-外国语20世纪30年代鲁迅与梁实秋之间的翻译论战学士学位论文

20世纪30年代鲁迅与梁实秋之间的翻
译论战
The Dispute on Translation Criteria
Between Lu Xun and
Liang Shiqiu In 1930s
Xiao Yan
Under the Supervision of
Liao Hong
School of Foreign Languages and Cultures
Panzhihua University
May 2006
Contents
摘要 (I)
关键词 (I)
Abstract (Ⅱ)
Key words (II)
Introduction (1)
I. Brief Introduction about Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu (2)
A. Brief Introduction about Lu Xun (2)
B. Brief Introduction about Liang Shiqiu (3)
II. The Dispute between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu in 1930s (4)
A. The Background of the Dispute (4)
B. The Main Content of the Dispute (5)
a. Contradiction and Unification Between Faithfulness and Expressiveness (5)
b. Literal Translation and Liberal Translation (7)
c. Europeanization and Domestication (8)
d. Repetition (9)
III. The Significance of the
Dispute (9)
Conclusion (12)
Acknowledgement (13)
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………….…
14
摘要
20世纪30年代，准确地说，从1927年至1937年是中国新文学繁盛的时代，翻译文学也呈现出了一片欣欣向荣的景象。

有关翻译标准的争论由来已久，30年代达到了空前高潮，许多著名的作家诸如鲁迅、梁实秋、瞿秋白、林语堂、陈西滢、赵景深和叶公超等都直接或间接地介入了这场论战。

本文从翻译研究的角度出发，分析了20世纪30年代以鲁迅、梁实秋为代表的关于翻译标准的论战的核心内容及其影响和意义，具体包括三个方面：鲁迅和梁实秋的介绍、翻译论战涉及的主要内容、以及此次翻译论战的影响和意义。

关键词
翻译标准；翻译论战
Abstract
In the 1930s, to be more precise, from 1927 to 1937, Chinese new literature made a rapid development and the translation literature was also in prosperity. The dispute on the translation criteria has existed for a long time and reached the unprecedented climax in the 1930s. A lot of famous writers，such as Lu Xun, Liang Shiqiu, Qu
Qiubai, Lin Yutang, Chen Xiying, and Zhao Jingshen，got involved in the 1930s dispute directly or indirectly.
From the perspective of translation, the thesis makes an analysis of the dispute about translation criteria in 1930s which was initiated by Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu. This thesis includes three aspects concretely: the brief introduction about Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu; the main content of the dispute; the significance of the dispute.
Keywords
Translation criteria; translation dispute
Introduction
In the 1930s, to be more precise, from 1927 to 1937 the new literature made a rapid development and the translation literature was also in prosperity. The dispute about translation has exited a long time and during this period it reached its unprecedented climax. The main characters of this dispute are Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu, still many other famous writers such as Qu Qiubai, Lin Yutang, Chen Xiying, and Zhao Jingshen got involved in the dispute directly or indirectly.
This thesis doesn’t attempt to dig out the real causes of the heated debate between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu in 1929.However, the author is going to introduce some ideas about it from the perspective of translation.
On the surface, the dispute was centered on the criteria for translation. Liang Shiqiu attacked Lu Xun’s literal translation. He called it the "dead translations". According to Liang Shiqiu, this kind of translation was totally unintelligible to readers. Lu Xun just admitted that he was translating in a "hard' way. He defended that he was faithful not only to the originals but also to the readers. Lu Xun, in return, accused LiangShiqiu for sacrificing accuracy for fluency. Coming along with these arguments were ridicule, derisive and malicious personal attacks.
This thesis holds that so far as translation is concerned, there was no fundamental difference between Lu and Liang. Both would like to have an accurate and more readable translation. The real difference between them was the political stances. Lu Xun, in 1929, turned left. Supporting the Communist cause, he started to translate Marxist literary theories and works. On the other hand, Liang Shiqiu became a close follower of Irving Babbitt, master of Neo-Classicism, after his studying abroad. He could not tolerate the political agenda behind Lu Xun's translation activities.
