| This study is to conduct some research into the development of translated literature in Shanghai from 1843 to 1919. With the Poly-system Theory as the theoretical rationale and the"System"Thinking as its supplement, the translated literature of this period is regarded as a system, and its relations with the other system, its co-system within the same literary poly-system—the system of creative literature—are examined, and the causes that bring about these relations will also be investigated. Here the terms"tension"and"conversation"are employed to describe these relations.Although it has never been designated as the political center of China since its compulsive opening as a trade port in 1843,Shanghai had twice become the cultural and literary center of China in less than 100 years. The first time is at the end of the Qing Dynasty (1616-1911) and the beginning of the Minguo Period (1912-1949), and the second time is in the twenties and the thirties of the 20th century. The cause(s) behind this arouses the present author's great interest. After a pilot study, he finds out that on one hand most of the translated literary works in China before 1949 were published and/or circulated in Shanghai and on the other hand the quantity of translated literary works then and there is much larger than that of creative literary works. The present author is eager to know what brought about such a state within the literary poly-system and what relations obtained between the very two systems. Yet, owing to the limit of time, he just takes the first time Shanghai became the cultural and literary center of China as the object of study. The time span concerned is set on the period from 1843 to 1919, and the research is focused upon the development of the genre—story/novel.The Poly-system Theory was first advanced in early 1970s by Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalists of the 1920s. Later, this theory was revised and developed by his colleague Gideon Toury and other scholars. For convenience's sake, the present author just adopts the version in Papers in Historical Poetics (1978) and Poly-system Studies (1990) as the theoretical rationale of this study.According to Russian Formalists, a literary work should not be studied in isolation but as part of a literary system, in which there is an ongoing dynamic of"mutation"and struggle for the primary position in the literary canon (see Munday 2001: 109). Even-Zohar (1978: 22) emphasizes that the translated literature operates as a system in the way the target literature selects works for translation and in the way translation norms, behavior and policies are influenced by its co-system(s). A system and its co-system(s) constitute another system, labeled by Even-Zohar as poly-system, namely, a system of systems. Likewise, a poly-system and its co-system(s) make up a mega-poly-system. Obviously, a system with subsystems within itself is a poly-system itself. Even-Zohar (1978: 10) holds that a literary poly-system can be dichotomized into canonized vs. non-canonized systems, each divided in its turn into subsystems, or genres.Even-Zohar emphasizes that a poly-system is a stratified whole and"the constraints by various co-systems contribute their share to the hierarchical relations governing it"(1978: 31)."Only through its struggle with non-canonized co-systems does the canonized system succeed in gaining ground"(ibid.: 18). The opposition between the canonized system and its co-system(s) creates"an ideal balance"(ibid.: 17) within the poly-system and is also the working pattern of it. The"canonized"literature roughly means what is usually considered"major"literature: those kinds of literary works accepted by the"literary milieu"and usually preserved by the community as part of its cultural heritage. (ibid.: 15) On the contrary,"non-canonized"literature means those kinds of literary works, more often than not, rejected by the"literary milieu"as lacking"aesthetic value"and relatively quickly forgotten. (ibid.)Enormously illuminated by the notion"poly-system", the present author firstly regards the literature of Shanghai from 1843 to 1919 as a poly-system, dichotomous into the system of translated literature vs. the system of creative literature. And secondly, which of the two systems is the canonized will be examined. Thirdly, two questions will be investigated. One is why translated literary works appeared in this poly-system, and the other how the canonized system managed to fill its present position. The present author chooses the two terms of"tension"and"conversation"to define the relations between the system of translated literature and that of creative literature. The term"tension", advanced by Even-Zohar to describe the relations between two cultures (see Even-Zohar 1990: 16), is employed here to describe one side of the relations between the two systems; the other term"conversation"is imagined by the present author himself to describe the other side of the relations between the two systems not merely for the purpose of personifying the two systems but also in the hope of tracing the changes in the system of creative literature and the translating strategies adopted by the translators in the system of translated literature. Fourthly, the present author will analyze