MIT OpenCourseWare


» 進階搜尋
 課程首頁
 教學大綱
 教學時程
 相關閱讀資料
 作業
 下載課程

作業


本頁翻譯進度

燈號說明

審定:無
翻譯:陳盈(簡介並寄信)、劉慕華(簡介並寄信)
編輯:朱學(簡介並寄信)
譯註:本頁部分內容與21L.001 2000春季課程:西方文明的基礎I:從荷馬到但丁重複,沿用該譯作內容。

以下是一些筆記、問題、例子和評論,目的是引導學生完成閱讀並為課堂討論提供材料。另外,該課程的論文作業也可下載。可參看閱讀資料部份,其中有很多課堂指定文本的可下載文件。(譯註:該部分內容與本網站21L.0012000春季課程:西方文明的基礎I:從荷馬到但丁「作業」中的部分內容重複,沿用原譯作內容。原譯者為蕭維中、王晶,編輯為朱學恆,特此說明。)
Below are some notes, questions, cases and commentaries meant to guide the student's reading and to inform classroom discussion. In addition, the paper assignments for the course may be downloaded. See the readings section for downloadable files of the texts assigned for many of the class sessions.


課程單元作業
1課程介紹。舊約聖經《利未記書》第十六章
Introduction. Leviticus, 16.

新約聖經《馬太福音書》第二十六章第三十至三十五節,四十八至七十五節
St Matthew, 26, xxx-xxxv, xlviii-lxxv.

兩首英國民謠:《愛德華》《史賓斯爵士》
Two English Ballads: "Edward", "Sir Patric Spens."
  1. 《利未記書》:什麼是贖罪?這是懲罰的一種形式嗎?懲罰可以轉換成另一種方式嗎?這文本是「代罪羔羊」這一想法的起源。代罪羔羊是一個妙想嗎?譴責可以轉換成另一種方式嗎?讓贖罪成為年度儀式的目的是什麼?你曾為某事贖罪嗎?
    LEVITICUS: What is atonement? Is it a form of punishment? Can punishment be transferred from one agent to another? This text is the origin of the idea of "scapegoating". Is scapegoating ever a good idea? Can blame be transferred from one agent to another? What is the purpose of making atonement into an annual ritual? Have you ever atoned for anything?

  2. :當耶穌說彼得會不認主時,彼得否定了主所說的話。在這件事上耶穌有可能是錯的嗎?他怎麼知道彼得會做什麼?預言是針對時間而言的。彼得能避開預言嗎?有一個聖經故事關於該段中提出的問題。上帝把瘟疫帶到埃及,因為法老王不同意摩西提出的意見--讓摩西的子民走。但文本告訴我們,上帝讓法老王的心腸變硬,那樣他就不會聽摩西的。法老王會因為這樣受譴責嗎?
    ST MATTHEW: When Jesus says that Peter will deny him, Peter denies what Jesus says. Can Jesus possibly be mistaken in such a matter? How does he know what Peter will do? The prophecy is specific about time. Can Peter avoid the prophecy? There is a Biblical antecedent for some of the issues raised by this passage. God brought the plagues to Egypt because Pharoah would not accede to Moses request to let his people go, but the text tells us that God had hardened Pharoah's heart so that he would not listen to Moses. Can Pharoah be blamed for this?

  3. 英國民謠:雖然這些民謠原來的聽眾都很熟悉這些民謠背後的故事,但我們並不熟悉。有足夠的敘述內容來成就故事嗎?為什麼愛德華以向母親撒謊作為開始?為什麼史賓斯爵士讓自己在航行中死去?他知道自己會死嗎?有任何原因讓人覺得這其中一篇或這兩篇敘述都是「悲劇」嗎?
    ENGLISH BALLADS: We are unfamiliar with the stories to which these ballads allude, although their original audience must have known them quite well. Is there enough narrative material to make out the tale? Why does Edward begin by lying to his mother? Why does he end by cursing her? Why does Sir Patric Spens set sail to his death? Does he know that he will die? Is there any reason to think that one or both of these narratives is "tragic"?
2伊思奇勒斯三部曲《奧瑞斯提亞》
Aeschylus, The Orestia.
  1. 第一首合頌敘述了故事發生之前的很多內容,但對於那些不熟悉內容的人來說,這並不好理解。在這一方面,對比《愛德華》《史賓斯爵士》這兩首民謠,它又如何呢?在神話的一些版本中,阿耳特彌斯打斷軍隊的旅程,因為亞格曼儂以某種方式對她無禮。這是因為什麼呢?在抵抗特洛伊的征途這點上,唱詩班在傳遞他們的怎樣一種態度呢?
    The first choral ode recounts much of the material antecedent to the story but not in a manner immediately accessible to anyone not already familiar with it. How does it compare in this respect with the ballads "Edward" and "Sir Patric Spens"? In some versions of the myth, Artemis interupts the voyage of the army because Agamemnon had insulted her in some fashion. What seems to be the reason here? What sense does the chorus communicate about their attitude towards the expedition against Troy?

  2. 特別注意亞格曼儂被描述為「把脖子套進命運的籠頭」的那節("slipping his neck into the bridle of Fate"翻譯後可能有所不同)。解釋亞格曼儂所面對的選擇。他有選擇嗎?有一些人們真能說「我無從選擇」的重要道德時刻嗎?
    Pay careful attention to the stanza of the chorus in which Agamemnon is described as "slipping his neck into the bridle of Fate" (translations may vary). Explain the alternatives facing Agamemnon. Did he have a choice? Are there important moral occasions in which one can truly say, "I had no choice"?

  3. 在這節之前,有幾節是關於上帝之父宙斯。他看似有什麼特質?
    Before this stanza there are stanzas dealing with Zeus, the Father of the gods. What character does he seem to have?

  4. 從克莉坦那斯塔與唱詩班的交流中,我們可以得出關於她對亞格曼儂的感覺的一些什麼暗示?當然,觀眾完全可以知道該劇的結果,講述(唱)的內容中隱藏的深層含義使該劇成為諷刺劇。觀眾能明白隱含的意思,但戲劇中的角色將未能洞悉其深意。克莉坦那斯塔講述特洛伊的衰落中,有這樣的諷刺嗎?
    What hints do we get about Clytemnestra's feelings for Agamemnon in her exchange with the chorus? The audience, of course, knows full well how this play will come out, enabling a play of ironiesBsecondary meanings latent in what is said (or sung), which the audience will catch but of which the characters in the play will be unaware. Are there any ironies of this sort in Clytemnestra's description of the fall of Troy?

  5. 報仇的動機是如何有根據?「血債血償」。死刑是一種報仇方式,讓犯人罪有應得,讓與受害者有關的人獲得最終的解決。與受害者有關的人有義務去報仇嗎?可以繼承報仇的義務嗎?當犯罪者不能受罰時,未判罰的罪行會被他人所繼承嗎?當某人阻礙懲罰時,是不是等同於共同犯罪呢(例如不肯說出犯罪分子的行蹤)?
    How valid is the motive of revenge? "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Capital punishment is one form of revenge, which seeks adequacy for the offence, closure for those bonded to the victims. Do those who are bonded to the victims obliged to revenge? Can one inherit an obligation of this sort? Can one inherit the guilt that has gone unpunished when those who have committed the crime are not available for punishment? Is one complicit in a crime when one forestalls or impedes punishment (as in not revealing the whereabout of a malefactor to the police, for example)?

  6. 犧牲女兒比犧牲一個旁觀者更糟嗎?殺一個人(特別地)比殺另一個人更糟嗎?殺一個人比殺另一個人更好嗎?最後兩個問題不同嗎?
    Is it worse to sacrifice a daughter than, say, a bystander? Is it worse to kill one person (in particular) than another? Is it better to kill one person than another? Are these last two questions different questions?

  7. 克莉坦那斯塔說服亞格曼儂利用公家財產出資,然後踩踏精緻無價的織品(因此毀滅了織品),作為他凱旋勝利的象徵。她如何說服亞格曼儂?他此舉的重要性為何?
    Clytemnestra persuades Agamemnon to expend public wealth by treading upon delicate, invaluable fabrics, thereby destroying them, as a token of his triumph. How does she persuade him? What is the significance of his action?

  8. 阿波羅是醫療和疾病之神(他在這方面的能力被稱為「擲遠標者」)。他也是預言之神-或許因為被附身時會喧鬧和胡言亂語,類似被疾病所擾。卡桑卓(Cassandra)是他的受害者。為什麼阿波羅要懲罰她?我們沒有看到亞格曼儂被屠殺,但從卡桑卓預言似的亂語中得知,舞台上的人並不瞭解其意義,觀眾卻心知肚明。卡桑卓被殺時的情況與先前伊菲吉妮娜類似-合唱隊告訴我們,她被封口,預防她開口詛咒這些參與她犧牲儀式的人群。卡桑卓為何如此痛苦?是為了她自己還是亞格曼儂?她會是人類生命情境中哪種決定性的代表?
    Apollo is the god of healing and disease (he is called "the far-darter" in this capacity). He is also the god of prophecy - possibly because being possessed means ranting and raving, which is akin to being struck by a disease. Cassandra is his victim. Why is Apollo punishing her? We are not shown the slaughter of Agamemnon but we hear about it through the prophetic ravings of Cassandra, which are not understood by those who hear it on stage. The audience, however, understands it well. Cassandra goes to her slaughter in a way like Iphigenia before her - the chorus tells us that her mouth was stopped, to prevent her from cursing those who took part in her sacrifice. What can be said of Cassandra's display of agony? Is it for herself? For Agamamnon? What can be said of her as a representative of something decisive about the human condition?

  9. 《亞格曼儂》的結尾中,克莉坦那斯塔發表演說敘說她身在血雨中。演說的要旨為何?她如何看待自己和她的行為?合唱隊驚懼地看待她的行為,但不管亞格曼儂作出什麼,從未影響到合唱隊對他的看法。妻子謀殺丈夫,會比父親謀殺女兒更糟糕嗎?
    Clytemnestra makes a speech near the end of the Agamemnon about standing in a shower of blood. What is the purport of the speech? How does she think of herself and her deed? The chorus regards her with a horror that did not color their regard for Agamemnon, whatever he had done. Is it worse for a wife to kill her husband than for a father to kill his daughter?

  10. 《奠祭者》(Coephor,英文The Libation-Bearersi)的主要情節是有關奠祭儀式-以倒酒在地為開始的飲酒儀式。這個儀式的重點為何?奧瑞斯特斯(Orestes)復仇的義務和亞格曼儂謀殺女兒伊菲吉妮娜的方式有何不同?又和克里特涅斯特拉擊殺亞格曼儂的方式有何差異?
    Most of the Coephori (English: The Libation-Bearers) is occupied with the central act of libationBa ritual of drinking which is begun by pouring drink upon the ground. What is the point of the ritual here? How does the way in which Orestes carries out the obligation of revenge differ from the way in which Agamemnon killed Iphigenia? the way in which Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon?

  11. 《佑護神》(Eumenides,英文為The Blessed Ones)中,有段關於復仇三女神(Erynes,英文:the Furies)與阿波羅辯論有關奧瑞斯特斯罪刑的一節。阿西娜如何說服復仇三女神將本案送交新成立的正義法庭?如果法庭判斷錯誤,接下來會發生什麼?阿西娜賦予這個法庭權力,是否過於冒險?復仇三女神的天性如何?她們自稱為「過往的記憶」)(某些譯者的翻譯),這是什麼意思?尊重過往的記憶很重要嗎?否定對過往記憶的義務很重要嗎?阿波羅的角色為何?他在此的角色是否反映出在《亞格曼儂》(Agamemnon)中,給予卡桑卓受苦預言的角色?
    Most of the Eumenides (English: The Blessed Ones) consists of a trial in which the Erynes (English: the Furies) debate with Apollo about the guilt of Orestes. How does Athena persuade the Furies to submit their case to this newly-created tribunal of Justice? What will follow if the tribunal judges badly? Is Athens undertaking a risk in empowering such a tribunal? What is the character of the Furies? They refer to themselves as "the mind of the past" (at least in some translations). What do they mean by the phrase? How important is it to honor the mind of the past? How important is it to disavow obligation to it? What is the character of Apollo? How does his character here reflect the character of the god who inflicted prophetic agonies on Cassandra in the Agamemnon?

  12. 這個案例最後判定是有關父權的辯論。今天,我們雖然知道這在生物學上並不合理,但我們能接受這樣的辯論嗎?在戲劇中,這被詮釋為宗教原則,而非科學原則,這如何在戲劇主題上加以表現?復仇三女神如何被說服成為佑護神?她們在雅典的職責將是什麼?
    The case is finally decided by an argument about paternity. Can we accept this argument today,while knowing its biological invalidity? In the play, it is offered as a religious principle, not a scientific one. How does it reflect the themes of the play? How are the Erynes persuaded to become EumenidesBthe Blessed Ones? What will their function be in Athens?
3沙弗克利斯-《安蒂岡妮》
Sophocles, Antigone.

暫定Coppolla的《教父》影片欣賞
Viewing to be arranged of Coppolla's film, The Godfather.

I.沙弗克利斯-
I. Sophocles, Antigone:

這齣戲劇的主題由希臘字philia所代表,這個字根出現在「哲學」(philosophy)與費城(Philadelphia,全名費拉德爾非亞,譯註:美國賓夕法尼亞州東南部的港市)。大部分的文本都將此字翻譯為「愛」,因此在《安蒂岡妮》的譯本中,「愛」扮演著非常重要的角色。(因此「哲學」(philosophy)的意思該是「對智慧的愛」,因為sophia意味「智慧」,而費城則是以「兄弟之愛」而命名的)但是philia在英文中並無同義字,它意味著你和別人或團體最重要而深刻的聯繫。英文字「忠誠」(loyal )出自拉丁字ligare ,意味聯繫、捆綁住。當克里昂(Creon)提到philien 時,他的意思是「忠誠」或「忠心」(allegiance)。
The subject of this play is represented in the text by the Greek word philia, whose root appears in such words as "philosophy" and "Philadelphia". Most texts translate it as "love", and so "love" figures prominently in your translation of the Antigone. (Thus "philosophy" is supposed to mean "love of wisdom", since "sophia" means wisdom; and Philadelphia was named in honor of "brotherly love".) But "philia" does not have a direct English equivalent; it means the deepest and most important bonds that tie you to another person or group of persons. The English word "loyal" derives from the Latin "ligare", which meant "to bond, to tie down", and Creon is talking about "philien" when he talks about loyalty (or allegiance).

