似忠非忠：從〈長干行〉葉譯本與龐譯本之比較論效忠的迷思

The Professor’s Song or the Poet’s Letter? Against Fidelity in Translation

本文以唐代詩人李白《長干行》的兩個英譯本為題，論述翻譯既不是「忠實」也不是「自由」的問題。英譯本的兩位譯者分別是著名中國和比較文學學者葉維廉和美國現代主義詩人龐德。按傳統保守的翻譯批評，前者往往被視作 「忠於原文」的譯者而後者為「自由發揮」的譯者。但如果從敘事框架和文化話語的視角探討此一問題，「忠實」和「自由」兩者看似極端，但其實都是合理的產出，因為兩者分別符合譯者的創作目的和所在文化語境的需求。只有當「效忠」的意識型態被強加於譯文之上，我們才會將其中一個譯本貼上標籤，說這是 「好的譯文/忠實的譯文/不違反中華文化的譯文」，另一個譯本就淪為「不好的譯文/過於自由的譯文/有東方主義色彩的譯文」。但正如本雅明在《譯者的任務》中指出，「文學作品的本質不是陳述或傳遞訊息」且「任何旨在發揮傳遞功能的翻譯只能傳遞訊息，即一些非關文學本質的內容。」 依此論述，則葉譯本之準確性其實是矛盾的，因為其準確性是建立在非文學性訊息的翻譯。本文透過葉譯本與龐譯本的比較，從文本框架、標題、聲音、敘事脈絡、文學典故的處理、音樂性等方面，指出龐德的翻譯才是翻譯文學的本質，即詩意。以此論據，「忠於原文」 僅能作為一種偽客觀的翻譯準則，一種虛構的正義，對於譯者、譯評、翻譯教師來說，實為警言，而非衡量翻譯「品質」的標準。

 

This paper examines two English translations of the Chinese poem “Chang Gan Xing” (長干行) by the Tang dynasty poet, Li Po (AD 701-62). The respective translators are Wai-lim Yip, a renowned scholar of Chinese and Comparative Literature, and Ezra Pound, the American modernist poet. The two translators are examples that occupy, traditionally speaking, the two extremes of translation: one conscientious of being “faithful,” the other of being “free.” But if approached from a framing and discourse perspective, the translations are no longer matters of faithfulness or freedom. Both are justifiable in that both created a translation meaningful for their own purposes and contexts. Only when the discourse of “fidelity” is imposed—like any other ideology is imposed—do we start labeling one as “good/faithful/ethical,” the other as “bad/free/orientalizing.” As Walter Benjamin points out in “The Task of the Translator,” the “essential quality” of a literary work “is not statement or the imparting of information” and “any translation which intends to perform a transmitting function cannot transmit anything but information—hence, something inessential.” Under this argument, Yip’s translation is paradoxically the accurate translation of the inessential. By comparing his translation with Pound’s, in terms of the frame, title, voice, narrative arc, the treatment of literary allusions, and musicality, this paper seeks to explain why it is Pound who is translating the “essential,” the poetic. “Fidelity,” in this case, serves more as a construct and cautionary tale of pseudo-objectivity for translators and those who profess to teach or review translations, rather than the yardstick against which “quality” is measured.”