the various characteristics of the"tension"and"conversation"relations between the two systems respectively. Last, the causes that brought about these characteristics will be investigated.However, mainly for reasons of two aspects, the Poly-system Theory itself cannot fully satisfy the need of this study. On one hand, although Even-Zohar specifically designs the Scheme of Literary System borrowing the pattern of the Scheme of Communication and Language advanced by Roman Jakobson, he does not tell us what is/are the controlling factor(s) governing the process of literary production. And on the other hand, after the Poly-system Theory was put forward, Even-Zohar himself did not made much detailed elaboration of its application to translation studies, and later he constantly revised this theory and meant it to be universal for cultural studies. Nevertheless, the present author still thinks that the notion system is helpful to the design of this research. In order to make up for the shortcomings of the Poly-system Theory, the present author will resort, as the theoretical supplement, to AndréLefevere's"System"Thinking put forth in his book Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992). Lucky enough to the present author is that Lefevere's"System"Thinking shares a common ground with Even-Zohar's Poly-system Theory, that is, they both regard literature as a system. The present author also finds out that there are two linking points between the two theories: (1) the"role"of texts to be translated, and (2) the new approaches in the target literature. Even-Zohar holds that"the texts are picked according to their compatibility with the new approaches and the supposed innovatory role they may assume within the target literature"(1978: 23-24). Lefevere (1992: 14) thinks that translation mustn't be opposed to the dominant poetics of the target literature. In Lefevere's"System"Thinking, a poetics comprises two components: one is the functional component, namely, the"role"of literature; and the other, the inventory component of literature. (ibid.: 26)"The new approaches"by Even-Zohar is just one element of the inventory component of the poetics by Lefevere. Compared with the Poly-system Theory, which specializes in designing a general framework for literary studies, the"System"Thinking is particularly intended for the explanation of translational phenomena. And this is why the present author chooses the latter as the supplement to the former.According to Lefevere (1992: 2-8), translation is one of the types of rewritings of an original text; and all rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. He holds that"there appears to be a double control factor that sees to it that the literary system does not fall too far out of step with the other subsystems society consists of"(ibid.: 14). The first factor, represented by"professionals", belongs squarely within the literary system trying to control the system from the inside within the parameters set by the second factor, which is called"patronage"to be found outside the system furthering or hindering the reading, writing and rewriting of literature. (ibid.: 14-15) The professionals inside the literary system are the critics, reviewers, teachers, and translators. They will occasionally repress certain works of literature that are all too blatantly opposed to the dominant poetics and ideology (ibid.). And patronage is usually more interested in the ideology of literature than in its poetics, and the patron can be said to"delegate authority"to the professionals where poetics is concerned. Patronage can be exerted by persons and also by groups of persons, a religious body, a political party, a social class, a royal court, publishers, and last but not least, the media, both newspapers and magazines and larger television corporations. Patrons, as a rule, operate by means of such institutions: academies, censorship bureaus, critical journals, and, by far the most important, the educational establishment (ibid.). Patronage basically consists of three elements interacting in various combinations: (1) an ideological component acting as a constraint on the choice and development of both form and subject matter; (2) an economic component seeing to it that writers and rewriters are able to make a living, by giving them a pension or appointing them to some office; (3) a status component integrating the recipient into a certain support group and its lifestyle. (ibid.: 16) Patronage is undifferentiated when the three components are all dispensed by one and the same patron, and it is differentiated when economic success is relatively independent of ideological factors, and does not necessarily bring status with it. (ibid.: 17) The present author feels it quite necessary to analyze the ideological structure of Shanghai Concession from 1843 to 1919 and the poetics of the literary system there and then. Also some analysis about the components and operating institutions of patronage will be helpful to this study.As far as the ideological structure of Shanghai Concession from 1843 to 1919 is concerned, two points need to be noted: one is that only parts of Shanghai was designated as concession (altogether called"Shanghai Concession"here) and the area outside the Concession was still