以原则言，从事翻译者于原文不容有一词一语之误解。然而谈何容易?以中国文字之艰深，诗词铸语之凝炼，译人之误会在所难免。前期诸家多尚“达旨”，有所不解，易为闪避；后期译人渐崇信实，诠解讹误，昭然易晓。如韩愈山石诗，“僧言古壁佛画好，以火来照所见稀，”Bynner(p.29)译为
And he brought a light and showed me，and I called them wonderful.
以“稀少”为“希奇”，此为最简单的误解字义之例。
又如古诗为焦仲卿妻作，“妾不堪驱使，徒留无所施”，Waley (Temple，P.114)译为
I said to myself，“I will not be driven away．”
Yet if I stay，what use will it be?
以“驱使”为“驱逐”，因而语意不接，遂误以上句为自思自语，则又因字义之误而滋生句读之误。
其次，词性之误解，亦为致误之因。如杜诗闻官军收河南河北，“却看妻子愁何在?漫卷诗书喜欲狂”句，Bynner(P.154)误以“愁”为动词，译为
Where is my wife? Where are my sons?
Yet crazily sure of finding them，I pack my books and Poems.
读之解颐。杜公虽“欲狂”，何至愁及妻子之下落?且“却看”之谓何?
中文动词之特殊意蕴，往往非西人所能识别，如杜诗“感时花溅泪，恨别鸟惊心”，泪为诗人之泪，心亦诗人之心，“溅”与“惊”皆致动词也，而Bynner(p.141)译为
…Where petals have been shed like tears
And lonely birds have sung their grief.
顿成肤浅。
然一种文字之最足以困惑外人者，往往不在其单个之实字，而在其虚字与熟语，盖虚字多歧义，而熟语不易于表面索解也。此亦可于诸家译诗见之。Waley在诸译人中最为翔实，然如所译《焦仲卿妻》中，以“四角龙子幡”为
At its four corners a dragon-child flag (Temple，P.121)，
“子”字实解；又译“著我绣裌裙，事事四五通”为
…Takes what she needs, four or five things (ibid，P.116)，
以“通”为“件”，皆因虚字而误。
余人译诗中亦多此例。如Fletcher(More Gems，P.12)译太白月下独酌“月既不解饮”作
The moon then drinks without a pause，
由于不明“解”字作“能”讲；译“行乐须及春”作
Rejoice until the Spring comes in，
由于不明“及”字作“乘”讲。又如Giles(Verse，p.99)译杜诗“今春看又过，何日是归年?”作
Alas! I see another spring has died…
因不明“看”字之等于后世之“看看”或“眼见得”，遂误以“将过”为“已过”，虽小小出入，殊失原诗低回往复之意也。
以言熟语，有极浅显，不应误而误者。如年月序次只以基数为之，不加“第”字，凡稍习中文者不应不解，而Fletcher(Gems，p.8)译太白长干行“五月不可触”句为
For five months with you I cannot meet．
亦有较为生僻，其误可原者。如同篇“早晚下三巴”句不独Fletcher(ibid. P.9)误为
Early and late I to gorges go.
Lowell(P.29)亦误为
From early morning until late in the evening，you descend the three Serpent River，
惟小畑(P.152)作
Some day when you return down the river，
为得其真象。
熟语之极致为“典故”，此则不仅不得其解者无从下手，即得其真解亦不易达其义蕴。如小杜金谷园结句“落花犹似坠楼人，”Giles(Verse，P.175)译作
Petals，like nymphs from balconies，come tumbling to the ground，
诚为不当，即Bynner(P.178)译为
Petals are falling like a girl’s robe long ago．
若非加注(p.292)亦不明也。又如权德舆玉台体一绝之“昨夜裙带解，今朝蟢子飞”，Giles(Verse，p.135)译为
Last eve thou wert a bride，
This morn thy dream is o’er…
固是荒谬；而Bynner(P.25)译为
Last night my girdle came undone，
And this morning a luck beetle flew over my bed．
仍不得不乞灵于附注(P.244)，且亦仅注出一“蟢子”，于“裙带”仍不得其解也。(王建宫词“忽地下阶裙带解，非时应得见君王。”)
Bynner所译诗中亦时有类此之错误，如译孟浩然秦中寄远上人诗，“黄金燃桂尽，壮志逐年衰”作
Like ashes of gold in a cinnamon-flame
My youthful desires have been burnt with the years (P.111).
