梁社乾英译鲁迅小说《阿Q正传》之描述性研究（上）
在民国时期的文化生产场域中，存在着一个由出发文化（即中国本土）发起的中国文学外语翻译子场域。这一有趣的翻译现象挑战了吉登·图里的理论假设即“翻译是目标文化的既成事实”，但目前国内外学界对此翻译史事件仍研究不足。本文运用布迪厄的社会学理论和描述性翻译研究理论，对梁社乾英译鲁迅小说《阿Q正传》进行案例分析，旨在揭示这个子场域的存在、动因及其运作机制。根据布迪厄的文化生产场域理论，在以上场域中，面向国内读者的外国文学作品汉译构成一个“大规模翻译生产子场域”，面向一个小得多的读者群（在华外国人和国内外语学习者）的中国文学外语译本则构成一个“有限制的翻译生产子场域”。后者的运作主要依赖符号资本的累积。通过梳理梁社乾的生平经历，考察了他如何参与历史场域的动态发展，接着分析了他翻译《阿Q正传》的动机——在场域内为他自己挣得名声或积累符号资本。文本分析显示，梁译总体上亦步亦趋紧贴原文，采用僵硬的直译，但对原文也偶有增删改易。从勒弗维尔的重写理论视角看，梁社乾采用的直译策略受制于目标读者和二十年代中国主流的翻译规范（即直译），他对原文的增删改易则受到意识形态、诗学和审美观的影响。梁译本具有翻译史地位，不仅因为它是《阿Q正传》首个英译本，更因为它曾流布较广，为鲁迅很早就赢得了国际声誉。本案例研究结果显示：民国时期由出发文化发起的中国文学外语翻译项目通常旨在中国的社会政治场域中积累符号资本或寻求文化荣耀。
Gideon Toury’s target-oriented approach to studying literary translations is based on hisgenerally held assumption that “translations are facts of target cultures”(Toury, 1995:29). That is, translations are, as a rule, initiated and produced in the target culture with a readership in that culture in mind. This paper, however, presents an exceptional case which challenges the above assumption. It indicates that in mid-Republican years (1920s-1930s) some foreign-language translations of Chinese literature were actually initiated and produced in China, i.e. the source culture, intended for both foreign nationals in China and bilingual Chinese readers.Translations of this nature include those done into English, French, German, Russian and Japanese,but translations into English -- the most important foreign language at the time -- undoubtedly outnumbered those worked into the other languages. And the latter was often targeted chiefly at expatriate audiences. Hence, this paper isfocused on English translations of Chinese literature produced in the Republican period. The case under study is the first English version of AQ Zhengzhuan [The True Story of Ah Q], the internationally famed novella by Lu Xun 鲁迅(1881-1936) who is generally recognized as the “father of modernChinese literature.” The translator is Chinese-American George Kin Leung梁社乾 (1899-1977), and the publisher is the Shanghai-based Commercial Press 商务印书馆.As Chang (2015: 97) has argued, Toury’s above assumption is obviously not “entirely valid” because it is doubtful whether such source culture-initiated foreign-language translations of Chineseliterature published by Chinese publishers “are really intended tofunction in the target culture.”
While Leung’s rendering epitomizes translations of this nature (analyzed below by drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of the field of cultural production), the case itself is unique in terms of Leung’s personal ideology and poetics as well as the circumstances of the translation and publication. All these socio-cultural and personal factors determined the shape of Leung’s translation, which will be analyzed with reference to the notion of “initial norm.”According to Toury, theinitial norm governs the translator’s basic choice between two polar alternatives regarding the translation’s overall orientation: adequacy (adherence to the norms of the original text and those of the source language and culture) and acceptability (adherence to the norms of the target languageand culture). However, no translation is entirely adequate or acceptable since “even the most adequacy-oriented translation involves shifts from thesource text” (Toury, 1995: 56-57).
