论文部分内容阅读
中图分类号：H059 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1008-925X(2012)10-0020-02
Abstract：The English translation of Shijing started in the mid 18th century. Later there have appeared many complete and selected English translation of the anthology. This paper aims at implementing a comparative study of several complete versions among them, Xu Yuanchong's rhymed version of 1994; and Wang Rongpei & Ren Xiuhua's rhymed version of 1995 etc. These versions were produced in different periods. in this paper, by comparing the different viewpoint on Shijing translation, the author puts on some new thoughts on the connotation of the translator's subjectivity. Translators' motivated choices should be justified by locating the translator in his/her immediate context which should not be restricted to the target culture as past research suggests.
Key Words：Translator, Viewpoints, Translation, Shijing, Subjectivity
1. Xu Yuanchong’s Viewpoint on Shijing Translation under the Theory of Translator’s Subjectivity
Prof.Xu Yuanchong, one of the most eminent translators and literary translation theorists from home and abroad, is the first person who has proposed systematic theory on classical Chinese poetry translation. Xu offered many suggestions on translation including the “theory of three aspects of beauty”. In 1978, he proposed the theory in the preface to his English anthology of 42 Chinese poems. It was first appeared in the Introduction to his famous On English Verse in Chinese Rhyme published in 1992.
In the Introduction, Xu first estimates some outstanding English translators of Chinese poetry in history and then declares “verse translation is the preservation of the beauty of the original to the highest degree possible”, which implies “a verse translation should lose as little as possible the beauty of the beauty of the original”. He elaborates that the “preservation of the beauty” should be attained from three aspects. The first aspect is the restoration of the original beauty in meaning. The second aspect is “the preservation of musicality (or beauty in sound) of the original”. Musicality consists of include the rhyme, alliteration, assonance, so on and so forth. The last aspect is “the preservation of the original beauty in form”. By form he refers to line length, verse pattern, repetition of words, parallelism in structure, etc. for Xu, “to preserve the beauty of manner as well as the matter of the original is one of the most difficult of literary tasks”. Therefore, how to achieve the goals has become the permanent object of the translator. On the topic, he argues that: …to preserve the beauty in sense, we may use the method of “paraphrase” (free or liberal translation); to preserve the beauty in sound, we may use the method of “imitation” or adaptation; to preserve the beauty in form, we may use the method of “metaphrase” (or literal translation). There is no hundred percent literal translation nor hundred percent liberal translation. Every translated text is literal or liberal translation to a certain degree. (Xu, 1992:25)
Whether English translation of classical Chinese poetry should be composed in rhyme or not is a disputable question. For Xu, the answer is definite. He considers the rhyme of Chinese poetry as the aural beauty of the poem, and insists that “As all classical Chinese poems are written in rhyme, no English version could reproduce an effect similar to the original if no rhyme were used” (Xu,1992:22). So his translations of the poems are all rhymed.
In Xu’s opinion, “to translate a verse is not only to understand and enjoy but also to delight and make other delight in it” (Xu,1992:26). Compare with Legge and Waley, for his familiarity with Chinese culture, Xu has a much deeper understanding to Chinese poetry. His insight about Confucianism and ancient Chinese language is more profound compare with Wang and Ren Xiuhua who received their education after 1950s. Being able to thoroughgoing appreciate the beauties of the source poems, he implement his unique translation theory. Either in sound or in form, Xu’s rendition The Book of Songs promulgates the beauties in OLT.
To vindicate this, the author urges to take the example of the last stanza of Odes 167 as an example. This stanza is termed as 采薇 and interpreted a warrior who is homesick by Xu, the tough life of the frontier soldiers is detailed depicted. It is a long poem of 6 stanzas, each stanza containing 8 lines, an each line consists of 4 Chinese characters. This is the typical form of the poems in the anthology. The last stanza is a very famous piece painting the sorrow and grief of the soldiers when they came home after the war against the primitive tribes on the northern frontier, the following is Xu’s version:
昔我往矣，杨柳依依。今我来思，雨雪霏霏。
行道迟迟，载渴载饥。我心悲伤，莫知我哀！
(Xu, 1992: 63)
When I left here,
Willow shed tear,
I come back now,
Snow bends the bough.
Long, long the way;
Hard, hard the day.
Hunger and thirst
Both press me worst.
My grief o’erflows.
Who knows! Who know!
