When Lelius in the presence of the Romane Consuls, who after the condemnation of Tiberius Gracchus, pursued all those that had been of his acquaintance, came to enquire of Caius Blosius (Who was one of his chief friends) what he would have done for him, and that he answered, "All things." "What, all things?" replied he. "And what if he had willed thee to burne our temples?" Blosius answered," He would never have commanded such a thing." "But what if he had done it?" replied Lelius. The other answered, "I would have obeyed him." If he were so perfect a friend to Gracchus as history's report, he needed not offend the Consuls with this last and bold confession, and should not have departed from the assurance he had of Gracchus his mind. But yet those who accuse this answer as seditious, understand not well this mystery: and do not presuppose in what terms he stood, and that he held Gracchus his will in his sleeve, both by power and knowledge. Having absolutely committed themselves one to another, they perfectly held the reins of one anothers inclination: and let this yoke be guided by virtue and conduct of reason. The answer of Blosius was such as it should be. If their affections miscarried, according to my meaning, they were neither friends one to other, nor friends to themselves. As for the rest, this answer sounds no more than mine would do, to him that would in such sort enquire of me; if your will should command you to kill your daughter, would you do it? And that I should consent unto it: for, that heart no witnesse of consent to do it: because I am not in doubt of my will, and as little of such a
friend's will. It is not in the power of the worlds discourse to remove me from the certainty I have of his intentions and judgments of mine: no one of its actions might be presented unto me, under what shape soever, but I would presently find the spring and motion of it. Our mindes have jumped so unitedly together, they have with so fervent an affection considered of each other, and with like affection so discovered and sounded, even to the very bottome of each others heart and entrails, that I did not only know his, as well as mine own, but would rather have trusted him concerning any matter of mine than myself.
罗马执政官们宜判提比略・格拉库斯死刑后，继续迫害与他相识的人，即使是他最要好的朋友凯厄斯·布洛修斯也没有放过。薬利乌斯当着罗马执政官的面,问布洛修斯愿意为朋友做些什么,布洛修斯回答:“任何事情。”莱利乌斯立即发向:“你说什么?任何事情?如果他让你将我们的神庙烧毁呢?”布洛修斯反驳道:“他决不会让我去做这种事情的。”“但如果他坚持要求你这祥做呢?”莱利乌斯追问道。“那我一定去做。”布洛修斯回答道。据史书上记载:假如布洛修斯是格拉库斯真正的朋友,他根本不必去反驳莱利乌斯,更不该放弃对格拉库斯人格的信任。但是认为布洛修斯的回答具有煽动性的罗马
执政官并不了解其中的秘密。实际上,两人私交颇深,学识相当,彼此钦佩,甚至可以为彼此付出一切。让道德和理性来引导朋友间的信赖吧,你就会发现，
布洛修斯的回答并无过错。如果说,他们的行动和思想不相吻合,那么,不论是以我衡量友谊的标准,还是他们自己的,布洛修斯和格拉库斯都称不上是好朋友了。至于我，也会做出与布洛修斯相同的答案。假如有人间我:“如果你的意志命令你杀死你的女儿,你会去做吗?”我的回答将会是肯定的。因为我
的回答未必与内心的意志相吻合,我从不会怀疑自己的意志,我们彼此心有灵犀,感情真挚,根本不会怀疑对方。我与拉博埃西之间就是如此。我们了解
彼此的心灵,就像了解自己的一样,甚至,我对他的信赖胜过了对自己的信赖。
Let no man compare any of the other common friendships to this. I have as much knowledge of them as another, yea of the perfect of their kind; yet will I not persuade any man to confound their rules, for so a man might be deceived. In these other strict friendships a man must march with the bridle of wisdome and precaution in his hand: the bond is not so strictly tied but a man may in some sort distrust the same.As Chilon said: "Love him as if you should one day hate him again. Hate him as if you should love him again." This precept, so abominable in this sovereign amity, is necessary and wholesome in the use of vulgar and customarie friendships: Toward which a man must employ the saying Aristotle was wont so often repeat, "Oh ye friends, there is no perfect friend."
