The relationship between the author and the translator from the perspective of power of tenor of discourse: a case study of the peritexts of the translations of Mengzi

5.1.1. The equality in the title

Equality between the author and the translator can be firstly illustrated in the title of a translation. The title of a literary work is usually determined by the author after deep thinking and repeated scrutiny. It customarily comprises a limited number of words, yet makes a highly condensed summary of the work and contains abundant associative meanings. Consequently, the translator can be exempt from the restrictions of the original title and names his/her own translation according to the theme of the original. For example, when the Russian novel Как Закалялась Сталь was translated into Chinese, the translator did not render it freely but followed the literal meaning of the title and translated it as 钢铁是怎样炼成的 (gangtie shi zenyang lian cheng de: How was the steel tempered?). Its English title, by contrast, was The Making of a Hero, which apparently was based on the theme of the novel rather than the literal meaning of the original title. Strictly speaking, this English title is not a translated, but a new name given by the translator.

As for traditional Chinese classics, the equality is primarily reflected in the subtitle. When translating the title of a Confucian classic, the translator usually transliterates it or renders it according to its literal meaning. For example, the Chinese title 孟子 is either transliterated into Mengzi, or Mencius, or translated into “The Works of Mencius”, or “The Sayings of Mencius”. In addition, a subtitle may be added in some versions, such as “A New Translation” in “The Sayings of Mencius: A New Translation”, and “A New Translation Arranged and Annotated for the General Reader” in “Mencius: A New Translation Arranged and Annotated for the General Reader”. In Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, “subtitle” is defined as “an additional title that appears after the main title of a piece of writing such as a book, song, or play, and gives extra information” (2003, 1433). As for a translated work, its subtitle provides the extra information that mainly reveals “the features or main focuses of the translation” (Huang 2011). Accordingly, only with a quick glance at the subtitle, some attentive readers may instantly learn the features or main focuses of the translation, feel the presence of the translator and realize his/her translation purpose and strategy. In addition, the subtitle of a translation indicates that the translator has the right to title his translation according to its features, just as the author has the right to title his work according to its contents. Thus from this perspective, both the author and the translator enjoy the same status, for they have equal right to title their respective works.

For example, when turning over the cover page of Van Norden’s version, some careful readers who have ever read other English versions may perceive the particular features of this translation by a glimpse of the subtitle “With Selections from Traditional Commentaries”. This subtitle means that there are some traditional Chinese commentaries in the translated work. Such commentaries do not exist in the original work and are also rarely seen in other English versions. With the subtitle, Van Norden indicates the philosophical style of his translation, as Philip J. Ivanhoe remarks, “This is the most accurate, readable, and philosophically revealing version of the Mengzi available” (Van Norden 2008, back cover). Moreover, with the subtitle, Van Norden reveals one of his translation purposes, viz., to make the reader understand Mengzi with the assistance of traditional commentaries, as he (2008, xiv) points out, “even a text like the Mengzi, which often speaks in terms that a person in any era or culture could appreciate, sometimes cries out for philosophical commentary”.

Another convincing example can be seen in the subtitle of Dobson’s version, namely, “A New Translation Arranged and Annotated for the General Reader”. When taking a brief glance at it, some perceptible readers may realize the main features of the translation, i.e., the rearrangement in the organization of the source text and the annotations provided for the general reader; some inquisitive readers may have some doubts in mind, and for example, why is it arranged and annotated for the general reader? With such doubts in mind, they may infer that the original is incoherent and abstruse. And they can find that their inferences are correct when reading Dobson’s introduction⁹. Thus, it can be seen that only by reading the subtitle can some readers easily identify the translation features and purposes of a version.

5.1.2. The equality in the structure

The other aspect of equality is mainly manifested in the structural organization of a translation. The translator does not have to follow the organization of the original; instead he enjoys much freedom to rearrange the structure of his translation and makes it more like a creative work rather than a translation. Moreover, the translator can add some parts, viz., the peritexts, to the translation, such as a preface, an introduction, a glossary, an appendix, and some notes.