亦复不知所云也。
若干历史的或地理的词语亦具有熟语之性质，常为译家之陷阱。如香山赠梦得诗(长庆集卷六六)，“寻花借马烦川守，弄水偷船恼令公”，Waley(More Translations，p.90)译为
When，seeking flowers，we borrowed his horse，the river-keeper was vexed；
When，to play on the water，we stole his boat the Duke Ling was sore．
以“川守”为“river-keeper”固以己意为之，以“令公”为“Duke Ling”尤可见其疏于考索。时裴度以中书令晋国公为东都留守，史称其与刘白过从甚密，长庆集同卷颇多题咏赠和之作，只应曰Duke P’ei或Duke of Chin，不得以“令”为专名也。
又如“山东”一名，古今异指，而Fletcher(Gems，P.70)译杜诗兵车行，“君不闻汉家山东二百州，千村万落生荆杞”，作 Shantung；“河汉”指天河，而Waley(Poems，p.44)译古诗十九首之十，“迢迢牵牛星，皎皎河汉女”，作Han River。皆易滋误会，显为违失。
至如Giles(History，P.170)译长恨歌“渔阳鼙鼓动地来”作
But suddenly comes the roll of the fish-skin war-drums，
误以地名为非地名；Lowell(P.98)译太白闻王昌龄左迁龙标遥寄，“杨花落尽子规啼”作
In Yang-chou．the blossoms are dropping，
又误以非地名为地名：与“山东”、“河汉”相较，虽事类相同，而难易有别。“渔阳”安得谓为“鱼皮”，“杨”、“扬”更字形悬异，其为谬误尤难宥恕也。
二
中文常不举主语，韵语尤甚，西文则标举分明，诗作亦然。译中诗者遇此等处，不得不一一为之补出。如司空曙贼平后送人北归，云：“世乱同南去，时清独北还。他乡生白发，旧国见青山”，Bynner(P.133)译为
In dangerous times we two came south；
Now you go north in safety，without me．
But remember my head growing white among strangers，
When you look on the blue of the mountains of home．
四句皆补出主语，除第三句容有可商外(亦可指友或兼指二人)，余均无误。
然亦往往缘此致误，如上引诗更下一联云“晓月过残垒，繁星宿故关”，“过”与“宿”之主语仍为you，而Bynner译为
The moon goes down behind a ruined fort，
Leaving star-clusters above an old gate．
误以“晓月”与“繁星”当之，不知此二语之作用如副词也。
又如古诗十九首之十二，“燕赵多佳人……当户理清曲”继之以“驰情整巾带，沈吟聊踯躅”，乃诗人自谓闻曲而有感也，Waley(Poems，P.45)误以蒙上佳人，译为
To ease their minds they arrange their shawls and belts；
Lowering their song，a little while they pause，
索然寡味矣。
又如Fletcher(More Gems，P.9)译李白长干行，“早晚下三巴，预将书报家”，作
Early and late，I to gorges go．
Waiting for news that of thy coming told．
不明“早晚”之为询问，遂以“下”为“我下”，不知自长干至三巴不得云“下”，两地之相去亦非朝暮可往来者。
又如刘长卿逢雪宿芙蓉山，“柴门闻犬吠，风雪夜归人”，闻者诗人自闻也，Fletcher(Gems，P.184)译为
The house dog's sudden barking，which hears the wicket go，
Greets us at night returning through driving gale and snow．
误为犬闻门响而吠，不知中文不容有“宾——动——主”之词序，杜诗“香稻啄余鹦鹉粒”之得失至今犹聚讼纷纭也。
