The Paper's reporter Ding Xiongfei
Wang Hongzhi (Zhang Jingyi)
As the first official contact between China and Britain, the visit of the Macartney Mission to China in 1793 had a profound impact on the historical development of both countries. In past studies, the role of translators in mission activities has gone unnoticed. Wang Hongzhi, Emeritus Chair Professor, Research Professor and Director of the Translation Research Center of the University of Chinese, Hong Kong, uses a large number of archives and documentary materials to clarify the background of the interpreters and the translation and rewriting of various documents such as the National Book and the Edict, and strives to restore the content and translation process of the first Sino-British dialogue. Focusing on how to interpret the events of the British mission's visit to China, the role of translation in modern Sino-foreign exchanges, and the research methods of translation history, the Shanghai Review of Books interviewed Professor Wang Hongzhi.
Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion: Translation and Macartney's Mission to China, by Wang Hongzhi, University of Chinese, Hong Kong Press, June 2022, 532 pp. $ 42.00
Your early writings are all related to literature, such as Lu Xun and the Left League, Between Literature and Politics: Lu Xun Crescent Moon, And Literary History, and The Accident of History: A History of Modern Chinese Literature from Hong Kong. How did you move from literary studies to translation studies?
Wang Hongzhi: I studied translation and Chinese literature as an undergraduate. Both the master's and doctoral dissertations belong to the category of modern Chinese literature, with the master's thesis entitled "Crescent Poetry Studies" and the doctoral dissertation writing about the Chinese Left-Wing Writers' Union. However, I have a deep love of history since I was a child, and after my first year of college, I thought about transferring to history and talked to a teacher in the Chinese department, but he strongly discouraged it, the main reason for which was the issue of employment. He said that after reading history, the only job is to be a middle school teacher. This was not an ideal career at the time. However, the interest in history has always been very strong, and even later in graduate school, I felt that my research ability was in the historical aspect. For example, when writing about the Crescent Poetry School, the more satisfactory part is about the historical development, social background and interpersonal context of the poetry school, and the analysis of the poetry is often not very certain, and it is often worried that it will be subject to personal subjective comments. In terms of blog theory, the whole paper discusses the historical development and status of the Left League, focusing on the analysis of the interpersonal relations, contradictions and controversies within and outside the left-wing literary camp in the 1930s, and even the role of the Left League in Chinese communist activities throughout the 1930s, paying more attention to the leadership and influence of different lines of the Communist Party on the Left League, the Five Martyrs of the Left League, and the relationship between Lu Xun and the "Four Hanzi", Xu Maoyong, Hu Feng, etc. But for the literary creation of the members of the Left League, almost no mention is given. Therefore, my literary research is largely the study of the history of the literary world.
"Lu Xun and Zuo Lian", by Wang Hongzhi, Nova Publishing House, May 2006, 367 pages, 32.00 yuan
Historical interests are actually influenced by the historical environment in which they live. I grew up in Hong Kong during the British colonial rule, and the school's history curriculum was influenced by politics, such as reading Chinese history only until the 1927 Kuomintang split, and never having a part of Hong Kong history, focusing on European history. High school stage - Hong Kong was called preparatory, that is, the last two years of secondary school, ready to enter the university, one of my favorite books is L. Simon (L. C. B. Seaman's From Vienna to Versailles does not make so-called objective statements or presentations of historical events, but rather powerfully analyzes historical events and presents their own points of view, which is convincing. At that time, I also liked to read A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1848-1918). In addition to European history, of course, it is also very concerned about modern Chinese history, especially for the Opium War, there is a sense of personal relevance. Without the Opium War, there would have been no Treaty of Nanking, and without the Treaty of Nanking, there would have been no Hong Kong, where I was born and raised.
But in any case, my research did not directly deal with political history for a long time, and the first few works belonged to the scope of modern Chinese literature. Translation research is also underserved, mainly because in the past, the discussion of translation was the center of the original work, and most of them only repeatedly asked whether the translation expressed the meaning of the original text and whether it was smooth and fluent to read. This is a critical discussion of translation, and while it is helpful to improve translation skills, I personally do not think it is a rigorous academic study. The major personal change occurred in the early 1980s when the theory of translation, which began to read culture, was arguably a sense of sudden enlightenment. The cultural school pays attention to the cultural and historical influence of the translated language, attaches importance to the historical background, and can not only better explain various translation history phenomena, but also present the true value and power of translation to human culture and historical development. This is the real meaning of translation research.
Can you review your personal translation research? Why did you pay attention to the translation of the Macartney Mission?
Wang Hongzhi: After embarking on the road of translation research, the topics in the initial stage naturally focused on literary translation. Several articles in my first translation research treatise, "Reinterpreting "Letter, Da, Ya"—A Study of Chinese Translation in the Twentieth Century," were discussed around lu xun, Qu Qiubai, Liang Shiqiu, and other twentieth-century translators and translation theorists, and soon moved towards the late Qing Dynasty, studying the literary translations of Liang Qichao and Lin Shu, of course, not to avoid Yan Fu.