II. 《安蒂岡妮》的戲劇背景如下:伊狄帕斯被驅逐出底比斯(Thebes)後,他的兩個兒子伊特歐克拉斯(Eteocles)和波裡尼可斯(Polyneices)爭吵王位的繼承權,最後伊特歐克拉斯名正言順當上國王,而波裡尼可斯則逃到向來與底比斯為敵的阿格斯(Argos),並帶領阿格斯的七個大軍分別進攻底比斯的七座城門。戰爭在黑暗中進行,戲劇開始時是破曉時分,六個城門的敵軍皆已被擊破,將軍也被屠殺。第七座城門的攻城將軍波裡尼可斯已死,底比斯的國王兼將軍伊特歐克拉斯也已身亡,因此男性近親克里昂,也就是兩人的叔叔,當上戰爭大勝的底比斯國王。
The background of the play is this: Some time after Oedipus was banished from Thebes, his two sons, Eteocles and Polyneices, quarreled over the rightful succession. The kingship went to Eteocles, rightfully; Polyneices fled to Argos, the traditional enemy of Thebes, and returned with seven armies, each of which attacked Thebes at one of its seven gates. The battle took place in darkness; the play begins with dawn, when it is discovered that at six gates, the enemy was defeated and the enemy general killed. At the seventh gate the enemy general, Polyneices, was also killed, but so was the Theban general, Eteocles. As the nearest male kin, their uncle, Creon, is now king of victorious Thebes.

  1. 戲劇一開始時,克里昂的立場為何?回答前請思考(a)這是在敵軍攻城失敗後的第二天;(b)一般在攻城活動開始前,攻城者通常會和對城內領導者不滿或有二心的人取得聯繫,並在確定得到此人的協助後才會進攻(和今日所稱「第五縱隊」(fifth columnist)或「內奸」(traitors within)相似)因此克里昂擔心城內有內奸也是有道理的;(c)克里昂拒絕埋葬翻臉對付自己親人的侄子波裡尼可斯,但埋葬侄子也是他的責任。
    What is Creon's position at the outset of the play? In answering, bear in mind (a) that it is the very next day after an unsuccessful attempt to conquer his city; (b) the usual attempts at conquests always tried to enlist the aid of any group within the city who were disaffected or at odds with the leadership and normally secured this aid before any campaign was launched (modern equivalents are called "fifth columnists" and "traitors within"), so that Creon's fears about traitors within are not entirely unreasonable; (c) the person whose burial he forbids (Polynices) is his own nephew, who has turned against his family, and the duty to bury such a person would normally fall upon him.

  2. 戲劇一開始時,安蒂岡妮的立場為何?埋葬親人是神聖的責任,但她只被允許埋葬的儀式而已(需要灑物的象徵,這也是她所能負擔的)為什麼這個儀式對她如此重要?陷於兩難的伊斯美妮(Ismene)是道德的弱者、騎牆派,還是代表合理的象徵?描述某人同時是答案與問題的一部份,會是個好主意嗎
    What is Antigone's position at the outset of the play? Granted that the ritual burial of kin is a sacred obligation, but only a ritual (it need only be a token sprinkling, which is all that Antigone can supply), why is it so important to her? Is Ismene (caught-in-the-middle Ismene) an ethical weakling, a mere fence-sitter, or does she represent a reasonable position? Is it ever a good idea to say about someone that they are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem?

  3. 象徵安蒂岡妮代表「家庭價值」,但在同時又與不知開始出現的未成文宗教法有「深刻」(或高深)的聯繫。為什麼這些宗教法不知何時開始出現?探討家庭價值與更「深刻」、非一般價值間的聯繫,舉例來說,生活在現代,出現介於工作職責與宗教規範間的爭論:醫生的責任是解除痛苦、保存生命,但如果基督科學教的雙親拒絕讓醫生進行必要的骨髓移植手術,對雙親而言,信仰即足以診治,而允許手術可能會危害到孩子的生命-這意味信仰不虔誠。(三年前,出現過類似的案例,在此案中,孩子最後死亡,而雙親則被控訴疏忽罪)是這個醫生過於固執、抗拒他的弱點或只是作醫生該作的事?雙親的責任呢?如果想接受「讓他們答應」的勸告,以讓雙方都能受到尊重,妥協後只完成一半的移植手術,最後雙方都一無所成。
    Antigone represents "family values" but at the same time something "deeper" (if not higher), connected with religion - the unwritten dateless laws. Why unwritten? Why dateless? Explore the connection between family values and "greater", other-than-general values, for example, the way in which Take a modern case of the quarrel between the duties of office and the imperatives of religion: a doctor is devoted to reducing pain and preserving life but Christian Science parents refuse permission to let the doctor give a necessary bone-marrow transplant; in their view, faith alone does the healing and what is more, permitting the treatment would endanger the child's life because it would issue from lack of faith. (A case of this sort was in the papers about a three years ago. In this case, the child died and the parents were tried by the law for criminal neglect.) Is the doctor being stubborn, or betraying weakness, or is he just being a doctor? How about the other side? One wants to follow the precepts of "getting to yes" by giving each side their due, but to compromise here by giving half a transplant would defeat both sides and accomplish nothing.

  4. 思考下列三類忠誠度:(1)對神的絕對義務。神為了測試亞伯拉罕(Abraham)的信心,要他犧牲自己的兒子艾薩克(Isaac),而亞伯拉罕也遵照神的旨意去做。他作對了嗎?將他的反應和安蒂岡妮的相比較。(2)對一個團體所代表的價值。你會為美國、民主、家鄉或你的室友而犧牲生命嗎?(3)個人歷史。捍衛自己原來種族的價值觀很重要嗎?
    Consider three kinds of loyalty: (1) To an absolute or transcendent obligation. Abraham was instructed by God to sacrifice Isaac, his son, as a test of faith, and Abraham proceeded to do it. Did he do well? Compare his response to Antigone's (2) To a group and (perhaps) to the values that it stands for. Would you die for America? Democracy? Your home town? Your dorm-group? (3) And finally: To one's history. How important is it to defend the values of our ethnic origins?

  5. 戲劇結局似乎認可安蒂岡妮的作法。我們是否有可能忽視敘述本體所做出獎勵和懲罰的結論,並建議如此的配置並不代表詩人的正義觀呢?
    The play ends by seeming to validate Antigone. Is it possible to ignore the way in which any work of narrative distributes rewards and punishments at its conclusion and take a stand against the suggestion that this distribution represents poetic justice?

II.Coppolla-《教父》
II. Coppolla's The Godfather

正如我們在課程描述中所說,沒有留出特定的時間來討論這部電影。我們將在整個學期中不斷地引用其中的內容。
As we said in the Course Description, no particular time will be reserved for discussion of this film; we will be making continual reference to it throughout the term.
這部電影是想讓觀眾明白,黑手黨是一個由大團伙組成的組織,結構鬆散,每個團伙不僅從事合法商業,還參與犯罪活動,如賣淫、賭博和(最近的)販毒。這些團伙不染指像打劫銀行或入屋行竊之類的暴力罪行,但他們不時要借助暴力手段,不僅用來對付其他團伙,還用來對付資助他們非法行當的公眾成員。這裡有一些在觀看電影時供考慮的主題:
The film expects its audience to understand that the Mafia is a loose affiliation of large groups of people each engaged not only in legitimate businesses but also in criminal enterprises, like prostitution, gambling, and (more latterly) drug-dealing. The groups do not engage in crimes of violence, like bank-robbing or burglary, but they may resort to violence from time to time, not only against each other but also against those members of the general public who patronize their illegitimate enterprises. Here are some topics to consider when viewing the movie:

  1. 天主教會相信,羅馬教皇在任期內是全人類的教父。教父是什麼?為什麼黑手黨把領導者稱為「教父」?
    The Catholic church believes that the Pope in Rome is godfather for all humanity during his tenure. What is a godfather? Why did the Mafia appropriate the term to its leaders?

  2. 這些團伙稱作「家族」。為什麼要這樣稱呼?把他們的存在方式稱作「家族價值」是一種嘲諷嗎?在這些價值中,「士兵」和「平民」之間存在差別,後者是家族的一部分,接近行動中心,但不使用暴力或計劃暴力行動。從倫理角度來看,這種差別是有效的嗎?這和一般的大眾生活有關聯嗎?
    These groups are called "families". Why are they called families? Would it be a mockery to appropriate the term "family values" to the code by which they live? Among these values is a distinction between "soldiers" and "civilians"; the latter are part of the family, often close to the center of its operations, but do not exercise violence or arrange for it to happen. How valid is this distinction from an ethical point of view? Does it have a correlative in ordinary civic life?

  3. 報仇(或族間仇殺)是存在方式的一部分嗎? Don Corleone對報仇抱有一種什麼態度?在現代民主主義中,當發生大規模暴力事件時,大眾對報仇一般持什麼態度?
    Is revenge (or vendetta) part of the code? What would the attitude of Don Corleone be towards revenge? What attitude is generally held by the public in modern democracies towards revenge when the issue concerns violence committed upon large numbers of people?

  4. 在家族裡,權利是世襲的。Sonny繼承其父,Michael將繼承Sonny的教父地位。如果權力可以世襲,那麼譴責和罪惡也可以世襲嗎?
    Authority is hereditary within the family. Sonny will succeed his father, and Michael will succeed Sonny to the position of Godfather. If authority can be hereditary, can blame or guilt be hereditary, too?

  5. 當Michael以平民身份在 Corleones和 Tattaglia兄弟之間進行調停時,他並沒有完全放下懷疑(對方對他進行搜身,看他是否藏有武器),但他們在會談中相信平民Michael。Michael背叛了他們的信任。對於Michael的暴力行為,影片讓我們持一種怎樣的觀點?
    When Michael uses his role of civilian to act as mediator between the Corleones and the Tattaglia brothers, he is not entirely free of suspicion (the other side frisks him for concealed weapons), but they extend him the trust due to a civilian during a parley. Michael betrays this trust. What view of Michael's act of violence does the film ask us to take?

  6. Salazzo對Tom說:「Tom,我不喜歡暴力。我是商人,血是一種太大的支出。「他說這話是什麼意思?他是出自真心嗎?
    Salazzo says to Tom: "I don't like violence, Tom. I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense." What does he mean to say? Is he speaking truly?

  7. Michael在殺他的姐夫時,強迫對方懺悔。在這種情況下,懺悔有什麼價值?為什麼Michael要他懺悔?
    Michael extorts a confession from his brother-in-law before having him killed. How valuable is a confession extorted under such circumstances? Why does Michael extort it?

  8. 在影片的末尾,當Michael通過對許多對手實施暗殺而鞏固自己的地位時,他在儀式上把教父的頭銜賦予他剛出生的侄子,看起來就如「退隱的撒旦」。Michael相信撒旦嗎?他認為自己信奉撒旦嗎?
    At the end of the film, when Michael consolidates his position by having a number of his opponents assassinated, he is seen "renouncing Satan" at a ceremony in which he assumes the role of godfather to his newborn nephew. Does Michael believe in Satan? Does he think that he has embraced Satan?

  9. 為什麼在影片的結尾Michael要向Kay撒謊?影片末尾最後一個鏡頭是一扇關著的門,其含義是什麼?
    Why does Michael lie to Kay at the end of the film? What is the point of the last shot of the movie, which shows a closing door?

  10. Michael是一個悲劇人物嗎?
    Is Michael a tragic figure?
4沙弗克利斯-《伊底帕斯》
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex.
  1. 底比斯發生了什麼事,最後導致對伊底帕斯的籲請?他是以什麼身份行動呢?
    What has been happening at Thebes that requires an appeal to Oedipus? In what capacity is he supposed to act?

  2. 思考神話故事的呈現方式。故事並不以伊底帕斯聽到預言為開端,那全都發生在過去。戲劇過程逐漸開展,你如何描述行動特色的本質?
    Consider the way in which the mythic story is presented. It does not begin with Oedipus receiving the prophecy. All that is in the past. How would you characterize the general nature of the action as it unfolds during the course of the play?

  3. 為什麼伊底帕斯詢問德爾菲(Delphi)的神諭?伊底帕斯以為神諭和妻子卓卡斯塔有關,他的反應如何?他的行為適當嗎?他有其它的選擇嗎?
    Why did Oedipus consult the oracle at Delphi? What was Oedipus's response to the prophecy, as he relates it to Jocasta? Did he behave properly? What alternatives did he have?

  4. 在本劇中,伊底帕斯有別的選擇嗎?他堅決要追查出真相嗎?「知道真相,會使你自由。」查出真相有多重要?在哪種情況下,真相可能會帶來傷害-這層認識不僅會影響到個人,也會影響到其它人?
    What alternatives does Oedipus have during the course of the play? Is he resolute in pursuit of truth? "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free." How important is the revelation of truth? Under what circumstances can truth be harmful, not just to oneself but to many affected by knowledge?

  5. 伊底帕斯藉著擰扭一個老人的手臂而得知真相。「我將說出可怕的事實」,老人叫道。「我要聽,我一定要聽」,伊底帕斯說。他的堅持是正確的嗎?卓卡斯塔想說服伊底帕斯放手,但他卻不肯。如果聆聽她的建議,好處為何?
    When Oedipus at last comes in sight of the truth, he gains its admission by twisting the arm of an old man. "I am on the point of speaking horrors," cries the old man. "And I of hearing them. But I must hear," says Oedipus. Was he right to persist? Jocasta has urged him to let the matter drop, but he will not. What can be gained by following her advice?

  6. 在彼得(《馬太福音書》)和伊底帕斯的例子中,考慮接受預言這一行為的相同和不同之處。在任一例子中,被預言的事情可以避開嗎?在彼得的例子中,如果預言落空,那麼預言的宗教力量是否變得不可信呢?在伊底帕斯的例子中呢?卓卡斯塔力勸伊底帕斯不要擔心預言,因為那並不真實。她這樣說的動機是什麼?唱詩班是如何回應這一想法的?
    Consider the similarities and differences in the behavior of the recipient of a prophecy in the case of Peter (The Gospel according to St Matthew) and Oedipus. Could what had been prophesied been avoided in either case? If the prophecy fail, does it bring the religious force of prophecy into discredit in the case of Peter? in the case of Oedipus? Jocasta urges Oedipus not to worry about prophecies, for there is no truth in them. What are her motives for saying this? How does the chorus respond to the idea?