This thesis is planned to bypass all the political factors. The author only makes a retrospect and ana lysis on the 1930s’ dispute from the perspective of translation.
This thesis includes three aspects concretely: the brief introduction about Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu, the main content of the dispute and the significance of the dispute.
I. Brief Introduction about Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu
A. Brief Introduction about Lu Xun
Lu Xun, the father of modern Chinese literature, was born on September 25th, 1881, and died on October 19th, 1936. He was a famous Chinese writer, a thinker and revolutionist. His original name was Zhou Shuren and he was born in a rich and conservative family in Shaoxin, Zhejiang. His literature's backgrounds were focused on the end of the feudalism period. When he was young, he was influenced by the theory of revolution, Nietzsche’s superhuman philosophy and Tolstoy’s universal love thoughts. In 1902, he studied abroad in Japan. He studied medicine in Xiantai Medical School. However, he didn't become a doctor after he went back to China. He was influenced by different ideas and social backgrounds, which made him give up being a doctor and determine to be engaged in the literature work. Between 1905 and 1907, he participated in the revolutionary party. During his lifetime, he published many literature works that affected the Chinese people and the people in the world. Thus people gave him an honorable nickname as the "Father of Modern Chinese Literature".
Lu Xun was one of the greatest writers in China during 1880 to 1940. In this period, China was in the period of revolution. This special historical background made Lu Xun acquire many positive ideas which had been shared by the Chinese. At that time, the government was corrupted. Hence, he wrote many articles and fictions to reflect the society of that age. Therefore, the themes of his books are all around depravation. His most famous books are Outcry, Wandering, Diary of a Madman and Dawn Blossoms Plucked at Dust, etc. During his lifetime, he wrote a lot of literature works which were more than 29 kinds. He died in Shanghai at the age of fifth-four.
A famous writer at the same period ------ Lao She said: “Lu Xun was good at not only the modern literature but also the classic literature. His poetry was very good, but
he was not belonging to any kinds of old times. He had his own way and style. He was interested in everything, no matter the new or the old things. He could make the judgment anytime when he studies.”(Meizi, 2006)
Moreover, the first Chairman of China, Mao Zedong spoke highly of him, too. He said: “Lu Xun is the one of the greates t people of our time and he is also a great person of new China just the same as that Confucius is a great person of ancient China.” (Han Shishan, 2006)
B. Brief Introduction about Liang Shiqiu
Liang Shiqiu, whose original name was Liang Zhihua, was born on December 8, 1902, Beijing, and died on November 3, 1987, Taibei, Taiwan, He is a prominent essayist and translator, the first person who translated The Works of Shakespeare from English into Chinese. He attended the University of Colorado as a senior and then made research at Harvard and Columbia. At Harvard, where he was influenced by the critic Irving Babbitt, he wrote a paper in which he outlined the romantic essences of modern Chinese literature and suggested that Chinese literature should borrow from the forms of Western literature. Later he expanded these ideas into a book entitled The Romantic and The Classic.
By the time he returned to China in 1926, Liang Shiqiu felt strongly about the aesthetic and independent purposes of literary creation; and thus he was denounced by left-wing writers who favored a more political approach to literature.He and other like-minded writers, including Hu Shi and Xu Zhimo,founded the Crescent Moon Society in 1927 and published their ideas in the journal Xinyue(“Crescent”). Liang Shiqiu taught English literature at Peking University (1934–1937) and worked on his translation of The Works of Shakespeare into vernacular Chinese which was completed it in 1967. He began his prose writing in 1940, which was during the Sino-Japanese War. A collection of his essays,Yashe Works(translated as Sketches of a Cottager), was published in 1949 and has been reprinted more than 50 times. When the communists took control of China in 1949, he moved to Taiwan.
In addition to his many critical works and his rendition of Shakespeare, Liang Shiqiu produced a number of other excellent translations, such as,Héloïse’s Love Letters, Peter Pan, and Wuthering Heights. He also wrote The History of British Literature in Chinese and compiled several dictionaries both from Chinese into English and vice versa.
