Pagei

TheTransparentEye

Pageii

ApublicationoftheSCHOOLOFHAWAIIANASIAN&PACIFICSTUDIESUniversityofHawaii

Pageiii

TheTransparentEye
ReflectionsonTranslation,ChineseLiterature,andComparativePoetics
EugeneChenEoyang

Pageiv

1993SchoolofHawaiian,Asian&PacificStudies AllRightsReserved PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica 98979695949354321 Firstprintingcorrected1993 LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData Eoyang,EugeneChen. Thetransparenteye:reflectionsontranslation,Chinese literature,andcomparativepoetics/EugeneChenEoyang. p.cm.(SHAPSlibraryoftranslations) Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN0824814290(alk.paper) 1.Translatingandinterpreting.2.Chineseliterature TranslationsHistoryandcriticism.I.Title.II.Series. PN241.E571992 495.1 802dc209233366 CIP UniversityofHawaiiPressbooksareprintedonacidfreepaperandmeettheguidelinesforpermanenceanddurabilityoftheCouncilonLibraryResources DesignedbyPaulaNewcomb

Pagev

Tomymother andinmemoryofmyfather

Pagevii Standingonthebaregroundmyheadbathedbytheblitheairandupliftedintoinfinitespaceallmeanegotismvanishes.IbecomeatransparenteyeballIamnothingIseeall thecurrentsoftheUniversalBeingcirculatethroughmeIampartorparcelofGod. RalphWaldoEmerson,Journals,3:452

Pageix

Contents
Preface ANoteonTransliterationfromtheChinese 1 "ConfoundTheirLanguage":TheMythologiesofTranslation 2 "God'sHandIsinEveryTranslation":TheMythsofTheory 3 TranslationacrossCivilizations:TheContributionofBarbarians 4 "ArtificesofEternity":AudiencesforTranslationsofChineseLiterature 5 "DimEmblazonings":ImagesofChineseLiteratureinEnglishTranslation 6 TranslationAsExcommunication:NotestowardanIntraworldlyPoetics 7 TheShipofTheseus:TheOntologyofTranslation 8 GuisesandDisguises:TheEpistemologyofTranslation 9 HorizonsofMeaning:ThePhenomenologyofTranslation xi xix 3

24

46

63

79

111

122

137

152

Pagex

10 TheMaladjustedMessenger:RezeptionssthetikinTranslation 11 CatalystandExcavator:PoundandWaleyAsTranslatorsofChinesePoetry 12 BeyondVisualandAuralCriteria:TheImportanceofFlavorinChineseLiterary Criticism 13 PolarParadigmsinPoetics:ChineseandWesternLiteraryPremises Epilogue Appendixes SourcesCited Index

169

190

210

238

271 281 291 303

Pagexi

Preface
Thisbookisabouttranslation,Chineseliterature,andcomparativepoeticsyetthesethreerubricsareaspectsofbutoneconcern:howourobservationsofothers reflectbackonourselvesandthewaywesee.Myexplorationsdonotfiteasilyinanyexistingcategoryofinquiry,althoughtheymaybesubsumedinthatwideranging disciplinecalledcomparativeliterature.Instudiesoftranslation,thecaseofChinese(andotherEastAsianlanguages)hastraditionallybeenrelegatedtotheperiphery ofconcern,occasionallywithanoteofapologyaboutone'signoranceofthisimportantculture.StudiesofChineseliterature,ontheotherhand,tendtoassumethe hermetic,selfsufficientnatureofthatsubjectandscarcelyaddresstheproblemsoftranslation,evenwhentheexpositionusesalanguageotherthanChinese.Itisthis "noman'sland"thatIseemtohaveinhabitedforsomeyears,anditisthis"twilightzone"situatedinthemarginsoftwofieldsthatIfindsuggestive. Theparticularproblemsthatconfrontthenonnativestudyofaliteratureareatoncenewtoourageandyetveryancient.Intheconcernwithworldliteraturedefined asliteratureinanylanguagereadineithertheoriginalortranslationthenonnativestudyofaliteratureisperhapsamodernconcern.Intimespast,thenormal assumptionwasthatonlythosemostadeptatone'sownnativelanguagewouldpresumetostudyitsliterature.Literaturecameintimetobethoughtofasthemarkof learningandculture:inEnglandofyesteryear,thephrase"hehasliterature"designatedamanoflearning.(ThephrasehasitscounterpartinChineseaswell.)The acquisitionofforeignlanguageswasamarkofthesocialandculturalelite,theresultofwhatconstitutedaliberalartseducationintimespast:thegrandtourabroad. Butinthetwentiethcentury,particularlyinAmerica,educationisnolongerthe

Pagexii

sequesteredprivilegeofthewealthy,andstudentsandscholarscomefromallwalksoflife.Theopportunitiesforintellectual,academic,orprofessionaltrainingarenot limitedtothefewwhohavethemeansandtheleisuretopursuesuchdifficultareasofstudy.Inthiscontext,asoneofthehighestaccomplishmentsofhumanculture, literatureinanylanguageisfairgameforintellectualinvestigation.Thisstudiousrecreationiswhatinformsthisbook. Beforethestudyofliteraturebecameanacademicdiscipline,professorsofliteraturewerenot,infact,academicswhoearnedtheirdoctoratesofphilosophyin literature:theywereitspractitionerspoets,essayists,novelists.Butsincenationalliteraturesbecameestablishedasarespectablefieldofdisciplinedstudy(scarcely morethanahundredyearsago),therehavebeenunsuspectedculturalanomalies,notonlyinthestudyofone'sownliteraturebutalsointhestudyofwhatiscalled ''foreign"literature.Theteachingofaliteraturebynonnatives,forexample,wouldhavebeenthoughtpreposterous,ifnotimpossible,inthenineteenthcenturyexcept atafewoutpostsoflearninglikeOxfordandtheSorbonne.YetwenowhaveChineseandJapaneseteachingEnglishandEnglishliteratureintheirnativecountries, andwehaveAmericansintheUnitedStatesteachingChineseandChineseliteratureaswellasJapaneseandJapaneseliterature.Whatmighthavebeeninconceivable agenerationagoanativeChinesetakingupagraduatedegreeinthestudyofChineseliteratureoutsideofChinahasbecomesocommonplace(particularlyinthe UnitedStates)thatnooneisdisconcertedbyit.(Thereverse,however,isnotsofamiliar,forhistoricalaswellasculturalreasons:fewifanyWesternershaveearneda degreeinaEuropeanlanguageorliteraturefromaChineseinstitutionfohigherlearningevenfewerWesternersholdpermanentfacultypositionsinChina.) Inaddition,moreandmore,authorsareconfrontedwiththeprospectofaudiencesmorenumerousinalanguagenottheirown.Certainly,thisistrueofMishimaand KawabatainJapaneseSteinbeckisreadmoreinRussianthaninEnglishandJackLondon'sbookshavesoldbetterinPolandthantheyhaveintheUnitedStates. GabrielGarcaMarquezisprobablyaspopularinEnglishasheisinSpanish.Alltheseexamplesseememblematicoftheshrinkingglobeandthegrowing interconnectednessofallnations

Pagexiii

intheworldbutmorethanthat,theypointtocertainunnoticedironies.Boundariesbetweennationsareregularlycrossedbycommerceevenbarriersbuiltby ideologyarebecominglessandlessimpenetrable(theBerlinWall,the48thparallel,theIronCurtain).Indeed,thequestionofnationalidentityhasbeenraisedinnew andcomplexways:withforeignownershipofAmericancorporationsmultinationalconglomeratesethnicrivalriesinEastEuropeannationsclanconflictsinAfrican countriesrivalpolitiesintheIslamicworld.Theinsularityandoversimplificationsofthepastaretrulyinsupportableinaworldwhosefateisboundtogether:thenews regularlyprovidesillustrationstoonumeroustoenumerate.Thisinterdependencehasspawnedanintellectualegalitarianism,aswellasitsreactionarybacklash,evinced inthecontroversiessurroundingThirdWorldliterature,feminism,andtheclosingofminds. Althoughtheseglobalconcernsarerelativelyrecent,thephenomenonofliteraturecrossingnationalbordersandovercominglinguisticbarriersishardlynew.Norisit uniquetothemodernperiodthatliteratureisreadasmuchinnonnativelanguagesasinthelanguageoftheoriginal(ifnot,insomeinstances,more).Morepeopleread theGreekclassicsinlanguagesotherthanGreekthanreadthemintheoriginalthereadersoftheBibleintheoriginaloverthecourseoftwomillenniaareinfinitesimal comparedwiththosewhohavereaditintranslation.Whateverthereisforpuristsandclassiciststodeploreinthissituation,historyhasfavoredtheimpureand unclassictendenciestowardpopularizationthroughsometimesmisguidedandcompromisedtranslation.Theconservatorsofculturealwaysfreezetimetotheirown requirements:theycelebrateHomer,yettakelittlenoticeofthepreHomericoral(read:illiterate)traditionthatledtotheIliadandtheOdysseyasweknowthemthey wishtocelebratetheRenaissance,yetfailtorecognizethemedievalcontributionstowardthatrevolutionaryculminationtheywishtopreservetheKing'sEnglish,but takenonoticeofthefactthatthemostvitalperiodofdevelopmentinthelanguage,theElizabethanage,borrowedmostfromforeigntongues,underwentthegreatest change,andproducedthefinestworksinthelanguageitwas,oneshouldremember,thenasnow,theQueen'sEnglish,althoughit'sanaltogetherdifferentElizabeth.

Pagexiv

TheElizabethanage,notsoincidentally,wasoneofthegreatperiodsfortranslation.Thepuristsofeveryculturerewritehistorytosuittheirdogma.Westerncultureis vauntedwithoutsomuchasanacknowledgmentoftheArabiccontributionthroughAvicennaandAverrostotherediscoveryofclassicallearningnorismuch madeofthefactthatAugustineandPlotinus,tociteonlytwoseminalfigures,werenotEuropeans.Terence,themasterofRomancomedy,wasbornaslavein NorthAfricaHomermayhavebeenaGreekimmigrantinAsiaMinor.Culturalexchangesarenotapeculiarlyrecentphenomenon,eveniftheeconomicimperatives ofaglobaleconomymakeitappearthattheyare.Indeed,nocultureeverexistedthatwasnottheresultofculturaldevelopmentandchange,andthemostobvious sourceofchangehasbeentheimpactof(andinterpenetrationwith)othercultures. Butculturalidentitiessometimesmisconceivedasculturalautonomiesneedtobeexamined.Theyarecategoriessetupbyscholarsandscientiststograspthe complexitiesofhumanactivity,notfixedentitiesthathaveabsoluteandunchangeablemeanings.Itisalltooeasytolettemporaryconstructssuperannuateinto permanentconstructionsthatimpederatherthanfacilitatetheprocessofinquiry.OnemustneverforgetM.H.Abrams'reminder:"Theendemicdiseaseofanalytical thinkingishardeningofthecategories."Eventermslike"native"and"nonnative"needtobescrutinized.Forthenotionof"native''definedbytheplaceofone's birthassumesthatoneisbroughtupintheplacewhereoneisborn,whichisnottrueformanyimmigrants,emigrs,exiles,ortheiroffspring.Thenative/nonnative paradigmisillsuitedforsomewriters.JosephConradwasanativeofPoland,butnoonewouldcharacterizehimasaPolishwriter.VladimirNabokov,Samuel Beckett,JosefBrodsky,andIsaacBashevisSingerareamongthedistinguishedauthorswhoseworksarenotallcomposedintheir"native"language.Giventhe migrationsofpopulationoverhumanhistory,itmaynotbefarfetchedtosuggestthatmosthumansaredescendantsofimmigrantswhohaveforgottentheirforebears. CulturalchauvinistsintheUnitedStatesindeedtheWesternHemisphereareonlythemostconspicuousinstanceofdescendantsofimmigrantswhoclaim"native" rights.(EventheAmerindianswerenotindigenous,accordingtoanthropologists:theycamebylandandbyseafromAsiaatvariousjuncturesinhistory.)

Pagexv

MyconcernwithtranslationandChineseliteraturehighlightstheseissuesofculturalinterchangeandculturalhegemony.Underlyingtheseexplorationsisagreater appreciationforthecomplexitiesatfundamentallevelspreconceptions,premises,paradigms.Oftenitappearsthatanswersarebeingofferedtothewrongquestions, oratleasttoquestionswithironieshardlyrealized.IoncepresentedalongpapertoaconferenceinBeijingthatinvolvedacomparisonofChineseandWestern philosophicalideas(comprisingChapters6to9ofthepresentbook).TheparticipantsattheconferenceweredividedequallybetweenscholarsfromChinaandfrom theUnitedStates.AChinesecolleaguehadkindwordstoofferonthepaper,butremonstratedatitslength.EarnestlyIaskedhimwhichpartshewouldcut.Hesaid thatIreallydidn'tneedthepartaboutChinesephilosophy:weallknewthatmaterialalready.(AllthiswassaidinChinese.)Yes,Iconcurred,weknewit,but(pointing totheAmericansintheconference)howaboutthem?TheImagistsoncesaidthat"anewcadencemeansanewidea"ifthereisanythingoriginalinthisbook,itmay bethatitidentifiesanewaudienceonethatisincipientlybicultural,knowledgeableaboutbothwhathasbeencalled"East"andwhathasbeencalled"West." Thefirstpartofthebook,Chapters1to5,compriseshistoricalsurveysofthebackgroundfortranslationingeneralandChineseliteratureinparticular.Thesecond part,Chapters6to9,presentsatheoreticalframeworkwhichtriestomakesenseofcertainconundrumsintranslation:itattemptsaparsingofthequestionintomore manageableand,presumably,moremeaningfulsegments.Thethirdpart,Chapters10to13,exemplifiessomeofthesemanticcollisionsthatunderliethecomplexities oftranslation,onwhichthetheoreticalexpositioninthemiddlepartmaybetested. Thetitleofthebookisadapted,inslightlymodifiedform,fromEmersonthatmostprovincialyetcosmopolitanofAmericanwriters."TheTransparentEye"reminds usthattheobjectonviewisnotonlythevisionweseebuttheorganthroughwhichthatvisionisapprehended.Formostreaders,whoseeanotherworldwhether pastorpresentthroughtranslations,theeye(I?)ofthetranslatorishardlynoticeable.Indeed,themoreeffectivethetranslator,themoretransparenttheeyethrough whichweseetheoriginal.Opaquenessobstructsourvisionlikecataracts,itpreventsusfromthefullexerciseofscrutiny.Ironically,wearemostcon

Pagexvi

sciousofourfacultyofsightwhenthatfacultyismostimpeded.Thisbook,however,isalookattransparencies. Thereisanothersenseinwhichthetransparenteyeisappositetotheseruminationsontranslation,Chineseliterature,andcomparativepoetics.Havingexposedthe inevitableprovincialitiesinallhumandiscourse,itwouldbeawkwardformetodenymyownbiases,limitations,anddistortions.Itismyhopethatthereaderwillnot onlyconstructivelyseethroughmyeyesbutdeconstructivelyseethroughmeaswell. ThebookcloseswithanepiloguewhichissetinthehicetnuncofaconferencepresentationattheSorbonnein1985.Iwantedtosituatethisdiscourseina circumstanceinvolvingasitdidalectureinEnglishabouttheimageofChinatoaFrenchaudiencewhichseemedemblematicoftheentireenterprise. Oneofthethrustsinthisbookistocastdoubtontheconceptof"thesolecreator"inanyfieldofendeavor.Althoughmynameappearsasauthor,therearemanywho havecontributedexplicitlyorimplicitlytothecompositionofthiswork.ThedebttothosewhohavepublishedonthelargequestionswhichIhaveaddressed cannotbeadequatelypaidinmerebibliographiccitations.Icanonlyhopethatmyanalyseshavedonejusticetothem,evenif,orparticularlywhen,Ihavedisagreed withthem.Therearepersonaldebtsaswelltothosewhohavesustainedmeinmyeffortstopublishthiswork.Somehaveevenwadedthroughtheentiremanuscript andmadesuggestionsAllenWinold,BreonMitchell,PatriciaEoyang,thetworeadersfortheSchoolofHawaiian,Asian&PacificStudies.Iofferthemmythanks asmuchfortheirsupportasfortheirconstructivecriticisms.Others,likeWinfredLehmann,RichardBjornson,andSarahLawall,aswellastwoanonymousreaders forChineseLiterature:Essays,Articles,Reviews(CLEAR),havereadandcommentedonselectedportionsofthiswork:IhopeIhaveheededsufficientlytheir sagecounsel.Tothose,toonumeroustomention,whohaverespondedtomypresentationsatvariousscholarlycolloquiaandsymposia,Iexpressmyappreciation, fortheyconstitutetheearlyalembicinwhichItestedtheseintellectualalchemies.ToDonYoder,whocopyeditedthemanuscript,Iwanttoexpressmyappreciation: copyeditorswhoeditformeaningandfelicity,ratherthanblindadherencetoconsistency,

Pagexvii

arenotsocommonthattheycanbetakenforgranted.ToStuartKiang,editorattheSchoolofHawaiian,Asian&PacificStudies,whohasshepherdedthe manuscriptthroughitsfinalphaseswithasustainingstalwartnessandfaith,Ifeelaparticularkinshipandaffection,becauseIwasalsoatonetimeaneditorwho believedinhisauthors. Someofthematerialinthisbookhasappearedinvariousjournalsandpublications:Chapter4appearedunderthetitle"AudiencesforTranslationsofChinese Literature"inTheArtandProfessionofTranslation,editedbyT.C.Lai(HongKongTranslationSociety,1976)portionsofChapter5werefirstpublishedas "TheToneofthePoetandtheToneoftheTranslator,"YearbookofComparativeandGeneralLiterature24(1975):7583Chapter10waspublishedunderthe sametitleinChineseLiterature:Essays,Articles,Reviews(CLEAR)10(1988)Chapter11waspublishedunderthetitle"WaleyorPound?TheDynamicsof GenreinTranslation,"intheTamkangReview19(14)(Autumn1988Summer1989)Chapter12waspublishedinaveryabbreviatedforminCriticalInquiry6 (1)(1979)underthesametitleandChapter13wasslightlyabbreviatedwhenitappearedinComparativeLiteratureEastandWest:TraditionsandTrends, editedbyCorneliaMooreandRaymondMoody(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiandEastWestCenter,1989). Tomywife,PatriciaEoyang,whohassustainedmeinallmyendeavorswithenthusiasmandlove,andtomymother,EllenEoyang,whosehardshipandsacrifice mademylifeandthisbookpossible,noexpressionofgratitudewilleversuffice.Myonlywishisthatthisworkbeworthyoftheirdevotion. Onereader,afriend,commentedthatthemanuscriptwas"veryyou."Icanhardlyarguewiththat,evenifalltheflawsinthepagesthatfollowareultimatelymy responsibility. BLOOMINGTON,INDIANA 15JUNE1991

Pagexix

ANoteonTransliterationfromtheChinese
Inthisbook,pinyinistheprimaryformoftransliterationfromtheChinese.Inconveniently,however,othersystemsoftransliteration,principallyWadeGiles,persistin quotedexcerptspublishedpriortogeneralacceptanceofthepinyinsystem.Thetraditionalworksofsinology(includingtheirtitles)arefamiliartogenerationsof sinologistsinWadeGilestransliteration,whichdespiteitsphoneticandphonologicalpeculiaritiesisthesystemusedinreferencelibrariesandincardcatalogs.The pinyinsystemisemployedinthePeople'sRepublicofChinaandcannotbeignoredbyanyonewhoaddressesaChineseaudience.Specialistswillbeabletoidentify fromthecontextwhichtransliterationsystemisbeingusedinthisbook,althoughpinyinwillbegivenwithinbrackets.Itseemsanachronistictoapplypinyin transliterationtoscholarshipwhichappearedbeforepinyinwasimplementedorwherepinyinisnotused(asinTaiwanandHongKong,forexample).Tocomplicate mattersfurther,thereareaplethoraoftransliterationsystemsinEnglish.TransliterationsofChinesealsovaryfromlanguagetolanguage:French,forexample,hasa verydifferentsystem,becauseFrenchpronunciationdiffersmarkedlyfromEnglishanditsalphabethasdifferentphoneticvalues.InEnglishalone,thereareeasilyhalfa dozenormoretransliterationsystemsWadeGiles,WangYi'sGuoryuuRomatzyh,Yale,pinyin,andothers.Norisitpossibletobetotallyconsistentintheuseof onesystem,since,forexample,Chineseplacenamesarenowsofamiliarintheirnineteenthcenturyformsthatthoseunfamiliarwiththesearcanascarcelyrealizethat HangzhouandHangchow,ZhejiangandChekiang,SuzhouandSoochow,GansuandKansu,XianggangandHsiangkang(HongKong)arethesameplace

Pagexx

namestransliteratedaccordingtodifferentsystems.TheconfusionsextendtotheneighboringprovincesofShanxi(whereshanisfirsttoneandmeans"mountain")and Shanxi(whereshanisthirdtoneanddesignatesanancientplacename):the"Shan"ineachcasetransliteratesdifferentChinesecharactersnineteenthcentury sinologistsquiteunhelpfullydistinguishedthesetwoplacenamesbyspellingthesecond"Shenhsi,"todistinguishitfrom"Shanhsi,''addingphoneticconfusionto orthographicirregularity.Toconfusethematterstillfurther,somenamesandwordsarethesameinmorethanonetransliterationsystem:Shanghai,Hunan,and Hainan,forexample.Therearealsoinstancesoftotallydifferentnamesdesignatingthesameplace:Guangzhou(Kuangchou,Kwangchow)andCanton.Thosewho readinChinesewill,ofcourse,besparedtheseorthographicdistractions.

Page3

1 "ConfoundTheirLanguage": TheMythologiesofTranslation
Insurveyingthehistoryoftranslation,oneencounterssomanytraditionalmisconceptions,shibboleths,andhalftruthsthatnosystematicanalysisispossiblebefore these"weeds"ofconfusionareclearedaway.Yetthese"errancies"arenotblatant"vulgar"errors,fortheycannotbeaccuratelycharacterizedasweedstobecleared awayordestroyed,sinceeachofthemcontainsakerneloftruththatmustberecognized.ItisforthisreasonIcalltheseanomalies"myths"ratherthanerrors,because ''error"wouldpresupposeapriororiginal"truth"thatiscontravened.Butthesemyths,howeverencrustedinfallacyandfalsereasoning,representsomesustaining truths.Thestudyoftranslationisnecessarilyananalysisofthemythologiesofitstheoryandpractice. Amongthe"myths"thatcluttertheliteratureontranslation,mythsthathavegonelargelyunchallenged,arethese:mythsoforiginality(confusingthatwhichisnovelwith thatwhichisnew)mythsofauthenticity(confusingthatwhichisgenuinewiththatwhichisold)andmythsoffidelity(confusingthatwhichisequivalentwiththatwhich isidentical).Ihaveusedtheword"myth"toexaminetheanomaliesoftheoryandpractice,becausemythcanbebothtrueandfalse.Oneneedn'tbelieveinGreek mythologytocreditthe"Apollos,"the"Geminis,"the"Saturns,"andthe"Mercurys"ofthespaceprogramtheireffectivenessasmorethannames,assustainingvisions ofremarkablyevocativepower,isinnowaydiminishedbyanyskepticismabouttheliteraltruthofGreekmythology.Mythshavebothsustainedtranslationandatthe sametimeunderminedacleartheoreticalunderstandingof

Page4

translationanysystematicconsiderationoftranslationmust,therefore,beginwithacritiqueofthesemythologies,bothtouncoverthemisconceptionstheyperpetuate aswellastodiscovertheveritiestheyconvey. TheMythsofLanguage Thestudyoftranslationasafieldofinquirymightbestbeginwithaconsiderationoftheconditionswhichmadetranslationnecessaryinthefirstplace.ForWesterners, thebiblicalallegoryoftheTowerofBabelisonlythemostfamiliarexplanationoftheconfusionoftongues.Inthismyth,humanhistoryisdividedintoapreBabelian world,whenallpeoplesspokeonelanguage,andtheBabelianworld,whenthelanguagesofhumankindbecameconfounded,onemademutuallyincomprehensibleto theother.Thereisyetanotherworld,a"postBabelianworld,"aworldcharacterizedby"panglossia"(onlyslightlylessutopianthantheoneimaginedbyDr.Pangloss): aworlddifferentfromthepreBabelianworldbecausehundredsofmutuallyincomprehensiblelanguagesarespoken,notjustoneanddifferentfromtheBabelian worldinthattheselanguagesbecome,throughmultilingualismamongspeakers,andthroughtranslations,mutuallycomprehensible.1 Butbeforeonepassestoitssubsequentphases,themythofthepreBabelianworldisworthponderingitmightbeusefultocontemplatewhatlifewouldbelikeina monolingualworld:"Andthewholeearthwasofonelanguage,andofonespeech"(Genesis11:1AuthorizedVersion).Theedenicimageofaworldthatknowsno misunderstanding,nomistranslations,no"misprisions,"isaworldconsonantwiththeperfectionofaparadisethatisperfectlyinnocent,butalsoperfectlyboring:it wouldnotsatisfythosewhohave,morethanmythically,eatenofthefruitofknowledge. ThebiblicalstorymakesclearthatGodconfoundedthetonguesofmenbecauseoftheiroverweeningpride:"Goto,letusbuildusa
1.

AtleastthreemajormodernfabulistshaveruminatedonthemythoftheTowerofBabelKafka,Borges,andCanetti:Kafkainhisbriefparables,"TheGreatWallandtheTower ofBabel,""TheTowerofBabel,""ThePitofBabel,"and"TheCityCoatofArms"Borges,in''TheLibraryofBabel"andCanettiinDieBlendung,translatedintoEnglishunder twotitles,AutodafandTowerofBabel.

Page5

cityandatower,whosetopmayreac1huntoheavenandletusmakeusaname,lestwebescatteredabroaduponthefaceofthewholeearth."God'sresponseto thisoverreaching("whosetopmayreachuntoheaven")isnotonlytoscatterthepeople,buttoimposeahostofmutuallyincomprehensibletonguesonthem."Andthe Lordsaid,'Behold,thepeopleisone,andtheyhaveallonelanguageandthistheybegintodo:andnownothingwillberestrainedfromthem,whichtheyhave imaginedtodo.Goto,letusgodown,andthereconfoundtheirlanguage,thattheymaynotunderstandoneanother'sspeech'"(Genesis11:7).The"jealous"Godof theOldTestamenttakesvengeanceagainstman'soverweeningpride:"SotheLordscatteredthemabroadfromthenceuponthefaceofalltheearth:andtheyleftoff tobuildthecity.ThereforeisthenameofitcalledBabelbecausetheLorddidthereconfoundthelanguageofalltheearth"(Genesis11:79).Onecannotoverlook thesignificanceofthesymbolforthiswatershedevent,foritembodiesaparanomasia,adeparturefromwordsasunivalent,anattackagainstexactlanguage,and hencethecreationofaduplicitousandambiguousdiscoursethatinvitescreativemisunderstanding.Onemustremembertheonomasticsofthestory:''Thatiswhyit wasnamedBabel,sinceYahwehconfoundedthespeechoverthewholeworld."Theword"confounded"translatestheHebrewwordbalal,whichmeans"mixed, confused,"awordplayinthiscontextonBabeland"Babylon"(seeSpeiser1964:74).2Thewordsuggestsstammeringandopaquenessofmeaning,incomprehensible chatter.Itmaybe,asDerridaremindsus(quotingfromRenan),thattheverynotionof"foreign"deriveseitherfromwordsthatsignify"tostammer,""tomumble,"or wordsthatsignify"mute."3 ThenamenotonlymarksthetimeandplaceatwhichtheLord"confounded"thelanguageofthepeople,butalsoimplies,asSpeiserpointsout,"asterncriticismofthe builders'monumentalpresumption"(p.lvi).Theexistenceofmutuallyincomprehensiblelanguagesispresentedasabiblicalcurseagainsthubrisandrepresentsafall fromgrace.(Thepsychologicallegacyofthiscurseis,of
2.

Itisaptthattheverytextwhichcanonizestheoriginoftheprofusionofdifferentlanguagesemploysamultilingualpun:theplayofHebrewbalalwiththeAkkadiannameBabel, theetymologyofwhichtheBabylonianstracedtobbilu,i.e,"thegateofGod"(cf.Gressman1928:5).
3.

OfGrammatology,123cf.Zhang(1985:390).

Page6

course,familiarinthehumiliationthatmostadultsexperiencetryingtolearnaforeignlanguage.) OnemightspeculateontheuniquenessofthisattitudeoftheBibleandhenceoftheWesternChristiantraditiontowardmultilingualityasapunishmentfororiginal pride.NootherworldreligionappearstoseetheexistenceoftheBabelianworldasacursetothesinofpride:thereseemstobenoexactcounterparttothestoryof theTowerofBabelinothermythologies.AndthereisanothercharacteristicoftheWesternBiblewhichmaybeunique:itistheonlysacredtextwhichwasoriginally composedinmorethanonelanguage:Hebrew,Aramaic,andKoineGreek.TheUpanishadswerewritteninSanskrittheKoranexclusivelyinArabic.Althoughthe BuddhistcanonaccumulatedtextsinChinese,Japanese,andTibetan,theoriginalsourcetext,theTipitaka(Sanskrit,Tripitaka),whichcomprisestheCanonofthe SchoolofElders(Theravada),iscompiledinPali,itselfashortenedversionofpalibhasa,meaning"thelanguageofthecanon."Indeed,translationsoftheChristian Bible,whichinvolvedtranslatingfromtwodifferentlanguages,maybeanearlyandpremonitorypostBabelianactwewouldnowsayecumenicalinvokinga congregationnotboundbyasinglelanguage,derivingfrommorethanonelanguagetradition,anddirectedtowardaunifyingpluralismwhereindividuallanguage identitiesarepreserved,withtextsmadeaccessibleintranslation. YetthereisanaspectoftheBabelmythwhichhaslargelygoneunnoticed.Theparablespeaksofconfounding"thespeechoverthewholeworld."Thereisnomention ofanywrittenlanguage.Ifwedatetheinventionofthealphabet,andwriting,to"700B.C.'plusorminus"'(Havelock1982:15)4andtheBabelstorypartofthe"J'' documenttothetenthcentury(Speiser,p.75),onecanassumethatironicallywhatwehaveisawrittenrecordofanoralstorythatdidnottakeintoaccountthe adventofwriting.FortheBabelstorydoesnotadmitofthepossibilitythatwhilespeechmaybeconfoundedamongthepeoplesoftheworld,writingmaynotbe. ThreeinstancesofthispostBabeliandevelopmentinaBabelianworldcomereadilytomind:inthemedievalperiod,scholars
4.

Ofapossibleearlierdatefortheinventionofthealphabet,Havelockwrites:"Aviewthatwouldrelegateittoearlyinthefirsthalfoftheeighthcenturyorevenattheendofthe ninthisrashandunsupportable"(p.15).

Page7

speakingdifferentvernacularscould,nevertheless,communicatethroughclassicalLatin,asPetrarch(anItalian),Erasmus(aDutchman),andSirThomasMore(an Englishman)didwiththeirEuropeancolleagues.MedievallearningwasabletoproceedacrosslinguisticboundariesthroughLatin(eveninitsoralform).Thelinguistic makeupofChinaoffersasecondexample:ChineseisasphoneticallydiverseasdistinctEuropeanlanguages:therearegreaterdifferencesbetweensomedialectsof spokenChinesethantherearebetweendifferentRomancelanguages(seeRamsey1987).TherearemanyChinesedialects(asopposedtodialecticallyaccented Mandarin)thataremutuallyincomprehensibletoeachotheryetthewrittenlanguageisaccessibletoanyliterateChinese,regardlessofanyoralfacilityinmorethan one'sowndialect.AthirdexampleisthecurrentuseofEnglishasaworldlanguageinseveralsectors:initswrittenform,aswithGermanandFrenchinapreviousera, Englishhasbecomethelanguageofdiscourseininternationalcommerceandinscience(whichisnottosayallsignificantscienceispublishedinEnglish).Studentsof computersciencefromallovertheworldstudythesubjectinEnglish:notallofthemmaybeabletoconversewitheachotherorally,butthroughthemediumofwritten Englishthereisaninternationalnetworkofmutuallyconfoundedspeakersofdifferentlanguageswhosomehowmanagetocommunicateandmakethemselves understoodthroughwrittencommunications. Asthemosttranslatedworkintheworld,5theBiblepartakesequallyofthepreBabelianworld(inwhichthewordofGodisaccessibletoall),theBabelianworld (wheredifferentversionsaremutuallyincomprehensibletothemonolingual),andthepostBabelianworld(wheremultilingualreadershaveaccesstomorethanone version).CommunicantsinChristianity,conversantwiththewordofGod,areseenbytheChurchasonecongregation,"onepeoplewithasinglelanguage,"whoshare acommunionwitheachotherthattranscendslanguageboundaries.ThroughthelanguageoftheBible,allChristiansarerestoredinsomemeasuretotheirprelapsarian statebeforetherevealedWord,howeverdiversetheir
5.

Itisestimatedthat"theScriptureshavebeentranslated,atleastinpart,in1,109languages....ThismeansthatthemajorpartoftheChristianScripturesexistinthelanguagesof atleast95percentoftheworld'spopulation"(Nida1975:24).

Page8

experience,howevermutuallyincomprehensibletheirdiscoursesmightbeonothersubjects.Theironyisthatthepropagationofthefaithhasbeenmadeallthemore difficultbythe"curse"ofmultilingualitythattheLordvisitedonthebuildersoftheTowerofBabel. TheBabelianworldisnotmerelyapostlapsarianpurgatoryofdiscordanddivision,astheGenesisstoryintimates.ThepreBabelianworldinwhichonlyonelanguage wasspoken,universallycomprehensible,mightnotappealtoeveryone,althoughthedreamofauniversallanguagepersists,whetherthatlanguagebeEnglish(asmany Anglophileswouldinsist),orFrench(asmanyFrancophonesmightexpect),orChinese(asRenEtiemblerecommended),orEsperanto(asL.L.Zamenhofhoped). NoteveryoneviewstheBabelianworldasaburdenandacurse.AsDebraCastillo(1984:15)says:

YetthissenseofhorrorbeforethewoundednameisnotuniversalBabelteachesusthatuniversalityofmotiveorappreciationisimpossibleandmanywritersfindtheplurality oftonguesajoyousexperience.Thefallfromunityintomultiplicityrepresentsafortunatefall,acursethatrevealsitselfasablessing.

ButtherearepostBabelianaswellasBabelianaspectstotheworldtoday.WhileitmightbequixotictohopeforatotallypostBabelianworld,inwhicheveryone speakseveryoneelse'slanguage,intimationsofthismultilingualworldexistevennow:insuchregionsoftheworldasbilingualCanada,intrilingualMalaysia,in quadrilingualSwitzerland.ThesupremacyofEnglishasaworldlanguagemaybepoliticalanditmaybecultural,butthatsupremacyisnotdemographic:thenumberof nativespeakersofChineseisalmostdoublethenumberofnativespeakersofEnglish(806millionversus426millionasof1987).Thefactthatmostofthenon EnglishspeakingpeoplesoftheworldlearnEnglishmeansthattheyareatleastbilingual.Apreponderantmajorityoftheworld'spopulationisbilingualtosome degree.6Completelymono

6.

Ithasbeenestimatedthat70percentoftheworld'spopulationisbilingual:seeBabel3(1968):192quotedbyMilanDimic,cf.Batts(1975:1333).Norshouldbilingualismbe consideredacharacteristiconlyofcivilizedcultures:asSapirsays,"Primitivemanisnotisolated,andbilingualismisprobablyasimportantafactorinthecontactofprimitive groupsasitisonmoresophisticatedlevels"(1961:33).

Page9

lingualpopulationsareintheminority.Eventhe"universallanguage"ofscienceandmathematicsisnotastrictlymonolingualphenomenon,foritcombinesArabic numbers,Greekletters,andtheRomanalphabet,alongwithsuchiconicsignsas=, ,<,>, , ,andsucharbitrarysymbolsas+,,,, ,and .Indeed, mathematicsmaybethemodelofapostBabelianlanguage,whereoneincorporateselementsfromseverallanguagestoformonecompositeanduniversally accessiblelanguage. AspecialkindofpostBabelianmultilingualismmaydefinemodernistwriters,whosharewhatmightbecalledan"expatriateimagination."Bilingualandmultilingual authorsinnationalliteraturesarenot,ofcourse,unusual.Chaucer,afterall,translatedfromtheFrenchandItalianMiltonreaddailyfromtheBibleinHebrewthe RomanticsfavoredItalianliterature,asdidthePreRaphaelitestheDecadentsweremoreinclinedtowardFrench.Butbilingualism,ormultilingualism,froman expatriateperspectiveseemsamodernphenomenon.Joyce'smostimportantepiphany,byhisownadmission,washisdeparturefromIreland,ahomelandwhichhe loved.ButitwasinEurope,inPola,Trieste,Zurich,andParis,andinhisconfrontationwithotherliteraturesandotherlanguages,thathesawclearlyhisownnative culture.Joycehadstudied"DanoNorwegian"(inordertoreadIbsenintheoriginal),inadditiontoLatinandFrench,priortohisdeparturefromIreland.7Hetaught EnglishformanyyearsinTriesteandlearnedItalianandGerman.UnlikepreviousEnglishauthors,whoexpropriatedforeignworksintoEnglish,Joyceadopteda panopticallymulticulturalperspective.AsimplemonolingualIrishmanmayunderstandhisPortraitoftheArtistasaYoungMan,butonlymultilingualreaders,or incipientlymultilingualreaders,canfullyappreciateFinnegansWake.Whereearlierauthorsmayhavebeenmultilingual,Joycewasmulticultural.ThelegacyofBabel, ofaworldinwhichhumanswereseparatedbymutuallyincomprehensiblelanguages,wasnotoneheaccepted:hedeterminedtounderstandasmanyotherlanguages ashecould,intheirowncontextofmeaning.OnesensesthathisfrustrationwithAustriaanditsmulticulturalandmultilingualworldstemmed,notfromaresolute monolingualism,butfromasenseoffutilityatallthelanguages
7.

IamindebtedtoProfessorBreonMitchellforpointingthisout.

Page10

yettobelearned:"IhatethisCatholiccountrywithitshundredracesanditsthousandlanguages..."(Ellman1959:192). T.S.Eliot,afierceFrancophile,studiedtheUpanishads,whichisasubtextofhisWasteLand.Hence,astrictlyEnglishbackgroundwillnotbesufficientforan adequateunderstandingofthisliterarylandmark.PoundwasperhapsthemostproteanofpostBabelianwriters,fornotonlydidhetranslateactivelyfrommany languagesbutheincorporatedwhathetranslated,ofteninitsoriginalform,inhisCantos.Hiscreativeimpulsewasmulticultural(evenifhispoliticswerereactionary andhispoeticaccentsdeterminedlyAmerican)morethananyotherauthor,hetriedtounderstandtheliteraturesoftheworldinanylanguage,toseefromthe perspectiveofanotherculture,andtospeak,inhisownvoice,asmany"other"languagesashecould.Inthisperspective,onecanseeamarkedcontrastbetween Eliot,Joyce,andPoundallexilesandtheireldercontemporary,WilliamButlerYeats.Yeats'ssojourninEnglandwasavisit,notanexile,andwhilehe experimentedwithritualdramaintheNohtradition,collaboratedonatranslationoftheUpanishads,andpromotedthepoetryofRabrindranathTagore,hewasnever astudentofJapanese,Vedic,orBengali.8 Sincethen,anexpatriateimaginationcanbefoundinmorethanafewsignificantmodernistwriters.Thereareculturalexpatriates:the"LostGeneration"included HemingwayandFitzgerald,whowerenevermoreAmericanthanwhenseeingtheirhomelandfromthevantagepointofParis.(HenryJamesprecededtheminthis paradoxicalcourseofdiscoveringone'snativelandbyleavingit.)Thereare"alienatedexpatriates":Nabokov,Beckett,IsaacBashevisSinger,JosefBrodsky,whoare estrangedfromtheirnativesoilforonereasonoranother,yetwhoseimaginationsareanchoredintheirnativeexperience.Andthereare"vicariousexpatriates," authorswhodonotabandontheirnativeculture,butwhoacquirethebackgroundofaforeignculture.MichelButor,aresolutelyFrenchwriter,butoneofenormous internationalinfluence,isatranslatorofJoyce.ClaudeSimonwasanadmirerandtranslatorofWilliamFaulkner.JorgeLuisBorgeswasborninArgentina"ofSpanish,
8.

Differencesinliterarystatureaside,ThomasWolfewasanotherwhosoughtthepreBabelianworld:"Rememberingspeechlesslyweseekthegreatforgottenlanguage,thelost laneendintoheaven..."(epigraphtoLookHomewardAngel).

Page11

English,and(veryremotely)Portugueseorigin"hewasasmuchathomeinEnglishasSpanishhetranslatedKafkafromtheGerman.Borges'"selfcreated precursors"includedWilliamShakespeare,SrenKierkegaard,RobertBrowning,H.G.Wells,FranzKafka,andG.K.Chestertonheadmiredthemastersof Americanliterature,particularlyMarkTwainandEmilyDickinson.Morerecently,JosefBrodsky,aRussiantransplantedinAmericansoil,usesEnglishasacreative toolwithalmostasmuchdeftnessashismothertonguehecollaboratesinthetranslationsofhisRussianpoemsintoEnglish.9Brodskyisoneofthewritersofthe modernperiodnotonlyendowedwithanexpatriateimaginationbutwhopossessesthelinguisticskillstobeaselftranslator.Thiscompanywouldalsoinclude Nabokov,Beckett,I.B.Singer,andCzeslawMilosz. Foralltheirdiversity,thesewritershaveonethingincommon:theyareatleastasrecognizedoutsidetheirnativecountryaswithin.TheyarepartofapostBabelian internationalistperspectivenationalliteraturescannotconfinethem,andtheiraudiencescomprisemorethanmonolingualreadersinanationalliterature.Goethemay benotonlythefirstexemplarofapostBabeliancanonbutalsoitsfirsttheoristifoneunderstandshisnotionofWeltliteraturnotintermsof"worldliterature" conceivedastheinheritedmasterpiecesfromvariouscultures,butasacontemporaryliteratureaccessibleacrossnationalandlinguisticboundaries,emanatingfromany regiononearth,andsharedbytheworld(Strich1949:5).ThepopularityoftheChileanpoetPabloNerudainGermany,ortheAmericannovelistJohnSteinbeckin theSovietUnion,ortheJapaneseYukioMishimaandtheColombianGabrielGarcaMarquezintheUnitedStatesispartoftoday'sWeltliteratur.Thedevelopment ofliterarytraditionsisnolongerconfinedtochangesresultingfrominfluencesamongcognatelinguistictraditions.Sincethenineteenthcentury,attheleast,national literatureshavebeendecisivelychangedbyinfluencesfromculturesthatdo
9.

ThepostBabelianperspectiveisnotmerelyamatterofanauthor'slanguageability.Thereareauthorswhoknowmorethanonelanguagewhoarenot"internationalist"and therearemonolingualauthorswhoare.ConradwasfluentinPolish,French,andEnglish,buthisnovelsaredefinitivelyEnglishMishimawasardentlyJapanese,buthisfamein theUnitedStatesandinEnglishtranslationwasforhimimmensely,ifironically,gratifying.

Page12

notshareahistoricalsource:theinfluenceofChineseontheImagists,ofVedicliteratureonEliot,ofZenontheAmericanBeatsor,conversely,oftheRussianson modernChinesefiction,ofNietzscheonMeijifictioninJapan,oroftheVictoriansonTagore. Itisthislinguistically"panoptic"viewthatdistinguishesthemodernperspectiveontranslation.Whateverthelanguageofdiscourse(whichitselfconstitutesageneric difficulty),translationcannolongerbediscussedfromasingleculturalpointofview.Therecanbenoassumptionthatanynativelanguageissuperiortoanyotheras aninstrumentofmeaning,orasarepositoryofinsight,orasamediumofdiscourse.Onealmostneedsanewlanguagetorepresentthiscosmopolitanperspective. Therecanbenofinal"privileging"ofonelanguageoveranother,onlytheinevitableselfawarenessthattheuseofonelanguagemomentarilyprivilegesitoverallothers. TheMythsofTranslation Inanamusing,wrongheaded,yetrevealingcomplaintabouttranslation,thehumoristAndyRooneypointsoutthedisparitybetweenaJapanesetranslationofoneofhis booksandtheoriginal.AsacommentatorontheweeklyCBSnewsshow"SixtyMinutes"andasasyndicatedcolumnist,Rooneyspecializesinironicallyatavistic provincialities.WhatisfascinatingaboutthiscritiqueoftranslationisthatwhileRooneydoesnotprofesstoknowJapanese,hehasnocompunctionsaboutcriticizinga translationofhisworkintoJapanese.HeaskedaJapanesefriend,awomannamedJunko,toreadpartsoftheJapaneseversionbackintoEnglish.Herearetheparts readbyhis"retrotranslator,"followedbyRooney'soriginaltextinitalics:
Youwonderwhocancookamenuaboutafeastofnewspaperor...Idon'tknowhowtotranslate. Myquestionisthis.Doesanyoneactuallymakethoseholidaydishesrecommendedinthehomesectionsofnewspapersandmagazines? Oftenitrecallsme,whatIfeltwhenyouwereyoungbutnowadaysyoucan'tbelongtothepureworld,youfeltfreely...youtriedtorememberthosefeelingsthatyoufeltwhen youwereyoung.

Page13 Everyonceinawhile,I'mremindedofsomewayIusedtofeelorofsomesimplesensationIusedtohavethatIdon'thaveanymorebecauseInolongerdowhateveritwasthat broughtiton.[TribuneMediaServices,9November1987]

Rooneyargues,withunassailablelogic,"ItwasfunreadingpartsofthebookwithJunkobutitwasn'tcleartomehowmuchofthemeaningofthewordsreallycame throughinJapanese." Thereareseveralproblemshere:notoflogic,butofdeixis,ordeicticframesofreference.First,RooneypretendstohavenoconceptionthatatypicallyAmerican locutionhomespun,MarkTwainian,ashisprosetriestobemightsoundmoreunnaturalandlessattractiveinJapanesethanitdoesinEnglish.Indeed,onemight arguethatevensomespeakersofEnglishmightnotfindRooney'sstyleverynatural,particularlyiftheyareBritish.Second,Rooneycannotconceiveofthepossibility thatevenaperfectrenderingofhiswords(whateverthatmeans),whentranslatedbackintoEnglish,mightverywellseemstrangetotheoriginator.Itisn'tmerelya matterofagoodversusabadtranslation.Rooneysays:"IfIhadletJunkostudyitfirst,hertranslationmighthavebeenmoreaccuratebutthosewouldnotbethe conditionsfortheaverageJapanesereadersoIsuspectherunderstandingofitwastypicalofwhatanyJapanesespeakingpersonwouldunderstand."Heisclearly concernedaboutthetypicalresponsetohisbookinJapan,abouthowheisunderstoodinJapanese,andheequatesthisunderstandingwithan"unreflected" translation,asifcomprehensiononthepartoftheJapanesereaderweretantamounttoinformalextemporaneoustranslation.Then,withinexorablelogic,Rooney reiteratesthepoint,ironicallyexoneratinghisJapaneseinterlocutor"retrotranslator":"KeepinmindJunkoisjustabrightJapanesewomanwhospeaksEnglishfluently inordinaryconversation.Sheisnotaprofessionaltranslatorbutthen,neitherarethepeoplewhoaregoingtoreadthebookinJapanese."Therearesomanycomplex provincialitiesinthisexegesisthat,likeamirrorwithinamirror,one'sheadspinstosortthemout.Rooneyseemstoassumethatitispossibletoconveyhisindividual Americanstyleinanotherlanguageandculture.ItisnotdifficulttodepictAmericansinJapanese,butthechallengeistosoundAmericantoJapanesetheway AmericanssoundtoAmericans. Severalmythsaresubsumedinthisexample.Oneinvolvestheassumptionthathistoricalpriorityisthesameasontologicalsuper

Page14

iority:thattheoriginalintimeisalsothemoreauthentic,andmustbesuperiorinvalue,aswellasprior,totheimitation.Tobesure,thismaybetrueinmostcases.But tociteonlythemostobviouscase,theoriginaltextsoftheOldTestamentwerelostfortwomillenniaandwereextantonlyinGreekandLatinversions,onlytobe partiallyrediscoveredamongtheDeadSeaScrollsin1948.YetthenumberofreadersoftheBibleinitsoriginallanguagesisminiscule.Howmanyreadersofthe AuthorizedVersionoftheBible(1611)areawarethatitisderivative,arecensionofseveralpreviousversions(if,indeed,theyareevenawarethatitisatranslation)? JandeWaardandEugeneNida(Nida1964:12)pointoutthat,whenspeakingoftheScriptures,

thereisatendencytousethetermsourceinanambiguousway...sometimesawriterusessourceinspeakingof(1)theoriginalauthorofthebookinquestionor(2)theredactor ofaparticularbiblicaldocument.Inotherinstancessourcerefersto(3)theactivityofGodortheHolySpiritasthesourceoftheinspiration.Instillotherinstancessourceis essentiallyequivalentto(4)documentaryevidenceintheGreek,Hebrew,orAramaictexts.Finally,sourcemaydesignate(5)certainhypotheticaldocuments,suchastheLogiaor theTestimoniacollection.

BehindthisconfusionlieswhatCastillocalls"themythoftheabsolutetext,"despitethefactthatSacredScripture"existsinvariousformsandissubjecttotheerrorsof chancethatbefallhumantexts"(p.3).Eventhetextsthatdoexistarebynomeansdefinitive:ithasbeenestimatedthatthere"somefivethousanddifferenttextual problemsintheOldTestamentinwhichtherearesignificantdifferencesofmeaning."FortheNewTestamentthereare"morethan1400instancesofmanuscript evidenceinwhichtherearesignificantdifferencesthataremeaningful"(deWaardandNida,p.12).Inthisrespect,modernsareheirstotwopresuppositions,one Romantic,theothercapitalist.TheRomanticnotionistheonethatprivilegesoriginalcompositionoverimitation:somethingnovelpreferredoversomethingderivative. Thecapitalistnotion,sanctionedandreinforcedbytheconventionofcopyright,confersonthe''original"authorallrightstohiswork,whichisnowhis"property." Imitationbecomesderivativenessandderivativenessbordersonplagiarism,whichistheftofintellectualandartistic"property."

Page15

Anothermythisthemythofidentity,theassumptionwhichleadsRooneytobelievethatthereisanAndyRooneyinJapaneseandthatallittakesisdiligenttranslation todiscoverit("ifIhadletJunkostudyitfirst").Wemightconsiderthisquestionofidentitybyconsideringthreedifferent"modesofexistence":oneinvolvinghuman identity,orthenotionofuniqueindividualitythesecond,worksofart,includingliteratureandthethird,commodities,tangibleobjectsofvalue. Thereis,atleastintheWest,anassumptionthatuniquenessisitselfavalue:weseethisinourconcernwithendangeredspeciesinourpoliticalideals,which emphasizecivilrights,bywhichwemeanindividualrightsandinourreligion,which,inChristianity,positsapersonalGod,onetowhomeachpersoncanrelateasan individual.Thereisanimplicitsensethatexactclonesofhumanbeingswouldsomehowdiminishtheirhumanity:ifidenticalAlbertEinsteinscouldbecloned,wouldthat diminishthevalueoftheoriginalEinstein?Iftheclonesareidentical,wouldnotthevalueoftheclonesbeequaltothevalueoftheoriginal?Somethingvitaland dynamic,howeversimilarinsomerespectstosomethingorsomeoneelse,isalwaysseenasunique:itcanneverbeidenticalwithanythingoranyoneelsewithoutbeing regardedasdiminishedinvalue.Ifthisistrueofpersons,itisalmostastrueofpersonalities.AndyRooneywouldhardlyobjectifoneclaimedthatheisunique,oneof akind,nottobeduplicated,irreplaceable.ButifthereisnoonequitelikehiminEnglish,whyshouldhewonderifthereisalsonoonequitelikehiminJapanese? Indeed,giventhedifferencesbetweenAmericanandJapaneseculture,wemayfindaroughcounterpart,butthereislittlelikelihoodthatwewouldfindhislike,much lesshisequal,orhisequivalent,inJapan. Withobjectsofart,thereis,ofcourse,apriorityaccordedtheoriginal,theauthenticmasterpiececreatedbythemaster.Butisitsaestheticvaluecontingentonlyonits beingtheoriginal?AreallthosewhoappreciateRembrandtonlyinreproductionwronginadmiringhisgenius?Tobesure,anartloverwhoseesartobjects exclusivelythroughreproductionswouldberegardedasanamateurwithanexperienceinferiortoaconnoisseurwhohadaccesstotheoriginalsandwhoseeyewas constantlysharpenedbyviewingactualmasterpieces.Butsurelynoreasonablemoderndayarthistorianwouldwishtoconfinetheaudienceforworksofart

Page16

onlytothosewhocouldviewtheoriginal.Formostmuseumgoers,theviewingofanoriginaldoesnotalwaysconveymoreartisticinsight,beyondtheparticularthrill inseeingtheactualobjectexpertsandconnoisseurs,however,havethetrainingandtheperspicacitytonoticethedifferencesbetweentheoriginalandthecopies,and someofthesedifferencesmayevenbeaestheticalthoughrecentdiscoveriesof"authenticated"originalswhichhavebeenexposedasforgeriesatdistinguished repositoriesofartmakeonewonderevenabouttheexperts.Therearetwopointshere:one,thatinpainting,theoriginalisuniquetwo,thatitsvalue,bothasa propertyandasanaestheticobject,dependsonthatuniqueness,nomatterhowfaithfulthereproductions.Evenifitweretechnologicallypossible,fewwould countenance"cloning"originalmasterpieces,to''massproduce"originals(althoughsomeentrepreneursinartcircles,particularlythosepromotingSalvadorDaliin California,havetried).10Aren'ttherecopiesthatexceedtheoriginalinquality?Therearecopiesbymasterpaintersofworksbytheirmentorswhicharesuperiorto theoriginal.Isthequestionoforiginalsamattermoreofcommercialconcernthanofaesthetics? Ifthedistinctionsbetweentheoriginalanditsreproductionsinpaintingandsculpturearefraughtwithdifficulties,thesituationwithmusicandliteratureissomewhat moreclearcut.Musicloversarenotcruciallydisadvantagedbynothavingseentheoriginaltextsforthepiecestheyhearaninabilitytoreadmusicmaybecriticalfor aperformer,butnotforalistener.Theoriginalisofhistoricvalue,andallowingforprogressiveinaccuraciesfromeditiontoedition,changesintheactualinstruments used,andshiftsintasteonecansaythatifallBeethoven'sholographscoreswerelostordestroyed,Beethovenwouldstillliveon.11(Indeed,facsimilesand microfilmsofarchivaltreasuresoftenguardagainst
10.

Lithographsareaninstanceofmultipleoriginals,sinceeachcopyisequivalenttoanyotherhowever,thegradualwearingdownofthestonewitheachimpressionlimitsthe numberofacceptablecopiesthatcanbereproduced.
11.

Thereare,ofcourse,"earlymusic"puristswhoseidealistorestoretheconditionsthatprevailedwhenthecomposercomposedhispieceorhaditfirstperformed(useof contemporaneousinstruments,sizeofensemble,etc.).Thatthisisnoteventechnicallypossible,giventhelatitudeofthecomposer'sscore,isarguedbymanycf.RichardTaruskinin areviewoftheBeethovensymphoniesinOpus(October1987):31ff.IamgratefultoProfessorAllenWinoldforbringingthispiecetomyattention.

Page17

theintellectualandscholarlydamagethattheselosseswouldrepresent.)Ingarden(1986:10)haswritten:"Notonlycanaworkofmusicinprinciplebeheardwithout theaidofascorewedonotusually'read'musicalworks,thoughthisofcoursedoeshappenwhenwelearntoplayaparticularworkbutwhenwehearthework andperceiveitaestheticallyinthefullnessofitspropertiesandcompleteconcretion,thescoreremainstotallyoutsidethework'srange."Indeed,Ingarden'sanalysisof therelationshipbetweentheperformanceofamusicalworkandthescorefromwhichitderivesisappositetotherelationshipbetweenanoriginaltextandits translation.Ingardenseparatestheconcernswith"errors"(whichare"notdeterminedbytheschema"ofthescore)fromthepotentialaestheticvalueofsuch departures:''Aspecificperformance,"Ingardenargues,"mayincludevariantswithregardtothoseelementsoftheworkdeterminedbythescore,"andheconcludes that"wesaythatthegivenperformanceisfaulty,oratanyratedoesnotrecreatetheworkitwasintendedtorecreate." Certainly,thisjudgmentcouldapplytomanytranslations,someofwhichare,indeed,admired.Infact,Ingarden,inafootnote,anticipatesthisverypossibility:"Itis possibleforaperformerconsciouslyanddeliberatelytoaltercertaindetailsoftheworkwithoutloweringitsvalue.Hemayevencreatesomethingmoreperfectthan theoriginalwork,butthisisnolongeranexactperformanceofaworknotatedinthescorebutofanotherwork,albeitverysimiliartotheoriginal"(p.141).Onecould arguethatthenotionoftheidentityofanoriginalisafigment,aconstructofsharedimagination"asingle,intersubjective,dominantaestheticobject,constitutingthe equivalentnolongeroftheopinionsofonelistener,butofthemusicalpublicinagivencountryatagiventime"isthewayIngardenputsit(p.154).Thechimerical aspectoftheidentityofanoriginalispossibleonlyinphilosophicalanalysis,whichessentiallyrefinestheoriginaloutofexistence."Givensuchanunderstandingofa musicalwork,"Ingardenconcludes,"theproblemofitsidentitydisappears"(p.151).Elsewherehemaintains"thattheveryproblemofidentity...isa pseudoproblem." Inliterature,thedistinctionbetweenthe"workofart"andtheactual"original"isevenmoreunequivocal.Itisunlikelythatthepreponderantmajorityofthereadersof Keatshaveeverseentheoriginalmanuscriptsof"Endymion"andtheOdestheycan

Page18

scarcelybeawarethatKeats'sholographtextreflectswhatmighttodaybecalledorthographicspellingerrors.Indeed,theauthenticoriginalhasbeendemonstrably "normalized"intheauthoritativeeditionsthathavebeenpublishedinthecenturyandahalfsinceKeatsdied.Onlyapedantwouldinsistthattheworldreadfacsimiles ofKeats'soriginaltextorthatatrueunderstandingofliteraturedependsonrepeatedviewingsofactualmanuscripts. Intheworldofcommodities,evenallowingformassproduction(anearlyformofmechanical"cloning"),emphasisisplacedonwhatmightbecalledmultiple "originals."Brandnames,limitededitions,lithographs,autographedbooks,patents,copyrights,designerlabels,conferanextrinsicvalueonobjectsnotnecessarily warrantedbytheirintrinsicvalue.Thesemultiple"originals"areameansofexpandingthemarketfororiginals.Onebuysthelabelasmuchasonebuysanarticleof clothing.Yet,evenhere,thereisasenseoftheauthorizedandunauthorizedoriginal.Anythingthatisidenticalineveryrespect,butwhichisnotauthorized,isaforgery. Thisgoesforcoins,papercurrency,checks,stockcertificates,certificatesofanykind,andtheirconcomitantcounterfeits,aswellasforthe''creations"ofHanvan Meegerens,themasterDutchforger,whichfooledartexpertsforyears.Notethearbitrarydistinctionbetweenareplicaandaforgery:oneisauthorizedandtheother isnot.Thedistinctionhasnothingtodowiththeaccuracyoftheimitation,ortheexactnessofthereproduction,ortheidentitybetweentheoriginalandthecopy indeed,aforgerymaybe,oftenis,moreaccuratethanareplica.12Thereplicaisanallusiontotheoriginal,asouvenirofhavingseentheoriginal,whereasaforgery presumestoreplacetheoriginal. Inallthreemodesofexistencetheirreplaceabilityoftheoriginalorthe"authorized"versionisassumed.Buttherearenorealidentitiestobehad,onlytypesor degreesofequivalence
12.

LawrenceWechslerhasdetailedinTheNewYorker(18,25January1988)thefascinatingandinstructivecaseofJ.S.Boggs,whopaintspapercurrencywithnointenttopass his"replicas"offascurrency,butwhoneverthelesssellsthematthevaluedesignatedonthecurrencyreproduced.Theaccountraisessomeveryproblematicissuesaboutvalue, aboutart,andaboutthereproductionofcurrency:itmaybethatthereproductionofcurrency,ifskillfullyaccomplishedandselfdeclared,maybeworthmorethanauthorized papermoneyofthesamedenomination.

Page19

betweenexemplars,eachwithroughordersofapproximationdeterminingwhatisequivalent.Ourcitationofliterarymodesofexistenceiscriticaltoaclear appreciationoftranslation,foritremindsusthattheequivalenceliesnotinreproducing,howeverfaithfully,theactualoriginal(inthissense,Keatsisalready "translated"intomoderndayorthographicEnglish),butintheapproximatecorrespondencebetweenanauthor'swordstotheaudienceinhislifetimeandhiswordsto eachsucceedinggenerationofreaders.Eveniftherewerenochangesinphonologyororthography,therewouldbesubtleshiftsinmeaningandnuancebetweenthe periodoftheauthor'slifeandthecontemporaryperiodofthereader.Totakeanobviousexample,apostrophesandexclamationssuchasShelley's"Oh!Liftmeasa wave,aleaf,acloud!/Ifalluponthethornsoflife!Ibleed!"orKeats's''Omortalpain!/ODarkness!"orhis"OAtticshape!"arenotasacceptabletothemodern sensibilityastotheRomanticformodernssuchapostrophesseemexcessive,andwouldborderontheludicrous,iftheywerenotsohallowedbythecanon.Noone writingtodaywouldgetawaywithsuchlocutions,exceptinironyorassatire.13 Finally,amongthepersistentmythsoftranslationisthemyththatanactualoriginalexistsasanintegralentity.Onespeaksofthe"original"behindthetranslationwith equalassurance,whethertheworktranslatedistheBible,theRubaiyatofOmarKhayyam,Dante,Chaucer,Poe,orFrost.Yetoneforgetsthatifonecandocument anoriginalwithDante,Poe,orFrost,suchasingledocumentcannotalwaysbefoundfortheotherworks.Thereisno"original"Bible,whichisacompendiumof narrativesspanningalmostamillennium,fromtheninthcenturyB.C.tothefirstcenturyintheChristianera,especiallyifbyoriginalonemeansacoherentworkfrom oneauthor.(EventhepositedauthorshipofGoddoesnotsufficetoresolvetheissue:doestheAlmightyproduce"drafts"?) Evenallowingforthereliableexistenceoforiginals,onemustquestionthenotionofanidealidentitybetweentheoriginalinthesourcelanguageandthetranslationin thetargetlanguage.Frawley
13.

Thisargumentagainstthepossibilityofidentityshouldnotbeconstruedasajustificationforindiscriminatelicenseintranslation.Thereare,inadditiontodifferentkindsof equivalents,validjudgmentstobemadeastothedegreeofequivalencewithineachkindthatcanprovidearationalbasisfordisinterestedevaluationsoftranslations.

Page20

(1984:163167)considersthethreemainargumentsforidentityacrosslinguisticcodes:
1.Referentialidentity,whichpositssemanticexactnessasthesinequanon,sincethemainpremise,inHouse'swords,"thenatureoftheuniverse...iscommontomostlanguage communitiesthusthereferentialaspectofmeaningistheonewhich(a)ismostreadilyaccessible,andforwhich(b)equivalenceintranslationcanmosteasilybeseentobe presentorabsent" 2.Conceptual/biologicalidentity,whichassumesthat"allhumanscognizetheirworldsinessentiallythesamemanner,andthisresultsfromthefactthatallhumanshavevirtually thesamebiologicalapparatus" 3.Interlingualidentity,whichpositsuniversalsoflanguage,universalsofcoding,andassumesthatthereisabedrockbasissharedbyalllanguages.

Toeachofthesepremises,Frawleyoffersacritique:thefirstherefutesbypointingoutthat"phenomenaarenotconstant"andbycontendingthat"itisuselesstosay thatmeaningultimatelyresidesinthephenomena"thesecondherejectsnotbecausehumansmaynot"cognizetheirworldsinessentiallythesamemanner,"but becausesuchinsightsareirrelevanttotranslationifonecannotposita"satisfactorycorrelationbetweengrammarandcognition"thethirdhediscardsnotonlybecause atrulyuniversalinterlingualbasisisfarfromestablished,butbecauseinterlingualidentitieswouldmisconstruetheactivityoftranslation,whichisanactivitynotof linguisticcompetencebutoflinguisticperformance.Itisclearthatinthelastcritique,Frawleyisthinkingmoreofliterarytranslationthanoftechnicalorscientific translation. Athirdmythrelatingtotranslationisthemythofauthenticity.Inone'sregardfortheuniqueidentityofeachindividualandeachculture,thereisahorrorof"impostors," "ersatz,""kitschyimitations"ofrealartifacts.Indeed,manyoftheseitemsattractopprobriumbecausetheycatertothemostsimplistic,themostvulgar,andthemost venalcommercialinstinctsasifamementowere,insomesense,synecdochicallyequivalenttoacomplexwholeandanunderstandingofaculturecouldbehadfor thepriceofasouvenir.Thereactiontotheseexploitationsisaretreatintosnobbery,whetherforauthenticChinesefriednoodlesinsteadof"Chow

Page21

Mein"(whichmeans"friednoodles"butisnothinglikethenativedish)orthesuperannuatedauthenticityof"Coke,therealthing."Butifweexaminethenotionof authenticity,wefindthatthevalorizingprincipleishistorical.Theinauthenticityoccurswhenonethingorpersonmasqueradesforanotherthingorperson. Yetinthehistoryofculture,asinthehistoryofcuisine,whatmaybeanadulterationofoneitemmaybetheauthenticatingofanother.Quebecoisculturemaybeseen bytheFrenchasanadulterationof"authentic"Frenchculture,butitcannotbedenieditsownvalidityasanauthenticculturethathappenstoincludecertainFrench elementsvariouslymodified."Cajun"and"Creole"aresimilaradmixtures,blends,or"mongrels"thatinvolvedifferentelements:AngloSaxon,black,andAmerindianin thefirstcaseandAmerindianandIberianinthesecond.Butonecanspeakmeaningfullyof"authenticCreole''or"authenticCajun."Theymaybeinauthenticinsofaras theyarenotstrictly(onetendstosay,significantly,"purely")oneortheotherofitssourceconstituents,andtheymaybecharacterizedatfirstwithovertorimplicit condescension,asinG.M.Forster'scommentonCreole:"ACreoleculturethatisneitherIndiannorIberian."14 Thereisanadmirableperhapsvisceralfaithfulnesstotheoriginal:mostnativesfeeloutragedwhentheirowncultureisbeingfalselypurveyedbyapretenderwho knowsnothingaboutthecultureonwhichheorsheis"expert,"butwhoseaudienceissoignorantitdoesnotknowthedifference.Butwiththepassingoftime,andthe inevitableconfusionofmemories,tosaynothingoftheextinctionstowhichweareallsubject,oneisforcedtomakeadistinctionbetweendeadauthenticitiesandliving inauthenticities.WouldonescrapalltheBiblesbeingreadtodaybecausethereisnowaytorestoretheauthenticoriginal?Thereisnodoubtthatthetranslationsofthe Biblearenottheoriginal,yettheirauthenticity,whilenothistorical,istenableinaviableontologicalsense:theyhavethevirtueofbeingcurrentandaccessible.These notions
14.

Andwhatifan"authenticnative"faithfultohercultureasalivedexperience,andnotasamuseumpiecetofixforalltime,decidestoaltertheingredientsofan"authentic" culturalelement?Isthatnewcreation"kitschy"orthebeginningofanew"authenticity"?IamremindedofmymotheraddingLiptonteatothe"oolong"(Chinese:"Black Dragon")teathatshehadahabitofdrinking.Whenaskedbyguestswhatspecialblendofteashewasserving,sherepliedwithaplomb,andasomewhatChineseaccented English,"Liptongoolong!"

Page22

attackverydeepseatedconvictionsoftheineffabilityoftheself,ortheuniquenessofindividualexperience,ortheimmediacyofourownexperience.Wearenot comfortedbythethoughtthatwewillbe"translated"even"mistranslated"toourprogenyandtoposterity.Soinourzealforselfpreservation,wemakeareligion outofauthenticity. History,however,foralltheorderimposedonitbyhistorians,isnotanalretentive,butratherchaotic,disheveled,entropic,scatologicalifnoteschatological. Documentspreservedovertimearenotlikelytobeinterpretedinthesamewaybyposterityasbyacontemporary:thatisthebasicinsightofthephenomenologist HansGeorgGadamerandhisnotionof"radicalhistoricity."InancientGreekterms,thesameinsightisembodiedintheHeracliteannotionthatonecannotstepinto thesamerivertwice.Fluxisall,andtheassumptionthatonecaneverreally"recapturetimelost"isachimera.Translations,good,bad,andindifferent,arepartofthat culturalflux:theyareemblematicofthelifeofawork,fortheleastdistortedoriginalistheworkthatisnevertranslated.Itshistoricalandculturalintegrityis,asaresult, neverviolated.Theultimatefidelitymaybesoughtinoblivion. Totakebutoneprominentexample,criticshaverecognizedthedeparturesfromtheoriginalinEdwardFitzGerald'sversionoftheRubaiyat,butfewmentionthefact thatthetextsFitzGeraldusedmaynothavecomefromthepenofOmarKhayyamthat,indeed,thequestionofauthorshipinworksattributedtoOmarKhayyamis farfromsettled.Thereisnooriginal,inthestrictsenseoftheword,behindFitzGerald'sRubaiyat,hencenomeaningfulbasisonwhichtoassessthefidelityofa translation.FitzGeraldcreatedacompositefromstanzasattributedtoOmarKhayyam,establishinghisownarrangement,makinghisownselection,creatinghisown workoutofderivationsof,andinspirationsfrom,acorpusthatheidentifiederroneously,insomecases,withthePersianpoet(Mas'udFarzad,quotedbyDashti 1977:167168)."FitzGeraldcalledhisworkatranslation,"Farzadhaswritten,"andcertainlytranslationisanessentialelementinitbutthroughoutFitzGeraldis carriedawaybyhisskillasapoetandhisinterestinthestructureofhispoem...WemustrecognizethatFitzGerald'schiefmeritlayinhisconstructionofthepoem andthathisworkasatranslatorwassecondarytothisthiswillsaveusthetroubleoftryingtofinda

Page23

definitionoftheword'translation'thatcanbeappliedtothismasterpiece"(quotedinDashti,p.170).InthistestimonybyanArabicscholar,thevalueofFitzGerald's workisnotmeasuredbyaspeciousfidelitytoanonexistentoriginal.ButthejudgmentismoreevenhandedthanRichardBentley'sfamousdenigrationofPope'sIliad: "averyprettypoem,butyoumustn'tcallitHomer."SpeakingofFitzGerald'spoem,Dashtiwrites:"Thepoemisworthyofthehighestpraise,butitisofnohelpin identifyingKhayyam'squatrains"(p.170).15 Indiscussingtranslations,onemustlookattwokindsofauthenticity:faithfulnesstotheoriginal(ifoneexists)andfaithfulnesstotheaudience.Thesetwokindsof authenticitycoincide(orverynearly)inanyhistoricalperiod:theoriginalisauthenticallyofitsowntimeandplace,atimeandplacewhicharesharedby,tosome degree,theaudienceofthetime.Butasdistanceseparatesoriginalandaudience,whetherintimeorlinguistic"space,"thesetwokindsofauthenticitywilldivergean ambivalenceembodiedinthedualnotionof"contemporary,"exploitedtwentyyearsagobyJanKottinhisShakespeareOurContemporary:thenotionofatime concurrentwiththeoriginalworkandatimeconcurrentwiththecurrentreader.Indeed,the"original"maymutateintime(naturalwithpremodernoraltraditionsthat didnotpermitverbalorelectronicrecording)andonemaydealnotsomuchwith"originals,''asinthecaseoftheBibleandOmarKhayyam'sRubaiyat,butwith recensionsandversions,withtextual"traditions."Inthisperspective,FitzGerald'sgenerictermforthequatrainsinhismasterpiece,"transmogrifications,"ismore accuratelyacharacterizationofhisenterprisethan"translation."
15.

Theneedforanoriginal,evenwhenonedoesnotexist,canbeseeninthecuriouspublicationbyRobertGravesandOmarAliShah,TheOriginalRubaiyyatofOmar Khayaam(1968),whichadducedamanuscriptdated1153constituting"thisearliestandmostauthoritativeRubaiyyat."Subsequentexplorationindicatesthatthe"original"did notexistseeL.P.ElwellSutton'sintroductiontohistranslationofAliDashti'sInSearchofOmarKhayyam,aswellashisdetailedcritiqueinDelos34(19691970):170190.

Page24

2 "God'sHandIsinEveryTranslation": TheMythsofTheory
Insurveyingthehistoryofthetheoryoftranslation,oneisforcedtotheconclusionthat,priortomoderninsightsintothenatureandstructureoflanguages,thereisno theoryoftranslationtospeakof.Whatpassesfortheoriesare:opinionsonthecharacteristicsofindividuallanguagestheappropriatenessoftranslatingelitediscourse intovulgartonguesthenativeornonnativequalityofthedictioninanyparticularversiontheinterminabledebateonliteralversusfreetranslation.Inshort,whathas passedfortheoryisfocusedonthepragmaticsorthetechniquesoftranslation(seeAmos1973Kelly1979).GeorgeSteiner(1975:269)doesnotoverstatethecase byverymuchwhenhewrites:
ListSaintJerome,Luther,Dryden,Hlderlin,Novalis,Schleiermacher,Nietzsche,EzraPound,Valry,MacKenna,FranzRosenzweig,WalterBenjamin,Quineandyouhavevery nearlythesumtotalofthosewhohavesaidanythingfundamentalornewabouttranslation.Therangeoftheoreticideas,asdistinctfromthewealthofpragmaticnotation,remains verysmall.

LouisKellyputsthecasemoresuccinctly:"Fewwritershavepresentedauniversallyapplicabletheoryoftranslation"(p.1).Steineraskswhythisisso,andhisanswer somewhatbegsthequestion:"Inthehistoryandtheoryofliteraturetranslationhasnotbeenasubjectofthefirstimportance.Ithasfiguredmarginally,ifatall"(p.269). Theonlyexception,thetranslationsoftheBible,Steinerdismissesas''manifestlyaspecialdomain,withinwhichthematteroftranslationissimplypartofthelarger frameworkofexegesis."

Page25

Amongthemostpersistentmythsoftheoryisonethatmightbecharacterizedas"translatingbydivineinspiration,"aninsightthatderivesmorefromfaiththanfrom theoreticalspeculation.Accordingtothistheory,mostprominentlyheldinregardtoBibletranslation,butwithramificationsforlatertheorizers,theoriginalbookisa Bible,andthetext,likethewordofGod,issacred,nottobetamperedwith.Libertieswithmeaningareviewedastextuallibertinism,licentiousratherthanlicensed textsofrevealedtruth.TheprefacetotheAuthorizedVersionof1611reflectsthisattitude:itshowed"arespectfortheoriginalwhichmadethetranslatormerelya mouthpieceandtheEnglishlanguagemerelyamediumforadivineutterance"(Amos1920:61).Thetroublewiththis"theory"isthatthereisnoobjectivebasison whichtojudgewhois,andwhoisnot,divinelyinspired.Thereareinstitutionalsanctions,ofcourse:theimprimaturoftheCatholicchurchwillservetoauthorizeone versionoveranotheritsnihilobstatwillservetoindicateitsnonobjection,ifnotwholeheartedapproval.But,institutionalpoliticsaside,thereisnoreliablemeasureto assesswhoismoreorlessdivinelyinspired.ThedifficultywithpersonalclaimsofunparalleledaccesstotheAlmightyisthatanyone,everyone,endowedwiththe properzealousfaithandfervorbelievestheirclaimtobevalid.Anytranslatorcouldprotest,asAbrahamLincolndidinanappositesituation:"Ihopeitwillnotbe irreverentofmetosaythatifitisprobablethatGodwouldrevealHiswilltoothersonapointsoconnectedwithmyduty,itmightbesupposedHewouldrevealit directlytome."Devoutnessis,unfortunately,noguaranteeofaccuracyintranslation.Faithisnosuretyforfidelityintranslation. ThemysticisminherentinthisviewoftranslationisnotrestrictedtoexegetesoftheBible.Inthepronouncementsofsomeoftheidealisticandphenomenological philosophers,someofthismysticismpersists.AsLouisKellyhasastutelyobserved:"Oneofthemostdifficultproblemsinthehistoryoftranslationisthismixtureof mysticism,aestheticsandphilosophywefindinHeidegger,WalterBenjaminandtheircolleagues.PartofthedifficultyisthatsomeattributesofGod,includingthefact thatheisunknowable,havebecomethoseoflanguage"(Kelly,p.30).Theviewofartasatemple,andofartistsashighpriestsatthetempleanotionpopular amongaesthetessincethenineteenthcenturyisbutareflectionofthisview.Theineffabilityofdivinemysteriesbecomestheobjectofdiscourse.Theburdenisnotto illuminate

Page26

andexplaintheobscure,buttorecognizetheprofoundsignificanceofobscurity.Atitsbest,thisnotionguardsagainstfalseclarity,whereersatzexplanationsobstruct realunderstandingatitsworst,itcreatesgratuitousandpretentiousobscurantism,darkeningthatwhichwasoriginallyclear.Ineithercase,pietyisreplacedbya cabalisticesotericism.Thepronouncementsaresubjectnottoproof,butonlytobelief,testsoffaiththeiraimisnotsomuchtoenlightenastomesmerize. SincetheRomanticperiod,anothermythoftheoryisthat"nonebutapoetcantranslateapoet"(Amos1973:165),usuallycitedafteraparticularlyfelicitousrendering byanacknowledgedpoetofapreviouspoet.Yet,unquestionedasthisassertionmaybeinagiveninstance,onecaneasilyoverlookthegeneralruleasmisleading,if notuseless:itiseitheraredundancyorafalsegeneralization.Selfstyledpoetsareled(misled)bythisdictumtobelievethatonlytheycanbegenericallythe"true interpreters"ofpoetryinanotherlanguage.Theassertionembodiesajudgmentabouttheoriginalandthetranslation:thereispoetryintheoriginalandsotheremustbe poetryinthetranslation.Therefore,astheoriginalhasbeenwrittenbyapoet,sothetranslationmustalsobewrittenbyapoet. Attractiveasthispropositionmaybe,itisriddledwithfallacies.Firstofall,thestatusofthepoet(unlikethatofmoreunequivocalandcertifiableprofessionalssuchas lawyersordoctors)isnotconsistentlyverifiable,andpoetastershavebeenknowntopassthemselvesoffaspoets.Evenamongpoets,selfstyledorrecognized,there islessunanimitytodayastowhogenuinelybelongsintheircompanythesepoetsarenaturallymoreexigentthanthegeneralpublic,whichconcedestheroletoanyone whoisboldenoughtoclaimit.Nordoevencertifiablepoetsalwaysproducepoetry:Homernods,Shakespearecanbebathetic,Keatscanbesentimental.Even certifiablepoetscannotalwaysbereliedupontoproducepoetrywhenwritingtheirownpoetry,muchlesswhentranslatingapoem.Ifthisisthecase,thenthedictum "onlypoetscantranslatepoetry"isemptyofmeaningandcontradictedbyinnumerablebad,unpoetictranslationsofpoemsby"poets."Butthestatementisalsountrue inanotherway.Ifoneconsidersalltheeffectivelypoetictranslationsofpoetry,onemustconcedethatnotallofthemarebyacknowledgedpoets.Tocitebutthemost ob

Page27

viousexample:theAuthorizedVersion,generallyrecognizedasthemost"poetic"translationoftheBible,wascomposedbyacommittee,towhich"fiftyfourpersons wereappointed...ofwhomsevenneverdidanything"(Bates1943:113).Noneofthemweremajorpoetsofthetime(althoughT.S.EliottriedtoraiseLancelot Andrewes'reputation). Yet,foraphenomenonsoimportant,sovitaltothedevelopmentofcivilization,onewonderswhytranslationsregardlessoftheirmarginalityasliteraturefailedto attractprimaryattentionoverthecenturies.Ifitistrue,asfewwoulddeny,that"WesternEuropeowesitscivilizationtotranslators"(Kelly,p.1),thentherecanhardly beasubjectforhistoriansandphilosophersnolessthanforliterarytheoristsmoreimportantthantranslation.Butthepaucityofsystematicthinkingontranslationis longstanding.Kellystatesitmemorably:"Hadtranslationdependedforitssurvivalontheory,itwouldhavediedoutlongbeforeCicero"(p.219).Andwe,theheirs ofcivilization,wouldagreewithKellywhenhewrites:"Fortunately,goodtranslationhasneverdependedonadequatetheory"(p.4). Thetraditionalneglectoftranslationfromallquartersphilosophical,literary,historicaldespiteitsimportancetothedevelopmentofcivilization,nolessintheEast thanintheWest,ishardtoexplain.Fromaonelanguageperspective,itmaybethatthequestionoftranslationbarelyexists.Froma"panoptic"pointofview, however,itmaynotoverstatethecasetoclaimthatthehistoryoftheworldcouldbetoldthroughthehistoryoftranslation.Indeed,onemightevenassertthat,without translation,thereisnohistoryoftheworld.Considertheriseofcertaincivilizations:theRomanworld,theItalian,French,English,German,andRussian,and contemplatetheroleoftranslationinthedevelopmentofthosecultures.ImaginethespreadofChristianityandconsideritshistorysanstranslation:theChristiansinthe worldwouldbereducedtoahandfulofHebraicistsandclassicalscholarswhocouldreadAramaic.NoristheOrient,fromAsiaMinortoEastAsia,exemptfromthe pervasiveinfluenceoftranslation.ConsiderthegrowthoftheBuddhistcanonthroughtwomillenniainlanguagesotherthanthePalioftheearliesttextsorHinduism, thesacredtextsofwhich,compiledinSanskrit,havehadtobetranslatedintoHindi,Urdu,Bengali,andHindustani,eventhoughthereligion

Page28

hasbeenrestrictedforthemostparttotheDravidianlandmass,withextensionsintoSoutheastAsia.EvenwiththeKoran,translationsofwhichorthodoxIslam traditionallyrejects,interlinearversionshavebeenproducedforuseintheMuslimcommunity.VersionsoftheKoranexistinPersian,invariousprovinciallanguagesin thenineteenthcentury,aswellasinHausaandIndonesianinthepresentdaytranslationsarealsofoundinTurkishaswellasHebrew.1 Themoderninterestintranslation,bycontrasttothetraditionalneglect,canbetracedtothenineteenthcenturyGermanidealistphilosophers,whosawlanguageas problematicandcomplex,andwhobegantorecognizethatlanguageswerenotalternativelyequivalentwaysofsayingthesamething.Wemightattributetheneglectof translationintraditionalperiodstoaproblemofperspective,fortranslationsexistinthemarginsonlyifthemainbodyofthetextisinaprivilegedlanguagetranslations areviewedasdeviantonlyiftheipsissimaverbaoftheoriginalareconsideredsuperiortoanysubsequentrecensionorversionfinally,translationsareconsidered trivialwhentheprocessofrenderingatextfromonelanguagetoanotherisseenintermsoflossesandimproprieties,offensestoauthenticityandimpedimentstoatrue interpretation.Indeed,undergirdingthedisregardoftranslationistheassumption,naturalandinevitable,thattrueunderstandingofatextcanonlyoccurinthe originatinglanguageculture.Afterall,howcananonnativeunderstandanativeculturebetterthananative?Commonexperiencemakesthisnotionplausible conventionmakesthisplatitudepersuasivebutitis,inanyevent,wrong.Implicitinthisattitudeisyetanothermyth,amythofunderstanding,whichequatesfamiliarity withanalyticalinsight.Thismisconceptionaboutunderstandingcanbestbeillustratedbythecontrastbetweeneachhumanbeingknowinghowtobreatheanda physiologistknowingtheprocessesinvolvedinbreathing.Themodernperspective,particularlythepostphenomenologistperspective,pre
1.

AninterestingcontrastinthisrespectexistsbetweenIslamandotherworldreligions.ChristianityneverinsistedonthepropagationofHebreworGreekaspartofits proselytizingstrategynordidBuddhisminsistonknowledgeoftheoriginalPaliintheearliesttextsnorthespreadofPalialongwiththefaith.Inthissense,thereisalinguistic chauvinisminArabictowardtheKoranwhichismarkedlystrongerandmorepersistentthaninotherworldreligions.

Page29

supposesaradicaldifferencebetweentheknowledgeoffamiliarityandtheknowledgeofanalysis,whichareoftenatoddsinhumanexperience.Toverifythis distinctionwithasimpledemonstration,oneneedonlyrundownaflightofstairsasquicklyaspossible,andthenrundownthesameflightofstairs,maintainingthe samespeed,butthistimecountingthesteps.Twothingswillhappen:eitheronewillslowdown,oronewilltrip.Onemayrundownaflightofstepsflawlessly,yetnot knowhowmanystepswerenegotiatedcountingthesteps,however,interfereswiththefamiliarfunctionofthemotorreflexes.Thefirstexperiencesymbolizesthe knowingoffamiliarityinwhichoneisscarcelyconsciousofwhatoneknows.Theothersymbolizestheknowingofanalysiswhich,thoughplodding,andsometimes unnatural,yieldsmoretransmittableabstractinformation. Anothermythoftheorystemsfromcommunicationtheory,whichseestheworktobetranslatedasafixedentitythatcanbeaccuratelyrepresentedbyanarbitrary labelusuallyaboxwiththeword"source"inside.Thecontentsofthisboxaredepictedasbeingtransmittedintoanotherentityrepresentedbythetranslation anotherboxmarkedbytheword"target."Thisvisualschemecanthenbemodifiedinsuccessivelymorecomplexmodelsthatwillincludesuchelementsas"fields" marked"static"or"noise''intermediaryfactorscanbeinsertedbetweensourceanddestinationwithsuchtermsas"encoder"usuallyplacedtotherightof"source"and "decoder"placedusuallynearandtotheleftof"target."Intheprocessoftranslating,thetranslatortakesamessage(M),decodesthatmessage,anddiscoversthe references(R)inthefirstlanguage(A):thisprocessundergoesa"transfermechanism"thatinvolvesAB,whichproducessigns(S)inlanguageBthatcanthenbe encodedintoamessage(M)inthesecondlanguage(B).Thesedepictionsprovideahelpfulclarificationofvariousstagesinadifficultprocess,anddiagrammatically theanalysisisattractive.HereisNida'sscheme(1964:146):2

2.

LouisKellyreproducesthisdiagramalongwithseveralothers(1979:3741).