  7. 提瑞斯厄斯(Tiresias)被召喚後來到,心中卻希望他沒如此作。他不願說清真相,而他的沉默會帶來任何影響嗎?將此處他的勉強和在《安蒂岡妮》中宣佈神喻的高潮相比較。他在此的預言可以避免嗎?
    Tiresias has been summoned and arrives, wishing that he has not done so. He is reluctant to speak; would his silence have made a difference. Compare his reluctance here with his announcement of a prophecy at the climax of the Antigone. Could what he prophesies there have been avoided?

  8. 「別審判他人,免得他人審判你」。如果此劇有道德教訓,這會是那個道德教訓嗎?
    "Judge not, lest you be judged." This is another of the injunctions of Jesus. Could it be the moral of the Oedipus play, if the play has a moral?

  9. 《亞格曼儂》中,可清楚感受到阿波羅的重要存在-亦即卡桑卓的痛苦。在此三部曲的終結,阿波羅和阿西娜終於現形。但在索弗克裡斯的兩出戲劇中,神並未現身。如此的差異,是否使觀眾在這齣戲劇中瞭解到神在人類事物中所造成的影響?
    The presence of Apollo is experienced in the central moment of the Agamemnon, namely, the agony of Cassandra. At the end of the trilogy, he appears in his person, and so does another god, Athena. But in both plays of Sophocles, the gods do not put in an appearance. What difference does this make to the way in which the audience might understand the influence of the gods upon human affairs in this play?
5歐里庇得斯的《希波利特斯》
Euripides, Hippolytus.
  1. 在幼裡匹蒂斯(Euripides)的戲劇中,神多半在戲劇的開端和結尾明顯地現身,但不會在過程中出面干涉行動。在《希波理特斯》(Hippolytus)的開端,有個神出面替接下來的行動「佈景」,在結尾時又出面收場並做出結論。在希臘的戲劇中,飾演神的演員,多半由某種機械將他們提起或放下,但我們不清楚原來的細節。在《希波理特斯》中的神,主要是由拉丁文Deus ex machina(從機械上降臨的神)所命名,這最後成為一種輕視的詞彙,意指當戲劇家無法在劇情結尾做出合理的結論時(就像是廉價電影般)最後所有一切都會消失,觀眾發現這原來只是一場黃粱大夢。《希波理特斯》的神為行動的決定因素,這和沙弗克利斯的作品相較有何差異?在某些版本中,有人認為《希波理特斯》的神可被完全除去而仍保持完整劇情。這個觀察合理嗎?將神全部刪除對戲劇造成的效果,會產生什麼差異?
    Euripides plays are notable for the fact that the gods generally put in an appearance, both at the beginning and at the end of the play, although they do not generally appear during the course of the intervening action. At the outset, as in this play, a god appears to "set the stage" for the ensuing action, and at the end, a god appears to tidy things up or bring them to a sense of conclusion. The actors playing the gods made their appearance in Greek drama, evidently, hoisted and lowered by some sort of machinery whose details have not come down to us, but the use of the gods in this Euripidean way has been designated by a Latin phrase, "Deus ex machina" (English=God from the machine), which has become a term of contempt, designating the unartful way that a dramatist may wind up plot when unable to bring the story to a reasonable conclusion, as in some cheap films, where everything that has gone before turns out to be a dream. What difference do the gods make as determinants of action in this play as compared with the plays by Sophocles? It has been observed of the Hippolytus, in particular, that with some slight revision, you could have the same play and omit the gods entirely. Is this observation just? What difference would the removal of their actual presence make to the effect of the whole?

  2. 阿爾特彌斯是什麼樣的女神?她的崇拜似乎對性經驗具有敵意-希波理特斯雖然享有特權得以接近她,但只能和她對話,卻無法看見她;這種形式的接觸是和貞節的美德有關。貞節是種美德嗎?誰應該遵守,原因為何?有個老人鼓勵希波理特斯也該膜拜女神阿芙蘿黛提(Aphrodite,譯註:希臘神話中愛與美之神),如此才不會冒犯她,但希波理特斯卻加以拒絕。他為什麼要拒絕?我們不能同時崇拜兩位女神嗎?
    What kind of a goddess do you suppose Artemis to be? Her worship seems to be hostile to sexual experience, that is, Hippolytus has privileged access to her, he can speak with her but cannot see her, and this access seems to be connected with the virtue of chastity. Is chastity a virtue? By whom should it be practiced and for what reason? The old man urges Hippolytus to worship Aphrodite as well, so as not to offend the goddess, but Hippolytus refuses. Why does he refuse? Can one worship both goddesses?

  3. 和神聖演說相反的,是不貞節的沉默,所以不該發言說出。菲娥卓(Phaedra)喜歡希波理特斯-但他是她的繼子,這是種「無法說出口的愛」。奶媽堅持沒有什麼事糟糕地無法說出口,但當她猜到事實後卻驚恐逃離。有些事真的該永遠別說出口嗎?如果真說出來,會造成什麼危險?
    The opposite of sacred speech, which is silence to the impure, is speech which should not be spoken. Phaedra desires Hippolytus, not her offspring but nonetheless her son (by marriage). This is a "love that dare not speak its name." The nurse insists that nothing can be so bad that it cannot be spoken, but when she guesses the truth she is so horrified that she runs from the presence of her mistress. Are there things that are rightly never to be spoken? What danger is there, if any, in speaking of them?

  4. 菲娥卓抱怨這種熱情嗎?(當然,你能說這是女神阿芙蘿黛提對她的處罰,而任何崇拜阿芙蘿黛提的人會說,這種性熱情主要的來源是女神,但問題本身仍站得住腳:人該責怪自己的熱情嗎?「我的心污穢,但我的雙手仍然聖潔」,菲娥卓在奶媽瞭解真相前說。比較對心靈的污穢-無實際行動卻有惡劣的想望,和伊底帕斯做出行動卻不知自己在作什麼,「我的雙手污穢,但我的心靈仍是聖潔的」。哪個責備可和伊底帕斯相連?
    Is Phaedra to blame for this passion? (Of course, you might say that Aphrodite has inflicted her, but anyone who actually believed in the goddess would say that all sexual passions come from her, and the question would still stand: can one be blamed for one's passions?) "My mind is impure but my hands are still pure," she says before the nurse understands what is going on. Compare the blame that attaches to impurity of mind, to unacted but vile longings, with the blame, if any, that attaches to Oedipus, who acted without knowing what he was doing and who might have said, "My hands are impure but my mind is still pure."

  5. 希波理特斯曾說過類似的話:「我的口舌發誓。」但在他得知奶媽真正秘密前又說,「但我的心沒有發誓」。這是合理的想法嗎?雖然如此,在面對特修斯(Theseus)的控訴時,他還是遵守誓言。他為什麼如此做?即使某人不瞭解誓言的內容,他還是得遵守誓言嗎?
    Actually, Hippolytus says something close to this: "My tongue swore," he says, when he promised to keep the nurse's secret before he knew what it was, "but my mind did not." Is this a reasonable sentiment? Despite this expression, he keeps his pledge, even in the face of Theseus's accusation. Why does he do so? Is one bound to a promise when one is ignorant of its import?

  6. 希波理特斯這個角色值得尊敬嗎?他對女性及她們的巧舌有種有趣的奇想,同時對於生養後代必須由男女雙方共同完成一事覺得很遺憾。當他被指控時,他希望有另一個希波理特斯能聆聽這個案例並瞭解他是無辜的。
    How admirable is Hippolytus as a character? He has odd fancies about women and their artful tongues and seems to regret deeply that the only way to reproduce humankind requires females as well as males; when accused he wishes he had another Hippolytus, who could hear his case and know that he was innocent of the charge leveled against him.

  7. 特修斯也說希波理特斯的罪刑是無法明說的,但他還是開口說出。在最後嚴厲的演說中,他被控訴導致他無辜兒子之死。這個有關生命演說的力量為何?只要說出真相,人們就可以改變自己或他人的命運嗎?
    Theseus, too, says that Hippolytus's crime is unmentionable, but then he announces it anyway. He is accused at the end of intemperate speech, resulting in the death of his innocent son. What is the power of speech in life? Can one transform a life, one's own or another's, simply by speaking?

  8. 奶媽辯論私下的言論是無害的-一個人在私下和公眾前的所言所行無關。本劇同意她的看法嗎?
    The nurse argues that speech in private is harmless, what one says or does in private need not be the same as what one says or does in public. Does the play agree with her?

  9. 在戲劇結尾,神的觀點為何?在特修斯和希波理特斯和解時,所呈現的人性觀點為何?
    What view of the gods seems to be expressed by the conclusion of the play? What view of humanity seems to be expressed by the reconciliation of Theseus and Hippolytus?
6柏拉圖-《蘇格拉底的之死》《克力同》
Plato, The Apology of Socrates, Crito.

亞里士多德-《詩論》
Aristotle, Poetics.

柏拉圖-《蘇格拉底之死》
Plato, The Apology of Socrates:

這是由來已久的題目,但「apology」在這裡原帶的「對控訴進行申辯」之意現在已經不存在。蘇格拉底被三個雅典市民進行某些指控。根據雅典法律,將抽籤選出一個審判團來對事件進行判決。如果裁定被告無罪,那就判定為原告捏造事實,原告必定被處以罰款。無論結果如何,有人說,罰金是原告和被告共同提出的,作出判決的人們不僅對案件的結果投票,而且也要對提出的罰金進行投票。很明顯,一開始就提出重罰。
The title has been established by long custom, but the word "apology" here carries a meaning now lapsed, namely, the sense of a defense against an accusation. Socrates has been accused by three Athenian citizens of certain offenses. Under Athenian law, a large assembly is convened by lot to judge the case. If the verdict is in favor of the accused, this counts as a conviction of falsity on the part of the accusers, and they must pay a penalty. Either way, someone pays; either way, a penalty is proposed both by the accused and by the accusers and the assembly votes not only on the case but on the proposed penalties as well. Clearly, bringing a grave charge is not a matter to enter upon lightly.

  1. 對蘇格拉底的指控是什麼?為什麼這些指控備受爭議地要求判死刑?蘇格拉底如何交互問訊其中一個原告?你覺得你可以進行一次更好的交互問訊嗎?
    What are the charges brought against Socrates? Why would these charges arguably carry a penalty of death? How well does he cross-examine one of his accusers? Do you think that you could have mounted a better cross-examination?

  2. 蘇格拉底說,我們不知道活著好還是死了好。這句話是什麼意思?你必需做出什麼假設,讓這句話說得通而不是沒有任何意義的絮絮之談,就如說,我們不知道現在突尼斯活著好還是兩百年前在肯塔基州活著更好?
    Socrates says that we do not know which is better, to live or to be dead. How sensible is this remark? What must you assume for it to be a sensible remark and not just a triviality from which nothing much follows, like, say, that we do not know whether it is better to be alive now and living in Tunisia or to be alive in two hundred years and living in Kentucky?

  3. 蘇格拉底說,他比其他人更有智慧,因為他與其他人不同,他不覺得他什麼都懂。但原告和審判團都判定他不是懂得很多,例如,他不知道人們早餐吃什麼。當蘇格拉底這樣說時,他指的是什麼?對著那些對你手執生殺權的人說這些話是明智的嗎?
    Socrates says that he is wiser than others because, unlike them, he does not think that he knows anything. But do not his accusers and the members of the Assembly that will judge him know a great deal, what they had for breakfast, for instance? What is Socrates speaking of when he makes this remark? Is it a wise thing to say to those who are about to determine whether you will live or die?

  4. 蘇格拉底說,當那些要對他做出判決的人被逼講述他們各自的生活時,白天就會來臨。一般說來,這是對的嗎?他還有一句名言,「混混噩噩的生活不值得過」。他這樣說是什麼意思?他是對的嗎?這觀點有錯誤的餘地嗎?
    Socrates says that the day will come when those who judge him will be forced to give an account of their lives. Is this a general truth? He also says, famously, "the unexamined life is not worth living". What does he mean by this phrase? Is he correct? Is there room to find this view mistaken?

柏拉圖-《克力同》
Plato, Crito:

克力同(Ctito)力勸蘇格拉底越獄,不要接受雅典審判團不公正的死刑。蘇格拉底有什麼具體的論點?他回答他們了嗎?其中兩人說:「你在選一條容易的出路,這條路不屬於勇敢的好人」,他們還說,「你完全受敵人控制,為他們提供所需的東西」。這些論述有什麼效果?他們共有的特徵是什麼?蘇格拉底提出要對基本點進行討論,他說如果渴望沒有理性基礎就更難處理。該觀點背後存在什麼假設?他還堅持認為,如果考慮那些非諳熟道德者的意見,就是最嚴重的錯誤。
Crito urges Socrates to escape from prison and not abide an unjust sentence of death leveled by the Athenian assembly. What are his specific arguments? Does Socrates answer them? Two of them are: "You are choosing the easy way out and not the way of a good and brave man" and "You are playing into the hands of your enemies, giving them exactly what they want". How effective are these arguments? What is their general character? Socrates urges a discussion of fundamental points, arguing that it will be harder to cope with an anxiety that has no rational basis. What assumptions lie behind this point of view. He also insists that it is the gravest of errors to consider the opinions of those who are not experts in ethics.

在我們做道德行為決定時,我們應該如何信賴諳熟道德者的意見?蘇格拉底還說,重要的不是活著,而是活得好。他接受審判團的判決可以看作為自殺。痛苦地活著-殘破的軀體是不值得活下去的(古時候,在這種情況下,結束生命是很高尚的,苟活則不光彩),所以在關注靈魂健康時,這就顯得更為正確。
How reliant should we be on expert opinion in making decisions about ethical conduct? Socrates also says that the important thing is not living but living well. His abiding the decision of the assembly might be viewed as a form of suicide; just as a life in a pain-wracked body is not worth living (and in the ancient world, it was considered noble to end one's life under such a circumstance and rather ignoble to carry on), so it is still more true where the health of the soul is concerned.