Another useful analytical tool is found in Lefevere’s theory of rewriting. According to Lefevere, there are two control mechanisms which operate within and outside the literary system. The internal factor, represented by professionals like literary critics, reviewers, editors, translators, tries tocontrol the literary system from the inside within the parameters set by the external factor which he calls “patronage.”The professionals tend to “rewrite” literary works until they are deemed acceptable to the poetics (the dominant concept of what literature should be) and the ideology (the dominant concept ofwhat society should be) of a certain time and place. However, the actions of the professionals are constrained by their patrons (powerful persons, publishers, the media, etc.) because the patron ensures that the professional can make a living and maintain their social status. The patron isusually more concerned about the ideology of literature than its poetics and therefore tends to relegate authority to the professional where poetics is concerned (Lefevere, 1992: 14-16). Accordingly, the shape of a translation is often determined by two factors: “the translator’s ideology … and the poetics dominant in the receiving literature at the time the translation is made.” However, “the ideology dictates the basic strategy the translatoris going to use …”(Lefevere, 1992: 41) It follows that the translator may choose either to embrace the poetics dominant in the target culture or embody his personal poetics in the translation.
Owingto his international stature, English translations of Lu Xun’s works have been studied actively in China in the recent years. But Leung’s pioneeringtranslation has hitherto remained under-researched probably for three reasons: as a product of the source culture it is often dismissed as insignificant; itreads awkwardly owing to the literalistic approach adopted by Leung; the translation is now hard to obtain and it is difficult for the researcher to obtain essential source material. The present author argues that Leung’s translation merits study not justfor its historical significance, but also because it can shed light on the dynamics of the sub-field of source culture-initiated foreign language translations of Chinese literature in Republican China. More specifically, it raises the following questions:
(1)Why did this sub-field emerge in Republican China? On what basis did it operate? What was Leung’s position in this sub-field?
(2)Why was Leung chosen as Lu Xun’s translator? What motivated Leung to translate Lu Xun’s novella?
(3)What is the shape of Leung’s translation? What personal and socio-political factors internal to Chinese culture determined its textual features?
(4)How was Leung’s translation received? How should we evaluate Leung’s translation in particular and source culture-initiated foreign language translations of Chinese literature in general?
This paper attempts to answer these questions by examining Leung’s translation through an analysis of both the translated text and the socio-cultural context in which it was made.
II. George Kin Leungand the Sub-Field of Source Culture-Initiated Foreign-language Translations of Chinese Literature in Republican China
George Kin Leungat the West Lake in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, in 1925
Courtesy of Mr. Richard Chan Bing
Even today we have only limited knowledge about Leung available from anentry in the biographical dictionary Who’s Who in China (Anonymous, 1936) and abiographical sketch published in the Shanghai-based British-run China Journal (Anonymous, 1941).The two sources contain roughly the same information about Leung. Ge Baoquan 戈宝权 provides slightly more information, but the biographical sketchhe gives is based on the Who’s Who in Chinaentry, which is fragmentary and even inaccurate. For instance, it saysthat Leung “was born in 1889”and he finished high school “in June 1918.” There must be a factual error here as a normal student cannot finishhigh school at the age of thirty! And Ge Baoquan’s information goes only as faras the year 1937 as he declares, “No materials are currently available to help us trace Leung’swhereabouts after the second Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937” (Ge Baoquan,1981: 24). Fortunately, in early 2015, the present author was contacted viaEmail by Leung’s nephew, Mr. Richard Chan Bing, now living in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A. With the photos of and more biographical information about Leung sent to the author by Mr. Chan, it is now possible to piece together Leung’s life history, though itis still sketchy.