Page30

Theadvantageofsuchaschemaisthatitindicates(inimplicitlylefttorightorientation)thesequenceofthestagesinvolved.Butthereareatleasttwoproblemswith suchamodel.Thelefttorightorientationsuggestsstrongly,ifimplicitly,a"onewayarrow"wheninfacttheprocessoftranslationmayinvolvemoreofadialectic process,inwhichanunsatisfactorymessageinthetargetlanguagemaycausenota"loop"(whereonestartsagainatthemessageinthesourcelanguage)buta dynamicbackandforthprocessinbothdirections(fromrighttoleftandlefttorightinthediagram)thatwillyieldpossiblealternativesprovidingbetter"matches"for themessageinthesourcelanguage.Indeed,inhisdiagram,Frawleyexplicitlyattachesarrowsinbothdirectionstoindicatemoreaccuratelythedynamicsoftranslation (1984:163):

Aseconddifficultyismorebasic.Thesediagramsassumethatallmessages(M)areunequivocalandunilateralthatmessagesareschematizableentities.Mostwould suggestthatmessages,eventhesimplestsort,arenotwithoutambiguities.(Onethinksofthechild'sgameof"telephone,"wherea"message,"giventoonepersonwho whispersitinturntoanother,andthatpersontoanother,throughasequenceinvolvingseveralreceiver/transmitterstages,endsupinaradicallydifferentformwitha totallydifferentmeaningfromits"original.")Ifthisissowithsimplemessages,howmuchmoresowithdiscourseincludingliteraturewhichissuggestive,multivalent, creativelyambiguous,andhistoricallycontingent,forbothauthorandreader.Consider,verysimply,howmanypeoplewouldagreeonthe''message"ofanysignificant workofliteratureconsider,further,howthegreatestworksofliteraturepositivelyinvite,indeedthriveon,theimpossibilityofanynumberofreadersofthesameor differentgenerations,withthesameordifferentbackgroundsagreeingonthecentralmessageinthework. Thedeficienciesofschematizingtheprocessoftranslationmaybecomegraphicallyclearif,insteadofafixedentity,weweretosubstituteanorganicentity,onethat changesovertime,differentfrommomenttomoment,whoseidentityisneithercoterminouswithitsphysicalmanifestationataparticularpointintimenor

Page31

equivalenttothesumtotalofallsuchphysicalmanifestationsoverallthepointsoftimeduringalifetime.Thisdescriptionfitshumanbeingsaswellasverbalconstructs. Ifoneweretoinsertahumanbeing,representedbyaniconorname,inthediagram,wouldtheschematizationshedanylightontheprocess?SincewecitedAndy Rooneybefore,letusinserthiminthediagram.DoesitmeananythingtoseehimdecodedfromEnglish,hischaracteristicreferentsidentified,thensubjecttoatransfer mechanism(an"energizer"fromStarTrek?),whichthenproducessignsinJapanesethatfinallyyieldanAndyRooneyinJapanese?3 Theexplanatorypowerofsuchdiagramsvarieswiththecomplexityofthemessage:wherethemessageinvolvesunivocalcommunication,theywillservewellenough butwherethemessageinvolvesmultidimensionaldiscourse,repletewithnuanceandgestureandstyle,thenthediagrammaticalrepresentationsarefalseand misleading.Evenwhentheymayappeartobemostaptintechnicaltranslationaidedbycomputersthesediagramsarechimerasofexplanation:whattheymake cleardoesnotreflectthecomplexitiesoftheprocess.Timeandagain,thefailuresofmachinetranslationshouldnotbeblamedonthetechnology,butonour inadequateunderstandingofthecommunicationandthediscoursewhichissoconvenientlylabeledas"message."Howwellorhowbadlythismessagehasbeen transmittedmightbeseeninabriefsurveyofthesystemsofmachinetranslationdevelopedinthelastgeneration. TheLessonsofMachineTranslation Thedevelopmentofmachinetranslationinthelasttwentyyearshasbeenasubjectlargelyignoredbyliterarytheoristsoftransla
3.

Indeed,anamethatisphoneticallyequivalenttoAndyRooneyinJapanesewouldsoundstrangeandunfamiliar,ifnotunnaturaltotheJapanese.AJapanesefriendtellsmethe closestonecouldcomewouldbe"AnteiRunin,"butthenamewouldbeimmediatelydetectableasthatofaforeigner.WhenIaskedifthereisn'tan"AndyRooney"inJapanese, onewhoisn'tafraidtospeakhismind,evenifitshowshisownprovinciality,shementioned"Tamori,"amediastarwhoiscurrentlyverypopular.Butonefeelsconfidentthat neitherTamorinorAndyRooneywouldconsiderthemselvesinterchangeable.Counterpartsarenotidentitiestheymaybeparallel,buttheyarenotequal.

Page32

tionlinguistictheoristsaremoreresponsivetodevelopments,buttheirpreoccupationsalsolieelsewhere.Butscientificandtechnicalneeds,aswellaspoliticaland commercialdemands,haveonceagaincreatedabuoyantclimateforthedevelopmentofmachinetranslation,eitherinitsHAMT(humanaidedmachinetranslation)or itsMAHT(machineaidedhumantranslation)aspects.Whiletheobjectivesofmachinetranslation(MT)arenotasutopianasthosestatedbyWarrenWeaverinhis famous1949memorandum,theadvancesofcomputertechnologyinthelastdecadehavefocusedthethinkingandtheeffortsofsignificantconstituencies computationallinguistics,informationtheory,andartificialintelligenceamongthemontheproblemofdevelopingworkablesystemsfortranslation.Whatisfascinating aboutthesedevelopmentsisthatthelimitationsofautomatedtranslationsystemsalmostalwaysreflectalimitationnotintechnologicalcapabilitybutinourtheoretical understandingoflanguage.Iffornootherreason,thehistoryofmachinetranslationisinstructivetotheliterarytheoristaswellasthegeneraltheorist,preciselybecause thefailuresreflectlacunaeinourunderstandingoflanguagewhetherinambiguitieserasedbyfamiliarconventionorinsubtletiesthatwenegotiateintuitively. Thehistoryofmachinetranslationiscustomarilymarkedbytwowatershedevents,onepositive,onenegative.ThefirstwastheWeavermemorandumwhichsetthe problemandissuedthechallengein1949:
ItisverytemptingtosaythatabookwritteninChineseissimplyabookwritteninEnglishwhichwascodedintothe"Chinesecode."Ifwehaveusefulmethodsforsolvingany cryptographicproblem,mayitnotbethatwithproperinterpretationwealreadyhaveusefulmethodsfortranslation?[QuotedinKing1987:6]

Thekeyroleofthenotionoflanguageascode(WeaverhadbeeninvolvedincryptographyduringWorldWarII)wastoinfluenceconceptionsoflanguagefrom Jakobsonandinformationtheoristsforthenextgeneration.Underlyingthisconceptionwastheconviction,bornoutoftheheadysuccessofcryptographersinbreaking codesunderextremepressure,thatanytextinonelanguagewouldyielditsmeaninginanyotherlanguage.AsKingputsit(p.39):

Page33

"Sincethereisaproofavailableininformationtheorythateverycodeisdecipherable,andsincelanguagescanbeviewedasciphersforeachother,itfollowsthat everytextistranslatable." Theresultofthispromisingopportunitywasthedevelopmentofmachinetranslationprojectsatseveralsites.IntheUnitedStates,thefirstgenerationmachine translationprojectsincludedthefollowing: TheGeorgetownUniversity(GU)projectcompleteditsfirstRussianEnglishprototypein1954andhaddevelopedinitiativesinChineseEnglish,EnglishTurkish,and RussianFrenchbeforefundingwasdiscontinuedin1962.(SeeHeiniszDostent1979:487Tucker,inNirenburg1987:2930.) TheSYSTRANproject,whichdevelopedoutoftheGeorgetownproject,offersEnglishFrench,EnglishItalian,andEnglishGermanaswellasFrenchEnglishand GermanEnglishcapabilities.Since1970SYSTRANhasbeenusedforRussianEnglishtranslationatWrightPattersonAirForceBasesince1976ithasbeenused forEnglishFrench,EnglishItalian,EnglishGerman,FrenchEnglish,andGermanEnglishtranslationbytheEuropeanEconomicCommunityheadquartersin Luxembourg.(SeeTucker,inNirenburg,pp.2930Wheeler,inKing,pp.192208.) TheMETAL(METALanguage)project,offeringGermanEnglishtranslation,startedin1961attheUniversityofTexasinAustin,wheretheemphasisinitiallywas largelytheoreticalratherthanoperational,althoughithasbeensponsoredsince1980bySiemens,A.G.,Munich.Amarkettestedprototypeappearedin1985 translationcapabilityfromSpanishandChineseisunderdevelopment.(SeeTucker,inNirenburg,pp.3132White,inNirenburg,pp.225246Slocum,inKing, pp.319350). Thefirstgenerationprojectsspurredactivityinothercountriesaswell:Canada,theSovietUnion,France,Italy,Germany,andJapanhaveestablishedcentersfor machinetranslation.Itissomewhatironic(andreminiscentofinternationaldevelopmentsinothersectors)thattheimpetusgiventomachinetranslationwasundermined intheUnitedStates,justatthetimeitwasbeginning

Page34

toflourishinothercountries,withthesocalledALPAC(AutomatedLanguageProcessingAdvisoryCommittee)reportin1966,whicheffectivelycutoffthe GeorgetownUniversityprojectandsentadiscouragingwordtoothermachinetranslationpioneers. Secondgenerationmachinetranslationprojectssawbothaloweringofexpectationsandaraisingofcapabilities.Theidealof"95percentaccurate,fullyautomated, highqualitytranslation"(FAHQT),firstchampionedbyYehoshoaBarHillel(in1960)andlater(in1971)disownedbyhim,waslargelyabandoned(Buchmann,in King,p.18).First,itwassubjecttoconceptualdifficulties:whatdoeshighqualityimply?Andhowcanonequantifydegreeofaccuracy?(SeeZarechnak,pp.3539 CarbonellandTomita,inNirenburg,p.68.)Theabsurdityoftheformulationisimmediatelyapparentwithliteraryexamples:canoneassignaquantifiablepercentage totheaccuracy,say,ofPope'sversionoftheIliadtotheoriginal?Second,itisvulnerabletophilosophicalskepticism:istranslation,assuch,possible?BarHillel,in hisskepticism,seemedtosubscribetothe"indeterminacy"thesisofWillardVanOrmanQuine(1960),whichsuggeststhattheaccuracyoftranslationisultimately impossibletodetermine:

Sentencestranslatableoutright,translatablebyindependentevidenceofstimulatoryoccasions,aresparseandmustwoefullyunderdeterminetheanalyticalhypothesesonwhich thetranslationofallfurthersentencesdepends.Toprojectsuchhypothesesbeyondtheindependentlytranslatablesentencesatallisineffecttoimputeoursenseoflinguistic analogyunverifiablytothenativemind.[p.72]

Furthermore,alternativetranslationscanbeproducedtoaccommodatetheoriginalthataredifferentonefromtheothertheymayevenbecontradictory:
Theindeterminacy...ismoreradical.Itisthatrivalsystemsofanalyticalhypothesescanconformtoallspeechdispositionswithineachofthelanguagesconcernedandyet dictate,incountlesscases,utterlydisparatetranslationsnotmeremutualparaphrases,buttranslationseachofwhichwouldbeexcludedbytheothersystemoftranslation.Two suchtranslationsmightevenbepatentlycontraryintruthvalue,providedthereisnostimulationthatwouldencourageassenttoeither[pp.7374]

Page35

Thishistoryofmachinetranslationisparticularlyaptforthetheoryoftranslationsinceitremindsustoavoidovergeneralizingfromlimitedcases.Therearethreeareas ofconfusion,involvingthefollowingtenets:(1)thatlanguageisacode(2)thatlanguagesareequivalentlydistinctonefromtheotherand(3)thatlanguagesare uniformlytransparenttonativespeakers. Thetheoryofmachinetranslationwas,fromtheoutset,predicatedonthenotionthatlanguagewas,likeasecretmessage,acodetobebroken:allthatwasneeded wasprecisemathematicalanalysis,towhichthecomputerwouldcontributeenormouspower.Oneforgetsthatcryptographydecodedmessagesthatwere emphaticallyunambiguous,evenwhentheyweremetaphoricalorallusive(theultimatemeaningoftheavailableresponseshavingbeenpredetermined).Languagethat needsnodisambiguationmaybeproperlyregardedasacode.Butmostlanguage,particularlyordinarylanguage,ishighlyandmeaningfullyambiguous.Itshouldnot havebeensurprising,then,thattheresultsofmachinetranslationwouldbebetterwithpreprogrammedratherthanrandomlyselectedorrandomlycreatedmessages.4 ThedisappointmentwiththeALPACreportwaswiththeGeorgetownUniversityproject'shandlingofnaturaldiscourse.Theearlymachinetranslationprojectswere effectivewithinputwhenthatinputwasatextcodewithnaturallanguage,itwasfarlesssatisfactory.Withsomefewexceptions,5machinetranslationprojectshavenot tackledlanguagepairsinvolvingwhatQuinecalls"radicaltranslation,i.e.,translationofthelanguageofahithertountouchedpeople."HencetorefuteQuine's indeterminacyprincipleonthebasisofsuccessfultransfersbetweencognatelanguagesmisseshispoint(seeKirk1986:204209),sinceanimportanttestof equivalenceinmeaningforQuineiswhathecalls"intrasubjectivestimulussynonymy."NoonewouldcontestthefactthataFrenchmanandanEnglishmanhavea greaterdegreeof"intrasubjectiv
4. 5.

Indeed,theGeorgetownUniversityprojectbeganwithfortyninepredeterminedtestsentencesinRussian(cf.Zarechnak,pp.2224).

AmongthemaretheCULT(ChineseUniversityLanguageTranslator)projectattheChineseUniversityofHongKongfortheChineseEnglishtranslationofmathematicsand physicstextsthePOLA(ProjectonLinguisticAnalysis)projectattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,whichofferedChineseEnglishcapabilityandtheEnglishJapanesesystem atKyushuUniversity.

Page36

ity,"insharedGrecoRomanandJudeoChristiantraditions,thanwouldbesharedby,say,aFrenchmanandaChinese. Finally,oneshouldbewaryoffalseextrapolation,whichtoooftensetsupstrawmenthatcanbedisposedofalltooeasily:Quinedoesnotinsistthattranslationis impossibleinallinstances.Heallowsthat"observationsentencescanbetranslated"that"truthfunctionsentencescanbetranslated"that"stimulusanalytic"andtheir opposite,"stimuluscontradictory,''sentencescanalsoberecognized.Hereserveshisindeterminacyoftranslationtoonecase:"Questionsofintrasubjectivestimulus synonymyofnativeoccasionsentencesevenofnonobservationalkindcanbesettledifraisedbutthesentencescannotbetranslated"(p.68)."Occasionsentences" aredefinedbyQuineasthosewhich"commandassentordissentonlyifqueriedafteranappropriatepromptingstimulation"(p.36).Thereisinthisanaspectofthe ontologicalauthenticityofmeaningexploredinhischapter"TheOntogenesisofReference." Someofthesuccessesinmachinetranslation,particularlyinsecondgenerationprojects,involvenotsomuchtranslationbetweenlanguagesastransfersbetween sublanguages.TheTAUMMTEOsysteminCanada,whichhasbeenincontinuousoperationsince1977,providestranslationsofpublicweatherforecasts.TAUM (TraductionAutomatique,UniversitdeMontral)essentiallyprovidesasubstitutionofonesublanguagecodeforanother,fromEnglishweatherterminologytoFrench weatherterminology.WeatherforecastsareaptexamplesofQuine's"observationsentences"whicharebeingtranslatedonadailybasisinCanada.Inotherwords, sublanguagesinindividualdisciplinesaremoreaccessiblethanordinaryusageindifferentlanguages. Therearealsointernational"sublanguages"suchasmathematics,whichiswhythetranslationsofphysicsandmathematicsintheChineseUniversityofHongKong projectcannotbeconsideredauthentictranslations:the"text"comprisesthemathematicalandscientificformulasthe"context"isthesurroundingverbiage.What carriesthemessageistheformulas,nottheverbiage,andthesearepresumablyleft"untranslated"andappearintheiroriginalscientificnotation.The"translation"of suchpapersinvolvesprincipallythetransferenceofthetechnicalformulas,andonlysecondarilyarenderingintothetargetlanguageoftheverbalexplication.The scientificlanguageisthesame,whateverthenatural

Page37

languagecontext,andprovidesacrucialaccesstothereaderwhoisnotnativetothecontextlanguage.Thisphenomenonis,ofcourse,familiartoscientistswhoare abletocommunicatewithaminimumoftranslationandwithonlymodestbilinguality.Thediscoursebeingtransferredisnottranslatedbutdeliveredwholethe surroundingtext(context)requirestranslation,butthecontextualsensecanbesafelyinferredfromtheformulasthemselves,sincescientificexpositionisnotlikelyto indulgeinwillfulironiesandobfuscationsorgratuitousambiguities."Translations"oftechnicalmaterial,wherethetechnicallanguageisthesameregardlessofthe "naturallanguage"used,arestrictlyspeakingnotwhollytranslations:theymightbetermed"metatranslations"whereportionsareleftuntranslated.Scientificlanguages, technicalformulas,arelanguages(likeMorsecode)thatarebothuntranslatableandinnoneedoftranslation,sincetheyconstitutecodesfamiliartothetechnical initiatesinalllanguages.6 Machinetranslationwillbecome,increasingly,afactorinthefuturewhetherintheactualprocessingofscientificandtechnicalinformationacrosslinguistic boundaries,aneffortwhichisattractingcorporatesupportorinthediplomaticrelationsbetweencountries,alreadyinstitutionalizedinthesimultaneousinterpretation thatoccursdailyattheUnitedNations(anideawhich,notsoincidentally,wasconceivedofbyLeonDostert,theorganizeroftheGeorgetownUniversitymachine translationeffort)orinthedevelopingcapabilityofEUROTRA,anautomatictranslationproject,scheduledforcompletioninthe1990s,whichwillprovide translationstoandfromEnglish,French,German,Dutch,Danish,Italian,andGreek(constitutingfortytwolanguagepairs),involvingtheeffortsoftheEuropean universitiesandresearchunits,whichwillservicetheneedsoftheentireEuropeanEconomicCommunity.(SeeKingandPerschke,inKing,pp.373392Arnoldand DesTombe,inNirenburg,pp.114135.) Thespectacularprogressofcomputertechnologyinthelasttwodecadessomehowmakesobsolescentthewords"machine"and
6.

Computerprogramminglanguagesarethefastestproliferating"universal"languagestheirinitiatesallovertheworldlearnonediscourse,developedforthemostpartin English.Studentsfromabroadareparticularlyadeptatlearningprogramminglanguages,whichtheyoftenlearnfasterthantheydoEnglish.

Page38

"mechanical"in"machinetranslation"and"mechanicaltranslation."Theadventofmicroprocessors,thedevelopmentoflistprocessing(LISP)andLISPmachines,with powerfulcapabilitiesfornotonlygrammaticalbutextragrammaticalparsingaswellasforanalyzingandgeneratinglanguage,theavailabilityofmassivedictionary compilers,theexplorationintoknowledgebasedmachinetranslation(CarbonellandTomitainNirenburg,pp.6889),advancesinnaturallanguageprocessing (NLP)alltheseresourcescanhardlybeneglectedbytheconscientiousstudentoftranslation.Itwouldbefoolishtoignoredevelopmentsinautomatedtranslationas beingofonlytechnicalinterest.Thefactthat,despitetheenormousactivityintransformationalgrammarsincethe1960s,''nocompletetransformationalgrammarof Englishoranyothernaturallanguageshasbeenwritten"(Raskin,inNirenburg,p.53)disappointedresearchersinnaturallanguageprocessing,buttherewasnoreason todiscardtheinsightsoflinguisticsaltogether.Itwouldbeequallyamistakeforlinguiststodismissasrelevantonlytocomputerprogrammingthediscoveriesin artificialintelligenceandnaturallanguageprocessing.Theinventionofpowerfulcomputerparsershasanobviousrelevancetothedependencytheoriesinlinguistics thesearchforan"Interlingua"asapivotlanguagetofacilitatetranslationfromanypairoflanguagesbearsaresemblancetoChomskiannotionsofdeepstructure.7Itis notutopiantosuggestthatinthenextgeneration,linguisticswillbeenhancedbyrapidprogressincomputertechnology,andcomputertechnologymaybestimulated bytheoreticaldiscoveriesinlinguistics. TheMythofPerfectTranslation Iftherearemythsinthetheoryoftranslation,themisconceptionsaboutthepracticeoftranslationarenowherelessnumerous.Someofthesemythshardeninto orthodoxyand,inturn,affectone'sconceptionoftheory.InEnglish,themostpersistentmythconcernsthesanctityoftheAuthorizedVersion.WhentheAnchorBible wasfirstpublishedin1964,therewastheusualhueandcryaboutthedesecrationofthesanctityoftheKingJamesVersion,which,afterall,wasamilestoneof Englishliterature.Adecadeorsoearlier,the
7.

Asearlyas1961,W.P.Lehmannsawthepotentialofcomputersforthestudyofthehumanitiesasaresearchtool(Frawley1984:pp.163170).

Page39

RevisedStandardVersionmetwithsimilarabuseandwascharacterizedasanunnecessarydeparturefromtheAuthorizedVersion.Oneassumedthatthistowering achievementoftranslationimmediatelyeclipsedallotherversions. Actually,thehistoricalfactsdonotbearthisout.Indeed,theKingJamesVersionwasasvilifiedasadepartureandadesecrationaseverysubsequentrevisionofthe Bible:forthreegenerationsafteritsappearance,itwastheGenevaBibleandnottheAuthorizedVersionwhichwasgenerallyaccepted."Inordinaryprivateusethe comprehensiveGenevaBiblelongcompetedwithit,whilescholarsandpreacherswentonusingwhattheywould."EvenLancelotAndrewes,oneofthemost prominentmembersofthecommitteeandaprimecontributortotheAuthorizedVersion,"commonlyusedtheGenevaBibleforhissermons,asdidother bishops"(Greenslade1963:168). TherearethosewhowillremindusthatMilton,whoseParadiseLostisthenextgreatliterarymonumentinEnglish,followingtheAuthorizedVersionbytwo generations,wasinitsdebt.8Suchplausible,buterroneous,modernistmythsabouthistoryoverlookthefactthatMiltonwasindeedfamiliarwiththeBible,butheread thetextintheoriginalHebrewandGreek.IfhewasinspiredtowriteParadiseLost,itwasbytheBibleofAbrahamandJesus,intheoriginallanguages,ratherthan byanytranslation,includingtheaugustAuthorizedVersion.Afinalironyaboutthe"AuthorizedVersion"isthefactthat,asGreensladeremindsus,itwas"strictly speaking...neverauthorized."AnothermythconcerningtheAuthorizedVersionisthatitwasauniqueachievementwhichshowedsuchoriginalityandimagination thatitismarkedlydistinctfromallotherversions,towhichitisindisputablysuperior.Alas,thistoocannotbesupportedbythefacts.AsBateshaswritten,muchof whatweadmireintheAuthorizedVersionistheworkofprevioustranslators:''ManyoftheimprovementsinthephrasingoftheNewTestamentweretakenwithout acknowledgmentfromtheRomanCatholicRheimsversion,whichisonlyreferredtointhepreface
8.

ThesemisconceptionsshouldnotbeattributedmerelytotheamateurAnglophile.Academics,professorsofEnglishliterature,havebeeninthevanguardperpetuatingthis myth.Bates(1943)citesaYalecontributortotheCambridgeHistoryofEnglishLiteraturewhowas"allowedbytheeditortosaythat'allpartiesandclassesturnedwithone accordtothenewversionandadopteditastheirveryown'"(p.114).

Page40

withabuse.TheseunacknowledgedborrowingsgotosuchlengththattheCommitteewouldbeliabletoprosecutionatthepresentday"(Bates1943:114).Muchthat isdistinguishedintheAuthorizedVersionalsoderivedfromTyndale'srenderingtwogenerationsearlier.Greensladeclaimsthat"innarrativehe[Tyndale]hashadno superior"and,bywayofanachronisticandretroactivecompliment,judgesthemeritsofTyndalebyhowmuchofitwasborrowedbytheAuthorizedVersion:"The virtueofTyndale'sEnglishisattestedbythesurvivalofsomuchofitthroughtheintermediateversionsintotheAuthorizedVersionof1611''(p.144). ThefirstwordsoftheBibleprovideanotherinstanceofthemythofperfecttranslation."Inthebeginning,"thephrasethatopenstheBookofGenesis,issoingrainedin thememorythatitisalmostimpervioustochallenge.Importantandfamiliarcosmogonieshaveevolvedfromthisquotation:theChristianBible,forexample,is conceivedofasanaccountoftheworldfromitsorigins(Genesis)toitsend(Revelation).ButasSpeiser(1964)hasconclusivelyshown,thefirstwordsoftheHebrew textsaynothingofthesort."WhenGodsetabouttocreateheavenandearth"ishowGenesisbeganintheoriginalversion.ThesenseofthefirstwordintheHebrew text,bereshit,is:"Atthebeginningof...,"or"When,"andnot"In/Atthebeginning"(p.12).Theshiftcouldnotbemoretellingforunderstandingthedifferences betweentheHebrewsenseoftheirplaceintheuniverseandtheChristian.TheoriginalHebrewtextindicatesthattheoriginalludedtoattheoutsetofGenesiswasnot thebeginningofallcreation,butmerelytheprocessbywhichheavenandearthwerecreated.Itpresumesnothingabouttherelationofthiseventtothebeginningof time,ortootheractivitiesthatmayhaveprecededit.Thereisnoassumptionthattheeventsbywhichheavenandearthwerecreatedoccurredatthebeginningofall time. ButalmostallEnglishtranslations9adopttheformula,"InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavenandtheearth,"therebyplacingthateventhighinthehierarchyof history.10Generationsofreaders,wittinglyornot,havereadtheseoracularwordsinthebelief
9.

Withonlyrareexceptions,suchastheGoodNewsBible.

10.

BoththeWycliffe(1380)andtheCoverdale(1535)versionsrefertothebeginning.Wycliffe:"InthefirstmadeGodofnoughtheveneanderthe"(A)"InthebigynnyngGodmade ofnoughtheveneanderthe"(B)Coverdale:"InthebegynnyngeGodcreatedheavenandearth."

Page41

thattheBiblebeganatthebeginningoftime,ratherthanatthepointintimewhenheavenandearthwerecreated(thecreationofhumansoccurringshortlythereafter). Othercosmogonies,theBuddhistforone,conceiveofthousandsandmillionsofyearspreceding,andsucceeding,theworldthathumansknow.Theforegroundingof humanevolutioninhistoryderivesfromamisconstructionoftheoriginaltext,yetits"myth"hasbecomeasustaining"truth"forcenturiesofChristians.Itisnotatrivial datumoflexicographythat"genesis"inHomericGreekmeant"becoming''morethanitdid"origin.""OceanandmotherTethys,thebecoming(genesis)ofgods," HomerwritesintheIliad14:302,apassagecitedbySocratesintheTheaetetus152E(Benardete1986:I.15). PerhapsthemostbrillianttranslationintheAuthorizedVersionoccursforverse4inthetwentythirdPsalm:"Yea,thoughIwalkthroughthevalleyoftheshadowof death."Comparedwiththisphysicallyandmetaphysicallyterrifyingimage,theoriginalHebrewversionpositivelypales:amorefaithfulrenderingwouldproduce"Even thoughIshouldwalkinthemidstoftotaldarkness"(Dahood1966:145).11TheHebrewwordshalmawetdenotes"darknessintheextreme,""utterdarkness,""total darkness"(Dahood,p.147)therearenovalleysintheoriginal,nodeath.Yetwho,uponreading"thevalleyoftheshadowofdeath,"wouldnotthinkof"utter darkness,""ultimateandpenultimatedarkness"?Who,givenachoicebetweenthetwoversions,wouldnotchoosethetranslationovertheoriginal?12Yetthisphrase, traditionally
11.

ThisisaninstancewhichbringstomindThurber'ssuggestivelyironiccomment:wheninformedbyaFrenchenthusiastthatThurber'sstoriesreadevenbetterinFrenchthanin English:"Yes,"Thurberreplied,"Itendtolosesomethingintheoriginal!"(QuotedbyMouraBudberginthePENcollection,TheWorldofTranslation,p.151.)
12.

Onemustbecarefulinone'sassertionshere:Iamnotsuggestingthattheoriginalcanbeneglectedorignored,orthatanythingfancifulinthetargetlanguage,provideditis vigorousandmemorable,isjustified.Whetherthese"liberties"arejustifiedorwhethertheyare"liberties"atallwilldependonthepremisesoneassumesabouttheeffortto reincarnatetheoriginalinthetargetlanguage.Asweshallseelater,fromonesetofpremisesthesepracticesaremorethanjustifiedfromanother,theyareindefensible.Therecent caseofStephenMitchellreceivingasixfigurecontracttotranslatetheDaoDeJingdespitethefactheknowsnoChineseisacaseinpoint:asaliteraryprojectofadistinguished writeritisplausibleasatranslationofadifficultworkitisdeplorable(deplorableas,say,aChinesewithnoEnglish"translating"Shakespeare).

Page42

attributedtotheAuthorizedVersion,canbetracedtoCoverdale("ThoughIshuldewalknowinthevalleyoftheshadoweofdeath"),whoadapteditinturnfrom Wycliffe'sversionwiththekeysubstitutionofoneword:"ForwhithoughYschalgointhemyddisofschadeweofdeeth."Onemightsaythattherecensionprocess involvesinthiscase:originalcomposition(Wycliffe),adaptation(Coverdale),andselection(KJV).Iforiginalworksarenottobeunderstoodasfixedentitieswith uniqueidentities,neithercantranslationsbetakenasoriginalcompositions,createdexnihilooutofthetranslator'simagination. AnotherexamplederivesfromthatmostmodernofOldTestamentbooks,Ecclesiastes."VanityofVanities,allisvanity"(which,inturn,derivesfromJerome's rhythmic"Vanitasvanitatumetomnisvanitas")13isrenderedbyonemodernbiblicalscholaras"breathofbreaths''or"avaporofvapors."Thesemanticshiftsbetween, ontheonehand,theoriginalHebrewwordhebelandLatinvanitas(orEnglish"vanity")and,ontheother,betweendifferentsensesoftheEnglishword"vanity" traverseawidesemanticfieldthatreflectsnotonlylinguisticchangesbutchangingworldviewsandemphases.Themeaningoftheoriginalisclear,andsmacksalittleof Buddhism:everythingisinsubstantialvapor,fleeting:nothinglasts.Inhisversion,publishedintheAnchorBible,R.B.Y.Scott(1965:254)rendersthesenseas:"So [man's]dustwillreturntotheearthwhereitwasbefore.AndthebreathoflifewillreturntoGodwhogaveit.Avaporofvapors!saysQohelethallisvapor!"The vaporcannotbeconsideredasmerelyanimageoffutility:vapormaybetransientinthisworld,butinthespiritualworlditisassociatedwith"thebreathofGodgiven life"which"willreturntoGodwhogaveit."IntheHebrewcontext,theinjunctionisnotcynicalbutaffirmativeifitisnihilistic,itispositivelynihilistic,enjoininga reuniontoahigherlevelofbeing(returntoGod).Theimageofearthlyfutilityisalsotheintimationofeverlastinglife.TheoutlookinEcclesiastesisresolutelyrealistic: contrarytopopularmisinterpretation,thereisnofacilefatalismaboutit.Thebookstressesthelimitationsoflife,thedubiousbenefitsof
13.

InthisinstancetheKJVtranslatorsrejectedtheCoverdalerenderingof1535,"Allisbutvanity(saieththepreacher)allisbutplaynevanite"forthetardusrhythmsofthe Wycliffe(1380)version:"Thevanyteofvanytees,saideEcclesiastesthevanyteofvanytees."

Page43

successandpleasure,yettheconclusionispalpablypositive.Nodithyrambiccelebrations,noromanticappealstounrealizableideals,nowishfulfillmentsinducing virtue:theyeasayingiscarefullymeasuredagainstthetemptationsofpessimismtocelebratelifeisnottoblindoneselftoitstravailsandtragedies.Itisthishardwon optimism,forgedinpain,temperedbyencounterswithinjusticeandfrustration,steeledagainsttheadversitiesoflife,thatEcclesiastespreaches.Itisthismitigated messageofatranscendentalrealismandequanimitythattheword"vanity"withitsuniformlynegativeassociationsoffutility,ofemptiness,ofvainglorywillnot admit. Theimageofbreathintheoriginalisbeautifullyambivalent:itisatoncetheveryessenceoflifeandtheveryreminderofone'sephemerality.Thespecificallyconcrete imageintheHebrewislostintheabstractLatinvanitasandtheEnglish"vanity."14TheOxfordEnglishDictionarycitesasobsoletethemeaningof"vanity"as "emptiness"cognatedefinitionsof"vanity''asreferringtosomething"vain,idle,orworthless"persisttothenineteenthcentury.Intheseventeenthcentury,"vanity" referredmoreandmorenottothequalityofbeingidleorworthlessbuttoobjectsemblematicof"vanity."Bunyan,inhisPilgrim'sProgress,stillretainsavestigeof thesenseofairinessintheetymologicaloriginofthewordwhenhewrites(1678):"ThenameofthatTownisVanityandatthetownthereisaFairkept,called VanityFair.ItbeareththenameofVanityFair,becausetheTownwhere'tiskeptislighterthanVanity."Thackeray,ofcourse,borrowstheimage,buthisnuanceis nowdecidedlynegativeandcensorious:"ThelastsceneofherdismalVanityFaircomedywasfastapproaching."Thesenseof"vanity"aspersonalconceitisnotvery farandtheattributionofcosmeticfollytotheappurtenancesforgroominghavealreadybecomecommonplace.AlmostalloftheseassociationsintersectinPope's paranomasiain"TheRapeoftheLock":
Thinknot,whenWoman'stransientBreathisfled, ThatallherVanitiesatoncearedead: SucceedingVanitiesshestillregards, Andtho'sheplaysnomore,o'erlookstheCards.
14.

Ihaveconsideredthenotionofvanityelsewhereinthecontextofappositebutdistinctconcepts(Eoyang1985).

Page44

Theseinstancesofthemythofperfecttranslationareofferednotaspedanticremonstrationsagainstdevianttranslation,butasillustrationsofthecomplexitiesof translationasawhole.Theyshowthatcertaintimewornassumptionsaboutsuccessfultranslationcannotbeacceptedwithoutchallenge.Amorecomplexmodelwill havetobeconstructedifoneistounderstandtranslationproperly.Ifweinsistontheoriginalityof"divineinspiration,"itwouldbehardtoadjudicatebetweeneither theHebrewortheChristianversionsoftheopeningofGenesis.Textually,onecandemonstratethattheHebrewversionishistoricallypriortheologically,however,it wouldbedifficultformostChristianstodefenditssuperiority."Divineinspiration"isreflectedinbothHebrewandChristianversionsoftheBiblethedifferenceliesin theircontrastivevisionsoftheAlmightyandtherelationshipoftheworshipertotheAlmightyintheonecase,Godisthedistantandforbidding,thejealousand vengefulpatriarchalGodoftheOldTestamentintheother,heistheapproachable,merciful,almostpersonableFatheroftheNewTestament.Foranonpartisan observer,itwouldbedifficulttodeterminewhichversionisthemore"divinelyinspired."AndtheinstanceoftheAuthorizedVersionremindsusofthemythofidentity, forsubsequentreadersretroactivelypositnotonlythewrongoriginalbutalsomisconceivethetranslationathand:theyrewritehistoryinlightofwhattheyregardasthe innatevirtuesofthetranslation,forgettingbothitsprovenienceanditseclecticcharacter. BabelRevisited ThepostBabelianworldadumbratedbyGoetheinhisnotionofWeltliteraturwashintedattwocenturiesearlierbyJohnDonneinhisfamousmeditationondeath anddying.Donne'scelebrationoftheonenessofhumanity"Nomanisanisland"harksbacktothemonolingualworldbeforeBabelbutherecognizesthe estrangementandseparationofsouls"PerchanceheeforwhomthisBelltolls,maybesoill,asthatheknowesnotittollsforhim."Donnedepictsthealienation,the senseofforeignness,theexistentiallonelinessthatisthelegacyoflifeafterBabel.ButDonneisalsooneofthefewtoreconcilethecurseofBabelwithaheuristically positivevisionoftranslation,notasanimpostureoranimpiety,

Page45

butasasavinggraceasavinggrace,moreover,ofdivineauthorship:
AllmankindeisofoneAuthor,andisonevolumewhenoneMandies,oneChapterisnottorneoutofthebooke,buttranslatedintoabetterlanguageandeveryChaptermust besotranslatedGodemploiesseveraltranslatorssomepeecesaretranslatedbyage,somebysicknesse,somebywarre,somebyjusticebutGodshandisineverytranslation andhishandshallbindeupallourscatteredleavesagaine,forthatLibrariewhereeverybookeshalllieopentooneanother...

Theimageofeverybooklyingopentooneanotherevokesnotmerelytheopennessor"translatability"ofonetextintoanotherlanguage,butalsotheuniversalaccess tomultipleperspectives,a"panglossic"world.ItissignificantthatDonnebeginswithapreBabelianimageofamonolingualworld"Allmankinde...isone volume"andheendswithapostBabelianimageofmultivolumedpluralism''hishandshallbindeupallourscatteredleavesagaine."Onemightcontemplatethe ultimateirony:theworldofthefuture,howeverheterogeneous,eclectic,evensecular,maybedivinelyinspiredthepreBabelianmonolingualworldlookstowardthe utopiaofapostBabelianmultiverse.

Page46

3 TranslationacrossCivilizations: TheContributionofBarbarians
ThetriumphofcivilizationisusuallyrecountedinManichaeanterms:theforcesoflightovercomingtheforcesofdarkness,divineangelsofenlightenmentprevailing overtheabysmal,satanicforcesofignoranceandbrutishness.Theextirpationofbarbarismhasoftenbeenregardedasequivalenttothespreadofcivilization.Yetthe actualhistoricalsituationoftenbeliesthissimplisticconfrontationalmodelandsuggeststhatadialecticalmodelmaybemoreapt.Logically,thenotionofthe"barbarian" is,ofcourse,essentialtothenotionof"civilization":onepresupposestheother.Butwhatmaynothavebeennoticedisthat"barbarian''cultureshavebeeninstrumental indemonstrablewaystothepreservation,andultimatelythespread,ofcivilization. Thecontributionof"barbarians"tocivilizationmaybeparalleltothestoryofthePhylloxeravastatrix,orvinelouse,inoenology:inthenineteenthcentury,ashipment ofAmericannativevinescontainingPhylloxeravastatrixwassentasspecimenstoKewGardens,nearLondon.Bythe1870s,thispesthadspreadtotheBordeaux, Burgundy,andChampagneregionsofFrance,toeveryvineyardofEuropeandAfrica.AccordingtoAndrSimon(1967:23),"thevineyardsofBordeauxhadbeen wipedout,andtenyearslaterthoseofBurgundyandChampagneweredeadordying."Salvationcame,ironically,fromtheveryvinesthathadintroducedthe infestation:thevineyardsoftheeasternstatesofNorthAmerica.Evidently,thenativeAmericanvineshadbecomenearlyimmunetothepest:theyprovidedthe rootstocksonwhichFrenchvinescouldbegrafted.France'sflourishingvineyardstodayowetheirexistencetoNorthAmericanvines.

Page47

Inasimilarway,throughthecourseofhistory,barbarianshaveposedathreattocivilization,notinfrequentlydecimatingit.Somebarbarianinvasionswereinfact devastating,buthistoryindicatesthatcivilizationshavesurvivedsometimesbecauseof,andnotjustdespite,theintercessionofbarbarians.LiketheNorthAmerican vinesthatintroducedthephylloxerainfestationinEuropeandalmostwipedoutitsvineyards,barbarianshavebeenanathematocivilization.Theironyisaprinciple familiarfromimmunology,somewhatreversed:whatdestroysisalsowhatsaves. Ishouldliketoexaminethehistoricalinstancesinwhichforeign,oftenhostile,culturesbecametheinstrumentofsurvivalfornativecivilizationstoconsidertherole translationplaysintheseironicsurvivalsandtospeculateonthedifferencesbetween"barbarian"knowledgeand"native"knowledgeasakeytoseeingtranslationas aninstrumentofhistoricalunderstanding. "Barbarian"Contributions Thenotionofbarbarianis,generallyspeaking,agenericratherthanaspecificterm.Theterm"BarbaryCoast"inthenineteenthcentury,itistrue,diddesignatethe SaracenterritoriesinNorthAfrica,conflatingthespecificnominalismof"Berber,"anArabicnamefortheaboriginalpeoplewestandsouthofEgypt,withtheword "barbarian,"whichderivesfromGreekbarbarikos,orbarbaros.But,overthecourseofhistory,theterm"barbarian''oritsequivalentshasbeennonspecific, designatinginsuccession,"anonHellene,""anonRoman,""anonChristian,"and"anonItalian."Eachofitsusesreflectsadeicticsolipsismwhichessentiallybrands anyonenotofthelanguagepolity,thatis,theforeigner,theother,as"barbarian."TheGreekreferencestobarbaroiarefamiliar,thoughonesometimesforgetsthatthis terminGreekincludedtheMedesandthePersians,nowregardedascivilizationsintheirownright.1Ineachofthesecases,thereisapresumptionthatthenative cultureiscivilizedandthatallothersarenot.TheChinesesubdividedtheirbarbarians:adifferentnamewasreserved
1.

SomeGreeks,however,recognizedthe"civility"ofthePersians:Herodotusquoted,withapparentapproval,theanecdoteaboutDariusrecognizingtherelativityofcustomsin differentcultures,and,followingPindar,heacknowledgedthatcustomisking(Mann1986:215)Xenophon,too,admiredPersiancivilization(cf.Hirsch1985).

Page48

forbarbariansineachofthefourdirections:intheeast,theywerecalledyi .Thesetermswereappliedtodifferentbarbariantribesoverthecourseofhistory,but thecalligraphforeachwordis,nevertheless,suggestive:fortheeasternbarbarianstheideogramismarkedwithacombinationoftheradicalmeaning"big"andthe radicalfor"bow"thewordforthewesternbarbariansincludestheradicalfor"weapon"thesouthernbarbariansaredesignatedwithawordthatincludestheradical for"worm''andthewordforthenorthernbarbarianscombinesthewordfor"dog"withthewordfor"fire." Thedefinitionsof"barbarian"shiftandscintillatewithambiguities.Initially,itdesignatedthatwhichwasforeign,nonnative,withaslighttinctureofculturalsuperiority, usuallydistinguishing(ifthat'stheword)theunculturedotherfromtheculturedself.FortheGreektragedians,barbaroscomprisedthreemeanings(Bacon1961:10 11):itreferredtothatwhichwasunintelligiblethatwhichwasforeign,nonGreekandthatwhichwasforeign,withsomeimplicationofinferiority.Forsomehistorians oftheMiddleAges,mostnotablyProsperBoissonade(1927),theword"barbarian"wasassociated,ifnotidentified,withrapine,massacre,andgratuitouscruelty. ThecontrastbetweenthebarbariansoftheMiddleAgesandLatinculturewascapturedbyBoissonadememorably,ifsomewhatextravagantly,asfollows:"The idleness,stupidity,coarseness,ignorance,credulity,andcrueltyofthebarbarianstooktheplaceofthewellregulatedactivity,thepolish,cultureandrelativehumanity oftheRomans"(p.22).Boissonadeseemedtoassociateatavistic,primitiveinstinctswithbarbariantendencies,tendencieswhichevenextendedexposureto civilizationcouldnotentirelyextinguish."EvenamongtheVisigoths,Ostrogoths,andFranks,whowerealreadyhalfRomanizedbyalongsojournwithintheempire," hewrites,"thesuddenawakeningofancestralferocitytransformedthese'guests'intounchainedmurderers"(p.22).Fromthesenotions,itbecamenaturaltosee "barbarian"assynonymouswiththeincomprehensible,thehostile,thevisceral,theirrational. Thereisapseudologicalprogressioninthethreemeaningsof"barbarian."Abouttherootmeaningoftheword,designatingsomethingunintelligible,"thereseemstobe nodisagreement"

Page49

(Bacon,p.11n.):"Itisoriginallyanonomatopoeicwordimitatinganykindofunintelligiblesound,whetherofanimal,object,orman.BoisacqandFriskderiveitfrom Sanskritbarbarah.BoisacqrelatesittoGreekBabai,Babalein,andLatinbalbus,balbutio."Implicitinthepseudologicalprogressionaretwosyllogisms,thefirst confusingasubjectiveobservationwithobjectiveattributes,thesecondconfusingunintelligibilitywithlackofintelligence.Thesesyllogismsmightbestatedasfollows: A. AnyoneI[we]findunintelligibleisinnatelyunintelligible I[we]findbarbariansunintelligible Hencebarbariansareinnatelyunintelligible. Anyoneunintelligibleisalsounintelligent Barbariansareunintelligible Hencebarbariansareunintelligent.

B.

Thesesyllogisms,thispseudologic,mayexplaintheethnocentrictendencytowardculturalsuperioritywhenconfrontedwithculturesonefailstounderstand.Itmaybe moreacharacteristicofthegenericprovincialismoflanguagethananinnateparochialisminpeople. Yetitcannotbeassumedthat"barbarian"wasalwaysusedasatermofopprobrium:insteadofdesignatingtheuncivilized"other"incontrasttothecivilized"self,"the wordwassometimesusedtodesignatethe"uncivilizedself"incontrasttoacivilized''other."ElizabethanEngland,forexample,isfraughtwithreferencestoitsown cultureascrudeandbarbariccomparedtotheLatinateculturesontheContinent.Elizabethanwritersconsciouslysoughttoenrichtheirownlanguageby incorporating,throughtranslation,theliteraryheritageofmorecivilizedtraditions.Inthecontextofhistory,thetransmissionofimportant,evencanonical,textshas cruciallydependedon"barbarians,"whethersodesignatedbycivilizedculturesorselfconfessed.WalterOng,inhisBarbarianWithin(1962:275),remindsusthat thebarbarianisnotculturespecific:"Wemustcontinuallyremindourselvesthateverycultureisprobablyinsomewaybarbarianwithregardtoeveryother."Itwould alsobeamistaketoassumethatallbarbariansarethesame.ThedistinctionsthattheChinesemadeareindicative:differencesmaybefoundevenamongbarbarians, andsomebarbariansarenot

Page50

"barbaric."Farfrombeingantinomianoppositeswhichmutuallyexcludeeachother,theconceptofbarbarianmaybemerelyanotherformofasyettobe recognizedcivilization.ToborrowGeorgeS.Kaufman'sfamouswitticismfromadifferentcontext,"Oneman'sMedemaybeanotherman'sPersian." Aclearheadedanalysisofthecontributionof"barbarian"influencesoncivilizationmustthereforeaddressacomplexoffactors:first,itmustconsider"barbarian"asa meansofselfdefinitionwhichconfersnotonlyasenseofpersonalreliefbutalsooneofpersonalreaffirmation,enshrinedinthecolloquialism"Therebutforthegrace ofGod,goI"second,itmustexplore"barbarian"astheoutsider,whichpreservespartsofthenativeculturethat,foronereasonoranother,disappearathomethird, itmustexplore"barbarian''astheuncultivatedselfwithin,whetherasanodeofanimalinstinctstobecontainedandcontrolledorasuntutoredenergytobesmelted andrefinedinthecruciblesofcivilization.Letusexaminewherecertain"civilizations"wouldbewithoutthecontributionsofcertain"barbarians." TheincreasingemphasisonsystematicandrationalisticphilosophyinEuropeduringthelateMiddleAges,inspiredbytherediscoveryofAristotle,andarguablythe spurtowhatwastobecometheRenaissance,stemsfromArabicthinkers:IbnSina(Avicenna,9801037)andIbnRushd(Averros,11261189)areonlythetwo mostprominent.AlthoughscholasticslaterworkedfrommanuscriptsintheoriginalGreek(Ferguson1972:170),theinfluenceoftheArabicintermediarieswas profound.TheeffectofAristotle,astransmittedandinterpretedbyAvicennaandAverros,ontwoofthegreatestthinkersofthethirteenthcenturyAlbertus Magnus(12001280)andThomasAquinas(12251274)wasdecisive,despitethestrongantipathieswhichledthewritingsofAristotletobebannedatthe UniversityofParisin1210(Ferguson,p.176). Maimonides(11351204),theJewishtheologianandphilosopher,wasanothernonChristian"barbarian"(read:"heathen")whocontributedtotheresurgenceof Aristotelianstudies.Herepresentsanotherinstanceofanativecivilizationowingitssurvivaltoanotherculture.AsGeorgeSartonremindsus,Maimonideswrotehis classicGuidetothePerplexedinArabic,whichwas,untilthetwelfthcentury,thelanguageofscientificandphilosophicaldiscourseamongtheJews.Infact, accordingtoSarton(1960:149),

Page51

"theearliestHebrewgrammarswerecomposed...inArabic,notinHebrew."ThesurvivalofHebrew,inotherwords,dependedcruciallyuponArabic. Indeed,thecontributionofIslamtoWesterncivilizationisnotaswidelyappreciatedasitshouldbe.BernardLewis(1970:23)remindsusonceagain:
TheMuslimregimesofSpainandSicilyareimportantnotonlybecauseoftheEuropeanterritoriesoverwhichtheyruled,butalsobecauseoftheinfluencewhichtheyexertedon therestofEurope,onthemanyEnglish,French,Italian,German,andotherEuropeanswhowenttoMoorishSpainandSicilytostudyandtotranslate,andwho,bybringing ancientandeasternscientificandphilosophicalworksintothesphereofknowledgeoftheWesternworld,startedakindofrenaissanceinthe12thcentury.

Thereasonforthisneglect,Lewisclaims,isthealmostexclusiverelianceonWesternsourcesevenwhentranslationsofafewArabicworkshavebeenconsulted, theyareusuallyincompleteandinaccurate. TheRoleofTranslation Byfarthemostcommon,andleastrecognized,instancesofthephylloxerasyndromeinvolvetranslation.Indeed,itwouldbedifficulttoconceiveofthecontinuous developmentofcivilizationwithouttracingitsmigrationacrosslinguisticbarriers,therebyensuringnotonlyitsspreadbut,inthoseinstanceswhichsawthe disappearanceofthetextinitsoriginatingculture,itsverysurvival.Indeed,onemightsuggest,withoutexaggeration,thattranslationistheprimecontributionof barbarianstocivilization.Inalltheliteraryhistoriesortheglobalhistories,littlehasbeenmadeofthefactthatsomeoftheworld'sliteraryandphilosophicalclassics havebeenreadmoreintranslationthanintheoriginal.Arguably,worldclassicshavebeenreadbymore"barbarian"(foreign)readersthanbythoseinthenative language.Aproperunderstandingofhistorywouldhavetotakeintoaccountthenatureofthesetranslations,these"barbarian"distortions.Therearereadersofthe ShijithatSimaQianneverdreamtof,evenwhenheaddressed

Page52

posterityperhapsforthefirsttimeinChinesehistoryandinvokedanaudiencethatwouldreadhimafterhisdeathbuthecouldscarcelyhaveimaginedthathe wouldbereadinJapanese,alanguagethatdidnotdevelopuntilsixcenturiesafterhislife,orinEnglish,whichevolvedmorethanamillenniumafterhisdeath.Homer hasbeenanalyzedandinterpretedbyscholarsinLatin,English,French,andGermanontermsofintimacyandfamiliaritythatwouldhaveastonishedhisHellenic contemporaries.GreektragediesandGreekcomediesarebeingreadandappreciatedbytheverybarbaroithatSophoclesandAristophanesvilifiedandpilloried. Authorsinthepastcouldnothavebeenawarethattheirfateswoulddependnotonlyonhowtheyweretranslated,butalsoonwhethertheyweretranslated. Modernsbentoneverlastingfamemayhavetoconsidernotonlyhowwelltheywrite,butalsohowwelltheirworkstranslate.Contemporarywriters,from GombrowicztoLemtoMilanKunderatoNabokovtoGarcaMarqueztoSimonedeBeauvoirtoYukioMishimaandYasunariKawabata,2havedependedcrucially ontheirtranslatorsforinternationalrecognition. Thestudyoftranslationposesuniqueproblems.Untilthemodernera,theaudienceforsuchstudieswas,essentially,nonexistent.Translatorsweremerelytarget nativeswhotranslatedworksfromaforeignlanguageintotheirown.Few,however,werecapableof(orifcapableinterestedin)studyingtranslationsfromabipolar pointofview,seeingthemfrombothlanguageswithaslittlebiasaspossible.Asaresult,translationswereusuallyjudgedbytheirsuccessorfailureonlyinthetarget language.Sourcelanguagenativeswerenotlikelytoobjectindeed,theywouldbeprecludedbythelanguagebarrierfromobjecting.Oftenreaderswerenottoldthat theywerereadingatranslation,sincetranslatorswere,alltoofrequently,considereddrudgesandwordmongers,scarcelydeservingofequalbillingwiththeauthor. Theselacunaecreatetheirown
2.

Indeed,thefailureofanyChinesewritertowinaNobelPrizeforLiteraturehasbeenblamedontheinadequatetranslationofChineseworks.Atthe1986International SymposiumonContemporaryChineseLiteratureinShanghai,GoranMalmqvist,adistinguishedSwedishscholarofChineseliteratureandamemberoftheNobelPrizeCommittee onLiterature,intimatedthatthenovelistBaJinmighthavestoodabetterchancefortheprizeifhisnovelJia(Family)hadnotbeentranslatedsoexecrably.

Page53

imperceptibledistortionsinonesidedtestimony,distortionsthatwillbeperceivableonlytobinocularscrutiny.ThelargelyunwrittenhistoryoftheArabiccontribution toChristiancivilizationhas,forexample,beenhamperedbythescarcityofscholarsequallyconversantinaWesternlanguageandinArabic.Inanalyzingthenatureof EuropeanstudiesofArabichistory,BernardLewis(1970:3031)haswritten:

TheEuropeanOrientalist,mainlyconcernedwithclassicalIslam,hasgenerallybeenuninterestedintheperiodofitsdecayandinitsprogressivesubjectiontoEuropeaninfluence. TheEuropeanhistorianwhoisinterestedinthisprocessgenerallyknowsnoArabic,Persian,orTurkish,andremainstotallyunawareofthewholeinnerlifeofthearea.Therecent andcontemporaryhistoryoftheIslamicworldhasbeenleftchieflytothecolonialanddiplomatichistorian,totheeconomistandtothecurrentaffairsexpert....Thewholepicture resultingfromtheirendeavors,however,remainsexternal.

ThatiswhyEdwardSaid'sOrientalismisaparticularlysignificant"binocular"book:itexpressesastrongArabicsensibility,butitiswritteninEnglish.Nodoubt, passionatelyantiWesterntractsexistinArabic,butfewEnglishspeakersaregoingtoexpendtheefforttotranslatethem:iftheysympathize,theyarelikelytocherish theArabicpointofviewinArabicandiftheydonotsharetheArabichostilitytowardtheWest,theyarenotlikelytodignifywhattheywouldregardasvirulentand distastefulpointsofviewbytranslatingthemintoWesternlanguages.3Itisnotenoughtorecognizethatalanguage,assuch,determinesone'spointofviewonemust realizethattheviewisalsooccluded. Therehasnotbeenenoughanalysisofthetypesoftranslation.Byfarthemostcommontypesincludetranslationsoutofaforeign

3.

ThedisagreementbetweenthecoauthorsofTheJapanThatCanSay"No"AkioMoritaandShintaroIshiharawithregardtotranslatingthebookinEnglishbringsthis pointout.IshiharawantedthebooktranslatedintoEnglish,Moritadidnot.AnambitiouspoliticianinJapan,IshiharadoesnotcarehowmanyAmericansareoffendedindeed,he soughttoattractmoreJapanesesupportbyoffendingAmericansAkioMorita,ontheotherhand,hadreasontobewaryofoffendingtheAmericancustomersofhisSony products.(ToshibasufferedabacklashinitsAmericanmarketsomeyearsagowhenitwasrevealedthatithadsoldsubmarinetechnologytotheSoviets.)

Page54

languageintoanativelanguage,whichIcharacterizeas"endotropic"buttherearealsotranslationswhichtranslateoutofthenativelanguageintoforeignlanguages,a classthatIcall"exotropic."Theincidenceofendotropictoexotropictranslationsmightserveasakeytothedevelopmentofcivilizations.Intheirformativestages, culturesmayabsorb,borrow,assimilatethewritingsandteachingsofculturesregardedassuperiorhencetheymayengageinendotropictranslation,availingnative readersoftheintellectualtreasuresfromanotherlanguage.(JapanintheMeijiandearlymodernperiodswasnotablyendotropic.)Intime,however,certaincultures thathavebecomepreoccupiedwiththeirownimportancewilleithersanctionorpromoteexotropictranslation,thatis,disseminatingtheirownnativerichestotherest oftheworld.Onemightevenconceiveofa''balanceoftranslations"indextoexamineaculture'stendencytowardtheendotropicortheexotropic.Thesetendencies mightreveal,beyondstaticcomparisonsofglobalinfluence,orgrowthordeclineingrossnationalproduct,somethingperhapsmoreimportant,ifintangible:various degreesofincipientculturaldependenceorselfsufficiency(McNeill1963:502f).Eventhemostinformalsurveyofculturesandcivilizationswithregardtothe translationfactormightrevealsomethingabouttheriseandfallofempires.Andifthefuturewillnolongerbrookthelanguagebarriersofthepastreducedifnot eliminatedbyincreasedmultilingualism,widespreadtranslationactivity(aidedbycomputertechnology),andtheuseofinternationallanguages(computerprogramming, mathematics)thetallysheetinendotropicandexotropictranslationsforeachgivencountrymightrevealhiddenweaknessesinsuperficiallydominantprofilesand uncoverhiddenstrengthsindevelopinghegemonies. Translations,ofcourse,notonlytransmittheytransform.Sometimesthistransformationtakestheformofdistortionatothertimes,thetransformationbecomesan amalgamation,ablend,thatintroducesculturalalloysfromothertraditions.Custodianshipsofcultureareactive,notpassive.TherevivalofGreeklearningwhich spurredtheRenaissancehadanadmixtureofIndianmathematicsandArabicscience.TheMiddleAgesincludedwhat,intheWest,wereknownastheDarkAges butthesameperiodsawtheefflorescenceofChinesecultureintheTangdynasty,aswellastheemergenceofIslam."Forabriefbutsplendidperiod,"Bernard

Page55

Lewis(1970:2122)haswritten,"theIslamicworldwasthecenterofscientificandphilosophicprogress,anditsscholarsmenofmanyracesandreligionsplayed avitalroleasintermediaries,preservingandtransmittingtoChristianEuropesomethingoftheheritageofGreekantiquity,enrichedandaugmentedbytheirownefforts andalsobytheirborrowingsandadaptationsfromfurtherEast." Inasense,theGreekheritagewhichhadpeteredoutundertheonslaughtofChristianityandsuccessivebarbarianinvasionswassimmeringinthecommentariesand exegesesofArabicscholarsandphilosophers,toemergehalfamillenniumlater,throughtheauspicesofAvicennaandAverros,asa"rediscovery"ofAristotle.The imageofauthenticGreekculturepreservedintactandunadulteratedoverthecenturiesis,ofcourse,misleading,evenifitisthepopularconceptionofthemainsprings oftheRenaissance.Coulditbethattheintellectualenergy,thespeculativebrilliance,themathematicalprofundityofRenaissancethinkersstemmedasmuchfromthe ArabicandIndianadmixturesasfromAristotlehimself?LackingaccesstothenonWesternsources,Westernhistoriansarecompelledtoprovideanecessarily provincialaccount.OftheArabictransmogrificationsofAristotle,theycanknownothing.Lewishasobserved(1970:16):"Thehistorian...hasnothesitatedtodeal withmedievalSpainwithoutArabic,theEasternquestionwithoutTurkish,andtheexpansionofEuropewithoutanyreferencetothelanguagesandliteraturesofthe peoplesamongwhomEuropeexpanded."Asaresult,therecognitionintheWestofthe"barbarian,"ornonWesterncontribution,toWesterncivilizationhasbeen underminedbytheveryinaccessibilityoftheevidence,bytheveryopaquenesstotheWesternscholarofthelanguagesinwhichthisevidencemightbesought.The insistenceonthe''purity"ofGreekthoughtmaybeseenintheconvolutionsinherentinthefollowingattempttoportrayAverros'interpretationofAristotleasthe recoveryofthetruefaceofAristotle:
Averros'importanceforthehistoryofideaslayinhisstimulatingeffectuponLatinChristiantheologians,whoknewhimasafascinatingandheretical,butfarfromnegligible, thinker.Aristotle,ofcourse,hadalwaysbeenknowntoMoslemphilosophersbuthisdoctrinehad,fromlateRomanantiquity,beencuriouslydisguisedbyaNeoPlatonicgarb.

Page56 Averros'greatintellectualachievementwastoabstractAristotlefromthisaliendress,thuspermittingthetheologiansofParistostarttheirrevolutionofChristianphilosophy fromamoreorlessauthenticAristotelianbasis.[McNeill,p.502]

ThealmostimperceptibleshiftsinculturalreferencegivethisaccountaseamlessauthoritywhichpassesoffahiddenpremisethatAristotlecanbeuncovered,ifthat's theword,inhistrueform.Atthesametime,thisaccountdeftlyobscuresaglaringinferencethatAverrosArabictrainingmighthavebeencrucial.Thestrange designationofMuslimchronologywithChristianterms("lateRomanantiquity")thebizarreimputationoferrortotheMuslimsforclothingAristotlein"neoPlatonic garb"and,finally,theimprobableifnotpreposterouscharacterizationofthis"neoPlatonicgarb"as"alien''("alien"forwhom?)allthesemanifesttheconvolutions thataWesternhistorianmustundergotoavoidacknowledgingthecontributionofthebarbarianArab.AverrosiscreditedwithtransmittingAristotlemoreorless intact,avesselthatdidnotadulteratetheoldwine:heisviewedasapreservationistmorethanasathinkerinhisownright. Inhistory,asinlife,onemust"makedo."Translationsvariouslyaccurateandoutrageous,faithfulandoutlandisharehistory'swayof"makingdo."Oneneedn't abnegatetheresponsibilityofjudgingtheaccuracyoftranslationstorecognizethattranslationsarewhatsavedtheoriginalfromoblivion.Puristswhodenigrate translationsinfavoroftheoriginalsoverlookthefactthat,withouttranslations,significantinterestintheoriginalwouldhardlyhavesurvivedtheravagesoftimeand obscurity.HowmanyclassicistswouldtherebetodayifGreekliteraturehadnotbeentranslatedfirstintoLatinandlaterintoscoresofnonclassicalvernaculars?T.S. Eliot,refutingthenotionthatweknowsomuchmorethantheancients,replied:precisely,theyarewhatweknow.Inreplytoclaimsthattheoriginalissomuchricher thanthetranslation,wemaylikewisesay:yes,anditisthroughtranslationthatwediscoverthesuperiorityoftheoriginalitisbyvirtueoftranslationthatourattention wasfirstdrawntotheoriginalanditisthankstotranslation,inmanyinstances,thatwestillhavetheoriginaltostudy. Translationsareimperfectexpedientstothesearchforperfection

Page57

intheoriginal.Seenincriticalperspectivenotfromtheviewpointoftheunwittingreader,butfromthestandpointofapractitionertranslationsserveadouble function:theyshowbothhowreplaceableaswellashowirreplaceabletheoriginalistranslationssubstitutefortheoriginal,buttothosefamiliarwiththeoriginal, translationsbetraythemselvesunmistakablyasdeparturesfromtheoriginal.Theyarethe"backups"inliteraturethatwillstandinwhentheoriginalislostorforgotten. Likeunderstudies,theirimportanceisborrowedfromthelusterofthestarattraction.Butonedaystarsfade,andweareleftwithsuchcanonicalunderstudiesas Jerome'sVulgate,theKingJamesVersionoftheBible,andtheBuddhistcanoninChineseandTibetan.Whatweofcourseneglectisthefactthateventhe"originals" behindthesenowsanctifiedtranslationswere,intheirtime,translationsofearliermaterial,compilationsofearlierwisdomoftenpreservedinthemercurial,organic,and infrangiblemediumoftheoraltradition.AsParryandLordhaveshown,Homerwasnotan"author''inthemodernsense:hewasanoralredactorinastorytelling tradition,ofwhichhewasnotthesoleexponent. ScholarshavedatedtheBookofGenesistotheninthcenturyB.C.andtheNewTestamenttothefirstcenturyA.D.Whatweregardasthe"original"Biblewasa compilationmadesometimeafterthedeathofChrist,onewhichincludedmaterialsthatwere,atitstimeofcompilation,athousandyearsold.Biblicalscholarshiphas tracedportionsoftheOldTestamenttoAkkadian,Syriac,andUgariticsources.TheNewTestament,ifweleaveasidetheinterestingquestionofdivineauthorship,is acompilationofaccountsfromvariousauthors.TheFourGospelstellthesamestoryindifferentways,muchasancientGreekstorytellerstoldthestoryofTroyeach inadifferentway.TheauthorityoftheNewTestamentaccountofthelifeofJesus,wemustremember,liesinitsverylackoforiginality.Wewouldbelievetheveracity oftheaccountslessifMark,Matthew,Luke,andJohnweretoclaimthatwhattheysaidwasuniqueandoriginalwiththem,thattheyeachhad"madeitup."Therecan benodoubtthatbothMatthewandLukeusedMark'saccount,theonlypointofpossibledisputebeingwhich"edition"heused.Modernscholarshiphasshownthat "eleventwelfthsofMarkhavebeenincorporatedinMatthew"(Kilpatrick1946:11)hardlyanargumentforthe"originality"oftheoriginal

Page58

text.OneforgetsthatJesusspokeinAramaic,whichhadtobetranslatedintoKoineGreekfortheNewTestament. Ifwethinkofan"original"asanintegralworkcomposedinamomentofhistory,attributabletotheimaginationofasingleauthor,andcitableinauniquetext,4then thereisnosuchthingastheoriginalBible.Indeed,ancienttraditionswouldhavedisdained"originality"asavalue.Thethrustoftrueworthwasnottopretendthatold thingswerenew,butratherthatnewthingswereold.Theancientswerenotobsessedwithnewness:theybelievedthattherewas''nothingnewunderthesun":original thoughts,newinsights,hadnoauthorityunlesstheywereattributedtoarecognizedsage.Truthswerenotregardedasinsightsuntiltheybecameorweremadeto appearproverbial.Asaresult,Solomonreceivedfarmorecreditthanheprobablydeserved,andtherecanbenodoubtthathewasresponsibleforveryfewofthe Proverbsattributedtohim.ButwewouldbewrongtothinkthattheancientsbelievedthatthehistoricalSolomonhadthoughtupallthosesayings,nomorethanwe moderns,inourdecadentformofwisdom,believethatConfuciussaidallthoseersatzwitticismsthatbeginwiththeformula:"Confuciussay..." TranslationacrossCivilizations Theveryformulationofthetopic,"translationacrosscivilizations,"embodiesamodernperspectiveandrepresentsapanopticattitude.Translationisnolongerviewed astheverbalcommercebetweenacivilizationanditssurroundingbarbarians.Wearenolongerrestrictedtotheprovincialitiesofthepast,whichwouldexpect "civilizations"toproduceexotropictranslations,conveyingacentrifugalspreadofcultures,aswiththetranslationofGreekintoHebrew,Syriac,andLatindue accountmustbemadeofcivilizationsthatproduceendotropictranslations,conveyingacentripetal
4.

Forexample,the"original"NewTestament,thecompositionofwhichspansonlyahundredyears(asopposedtotheOldTestamentwhichspansathousand),maybefoundin over4,000Greekmanuscripts.AsVincentTaylor(1963:2)haspointedout:"Therearesome13,000MSSofpartsoftheNewTestamentavailable,and,whatismoresignificant,no twoofthemagreeineverydetail.Thisfactalonesuggeststhat,whiletheScripturesareinspired,theyarenotverballyinspired:otherwiseitisdifficulttothinkthatsogreata disparitywouldexist."

Page59

consolidationofexternalinfluences,aswiththemassivetranslationoftheBuddhistcanonfromthePaliintoChineseintheseventhcenturyA.D.,whenChineseculture wasatitsheight.Mighttherebearelationshipbetweentheriseandfallofacultureanditsexotropicandendotropicphases?Exotropiccivilizationsmaybeshortlived attheheightoftheirculturalimperialismbutincipientlyindeclineendotropiccivilizationsmaybestillintheirgestationphaseandmayenjoyanextendedlife. AclearcaseinpointwouldbetheRomanEmpire,which,initsearlystages,wasanendotropicculturethatregardeditselfasbarbariancomparedwithGreece,which itregardedasthesourceofcivilizationtothevirtualexclusionofothercultures.BytheMiddleAges,withthewidespreademinenceofLatinasthelanguageofthe literate,whateverthevernacularlanguagemayhavebeen,Romebecameexotropic,radiatingoutlikea"fountofwisdom"buteffectivelyclosedtooutsideinfluences despitebarbarianincursions.TheByzantineEmpiresawitselfasthecontinuationofGreekcultureandwasessentiallyexotropicinnature.Runciman(1933:232233) pointsoutthat,asidefromLatin,"fewotherlanguageswerestudied....ByzantiuminheritedthearroganceofancientGreeceaboutthebarbarianworld."5Despiteits centrallocationatthecrossroads,Byzantiumresistedforeigninfluences.Itwas,inthewordsofonecommentator(Baynes1925:242),''extraordinarilycatholicinits welcometothestranger:ifhewouldaccepttheEmpire'sreligiousbelief,PersianorArmenian,SlavorBulgar,RussianorBriton,eachcouldfindaplaceinherservice. TheEmpiredrewitstalentfrommanysources.Buttheseforeignersandadventurerscameasindividuals,andtheyweremergedinasystem."TheemergenceofIslam, withitsstronginsistenceonArabicasthelanguageoftheKoran,aswellasitschauvinisticallegiancetoArabic,encouragedthetranslationintoArabicofGreekand Hebrewscienceandphilosophy.Duringthisperiod,Arabicabsorbedfromotherculturesmorethanitinfluencedothercultures.Thereversesituation,translating ArabicthoughtintoGreek,
5.

Jenkins(1953:9)putsthemattermoreemphatically:"Atatimewheninthewestthegermsofnationalselfconsciousnessweresproutingfromthewelterwhichfollowedthe collapseofthewesternRomanempire,theByzantineneitherunderstoodnorcaredtounderstandanyreligion,languageorculturebutitsown."

Page60

orArabicscienceintoHebrew,isscarcelyencountered.OurknowledgeoftheOttomanphaseofIslamiccivilizationis,atpresent,toomeagertoarriveatanyuseful conclusionsonitsexotropicorendotropicnature.6 ElizabethanEnglandwasperhapsthemostendotropicoftheEuropeancountriesofitstime.TranslationsfromtheItalianandtheFrench,amongcontemporary cultures,andfromtheLatinandGreekamongoldertraditions,abounded.Patriotismtooktheformnotofculturalarrogancebutofculturalhumility(whichwillfindits parallelwithJapanofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies)."Thetranslator'sworkwasanactofpatriotism,"F.O.Mattheissenhaswritten(1931:3),"The nationhadgrownconsciousofitsculturalinferioritytotheContinent,andsuddenlyburnedwiththedesiretoexcelitsrivalsinletters."Bytheeighteenthcentury,the majortranslationswere,forthemostpart,retranslations,almostalwaysoftheclassicalcanon."ThegloryoftheElizabethanandJacobeantranslationshadpassed away,"HughMacDonaldandViviandeSolaPintohaveobserved(1966:577):"IntheirplaceweremanyrathercommonplacerenderingsofclassicalandFrench authors."ThedeclineinendotropictranslationwouldcontinueinEnglanduntiltheVictorianperiodwhen,withthesignificantexceptionofFitzGerald'srenderingof someofOmarKhayyam'squatrainsintheRubaiyat,theemphasisshiftstothespreadofEnglishcultureexotropicallyinthetranslationsoftheEnglishclassicsinto scoresofotherlanguagesthroughoutanempirethatwasbythenworldwide.7 Japan'shistoryvisvistranslationisperhapsunique.AtthedawnofJapanesecivilization,roughlythesixthcenturyA.D.,theliterarylanguagewasChinese.Notuntil thelateHeianperiod,withthecompilationoftheimperialanthologyknownastheManyoshu(BookofaThousandLeaves)intheeighthcenturyandthe
6. 7.

Lewis(1970:29)writes:"AgreatmassofrecordsispreservedintheIstanbulArchivesandisstilluntouched."

OnemightcitethetranslationsthatappearedunderF.MaxMller'sseriesTheSacredBooksoftheEastasacounterexample,butthesetranslationshardlyreflectthesamespiritof earnestinterestthatcharacterizedtheElizabethansfurthermore,thesetranslationswereofferedforthespecialist,purelyfor"historicalpurposes."Theymadenowhereneartheimpact onthereadingpublicasNorth'sPlutarchandFlorio'sMontaigne.

Page61

masterpieceoffictionGenjimonogatari(TheTaleofGenji)byLadyMurasakiShikibuaroundtheyear1000,didtheJapaneseadopttheirownindigenoustongue. Japanalternatedbetweenperiodsofintensereceptivitytotheoutsideandperiodswhenitcloseditselffromtheoutsideworld.JapanwasopentotheChineseduring theTangdynasty(618906)itwasopenagaintotheChineseduringtheMing(13681644)anditopeneduptotheWestfollowingtheMeijiRestorationin1868. ThroughmostoftheFujiwaraandKamakuraperiods(8661333)andtheTokugawaperiod(16001867),Japanwasvirtuallycutofffromtherestoftheworld. Earlyinitshistory,whenitsmostimportantcontactwaswithChina,JapandevelopedaspeciallanguagetodemarcateimportationsfromtheChinese.Theycalledthis sublanguagekambun("thewritingoftheHan[Chinese]").Akambuntext,MasaoMiyoshi(1974:8)tellsus,"lookslikeChinesebutisnotpronouncedlikeit.A kambuntext,asreadbyaJapanese,soundsJapaneseandisJapanese,althoughitcouldalsobereadbyaChineseandpronouncedinChinese."IntheMeijiperiod, thevogueforthingsWestern,andforEnglishinparticular,becamesostrongthataprominentministerofgovernmentinJapanevenproposedthetotalabolitionof JapaneseandthesubstitutionofEnglish(Miyoshi,p.5).Whilethatradicalproposalwasneverimplemented,theJapanesedidcreatea"translationstyle"specifically fortherenderingofWesternliterature(Miyoshi,p.xiv).Amoreconsciousthrusttowardtheendotropiccouldhardlybefound. TheoreticalRamifications Ourexcursionintothecontributionofbarbarianstocivilizationisnomereverballegerdemain.Therecognitionofthedialecticrelationshipbetweentheworldofthe barbarianandtheworldofcivilizationisnotintendedtodenythemanyinstanceswherethetwohavecomeintoconflict.Norisittoerasethemeaningfuldistinctions betweenbarbarianandcivilizedculture.Wehaveusedtheseconceptstomarktheshiftingpointsofreference,toindicatethatfurtherdiscriminationsarenecessary.It isnomoreatautologytosay"civilizedcivilizations"thanitiscontradictorytosay"civilizedbarbarians."Werecallthefirstsenseofbarbarikosandbarbaroi,which fortheGreeksdesignatedthatwhichwasunintelligible.The

Page62

vagariesofhistory,however,ultimatelymadeGreekunintelligibletotheheirsofGreekcivilization:"NooneinRomeeveninGregorytheGreat'sday[540604] spokeGreek"(Runciman,p.232)"GreeklanguageandliteraturehadvirtuallydisappearedfromtheGermandominatedWestofthesocalledDark Ages"(Geanakoplos1966:11)bythetwelfthcentury,foramedievalscribe,"aGreekwordbecomesgibberishorisomittedwithgrecuminsertedinitsplaceitwas 'allGreek'tohim"(Haskins1966:280).FortheMiddleAges,Greekhadbecomeunintelligibleandhence,paradoxically,"barbarian." "Ithasbeensaid,"BernardLewiswrites(1973:22),"thatthehistoryoftheArabshasbeenwrittenintheWestchieflybyhistorianswhoknownoArabicandby Arabistswhoknownohistory."Thehistorywritteninthefuturemustembodybothperspectives,theperspectiveofthebarbarianaswellasthatoftheGreek.We needtocombinewhattheanthropologicallinguistscall"etic"knowledge,theknowledgeknownfromtheinside,and"etic"knowledge,theknowledgeknownfromthe outside.WemustlearntorecognizenotonlythebarbarianwithinbutalsotheGreekwithout.

Page63

4 "ArtificesofEternity": AudiencesforTranslationsofChineseLiterature
IntheprefacetohistranslationoftheIliad,AlexanderPopewrote:"HomermakesusHearers,andVirgilleavesusReaders."Thatdiscriminationmaynotbeso importanttomodernreaders,amongwhombothHomerandVirgilfindtheir(notdissimilar)audiences.Forwiththedislocationsinthefamily,andthevirtual disappearanceofprivategroupreadings,audiencesbecomereadersratherthanhearers.Thedistinctionbetweenthesilentandsolitaryappropriationofatextandthe oralpresentationofaworkis,forus,obscured:weusethesameword,"reading,"toindicateboth.Inacademiccircles,onespeaksof"readingapaper,"whichmeans anoralpresentationofatext(orscript)writtenfortheoccasion.Perhapsthereasonwhysomanypapersatacademicgatheringsaredeliveredasiftheywerestillborn stemsfromamisunderstandingbetweenspeakerandaudience:theaudienceexpectssomethingaliveandgrowing,butthespeakeroffersapreparedtextthatmight justaswellhavebeendistributedandfiled.Toooften,wearerecitingtexts,merelyreadingaloud.Isitanywonderthataudiencessometimesfeelsuperfluous?It appearstomakenodifferencewhethertheaudienceattendsornot:neitheritsattendancenoritsattentionseemstomatter. Theconfusionofhearerandreaderismanifestinlanguage,forthereisanalmostunrestrictedtwowaytrafficbetweenwordsthatdesignateaudiencespresentand listeningandwordsthatdesignateaudiencesabsentandreading."Discourse"oncemeantconversationalexchange:itnowtendstomeanseriousexpositionofthought developedonpaperandcustomarilypublished"dialogue"has

Page64

assumedtheelevatedovertonesofaphilosophicaltreatise:the"DialoguesofPlato"areregardedascanonicalstatementsoftextualauthority,theremarksofKongzi (Confucius)become"TheAnalects,"andthesayingsofJesusemergeastheGospel.Yesterday'schatsbecometoday'sScripture.Ontheothersideoftheexchange, theword"lecture"hasmigratedfromtherealmofsilentreading(lecture,lecteurinFrench)intothepublicdisplaysoferuditionwithwhichoneis,perhaps,alltoo familiar.Theword"verbal"iscommonlymisusedtospecify"oral,''eventhoughitsubsumesbothoralandwrittenformsoflanguage.Themagicmottoinbookselling circlesisthephrase"agoodread"suggestingthatthepurchaserofthebookwillhaveapleasurablereadingexperience.Ourtermsinliterarycriticismarerichwhen describingauthororwork,butratherimpoverishedwhenreferringtoaudience.Yet,asanyexperiencedpublicspeakerwillattest,therearetangibledifferences betweenaudiences.Thelessdefinable,lessresearchable,characterofaudienceshaspermittedliteraryhistorianswithfewexceptionstoneglectnotonlytheir existencebutalsotheircontributive(ifimplicit)roleintheproductionsofauthorsandwriters.Ifthisconfusionofaudienceas"presentattendinglisteners"withaudience as"scatteredandremoteaggregatesofsolitaryreaders"affectsourperceptionsofliteraryexperiencewithinthesameculture,howmuchmorecomplexwillthese confusionsbeinthecaseoftranslations,wheredifferentaudiencesofbothkindsmayexist?ItisthesecomplexitiesthatIwishtoexamine. Theomnivorousandindiscriminatecapacityoftheprintedbooktorecordandtopreservethetraditionsofthepastto,ineffect,"contemporize"allexperience makesusreluctanttoacceptGadamer'snotionof"radicalhistoricism,"thatis,toacknowledgethatthepastisforeveralientothepresent.TheaudienceforHomeris comprisedofboththeancientGreekswhocongregatedaroundhimandallthosewhohavereadhiminanylanguagesince.Yetthereisan"incomparability"that Homershareswithallauthorsboundbytimeandethos.Iftheprintedbookmisleadsonetooverlookthisincomparability,thentranslation,withitstendencyto recreateandtorevive,eliminatesitaltogether.Thereaderofatranslationisengaged,fromthevantagepointofhistory,inaprocessnotsomuchunnaturalas unexpected. Thetimehasnotyetcomewhenanauthorwriteswithaneyeto

Page65

translatability,buthisaccesstoposteritymaylieinaforeignperhapsasyetunrealizedlanguage:theholdandtheprovincialityofthepresentarepersistent.Yetwe areallheirsoftheunexpected,evenunlookedfor,transmissionsfromthepast:indeed,certainliteratureswouldnothaveevolvedwithoutthem.Chaucer,forexample, isnotonlythefirstmajorauthorinEnglishliterature,butoneofitsfirstsignificanttranslators.Shakespearewasnot,inanytechnicalsenseoftheword,atranslator:but inconveyingforeignculturestoEnglishaudiences,intransposingremoteexperiencesintocontemporarymeanings,histaskwasnotunlikethatofthetranslator.A surveyofhissources(which,notsoincidentally,areappropriatedfromtranslations,whetherNorth'sPlutarch,Golding'sOvid,orChaucer'sBoccaccio)indicatesthat oneofShakespeare'sobjectiveswastobringtoElizabethanaudiencesthestrangeandtheunfamiliar.Thelocaleofhisplaysisavirtualtouristguideofforeignclimes: Verona,Elsinore,Venice,Sicily,Bohemia,Vienna,Denmark,and,ofcourse,"anuninhabitedisland."Curiosityintheexoticisthemainspringnotonlyoftourismand translation,butofthetheateraswell.OnecontemporarycommentedontheElizabethanaudience:

WiththeseandmanymoreamusementstheEnglishpasstheirtime,learningattheplaywhatishappeningabroadindeed,menandwomenfolkvisitsuchplaceswithoutscruple, sincetheEnglishforthemostpartdonottravelmuch,butprefertolearnforeignmattersandtaketheirpleasuresathome.1

PerhapsthemostsalientadvantagethatShakespearehadasacraftsmanwasthathewasalsoanactorandhad,therefore,concreteknowledgeoftheaudience response.2Anditwaswiththisaudience,whetherattheRose,theTheatre,theCurtain,ortheGlobe,thatheearnedhissuccessessubsequentaudiencesofreaders had,presumably,noeffectonhiscreativityorhisproductivity.WhateverShakespeare'slaterfame,hewroteforhistimeand,unlikeStendhal,pleasedposterityonly byhappenstance.

1. 2.

ThomasPlatter'sTravelsinEngland(1599),quotedinAlfredHarbage(1941:77).

Amongcontemporaryplaywrights,onefindsafairproportionofactorsorexactors,includingNoelCoward,PeterUstinov,HaroldPinter,RobertShaw,JasonMiller,SamShepard.

Page66

Themoderntranslatorfindshimselfinasituationanalogoustothatofanactor,forhemustsatisfythescholarswhochecktheaccuracyofhisrendering,andhemust pleasethereaderswhowillverifytheeffectivenessofhisversions.Liketheactor,thetranslatormustseethepotentialofaworkandknowhowtorealizeit.Critics andscholarswillactassurrogateauthorsintheabsenceofanauthorandremindtheactortranslatorofpotentialsunrealizedormeaningscontroverted.The importanceofthecriticscholarcannotbetoostronglyemphasized,butsomearemindfulonlyoftheirpower,andnotoftheirresponsibilities.Criticsoftranslation,in particular,areoftenbetrayedbytheirulteriormotives:personalattacks,actsofprivatevengeancecommittedpublicly,pettyjealousies.Somecriticsseemtorejoiceat repeatedproofsofuntranslatabilitynotonlybecausetheyexposetheinadequaciesofthetranslator,butbecausetheyprotecttheculturaldomainwhichthecritic regardsashispersonalpreserve.Pusillanimityisnotunknowninacademiccircles,andlanguagesnobberyisendemic,buttheauthorwhofindshimselfinthedubious embraceofthepossessivescholarultimatelysufferstheultimateneglectthatDr.Johnsonjudgedtobetheworstfateforawriter.Weoweourmostcherishedauthors anaudience.Thosewhotakeassacredtheirrolesashighpriestsatthealtarofliteratureoftenforgettoattractacongregation. Thereligiousmetaphorisnotmereanalogy,forthehistoryofreligionsisinextricablyboundwiththehistoryoftranslation.Theanalogymaybeappositeitissurely instructive,forinbothreligionandtranslationthesamepitfallsbedevilthecrusadingspirit:toooften,"theworstarefullofpassionateintensity."Yetiftheoneextremeis characterizedbymindlessandbenightedenthusiasms,itisnottruethattheabsenceofpassionwillalwaysidentifythe"best."Themostsuccessfulproselytizers,from St.PaultoMatteoRicci,werefullof"passionateintensity"andXuanzang,proselytizerandtranslator,wasknowntobeanadvocatewithacontagiouscommitmentto hiscause.ThetwomostenduringachievementsofinstitutionalreligionmaybeRomanCatholicismandChineseBuddhism,andthereasonsfortheirlongevityarethe same.OneisChristianityromanized,theotherBuddhismsinicized:ineachcase,theaccommodationtothelocuswascrucial.IftheWordistobetransmitted,itmust befullytransplantedin,andnourishedby,thelocalculture.

Page67

Theuncertainfateofauthorsthroughthecenturiesmaylieinthevagariesoftranslation.PindarandSapphohavenotfaredwellintranslation,thoughtheGreek tragediansthrivethepoetryofEdgarAllanPoereceivednewrespectabilityinFrench.Theseinstancessuggestthatwemaybespeakingnotonlyof"translatability" butofsomethingelse:thepowerofaworktoimpelanothersensibilitytonewthoughtsinanotherlanguage.Thecontextualnatureofwordsinlanguagepersuadesus thatthemostaccuratetranslationofwhatisconventionalinonetraditionconstitutesanewthought,withnewconstellationsofmeaningandsignificances,inanother. Forthesemiologistofliterature,theworkmosteasilytranslatedmaybetheleastworthyoftranslation.Inourfailureliesoursuccess,sincetheunavailabilityofwords inonelanguagetoexpresswhatissayableinanothercompelsustoextendandenrichthelanguagethathasprovedinadequate. Amongsomecriticsoftranslation,thereisasuspicionthattranslationissomehowunnaturalandirrelevant.WhyspeakofChinesepoetryinEnglish?Whystudy AmericanliteratureinHungarian?Doesitnotbespeaksomesuperficiality,nottosayincompetence,tohavetorelyonaforeignlanguagetoexplainthenative literature?Wouldnativespeakersnothavealmostintuitivelyafarbettercomprehensionoftheirownliterature?Howcouldanonnativepossiblycompetewitha nativeinfamiliaritywithhisownculture?Theanswerstothesequestionsmustnotbesimplistic.Forwhilethenative'sfamiliaritywithhisownculturecannotbe discounted,itisaconditionedfamiliarity,andhemaynotbeawareofwhatheknows.Ifthenativemaybecomparedtoayoungsterridingabicycle,thenonnative translatoristhestudentofthelawsofmotionwhounderstandsallaboutmomentsofforcebutcannotnegotiateatwowheeler. Ifthereisanyvaliditytotheprimacyof"natural"knowledge,intuitiveratherthananalytical,thentranslationswouldbe,indeed,suspect.TeachalltheworldChinese (asEtiemblehasadvocated),andwhowouldneedatranslation?YetIwonderiftheestablishmentofauniversallanguagemightnotproveahindranceratherthana help.Babelhaslongbeenthesymbolofperpetualmisunderstandingandmiscommunication,butmayitnotalsobeareminderoftheultimateineluctabilityofmeaning, asymboloftheprimacyofthoughtoverlanguage?Intheirunnaturalaspect,translations

Page68

remindmeofYeats'"artificesofeternity"posterityhasheededtheMuse,andwillcontinuetoheedher,moreoftenintranslationthaninhernativevoice.The translatorisachangeling,mediatingbetweentheworldofthenativeandtheworldofthe"barbarian."InthecaseofChinese,forexample,therehavebeenchanges evenamongthesechangelings.TheforerunnersofthepresentgenerationArthurWaleyandEzraPoundwereboth"sinicizedWesterners,"translatorswho resolutelymaintainedtheirdistinctlyEnglishorAmericanprofileevenwhiletheyacquired(ortriedtoacquire)aChinesesensibility.SincetheSecondWorldWar, translatorslikeJamesJ.Y.Liu,D.C.Lau,WuchiLiu,andIrvingLoconstitutetheoppositecategory:westernizedChinese.TheircentersofgravitylieinChinese traditions,thoughlongexposuretotheWesthasenabledthemtonegotiatethelocallinguisticcurrencies.Thisshiftinperspectiveandbackgroundistelling,particularly withreferencetoaudiences.WaleyandPoundaddressedaudiencesalmostexclusivelyWestern:theymadetheirmarkwithEnglishspeakingreaderswhoseldom knewChinese.NoChinesenotwesternizedwouldevenhavehadaccesstotheirwork.Butthetranslatorsofthelatergenerationmustrespondtothreeaudiences: first,thenonChineseEnglishspeakingreaderswhodonotknowChinesesecond,thenonChineseEnglishspeakingreaderswhoknow(orwhoarelearning) Chinesethird,theEnglishspeakingnativeChinesereaders.Thissituationmeansthatfewertranslationswillgounchallenged,whetherfromtheleft,right,ormiddle. Butifburdensonthetranslatorhavebeencompounded,stilltheopportunitiesthatnowpresentthemselvesshouldnotbeoverlooked.Fortheaudiencethatthe translatoraddressestodaycomprisessignificantnumbersofreaderswhocommandthenativeChinesetraditionaswellasthosewhoare"natively"familiarwith English:indeed,insomecases,thesequalificationsmaycoincideinthesameindividual,whethersinicizedWesternerorwesternizedChinese.("Wehavemetthe audience,andtheyareus.")Welcomeasthisinfusionofmultipletalentsanddifferentperspectivesmaybe,aproblemnowarisesthatwasformerlyperhapsnotso pronounced:forintheaudienceonefindsnotmerely"receivers"oftheWord,butalsorival"transmitters."Ifwearetomaintainourintegrityasreceiversandas transmitters,therolesmustbekeptseparate,andourevaluationsoftheeffortsofrivaltransmitterswill

Page69

severelytestourobjectivity.Wewillbecomebettertranslatorsthemorewelearntobebetteraudiencesfortranslation. Beforetheauthorswhoareourmasters,andthemasterworksthatareourinspiration,itwouldbeapityifalltheaudiencesawwerethepettysquabblesoftranslators. Heretheethicsoftourismandthoseoftranslationarethesame.Forincourtinganaudience,oraclientele,oneshouldnotbesoinfluencedbytheprospectofgainthat onewillinglyandknowinglydistortstheimageoftheattraction.Intranslationasintourism,onefindsthephenomenonoffactitiousexotica,wheredifferencesare exaggeratedsothattheyprovidebetterspectacles.ThetranslatorsofChineseintoartypidginEnglishorintopseudoconcretepoemsarehawkersofinternational kitsch.Thereisafailureofnerve(aswellasanexcess):themerchantsofculturalsouvenirsseemtoimplythattheauthenticfaremaybetooblandortooforbiddingfor unsuspectingforeigners.Theurgetoexploitthecuriousbetraysacontemptforthefamiliar,andthecontemptrunsbothwaystowardtheinterestedaswellasthe objectsofinterestandmakescuriositiesofthemboth.Thegoodtranslatormustbeconsiderateofbothaudienceandauthor.Isthisconscientiousschizophrenia possible?Orarecompromisesinevitable?DoesthegreaterdistributionofknowledgeablereadersofChinesepoetryinEnglishtranslationhaveliberatingaswellas inhibitingeffects? Letussurveythepublishingsituation.Since1945,courseshaveemergedincollegeanduniversitycurriculainwhichChineseliteratureistaughtintranslation.Partof thistrendismanifestinthepopularityofpaperbackeditionssincetheearlyfifties.TheJadeMountain,publishedbyWitterBynnerincollaborationwithKiangKang huin1929,wentthrougheighteditionsinhardcoverformby19603anotherthreeeditionsofapaperbackreprintappearedsubsequently.TheWhitePony,whichthe tirelessRobertPaynecompiledwithmanycollaborators,waspublishedin1947byJohnDay
3.