你這麼看待這觀點?提出申辯了嗎?最後有蘇格拉底的觀點,作為其論述的轉折。「永不要作出不義的行為,永不要以非正義來報復非正義」。(或「永不要以傷害來報復傷害」,這格言有很多不同的解釋。)有人可能反對一個觀點,那就是道德地去遵守不僅為了對抗邪惡,還要去消滅邪惡,這是「正義之劍」所提出的。考慮這裡涉及的事件。蘇格拉底在這裡提出了一個基督教的觀點嗎,溫柔的人必得飽足,容忍一切?
What do you think of this view? Does the analogy hold up? Finally, there is the Socratic view, which serves as the turning-point in Socrates's argument. "Never act unjustly--therefore, never repay injustice with injustice". (Or "never repay harm with harm" The maxim is susceptible of alternative interpretations.) One might counter with the view that one is morally obliged not only to resist evil but also to extirpate it, the "sword of the righteous" argument. Consider the issues involved here. Is Socrates urging a Christian view here, the meek shall inherit the earth, turn the other cheek?

《蘇格拉底之死》中,蘇格拉底提供了他在兩個事件中表現勇敢的證據,其中他反抗當權者不公正的決定。這件事和他拒絕反抗不公正的判決有矛盾嗎?
In the Apology, Socrates offers in evidence of his bravery two instances in which he defied unjust decisions by those in authority. Is there some contradiction in his refusing to defy an unjust verdict in this case?

亞里士多德-《詩論》Poetics:

對於亞里士多德的題目(他沒有提供),其適當性和一般的翻譯方式存在爭議。在古希臘文中,「poesis」大概是指「造物」的意思。亞里斯多德關注的主題很明顯是戲劇(現存的文本主要關於悲劇,也間接提到戲劇作為補充,喜劇沒有存活下來)。但是,經常被指出主題一般是想像文學或小說。英語中,沒有一個詞能涵蓋想像文學的意思,所以默認地用「詩論」來表達該含義。
There is some dispute about the adequacy of Aristotle's title (which he did not supply) and of its usual translation. The ancient Greek poesis means, roughly, "the making of things". The subject-matter of Aristotle's concern is obviously drama (the existing text deals largely with tragic drama and alludes to a supplement dealing with comedy, which has not survived); nonetheless, it is often suggested that the subject-matter is imaginative literature generally or fiction generally. English has no word whose meaning encompasses imaginative literature, and so poetics must do by default.

  1. 亞里斯多德通過「模仿」表達什麼意思?譯成「模擬」好嗎?模仿與文章開頭的「敘事」進一步對比,「敘事」也可以譯作「敘述」。「模仿」和「敘事」之間有什麼分別?
    What does Aristotle mean by mimesis. Is "imitation" a good translation? Mimesis is further contrasted at the outset of the text with something called diegesis, which might be translated as "narration". What is the difference between the two.

  2. 最後,亞里斯多德有說小說、想像文學或悲劇是模仿什麼嗎?對於這個問題的回答,他給出一個或多個觀點嗎?如果觀點多於一個,它們之間是如何協調?如果文學小說裡人物和事件是虛構的,他們又如何被模仿?
    What, in the end, does Aristotle say that fiction, or imaginative literature, or tragedy is an imitation of? Does he offer one view or more than one, in answer to this question? If more than one, how can the views be reconciled? If the persons and events in the literary fiction are imaginary, how can they be imitated?

  3. 無論小說是什麼,亞里斯多德都堅持它主要不是對某人,某角色的模仿。莎士比亞的《李爾王》主要不是刻畫李爾王,而是為了刻畫其他東西。你可以為相反的觀點辯護嗎?
    Whatever else fiction is, Aristotle insists that it is not primarily an imitation of a person, a character. Shakespeare's King Lear, then, does not portray King Lear primarily but portrays King Lear for the sake of portraying something else. Can you defend the opposite view?

  4. 當亞里斯多德說,文學構造的本質是對情節的構造,他要表達什麼意思?為什麼想像文學因而比歷史更富哲學性?它比哲學更歷史性嗎?
    What does Aristotle means when he says that the essence of literary making is the making of plots? Why is imaginative literature thereby more philosophical than history? Is it more historical than philosophy?

  5. 亞里斯多德通過一個簡單的情節來表達什麼?他通過倒序來表達什麼?通過識別來表達什麼?這些用法能用我們已經讀過的戲劇來說明嗎?
    What does Aristotle mean by a simple plot? What does he mean by reversal? What does he mean by recognition? Can these notions be illustrated by any of the plays that we have read so far?

  6. 在第十三章,亞里斯多德描畫了一個悲劇中心角色--悲劇主人公的理想,並指出該角色的墮落是因為一種叫「悲劇性缺陷」(hamartia)的東西。關於hamartia一詞的意思存在很多爭議。根據上下文,你認為它是什麼意思?再一次,整一章有時被看成是對陳述的一種打斷,和文章的其他部份並不和諧。這樣的觀點有什麼根據?
    In chapter thirteen, Aristotle outlines an ideal of the central character of tragedy, the so-called tragic
    hero, and identifies the source of the character's downfall with something called hamartia. There is much dispute about the meaning of this term. What do you think it means, judging by the context? Again, this whole chapter has sometimes been viewed as a kind of interruption of the presentation and not quite in harmony with the rest of the text. What justifies such a view?

  7. 亞里斯多德想讓小說的情節成為本質的東西,因此建議悲劇的作家不要受惠於已被接受的神話寶庫,而是要自由創作新的故事。你覺得該建議如何?
    Aristotle wants the plotting of fiction to be the essential thing, and to this end advises writers of tragedy not to be beholden to the repository of accepted myths but to invent stories freely. What do you think of this advice?

  8. 亞里斯多德說,悲劇裡可能的不可能性是指不可能的可能性,這是什麼意思?這觀點是如何影響他對悲劇本質的看法。
    What does Aristotle mean when he says that in tragedy a probable impossibility is preferred to an improbable possibility? How does this view affect his sense of the nature of tragedy?
7諾思洛普·弗萊-《批評的剖析》節選
Excerpt from Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism.

尼采-《悲劇的誕生》第一至十七章
Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy, ch. 1-17.

諾思洛普·弗萊是二十世紀的評論家,他嘗試改寫亞里斯多德《詩論》的兩章,使其成為現代文學。他的書是想像文學廣泛且詳盡的成果,是一個表達系統,他認為,在權威上與科學等同。總的來說,他的書在現今不是很受歡迎,但他對亞里斯多德一些看法進行再煉,這在小說的研究中對其自身來說是很有用的,它還在通過對比帶出亞里斯多德的看法。
Northrop Frye was a twentieth-century critic who tried to adapt chapter two of Aristotle's Poetics to the study of modern literature. His book is a wide-ranging elaboration of imaginative literature as a system of representation, equal in authority, as he thinks, to science. His book, taken as a whole, is not much in favor nowadays, but his refurbishing of some of Aristotle's ideas is useful for its own sake in the study of fiction and also for the light that it throws on Aristotle's views by way of contrast.

  1. 亞里斯多德強調情節第一,角色第二。或許我們可以這樣來理解:「角色的構思要切合情節。在小說中,人是其所為。」弗萊在書中也提到情節。這裡的重點是角色。根本的觀點是,角色可以分類,根據是他們通過行動對世界做出重要改變的能力差異。通過這種方法為角色分類,就是要對包含角色行為的情節分類。弗萊的五類角色是什麼?它們是如何幫助你把熟悉的小說分類。
    The emphasis in Aristotle fell upon plot, to which character is secondary. We might paraphrase this as follows: "Character is conceived in ways that serve the plot. The people in fiction are what they do." Frye deals with plot elsewhere in his book. Here the emphasis is upon character. The underlying notion is that characters can be sorted into types according to their differing capacities to do things that make for important change in the world. Sorting characters out in this way is meant to lead to a sorting of the plots to which the actions of the characters will be suited. What are Frye's five types and how well do they help sort the different kinds of fiction with which you are familiar?

  2. 弗萊的角色類型可以設想成一個有三條軸的表,不是那種在一張紙上只用兩條軸來簡單表示的圖。三條軸代表三種對立,是:(a)高級和低級,(b)類型和程度,(c)自然環境和社會環境。這些對立在亞里斯多德關於概率性和可能性的對立中是如何發展的?
    Frye's types are conceived as if sorted on a table with three axes, not just the two employed by tables that can be represented easily on a sheet of paper. The axes concern three oppositions, thus: (a) superiority vs. inferiority, (b) in kind vs. in degree, and (c) to the natural environment vs to the social environment. How do these oppositions develop the Aristotelian opposition between probability and possibility?

  3. 三條軸每條都有兩個因素,這應該得出八類,但弗萊只是說了五類。缺失的三類是什麼?這三類的缺失未弗萊的體繫帶來困難嗎?
    Three axis each with two elements ought to yield eight kinds but Frye provides only five. What are the missing three? Does their absence pose a difficulty for Frye's system?

  4. 弗萊是怎麼處理關於「罪」的意義問題?
    How does Frye deal with the question of the meaning of harmartia?

尼采-《悲劇的誕生》
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy:

  1. 「阿波羅的」和「酒神的」都是形容詞。它們用來修飾什麼名詞?
    "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" are adjectives. What nouns can they be used to modify?

  2. 尼采對悲劇本質的理解與亞里斯多德的理解有何不同?理解這兩種看法就是這兩種看法重構悲劇史前史的方法,該理解的重要性何在?
    How does Nietzsche's understanding of the nature of tragedy differ from Aristotle's? How important to the understanding of each is the way in which each reconstructs the prehistory of tragic drama?

  3. 亞里斯多德提議,悲劇詩人可以很好地忽略已存在的宗教神話,並發展原創的情節,尼采對此有什麼看法?
    What would Nietzsche think of Aristotle's suggestion that the tragic poet would do well to neglect established religious mythology and develop original plots?

  4. 我們至今讀過的戲劇中,哪部最具酒神風格?哪部最具阿波羅風格?當然,沒有舞台表演可以完全屬於其中一種風格。有什麼可以完全屬於其中一種風格嗎?
    Which of the plays that we have read so far would seem the most Dionysian? The most Apollonian? Of course, no theatrical performance can be entirely either. Can anything be entirely either?

  5. 根據戲劇的成就,尼采如何把我們讀過的戲劇分級?
    How would Nietzsche rank the plays that we have read so far in order of achievement?

  6. 尼采對蘇格拉底的看法如何?(蘇格拉底相信)邪神是參與其生命的神靈,告訴他不應該做什麼。尼采對蘇格拉底關於邪神的看法有什麼意見?
    What is Nietzsche's view of Socrates? What is his opinion of Socrates's regard for his daimon, the spirit that attended him (as Socrates believed) in his life and told him what not to do?
8莎士比亞-《李爾王》
William Shakespeare, King Lear.

《李爾王》
King Lear:

  1. 描述戲劇開始的情景。李爾王劃分王國的動機何在?這些動機是合理的嗎?殿上的人對他提出的行動有什麼看法?為什麼 Cordelia會那樣回應李爾王的示愛?
    Describe the situation at the outset of the play. What are Lear's motives in dividing the kingdom? Are they reasonable? What view is taken of his proposed action by those at court? Why does Cordelia respond as she does to Lear's request for a protestation of love?

  2. Edmund是Gloucester的私生子,他就自己的行為提出論點,這在第二幕開頭的獨白中可得。你是如何解釋他的觀點?在這部戲劇處理君與臣的正確關係上,你有什麼意見?在父與子的關係上呢?
    Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester, has an argument in favor of his conduct given in soliloquy at the outset of the second scene. How would you paraphrase it? What view do you think the play takes of the right relation between ruler and subject? between parent and offspring?

  3. 哪些角色「為戲劇」說話,會通過傳達一個觀點而在戲劇原本的觀眾中產生共鳴?該劇有一些例如道德精神之類的東西嗎?
    Which of the characters speak "for the play", conveying a view of things that would find an echo in the though of the play's original audience? Does the play have anything like a moral?

  4. 莎士比亞筆下的《李爾王》是對之前一部戲劇的重寫,在原來的戲劇中,Cordelia從法國回來,在決戰中勝出,使她的父親重新登上王位。莎士比亞下一代的戲劇觀眾似乎更喜歡這個版本。你如何支持其中一個版本?
    Shakespeare's version of the Lear-story was a re-working of an earlier play in which Cordelia comes back from France, wins the final battle, and restores her father to his throne. The next generation of theater-goers after Shakespeare's seems to have preferred this version. How would you defend one or the other version of the story?

  5. 基於回歸本源和關注生活籠牢之間的差異,研究《李爾王》的重點。一開始是法國宣言,在風暴中,李爾王把Cordelia作為交換物嫁給偽裝的Edgar,故事的高潮是李爾王在荒野中失明那「瘋狂的一幕」。當然,高潮還存在於李爾王說著要放下王權,但保留「附加條件」時,還有以「噢,不需要理由」的偉大說辭中,這段說辭講述給予的本質(即人類的本質)而非本質需要。
    Examine the focus in Lear upon the distinction between getting down to essentials and concern with the trappings of life. This starts early, with France's declaration that Cordelia is herself a dowry, runs through Lear's exchange with the disguised Edgar during the storm, and reaches a kind of climax with Lear's vision of anarchy in the "mad scene" on the heath. Of course, it is involved in Lear's remark about giving away the power of the king and yet keeping "the additions", and also in the great speech beginning "O reason not the need", which talks about giving nature (that is, human nature) more than nature needs.

  6. 經常地,在詩的文本中,一些詞是「關鍵詞」,它們特別地(雖然不是經常直接地)與文本的中心相關。在《李爾王》中,其中一個關鍵詞就是「本質」,和其關係詞「本質的」和「非本質的」一起。在戲劇背後,「本質」的意義是什麼?另一個關鍵詞是「耐性」,在持續的苦難中,角色都受到「耐性」的考驗。很多時候,他們把耐性和幸運(即機會或運氣)本質的看法相聯,和命運之輪的的本質相聯。命運之輪是垂直轉動的,人被綁在上面,因此我們會說,「轉過去的東西又將轉回來」。解釋主角和他們在戲劇中對事件的回應之間的聯繫。
    Often, certain words in poetic texts are "key words", they relate particularly, although not always directly, to the central concerns of the text. In Lear, one of these words is "nature", taken together with its relatives, "natural" and "unnatural". What idea of "nature" lies behind the play? Another such word is "patience", the characters are tested in patience at enduring distress, and there are several moments when they link the notion of patience to a certain view of the nature of fortune (i.e., chance or luck) and of fortune's wheel, which rotates vertically and on which human beings are strapped, so that, as we might say, "what goes around, comes around". Explain the linkage in the case of the major characters and their responses to the events of the play.

