Ideological Influence in the Translation and Publication of Four Translations of Animal Farm in Taiwan and Mainland China

[[abstract]]本研究透過勒菲弗爾（Andre Lefevere）所提出的「贊助人」與「改寫」論點來剖析《動物農莊》在兩岸之翻譯及其譯本出版如何受到贊助人意識形態影響。本研究挑選四本《動物農莊》中譯本為研究對象。代表臺灣的譯本為一九五六年出版的李啟純譯本，以及一九七一年出版的任樨羽譯本；代表中國大陸的譯本為二○○五年出版的傅惟慈譯本，以及二○一三年出版的李繼宏譯本。本研究發現，戒嚴時期國民黨高舉反共旗幟，並贊助正中書局譯介反共作品，李啟純的譯本便在其列。李的譯本更曾為梁實秋譽為優秀的反共之作。研究發現，李的譯文可見貶斥共產主義的痕跡，呼應當局的意識形態。任樨羽的譯本成書於美國，一九四八年於上海出版，雖於一九六九年獲准在臺出版，但原本只做為青少年讀物。相較於李的翻譯，任之譯文不見貶斥共產主義的跡象。另外，國民黨的反共意識形態亦影響兩譯本之出版。參照學者白立平的研究發現，李啟純實為梁實秋筆名，梁卻從未公開承認。由於梁翻譯此書時於政府擔任要職，其翻譯可能出於委託而成，然而梁可能不願被貼上政治標籤，遂不承認譯過此書，並以第三人稱評價李譯的政治與美學價值。另外，有數版任樨羽譯本未標示譯者姓名，導致「偽譯本」現象，此係出版社為規避出版限制所採取的權宜之計。在中國大陸，中共於一九七八年實施改革開放並調整意識形態。除堅持社會主義與毛澤東思想，更強調實用主義以發展經濟。同時，為維持一黨專政，出版品審查仍舊嚴格，多數出版社也受中共嚴格管控。改革開放頭二十年，《動物農莊》仍被當局視為敏感作品，直至二○○五年此書定調為反極權作品後才有較多譯本問世。傅惟慈以及李繼宏也在序言中呼應此一觀點。本文發現，傅惟慈與李繼宏的譯本在翻譯影射共產主義的橋段上並無李啟純的貶斥語氣，部分對於共產主義的描繪趨於正面。贊助人意識形態亦影響此二譯本的出版。傅譯成書於一九七○年代，但礙於此書在一九八○與九○年代仍甚為敏感，出版屢遭阻礙，直至二○○五年始得發行單行本。往後，《動物農莊》翻譯轉趨熱烈，各種版本相繼問世，李繼宏譯本便是一例。雖然李繼宏於序言中表明，翻譯此書係用來反思改革開放導致的社會不公，不過也堅持此書是為社會主義而譯，亦呼應中共當局意識形態。本研究以勒菲弗爾操控理論探討《動物農莊》在臺灣與中國大陸的翻譯及其出版現象，對有志研究翻譯與意識形態的學者與譯者，本研究成果可酌供參考。[[abstract]]This study investigates how Animal Farm is translated and published in Taiwan and Mainland China by using the notions of Patronage and Rewriting proposed by Andre Lefevere. Four Chinese translations are selected in this thesis. Li Qichun’s and Ren Xiyu’s translations published in Taiwan are chosen for analysis. Li’s rendition is published in 1956 and Ren’s 1971. For translations in Mainland China, Fu Weici’s and Li Jihong’s renditions are selected to be explored. Fu’s version is published in 2005 and Li Jihong’s 2013.During the Martial Law period, the KMT advocated anti-communist ideology and sponsored Cheng Chung Book to translate anti- communist works, including Li Qichun’s rendition. It is found that the tones of the passages referring to communism are vilified in Li’s version but not in Ren Xiyu’s translation which was a version imported from Mainland China. Ren’s rendition was used as a supplementary reading for young adult readers when it was published in Shanghai in 1948. The translator is also controlled by the KMT’s anti-communist ideology. In Li’s case, Li Qicun’s is Liang Shih-ch’iu’s pseudonym but Liang did not admit that. He might not want to be tagged as a typical anti-communist translator; thus, he chose to conceal his identity and commented Li’s rendition from political and aesthetic angles. In Ren’s case, the publishers had to omit his name in several editions due to the censorship regulation on translation imported from Mainland China, which makes it “fake translation”.In Mainland China, the CPC implemented out Reform and Opening-up Policy and transformed the party’s ideology in 1978. They insisted on socialism and Maoism while advocated pragmatism in developing economy. Publication censorship remains strict, and most of the publishers are regulated by the party. Animal Farm had been a sensitive novel for the CPC up until 2005 that it was viewed as a work against totalitarianism. This perspective is also stated in Fu Weici’s and Li Jihong’s prefaces to their renditions. The tones in the passages referring to communism in Fu Weici’s and Li Jihong’s translations are not vilified as in Li Qichun’s. The CPC’s ideology also impacts on their publications. Fu could not have published his translation because of political taboo. Li Jihong says that his translation is used to reflect the social inequality, but also insists it is made for socialism, which is consistent with the CPC’s ideology.This thesis study provides a rudimentary understanding of ideological influence in the translation and publication of Animal Farm in Taiwan and Mainland China. It is hoped that the results in this research could offer some insights for the researchers and the translators who are interested in Translation and Ideology