translation styles for classics

[Guest guest]

Chinese medicine has a long and illustruous history of offering the

interpretations of multiple authors when analyzing classical works. I

don't think that this tradition should be stifled in any way when the

materials are approached in English. While many people have offered

interpretations of the great classical works in Chinese history (within

medicine and in other fields, such as philosophy), all of the scholars

were sure to provide rationales for their arguments and explanations of

their points. Scholars would make their background known so that

readers could assess their legitimacy and have trust in their

interpretations. Points would be backed by evidence and often would

include references from other classics to strengthen their presentation

and support their interpretation.

 

I suspect that there are relatively few Westerners with language skills

advanced enough to confidently approach classical texts, but clearly

there are still a fair number of scholars in the West who would be able

to do a good job. For example, while I don't know Bensky personally, I

am under the impression that he is a very well-trained scholar with a

strong background in CM. He may have a different view of translation

methodology than academically trained linguists have, but I strongly

suspect that his skills are more than sufficient to offer an accurate

translation and justify his interpretation if he were to undertake a text

like the wen re lun.

 

How would I envision classical texts being done in a way that gives

maximum transparency to the reader while still preserving interpretative

freedom and the use of other terminology systems besides Wiseman? A

few techniques come to mind:

 

1) The simple use of footnotes alone gives an easy means of adding

comments in the perceived meaning of the source texts. The text could

be done in Wiseman terms when they are in consensus with the

meaning perceived by the translator, and the translator could illustrate

different ways of interpreting paragraphs and phrases by comments in

footnotes.

 

2) The entire text could be done with a different term set than

Wiseman's altogether. All that is necessary for this is to have a public

source available that includes all the technical terms in the text being

discussed, referencing the English equivalents, their Chinese characters,

accented pinyin, and a definition of the each term. I'm not aware of any

such resources at this time, but developing such a resource is certainly

an option for a translator who recognizes that English readers seek

accountability but rejects the Wiseman standard.

 

3) The text could be presented in Chinese characters, paragraph by

paragraph (like the SHL). Then the Wiseman translation could be

offered to allow readers who don't read Chinese to have full access to

the Chinese text in a traceable manner. Below or above the Wiseman

translation, the authors personal translation of the paragraph could be

inserted. That way readers would have access to a standard English

translation of the Chinese with terms that could be referenced via a

dictionary (through the Wiseman terms). The readers would also have

the chance to see another way of translating and interpreting the same

paragraph, and thus they could see whether they felt that the other

translation style had greater clarity and accuracy. Readers who could

also read Chinese could judge both translations against the Chinese and

see which was closer in meaning. Interpreters of the other translation

system, of course, would ideally be credited with their identity and a

statement of their background on the cover flap. This method would

solve all possible problems and make the text fully accountable to the

reader without the translator needing to create their own definitions and

references for the source terms, and would maintain their freedom to

interpret the text in any way they chose.

 

Once other term lists with definitions, explained rationale, and equal

scope when compared with Wiseman's are developed, then we will

really have the opportunity to see the viablility of other term sets. Until

then, readers wishing to read classical or modern texts with the

transparency and depth that our Chinese colleagues enjoy must either

read works translated in Wiseman terms or cross their fingers and trust

that the interpretive translator has an adequate level of skill to justify

their trust.

 

Eric Brand