James Legge's Metrical "Book of Poetry"

8/10/2019 James Legge's Metrical "Book of Poetry"

1/23

James Legge's Metrical "Book of Poetry"Author(s): Lauren PfisterSource: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 60,No. 1 (1997), pp. 64-85Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/620770.

Accessed: 30/11/2014 08:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressand School of Oriental and African Studiesare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toBulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University ofLondon.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.204.205.220 on Sun, 30 Nov 2014 08:14:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/620770?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/620770?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/23

James

Legge's

metrical

Book

of Poetry

LAUREN

PFISTER

Hong Kong BaptistUniversity

I.

An

intellectual black hole

in

sinology

Few non-Asian

sinological

scholars would not

recognize

the name of James

Legge

MIi

(A.D.

1815-97),

partly

because his voluminous

translations

of

the

Confucian canon

still

continue

to be

reprinted

and used

by

Western

sinological

circles 120

years

after their

first

publication.'

In

China

itself,

Legge

has

recently

received new attention with the

republication

of

bilingual

editions of

The Four

Books

and The Book

of

Changes.2 Japanese

readers have

had

rather

more

access to

Legge's

English

translations

of The

Four

Books,

beginning

with the

early Meiji

period

and

continuing

into the twentieth

century.

Unfortunately,

none of these Chinese or

Japanese

editions has included the extensive com-

mentarial

notes

drawn from

Chinese Confucian

and

early

Western

sinological

sources

which earned

Legge

his

reputation

as a world-class

Chinese

scholar

in

the

nineteenth

century.3

In

1875,

after

Legge

had

served for 34

years

as a Christian

missionary

and

educator

in Malacca

(1839-43)

and

Hong

Kong

(1843-73),

French

sinologists

honoured

the retired

missionary

with the first

international

[Stanislas]

Julien

prize

for

Chinese literature.

In

consequence

of

this

prestigious

award,

a

group

of British

friends and

supporters

urged

the

University

of Oxford

to receive

the

Scottish

clergyman

as their

first Professor

of Chinese

Language

and

Literature,

raising enough money duringtheircampaign to provide for his minimal support

in

this

position.

Legge

held the

chair-teaching

courses

in Chinese

language

and

literature,

presenting

public

lectures

on Chinese

themes,

and

continuing

his

work

in

translations-from

1876 until

his death.

Perhaps

it is because of

the sheer

volume of

his

published

works

that no

general

critical

appraisal

of

his numerous

scholarly

contributions

to

sinology

has

yet

been made.

Academic

specialization,

taken

in

many

modern

universities

as a

sign

of

superior

training

and academic

promise,

has also

made

it almost

1

The

most famous

set of

translations and

commentaries

are The Chinese

Classics,

with

a

translation,

critical

and

exegetical notes,prolegomena,

and

copious indexes,

first

published

in

Hong

Kong

between

1861

and 1872. This 8-book set

comprised

five

volumes,

the fourth

being

TheBook

of Poetry.

A

second

edition,

including

a

reprint

of the last

three volumes

attached

to a

complete

revision

of The Four

Books,

was

published

by

the Clarendon

Press,

Oxford

(1893-95) [hereafter

CC].

For details

of the

revision see

my

article,

'Some new

dimensions

in the

study

of the works

of James

Legge

(1815-1897):

part

II',

Sino-Western

Cultural

Relations

Journal,

13,

1991,

33-48.

Less

well

known

are six

volumes

of

Legge's

further

translations,

completed

between

1879 and

1885,

of The Sacred

Books

of

China

in the 'Sacred

Books of

the

East' series

(see below).

The

first

collection

of Confucian

texts

in

this

set included

retranslations

of The

Book

of

Historical

Documents

and The

Book

of

Poetry

and

a new

rendering

of The Classic

of

Filial

Piety

#

(vol.

3

of the

series).

2

See

Hanying

Sishu

4M

0.

(The

Chinese/English

Four

Books),

(ed.)

Liu

Chongde

IA

and

Luo

Zhiyu

f$,T?

(Changsha:

Hunan

People's

Press,

1992)

and Zhou

Yi

J~

(Book

of

Changes),

(ed.)

Tai

Yi

441

and

Tai Shi

44

(Changsha:

Hunan

People's

Press,

1993).

It is

significant

for

the claims

of this

paper

that

these

publishers

did

not

use

Legge's original

translation

of the

Shijing

for

their

bilingual

edition of

that

classic.

3

See the 1885

Japanese

edition of the

English

translation and Chinese text of Legge's 1861

edition

of

The Four

Books

MV

by

N. Imamura:

XM~.-?

t/

Y

HFX,

H,

1F-

f-l~

I*41

flVT

(

T

t

Editions

of

the

Analects

include

Yamano Masaharo's

edition

(Tokyo,

1913),

with the

Chinese

characters,

English

translation,

and selective

Japanese

notes;

a similar edition

with fewer

notes

appeared

c.

1950,

entitled

Confucian

Analects: Dr.

Legge's

version,

(ed.)

Yoshi

Ogaeri

in

Tokyo:

Bunki

Shoten.

A

text held

in

the New

York Public

Library,

(ed.) O.

Shimisu

and

M.

Hirose,

includes the

whole

of The

Four

Books

in Chinese and

English

(Legge's

translation),

along

with

a

Japanese

translation

and selective

notes.

Entitled

in

English,

The

original

Chinese text

of

the

Confucian

Analects,

the

Great

Learning

...,

it

is

unfortunately

undated.

?

School

of

Oriental and

African

Studies,

University

of

London

1997

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

JAMES LEGGE'S

METRICAL

BOOK OF POETRY 65

impossible

for most

contemporary

professional

scholars to

develop

the

back-

ground

needed

to evaluate the

interdisciplinary

breadth of

Legge's

efforts.

Legge

not

only

worked

through

the

multidimensional

traditions within

the

Chinese commentarial texts and earlier translations of the texts into various

Western

languages4

but also collaborated

closely

with

a

contemporary

Chinese

scholar,

Wang

Tao

T_

(A.D.

1822-97),5

who came to live in

Hong Kong

in

1863.

As well

as his influence

in

scholarly

circles,

Legge's religious

interpretation

of the

Confucian classical

tradition as

containing

an

original

monotheism

became

a

focus of intense debate

among

missionaries

in

China.6

Although

a

highly

readable

biography

was

published

by

one

of

his

daughters

in

1905,'

it

emphasized

his

missionary

experiences, avoiding

the

complexities

and contro-

versies

surrounding

his

translations

and

interpretive

works. His

major

works,

embodied in The Chinese Classics, have long outlived him, but the details of

his life and

productivity

have

slipped

into

a

perplexing

intellectual black hole:

Legge's

influence

is

generally

recognized

among

sinologists

even

today,

but for

most of

this

century

his life and works have remained a

mystery-so

little of

it has

been

thoroughly

understood.

II. Overlooked ranslations

Essential to a

comprehensive

account

of

James

Legge's sinological

contribu-

tions are

his

three

translations of

Shijing

?4M,

The

Book

of

Poetry.

