CHIN
313 2002 Essay. Ray
Brownrigg
14 August, 2002
What
is 道?:
Some comments on Translation
Abstract
It is generally considered that Lao
Zi's Dao De Jing is one of the core texts
of what eventually became
labelled as Daoist philosophy and is in some sense an attempt to define Daoism. However the word Dao
itself is essentially
untranslatable in this context, leading to many different
translations of the text.
This essay analyses more than 60 different translations of the first six characters of the Dao De Jing, and
attempts to justify yet another translation, different from all
the others. In the process, some principles of
translation are identified with
particular reference to the translation of classical Chinese text
into English. The primary
conclusion is that new translations of any work must always be encouraged.
1. Introduction
There is no such thing as a
'uniformly best' translation of a particular
piece of classical Chinese literature into another language. Certainly there
are useful translations and poor translations,
but the value of any particular translation can vary, depending not only upon the criteria against which it is measured,
but also upon the inexorable
passage of time. For this reason there
is merit in encouraging further translations
of pieces that may have been
translated many times in the past.
This essay identifies some of the many variables operating during the processes both of creating the
original work to be translated, and of creating the
translation. These
many variables compound with each other to provide for a very wide
range of possibilities in the resultant translation. This is not to say that most translations are valueless; on the contrary, most
translations can offer something to the 'pool of knowledge and
understanding' of a particular piece of classical Chinese
literature in its original form.
A translation is a literary
creation, a piece of literature in its own right. One might compare a
translation to a musical arrangement, there is always the reference back to the original, but the performance
(or reading in the case of a
translation) stands alone and has the ability to evoke quite different emotions from the original.
Further, for any translation,
correctness is in the eye of the
beholder. The intended audience can make
a big difference to how a particular
passage should be translated, determining the particular mix
of emphases that should be placed on the different criteria that
can be taken into account when
performing/creating a translation.
A utopian goal of literary
translation could be stated that the aim of translation is to convey the same information to and to evoke the
same emotions in its readers
as did the original to and in its intended audience. While the
information intended by the author to be conveyed by the original is difficult enough to determine
accurately, the intended emotions
are even more difficult to identify.
These emotions may not even be
the same emotions as those evoked in current native readers of the original work - cultures do develop and change. Further the audience of the translation will almost certainly
belong to a different culture from
that of the original audience, so the best the translator can hope to do is to provide a window into the culture
of the original author or his audience.
An oft-stated corollary of this
utopian goal is that only a poet can translate
poetry well and, by implication and for example, only a philosopher can translate philosophy well. There are arguments for and
against this but if one accepts the arguments in favour, then one
must also accept that good
translations will be very rare indeed. A
translator must be a good linguist primarily, and (in the case of
classical Chinese literature) a well-versed Sinologist. That such a person is also a good poet, or philosopher, or scientist, or
historian is such a requirement as
to be an extreme rarity.
To consider a practical example, we
will start by analysing a selection of
the existing translations into English of the first 6 characters of
the Dao De Jing. Next, an
attempt is made to justify a new translation of these first 6 characters.
Finally, some further general observations
and comments about translation are presented.
2. The Dao De Jing
The Dao De Jing is one of the core
texts of Daoism. It
is said to have been written around 500 BCE by Lao Zi (also known
as Li Er). There exist many full or partial translations
of this text into English. Galambos in the year 2000 comments that there
were already then as many as 300 translations of the Dao De Jing, although this
number includes translations into all other languages. Here we will analyse just those translations into English that are readily
accessible via the World Wide Web of the Internet.
The first part of the Dao De Jing
starts with the sequence 道可道非常道. Most translations
stay close to what could be considered to be a literal translation, such as "The Way that can be 'Wayed' is not the
constant Way". This form, namely "The <noun> that
can be <verb> is not the <adjective>
<noun>", where the two nouns are identical, occurs in 22 of
the 64 different translations analysed here (in fact when
punctuation and different
romanisations are ignored, there are only 62 different translations). A further 23
translations exhibit very minor variations such as in capitalisation and the use of articles, but with
essentially the same English meaning. Thus more than two thirds of the
translations have the same structure, with the primary differences
being in the choice of the nouns, the verb and the adjective.