As Mengzi is a work of quotation, its paragraphs are put together at random, which makes it rather difficult for the reader to get a coherent picture of Mengzi’s thoughts. To resolve this problem, some translators rearrange the organization of the original. A typical example is Dobson’s translation. The original is composed of seven “books”, with each “book” containing two “parts”, which may respectively include varying numbers of “passages”. Dobson, however, does not follow this organization, but reorganizes the “passages” into seven “chapters” in accordance with the topics “with the intention that the reader may thus obtain a more coherent picture of Mencius’ thought” (Jonker 1967). The seven “chapters” are respectively named Mencius at Court, Mencius in Public Life, Mencius and His Disciples, Mencius and His Rivals, Comment on the Times, The Teachings of Mencius and Maxims. Moreover, each “chapter” is again divided into a number of smaller “sections” according to the topics and each of the smaller “section” is again given a heading. Mencius at Court, for instance, covering the “passages” that record Mengzi’s conversation with kings, is divided into four “sections”: At the Court of King Hsuan of Ch’I, At the Court of the Kings of Liang, At the Court of the Duke of T’eng and In the State of Song. It can be said that Dobson’s version is a typical variation translation (Huang 2002) and he alters the original structure so dramatically that his translation looks more like a new work.

There are only a few translators who make great variations to the main body of the original work as Dobson does. Most translators, however, make minor changes to the main body, but add some parts, i.e., the peritexts, to the translation, such as a preface, an introduction, a glossary, an appendix, and some notes. Such a translation can also be seen as an independent work because its structure is more comprehensive than that of the original and the translator enjoys much freedom in structuring his/her translation. Legge’s version is a representative of thick translation, and besides the Chinese text and the translation, it also includes an elaborate prolegomenon, lots of footnotes and three indexes. Van Norden’s version of Mengzi, similarly, consists of a preface, an introduction, a timeline, two bibliographies of relevant works, a glossary and massive traditional Chinese commentaries interwoven in the translation. By contrast, the structure of He’s version is very simple, and there is only a very brief preface, a short forward, and a small number of notes attached to the Chinese text and the translation. Such a simple structure can be also found in Zhao, Zhang and Zhou’s translation, which is composed of a bilingual preface, a bilingual introduction, a bilingual table of translated nouns or terms, in addition to the Chinese text and the translation. Bloom’s version lies between them and it consists of a preface, a glossary, a reading section, and a translation with some notes. The translators may structure their translations differently for various reasons, such as their different translation purposes, strategies, and publishing restrictions. For instance, the valuable peritexts of Legge’s version are intended to give the target reader (mainly the missionaries) a complete picture of traditional Chinese thought and culture (i.e., Confucianism), and thereby promote the spread of Christianity. He’s version, by contrast, mainly aims to “help young readers understand this great Chinese classic” (1999, foreword), so its peritexts are fewer and less academic. Thus, the versions discussed above can form a continuum in terms of their structure, with Legge’s translation at one end, He’s version at the other, and Bloom’s and Zhao, Zhang, and Zhou’s translation lying between them.

In addition, the equality between the author and the translator is also reflected in the space that such peritexts take up in a translation. In Legge’s version, for instance, each passage of the source text is accompanied by a footnote so that the footnotes in a page occupy roughly the same space as the source text together with its translation does. In other words, a page is evenly divided into two parts, one for the source text and its translation and the other for its footnotes. Moreover, it’s worth mentioning that Legge provides a more than 100 pages of prolegomena, which constitutes approximately one-fifth of the whole book. In general, the room the peritexts occupy in Legge’s version is much more than that the source text as well as the translation does. The peritexts of Van Norden’s translation also take up much space. Different from the organization of Legge’s translation, Van Norden’s version has no source text and its translation is interwoven with traditional Chinese commentaries, primarily drawn from Zhu Xi’s interpretation of Mengzi’s thoughts. The space that some commentaries take up is even more than that the translated text does. For example, the passage未有仁而遗其亲者也，未有义而后其君者也。王亦曰仁义而已矣，何必曰利 (wei you ren er yi qi qin zhe ye, wei you yi er hou qi jun zhe ye. Wang yi yue ren yi er yi yi, he bi yue li) is rendered by Van Norden (2008, 1) as follows:

Never have the benevolent left their parents behind. Never have the righteous put their ruler last. Let Your Majesty speak only of benevolence and righteousness. Why must one speak of “profit”?

