论上海翻译文学与本土文学的张力与对话（1843-1919）
|
摘要
此研究是对1843年至1919年这个历史时期上海翻译文学的发展进行的调研。笔者以“多元系统论”为支撑理论,以“系统”思想为“多元系统论”的补充,把这个历史时期上海的翻译文学视作一个“系统”,探讨其与同一个多元系统内的另一个系统,即翻译文学系统的共存系统——本土文学系统——之间的关系的特点,并调查这些特点产生的社会历史原因。“张力”与“对话”这两个术语被笔者用来描述这两个系统之间的关系的两个方面。
自1843年开埠以来,上海虽从未充任过中国的政治中心,但在不到一百年的时间里,上海两度成为中国的文化中心和文学中心。第一次是在清末民初,第二次是在二十世纪二、三十年代。其原因引起了笔者浓厚的兴趣。由于时间所限,笔者只选定上海第一次成为中国文化中心和文学中心的情形作为研究对象,并把时间范围设定在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,把研究对象聚焦于“小说”这一文学体裁。“多元系统论”由埃文-佐哈尔于二十世纪七十年代根据俄国形式主义的一些思想发展而来。俄国形式主义指出:不应该孤立地研究文学作品,而应该将其作为文学系统的一部分进行研究;文学系统内的永恒活力是为抢夺“文学典范”这一首要位置而发生的“转变(mutation)”和争斗(见Munday 2001: 109)。一个系统与其共存系统构成另一个系统,埃文-佐哈尔称其为“多元系统”,亦即由系统组成的系统。埃文-佐哈尔(1978:10)指出,一个文学多元系统可以被二分为典范系统和非典范系统,这两种系统又可以被进一步成各种子系统。他强调:一个多元系统是一个整体,其内部的各个系统之间呈层级关系;“这种层级关系是由各共存系统对某系统的制约形成的;多元系统由这种层级关系进行调整”(同上: 31)。“典范系统只有通过与其共存系统进行竞争才会发展壮大”(同上:18)。典范系统与其共存系统之间的对立为多元系统内部制造了一种“理想的平衡”(同上:17)。
受“多元系统”观念启发,笔者先将1843年至1919年这个历史时期的上海文学视作一个由“翻译文学系统”和“本土文学系统”构成的多元系统。接着,考察这两个系统中的哪一个是典范系统。随后,对两个问题展开调查:翻译文学为何在这个(多元)系统里出现?典范系统如何进驻其现在所处的位置?然后,分析这两个系统之间的“张力”与“对话”关系的特点。最后,调查这些特点产生的社会历史原因。
然而,“多元系统论”不能完全满足此研究的需要,笔者以安德烈·勒菲弗尔于1992年提出的“系统”思想作为此研究的补充理论。两者的立论之基相同,即都把文学视作一个“系统”。此外,这两个理论之间有两个联结点:(1)拟译文本在目标文学中的作用;(2)目标文学中出现的新的创作方法(new approaches)。埃文-佐哈尔提出,“译者选择拟译文本的依据是:是否与目标文学中的新的创作方法相容、是否将在目标文学中发挥革新作用”(1978: 23-24)。勒菲弗尔(1992:14)指出,翻译作品切勿与目标文化中占主导地位的诗学相对抗。“系统”思想中的诗学含两个组件:功能组件和清单组件(同上:26)。埃文-佐哈尔所说的“新的创作方法”是诗学的清单组件的构成元素之一,埃文-佐哈尔提及的“拟译文本在目标文学中的作用”与勒菲弗尔的诗学功能组件相一致。
勒菲弗尔(同上:2-8)认为:翻译是对原作进行改写的方式之一;改写品(rewritings)反映了一定的意识形态和诗学;改写操纵着文学,使其在社会中发挥作用。他指出,“似乎有双重因素在保证文学系统的步调不会与社会中的其他子系统的步调相差太悬殊”(同上:14)。其中的一重因素位于文学系统内部,根据另一重因素设定的参数,从系统内部竭力控制该系统,其代表是“专业人士”;另一重因素曰“赞助机制”,于文学系统之外推动或阻碍阅读、写作和对文学的改写(同上:14-15)。“专业人士”包括评论家、批评家、教师和译者,他们偶尔对那些公然地与占主导地位的诗学和意识形态相对抗的文学作品进行压制(同上)。“赞助机制”通常对意识形态比对诗学更感兴趣,可以说赞助人把诗学领域内的“权威”托付给了专业人士。赞助机制通常通过下列机构进行运作:研究院、审查署、评论期刊和最重要的机构——教育体制(同上)。“赞助”由相互作用并且可以随意结合的三个组件组成:(1)意识形态组件,对与翻译的形式和译作的主题有关的选择和开发(development)进行制约;(2)经济组件,通过发放抚恤金或者指派职位确保作家和改写者得以谋生;(3)社会地位组件,赞助人给予改写者某种社会地位,将其纳入某个支持团体及其生活方式之中(同上:16)。
关于1843年至1919年这个历史时期上海(租界)的意识形态结构,有两点值得注意:(1)上海只是部分区域被划为租界,租界之外仍归清政府管辖;(2)上海租界的人口结构是华洋杂居,并且华人占绝大多数。后一点提到的情形与同时期中国境内的其它租界不同;其它租界的面积小得多,并且居住者基本上是外国人。因此,上海租界内通行两套价值标准:清朝的价值标准和由外国人带进来的价值标准。由于清政府在政治上软弱无能,这里占主导地位的往往是外国人带进来的意识形态。由此可见,这里的意识形态结构与“殖民地”相差无几,清政府在这里几乎遭遇“权力真空”。由于外国居住者和中国居民之间的语言障碍以及外国居住者强烈的利润意识,租界内没有审查、监督新闻出版业的法律法规,因而,这里的言论比租界外自由得多。对于与清政府相抵触的言论来说,上海租界俨然是一个避风良港;因而,众多有志之士群集上海,为其革新宣传工作寻求庇护,其中包括一些作家和身兼译者的人。
