This dissertation discusses the Edo-period Japanese translation, adaptation, and theoretical analysis of Chinese popular fiction and drama between 1680 and 1815. I focus on the ways in which Japanese encounters with fiction and drama written in the unfamiliar “vernacular” engendered reinterpretations of Japan’s cultural relationship to China. Whereas this relationship had previously centered largely on the Confucian classics and their ongoing interpretation in Japan, I argue that the introduction of vernacular texts enabled new modes of visualizing China’s position as a locus of textual and cultural authority. I connect the increasingly formalized study of vernacular texts to a discourse on temporality and linguistic change, and demonstrate the degree to which engagement with late imperial Chinese fiction and drama led to the reformulation of definitions of culture, literature, and language. By dramatically widening the range of materials and texts that could be used to construct a vision of China, the introduction of vernacular fiction and drama encouraged Edo-period philologists and fiction connoisseurs to reconceptualize both the criteria for judging textual competence, and the position of their own writing with respect to China. Rather than focusing on eighteenth-century efforts to efface traces of China’s cultural imprint on Japan, I seek to complicate accounts of the development of Japanese literature by exploring the oeuvres of philosophers, philologists, and fiction writers who attempted to theorize areas of convergence between Chinese and Japanese literary production. The study is divided into four chapters. Chapter One introduces the major themes of the dissertation as a whole and analyzes the rhetoric surrounding both the introduction of Chinese vernacular texts and subsequent attempts at reifying their study as an independent academic discipline. Chapter Two develops these themes further through an analysis of three eighteenth-century explorations of aesthetics, genre, and literary translation. In Chapters Three and Four, I examine a group of anomalous “reverse translations” of Japanese fiction and drama into the language and structure of vernacular Chinese fiction—using these largely overlooked texts to map out networks of literary contact and discuss the hermeneutics underlying eighteenth-century Japanese engagement with vernacular Chinese fiction and drama. / East Asian Languages and Civilizations

The vernacular fiction 'novel' is a genre typically associated with the explosion of commercial printing activity that occurred in the late sixteenth century. However, by that time, representative works such as the Shuihu zhuan and Sanguo yanyi had already been in print for several decades. Moreover, those early print editions were printed not by commercial entities but rather the elite of the Jiajing court. In order to better understand the genre as a print phenomenon, this paper explores the publishing output of one of those elites: Guo Xun (1475- 1542), Marquis of Wuding. In addition to vernacular fiction, Guo printed a number of other types of books as well. This paper examines the entirety of his publishing activities in order to better contextualize the vernacular novel at this early stage in its life in print.

Jin Ping Mei 金瓶梅, œuvre controversée dès son apparition à la fin du XVIe siècle, fut très tôt reconnue comme une des œuvres phare du roman chinois en langue vulgaire, notamment par Feng Menglong 馮夢龍 (1574-1646) qui le désigna comme un des Si da qishu 四 大奇書 (Quatre grands livres extraordinaires). De nombreux mystères à son sujet restent encore débattus aujourd’hui, parmi lesquels l’identité de son auteur, l’authenticité de ses éditions, ou les interprétations possibles de ce roman. La réputation exécrable dont il continue de souffrir en Chine continentale ne l’a pas empêché de susciter l’intérêt des premiers sinologues français et anglais et ceci dès 1816. En prenant pour point de départ une analyse des sources et une synthèse des hypothèses en cours concernant Jin Ping Mei et ses interprétations, notre thèse fera le point sur toutes les adaptations et traductions en anglais et en français de l’ouvrage, notamment en mettant en parallèle les deux meilleures traductions intégrales dont nous disposons actuellement, à savoir en français, celle d’André Lévy (1985), et en anglais, celle de David Tod Roy (de 1993 à 2013). Cette confrontation nous permettra de distinguer les différentes interprétations de l’ouvrage retenues par les traducteurs, et d’exposer les stratégies mises en place par eux pour le traduire. Un aspect crucial de notre travail consistera à souligner dans notre critique les positions interprétatives des traducteurs, et le potentiel interprétatif qui résulte de leurs choix. Loin de vouloir appliquer à ces traductions un jugement de valeur, nous espérons au contraire offrir une meilleure compréhension de la profondeur de cette œuvre si complexe et controversée. / Jin Ping Mei 金瓶梅, one of the greatest masterpieces of the vernacular Chinese fiction, faced controversy ever since it appeared at the end of the 16th century. Scholars like Feng Menglong馮夢龍 (1574-1646) recognized the novel to be exceptional early on, placing it amongst the Si da qishu 四大奇書 (Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel). However, there still is a halo of unresolved mysteries around Jin Ping Mei, despite the fact that it has been the focal point of numerous studies. Some questions remain unsolved, such as the identity of its author, the authenticity of its editions, or its possible interpretations. Despite the bad reputation that the novel still suffers from in mainland China, its raised the interest from French and English sinologists as soon as 1816. Ever since, the novel has been the subject of partial translations and adaptations highly perfectible. Starting with an analysis of the sources and a synthesis of current hypothesis about the book and its interpretations, our thesis will then focus on all the adaptations and translations of the novel in English and in French, to ultimately confront the two best integral translations available to that day, namely André Lévy’s (1985) and David Tod Roy’s (1993 to 2013). This confrontation will allow us to distinguish the interpretations that translators had of the novel, and to expose the strategies they resorted to. A crucial part of our work will be to underline the interpretative positions of both translators, and the interpretative potential that results from their choices. Our goal is not to judge of the value of said translations, but rather to offer a better understanding of the depth of Jin Ping Mei. / 自十六世紀末問世以來，《金瓶梅》一直都是一部有爭議的作品。作為一部中國古代通俗長篇小說的著作，以及被馮夢龍稱為“四大奇書”之一，《金瓶梅》至今為止仍存在許多未解之謎。雖然對作品的相關研究日漸增多，但是關於作者的身份、版本以及對作品的闡釋等問題尚未達成共識。直至今日，《金瓶梅》在中國仍臭名昭著，但是這並不妨礙它在國外的流傳。早至1816 年，這部作品便引起了法國第一位漢學家的注意。兩個世紀以來，在法國紛紛出現了各種選段翻譯、改寫以及問題種種的不完整的法譯本。同樣，《金瓶梅》在英美國家的傳播之路也是漫長而艱難。該論文首先對《金瓶梅》的文學特色以及作品闡釋的問題進行相關探討，然後對《金瓶梅》所有翻譯和改寫的法譯本和英譯本進行研究，特別是對該作品的兩個完整的法譯本(André Lévy 雷威安 1985 年譯成)和英譯本(David TodRoy 苪效衛 1993 年至2013 年五卷本) 進行對比研究。通過對這些譯本的研究，我們能深入地了解譯者對作品的闡釋，他們採用的翻譯策略，以及他們譯本的優劣性。該論文的研究重點是譯者對作品闡釋的主體性，以及他們的翻譯策略給譯本讀者對原著理解帶來的影響。我們的研究並不是為了對譯本進行質量的評估，而是通過對譯本的研究來讓我們對《金瓶梅》這一複雜而極具爭議的作品有更深層的了解。

No description available.