Translating China

By Luo Xuanmin, He Yuanjian

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2009 Luo Xuanmin, He Yuanjian and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-187-3

Contents

Acknowledgements, vii,
Contributors, ix,
Introduction Luo Xuanmin and He Yuanjian, 1,
1 Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China LiXia, 13,
2 Chinese Translation of Buddhist Terminology: Language and Culture Chi Yu Chu, 39,
3 Transformer Sinicized and the Making of Chinese Buddhist Parlance Francis K.H. So, 52,
4 The Art of Misreading: An Analysis of the Jesuit ‘Fables’ in Late Ming China Sher-shiueh Li, 71,
5 The Cultural Politics of Translating Kunqu, the National Heritage Yeung Jessica, 95,
6 Cooperative Translation Models: Rediscovering Ezra Pound’s Approach to Classical Chinese Poetry Sylvia Ieong, 110,
7 Ideology and Literary Translation: A Brief Discussion on Liang Qi-chao’s Translation Practice Luo Xuanmin, 124,
8 Translating Modernity Towards Translating China Shaobo Xie, 135,
9 ‘Authenticity’ and Foreignizing Translation Yifeng Sun, 157,
10 Representation, Intervention and Mediation: A Translation Anthologist’s Reflections on the Complexities of Translating China Martha P.Y. Cheung, 171,
11 Translating for the Future: Some Reflections on Making A Dictionary of Translation Technology Sin-wai Chan, 189,
12 Translating Alien Sources from and into Chinese: What does the Translator do, and why? He Yanjian, 207,
Index, 233,

CHAPTER 1

Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China

LI XIA

Introduction

In his monumental study After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, George Steiner (1975: 31) identifies communication across time and space as the key constitutive aspects of translation, and the translator as a powerful mediator between the distinctive values and traditions of cultures. His panoramic portrayal and interpretation of the complex formation of the cultural landscape of Western civilization over the centuries extends far beyond the narrow perspective of comparative linguistics or what Eugene Nida (1994: 1) refers to as ‘the mechanics of linguistic similarities and contrasts’, as the title of his study might suggest. Steiner’s penetrating vision thus anticipates the culture-oriented theoretical views articulated by leading Western translation scholars (and practitioners) of the 1980s and 1990s, such as Nida, Snell-Hornby, Vermeer, Venuti, Hatim and Mason, among others, on the role of translation in the construction and preservation of distinctly national and cultural identities as a hallmark of 19th and 20th century Western civilization. At the same time, it also reflects conceptual affinities to the Sapir-Whorfian understanding of language as ‘a house of consciousness’ and translation as an act of linguistic and cultural interpretation. Significantly, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958) expresses a similar view, albeit in a primarily philosophical and cognitive context (Eoyang, 1993: 111–121). Since China prides itself on a long and unique history of commitment to the preservation and promotion of cultural identity and tradition on a national and international level, the role of the translator or what Anthony Pym (1998: 150) calls ‘the human side of translation history’ in the context of specific cultural-political settings is of central importance. The translator’s ‘invisibility’ or ‘shadowy existence’, as described by Steiner and Venuti or highlighted in Larbaud’s metaphor of a beggar at the church door, might reflect a post-romantic view concerning notions of hierarchy in the chain of communication between author, text, reader and translator (Bassnett-McGuire, 1980: 75), but it constitutes an equally significant reality with tangibly detrimental consequences for the translator, as spelt out in considerable detail by Venuti (1995: 8ff). While Venuti refers primarily to contemporary conditions in the West, most of them apply also to past and present circumstances in China, although the status and influence of translators in society was, generally speaking, higher than in the West.

Significantly, the above chain-of-communication-model ignores the relevance of ‘material causes’ in the translation process defined by Anthony Pym as follows:

However, if we look at history on the widest time scale, material causes are among the most profound and far-reaching factors one could wish for. For example, the technique for making paper moved westwards from China, reaching Baghdad just prior to the ninth-century “school of translators” there, then reaching Christiana Hispania just prior to the thirteenth-century translation associated with another great “school,” that of Alfonso X. Paper does not produce translations. But its manufacture has certainly assisted in some major changes in translation history. (Pym, 1998: 151)

Above all, it marginalizes the even more important role of politico-ideological forces (including religious ones) in translation and the translator as an indispensable instrument in national identity construction that runs like a red thread through Chinese history, from Qin Shi Huang’s nationalistic outlook, highlighted in the standardization of the script, among others, to ‘Mao-era nationalism’ and the post-Mao-era of economic mobility and the associated visions of national identity or ‘Chineseness’. Regrettably, the key role of translators in determining and shaping not only prevailing attitudes towards translation, but society as a whole, has attracted insufficient attention in Chinese critical literature as well as in Western translation research (Pym, 1998: 150).

