這個不曉得老師有沒有提過，提過了的話就當再提醒一次吧。 Many late-Ming gentry were already acting out this possibility in their home localities by donating large sums, sometimes in the hundreds of taels, for the building and restoring of Buddhist monasteries (including bronze bells and statues) and other public institutions, as well as for other charitable projects. At the hands of a Confucian activist like Yuan’s fellow Jiashan native Chen Longzheng (1585-1656), public philanthropy was undergirded by a morality of social recompense that went both ways. Aiding their communities demonstrated that the wealthy deserved their natural-born right to elite status. At the same time it reminded the destitute of their duty to accept the paternal relationship to which the surplus of wealth in elite hands obliged them. Social recompense did not deprive the elite of the right to spend for their own pleasure, however. It may in fact have redeemed it. p284第二段倒數第四行「與此同時」開始那邊，一直看很久看不懂。對勘英文本發現是翻 錯了，原文是上面標起來黃色那段，他的the destitute翻錯，所以整段就錯掉了， the destitute 應該要翻作窮人。以下是整段試譯： 許多晚明的士紳已經在家鄉實踐這種可能。經由捐出大筆，有時達數百兩的費用來建造或 修復佛寺（包括青銅鐘與塑像）和其他公共設施，以及慈善事業。在袁黃的同鄉陳正龍（ 1585-1656）這類的行動派儒者手中，公共的慈善事業透過雙向社會回報的倫理得到支持 。幫助鄉里證明了富人應享成為精英身份的自然權利。它也提醒了窮人應視其如父以作為 他們樂施多餘錢財的回報。社會回饋並未剝奪精英去尋求自我滿足的權利，實際上也許增 進了這權利。 其他比較無關緊要的東西： p143 第二段 這個不曉得算不算誤譯。「商業或國家儲糧能力的衰落」，原文作 "Neither commerce nor the dwindling capacity of the state to store grain"，竊以為「商業或衰退的國家儲糧能力」較佳。 p158 第二段 Evenlyn Rawski 漢名叫羅友枝 p159 第二段「以商業化程度較低的華南為例」誤譯，原文為 In less comerialized areas in south China，應是「以華南地區商業化較低的區域為例」。 p190 第二段 「許多「農」民不再「有田」，而要將穀物儲存在那些販賣佃農穀物的士紳 地主的糧倉裡。」 Many a peasant no longer "had his land" but had to stock the granaries of gentry landloads, who sold thier tenants' crops into the commercial grain trade. 這邊偷偷把把穀物貿易拿掉。 p279 那邊沒有翻錯，可我還是看不懂那個句子想表達什麼。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 134.208.40.210