作者：奥玛珈音
出版社：中华书局有限公司
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
波斯短歌行：鲁拜集译笺(精)——国民阅读经典试读：
前言
1859年，当英国生物学家、进化论的奠基人查理斯·罗伯特·达尔文（Charles Robert Darwin）的代表作《物种起源》发表之际，同时代的英国文人爱德华·费氏结楼（Edward FitzGerald）出版了英文译解的波斯天文学家、数学家、哲学家和诗人奥玛珈音（Omar Khayyám）的诗集：《奥玛珈音的鲁拜集》（Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám）。一个半世纪的历史进程证明，这两部伟大的著作同样不朽：一部指导着人类进化发展的研究；一部影响着人类生存意义的思考。
费氏结楼（1809—1883，下文简称“费氏”），作为维多利亚时代（Victorian era）的英国诗人和翻译家，他文学成就的名声，很大程度上得益於他的这本《鲁拜集》诗歌小册子，而这本诗集产生的盛誉，则是费氏的身後获得的。费氏身为豪绅，恬淡寡欲，生前不重名利。
据悉《鲁拜集》受到过业界高度的评价—“信仰的归宿，灵魂的良药”。约九百年前的波斯思想家、科学家奥玛珈音，他不经意为诗人，卻在闲詠野唱间留下了雋永闪光的诗篇。据各方专家考察，在奥玛名义之下的原创《鲁拜集》诗稿，流传於世的数量尚无定论，少则几十首、几百首，多则数千首，不少诗作疑为後人借托。因此不但稿本零散，要义也比较分散，而且有些诗章明显存在主观意识的依附。然而，经过了英人费氏的整理、加工、提炼与改造後的英文作品，文学美感倍增，诗味韻感丰满，它一方面仍然体现了原诗的主题思想和精神，感慨生命如寄、盛衰无常的哲学命题，另一方面又渲染了以及时行乐、纵酒放歌为宽解的人生态度。
费氏用了近两年的时间，边进修波斯文边译介奥玛那些不成系统的“诗稿”抄本，集零为整串成了前後比较连贯的短诗集。册子完成後，费氏试着投稿於刊社，卻遭到了冷遇。他只好自费印书出版。书上没有署名费氏是译作者（费氏生前出版的四个版本均未署名），让读者看见的书名则是“奥玛珈音的鲁拜集”，意为此书是“一个波斯哲人的具有波斯风格的四行诗集”。中文译名《鲁拜集》，是由郭沫若先生於1924年首版全译单行本时的书名译题。当时郭氏可能只考虑音译，未注意到“Ruba’i”与维吾尔、乌兹别克等涉及波斯地区古时流行的“柔巴依”诗体的渊源，致使近百年来“鲁拜集”汉译名的声名远扬，先入为主，深入人心。而“柔巴依集”的译名一直难以“拨乱反正”，儘管翻译家黄杲炘先生在这方面作了很多努力亦无法“力挽狂澜”。因此本译本仍沿用《鲁拜集》为引题，而《波斯短歌行》的书名则是由译者鍾锦先生用“归化”手法表现出的诗味汉化译名，很符合这个七绝体译本的異趣。
费氏《鲁拜集》英文版的书前附有“奥玛珈音传略”，这是费氏整理自他的好友、波斯文教学指导者爱德华·拜尔斯·考威尔（Edward Byles Cowell，1826—1903）提供的材料。奥玛珈音生於波斯（今伊朗）的纳霞堡（Naishápúr）。然而，他的生卒“1048年至1122年”只是个大概的年份。他的身世资料极少，多为不可靠的传奇。但没人怀疑奥玛对天文、数学等方面的科学贡献，以及他在哲学方面的认知学识。
奥玛的影响力，特别是他的“鲁拜体”四行诗，脍炙人口而流芳後世，主要是伴随着费氏用英语“翻译”的改良从而发扬光大的，否则也许人们不会忘记奥玛的科学成就而会忽略並埋没他的精彩诗作。虽然，费氏的第一版《奥玛珈音的鲁拜集》出书後，曾遭遇无人问津的尴尬局面，乃至被扔在书店的垃圾书堆里。然而天佑佳作，後来还是被英国几个名诗人偶然发现並极力推荐，遂使星星火焰，逐渐燃势迅猛，直至燎原普世。
费氏採用了从“日出”到“月落”的时空轮回意象，将《鲁拜集》组成了整体连贯、前後呼应的篇章，它竭尽了诗情的舒展和文字的优美，詠唱潇洒，佳句疊出，以致一百五十多年来，始终广泛地受到文坛的追捧与读者的热崇，几乎风靡全球，成了英语文学与世界文学的不朽经典，成了诗歌爱好者们的宠爱读物，也成了世界上众多国家各种文字译家学者们的爭译作品。
对於费氏英译本来说，费氏所谓的翻译波斯“奥玛的鲁拜集”，实际上可以说是“有名无实”，无非是借奥玛的精神衣缽和诗体外形，借雞生蛋，融会贯通，去芜存菁，推敲锤炼。他的译作几乎浸淹了原作，实际上彰显的是费氏本人超群的文学才华和出众的诗人风采。我们可以明显地注意到，费氏《鲁拜集》的第一版，书名下尚写着“Translated into English Verse”（翻译），从第二版以後费氏便纠正为“Rendered into English Verse”（意译）了。研究者们认为，正因如此“不忠实”的意译，使原作和译作做到——你中有我、我中有你，互为渗透、合二为一，费氏则赢得了难以想像的效果和收获，谱写了神奇的传说。阿根廷作家、翻译家博尔赫斯是这样描绘的：“或许欧玛尔（笔者注：即奥玛）的灵魂於1857年在菲茨吉罗德的灵魂中落了户。从《鲁拜集》里可以看到，宇宙的历史是神设想、演出、观看的戏剧；这种猜测（它的术语是泛神论）使我们不由得想起英国人可能重新创造了波斯人，因为两人本质上是神或者神的暂时形象。”“一切合作都带有神秘性。英国人和波斯人的合作更是如此，因为两人截然不同，如生在同一时代也许会视同陌路，但是死亡、变迁和时间促使一个人瞭解另一个，使两人合成一个诗人。”（博尔赫斯《爱德华·菲茨吉罗德之谜》，王永年译文。）