(Xu, 1994:173) In the translation, each line has four syllables, which are strictly preserved to the form of OLT: four-character-line. As to the sounding pattern, the end of the translation is aabbccddee, which seems far more uniform than the original poem. The translation widely adopts alliteration, for instance, “when, willow”, “who” and “hard”, “hunger”. In the OLT, numerous reduplication phrases are used such as “依依，霏霏，迟迟” and “载…载…”. In his translation, these diction are transferred to “long, long”, “hard, hard”, and the reoccurrence of “who knows”. Despite they are not precisely keep the original meaning with each other, we still can be safe to argue that Xu has reserved the OLT’s beauty in sound to a very high degree. In addition, the employing of diphthong with low sounds can better express the sorrow and grief feeling of the soldiers, on the meaning, the translation is loyal to the OLT and thoroughly discloses the original meaning. Though he interprets “杨柳依依” to “Willows shed tear”, which seem different in the surface meaning. We can feel that the translation can exactly describes the identical grave passion with that of the original if we examine the inner heart of the poet. The soldier was unwilling to separate from his family members and even willows wept for him. The beauty of the original poem in thus vividly depicted. The two lines “Long, long the way; hard, hard the day” are in particular the essence of the translation. They are beautiful in sound, in form, in meter as well as in meaning. So in this translation, Xu has preserved the beauty of the original in sense, in sound and in form, which is considered by him as the most important principle of poetry translation.
2. Wang Rongpei’s Theory on Translation
Wang Rongpei summarizes his translation criteria in four aspects: 达神传意，that is, to reveal both the sense and the spirit of the source work. (刘重德，2002:2) Concerning the English translation of Shijing, he published a paper named A Random Talk on the English Translation of Shi Jing in 1995. in the paper, he subdivided the current English versions of Shijing into five groups. In his opinion, among them, Xu’s version has reached a very high level in being alike with the source poems in both sense and spirit.
In the second half of this paper, Wang discusses the form of poetry translation. He concludes that translators seldom use prose to translate poem. “Most translation are at least lined, and the differences between the prose form (santi) and the verse form (shiti) mainly refer to whether the measure is natural and whether rhyme is used” (汪榕培， 任秀桦，1995b:42). He argues that both the prose form and the verses form have their strong point. As to the use of rhyme, he thinks that it is possible to produce a good translated verse without rhyme. yet since the source poems are rhymed, it will make what is good still better if the translations are also composed in rhyme and at the same time accord with or approaching the conventions of English poetry. “only those translated verses which are in agreement with the source poems in both spirit and form are perfect translations” (ibid.). Thus his translations of those ancient songs are also beautifully rhymed. The following is his translation of the same stanza of Odes 167: When I set out so long ago,
Fresh and green was the willow.
When now homeward I go,
There is a heavy snow.
The homeward march is slow;
My hunger and thirst grow.
My hearts is filled with sorrow;
Who on earth will ever know!
(汪榕培，任秀桦，1995:693)
The most eminent point of this translation is the use of rhyme in the end of each line. On the one hand, this low sound can well assist the expressing of the sorrowful emotion of the singer. On the other hand, the slow diphthong can also leads reader to imagine the heavy steps of the homesick soldier. Besides, the identical end rhyme of all the lines makes this stanza especially nice to read and to sound. Compared with Wang’s version, Xu’s is the closest to the OLT in form due to its four-syllabic lines. Yet Wang translates the eight-line stanza also into eight lines, which is otherwise transformed into ten lines by Xu. So each translation has its merits, and both are good translations similar with the source poem in form and in spirit, or in Xu’s words, in manner and matter.
3. Conclusions:
Translation is in nature an artistic recreation of the original text. Translator as subject of translation plays a significant role in the translating process. A translated text is the result of a series of decisions made by the translator rather than a mere limitation of the original text in an attempt to reproduce the author’s intention. There are reasons behind a translator’s strategic choices. It is thus far from fair to judge a translation by using the over-simplified and overly ideal criterion of being “faithful” or not or “good” or “bad”. Thus the subjectivity of the translator should be recognized and criticism of literary translations should be conducted by properly locating the translator in the broader cultural and social context.
Bibliograpgy：
1. Arthur Waley: The Book of Songs. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Museum Street.
2. Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies[M].Shanghai：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
3. Joseph R. Allen: The Book of Songs. Translated by Arthur Waley, Edited with Additional Translation by Joseph R. Allen. New York: Grove Press, 1996: xv.
4. James Legge: Chinese Classic with a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes, London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press Warehouse, Amen Corner, E. C. 1939年伦敦会香港影印所.
