[转载]诗人怎样翻译自己的诗歌——《迷失英伦》后记

 诗人怎样翻译自己的诗歌

——《迷失英伦》后记

陈义海

拙著《迷失英伦》已经出版多日，既然这本书是采取双语形式，前有苏珊·巴斯奈特教授的序言，所以在书后，我又弄了篇双语后记，算是形成一个结构。写好后，我请外国语学院一位老师校读，他一下子看出，我是先写英文，再翻译成中文——不愧是英语高手。

作者翻译自己的作品，已成为翻译研究界的一个研究方面（Self-translation studies）。我的这篇后记，本来是要作为一篇论文的基础的，只可惜，现在没有时间做。

大约是在5年前，在我的英文诗歌集《西茉纳之歌和七首忧伤的歌》在英国出版之后，我便一直觉得有必要编译一本我自己诗歌的双语诗集。根据我的计划，我要从我的中文诗歌中选出一部分，翻译成英文，同时从我的英文诗歌中选出一部分翻译成中文。可是，时间年复一年地过去了，一切依然停留在构想的阶段。好在这心神不定的日子终于结束。我用了几乎一个寒假终于完成了这项工作。

至于诗歌是否可译，这个话题未免陈腐甚至无聊。一方面，学者们为此吵得不可开交，但另一方面，人们不断地将诗歌从一个国家翻译到另一个国家，从一种语言翻译成各种语言，未曾有过哪怕一年的中断，而此种翻译，追究起来更是不知始于何年。讨论诗歌是否可以翻译，就有如讨论一个人是否应该结婚。所以，问题是“如何”，而非“是否”。罗兰·巴特说过：“如果诗歌是不可翻译的，那么，怎么会有国际性的诗人呢？”

然而，近年来自译问题成为又一个研究热点。自译问题更是将诗歌翻译问题复杂化。如果诗歌不能由一般译者或专业译者去翻译，那么诗人自己可以翻译诗歌吗？他们翻译得更好还是更糟呢？

 “读者不同，阅读也不一样，同样，译者不同，他们的译文也不一样。在诗歌翻译中，要紧的是，译者应该融入到诗歌文本中去，进而他或她要在获得阅读快感的基础上，进行创造性的转换。”（苏姗·巴斯奈特）苏姗·巴斯奈特教授的这段话可以这样理解，每个人都可以翻译诗歌，但是，不同的译者会译出不一样的译文，相应地，作为诗人的译者，自然会呈现一种别样的译文。可是，对于诗人翻译他们自己的作品，仍然很有争议。所以，有必要将诗人自译作为一个特殊的命题来进行研究，甚至有必要将之列为翻译研究的一个类目。当我们讨论诗人自译时，下列问题必须回答：

作为诗人的译者，他们选择翻译对象时有着怎样的标准？

诗人译者的创作与他们的译文之间是否有着美学上的相似性？

诗人译者在多大程度上操控了译文？

一个诗人译者和一个普通译者翻译的同一首诗时，他们的译文有着怎样的差别？

一个诗人翻译自己的作品时，其在翻译过程中失掉的是什么，添加的是什么？为什么？

一个诗人翻译自己的诗歌时，该怎样界定他的身份，他（她）更是一个诗人，还是更是一个译者？

是诗人译者的译文更忠实，还是专业译者的译文更忠实？

诗人译者是不是也会遇到一般译者所遇到的文化转换问题？他（她）解决这类问题时所采用的策略是否不同？

我写这些并不是要回答以上所列问题，这不是我的这篇后记的主要目的。但我以为，只要涉及所谓的自译论题，这些问题就是必须考虑的。提出问题（能回答自然更好）本身，对于学术研究也是大有裨益的。我期待有更多的学者专注于此方面的研究。

当然，我还是认为，作为诗人的译者比一般的翻译者拥有某种优势，并且，在字里行间他毫无疑问地具备更多的自信，至少，他比别的任何人都更了解作者和文本。兼具了作者和译者的双重身份后，他不用担心作者的批评，虽然他时时努力对他自己的内心和读者负双重的责任。