George Kin Leung is best known in the 1920s-1930s as “an authority on the traditional dramatic art of China and its modern exponents” (Anonymous,1929).On July 17, 1899, he was born in Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S.A., to Joe Hing Leung and Mamie Chan Bing, both immigrants from Hong Kong. His father, a native of Xinhui Districtin Guangdong广东新会,was for a time engaged in importand export business in Atlantic City. After finishing high school in Atlantic City in 1918, George went to college somewhere in California and later on studied dramaand music in New York City.His interest in the theater and the beauty of nature would endure throughout his lifetime. After his father died and his mother remarried, George moved to China in the early 1920s with his father’s inheritance. While in China, he did not keep a regular job andled a wanderer’s life, living in several cities -- Beijing,Shanghai, Hangzhou, andGuangzhou. Apparently out of admiration for Su Manshu 苏曼殊 (1884-1918), the romantic Buddhist-monk translator and writer who was born in Japan and lived a floating life, Leung translated Su’s most famous novella Duanhong Lingyan Ji 断鸿零雁记 (written in classical Chinese) into English. According to Liu Wu-Chi, it is arguably “a major Chinese novel [sic] of love after Dream of the Red Chamber [红楼梦]” and its popularity continued in the 1920s and1930s (Liu, 1972: 94-96). Leung’s translation, entitled The Lone Swan, was published by the Commercial Press in 1924.Then Leung turned to Lu Xun’s novella written in vernacular Chinese. His translation was brought out in October 1926 by the same publisher. This marked the end of Leung’s enterprise oftranslating Chinese literature as subsequently he devoted himself to the Chinese theater, which remained his lifelong pursuit. He wrote on suchtopics as Peking opera, Cantonese plays and the modern spoken drama,and his articles appeared in a number of Chinese, British and American journals. In 1929, to prepare for Mei Lanfang’s 梅兰芳 American tour, the Commercial Press published Mei Lan-fang: Foremost Actor of China and Repertoire for the American Tour of Mei Lan-fang, both of which Leung compiled and translated into English.The two books “were instrumental in introducing the art of the actor to the American public on his tour and aroused a wide interest in the Chinese theater” (Anonymous, 1936). And Mei’s performances in New York and Washington D.C. in the spring of 1930 were “widely acclaimed” by both dramacritics and theater goers (Anonymous, 1931). The biography of Mei Lanfang established Leung’s reputationas “arecognized authority on the Chinese stage” (B. G., 1930: 613). Between 1930 and 1937 Leung lived with several servants in the famous Ban Mou Yuan 半亩园[Half-acre Garden] in Beijing (Bodde, 1951:282).
With the unrest from Japanese invasion of China, Leung returned to the U.S. in September 1937 –he first lived in Washington D.C. and later moved to New York City. He lectured on traditional Chinese theater at Cornell University and Yale University. In 1940-1941 he published in the New York Times five articles on Chinese gardens and gardening. He performed at the Phillips Collection (a museum in Washington D.C.) in the late 1940s.Later in his life he was employed as a translator for the City of NewYork, interpreting for Chinese immigrants who could not speak English in the court.Leung never married or fathered any children. He died in New York on January 11, 1977.
Leung’s case indicates that there existed a sub-field of source culture-initiated foreign language translations of Chinese literature in Republican China,though translation into Chinese was undoubtedly the mainstream practice in this transitional period (Hung and Pollard, 2009: 376). According to Bourdieu, the structure of the fieldof cultural production is based on “two fundamental and quite different oppositions”: first, the opposition between “the sub-field of restricted production and the sub-field of large-scale production, i.e. between two economies, two time-scales, two audiences,” and secondly, “the opposition within the sub-field of restricted production” (Bourdieu, 1993: 53).Bourdieu’s theory leads us to posit that in Republican China Chinese translations of foreign literatures targeted at the Chinese reading public constituted a sub-field of large-scale production while foreign-language translations of Chinese literature intended for a much smaller audience can be construed as a sub-field of restricted production. Furthermore, withinthe sub-field of restricted production itself, we can further distinguish translations targeted at audiences in foreign countries from those intended for both expatriate and domestic readers in China. The former is exemplified by Edgar Snow and Yao Ke’s 姚克 cooperative effort Living China: Modern Chinese Short Stories published in London in 1936 and in New York the following year. As for the latter, another notable case is Lin Yutang’s English version of Fusheng Liuji 浮生六记[Six Chapters of a Floating Life], an autobiographical prose work by the early Qing author Shen Fu 沈复(1763-1825). Lin’s translation was serialized in two Shanghai-based English-language magazines before being published in a bilingual format by the Hsi Feng Press 西风社 in Shanghaiin 1939. According to Bourdieu, while the functioning of the sub-field of large-scale production is ruled by the laws of the market, i.e. economic profit-driven, the sub-field of restricted production operates on the basis of the “accumulation of symbolic capital,” i.e. a recognized, legitimate “credit” which under certain conditions, often in the long run, guarantees economic profits. Accordingly, all the participants in this sub-field -- authors,critics, translators, publishers, etc. -- strive for “making a name” for themselves,for a “capital of consecration” implying a power to consecrate literary works or authors, translators,and critics (Bourdieu, 1993: 53). It can therefore be argued that, for translators born with a Chinese culture identity like Lin Yutang and George KinLeung, their translation practices were intended mainly to accumulate symbolic capital in the field or in certain cases to seek cultural honor in the Chinese context.