此等错误往往因涉上下文主语而来，如上举“驰情整冠带”误承“当户理清曲”，“早晚下三巴”则其上既有“坐愁红颜老”，其下复有“相迎不道远”，不谙中文之常常更易主语而又从略者自易致误。如杜诗兵车行，“况复秦兵耐苦战，被驱不异犬与鸡”，即此土不学之人亦难免误解，Bynner(p.169)译为
Men of China are able to face the stiffest battle，
But their officers drive them like chickens and dogs．
其情可原。然“役夫”来自“山东”，与“秦兵”正为敌对，上下文足以确定被驱者非秦兵，B.氏有江亢虎氏为助，不容并此而不达。
又因主语之省略而误解动词之意义者。如Waley译焦仲卿妻“谓言无罪过，供养卒大恩”(Temple，P.116)作
Never in spoken word did I transgress or fail…
又“十七遣汝嫁，谓言无誓违”(P.118)作
…and hears you promise forever to be true，
此两“谓言”同于后世之“只道”、“只说是”，宜作I thought解，Waley不了此义，殆由未举主语。
又如古诗十九首之十九，“客行虽云乐，不如早旋归”，Waley(Poems，P.48)译作
My absent love says that he is happy，
But I would rather he said he was coming back，
又古诗上山采蘼芜，“新人虽言好，不及古人姝”(p.35)译作
Although her talk is clever．．．
其实此处“云”、“言”皆无主动词，it is said之义，仍实字之近于虚字者，缀于“虽”字之后，作用类似衬字，今语亦有“虽说是”，可为比较；Waley视为寻常动词，遂有“言谈”之解。
与主语省略相似者又有宾语之省略，亦为译家致误之由。如元稹遣悲怀，“尚想旧情怜婢仆，也曾因梦送钱财”，Bynner(P.216)译为
…Sometimes，in a dream，I bring you gifts．
谓梦中送钱财于亡妻，无乃费解?此则远不及Fletcher(More Gems，P.191)所译
The slaves’ and servants’ love moves me to love，
And presents I gave them，when I dreamed of you．
之信达而兼雅也。
又有因连词之省略而致误者。如渊明责子诗，“雍端年十三，不识六与七”，Budd(p.150)误于前，
Yong-tuan is thirteen now．
Waley(Poems，P.76)误于后，
Yung-tuan is thirteen．
皆昧于中文平联词语常不用连词之惯例，遂以“雍”与“端”为一人也。
三
译诗者往往改变原诗之观点，或易叙写为告语，因中文诗句多省略代词，动词复无词形变化，译者所受限制不严也。其中有因而转更亲切或生动者。试引二三例，则如李商隐嫦娥诗，“嫦娥应悔偷灵药，碧海青天夜夜心”，Bynner(p.75)译为
Are you sorry for having stolen the potion that has set you
Over purple seas and blue skies，to brood through the long nights?
此由第三身之叙写改为对第二身之告语者，视原来为亲切。如卢纶塞下曲之“野幕敞琼筵，羌戎贺劳旋；醉和金甲舞，雷鼓动山川”，Bynner(P.104)译为
Let feasting begin in the wild camp!
Let bugles cry our victory!
Let us drink，let us dance in our golden armour!
Let us thunder on rivers and hills with our drums!
此由第三身之叙写改为一二身之告语者，视原来为生动。
如王维班婕妤诗，“怪来妆阁里，朝下不相迎；总向春园里，花间笑语声”，Fletcher(Gems P.120)译为
Dost wonder if my toilet room be shut?
If in the regal halls we meet no more?
