Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. E: Literal translation vs. sense-translation The question whether zhiyi (“literal translation”; “word-for-word translation” refers to an extreme form of zhiyi) or yiyi (“sense-translation” or “sense-forsense translation”; “free translation” is misleading) is the better translation method has long troubled Chinese translation theorists. This debate, initiated by famed Buddhist monk-translators of medieval times, has lasted right up to the twentieth century. It can be seen as roughly analogous to the debate in the West, since classical antiquity, on the ad verbum versus the ad sensum approach. In China, almost all the major theorists of translation, as well as most leading scholars and writers, have taken one side or the other, though several have argued for a compromise, advancing arguments that some accept while others do not. Fu Sinian, the staunch advocate of the Vernacular Language Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, was among the ªrst to oppose Yan Fu’s translation method. For him Yan’s sense-translation (which is in fact more closely akin to “free translation”) falls short of being faithful to the original (see his “Thoughts on Translation” [1919]). The publication of Liang Shiqiu’s “On Mr. Lu Xun’s ‘StiŸ Translation’” (1929) sparked oŸ a series of heated debates on literal translation versus sensetranslation. Citing stilted sentences from two recent translations of Lu Xun, the proponent of extreme literalism in translation, Liang averred that Lu Xun’s translation is worse than just “stiŸ”: they are tantamount to “dead translations.” To him, Lu’s syntactic convolutions are impossible to understand, and reading his translations is like “reading a map and trying to locate places with your ªngers.” In his response, Lu Xun raised the discussion to an ideological plane. In “‘StiŸ Translation’ and the Class Nature of Literature” (1930) he begins by pointing out that Liang represents the Crescent Moon Society — the “other camp” which espouses bourgeois values and goals radically opposed to Lu’s — and that what Liang has written simply exposes his lack of understanding of proletarian literary thought. Lu stresses that it is a special class of readers that he has intended his translations for, namely, proletarian literary critics. For that reason, faithfulness is important, and close adherence to almost every word of the original becomes necessary. Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 180 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory Ye Gongchao quickly rallied to Liang’s support, making it very explicit at the end of his article “On Translation and Language Reform” (published in 1931 in the journal Crescent Moon) that he was “on Liang Shiqiu’s side.” However, he approaches the debate from a slightly diŸerent angle. For him it is naive to talk about “literal translation” (Lu Xun), “stiŸ translation” (Lu Xun) and “distorted translation” (Zhao Jingshen), for the complexity of translating is such that no hard and fast rules can be applied to it. It was Mao Dun who successfully steered the discussion out of the constraining partisan debates that Lu, Liang and Ye had become embroiled in. By distinguishing between “Literal Translation, Smooth Translation, and Distorted Translation” (1934), Mao Dun is able to clarify somewhat the ambiguities surrounding some commonly used terminology. To him, Lin Shu’s translations are not “sense-translations” but “distorted translations”; literal translation is preferred to smooth translation (shunyi, as advocated by Zhao Jingshen, who was the target of attack by many theorists in the 1930s) and distorted translation; and “faithfulness” is to be valorized over and above “smoothness.” Though the debate on literal translation versus sense-translation by no means came to an end in the 1930s, the present section ends with Ai Siqi’s “On Translation” (1937) — not the least because it argues for a more ¶exible understanding of “literal translation,” which has consistently been disparaged. For him, (1) Lu Xun’s translations are “stiŸ” but not “dead”; (2) Lin Shu’s method is not “sense-translation,” but “rewriting”; (3) sense-translation is not conducive to “¶uency” (da), as is commonly thought; and (4) it is wrong to think that “¶uency” cannot be achieved in literal translations. His article is interesting precisely because he argues that literal translation and sense-translation are not ªxed and unchanging binary opposites. Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation E19. On Mr. Lu Xun’s “stiŸ translation”1 (1929) Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Liang Shiqiu2 Mr. Chen Xiying3 said, “Even though the malady of dead translation is as detrimental as mistranslation, the former abuse is the lesser of the two evils. For, at its worst, dead translation is simply incomprehensible, while the more readable a mistranslated work is, the more harmful it becomes.” True, but incomprehensibility is no small malady. Personally speaking, I always feel that the ªrst requirement of having a book translated is to make it comprehensible; or else, would it not be a sheer waste of the reader’s time and eŸort? Mistranslation is indeed unacceptable, for it would be altogether too unfaithful to the original text and turn cream into dregs. However, it is impossible to mistranslate an entire book from beginning to end. Even if there are a few distorted instances found on the same page, there must nevertheless be parts remaining that are not mistranslated. Furthermore, even though partial mistranslations are mistakes, and even though the mistakes may really be endlessly harmful, you have nevertheless enjoyed reading them. Dead translation, on the other hand, is very diŸerent. Dead translation is bound to be dead from beginning to end and it makes no diŸerence whether it is read or not, except that reading it would mean spending time and energy in vain. Besides, while committing the error of distorted translation could not possibly coincide with making dead translation at the same time, dead translation might as well involve distorted translation. Therefore, I think it goes without saying that we certainly abhor distorted translation, but the trend of dead translation, above all, must be halted. What is dead translation? “Dead translation is,” said Chen Xiying, “not only putting every word and every sentence in the same order as the original, but also not allowing the addition of a single word or even the change of the order of any words. Nominally it is translation, but such translation is worse than non-translation.” Even Mr. Zhou Zuoren,4 who advocates literal translation, has named such translation “dead translation.” It is he, most probably, who has coined the term. There are many examples of dead translation. Let me cite now only Mr. Lu Xun’s