太宰治的〈竹青〉與《聊齋誌異》的〈竹青〉

A Study of Dazaiosamu's ＂Chikusei＂ and Pu Song-ling's ＂Chu-ching＂ in Liao-Chai Chi-I

中國自古即有大量典籍傳入日本，並影響及日本文學。蒲松齡的《聊齋誌異》也是其中之一，《聊齋誌異》於1768年傳入日本後，對江戶時代及近現代文壇都產生極大的影響。日本出現了不少《聊齋誌異》的翻譯作品及翻案文學，太宰治的〈竹青〉亦是其中之一。日本有不少翻案自中國的作品，因顧及兩國風俗民情，常會將地名、人名或若干情節加以修改，改寫成日本的地名、人名及適合日本社會的情節。而太宰治的〈竹青〉不僅作品名稱沿用《聊齋誌異》的篇名，連故事的地名、人名都未加修改。然而太宰治卻在該作品的後面加上自注，「本篇為創作，是為了要讓中國人閱讀而寫的，可以翻譯成中文」。太宰治是如何改寫《聊齋誌異》的〈竹青〉，又意欲藉由這種改寫向中國讀者傳達何種訊息呢？本文特別透過比較太宰治的〈竹青〉與《聊齋誌異》的〈竹青〉，以探討兩作品有何異同，各具何種旨趣，又為何會產生如何差異，希冀藉此對中日兩國文學特質有更進一步的瞭解。

Many Chinese books and records have traveled to Japan since ancient times, and they have had a great influence on Japanese literature. Pu Song-ling's Liao-Chai Chi-I (Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio) is one of them. Liao-Chai Chi-I was introduced to Japan in 1768, and had an amazing influence on Japanese literary circles of the Edo period as well as modern times. Quite a few translations and literary works presenting divergent views on Liao-Chai Chi-I appeared in Japan, including Dazaiosamu's ＂Chikusei.＂ It is worth mentioning that Dazaiosamu did not make any change in the plot and the names of the characters and places. Even the title remained the same. He emphasized in the endnote that ＂Chikusei＂ was a creative work, and that he wrote it for Chinese people. This paper examines how he rewrote Pu Song-ling's ＂Chu-ching＂ and what messages he wanted to convey to Chinese readers. Looking at the similarities and differences between these two works, I try to understand furthermore the characteristics of Chinese and Japanese literatures.