本文試圖相互參照閱讀喬伊斯所著《尤利西斯》〈獨眼巨人〉一章與王禎和之《玫瑰玫瑰我愛你》，並指出兩文本均以翻譯作為文學手段，修正國家文學這個概念，認為它應是異質、混雜、且變動的論述。十九世紀末二十世紀初，愛爾蘭正值文化復興高峰，翻譯常被用來恢復失落的蓋爾傳統或是用以引介外國文學充實國族想像。臺灣文學也是如此，1960 與1970 這二十年間興起的兩個文學運動也利用翻譯重新書寫臺灣。現代主義陣營翻譯西方法國與美國現代文學以遁逃於泛濫的政治反共文宣之外，本土文學則透過翻譯尋回在政府審查制度下疏離為他者的本地特色。喬伊斯與王禎和的作品於此氛圍下產生。本文將翻譯視為文字、文化間的轉換，首先釐清國家文學與翻譯間的關聯，接著在愛爾蘭與臺灣文學的脈絡下審視翻譯之定位，最後探討喬伊斯和王禎和如何將翻譯作為一種文學手段撰寫其作品。這部分將比較文本中文字的翻譯，認為它脫軌於原文之外，揭露愛爾蘭與臺灣二島上語言文化的多樣性。此外，兩文本中風格、語言的並置則呈現翻譯的過程，藉由翻譯過程，喬伊斯與王禎和指出文學再現愛爾蘭與臺灣時，不同版本間的競合。

This paper attempts to read “Cyclops” in James Joyce’s Ulysses alongside Chen-hoWang’s Rose, Rose, I Love You by arguing that both use translation as a literary devicein order to revise the idea of national literature as a heterogeneous, hybrid, andchanging discourse. For Ireland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—the peaktime of the Cultural Revival—translation was an instrument with which the lostGaelic tradition was redeemed and foreign literatures were introduced into nationalimagination. The same is true with Taiwan literature. In the 1960s and 1970s, twoliterary movements employed translation in rewriting Taiwan. While the Modernistgroup endeavored to translate the West—French and American modernism—to eschewthe overwhelmingly politicized, anti-Communist propaganda, the Nativist groupresorted to translation to recover the indigenous heritage that had become the alienatedOther under the censorship of the government. Within such ambience were Joyce’sand Wang’s works composed. Taking translation as both linguistic and cultural transference,the paper first theorizes the connection between national literature and translation,then contextualizes the role translation plays in the formation of Irish and Taiwanliterature, and finally looks into Joyce’s and Wang’s use of translation as a literarydevice. It compares and contrasts the use of translation in the texture of the twotexts, where translation deviates from the original and discloses the linguistic and culturaldiversity of the two islands. It then turns to the translation process manifest inJoyce and Wang’s juxtaposition of two styles and languages. It suggests that, with translation process, the two authors demonstrate the contention and negotiation betweendifferent versions of representation on the island.