但普通的友谊和文中所述的友谊决不能同日而语。我很了解这种普通的友谊,也曾亲身经历过,但如果我不对此加以强调,大家就会将两种友谊相混淆,也许就会有人在前一种友谊中受到欺骗。对于身处在普通的友谊之中的人们来说,就好像小心翼翼地行进在智慧的绳紫上,必须小心呵护绳索,才不致使其断裂。这正如奇隆所言:“爱一个人时,你要清楚,有一天你也许会恨他;而恨一个人时,你又要想到,有一天也许会再次爱上他。”这种言辞对于神圣的友谊是种亵渎,可对于普通的友谊来说,却是金玉良言,而亚里士多德常说的“哦，我的朋友们,世上并没有一个无可挑剔的朋友”这句话,似乎是对后者最好的诠释。
In this noble commerce, offices and benefits (nurses of other amities) deserve not so much as to be accounted of: this confusion so full of our wills is cause of wills. For even as the friendship I bear unto myself, admits no increase, by any succor I give myself in any time of need, whatsoever the stoics allege; and as I acknowledge no thanks unto myself for any service I do unto myself so the union of such friends, being truly of perfect, makes them lose the feeling of such duties, and hate, and expel from one another these words of division and difference: benefit, good deed, duty, obligation, acknowledgement, prayer, thanks, and such their like. All things,wills, thoughts, judgements, goods, wives, children, honour, and life being no other than one soul in two bodies, according to the fit definition of Aristotle, they can neither lend or give ought to each other. See here the reason why lawmakers, to honour marriage with some imaginary
resemblance of this divine bond, inhibit donations between husband and wife; meaning thereby to infer, that all things should peculiarly be proper to each of them, and that they have nothing to divide and share together. If in the friendship whereof I speak, one might give unto another, the receiver of the beneft should bind his fellow. Fore each seeking more than any other thing to do each other good, he who yields both matter and occasion, is the man shows himself liberal, giving his friend that contentment, to effect towards him what he desires most. When the Philosopher Diogenes wanted money, he wvas wont to say that he redemanded the same of his friends, and not that he demanded it.And to show how that is practiced by effect, I will relate an ancient singular example. Eudamidas the Corinthian had two friends: Charixenus a Sycionian, and Aretheus a Corinthian; being upon his death-bed, and very poor, and his two friends very rich, thus made his last will and testament:"To Aretheus, I bequeath the keeping of my mother, and to maintaine her when she shall be old: To Charixenus the marrying of my daughter, and to give her as great a dowry as he may: and in case one of them shall chance to die before, I appoint the survivor to substitute his charge, and supply his place." Those that first saw this testament laughed and mocked at the same; but his heirs being advertised thereof, were very well pleased, and received it with singular contentment. And Charixenus, one of them, dying five dayes after Eudamidas, the substitution being declared in favour of Aretheus, he carefully and very kindly kept and maintained his mother, and of the five talents that he was worth he gave two and a half in marriage to one only daughter he had, and the other two and a half to the daughter of Eudamidas, whom he married both in one day.
利益和恩惠能够使普通友谊更好地维持下去，但在至高无上的友谊之中,却没有它们的立足之地,因为彼此的意志已经相互交融。我真诚地对待这份友谊,只要朋友需要帮助,任何时候我都可以向他伸出援手,当然,这样做并不是为了加深友谊,就像我在为自己做了一些事情之后,从不会对自己言谢是一个道理。这样的友谊,才是完美无瑕的。朋友间不存在应为彼此尽义务的责任,也没有那些他们所憎恶的会在朋友间产生界线或分歧的字眼,如:利益、义务、感激、祈求等等。彼此所拥有的一切,包括意志、思想、观点、财产、妻子、儿女、荣脊和生命，都是共有的。依据亚里士多德的定义,他们是同一个灵魂占据了两个不同的躯体,他们之间不存在所谓的施予或得到,这就是立法者为使婚姻能够与神圣的友谊有共通之处,而禁止夫妻之间相互馈赠的原因所在。由此,我们可以推断出:夫妻双方的一切都应共同拥有,不存在任何需要分割的东西。在我所说的友谊之中,如果一方提供另一方给予帮助的机会，那么接受者一定会十分感激,因为双方都时刻想着如何让对方受益。那么,提供这一机会的人就是真正的慷慨者,因为帮助朋友实现了自己的心愿。当哲人第欧根尼需要金钱时,他习惯说向朋友们讨还,而不是索取。为了更好地阑述这个道理,我决定列举一个颇为奇特的古代事例。
科林斯人欧达米达斯有两个朋友:一个名叫卡里塞努斯,是西锡安人，另一个名叫阿雷斯特,是科林斯人。他们都非常富有,但欧达米达斯却极其贫困。临终前,欧达米达斯写下了这样一份遗嘱:“我希望我死后,阿雷斯特能为我的母亲养老送终,希望卡里塞努斯能替我把女儿的婚事办妥,让她拥有一份最好的嫁妆。如果阿雷斯特与卡里塞努斯有一人先辞世,那么我希望另外一人要砦他完成我的遗愿。”那些最先见到这份遗嘱的人无不对此表示讥讽和嘲笑,而当他的两位朋友得知这一切后,却感到心满意足。然而,卡里塞努斯五天后便去世了,于是,阿雷斯特便把他的职责承担下来。他悉心照顾着欧达米达斯的母亲,并将自己的全部积蓄分成两份，一份为自己的女儿筹备嫁妆,另一份则为欧达米达斯的女儿筹备嫁妆,而且,在同一天为她们举行了婚礼。
上一篇：没有了
下一篇：散文翻译示例——Of Custom/论习惯
微信公众号搜索“译员”关注我们，每天为您推送翻译理论和技巧，外语学习及翻译招聘信息。