原文:
Instead of saying that totalitarian government is unprecedented, we could also say
that is has exploded the very alternative on which all definitions of the essence
of governments have been based in political philosophy,that is the alternative
between lawful and lawless government, between arbitrary and legitimate power.
That lawful government and legitimate power, on one side, lawless and arbitrary power
on the other, belonged together and were inseparable has never been questioned.(第461页)
分析:中译文的关键错误在于把exploded译为“探索”,不仅不符合字典意思,也不符合阿伦特文章的思想。阿伦特在本文中反复强调的观点是:极权主义政府无法用“守法”或“不守法”这种两者必居其一的选择项加以归纳和判断)。极权主义不是探索了政治史上的这种既成模式(或者合法或者非法),而是摧毁了这种模式,探索出了一种既破坏和蔑视法律(指成文法)又不是无法无天的、任意乱来的统治方式。这种阿伦特指出,极权主义统治使是一种完全不同的政府类型,一方面,它违背一切实在法,甚至违背自己制定的实在法(比如苏联1936年的宪法就是最突出的例子),但是极权主义的运作既非没有法则(law)指导,亦非任意乱来,因为它声称严格地、毫不含糊地遵守所谓自然法则(laws of Nature)和历史法则(laws of History),相比于这个“法则”,所有的实在法全部被认为都是低一级的、从中派生的。把Unquestioned翻译为“毫无疑问”也是不准确的,容易让人误解为作者阿伦特本人认为这种区分是毫无疑问的。“毫不疑问”的英文应为out of question或without question。
原文:It is the monstrous, yet seemingly unanswerable claim of the totalitarian
rule that , far from being ‘lawless’,it goes to the sources of authority from
which positive laws received their ultimate legitimation, that far from being
arbitrary it is more obedient to these suprahuman forces than any government ever
was before, and that far from wielding its power in the interest of one man , it
is quite prepared to sacrifice averybody’s vital immediate interest to the execution
of what is assumes to be the law of History or the law of Nature.(461-462)
原文:in the interpretation of totalitarianism,all laws have become laws of movement.(463)
中译本:在解释极权主义时,一切法律都变成了运动的法律。(577)
陶东风试译:在极权主义的解释中,一切法则都变成了运动的法则。
分析:中译本不仅在英语语法上解释不通,而且在意思上也解释不通,这点从完整的句子中就可以看得出:“在极权主义的解释中,一切法则(laws)都变成了运动的法则(laws of moment),当纳粹谈论自然法则,布尔什维克谈论历史法则时,自然和历史都不再是针对尘世之人的行动的稳定性的权威之源,它们本身就是运动。”显然,是极权主义把“laws”当作了“运动法则”,而不是在解释极权主义的时候,“一切法律都变成了运动的法律。”其次,这里law的翻译是比较麻烦的,因为虽然极权主义的特点是认为无休止的运动法则高于成文法,是成文法的权威来源,但“成文法”和“法则”的英文都是law。所以这个属于的翻译要依据上下文的意思灵活把握。阿伦特认为,成文法的作用是对尘世之人的行动设立边界(fence),即防止其受到伤害,又防止其走火入魔,因此可以说是为人的行动“提供稳定性”,但是极权主义的运动法则显然不是这样,它恰恰是要打破成文法设立的边界。所以,最好的情况下是依据上下文灵活翻译。当它仅指一般意义上的法律时,译为“成文法”即可,到它指极权主义的运动法则时,应译为“法则”。
原文:Just as positive laws, though they define transgressions, are independent of
them - the absence of crimes in any society dose not render laws superflous but, on
the contrary, signifies their most perfect rule- so terror in totalitarian
government has cease to be a mere means for the suppression of opposition, though it
is aslo used for such purposes. (464)
原文:terror is the realization of the law of movement; its chief aim is to make
it possible for the force of nature or of history to race freely through
mankind, unhindered by any spontaneous human action. As such, terror seeks
to “stabilize” men in order to liberate the force of nature or history。(465)