就翻译文学的来源国别而言,英国、法国、美国、日本和俄国居前五位。虽然由这些译作承载进上海租界的意识形态于唤醒沉睡中的国人有益,但是这些国家毕竟侵略过中国,译者们为何要向他们的文学求援呢?这似乎是一个译业悖论。译者们内心深处就没有痛恨或嫌恶?其实,他们在道路选择问题上的无奈源于两方面:一是十九世纪六十年代至九十年代“洋务运动”中的前驱们企图通过学习西方先进科学技术来实现富民强国的梦想破灭了;一是严复翻译的达尔文的“自然选择”理论中的“适者生存”思想使他们惊醒。译者们同样心怀富民强国之梦,但他们尝试的是另外一条道路:从思想上唤醒国人。
关于“赞助机制”,既然租界内没有审查、监督新闻出版业的法律法规,也就不存在什么“赞助机制”。清政府的权力在这里几乎形成真空,这里及其他租界以外行使“赞助”的机构——清政府及其代表——不敢也嫌麻烦与外国人就“赞助机制”进行谈判。唯有极端事件发生时,他们才会来这里进行镇压。因此,对上海租界内的“专业人士”而言,他们的言论虽然相当自由,但衣食和地位却无保障,只有靠在报社、出版社和书店等处辛苦劳作维持生计。
关于诗学,“任何占主导地位的诗学都冻结(freeze)或者准确地说控制着(control)一个文学系统的活力”(Lefevere 1992: 35),并且“在‘形成期’,任何诗学都反映了其所在的文学系统中占主导地位的创作方法和占主导地位的对文学的‘作用’的看法”(同上: 26)。在1843年以前,上海归江苏省管辖,其诗学与中国其它地区并无二致。一方面,就功能组件而言,中国传统文学的诗学是“经世致用”思想,即文学被统治阶级用来加强其统治;而当时上海租界的诗学中有两股潮流:“经世致用”思想和以鸳鸯-蝴蝶派作品为代表的“遣情娱乐”思想。单单从文学作品的数量上,很难判断哪股潮流占主导地位。笔者对其历史意义进行回顾后发现:占主导地位的是“经世致用”思想。上海租界中占主导地位的诗学功能组件虽然与中国传统文学的诗学相一致,但在“采用者”和“采用意图”两方面均与后者存在显著差异。中国传统文学的“经世致用”思想被统治阶级用来维护已建立起来的社会秩序,因而是保守的;而在上海租界,同样的思想被进步的文人志士们用来推翻旧的社会秩序以创建新的社会秩序,因而是革新的。由此可见:译者们对翻译文学在目标文学将发挥的“作用”所进行的设想,与目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的功能组件相一致。勒菲弗尔(1992:38)认为,翻译向目标文学系统渗透的途径是:为目标文学系统的诗学功能组件发生变化铺好道路。上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统在这一点上的联手,使“经世致用”思想成为整个文学多元系统的诗学功能组件的主流。当时,上海文学多元系统的诗学正在经历“形成期”;以历史视角观之,“经世致用”思想成为此时上海文学多元系统的诗学的功能组件的主流,从文学的本体论上来说,于无意中延长了上海本土文学走向成熟的道路。另一方面,就诗学的清单组件而言,由于翻译文学和本土文学的文化渊源迥异,在租界开辟之初,翻译文学系统和本土文学系统的诗学清单组件之间存在着极大差异。当时,本土文学系统的典范子系统是骈文和八股文,而非小说。就“创作方法(approach)”而言,骈文在本土文学系统中占主导地位;浅显易懂、易适应租界快节奏的“报章体”和“时务体”是新生儿。那么,这两个文学系统的诗学所抱的姿态为如何一般情形呢?是彼此冷漠,还是开心畅谈?答案如果是后者,翻译“将把新的创作方法引进目标文学系统的诗学清单组件中”(同上)。相反,如果翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间彼此冷漠,这时即使“专业人士”不压制那些与目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的清单组件相对抗的译作,起码也会压制那些与目标文学中占主导地位的意识形态相对抗的译作。
在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”体现于以下三个方面:(1)翻译文学对目标社会中占主导地位的意识形态所采取的姿态;(2)翻译文学对目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的功能组件所采取的姿态;(3)翻译文学系统接受本土文学系统的清单组件中某些现有的创作方法,和翻译文学系统把新的创造方法引进到本土文学系统的清单组件中。这三个方面是密切关联的,如勒菲弗尔所说,一种诗学的功能组件与来自诗学以外的意识形态的影响紧密相联,并很容易受意识形态的影响(同上: 34);而且“这种影响往往在文学作品的主题中得到明显体现”(同上)。与本段中(1)、(2)两个方面有关的翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”,前文已有所述;笔者在此仅对本段中的(3)展开讨论。笔者对相关数据进行分析后发现:直到1902年前后,翻译文学系统才成为上海文学多元系统内的典范系统。因而,在1843年至1902年这段时间,翻译文学系统原则上应该模仿本土文学系统的诗学清单组件。真实情况确实如此,译者们的翻译策略便揭示了这一点,如中国传统小说的篇章布局曾被翻译文学作品机械地套用。翻译文学系统成为典范系统之后,一方面,翻译文学与本土文学之间的界线开始消解;另一方面,本土文学系统内部发生了诸多变化:A.一些新的主题现身于诗学的清单组件中,如政治小说和侦探小说;B.在语言使用方面,白话文被用来进行文学创作,作品中出现了一些外来词汇,等等;C.一些新体裁崭露头角,比如日记体小说、书信体小说、自问自答式小说等;D.一些新颖的叙事技巧问世,如第一人称限制叙事、倒叙、插叙等。本土文学在语言使用方面的变化,如报章体和时务体,属于“新的创作方法”。此处的B揭示了翻译文学系统与本土文学系统之间的相容。通过这种相容,翻译文学系统把上述A、C和D带进本土文学系统。由此可见,翻译文学系统只有通过与本土文学系统中的“新的创作方法”相容,才能向后者输入新的创作方法;前者向后者输入的新的创作方法愈多,两者之间的可容性就愈大。