I ever haunt the garden of the spring；
From smiling flowers to learn their whispered lore．
原来为汉帝告婕妤，译诗改为婕妤告汉帝，观点适相反，而译诗似较胜。
但如王建新嫁娘诗，“三日入厨下，洗手作羹汤”，Fletcher(More Gems，P.208)译为
Now married three days，to the kitchen I go，
And washing my hands a fine broth I prepare．
杜牧秋夕诗，“银烛秋光冷画屏，轻罗小扇扑流萤”，Bynner(P.177)译为
Her candle-light is silvery on her chill bright screen.
Her little silk fan is for fireflies…
原诗之为一身抑三身，未可遽定：前一诗似是三身，今作一身，后一诗似是一身，今作三身，其间得失，正自难言。然中诗可无主语，无人称，译为英文，即非有主语有人称不可，此亦译中诗者所常遇之困难也。
四
不同之语言有不同之音律，欧洲语言同出一系，尚且各有独特之诗体，以英语与汉语相去之远，其诗体自不能苟且相同。初期译人好以诗体翻译，即令达意，风格已殊，稍一不慎，流弊丛生。故后期译人Waley，小畑，Bynner诸氏率用散体为之，原诗情趣，转易保存。此中得失，可发深省。
以诗体译诗之弊，约有三端：一曰趁韵。如Fletcher(Gems，P.211)译王绩过酒家，“眼看人尽醉，何忍独为醒”作
With wine o’ercome when all our fellows be，
Can I alone sit in sobriety?
二曰颠倒词语以求协律。如Fletcher(More Gems，p.62)译杜诗秋兴，“几回青琐点朝班”作
Just in dream by the gate when to number I sate
The courtiers’ attendants who throng at its side．
三曰增删及更易原诗意义。如陈子昂登幽州台诗，“前不见古人，后不见来者，念天地之悠悠，独怆然而涕下”，Giles(P.58)译为
My eyes saw not the men of old；
And now their age away has rolled
I weep -- to think that I shall not see
The heroes of posterity!
其第二行为与原诗第三句相当乎，则甚不切合，为不与相当乎，则原句甚重要，不容删省；又如杜诗“露从今夜白，月是故乡明”，Giles(P.101)译为
The crystal dew is glittering at my feet，
The moon sheds，as of old，her silvery light．
“今夜”与“故乡”为此联诗眼，而横遭刊落。
与此相反者，如张泌寄人诗，“别梦依依到谢家，小廓回合曲阑斜”，Giles(P.209)译为
After parting，dreams possessed me and I wandered you know where，
And we sat in the verandah and you sang the sweet old air．
第二行之下半完全为足成音段而增加。
其全部意义加以更易者，如Giles(P.65)译张九龄诗“思君如明月，夜夜减清辉”作
My heart is like the full moon，full of pains，
Save that ‘tis always full and never wanes．
汉译便是“思君异明月，终岁无盈亏”。
前两种病，中外恶诗所同有，初无问于创作与翻译。第三种病，则以诗体译诗尤易犯之，虽高手如Giles亦所不免。Fletcher尤甚于Giles；Budd，Martin诸人更甚于Fletcher，有依稀仿佛，面目全非者，其例难于列举。
五
自一方面言，以诗体译诗，常不免于削足适履，自另一方面言，逐字转译，亦有类乎胶柱鼓瑟。硬性的直译，在散文容有可能，在诗殆绝不可能。Waley在 More Translations序言中云，所译白居易诗不止此数，有若干未能赋以“诗形”，不得不终于弃去。Waley所谓“诗形”(poetic form)，非寻常所谓“诗体”，因所刊布者皆散体也。Waley举其初稿两首为例，试录其一：早春独登天宫阁(长庆集卷六十八)，“天宫日暖阁门开，独上迎春饮一杯。无限游人遥怪我，缘何最老最先来?”
Tien-kung Sun warm，pagoda door open；
Alone climbing，greet Spring，drink one cup．
Without limit excursion-people afar-off wonder at me；
What cause most old most first arrived!