It must be

stressed that

these were three

different acts

of

translation: it was

Legge's general

practice

to translate a text several times without reference to

previous

transla-

tions before

embarking

on a final

version. Revisions

of the final version

were

often

carried out

in a

similar

way-first

an

independent

translation,

then a

comparison

with his earlier

efforts. Sensitive

to the

varying capacities

and

interests of his diverse

audiences,

Legge's renderings

reflect

a

subtle interaction

between

conceptual clarity,

functional

equivalence

and

accessibility.8

The

first

translation

of 'The She

King'

appeared

late

in

1871,

accompanied

by

almost 200

pages

of

prolegomena,

the

Chinese texts with

commentary

and

notes

in

the

body

of

the

work,

followed

by

a

glossary

of Chinese terms

employed

in

The Book

of Poetry,

and

finally,

several

indexes.

Seeking

to

appeal

to an academic audience willing to learn both the ancient Chinese language

and the

cultural

complexities

it

embodied,

Legge

presented

literal

translations

in

stanza

form. The

accuracy

of the

conceptual

presentation

was his

prime

concern;

poetic

features

such

as

the

rhythm

and

rhyme

of the

Chinese text

4

In

each of

the five

volumes of The

Chinese Classics

Legge

provided

an

annotated

bibliography

of

relevant

texts. These run to

nearly

250

entries:

183 titles of

general

works

in

Chinese

(including

some

Japanese

publications

and

editions of

texts);

17

dictionaries and

technical tools

in

Chinese;

22

works in

English;

13 in

French;

7

in

Latin;

and one

in

Russian.

Beyond

the

materials

listed,

Legge's personal library

included other

texts

in

Italian,

German,

and Dutch. For

more

details

of

his

personal

library,

see

my

'Some new

dimensions in

the

study

of the works

of James

Legge

(1815-1897); part

I',

Sino- Western

Cultural Relations

Journal,

12,

1990,

29-50.

5

See Lee Chi-fang, 'Wang T'ao's contribution to James Legge's translation of the Chinese

Classics',

Tamkang

Review,

17/1,

1986,

47-67.

6

The

critical document in

this

debate,

published

by Legge's

friends

after

it

was

denied

publication

in

the

proceedings

of

the General

Missionary

Conference of

1877

in

Shanghai,

was

Confucianism

in

relation

to

Christianity

(London, 1877).

After its

publication,

both critics and

supporters

of

Legge's

missiological position

published

articles

in

the

standard

Chinese

missionary

journal,

The Chinese

Recorder,

the

critics

referring

to

his

understanding

of

Confucian

religious

history

as

'Leggism'.

7

Helen

Edith

Legge,

James

Legge:

missionary

and

scholar

(London:

Religious

Tract

Society,

1905).

8

Legge provided

'modern'

translations

of some texts to

broaden their

appeal.

See James

Legge,

The

Chinese

Classics,

Vol.

II

Life

and works

of

Mencius

(Philadelphia:

J.B.

Lippencott

and

Co.,

1875:

iv).



4/23

66 LAUREN

PFISTER

were

extensively

discussed

in

the

prolegomena

and,

in the case of

the

rhymes,

were itemized at the end of each

poem.

The

presentation

of

the

Shijing

as a

whole

followed the traditional order authorized

by

the

Qing dynasty Imperial

Catalogue. Legge clearly sought to produce a translation representativeof the

original

form

of the authorized text and aimed at an accurate

rendering

of

the

conceptual

content of

the

poetry

rather

than

an aesthetic

equivalent

in

English.

In the

interval

between his

retirement

from the London

Missionary Society

and

taking

up

the

professorship

at

Corpus

Christi

College,

Oxford,

Legge

was

encouraged by

two

of his

nephews

to

attempt

a

rendering

of

this Chinese

classic

in

metrical form. It

quickly

became a

group project,

ultimately involving

at least

four

others besides James

Legge

himself,9

including

an Oxford

graduate

who had

figured largely

in

the

government

of the

young

British

colony

of

Hong Kong, Mr. W. T. Mercer.'1

Published with

an

eye

to a broader

audience,

this

metrical Book

of Poetry

reduced the extensive notes and commentarial

glosses

to

introductory

com-

ments

with no Chinese characters.

Also,

the Chinese

text itself was left out

completely

and

any necessary

mention of Chinese terms

was dealt with

by

a

relatively

clearer transliteration

system."

After

beginning

his

professorial

duties

in

1876,

Legge

arranged

with his

Oxford

colleague,

Friedrich Max

Miiller,

to have a number

of Confucian

Classics included

in the

series,

'The Sacred Books of

the East'. Most

of the

chosen

pieces

were

completely

new

translations,

but

Miller

also

asked

Legge

to present a new translation of the religious portions of the ShujingVT, The

Book

of

Historical

Documents,

and the

Shijing

for his series.

Legge

agreed

and

provided

a full translation of

the

Shujing

in

its

original

form,

but offered

a

very

different selection

of

materials

from the

Shijing.

Returning

to

the

non-poetic,

academic

style

of the

first

translation

of

the

Shijing, Legge

re-edited it and

radically rearranged

the

sequence

of

all the

poems.

Even

the

presentation

of the stanzas

of the first translation

was reduced:

rather than

a

parallel

line-by-line

English-Chinese

text,

this version

rendered

the whole stanza as

a

single paragraph.

Individual

lines were identifiable

by

the

capitalization

of

initial

words

but were embedded

in

prose-like

paragraphs.

Whether this formal readjustmentwas Legge's personal choice or was imposed

by

the

editor,

Max

Miller,

is

not

clear.

Certainly

the

more

radical

revision

came

in

the

sequence

of

presentation.

Based

on a hierarchical

vision of

religious

experiences,

Legge

placed

the

full translation

of the

final section of

the

Shijing,

the

'Sacrificial

Odes of

Shang'

(Shangsong

A.$0)

at

the

beginning,

followed

by

the full

rendering

of the

first

section

(Zhousong

NA

),

and

only

selected

poems

9

The

nephews

were

sons

of

Legge's

brother,

John

Legge;

both

had

graduated

from Aberdeen

University

in 1862 and then

together

entered a Nonconformist

seminary,

Lancashire

Independent

College

in

Manchester.

The

elder

was named

John

Legge,

after his

father,

and the

younger,

James

Legge,

after his

uncle.

A minister

friend,

Alexander

Cran,

joined

them

in the

project.

For further

information,

see

James

Legge,

Memorials

of

John

Legge

... With

memoir

by

James

Legge (London:

J. Clarke & Co., 1880). See also James Legge, The Chinese Classics ... Vol.III. The She King; or,

The

Book

of

Poetry

(London:

Trtibner

and

Co.,

1876:

iii).

This

is the

third volume

of the

'modern'

translations

[hereafter

the

Metrical She

King (1876)].

10

Mercer had

an active and

long

career

in

the

political

administration

of

Hong Kong.