此外,笔者还发现,上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”有以下三个特点:
第一,历时性特点,并且在翻译文学系统成为典范系统之后两者的“对话”才开始活跃起来。这一点与两个系统之间的“张力”的历时性特点密切相关。两个系统之间的“张力”与“对话”之所以呈历时性特点,原因有三:(1)1894年的中日甲午海战中,中方的惨败使“洋务运动”的前驱们试图通过学习西方先进技术来实现富民强国的梦想化为泡影;(2)1898年通过严复的翻译走进中国的“适者生存”思想使进步的文人志士们猛然间惊醒;(3)梁启超在《译印政治小说序》(1898)和《论小说与群治之关系》(1902)两文中呼吁的“革新小说”的思想引发了“小说界革命”,进步的文人志士们深受其鼓舞。在这三方面因素的共同刺激和推动下,1902年前后,翻译文学作品和本土文学作品的数量都骤然飙升。在这三个因素中,前两个因素与意识形态有关,第三个因素与文学系统的诗学功能组件有关。尤其是第三个因素——“小说界革命”——为小说这一非典范系统中的体裁进入典范系统提供了适宜的条件。第二,参与这场历史对话的双方,实际上几乎是同一群人。译者的大部分,尤其是在1902年至1919年这段时间,基本上是身处本土文学系统前沿的作家。这场历史对话犹如中国传统艺术中的单口相声,其中的参与者对中国文学发展的重大贡献在于:一方面,他们创作了关注人类自身问题的作品,即鸳鸯—蝴蝶派作品,把中国传统文学如《红楼梦》中的良好传统继承下来;另一方面,他们一边忙于翻译携带西方意识形态的文学作品,一边致力于创作批判中国现状的作品,以唤醒沉睡中的国人。这群文人志士们脑子里牢记“经世致用”思想,边学习边创作;他们的行动奠定了1843年至1919年这个历史时期尤其是1902年至1919年这段时间上海本土文学系统发展的基调:学习西方。
第三,就参与这场历史对话的双方的地位而言,两个文学系统之间是不平等的。由上述分析可见,无论就意识形还是就诗学而言,翻译文学系统在“对话”中都占明显优势,尤其是在1902年至1919年这段时间。这种地位上的不平等是通过翻译文学系统的译者们的翻译策略和本土文学系统的作者们的创作实践实现的。既然如此众多的与西方意识形态和文学创作方法有关的东西被引进上海,异化翻译策略应该占极大的比重。
笔者还发现:就作品数量而言,在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,上海翻译文学系统自身的发展呈现为“谷-峰-谷-峰-谷”的波状曲线,并且后一个波峰的高度远远低于前一个。第二个波谷(即1911年至1912年这段时间)的出现,可能与辛亥革命有关。因为前期的努力未结出丰硕成果,文人志士们感到有些迷茫;但辛亥革命并未完全失败,它起码推翻了在中国持续两千多年之久的封建统治。对文人志士们而言,这便是一点慰藉,再加上刚刚开始的“新文化运动(1915-1923)”的激励,犹豫徘徊了约三年之后,文人志士们重新鼓起了斗志,翻译文学作品的数量迅速增加;然而,这次增加仅仅维持了三年左右,并且幅度较上一次小得多。从1917年开始,翻译文学作品的数量又急剧下跌。由此可见,在1912年至1919年这段时间,文人志士们力图革新的热情不如1902年至1911年那段时间高涨,文学界出现了些许沉寂,文人志士们可能在期待着某种新的刺激力量出现。
此研究的意义在于:第一,验证将埃文-佐哈尔的“多元系统论”和勒菲弗尔的“系统”思想结合起来应用于翻译研究的可行性。第二,揭示翻译活动在文化建设中的作用。第三,揭示政治、经济、文化和社会等因素对一个地区的翻译发展的制约和影响,对翻译教学与翻译研究有一定启示。第四,为将来的进一步研究提供新视角和参考资料。在某种程度上,此研究可以填补国内翻译研究领域的某些空白。
此研究采取以定性研究为主、定性研究和定量研究相结合的方法。由于国内类似研究鲜见,笔者只好从国内出版的中国文学史或者中国翻译史之类的专著中搜集相关数据。此研究的微观方法是对比。笔者将搜集到的数据进行分析之后,便着手对翻译文学系统和本土文学系统的各自发展变化进行对比。随后,笔者对这两个系统之间的关系提出自己的见解,并对这些关系产生的社会历史原因展开调查。
本论文共分五章。第一章是绪论,介绍了此研究的相关背景和理论框架的构建情况。第二章中,笔者先分别对埃文-佐哈尔的“多元系统论”和勒菲弗尔的“系统”思想进行综述;然后,对此研究将这两个理论相结合的意图进行说明;最后,笔者对国内外学者和专家的相关研究进行了总结。在第三章,一方面,笔者分析了1843年至1919年这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间“张力”与“对话”关系的方方面面的特点;另一方面,笔者也考察了这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统自身的发展具有的特点。在第四章,笔者对这两个系统之间“张力”与“对话”的各个特点产生的社会历史原因进行了探讨,也对导致这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统发展具有某些特点的社会历史原因进行了探讨。第五章先将此研究的相关发现进行了简单概括;然后,介绍了此次研究的意义;最后,给出笔者对今后相关研究的建议。
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.