此Waley认为诗的原料，未经琢磨不得为诗者。而Ayscough译杜诗，顾以此为已足。如垂老别首四句：“四郊未宁静，垂老不得安。子孙阵亡尽，焉用身独完?”(Tu Fu，I.，P.336)，译为
On all four sides，in open spaces beyond the city，no unity，no rest；
Men fallen into old age have not attained peace．
Their sons，grandsons，every one has died in battle：
Why should a lone body finish its course?
Lowell与Ayscough合译《松花笺》集，以不识中文故，不得不惟Ayscough之初稿是赖，因之多有不必要之拘泥处，如译太白山中答俗人问(P.69)，“问余何事栖碧山”作
He asks why I perch in the green jade hills．
然其佳者如刘禹锡石头城(P.120)，“山围故国周遭在，潮打空城寂寞回”，译为
Hills surround the ancient kingdom；they never change．
The tide beats against the empty city，and silently，silently returns．
亦自具有Waley所谓“诗形”，非Ayscough自译杜诗可比也。
故严格言之，译诗无直译意译之分，惟有平实与工巧之别。散体诸译家中，Lowell，Waley，小畑，皆以平实胜，而除Lowell外，亦未尝无工巧；至于Bynner，则颇逞工巧，而亦未尝无平实处。
所谓平实，非一语不增，一字不减之谓也。小畑之译太白诗，常不为貌似，而语气转折，多能曲肖。如“两岸猿声啼不住，轻舟已过万重山”(P.76)译为
The screams of monkeys on either bank
Had scarcely ceased echoing in my ear
When my skiff had left behind it
Ten thousand ranges of hills．
“已”字，“过”字，“啼不住”三字，皆扣合甚紧，可谓译中上选。又如独坐敬亭山绝句(P.57)“众鸟高飞尽，孤云独去闲。相看两不厌，只有敬亭山”之译为
Flocks of birds have flown high and away；
A solitary drift of cloud，too，has gone，wandering on．
And I sit alone with the Ching-ting Peak, towering beyond．
We never grow tired of each other．the mountain and I．
苏台览古(p.74)“旧苑荒台杨柳新，菱歌清唱不胜春。只今惟有西江月，曾照吴王宫里人”之译为
In the deserted garden among the crumbling walls，
The willows show green again，
While the sweet notes of the water-nut song
Seem to lament the spring．
Nothing remains but the moon above the river--
The moon that once shone on the fair faces
That smiled in the king’s palace of Wu．
皆未尝炫奇求胜，而自然切合，情致具足者。
译人虽以平稳为要义，亦不得自安于苟简或晦塞，遇原来异常凝炼之诗句，固不得不婉转以求曲达。Waley译古诗有颇擅此胜者，如十九首之九(Poems，P.43)，“此物何足贵，但感别经时”，后句译为
But it may remind him of the time that has past since he left．
十九首之十一(P.44)，“立身苦不早”译为
Success is bitter when it is slow in coming．
十九首之十三(P.46)，“万岁更相送”译为
For ever it has been that mourners in their turn were mourned．
又如焦仲卿妻(Temple，P.122)，“自君别我后，人事不可量；果不如先愿，又非君所详”，末句言约而意深，译作
You would understand if only you knew．
此皆善为婉达，具见匠心者也。
至Bynner译唐诗三百首乃好出奇以制胜，虽尽可依循原来词语，亦往往不甘墨守。如孟浩然留别王维(p.112)，“欲寻芳草去，惜与故人违”，译为
How sweet the road-side flowers might be
If they did not mean good-bye，old friend．
韦应物滁州西涧(P.206)，“春潮带雨晚来急，野渡无人舟自横”，译为
On the spring flood of last night’s rain
The ferry-boat moves as though someone were poling．
同人夕次盱眙县(p.211)，“独应忆秦关，听钟未眠客”，译为
At midnight I think of northern city-gate，
And I hear a bell tolling between me and sleep．
皆撇开原文，另作说法，颇见工巧。然措词虽已迥异，意义却无增减，虽非译事之正宗，亦不得谓为已犯译人之戒律也。
六
上举Bynner诸例引起译事上一大问题，即译人究有何种限度之自由?变通为应限于词语，为何兼及意义?何者为必须变通?何者为无害变通?变通逾限之流弊又如何?
