失落的疆土：〈十月之交〉與威利《詩經》英譯刪詩考

The Lost Territory: A Case Study of Waley’s Omission of the Political Poems from The Book of Songs (1937)

英國漢學家威利於1937年出版其《詩經》英譯專著（The Book of Songs）。此譯本為理雅各之後最具代表性的《詩經》英譯版本，也被譽為是二十世紀最重要的《詩經》譯本之一。威利以詩歌本身內容與情境為主，擺脫中國傳統經說，改以文學與文化比較觀點進行翻譯，為此譯本最鮮明的特色，學者對此已有諸多相關論述。不過，此流行甚廣的《詩經》英譯本實非完帙，威利決定將其中15首「政治哀歌」刪去不譯。如欲理解威利的《詩經》學與其譯本之價值所在，實際上需要對威利就這些刪詩的詮釋與相關說法有所認知，方能完整認知其《詩經》學的架構與貢獻。
本文以威利1937年《詩經》英譯本所刪之詩為研究主題，透過稍早出版的〈日蝕詩與其組詩〉（“The Eclipse Poem and Its Group,”1936）及同時發行的《校勘記》（Supplement of Textual Notes），剖析威利對這些篇章的詮釋，並推究其刪詩動機。透過本文可以得知，威利之所以刪詩，主因在於無法苟同傳統經說，是以他為這些詩歌重新架構歷史時空背景。然而，在翻譯實務操作上，他對譯詩題材與選擇有其偏好，加上建立於改讀原文的訓詁手法，終使其嘗試難以為繼。因此威利刪《詩》實為考量讀者感受，亦為忠於個人翻譯原則之舉。

Arthur Waley's 1937 English translation of The Book of Songs is widely regardedas one of the most influential versions of the text in the 20th century, following James Legge's remarkable The Chinese Classics Vol.IV: The She King(1876). Waley's translation stands out for its literary approach and its departure from traditional Chinese commentaries, drawing instead on anthropological and ethnological insights. While scholars have extensively analyzed these features of Waley's translation, one significant aspect of his work has received less attention: his decision to omit 15''political lamentations'' from the original text. These omissions raise questions about Waley’s interpretative choices and the broader implications of his translation.
This study focuses on Waley's reasons for omitting these poems, drawing primarily from his 1936 article“The Eclipse Poem and Its Group”and the Supplement of Textual Notes published together with the main work. This study argues that Waley's decision to exclude these poems stemmed from his disagreement with traditional Chinese interpretations, which led him to reshape their historical context. Furthermore, the study explores how Waley's translation preferences on poem selections and substantial alterations to the original text contributed to these omissions. Ultimately, this study contends that Waley's decision was guided by concerns for the acceptability of his translation to readers in the English-speaking regions and his commitment to his own translation principles.