Thisneednotindicategreatquantitiessold.Hardcoverprintordersinthe1930swererelativelysmall.Printrunswereprobablyinthe1,000to3,000range.Smallbutsteadysales ofatitlecouldbesustainedbygeneralpublishersthen,butnotnow,althoughexceptionalsmallpresses,likeNewDirections,cantoleratesmallprintrunsandmoremodestsales. Atamaximumestimateof3,000copiesperprinting,IestimatethatJadeMountainsoldunder30,000copiesinthirtyyears,oranaverageoflessthanathousandcopiesperyear.

Page70

Companyandappearedinatleasttwohardcovereditionsitappearedin1960inamassmarketpaperbackeditionandsawatleastthreeprintings. TheGrovePress paperbackeditionofCyrilBirch'sfirstvolumeoftheAnthologyofChineseLiteraturefirstappearedin1967withinthefirsteightyearsofpublicationitsawatleast threeeditions,elevenprintings.5ArthurWaley'sselectivetranslationoftheHsiyuchi(Xiyouji),titledMonkey,hashadatleastelevenprintingswithinfifteenyears afterthepaperbackeditionfirstappeared,undertheGroveimprint,in1958.6JamesJ.Y.Liu'sPhoenixpaperbackeditionoftheArtofChinesePoetryhadatleast fiveprintingsinthetenyearperiodfollowingpublication. ThisrecitalofpublishinghistoryismerelytoremindusofthesignificantincreaseininterestthattranslationsfromtheChineseenjoyedduringthepostwarperiod, particularlyinthe1960s.Clearlytheaudiencehadextendedbeyondcoteriesofpoetryloversorliterati,andthesteadysaleoftitlesatsignificantlevelssuggestsa recurrentmarket."Adoptions"assignedtextsincollegecoursesundoubtedlyaccountforthebulkofthisannualvolume.Thenatureofthisnewaudiencemustbe clearlydistinguishedfromthegeneralreadersandbibliophileswhohadpurchasedTheJadeMountain(inhardcover)attherateofathousandayearoverthirty years.Translationsarenowboughtbystudentsattheinstigationofinstructorsandusedintheclassroom.Thatsomeoftheseteachersarealsopracticingand publishingtranslatorscreatesacircumstancemoreunprecedented(certainlyatthislevelofpopularity)thanwemightimagine.Thetranslatorsofthepastwithrare exceptions(onethinksofHerbertGiles)didnotperformthistripleroleoftranslator,marketerofbooks,andexplicatoroftexts.Waleywasnotaprofessional academic,thoughhehadstudentswhowerePoundmayhavehaddisciples,butnoundergraduatesenrolledunderhimwhousedhistranslations. Thisnewcombinationofrolespresentscleardangers,butthese
4. 5. 6.

MentorBooksissuedthepaperbackeditions,inprintrunsof50,000copiesormore.

Thiswouldindicatefrom55,000to110,000copiesinprint,dependingonthesizeofGrovePress'sprintruns(5,000to10,000).

Salesonthistitlemusthavepickedupafter1963.GrovePresswasconsideringnotrenewingtheirfiveyearreprintagreementwithJohnDayaslateas1962however,fiveeditions haveappearedsince.

Page71

mustbecontrolledbythequalityofthecompetitionavailablefortranslations,bythelimitsofstudentresponsiveness,andbytheprofessionalprobityofthetranslator teacher.Thereisaninherentconflictofinterestonemustguardagainst,leststudentsbereducedtomereconsumersforatranslatorinstructor'sproductions.Whatare theopportunitiesinthisarrangement?First,asanonthespotguideforhisaudience,thetranslatorcanmodifyandreviseaccordingtoaudiencerequirementsandthe dictatesofscholarship.Second,thetranslatorhastheopportunitytotestouthistranslationsondifferentaudiences,eachwithitsownpredilectionsandprejudices. Third,asaprofessionalteacher,thetranslatorcanavailhimselfofvariousversions,eachperhapssuitedtoadifferentlevelofcompetenceintheoriginal.Isit reprehensibletouseWitterBynner'sversionoftheDaoDeJing,whenitpretendstonoscholarlyfamiliaritywiththeoriginaltext?Canonewithgoodconscience recommend(evenwithqualifications)GarySnyder'sfreerenditionsofHanshanwhenother,morefaithfulversionsexistfromfullfledgedscholarssuchasArthur WaleyandBurtonWatson?7 Themischiefthatmightresultfromtheindiscriminateuseoftranslationscanbeminimizedbyaconscientiousevaluationofthestrengthsandweaknessesofeach version.8Thereisnohidingbehindelitistdefensesagainst"uncouthaudiences,"fortranslatorteacherscomprisepartofthataudienceandhaveanenormousinfluence overtherest.Thereisadoublechallenge:notonly"Areaudiencesgettingthetranslationstheydeserve?"butalso"Aretranslationsgettingtheaudiencestheydeserve?" Doesthemalleabilityoftheaudience,theopportunitytoshapeone'sreaders,presentanyspecialadvantagestotheinstructorwhenhetrans
7.

ArthurWaley,"27PoemsbyHanshan,"Encounter12(Sept.1954):310BurtonWatson,ColdMountain:100PoemsbytheT'angPoetHanshan(NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,1970).WuChiyuhasalsoprovidedhelpfulversionswithnoaspirationstoliteratureinT'oungPao43(1957):393450inrecentyears,Hanshanhasbecome availableintwoothercollections:Hanshan:TheWhiteCraneHasNoMourners,trans.JimHardestyandArtTobias(SanFrancisco:TheStone,1978),whichisaselectionforthe generalreaderandThePoetryofHanshan,translatedbyRobertHenricks(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1990),amorescholarlyrenderingintendedforthe student.

8.

HighschoolsintheUnitedStatesnowincludetranslationsofOrientalworks(mostnotablyhaiku)intheirEnglishand"LanguageArts"coursesandarealsoinneedofguidancein selectingfromthebewilderingarrayoftranslationsavailable.

Page72

lates?Ibelieveitdoes.First,byallowinghimtoacknowledgetheinadequacyofanytranslation(includinghisown),hecanofferaglimpseoftherichesthatawaitthe diligentstudentwillingtoundertakearigorousprograminlearningChinese.Ifpointsinthetranslationneedclarification,hecansupplyitastheoccasionarises.The devotedtranslatorwillnotfeeltheimpossibleburdentorendereverything,evenwerethatpossible,foroneofhisobjectiveswillhavebeentopointthewaytothe original.Whereearliertranslationsreplacedtheoriginal,presenttranslationsmayprovideincentivesforexploringtheoriginal.IfweacceptPoggioli'sdictumthat "artistictranslationpresupposes...boththeidealpresenceoftheoriginal,anditsphysicalabsence"(Brower1959:145),theteacherwhousestranslationshasthe obligationtopointouttheunparalleledadvantagesinhavingtheoriginalactivelypresent.Thephilosophyoflanguageeducationhasemphasizedfortoolongonlythe usefulnessofknowingaforeignlanguage:fluctuatingenrollmentsinforeignlanguagecoursesreflectthepovertyofthisrationaleinmotivatingstudentsinterestvaries withchangesintheinternationalmarket.Thestudentmustalsobepersuadedofthevaluesofforeignculturesexpressedandpreservedinlanguage,andinnoway completelytransferabletoanotherculture."DieGrenzenmeinerSprache,"Wittgenstein(1961)wrote,"bedeutendieGrenzenmeinerWelt"(p.49).Atranslationcan onlybringthereadertothethresholdofanewexperience,butonemustacquiretheoriginallanguageifoneistoavailoneselffullyofthatexperience. Thepresenceintheaudienceofprofessionaltranslatorsandscholarsfortranslationis,Ithink,ahealthycorrectivetothesmugnessandselfsatisfactionthatwould otherwiseberampant.AsurveyoftranslationsofChineseintoEnglishduringthelatenineteenthcenturyandtheearlytwentiethgivesaclearpictureoftheunpoliced purveyorofculture.ChinesewhocouldcommandEnglish(few,tobesure)wouldhavebeentoociviltoremonstratewithWesternsinophileswhoseloveofthings Chinesewaswellintentionedifoccasionallyawry.Inourday,wemayhaveperhapsgonetoofartotheotherextremeinoureagernesstoremonstrate,sometimes publicly.Thismodernforthrightnessmayfraysomesensibilities,butnodeformationsofChineseworkswillemergeunchallenged.Andthepresenceofinformedand learnedcolleaguescanbeapositiveincentivetostricterandmorerigorousstandards

Page73

andmayleadinductivelytobettertranslations:wewillnoteasilyaccepttheshabbyandthehalfbakedwhenweknowthatourbetterswillsubjectoureffortstothe closestscrutiny.Thereisanotherwayinwhichthepresenceofknowledgeablereadersoftranslationintheaudienceisapositiveboon.Onecanattemptexperiments withthefullassurancethatmiscalculationswillbedetectedandrejectedforthwith:atentativeapproachneednothardenintoorthodoxyforlackofexpertanalysis. LetmeoffertwoinstanceswhereIhavetranslatedwithacertainlicense.BothareveryfamiliartothestudentofChineseliterature,andbothpresentcertainproblems ofcontextandformthatmustberesolved.Mysolutionineachcaseistotakecertainlibertieswiththetext,butalsotoclearlyindicatetheextentofmyculpability.The firstexampleisthefamouspoemwrittenbyCaoZhiatthecommandofhisbrother,theWeiEmperorCaoPi,thesocalled"SevenpacePoem" .Thepoem revolvesaroundthecleverconceitofbeanandstalkstemmingfromthesameplantparallelingthesituationinwhichthesebrothersnowfoundthemselves.CaoZhiwas challengedbyhisbrother,onforfeitofhislife,tocomposeapoemwithinthetimeittookhimtowalksevenpaces.Clearly,theskill(tosaynothingofthedesperation) inthepoemhadtocomeoutintranslationmoreover,iftheconceitistobeconveyed,theEnglishreaderhadtobeprimedforthepersonification,sincethepoem concludeswitharecriminationfromthebeantothestalk.Idecidedthatrhymewasessential,ifthetourdeforcequalityoftheversewastoemerge:composingin rhymeisthemostobviouswaytodemonstrateskillinversification.Ialsodecidedtoomitthearticlebefore"bean"and"stalk"andemphasizethepersonificationby usingcapitalsatechniquenot,ofcourse,availableinChinese.Thisistheresult:
BoilBeantomakeasoup. Addpulseplantstothepotpourri. Underthepot,Stalkfeedsthefire Insidethepot,Beanweepswithworry. "Oncewegrewfromtheselfsameroot, I'mcookednowwhat'syourhurry?"

Thepoignanceofthepoemliespreciselyintherhymes,whichIhavetriedtopreserve:toconveytheconceitthroughprosepara

Page74

phrasewithoutsomemanifestationofthedifficultyoftheexerciseextemporewouldmakethepoemalimpwhiningonthepartofabrothercondemnedtodeath.Still, problemsremainunsolved:''potpourri"isnot,afterall,aperfectrhymefor"hurry"and"worry,"butitsspecialculinaryassociationsmademepreferitto"paste," "broth,""juice,"or"sap"thelastlinexiangjianhetaiji? withoutactuallytranslatingit.ButwhenIwasremindedthatIhadleftitout,Itriedonceagain."I'm cooked"isliteralenough,andhasthevirtueofbeingrecognizable,evenvividEnglish,butthefactthatitisslangdetractsfromthetoneoftheoriginal,whichis,if anything,moreliterary.Still,despitethesemisgivings,Ikepttheversion,andhereappendtheappropriateapologiatointerestedscholarsandstudentsdetailingits inadequacies."Betteralivesparrowthanastuffedeagle,"EdwardFitzGeraldwrotein1859"theliveDogbetterthanthedeadLion"wasthewayhewouldputit twentyyearslater.Ourapologies,whetherinfootnoteformorininformalconfessionstoouraudiences,maybetheyelpsandyapsoflivecursbaying(Kleelike)at themoon.Theyshowhowshortwe'vefallen,howseeminglyunreachableourgoal. Asecondinstanceinvolvesagreaterlibertyandrequiresmoreabjectapology.ThetextisShiyin'sverseexpositionoftheDaoist's"Haoliaoge" inChapter1 oftheHongloumeng.EmboldenedbyDavidHawkes'resourcefulandingeniousrendering,Itriedmyhandattheseverses.Hawkeshadshownhowimportantitis topreservetherhyme.Itseemednotmerelyinappropriatebutwrong,somehow,totranslatetheseverseswithoutrhyme.Theverseswerenotdifficultandhada certainanticqualitythatwouldcertainlybelostinaparaphrase,nomatterhowwellwritten.Thelinesdidnotstrikemeasinspiredpoetry,thoughunderneaththe homiliesandtheconventionalimagerytherewasapoignantphilosophicmelancholy.Thepreviousversions,byC.C.Wang,by
9.

WhenImentionedthisproblemtothenotedArabicistBernardLewis,hesympathizedwithspecialfervorandofferedasaparallelinstancethedifficultyofrenderinglinesof Persianlovepoetrythat,quiteliterally,mean:"Myliverisbroiledlikeakebab!"

Page75

Hawkes,byGladysYangandYangHsienyi,challengedonetostrikeoutinperhapsadifferentdirection:
Ahumbledwelling,anemptyhall, Oncehadnobleplaquesuponthewall. Bythesewispsofgrass,thiswitheredtree, Peopleonceyearsagodancedmerrily. Cobwebscoveredthiswelltooledbeam, Greengauzenowshadesthewindowseam. Whyspeakofpowderedcheeks,madeupfaces? Hairwillturnwhite:timeleavesitstraces. Yesterday,brownearthcoveredwhitebonesnearby Tonight,underdamaskedcurtains,twolovebirdslie. Goldinacasket,silverinapile Aturnoffortune:nowabeggarvile. Evenaswesighatsomeoneelse'sdeath: Weknowwe'llsoonbreatheourownlastbreath. There'sawaytoraiseboyswell, Butwho'stosay,lateron,theywon'traisehell? Givegirlsatasteforchampagne: Who'dthinkthey'dendupinthistawdrylane? Becausethesilkhatisabittoosmall, They'llfityoustraightawaywithacangue. Onceinatatteredjacketonefeltcold: Nowthesepurplerobesofstate:howlongtheyhang! Helterskelter,justasyouend,Ibeginmysong. Totakethe"other"worldforthis:isn'tthatwrong? Oh,howsilly,oh,howmad! Whatmakesamanhappyiswhatmakeshimsad.

Aconscientiousefforthasbeenmadetoretainthefeelingoftheoriginal.Otherswillhavetojudgeiftheversionistooantic,too

Page76

singsong.AstutereaderswillhavenoticedthatIhavedepartedinplacesfromtheliteralimages.Thedeparturesmaybeexcessive,andthelossnotsufficiently compensatedfor.One'slibertiesmaybenomorethanthetranslator'sinabilitiesmasqueradingasrefinementsand,intheend,onemaysimplymisunderstandthetext ormisconstruethecontext.10Butthepointheredoesnotdependonthesuccessorfailureoftheseversions:itisthattheseventuresaremadebecausethereisacritical andconstructiveaudiencewithaccesstotheoriginal.Thereisnoattempttodeceive,forthedeparturesareselfconfessed.Astheonlytranslationavailable,this practicewouldbequitereprehensiblebutasthethirdorfourthalternative,itmayyetbedefensible. Nothingbutconventionpreventsthesharingofconstructivecriticism.Ourbookreviewsareoftenfilledwithsuggestionsthatmighthavebeenusefulbefore publication.Theworkmustalwaysbeaccomplishedbyindividuals:therisksandtheresponsibilitiesultimatelyrestwiththetranslator.Buttheaudienceisanimportant resource:itscontributionmaybetacit(andtoooftenunacknowledged),buttheauthorwhodisregardshisaudiencewill,intime,havenoaudience.Wemaychoose thisfateforourselves,butastranslatorsweareobligedtofindanaudiencefortheauthorsweadmireandwhoseworkswerender.Ourowninadequaciesmaybe exposedintheprocess,butoureffortwillhaveattractedtheappropriatecorrection.Sacrificeswillhaveprovedworthwhile,eveniftheyresultinbetterversionsfrom othertranslators.Noonewhohasexaminedthefaultsofpasttranslationshasnot(iftruthbeknown)benefitedinsomeheuristicwayfromthem.Mistakes correctedsolongastheyaresignificantmistakesconstituteagainininsight.Successesmaybemoredifficulttoacknowledge,butifthestateoftranslatingisto develop,theremustbeyeasayingaswellasnaysaying. Themotleynessoftheaudiencefortranslationisnotdisturbing,foritensuresacorrectiveagainsttheprovincialityofahomogeneouscoterie.Nodoubttherewillbe pedantswhoforgetthat"apoemisinaccessibletotheuncultivatedreaderbecauseofits
10.

AtaconferenceinHongKong,D.C.Lautookpainstopointoutcertainerrorsandinfelicitiesinanearlierrendering.Thisversionhasbenefitedfromthosecriticisms,but intractabilities(aswellasmyownobtuseness)preventmefromremovingallinaccuracies.

Page77

learning,notbecauseofitsart."Andtherewillbephilistineswhoinsistthatonlyselfproclaimed"poets"understandChinesepoetry(evenif,intheiropinion,some Chinesedonot).Motleynessmaybeamongrelvirtue,butthentranslationisamongrelart. Webeganwithanexaminationofthesubmergedandneglectedsensesof"audience,"withthereminderthataudienceshearaswellasread,thattheymaybeactualas wellasmetaphorical.Wehavelookedatthechangesinthemodernaudience,mainlyintheUnitedStates,andnotedshiftsinculturalandoccupationalconstituencies. Wehaveexaminedtheresponsibilitiesofthescholartranslatortotheworkontheonehandandtotheaudienceontheother.Finally,wehaveexploredthe opportunitiespresentedbytherelationshipsbetweentranslatorsandtheiraudiences.Theacademiccontextinwhichtheneedfortranslationsdevelopsmaybethe theaterinwhichanexchangebetweenaudienceandartistmaybeestablished.Ithasbeensaidthat"ShakespearecouldcometotermswithhisaudiencewhileJonson couldnot"(Harbage1941:132).Inthatexchange,Shakespeare'stalentwasdevelopedtothefull.Wecandonothingaboutourindividualliterarygifts,butitwouldbe apityifourtalents,howevermeager,werenotdeveloped.Theaudienceiscontributiveifnotcreative,constructiveifnotdeconstructive:thebettertheaudience,the morecritical,themoredemanding,thegreaterthepossibilitiesforinspiredtranslation.Theaudiencefortranslationcannotbemerelypresentandpassive.Theoriginal belongstoanothertimeandanotherplace,butthetranslationisthecommunalpropertyoftranslatorandaudience.Translationisawillfulanachronism:itrevitalizesa workofthepastandmakesitpartofthepresent.TranslatorsmayfindthemselvesmirroredinPierreMenard,the"author"ofDonQuixote,ofwhomBorgeswrote: ''Menard(perhapswithoutwantingto)hasenriched,bymeansofanewtechnique,thehaltingandrudimentaryartofreading:thisnewtechniqueisthatofthe deliberateanachronismandtheerroneousattribution"(1964:44). Sobrietycompelsustoemphasizethatthe"anachronism"bedeliberate(thatis,knowing)andthatthe"attribution"beclearlylabeledaserroneous.Butitisbythese creativeactsofacknowledgederrorandimperfectionthatthe"haltingandrudimentaryartofreading"isenriched.Translationremainsdoublyvulnerable:itsauthorityis alwaysovershadowedbytheoriginal,itseffectiveness

Page78

continuallyunderminedbythechangingcurrenciesoflanguage.Theoriginalremainsfixedinitsmilieu,anddiligentscholarshipcan,theoretically,excavateits contemporaneousmeaning.Itsmeaningsforsubsequentperiods,differentculturalcontexts,areanachronismsinBorges'sense.Asthemeaningofanyworkliesinthe relationshipsbetweenthewordschosenandthewordsavailableinalanguagebutnotchosen,sothetaskoftranslationistoapproximatebyitschoiceofwordsthe samerelationshipsarrivingatthesameorsimilareffectsinanotherlanguage.ThisiswhatValryspokeofwhenhewrote:"Thisisreallytotranslate,whichisto reconstituteasnearlyaspossibletheeffectofacertaincausebymeansofanothercause"(1958:286).Thereisnowaytomeasurethisexceptonandthrough audiences,whocollaborateonthelanguageusedbythetranslator,eveniftheydonotcollaborateonthetranslation. Oneobserverhassuggestedthatoppositepositionsonlanguageareexpressedintwofamousepigrams,onefromWittgenstein'sTractatus,theotherfromDerrida's Lavoixetlephenomne.11Wittgensteinwrote:"Wovonmannichtsprechenkann,darbermussmanschweigen."("Whatonecannottalkaboutwemustpassover insilence.")Ifthatdictumhadbeenfollowed,onewouldhavebeenridofallthetranslationsoftheDaoDeJing(whichmighthavebeenablessing),butonewould havealsolosttheDaoDeJingitself,foritspeakspreciselyofthataboutwhichonecannotspeak.Translatorsmayfindthesecondepigrammorecongenial."Ilreste alorsparler,fairersonnerlavoixdanslescouloirspoursupplerl'clatdelaprsence,"writesDerrida.("Itremains,then,forustospeak,tomakeourvoices resonatethroughoutthecorridorsinordertocompensatefortheruptureofpresence.'')Thetranslator,knowinglyornot,willhavesubscribedtoDerrida's commitmenttospeechasphenomenon.Andasspeechcannotbedisembodied,cannotexistexceptinacontextofmeanings,utteredorunuttered,translationsmust developinacultureofspeakers,actualorpotential.Wemusthearaswellasread.Audiencesprovideuswithsuchaculture,andtheirparticipationmustbesolicited, ifoneistoavoidproducingworkthatisnotonlyunreadablebututterlyunspeakable.
11.

NewtonGarver,inhisprefacetoJacquesDerrida(1973:xxviixxix).

Page79

5 "DimEmblazonings": ImagesofChineseLiteratureinEnglishTranslation
Amongthemanyengagingmetaphorsappliedtotranslation,perhapsthemostsuggestiveistheonethatcomparesitto"beingkissedthroughaveilexcitingcontact ofasort,nodoubt,ifonehasneverbeenkisseddirectly"(Parker1966:98).Theperceptionofthebrideofone'sdesirethroughthegauzeofaveilwhetherchiffon orlaceunderscoresthesenseofanticipation,andfrustration,thattranslationsinstillinthereaderbentonreadingatextinanotherlanguage.Butformillionswhoread orwhohavereadtranslations,theimageconnotesmorethansexualfrustrationoneisnotvouchsafedanunobstructedviewofthebrideofdesireonemustbecontent togazeatbeautyforeverobscured.Giventhisdistraction,whichaffectseverymonolingualreaderoftranslations,itissurprisingthattherehasbeennosystematicstudy ofthekindsof"veils"whicharenecessarilyinterposedbetweentheoriginalworkandthereaderwhosesoleaccessisthroughtranslation. ThischapterisanattempttoaddressseveralmajorfactorscertainvalencesthataffecttheimageofChineseliteratureseenthroughtheveilofEnglishtranslation. Thoughmanycategoriesmightbeinvokedtoorganizethediscussion,threecanbeestablishedasbeingbothcapaciousandcoherentenoughtowarrantseparate consideration.Theseare,briefly:theconceptualthatwhichincludesphilosophicalnotionsandideas,semanticvaluesandhierarchies,grammaticaldistinctionsand discriminations,differencesinexplicitnessandimplicitnessinmeaning,emphasesthegenericthatwhichincludesmodaldifferencesbetweencertainformsof discourseinonelanguagewiththoseinanother,stylistic

Page80

characteristicspeculiartocertainlanguages,variationsintoneandvoice,nuancestheculturalthatwhichincludesdifferentviewsoftheworld,aswellasdifferent realitiesperceived. ThePowerofBabel Inanearlierchapter,wediscussedthedecisivemythoftheTowerofBabel,persistentforalmostthirtycenturies,whichpositstwopremisesaboutlanguage:first,that therewasatimewhentherewasbutonelanguageandsecond,thatthefragmentationofthepeopleinmutuallyincomprehensiblelanguageswasaconfusioninflicted asacurseagainsthubrisorpresumption. Totakethefirstpoint,acceptingtheassumptionofprelapsarianblessedness,fewquestionthedesirabilityofallpeoplessharingthesamelanguageandstillfewer considertheimprobabilityofaworldwithacommonlanguage.BothdevoutChristiansinvokingareturntoaworldbeforesinandutopianswhoseeeffective communicationasthepanaceatotheworld'sillslongforaworldinwhicheveryoneusesthesamelanguage.Themutualincomprehensibilityoflanguagesisviewedas aninconvenience,abegetterofmisunderstanding,ultimatelyofconflict.Yetitisnotalwaysthecasethatconflictsarisebetweenthosewhodonotspeakeachother's language.NorisitclearthatasinthecaseoftheProtestantsandCatholicsinNorthernIrelandortheEnglishandtheAmericansoftheRevolutionaryperiod sharingacommonlanguagenecessarilyobviatesmutualsuspicionandstrife. Butmodernphilosophersandtheoreticallinguistshavecalledthismonolithicprospectintoquestion:isatrulyuniversallanguagepossible?Mathematicsmightbe viewedasonesuchuniversallanguageinthearenaofinternationaldiscourse,Englishisverynearlyauniversallanguage,justasFrenchmighthavebeentheuniversal languageofdiplomacyinthelastcentury.Computerlanguagestodaybidfairtobecoming"universal"languagesinthesensethattheycutacrossculturaleven linguisticboundaries.Onemightask,however,ifthesearetrulyuniversallanguages,ordotheyrepresentthesupremacyofonecultureoverallothers?Isitpossible forlanguagestobeequivalentlycomprehensivewhenrealitiesconfrontedindifferentlanguagesaredifferent?(Awordfor"iceberg"inArabic?For"sirocco''in Eskimo?)Evenpointsofreference

Page81

ostensiblyneutralandthereforeuniversalarenotalwaysdevoidofculturalbias:thepolarnotionsof"northern"taciturnityand"southern"indolenceareabiasofa NorthernHemisphereperspective:thedirectionswould,presumably,bereversedintheSouthernHemispheresincecoldandwarmclimatestherewouldcorrespond inverselywithNorthernHemisphereequationsof"north"with''cold"and"south"with"warm.""Clockwise"representsaNorthernHemispherebias,ifonecreditsthe originofclocksasimitatingthemovementoftheshadowonasundial.HadtheclockbeeninventedintheSouthernHemisphere,"clockwise"wouldhavebeenits opposite.OnemightpositaNorthernHemispherebiasinhistory,becausemostofrecordedhistorydescribeseventsthattookplaceinthatsectoroftheplanet: Africa,SouthAmerica,andAustraliaarerecentadditionstoourNorthernHemisphericconsciousnesstheirhistoryis,presumably,nolesshoaryorvenerablethan thatoftheEurasianlandmass.TheculturaleventsintheseregionspriortotheAgeofDiscoveryareexcavatedthrougharchaeology,whereasperiodscontemporary withthaterainEuropeandAsiaareaccessiblethroughhistory. Thereareradicaldifferencesinwhatmightbecalledculturalpremises,thatis,thereferencepointsfromwhicheachculturereckonstime,space,andcosmos.Eugene Nidahascitedthedifficultyofpreservingtheforceofthebiblicalinjunction,"Devil,gettheebehindme!"inBolivianQuechua,since,unlikemostcultures,thefuturein thisSouthAmericanIndiancultureisregardednotassomethinginfrontbutassomethingbehind,andthepastisregardednotassomethingbehindbutassomethingin front(Brower1959:12).ThosewhospeakQuechuaconceiveofthepastasknown,subjecttoviewandreview,andhenceitmaybecharacterizedasbeinginfront, somethingwecanseewithoureyes.Thefutureisunknown,notaccessibletoview,behindourbacksitislikenedtosomethingbehindtheseeingeyeandtherefore notavailabletoocularperception.Inthislanguage,then,toplacethedevilbehindwouldbenotsomuchtorenounceevilastoinviteittoputthedevilbehindin Quechuawouldbetoplacehiminone'sfuturetoputhimawayassomethingbelongingtothepastistoputhiminfullview.1
1.

Incidentally,lestonetooreadilyassumetheperversityofthisworldview,contemplatethedifferencesbetweentheimplicitWesternandtheQuechuamodels.

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

Page82

OnPonape,asmallislandinthePacific,thesimpleandseeminglyuniversalnotioninEcclesiastes(2:6)that"thewindblowstothesouth,andgoesroundtothe north"bordersontheridiculousbecausethewindonPonape,onediscovers,blowsonlyandalwaysfromthenortheast.2Therealitiesofprovincialexperience,which determinethelanguageofaregion,willsometimescontraveneconvictionsofameaningfuluniversallanguage. AstothesecondpremiseinthestoryoftheTowerofBabel,thatitrepresentsacurseonhumanityfortheirpresumptionandtheirpride,onecanrelatetoitmore easilyandfind,convenientlyenough,concretemanifestationsoftheBabellikeeffectofpridenipped.Anyone,nomatterhowwelleducated,willknowthefeelingof appearingtobabblelikeamonkeyinanylanguagewithwhichheisunfamiliar.Thehumiliationsoflanguagenottosaylanguagelearningunsensedasachild, particularlywhensalvedwithparentalloveandencouragement,butwellnighinsupportableasanadult,areenoughtoattesttothecogencyofthispartoftheBabel myth. ThetranslationofChineseliteraturerevealsproblemsoflanguagewhichinevitablyaffect,subtlyandnotsosubtly,theattitudesofnonChinesetowardChinaandthe Chinese.Thisinturnwilldistort,favorablyorunfavorably,one'simageofChina.TaketheellipticalnatureoftheChineselanguage,boththevernacularand,evenmore so,theliterary:iftranslatedwordforword,andwithoutthenormalsyntacticandmorphemicmarkersconventionalinEnglishasinmostWesternlanguages,Chinese willsoundeitherterriblydumb(likethewordsofacoolie)orterriblyportentousandoracular(likeCharlieChanathismostaphoristic).Unfortunately,earlier translatorsseizeduponthisdisparityinlanguagetexturetoexploitaverydubiouskindoflinguisticexotica.Thetruthis,ofcourse,thattheChinesearenodumberor wiserthanmostpeople. Ordinarydiscoursemaybenormalizedintofamiliaridiomatic (footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
IntheWestern,significantly,theimplicitmodelisofapersoninprogress,walkingforward,whichiswhythefuturemayberightbeforeoureyesandweareunabletoseeit whereastheQuechuamodelassumesapersonstandingstill:heknowsthepastandhencecanbesaidtoseeit,buthedoesnotknowandcannotseethefuture,whichiswhyit mightbeconceivedofasbeingbehind.
2.

Iowethisinformationtoaformerstudent,JamesAbrams,whoisnowbureauchieffortheAssociatedPressinBeijing.

Page83

speech.Intranslation,onecanapplyprojectedculturalequivalents:whatwouldanoblemansayinEnglishthataChinesejunziorliteratussaysinChinesehowmight peasantssoundineitherlanguagewhatistheidiomofthevulgarandthevenalinbothlanguages?Imaginativetranspositionservesintheseinstancesaseffective translation,thoughinveryfewcaseswoulditinvolveawordforwordrenderingthearbitrarystructureofidiombeingwhatitis.Thesecaseswillbeillustratedlater. Whenitcomestouniquephilosophicorpoeticlanguage,however,nosuchequivalencesareavailable,norwouldtheybeappropriateeveniftheywere.Confucius shouldnotsoundlikeAristotle,becausehedoesnotthinklikeAristotlenorDuFulikeShakespeare.Thereareinherentpeculiaritiesnotonlyinthecharacterofthe languagebutinthecharacteroftheparticularwriterusingtheresourcesofthatlanguage.Inthiscontext,consideroneofthemostremarkablestatementsmadeby LudwigWittgenstein:"Glaubenicht,dassallesDummheitistwasDunichtverstehenwirst"(Donotthinkthatwhateveryoudonotunderstandmustbestupid). Somehow,itissignificantthatthiswassaidinGerman(theEnglishispallidbycomparison)andthatitwassaid,inthesecondpersonfamiliarform,toBertrandRussell (letterof6December1919,inconnectionwithWittgenstein'sTractatusLogicoPhilosophicusseeWittgenstein1974a).Theexchangeisbothanallusionto,andan exampleof,theintractabilitiesoflanguageinconveyingmeaning. Thereverenceonehasfor"authorities,"particularlyiftheyare"classical,"makesoneshudderinitiallyattheimpudenceofC.K.Ogdensaying,inhis1932essayon Opposition,"InviewofthenaiveverbalbasisofallAristotle'slogicalwork,itisnotsurprisingthatOpposition,inwhichthelanguagefactorpredominates,presented insuperabledifficulties.Hiscompletedependenceononelanguage,beforeevengrammaticaldistinctionshavebeensystematized,washardlylessofahandicapthan theprimitivestateofGreekscience''(pp.2324).Reverenceaside,however,OgdenmerelypointstowhatStructuralistsandPoststructuralists,followingNietzsche, mightfashionablycall"theprisonhouseoflanguage."Ogdenissayingthat,howeverprofoundathinkerAristotlewas,hewas,nevertheless,impairedbyhis monolingualism.The"bars"oftheprisoninvolveseveraldifferentkindsofincarceration:therestrictionofthingsnotrecognized("icebergs"inArabic),whichdeny

Page84

theexistenceofphenomenanotrecognizedinthelanguagetherestrictionofdistinctions"reified,"agenericfallacy,inwhichcategoriesaretakenfortheconstituentsin thecategory,whendistinctionsbecomemorerealthanthethingsperceived. InthecaseofChinese,I.A.Richards,inhisMenciusontheMind(1932),putitsuccinctly:"Chinesethinkingoftengivesnoattentiontodistinctionswhichfor Westernmindsaresotraditionalandsofirmlyestablishedinthoughtandlanguagethatweneitherquestionthemnorevenbecomeawareofthemasdistinctions.We receiveandusethemasthoughtheybelongedunconditionallytotheconstitutionofthings(orofthought).Weforgetthatthesedistinctionshavebeenmadeand maintainedaspartofonetraditionofthinkingandthatanothertraditionofthinkingmightneitherfinduseforthemnor...beabletoadmitthem"(pp.34).Take,for example,thesimpleandfamiliardistinctionof"heart"and"mind."PerhapssinceGalen,thesetwoorganshavebeencharacterizedintheWestasthe"feeling"organ andthe"thinking''organ.Modernanatomywouldseemtocorroboratethisspecializationoffunction.Chinese,ontheotherhand,usesthesamewordxinfor"heart" and"mind."Farfromposingproblemsofexposition,theremaybesomethinginafusingtogether,nottosayconfusionsomuchasaconflation,ofthetwonotionsfor withmostactsofconation,determination,will,perception,sensibility,thefacultiesofboththinkingandfeelingareengaged:itisusuallydifficulttodeterminethe proportionofreasontoemotionintheeffusionsofxin,"heartmind.""Tothinkwiththeheart,"and"tofeelwiththemind,"aredistinctionsinEnglishthatmightbe suggestiveinChinese,theywouldbeequivalentandtautologous. Or,totakeaconverseexample,considertheconceptof"soul"inEnglish:usuallycontrastedwiththecorporealessence,with"body,"thesoulexistsconcurrentlywith thebodywhenitisalive(eitherinthesameplaceorindifferentplaces,ifoneacceptscertainnotionsoftelekinesisandmindtransport),anditsurvivesthebodyafter death,towandertheearth,ortoenterheaven,hell,orpurgatory,ortobeginanewreincarnation(dependingonwhetheronebelievesinghosts,Christianity,or Buddhism).InChinese,however,therearetwosouls:po .Thecorporealsoul,thepo,stayswiththebody,anditdieswiththebody:itmightbelikenedto thevitalforce,thespiritofaperson,his"lanvital,"asHenri

Page85

Bergsonmightsay.Butthereisanothersoul,thehun,whichisnotboundtothefleshandwhichcanroamatsomedistancefromthebody.OnetropeofChinese poetryisthetransport,acrossvastdistances,ofthehuntovisitfriendsindreams.Ifthedistanceisconsiderable,thisisusuallytakentobeanindicationofaperson's death,sincethehunisconceivedofbeingabletoroamfurtherthanaregionaldistanceonlywiththedeathofthebody,andonlywhenseparatedfromthepo.A famousstanza,byonepoetintheTangdynastywhoencounteredanotherpoetinhisdreams,expressingconcernthatthefriendmaybedead,sincehishunseemsso wideranging,exploitsthisbelief:

Oldfriend,youappearedinadream. Itshowsyouhavelongbeeninmythoughts. Perhapsitwasnotyourlivingsoul: Theway'stoofar,itcouldn'tbedone.3

Theopaquenessoflanguage,asopposedtoitstransparency,isanaspectnotoftenappreciated:itmaybe,asGeorgeSteinermaintains,thatthe"relevantframework isnotoneofmoralitybutofsurvival."Thecamouflageoflanguage,impenetrabletotheuninitiated,butsoobviousastogounnoticedbythoseintheinnercircle,may beoneoftheunappreciatedbenefitsofBabelianlanguage.Steinerstressesthepoweroflanguagetoobfuscate:"Ateverylevel,frombrutecamouflagetopoetic vision,thelinguisticcapacitytoconceal,misinform,leaveambiguous,hypothesize,inventisindispensabletotheequilibriumofhumanconsciousnessandtothe developmentofmaninsocieties.Onlyasmallportionofhumandiscourseisnakedlyveraciousorinformativeinanymonovalent,unqualifiedsense....Humanspeech concealsfarmorethanitconfidesitblursmuchmorethanitdefinesitdistancesmorethanitconnects"(1975:229).Withhisdazzlinggiftforaphorism,Steinerputsit memorably:''Inthebeginningthewordwaslargelyapassword."QuotingVelimirKhlebnikov'sdictum,"Wordsarethelivingeyesofsecrecy,"Steinerproceedstothe characterizationoflanguageasnotsomuchstraightforwardcommunicationashermeticintercoursecombinedwithexogamousexclusion.Languages,Steiner continues,"encode,preserve,andtransmittheknowledge,

3.

DuFu,"DreamingofLiBai,1"translationminecf.LiuandLo(1975:128).

Page86

thesharedmemories,themetaphoricalandpragmaticconjecturesoflifeofasmallgroupafamily,aclan,atribe.Maturespeechbeginsinsharedsecrecy,in centripetalstorageorinventory,inthemutualcognizanceofaveryfew"(p.231). InthecaseofChinese,thesestrictureshaveaparticularandcomplexrelevance.LiteratureinChinahasbeentraditionallyseparatedbetweenwhatmightbe characterizedasabelletristicsegmentandavernacularsegment.4"Literaryliterature"becameintimeliteraturetowhichaccesswascommandedonlybytheeducated andthelearned:allusions,paranomasia,allegory,privatereferences,allservedtoexcludetheuntutoredeye,evenwhiletheyadmitted(andrewarded)theinitiated. Thevernacularaudiencewhichonemightcallthe"illiterati"couldunderstandthespokenlanguagetheyhadarudimentaryreadingknowledge,buttheywouldnot bewellversedinthearcanaofthelearned.Thissituation,clearasitmightbeforanycontemporaryperiod,isconfusedbythevagariesofhistory.Fortheworks producedforliteratisometimesacquireapopularityinsubsequentgenerationsamongtheilliteratiandsimpleproductionsoftheilliteratisometimesacquireclassic statusamongtheliterati.Certainly,amoredistinguishedandlearnedgroupcouldnothavebeenassembledbyKingJamestheFirsttoretranslatetheBibleyetthis learnedproductionhas,notwithoutsomeearlydifficulties,becomeapopularclassic,citedwithfamiliarityandreverencebytwentiethcenturyAmericans,inand outsidetheBibleBelt,whohavenopretentionstoeducationorlearning.LewisCarroll'sfables,writtenforaveryspecialized,evenprivate,audience,haveacquireda popularitythathecertainlydidnotenvision.Theconverseshiftofproductionsfortheilliteratiacquiringa"classic"patinapiercedonlybyasubsequentgenerationof theeducatedmightbeseeninsomeofthemostfamiliarauthors:Homer'sIliadandOdyssey,composedfortheilliterati,asMilmanParryandAlbertLordhave shown,havebecome"textbook"classicsinschoolsanduniversities,asourceworkforscholarsandstudentsDante'sCommedia,whosepopulistcharacteris underlinednotonlybytheuseoftheword''Commedia"inthetitle
4.

Iavoidthe"elite"/"popular"distinctionbecauseitobscuresratherthanclarifiestheissue:some"literary"writerswithaccesstothebelletristictraditionwerevery"popular."

Page87

butalsobythechoiceofvernacularItalianoverthemoreliteraryLatin,isnowthefavoriteofelitistacademicsShakespeare,accordingtocontemporarysources,was afairlypopularplaywrightinhisday,whoproducedwhatmighthavebeencharacterizedas"potboilers"topleasethevernacular,evenboisterous,Elizabethan audience,yettheleastofhisworksisexaminednowbyafraternityofscholarsthatcanhardlybecharacterizedas"rabble."(Ironically,the"rabble"ofourdayseemto havenotasteforShakespeare.) IntheChineseinstance,thetwocontrastivedevelopmentscanbeepitomizedbytwoparadigmaticworks,bothrelatedtoConfucius.TheLunyu,usuallytranslated TheAnalects,comprisesconversationsthemasterhadwithhisdisciples,certainlyamongthemostintellectualandlearnedofthatera.Yet,inthecourseofhistory,the LunyuhasbecomesuchafamiliarpartofthemainstreamtraditioninChinathatepisodes,phrases,andaphorismsfromthetextareasfamiliartotheunletteredandthe uneducatedastotheliterati.AconverseinstancewouldinvolvetheShijing,usuallytranslatedTheBookofSongsorTheBookofOdes,whichConfuciusisbelieved tohavecompiled,andwhichherecommendedtohisstudentsasatextthatwouldteachthemabouthumanrelationshipsaswellastheworldaroundthem.Morethan halfofthepoemsinthiscollectionof305songsarefolksongs,gleanedfromthetraditionalmusicalpatrimonyofthepeasants,andinvolvingappealstolove, complaintsaboutwar,resentmentsagainstthebureaucracy,celebrationsoftheharvest,andsoforth.Despitethese"illiterate"origins,andlargelythroughtheauthority ofConfucius'recommendation,theShijinghasbecomethestapleforgenerationsofscholarsandcommentators,allegorists,publicofficials,ministers,mostofwhom hadsympathiesforthepeasantsthatwereindirectatbest. Therelevanceoftheseconsiderationstotranslationissubtle.First,forhermeticworksaddressedtoexclusiveaudiences,howdoesthetranslatorconveythemeaning ofthetextandatthesametimepreserveitsexclusivenessinshort,itstransparencyfortherightaudienceanditsopaquenessforthewrongaudience?Second,for popularworksaddressedtogeneralaudiences,howdoesonehandlereferencesthatwerecontemporaneouslyfamiliaratthetime,butwhichhavenowbeenobscured byhistoryinshort,howtoremovethehazinessthathistoryhasaddedtothetransparency

Page88

forcontemporaryaudiences?Andwhataboutworks,likeSpenser'sFaerieQueene,whichweredeliberatelyarchaicizedbytheauthorevenforhisowntime?These perspectivesdonotadmitofreadysolutions:theyareexploredinthiscontexttoelicitasenseoftheambivalenttaskoftranslationofpreservinganappropriatedegree ofopaquenessaswellastransparency.Consider,finally,differencesinconceptualvaluations:anotionassimpleas"emptiness,""nullity,""void."IntheWest,the generalsenseof"emptiness"isnegative:"Mylifeisempty''"Thatphilosophyisemptyofcontent""Thatcodicilisnullandvoid""There'savoidinmylife."Chinese notionsofxukong whichmayberenderedas"nothingness"arenotconsistentlysonegative(seeAbe1985). FromtheDaoDeJing(TaoTeChing)comesthetypicallyconcretepragmatumwhichprovidesthemetaphorforthephilosophicalinsight:

Thirtyspokesconvergeonthehubofawheel:itisonnothingness(wu: )thatthefunctionofthecartdepends.Claymaybemoldedintoavessel:itisonnothingnessthatthe functionofthevesseldepends.Doorsandwindowsaremadetoformaroom:itisonnothingnessthatthefunctionoftheroomdepends.Therefore,turnbeingtoadvantage,and nothingnesstofunction.

TheZhuangzi(Chuangtzu)offersarecommendationthatwouldruncountertomostoftheactivistexhortationsfoundinWesternphilosophers,reformers,and proselytizers:inthethirtythirdchapter,Zhuangziciteshismaster,LaoTan(Laozi),whoadvocatedprinciplespromotingtheGreatUnity(taiyi ),ofwhich "yieldingandhumilityaretheoutwardmanifestationandvacancyandemptinessandnondestructivenesstowardallcreationitsinneressence."Thesourcesofwisdom andpoetryfortheChinesewerenotintheintimationsofthesoulortheemotionsoftheheartbutinanemptymind(tobecontrastedwithfamiliarbutoppositenotions ofbeing"emptyheaded").Ofthemanythatmightbecitedasexamples,threeshortpoemsofHanshan,the"ColdMountain"poet,areillustrative. Thefirstreflectstheadmonitionto"emptythemindandkeepitstill":

Page89 Ienjoythewayofmyeverydaylife Amongthemistyvinesandtherockycaves. Thoughtsinthewildaresomuchfreer. Longtimecompanions:thedriftingclouds. Thereareroads,buttheyleadnowhere. Nothingonmymind,whocandisturbme? Onabedofstone,Isitaloneatnight AstheroundmoonclimbsupColdMountain [QuanTangshi4686:23b]5

Thesymbolofperfectemptinessisthe"zero"ofthe"roundmoon"climbingupthemountain,thereflectionofthe"nothingonmymind,"or,moreprecisely,thestateof "nomind"(wuxin: ):
WhereIdwellthereisacave, Atthecenter,notathing. Pureandimmaculate,theemptychamber Brightandglorious,theradiantsun. Vegetablesnourishthisslightframe, Acloakofpeltcoversthisillusorything. Takeyourepiphanyofathousandsaints: IhavetherealBuddhaofheaven. [QuanTangshi4683:17a ]

Thereferencestotheself"thisslightframe,""thisillusorything"arenottropesofmodestyorselfeffacementbutdescriptionsofasensibilitybeing"refinedoutof existence."ThevisionofHanshaninthispoemremindsoneof"TheSnowMan"inWallaceStevens'poemofthattitle,who,"nothinghimselfbeholds/Nothingthatis notthereandthenothingthatis."Therefinementoftheselftononbeingisaprimedesideratumofknowledgeand

5.

Translationsaremineunlessotherwiseindicated.

Page90

knowing.Theimmanenceofphenomenonisneversowellperceivedaswhentheperceiverisvirtuallyabsent,theobjectofperceptionvividlypresent.Thisismanifest inHanshan'sshortpoemthatreads:
Greenrills,springwatersclear ColdMountainmoonlightwhite. Silentknowledge:thespirit'sselfenlightenment Contemplatethevoid:theworldexceedsstillness. [QuanTangshi4679:9a ]6

Thecharacterizationofvoidasinfinity,ofemptinessasplenitude,ofnothingnessasthesourceofallcreationallthesearesuggestedinthesebrieflines.Elsewhere theyaresymbolizedbythefullroundmoon(or,inJapanesepoetry,bytheimageofthemoonreflectedinapond).Butthereferencestothevoidsuggestpeaceand calm:theybespeaknodissatisfactionoranxiety,noangstthatisapprehensiveaboutannihilation,nodesperatenihilism. Thegenerallyacceptednotionthattranslation,evenwithoutobviousfaultsandmistakes,isimpossible,particularlywhenrenderingpoetry,maybeviewednotasa sourceofmischiefandignorance,butasamodeofinsightandunderstandingevenselfknowledge.Whatmakestranslationimpossiblearetheintractableand incomparablepeculiaritiesofdifferentlanguages:notwolanguagesembodythesameexperienceorsetofexperiences,promotethesamevalues,encounterthesame phenomena,engagethesameperceptions.Whatisanabsolutefailureintranslationmaybearelativegaininselfawareness:thestrictgrammarianofEnglishequates meaningwithsyntaxandfindsitdifficulttoconceivethatculturehasdevelopedinChinaevenaconsiderableifunsystematicsciencewithalanguagethatdoesnot conformtoeventhebasicgrammaticalrulesofWesternlanguages,thatdoesnotevenspecifynumber,tense,or,onoccasion,partofspeech.ConverselyaChinese student,gradeddownforwritinginungrammaticalEnglish,mightplead,withsomejustice:"Whydoyouneedtenses,numbers,andalltheothergrammatical complications,whenweChinesehavebeenperfectlyabletoexpressourthoughtsforoverthreethousandyearswithoutthem?"(Mish1970:24).
6.

IborrowthelastlinefromGarySnyder'srendering(1969:47).

Page91

Itwouldbebanaltodecrythedifficultiesoftranslationwithoutrecognizingtheirindispensability.Wehavealreadysuggestedthatthedevelopmentofcivilizationaswe knowitcouldnothaveoccurredwithouttranslation.Theinadequaciesofanylanguage,itsbiases,itslimitations,itspeculiargenius,willrarelybecomeasevidentas throughtranslation.Wittgenstein'scritiqueoflanguage(1953:47e)isclearlyconcreteandmetaphoric:

Themorenarrowlyweexamineactuallanguage,thesharperbecomestheconflictbetweenitandourrequirement....Theconflictbecomesintolerabletherequirementisnowin dangerofbecomingempty.Wehavegotontoslipperyicewherethereisnofrictionandsoinacertainsensetheconditionsareideal,butalso,justbecauseofthat,weare unabletowalk.Wewanttowalk:soweneedfriction.Backtotheroughground!

The"roughground"istraversed,marked,andmappedintranslation,whererelevantfailuresarefertile.ThemythofBabelalludedtoapreBabelianworldwhere everyonespokethesameEsperantoorInterlingua:nothingatleasttothemodern,secular,perhapsatheistsensibilitycouldbelessinvitingorlessinspiring.The powerofBabeliswhatfuelsourcontinuingfascinationwithotherworlds,withwhatSteinercalls"alternities"whatextendsourvisionbeyondourownhorizons (Wittgenstein's"DieGrenzenmeinerSprachebedeutendieGrenzenmeinerWelt'')what,ironically,andinthelastanalysis,enablesustoknowourselves,throughthe mentalhabitthatanalysishasinuredusto:bycontrastingtoourselveswhatwearenot.TheSocraticinjunction,"Knowthyself,"takesoncomplexramifications,for onlybyknowingothers,anddistinguishingoneselffromthem,canonetrulyknowoneself.Theactofknowingoneselfinevitablyinvolvesanattempttolearnaboutthe other. BlurredMelodies OneofthemostdeplorablecharacteristicsofmanyEnglishtranslationsofChinesepoetryisthattheyallsoundalike.Itis,Isuppose,theliteraryequivalentofthe OccidentalprovincialitythatrefusestodistinguishoneOrientalfromanother(Eoyang1975:76).IncommentingonthetranslationsofChineseliterature,Ihavetaken

Page92

exceptionnotonlytospecificlapsesintranslationbutalsotothestylisticuniformityoftranslationsbydifferenttranslators,aswellasbythesametranslator.For example,therewasatimewhenalltranslationsfromtheChinesesoundedalike,whetherfromthepenofHerbertGilesorJamesLegge.WiththeadventofArthur Waley,therewasanimprovement.Waley'stranslationsaredistinctivelyhisandmaybedistinguishedfromotherrenderings.Butintranslatingmanyworksfrom differentperiods,Waley'sversionshavethedisadvantageofsoundingalwayslikeWaley.Itisasifthesametranslator"homogenized"inatargetlanguagesuch disparateworksasSappho'spoems,Virgil'sepic,Pindar'sodesimagine,tochangethebackdropandnarrowthescope,ifnotthecontrast,WaltWhitmansounding inChineseexactlylikehiscontemporaryEmilyDickinson.Inasense,howeversuccessfulWaley'sproductionsmaybe,theyfailtoconveythesheervarietyofChinese literature.Hemadenoapologiesforthistendencyandopenlyconfessedthathetranslatedwhathefeltasympathyfor.Theworkshetranslatedmayhaveagreater varietythanheconveyed,butitmaybesaidthattheysharedaqualitythatattractedhisattention.Hisprincipleofselection,tosaynothingofhismethodoftranslation, wouldtendtoemphasizethesimilaritiesbetweenworksthatherenderedmorethantheirdifferences.Whenone'sviewofotherculturesandpeoplesis undiscriminating(asopposedtodiscriminatory),themostoutlandishandmemorable,ifexaggerated,imageswillprevail.Oneisofferedeithertheobsequious,self effacingsycophantorthesinister,inscrutablemaskofevil:theseimagesoftheChinesewillbeimmediatelyfamiliar.Inboth,thereisadistortionofthetruelineaments ofcharacterandindividuality. ToseehowevensympatheticregardforChinesemoresmaybemischievous,letuslookatatranslationbyFlorenceAyscoughandAmyLowellinabook,titledFir FlowerTablets,publishedin1921,ofthefirstofLiPo'sfamous"Changgan"poems.Theoriginalreads: qiefaqufuo/zhehuamenqian ju("Whenmyhairfirstbegantocovermyforehead,/Ipickedflowersandplayedoutsidethehouse").Thereferenceto"my"inthefirstlinereflectsthewordqiein theoriginal.Thewordisaselfdeprecatingreferencetotheselfinthiscaseusedbyawifeaddressingherhusband.Thecharacterofthewordisrestrainedand unobtrusive.ButtheselinesarerenderedbyAyscoughand

Page93

Lowellasfollows:"WhenthehairofyourUnworthyOnefirstbegantocoverherforehead,/Shepickedflowersandplayedinfrontofthedoor"(p.28).Notehow theqiehasassumedagrandeurandgrandiosityinthecapitalized"UnworthyOne."TheoriginalwordinChinesemeans,simply,"I,"withasuggestionofself deprecationanddeference.Totranslatethatas''UnworthyOne"isgesturallycontradictory:thetonebeliesthemeaning.It'sasifoneweretoboastaboutone's humility. Next,thereferencetooneselfinthethirdperson"Shepickedflowers"totallymisconstruesthestanceofthewomaninthepoem,whichisselflessdevotion,not imperiousselfimportance.ThesewordsrecallaGertrudeStein,notatraditionalChinesewoman.Whatismisleadingabouttheselinesiswhatiswrongwithsomany WesterndepictionsofChinese:theyreekofostentatioushumility.Now,thiscodeofmodestymaybeconspicuousintheWest,butitisnowhereexceptionalin ConfucianChina.Thus,whilethetranslatorshavecapturedthesenseofhumilityinthelines,theyhavetotallymisrepresenteditsbearing.Thenextlinethenremoves anyvestigesofgenuinemodestyleftinthepoem.Itreads:"Thenyou,myLover,cameridingabamboohorse."Takenasanearnestexpression,thisbordersonthe antictakenasarecollectionofchildhoodcourtship,itbecomesludicrous.TheChineseismuchmorecircumspect:thereiswitandirony,andnothingnearlysoheavy handed:langqizhumalai .Thisversionhastendernessoffeelingwithoutlossofdistanceandrespect.Thesenseofselfimportance,sointrusiveinthe AyscoughandLowelltranslation,istotallyabsent,asitisintheoriginal.Selfeffacingrestraint,inAyscoughandLowell,turnstoselfassertivepride:"Atfourteen,"the girlsaysintheirversion,"IbecamethewifeofmyLord."Whatshouldhavebeenafondrecollectionofmaritaldevotionturnsouttobeareminiscenceofsocial precocity.(Ofcourse,thedifferenceinthemoresofcontemporaryWesternsocietyandnuptialcustomsoftheTangperiodcreatesadditionaldistortion:themarriage ofafourteenyearoldgirlwouldbeabnormalnowitwouldnothave

Page94

beenthen.)Theselfimportanceinthewoman'stoneemergesfullblowninAyscoughandLowell'srenderingoflines2325,culminatinginashift,withinthesame line,fromthefirstpersontothethird:
ItistheEighthMonth,thebutterfliesareyellow, Seeingthem,myheartisbitterwithgrief,theywoundtheheartofthe UnworthyOne.

TheselfdeprecatoryqieintheChinesenowassumessuperogatoryproportions.Wenowhaveanimperiousfemaleissuingdirectionstoherspouseabroad "Preparemefirstwithaletter,"sheadvises,"bringingmethenewsofwhenyouwillreachhome!"Thisshiftintoneleadsthetranslatorstoanoutrightmistranslation. Forthelasttwolinesarequietlytouching: Xiangyinbudaoyuan/ZhizhiChangfengsha(''Wherewemeetcannotbecalledfar,/And I'dgoallthewaytoCh'angfengsha").Thepointisthat,inhereagernesstoseeherhusband,thewifewillventureoutafairdistancetowelcomehimhome.Ayscough andLowellconverttheselinesintoaniggardlymeasureoftheextenttowhichshewilltravel:"Iwillnotgosofarontheroadtomeetyou,"theirversionreads,"Iwill gostraightuntilIreachtheLongWindSands."Strangewelcomethatputslimitsonhowfaronewillgo!IfthecommentariesarecorrectinlocatingChangganvillagein thedistrictofJiangning,afewmilessouthofJiankang(presentdayNanjing,orNanking),andifChangfengsha(Ch'angfengsha)liesinthepresentdaydistrictof GuichiinAnhuiprovince,7thenthedistancewouldbeoverahundredmilesupriverontheYangtze,anotinconsiderabledistanceatanytime. ThedesiderataforagoodtranslatorwereenunciatedbyDr.SamuelJohnsoninhisessayonDryden:"Heistoexhibithisauthor'sthoughtsinsuchadressofdictionas theauthorwouldhavegiventhemhadhislanguagebeenEnglish:ruggedmagnificenceisnottobesoftenedhyperbolicalostentationisnottoberepressednor sententiousaffectationtohaveitspointblunted."IntherenderingofAyscoughandLowell,whatwasdisarminganddemureemergesasstridentandbossy.
7.

T'angshihsanpaishouhsianghsi(Taiwan:Chunghuashuchedition,1973),p.44.

Page95

OneofthemostcriticaldifferencesbetweenChineseandmost,ifnotall,Westernlanguagesisthenormativeomissionofsubjectoragentinasentence.InEnglish,the omissionofasubjecthasmorphemicsignificance,indicatingtheimperativemood.InChinese,bothinpoetryandinprose,intheliteraryaswellasthevernacular language,thesubjectisoftenimplieditisleftunspecified.TheresultintheseinstancesistogivetothetextureofChinesemoreofthequalitiesofwhattheSoviet linguistLevVygotskycalled"innerspeech.""Predication,"Vygotskywrote,''isthenaturalformofinnerspeechpsychologically,itconsistsofpredicatesonly.Itisas muchalawofinnerspeechtoomitsubjectsasitisalawofwrittenspeechtocontainbothsubjectsandpredicates"(1962:145).Vygotsky'sanalysisisilluminating, evenifitisethnocentric:

Innerspeechisnottheinterioraspectofexternalspeechitisafunctioninitself.Itstillremainsspeech,i.e.,thoughtconnectedwithwords.Butwhileinexternalspeechthought isembodiedinwords,ininnerspeechwordsdieastheybringforththought.Innerspeechistoalargeextentthinkinginpuremeanings.Itisadynamic,shifting,unstablething. [p.149]

Inthiscontext,onemightsuggestthatChineseisclosertoinnerspeechthanEnglish.Thereisperhapsmoreofthefunctioningofinnerspeechinliterarydiscoursein ChinesethanoneencountersinEnglish.WhenVygotskywrites,"Ininnerspeech,the'mutual'perceptionisalwaysthere,inabsoluteformtherefore,apractically wordless'communication'ofeventhemostcomplicatedthoughtsistherule"(p.145),onerecognizestheexperienceofreadingChineseliterature.Partofthedifficulty oftranslatingChineseliteratureliespreciselyinpreservingthisprivilegedaccesstoformsof"wordless'communication.'"Chiefamongthesemodesofaccessare allusionandperiphrasis.Tocitebutonebriefyettypicalinstance,letuslookatashortlyricbytheSungpoetXinQiji(HsinCh'ichi11401207):

TotheTune:"InSearchofFragrantGrasses" Therearesomanytears I'matlooseends,amongsomanyquiltcovers Thepillowsaren'tright,nomatterwherethey'reput. Goodoldtimes,howcanIsleep?

Page96 Stillnoletter? HowcanIbearthegeesemockingme? Theysaythere'snonews,yetthere'saletter'smeaning Rowuponrow:onewordafteranother. [QuanSongCiiii:1907]

Asimpleenoughpoem:thesituationisclear.Thepersonaislongingfornewsfromafriend,perhapsalover,butthelastthreelinesseemfarfetched,ifunmistakable. Whyarethegeesemocking?Andhowdotheymock?Whatsituationwouldexplaintheparadoxofthepenultimateline:"there'snonews,yetthere'saletter..."The wordshereareclearcasesinwhichthemeaningasVygotskywouldsaydoesnotcorrespondtothesense.Thelastlinemightmoreliterallybetranslated(instead of"Rowuponrow:onewordafteranother"):"Formationseveral:'man,''man'words."This,however,makesevenlesssense. Theelementof"wordless'communication'"inthislineinvolvesthepictographiccharacteroftheChinesewrittenlanguageandtheVformationofmigratinggeese.The Chinesewordfor"man"is,whichschematicallyresembleswhatanEnglishspeakingreadermightcall"aninvertedV."Thisconfiguration,asanyonewhohaswatched flyinggeesewillattest,correspondstothemigratingformation.Hence,traditionally,theChinesehavetakentothinkingofflyinggeeseinformationasakindof"air mail,"anavianskywriting.ThecoincidenceofaformationofgeeseresemblingawordinChineseandnotanywordatthat,butthewordfor''man"or"person" wouldnaturallyelicitaconventionalconceitof"lettercarrying"geese.(InEnglish,thecoincidenceof"letter"asalphabetand"letter"asmissiveprovidesanapposite pun.) Thelastlinesofthepoemnowmakesense:the"meaningful"configurationofthegeeseinformationisseenasataunttothepersonathatmessagesareinfact"winging over,"evenifthespecificletterlookedforhasnotyetarrived.Themockeryofthegeeseisconventionalitscontextofmeaningiswordless,unstated. Anotherinstanceinvolvesalegendaboutagreatking,who,whenaskedasayoungmanwhathewouldbecome,merelytookastickanddrewonehorizontallinein thedirt.Inthissimple,seeminglygnosticactlietwomeanings:first,asthehorizontallinesignifiesthefirstordinal(aswellasthefirstcardinal)numberin

Page97

Chinese,theactofdrawingsuchalinewouldseemtoindicatethattheemperortobeexpectedtobefirstinhisgenerationsecond,asthewordfor"earth"istwo horizontallinesintersectedbyavertical( Whentheemperortobedrawsalineontheground,thusaddingahorizontalstroketotheearthassignified,heisalluding tothegraphemeforearthassignifier,andinvokingthegraphemefor"emperor"bytoppingoffthegraphemeforearthwithastroke.Therecanbenomoredramatic illustrationofthehermeticnatureoftheChineselanguagenoramoreappositeexampleof"readerresponsetheory"forsomeonewhocanspeakChinesebutcannot readthelanguagewillnotunderstandthisstory:theonlycompetentinterlocutorforthestoryissomeoneliterateinChinese. Theuseof"wordless'communication'"inChineseshouldnotbeconstruedaswillfulinscrutabilityinlanguage.Whatmayappearabstrusetotheoutsideris unmistakable(ifimplicit)totheinsider.TheomissionofsubjectpermissibleinChinesedoesnotmeanthatthegenderofthesubjectisundefined:whatitmeansisthatit isnotsyntacticallyorsemanticallynecessary(incontrasttothefirst"it"inthissentencewhich,thoughunnecessarysemantically,isnecessarysyntactically).Whenthe subjectisidentified,itisforspecialemphasisandoftenmarksacertainsocialstatus(seeFrankel1957).TheEnglishwordfor"I"isanabstract,variable,and undifferentiatedfirstpersonreferenceitevenlacksthenuanceofgreaterorlesserintimacythatFrenchandGermanofferbetweenthefamiliarandformalformsofthe secondperson(tu/vousdu/Sie).Theselfreferenceisthesame"I"foranyinterlocutorinanydiscourseordialogue.Novelistsareconfrontedwiththisproblem whencomposingdialogue,andtheysolveitbycharacterizingthedifferent"I's"insuchawaythatthereaderwillknowwhich"I"isspeakingatanygivenmoment.In Chinese,however,whentheIreferenceisnotomittedahostofoptionalselfreferencesisavailable:intheearlierdiscussion,wecitedthe"I"ofawifetoahusband therearealsoselfreferencesforministerofficialsaddressingemperors,chen .Pupilsaddressingteachers,juniorsaddressingseniors,servants

Page98

addressingmasters,canallusewansheng (theroyal"we").Thisplethoraoftermsfor"I"showshowmanywaysthereareinChinesetorefertotheself:but, clearly,thoughtheseareselfreferences,theyareemphaticallynot"egoidentifications"ifbythistermonemeanssubjectivereflexiveness.Thesetermsreflectonthe firstpersonsubjectthroughtheobjectivethirdpersonviewpoint:onereferstotheselfintermsofhowoneisconventionallyviewedbyothersforthemostpartthey areselfdeprecatoryselfreferences.Theyarenotpurefirstpersonpronounsitwouldbemoreaccuratetocharacterizethemasfirstpersonnominals. Evenritualizedhumilitycaninvolvegenuinegesturesofcourtesyandconsiderationtothepersonaddressed.Whereasthesuperannuatedandcapitalized"I"inEnglish (incontrasttotheuncapitalizedichinGerman,jeinFrench,ioinItalian,andyoinSpanish)positsagenericandunderscoredself,theChineseIreferencesidentify themselvesintermsofthespecificrelationshipinvoked.Thusaministerwouldaddresstheemperorwithdeference,butwouldbeaddressedwithdeferencebyhis wifeanolderbrothermightexpectdeferencefromayoungerbrother,butgiveittoasuperior.Inthisthereisneitherhypocrisynorservility,merelyafunctional acceptanceofthesocialhierarchy.8Bycomparison,theIreferenceinEnglishisconfusingandoverlyimplicit.9
8.

SomeofthishasbrokendowninpresentdayproletarianChina:forexample,referencestothewifetraditionallyinuseneiren ("greatgreat,"arespectfulreferencetoa woman)havebeenreplacedwithmoreegalitarianandromanticreferencesairen("thelovedone"shadesofEvelynWaugh!)andfuren("spouse").

9.

EnglishisnotwithoutitsownhierarchicaldistinctionsWhenatourguideinShanghaiwasexplaininginEnglishthebackgroundoftheZhouEnlai(Chou

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

Page99

AnotherelementthatisoftenlostintranslationsofChineseliteratureissomethingthatcanonlybecharacterized,intuitively,as"flavor."Thisconceptcountsforagreat dealintraditionalChinesecommentariesonliterature,10butitisespeciallyimportantinrenderingcompoundsthathaveaspartofkeyidiomsorsentencesasense thatismorethanthesumtotalofthemeaningsofeachindividualword.Herethegenerationsofdictionaryjockeyswhohaveposedassinologistshavetoooften renderedagravedisservicetotheEnglishreader,tosaynothingoftheinjusticescommittedontheliteraturetheyweresupposedtocelebrate.ThebriefestexampleI canciterelatestotheChineseinstitutionintraditionaltimesknownasthechanggenu literally,the"girl(who)singssongs."Now,thisChineseentertainer wasnotasglamorousandasmodernasa''songstress,"andhertalentswerenotalwayslimitedtothevocal,butshewasoftenanaccomplishedmusiciananddeftin thewaysofpleasingmen.Forgenerations,eversincesomeclosetscholiasttranslatedthistermas"singsonggirl,"translatingaccuratelywordforwordwiththeaidof adictionarycompiled,nodoubt,intheVictorianera,"singsonggirl"hasbeenroutinelyofferedastheequivalentofchanggenu.NoonewithanysensitivityforEnglish couldpossiblymisstheovertonesof"singsong"as"boring,""tiresome,""repetitive,""devoidofcharm."AdullrecitationofaLatinpassagemaybe"singsong"butno changgenuintraditionalChinawasever"singsong"forverylong,ifshewantedtoremainintheprofession.Toputitintuitively,whowouldfindthenuancesof "singsonggirl"alluring? TheverveandhumorofChinesevernacularfictionisoftenmutedintranslation.Sometimeshumorisirretrievablefromonelanguagetothenext,especiallywhenthe contextofmeaningisuniquetooneculture.Atothertimes,however,withsituationsmorenearlyuniversal,thepointofthejokecanbepreserved.Acertainverbal ingenuitymustbetappedtocapturethebrevityofthepunchline,andmodestsuccessescanbeachieved. InAnthonyC.Yu'smasterlyfourvolumetranslationofthever (footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
Enlai)exhibit,hereferredtoChouEnlai'swifeinthegenitive:as"ChouEnlai'smadam."Iremonstratedwithhimafterwardsthatitwasamatterofsomeimportancewhetherthe "madam"occurredbeforeorafterthename.Whenitoccursbefore,itindicatesrespectwhenitoccursafterwards,itindicatessomethingelsealtogetherand,presumably, someoneelsealtogether.
10.

SeeChapter12.

Page100

nacularclassictaleofBuddhistpilgrimsinsearchofscripture,theXiyouji(Hsiyuchi,TheJourneytotheWest),thereisascenefullofhighjinksandirreverencein whichPilgrim,Bajie,andShaMonk("Monkey,""Pigsy,"and''Sandy"inArthurWaley'sversion,titledMonkey)findthemselvescaughtinaDaoisttemplewithno meansofescape.TheydecidetohidebystandinginplaceoftheDaoisticonsinthetemple,butfirsttheymustdisposeofthestatues.Thefollowingscene(11:315 316)isbothanearthyjokeandascatologicalcritiqueofDaoism:

Oh,PureOnesThree, I'llconfideinthee: Fromafarwecame, Staunchfoesofbogies. We'dlikeatreat, Butnowhere'scozy. Weborrowyourseats Forawhileonly. You'vesattoolong, Nowgototheprivy. Intimespastyou'veenjoyedcountlessgoodthings BybeingpureandcleanTaoists. Todayyoucan'tavoidfacingsomethingdirty WhenyoubecomeHonorableDivinesMostSmelly!

Bajiecarriesthestatuestotheirignominiousfate,buthedoesnotaccomplishhismenialtasktotallyunscathed.Whenhecomesback,hereports:"...someofthefilth stainedmyrobe.Itstillstinks.Ihopeitwon'tmakeyouretch.""Nevermind,"Pilgrimsays,laughing,"youjustcomeandenjoyyourself.Iwonderifwecouldallmake acleangetaway." Howmuchof"flavor"maysometimesbelostcanbeseeninacomparisonoftwoversionsofashortparagraphfromthevernacularnovelShuihuzhuan(Shuihu chuan),translatedvariouslyasTheMenoftheMarshes(inthethreevolumetranslationissuedbyGladysandHsienyiYang),WaterMargin(inthetwovolume translationbyJ.H.Jackson,publishedinShanghaiin1937),andAllMenAreBrothers.(PearlBuck'stwovolumeversion,whichappearedin1933).Ahaleand heartybravonamedWuSung,whoistowinfamebysubduingatigersinglehanded,comesuponan

Page101

innatthefootofaridge.Thereheencountersabannerwhichreads:"ThreeBowls:NotCrossRidge."Thebannerisawarningthatanyonewhoimbibesmorethan threebowlsofthelocalbrewwillbeinnoshapetoclimbtheridge.WhenWuSungisdeniedarequestforafourthbowlofwine,theinnkeeperexplainsthe characteristicsofthelocalvintage. InPearlBuck'sversion,thescenegoeslikethis:

Thewineshopkeepersaid,"Mywineiscalled'SmellofItLeaksThroughtheBottle'andissonamed.Anditisnamedalso'WineThatMakesaManFallOutsidetheDoor.'When itisfirsttakenintothemouthitismildandfullflavored,butinalittlewhileitmakesamanfalldowndrunken."[I:380]

InJackson'srendering,thepassagereadslikethis:
"Ourwineiscalled'T'ouPingHsiang'(thearomapenetratesthebottle),andalsohasanothername,whichmeans'uponleavingthedooryouwillfalldown.'Whiledrinking,ithasa fineflavor,butinashorttimeafterwardsyouwillfalldown."[p.304]

Buck'sversionpresentsafewstylisticproblems:"itmakesamanfalldowndrunken"doesnotsoundlikeidiomaticEnglish(onewouldsay,rather,"makesamanfall downdrunk"),butthemajordifficultiesaresemantic.Awineshopkeeperdoesnotrunanestablishmentwherefoodisserved,andtheprecedingpassageclearly indicatesthatthisisaninn,notawineshop,asthekeeperoffersmoremeatevenwhileherefusestoservemorewine.Thenotionofapenetrating"smell''inthewine leakingthroughthebottleisawryfortworeasons:"smell"isawordthatisnolongerneutralitconnotesnegativeratherthanpositivefragrances11andthereisno "leak"intheChinese,nothingwrongwiththebottle:thesenseisthatthewineissostrong,itsfumessopowerful,thatitpenetratesthevesselitself,whethermadeof glassor,asisprobablythecasehere,ofearthenware."SmellofItLeaksThroughtheBottle"suggestsanunpleasantodoremanatingoutofadefectivevessel.Jack

11.

ContrasttheusageinDr.Johnson'stime:hisretorttothewomaninthetrainwhocomplainedthathe"smelled":"Youaremistaken,Madam,you'smell,'I'stink'."

Page102

son'sversionismoreapt,thoughonewondersabouttheneedtoprovidethetransliterationforonenameandnotfortheother. Intheoriginal,botharethreeword(threesyllable)labels,customarilybriefandcatchyforpropernamesofgoodsforsale.Literally,thefirstmeans"Penetrating BottleFragrance,"whilethesecondmeans"OutDoorCollapse."Inanyevent,neithertheglosslikeequivalentsprovidedbyBuckandbyJacksonnorthesuccinct literalversionprovidedherequitecapturesthesoulofwitinthesewinelabels.Ihavetackledthissceneinatranslation,andwhileIcannotclaimtohavecapturedthe verveoftheoriginal,perhapsacertainidiomaticflavorhasbeenpreserved:

Theinnkeepersaid:"Thiswinethatweserveiscalled'BottleBruisingBrew.'Andbecause,whenpeopledrinkit,theyfalldowndrunkoncetheyareoutthedoor,wealsocallit 'OutandOut.'Whenitfirstgoesdownthegullet,thetasteandthearomaaredelicious,butinafewseconds,you'reoutlikealight."

Whenthesenseliesinsentencesandincontexts,andnotinthecompositesofmeaningsforindividualwords,theflavoroftheworkmustbecapturedintuitively,not analytically.Poemsintranslationmustnotreadlikescholarlyglosses,andcommonwordsinonelanguagemustnotpresentthemselvesinuncommonguisesinanother. Herethesenseoftheentirephrasewhethermusicalorverbalmustberecreated.Notefornotemelodieswillseem,ironically,blurredwhennotproperly "phrased,"whereasthoseunblurred,thosewhichcapturewhatIhavecalledflavor,are"sweeter." WordsandWorldsApart Inanamusingpoem,publishedintheAtlanticofNovember1974,entitled"HowtoKnowWhereYouAre,"WilliamWaldenwrote,inpart:

Theformsofonomatopoeia Donotagreefromlandtoland. InOshkosh,Hollywood,andNutley Thesoundofbreakingplatesis"crash!"

Page103 InHelsinki,itchangessubtly To"kratsu!"suggestingscratchandgnash Atingletangle"kling!"isDenmark's InRome,araucous"ugatatrac!" InChina,acartoonist'spenmarks " Hualala!''forcrackingcrock. InPortugal,whenplattersshatter Andscatterallaboutaroom, Theysmackofelephantineclatter Orbongodrums:"catrapuzboom!" InBudapest,extremistfactions, Surmountingpolitics,concur Thatdishesfractureintofractions Withdoublesibilants:"chirchurr!"

NinoLoBello,commentingonEuropeanversionsofAmericancomicbooks,writesinTheNewYorkTimesBookReview:
ThedoorshutwithaPLOCH.Therockfellandmadeanoise,SDOK,SBENG,wentthepistol,andSPRAKwentthebarrelofgunpowder.WatersplashesPLUFF,awhiplashes ZAFF,andswordsclashSCLENG.TheringingbelldoesnotgoTINGALINGbutDLINDLIN,whereasacoinfallstothegroundnotwithaPLINKbutwithaSVIMM.... Europe'scomicbooks...havetheirowninterpretationofsuchfamiliarsoundeffectsasWHAM,BANGBANG,WHOOSHandZING,allstandardnoisesintheAmerican comics....TheEuropeanartistswhohearintheirmind'searthesamesuddensoundsthatAmericancartoonistshearcomeupwithavocabularythatisenoughtobaffle phoneticiansanddevoteesofthefunniesalike.[30March1975,p.27]

Behindalltheseverbalversionsofsoundsperceived,thereare,presumably,identicalsounds:thecrashofplatessoundsnodifferentinDenmarkthaninDallas.Yetthe onomatopoeiamustbelinguistically"conventionalized,"madephoneticallyfamiliar,restrictedtothepaletteofsyllablesavailableinaparticularlanguageapproximating particularsounds.Thereisnosuchthingas"correct"or"incorrect"onomatopoeia,onlyconventionalorunconventionalonomatopoeia.Ahorsecanonly"neigh"or "whinny"inEnglish,howevereccentrichissnortsmaybe.Inevitably,anylanguagethatlacksthecomprehensivenessofasoundsynthesizerwillbeunabletocapture thesoundaccuratelyinitsonomatopoeia:inasense

Page104

obscuredbythedefinitionofonomatopoeia("formationofwordsinimitationofnaturalsounds"),onomatopoeticwordsareabstractionsrepresentedbyalimited rangeofphonemesinanygivenlanguage.Whenwereadtheonomatopoeticword,wemayeitheruseitasamnemonicoftheactualsoundswehearor,conversely, byanactofwillfulimagination,wemayallowthelinguisticconventiontoaffectthewaywechoosetoheartheactualsound.Thesoundeffectsofcomicbookson televisionreplacetheactualsoundswithonomatopoeia."Pow!","Thwack!",''Zonk!"areprobablynotveryaccuratesoundportraits,buttheyconsistofsatisfying, pronounceable,andvividphoneticsinEnglish. Thisdiscussionofsimilarphenomenasubtlyalteredbylanguageandbyconventionmayservetotypifyaproblemintranslationthatcouldbelabeled"culturalstatic." Oftenatranslationavailsitself,butthetranslationequivalentcomprisesnotonlythedesiredmeaningbutotherslessappropriate.Wheretheseothermeaningsare repressedordormant,thereisnodifficulty,andthereadermaybereliedupontoelicitthecorrectsense,implicitlyblockingoutallother,inappropriatesensesofthe word.Ofthescoreormoremeaningsfortheword"run,"itisunlikelythattherewillbeanyconfusionbetweentheonemeaningselectedandtheothersimplicitly repressedbutwhereawordwithsomewhatlimiteddenotationsandconnotations,like"moth,"isinvolved,difficultiesarise.OneconventionaltropeinChinesepoetry istodescribethecharmsofawomanintermsother"mothlikeeyebrows"omei .Asonedictionaryhasit,theimagereferstothe"longslendereyebrows archedliketheantennaeofamoth"beautifuleyebrows,bysynecdoche,havecometodesignateabeautifulwoman.Now,aliteraltranslationoftheChinesemightbe "mothyeyebrows"meaningeyebrowsthathavethecharacteristicsofamoth,specificallythearchedantennae.WhileChinesemightfindthisimagealluring,the readerofEnglishwillbehardputtodispelnotionsofruinedclothesandthesmellofnaphtha.Whatis,inChinese,adelicateimageofbeautybecomesinEnglisha rattyreminderofdisintegration. Intheseinstances,thephenomenonremainsthesame.Butdifferentculturesemphasizedifferentaspectsofreality:themodernWesternerseestheeffectofmothson clothesthetraditionalChinese,thedelicateoutlineofthemoth'santennae.Thereis,presumably,nodifferenceintherealitythatevokestheseimages:

Page105

mothsruinclothinginChinaaswellasintheWest,andlepidopteristsinAmericacanappreciatethearchofthemoth'santennaeaswellastraditionalChinesepoets. Butatranslatorinsensitivetodifferencesinculturalvalueandassociationforthesamephenomenonmaybebroadcastingonafrequencythatoffersnothingbutstatic. Earlierweconsideredonomatopoeticwordsforthesamesoundsfoundintheworldandnotedhowtheydifferfromlanguagetolanguage:wefound,onoccasion, disparitiesbetweenthenuancesforwordsindifferentlanguagesreferringtothesamephenomenon.Wehavenowtoconsidertheconversesituation:inwhichthe phenomenadescribedbyequivalentwordsindifferentlanguagesarethemselvesdifferent,where,inasense,thewordscorrespondbuttheworldsdonot. AnotherattributeofabeautifulwomanoftencelebratedinChinesepoetryisawoman'ssmooth,cool,lustrouswhiteskin.Theusualadjectivesusedtodescribethese qualitiesare"jade(like)"and"icy"asinthephrase"fleshoficeandbonesofjade" .Now,thisshouldhardlybeconstruedtoreflectaperverseaesthetic inChineseappreciationofthefairsex.Chinesewomenwhoarefrigid(inmorethantheFreudiansense),andwhoare''greenish"likejadeinanypartoftheirbody,are aslikelytorepelChinesemenasanyonefromtheWest.Itisthequalitiesofcoolnessintheflesh,skinsmoothasice,andcolorasmilkyaswhitemarblequalities thatmightattractadmirationfromtheoppositesexinmostculturesthattheChinesehaveinmindwhentheyspeakof"icyflesh"and"jadebones."Thecoolnessand smoothnessoficeareeasilyenoughrecognized.Andwhenotherattributesofice,suchasfrigidityandhardness,aresubordinated,therelevanceof"ice"toabeautiful femalebodymaybeaccepted.Butwhatisonetodowiththe"greenish"fleshandboneunappetizing,nodoubt,inanyculture?Herethenonspecialistpublicmustbe remindedofwhatthedealerinjadeknowswell:thatjadecomesinmorethanonecolor.Thebestjadeis,infact,white,witha"warm,"hazed,pearlysoftsheen. WhentheChinesementionjade,itisthis"higherquality"speciestheyhaveinmind,notthepalegreenjadesofamiliarintheWest.Thetropeofcomparingthecolor ofawoman'sfleshtojadeisnotonlyaccurateinChinese,itisamoreextravagantimagethanonemightimaginein

Page106

English.Anexampleofthe"static"thatcouldoccurfromthedisparityofWesternandChinesejademaybeseeninthefollowingpoembyDuFu(712770),who wroteapoemletterinvokinghiswife:
Tonight,undertheFuzhoumoon, Mywifeathomejustlooksoutalone. Fromadistance,Ilongformylittlechildren, Whodon'tunderstandmybeinginCh'angan. Fragrantmist,cloudliketresses,arewet, Clearmoonglow,jadearms,arecold. Whenwillwestandtogetherbeforethewindow, Untilthetearsonbothourcheeksaredry?

Thereisaforlornfeelingabout"fragrantmist"and"cloudliketresses"being"wet"andof"clearmoonglow''and"jadearms"being"cold,"butthereiscertainlynothing intheChinesethatisunappealingintheseimages,whichreflectDuFu'slongingtobebackwithhisspouse.Thepredominanceofthecolorgreenintheassociationsof jadeinEnglish("atough,compact,gemstone,commonlygreenthecolorjadegreen")imposesasemanticburdenthatimagesinvolvingwhitejadecannotsustain.12 Morecomplexandfarreachingcomplexitiesarise,however,whensuchdecisiveabstractionsasreligionsandcosmologiesareinvolved.ThepresentationofChinese literatureduringtheVictorianperiodintroduceduncounteddistortionsthathavebedeviledthestudyofChineseintheEnglishspeakingWest.TheVictorianperiod was,arguably,theworsterainwhichtointroduceChineseliteratureintoEnglish:itsornateandverbosestyle,itsweightyandportentoustone,itslumbering,often invertedsyntaxnothingcouldbefurtherfromthequicksilver,mercurial,andallusivenatureofmuchtraditionalChineseliterature.TherhetoricofVictorianlanguage aside,thegospelofcolonization,blendingpeculiarly

12.

Another,lessconsequential,exampleoccurredinthepopulartelevisionseriesShogun,inwhich"pillowing"wasusedasadisarmingeuphemismforsexualunion.Charmingas thisimageisparticularlyifthedoubled"l's"turnliquidinthecleartonedvoiceofabeautifulJapaneseactresstheobjectdenotedin"pillowing,""pillow,"isfarfromthesoft, fluffy,innocentitemoftheboudoirthatreadersofEnglishimagine.For"pillows"intheOrient,untilmoderntimes,werehard,shapedlikeablock,andmadeofwoodorporcelain.

