时候，就必须要在世界整体性和符号多样性方面进行赌博。与此同时，译者会将自身置于一种非常脆弱的，两种辩证相关、相互决定的超自然的危险境地下，虽然这只是在极端情况下和在理论的边际发生。他会发现“任何事”或“几乎任何事”都能意为“一切”。这就是中世纪的注释家们所体会的那种受自反隐喻和类比束缚而导致的晕头转向的感觉。或者他会发现那种“那里什么也没有”的状态可以和形式的自我状态相剥离，他会发现每一个有表达价值的意义都是单一的，不能成为二元可选的模式。我现在要重提Kabbalistic假设：某一天，词语都将摆脱“必须要有意义的负担”，他们就是他们自己，就像石头一样空白而完整。
After trust comes aggression. The second move of the translator is incursive and extractive. The relevant analysis is that of Heidegger when he focuses our attention on understanding as an act, on the access, inherently appropriative and therefore violent, of Erkenntnis to Dasein. Da-sein, the “thing there”, “the thing that is because it is there”, only comes into authentic being when it is comprehended, i.e. translated. [Paul] Ricaur, “Existence et hermeneutique” in Le Confit des interpretations (Paris, 1969).] The postulate that all cognition is aggressive, that every proposition is an inroad on the world, is, of course, Hegelian. It is Heidegger’s contribution to have shown that understanding, recognition, interpretation are a compacted, unavoidable mode
of attack. We can modulate Heidegger’s insistence that understanding is not a matter of method but of primary being, that “being consists in the understanding of other being” into the more na?ve, limited axiom that each act of comprehension must appropriate another entity (we translate into). Comprehension, as its etymology shows, “comprehends” not only cognitively but by encirclement and ingestion. In the event of interlingual translation this manoeuvre of comprehension is explicitly invasive and exhaustive. Saint Jerome uses his famous image of meaning brought home captive by the translator. We “break” a code: decipherment is dissective, leaving the shell smashed and the vital layers stripped. Every schoolchild, but also the eminent translator, will note the shift in substantive presence which follows on a protracted or difficult exercise in translation: the text in the other language has become almost materially thinner, the light seems to pass unhindered through its loosened fibres. For a spell the density of hostile or seductive “otherness” is dissipated. Ortega y Gasset speaks of the sadness of the translator after failure. There is also a sadness after success, the Augustinian tristitia which follows on the cognates acts of erotic and of intellectual possession.
信任之后就是入侵。译者的这个二重行为带有攻击性和并带有摄取的
内涵。与此相关的是海德格尔的分析，他提醒我们，理解是一种行为，需要关注对从认知到此在的理解（erkenntnis to Dasein），这是一种内的适当行为，但存在一定的暴力性。此在（Da-sein），“那里的东西”，“那个东西因为在那里而存在”，存在仅当被理解、被翻译之后还成为一个真正的存在。所有的认知都具有侵入性，世界上所有的命题都具有攻击性，这就是黑格尔的假说。海德格尔的理论指出，理解、识别和解释密不可分、不可避免的攻击模式。海德格尔认为理解不是一种关于方法的东西，而是一种基本的存在，一种存在于对另一种存在的理解中的存在。我们可以将海德格尔的思想变通为一种更加简单、严谨的公理，即理解行为就是对另一个实体的占有（我们将其翻译成这样）。从词源学的角度看，理解这个词不仅是要进行认知性理解，而且还具有包容和吸纳的内涵。在语际翻译过程中，这种理解的操作具有明显的侵入性和穷竭性。Saint Jerome利用了他的著名的形象，意义就是译者带回来的俘虏。我们“打破”一个符号：解码的工作是剖析性的，要打破外壳，剥掉关键的外衣。学生和优秀的译者都会有体会，意义的转换需要漫长而艰涩的翻译练习：他语中的文本几乎变得越来越薄，光线看起来可以毫无障碍的透过它稀疏的纤维。但是充满敌意或诱惑力的“他者”咒语却在弥漫。奥尔特加·加塞特（Ortega y Gasset）说过译者在失败之后的悲哀。其实也存在成功之后的悲哀，即奥古斯丁的忧伤(Augustinian tristitia)，这种忧伤紧随拥有情爱和理性之后。
The translator invades, extracts, and brings home. The simile is
that of the open-cast mine left an empty scar in the landscape. As we shall see, this despoliation is illusory or is a mark of false translation. But again, as in the case of the translator’s trust, there are genuine borderline cases. Certain texts or genres have been exhausted by translation. Far more interestingly, others have been negated by transfiguration, by an act of appropriative penetration and transfer in excess of the original, more ordered, more aesthetically pleasing. There are originals we no longer turn to because the translation is of a higher magnitude (the sonnets of Louise Labe after Rilke’s Undchtung). I will come back to this paradox of betrayal by augment.
译者侵入、摄取，之后理解。这就像露天煤矿开采之后在大地上留下的伤痕一样。我们可以看出，这种掠夺是虚幻的，或者是错误翻译的一个标志。但是在另一方面，如果译者投入了信任，那么就一定存在边界。有些文本或题材确实被翻译进行了充分的挖掘。更加有趣的是，通过变形、适当的渗入行为和转换，他者的印象已经消除，原作从而变得更加有条理、更加善心悦目。有些时候我们不再理会原作，因为译作达到了一个更高的层次。我将重新来谈这种背叛的悖论。
The third movement is incorporative, in the strong sense of the word. The import, of meaning and of form, the embodiment, is not made in or into a vacuum. The native semantic field is already extant and crowded. There are innumerable shadings of
assimilation and placement of the newly-acquired, ranging from a complete domestication, an at-homeness at the core of the kind which cultural history ascribes to, say, Luther’s Bible or North’s Plutarch, all the way to the permanent strangeness and marginality of an artifact such as Nabokov’s “English-languge” Onegin. But whatever the degree of “naturalization”, the act of importation can potentially dislocate or relocate the whole of the native structure. The Heideggerian “we are what we understand to be ” entails that our own being is modified by each occurrence of comprehensive appropriation. No language, no traditional symbolic set or cultural ensemble imports without risk of being transformed.
第三个行为就是融入，很大程度上是词语的融入。具体的意义和形式的引入不是在真空中发生的行为。本土的语义场已经是个性鲜明、表达充分了。即便是完全的本地化，也就是作为文化历史核心问题的那种皈依，总也存在着同化和最新习得插入的阴影。比如，路德的圣经或者North的Plutarch，总是有如纳博科夫（Nabokov）的“英语语言”奥涅金这个词所反映出的陌生感和边缘感。但是不管“自然化”能达到什么程度，引入行为都可能改变整个本土文化的结构。每次全面理解之后，海德格尔 “我们就是我们所理解的那个样子”的说法就说明，每一次理解的侵入，都会对我们进行修改。任何语言、传统的符号系统和整体文化在引入的同时都不能摆脱变形的风险。这有两种暗