He

published

a book

of rather

pedantic

poetry

in

1869,

Under

the

peak;

or,

Jottings

in

verse,

during

a

lengthened

residence in

the

colony

of

Hong Kong.

See

descriptions

of his

political

activities

in

E.J.

Eitel,

Europe

in

China

(Hong Kong:

Oxford

University

Press,

1983

[1895]),

esp. pp.

220,

275-6, 297,

408-11. See

also Metrical She

King

(1876:

iv).

11

The

loss

of the

Chinese text

in

all the

renderings

of The

Sacred

Books

of

China was

lamented

by

a

number

of scholars

who knew

The

Chinese

Classics,

but

its absence

helped

to

make the text

more

appealing

to a

public

which

could not

hope

to

read Chinese.

Only

one

text-

Chenfeng

Mumen

RamR

had

an obvious

printing

error in the

1872 Chinese

text

(the

fourth

lines in

the

two

stanzas

are

reversed).

(See

CC, iv,

1872,

210.)



5/23

JAMES LEGGEIS

METRICAL BOOK

OF

POETRY

67

of the second section

(Lusong

VVI)

of the 'Odes of the

Temple

and

the

Altar'

(Song AY).Legge

then

presented

the 'Minor Odes

of the

Kingdom'

(Xiaoya

/j\I),

'Major

Odes

of the

Kingdom' (Daya

7k~)

and the 'Lessons

from the

States' (Guofeng 9%), including only those poems-or in many cases, only

certain stanzas of

a

few

poems-which

had

some

religious

dimension.

As

regards Legge's

criteria for

constructing

his

'hierarchical vision of

religious

experiences',

he makes it clear that the

Shangsong

were the oldest

and

perhaps

the most

monotheistic

poems

of

this

classic work.

Legge's

hier-

archy, though

never

comprehensively

or

explicitly

expressed,

would thus seem

to rest on

a

complex understanding

of the value of various

religious

experiences.

Primary

to that

understanding

was

the elevation

of

any

text

which

explicitly

or

implicitly suggested

a monotheistic

conceptualization

of

Supreme

Lord

(Shangdi

I*).

Next,

any religious

traditions

portrayed

in

the odes

which

pointed to a belief in the existence of spiritual beings had to be considered

relatively

informed,

even

if

skewed and

unbelievable. This included

prayers

to

ancestral

spirits

and the

addressing

of various

powers

such as

the

spirits

of the

earth, moon, stars,

mountains

and rivers.

Although

there

was

in

Legge's

own

understanding

a

major

distinction between

personal

and

impersonal

spirits,

there is no

discernible

re-ordering

of

the

texts on the basis

of this

qualification.

A third

distinct level involved the

methods of

discerning

spiritual

values

(e.g.

through

divination,

by casting yarrow

sticks

or

scorching

tortoise shells

and

shamanism),

and

the

description

of sacrificial rites.

It also seems clear

that

Legge's

placing

of

the

Xiaoya

and

Daya

sections

before the

Guofeng

is

predic-

ated on the fact that these were included in the religious ceremonies and

sacrificial

rites of the Zhou

king,

all of which

were

in a

class above

any

similar

rites in

the domains

of

the

feudal

princes.

Viewed

from this

standpoint,

Legge

appears

to have

rearranged

the order

of the

Shijing

according

to criteria based

on conscious

metaphysical,

epistemo-

logical,

ritualistic

and

class-oriented data. The

metaphysics

reflected his

Christian

commitment and his

knowledge

of

comparative religious

studies. His

epistemological judgements

were most

likely

made

according

to

the

degree

of

certainty any

religious knowledge

was able to

provide;

these evaluations

them-

selves were

grounded

in

his

studies of

Dissenter

theology

and

Neo-Aristotelian

philosophy of the Scottish Commonsense tradition. For the rituals and class-

orientations

of

the

speakers

and

subjects

of the odes he drew

on his

assessment

of

the

Chinese commentarial

traditions and

their

historical and

religious

significance.

Although

more

could be said

about this third

version of the

Shijing,

I

will

now turn

to

an

analysis

of

the

least

recognized

translation,

that of

the

so-called

'Metrical

Shijing'

of

1876.

III.

The metrical

Book

of

Poetry

of

1876

To establish what is

important

about a 'metrical'

English

version of The Book

of

Poetry

we need

to

ask

whether

its evaluation

requires

different standards of

judgement

that

go beyond

'accuracy'

and an

appeal

to literal

correctness.

If

other

evaluative criteria

need to be

applied

to a

poetic

version of the

text,

the

question

then

is,

how well

do

the

renderings

of

Legge's

metrical

translation

stand

up

to closer

examination? The

very

fact that this

edition was

not the

basis

for the

third version

Legge prepared

in

1879

should

give

us

pause.

Yet

in

retrospect

it is

not difficult to see the

uniqueness

of this

particular

edition

of The

Book

ofPoetry.

No other

major

sinologist

of the

nineteenth

or

twentieth



6/23

68

LAUREN

PFISTER

centuries has succeeded

in

producing

a

metrical version of this

Confucian

classic

in

any

European

language.'2

The French and

Latin versions

prepared

by Seraphim

Couvreur

in

1896

were

translations

which

sought

to

provide only

conceptual equivalence, relying on Zhu Xi's

*A

interpretations,and presenting

all the

poems

in

paragraph

form,

much like

Legge's

third translation of

1879.13

Karlgren's

version

of The Book

of

Odes

also

presents

the

poetry

in

single

paragraphs

which do

not

even

distinguish

between

separate

stanzas.14

Only

Arthur

Waley's

topically arranged

version of

the

classic,

The Book

of

Songs.

the ancient Chinese classic

of poetry,

presents

the material

in

poetic

form with

individuated

stanzas.15

Nevertheless,

Waley

did not

try

to

represent

the

rhyme

or the

rhythm,

nor

even

necessarily

to follow the

repetition

of

lines in the

Chinese

standard,

although

he did

attempt

subtle re-creations of various

sounds,

moods,

and

word-play.

This

unique aspect

of

Legge's

metrical render-

ing does not, however, in itself establish the work as important. To do that,

we

must also take account of what has

so

far been

overlooked.

When

comparing

some

outstanding

renditions of The Book

of Poetry

on

the basis of their

conceptual

accuracy, philological

awareness and

interpretive

sensitivity,

without

considering

the formal nature of the

presentation,

some

scholars have identified

reasons

for

preferring

later

translations of

the classic

12

This claim needs to be

carefully

qualified. Legge

himself knew of two

German

translations

of the Confucian

classic,

both

of

which had been translated

from a Latin version

by

Father

Lacharme.

In

his first translation of the

Shijing

in

1872,

Legge

reviewed

a

number

of

renderings

in

Lacharme's work and discovered them to be

'very

inaccurate

Latin

translation[s]'. (See

James

Legge,

CC, Iv,

1872,

167.)

Legge

made

other comments

on and

evaluations

of Lacharme's work

throughout

this

text,

almost

all of

which

rejected

Lacharme's

renderings.