Page107

WesternnotionsofmaterialprogresswithChristianmeliorism,couldnotbemoreinhospitabletoaclearandunobstructedviewofcertainChinesewaysofthinking. ThenineteenthcenturywasdominatedbythemasterlybutmisguidedtranslationsofJamesLegge,anEnglishmissionarywhoseviewofChinaandtheChinesewas tinted(ifnottainted)byhisfailuretoseethemontheirowntermsthisshortcomingwasespeciallyevidentinhisdefinitiveandinfluentialrenderingsoftheConfucian canon,whichemergedfromhistranslationashighlycivilizedbutfatallysecularversionsofChristiandogma.Tocitebutafewinstances,letuslookatLegge's commentary(1894)ontheConfucianclassicZhongyong(Chungyung ,TheDoctrineoftheMean). Aftersomeconsiderationofthesageswhoare"absolutelyperfect,fullofknowledgeandrighteousness,"whoseexistenceConfuciusacknowledges,Leggeisoffended attheimpioussuggestionthatanyonebutChristcouldclaimtobeaperfectsage.AndwhenhecontraststheviewsexpressedintheZhongyongwiththoseinthe Bible,heisnotmakingacomparativestudyofreligionsbut,rather,aclearrefutationofheathenteachingusingtheundisputedauthorityofChristianrevelation:

IneednotsaythatthesesentimentsarecontrarytotheviewofhumannaturewhicharepresentedintheBible.ThetestimonyofRevelationisthat"thereisnotajustmanupon earththatdoethgoodandsinnethnot."[p.51]

Thepassionofthemissionaryoverwhelmsthescrupulousnessofthescholarinsuchpassagesasthese:
ItisarudeawakeningfromitscomplacencyofcenturieswhichChinahasnowreceived.Itsancientlandmarksaresweptaway....Disorganizationwillgoontodestroyitmoreand more,andyetthereishopeforthepeople,withtheirvenerationsfortherelationsofsociety,withtheirdevotiontolearning,andwiththeirhabitsofindustryandsobrietythere ishopeforthem,iftheywilllookawayfromalltheirancientsages,andturntoHim,whosendsthem,alongwiththedissolutionoftheirancientstate,theknowledgeofHimself, theonlylivingandtrueGod,andofJesusChristwhomHehathsent.[p.108]

Page108

Still,whatmaybeforgivenasexcessiveproselytizingzealcannotbeexcusedwhenitinvolvesracismofthekindevidentinthefollowingpassageassessingConfucius andhisinfluence:
Therehasbeenatendencytoadvance,andConfuciushasallalongbeentryingtocarrythenationback.Principleshavebeenneeded,andnot"proprieties."Theconsequenceis thatChinahasincreasedbeyonditsancientdimensions,whiletherehasbeennocorrespondingdevelopmentofthought.Itsbodypolitichasthesizeofagiant,whileitstill retainsthemindofachild.Itshoaryageisindangerofbecomingbutsenility.[p.107]

Howeverplausiblesomeoftheseremarksmaybe(andsimilarsentimentswereexpressedbyChineseintellectualsofthenineteenthcenturyaswellasMaoistsofthe twentieth),theframeofmindbehindtheseremarksishardlyonewhichislikelytounderstand,muchlessrepresentaccurately,philosophiesandsentimentsforeignto itsexperience.ThiswellintendedbutwrongheadedpatronageofChinesecultureandcosmologysometimestookonmoreviciousandoutrageousforms,asinthe outcryin1879bynolessascholarthanF.MaxMller,whoseSacredBooksoftheEastwasdecisiveforgenerationsinpresentingthecultureoftheOrienttothe West:"Itcannotbetoostronglystated,"Mllerwrote,"thatthechiefand,inmanycases,theonlyinterestoftheSacredBooksoftheEastishistoricalthatmuchof themisextremelychildish,tedious,ifnotrepulsive,andthatnoonebutthehistorianwillbeabletounderstandthelessonswhichtheyteach."(SeeMller1879:xliii quotedbyDawson1967:57seeChaudhuri1974:352ff.)ThisChristocentric,EurocentricperspectivesomehowviewedChinaasaculturethatwaslackinginreason, withalanguagedeficientinsyntax,acosmologydiminishedingrandeur,ametaphysicsimpoverishedbyexcessivepreoccupationwiththetrivial,thenominalistic,and theconcrete.Oflogos,eitherinitsGreekformorinitsNewTestamentversion,thisviewmaintained,theChineseknewnothing. Happily,contemporarytranslatorsarenotallChristianapologists,orevennativebornWesterners:theirapproachis,forthemostpart,admittedlypersonalifnot subjectivemanyaretransplantedChinese,othershavevaliantlysoughttoimmersethem

Page109

selvesinChinesecultureevenwhentheyhaveneversetfootinChina(ArthurWaley,forexample).Themodernwaveoftranslatorsisgenerallywithoutreligiousor ideologicalbiastheirinterestisintheworkprimarilyforitsownsake. TheTowerofBabelandtheHouseofCards Thetwentiethcenturyhaswitnessedtheemergenceofphilosophyas,atbase,acritiqueoflanguage.Foremostamongtheseexplorersofmeaningandlogicis Wittgenstein,whoprovidesuswithatextfromhisPhilosophicalInvestigations(1953:48e)forourconcludingremarks:

Wheredoesourinvestigationgetitsimportancefrom,sinceitseemsonlytodestroyeverythinginteresting,thatis,allthatisgreatandimportant?(Asitwereallthebuildings, leavingbehindonlybitsofstoneandrubble.)Whatwearedestroyingisnothingbuthousesofcardsandweareclearingupthegroundoflanguageonwhichtheystand.

Theimageoflanguagesasbuildings,ofstoneandrubble,recallsthedecisivebiblicalmythoftheTowerofBabel.Thedestructionofthisedifice,itsreductionto"bits ofstoneandrubble,"isthecentralenterpriseofmuchmodernphilosophy.Inasense,eachtranslationmaybeviewedinthesameperspective:asahouseofcardsIts modeofexistenceiscontingentonthepriorityoftheoriginalitsvalidityiscompromisedbythenumerousintractabilitiesoflanguage,itsintegrityisunderminedin theshiftingcontextsandnuancesofhumanexperience.Yetthisfrailvessel,likePlato'snotionofartisticimitationtwiceremovedfromreality,hasbeenindispensable forthedevelopmentofhumancultureitself.Thiscompromisedformofdiscourse,translation,farfrombeinganaberrationandanimposture,turnsouttobeadecisive mediumofwhattheanthropologistscallacculturation.Yet,despiteitsimportance,weknowverylittleofitsspeciallawsanditscriticalvagaries.Itmaybethatastudy oftranslationisthenextquantumleapforprogressinphilosophy:ifphilosophyis,atbottom,acritiqueoflanguage,auniversalphilosophymayhavetobeacritiqueof translation. AnexaminationofourimageofChinathroughitsliteraturein

Page110

translationwillrevealasmuchaboutourselvesasabouttheChinese:thelensthroughwhichweobserveisnotentirelytransparent,foritreflectsourownimageeven whileitadmitstheobjectinview.Thedisparitiesbetweentheimagereflectedandtheimageprojectedmustthenbedifferentiatedastowhetherthedifferencesare thoseofperceptionorthoseinherentindissimilarobjects.Inarealsense,the"dimemblazonings"ofChineseliteratureseeninEnglishtranslationareintimationsofa strangeobjectmadefamiliar,aswellasofsomethingfamiliarmadeuncannilystrange.

Page111

6 TranslationAsExcommunication: NotestowardanIntraworldlyPoetics
Letusbeginwithtwoveryfamousquotes,oneancient,onemodern.InChapter22oftheZhuangzi(Chuangtzu),theYellowEmperorsays:
"Thosewhoknowdonotspeakthosewho speakdonotknow. Thereforethesagepracticestheteaching thathasnowords." [Watson1968:235Zhuangzi,SPPY7:23b]

ItisnotinsignificantthattheYellowEmperor'sinterlocutoris"Knowledge."1Theprimacyofexistencebeyondwords,indeedbeforewords,isarecurrentrefrain throughDaoistliterature.Butitsattackonlanguageis,nevertheless,throughlanguage.Note,also,thatthecolloquybetweenKnowledgeandtheYellowEmperoris betweenequalsoflikemind:KnowledgehasjustsaidtotheYellowEmperor:"YouandIknow..." IntheprefaceandattheendofWittgenstein'sTractatusLogicoPhilosophicus(1961),thenowfamousdeclarationoccurs:"Undwovonmannichtredenkann, darbermussmanschweigen."2The

1.

Thephrase"thosewhoknowdonotspeakthosewhospeakdonotknow"alsooccursintheDaoDeJing(TaoTeChing)inChapter56thephrase"thesagepracticesthe teachingthathasnowords"occursinChapter2.
2.

"...Andwhatwecannottalkaboutwemustpassoverinsilence,"Tractatus,pp.23thefinalsentenceintheTractatussubstitutessprechen(speak)forreden(talk),pp.150151.

Page112

immediatelyprecedingcontextsforthesevirtuallyidenticalstatements,however,vary.Inthepreface,WittgensteinsummarizesinonesentencetheentireTractatus:
MannknntedenganzenSinndesBuchesetwaindieWortefassen:Wassichberhauptsagenlsst,lsstsichklarsagenundwovonmannichtredenkann,darbermussman schweigen.3

Attheend,oneencounterssurelythemostcuriousandironicformulationfromalogicalpositivist:
MeineStzeerluterndadurch,dasssieder,welchermichversteht,amEndealsunsinnigerkennt,wennerdurchsieaufihnenbersiehinausgestiegenist.(Ermuss sozusagendieLeiterwegwerfen,nachdemeraufihrhinausgestiegenist.)ErmussdiesStzeberwinden,dannsiehterdieWeltrichtig.4

Theemphasisonclarityintheprefacerelatingtothatwhichcanbesaid"Wassichberhauptsagenlsst,lsstsichklarsagen"isreminiscentofanotherpassagein theZhuangzi:thediscussionisonthedialecticalcontingencyofwords,themutualpresumptionofopposites,wheretheoneelicitstheotherattheend,theappealis for"clarity"or''enlightenment": mingis,inChinese,ambivalent,foritmayelucidatewhatisalreadyknownoritmayilluminatewithahigherunderstanding.5 ThereferenceattheendoftheTractatustotheladderwhichmustbethrownawayafteronehasclimbedit"Ermusssozusagendie

3.

"Thewholesenseofthebookmightbesummedupinthefollowingwords.whatcanbesaidatallcanbesaidclearly,andwhatwecannottalkaboutwemustpassoverin silence"Tractatus,pp23.
4.

"Mypropositionsserveaselucidationsinthefollowingway:anyonewhounderstandsmeeventuallyrecognizesthemasnonsensical,whenhehasusedthemasstepstoclimb upbeyondthem.(Hemust,sotospeak,throwawaytheladderafterhehasclimbedit.)Hemusttranscendthesepropositions,andthenhewillseetheworldaright"Tractatus,pp. 150151.

5.

"Butifwewanttorighttheirwrongsandwrongtheirrights,thenthebestthingtouseisclarity"Watson,p.39.WingtsitChanrendersmingas"thelight(ofNature)":"Butto showthatwhateachregardsasrightiswrongortoshowthatwhateachregardsaswrongisright,thereisnobetterwaythantousethelight(ofNature)"Chan(1963:182).The word"elucidations"Wittgenstein'serluternmightalsotranslateming.

Page113

Leiterwegwerfen,nachdemeraufihrhinaufgestiegenist"recallsapassagefromChapter26oftheZhuangzi,whichoffersanalogiesnotfromhouseconstructionbut fromfishingandhunting:6

Mypurposeincomparingthesepassagesfromtwophilosophersatdifferentendsofthehistoricalandculturalspectrum,andatseeminglyoppositepolesofthe philosophicaluniverse,isnottoproveoreventosuggestthatZhuangziinfluencedWittgenstein.7Rather,itistofocusontwoaspectsoflanguagecentraltoa discussionoftranslation:one,thedisposabilityoflanguagewhichisafunctionofitsutilitytwo,theineffabilityofmeaningswhichestablishesthelimitationsofdiscourse. Thattheformulationofthesenotionsalsoprovidesuswithtextsinwhichwecanexaminetheseaspectsisbothfortuitousandinevitable. ItseemstomethatZhuangziandWittgensteinareapproachingthesameinsightfromoppositedirections.Zhuangzi'sunderstandingoftheworldisintuitive,anecdotal, concreteWittgenstein'sisanalytical,aphoristic,abstract.Zhuangzipersuadesbytherhetoricoffamiliarityandbypsychologicalverisimilitude.Whathesaysconvinces us(ifitdoesconvinceus)bythedegreetowhichwerecognizethecircumstanceshedescribes.Wittgensteinpersuadesbythelogicofpropositionsandbyanalytical clarity.Whathesaysconvincesusbythedegreetowhichweseetheconsistencyofwhatheasserts.Whatissimilaraboutbothpostulationsisthedepen

6.

SPPY9:6a."Thefishtrapexistsbecauseofthefishonceyou'vegottenthefish,youcanforgetthetrap.Therabbitsnareexistsbecauseoftherabbitonceyou'vegottenthe rabbit,youcanforgetthesnare.Wordsexistbecauseofmeaningonceyou'vegottenthemeaning,youcanforgetthewords.WherecanIfindamanwhohasforgottenwordsso Icanhaveawordwithhim?"(Watson,p.302).

7.

Thequestionremainsopen.GermantranslationsoftheZhuangziwereavailableinhislifetime.RichardWilhelmpublishedhistranslationofZhuangzi,underthetitleTsiDas WahreBuchvomSdlicherBltenland(Jena:Diedrichs),in1912.Wittgensteinmayhavehadaccesstothisedition.HerbertGilespublishedhisChuangtzu:Mystic,Moralist,and SocialReformerin1889JamesLeggecompletedhisversionforTheSacredBooksoftheEastin1891.

Page114

dencyonanalogyandexample,theemphaticdeclarativenessofstatement(nottobeunderestimatedasarhetoricaldevice),andtheintimationnotonlyofwhatis understoodbutalsoofwhatisnotunderstood."AllePhilosophieist'Sprachkritik,'"Wittgensteinwrote(1953:37)andthetwophilosopherswhohaveleftthemost profoundcritiquesoflanguageareZhuangziandWittgenstein.Becausetheircritiquesoriginatefromoppositepolesofthecognitivecontinuum,onemightnot unreasonablyexpectbothanalyticalandintuitivevalidationonthosepointswheretheyagree,orwheretheirlinesofspeculationintersect. Thedisparitybetweenmeaningandwordsthatelicitmeaningisappositetoaconsiderationoftranslation,forthevalidityoftranslationasanobjectofepistemological (notmerelyhistoricalorcultural)studyiswhatIshouldliketoestablishasoneofthecornerstonesinthefieldofcomparativeliterature.Translationisoneareawhich thisdisciplineshareswithnoother.8 InanotherpassagefromtheTractatusWittgensteinwrites:"Languagedisguisesthought.Somuchso,thatfromtheoutwardformoftheclothingitisimpossibleto infertheformofthethoughtbeneathit,becausetheoutwardformoftheclothingisnotdesignedtorevealtheformofthebody,butforentirelydifferentpurposes"(pp. 3637).Themetaphorcomparinglanguagetothoughtnotonlyasexpressionbutasdisguisecanbeeasilytransposedtotherelationshipofatranslationtoitsoriginal.9 Atranslation,allowingfor
8.

Thestudyofinfluenceandthereceptionofauthorsacrosslinguisticbordersispartoftheburgeoning"ComparativeHistoryofLiteratures,"aprojectsponsoredbythe InternationalComparativeLiteratureAssociation.Butevenlanguagestudiedwithinitsownculturalcontextmaybecomparative:theAngloSaxonandNormaninfluenceonthe developmentoftheEnglishlanguageandEnglishliterature,theinfluenceofBuddhistcanonsinPaliandSanskritonChinesethedecisiveroleoftheHebrewOldTestamentand theGreekNewTestamentonahostofEuropeanliteraturesallprovideexamplesofcomparativeapproachesinanintraculturalcontext.Thestudyoftherelationsofliterature withotherformsofhumanexpressionmayalsobeundertakenwithinanationalliterature,andwhiletheymayinvolvedifferentsemioticsystems,theyneednotrefertophenomena outsideoneculture.Thestilltobedevelopedfieldofcomparativepoeticsconstitutesanotherdisciplinethatcanbeaddressedonlyfromtheuseofcomparativeapproaches.

9.

ConsiderRenatoPoggioli'scharacterization:"Translating...endeavorstogivetheverbalcompositionastrangeclothing,achangedbody"(Brower1959:139).

Page115

variablecompetenciesofindividualtranslatorsandforvariousfactorsoftranslatability,bothdisclosestheoriginalandkeepsithidden.Thereaderencountersthe originalthroughtranslation,yetthetranslationis,insomemeasure,animpedimenttotheoriginal.(Inthissense,abadtranslationcanbebothablessingaswellasa catastrophe:forifthereaderdismissestheoriginalasofnoworthonaccountofthetranslation,itprecludestheoriginalandconsignsittooblivion10butifitenticesthe reader,despite[orbecauseof]itsfailings,toconfronttheoriginal,thentheneteffectmaybeenhancedaccesstotheoriginal.) Agoodtranslationhastheconversedifficulty:itwillmorenearlyreplacetheoriginaltowhichitissuperiorinaccessibility(fortheforeignreader),yetitwill,insome measure,preservetheoriginal,thoughinmodifiedform.Examplesofcatastrophicallybadtranslationsaredifficulttocertify,sincethecatastropheconsistsofthe originalneverbeingapproachedagainbyatranslatorexamplesof"beneficial"badtranslationswillyieldtheidentityoftheoriginal,whereasthetranslatorwilloftenbe losttomemory:theTravelsofMarcoPoloandTheWhitePony,editedbyRobertPayne,comprisingtranslationsofclassicalChinesepoetryfrommanyhands,are twoexamplesofwellknowntranslatedworkwherethetranslatorsarescarcelyknownatall. Yettheseemingcontradictionoflanguagedisguisingaswellasexpressingthought,andoftranslationconveyingtheoriginalyetreplacingit,hasafamiliaranaloguein theoperationsofthehumanintellect.InhisPhilosophicalInvestigations(1953:143144),Wittgensteinposedthefollowingscenario,familiarineverylanguage:
Wespeakofunderstandingasentenceinthesenseinwhichitcanbereplacedbyanotherwhichsaysthesamebutalsointhesenseinwhichitcannotbereplacedbyanyother. (Anymorethanonemusicalthemecanbereplacedbyanother.) Intheonecase,thethoughtinthesentenceissomethingcommontodifferentsentencesintheother,somethingthatisexpressedonlybythesewordsinthesepositions. (Understandingapoem.)

Theactoftranslation,then,isanactivityparalleltotheactof
10.

QianZhongshu(Ch'ienChungshu)madethesamepointmanyyearsagoinWenxueyanjiujikan,Vol.1(1964)cf."LinCh'innanRevisited,"Renditions5(Autumn1975):10.

Page116

understandingwhichis,inbrief,thethemeofGeorgeSteiner'sfirstchapterinAfterBabel,"UnderstandingasTranslation." ButWittgenstein'sparableoflanguagebeingatoneremovefromthoughtremindsoneoftwootherformulations,eachfromancientphilosophy.IntheChineseclassic, theYijing(Iching ,TheBookofChanges),thereisaphrasewhichreadsintranslation:"Speechdoesnotexhaustmeaningwritingdoesnotexhaustspeech."11 IntheYijing,writtendiscourseisattworemovesfrommeaning.Acomparableformulation,onerecalls,involvesnotmeaning,butreality,andnotdiscourse,but poetrytheauthorofthecritiqueis,ofcourse,Plato.Forhim,poetswereprevaricatorswhogiveafalseimitationofphenomenalreality,which,initsstead,isafalse imageofnoumenalreality,therealmofIdeas,aworldwhichbeingunchangingandeternalistheonlytrueReality. ThetranspositionofthesethreerelationsoflanguageandthoughtinWittgenstein,ofmeaningandwrittendiscourseintheYijing,ofpoetryandrealityinPlato suggeststhedistrustprovokedbyarticulateexpressionordiscourse,whetheroralorwritten,narrativeorpoetic."Thosewhoknowdonotspeak,thosewhospeak donotknow."ItisalsoreminiscentofthedistrustoftranslatorsembodiedforeverintheMachiavellianformulation:traditoretraduttore"Thetranslatorisatraitor!" Thetranslatorstandsindangerofexcommunicationbecauseofhistransgressionsontheoriginalandhisbetrayalsoftheoriginallanguage.Yetasidefromthe vulnerabilitiestowhicheverytranslatorissubjectignorance,lackoftalent,lackofabilitythereis,evenintheperfecttranslation,asacrilegebeingperformedonthe originaltext.Ineachlanguage,thefunctionofexcluding,oflabelingastheother,ofbetrayingtheoutsiderinshort,of"excommunicating,"leavingoutofthe discourseisasimportantafunctionasconveyingmeaning,ascommunicating.Likealaser,languageisnotlightdiffuseanddispersedbutlighttargeted,concentrated onagroupoflanguagecohorts,anduncommunicativeforanyoneelse.Tointrudeonthissolidarityistoinvadeaprivateculturalspace,toinfiltratethecabal.Language isesoteric,translation
11.

Forthesakeoffluency,Ihavetranslated as"exhaust,"butoneintendsbyit"comprehensivetransmissionwithoutloss."Anotherrenderingmightbe:"Speechdoesnot fullyexpressthoughtwritingdoesnotfullyexpressspeech."

Page117

exoteric.Onecommunicatestothosewithintheothercommunicatestothosewithout. AninstanceofthehermeticdeicticsoflanguageoccurredafewyearsagowhenIwasconsultedbyaChineseteacherofEnglishinBeijingaboutsometextsthatwere publishedina"primer"forforeignstudentsofEnglish(inthiscaseChinese).12ThoughtheseteachershadbeenteachingEnglishformanyyearsandhadasuperb commandofthelanguage,therewerestillafewpassagesintheexcerptedtextsthateludedtheirunderstanding.Manyofthesepassagesinvolvedpoorwritingothers, obscureordifficultconceptsunfamiliartostudentsunacquaintedwithEnglishculture.(OnepiecewasawrylyamusingsnippetofMaxBeerbohmwhichonlycultivated Englishreaderscouldbeexpectedtoenjoy.)One"problempassage,"however,puzzledme,foritcamefromthepenofHaroldNicholson,whoseproseisamodelof clarityandsuppleness.WhenIlookedatthetext,adisquisitionontheattitudetowardtruthamongtheVictorians,ithardlylookedlikeapassagethatwouldpresent difficulties:thewritingwaslimpidandgraceful,theexpositionclearlyarticulated,thetopicofuniversalinterestandapplication."Truth,therefore,isanattitudeofthe mind,"Nicholsonwrote.''Itisimportant,ifonedoesnotwishtoinconvenienceandtoboreone'sfriends,nottotelllies"("OnTellingtheTruth,"inSmallTalksee Alexander1967:123).Certainlynothingherethatcan'tbeeasilyunderstood.Thepassageconcludes:"Spokenliesareinvariablytiresomeandmayactuallybe dishonest.Butcontinuouslyinginthemind,adiseasetowhichtheAngloSaxonispeculiarlyexposed,spellsthedestructionofhumanthoughtandcharacter"(p.124). Thesesentencesareobviousinmeaningandcanhardlybethoughtopaque.Whetheroneagreeswiththestatementsissomethingelse,buttherecanbenodifficulty,or soIthought,withunderstandingwhatNicholsonistryingtosay."What'stheproblemwiththispassage?"IaskedtheChineseteacherofEnglish."Whatdon'tyou understandaboutit?""Well,isNicholsonsayingthattheAngloSaxoncharacterisparticularlyinclinedtowardlying?""Yes,"Ireplied,tentatively,stillunclearastothe problem.
12.

ThebookwasFluencyinEnglish:AnIntegratedCourseforAdvancedStudents,byL.G.Alexander,inthe"NewConceptEnglish"Series,publishedbyLongmanin1967.

Page118

"Then,ishealsosayingthatotherracestellthetruthmorethantheAngloSaxon?Forinstance,thattheChinesetellthetruthmoreoftenthantheAngloSaxon?" "Well,yesandno,"Itemporized,finallyrealizingwhatthedilemmawas. InNicholson'spassage,thereisnoambiguityofmeaning,butthereisambiguityofphenomenalcontext.InaddressinganEnglishreadership,hiscritiqueof"continuous lyinginthemind"isatrenchantindictmentoftheAngloSaxoncharacter.Theknowledgeablereadercannothelpbutbeinfluencedbyboththecorrectnessand truthfulnessofthestyle,and(ifheknowsit)thepatricianEnglishbackgroundoftheauthor.Nicholson'sstatementmakesnocomprehensivesurveyonthepenchantfor lyinginothercultures:thereisnoclaimofcomparativeness."LyingisadiseasetowhichtheAngloSaxonispeculiarlyexposed":theuseof''peculiarly"stopsshortof "uniquely"or"particularly."Thesenseof"peculiarly"suggests"characteristically."Yetthedifficultyofthepassageliesnotinthecomplicationsofsyntax,orevenof semantics,butinthedeicticrestrictednessofdiscourse,inthepassage's"hereandnow."Surely,ifHaroldNicholsonhadrealizedthatamonghisreaderswouldbe ChineselearningEnglish,whomighttakehispointasimplyingagreaterhonestyamongthenonEnglishcultures,hemighthaveaddedadisclaimerrestrictingthe bearingofhiscommentstothosecultureswherethepointmayapplyhemighthavedisavowedanycomparisonswithcultureswithwhichhewasunacquainted.The deicticcontextofdiscoursedelimitsNicholson'smeaningoncethediscoursedepartsfromthiscontext,however,confusionisinevitableandnottobedispelledby moredetailedanalysesofgrammar,syntax,orsemantics.Oneofthemeaningsviolatedbythetranspositionofcontextisthesenseofdeicticidentity:the"hereand now"isfalselytranslated. Theimplicitpresumptionofadeicticframeofreference,ofalanguagedefiningthecenterofconsciousness,isasfamiliartotheOccidentalWestastoOrientalChina. Indeed,thepresumeddeictic"centers"intheEnglishlanguageembodyadisparitybetweenactualandsemanticdistance.IntheUnitedStates,asinEngland,theterms "NearEast"and"FarEast"designatethesametwopartsoftheworld.YettheserelativemarkersofdistancepreserveadeicticaptnessonlyfortheEnglishman(orthe Englishspeaking

Page119

European) thatdoesnotapplytoEnglishspeakersinotherpartsoftheworld.ThecountriesofAsiaMinorarenearerthanChinaandJapanonlyforEuropeans. ForthoseintheWesternHemispherespeakingEnglish,IraqandTurkeyarefurtherawayingeographicaldistancethanthecountriesofthe"FarEast." Californians,forexample,findthe"FarEast"closerbyfarthanthe''NearEast."YetforAmericansreadingEnglish,thecountriesoftheLevantappearsemantically closerthanthecountriesoftheExtremeOrientdespitetheactualdistancesinvolved.Norcanthisdisparitybedismissedasameretrivialityofhistoricaletymology for,asEdwardSaidhascontentiouslyshown,theprejudiced,EurocentricviewoftheOrienthasdeterminednotonlywhattheWesternstudentlearnsaboutAsia,but alsohowhefeelsaboutit.Said(1978:39)citesbutoneofcountlessexamples(whichmightbejuxtaposedironicallytoHaroldNicholson'sjustcitedobservation aboutAngloSaxons):

Orientalsareinveterateliars,theyare"lethargicandsuspicious,"andineverythingopposetheclarity,directness,andnobilityoftheAngloSaxonrace.

13

SaidisquotingfromEvelynBaring,LordCromer'sModernEgypt,publishedin1909:the"Orientals"inthepassagerefertoEgyptians.Incidentally,thispassage providesanotherinstanceofdeicticdelimitation,forthoughthepassageiswrittenbySaid,embeddingaquotefromLordCromer,thecontextmakesclearthatthese arenotSaid'ssentimentshiscommentaryparaphrasesCromerwithexplicitandemphaticdisapproval.Hismosttellingpointsareoftenthoseinwhichhemerelycites theblatantEurocentricdeclarationswithoutauthorialcomment.Misinterpretationsoflanguagetakenoutofcontextarefamiliarenough,buttheyarepossibleprecisely becauseitispossibletotaketheesotericaspectoflanguageexoterically.

13.

Thisisimplicitinthephrases"ExtrmeOrient"and"ProcheOrient"inFrenchand"dasOstasien"inGerman."DasMorgenland"inGerman(thelandofthemorning,thelandof therisingsun)preservesadeicticpremisethatwillseemoddtotheresidentofthe"Western"Hemisphere,wholookswesttothelandsofthe"risingsun,"lookswesttoEast Asia,andforwhomthe"FarEast"isnearerthanthe"NearEast."

Page120

Theseexamplesdonot,however,addressthequestionwhetheralllanguagesareesoterictothesamedegree.FewwoulddenythatChinese,particularlyliterary Chinese,isamorecontextorientedlanguagemoreellipticalandallusivethanmanyotherlanguagesandcanthereforebeconsideredamoreesotericlanguage than,say,Latin,whichhasbeenadaptedselectivelyoutoftheexclusivelyRoman,orRomanic,contextforuseinsuchmoderndisciplinesaslaw,botany,religion. Greekstillprovidesmuchofthetechnicalterminologyinfieldsthatare,ineffect,detachedfromclassicalGreekculture.Japanesehasclearlyexotericfeatures, symbolizedandperpetuatedbytheincorporationofkatakanasyllabary,whichmarksforeigntermsinJapanese.Everylanguageis,ofcourse,tosomedegree esotericandexoteric,14buttheexchangeofmeaningthroughtranslationisnotequal:translationiscommunicativebutnotcommutative.Translatingaworkin languageAtolanguageBisnotequivalent(ineitherdifficultyorsignificance)totranslatingthesameworkfromlanguageBtolanguageA.Theeffectofthedifferent degreesofesotericainvariouslanguages,andtheireffectonliteraryandculturalhistory,willbedealtwithlater. Onlyintranslation,andthroughtheprocessoftransposingaworkfromonelinguisticmediumtoanother,canthenatureofacultureaswellasitsdeicticandesoteric emphasisbedisclosed.Thenativeofaculturewillknowitsliteraturefirsthand,andwithahabitualfamiliaritythatwillblindhimtosomeofitscharacteristics,butthe outsider,limitedthoughhemaybeinhisunfamiliarity,butwiththeperspectiveofabroadervision,willhaveabetterideaofwhatthatliteratureisandhowit compares.Inanothercontext,D.H.Lawrence(1930:2)madethefollowingobservation:
Manisachangeablebeast,andwordschangetheirmeaningswithhim,andthingsarenotwhattheyseemed,andwhat'swhatbecomeswhatisn't,andifwethinkweknowwhere weareit'sonlybecausewearesorapidlybeingtranslatedtosomewhereelse.
14.

Thereisaconnectionbetweenmydesignationsoflanguagesas"esoteric"vs."exoteric"andEdwardHall'scharacterizationofculturesas"highcontext"and"lowcontext." EnglishandGermancultureshecharacterizesas''lowcontext"Frenchas"highcontext."

Page121

Whethertranslatedwellorbadly"tosomewhereelse,"astudyoftranslationsfocusingonthefailureofbadtranslationaswellasthefailureofgoodtranslationhas muchtotellusaboutthenaturenotonlyoftheworkbeingtranslatedbutalsothelanguagefromwhichtheworkemerges. Inthesepreliminarynotestowardan"intraworldlypoetics,"Ihaveexploredtherichnessoftranslationasafieldofstudy,notastechnebutasepisteme.Inevitably,I mayhavegeneralized,perhapsexcessively,butIremainconvincedthatthesubjectdeservestheattentionofthosewhosegiftsinlanguageandliteraryanalysis commendthemtothispursuit.Fortranslationindicateswherewehavebeenandwherewearetogoithasbeenthe"subversive"elementinthecurrentsofhistory.As such,ithasnotalwaysattractedmajorattentionwithineachcultureandhasbeenrelegatedtoexpatriates,exiles,emigrs.Butwenowliveinapostbiblicalexilicage, betweenalargelyBabelianandaprimarilypostBabelianeraintheexistentialsense,wearemigrants,terrestrialnotextraterrestrialaliens.Inordertocarryout Socrates'admonitionto''KnowThyself,"wemustlearntoknownotjustourselvesbutalsotheother,eventoknowtheotherastheself,andtheselfastheother. Inthecenturytocome,technologywillunifytheworldasneverbefore,butitwillnotextinguishthedifferencesbetweenus,itwillnoteraseourindividualcharacter. Technologywill,ineffect,eliminatethephysicaldistancebetweenus,butpsychologicaldistanceswillremainitwillprovideuswithanewperspective,wheretherewill benoEastorWestthat's"Near"or"Far,"nofactitious"Abendland"todesignatetheWest,no"Morgenland"tospecifytheEast:"twilight"willnotconnotethe Occidentnor"dawn"theOrient.Therearenoabsolutemarkersofdeicticdirection:thecenterofcivilization,toparaphraseAugustine,iseverywhere.Oswald Spengler'sDerUntergangdesAbendlandessawtheWestliterallyasan"occidentofhistory."Outlandishasthispunmightsound,itisetymologicallysound,since "occident"derivesthroughMiddleEnglishandMiddleFrenchultimatelyfromLatinoccidens,fromoccidense,presentparticipleofoccidere,tofall,godown.Anew daywilldawn.ButitdoesnotdawnonlyintheEast,fortheeastiseverywhere,andso,evidently,isthewest.

Page122

7 TheShipofTheseus: TheOntologyofTranslation
InhisPhilosophicalExplanations,RobertNozickconsidersthepuzzleof"theshipofTheseus,"whichraisesquestionsthatseemrelevanttoaconsiderationofthe ontologyoftranslation:Whatisatranslation?Whatisitsmodeofbeing?"Theplanksofaship,"Nozickwrites,"areremovedonebyoneoverintervalsoftime,andas eachplankisremoveditisreplacedbyanewplank."Graduallyalltheplanksarereplaced.Theshipremainsthesameship,evenifsomepartsarereplaced. However,thestory,thepuzzle,pursuesthematterfurther:''Itturnsoutthattheplanksremovedhadnotbeendestroyedbutwerestoredcarefullynowtheyare broughttogetheragainintheiroriginalshiplikeconfiguration.Twoshipsfloatonthewaters,sidebyside.Whichone,wonderedtheGreeks,istheoriginal?"(Nozick 1981:33). Toapplytheanalogy,letusconsidertheBible:inthecaseoftheOldTestament,theoriginalshipwaswritten(built)inHebrewtheNewTestament,inAramaicand KoineGreek.Bothlanguagesliketheboardsonthedeterioratingshipwerewornbyageandhadtobereplacedwithnewlanguages(planks).First,therewasthe translationintoGreek,whichproducedtheSeptuagint.Then,therewasthewidelyacceptedtranslationofSt.Jeromeinthefourthcentury,theLatinVulgate.1 TranslationsintocontemporaryvernacularsincludedItalian,French,English,andGermanofthe
1.

ThevernacularcharacterofthelanguagesintheoriginalwasnotoverlookedbyJerome'sVulgate,which,thoughaclassicalandliterarylanguagetomoderns,wasinitsown timeavernacular.

Page123

scoresofEnglishtranslationsandversions,thebestknownistheKingJamesVersionoftheBible,theAuthorizedVersionof1611.Itwasnotuntilthetwentieth century,withthediscoveryoftheDeadSeaScrollsinthe1940s,thatthe"oldplanks"oftheoriginalwerediscovered. ThepuzzlethattheshipofTheseuspresentsistheontologicalquestion:whichversionistherealBible?WhatwastheBible?WhatwastheshipofTheseus?The actualship,withtheoriginalplanks,whichintimedeterioratedintodisuseaslanguagesdiedandbecameextinct?Ifso,theBiblediedwiththem,andtheshipcouldnot "float"("wouldnotholdwater").OrdidtheBiblesurvivethroughitsmanytransmogrifications,throughJerome'sLatin,theKingJamesVersion'sEnglish,Luther's German?DoestheBibleremaintheBible,withnewplanksbuiltaccordingtothespecificationsoftheoldship? IntryingtosolvethepuzzleoftheshipofTheseus,Nozickapplieswhatiscalled"theclosestcontinuerschema,"whichheremindsus"doesnot,byitself,answerthe question"itonly''helpstosortoutandstructuretheissues"(p.33). FirstNozickidentifies,inthecaseofships,"spatiotemporalcontinuitywithcontinuityofparts,andbeingcomposedoftheverysameparts(inthesameconfiguration)." EventhisinitialdefinitioncreatesproblemswiththeBible,becausetheBibleisnotalwayscomposedofthesamepartsnordoesitalwaysappearinthesame configuration.CatholicversionsoftheBibleexcludeportionsthataretobefoundintheProtestantversionsthereare"Pseudepigraphal"booksthatbelongtocertain editionsandnottoothers.Letus,however,layasidethistroublesomeuntidinessinbiblicalindeterminacy.Nozicksuggeststhatifoneshipexistsandtheotherdoes not,then,byexistentialdefault,theextantship,theextantBible,istheclosestcontinuerofthelostoriginal.Inhisanalysisoftheclosestcontinuerschema,Nozick pointsoutafactorthatparticularlyappliestotranslation:
Tosaythatsomethingisacontinuerofxisnotmerelytosayitspropertiesarequalitativelythesameasx's,orresemblethem.Ratheritistosaytheygrowoutofx'sproperties,are causallyproducedbythem,aretobeexplainedbyx'searlierhavinghaditsproperties,andsoforth.[p.35]

Page124

Thatalltranslationsmaybesaidtorelatetotheiroriginalsaseffectrelatestocause,fewwoulddeny,buttheremaybeaninsistencethat,ofthevariousversionsofthe originalinvariouslanguages,theclosestcontinuershouldbethatwhichismostfaithfultotheoriginal.Butfaithfulforwhom?Letusassumethat,inapolyglotworld whereeveryonespeaksnotjustoneuniversallanguage(say,Esperanto),norevenmanylanguages,butalllanguages,thentheclosestcontinuerwouldbethatversion whichmostresemblestheoriginal,orcouldshowthemostspatiotemporalcontinuitywiththeoriginal,orwerecomposedmostnearlyofthesameparts,inthesame configuration.ThelosttextsoftheBible,inforgottenlanguages,wouldnolongerbe"our"BibleitsclosestextantcontinuerwouldbethatBible.But,intheworldafter Babel,thereisneitheronelanguagenoruniversalpolyglotcommandoveralllanguages.Foreachspeakerofthelanguagesinwhichatranslationexists,thattranslation (ifthereisonlyone)becomes,ineffect,theclosestcontinuer.(Thecaseofdifferingtranslationswithinthesamelanguagewillbeconsideredlater.) Withthisanalysis,wepositaconceptoftranslation(inthecaseofalostorforgottenoriginal)thatislesssubordinate,lesscontingent:thetranslationreplacesthe originalinavalidontologicalsense.Thetranslation,fautedemieux,becomesanoriginal.Toreturntotheontologyoftheship,itwouldappearthattheshipof Theseuswasnottheexactconstructoftheactualboardsthatwentintoit,butanentitythatembodiedcertainpropertiesandconformedtocertainconfigurations. Whateveritwas,itisclearwhattheshipofTheseusisnot:itisnottheremnantsoftheoriginal,northeoriginalboardsoftheshipdisassembled.2Translationislikethe closestcontinueroftheoriginal:inthecaseoflostoriginalseither
2.

Nozickindicatesthatthe"closestcontinuertheory...neednotinvolvetemporalcontinuity"(p.35),buthedesignates"yasthesame...asx"atonepoint,"onlyif,first,y's properties"atasubsequentpoint''stemfrom,growoutof,arecausallydependentonx'sproperties"atthefirstpoint,and,second,that"thereisnootherz"atthesecondpoint thatstandsinacloser(orasclose)relationshiptoxatthefirstpointthanydoesatthesecond.Anexactreplica,itseemstome,fitsthisscheme:wheretheoriginalforthereplica stillexists,itistheclosestcontinuerintheabsenceoftheoriginal,thereplicawould,presumably,be"theclosestcontinuer."

Page125

becausethetextislostorbecausethelanguagesinwhichthetextwasrecordedarenolongeractivetranslationtakestheplaceoftheoriginal,whichisnottosay thatitisidenticalwiththeoriginaloranequivalent.ThepropertiesoftheshipofTheseuscanbeidentified:ithasacertainformitperformedacertainfunction(oneof whichwastofloat)itoccupiedacertainspace.Theoriginalshipwasafunctioningship.Whattranslationtriestodo,then,istotransposethepropertiesoftheshipof Theseusinanotherconstruct,anothervessel,perhapsinotherseas. Onemayask,then,notonlywhattranslation0is,butwhatdoesittranslate?Thewordsoftheoriginal?Thentheexactwordsmustbereplacedintheirexact configuration.Orisitadifferentconstructusingdifferentplanks(languages)torealizeanentitywiththesamepropertiesastheoriginalship?Inasense,translation becomesatranspositionmutatismutandisoftheexperienceoftheoriginal,embodyinginadifferentcontext,andinanotherspatiotemporalfield,thesameproperties astheoriginal.Inthatsense,translationmayberegardedasacomplexmetaphorindeed,insomelanguages,itsharesthesameetymologicalsourcesasthewordfor metaphor. Theword"metaphor,"thedictionarytellsus,derivesfromtheFrenchmetaphore,fromtheGreekwordmetaphora,whichderivesfromthewordmetapherein, meaning"tocarryover,transfer,frommeta,beyond,over+pherein,tobring,bear."TheEnglishword"translate"derivesfromtheLatintranslatus,usedasapast participleoftransferre,totransfer,butfromadifferentroot.Thisnotionof"carryingbeyond,''of"transferring,"isclearfromtheGermanwordbersetzen,literally,to "crossover,"to"ferryover."Therearetwoprincipalsimilaritiesbetweentranslationandmetaphor:theexistenceoftwocomparablefieldsofmeaningandthepositing ofarelationshipinonerealmtoelucidatetherelationshipinanotherrealm.Ametaphoristraditionallydefinedas"atropeoftransferenceinwhichanunknownor somethingimperfectlyknownisclarified,defined,describedintermsofaknown"(Premingeretal.1965:490).Atranslationmaybesimilarlydefinedasa"technique oftransferenceinwhichanunknownorimperfectlyknownisclarified,defined,describedintermsofaknown."Metaphorstaketheformof"Ais[like]B"or"Aisas B."Whatiscrucialaboutthe

Page126

metaphoristheaptness,appropriateness,validityoftheA/Bparallel.Ifweusemetaphoritselfasametaphorfortranslation,thenwemaysuggestthatatranslation positsarelationshipinthesamewayametaphorpositsaparallelbetweenAandB.Atranslationmaybeviewedasametaphoroftheoriginalinanotherlanguage. TheAinthepropositionisitselftherelationshipoftheoriginaltothelanguagecontextfromwhichitemergedtheBistherelationshipofthetranslationtoitslanguage context.IftheA/Bcomparisonisapt,appropriate,valid,thenthetranslationmaybesaidtobegood.Thetranslationmaybejudgedinthesamewaythatametaphor mightbejudged. Toadoptacleareranalysisimplicitinthemetaphor,letuspositafieldofculturalmeaningforthesourcelanguage,X,andafieldofculturalmeaningforthetarget language,Y.IfAistheoriginalandBthetranslationandifXandYarethecontextsofmeaninginthesourceandthetargetlanguages,respectively,thentheprocess oftranslation(asopposedtotheactualtranslatedwork)maybecharacterizedasrecreating,notthework(A),butrathertherelationshipofAtoXinanew relationship:BtoY.Wecanestablishtheattributesfortranslationinthesamewaywemightformetaphor:followingWayneBooth,wemaysuggestthatametaphoris contextdependentlikeotherdeliberaterhetoricaldeviations,inmetaphor"moreiscommunicatedthanthewordsliterallysay"inmetaphor,"whatisbeingcompared aretwothings,notjusttwowordsinthiscase,theyaretwosituationswhichcouldbeunpackedasanelaborateanalogy"(Sacks1979:5152).Ifmetaphorand translationare,tothisextent,homologous,3thenonecanapplythesamecriteriainjudginggoodmetaphorsasinjudg
3.

TheMexicanpoetOctavioPazhasremarked:"Everytranslationisametaphorofthepoemtranslated....Inthissense,thephrase,'poetryisuntranslatable'istheexact equivalentofthephrase'allpoetryistranslatable.'Theonlypossibletranslationispoetictransmutationormetaphor.ButIwouldalsosaythatinwritinganyoriginalpoem,weare translatingtheworld,wearetransmutingit.Everythingwedoistranslation,andalltranslationsareinawaycreations"quotedbyAlastairReid,NewYorker,8November1976, p.176.SeealsoPaulValry,quotedinBrower(1959:74):"Writinganythingatall,assoonastheactofwritingrequiresacertainamountofthoughtandisnotamechanicaland unbrokeninscribingofspontaneousinnerspeech,isaworkoftranslationexactlycomparabletothatoftransmutingatextfromonelanguagetoanother."

Page127

inggoodtranslations.IfweadoptselectivelythoseproposedbyWayneBooth,wehavethefollowing: 1.Goodmetaphors...areactive,lendingtheenergyofanimatedthingstowhateverislessenergeticormoreabstract. 2.Good...metaphorsareconcise....[Ametaphor]saysmorewithless. 3.Goodmetaphorsareappropriate. 4.[Goodmetaphors]...mustbeproperlyaccommodatedtotheaudience. 5.Finally...metaphorshouldbuildaproperethosforthespeaker.[Sacks,pp.5455] Thepremisesbehindtheneedformetaphorseemtoapplyaswelltotheneedfortranslation:thatwhichissignificantbutinaccessibletotheinterlocutorispresentedin termsthatareaccessible.Thefunctionappearsalsotobethesame:totransposeintoacontextofunderstanding,afamiliarfieldofmeaning,somethingthatis"foreign" andeludesunderstanding.Ifitcanbeclaimedthat"thedevelopmentofcivilizationsisessentiallyaprogressionofmetaphors"(Doctorow1977:62),howmuchmore persuasivelymightthesameclaimbemadeabouttranslations,"thatthedevelopmentofcivilizationsisessentiallyaprogressionoftranslations."Theconsequencesof thetransferofmeaningthroughmetaphor,andofculturethroughtranslation,involveaprogression,notanequationwhatisbeingtransposed,evenifexactlyrendered initsconstituentdetails(theplanksoftheshipofTheseus),willbesetinadifferentcontext(floatonadifferentocean).Theprocessoftranslatingreconstructsaswell aspossibletherelationshipofaworkinthecontextoftheoriginallanguageintoanotherlanguage.Theobjectiveoftranslatingisnottoproduceareplicabuttoreenact arelationshipjustasmetaphorchoosesdifferentreferentstoestablishsimilarorparallelrelationships. Theontologyoftranslationisfurthercomplicatedbyaconfusedsenseofthe"original."Onerecognizesthat"originals"donotspringexnihilo,thattheyare, ontologically,oneworkinitscontemporaryperiodandanotherworkinsubsequentperiodstheancientfolksongsintheShijingwere,atsomepoint,"natural" expressionsofhumanfeelingstheybecamearcanepoliticalallegories

Page128

tocenturiesofConfuciancommentators.Theestablishmentofthecanonicalbiblicaltextsisfraughtwithuncertainties,howeverdefinitivelaterexegeteshaveclaimedto beaboutthe"canon."4 WecannowreturntothetwowarrantsthatWittgensteinposedforunderstandingasentence:"thesenseinwhichitcanbereplacedbyanotherwhichsaysthesame" and"thesenseinwhichitcannotbereplacedbyanother."Translationprovidesbothkindsofunderstandingitmanifestsunderstandingbyreplacingtheoriginal,atthe sametimeitshowsthattheoriginalisirreplaceable.5Theontologyoftranslationisthustwofold:contingentandsuigeneris.Thetwosensesofunderstandinga sentencerespondtothedualaspectoflanguageitself,toitsesotericanditsexotericimpulse.ThatthisdoubleaspectisembodiedintheOldTestament,whichisboth "intracommunicative"and"excommunicative,"canbeseeninapassagefrom2Esdras14(roughlycontemporarywithJosephus,A.D.37?100):

EzraprayedfortheinspirationoftheHolySpirit,sothathemightrewritethetextofthescriptureswhichhadbeendestroyedbyfire.Hesubsequentlydictatedtofiveamanuenses, duringaperiodoffortydays,whathadbeenrevealedtohim,amountinginalltoninetyfourbooks:twentyfourforgeneralpublicationanduse,seventytobereservedfor"the wiseamongyourpeople."Thesmallergroupofwritings...wereacceptedasformingtheauthoritativescripturesofJudaism(fivebooksoftheLaw,eightbooksoftheProphets, andelevenbooksoftheWritings).Thelargergroup,beingesotericincharacter,mustpresumablyhaveconsistedofapocalypticbooks,readandunderstoodonlybytheinitiated. [Greenslade1963:I,115]
4.

ConsiderPeterR.AckroydontheOldTestament:"ThesearchfororiginsmustbeundertakenifwearetounderstandtheliteratureasitdevelopedwithinIsraelbutthe discoveryoforigindoesnotbyitselfexplainthenatureofthecontextandtheusetowhichitisputmustbeconsidered"ontheNewTestament,C.F.Evans:"Thehistoryofthe developmentoftheNewTestamentCanonisthehistoryoftheprocessbywhichbookswrittenforthemostpartforotherpurposesandfromothermotivescametobegiventhis uniquestatus"TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible(Cambridge,1970),vol.1,pp.67,235.

5.

"GabrielGarcaMarquezinsiststhathepreferstheEnglishtranslation[GregoryRabassa'sversionofCienAosdeSoledad,"OneHundredYearsofSolitude"]totheoriginal whichistantamounttosayingtheyareinterchangeable"cf.NewYorker,8November1976,p.199.

Page129

Thetranslatormustrespectfullyrenderboththetransparent(exoteric)andtheopaque(esoteric)partofthetext.Forinthefirst,themessagemustbetransmitted throughwordsthatreplacetheoriginal,andinthesecond,ajustdegreeofelusivenessmustbepreserved.Theappropriatedegreeofopaquenessprecludesthe unwarrantedresorttomerelycitingtheforeignoriginalverbatim,fortheesotericpartsintheoriginalwouldnotbeasesotericasaforeignlanguagewouldbetothe readerofthetranslation:themeaningmustbeopaque,butnotimpenetrable.6Translation,asaprocess,reproducesarelationshipbetweenaworkanditsfieldof meaningtranslation,asanentity,istheclosestcontinuerofaworkinanotherlanguage. Wehavenotyetaddressedthequestionofvariouskindsoftranslationwithinthesamelanguage.Clearly,whatistheclosestcontinuerwithinonelanguagewillbe superiorinaccuracytoallotherattemptstotranslatethework.Butwhoistojudgethedegreeofaccuracy?Thespeakerofthetargetlanguage?Thespeakerofthe sourcelanguage?Clearly,neither.Forthedetermineroftheclosestcontinueroftheoriginalmustbeneitherthespeakerofthesourcelanguagenorthespeakerofthe targetlanguage,butboth.Foronlytheinhabitantofbothfieldsofmeaningcanproperlyassessthefidelitywithwhichtherelationshipoftheoriginaltoitsfieldof meaningispreservedintherelationshipofthetranslationtoitsfieldofmeaning. Yeteventranslationsmaybecharacterizedasbelongingtodifferentgenres:someare"literary"productionsothers"scholarly"renderingsstillothers"exegetical." Someareeven"metatranslations,"providingthetextalongwiththetranslation(aswithsomeeditionsofpoetryintranslation).Oneisoftenaskedwhichtranslationis betterforwhichpurposes.Forthestudent,atranslationlikeDavidHawkes'ALittlePrimerofTuFu,whichtranslatestheselectionofDuFu(TuFu)intheTangshi sanbaishou,withtext,translationcommentary,pronunciationguide,andassortedaids,
6.

Thisinjunctiondoesnotprecludetheuseoftheoriginalwordorterm,whenthattermhasassumedaspecialcurrencyinthetargetlanguagesuchwordsas"savoirfaire," "weltanschauung,""sprezzatura,"arelessopaqueinthetargetlanguagethantotallyforeigntermsandaretheirownbesttranslation.However,suchtermsas"soidisant"and "gungho''aretreacheroustheymeanonethingintheoriginalandsomethingdifferentwhenquotedinanotherlanguage.

Page130

isenormouslyaccommodating.Itis,however,clearlyintendedfortheoutsideinitiateanativewouldfindmuchoftheapparatussuperfluous. Thenthereareothertranslations,repletewiththedensestexegeses,wherethedictionisarcane(evenifitisinthetargetlanguage)theforeignnativewillfindsucha textincomprehensible,andtheneophytewillfindittediouslyunapproachable.Inthefirstinstance,theHawkes,onehasatranslationthatisbothesotericandexoteric initsownright(whateverthenatureoftheoriginalortargetlanguagemaybe):thatis,itaddressesitselfbothtotheoutsiderwhohasaccesstotheexplanation(evenif hedoesn'tcommandtheoriginal)andtotheinsider,whohasaccesstothetextportionsprovided(eveniftheexplanationsinthetargetlanguageproveelusive).Inthe secondcase,onehasatranslationwhichisneitherexoteric(explanatorytothoseoutside)noresoteric(explanatoryonlytotheinitiated),forthediscourseisneither accessibletosomeonewhoknowsonlythetargetlanguagenornecessaryforsomeonefamiliarwiththesourcelanguage.Whatthesetranslationsachieveisapseudo esotericathatisirrelevanttothesourcelanguageorthetargetlanguage:anewsublanguagehasbeencreatedwithitsowninitiates,whichexcludesboththenative familiarwiththeoriginaltextstranslatedandthenonnativewhohasnotreceivedtherequisitespecializedtraining.Thisformofexposition,farfromexposing,makes evenmoreobscurewhatitcommunicatesisthe"foreignness"oftheforeignlanguage.Itcreatesagreaterdelusionthanoneencountersfacingaforeignlanguage:there, oneisneverdeceivedthatoneunderstands,becausethelanguageisforeign.Here,becauseofthearcanathatonehasmastered,theillusionofunderstandingis strongeventhoughthatunderstandingcorrespondsneithertothenative'sexperienceoftheoriginalnortotheuninitiatednonnative'saccesstoameaningful translation.Inotherwords,the"expert's"understandingoftheoriginalcannotbeunderstoodbythosewhospeaktheoriginalnorbythosewhodon't. Withpseudoesotericaadoubledelusionoccurs:theexegetethinksheunderstandsbecauseofthecomplexityorintricacyofhisexegesis(whereasthenative understandswithoutsuchfactitiouscomplications)asfortheuninitiated,heismisledintothinkingthattheoriginaltextismoreremote,moreinaccessible,thanit

Page131

reallyis,becausehecan'tevenunderstandanexplanationofitinhisownlanguage!Iwoulddistinguishthesecasesfrommistranslations,whichareerrorsintransmitting thetext:thesepseudoesotericamaybeaccurateintheirconstituents,yetmisguidedasawhole.Theyareuntranslations:theydonotattemptthetransposition,the metaphoricleap,whichisinvolvedineveryattempttounderstandsomethingnotimmediatelyaccessible.Whattheseuntranslationsdoistosubstituteadifferent obscurity,anartificialdifficulty,foranaturalbutsuperableobstacle.Whereasonedidnotunderstandatextinaforeignlanguagebecauseonedidnotknowthat language,nowonefindsonedoesnotunderstandthescholarlyexegesiseventhoughitiswritteninone'sownlanguage.AfundamentalerrorintheA/X,B/Y relationshiphasbeenmade.Theoriginalisaccessibletotheforeignnativethetranslationshouldbeasaccessibletothespeakerofthetargetlanguage.Butwhat happenswith"untranslations"isthattheworkintranslationismoredifficulttoreadintranslationfortheuserofthetargetlanguagethantheoriginaleverwasforthe nativeinthesourcelanguage. Translationsofthiskindarenotablycliquishandloyaltoeachother,partlybecausetheyaredefensivetowardcritiquesfromnatives(whofindthemsuperfluous)and fromnonnatives(whofindthem,attheleast,unhelpfulandunnecessarilyabstruse).Buttheysoondevelopintotheirownesotericgroupandspeakametalanguage onlytoandforeachother.Intheircompany,neitherthenativenorthenonnativehasanythingworthwhiletosay,fortheyarenotinitiatedintowhatisregardedby insidersasaprivilegedformofdiscourse.Indeed,farfrombeingabridgebetweentwocultures,thislanguagecomprisesanadditionalobstacletoovercomefarfrom improvingcommunicationsbetweenspeakersoftwolanguages,itinterposesathirdlanguagethatmustbemasteredbeforeaccesstotheforeignlanguagecanbe achieved. ThissituationhasbeenexacerbatedintheChinesecasebythehiatusofrelationshipsbetweentheWestandthemajoritypopulationofChineseinthePeople's RepublicofChinathatlastedalmostthirtyyears.Withthebreakincontact,theinterpositionofanintermediaryrangeofdiscoursewasmadehistoricallyconvenient andinevitable,sincedirectcommunicationwaseffectivelyimpracticalifnotimpossible.ThestudyofChinesemore,say,thanthestudyofJapanesewasinescrow duringthisinterregnum,andit

Page132

waslargelythroughtheeffortsoftheseintermediariessometimesreferredtoassinologiststhattheacademicandintellectualpursuitofknowledgeaboutChinawas sustained.7Thephenomenonof"Japanology,"bycontrast,seemsmorelimited,theinterchangebetweenWesternandJapanesescholarshavingbeenenhancedby significantexchangeactivityduringtheveryperiodwheninterchangesbetweenChinaandtheWestwereobstructed.Indeed,theinterchangebetweenJapaneseand Westernscholarshastakentheformofactualcollaborationsorhasassumedagenericdialogue:onethinksofEarlMiner'slongtermprojectoftranslatingJin'ichi Konishi'smultivolumehistoryofJapaneseliteratureortheToynbeeIkedaDialogue,publishedinbookformbyKodanshain1976. Itisbynowaxiomatictorecognizethattranslationinvolvesinterpretationinthatsense,itisagenericallyhermeneuticalact."Thattranslationisaninterpretiveart," writesRenatoPoggioli,"isaselfevidenttruth"(Brower1959:138)."Fortranslationisbyitsnatureinterpretation,"JosephLauinsists,"becauseonecannotconveya foreignmessagewithoutmakingacriticalcomment''(1979:229).GregoryRabassa,perhapsthemostfaithfulofcontemporarytranslators,hasadmittedthe interpretativenessofeventhemostdevotedattemptsatpreservingtheoriginalmeaning:"Thereisasituationinwhichthetranslatorcannotfollowtheoriginalatallinits linguisticintent,butmustaccedetohisownexperienceandfeelingsinhismothertongue"(19741975:34). Thequestionofinterpretativenessintranslationmustbedividedintotwoconcerns:thosewithinthemediumoftheoriginalandthoseinothermedia.Perhapsthemost insightfulconsiderationofvarioustypesofinterpretationisofferedbyPoggioli.Someinterpretersareperformers,Poggiolitellsus:asdancers,actors,singers, instrumentalists,theyenacttheoriginal.Othersaredecorative(Poggioli'sterm,though"complementary"mightbelesspejorative):asscenedesigners,composersof incidentalmusic,bookillustrators,theysupportthemediumwithsubsidiaryeffortsinanothermedium.Poggioliissuggestivewhenhewritesthat"thetranslator
7.

Nocategoricaljudgmentisbeingmadehereaboutthequalityofscholarshipbysinologists.Asinanycategory,whethernativescholars,foreignpopularizers,orbilingual expatriates,someexponentsarebetterthanothershowever,topreferaWilliamHungonDuFutoDavidHawkes,orviceversa,isnotapreferenceastothequalityofscholarship buttotheapproach.

Page133

...istheonlyinterpretiveartistworkinginamediumwhichisbothidenticalwith,anddifferentfrom,thatoftheoriginalhesetsouttorenderinhisown terms"(Brower,p.137).Translationinvolvesbothperformanceanddecoration.Butinterpretationbetweenlanguagessuggeststhattheprocessofunderstandinga translationofaforeigntextisnotgenericallyorcategoricallydifferentfromunderstandingdiscourseinahostlanguage:asSteinersaysemphatically"insideor betweenlanguages,humancommunicationequalstranslation"(1975:47). TheprocessofunderstandingcannotbutinvolveaprocessofinterpretationWittgenstein'sfirstsense,inwhichasentencecanbereplacedbyanotherwhichsaysthe same.YettherearefundamentaldifferencesbetweenChineseandWesternconceptionsoflanguage.WeencounteredthestatementfromtheYijing:"Writingdoesnot fullyexpressspeechspeechdoesnotfullyexpressthought."Thethrustoftheinsightisthatfrommeaningtospeechthereisaloss,andfromspeechtowritingthereis afurtherloss.Meaningisnotnearlysowellrepresentedbywritingasbyspeechbothareinadequate,butwritingparticularlyinphoneticscriptsisevenless adequateforconveyingmeaningthanspeech.ContrastthisviewwiththestatementinthefirstchapterofAristotle'sDeInterpretatione:"Nowspokensoundsare symbolsofaffectionsinthesoul,andwrittenmarkssymbolsofspokensounds."8Whatevertheinadequaciesofeitherformulationmaybe,9thethrustsofthetwo formulationsarepointinginoppositedirections.TheYijingemphasizestheineffabilityofmeaning,thequiddityofexperienceAristotleemphasizestheexpressibilityof meaning,theabstractabilityofmeaningthroughsymbols.TheChineseviewpointstoconcreteness,theGreektoabstraction.TheYijingstressestheinadequacyof language,whatcannotbecommunicated,whileAristotlefocusesontheeffectivenessoflanguageandhowmeaningisrepresented.Inthetwopointsofview, contrastingemphasesratherthancontradictorypropositions,onecanseemeaningviewedasesoteric(Yijing)andasexoteric(Aristotle). Thechallengeoftranslationistopreserveinjustproportionthis
8. 9.

Ackrill(1963),thetranslator,indicatesthat"affectionsofthesoul"arecalled"thoughts"laterintheworkcf.p.113.

Ackrillwrites:"Thisaccountoftherelationsofthingsintheworld,affectionsinthesoul,andspokenandwrittenlanguageisalltoobriefandfarfromsatisfactory....Thereare graveweaknessesinAristotle'stheoryofmeaning"(p.113).

Page134

dualaspectoflanguage.Theadequacyofatranslationmaybejudgedasidefromindividuallapsesaccordingtowhetheritpreservesthatwhichiscommunicablein languageaswellasthatwhichisnot.Simplisticpopulartranslationserasetheuniquenessoftheoriginalcomplex,specializedtranslationsexaggerateitsinaccessibility. Sometranslatorsconveywhattheyviewastheoriginalmeaningwiththeexactequivalent,yettheequivalenceismerelynominalistic:whilethetwowordsdesignatethe samereality(orsetofrealities),theydonot,aswords,affectthereaderwiththesamesenseorfeelingtheydonot,toputitasaChinesemight,"bearthesame fragrance."10Inthatsensetheactoftranslationistocreateanexusofmeaningwithinwhichtheoriginalcanberealized.Theobjecttobetranslatedisnottheoriginal text,buttheconstructrepresentedbytheoriginaltextintheoriginalculturewhatmustbetransmutedisnotaseriesofwords,butacontextofcausesandeffects.As PaulValryputit:"Thisisreallytotranslate,whichistoreconstituteasnearlyaspossibletheeffectofacertaincause...bymeansofanothercause"(quotedby MathewsinBrower,p.75). Thisprocessisnotunliketheprocessoforiginalcreation,aswehaveseen,andoneisremindedofEliot'sfamousdictumonpoeticcomposition,focusedonthe conceptoftheobjectivecorrelative:"asetofobjects,asituation,achainofeventswhichshallbetheformulaofthatparticularemotionsuchthatwhentheexternal facts,whichmustterminateinsensoryexperience,aregiven,theemotionisimmediatelyevoked"(1920:100).Tomodifythisconceptacrosslanguagebarriers,one mightconceiveoftranslationasanimplicitlyobjectivecorrelativethatismadeexplicitlysubjective.Itistheinternalizinginone'sownlanguage(assumingoneis translatingintoone'sownlanguage)oftheexternal,orforeign,objectivecorrelative. Thenotionofsubjectivityandnonsubjectivityinoriginalcom
10.

Totranslatebi as"ceruleanempyrean"wouldbeequallyanabomination.Attemptssuchasthesebetraythedustofdesiccatedlearning:itshowsfamiliaritywith dictionaries,butnotwithlanguage.

Page135

positionis,ofcourse,afamiliaroneoneencountersitinKeats,whosefamouslettertoRichardWoodhousehasoftenbeenquoted:
AstothepoeticalCharacter...itisnotitselfithasnoselfItiseverythingandnothingIthasnocharacterItenjoyslightandshadeitlivesingusto,beitfoulorfair,high orlow,richorpoor,meanorelevatedithasasmuchdelightinconceivinganIagoasanImogen.Whatshocksthevirtuousphilosopherdelightsthechameleonpoet....Apoet isthemostunpoeticalofanythinginexistence,becausehehasnoidentityheiscontinuallyinforandfillingsomeotherbody.11

Basho,theJapanesepoet,saidsomethingsimilar,butheextendedthepoet'schameleonicpowersbeyondeventhelimitationsofhumanexperience:hisdisciple,Doho, recountshisposition:
TheMasteroncesaid:"Learnaboutpinesfrompines,andaboutbamboosfrombamboos."Whathemeantwasthatthepoetmustdetachhimselffromhiswill.Somepeople, however,interprettheword"learn"intheirownwaysandneverreally"learn."''Learn"meanstosubmergeoneselfwithinanobject,toperceiveitsdelicatelifeandfeelitsfeeling, outofwhichapoemformsitself.[Ueda1965:38]

TheonlydifferenceandasignificantoneisthattheEnglishRomanticprojectshimselfintoothercharacters,whereastheJapanesepoetprojectshimselfintoother beings. Poggioli'sportraitofthetranslatorasartistisnotunlike:

Yetthetranslatorisnotaninhibitedpersonheisratheranuninhibitedartist,satisfiedonlywhenheisabletolaytheburningashesofhisheartinawellwroughturnoutsideof himself.Oronecansaythathesucceedsinovercominghisrepressiononlyinhisttettewithaforeignpoetandthatheendsbysublimatinghisinhibitionsthroughthe catharsisofanalienform.Translationisuptoapointanexorcism,or,ifweprefer,theconjuration,throughanotherspirit,ofone'sself.[Brower1959:142]
11.

Letters,editedbyMauriceBuxtonForman(1952:226227).Thephrase"inforandfilling"isorthographicallyuncertain,butthereisreasontothinkthatsinceKeatswrote"in" and"for"closetoeachother,hemighthavehadinmindthesenseof"informing"cf.p.227.

Page136

Poggioliprovidesuswithadefinitionofwhatatranslatoris,ratherthanwhattranslators,differentandindifferent,havebeen.Onenoticesaduality:thetranslator, extendingKeats'sfactorof"negativecapability,"isnothimselfnorishetheoriginal,"negativelycapable"author.Wemaysaythatthetranslatoristwicenegatively capable.(Somemaybe,ofcourse,twicenegativelyincapable.)Butthisnegativecapabilityinvolvesnotmerelyasuppressionofone'sselfandadeferencetothe originalwork(ortotheoriginalauthorifthatauthorisbilingual):thetranslatorhasadualallegiance:totheoriginalworkandtothelanguageintowhichheistranslating. But,aswehaveobserved,languagesarenotequivalentmeansofcommunicatingexperiencetotheextentthattheyembodyculture,thedegreeofoverlapbetween languageswillvarytotheextentthattheculturesshareacommonheritage,ortotheextentthattheyembodyuniversals,inthecaseofcultureswithlittleornohistorical connection.Literalaccuracywillsometimesviolatecontextualfidelityinthosecaseswhereanoverlapdoesnotexistbetweenthefieldsofmeaningcoveredinone languageandthefieldsofmeaningcoveredinanother. Theactoftranslatingistheactofimperfectpreservationinanotherculturalcontextwhichwillallowthe"original"tosurvivethepassingofthecontextfromwhichit emerged.Itrequiresaprojectiveimaginationnotunlikethepoet'swhetherKeats'sorBasho'sanabilitytopopulatetheauthorialselfwithother,evenalien,selves inordertorealizetheseremoteoriginalsinahostlanguageandanativeculture,sothatthe"original"mightbeapprehendedambivalentlyin"ghostlierdemarcations, keenersounds."

Page137

8 GuisesandDisguises: TheEpistemologyofTranslation
IwasonceconsultedonatranslationintoChineseofsomeEnglishnurseryrhymesandhadtochecktherenderingof:
Jackbenimble,Jackbequick, Jackjumpoverthecandlestick.

Asimpleenoughassignment,tobesure.ButwhenIsawthetranslation,InoticedananomalythathadnevertroubledmebeforeinEnglish:"candlestick"was translatedasjutai .Myimmediateresponsewasthatthiswasliterallycorrect,butitwas,somehow,alsowrong.InChinese,thenurseryrhymebecameabsurd moreabsurdthanwouldbeappropriateevenforanurseryrhyme:whowouldbesofoolishastojumpoveracandleholder?Yetthatiswhattherhymesaid.In remonstratingwiththeChinesetranslator,Iindicatedthattheword"candlestick"intherhymeisinterpretedbyeveryspeakerofEnglishasacandleholderwitha lightedcandle.ContemporaryspeakersofEnglishwill,inreading"candlestick,"unwittinglysupplythecandleandtheflame,alongwiththecandlestick.1Traditional interpretationsplaceanevengreateremphasisontheflame,ifthefollowingetymologycanbecredited:''Forcenturies,jumpingoveracandlehasbeenbothasport anda

1.

Thefollowingselectionofillustratednurseryrhymesallincludedalightedcandle:TheTallBookofMotherGoose(NewYork,1943),p.35TheRealMotherGoose(Chicago, 1916,1944),p.16TheSesameStreetPlayersPresentMotherGoose(NewYork,1980,p.82).RichardScarry'sBestMotherGooseEver(NewYork,1964,1970),p.3,showsthe candleinthecandlestick,butwithnoflame.

Page138

wayoftellingfortunesinEngland.Acandlestickwithalightedcandleinitwasplacedonthefloor.Thepersonwhocouldjumpoveritwithoutputtingouttheflame wasassuredofhavinggoodluckforafullyear"(BaringGould1962:194).Theuseoftheword"candlestick"inthenurseryrhymewas,ofcourse,dictatedbythe exigenciesofrhyme,butthemeaningwasunmistakable,evenifimplicit.Yetwhatinterestsmeabouttheexampleisthatonlyanoutsideperspectiveislikelytoshed lightonwhataninsiderseesthroughand,seeingthrough,failstonotice. Asecondcaseinvolvesareverseinstance:translatingacontemporaryChinesepoem,involvingthecharacterofapeasantwoman,whoselifewassoarduousthatshe hadtorinsevegetablesinanicypond,andtheturnipsshehadtocutwerefrozenhardbythecold.Thelineread: )frozenturnips."2WhenIshowedthisproblem linetoanAmericanborn"foreignexpert"inBeijing,Imentionedhowunavailablethephrase"frozenturnips"wasinEnglish,conjuringup,asitmustformostreaders ofEnglish,visionsof"Bird'sEye''and"SnowCrop"brandsinthefreezercompartmentsofAmericansupermarkets.Frozenfoodsarealltoofamiliar,andsymbolize convenience,notarduousness.Myinterlocutor,whohadnotbeenintheUnitedStatesfornearlyageneration,butwasunawarethatshewasoutoftouchwithher ownculture,insistedthatIwastoobiasedinfavorofurbanexperiences(thoughIliveinasmalltownof50,000thatischockfullofsupermarkets)andthatIwas overlycautious.Iwasonthevergeofpointingoutthatfrozenfoodswerealas!alltoofamiliarevenintheruralregionsoftheUnitedStatesandthatthephrase "frozenturnips"wouldsuggestprepackaged,precut,andprecookedvegetables,butIdecidednottoremonstratewithher.Althoughshewasanativespeakerof English,andAmericanEnglishatthat,shewasnolongeranactiveuserofthelanguage,norhadsheregisteredtheculturalchangesintheUnitedStateswhichaffected thelanguage. Indeed,many"foreignexperts"inChina,Idiscovered,areusing
2.

Myfinaltranslationwasnotverysatisfactory:"...slicedtheturnipsfrozenthroughandthrough."Ihadoptedtoconveythesenseofarduousnessintheaction,andIfinessed theonomatopoeiaofxisuo,whichreferredtothecuttingactionoftheknife(thebestIcoulddowas"chopchop,"whichclearlywouldn'tdo)Eoyang(1982b:28,248).

Page139

aversionofEnglishthatstrikescontemporaryspeakersasarchandarchaic,reminiscentofwhatmighthavebeencurrentoveragenerationago,butwhichisseldom encounteredtodayeveninpretentiousspeech.Itisnotaquestionofcorrectnessbutcurrency.Unlesstranslationsaredeliberatelyarchaicforeffect,theobjectof effectivetranslationsistorendertheminthelinguisticspeciesoftheday.ManyrenderingsofChinesetextsintoarchaicEnglishareirksometothecontemporaryear. Theseexamplesshowthekindsofknowledgethatastudyoftranslationscanyield:inthefirstinstance,it'sacaseofanexotericperspective,wheresomethingis revealedwhenitisseenfromtheoutsideinthesecondinstance,it'sacaseofesotericperspective(inthiscaseinvolvingthetarget,notthesourcelanguage,asis usuallythecase),whereone'sfamiliaritywiththeculture(evenforalapsedexpatriatednative)isinsufficientunlessitiscurrentandpartakesofinsideknowledge. ThesetwokindsofknowledgeareimplicitinaquestionthatSocratesposesinPlato'sdialogue,theTheaetetus:"Isitpossibleforaperson,ifheknowsathing,atthe sametimenottoknowthatwhichheknows?"(Fowler1952:89).3Howeverfutilethediscussionatarrivingatasatisfactorydefinitionofknowledge,Plato'sSocrates toysabitwithTheaetetus'simpetuousrejectionofthepropositionthatapersoncanknowathingandatthesametimenotknowthatwhichheknows.Whatifan adversary,Socratesspeculates,weretoputhishandoveroneofyoureyesandaskifyoucouldseehiscloakwiththeeyethatiscovered?Theaetetus'reply:"Ishall say,Ithink,'Notwiththateye,butwiththeother.'"TowhichSocratesretorts:"Thenyouseeanddonotseethesamethingatthesametime?"Despiteanattemptat evasionbyTheaetetus,Socratespersists:"Nowmanifestlyyouseethatwhichyoudonotsee.Butyouhaveagreedthatseeingisknowingandnotseeingisnot knowing''(Fowler,p.91).Stereopicknowledgeknowledgethathasthreedimensionalityanddepthinvolvesseeingbothwiththeesotericandtheexotericeye, knowledgethatisinformedwithcontent,andknowledgeawareofcontext.Thestudyofculturesandtheliteraturesinvariousculturescannotdismisseither
3.

Ultimatelythedialogueconsiders,andrejects,thedefinitionofknowledgeas(1)perception(2)trueopinion(3)trueopinionwithreasonedexplanation.

Page140

formofknowledge,itscommunicablecontentaswellasitsincommunicablespirit. InTheGenesisofSecrecy,FrankKermode(1979:125)beginshisconcludingchapter,entitled"TheUnfollowableWorld,"withthefollowingdisquisitionon interpretation:

Ihavebeenconsidering,underdifferentaspects,someoftheforcesthatmakeinterpretationnecessaryandvirtuallyimpossible,andsomeoftheconstraintsunderwhichitis carriedon.Ihavespokenofdeafnessandforgetfulnessaspropertiesnotonlyoftexts,butofhistory,andofinterpreters....AndIhavesuggestedthatinterpretation,which corruptsortransforms,beginssoearlyinthedevelopmentofnarrativetextsthattherecoveryoftherealrightoriginalthingisanillusoryquest.

Theillusoryquesttorecover"therealrightoriginalthing"isalsothefutileefforttorenderatextintranslation.Wehaveseeninstancesof"deafnessandforgetfulnessas propertiesnotonlyoftexts,butofhistory,andofinterpreters."Andwearefamiliarwithaccusationsthattranslationstransformwhentheydonotcorrupttheoriginal. FrankKermodeisnottheonlymajorcritictoaddressthequestionofinterpretationandhermeneuticswithafocusontheBible:NorthropFryeexploresthesame territoryinTheGreatCode(1982).Asidefromtheappropriatenessofthisreturnofhermeneuticstoitshistoricalsourceinthetraditionofbiblicalinterpretation,the Bible,asaliterarywork,offersperhapsthemostversatileandcomprehensivetestcaseforhermeneuticalinsights:ithasspawnednotonlyhundredsoftranslations,but thedifferencesbetweeninterpretationshaveaffectedthehistoryofatleasttheWesternworld:conflictingreadingsoftheBiblehaveresultedinsectariandisputes,in theschismofthechurchrepresentedbyitsdivisionbetweenProtestantandCatholic.Indeed,antipathiesbetweensacredandsecularvisionsoftheBiblecontinueto rage,particularlyintheUnitedStatestoday.Muchofthedisagreement,presentandpast,maybecharacterizednotbythosewhoknowandthosewhoareignorantof thebiblicaltext.(SomeatheistsknowtheBibleaswellasmanyclericsandseminarianswhilesomesocalledChristiansareonlysuperficiallyacquaintedwiththe work.)Rather,thedisputeseemstoinvolvethewayinwhichthetextistoberead:asallegory,asmyth,asliteraltruth,orasfiction.

Page141

TheearlyhistoryoftheBiblealreadyinvolvesconsiderationsofexotericandesotericlanguage,fortheOldTestamentwas,clearly,writtenwithinthenativeJewish traditionyettheNewTestamentwascomposedinanonnativelinguisticmedium.AsNorthropFryeobserves:"TheNewTestamentwaswritteninakoineGreek unlikelytohavebeenthenativelanguageofitsauthors,and,whateverthedegreeoffamiliarityofthoseauthorswithHebrew,theytendedtomakemoreuseofthe SeptuagintGreektranslationinreferringtotheOldTestament"(p.3). YettheBiblepresentsanambivalentparadigmofmeaning:ithasbeentranslatedintomorelanguagesthananyotherworkithasattractedadherentsthroughits translatedversionsinfargreaternumbersthanthetextintheoriginallanguageithasconvertedbelieversevenfromculturesoutsidetheJudeoChristiantradition. Perhaps,morethananyotherworkinhumanhistory,itisanexotericwork,characterizedbyaremarkablecapacitytorelatetotheforeignreaderwithamessageon hisownterms.4Despitethiseminenttransmittability,thisclarityofmeaning,thekerygmaticcharacteroftheBible,itstenaciouslywithheldmeaning,remains.Thereisa Biblefor"insiders"andaBiblefor"outsiders."Kermodedesignatesthesetwokindsofmeaningas"carnal"and''spiritual,"5andfocusesontheuseofparablesinthe Bible:
WhenJesuswasaskedtoexplainthepurposeofhisparables,hedescribedthemasstoriestoldtothemwithouttooutsiderswiththeexpresspurposeofconcealingamystery thatwastobeunderstoodonlybyinsiders.SoMarktellsus:speakingtotheTwelve,Jesussaid,"ToyouhasbeengiventhesecretofthekingdomofGod,butforthoseoutside everythingisinparablessothattheymayindeedseebutnotperceive,andmayindeedhearbutnotunderstandlesttheyshouldturnagainandbeforgiven."6

KermodecontraststheversionofthesamesceneinMarkwiththeoneinMatthew.ThekeysentenceinvolvesMark'suseoftheGreek
4. 5.

IammakingnobriefforthevalorizationofChristianityasareligionoverotherreligions,merelycitingitslinguistichistory.

ThesetermsareparticularlydisconcertingintheChristiantradition,since"carnal"seemssomehowreprehensibleandweak(aswith"theflesh")and"spiritual"isconsidered superior.AsIreadit,Kermodeintendsthesetermstobeneutral.
6.

ThetextisMark4:1112cf.Kermode(1979:2),Kermode'semphasis.

Page142

wordhina,"sothat"or"inorderthat,"yielding:''ToyouhasbeengiventhesecretofthekingdomofGod,butforthoseoutsideeverythingisinparablessothatthey mayindeedseebutnotperceive,andmayindeedhearbutnotunderstand."Thesense,whichiscontestedbysomebiblicalexegetes,mayarisefromMark's misreadingofalostAramaicoriginalwithasomewhatdifferentmeaning.Mark'sinterpretationis,however,clear:Jesusiswillfullyexcluding"thoseoutside"the parableistoputthemoffthescent,todenythem"thesecretofthekingdomofGod." Matthew,ontheotherhand,ismoreaccommodatinginhisversion(13:1113):heusesthekeywordhoti,Greekfor"because,"whichyieldsthesense:"Ispeakto theminparablesbecausetheyseewithoutperceiving"(2833).SkepticsoftranslationsubscribetoMark'sviewofthe"secret,"thatitmustbewithheldfrom"those outside,"whocouldnotpossiblyunderstandtheoriginaladherentsoftranslationadoptthemorecharitableviewofMatthewandpursuetranslationbecause"those outside"simplycannotreadtheoriginal. Parableisyetanotherparadigmfortranslation.Foraninsider'sstoryisbeingtoldtooutsiders,anirreduciblecoreisatonceconveyedandwithheldfromtheoutsider translatorsandreadersoftranslationarelikethosewho"indeedseebutdonotperceive,andmayindeedhearbutnotunderstand."Thenotionofparableinvolves,as Kermodesuggests,"comparison,""analogy,"and"riddle"(p.23).Thesetropesallapplytotranslation:comparisonbetweentheoriginalandthetranslationanalogy betweenthetranslationandtheoriginalandriddleastheessenceoftheoriginal,whichforevereludesthetranslation.(Frost's"poetryiswhatgetslostinthe translation.") Kermodetouchesonapointofepistemologyinourunderstandingof"carnal"and"spiritual"knowledge:"Wefindithardesttothinkaboutwhatwehavemost completelytakenforgranted"(p.65).Elsewhere,invokingHeidegger,Kermoderemarks:"ForHeideggerindeed,itistheveryfactthatoneisoutsidethatmakes possibletherevelationoftruthormeaningbeinginsideislikebeinginPlato'scave"(p.39).Thestudyoftranslationyieldsboththetruthsoftheinsiderandtheinsights oftheoutsider.Thenativefamiliarwithaworkknowswhatitistheforeignerwhoreadsthetranslationappreciateswhatitisn't.Forthosewhoarenotamongthe initiated,translationisasurrogatefortheoriginalandits

Page143

"closestcontinuer"itconveysthemeaningsoftheoriginal,ifnotitstruth.Thetranslationachieves,therefore,twoobjectives:itannouncesthework,and,toacertain extent,itrenouncesit.Foranative,atranslationwillbe,astheparablesofJesuswereforthedisciples,redundantfortheforeigner,atranslationwillbea"dark saying,"withthefascinationofmystery,ariddleandforthosewhoarebothinsidersandoutsiders,translationconstitutesastereopicformofknowledgethatseesand perceives,thathearsandunderstands.Likeparable,translation''mayproclaimatruthasaheralddoes,andatthesametimeconcealtruthlikeanoracle":thestudyof translationmustcombinebothanalysisanddivination. Inthetheoryofliterature,oneofthemostseminalnotionsdefiningthe"literariness"ofverbalartisViktorShklovsky'sconceptof"defamiliarization"(ostraenie),which designatesaprocessbywhichtheillusorypermanenceofthepresentisdispelledandtheparticularityoflifeandexperiencerestored."Artisinthiscontextawayof restoringconsciousexperience,"FredricJamesonwrites,"ofbreakingthroughdeadeningandmechanicalhabitsofconduct...andallowingustobereborntothe worldinitsexistentialfreshnessandhorror"(1972:51).Thisimpulsetocaptureinwordsthemundanityoflifeinanythingbutamundanewaymaybeseenimplicitlyor explicitlyinmostliteraryfictions:perhapsitsearliestexpressionoccursinMurasakiShikibu,intheeleventhcentury,whoseGenjidefendstheartofthenovelin preciselythetermsofdefamiliarization:
...Ithappensbecausethestoryteller'sownexperienceofmenandthings,whetherforgoodorillnotonlywhathehaspassedthroughhimself,buteveneventswhichhehas onlywitnessedorbeentoldofhasmovedhimtoanemotionsopassionatethathecannolongerkeepitshutupinhisheart.Againandagainsomethinginhisownlifeorinthat aroundhimwillseemtothewritersoimportantthathecannotbeartoletitpassintooblivion.Theremustnevercomeatime,hefeels,whenmendonotknowaboutit....Thus anythingwhatsoevermaybecomethesubjectofanovel,providedonlythatithappensinthismundanelifeandnotinsomefairylandbeyondourhumanken.[Waley1960:501 502]

Proust'sobsessionwiththefragranceofthemadeleinedippedinteaaswellasJoyce'ssearchforepiphaniesspringfromthesameimpulse.Thereaderiscompelledby arttopaymoreattentionto

Page144

theportrayaloflifeinartthanhedoestolifeitself.Artis,therefore,reflexiveaswellasreflectiveitisatonceselfreferentialandmimetic. Translationsofliteraryworksofartadopt,inacomplexrelationship,theoppositethrustatleastforitsfirst,foreignreader.Itmakesfamiliarthatwhichisinitially strangeitsubsumesintheexperienceofthetargetlanguagetheeventsdescribedinthesourcelanguage.Thedefamiliarizationdoesnotconstitutea"recognition"of realitylivedthroughyetoverlooked,buttheconfrontationofanewandunexpectedexperience.Foratranslationto"makesense,"itmustrelateunfamiliarexperiences infamiliarwaysitmustremovetheveilofforeignnessinthetext.Yetthetranspositionwillnotbetotallysuccessful,forwhatmaybefamiliarinoneculturewilloften provelessfamiliarinanother,andtherewillbeanelementofthefantasticinanyrealitythatisexotic.Itisthepsychologyofhumannaturethatthemundaneexperience ofothers,particularlythoseinremotecountries,farremovedfromone'sown,mayseem"somefairylandbeyondourhumanken.''TranslatorsArthurWaleythe mostnotableinstancemayneversetfootinthecultureoftheoriginalandyetmanageverywellthetaskof"familiarizing"atotallyforeignexperienceorsetting.Fora bilingualnative(orexpatriate),familiarwiththetargetculture,readingatranslationoutofhisorhercultureconstitutesabifocalperspective:heorshewillbereading myopicallywithrespecttotheoriginal,distractedbytheminutiaeofcomparisonandthedisparitiesbetweenthetranslationandtheoriginalheorsheknewandheor shewillbereadinghyperoptically,seeingclearlythingsatadistance,andrelishingthenewworldscreatedbythetranslation,thenewlifethathasbeengiventhe original.7 Thereadingoftranslationsasliteraturepresentsadifferentsetof
7.

OneinstancewouldbeJosephLau'scomparisonofthetranslationofTheDreamoftheRedMansions,byGladysandHsienyiYang,withtheversionofDavidHawkes, publishedasTheStoryoftheStone.ForLau,theversionbytheYangs"offersnosparksofintelligencewhichmaysetaChinesereader,whosevisionisbluntedbylinguistic familiarity,onhiswaytocriticaldiscoveries.Forthisreason,atranslationasdistinguishedasHawkes'isperhapsmoreusefultothebilingualChinesereadersthantothosewho readChineseasaforeignlanguage"TamkangReview10(1&2)(FallWinter1979):238.AnotherinstancewouldbeWailimYip'spredilectionsforEzraPound'sversionof Chinesepoetry,evenwhileherecognizestheirerrorscf.Yip(1969).

Page145

problems:ifoneconsiderstheworkoftranslationitsownliteraryachievement,withnoappreciablereferencetoanyotherwork,thenthetestofagoodtranslationis whetheriteffectively"defamiliarizes"themundane.Butwhose"mundane"?Thereaderinthetargetlanguage,exclusively.Theseversionswemaycallsurrogate translations.Ifoneconsiderstheworkoftranslationasareliableintroductiontotheoriginal,butnotintendedasitsreplacement,thenitsvalueisconditional,its audienceisatleastpotentiallybilingual,andthetestofitsqualityiswhetheriteffectivelyfamiliarizesthesupramundane:itmustbejudgedonhowaccessibleitmakesa foreigntexttoastudentofthattext.Wemaycallthesecontingenttranslations.Finally,ifatranslationistobeconsideredasacorrelatetotheoriginal,tocoexistwith it,neitherasitsreplacementforthosewhodonotreadtheoriginal,norasanaidforthosewhowishtoapproachtheoriginal,butasitspossiblerival(andintheevent ofthedisappearanceoftheoriginal,itsreplacement),thenitsaudienceisequivalentlybilingual,itsreadersamorecosmopolitanpolyglottribunal.Wemaycallthese coevaltranslations. Ofcourse,thesecategoriesareanalyticconstructs,notarbitrarycompartmentswithmutuallyexclusivecontents:someworksmayserveallthreefunctionsatonetime oranotherothersmaystartoutasasurrogatetranslationandevolveovertimeintoacoevaltranslation.ArthurWaley'stranslationoftheGenjistartedasasurrogate translationitbecameacontingenttranslationforagenerationofWesternstudentsofJapaneseliteratureandasitattainedapopularityamongEnglishreading Japanese,itbecameasurrogatetranslation,evenfortheJapanese,withawideraudiencethantheoriginal,sinceHeianJapanesewasmoreforeigntotheJapanese todaythanEnglishwouldbe.ForthescholarofHeianliteraturewhocanreadtheGenjimonogatariintheoriginal,Waley'stranslationassumescoevalstatus.Other Waleyeffortsseemlessversatile:hisChinesePoems(1917)wereclearlysurrogatetranslations,presentedashisworkmorethanasreflectionsoftheoriginalshis 1937versionofTheBookofSongsisacontingenttranslation,clearlyintendedforstudentsof"comparativeliterature,folklore,orthelike."8Histranslationofthe Xiyouji ,titledMonkeyandpublishedin1943,constitutesonlyathirdoftheentirenovelbut
8.