虽然，费氏的所谓“翻译”，属於大刀阔斧、天马行空般的“意译”或叫“衍译”或叫“迻译”等，意思就是费氏将原作重新排列组合，充实改编，自由发挥，碾碎重抟，“创作”的成分甚多，故亦可称为“创意翻译”。不过，费氏的“创译”也许、也应该只是“前无古人後无来者”的——仅此费氏个例而已。我们必须看到，他对待每一首诗（包括诗体形式到每一个词彙、字母、书体……甚至标点符号的安排），其认真程度，花费的时间与精力难以想像，那种极为难能可贵的彻底地追求完美的精神，就像工艺匠对待艺术品一样地呵护有加、精雕细刻；一丝不苟、精益求精。所以费氏的“创译”決不是胡编乱造的“滥译”代名词，可以说费氏《鲁拜集》的首首诗作皆为粒粒珍珠。
儘管费氏的作品似乎离原作甚远，但他保持了原诗的诗意、韻味与格律，特别是费氏将“鲁拜体”这一波斯四行诗的诗体格律，运用到英诗时，是做得非常严谨得体、循规蹈矩的，因而给了英语世界的读者大有耳目一新的感觉，也正是这种具有浓烈东方色彩的诗意、韻味与格律的因素，织造出了一件东西方文化浑然一体的臻极之绝品，给了费氏空前的成功！
中国自从二十世纪二十年代伊始，费氏《鲁拜集》由胡适、徐志摩、郭沫若、闻一多、成仿吾、林语堂、吴宓、朱湘、梁实秋、屠岸、李霁野、黄克孙、黄杲炘、孟祥森、陈次云、木心等诗人、文人、名人、译家和学者的汉译及介绍至今，其中包括海峡两岸，已有百餘人延绵不断的相继全译或部分的译介过，现在我们仍然时不时地可以看到不少新译本的明流暗湧：有出版的、未出版的、网上发表的以及私下传阅的。
这次出版的这个本子，自有它的特色。其一，鍾锦先生的译本将我国旧诗的典雅形式和波斯、英伦的異域文化进行了成功的融会。
费氏依据的“鲁拜体”，其诗体形式上极为类似中国的“绝句”，鍾锦先生“七绝体”译本，就是继黄克孙先生的“七绝体”衍译本後又一次新的尝试和提升，而且是实质性的“归化”译法。显然鍾译本比黄译本更严格遵守中国绝句诗体格律的规则与要求，来对应“鲁拜体”的译作。从费氏的英文“鲁拜体”，我们可以瞭解一些基本要素，即：1.四行分段；2.五音步；3.十抑扬音节；4.採用AABA及AAAA格式押韻。例如：
A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬（韻）
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread — and Thou
抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬（韻）
Beside me singing in the Wilderness —
抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!
抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬/抑扬（韻）
上列例诗为费氏《鲁拜集》中最著名的一首诗，在“第一版”中为第11首、其他版本中为第12首，俗称“树荫下（underneath the Bough）”。例诗中笔者标下划線的为“母音”，在句中作“扬”，亦即格律重音。
鍾译本不仅在形式上严格遵循中国“七绝体”的格律用韻，而且从遣词造句到精神风貌都是极为地道的中国旧诗风格，卻又和《鲁拜集》构成了一种奇妙的对应。这恐怕已经不能简单地看作是一种“归化”的翻译方法，而是具有一种文化背景上的融通。这一点，在鍾锦先生自己的序文中已有理论性地说明，並且亲自为译诗做了笺释来揭示，这里就不赘述了。
其二，本书在“英汉对照”的英语原文上用了些精力。以费氏生前的最後定本——第四版为底本，汇校了费氏的其他四个重要版本，並把费氏的两篇序言和各版注释收入。这是自郭沫若译本开始至今的各种“英汉对照”本未能做到的。
我们不得不佩服费氏追求完美无瑕的极致敬业精神，他前後历经三十年的五番增删编撰，完成了五个原始版本，分别在1859年（第一版75首）、1868年（第二版110首）、1872年（第三版101首）、1879年（第四版101首）和1889年（第五版101首）出版。其中“第五版”是根据费氏本人的手稿笔跡编定，可惜出版时费氏已过世。中国的读者包括译者有时不太搞得清楚，这些版本之间究竟有什麼差異与变化，常常出现混淆的现象。特别是有些费氏《鲁拜集》的汉译者，往往拿到一本英文版的书就译，而不知其中的“奥秘”—同样是费氏《鲁拜集》，但它们各版之间有着不少区别与不同。況且国外的《鲁拜集》因出版得太多太杂，以讹传讹，良莠不齐，好多英文版本身就错误百出。这使我们想起当初的胡适先生，在他的第一本白话诗集《尝试集》里，编入了一首题为《希望》的汉译小诗。这首译诗就是选自费氏《鲁拜集》。诗的下面胡适注明译自费氏《鲁拜集》的第108首，显然是译自费氏《鲁拜集》的第二版。但是，胡在书中附上的原文卻有着明显的差異：
Ah! Love, could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
Remould it nearer to the Heart's Desire?