自1843年开埠以来,上海虽从未充任过中国的政治中心,但在不到一百年的时间里,上海两度成为中国的文化中心和文学中心。第一次是在清末民初,第二次是在二十世纪二、三十年代。其原因引起了笔者浓厚的兴趣。由于时间所限,笔者只选定上海第一次成为中国文化中心和文学中心的情形作为研究对象,并把时间范围设定在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,把研究对象聚焦于“小说”这一文学体裁。“多元系统论”由埃文-佐哈尔于二十世纪七十年代根据俄国形式主义的一些思想发展而来。俄国形式主义指出:不应该孤立地研究文学作品,而应该将其作为文学系统的一部分进行研究;文学系统内的永恒活力是为抢夺“文学典范”这一首要位置而发生的“转变(mutation)”和争斗(见Munday 2001: 109)。一个系统与其共存系统构成另一个系统,埃文-佐哈尔称其为“多元系统”,亦即由系统组成的系统。埃文-佐哈尔(1978:10)指出,一个文学多元系统可以被二分为典范系统和非典范系统,这两种系统又可以被进一步成各种子系统。他强调:一个多元系统是一个整体,其内部的各个系统之间呈层级关系;“这种层级关系是由各共存系统对某系统的制约形成的;多元系统由这种层级关系进行调整”(同上: 31)。“典范系统只有通过与其共存系统进行竞争才会发展壮大”(同上:18)。典范系统与其共存系统之间的对立为多元系统内部制造了一种“理想的平衡”(同上:17)。
受“多元系统”观念启发,笔者先将1843年至1919年这个历史时期的上海文学视作一个由“翻译文学系统”和“本土文学系统”构成的多元系统。接着,考察这两个系统中的哪一个是典范系统。随后,对两个问题展开调查:翻译文学为何在这个(多元)系统里出现?典范系统如何进驻其现在所处的位置?然后,分析这两个系统之间的“张力”与“对话”关系的特点。最后,调查这些特点产生的社会历史原因。
然而,“多元系统论”不能完全满足此研究的需要,笔者以安德烈·勒菲弗尔于1992年提出的“系统”思想作为此研究的补充理论。两者的立论之基相同,即都把文学视作一个“系统”。此外,这两个理论之间有两个联结点:(1)拟译文本在目标文学中的作用;(2)目标文学中出现的新的创作方法(new approaches)。埃文-佐哈尔提出,“译者选择拟译文本的依据是:是否与目标文学中的新的创作方法相容、是否将在目标文学中发挥革新作用”(1978: 23-24)。勒菲弗尔(1992:14)指出,翻译作品切勿与目标文化中占主导地位的诗学相对抗。“系统”思想中的诗学含两个组件:功能组件和清单组件(同上:26)。埃文-佐哈尔所说的“新的创作方法”是诗学的清单组件的构成元素之一,埃文-佐哈尔提及的“拟译文本在目标文学中的作用”与勒菲弗尔的诗学功能组件相一致。
勒菲弗尔(同上:2-8)认为:翻译是对原作进行改写的方式之一;改写品(rewritings)反映了一定的意识形态和诗学;改写操纵着文学,使其在社会中发挥作用。他指出,“似乎有双重因素在保证文学系统的步调不会与社会中的其他子系统的步调相差太悬殊”(同上:14)。其中的一重因素位于文学系统内部,根据另一重因素设定的参数,从系统内部竭力控制该系统,其代表是“专业人士”;另一重因素曰“赞助机制”,于文学系统之外推动或阻碍阅读、写作和对文学的改写(同上:14-15)。“专业人士”包括评论家、批评家、教师和译者,他们偶尔对那些公然地与占主导地位的诗学和意识形态相对抗的文学作品进行压制(同上)。“赞助机制”通常对意识形态比对诗学更感兴趣,可以说赞助人把诗学领域内的“权威”托付给了专业人士。赞助机制通常通过下列机构进行运作:研究院、审查署、评论期刊和最重要的机构——教育体制(同上)。“赞助”由相互作用并且可以随意结合的三个组件组成:(1)意识形态组件,对与翻译的形式和译作的主题有关的选择和开发(development)进行制约;(2)经济组件,通过发放抚恤金或者指派职位确保作家和改写者得以谋生;(3)社会地位组件,赞助人给予改写者某种社会地位,将其纳入某个支持团体及其生活方式之中(同上:16)。
关于1843年至1919年这个历史时期上海(租界)的意识形态结构,有两点值得注意:(1)上海只是部分区域被划为租界,租界之外仍归清政府管辖;(2)上海租界的人口结构是华洋杂居,并且华人占绝大多数。后一点提到的情形与同时期中国境内的其它租界不同;其它租界的面积小得多,并且居住者基本上是外国人。因此,上海租界内通行两套价值标准:清朝的价值标准和由外国人带进来的价值标准。由于清政府在政治上软弱无能,这里占主导地位的往往是外国人带进来的意识形态。由此可见,这里的意识形态结构与“殖民地”相差无几,清政府在这里几乎遭遇“权力真空”。由于外国居住者和中国居民之间的语言障碍以及外国居住者强烈的利润意识,租界内没有审查、监督新闻出版业的法律法规,因而,这里的言论比租界外自由得多。对于与清政府相抵触的言论来说,上海租界俨然是一个避风良港;因而,众多有志之士群集上海,为其革新宣传工作寻求庇护,其中包括一些作家和身兼译者的人。
就翻译文学的来源国别而言,英国、法国、美国、日本和俄国居前五位。虽然由这些译作承载进上海租界的意识形态于唤醒沉睡中的国人有益,但是这些国家毕竟侵略过中国,译者们为何要向他们的文学求援呢?这似乎是一个译业悖论。译者们内心深处就没有痛恨或嫌恶?其实,他们在道路选择问题上的无奈源于两方面:一是十九世纪六十年代至九十年代“洋务运动”中的前驱们企图通过学习西方先进科学技术来实现富民强国的梦想破灭了;一是严复翻译的达尔文的“自然选择”理论中的“适者生存”思想使他们惊醒。译者们同样心怀富民强国之梦,但他们尝试的是另外一条道路:从思想上唤醒国人。
关于“赞助机制”,既然租界内没有审查、监督新闻出版业的法律法规,也就不存在什么“赞助机制”。清政府的权力在这里几乎形成真空,这里及其他租界以外行使“赞助”的机构——清政府及其代表——不敢也嫌麻烦与外国人就“赞助机制”进行谈判。唯有极端事件发生时,他们才会来这里进行镇压。因此,对上海租界内的“专业人士”而言,他们的言论虽然相当自由,但衣食和地位却无保障,只有靠在报社、出版社和书店等处辛苦劳作维持生计。
关于诗学,“任何占主导地位的诗学都冻结(freeze)或者准确地说控制着(control)一个文学系统的活力”(Lefevere 1992: 35),并且“在‘形成期’,任何诗学都反映了其所在的文学系统中占主导地位的创作方法和占主导地位的对文学的‘作用’的看法”(同上: 26)。在1843年以前,上海归江苏省管辖,其诗学与中国其它地区并无二致。一方面,就功能组件而言,中国传统文学的诗学是“经世致用”思想,即文学被统治阶级用来加强其统治;而当时上海租界的诗学中有两股潮流:“经世致用”思想和以鸳鸯-蝴蝶派作品为代表的“遣情娱乐”思想。单单从文学作品的数量上,很难判断哪股潮流占主导地位。笔者对其历史意义进行回顾后发现:占主导地位的是“经世致用”思想。上海租界中占主导地位的诗学功能组件虽然与中国传统文学的诗学相一致,但在“采用者”和“采用意图”两方面均与后者存在显著差异。中国传统文学的“经世致用”思想被统治阶级用来维护已建立起来的社会秩序,因而是保守的;而在上海租界,同样的思想被进步的文人志士们用来推翻旧的社会秩序以创建新的社会秩序,因而是革新的。由此可见:译者们对翻译文学在目标文学将发挥的“作用”所进行的设想,与目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的功能组件相一致。勒菲弗尔(1992:38)认为,翻译向目标文学系统渗透的途径是:为目标文学系统的诗学功能组件发生变化铺好道路。上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统在这一点上的联手,使“经世致用”思想成为整个文学多元系统的诗学功能组件的主流。