【作者】 李冰梅；

【导师】 王宁；

【作者基本信息】 首都师范大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 在中国经典外译中汉学家是一个不可忽视的群体,由于其文化身份与同样参与中国经典对外翻译的华人译者不同,他们在处理产生于东方这个“他者”文本的时候,其文化身份对于拟译文本的选择、对源语国文化的态度和理解、翻译中所采用的策略等方面都会产生影响,这些由译者自身的内在动因与社会意识形态、时代诗学、出版赞助等外在的动因相呼应,对他们的译作在译入语国家的接受产生巨大作用。本文以20世纪英国著名汉学家阿瑟·韦利翻译的《论语》为论证基础,借用当代文化学派的翻译理论分析上述问题,同时参考阐释学理论、读者接受理论中的某些观点,对阿瑟·韦利的文化身份对其《论语》翻译影响从多角度进行研究,旨在揭示韦利在翻译和介绍中国文化和文学经典中的独特意义以及对中国经典外译的启示。本文主要从四个方面分别论证韦利的文化身份建构过程、时代诗学对他个人文学观和翻译观的影响、在《论语》翻译中折射出的对中国文化的认识,以及中国文化对韦利个人的意识形态和人格的反作用。韦利身上的盎格鲁-犹太人的双重身份对他性格的塑造、价值观的形成和职业选择都有很大的影响。身居英国的“他者”身份让阿瑟·韦利在寻找研究对象时很容易将目光投向另一个“他者”,因此,当他有机会接触到东方文化的时候,便主动去了解东方,介绍东方,并将自己的一生献给了翻译和研究中国和日本文学和文化的事业。他在汉学翻译路上顺应了当时流行在英美的诗歌运动,与“布卢姆斯伯里文化圈”和庞德-艾略特的诗人圈相和,与权威汉学家展开有关中国诗歌翻译问题的讨论,这一切都为他赢得了读者的信任并为自己的译述进入英语世界打开了出版发行渠道。在阿瑟·韦利的汉学研究进入成熟时期后,世界正面临着战争的威胁,他将对世界格局的思考融入中国文化经典的翻译之中。他翻译的《论语》在已有的50多个译本中产生持续性的影响、跨越了大半个世纪。他的翻译挑战了著名的传教士詹姆斯·理雅各的“学术范本”。他反对理雅各解读《论语》的立场、质疑他在朱熹的阴影下对《论语》的翻译,提出了翻译“一个时期一位孔子”的观点,使普通英语读者能够接受和理解饱含东方智慧的《论语》。例如,他在处理《论语》中最核心的儒学概念“仁”的时候,没有沿袭理雅各选择的基督教义之“仁”、辜鸿铭选择的人伦道德之“仁”、林语堂选择的人性自觉之“仁”,而选择了Goodness之“仁”。虽然西方人在自己的文化中对Goodness的理解与儒家文化中的“仁”在语义特征上不能完全重合,但是它们最本质的意义是可以通约的。韦利对“仁”的普适性阐释不仅代表了他对“仁”的认识,也是他为普通读者翻译的基本原则的体现。反思阿瑟·韦利的文化身份对汉学翻译的影响,可以看到他在翻译策略上明显的归化倾向。他高度赞扬林纾归化式的表达,认为他将外国文本翻译成可读性极强的、感染力很大的中国文学语言,这让外国文学在中国有了新的栖身之所和新的生命力。他本人的翻译实践也是用地道的英语表现手段创造性地翻译《论语》篇章。从对韦利汉学翻译的分析中反观他身上的东方观,借用美国汉学家费乐仁的来描述即为“具有汉学特色的东方主义”,这是指他一方面会用一般西方人“居高临下”的视角看中国,不敢面对中国的现实,只翻译和研究以盛唐为代表的古中国,但另一方面,他又在不断的翻译和深入的研究中,对中国文化和中国人产生了深厚的情感。他自身的这种矛盾充分表现在他对中国文学认识的局限性及在第二次世界大战期间的反对战争和积极支持中国人民抗日的行动上。通过研究表明,汉学家在翻译中国文学和文化经典中展现的不仅是一种学术身份,更是一种文化身份,这种文化身份代表西方学者对中国的书写,向西方呈现由汉学传统和西方视角构成的中国文学和文化形象。由于他们的西方立场,在翻译中难免对中国文化在一定程度上进行改写;但另一方面他们与其他的“欧洲中心主义者”和“欧洲霸权主义者”不同,随着对中国文化和文学翻译的不断增多和研究的不断深入,他们的视角从西方向东方偏移,能较为客观地去分析、理解和接受中国的历史和现实。韦利的汉学之路不仅有他自身的特点,也代表了汉学翻译家这一群体。本研究第一次将为中国文学和文化经典翻译做出巨大贡献的汉学家韦利放置在跨文化研究和译介学的角度审视其文化身份及其汉学翻译成就,而不仅仅停留在将其作为一个译者,游弋于两种语言文字之间。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation maintains that the renown 20th century British sinologist, Arthur Waley, born an Anglo-Jew, found his spiritual homeland in oriental culture and literature and his cultural identities influence his sinological translation of the Analects. This diachronical and synchronical study applies the modern translation theories of AndréLefevere, ideology, poetics and patronage and the translator’s culture identities’interferences to his translation process.Cultural identities played an important role to Waley’s way to be a sinologist. He showed great enthusiasm for the east when he won the opportunity to work in the British Museum. By conforming to the poetics of the Bloomsbury Group and the Ezra Pound - T.S. Eliot poet circle, and by exchanging ideas with the then authority in sinology Herbert A. Giles and also by publishing translations and articles on Chinese culture and literature constantly beginning from 1918, Waley drew much attention and acclaim. These broad academic contributions informed the British readership on China and the east. This diachronically study of Waley’s life and academic experiences explains his attitude toward Confucius and the Analects translation later.Translating the Chinese classics marks another stage in Waley’s career. He translated the Confucian Analects which was and is well received in both the West and China among more than 50 different versions that this author has collected. Waley challenged James Legge by criticizing him for his religious ground and relying too much on Zhu Xi’s explanation in translation. What he meant to produce is a translation based on the idea of“one Confucius at a time”. He provided readers with more information about the historical background of the Analects texts than James Legge had done as he believed that“thought grew out of environment”. Waley took the Confucian Analects as an educational book for the common English readers, so he rendered the key term“ren”as“Goodness”. Compared with the other translators’choices for the term this study proves that to turn such a cultural load word into English a compromised method might be a better policy as no well established western concept could substitute for“ren”, though Waley run the risk of familiarizing the Chinese text.The study has shown that sinologists’identities in translating the Chinese classics are not only academic but also cultural ones, which intend to rewrite the Chinese culture and re-form the Chinese images in their translations. There are traces of the modified orientalism in sinologists’way of dealing with the Chinese texts as the result of long-time immersing in Chinese culture in their career. In this aspect Waley is a representative of the sinologist group. To examine and analyze the great contributions that Arthur Waley has made to the popularization of Chinese cultural and literary classics from the cross-cultural and media-transtology points of view is the method employed by the author, rather than to evaluate his translations on the linguistic level about“wrong or right”. The case study of Waley’s translation will throw light on the translation of Chinese classics into foreign languages, which means much in the process of making China known to the World.更多还原