Since

the

two German

versions

depended

on

Lacharme,

they

were

already

at a

disadvantage.

Of the two-Friedrich

Ruckert's

Schi-King,

Chinesisches

Liederbuch,

gesammelt

von

Confucious (Altona:

1833)

and

Johann Cramer's

Schi-King,

oder

Chinesische

Lieder,

gesammelt

von

Confucious--Legge

considered

the former the far

better

version,

in

spite

of

inherent flaws due to lack

of contact with the

original

Chinese.

13

See

Seraphim

Couvreur, S.J.,

Cheu

King:

Texte chinois avec une

double

traduction

enfrancais

et en latin

(Ho

Kien Fou:

Imprimerie

de

la Mission

Catholique,

1896;

4th

ed.,

Taipei: Kwangchi

Press,

1967,

1992).

One

major

difference between

Couvreur's version and

Legge's

third

1879

translation

is

that

the former

numbers

all the

stanzas,

even

though

they

are

already

distinctly

separated.

In

Legge's

third

version,

there are no numbers

identifying

the

sequence,

although

he

had

included

them

in

both the 1872 and

1876

versions,

at the extreme left

of

each

stanza.

14

Karlgren preferred to start each stanza with a dash and to place

its

sequential

number

at

the

beginning

of

the stanza

in

the midst

of a

running paragraph.

This saves

space

and

helps

to

identify particular

stanzas

fairly clearly

in

the

translation;

his

Chinese

version,

however,

does

not

distinguish

the stanzas at

all.

(It

should be

noted that

Legge's

Chinese version

in

the 1872

translation

provided

both

stanza

and

line

numbers,

making

the

process

of

referring

to

the

original

much

easier.)

See Bernhard

Karlgren,

The Book

of

Odes:

Chinese

text,

transcription

and translation

(Stockholm:

Museum of Far Eastern

Antiquities,

1974).

Both Couvreur's

and

Karlgren's

versions

included

the

transliteration

of

the Chinese text into

contemporary

Chinese

sounds,

with

Karlgren

adding

in

parentheses

the

pronunciation

of

rhymes

in the reconstructed

phonetics

of

the older

Chinese. This adds

a

philological

interest,

especially

in

Karlgren's

case,

which

is not as evident

in

Legge's

versions.

Legge

did

carefully

and

thoroughly

discuss

the ancient

'prosody'

in

the 1872

version,

but

only

at the

end

of

his notes

on

each

poem

and

without

transliteration,

using

only

the

Chinese characters themselves.

15

See Arthur

Waley (tr.),

The

Book

of

Songs:

the ancient Chinese

classic

of

poetry

(London:

Allen

and

Unwin, 1937). Waley's rearrangement

of the

poems

into

topical units,

much like

Legge'sthird version of

1879,

according

to their

religious

interest,

also restructured the text in

ways

completely foreign

to the

Chinese classic

itself.

Waley's reorganization

is far more radical than

Legge's,

but

it must be remembered

that

in

Legge's

time

imperial

Chinese

civil service

examinations

were

still

using

the standard

text,

and the

need to 'follow

the authoritative

model' was thus

more

urgently

felt.

Nevertheless,

Legge

was

quick

to

point

out

in his 1872 translation

that both

the Han

dynasty

Mao school

mR?

nd the

Song

T-,

dynasty

school

following

Zhu

Xi's

interpretations

did

consider

the

placement

of

and

interrelationship

between

poems

a

significant

factor

in

understanding

the

larger

meanings

of individual

poems.

One

example

of this

intertextuality

is the

interpretation

Zhu

Xi

gives

of the 'Shan

you

shu'

fiif

poem

in

the

Odes

of

Tang

Al,

of the

Lessons

of

the States

)A1

in which

this

poem's

significance

is

tied

to

the

themes

of

the

previous

odes.

(See

CC,

Iv,

1872,

176.)



7/23

JAMES LEGGE'S METRICAL BOOK OF

POETRY

69

to

Legge's

1872

'prosaic'

rendition.16

But this

comparison

does

not

include

factors

relating

to

the

aesthetics

of

poetic

renditions

such as those

which

inform

Legge's

translation

project

of

1876,

precisely

because the scholars

concerned

were unawareof the existence of a metrical version. In this sense, the uniqueness

of

Legge's

metrical

Shijing

needs to be

re-evaluated,

in

parallel

with

a

re-evaluation

of the

nature of the act of

translation

itself. The

discussion

that

follows will

argue

in favour

of such

a reconsideration of

Legge's

metrical

work

in the

light

of the

standards

applied by Wong

and

Li

as

well

as

specific

theories

of

translation and their

related criteria.

1. Standards

ofjudgement

In

recent decades the

history

of the

development

of

translation

theory

has

been

seen

as an

increasingly important

facet of

study

in

European

and

North

American translation

circles.17

The shift in

emphasis

was

prompted by

changes

in the

basic

understanding

of the

task of

translation,

requiring

modern

theorists

to re-think

earlier

approaches

and to

experiment

with new

definitions

of

the

translation

process.'8

Major eighteenth-

and

nineteenth-century

translation theorists

advocated

the

pursuit

of

a

'perfect'

translation based on

the use of

metaphor; they

believed

an

exact

equivalence

between

languages

could be

achieved if

the

translator

thoroughly

understood the

original

language

(the

'source

language'

or

'SL')

and

was a

competent

and creative

speaker

of the

language

into

which

the

SL

text was

rendered

(the

'target

language'

or

'TL').

Later

nineteenth-

and twentieth-century theorists have debated such claims, some arguing that

they

were not

universally

true,

others,

that the

metaphorical

approach

was

wrong

altogether.

Translators had

sometimes

to

face

phrases

and

ideas which

had

no

perfectly

suitable

rendering

in

the

target

language

and to find

some

other

way

to

present

the

basic

ideas without

losing

too

much of

the

meaning

expressed

in

the

original.

Moving beyond

the

literal

text,

translators were

16

See,

for

example,

the

fine

evaluative

work

by Wong

Siu-kit

RJME

and

Li

Kar-shu

*JW

in

'Three

English

translations

of

the

Shijing',

Renditions,

November

1987,

113-39.

Having

considered the

translations

of The

Book

of Poetry by

Legge,

Waley

and

Karlgren,

they place

Legge's

academic

rendition of 1872

last in

terms

of

precision

and

poetic

style.

The

criteria

they

apply include late Qing philological knowledge, advances in linguistic and etymological understand-

ing,

accuracy

of

word-for-word

and

phrase-for-phrase

translation,

devices

by

which

the

rendering

reflects the

Chinese

standard,

as

well as

the

fluidity

and

clarity

of

the

contemporary English

rendering.

In

their

generally thoughtful assessment,

Karlgren's

version

emerges

as

the

most

systematic

and

precise,

while

Waley's

is

the

most

stylish

and

poetic.

