在《摩爾人的最後嘆息》中，魯西迪藉由虛實交錯的敘事呈現繁複混雜的羊皮紙式的歷史書寫：層層俱現也層層剝除，在不斷越界的同時一方面也暗示代表答案的核心永遠到不了的事實，也描繪出印度多元種族並存的歷史地景。本論文擬以華特．班雅明的翻譯理論之觀點逐章剖析小說中不同的翻譯借喻(tropes of translation)。班雅明的翻譯理論不同於傳統重視意義的翻譯理論，其立論中心在於以直譯的思維來否定二元對立、相互取代的尋常認知模式以彰顯翻譯事實上不屬於原文亦不屬於譯文。換言之，其立論精神在於強調語言不只是訊息的傳遞，因為過度強調意義的地位時，就有過度為譯入方或譯出方服務的傾向出現。置放於後殖民情境中時，以翻譯的門檻位置檢視殖民者與被殖民者的關係於是有擺脫符號的固有組合方式，展現原屬被大寫歷史壓抑、無法言傳的部份之功用在。 第一章以魯西迪的寫作脈落背景與班雅明的翻譯理論結合作出發點來闡釋班雅明翻譯理論的中心思想如何與魯西迪的寫作主題切合。此外並介紹班雅明的翻譯理論的多種理論性面向，探討其理論如何以實現屬於先驗(transcendental)層次的純粹語言為目標來彰顯其於下層的啟迪並以此為目標帶來新意、跨越人世間的扭曲疆界。 第二章以剖析魯西迪在其作品中亟欲破除的疆界迷思為出發點來與翻譯理論的中介性(liminality)與內在性(immanence)作連結並進一步以此連結觀照小說中各個翻譯借喻。第一部份將以中介性為主題，論述魯西迪在敘事過程中以嘲諷二元對立的虛假不實來表達反詮釋、工具化的訴求。他巧妙地運用史實與神話並置的敘事來嘲諷以接續、回溯為目的之傳統史觀的虛妄不實。本部份將配合萊布尼茲的無窗單子概念將翻譯理論應用於閱讀女主角歐蘿拉的童年啟迪經驗及其畫作。第二部份進一步申論隱藏在此敘事之下的則是一個反詮釋、反工具化的超人類經驗概念，此部分將以內在性為主題，以班雅明理體架構中對先驗層次的討論來進一步探討跨越二元對立的界限後，追求主客體經驗怯除的可能境界及連結。 第三章將進一步擴大以無窗單子閱讀翻譯理論，以探討翻譯理論中一與多的本質為主題來檢視小說中一與多的關係。一般咸認為「多」是讚揚多文化混雜主義的不二法門。多數與少數、明與暗、純與雜以至於不同族群間的關係在先驗上並非處於相互對立的靜止認知架構，而是一場不斷進行流動的分與合的過程。因此最適合觀照此過程的是一種動態式的概念。班雅明在其翻譯理論中以「切線輕觸圓周」的明喻強調語言親屬架構中分屬不同表意模式的語言在如切線般輕觸代表純粹語言的圓周後，一瞬間參透奧秘而繼續往前發展正是表達了無窗單子中一與多的思維體系。 / In The Moor’s Last Sigh, Rushdie presents a narrative of juxtaposition of history, myth and family saga in a palimpsest fashion, in which layers of vision imbricate upon each other. Reiterating the permeability of the borderline, the vision of palimpsest in fact emphasizes the crossing of the border and also intimates the impossibility of obtaining a final answer. In this thesis, I use Walter Benjamin’s translation theory to probe into the tropes of translation of the novel in the sense of border crossing. The first chapter begins with the concept of human defectiveness shared by Rushdie and Benjamin, focusing on the theme of digression of Rushdie’s narrative style and that of Benjamin’s theoretical methodology, which is also the axis among his broad theoretical framework. Benjamin’s translation theory is different from the traditional ones in its emphasis on literal translation rather than on free translation. Free translation in the service of meaning could not communicate essence through translation, for the meaning communicated between tool languages is void in its nature. The conception of the use of languages as substitution between signs are inessential, because such activity of substitution remains within the barrier of the multiplied tool languages, which generally forms the problematic of regression in Benjamin’s translation theory. Tropes of translation, in the light of Benjamin, manifest the act of border crossing from a lower level of human to a higher level of high purposiveness. Chapter two centers on the theme of binary oppositions of the novel. By the discussion of binary oppositions epitomized as theses and faeces as borderline, I aim to elaborate on the aspect of anti-utilitarianism of Rushdie’s narrative. I argue that under that theme of binary opposition and a deferring narrative, which points to an ultimate answer but always turns out to be disillusion, Rushdie intimates something beyond the limit of human experience. I will view this aspect of novel in the vein of Benjamin’s essay “On the Program of the Coming Philosophy.” What Benjamin anticipates in the essay is thus a new philosophy stripped of the episteme of subject-object. Rushdie does portrait few of such superhuman scenes in the novel like the deracination fantasies, the unconscious act resulted from his non-communalism background and the world of fancy. Through these descriptions, what Rushdie pursues is apparent the indefinable and the provisional that is stripped of the confinement of binary opposition and utilitarianist idea because binary oppositions and utilitarianist are two significant factors forming the authenticity myth that he consistently criticizes. Furthermore, if Benjamin regards the idea of using the reason freely as falsehood, the concept of freedom also accordingly becomes another problematic, just as he repudiates the function of free translation in his translation theory because its emphasis on the exchange of meaning is confined in the human-fabricated and distorted barrier. Rushdie also shows a strong disbelief in the self-claimed and definitive authentic myth, which he implies as theses. In other words, it is the artificiality that they both criticize. Thus I argue that the concept of Rushdie’s literary critique of the idea of authenticity formulates very similarly to Benjamin’s philosophical critique of freedom. The issue of the definitive theses and the provisional possibility of the faeces thus lead to the last part of discussion in my thesis – the relationship between One and Many. The last chapter probes into the relationship between One and Many to conclude the dynamic image of Benjamin’s translation theory. The One as pure language does not produce or subsume the particular modes of intention as Many. It does not keep a causal relationship with them because it belongs to the high purposiveness, which can only be manifested through the intentions of all single functions. And unlike the definitive theses which seek to marginalize or replace the others, the One as an absent presence harmonizes Many simply by its absent presence. Because of such special relationship, the retaining of the presence of the One seems to be rendered redundant. Nonethelss, it must be emphasized that the particular modes of intentions as Many cannot be examined without the term of the One, because, speaking in the context of translation, every time of the act of translation recalls to the One as pure language, which is also the presence that makes this very act necessary and possible. Through the delineation of the relationship between One and Many, what is to be mapped out is the presence of essence in the special relation. In the novel Rushdie does the same thing with the play of the idea of binary opposition and an experimental narrative that seeks to subvert the status of traditional history, leaving the problem of genuineness for the reader to decide, and sometimes beyond the matrix of human experience. The absent present One that is not fully describe symbolizes the simultaneous superimposition and effacement of the palimpsest vision. What the reader can do is to choose their own idea among the multiplicity that Rushdie throws in the face of their interpreting desire. It is also this multiplicity which lets in the provisional truth that the reader seeks and expands the frontier of possibility that is not to be institutionalized by any institutionalizing ideology.