translations as an example, because everybody knows how tersely and Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 181 182 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. ¶uently Mr. Lu Xun wields his pen in his short stories and essays and no one would say that his pen is inadequate. However, his translation is not far from “dead translation.” The works he translated some years ago, The Symbol of Tristesse by Kuriyagawa Hakuson,5 for example, are not yet anything incomprehensible, but his recent translations seem to have undergone a change of style. Now, in order to show how even Lu Xun, despite his agile pen, cannot escape “dead translation,” I am going to pick at random a few extremely esoteric sentences from two of his latest translations, namely, On Art by Lunacharsky, published by Dajiang Shupu on 15th June this year, and Literature and Criticism by the same author, published by Shumo Shudian in October this year.6 This means not only that all ideology is inevitably born of the only possible material available from the existing society but also that the actual state of the existing society determines the thought that is an integral part of this state or simply the intuition of the ideologist. In so far as the ideologist cannot be free from a deªnite social interest, ideology is also inevitably a product of the existing society. (On Art, p. 7) The problem is quite simple if it concerns merely the moment when thought is being organized, which is directly related to ideology and the facts of life from which ideology is produced, or matters related to the social groups controlling such ideologies; but the problem becomes extremely complicated if it touches upon the organization of emotions which is the most characteristic essence of art. (ibid., p.12) Even though their contents are not similar, works that are formally ªnished can merely provide, from the recipient’s point of view, semi-sensual and indiŸerent satisfaction to the laborer and the peasant. In respect of the depth of the embodiment of art, however, even though conceptually it should be a work regarded with hostility, to the interested laborer and peasant, it can, nevertheless, be very educational as long as they anatomically analyze and thoroughly understand the essence of the structure. (Literature and Criticism, p.198) Enough. Although the fact that the passages above are excerpts from the translations and removing the context has probably made them quite incomprehensible, linguistically speaking, nevertheless, one would wonder who could ever understand their very odd syntax. When I read these two books, I found the language really very di¹cult. Reading such books is like reading a map, and one would have to have one’s ªnger on it to trace the clues to the sentence structures. It is not that Lu Xun himself is unaware of the “awkward” style of his translation. He says in Literature and Criticism and in “The Translator’s Afterword”: Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 183 Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Lunacharsky’s theory as seen from the translated version is adequately clear and brisk. However, because of the translator’s limited competence and the inherent deªciency of the Chinese language, the ªnished job is abstruse and there are even many unintelligible passages. If the complex sentences were broken down to their components, the original tone of terseness and conciseness would be lost. To me, apart from “stiŸ translation” like this, the only solution is to have my “hands tied,” which is, so to speak, “no way out.” I pin my only hope left on the reader’s willingness to grind through it all. Now, we have already “ground through it all,” but the reward is nil. What is the diŸerence between “stiŸ translation” and “dead translation”? According to Lu Xun, “the inherent deªciency of the Chinese language” is one of the two reasons why his translation is incomprehensible. If it is so, as long as the Chinese language is not reformed, there is no chance but for translated works to become ªfty per cent abstruse. Chinese is diŸerent from foreign languages, some sentence structures of which simply do not exist in Chinese, and this is exactly where translation is di¹cult. If the grammar, syntax and lexis of a language pair are identical, what task is there for the translator? We cannot force the reader to “grind through” the text, regardless of its obscurity, simply on the ground that Chinese has its “inherent deªciency.” It would not do any harm to modify the syntax somewhat and to make it peremptory so that the text becomes intelligible to the reader, because it is no pleasure to “grind through” a text. There is no evidence either that “stiŸ translation” can preserve “the original tone of terseness and conciseness.” And if even “stiŸ translation” could preserve “the original tone of terseness and conciseness,” then it would be a miracle. How then can we ever say that Chinese has its “deªciency”? Translated by Evangeline Almberg Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 184 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory E20. “StiŸ translation” and the class nature of literature (1930)7 Lu Xun8 Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 1. The literary group backing the publication of Crescent Moon has said that the journal’s sales have improved.9 This appears to be the case, and I — someone who is not much given to socializing — have seen two of my younger friends leaªng through Volume 2: 6 and 7, a combined issue. Browsing through it casually, I noticed that it is ªlled mostly with ªction and articles on freedom of speech. Near the end there is Mr. Liang Shiqiu’s “On Mr. Lu Xun’s ‘StiŸ Translation,’” which argues that “stiŸ translation” is tantamount to “dead translation.” After noting that “dead translation, above all, must be deterred,” Mr. Liang quoted three extracts from my translations, as well as what I said in the postface to Lunacharsky’s Literature and Criticism: However, because of the translator’s limited competence and the inherent deªciency of the Chinese language, the ªnished job is abstruse and there are many unintelligible passages. If the complex sentences were broken down, the original tone of terseness and conciseness would be lost. To me, apart from “stiŸ translation” like this, the only solution is to have my “hands tied,” which is, so to speak, “no way out.” I pin my only hope left on the reader’s willingness to grind through it all.10 Mr. Liang had carefully inserted circles above these words, while the words “stiŸ translation” themselves had been circled. He penned some harsh criticisms: “Now, we have already ‘ground through it all,’ but the reward is nil. What is the diŸerence between ‘stiŸ translation’ and ‘dead translation’?” In the foreword to the inaugural issue of Crescent Moon, it is said that the Society is not an organized group, and in the articles “organizations” of a proletarian nature as well as “cliques” are condemned. In fact, however, the Society is very well-organized. At least the articles on politics in that issue resonate with one another. As for the articles on literature and the arts, one, also by Mr. Liang, harks back to “Is Literature Class-based?,”11 where the following passage appears: Most unfortunately, I have not even been able to comprehend one single book of this kind…. What gives me the greatest di¹culty is the words used…harder than Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 185 deciphering “the Inscrutable Books of Heaven”… Isn’t there even one Chinese writer who can use a language comprehensible to the Chinese to explain the theory of proletarian literature? Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Again there are circles placed beside these words, but to spare the printer of the present article trouble, I will not put them down here. In sum, for Liang, who prides himself on being able to represent all Chinese, those books are not comprehensible to any Chinese person because they are not comprehensible to him. Hence they should be completely destroyed, and hence his statement that “this trend, above all, must be deterred.” I cannot speak for the other translators of the “Inscrutable Books of Heaven,” but personally I do not think that things are this simple. In the ªrst place, Liang believes that we should “grind through it all,” but whether he has done so — whether he can — is still very much in question. It is characteristic of the Crescent Moon Society to say they would “grind through it all” but remain too timid to do so. Second, Liang says that he represents all the Chinese, but whether that includes all those who are most talented is yet another question. This issue can be explained with reference to “Is Literature Classbased?” There is ground for saying that the word proletary12 should not be transliterated, but rather, translated. Yet Liang, our critic, says: One need only browse the dictionary to tell that the word does not have very respectable connotations. According to Webster’s Dictionary, proletary refers to “a citizen of the lowest class who served the state not with property, but only by having children.” …The proletariat of a country is the class which does nothing but give birth to children (at least during Roman times)! In fact there is no need to ªght for “respectability.” Nobody with commonsense will believe that we are living in Roman times, or think that the proletariat consists of Romans. This is like the word Chemie,13 translated into Chinese as shemixue. Readers will never mix it up with the word “alchemy.” Again, they will not go to check the etymological roots of the character liang (in the name of Liang Shiqiu) and think, quite wrongly, that “a lone wooden bridge”14 can write! Even checking the dictionary (Webster’s Dictionary at that!) is of no help at all to Liang. I suppose not all the Chinese are like him! […] 5. At this point, I can talk again about my “stiŸ translation.” The logical question to be deduced would be: Given the propagandist goal of proletarian literature, and given that propaganda should preferably be Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 186 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory understandable, why have I produced these bewildering, sti§y translated works of theory? Isn’t that the same as not translating? My answer is: I have done it for myself, for a few self-proclaimed critics of proletarian literature, and for some readers who, despite the di¹culties involved, will not take the easy path but seek to understand these works of theory. For the past two years, the number of my assailants has increased, and no matter which publication you turn to, the name “Lu Xun” will inevitable appear. Judging from what the authors say in these publications, one might think they are writers of revolutionary literature. I have read a few of these, and have the impression that they are talking nonsense. Their dissecting knives fail to cut open at the right places; their bullets do not cause fatal wounding. For instance, there is still uncertainty about which class I purportedly belong to. Sometimes it is the “class owning limited property,” sometimes the “ bourgeoisie,” occasionally “the evil descendents of feudalism,” considered to be equivalent to “apes”15 (see “Correspondence with Tokyo” in Creation Monthly). Once, even the color of my teeth was the target of verbal attack. In our kind of society, it is quite likely that there are “evil remnants of feudalism” showing oŸ their talents, but in no materialist view of history do we ªnd them equated with apes. Nor is there any evidence that having yellow teeth causes harm to the proletarian revolution. Because of that, I believe that this kind of theory, which provides useful reference, means little, which is why most people are confused. We all wish to dissect and devour our opponents, but if we follow closely a textbook on anatomy and a cookbook, we can be more certain of success. People often compare the mythical hero Prometheus to a rebel, since he stole ªre from Heaven for mankind, incurred Zeus’s punishment, but did not regret it. Such is the spirit of extreme perseverance. But I have stolen ªre from a foreign country with the intention of cooking my own ¶esh, in the hope that it would taste good. Should that be the case, my own body would not have been given up for naught, and the food-eater would somehow beneªt greatly from it. I start oŸ with personal interests in mind, combined with the ordinary citizen’s desire to live extravagantly, taking “revenge” with a scalpel drawn out and then pushed into the heart of the person who dissects. Liang Shiqiu says, “They want revenge!” In fact, those who want revenge can also be found among the “evil descendants of feudalism.” I hope to be of some use in society, but only see how we end up with ªre and light. The ªrst book I have tackled is Literary Policy,16 because it contains the arguments of the various schools. Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 187 Now Mr. Zheng Boqi runs a bookshop, printing the plays of Hauptmann and Lady Gregory.17 Some time ago he was still a literary revolutionary, and in Literary Life (which he edited) he poked fun at me for translating Literary Policy because I was not willing to be some unknown person, though unfortunately someone else had already translated it. I do not think that you become famous by translating one book, or that it is easy to become a literary revolutionary. A small newspaper, on the other hand, said that my translation of On Art was an act of “surrender.”18 Yes, acts of surrender are common enough. This year again there is a diŸerent way of putting it. In both The Explorer and Modern Fiction, the phrase “change of direction” is used.19 In some Japanese magazines that I read, the phrase was used in connection with Kataoka Teppei,20 an earlier member of the neo-Sensationist School, and it was well used. In fact, these various expressions show the mistakes one makes when focusing on the surface meaning, and not carefully thinking things out. Translating a book about proletarian literature does not constitute evidence of a “direction.” Should there be any distorted translations, harm would be done. My translated books are dedicated to the short-lived critics of proletarian literature, because they do not seek what is simple and easy, but devote much eŸort to examining the theories concerned. I am conªdent that I have not deliberately given distorted translations. I laugh when I reopen the wounds of those critics whom I despise. I put up with the pain when my own wounds are reopened. I refuse to add or delete, and that is one reason I have stuck to “stiŸ translations.” Of course, there are bound to be better translators who will not give distorted, or stiŸ, or dead translations. When that occurs, my translations will naturally be replaced. This being the case, I can serve to ªll the gap between “non-existent translations” and “preferred translations.” Translated by Leo T. H. Chan Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 188 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory E21. On translation and language reform: A response to Liang Shiqiu (1931) Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Ye Gongchao21 We have to identify the root of the problem in discussing translation. Being able to identify the root does not necessarily mean that the problem is thereby resolved, but it does at least enable us to have a good grasp of the crux of the issue. However, before we go into the question of origins, we need to have an overview of several popular approaches to the issues involved. First, since the New Culture Movement,22 almost everyone wants to propose a formula for translation for succeeding generations. For example, Mr. Zhao Jingshen23 has recently maintained that “slight mistranslation is acceptable in order to achieve overall ¶uency.” Mr. Lu Xun has suggested that “ªdelity is more important than ¶uency…a slight departure from ¶uency is tolerable now.” The two are naturally not comparable. Their views have been derived, quite by accident, from the same origin, even though it is well known that they hold diŸerent opinions. There is also the “underground” (an attribute24 used by Mr. Lu Xun) Mr. Yan Fu who expressed a similar view when he was “above ground” [when he was alive]. The ¶aw in such views is that the origin of the problem is never attended to, for the ªrst problem to be dealt with in translation is neither “literal translation” nor “¶exible translation” (quyi)25 but what to translate. This means that translators have to fully understand the meaning of words, the tone (from which is derived what we call “syntax” in Chinese), and the connotations of each single word and phrase in the source text. After that, steps should be taken to look for equivalent words, phrases, and variations in tone in our target language. If these exist, they can be translated accordingly. If not, we can transpose several main words from the source text (it is not uncommon in translations from Western languages for the original terms to be used when there are no substitute words or phrases available),26 or resort to transliteration (for single words), or use the closest substitutes, with added footnotes. The basic issue, therefore, for the second step is to identify the inadequacies of the target language when it is opposed to the source language. The handling of these inadequacies is the task of translators, and this is how they display their talent. As to what inadequacies our language really has when Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 189 Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. compared with others, we can only judge in terms of the content, or even of each word or sentence in the source text, given the lack of sophisticated investigation and categorizations. How can we say that principles such as “literal translation,” “stiŸ translation” (yingyi)27 or “¶exible translation” can solve the problem? Second, some critics believe that the Chinese language nowadays probably needs to be reformed. Therefore, the fundamental question about translation does not concern ways of conveying the content of the original text, but ways of facilitating the reform of the Chinese language as used at present. J. K.28 said in No. 2 of the Literary Monthly: The question is not one of “¶uent or not ¶uent,” but whether translation is able to facilitate the development of the modern Chinese language…. The Chinese language (as well as its writing system) is so deªcient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed the Chinese language has not developed completely beyond the stage of “sign language” — everyday conversation almost can’t do without the help of “gestures.” Of course, there is almost a complete absence of all those adjectives, verbs and prepositions that express subtle diŸerences and complex relationships…. Under these circumstances, the creating of a new language is a very important task…. Translation, apart from introducing the content of the original texts to the Chinese reader, serves a signiªcant purpose — to help create a modern Chinese language.29 J. K.’s conclusion is to use the vernacular primarily to translate everything properly. This conclusion in itself is certainly beyond dispute. I do feel that this is a good approach to translation although the term “properly” sounds a bit too grandiose (reasons will be mentioned later). What I want to point out here is that J. K. has not approached translation from its point of origin either. He is obviously not concerned about translation, but its use as a tool for language reform. He seems to be barking up the wrong tree here. In consequence, his remarks are ineŸective, just like water oŸ a duck’s back. I am highly supportive, however, of the idea of employing new diction, new phrases, new punctuation (what have we achieved in this aspect?), and even new syntax in the modern vernacular. No language of any living nation is unchanging. The fact is that the presence of new environments and the evolution of ideas simply do not allow any language to “stand up straight and take a break.” However, there is an absolute necessity to treat this issue independently. Although it overlaps somewhat with translation, it is after all a separate issue. Strictly speaking, no translation is an absolutely accurate version of the source text. As we all know, intellect and wisdom are re¶ected in languages; a Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 190 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. speciªc