古賀守《葡萄酒的世界史》

古賀守的「葡萄酒的世界史」

分類：人物

2007/06/21 23:10

過去10年，在台北買的大陸書10倍於台灣的書。不過近來訂一規則：沒索引的漢文書，盡量少買。這一準則，果真有些遏止「濫買中文書」的惡習：因為如此要求下，幾乎無書可買。哈哈！

到明目書社，有時會碰到朋友說某本書的著者或翻譯者，是他過去的「朋友」.....這樣，我買「葡萄酒的世界史」（天津：百花文藝，2007）。

其實，我有牛津大學出版社的 The Oxford Companion to Wine Edited by Janis Robinson(1994)，也不是樂於此道人，只是因緣買了它。

其實，我還想買「簡明劍橋大學史」（山東畫報出版社），不過我知道這些都容易在網路找到。.....以上是我原想交差的。不料一讀之後，發現這本1975年的日文書(『ワインの世界史』中公新書（1975年)，可真是不簡單！圖文並茂的好書。

我很訝異該書保持許多「品質」字眼，而不是採用「質量」--因為譯者汪平是中國人。

目錄

第一章 原始葡萄酒時代

第二章 舊葡萄酒時代

第三章 古典葡萄酒時代

第四章 新葡萄酒時代

第五章 現代葡萄酒時代

后記

我用作者古賀守一查，原來是台灣譯本投胎轉世的：《葡萄酒的世界史》(台北：玉山社出版事業股份有限公司，二○○四年)。令人傷心的是，我從網路知道作者已過世：古賀守 - Wikipedia

古賀守

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』

古賀守（こがまもる）はワイン研究家。日本におけるドイツワインの権威。　 1913年（大正2年）生～2003年（平成15年）4月28日死去（享年90歳）。佐世保生。生家は醸造家。東京農業大学 農芸化学科を卒業後、1936年から1945年ドイツ留学。ハイデルベルク、ロストック？ 、ライプチッヒ、ベルリン大学に学ぶ。メッセで日本代表としてゲッベルス宣伝相の隣に座った経験も持つ。ベルリンにてドイツの敗戦を体験、捕虜交換のシベリア鉄道で帰国後、故郷近郊から長崎の原爆雲を目撃、日本の終戦も経験する。一時、高校教諭を務めた後、カメラのライカ、医薬のメルクの日本輸入総代理店であったシュミット商会に入社、井上鐘（あつむ）社長の下、薬品部長から、初代ワイン部長となる。当初、主として、ライカファン、ドイツ留学経験者、医師 等ドイツ贔屓の顧客を対象にドイツワインの販売・振興に努める。

パレスホテルが日本最初の本格的ホテルワインセラー建設（1965年5月完成）に乗り出そうとしていた頃、パレスホテルに勤めていた、『ミスター・マティーニ』といわれたトップバーテンダー今井清、日本最初のソムリエで後にソムリエ協会初代会長となる浅田勝美と の知己を得た事を手がかりに、広くドイツワインの販売・振興を行い、飛躍的にドイツワインの知名度を上げていく。 しかし、本を出版するなどしてドイツワインの振興を図ろうとする古賀守の立場と、経営者である井上鐘との立場の違いから古賀は独立せざるを得なくなる。こ のシュミット商会退社事件は古賀の心に深い傷を残すこととなった。 その後、古賀はさらにドイツワインの振興に邁進し、遂にはドイツワインが輸入ワインの第一位となり、その功績を認められ、１９８４年にドイツ連邦共和国ヴァイツゼッカー大統領から、ドイツ連邦共和国功労勲章勲一等功労十字勲章（Bundesverdienstkreuz 1.Klasse)を受章した。 1979年には非営利団体『ドイツワインを楽しむ会』（後に東京ドイツワイン協会等）を設立、1985年ジエチレングリコール混入ワイン事件が起こるに際して『ドイツワイン安全推進協議会』（後に日本輸入ワイン協会）を設立して輸入ワインの品質の安定化に努めた。

日本ソムリエ協会の要職も勤めている。 口癖は「ワインは輪飲、話飲、和飲（意味を簡単に説明すると、ワインで輪になって文化を語り、世に貢献しよう。仲良くしよう。）」、「Bis Morgen（ビスモルゲン：また明日）」。心筋梗塞により逝去。遺志により、千葉大学医学部へ献体。蒐集書籍は母校の東京農業大学へ寄贈された。

参考文献

著作

• 『ドイツワイン』柴田書店（1972年）
• 『ワインの世界史』中公新書（1975年)
• 『ドイツワイン物語楽しい銘柄のはなし』日貿出版社（1979年）
• 『文化史のなかのドイツワイン』鎌倉書房（1982年）
• 『ドイツワインの旅』創芸社（1983年)
• 『優雅なるドイツのワイン』創芸社(1997年)
• 『1945年ベルリン最後の日』日本ドイツワイン協会連合会編（2000年）
• 『語るワイン飲むワイン』料理王国社（2000年）
• 『フランス・ドイツワイン小咄』（福本秀子女史との共著）産調出版（2001年）

仮名にての伝記

• 木下勝実『魅惑の杜のわいん小説ドイツワイン物語』近代文芸社（1995年）

The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist

{類人猿和壽司大師：一個靈長動物學家的文化反思} 上海科學技術出版社，2005

『サルとすし職人──＜文化＞と動物の行動学』

　　　　　　　　　　フランス・ドゥ・ヴァール著纂、西田利貞・藤井留美訳、

　　　　　　　　　　原書房、本体2,200円

職人

CHAPTER ONE

The Ape and the Sushi Master
Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist
By FRANS DE WAAL
Basic Books

Read the Review

---

The Whole Animal

Childhood Talismans
and Excessive Fear
of Anthropomorphism

"Why do I tell you this little boy's story of medusas, rays, and sea monsters, nearly sixty years after the fact? Because it illustrates, I think, how a naturalist is created. A child comes to the edge of deep water with a mind prepared for wonder. He is given a compelling image that will serve in later life as a talisman, transmitting a powerful energy that directs the growth of experience and knowledge."
Edward O. Wilson, 1995

"Fear of the dangers of anthropomorphism has caused ethologists to neglect many interesting phenomena, and it has become apparent that they could afford a little disciplined indulgence."
Robert Hinde, 1982

Scientists are supposed to study animals in a totally objective fashion, similar to the way we inspect a rock or measure the circumference of a tree trunk. Emotions are not to interfere with the assessment. The animal-rights movement capitalizes on this perception, depicting scientists as devoid of compassion.

Some scientists have proudly broken with the mold. Roger Fouts, known for his work with language-trained chimpanzees, says in Next of Kin: "I had to break the first commandment of the behavioral sciences: Thou shalt not love thy research subject." Similarly, Jeffrey Masson and Susan McCarthy, in When Elephants Weep, make it seem that very few scientists appreciate the emotional lives of animals.

In reality, the image of the unloving and unfeeling scientist is a caricature, a straw man erected by those wishing to pat themselves on the back for having their hearts in the right place. Unfeeling scientists do exist, but the majority take great pleasure in their animals. If one reads the books of Konrad Lorenz, Robert Yerkes, Bernd Heinrich, Ken Norris, Jane Goodall, Cynthia Moss, Edward Wilson, and so on, it becomes impossible to maintain that animals are invariably studied with a cold, callous eye.

