《美國人的性格與文化》 王世憲譯，香港：今日世界，1964
美國政治傳統與其塑造者, 李查德˙霍夫斯塔特(著)、
王世憲(譯), Richard Hofstadter (1948). The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made it. Knopf.
Richard Hofstadter著，王世憲譯，《美國政治傳統與其塑造者》The American Political Tradition： and the Men Who Made It, 1948，台北市：商務印書館，民68/1979。
第一章：開國元勛們：現實主義時代, An age of realism
hc 翻譯評論：
章名碰到 Aristocrat (第2章)和 Patrician (第6章及第12章)，王世憲譯都譯成"貴族的"。
這要從這兩字的語源及各章當事者所處的時代和家世：現在竟然有 Wiki：difference可查：
https://wikidiff.com/patrician/aristocrat
日文辭典的翻譯也可參考。
Each chapter title illustrated a paradox: Thomas Jefferson is "The Aristocrat as Democrat"; John C. Calhoun is the "Marx of the Master Class"; and Franklin Roosevelt is "The Patrician as Opportunist."[18]
aristocrat
音節a • ris • to • crat
発音ərístəkræ`t，ǽrəs-
[名詞]
1上流［特権］階級の人；(特に)貴族(階級の人).
2貴族的な人，貴族趣味の人.
3貴族政治主義者.
4最高級品，極上品，最良種
the aristocrat of California wines
カリフォルニアワインの極上物.語源1776.＜フランス語 aristocrate〔aristocratie「貴族階級(ARISTOCRACY)」からの逆成〕
patrician
音節pa • tri • cian
発音pətríʃən
[名詞]
1(一般に)高位の人；貴族；名門の士，門閥の人.
2貴族，パトリキ：古代ローマにおける初期の元老院議員.
3パトリキウス：後期ローマ帝国，ビザンチン帝国支配下において皇帝から授けられた爵位［位階］.
4(中世ドイツ・スイス・イタリアの自由都市の世襲の)支配階級の人.
━━ [形容詞]
1高位の；貴族の家柄の.
2貴族にふさわしい，貴族的な，貴族特有の，名門の
patrician tastes
貴族趣味
a patrician nose
貴族的な鼻.
3古代ローマの貴族の.
4非民主的な，専制的な.
語源＜ラテン語 patrici(us)パトリキ(pater FATHER より)+-AN；中期英語 patricion に取って代わる＜古期フランス語 patricien
patricianの派生語
patricianhood [名詞]
patricianship [名詞]
patricianism [名詞]
patricianly [副詞]
Patrician vs Aristocrat - What's the difference?
patrician | aristocrat |
As nouns the difference between patrician and aristocratis that patrician is (antiquity) a member of any of the families constituting the populus romanus, or body of roman citizens, before the development of the plebeian order; later, one who, by right of birth or by special privilege conferred, belonged to the senior class of romans, who, with certain property, had by right a seat in the roman senate while aristocrat is one of the aristocracy, nobility, or people of rank in a community; one of a ruling class; a noble (originally in revolutionary france).As a adjective patricianis of or pertaining to the roman patres (fathers) or senators, or patricians.
|
王世憲(譯)(1977):《美國政黨與政治》,臺北:幼獅文化事業公司。
王世憲譯,勃朗(Harrison Borwn)著,人類前途再展望,台北:幼獅, 1980。
Richard Hofstadter (August 6, 1916 – October 24, 1970) was an American historian and public intellectual of the mid-20th century. Hofstadter was the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University. Rejecting his earlier approach to history from the far left, in the 1950s he embraced consensus history, becoming the "iconic historian of postwar liberal consensus," largely because of his emphasis on ideas and political culture rather than the day-to-day doings of politicians. His influence is ongoing, as modern critics profess admiration for the grace of his writing, and the depth of his insight.[1]
His most important works are Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 (1944); The American Political Tradition(1948); The Age of Reform (1955); Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), and the essays collected in The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964). He was twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize: in 1956 for The Age of Reform, an unsentimental analysis of the populism movement in the 1890s and the progressive movement of the early 20th century; and in 1964 for the cultural history Anti-intellectualism in American Life.[2]
Contents
[hide]Consensus historian[edit]
From 1942 to 1946 Hofstadter taught history at the University of Maryland, where he became fast friends with radical sociologist C. Wright Mills and read extensively in the fields of sociology and psychology, absorbing ideas of Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Sigmund Freud, and the Frankfurt School. His later books frequently refer to behavioral concepts such as "status anxiety."[11][12]
In 1946 Hofstadter joined the Columbia University faculty and in 1959 succeeded Allan Nevins as the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History, where he played a major role in directing Ph.D. dissertations in the field. After 1945 Hofstadter philosophically broke with Charles A. Beard and moved to the right, becoming leader of the "consensus historians," a term that Hofstadter disliked, but it was widely applied to his rejection of the Beardian idea that there was a fundamental conflict running throughout American history that pitted economic classes against each other.[13]
As early as his American Political Tradition (1948) Hofstadter rejected black-and-white polarization between pro-business and anti-business politicians.[14] Making explicit reference to Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan, Wilson, and Hoover, Hofstadter made a compelling statement of the consensus model of the American political tradition:
- The fierceness of the political struggles has often been misleading: for the range of vision embraced by the primary contestants in the major parties has always been bounded by the horizons of property and enterprise. However much at odds on specific issues, the major political traditions have shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition; they have accepted the economic virtues of capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man.[15]
As a consensus historian, Hofstadter rejected Beard's interpretation of history as a succession of socio-economic group conflicts. He thought that all historical periods could be understood as an implicit consensus, shared by antagonists, explaining that the generation of Beard and Vernon Louis Parrington had:
In 1948 he published The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It, incisive interpretive studies of 12 major American political leaders from the 18th-20th centuries. Besides critical success, the book sold nearly a million copies at university campuses, where it was used as a history textbook; critics found it "skeptical, fresh, revisionary, occasionally ironical, without being harsh or merely destructive."[17] Although, as Bruce Kuklik notes, it still "owed much to Hofstadter's leftist background," it was ironic and paradoxical in dealing with political leaders from the Revolution to the present. Each chapter title illustrated a paradox: Thomas Jefferson is "The Aristocrat as Democrat"; John C. Calhoun is the "Marx of the Master Class"; and Franklin Roosevelt is "The Patrician as Opportunist."[18]
https://book.douban.com/review/6559227/
沒有留言:
張貼留言