在本书付梓之前，我首先感谢苏姗·巴斯奈特教授。正是她的鼓励，才使得这本书的完成时间比预期的更早；是她的序言更使得本书包含了某种值得一读的内容。我永远都会铭记，她答应给本书写序时，还挣扎在失去伴侣杰弗利·莫尔豪斯的悲伤中。

我不会忘记感谢我的同事布拉迪·琼斯先生、孙开建先生、毕凤珊女士和我的学生杨虹帆小姐，因为他们不仅校读了书稿，还给我提出了很多好的建议。当然，我还要感谢成长春教授、薛家宝教授、郭锡健教授，和本校很多其他同仁以及本市文友在书内书外对我的帮助。

2010年8月20日

How a Poet Translates His Own Poetry

Yihai Chen

It was about five years ago when the selection of my English poetry Song of Simone and Seven Sad Songs was published in the UK that I began feeling the urge to edit a bilingual selection of my poetry. According to my plan, I wanted to select and translate some of my Chinese poems into English and some of my English poems into Chinese. However, time passed year by year and I had always been in the state of agitation. Thankfully, my agitation came to an end. I devoted almost all my winter vacation to the job.

It is banal even ridiculous to wrestle with the argument whether poetry could be translated or not. On the one hand, scholars have been fervently quarrelling about this issue, but on the other, poetry has been translated from one country to another, from one language to many other languages, without even one year’s break, from the time immemorial. To talk about whether poetry can be translated or not is just like to talk about whether it is appropriate for a person to get married or not. So the issue should be how we should translate poetry instead of whether it can be or cannot. The question is HOW rather than WHETHER. “If poetry is not translatable, how can there be international poets?” (Roland Barthes)

However, in recent years another hot debate is the study of self translation, which makes the situation even more complicated. If poetry cannot be translated by common or professional translators, can it be translated by the poets themselves? Will the latter do better or worse?

“Different readers will produce different readings, different translators will always produce different translations. What matters in the translation of poetry is that the translator should be so drawn into the poem that he or she then seeks to transpose it creatively, through the pleasure generated by the reading.” (Susan Bassnett) According to Professor Susan Bassnett, it could be expounded that everyone can translate poetry, but different translators produce different translations and poet translators accordingly produce a special kind of translation. However, the translation of poetry by poets themselves is still a controversial issue. Therefore, it is necessary to take poets’ self translation as a special issue even as a special category in translation studies. When this issue is discussed, the following questions must be answered:

What are the poet translators’ standards in choosing poems for translating?

Are there any aesthetic similarity between the poet translators’ own writings and his translations?

To what extent has the poet translator manipulated the translation?

What kind of difference can be seen in a poem translated by a poet translator and other translators?

What is lost and what is added when the poet himself or herself translates his or her own poetry? Why?

How should he or she be identified when the poet himself or herself translates his or her own poetry, more as a poet or more as a translator?

Which is more faithful, the poet’s own translation or a professional translator’s?

Does a poet translator encounter the same problems of cultural transfer as other translators do? Is his or her strategy in solving such problems different from that of other translators?

I don’t intend to answer those questions here, and it is not the purpose for this postscript. But I believe that these questions are inevitable as far as the so-called self translation is concerned. Raising the questions alone, whether or not they are answered, is also beneficial to academic studies. I expect more effort from scholars in this field.

Yet what I want to argue is that a poet translator has some advantages over other translators in certitude about the lines before him, for at least he knows the author and the text much better than anyone else. With his identity as both the author and translator, he doesn’t have to worry about the author’s criticism although he always tries to be responsible both for his inner heart and the reader.

Before the book is sent to press, my gratitude first goes to Professor Susan Bassnett, whose encouragement makes the completion of the book earlier than expected. Her introduction should be regarded as the reason that the book actually contains something worth reading. It was during her recovery from the death of her partner Geoffrey Moorhouse that she promised to write the introduction for this book, which I will remember forever.

 My thanks also go to my colleagues Mr. Brady Jones, Mr. Sun Kaijian, Miss Bi Fengshan and my student Miss Yang Hongfan, who not only proof-read some of the manuscript but gave me a lot of advice as well. I should also thank Professor Cheng Changchun, Professor Xue Jiabao, Mr Guo Xijian and many other friends in our university for their help inside and outside this book.

2010-8-20