This translation only has 31 words and takes up less than two lines in Van Norden's work. However, it is followed by a nearly full page, amounting to 350 words of comments by Zhu Xi, together with Van Norden’s own understanding of this passage¹⁰. Furthermore, the font size of the commentaries is as same as that of the target text and the only difference is that the commentaries are italicized and placed in square brackets.

In short, the author and the translator are equal in terms of status when translation is seen as a process of producing a book. The equality between the author and the translator can be demonstrated in both the title and the structure. On the one hand, the translator is allowed much latitude to give a title, especially a subtitle, to his/her translation in accordance with the features of the translation. On the other hand, the translator has much right to add some peritexts to the translation, assign the space the peritexts take up and even rearrange the organization of the source text.

5.2.1. The translator’s inferiority in explaining the culturally loaded words

In Confucian classics, there are a large number of culturally loaded words, among which Confucian core concepts, such as仁 (ren), 义 (yi), 礼 (li), 智 (zhi), 德 (de), 天 (tian), 命 (ming), 道 (dao) and 气 (qi)¹¹, often confuse translators because they contain rich and deep ethical and philosophical connotations. They were initially proposed by Kongzi (Confucius) and many of them were developed and endowed with new meanings by Mengzi and other Confucians. In the translations of Mengzi, such core concepts are usually interpreted in the peritexts, such as in the introduction, footnotes, the glossary, and the appendix. However, according to our close reading of the original, we find that some interpretations of the translations are either incomprehensive or simplified, which indicates the translator is in a subordinate position when comprehending these core concepts.

In Van Norden’s version of Mengzi, there is an English-Chinese glossary presenting a list of such core concepts, each of which contains the Chinese character, and its pinyin, translation and meanings. Through a careful reading, it is found that some of them are not comprehensively interpreted. The concept天 (tian), for instance, is translated into “Heaven” and interpreted in the glossary as follows: “A semipersonal higher power, responsible for ‘the Way’ and ‘fate’” (2008, 202). According to this interpretation, 天 (tian) contains two layers of meaning: one is about “the Way” and the other is about “fate”. 天 (tian) meaning “the Way” means天 (tian) has the property of virtue, like tian 天 in the Chinese text: 仁义忠信，乐善不倦，此天爵也 (ren yi zhong xin, le shan bu juan, ci tian jue ye: benevolence, righteousness, faithfulness, truthfulness, and a tireless spirit of benefiting others – these are honors bestowed by Heaven.). 天 (tian) meaning “fate” denotes an invisible and enormous power which is beyond the control of human beings, like天 (tian) in the sentence: 莫之为而为者，天也 (mo zhi wei er wei zhe, tian ye: when a thing is done by an unknown agent, then it is the work of Heaven.). However, Mengzi’s concept of天 (tian) is not confined to these meanings but extends to “nature” (eg. He 1995; Zeng 2008). In 1A6, the Chinese text reads: 天油然作云，沛然下雨，则苗浡然兴之矣 (tian you ran zuo yun, pei ran xia yu, ze miao bo ran xing zhi yi: If the clouds gather densely in the sky, and rains come pouring down, then the plants will flourish again.). The term 天 (tian) in this passage does not carry the philosophical meaning of “the Way” or “fate”, but refers to “nature”, i.e., the sky seen from the earth’s surface. So it is incorrect to treat it as “Heaven” in his translation: “But when Heaven abundantly makes clouds, and copiously sends down rain, then the sprouts vigorously rise up” (2008, 7). Here the interpretation of 天 (tian) is obviously philosophy-oriented. As Yuet (2011) remarks, Van Norden tends to over-philosophize these concepts; therefore, some of them are not adequately interpreted. We think that such over-philosophization is probably influenced by his identity and life experiences. Van Norden is currently a philosophy professor from Vassar College and he (2008, ix) mentions in the preface that his version is based on his previous translations of some portions of Mengzi for use in his own classes. Furthermore, Van Norden (2008, ix) stresses that he is heavily indebted to three of his teachers, viz., Lee H. Yealey, David S. Nivison and Philip J. Ivanhoe. All of them are renowned sinologists who focus on traditional Chinese classics from the perspective of philosophy. Consequently, it is plausible that his interpretation is strongly philosophical.