Theprefacetothesecondedition(1960)directsthereadertoconsultBernhardKarlgren'sGlossesontheBookofOdes,publishedin1942,1944,and1946.

Page146

forWesternreaderswhoareputoffbythearcanaofBuddhistandDaoistterms(soconscientiouslydetailedbyAnthonyYuinhiscomprehensivetranslation,The JourneytotheWest),itmayconstituteacoevaltranslation.Theprogressoftranslationsfromthesurrogatetothecoevalphaseisaprogresstowardatruemutuality ofcultures,towardaconditionofequipoisebetweensourceandtargetlanguage,towardanultimatecosmopolitanism. Itmightbearguedthatcoevaltranslationsare,orwouldbe,redundantinacomprehensivelymultilingualworld,whichisneitherthestateofasingleworldlanguage beforeBabel,northestateofmutualincomprehensibilityafterBabel,butanewsyncreticpolyglotmunduslinguarumwhichpreservestheindividualspeciesof languageevenwhileitfosterscommercebetweenthem.Ifoneassumesthenonequivalenceofatranslationtotheoriginal,thennotranslationcaneverberedundant. Eachtranslationprovidesadifferentperspective,notonlyontheoriginal,butontheprocessbywhichweknowourplace,nativeorforeign,intheworld.Initsfailures andfalsetransmutations,itsmisbegottenalchemy,eveninthealembicofthebestpractitioners,convertinggoldtodross,everytranslationassaysthetruemettleofthe originallanguage. Translationcanbetheepistemologicaltoolbywhichthedeicticweisdefined:byprovidingtheoutsider'sperspective,byseeingtheselfastheother,byseeingthe otherastheself,translationcan,inHusserl'sterms,"bracket"culturalexperience,seeitneitherfromthefalseperspectiveofanunattainabletotalobjectivitynorthe solipsismsofonanisticsubjectivity.Itisusuallysaidofwidereading,asoftravel,thatitextendsone'shorizons,widensone'sperspective:butwhatisalsogainedby thisextendedhorizon,thiswidenedperspective,aseverytravelerknows,isaninsightinto,andaclearerdemarcationof,theself.Socrates'questionintheTheaetetus, whichPlatoleftunanswered,isnotabsurd.Itispossibletoknowsomethingand,atthesametime,notknowthatwhichoneknows."Poetry,creativeliterature," Heideggerwrote,"isnothingbuttheelementaryemergenceintowords,thebecominguncovered,ofexistenceasbeingintheworld"(Heidegger1982:171172). Thisactofdisclosure,mademanifestintranslation,whichbothindicateswhattheoriginalisandwhatit,precisely,isnot,isHeidegger's''truth,"whichhecalls aletheia,"unconcealment."Hisdefinitionofunderstandinghasparticularrelevance

Page147

here:"Alongwithunderstandingthereisalwaysalreadyprojectedaparticularpossiblebeingwiththeothersandaparticularpossiblebeingtowardintraworldly beings"(Heidegger1982:278).Elsewhere:"Inselfunderstandingthereisunderstoodthebeingintheworldwithwhichspecificpossibilitiesofbeingwithothersand ofdealingwithintraworldlybeingsaretracedout"(p.279). Heideggerdistinguishesbetween"authentic"and"inauthentic"understanding:"FacticalDaseincanunderstanditselfprimarilyviaintraworldlybeingswhichit encounters.Itcanletitsexistencebedeterminedprimarilynotbyitselfbutbythingsandcircumstancesandbyothers.""Inauthentic"understandingdoesnotmeanthat itisnotactualunderstanding,Heideggerinsists:"ItdenotesanunderstandinginwhichtheexistentDaseindoesnotunderstanditselfprimarilybythatapprehended possibilityofitselfwhichismostpeculiarlyitsown''(p.279).Theencounterof"Daseinprimarilyviaintraworldlybeings"istheencounteroftheoriginalwithits translations"inauthentic"understandingistheunderstandingoftheinsiderwhichisspecificallyunawareof"thatapprehendedpossibilityofitself...mostpeculiarlyits own."Translationbecomesamodeofdiscovery,evenofselfdiscovery,thatdisclosestheoriginaltextatthesametimethatitenhancesitsselfconcealment. IhaveappliedtheRussianFormalistnotionofdefamiliarization(ostraenie)andHeidegger'sconceptofunconcealmenttoaconsiderationoftranslation.Thereisa thirdnotionthatseemsappositetotheseconsiderations:Brecht'sVerfremdungseffekt("alienationeffect").WhileShklovsky'semphasisisaesthetic,andHeidegger's ismetaphysical,Brecht'sversionismoremodestlyrestrictedtothepsychologyoftheater.Fortheplaygoer,theeffectofwatchingaperformanceistowitnessa presentationofthepast,toseeapresencingofthepast:"Theaudiencemustbediscouragedfromlosingtheircriticaldetachmentbyidentificationwithoneormore ofthecharacters.Theoppositeofidentificationisthemaintenanceofaseparateexistencebybeingkeptapart,alien,strange....Thatisthemeaningofthefamous Verfremdungseffekt"(Esslin1961:125).Thisdescriptionappliespreciselytotheprocessofreadingatranslation.TheVerfremdungseffekt(Frenchdistantiation) characterizestheresponseofthereadertoatranslation.Inthecaseofsurrogatetranslations,theVerfremdungseffektisoneofexoticcontent.Here,withno

Page148

nativereferenceavailabletoverifytheaccuracyofthetranslation,theboguswillprevail. Thegenreofpseudoalienscommentingonnativeexperiencesflourishesinanageofreason,intheeighteenthcentury,withMontesquieu'sLettresPersanes(1721), Voltaire'sZadig(1747),andOliverGoldsmith'sCitizenoftheWorld(1762).Goldsmith'sdepictionofan"intraworldly"alieninvolvestheobservationsofapseudo Persian,apseudoBabylonian,andapseudoChinese,respectively.(Notetheincreasingremotenessofthealienintimeandspace.)Intheearlytwentiethcentury, surrogatetranslationswillbecontrived,sometimesimaginedoutofwholecloth,orcompiledfrompastichesofvarioustranslations.In1900,TheWalletofKaiLung byErnestBramahinitiatedaseriesofverypopularbooksthat,overfortyyears,presentedaChina"sorealandsocomprehensivelyChinese...thatmanyreaders andreviewersoftheKaiLungstorieshavetendedtoaskabouttheirsource."9Documentsuncoveredafterhisdeathindicatethattheauthor,ErnestBramahSmith (18681942),hadneverbeentoChina.Thereare,ofcourse,manyotherinstancesofpseudoalienswhowere,moreorless,inventedoutofwholecloth.Hans Bethge'sDieChinesischeFlte(1907)wassubtitled"NachdichtungenChinesischerLyrik"itinspiredGustavMahlertocomposeafamoussongcycle,"DasLied vonderErde,''whichwasperformedin1911,theyearofhisdeath.Butacloserexaminationoftheprovenanceoftextsshowsthatateachstageofadaptation, libertiesweretakennotonlywiththerenderingofeachlinebutwiththeintegrityoftheoriginalpoems.10 Surrogatetranslationsreflectanearlystageofculturalexchangethatoftencaterstothetargetaudience'stastefortheexotic,withoutconcernforanyfidelitytothe culturebeingportrayed.Contingenttranslationsarelessmischievous,buttheytendtostressthedifficultyofaccess:thesourceappearstoostrange,andoneisoften estrangedbythelifelessnessofthepresentation.Coevaltranslationsprovidewhatisperhapsthemostconstructiveformofthe
9.

WilliamWhite,"ErnestBramahonChina:AnImportantLetter,"PublicationsoftheModernLanguageAssociation87(3)(May1972):511512.Oneisnotawareofthebasison whichtheauthorofthisarticle,anAmericanacademic,claimsthatthesenovelsare"sorealandsocomprehensivelyChinese."
10.

Foradetailedanalysis,seeChapter9.

Page149

Verfremdungseffekt,for,withaccesstoaworthwhileoriginalandacreditabletranslation,theprospectsforinsightfulexplorationareenormouslyenhanced. Inthisbriefexcursus,onecanseeaprogressionfromanaudiencethatspecificallyexcludesthepossibilityofanativeinthesourcelanguagereadingthetranslations. Theeffectonthereaderinthetargetlanguage,particularlyintheEnglishspeakingworld,wasofsomethingnewandfreshhowevertraditionalandfamiliarthese worksmighthavebeentotheChinese.11WiththesystematicdevelopmentofChinesestudiesintheWest,particularlyintheUnitedStates,afterWorldWarII,many ofthesurrogatetranslationswerereplacedbycontingenttranslations:suchworksasWilliamHung'sTuFu:China'sGreatestPoet(1952)initiatedthisphasehe addressesanaudienceofstudentsinterestedinthelanguage.Theseproductionswouldproveunappetizingtothegenerallayreader,andtheirsaleswerelimited, restrictedtospecialistsanduniversitylibraries.NativeChinese,ofcourse,werenotlikelytoneedthem(unlesstheywereteachingforeigners). Inthe1960s,anewgroupofscholartranslators,manynotonlynativebuteducatedintheWestandteachingthere,beganproducingcoevaltranslationsthatis, worksthatcouldbearupunderthestereopicscrutinyofboththemonolingualandthebilingualreader.C.T.Hsia,withhisHistoryofModernChineseFiction (1961)andTheClassicChineseNovel(1968),providedaselectionofnewlytranslatedexcerptsofChinesefictioninhisanalysis.JamesJ.Y.Liusetanew standardforaccuracyanddeftnessinthetranslationsprovidedinTheArtofChinesePoetry(1962).DavidHawkes,withhisfourvolumeTheStoryoftheStone (19791987,withthefinalvolumecompletedbyJohnMinford)AnthonyYu,withhisfourvolumeversionofTheJourneytotheWest(19771983)Gladysand HsienyiYang,withtheirversionofCaoXueqin'sclassicADreamofRedMansions(19781980)alltypifythisgenerationoftranslatorsandtranslations.Ina sense,thesetranslatorsrepresentanewgenerationofreadersaswell:thosefrombothcultureswho
11.

Waley'sfirstpublicationsofChinesepoetrywereheraldedintheTimesLiterarySupplementinanarticletitled"ANewPlanet":"Itisastrangeandwonderfulexperienceto readthetranslations"cf.MadlySingingintheMountains,ed.IvanMorris(1970:135).

Page150

havetovaryingdegreesequalaccesstobothlanguagesandtobothcultures. Evenhere,however,aVerfremdungseffektremains.Nolongerisitaquestionofanencounterwith"strangeandwonderful"things,fortheoriginalsarealready familiarnorisitaquestionofgenericmalformation,whereversionsofliteraturetakeonthecharacterofaclassroomtextbook,repletewithglosses,notes,and,in somecases,transliterationsandcomments.Thedistantiationismoreintellectualthanculturalitarisesoutofsemanticdisparitiesbetweenthetranslationandthe original.Itwouldnotbepossibleforanativefamiliarwiththeoriginaltoconfrontatranslationwiththesameblithetrustthatanonnativemight.Andthereisan inevitableshockinseeingsomethingfamiliarinaforeignguise.SurelythisisnotthekindofVerfremdungseffektthatBrechthadinmind,norisitpreciselythe "defamiliarization"oftheRussianFormalists,butithasitsusesnevertheless.Itmaybecharacterizedasan''unconcealment"oftheoriginal,seeingitmoremeaningfully forwhatitisand,eveninanunsuccessfulattempttocaptureit,forwhatitisnot. Insum,translationoffersatoolofinvestigation,particularlywithapolyglotaudience,intowhatliteratureis,ratherthanwhatliteraturesare.Thetruthsofliterary investigationarenotpropositional:theyareintuitiverevelatoryandepiphanous,theyaccomplishwhatHeideggercallsdasEreignen,which"yieldstheopeningofthe clearinginwhichpresentbeingscanpersistandfromwhichwhatabsentbeingscandepartwhilekeepingtheirpersistenceinthewithdrawal."12Heidegger'sconvoluted formulationrecallsPoggioli'smoretranslucentnotionoftheexplicitabsenceoftheoriginalanditsidealpresenceinthetranslation.Thisintenselyparadoxicalandironic ontologydifferentiatesbetweenwhatisobviousandwhatisunconcealed,betweenwhatispresentbyitsabsenceandwhatisabsentbyitspresencetheformulationis particularlyaptfortranslation.Forwhatonedoeshaveinatranslatedworkisobviouslynottheoriginal,buttheoriginal,inasense,unconcealedyet,atthesametime, whatisunconcealedisnotactually
12.

FromUnterwegszurSprache(Pfullingen,1959),p.258translatedbyPeterD.Hertz,OntheWaytoLanguage(NewYork,1971),p.127quotedbyAlfredHofstadter(1979:33).

Page151

theoriginal,butsomeoriginalmanqu.Whatismissingisnotindeterminate,however,butaspecificoriginalthatrepresentsthe"absences"that"canescape"andatthe sametime,"keepitsstayinginthisescape."NothingrevealsmoreeffectivelythetruthsofHeidegger'saletheia,"unconcealment,''thantranslation,foritshowsboth whatisrevealedandwhatisconcealed.

Page152

9 HorizonsofMeaning: ThePhenomenologyofTranslation
Amongthemostactiveareasofliteraryresearchinrecentyearshasbeenthereaderresponseschool(Rezeptionssthetik)ofsuchtheoristsandpractitionersasHans RobertJaussandWolfgangIser.Jauss'sconceptofErwartungshorizont,"thehorizonofliteraryexpectations,"positsarelationshipbetweenthewidehorizonofthe literarytextandthewidehorizonofthereader'slifeexperience:theexpectationsofthereadertobedeterminedbythereactionsofpreviousreadersinpublished criticism.Inthecaseoftranslations,theexpectationswarrantedbytheoriginalcanbeeasilyestablished,sincetheworktobetranslated(evencontemporaryworks) willhaveaprogenyacontemporaryreputationinthecaseofrecentworks,acriticalevaluationinthecaseoftraditional.Thishorizonofexpectationcanbe concretelycomparedwiththehorizonofexpectationreflectedintherenderingofatleastonereader,thetranslator.ButwhereasJaussmeasuresthedegreeof disparitybetweenthehorizonofexpectationintheliterarytextandthatofthepublicasindicatingtheliteraryvalueofthework,incomparingthehorizonsof knowledgefortextandtranslator,onemaymeasurethedegreeofaccuracyintranslation. ThedifficultyofRezeptionssthetikisthatitinvolveseitherquantitativeanalysesofresponse"norms"(asintheresearchofWernerBaueretal.1972)ortheingenuity ofthecriticinconstructingareaderorsetsofreaderswhetheran"impliedreader"(Iser),a''superreader"(Riffaterre),an"informedreader"(Fish),oran"intended reader"(Wolf).(OnealmostsensesthatthetheoristsofRezeptionssthetikarecompetingwithauthorsininventingasmany

Page153

readersastherearecharactersinnovels.)Unlikethesehypothesized"readers,"however,thereadersreflectedintranslationsaredeterminableanddocumentablethe evidenceofreadingisexplicitandunarguableinthetextofthetranslation.Multipletranslationsofthesameworkovergenerationsprovidedirectlyavailableclueson thewaytheliterarytextwasread.Andaseverygenerationinsists,rightly,ontranslatingforitselftheclassicsofthepast,thereisanampleandfaithfulrecordof representativereadingsacrossgenerations.Asforthesignificanceofaparticularreading,thepublicresponsetoaparticulartranslationmaybeusedasanindextothe representativenessofatranslationforthatparticulargeneration.VerticalstudiesofsuccessivetranslationsoftheBibleinEnglish,oftheTaleofGenjiinArthur Waley'sversionof19231933andEdwardSeidensticker'sof1976wouldrevealmuchnotonlyabouttheworkbutalsoabouttheerasinwhichitwastranslated. Asidefromthedifferencesonspecificpointsoftranslation,onecancomparethestylisticcharacteristicsofeachanddeterminethedisponibilitofagenerationby examiningnotonlywhichaspectsoftheoriginalitemphasizes,butwhichoriginalsitchoosestorenderandtoread. WolfgangIsermodifiesRomanIngarden'sdefinitionoftheliteraryworkofartasneitherthemutetextnorthesubjectivereactionofthereadernortheinferred intentionoftheauthor(avoidingtherebyboththeIntentionalandtheAffectivefallacies,aswellasthepositedautonomiesofNewCriticism).Hepositsaconvergence oftextandreader,makingtheauthorandthereaderpartnersinliteraryrealization(Ingarden'sKonkretisation).Iser(1978)takespainstodissociatehistheoryof readingfromthepsychoanalytictheoriesofNormanHollandandSimonLesser(pp.3850).Andheiscarefultodistinguishhisnotionof"theimpliedreader"from: "therealreader"tooelusivetoestablish,particularlyforearlierperiods"theidealreader"a"structuralimpossibility"whichpositsareaderwithacodeidenticalto theauthor,therebymakingcommunicationsuperfluousifnotredundant''thesuperreader"which,"thoughitallowsforanempiricallyverifiableaccountofboththe semanticandpragmaticpotential...inthetext,"is"notproofagainsterror"becauseitistoodependentonvariabilitiesof"historicalnearnessofdistance""the informedreader"whichistooreaderorientedandfocusesnoton"clarifyingtheprocessingof

Page154

literarytexts"butonprocessingtheuseroftheliterarytextand"theintendedreader"which,whileusefulforanunderstandingofthehistoricalcontext,failsto addresstherelevanceofaworktocontemporaryaudiences(pp.2834).Tothesediscardednotionsofthereader,Iserconstructsacomprehensivemodelof"the impliedreader''whichisnottobeconfusedwithanyoftheprecedingmodelsbutwhich,insomesense,subsumesthemall:thewholeconceptoftheimpliedreader "providesalinkbetweenallthehistoricalandindividualactualizationsofthetextandmakesthemaccessibletoanalysis....[It]isatranscendentalmodelwhichmakes itpossibleforthestructuredeffectsofliterarytextstobedescribed....[It]offersameansofdescribingtheprocesswherebytextualstructuresaretransmuted throughideationalactivitiesintopersonalexperiences"(p.38).Earlier,Iserobserved:"Thestructureofthetextsetsoffasequenceofmentalimageswhichleadtothe texttranslatingitselfintothereader'sconsciousness." Thereferencestotheprocessof"thetexttranslatingitself"and"theprocesswherebytextualstructuresaretransmuted"naturallybringtomindtheprocessofactual translation,wherethetranslatormustperformboththeauthor'sroleastheinventorofthetextandthereader'sroleofrealizingthetextthrough"ideationalactivity."The translatoris,therefore,Janusfaced:lookingtowardtheauthorinonedirectionlookingtothereaderintheother(atwofacednessnotinconsistentwithhispopular imageastraditore,"traitor").Thetranslatorisareaderofanoriginaltext,aswellastheauthorofthetranslation.Assuch,heprovidesinvaluabletestimonybothon thetextandonthereaderresponse,forheisanimpliedreader,whomaybe,indifferentdegrees,a"superreader"(translatorasscholar),an"informed reader"(translatorasstudent),andan"intendedreader"(translatorascontemporary). Thefocusonthetranslatorasreader,thoughnotwithoutitscomplexities,hastheadvantageofprovidingthebilingualresearcherwiththedocumentationthatmakes possibleaconcreteexaminationofthe"transcendentalmodel"oftheimpliedreader.Iser'sownanalysesofindividualtextsdonotdiffersignificantlyfromtheusual literaryanalysisoftexts:theyarelimitedbytheirselectivitytheyareintermittentlyattentivetothetextwheninvokingthesurroundinghistoricalcontext(hereIsershows himself"theintendedreader")theyrangewidelythroughsynchronic

Page155

culturaltraditions(Iseras"superreader").Butitisdifficulttoseehowhisconceptof"theimpliedreader"whiletheoreticallymoresatisfyingthantheothersubsetsof readersrelatesmethodologicallytothestudyofreaderresponse.Withthefocusonthetranslatorandhistranslation,thereisaccessibledocumentationonthe readingofanentiretext,wherethereisapossibilityofexaminingeveryconstituentinthewhole.Thiscomprehensiveattentionisnecessary,becauseaprimefactorin readerresponsecriticismisthe"reader'sroleasatextualstructure,andthereader'sroleasastructuredact"(p.35).Structuremaybeadducedinfragmentsand excerpts,buttheobjectiveconsiderationofstructuremusttakeinthewhole,evenwhenselectedstructuralelementsareadduced.Inshort,translationprovidesatleast onereader'scomplete"reader'sresponse.'' AnotheraspectofIser'stheorythatbearsontranslationishisconceptof"indeterminacy"inthetext.Heretranslationcomplicatesratherthansimplifiesthemodel.The gapsinaliteraryconstructintraditionalfiction,detailsthatareleftunmentionedinmodernfiction,detailsthataredeliberatelywithheldprovidethestimulusfor engagingthereaderandinducinginhimorheracommunalactofimaginativerecreation.Thereisaninterplayinliteraturebetweenpresenceandabsence:"Witha literarytext,"Iserwrites(1974:283),"wecanonlypicturethingswhicharenottherethewrittenpartofthetextgivesustheknowledge,butitistheunwrittenpartthat givesustheopportunitytopicturethingsindeedwithouttheelementsofindeterminacy,thegapsinthetext,weshouldnotbeabletouseourimagination."1 ThediscussionofindeterminacyisprefacedbyaconsiderationofapassagefromGilbertRyle,inwhichRyleasksaquestionthatiscognatetotheonewe encounteredfromSocratesintheTheaetetus:"Howcanapersonfancythatheseessomething,withoutrealizingthatheisnotseeingit?"Aworkofliteraryart conjuresuprealitiespreciselybecauseitisnotarepresentationofreality.Partofthe
1.

CompareTodorov'sstatement:"Inacertainsense,alltextscanbeconsideredaspartsofasingletextwhichhasbeeninthewritingsincethebeginningoftime.Withoutbeing unawareofthedifferencebetweenrelationsestablishedinpresentia(intratextualrelations),andthoseestablishedinabsentia(intertextualrelations),wemustnotunderestimate thepresenceofothertextswithinthetext"(Todorov1977:244).

Page156

indeterminacyofatextliesinitsblanks:"anemptyspacewhichbothprovokesandguidestheideationalactivity"(1978:194195).Thereaderfillsintheseblanks, "therebybringingaboutareferentialfieldtheblankarising,inturn,outofthereferentialfieldisfilledinbywayofthethemeandhorizonstructureandthevacancy arisingfromjuxtaposedthemesandhorizonsisoccupiedbythereader'sstandpointfromwhichthevariousreciprocaltransformationsleadtotheemergenceofthe aestheticobject"(p.203). Inthecaseoftranslation,theseblanksareaugmentedbytheblankscausedbytheunfamiliarityofthereaderwithpartsoftheculturalbackgroundadducedinthe originaltext.Thedifficultyisexacerbatedbytextualblanksthatalludeto,orallowfor,areasinthesourcelanguagewithwhichthereaderinthetargetlanguageis unacquainted.It'saformofretinalblindness,inwhichtheimagepassesthroughthecornea,butthebreakorlacunaintheretinaleavestheeyewithoutascreenon whichtoprojecttheimage.Ablankissuperimposedonablank,asitwere.(Intranslating,thetranslatormustclearly,eventotheresortofafootnote,removethe culturalblank,buthemustbecarefulnottoremovethetextualblank.)Theblankinthefictionaltextinducesthereader'sconstitutiveactivitybuttheblankinthe culturalframeofreferenceinatranslationwillonlyfrustratethereader'seffortstoreconstitutetheoriginal.Perhapsbecausetheyexploitthis"doubleblindness,"some workswillelicitmoreinterestintranslationabroadthantheoriginaldoesathome. OmarKhayyam,thetwelfthcenturyPersianpoet,becameasensationinnineteenthcenturyEngland(throughtheeffortsofEdwardFitzGerald)RabindranathTagore, theBengalipoet,isperhapsbetterknowninEnglishthaninBengaliandHanshantheTangdynastypoet(variouslydatedtotheseventhortenthcentury)ismore widelyreadinJapanandinAmericathaninhishomeland,China.AlthoughIserconcentratesonfictionaltexts,thenotionofindeterminacyofactiveparticipationon thepartofthereaderappliesatleastaswelltopoetry,whereallusivenessandelusivenessareevenmorefrequentlyencountered.Theprincipleofindeterminacyfor atextintranslationisconvoluted:therearethegapsintheoriginaltextthatelicittheimaginativeresponseofthereader.Evenifthesegapsarepreservedintranslation, itwillnotalwayshappenthatthesamegapswillelicitthesamesetofre

Page157

sponsesfromreadersinthetargetlanguageaswereelicitedfromreadersinthesourcelanguagetoomanygapswillmeetwithincomprehensiontoofewgapswill strainthepatiencewithatiresomeburdenofexplanation.OnewouldhaveappreciatedfromIsersomeinsightastowhatconstitutesaneffectivemeansbywhich "structuredblanksofthetextstimulatetheprocessofideationtobeperformedbythereaderontermssetbythetext"(p.169).Acomparisonoftheamplerversion byArthurWaleyofTheTaleofGenji(whichislongerthantheoriginal)withthemoreeconomicalversionbyEdwardSeidensticker(whichisshorterthanthe original)mightprovidesomeinsightintotheabilityofreaderstoestablisha"referentialfield." AnothertenetofIser'sreaderresponsetheoryrecapitulatesShklovsky'sideaofdefamiliarization,butatthelevelofpsychologicalverisimilituderatherthanaesthetics. Onseveraloccasions,Iserpositsaprincipleofreaderinterest:

Sincetheworldofthetextisboundtohavedegreesofunfamiliarityforitspossiblereaders(iftheworkistohaveany"novelty"forthem),theymustbeplacedinapositionwhich enablesthemtoactualizethenewview.Thisposition,however,cannotbepresentinthetextitself,asitisthevantagepointforvisualizingtheworldrepresentedandsocannotbe partofthatworld.Thetextmustthereforebringaboutastandpointfromwhichthereaderwillbeabletoviewthingsthatwouldneverhavecomeintofocusaslongashisown habitualdispositionsweredetermininghisorientation,andwhatismore,thisstandpointmustbeabletoaccommodateallkindsofdifferentreaders.[1978:35]

Theessentialpointsinthisdescriptionareasfollows:first,"novelty"asafactorofinterest,describedas"unfamiliarity"(ratherthandefamiliarization)second,the placementofthereader"outside"theworldofthetextata''vantagepoint"third,thenewperspectivethatresultsfromaneworientationwhichdispels"habitual dispositions"andfourth,thegeneralaccessibilityofthisnewstandpointto"allkindsofdifferentreaders."Thisdescription,elusiveasitmaybetocomprehendinthe abstractionsonreadingWhatisthisstandpointinthetext?Howdoesoneplacethereaderatavantagepoint?Whatisthisnewperspective?ispatentlyclear whenappliedtotranslation.Thenoveltyofcontent

Page158

istheforeignculturebeingcapturedtheplacementofthereaderoutsidetheworldofthetextistheplacementofthereaderinalanguage,andthereforeacultural environment,differentfromthatoftheoriginalthenewperspectiveisarevisedviewofone'sownexperience,stimulatedbyexposuretoandincontrastwithanother experiencethatismarkedlydifferentthenewstandpoint,therenderinginanotherlanguage,providesaccessto"allkindsofdifferentreaders"inthetargetlanguage. "Thereader'sroleisprestructured,"Iserwrites,"bythreebasiccomponents:thedifferentperspectivesrepresentedinthetext,thevantagepointfromwhichhejoins themtogether,andthemeetingplacewheretheyconverge"(p.36).Inthecaseoftranslation,thesecanbeeasilyidentified:thedifferentperspectivesrepresentedin thetextrelatetothoseintheoriginalworkthevantagepointfromwhichhejoinsthemtogetherrelatestothedualperspectiveofthetranslation,lookingbothtothe sourceandtothetargetlanguagethemeetingplacewheretheyconvergeisthetranslationitself.Indeed,onesubmitsthattranslationcouldbeaconcretemodelfor Iser'sRezeptionssthetik.Itsolvesamethodologicalprobleminhistheorysincethenatureofthetextualstructurecanonlybeadducedinferentiallyfromthe structuredactsinducedinthereader.(''Thereasonisthat...theirgradualconvergenceandfinalmeetingplacearenotlinguisticallyformulatedandsohavetobe imagined.")Inthetranslationmodel,theconvergenceandfinalmeetingplacearelinguisticallyformulated(sometimesmorethanonce).Thedifficultyofexamining textualstructurebyimaginingreading,isthatthisprocessblursthelinebetweenthetwophasesoftheinteractivity:thetextphaseandtheresponsephase.(Norare theseimaginingsorinferencesverysolidbasesforempiricalresearch.) Iser'sresourcefulanalysisofthedynamicsofreadingandtheontologyofaliteraryworkofartisahealthyreminderoftherelationshipambivalentanddialectic betweenmeaningandexpression.Hismicroscopicexaminationofthereadingprocessleadshiminevitablytotheuseofimaginative(ifnotimaginary)abstractions.We readhimwithasenseofcorroborationifourexperienceaccordswithhiswherewefailtounderstandhisanalysis,wealsofailtoemulatehispracticeof"implied reading."OnecannothelpfeelingthatoneofIser'sunwittingrhetoricalsuccessesis

Page159

thathepayshisimpliedreaderthesupremecomplimentofassumingthathereadsassensitively,asintelligently,andasknowledgeablyasIserdoeshimself.Inthat sense,Iser'swork,notunlikeaworkoffiction,createsitsownreaderandconjuresupitsownaudience. Asomewhatmoremacrocosmicperspectiveonthephenomenologyofreading,andthatoftranslation,isalsoavailable.Wehaveseenhowtheconceptsof "foreignness,""novelty,""defamiliarization,"and''unconcealment"keeprecurringinourdiscussion.Thedyadicnotionsofnative/foreign,self/other,andesoteric/exoteric seemcentraltoanunderstandingnotonlyoftranslationbutoftheveryprocessofunderstandingitself.GeorgesPoulet(whomIserquotes)putsthedialecticofselfand other,ofprojectionasidentification,mostpersonably:

WhateverIthinkisapartofmymentalworld.AndyethereIamthinkingathoughtwhichmanifestlybelongstoanothermentalworld,whichisbeingthoughtinmejustasthough Ididnotexist.AlreadythenotionisinconceivableandseemsevenmoresoifIreflectthat,sinceeverythoughtmusthaveasubjecttothinkit,thisthoughtwhichisalientome andyetinmemustalsohaveinmeasubjectwhichisalientome....WheneverIread,ImentallypronounceanI,andyettheIwhichIpronounceisnotmyself.[1974:54]

Theprojectionofselfintotheother,whichistoooftenmisconceivedasidentification,isaprocessnotunlikeKeats'negativecapability,wheretheselfismomentarily suppressedintheactofempathizingimaginativelywiththeother.Buttheprocessismoredialecticalthanthiswouldsuggest:theselfisnotpassive,nottotallyinertin theprocessofprojection,sinceits"fundedexperience"(inDewey'sstillusefulphrase)iscalledupontoprovidethereferencepointsbywhichnewexperiencescanbe apprehended. Theprocessofreadingis,therefore,liketheprocessofliterarycreation(withthedifferencethatcreativityinreadingiscontrolledbythe"schematizedviews"in Ingarden'sphraseinthetext):theybothinvolveanextensionoftheself,ina"hermeneuticalcircle,"ofrecognizingthestrange,theother,andincorporatingthestrange intotheself,firstbyprojectiveempathywithwhatoneisnot,andthenbydiscovering(asPouletdiscovered)the"strangerwithin."Thisdynamicprocessiswell describedbyIser:

Page160 Textandreadernolongerconfronteachotherasobjectandsubject,butinsteadthe"division"takesplacewithinthereaderhimself.Inthinkingthethoughtsofanother,hisown individualitytemporarilyrecedesintothebackground,sinceitissupplantedbythesealienthoughts,whichnowbecomethethemeonwhichhisattentionisfocused.Asweread, thereoccursanartificialdivisionofourpersonality,becausewetakeasathemeforourselvessomethingthatwearenot...Thus,inreadingtherearetwolevelsthealien"me" andthereal,virtual''me"whicharenevercompletelycutofffromeachother.Indeed,wecanonlymakesomeoneelse'sthoughtsintoanabsorbingthemeforourselves,provided thevirtualbackgroundofourownpersonalitycanadapttoit.[1974:293]

Thisremarkableexegesisofthereadingprocesswillseemfamiliartoanyonewhohas,atthesametime,"losthimselfinabook"yetfeltaheightenedsenseofselfinthe processofvicariouslyexperiencinganarrative.Theconsiderationofwhatisfamiliarandwhatisunfamiliar,ofwhatisnativeandwhatisforeign,ofwhatisselfand whatisotherprovidedthateachofthesetermsisconceivedofasanorganicentity,growingandshifting,notafixeddesignationofanunchangingidentityseems centraltotheprocessnotonlyofreadingbutalsooftranslation. Todorovhasclarifiedtheanalogybetweenreadingandtranslationbypointingtotheconcernwithintratextualityinreadingandextratextualityintranslation:

Thetaskofreadingbeginsbycomparison,bythediscoveryofresemblance.Inthissense,thereisananalogybetweenreadingandtranslation,whichisalsobasedonthe possibilityoffindinganequivalentforapartofthetext.Butwhereasintranslationweorientthetexttowardanotherseries,towardanextratextuality,inreadingweseekan intratextuality.[1977:241]

However,atranslationcanbe,forthereaderofsurrogatetranslations,addressedintratextually:thereaderinhabitsaselfsufficientversion.Forthereaderof contingenttranslations,atranslationisindeedaddressedextratextually:themeaning,oneisconstantlyreminded,doesnotlieinthecontingenttranslations,which merelypointtotheoriginal.Areaderofcoevaltranslation,however,confrontsbothintratextualityandextratextuality:forthecoevaltrans

Page161

lationinhabitstwosimultaneousandconcurrentcontextsonethatisselfsufficentandanotherwhichalludestotheoriginal. Translationmerelyexternalizes,inlinguisticallymanifestforms,thenativeandtheforeign.Yetitwouldbeequallymisguidedtoattributetothelanguagesinvolvedin translationthesamestaticcharacterthatwedenyforcultureandfortheself.Thereisthesamedialecticatworkbetweentheselfandtheotherinlanguageasthereis inanycommunication. ThedevelopmentoftheRomancelanguagesfromthecoreofLatin,theestrangementofthe"mothertongue"forspeakersof"offspringlanguages"thereplacementof LatinfirstwithFrenchandthenwithEnglishasthelinguafranca(whichwasnot,thedictionaryremindsus,onedominantlanguagebutahybridofItalianmixedwith French,Spanish,Greek,andArabic)allthesetestifytothedynamismoflanguage.Languagesmayhavebothanendotropicandanexotropicimpulse:thatis,they tendtochangeinresponsetostimulusbybecomingmoreinwardormoreoutward.Thestimulusmaycomefromwithinorfromwithout,butitisnotobviousthatall changesfromwithinwillbeendotropicandallchangesfromwithoutexotropic.Forexample,thefurorinFranceagainsttheincursionofAmericanismsintothe languageknownas"Franglais"wasessentiallyanendotropicimpulse,asisthepreservationoftheFrenchlanguagebytheFrenchAcademy.France'scommerce withneighboringcountrieshashadverylittleimpactonthedevelopmentofthelanguageindeed,theoppositemaybetrue.Atleastuntilrecenttimes,thatinterchange outsidethebordersofFrancehasresultedinanextensionofFrancophonecountries,whichare,bydintoflanguage,moreFrenchthantheyarenative,whether African,Quebecois,orHaitian.2 Itshouldnotbesimplisticallyassumedthatpoliticaldominionwillalwaysresultinlinguisticdominion:theHunsandtheMongolsdominatedtheEurasianlandmassfor significantperiods,yet
2.

Senegal,Somalia,Burundi,Chad,FrenchCongo,Dahomey,Gabon,FrenchGuinea,Mali,Togo,UpperVoltaallindicateFrenchasthenational,orofficial,language.Other countriesMadagascar,Mauritania,CameroonamongthemindicateFrenchasoneofthemajorlanguagesspoken.Allofthesecountriesreceived"technicalassistance"from Franceaslateas1975cf.Francophonie1968(Paris,1969),SpecialIssueoftheRevuedel'AssociationdeSolidaritFrancophoneseealsoGordon(1978).

Page162

leftnegligiblemarksonthelanguagesoftheterritoriestheyconquered.Theendotropicemphasismaybedeterminedbythedegreetowhichalanguageresists absorbingforeignphrasesandtheextenttowhichitexertsitsinfluencebeyonditstraditionalborders.Theexotropicimpulsemaybemeasuredbythedegreetowhich alanguageadaptsforeignneologismsandtheextenttowhichitfailstoexertitslinguisticinfluencebeyonditsborders.TheEnglishofElizabethanEnglandwasperhaps themostexotropiclanguageofanyculture,sinceitabsorbedinadazzlingarray,inadditiontoits"native"AngloSaxonstock,whichtendedtowardthemonosyllabic, Celtic,Latin,orRomanceelements,whichtendedtowardthemultisyllabic.TheroleofthislinguisticplenitudeintheeffortoftheElizabethanstodevelopastandardof colloquialeloquence,aswellastheroleofborrowingsofforeignneologismsinachievinganunparalleledcopiousnessinthelanguage,havebeenwelldocumented (Jones1953:185213).Bycontrast,VictorianEngland,despiteitsimperialprofileanditsculturaldominioninthreecontinents,waslargelyendotropicportmanteau wordswere,ofcourse,importedintoEnglish,buttheylosttheir"foreign"characterandbecameAnglicisms.3 ThehistoryofJapanprovidesinterestingcontrastsandanomalies:perhapsnocountryhasevercloseditselfofffromtherestoftheworldsodefinitively,andforsuch longperiodsoftime,asJapan:from894,whenembassiestoandfromChinawerediscontinued,tothemidtwelfthcenturywhenTairaKiyomorisenttributetothe Sungcourt,andfrom1600to1853,whenAdmiralPerryforciblyopenedJapantotheWestwithhis"blackships,"Japanwassealedoff.Theseerasofisolationmight suggestonthesurfacethattheJapanesewouldbesoleftoutoftheworld'saffairsthattheywouldhavedifficultyreenteringintothemainstreamculture.Nothingcould befurtherfromthetruth,ofcourse,asthelastgenerationofJapanesehistoryproves.Oneshouldbeginwiththefactthatthefirst"foreign"cultureforJapanwas Chinese,whichevendowntomoderntimeswasregardedasaprogenitor,notanupstart.Ofcourse,JapanreveredChinaineraswhenJapanwasmost
3.

Suchwordsas"coolie,""pukker,""chukker,"originallyderivedfromHindi,aremorefamiliarintheEnglishorAngloIndianmodificationsthanintheiroriginalHindisenses.

Page163

admirablyandvigorouslyChinese:theTang(618906)theSouthernSung(11271279)andtheMing(13681644).TheerasduringwhichChinawasruledby barbariandynastiestheYuan(12791368)andtheQing(16441911)were,forthemostpartandnotsocoincidentally,periodsofisolationisminJapan. Thetraditionofaforeignlanguagerepresentingapriorandhencesuperiorculture,whichcharacterizesJapaneseattitudestowardChinese,maybecontrastedwiththe traditionwhereaforeignlanguageisalwaysregardedaslessvenerable,lesscivilized,lessrespectablewhichis,andhasbeen,theChineseattitudetowardforeign cultures.TheJapaneseearlyondevelopedasyllabaryfortwokindsofforeignwords:kanjiforChineseandkatakanaforWesternterms.Inotherwords,itis possible,withthemostrudimentaryknowledgeofthelanguage,todeterminewhethersomethinginJapaneseisofJapanese,Chinese,orWesternorigin,foreachof thesewillbedesignatedwithitsownsyllabary.Astudentofthelanguagecanknowtheprovenanceofawordevenifhedoesnotknowtheword.AlthoughChinese hasnoformal,systematicwayofdifferentiatingwordsofforeignorigin,thenativeChineseknowsthatcertainnames,suchaszhu ,"thehundrednames")toknow whatisnotaChinesefamilynameJapanesedesignatestheseformallyandgraphically.ToknowwhatisforeigninChinese,onemustbeChinesetoknowwhatis foreigninJapanese,onemaystillremainforeign.TheonomasticdifferencesinChineseandJapaneseseemtodemarcatetheesotericnatureofChineseandthe exotericnatureofJapanese.

Page164

AnotherpointofcontrastbetweentheChineseandJapaneselanguagesistherateofchange:modernJapanesecannolongerreadtheJapaneseofathousandyears ago:(TheTaleofGenjimustbetranslatedintomodernJapanese)butaliterateChinesehasgreateraccesstoancienttextsinhisowntraditionthanaliterate Japanesedoes.ThephenomenonofamodernJapanesereadinganancientclassicinEnglishtranslation(asisthecasewithWaley'sversionoftheGenji)willnotbe encounteredinChinese.TheadaptabilityoftheJapaneselanguagetoforeigntermshaswroughtmanychangesovertime,butithasalsoenabledittoadjusttothe presentworlddespitethefactthatformorethanhalfofthelastthousandyears,Japaneffectivelycutoffallcontactwiththeoutsideworld.China,ontheotherhand, hashaduninterruptedcommerceandexchangewiththeoutsideworld:withtheRomansintheHandynasty,ArabsailorsintheTang,MongolsintheYuan,and Europeanssincethethirteenthcentury.Indeed,Chinahasbeenruledbyoutsidersformorethanathirdofthelastthousandyears:theMongolsfrom1279to1368 andtheManchusfrom1644to1911.YetChinesehassustainedrelativelylittlechangeoveralongerperiodoftime.Clearly,asaroughhypothesis,onemighttheorize thattheChineselanguagehasbeenendotropicthatis,ithasrespondedtochangebybecomingmoreinwardorbymaintainingitsinwardnesswhereasthe Japaneselanguagehasbeenexotropic,respondingtochangebybecomingmoreoutward. Ifwecomparetheexperiencesofthetwocountriesintranslation,weseethatthetwomajorChinesetranslators,YenFuandLinShu,eachinhisway,stressedthe esoteric(theChinese)ratherthantheforeignelementsofwhattheyweretranslating.Bothaddressedtheeliteliteratibychoosing,quitenaturallyforthetime,the literarylanguageinsteadofthevernacular.YenFuperhapswentevenfurtherintoesoterica,sincehechoseanancientformofChinesewhichevenhisadmirerLiang Ch'ich'aotookissuewith:"Inhisstyleheistooconcernedwithprofundityandelegance.HeisfirmlybentoncopyingthestyleofthepreCh'inperiod[thethird centuryB.C.andearlier],andthosewhohavenotreadmanyancientbooksfoundhistranslationsmostdifficulttocomprehend"(Schwartz1964:93).Thesearchfor anadequatestyletorenderforeignworkswasthepreoccupationoftheTongchengschool,whichdeploredthecurrent"formlessnotationalstyleoftheQingEmpirical Re

Page165

searchSchool."TheyharkedbacktothephilosophyoftheZhou(Chou)period(1100221B.C.).OnecannotquitefindanadequateparallelinaWesterncontext.In termsoftime,itwouldbeasifoneweretotranslateacontemporaryworkofscienceintopreSocraticGreekintermsoflanguagedifferences,acloserparallelmight betherenderingofascientifictractinthelanguageofSpenser.Ofcourse,theseextrapolationsneglectthefactthatChineseliteratiwouldprobablyfindthepreQing languagemoreaccessiblethaneducatedspeakersofEnglishtodaywouldfindSpenser.Therehasbeen,atleastintheChinesewrittenlanguage,lesschangeinthetwo tothreethousandyearsthatseparatetheZhouperiodandthepresentthanseparatesthesixhundredyearsofEnglishfromChaucertothepresent. TheothergreatfigureoftranslationinChinaisLinShu,whonevertraveledabroadandknewnoforeignlanguages.Yethistranslationswereadmiredandreadas greatworksofmodernChineseliterature(Ch'ien1975:825).Throughoralinterpreters,LinShuconstructedaChineseversionofBalzac,Defoe,Dickens,Fielding, Scott,andSwift,aswellasahostofsuchminorwritersasH.RiderHaggard,BaronessEmmaOrczy,andArthurConanDoyle(seeMa1982).ItistruethatLin's translationsinspiredagenerationofliterati,includingQianZhongshu(Ch'ienChungshu),tostudyWesternlanguages,sothathecouldreadtheLintranslatedworksin theoriginal.QianpointsoutthathehadreadtranslationsofWesternworksbefore,butclaimsthatnonehadinspiredinhimtheenthusiasmfortheoriginalsthatLin's versionsdid(p.10).ItmaybethatLinShuwasthegreatestwriterofthelateQing,exceptthathejusthappened,forthemostpart,towritetranslations.Certainlyhis productivitywasprodigious,andhemaintainedahighstandardofqualityoveralargecorpusformany,suchproductivityandsustainedexcellenceisthehallmarkof amajorwriter.Butbyhisuseoftheeliteliterarylanguage,hisworkswereessentiallyconfinedtoaverysmallpercentageofthepopulation.Therewaslittleorno accesstoWesternworksforthosewhoseeducationdidnotincludeathoroughcommandoftheclassicallanguage.Inshort,alargeportionofthepopulationwasleft outwhenLinchosetotranslateinancientChinese.Heusedanesotericformofanendotropiclanguage. Inasense,bothYenFuandLinShu,eachintheirway,"sini

Page166

cized"theWesternworkstheytranslated:theyincorporatedthemintotheChinesetradition,andtheysoughtinthemvaluesandbeautiesthattheeliteChinesereader wouldrecognize.TheyconferredanexcellenceonsomewriterswhoareregardedintheirhomecultureH.RiderHaggard,forexampleasbeingofonlypassing interest.ComparethistothetendencyinJapanesetranslationsofWesternworksinthelatenineteenthcentury.Aspecialhybridstylewasinventedfortherenderingof Westernbooks,knownastheGembun'itchi,whichforgedanewmediumoutofthecolloquialtonguetoaccommodateahostofneologismsfromtheWest.The resultwasnotonlytomarkthefashionablemodernityofanewstyleforWesternworks,buttomakeitmoreaccessibletothepopulaceatlarge.Indeed,soeffective hadthisstylebecomeinconveyingacertain"modishness"thatNatsumeSosekiuseditinhisownfiction.AsMasaoMiyoshi(1974)describesit:

InSoseki'sPillowofGrass,theintricateshiftingbetweenpresenttenseandpastcreatesanimpressiveplayofitsown.However,whenthenarrativerequiresexpositoryclarity,it resortstothestiff"translationstyle"inventedforhandlingtheWesternliteratures.Thisstylesoundsartificial,anditis,imposingadistancebetweenfiction'sworldandtheactual world.Mishima'sworks,forinstance,oftenhavetosufferfromthisappearanceofaffectationonlybecausetheauthoristryingtoestablishaplaindiscursivenarrationandthere seemsnootherwaytogetitthan"translationstyle."[pp.xivxv]

ThecontrastwiththeChineseresponsecouldnotbemoredramatic.TheJapanesewayofincorporatingWesternculturewastoconstructanewlanguagemanifestly "foreign":itscharacterwasexotropic.TheChineseapproachwastoresorttoolderstyles,torediscoversomethingtraditionalwithwhichtodignify,enhance,and makeeleganttheWesternworksbeingtranslated:itsthrustwasendotropic.Thesituationmay,ofcourse,bemorecomplex,andwhatIhaveoutlinedherearemere suggestionsforfurtherexploration.ButthesubsequenthistoryofJapan'smodernization,accomplishedspectacularlywithinthirtyyearsofacatastrophicdefeatin WorldWarII,asopposedtoChina'sstillstrugglingattemptstomodernizebythenextcentury,mightindicatesomefundamentaldifferencesintheconsequencesof endotropicandexotropiccultural

Page167

attitudes.Onemightlookforthesedifferencesinthecharacterofthelanguagesthemselves. Inanyevent,thestudyoftranslationsacrossculturesneednotberestrictedtotheChineseandtheJapanesecase,thoughtheyrepresentperhapsthemoststartling contrast.Forexample,astudyofworldreligionswouldsingleoutChristianityandBuddhismasexotropic:bothemergedoutoftheiroriginallanguagestoattract adherentsintranslationneitherhasanyfollowerswhospeaktheancienttonguesinwhichtheoriginalswerewritten.Otherreligionsaremoreendotropic.AsNorthrop Frye(1982:3)hasobserved:

TheKoran,forinstance,issointerwovenwiththespecialcharacteristicsoftheArabiclanguagethatinpracticeArabichashadtogoeverywheretheIslamicreligionhasgone. Jewishcommentaryandscholarship,whetherTalmudicorKabbalisticindirection,havealways,inevitably,dealtwiththepurelylinguisticfeaturesoftheHebrewtextoftheOld Testament.Incontrast,whileChristianscholarshipisnaturallynolessawareoftheimportanceoflanguage,Christianityasareligionhasbeenfromthebeginningdependenton translation.

Inanotherconnection,HeideggerpointstoadecisiveshiftinWesternthoughtfromGreektoLatinparadigms.Hesees"asenseofpresence"in"thebasicGreek experienceoftheBeingofbeings,"therecognitionofwhathecalls"thethingnessofthething."Inhisview,thetransmogrification,thetranslationofGreektermsinto Latin,fromthesenseoflifeinthingstothesenseoflifeinabstractterms,wascritical:

Theinterpretationofthethingnessofthethingisestablishedwhichhenceforthbecomesstandard,andtheWesterninterpretationofthebeingofbeingsstabilized.Theprocess beginswiththeappropriationofGreekwordsbyRomanLatinthought:hupokeimenonbecomessubjectumhupostasisbecomessubstantiasumbebekosbecomesaccidens. However,thistranslationofGreeknamesintoLatinisinnowaytheinnocentprocessitisconsideredtothisday.Beneaththeseeminglyliteralandthusfaithfultranslationthereis concealed,rather,atranslationofGreekexperienceintoadifferentwayofthinking.RomanthoughttakesovertheGreekwordswithoutacorresponding,equallyauthentic, experienceofwhattheysay,withouttheGreekword.TherootlessnessofWesternthoughtbeginswiththistranslation.[1971:23]

Page168

Theshiftsinthought,thechangesintheverypremisesofunderstanding,wroughtbytheprevailingwindsofonelanguageoverperiodsofhumanhistorycanbetraced: thegeologicalstrataareembeddedinthelanguagesthemselvesandintheirprovenance.Onemightaskwhyonecountryprevailspoliticallyandyetnotlinguistically howanothergrowsstrongpolitically(andtechnologically),whilesustainingcontinuedanddramaticchangesinthelanguage,andyetretainsitstraditionalnational characterwhichliteraturessurviveintranslationandwhichdonot,andthefactorsinthe"naturalselection"ofliteraturesandwhatinsightsthestudyoftranslationmay yieldonthedevelopmentofhumanculture.Theironyisthatthisstory,thishistory,willhavetobetoldinnotjustonelanguagebutinmanyandthevariousversions willthemselvesconstituteanewperspective.Itisalsoanironythatwewillpursuethisinvestigationwiththeveryinstrumentsthatthwartourunderstanding:whenwe arefinished,wewillhavetoremembertothrowawayWittgenstein'sladder,Zhuangzi'sfishnet.

Page169

10 TheMaladjustedMessenger: RezeptionssthetikinTranslation
Earlier,IquotedWolfgangIser'scommentsabout"thestructureofthetext"that"setsoffasequenceofmentalimageswhichleadtothetexttranslatingitselfintothe reader'sconsciousness."Isuggestedthat,becausethetranslatorisareaderofanoriginal,aswellastheauthorofthetranslation,heprovidesinvaluabletestimonyon readerresponse,forheisanimpliedreaderwiththeadvantagethat,unlikeotherimpliedreaders,hewasexplicitandprovidedtangibleevidenceofhowhereadthe original.1Iarguedthat
withthefocusonthetranslatorandhistranslation,thereisaccessibledocumentationonthereadingofanentiretext,wherethereisapossibilityofexaminingeveryconstituentin thewhole.Thiscomprehensiveattentionisnecessary,becauseaprimefactorinreaderresponsecriticismisthe"reader'sroleasatextualstructure,andthereader'sroleasa structuredact."Structuremaybeadducedinfragmentsandexcerpts,buttheobjectiveconsiderationofstructuremusttakeinthewhole,evenwhenselectedstructuralelements areadduced.Inshort,translationprovidesatleastonereader'scomplete"reader'sresponse."2
1.

Iserremindsusthat"theimpliedreader"has"hisrootsfirmlyplantedinthestructureofthetextheisaconstructandinnowaytobeidentifiedwithanyrealreader"(Iser 1978:34).Butsurelyatranslatorisaspecialcase:heisanactualreaderand,astheagentofmeaning,acreatorofthetextstructureinthetargetlanguage,animplied(ifoften unacknowledged)author.

2.

Iam,ofcourse,notthefirsttonoticethefruitfulnessofexaminingtranslationsfromtheperspectiveofreaderresponsetheory.AndrLefeverehaswritten:"Translationseems...to beanalmostfoolproofbasisforthestudyofreceptionaesthetics"(inRose1981:58).

Page170

Inthischapter,wewanttoexplorethemethodologicalperspectivessuggestedinthoseremarks,illustratingthroughananalysisofthreeexampleseachderivedfrom theChinesethewaytranslationsandadaptationsprovideinsightsnotonlyintotheoriginalandintotheprocessoftranslation,butalsointothe''horizonof expectations"ofeachtranslatorreaderinterpreter.Thetranslationbecomesapivotaltextwhichcommentsonandinterpretstheoriginal,eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly, andwhichinturniscommenteduponandinterpretedbythereaderofthetranslation.Thereaderwithaccesstoboththeoriginalandthetranslatorbecomes,infact, tworeaders:theinterpreteroftheoriginalandtheinterpreterofthetranslation.Unlikethereaderinnocentoftheoriginal,however,thedualperspectivereaderone withaccesstoboththelanguageoftheoriginalandthelanguageofthetranslationinterpretsthetranslationnotonlybycomparingitwithanoriginalrecalled:hemust alsotakeintoaccounthisownpreviousinterpretationoftheoriginal,whichmaydiffersignificantlyfromthetranslator's.Onemightconsiderthereadingofatranslation byadualperspectivereader,therefore,tobeanespeciallyinterestingcaseof"intertextuality"orperhaps"concurrenttextuality":theduallanguagereader,consciously ornot,subsumesaspecificoriginalinhisreadingofthetranslation,evenashemight(thoughlessobviously)besusceptibletotheinfluencesofatranslationwhen returningtotheoriginaltext. WetakeasourfirstinstanceJamesLegge'stranslationoftheAnalects,traditionallyattributedtoConfucius.RaisedinScotland,educatedatKing'sCollege, Aberdeen,astaunchPresbyterian,Legge(18151897)traveledfirsttotheLondonMissionarySchoolinMalaccain1839wherehebecameprincipaloftheAnglo ChineseCollegein1840laterhewasinstrumentalinconvertingtheAngloChineseCollegeintoatheologicalseminaryandarrangingforitsremovaltoHongKongin 1843.LeggetranslatedmanyclassicsofChineseliteratureandphilosophy,includingtheFourBooksTheAnalects(Lunyu )overaperiodoffiftysixyears, from1841to1897.Histranslations,whichappearedinF.MaxMller'sfamiliarSacredBooksoftheEastseries,weredecisiveinestablishingfortwo generationsofEnglishspeakingreadersaparticularviewnotonlyofthe

Page171

Lunyu,Confucius,andancientChinesephilosophy,butofChinesecultureingeneral. Legge'sversionoftheLunyuwasfirstpublishedunderthetitleConfucianAnalectain1861(DNB,pp.959960).ThepublicationofatranslationofaChinese classicunderaLatintitleinthenineteenthcenturywashardlyunusual:worksoflearningorofsciencewithsomeintellectualaspirationsappearedeitherinLatinorwith aLatintitlethepracticeisalongstandingone:Newton'sPrincipiaandLeibniz'sNovissimaSinicaintheseventeenthcentury,Russell'sPrincipiaMathematica andWittgenstein'sTractatusLogicoPhilosophicusinthetwentiethcentury,arebutthemostfamousexamples.Yet,familiaras"TheAnalects"hasbecomeasa translationoftheLunyu,itgivesamisleadingimpressionofboththetitleandthetextinChinese.First,"analects"isafarlessfamiliarandaccessiblewordinEnglish thanlunyuisinChineselunyucouldbe(andhasbeenonoccasion)renderedinformallyas"sayings"or''conversations."3Onthesurface,theword"analects"appears semanticallyaccurateasadescriptionofthecontentsoftheLunyu:itrefersto"theextractsfromtheclassicalauthors."4Yet,eveninthenineteenthcentury,theword "analects"soundedarcaneandesoteric,inawaythatlunyuinChineseneverhas. ThisdigressionontheonomasticsoftitlesisdirectlyrelevanttothewayLeggereadtheLunyu:hesawitasaclassicintheChinesetraditionandhencetreateditin translationasifitwereaclassicintheWesterntradition,adorningitwithanauraofclassicallearning.Certainlynofaultcanbefoundinthisstrategy.Still,deferentialas itis,thereissomethingawryinconceivingoftheLunyuas"TheAnalects."IfonegoestotheLunyuwith"thehorizonofexpectations"redolentofotherclassics,like Plato'sDialoguesandDescartes'DiscourseonMethod,oneisboundtobedisappointed:thereappearstobenocoherence,nologicaldevelopment,noreasoned presentationofapointofview.TheLunyuisnothingsomuchasa
3.

"Discourse"mightalsobesuitable,sinceitdenotesoralexchangesofaseriousintellectualbent"dialogues"mightbeevenmoreappropriate,suggestingasitdoes philosophicalconversationsalthoughbothwordsnowcarrystrongconnotationsofstructuredandsystematicargumentation,traitsnotfoundintheLunyu.
4.

ItwouldappearfromtheGlossarummediaeetinfimaelatinitatis,however,thatthewordwasnotusedasatitleinclassicalGreek,classicalLatin,ormedievalLatin.

Page172

collectionofunprepossessing,ifprofoundlyinsightful,anecdotesandintuitiveremarksonvarioussubjects,arrangedinnoparticularlyconspicuousorderandgoverned bynodiscerniblecoherence.5 ButwhatismisguidedaboutLegge'srenderingoftheLunyuasa"sacredbook,"asweshallsee,isthatitmisleadsthereaderofthetranslation(asperhapsLegge himselfwasmisled)intoseeingtheChinesecompilationasapalereflectionofatrulysacredtext,arepositoryofdivinewisdom.Leggedidnotfullyappreciate Confucius'resoluteandemphaticrefusaltospeculateaboutthedivineorthehereafter:"ThetopicstheMasterdidnotspeakofwereprodigies,force,disorderand gods"(7:21Lau1979:88),andwhenadiscipleaskedaboutdeath,theMasterrebukedhimwiththisadmonishment:"Youdonotunderstandevenlife.Howcanyou understanddeath?"(11:12Lau,p.107).TheLunyuis,aboveall,secular,thisworldly.Thatiswhyaphrasesuchas3:13, ,thoughrenderedwith literalaccuracybyLeggeas"HewhooffendsagainstHeavenhasnonetowhomhecanpray,''is,nevertheless,"systematicallymisleading"(touseGilbertRyle's phrase).TheWesternreadercannotavoidreadingthisinjunctionexceptasaninvocationtodevoutness,acalltobeliefintheAlmighty."Heaven"intheChristian worldisinextricablyboundupinconceptsofthehereafter,thedwellingplaceofGod.InrenderingthispassageinwhatLeggemusthavethoughtwasaselfevident referencetoanomnipotentGod("Heaven"hereinthetranslationisclearlyametonymyforGodtheFather),hewasnodoubtpayingtributetotheChineseby assumingthatConfuciuswasadevoutandprofound,ifunprofessedandunwitting,Christian.Butthisinterpretation,inevitableasitwaswithLegge,cannotbejustified byeitherthecontextofthepassageorwhatweknowaboutthesecularmindsetofConfucius.ThedictumisinanswertothefollowingquestionbyWangsunChia:
Whatisthemeaningofthesaying,"Isitbettertopaycourttothefurnacethantothesouthwestcorner?"

Thistranslatedversionappearscryptic,whereasintheChineseitis
5.

Thisistheonesensethatiscapturedby"analects,"whichinitsrootmeaningsuggestsmiscellaneity.

Page173

merelyallusive:WingtsitChan'srendering(1963:25)suppliesthecontext:
"Whatismeantbythecommonsaying,'ItisbettertobeongoodtermswiththeGodoftheKitchen[whocooksourfood]thanwiththespiritsoftheshrine(ancestors)atthe southwestcornerofthehouse'?" Confuciussaid,"Itisnottrue.HewhocommitsasinagainstHeavenhasnogodtoprayto."

Thequestionaskswhichistobepreferred:the"kitchengods"orthe"ancestorgods"?Thereisnopresumedmonotheism.Here,thoughChanalsocapitalizesthe word"Heaven,"itrefersnottoadivineandotherworldlyempyrean,noreventotheskyabove,butgenericallyto''thenaturalorderofthings."6Inotherwords, "Heaven"istherighttranslationfortian ,8somethingwhichwouldbeastheologicallyinconceivableasitwouldbegrammaticallyawkwardinmostifnotall Westernlanguages.9

6.

Legge,inafootnote,citesZhuXi'sinterpretationof"Heaven"asprinciple: .Butherejectsthisinterpretationandseesprincipleasdivineimmanence:"Butwhyshould Heavenmeanprinciple,"Leggewrites,"iftherewerenotinsuchauseofthetermaninstinctiverecognitionofasupremegovernmentofintelligenceand righteousness?"(1894:159).LiXiansheng,undermydirection,addressedtheseandotheraspectsofLegge'stranslationinhispaper"OnJamesLegge'sTranslationofConfucian Texts"(M.A.,ComparativeLiterature,IndianaUniversity,1984).

7. 8.

TherecanbenodoubtthatLeggebelievedthattheChineseknew"thetrueGod":cf.histreatiseTheNotionsoftheChineseConcerningGodandSpirits(1852:chap.1).

Thetranslationoftheconceptsofdivinitywasattheheartofthe"RitesControversy"whichinvolvedthequestionwhetherChineseconvertstoChristianityshouldbeallowedto observetheConfucianrituals.Thecontroversyendedin1742,whenPopeBenedictXIVcondemnedtheConfucianandancestralrites:seeGeorgeMinamiki(1985).
9.

H.G.Creel,inhisarticle"WasConfuciusAgnostic?"(1932:5599),arguesthatConfucius,liketheHebrewsoftheOldTestament,feltthat"ethics,politics,andthewholeoflifewere inseparablefromtheircosmicandreligiousback

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

Page174

Book17,Chapter19,oftheAnalectsoffersthefollowingexchange:
TheMastersaid,"Iwouldprefernotspeaking." Tszekungsaid,"Ifyou,Master,donotspeak,whatshallwe,yourdisciples,havetorecord?" TheMastersaid,"DoesHeavenspeak?Thefourseasonspursuetheircourses,andallthingsarecontinuallybeingproduced,butdoesHeavensayanything?"[Legge,p.326]

Fromthecontext,theword"Heaven"referstothenaturalworld,tothephenomenaofexistence,toallcreation.Inthetext,thewordstian ("allcreation" literally,''thehundredthings")aremetonymiesforthephenomenaofnature.Confuciusissayingnomorethan,likethephenomenaofnature,heismuteandcannotput intowordsthemysteryofbeing.10WingtsitChan(1963:47)makesthedistinctionexplicitinhisversion:

Confuciussaid,"Idonotwishtosayanything." Tzukungsaid,"Ifyoudonotsayanything,whatcanwelittlediscipleseverlearntopassontoothers?"Confuciussaid,"DoesHeaven(T'ien,Nature)sayanything?Thefour seasonsruntheircourseandallthingsareproduced.DoesHeavensayanything?"

Legge'stranslationisaccurateexceptforonecrucialsyntagmaticdetail:theinsertionofthenegativeconjunction"but"in"butdoesHeavensayanything?"Thissimple additionradicallychangesthecosmologicalcontextofthepassage,foritimpliesthattheseasons,allcreation,arebutthemanifestworkingsofadivineintelligence,and thatthisintelligenceismetonymicallyreferredtoas"Heaven."ThequestionforLeggeisnotwhetherthereisanexplanation,butwhetherHeavenchoosestodivulgeits explanation.Readinthis (footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

ground"(p.99).TherecanbenodisagreementthatConfuciusharboredareverenceforlifeandanappreciationofitsmysteries,orthathewas"religious"ifbeingreligiousmeans beinghumbledbyallcreation.Butthissenseofreverencedoesnot,byitself,predicatethepersonalanthropomorphicGodthatLeggeimagined.
10.

ThispassagemirrorsthephilosophyoflanguageandtheepistemologyinherentinthefirstlinesoftheDaoDeJing:"Thatwhichcanbesaidisnottheuniversal/everlastingword thatwhichcanbenamedisnottheuniversal/everlastingname":

Page175

way,Confuciusappearstobeplayingtheaugustandomniscientsage,suggestingtoLeggethatheclaimstherighttobesilent,evenastheCreatorchoosestoremain silentbeforehiscreations.Leggereadstian ("heaven")asmetonymyfortheCreatorratherthanfor(His)Creation.ThatthiswasLegge'sreadingcanbeseenina footnoteheaddedtothetranslationofthispassage:"ItisnoteasytodefendConfuciusfromthechargeofpresumptionincomparinghimselftoHeaven"(Legge,p. 326). ButLeggehasforgottenthat,asConfuciushasnotspeculatedonthedivine,positingneithertheexistencenorthenonexistenceoftheAlmighty,thereisnoOneon whomtopresume,andnoOnewithwhomtocomparehimself.Confuciuswasmerelyalludingtothegenerallyrecognizedmutenessofphenomenahewasnot arrogatingforhimselfthestatusofasupremebeing.11 Legge'sviewofConfuciusisreminiscentofthe"virtuouspagans"inthefirstcircleofDante'sInferno,who"werebornwithoutthelightofChrist'srevelationand... cannotcomeintothelightofGod...theyarenottormented.Theironlypainisthattheyhavenohope"(Ciardi1954:49).Yetthereisaprofoundambivalencein Legge'sattitudetowardtheConfuciantradition:tothetextsthemselves,socommonsensicalandrational,Leggeispassionatelyimpatienttothecommentaries,so oftenintuitiveandmystical,Leggeispositivisticandskeptical.OnConfucius'commonsensicalsecularism,Leggeiscondescending:
Thereaderwillbeprepared...nottoexpecttofindanylightthrownbyConfuciusonthegreatproblemsofthehumanconditionanddestiny.Hedidnotspeculateonthecreation ofthingsortheendofthem.Hewasnottroubledtoaccountfortheoriginofmen,nordidheseektoknowabouthishereafter.Hemeddledneitherwithphysicsnormetaphysics. [Legge,p.98]

LeggeshowshislargesseandviewsConfuciuswiththesameindulgenceandpitythatDantefeltforthedenizensoflimbo:
11.

OnecannotagreewithCreelinhisassertionthat"LeggerecognizesthattheChinesedeclareT'ienandShangTitobetwonamesforthesameentity,butherefusestoadmit theirtestimony."CreelassumesthatT'iendoesrefertoasupremebeingandthatitoccursfourtimesasoftenasitssynonym,TiorShangTicf.Creel(1932:7475).

Page176 Theseweresinless.Andstilltheirmeritsfail,fortheylackedBaptism'sgrace,whichisthedoorofthetruefaithyouwerebornto.TheirbirthfellbeforetheageoftheChristian mysteries,andsotheydidnotworshipGod'sTrinityinfullestduty.[Ciardi,pp.5051]

Legge'scompassionforConfuciusreflectsthemagnanimityofnineteenthcenturyChristianitytothelessfortunate,totheunbaptized:
Confuciusisnottobeblamedforhissilenceonthesubjectshereindicated.Hisignoranceofthemwastoagreatextenthismisfortune.Hehadnotlearnedthem.Noreportofthem hadcometohimbytheearnovisionofthembytheeye.Andtohispracticalmindthetoilingofthoughtanduncertaintiesseemedworsethanuseless.[Legge,p.98]

Yet,asbenightedasLeggesawConfuciustobe,hewasnomorereceptivetoNeoConfuciancommentarieswhichdid"meddle...withmetaphysics."Hequotes ZhuXi'sexegesisofConfucius,andratherthanbeinginspiredbyit,orfindingthatitsatisfiedhispenchantfor"revelation,"orbeingimpressedbyitseffortstoanswer questionsrelatingto"thehumanconditionanddestiny,"Leggeisderisive:

"Letthestatesofequilibriumandharmonyexistinperfection,andahappyorderwillprevailthroughoutheavenandearth,andallthingswillbenourishedandflourish."Herewe passintothesphereofmysteryandmysticism.ThelanguageaccordingtoChuHsi[ZhuXi],"describesthemeritoriousachievementsandthetransforminginfluenceofsageand spiritualmenintheirhighestextent."Fromthepathofduty,wherewetreadonsolidground,thewritersuddenlyraisesusaloftonwingsofair,andwillcarryusweknownot where,andtoweknownotwhat.[Legge,p.46]

IfthecommentatorwereMatthewandnotZhuXi,andifinsteadofsuchphrasesas"equilibriumandharmony"Leggehadread"thepeacethatpassethall understanding,"onewonderswhetherhewouldhavebeenquitesounsympathetic. ItwouldbechurlishtodismissLeggeasacallousanduninformedinterpreterofChineseculture.Hewas,afterall,someonewhodevotedhisentirelifetoadisciplined andproductivestudyof

Page177

theChineseclassics,andhistranslationsandcommentariesstillmeetthehigheststandardsofphilologicalresearch.Norwasheentirelyoblivioustothepossibilityof biasinhisviewoftheChinese,whosecultureoccupiedhimforsolong,andwhosepeoplehehad,nodoubt,identifiedwithoveraperiodofnearlythirtyyears' residence.Indeed,aninklingofthisawarenesscanbeseeninhiscodatotheintroductiontohistranslationoftheFourBooks:

ButImustnowleavethesage.IhopeIhavenotdonehiminjusticethemoreIhavestudiedhischaracterandopinions,themorehighlyhaveIcometoregardhim.Hewasavery greatman,andhisinfluencehasbeenonthewholeagreatbenefittotheChinese,whilehisteachingssuggestimportantlessonstoourselveswhoprofesstobelongtotheschool ofChrist.[Legge,p.111]

ItisnotLegge'sownbias,butthebiasinherentinafundamentallyChristianoutlookwhichhecouldnotescape,norseeobjectively,thatinfuseshisintemperateand inconsistentcritiquesoftheConfuciancanon.12HesawConfuciusasafalseprophet,aMessiahmanqu,whosepracticalwisdomwasusefulindevelopingmoral characterbutwhosethoughtwouldbeforevermiredinunbaptizedandunredeemedbenightedness. OursecondtextisoneofthelyricsofGustavMahler'slatesongcycle,DasLiedvonderErde(TheSongoftheEarth),adaptedoutoffreerenderingsfromthe Chinesepublishedin1907byHansBethgeunderthetitleDiechinesischeFlte.Thegenealogyoftheselyrics,whichcanbetracedfromMahlertoBethge,from BethgetotheoriginalChinese,throughvarioustranslations,13constitutesafascinatingsourcestudy.Butratherthanfocusonquestionsoforiginalityorgenericintegrity, weshallgobeyondthevariantstrandsthatmakeupthecompositewholetoidentifyandreconstructfirst

12.

Creel(p.58)citesLegge's1867statement,"Iamunabletoregardhimasagreatman,"alongsidehisrevisionin1893,"Hewasaverygreatman,"andconcludesthatthis revisionreflectsvirtueonbothLeggeandConfucius:"Thesepassagesareastrikingevidenceofthegreatness,notonlyofConfucius,butofDr.Leggeaswell."
13.

"BethgewasnosinologistandhadnodirectaccesstoChinesepoetry,andthemodelsheusedforhissensitivepoemswerenottheoriginaltextsbutexistingversionsinGerman, English,andFrench"KurtBlaukopf(1973:235).

Page178

Mahler'sreadingofBethgeand,throughBethge,hisreadingoftheTangpoets. LetuslookatDerAbschied(TheFarewell),whichMahlerattributesto"MongKooYenandWangWei"(presumablyMengHaoran thirtyninelines.DespiteMahler'sattribution,nopoemwasjointlywrittenbyWangWeiandMengHaoran.14 ).Thelyricrunssome

Mahler'sDerAbschiedderivesfromtwotranslationsinBethge'scollection:"InErwartungdesFreundes"by"MongKaoJen"and"DerAbschieddesFreundes"by "WangWei."(SeeAppendixA.)Somelines,citedhere,areinterpolatedintothetextbyMahler:
DieBlumenblassenimDmmers chein Umimschlafvergess'nesGlck UndJugendneuzulernen! EswehetkhlimSchattenmeiner Fichten IchharreseinzumletztenLebewohl OSchnheit!OewigenLiebens LebensTrunk'neWelt! IchwandlenachderHeimat,meiner Sttte. StillistmeinHerzundharretseiner Stunde! BlhtaufimLenzundgrntaufs neu! Allberallundewigblauenlichtdie Fernen! Theflowerspaleinthetwilightglow Andinsleepforgottenjoy Andyouthtolearnanew Itblowscoolintheshadeofmypines Itarryforhimuntilthelastfarewell OBeauty!OeverlastingLoveLife BesottedWorld! Iwandertowardmycountry,my homestead Myheartisstillandawaitsitshour Bloomsinthespringandisgreen again Everwhereverandforevercolorsthe horizonlambentlyblue

ThetranslationisroughlycomparabletoWangWei's"Songbie" WeshouldnotpassoverMahler'sconflationoftheworkoftwo
14.

.(SeeAppendixesAandB.)

Sequencesof"answering"poemsbetweenpoetswere,ofcourse,common.

Page179

poetswithoutcomment.WesternfamiliaritywithMahler'smasterworkblindsaudiencesas,nodoubt,Mahler'sintenseromanticandlistenablepieceisintendedto dototheinherentlicensebeingexercisedwithliterarytexts.Foracomparablyoutlandishexample,onemustimagineaChinesecomposerconflatingtwolyricson love,onebyShakespearewithanotherbyBenJonsonor,tousespecificpoemsonsimilarsubjects,Coleridge's"Ode:OnDejection"withKeats's"Odeon Melancholy."Whatwouldbeunthinkablewithpoetsviewedandvaluedasindividualartistsisinevitablewithfiguresonlydimlyperceivedingarbledtranslations. Partingis,ofcourse,arecurrentthemeinTangpoetry,andMahlercannotbefaultedforcomposinganallpurposepartingpoem.Thatheisabletodosoreflectstwo conclusions:first,thatthepoetswere,tohismind,sodevoidofdiscernibleandparticularpersonalitiesthattheycouldbecombinedwithoutstylisticdisruptions second,thathispurposewasnottoconveythesenseofaspecificexperience,rootedintimeandculture,butrathertodefinetheessenceofleavetakingasauniversal experience.Thehauntingeffectofhismusic,anditspopularityamongconcertgoers,wouldseemtosuggestthathehassucceededincreatinganaccessibleexperience aspiringtouniversality.Yetthissuccessdoesnotcriticallydependonthelistener'ssenseoftheindividualChinesepoetswhoultimatelyinspiredMahler'swork:one leavesDasLiedvonderErdewithnogreatersenseofwhoMengHaoranorWangWeiwasthanbefore,howeverattentivethereaderofprogramnotesandrecord jacketcopymightbe.Beforesuchachievements,itwouldbecaptioustoinsistonscholarlyscrupulousness,foritisdoubtfulifamoreesotericallyfaithfulrendering wouldbemusicallysuperior. ButtotheextentthatheisrepresentativeofWesternculture,andWangWeiandMengHaorantypifytheTangpoet,Mahler'stransformationsoftheChinesepoets raiseinterestingquestionsingeneralaboutartistictendenciesintheWestandinChina.Mahler'stendencyistouniversalizepersonalmoments,toabstractfroma particularexperienceanelevatedandgrandiloquentgesture:"OSchnheit!OewigenLiebensLebensTrunk'neWelt!"Onemightspeakofthenominalizationof reality,sostrongalinguisticfeatureofGerman,asdistinctlyantitheticaltotheparticularization,whichstressesimmanenceratherthantranscendence,inChinese."Oh, Beauty!Oh,everlastingLoveLifeBesottedWorld!"Thereisa

Page180

magnificentgrandeurintheselines,whichcaneasily,inbadpoets,turntobathosandfalseemotiontheEgotisticalSublime,asJosephineMileshascharacterizedit. TraditionalChinesepoetry,ontheotherhand,conveysamodestyandarestraint,ahesitancyaboutgrandclaims,adiscretionaboutfeeling,thatcanbedisarmingand hearteningatitsbest,mundaneandbanalatitsworst.Indeed,itwasthesequalitiesthatattractedBethgeinthefirstplace:"Whatgracefullyricalartconfrontedme here!Ifeltashy,transienttendernessoflyricalutterance"(Blaukopf,pp.235236).Mahler'sadditionstendtowardthegrandromanticgesture:thereisnoshynessin suchlinesas:"StillistmeinHerzundharretseinerStunde!"EvenBethge'scomprehensive"DieErdeistdiegleicheberall''isnotcapaciousandbreathtakingenough forMahler,andheextrapolatesittovirtuallycosmicproportions:

DieliebeErdeallberall BlhtaufimLenzundgrntaufsneu! AllberallundewigblauenlichtdieFernen!

AndwhereBethgehadwritten,simply,"Undewig,ewigsinddieweissenWolken,"Mahlerendsthelyricwithportentousellipsis:
Ewig...ewig...

Intheseadditionsandadjustments,onecanseeMahlerraisingthephilosophicalandcosmicstakesinBethge:heextendsthediscourseintimeandspace.Experience isglobalandcomprehensive:
OSchnheit!OewigenLiebensLebensTrunk'neWelt!

Theself,the"I,"isnolongeraspecificindividualinhistory,boundinanage,orrestrictedbyregion,constrainedbycontemporaneity:the"I"becomessupernal,almost messianicandapocalyptic:
StillistmeinHerzundharretseinerStunde!

AcomparisonofBethge'stranslationswiththeoriginalsshowsthefollowinginterpolations(seeAppendixB):

Page181 Osieh,wie,eineSilberbarkeschwebt DerMondheraufhinterdendunkeln Fichten DerBachsingtvollerWohllautdurch dasDunkel Wobleibstdunur?Dulsstmich langallein! Ichwandleaufundniedermitder Laute AufWegen,dievonweichemGrase schwellen. Ohsee,likeasilvership Themoonfloatsupbehindthedark pines Thebrooksingsfullofmelody throughthedarkness Wherethenartthou?Thouhastleft mealoneforsolong Iwanderupandanddownwithmylute Onpathsovergrownwithtender grass.

Theadditionsare,withoneexception,inthespiritoftheoriginal:theimagesareconcrete,immediate,evocative.The"Silberbarke"is,ofcourse,anineteenthcentury maritimeEuropeanintrusioninalandlocked,eighthcenturyChinesepoem.Thelastline,whichconveysthelongingappropriatetothepoem,expressesitinawaynot tobefoundintheoriginal:

Okmstdu,kmstdu,ungetreuerFreund!

Theimperativeremonstranceinthislinecontrastssharplywiththediscretionofthelastlinesinbothoriginalpoems,whichread,inWitterBynner'sversion:
"AndsoIthinkofyou,oldfriend, Otroublerofmymidnightdreams!"

and
AndstillbecauseyoupromisedIamwaitingforyou,waiting, Playingmylonelyluteunderawaysidevine.

EventheBynnertranslationoverdoesit:theoriginalismuchmoresuccinctandrestrained:
Feelinglikethis,rememberingyou,oldfriend, Ithinkofyouinthemidstofmydreams. Expectingyoutoreturnhome, Alonelylutewaitsbytheovergrownpath.

Page182

BoththeGermanandtheEnglishversionsmaketheemotionmoreexplicitthanitisintheChinese. AttheverycenterofBethge'spoemisacrucialmodificationoftheoriginalsourceline:
...DiearbeitsamenMenschen Gehnheimwrts,vollerSehnsucht nachdemSchlaf. ...Thelaboringpeople Gohomeward,longingdeeplyfor sleep.

ThesourcelineinMengHaoran's"AttheMountainLodgeoftheBuddhistPriestYe"reads: ("aboutto"or"almost")intheprecedingline,whichBynnerdoesn't quitecapture,thesenseofwhichshouldbe:"Thewoodsmenhavealmostallgonehome." Thereisastrongcontrastbetweenthenaturalphenomenaoflifeandimmanenthumanexperiencebetween,ontheonehand,thewoodsmenreturninghome,the birdsroostingintheirnestsatevening,and,ontheother,thefriendwhohasnotyetarrived.Buttheseobservations(itwouldbecruciallymissingthepointtocallthem metaphors)areinclusiveaswellascontrastive,forthesenseofthepreviouslinesistosuggestthenearcompletionofaprocess:thewoodsmenalmostallgonehome, thebirdsbeginningtosettledown.Thereverseimplicationistherebyadducedaswell:somewoodsmen,afew,havenotyetreturnedthebirdshavenotyetsettled down.Theendofthepoemhangsfire:itdoesnotprecludeeitherthepossibilityoftheBuddhistpriestYeshowingupsoon,ornotatall.Thisanticipatory indefinitenesscombiningapprehensivenesswithhopeistheessenceofwaiting.Thepoemisarealizationofanindicativemoment,notaseriesofinsightsderived fromexperiencereflectedupon.16 ThethrustofBethge'spoemistoabstracttheexperienceand
15. 16.

"Birds...inthequietmist"isanextrapolationofthesimplecompoundyanniao,whichwouldbeawkwardtorenderas"mistybird." IhavecommentedonthisaspectofTangpoetryinanearlieressay(Eoyang1973:613615).

Page183

generalizefromit:insteadof"woodsmen,"wehave"laboringpeople"("DiearbeitsamenMenschen"whichinMahlerbecomes''mdeMenschen").Whether determinedbypoeticpreferenceordictatedbytheexigenciesofthemusic,thespecificeventsinthepoemarehypostasizedintogeneralsymbol:thefamiliarwarrants ofevening,woodsmenreturninghome,birdsroosting,aresummarilycomprehended:"DieWeltschlftein..." OurthirdexampleinvolvesacomparisonoftwotranslationsofthesamepoemfromtheChineseBookofSongs,theShijing,no.143,onebyArthurWaley,the otherbyEzraPound.(SeeAppendixCfortheoriginal.)

Pound'sVersion(1954): Theeruditemoonisup,lessfairthan she Whohathtiedsilkcordsabout aheartinaagony Sheatsuchease soallmyworkisvain. Myheartistinder,andsteelplucksat mypain soallmyworkisvain, sheatsuchease asistheenquiringmoon. Aglitteringmooncomesout lessbrightthanshethemoon's colleague thatissofair, ofyetsuchtransientgrace, asease,undurable,soallmyworkis vain tornwiththispain. Waley'sVersion(1937): Amoonrisingwhite Isthebeautyofmylovelyone, Ah,thetenderness,thegrace! Heart'spainconsumesme.

Amoonrisingbright Isthefairnessofmyloverlyone. Ah,thegentlesoftness! Heart'spainwoundsme.

Amoonrisinginsplendour Isthebeautyofmylovelyone. Ah,thedelicateyielding! Heart'spaintormentsme.

Asaguidetotheoriginal,Waley'srenderingiscertainlythemoreuseful:hecapturestheformulaicstructureoftheballadheretainstherepetitionswithprogrammed "improvised"variants,sofamiliarinorallycomposedandorallytransmittedsongs,thesimplicityofdiction. BythetimeWaleypublishedthesetranslationsin1937,entitled

Page184

TheBookofSongs,hewasalreadyanaccomplishedtranslatorfromtheChineseandtheJapanese:AHundredandSeventyChinesePoemsappearedin1918 TheNo*PlaysofJapanin1921TheTaleofGenji,insixvolumes,from1925to1933.PossiblybecausetheShijinghadbeenthefocusofanthropologicalstudy byMarcelGranetinhisFtesetchansonsanciennesdelaChine,publishedinParisin1919,Waleyarrangedthe290poemsofthe305poemsintheShijing,17not intheirtraditionalorder,butaccordingtosubjectmatter.Thetopics,"courtship,""marriage,""agriculture,""musicanddancing,"andsoforth,wouldespeciallyfacilitate anthropologicalandthematicstudy.Fortheserenderings,heconsultedthescholarshipofbothGustavHaloun,towhomthevolumeisdedicated,andBernhard Karlgren,whoseannotatedprosetranslationsherecommendstothe''specialist."Buthistranslationofno.143,oneofthefolksongsintheguofeng("airsofthe country")sectionoftheShijing,issomewhattypicalofWaley'ssuccesswiththepiningloveballadsthatdominatethissection:thechasteandmodestdemeanor,the controlledpassion,thereflectivediscretionallseemright.(Waleyislesssuccessfulwithpoliticalsatireorbombast,asin49,52,223Waleynos.269,270,268.) Pound'srenderingappearsonthesurfacecontrivedandforced:itiscertainlymore"writtenup"thanWaley's.Thereisnowarrantintheoriginalfor"eruditemoon," thoughtheimageisstriking.Thereisniceparanomasiain"Myheartistinder."Thephrase"steelplucksatmypain"thoughananachronismissuggestive.And "transientgrace,"promptedbyalineintheoriginalthatKarlgreninterpretsas"Howeasyandhandsome"(Waley:"Ah,thedelicateyielding"),isanaptdescriptorfor boththemoonandthebeautyoftheyoung.PoundconflatesthesenseofKarlgren's"easy"andWaley's"yielding"intoaneologismthatlookslikeamisprint:"atease, undurable." PounddidnotprofesstoknowChineseforhis1954version,buthehadthehelpandconsultationoftheHarvardsinologueAchillesFang,whoprovidedhisversion, publishedunderthetitleofThe
17.

Heomitted15poems"partlybecausetheyaremuchlessinterestingthantheothersandpartlybecauseinmanypassagesthetextissocorruptthatonewouldbeobligedeither towritenonsenseortoleavemanyblanks"Waley(p.11).The"FindingList"attheendofthebookismisleading,sinceitgivesWaley'snumberingforall305poems,including the15notpresented.

Page185

ConfucianOdes,withanintroductionPoundalmostcertainlyhadaccesstoWaley's1937versionoftheShijing. Indeed,itisdifficulttoimaginesomeofPound's versionsasanythingbutextremereactionstoWaley.Acomparisonofthe290ShijingtranslationstobefoundinbothPoundandWaleyrevealfewifanyversions thatareevenapproximatelysimilar,representingahighorderofimprobabilitywhenoneconsidersthatthesameoriginalsareinvolved.ItmaybethatPoundtranslated notsomuchthroughWaleyasagainstWaley.SometimeshewenttogreatlengthstoavoidimitatingtheEnglishpoetsinologue,notinfrequentlyproducingneither translationsnorpoemsbuttravestiesofverbalreconstruction:Pound'sversionsofShijing40,75,and76areparticulardisasters.Yetthesamestrategycanproduce anaffectingimitationofahillbillyfolkballad,evenifitmaysoundverydatedtourbanaudiences,asinhisrenderingofShijing187("Huangniao").Moreover,hisdirge inspiredbyShijing23("Liesadeaddeeronyonderplain")isoneoftheloveliestlamentsforlostyouthandthedeathofinnocenceintheEnglishlanguage. Pound'sstrategyistocreatealiteratetextoutofanoralsong:asinotherversions(nos.40,75,90,99),hemodifiestheballadicoralformulasintoreadabletexts ratherthansingablescripts(althoughWaley'sindifferencetoregularmetricsprecludeshistranslationsbeingsung).Healtersthevocativeaspectoftheoriginalintoa declarative,reflexiveselfruminationonpersonalmisery.Heconvertsasyntacticallysimpleballadwhichcouldjustaseasilyhavebeentranslatedwithoutverbs(the verbsinthepoemare,ifanything,onlystativeorparticipial)intodensecontortionsofsyntaxasin"sheatsuchease/asistheenquiringmoon"and"Aglittering mooncomesout/lessbrightthanshethemoon'scolleague/thatissofair"(whereonewouldexpecttheaccusative"her"after"than"andnotthenominative"she''). Pound'sversionalsointroducesathirdvoice:theimplicit"I"ofthenarratorspeaker,theimplied"you"ofthereaderlistener,andtheexplicit"she"ofthetextofthe poem.Intheoriginal,thesentimentsareeffusionsaddressedtonooneinparticular,aselfsoliloquizingtoanabsentlover,overheardbythereaderlistener.Butin
18.