译事之不能不有变通，最显明之例为典故。如元稹遣悲怀诗，“邓攸无子寻知命，潘岳悼亡犹费词”，Bynner(P.216)译为
There have been better men than I to whom heaven denied a son,
There was a poet better than I whose dead wife could not hear him．
盂郊古别离诗，“不恨归来迟，莫向临邛去”，Fletcher(Gems，P.175)译为
Your late returning does not anger me，
But that another steal your heart away．
皆可谓善于变通，允臻上乘。若将“潘”，“邓”，“临邛”照样译出，即非加注不可，读诗而非注不明，则焚琴煮鹤，大杀风景矣。(第一例尤佳，因“知命”与“费词”亦暗中扣紧也。)
亦有不变通而无妨变通者。试举二三简单之例：如太白江上吟之结句云，“功名富贵若长在，汉水亦应西北流”，Lowell(p.43)与小畑(P.25)均直译“西北流”，小畑加注云汉水东南流入江，实则循上句语气，无注亦明。然若如Fletcher(Gems，P.44)之译为
But sooner could flow backward to its fountains
This stream，than wealth and honour can remain．
直截了当，亦未尝不可。又如Fletcher(Gems，p.214)译贾至春思诗，“桃花历乱李花香”，作
The peach and pear blossoms in massed fragrance grow．
李花未必不历乱，桃花亦未必不香，正不必拘于原文字面。又如Giles(Verse，P.164)译白居易后宫词“红颜未老恩先断，斜倚熏宠坐到明”，作
Alas，although his love has gone，her beauty lingers yet;
Sadly she sits till early dawn but never can forget．
原云“红颜未老恩先断”，今云“君恩已去红颜在”，先者后之，后者先之，在译者自为凑次二行之韵脚，而意思似转深入，此亦变通之可取者。又如Bynner(p.127)译白居易琵琶行，“暮去朝来颜色故”作
And evenings went and evenings came，and her beauty faded．
中文“暮去朝来”本兼“朝去暮来”言，英文evenings went and mornings came则无此涵义，若译为evenings and mornings went and came，又未免过于絮烦，自惟有如上译法，言简而意赅。
又如杜审言和晋陵陆丞早春游望诗，“忍闻歌古调，归思欲沾襟”，“归思”下本隐有“使我”意，为五言所限，不得不尔。照字面译出，虽不至于费解，终觉勉强。Bynner(P.179)译为
Suddenly an old song fills
My heart with home，my eyes with tears．
便较显豁。此种变通实已近于必要矣。
如斯之例，诸家多有，上节所引Waley与Bynner诸译咸属此类，皆未尝以辞害意，为译人应有之自由。然而词语之变通与意义之更易，其间界限，亦自难言。变通而及于意义，则如履薄冰，如行悬縆，时时有陨越之虞，不得不审慎以将事。试以二例明之。Waley (Poems，P.35)译古诗上山采蘼芜，“新人工织缣，故人工织素。织缣日一匹，织素五丈余”，作
My new wife is clever at embroidering silk；
My old wife was good at plain sewing．
Of silk embroidery one can do all inch a day；
Of plain sewing，more than five feet．
缣素之别，以及一匹与五丈之分，译出均欠显豁，故改为绣与缝，一寸与五尺，于原文意义颇有更张，而主旨则无出入。此变通之可取者。反之，如Bynner(p.4)译张继枫桥夜泊诗，“江枫渔火对愁眠”，作
Under the shadows of maple-trees a fisherman moves with the torch．
一静一动，与原诗意境迥异。虽或见仁见智，难为轩轾，而谓鹿为马，终非转译所宜。二例之间，界限渐而非顿，然不得谓为无界限。得失寸心，疏漏与穿凿固惟有付之译人之感觉与判断矣。
意义之变通有三，或相异，或省减，或增加。相异之例已如上举。意义之省减，时亦不免，若不关宏旨，亦即不足为病。如Bynner(P.148)译杜诗“白头搔更短，浑欲不胜簪”，作
I stroke my white hair．It has grown too thin
To hold the hairpins any more．
“更”字“欲”字皆未能传出，而大体不谬。
不可省而省，则失之疏漏。如Waley(Temple，p.117)译焦仲卿妻诗，“今日还家去，念母劳家里”，作
Today I am going back to my father’s home；
And this house I leave in Madam’s hands．
“念”字“劳”字皆不可省而省者。又如Bynner(p.174)译杜荀鹤春宫怨，“承恩不在貌，教妾若为容?”作
To please a fastidious emperor，
How shall I array myself?