culture gives rise to a speciªc language. Introducing an alien culture necessitates the simultaneous introduction of the language belonging to that culture. This is, after all, a general statement. To analyze this further: most crucial is the issue of individual words. Words are animals that have voices, colors and ¶avors of their own. There is an inevitable reason for referring to them as animals. Just like other animals, a word is destined to experience the tragedy of birth, sickness, aging and death. It also adapts to changing environment in order to survive. It has to experience love, marriage, divorce, remarriage and even suicide. Thus, each word has its own unique history: there are words that are inseparable in usage from it, words with which it has been associated one way or the other, and words with the opposite meaning. They all contribute to its connotation. Strictly speaking, therefore, the translation of a word goes beyond that particular word itself. The voices, colors, ¶avors and all other associations of that word should also in principle be translated, but in practice, these are untranslatable. However, if a Chinese word is replaced by a foreign word, the substitute itself also carries a voice, colors, ¶avors and all other associations. The problem, then, is the diŸerence between the total attributes of the substitute and those of the original. For example, the ªrst stanza of Blake’s “The Tyger,” translated by Xu Zhimo,30 is as follows: Menghu, menghu, huoyan si de shaohong Zai shenye de mangchong, Hedeng shenming de juyan huo shi shou Neng bohua nide heren de xionghou? [Original poem: Tyger! Tyger! burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry?] The crux of these four lines lies entirely with the last word, symmetry.31 The ªrst two lines make use of several broad, long and heavy vowels, such as i, e, u and o, to suggest how the tiger looks, with its powerful body, the burning ¶ames in its eyes, and its heavy steps. The unstressed could in the fourth line implicitly gives the impression of the weak presence of man. The use of symmetry at the end apparently is meant to conclude the impression cultivated in the ªrst three lines, which is the strength of the tiger as revealed in the use of contrasts. That explains the use of alliteration (such as t, t, b, b) in the ªrst line, and the use of long and short sounds to create the parallel impression in the second line. (In the and of the are short sounds, while forests and night are long sounds.) Alliteration is again found in hand or eye in the third line, and frame and fearful Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation in the fourth line. The beauty of these subtleties is untranslatable. Xu Zhimo seems to have understood this. Therefore he, to my surprise, uses xionghou32 to replace symmetry, whose weight and strength in this context can hardly be directly conveyed by an equivalent Chinese term. With xionghou, however, the translator at least captures the essence of the original poem. As a translation, xionghou also has its own weight and strength. Poetry translation in itself is an almost impossible task. Even when the best is done to translate it, the inevitable “awkwardness” is hard to hide. Such a fundamental di¹culty can hardly be resolved even with the concerted eŸort of the “literal translation” of Lu Xun, the “¶exible translation” of Zhao Jingshen, and the standard vernacular of J. K. Translated by Rachel Lung Acknowledgements Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. I am truly thankful for the valuable advice of John Wong and Peter Chan on the initial drafts of the translation. John has also contributed by providing relevant references and advising on various points.33 Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 191 192 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory E22. Literal translation, smooth translation, and distorted translation (1934) Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Mao Dun34 The term “literal translation” (zhiyi) gained currency only after the May Fourth period,35 as a reaction to Lin Shu’s “distorted translation” (waiyi). In speaking of Lin’s distorted translation, we do not mean to disparage him. Since “sensetranslation” does not appear to be an appropriate term for Lin’s method, we replace it here with “distorted translation.” Lin had no knowledge of any Western language, and he translated on the basis of what was orally interpreted for him by a third person. We do not know whether the third person orally interpreted one sentence, or one whole paragraph or section, at a time. Whichever the scenario, two kinds of distortion are unavoidable: the interpreter must somehow have distorted the original text, and Lin further distorted it when he translated the spoken language into written, classical Chinese. We can say that such distortions relate to the method of translation. What is more, Lin was extremely concerned about “defending the Way” and “transmitting the teachings of Confucius and Mencius through the mind.” He repeatedly advocated the idea of “changing the barbarians by means of Chinese values,” claiming that Sir Walter Scott’s mode of writing was akin to the Grand Historian’s,36 and so on. These led to further distortion, which of course the interpreter was not responsible for, but directly derived from Lin’s own way of thinking. In this light, it is appropriate to consider Lin’s translations as “distorted.” Naturally, not all of his translations are distorted; there are some which even resemble, in a small way, their originals in tone — like a couple of stories in The Sketch Book.37 We not only admire what Lin did; we are deeply amazed. Now, back to “literal translation.” As we said above, the promotion of literal translation after the May Fourth Movement was a kind of resistance against distorting the original. In this eŸort, the meaning of the original must be retained as it is. That being the case, comprehensibility becomes, of course, an unspoken but necessary requirement. Needless to say, when a translation is incomprehensible, it is not “literal” Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 193 and the true meaning of the original is lost. The translator should be completely responsible for the incomprehensibility caused, and we should not lay the blame for it on the principle of translating literally. This fact is, after all, simple and obvious, though not too long ago someone [Zhao Jingshen], failing to understand a translation, has criticized “literal translation” and espoused “smooth translation” (shunyi) as a principle. What the proponents of “smooth translation” suggest is somewhat like this: Literal translation leads to di¹culty in comprehension, even incomprehensibility. When faithfulness to the original is achieved but comprehensibility is lost, one