泰晤士(TIMES)四合院儿

J.H. Wang wrote:



我对圣奥古斯丁其实了解并不太多，不过，也知道他是位大哲学家。下面我尝试把他这段文字翻译成中文，供大家参考：

既然过去已不存在，未来尚未存在，那么过去和未来怎么能够存在？至于现在，如果它永远是现在，从不前进而成为过去，它就不会是时间，而是永恒。

欢迎大家拍砖！:-)

wherestip wrote:

That 龙安志 character owns 3 of those properties! Seems like he also likes to acquire multiples when he sees the ingenuity in something. As mentioned a couple of times before, I do too; the difference between us, I guess, is he goes for the big ticket items.

David Lin wrote:


一点考虑：
过去 －> 现在 －> 未来
将时间描述为从 ‘现在’ 向前走，即进入 ‘未来’ ，应该不会成为 ’过去‘ 吧。例如：今日的 10 点向前走了 12 小時成為明日的 10 点。
还有，move on 是 ‘改变’ ，应该不是 ’前进‘？

QHE wrote:

BTW, 我看了”话说四合院”才知道，北京人在院子里种树还有忌讳(只知道在南方过年屋里要放一大盆金桔)。以前我还给人建议过在院里种松柏：四季常青,不用扫落叶。而且上次回国还追问人家种了没有。

wherestip wrote:



J.H.,

Medical doctors traditionally made house calls to assist in emergencies, illnesses, minor ailments, trauma, and so on. And so did priests - to read those on their deathbeds their last rites, for example. Hence they ran over the fields to either come to the rescue or perform their perfunctory duties, whichever might be the case.



priest -- one's spiritual needs, spiritual salvation
doctor -- one's physical well-being, physical salvation


[Edited at 2014-05-05 20:05 GMT]

QHE wrote:



假设一下，如果真的拥有这3个大院儿，可以推测 2 1/2 - 2 3/4 的院落要为贮藏之用; 可能 还 需雇用院内谷哥。所以还是拥有3个 MacBooks 比较省事。

BTW, 我看了”话说四合院”才知道，北京人在院子里种树还有忌讳(只知道在南方过年屋里要放一大盆金桔)。以前我还给人建议过在院里种松柏：四季常青,不用扫落叶。而且上次回国还追问人家种了没有。

J.H. Wang wrote:

What are days for?
Days are where we live.
They come, they wake us
Time and time over.
They are to be happy in:
Where can we live but days?

Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields.

《日子》

日子是幹什麼用的？
日子是我們活著的地方。
它們到臨，它們一次又一次地
喚醒我們。
它們是要快樂度過的：
除了日子我們還能活在那裡？

啊，為了解答這個問題
使得牧師和醫生
穿著長長的外袍
在田野上奔跑。

--菲利浦‧拉金--

这里的 doctor 的翻译是否有问题？ doctor 这里是否应为博学之士而不是医生，否则感觉有点怪怪的。

另外，他们为什么要穿着长袍在田野上奔跑，是否他们有在田野里思考的习惯？

向各位请教，先谢谢了！

David Lin wrote:

I saw Eternity the other night,
Like a great ring of pure and endless light,
All calm, as it was bright;
And round beneath it, Time in hours, days,
years,
Driv'n by the spheres
Like a vast shadow moved; in which the
world
And all her train were hurled.

我们可以看到永恒吗？

David Lin wrote:


”至于现在，如果它永远是现在，从来不会成为过去，它就不会是时间，而是永恒。“

Phil Hand wrote:

所以赶过来好好教育我们。

Days

What are days for?
Days are where we live.
They come, they wake us
Time and time over.
They are to be happy in:
Where can we live but days?

Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields.

Analysis

This poem opens with a simple interrogative, "what are days for?" the type of abstract question that only a heuristic child can ask. The next few lines are the type of answer a parent might give, a simple solution to what appears a simple question. “Days are where we live,” and the next lines almost personify the concept of ‘days’ to make them easier to relate to, “They come, they wake us.”

In the simple phrase, “Time and time over” is conveyed their eternalness, and by contrast, the transient nature of humans. Only by grouping humans as “us” can we compare in continuity to “days”, and the poem hints towards the darker, deeper message. Further, “They are to be happy in” is simple on the surface, but raises a question of “but”… and “what if we aren’t happy”. The simplistic answer begins to crumble once we begin to examine it, and the persona realises this as he begins to question himself: “Where can we live but days?”

Moving into the second stanza, the poem presents the surreal image of the “priest and the doctor / In their long coats / Running over the fields” as an attempt to “solve” what has become a puzzle, though in the use of “solving” in the first line, the poem suggests there isn’t a solution. The idea of the priest “and” doctor present two different attitudes towards the alternative to days, which we now realise, is death. The priest hurries to perform the last rites, to speed the person to a better dayless existence, while the doctor moves to try to help a person remain in “days”. Both consider themselves as saving, yet from the “long coat”, a vaguely threatening image (see ‘Toads Revisited’), suggests the persona receives no comfort from either.

Overall, the poem presents no solution to the question of days. Simplistic, apparent answers crumble when examined closely, while other solutions are surreal and threatening. “Days” we can say, however, are the containers for our lives – much like the idea of rooms in other poems like ‘Mr Bleaney’ – and without them, we have death.

Another mysteriously beautiful and intensely thought-provoking little
vignette; the simple, straightforward words seem to hint at some intense
revelation that's just out of sight, but which throws its shadow over
the printed page, dark and foreboding...

I sometimes wonder how poems such as this one come to be composed...
although the final product is precisely and carefully detailed, there's
nothing 'constructed' about the theme, or about Larkin's way of
approaching it... oh well, call it the Muse, I suppose.

thomas.

George Macbeth has this to say about today's poem:

('Days' is) a simple, direct-looking poem about time and death... the
one concrete detail, the 'long coats' of the priest and the doctor,
brings the poem to life with a sinister vividness... [it] seems to be
aiming at a plain, timeless quality very different from the practical
everyday flavour of most of Larkin's poetry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacBeth

George Mann MacBeth (19 January 1932 – 16 February 1992) was a Scottish poet and novelist. He was born in Shotts, Lanarkshire.
When he was three, his family moved to Sheffield. He was educated in Sheffield at King Edward VII School where he was Head Prefect in 1951 (photo), before going up to New College, Oxford, with an Open Scholarship in Classics.
He joined BBC Radio on graduating in 1955 from the University of Oxford. He worked there, as a producer of programmes on poetry, notably for the BBC Third Programme, until 1976. He was a member of The Group.