Criticisms

of

Legge

include

excessive

reliance on

Zhu

Xi's

philological

evaluations

and

a

too

limited

awareness of

the

importance

of late

Qing

philological

scholarship.

That

Legge

followed

Zhu Xi in

some

cases is

clear,

but

this can be

overstated. In

fact,

Legge opposed

Zhu Xi's

philological

and

interpretive

positions

almost

as often as he

supported

them,

preferring

in

those

instances

either

a Han

school

position,

a

Qing option,

or

one of

his

own

preference.

A

knowledge

of

Legge's

Metrical

Shijing,

I

suspect

might

have

modified some

of their

judgements

of

his

style.

17

See,

for

example,

Susan

Bassnett-McGuire,

Translation

tudies

(New

York:

Routledge,

1980;

revised ed.

1991,

esp.

39-75).

In

her

work,

Victorian

translation

theorists

(such

as

Arnold

and

Longfellow)

are

distinguished

from

Romantic

and

post-Romantic

theorists in

that

they

elevated

the importance of the text in the original language to an extreme, emphasizing the accuracy of a

rendering

and

denying

much

liberty

at all

to the

translator;

whereas

Romantics

such

as

Goethe

tended

to

have

a more

liberal

view of

the

creativity

of the

translation

act.

See also

Douglas

Robinson The

translator's

turn

(Baltimore:

John

Hopkins

University

Press,

1991),

65-126.

Robinson

argues

that

the

Romantic

translation

theorists

gave

metaphor paramount

status as

a means

of

characterizing

the act

of

translation.

(See

p. 160).

For an

historical

overview

which

supports

the

Romantic

vision

see

George

Steiner's

After

Babel:

aspects

of

language

and

translation

(New

York:

Oxford

University

Press,

1975).

18

The

development

of

these

theoretical

positions

is

complicated

by

the

fact

that

some

theorists

feel

there is no

need for

any

change,

only

a

more

precise

set

of

descriptive theories,

while

others

propose

a more

radical

shift

towards a less

rationalist and

more

relational

theory

of

translation.

For

one

such

theory

with

many qualifications

in

the

footnotes,

see

Robinson,

The

translator's

turn,

65-9.



8/23

70

LAUREN PFISTER

urged

to

find other locutions

which

might

even

have

only

tenuous literal

associations

with

the

original

idea

but

which

provoked appropriate responses

in

the

audience.19

This

kind of translation has been

described as

'dynamic

equivalence', suggesting that it produces a similar or even the same effect in

the

audience

of the

target

language

that

the

original phrase

has

in its own

context.20 Once the idea of a

dynamic equivalence

is

accepted,

translators have

to become

much

more sensitive

to the differences

expressed

in

various

languages

with

regard

to their

historical, cultural,

sociological,

religious

and aesthetic

backgrounds.

In the

light

of this

need,

consideration

of the

historical

develop-

ments

in

translation theories themselves becomes all the more relevant to both

the

act

of

translating

and the

task

of

rethinking

its

theoretical

explanation.

Taking

the

concept

of

dynamic

equivalence seriously,

theorists

have

gone

on to

debate

whether

or

not

it is

sensible to talk about

evaluating

translations

as ' acceptable/unacceptable', 'good/bad', 'right/wrong', and 'justified/

unjustified'.

The

debate

is

complex,

and

will not be rehearsed

here.21

Its

effect

is to demonstrate

that

a number

of

options, particularly

in

translations

of

poetry,

can

be

equally acceptable

without

one or other

being

branded as

completely wrong.

I

will

argue

that

the

'right/wrong'

and

other distinctions

are still valid

judgements,

but

I

am

also

willing

to

broaden

the

range

of

options

because

I

recognize

that

the

density

of

poetry permits

and

even

legitimizes

it.

Among

other criteria

which can and should be

utilized

in

assessing

trans-

lated

poetry,

the first

must be-is

it

poetic

in form?

Once

one

accepts

the

fundamental

importance

of this

assessment,

other

criteria soon

follow.

- What style of translation is it? Does it seek to imitate the poem in the

source

language

(its

stanzas, meter,

rhythms,

rhymes, images),

or is

it

a

more

liberal

rendering?

-

Why

does the translator

choose

this

particular

way

of

expressing

the

poem?

Is this

form

and

style

of

expression

appropriate

in

reflecting

the

status of

the

poetic

text

in its

original

context?

Does

the

version

reflect the same

tone as

the

original

poem?

Is

the

voice of

the

poetry pitched

at

the

same

or similar

level of

popularity,

eruditeness,

oddness,

simplicity?

-

What

devices must

the

translator

employ

in order to

present

more difficult

passages? Does the translated text present itself as a 'perfect rendition

',22

or

are

there other

techniques

(footnotes, parenthetical

comments,

or other

19

A

general

discussion

of these

questions

in

relation to translations

of

poetry

are

found

in

Bassnett-McGuire,

Translation

studies,

81-109.

Examples

of the

problems

in

aiming

for exact

equivalence,

most often

illustrated

by

poetic

translation,

are

provided

in

Robinson,

The

translator's

turn,

133-93.

20This

is

the

terminology

of

Eugene

Nida.

Peter Newmark

(whom

Donald

Robinson

characterizes

as

a 'commonsense-for-sense'

theorist)

claims

that the

principle

of

dynamic

equivalence

is

becoming 'generally

superordinate,

both

in translation

theory

and

practice,

to

the

principles

of

primacy

of form and

primacy

of content.' See

Peter

Newmark,

Approaches

to

translation

(Hemel Hempstead,

Herts:

Prentice

Hall International

(UK)

Ltd.,

1988),

132,

and

for

Robinson's

comment,

The

translator's

turn,

173.

21

Robinson's work is an attempt to present a radical alternative along 'dialogic' lines,

following

the ideas of

Mikhail Bakhtin

and

Kenneth Burke

in

reinterpreting

locally-based

terminology

according

to what

he calls

an

'

ideosomatic

feel'

for the

appropriateness

of

translations.

His

theoretical

approach

to

language

bears

a

striking

similarity

to that

of the

pre-Qin

Daoist

philosopher,

Zhuangzi A-T

and

is

opposed

to that of

a

number

of current translation

theorists,

including Eugene

Nida

and Peter

Newmark,

who tend

to

over-generalize

their

rationalized

categories

to

the

point

where

they

cannot

fail to

raise certain

theoretical doubts.

Robinson's

position

seeks

to

avoid

such

conflicts

of

principle

by

not

insisting

on

the

universalizability

of

his ideas.

22

Sometimes

a

translation

gives

no

obvious

sign

that

it is in fact

a

translation,

in which

case,

text and

translator create

the

impression

of an

exact translation

(even

if it is

unintended):

this

phenomenon

has been

called

the 'realistic

illusion'

by

Mikhail

Bakhtin,

and

is discussed

in

Robinson,

The

translator's

turn,

170-72.



9/23

JAMES LEGGE'S METRICAL BOOK OF

POETRY

71

means)

to

explain

the

unusual

locutions in the source

language

which

would

seem unnatural

and even senseless

in the

target

language?