而第二版第108首的原文应该是这样的：
Ah Love! could you and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
一首四行小诗竟有五处差異（见上引胡附原诗，笔者在差異处用下划線做了标注）。
後来胡将这首诗翻来覆去改译了多个版本，而且用了费氏《鲁拜集》的其他版本。（见邹新明：《胡适翻译莪默〈鲁拜集〉一首四行诗的新发现》一文，《胡适研究通讯》2009年第3期[总第7期]。）徐志摩也曾用这首诗同胡适等多人征译比唱。这就会给读者造成一种被误解的印象，认为胡的反复改动，是不是用了费氏《鲁拜集》的不同版本才使汉译的内容需要变化？其实非也，不论胡译自第几版，这首诗的英文原诗内容基本没有实质性的更动，仅有第一行的Fate在第三、四、五版中改成了Him这一处而已。当然这首诗在不同版本中的排序是不一样的：第一版为第73首、第二版为第108首、第三、四、五版为第99首。
再拿最有名气的具有汉译《鲁拜集》霸主地位的郭沫若译本来看，郭在“导言”中明确说，他译自费氏《鲁拜集》第四版。然而我们看到的他1924年第一次出版的单行本泰东版“英汉对照”本，其中配用的英文原版卻並非费氏《鲁拜集》的第四版，而是第五版。比如第1首第1行中的Sun後面被加了逗号（而且最明显的差異是第1首第1行第1词WAKE被印为Wake）。再者第五版对於第四版有多处“换词”的更改，这样在词义上就会有可能产生歧义。
另有一个例子是黄杲炘先生在《从“鲁拜”谈到“柔巴依”》（《中国翻译》1987年第2期）一文中谈到的：曾有一位学者做论文，当论述郭沫若和闻一多对费氏《鲁拜集》第1首的两者译文优劣时，竟然不知道郭是译自费氏《鲁拜集》的第四版，闻是译自费氏《鲁拜集》的第一版，而这位学者论文引用的英文原诗只是费氏《鲁拜集》第一版的。殊不知这个“第1首”在第一版中和在第四版中简直两张面孔，此诗非彼诗也，没有可比性，怎麼可以用一个“标準”鉴别与衡量郭、闻两者汉译之间翻译的忠实性与准确性？请看两个“第1首”的原文：
第一版第1首——
AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultán’s Turret in a Noose of Light.
第四版第1首——
WAKE! For the Sun who scatter’d into flight
The Stars before him from the Field of Night,
Drives Night along with them from Heav’n, and strikes
The Sultán' s Turret with a Shaft of Light.
这些例子充分说明，对费氏《鲁拜集》的不同版本必须要有清晰认识的重要性，这样做也是对费氏的尊重、对其作品的尊重。因此，本书的费氏英译原文，能够汇校五个版本，应该说，是个显著的特点。
另外，本书还将费氏《鲁拜集》的两篇序言和各版注释全部进行了翻译。虽然这些内容已被吸收进以前各个译本的序言及注释中，但尚未见全文翻译者。尤其是其中费氏对奥玛诗歌的评论，极有价值，不知为什麼都忽视了。这次的翻译，也该算个小特色。
其三是它的插画选用。本书选用了闻名於世的古波斯细密画（Persian Miniature），这是我国《鲁拜集》汉译本的首次尝试。波斯细密画古时为手抄本书籍的插画。虽然本书选用的并非原本配用奥玛的《鲁拜集》，但是这些画面展现的诗情画意，完全符合《鲁拜集》的诗意内涵，也完全符合《鲁拜集》反映的风俗文化。译者将这些波斯细密画镶嵌在译诗中，感觉别有一番典雅情趣。波斯细密画在13～17世纪时期甚为流行，14～16世纪为其全盛期。目前我们能够看到的保存下来的波斯细密画，都是波斯（现伊朗等国）的国宝，弥足珍贵，十分罕见。波斯细密画艺术多採用浓墨重彩，人物造型稚拙藏巧，动植物图案形象生动，画山水的笔法苍劲有力，作画风格反映出的个性强烈。同“鲁拜诗”一样，波斯细密画也明显受到了中国绘画艺术的影响，如山川、河流、人物服装等图案的表现手法，均可窥视其感染於中国绘画的特色。
