論中國豔情小說翻譯：以《金瓶梅》英譯本為例

Translating Chinese Erotic Literature: A Case Study of the English Translations of Jin Ping Mei

翻譯豔情文學需要譯者處理比文字層面更深層的情色元素，而這些情色元素都 是原文作者特意在文本中加入的身體修辭或意識型態。豔情小說中對身體描繪的性 語言是值得進一步探究的議題。翻譯性語言涉及譯者對性別及性別認同概念、人類 性行為及社會道德規範的態度及感受 (Santaemilia， 2014， p. 104)。因此，詞語的定 義不僅僅與詞彙學有關，更與感受 (affect) 有關 (West， 2010， p. 7)。羅賓遜(1991)所 提出的身心反應 (somatic response) 也是受到意識型態的驅使及控制。本研究以身 體與語言的相互關係為起點，探討艾支頓 (Clement Egerton) 與芮效衛(David Roy) 所翻譯的明代中國豔情小說《金瓶梅》兩個英譯本，分析身體這元件如何在翻譯過 程中重新建構，特別是在描述西門慶與其書僮性愛過程中，對身體的描述是如何在 翻譯中重生。研究結果發現，艾支頓的英譯版傾向淡化西門慶與其書僮間男男性愛 身體的原文文化描述意象，而芮效衛的英譯版則傾向保留原文文化意象及描述。

When translating literary obscenity， translators must deal with a greater degree of eroticism than what is presented at the textual level. Narratives of the human body in erotic literature—the most prominent characteristic of which is the language of sex— present a fascinating subject for further exploration. The translator’s treatment of the language of sex is influenced by his or her attitudes or feelings toward existing conceptualizations of gender/sexual identities， human sexual behaviors， and the target society’s moral norms (Santaemilia， 2014， p. 104). The meaning of words does not rely solely on lexicology， but also encompasses affect (West， 2010， p. 7)， or what Robinson (1991) calls “the somatic response，” which is ideologically motivated and controlled. This paper considers the interrelationship between the body and language as a point of departure for discussion of how the body is (re)constructed in Clement Egerton’s (1939) and David Roy’s (1993–2013) English translations of Jin Ping Mei， a great Chinese erotic literary work from the Ming dynasty. It compares how they translated the narratological presentation of the body in the descriptions of sex between men— particularly in Ximen Qing’s affairs with his pageboys—and whether these translations carry the original symbolism present in the target language. The results demonstrate that Egerton tends to neutralize the culturally-bonded sexual narrative of the source text， whereas Roy retains the original phrasing and descriptions. By replacing sexually explicit language with euphemistic synonyms and neutralized expressions， Egerton’s translation inevitably undermines the illocutionary elements intended by Jin Ping Mei’s original author.