Reinterpreting "Letter, Da, Ya": A New Edition of Chinese Translation Studies in the Twentieth Century, by Wang Hongzhi, Tsinghua University Press, May 2007, 314 pp. 28.00 yuan
However, literary translation actually appeared the most recent in the history of modern Chinese translation. Before Liang Qichao proposed the "translation and printing of foreign novels", Yan Fu had already translated and published "The Theory of Heavenly Speech", which had a great impact, not to mention the Foreign Affairs Movement that began in the 1860s, during which most of the translation activities had almost nothing to do with literature. In addition, even the literary translation advocated by Liang Qichao and others has something in common with the Western Affairs Movement and the translation activities of the "Heavenly Speech" in terms of motivation, that is, to introduce new knowledge and new ideas from the West through translation as a means of national prosperity and strength. Therefore, since the 1860s, even during the Republic of China period, various translation activities have been very political, closely related to the fate of the country and the nation, played an extraordinary role in historical development, and became an important element influencing China's modern history. My 2011 book Between Translation and Literature, although it is still mainly about literary translation, also includes non-literary translation articles, involving the general affairs of the Guangzhou system, the Tongwenguan, and the patrons of translation activities in the late Qing Dynasty, such as Lin Zexu and Prince Gong.
Between Translation and Literature, by Wang Hongzhi, Nanjing University Press, February 2011, 374 pp. 39.80 yuan
Since the end of the Ming Dynasty, a key shifting factor in Chinese history has been the arrival of Europeans. In the exchanges between China and the West at different levels and in different fields, the role of translation is self-evident in the effective communication and exchange. Therefore, in addition to the above-mentioned Western translation activities aimed at the self-improvement of rich countries, it is particularly noteworthy that translation activities in the process of Sino-foreign exchanges are particularly noteworthy. Regrettably, however, for a long time, translation almost completely did not enter the field of historical research, as if all the processes of Sino-foreign exchanges did not require the aid of translation, or there was never a translation, let alone seriously deal with a series of problems caused by translation at that time. This is inconsistent with historical facts, obscures the important role that translation has played in history, and hinders and even undermines our correct and in-depth understanding of history. To put it more seriously: Without facing up to the function and influence of translation in the history of modern Sino-foreign exchanges, it is impossible to accurately understand the history of modern Sino-foreign exchanges and the entire history of modern China.
Beginning around 2003, I entered a new field of study to examine the role of translation in modern Sino-British diplomatic relations, and the first related article to be published was "The Translation Problem of Macartney's Envoys to China". The visit of britain's first envoy to China and the visit of the Macartney mission is undoubtedly a far-reaching event in the history of Sino-British relations. After reading a lot of research monographs and papers at that time, I felt sorry and even puzzled that no one had ever paid attention to the translation problem. How could the first diplomatic contacts between China and the UK be possible without language and communication barriers? If you don't understand the translation problems that occurred when the Qing court communicated with the mission at that time, can you really understand the whole historical event? This is the starting point of the whole study. The historical materials at the time of writing that article were very incomplete, so the arguments were also problematic, and "Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion" made many corrections.
The scope of my entire research is the translation of sino-British diplomacy in modern times, which is not limited to Macartney, but also focuses on the Opium War, which is related to personal emotions, and has published more than ten papers so far, and is also trying to write a monograph. However, if we want to study British diplomacy, we must not ignore the arrival of the Macartney mission in China, as the first official high-level exchange between China and Britain, its historical significance is beyond doubt, and many historical problems have been derived from it. Regarding the translation of modern Chinese history, I plan to write at least one trilogy, the Macartney Mission is the first, the Opium War is the second, and there is a question of the translator, which has also been written more than half a million words, and the title of the book is tentatively set as "The Translator of the Heavenly Dynasty".
Your research, including the new book Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion, is centered on historical sources. As an important event in Chinese history, the visit of the Macartney mission to China is a vast sea of relevant original historical materials and the results of research are also very rich.
Wang Hongzhi: There are many achievements in the study of the Macartney mission. There are more than ten kinds of Monographs and Doctoral Dissertations in Chinese and English, and there are more monographs in a single paper. Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion focuses on the translation issues that arose during the mission's visit to China, which has not been done in monographs or doctoral dissertations. There are individual papers, but I personally think that the overall situation is not ideal.
Macartney
I think the first feature of Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion is that the translation of the mission is discussed with a large number of original historical materials. It must be emphasized that there are really many original historical materials related to missions. In English, the most used are the memoirs of mission members, many of which can be found in Google Books. But memoirs are often limited by individual observations and permeate subjective opinions, not necessarily comprehensive or accurate. Relatively speaking, the relevant files of the East India Company are more objective, including the internal correspondence, instructions and reports of the company at that time, which are extremely important first-hand information. These are collectively referred to as the "India Office Records" (IOR) archives, of which three volumes IOR/G/12/91, IOR/G/12/92, IOR/G/12/93 (divided into two volumes) are directly related to the Macartney Mission, most of which are letters, covering 1787-1782, 1792-1795, 1793-1810, totaling about 2,200 pages, and IOR/G/12/20. IOR/G/12/105, IOR/G/12/110, IOR/G/12/126, IOR/G/12/265, etc., also contain mission-related source materials. In addition to the Archives of the East India Company, Cornell University's Charles W. Wason Collection also contains a large collection of source materials related to the Macartney Mission. In 2018, Gale digitized the Macartney Archives in its collection and launched an electronic database called "The Earl George Macartney Collection - Archives Unbound Gale", with a total of 77 documents and 21,121 pages of information pages, which are extremely rich. There was also Duke University's George Thomas Staunton Papers (1743-1885 and Undated), a collection of numerous letters and manuscripts from the Staunton fathers and sons, which are now digitized. Of course, it is not easy to read these materials carefully, except for the huge number, most of the archives are manuscripts from more than two hundred years old, which is very difficult to read.