本书是鍾锦先生邀我合作共同完成的。我提供了五个费氏版本的校订本和波斯细密画插图，希望能够为鍾锦先生的译本增添光彩。需要说明的是，这些波斯细密画插图，取自Crown Publishers,Inc在1979年出版的，由Productions Liber SA设计製作的RUBáIYáT OF OMAR KHAYYáM AND PERSIAN MINIATURES一书。我们相信这些插图一定会为中国读者带来美好的阅读感受，谨向设计製作者和出版者致以诚挚的谢意。老鸽（顾家华）2015年11月
凡例
一、此《鲁拜集》中英文对勘本，凡费氏结楼原本文字及原序原注悉为收录，兼以吾国诗古文辞迻译也。
二、《鲁拜》一集，费氏生前自刊者凡四本，身後赖特又依其改本刊第五本，皆视作定本。其间同異易较，优劣难言，多並传者。吾国传之亦久，而五本汇刊者渺闻。今用四版为底本，汇校他本，並及原序原注，取便观览。
三、四版所录，凡一百零一首。一版中删落之二首，二版中删落之九首，凡十一首，为删稿。原序原注中尚别录奥玛诗，凡五首，为佚稿。
四、三版、四版、五版，诗之序号咸同，一版、二版则不尽同也，皆一一标注。異文较多而另出者，加注四版之序号。
五、译文用吾国七言绝句体，盖与鲁拜之体颇相近也。集名不用译音之“鲁拜”，亦不用拟意之“绝句”，命之曰《波斯短歌行》，庶得不似而似之旨。其八十二下之九首，原别为一小集，命之曰《甕歌行》。佚稿後二首非鲁拜之体，以仄韻七言绝句译之，用为分辨。
六、诸本改笔甚繁，无关诗意者不烦一一更译。凡更译者，一版得十六首，二版得五首，及三版中初稿二首，凡二十三首。一版中尚有二首略作点窜，无须另出，存译笺中。
七、费氏原序原注，吾国先刊译本並有採录，然全译者未闻。费氏原序中论奥玛诗语有极精者，原注中徵文献处有足观者，皆未採及，甚以为憾。兹並译出，乞留意焉。
八、译文多袭吾国旧辞故实，似与原文不相及，然其间颇有可思者。兹为一一笺之，兼释译时用心，求为迻译法之助尔。
九、尝鸠诸友集唐句译《鲁拜集》意，成《莪默绝句百衲集》，固笔墨之遊戏耳。或以为可资闲谈，因择吾之集句十首，附诸各章之末。
十、因刊《莪默绝句百衲集》，以辞近射覆，恐人莫能窥其旨，用无韻之散行别译之，附百衲集行，识曰《鲁拜笔译》。盖彦和所言：“今之常言，有文有笔。以为无韻者笔也，有韻者文也。”於兹译文，或亦不为无益，乃並更译者及删稿、佚稿咸别译焉，附译笺之後，识以“笔译”。
十一、《鲁拜笔译》《莪默绝句百衲集》序文，皆为迻译之法作者，可与兹本
译序
比观，並附焉。十二、《鲁拜》刊行，多有插图，然欧美人所作颇失眩惑，余殊不以为善。兹用波斯古细密画，庶得益彰之效。然原画本不为《鲁拜》作者，余妄以意度，览者姑妄会意可也。
十三、兹本之刊实得诸友之勖。顾家华先生广搜《鲁拜》诸本，见闻甚备，兹本前言即拜先生之赐。余先拟汇校之例，亦赖先生精覈原本撰为校语。且为择取插图焉。眭谦先生文辞雅赡，兼晓西语，原序原注得先生详校，每能匡我不逮。金锋先生好善之意殷殷，谋付梓椠，俾可流传，感愧无任矣。译序
译事之难，曰信曰雅可矣，何必曰达？盖不能达，译何为哉！而有信与雅，达又岂待言？夫《金刚经》之译也，达摩笈多之不能达，乌有其信？鸠摩罗什之足乎雅，必有其达。故曰：译事之难，曰信曰雅可矣。其难，则信与雅有不得兼也。玄奘之译《大般若经》，第九会中《能断金刚分》，固宜後出转精，而事乃有不然者。曰其信，实无其伦；曰其雅，则殊不若鸠师，其流通之广亦逊焉。岂奘师中土之产，反不及鸠师異域之材耶？信与雅有不得兼也。
且夫文辞，非孤生者也，必与乎其族类之情与思也。欲为译事，情与思扞，则其文辞必格，势所然也。强求其信，不顾其扞，文辞固可以达，而不能无格，格则不能雅矣。奘师之译是也。盖其思必欲符乎天竺，其辞又欲晓之中土，无所避其格，终无能为其雅矣。不强必信，曲通其扞，文辞之格得以稍缓，格稍缓则进於雅矣。鸠师之译是也。盖不斤斤於貌合，常戚戚於神离，踌躇之际，有以缓其格，文辞之不期而雅者至矣。故译之道，方其情与思扞，必使彼以从我，以缓文辞之格。不然，直学彼之文辞可矣，何译为？是信与雅必不得兼，宁丧其信，不失其雅。失其雅，则为之奴矣。