I have met many other scientists who may not write in the same popular style—and who may not dwell on their feelings, considering them irrelevant to their research—but for whom the frogs, budgerigars, cichlid fish, bats, or whatever animals they specialize in hold a deep attraction. How could it be otherwise? Can you really imagine a scientist going out every day to capture and mark wild prairie voles—getting bitten by the voles, stung by insects, drenched by rain—without some deeper motivation than the pursuit of scientific truth? Think of what it takes to study penguins on the pack ice of the Antarctic, or bonobos in hot and humid jungles overrun by armed rebels. Equally, researchers who study animals in captivity really need to like what they are doing. Care of their subjects is a round-the-clock business, and animals smell and produce waste—which some of my favorite animals don't mind hurling at you—something most of us hardly think about until we get visitors who hold their noses and try to escape as fast as they can.

I would turn the stereotype of the unfeeling scientist around and say that it is the rare investigator who is not at some level attached to the furry, feathered, or slippery creatures he or she works with. The maestro of observation, Konrad Lorenz, didn't believe one could effectively investigate an animal that one didn't love. Because our intuitive understanding of animals is based on human emotions and a sense of connection with animals, he wrote in The Foundations of Ethology (1981) that understanding seems quite separate from the methodology of the natural sciences. To marry intuitive insight with systematic data collection is both the challenge and the joy of the study of animal behavior.

Attraction to animals makes us forget the time spent watching them, and it sensitizes us to the tiniest details of behavior. The scientific mind uses the information thus gathered to formulate penetrating questions that lead to more precise research. But let us not forget that things did not start out with a scientific interest: the lifeblood of our science is a fascination with nature. This always comes first, usually early in life. Thus, Wilson's career as a naturalist began in Alabama, where as a boy—in an apparent attempt to show that not all human behavior is adaptive—he used his bare hands to pull poisonous snakes from the water. Lorenz opened his autobiographical notes for the Nobel Committee with "I consider early childhood events as most essential to a man's scientific and philosophical development." And Goodall first realized that she was born to watch animals when, at the age of five, she entered a chicken coop in the English countryside to find out how eggs were made.

Closeness to animals creates the desire to understand them, and not just a little piece of them, but the whole animal. It makes us wonder what goes on in their heads even though we fully realize that the answer can only be approximated. We employ all available weapons in this endeavor, including extrapolations from human behavior. Consequently, anthropomorphism is not only inevitable, it is a powerful tool. As summed up by Italian philosopher Emanuela Cenami Spada:

Anthropomorphism is a risk we must run, because we must refer to our own human experience in order to formulate questions about animal experience.... The only available "cure" is the continuous critique of our working definitions in order to provide more adequate answers to our questions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us.

The "embarrassing problem" hinted at is, of course, that we see ourselves as distinct from other animals yet cannot deny the abundant similarities. There are basically two solutions to this problem. One is to downplay the similarities, saying that they are superficial or present only in our imagination. The second solution is to assume that similarities, especially among related species, are profound, reflecting a shared evolutionary past. According to the first position, anthropomorphism is to be avoided at all cost, whereas the second position sees anthropomorphism as a logical starting point when it comes to animals as close to us as apes.

Being a proponent of the second position creates a dilemma for an empiricist such as myself. I am not at all attracted to cheap projections onto animals, of the sort that people indulge who see eats as having shame (a very complex emotion), horses as taking pride in their performance, or gorillas as contemplating the afterlife. My first reaction is to ask for observables: things that can be measured. In this sense, I am a cold, skeptical scientist. With my team of students and technicians, I watch primates for hundreds of hours before a study is completed, entering codes of observed behavior into handheld computers. We also conduct experiments in which chimpanzees handle joysticks to select solutions to problems on a computer screen. Or we have monkeys operate an apparatus that allows them to pull food toward themselves, after which we see how willing they are to share the rewards with those who assisted them.

All of this research serves to produce evidence for or against certain assumptions. At the same time that I am committed to data collection, however, I argue for breathing space in relation to cognitive interpretations, don't mind drawing comparisons with human behavior, and wonder how and why anthropomorphism got such a bad name. Anthropomorphism has proven its value in the service of good, solid science. The widely applied vocabulary of animal behavior, such as "aggression," "fear," "dominance," "courtship," "play," "alarm," and "bonding," has been borrowed straight from language intended for human behavior. It is doubtful that scientists from outer space, with no shared background to guide their thinking, would ever have come up with such a rich and useful array of concepts to understand animals. To recognize these functional categories is the part of our job that comes without training and usually builds upon long-standing familiarity with pets, farm animals, birds, bugs, and other creatures.

In my own case it began with a love for aquatic life.

Zigzag through the Polder

Almost every Saturday when I was a boy, I jumped on my bike to go to the polder, a Dutch word for low-lying land reclaimed from the water. Bordering the Maas River, our polder was dissected by freshwater ditches full of salamanders, frogs, stickleback fish, young eels, and water insects. Carrying a crudely constructed net—a charcoal sieve attached to a broomstick—I would jump over ditches, occasionally sliding into them, to get to the best spots to catch what I wanted. I returned in a perilous zigzag, balancing a heavy bucket of water and animals in one hand while steering my bike with the other. Back home, I would release my booty in glass containers and tanks, adding plants and food, such as water fleas caught with a net made out of one of my mother's old stockings.

Initially, the mortality in my little underwater worlds was nothing to brag about. I learned only gradually that salamanders don't eat things that don't move, that big fish shouldn't be kept with little ones, and that overfeeding does more harm than good. I also became aware of the ferocious, sneaky predation by dragonfly larvae. My animals started to live longer. Then one day—I must have been around twelve—I noticed a dramatic color change in one of my sticklebacks in a neglected tank with unchecked algae growth. Within days, the fish turned from silvery to sky blue with a fiery red underbelly. A plain little fish had metamorphosed into a dazzling peacock! I was astonished and spent every free minute staring into the aquarium, which I didn't clean on the assumption that perhaps the fish liked it better that way.

This is how I first saw the famous courtship behavior of the three-spined stickleback. The two females in the tank grew heavy bellies full of roe, while the male built a nest out of plant material in the sand. He repeatedly interrupted his hard work by performing a little dance aimed at the females, which took place closer to the nest site each time. I did not understand everything that was going on, but I did notice that the females suddenly lost their eggs, whereupon the male started moving his fins rapidly (I later learned that his fanning served to create a current to send additional oxygen over the eggs). I ended up with a tank full of fry. It was an exhilarating experience, but one that I had to enjoy all by myself. Although my family tolerated my interests, they simply could not get excited about a bunch of tiny fish in one of my tanks.

I had a similar experience years later, when I was a biology student at the University of Nijmegen. In a welcome departure from the usual emphasis on physiology and molecular biology, one professor gave a lecture on ethology—the naturalistic study of animal behavior—featuring detailed drawings of the so-called zigzag dance of the stickleback. Because of the work of Niko Tinbergen, a Dutch zoologist, the stickleback's display had become a textbook example. The drawings of my professor were wonderful, showing the male pushing out his red belly, with spines pointing outward, then leading the female to the nest while performing abrupt back-and-forth movements in front of her. When I nudged my fellow students, excitedly telling them that I knew all this, that anyone could see it in a small aquarium at home, once again I met with blank stares. Why should they believe me, and what was the big deal about fish behavior, anyway? Didn't I know the future was in biochemistry?