当时,上海文学多元系统的诗学正在经历“形成期”;以历史视角观之,“经世致用”思想成为此时上海文学多元系统的诗学的功能组件的主流,从文学的本体论上来说,于无意中延长了上海本土文学走向成熟的道路。另一方面,就诗学的清单组件而言,由于翻译文学和本土文学的文化渊源迥异,在租界开辟之初,翻译文学系统和本土文学系统的诗学清单组件之间存在着极大差异。当时,本土文学系统的典范子系统是骈文和八股文,而非小说。就“创作方法(approach)”而言,骈文在本土文学系统中占主导地位;浅显易懂、易适应租界快节奏的“报章体”和“时务体”是新生儿。那么,这两个文学系统的诗学所抱的姿态为如何一般情形呢?是彼此冷漠,还是开心畅谈?答案如果是后者,翻译“将把新的创作方法引进目标文学系统的诗学清单组件中”(同上)。相反,如果翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间彼此冷漠,这时即使“专业人士”不压制那些与目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的清单组件相对抗的译作,起码也会压制那些与目标文学中占主导地位的意识形态相对抗的译作。
在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”体现于以下三个方面:(1)翻译文学对目标社会中占主导地位的意识形态所采取的姿态;(2)翻译文学对目标文学的诗学中占主导地位的功能组件所采取的姿态;(3)翻译文学系统接受本土文学系统的清单组件中某些现有的创作方法,和翻译文学系统把新的创造方法引进到本土文学系统的清单组件中。这三个方面是密切关联的,如勒菲弗尔所说,一种诗学的功能组件与来自诗学以外的意识形态的影响紧密相联,并很容易受意识形态的影响(同上: 34);而且“这种影响往往在文学作品的主题中得到明显体现”(同上)。与本段中(1)、(2)两个方面有关的翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”,前文已有所述;笔者在此仅对本段中的(3)展开讨论。笔者对相关数据进行分析后发现:直到1902年前后,翻译文学系统才成为上海文学多元系统内的典范系统。因而,在1843年至1902年这段时间,翻译文学系统原则上应该模仿本土文学系统的诗学清单组件。真实情况确实如此,译者们的翻译策略便揭示了这一点,如中国传统小说的篇章布局曾被翻译文学作品机械地套用。翻译文学系统成为典范系统之后,一方面,翻译文学与本土文学之间的界线开始消解;另一方面,本土文学系统内部发生了诸多变化:A.一些新的主题现身于诗学的清单组件中,如政治小说和侦探小说;B.在语言使用方面,白话文被用来进行文学创作,作品中出现了一些外来词汇,等等;C.一些新体裁崭露头角,比如日记体小说、书信体小说、自问自答式小说等;D.一些新颖的叙事技巧问世,如第一人称限制叙事、倒叙、插叙等。本土文学在语言使用方面的变化,如报章体和时务体,属于“新的创作方法”。此处的B揭示了翻译文学系统与本土文学系统之间的相容。通过这种相容,翻译文学系统把上述A、C和D带进本土文学系统。由此可见,翻译文学系统只有通过与本土文学系统中的“新的创作方法”相容,才能向后者输入新的创作方法;前者向后者输入的新的创作方法愈多,两者之间的可容性就愈大。
此外,笔者还发现,上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间的“对话”有以下三个特点:
第一,历时性特点,并且在翻译文学系统成为典范系统之后两者的“对话”才开始活跃起来。这一点与两个系统之间的“张力”的历时性特点密切相关。两个系统之间的“张力”与“对话”之所以呈历时性特点,原因有三:(1)1894年的中日甲午海战中,中方的惨败使“洋务运动”的前驱们试图通过学习西方先进技术来实现富民强国的梦想化为泡影;(2)1898年通过严复的翻译走进中国的“适者生存”思想使进步的文人志士们猛然间惊醒;(3)梁启超在《译印政治小说序》(1898)和《论小说与群治之关系》(1902)两文中呼吁的“革新小说”的思想引发了“小说界革命”,进步的文人志士们深受其鼓舞。在这三方面因素的共同刺激和推动下,1902年前后,翻译文学作品和本土文学作品的数量都骤然飙升。在这三个因素中,前两个因素与意识形态有关,第三个因素与文学系统的诗学功能组件有关。尤其是第三个因素——“小说界革命”——为小说这一非典范系统中的体裁进入典范系统提供了适宜的条件。第二,参与这场历史对话的双方,实际上几乎是同一群人。译者的大部分,尤其是在1902年至1919年这段时间,基本上是身处本土文学系统前沿的作家。这场历史对话犹如中国传统艺术中的单口相声,其中的参与者对中国文学发展的重大贡献在于:一方面,他们创作了关注人类自身问题的作品,即鸳鸯—蝴蝶派作品,把中国传统文学如《红楼梦》中的良好传统继承下来;另一方面,他们一边忙于翻译携带西方意识形态的文学作品,一边致力于创作批判中国现状的作品,以唤醒沉睡中的国人。这群文人志士们脑子里牢记“经世致用”思想,边学习边创作;他们的行动奠定了1843年至1919年这个历史时期尤其是1902年至1919年这段时间上海本土文学系统发展的基调:学习西方。
第三,就参与这场历史对话的双方的地位而言,两个文学系统之间是不平等的。由上述分析可见,无论就意识形还是就诗学而言,翻译文学系统在“对话”中都占明显优势,尤其是在1902年至1919年这段时间。这种地位上的不平等是通过翻译文学系统的译者们的翻译策略和本土文学系统的作者们的创作实践实现的。既然如此众多的与西方意识形态和文学创作方法有关的东西被引进上海,异化翻译策略应该占极大的比重。
笔者还发现:就作品数量而言,在1843年至1919年这个历史时期,上海翻译文学系统自身的发展呈现为“谷-峰-谷-峰-谷”的波状曲线,并且后一个波峰的高度远远低于前一个。第二个波谷(即1911年至1912年这段时间)的出现,可能与辛亥革命有关。因为前期的努力未结出丰硕成果,文人志士们感到有些迷茫;但辛亥革命并未完全失败,它起码推翻了在中国持续两千多年之久的封建统治。对文人志士们而言,这便是一点慰藉,再加上刚刚开始的“新文化运动(1915-1923)”的激励,犹豫徘徊了约三年之后,文人志士们重新鼓起了斗志,翻译文学作品的数量迅速增加;然而,这次增加仅仅维持了三年左右,并且幅度较上一次小得多。从1917年开始,翻译文学作品的数量又急剧下跌。由此可见,在1912年至1919年这段时间,文人志士们力图革新的热情不如1902年至1911年那段时间高涨,文学界出现了些许沉寂,文人志士们可能在期待着某种新的刺激力量出现。
此研究的意义在于:第一,验证将埃文-佐哈尔的“多元系统论”和勒菲弗尔的“系统”思想结合起来应用于翻译研究的可行性。第二,揭示翻译活动在文化建设中的作用。第三,揭示政治、经济、文化和社会等因素对一个地区的翻译发展的制约和影响,对翻译教学与翻译研究有一定启示。第四,为将来的进一步研究提供新视角和参考资料。在某种程度上,此研究可以填补国内翻译研究领域的某些空白。
此研究采取以定性研究为主、定性研究和定量研究相结合的方法。由于国内类似研究鲜见,笔者只好从国内出版的中国文学史或者中国翻译史之类的专著中搜集相关数据。此研究的微观方法是对比。笔者将搜集到的数据进行分析之后,便着手对翻译文学系统和本土文学系统的各自发展变化进行对比。随后,笔者对这两个系统之间的关系提出自己的见解,并对这些关系产生的社会历史原因展开调查。