under the rule of the Qing Court; the other is that different from any other concession in China at about the same time, Shanghai Concession was populated by both foreigners and Chinese, with the latter being the overwhelming majority; while the other concessions were much smaller and were resided predominantly by foreigners. Thus within Shanghai Concession, two sets of criteria of value were prevalent: one was that of the Qing Dynasty and the other that brought into here by the foreigners. And owing to the political impotence of the Qing Court, the dominant ideology in Shanghai Concession was, more often than not, that of the foreigners. Hence the ideological structure here, to an awful extent, resembled that of a colony; and Shanghai Concession nearly turned into a vacuum to the Qing Court as far as power is concerned. Thanks to the linguistic barriers between Chinese residents and the foreigners and the acute profit-mindedness of the latter, there were no regulations or laws censoring and supervising the journalism and publishing industry, because many book stores and publishing houses were run by the foreigners. Thus, the freedom of speech there and then was much more than that outside Shanghai Concession. It was only when the speech in here mortally threatened the rule of the Qing Court that would the representative(s) commissioned by the Qing Court come here for sanctions against the speaker(s). The Su Press Incident (in 1903) is an extremely rare case. Hence Shanghai Concession was a perfect harbor for speeches countering the rule of the Qing Court. Therefore, many aspirants flocked here seeking protection for their innovation-publicizing activities, including many a writer and/or translator.Upon the analysis of the data, the present author finds that, as far as the source of translated literary works is concerned, the United Kingdom, France, the United States of America, Japan and Russia are the top five. Although the ideological freight carried with the translated works was helpful to the awakening of the slumbering compatriots, these nations had ever invaded China after all. Why did these translators still turn to their literature for assistance? This phenomenon appears to be a paradox in translation concern. Was not there any hatred, dislike or unwillingness deep in the translators'minds? Yet, the translators buried their blazing agonies deep in their minds and busied themselves with translating work. The reluctance in their choice of this road stems from two respects. One is the lesson they were taught by the failure of the pioneers in the Westernization Movement (from 1860s to 1890s) to enrich the people and strengthen the state by learning science and technologies from the powerful countries. And the other is the translators'shuddering start from the philosophy—the survival of the fittest—showcased in the theory of Natural Selection put forward by Charles Darwin, which was brought into China through Yan Fu's translation. No doubt, the dream of enriching the people and strengthening the state was also cherished by the translators, but they attempted to try a new, different way to realize this ideal, that is, arousing their compatriots spiritually. They firmly believed that only after the compatriots spiritually awakened could they participate in social innovation initiatively. It must be that severe struggle had taken place within the translators'minds before they decided to adopt such a road. The present author also discovers the phenomenon that most of the translators then and there were the leading writers of the system of creative literature, especially in the period from 1902 to 1919. This accords with Even-Zohar's view (1978: 23)—it is often the leading writers who produce the most important translations when the system of translated literature maintains a primary position in the poly-system.As regards the"patronage"then and there, since there were no regulations or laws censoring and supervising the journalism and publishing industry,there was almost nothing like"patronage"in Shanghai Concession. Owing to the vacuum of the Qing Court's power in here, the institutions exerting patronage outside Shanghai Concession and other concessions—the Qing Court and its various representatives—didn't bother or even didn't dare to negotiate"patronage"with the foreigners. Only when extreme incidents occurred did they come here for repression. No obligations to perform, no rights to enjoy. Thus, although the professionals'speech in Shanghai Concession was quite free, their economy and status weren't ensured by any patron. They had to make a living by diligently working at presses, publishing houses, book stores and the like.As regards poetics,"each dominant poetics freezes or certainly controls the dynamics of the system"(Lefevere 1992: 35). And"in its formative phase, a poetics reflects both the devices and the functional view of the literary production dominant in a literary system"(ibid.: 26). Before 1843, Shanghai was part of Jiangsu Province and its poetics was the same as that of other regions in China. As far as the functional component of the poetics is concerned, that of traditional Chinese literature is the statecraft policy, namely, literature should assist the ruling class in running the state. In