18

ThisorderofpublicationreversestheorderinwhichPound'sCathay(1917)andWaley'sOneHundredandSeventyChinesePoems(1918)appeared.

Page186

Poundthereisdiscursivenessandnarrativeness:thespeakerreferstotheobjectofloveinthethirdpersonthereaderisactivelyinvokedaswitnesstothenarrator's plaint.This"narrativity"inthelyricunderminesthelyricismoftheoriginalconvertsitfromanexampleofwhatEliot,indefiningthelyric,referredtoas"thatwhichis overheard"toadescriptionwhichisdirectlycommunicatedfromoneperson(thepoetornarrator)toanother(thereaderorlistener).Assuch,theentirepoemin Poundtakesonalevelofironyandsophisticationabsentintheoriginal,whichis,afterall,aseriesofballadicapostrophes,a"round,"thatcouldbeexpanded indefinitelywithslightvariationofawordortwoineachofthefourlines.TheelementofnarrativityintroducedintothePoundversionelicitsexpectationsofcoherence andargumentonthepartofthereader.Onesensesaneedforbeginning,middle,andend.Poundtriestoweightthepoemtowardaclimaxbyusingtwotechniques, oneinvolvinglengthoflineandtheotherrhyme.Hislaststanzaisthelongestofthethree(intheoriginaltheyareallofequallength),and,unlikethepreviousstanzas, thefinalstanzaendswitharhyme. Pound'sversionofShijing143indicatesthathereaditasaworktobereconstitutedastext,notasscripthesawitasliteratepretextfortheexpressionofemotion (hencethewordsthatsmackofthestudy,suchas"erudite,""enquiring,"and"colleague,"thecoiningof''undurable").HisperspectiveisattheantipodesofWaley's "anthropological"approach:where,forWaley,thesesongswereverbalartifactsthatpreservedinritualtermsthegenerationalexperienceofthepeople,forPound theseareprivateexpressionsofauthentic,autochthonousemotion.Thecontrastismorethanamatterofcorrectorincorrecttranslationitisareflectionnotonlyof howPoundreadthepoem,whetherintheoriginal,withthehelpofAchillesFang,orinfluencedbyprevioustranslations,butalsoofhowwereadthesetranslations. Waley'sapproachisnolessdisingenuousthanPound's,forhepresumesourinteresttoberesearch,notaestheticenjoymenthepresumesonthereader'sscholarly curiosityandarrangestheShijingpoemstopically,asiftheirvaluemightbe,thereby,enhanced,whenthereaderisconvenientlydirectedtothesubjectmatterineach poem.PoundseestheShijingasthefountofprivateinspiration,notaspublicexpressiontobereconstructed.Wereadthethreetextstheoriginalandthetwo

Page187

translationswithasenseofhowvariouslydistanttheyallarefromus.Thesimplicityoftheoriginalseemscharming,ifalittleinnocentthesparenessoftheWaley strikesusasblandandpassionlessandtheingenuityofthePoundimpressesusasdenseandtortured. WehaveexaminedthreedifferentinstancesofwhatRobertEscarpitcalls"trahisoncratrice"orwhatHaroldBloomwouldcharacterize,withoutpejorativeness,as "misprision."Eachinstancebetraystheinterpreter,whoreadsintothetexthisownpredilectionsandpresuppositions,evenasthetranslationsbetraytheoriginaltext. Eachinstanceprovidestextualwarrantfor"animpliedreader''thatisfarfromidealyetsomehowaptandusefulforus(their"impliedreaders")inderivingknowledge fromthetexts,whetheroriginalsortranslations. Thestudyoftranslationsmustbreakoutoftheanecdotalaswellthemerelylexical:translationsprovidetoorichastudyforreaderinterpretationtobelefttolinguistic pedants.Theyoffertoomanyinsightsnotonlyonthetargetandsourcelanguages,butoftenonlanguageitselftobelefttodilletantes.Itmaybe,asGeorgeSteiner andothershaveargued,thatthestudyoftranslation,soperipheraltotheinterestsofnationalliteratures,yetsocentraltoagrowingpopulationofexpatriatesand exiles,maybeoneoftheparadigmsforhumanunderstandingandlearning:forinunderstandingsomethingnew,isn'tthefirstinstincttorelateittosomethingoldand familiar?Andwhenthefalseanalogybetweenthe"new"andthe"old"hasbeendiscovered,hasn'tonethenbeguntoappreciatethenewonitsownterms?Anddoes thisprocessnotmirrortheprocessoftranslation,inwhichoneappropriatesanunfamiliarsourcetextintoafamiliartargetlanguage,alwayserroneouslyandfruitfully misinterpreting(evenwhenthetranslationisaccurate:forthentheessentialuniquenessoftheoriginalinthesourcelanguageistherebybetrayed)? Theprogressiverealizationoftheerrorsintranslationrestoresforustheradicaloriginalitynottomentiontheradicalhistoricityofthesourcetext:theymakeussee theoriginalmoreclearly,providingwhatanthropologistswouldcall"emic"(insider's)knowledgeaswellas"etic"(outsider's)knowledge.HeinzKohutcharacterizes thiscontrastas"experiencenear"and

Page188

"experiencedistant,"bywhichhemeanswhatmightbeunderstoodroughlyasintuitiveknowledgeandanalyticknowledge.Ishouldliketoborrowfromcurrent computervocabularybyusingtheterms"nativefriendly"and"strangerfriendly."Translationsaregenericallypredisposedtobeing"strangerfriendly"(thoughsome academictranslations,aswehaveindicated,aremoreinaccessibletothetargetlanguagereaderthantheoriginaleverwastothesourcelanguagereader).19The studentoftranslation,however,needstobesensitivetofourtypologiesofinterpretation:thestrangemadefamiliar(asinFitzGerald'sOmarKhayyamortheHebrew OldTestamentinEnglish)thestrangemadestrange(asinanyofanumberofbizarretransliterationsystemsofChinese,notexcludingpinyin)thenativemadefamiliar (whichconstitutes''emic"experiencebyvirtueoflongacculturation)andthenativemadestrange("etic"experience,orostraenie,defamiliarization).CliffordGeertz's descriptionoftheprocessinvolvedinanthropologicalanalysisholdsastruefortranslatorsandstudentsoftranslation:"acontinuousdialecticaltackingbetweenthe mostlocaloflocaldetailandthemostglobalofglobalstructureinsuchawayastobringthemintosimultaneousview"(Geertz1984:134). Ofthosewehavestudiedinthischapter,onlyLeggewenttoChina:Mahler,Bethge,Pound,andWaleyneversetfootonChinesesoil.Yetextendedresidencedid notremovethescalesofChristianityfromLegge'seyes:heneversawtheConfuciantextsintheirownlight.Inasense,Leggedidn'treallyknowhewasinChina, despitehisextendedresidence.Theothersimaginedthemselves,rightlyorwrongly,intraditionalChina:MahlertooktheChineseexperienceandderivedfromit transcendent,universalistmusicalexpressionsforfriendship,parting,andlonging.Bethge
19.

Aperfectpairofexamplesforthe"strangerfriendly"andthe"nativefriendly"contrastcanbeseenintheYugoslaviancarimportedtotheUnitedStatescalled"Yugo,"which isnotonlyanaptabbreviationofthesourceofthecarbutaninvitingdescriptorofthevehicleitself"Yougo!"TheobverseexampleistheinsistenceofGeneralMotorson namingoneofitsChevroletmodels"Nova,"whichconnotesinEnglish"astarburst"aswellasnewness,butwhichreadstoSpanishspeakingpeoples(includingthoseinthe UnitedStates)as"nova""Itdoesn'tgo."BoththeYugoinYugoslaviaandtheNovaintheUnitedStatesare"nativefriendly"inthecountryofmanufacture,theoneappealing tonativepatriotism,theothertotheAmericanpenchantforthenovel.ButtheYugois"strangerfriendly,"theNovaisnot.

Page189

discoveredintheChinesepoemshisownlyricalimpulse,perhapsnotsoshyasthatintheoriginal,buthauntingandevocativeinitsownright.PoundtooktheChinese classicsassourcesofinspiration,Waleyassourcesforstudy.Ifthese"readers"ofChinesehadnevergonetoChina,theirimaginationsneverthelesspersuadedthem thattheywereinChina. ThereisahauntingentryinWittgenstein'sOnCertainty(1974b:42e)whichisrelevantherenotonlybecauseitmentionsChina:

Iasksomeone"HaveyoueverbeeninChina?"Hereplies"Idon'tknow."Hereonewouldsurelysay''Youdon'tknow?"

InanagewhenthemerephysicalfactofhavingbeentoChinaseemstoconferknowledge(oratleasttheauraofknowing),itisimportanttorememberthatthe majorityofnativesallovertheworldarenativelyignorant,andthatthetrulyknowledgeablepeoplearethosewhocommandnativeknowledgeofasubjectwitha stranger'sperspectiveonthatsubject.ToadoptHirsch'spolarity,ifbeinganativeistheonlywaytounderstandthemeaningofwhatlifeislikeinaculture,onlya nonnativeperspectivewillyielditssignificance.Thisprincipleofepistemologyismerelythemoreabstractversionofthetourist'struismthatonedoesnotunderstand orappreciateone'sowncountryuntiloneleavesit.Neitherthenaturalizationoftheforeign,whicherasestheuniquecharacteroftheoriginal,northeexploitationofthe exotic,whichexaggeratesdifferences,20issufficientforatrulyglobalorscientificperspectiveinour"horizonofexpectations."OnemustdemystifytheOtherevenas onedefamiliarizestheSelf.

20.

Thenotionofseeingtranslationsas"naturalizations"oras"barbarizations"isinsightfullyexploredbyJamesJ.Y.Liuinhisarticle"PolarityofAimsandMethods: NaturalizationorBarbarization?"(1975b:6067)."Naturalizations"renderthestrangefamiliar"barbarizations"preservethestrangenessoftheunfamiliar.Thesetermsinthe contextofLiu'sdiscussionareclearenough,buttheyhavefailedtobewidelyadoptedbecauseoftheirinherentambivalence:"naturalizations"areunnaturalprocessesbywhich immigrantsgaincitizenshipintheUnitedStates"barbarizations,"ontheotherhand,suggesttotheChineseanyonewhoisnotChinese.Thetermsare,therefore,"loaded"in AmericanEnglishand,whentranslated,inChinese.

Page190

11 CatalystandExcavator: PoundandWaleyAsTranslatorsofChinesePoetry
OneofthemostfrequentlyposedquestionsbyteachersofworldliteraturewhoareinnocentofChineseis:"Whoisthebettertranslator?ArthurWaleyorEzra Pound?"Likesomanyinterestingquestions,itisunanswerable.Notbecausetherearenofinalanswers(partisanscanbefoundonbothsides),butbecauseasa question,itisasthephilosopherswouldsayillphrased.Thereistheobviousbutnecessaryneedtoaskfirst:onwhichpoemisWaley'sorPound'sversiontobe preferred?Therearealsothepriorquestions:Whatdoesonemeanby"translation"?Whatcriteriaareassumedinajudgmentofvalueintranslation?Whatcanbe learnedfromtheseversionsandbytheircomparison,eitherabouttheoriginalorabouttheprocessoftranslating?Thesearethequestionsthatmustbeaddressed beforeonecanaddressinanymeaningfulwaythequestion:Whoisthebettertranslator?WaleyorPound? Thesepriorquestionsontheontologyoftranslation(whatisit?),onitscriteriaofcanonicity(howdoesonejudgeit?),andonwhatmightbecalleditsheuristics (howdoesoneteachfromit?whatcanbelearnedbystudyingthem?)arebynomeanssettled,norcantheybedefinitivelyresolved.Yetthesequestionsareworth exploring.ForbyaskingthemwewillbeabletoseethelargerissuesimplicitintheWaleyorPoundchoice,issueswhichilluminatenotonlythegenericsoftranslation butthedynamicsoflanguageandculture,aswellasthemethodologyofcrossculturalcomparison.

Page191

ThetextthatattractedbothWaleyandPoundis,ofcourse,theShijing ,theancientChineseclassicwhichisitselfsurroundedbycomplexandinteresting questionsofhistoricity,genre,andcanonicity.Complexhermeneuticalquestionsaboutthisworkcanbeasked,andvoluminouslyanswered,butwewillresistthe temptationtorehearsethatscholarlyscenario.1Forthepurposesofthisdiscussion,onepositstheoriginalexistenceoftheseworks,notastexts,butassongs,paeans, celebrations,laments,memorialscomposedeitherorallyorinwritingbyancientpeoplesorpersonsunknownwholivedsometimebeforethelifetimeofConfucius, whosedatesare551479B.C.2 Thetypologiesoftranslationarenumerous.Distinctionshavebeendrawnbetweentranslationsandimitationsasbetweentranslationsandversionsthesedistinctions havebeendeniedjustasvigorously:somearguethatalltranslationsare,insomeways,imitations,andthatatranslationisinevitablyaversion.3Buttheseareauthor determinedclassificationsanddonottakeintoaccountthefactorsooftenneglectedintranslationstudies:theaudience.Justaswiththeassumptionthattheoriginalis oneandinviolate,soalsoithasbeenassumedbutwithfarlesswarrantthattheaudiencefortranslationsofaworkisandshouldbeoneandthesame.Alookat literaltranslations,imitations,adaptations,andthelikewillshowthattheirontologicaldifferencescanbeadducedonlyifoneexaminestheintended,orimplied, audience.Aliteralversion,forexample,isnotintendedforabilingualreader:hehasnoneedofwordforwordequivalents,andhewouldnotneedtograspthe
1.

ForarecentsurveyoftheseissuesseePaulineYu,"Collections,Canons,andClassicalChinesePoetry,"apaperpresentedtotheSecondSinoAmericanSymposiumon ComparativeLiterature,PrincetonUniversity,2931October1987.
2.

TheConfuciancharacterofthetraditionalinterpretationofthesetextsisreflectedinPound'stitleforhisversions:TheConfucianOdes:TheClassicAnthology(Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress,1954NewYork:NewDirections,1959).Waley'sversionismoreanthropologicalandemphasizesthefolkloriccharacteroftheoriginal:TheBookofSongs (London:Allen&Unwin,1937NewYork:GrovePress,1960).

3.

SeeJohnHollander,"Versions,Interpretations,andPerformances,"inBrower(1959)forananalysisofthedistinctionsfortheargumentagainstthedistinctions,consultSusan BasnettMcGuire,"WaysThroughtheLabyrinth:StrategiesandMethodsforTranslatingTheatreTexts,"inHermans(1985),especiallyp.101.

Page192

meaningoftheoriginalworkinsuchamechanicalway. Norisaliteralversionintendedforthegeneralreader:hedoesnotknowtheoriginalandisnotlikelyto appreciatetheaccuracyoftherenderinghedoesnotcarefortheclumsinessofwordforwordversionssinceitdisappointshisexpectationsofreadingliterature. Literalversionsor"trots"inacademicparlanceareactuallyaidstothestudentofthesourcelanguage.5 Imitations,ontheotherhand,arethemoreappreciatedwhenthereaderisthoroughlyfamiliarwiththeoriginal.Pope'simitationsofJuvenalandHomer,Dryden'sof OvidandVirgil,Pound'sofPropertius,aretobesavoredbyareaderwhoisassumedtobeconversantwiththeoriginalsinGreekandLatin.Ontheotherhand,the translationsbyEdwardFitzGeraldoftheRubaiyatofOmarKhayyam,therenderingsoftheConfucianclassicsbyJamesLegge,andtheEnglishversionsoftheBible datingfromatleasttheTyndaleCoverdalerenderingweredirectedataudienceswhowerenotexpectedtoknowtheoriginal:readerswerenotexpectedtohave accesstoPersian,Chinese,Aramaic,orKoineGreek. Thedifferencesinintendedaudienceseemcrucialincreatingauseful,andhistoricallyaccurate,genealogyoftranslation.Earlier,6Icharacterizedthefirsttypeof translationascoeval,thatis,designatingworksthatsubsumetheoriginalasareferenceintheimitation.7ThesecondtypeIhavecalledsurrogatetranslations,where thereaderisexpectedtobeinnocentofthelanguageinwhichtheoriginalwaswritten.8Thethirdtype,whichincludes
4.

VladimirNabokovmightbecitedasaperverseandeccentricexception,buthisinsistenceonliteralrenderingsnomatterhowawkwardwasastrategycalculatedtoremindthe readeroftheultimatefutilityoftranslation,nottorendertheessenceoftheworkthroughtranslations.
5.

Ananecdotemayillustratethepitfallsofliteraltranslation.Aforeigner,uponreturninghome,wasaskedhowheenjoyedhisvisittotheUnitedStates.Hesaidhehadafinetime, buthewaspuzzledthatallthemerchantsshouldbetellinghimtogetout."Whatmakesyouthinktheywantedyoutogetout?"theinterlocutorasked.Thedisappointedtouristsaid: "Becausetheykeptsaying,'Hereyougo!'"

6. 7.

SeeChapter8.

ThisgenrehasbeenastapleintraditionalWesternliterature,whenthereadercouldbeexpectedtoknowtheclassicallanguagesatleastaswellashisownitisnoaccidentthat imitationsshouldhaveflourishedduringtheNeoclassicperiod,whenclassicallearningwasemphasized.
8.

ThesetermsweredevelopedinChapter8.

Page193

literalversionsandtrots,isdirectedatareaderwhoisassumedtobeneitherwhollyinnocentoftheoriginalnorentirelyfamiliarwithit.Ihavecharacterizedthese translationsascontingentbecausetheyarenotselfsufficient,eitherassurrogatetranslations,whichdonotrequireknowledgeoftheoriginal,orascoeval translations,whichhavetheirownliteraryidentityindependentoftheoriginal.Theseversionscouldbecharacterizedas"metatranslations"or"metaoriginals."The readerofthesecontingenttranslationsisthestudentofthelanguage,whoisnotalwaysalas!astudentofliterature.Textsandeditionsforthisreadershiphave proliferatedinrecentgenerations.Theseversions,withtheiraccompanyinglinguisticapparatusandthedensityoftheirannotationandexegesis,oftenbewilderthe generalreader.9Theyaresometimespresentedinametalanguagecomprehensibleneithertothespeakeroftheoriginallanguagenortothenativespeakerofthetarget languageuntrainedinthespecializeddiscourse.InthecaseoftranslationsfromtheChinese,thesemaybefamiliaras''sinological"translations.Transliterationsarebut oneexampleofthismetalanguage,particularlyobviousinnonalphabeticlanguages,wherethenativespeakerisoftenanunreliablesource,since,notneedingtospell hiswordsout,heissparedtheburdenofromanizingwordsheknowsinnontransliteratedorthography.10 Toclarifythedifferencesbetweenthethreecategoriesoftranslation,Iproposethefollowing"ontologicalgrid": targettext explicitlyabsent explicitlypresent explicitlyabsent explicitlypresent sourcetext implicitlyabsent implicitlyabsent implicitlypresent implicitlypresent

untranslatedworks surrogatetranslations contingenttranslations coevaltranslations

9.

Bilingualeditionsfallintothiscategory,asdoesStanleyBurnshaw'swidelyusedThePoemItself(1960).

10.

Chineseisparticularlyburdenedinthisrespect:thespeakerofEnglishlearningChinesemustbefamiliarwithatleasthalfadozentransliterationsystems(WadeGiles,pinyin, GuoryuuRomatzyh,postalsystem,Yale,p'op'omoph'or).

Page194

Thecharacterizationofuntranslatedworksasbothexplicitlyabsentandimplicitlyabsentmightseemabanalinsight,butitreflectsanimportantlessonofepistemology: notonlydoesitunderlinethedifferencebetweenrealizingandnotrealizingthatsomethingismissing,butitremindsusofthecrucialimportancebetweenselfconscious andblitheignorance.Intranslation,itrepresentsthedifferencebetweenknowingabouttheexistenceofanimportantworkinanotherlanguagethatisasyet untranslatedandnotknowingthattheworkevenexists.11 Surrogatetranslationspresupposetheinaccessibilityoftheoriginalforitsreaders(theeffectivenonexistenceofthesourcetext).Inthisperspective,thereisthe possibilityofacertainlinguisticchauvinism:aworkdoesnotexistuntilitistranslatedintothetargetlanguage.Thepractice,alas,ofanumberofdepartmentsofEnglish thatteach"continental"worksintheirEnglishversionswithoutanyconsiderationoftheirpreexistenceinthesourcelanguageisalamentableconfusionofculturalas wellasliteraryidentitiesitstemsfromadangerouslyignorantlinguisticprovinciality,akintotheardentbeliefofmanySouthernBaptistsinAmericathattheBiblewas writteninEnglish.12 Contingenttranslations,bycontrast,showbytheirveryimpenetrabilityandcumbersomenessthatonlytheoriginalexists.Ifsurrogatetranslationsareoftenmisusedby thelanguageprovincial,contingenttranslationsareasoftenabusedbythelanguagesnob. CoevaltranslationsarethepresageofwhatmightbecalledtheultimatepostBabelianfuture,whereeveryoneknowseveryoneelse'slanguage.Theparadigmofthe futureisnotsomuchthe"meltingpot"model,wherealllanguagesandculturesbecomeoneblandpabulum,butapluralistic"harmonyofflavors"whereeach
11. 12.

PartofJapan'ssuccessinrecentyearsmaybeattributedtothefactthatitleadstheworldintranslatingintoitsnativetongueworksofallsortsfromotherlanguages.

Theseinstancesproliferateasmoretranslationsbecomeavailable:arecentPh.D.thesis,vauntedbyitsdepartmentasoneofitsbest,addressedthetopic"ConfucianismandEzra Pound,"yetnooneconversantwithChinese,orknowledgeableinthevoluminousConfuciantradition,orcapableofexaminingPound'sunderstandingormisunderstandingsof Chinese,wasonthedissertationcommittee.

Page195

ethnicingredientretainsitscharacteryetcontributestoadelectablewhole.CoevaltranslationsmightstartwiththeselftranslationsofVladimirNabokovofRussianinto English(andafewworkswritteninEnglishintoRussian)andthoseofSamuelBeckettfromFrenchintoEnglishandEnglishintoFrench.Certainlybothversions coexistinthesetranslationsinsomecasesitmightbehardtodiscernwhichisartisticallythemoreoriginal,howevereasyitmightbetodetermineoriginalityintermsof chronologicalpriority. Thesegenericcharacterizationsarenotmeanttoberigidlycategorical:oneshouldnotexpectineveryinstancetodetermineunequivocallywhetheragiventranslation issurrogate,contingent,orcoeval,thoughinmostinstancesthesedistinctionswillproveuseful.13Thesethreecategoriesarenottobethoughtofasequally exclusionary:asurrogatetranslationandacoevaltranslationwilladdressmutuallyexclusiveclassesofreaders:onecannotbebothignorantofanoriginalandfamiliar withit.Butthecontingentcategoryismorefluid:thestudentoftheoriginal,andtheoriginallanguage,canreadwithprofitbothasurrogateversionandacoevalone, thoughtheyarelessrelevanttohisinterests.Allthreeclassesoftranslationare,ofcourse,relevanttothestudentoftranslation. Withthesecategoricalandgenericclassificationsinplace,wecannowaddresstheWaleyPoundquestion.Injudgingvalueforeachofthese"genres"oftranslation, differentcriteriawillbeapplied.Surrogatetranslationswillbejudgedsolelyaccordingtotheirimpactonthetargetlanguagereaderwhetheritpiquessufficient interesttoensurethesurvivaloftheworkinanewlanguage.Fitz
13.

Thesecategorizationsseemtomemorehelpfulwithliterarytranslationsthanothertypologiesthathavebeenproposed.KatharinaReiss'sternarydivisionsinformative, expressive,oroperativearebasedonthesourcetextandcoverawiderscope,distinguishingbetween,say,textbooks,belleslettres,andadvertisements.JulianeHouse's distinctionbetween"overt"translations,wherethereaderisawarethatwhatisbeingreadisatranslation,and"covert"translations,wherethetranslationis"almostaccidentally inalanguageotherthantheoriginal,"distinguishesbetweenculturallysensitiveproductions(literature)andculturallylesssensitivecommunications(mathematics,scientific documents),butdoesn'tsufficientlyrecognizereaderbasedconceptionsofgenreimplicitineveryliterarytranslation.SeeMarilynGaddisRose(1981:32).

Page196

Gerald'sRubaiyatandtheKingJamesVersionoftheBibleareprimeexamplesofsuccessfulsurrogatetranslations.Accuracyorfidelitytotheoriginaltextisnota crucialfactor.14Contingenttranslationsaretobejudgedbythedegreeofusefulnesstothestudent:theirpurposeistoeaseaccessforthenonnativereadertothe original.Readabilityisnotadesideratumfortheseversions:Nabokov'sversionofPushkin'sEugeneOneginfallsinthiscategory,alongwiththealmostimpenetrable translations,withtheirbrackets,extendedfootnotes,andlinguisticmutations,thatcharacterizemanyanacademicrendering.Coevaltranslationsanswertoperhapsthe moststringentrequirements:theymustsucceedasliteraryworksintheirownrightandinsomemeasuresatisfythosewhoarefamiliarwiththeoriginal.The remarkabletranslationsofGabrielGarcaMarquezbyGregoryRabassa,andbothArthurWaley'sandEdwardSeidensticker'srenderingsofTheTaleofGenji,each initsownway,brilliantlyaccommodateboththesourceandthetargetlanguageaudience.15 Fromthisperspective,letusexaminesongsfromtheShijinginthePoundandWaleyversions.LetusstartwithShijing40.HereisPound:

Northgate,sorrow'sedge, pursekaput,nothingtopledge. I'llsayI'mbroke noneknowshow,heaven'sstroke.
14.

ThevoluminousscholarshipsincethediscoveryoftheDeadSeaScrolls(convenientlyaccessibleinthemultivolumeAnchorBible)makestheKingJamesVersionoftheBible nolongerareliabletextualresource,butitsliteraryvalueasasurrogatetranslationremainsundiminished.RobertGraves,similarly,hasexposedthelinguisticerrorsinFitzGerald's versionoftheRubaiyat,andhassuppliedamore"accurate"version,yethehasnotmanagedtoreplaceFitzGeraldinprovidingabettersurrogaterendering.(SeeTheOriginal RubaiyyatofOmarKhayaam(GravesandAliShah1968).

15.

ThetwoversionsoftheGenjiposeasomewhatspecialcase,however,sincetheoriginalisnotincontemporaryJapanesebutinalanguagethatfewinJapancanread.Hencethere arenolivingsourcelanguagespeakers,andhencenotrulybilingualreadersoftheGenji.IthasoftenbeenobservedthattheJapaneseresorttoWaley'stranslation(andnow, doubtless,Seidensticker's)moreofteneventhantothe"translations"oftheGenjiintomodernJapaneseintheversionsby,amongothers,YosanoAkikoorTanizakiJunichiro.

Page197 Governmentworkpileduponme WhenIgobackwhereIlivedbefore, mydearrelativesslamthedoor. Thisisthejobputuponme, Sky's"whichandhow"? orsay:destiny. Governmentworkpileduponme. WhenIcomeinfrombeingout myhomefolkdon'twantmeabout concretefruitofheaven'stree nottobechangedbyverbosity.

Itwouldbeeasytodismissthisversionasastrainedattempttocreatea"literary"poemwherenoneexisted.Pound'seclecticdiction,mixingtheintellectualslangof "pursekaput"withthehomey"myhomefolkdon'twantmeabout"andtheabstractnominalizations"Sky's'whichandhow'"and''concretefruitofheaven'stree," presentsapastichethatisawkwardandunnatural.Theversionisobviouslyanattemptatasurrogateversion,forPoundignoresthestudentlearningthesource languageandthereaderfamiliarwiththeoriginal.Poundmakesnoefforttoaccommodatetheoriginalmeaning:thetranslationreadslikeapoeticexerciseverging toward,butfailingtoachieve,originality.Thevestigesoftherefrainintheoriginal,whichconsistsofthreelines,occurringattheendofeachofthethreestanzas,is conflatedbyPoundintooneline:"Governmentworkpileduponme." WhatPoundhastriedtodoistocomposeasuccessfulpoemtobereadratherthanalyrictobesung:thetextureofhislanguageiscontrivedandcerebral,whereas theoriginalisclosertovisceralutterance.PoundmakesonlyatokenattempttopreservetheballadicformoftheChinese(theconflatedrefrainisrepeatedonlyonce), andthereisnoattempttoretainthethemeandvariationpatternintheoriginal. ArthurWaley'sversionpreservesmoreoftheoriginalstructure:thereis,atleast,alineforlinecorrespondencetotheoriginal:
Igooutatthenortherngate: Deepismygrief.

Page198 Iamutterlypovertystrickenanddestitute Yetnooneheedsmymisfortunes. Well,allisovernow, NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing. Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit? Theking'sbusinesscamemyway Governmentbusinessofeverysortwasputonme. WhenIcameinfromoutside, Thepeopleofthehouseallturnedonmeandscoldedme. Well,it'sovernow. NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing, Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit? Theking'sbusinesswasallpileduponme Governmentbusinessofeverysortwaslaiduponme WhenIcameinfromoutside, Thepeopleofthehouseallturneduponmeandabusedme. Well,it'sallovernow. NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing, Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit?

Inthisversion,theformulaicstructureoftheoriginalismanifest:eachvariationonthelineispreservedeachverbatimrepetitioncarefullyduplicated.Clearly,Waley hadtheoriginalinmind,notmerelyasacatalystforpoeticinspiration,butasaform,acontent,tobepreservedasmuchaspossibleinEnglish.Thestudentofthe language,andoftheShijing,findstheserenderingsusefulasanaidtotheoriginaltext.Yetthereissomethingawryhere.TheWaleyversionisverboseandtediousin awaythattheoriginalinChinese,withitsbasicallyfourword,foursyllablelines,isnot.(Eachstanzahassevenlinesmostofthelinescontainfourwordsyllablesin Chinese,exceptforline5,whichhasonlythreecharactersline2inthesecondtwostanzashassixcharacters:seeAppendixD.) ClearlytherearenogrossinaccuraciesintheWaley,atleastattheleveloftheindividualline,thoughtheresultwouldbehardtorecognizeaspoetry.Waley'sversion triesneithertoreplacetheoriginalnortoviewithit:itisaserviceablecontingenttranslationthatcanbereliedupontorenderatleastthesenseoftheoriginalplaint.Yet contingenttranslations,whentheyaresuccessful,are

Page199

manifestlyunsuccessful:theycreateavoidwhichcanonlybefilledbyreadingtheoriginal. Theyareaccuratewithoutbeingsatisfying:theirvalueiscontingent,and onlyintheaccesstheyprovidetotheoriginal. IftheseversionsbyPoundandWaleyweretobeevaluated,onecouldsaydefensivelythatPoundattemptedasurrogatetranslationbutdidnotsucceedWaley providedacontingenttranslation,whichsucceededwithinitsgenericlimitations.Noticethatthefailureadducedintheonecaseisnotthesameasthefailureadduced intheother:Pound'stranslationfailsbecauseitisanineptpieceofpoeticwriting,notbecauseitisinaccurateWaley'ssucceedsdespiteitsslackverbositybecauseit effectivelyevokestheoriginalindeed,italmostcompelsthereadertoconsulttheoriginal.Butthetwoarebeingjudgedondifferentcriteria,becausetheyproceed fromentirelydifferentpremises. Bothversions,however,areequallyunsatisfactoryinonerespect:neithercapturesthevocativeimmediacyoftheoriginalexpressionwhicheventwomillenniaof scholarlyexegesisinChinesehavenotquitemanagedtoerase.Theseareintenselycommonplacesentimentswithauniversalitywhichthesongdoesnottrytohide:the dictionissimple,almostvisceral,initsdirectnessthereisnothingherethatsmacksofthestudio,ofbelleslettres,orofscholarship.Attheriskofexposingmyown vulnerabilities,letmeofferaversionwhichI'vedevelopedtorendersomeofthedisarmingaccessibilityoftheoriginal.Thetitleofthisversionmightbe(andhasbeen) usedmorethanonceasthetitleofapopularsong:
That'sLife Can'tworkthereanymore NowI'llbepoor. Nooneknows Allmywoes. What'stheuse That'slife! What'sthepoint?
16.

16

RenatoPoggioli'sdictumis:"Artistictranslationpresupposes...boththeidealpresenceoftheoriginalanditsphysicalabsence."

Page200 Workinginabureaucracy Allkindsofworkpileduponme. Theyplayedfastandloose, Andreallycookedmygoose. What'stheuse That'slife! What'sthepoint? Slavinginabureaucracy Allkindsofworkweredumpedonme. Theyfoundeveryexcuse Tocookmygoose. What'stheuse That'slife! What'sthepoint?

Imakenobriefforthisversionasanythingmorethananillustrationofthedirectsentiments,disarminglyexpressed,intheoriginal.Whatthisversionlacks,ofcourse,is the"hoariness"thattheoriginaltexthasacquired:millenniaofscholarlycommentarycannothelpbutleavetheirmark.Yetfewwoulddenytheoriginalfolkloric provenanceofthesewordsfewwoulddisputethefact,eveniftheyoccasionallyforgetit,thatthisisapoemfromthesectionoftheShijingtitled"AirsoftheStates," asectiontraditionallyregardedasacollectionofsongsfromthepeoplereflectingtheircomplaintsandmiseries,joysandsorrows,whichwasintendedtoserveasa "mirrorformagistrates." Pound'sversionofShijing75isnothingshortofanembarrassment(AppendixE):onewouldneverhaveguessedfromitthatasimplelovelornlyricwasthe inspiration.Evenallowingforthetraditionalallegory,commonplaceinConfuciancommentaries,ofreadingtheneglectedandunrequitedgirlastheministerneglected bytheemperor,Pound'sversionisfarfetched:

Liveuptoyourclothes, we'llseethatyougetnewones. Youdoyourjob, we'llbringourbestfoodtoyou'uns. Ifyou'regoodasyourrobesaregood We'llbringyouyourpayandourbestfood.

Page201 Nothingtoogood,bigoshandbigob Forabureaucratwhowillreallyattendtohisjob.

Thejazzycolloquialisms,thebrashdiction,theinflatedrhetoric,representPound'sinventivenessoutofcontrol:itiscreativitywithoutacriticalconsciencefecundity withoutdiscrimination. HowfarthisdepartsfromthepoetryintheoriginalcanbeseeninacomparisonwithWaley'sversion:

Howwellyourblackcoatfits! WhereitistornIwillturnitforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou. Howniceyourblackcoatlooks! WhereitiswornIwillmenditforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou. Howbroadyourblackcoatis! WhereitiswornIwillalteritforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou.

Waleyleavesoutthelineendingvocalizer xiwhichmarkstheballad,a"heighho,""tralala"insertiontofilloutthelineortoendwithemphasis,but,onthe whole,hisversionreflectsthesimplicityandpoignancyoftheoriginal.TherearemanysuchlyricsintheShijing,thepureandunadornedexpressionoffolksentiment, originallysungcommunally,perhapsantiphonally.17Pound'sversionsmacksoffalserhetoric,thesophisticatedcondescensionofawordsmithmimickingthesoundsof thepopulace.Waley'srenderingismoremodestand,giventhemodestpostureofthepersonainthesong,moreappropriateintone.Pound'ssurrogateversion misfiresWaley'scontingentversionisprosaic,butitpreservessomeofthespareabjectnessoftheoriginal.Notealsothe

17.

MarcelGranet,inhisFtesetchansonsdelaChine(1919)twogenerationsago,citedparallelsincontemporaryfolksinginginSoutheastAsia,whichheconsideredfroman anthropologicalperspectiveoffshootsoftheoriginalfolktraditionthatproducedmanyofthesongsintheShijing.

Page202

strident,imperativetoneofPound'srendering,soatoddswiththedeferentialeleganceofmosttraditionalChinesepoetry. Shijing90isaperfectinstanceofthethemeandvariationballadform(seeAppendixF).Therearethreestanzasoffourlineseach,fourwords(thusfoursyllables)in eachline.Inthefirstline,thefirsttwowordsarethesameineverystanzainthesecond,again,thefirsttwowordsarethesamethethirdlineineachstanzais identicalandinthelastline,onlythelastwordischangedfromstanzatostanza.Thesongisanalmostabstractdesign,withnointernalprogression,andthevariations appeartoberandom.Itconformstoacommonballadformula,wherelimiteddemandsareputontheinventionofthesingers.Therepetitionsaretheheartofthe poem,anobviousvestigeofitsoralorigins. Oneoftheproblems,sooftenglossedoverindiscussionsoftranslation,isnotmerelythedifficultyoftranslatingfromonelanguagetoanotherbutthatoftranslating fromoraltowrittendiscourse.ThedifferencebetweenscriptasphonetictranscriptionthecasewithIndoEuropeanlanguagesandscriptasideogramthecase withChinesefurtherexacerbatesthedifficulties.Repetitioninanoralmodehasadifferentvaluefromrepetitioninawrittenorprintedmode(whichiswhyrefrainsof songsinprintedtextsarenotrepeatedverbatimbutareabbreviatedinonewayoranother).Repeatingthesamewordsinthesamepositionsinatext,withoutthe accompanimentofmusic,isboringaslyricsinasong,inarefrain,thesamewordselicitanincrementalpleasure.Thedifferencesbecomeobviouswhenwesee Waley'scontingentversionfor,faithfulasittriestobe,theresultisboringandlifeless:
Windandrain,chill,chill! Butthecockcrowedkikeriki. NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIfailtobeatpeace? Windandrain,oh,thestorm! Butthecockcrowedkukeriku NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIfailtorejoice? Windandrain,darkasnight, Thecockcrowedandwouldnotstop.

Page203 NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIanymorebesad?

ThefirstlineincludesaerrorcommonamongtranslatorsofChinese:thetermqiqi (archaicklg)inthesecondlineofthefirsttwostanzasrespectively:he borrowsfromJapaneseandprovidesJapaneseonomatopoeia(kikeriki/kukeriku)inanEnglishtranslationofaChinesepoem! Poundissensitivetothepreponderanceofrepetitioninthetext,andalerttoitspotentialdullnessonthepage,sohisversionisafreewheelingrecreationthat preservestherepetitioninmorepalatablewaysatthelevelofimageryratherthanatthelexicallevel.Butevenherehevariesthelexicalform:"windand rain"(fengy)herendersalternatively"wind,andtherain,""windandtherain,""Wind,rain''"cockcrows"(jiming )herenders"cockcrow,""thecockcrows andcrows,""thecock'sneverendingcry."Poundadaptsanorallyricintoareadabletext,convertingitsverbatimrepetitionstophonemicvariants:

Coldwind,andtherain, Cockcrow,heiscomeagain, myease. Shrillwindandtherain andthecockcrowsandcrows, Ihaveseenhim,shallitsuffice asthewindblows? Wind,rainandthedark asitweredarkofthemoon, Whatofthewind,andthecock'sneverendingcry

Page204 Together again heandI.

Poundhascomposedaversionthatsitsbetteronthepagethaneithertheoriginaloritsmoreliteraltranslations,asatexttobereadratherthanasasongtobesung.It replacestheancientoralChinesesongwithamodernAmericanpoetictextoneissurrogatefortheother. Amoresuccessfulsurrogateversion,whichrelatestotheoriginalShijingpoemnotasacopy,norascounterpartandcorrelative,butasvarianttotheme,isno.143 (seeAppendixC),apoemweconsideredinthelastchapter.Herewewillexamineitfromagenericperspectiveinordertoevaluateitonthebasisofitsimplied criteria.Theoriginalfolksongisaloveplaintfulloflongingandalmostinarticulatedesire:itispurelyrictheemotionisrepeatedandintensifiedwitheverystanza,but thereisnonarrativeprogression.Waleygivesafairattemptatafaithfulrendering:

Amoonrisingwhite Isthebeautyofmylovelyone, Ah,thetenderness,thegrace! Heart'spainconsumesme. Amoonrisingbright Isthefairnessofmylovelyone. Ah,thegentlesoftness! Heart'spainwoundsme. Amoonrisinginsplendour Isthebeautyofmylovelyone. Ah,thedelicateyielding! Heart'spaintormentsme.

Asanexampleofasimplefolkexpression,theseversionsarevaluable,yetfromaliterarypointofviewthelinesarenotveryinteresting.Oneseesclearlyenoughthe personainthepoem:agirladdressingherswaininhisabsence,andprobablywithouthisknowledge.(Modernadolescentsmightrecognizethisconditionasa "crush.") Poundtransformsthissimplelyricintoanotsosimplepieceof

Page205

romanticrhetoric,repletewithbookishimagery("erudite,""colleague,""enquiring,""undurable"),paranomasia(''myheartistinder"),andsyncopatedrhyme:
Theeruditemoonisup,lessfairthanshe whohathtiedsilkcordsabout aheartinagony, Sheatsuchease soallmyworkisvain. Myheartistinder,andsteelplucksatmypain soallmyworkisvain, sheatsuchease asistheenquiringmoon. Aglitteringmooncomesout lessbrightthanshethemoon'scolleague thatissofair, ofyetsuchtransientgrace, atease,undurable,soallmyworkisvain tornwiththispain.

Poundnotes,moreinsatisfactionthaninapologia:"afewtranspositions,butIthinkthewordsareallinthetext."Yetareaderfamiliarwiththeoriginalpoemisnot likelytorecognizetheoriginalinthisrendering.SeveralimportantaspectsoftheoriginalaremissinginPound'sversion.First,hechoosesanimplicitlymale"I"persona whoseobjectofdesireisfemaletheChinese,byleavingthesubjectunstated,isambiguousonthispoint.Second,histoneisleisurely,contemplative,studied,and discriminating("lessfairthanshe,""ofyetsuchtransientgrace,""atease,undurable")hissyntaxiscontortedandcomplex("lessbrightthanshethemoon'scolleague") thetoneintheoriginalisurgent,breathless,scarcelyarticulate,anutterancewhoseaspirations(inbothsenses)arereinforcedbytherepetitionoftheballadicline endingxi.Theoriginalispureevocation,simpleapostrophe,withlittleornopredication. Inthelastchapter,IconsideredseveralofPound'sversionsoftheShijingwhich,thoughdifferentfromtheoriginalinsignificantways,yetbearcomparisonwiththem. Indeed,theysucceednotonlywith

Page206

thereaderinnocentoftheoriginal:thosefamiliarwiththeoriginalhavereasontomarvelaswell.(SeeEoyang1974:3342.)HisversionofShijing23("Liesadead deeronyonderplain")rankswithhis"RiverMerchant'sWife:ALetter,"histranslationofaballadbyLiPo,publishedalmostfortyyearsearlier,asaninstanceofa successfulcoevaltranslation,onethatcanbeappreciatednotonlyforitsownliteraryvaluebutalsoasanadjuncttotheoriginal(AppendixG).Waley'sversion conveyssomeofthechastesimplicityintheoriginallyric:anexpressionofferalinnocence,ofvirginitybothproudandvulnerable:

Inthewildthereisadeaddoe Withwhiterusheswecoverher. Therewasaladylongingforthespring Afairknightseducedher. Inthewoodthereisaclumpofoaks, Andinthewildsadeaddeer Withwhiterusheswellbound Therewasaladyfairasjade. "Heigh,notsohasty,notsorough Heigh,donottouchmyhandkerchief. Takecare,orthedogwillbark."

Waley'srenderingof"longingforthespring"isperfectfortheChineseexpression,huaichun

,whichisthesashwomenusetowraptheirrobes

Page207

aroundthem,andthereforeanextremelycrucialandfunctionalarticleofclothing. Pound'srenderingcapturesboththeimageryandthedramaticsituationwithflawlessresourcefulness:
Liesadeaddeeronyonderplain whomwhitegrasscovers, Amelancholymaidinspring isluck for lovers. Wherethescrubelmskirtsthewood, beitnotinwhitematbound, asajewelflawlessfound, deadasdoeismaidenhood. Hark! Unhandmygirdleknot, stay,stay,stay orthedog may bark.

Theinsistent"stay,stay,stay"atthecloseisasuperbtrouvaille,foritsuccinctlypreservestheambivalenttoneofentreatyandprotestinthepoem.Goodasthepoem maybeinChinese,areaderoftheoriginalcanonlydelightatPound'srendering,foronenowhasaccesstotwopoems,theoriginalinChineseandPound'sversionof it,thatcoevallyinterpretthesameexperience:eachofthemcreatesitsownvoiceandpreservesamemorablemoment. Wecannowattemptananswertotheoriginalquestion"Whoisthebettertranslator?WaleyorPound"byrephrasingitintoanotherquestion:"ForwhomisPound orWaleythebettertranslator?"ThestudentofChinesewillfindWaleygenerallythemorereliablethestudntofpoetrywilloftenfindPoundthemoreinteresting. Waleymaybelimpandlaborious,butheneverfallsintothemeretriciousorthebombastic.Pound,ontheotherhand,maybeuneven,butsomeofhisversions achievepoetryinawaythatWaleyneverdoes.WhereWaleyissafe,Poundisinspired.

Page208

IncontemplatingPoundandWaley,oneisremindedofanotherfamouspair:DrydenandPope,andwhatDr.Johnsonsaidofthem.Theparallelsbetweenthetwo comparisonsarenotexact,buttherearesomesimilarities.OfPound,itcouldbesaid,asJohnsondidofDryden:"Pound'sperformanceswerealwayshasty...he composedwithoutconsideration,andpublishedwithoutcorrection.Whathismindcouldsupplyatcall,orgatherinoneexcursion,wasallthathesought,andallthat hegave."ItmightbesaidofPoundandWaley,asJohnsondidofDrydenandPope,that"ofPound'sfiretheblazeisbrighter,ofWaley'stheheatismoreregularand constant.Poundoftensurpassesexpectation,andWaleyneverfallsbelowit."Yetonemustbecarefulnottoforceafalseequivalenceofcomparisons:ifwecansayof Pound,asJohnsondidofDryden,thathe"isreadwithfrequentastonishment,"wecannotwithequaljusticesayofWaley,asJohnsondidofPope,thathemaybe read''withperpetualdelight." Waleyproducescontingenttranslationsofunerringifoftenblandgoodtaste.Poundproducessurrogatetranslationsofvariablequality,rangingfrommisjudged exercisesinfailedrhetorictosuperlativerecreationswithalifeoftheirown.Poundinvariablyattemptedsurrogatetranslations,versionsaddressinganaudiencethat wouldbecontentonlywithhisviewoftheoriginal.18Waley'sposturewassomewhatambivalent:heoftensparedthereaderthescholarlyapparatusthathewas familiarwith,yethewasmodestabouttheliterarycharacterofhistranslations.Intheprefacetothesecondedition(1960),Waleyindicatedashisintendedaudience "anyoneusingmybookfordocumentarypurposes,thatistosay,forthestudyofcomparativeliterature,folklore,orthelike."19Waleytranslatedtoshowtheintrinsic orextrinsicvalueoftheoriginals:hencehisversionswerecontingentontheirvalue.WherePoundtranslatedforanaudienceofgeneralreaders,Waleyaddressedan audienceofstudentsandscholars. Theaudiencefortranslationcanbecategorizedintothreedis
18.

Inadditiontotheconsultation,somewhatpermissive,ofAchillesFangatHarvard,Poundhadaccesstoatleastthreepreviouslypublishedtranslations:JamesLegge's(1893), Waley's(1937),andBernhardKarlgren's(1950).
19.

Theimplicitviewofcomparativeliteratureasafieldofstudythatprecludesanyinterestintheoriginal,ortheoriginallanguage,isnotsomuchinfashionnowasinWaley'sday.

Page209

tinctanddecisivegroups:themonolingual,theincipientlybilingual,andthebilingual.Surrogatetranslationsaccommodatethefirstcontingenttranslationsappealtothe secondcoevaltranslationsattractthethird.Mostteachersofworldliterature(Waleywouldhavecalledthemteachersofcomparativeliterature)dependonsurrogate translations.Anintelligentresponsetothequestion"Whoisthebettertranslator?WaleyorPound?"likesomanyquestionsinsomanyfieldsinthemodernperiod, fromrelativitytheorytonarratologyreversesthefocusofinquiry,turnsbothtelescopeandmicroscopebackattheviewer.Insteadofdeterminingwhattheobjectof studyis,thesedisciplinesask:"Whatisthepersonaoftheintelligencebehindtheinquiry?"20"Whatisthevantagepointofafieldofstudy?""Whosepointofviewis beingsubsumedbythequestion?''Translatingtheseconcernstothecurrenttheoryandpracticeofworldliterature,onemustconvertthequestion"Whatisworld literature?"to"Whichworldsareinus,thestudentsofworldliterature?""Istherereallyanysuchthingas'nonWestern'literature,oristhatdenominationmerelya reflectionofWesternethnocentricity?"Whenweaskthequestion"WaleyorPound?"wearewhetherwerealizeitornotaskingaprofoundlyrelevantquestion aboutourselves.

20.

Theambivalenceoftheword"subject"isappositehere,forpresentinanyfieldofinquiryisnotonlytheagent,thecentralintelligence(subject)conductingtheinquiry,but alsothefieldofstudy(subject)asreflectingsubjectivebiases.

Page210

12 BeyondVisualandAuralCriteria: TheImportanceofFlavorinChineseLiteraryCriticism
Conceptsofvalueinliteraryaestheticsgenerallyinvolveeitherabstractindicatorsofdegree("excellent,""mediocre,""poor'')ormetaphoricalmarkersreflecting perceptualjudgments("brilliant,""drab,""dull").Wheretermsofcriticismarenotblatantlyaffective(hencesubjective:"repugnant,""disgusting,""moving"),theyare hierarchical("good,""better,""best").Therearealsoimplicitmetaphors("outstanding,""ordinary,""banal")aswellasconceptualextrapolationsofperceptual experience("stunning,""bland,""odious").Theimageryinherentinsuchconceptsofvalue,withparticularfocusontheterminologyofChineseliterarycriticism, occupiesourconcerninthischapter:wewanttodeterminewhatimplictpremisesunderliethoseconceptsandtoexploremoreintuitiveequallymeaningfulifless systematicnotionsofliteraryquality. Thereisahierarchyofthesensesfromsighttosoundtotouchtotastetosmellfromwhichthevocabularyofdescriptionisborrowed.Onespeaksof"form"and alludesinitiallytothevisualonetalksof"harmony"andrefersprimarilytotheauraloneidentifies"substance"andpointstothehaptic.Incriticaldiscourse,perceptual termsofthiskindcanbesynaestheticallytransferred,andonecansayquitenaturallyandmeaningfully"aharmonyofcolors,""asubstantialworkofart,""a harmoniousdesign."Whenoneusesthedescriptorsofthelowersenses,however,thetermsaremuchlessadaptableandversatile."Afragrantpicture"islesslikelyto beanaestheticjudgmentofqualityasatrivialcommentontheolfactoryemanationsofthecanvas"aflavorfulsymphony"is

Page211

atbestanawkwardevaluationwhichbordersontheridiculous.Furthermore,whilevisualandauraltermscanoftenbetransferredtoaffectsofthelowersenses"a vividtaste,""aquietscent"thereversedoesnotalwaysyieldaestheticmeanings"atastysonata?''"anodiferoussculpture?"Nodoubt,thisisdueinparttoalarger vocabularyofvisual,aural,andhapticdescriptorsinlanguage,whichinturnreflectsagreaterrelianceonoursensesofsightandsoundandacorrespondingneglectof oursensesoftasteandsmell.Theneutralityofwordsdesignatingthesenseperceptionsiscompromisedinthecaseoftheolfactory:theword"smell"inEnglishnow haspejorativeovertonesthatdateatleastfromDr.Johnson'sage.Indeed,usesofolfactorydescriptorsfornonolfactoryphenomenaarealmostalwayspejorative: "Thisplacestinks,""Thenovelsmells!","Whataputridplay!"1 TheseintimationsareparticularlyworthexaminingwhencontrastedwiththetraditioninChineseliteraryaesthetics,inwhicholfactoryandgustatorydescriptorsare usedtimeandtimeagaintoindicatepraise.ThevaluesenunciatedinChineseliterarycriticism,soexasperatingtotheWesternstudent,areseeminglyintuitiveand elusive,notonlybecausetheyareunsystematicbutbecausetheyresorttosensedatalittleunderstoodandrepeatedlydismissedasunworthytoolsforintelligent discourse.Chineseliterarycriticismisimbuedwiththescentsofthegardenandthesavorsofthekitchen. Modernphysiologyandpsychologyprovideanaloguesofinteresttothestudyoftaste.Theyrecognizethatwhatisreferredtoasthesenseoftasteisactuallymultiple, notsingle.Tastingisanactivitythatinvolvesscent,texture,temperature,consistency,aswellastheresponsethroughthetastebuds.Oftenoneattributestotastewhat belongstotheothersenses.Astandardexperimentindicatesthatwhenthesenseofsmellisremoved,onecannot"taste"thedifferencebetweensuchdisparatefoods asapples,onions,andrawpotatoes(Gibson1966:136).Textbookdescriptionsoftasteasaperceptualsystemratherthanasanisolatedsensationareparticularly appositeandapplyequallywelltowhatHumedistinguishedas"bodilytaste"and"mentaltaste."Tasteas"amajorperceptual
1.

Evenolfactorycompliments"hecameoutsmellinglikearose"areironicandcritical.

Page212

system,andaprincipalconcernoflifeformanypersons,"canbeappreciatedinboththeliteralandthemetaphoricalsenseoftheword.Theanaloguesbetweenthe physiologyoftasteandtheaestheticsoftastearesoclosethatoneencountersastatementsuchasthefollowing,fromatextbookonthephysiologyoftaste,withat leastashudderofrecognition:"Tastingisakindofattention,andthemouthcanbesaidtofocusonitscontents"(Gibson,p.139). TheperceptualmodelsinliteraryevaluationincludeHorace'sjuxtaposedqualitiesof"sweetness"and"usefulness"dulceetutilewhichsuccinctlymodified Lucretius'tropeofbittermedicinetakenwithhoney(theancientversionofthemodern''sugarcoatedpill").Theimageofhoneyandtheindustriousbeesuggestsan aptsimiletoBenJonson,whowroteinTimber(no.130):

Not,asaCreature,thatswallowes,whatittakesin,crude,raw,orundigestedbutthatfeedswithanAppetite,andhathaStomacketoconcoct,devide,andturneallinto nourishment.Not,toimitateservilely...buttodrawforthoutofthebest,andchoicestflowers,withtheBee,andturneallintoHoney.[QuotedinWimsattandBrooks1957:179]

TheimageofthebeeiscontrastedwiththatofthespiderinSwift'stellingcomparisoninTheBattleoftheBooks:
Whichisthenoblerbeingofthetwo,thatwhich,byalazycontemplationoffourinchesround,byanoverweeningpride,feedingandengenderingonitself,turnsallinto excrementandvenom,producingnothingatall,butflybaneandacobweborthatwhich,byanuniversalrange,withlongsearch,muchstudy,truejudgement,anddistinctionof things,bringshomehoneyandwax.[WimsattandBrooks,pp.219220]

Thediscussionrelatestothecontroversybetweentheancientsandthemoderns,butSwift'saestheticvaluesareapparentinthefinaldeterminationthatthebeeis superiorbecauseitendowstheworldwithtwoofits"noblestthings":
AsfortheAncients,wearecontentwiththebeetopretendtonothingofourown,beyondourwingsandourvoice,thatistosay,ourflightsandourlanguage.Fortherest, whateverwehavegot,hasbeenbyinfinite

Page213 laborandsearch,andrangingthrougheverycornerofnaturethedifferenceisthat,insteadofdirtandpoison,wehaveratherchosentofillourhiveswithhoneyandwax,thus furnishingmankindwiththetwonoblestofthings,whicharesweetnessandlight.[WimsattandBrooks,p.220]

Thetwosupremequalities,offeringpleasure(sweetness)andinstruction(light),deriverespectivelyfromthesensesoftasteandofsight.ThatSwiftinsistsonthe virtuesofindustry,discrimination("distinctionofthings"),andperspective("anuniversalrange")remindsusthatwhileaestheticjudgmentsmaybespontaneous,they arenotuninformedoruncultivated. PerhapsthemostfamiliargustatorycommentonthevalueofbookscomesfromBacon'sessay"OfStudies":"Somebooksaretobetasted,otherstobeswallowed, andsomefewtobechewedanddigestedthatis,somebooksaretobereadonlyinparts,otherstoberead,butnotcuriously,andsomefewtobereadwholly,and withdiligenceandattention."Practicalasthisadvicemightappear,theunderlyingpremiseisthatvaluemaybefoundinthatwhichisfragmentedaswellasthatwhichis whole.ThefragmentarinessofbothChaucer'sCanterburyTalesandSpenser'sFaerieQueenedoesnotdiminishtheiraestheticvalue,thoughtheirincompleteness beliesanyclaimstoperfection. Theimageofingestionasametaphoricmodelforreadingandforcompositionisnaturalandinevitable(onethinksofValry's"Lelionestfaitdemoutonassimil").It establishesaclearrelationshipbetweenthemodernandtheancient,betweenthecontemporaryandtheclassic.Intheprocessofassimilation,thereisbothselection anddigestion.Themodelofingestion,nottosaynourishment,givessomewarranttothesuggestionthathavingtasteisconducivetogoodhealth.Heretheaesthete andthephysiologistdisagree.WhereRemydeGourmontmightsay,"Ilestprobablequ'iln'yariendeplussainpourunhomme,commepourtoutanimal,quede suivresesgots,"thephysiologistwouldobserve(withmorerealismthanwishfulfillment):
Tasteinthefullmeaningofthetermusuallygivesacorrectdetectionofalimentaryvalues,butnotalways.Thisistrueforbothanimalsandmen.Noxioussubstancessometimes geteatenandnutritivesubstancesfailtogeteaten.[Gibson,p.141]

Page214

Gourmont'sfaiththatthereisprobablynothinghealthier,formanandanimals,thantofollowone'stastescontradictsthenotion,bothpopularandscientific,thatsome beneficialingestionsaremalodorous.Wewon'talwayslikewhatisgoodforus,andourtasteswillnotalwaysbesureguidesforourhealthoroursanity.Perhaps therewasalreadyacannycommonsensepsychologyintheHoratianformulaofthesugercoatedpill. Ofcourse,tastehasalwaysfiguredprominentlyintheliteratureofsomecultures.ThetasteofthemadeleineinProustisnotonlyanimportantgustatoryeventbutalso asignificantliterarymoment,forAlarecherchedutempsperdumaybesaidtohavebeensetoffbyasingleolfactorystimulus.ManyFrenchandChinesenovels givedetaileddescriptionsofthebilloffareatameal,nodoubtreflectingtheimportanceofhautecuisineinthesecultures.2RolandBarthesinL'Empiredessigneshas triedtoarriveatastructuralanalysisofJapanesecuisineClaudeLviStrausshasexploredtheanthropologicaldimensionsofLecruetlecuit,presentinghisfindings inanaloguesofmusic,thusplayingsynaestheticallyonoursensemetaphors.Jullien,inhisdiscussionoftheseperspectives(1985:123),quotesClaudel"Pour comprendreleschoses,apprenonslesmotsquiensontdansnotrebouchel'imagesoluble.Ruminonslaboucheintelligible"(Artpotique)andBarthes"Sapientia: nulpouvoir,unpeudesavoir,unpeudesagesse,etleplusdesaveurpossible"(Leon).ModernFrenchwritersandliterarytheoristssharewithtraditionalChinese aestheticsaparticularappreciationfortheineffablequalityof"savor"inart. ThevaluationofliteratureinChina,tiedveryearlytotheconceptofwen ,thewrittenword,withitsemphasisonpattern,elaboration,andelegance,hasperhaps obscuredanequallyimportanttendencytowardnonvisual,essentiallynonliteraryconsiderationsinChineseliterarycriticism.Wewillexploresomeoftheperceptual biasesbehindcertaincriticalconceptsandwilltestthevalidityofothers,basedonlessaccessibleperceptualmodels.Implicitinthecriteriaofunity,wholeness,and roundedness,for
2.

The1974annualmeetingoftheModernLanguageAssociationofAmericapresentedaseminaron"CulinaryAspectsofLiterature"whichreceivedsomenotorietyintheNew YorkTimes.Byallaccounts,itwasnotasuccess.Thefault,however,wasnotinthesubjectmatterunfortunately,thesessionwasdominatedbysomeonealas!more interestedinscatology.

Page215

example,istheperceptualvalorizationofsight,andperhapsoftouch.Symmetryasavaluecanbeverifiedspatiallybytheeye,andtemporallybytheear,butitisan abstractionthatrespondstosomesensesbetterthantoothers:"symmetry"insmell,or"symmetry"intaste,meansverylittle."Patterns,""elegance,''even"beauty" thesenotionsaremoreimmediatelyapparentandmoreaudiblethanaccessibletooursensesofsmellortaste.Indeed,thelanguagereflectsaheavyemphasisonthe socalledhighersensessight,sound,andtouch.Therearenofamiliarcounterpartsfor"apparent,""audible,"or"tenable"denotingsomethingthatcanbesmelledor tasted("smellable"?"tastable"?).Sightandsoundimages,furthermore,canbetransposedandusedmetaphoricallyforothersenseperceptions.Onecanspeakofa "beautifulscent"ora"lovelytaste,"butthetransferencesintheotherdirectionaremorelimitedandgenerallypejorative.("Thepicturestinks!","thebooksmells,""the playreeksofselfrighteousness"butnot:"thefragrantpoem"or"thetastynovel""tasteful"wouldmeansomethingelsealtogether.)Asonedescendsfromthevisual tothegustatory,thevaluativeneutralityofsensemetaphorsdiminishes.(Apicturecanbe"beautiful"or"ugly,"butwhile"thepoemstinks"canbetakenasaseriousif crudecriticaljudgment,onecannotcharacterizequalitybysayingthat"thepoemsmellsfragrant.")Theevaluativerelevanceofimagesinvolvinglowersense perceptionsisalsocompromised:"asweetbook"isajudgmentthatpointsmoretopersonalitythantotaste. Thisconsiderationofcurrentsemanticusageisnecessary,forithighlightsthepeculiarityofmuchofChineseliterarycriticism,whichusesthe"lower"sensemetaphors whenitattemptstocharacterizeworkofthehighestquality.Theolfactoryandthegustatoryarewarrantsofmeaningandvaluebeyondthatwhichcanbeverifiedby thesensesofsight,sound,ortouch.ThemetaphorsofsenseperceptionfigureintheChineseclassicseitherasapprehensionstobeextrapolatedintotheabstract andconceptual,orasimpedimentstophenomenathatonemusttranscendifoneistoattaintrueunderstanding.Thisdualtraditionofperceptualexperiencetobe extrapolatedandperceptualexperiencetobetranscendedrunsthroughoutChineseliterarycriticismandestablishesimportantcriteriaofvalueinliterature.

Page216

ASenseoftheSenses TheextrapolationofknowledgefromtheexperienceofthesensescanbeseenincertainConfuciantexts.ForthepurposesofConfucianmorality,itisnecessaryto emphasizethecommonalityofsenseexperienceineveryone.IntheMencius,tastesareconsidereduniversal:

Therefore,whatisrelishedinthemouthisthesameineverybodythesoundsperceivedbytheearareheardalikebyeverybodythecolorsoftheeyearealike,beautifultoall. Whenonereachesthemind,isitalonewithoutagreementonsuchthingsas"principle"or"righteousness"?Thesagesarriveatearlierwhatmymindalreadyconfirms,and therefore"principle"and''righteousness"gratifymymind,justasthemeatsofthetablegratifymymouth.[SPPY11:8b]3

Thesuppositionthat,atbottom,perceptionsarethesamewithdifferentperceiversthatobjectsofthesenseswillelicitthesamesensoryresponsesfromdifferent individualsformsthebaseofananalogy,theothermemberofwhichisthatmoralityisaccessibletoallandmaybeunderstoodalikebyeveryone. AsecondpassagefromtheMenciusisalsopragmaticallymoral,foritanticipatesthehedonist'sirresponsibilityofattributinghisactionseitherto"hisnature"orto"the willofheaven":

Mengtzu[Mengzi]said:"Theflavorsthemouthtastes,thecolorstheeyesees,thesoundstheearhears,thescentsthenosesmells,thereposeandwellbeingthefourlimbs seekthesearepartofman'sinherentnature.Buttherearethingsthatarefated,decreedbyheaven,whichthesuperiormandoesnotattributetohisnature."Humaneness"inthe relationsbetweenfatherandson"righteousness"betweensovereignandminister"propriety"betweenguestandhost"wisdom"inthenoblethesagelivingbythewaysof heaventhesearedecreed.Thatwhichisfromone'snature,thesuperiormandoesnotcallthewillofheaven.[SPPY14:7b8a]

Thesenseofthispassageisthatonemustnotexpectmoralqualitiestodevelopofthemselves:one'sinherentnaturemustbe
3.

Translations,unlessotherwiseindicated,aremine.

Page217

adaptedtothecallofheaven.Thesensesprovideatemplatefromwhichfurtherinstructionsmightissue. Ifoneiscapableofsenseimpressions,onecanbetaughtmoralvaluesaccordingtotheHanshiwaijuan(ExotericCommentaryontheHanTextoftheBookof Songs,asecondcenturyB.C.work):

Confuciussaid:"Ifaperson'smouthcravesflavorsandhisheartdesiresidlenessIwouldteachhimjen .[HWTS5a8Hightower1952:46]4

Therelationshipbetweenthesensesandmoralpreceptisnotonemerelyofanalogy,norofopposition(asinChanBuddhism),butratheroneofmediation.Thesenses aretobeexploitedforthesensebeyondsense:farfrombeingthe"fivethieves,"theyaretheconduitsofmoralinsight. Elsewhere,theHanshiwaijuanspeaksofthe"sixdesires,"whichcorrespondtothefivesenses(thesenseoftouchbeingsubdividedintoinnerandoutersense perceptions):

Manhassixdesires.Hiseyesdesiretoseegoodlookingcolors,hisearsdesiretohear[thenotes]kungandshang,hisnosedesirestosmellfragrantodors,hismouthdesiresto tastefineflavors,hisfourlimbsdesirereposeandinactivityofclothinghelikestheelegantandembroidered,thelightandwarm.Thesesixarethesixdesiresofthepeople. Neglectingthemresultsintroubleactinginaccordwiththem,inharmony.HencetheSaintlyKing,ininstructingthepeople,alwaysmakesapointoffollowingtheirdesires, employingritual,li tocontrolthem.Ibeingsimpleandcomplete,rituallibeingeasyandregulated,and[neither]departingfarfrom[human]desires,thepeopleasaresultobey ordersquickly.[HWTS9b9Hightower,pp.175176]

WheretheinterestintheConfuciantextsisintenselypragmatic,thosefromtheDaoistcanonareconsistentlyskepticalofthebiases
4.

Thetermsjenandi arethesameasthosetranslatedby"humaneness"and"righteousness"inthepreviouspassagefromtheMencius.

Page218

posedbysight,sound,touch,smell,andtaste. Thesenses,inthisview,areperceptualcrutchesthatmustbediscardedifoneistoconfrontpureexperience:"Toact withoutacting,"astheDaoDeJingsays,"toaccomplishwithoutaccomplishing,totastewithouttasting."TheDao,phenomenaltruth,doesnotyielditselftothe senses,and"the[Dao]thatemergesfromthemouthisblandinitstastelessness.''Senseperceptionsprovideuswithsensedatabut"sensibilities"arisefrommetaphors forunderstanding."Isee!""Icomprehend!""Igrasptheconcept"thesearecondensedmetaphorscombining(andoftenconfusing)theperceptualwiththe conceptual.6Keenperceptionsarenotalwaysguarantorsofsharpinsight:blindMilton"sees"morethanthosewhoaresighted.Thisdistrustofthesensesdespite ourtendencytomodelourmodesofunderstandingonthemisstressedintheZhuangzi.

Now,therearefiveinstancesoflosingthenatureofthings:first,thefivecolorsdisorientingtheeye,sothatitnolongerseesclearlysecond,thefivetonesdisorientingtheear, sothatitnolongerhearsaccuratelythird,thefiveodorsoverwhelmingthenose,causingcongestioninthesinusesfour,thefiveflavorsmuddlingthemouthandruiningthe tastebudsfive,preferencesthatunderminethemindandcauseittoflyoff.Thesefiveareallharmfultolife.[SPPY5:11a11b]

Thefifthsenseisqushe ,whichmightbebettertranslatedasbiases,orproclivities,fortheysuggestpreferencesinfavoraswellaspreferencesagainst.The injunctionisagainstoveremphasisonanyonesenseinparticularandagainstoverrelianceonnatural,thoughmisleading,perceptualbiasesingeneral.Themischiefisin extrapolatingfromthesensesratherthanapprehendingthatwhichispriortoperception.Theclearestandmostmysticalexpositionof

5.

Theword"taste"inEnglishhassomanysocial,nonaestheticconnotationsthatitisscarcelyusableasatranslationofweiinChinese.Itisalsosemanticallyunstable:an indefinitearticle,adefinitearticle,ornoarticleatall,makesthedistinctionbetweendifferentsenses:(1)"thisapplehasataste"(2)"Ihaveatastefor..."(3)"thetasteof apples"(4)"apersonhastaste."Chineseweihasonlythemeaningof"taste"insense(1)and(3).

6.

GeorgeLakoff,MarkJohnson,andMarkTurnerhaveexploredsimilarlinesofinquiry:cf.LakoffandJohnson(1980)Lakoff(1987)andLakoffandTurner(1989).

Page219

thispositionoccursintheLiezi,fromthechapteron"Heaven'sGifts":
HencetherearethebegottenandtheBegetterofthebegotten,shapesandtheShaperofshapes,soundsandtheSounderofsounds,coloursandtheColourerofcolours, flavoursandtheFlavourerofflavours.Whatbegettingbegetsdies,buttheBegetterofthebegottenneverends.Whatshapingshapesisreal,buttheShaperofshapeshasnever existed.Whatsoundingsoundsisheard,buttheSounderofsoundshasneverissuedforth.Whatcolouringcoloursisvisible,buttheColourerofcoloursneverappears.What flavouringflavoursistasted,buttheFlavourerofflavoursisneverdisclosed.AllaretheofficesofThatWhichDoesNothing.[SPPY1:5a5bGraham1960:20]

Sensedataarealreadyatoneremovefromreality.Thesensesareusednotsomuchasmetaphorsforinsight,norevenasconduitstothought:theyarethe manifestationsofthe"primalsource,"whichisNothing.TheNothing(reminiscentof,yetdistinctfrom,Aristotle'sPrimeMover)expressesitselfthroughthesenses. AnothertextfromtheLieziexpandsonthepassagealreadyquotedfromtheZhuangziontheblindingeffortofsimplyseeingandthedeafeningeffectofsimply hearing:

Theeyeisabouttogrowdimwhenitcandiscernthetipofahairtheearisabouttogodeafwhenitcanhearthewingsofagnatthepalateisabouttodeterioratewhenitcan discriminatebetweenthewatersoftheTzuandtheShengthenostrilsareabouttostiffenwhenitdelightsinsprintingthemindisabouttogoastraywhenitcanrecognizewhat isrealandwhatisillusion.Thereforeifathingdoesnotreachitslimititwillnotrevert.[SPPY4:11bGraham,p.84]7

Supersensitivityisadistortion.Realitycannotbeconveyedthroughonesense,nomatterhowintenselyperceived. ThepleasureonederivesfromthesensesismostsuccinctlydescribedinthenotoriouslycynicalYangZhuchapterfromtheLiezi.(Curiously,thereisanechoofthe pointfromtheHanshiwaijuanConfuciantextthatitisinjurioustoneglectthegratificationofthe

7.

IhavemodifiedGraham'srenderingofshihfei

from"rightandwrong"to"whatisrealandwhatisillusion."

Page220

senses.)Intheusualprogressionofthesenses,theanomalyisinthedescriptionofthefunctionsofthemouth:
YenP'ingchungaskedKuanYiwuabout"nourishinglife." KuanYiwusaid:"Itissimplythis:norestraints,noimpediments." YenP'ingchungasked:"Howisthis?" Yiwusaid:''Lettheearhearwhatitwishestolistento,lettheeyeseewhatitwishestogazeat,letthenosesmellthescentitcraves,letthemouthsaywhatitwantstosay,letthe bodyrestinwhatitiscontentin,letthewillhaveitsway.Foriftheeardoesnothearthesoundsitwishestohear,thehearingisblockediftheeyedoesnotseethesightsit wantstosee,thenitsvisionisimpairedifthenosedoesnotwhiffthescentofspicesandorchids,thenitsolfactorysenseatrophiesifthemouthcannotexpresswhatitwants aboutrealityandillusion,thenitsgeniusishamperedifthebodydoesnotenjoybeautifultextures,thenitstactilesenseisunderminedandifthewilldoesnotenjoyfreeplay, thenone'snatureisdiminished.Alltheseimpedimentsareextremelydestructive.Ifonecanridoneselfoftheseimpedimentsandbecontentuntildeathwhetherforoneday,one month,oneyear,ortenthatiswhatImeanby"nourishinglife."[SPPY7:4a4bGraham,p.142]8

Thesavorsoftastedonotfigureinwhatthemouthenjoysdoing:"letthemouthsaywhatitwantstosay."Themouthispresentedastheoracle:"ifthemouthcannot expresswhatitwantsaboutrealityandillusion,"thenitsgeniusisthwarted.Themouthischaracterizedastheorificethroughwhichtruthsandfalsehoodspass.Where everyothersenseisdiscussedinconcretesensationssights,sounds,smells,touchthemouthisdefinedasasensorofabstractintimationsofrealityandillusion ratherthanasanorificewherenourishmentisadmitted. ThesubstitutionofnoumenalnotionsforphenomenalsenseimpressionsisindicativeofoneoftheemphasesinChineseepistemology.Theattackagainstwordsfound intheYijingandtheDaoDeJingisagainstfixedconcepts,wordstranscribedanddefined.Thewordthattransmitsitselfdirectlyfromthepagethroughtheeyetothe mind,withouttheintermediaryoforaldiscourseandmodulation,isthewordthatmustbesuspected.Itisatagreaterremovefromthatwhichittriestodescribe: "'Writingdoesnotfullyexpress

8.

IhavedepartedfromGraham'srenderinginplaces.

Page221

speechspeechdoesnotfullyexpressthought"(Choui,SPPY7:10a)"TheDaoiseternalandhasnoname"(SPTKla:16b).Realityhasaboutitsomethingofthe inexplicable,theimpalpable,theundefinable,thatyieldsasensebeyondsense:"ThewordsthatemergefromtheDaoaresoblandastobetasteless.Seeit,andit doesnotyieldcompletelytosighthearit,anditdoesnotyieldcompletelytohearinguseit,anditsusesareinexhaustible"(SPTK17bseeChow1979). Ironically,theskepticismaboutwordsonlyservedtoelevateinesteemthoseworkswhichofferedthiscritiqueoftheword:theseclassicsbecamethesource,model, andjustificationofliteratureinthefirstsystematiceffortofliterarycriticisminChinese,theWenxindiaolong("TheHeartofLiteratureandtheOrnamentationof Dragons"morefamiliarlyknownas"TheLiteraryMindandtheCarvingoftheDragon").Atonceadisquisitiononthenatureofthingsandanexplorationintothe variousgenresandqualitiesofliterature,LiuXie'ssixthcenturyclassicemphasizestheexpressionisticvaluesofwen,literature,assomethingthatmakesmanifestthe natureofthingsinvisibleandintelligiblepatterns(Gibbs1970McMullen1973Liu1975a).Wenaswriting,andaselaboration,pointstooutwardsignsofinner meaning,justas(inLiuXie'sfamoussimile)thespotsandstripesofaleopardandatigeraremanifestationsof"tigerness"and"leopardness.''Butifthisanalogyof literaryelaborationmerelyrelatesinnermeaningtoouterform,thenthereferencetothespotsofaleopardandthestripesofatigercanonlypointtorhetorical ornamentation.Literaturethenbecomessuperficialinitsliteral,notitspejorative,sense:thespotsofaleopardfortheleopard,thestripesofthetigerforthetiger. Thepreponderantlyvisualorientationoftheseimageshas,unfortunately,obscuredLiuXie'snonvisualanalogies.Thesoundsoftheforest,aspringcascadingovera rock,arealso"whereinnerforms(xingli )expressthemselvesinpatterns,whenemanationsofsoundalsogiverisetotheirmanifestations"(WHTLC,p.1Shih 1983:14).InChapter44oftheWenxindiaolong,inwhichheisconsideringtheartofwriting,LiuXiedescribestheworkofagoodwriter:"Hewillencountereach exigency,andhisgeniuswillbeimbuedbywhatheisdescribing,whereupontheessenceofmeaningwillcometumblingforth,ininspiredexpressionsofenormous variety.Totheeyes:anintricatetapestrytothe

Page222

ears:silkensoundstothetaste:delectableflavorstothescent,thefragranceoffreshgrasses"(WHTLC,p.656Shih,p.330).Excellenceinliteraturestimulates metaphoricdelightscomparabletothoseavailablethroughthesenses.Literatureaffordsthesamekindofpleasureasthebeautiesofnature.Thoughnotcurrently conventionalinitsusage,literaturecanbe"savory"aswellas"beautiful"poetrymaybe"fragrant"aswellas"melodious.''InChinese,thecriticaltermsareborrowed withequalfacilityfromanyoneofthesenses. TheImportanceofFlavor ThestudentofChineseliterarycriticismwillnoticehowfrequentlyoneencountersthewordwei ,meaning"flavor,"or"savor,"indiscussionsofliterature.Forthe Westerntrainedcritic,thisrelianceonsuchanelusivequalityisaninevitablesourceoffrustration.Weicannotbeabstractlydescribedordefined:asacriticalterm,it seemsentirelycircularinitslogic:criticswith"taste"find"taste"infinewordsofliteraturethosewhodonotappreciatequalitywillhaveno"taste"andcannot"taste" whattheyread.Atbest,weiappearstotallysubjectiveandimpressionistic,hencetotallyunusableasacriticalconcept.Thisstateofaffairswillproveinsolubleifoneis bentonunderstandingtheconstituentelementsofliteratureortheprocessesofliteraryenjoymentthroughanalysis.Ifoneconsidersthepervasivenessofcritical referencestotasteasindicativeofvaluesbeyondthereachofanalysis,however,perhapssomethingofinterestmayemerge.First,itwillbehelpfultosurveythekey passagesinChineseliterarycriticismtoseehowthisnotionofweiisusedasmetaphor,asorganicmodel,asepistemologicalvehicle. Inhishymntotheartofletters,moredithyrambthananalysis,LuJi(261303)describedhisownalmostdeliriousresponsetofinewriting:"oblivioustoallsights, oblivioustoallsound,"hereadandthenreachedthepointwhere,"drinkingattheonrushofwords,herinsedhismouthwiththefragrantessenceofthe'six arts'"(Hughes1951:96Fang1951:532).9Badwriting,LuJimaintains,is
9.

The"sixarts"are:rites,music,archery,chariotriding,learning,andmathematics.Hughes'renderingoftheliuias"Scriptures"ismisleading.

Page223

likesomething"withoutthelingeringflavorofthesacredbroth"itislike"thenotesthatissuefromthevermilionlutestrings,sothinandeerie"(Hughes,p.105Fang, p.541).Theactofreadingiscomparedtotastingdelights:theactofappreciationisanevaluativeeffort.Thefalsebrillianceofflawedworksiscomparedtocrude, unsubtlefood,ortoatuneless,discordantsound. WhenhediscussesthetransmissionofhistoryinChapter25oftheWenxindiaolong,LiuXiequotesYangXiong'sversionofthedictumfromtheYijingonthe relationshipbetweenthought,speech,andthewrittenword:"Speechisthesoundofthoughtwritingistheimageofthought"(WHTLC,p.455Shih,p.202).10Then, later,whendiscussingmusicinpoetry(Chapter33),hewrites:"Thebeautyoruglinessofsoundandofimageistransmittedinthechanting,andtheflavor(ciwei ) ofthechantingimbueseachphrase,eachword"(WHTLC,p.553Shih,p.259).''Flavor"isthesoulofwriting.Soundandimageconveysomeofthethought,but onlyflavorcanconveytheessenceofthethought.Theverveandthevitalitycapturedinflavor,inLiuXie'sanalysis,arepartofthethoughtinliteratureandcannotbe communicatedinsoundsorimages.Thewrittenwordisfixedthespokenwordismoreflexiblebutthephrasechantedtransmitstheflavorofliterature.Literature readandliteratureheardinvolvethefacultiesofseeingandhearingbutifitistobeappreciated,allthesensesmustbeactive,ifsometimesbyabstraction.The encounterwithliteraturethroughvisualandauralmeanslendsanappropriatenesstotheuseofvisualandauralvaluesinappreciatingliterature,buttheothersensesare bynomeanslesscrucialinourtotalliteraryexperience.Thedistinctivenessofaworkisnotmanifestinits"image"orinthesoundsitsuggests(which,inanonphonetic languagelikeChineseandwithancientworks,ispurelyhypotheticalandproblematicinanyevent).FortheChinesecritic,thedistinctivenessofaworkliesinthat qualitycalled"flavor." Closelyalliedtothenotionofflavoristheconceptof"fragrance":thegardenofliteratureproducesscentsandtastesthatarethesignofvitalityandgrowth."The essenceofliteraturemaybecompared
10.

ThisformulationisaptonlyforChinese,forphoneticlanguages,thesecondmemberoftheaphorismmustbechangedto:"writingistheimage,notofthought,butofspeech."

Page224

tothevariousplantsandtrees,"LiuXiewrites,"alikeinthefactthattheyarerootedinthesoil,yetdifferentintheirflavorandtheirfragrance,theirexposuretothe sun"(WHTLC,p.519Shih,p.232).Thecharacterofeachworkismanifestinitsuniquesavorandscent.Thiswarrantofuniquenessiscriticalwhenoneexamines thecriteriabywhichtrueliteratureisidentifiedasbeingbothfreshandenduringatthesametime.Inthiscontext,thesignificantinsightisthattheuniquenessofawork canbesavored:textsandmeaningsmayechootherworks,butthepersonalityofanyworkisinstantaneouslyverifiedbywhatLiuXiecallswei("flavor")andxiu ("fragrance'').Itisthisuniquenessthatpersists,survivinginnumerablebadimitations,shiftsincircumstances,lostphonetics,changingstyles.Itiswhatremainsfreshin theclassics,whatgivestothecontemporaryreaderasenseofdiscoveryandnewness. Theworksofthepastthatseemforevernewarethosewritingswithlastingsavor:Liuclaimedthattheir"rootsweredeep,theirfoliageluxuriant,theirexpression succinctyetrichthethingsdescribedwerefamiliar,buttheirramificationsarefarreaching:so,althoughtheywerewritteninthepast,theyhavealastingsavorthat remainsfresh"(WHTLC,p.22Shih,p.24).11Howdoesoneacquirethis"savor"?Inthetechniqueofcomposition,inthestyle,orintheform?LiuXie'sansweris thatitcannotbefoundintechnicalingenuity,oreveninabsoluteuniqueness.Contrivanceandoriginality,nomatterhowimaginativeorbrilliant,soonpall.Thewarrant oftruesavorisintheauthenticitywithwhichthewriterexpresseshisfeelings.Withoutthisauthenticity,themostelaborateanddazzlingworkturnsouttobeblandand tasteless:
Speechtravelsfarinthewrittenword: Howsincerelyexpressed,theseexperiences! Whenexpressionsoftheheartassumeliteraryform, Thenitwillblossomforthinglory. SilksfromWu:howdazzling!
11.

AlthoughthesameChinesewordweiisusedinthispassage,Ihavetranslateditas"savor"tostressthecombinationofqualitiesinherentinaworkratherthantorestrictthese qualitiestoasingle"flavor."Furthermore,theword"flavor"inEnglishdoesnotnaturallyaccommodatetheaestheticovertonesthattheChinesewordweielicits:inthiscontext, "savor"maybemoresuitable.JullienusestheFrenchequivalent,saveur,inhistreatmentofChineseaesthetics(1985:123160).

Page225 Blossomsfromthehibiscusaremerelypretty. Elaboratedesignswithnofeeling Must,intheend,cloyourtastes. [WHTLC,p539Shih,p.249]12

Thesuccessfulworkofartisasymbiosisofsincerityandtechnique:bothmustbepresenttheoneimmediatelyapparent,theothermanifestonlyaftercarefulanalysis. Withoutsincerity,thereisnosavorwithouttechnique,thereisnoartistry.Inhistime,ofcourse,LiuXiewasarguingagainsttherhetoricalexcessesofelaborate composition:hencethecriticismagainstpureformdescendingintomereprettiness,attractivenesswithoutsubstance.Buthewasalsoagainstfeelingthatisnotgraced byartclumsysinceritygetsequallyshortshrift:

Skillfullanguageiseasilyrecognized, Butstupidphrasesarehardtohide Flawsinlanguageandinwriting Liedeeperthanthoseinjade. [WHTLC,pp.637638Shih,p.308]

Overemphasisonfeelinghasitspitfallsaswell:
Turningthemaround,theyappeartomakesense, Butuponclosestudy,theyturnouttobenonsense. Therearethewaywardchangesoffeeling, Thatleadtodecadenceinliterature. [WHTLC,p.638Shih,p.309]

LiuXiepositsthepolarityoftheimpersonaldimensionsofartagainstthepersonaldimensionsoffeeling.Thearomaandflavorofaworkarewarrantsoffeeling:they providethereaderwithaparticularsenseofawork,evenasitsformconveysitsuniversality. Where,inthewritingsofformercommentators,thenotionofflavorloiteredattheperiphery,intheworkofSikongTu(837908)itoccupiesacentralplace.Farfrom beinganornamental

12.

Thehibiscushaslarge,showyflowersandseemsanappropriaterenderingforshunying

,thoughitisnotasshortlivedastheshunying,whichbloomsonlyforoneday.

Page226

metaphor,oridleanalogy,weibecomesforSikongTuanarticleofcriticalfaith,almostabywordofquality(seeRobertson1972).Criticismbeginswiththe discriminationoftastesandflavors:
Onlyafteronehasdistinguishedbetweenflavor,inmyopinion,canonetalkaboutpoetry.SouthofChiangling[amongthebarbarians],whenitcomestoamatteroftastes,the picklesarecertainlysourenough:thetroubleis,that'salltheyare,sourthebrineissaltyenough:thetroubleis,that'sallitis,salty.Now,theChineseeatthisfareonlytosatisfy theirhunger,andthentheystop,fortheyknowsavorsotherthansaltyandsour:theysensethatsomethingfineanddelectableismissing.[Ssuk'ungTu1969:47]

Weencounterhereanattitudefamiliartomoderns:thenotionthat"taste"isemblematicofadvancedcivilization.Crudetastesbespeakuneducatedandprimitive upbringingappreciationforthesubtleisameasureofculturalsuperiority.Thequalityofthe"fineanddelectable"(chunmei ,''untaintedandbeautiful")isthe hallmarkofgoodpoetry.Theimplicationisthatagoodcritic,liketheChineseinSikongTu'sillustration,cansavortastesthataresubtlyblended,withnoonetaste dominating,andthathecanrecognizethe"extraordinarysavor"offinepoetry. Thatthis"extraordinarysavor"isthemarknotonlyofauthenticity,butofgenius,issuggestedbyacommentfromJiangKui(ca.1155ca.1221):

Thepoetryofeachmasterhasitsownflavor,justaseachofthetwentyfourmodesofmusichasitsowntone,whichiswherethemusiccomestorest.Imitators,eventhoughtheir wordsmayresemblethemaster's,havelostthetone.[QuotedbyLiu1975a:45seeLiu1966:83]

AcognateexpressionthatoccursfrequentlyinChineseliterarycriticismisthewordqu ,asinxingqu,itcansuggest"interest,""enthusiasm,""disposition."13The valuationofpoetrydependsasmuchontheinclination(dis

13.

Xinginturn,whencombinedwithwei,asinxingwei

,suggests"enjoyment,""pleasure,""relish."

