藉翻譯發明詩說：重探英國漢學家修中誠〈文賦〉英譯本

Inventing Poetics through Translation: Ernest Richard Hughes’s English Translation of Lu Chi’s“Wen Fu”

本文重審英國漢學家修中誠（Ernest Richard Hughes, 1883–1956）於1951年出版的《文賦》英譯本The Art of Letters: Lu Chi’s“Wen Fu,”A.D. 302，評估其在中國文論英譯史及中西文學交流史中的歷史意義。修譯本長期因錯譯頻仍而被視為學術價值有限，然其問世初期曾引起英美文化界關注，並對麥克雷什（Archibald MacLeish）、布萊克謨（R. P. Blackmur）等著名西方詩人與批評家產生實質影響。本文首先梳理其出版背景、學界評價與文化回響，繼而分析兩項具代表性的「誤譯」：一是將「理」系統性譯為“reason”或“reasoning”，藉此建構強調理性作用的創作觀；二是將「俯仰」創譯為“a double angle of vision”，進而建構「駢偶思維」（double-harness thinking）的論述。這些誤譯顯示修中誠並非單純誤解原文，而是在翻譯過程中主動介入文本意義的建構，藉以發明其獨特文學觀。修中誠的〈文賦〉英譯，實為一次與當代西方文學思潮的對話嘗試：既欲藉中國古典文學思想回應西方文壇的時代問題，亦試圖將3世紀的中國文論與20世紀西方前衛詩學相互勾連。儘管未獲漢學界正典地位，修譯本仍在跨文化詩學交流史中具有啟蒙意義。此一個案既反映了中國古典詩學在現代語境中被重讀、誤讀與再造的複雜過程，亦恰恰說明，即使是缺陷叢生的譯作，仍可能在跨文化詩學的流通中，發揮創造與介入的作用。

This article revisits Ernest Richard Hughes's 1951 translation of Wen fu, The Art of Letters: Lu Chi's ''Wen Fu,'' A.D. 302,, and reassesses its significance in the history of the English translation of Chinese literary theory and in Sino-Western literary exchange. Long marginalized within sinological scholarship on account of its frequent inaccuracies and limited philological reliability, Hughes’s translation has generally been regarded as a flawed and peripheral work. At the time of its publication, however, it attracted substantial attention in Anglophone intellectual circles and exerted a discernible influence on poets and critics such as Archibald MacLeish and R. P. Blackmur. The contrast between its subsequent scholarly marginalization and its initial cultural impact therefore warrants a re-evaluation of its historical significance.. The article first situates Hughes’s work within its intellectual and institutional contexts by examining its publication history, critical reception, and broader cultural impact. It then turns to two representative cases of so-called“mistranslation”. The first concerns Hughes’s systematic rendering of the key concept li (理) as“reason”or“reasoning,”a choice that reflects a particular interpretive orientation toward literary creation. The second involves his creative translation of fuyang (俯仰) as“a double angle of vision,”from which he develops the notion of“double-harness thinking.”Taken together, these cases demonstrate that Hughes approached translation not merely as a process of linguistic transfer but as an act of critical invention through which he sought to articulate his own poetics. Through his translation of Wen fu, Hughes sought to address what he perceived as unresolved tensions within contemporary Anglophone literary discourse, while also bringing classical Chinese literary thought into dialogue with modern Western poetics. Although his translation never achieved canonical status within sinology, it nonetheless played a formative role in the early stages of cross-cultural poetic exchange. Re-evaluating The Art of Letters thus contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how classical Chinese literary theory was received, reinterpreted, and transformed within the Anglophone intellectual world.