translates in vain. Therefore it is proposed that “rather than striving for ªdelity at the cost of comprehensibility, one might as well seek after comprehensibility rather than ªdelity.”38 This is the idea of “smooth translation” — “smooth” in the sense that the translation can be understood. Here we feel we need not argue about the inherent contradictions of the idea of smooth translation. Rather, with regard to “literal translation,” we would like to note that it is not word-for-word translation, which implies “not a word more, and not one less.” Because of the diŸerent ways in which Chinese and Western languages are constructed, strict word-for-word translation is impossible, from a practical point of view. Once Zhang Songnian translated an article by Bertrand Russell. He used an extreme kind of “literal translation.” Every preposition was translated, but no one could understand his translation. Zhang insisted then on using this method. He knew his translation was incomprehensible, but he told the editor of the magazine New Youth, Chen Zhongfu: “This is an experiment. We will understand it when we have got accustomed to it!” Chen did not accept Zhang’s “experiment,” and asked him quite rudely to revise it. He did so, but Chen was not pleased even with the revisions. I do not understand the whys and wherefores, but by now Zhang has probably given up his experiment. This incident proves that the principle of literal translation consists not in translating word for word; it implies “not distorting the original work.” A word-for-word rendition — not adding or deleting anything — would of course be an ideal literal translation, but one must note, in any case, that this is not what “literal translation” really means. Literary works also diŸer from theoretical essays. Some literary works are still comprehensible when translated word for word, though the spirit of the original work might not have been accurately conveyed. Suppose we had two translations of the same original text: one is translated word for word, though the spirit is lost, whereas the other, in not translating word for word, retains much of the original spirit. How do we evaluate these two translations? For me Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 194 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory the latter can be called a “literal translation,” and this is the true meaning of the term. In pursuing “smooth translation” and aiming at comprehensibility, we will end up distorting the meaning of the original work. For what comprehensibility means to the advocates of “smooth translation” is “understanding immediately without having to rethink,” whereas much of what is pregnant with signiªcance in literature can be appreciated only if one thinks carefully when one reads along. Furthermore, a “smooth translation” often becomes a “distorted translation.” For yet another meaning of “smooth translation” is the attainment of ¶uency and elegance. Now there are certain literary works that are stylistically crude and unadorned. Perhaps readers — some of them, of course — can read with greater ease when the style is embellished, but the original work has actually suŸered. Under normal circumstances, readers who prefer a ¶uent and ¶owery prose are mostly those with poor taste — that is, readers whose ability to appreciate literature leaves much to be desired. If, in pandering to the taste of these readers, one translates “smoothly,” then some loss will have to be incurred. Finally, let’s talk about “distorted translation.” We have already mentioned what this term means in general. The distortion in question pertains to the meaning of the original work. There is yet another kind of distortion. For example, a translation may change the style of the original work, so that what is plain becomes polished, and what is awkwardly expressed becomes smooth ¶owing. When these occur, even if no mistakes appear and everyone reads the translation with understanding, the original meaning still gets distorted. This kind of “distorted translation” has not attracted much attention, but we should be properly guarded against it. Translated by Leo T. H. Chan Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 195 E23. On translation (1937) Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Ai Siqi39 Among translators, a distinction is made between literal and free translation. An intensive debate on just this matter was launched three or four years ago. I did not take note of it at the time and I have no idea how it ended. However, if “literal translation” were not misinterpreted as transferring words taken from the dictionary, I would be in favor of literal translation. Although a translation aims to introduce something to the reader, it needs at the same time to remain true to the author. In order to present the author’s meaning accurately, the best approach is to retain the syntax of every original sentence. This cannot be fully accomplished without the kind of literal translation proposed by Mr. Lu Xun. On the other hand, if we were to make arbitrary modiªcations to the original text in order to cater to the reader, and then call this “sense-translation,” we could have done better by writing popular fiction. I believe writers should strive to cater to the populace, but the primary task of translation is to communicate the original meaning of the author. Such an understanding of literal translation was adopted when we translated An Outline of New Philosophy.40 Literal translation does not mean incorporating foreign grammar into the Chinese language indiscriminately. In Japanese, having a meal is meshi o taberu, and if the inverted grammatical order of the Japanese language were to be kept in the translation, it would become “a meal having” or “a meal is had.” This kind of thing not only becomes annoying to the reader but conveys an entirely diŸerent message. The original meaning is sacriªced: instead of being “straight,” it turns out to be “crooked.” That is a misinterpretation of literal translation. The bona ªde literal translation, so to speak, is nothing more than making manifest the original ideas through the most appropriate Chinese expressions. As a matter of fact, the Chinese language lacks precision, always failing to convey the sophisticated content expressed in a foreign language. However, this assertion has one limitation: it is true when the Chinese language is viewed only from a static perspective, and when the established usage of the past is seen as representing the Chinese language in its entirety. If we look ahead at the possible development of the language, we cannot assert that it will never be Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 196 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory capable of articulating complicated ideas, or that Chinese cannot be more precise, or that it