玄思犹是，况诗情乎？是以吾人常读诗之译，识其辞，而不能辨其味。盖其译者，不顾其扞，强求信而实伤雅也。此在玄思，或为辞之滞耳；在诗情，则並丧辞与情也。故诗之译，信为最下矣。彼费氏结楼之迻译《鲁拜集》也，得译之道，具辞之雅。故能不为奥玛珈音之奴，而翻为其主也。余颇怪今之迻译费氏者，必反其道而行之，甘为之奴，何耶？
奴译者，尽意於楮墨之内，步趋原作，矜矜其信。然恐吾人一旦能读原作，所译即成已陈之刍狗。主译者，著意恒在楮墨之外，曲通彼情，有不能必信焉。盖彼之诗情，写诸此之文辞，其情扞者其辞格。惟不欲其龃龉，忖度彼心，考量吾文，属笔之际，遑顾其信哉！竟忘亦步亦趋，差得不似而似，然亦在读者之会心也。为之既久，乃悟此亦江西派点铁成金之法。惟彼所点化者古人之典实，此所点化者異域之文辞耳。孰谓既知古人之典实，遂可废彼之诗派？然则既能读原作之文辞，亦终不废此之迻译也。《鲁拜集》之译亦夥矣，大抵皆奴译耳。惟七言绝句体译本，庶能为主译之想。盖既肖鲁拜之体，又备吾国诗体之风致。惜哉！自西风之东渐，世人竟欲为非类之奴，数典忘祖，於吾国旧体久不能娴。其体之译，固不为乏，求其合度者，十无一焉。余不才，以为其实可符主译之名者，前则黄克孙氏、後则眭谦氏耳。康德云，有天才，有赏鉴。黄译与眭译，各得一偏，均见美质。後之为继者诚不易焉。而吾译何为哉？余别有意在。盖今之为译者，竟尚奴译。文辞既为非类奴，情与思亦必为之奴，浸而吾族类且为之奴矣。此余所深忧焉。故不揣固陋，黾勉为之，甘附二贤之羽翼，未惧众人之嗤点也。
乙未六月廿四，时当立秋日，自序於我瞻室。
笺序
注书之难，诚有如前人言之者，然亦不宜过为夸饰也。或曰：有十倍於作者之学，乃可注其书。是注之者转胜作之者矣。其然，岂其然乎？而不幸其然也。今之所谓学术者，胥注书者也。炫其博，泥其思，斤斤於僻闻，拘拘於原本，未闻拓境，已鸣得意矣。虽然，皆以是为学之实，而不遑辨其才识也。昔人书橱书簏之讥，直如充耳。故今日学术之坏，注书家为之渐也。
一以注书为学术，必尚小学。故乾嘉以来，小学家得其地，而圣贤失其所也。盖圣贤不屑於见闻之际，小学求索乎征验之内。世之浅者，若梁啟超辈，沾沾言乾嘉学术饶有科学精神，见之鄙也。赖有熊十力氏，独辟谬说，其言曰：“夫有清二百餘年之学术，不过拘束於偏枯之考据，於六经之全体大用，毫无所窥。其量既狭隘，其识不宏通。”此真见之卓也。惜乎世竟不能知！坐视小学家得其地，而圣贤天才蔑闻焉，安用彼学术哉！
余夙乏才识，固未敢望圣贤天才也，然犹知不为注书家与小学家。何耶？为其学之重徵验，终矣必近乎机械，而机事机心不免焉。今乃取辞章之小道，是壮夫所不为，自撰而自注之，何下愈况耶？曰：余之注，非注书家与小学家之注也。
余之注，所以羽翼夫余之迻译也。盖欲因迻译而探诸族类之情与思，得所共焉者。而余之所以迻译也，斯忖度彼心，考量吾文。乃其间之呼应，殊非亦步亦趋，每在不似而似。深惧读者忽之，则余忖度考量之功，为徒掷也。故为一一表识其难明者，而题曰笺云。所表识者，一则属辞之来历也，一则用意之鉤连也。间有余译所不能达，而前人朋辈自有佳译者，亦随笺附焉。其表识也，於曲折深微处，每患言不及义，犹赖读者深思得之。一旦会通，岂止能读吾之迻译也，並能达迻译之奥旨也。
而余固非注书家与小学家，所表识属辞之来历者，每不合彼之度也。盖余之属辞，多就昔日记诵者信笔出之，其表识之也，即此记诵者，未必其源也。有习用者，未必记诵其出处，则自类书刺取之，释例皆未免乎雷同也。甚乃用之习焉不察者，其表识复多阙焉。如有注书家与小学家，能为余更订之，固所乐焉。然表识用意之鉤连者，虽余引而未发处不少，要非他人能尽会之也。
乙未中元日，自序於我瞻室。
鲁拜笔译序
彦和之言曰：“今之常言，有文有笔。以为无韻者笔也，有韻者文也。”今以无韻之散行迻译《鲁拜集》，识曰《鲁拜笔译》。
笔译何为而作也？余既以七字绝句译成《波斯短歌行》，意浑而辞歧，苦人莫之能窥也，即於译笺中聊出一二，得示例焉。又鸠同人集唐句译成《莪默绝句百衲集》，文同诨体，辞近射覆，人益莫之能窥矣。适欲刊此百衲集，乃就示例者足成之，遂有此笔译，附百衲集行，用昭《鲁拜》之原意也。
