effects of the linguistic fact outside its specific, initial form. But there can be no doubt that echo enriches, that it is more than shadow and inert simulacrum. We are back at the problem of the mirror which not only reflects but also generated light. The original text gains from the orders of diverse relationship and distance established between itself and the translations. The reciprocity is dialectic: new “formats” of significance are initiated by distance and by contiguity. Some translations edge us away from the canvas, others bring us up close.
对翻译工作和职业道德而言，通过这种互补行为来恢复平衡非常关键。但是抽象的来描述这一点是非常困难的。译者“占有的乐趣”——这个词本身内部就已经暗含了暴力转移的词根和意义——使原作辩证的带上了高深莫测的痕迹。毫无疑问，在某些方面确实存在着丢失，我们已经看到了遗漏——因此，我们害怕翻译，如在许多文化禁止输出那些具有神圣性的文本、伦理性命名、公式等。但是剩余物也是具有决定性的积极意义的。这些被翻译的作品得到了升华。在一些相当明显的层面尤其如此。和所有的聚焦式理解模式一样，翻译是一种带有方法性、渗透性、分析性、枚举性的过程，它详细的解释、具象了其研究对象。释义行为的决定性在内在上是膨胀的：它说明“这里存在着比眼睛所能见到更多的东西”，“内容和决定形式之间的协同比我们所观察到的更密切、更细致”。把一篇源文本归入值得翻译的类别就如同直接夸大并使有了膨胀的动力（很自然的将其置于一种需
要进一步审视的境地，甚至进一步解散的状态）。意义转移和释义的操作对原作进行了放大。在历史上，在文化的大背景下，就公众所能及的程度上，译作却往往更有影响力。这种影响力的增加有着更重要的意义。原文本和译作、仿作和主题变体甚至是模仿问题之间的关系错综复杂，不是某一种理论、定义所能解释的。他们对整个时间中的意义之意义、某种特定形式之外的言语现实效果和存在进行了归类。但是毫无疑问的是，这种回响式操作进行了丰富，而不仅仅是如同影子或者惰性摹拟体。我们又回到了镜子的问题，镜子不仅反射，而且发光。原作从错综复杂的关系中以及原作本身和译作之间建立的距离上获益。这种相互行为是辩证性的：意义的新“形式”始于距离和接触。有些译作避开背景，而有些译作却要说明背景。
This is so even where, perhaps especially where, the translation is only partly adequate. The failings of the translator (I will give common examples ) localize, they project as on to a screen, the resistant vitalities, the opaque centers of specific genius in the original. Hegel and Heidegger posit that being must engage other being in order to achieve self-definition. This is true only in part of language which, at the phonetic and grammatical levels, can function inside its own limits of diacritical differentiation. But it is pragmatically true of all but the most rudimentary acts of form and expression. Existence in history, the claim to recognizable identity (style), are based on relations
to other articulate constructs. Of such relations, translations is the most graphic.
即便翻译或许在某些方面是差强人意的，情况也是如此。译者的过失(我要用普通的例子)体现了抵制力量的活力，即源语中某些天才著作的模糊中心。这种失误似乎投射到了屏幕上一般。黑格尔和海德格尔提出：一物必须与另一物相关，才能使自我获得认知。这一推理只能当在语音和语法层面，一种语言在自身辩证的异质范围内才能发生作用。确实如此，不过这也是形式和表达方面最基本的行为。历史上的存在，也就是可以识别的实体（类型）都是建立在与他者之间的关系上。其中翻译是最明晰的这类关系。
Nevertheless, there is unbalance. The translator has taken too much—he has padded, embroidered, “read into”—or too little—he has skimped, elided, cut out awkward corners. There has been an outflow of energy from the source and an inflow into the receptor altering both and altering the harmonics of the whole system. Peguy puts the matter of inevitable damage definitively in his critique of Leconte de Lisle’s translations of Sophocles: “ce que la realite nous enseigne impitoyablement et sans aucune exception, c’est que toute operation de cet ordre, toute operation de deplacement, sans aucune exception, entraine impotoyablement et irrevocablement une deperdition, une alteration, et que cette deperdition, cette alteration est toujours
considerable.” Peguy Genuine translation will, therefore, seek to equalize, though the mediating steps may be lengthy and oblique. Where it falls short of the original, the authentic translation makes the autonomous virtues of the original more precisely visible (Voss is weak at characteristic focal points in his Homer, but the lucid honesty of his momentary lack brings out the appropriate strengths of the Greek). Where it surpasses the original, the real translation infers that the source text possesses potentialities, elemental reserves as yet unrealized by itself. This is Schleiermacher’s notion of a hermeneutic which “knows better than the author did ”(Paul Celan translating Apollinaire’s Salome). The ideal, never accomplished, is one of total counterpart or re-petition—an asking again—which is not, however, a tautology. No such perfect “double” exists. But the ideal makes explicit the demand for equity in the hermeneutic process.
然而还是存在着不平衡。译者也许涉入太深——他踏入原文、深入其中，读到了骨子里——或者他过于肤浅——只读到了皮毛、断章取义、盲人摸象。来自原作的能量和流入接受者的能量改变着双方，并力求在整个系统中实现和谐共生。Peguy在他对Leconte de Lisle 翻译的Sophocles 的评论时指出：这是不可避免的一种伤害。Peguy Genuine 力求翻译实现平衡，但是征途漫漫、充满崎岖。和原作相比总是有所
不足，而真正的翻译却要更加明确的展示原作的价值（Voss在展现荷马的典型中心观点时候却有不足，但是他这种明显的不足却展现了希腊的那种力量）如果译作超越了原作的话，那么真正的翻译就是要展现院中的那种潜在含义，自身没有表达出来的内涵。这就是施莱尔马赫的阐释论，也就是说“比作者更了解文本”而最理想的状态是和原作完全对等、全面重复——再次询问——但这不是本体论，但是这种理想状态重来没有实现。这种完美的“双重性”是不存在的。但这一理想却明晰了阐释过程的对等要求。
Only in this way, I think, can we assign substantive meaning to the key notion of “fidelity”. Fidelity is not literalism or any technical device for rendering “spirit”. The whole formulation, as we have found it over and over again in discussion of translation, is hopelessly vague. The translator, the exegetist, the reader is faithful to his text, makes his response responsible, only when he endeavours to restore the balance of forces, of integral presence, which his appropriative comprehension has disrupted. Fidelity is ethical, but also, in the full sense, economic. By virtue of tact, and tact intensified is moral vision, the translator-interpreter creates a condition of significant exchange. The arrows of meaning, of cultural, psychological benefaction, move both ways. There is, ideally, exchange without loss. In this respect, translation can be pictured as a