分析:中译本最严重的错误在于把unhindered(不受阻扰)翻译为“不落后于”。这段话的主旨是讲极权主义扼杀和消灭人的自发行动。要理解这层意思就必须理解阿伦特的行动理论。阿伦特认为,伴随人的出生而来的人的自发行动,本质上就是反极权的(参见阿伦特《人的条件》)。让所有的人都丧失自主性、创造性以及行动能力,让他们“稳定下来”——剥夺其行动的能力和自由,独自留下自然法则和历史法则畅通无阻地“发展”,正是极权主义的目标。所以,一方面,在摧毁其行动能力的意义上,极权主义要让人“稳定下来”,另一方面,为了保证法则的永久运行,又要让起稳定作用的成文法失去其限制性效率。自然法则和历史法则无法无天大行其道的同时,每一个人的创新能力全部被摧毁)。这点在“**”时期那些自诩是执行历史发展必然规律的人那里表现得最为清楚,一方面他们丧失了个人的自由行动能力,成为“法则”的工具;另一方面,他们又完全无视成文法,打砸抢烧无所不为。
另一个严重错误是中译文把“seeks to “stabilize” men”翻译为“寻求稳定的人”。 stabilize为动词,不能翻译为“稳定的”(稳定的是stable)。依据译者的实际英语水平,我以为译者应该有能力把seeks to “stabilize” men直译为“寻求‘把人稳定下来’”,而不至于译为“寻求稳定的人”。但由于译者不明白阿伦特的整体思想,在学理上无法理解这篇文章,就以为这样直译是不通的,因此擅自改为“寻求稳定的人”。但聪明反被聪明误,直译为“寻求把人稳定下来”才是正确的。这里的关键是要明白两个“稳定”的不同含义。成文法的“稳定”是给人的创新行为划定一个范围,既保护这种行为也制约这种行为;而历史法则和自然法则把人“稳定”下来则是剥夺人的创新能力。
原文:Total terror, the essence of totalitarian government, exists neither for
nor against men, it is supposed to provide the forces of nature or history with
an incomparable instrument to accelerate their movement.(466)
原文:In the iron band of terror, which destroys the plurality of men, and makes out
of many the One who unfailingly will act as though he himself were part of the course
of history and nature, a device hase been found not only to liberate the historal
and natural force, but to accelerate them eto a speed they never world reach if left
to themselves. (466)
分析:把iron band of terror翻译为“恐怖”是很不应该的漏译,who unfailingly will act
as though he himself were part of the course of history and nature,中译本译作“使它那永不失败的意志产生作用,似乎他自己就是自然进程或自然进程的一个组成部分。”错误很多。依据上下文可知,the One 就是大写的“一”,who unfailingly will act是界定the One的, 意为无休止地行动,will是将来时态,而不是“意志”(注意:正常的语序应该是the One who will unfailingly act,这可能是中译本译者理解错误的原因之一)。part of the course of history and nature,中译本的翻译大约是看错了。
原文:As indeed it always has been since Plato invoke Zeus, the god of the
boundaries,in his Laws.(467)
分析:完整的上下文是这样的:“所以,政府的定义所需要的一直是孟德斯鸠所说的‘行动原则’(principle of action),这个原则——在每个政府形式中都有所不同——会在政府和公民的公共活动中通过同样的方式激发它们(政府和公民),并超越了纯粹消极的守法标准,用作一种判断公共事务中的一切活动的标准。根据孟德斯鸠的看法,这类指导原则和行动标准,在君主政治中是荣光,在共和政体中是美德,而在暴政中则是恐惧。”阿伦特这里是介绍孟德斯鸠归纳的不同政体中政府和人的不同行动原则,这就是说,在君主政治中,政府和公民为了荣光而行动,在共和政体中为美德而行动,在暴政中则是因为恐惧而行动。法律是消极的(限制性的),行动是主动、积极的,不守法的行动——比如“**”中****派的行为——和只是消极守法而不行动(比如西方一些代议制的民主国家风行的消极自由原则),或为了守法放弃行动都是不可取的,前者是政治狂热后者是政治冷漠。
原文:…….Yet as long as totalitarian rule has not conquered the earth and with
the iron band of terror make each single man a part of one mankind, terror in its
double function as essence of government and princple not of action, but of
motion, cannot be fully realized.(465)
陶东风试译:然而,只要极权主义统治还没有征服全世界,还没有用恐怖的铁带(iron band of terror)来使每一个单个的人成为统一人类之一部分,那么,具有双重功能的恐怖——既作为政府本质,又作为运动而不是行动的原则——就不能完全实现。
分析:首先,中译本大量漏译(terror in its double function as essence of government and princple完全没有翻译);其次,“无法完全实现的不是行动,而是活动”这句话是怎么翻译出来以及它的意思是什么完全莫名其妙。其实,阿伦特在这里分析的仍然是极权主义恐怖的特点,这就是它对人的行动能力的摧毁,在这段话的前面阿伦特写到:在一个完全极权主义的政府里,所有人都变成一个大写的“人”(One Man),所有的行动都旨在加速自然运动或历史运动,每一项单个的行动都是在执行自然或历史已做出的死刑宣判,也就是说,极权主义运动此时完全摧毁了人的自发和主动的行动能力,因此根本不需要与其本质相分离的行动原则而可以保持继续运动(中译本把motion翻译为“活动”也不对)。但是要做到这点必须摧毁每一个人的独立性和自由,进入完全极权状态,所以,作为极权主义政权本质和运动法则而非行动原则的恐怖,只有在完全的极权状态才可能完全实现。