The translator’s secondary position is also demonstrated in his/her simplified treatment of some core concepts. For example, in Bloom’s translation (2009, 7),德 (de) is interpreted in the footnote as follows:

The word translated “Virtue” here is de 德. It connotes the moral quality of a person’s character–good or bad. One with abundant, good Virtue enjoys a kind of moral charisma, which attracts and secures the support of others.

It is evident that from Bloom’s point of view, the concept德 (de) only expresses one layer of meaning, i.e., “the moral quality of a person’s character.” As for what “the moral quality of a person’s character” denotes, there is no further explanation. Moreover, further information concerning this concept is nowhere to be found. Actually, 德 (de) occurs many times in the original work and contains multiple meanings, hence such a simple footnote cannot interpret them distinctly. For example, the passage 天下有达三尊: 爵一, 齿一, 德一 (tianxia you da san zun: jue yi, chi yi, de yi: There are three things that are generally accepted by the world as exalted: rank, age and virtue.) discusses the three categories of people who deserve respect in that historical period, therefore德 (de) here is surely interpreted as “the moral quality of a person’s character”, concretely speaking, “the good moral quality of a person”. However, in 德何如则可以王矣 (de he ru ze keyi wang yi: With what kind of virtue can one unify all the states?), 德 (de) conveys another implication, which can be inferred from the co-text. This is a question raised by King Xuan of Qi who intends to seek Mengzi’s advice on the unification of all the states. Regarding this question, Mengzi says: 保民而王, 莫之能御也 (bao min er wang, mo zhi neng yu ye: No one can be prevented from unifying all the states if he cares for the people.). Mengzi’s answer shows that bao min er wang 保民而王 (bao min er wang: caring for the people) is the 德 (de) that ensures one’s winning the unification of all the states. Hence, 德 (de) in his passage can be interpreted as “ruling measures”. Moreover, in 求也为季氏宰, 无能改于其德 (qiu ye wei jishi zai, wu neng gai yu qi de: Qiu was the steward of the Ji Family and was unable to change their behavior.), 德 (de) is generally interpreted as “a behavior” (Yang 1960, 175; Jiao 1987, 515; Zhao 1999, 202; Fu 2006, 127), or specifically speaking, “an evil behavior”, namely, the intention of increasing tax revenue “by changing the tax system” (He 1999, 230). Then, why is the interpretation of 德 (de) in Bloom’s version so simplified? According to its preface (2009, vii), it was not completed independently because Bloom was seriously ill during her translation of Mengzi. Accordingly, the work afterward, such as editing and adding a preface, an introduction, references, etc., was completed by Philip J. Ivanhoe. Accordingly, it is obscure who makes the note of 德 (de), or in Godin’s (2010) words, “since Ivanhoe did not indicate any of his emendations in the text, it is impossible for a reader of the published book to tell who was responsible for what”. Since there is no any indication of who made the note, it is rather difficult to determine why德 (de) is interpreted in such a simplified way.

5.2.2. The translator’s inferiority in interpreting Mengzi’s thoughts

Based on Confucius’ doctrines, Mengzi puts forward his own ethical and philosophical thoughts, such as “the theory of good nature”, “the policy of benevolence”, “the doctrine of kingcraft” and “the people-oriented thought”. These thoughts are unique to Chinese culture and less accessible to the target reader. Accordingly, the translator usually opts to clarify them in the peritexts. However, it is mainly due to the translator’s finite knowledge about Mengzi that some of the thoughts are sometimes not clearly illustrated and even misinterpreted.