A few years later, Tinbergen received a Nobel Prize: the stickleback had won! By that time, however, I had already moved to Groningen, a university where ethology was taken more seriously. I now study the behavior of monkeys and apes. This may seem incongruent given my early interests, but I have never had a fixation on a particular animal group. There simply weren't too many chimpanzees in the polder; otherwise I would have brought them home as well.

One thing bothered me as a student. In the 1960s, human behavior was totally off limits for the biologist. There was animal behavior, then there was a long time nothing, after which came human behavior as a totally separate category best left to a different group of scientists. This way we kept the peace, because the other scientists were—to borrow a concept from animal behavior—pretty territorial. Popular books by Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape) and Lorenz (On Aggression) were extremely controversial because they voiced continuity between human and animal behavior. If young students of animal behavior now look down upon these authors, seeing themselves as far more sophisticated, they forget how much they owe them for knocking down the walls well before the sociobiological revolution came along. I wasn't able to judge the scientific merit of their work then, but something about these ethologists felt absolutely right: they saw humans as animals. It is only in reading them that I realized that this was the way I had felt for as long as I could remember.

Pecking Orders in Oslo

It is hard to name a single discovery in animal behavior that has had a greater impact and enjoys wider name recognition than the "pecking order." Even if pecking is not exactly a human behavior, the term is ubiquitous in modern society. In speaking of the corporate pecking order, or the pecking order at the Vatican (with "primates" on top!), we acknowledge both inequalities and their ancient origins. We also slightly mock the structure, hinting that we, sophisticated human beings that we are, share a few things with domestic fowl.

The momentous discovery of rank orders in nature was made at the beginning of the twentieth century by a Norwegian boy, Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe, who fell in love with chickens at the tender age of six. He was so enthralled by these sociable birds that his mother bought him his own flock at a rented house outside of Oslo. Soon each bird had a name. By the age of ten, Thorleif was keeping detailed notebooks, which he maintained for many years. Apart from keeping track of how many eggs his chickens laid, and who pecked whom, he was particularly interested in exceptions to the hierarchy, so called "triangles," in which hen A is master over B, and B over C, but C over A. So, from the start, like a real scientist, he was interested in not only the regularities but also the irregularities of the rank order. The social organization that he discovered is now so obvious to us that we cannot imagine how anyone could have missed it, but no one had described it before.

The rest is history, as they say, but not a particularly pretty one. The irony is that the discoverer of the pecking order was himself a henpecked man. Thorleif the boy had a very domineering mother, and later in life he ran into major trouble with the very first woman professor of Norway. She supported him initially, but as an anatomist she had no real interest in his work.

After Sehjelderup-Ebbe received a degree in zoology, he published the chicken observations of his youth while coining the term Hackordnung, German for pecking order. His classic paper, which appeared in 1922, describes dominants as "despots" and demonstrates the elegance of hierarchical arrangements in which every individual has its place. Knowing the rank order among 12 hens, one knows the dominance relation in all 66 possible pairs of individuals, It is easy to see the incredible economy of description, and to understand the discoverer's obsession with triangles, which compromise this economy.

At about the time that the young zoologist wanted to continue his studies, however, a malicious but well-written piece in a student paper made fun of his professor. An enemy then spread the rumor that the anonymous piece had been written by Schjelderup-Ebbe, who was indeed a gifted writer. Even though the piece was actually written by Sigurd Hoel, later to become one of Norway's foremost novelists, irreparable damage had been done to the relationship with his professor. She withdrew all support and became an active foe. As a result of lifelong intrigues against him, Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe never obtained a Norwegian doctorate, and never received the recognition he deserved.

Regardless of this sad ending, the beginning of the story goes to show how a child who takes animals seriously, who considers them worthy of individual recognition, and who assumes that they are not randomly running around but, like us, lead orderly lives, can discover things that the greatest scientists have missed. This quality of the child, of unhesitatingly accepting kinship with animals, was remarked upon by Sigmund Freud:

Children show no trace of the arrogance which urges adult civilized men to draw a hard-and-fast line between their own nature and that of all other animals. Children have no scruples over allowing animals to rank as their full equals. Uninhibited as they are in the avowal of their bodily needs, they no doubt feel themselves more akin to animals than to their elders, who may well be a puzzle to them.

The intuitive connection children feel with animals can be a tremendous source of joy. The unconditional love received from pets, and the lack of artifice in the relationship, contrast sharply with the much trickier dealings with members of their own species. I had an animal friend like this when I was young; I still think fondly of the neighbors' big dog, who was often by my side, showing interest in everything I did or said. The child's closeness to animals is fed by adults with anthropomorphic animal stories, fairy tales, and animated movies. Thus, a bond is fostered with all living things that is critically examined only later in life. As explained by the late Paul Shepard, who like no one else reflected on humanity's place in nature:

Especially at the end of puberty, the end of innocence, we begin a lifelong work of differentiating ourselves from them [animals]. But this grows from an earlier, unbreakable foundation of contiguity. Alternatively, a rigorous insistence of ourselves simply as different denies the shared underpinnings and destroys a deeper sense of cohesion that sustains our sanity and keeps our world from disintegrating. Anthropomorphism binds our continuity with the rest of the natural world. It generates our desire to identify with them and learn their natural history, even though it is motivated by a fantasy that they are no different from ourselves.

In this last sentence, Shepard hints at a more mature anthropomorphism in which the human viewpoint is replaced, however imperfectly, by the animal's. As we shall see, it is precisely this "animalcentric" anthropomorphism that is not only acceptable but of great value in science.

(C) 2001 Frans de Waal All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-465-04175-2

April 8, 2001

Are You in Anthropodenial?

---

Frans de Waal portrays altruistic apes and magnanimous monkeys.

---

Related Link First Chapter: 'The Ape and the Sushi Master'

---

By DOUGLAS FOSTER

THE APE AND THE SUSHI MASTER Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist. By Frans de Waal. Illustrated. 433 pp. New York: Basic Books. $26.

fter finishing Frans de Waal's engaging history of primate studies, ''The Ape and the Sushi Master,'' I wasn't surprised, a day later, to come across a Web site called ''Bush or Chimp?'' The juxtaposition of head shots of the new president alongside chimpanzees, in poses ranging from slack-jawed joviality to goofy hooting, plays off a timeworn joke.

The laughter depends on the underlying assumption that while apes may look like humans, akin even to the most powerful leader in the world, there still must be a quantum leap from them to us. But the laughter grows thinner by the year as one by one the supposed bellwether differences between apes and humans, like toolmaking, fall away. Chimpanzees use leaves as seats, as it turns out; they fashion a kind of footwear to protect themselves from thorns; they ''fish'' for termites with twigs and reeds they strip and cut for the occasion.

But surely culture itself remains impregnable, a fortress where the superiority of human beings, steeped in teaching, learning, language, art and cuisine, still resides. Let Bonzo try to get a table at Elaine's.