the poetics then and there, there were two main currents. One was the statecraft policy, and the other the entertainment policy represented by the works of the Duck-Butterfly School. Only from the quantity of literary works, it is very difficult to judge which current was the dominant. Yet with a retrospection of its historical importance, the present author finds that the statecraft policy was the dominant. Although the dominant functional component of the poetics in Shanghai Concession was the same as that of traditional Chinese literature in essence, they exhibited striking differences in employer and purpose. In traditional Chinese literature, the statecraft policy was employed by the ruling class to maintain the established social order and therefore was conservative. As to that of the literary system of Shanghai, it was adopted by the aspirants to overthrow the old social order and establish a new one and thus was innovatory. From the above description, it can be discerned that the supposed"role"of translated literature met the dominant functional component of the poetics of the target literature. Lefevere (1992: 38) thinks that translation will penetrate the target literary system by paving the way for changes in its functional component. With the handgrip of the two systems, the statecraft policy became the mainstream of the functional component of the literary poly-system. The above said,the poetics of the literary poly-system there and then was undergoing a formative stage. From a historical point of view, it is clear that ontologically the phenomenon that the statecraft policy became the mainstream of the functional component of the poetics in Shanghai Concession has unconsciously lengthened the way of China's creative literature towards ripeness.The inventory component of the poetics is more physical and can be observed directly. Because of the totally different cultural sources of the translated and creative literatures, their poetics exhibited an awful lot of differences in the inventory component at the time when the Concession was just established. At that time the canonized sub-system in the system of creative literature was the genres of ancient prose and the eight-legged essay, but not story/novel; and as far as"approach"is concerned, antithesis was the dominant. The language of journalist style and current-affair style, easy to understand and adapt to the quick rhythm of Shanghai Concession, was a newly-born baby. In the time following, what were the stances of the poetics of the system of translated literature and that of the system of creative literature? Would they be indifferent to each other or converse heartedly? If the answer to this question is the latter, translation would"introduce new devices into the inventory of the poetics of the literary system"(ibid.) and the poetics would thus undergo a formative phase."In its formative phase a poetics reflects both the devices and the functional view of the literary production dominant in a literary system when its poetics was first codified"(ibid.: 26). The"interpenetration"(ibid.: 38) between the very two systems can be analyzed on one hand through a study of the non-equivalences in the translated version(s) to examine the translators'strategies and the intentionality behind these strategies and on the other hand by researches into the changes in the system of creative literature to vividly describe its evolution. On the contrary, if the two systems put on an indifferent air, even though the professionals didn't repress those translations opposed to the dominant inventory component of the poetics of the target literature, they would at least repress those translations opposed to its dominant ideology of the target literature.It is clear that the relation of"tension"obtains only in the competition of the system of translated literature vs. that of creative literature for the canon position within the literary poly-system, while the relation of"conversation"between these two systems exists in the following three aspects: (1) the stance of the system of translated literature to the dominant ideology of the target society; (2) the stance of the system of translated literature to the dominant functional component of the target-literature poetics; and (3) and its acceptance of some of the current devices of the inventory component of the system of creative literature and its introduction of new devices into the latter. These three aspects are closely related, as is described by Lefevere as the functional component of a poetics is obviously closely tied to and more likely to undergo ideological influence from outside the sphere of the poetics as such, and generated by ideological forces in the environment of the literary system. (ibid. 34) And"this influence tends to find its most obvious expression in the themes written about in the system"(ibid.). The conversation concerned with the first two aspects has been discussed above, and hereunder the present author will just talk something about the conversation related to the third aspect.As was mentioned before, it was not until 1902 that the system of translated literature became the canonized of the literary poly-system. Thus from 1843 to 1902, the system of translated literature in principle