is deprived of the chance to evolve and renew itself. In this way, in talking about using the proper words to express the original meaning in translation, we are not trying to ªnd a way out by using exquisite classical Chinese or the crude vernacular of an earlier period, nor are we resisting progress by sticking to an earlier stage in the development of our language. On the contrary, we want to constantly create a new Chinese language, giving it fresh expressive power. We expect many priceless, original discoveries. Lu Xun’s literal translation is justly famous, though his Chinese has been considered Europeanized. Admittedly, a great deal of Europeanized elements have been included in it. But we cannot say it is no longer Chinese; rather, Lu Xun can be said to have introduced some fresh and modern expressions into the language in an eŸort to make Chinese more precise. Although he laid down some hard and fast rules in his literal translation, his approach is, after all, not the mechanical kind of translation mentioned above. We should never disregard this fact. At this point, we can provide a new deªnition for what has been called “sense-translation.” If this term does not imply that the translator freely interprets the original text in his own way, but rather attempts to thorough understand the original sense, we must say that the “sense” element would also be necessary even for a literal translation. The objective of literal translation lies simply in showing respect for the original; the translator should therefore not include his own preconceived ideas. Nonetheless, it would be extremely silly to abandon the “sense,” and suggest that every single word is best transferred mechanically. In an attempt to convey the original meaning with the most appropriate words and expressions, one must comprehend and interpret the original meaning in a thorough and accurate manner. In this context, free translation and sense-translation cannot be treated as two absolutely separate approaches. If either one was wholly ignored, things would go wrong. But I am not suggesting that we take the middle path, either. For the “sense” functions to aid interpretation, and help in the conveyance of the original meaning, leading to the success of a literal translation as well. Therefore, as a matter of basic principle, what we need is still accurate “literal translation.” For some of our predecessors, translation has to fulªll three criteria: faithfulness, ¶uency and elegance. In this light, it might be thought that literal translation undoubtedly fulªlls the criterion of faithfulness, but creates some di¹culties as far as ¶uency and elegance are concerned. Without doubt, literal translation aims at faithfulness. If even “faithfulness” is out of the question, why Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 197 discuss translation at all? A truly good literal translation does not merely stop at “faithfulness,” however. A faithfully translated text must also be able to convey the original meaning as well as retain the “¶uency” of the original text as far as possible. People usually misunderstand sense-translation, suggesting that the translator can willfully add and delete, and then achieve “faithfulness” without caring about the original text. Hence, they propose that while “¶uency” can only be achieved through sense-translation, “faithfulness” is not. Literal translation, on the other hand, can only bring out “faithfulness,” and not necessarily “¶uency.” This dichotomous view is in fact a metaphysical error. To refute it, it will su¹ce to cite some of Lu Xun’s translations (like The Symbol of Tristesse). They are most “faithful,” and few translations by others can convey the original meaning in a more precise, yet lucid and lively, manner. The “¶uency” of sense-translation, through misguided, has one merit. In pandering to the reader, it also facilitates the translator’s job. But then the translator is not faithful to the original text, or honest to the reader.41 Let’s talk brie¶y about “elegance.” Where it means “writing elegantly,” it implies nothing more than translating a foreign work into antiquated classical Chinese. “Elegance” as such has meaning only at the time of the great Buddhist translators (in the Han and Wei Dynasties) or when Yan Fu translated On Liberty.42 A mere grudging addition of colors, this kind of “elegance” fails to reproduce the beauty of the language of the original, thus wasting the translator’s energy and not respecting the original. We have no need to waste our eŸort like this in our translation today. If “elegance” refers to the beauty of the language in the original text, then it will to a certain extent be conveyed when the translation is “faithfully” rendered. “Elegance” should not be absolutely detached from “faithfulness.” Because An Outline of New Philosophy is a theoretical work, the beauty of its language does not appear to be of crucial signiªcance. The relationship between “elegance” and “faithfulness” will have importance only with regard to literary works. However, the fundamental principle of translation is nothing but “faithfulness.” “Fluency” and “elegance” are related to “faithfulness” much as an attribute is related to its essence, the two being inseparable, yet distinct. These re¶ections of mine, coming from my translation of An Outline of New Philosophy, do not describe any unique kind of experience, but they do have methodological implications. Translated by John Lai Tsz-pang Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 198 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory Notes to Articles 19–23 1. This article ignited the heated debate in the early 1930s concerning diŸerent approaches to translation — aptly summed up in the terms discussed by Mao Dun in the fourth article in this section. Note that this article, as well as those of Chen Xiying and Ye Gongchao, appeared in Crescent Moon (Monthly), the “mouthpiece” of the Crescent Moon Society. 2. Liang Shiqiu (1902–1987) was educated at Tsinghua University, the University of Colorado and Harvard University. He was a proliªc translator of English literature. Over the years, while teaching at Beijing Normal University, Qingdao University and National Taiwan University, he translated Silas Marner, Peter Pan, Letters of Abelard and Heloise, Wuthering Heights, among other works. His crowning achievement in translation is his Complete Works of Shakespeare, a project that took him 32 years to ªnish (1931–1967). 3. See note 1 in Section B. 4. Zhou Zuoren (1885–1967) collaborated with his elder brother Lu Xun in translating a collection of East European and Russian short stories in Yuwai xiaoshuoji (Tales from Abroad) in 1909. These exemplify the “literalist” approach to translation, which aroused considerable controversy. Zhou was among the ªrst Chinese writers to translate directly from Japanese. His translations include Greek (Aesop’s fables) and Danish (Hans Christian Andersen’s tales) works. Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 5. The Symbol of Tristesse was translated by Lu Xun in 1924. 6. Many works on Marxist aesthetic theory were translated into Chinese in the 1930s, especially after the formation of the League of Left-Wing Writers headed by Lu Xun. Those by Lunacharsky and Plekhanov were most eagerly consumed in translation by left-leaning intellectuals at the time. Lu Xun translated several works by both theorists. 7. This article was written in direct response to Liang Shiqiu’s and antedates the correspondence with Qu Qiubai in Part D. The reader could read all ªve selections as a sequence of attacks, responses, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. 8. For a brief introduction to Lu Xun, see note 12 in Section D. 9. Crescent Moon is the literary journal published by the Crescent Moon Society, the ªrst issue of which came out in March 1928. The Crescent Moon Society was founded in 1927 by a group of intellectuals based in Beijing. Many of them had returned from Britain and the United States, where they had had their formal education. Besides publishing a couple of literary journals, they also opened a bookstore in Shanghai, organized occasional gatherings, and so on. Serious interest was taken by the group in translating foreign literatures, most notably the works of Shakespeare. 10. Quoted from the penultimate paragraph in Liang Shiqiu’s article referred to here. 11. Liang Shiqiu’s “Is Literature Class-based?” was published in Crescent Moon 2.6–7 (1929). 12. The word is in English in the original, as is the one that follows in the quotation. 13. Chemie is a German word meaning “chemistry,” derived from Greek chemeia, meaning “alchemy.” The word is in English in the original. 14. The character liang can be broken up into the characters for “a lone, wooden bridge.” Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. Notes 199 15. In an article entitled “The Evil Vestiges of Feudalism on the Literary Battle-Front,” published in the August 1928 (Vol.2, no.1) issue of Creation Monthly, Guo Moruo described the debate Lu Xun had with Chen Xiying and Chang Hong as “a battle between apes.” 16. A collection of documents pertaining to Soviet literary policy, translated and anthologized by Lu Xun in 1928. 17. Zheng Boqi was a member of the Creation Society. He opened a bookshop in Shanghai during the time this article was written, and published the plays of Hauptmann and Lady Gregory. Literary Life, which he edited, began publishing in Shanghai in December 1928. 18. The newspaper referred to is Zhenbao (Truth), which carried an article on 19 August, 1929, saying that after his “impeachment” by the Creation Society, “Lu Xun has also translated a book on the art of revolution, to show that he has surrendered.” 19. A phrase mentioned by Qian Xingcun in an article published in the January 1930 issue of The Explorer. 20. Kataoka Teppei’s (1894–1944) works were later introduced to China through the translations of Chinese neo-Sensationists like Liu Na’ou (1900–1939). Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 21. Ye Gongchao (1904–1981) obtained master’s degrees from both Cambridge and Harvard. He was associated in the 1930s with the Crescent Moon Society. From 1949–1958 he was the Nationalist government’s Minister of Foreign AŸairs, and later served as an ambassador to the United States. He was the ªrst to translate Virginia Woolf into Chinese — his translation of “The Mark on the Wall” appeared in 1932. 22. The “New Culture Movement” refers to the revolutionary movement that started in 1915 — the year the journal Xin Qingnian (New Youth) was founded — with the aim of confronting (and demolishing) the Confucian tradition. It overlapped somewhat with the May Fourth Movement. 23. Zhao Jingshen (1902–1985) was Chief Editor of several literary journals and Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, from 1930 till his death in 1985. He took a special interest in translating children’s literature and Russian ªction. In addition to the works of Chekhov and Turgenev, he translated a 14-volume Tales of the Grimm Brothers. 24. The word is in English in the original; wrongly used in this case. 25. This term bears comparison with “distorted translation” (waiyi) mentioned in Mao Dun’s article, the next translated extract. One is positive in its implications; the other, negative. 26. These are calques. Direct borrowings of this kind is, however, not possible in Chinese because it uses characters rather than letters of the alphabet. 27. The technique of translation denounced by Liang Shiqiu. 28. “J. K.” is the pseudonym of Qu Qiubai. — Translator 29. See Qu Qiubai’s “On Translation — A Letter to Lu Xun” in this anthology. 30. For a biographical description of Xu Zhimo, see note 9 in Section C. 31. All the italicized words in this paragraph are in English in the original. 32. Xionghou literally means “grandiose and solid,” and has nothing whatsoever to do with “symmetry.” Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25. 200 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory 33. The debate the three of them were engaged in can be seen in the articles in Part D, “The Language of Translation.” 34. Mao Dun (1896–1981), one of modern China’s greatest novelists, was also a prominent translator and translation theorist. Believing that translations create the basis for China’s New Literature, he sought to introduce foreign works, especially those of “oppressed” peoples in the Soviet Union, to Chinese readers via translations. As Minister of Culture in the 1950s, he also implemented a program for improving the standard of literary translations in China. 35. By a narrow deªnition, the “May Fourth Period” refers strictly to the years 1917–1922. Some literary historians would extend it to include the 1920s, breaking oŸ at 1929. 36. The Grand Historian is Sima Qian, whose Historical Records is a model of history as well as ªction writing in China. 37. Written by Washington Irving in 1820, and translated by Lin Shu in 1907. 38. These are the words of Zhao Jingshen, who is the target of criticism in these two paragraphs. 39. Ai Siqi (1910–1966) was a Marxist scholar, an editor of several journals, and a translator of philosophical works by Marx, Heine and others. 40. This is a Russian work, jointly translated by Ai Siqi and Zheng Yili. 41. The word here is zhongshi, which can have a variety of meanings: “faithful,” “loyal,” and “honest.” Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 42. Yan Fu translated On Liberty in 1899, and it was published in 1903. Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250. Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 09:22:25.
Purchase answer to see full attachment