Title

張我軍的夏目漱石《文學論》翻譯再考-《文学論》真是日本近代文學理論的起源嗎?

Translated Titles

The Origins of Modern Japanese Literary Theory?: Zhang Wojun's Chinese Translation of Soseki Natsume's Bungakuron reconsidered

DOI

10.30381/BTL.202012_(37).0006

Authors

服部徹也(Tetsuya Hattori);賴怡真(Lai, Yi-Chen);吳佩珍(Wu, Pei-Chen)

Key Words

夏目漱石 ; 張我軍 ; 柄谷行人 ; 日本文學 ; 翻譯 ; Natsume Soseki ; Zhang Wojun ; Karatani Kojin ; Japanese Literature ; translation

PublicationName

臺灣文學學報

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

37期(2020 / 12 / 01)

Page #

165 - 194

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本文將透過探討張我軍所翻譯的夏目漱石的文學理論書《文學論》,來解明夏目漱石去世後被建構的形象,與東方與西方其各自思考的「文豪漱石」形象的問題點。同時,也想指出《文學論》原文與譯文之間奇妙的關係,是起因於起始語言與最終語言的統一性被模糊帶過的關係。柄谷行人重新詮釋《日本近代文學的起源》,論及日本近代文學的「起源」是建立在脫離中國文化圈的影響並隱蔽曾受到漢文化影響的歷史。柄谷指出,漱石一直以來堅持漢文典故,並將英文學與漢文學相互比較、對照這點是值得肯定的。但我們能因此將漱石視之為對抗脫漢潮流的作家嗎?如柄谷本身曾指出,對漱石而言,「漢文學」就像是消失的古典世界,並非是當時的中國。漱石的「西方」與「東方」其時間軸並不對稱,這個時間軸進而造成了不對稱的構造。但在漱石死後,其不對稱的構造卻被模糊帶過。在其逝世後所出版的《漱石全集》裡將其形象塑造成融合東方與西方的「世界文豪」。另一方面,張我軍具備高度的日文能力,當他與《漱石全集》相遇後,選擇將其翻譯出版。在這背景裡隱藏著日本帝國版圖再次擴大的問題。另外,與西方的Literature邂逅並與「何謂文學」這個問題正面交鋒的人,不僅止於漱石,中國的作家們亦然,因此才會出現文學概說書與理論書的需求風潮,進而成就了《文學論》的翻譯出版。王向遠批評張我軍的翻譯裡有許多漢語翻譯是直接從原文移植過來的,因此現在看來幾乎是不堪一讀的舊式文體。但漱石的日文原文本身就是屬於既可用和語(日本原有的語言)也可用漢文解釋的雙重性質的「漢文訓讀體」(譯者註:漢文以日文讀法解釋)。如此一來,張我軍的譯文不就也屬於可用中日文兩種解讀法的文體了嗎?至少在對照《文學論》的原文與譯文時,可以發現其日文與中文的獨立性變得非常地模稜兩可。

English Abstract

Through an examination of Natsume Soseki's Bungakuron (Theory of Literature), translated by Zhang Wojun, I will clarify the problems of the image constructed after Soseki's death, and the image of "Bungo Soseki" (Soseki the literary giant) who thought between the East and the West. I will also show that the original and translated versions of Bungakuron are in a peculiar state, and that they have a relationship that makes the identity of the source and target languages ambiguous. Karatani Kojin reinterpreted his own The Origins of Modern Japanese Literature and argued that the "origin" of modern Japanese literature was to break away from the influence of the Chinese cultural sphere and to conceal its history. Karatani then goes on to evaluate Soseki's persistence in writing Chinese literature and his ability to juxtapose English literature with Chinese literature. However, was Soseki really a writer who was opposed to this trend? As Karatani himself pointed out, Soseki's "Chinese literature" was a world of lost classics, not his contemporaries in China. After his death, however, the imbalance between the "West" and the "Orient" in Soseki's life became ambiguous, and the Soseki zenshu (Collected Works of Soseki), in which Soseki was described as a "worldly literary giant" who fused the East and the West, was published. At the same time, Zhang Wojun, who possessed a high level of Japanese language skills, encountered "Soseki Zensshu" and decided to translate and publish it. The expansion of imperial Japan's printing press made such activities possible. It was not only Soseki who encountered Western literature, but Chinese writers as well, who were confronted with the question, "What is literature? That is why there was a need for a literary overview and theory book, and why the publication of a translation of Bungakuron was achieved. Wang Xiangyuan criticizes Zhang Wojun's translation, saying that many of the Chinese words were transplanted directly from the original and that the style of the text is too old to be read today. However, the original was written in a "Kanbun Kundoku Tai", a style of writing in which the text has a dual affiliation with the Japanese and Chinese languages, which can be interpreted in two ways. If this is the case, then Zhang Wojun's translation must have been written in a style of dual affiliation. If we put the original and the translated texts of the Journal of Literature side by side, the autonomy of the Chinese and Japanese languages seems to be unclear.

Topic Category 人文學 > 語言學
人文學 > 中國文學