其译之也，颇有甘苦，以繫乎迻译之法，聊为述之。吾国诗古文，与吾国学合，崇乎性，蔑乎情，故久为程式，难与俗谐。盖俗生乎情，利之趋也。去俗逾远，於性逾几，庶乎康德所云德性之徵。所以“刘郎不敢题糕字”之慎，“古文之体忌小说、忌语录、忌诗话、忌时文、忌尺牍”之迂，良有以也。然近代以来，新学渐盛，古文之约束，亦颇贻人惑。乃有数辈人物，径用新辞，倡言写口，黄公度其尤也。行之既肆，知有必不能若此者，始幡然有悟。故公度晚年定诗草，删之太半矣。虽前人之鉴不远，而後人之学益肆，昧於斟酌去取之际者固多，俗体流传，圣学播荡，深可哀也。
余以古文之体迻译此集，实逢此斟酌去取之际，然不敢不慎也。踌躇再三，得数法焉。有彼是相当之辞，固其上者；必无有之，亦当使彼顺乎此之句法，不相龃龉，中者也；句法犹不能顺，则必求之辞气之肖，其下也。辞气尚不能肖，毋事此可矣。故知吾国文体，程式虽峻急，亦非不能随顺也。要须忖度，实忌颟顸。然余不学，心有餘而力已殆，勉乎其难哉！果可自负者，宁失之迂，未失之肆，知者其悯而恕之耶？
丙申正月廿八日，自序於我瞻室。
莪默绝句百衲集序
康德云：“见闻之际或有法焉，其为数二，稍多亦无不可，其质異。置诸一理之下，见涵而和。方吾人之识之也，可以成吾之悦，甚乃吾之奇。其奇之也，虽习焉而不止。”此江西派诗法也。山谷曰：“古之能为文章者，真能陶冶万物，虽取古人之陈言入於翰墨，如灵丹一粒，点铁成金也。”夫铁之成金，陈言而新意也。彼陈言自有意，人所共知，吾虽言之不足奇。以之出吾新意，则必与旧意異其质，因其言而涵容之，且使和之，於是而悦焉，而奇焉。山谷自负其“我居北海君南海”。此《经》语也，而《经》之意不必是山谷意。盖彼言其不相及，此言其遥隔也。一为山谷牵合之，奇意生焉。此点铁成金之法，而与康德之论符契若是。
此又非江西派一家之法也，宋以後人类知用是。盖生唐人之後，不资书以为诗，无以逾唐人也。东坡嘲孟浩然“韻高而才短，如造内法酒手而无材料”，其隐衷在焉。故宋之後，诗法一变，文辞必以古雅为宗。元人稍不如是，讥之似词。明人言性灵者，视同野狐，即清之袁简斋，虽窃大名，难逃其议也。虽然，辞之古雅，不害其时新。以见闻之际，其法实繁。一意也，运之之法或不能穷。才人之心也黠，乃狎其法，遊戏生焉。集句其一也。宋之荆公，尤好为之，迨明清以降，工巧极其至。而复狎其法，遊戏中复有遊戏生焉。集句诗钟其一也。近人有张丛碧，优为之。若集杜甫、李商隐句之分咏庸医、卜者云：“新鬼烦冤旧鬼哭，他生未卜此生休。”犹称善谑。至集韩偓、杜甫句之合詠老夫、少妻云：“阳精欲出阴精落，黄鸟时兼白鸟飞。”则謔而亵矣。然真才人之心也。虽其变也屡，而其法也一，皆江西派之诗法耳。
余尝论迻译之法，亦江西派之诗法也。惟所牵合者，有古人之典实与異域之文辞之不同耳。余译莪默之絶句，其四十四云：“吾魂如能棄其躯也，则摆落牵掛，淩虚而行。视向者之辗转尘下屍骸间，宁无愧耶？”译之曰：“多惭客养千金体，长笑齐州九点煙。”此江西法也。其二十一云：“明日耶？明日之吾，恐已在七千年前之昨日矣。”盖莪默之时，波斯人以地球之龄为七千年也。余直以长吉诗译之曰：“劫灰飞尽古今平。”是江西法浸而为集句也。余固非才，特以尝试之心，黾勉集句而迻译之，得数首。诸君以为異，乃邀同作，计半月，竟成之。署曰《莪默絶句百衲集》。此竟似集句诗钟矣。於迻译之事，亦见合於诗史者。理之自相推衍，其中固有冥冥者在，岂人能干之耶？
吾辈所集句必唐人，循不用唐以後事之通例也。其法有三焉：上者意相合也，次者意可曲通也，最下但烘托其意耳。等而下之者，固有天之所不能完，亦有人之所不能致者也。然犹得陈逸云兄“搜韻”之助，索之机械间矣。读之者易其遊戏，恕其荒殖，毋深责可也。
乙未六月廿六日，我瞻室序。
汇校说明
是本用费氏结楼之第四版为底本，汇校各版異文，兹列各版版本信息於下。First Edition.
RUBáIYáT OF OMAR KHAYYáM, THE ASTRONOMER-POET OF PERSIA. Translated into English verse. London: Bernard Quaritch, Castle Street, Leicester Square. 1859.