  7. 如果運氣統治世界,那麼正義在哪裡?對於這點角色們有很多想說,最有名的是李爾王在荒野中的「瘋狂」說辭。在這個問題上,不同的角色各持什麼觀點呢?
    If fortune rules the world, where is justice to be found? The characters have much to say about this as well, most famously in Lear's "mad" speech upon the heath. What view do the various characters take of this subject?
9莎士比亞-《李爾王》(繼續討論)
King Lear (continued).
10莎士比亞-《麥克白》
William Shakespeare, Macbeth.
  1. 麥克白在荒野中得到一個預言。把這個預言與彼得的預言對比。他覺得,如果預言屬實,他什麼都不用做,只是等待預言發生和過去。但他(最終)遵照預言行事。為什麼他要這樣做?他說,人不需要做任何事情來實現預言,他是錯的嗎?
    Macbeth receives a prophecy on the heath. Compare it with Peter's prophecy. He himself reflects that if the prophecy is valid then he need do nothing but await its coming to pass. And yet he (ultimately) acts upon the prophecy. Why does he do so? Was he wrong when he said that prophecy requires no action on one's part for its fulfilment?

  2. 一些評論家把麥克白看成亞里斯多德悲劇主角理念的完美範例,亞里斯多德在《詩論》的第十三章詳細地講述了這一理念。該劇是如何很好地與亞里斯多德的規定吻合的?
    Macbeth has been regarded by some critics as the perfect exemplification of Aristotle's notion of the tragic hero as Aristotle elaborated it in chapter thirteen of the Poetics. How well does the play suit Aristotle's prescription?

  3. 《麥克白》是莎士比亞戲劇中最短的一部。其語言和平常的不同,無論誰在說或者誰被說,語言都只集中在麥克白不同的思想狀態上。因此,對考德領主(Thane of Cawdor)之死的描述有:「他的一生行事,從來不曾像他臨終的時候那樣得體。他的死與常人一樣,拋棄最珍貴的所有物,就如它不值一文般。」這些話是如何切合《麥克白》的?在該劇中找出類似的例子。
    Macbeth is the shortest of Shakespeare's plays and the language, more than is usual, seems concentrated upon Macbeth's various states of mind, no matter who speaks or whom is being spoken of. Thus, the description of the death of the treacherous Thane of Cawdor: "Nothing became him in his life as the leaving of it. He died as one practiced in his death, to throw away the dearest thing he owned, as if it were a trifle." To what extent might these words apply to Macbeth? Find other instances of the same kind in the play.

  4. 對比劇中的麥克白和《伊底帕斯》一劇中的伊底帕斯。當我們看到伊底帕斯時,那些困擾他的事遠在他身後,而困擾麥克白的事卻存於未來,他心裡明白要去面對。這種差別如何通過每個角色自白不同的方式表現?
    Compare Macbeth in his play with Oedipus in his. When we meet Oedipus, the deed that undoes him is well behind him but Macbeth's lies in the future and he must knowingly embrace it. How is this difference reflected in the various ways in which each character speaks about himself?

  5. 《麥克白》中的一個關鍵詞是「成功」,這在莎士比亞時期不僅包含雄心的實現,還意味著接任頭銜和權力(例如繼承王位),也可以是隨著時間的流逝(一刻取代另一刻)而取代他人。重要的是,「成功」意味著進一步的可能性,這是今天沒有的,這可能性是在時間正常流逝中的發展,也就是讓過去都過去,轉過一個彎,重新開始。這是「成功」一詞在該劇中的主要涵義之一,特別在麥克白考慮他受誘惑而做的事時,在他事後對自己的精神狀態感覺疑惑時。細察劇中不同語段裡面該詞的涵義變化。
    A key word in Macbeth is "success", which in Shakespeare's day referred not only to a realization of one's ambitions but also to succession in titles and authority (succeeding to the throne, for instance) and even to the mere replacement of one thing by another, as with the passage of time (one moment succeeds another). Importantly, it carried a further possibility of meaning which has lapsed today, a development of the neutral passage of time, namely, the notion of putting the past behind you, turning a corner, starting afresh. This is one of the dominant meanings of the term in the play, especially as Macbeth contemplates the deed he is tempted to commit and wonders about his state of mind after its commission. Examine the play of meanings in the use of this word in various speeches in the play.

  6. 麥克白還和「模稜兩可的話」有關,他用了一些有雙重意義的話來誤導他人。他把巫婆看作「使用雙重意義的話來對我們含糊其辭」的人,顯然知道她們是「奴臣」,受役於邪神力量,不會是好東西。但無論如何他都聽了她們的話。他為什麼要這樣做?
    Macbeth is also concerned with the notion of "equivocation", using words with a double sense in order to deceive. He regards the witches as beings "that palter to us with a double sense", apparently quite aware that they are "servile ministers", in thrall to the force of evil and can mean no good. And yet he yields to what their words suggest, anyway. Why does he do this?

  7. 麥克白和他妻子談論野心。麥克白的野心是什麼?為什麼對他來說,為王是如此的重要?(我們在這裡或許可以回憶克里昂對伊底帕斯說的話,當他提出做二把手比為王更好時。)為什麼如果沒有建立世襲線(即不是王朝的創立者),王權就沒有價值?
    Macbeth and his Lady talk about ambition. What is Macbeth's ambition? Why is being king so important to him? (We might recall here Creon's speech to Oedipus, when he argues that it is better to be second in importance than to be king himself.) Why is the prize of kingship worthless without establishing a line of descent, that is, without being the founder of a dynasty?

  8. 該劇的一個假定是,人信奉邪神時必須心中清楚,這樣才能完全信奉。你對該假定的看法如何?
    A presumption of the play is that one must knowingly embrace evil to embrace evil at all. What is your view of this presumption?

  9. 麥克白的死是英雄式的嗎?他被命運擊倒還是堅持對命運的信仰到最後一刻呢?
    Does Macbeth die heroically? Is he overwhelmed by his fate or does he continue to embrace it to the last?
11莎士比亞-《麥克白》(繼續討論)
Macbeth (continued).

12巴爾扎克-《高老頭》
Balzac, Père Goriot.
  1. 巴爾扎克在小說一開始時就叫讀者不要對人類的不幸太敏感,並堅持他的書不是小說,而是對真實的記錄。這樣的介紹是如何發揮修辭功能呢?
    Balzac begins his novel by calling the reader insensitive to human misery and insisting that his book is not a novel but a record of the truth. How does this introduction function rhetorically?

  2. 《高老頭》的主角是尤金·德拉瑪(Eugene de Rastignac)。為什麼該書用了其他人的名字?尤金是怎樣一個有同情心的角色?我們在書的開始就說了,他的志向是成功,「成功,不惜一切」。這本書中,成功的意義何在?
    The central character in Père Goriot is Eugène de Rastignac. Why is the book named after someone else? How sympathetic a character is Eugène? His ambition, we are told near the outset, is to succeed, "success, success at any cost". What is the meaning of success in this novel?

  3. 《悲劇的誕生》中,尼采講述了「公民身份」,他覺得「公民身份」受到酒神經歷的威脅。我們可把這詞改為「社會身份「,包括思考我們是什麼,我們在出生、族系、社會地位上要做點什麼,還包括我們有意無意習得的禮貌、身體語言和話語習慣的方式,因為這和我們在某個社會階級的身份是一致的。《高老頭》中的角色是如何思考社會身份的重要性?如何有意識地關注禮貌、身體語言和其他表達社會身份的方式?
    At one point in The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche speaks of something that he calls one's "civic identity", which he thinks of as threatened by the Dionysian experience. We might adapt this term and think of our "social identity", meaning by the phrase both our way of thinking about who we are and what we ought to do in terms of our birth, our ancestry, our social position, and also the kinds of manners, body-language, and habits of speech that we acquire unknowingly or knowingly, because it goes with membership in a particular class of society. How do the characters in Père Goriot think about the importance of social identity? How conscious is there attention to manners, body-language, and other forms of expressing it.

  4. 你是怎樣描述高老頭的社會身份?為什麼他的名字不能在他女兒的家裡提及?巴爾扎克很明顯地在書中認為,他在寫一個現代的李爾王,但李爾王在一時放棄了王位,而高老頭把財產都給了女兒,直到最後。就這點對故事意義造成的差別進行評論。
    How would you describe the social identity of Père Goriot? Why is his name unmentionable in his daughter's household? Balzac evidently thought that in his novel he was supplying a modern equivalent to King Lear, but Lear gave away his kingdom in a moment while Goriot continues to give away his substance to his daughters to the very end. Comment on the difference that this makes to the meaning of story.

  5. 「成功!不惜一切!」這是《麥克白》中的一句關鍵的話。它在這裡是什麼意思?尤金從表親Beauseant太太和神秘的Vautrin兩個人身上得到如何成功的建議。建議是相同的嗎?
    "Success! Success at any cost!" This is a key-word in Macbeth. What does it mean here? Eugène gets advice on how to succeed from two people, his cousin, Mme de Beauséant and the mysterious Vautrin. Is the advice the same?

  6. 《高老頭》中,金錢對角色來說是很重要的,也似乎一直入侵他們的生活。「把愛摻進金錢中「,Delphine說;「太可怕了!」可怕嗎?為什麼不同的角色都需要這麼多金錢?為什麼涉及的金額是如此不確定?
    Money is very important to the characters in Père Goriot and seems constantly to invade their lives. "Mixing money with love," says Delphine; "It's awful!" Is it awful? Why do the various characters need so much money? And why are the sums involved left so unspecific?

  7. Vautrin向尤金提出一個計劃。這是什麼計劃,為什麼尤金不願公然反對?
    Vautrin proposes a scheme to Eugène. What is it and why does Eugène hesitate to denounce it?

  8. 書中指出尤金面對的三種選擇:家庭、社會和反抗。這三個選擇是什麼?為什麼尤金覺得不可能從中作出選擇?
    The book identifies at one point three alternative that confront Eugène: The Family, Society, and Revolt. What are these three alternatives and why does Eugène find it impossible to choose among them?

  9. 尤金對他的朋友Bianchon解釋,自己正一直和盧梭所說的「官僚問題」作鬥爭。什麼是官僚問題?這如Bianchon所說,代表著每個人事業開端要面對的問題嗎?如果有人跟你說,你已經殺了一兩個官僚了,這是什麼意思?
    Eugène explains to his friend Bianchon that he has been struggling with Rousseau's "problem of the mandarin". What is the problem of the mandarin? Is it representative, as Bianchon says, of the problem confronting everyone at the outset of one's career? Is there any sense in which one might say of you that you have killed one or two mandarins already?

  10. 在書的末尾,尤金在面臨的選擇中作出抉擇。他的抉擇是什麼?最後是什麼讓他這樣做的?
    At the very end of the book, Eugène chooses among the alternatives confronting him. What choice does he make? And what enables him at last to make it?
13 巴爾扎克,《高老頭》
Balzac, Père Goriot.
14巴爾扎克,《高老頭》
Balzac, Père Goriot.
15梅爾維爾,《Benito Cerino》
Herman Melville, Benito Cerino.
  1. 梅爾維爾早在美國獨立戰爭爆發前的1885年已經寫了《Benito Cereno》一書。戰後,他寫了詩集《戰爭記事》的散文補遺:「那些痛恨無神論遺物一樣的奴隸制度的人們,我們很高興能在其垮台時高唱仁慈之歌。」文章讀起來像出自一個奴隸制的敵人之手嗎?
    Melville wrote Benito Cereno in 1855, before the inception of the American Civil War. After the war, Melville wrote in a prose supplement to a book of poems called Battle-Pieces: "Those of us who always abhorred slavery as an atheistical antiquity, gladly we join the exulting chorus of humanity over its downfall." Does the text read as though it were written by an enemy of slavery?

  2. 文章是根據事實而寫的,記錄了Delano船長(總統羅斯福的祖先)口述的事件,文章結尾的審判記錄是真正的抄本。梅爾維爾忠實地記錄了Delano所講述的在Cereno船上的所見所聞。而當時的大事細節和Delano對其的思考卻是他加工的。梅爾維爾甚至改變了某些情節的日期,以達到與在加勒比海Santo Domingo島所發生的著名的大型(成功的)奴隸反抗時間相一致。此外,他還把Cereno船改為San Dominick號;把Delano第一次在船上看到的「黑人男修道士」(這個稱號指多明尼加的男修道士)與黑人作比較;他把Babo的外表描述成類似海地的Toussaint L"Ouverture,一個領導了聖多明各起義的愛國者。故事中的這些改變暗示了什麼呢?
    The text is based upon fact, an account of the event by the real Captain Delano (an ancestor of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and the transcript of the trial proceedings at the end of the text are a genuine transcription. Melville is faithful to Delano's overall account of what met his eyes as he was aboard Cereno's ship, but the details of the moment-to-moment events and Delano's thoughts in response to them during the episode are his invention. Melville also changed the date of the episode so that it would correspond with the date of a well-know massive (and successful) slave-revolt on the island of Santo Domingo in the Caribbean. In addition, he changed the name of Cereno's ship to the San Dominick, he compares the blacks aboard ship when Delano first sights them to "Black Friars" (Dominican friars were referred to by this phrase), and he alters the real Babo's physical appearance so that he resembles the Hatian patriot, Toussaint L"Ouverture, who led the Santo Domingo uprising. What implications do these changes have for the telling of the story?

  3. 這些敘述不是Delano船長說的,但出自他的觀點,因而是帶有感情色彩的,以致讀者會覺得它們就是敘述的本身,是經Delano判斷的。試想一下,例如,對那些麻絮採摘工最初的描述,他們「帶著對黑人特殊的愛在工作,把工作和消遣集中在一起。」全文中相似的例子很多,請找出其中一些。如果不是為了通過敘述本身表達Delano對事物的看法,那麼這種講故事的方式有什麼意義?
    The narrative is not told by Captain Delano but it is told from his point of view, so much so that it expresses sentiments which lead the reader to accept them as the voice of the narrative itself, an endorsement of Delano's judgments. Consider, for example, the first description of the oakum-pickers, who work "with the peculiar love in Negroes of uniting industry with pastime." Find some of the many similar examples throughout the text. What is the point of telling the story this way, if not to express endorsement of Delano's view of things by the narration itself?