The emergence in Republican China of a sub-field of source culture-initiated English translations of Chinese literatureis a significant socio-cultural event, which has hitherto been under-researchedin and outside of China. Several socio-cultural factors contributed to its emergence.Firstly, there was an urge within Chinese society itself to introduce Chinese literature and culture to the outside world. After the doors of the Qing Empirewere forced open by the Western powers in the 1860s, there emerged in early Republican China a new generation of modern Chinese intellectuals who had either studied abroad or attended missionary schools in China. Well conversant with Western languages and cultures, they were both eager and able to interpret Chinese culture for Western readers. Pioneers like Su Manshu and GuHongming 辜鸿铭(1857-1928) had already cometo the fore around the turn of the century, but it was not until the 1930s that “the traffic in this direction were of any consequence” (Hung and Pollard,2009: 376). Their translation endeavors, together with the internationalist English periodicals they edited and contributed to,constituted a “transnational and translational cultural front” intended “to advance the agenda of internationalism” (Shen, 2009: 96,99).
Secondly,there was a niche market for such translations in Republican China. On one hand, some foreign residents in treaty-port cities (e.g. Shanghai, Tianjin and Beijing) were interested in reading translated Chinese literature to learn about Chinese culture and society. On the other hand, a rapidly expanding domestic readership was in need of such translations as language learning materials, indicating that “these translations are done from the source culture to the source culture” (Harman, 2006: 15). The latter is testified to by the fact that the Commercial Press published many Chinese-English literary translations in a bilingual format, so that it “contributed to the spread of English in Chinese education and publiclife”(Shen, 2009:12). According to a recent study, a domestic English-reading population increased rapidly in the early Republican period (roughly 1911-1927) when English became a de facto auxiliary language along with Guoyu (“national language”). In fact, both languages functioned as “forms of cultural capital”for those aspiring bourgeois, cosmopolitan Chinese learners (Hill, 2011: 128, 131).
Thirdly,an English-language periodical publishing industry flourished in treaty-portcities, especially Shanghai, in the Republican period. This was made possiblenot only because there was a large audience receptive to such publications, but also because at that time “the Chinese government’s control over the press (in any language) was weak” (Wagner, 2012). According to Gibbs and Li (1975), the works of at least thirty modern Chinese writers were translated into English between1919 and 1949, and many of these translations first appeared in a handful of Shanghai-based internationalist English periodicals, including China Forum (1932-1934), People’s Tribune民众论坛(1931-1942), T’ien Hsia Monthly天下月刊 (1935-1941), and China Journalof Science & Arts(1923-1941). These publications served as an important channel through which English translation of modern Chinese literature could reach their audiences.
Finally, there was a cohort of competent translators who were ready andwilling to undertake the job, either to pursue the agenda of internationalism or out of economic necessity or for both. Most of them were either returnees whohad been trained in Europe or the United Statesor both (e.g. Lin Yutang) or graduates of missionary schools in China (e.g. Yao Ke of St. John’s University in Shanghai) while some translators were foreign nationals (e.g. Edgar Snow) or overseas Chinese (e.g. George Kin Leung) who happened to be working or residing in China. As Eva Hung has pointed out, these people were often in a unique position to make acquaintance with modern Chinese writers whose works appealed to them and to offer their service as translator. “With the translator as key figure working closely with the author, this should be anideal situation” (Hung, 1991: 41). However, as will be analyzed below, the circumstances of the translator’s working with the author are not always “ideal,” but in certaincases could produce negative effects on the translation.