On the verso: G. Norman, Printer, Maiden Lane, Covent Garden, London.
Small quarto. Brown paper wrappers, 75 quatrains, 22 notes.Secend Edition.
RUBáIYáT OF OMAR KHAYYáM, THE ASTRONOMER-POET OF PERSIA. Rendered into English verse. Second Edition. London: Bernard Quaritch, Piccadilly. 1868.
(John Childs and Sons, Printers). Quarto. Paper wtappers,110 quatrains, 25 notes.Third Edition.
RUBáIYáT OF OMAR KHAYYáM, the ASTRONOMER-POET OF PERSIA. Rendered into English verse. Third Edition. London: Bernard Quaritch, Piccadilly. 1872.
Quarto, half Roxburghe, maroon cloth. 101 quatrains.Fourth Edition.
RUBáIYáT OF OMAR KHAYYáM and the Salaman and Absal of Jami. Rendered into English verse. Bernard Quaritch, 15 Piccadilly, London. 1879.
F’cap, 4to, half Roxburghe, 101 quatrains.Fifth Edition.
LETTERS AND LITERARY REMAINS OF EDWARD FITZGERALD, edited by William Aldis Wright, in Three Volumes. London: Macmillan and Co., and New York 1889. All Rights Reserved.
Crown 8vo. Text in volume 3. 101 quatrains.1859年第一版扉页1868年第二版扉页1872年第三版扉页1879年第四版扉页1889年第五版扉页
Omar Khayyám, The Astonomer-Poet of Persia
by Edward FitzgeraldOmar Khayyám was born at Naishápúr in Khorássán in the latter half of our Eleventh, and died within the First Quarter of our Twelfth Century. The Slender Story of his Life is curiously twined about that of two other very considerable Figures in their Time and Country: one of whom tells the Story of all Three. This was Nizám ul Mulk, Vizier to Alp Arslan the Son, and Malik Shah the Grandson, of Toghrul Beg the Tartar, who had wrested Persia from the feeble Successor of Mahmud the Great, and founded that Seljukian Dynasty which finally roused Europe into the Crusades. This Nizám ul Mulk, in his Wasiyat—or Testament—which he wrote and left as a Memorial for future Statesmen—relates the following, as quoted in the Calcutta Review, No. 59, from Mirkhond's History of the Assassins.
"'One of the greatest of the wise men of Khorássán was the Imám Mowaffak of Naishápúr, a man highly honored and reverenced, —may God rejoice his soul; his illustrious years exceeded eighty-five, and it was the universal belief that every boy who read the Koran or studied the traditions in his presence, would assuredly attain to honor and happiness. For this cause did my father send me from Tús to Naishápúr with Abd-us-samad, the doctor of law, that I might employ myself in study and learning under the guidance of that illustrious teacher. Towards me he ever turned an eye of favor and kindness, and as his pupil I felt for him extreme affection and devotion, so that I passed four years in his service. When I first came there, I found two other pupils of mine own age newly arrived, Hakim Omar Khayyám, and the ill-fated Ben Sabbáh. Both were endowed with sharpness of wit and the highest natural powers; and we three formed a close friendship together. When the Imam rose from his lectures, they used to join me, and we repeated to each other the lessons we had heard. Now Omar was a native of Naishápúr, while Hasan Ben Sabbáh's father was one Ali, a man of austere life and practise, but heretical in his creed and doctrine. One day Hasan said to me and to Khayyám, "It is a universal belief that the pupils of the Imam Mowaffak will attain to fortune. Now, even if we all do not attain thereto, without doubt one of us will; what then shall be our mutual pledge and bond?" We answered,"Be it what you please." "Well," he said, "let us make a vow, that to whomsoever this fortune falls, he shall share it equally with the rest, and reserve no pre-eminence for himself." "Be it so," we both replied, and on those terms we mutually pledged our words. Years rolled on, and I went from Khorássán to Transoxiana, and wandered to Ghazni and Cabul; and when I returned, I was invested with office, and rose to be administrator of affairs during the Sultanate of Sultán Alp Arslan.'
"He goes on to state, that years passed by, and both his old schoolfriends found him out, and came and claimed a share in his good fortune, according to the school-day vow. The Vizier was generous and kept his word. Hasan demanded a place in the government, which the Sultán granted at the Vizier's request; but discontented with a gradual rise, he plunged into the maze of intrigue of an oriental court, and, failing in a base attempt to supplant his benefactor, he was disgraced and fell. After many mishaps and wanderings, Hasan became the head of the Persian sect of the Ismailians, —a party of fanatics who had long murmured in obscurity, but rose to an evil eminence under the guidance of his strong and evil will. In A.D. 1090, he seized the castle of Alamut, in the province of Rúdbar, which lies in the mountainous tract south of the Caspian Sea; and it was from this mountain home he obtained that evil celebrity among the Crusaders as the OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAINS, and spread terror through the Mohammedan world; and it is yet disputed where the word Assassin, which they have left in the language of modern Europe as their dark memorial, is derived from the hashish, or opiate of hemp-leaves (the Indian bhang), with which they maddened themselves to the sullen pitch of oriental desperation, or from the name of the founder of the dynasty, whom we have seen in his quiet collegiate days, at Naishápúr. One of the countless victims of the Assassin's dagger was Nizám ul Mulk himself, the old school-boy friend.