Liang Shiqiu was a literary critic known for his devastating critique of modern romantic Chinese literature and for his insistence on the aesthetic. Literary historians remembered h im chiefly for his conservative leaning and the famous “war of words” with Lu Xun, the acknowledged leader of leftist writers. Liang Shiqiu has contributed a lot to the history of Chinese translation, too.
Liang Shiqiu was younger than Lu Xun. At that time he was only 24 years old and he just came from America as an unknown person. There were few people who knew him. However, he refuted Lu Xun's translation theory strongly and definitely. Therefore, between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqou, there broke out a dispute on translation criteria.
II. The Dispute Between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu In 1930s
A. The Background of the Dispute
Yan Fu's translation criteria ------ “Faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance” has been regarded as the standard translation criteria all the time, but there were still many people who held different views about it. At the very beginning, these people just expressed their own views about translation and did not bring about dispute. Later, more and more people took an active part in expressing their opinions, and then the dispute broke out and reached its climax in 1930s.
Liang Shiqiu wrote an article named "On Lu Xun's 'hard translation'" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999) and he published it on Crescent, which initiated the dispute. Later, Zhao Jingshen advocated his view about translation, that was, "It is better to have a smooth version than a faithful one" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999). Then, Lu
Xun refuted it as “Rather to be faithful (in thought) than smooth (in language)” (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999). Qu Qiubai not only supported Lu Xun but also put forward the principle of "the correct translation should be done with vernacular" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999).
In the article "On Lu Xun's 'hard translation'" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999), Liang Shiqiu pointed out that the structure of some sentences which were translated by Lu Xun were complicated and hard to understand. He criticized Lu Xun’s ‘hard translation as the ‘dead translation’, which should be read only with extending fingers for seeking the clue of the syntax position. In Liang Shiqiu's opinion, this kind of translation was the worst translation. At the same time, Zhao Jingshen also opposed Lu Xun's translation criteria and maintained that "It is better to have a smooth version than a faithful one" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999).At once, Lu Xun wrote many articles with pungent words, such as "Hard translation and the Class Character of Literature", "Several Flowing Translations”etc. He refuted Liang Shiqiu and Zhao Jingshen's propositions on translation and he also proposed his own translation criteria, which was “Rather to be faithful (in thought) than smooth (in language)”.
Here, the author has to mention a person and he is Qu Qiubai. He had once written a letter to Lu Xun and signed his name as J.K in that letter. He congratulated the publication of "Destroy" at first. Meanwhile, he also praised Lu Xun for his faithful translation, criticized Liang Shiqiu and Zhao Jingshen’s translation theory. Qu Qiubai said: “The modern language in China is poor and much of the vernacular was created from the translation"(Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999). At the same time，he objected to Lu Xun's view of translation. He said: “Translation should introduce the original idea of the original text to Chinese readers totally. To make the concept that Chinese readers receive equal to the concept that readers acquire in Great Britain, Russia, Japan, Germany and France ......"(Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999).
While correcting Lu Xun's "lumpy", Qu Qiubai pointed out that his "smooth" translation meant to use "vernacular". Like Qu Qiubai, Lu Xun thought that Chinese language had problematic syntax and should absorb from the foreign syntax for improvement. However,Qu Qiubai thought that “it was very important to absorb the
foreign syntax and formed Chinese own syntax. Only if the unusual sentences were smooth, they could be introduced into Chinese and fully mixed with the Chinese language. If they were not, it was an irresponsible attitude for the readers" (Guo Zhuzhang, P193, 1999). Qu Qiubai’s opinion was the same as Lu Xun’s to some extent.
