第15届韩素音青年翻译比赛英译汉原文及参考译文
原文

A Person Who Apologizes Has the Moral Ball in His Court

Paul Johnson

I have sympathy for the butler in The Big Sleep. Marlowe detects him in a contradiction and asks him aggressively, “You made a mistake, didn't you?” To which the man replies, sadly and sweetly, “I make many mistakes, sir.” And so do I. I am, by instinct and training, a very specific writer, and so my errors are numerous. Recent ones include misspelling Geoffrey Madan's name —I phoned the printers with a correction but my page had already gone to press — and crediting Richard Tauber with Donald Peers's signature-tune, “By a babbling brook” (Tauber's, of course, was “You are my heart's delight”). I apologise for these mistakes, and for others in the past, and for those to come.

Disraeli thought that, in politics, apologies don’t work. I see why. Such being the nature of parliamentary conflict, an apology in politics merely leads to fresh accusations and further demands for embarrassing details. I once said to Harold Wilson when he was prime minister, “It would be a good idea, Harold, to admit the government’s mistakes occasionally, and apologise.” He replied, “That’s a shrewd suggestion, Paul, and I entirely agree with it.” (Harold being Harold, I knew an untruth was coming.) “The trouble is, though, I can’t actually think of any mistakes, and so there’s nothing to apologise for.” Which was to make Disraeli’s point, though in a Wilsonian way.

Apologise is one of those words which has effectively reversed its original meaning. Its origin, in the Greek lawcourts, was jurisprudential: it signified the speech for the defence in which the prosecution’s case was answered point by point. It retained its original meaning until at least the 16th century. Thus Sir Thomas More, after resigning from office, drew up his “Apologie of Syr Thomas More, Knyght; made by him, after he had geuen ouer the office of Lord Chancellor of Englande”. Today we would say vindication. Only gradually did the word acquire the connotation of excuse, withdrawal, admission of fault and plea for forbearance. It still bore its original meaning in theology: Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua was not an apology at all but a vigorous rebuttal of Charles Kingsley’s charges. Dickens’s unfortunate statement about his reasons for splitting up with his wife, which his friends begged him not to publish, was self-destructive precisely because it was halfway between the two meanings: half defiant vindication, half admission of guilt.

No doubt everyone has to apologise for his life, sooner or later. When we appear at the Last Judgment and the Recording Angel reads out a list of our sins, we will presumably be given an opportunity to apologise, in the old sense of rebuttal, and in the new sense too, by way of confession and plea of repentance. In this life, it is well to apologise (in the new sense), but promptly, voluntarily, fully and sincerely. If the error is a matter of opinion and unpunishable, so much the better —an apology then becomes a gracious and creditable occasion, and an example to all. An enforced apology is a miserable affair.

Newspaper apologies nearly always seem inadequate. The most audacious one I know was brought back from America by the artist Edward Burne-Jones to show his friend Lady Homer of Mells. It read: “Instead of being arrested as we stated, for kicking his wife down a flight of stairs, and hurling a lighted kerosene lamp after her, the Revd. James P. Wellman died unmarried four years ago.” This sentence is remarkable for the enormity of the error and the succinctness of the correction — not, be it noted, an apology, for the law of libel, in the United States as in England, offers no redress to a dead person. I suspect the extract is from the New York World when it was a sensational paper owned by Pulitzer. For reasons which a recent biography of him does not clarify, he had a particular hatred for clergymen of all denominations, and frequently exaggerated or invented discreditable news items about them. He also discovered that such items invariably put on circulation.

The most famous apology in history was made to a much maligned, though far from innocent, cleric: Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII. He had become involved in what is known as the Investiture Dispute, a fierce Church-State Kulturkampf, revolving round the appointment of bishops. His chief opponent, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV — not a nice man but not a monster either — had called him an impostor, an antipope, an Antichrist and I know not what, but had got the worst of it in the armed struggle that followed. Henry decided to purge his excommunication and get the interdict on his territories withdrawn by apologising and doing penance. The Pope had sought the protection of Countess Matilda of Tuscany, then the world’s richest woman, and princess of startling beauty, taste and wisdom. He was sheltering at her stupendous mountain stronghold of Canossa, not far from Modena, and the Emperor had to climb there barefoot, in the depths of winter, to make his kowtow. Why has this amazing story not been the subject of a great opera? Perhaps it has. Needless to say, the apology was insincere and the tragic story ended in tears on both sides, the Pope’s bitter last words being: “I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.” But the fact that the Church was slow to canonise this remarkable man suggests that to begin with it did not accept his version of events. A century later. Henry II of England was locked in mortal struggle over the same issue with Becket, and also apologised after he caused the archbishop’s murder. This, too, was in some degree insincere, and trouble broke out afresh soon after Henry had donned sackcloth. Becket was at least as intemperate as Hildebrand, but he not only got his halo but did so in the fastest time on record. But then he was a martyr, and they always move to canonisation faster than any other category of saint.