  4. 由始至終都沒有說到他看見了什麼這一點?梅爾維爾也希望讀者忘記這一點嗎?
    Delano throughout misses the point of what he is seeing. Did Melville expect the reader to miss the point as well?

  5. 有兩個情節是的特別戲劇化的。第一個是黑人王Atufal弄響船上的鍾(這個鐘的聲音嘶啞,像費城的美洲自由之鍾),示意Cereno幫他解開鎖鏈,但Cereno拒絕了。我們隨後知道,Atufal其實並沒有真正被鎖,他自己隨時可以把鎖鏈抖落。他的假裝的用意是什麼呢?另一個情節是Cereno在Babo旁剃鬚,而剃刀是後者用西班牙國旗擦拭的。這個舉動的用意是什麼?
    Particularly dramatic are two episodes, one in which the black king Atufal presents himself at the stroke of the ship's bell (a cracked bell, like the American Liberty Bell at Philadelphia) to Cereno in order to beg release from his chains and Cereno refuses. We later learn that Atufal is not really chained; he can shake off his chains at any moment. What is the point of enacting this charade? The other is the shaving of Cereno by Babo, who wipes his razor with the Spanish flag. What is the point of this activity?

  6. 短語「聽從你的領導」在故事中迴響;這是在故事最後,Cerano號船上一位美洲人講的。這在文中是什麼意思?在船尾有這樣一個雕像,黑色的森林之神(侍從酒神狄俄尼索斯的神話人物之一)用腳踩在一被降服者的脖子上,態度跟Delano在長艇制服Babo時一模一樣。這個象徵的意義是什麼?
    The phrase "Follow your leader" echoes in the story; it is shouted by one of the Americans who board Cerano's ship at the end of the story. What does it mean in this context? At the stern of the ship is a depiction of a dark satyr (one of the mythological beings that attend the god Dionysus) with his foot upon the neck of a prostrate figure, exactly the attitude of Delano, when he subdues Babo in the longboat. What is the point of this symbolism?

  7. 描述Amasa Delano的性格。他是一個壞人嗎?好人?笨人?他的本質好嗎?他對其他人有好感嗎?他對自己面臨的現實的看法猶豫不定,但從來沒有覺察出它的真相。你認為他愚昧的來源是什麼?
    Describe the character of Amasa Delano. Is he a bad man? A good man? A stupid man? Is he good natured? Does he tend to think well of others? He vacillates in his view of the reality of the situation confronting him but never perceives the truth. What in your view is the source of his blindness?

  8. Babo在最後並沒有說話,就像是《奧塞羅》裡的壞人埃古的回音,莎士比亞所寫的關於一個黑人的另一部悲劇。他的沉默的用意是什麼?
    Babo does not speak at the end, an echo of Iago, the villain in another tragedy about a black man, Shakespeare's Othello. What is the point of his silence?

  9. 在故事的最後,梅爾維爾打破敘述的連續性,引入了Delano和 Cereno在前往利馬的航程中的一段對話。「你獲救了」,Delano船長大聲呼叫。「有什麼陰影在你身上?」Cereno簡單地回答:「是Nego。」他指的是什麼?你認為他的憂鬱和最後死亡的原因是什麼?
    Melville breaks the continuity of his narrative to introduce at the end of the story a conversation that took place between Delano and Cereno on the voyage to Lima. "You are saved," cries Captain Delano. "What has cast such a shadow upon you." Cereno replies simply: "The Nego." To whom or what is he referring? What in your view is the cause of his melancholy and eventual death?

  10. 如果故事僅僅是從Babo而不是Delano的立場來說的,敘述會變得怎麼樣?Babo是魔鬼,撒旦的小鬼嗎?一個殘忍的陰謀家?他的人物特徵在一定程度上有侮辱黑人嗎?
    What would the narrative look like if it were told as exclusively from the standpoint of Babo as it is told from the standpoint of Delano? Is Babo a devil, an imp of satan? A cruel schemer? Is his portrait insulting to blacks in any respects?

  11. 這裡是三個主角的名字,Delano, Babo, Cereno:(1)無罪的,(2)有罪的,(3)中立的。你會怎樣配對?為什麼?(一種特徵可以對應多個名字。)
    Here are three epithets to attach to the three main characters, Delano, Babo, Cereno: (1) innocent, (2) guilty, (3) compromised. To whom would you attach each and why? (You may attach more than one epithet to each character.)
16梅爾維爾,《Benito Cerino》
Herman Melville, Benito Cerino.
17易卜生,《傀儡家庭》
Henrik Ibsen, A Doll's House.
  1. Nora不想讓孩子們見到「裝飾」和「修剪」的聖誕樹?為什麼?她與孩子們的關係好嗎?
    Nora does not want the children to see the Christmas tree until it has been "dressed" or "trimmed". Why not? Is her relation to the children a good one?

  2. 雖然Nora不斷催促,但Torvald還是不想借錢。Nora駁回他的原因。這些是好的原因嗎?Torvald對於借錢有個大體觀點:債務妨礙個人自由。你覺得這個觀點如何?(在信用卡時代,可能比較難以理解。)據知,他之所以不能成為律師,部分原因是因為他拒絕為一個被控訴有罪的客戶打官司。在這件事上,他是道德的還是愚蠢的呢?
    Torvald does not want to borrow money, despite Nora's urging. Nora dismisses his reasons. Are they good ones? Torvald has general views about borrowing money: debt interferes with one's independence. What do you think of his views on this point? (In an age of credit card debt, it may be difficult to understand). We are told that he failed as a lawyer in part because he would not take on a client who was not innocent as charged. Does this make him moral or just foolish?

  3. Torvald懲罰Nora對自己說謊。說謊是一個好方法嗎?Nora說謊都是為了Torvald的利益的。她這樣做錯嗎?相反地,Lind太太(Kristin)總是實是就是。在開始的時候,她不得不告知Nora,當她聽說Torvald就快成為本地一家銀行的經理時,她的第一想法不是為了祝賀她,而是想知道這件事是否對自己有好處。在這件事上,Lind太太古怪嗎?人應該按照一般禮節祝賀別人的喜事呢還是應該直接說出自身的相關利益呢?當然,Lind太太說服了Krogstad不要把信原封不動地取回,是她在Naro和Torvald之間促成這件事的。她有什麼權利干涉那個延續他人婚姻的詭計?
    Torvald chastizes Nora for lying to him. Is lying ever a good policy? Nora lies often for Torvald's benefit. Is she wrong to do so? Mrs Lind (Kristin), in contrast, is a great truth-teller; at the outset, she feels compelled to tell Nora that when she heard that Torvald was about to become manager of the local bank, her first thought was not to congratulate her but to wonder whether this might work to her advantage. How odd is this of Mrs Lind? Should one go through the usual formalities of expressing pleasure at another's good luck or should one come straight out with the self-regarding truth? Of course, it is Mrs. Lind who forces the issue between Nora and Torvald, when she persuades Krogstad not to ask for his letter back unopened. What right had she to interfer in the deceptions that sustain another's marriage?

  4. Nora當著Ranke醫生的面看了一眼自己的腿,以期嘲弄他。這個舉動是相當大膽的。簡言之,她在向他調情,像是把他當作家族朋友,準備向他借錢。當他突然示愛,她就不能再提借錢的事了。為什麼不能?他指出她知道自己在勾引他。她回答說:「我怎麼知道我知道什麼呢?」這個回答明智嗎?
    Nora teases Dr. Ranke by giving him a glimpse of her legsBa daring thing to do at the time. In short, she flirts with him, as a preliminary to asking him, in his role as family friend, to lend her some money. When he responds abruptly with a declaration of love, she can no longer ask him for the loan. Why not? He accuses her of knowing that she was flirting; she replies: "How do I know what I knew?" Is this a sensible reply?

  5. Krogstad做了什麼讓Torvald覺得不堪的事?Torvald把Krogstad看作是道德敗壞的人。他對嗎?他的行為卑鄙嗎?Torvald認為,道德疏忽是可以從父母遺存給孩子的,就像Ranke醫生的身體疾病是遺傳自他父親的犯罪的。他的觀點正確嗎?
    What has Krogstad done that Torvald finds so disreputable? Torvald regard Krogstad as a source of moral contamination. Is he right? Was his deed a base one? Torvald regards moral laxity as something that children can inherit from their parents, much as Dr Ranke inherited the physical sickness that resulted from his father's transgressions. Is his view a valid one?

  6. Torvald和Nora之間的婚姻值得延續嗎?誰的角色更強硬一些?一些人認為Torvald是的一個正直的人,一個未墮落的律師,而他對Krogstad的回信,正如他自己想要解釋的,只是霎那的軟弱和震驚的結果。而Nora只是一個說謊者,一個小孩,一個利己主義的騷婦。一些人認為,Nora之所以以幼稚的性格出現,僅僅是因為她丈夫似乎需要她這樣。她對丈夫盡心盡力,在他不知情的情況下,借錢救他的命,然後不辭勞苦地還債。哪一方是正確的?為什麼?Torvald覺得妻子很幼稚的想法有什麼好處?不善處理金錢?
    Is the marriage between Torvald and Nora worth preserving? Which of the two is the stronger character? Some have seen Torvald as an honest man, an uncorrupt lawyer, whose response to Krogstad's letter, as Torvald himself tries to explain, was the expression of a momentary weakness, the effect of shock, while Nora is a liar, a child, and a self-regarding flirt. Others have seen Nora as adopting a childish character only because her husband seems to require it; she has done her best for her husband and worked tirelessly without his knowledge to pay off the debt that she incurred in order to save his life. Which party is right and why? What benefit does Torvald derive from thinking of his wife as childish? as incapable of dealing with money?

  7. Torvald說過她不合適撫養他的孩子。她應了他的話,拋棄了母親的責任。她這樣做對嗎?
    In his outburst, Torvald has said that she is unfit to raise his children. She takes him at his word and throws over her maternal responsibilities. Is she right to do so?

  8. 在他們最後的爭吵中,Torvald說,除了犧牲他的榮譽外,他願意為Nora做任何事。一個男人有什麼榮譽是不能犧牲的?Nora回答說,這是一個女人每天做的事。她這句話的意思是什麼?
    In their final confrontation, Torvald says that he would do anything for Nora but sacrifice his honor. What is the honor that a man cannot sacrifice? Nora replies that this is something a woman does every day. What does she mean by this remark?

  9. Nora說,她必須走出去,進入世界去學習,究竟是什麼?撫養一家人不是學習的一種方式嗎?
    Whatever it is that Nora says that she must go out into the world to learn, why isn't raising a family one way to learn it?

  10. 《傀儡家庭》取得世界性成功的幾年後,挪威婦女權益聯盟舉辦了一次宴會,頒獎給易卜生,但他作了一次令人驚訝及煽動性的演說,拒絕了自己所收頒的榮譽。他說,《傀儡家庭》對女人的從屬地位毫不關心,它所涉及的是一個『全人類』問題。他瞭解自己的劇本嗎?
    Some years after A Doll's House became an international success, when Ibsen was honored at a banquet given by the Norwegian League for Women's Rights, he made a surprising and provocative response in a speech declining the honor that they had convened to award him. He said that A Doll's House was unconcerned with the subordination of women, that it dealt with "a problem of mankind in general". Did he understand his own play?
18易卜生,《傀儡家庭》
Henrik Ibsen, A Doll's House.
19康德,《黑暗之心》
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness.
  1. 該書的敘述形式有點怪,以非講故事的敘述形式講述一個故事。這種奇怪的設置用意是什麼?(康德不是唯一一個採用這種形式的作者。)是否總是有一個等待被告知的(可能被禁的)故事?當然,這種設置允許講述者對Marlow的故事作出判斷。他稱之為「非決定性的」。這個故事是非決定性的嗎?它對讀者有什麼影響?
    The form of this narrative is odd, the narrative narrates another's narrationBit tells the story of a story-telling. What is the point of this curious device? (Conrad is not the only author to have adopted it.) Is there always a (perhaps suppressed) story about the telling of the story waiting to be told? Of course, the device allows the narrator to issue a judgment on Marlow's story. He calls it "inconclusive". Is the story inconclusive? What effect does it have on its audience?

  2. 故事中只有兩個人物是有名字的,Marlow和Kurtz。敘述者沒有名字,其他所有人只有頭銜,律師,公司經理,會計師,局長,已訂婚者等等。這些稱呼的用意是什麼?
    Only two characters in the story have names, Marlow and Kurtz. The narrator has no name and all the others have titles, the Lawyer, the Manager of Companies, the Accountant, the Chief of the Inner Station, the Intended, and the rest of it. What is the point of these designations?

  3. 像希臘神話裡的幼裡匹蒂斯一樣,這個故事講的是「不能言語」的東西。他們為什麼不說話?Kurtz在叢林中做什麼?為什麼我們看不見他在做?
    Like Hippolytus, this tale deals with things "unspeakable". Why are they not spoken? What is Kurtz doing in the jungle and why do we not see him doing it?

  4. Marlow在開始敘述之前,講了一個年輕的羅馬人來英國的故事,當時,英國尚是野蠻之地,至少在羅馬人眼中是這樣。另外,他談到了誘惑和可恥之事,「卑鄙的魔力」。最後的短語的意思是什麼?Marlow指的是什麼?
    Marlow, near the outset of his narrative, tells of a young Roman coming to Britain when it was still a savage landBat least, in the eyes of the Romans, and he speaks of the temptations, the shame, "the fascination of the abominable". What is the meaning of this last phrase? What is Marlow talking about?

  5. Marlow和他伯母談起在公司裡工作的不順心,她說,「工人是對得起工錢的。」這句話的力量是什麼?Marlow怎樣回應?在故事中,Marlow在與聽者溝通時,對女人持什麼態度?
    Uneasy about employment with the company, Marlow talks with his aunt and at one point she says, "The laborer is worthy of his hire". What is the force of this remark? How does Marlow respond to it? What attitude about women does Marlow communicate to his listeners in the story?

  6. 關於他船上的食人者,Marlow提到克制能力,好像這是他生命中一個神秘且非常重要的因素。在該文章中,誰有克制能力?誰沒有?它有何價值?
    With regard to the cannibals on board his ship, Marlow speaks of restraint, as if it were a mysterious but all-important factor in life. Who has restraint in this text and who does not? What is its value?