In

the

following

discussions

I

will refer

to these five

criteria and their

collateral

issues as:

form;

style; appropriateness;

voice;

and

techniques.

2. A

descriptive

assessment

of

the

metirical

Shijing

In

assessing Legge's

contribution in the

metrical

Shijing,

we

should mention

at least one influence

from

his

background

which

predisposed

him

to

certain

kinds of

translations. As

a

student,

Legge's

sense of

Scottish

history

led him

to

read the Latin

history

of

Scotland

by

the famous

Scots

Latinist,

George

Buchanan.23

Legge

was also

aware that

Buchanan

had

written a Latin

metrical

paraphrase

of the

Psalms and found

he

preferred

Buchanan's

version

above

any other.24Years later, between 1874 and 1876, when the translation of the

metrical

ShiFing

was

being

completed, Legge

also

prepared

a

manuscript

of the

Psalms in

English,

metrically paraphrased

in

a fashion

very

similar

to

Buchanan's

style.25

Though

other

influences could

be

mentioned,

Buchanan

appears

to

have

shaped

a

major part

of

Legge's poetic

sensitivities.

i.

Form

It is

important

to note

that,

when he

began

the first

translation

of

The

Book

of

Poetry, Legge

had

consciously

considered

the

possibility

of

providing

some

kind of

metrical version

and decided not

to do so even

though

he

believed this

was an important factor in the translation. His reasoning is worth considering:

It

may

be

granted

that

verse is the

proper form

in which

to

translate

verse;

but the

versifier must

have a sufficient

understanding

of the

original

before

he

can

do

justice

to

it,

and avoid

imposing upon

his

reader

....

My object

has

been

to

give

a version of the

text which

should

represent

the

meaning

of

the

original,

without

addition

or

paraphrase,

as

nearly

as

I

could

attain

to

it. The

collection

as

a whole is

not worth

versifying.

But

with

my

labours

before

him,

any

one

who is

willing

to

undertake

the

labour

may

present

the

pieces

in

'a faithful

metrical

version.'

My

own

opinion

inclines

in

favour of

such a

version

being

as

nearly

as literal

as

possible.26

Although

he

recognized

in

principle

the

appropriateness

of

rendering

the

Chinese

poems

in

some

poetic

form,

Legge

had

already

judged

a

number of

the

poems

unimportant.

In

the

1872

translation,

he

repeated

and

elaborated

these

evaluations

in

his

footnotes

to

individual

poems

as well

as

in

the

summary

evaluations

at

the

end

of

the

different

sections.27

Yet,

in

spite

of

Legge's

initial

23

George

Buchanan,

Rerum

Scoticorum

Historia

(Edinburgh,

1582).

Details

of

the

text

and

its

influence on

Legge's

later

translations are

provided

in

my

'Some new

dimensions

...

part

1

',

42-3.

24

George

Buchanan,

Paraphrasis

Psalmorum Davidis Poetica

(n.p.,

1566).

An

English

version

of the

text was

prepared

in

1754 under the

title,

A

poetical

translation

of

the

Psalms.

25

The manuscript, for reasons which are not obvious, was never published; it is now held in

the

New

College Library

of the

University

of

Edinburgh.

26

From

CC,

Iv,

1872,

prolegomena,

115-16

et

passim,

emphasis

added.

27

This

he

did

only

for

the

Guofeng

RK

division

in

the

1872

edition.

(See

the

1872

translation,

19, 37,

72, 90,

108-9,

123, 149, 162,

173, 189,

204,

214,

219, 225,

242-3.

Sometimes no

explicit

evaluation is

given,

but

in a

number of

cases

Legge

listed those

worthy

of

attention

for their

information,

moral

stance,

poetic

interest,

or aesthetic

value. He

speaks

of

two

poems

among

those in

the

Wei

*

section

which are

'most

interesting

and

ambitious'.

From the host

of

Zheng

OP

poetry

he

mentions

two,

the

eighth

and

nineteenth

which

'stood

out

conspicuously'

because

of their

positive

values.

Yet a

stern

voice

could

also be

heard: 'To

none of the

odes of

Ts'aou

f

does

there

belong

any

great

merit.'

Legge

quotes

the

praise

of

Zhu Xi

and one

of

the

Cheng

W

brothers,

but

in

the

Zhounan

Ai

and Shaonan

B~A

he

comments

tersely

that

they

'do not

approve

themselves so

much to a western

reader'.

As

at

the

beginning,

so

at the

end:

the

last



10/23

72

LAUREN PFISTER

claim that 'as a whole'

it

was

not

worth

versifying,

as we have

seen,

he

later

changed

his mind

and laboured

with others to

complete

the

task.28

In

the metrical

version,

all 305

of

the

existing poems

of

the Confucian

classic were transformed into English poetry, using lines varying from four to

twelve

syllables,

in

many

cases

including

multiple

lengths

in

combination.29

Yet even this

summary

is

too

simple:

three

poems

were rendered

in

Broad

Scots,

a

very

different form

of

English

(Wangfeng

Junzi

yu yi

TI

FR-

TJi,

Wangfeng

Yang

zhi

shui

r)

FM2:7J

and

Zhengfeng

Gaoqiu

1Vi

Vi]);30

four

others included Latin versions

prepared by

William Mercer

in

addition

to the

English

renditions

(Wangfeng Yang

zhi shui

_M

F

i7Ai,

J,

Chenfeng

Fang

you

que

chao

%

f

iXJ,

Xiaoya Luming

Huanghuang

zhe hua

'J

A

/

and

Zhousong

Qingmiao

Wei

Tian zhi

ming

J'PJ

k

Z

pi);31

and three

poems

were

presented

in

two different transla-

tions, one after the other (Tangfeng Gesheng*L~t rJt, Qinfeng Huangniu

R

%F*ji,

and

Zhousong

Min

yu

xiaozi Xiaobi

M

4r-f,

l'T]).32

The

poems

were

numbered

according

to

their

sequence

in the

section

in

which

they

appeared;

their titles were not translated but

given only

in

transliterated

form

before

the

introductory

statement which

preceded

each

poem.

This is in

contrast to the 1872

version which

attempted

no

patterned

rhythm,

often with

very irregular

line

lengths.

Stanzas

were numbered

in the

margins

of

both

the

English

and the Chinese for

easy

reference,

while in the

1876 rendition

whole

poems

were

presented

in

English

only

and

so

did not

require

these indicators.

Another factor in the formal presentation of the poetry was that the layout

varied

considerably

in the

metrical

version,

while

in

the

first version the

poems

appeared consistently

the same.

In

the

1872

work

there was no variation

in

the

margins; every

line,

no

matter

how

long

or

short,

began

at

exactly

the

same

point

on the

page.

In

the 1876

edition,

only

about a

quarter

of the

poems

were

printed

in this fashion. In another

quarter,

whether

in

four-

or six-line

stanzas,

the second and fourth

lines were

indented.33

In

28 of the

poems,

the

even lines were

invariably

indented. The

variety

is

astonishing,

with over

59

different

ways

of

indenting and/or extending

the

lines within

the

large variety

of stanza

lengths.

