[3] Now Austin was absolutely in the right to emphasize the immense distinction between the use of the term law in science and its use in jurisprudence. There can be no doubt that the use of the same name for two totally different conceptions has led to a great deal of confusion. But on the one hand, if the flagrant misapplication of the scientific meaning of the word law to the fields of jurisprudence and morals has deluged them with “muddy speculation,” there is equal certainty on the other hand that the misapplication of the legal and moral sense of the term has been equally disadvantageous to clear thinking in the field of science. Austin probably had in his mind, when he wrote the above passage, works like Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, in which we find the conception of the permanent and absolute character of scientific law applied to build up a system of absolute civil and moral law which somehow realizes itself in human institutions. To the mind which has once thoroughly grasped the principle of evolution in its special factor of natural selection, the civil and moral laws of any given society at a particular time must appear as ultimate results of the struggle for existence between that society and its neighbors. The civil and moral codes of a community at any time are those which are on the average best adapted to its current needs, and best calculated to preserve its stability. They are very plastic, and change in every age with the growth and variation of social conditions. What is lawful is what is not prohibited by the laws of a particular society at a particular time; what is moral is what tends to the welfare of a particular society at a particular time. We are all well acquainted with the continual change of civil law; in fact we maintain an important body, Parliament, the chief function of which is to modify and adapt our laws, so that they shall be best fitted at each period to assist the community in its struggle for existence. Of the changes in moral law we are, perhaps, less conscious, but they are none the less real. There are very few acts which have not been moral at some period in the growth of one or other society, and there are in fact many questions with regard to which our moral judgment is totally different from that of our grandfathers. It is the relativity, or variability with age and community, of civil and moral law, which led Austin, I think, to speak somewhat strongly of the speculation which confuses such law with law in the absolute sense of science. A law in the legal or moral sense holds only for individuals and individual communities, and is capable of repeal or modification. A law of science will be seen in the sequel to hold for all normal human beings so long as their perceptive and reasoning faculties remain without material modification. The confusion of these two ideas is productive of that “muddy speculation” which finds analogies between natural laws and those of the spiritual or moral world.

[4] Now if we find that two quite distinct ideas unfortunately bear the same name, we ought, in order to avoid confusion, to re-name one of them, or failing this, we ought on all occasions to be quite sure in which of the two senses we are using the name. Accordingly in my first chapter, in order to keep clear of the double sense of the word law, I endeavored to replace it, when used in the scientific sense by some such phrase as the “brief statement or formula which resumes the relationship between a group of facts.” Indeed it would be well, were it possible, to take the term formula, as already used by theologians and mathematicians, and use it in place of scientific or natural law. But the latter term has taken such root in our language that it would be hard indeed to replace it now. Besides, if the word law is to be used in one sense only, we may ask why it is the scientist rather than the jurist who is to surrender his right to the word? The jurists say that historically they have the older claim to the word – that civil law existed long anterior to scientific law.

(Source: Karl Pearson. The Grammar of Science. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911:79-82.)

第四届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文

[1] 书是读不完的。在福建德化，瓷也是读不完的。

[2] 瓷何以用读呢？这是因为在我看来，瓷的诞生过程，完全是一次艺术创造的过程。尤其在德化，优质的陶瓷原材料是大自然赐给德化最珍贵的原生态物质，但单有丰富的瓷土原料，没有良好的开发、加工、利用，就不能昭显原材料的质地美，从而成为优秀的作品。更重要的是，如果没有一代代德化能工巧匠的不断探索和实验，没有创造者的文化积累和坚持不懈的艺术追求，就不可能产生出质地优美、风格独特的陶瓷产品，从而使德化成为世界著名的陶瓷产区。因此，面对德化如阳光一样灿烂与绚丽的瓷器，我只有用读的姿势,才能表达内心的激动和遐想，并且在读的过程中，以静思，以感悟，去领略德化瓷器独特的韵味。

[3] 德化做陶制瓷历史悠久，最早可追溯到新石器时期烧造印纹陶器。到明、清两代，瓷器大量流传欧洲，许多瓷器作品在海外被视为珍宝。更值得自豪的是，以青白瓷为代表的德化瓷器，在历史上曾有力地推动了“海上丝绸之路”的兴盛。有着如此丰富的文化底蕴，有着如此强盛的艺术生机，怎能不叫来这里的世人心揣敬意、虔诚细读呢？

[4] 然而读瓷，又该如何读起？