To sum up, the socio-cultural conditions in early Republican China nurtured a sub-field of source culture-initiated foreign language translations of modern Chinese literature. The functioning of the sub-field was instrumental in advancing the agenda of internationalism and introducing modern Chinese literature to a foreign readership. Credited with the first English translations of both Lu Xun’s and Su Manshu’sfictional masterpiece, Leung is indisputably a key contributor to this sub-field. Regrettably, his interest soon switched to Chinese drama which can be construed as another sub-field of limited cultural production. It was in this field that Leung as a dominant agent in the 1920s-1930s played a moreimportant part.
Ideally, the work of a literary master like Lu Xun should be placed in the masterly hands of an accomplished translator. Then, why was it an amateur translator like Leung who first tried his hands on A Q Zhengzhuan? The reason was a combination of the socio-cultural milieu and Leung’s personal circumstances, i.e. Leung both chose to and was chosen to translate Lu Xun’snovella. As Edgar Snow (1937: 13) observes, inthe 1920s-1930s most foreigners, including Western sinologists, thought that “there was nothing of muchvalue” in modern Chinese literature. Harold Acton (1935:374-375) also notes that when asked why no Sinologue would translate modern Chinese literature, “the Sinologue will sullenly observe that there is 'an absence of real creative spirit’ in the Chinese literature of today.” It was not until the 1950s that modern Chinese literature began to be seriously studied in European and American academic institutions. Hence, early English and French translations of Lu Xun’s fiction were for the most part producedby native Chinese translators or translatorsof Chinese descent (Eber, 1985: 248). As A Q Zhengzhuan was first published in book form by the Xinchao Press 新潮社in Beijing in 1923, a time when Leung just arrived in China, he becameone of its potential translators. And when his translation The Lone Swanwas successfully published by the Commercial Press the next year, it was only natural that he became the chosen translator for Lu Xun’snovella.
Meanwhile, it was certainly also the translator’s own choice. Firstly, Leung’s linguistic competence in both Chinese and English made him a promising translator from the Chinese. He threw himself into translating Lu Xun’s novella presumably because he found himself fitting for the job. In doing so he tried to convert his linguistic capital into symbolic capital in the Bourdieusian sense. Secondly, translating Lu Xun’s work was probably one of the best ways for him to make a name for himself in the Chinese context. According to Leung, he chose A Q Zhengzhuan for translation because Lu Xun was the “great writerof the modern school” and the novella was “one of the most popular” of Lu Xun’s fiction (Leung, 1926: 93, 96). Hence, offering his service as a translator of Lu Xun’s work could bring him “reflected fame” in Lu Xun’s words, if not commercial success. Thirdly, the novella’s theme, subject matter and style were to his liking. Leung notes that the novella was meant to give voice to one of the illiterate millions “who for more than four thousand years have been almost neglected in what is considered the best of recognized Chinese literature.” The original Chinese moves along “in a rippling, humorous, and distinctive style,”but beneath each wordone can hear “the cry of the poor oppressed rustic and the author’s protest against all sham and petty meanness” (Leung, 1926: vi). Obviously, Leung interpreted the story as one of social protest by giving voice to the poor andthe oppressed. He admired it chiefly because of the spirit of democracy and protest he sensed in the story, though its thrust– the negative depiction and sarcastic critique of the Chinese national character-- may have escaped Leung’s notice. Finally, Leung’s decision to translate Lu Xun’s novella was reinforced by the critical acclaim given to The Lone Swan. Carleton Lacy notes, “Westerners, resident in China, read too little of Chinese literature. Too little of it has been made available [in English].The translator of 'The Lone Swan’ has done a real service in presenting this readable volume of romance mixed with poetry and religion” (Lacy, 1925).Thus encouraged, Leung turned to A Q Zhengzhuan critically acclaimed as “another landmark in literary accomplishment” (Liu, 1972: 96), in hopes that it would help him obtain more symbolic capital.
Leung corresponded with Lu Xun during and after the translation process, though the existing literature indicates that he never met Lu Xun. It is necessary to examine their correspondence because it had potentially significant effects on the literalistic approach to translation which Leung adopted.
