費爾定的「強那生」與施耐庵「水滸傳」之比較

Comparison of Fielding's 'Jonathan Wild' and Shih Nai-an's 'The Water Margin'

都市化分別在十五到十六世紀的中國及十七到十八世紀的英國風行逾百年，但兩國小說的濫觴恰巧符合這樣的都市化。我將探究兩部麥可雷藍(McLellan)所謂的「型成」時期的兩個中英小說，費爾定(Fielding)的「強那生」(Jonathan Wild)寫於十八世紀的英國，而施耐庵(Shih Nai-an)的「水滸傳」[巴克(Buck)英譯為「四海皆兄弟」(All Men Are Brothers)]寫成於十六世紀中葉的中國。兩部小說都處理一幫強匪，而其故事架構淵源於兩個國家的歷史及傳奇。這群強匪都有位深具領袖氣質的領導者－－在「水滸傳」中的宋江，「強那生」中的強那生。兩部小說中層出不窮的盜匪間的背信有如對腐化政治社會的嘲諷。雖然在「強那生」中的領導者從未想取得官職，「水滸傳」而中的領袖則積極謀求官職或者至少是獲得官方的合法認可。

Urbanization began to flourish over a hundred years apart in China and England, beginning in the 15th-16th centuries in China and the 17th-18th centuries in England, but the origin of the novel in both countries coincided with this urbanization. I am comparing two books written in what McLellan ( 1981) has called the 'formative' period of both the Chinese and English novel during this period, Fielding's 'Jonathan Wild' written in England in the 18th century and Shih Nai-an's 'The Water Margin' ['All Men Are Brothers' in Pearl S. Buck's translation] completed in the middle of the 16th century in China. Both novels deal with a gang of bandits whose origins were firmly entrenched in both history and legend in both countries. The bandits were led in both cases by charismatic leaders, in the Chinese case by Sung Chiang, in the English case by Jonathan Wild. Layers of irony in both novels reveal the perfidious workings of the bandits as parodies of corruption in civil and political society, although in the English case the leader never aspired to political- office per se while in the Chinese case the Chinese leader aspired to it or at least to legitimatization by official society.