  7. Marlow說他很欣賞在局外遇到的會計師。他真的欣賞嗎?你如何比較他與局內的制磚工人(Marlow曾說他毫無內涵,只是一小撮爛泥)?
    Marlow says he admires the Accountant, whom he meets at the outer station. Does he really admire him? How would you compare him with the brickmaker of the inner station, of whom Marlow says, "He had nothing inside him. A little loose dirt, maybe"?

  8. 隨後,當在隊伍的內站遇到El Dorado探險隊時,Marlow說他必須作出選擇,不是他們就是Kurtz,雖然他從未見過Kurtz,但Marlow卻選擇了他並由始至終忠於他。他的選擇正確嗎?他如何忠於Kurtz?為什麼?
    Later, when confronted with the El Dorado expedition at the Inner Station of the company, Marlow says that he felt that he had to take sides, either with these fellows or with Kurtz, whom he had not yet met, and that he chose Kurtz and remained faithful to him to the last. Did he make the right choice? How did he remain faithful and why?

  9. 吸引Kurtz去非洲荒野的任何事物,對船長來說毫無吸引力。由此,他是一個更好的人嗎?Kurtz的屈服於誘惑與麥克白的有什麼不同?
    Whatever it was that attracted Kurtz to the African wilderness, it has no allure for the Chief of the Inner Station. Is he a better man on that account? How does Kurtz's yielding to temptation differ from Macbeth's?

  10. 在故事的開端對帝國概念的討論中,Marlow說挽回它的是一個理念,一個令你服從並為之犧牲的理念。故事的下文有證實這個觀點嗎?
    In discuss the idea of Empire at the outset of the story, Marlow says that what redeems it is an idea, an idea that you can bow down to and make sacrifices to. Does the rest of the story bear out this view?

  11. Marlow說他最痛恨謊言,謊言就像死亡。但在故事的最後,他卻對已訂婚者說了謊。他為什麼要說謊?
    Marlow says that he hates a lie worse than anything, that a lie is like death, and yet at the end of the story he lies to the Intended. Why does he lie?

  12. 像梅爾維爾一樣,康德曾因他的描述貶低黑人形象而被控訴。這合理嗎?假如合理,這削弱該書的價值了嗎?
    Like Melville, Conrad has been charged with presenting an image of blacks which demeans them. Does he deserve this charge? If the charge holds, does it impair the value of the text?
20康德,《黑暗之心》
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness.
21費茲傑羅,《大亨小傳》
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby.
  1. 《高老頭》一樣,《大亨小傳》講述的是一個可能不願意接受自身狀態的人試圖在社會中找到自己位置的故事。《高老頭》裡Eugene de Rastignac的野心跟Jay Gatsby的有什麼不同?
    Like Père Goriot, Gatsby is a novel about someone trying to find a place in a society that may not be willing to accept him as one of its own. How does the ambition embodied in Eugène de Rastignac differ from the ambition embodied in Jay Gatsby?

  2. 據說,Gatsby的夢想以及講述者Nick Carraway所稱的「對生命承諾的高度敏感」就是美國本身的事物,並且這個巨大和誤導人的希望已經變成全人類的追求。然而我們也可以把Gatsby定義為一個騙子。這個騙子把夢想寄托於一個來自威斯康星州上流社會家庭的的女人身上,一個意志薄弱且被寵壞了的女人。Gatsby和他的夢想如何印證了第一句話?
    It has been said that Gatsby's dream and what the narrator, Nick Carraway calls his "heightened sensitivity to the promises of life" are those of America itself and that his tremendous and misled hope becomes that of mankind. Yet Gatsby may be also described as a crook and a swindler who fixed his dream on a rather weak-willed, spoiled young woman from an upper-class family in Wisconsin. What is there about Gatsby and his dream that justifies the first remark?

  3. 書本最初的幾頁講述了保留判斷的含義,並提出「保留判斷就是無限的希望」這一觀點。隨後,我們被告知Gatsby最大的特點是,他是「送給希望的非凡禮物」。該書的最後幾段如何評價希望?
    The first pages of the book are about what it means to reserve judgments and the thought is offered that "reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope". On the next page, we are told that what distinguished Gatsby was "an extraordinary gift for hope". How is hope valued in the final paragraphs of the book?

  4. 美國有一個讚揚的說法,通常形容自我讚揚,叫「自造人」,含義是在沒有得到繼承的財富或世襲的地位的幫助,一個人意識到自己也獲得了令人稱羨的成功。Gatsby如何印證了這個理想?這個理想合理嗎?白手起家值得稱頌嗎?
    An American term of praise, often uttered in self-praise, was the phrase "a self-made
    man", theimplication being that one had realized an enviable measure of success without the assistance of inherited wealth or position. How well does Gatsby exemplify this ideal? Is the ideal sensible? Is it praiseworthy to be self-made?

  5. 故事是由Nick Caraway講述的,而他自己也是有故事的人。他所敘述的時間與他自己也有影響。你如何描述他們的影響?他為何拋棄Jordan Baker?他說,他已老得不能對自己說謊也不能以此為榮了,你如何理解這句話?
    The story is told by Nick Caraway, who has his own story, and the events that he narrates have had their effect upon him. How would you describe their effect? Why does he throw over Jordan Baker? What does he mean when he says that he was too old to lie to himself and call it honor?

  6. 西蛋和東蛋的人有什麼不同?(這兩個地點的原型是長島的西漢普頓和東漢普頓,在十九世紀二十和三十年代,靠近紐約的富人社區。)Gatsby的豪宅位於西蛋,他隔了一條長島海峽凝視閃爍在Daisy的碼頭上的綠光。在小說的末尾,綠光象徵了什麼?Gatsby宴會上的客人是哪類人?為什麼Tom Buchanan看不起他們?
    What is the difference between the people in West Egg and the people in East Egg? (The two locations are modeled on West and East Hampton, on Long Island, communities of the wealthy who lived near New York City during the 'twenties and 'thirties.) Gatsby's mansion is in West Egg, and he looks East across a piece of Long Island sound to stare at the green light winking on Daisy's dock. What does the winking light symbolize at the end of the novel? What sort of people come to Gatsby's parties and why does Tom Buchanan despise them?

  7. Nick在書的開端把Gatsby形容為一個「集我所漠然輕蔑的一切於一身的代表」,漠然一詞可能指只要稍加判斷,就看出Gatsby符合這些輕蔑。他代表了什麼呢?雖然如此,但為什麼Nick會欣賞他?為什麼每次只要Gatsby所說的事情出現一點點真相時,Nick就變得很高興?
    Nick describes Gatsby at the outset of the book as someone "who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn". The word unaffected may be regarded as endorsing the judgement, what Gatsby reperesents deserves scorn. What does he represent? Why does Nick admire him, nonetheless, and why is he so delighted every time something that Gatsby says turns out to have a bit of truth in it?

  8. 最初,Tom和Daisy被描述為無休止地漂流在「任何玩馬球和富人的地方「。你如何分析這個短語所隱含的意思?再一次地,Nick把Daisy的聲音描述得相當興奮,當這個主題在小說的隨後部分再次提起時,Gatsby說,她的聲音富含金錢。這句話什麼意思?他對Daisy以及Daisy的聲音描述爭取嗎?他對金錢的想法正確嗎?
    Tom and Daisy are first described as drifting restlessly about "wherever people played polo and were rich together." How would you analyze the implications of this phrase? Again, Nick describes Daisy's voice as immensely exciting, and when the subject of Daisy's voice arises again, later in the novel, Gatsby says, Her voice is full of money. What does he mean by the phrase? Whether he is right or wrong about Daisy and Daisy's voice, is he right in his thoughts about money?

  9. 據說,費茲傑羅曾對海明威說,「有錢人跟你我的差別很遠的。」根據這本書,他們的差距很遠嗎?還是他們比有錢人還要多錢?
    Fitzgerald was said to have once remarked (to Ernest Hemingway), "The rich are very different from you and me." Are they, in the light of this book, very different? Or do they just have much more money?

  10. Gatsby算得上是一個悲劇角色嗎?亞里士多德的意見是什麼?尼采的呢?
    Does Gatsby qualify as a tragic character? What would be Aristotle's opinion? What would be Nietzsche's?
22費茲傑羅,《大亨小傳》
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby.
23Isaak Dinesen 〈悲傷-英畝〉
Isaak Dinesen, "Sorrow-Acre."

〈悲傷-英畝〉的背景與其讀者所處的世界很不相同,它的目的是教會他們一些東西。動作的場景是發生在18世紀晚期歐洲-丹麥一片死水裡的,當時,美國和法國的大革命即將要改變西方世界權力的性質,而且,故事中的角色通過經歷過去的時代,被賦予了價值。
"Sorrow-Acre" takes place in a world different from that of its intended audience, but it is supposed to have lessons for them. The scene of action is in a backwater of Europe-Denmark, in the late eighteenth-century, just before the American and French revolutions were to initiate changes in the nature of authority in the Western world and make some of the values by which the characters in the story live things of the past.

這個故事是從現代觀點的角度出發的,然而,融入故事世界的我們的價值觀卻是體現在Adam身上,這個住在英國(不像丹麥,是一個強大的國家)的年輕人,正想著去美國。故事結局似乎認可Adam的叔叔「老領主」的價值觀。當Adam屈服於老人的正直時,作者讓他飽受擔憂。
The story is written from the modern standpoint, however, and our values, which are just making their way into the world of the story, are represented by the young man, Adam, who has lived in England (unlike Denmark, a major power) and is thinking of going off to America. The outcome of the story seems to endorse the values represented by Adam's uncle, the "Old Lord", but the text allows Adam to be troubled by misgivings as he surrenders to the rightness of the older man's position.

你至少應該理解文中提到的三處地方:(1)文中對《創世紀》(領主的看起來像伊甸園,在這裡的「每一棵樹,你,我的亞當,都是可以自由採摘和食用」)的提及暗指人類的衰落;老領主省略了上帝講話的其他部分,使聖經裡的亞當不能吃第一個蘋果--最早的「禁果」,知識書的果實。
You should understand at least three of the text=s references. (1) The allusion to the Book of Genesis (the lord's estate looks like the Garden of Eden "from every tree of which, thou, my Adam, may freely eat") has reference to the fall of mankind; the old lord omits the rest of God's speech, which forbids the first Adam to eat of one fruit - the original "forbidden fruit", the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

這裡的禁果是指老領主年輕的妻子。故事有一個堅定的線索,就是Adam是會得到他的遺產的,但很荒謬地,他的途徑竟然是要成為那個被公認為老領主合法繼承人的孩子的爸爸。(2)引自聖經的「太初有道」指的是上帝創造世界是通過說的,即通過發出命令這個信仰;老領主暗示,收回命令或決定就等同於上帝收回創造世界時的所說的命令,是是否定世界,破壞世界。(3)最後,一個人獨自在田里收割的形象,是西方傳統裡死亡的形象。
The forbidden fruit here is the old lord's young wife and the story carries a decided hint that Adam's duty to his heritage will be fulfilled, paradoxically, by becoming the father of the child who will be recognized as the old lord's legitimate heir. (2) The Biblical text cited by the phrase "in the beginning was the word" refers to the belief that God created the world by speaking that is, by issuing edicts; the old lord implies that for executive authority to take back an edict or a decision would be equivalent to God's taking back the word that created the world, that is, to disavow the world and thereby destroy it. (3) Finally, the image of a single figure reaping in a field is a conventional image in the Western tradition for death.

  1. 故事的開端大篇幅地描述土地,意在說明「延續和世間不朽」的價值;同時也描述了土地領主的生活是如何強調自己作為這種價值「化身」或體現的。而我們希望知道的是,上述的世界和所表達的價值已一去不返了,並非是不朽的。這會使我們對老領主的行動的想法有所不同嗎?
    The long opening passage describing the land speaks of the value of "continuance, a worldly immortality" and describes how the lives of the lords of manors were focused on their being "the incarnation" or embodiment of that value. Yet we are expected to know that the world spoken of and the value embodied have passed away, were not immortal, after all. Does this make a difference to the way in which we think of the old lord's action?

  2. 在故事的開端,Adam認為,一個人只要「有血有名字」,就是土地領主,而他自己仍然有家,並在世界上舉足輕重。你如何解釋他的這種感覺?它在現代世界還有意義嗎?
    Adam, at the outset of the story, feels that as long as someone "of his blood and name" should be lord of the manor, he himself "would still have a home and would carry weight in the world." How would you paraphrase this feeling? Does it still make sense in the modern world?

  3. 老領主存在著一個問題。你如何形容它?這個問題導致他放棄作決定,而把責任推卸給一個下屬,而後者是不得不冒險去解決的。在這個問題上,什麼對他是有害的呢?為什麼Adam的叔叔不願意遵照自己信條和同情心行事?
    The old lord has a problem. How would you describe it? What is at stake for him in the problem, which leads him not to render a decision but to pass responsibility along to a subordinate who must take a fearful risk to resolve it? Why is Adam's uncle unwilling to act upon his beliefs or his sympathies?

  4. 而下屬Anne-Marie Piil所承擔的危險是什麼呢?她說自己有壞心腸(「他們說那個女孩曾有一個小孩,但把他弄死了。」),但她願意為了兒子的自由犧牲自己的生命,你如何解釋這兩者之間的矛盾呢?
    What are the stakes for the subordinate figure, the woman, Anne-Marie Piil? How do you resolve the contradiction between her allegedly bad character ("they tell as a girl she had a child and did away with it") and her willingness to sacrifice her life for her sons liberty?

  5. 老領主的行為從一方面來說可以看作是推卸責任--逃避決定和責任。至少,我們可以從這個意義上瞭解這個觀點的部分:如果老領主自己肯承擔風險,要比現在強加在Anne-Marie身上的要少得多,因為他可以輕鬆地要求法官由於證據不足而釋放那個男孩。老領主把責任推給Anne-Marie時有承擔任何風險嗎?什麼樣的答案才能支持這個觀點?當然,Adam認為老領主把賭注放在Anne-Marie身上,是招致他自己和責任失敗的原因。Adam的觀點部分取決於他對那些要由老領主負責任的人們的想法。這個想法是什麼?它與執行權適合嗎?
    One way of looking at the old lord's action is to see it as passing the buck - a failure of decisiveness and accountability. At least part of this view is founded on a sense that the risk imposed on Anne-Marie is somehow disproportionate to the risk (if any) that would be incurred by the old lord if he simply instructed the judge to free the boy on grounds of insufficient evidence. Does the old lord incur any risk in transferring responsibility to Anne-Marie? What answer can be made to a proponent of this view? Adam, of course, takes the view that the old lord is failing himself and his responsibilities by making the wager with Anne-Marie. In part, Adam's view is determined by his opinion of the folk for whom the old lord is responsible. What is this view? Does it suit executive authority?