The Leung-Lu correspondence is recorded in Lu Xun’s diary, but none of the letters exchanged between them is now extant. Leung notes that his translation was based on the Chinese original contained in the Beixin Book Company’s 北新书局editionof Nahan 呐喊 [Call to Arms] published in May 1924 (Leung, 1926: 96). He completed his draft translation in Shanghaiin the spring of 1925. Then Leung decided that he should write to Lu Xun, who wasthen living in Beijing, toobtain the translation rights and to seek the author’s assistance in clarifying some ambiguities in his understanding of the story. In response, Lu Xun granted him the translation rights, sent him printed matter, including two copies of his novella, and “graciously” answered his “many inquires”(Leung, 1926: vi-vii).Lu Xun received Leung’s first letter on May 2, 1925 via a Commercial Press editor who was probably Zhou Jianren周建人, Lu Xun’s third younger brother(Ge Baoquan, 1981: 20-21). On June 14, 1925, Lu Xun received from Leung a second letter together with the manuscripts of his English translation. In this letter Leung presumably requested the author to peruse his translation and give suggestions for improvement. Lu Xun replied to Leung six days later, sending back what he called the jiaozheng 校正 [revised] version of Leung’s work. But it is highly doubtful that Lu Xun, who according to reliable sources did not know much English (see Zhou Zuoren, 2001:189), could help improve the quality of Leung’s translation. Nevertheless,Lu Xun might have been able to check the English with the Chinese despite his limited knowledge of English. And if he had done that carefully enough, hecould have spotted at least some of the drastic omissions in Leung’s translation. Since all these omissions escaped Lu Xun’s notice, we can assume safely that hedid not read Leung’s translation carefully. Between July 2, 1925 and January 11, 1926 Leung sent Lu Xun four letters, two of which Lu Xun answered. In theseletters they discussed the ambiguities and difficulties Leung ran into while reading the original text. Some of Lu Xun’s replies and explanations were incorporated in the thirteen notes attached to the end of the translation. On December 11,1926 Lu Xun, then teaching at Xiamen University in Fujian, received six copiesof The True Story of Ah Q which Leung sent him from Shanghai. As shown by Lu Xun’s diary, this marks theend of Leung’s brief correspondence with Lu Xun (see Lu Xun, 2005, Vol. 15:563,569-574, 604, 648-649).
Before Leung’s package arrived, the Commercial Press had already sent in three copies of Leung’s translation, which Lu Xun received on November 30. Upon receipt, LuXun gave one copy each to Lin Yutang and Sun Fuyuan 孙伏园 who were proficient in English. Lin and Sun were then working with Lu Xun at Xiamen University, and it was highly likely that they read through the small book and told Lu Xun how they thought about Leung’s translation. On December 3, three days after receiving the books from the publisher, Lu Xun wrote to his common-law wife Xu Guangping 许广平: “The English version of A Q Zhengzhuan has just come out. It appears that on the whole the translation is not bad, though it contains a number of minor errors” (Lu Xun, 2005, Vol. 11: 233). On the same day Lu Xun wrote his oft-quoted article “A Q Zhengzhuan de chengyin”《阿Q正传》的成因 [How Was A Q Zhengzhuan Written], in which he commented on his novella’s earliest English and French versions rendered by Jing Yinyu 敬隐渔:
The French version, which appeared in the August issue of Europe, is only one-third of the original, so it was apparently abridged. It seems that the English version was done in a very serious and earnest manner, but as I know little English I can hardly comment. Yet still I chanced upon two places which I think deserve further discussion. (Lu Xun, 2005, Vol. 3: 400)
The original words which Lu Xun used to comment on Leung’sversion were hen kenqie 很恳切, meaning literally “very serious and earnest.” This should be understood as passing a general comment on Leung’s attitude towards his work rather than on the translation itself. Lu Xun was apparently displeased with Jing Yinyu for truncating his story and hepraised Leung for treating it seriously and earnestly. But did Leung really translate in such a manner as Lu Xun thought? Did he grant himself some license when treating certain aspects of the Chinese original which he found ideologically unacceptable or artistically imperfect? We shall find the answers in the following section.
说明：原载A&HCI收录捷克汉学名刊《东方学文献》（Archiv Orientální）2017年第2期（9月30日出版）。因原文篇幅较长，稍有删削。这是第一部分。