在时代周刊找到了82年这篇文章,关于文章翻译,个人感觉是有道理的,但是所谓另一方虽然不能全错,但起码是添加了东西,或者说是把后一句与前一句合并了,而且指代也小了点.究其根源,估计是对man in nature 和the man in the water之间的关系理解不够吧.
先看原文：
Yet there was something else about the man that kept our thoughts on him,and which keeps our thoughts on him still.He was there,in the essential,classic circumstance.Man in nature.The man in the water.For its part,nature cared nothing about the five passengers.Our man,on the other hand,cared totally.So the timeless battle commenced in the Potomac.For as long as that man could last,they went at each other,nature and man; the one making no distinctions of good and evil,acting on no principles,offering no lifelines; the other acting wholly on distinctions,principles and,one supposes,on faith.
考虑这句话出现的语境,我一开始认为其实是指那种伟大悲剧中伟大人物所面临的抉择,但仔细想想,其实是说的还是人与自然（也包括天性?）抗争,所以可以翻译成：“在这种纯粹而又经典的环境下,就产生了（我们现在看到的）这位无名英雄.水中的无名氏,所代表的其实是与自然抗争的人类和人性（?）.”
翻译这一段和理解这一句话,最好结合下面两段关于人与自然的抗争谁胜谁负的问题,才能理解更深,特别是有关爱默生的名言的诠释,以及这句：The man in the water pitted himself against an implacable,impersonal enemy; he fought it with charity; and he held it to a standoff.是理解的关键所在.