Now along comes one of the world's most distinguished primatologists, intent on breaching this last bastion of anthropocentrism. A professor of primate behavior at Emory University and the director of the Living Links Center, de Waal draws on more than 30 years of his own research among captive monkeys, bonobos and other chimpanzees, as well as on studies of wild primates by colleagues around the world, to poke ''a maximum number of holes in the nature/culture divide.''

Culture -- behavior learned from others -- was long vaunted as inimitably human. But de Waal points out how tired this presumption is. Monkeys teach their siblings how to wash sweet potatoes in the ocean; chimpanzee mothers show their young how to use stones to crack nuts; apes learn to medicate themselves with herbs. In 1999, an international survey of wild chimpanzees published in Nature described 39 distinct behavior patterns. In other words, separate communities of chimpanzees, even in the same environment, develop different social customs.

''The question whether animals have culture is a bit like whether chickens can fly,'' de Waal writes. ''Compared to an albatross or falcon, perhaps not, but chickens do have wings, they do flap them, and they do get up in the trees.'' He suggests that we'd learn far more by fully exploring the rich array of varied behaviors among nonhuman primates than continuing to quibble over categorical distinctions, a stance he chalks up to ''anthropodenial.''

De Waal shows how behavior among monkeys and apes depends heavily on social learning. He cites, for example, the research of a colleague who studied the responses of young monkeys when they were shown live snakes for the first time. These youngsters, raised in captivity, remained utterly unafraid of snakes -- until, that is, they were allowed to observe their parents, all born in the wild, reacting with fear. Ever after, the young monkeys expressed the fear they'd learned, not from any experience of their own but by emulating their elders.

In another study de Waal himself conducted, rhesus monkeys, which are characteristically combative, were placed with stump-tailed monkeys, a far more conciliatory species. The startling result was that the rhesus monkeys ''developed peacemaking skills on a par with those of their more tolerant counterparts.'' The rhesus monkeys, even after being segregated later, remained less quarrelsome than before their exposure to more peaceable cousins. So much for the unalloyed influence of physical prowess.

The current book builds on de Waal's four previous works -- Chimpanzee Politics,'' ''Peacemaking Among Primates,'' ''Good Natured'' and ''Bonobo.'' (In ''Bonobo,'' de Waal drew attention to the long-neglected simian whose female-dominated society and exuberant polymorphous sexual expression remain a source of fierce debate among scholars.) His own extensive research, on coalitions, conflict avoidance, mediation, reconciliation and consolation patterns among monkeys and apes, amounts to a career-long challenge to more traditional behaviorists fixated on male dominance and aggression.

De Waal names the big thinkers he is crossing. B. F. Skinner takes it on the chin for presenting animals as interchangeable. Freud and Lévi-Strauss get their lumps for posing a simplistic culture-versus-nature antagonism. Robert Ardrey is zinged for ''shoving the murderous side of chimpanzees into our faces.'' Well-known contemporaries of the ''selfish genes'' school get their comeuppance too.

By contrast, de Waal pays tribute to scores of other primatologists, particularly his Japanese contemporaries, for their painstaking, unblinkered chronicling of cultural differences among apes and monkeys. He also calls for a respectful revival of interest in long-eclipsed thinkers like Edward Westermarck and Kinji Imanishi, the pre-eminent Japanese primatologist and philosopher long denigrated in the West.

The author is no romantic contrarian, though. He's a hard-data biologist to the core. ''I am not at all attracted to cheap projections onto animals, of the sort that people indulge who see cats as having shame (a very complex emotion), horses as taking pride in their performance or gorillas as contemplating the afterlife,'' he points out a bit defensively. ''My first reaction is to ask for observables: things that can be measured.''

What's particularly bracing about this book is that this insistence on ''observables'' hasn't led de Waal to think small. His narrative, in the end, is a remarkable journey of discovery to the heart of a profound question: what can we learn about the evolution of our own cultures by studying the behavior of our primate cousins? He broaches the possibility that generous ''helping responses,'' observed among animals reliant on close-knit relationships, have evolved into something more refined -- authentically unselfish behavior. If he's right, this book is a step toward outlining the evolution of our own moral codes.

Not only does de Waal clear away layers of misconceptions in ''The Ape and the Sushi Master,'' but along the way he robs us of cheap laughs. ''Bush or Chimp?'' and ''The Chimp Channel'' just won't look the same after exposure to this deftly written, deeply reflective work.

---

Douglas Foster, an Alicia Patterson Foundation fellow, writes about politics and science.

サルとすし職人　＜文化＞と動物の行動学
（フランス・ドゥ・ヴァール（Frans de Waal）著　西田利貞・藤井留美 訳　原書房　2200円　ISBN 4-562-03588-9　原題：The Ape and the Sushi Master : Cultural Refelections by a Primatologist, 2001）

日本とは違い西洋では、動物と人間の間には断絶があり、動物には意識や文化など全く存在しないという意識が強いらしい。そのため、人間の本性の由来を動物 の内に探る、といった内容の本では、動物と人間との連続性についてかなりの紙幅が割かれる。この本も例外ではない。そのへんは正直言ってくどく、鬱陶しく なってくる。だが英語圏では必要なことだったのだろう。本書では、著者自身の日本人研究者との交流模様を含め、日本人研究者たちのエピソードや研究内容が 多数紹介される。著者の経歴を踏まえながらローレンツや西田利貞など毀誉褒貶激しい人たちの業績の再確認、そして日本人研究者たちが類人猿の研究ひいては 動物の＜文化＞の研究において果たした役割が、これまでにはない独特の形式で紹介され、同時に、ヒトの本性や、文化の起源について考えをめぐらすことので きる一冊となっている。 モノクロ口絵１６ページ付き。

「サルとすし職人」とは、京大霊長研の松沢哲郎と著者との雑談のなかから生まれたものらしい。すし屋の見習いは板前の動きを目で見て、学ぶ。チン パンジーもまた、群れの仲間の行動を見て学ぶことができるのではないか。つまり、文化的学習の代表例である「すし職人」と、サル（本当はape）との間に 関連があるのか、それはいったいどういう関係なのか。そういったことの隠喩なのだ。

なお猿まねという言葉があるが、現在では「模倣」はかなり高度な行動だと考えられている。問題を把握し、手本となる相手の行動の目的や意図を理解し、その解決策をまねることが「模倣」であって、ただ単に似たような行動を行っても、それは模倣とは呼ばれない。

動物の安易な擬人化は危険だ。だが逆に、あまり線を引きすぎて人間と人間以外の自然界との連続性に目がいかなくなってしまうのもまたおかし な話である。ドゥ・ヴァールはこれからは「動物中心の」擬人化、人間の視点を動物の視点に置き換える逆の擬人化（むしろ人間の擬動物化）が価値を持ってく るという。そしてその前提で動物行動を研究すべきだという。まあ簡単にいってしまえば、無理に目をつぶるのではなく、物事をもっと素直に見ようではないか といったところか。

頭にも触れたがこの本の面白さは、ローレンツや今西の業績の再確認にある。一世代あるいは二世代前と違って、我々は彼らの仕事のインパク トをあまり知らない。ローレンツはナチの思想に荷担していたし、今西などは最近ではほとんど無視されるどころか、学問の進歩を遅らせた者とされることも多 い。ドゥ・ヴァールは彼らの業績をもう一度見直して、認めるべきところとそうでもないところを分かりやすく整理してみせる。それはもちろん彼自身のフィル ターを通したものなのだが、面白い。

