显然，弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫（Vladimir Nabokov）的这篇文章描述了作者为他的Onegin的翻译版本采用的翻译方法，支持这种采用的理由，并进一步提出了他关于正确翻译方法的想法。在本文的开头，弗拉基米尔·纳科夫（Vladimir Naokov）向那些称赞“莫尔先生”所做的翻译工作的人展示了他的“无助毛茸茸”。 （或“某某女士”）（第113页），它用陈词滥调代替了原作者的出色表现，这反映出他偏爱直译。后来，他提出了很多论据，试图证明不可能以韵律来翻译作品，以证明脚注是解释作品韵律的最佳方式，并证明使用Iambic Dimeter和Iambic Pentameter的适用性代替原作品中的十四行（第125页）。但是，是否有足够的脚注的扫盲翻译版本适合作为所有读者的著名杰作的另一种语言版本？我确实有强烈的怀疑。
It is clear that this article by Vladimir Nabokov describes the translating method that the author adopts for his translation version of Onegin, the reason in support of such an adoption, and also further suggests his idea about what is the right way to make translation. At the very beginning of this article, Vladimir Naokov has shown his “helpless furry” towards those who praised any translating works done by “Mr. (or) Miss So-and-so” (p.113) that uses platitudes to take place of the original author’s great expression, which reflects his preference for literal translation. Later, he made a lot of arguments with an attempt to demonstrate the impossibility to translate the works in rhyme, to prove that footnotes are best ways to explain the works’ rhymes, and to attest the suitability of the use of iambic dimeter and iambic pentameter to substitute the fourteen unrhymed lines in the original works (p.125). Nevertheless, is a literacy translation version with copious footnotes really appropriate to serve as another language version of a well-known masterpiece for all readers? I indeed have strong doubts.
以我的观点，弗拉基米尔·纳科夫（Vladimir Naokov）的翻译基于本文，可以看作是一种非常典型的学术翻译模板，能够准确地传达普希金的语义，语法，对于那些喜欢读经的学生来说，这是一个很好的版本。达到一定的俄罗斯水平。但是，弗拉基米尔·纳科夫（Vladimir Naokov）的文字翻译带有大量脚注，使翻译版本失去了原作可能带给读者的乐趣，趣味性甚至是美感，而更具体地说，读者对俄语一无所知可能很难从弗拉基米尔·纳科夫（Vladimir Naokov）的版本中获得任何故事情节或有意义的灵感，因为它们在他深刻而深不可测的表达方式中可能会遭受很多折磨，并且难以在正文和更具可读性的脚注之间进行切换。因此，我非常尊重弗拉基米尔·纳科夫（Vladimir Naokov）的想法，但是我更欣赏包含必要释义和自由样式的语言版本。
In my point of view, Vladimir Naokov’s translation, based on this article, could be seen as a very typical academic translation template that is able to convey Pushkin’s semantics, syntax in an accurate way, which is a very good version for cholars, learners who achieve a certain Russian level. However, Vladimir Naokov’s literal translation with a large amount of footnotes makes the translation version to lose enjoyment, interestingness, and even aesthetic pleasure that the original works could bring to readers, or, to be more specific, readers knowing nothing or very little about Russian could feel hard to get any storyline or meaningful inspiration from Vladimir Naokov’s version, because they may suffer a lot in his profound and unfathomable expressions and struggle to switch between the main text and the more readable footnotes. As a result of it, I have strong respect for Vladimir Naokov’s own thought, but more appreciate a language version including necessary paraphrases and free styles into it.
关键词：代写essay；网课代修代上
