革命與詩：馬華文學、印尼文學與翻譯凱里爾．安哇

Mahua Literature, Indonesian Literature, and Translating Chairil Anwar

本論文探討馬華文壇如何翻譯與詮釋或重寫印尼詩人凱里爾．安哇（Chairil Anwar）的詩歌，以及其文學遺產對馬華文學有怎樣的關係。凱里爾的作品在印尼、馬來西亞與新加坡廣為流傳。在他去世後，印尼政府把他的逝世日列為印尼詩人節。凱里爾作品不僅啟蒙新馬的馬來文人，也得到馬華文壇的關注。根據資料，早在1950年代初期，凱里爾的詩已譯介到馬華文學園地。直至60、70年代，仍可在各文學雜誌散見其蹤影。積極推介凱里爾詩歌的馬華作家包括威北華（魯白野）、廖建裕（谷衣）、陳瑞獻（西阿漢）。值得關注的是，不同譯者對凱里爾的詩有不同詮釋：一些人從左翼角度視他為人民詩人，作品充滿革命精神；另一些則從高蹈現代主義角度視他為一個追求純粹藝術與形式美的詩人。於是，凱里爾有兩個截然不同的形象：左翼凱里爾與詩性凱里爾。本文將著重探討以下問題：（1）凱里爾如何被詮釋成不同的形象？（2）凱里爾的個案提供我們怎樣的不同角度，去思考文學與社會的課題？本文發現，凱里爾在馬華文學中的不同詮釋版本，源自冷戰時期不同的意識形態。事實上，這兩者可能都未能切實地理解複雜的凱里爾。另一方面，威北華則透過翻譯與書寫，與凱里爾建立了獨特的譯者—作者關係，揭示「文學為社會」和「文學為文學」以外的第三條道路。本論文探討馬華文壇如何翻譯與詮釋或重寫印尼詩人凱里爾．安哇（Chairil Anwar）的詩歌，以及其文學遺產對馬華文學有怎樣的關係。凱里爾的作品在印尼、馬來西亞與新加坡廣為流傳。在他去世後，印尼政府把他的逝世日列為印尼詩人節。凱里爾作品不僅啟蒙新馬的馬來文人，也得到馬華文壇的關注。根據資料，早在1950年代初期，凱里爾的詩已譯介到馬華文學園地。直至60、70年代，仍可在各文學雜誌散見其蹤影。積極推介凱里爾詩歌的馬華作家包括威北華（魯白野）、廖建裕（谷衣）、陳瑞獻（西阿漢）。值得關注的是，不同譯者對凱里爾的詩有不同詮釋：一些人從左翼角度視他為人民詩人，作品充滿革命精神；另一些則從高蹈現代主義角度視他為一個追求純粹藝術與形式美的詩人。於是，凱里爾有兩個截然不同的形象：左翼凱里爾與詩性凱里爾。本文將著重探討以下問題：（1）凱里爾如何被詮釋成不同的形象？（2）凱里爾的個案提供我們怎樣的不同角度，去思考文學與社會的課題？本文發現，凱里爾在馬華文學中的不同詮釋版本，源自冷戰時期不同的意識形態。事實上，這兩者可能都未能切實地理解複雜的凱里爾。另一方面，威北華則透過翻譯與書寫，與凱里爾建立了獨特的譯者—作者關係，揭示「文學為社會」和「文學為文學」以外的第三條道路。

This article examines how Mahua literature translated and interpreted (rewriting) the poetry of Indonesia’s renowned poet Chairil Anwar, during the 1950s and the 1960s. Chairil Anwar, celebrated as a literary genius in Indonesia, had his works widely circulated in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. The Indonesian government even commemorates his death anniversary as Indonesian Poetry Day. Chairil Anwar’s works not only inspired Malay writers in Malaya and Singapore, but also received significant attention in Mahua literature. From the early 1950s, Mahua writers such as Wei Beihua (Lu Po-yeh), Liew Chien Yu (Guyi), and Tan Swie Hian (Xi Ahan) actively translated and promoted his poetry. What stands out is the contrasting interpretations of Chairil Anwar by these writers. Some saw him as a poet of the people, imbued with a revolutionary spirit, while others viewed him as a modernist poet, devoted to refined aesthetic and pure artistic expression. As a result, two distinct portrayals of Chairil Anwar emerged: the Leftist poet and the pure poet. This article explores the following questions: (1) How has Chairil Anwar been interpreted in different ways? (2) What kinds of different perspectives does Chairil Anwar’s case offer for thinking about the relationship between literature and society? The article concludes that the varied representations of Chairil Anwar in Mahua literature stem from the differing ideological leanings of its writers. However, neither interpretation fully captures the complexity of Chairil Anwar as a poet. On the other hand, through his practices of translation and writing, Wei Beihua established a distinctive translator-author relationship with Chairil Anwar, revealing a third pathway beyond“literature for society”and“literature for literature.”