本论文共分五章。第一章是绪论,介绍了此研究的相关背景和理论框架的构建情况。第二章中,笔者先分别对埃文-佐哈尔的“多元系统论”和勒菲弗尔的“系统”思想进行综述;然后,对此研究将这两个理论相结合的意图进行说明;最后,笔者对国内外学者和专家的相关研究进行了总结。在第三章,一方面,笔者分析了1843年至1919年这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统和本土文学系统之间“张力”与“对话”关系的方方面面的特点;另一方面,笔者也考察了这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统自身的发展具有的特点。在第四章,笔者对这两个系统之间“张力”与“对话”的各个特点产生的社会历史原因进行了探讨,也对导致这个历史时期上海翻译文学系统发展具有某些特点的社会历史原因进行了探讨。第五章先将此研究的相关发现进行了简单概括;然后,介绍了此次研究的意义;最后,给出笔者对今后相关研究的建议。
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.
引文
Baker,Mona. In Other Words—A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
Baldick, Chris. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André(eds) Translation, History and Culture: An Introduction. London: Pinter, 1990.
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André. Constructing Cultures——Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1998.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies (3rd ed.) London: Routledge, 2002.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1978.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today, 1979, 1-2: 287-310.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Translation Theory Today: A Call for Transfer Theory. Poetics Today, 1981, 4: 1-7.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Language Conflict and National Identity: A Semiotic Approach. Joseph Alpher (ed.). Nationalism and Modernity: A Mediterranean Perspective. New York: Praeger, 1986, 126-135
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 1. 1990.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Thoery (revised version). Web: http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez, 1997.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Polysystem Culture Research. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, 1997a. 3: 15-34.
Feldman, Yael. Poetics and Politics: Isreali Literary Criticism between East and West. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 1985, 9-35.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock, 1972.
Foucault, Michel. Power / Knowledge. Ed. Colin Garden. New York: Pantheon, 1980.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2001. Holmes, James. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. 3rd International Congress of Applied Linguistics: Abstracts. Copenhagen,1972.
Holmes, James. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In Holmes, ed. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi,1988.
Jakobson, Roman. On Linguistic Apecsts of Translation. 1959/2000. In Lawrence Venuti, ed.: 113-118.
Jorge, Larrain. Ideology and Cultural Identity.戴从容译。上海:上海教育出版社,2005。
Lefevere, André. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.
Mundy, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing Ltd, 1998.
Shuttleworth, Mark and Cowie, Moira. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
Thompson, John. Ideology and Modern Culture.高铦等译。南京:译文出版社,2005。
Toury, Gideon. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1980.
Toury, Gideon.‘What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield Apart from Isolated Dscriptions?’, in Kitty M. van leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens eds Translation Srudies: The State of Art. Amstrdam & Atlanta GA: Rodopi, 1991: 179-192.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies——And Beyond , Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1996.
