三種西方《道德經》學術詮釋中「道」的「厚實翻譯」──文本、副文本、脈絡

Abstract

《道德經》（Tao Te Ching）是翻譯數量僅次於《聖經》的文本。然而，《道德經》的眾多重製（reproductions）、改編（adaptations）和「偽譯」（'pseudo-translations'）作品，也已納入西方流行的智慧文學（wisdom literature）或「新時代」（'New Age'）文學，其中不少由中文能力有限或全無的「偽譯者」製作。若干權威漢學家（如 Girardot、Goldin、Kirkland、Mair、Moeller）已提出此現象中的翻譯真實性問題，尤其考慮《道德經》複雜的形成歷史、作者身份、文本傳統、詮釋史與翻譯史，以及譯本類型。

相對於「偽譯」，謹慎的學術型譯者們荷擔著盡其所能地透過詮釋，以復原《道德經》本義的責任：對某些看似簡單的概念提出最真實的詮釋，是極具挑戰性的，例如此經典中原始的（primal）、具文化特異性的（culture-specific）宗教哲學概念──「道」。本研究選擇了三種西方《道德經》譯本中「道」的學術詮釋，並在「厚實翻譯」（'thick translation'）的概念下，觀察其原始意義在各自特定學術領域中的復原。文化理論家阿派爾（Kwame Anthony Appiah）的「厚實翻譯」強調將文本（text）置於其豐富的文化和語言脈絡（context）當中，並稱之為一種附有註釋和注解的「學術翻譯」（'academic translation'），而這些註釋和注解可視為文學理論家簡奈特（Gérard Genette）所稱之為副文本（paratexts）的內容。翻譯理論家赫曼斯（Theo Hermans）的「厚實翻譯」進而強調對原始文本的意義和脈絡的跨文化深度探索，他認為這種深度無法單獨在譯文中傳達，需要額外的文本機制，如附註（notes）和其他評論性注釋（critical apparatuses），而這些在本研究中也視為副文本。此外，翻譯理論家張佩瑤（Martha P.-Y. Cheung）進而認為，「厚實翻譯」是一種文化再現形式（cultural representation），它是通過「意義層次」（'layers of meaning'）展現具中國文化特異性概念的異己性（Otherness）。

有鑒於此，本研究將（1）文字學家梅維恆（Victor H. Mair，1990年）、（2）歷史詮釋學家邁可．拉法格（Michael LaFargue，1992年），以及（3）比較哲學家安樂哲（Roger T. Ames）和大衛．霍爾（David L. Hall，2003年）所譯之《道德經》第一章經文起始句，通過三個意義層次觀察，即「詮釋層次」（interpretive strata）：（1）文本（text）：包括譯者在原文不同版本中的首選原文文本、用於支持其詮釋的其他古代或現代文本，以及這兩者如何幫助形成各自的譯文文本；（2）副文本（paratext）：譯者使用於譯文之外的文本篇章，即以前言、序言、後記、附錄、詞彙表等形式傳達對「道」更加全面的詮釋性文本；（3）脈絡（context）：以大量副文本形式傳達的、特定學術領域的詮釋脈絡（interpretive contexts）和手法，是由以上三種譯本的學者型譯者們，根據自身研究為基礎的翻譯中表現出來的，展現其來自不同學科在《道德經》研究中的卓越和高學術標準。結果發現，《道德經》的文本意義被各種因素所影響，例如原文版本的選擇和副文本中傳遞之各種不同的詮釋脈絡──即文本在詮釋過程中並非無改變，而是帶有譯者意圖，因而譯文結果亦受影響。由此進而發現，三種譯本在三個詮釋層次中對「道」的理解均有異處：原文文本其不同意義之產生，決定於其起源於不同的語言、歷史、社會、文化或哲學脈絡，透過附加到其相應之不同譯文的、帶有譯者意圖的副文本進行傳達──換句話說，副文本即為一種文本和脈絡之間的交互作用物（interactant）。整體來說，本研究認為《道德經》中「道」的「厚實翻譯」，可理解為其詮釋性表徵，其呈現不同之脈絡化的意義，在不同詮釋層次之間，以及透過不同譯者之間對話的二維相互作用中產生，從而塑造其產生之各種相異的本體論（ontology），並顯示出「道」的翻譯之必然性（necessity）、層次性（layerity）、多重性（plurality）和共同創造性（co-creativity）。然而，雖然詮釋各有不同，在這三種譯本中也發現了一個意義的匯合點，即本研究中認為是「道」的非教條性（non-doctrinality）。從此發現所延伸出來的觀點是，由於「道」的意義是共同創造的，故無普世的制高點來談論「正確的」或「最好的」翻譯，並合理化了對「道」的多元共同創造的詮釋，以譯者和文化之間對不同世界觀的建設性對話為其形式。上述發現提供了以下啟示，來重新思考翻譯研究中的若干概念：（1）「道」的一對一、字對字的「對等」（'equivalences'）；（2）有關「神話」與「真實」的「巴別塔」（'Tower of Babel'）問題；（3）從《道德經》遠古的口傳文化（oral culture）演變成至今未曾間斷傳遞其脈絡化的注釋、解經和翻譯，來重思《道德經》的「文本」（'text'）性質；（4）翻譯研究應進一步向跨文化人文學科的多樣性和豐富性開放；以及（5）從《道德經》的透明並易於閱讀的「虛薄翻譯」（'thin translations'）中看到的語言和文化之間的不兼容性（incompatibilities）。正是《道德經》翻譯的「厚實」（'thickness'）促進了對自身文化和其他文化的反思理解，這在當今加速的文化全球化（cultural globalization）和文化同質化（cultural homogenization）中具有重要價值。