後半はボノボの話のみならず、ニホンザルのイモ洗い行動の話なども出てくる。この話は有名だが、いまや半ば伝説と化しているところもあり、実際にはどういったものだったか、知らない人も多いと思う。一読をすすめたい。

後半ではもう一度、模倣という行動の意味や文化獲得の見方に対して考察がなされる。彼は模倣について、ある一つの見方を提案する。引用しよう。

……霊長類の社会的学習は、順応願望－－社会に属し、なじみたいという衝動－－に端を発しているのではないか。母親や同 年代の仲間など、特定の社会モデルが好まれていることを重視して、このプロセスに名前をつけるとすれば、「結びつきおよび同一化を基盤にした観察学習 （Bonding-and Identification-based Observational Learning）」、略してBIOLとでもなるだろうか。BIOLは、食べ物といった目に見える恩恵に頼らず、みんあのようになりたいという願望から生 まれる学習形態だ。社会モデルの模倣は、遊びの要素が入り、不完全で入門的な方になることが多く、見返りに結びつくかどうかは重要ではない。

（中略）BIOLが持つ自己強化の特質は、ずっと見過ごされてきた。私たち人間は、成功した行動は強められるという効果の法則に縛られるあまり、 純粋に社会感情的な視点から模倣を見ることがなかなかできない。何にでも目的を探してしまい、見つからないとどこかがまちがっていると感じてしまう。仮に 模倣が、好きなモデルを熱心に見習おうという社会的な衝動から来ている行動だとしても、習慣やテクニックが集団全体に広がっていくという最終結果に変わり はない。

（218-219ページ）

文化というのは社会的な現象だ。習慣を文化として学習するためには他者の実例がまず必要で、それを模倣する、ただ模倣したいから模倣することで文化が発生する。あるいは、文化的学習が起こる。これが本書の主張だ。

最後は道徳の話題だ。ドゥ・ヴァールは道徳性も進化の原理から外れたものではないとし、道徳だけを特別扱いする者を撫で切りにする。彼は道徳感情は もともと動物が他者と共感する能力を持ったときから本性として存在しているものだという。まあこのへんはやや色んな考え方があるんじゃなかろうか、という 気もするが、著者の主張にも一理あるかなと思う。

ともあれ本書は、科学書好きならば色んなことを考えることができる良書である。読んで損はない。

今西・伊谷記念霊長類学講義

　　標記のシンポジウムを，2002年2月17日（午後1時半より5時まで），京都の芝蘭会館において，京都大学霊長類研究所が主催しておこなった。経費 は，平成13年度教育改善推進費によるものである。共催は，第2回比較認知科学国際シンポジウム（京都大学教育研究振興財団），日本動物心理学会，今西錦 司生誕百年記念世話人会だった。
　　講演者は，フランス・ドゥ・ヴァール（リビング・リンクス，エモリー大学，米国）。講演題目は，「社会的認識に関する研究の興隆とその底流にある日本の霊長類学の影響」である。英文の題目は以下のとおりである。
　　　　Imanishi-Itani Memorial Lecture for Primatology
　　　　The Silent Invasion of Japanese Primatology and the Rise of Social Cognition
　　　　Studies by Frans de Waal (Living Links, Emory Univ., USA)
　　2002年は，故今西錦司博士の生誕百年にあたる。その百年の記念事業のさなかに，後継者のお一人である伊谷純一郎博士が逝去された。そこで，日本の 霊長類学を確立した今西錦司（1902-1992）と伊谷純一郎（1936-2001）両氏の先駆的業績を称えて，「今西・伊谷記念霊長類学講義」と題し た講演会をおこなうこととした。講演者のフランス・ドゥ・ヴァール博士は，チンパンジーをはじめとした霊長類の社会的知性の研究のパイオニアとして高名で ある。「政治をするサル」（平凡社），「仲直り戦術」（どうぶつ社），「利己的なサル，他人を思いやるサル」（草思社），「ヒトに最も近い類人猿ボノボ」 （ＴＢＳブリタニカ）といった本の著者としても一般に知られている。
　　また，2001年に出版された近著"The Ape and the Sushi Master"は，人間以外の動物における文化を論じた書であり，かつ今西錦司ら日本の霊長類学者の先駆的業績を高く評価し，欧米に広く知らしめることに なった。ドゥ・ヴァール博士の記念講義に先立って，西田利貞による「チンパンジーの文化の謎」，松沢哲郎による「ヒトとチンパンジーとサルにおける文化的 伝播の差異」と題した関連講演がおこなわれた。いずれも英語の講演で通訳はなかった。また記念講義に先立って，今西錦司生誕百年記念事業の紹介がおこなわ れた。すなわち，京大総合博物館において，今西錦司生誕百年を記念した企画展が開催された。また，霊長類研究所のホームページ（http: //www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp ）では，「伊谷純一郎アーカイヴス」と題して，故人が遺された霊長類学の草創期の貴重な画像・フィールド ノートなどを解説付きで公開している。参加者は約110名だった。
（文責：松沢哲郎）

『サルとすし職人──＜文化＞と動物の行動学』
　　　　　　　　　　フランス・ドゥ・ヴァール著纂、西田利貞・藤井留美訳、
　　　　　　　　　　原書房、本体2,200円

　　ちょっと変わったタイトルですが、原題を見ると The Ape and The Sushi
　Master。動物にも「文化」がある、という主張のもとに、文化の起源につい
　て考察した本。

　　もっとも日本人なら、動物にだってそりゃ「文化」はあるよ、と思うので
　は？　しかし、本書でも触れられているとおり、西洋では「人間」と「それ
　以外の動物」は「文化」の有無によってきっちりと線引きされる、という視
　点が抜きがたくあるようです。

　　著者ドゥ・ヴァールは、人間を中心とした動物観を批判し、動物が「模倣」
　を通じて文化を作る例をあげていきます。その代表例は、日本人が報告した
　幸島のニホンザルによるイモ洗い行動。タイトルに「すし職人」とあるのも、
　すし屋の見習いが、板前のまねを通じて、技術を身につけていくことを引き
　合いに出しているから。（この比喩は、チンパンジー研究者の松沢哲郎さん
　との会話の中で生まれたそうです。）

　　そして著者は、日本人による類人猿研究者との交流を語り、その研究を紹
　介し、Ｋ．ローレンツや今西錦司の業績を再評価してみせます。さらには、
　文化の起源から、道徳の起源の起源にまで考察は進んでいきます。

　　──と紹介すると、ずいぶんテツガク的な本のようですが、チンパンジー
　やオランウータンはもちろん、モーツァルトの作品に影響を与えたというホ
　シムクドリ、狩猟技術を伝承するというクジラ、タイの動物園でトラを育て
　たイヌの話など、楽しく読める一冊です。

　・原書房　http://www.harashobo.co.jp/

Late lensman captured Cambodia's smiles

(c) Taizo Ichinose

Apr. 7. to 10. 1972
シェムリアップ
砂袋の前で遊ぶ少女たち

(c) Taizo Ichinose

Apr. 14. 1972
シェムリアップ
プノンペンからの民族劇団の公演をもぞき見する子供たち

c) Taizo Ichinose

Jun. 23. 1973
プノンペン避難民キャンプ

(c) Taizo Ichinose

Apr. 7. 1972
シェムリアップ
アンコール小学校の子供たち

http://www.taizo.photographer.jp/works5.html

Late lensman captured Cambodia's smiles

07/26/2007

In a family photo album, often there aren't very many pictures of the family's father, who more than likely was the person behind the camera snapping all the pictures.