原文:The purely negative coercion of logic, the prohibition of contradiction,
became “productive” so that a whole line of thought could be initiated, and
forced upon the mind, by drawing conclusions in the manner of mere argumentation.(470)
分析:中译本将forced upon the mind翻译为“压制思想”,不对,forced upon the mind是被动语态,前面省略了be,主语是a whole line of thought.
原文:The danger in exchanging the necessary insecurity of philosophical thought for
the total explanation of an ideology and its Weltanschuung, is not even soch much
the rick of falling for some usually vulgar, always uncritical assumption as
of exchanging the freedom inherent in man’s capacity to think for the strait jacket
of logic with which man can force himself almost as violently as he is forced by
some outside power.(470)
分析:中译本的几个最明显、最荒谬的低级错误分别是:把necessary insecurity
of philosophical thought翻译为“必要的哲学思想”, 把the total explanation of an ideology翻译为“从整体上解释一种意识形态”,更不可思议的是把falling for(爱上)翻译为“跌入”!此外也未能准确把握exchanging……for……这个固定结构,意为“用……交换…….”“交出…….获得…….”,依据全句可知,阿伦特说的是说:用哲学思想的必要不确定性交换意识形态及其世界观的全盘解释。
原文:First, in their claim to total excplanation, ideologies have the tendency
to explain not what is,but what becomes,what is born and passes away.(470)
分析:Claim to意为“对……的诉求”而不是“宣布……”,what is born and passes away中的passes away前面省略了what,中译本译为“凡生者皆死”,大错。
34、原文:The deducing may proceed logically or dialectically; in either case
it involves a consistent process of argumentation which, because it thinks in terms of
a process, is supposed to be able to comprehence the movements of suprahuman, natural
or historical processes. Comprehansion is achieved by the mind’s imitating ,
either logically or dislectically, the laws of “scientifically” established
movements with which (laws) through the process of imitation it becomes integrated.471
陶东风试译:推论可以逻辑地或辩证地展开;在这两种情况下,它都涉及一种连贯一致的论证过程,由于这种论证是根据过程来思考的,所以,它被假定能够理解超人的、自然的或历史的过程的运动,理解是靠心智对“科学地”确立的运动法则的模仿——或逻辑地或辩证地——达到的,通过模仿的过程,理解和运动法则就被整合为一了。
分析:此处中译文错误很多,首先,“所以”没有翻译出来;其次,suprahuman, natural
or historical都是process(过程)的定语,中译本把suprahuman和natural or historical分开,把“超人的、自然的或历史的过程的运动”,翻译为“超人类运动,自然过程或历史过程”是不对的,因为suprahuma是形容词,不能做of的宾语;第三,either logically or dislectically是插入语,在句子中修饰imitating(模仿),而 the laws of “scientifically” established movements则是imitating(模仿)的宾语,也就是说,模仿的对象是“科学地”建立的运动法则,而不是模仿本身是“科学地”建立的运动法则。with which (laws) through the process of imitation it(即Comprehansion) becomes integrated中的which就是laws,而it就是Comprehansion,这句话是一个倒装句,可以改为这样的顺序: it (comprehansion)becomes integrated with laws(在句中用which指代) through the process of imitation,意即:通过模仿的过程,理解和(“科学地”确立的运动)法则整合为一了。中译本的翻译根本没有说清:到底是什么与什么becomes integrated