Thus the 1876 metrical version was

immensely

more

inviting

to

eyes

used

to

English poetry

than the

earlier translation.

three

odes

of

Bin

i

he

considered to

be 'of a

trifling

character',

but

he

immediately

pointed

to

the first and third

poems

of that

section

as not

only being

longer

but also

'

of

a

superior

character'.

28

Elsewhere

I

have assessed

the

importance

of

Legge's

presentation

of the translations included

in

both

The Chinese Classic and

The

Sacred

Books

of

the

East,

using aspects

of the communicative

action

theory

of

Jirgen

Habermas

to

identify

the advances

Legge

had

made over

earlier

attempts

at

translating

some of these

materials. See 'James

Legge'

in

the

Encyclopedia

of

translation:

Chinese-English,

English-Chinese,

(ed.)

Chan Sin-wai

and David

E.

Pollard

(Hong Kong:

Chinese

University

Press,

1995:

401-22).

29

In the metrical

Shijing,

I recorded at

least 41 different

syllabic patterns

among

the

poems.

The

4-syllable

lines

always

occur

in

connection with

6- or

8-syllable

lines

(see

Metrical

She

King,

1876,

80:

'Peifeng

Zhongfeng'

4l~

r J;

236,

'Xiaoya

Xiaomin

Qiaoyan'

',J,

5-7J;

and

351, 'Zhousong Wei Tian zhi ming' ZF*,F~)KZiJ). Examples exist of complete poems from 5-

to

12-syllables

per

line.

A

greater

number

of these

kinds of

poems

is

in

either

8- or

10-syllable

lines.

Among

the

many

variations which

include two or

more

lengths

of line

in a

stanza,

there

are

14

poems

in

the

8,

6,

8,

6

rhythm (pp.

89,

96, 187,

194,

278, 308, 351,

355, 356, 362,

364

[2

poems],

271,

372);

seven

poems appear

in the

rhythm

8, 8,

6,

8, 8,

6

(pp.

91, 176,

239, 248, 275,

315);

seven other

poems

have

been transformed

into

the

rhythm

8, 6,

8,

6,

8,

8

(pp.

71, 233,

274,

281,

293,

298,

358)

and five are

reformulated

in a

10, 10, 8, 10, 10,

8

rhythm (pp.

178,

203, 219,

262,

291).

More than

half the

rhythm patterns

occur

only

once

in

the

whole of

the translation.

30 Metrical

She

King

(1876),

112-13,

124.

31

ibid., 113,

170,

201,

351.

32

ibid., 154, 161,

366.

33

By my

count

79

poems

were

printed

without

any

line variation and the

same

number with

the

second and fourth lines indented.



11/23

JAMES LEGGE'S METRICAL BOOK OF POETRY

73

ii.

Style

Among

the conclusions drawn

by

translation

theorists

regarding poetry

is

that

the more one seeks to imitate specific aspects of an original poem in its

translated

version,

the less successful is

the

result.

...

the closer the

translation

came to

trying

to recreate

linguistic

and

formal

structures of the

original,

the further removed it

became

in terms of

func-

tion.

Meanwhile,

huge

deviations

of

form and

language

[in

a

translated

poem]

managed

to come closer to

the

original

intention.34

It

may

come as a

surprise

therefore,

that

Legge's project actually

includes over

60

poems

which reflect a

conscious

attempt

to mirror

particular

aspects

of

the

structure of the

Chinese

poetry.

Most

often,

this is limited

simply

to the

number of lines

in

each

stanza.35

In

some

cases,

the

variation which occurs

in

the Chinese line

lengths

is

reflected also

in

the

English;36

n

a

few,

the

predomin-

ance of a

particular rhyme

scheme is

also mirrored

in

either a

repeated rhyme

in

English37

or in free

verse

in which

no

rhyme

occurs

in

either Chinese or

English.38

In some

cases,

both

rhyme

and

rhythm

are

very

close

to

the Chinese

original.39Although

there was no

attempt

at an artificial likeness to the

original

rhyme's

actual

sound,

Legge's editing (if

not his

own

creative

effort)40

attempts

to

cloak

a

significant minority

of

the

poems

in

this kind of

formal

similarity

to

their

Chinese

original.

In

the

majority

of

cases

it is

undeniable that

Legge

took

a

more

liberal

attitude

to the task of translation.

The

concise lines of the

original poems,

often (but not always) of four or five characters, defied any effort to convey

such

density

of

meaning

in

so few

English words.41

In

over

30 of the Chinese

poems

there are

internal

rhymes

occurring

on the

penultimate

character of the

line;

these are never

represented by any

equivalent English

locution,

and would

be

nearly

impossible

to

recreate.

Yet there are two other

aspects

of

the

style

of these

English

versions which

provoke

reflection: the search

for

acceptable conceptual parallels

and the

rendering

of

the

allusive element

of

Chinese

poetry.

It was

Legge's

stated

purpose

to include in

the translations

everything

which was

conceptually

and

34

Bassnett-McGuire,

Translation

tudies,

91. This

conclusion

summarizes a

discussion

of

three

different

renderings

of

Catullus Poem

13,

and

is

followed

by

the

statement,

'But this

is

not the

only

criterion for the

translation

of

poetry

...'

3

To

put

this claim

in

another

perspective,

only

one

out of

every

five

poems

in

Legge's

1876

Shijing

attempts

to imitate

the number of lines in

each stanza of

the

original.

There are also a

few

renderings,

all in

the

Xiaoya

/IN,

in

which the

English

lines

per

stanza are fewer

than those

in

the

Chinese text: see Metrical

She

King (1876),

214,

'Tonggong

Jiri'

)I$

F~]

1; 229,

'Qifu

Shiyue

zhijiao'

Z

[Ft-8+~1ZJ;

nd

263,

'Sanghu

Kuibian'

A

2

-Fi#.

6

It

should

be

noted

that,

in

some

cases,

the line

lengths

are more

irregular

in

Chinese than

in

English.

See Metrical

She

King (1876),

143,

'Weifeng

Fatan'

R

r1ft

,

and

247,

'Xiaoya

Beishan Beishan'

/J1,\t

LL

FtLLU]J.

37

See,

for

example

Metrical She

King (1876),

65,

69, 114, 174,

221, 226, 264,

308.

38

Some

representative

pieces

are

found

in

Metrical She

King (1876),

165,

167,

208.

39

e.g., Metrical She King (1876), 109, 152, 153, 170, 175, 260, 281.

40

There are

very

few clues as to who

were the

original

authors

of the translations in the

vast

majority

of cases.

When double

versions

occur,

there is

usually

some

explicit

statement

explaining

that

the versions were

prepared by

two

different authors.

Otherwise,

it is

difficult to tell. In

the

prolegomena

to his 1872

version of the

Shijing,

Legge provided

a

prodigious

amount

of

information

about the

line

lengths,

rhyme

structures,

and

their

variants.