Still, photos often reveal much about what the photographer was feeling when snapping away.

This was never more evident than in "Cambodia no kodomotachi" (Children in Cambodia), a book of photos published by Rengo Shuppan.

Bright smiles adorn the faces of young people as they stand in front of scenes of nature and relics. In one photo, a young girl carries a bundle of banana leaves much bigger than she is. In another, a boy is riding a water buffalo. These are the works of the late photographer Shunsuke Endo, who visited Cambodia more than 20 times since 1999.

The trust his subjects had in him pervades these photos like a fragrant aroma.

Two noted war photographers, Kyoichi Sawada and Taizo Ichinose, both perished there. Endo, who covered the country in peacetime, died of leukemia in mid-July, three days after his first photo book was delivered to his sickbed.

He was 29.

His fiancee, Yuka Takase, met Endo last summer when they both joined a Cambodia study group.

They became close friends. But soon after, his illness was diagnosed. The couple had hoped one day to be married in Cambodia. Together in his sickroom, they chose the photos that were included in the book.

"He was never very good at keeping things orderly. There are still mountains of images he took. I like to think of them as our children, which I will nurture and one day display in an exhibition," Takase said.

Endo wrote the book's epilogue.

"I decided to commit myself to taking pictures of Cambodia, a country that is poor but full of smiles," he wrote. Now it has become Takase's job to ensure posterity sees his images of precious peace.

On the last page of the book, there is a photo of Endo. He is pretending to be an airplane, surrounded by children. On the cover, we see the smiling hazel eyes of a young girl. Reflected in her glance is a tiny figure, focusing a Canon EOS camera in her direction.

In the depths of children's soft and gentle memories in that foreign land, the image of Endo will remain forever.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 25 (IHT/Asahi: July 26,2007)

《食品政治》、《食品安全》：美英中一瞥(2004-07)

《食品政治》、《食品安全》：美英中一瞥

2004-12-02 09:55:00

《食品政治》、《食品安全》：美英中一瞥

大陸：百物變味變色
《每週質量報告》：「變了味的海味」2004年11月28日CCTV
　　一、提要：蝦米為什麼這樣紅/ 魚幹為什麼不招蟲/記者調查： 變了味的海味/違規加工不計後果/選購魚蝦專家支招/專家解讀：海味品加工亟待規範/
　　二、記者調查：（變了味的海味）/主持人：共同打造有質量的生活，這裏是《每週質量報告》，大家好。
http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/report/haiwei.txt


鄭義：還有什麼可吃？——一場關於食物安全的網上討論
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/1/1/n440697.htm


美國：兩本書中的一些現象。

[美]瑪麗恩•內斯特爾《食品政治：響我們健康的食品行業》 劉文俊等譯，北京：社會科學文獻出版社（Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by M Nestle - University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2002）

[美]瑪麗恩•內斯特爾《食品安全：令人震驚的食品行業真相》程池等譯，北京：社會科學文獻出版社（Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism by M Nestle, KOD Jensen ）

【翻譯評論（pp.1-4）：大體不錯。原書斜體字未特別標示（例如美國過去法律之著眼點為animals（而不是人）；凡人認為食品安全多為 politics（而不是人之健康）…….）。通常每段最後一句總結失真（兩句）。最後段將beef industry翻譯成「牛肉加工業」不當，因為該產業是由producers and processors組成，本書翻譯成「生產和加工」。少數漏譯：so small, so familiar, so voluntary】
---
紐約時報
EATING WELL
Read Any Good Nutrition Labels Lately?
By MARIAN BURROS/ December 1, 2004
WHEN mandatory nutrition labeling for packaged foods became the law of the land in 1994, the government predicted that Americans would routinely use it and that it would improve their eating habits. Give the government credit for getting it half right. Even as the country gets fatter and fatter, people say they do look at the nutrition facts panel on packaged foods.

*****
英國：除了舉國抗肥胖症之外，希望食物都貼上紅或黃或綠色標簽。
Shoppers want traffic light labels to show healthy food
By Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor/ November 26, 2004

SHOPPERS want clear “traffic light” labels on food to help them choose healthy items, according to the Government’s food watchdog.
Symbols to steer people away from junk food are being devised by the Food Standards Agency and will also eventually appear in TV adverts. It is part of the Government strategy to tackle obesity and improve diet.

Editorial

Is It Safe to Eat?

Published: July 24, 2007

President Bush took a potentially useful step last week, appointing a cabinet-level committee to find ways to ensure the safety of imported food and other products. But his actions would be a lot more credible if the administration had not been cutting the staff and budget of food safety programs at the Food and Drug Administration while also planning to eliminate half of the agency’s laboratories.

Hearings before a House oversight subcommittee raised serious questions about the F.D.A.’s ability to protect the public against contaminated or adulterated foods. William Hubbard, a former top agency official who consults for a coalition of industry and consumer groups, told the committee that the F.D.A. has lost some 200 food scientists and 700 field inspectors over five years, exactly the wrong direction when food imports are skyrocketing. He also noted that the small budget increase the White House has proposed for food safety next year would be a decrease after accounting for inflation.

As if that weren’t discouraging enough, the committee’s chief investigator described how porous the current safety shield is. Agency personnel, he said, inspect less than 1 percent of all imported foods and conduct laboratory analyses on only a tiny fraction of those. Overwhelmed entry reviewers at one field office have so many items to screen that they typically have less than 30 seconds to decide whether an import needs closer scrutiny. Importers also learn to game the system by sending goods to lax entry points or mislabeling them. And they are allowed to take possession of suspect goods and arrange testing by private laboratories whose work is often shoddy or driven by financial concerns.

The F.D.A. insists that its plan to close 7 of the agency’s 13 laboratories will actually improve its capabilities, by allowing greater investment in modern equipment and training at the six remaining laboratories. That could conceivably be true, but the House investigator worries that there could be a tremendous loss of talent when laboratory analysts resign rather than be relocated. Congress and its research arm, the Government Accountability Office, will need to determine if this is a genuine move toward modernizing some aging laboratories, or a step that could further weaken the F.D.A.