“不在貌”三字以一fastidious当之，全然未达。(若改为capricious，则庶几近之。)又如所译阙名杂诗“等是有家归未得，杜鹃休向耳边啼”(p.3)，
We are thinking of our kinsfolk，far away from us．
O cuckoo，why do you follow us，why do you call us home?
“等是”二字何等重要，岂容漏去?类此之例，不尽由于有意之变通，亦有识解不周，或为才力所限，遂至陷于浅薄疲弱，虽其情可原，其病不可不知。以诗体译诗者，为凑韵脚与节拍，尤易触犯此戒，前节已申论之矣。
增饰原诗之意义，亦有无伤大雅者。如Giles(Verse．P.96)译太白诗“白发三千丈，缘愁似个长”，作
My whitening hair would make a long long rope，
Yet could not fathom all my depth of woe．
比原来意义略进一步，而不足为病。
过此则往往流于穿凿。如Giles(Verse，P.53)译薛道衡诗“入春才七日，离家已二年”，作
A week in the spring to the exile appears
Like an absence from home of a couple of years．
即犯“read in”之病，殆以为二句不相连属，未免平淡，遂为“一日三秋”之解。不知此二句本平淡，故陈人有“底言”之诮，及“人归落雁后，思发在花前”二句出，始知名下无虚耳。(见隋唐嘉话)
又如Waley(Poems，p.35)译古诗上山采蘼芜，“新人从门人，故人从阁去”，作
My new wife comes in from the road to meet me；
My old wife always came down from her tower．
原诗只状其得新弃故耳，译文乃言新人好游乐，故人勤女红。(或缘误“去”为“出”?)
更有甚于此者，如Fletcher(Gems，P.209)译贺知章题袁氏别业诗，“主人不相识，偶坐为林泉。莫谩愁沽酒，囊中自有钱”，作
The Lord of All to us is all unknown．
And yet these Woods and Springs must Some One own.