In

the

notes under each

poem

he

always

included,

for the

reader

willing

to

compare

the

notes,

all the

specific rhymes

identified

by

Duan

Yucai

&?A

and

occasionally

some other

Chinese

philologist.

With

these

details at their

disposal, any

of

Legge's

collaborators

would have had

enough

information to

enable them

to

try

to

achieve a

rendering

imitating

the

original poem

in

a

number of

ways.

41

Only

one

poem

was

completely

reformulated

into terse

5-syllable

lines;

the rest

all had

some

lines of 6 or

more

syllables

in

their

stanzas.

See

CC,

iv,

1872, 282,

'Xiaoya

Dou ren

shi

Tiao zhi

hua'

'

F1

Z*?F#].



12/23

74

LAUREN PFISTER

historically

appropriate

to

the

original. Support

for

this claim

is

given

not

only

in his

introductory

statements

but

also

in

comments

where

double versions

in

English

were

published

for

a

single

Chinese

poem.42

Conceptual acceptability is in many cases quite possible, but capturing the

nuances of

metaphorical

and allusive

poetry, especially

when

the various

commentators

disagree

about

their

meanings,

is in

principle

an

almost

hopeless

task.

Examples

of these translation

dilemmas are

much more

numerous

than

can

be

explained

here,

but

two

poems

illustrate the

complex problems presented

by

almost

untranslatable ideas.

Consider

this

prose rendering

in

1872 from

Xiaoya Tonggong

Heming

/1,,

if?

FOOC:43

1.

The crane cries

in

the ninth

pool

of

the

marsh,

And her voice is heard in the [distant] wilds.

The fish lies

in

the

deep,

And

is

by

the islet.

Pleasant

is

that

garden,

In

which are the sandal

trees;

But beneath

them are

only

withered

leaves.

The stones of those

hills,

May

be

made

into

grind-stones.

2. The

crane cries

in the

ninth

pool

of

the

marsh,

And

her

voice

is

heard

in the

sky.

The fish is by the islet,

And

now

it lies

hid in

the

deep.

Pleasant

is that

garden,

In

which

are the sandal

trees;

But beneath

them is the

paper-mulberry

tree.

The stones of those

hills

May

be used to

polish gems.

The Chinese text uses

a subtle

technique,

changing

the last character

of

lines,

transposing

lines,

and then

ending

on two

unexpected

characters,

the whole

bound together by a subtle interplay of rhyme.44The Minor Preface (Xiao Xu

b,1j),

often

referred

to

by

Confucian

scholars

of

Legge's

day

and earlier

to

justify

an

interpretation,

is

in

the end no

help

here.

Legge

comments

briefly

on

the hermeneutic

problem

before

providing

details of Zhu Xi's

interpretation:

42

Before

such

a

second

English

version

of'Zhousong

Min

yu

xiaozi

Xiaobi'

PA.f.V4-YF

fJ

(CC,

iv, 1872,

367), Legge

clarified

the

point

precisely:

'I received from Staffordshire

[that

is,

from his

nephew,

the

Revd James

Legge]

another

version

of this

piece,

which

gives

it a

more

general

character.

It is not so

historically

accurate

as the

above

version,

but

I think the

reader

will be

pleased

to see it.'

From this and similar statements we can surmise that Legge consciously styled the poems

within

the

concepts

and contexts

which

he felt most suited

the

rendering.

Still,

the

very

fact

that

he

did

publish

two versions

rather than one

suggests

that

he

was aware

of

the

possibility

of

diverse

renderings

and was

willing

to

present

a number

of them

if others

would

be

'pleased

to

see

them',

a liberal

attitude

to translation

not

always

recognized

in his own

day.

43

CC,

Iv,

1872,

296-7.

44

The skilful

transposition

of

phrases

and

rhymes

is

captured quite

well

by Legge

in this 1872

rendition,

but this

is a

literal

English

translation

which

leaves one

completely

at

a loss

as to the

covert

meanings

intended

by

the

various

symbols

from

the non-human

natural

world. The

rhyme

scheme of

this

particular

poem,

representing

each final character

with

a

letter,

is

A B C

B

D D

EEE

A C

B C

D D F E

F



13/23

JAMES

LEGGE'S

METRICAL

BOOK OF

POETRY

75

The Preface

says

this

piece

was

intended

to

instruct

King

Seuen,

but it does

not

say

in what.

Nor

is there

any

agreement

among

the

critics about

the

lessons

hid

in

its

aphorisms.45

However,

because the

first

two

lines

of

the

poem

are

quoted

in

The Doctrine

of

the

Mean,

they

were

specifically

marked out

by

Confucian

literati

for

further

reflection. Confucius

himself had

urged

students

to

gain inspiration

from

the

study

of these classical

poems (xing

yu

shi

1-,)46

as

the initial

stage

in

striving

for

self-cultivation,

the

term,

xing,

being

the same term

employed

in

Shijing

scholarship

to

refer

to

the

allusive element. For a translator not to

understand

or

render these

metaphors

was to fail

to

convey

the nature

of one

of the basic tasks

facing

those

who

set out to

follow

Confucius.

Satisfied

by

Zhu

Xi's

account,

Legge

made

the

poem

in his

1876

version

far more

explicit

in

its

rendering

of

the

metaphorical

elements,

making

them

clear references to

specific

issues of

self-cultivation,

and in so

doing eliminating

the

metaphorical

level of

the

poem.47

1. All true

words

fly,

as from

yon

reedy

marsh

The

crane

rings

o'er the wild its

screaming

harsh.

Vainly you try

reason

in

chains

to

keep;

Freely

it

moves as

fish

sweeps through

the

deep.

Hate follows

love,

as 'neath

those

sandal trees

the

withered

leaves the

eager

searcher

sees.

The hurtful ne'er

without some

good

was

born;

The stones that mar the hill will grind the corn.

2. All

true

words

spread,

as from the marsh's

eye

The crane's

sonorous note ascends

the

sky.

Goodness

throughout

the widest

sphere

abides,

As fish

round

isle

and

through

the ocean

glides.

And lesser

good

near

greater you

shall

see,

As

grows

the

paper

shrub 'neath sandal tree.

And

good emerges

from what man

condemns;-

Those stones that mar

the hill

will

polish gems.

A

comparison

of the two

renderings

raises

a

number of issues. The

verbal

interplay

and the

repetition

has

gone

in

the

second version as has

any

hint

of

the

relationship

of

end

rhymes

between the

stanzas.

Although

the

earlier

45

CC,

IV,

1872,

297.

46

This

is from

Lun

Yu,

'Taibo'

Vf

Vi

J

[8:8],

which

Legge

translates

(CC,

I,

1872,

211):

1.

The

Master

said,

'It is

by

the

Odes that

the mind

is

aroused

2. It is

by

the

Rules

of

Propriety

that the character is

established.

3.

It is from

Music that the

finish

is

received.'