"Omar Khayyám also came to the Vizier to claim his share; but not to ask for title or office. 'The greatest boon you can confer on me,' he said, 'is to let me live in a corner under the shadow of your fortune, to spread wide the advantages of Science, and pray for your long life and prosperity.' The Vizier tells us, that when he found Omar was really sincere in his refusal, he pressed him no further, but granted him a yearly pension of 1200 mithkáls of gold from the treasury of Naishápúr.
"At Naishápúr thus lived and died Omar Khayyám, 'busied,' adds the Vizier, 'in winning knowledge of every kind, and especially in Astronomy, wherein he attained to a very high pre-eminence. Under the Sultanate of Malik Shah, he came to Merv, and obtained great praise for his proficiency in science, and the Sultán showered favors upon him.'
"When the Malik Shah determined to reform the calendar, Omar was one of the eight learned men employed to do it; the result was the Jaláli era (so called from Jalál-ud-din, one of the king's names)—'a computation of time,' says Gibbon, 'which surpasses the Julian, and approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian style.' He is also the author of some astronomical tables, entitled 'Zíji-Maliksháhí,' and the French have lately republished and translated an Arabic Treatise of his on Algebra.
"His Takhallus or poetical name (Khayyám) signifies a Tentmaker, and he is said to have at one time exercised that trade, perhaps before Nizám-ul-Mulk's generosity raised him to independence. Many Persian poets similarly derive their names from their occupations; thus we have Attár, 'a druggist,' Assár, 'an oil presser,' etc.Omar himself alludes to his name in the following whimsical lines: —
"'Khayyám, who stitched the tents of science,
Has fallen in grief's furnace and been suddenly burned;
The shears of Fate have cut the tent ropes of his life,
And the broker of Hope has sold him for nothing!'
"We have only one more anecdote to give of his Life, and that relates to the close; it is told in the anonymous preface which is sometimes prefixed to his poems; it has been printed in the Persian in the Appendix to Hyde's Veterum Persarum Religio, p. 499; and D'Herbelot alludes to it in his Bibliothèque, under Khiam.—
"'It is written in the chronicles of the ancients that this King of the Wise, Omar Khayyám, died at Naishápúr in the year of the Hegira, 517 (A.D. 1123); in science he was unrivaled, —the very paragon of his age. Khwájah Nizámi of Samarcand, who was one of his pupils, relates the following story: "I often used to hold conversations with my teacher, Omar Khayyám, in a garden; and one day he said to me,'My tomb shall be in a spot where the north wind may scatter roses over it.' I wondered at the words he spake, but I knew that his were no idle words.Years after, when I chanced to revisit Naishápúr, I went to his final resting-place, and lo! it was just outside a garden, and trees laden with fruit stretched their boughs over the garden wall, and dropped their flowers upon his tomb, so that the stone was hidden under them."'"
Thus far—without fear of Trespass—from the Calcutta Review. The writer of it, on reading in India this story of Omar's Grave, was reminded, he says, of Cicero's Account of finding Archimedes' Tomb at Syracuse, buried in grass and weeds. I think Thorwaldsen desired to have roses grow over him; a wish religiously fulfilled for him to the present day, I believe. However, to return to Omar.
Though the Sultán "shower'd Favors upon him," Omar's Epicurean Audacity of Thought and Speech caused him to be regarded askance in his own Time and Country. He is said to have been especially hated and dreaded by the Sufis, whose Practise he ridiculed, and whose Faith amounts to little more than his own, when stript of the Mysticism and formal recognition of Islamism under which Omar would not hide. Their Poets, including Háfiz, who are (with the exception of Firdausi) the most considerable in Persia, borrowed largely, indeed, of Omar's material, but turning it to a mystical Use more convenient to Themselves and the People they addressed; a People quite as quick of Doubt as of Belief; as keen of Bodily sense as of Intellectual; and delighting in a cloudy composition of both, in which they could float luxuriously between Heaven and Earth, and this World and the Next, on the wings of a poetical expression, that might serve indifferently for either. Omar was too honest of Heart as well of Head for this. Having failed (however mistakenly) of finding any Providence but Destiny, and any World but This, he set about making the most of it; preferring rather to soothe the Soul through the Senses into Acquiescence with Things as he saw them, than to perplex it with vain disquietude after what they might be. It has been seen, however, that his Worldly Ambition was not exorbitant; and he very likely takes a humorous or perverse pleasure in exalting the gratification of Sense above that of the Intellect, in which he must have taken great delight, although it failed to answer the Questions in which he, in common with all men, was most vitally interested.
For whatever Reason, however, Omar as before said, has never been popular in his own Country, and therefore has been but scantily transmitted abroad. The MSS. of his Poems, mutilated beyond the average Casualties of Oriental Transcription, are so rare in the East as scarce to have reacht Westward at all, in spite of all the acquisitions of Arms and Science. There is no copy at the India House, none at the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. We know but of one in England: No. 140 of the Ouseley MSS. at the Bodleian, written at Shiráz, A.D. 1460.
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]