丹頓裴倫是我師：錢稻孫對《神曲》的楚辭體譯介與學衡派的「流人想像」

Dante and Byron Are My Teachers: Qian Daosun’s Chuci-style Translation of The Divine Comedy and the Xueheng School’s“Exile’s Imagination”

今人時常將但丁與屈原、《神曲》與〈離騷〉作類比，然而追溯其淵源，卻與上世紀二三十年代錢稻孫對《神曲．地獄篇》前五章主體的楚辭體翻譯及以吳宓、李思純、錢稻孫、徐楨立等學衡派詩人對「但丁《神曲》擬〈離騷〉」這一比較文學命題的塑造、强調與加固有著密切關係。錢稻孫率先在《小說月報》刊載其譯詮的〈神曲一臠〉，在新舊文學角力的大背景下，其楚辭體譯文埋下了日後學衡派塑造《神曲》作為「去國懷鄉，憂讒畏譏」主題之作品的種子。《學衡》與《大公報．文學副刊》在吳宓的主持下，透過刊載「但丁《神曲》擬〈離騷〉」相關的詩詞、插畫、雜劇（〈但丁夢雜劇〉）及錢稻孫增譯的〈地獄．曲四〉〈曲五〉等，將但丁歸入跨文化「放逐詩學」的譜系中來，實則映射了吳宓及學衡派在中外新舊碰撞之際的「文化流人」心態與身分想像。同時，這一跨文化詩學譜系，也擴展到了學衡派文人對拜倫〈《王孫哈魯紀遊詩》第三集〉的譯介與知識形塑活動之中，透過楊葆昌的譯文及吳宓、楊葆昌關於翻譯的副文本，可知其利用古今中外之資源塑造拜倫「被放逐者」形象的真正意圖所在。

People often compare Dante and Qu Yuan, The Divine Comedy and Li Sao. However, the origin of this comparison can be traced to Qian Daosun’s Chuci-style translation of the first five chapters of the Inferno in the 1920s and 1930s, and tied to Wu Mi, Li Sichun, Qian Daosun, Xu Zhenli and other Xueheng School poets, who shaped, emphasized and reinforced the comparative literary proposition that“Dante’s Divine Comedy is just like Li Sao.”Qian Daosun first published his translation of The Divine Comedy in Novel Monthly, against the backdrop of the struggle between new and traditional literature. This translation, mainly in Chuci style, laid the foundation for the later Xueheng School to establish the purpose of The Divine Comedy as“nostalgia for the country and fear of slander.”Under the auspices of Wu Mi, both Xueheng and La Revue littéraire de l’Impartial published poems, illustrations, dramas (a zaju titled Dante’s Dream), and Qian Daosun’s new translations of Cantos IV and V (Inferno), thus giving Dante the cross-cultural pedigree of“poetics of exile.”In fact, this reflects Wu Mi and the Xueheng School’s“cultural exile”mentality and identity imagination at the time of the collision between old and new, China and the West. Moreover, this cross-cultural poetics genealogy also extended to the translation and intellectual shaping activities for the translation of Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, Canto III by the Xueheng School. Yang Baochang’s translation and the paratexts for the translation by Wu Mi and Yang Baochang together point to the intention of using ancient and modern resources from China and abroad to create Byron’s image as an“exile.”