
ifestl
y superior to the others.

Even though he spends

nearly
half his year
-
long Italian adventure in Rome, Montesquieu's
touri
stic theory cannot grasp Rome:

One is never

finished
seei
ng
”. And as Montesquieu’
s

authorial persona is scattered
through a perspectivi
sm such that while

abroad, he says, “
I
attached myself th
ere just as to what is my own”, so Rome’
s
multiplici
ty englobes all nationalities:

Everyone

lives in Rome
and th
inks to find his homeland there”
. The

statement echoes the
words written nearly 150 ye
ars earlier by that other

Gascon
nobleman who pursued a similar itinerary and who even went so

far as to acquire an official document granting him Roman
citizenship.


Since “all roads”

are proverbially

said t
o lead there, Rome is
everybody’
s home, and
everybody wants

to go there. The
superimposition of itineraries means that one is also always

seeing
what others have seen, making Rome, the sight of so many
sightings,

the tourist attraction par excellence
. It is truly the
“eternal city”

as Montesquieu ca
n only say after (and before) so
many others. The history

of famous visitors to Rome produces a
cultural sedimentation on a par

with the traditionally mentioned
geological sedimentation that physically

superimposes the Rome
of one historical period over an
other.


Rome is

wh
at one can never
finish seeing
b
ecause ever new layers of sedimentation

cover over
the layers below even as they point to the existence of those

layers.

As for Montesquieu’
s desire to see,
the endlessness of things
to se
e
endlessly
maintains the pleasure of seeing by denying the
ultimate satisfaction

of the desire to see everything. This is the
aesthetics later formulated

in his
Essai sur le goût (Essay on Taste,
1757) and epitomized by none

other than the sight of Saint Pe
ter’s
in R
ome: “
As one examines it, the

eye sees it grow bigger, and the
astonishment increases

.

Not

unsurprisingly, t
he basic premise of
Montesquieu’
s aesthetics, first published

in the article “Goût”

in
the
Encyclopédie,
lies in the desire to see more:


Since we
love to
see
a great number of objects, we would like
to extend

our sight, to
be in several places, to traverse more space;
in short, our soul

flees all confines, and it would like, so to speak, to
extend
the
sphere of

our presence: it is thus
a great
pleasure for it t
o set its
sight in the distance”
.
The aesthetic experience is understood as a

travel of the gaze, whose pleasure is guaranteed by an indefinite
extending

of the soul’s “
s
phere of presence.”

Undisrupted by any
of the displacement

or repetit
ion required by the limited vision of
the tourist in his tower, this

appropriative aesthetics of visual
pleasure geometrically describes the

(asymptotically unattainable)
ideal of a pure, unobstructed view in every

direction and with
every point along its
circumference equidistant from the

ocular
oikos
of its center.

But this same pleasure can just as easily be reversed into the
anguish

poignantly expressed in the later books of
The Spirit of the
Laws
by an

aging Montesquieu gone blind from too much reading

and painfully aware

of the ways in which his vast subject
matter

the totality of laws and

human institutions

exceeds the
purview of his theoretical gaze. Interestingly

enough, the theorist’
s
dilemma is thematized, once again, in terms

of tourism: “
I am li
ke
that antiquarian who set out from his own country,

arrived in Egypt,
cast an eye on the Pyramids, and

returned home”
. In this passage,
the theorist sees himself as a

tourist in the pejorative sense of
someone who undertakes a great voyage

only to take back a partial,
superficial view of what he has seen. What he

sees without really
seeing

is seen

at the cost of a great effort, of an expense that
ludicrously exceeds the

revenue. It is equally to be remarked that
this partial view is a view t
hat

looks out at the monumental height
of the pyramids
from below.
We have

strayed from the economy of
a theoretical vision that sees everything from

the height of its
tower.


The image of the theorist as tour
ist returns a few pages later:

When

one casts
one’
s eyes upon the monuments of our history
and laws, it seems

that it is all open sea
,
and that this sea does not
even have

bounds. All these cold, dry, insipid and hard writings
must be read and

devoured”
. Here, the touristic vision sees not too
little
but too

much, a situation evoking the disorientation of being
set adrift in a boundless

sea, which is none other than the infinity
of text in which the theorist

finds himself lost and engulfed. The
vision is not only excessive, but its

very excess is
turned back
against the spectator and erodes his position,

so much so that in
seeing too much he ends by seeing too little. The

movement or
travel of the vision no longer “fixes”

anything down; rather,

it is
what erodes any possible point of reference, wha
t undermines the

economy of travel as method. This radical estrangement within
erudition,

warned against by Descartes in the
Discourse on Method,
is also signaled

by the egregious mixing of metaphors in t
his
passage. The casting of one’
s

gaze upon the mat
e
rial to be read in
Montesquieu’
s research on the laws

oddly converts that material
into a dauntingly boundless sea. The sea of

erudition is then
described as wha
t must be not merely read, but “
devoured.



(
Excerpt
s from
Georges Van Den Abbeele’
s
Travel as
Metaphor
)