These English materials are very important for studying the translation of the Macartney Mission, as they allow us to have a complete and clear picture of things related to the Mission, such as finding translators and communicating with Chinese officials, all with detailed records. More importantly, we can also read the original manuscripts of some documents, such as the list of gifts that Macartney finally proposed, the English version of his letter to Hezhen, etc., which provides us with the possibility of text analysis, both to know the information that the British want to convey, and to compare the translations to determine whether the translation accurately conveys the original intention of the British, or what information is missing. "Dialogue with the Dragon and the Lion" explores the translation of the mission while making full use of these materials.
There is also a number of precious archives related to the mission's translator Li Zibiao, which is housed in the archives of the Vatican Propaganda Fide in Rome and the archives of the Università degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale" in Italy. Admittedly, I can only use some of these materials, firstly due to the limitations of my own language ability, which are written in Italian or Latin; The second is that the time to go to Italy to collect information is too short, too hurried, and it is impossible to bring all the information back. For this part of the archive, Professor Shen Aidi of Oxford University has a richer grasp.
In terms of Chinese, the most complete is of course the Compilation of Archival Historical Materials of the Visit of British Envoy Macartney to China (hereinafter referred to as the "Compilation") published by the First Historical Archive of China in 1996. According to the compilation of the book, the archives collected in the compilation include "notes on the living of the whole cabinet, diplomatic projects, transfers, transcripts, hadiths; The Military Aircraft Department's entire sect's upper edict file, recording and sub-recital folding, and hand-in-hand file; Emperor Quanzong's Zhu PiQuan (朱批肓), the Imperial Decree (Imperial Decrees), and the Imperial Poetry of Emperor Gaozong chun (高宗淳皇) of the Imperial Poetry; Letters from the Ministry of the Interior, monthly folds, living documents, and communications from the Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Foreign Affairs Quanzong's "Memorandum of Inquiry" and other archives", "a total of 783 archival documents" are included. According to Xu Yipu, director of the First Historical Archive of China, this includes "all archival documents of the Qing Dynasty government receiving British missions in the collection of the First Historical Archive of China" and "all the documents that may be collected in China at present." There is no doubt that this is a very useful and important collection of Chinese materials. It can be said that the study of missions was almost impossible before the publication of the Repertory. In 1993, an academic conference was held in Chengde to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Visit of the Macartney Mission to China, and although it gathered the top Qing historians and scholars at that time, due to the lack of Qing palace archives, the relevant discussion was greatly limited. In general, the Repertory basically solves the problem of Chinese information.
Compilation of Archival Historical Materials of the British Envoy Macartney's Visit to China, edited by the First Historical Archive of China, International Culture Publishing Company, published in August 1996, 644 pages, 520.00 yuan
In the course of writing The Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion, I spent a lot of time perusing the Repertory, and I sincerely thank the people involved in the publication of the book, which provided great convenience for our research. But does the Repertory collect all relevant Chinese information? Of course, it is unrealistic to demand a complete collection of all the archives from more than two hundred years ago. What is just puzzling is that some of the documents that originally appeared in the "Compilation of the Palm of the Ancestors" in the "Compilation of the Palm of the Past" edited and published by the Library of the Palace Museum of China in Beiping from 1928 to 1929 are not found in the "Compilation". In addition, a very important document, the Third Edict issued by Qianlong to King George III, was originally included in the Records of Emperor Gaozong and even the Records of Donghua, but the Compilation was not included.
The biggest problem, however, was that the Repertory did not include Chinese instruments sent from the Mission. I believe that the responsibility for this is not the editor of the book, but that these documents were destroyed during the Qianlong period, were not preserved, and therefore do not appear in the qing palace archives. But these documents were the most important material for the mission, and they were messages transmitted directly to the imperial court by the British. It can be said that I was very fortunate that, when the manuscript was almost completed, I found more than a dozen Chinese documents sent by the mission to the imperial court, which had never been cited by scholars, including the translation of the national letter of the mission itself (which had previously been found in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the British National Archives, and I had written a special article to discuss it), the original translation of the mission's gift list, and several letters written by Ma Garni to Hezhen, one of which discussed the ceremony of visiting Qianlong with Hezhen and the mission's departure from Beijing. Macartney responded after receiving two edicts from Qianlong. To study the translation of missions, these precious instruments provide the basis for textual analysis. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Edward Weech of the Archives of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for providing me with their treasured collection of "George Thomas Staunton Chinese Chinese, donated by the boy of the mission, Little Staunton, on 6 March 1830 Letters and Documents）。
What role did the translator play in the visit of the Macartney mission to China, and what significance does it mean for us to understand the event, can you give some examples from The Dialogue Between the Dragon and the Lion?