should imitate the inventory component of the poetics of creative literature. The real situation was just as such. The translating strategies adopted by the translators reveal this very well. For example, the traditional textual layout of Chinese stories/novels was mechanically applied in some of the translated literary works of this period. The heated conversation between the two systems came only from 1902 onwards. With the system of translated literature as the canonized of the literary poly-system, on one hand, sometimes the borderline between translated literature and creative literature diffused; and on the other hand, there occurred great changes in the system of creative literature. And these changes include: (1) some new subject matters appearing in the"motif"of the poetics of the system of creative literature, such as political stories and detective stories; (2) changes in the diction of creative literature, for example, the employment of folk tongue in literary production, the appearance of foreign words in some creative literary works, and punctuation marks adopted in literary writing; (3) the appearance of some new genres,for instance, diary-like stories and letter-like stories; and (4) the coming of some new narrative devices in the system of creative literature, such as the first-person narration, flashback, interposition and segmental narration, etc.. As was mentioned before, changes in the diction of the creative literature, such as the appearance of journalist style and current-affair style, were"new approaches". Thus the above (2) here just reveals the compatibility of the system of translated literature with that of creative literature. Through this compatibility, the system of translated literature brings the above-mentioned (1), (3) and (4) into the system of creative literature. Thus, only through the compatibility of the system of translated literature with the new approaches in the system of creative literature can the former penetrate the latter by introducing new devices into it. And these new devices were"new approaches"in literary poly-system. The more the new devices introduced into the system of creative literature, the greater the compatibility of the system of translated literature with that of creative literature.The present author also discovers that the"conversation"between the two systems has the following three striking characteristics:First, the"conversation"between the two systems exhibits a diachronic characteristic and this is closely related and synchronous to the diachronic characteristic of the"tension"between the two systems. The causes of such a characteristic lie in the following three factors: (1) the failure of the Westernization Movement with China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese Sea War in 1894 and thus the dream—enriching the people and strengthening the state by leaning science and technologies from the West—came to its doom; (2) the shuddering start of the aspirants by the philosophy—the survival of the fittest, brought into China in 1898 through Yan Fu's translation; (3) the strong encouragement by the Story/Novel Milieu Revolution urged by Liang Qichao (1873-1929) to innovate the genre of story/novel through his The Preface for Translating and Publishing Political Novels(1898)and On the Relationship Between Novels and Politics(1902). Thus with the actuation and driving of these three aspects, both the quantity of translated literary works and that of creative literary works increased dramatically in about 1902. Among the three aspects, the former two are concerned with ideology and the third is concerned with the functional component of the poetics of a literature. Especially the third aspect, namely, the Story/Novel Milieu Revolution, coincidentally provided feasible conditions for story/novel—a genre in the non-canonized system—to appear in the canonized system. Even-Zohar holds that"interference often takes place via peripheries…Peripheral properties are likely to penetrate the center once the capacity of the center to fulfill certain functions has been weakened"(1990: 25).Second, the two parties of this historical conversation are in fact almost the same group of people. Most of the translators then and there were the leading writers of the system of creative literature, especially in the period from 1902 to 1919. This historical conversation is like a crosstalk performed only by one person in traditional Chinese arts. The contribution of this group of writers to Chinese literature is of historic significance in that on one hand they engaged themselves in writings that paid attention to the problems of the mankind itself so as to continue the good tradition of Chinese literature showcased by such literary works as A Dream of Red Mansions and on the other hand they busied themselves translating literary works carrying the ideology of western countries and producing works to criticize the current situation of China in order to arouse the slumbering compatriots. Strongly application-minded, this group of people just produced works while learning from foreign literatures, and their activities laid the tenor of the development of the system of creative literature in Shanghai from 1843 to 1919, particularly from 1902 to 1919: learning