阿英,《晚清文学丛抄·小说戏曲研究卷》。北京:中华书局,1960。
艾晓明,《中国左翼文学思潮探源》。北京:北京大学出版社,2007。
陈福康,《中国译学理论史稿》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
陈平原,《二十世纪中国小说理论资料第一卷》。北京:北京大学出版社,1989。
陈平原,《小说史:理论与实践》。北京:北京大学出版社,1993。
陈平原,《二十世纪中国小说史第一卷》。北京:北京大学出版社,1997。
陈平原,《中国散文小说史》。上海:上海人民出版社,2004。
陈玉刚,《中国翻译文学史稿》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989。
冯庆华,《文体翻译论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
郭延礼,《中国近代翻译文学概论》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998。
郭延礼,《中国人翻译的第一部外国长篇小说〈昕夕闲谈〉》。中华读书报,1999年12月22日。
郭延礼,《近代西学与中国文学》。南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,2000。
郭著章,《翻译名家研究》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999。
胡翠娥,《文学翻译与文化参与——晚清小说翻译的文化研究》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
黄美真,《上海通志》。上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2005。
黄恽,《“最早的”科学小说〈梦游天〉》。《万象》2006年第8卷第五期,110-112页。
季广茂,《意识形态》。桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005。
季羡林,《季羡林学术精粹(第三卷)》。济南:山东友谊书社,2006。
贾玉新,《跨文化交际学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997。
贾植芳、俞元桂,《中国现代文学总书目》。福州:福建教育出版社,1993。
梁颖,《晚清民初文学中的现代性质素》。《文艺争鸣》2004年第2期,35-37页。
廖七一,《当代西方翻译理论》。南京:译林出版社,2000。
林煌天、陈彦田、袁锦翔等,《中国翻译词典》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1997。
罗新璋,《翻译论集》。北京:商务印书馆,1984。
马祖毅,《中国翻译简史——“五四”以前部分》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984。
钱锺书,《林纾的翻译》,收于罗新璋编的《翻译论集》。北京:商务印书馆,1984。
邱明正等,《上海文学通史》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
上海编辑学会、上海版协,《上海出版人》。上海:学林出版社,2003。
沈苏儒,《论信达雅——严复翻译理论研究》。北京:商务印书馆,1998。
宋超,《上海:世纪上海》。北京:外文出版社,1998。
孙艺风,《视角阐释文化——文学翻译与翻译理论》。北京:清华大学出版社,2004。
孙致礼,《1949-1966:我国英美文学翻译概论》。南京:译林出版社,1996。
童世骏,《意识形态新论》。上海:上海人民出版社,2006。
王秉钦,《20世纪中国翻译思想史》。天津:南开大学出版社,2004。
王宁,《文化翻译与经典阐释》。北京:中华书局,2006。
王乾坤,《文学的承诺》。北京:三联书店,2005。
王岳川,《后殖民主义与新历史主义文论》。济南:山东教育出版社,2002。
王岳川,《发现东方——西方中心主义走向终结与中国形象的文化重建》。北京:北京图书馆出版社, 2003。
王佐良,《严复的用心》,收于《论严复与严译名著》。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
吴成平,《上海名人辞典》。上海:上海辞书出版社,2001。
夏志清,《文学的前途》。北京:三联书店,2002。
夏志清,《中国现代小说史》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
谢天振,《译介学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
谢天振、査明建，《中国现代翻译文学史（1898-1949)》。上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004。
许宝强、袁伟,《语言与翻译的政治》。北京:中央编译出版社,2001。
许钧、季羡林、袁筱一等,《文学翻译的理论与实践》。南京:译林出版社,2001。
许钧,《翻译论》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003。
徐海燕,《论<巴黎茶花女遗事>对清末民初小说创作的影响》。《明清小说研究》2001年第四期。
杨晓荣,《翻译批评导论》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005。
杨幼生,《上海“孤岛”文学》。上海:上海书店,1994。
査明建、谢天振，《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》。武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2007。
张经浩、陈可培,《名家名论名译》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
张美芳,《翻译研究的功能途径》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005。
张南峰,《从边缘走向中心——从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去与未来》。《外国语》,2001(4):61-69。
张南峰,《中西译学批评》。北京:清华大学出版社,2004。
周绍兴,《汉奸与契弟出乖露丑》。太阳报(香港),2007年4月11日。
朱立元,《当代西方文艺理论》。上海:华东师范大学出版社,1997。
庄柔玉,《用多元系统理论研究翻译的意识形态的局限》,《翻译季刊》2000年第16、17期(合刊)。
邹振环,《20世纪上海翻译出版与文化变迁》。南宁:广西教育出版社,2000。
http://www.trip-map.cn/shanghai/ditu.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1735.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/950293.htm
http://coffeejp.com/phpcms/article/good/fanyi/200604/article_395_4.html
http://www.stph.com.cn/mybbs/announce/textview.asp?BoardID=10&ID=59090
http://www.hudong.com/wiki/苏曼殊
http://baike.baidu.com/view/114470.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/28947.htm
Baldick, Chris. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André(eds) Translation, History and Culture: An Introduction. London: Pinter, 1990.
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André. Constructing Cultures——Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1998.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies (3rd ed.) London: Routledge, 2002.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1978.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today, 1979, 1-2: 287-310.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Translation Theory Today: A Call for Transfer Theory. Poetics Today, 1981, 4: 1-7.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Language Conflict and National Identity: A Semiotic Approach. Joseph Alpher (ed.). Nationalism and Modernity: A Mediterranean Perspective. New York: Praeger, 1986, 126-135
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 1. 1990.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Thoery (revised version). Web: http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez, 1997.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Polysystem Culture Research. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, 1997a. 3: 15-34.
Feldman, Yael. Poetics and Politics: Isreali Literary Criticism between East and West. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 1985, 9-35.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock, 1972.
Foucault, Michel. Power / Knowledge. Ed. Colin Garden. New York: Pantheon, 1980.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2001. Holmes, James. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. 3rd International Congress of Applied Linguistics: Abstracts. Copenhagen,1972.
