左右為難：遭人曲解的傅東華研究

On the Distortions in Studies of Fu Tung-hua in Taiwan and Mainland China

傅東華是1930年代活躍於大陸的左傾文人，譯作等身，譯風不拘，文類多變。1949年之後，傅氏因曾經翻譯美國普立茲得獎小說《飄》（Gone with the Wind） 而遭大陸官方劃右，指責傅氏有意散布資產主義思想，翻譯生涯因此受阻，1980年代方獲平反。與此同時，傅氏譯作在臺廣為流傳，包括《飄》、《詩學》（Ars Poetica）、《奧德賽》（The Odyssey）、《伊利亞德》（The Iliad）、《失樂園》（Paradise Lost）、《吉訶德先生傳》（Don Quixote）、《猩紅文》（The Scarlet Letter） ⋯⋯等，共計17種，多為本地主流譯本，對臺灣譯壇貢獻不容小覷。唯因政治因素所囿，其譯作多匿名或以假名在臺出版，譯者身分遭到隱匿，致使後續研究受阻，兩岸學界對其譯作的批評又不乏偏頗之論。援此，本研究從第一手史料著手，疏理傅氏生平譯作及其在臺流通情況，並從譯者出身、譯者養成、譯者地位切入，勾勒傅氏翻譯生涯的歷史脈絡，分析譯者出身與譯作選擇、譯者養成與翻譯策略、譯者地位與翻譯論戰之間的關係，據此為兩次影響傅氏翻譯生涯甚鉅的翻譯批評提出新的解讀。

Fu Tung-hua was an active left-wing literary figure and prolific translator in 1930s China, one who translated a range of literary genres using various translation strategies. After 1949, however, Mr. Fu was blamed for disseminating the ideology of capitalism in mainland China with his Chinese translation of the Pulitzer-winning novel Gone with the Wind. Thus his translation career was hindered, and his reputation was not restored until the1980s. In the meantime, seventeen of Fu's translations continued to be reprinted in Taiwan, including Ars Poetica, The Odyssey, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, Don Quixote, The Scarlet Letter and Gone with the Wind, most of which were mainstream editions. Though Fu's contributions to Taiwan's literary and intellectual world cannot be underestimated, his name was and is not widely known because his works were published anonymously or under false names for political reasons. This phenomenon has eclipsed his identity as a translator and obstructed research, while the most influential analyses of his translations tend to be marked by the above-mentioned political bias. Noting these limitations on, and distortions of, interpretations of Mr. Fu's work as a translator in Taiwan and mainland China, this study aims to reconstruct his image through solid archeological research, and to discuss his translation career from the perspective of his background, training and status. Its goal is to analyze the connections between Fu's social background and the works he chose to translate, between his training and his translation strategies, and between his status and the criticisms of his translations. It is hoped that this analysis can shed new light on two criticisms in particular, the ones that most seriously damaged Mr. Fu's career.