譯者的操縱：從Cuore到《馨兒就學記》

Abstract

本研究旨在探討譯者的操縱，關注的焦點在於譯者對文類、敘述模式、角色、情節的操縱。以《馨兒就學記》為例，此書為義大利作家亞米契斯（Edmondo de Amicis）於一八八六年完成的日記體小說，後來在一八八七年由哈普古德（Isabel F. Hapgood）翻譯成第一個英文譯本，之後日譯者杉谷代水根據此英文譯本，於一九○二年翻譯成日文的《學童日誌》，而中譯者包天笑再根據此日譯本翻譯成第一個中譯本《馨兒就學記》。這段從義大利到中國的漫長旅程是一個複雜的轉譯過程，每個版本之間的差異凸顯出譯者扮演的重要角色。 本研究比較義大利文、英文、日文、中文四種語言版本，觀察譯者如何操縱文本。他們的操縱顯示出翻譯其實是一種帶有意識形態的改寫。透過本研究提出的譯例，可以清楚看見譯者受到當時社會在詩學規範或道德規範方面的影響。在包天笑的譯本中，他將書中的故事改寫並在地化，類似這樣的翻譯策略在晚清頗為普遍，但透過本研究的比較與分析，可以證明包天笑的操縱也受到日譯本很大的影響，而不全然是他自己的創意發揮。在許多刪節改寫的部分，其實是日譯者杉谷代水操縱在先，包天笑只是蕭規曹隨。不過這兩位譯者的操縱都反映出他們在創新與守舊、西方與東方、異化與歸化之間矛盾掙扎，兩股力量的拉扯與當時的歷史社會脈絡息息相關。由此案例觀之，譯文並非原文的反映或再現，而是原文的來世，在異地產生了新的影響與效應。This study proposes to discuss translators’ manipulation, especially focusing on the manipulations of genre, narration, characters, and plot. The case to be studied is Cuore, an Italian diary novel written by Edmondo de Amicis in 1886, which was translated into English by Isabel F. Hapgood in 1887. The English version was translated into Japanese in 1902, whence the first Chinese translation, Xin’s Journal about School Life (馨兒就學記), was derived. The voyage from Italy to China constitutes a complicated translation process and the differences among these versions place the translator’s role in the spotlight. This study compares the Italian, English, Japanese and Chinese versions, observing how these translators manipulated the texts and inferring that a translator could be a rewriter with an ideological agenda. With some interesting examples from these translated versions of Cuore, this study emphasizes that a translator could in all likelihood be influenced by the moral or poetic norms of his/her society. In the Chinese first translation of Cuore, Bao Tianxiao (包天笑), the translator, localized and trans-wrote the stories therein. These strategies were popular in the late Qing Dynasty, but through my comparison and analysis, it shows that Bao was influenced more by the Japanese translation, which his translation was based on, than by his own creativity. Sugitani Daisui (杉谷代水), the Japanese translator, manipulated the stories first, and Bao was more like a follower. Both of their manipulations, however, demonstrate that they struggled between new and old, West and East, foreignization and domestication, and their struggles are very much connected with the historical and social contexts. In this case, translation is not a reflection of the original but an afterlife that has new purposes and effects.