Wang Hongzhi: An almost common-sense understanding is that when the British send a mission to China, there must be a language barrier, and the mission must rely on translation to communicate effectively with the Qing court, that is, translation is an important element of the mission's activities in China. Of course, it must be admitted that we will never be aware of all the translation problems related to the mission, because the interpretation part is not recorded, and it is impossible to analyze and reconstruct the situation of communication at that time. But translations other than spoken language are different, because in most cases we can find the original and translation of the same document, we can use text comparison to establish the situation of information transmission, so as to confirm whether the mission and the Qing court can communicate effectively, or find out where the misunderstanding occurred, so as to better explain the attitude and reaction of both sides to certain events.
Emperor Gaozong of the Qing Dynasty dressed in portrait
Give an example related to mission gifts. Originally, Qianlong had great expectations for the gifts brought by the mission, the tributes in his heart, and repeatedly instructed the receiving officials to cooperate and facilitate the transportation, except because he believed that this was the British who "sailed far away, visited the country for the first time, and were not comparable to the frequent tributes in Annam, Burma, etc.", the more important reason was that he received information that the mission brought "many tributes", and even had the sayings of "valuable tributes" and "tributes are extremely excellent". The information came from a Chinese translation of the letter written by The Chairman of the East India Company, Bai Ling, to the Governor of Liangguang informing him of the mission's visit, but the problem was that the letter was translated by the general secretary in Guangzhou, and the original letter did not say that the gift of the mission was extremely good. This was the misunderstanding caused by the translation, which made Qianlong expect tribute after reading this letter.
The more serious problem came from translations from the gift list prepared by the mission itself. After Qianlong read this list, he immediately issued an edict on the same day, criticizing the objects contained in the table, "all of which are inevitably exaggerated, and this cover is a secret of its own smallness and self-superiority, in order to boast of the essence of its manufacture," and even instructed the reception official to tell Macartney in small talk that "the things that Erguo paid tribute to are also in the heavenly dynasty," so that the envoys "will not be surprised by themselves." It must be emphasized that Qianlong's criticisms and instructions were issued after he had just read the list of gifts sent by the mission, but before he had seen the actual gifts. It was clear that Qianlong's reaction was directed at the translation of the list, which was the only source of information he received directly. But what was the original meaning of the British? Was it the original display of Britain's national strength in the original text of the gift list that caused Qianlong to be unhappy? Or is it that the translation is not well expressed, or it conveys the wrong information, offending Qianlong? Or did the mission not know enough about the Western artifacts collected by the Qing court, and there was a problem with the purchase of gifts? Without careful translation, we cannot answer these questions.
List (partial) of the gifts of the mission translated by the translator of the mission in the collection of Staunton Jr., the identity of the scribe is unknown. It is now in the collection of the Royal Asian Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
The Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion provides a more in-depth analysis of several important documents of the mission, such as King George III's letter to Qianlong, Qianlong's three edicts to the mission, and several letters written by Macartney to Hezhen during his stay in China. These instruments contain extremely important information on fundamental issues such as the location and relationship between the two countries, the nature and purpose of the missions, and the strategies of the two sides. It is through these texts that china and britain convey information, show their positions, and at the same time receive each other's messages and make appropriate responses, which shows that these texts have a decisive impact on the success or failure of the mission.
Let me give you another example. We have read an edict from the Military Aircraft Department before: "The deputy envoy came and presented a piece of paper, the language involved ignorance, and when the scriptures and the scriptures were rebutted, the words were solemn and righteous, and they were deeply in the body of the minister." "It is said that the deputy envoy Staundong met with Hezhen and presented a short note, in which Macartney raised the question of the ceremony of visiting Qianlong to Hezhen, and according to the memoirs of Ma Garni and others, they demanded that a Chinese official of a rank similar to Macartney be given a portrait of the British king in the ceremony he used when he met the Great Emperor of China in Beijing. This is clearly a way for them to refuse to bow down and pray. Undoubtedly, this short message infuriated Qianlong, and he then issued successive edicts instructing that the reception of the mission should be simplified, the supply should be halved, and that "the overseer must send an order to escort him, and there is no need to receive it in person", and even "there is no need to stand up, but to prepare the slug and make it sit next to it.". We are somewhat curious, why did the Qing court react so strongly? Only after finally seeing this short note did the reasons that made it difficult for the Qing court to accept it emerged. It turns out that there is a sentence in the short code: "If the things done by the envoys are not clear and prove that the envoys themselves are not Chinese dependents, it is inevitable that it will be a big mistake." "The most sensitive issue is touched upon here: China's relationship with Britain. But does the English original za really say this? Not really. The original letter read: "If the ambassador's conduct on this occasion is deemed to be inconsistent with the great and noble position enjoyed by the king he represents among the other independent monarchs of the world, the envoys will certainly be severely punished." Although he also emphasized British independence, Macartney clearly avoided China, saying only that the king's position among other independent monarchs in the world was very different from what "is not a Chinese vassal state".
