《杜連魁》之「異/譯」性戀

Abstract

本文旨在檢視王爾德的小說The Picture of Dorian Gray與王大閎齊名之譯作《杜連魁》之間對同性戀議題的不同發揮。探討《杜連魁》譯本雖可見於華人的評論、譯評及學術研究領域，但探討範圍大多侷限於語言或文化的對等，尚未有研究深入探討同性戀的議題是否在翻譯中喪失及其此喪失的過程，甚至連原作的同性戀書寫也常受到忽略。我的研究以傳統翻譯的定義來評析王大閎的譯作，也就是假設原文有可譯的涵義，一來是因為此種研究角度能直接點出我所想發掘的呈現差異，二來則是因為譯者及譯作本身宣稱忠實，並長久以來被冠上忠實翻譯的光環，並為大多數的讀者、研究者所信服，我刻意運用這種標籤來探討譯文，質疑同性戀主題是否也如譯者所言，信實地呈現。根據此研究角度，我先分析王爾德的情慾書寫，然後再剖析王大閎的處理策略。

研究發現，王爾德的情慾表達是建立於偽異性戀架構之上，再佐以繁多同性戀情欲轉喻，因此充滿了暗示性的書寫。而王大閎的譯作則是偏離原作傳遞的同性戀身份論述，並把外觀的掩護轉換成故事的內容。一方面，譯者運用中國古代男色來描寫同性情慾，但因為中西性別、情慾文化觀點不同，這促使譯文偏離王爾德傳達的同性戀意識。再來，譯者加強道德警世寓言的意味，強化異性戀架構，並融入中國男性道德觀，使得原先是講述置身於衣櫃內同性戀者的故事，搖身變成了道德敗壞而言形放蕩的花花公子。王大閎的翻譯策略顯露了典型的異性戀者對同性戀者的雙重態度（homographesis）。本研究得到的結論乃是，同性戀書寫因該性傾向之邊緣、次文化及受歧視的地位，而必須發展出暗示性的書寫方式，譯者可因個人目的、喜好，輕易地在譯文中消弭同性戀情慾。故翻譯研究在探討牽涉同性情欲的書寫時，不應完全誠服於翻譯忠實的標籤，而忽略了潛在的同性情慾改寫。有鑒於王大閎當時翻譯時台灣同性戀論述及書寫資源皆有限，他仍可介入操縱，並遮掩他的改寫，消弭同性情慾，以當今蓬勃發展的男同志與女同志文化，可想見會釋出更多複雜的因素、改寫策略及操縱的可能性。同性戀書寫，可因翻譯而強化、顯現、出櫃，但翻譯也可能改變、消弭、移除此情慾。本文指出同性情慾翻譯的操縱，唯研究範圍有限，有待日後研究，尤其是有關華語的翻譯，以繼續探討翻譯與同性戀情慾書寫之相互作用。This study aims to look into Oscar Wilde’s only and well-known novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and its similarly acclaimed translated counterpart, Wang Dahong’s Du Liankui, to excavate how homosexual poetics and identity politics embedded in the source text are transformed in the translation. Much literature addressing this particular translation could be found in reviews, comments and academic studies in Chinese-speaking culture, yet the focus is largely placed on linguistic and cultural equivalence: none of them has paid much attention to or gone deep enough into this homosexual domain—either in terms of the source text or target text. Current studies have seldom suspected, or only held sporadic interest in, first, whether homosexual thematic is lost in translation, and second, how such loss is “achieved.” I adopt the traditional sense of translation, one that constantly centers on the kernel meaning of the original text and fidelity to it, to examine Wang’s translation in part because it would reveal most directly the loss which this study has interest in. Meanwhile, given the translator’s own claim of and his long established and trusted faithfulness to Wilde’s novel, I would utilize the same fundamental ground to unearth the changeover that underlies his translation, to challenge his rendering of Wilde’s sexual politics. Given this pretext, I first examine Wilde’s writing strategy, and then disclose Wang’s response to and treatment of such homosexual aspect.

A close analysis discovers that Wilde builds homosexual expressions upon ambiguity to avoid direct homophobic condemnation. The author constructs illicit homoerotic desire upon a seemingly heterosexual framework with which he then fuses homosexual metonymies. Wang’s rendering however deviates from Wilde’s gay identity politics and turns such camouflage devises into the real metaphor of the story. Wang’s insidious manipulations lie in how he utilizes ancient Chinese male eroticism as representational basis, as part of his bigger scheme of recontextualization. This move, because of Sino-Western cultural differences, ensures that male-male desire would come to an end and not deliver the gay identity lingo. At the same time Wang enhances the moral allegory, part of the pseudo-heterosexual framework, and brings in Sinicized masculine morality, making Du Liankui a story essentially about a morally unrestrained womanizer, as opposed to an oppressed homosexual in the original novel. Wang’s translation reveals the working of homographesis, a heterosexist strategic response to homosexuals. Yet the translator with his manipulative artistry is able to mask his maneuvers. My case study demonstrates how homosexual writing, because of the often ambivalent expressions required by its minor, subcultural, and ghetto positions, can be easily channeled into non-homosexual agenda at the translator’s will. The case in point offered here could serve as a reminder of how translation studies should not take for granted fidelity on the surface when dealing with a translation involving homosexuality. If even in Wang’s case of historic restraint of homosexual discourses and representational resources during 1970s, manipulations could still occur—and be smoothed over—imagine the current refined Taiwan gay and lesbian culture will unleash how many more complex forces, rewriting devises and possibilities of manipulations. Homosexuality could be enhanced, verbalized, visualized, but on the other hand it could also be transformed, diminished and lost in translation. My study is conducted in the hope of stressing such possible manipulation and anticipating more effort in future translation studies, especially concerning Chinese translations, to complete understanding of the interplay between homosexuality and translation.