As regard to Lu Xun's "Europeanization", Liang Shiqiu offered sharp opposition by “Answering Mr. Lu Xun" (Li Zhao, P224, 1997) and "A letter about translation"(Guo Zhuzhang, P194, 1999,). Ye Gongchao also published many articles on “Crescent” (Guo Zhuzhang, P194, 1999) to criticize Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai. He said: “The western languages and Chinese language have their own features. It is wrong to think one is better than another and it is important to find the comparison." (Guo Zhuzhang, P194, 1999)
The protagonists of this dispute were Lu Xun, Liang Shiqiu, Qu Qiubai and Ye Gongchao. They participated in the dispute directly. Chen Xiying and Lin Yutan participated in the dispute indirectly, but they also wrote "Talk about translation"(Guo Zhuzhang, P194, 1999). Though Zhao Jingshen participated in the dispute directly, his view was quickly denied by the others.
B. The Main Content of the Dispute
Referred to the dispute of translation criteria in 1930s, it includes four aspects as the follows: 1. Contradiction and Unification between Faithfulness and Expressiveness; 2. Literal Translation and Liberal Translation; 3. Europeanization and Domestication; 4. Repetition. In the following passages, the author makes a brief analysis on them.
a. Contradiction and Unification Between Faithfulness and Expressiveness
T he focus of the dispute was that Liang Shiqiu criticized Lu Xun's ‘hard translation’ and he proposed his own translation theory ------ "It is better to have some faults rather than the 'hard translation'" (Guo Zhuzhang, P195, 1999). Zhao Jingshen,
professo r of Fudan University, declared directly that: “It is better to have a smooth version than a faithful one” ( Guo Zhuzhang, P194, 1999), while Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai refuted the opinion strongly, Lu Xun put forward his view about translation, that is, “Rather to be faithful (in thought) than smooth (in language)”.
In order to enrich China's syntax, Lu Xun proposed it was necessary to transmit the original work faithfully, including the grammar structure of the original text. He thought that only by this way th e target text could keep the ‘foreign flavor’ of the original text. Thus his translation was Europeanized and the ordinary readers couldn’t know well about it
Lu Xun divided the readers into three kinds: the first were those who were educated; the second were those who were literate; the third were those who were illiterate. He excluded the third group of readers from his readers. His translation work was only for the readers of the first type. He thought that when the first type of readers accepted his translation habitually, with the time passing on these kinds of translations would become natural to them.
It seemed that Lu Xun’s “faithfulness” also included the elements of expressiveness. If his smoothness was taken as expressiveness, his opinion was obviously irresponsible for the readers. Qu Qiubai not only disagreed with Lu Xun's "Rather be faithful than smooth" but also disagreed with Zhao Jingshen's "It is better to have a smooth version than a faithful one". Here, it seemed that Qu Qiubai regarded Lu Xun's "lumpy" as "expressiveness". However, he thought that only "vernacular" could achieve the "smoothness" and "expressiveness" (Guo Zhuzhang, P195, 1999).
In the view of the readers, Liang Shiqiu and Zhao Jingshen put much emphasis on "expressivene ss”. However, this doesn’t mean they gave up the "faithfulness". They just put the "expressiveness" in the first place and the "faithfulness" the second, which means that the “expressiveness” is more important than “faithfulness” in some respects.
In fact, Liang Shiqiu was famous for "faithfulness" and the principle of his translation was "to keep loyal to the original text". Furthermore, he paid much
attention to "expressiveness" too. Therefore, when he criticized Lu Xun, he said: “Translation should be lo yal to the original text. If the translation not only re-express the meaning to the original text but also was faithful to the "tone", such kind of translation must be the best translation. Sometimes even though the translation can make the readers understand but the translators have misinterpreted the original text, then this kind of translators were intolerable.”(Guo Zhuzhang, P195, 1999) In Ye Gongchao's opinion, Zhao Jingshen and Lu Xun were both right, which seemed that "faithfulness" and "expressiveness" were a whole and that they couldn't be detached.
Lu Xun insisted on faithfulness, while Liang Shiqiu insisted on expressiveness. They are both right, but “faithfulness” and “Expressiveness” should be taken as a whole unit. If they are combined together, this kind of translation is the best one.
b. Literal Translation and Liberal Translation
Many people emphasized the importance of "faithfulness" and this kind of translation belonged to the literal translation, Therefore, Lu Xun's "hard translation" was taken as the literal translation which focused on the translation word by word and sentence by sentence.