(法國等)浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學 數本書

《法國浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學》　溫永紅譯　百花文藝出版社2005年7月出版

《法国浪漫主义时期的音乐和文学》是法国作家雷翁·吉沙尔所作的一部具有影响力的专著，该书主要介绍了法国浪漫主义时期的音乐、文学，社会政治生活和哲学艺术观念，反映了法国大革命时期到19世纪中叶浪漫主义时期音乐与文学的互动关系，以及音乐在社会政治文化生活中的作用、社会及文化思潮对音乐艺术的影响；音乐对文学家和文学创作的影响，也展示了他们之间的合作，改变和影响作品的创作形式和思想内涵。

该书由我院青年教师温永红翻译，是我所2000年度的所立翻译课题，经专家评审委员会审议，该课题目前已结项。根据专家建议译者目前正在积极联系出版事宜。2003 中央音樂學院音樂學研究所 ]

On critics and criticism of dance
	Author(s): Diana Theodores
	First published in: New directions in dance, 1979

法國浪漫主義時期的偉大作曲家赫克托·白遼士（Ｈｅｃｔｏｒ
Ｂｅｒｌｉｏｚ，１８０３—１８６９）

p.144 譫語病中神智不清時的胡言亂語。

Divagations musicales de Samuel Bach

Janus: The Papers of Roger Eliot Fry
7, Stephane Mallarme, ' Divigations' (Charpentier: Paris, 1917). 8, Stephane Mallarme, 'Vers de Circonstance' (Nouvelle Revue Francaise: Paris, 1920) ...
janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp ? id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0272%2FPP%2FREF%2F9%2F7

Mark Wallace: Haze
This new collection of poems, essays, and divigations might be the essential Mark Wallace to date. Always the supreme contrastoic, Wallace gets us to ...

The noun divagation has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: a message that departs from the main subject
Synonyms: digression, aside, excursus, parenthesis

Meaning #2: a turning aside (of your course or attention or concern)
Synonyms: diversion, deviation, digression, deflection, deflexion

divagation f gén pl rambling

(from Dictionnaire Cambridge Klett Compact)

是法國著名的文藝評論家雷翁‧吉沙爾所寫的一部具有影響力的

早期比較研究專著，也是後來法國比較文學與音樂學研究者不可不讀和

經常引用的一部論著，更為一般的讀者瞭解這一時期法國音樂文化的狀況提供了一本極具可讀性的著述。書中對法國大革命至1850年浪漫主義時期的音樂、文學氛圍，音樂在波瀾壯闊的社會政治生活中的作用，和社會及文化生活對音樂藝術的影響進行了詳細和廣泛地介紹；並讓我們清晰地看到：這一時期音樂與文學間，音樂家與文學家之間的密切互動關係，以及哲學藝術觀念對音樂的影響；最後本書通過對幾個生活在浪漫主義時期的大文學家與音樂相關的生活和創作的描述，向我們展現了他們對音樂的熱愛以及音樂對他們文學創作的豐富和影響。


　　從法國大革命到19世紀中葉是法國社會生活最為動盪，政權的更替最為頻繁的時期之一。這一時期文學與音樂間的關係體現為"作家與音樂家間的聯繫是經常、友好甚至是親密的。最偉大的藝術家和詩人們在氣質、心靈和願望方面都有一致的地方"。"音樂啟發了霍夫曼的小說和小說中的人物。詩人們推崇帕格尼尼，哭悼馬利布蘭夫人……"這一時期，音樂創作和文學創作的靈感來源也有某些共同之處。無論是在音樂還是在文學中都有來自外國的影響：人人都爭讀司各特的小說譯本和霍夫曼的怪異故事；音樂家既從本國的文學、音樂中汲取營養，也從外國的文學、音樂中提取養分。某些偉大的外國作家如：維吉爾、歌德、莎士比亞不僅影響著法國的詩人，也影響著法國的音樂家（柏遼茲的《浮士德的責罰》、《羅密歐與茱麗葉》、《特洛伊人》）。柏遼茲受莎士比亞和貝多芬的影響一樣大。此外，19世紀的法國尤其是巴黎是歐洲文化的中心，有一些當時在法國生活過或同法國文學家交往甚密的外國音樂家如李斯特,蕭邦等人的藝術創作也對法國音樂產生過相當的影響。在他們的身邊，在他們與親密的朋友結成的密友圈中"保持著對莫札特、貝多芬、舒伯特作品的崇敬，傳承著對偉大藝術的愛和偉大的藝術傳統"。

　　不過，此時的法國文學舞臺上雖然是群星璀璨、文學大家層出不窮，而這一時期在法國真正的音樂革命並沒有到來，法國浪漫主義時期的音樂創作雖然豐富多彩，但略顯膚淺和空洞；除了在柏遼茲的作品中我們能看到一個浪漫主義作曲家兼詩人的靈魂、夢想、痛苦、熱情和幻覺外，在大多數法國浪漫主義作曲家作品中我們只可能看到浪漫主義的浮華外殼。在這一時期法國的音樂創作中缺乏像雨果和巴爾扎克一樣的巨匠，以及拉馬丁和維尼一樣充滿浪漫主義精神的詩人，也鮮有波德賴爾。法國真正的音樂革命可能還要再晚些時候，要等到德彪西和拉威爾等人的出現。本書作者毫不諱言道：法國浪漫主義時期的音樂不僅無法同德國的浪漫主義音樂相比，而且不能同法國文壇上的浪漫主義同日而語。

　　本書的作者閱讀了1789至1850年間有關文學與音樂的大量史料：包括一般性的研究和專題性的研究，也認真閱讀了這一時期的回憶錄、通信集、雜誌、報紙等。其材料的豐富性令人印象深刻。作者利用自己掌握的大量材料，對當時音樂生活的多個方面進行了介紹，其中包括浪漫主義時期的音樂體裁，樂器和名演奏家以及這一時期最時髦的音樂體裁——歌劇和最時髦的社交生活場所——歌劇院。此外，這本著述不僅像大多數此類著述一樣，注意到了文學對音樂家和音樂創作的影響；更談到了音樂對像巴爾扎克、司湯達、奈瓦爾、喬治‧桑等文學家和他們的文學創作的影響和豐富。尤其是對大文學家們與音樂有關的文學作品如：巴爾扎克的《康巴拉》、《馬西米拉‧多尼》，喬治‧桑的《康絮愛蘿》和《吹奏樂師》及創作過程進行了逐一的介紹。

　　此外，本書另一個值得注意的特點是：書中的注釋非常詳細，注釋中不僅僅給出了各種引文、作品（小到某首歌曲）的出處和研究這一時代的各種重要的文章、文集，還補充了許多有趣的史料和觀點。也許本書的史料的確過於豐富，讓作者在正文中難以一一展示，但又割愛不下，作者把有些史料甚至還包括自己的評論也放到了注釋中，因此即使在注釋中仍有許多值得關注的東西。當然豐富的史料和注釋更主要是為後來的研究者進行查詢和進行深入研究提供了很好的幫助。

　　對於本書的翻譯，譯者在翻譯過程中力求把《法國浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學》原作的寫作特點忠實呈現給讀者，使讀者在閱讀譯文時同樣也能體味到原作者優雅抒情、平實易懂的行文特點，瞭解到當時浪漫主義文學家及音樂家充滿熱情和詩意的靈魂。而對於文中較多的詩文，譯者雖盡力想傳達其詩意，但是明顯不能夠做到讓讀者滿意（甚至是讓譯者自己滿意），對詩歌的大部分翻譯譯者只能努力做到達意而已。最後要說的是，此書最早發表於1955年（而不是中譯版上的1995年），但在法國曾多次再版，本譯著依據的是1984年版。《法國浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學》出版時，本該有中譯本序或跋對這本書的版本和作者有所介紹，但由於譯者的懶惰，另外也確實因為譯者對有關雷翁‧吉莎爾的背景材料知之不多，造成了這一不足。但願譯者的這篇譯者述評能稍稍彌補一下缺少中譯本序的遺憾。