Page227

ponibilit)ofthecritictowardtheworkasontheinherentcharacteristicsoftheworkitself.Tasteinpoetryresortsneithertodiscursivereasoningnortobruteinstinct, butisdevelopedoutofacreativetensionbetweenthetwo.TheseeminglyarcanecommentsofYenYu(fl.11801235)areilluminatinginthiscontext:
Poetryhasotherresourcesthatdonotinvolvewritingpoetryhasotherinterestswhichdonotinvolvereason.Withoutwidereadingandexhaustivereasoning,however,one cannotarriveattheultimateinpoetry.Thismightbecalledthesuperiorityofnotfollowingtheroadofreasonoroffallingintothetrapofwords.Poetrysingsofemotionsandthe natureofthings.ThepoetsoftheHighTangwrotefromheightenedsensibilities[xingqu],likeantelopeshangingtheirhornsintreesatnight,leavingnotatracetobefound. Theirmagicisintheirtranscendentcharm,whichcannotbeanalyzedlikesoundsinemptiness,ortheshapeofphenomena,themooninthewater,theimageinthemirror.Words canbeexhausted,butmeaningisinexhaustible.[KCSH,pp.7778]14

ThelastphraseisanechoofthephrasefirstencounteredintheYijing:"Writingcannotexhaustspeechspeechcannotexhaustmeaning."YenYu'scontemptfor poetrywrittenwithwordsisnotaselfcontradiction.Justasmeaningisnotcircumscribedbyspeech,norspeechbywriting,neithercanpoetrybesubsumedby,or identifiedwith,thewordsinthepoem.Ifwordsarelimitedandmeaningsunlimited,apoemissuccessfultotheextentthat,beginningwithwords,ittranscendsthose wordstoconveyinexhaustiblemeanings. WhenYenYudiscussestheshortcomingsofthepoetsoftheSouthernDynasties(420589),aswellastheshortcomingsofthepoetsofhisownday,andcompares themwiththewatershedpoetsoftheTangperiod,heoffersasuccinctsetofcriteriafortheevaluationofpoetry:

Poetryhasthelogicoflanguageandthesavorofmeaning(yixing poetsofourtimeattendtothemeaning
14.

).ThepoetsoftheSouthernDynastiesattendedtothelanguageandneglectedthemeaningwhereas

JamesJ.Y.Liurendershsingch'(xingqu)alternatelyas"inspiredgusto"or"inspiredfeelings"seeLiu,(1975a:39,81).

Page228 attheexpenseoflanguage.ButthepoetsoftheTangperiodexploitedbothlanguageandmeaningtotheirverycore.[KCSH,p.94]

InthefirstchapteroftheCanglangshihua,YenYuoutlinedfivemodalitiesofpoetry:style(tizhuang ).Eachpointstoadifferentaspectinapoem,butallfive arepresent.Now,ofthefive,thequalitiesmosteasilyidentifiedandanalyzedarestyle,form,andmusicality.Stylemaybemanifestinthedictioninapoemformmay beadducedintheconstructionofapoemmusicalitybyitstonepattern,sounds,andrhythm.Thethirdandfourthmodalitiesarehardertodefine.Howdoesone recognize"spirit"and"savor"inapoem?Theotherthreemaybeapproachedabstractly:stylecanbesimpleorcomplex,ornateorsimpleformfallseasilyintogeneric categories(fu,gushi,yuefu,fiveorsevenwordlushi,jueju)musicality,particularlyafterShenYue'scodificationofthefourtonesinChineseintheearlyfifth century,canbeschematicallyoutlinedasapatternofevenanddeflectedtones.Butthe"prevailingspirit"(qixiang)andthe"savor"(xingqu)willeludeouranalytical grasp.OnemoderncommentatorhasglossedYenYu's''xingqu"asmeaning"thequalityinaworkthatbespeaksitsfarreachingandlastingflavor"(Chang1966:25). Itseemstobeaqualitythatbringsouttheinnersenseoftheworkandgivesitasenseoflife.Itiswhatdifferentiates"livewords"from"deadwords." InthethirdchapteroftheCanglangshihua,YenYurecallsBodhidharma'sdictum:"Onemustcontemplatevital,'living'sentences,notstale,'dead' sentences"(Jingdequandengluiii:lCh'en1957:135).These"live"wordsgiveoff,evenafteralapseofyearsorgenerations,theauthenticsavorofthepoem,which bothestablishestheoriginalcharacterofthepoemandmakesitnew.YenYu'srejectionofpoemsthatusewordsmakessenseonlyinthiscontext:wordsthatare onlywordscannotbutbelimitedtothemeaningsoftheindividualwords,butwordsthathave"savor"createpoemswithlimitlesssuggestionsandresonances"they donotfollowtheroadofreasonnorfallintothetrapofwords."Poetryaspirestothewordlessstatelikesoundsinthevoid,themooninthewater,theimageinthe mirror. WithasurfacesimilaritytoPlato'sconceptionofpoetryastwiceremovedfromreality,thewrittenwordhasbeenconceivedasthe

Page229

imageofthespokenword,andthespokenwordhasbeencharacterizedasthesoundofthought.Whatonereads,then,isonlyavestigeoftheoriginalthought impulse.AsthesixteenthcenturycriticandliteratusYuanZongdao(15601600)putit:
Themouthandthetonguerepresentthoughtliteratureinturnrepresentswhatisexpressedbymouthandtongue.Thustransformed,andatsucharemove,howeverbrilliantly written,literaturewillstillnotdojusticetowhatisexpressedbymouthandtongue.Howmuchcanpossiblyremainofthought?[Lunwen,SYWCH,p.1]

YuanthenproceedstoarguethepositionidentifiedwithHeideggerandH.G.Gadamerundertherubricof"radicalhistoricism,"inwhichoneisremindedofthepast being"onticallyalien"tothepresent.Noonemomentinhistory,therefore,caneverbefullyrealizedbyanyother.Inadditiontothelossfromthoughttospeechto writingwithincontemporaneousperiods,thereisthefurtherlossoccasionedbydifferencesbetweendifferentepochs.Thedistance,theloss,mustneverbeforgottenin theflushofcomprehending,andtheexcitementofrespondingto,thepast.Butifthisdistanceisnevertobebridged,andifthelossisforeverirretrievable,then,Yuan askshimself,whystudytheancients?Hisanswerpointstomorebasicconcerns:

Theancientwritingsplacedavalueoncommunicationtherefore,welearnaboutcommunicationwhenwelearnabouttheancients.Tounderstandtheirmeaningdoesnotmean thatonemustgetboggeddownintheirwordsandphrases.Todayonewearscloaksandrobes,butwestudythetwinedleavesandskinnedpeltsoftheancientstodaywehave fiveflavoredrecipes,butwestudytheancientseatingrawmeatanddrinkingfreshblood.Why?Theancients'objectivewastostuffthemouth,fillthebelly,andcoverthebody ourobjectivetodayisthesame:tostuffthemouth,fillthebelly,andcoverthebodythereisnotagreatdealofdifference.Whenweborrowthewordsoftheancientsinthe compositionswewrite,itisnotunlikepatchingpeltsandtwiningleavesforshirtsandsleeves,orusingfleshandbloodasasubstituteforbeanfood.Ingeneral,thewritingsof theancientsweremainlyforthepurposeofcommunication.Writingtodayfailstocommunicateforthemostpart.Forthosewhofailtocommunicate,studyingtheworksofthose whohavesuccessfullycommunicatedthisiswhathappenswhenwestudytheancients.[SYWCH,p.3]

Page230

Itistheprocessbehindwordstheactofcommunicatingwhichistherealobjectofstudy.Theneedtocommunicate,liketheneedforfoodandclothing,hasnot changed,despitechangesoffashionandrefinementsincuisine.Thestudyoftheancientsprovidesinsightsintothemeaningsbeyondwords,justasthestudyofstyles ofdressandcuisinerevealssomethingofmoredurableinterestthanthisyear'shemlineoryesterday'smenu. Theeighteenthcenturypoet,critic,writerofcookbooks,andpromoteroftalentinwomen,YuanMei(17161798),proposedasynaesthetictestofgoodpoetry whichreiteratesauthenticity,sincerity,andeffectivecommunicationasthehallmarksofquality:

Poetryisone'spersonalnature,anditisenoughtodrawfromone'sownperson.Ifitswordsmoveone'sheart,itscolorsdazzleone'seye,itstastepleasesone'smouth,andits sounddelightsone'sear,thenitisgoodpoetry.[TranslatedbyLiu1975a:136]

Bothintentandemotionareinvolvedintheevaluationofpoetry:theremustbegenuineemotionandtheremustbeeffectivecommunication.Thesenses,bothliterally andmetaphorically,participateintheappreciationofgoodpoetry:thealertreaderofpoetryhashissenses,aswellashiswits,abouthim. Theuseofthesenses,incombination,asameansofidentifyingtruepoetryisnolongermeremetaphorbutacorrelativeoftherecognitionprocess.Sensory perceptionsimpingeonthemindwithsuchintensitythatthemindiscompelledtoacknowledgethepresenceofsomethingitdoesnotcompletelyunderstand.Whatit apprehendsmightbecalledan"intuitedinsight,"differingfromarationalinsightinthatthisprocessregisterssimultaneouslywhilereasonprogramssequentially.Forthe simultaneousapprehensionofphenomena,the"lowersenses,"whichrequirenofocusing,maybemoreeffectiveinregisteringphenomenatoofleetingtobeseenor heard.Thesensesofsmellandtaste,perhapsbecauselessconstantlyinuse,arequicktorecognizeandslowtoforget.Unlikesightsandsounds,however,theyare notsoeasilyreproducedbythemind.Onecanreconstructanimageorrecallamelody,butitisdifficulttomentallyreconstructatasteormemorizeaflavor(although Chinesearefamiliarinliteratureasincookingwiththenotionofhuiwei ,arecollectioninthemindofapreviouslyencounteredflavor).

Page231

Thememoryoftasteandsmellispassiveitcanbestirredevenafterlonglapsesitcanrespondbutitcannotinitiate.ThisiswhythemostsalientcommentsinChinese literarycriticismareoftengnomicstatementsabouttasteandsmellthateludeparaphrase.Theyhavebeencriticizedasvaguebylatercommentators,butthetruthis thattheyarepreciselyfaithfultothequalitiesdescribed,pointingtothatsensebeyondsensecapturedinpoetry.Neitherevasivenorcoylymystical,itisnoaccident that(asJamesJ.Y.LiuhasremarkedofYenYu'sstatements)theydescribepoetrymoreoftenintermsofwhatitisnotthanintermsofwhatitis(Liu1975a:39).15 Foronlybynegatingconceptswhichdonotsubsumetheessenceofpoetrycanonegiveanaccurateintimationofwhatpoetryis. Thesenegativedefinitionsonemightcallthem"delimitations"areoftenmoresatisfying,eventhoughtheydefinesomethingintermsofsomethingthatitisnot.Yuan Meiprovidesatypical,moreorlessinstructive,example.QuotingwithapprovalaremarkfromtheLientangshihua,Yuanwrites:

Resonanceinpoetryliesinthemeaning,notinthephrasesforceinpoetryliesinitsspirit,notinthelinesthetranscendentinpoetryliesinitsemptiness,notinitscleverness thelimpidityofpoetryliesinitssubtlety,notinitssuperficiality.[SYSH,p.73]16

Itis,ofcourse,suchwordsas"meaning"(yi )thatarethehardesttoestablish.Liketheaffectsoftasteandsmell,difficultthoughtheymaybetodefine,their presenceis,nevertheless,unmistakable.Whatoneisconfrontedwithintheseexperiencesisthepropositionthatone'sknowledgeincertaininstancesisnolessdefinite despiteone'sinabilitytoexplainthemadequately.Theyareoutsideourrangeofvision,andthereforenot"seeable"theylieoutsideourgrasp,andarethereforenot "comprehensible."Possibly,

15. 16.

Foraconsiderationoftheepistemologicalramificationsofthenegativeconstruction,seeGraham(1959).

"Resonance"hasbecomeausefulifelusiveconceptinmodernfilmcriticism.Oneanecdoterelatesthereplyofafilmdirectorwhenchallengedtodefine"resonance"hisresponse: "Thearomaoftheroast"(NewYorkTimesBookReview,1April1979,p.30).

Page232

forcertainkindsofreality,the"lowersenses"providethemoremeaningfulmodelsforunderstanding. Inhisobservationsonpoetry,YuanturnedSikongTu'saphorismonthe"flavorthatisbeyondflavor."(weiwaiwei contemporaries: )againstsomeofhislessdistinguished

Ssuk'ungpiaosheng[SikongTu]discussedpoetryandrelishedthoseinstanceswhena"flavorbeyondflavor"hadbeenachievedIsaythat,withthosewhowritepoetrytoday, there'snoflavorevenofitsown[literally,"theflavorwithinflavor"]tobehad,letalonethe"flavorbeyondflavor.''[SYSH,p.100]

Thoughsaidpartlyinjest,thecommentneverthelessdifferentiatesbetweenmysticalabstractionandquotidiansensation.Theflavorofpoetrymustbe"fresh"the soundsofpoetrymustbe"crisp."Yuanpresentshiscriteriaforselectingpoems:
Selectingpoemsissimilartousingtalent:thecanvassmustbewide,thechoicemustberigoroustobeabletoknowthesourcesofthedifferentschools,oneisnaturallybroad mindedtodeterminewheretheessencelies,onemustnaturallyberigorous.WhenIdiscusspoetry,IappearliberalbutI'mactuallyveryrigorous,andI'mfondofsaying:"The soundsmaybekung[gong]orcheng,buttheymustallbecrisptheflavorsmaybesaltyorsour,solongastheyarefresh."[SYSH,p.120]17

PerhapsthemostmemorableintimationofYuan'snotionofflavorinpoetrymaybefoundinthefollowingexamplesfromtheexperienceofagourmetaswellasone whoappreciatesbeauty:
Bear'spawandbabyleopard[rareculinarydelicacies],soprizedasdelectabledelights,whenswallowedrawskinnedalivearenobetterthaneatingvegetablesorbambooshoots. Thepeonyflower,soadmiredforitsluxuriantbeauty,snippedoff,isnobetterthanthesmartweed[waterpepper]orthemountainsunflower.Flavoristobepreferredtothiskind offreshnesstasteistobepreferredtothiskindofquintessence.Onemustappreciatethispointbeforeonecandiscourseaboutpoetry.[SYSH,p.12]

Thevalueofwei,"flavor,"asaconstituentelementinliterature
17.

KungandchengarenamesoftwotonesintheChinesemusicalscale.

Page233

isnomoreapparentthanintheremarksofYaoNai(17311815)inhisintroductiontotheCollationofGenresinAncientLiterature(Guwencileizuan):
Therearealtogetherthirteenkindsofliterature,butoftheconstituentelementsinliteraturethereareeight:imagination(shen),principles(li),force(qi),flavor(wei),form(ge), prosody(lu),sound(sheng),andcolor(se).Imagination,principles,force,andflavorarethequintessenceofliteratureform,prosody,sound,andcolorareallthecoarser elements.Butifoneneglectsthecoarserelements,wherewillthequintessencebe?Thosewhostudythisintheancientsmustfirstencounterthecoarserelementsbeforethey ultimatelymasterthequintessenceonlythencantheyforgetaboutthecoarserelements.[SPPY16a16b]

Eyeandeararerelegatedtothelastandleastimportantplacesinthehierarchyofeight.Flavoroccupiesacentralplace(astheleastamongthequintessences)along withform(asthegreatestamongthecoarserelements).ThisemphasisonconstituentelementsnotinvolvingeyeandearreflectsthenotioninChanBuddhismthat transcendentalknowledgecannotbeattainedthroughthefacultiesofseeingorhearing.Thepowerof"mysticalvirt"(dexing )enablestheadepttoreconcilethe hereandthebeyond.ZhangZai(10201077)wrote:"Menaresaidtohaveknowledge,butitisreceivedthroughtheeyesandtheears.Butwhatimpingesonman comesfromthehereandthebeyondtogether,andthisknowledgeofthehereandthebeyondisonethatliesoutsidethescopeofeyeandear.Thatkindof knowledgeisfarbeyondthecommonman"(ChangTsai1936:42Ch'en1957133).18Thisknowledge,towhicheyeandeardonotprovideaccess,isalso knowledgeattainedwithoutdiscursivereasoningandwithoutthewrittenorspokenword.Itwouldnaturallybeliberatedfromanydependenceonatexttobereador soundstobeheard:initsidealstate,poetrythenbecomeswordless,invisible,andinaudible. BeyondtheVisualandtheAural ConcernwithtasteinChineseliterarycriticismshouldnotdiminishtheimportanceofthedominantstrain,whichis,afterall,based
18.

Ch'entranslatesthsing

as"inherentvirtue."

Page234

onvisualandauralmodels.AestheticsinChinesecannothelpbutbeconditionedbythevisualimage,definedandsymbolizedbythefactandtheessenceofwenas "pattern,""ornament,""literature."Inperhapsthekeystatementofthistradition,LiuXiewrites:
Thefundamentalsofliteraturearebasedonthreeprinciples:first,form,thefivecolorssecond,theirtone,thefivesoundsthird,theirfeeling,whicharethefiveemotions. [WHTLC,p.537Shih,p.245]

Sensesotherthansightandsoundarenotmentioned.Itisnotclearwhethertheyareincludedundertherubricof"feeling"orexcludedaltogether.Themetaphoric comparisonofliteraturetoweaving,tobrocade,tofinelypatternedsilk,allattesttotheimportanceofweninthedevelopmentofChineseculture.19But,without displacingthevisualmodel,thepersistentmentionofwei,"flavor,"seemsequallysignificant,notasanalternativemetaphorbutaspointingtopreciselythosequalities notadduciblebyreferencestowen."Profoundliteraturehasobscurebeauties,"writesLiuXie,"withalastingflavorthatissomehowfulfilling''(WHTLC,p.633Shih, p.305).Thephrase"obscurebeauties"isoxymoronvergingoncontradictionandbetraysthestrainonlanguagethatLiu'sthoughtisexerting.Theyuwei ,whichI translateas"lastingflavor,"isthekeyterm,foritexplainsnotonlythepermanenceofliteraturebutitsvitality.Thewrittenwordpreservesaworkonpaper,butwhat enablesliteraturetoretainitsholdonnewaudiences?Whatchangesthereputationofapiece,admittedlybeautifulinoneerabutdismissedasstaleandinsipidin another? Theideaofwenasamanifestationofinnernaturehasbothnegativeandpositivedimensions:assincereexpressionofinnerfeeling,wenbecomestheoutwardformof truthasinsincereelaborationsofsurfaceprettiness,wenbecomesexcessiverhetoric,impoverishedinfeeling.TheWenxindiaolongisasmuchacritiqueofthe excessesofwenasofitssuccesses:thecounterbalancetowenisthepresenceofwei. ThisexplorationintotheepistemologicalbackgroundbehindthesensorymetaphorsandmodelsinChineseliterarycriticismsug
19.

SeeChapters1,9,25,27,31,47oftheWenhsingtiaolungforanimportantperspectiveontheterminalaterperiod,seeMcMullen(1973:322344).

Page235

geststhat,familiarasonemaybewithsuchcriteriaasunity,originality,clarity,theremaybeothervaluesnotsomuchantitheticalascomplementarytothesefamiliar criteria.Insuchnotionsasspontaneity,authenticity,freshness,oneencountersqualitiesthatarenotobjective,norabstract,norevenverydefinable.Buttheyare,to judgebytheattentionpaidtotheminChineseliterarycriticism,pervasiveandreal.Eventhequalityofliterarycriticismitselfmayelicitanoralorgustatorymetaphor, asinthefollowingremarkbyZhouZuoren(18851967)onJinShengtan'scommentaryontheShuihujuan:

Ofallthecommentariesonfiction,ChinShengt'an'sareofcoursethebest....WhenIreadtheShuihuchuan[Shuihujuan],Ipayequalattentiontothemaintextandtothe comments.Itislikeeatingwhitefungus(paimuerh )theytasteevenbettereatenwithsoup.[QuotedbyWang1972:81]

Suchcommentsmaybedismissedasmerelyanecdotalandthereforeuselesspsychologicallitmustestsofqualityweretheytobecitedinsupportofstructuralor stylisticanalyses,theywouldbe,clearly,lessthanadequate.Butaresuchtestimoniesfailuresofanalyticalthinking,ordotheypointtosomethingbeyondanalysis? HoweverunwieldytheymaybeforstudentsofliterarycriticismaccustomedtotheformulationsofAristotleandthe"modes"ofNorthropFrye,theyconstitutea significantportionofwhatChineseliterarycriticismhastooffer.AsJullien(1985:159)remindsus,Westernliteratureembodiesasemioticbiastowardtheeyes:

EnOccidentdeplusenplus?letextelittraireestluseulementdesyeux(ausensproprecommeaufigur)etilexisteessentiellementauplanmdiatdelareprsentation:la traditiondeslittrairesoccidentalesaboutitlogiquementunevalorisationdusymbole.

Thereaderwhodisregardstheimportanceofflavoraswellasthenuancesofsavorinliterarycriticismdiscardstestimonyofmorethansubjectiveoranecdotal relevance. Therearethreetextsthatcometomindinthisconnection.ThefirstisthewellknownparablefromtheZhuangziaboutCookDing.Morethanastoryabout impressivetechnicalskill,theparablebe

Page236

cameintimeacommonplaceofcriticism,"partandparceloftheliterarylanguage"(Liu1975a:32).Whenadmirationisexpressedathisskill,CookDingreplies(in Watson'stranslation):
"WhatIcareaboutistheWay,whichgoesbeyondskill.WhenIfirstbegancuttingupoxen,allIcouldseewastheoxitself.AfterthreeyearsInolongersawthewholeox.And nownowIgoatitbyspiritanddon'tlookwithmyeyes.Perceptionandunderstandinghavecometoastopandspiritmoveswhereitwants.Igoalongwiththenaturalmakeup, strikeinthebighollows,guidetheknifethroughthebigopenings,andfollowthingsastheyare.SoInevertouchthesmallestligamentortendon."[SPPY2:1b2aWatson,pp. 5051]

Theparableilluminatestheroleofanalysisintheunderstandingofprocess:the"cuttingupoftheoxen"canonlyrevealtheconstituentpartsoftheanimal,butitcannot explainthedifferencebetweenanoxwithlifeandanoxwithoutlife.Itcannotexplaintheindividualaberrationsofthephysiologyineachanimal.Analyzethoughwe will,andvaluableasanalysisis,itbringsusupagainstlimitationsthatmustbeacknowledged.Completeunderstandingrequiresthatoneseebeyondthe"wholeox." ThesecondtextisadialoguefromtheLushichunqiu.Yiyinissaying:"Inthematterofblending[flavors],sweet,sour,bitter,acrid,andsaltymustbemeasuredin exactproportionsandintroducedintherightsequence.Theirsavorissubtle,andeachhasitsowncharacter.Theprocessesinthecauldronaremarvelouslysubtle, whichwordscannotdescribe,andthoughtscannotconceive"(SPPY14:5).Valueinliteratureisnomoreunmistakable,nolessinexplicable.Theanalysisofliterature willyieldonlytherecipeforasuccessfulwork,butitwillnotproducethedistinctivesavorofamasterpiece. ThefinaltextisoneofthetwentyversesthatTaoQianwroteunderthetitle"DrinkingWine"(yinjiu flippantlyandprofoundlytosourcesofinexpressibleknowledge: .Butitisinno.14thatTaoQianpointsatonce

Page237 OldfriendsknowwhatIlike: Theybringwinewherevertheycomeby. Wespreadoutandsitunderthepines Afterseveralrounds,we'redrunkagain. Oldmenchattingawayallatonce Passingthejugaroundoutofturn. Unawarethatthereisa"self," Howdowelearntovalue"things"? Wearelostinthesefarawaythoughts Inwine,thereisaheadytaste. [LiuandLo,p.54]

Theusesofwineinpoetryasasubjectofinquirywillelicitmuchmoreinterestthancanbesatisfiedinabriefsurvey.Theparticularpropertiesofwineits "dreglementdetoutlessens,"itsbouquet,itstasteallseemtorelatetowhatRimbaudcalled"l'alchimieduverbe,"whichispoetry.Itwillbeenoughifthis discussiondoesnothingmorethanwhettheappetiteforanextendedstudyoftasteinChineseaesthetics.

Page238

13 PolarParadigmsinPoetics: ChineseandWesternLiteraryPremises
IntheburgeoningfieldofEastWestcomparativeliterature,littleconsiderationhasbeengiventoquestionsofmethodologyandthelogicofcomparison.Tantalizing andpresumablyinterestingquestionsIsthereaChinesetragedy?WhyistherenoepicinChinese?piqueinterestbutproducenorealillumination.Ofcourse,one failstonoticethebiasinthesequestions.Theobversequestionsarerarely,ifever,asked.WhyaretherenodynastichistoriesintheWest?WhyhastheWest producednocounterparttotheShijing?ArethereequivalentstothelushiandzajuformsintheWest?IfthesechallengestolacunaeintheWeststrikeoneasslightly absurd,thenwemustconsiderthepossibilitythattheoriginalquestionsmightbeequallypointless. Thespeculationsareultimatelyfutileandmeaninglessbecausetheyfailtoaddressthefundamentalconfusionsofpremiseandmethodologyimplicitintheunreflected onemightsaytheun selfreflectedposingofthesequestions.Largeissuesareinvolvedintheirveryformulation,andanyanswerstheymightoccasionare compromisedbyaninherentconfusionwhichcanonlyrenderchimericalormeaninglessany"insights"produced.Incolloquialparlance,itisan"applesandoranges" problem:howdoesonejudgeanorangeintermsofanapple,anappleintermsofanorange?Weseeclearlythemethodologicalabsurdityoftryingtoexplainwhy oneisaninadequateformoftheother,becauseweareourselvesneitherapplesnororangesandweare,generically,disinterestedwhenitcomestofruit.Butthat neutralitydoesnotobtainwhen,inourculturallyboundperspective,weinadvertently

Page239

assumeapointofreferenceoftheWest(say,apples)orEast(say,oranges).Wearejudgingfromapremisewhichisitselfanobjectofstudy,notanabsolutepointof reference.1 Itistherealmof"pseudouniversals"thatIwouldliketoexploreinthischaptertoestablishnotsomuchaneutralpointofreference(which,inanyevent,wouldbe impossible)butamultipleperspectivefromwhichbiasesanddistortionscanbeeffectivelyreduced,ifnoteliminatedaltogether.Ienvisionthesepointsofreferenceas polarratherthancategoricaloppositesinordertoemphasizethattheyarenotfixedconceptualboxeswhichrequireabinaryeither/orlogic.Thisstrategyalsopermits aguardagainstoversimplification,themistakeofthemythicallymonolithic.Wearetalkingaboutculturalcomplexeswhich,despitetheiraggregatedifferences,contain withinthemworldsofdifferenceandvarietiesofperspectives,sothatanydiscussionoflargescalereferentswhether"Western"or"Chinese"mustbeprovisional andcontingentouranalysiswillprovideonlyaroughorderofapproximation.Individualinstanceswill,inevitably,departfromthenorm,andtherewillbeexceptions thatprovetherule.Theintellectualexerciseisnottocreatedraconiancontrastsbuttoseemeaningfuldiscriminations,sothatthecharacteristicsofeachtraditionmight emergemoreclearlybythecomparison. Theproblemwithmakingcomparisonsoutofcontext,andwithoutdueregardfortheparadigmsofpremise,isthatobjectsintheforegroundarecomparedwithout adjustingforvastlydifferentbackgrounds.Meaningfulinsightsrevealtherelationshipbetweenthe"foregrounded"objectandthe"backgrounded"context.Taking objectsoutoftheirculturalcontext,andcomparingthemwithotherobjectsfromadifferentculturalcontext,isanexerciseintautology:theresultingcomparison producesnothingofimportancetoone'sunderstandingofeithermemberofthecomparison,foritistherelationshipofobjecttocontextthatreallymatters.Basicfaults ofontologicalanalysismaynotbesoobviouswhenonediscussesculturalentities,becauseoneisdeludedbylanguageinto
1.

Thereisanimportantdistinctionbetweentheinescapabletendencytouseone'sownexperienceasareference,asapointofdeparture,andtheepistemologicalerrorof regardingthatpointofreferenceasuniversalandabsolute,foranyinquiry,byanyinquirer.

Page240

thinkingthatabstractconceptsareculturefree.Tosaythatanappleisnotanorangeisnottosaywhatanappleisnordoesitexplainwhyonechosean"orange"and not,say,atriangleasapointofreferencetoindicatewhatanappleisnot.ToomanyEastWestcomparisonsremindmeof"fruitsalad"appetizingtothepalate,but notverynourishingforthemind. ThepolarparadigmsthatIwishtoexaminefallintofourgroups:2modalconceptualgenericandphilosophical.(Earlier,inChapter5,weconsideredconceptual, generic,andculturalfactorsandvalences,butherewewishtoexploremorefundamentalconstructs.)Modalparadigmshighlightinstrumentality:theeffectofthetools ontheproduct.Improvedtechnologysuggestsapotentialenhancementofpossibilitiesandprospects,butwhatisnotnoticedaretheeffectsoftechnologyonwhatcan beproduced:onemightspeakoftechnologicalbiases.Thesecanbeseeninsuchexamplesastheuniformityoftype(leadingto"stereotypes"and"reproductions")or theephemeralityofspeechandthefixityoftheletter.Inotherwords,theinstrumentoneuseswilldeterminethestyle,theforms,themeaningofwhatisproduced either(asinprimitivetools)becauseoftechnicallimitationsor(asinmodernequipment)becauseoftechnologicalenhancements.3Modalconcernsremindusto lookselfreflectivelyatthetoolsweusetodescribereality,attheinstrumentsweemploytotransformreality.Theprimaryandprimevaltool,whichdescribes, creates,andtransformsreality,islanguageitself.
2. 3.

Ihavenoreasontobelievethattherearenecessarilyonlyfourgroups,buteachoftheseclassesseemstorepresentenoughinstancestowarrantseparateconsideration.

Anyonewhohasuseda"wordprocessor"hasregisteredthetemptationtospendtime(andlabor)"formatting"atext,justbecauseitwaseasiertomanipulateandtosolvethe problemofthephysicalappearanceofatext,thantowrestlewiththeproductionofanotherthoughtoranother(asyetunformatted)insight.Thephenomenonisfamiliartoteachersof composition,whodespairofstudentswhoareimpressedwiththephysicalperfectionofa"wordprocessed"assignment,butwhomissitsintellectualpoverty.Advertisingisanother instancewherethe"medium''iserroneouslytakenforthe"message"yet,atadeeperlevelofanalysis(asMcLuhanmaintained),the"medium"becamethe"message."Oneneedonly beremindedthattheimportanceof"packaging"inmodernmarketingtakesadvantageoftheeasyconfusionbetweenthetangiblesymbolizationofqualityandtheintangible substanceofquality.

Page241

Conceptualparadigmspointtothe"privileged"termsofreificationinadiscourse.Inscience,itisquantificationinmathematics,itislogicinpositivisticthought,itis demonstrabilityinempiricism,itisexperienceandexperimentineconomics,itismaterialwelfareindance,itismovementinart,seeinginmusic,hearing.Languages arenotequivalentinwhattheyconsiderimportant:WesternlanguagesmarknumberandtenseandsomeindicategenderEastAsianlanguagesdoneither.Onthe otherhand,ChineseandJapanesehaveamorepronouncedsenseofwhatlinguistscall"aspect,"whichincludesdetailedattentiontohonorificsandsocialclass. Chinesepronominalsaremorelikegenericnominals:theyaredeterminedbyindividualrelationshipsratherthanbyneutralcountersoffirst,second,orthirdperson degreesofdirectness.ThisisnottoclaimthatthereisnotenseinChinese,andnohonorificsinWesternlanguages,onlythattheemphasesaredifferentindifferent languages,andthatthesedifferencesinfluencethetermsofreificationthatwillbeprivileged.Inotherwords,howweconceivetheworldaffectsthewayinwhichwe perceivetheworld.4Aforemanofapapermillwillseeaforestinawaydifferentfromahikerageneralwillhaveadifferentvisionofpeacefromapriest. Genericparadigmsfocusontheformsofdiscourse,theshapeofcommunication,expression,andcreation."Closed"and"open"formsbeganasdescriptivetermsin thehistoryofart,buttheyhaveapplicabilitytoliteratureaswell.Behindnotionsofgenericpreferencearecertainhiddenassumptionswithregardtoformitself.Isthere abiasinfavorofformoverformlessness?Doesmeaningprivilegecoherenceandorganization?Isitpossiblethatone'spreferenceformeaning,exemplifiedinataste forcoherenceandorganizationandsystem,elicitsformsofpseudomeaning(asinscien
4.

OnemightconsiderthedisparityinEnglishandGermaninthewaythateachdenotesknowing.InEnglish,thesamewordisusedforknowingasubject,oraperson,ora techniquebutinGerman,toindicateoneknowsasubject,oneuseswissentoindicateoneknowsaperson,oneuseskennenandtoindicateoneknowsatechnique,oneuses knnen.Doesthismeanthattheremustbeonekindofknowingwiththreesubsets,asinEnglish,orthattheremustbethreedistinctactions,innowaycategoricallyidentical (thoughperhapsgenericallysimilar),asinGerman?"Onecanofferanoppositeexample,withitsownsubtlesignificances:thedistinctionof"history"aschronicleand"story"as narrativeinEnglish,buttheirconflationinFrenchhistoire,GermanGeschichte,andItalianhistoria.

Page242

tism,astrology,statistics)whichgiveassertionsthelineamentsofmeaningbutnoneofthesubstance?Isunderstandingintheseinstancesnot,asonemightassume,the acquisitionofnewmeaningbutmerelythecomfortingreinforcementoftheconfigurationsofwhatonealreadyknows?Thetriumphofanalyticalthinking,whetherinthe developmentofmechanicalengineering,digitaltechnology,cybernetics,orartificialintelligence,inspiresacredenceandanallegiancetocategoricalapproachesasif intellectualtidinesswereareflectionnotsomuchofconvenienceasoftruth.Validityisfalselyassumedtobeprovedbymanipulatabilityorretrievability.Wehave previouslyquotedthememorableformulationbyM.H.Abrams:"Theendemicdiseaseofanalyticalthinkingishardeningofthecategories."Anexaminationofgeneric paradigmsfocusesonthecategoriesbeforetheyhardenintoorthodoxyordoctrineordoxologyor"truth." Philosophicalparadigmspointtoworldviews,weltanschauungen,whichdeterminethescopeofone'sexploratoryvisionandscope.Ineveryassertionthereis, explicitlyorimplicitly,consciouslyorselfconsciously,adeicticdelimitation.Amongthequestionsraisedbyphilosophicalinquiryarethedelimitationsofthestudyof wisdomitself:Doesit,forexample,includethemetaphysicalandthemystical?Isitdedicatedtothediscoveryofuniversalsorparticulars?Ifuniversals,arethese concreteorabstract?Ifparticulars,arethesephenomenalornoumenal? ModalParadigms Letusturntomodalparadigms,thefirstofwhichconcernstheinstrumentofwriting.IntheWest,sincetheintroductionofpapyrus,writinghasinvolvedasharp edged,beveledinstrumentwhichscratchesthehardsurfaceofthebarktomakeanimpression.Thelinesitdrawsareincisedwithonlylimitedlatitudeinthewidthof thestroke.InChina,5however,theinstrumentfromtimeimmemorialhasbeenthebrush,andthe"tablet"onwhichwritingtakesplaceisnotasmoothsurface,like barkorpapyrus,buttextured
5.

Inthecourseofthisstudy,thestatementsmadeaboutChinacanalsobevariouslyappliedtoKoreaandJapan,totheextentthattheseculturesfollowedChinesemodels.

Page243

andabsorbent,likericepaperorsilkcloth.Thelinesdrawnbythebrusharevariable,andtheactionofthewritinginstrumentisflowingandrequireslittlepressure. Wherethepenrequiresforceandpressuretomakeanimpression,theactionofthebrushisquitetheopposite:theslightestcontactwiththesurfaceleavesamark. Themodulationsofthelinearemuchmorevariedwithabrushthanwithapen,andtherhythmsofabrushstrokearemuchmoreexpansive:theyadmitofmore stylizationthanispossiblewithapen.IntheWest,theemphasisisonclarityofform,onpenmanshipinChina,theemphasisisoncalligraphy.(Thereisnowordfor penmanshipapartfromthesenseofcalligraphy.)Indeed,forsome,likeLiMengyang(14721529),"composingliteratureislikecalligraphy."6 ThesetechnicaldetailshavefarreachingmanifestationsandaccountforverydifferentaestheticconsiderationsinChinaandintheWest.Whereas,intheWest,thearts ofliteratureandpaintingareseparate,7inChina,Korea,andJapantheyareone.Theadeptatpaintingwasequallyandnaturallyadeptatliterature,becausethe sameinstrument,thebrush,wasbeingused.Theintellectualdifficultiesofthesystematicandmeaningfulstudyoftherelationshipbetweenliteratureandtheotherarts, whichhasoccasionedsuchcontroversyandsuchirresolutionintheWest,aswellasavantgardeattemptstointegrateseeminglydisparateartswithinonenewartform (whether"concretepoetry"or"wordpictures"),wouldseemoddtotheChineseaesthetician,whoisnotsurprisedtoseeapoeminscribedinapaintingindeed,he wouldconsiderapaintingunfinishedwithoutaninscription. ThecautionsoftheLaokonandtheNewLaokonareeithermeaninglessorsuperfluousinChinese.ToreadLessing'sfamousstatementon"visibleandinvisible" beingsandactionsintheChinesecontextistoexperienceasenseofdisjunction."Homer,"Lessingwrote,"createstwoclassesofbeingsandofactions,visibleand invisible.Paintingisincompetenttorepresentthisdifferencewithiteverythingisvisible,andvisibleafteronefashiononly."8
6. 7. 8.

SeeLiu(1975a:91).

MichelangeloandBlake,geniusesinboththewrittenwordandthevisualarts,aremoretheexceptionthantherule. InChapter12oftheLaocon ,byGottholdEphraimLessing,translatedbyRobertPhillimore(London:Macmillan,1874),p.127.

Page244

Thecharacterizationofpaintingasanartthatmakeseverythingvisibleand,byinference,thatitisnotabletorenderanythingthatisinvisibleisbasedonthe presumptionofWesternpainting,inwhichthesurfaceistotallypaintedover(inafinishedwork):evenemptyspacesmustbepainted.Chinesepainting,ontheother hand,doesnotadheretotheprincipleoftechnicalexplicitnessitleavesblanksuntouchedbyink.Indeed,aChinesepaintingcanbesaidtobeasmuchunpaintedas painted.OneisnotsowillingtoacceptLessing'sdictumthatpaintingcanonlypaintwhatisvisibleintheChinesecase,sinceagooddealoftheaestheticsofChinese artistosuggestwhatisnotvisible.ThereisacontrastinWesternandChineseapproachestorepresentation:traditionalWesternrequirementsofpaintingrequirethat evenemptyspacesbepaintedthatacanvas,evenonedepictinganunpopulatedandunoccupiedlandscape,mustbecoveredinpaintorelseitisconsidered unfinished.InChinesepainting,however,notonlyismuchofthesurfaceofthepaperunpainted,butsomeoftheseblanks"depict"realobjectswhethersky,or water,orclouds,orair.(Hereonemightobservetheironythat,evenwhentheysharethesameinstrument,thebrush,ChineseandWesternpaintingdifferradicallyin theiraesthetics,afunction,ofcourse,ofthepreferenceintheWestforoilandinChinaforink.) Totakemorerecentexamples,suchnotionsas"diewechselseitigeErhellungderKnste"(themutualilluminationofthearts)assumethattheartsaredistinctinthe samewayforallculturesandthattheyaresoregarded.A"mutualillumination"ofthearts,aswellasanintegrationofthearts,inWagner'sGesamtskunstwerk,in artbooks,orinconcretepoems,willbeseenasiconoclastic,innovative,andboldintheWest,whereasinChinatheywillberegardedasmerelytraditionalandnatural. AnoldsawofChineseliteratureandartistheoneaboutWangWei,theeighthcenturyTangpoet,whosepaintingshavebeenlost"therewaspoetryinhispainting, andpaintinginhispoetry."ThatobservationtypifiesthesymbioticrelationshipinChineseofwhatintheWestareregardedasseparatearts,thoseofpoetryandthose ofpainting.InChina,itdoesnottaketheoreticalclarificationsoranalyticalsynthesestojustifywhathasbeenappreciatedforcenturiesas"theartofthebrush," includingpoetry,painting,andcalligraphy.

Page245

AnothermodaldifferencebetweenfundamentalWesternandChinesepoeticsrelatestothe"instrument"offeelingandthe"instrument"ofthinkingtheseatofthe emotionsandthefacultyofreason,generallyregardedintheWestasconventionallyseparablebetweentheorganoftheheartandtheentityknownasthemind.We havealreadydiscussed(inChapter5)thedifferentviewsontheseparationofthinkingandfeelinginChinaandtheWest.Theconsequencesofintegratingwhatthe mindandtheheartdoinChineseseeingthemindandtheheartasoneaffecttheverydefinitionofpoetry,fortheunderstandingoftheveryearliestdictumon Chinesepoetryshiyanzhi .Butneitheralternativereallydoesjusticetotheoriginal,forpoetryinChinesecanexpressboththoughtunalloyedwithemotionas wellasemotiondevoidofthought.Mostcommonly,however,andthereisinthisanimplicitvaluejudgment,goodpoetryexpressesafusionofbothfeelingand thinking. Thereis,inChineseaestheticsaswellasinChineseethicalteaching,adistrustofbothpurementationandpureemotion.InWesternterms,theheartisachecktothe coldnessofthemindthemindisacheckonthefervoroftheheart.Buteveninthisformulationthereisabias,foritassumesthattwopriorentitiesmustsomehowbe broughttogetherinasymbiosis,whereasintheChineseviewthesituationisquitetheopposite.Thetwofacultiesarenottwo,butone,anditistheirseparation,either inabstractorconcreteterms,thatviolatesthewholenessofthingsandcreatesdistortionsthatdisruptthenaturalorder.9ThisisnotquiteEliot's"dissociationof sensibilities,"butitiscognatefortraditionalChineseseenomeaningfulbifurcationbetween"sense"and"sensibility."Weneednotpausetoconsiderwhichviewof thingsiscorrect,the
9.

TwopassagesintheMencius,fairlyclosetoeachother,illustratethelatitudeofthewordxin.BookIIA,Chapter2,Verse1,referstothe"unperturbedmind": .

Page246

associatedorthedissociatedviewofheartmindormindheartitmayturnoutthatthetwoviewsarenotcontradictory.

10

AnotherdisjunctionisprovidedbyJohnRuskin'scritiqueoftrueandfalsesentiment,developed,interestinglyenough,byonewhohadbothaneyeforpaintingandan earforpoetryRuskininsistsonavalorizationofmindoverheart.Hishierarchyofpoetsmaybeworthreviewingatthisjuncture:
Wehavethreeranks:themanwhoperceivesrightly,becausehedoesnotfeel,andtowhomtheprimroseisveryaccuratelytheprimrose,becausehedoesnotloveit.Then, secondly,themanwhoperceiveswrongly,becausehefeels,andtowhomtheprimroseisanythingelsethanaprimrose:astar,orasun,orafairy'sshield,oraforsakenmaiden. Andthen,lastly,thereisthemanwhoperceivesrightlyinspiteofhisfeelings,andtowhomtheprimroseisforevernothingelsethanitselfalittleflowerapprehendedinthe veryplainandleafyfactofit,whateverandhowmanysoevertheassociationsandpassionsmaybe,thatcrowdaroundit.11

Therearesomecategoricalexclusionsinthispassagethatmightbeworthremarkingbeforeonepassesoverit.First,despitetheseeminglyobjectivecharacterofthe categorization,thereissubjectivityinRuskin'suseoftheprimroseasthelodestoneforjudgmentsecond,heseesthemetaphoric,symbolic,orallegoricaltendencyas essentiallyanoutgrowthoffeelingratherthanofthoughtthird,thereisconsiderationneitheroftheonewhoperceiveswrongly,becausehethinks,noroftheonewho perceivesrightly,becausehefeels.12Then,inamemorablehierarchy,Ruskincharacterizesthosewhofeelnothingasbeingnopoetsatallthosewhofeel,but

10.

RecentdevelopmentsinWesternmedicinehaverevivedpreviouslydiscardednotionsofmindbodyinfluences,although"holisticmedicine"isstillgreetedwithskepticism fromthemajorityofdoctorstrainedinWesternmedicineseeDanielGoleman,"TheMindOvertheBody,"NewYorkTimesMagazine,27September1987,p.36ff.
11. 12.

TheLiteraryCriticismofJohnRuskin,ed.HaroldBloom(NewYork:AnchorBooks,1965),p.66,theitalicsaremine.

Ruskinissomewhatinconsistent:thesecondorderofpoetsheaccusesofperceivingwronglybecausetheyfeelthefirstorderofpoetshepraisesforperceivingrightlyinspiteof theirfeelings.Yetelsewherehecharacterizesthefirstratepoetasamongthose"whofeelstrongly,thinkstrongly,andseetruly."

Page247

whoperceivewrongly,arepoetsofthesecondclasswhereasthosewhoperceiverightly,inspiteoftheirfeelings,arepoetsofthefirstclass. TherankingofpoetsemergesoutofRuskin'sseminaldiscussionofthenotionof"patheticfallacy,"whichhecharacterizesas"afalsenessinallourimpressionsof externalthings,"amorbidityinwhichlifeisattributedtothelifelessandfeelingtotheunfeeling.Literarycriticssincehavetendedtoidentifyinstancesofpathetic fallacieswithdisdain,recallingRuskin'sowndictumonitsuse:"Ibelieve,ifwelookwellintothematter,thatweshallfindthegreatestpoetsdonotoftenadmitthis kindoffalseness,thatitisonlythesecondorderofpoetswhomuchdelightinit."AcloserreadingofRuskin'sessayinModernPainterswill,ofcourse,show considerableambivalencetowardthepatheticfallacyonRuskin'spart:hecitesa''morbid"passagefromColeridgebutclaimstolikeityettheimagesinthepassage hequotesfromPope'sversionofHomer"arenotapatheticfallacyatall."Ruskinremindsus"thatthespiritoftruthmustguideus...eveninourenjoymentof fallacy." Theseconsiderationsarediscriminatingexemplificationsofthehistoryoftasteandprovideimportantinsightsintoaesthetics.Certainly,mostmodernswouldagreewith Ruskin'scensureofthedulltropesinPope,aswellashisalmostguiltriddenenjoymentofColeridge's"morbid"images.Yetwhenweapplytheseconcernstooneof themostfamouslinesinChinesepoetry,wefindthemcuriouslyunavailing.DuFu's"SpringProspect"( )beginswiththeoftquotedlines:
Countryruined,mountainsandriversremain Cityinspring,grassandtreesarethick. Movedbythetimes,flowersspilltears Hatebeingapart,birdsstartletheheart.13

TheattributionofsorrowtoflowersisaninstanceofwhatRuskinwouldhavecalleda"morbid"patheticfallacy.Yetitisprecisely
13.

Ihavetakencertainlibertieswithganshiinthefourthline,whichcouldberendered"movedtime"or"when[weare]moved."

Page248

whatoneencountersinoneofthemostadmiredlinesinChinesepoetry. Implicitinthelineisanassumption,whichRuskinwouldcharacterizeas"false,"thatflowers arecapableofsheddingtears.15 Oneisleftwithadilemma:eitherRuskiniswronginhischaracterizationofmeretriciousrhetoric,orDuFumustbedemoted,atleastinthisinstance,fromthe"first orderofpoets,"forhislapseintothepatheticallyfallacious.ButisthisManichaeandichotomyreallynecessary,oristherea"middle"possibilityavailable?Oneneed notdiscardthepoetrytovindicateacriticalinsight,norneedoneunderminethecriticalinsighttomaintainone'sadmirationofacherishedline.Theunderlying assumptioninRuskinisthesuperiorityofthementalfacultyovertheemotional:truthisconceivedofasstrictlyintellectual.Emotioncanonlydistortthetruth,orcloud thetruth,orsuppressthetruth,butitcannotitselfbeaninstrumentforthediscoveryoftruth.Andiftruthistobepreferredtopassion,then,clearly,thinkingmustbe superiortofeeling.Yetwemustacknowledgetheexistenceof"falsefeelings"and"truefeelings"evenifwecannotentertaintheconverse,whichyieldseitherthe contradictionortheredundancyof"falsetruths''or"truetruths."DuFucomesfromatraditionwheresuchbifurcationsanddiscriminationswouldhavebeen,inany event,unfamiliarifnotbizarre. Twoadjustmentsareavailabletoresolvethedilemma.First,ifthereisnodivisionbetweenheartandmind,andhencenohierarchypossiblebetweenthefacultyof thoughtandthefacultyoffeeling,therecanbenoqualitativedifferencebetweenanassertionofthemindandanassertionoftheheart.(Bothwouldberepresentedby thewordzhi ,whichdenotesbothintentionandconation.)Second,thereisnorealexclusivityinthehumancapacityforfeeling:itdoesnottakearampantanimism toentertaintheprospectofsentiencebeingvariouslyattributedtoallcreation.ThereisacertainintellectualonanisminRuskin'sanalysisofthepatheticfallacy:it assumesthepriorexistenceofhumanemotionsontheirown
14.

14

Indeed,Ruskinaddsafootnotetohisinitialessayonthe"patheticfallacy"andquoteslinesalmostidenticaltothese,butfromTennyson'sMaud:"Therehasfallenasplendid tear/Fromthepassionfloweratthegate."
15.

Interpretationssuggestingthatthetearscanonlybehuman,andthatthesetearshavebeenshedbyhumansontotheflowers(asifthepoetwere"cryingoverflowers"insteadof "spiltmilk"),strikemeasgrotesque.

Page249

termsandthensuggeststheimproprietyofattributingthoseemotionstononhumanobjects.ButChinese,languageandpeople,donotconceiveofemotionsinquitethe sameway.Thetermsforfeelingmaybethemselvesmetaphorsborrowedfromtheworldatlarge,whichhasprovidedthevocabularyoffeeling.We'vementionedthe wordfor"sorrow,melancholy,sadness,"chou ,whichcombinestheetymonfor"mindheart"withthewordfor''autumn."Ourmodernsenseofsophistication shouldnotblindustothefactthatemotionaltermsareconventionalabstractions,theexistenceandidentityofwhicharenotoriouslydifficulttoestablish.(Considerthe meaningof"love,""hate,"and"envy,"withwhichoneisfamiliar,andwhichonecanidentify,yetbeunabletodefine.)Itmaybethatasenseof"autumnintheheart"is themostconcrete,themostprecise,andthemostcomprehensivedefinitionofsorrowthatthereis.FortheChinesewordchouencompassesthesenseofthesadness oftimepassing,thelamentationforthingsdying,thedreadofinhospitablewinter,theintimationofone'sownmortalityalleasilyrecognizableasautumnfeelings(in culturesandclimesthatdoincludeautumnintheirseasons).The"resonance"betweenhumanemotionsandtheworldofnatureinformsthepoeticsofanumberof traditionalChinesecritics,mostnotablyWangShizhen(16341711)andWangGuowei(18771927).16 Toattributehumanemotiontoinanimateobjectsofnatureis,farfrombeingfallacious,merelyarestitutionofthesourcesoffeeling,areturnofsemanticcapitaltothe resourcesofmeaning.InDuFu'spoem,ofcourse,itisallthemorepowerfulbecausethecontrastofhumandishevelmentwiththesteadfastnessofnatureis supersededbytheconfluenceandcongruenceofchangeandstabilityintheword"tear."Thesenseofthepoemispreciselythathumanculturehasstrayedtoofarfrom nature,whichiswhytheoneatrophiesandtheotherabides. Thedebateamonglinguistsovertheexistenceornonexistenceof"counterfactuals"inChineseislessinterestingthanaprospectiveexaminationoftheprevalenceor nonprevalenceofthesubjunctiveandindicativemomentsinChineseandWesternpoetry.Forinthis
16.

ForWangShizhen,seeLynn,inDeBary(1975)forWangGuowei,seeRickett(1977)andTu(1970)foranexplorationoftheseimplicitthemesofresonancethroughout traditionalChinesepoetry,seeSun(1982).

Page250

perspective,oneseesanotherinstanceofthesignificantinapplicabilityofcertainWesterndistinctionstotheChinesecase.Thefalseassumptionofearlierreaders, equatingthepersonaofthepoetinthepoemwiththehistoricalfigurewritingthepoem,enshrinedoveragenerationagoinWilliamWimsatt'sarticleon"TheIntentional Fallacy,"isnolongersopersistentintheWestasitwasbeforetheadventofNewCriticism.Butifonenolongermistakenlyequatesthenarratorwiththehistorical poet,onecanneverthelesspositan"impliedauthor."Still,inmostChinesepoems,thepoetdespitethevaliditiesoftheargumentsagainstthe''intentionalfallacy"is thenarratorpersonainthepoem. TheconstantresorttoanautobiographicalinscriptioninChinesepoems,markingthemomentofcompositionaswellastheeventwhichinspiredthepoem,anevent whichisindeedinscribedinthepoem,remindusthatsophisticatedWesternanalysesdispellingtheequationofthe"I"inthepoemwiththepoetseemeithertobe contradictedorbesidethepointinmanyChineselyrics.ScholarsofChinesepoetry(whetherChineseorWestern)areaccustomedtoreferringtothehistoricalDuFu orLiBaiintheirpoems(thoughLiBaiusespersonaemorethanDuFuBaiJuyi'suseisevenmorepronounced).Thenotionof"art"isaltogethermorepersonal,less pretentious,inChinathanintheWest.Poetryisnotthecallingofspeciallyendowedindividuals,buttheaccomplishmentofanyliteratus.Ofcourse,theproductionsof theChineseliterati,evenwhentheyconformtostrictrulesofprosody,aremoreoftenthannotmerelyexerciseswhichseldomattaintothelevelofart,norwouldthey attracttheattentionofanyoneexceptpersonalfriendsandacquaintances. IntraditionalChina,poetrywaswrittennotbygeneric"poets"butbywenren,letteredindividuals.Itwouldbeexpectedofeverywenrenthathecouldand occasionallydidwritepoetry.Thesubjectmatterofthatpoetrywouldnaturallybetheeventsandemotionsofhisownlife.Exceptinrareinstances,hewouldnotbe inclinedtoconstructanelaboratemythicalworldofhisowninventionhisinclinationwouldbetomerelyalludetosuchaworldinhisownverypersonalproductions.If therewereambitionsofamorecomprehensivescope,therewouldbespecificformsinwhichtheywouldbeaccommodated,andthesewouldbeavailableonlyto thosewhowereempoweredtousethem:comissionersandminis

Page251

terscouldwritecourtmemorialsandremonstrancestotheemperordisgruntledofficialscouldcomposecomplaintsprivatelyshared,usuallyinallegoricalguise.Private individualscouldofferindirectcriticisms,deploringtheconditionsoflife,whichimplicitlyreflectbadlyonthoseentrustedtogovern,buttheseexpressionsweremodest andpersonalcommunications.ThenotionofaVirgiloraDante,writingtheentirehistoryofthecultureinaworkofliteraryimagination,wouldbedifficulttoconceive ofintheChineseinstance.Theclosestcounterparttothe"conscienceoftherace"wouldbethedynastichistorians,beginningwithSimaQianandhisShiji.Butthese accountsneverpretendedtobeoriginalcreations,howeverelegantlywritten,brilliantlyconceived,ormemorablynarratedtheymighthavebeen. Theseremindersarenecessarywhenoneconsiderstheintentionalfallacy.StudentsofChineseliteraturearefacedwithadilemmawhenconfrontedwiththestrictures ofNewCriticism,asarticulatedbyWilliamWimsattinhisseminalessay:

Themeaningofapoemmaycertainlybeapersonalone,inthesensethatapoemexpressesapersonalityorstateofsoulratherthanaphysicalobjectlikeanapple.Butevena shortlyricpoemisdramatic,theresponseofaspeaker(nomatterhowabstractlyconceived)toasituation(nomatterhowuniversalized).Weoughttoimputethethoughtsand attitudesofthepoemimmediatelytothedramaticspeaker,andiftotheauthoratall,onlybyanactofbiographicalinference.17

Theseconcerns,whichnowseemunexceptionablewhenappliedtoWesternauthors,withtheirtraditionoftheartistasthedarlingoftheMuses,areawkwardinthe Chinesecontext,whichseesnoclearbifurcationbetweenthemanoflettersandtheliteraryartist.Thatcontexthaslessemphasisonartisticmimesis,poiesis,on literarycreationasthefigmentofapoet'simaginationthanonone'sautobiographicalmood,one'sauthenticvoice. Wimsatt'snotionofdramaimplicitineverylyricconflictswiththeaesthetics,indeed,thebreeding,oftheChineseliteratus,forwhomselfdramatizationofanykind wouldbeunseemlyifnotrepugnant.Furthermore,anexaggeratedselfimportancewould

17.

TheVerbalIcon(NewYork:NoondayPress,1954),p.5.

Page252

violateancientChineseteaching,whetherDaoistorConfucian,whichemphasizedwisdomandvaluedselfeffacementasavirtue.TraditionalChineselyricswere intenselypersonalformsofdiscourse:notinfrequently,theywerespecificcommunicationsto,orinvocationsof,friends.Wimsatt'sdivisionof"public"and"private"is notsoeasytoassimilateintheChinesecase.Hisnotionof"public"definesitasaccessibilitytoauserofthelanguageheconceivesof"private"asidiosyncrasy,that whichisnotavailablethroughthelanguagebutonlythroughpersonalcontact.Inthissense,traditionalChinesepoetryisbothpublicandprivate. Chinesepoetryispublic,ifonerecallsthatthereaderswerealsothewritersandthattheaudienceandtheauthorwerenotsocategoricallyseparateastheyaretoday. Therewas,inChina,greaterhomogeneityintheliteraticlassthantherehasbeenamongliteratereadersintheWestsincetheRenaissance.Inmanyinstances,the Chinesepoetwroteeitherforhimselforforsomeoneverymuchlikehimself,atleastintermsofidiosyncraticbackgroundandknowledge.YettheChinesepoetwas alsoveryprivate,butnotinthesenseofarcaneandcabalisticallusiveness(as,say,inBlakeorChristopherSmartorT.S.Eliot).Hissenseofprivacywasinthearea ofdiscretion,notintheareaofmeaning:heassumedthathisallusionswouldbeunderstood,forheassumedheknewwhohisreaderwashisallusionswerenotcoy disguisementsofmeaningbutsubtleenhancementsofitsineffability. ConceptualParadigms TheversefromDuFu's"SpringProspect"bringsoutanotherdisjunctioninEastWestcomparison.Isthefirstline"Countryruined,mountainsandriversremain" metaphororantimetaphor?Thereisacomparisonhere,butthereisno"figureofspeechinwhichanameoradescriptivetermistransferredtoanobjecttowhichitis notproperlyapplicable."18Yet,unmistakably,thelinedoesembodyahomology,evenifimplicit.Considerothercontrastswherenoimpliedmetaphorisposited: "Humanbeingssuffer,butlifegoeson"or"Theworldofmaniseverywhereinturmoil,yetNatureisserene.''Thesecontrasts,poignantasthey
18.

Definitionof"metaphor"intheOxfordUniversalDictionary(1955).

Page253

maybe,donotstrikethereaderaspoetic:theydonotengageone'semotionsasdirectlyas"Countryruined,mountainsandriversremain."Fortheconjunctionoftwo oppositephenomenawithinthesamelineimplieswhatthesituationshouldbe:thathumanaffairsshouldbeconsonantwithNature.Thatthereisacontrast,ratherthan aparallel,constitutestheentiremoralforceofthepoem.Thereisalsoanothersense:"mountainsandriversremain"suggestsahavenagainstthechaosofhuman history,aswellasarecriminationagainstit.Butthisline,whichcannotbecharacterizedasametaphor,isaprimeinstanceofwhat,inChinese,islabeledbi ,which, strictlyspeaking,means"comparison"butiscustomarilyandmisleadinglytranslatedas''metaphor." Thecomplexitiesraisedbythisinstancearenotsimplycausedbyinaccurateequivalents:theyareoccasionedbyafundamentaldifferenceinpremiseandparadigm.To comparehumanaffairswithNatureinawillfulactofimaginationorfancythatis,todeliberatelyimputetooneobjectcharacteristicsthatdonotproperlybelongto itistoassumetheautonomyofeachobjectandtheoriginalityoftherelationshipinferred.ButwhatifhumanaffairsandNatureareconceivedofasemanatingfrom oneandthesamesource?Iftheworldisconceivedofasone,comprisingthehumanworldandtherestoftheworld,thentherecanbenofalseattributionofhuman qualitiestononhumanobjects,forwhatishumanderivesfromNature:thetermsofhumandiscourse,thevocabularyofhumanfeeling,derivefromNature.Werecall Wordsworth'sverse:
Oneimpulsefromavernalwood Canteachyoumoreofman, Ofmoralevilandofgood, Thanallthesagescan.

Butwhere,earlier,wemighthavetakenthissentimentasromanticphilosophy,perhapsassubjunctivemetaphor,wecannowacceptitasetymologicaland epistemologicalfact. TheothertwoconceptsinthetriviumofearlyChineserhetoricareevenmoreproblematicthanbi.Fu hasbeenexplained

Page254

asmeaning"toinspire,""tobegin,""toexalt,"andhasbeencharacterizedasan"associational''mode(Liu1975a:109110).Inanyevent,thesetermsdonot correspondtoWesterntropes,orfiguresofspeech:althoughbisubsumeswithincomparisonbothmetaphorandsimile,itisnotrestrictedtothem.Thenotionsoffu, bi,andxingdonotcorrespondneatlytoanysetofWesternrhetoricaltropes.Furthermore,theyaretraditionallylumpedwithcertainpoeticalformsthatderivefrom theShijing:feng .ThecommentariesfromtheancienttextindicatehowfarthesetermsdepartfromthetechnicaltermsofWesternrhetoric.WhereWesterntropes designatetechniquesofimagery,determinedbytheirstructuralcharacteristics,Chinesenotionsofcompositionareorganicanddidactictheyaredeterminedbytheir effectonbehaviorandtheirforceforgood.Take,forexample,thetestimonyoftheZhouliasquotedintheCihai:

Fengexpressesthedevelopmentofvirtueandnobility,thecultivationoftheDaotheexpositioninfusetsoutindetailthemanagementandteachingofgoodandevilinourtime bisurveysthemisruleinourtimeand,forthosenotdaringtomakedirectrecrimination,seeksexpressionincomparisonsxinglooksatbeautytoday,despisesfawningflattery, andcelebratesvirtuousactsandurgestheiremulationyaisrectitudeandspeaksofthosewhoarerighteousinourtime,sotheycanbecomearuleandguideforlater generationssong'sexpressionsarerecitationsofvirtueinourtime,tobroadcastitsbeauty.

Severalpointsdeserveattention:first,thesearenotmerelytechnicaltermsforliterarycomposition,fortheyembodyamoralbiasandamoralvaluesecond,theyare notformalcategoriesbutare"affective"andconducivetogoodorevilthird,theyrepresentimplicitlyaprincipleofmoralaesthetics,ofethicalsplendor:Thatis beautifulwhichisgood.Thoughthelogicofexpositiondiffers,theconclusionsarePlatonic. Theuseofthesetermsisfurthercomplicatedwhenonesubdividestheliuyi ,the"sixprinciplesofpropriety,"intoformalandfunctionalcategories:feng,ya,and songintheformer,fu,bi,andxinginthelatter.Fenghasbeenapproximatedas"airs,"ahappyrendering,whichcapturesboththefolkloricandmusicalnatureof theseballadsyahasbeenratherinelegantlyrenderedas"elegan

Page255

tiae"songcanbefairlyaccuratelytranslatedas"encomia"or"hymns."Thesegenresdonot,byanymeans,provideacomprehensivedivisionofancientpoeticforms. Nordofu,bi,andxingexhaustalltheancientpoeticfunctions.Indeed,thethreetermsneednotevenbemutuallyexclusive:aneffectivecomparison,bi,canbe descriptiveandexpository,asinfuitmayalsoinspireandexalt,asinxing.Theyareaspects,notcategories,ofpoetry. InWesternpoetics,inspiration,comparison,anddescriptionarenotimmediatelyobviousascoterminouscategories:thefirstisastateofmind,thesecondisamental process,thethirdisaformofwriting.Despitethevariousattemptstoconceiveoffu,bi,andxingascomplementarycategoriesintranslation,theyresist categorization:theyarenotdistinctrhetoricalentities,inthewaythatmetaphor,simile,symbol,orallegorycanbeconsidereddistinctentities.(Ametaphorisdistinct fromasymbolnorisasimileatthesametimeanallegory.)TherearetwokindsofdisjunctionbetweenChinesepoetictermsandWesterntropes:theydonot coincideinmeaningandtheyexemplifydifferentparadigmsofanalysis.ItisnotsomuchthattheChinesetermsareanalyticallyinadequatetheyaredesignedforother purposesandpremisedonalesstechnical,moreanecdotal,modelofcomposition. AnotherdisjunctionbetweenWesternandChineseconceptsoflanguageinvolvespartsofspeech.ItiscustomaryinclassicalWesterngrammartoteachpartsof speech,tense,declension.ButtotakemerelythecustomarydivisionofsubjectdivisionsinWesternlanguages,onefindsnormativelythreesinglecases(first,second, thirdperson)andthreepluralcases(first,second,thirdperson).InEnglish,forexample,onlyoneinstanceallowsforthesubjecttobeunstated:theimperativecasein thesecondperson(asin"Gohome!").Inotherwords,theomissionofthesubjectisamorphologicalindicatorofcase.InclassicalChinese,however,wherethe omissionofthesubjectisnotonlypossiblebutcustomary,onecanaskifthetripartitedivisionsinWesterngrammarhold.Isitpossiblethattheunstatedsubjectinthe Chinesesentencemightnotbedefinitivelyadesignationoffirst,second,orthirdpersoninallcases?Itisclearthatreticenceinselfreferencewilloftenoccasionthe omissionoftheIreferencewhen"I"isthesubjectbutformaldiscoursewouldrequiretheIreferencetobeexplicitlydesignatedbyaselfdeprecatoryreference.We havealreadynotedtheI

Page256

referenceofawifetoahusband(qie

"littlefish").

ThequestionthisplethoraofIreferencesraisesiswhethertheydoinfactfunctionasgenericfirstpersonreferences.Thesubjectivityinherentinthegeneric"I"in Westernlanguages,whichassumesthattheaddresseeknowswhothefirstpersonis,doesnotgoverntheseselfreferences.Theybehavemuchmorelikeproper nounsandinvokeaspecificrelationshipmuchmoreconcretelythanfirstpersonsubjectsdoinmostlanguages.Indeed,onemightquestionwhethertheveryconcept of"firstperson"isneutralorfreeofvaluebias. Thereare,ofcourse,first,second,andthirdpersonreferentsinChinese,andtherearesingularandpluralformsforsubjectsyetthedistinctionsinChinesearenot equivalenttothoseinWesternlanguages,wherethecategoriesofperson,number,andtenseareanintegralpartofthegrammaticalstructuresofthelanguage(or,at least,theyhavebeensoperceived).Take,asanexample,acommonrenderingofthewordshuang(meaning"pairs"or"two")asinshuangyen inChinese. Thefirstinstanceisamorphologicalandstructuraldistinctionimplicitinthelanguagethesecondseemsanadhocdesignator,arestrictivemodifier.In theseries(a)eye,(b)eyes,(c)oneeye,(d)twoeyes,and(e)threeeyes,Chinesecanprovideequivalentsforallbutone:(a)eye=yan(c)oneeye=iyan

Page257

).Thereisnonaturalequivalentfor(b)eyes.Onecannotspecifypluralityintheabstract:onemustdesignateaspecificplurality(whethertwoormore).

Insum,onequestionswhetherthebasictermswithwhichonestudieslanguagearenotthemselvesculturallybound.ArecertainnonWesternlanguages,suchas ChineseandJapanese,deficientbecausetheydonothavemorphemicdistinctionsfornumberandtense?OrareWesternlanguagesexcessiveandarbitraryin imposingcategorieswhere,onoccasion,nonemaybewarranted?Asimpleillustrationdemonstratesthepointsuccinctly:whenonesays"Itisraining,"noone questionsthegrammaticalcorrectnessofthesentencethereisasubjectandapredicate.But,logically,onecanaskwhatistheantecedentofthepronoun"it"for everypronoun,wehavebeentaught,mustrefertoapreviousnoun.Thelackofsuchanouninallbutthemostmythologicalcontextsforthisphrasedoesnotdeter anyonefromusingthislocutionandunderstandingit.20 Thereisatendencytoassumetheuniversalvalidityofanalyticaltermsofdiscourseandtoquestionthevalidityofintuitivedescriptorsthatdonotyieldeasilytoprecise definition.21NowhereisthisagreaterproblemthaninEastWestcomparison.ItisnotLiuXie'sfaultfornotwriting(orthinking)likeAristotle!Itmaybeunhelpfulto WesternstudentsfortraditionalChineseliteratitorambleonwithoutconceivingoftheadvantagesofclearlyarticulatingtheirargumentsalonglogicallines.Itistruethat Chineseliterarycriticismwithitsselfadmittedinformality,itstendencytoemanatefromthebiji tradition,whichseesitsinsightsas"liter
19.

Interestingly,Chineseofferstwoversionsfor(d):shuangyan ,whereliangistheindicatoroftheordinalnumber.Thisphraseisnotcustomarilyappliedtotheeyesof humanswhendescribingbehavioritmaybeused,however,bydoctors,surgeons,andscientistswhenreferringtoeyesasobjectsforstudy,examination,orexperiment.

20. 21.

ThisfieldofordinarylanguageanalysishasbeenbrilliantlyexploredbyGilbertRyleandJ.L.Austin. Linguisticsitselfhasbeguntoquestionboththeuniversalityandtheprecisionofitsterminology,itstaxonomyoflanguagecharacteristics:seeDavidCrystal(1971:5776).

Page258

aryjottings"ratherthanassyncreticsynthesesontheoreticalsubjectslacksthebreathtakingcategoricalrigorofanAristotleoraKant:therearenoselfdeclared "summas"intheChineseliterarytradition,foritwouldbeinconceivablefolly,displayinganappallinglackofwisdom(tosaynothingofbadform),foraChinese literatustopresenthimselfastherepositoryofallknowledge,evenifhedoesapproachomniscienceinhiserudition.22Itisnotamattermerelyofculturalstyle,buta reflectionoffundamentallydifferentattitudestowardknowingandknowledge,thattheChinesehavetraditionallyadmiredthosewhoknowandprofesstheydonot andthattheWesthasbeenimpressedwiththeachievementsofspeculativephilosophy,whoseknowledgeevolvesoutofsuasivecertaintiesbasedoncertain epistemologicalpremises. GenericParadigms OurdiscussionofdisjunctionsbetweenChineseandWesternconceptsofgrammaticalcategorieswhetherperson,number,ortenseaffectsthecomparisonof WesternandChineseliterarygenres.ThetriumvirateofclassesofliteraturesofamiliarintheWesttodaylyric,narrative,anddramaticmaynotserveevery importantorsignificantworkintheWest,23butthedivisionisnormativeandusefulenough(especiallyintheUnitedStates)tohavegainedwidespreadcurrency.Yetif welookatthetraditionalanalyses(tosaynothingofthedefenses)ofthesethreeclassesofliterature,wefindthemneatlycorrespondingtothree"radicalsof presentation"(inFrye'sterminology):thefirst,thelyric,isthefirstpersongenre,wherethepoetisspeakingtohimselfandinMill'stellinginsightwhereheis overheardbythereaderthesecond,thenarrative,involvesasecondpersondynamicwithastorytelleraddressingapresentaudiencethethird,thedramatic,is narrationatoneremove:thereisanauthornarratorandthereisanaudience,butthethirdparties,theactors,enactwhattheauthor
22.

Forexample,themosteruditeofmodernChinesescholars,Ch'ienChungshu,callshisfourvolumemagnumopus"GuanZhuiPian,"whichmeans,disarmingly,"PipeAwl Chapters."
23.

Thetriumvirateleavesoutessays,autobiographies(exceptasnarrative),diaries,proverbsandaphorisms,andthelike.

Page259

narratorwantstoconveytotheaudience.Thepersuasivenessofthistripartiteparadigmliespartlyintheconvenientcorrespondencebetweenthedialecticsofeach genreandtheconventionalgrammaticaldivisionswithrespecttofirst,second,andthirdpersondiscourse.Butif,asIhavesuggestedabove,thedivisionsofthe "threeperson'edGod"ofgrammaticalpersonaearenotsancrosanct,andfarfromuniversal,thenthese"radicalsofpresentation"arenotlikelytoproveasconvincing orasserviceablewithliteratureswhoselanguagesarenotbasedonthetrinitarianparadigmofgenre. Chinesepoetrydoesnotfiteasilyorconclusivelyintothe"lyric"paradigmoftheWest:theballadsoftheShijingsharewiththeWesternlyricitsincantatorycharacter theNineSongs,inparticular,withtheirsummonstothesoulandtheirsupplicationstothegodsandthespirits,bearastrikingsimilaritytothetraditionintheWestthat ishallowedbypoemsthatbeginwithaninvocationtotheMuses.ButneithertheballadsintheShijingnorthesongsintheSongsoftheSouth(theChuci)are personalexceptinanallegoricalway:thereisnothingindividualizedoreccentricaboutthesewritings,asthereisintheWesternlyric.Thereisnospecificbiographical Beatriceaddressed,nohistoricalpersonagedirectlymentioned.Thisdiffusenessinreferencedoesnot,ofcourse,preventpersonalmeaningsfrombeingprojectedinto thepoembycountlessgenerationsofscholarsandreaders.Iammakingadistinctionbetweenthepersonalforceofthesepoems,asexperiencesforthereader,and theindividualexpressivenessofthehistoricalcomposerofthesepoems.TheShijingfolkpoemswereformulaiccompositionsthatarticulatedpersonallongingin communaltermstheChucipoems,ontheotherhand,evenwhenwrittenbythehistoricalQuYuanandreflectingpersonalrecriminationsandcomplaints,hypostatize subjectivefeelingintoobjectiveimagerythatisaccessiblebeyondthepersonalbiographyofthepoet.TheLiSaomaybethemostpersonalpoeminChinese,yeteven thatintenselysubjectiveworkonlyapproachesthe"egotisticalsublime"thatoneassociateswiththeromanticlyric. Ontheotherhand,theshipoemsoftheTangpoetsarestrikinglyintimateexpressionsandintenselypersonalintheirsenseofprivacyandintheirallusiveness: autobiographicalinscriptionsreinforcethesenseofeachpoem'srootednessinhistoricaltimeandina

Page260

specificbiographicallife.Yet,readingthesepoems,onedoesnothavethefeelingoneexpectsfromreadingalyric:thatoneis"overhearing"afirstpersonspeakingto himself.Thepoetisaddressinganotherpoet,notunlikehimself,oftenidentifiedintheinscriptionasreaders,weareassumingtheroleofacontemporarysharingthe experience,thecontextualrealitythatgavebirthtothepoem.Farfromoverhearingthepoem,thereaderisaskedtoengageinthedialecticofthepoem,tosupplythe allusion,torecallthecircumstancesenshrinedinthepoem,torespondwithhisreactions(oftenintheformofan"answering"poem),andhisrecollections,oftheevent, whichnowsubsumesthepoembeforeus.TheChineselyricdiffersfromtheWestern:itdoesnotemployapersonaofanisolated"I''addressingtheuniverse.More oftenthannotitisaddressedhermeticallytoasecondperson,sometimesimplied,sometimesspecified,whoistherecipientofthepoemandwhoseappreciationand responsethepoemelicits.Thereis,intheChineselyric,morethedialecticsofasecondpersonexchangethanafirstpersonsoliloquy. Thedivisionofauthorandreader,ofpoetandreaderofpoetry,isnotasendemictotraditionalChineseliteratureasithasbecomeinthestudyofliteratureinthe West.ThereisanaspectofdialogueintraditionalChinesepoetrywhichisoverlookedif"lyric"isconceivedofasapoemtobeoverheard.Theconsequencesofthis distinctionarebynomeansnegligible:inthelyrictobeoverheard,certainconfessionaltendencieswillbeforgiventhatwouldembarrassindirectaddressconversely, theChinesepoemwillseemtoWesternreadersinsufficientlydaring,toooccasionalinitsrhetoric,tooordinaryandconventionalinitsdiscourse.YetChinesepoetry is,inthebestifsomewhatconfoundingsenseoftheword,occasional:itcapturesthemoment,professesnogreatintentionsbeyondthemoment,aspirestono universalityoftruthorinsightbeyondthedesiretocapturethe"thisness,"theimmanencewhatmightbecalled,borrowingBuddhistterminology,"theTathagataofthe moment."Toputitnodoubtsimplistically,ChinesepoetrytendstowardtheincidentalandthecommonplacewhereasWesternpoetryaspirestothetranscendental andtheextraordinary.FormostWesternphilosophers,universalsaresupernalformostChinese,universalsaresubordinateandsublunary.Itisnotaquestionof

Page261

whichisthe"greater"or"lesser," butratheramatteroftheadjustmentsonemustmakeshiftingfromonegroundofreferencetoanother. Ofcourse,thegenericdistinctionsthatareserviceablewithonetraditionofliteratureshouldnotbeexpectedtobeequallyapplicabletoothertraditions.Suchformsas thebianwen,combiningdramaticdialogue,narrative,andembeddedlyrics,defyeasycategorization.25 Westerntheaterisheavilyinvolvedinreligiousritual,witha"tragicsenseoflife,"embodyingasenseofunity,whetherintheformofthe"threeunities,"asinthe Neoclassicperiod,orintheWagneriannotionofGesamtskunstwerk.ThemainthreadofWesterndramatictraditioncentersontheplotormythosoftheaction: thereisastrongsenseoftheimpliedaudiencebeinginvitedtoidentifywiththeaction,inordertoachieveacatharsisinthe"virtual"action(definedbySusanneLanger asbeingbothlifelikeyetclearlynotlife).TraditionalChinesetheaterisatheaterofspectaclethatdoesnotcourttheprojectedsympathiesoftheaudiencebyinviting theiridentificationwiththetragiccharacter:itistheaterthatisfurthestremovedfromreality,distancedfromeverydaylife,wherefancyratherthanimaginationis developed,andspectacleratherthan"apurgation"through"pityandterror''isdominant.Insteadofunity,Chinesetheaterprovidesvarietyandheterogeneity:acting, singing,dancing,acrobatics,andcostume.TheformoftheaterintroducedbytheMongolsintheYuandynastyiszaju,literally,"miscellaneoustheater."Thereismore carnivalthancatharsisinChinesetheater. FairmindedcrossculturalcomparisonscannotaffordtoprejudgeChinesetheaterasincoherentortheWesterntheateras
24.

24

Thenotionof"greatness"embodiesitsownevaluativebiasandbetrayswhatIhavecalleda"biasofscale,"anotionIdevelopedinapaper(unpublished)deliveredbeforethe AmericanComparativeLiteratureAssociationatAnnArbor,Michigan,on22March1986entitled"ChangingtheCanon:TheChallengeofNonWesternLiteratures."
25.

TheJapaneserengaformmightbesaidtoblendlyricismandepisodicnarrationinasequencedpoemthatcombinesbothpoeticandfictionalinterestthetraditionofJapanese poeticdiariesalsointegratesthenarrativeoftravelwithlyricalevocation.

Page262

monolithic:itisamatteroftwodifferentstrategiesinvolved.Oneistoengage,theotheristoimpress.The"alienationeffect"thatBrechtsoadmiredinChinesetheater eschewsanyattemptatimitatinglifeordeludingtheaudienceintoimaginingthatwhatisbeingseenonthestageislife:quitethecontrary,theactioninChinesetheater islargerthanlife. Elsewhere,IhaveindicatedthegenericdisjunctionsbetweenWesternandChineseparadigmsforfictionandnarrative.26Westernfictiondevelopedfromepisodic beginningsandaspiredtoanidealoforganicunity(particularly,andsomewhatspeciously,adducedinthelatenovelsofHenryJames)27Chinesefictionretainedthe structureoforalnarration,evenimitatingitinordertoseekumbrageinitslessthannoblevernacularorigins.Thismodelpresentsnarrationasalinearsequence,likea linkedchain,ratherthanasathreedimensionalwhole,withabeginning,middle,andend. PhilosophicalParadigms IntheWest,thedominanceofcorrespondingabstract/concretepairs,whetherideal/real,orabstract/concrete,ornoumenon/phenomenon,reflectsaconceptionof validationpositedonseparablecategoricalworlds,whoseveryplausibilitydependsontheirbeingautonomousrealmsofexistence.Conflationsoftheidealwiththe real,theabstractwiththeconcrete,thenoumenalwiththephenomenal,aredifficult,ifnotimpossible,tograsp.Inanyevent,theywoulderodetheclarity,hencethe usefulness,oftheseconceptsiftheirveryconceptualpurityissullied.
26.

See"ATasteforApricots:ApproachestoChineseFiction,"inChineseNarrative:CriticalandTheoreticalEssays,ed.AndrewPlaks(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1977),pp.5369.
27.

TheattributionofartisticperfectiontoJames'slatefiction,particularlyTheAmbassadorswhereperfectionisdefinedaseverythinginitsproperplace,nothingmissingand nothingextraneousisnolongertenable:cf.RobertE.Young,"AnErrorinTheAmbassadors,"AmericanLiterature22(19501951):245253LeonEdel,"AFurtherNoteon'AnError inTheAmbassadors,'"AmericanLiterature23(19511952):128130RobertE.Young,"AFinalNoteonTheAmbassadors,"AmericanLiterature23(19511952):487490.

Page263

Furthermore,thelogicofvalidation,andofepistemology,stressesthepersuasivenessofcorrespondenceasafactorintruthfunctions.Validityiseasiertoestablish whenthereisacorrespondencethanwhenthereisnot,althoughnopriorproofhasbeengivenastotheroleofcorrespondenceasawarrantofvalidity.Itmaybethat correspondenceisaheuristic,ratherthanalogicalfactorthatis,itinspiresthehumanmindwithconfidencebecauseitiseasiertounderstand(becauseitreinforces priorknowledge)thanbecauseitisinherentlyvalid.Departuresfromcorrespondenceschemesareviewedwithsuspicionareseenasdeviations,ratherthanasdata intheirownright.Thecharacterofknowledgegainedbypositingacorrespondencebetweenanotherworldlyandathisworldlyrealmispowerfullyfamiliar,ofcourse, withthePlatonicvisionofthecosmos,wheretheimmutablerealmofIdeasexistsconcurrentlywiththemutablerealmofdiurnalreality.Thisnotionofseparatenessof thepermanentandtheimpermanentoftheuniversalandtheparticular,theaprioriandtheaposteriori,theperdurableandtheephemeral,pervadesmuchofWestern philosophyandpoetics. ThesedivisionsposeseriousproblemsinthetranslationoftheveryfirstlineoftheDaoDeJing:"Daokedaofeichangdaomingkemingfeichangming."

Thewordchang hasthesensebothof"thatwhichhappensoften,""thatwhichalwayshappens,"andhencethatwhichisrepeatedandephemeral,andthesenseof "thatwhichpersists,thatwhichlasts."TotranslatethisphraseintoEnglishrequiresanunfortunateandimpossiblechoice.Onemustrenderittoemphasizeeitherthe abstractortheconcretedimensioninshort,onemustseeiteitherasPlatonic,hencestressingthereality(andimportance)ofthingsthatarepermanent,orasBuddhist, hencestressingthereality(andimportance)ofthingsthatareimpermanent.Hereareafewsampletranslations:

TheTao(Way)thatcanbetoldofisnottheeternalTao Thenamethatcanbenamedisnottheeternalname.[Chan,p.139]

Page264 TheTaothatmaybecalledTaoisnottheinvariableTao Thenamesthatcanbenamedarenotinvariablenames.[FungYulan,p.178] TheWaythatcanbetoldofisnotanUnvaryingWay Thenamesthatcanbenamedarenotunvaryingnames.[Waley,p.141] TheTaothatcanbetroddenisnottheenduringandunchangingTao. Thenamethatcanbenamedisnottheenduringandunchangingname.[Legge,p.48]

ThetranslationsareforcedintoasystematicallydistortingchoicefortheunderlyingpremiseofChinesephilosophy,bothDaoistandConfucian,isanepistemology thatverifiesnotbycorrespondencebutbyasenseofwhatmightbecalled"resonantimmanence."Somethingisconsidereduniversallytruebecauseitiscommonplace anassertionisvalidpreciselybecauseatrivialanecdotecanbeoffered,notbywayofillustrationoranalogy,butbywayofexemplification. TheholdoftheLunyuontheChinesehasbeenpreciselytheaccessibilityofitsexempla,theveryconcretenessofitsdiscourse,theimmediacyofitsvalidation. ComparedtothetraditionofspeculativephilosophersintheWest,Confuciuswouldbeconsideredveryordinarybutlestonefallsintoeitherthepitofcultural supererogationorthatofculturalreductionism,28oneisremindedthatConfuciusexplicitlyrefusedtospeculateaboutthingsheadmittedknowingnothingabout. Whetherthispositionisregardedasscientificcaution,philosophicalscrupulousness,orlackofintellectualdaring,afailureofimagination,willdependonhowone valuestheinventionsandachievementsofspeculativephilosophy,fromPlatotoKanttoHegeltoNietzschetoHusserltoHeidegger.IfConfuciuscreatednoelaborate andimpressivesystem,stillhecannotbefaultedforhavingfallenintothegrosserrorofimposingchimericalconstructsonintelligentdisciples.Itisthegeniusofancient Chinesephilosophy,ConfucianandDaoist,aswellasof
28.

Thefirstjudgesthesuperiorityofone'sownculturebyassumingone'sownculturalpremisesasuniversalthesecond,flinchingfrominvidiouscomparisons,positstheequal valueandeminenceofallculturesandrationalizesthevirtuesofeach.