Documents on translation in China go back well over 2000 years and highlight early government supervision and control through the establishment of translation offices for official interpreters and translators in Western Zhou Dynasty (Xi Zhou, 1066–771 BC). The establishment of such offices was administratively necessitated by the fact that China was made up of numerous nationalities with their own languages, dialects and cultures, including the members of the majority Han nationality. While different nationalities and dialect groups found it difficult to communicate orally, communication was possible in writing among the Chinese people of different dialects, since written Chinese characters do not rely on a phonetic component (DeFrancis, 1984: 38–66). Although early translation activities were predominantly oral (interpreting), they were conducted by government sponsored and professionally trained interpreters (Ma, 1984: 2). Unfortunately, historical records prior to the establishment of translation offices are missing due primarily to the burning of books and written (Confucian) documents under the First Emperor Shi Huang (221–209 BC), the founder of the Qin Dynasty (Yang, 1992: 3; Giles, 1930: 78ff). Little is known about the scale and exact nature of the very early translation activities in China. However, the administrative details contained in such classics as Li ji (The Book of Rites) and Zhou li (The Rites of the Zhou Dynasty) document the importance of translation officials and provide important information concerning the nature of their work in the context of China’s enormous linguistic and cultural diversity (Ma, 1995: 373–374). (Recent anthropological and archeological research rejects the notion of ‘isolated northern-plain culture’ in favor of an intensive cultural and economic exchange between various cultures in this area and outside China. See Friedman (1996: 175)). Efficient communication mechanisms at government level became particularly important after the unification of China in the Qin Dynasty, when imperial orders and messages had to be passed on to the vassal states in the North. Although no written documentary evidence is available with regard to specific aspects of translation, there is general agreement among scholars that official communication took place on an oral level and interpretation was restricted to spoken language, which seems to have remained the case in the early years of the Han Dynasty (206–25 AD). [For details see Liang Qichao (1984); Kenneth Chen (1972); Chen Fukang (1992); Tang Yongtong (1996); Lü Cheng (1979); E.J. Eitel (1904); Qian Zhongshu (1979); Sun Changwu (1988)]. Translation proper began under government patronage and control with the translation of Buddhist scriptures, which shaped, together with Confucianism among others, the major facets of Chinese national culture and identity (and that of neighboring nations) for many centuries to come. The history of this development, however, is multifaceted and complex, and the subject of extensive research.

In his preface to a special Chinese issue of the journal Meta, the translator critic Xu Jun divides the long history of Chinese translation into four major periods: translation of the sutras, translation in the Ming and Qing period, translation at the beginning of the 20th century and translation after 1949 and the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (Xu, 1999: 1). This view is shared by Wang Kefei and Fan Shouyi Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China 15 (Wang & Fan, 1999: 3) who divide the 5000-year history of translation in China into four major ‘waves’ over the centuries and Eva Hung who identifies three ‘peak periods’: the Buddhist sutra translation movement, the Jesuit translation activities in the late Ming Dynasty and the introduction of ‘Western learning’ into China in the second half of the 19th century. Significantly, the periods or waves identified above coincide with major social and political changes and national identity crises. Eva Hung (1999: 226) also draws attention to the little known fact that non-Chinese translators played a leading role in all three periods identified in her study. She also highlights the not infrequent practice of translation scholars to study the early history of translation in China in the context of current national boundaries, which is historically incorrect and untenable (Hung, 1999: 224).