On August 28, 1793, Luo Guangxiang's Chinese assistant and Li Zibiao co-translated it, and the scribe's identity was unknown. It is now in the collection of the Royal Asian Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
Questions such as these illustrate the importance of translation. "Dialogue with the Dragon and the Lion" analyzes in detail the cases related to the translation of the mission from different elements such as the translator, the background and scene of the translation, the text, the recipient, etc., hoping to contribute to the clarification of this history. In particular, the book uses Chinese texts prepared and brought by the mission itself, which are necessary historical materials for the study of the mission, but have long been buried in the archives.
In his book The Perils of Interpreting: The Extraordinary Lives of Two Translators between Qing China and the British Empire, Professor Shen of Oxford University wrote a biography of two interpreters of the Macartney Mission, Li Zibiao and Little Staunton. Do you think the translator, who was an intermediary between China and England in the eighteenth century, was in danger?
Shen Aidi, The Danger of Translation: The Extraordinary Lives of Two Translators Between Qing Dynasty China and the British Empire
Wang Hongzhi: Professor Shen Aidi is an excellent historian, and it is very rare that she also pays attention to the problem of translators, and examines two translators in the early history of Sino-British relations from the perspective of social history. A few years ago, after reading her research on the gifts of the Macartney Mission, I wrote to her for advice, and since then I have begun to exchange frequent letters with each other, and we have exchanged information and discussed problems from time to time. To this day, however, we are still on the same page, but as she said in a letter, we spend a lot of time perusing each other's writings and feel that the other person is already a familiar old friend.
The main title of her book is "The Danger of Translation", and the main line of content can be summarized as the risk of acting as a translator between China and English in the historical environment of the Qing Dynasty. This is a very accurate observation, and I have been exploring similar propositions in the past, in addition to the Macartney mission, I have written a number of articles on general affairs, about the Amested mission, Morrison, the Guangdong system, and the translators in the Opium War, and one of my concerns is the challenges faced by the translators. As mentioned earlier, I have a planned book manuscript, Translators of the Heavenly Dynasty: From Li Yerong to Zhang Deyi, which will discuss the plight of Chinese and English translators operating under the heavenly dynasty ideology and their methods of coping. Therefore, I completely agree with the central idea of Professor Shen's masterpiece.
I also have some observations of my own. Undoubtedly, there was a certain risk in working as an interpreter in the historical environment at that time. In fact, both Li Zibiao and Little Staunton have been under a lot of pressure. Strictly speaking, though, the pressure didn't come from their role as translators. When Li Zibiao was working as an interpreter for the Macartney Mission, in addition to being said to have been treated with some unkind treatment by the former governor of Guangdong, Fu Ankang, the work was carried out very smoothly, and he established friendships with many officials, and even Hezhen liked him and gave him gifts. Li Zibiao did not encounter any danger during the period of the interpreter, but during his missionary in Shanxi after he left the mission, his status as a missionary brought him great trouble, and at one point he even had to hide and take refuge (Professor Shen has a very wonderful exposition in this regard).
As for Little Staunton, he served as an ambassador's attendant in the Macartney mission, and because he knew a little Chinese, he helped with some interpreters during his time in China, assisted in copying gift lists and letters, and even talked to Qianlong. But first, he is not an official translator, and second, he has worked smoothly and received a lot of appreciation, so he is not risky. In 1800, Little Staunton returned to China, initially as a junior writer in the East India Company, not as a formal translator, but because he understood Chinese, he was sent by the company to handle some important translation work, such as his participation in the handling of the "Providence Incident". As can be seen from his own letters to his parents, his translation work has been recognized by both Chinese officials and the company's leadership. Admittedly, in the Phaeton Incident of 1805 and The Neptune Affair of 1807, Staundon Jr., who was involved and in charge of the translation, was under pressure and accusations from Chinese officials, but he did not encounter any specific danger. In February 1808, Little Staunton was officially appointed as an interpreter by the East India Company, but he soon returned to China and did not go to Guangzhou again until 1810.
Little Staunton returned to his mother, followed by a Chinese retinue. Painted by John Hoppner
The real threat from guangzhou officials and the imperial court was during the Li Yao Incident in 1814. He negotiated with Guangdong officials in his second capacity as supervisor, during which he ordered all Britons in Guangzhou to stop buying and selling, which caused a great deal of shock, and he even threatened to complain to Beijing about the Guangdong authorities, and finally won concessions from local officials. However, Xiao Staundong also exchanged serious hostility from the other side and was reported to the imperial court. The Military Aircraft Department ordered an investigation of his activities, pointing out that he was "young and cunning" when he paid tribute, and painted a picture book of the situation in the mountains and rivers on the way south, meaning that he acted as a spy, and also pointed out that after he returned to China, the British in Guangzhou "listened to his teachings and temptations". However, H. Mars (H. B. Morse, in his famous Chronicle of the East India Company's Trade with China, noted that Little Staunton, as a negotiator, had made a significant contribution to the East India Company and to British trade in China, that he was irreplaceable, but that he was not an interpreter. Later, during his tenure as deputy envoy to the Amestrian mission, Staunton Jr. became the target of public criticism because he knew that he knew Chinese, which made him worry about his personal safety, and in the end, he was ordered to leave China and never come again. However, none of the dangers here began as an interpreter, because he was not an interpreter at all, but rather related to the fact that he knew Chinese and became the focus in Guangzhou, and that he had participated in the Macartney Mission, and the imperial court thought that he had personally seen Ma Garni bow down to Qianlong, but when he inquired about it, he actually claimed to have forgotten on the grounds that he was very young at the time, which provoked Jiaqing to be scolded as "hateful."