When I was an editor, I always preferred to apologise promptly, whatever the merits of the case, rather than face the expense and, more importantly, the time-consuming complexities and debilitating worry of litigation, libel being one of the least satisfactory branches of the law. When we took a crack at Dr Bodkin Adams, believing him to be dead, and his joyful lawyer phoned me the next morning to tell me he was very much alive, I settled the matter there and then for the sum (if I remember correctly) of ￡450 and an apology. So my advice to editors is, get shot of claims quickly, unless the plaintiff’s demands are manifestly unreasonable.

Besides, there is something distinguished about a ready apology. It is the mark of a gentleman, more particularly if it is not necessary. It is the opposite of revenge. Bacon wrote, “In seeking revenge, a man is but equal with his enemy, but in forgiving him, he is superior, for it is a princes’ part to pardon.” So, the person who apologises freely has the moral ball in his court.

译文

谁给别人道歉，谁就在道义上掌握了主动 保罗·约翰逊

我同情《长眠》这部影片中的男管家。马洛探长发现了他讲话前后有矛盾，就逼问道：“你犯了一个错，对不？”管家伤感而乖巧地答曰：“我犯下的错可多去啦，先生。” 我又何尝不是如此呢？我有点灵气并且训练有素，写起东西来旁征博引，力求翔实，自然就言多语失喽。最近犯下的错误包括把杰弗瑞·马丹的名字拼写错了——我给印厂打了个电话，把更正告诉他们，可是我的那页已经开印了；我把唐纳德·皮尔斯的信号曲“在潺潺的小溪旁”安到了理查德·陶波的头上（陶波的信号曲自然是“你是我心中的喜悦”。）对于这些错误，以及过去犯的错误和今后会犯的错误，在下这厢有礼啦。

迪斯累里首相认为在政治问题上，给别人道歉行不通。我明白个中的缘由。议会斗争的本质就是如此，在政治问题上，道歉只会招致新的诘责和进一步要求交待让你左右为难的详情。还是哈罗德·威尔逊担任首相的时候，有一次我向他进言：“哈罗德，偶尔承认一下政府的错误，并且道个歉，不失为一个好主意吧。” 他答道：“你这个建议高，保罗，本人完全赞同。”（哈罗德毕竟是哈罗德，我知道一句言不由衷的话就要脱口而出了。）“然而难办的是我实在想不出有哪些错误，因此，也就没有甚么好道歉的喽。” 这正是以威尔逊的方式表达出了迪斯累里的意思。

有那么一些词儿，已经彻底演变得与本义完全相反，“Apologise”即是其中之一。该词的本义，在希腊法庭上，具有法理学意义：该词即指辩护词，在辩护过程中，对于诉讼方的指控，逐一予以回答。其原义至少到了16世纪还一直保留着。托马斯·莫尔爵士在挂印辞官之后，就是这样撰写了他的“托马斯·莫尔爵士之辩护词；辞去英格兰大法官之职后所作。”今天我们会使用“Vindication”（辩白，辩护）一词。只是渐渐地“Apologise”这个词才获得了“原谅、撤回所说的话、承认错误并请求宽恕”之含义。在神学中该词仍保留原来的意义：纽曼的《为吾生辩》（Apologia pro Vita Sua）根本就不是什么道歉，而是对查尔士·金斯菜的指控所作的强硬辩驳。讲狄更斯与其妻分手理由的那篇倒霉的陈词（其友人求他不要发表），就是自毁其身，恰恰是它介于两个意义之间：一半是倔强的辩白，一半是承认有愧。

毋庸置疑，任何人都要为自己的一生辩护，不管是今生还是来世。当我们出席最后的审判时，记录天使诵读出所罗列的我们的罪孽，我们作了忏悔并请求宽恕，这样大概会被给予辩白（这个词的老义）和表示歉意（它的新义）的机会。在今生中，道歉（新义）是桩对的事， 但是要做到及时、要心甘情愿、要完完全全、要诚心诚意。如果过错是看法上的事，并且错不当罚，那最好不过——说一声“对不起”就成了一个显示大度的机会，可赞可叹，众人之楷模也。而被迫去道歉，那可就难受了。

