| 布衣书局 > 布衣论坛 |  |
| 只对封面感兴趣 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:01:53 |
| 俺买的这本书，毛主席保证纯粹不是奔内容去的，希望南极仙翁饶恕。
俺只对封面上的编者名字感兴趣。 
|
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:19:45 |
| 图好大，但没显示给俺。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:22:16 |
| 八老，就是施友忠，翻译了
突突的创造，突突的进化 
|
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:24:24 |
| 这本品相好，100块。
------------------ http://pm.kongfz.com/detail.php?tb=his&itemId=1152398 
|
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:25:06 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:19:45
图好大，但没显示给俺。 =========================== 施友忠编：希特勒 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:26:22 |
| 施老师是谁？突创进化，好词，环时看到了，肯定当社论标题。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:27:01 |
|
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:27:54 |
| 欧高特高特 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:30:27 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:26:22
施老师是谁？ ================================= 八老先看这个，如果能看到的话 
|
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:32:46 |
小传来自这本书
|
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:36:09 |
|
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:36:26 |
| 看到。莫非是他：
Wenxin diaolong 文心雕龙, The literary mind and the carving of dragons (Vincent Yu-chung Shih), Columbia Univ. Pr. 1959. (Rev. by Achilles Fang in: The Time Literary Supplement, Dec. 4, 1959.) |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:39:04 |
| 没错，就是他。后来该行搞文史了，但不知道水平如何。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:40:19 |
| 他在国内时写的西方哲学书，文笔不错，看着不累。。 |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:42:42 |
| 小传一头一尾俩别字
等有工夫,看看俺的施友忠 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:43:29 |
| 希特拉
1934年中华一版。与时俱进，古已有之。 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:46:11 |
| 水平鉴定，看阿基里斯咋讲。TLS有电版乎 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:50:35 |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:42:42
等有工夫,看看俺的施友忠 --------------------------- e老的是施耐庵吧，哈哈。。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:51:51 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:46:11
水平鉴定，看阿基里斯咋讲。TLS有电版乎 ------------------------------------------ 估计惨了，阿基里斯太猛了。 |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:52:32 |
| 施耐庵也有,施友忠也有。。。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-17 18:53:54 |
| 太厉害了。 |
| 作者：十佳毛驴 提交日期：2010-03-17 19:48:46 |
| 乡贤，太乡贤了，呵呵…… |
| 作者：食货 提交日期：2010-03-17 20:15:47 |
| 毛主席没点过名,换一个,哈哈 |
| 作者：乔纳森 提交日期：2010-03-17 21:06:12 |
| 英译《文心雕龙》有，倒没想到早年是研究西方哲学的。 |
| 作者：爽口马老 提交日期：2010-03-17 21:44:16 |
| 买的这本书，毛主席保证纯粹不是奔内容去的
=========== 哈哈 完美版是 向毛主席保证 简称 向毛保证 |
| 作者：OskarBecker 提交日期：2010-03-17 22:53:56 |
| 阿基硫斯，TLS:
QUINTESSENCE OF CHINESE LITERATURE Liu Hsieh : The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons. 298pp University Press. London: Oxford University Press. 48s. Translated_by V. Y. Shih. Columbia Of the numerous writings on the art of letters produced in China, the best known are Wen-fu of Lu Chi (A.D. 261-303), an essay in 131 couplets, and Wen-hsin tiao-lung of Liu Hsieh (c. 465-521), a treatise in fifty chapters. Where the former is a poet's cri de coeur, the latter is a scholar's study on the various aspects of the fine art of writing: a defence of literature (not of poetry alone), the idiosyncrasies of genres (some twenty-seven of them), and problems of style. Sun Mei, himself an accomplished stylist, wrote of Lu Chi's essay that its author draws his bow but stops short of releasing the arrow, so that the effects he wants to create become completely alive; perhaps this Discobolus stance explains why an English version of the little poem has been so favourably received. With regard to Liu Hsieh's book, the eighteenth-century writer goes on to say that Liu Hsieh has probed everywhere and delineated everything, incorporating in his fifty chapters the quintessence of a hundred generations. This is hardly a hyperbolic statement. Wen-hsin tiao-lung, probably written during the years 498-502, has been almost unanimously praised by Chinese literati not only for its insight but for its style as well. The author himself seems to have regarded his book as an immortal work of art. Its very title affirms his high opinion expressed in the autobiographical chapter: wen-hsin, " the working of the heart or mind involved in every writing " (a phrase borrowed from Lu Chi's essay and one which also connotes " the core of literature"); tiao-lung, "dragon-carving" (the carving of this typically Chinese symbol of benignancy, with its scales, claws, and coils, demands a high degree of artistry if the figure is to become realistically alive). There cannot be any doubt that Liu Hsieh intended the two paratactical phrases to mean, hypotactically, " Dragon-carving on the Core (or Heart) of Literary Art," that is, " An Elaborate Presentation of the Quintessence of Literature." All Chinese literati who have bothered about the meaning of Liu Hsieh's title have so interpreted his intention. The book is definitely not on the subjects of "the literary mind" and "literary embellishment." Dr. Shih's ill-luck with the title was anticipated in 1951 by the late E. R. Hughes,whose rendering, "The Literary Mind and Its Carving of Dragons," is unambiguous in failing to get at the syntaxis of Liu Hsieh's title. It would be unfair to take this infelicity as a clue to the