  6. 權力是德行的體現嗎?Adam問,他叔叔回答說,權力本身就是一種德行。他的意思是什麼?正確嗎?
    Does power stand in the way of virtue? asks Adam. No, says his uncle, power is in itself the supreme virtue. What does he mean? Is he right?

  7. 為了顯示他不食言的重要性,老領主提到了約翰福音的開篇詩句,並說,我們不能完全知道上帝的話的意思。他說:「可能只是一時興起的戲言。」這句話與老領主的情況相符嗎?
    In dealing with the importance of not taking back his word, the old Lord alludes to the opening verse of The Gospel according to John, and says that we do not know anything about the meaning of God's word. "It may," he says, "have been uttered as a whim, in jest." What is the relevance of this remark to the old lord's situation?

  8. 這個短篇故事罕有地包含了悲劇的一個思想(簡要揭示的)?你如何解釋它?如何把它與我們在本課程中遇到的理論作比較/對照?
    Unusually, this short story contains a (briefly exposited) notion of what counts as tragedy. Can you paraphrase it? How does it compare/contrast with the theories that we have met with so far in this course?

  9. 為什麼Isaak Dinesen在納粹橫行期間為她的國民寫這篇故事(用英文)?上述問題的答案有助解釋嗎?
    Do the answers of any of the foregoing questions help to explain why Isaak Dinesen wrote this story (in English) for her countrymen during the period of its Nazi occupation?
24卡繆,《異鄉人》
Albert Camus, The Stranger.
  1. 《Benito Cereno》《黑暗之心》一樣,卡繆的《異鄉人》的敘述特色也是值得留意的。有兩種特色特別值得學習:
    Like Benito Cereno and Heart of Darkness, the narrative features of Camus's The Stranger call for some attention. Two features in particular deserve study:

    (a)大多數的章節都是以第一人稱(稱「我」)敘述的,這種方式在所述事件的時間和敘述時間之間建立了一種持續的關係;也算就是說,例如,文章可能這樣開頭:「這一切發生在4個月前……」,接著,適當的停頓後,另一章的開頭可能這樣寫:「幾天後……」這樣,事件發生的時間和講述的時間的距離就很清楚了,但在《異鄉人》中,我們找不到這種規則的方式。在這本書中,可能用第一句子「母親今天去了」表示兩個時刻的緊密性。但下一個句子就失效了,其後,我們似乎要接近事件了,但並不是下一天。距離的切換在第二部分特別明顯。這部分講述的是Meursault的獄中時光。找出這些切換的例子並加以評論。它們的總體效應是什麼?
    (a) Most texts narrated in the first person (by someone identified as "I") establish a constant relation between the time of the events narrated and the time of the narration; that is to say, for example, that a text may begin by saying, "It all started four months ago . . .", and then, after a suitable break, like the beginning of another chapter, it might say, "Several days later . . ." No such regular pattern of indicated distance between the moment what is told and the moment of telling can be discerned in The Stranger. The first sentence, "Mother died today" indicates close proximity between the two moments, but this is immediate undone by the next sentence, and thereafter we seem to be close to the events, but not the next day. The shifting of distance is particularly noticeable in Part Two, which tells of Meursault's time in prison. Find instances of this shifting and comment upon them. What is their overall effect?

    (b)文中的敘述缺乏合格的標記顯示講述者敘述事件的態度。考慮第二頁的兩個連貫的句子,「家離村莊有兩公里遠。我一直沿路走。」假設這個句子用「並且」或「但是」連接。不同的選擇會表示對路程長度的不同態度。由始至終不經常使用這些標記,會向讀者傳達出講述者對他所面臨的事件的感覺和回應的動機這樣一個信息。找出其他例子並分析講述者傳達出的信息。
    (b) The narration lacks qualifying markers that might indicate the narrator's attitude to what is narrated. Consider two consecutive sentences from the second page. "The home is two kilometers from the village. I walked them." Suppose the sentence were connected by "and" or by "but". Choice of either would indicate a difference in attitude to the length of the walk. The frequent absence of such markers throughout communicates a sense of the narrator's regard for the events confronting him and the motive of his response. Find other examples and characterize the sense of the narrator that they communicate.

  2. Meursault本身是一個古怪的人,一個在自己祖國的異鄉人。你怎樣描述他的性格?他在他老闆和女友的眼中是怎樣的人?一個人向他提供優厚的晉陞機會,另一個提出結婚的建議。你覺得他會怎麼回應各件事?
    Meursault himself is an oddity, a stranger in his homeland. How would you characterize him? How do his boss and his girl-friend regard him? One offers him a handsome promotion, the other a proposal of marriage. How would you characterize his response in each case?

  3. 其他次要的角色如何看待Meursault?他們的對他的看法與第二部分中別人對他的看法友什麼不同?不同的原因是什麼?
    How do the other (minor) characters regard Meursault? How does their regard for Meursault differ from the way he is seen by others in Part II? What accounts for the difference?

  4. Meursault自己唯一覺得古怪的是餐館裡的一個女人。在Meursault眼中,她古怪在哪裡?如何比較她的古怪與Meursault自身的古怪?
    The only person whom Meursault himself finds odd is a woman in a restaurant. What is the nature of her oddity in Meursault's eyes? How does her oddity compare with that of Meursault himself?

  5. Meursault的鄰居之一,一個叫Raymond的皮條客視他為朋友,因為他想Meursault為他服務。這是友誼的錯誤開始嗎?「我們現在是真正的朋友了。」Raymond說。他們是嗎?(畢竟,Meursault 只是代表Raymond騙警察而已。)本書有容納友誼的更深意義嗎?生活呢?
    One of his neighbors, a pimp named Raymond, befriends Meursault because he wants Meursault to perform a service for him. Is this a false beginning to friendship? "We are now copin [real buddies]," says Raymond. Are they? (After all, Meursault has just lied to the police on Raymond's behalf. Does the book admit any deeper sense of friendship? Does life?

  6. Raymond曾遇過一個警察,他對Meursault說,他是目擊者。Raymond對於那次遭遇所說的是真的嗎?這個情結的什麼元素與該書的中心思想有聯繫?
    At one point, Raymond has an encounter with a policeman, which he comments upon to Meursault, who was witness to it. Does Raymond speak truthfully about the encounter? What elements of this episode connect it to the central themes of the book?

  7. 卡繆給Meursault安排的犧牲品是一個阿拉伯人,殖民地阿爾及爾一個受壓迫少數民族的成員,一般被認為是低等民族。卡繆為什麼作出如此選擇?(為了作出合適的答案,假設故事發生在實施種族隔離前的南美而且參與者的受害者是黑人。)在你看來,Meursault是因為殺害阿拉伯人而最後被判死刑的嗎?
    Camus chose to make Meursault's victim an Arab, a member of an oppressed minority in colonial Algers, thought to be racially inferior. Why did Camus make this choice? (To get a sense of an appropriate answer, suppose that the story took place in the American South before segregation and that the protagonist's victim was a black man.) In your view, was Meursault finally condemned to death for killing an Arab?

  8. 認真描述導致殺戮的事。Meursault的謀殺罪(與殺人區分開來)有多大?Meursault描述,他向阿拉伯人開了4槍「就像是在向mechance之門快速地敲了4下」。這個詞可以翻譯為「壞運氣」或「憂愁」。你認為這裡應使用那一種翻譯?
    Describe the events leading up to the killing carefully. How guilty was Meursault of the crime of murder (as distinct from homicide, the killing of a human being)? Meursault describes his firing four more times into the body of the Arab as "like knocking four quick times on the door of méchance". The word can be translated as "bad luck" or "unhappiness". Which way would you translate it here?

  9. 你如何評價Meusault眼中的死刑?他的觀點有根據嗎?你又如何評價在故事的末尾中Meusault最後表達的人生觀?把他的表達與《黑暗之心》中Kurz最後的說話作比較。
    How would you characterize Meusault's view of capital punishment? Is it a valid view? How would you characterize the view of life that he finally expresses at the end of the book. How does its expression compare with the final words of Kurz, in Heart of Darkness?

  10. 書中的最後一句話是什麼意思?
    What is the meaning of the last sentence of the book?
25卡繆,《異鄉人》
Albert Camus, The Stranger.
26Primo Levi,〈灰色地帶〉,摘自《溺死者和生還者》
Primo Levi, "The Gray Zone", from The Drowned and the Saved.
  1. 我們都知道,或應該知道,德國的第三帝國試圖消除所有的猶太人和歐洲的吉普賽人,甚至是任何有智力缺陷的人,理由是的這些人「不適合生存」,並不是他們故意傷害自己的市民,而是與人類標準比較,這些人屬於劣質人種。從生物學來說,,如果允許他們像普通人一樣繁殖,對人類來說是一種威脅;因為他們的習慣和生活方式污染了所有國家的政治健康,所以從精神上來說也是一種威脅。(此外,猶太人被認為是聰明並且對非猶太人和非猶太機構存在敵意傾向的。)其他注定要死的人也在集中營裡,但他們的存在並不能預示這是一個有計劃的滅種和屠殺運動。
    We all know, or should know, that the Third Reich in Germany attempt to exterminate all the Jews and Gypsies of Europe and also people suffering various forms of mental deficiency, on the grounds that they were "unfit to live", not because they had deliberately harmed their fellow citizens but because they were genetically inferior to the human norm; they posed a threat to humanity biologically if they were permitted to breed with normal human beings and they posed a threat spiritually because their habits and ways of life contaminated the social and political health of all nations. (In addition, the Jews were alleged to be both clever and maliciously disposed to non-Jews and non-Jewish institutions.) Others destined for death were also in the camps, but their presence did not betoken a program of genocide.
    今天還存在類似的態度嗎?「不適合生存」是殺害一個人的理由嗎?在道德爭論中,這個觀點能站得住腳嗎?
    Are there any analogues to this attitude today? Is "unfit to live" ever used as a reason to kill someone? Has the phrase any standing in ethical argument?

  2. 在道德規範中,我們所指的灰色地帶是什麼?Vautrin(《高老頭》)否認它的存在;今天世界舞台上的政治家也一樣。這是區分美好與邪惡的基準線嗎?
    What do we mean by "a gray area" in ethics? Vautrin (in Père Goriot) denies its existence; so do many politicians on the world stage today. Is there a hard-and-fast line between good and evil?

  3. Levi對這個觀點很厭煩,即每個人都是有罪的,總是暴行的這樣或那樣的共犯。他宣稱自己是一個徹底的受害者,並無任何作為共犯的蛛絲馬跡可被發現。這個宣稱與他對「灰色地帶」論點如何並存?
    Levi is impatient with the claim, sometimes advanced, that everyone is guilty, one way or another, of complicity in atrocities. He declares himself completely a victim, with no trace of complicity in himself that he can discover. How does this claim sit with his argument for "a gray area"?

  4. Levi描述Lagers的倖存意味著要成為納粹營機制的一部分。他的化學家的才能使他能在營裡工作而得以生存下來,成為一個「有特權」的囚犯。他與那些負責焚屍的「特別隊」有什麼不同?Levi說處理受害著中最壞的工作是減輕特別隊那些人的負罪感,他們不「樂意接受殘殺是每日的任務」。為什麼減輕他們的負罪感?
    As Levi describes the Lagers, merely to survive meant to become part of the mechanism of the camps. Levi survived by working for the camps in his capacity as a chemist; he became a "privileged" prisoner. How does this make him different from the "Special Squads", who ran the crematoria? Levi says that delegating the worst part of the work to the victims themselves was meant to ease the consciences of those in the SS who did not "gladly accept massacre as a daily task". Why did it ease their conscience?

  5. 特別隊成員是可怕秘密的「搬運者」。那個秘密是什麼?你可以設想他們的命運嗎?你認為他們是「悲劇」人物嗎?
    The members of the Special Squads were "bearers of a horrendous secret". What was the secret? Can you conceive of their lives? Would you call them "tragic" figures?

  6. 雖然Levi強調自己的心並非殺人犯之心(並認為他是倫理上殘暴),但卻認為〈灰色地帶〉的人擁有的是普通人的心。Muhsfeld為了保護「秘密」曾殺害一個16歲的女孩。Levi寫道:「如果他生活在一個不同的環境和時代裡,他可能會像其他普通人一樣生活。」這裡泯滅了美好與邪惡的區別了嗎?
    Although Levi insists that he does not carry the heart of a murderer buried within himself (and finds the notion that he does ethically outrageous), he nonetheless claims that those in "the gray zone" carry the heart of an ordinary person. Muhsfeld has a sixteen-year-girl killed in order to protect "the secret"; Levi writes of him: "Had he lived in a different environment and epoch, he probably would have behaved like any other common man." Does this invalidate the distinction between good and evil?

  7. 把Rumkowski的人物形象與 Don Corleone或任何掌握生殺大權的人物作比較,並說明必要性。為什麼Rumkowski會把自己當成是救世主,人們的救星?考慮有關他的死的兩個故事:假如你要把Rumkowski的故事寫成小說,你會選擇哪一種結尾作為書的結論?這與悲劇主角的文學模型一致嗎?
    Compare the figure of Rumkowski with that of Don Corleone or with anyone who exercises the power of life and death and does so with a sense of its necessity. Why would Rumkowski think of himself as a messianic figure, the savior of his people? Consider the two stories of his death: if you were to write Rumkowski's story as a work of fiction, which ending would you choose to conclude the book? Does he conform in any way to the literary model of the tragic protagonist?

  8. 解釋Levi在〈灰色地帶〉說的最後一句話。
    Explain what Levi is saying in the last sentence of the "The Gray Zone".
紙本作業
Paper Assignments

本課程有三次紙本作業,進行期間大致相同。每次作業都針對一群建議主題,以下為近期的主題建議範例。
There are three paper assignments, spaced more or less equally through the term, and each written in response to a set of suggested topics. A sample of recent topic-suggestions are appended here:
  • 紙本作業1
    Paper Assignment 1
    (PDF)
  • 紙本作業2
    Paper Assignment 2
    (PDF)
  • 紙本作業3
    Paper Assignment 3
    (PDF)

 
MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyTerms of UsePrivacy