In short, I don't think what happened to Little Staunton can be simply classified as the "danger of translation." In the history of Sino-British interaction during this period, there are many other examples that better illustrate the dangers of translators. In addition to a number of well-known and unknown Guangzhou generalists, the British, such as James Flint and Morrison, as well as the Portuguese Priest Padre Roderigo, were translators and had more risks directly related to translation. Even those Catholics who had been serving the imperial court, occasionally taking on the task of diplomatic translation, had to be careful and step by step.
There is no doubt that Professor Shen has made important contributions to the research of Li Zibiao and Xiao Staundong. She is the scholar I have ever met who collects and uses the most Italian materials, which gives us a comprehensive and profound understanding of Li Zibiao's life as a missionary who went to Italy in his early years to study and devoted himself to religious work after returning home. In addition, Professor Shen also made a brilliant discussion of little Staunton, especially his early education and family situation, and the stage after his return to England, and it can be said that her book is the most detailed and in-depth study of Little Staunton so far.
What are your different views on the visit of the Macartney mission to China and Professor Shen Aidi?
Wang Hongzhi: Although Professor Shen's book is very contributed, it is not flawless, and I think there are several problems with the part about the Macartney Mission, such as the book saying that King George III's national book was translated by Yan Kuanren. Yan Kuanren was not a member of the mission, he only took the opportunity of the mission to China after completing his studies at the Chinese Academy in Naples and returned to China by boat. He Chinese a high level of work, and helped to do some translation and copying work on the way to China, but he definitely did not participate in the translation of the King's Letter to Qianlong, which was translated in London by the members of the mission, Ke Zongxiao and Li Zibiao, before the mission set out, and asked the Italian sinologist Meng Du and the copy to be proper. Today, in addition to the transcription of the translation of the Book of State in the British National Archives, we can also find a translation manuscript of the Book of The Nation that Mundo and himself copied and preserved in the Library of the Vatican (these copies are in the form of illustrations in the Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion), so it is certain that the translation of the Book of State has long been completed. Yan Kuanren joined at the moment of the mission's departure in Portsmouth and could not have participated in the translation.
Portrait of Yan Kuanren painted by the mission painter Erlesand. It is now in the British Library.
The Letter of King George III of England to the Qianlong Emperor (partial) translated by Meng Du and the hand-copied mission. It is now in the collection of the Vatican Apostolic Library.
In addition, Professor Shen said that when the mission arrived in Zhoushan, the name of the Chinese businessman who was hired by local officials to assist in the translation was Guo Jiguan, which was also debatable. The Chinese businessman learned English through contacts with the East India Company when Zhoushan was still allowed to trade with foreign countries. According to the memoirs of the members of the mission, he "remembered a few words of English" and even remembered the name of the taipan sent by the former East India Company to do business, and the mission received some information from him, which showed that the merchant seemed to be able to communicate effectively with the British. But Guo Jiguan is not like this. According to the Qing Palace archives, the imperial court, fearing that the mission would collude with the "traitors," detained some suspicious people. Guo Jiguan was detained because his father had done business with the British in his early years, but he said in his confession: "When my father was doing business in Guangdong before, I was still young and did not know the details, until the Nineteenth Year of Qianlong, when the English Yi people came to Ningbo, I was twelve years old, I did not go out, and I had never seen the English Yi people, and I could not know it." He also said, "When I was a child, I heard my father learn to speak, and I also learned a few words, but I could not understand words such as eating tobacco and tea. "Guo Jiguan can't be a Chinese businessman who provides information. In fact, when Guo Jiguan was detained, Chinese officials never mentioned his help as an interpreter. Professor Shen's writings seem to be mistaken. There are several places where The Danger of Translation does not seem to be entirely accurate in terms of historical information.
You began editing the annual journal Studies in the History of Translation in 2011 and currently has eight volumes. Can you talk about your understanding of the methodology of translation history research?
Wang Hongzhi: I have always insisted on the idea that most translation research is the study of translation history, because translation studies the phenomenon of translation, and since it has become a phenomenon, it is the past, it has existed, and therefore it is historical. In this regard, translation (historical) research is a kind of historical research, but the object of attention is focused on the phenomenon of translation. Therefore, when we talk about the method of translation research, we are talking about the method of historical research. Historians often say that history has no definite law, in other words, to adopt different methods according to different topics or problems. But is there any process that must be done no matter what topic of research? I think there are still some.