Let us not murmur if our Wine we Buy：
In our own Purse have we Sufficiency．
即事之诗，解为论道，刻意求深，翻失真象。又Giles译司空图诗品(History，P.179一188)，全作道家玄语，与诗文了无关涉。如斯穿凿，宜为厉禁。
至如Martin(P.55)之译太白长干行，“郎骑竹马来，绕床弄青梅”，作
You rode a bamboo horse,
And deemed yourself a knight，
With paper helm and shield
And wooden sword bedight．
则缘根本误会诗中主体，以商人妇为军士妻，因而任意枝蔓，全无依据，无以名之，荒谬而已。
七
中诗大率每句自为段落，两句连贯如“旧时王谢堂前燕，飞入寻常百姓家”者，其例已鲜。西诗则常一句连跨数行，有多至十数行者。译中诗者嫌其呆板，亦往往用此手法，Bynner书中最饶此例。如译太白诗“但见泪痕湿，不知心恨谁”(P.53)，作
You may see the tears now，bright on her cheek．
But not the man she so bitterly loves．
利用关系子句，便见连贯。又如译王维九月九日忆山东兄弟(P.190)，“独在异乡为异客，每逢佳节倍思亲，遥知兄弟登高处，遍插茱萸少一人”，作
All alone in a foreign land，
I am twice as homesick on this day,
When brothers carry dogwood up the mountain,
Each of them a branch--and my branch missing．
虽四行与原诗四句分别相当，而原诗只三四连贯，此则一气呵成矣。
然此二例犹可在逐行之末小作停顿，若如所译王维秋夜曲(p.191)，“桂魄初生秋露微，轻罗已薄未更衣”，作
Under the crescent moon a light autumn dew
Has chilled the robe she will not change．
即不复有停顿之理。又如Cranmer-Byng(A Feast of Lanterns，p.43)译王维送春辞，“相欢在樽酒，不用惜花飞”，作
Then fill the wine-cup of to-day and let
Night and the rose fall, while we forget．
停顿不在上行之末，而在下行之中，纯用西诗节律，与中诗相去更远矣。
此类译作，虽音调不侔，其佳者亦至有情致。然若一味求连贯，有时即不免流于牵强附会。如Bynner(p.192)译王维归嵩山作，“清川带长薄；车马去闲闲。流水如有意；暮禽相与还”，作
The limpid river，past its rushes
Running slowly as my chariot，
Becomes a fellow voyager
Returning home with the evening birds．
即与原诗颇有出入。
至如译李颀听安万善吹觱篥歌(p．51)，“……变调如闻杨柳春，上林繁花照眼新。岁夜高堂列明烛，美酒一杯声一曲”，作
…They are changing still again to Spring in the Willow-Trees．
Like Imperial Garden Flowers，brightening the eye with beauty，
Are the high-hall candles we have lighted this cold night．．．
“上林繁花”句显然属上，今以属下，其为不妥，无任何理由可为藉口也。
中诗尚骈偶，不独近体为然，古体诗中亦时见偶句；英诗则以散行为常，对偶为罕见之例外。译中诗者对于偶句之处理，有时逐句转译，形式上较为整齐，有时融为一片，改作散行。试以Bynner所译为例：如王维汉江临眺(p.195)，“江流天地外，山色有无中。郡邑浮前浦，波澜动远空”，译为
This river runs beyond heaven and earth，
Where the colour of mountains both is and is not．
The dwellings of men seem floating along
On ripples of the distant sky．
前一联较为整齐，后一联便一气呵成，不分两截(意义之切合与否为另一问题)。
诗中偶句亦有上下相承，本非并立者，译来自以连贯为宜。如韦应物淮上喜会梁川故人诗，“浮云一别后，流水十年间”，Bynner(P.207)译为
Since we left one another，floating apart like clouds，
Ten years have run like Water -- till at last we join again．
自是顺其自然，非故事更张。
然亦有本甚整齐，而有意破坏之，以求得参差错落之效者，如Bynner(p.87)译李益夜上受降城闻笛诗，“回乐峰前沙似雪，受降城外月如霜”，作
The sand below the border-mountain lies like snow，
And the moon like frost beyond the city-wall．
甚可觇中西风尚之殊异。
与此相反，有原诗散行，译者假一二相同之字以为线索，化散以为整者。如王昌龄诗“秦时明月汉时关，万里长征人未还”，Bynner(P.181)译为
The moon goes back to the time of Chin，the wall to the time of Han，
And the road our troops are travelling goes back three hundred (thousand?) miles．
王维诗“深林人不知，明月来相照”，Giles(Verse，p.70)译为
No ear to hear me，save my own；
No eye to see me，save the moon．
然类此之例，不数数觏。一般言之，中诗尚整，西诗尚散，译诗者固末由自外也。