The Tao Te Ching 道德經 is arguably the most translated text next to the Bible. However, there are numerous reproductions, adaptations and 'pseudo-translations' of the Tao Te Ching incorporated as popular wisdom or 'New Age' literature in the West and produced by 'quasi-translators,' many of whom only had limited or no competency in the Chinese language. Authoritative sinologists (e.g., Girardot, Goldin, Kirkland, Mair, Moeller) have addressed the problems of genuineness in this translation phenomenon, especially considering the complex history of formation, authorship, textual traditions, history of exegeses and translations, and translation typologies of the text.

As opposed to 'pseudo-translations,' serious scholar-translators bear the responsibility of hermeneutically recovering the original meaning of the Tao Te Ching to the best they can: it is extremely challenging to arrive at the most genuine interpretation for certain seemingly simple ideas, especially when the ancient text contains primal, culture-specific religiophilosophical concepts such as Tao 道. The present study selects three Western scholarly interpretations of Tao in Tao Te Ching translations and observes their respective field-specific recoveries of its original meaning in the ancient Chinese text under the concept of 'thick translation.' Cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah's 'thick translation' emphasizes the location of the text in a rich cultural and linguistic context through what he calls an 'academic translation' accompanied by annotations and glosses, to which these annotations and glosses could be viewed as what literary theorist Gérard Genette calls paratexts. This is enhanced by translation theorist Theo Hermans' 'thick translation' that stresses the deep cross-cultural exploration of the meaning and context of the original text, to which such depth cannot be conveyed in the translated text alone and requires extra textual devices such as notes and other critical apparatuses, which can also be viewed as paratexts. Further, this is refined by Martha P.-Y. Cheung's view that 'thick translation' is an act of 'cultural representation' that demonstrates the unique Otherness of Chinese culture-specific concepts through its 'layers of meaning.'

In light of the abovementioned rationale, the translations of the opening verse of Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching by (1) philologist Victor H. Mair (1990), (2) historical hermeneuticist Michael LaFargue (1992), and (3) comparative philosophers Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall (2003) are observed through three 'layers of meaning,' or interpretive strata in the present study: (1) text: the selection of the translators' preferred source text among different versions of source texts, the employment of other ancient or modern supportive texts, and how these two help shape their respective translated texts; (2) paratext: the extra-textual devices employed by the translators to convey their fuller interpretations of Tao in the form of prefaces, introductions, afterwords, appendixes, glossaries and so on; and (3) context: the field-specific interpretive contexts and methods conveyed in the form of abundant amounts of paratexts employed in the three dedicated, research-based translations of the Tao Te Ching by scholar-translators who demonstrate excellence and high academic standards in Tao Te Ching scholarship from different academic disciplines. It is found that the Tao Te Ching's text, whose meaning is influenced by various factors such as the selection of source text versions and the various interpretive contexts conveyed in the paratext, does not stand unchanged amidst the process of interpretation, but rather carries the translatorial intention along with it, and thus the outcomes of the translated texts are influenced. It is further found that the understandings of Tao among the three translations are varied at all three interpretive strata: the source text's varying meanings are determined at its origins around its varying linguistic, historical, social, cultural or philosophical contexts, which are conveyed through the translator-intended paratext appended to the respective, differing translated texts—in other words, the paratext acts as an interactant between the text and the context. Altogether, the present study views that the 'thick translations' of Tao in the Tao Te Ching can be understood as its interpretive representations in which varying meanings, always contextual, arise from the two-dimensional interaction of the different interpretive strata involved and the dialogue between different translators, shaping their resultant differing ontological claims and demonstrating the necessity, layerity, plurality, and co-creativity in translating Tao. On the other hand, despite the differing interpretations, one confluence of meanings among the three translations is found in what the present study identifies as the non-doctrinality of Tao. One viewpoint derived from this finding is that since the meaning of Tao is co-created, there is no universal vantage point to speak of the 'correct' or 'best' translation, which altogether legitimizes a pluralistic, co-created interpretation of Tao in the form of constructive dialogue of differing worldviews across translators and cultures. The aforementioned findings provide implications for rethinking several concepts in translation studies: (1) the one-to-one, word-for-word 'equivalences' of Tao; (2) the issue of a mythical versus a real 'Tower of Babel;' (3) the rethinking of the nature of the 'text' of the Tao Te Ching as having evolved from archaic oral culture into a continuing transmission of commentaries, exegeses and translations today with ever-changing contextualizations; (4) the further opening up of translation studies to the diversity and richness in cross-cultural humanities; and (5) the ignored incompatibilities between languages and cultures seen in transparent and readable 'thin translations' of the Tao Te Ching. It is the 'thickness' of the Tao Te Ching traslations that allow the reflective understanding of one's own culture and others, which is of significant value in the accelerating cultural globalization and cultural homogenization of today.