Research on the History of Translation 2018, edited by Wang Hongzhi, Fudan University Press, February 2020, 263 pages, 80.00 yuan
The first, of course, is data gathering. The information mentioned here is in a broad sense, referring to all things related to the subject, not necessarily the secret collection of the archives, but should include the so-called second-hand information such as the research of predecessors, and even has no scope, as long as the relevant ones are taken to see. In addition to perusing academic works, now that the Internet is so developed, my own habit is to search for keywords without a strong purpose, such as "Macartney", "Staundong", "Li Zibiao", "Qianlong", "He Yan", "Songjun", "East India Company", browse the results in Google, randomly pick out some articles of interest to see, often have unexpected gains. Many times I can also find good clues, so I continue to dig deeper.
Admittedly, gathering information is a matter of luck. In the past few years of doing research on the Macartney Mission, I feel that I have really good luck, a bit of timing, location, and people. Under various coincidences and thanks to the help of good friends, many important archives that have been searched for many years and have not been traced have gradually been found. In particular, the Chinese documents sent by the mission to the Qing court really appeared in front of me at the final stage when the manuscript was about to be completed. Without these materials, some questions cannot be satisfactorily answered: for example, the Chinese translation of the gift list has long been determined that the copy in the Forbidden City archives has been modified, but which part of it is original and which part was changed when it was archived, it is not easy to grasp, and I can only speculate in the first draft. After finding the original translation, the two are compared, not only can we discuss the translation situation, but also see the dissatisfaction of the Qing court.
Of course, academic research cannot rely on luck alone, and it is not necessary to find any secret archives to write a good paper, and many times we have to accept the reality that some information cannot be found. But I think it is unacceptable that some information is at hand, but I don't really look at it. For example, in the 2007 edition of The General Affairs of Modern China, there is a chapter entitled "Macartney Envoy Hua (1792-1793): Language Barriers in Early Sino-British Exchanges", a discussion of more than forty pages, almost completely without the use of the "Compilation" material, only two or three titles. It is clearly not enough to study many of the Papers of the Macartney Mission now content to use only a few published memoirs. In fact, today's English information about the Macartney Mission, except for the archives of the Royal Asian Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the Italian side, can almost be found on the Internet, and the key is whether we are willing to seriously search and read carefully.
Another suggestion is to make chronology, which is a very basic practice in historical research. In the course of working on the subject of the Macartney Mission, I made a very detailed chronology of the daily activities of the parties, of each recital, of the encyclical, and even the events and activities mentioned in the encyclicals and the encyclicals, and of course the diary, memoirs, and reports of the members of the mission, all listed in a series, a bit like a chronology. I've been thinking about whether I can publish this chronology, but I just think it's too informative, boring, and more like a reference book, and I don't know if anyone wants to read it. The advantage of making a chronology is that you clearly know the ins and outs of the entire visit to China, the developments, as well as the role and impact of the surrounding people and events. Do not think that only the history of translation in the political field needs to do this chronology, and that various other translation histories, including the titles of literary translation history, should also be done, so that it is easy to form a comprehensive understanding and understanding of the relevant translation activities.
Macartney Log
Do you think there is a problem with "fragmentation" in your writing?
Wang Hongzhi: When reading materials, a very important attitude is to pay attention to details. The devil is in the details. Why is it that in the face of the same information, some people can see the problem and some people are indifferent? Often it's because you don't pay attention to detail. Pay attention not only to the details when reading the material, but also to the details when thinking about the problem and even writing the next article. Some people may think that the writing is too detailed, and "fragmentation" seems to be a pejorative criticism, but from another point of view, some general direction, universal arguments, probably many people know it, if you repeat it, what is the meaning? In the historical events of the Macartney mission's visit to China, the Qing court observed the mission with the idea of the Heavenly Dynasty, while the British hoped to communicate on an equal footing and vigorously strive for better terms of trade in China. This is a judgment that everyone knows and agrees with, and "Dialogue with the Dragon and the Lion" also uses this as the keynote. So what else to write on this issue? We should flesh out and prove this view in the details. By analyzing the letters from the lark, or the letters of George III, or the edicts of Qianlong, and examining the words and expressions in them, we can see how the two sides tried to convey their positions. In addition, the detailed analysis also allows us to know many originally obscure situations: after the exchange of documents through translation as a medium, did the Qing court accurately grasp the information of the British, know their political positions and demands? For Qianlong's refusal, can the British understand the meaning behind it? After continuous communication, what is the change in the attitudes of China and the UK towards each other? Most critically, what role does the translator play in the communication process? Without attention to detail, these questions are unlikely to be answered satisfactorily, and we will only pause in a vague framework.
Of course, excessive fragmentation can be problematic, but the key is not whether to focus on the fragments, or how small the fragments are, but whether the fragments can present a more complete image. In addition, the so-called size, fragmentation or integrity are relative. Compared with the mission's visit to China, the Book of the British Kingdom is fragmented, but the entire mission placed in the Sino-British relations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is also only fragments. That is to say, what is important is always whether the so-called fragments help us to solve important academic questions, whether they are part of this problem, and whether we can see the entire academic landscape through the combination of fragments. This is probably what people often say about seeing the big with the small, and seeing the trees and seeing the forest. Frankly speaking — though it would be exonerated by a lot of people — we've seen too many empty, even empty arguments, and paying attention to details and analyzing them can remedy this ill.