5. Legge, Helen Edith. James Legge: Missionary and Scholar [M]. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905.
6. Legge, James. The She King, Oxford University Press, 1871-1876.
Abstract：The English translation of Shijing started in the mid 18th century. Later there have appeared many complete and selected English translation of the anthology. This paper aims at implementing a comparative study of several complete versions among them, Xu Yuanchong's rhymed version of 1994; and Wang Rongpei & Ren Xiuhua's rhymed version of 1995 etc. These versions were produced in different periods. in this paper, by comparing the different viewpoint on Shijing translation, the author puts on some new thoughts on the connotation of the translator's subjectivity. Translators' motivated choices should be justified by locating the translator in his/her immediate context which should not be restricted to the target culture as past research suggests.
Key Words：Translator, Viewpoints, Translation, Shijing, Subjectivity
1. Xu Yuanchong’s Viewpoint on Shijing Translation under the Theory of Translator’s Subjectivity
Prof.Xu Yuanchong, one of the most eminent translators and literary translation theorists from home and abroad, is the first person who has proposed systematic theory on classical Chinese poetry translation. Xu offered many suggestions on translation including the “theory of three aspects of beauty”. In 1978, he proposed the theory in the preface to his English anthology of 42 Chinese poems. It was first appeared in the Introduction to his famous On English Verse in Chinese Rhyme published in 1992.
In the Introduction, Xu first estimates some outstanding English translators of Chinese poetry in history and then declares “verse translation is the preservation of the beauty of the original to the highest degree possible”, which implies “a verse translation should lose as little as possible the beauty of the beauty of the original”. He elaborates that the “preservation of the beauty” should be attained from three aspects. The first aspect is the restoration of the original beauty in meaning. The second aspect is “the preservation of musicality (or beauty in sound) of the original”. Musicality consists of include the rhyme, alliteration, assonance, so on and so forth. The last aspect is “the preservation of the original beauty in form”. By form he refers to line length, verse pattern, repetition of words, parallelism in structure, etc. for Xu, “to preserve the beauty of manner as well as the matter of the original is one of the most difficult of literary tasks”. Therefore, how to achieve the goals has become the permanent object of the translator. On the topic, he argues that: …to preserve the beauty in sense, we may use the method of “paraphrase” (free or liberal translation); to preserve the beauty in sound, we may use the method of “imitation” or adaptation; to preserve the beauty in form, we may use the method of “metaphrase” (or literal translation). There is no hundred percent literal translation nor hundred percent liberal translation. Every translated text is literal or liberal translation to a certain degree. (Xu, 1992:25)
Whether English translation of classical Chinese poetry should be composed in rhyme or not is a disputable question. For Xu, the answer is definite. He considers the rhyme of Chinese poetry as the aural beauty of the poem, and insists that “As all classical Chinese poems are written in rhyme, no English version could reproduce an effect similar to the original if no rhyme were used” (Xu,1992:22). So his translations of the poems are all rhymed.
In Xu’s opinion, “to translate a verse is not only to understand and enjoy but also to delight and make other delight in it” (Xu,1992:26). Compare with Legge and Waley, for his familiarity with Chinese culture, Xu has a much deeper understanding to Chinese poetry. His insight about Confucianism and ancient Chinese language is more profound compare with Wang and Ren Xiuhua who received their education after 1950s. Being able to thoroughgoing appreciate the beauties of the source poems, he implement his unique translation theory. Either in sound or in form, Xu’s rendition The Book of Songs promulgates the beauties in OLT.
To vindicate this, the author urges to take the example of the last stanza of Odes 167 as an example. This stanza is termed as 采薇 and interpreted a warrior who is homesick by Xu, the tough life of the frontier soldiers is detailed depicted. It is a long poem of 6 stanzas, each stanza containing 8 lines, an each line consists of 4 Chinese characters. This is the typical form of the poems in the anthology. The last stanza is a very famous piece painting the sorrow and grief of the soldiers when they came home after the war against the primitive tribes on the northern frontier, the following is Xu’s version:
昔我往矣，杨柳依依。今我来思，雨雪霏霏。
行道迟迟，载渴载饥。我心悲伤，莫知我哀！
(Xu, 1992: 63)
When I left here,
Willow shed tear,
I come back now,
Snow bends the bough.
Long, long the way;
Hard, hard the day.
Hunger and thirst
Both press me worst.
My grief o’erflows.
Who knows! Who know!