quality of the whole of Dr. Shih's translation, for it is far better than the average run of translations from the Chinese. Yet he often fails to do justice to Liu Hsieh's "incomparable style", e.g., " As for my achievement in coursing through the hunting grounds of literature and looping reins in the palace of rhetoric, I think my work is as exhaustive as can be expected." Such phrasing as this may stem from the translator's notion of fidelity. On the other hand, he often resorts to paraphrase: " In so doing, they wear out the vitality within, which fades away like the feeble waves of a stream, or make themselves as gaunt and emaciated as the trees on Mount Niu." Dr. Shih should have translated it "like the waves of the Wei-lu " or, if determined to paraphrase, should have paraphrased "like the trees on Mount Niu" as "like the trees on a trampled mountain." Since he duly referred the reader to Mencius for Mt. Niu but not to Chuang-tzu, where Wei-lu is described as the river through which the waters of the Eastern Sea are discharged (according to one commentator, the water turns into steam when it touches a huge hot rock in midstream), he is open to the suspicion of translating a proper name (which may be found in the usual dictionaries like Tz'u-hai). Of course he may just have been lazy. It is not easy, either, to account for Dr. Shih's statement that Liu Hsieh was "a native of Tung-kuan, the present Lu-hsien in Shantung province." According to his biography in the dynastic histories, Liu Hsieh was born in the county (hsien) of Chu in the prefecture of Tung-kuan; but the Chu here cannot be the present Chu-hsien of Shantung but must be identified with Chinkiang in Kiangsu, which in Liu Hsieh's time was called Ching-k'ou, a township in the prefecture of "Southern " Tung-kuan ; the Liu clan had lived there for more than a century. And what of elementary blunders like the following? Liu Hsieh begins Chapter 47, "The Nurturing or Conservation of Vitality" (yang-ch'i), with the sentence,"In bygone days Wang Ch'ung, when he was active in a literary career, wrote a chapter (p'ien) 'On the Nurturing of Vitality’ (yang ch'i) on the basis of his own experience : this chapter surely cannot be mere fabrication." Dr. Shih makes Liu Hsieh say that Wang Ch'ung wrote not a chapter but " a book on the theme of nourishing one's vitality " and in his footnote informs us that Wang Ch'ung wrote " on the nourishing of vitality in sixteen chapters." From all available evidence it appears that Wang Ch'ung's sixteen-chapter book (shu), now lost, was entitled "On the Nurturing (or Nourishing, as Dr. Shih prefers) of Human Nature," i.e., " On the Conservation of Life " (yang-hsing), of which one chapter was devoted to the nurturing or nourishing of vitality (yang-ch'i). Moreover, Wang Ch'ung's magnum opus, Lun-heng, contains several chapters devoted to exploding "fabrications" or myths. Liu Hsieh's subtle allusion to that bete noire of the Han-dynasty iconoclast is nowhere mentioned by Dr. Shih in his footnote. Indeed, Dr. Shih is generally disinclined to be fair to Liu Hsieh's subtleties. He makes Liu Hsieh say, "But whether identical to or different from previous judgments, mine have not been influenced by either the modern or the ancient critics." What Liu Hsieh in fact says is that when in making critical judgments he sometimes agrees with and sometimes disagrees with other writers, he is not swayed either way by their being ancient or modern. Admittedly the task of translating Wen-hsin tiao-lung is a formidable one. Its author was a past master of artistic prose characterized by antithetical couplets and paratactical periods; he packed his book with quotations and allusions to such an extent that each chapter requires some fifty footnotes; finally, the mass of literary and psychological terminology occurring in the work, often used in shifting senses, has to be clarified. Liu Hsieh, however, has much to tell us in the West, and as yet Dr. Shih's version is the only one available. Until a more scholarly translation appears or Dr. Shih himself gives us a completely reworked version (even of a few stray chapters), we shall have to thank him for the present book. |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-17 23:44:52 |
| 歐高特，買迪牙歐畢，這是咋搞來的？頂謝。看方志老文，是絕大享受-） |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-18 13:54:33 |
真有不是假有。
|
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-18 13:58:21 |
| 宜姊画。王世宜和王世瑛是姐妹，施友忠和张君劢是连襟 |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-18 13:59:19 |
画呢？
|
| 作者：邯郸学步集 提交日期：2010-03-18 14:02:20 |
| ：） |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-18 14:10:44 |
| 这个帖子值了，调出这么多东西，哈哈。。谢谢e老、OB兄。。 |
| 作者：五明子 提交日期：2010-03-18 14:14:13 |
| 作者：爽口马老 提交日期：2010-03-17 21:44:16
买的这本书，毛主席保证纯粹不是奔内容去的 =========== 哈哈 完美版是 向毛主席保证 ================= 北京话就是这么说的，不带“向”字，不信可以问老飘。 南极仙翁在京城还有很多要学的。 |
| 作者：八百民 提交日期：2010-03-18 18:10:08 |
| 王世宜和王世瑛是姐妹，施友忠和张君劢是连襟
张君劢大施友忠十五岁，娶了王家妹妹作小妻？施绝对是小辈。不过，新派人物一切都有可能。忘了是哪个张了，托人去王国维家提亲，吓坏了辫子师傅。 |
| 作者：ele 提交日期：2010-03-18 20:33:29 |
| 王世宜和王世瑛是姐妹，施友忠和张君劢是连襟
张君劢大施友忠十五岁，娶了王家妹妹作小妻？施绝对是小辈。 --------------------------------------------------------------- 表述有点问题,应该说王世瑛和王世宜是姐妹。网上说王世瑛比冰心大3岁，那就是生于1897年，比张君劢小10岁。而且张与王也不是原配，张是休妻再娶的。 王世瑛、王世宜是否亲姐妹，也没去查。但她们应该都是光绪状元、闽县王仁堪的孙女。 网上有郑尔康讲故事，说王世瑛是郑振铎的初恋，比较八卦。说着说着就回藏书界了，哈哈 |
| 作者：爽口马老 提交日期：2010-03-18 21:40:31 |
|
向毛保证 一句熟语：））） |
 |
|
|
| ©版权所有 2002-2019年 布衣书局
|