(被整合起来)了,正确理解了句子的结构以后就明白,被整合的是“comprehension”和“the laws”。由于理解本身就是对于“法则”的模仿,而“法则”就是极权主义所谓的自然法则和历史法则,因此,理解、理解的途径(即模仿)以及理解的对象(即法则)高度同一,成为一种封闭的内循环。
原文:The device both totalitarian rulers used to transform their respective
ideologies into weapons with which each of their subjects could force himself into
step with the terroe movement was deceptively simple and inconspicuous:they took
them dead seriously,took pride the one in his supreme gift for “ice cold
reasoning”(Hitler), and the other in the “mercilessness of his dialectics”,
and proceeded to drive ideological implications into extremes of logical
consisency which, to the onlooker, looked preposterously “primitive” and absurd:
a “dying class” consisted of people condemned to death; races that are “unfit
to live” were to be exterminated。
分析:这部分错的实在是离谱。both totalitarian rulers 就是指希特勒和斯大林,中译本没有翻译出来,used to transform their respective ideologies into weapons with which的which就是指weapons(武器),each of their subjects指希特勒和斯大林的臣民(their是“希特勒和斯大林的”,subjets是臣民)。中译本把they took them中的“them”翻译作“手法”,大错,即使是一个完全不懂阿伦特思想的人,只要懂得一点基本英语就应该知道,device(“手法”)在文中是单数,其宾格不可能是them,依据上下文,them只能是指意识形态。
原文:The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the
convinced Communist, but the people for whom the distiction between fact and
fiction(i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and
false(i.e., the standards of thought ) no longer exist.
分析:中译本大错。两个括弧中的文字,the reality of experience,以及the standards
of thought,显然都是修饰distinction(区别)的,而不是修饰fiction (虚构)或false(错误)的,否则就会把“经验的现实性”等同于“虚构”,把“思想的标准”等同于“错误”。这是与阿伦特的思想完全违背的,也是违背常识的,虚构是对现实经验的歪曲,怎么会等于经验的现实性?错误是偏差了的、不准确的思想,怎么会是思想的标准?作者的意思是:经验的现实性或真实性体现在它建立在可靠的事实而不是虚构上,混淆了事实和虚构,就无法把握经验的现实性;思想的标准体现为正确和错误的区别,否则我们无法衡量思想的正确与否。这都是极权主义使得人和人脱离、人和现实脱离造成的结果)
原文:This isolation is, as it were, pretotalitarian; its hallmark is impotence
insofar as power always comes from men acting together,“acting in
concert”(Burke);isolated men are powerless by definition.474
原文:Loneliness, the common ground for terror, the essence of totalitarian
government, and for ideology or logicality, the preparation of its executioners
and victims, is closely connected with uprootedness and superfluousness which have
been the curse of modern masses, since the beginning of the industrial revolution
and have become acute with the rise of imperialism at the end of the last century
and the break-down of political institutions and social traditions in our own time.475
分析:这里中译本的错误主要是没有高清句子结构,Loneliness, the common ground for
terror, the essence of totalitarian government, and for ideology or logicality,
the preparation of its executioners and victims,首先是……for….. and for……的结构,两个for(对于……)都是修饰Loneliness(孤独)的,其次,the essence of totalitarian government 是修饰terror的,阿伦特在文章中反复强调恐怖是极权政府的本质,可以证明这点,类似地,
