理雅各與《詩經》英譯

Abstract

英國傳教士暨漢學家理雅各（James Legge, 1815-1897）窮盡一己之力將中國典籍譯為英文，其主事《中國經典》系列（The Chinese Classics）與稍後參與的《東方聖典叢書》系列（Sacred Books of the East）自出版以來即備受學界重視。本文試圖以經典翻譯史的角度，來討論理雅各與《詩經》翻譯的問題。本文先將理雅各置放於《詩經》翻譯史的早期脈絡中，探究他繼承的觀點；其後則將以理雅各《詩經》英譯為中心，一方面在中國經典詮釋體系中探究理雅各所繼承的注疏傳統，另一方面則注重理雅各對《詩經》翻譯在西方世界的開創與延伸，以更完整地呈現理雅各在《詩經》翻譯史上留下的面貌。

中國經典詮釋傳統從捍衛保守政教精神的漢唐注疏走向勇於疑古的宋代經說，卻皆以揭示聖人之說為依歸；而從宋代到清代的《詩經》學者們漸次朝聲韻考據的方向前進，希冀進一步楬櫫文本意涵。這發展的過程或可視為中國經學傳統中理性精神的發揚。但中國經典的西洋譯者除了以己身對經文的理解做出種種翻譯抉擇外，尚不免為其他目的服務，甚或受己身文化背景的影響，對中國經典進行誤讀與解構。本文試圖揭示翻譯經典此一工作除了繼承傳統外，也是延續經典詮釋傳統的一種方式。本文一方面討論、比較不同譯文的優劣缺失，另外一方面也試圖以譯文本身做為證據，檢視譯者在對中國經典文獻的理解中，所表現出的文化與歷史性意義，藉此表現出經典翻譯的主觀性與客觀性。

《詩經》翻譯是理雅各中國典籍翻譯事業中最具代表性的成果之一。本文的目的，在藉由分析討論理雅各的翻譯性質及其時代背景，呈現其翻譯成果的意義與特殊性。理雅各鑽研中國經說，試圖於其《詩經》譯本重現中國傳統注疏格式，引進當時法國學界最新的《詩經》研究潮流，並認定《詩經》與「上帝」間存有關聯，這些特點讓理雅各的《詩經》英譯同時雜揉中西觀點。因此，理雅各《詩經》譯本的歷史定位，在於以另一語言延續中國經注傳統，同時也延續了利瑪竇以來透過中國古籍所創建的「古已有之」傳教精神。然而隨著文化與歷史背景變遷，宗教殖民與傳統經說勢力相繼消褪，理雅各取逕的翻譯路線遂可一而不可再。惟理雅各深具經學色彩的《詩經》翻譯亦激發出反動與生機，新譯本與相關研究至今仍方興未艾。James Legge (1815-1897), a Scottish missionary and scholar, translated key Chinese classics into English throughout his lifetime. His efforts are faithfully preserved in The Chinese Classics, the 5-volume series initiated by him, and The Sacred Books of the East, a 50-volume set of Asian religious texts edited by Max Muller (1823-1900). Their reference values were instantly recognised after their publication. This study explores various aspects of the relationship between James Legge and various English translations of The Book of Poetry from the viewpoint of the history of the translation of the Chinese classics. Firstly, we try to investigate what James Legge inherited from earlier translations of The Book of Poetry; secondly, we try to figure out how James Legge exploited the Chinese exegesis tradition in his various translated versions of The Book of Poetry; finally, we focus upon how James Legge’s translations of The Book of Poetry influenced and widened the landscape of the English translations of the Book of Poetry in the western world.

When it comes to the ideology adopted in interpreting The Book of Poetry, all schools claim the spirit of Confucius the Sage is within their grasp. Scholars from the Han and Tang Dynasties fiercely defended the political and educational elements in their commentary notes; in the Song Dynasty, scholars dared to challenge the canon itself; and since then, phonology and evidential studies have played more important roles in relevant studies to The Book of Poetry. The progression may be considered as the wake of rationalism in the Chinese commentary tradition surrounding The Book of Poetry. On the contrary, Western translators of The Book of Poetry not only have to commit their endless interpretive decisions into their works according to their understandings of the canon, but serve other purposes. Based upon their backgrounds and purposes, their deconstruction and interpretations of The Book of Poetry may turn out to be problematical misinterpretations. Nevertheless, through translations, the Chinese commentary traditions is presented and carried on in the Western world. In this study, James Legge’s various versions of translations of The Book of Poetry are discussed to show their advantages and disadvantages respectively, and these translated results are also treated as a mean to investigate their cultural and historical meanings, and present the subjectivity and objectivity in the translations of Chinese classics.

Among James Legge’s translations of Chinese Classics, the three different translated versions of The Book of Poetry offer a rare opportunity to observe how he negotiated the same texts over a timespan, and analyze the different qualities and characters of these versions. His religious upbringing and the historical backgrounds also leave imprints within them. Familiar with Chinese commentary traditions, James Legge attempted to reproduce the commentary forms used in his own The Chinese Classics series. In addition, he introduced the latest anthropological viewpoints developed to explain The Book of Poetry in French school to his readers, and firmly believed the Christian God can be found in The Book of Poetry. James Legge’s translations of The Book of Poetry thus combine Chinese and Western viewpoints. When viewed in historic contexts, these works not only extended the Chinese commentary tradition in another language, but revived the policy of accommodation initiated by Matteo Ricci back in the late 16th Century. After Western religious colonialism and the Chinese commentary tradition both stepped down the stage of history, the strategies James Legge applied to produce his various translated versions of The Book of Poetry are no longer satisfactory enough for newer generations of readers and translators alike. Nevertheless, James Legge’s efforts, developed from the soil of Chinese commentary tradition, go on nourishing reactions, appreciations, new studies and new translated versions.