(Xu, 1994:173) In the translation, each line has four syllables, which are strictly preserved to the form of OLT: four-character-line. As to the sounding pattern, the end of the translation is aabbccddee, which seems far more uniform than the original poem. The translation widely adopts alliteration, for instance, “when, willow”, “who” and “hard”, “hunger”. In the OLT, numerous reduplication phrases are used such as “依依，霏霏，迟迟” and “载…载…”. In his translation, these diction are transferred to “long, long”, “hard, hard”, and the reoccurrence of “who knows”. Despite they are not precisely keep the original meaning with each other, we still can be safe to argue that Xu has reserved the OLT’s beauty in sound to a very high degree. In addition, the employing of diphthong with low sounds can better express the sorrow and grief feeling of the soldiers, on the meaning, the translation is loyal to the OLT and thoroughly discloses the original meaning. Though he interprets “杨柳依依” to “Willows shed tear”, which seem different in the surface meaning. We can feel that the translation can exactly describes the identical grave passion with that of the original if we examine the inner heart of the poet. The soldier was unwilling to separate from his family members and even willows wept for him. The beauty of the original poem in thus vividly depicted. The two lines “Long, long the way; hard, hard the day” are in particular the essence of the translation. They are beautiful in sound, in form, in meter as well as in meaning. So in this translation, Xu has preserved the beauty of the original in sense, in sound and in form, which is considered by him as the most important principle of poetry translation.
2. Wang Rongpei’s Theory on Translation
Wang Rongpei summarizes his translation criteria in four aspects: 达神传意，that is, to reveal both the sense and the spirit of the source work. (刘重德，2002:2) Concerning the English translation of Shijing, he published a paper named A Random Talk on the English Translation of Shi Jing in 1995. in the paper, he subdivided the current English versions of Shijing into five groups. In his opinion, among them, Xu’s version has reached a very high level in being alike with the source poems in both sense and spirit.
In the second half of this paper, Wang discusses the form of poetry translation. He concludes that translators seldom use prose to translate poem. “Most translation are at least lined, and the differences between the prose form (santi) and the verse form (shiti) mainly refer to whether the measure is natural and whether rhyme is used” (汪榕培， 任秀桦，1995b:42). He argues that both the prose form and the verses form have their strong point. As to the use of rhyme, he thinks that it is possible to produce a good translated verse without rhyme. yet since the source poems are rhymed, it will make what is good still better if the translations are also composed in rhyme and at the same time accord with or approaching the conventions of English poetry. “only those translated verses which are in agreement with the source poems in both spirit and form are perfect translations” (ibid.). Thus his translations of those ancient songs are also beautifully rhymed. The following is his translation of the same stanza of Odes 167: When I set out so long ago,
Fresh and green was the willow.
When now homeward I go,
There is a heavy snow.
The homeward march is slow;
My hunger and thirst grow.
My hearts is filled with sorrow;
Who on earth will ever know!
(汪榕培，任秀桦，1995:693)
The most eminent point of this translation is the use of rhyme in the end of each line. On the one hand, this low sound can well assist the expressing of the sorrowful emotion of the singer. On the other hand, the slow diphthong can also leads reader to imagine the heavy steps of the homesick soldier. Besides, the identical end rhyme of all the lines makes this stanza especially nice to read and to sound. Compared with Wang’s version, Xu’s is the closest to the OLT in form due to its four-syllabic lines. Yet Wang translates the eight-line stanza also into eight lines, which is otherwise transformed into ten lines by Xu. So each translation has its merits, and both are good translations similar with the source poem in form and in spirit, or in Xu’s words, in manner and matter.
3. Conclusions:
Translation is in nature an artistic recreation of the original text. Translator as subject of translation plays a significant role in the translating process. A translated text is the result of a series of decisions made by the translator rather than a mere limitation of the original text in an attempt to reproduce the author’s intention. There are reasons behind a translator’s strategic choices. It is thus far from fair to judge a translation by using the over-simplified and overly ideal criterion of being “faithful” or not or “good” or “bad”. Thus the subjectivity of the translator should be recognized and criticism of literary translations should be conducted by properly locating the translator in the broader cultural and social context.
Bibliograpgy：
1. Arthur Waley: The Book of Songs. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Museum Street.
2. Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies[M].Shanghai：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
3. Joseph R. Allen: The Book of Songs. Translated by Arthur Waley, Edited with Additional Translation by Joseph R. Allen. New York: Grove Press, 1996: xv.
4. James Legge: Chinese Classic with a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes, London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press Warehouse, Amen Corner, E. C. 1939年伦敦会香港影印所.
5. Legge, Helen Edith. James Legge: Missionary and Scholar [M]. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905.
6. Legge, James. The She King, Oxford University Press, 1871-1876.