the preparation of its executioners and victims 是修饰ideology or logicality,的,这点在文章中也可以得到证明。正因为孤独既是恐怖的基础又是意识形态的基础,才有“共同基础”只说,否则只是恐怖的基础就不能说是“共同基础。”是是这些都是对于loneness的后置解释定语,因此loneness依然是is closely connected…….的主语。由于没有把握这个结构,这几句话的错误几乎全部错误的。依据阿伦特的思想,孤独既是恐怖的基础也是意识形态的基础,它的根源是现代社会大众的无根性和多余性经验(中译本的“它”所指不明)。下半部分的主语就换成了rootedness
and superfluousness(无根与多余),是对多余和无根的分析,但是中译本的“它”和“这”所指不清,其单数形式让人怀疑是指loneness(孤独)。
原文:loneliness is at the same time contrary to the basic requirements of the
human condition and one of the fundamental experiences of every human life.475
中译本:孤独同时与人类的基本要求相反,也与每一个人生活的根本经验之一相反。(592)
陶东风试译:孤独既与人类条件(中译本漏译“条件”)的基本要求相反,同时也是每个人的基本经验的一种。
分析:中译本的意思完全与原文相反。contrary to the basic requirements of the
human condition和one of the fundamental experiences of every human life全部是is的宾语,否则在语法上不通。而且依据上下文,阿伦特的意思分明是,孤独既与人类条件的基本要求相反,但同时又是每个人的基本经验之一种。实际上,阿伦特文章的最后部分就是致力于分析为什么孤独、多余等在二十世纪会成为人类的基本经验,从而为极权主义的出现和流行提供了社会和心理的基础。这也是作者在文章的一开始就为自己设定的任务。
原文:what makes loneliness so unberaable is the loss of one’s own self which can
be realized in solitude,but confirmed in its identity only by the trustring
and trustworthy company of my equals. In this situation, man loses trust in himself
as the parter of of his thoughts and that elementray confidence in the world which
is necessory to make experience at all. Self and world, capacity for thought
and experience are lost at the same time. (477)
分析:中译文大错。第一,in it’s identity应该翻译为“完整地”,因为identity本身就有“同一性”“完整性”的意思。In it’s identity的直译就是“在其完整性中”,“it”是指self,即自我。中译文译为“自己的身份”是错误的。第二,trustring and trustworthy company of
my equals. 中译本译为“同类的信任”更是错得离谱,equals是“与自己平等的人”的意
思,company of my equals意为“由与自己平等的人组成的同伴”,trustring and trustworthy为“既信任人又值得信任的”。第三,capacity for thought and experience 是一个省略语,experience前省略了capacity for。因此它的意思应该是“思想能力和经验能力”而不是“思想能力和经验。”
原文:the only capacity of human mind which needs neither the self nor the other nor
the world in order to function safely and which is as independent of experience as it
is of thinking is the ability of logical reasoning whose premise is the self-evident.(477)
陶东风试译:当人类心智(human mind)为了平安地发挥功能,既不需要自我,也不需要他人,也不需要世界,像独立于思维一样独立于经验的时候,它的唯一的能力就是一种前提自明的逻辑推理能力。把human mind(人类心智)翻译为“人类思维”是不对的,无法与thinking区分,在阿伦特的术语系统中,mind(心智)包括了thinking(思维),will(意志),judgement(判断),她的《心智生活》就是对三者之区别的系统阐释。 另一个错误是把修饰mind(心智)的从句which is
as independent of experience as it is of thinking翻译为“当它与思维有关时,它独立于经验之外”。这里的as….. as……是表示程度相当,可以翻译为“像……一样”,it指代的是human
mind,it is 后面省略了independent。这个省略句复原后应该是:“which is as independent
of experience as it is independent of thinking。”因此这句话依据语法也只能翻译为“它(心智)像独立于思维一样独立于经验。”
原文:totalitarian domination tires never to leave him alone except in the
extreme situation of solitary confinement)。
中译本:极权统治尝试绝不让他独处,除非是让他处于孤寂的幽闭之中。
陶东风试译:极权统治想尽办法绝不让留下他不管,除非是在把他单独监禁的极端情况下。
分析:leave him alone意为“留下他不管”,而不是让他独处。extreme situation of
solitary confinement意为“单独监禁的极端情况”。阿伦特的意思是:除了把一个人单独监禁以外,每一个人都必须与“恐怖的铁带”合为一体,都必须卷入极权主义的运动之中。就像“**”时期每个人都要参与红卫兵运动、上上下下运动、揭批查运动等等,除非你被单独监督。