from the West.Third, as far as the status of the two parties in this historical conversation is concerned, they are unequal. It is clear that both ideologically and poetically the system of translated literature has a priority in the conversation, especially in the period from 1920 to 1919. And this inequality is realized through the translating strategies in the system of translated literature and the writers'performance in the system of creative literature. Since so many things concerned with western ideology and literary devices are introduced into Shanghai Concession, no doubt the translating strategy of foreignization must cover a huge proportion.The present author also discovers: regarding the system of translated literature itself, as far as the quantity of literary works is concerned, its development presents us with a wave-like curve of"valley-peak-valley-peak-valley", with the latter peak much lower than the former. The appearance of the second valley—the period from 1911 to 1912—may be related to the Xinhai Revolution in 1911. The aspirants may have felt at a loss about the orientation of their future work since their preliminary efforts didn't fruit well. Yet, actually the Xinhai Revolution did not fail completely since it at least overthrew the rule of feudalism lasting more than 2100 years in China. Perhaps this was a solace to those aspirants. And driven by the May 4th Movement, which started in 1915 calling for democracy and science, the aspirants plucked up their courage once again and the quantity of translated works increased quickly. However, this time the increase lasted only about 3 years; and from 1917 onwards, the quantity of translated works began to decrease dramatically. With a comparison of the two peaks of the curve, the present author thinks that the aspirants'revolutionary enthusiasm in the period from 1912 to 1919 is not as keen as that in the period from 1902 to 1911 and the literary milieu then was a little quiet. It may be that the aspirants were expecting the coming of some new, actuating forces. The present author reaches this conclusion on the basis of the following two factors: One is that China was undergoing a series of wars among martial lords in the period from 1912 to 1919 and there was no significant turning point in Chinese history; and the other is that there were no forces to actuate the development of the literary system in this period, while in the former period the aspirants got much urge from three factors.The significances of this study mainly lie in the following respects. Firstly, it exhibits the feasibility of combining Even-Zohar's Poly-system Thoery and Lefevere's"System"Thinking in translation studies. Secondly, it reveals the role of translation in the construction of a culture. Thirdly, it shows the constraints upon the translational develiment of a certain region by such factors as politics, economy, culture and society etc. and thus can throw some lights on translation teaching and translation studies. Last, this study can provide some new perspectives and some reference material for related studies in future. To some extent, this study fills a certain gap in translation studies in China. As far as the research methods are concerned, this study combines the qualitative method and the quantitative method, with the former being the main. Since similar researches are somewhat scarce in China, the author has no choice but to collect the raw data from related monographs on translation history or literary history and the like published in China. The micro-method adopted in this study is contrast. After the analysis of the data, the present author began to conduct a contrast between the development of the system of translated literature and that of the system of creative literature. From the contrast, the present author developed his view about the relations between the two systems. And afterwards the causes that brought about these relations were closely investigated.This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the background, theoretical rationale, objectives and procedure, etc. of this study. Chapter 2 first reviews the relevant literature concerned with Itamar Even-Zohar's Poly-system Theory and AndréLefevere's"System"Thinking respectively. Next, the present author's intention of combining the two theories to serve this study is explained. Then, the research fruits of other scholars and experts concerned with the two theories both at home and abroad are summarized. In Chapter 3, on the one hand, the various characteristics of the"tension"and"conversation"relations between the system of translated literature and that of creative literature in Shanghai from 1843 to 1919 are examined. And on the other hand, the characteristics of the development of the system of translated literature itself are studied. Chapter 4 discusses the causes that brought about the various characteristics of the relations between these two systems, and also discusses the causes that brought about the various characteristics of the development of the system of translated literature itself. In Chapter 5, the author first summarizes the findings of the study, then introduces its significances, and finally makes some suggestions for future studies.
|
PDF Full Text Request