There is a famous passage in Mengzi, which reads as follows: 天时不如地利, 地利不如人和 (tian shi buru di li, di li buru ren he: In the war, the favorable weather is less important than the terrain advantage and the terrain advantage is less important than the unity of people). This passage emphasizes the dominant roles that people play in a war by comparing three conditions, viz. 天时 (tian shi: the favorable weather), 地利 (di li: the terrain advantage) and人和 (ren he: the unity of people), reflecting Mengzi’s “people-oriented thought”. Nevertheless, this thought seems to be not clearly illustrated in the notes of some versions. For instance, Van Norden (2008, 50) makes no mention of this thought in the notes, but pays more attention to the “three powers”, i.e., 天 (tian: Heaven), 地 (di: Earth), and 人 (ren: People). The “three powers”, containing rich and profound philosophical meanings, refer to the three elements that make something possible. It is obvious that Van Norden ignores the basic idea of this passage and concerns more about the philosophical meaning of the “three powers”. We think his deviation of interpretation is closely related to his own personal experiences, which we have specified in the previous section. In other words, since his educational background and research focus never go beyond philosophy, it is inevitable that his interpretation is so philosophical. By comparison, Lau (1970, 85) clearly presents the “people-oriented thought” in the footnote: “Mencius is here claiming for Man an importance greater even than Heaven and Earth”. Lau is not only a sinologist, linguist and translator but also a philosopher, so why does Lau’s interpretation appear less philosophy-oriented? We think the answer lies partly in his translation purpose. According to the comments on Lau in the Honorary Degrees Congregation¹², Lau was entrusted by Penguin to translate the three traditional Chinese classics, i.e., Tao Te Ching, Mengzi, and Lun Yu, after he expressed as a reviewer his dissatisfaction with the translations of Tao Te Ching by others. One of the reasons for his dissatisfaction was that those translations were lacking in authenticity. Then, we may safely draw a conclusion that one of his translation purposes is to present authenticity of the traditional Chinese classics. Therefore, it is natural that his interpretation of this passage is not too philosophical. Moreover, Lau’s version is “presumably intended both for the general public and for the sinologist” (Jonker 1973), so his interpretation can balance the needs of both sides.

Another example can be illustrated in the passage that concerns Mengzi’s position as a teacher, namely, 人之患在好为人师 (4A23) (ren zhi huan zai hao wei ren shi: The trouble with people is their being too eager to assume the role of teacher.). This passage may confuse some people because it appears that Mengzi is critical of teaching others. In other words, why does Mengzi say that since he is also a teacher? Furthermore, does it contradict with Mengzi’s great reverence for Confucius who ran a private school and recruited disciples? Actually, Mengzi does not object to teaching but opposes those who are conceited and prefer to pose as a teacher so as to show off their learning. The notes in some translations show that some translators do not completely understand this passage. Van Norden, for instance, points out in the note that Mengzi’s view is echoed in George Savile’s words: “Gegorege Savile made a similar point: ‘The Vanity of teaching often tempteth a Man to forget he is a Blockhead’” (2008, 100). Here Van Norden’s knowledge formerly stored in his mind is retrieved and plays a key role in his understanding of this passage. However, there are differences between such knowledge (academically speaking, intertextual knowledge) and what the passage really means. According to our understanding, George Savile intends to criticize those who pretend to know what they don’t know. Legge (1970, 311), by contrast, makes notes as follows: “Commentators suppose that Mencius’s lesson was that such a liking indicated a self-sufficiency which put an end to self-improvement”. Apparently, Legge’s understanding follows the interpretations of some commentators, probably of Zhu Xi, because such an interpretation is given in Zhu Xi’s Sishu Jizhu (Reflections of the Four Books), one of the most important references that Legge consults in his translation¹³.

To sum up, when translation is considered as the manifestation of the translator’s understanding of the original, the author has an advantage over the translator in interpreting the source text, for the “primary factor” in such a context is expertise. Concretely speaking, the culturally loaded words, especially the Confucian core concepts, are characterized by rich connotations, and thereby put the translator in an unfavorable position in translation. There does exist a certain gap between the translator’s understanding and what the concepts really mean in the source text. Likewise, Mengzi’s thoughts are abstruse and profound, which may also leave the translator in a disadvantageous situation. The translator cannot comprehend the thoughts the works deliver as deeply as the author does. In addition, from the perspective of cultural communication, the incompletion, simplification, or even misinterpretation of the core concepts and Mengzi’s thoughts undermine to a certain extent the outward spread of Mengzi’s thoughts.