讀點浪漫主義美術

我們介紹過《法國浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學》（略讀《法國浪漫主義時期的音樂與文學》（溫永紅譯，天津，百花文藝出版社， 2005））

視覺藝術領域，前兩本有翻譯：

K. Clark, The Romantic Rebellion (1974) 台灣，我記得談論過，可是找不到【The Romantic Rebellion (1986 - 這是wiki的錯誤資訊，應為 The Romantic Rebellion (1974)雨芸譯，新竹：楓城文庫， 1978】; H. Honour, Romanticism (1979) 【『浪漫主義藝術』袁憲軍 錢坤強合譯，上海：三聯，1992】

H. Honour 的 Romanticism一書（上海版：編排採圖文分開處理是敗筆），用字（法文 -德文似乎少英譯） /用典等都比K. Clark 難得多。所以翻譯比較困難。我看第一章翻譯得還不錯，不過末篇Epilogue 結尾令人不敢恭維：

(But while I pondered all these things, )and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name-(-while I pondered all this, John Ball began to speak again in the same soft and dear voice with which he had left off.)

H. Honour 的 Romanticism一書第一章讓人許多想像： The pupils of whom David disapproved were the group of radical painters known as Barbus or Primitifs.

這在其他地方有翻譯： The Legacy of Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825) | Special Topics ...
... known as the Primitifs (Primitives) or Barbus (Bearded Ones), 待查下書是否談到它：D. F. Mayr and K. O. Mayr(2003 德文本) 『毛髮的故事』上海人民，2006

當然，還有拿破崙看 Gros所畫的Battlefield of EYLAU ，當場就封畫家為男爵…… 等故事。（前幾天讀塞尚回答20問題，他最佩服的人是拿翁 …….）


1/6/06, hanching chung <hcsimonl@gmail.com > wrote:

初讀，一嘆： William Vaughan 著 『浪漫主義藝術』

我很欣賞遠流出版社的「藝術館 叢林」，不過偶爾讀一下舊書，難免一嘆（對於製作與譯作）

......

我要談的是： William Vaughan 著 / 『浪漫主義藝術 』（Romantic Art） 李美蓉 譯，台北：遠流出版，1995

這本書最可惜的是根據 1978年版本Romantic Art 翻譯，不過，在 1994年就已經有不同名字的修訂本。『浪漫主義與藝術』（ Romanticism and art by W Vaughan - 1994 - London: Thames and Hudson-- Word from the Publisher

In the age of revolutions, at the end of the eighteenth century, the mental and spiritual life of North America and Europe began to undergo a historic and irreversible change. The ideas of spontaneity, direct expression and natural feeling transformed the arts, encouraging artists to explore the extremes in human nature, from heroism to insanity and despair. Widely praised on its previous appearance as Romantic Art and now revised, William Vaughan's classic study analyzes the achievement of the leading artists of the age - masters such as Goya, Blake, Gericault, Turner and Delacroix - and sets in context a host of fascinating figures in painting, sculpture and architecture: Palmer, Runge, Soane, Gros, Overbeck, Schinkel, Flaxman, Pugin, Bingham and many more. The result is an invaluable account of a dramatic and contradictory artistic epoch. ）

在網路上的作者簡介似乎忽視他最有影響力的一本書： German Romanticism and English art by W Vaughan - 1979 - New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies … 【威廉．沃思（William Vaughan），一九四三年生於利物浦，一九六一年進入牛津羅斯金藝術學校（ Ruskin School of Art ），一九六二至六五年就讀於倫敦大學庫爾托藝術學院（Courtauld Institute of Art --參考blog "英國風" ）。之後開始從事「英國藝術的德國樣式，１８１５－６５」研究，並成為倫敦泰特畫廊的助理經營者，且於一九七二年策劃重要的德國浪漫主義繪畫大師霏特烈大展。一九七二年後，在倫敦的大學講授藝術史，尤其偏重英國與德國浪漫主義。現為柏克貝克學院（ Birkbeck College）藝術史教授。除了本書之外，其著作尚包括《波特與多布森》 (Endymion Porter and William Dobson,1970) 與《威廉．布雷克》(William Blake,1977)等書，以及多篇有關透納與霏特烈的論文，和德國浪漫主義繪畫研究。】

*******

以下，我們根據網路上值得一讀的資料「《浪漫主義藝術》精彩內容」 http://www.ylib.com/search/qus_show.asp?BookNo=R1026 和紙本書，指出些翻譯上的小缺失：

「 …….這當中，例如「海德堡」一作（圖4 ），它的浪漫特質已被哲學家謝林（ Friedrichvon Schelling ）在一七九六年的拜訪中提及：「這個城堡盤旋在城鎮上，完全支控著城鎮；而此增加了浪漫的要素。其背景的廢墟，就籠罩在陰沉的微光裏。

　　古代的城堡因為這種召喚特質，而只有一種典型被留意。人們可以引述巨大的橡樹之浪漫分枝，怪異與浪漫的瀑布，或粗獷與浪漫的群山等諸如此類的例子。我們本身對此字眼的瞭解，對我們來說是相似的，且足以去想像在十八世紀時大多數被提到的浪漫景色的意味。只是偶爾它所指定的意味，才似乎是嚴肅的，如一七九二年由布爾茹瓦爵士（ Sir Francis Bourgeois）於皇家藝術學院展出的《有鬼的浪漫景色》（Romantic Scene with Ghosts）畫作，即是一例。」
William Vaughan 著 / 『 浪漫主義藝術 』（ Romantic Art） 李美蓉 譯，台北：遠流出版， 1995，p.9

「不過，最重要的仍是盧梭對情感的呼籲；因為他宣稱人類的理性，若不伴隨著體諒之心，將因為感覺遲鈍而只能在無所收益的方式中活動。這樣的學說在上流社會中，導致許多無責任感想法的爆發；不過，它也提供一個適時朝向人道主義的激勵。例如，透過跟隨他的心之指示，使得偉大的改革者威爾伯福斯（ William Wilberforce）一生致力於英國殖民地的廢止奴隸制度運動。」（ p.14）

「透過跟隨他的心之指示」說法不通？

----

「這就是斯特德曼（ Stedman）船長那相當流行的《在奎亞那，五年遠征對抗令人嘔心的蘇里南黑人的故事》（ Narrative of a Five Years' Expedition against the Revolted Negroes of Surinam, in Guiana, 1796 ）。」（p.15）

"the Revolted Negroes of Surinam, in Guiana" 是「令人嘔心的蘇里南黑人」嗎？【為什麼不選「反乱［暴動］（を起す） ; 反抗（する」？】

----

「這樣的社會，建築師普金（ A. W. N. Pugin, 1812～52 ）在他那引起爭論的《對照》（圖8 、9）就曾提出。且在這本書的第二版提及一八四 ○年的城鎮條件，是將之比擬為十五世紀的狀態。」（ p.17）

讀此段，可知圖 9 的1840 ，應該是 1440（年）。