Finally, I would like to return to the theme of "Dialogue between the Dragon and the Lion". Neither the British nor the Qing court knew anything about their diplomatic opponents, which also showed that both sides could only choose translators from people from each other's countries or regions. In the end, the Book of the Kingdom of England was retranslated by Catholics in Beijing from the perspective of the Qing court and stored in the Qing Palace archives, and Qianlong's edict was also softened and translated back into English. How does the misidentification of each other and the different judgments of the international situation between China and the UK influence the communication between the two sides? Was the failure of the Macartney Mission, or the failure of translation, a cause or effect?
Qianlong issued george iii's first edict, October 7, 1793. It is now in the collection of the British Royal Archives.
Qianlong issued George III's Second Edict, refuting all the demands made by the mission, October 7, 1793. It is now in the collection of the British Royal Archives.
Wang Hongzhi: The topic of the Macartney Mission is interesting because it allows you to observe the differences in the political cultures of China and Britain at that time: not only to see how the idea of the Heavenly Dynasty worked, but also to see the expansion mentality of the British. Although, on the whole, the British were not overly aggressive at the time, often wary of not provoking China, but it was difficult to hide their pride and pride. At the same time, it was also interesting to watch the Qing court discuss how to deal with these "Yingyi".
To some extent, both China and the UK attach equal importance to the role of translators. Needless to say, the British looked around for translators from the beginning and had much discussion about their qualifications, but the objective reality made them end up finding the most ideal candidate. On the surface, the British seemed to be in a better position in this regard, because after all, they had a larger selection of interpreters, and in the end Li Zibiao was indeed very loyal to the mission (with one exception: as a devout Catholic, he privately made a request to Hezhen in the name of the mission without the knowledge of Macartney and others, hoping that the Qing court would treat Chinese Catholics kindly), and every member praised him. But they also take a big risk: how to ensure that the translation is accurate and beneficial to the UK? As a result, the translation of George III's epistle was successful, but the translation of the gift list was a failure, and they had no way of knowing it. On the other hand, the Qing government's use of European missionaries to handle diplomatic translations also implied a great crisis, because these missionaries were more concerned with the interests of their own country and would not be loyal to the Qing court. But this seems to be a proven method, and the key to this is that the imperial court knows how to use Catholics of different nationalities to check and balance each other, and even to monitor each other. The French missionary He Qingtai told Staunton that their translations would be verified by other missionaries. The Qing court was more cautious than the British in this regard. In addition, the court's leadership of the Most Unfriendly Portuguese missionary, Soder, may have been part of the surveillance apparatus, as Macartney made clear in his journal.
The letter translated by the mission from King George III of England to the Qianlong Emperor should be hand-copied by Ke Zongxiao. It is now in the collection of the British Royal Archives.
Qianlong read from the translation of the British Kingdom book prepared by the mission that the British mission really motivated the mission: Britain wanted to present the image of a world power that spanned the world, and demanded that officials be stationed in Beijing, manage business, and protect the British from bullying. What he had the most difficulty in accepting was the message conveyed in the letter of state that was very different from the ideas of the Heavenly Dynasty that he believed: Britain would communicate with the Qing court on an equal footing, and that it would be beneficial for both sides to establish friendship between the two countries and carry out commercial activities. Therefore, the Qing court asked the missionaries to retranslate the national letter and make major rewrites of some key contents. The idea of equal status between China and Britain disappeared, and the mission came to "pay tribute to the table" and "lose sincerity to the country", to pray for the great emperor to give them grace and let them get some benefits from trade, and the British hoped to be able to send personnel in Beijing, but also to better control their own countrymen. Logically, Macartney changed from "Chincha" to "tribute envoy", Staundong changed from "second-class Chincha" to "deputy tribute envoy", they brought "table text" and "tribute", and the english king and Qianlong were called brothers. In the end, whether it was the retranslation of the national book or the rewritten gift list, the Qing government let the text that was retained in the archives be in their best interest, which showed that they understood the importance of translation, although they had no intention of pursuing "faithful" translation. Unfortunately, the Qing government never seriously trained its own Western language talents and established its own team of translators, and in more and more diplomatic activities since then, there are still no translators that they can trust, which is the real loss and the biggest problem.
The list of gifts sent back by Qianlong and the delegation was densely written on a scroll, reflecting the Qing court's practice of "thin and thick exchanges". It is now in the collection of the British Royal Archives. In fact, the gifts sent by the British are also worth a lot.
Going back to what you mentioned in the title of "the failure of translation", in fact, is there really a failure of translation? Perhaps more appropriately, some translations differ from the original text, which may be deliberate or unintentional, but the effects created are very different, and they also constitute the function and role of the translation in the event. Interestingly, translations that are not necessarily "accurate" will lead to good results, and sometimes the opposite may be true. For example, why did Macartney soften Qianlong's edict? Didn't he know what Qianlong meant? Of course not, he was going to create the effect of the success of the mission to the British government and people through an unfaithful or inaccurate translation. Moreover, if the meaning of Qianlong had been accurately translated at that time, would it have been beneficial to the development of relations between the two countries? How can this concept of right or wrong sum up?
Editor-in-Charge: Han Shaohua
Proofreader: Ding Xiao