报社的道歉几乎从来是不到位的。据我所知，最为厚颜的一次是艺术家爱德华·伯恩 — 琼斯从美国带回来，让他的友人麦尔斯庄园的洪纳夫人看的，曰：“詹姆士·P. 维尔曼神甫没有像我们所述说的那样，因为将妻子一脚踹下了楼梯，随后又将一支点燃的煤油灯朝她掷去而被逮捕，而是于四年之前过世，从未婚娶。”对于如此之大的错误，而更正又如此之简短，这一句话可谓妙矣也哉——请注意，这算不上是“赔礼道歉”，因为在美国（正如在英国一样），根据诽谤法，是不给死人纠错的。我猜想这条剪报取自《纽约世界报》，曾是一家轰动的报纸，由普利策拥有。不知何故（最近有关普氏的传记并未澄清）他尤其痛恨各个教派的教士们，经常将一些诋毁他们的新闻段子加以渲染，或是编造出一些这样的段子。他还发现此类新闻段子总是会使发行量剧增。

历史上最为有名的“道歉”是向一位神职人士所致：此公乃是希尔得布兰德，即教皇格列高利七世，他被人诋毁多多，然而也并非无辜。他卷入了史书所记载的“授职争议”，即一次围绕教会与国家之间有关任命主教问题的激烈的“文化冲突”。他的主要对手就是神圣罗马帝国的皇帝亨利四世——他算不上是个好人，但也不是什么魔鬼——他称教皇是个骗子、伪教皇、假耶稣，还有一些不知道是什么样的骂名，但是在随后的武装冲突中，他却为此一败涂地。亨利四世决定向教皇请罪，表示诲意，以此希冀教皇解除将其逐出教门的惩罚，并撤回在其领土上的授权禁令。教皇寻求托斯坎尼区的玛蒂尔达伯爵夫人的庇佑，这位伯爵夫人是当时世界上最富有的女人，一位倾国倾城，睿智聪颖，极有品味的郡主。教皇躲进了她那气势恢宏的山间城堡，它建在离摩德纳市不远的卡诺萨。皇帝不得不在隆冬季节赤脚攀上城堡，前去叩头谢罪。 这样一个令人拍案叫绝的故事却不曾成为一个大歌剧的主题，未知何也？或许已经有了。毋庸赘言，这次道歉并非真心实意，而悲剧则是以双方眼泪洗面告终。教皇临终时痛楚地说：“吾爱正义而恶不公：故而吾死于流放。”但是，教会迟迟不将这位杰出的人封为圣人，此事表明他们从一开始就未曾接受他对事件的说法。一个世纪之后，英格兰的亨利二世与贝克特大主教在同一问题上打得你死我活，不可开交；在他指使谋杀大主教之后，也做了道歉。这在某种程度上也并非诚心诚意，在亨利二世披上麻衣去忏悔之后，麻烦再度出现。贝克特主教至少也和希尔得布兰德一样放纵无度，然而他不但得到了光环，而且是以有史记载以来最快的速度得到的。再说啦，他算是个殉道者，这些殉道者比起其他类圣人，其被封圣的速度要快得多。

我还是编辑的时候，无论情况如何，我总是选择立马道歉，而不是去面对诉讼过程中所发生的费用，更为重要的是，去面对费时耗神的诉讼过程中产生的复杂情况。诽谤法是法律当中最不尽人意的部分。我们曾拿鲍德金·亚当姆斯医生开涮，还以为他已经死了；莅日，他的律师喜滋滋地打电话给我，告诉我亚当姆斯医生还活得好好的，我立时以一笔450 英镑 （如果我没记错的话）的赔偿费和一句道歉的话了结此事。所以，我对编辑们的忠告是：对于赔偿要求要立马了结，除非原告的要求太离谱。

此外，随时准备好一句道歉的话，是一种高尚行为，特别是在没有必要道歉时而道歉，更显示出一个绅士的特质。道歉与报复相对。培根有云：“夫图报复焉，汝与汝仇等：苟汝恕之，则汝优於汝仇焉；盖宽恕也，王者之风也。”由是，谁把“对不起”常挂在嘴边，谁就在道义上掌握了主动。