Page265

laterphilosophers,includingtheNeoConfucians,toseetheabstractintheconcrete,todeveloptheoryinpractice,toviewtheeternalinthediurnal,toregard noumenaandphenomenaasinseparable.FromtheChinesepointofview,thefirstlineoftheDaoDeJingshouldreadinEnglishasfollows: TheTao(Way)thatcanbetoldofisnotthecommonplaceandeternalTao. Thenotionof"resonantimmanence"canbeseeninanumberoftraditionalChinesetexts,suchastheHanshiwaijuan,theZhuangzi,theWenxindiaolong.The suasionsofChinesephilosophydonotdevelopoutofabstractreason,orbyalogicofcorrespondences,butbyanappealtotheexperientialcorroborationofthe reader.RecallthefollowingtextfromtheMencius:

Therefore,whatisrelishedinthemouthisthesameineverybodythesoundsperceivedbytheearareheardalikebyeverybodythecolorsoftheeyearealike,beautifultoall. Whenonereachesthemind,isitalonewithoutagreementonsuchthingsas"principle"or"righteousness"?Thesagesarriveatearlierwhatmymindalreadyconfirms,and therefore"principle"and"righteousness"gratifymymind,justasthemeatsofthetablegratifymymouth.[SPPY11:8b]

Thereismorethananalogyhere,morethancorrespondence:thesuasiondependsnotontherecognitionofthe"facts"oftasting,hearing,orseeingforanyonewhohas amouth,orears,oreyes.Notehowthecitationskipsneatlyoverthedeviationsofapperceptionintasting,hearing,orseeing(Degustibusnonestdisputandem "Beautyisintheeyeofthebeholder")itseemsthatverificationinthemindofthereaderissoughtfor"principle"and"righteousness,"intermsasnatural(henceasreal) astasting,hearing,andseeing.Theargumentis:Ifyoucantaste,hear,andsee,thenyoumustacknowledgetherealityof''principle"and"righteousness."Therealityof theseexperiences,theirimmanenceinourexperience,compelsustoacknowledgetherealityoftheabstractionsproposed:thereisno"proof"beyondtheheightening ofexperience,forifwecan,eachofus,experience"themeatsofthetable"gratifyingourmouths,wecannotthendenytheexistenceof"principle"and"righteousness." Theappealinthisdiscourseis

Page266

totheimmediacyofourownexperience,nottoanabstractprinciplebeyondourownexperience.Theorderofproofisfascinating:"Thesagesarriveatearlierwhat mymindalreadyconfirms." ThetendencyinsomeChinesetextstoderivemysteriesfromactualexperiencemaybecontrastedwiththePlatonicpracticeofimagininganabstractrealmthat correspondstoconcreteexperience,orofAristotleanalyzingconcreteparticularstodiscoverabstractuniversals.ForanumberofsignificantChinesephilosophers, thedivisionoftheabstractandtheconcreteisuntenable:truthsderivefromtheactualityofexperience,notinspiteofit.Take,forexample,thefollowingexcerptfrom theLiezi,whichwehavealreadyconsideredinanotherconnection.HereitmayillustratetheChinesetendencytoarriveatabstractionsthroughconcreteimagery:

HencetherearethebegottenandtheBegetterofthebegotten,shapesandtheShaperofshapes,soundsandtheSounderofsounds,coloursandtheColourerofcolours, flavoursandtheFlavourerofflavours.Whatbegettingbegetsdies,buttheBegetteroftheBegottenneverends.Whatshapingshapesisreal,buttheShaperofshapeshasnever existed.Whatsoundingsoundsisheard,buttheSounderofsoundshasneverissuedforth.Whatcolouringcoloursisvisible,buttheColourerofcoloursneverappears.What flavouringflavoursistasted,buttheFlavourerofflavoursisneverdisclosed.AllaretheofficesofThatWhichDoesNothing.[SPPY7:5a5bGraham,p.20]

Thereisaresoluteinsistencethatdiurnalexperience,actuality,istheonlyreality,andthereisaninherentskepticismofthatwhichcanbeabstractedasneverexisting. AncientChinesephilosophicaltexts,whetherConfucianorDaoist,sharewithAristotelians,empiricists,andlogicalpositiviststhenotionthatnotruthistobecredited thatisnotgroundedonactualexperience.WhereChinesephilosophydepartsfromWesternnotions,however,isinthetendencyofancientChinesediscourseto requireanassertiontobefeltinhumanterms,notmerelyabstractlyandintellectuallyrecognized.AnexamplefromLiuXie'sWenxindiaolongwillillustratethepoint:

Naturalexcellencemaybecomparedtothesplendorsofflowersinthewoodstheirvividbeautyislikethesilkdyedvermilionandgreen.Silks

Page267 dyedvermilionandgreenaredeep,rich,andvibranttheblossomsandthesundrenchedtreesblazeforthinglory.Brilliantwritingradiatesinthegardenofliteratureinmuchthe sameway.[WHTLC,p.1]

ItwouldbeaseriousmisreadingofthistexttoseeLiuXieasmerelyintendingametaphorbetween"theblossomsofnature"andthe"flowersofliterature,"thoughthe translationdoeseasilyaccommodatesuchaninterpretation.Theaptnessofthecomparisondoesnotlieinacorrespondencebetweenthecharacteristicsinnatureand inliterature:theforceliesinthesimilarityofexperienceinone'sreaction,ontheonehand,tonatureand,ontheother,toliterature.Oneacceptsthevalidityofthe comparison,notbyseeingitasametaphor,equatingsubjunctivelytwodisparateentities,butonlybyidentifyingindicativelytheresponsetonatureandtoliteratureas oneandthesame.Thehomologybordersonidentity:"Brilliantwritingradiatesinthegardenofliteratureinmuchthesameway." Onemightposit,bywayofcontrast,apoeticsofcorrespondence(whichonefindsinPlato)alongsideapoeticsofresonance(whichmightbefoundin,amongothers, WangShizhen ,16341711).Inthefirstcase,poetryestablishesatruththroughthesometimesallegorical,sometimessymbolic,sometimesmetaphoric, descriptionofconcretedetails:theexperiencedescribedandpreservedinthepoemalwayspointstosomethingelsewhethermoraltruth,oraestheticbeauty,or romanticsentiment.TheWesternreaderofChinesepoetryoftensearchesinvainforthe"point,"especiallyifheisreadingintranslation,becausethepoemisnot mimesisineitherthePlatonicortheAristoteliansensethatis,itisnotanimitationofidealrealitytwiceremoved,norisitthecreationoftheimagination.Itisboththe recordingandthereenactmentofanindicativemoment,itsrealizationinwords. ForChinesephilosophers,truthsarealwayscontingent:one'sknowledgeisalwayscompromised.Thereislittleornodesiretoextrapolatehumantruthsbeyond humanexperiences,evenifthecosmicexperiencesareexplainedintermsoffamiliarhumanrealities.Wemightpositontheonehandthetruthoflifeand,ontheother hand,theDaoofexistence,andwemightseeamodelofmimesiscontrastedwithamodelofimmanence.Inthefirstinstance,themodelofmimesis,theunknownis conceivedofascorre

Page268

spondingtotheknownitisrealandvalidthemorethatcorrespondencecanbeestablishedandreiterated.Inthesecondinstance,themodelofimmanence,theonly realityiswhateveris,atthemoment,now,thus.Inthefirstinstance,theTruthisadducible,discoverable,andexpressible,ifelusiveinthesecondinstance,theDaois everpresent,itsexistenceundeniable,butitcannotbededuced,itssecretcannotbediscovered,anditsmeaningcannotbearticulated.TheTruthisreplicable, accessible,andpowerful:"KnowtheTruthanditwillsetyoufree."ButtheDaoisinimitableandunreproducible:"TheDaothatcanbesaidisnotthecommonplace andeternalDao." Conclusions Oursurveyofpolarparadigmshas,ifwehavesucceeded,madenoinvidiouscomparisons.Thepurposeinexploringthesepolaritieshasbeentoextendthebasisfor discussion,notfromonevantagepointoranother,butfromboth.Our"horizonofexpectations"mustincludemorethanoneperspective.Theresultwillnotbe,as someindolentintellectstooreadilyassume,arelativityofvaluesbutamorerigorous,indeedamoreopen,recognitionofvalueswithdueacknowledgmentoftacit premises.Eachsetofpremises,whatStephenPeppercalls"worldhypotheses,"highlightsanotheraspectofreality.AsheirstothetraditionsinbothEastandWest, wearethebeneficiariesofamultipleperspective,butalongwiththepanopticperspectiveisthechallengetocheckourownmyopia.Thebigotwithperfecteyesight shouldnotbepreferredtotheblindmanwithperfectvision. Thevirtuesandthelimitationsofbothtraditionsshouldbecomemoreapparentinanycomparison.Ourtaskisnottodisownourownheritagebutrather,incomparing itwithanotherheritage,totrulydiscoverit,toseeitinreliefagainstthebackgroundofadifferentcontext.Toooftenwhatisacceptedasuniversalisonlythatwhichis customaryandcommonplaceinone'sownprovincialrealm.Butcommonplacesarenotthesameeverywhere,andwhatiscommontoonemaybeuncommonto another.Wecancontinuetopursuethemysterieswemayevencallourspeculationsthetruth.Whatwediscovermay,infact,betruewiththefactsonwhichwehave basedourtheories.Butintheconstructionofany

Page269

lastingtheory,inthedevelopmentofanydurableunderstanding,analysisandintuitionmustproceedasone:theparadigmsofmimesismustbealloyedwiththe paradigmsofresonance. ThestudyofcomparativeliteraturerelatingtoEastandWestsolvesaprobleminheuristicepistemology.Ifphysicistsandjournalistsnowroutinelyacknowledgethat theobjectivitysovauntedbyeighteenthcenturyrationalistsandnineteenthcenturylogicalpositivistsisnolongerpossible,thatalldiscourseisinfluencedbythe speakeranddistortedbythereceiver,thatallknowledgereflectsasmuchontheknowerasonwhatisknown,thenhowcanoneachievethedispassionateand disinterestedstaterequiredofanydisciplinedpursuitofknowledge?Theansweris,certainlyfromtheperspectiveofthehumansciences,thatapluralisticperspective mustbeadopted.Wecanbecomeobjectiveonlytotheextentthatwecanrecognizethatwearesubjective,andmeasuremeaningfullythedegreetowhicheachofus issubjective.Andwecanbegintotranscendthissubjectivityonlyasweadoptthesubjectivevisionoftheotherasourown.Ourobjectivitythenbecomesnotadenial ofourindividualpointofviewbutanunderstandingofmanypointsofview.Byanactofanalyticalintuition,wemustadoptasynopticandapanopticperspective.We mustseeourselvesasweareand,byviewingandunderstandingtheother,alsoseeourselvesaswearenot.

Page271

Epilogue: SelfAsOtherinTranslation
"...inshort,healmostreasonedmeoutofmyowncountry..." OliverGoldsmith, TheCitizenoftheWorld,Letter33

ThereisavolumeofChinesestoriespublishedinEnglishtranslationbytheForeignLanguagesPressinBeijingwiththetitleStoriesfromtheThirties.1Theimplicit assumptionoftheEnglishspeakingreaderisthatthevolumecontainsthestoriesfromaneminentperiodinAmericanliterature,the1930s,whichrepresentthehigh watermarkofsuchnowworldfamousAmericanwritersasF.ScottFitzgerald,ErnestHemingway,andJohnDosPassos.ButtheEnglishspeakingreaderwillbe disappointed,oratleastdisconcerted,todiscoverthatthisvolumeincludessuchChinesewritersasYeShengtao,ZhangTianyi,andLuoShu.2The"thirties,"fromthe internationalperspective,isperhapsmoreprominentinliterarycirclesasaU.S.phenomenon:certainlyonecannotthinkofascoherentagroupofEnglishorFrenchor Russianwriterswhoaredesignatedas"writersofthethirties."The1890shaveaparticularsignificanceforEnglishandSpanishliteraturethattheydonothavefor othercountriesinChina,wanQingor"LateQing"mightbethemorenaturaldesignation,althoughthiswouldincludeworksthroughthesecondhalfofthenineteenth cen

ThischapterisbasedonapresentationattheUniversityofParis,Sorbonne,inAugust1985,atthe11thCongressoftheInternationalComparativeLiteratureAssociation.
1. 2.

StoriesfromtheThirties,vol.I(Beijing:PandaBooks,1982). Thefactthat,outoftwentyfourstoriesincluded,someeightarenotevendatedfromthe1930s,butfromthe1920s,onlyindicateshowlooselytheterm"thirties"isbeingused.

Page272

turyaswellasthoseleadingupto1911,withthedownfalloftheQingdynastyandtheendoftwothousandyearsofimperialrule. Thepointofthisexampleisnottopointoutanobviousflawintranslation:indeed,thetranslationfromtheChinesetotheEnglishisimpeccable.Whatthedisparity pointsoutisthatthecontextofmeaninghasshiftedwhenchangingfromonelanguagetoanother,evenifthewordsthemselveshavenot.3MyChinesecolleagueswere indifferenttomyconcerns:fromtheirperspective,avolumeofshortstoriesforsaleinChina,evenifitisinEnglish,wouldsuggesttheirown(Chinese)writersmore readilythantheAmericanwritersofthethirties.IagreedprovidedtheChinesepublishersofthisEnglishversionofChinesestorieshadnowishtoselltheirwaresto anEnglishreadingaudienceoutsideChina.ButasIwasaskedpreciselytoplacethetitlewithanAmericanpublisher,mymildremonstration,involvingapunctilious pointofsemantics,wasbynomeansirrelevant. Whatthisanecdoteunderlinesistheimportanceoftheimplicitassumptionsmadeinan"I"or"we"selfreference.Toputitmostsimply,the"I's"or"we's"inany languagepresumeaselfreferencetothosewhoarenativeorfluentinthatlanguage.Thatverypresumptionposits(evenasitprecludestheinsider'sawarenessof)the hermeticnature,theexclusivenoncommunicativeness,oflanguagefortheoutsider.Thefuroramongsemanticistsofthewomen'srightsmovementstemsfromprecisely thepresumedselfreferenceofthe"I''and"we"tobemale.Thatitwas"innocent"makesit,ofcourse,allthemoregalling. Thischapterexploreswhatmaybecalledaschizophrenicsofreading,where"self"and"other"coexistinrespondingtothetext,wherethe"deictic"markerofthehere andnowisdecisivelycompromised,creatively"ambiguated,"inadialecticaltensionofmeaningandmismeaning(asopposedto"misunderstanding").Itexploresthe extenttowhichlanguagesaredeicticallyexclusive,eliminatingfromconsiderationreaders,audiences,worksinall
3.

Notethattitlessuchas"StoriesfromtheFifties,"or"StoriesfromtheSixties,"wouldnotcreatethesame"static"intranslation:indeedtherewereChinesestorieswritteninthe 1950sand1960sastherewereAmerican.Thechronologicaldesignationforbothisequallyneutral,withperhapsatinctureofdifferencecausedbyhistoricaleventsalthoughthe decadeofthe1960sinChinaandtheUnitedStateshadstrikingparallels!

Page273

otherlanguages. Anditinvestigatesadeicticallydialecticreadingofaworkwritteninadeicticallyexclusivemedium. WebeginwithL.H.Gray'sstatement,madeoverfiftyyearsago,that"pronounsdifferfromnounsinthattheyareessentiallydeictic"(1939:173).Pronounspresume theIandweidentityasimplicitlysharedbetweenauthor,work,andtext:indeed,sofarasthelanguageisconcerned,nootherhereandnowexists. Asaparableofreaderresponseanalysisfortranslation,letusconsiderthatmostcosmopolitanandyetmostprovincialcollectionofpseudoletters,OliverGoldsmith's TheCitizenoftheWorld,originallypublishedas"ChineseLetters"inaseriesthatbeganinThePublicLedgeron24January1760.The123lettersmaybedivided accordingtoauthor:107werewrittenby"LienChiAltangi,""aChinesePhilosopherResidinginLondon"4byhismostfrequentinterlocuter,FumHoam,"first presidentoftheCeremonialAcademyatPekininChina''8fromLienChiAltangi'sson,Hingpo,"aslaveinPersia"and4areoccupiedwithpreface,introduction, andconclusion. TheCitizenoftheWorldwasintendedforacosmopolitanLondonaudienceofthe1760swhowereentertainedbysuchprecursorsasMontesquieu'sLettres Persanes(1721),LordLyttelton'sinferiorimitation,PersianLetters(1735),andMarquisd'Argens'Lettreschinoises(1739).Perhapsthesourceandinspirationfor alltheseworkswasL'EspionTurc,acollectionoflectureswhichfirstappearedinFrancein1686andwasthentranslatedandpublishedineightvolumesfrom1687 to1693.DescribingtheactivitiesofaTurklivinginFrance,L'EspionTurcwaswrittenbyanItalianexileinParisbythenameofGiovanniPaoloMarana.Theroot sourceofthedoublingandtriplingofperspectives,likemirrorimageswithinmirrorimages,providestheunderpinningsforthesuccessofthegenre,foritmanagesto addfreshnessby"defamiliarizing"theordinaryandmakingtheexoticfamiliar.
4.

Notalllanguagesarealldeicticallyexclusive:Japanese,inparticular,consciouslyincorporatedChineseelementsearlyinitsdevelopment,aswellasWesterntermsinitsmodern phase.Italsohastheabilitytosustainatensionbetweendifferentevenopposingmodesofdiscourse.Forafascinatingexplorationofdoubleperspectiveswithinthesame compositelanguage,seeSumieJones,"LanguageinCrisis:OgyuSorai'sPhilologicalThoughtandHiragaGennai'sCreativePractice"(Miner1985:209256).

Page274

Thisgenreisoftenreferredtoaspseudoletters.WhathasnotbeenadequatelynoticedisthatGoldsmithhascreated"pseudoreaders"precursors,andmoreexplicit versionsof,WolfgangIser's"impliedreaders."WhoarethepseudoreadersinTheCitizenoftheWorld?Thereis,firstofall,"FumHoam,"theprotypicalConfucian official.(MighthisnamebeGoldsmith'sversionoftheCantonesepronunciationof"fromhome''?)ThenthereisHingpo,LienChiAltangi'sson,whoseromantic escapadesinPersiaformtheprincipal"orientaltale"inthesequenceoflettersthereisalsoanunnamedmerchantinAmsterdamfinally,thereisLienChiAltangi himself,theauthorofmostoftheletters,whoisonthereceivingendoftwelveletters,fourfromFumHoam,eightfromhisson.Bythismanipulationofpseudoreaders, Goldsmithisattemptingtostretchthesensibilitiesofhisactualreaders,theLondoncognoscentiwhoaffectcosmopolitanism. Goldsmithmanagestoingratiatehimselfwiththeactualreader,evenashewonovercontemporaryreaders(includingthesternandcensoriousDr.Johnson),by implyingthemostpleasingselfimageforthereader.WayneBoothisoneofthefewtocommentonthis.Ofthemanyappeals(inbothsensesoftheword:supplication andpleasure),Boothlistsasforemostthe"appealstothereader'sselfesteem":

AscitizensofLondon,IpickupthePublicLedgerandIfindmyselfcongratulatedforbeing:(a )AnEnglishmanthatis,citizenofanationthatonthewholeisthemost generous,mostenlightened,themostadvanced,bestgoverned,inawordthemost"polite"ofall(b )Acosmopolitanthatis,liketheauthorIamacitizenoftheworld.Though patriotic,Iamtoosophisticatedtotalkwithoutironyofmypatriotism,andIreallytakeallmankindintomytolerant,amusedvision(c)Apenetratingcriticofthefollyandgreed thatsurroundme,evenhereinEngland.IamthekindofpersonwhocansavorboththecomicmisreadingscommittedbyLienChiAltangiandthecomedyofBritishidiosyncrasy viewedinauniversallight.[Booth1976:S90]

Indeed,thepsychologyofreadingdoesinvolveareinforcementofthereader'sselfesteem,butthethreeelementsBoothidentifiescanbejustaseasilyconflated:the readerwhois"acitizenofLondon,"whoenjoyedthe"Chineseletters"whichsatirizedfollyand

Page275

greedinThePublicLedger,isindeed"acitizenoftheworld."Ofcourse,thepleasureconsistentlyaffordedthisreaderunderminestheverisimilitudeofthe pseudoletters,asmanycriticshavepointedout.5Indeed,itisremarkablethattheachievementofTheCitizenoftheWorld,despitethefactthatthreedifferent personacomposethepseudoletters,andfourdifferentpersonareceivethem,stemsfromthebrilliancewithwhichtheauthorhascreatedthepersonaof"Goldsmith," whoisinasenseanimpliedratherthanexplicitpseudoauthorofthe"ChineseLetters."6 YetGoldsmith'saccommodationofthereaderdistractsfromcertainconceptualexperimentswhichareinstructive,evenif,ultimately,theywerenotfullydeveloped.In Letter16,LienChiAltangicites"aChristiandoctor"whoquotesallmannerofpseudodoxiaaboutotherpeoples:"Itwasnotimpossible,"saystheChristiandoctor, "forawholenationtohavebutoneeye,inthemiddleoftheforehead"(whichhefindsinEthiopia).HedescribesthepeopleofIndia,"whohavebutonelegandone eye,andyetareextremelyactive,runwithgreatswiftness,andlivebyhunting.''Howonecanrunononeleg,heneverrevealsorexplains."WhenthePtolemies reignedinEgypt,"thedoctorcontinues,"thosemenwithdog'sheadstaughtgrammarandmusic.""DideverthedisciplesofFohibroachanythingmoreridiculous?" Altangiconcludes.Thewryrecitationofpreposterousbutfamiliarmythology,reportedironicallyandskepticallytotheLienChiAltangipersona,doublesandtriples theironictextureofthepassage:thefancifulclaimsarethemselvesamusing,butpurportedlyseenthroughtheeyesofaChinesewhoisequallybemused,makingthe actualreadershare,foramomentatleast,theforeignperspectiveoftheChinese
5.

"Ingeneral,theorientaldecorationsofthebookarequiteexternal"(Conant1908:198)"Goldsmithissometimesinconsistentinusingthedeviceofthepersonawhenthe ChinesePhilosopherbecomesmoreEnglishthanChinese"(Patrick1971:91).
6.

"Eachvirtuebindsusfurtherto'Goldsmith'eachtimeitisexemplified.Andeachnewexemplificationreinforcesourconvictionaboutthechiefvirtueofall:imaginativerichness.... Onceastrongliterarycharacterlikethatof'Goldsmith'hasbeenestablished,evenhiswayofbeingdullisinteresting:itaddstoourknowledgeofhistotalcharacter"(Booth,pp.S95 S96)."BecauseofGoldsmith'sstyle,amiablereadersfindtheiramiableauthorinteresting"(Dai1979:192).

Page276

persona.ThisagreementofthefamiliarselfwitharadicallydisOrientedother,iscruciallydifferentfromthemanyinstanceswhereGoldsmithforgetsthepersona and,asitwere,dropshismask.7 Anothertechniquedoubledperspectiveinvolvesamirrorwithinadream,inLetter46,on"theLookingGlassofLao."Hereamagicmirrorrevealsthetrue characterofthewomenwhogazeuponit.Theironyofthecontrastbetweensuperficialandauthenticbeautyismadeclearinthelast"reflection"recorded,wherethe mostunblemishedimagerendersawomanwho"hadbeendeaf,dumb,andafoolfromthecradle!"Thewomanwhoisnotflatteredbythetruthtellingimageinthe mirroris"resolved,nottomendherfaults,buttowriteacriticismonthementalreflector.''Letter76,writtenbyHingpotohisfather,presentsanallegoryon"the RegionofBeauty"versus"theValleyoftheGraces."TheseparablesareGoldsmith'swayofskillfullydistractingthereader'sattentionfromsurmisingthathehadnever beeninthecountriesinwhichhisfictionisset(atechniquewhoselessonhasnotbeenlostonmanytravelwriterssince).Inmostofthelettersfromsontofather,there islittleifanydescriptionofPersia,whichonemightexpect:theromanceofthesonwithZelis,andthecircumstancesofhiscaptivity,divertthereader'sattention.Here thecharmingdistractionisafableonthemonotonyofBeautyandthesubtlevarietyofGrace.Therelevanceofthetaleiscleverlyestablishedattheoutsetwith Hingpo'sdescriptionofZelis,clearlyacreatureofgraceratherthanbeauty:"NaturehasnotgrantedheralltheboastedCircassianregularityoffeature,andyetshe greatlyexceedsthefairestofthecountryintheartofseizingtheaffections."TheaptnesstoHingpoisestablishedgenericallyratherthanindividually,sinceweknow verylittleofhischaracter,thoughweareinformedabouthiscircumstances. ThesespeculationsonthetechniquesandlimitationsofmultipleperspectiveinGoldsmithprovidetheframeworkforadialecticconsiderationofthedeicticsof translation.Severalconflictingfactorsareatplay:thereadermustfindthetextfamiliarandaccessible,evenifthereality(thetexttobetranslated)isnotthereflection onthereader'srealityfromtheperspectiveofthepersonainthetext
7.

"Everynowandthen[Goldsmith]rememberstoholdthemaskbeforehisfaceandtodropasuddenremarkincharacter,andtheresultisahumorousincongruity"(Conant,p. 191).

Page277

will,inmostcases,maketheworkmoreinteresting("evenhiswayofbeingdullisinteresting")andthetranslatormustestablish,evenacrossdifferentpersona developedinawork,asenseofrelatednesstothetargetlanguagereader. TheinstanceofGoldsmith'sCitizenoftheWorldisatestcase:languagecannotsupersedeitselfitcannotappealbeyonditselftosensibilitiesaccessibleonlythrough anotherlanguage.TherelevantpointisnotthatGoldsmithfailedtoimitateadifferentandoftenoppositeperspectivefaithfully,orthathesucceededinattractingor appealingtoasubstantial,anddiscriminating,audience.Itisratherthatlanguagewillalwaysfailtoaddresseffectivelythoseoutsideitself:eachlanguage,toagreateror lesserdegree,ishermeticallysealed. TheseconsiderationsofGoldsmith'scompromisedattemptsatmultipleperspectiveofthedeicticproclivitiesoflanguage,actingmorelikepronounsthannouns haveaspecialrelevancetotranslationandtheschizophrenicsofreading.Theabilitytoseetheselfasotherandtheotherasselfmaybeconstruedasnothingmore thantheusualimaginativeprojectionthattakesplacewithanyvicariousexperience,anexperiencethatisalreadyfamiliarinthereadingoffiction.Butthedeictic hermeticismoflanguageitsexclusivity,itsxenophobiawouldsuggestthatthisimaginativeprojectionthroughtranslationisofadifferentorderandofacomplexity thatexceedsmerevicariousexperience.Thereisanimportantdifference:intheoneinstance,theidentityoftheselfisreinforcedandextendedintheother,theselfis estranged,seeninalterit,defamiliarized. Forreadingtranslationsisnolongerthepreoccupationofa"targeted"audience,ignorantoftheoriginaloroftheexperiencesdescribed.Theworldtodayismore pluralisticthanintheeighteenthcentury.RatherthanthepreBabelidealofonecomprehensiblelanguageforall,weareapproachingakindofpolyglossiainwhichwe recognizeotherlanguages,otherwaysofthinkingabouttheworld.Withtheincreasingroleof"exiles"and"exilic"literatureineachculture,theLienChiAltangisofthis centuryarenolongerimplausiblefictionalcreations,but"naturalizedcitizens.''8
8.

ItisperhapspeculiarlyAmericanthattheprocessof"naturalization,"i.e.,makingnatural,shouldbeaconsciousanddeliberatenottosayhighlyunnaturalprocess.Bynow, ofcourse,theliteratureonexilesinvolvingsuch

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

Page278

LienChiAltangiwasafictionalcreationhisreallifecounterpartwouldhavebeenanoddityineighteenthcenturyEnglandbutnaturalizedcitizensinthetwentieth centuryarelegion,virtuallyeverywhere. Withtheseconcerns,wecanproceedbeyondthosequestionsontranslationthatoccupiedustoverylittleeffectheretofore:Istranslationpossible?Whatconstitutes anaccuratetranslation?Whatcan,andcannot,betranslated?Totheseconcerns,weposeperhapsmorebasicquestionsconcerningthephenomenologyoftranslation: Whatisbeingtranslated?Atext?Areader'sexperience?Aninterpretation?Istranslationmereverbalequivalency?Orisitanorganiccatalystforinterpretation?If languageisperceivedintheHeraclitanflux,whereitisnotpossibletostepinthesamerivertwice,iflanguageisunderstood,inGadamer'ssense,as"radically historical,"thenreadersofanyworkeveninthesamelanguagearetranslating,interpreting,transformingthework.Theprocessoftranslationaswellasthereadingof translation,ismerelythemoreselfconsciousactofreading.Itmaybethattranslationistheultimateformofliteraryevaluationforonlyfromseeingitfromthe outsidecanoneseeaworkforwhatitis.Knowingcanbedifferentiatedintonativecommandandabstractunderstanding:thefirstembodieswhatisknown,and knowledgebecomesfamiliarity(likeknowingsomethinglike"thebackofone'sownhand")theseconddefamiliarizeswhatisknown,andknowledgebecomes analyticalinsight(likeknowinghowtooperateonsomeoneelse'shand).Translationinvolvesthesecondkindofknowing:thenative,evenifheunderstandsand appreciatesthetranslationinthetargetlanguage,willencounteritassomethingstrange,oftentobedeplored,occasionallytoberelished(likecontemporaryJapanese preferringTheTaleofGenjiinEnglishtranslation,eventothemanymodernJapaneseversions). Ananalysisoftranslationthatuses"deicticdialectics"willdistinguishbetweenerrorsininterpretationandsystematicallymisleadingfeaturesoflanguage.Translationsof "I"or''we"willbelexicallyaccurate,butdeicticallymisdirected.Wecannolonger (footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
majorfiguresasConrad,Joyce,Nabokov,andsuchsignificantcontemporarywritersasI.B.Singer,AlexanderSolzhenitsyn,MilanKunderaisvast.Thephenomenonshould not,however,beconstruedasamerelymoderndevelopmentcf.Eoyang(1982a).

Page279

affordtobeconcernedwithonlywhat"we"thinkwemustrecognizenotjusthow"they"think,butalsohowmuchofusisthem. Thehomogenizedsocietyof eighteenthcenturyLondonnolongerexistsinthecentersofmoderncivilization.Weinhabitaworldwherexenophobia,whetherlinguisticornot,becomesselfhatred, wherealienationisselfdestruction.Morethanever,weneedtorecognizethecontiguityofourfates,thatwearehuman,andthatourexperienceofbeinghuman involvesmorethantheindividual. Thesediscriminationsshouldnotbethoughttoeraseusefuldistinctions:theyarerathertohighlightmeaningfuldifferences.Wecantakeseriouslyclaimsbytranslators astotheuntranslatabilityoftexts,evenwhentheypresenttranslationstheseneednotbetakenasironicorevenearnestexculpationsofguilt.AtranslatorofAdorno intoEnglishhasremarked:

Wherethemeaningoftheoriginalworkisnotexternaltoitslanguage,translationcannolongerbeconceivedasthereproductionofmeaninginamoreorlesstransformed linguisticsetting.Withtheabstractionofmeaningfromtheparticularuniverseofdiscourseinwhichitconstituteditself,themeaningisnolongerthatwhichitwas.[Adorno 1981:14]

Theobjective,then,isnotsomuchtotranslateastoindicatetopointtodeicticallytheareasofuntranslatability.SoundingperhapsasmuchlikeAdornoasone caninEnglish,histranslator,SamuelWeber,writes:"IfAdornoistranslatableatall,somethingwhichcanbynomeansbetakenforgranted,itispreciselybyvirtueof hisuntranslatability"(p.14).Andlater:"TheuntranslatabilityofAdornoishismostprofoundandcrueltruth." Intheend,weareallheirsoftranslation:eventheintoleranthermetictraditionslikeChristianitywherewouldtheybewithouttranslation?Itisacuriousironyof historythatthereareantiSemitesinAmericawhowillquotetheOldTestamentintheKingJamesVersionoftheBiblewithnoappreciationfor,evenawarenessof, thefactthatthesourcetextisinHebrew,thelanguageofthe"accursedrace."Readingtranslationsneednotbedis

9.

Thisisanadaptationofanapothegmofthatprofoundpopularphilosopher,WaltKelly'sPogo:"Wehavemettheenemy,andtheyareus!"

Page280

missedasimposturesofmisunderstandingwhichlosesightoftheoriginalprovidedwedonotvainlysearchfor"equivalents"inanotherlanguage.Withevery generation,weneedtorecognize,inthefullculturalandlinguisticreverberationsoftheobservation,that"wearenotwhatweoncewere."Wearewhatoncewas considered"they":selfseesitselfincreasinglyasotherandotherincreasinglyisseenastheself.10 ThemoderncounterparttothemirrorwithinamirrorpersonathatweencounteredinLetter46ofTheCitizenoftheWorldoccursattheendofTzvetanTodorov's intriguingexcursionintoafutureembodiedinthepast,suggestivelytitledTheConquestofAmerica.Todorovspeaksoftheconditionofthemodernexile,whomhe describesas"abeingwhohaslosthiscountrywithouttherebyacquiringanother,wholivesinadoubleexteriority."TodorovquotestheidealofHughofSt.Victorin thetwelfthcentury:

Themanwhofindshiscountrysweetisonlyarawbeginner,themanforwhomeachcountryisashisownisalreadystrongbutonlythemanforwhomthewholeworldisasa foreigncountryisperfect.[Todorov1985:250]

Tothattext,Todorovaddsabeautifullyobjectiveparentheticalcommentwhich,thoughitreferstohimself,seestheselfneverthelessastheother:
(Imyself,aBulgarianlivinginFrance,borrowthisquotationfromEdwardSaid,aPalestinianlivingintheUnitedStates,whohimselffounditinErichAuerbach,aGermanexiledin Turkey.)

OneisremindedofL'EspionTurc,thelateseventeenthcentury"spynovel,"whichisaboutaTurk,writtenbyanItalianexilelivinginParis.11
10.

Acurrentmanifestationofthisdevelopmentisthewidespreadsenseofdjvuevenwhenforeigntravelisinvolved:beliefinreincarnation,agenerationafterTheSearchfor BrideyMurphy,hasresurfaced.
11.

WhenthispaperwasofferedasapresentationinParisatthe11thCongressoftheInternationalComparativeLiteratureAssociationinAugust1985,itconcludedwiththefollowing sentence:"Itis,ofcourse,appropriatethatTodorov'squotebeofferedhereinParis,evenintranslation."

Page281

Appendixes

Page282

AppendixA Bethge/Mahler/WangWei
HansBethgeText(1907)
(X) InErwaltungdesFreundesMengKaoJen DieSonnescheidethinterdemGebirg, InallTlersteigtderAbendnieder MitseinenSchatten,dievollKhlungsind. Osieh,wieeineSilberbarkeschwebt DerMondheraufhinterdendunkelnFichten,(5) IchspreeinesfeinenWindesWehn. DerBachsingtvollerWohllautdurchdasDunkel VonRuhundSchlaf...DiearbeitsamenMenschen Gehnheimwrts,vollerSehnsuchtnachdemSchlaf. DieVgelhockenmdeindenZweigen.(10) DieWeltschlftein...Ichstehehierundharre DesFreundes,dersokommenmirversprach. Ichsehnemich,oFreund,andeinerSeite DieSchnheitdiesesAbendszugeniessen, Wobleibstdunur?Dulsstmichlangallein!(15) IchwandleaufundniedermitderLaute AufWegen,dievonweichemGraseschwellen, Okmstdu,kmstdu,ungetreuerFreund!

GustavMahlerText
DerAbschied X1DieSonnescheidethinterdemGebirge. 2InalleTlersteigtderAbendnieder 3MitseinenSchatten,dievollKhlungsind. 4Osieh!WieeineSilberbarkeSchwebt 5DerMondamblauenHimmelsseeherauf. 6IchspreeinesfeinenWindesWeh'n 5HinterdendunkelnFichten! 7DerBachsingtvollerWohllautdurchdasDunkel +DieBlumenblassenimDmmerschein. 8+DieErdeatmetvollvonRuh'undSchlaf. 9AlleSehnsuchtwillnuntrumen. 89DiemdenMenschengeh'nheimwrts. +UmimSchlafvergess'nesGlck +UndJugendneuzulernen! 10DieVgelhockenstillinihrenZweigen. 11DieWeltschlftein!

+EswehetkhlimSchattenmeinerFichten. 1112IchstehehierundharremeinesFreundes +IchharreseinzumletztenLebewohl.

Page283

13Ichsehnemich,oFreund,andeinerSeite 14DieSchnheitdiesesAbendszugeniessen. 15Wobleibstdu!Dulsstmichlangallein! 16IchwandleaufundniedermitmeinerLaute 17AufWegen,dievomweichenGraseschwellen. +OSchnheit!OewigenLiebensLebenstrunk'neWelt! (Y) DerAbschieddesFreundesWangWei IchsteigvonPferdundreichteihmdenTrunk DesAbschiedsdar.Ichfragteihn,wohin Undauchwarumerreisenwolle.Er SprachmitumflorterStimme:DumeinFreund. MirwardasGlckindieserWeltnichthold.(5) Wohinichgeh?IchwandreindieBerge, IchsucheRuhefrmeineinsamHerz. IchwerdeniemehrindieFerneschweifen, MdistmeinFuss,undmdistmeineSeele. DieErdeisdiegleicheberall,(10) Undewig,ewigsinddieweissenWolken... Y1ErsteigvomPferdundreichteihmdenTrunk 2DesAbschiedsdar. 2Erfragteihn,wohinerfhre 3Undauchwarumesmsstesein. 4Ersprach,seineStimmewarumflort:Du,meinFreund. 5MirwaraufdieserWeltdasGlcknichthold! 6Wohinichgeh'?Ichgeh'.Ichgeh',wand'reindieBerge. 7IchsucheRuhefrmeineinsamHerz. +IchwandlenachderHeimat,meinerSttte. 8IchwerdeniemalsindieFerneschweifen. +StillistmeinHerzundharretseinerStunde! 10DieLiebeErdeallberall +BlhtaufimLenzundgrntaufsneu! +AllberallundewigblauenlichtdieFernen! 11Ewig...ewig...

partsomitted +partsadded partsmodifieds

Page284

AppendixB MengHaoranWangWei/Bynner
ChineseTexts W.BynnerEnglishVersion(1929)

AttheMountainLodgeoftheBuddhistPriestYeWaitinginVainforMy FriendTingMengHaoran Nowthatthesunhassetbeyondthewesternrange, Valleyaftervalleyisshadowyanddim... Andnowthroughpinetreescomethemoonandchillofevening, Andmyearsfeelpurewiththesoundofwindandwater. Nearlyallthewoodsmenhavereachedhome, Birdshavesettledontheirperchesinthequietmist... AndstillbecauseyoupromisedIamwaitingforyou,waiting, Playingmylonelyluteunderawaysidevine. InSummerattheSouthPavilion,Thinking ofHsingMengHaojan Themountainlightsuddenlyfailsinthewest. Intheeastfromthelaketheslowmoonrises. Iloosenmyhairtoenjoytheeveningcoolness Andopenmywindowandliedowninpeace. Thewindbringsmeodoursoflotuses, Andbambooleavesdripwithamusicofdew... IwouldtakeupmyluteandIwouldplay, But,alas,whoherewouldunderstand? AndsoIthinkofyou,oldfriend, Otroublerofmymidnightdreams! AtPartingWangWei IdismountfrommyhorseandIofferyouwine, AndIaskyouwhereyouaregoingandwhy. Andyouanswer:"Iamdiscontent Andwouldrestatthefootofthesouthernmountain. Sogivemeleaveandaskmenoquestions. Whitecloudspasstherewithoutend.

Page285

AppendixC Shijing143(Waley/Karlgren)
Waley'sVersion Amoonrisingwhite Isthebeautyofmylovelyone, Ah,thetenderness,thegrace! Heart'spainconsumesme. Amoonrisingbright Isthefairnessofmylovelyone. Ah,thegentlesoftness! Heart'spainwoundsme. Amoonrisinginsplendour Isthebeautyofmylovelyone. Ah,thedelicateyielding! Heart'spaintormentsme. Karlgren'sVersion Themooncomesforthbright howhandsomeisthatbeautifulone, howeasyandbeautiful mytoiledheartisgrieved. Themooncomesforthbrilliant howhandsomeisthatbeautifulone, howeasyandtranquil mytoiledheartisanxious. Themooncomesforthshining howbrilliantisthatbeautifulone, howeasyandhandsome mytoiledheartispained. (BookofOdes,1950)

(BookofSongs,1937)

Page286

AppendixD Shijing40(Pound/Waley)
Pound'sVersion Northgate,sorrow'sedge, pursekaput,nothingtopledge I'llsayI'mbroke noneknowshow,heaven'sstroke. Governmentworkpileduponme. WhenIgobackwhereIlivedbefore, mydearrelativesslamthedoor. Thisisthejobputuponme, Sky's"whichandhow"? orsay:destiny. Governmentworkpileduponme. WhenIcomeinfrombeingout myhomefolkdon'twantmeabout concretefruitofheaven'stree nottobechangedbyverbosity. Waley'sVersion Igooutatthenortherngate Deepismygrief. Iamutterlypovertystrickenanddestitute Yetnooneheedsmymisfortunes. Well,allisovernow, NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing. Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit? Theking'sbusinesscamemyway Governmentbusinessofeverysortwasputonme. WhenIcameinfromoutside, Thepeopleofthehouseallturnedonmeandscoldedme. Well,it'sovernow. NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing, Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit? Theking'sbusinesswasallpileduponme Governmentbusinessofeverysortwaslaiduponme WhenIcameinfromoutside, Thepeopleofthehouseallturneduponmeandabusedme. Wellit'sallovernow. NodoubtitwasHeaven'sdoing, Sowhat'sthegoodoftalkingaboutit?

Page287

AppendixE Shijing75(Pound/Waley)
Pound'sVersion Liveuptoyourclothes, we'llseethatyougetnewones. Youdoyourjob, we'llbringourbestfoodtoyou'uns. Ifyou'regoodasyourrobesaregood We'llbringyouyourpayandour bestfood. Nothingtoogood,bigoshandbigob Forabureaucratwhowillreally attendtohisjob. Waley'sVersion Howwellyourblackcoatfits! WhereitistornIwillturnitforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou. Howniceyourblackcoatlooks! WhereitiswornIwillmenditforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou. Howbroadyourblackcoatis! WhereitiswornIwillalteritforyou. Letusgotowhereyoulodge, AndthereIwillhandyourfoodtoyou.

Page288

AppendixF Shijing90(Pound/Waley)
Pound'sVersion Coldwind,andtherain, cockcrow,heiscomeagain, myease. Shrillwindandtherain andthecockcrowsandcrows, Ihaveseenhim,shallitsuffice asthewindblows? Wind,rainandthedark asitwerethedarkofthemoon, Whatofthewind,andthecock's neverendingcry Together again heandI. Waley'sVersion Windandrain,chill,chill,chill! Butthecockcrowedkikeriki. NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIfailtobeatpeace? Windandrain,oh,thestorm! Butthecockcrowedkukeriku. NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIfailtorejoice? Windandrain,darkasnight, Thecockcrowedandwouldnotstop. NowthatIhaveseenmylord, HowcanIanymorebesad?

Page289

AppendixG Shijing23(Pound/Waley)
Pound'sVersion Liesadeaddeeronyonderplain whomwhitegrasscovers, Amelancholymaidinspring isluck for lovers. Wherethescrubelmskirtsthewood, beitnotinwhitematbound, asajewelflawlessfound, deadasdoeismaidenhood. Hark! Unhandmygirdleknot, stay,stay,stay orthedog may bark. Waley'sVersion Inthewildsthereisadeaddoe Withwhiterusheswecoverher. Therewasaladylongingforthespring Afairknightseducedher. Inthewoodthereisaclumpofoaks, Andinthewildsadeaddeer Withwhiterusheswellbound Therewasaladyfairasjade. ''Heigh,notsohasty,notsorough Heigh,donottouchmyhandkerchief. Takecare,orthedogwillbark."

Page291

SourcesCited
Abe,Masao."NonBeingandMutheMetaphysicalNatureofNegativityintheEastandtheWest."InZenandWesternThought,ed.WilliamR.LaFleur. Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1985. Ackrill,J.L.,trans.[Aristotle's]CategoriesandDeinterpretatione.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1963. Adorno,TheodorW.Prisms.TranslatedbySamuelM.Weber.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1981. Alexander,L.G.FluencyinEnglish:AnIntegratedCourseforAdvancedStudents.London:Longmans,Green,1967. Amos,FloraRoss.EarlyTheoriesofTranslation.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1920.Reprint.NewYork:OctagonBooks,1973. Ayscough,Florence,andAmyLowell.FirFlowerTablets.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1921. Baarda,T.EarlyTransmissionofWordsofJesus:Thomas,TatianandtheTextoftheNewTestament.Amsterdam:VUBoekhandel,1983. Bacon,Helen.BarbariansinGreekTragedy.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1961. BaringGould,WilliamS.,andCeilBaringGould,eds.TheAnnotatedMotherGoose.NewYork:BramhallHouse,1962. Bates,E.S.Intertraffic:StudiesinTranslation.London:JonathanCape,1943. Batts,MichaelS.,ed.TranslationandInterpretation:TheMultiCulturalContext.Asymposium,1819April1975,CarletonUniversity.Vancouver:Canadian AssociationofUniversityTeachersofGerman,1975. Bauer,Werner,etal.TextundRezeption:WirkungsanalysezeitgenssischerLyrikamBeispieldesGedichtes"Fadensonnen"vonPaulCelan.Frankfurt, 1972. Baynes,NormanH.TheByzantineEmpire.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1925.

Page292

.Byzantium:AnIntroductiontoEastRomanCivilization.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1948. Benardete,Seth.Plato'sTheaetetus.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986. Blaukopf,Kurt.GustavMahler.TranslatedbyIngeGoodwin.NewYork:Praeger,1973. Boissonade,Prosper.LifeandWorkinMedievalEurope:TheEvolutionoftheMedievalEconomyfromtheFifthtotheFifteenthCenturies.Translatedby EileenPower.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1927. Booth,Wayne."'TheSelfPortraitureofGenius':TheCitizenoftheWorldandCriticalMethod."ModernPhilology73(4)(pt.2)(May1976):S85S96. Borges,JorgeLuis.Labyrinths:SelectedStoriesandOtherWritings.NewYork:NewDirections,1964. Brower,Reuben,ed.OnTranslation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1959. Buck,Pearl.AllMenAreBrothers.NewYork:JohnDay,1933,1937.Reprint.NewYork:GrovePress,1957. Burnshaw,Stanley.ThePoemItself.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston,1960.Reprint.NewYork:Crowell,1976. Bush,Douglas.EnglishLiteratureintheEarlierSeventeenthCentury.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1945. CambridgeHistoryofEnglishLiterature.Vol.4.EditedbyA.W.WardandA.R.Waller.NewYork:Putnam,1910. Castillo,Debra.TheTranslatedWorld:APostmodernTourofLibrariesinLiterature.Tallahassee,Fla.:FloridaStateUniversityPress,1984. Catford,J.C.ALinguisticTheoryofTranslation:AnEssayinAppliedLinguistics.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1965. Chan,Wingtsit,ed.ASourcebookinChinesePhilosophy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1963. ChangChien[ZhangJian] ChangTsai[ZhangZai] .Taipei:KuoliTaiwanTahsehwenhsehyuan,1966. .Shanghai:Shangwuyinshukuan,1936.

Chaudhuri,NiradC.ScholarExtraordinary:TheLifeofProfessortheRightHonorableFriedrichMaxMller,P.C.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1974. Ch'enShihhsiang."ChinesePoeticsandZenism."Oriens10(1)(1957):131139. Ch'ienChungshu.SeeQianZhongshu. ChowTsetsung."AncientChineseViewsonLiterature,theTao,and

Page293

TheirRelationship."ChineseLiterature:Essays,Articles,Reviews(CLEAR)1(1)(January1979):329. Ch'anT'angshih.SeeQuanTangshi. Ciardi,John.TheInferno.NewYork:MentorBooks,1954. Conant,MarthaB.TheOrientalTaleinEnglandintheEighteenthCentury.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1908. Creel,H.G."WasConfuciusAgnostic?"T'oungPao29(1932):5599. Crystal,David.Linguistics.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1971. Dahood,Mitchell.PsalmsI.TheAnchorBible.NewYork:Doubleday,1966. Dai,DavidWeiyang."AComparativeStudyofD'Argens'LettreschinoisesandGoldsmith'sCitizenoftheWorld."TamkangReview10(2)(Winter1979):183 197. Dashti,Ali.InSearchofOmarKhayyam.TranslatedfromthePersianbyL.P.ElwellSutton.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1977. Dawson,Raymond.TheChineseChameleon.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1967. DeBary,W.T.,ed.TheUnfoldingofNeoConfucianism.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1975. Derrida,Jacques.SpeechandPhenomena.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1973. .OfGrammatology.TranslatedbyGayatriChakravortySpivak.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1976. DictionaryofNationalBiography(DNB).Vol.22,supp.EditedbyLeslieStephenandSidneyLee.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1901,19211922. Doctorow,E.L."FalseDocuments."AmericanReview26(1977):231232. Drew,KatherineFischer,ed.TheBarbarianInvasions:CatalystsofaNewOrder.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston,1970. Ebeling,Gerhard.IntroductiontoaTheologicalTheoryofLanguage.TranslatedbyR.A.Wilson.London:Collins,1973. Eliot,T.S.TheSacredWood:EssaysonPoetryandCriticism.London:Methuen,1920. Ellman,Richard.JamesJoyce.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1959. Eoyang,EugeneChen."TheSolitaryBoat:ImagesoftheSelfinChineseNaturePoetry."JournalofAsianStudies32(4)(August1973):593621. "TheConfucianOdes:EzraPound'sTranslationsoftheShihChing."Paideuma3(1)(Spring1974):3347. "TheToneofthePoetandtheToneoftheTranslator."YearbookofComparativeandGeneralLiterature24(1975):7583. ."AudiencesforTranslationsofChineseLiterature."InTheArt

Page294

andProfessionofTranslation,ed.T.C.Lai.HongKong:HongKongTranslationSociety,1976. ."TheWangChaochnLegend:ConfigurationsoftheClassic."ChineseLiterature:Essays,Articles,Reviews(CLEAR)4(1)(1982a):322. .SelectedPoemsofAiQing.Beijing:ForeignLanguagesPressBloomington.IndianaUniversityPress,1982b. ."'Vacuity,''Vapor,'and'Vanity':SomePerspectivesontheVoid."TamkangReview16(1)(Fall1985):5165. Esslin,Martin.Brecht:TheManandHisWork.NewYork:DoubledayAnchor,1961. Fang,Achilles."RhymeproseonLiterature."HarvardJournalofAsiaticStudies14(1951):527566. Ferguson,John.Aristotle.NewYork:Twayne,1972. Forman,MauriceBuxton,ed.TheLettersofJohnKeats.4thed.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1952. Fowler,H.N.,trans.Theaetetus.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1952. Frankel,Hans."The'I'inChineseLyricPoetry."Oriens10(1)(1957):128131. Frawley,William,ed.Translation:Literary,Linguistic,andPhilosophicalPerspectives.Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1984. Frye,Northrop.TheGreatCode:TheBibleandLiterature.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,1982. FungYulan.AHistoryofChinesePhilosophy.Vol.I:ThePeriodofthePhilosophers,trans.DerkBodde.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1952. Geanakoplos,DenoJ.ByzantineEastandLatinWest.NewYork:Barnes&Noble,1966. Geertz,Clifford."'FromtheNatives'PointofView':OntheNatureofAnthropologicalUnderstanding."InCultureTheory:EssaysonMind,Self,andEmotion,ed. RichardA.ShwederandRobertA.LeVine.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984. Gibbs,Donald."LiteraryTheoryintheWenhsintiaolung."Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofWashington,1970. Gibson,James.TheSensesConsideredasPerceptualSystems.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1966. Goichon,A.M.,andM.S.Khan.ThePhilosophyofAvicennaandItsInfluenceonMedievalEurope.Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass,1969. Gordon,DavidC.TheFrenchLanguageandNationalIdentity,19301975.TheHague:Mouton,1978. Graham,A.C."'Being'inWesternPhilosophyComparedwithshih/fei

Page295

andyu/wuinChinesePhilosophy."AsiaMajor,n.s.,7(1)(Autumn1959):79112. ,trans.TheBookofLiehtzu.London:JohnMurray,1960. Graves,Robert,andOmarAliShah.TheOriginalRubaiyyatofOmarKhayaam.GardenCity:Doubleday,1968. Gray,L.H.FoundationsofLanguage.NewYork:Macmillan,1939. Greenslade,S.L.,ed.TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible:TheWestfromtheReformationtothePresentDay.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1963. Gressman,Hugo.TheTowerofBabel.NewYork:JewishInstituteofReligionPress,1928. Hall,EdwardT.,andMildredReed.UnderstandingCulturalDifferences.Yarmouth,Me.:InterculturalPress,1990. Harbage,Alfred.Shakespeare'sAudience.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1941. Haskins,CharlesHomer.TheRenaissanceofthe12thCentury.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1927.Reprint.NewYork:World,1966. Havelock,EricA.TheLiterateRevolutioninGreeceandItsCulturalConsequences.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1982. Hawkes,David.TheStoryoftheStone:ANovelinFiveVolumes.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,19791987. Heidegger,Martin.Poetry,Language,Thought.TranslatedbyAlbertHofstadter.NewYork:Harper&Row,1971. .TheBasicProblemsofPhenomenology.TranslatedbyAlbertHofstadter.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1982. HeniszDostert,Bozena,R.RossMacdonald,andMichaelZarechnak.MachineTranslation.TheHague:Mouton,1979. Hermans,Theo.TheManipulationofLiterature:StudiesinLiteraryTranslation.NewYork:St.Martin'sPress,1985. Hightower,James,trans.HanShihWaiChuan.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1952. Hirsch,StevenW.TheFriendshipoftheBarbarians:XenophonandthePersianEmpire.Hanover:UniversityPressofNewEngland,1985. Hofstadter,Albert."Enownment."InMartinHeideggerandtheQuestionofLiterature,editedbyWilliamSpanos.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1979. Holmes,JamesS.,ed.TheNatureofTranslation:EssaysontheTheoryandPracticeofLiteraryTranslation.TheHague:Mouton,1970. Holmes,James,JosLambert,andRaymondvandenBroeck,eds.LiteratureandTranslation.Leuven:Acco,1978.

Page296

Hsia,C.T.HistoryofModernChineseFiction.NewHaven:YaleUnviersityPress,1961. .TheClassicChineseNovel.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1968. Hughes,E.R.TheArtofLetters.NewYork:Pantheon,1951. Hung,William.TuFu:China'sGreatestPoet.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1952. HWTS.HanWeits'ungshu[HanWeiCongzhu] .

Ingarden,Roman.TheWorkofMusicandtheProblemofItsIdentity.TranslatedbyAdamCzerniawski,editedbyJeanG.Harrell.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1986. Iser,Wolfgang.TheImpliedReader:PatternsofCommunicationinProseFictionfromBunyantoBeckett.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1974. .TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978. Jackson,J.H.,trans.WaterMargin.NewYork:ParagonReprintEdition,1968. Jameson,Fredric.ThePrisonhouseofLanguage:ACriticalAccountofStructuralismandRussianFormalism.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1972. Jenkins,R.J.H.TheByzantineEmpireontheEveoftheCrusades.London:HistoricalAssociation,1953. Johnson,Samuel.Johnson'sLivesofthePoets:ASelection.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1971. Jones,RobertFoster.TheTriumphoftheEnglishLanguage.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1953. Jullien,Franois.LaValeurAllusive:Descatgoriesoriginalesdel'interpretationpotiquedanslatraditionchinoise(contributionunereflexionsur l'altritinterculturelle).Paris:coleFranaised'ExtrmeOrient,1985. KCSH.Kuchinshihhua[Gujinshihua] .

Kelly,Louis.TheTrueInterpreter:AHistoryofTranslationTheoryandPracticeintheWest.NewYork:St.Martin'sPress,1979. Kermode,Frank.TheGenesisofSecrecy:OntheInterpretationofNarrative.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1979. Kilpatrick,G.D.TheOriginsoftheGospelAccordingtoSt.Matthew.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1946. King,Margaret,ed.MachineTranslationToday:TheStateoftheArt.ProceedingsoftheThirdLuganoTutorial,Lugano,Switzerland,27April1984.Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress,1987. Kirk,Robert.TranslationDetermined.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986.

Page297

Kohut,Heinz.TheAnalysisoftheSelf.NewYork:InternationalUniversitiesPress,1971. Lakoff,George.Women,Fire,andDangerousThings:WhatCategoriesRevealAbouttheMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987. Lakoff,George,andMarkJohnson.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980. Lakoff,George,andMarkTurner.MoreThanCoolReason:AFieldGuidetoPoeticMetaphor.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989. Lau,D.C.TheAnalects.HarmondsworthandLondon:PenguinBooks,1979. Lau,Joseph."ToDisillusionortoDisenchant?:TheUseofTranslationasInterpretation."TamkangReview10(1&2)(FallWinter1979):227242. Lawrence,D.H.PornographyandLiterature.NewYork:Knopf,1930. Legge,James.TheNotionsoftheChineseConcerningGodandSpirits.HongKong,1852. .TheFourBooks:TheAnalects,TheDoctrineoftheMean,TheGreatLearning,andTheMencius.LondonandHongKong,1894. Lewis,Bernard.IslaminHistory.NewYork:LibraryPress,1973. ."Islam."InOrientalismandHistory,ed.DenisSinor.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1970. Liu,JamesJ.Y.TheArtofChinesePoetry.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1962. .ChineseLiteraryTheories.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975a. ."PolarityofAimsandMethods:NaturalizationorBarbarization?"YearbookofComparativeandGeneralLiterature24(1975b):6067. LiuWuchiandIrvingLo,eds.SunflowerSplendor:ThreeThousandYearsofChinesePoetry.NewYork:AnchorBooks,1975. MaTailoi .EssaysinCommemorationoftheGoldenJubileeoftheFungPingShanLibrary(19321982),ed.ChanPingleung.HongKong,1982.

MacDonald,Hugh,andViviandeSolaPinto."EnglishLiterature:TheRestorationPeriod."EncyclopediaBrittanica,pp.576579.Chicago:Encyclopedia Brittanica,1966. Mann,Michael.TheSourcesofSocialPower.Vol.1:AHistoryofPowerfromtheBeginningtoA.D.1760.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986. Matthiessen,F.O.Translation:AnElizabethanArt.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1931. McMullen,David."HistoricalandLiteraryTheoryintheMidEighth

Page298

Century."InPerspectivesontheT'ang,ed.ArthurWrightandDenisTwitchett.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1973. McNeill,WilliamH.TheRiseoftheWest:AHistoryoftheHumanCommunity.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963. Minamiki,George.TheChineseRitesControversy.Chicago:UniversityofLoyolaPress,1985. Miner,Earl,ed.PrinciplesofClassicalJapaneseLiterature.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985. Mish,John."TheWorldofLanguage."InTheWorldofTranslation:ThePENConferenceonLiteraryTranslation.NewYork:PEN,1970. Miyoshi,Masao.AccomplicesofSilence:TheModernJapaneseNovel.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1974. Morris,Ivan,ed.MadlySingingintheMountains.NewYork:HarperTorchbook,1970. Mller,F.Max.TheSacredBooksoftheEast.Vol.1.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1879. Munro,Donald.TheConceptofManinEarlyChina.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1969. Nida,EugeneA.TowardsaScienceofTranslatingwithSpecialReferencetoPrinciplesandProceduresInvolvedinBibleTranslating.Leiden:E.J.Brill, 1964. .LanguageStructureandTranslation.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1975. Nirenburg,Sergei,ed.MachineTranslation:TheoreticalandMethodologicalIssues.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987. Nozick,Robert.PhilosophicalExplanations.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1981. Ogden,C.K.Opposition:ALinguisticandPsychologicalAnalysis.London:OrthologicalInstitute,1932.Reprint.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1967. Ong,Walter.TheBarbarianWithin.NewYork:Macmillan,1962. Parker,WilliamRiley.TheLanguageCurtain.NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,1966. Patrick,Michael."OliverGoldsmith'sCitizenoftheWorld:ARationalAccommodationofHumanExistence."EnlightenmentEssays2(2)(Summer1971):8290. Pike,Kenneth."EticandEmicStandpointsfortheDescriptionofBehavior."InCommunicationandCulture:ReadingsintheCodesofHumanInteraction,ed. AlfredG.Smith.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston,1966. Poulet,Georges."PhenomenologyofReading."NewLiteraryHistory:AJournalofTheoryandInterpretation1(1)(October1969):5368.

Page299

Preminger,Alex,FrankJ.Warnke,etal.,eds.EncyclopediaofPoetryandPoetics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1965. QianZhongshu(Ch'ienChungshu)."LinCh'innanRevisited."Renditions5(Autumn1975)Wenxueyanjiujikan QuanSongCi.WangGuizhang,ed.5vols.Beijing:ZhonghuaShuju,1965. QuanTangshi .Fuxingshuju(Fuhsingshuchu)ReprintofKangxi(K'anghsi)1707ed. ,vol.1(1964).

Quine,WillardVanOrman.WordandObject.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1960. Rabassa,Gregory."IfThisBeTreason."AmericanScholar44(19741975):2939. Ramsey,S.Robert.TheLanguagesofChina.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987. ReligiousStudiesReview5(4)(October1979). Richards,I.A.MenciusontheMind.NewYork:HarcourtBrace,1932. Rickett,AdeleAustin.WangKuowei'sJenchientz'uhua:AStudyinChineseLiteraryCriticism.HongKong,1977. Robertson,Maureen."'ToConveyWhatIsPrecious':Ssuk'ungT'u'sPoeticsandtheErhshihssuShihP'in."InTraditionandPermanence:ChineseHistory andCulture:AFestschriftinHonorofDr.HsiaoKungch'uan,ed.DavidC.BuxbaumandFrederickC.Mote.HongKong:CathayPress,1972. Rose,MarilynGaddis,ed.TranslationSpectrum:EssaysinTheoryandPractice.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1981. Runciman,Steven.ByzantineCivilization.London:EdwardArnold,1933. Sacks,Sheldon,ed.OnMetaphor.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979. Said,Edward.Orientalism.NewYork:VintageBooks,1978. Sapir,Edward.Culture,LanguageandPersonality.EditedbyDavidG.Mandelbaum.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1961. Sarton,George.TheLifeofScience.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1960. Schwartz,Benjamin.InSearchofWealthandPower.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1964. Scott,R.B.Y.ProverbsandEcclesiastes.TheAnchorBible.NewYork:Doubleday,1965. Shih,VincentYuchung.TheLiteraryMindandtheCarvingofDragons.HongKong:ChineseUniversityPress,1983. SikongTu.SeeSsuk'ungT'u. Simon,Andr.WinesoftheWorld.NewYork:McGrawHill,1967.

Page300

Snyder,Gary.Riprap&ColdMountainPoems.SanFrancisco:FourSeasonsFoundation,1969. Speiser,E.A.Genesis.TheAnchorBible.NewYork:Doubleday,1964. SPPY.Ssupupeiyao[Sibubeiyao] Ssuk'ungT'u[SikongTu] .

.HongKong:Shangwuyinshukuan,1969.

Steiner,George.AfterBabel:AspectsofLanguageandTranslation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975. Strich,Fritz.GoetheandWorldLiterature.NewYork:Hafner,1949. Sun,CecileChuchin.''ASenseofScene:DepictionsofSceneasExpressionsofFeelinginChineseandEnglishPoetry."Ph.D.dissertation,IndianaUniversity,1982. SYSH.YuanMei,SuiYanshihhua.HongKong:Kuangchihshuch,1965. SYWCH.SanYanwenchinghsan[SanYuanwenjingxuan]Shanghai:Chungkuowenhuafuwushe,1936. T'angshihsanpaishouhsianghsi[Tangshisanbaishouxiangxi] .Taiwan:Chunghuashuchedition,1973.

Taylor,Vincent.TheTextoftheNewTestament.London:Macmillan,1963. Todorov,Tzvetan.ThePoeticsofProse.TranslatedbyJonathanCuller.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1977. .TheConquestofAmerica.TranslatedbyRichardHoward.NewYork:Harper&Row,1985. Toury,Gideon.InSearchofaTheoryofTranslation.TelAviv:PorterInstituteforPoeticsandSemiotics,1980. Tu,Chingi.PoeticRemarksintheHumanWorld,JenChienTz'uHua.Taipei,1970. Ueda,Makoto.Zeami,Basho,Yeats,andPound.TheHague:Mouton,1965. Valry,Paul.TheArtofPoetry.TranslatedbyDeniseFolliot.NewYork:Pantheon,1958. Vygotsky,Lev.ThoughtandLanguage.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1962. Waley,Arthur,trans.TheBookofSongs.NewYork:GrovePress,1960. .TheTaleofGenji.NewYork:ModernLibrary,1960. Wang,JohnChingyuWang.ChinShengt'an.NewYork:Twayne,1972. Watson,Burton,trans.TheCompleteWorksofChuangtzu.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1968. WHTLC.Wenhsingtiaolungchu[Wenxindiaolongzhu] 1960. .Reprint(2vols.)ofFanWenlan'seditionof1925.HongKong:Shangwuyinshukuan,

Wimsatt,William,andCleanthBrooks.LiteraryCriticism:AShortHistory.NewYork:Knopf,1957.

Page301

Wittgenstein,Ludwig.PhilosophicalInvestigations.EditedbyG.E.M.AnscombeandR.Rhees,translatedbyG.E.M.Anscombe.Oxford:Blackwell,1953. .TractatusLogicoPhilosophicus.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1961. .Notebooks19141916.EditedbyG.H.vonWrightandG.E.M.Anscombe.NewYork:Harper&Row,1961. .LetterstoRussell,Keynes,andMoore.EditedbyG.H.vonWright.Oxford:Blackwell,1974a. .OnCertainty.Oxford:Blackwell,1974b. YangHsienyi,andGladysYang,trans.ADreamofRedMansionsbyTs'aoHsehch'in.Beijing:ForeignLanguagePress,19781980. Yip,Wailim.EzraPound'sCathay.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1969. Yu,AnthonyC.TheJourneytotheWest.4vols.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,19771983. YanMei .HongKong:Kuangchihshuch,1965.

ZhangJian.SeeChangChien. ZhangLongxi."TheTaoandtheLogos:NotesonDerrida'sCritiqueofLogocentrism."CriticalInquiry11(3)(March1985):385398. ZhangZai.SeeChangTsai.

Page303

Index
A Abrams,M.H.,242 acculturation,109 Adorno,Theodor,279 Affectivefallacy,153 Africa,46,81,161 AlbertusMagnus(12001280),50 aletheia,151 AllMenAreBrothers.SeeShuihuzhuan ALPAC(AutomatedLanguageProcessingAdvisoryCommittee),34,35 American,13,15 English,138 Americanisms,161 Amerindian,21 Analects,The,64,170,171,174 AnchorBible,The,38,42 Andrewes,Lancelot,27,39 Anglicisms,162 AngloChineseCollege,170 Anglophiles,8 AngloSaxon,21,117,118,162 Aquinas,Thomas,50 Arab,62,164 Arabic,6,23,53,56,59,60,161,167 numbers,9 Aramaic,6,14,58,122,192 Argentina,10 Aristophanes,52 Aristotle,50,55,83,219,235,266 andDeInterpretatione,133 artificialintelligence,38,242 ArtofChinesePoetry,The,70 AsiaMinor,119 Augustine,121 Australia,81 Austria,9 authenticity,2123 avantgarde,243 Averros,50,55,56 Avicenna,50,55 Ayscough,Florence,9294 B Babel,411,91,124 Towerof,47,80,82,109 Bacon,Francis,213 BaiJuyi,250 Balzac,Honorde,165 barbarians,4652 BarbarianWithin,The,49 barbarikos,47,61 barbaroi,47,52,61 BarHillel,Yehoshoa,34 Baring,Evelyn(LordCromer),119 Barthes,Roland,214 Basho,135 Bates,E.S.,39 Beauvoir,Simonede,52 Beckett,Samuel,11,195 Beerbohm,Max,117 Beethoven,Ludwigvon,16 beizhi("I,lowlyfunctionary"),98 Bengali,10,27,156 Benjamin,Walter,24,25 Bergson,Henri,8485 Bethge,Hans,177183,188 andDieChinesischeFlte,148 bi("comparison"),254,255 bianwen("oraltext"),261 Bible,4,6,7,9,21,23,24,39,44,58,86,

Page304

107,123,140143,153 AuthorizedVersion,4,14,25,27,39,40,41,42 Ecclesiastes,4243,82 Genesis,4,3944,57 GenevaBible,39 John,57 KingJamesVersion,39,57,86,122123,192 Luke,57 Mark,57,141142 Matthew,57,141142 NewTestament,14,39,44,57,58,122,141 OldTestament,14,4042,44,57,122,141,167,188,279 Proverbs,58 Revelation,40 RevisedStandardVersion,39 Rheimsversion,39 Septuagint,122,141 translations,27 Vulgate,122 Birch,Cyril,70 Blake,William,243n.7 Bloom,Harold,187 Bodhidharma,228 Bohemia,65 Boisacq,Emile,49 Boissonade,Prosper,48 BookofChanges,The.SeeYijing BookofOdes,The.SeeShijing BookofSongs,The.SeeShijing Booth,Wayne,127 Bordeaux,46 Borges,JorgeLuis,10,77 andPierreMenard,77 Bramah,Ernest: andTheWalletofKaiLung,148 Brecht,Bertholt,147,262 Brodsky,Josef,10,11 Browning,Robert,11 Buck,Pearl,100101 Buddha,89 Buddhism,167 Chan,217 Buddhist: canon,6,27,57,59 terminology,260 Bunyan,John,43 Burgundy,46 Butor,Michel,10 Bynner,Witter,69,71,181 ByzantineEmpire,59 C Canada,8,33,36 Canglangshihua,228 CaoPi,73 CaoXueqin,149 CaoZhi,73 capitalist,14 Carroll,Lewis,86 Castillo,Debra,8,14 Catholicchurch,25 Catholics,10,80 Celtic,162 Champagne,46 Chan,Wingtsit,173174 ChanBuddhism,233 Chaucer,Geoffrey,9,19,65,165,213 andBoccaccio,65 chen("I":ministerofficialsaddressingemperors),97 Chesterton,G.K.,11 Ch'ienChungshu.SeeQianZhongshu China,7,162164,243 Handynasty,164 Mingdynasty,163 Qingdynasty,163 SouthernDynasties,227 SouthernSungdynasty,163 Tangdynasty,54,163,164,227,259 Yuandynasty,163,164,261 Zhouperiod,165 Chinese,7,8,12,36,57,59,60,61,133,163,171,253258,260265 aesthetics,237,245 Buddhism,66 painting,244 philosophy,171,264,265 ChineseUniversityofHongKong,36 ChowTsetsung,221 Christ,107 Christianity,7,15,27,28n.1,55,167,176,188 ChuHsi.SeeZhuXi Chuangtzu.SeeZhuangzi Chuci,259 Chungyung.SeeZhongyong Cicero,27 Cihai,254 Claudel,Paul,214 Clemens,Samuel(MarkTwain),11 coevaltranslations,145,148,160,192,193,196,206 Coleridge,SamuelTaylor,179 communicationtheory,29 computer: languages,80 science,7 technology,3738 Confucian: classics,192 texts,216 Confucius,58,64,83,87,107,170,171,191,217,264 andLunyu(TheAnalects),87 ConquestofAmerica,The,280 Coverdale,Miles,40n.10 cybernetics,242 D Dali,Salvadore,16 Danish,37

Page305

DanteAlighieri,19,8687,251 andCommedia,86 DaoDeJing,71,78,88,218,220,263,265 d'Argens,Marquis: andLettreschinoises,273 Dashti,Ali,23 Daxue(TheGreatLearning),170 DeadSeaScrolls,14,123 Decadents,9 defamiliarization,188 Defoe,Daniel,165 deixis,13 Denmark,65 Derrida,Jacques,5 andLavoixetlephenomne,78 Descartes,Ren: andDiscourseonMethod,171 deSolaPinto,Vivian,60 deWaard,Jan,14 Dewey,John,159 di("barbarians"intheNorth),48 Dickens,Charles,165 Dickinson,Emily,11,92 DiechinesischeFlte,148,177 digitaltechnology,242 distantiation.SeeVerfremdungseffekt dizi("I":inferiorsaddressingsuperiors),97 DoctrineoftheMean,The.SeeZhongyong Donne,John,44 DonQuixote,77 DosPassos,John,271 Doyle,ArthurConan,165 DreamofRedMansions,A.SeeHongloumeng Dryden,John,24,94 DuFu,83,106,129,247,248,249,250,252 poemsby,85,106,247 Dutch,37 E EastWestcomparison,240,252,266267 Eliot,T.S.,10,27,56,134,186,252 andTheWasteLand,10 Elizabethanwriters,49 Elsinore,65 EncounteringSorrow.SeeLiSao endotropic,59,161,162,164,165,167 England,10 eighteenthcentury,278,279 andElizabethanperiod,49,60,65,87,162 andRomanticperiod,19,135 andVictorianperiod,106,117,162 English,7,9,10,13,15,25,27,38,51,52,122 literature,39 episteme,121 Erasmus,7 Erwartungshorizont.Seehorizonofexpectations Escarpit,Robert,187 Esdras,128 esotericperspective,139 Esperanto,8,91,124 Etiemble,Ren,8,67 Europe,46,50 EuropeanEconomicCommunity,37 headquarters,33 Europeanuniversitiesandresearchunits,37 EUROTRA,37 exotericperspective,139 exotropic,59,161,162,164,167 extratextuality,160 F Fang,Achilles,186 Faulkner,William,10 feng("airs"),254 Fielding,Henry,165 FirFlowerTablets,92 FitzGerald,Edward,22,74,156,188,192 andRubaiyat,22,196 Fitzgerald,F.Scott,10,271 flavor("wei"),222,224 Forster,G.M.,21 France,33,161 Francophile,10 Francophones,8,161 Franks,48 Frawley,William,1920,30 French,21,27,51,161 language,7,8,9,37,52,60,67,122,161 FrenchAcademy,161 Frisk,Hjalmar,49 Frost,Robert,19,142 Frye,Northrop,140,167,235,258 andTheGreatCode,140 fu("exposition"),254,255 fullyautomatedhighqualitytranslation(FAHQT),34 G Gadamer,HansGeorg,22,64,229 Galen,84 GarcaMarquez,Gabriel,11,52,196 Geertz,Clifford,188

Page306

geli(form),228 Gembun'itchi,166 Genjimonogatari,61 GeorgetownUniversity,33,34,37 German,7,9,27,37,51,52,83,122 Germany,33 Gesamtskunstwerk,244,261 Giles,Herbert,70,92 Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon,11,44 andWeltliteratur,11,44 Golding'sOvid,65 Goldsmith,Oliver,271,273 andTheCitizenoftheWorld,148,271278,280 Gombrowicz,Witold,53 Gourmont,Remyde,213214 Granet,Marcel,184 Gray,L.H.,273 GreatLearning,The.SeeDaxue Greek,6,14,39,59,60,61,62,120,122,161,165,167 culture,59 heritage,55 letters,9 mythology,3 tragedians,48 Greenslade,S.I.,40 GregorytheGreat,62 guajun("I,unworthylord"),98 guaxiong("I,unworthyelderbrother"),98 GuidetothePerplexed,50 H Haggard,H.Rider,165 Haitian,161 Haloun,Gustav,184 HAMT(humanaidedmachinetranslation),32 Hanshan,71,8990 Hanshiwaijuan,217,219,265 Hausa,28 Hawkes,David,74,75,149 andALittlePrimerofTuFu,129 Hebrew,6,14,28,39,51,59,122,167,188 Hegel,GeorgFriederich,264 Heidegger,Martin,25,142,146,147,150,151,229,264 Hemingway,Ernest,10,271 Hinduism,textsof: translated,27 history: Babelian,4,5,6,7,8 postBabelian,411,44,146 preBabelian,4,7,8,44,146,277 oftranslation,4,22 Hlderlin,Heinrich,24 Holland,Norman,153 Homer,23,26,52,57,63,64,243 HongKong,170 Hongloumeng74,149 Horace,212 horizonofexpectations,152,170,171,188,268 Hsia,C.T.,149 hsin("heartmind"),245 HsinCh'ichi.SeeXinQiji Hsiyuchi.SeeXiyouji hubris,5 Hume,David,211 hun(the"spiritual"soul),84,85 Hung,William,149 Huns,161 Husserl,Edmund,264 I Iberian,21 IbnRushd.SeeAverros IbnSina.SeeAvicenna Ibsen,Henrik,9 identity,1521 Iliad,34,63,86 Imagists,12 imitations,192 implicitmetaphors,210 indeterminacy,34 Indonesian,28 Ingarden,Roman,17,153 Interlingua,91 internationalcommerce,7 intratextuality,160 intraworldlybeings,147 Iraq,119 Ireland,9 Iser,Wolfgang,152159,169 Islam,28,51,53,54,59 Islamiccivilization,55,60 Italian,9,27,37,60,122,161 Italy,33 J Jackson,J.H.,100101 JadeMountain,The,70 Jakobson,Roman,32 James,Henry,10,262 Jameson,Fredric,143 Japan,33,60,162,163,243 Fujiwaraperiod,61 Kamakuraperiod,61 lateHeianperiod,60 MeijiPeriod,54,61 Tokugawaperiod,61 Japanese,6,10,1213,15,131,163,241 andkambun,61

Page307

Jauss,HansRobert,152 Jerome,Saint,24,42,57,122 Johnson,Samuel,211 Jonson,Ben,179,212 Josephus,128 JourneytotheWest,The.SeeXiyouji Joyce,James,9,10,143,277n.8 andFinnegansWake,9 andPortraitofanArtistasaYoungMan,9 Jullien,Franois,214,235 junzi("literatus"),83 K Kafka,Franz,11 Kant,Immanuel,264 Karlgren,Bernhard,184 katakana,120,163 Kaufman,GeorgeS.,50 Kawabata,Yasunari,52 Keats,John,17,19,26,135,159,179 and"Endymion,"17 andtheOdes,17 Kelly,Louis,24,25,27 Kermode,Frank,141142 andTheGenesisofSecrecy,140 KewGardens,46 Khlebnikov,Velimir,85 Kiang,Kanghu,69 Kierkegaard,Sren,11 King'sCollege,Aberdeen,170 Kohut,Heinz,187 KoineGreek,6,58,122,141,192 kong("emptiness"),231 Konishi,Jin'ichi,132 Konkretisation,153 Koran,6,28,59,167 Korea,243 Kott,Jan,23 Kundera,Milan,52 L Langer,Susanne,261 language,1011 ascode,3238 native,11 Laokon,243 Latin,7,9,14,52,56,59,60,120,161,162,167 Lau,D.C.,68 Lau,Joseph,132 Lawrence,D.H.,120 Legge,James,92,107,170177,188,192 andConfucianAnalecta,171 Leibniz,GottfriedWilhelmvon: andNovissimaSinica,171 Lem,Stanislaw,52 L'EspionTurc,273,280 Lesser,Simon,153 Lessing,GottholdEphraim,243 LviStrauss,Claude,214 Lewis,Bernard,51,53,5455,62 LiBai,250 DuFupoemabout,85 LiMengyang,243 LiPo.SeeLiBai LiSao,259 Liehtzu.SeeLiezi Liezi,219,266 LinShu,164,165 Lincoln,Abraham,25 ling("spirit"),231 linguafranca,161 linguistics,38 LISP(listprocessing),38 literaryaesthetics,210 literatus,83 LiuHsieh.SeeLiuXie Liu,JamesJ.Y.,68,70,149,231 Liu,Wuchi,68 LiuXie,221,223,224,225,234,256,266 Lo,Irving,68 LoBello,Nino,103 logos,108 LondonMissionarySchool,170 Lord,Albert,57,86 Lowell,Amy,9294 LuChi.SeeLuJi LuJi,222223 Lucretius,212 Lunyu,170,171,172,264 LuoShu,271 lushi("regulatedpoetry"),238 Lushichunqiu,236 Luther,Martin,24,123 Lyttelton,LordGeorge: andPersianLetters,272 M MacDonald,Hugh,60 machinetranslation,3138 MacKenna,Stephen,24 Mahler,Gustav,148,177183,188 MAHT(machineaidedhumantranslation),32 Maimonides,Moses(11351204),50 Malaysia,8 man("barbarians"inthesouth),48 Manchus,164

Page308

Mandarin,7 Manyoshu,60 Marana,GiovanniPaolo: andL'EspionTurc,273,280 mathematics,9,80 Mattheissen,F.O.,60 mechanicalengineering,242 Medes,47 Meiji,12 Mencius,The.SeeMengzi MengHaoran,178179,182 Mengzi,170,216 MenoftheMarshes,The.SeeShuihuzhuan METAL(METALanguage)project,33 metalanguage,193 metaphor,127,252 miao("subtlety"),231 microprocessors,38 MiddleAges,48,50,54,59 Mill,JohnStuart,258 Milosz,Czeslaw,11 Milton,John,9,39,218 Miner,Earl,132 Minford,John,149 MishimaYukio,11,52,166 MiyoshiMasao,61,166 Modalparadigms,240 ModernEgypt,119 Mongols,161,164,261 Monkey,70,100,145 Montesquieu: andLettresPersanes,148,273 More,SirThomas,7 Morsecode,37 Mller,F.Max,108,170 MurasakiShikibu,61,143 music,16 N Nabokov,Vladimir,10,52,195: andversionofPushkin'sEugeneOnegin,196 NatsumeSoseki,166 naturallanguageprocessing(NLP),38 Neruda,Pablo,11 NewCriticism,153,250,251 Newton,Isaac: andPrincipia,171 NewYorkTimesBookReview,The,103 Nicholson,Harold,117119 Nida,Eugene,14,29,81 Nietzsche,Friederich,12,24,264 nihilobstat,25 NorthAfrica,47 NorthAmerica,46 North'sPlutarch,65 Novalis,24 Nozick,Robert: andPhilosophicalExplanations,122 nujia("I":womenslaves,tomalemasters),98 nurseryrhyme,138 O Occident,121 Odyssey,86 Ogden,C.K.,83 OmarKhayyam,19,22,23,60,156,188 Ong,Walter,49 onomatopoeia,104 ontologicalanalysis,239 Orczy,BaronessEmma,165 Orient,121 Orientalism,53 originals,16,19 ostraenie("defamiliarization"),143,147,188 Ostrogoths,48 OxfordEnglishDictionary,43 P Pali,6,27,59 papyrus,242 ParadiseLost,39 Parry,Milman,57,86 Paul,Saint,66 Payne,Robert,69,115 penmanship,243 People'sRepublicofChina,131 Pepper,Stephen,268 Perry,AdmiralMatthew,162 Persia,276 Persian,28,47,53,59,192 Petrarch,7 philosophers: Germanidealist,25 PhilosophicalInvestigations,109,115 Phylloxeravastatrix,46 physiology,211 Pilgrim'sProgress,The,43 Pindar,67,92 Plato,64,109,116,228,263,264 andDialogues,64,171 andTheaetetus,139,146 Plato'scave,142 Platter,Thomas: quotationby,65 po(thecorporealsoul),84 Poe,EdgarAllan,19,67

Page309

Poggioli,Renato,72,132,135,150 poiesis,251 polyglossia,277 Ponape,82 Pope,Alexander,43,208 andIliad,23,34,63 Portuguese,11 Poulet,Georges,159 Pound,Ezra,10,24,68,70,93,184187,188,190192,195209 andTheCantos,10 PreRaphaelites,9 Protestants,80 Proust,Marcel,143,214 Psalm,41 Pseudepigraphalbooks,123 pseudoesoterica,131 psychology,211 PublicLedger,The,273275 Pushkin,Alexander: andEugeneOnegin,196 Q QianZhongshu,165 QingEmpiricalResearchSchool,164165 qixiang("spirit"),228 Qoheleth,42 QuanSongCi,96 QuanTangshi,89 Quebecois,21,161 Quechua,81 Quine,W.V.,24,34,35,36 R Rabassa,Gregory,132,196 Rembrandt,15 Renaissance,50,54,55,252 Rezeptionssthetik,152,158 Ricci,Matteo,66 Richards,I.A.: andMenciusontheMind,84 Rimbaud,Arthur,237 Roman: alphabet,9 Catholicism,66 Empire,59 language,120 world,27 Romans,48,164 Romantic,14 period,26 Romantics,9 Rome("barbarians"inthewest),48 Rooney,Andy,1213,15,31 Rosenzweig,Franz,24 Rubaiyat,19,22,23,60,192.SeealsoOmarKhayyam Runciman,Steven,59 Ruskin,John,247248 Russell,Bertrand,83 andPrincipiaMathematica,171 Russia,27 Russianpoems,11 Ryle,Gilbert,155,172 S SacredBooksoftheEast,The,108,170 Said,Edward,53,119 Sanskrit,6,27 Sappho,67,92 Saracenterritories,47 Sarton,George,50 savor("wei"),222,224 Schleiermacher,Friederich,24 science,7,9 Scott,R.B.Y.,42 Scott,SirWalter,165 Seidensticker,Edward,153,157,196 Shakespeare,William,11,26,65,77,83,87 onstage,65 ShakespeareOurContemporary,23 Shelley,PercyBysshe,19 ShenYue,228 shih("scholarorsoldier"),245 Shiji,51,251 Shijing,87,127,184187,191,238,254,259 Shklovsky,Victor,143,147,157 shuangyen("eyes"),256 Shuihuchuan.SeeShuihuzhuan Shuihujuan.SeeShuihuzhuan Shuihuzhuan,100,235 Sicily,51,65 Siemens,A.G.,33 SikongTu,226,232 SimaQian,51,251 Simon,Andr,46 Simon,Claude,10 Singer,IsaacBashevis,10 Smart,Christopher,252 Smith,ErnestBramah,148 Snyder,Gary,71 Socrates,139,146 Solomon,58 song("encomia"),254 SongsoftheSouth.SeeChuci Sophocles,52 SouthAmerica,81 SouthernBaptists,194

Page310

SovietUnion,33 Spain,51 Spanish,10,33,161 Speiser,E.G.,40 Spengler,Oswald: andDerUntergangdesAbendlandes,121 Spenser,Edmund,88,165: andTheFaerieQueene,88,213 Ssuk'ungTu.SeeSikongTu Steinbeck,John,11 Steiner,George,24,85,187: andAfterBabel,116 Stendhal,65 Stevens,Wallace,89 StoryoftheStone,The.SeeHongloumeng surrogatetranslation,148,160 Swift,Jonathan,165,212 Switzerland,8 Syriac,57,58 SYSTRANmachinetranslationproject,33 T Tagore,Rabindranath,10,12,156 TairaKiyomori,162 taiyi("theGreatUnity"),88 TaleofGenji,The,153,157,164,196,278 Tangshisanbaishou,129 TaoQian,236 TaoTeChing.SeeDaoDeJing TAUM(TraductionAutomatique,UniversitdeMontral),36 techne,121 Thackeray,William,43 Theaetetus,41,155 Theravada,6 Tibetan,6,57 Tipitaka,6 tizhuang("style"),228 Todorov,Tzvetan,280 Tongchengschool,164 tourism,69 ToynbeeIkedaDialogue,132 translation: andhistory,3,22 pragmaticsof,24 publishersof,6970 theory,24,27 translators,52 TravelsofMarcoPolo,115 Tripitaka,6 Troy,57 Ts'anglangshihhua.SeeCanglangshihua Ts'aoHsehch'in.SeeCaoXueqin TuFu: China'sGreatestPoet,149.SeeAlsoDuFu Turkey,119 Turkish,28,53,55 Twain,Mark.SeeClemens,Samuel Tyndale,William,40 U Ugaritic,57 UnitedNations,38 UniversityofTexas: andtheMETALanguageproject,33 Upanishads,6,10 Urdu,27 V Valry,Paul,24,78,134,213 vanity,4243 VanMeegerens,Hans,18 Vedic,10 Venice,65 Verfremdungseffekt,147,149,150 Verona,65 Vienna,65 vinelouse.Seephylloxeravastatrix Virgil,63,92,251 Visigoths,48 Voltaire: andZadig,148 Vulgate,The,57 Vygotsky,Lev,9596 W Wagner,Richard,244 Walden,William,102103 Waley,Arthur,68,70,71,92,100,109,153,157,184187,188191,195209 andAHundredandSeventyChinesePoems,184 andTheBookofSongs,184 andTheNoPlaysofJapan,184 andTheTaleofGenji,184 Wang,C.C.,74 WangGuowei,249 WangShizhen,249,267 WangWei,178183,244 WangsunChia,172 wansheng("I,thelaterborn,theyounger"),98 WaterMargin.SeeShuihuzhuan Watson,Burton,71,112n.5,236 weatherforecasts,36 Weaver,Warren,32 Weber,Samuel,279 wei("flavor"or"savor"),222,224 Wells,H.G.,11

Page311

weltanschauungen,242 wen(''pattern,""ornament,""literature"),234 wenren("literatus"),250 Wenxindiaolong,221,223,234,265,266 WhitePony,The,115 Whitman,Walt,92 Wimsatt,William,250,251 Wittgenstein,Ludwigvon,72,78,83,91,109,128,133,168 andOnCertainty,189 andPhilosophicalInvestigations,115 andTractatusLogicoPhilosophicus,83,111115,171 Wordsworth,William,253 WrightPattersonAirForceBase: andtheSYSTRANproject,33 wuxin("nomind"),89 X xiansheng,("you,theearlierborn,theelder"),98 xin("heartmind"),84 XinQiji,95 xing("evocation"),254,255 xingqu("savor"),229 Xiyouji,100,145 Xuanzang,66 Y ya("elegantiae"),254255 Yang,Gladys,75,100,149 YangHsienyi,75,100,149 YangHsiung.SeeYangXiong YangXiong,223 YaoNai,233 YeShengtao,271 Yeats,WilliamButler,10,68 YellowEmperor,111 YenFu,164,165 YenYu,227,229,231 yi("barbarians"intheeast),48 yi("meaning"),231 yi("we":lit."ants"),98 Yijing,116,133,220,223,227 yinjie("musicality"),228 Yu,Anthony,99100,146,149 YuanMei,230,231 YuanZongdao,229 yuwei("lastingflavor"),234 Z zaju("miscellaneoustheater"),238,261 Zamenhof,L.L.,8 ZhangTianyi,271 ZhangZai,233 zhen(theroyal"we"),98 Zhongyong,107,170 ZhouZuoren,235 Zhouli,254 ZhuXi,176 Zhuangzi,88,111,112,113,168,218,219,235,264 zousheng("we":lit."littlefish"),98

Page313

AbouttheAuthor
EugeneChenEoyangisprofessorofcomparativeliteratureandofEastAsianlanguagesandculturesatIndianaUniversity,wherehefoundedtheEastAsian SummerLanguageInstitute.Earlyinhiscareer,asaneditoratDoubledayAnchorBooks,helaunchedtheAnchorBible,publishingtenvolumes.Fiftyonevolumes havesinceappeared.HeiscofoundingeditoroftheJournalChineseLiterature:Essays,Articles,Reviews(CLEAR),amajorcontributortoSunflowerSplendor: ThreeThousandYearsofChinesePoetry,andthetranslatorandeditorofTheSelectedPoemsofAiQing.

Page314

ProductionNotes BilingualCompositionandpagingwere donebyAscoTradeTypesettingLtd. ThetexttypefaceisBaskervilleandthe displaytypefaceisHelvetica. Offsetpressworkandbindingweredoneby TheMapleVailBookManufacturingGroup. TextpaperisWritersRROffset,basis50.