The battle between "literal translation" and "liberal translation" had come into being for a long time. It reached its peak in the dispute in the 1930s, too. Lu Xun thought China had problematic syntax and he advocated the "literal translation", but as a matter of fact his so-called "literal translation" also had the existence of "liberal translation". For example, he translated "kneel at knee" into "跪下" and never translated it into "跪在膝盖上". Another example was "the milky way". He translated it into "天河" but Zhao Jingshen has translated it into "牛奶路", which was proved much better later.
Zhao Jingshen maintained that "expressiveness" should come first, while "faithfulness" the second. Obviously, he put "liberal translation" in the first place. Just the same as Liang Shiqiu, most of his translation works were only for the common readers and his view on translation was based on the foundation of the reader's ability.
Though Liang Shiqiu criticized Lu Xun’s “hard translation”, he didn’t recommended "liberal translation" openly. In fact, the vast majority of his translation appeared in the form of literal translation. Liang Shiqiu thought: “Bad translation" should include the following three conditions: 1. Do not conform to the meaning of the original text; 2. Unable to convey the “tone” of the original text; 3. Unable to make the readers understand the translation. (Guo Zhuzhang, P197, 1999) As regards to the literal translation and liberal translation, Chen Xiying's views were completely different from the others. He agreed to neither literal translation nor liberal translation. He held his own opinion and he said: " ‘liberal translation’ which was equal to ‘paraphrase’ in English did not mean "translation", while the English name of “直译” is "literal translation". The great success of translation was to convey the original meaning of the original text in the target text.It is required not to add or delete something from the original text."(Guo Zhuzhang, P197, 1999) He criticized the "literal translation and "liberal translation. He thought that the ideal translation was the translation which could transmit the "verve" of the original text Lin Yutan did not agree to the statement of "literal translation" and "liberal translation" either. He thought the denomination of the literal translation and liberal translation was improper. He gave an explicit explanation in his article "talking about translation" about the view (Guo Zhuzhang, P197, 1999).
Lu Xun insisted on the “literal translation”, while Liang Shiqiu persisted in the “liberal translation”. Here, the author would like to point out that “literal translation” and “liberal translation” can be combined harmon iously, even though sometimes Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu themselves avoidably associate with these two kinds of ways together.
c. Europeanization and Domestication
Lu Xun insisted on "rather to be faithful (in thought) than smooth (in language)”. He said: “There was something wrong with China's syntax, which was not accurate enough and sometimes incapable of transmitting some exquisite concepts precisely.” (Guo Zhuzhang, P197, 1999) Thus he maintained that it was necessary to introduce
the Europeanized structure in the original text into Chinese language.
To some extent, even though Qu Qiubai agreed with Lu Xun’s view, he also put forward that it was better to write and translate with vernacular. Qu Qiubai and Lu Xun disagreed with each other. Lu Xun didn’t agree with Qu Qiubai's "pure standard theory of vernacular", while Qu Qiubai didn’t agree to Lu Xun's "lumpy" either.
In terms of improving Chinese syntax, Lu Xun didn’t completely deny the Yan Fu’s translation criteria. However, he also knew that it was not so easy to improve the Chinese only by introducing Europeanized syntax. Lin Yutang said: “No matter what kind of language it was, it was lumpy before nationalization and should not be excluded from the translation.” (Guo Zhuzhang, P198, 1999)
Qu Qiubai held his extreme view; he said: “The speech of China was so poor; even some daily words were anonymous. And we just express them with gestures, it seemed that our Chinese language couldn’t break away from the "gestures" ------ daily life couldn't go on wit hout “gestures”, which is the same as that fish could not live without water. Naturally, there were not adjectives, verbs and prepositions in Chinese and that is why they couldn’t express the complicate and exquisite matters.”(Guo Zhuzhang, P198, 1999)
It is difficult to domesticate the Europeanized syntax. Each language has its own characteristic. Moreover, the development of the language does not merely depend on borrowing the foreign words and on the contrary it needs a long and complicated course for improvement.