Institutionalizing Buddhism

While there is uncertainty as to the exact time of the introduction of Buddhism in China, historical evidence points to the existence of Buddhist temples in China in the later part of the Han Dynasty (25–220 AD). However, little is known about the exact beginning of the translation of Buddhist scriptures, and scholarly opinions vary with regard to the first Buddhist texts translated into Chinese (Ma, 1984: 10ff; Giles, 1930: 110). There is general agreement that translation of Buddhist scriptures started on a large scale towards the end of the late Han Dynasty when the Buddhist monks An Shigao and Lokaksin arrived from Central Asia and Scythia via the Silk Road in Luoyang, the then capital of China, to spread Buddhism among the ‘ruling elite of the time’ (Hung, 2001: 52–58; Ma, 1984: 17). The endeavor to have Buddhist scriptures translated into Chinese enjoyed government support from the very beginning, reached a climax in the Tang Dynasty and continued well into the 12th century. According to Ma Zuyi (1995: 374), more than 150 translators have been identified as being involved in this enormous task, unique in the history of translation. As the majority of the Buddhist monks were identified as foreigners, their activities were not entered into the official government records, which explains the fact that little is known about them. Nevertheless, they prepared the ground for the steady propagation and institutionalization of Buddhism in China. Significantly, the translation activities of Buddhist monks were generously patronized by the Imperial Court through sponsorship of special translation projects and financial support of Buddhist missionary work among the people. This strategy was not motivated by an intrinsic interest in translation per se, but by the political advantages that the spread of Buddhism offered to the Imperial Court, which soon assumed ultimate authority and control over the choice of texts to be translated for inclusion in the authorized canon of Buddhist teaching, which highlights the political importance attributed to translation by the nation’s governing elite. Early in the 5th century, Buddhism began to develop in two distinctly different directions in the North and South. While the focus of the Buddhist monks in the South was on philosophical discussions with the educated Chinese (literati), the emphasis in the North was on rendering service in the form of military and moral advice to Chinese and non-Chinese rulers in the interest of the state, which led to a close supervision of the monastic communities in later years. The missionary work conducted by the educated monks in the South among the cultured and wealthy Chinese offered a broad base of support, which included the elite Chinese society as well as the great masses of the people (Chen, 1973: 93). Since Chinese was frequently not the translator’s mother tongue, local assistants were used as stylistic advisors. While the number of Chinese monks was small initially, their number increased steadily around 400 AD. Also, their translations were no longer addressed to the cultivated laity, but to monks by now familiar with Buddhist terminology and a jargon that ordinary Chinese without philosophical and religious training could no longer understand (Waley, 1952: 86). In the period that followed, political and social instability prevailed and Buddhism became particularly attractive to the intellectual elite and government officials as an alternative to Confucian values. With the foundation of the translation center in Chang’an in 383 AD under imperial patronage, translation activities became more or less a government enterprise with social status and sufficient funding to attract the most eminent Buddhist scholars from China and outside (India). The promotion of Buddhism was thus no longer a private undertaking, but an integral part of government policy and control, not dissimilar to Catholicism and Protestantism in Europe. Three translators stand out in this period: Dao An (314–385 AD), Kumarajiva (350–405) and Paramartha (499–569) who is also known under his Chinese name Zhen Di. The foundation and organization of the translation office in Chan’an (present-day Xi’an) turned the city into one of the great centers of learning and facilitated the rapid spread of Buddhism and the introduction of astronomical, calendrical and medical study all over China (Lü , 1979;Wang & Fan, 1999: 4). Dao An’s range and depth of activities and achievements beyond translation attracted the admiration of government officials and ruling princes (including the Emperor Hsiao-wu), who invited him to give lectures and sent him Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China 17 presents (Wang & Fan, 1999: 3). During his final years in Chang’an under the patronage of Fu Chien, Dao An enjoyed the admiration of numerous nobles and aristocrats and was finally appointed imperial advisor. Dao An’s intellectual brilliance, openness and commitment to both religious and secular engagement is a hallmark of the majority of leading Chinese translators, which distinguishes them from many of their counterparts in the West. This applies also to Kumarajiva, who spent his childhood in Afghanistan and arrived in Chang’an in 401, after several unsuccessful attempts by Fu Chien, the ruler of the Jin Dynasty, to attract the famous scholar to his household. His privileged position and closeness to the ruling Yao family in Chang’an is reflected in the following description:

The Hsiao-yao Garden was placed at the disposal of Kumarajiva and his fellow monks, and here, with a thousand monks sitting in daily sessions, Kumarajiva carried out his translation activities. Sometimes the ruler, Yao Hsing, personally participated in these proceedings by holding the old translations which were used by Kumarajiva as the basis for comparisons (…) He was honoured with the title Kuo-shih (National Preceptor) and from 402 to his death in 413 he and his colleagues poured forth a steady stream of translations, which included some of themost important items in the Chinese canon. (Chen, 1964: 83)

His closeness to the ruler, who was fascinated by his intellectual brilliance and intuitive wisdom (Prajna), is underpinned by the fact that he was appointed ‘arbiter of all things Buddhist’ shortly after his arrival in Chang’an and provided with royal quarters and also with the ‘pleasures of the inner apartments’, which ultimately led to tensions between himself and the more disciplinarian Buddhists (Chen, 1964: 109). During his time in Chang’an, Kumarajiva devoted most of his time and energy to translation. His translations are rather free and very pleasant to read. In contrast to other translators of his time, he held the view that ‘popular scriptures are literary works intended to make an aesthetic as well as an argumentative appeal’ (Waley, 1952: 87). He also broke with the longstanding tradition of exploring Buddhist concepts from a Daoist (native Chinese) perspective by coining ‘Chinese terms specifically suited to Buddhism’ (Yang, 1992: 18). His translation of the Diamond Sutra inspired Chinese poets and philosophers and has been a major factor in the popularization of Buddhism among the educated classes (Giles, 1930: 114f). As the initiator of the method of free translation, Kumarajiva implemented major changes in the organization of the center and the translation work carried out (Yang, 1992: 20). Also, the increasing popularity of Buddhism among the Chinese elite enticed many brilliant Chinese intellectuals to become Buddhist monks and to engage in translation (e.g. Seng Rui, Bao Yun, Hui Kai) and eminent poets and writers to become involved in translation (e.g. Liu Xie).

(Continues…)Excerpted from Translating China by Luo Xuanmin, He Yuanjian. Copyright © 2009 Luo Xuanmin, He Yuanjian and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.