Holmes, James. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In Holmes, ed. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi,1988.
Jakobson, Roman. On Linguistic Apecsts of Translation. 1959/2000. In Lawrence Venuti, ed.: 113-118.
Jorge, Larrain. Ideology and Cultural Identity.戴从容译。上海:上海教育出版社,2005。
Lefevere, André. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.
Mundy, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing Ltd, 1998.
Shuttleworth, Mark and Cowie, Moira. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
Thompson, John. Ideology and Modern Culture.高铦等译。南京:译文出版社,2005。
Toury, Gideon. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1980.
Toury, Gideon.‘What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield Apart from Isolated Dscriptions?’, in Kitty M. van leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens eds Translation Srudies: The State of Art. Amstrdam & Atlanta GA: Rodopi, 1991: 179-192.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies——And Beyond , Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1996.
阿英,《晚清文学丛抄·小说戏曲研究卷》。北京:中华书局,1960。
艾晓明,《中国左翼文学思潮探源》。北京:北京大学出版社,2007。
陈福康,《中国译学理论史稿》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
陈平原,《二十世纪中国小说理论资料第一卷》。北京:北京大学出版社,1989。
陈平原,《小说史:理论与实践》。北京:北京大学出版社,1993。
陈平原,《二十世纪中国小说史第一卷》。北京:北京大学出版社,1997。
陈平原,《中国散文小说史》。上海:上海人民出版社,2004。
陈玉刚,《中国翻译文学史稿》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989。
冯庆华,《文体翻译论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
郭延礼,《中国近代翻译文学概论》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998。
郭延礼,《中国人翻译的第一部外国长篇小说〈昕夕闲谈〉》。中华读书报,1999年12月22日。
郭延礼,《近代西学与中国文学》。南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,2000。
郭著章,《翻译名家研究》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999。
胡翠娥,《文学翻译与文化参与——晚清小说翻译的文化研究》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007。
黄美真,《上海通志》。上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2005。
黄恽,《“最早的”科学小说〈梦游天〉》。《万象》2006年第8卷第五期,110-112页。
季广茂,《意识形态》。桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005。
季羡林,《季羡林学术精粹(第三卷)》。济南:山东友谊书社,2006。
贾玉新,《跨文化交际学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997。
贾植芳、俞元桂,《中国现代文学总书目》。福州:福建教育出版社,1993。
梁颖,《晚清民初文学中的现代性质素》。《文艺争鸣》2004年第2期,35-37页。
廖七一,《当代西方翻译理论》。南京:译林出版社,2000。
林煌天、陈彦田、袁锦翔等,《中国翻译词典》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,1997。
罗新璋,《翻译论集》。北京:商务印书馆,1984。
马祖毅,《中国翻译简史——“五四”以前部分》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984。
钱锺书,《林纾的翻译》,收于罗新璋编的《翻译论集》。北京:商务印书馆,1984。
邱明正等,《上海文学通史》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
上海编辑学会、上海版协,《上海出版人》。上海:学林出版社,2003。
沈苏儒,《论信达雅——严复翻译理论研究》。北京:商务印书馆,1998。
宋超,《上海:世纪上海》。北京:外文出版社,1998。
孙艺风,《视角阐释文化——文学翻译与翻译理论》。北京:清华大学出版社,2004。
孙致礼,《1949-1966:我国英美文学翻译概论》。南京:译林出版社,1996。
童世骏,《意识形态新论》。上海:上海人民出版社,2006。
王秉钦,《20世纪中国翻译思想史》。天津:南开大学出版社,2004。
王宁,《文化翻译与经典阐释》。北京:中华书局,2006。
王乾坤,《文学的承诺》。北京:三联书店,2005。
王岳川,《后殖民主义与新历史主义文论》。济南:山东教育出版社,2002。
王岳川,《发现东方——西方中心主义走向终结与中国形象的文化重建》。北京:北京图书馆出版社, 2003。
王佐良,《严复的用心》,收于《论严复与严译名著》。北京:商务印书馆,1982。
吴成平,《上海名人辞典》。上海:上海辞书出版社,2001。
夏志清,《文学的前途》。北京:三联书店,2002。
夏志清,《中国现代小说史》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
谢天振,《译介学》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
谢天振、査明建，《中国现代翻译文学史（1898-1949)》。上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004。
许宝强、袁伟,《语言与翻译的政治》。北京:中央编译出版社,2001。
许钧、季羡林、袁筱一等,《文学翻译的理论与实践》。南京:译林出版社,2001。
许钧,《翻译论》。武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003。
徐海燕,《论<巴黎茶花女遗事>对清末民初小说创作的影响》。《明清小说研究》2001年第四期。
杨晓荣,《翻译批评导论》。北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005。
杨幼生,《上海“孤岛”文学》。上海:上海书店,1994。
査明建、谢天振，《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》。武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2007。
张经浩、陈可培,《名家名论名译》。上海:复旦大学出版社,2005。
张美芳,《翻译研究的功能途径》。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005。
张南峰,《从边缘走向中心——从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去与未来》。《外国语》,2001(4):61-69。
张南峰,《中西译学批评》。北京:清华大学出版社,2004。
周绍兴,《汉奸与契弟出乖露丑》。太阳报(香港),2007年4月11日。
朱立元,《当代西方文艺理论》。上海:华东师范大学出版社,1997。
庄柔玉,《用多元系统理论研究翻译的意识形态的局限》,《翻译季刊》2000年第16、17期(合刊)。
邹振环,《20世纪上海翻译出版与文化变迁》。南宁:广西教育出版社,2000。
http://www.trip-map.cn/shanghai/ditu.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1735.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/950293.htm
http://coffeejp.com/phpcms/article/good/fanyi/200604/article_395_4.html
http://www.stph.com.cn/mybbs/announce/textview.asp?BoardID=10&ID=59090
http://www.hudong.com/wiki/苏曼殊
http://baike.baidu.com/view/114470.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/28947.htm