Lu Xun’s Europeanization and Liang Shiqiu’s Domestication were both right, but if the “Europeanization” and “Domestication” can be combined together and then this kind of translation may be the best one.
d. Repetition
The fourth aspect of the dispute was related to the repetition. When Liang Shiqiu criticized Lu Xun's "hard translation", he also pointed out the reasons which made his translation works difficult to understand. Most of Lu Xun's translation works were not based on the original text; he just translated from the other translated versions. Liang
Shiqiu called this kind of translation as "retranslation", but Lu Xun and Zheng Zhenduo called it as "repetition". Liang Shiqiu said: "It was not a good way to retranslate those works with literary meaning. No matter how excellent a translator was, when his translation version was compared with the original work, it was found that the flavor had been changed a lot." (Guo Zhuzhang, P198, 1999) Though Liang Shiqiu didn’t recommend retranslation,sometimes he himself unavoidably adopted this kind of translation. For example, he has translated The Love Letters of the monk Peter Abelard to Heloise, which was translated form English and the original text was Latin. Lu Xun expressed his own view on retranslation, too. He said: “It is easier for translators to translate with conversion rather than literal translation”. (Guo Zhuzhang, P200, 1999)
III. The Significance of the Dispute
Nowadays when we people rethink this dispute, it is found that the dispute has great realistic significance in translation circle. These translators’ translation theories and practical experiences were invaluable. The following part talks about the significance of the dispute in 1930s.
Firstly, the dispute promotes the “re-c ognition” of translation criteria. Yan Fu’s translation theory was faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance, which has been considered as the criteria of translation for many years. It is correct that Lu Xun gives priority to faithfulness, but “expressiveness” should not be ignored, either.The translators should be responsible for the readers. Their translation works should be based on the foundation of the loyalty to the original text. At the same time, they should strengthen the readability of the translation works. As Regards to Yan Fu’s"elegance", there are many people who held different opinions. In the author’s own opinion, the translation should not only keep the style of the original text but also be based on “faithfulness” and “expressiveness”. As for “literal translation” and “liberal translation”, they were indeed a unit which couldn't be detached. Different
styles of the original text should emphasize particularly on different points of the "literal translation" and "liberal translation". The translators should combine them together. If the translation method helps to re-appear the style of the original text accurately and vividly, this kind of translation method is the best one. While referred to the language of the translation, it is possible to borrow some Europeanized syntax properly to enrich Chinese step by step.
Secondly, the dispute helps strengthen the research about translation. The research about translation should be deep, careful and specialized. It is better not to draw a conclusion hurriedly. Meanwhile, it is required to learn and preserve the achievements and experiences that the ancestors have made before. Taking the dispute in 1930s as an example, for various reasons, a lot of translators who had contributed a lot to the history of translation were ignored in the past, some of them were even misunderstood. Liang Shiqiu is the best example. Liang was the first person to translate The Works of Shakespeare into Chinese. In addition, he had translated more than ten kinds of other famous literary works. However, when he was mentioned, people just gave him the misjudgment and forgot his contribution. Chen Xiying and Zhao Jingshen had translated much excellent works before liberation, too. Lu Xun, the father of modern Chinese literature, tills now there is still no thorough and complete study on him. Therefore, it was very important to compare their theories of translation and learn more merits from them. Both of Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu contributed a lot to the cause of translation. They are worthy of being researched with their theories and ideas. Only in this way, it is possible to make great progress in translation and transmit the experiences and fruits from one generation to another.
Thirdly, the dispute promotes the criticism of the contemporary translation. All the colleagues in translation circle should unite together. They should communicate with each other and learn from the foreign constantly. Only in this way, it is possible to enrich and improve Chinese own translation theory. Meanwhile, it is required to publicize the excellent translation works and support new talents. The criticism of translation works should be strengthened, especially for those translations of masterpieces. As for those translated works, it is possible to re-translate them if。