The following analyses
firstly these 45 different translations.
Considering the nouns, the
untranslated "Dao", more commonly appearing in
its earlier romanisation of "Tao", is the most
frequently occurring noun (31/45),
with "Way" the next most common (11/45). These two account for all but three of the nouns.
The verbs used are much more diverse,
but can be classified into three meaning-related
groups. The most commonly used group
contains "spoken of",
"told of", "described", "expressed", "talked
about" and other synonyms,
together representing about two thirds of the cases. The other
two groups are represented by "trodden/walked/followed/taken" and
"experienced/known/conceived".
Finally, the adjective mostly used
is "eternal" (20/45), with "constant" (5),
"absolute" (4) and "true" (4) being the only
others used more than just once or twice.
Thus to summarise this analysis of
the 45 'literal' translations, the most
representative translation would be
"The Dao that can be spoken of is
not the eternal Dao". This could be
viewed as a kind of 'centre of gravity'
of the set of translations under consideration.
The above analysis does not include
the other 19 different translations that
do not conform to the general pattern of a literal translation. These can be
classified into two broad groups: those that conform to the basic meaning of defining what Dao is (or is not), and a small
minority that branch off in different directions. Examples from the two groups are Blackney's 1955 "There are ways but the Way is
uncharted" or Jesse Garon's 1994 "If you can talk about
it, it ain't Tao" (both from the
larger group) and Tom French's more recent 2001 "Any
road or path is not forever".
While none of these individual translations
has enough 'weight' to alter the 'centre of gravity' of the
set as a whole, collectively the larger group at least reinforces
the basic meaning therein.
2.1 A New Offering
While the most representative
translation derived above does seem to be a good representation of the intention of most translators, some
improvements can be made.
It is quite clear that most of these
translations have been influenced by
the pioneers - two of the earliest well-known translations are James
Legge's 1891 "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring
and unchanging Tao" and
Arthur Waley's 1934 "The Way that can be told of is
not an Unvarying Way".
Without delving into individual rationalisations for the preceding translations, there are four modifications to
the most representative
translation that may be considered.
Three of these ideas are
manifest in some of the earlier translations, but the fourth
seems to be somewhat original in the context of a 'close to
literal' translation.
Firstly, consider the two
nouns. In the original, they are
identical characters, but it does
not necessarily follow that the meanings are identical. It is clear that
the first occurrence of 道 is referring to something
ordinary, while the second (occurrence of 道 as a noun – i.e. the
third occurrence of the character 道 in the original),
together with its adjective, is referring
to Daoism itself in some sense (the religion, the philosophy,
or the 'way of life').
Hence in translation into English, only the second occurrence should be capitalised.
Secondly, for the same reason, the
definite article should not be used for
the first occurrence, since it is referring to any
"way" or "path" or "doctrine".
Further, quite apart from
capitalisation or prepended articles, the same argument is good reason to use different English words for the
translations of the two nouns.
In fact the second noun is essentially untranslatable, and so should remain as a pure romanisation, but
the first is free to be
translated into some English equivalent.
Further, if we do leave
the second noun untranslated but capitalised, then it is
operating as a proper noun and so we do not need to attach any
article to it.
Finally, there is the role of the
adjective to consider. Now that we
have a proper noun, it can be argued that there is no need for the
adjective, since its main purpose was to 'specialise' the
following noun in the original.
Combining these ideas while still
following the general form of a literal
translation results in the translation: "Any way that can be described is not Dao".
There is only the weight of popular
opinion that prefers one translation or
class of translation to another. Indeed,
any translation, however obscure,
may well have merit when judged in its full context. The context
of a translation includes aspects not only of the original text
and author, but also those of the intended audience.
This new translation exhibits the
following characteristics:
a) It does not attempt to be too
literal. Since English has the ability
to convey special meaning by capitalisation, the adjective that
appears in most other translations is not necessary to highlight
the special meaning of the second noun. Further this translation
recognises that the third occurrence of道is untranslatable,
breaking the repetition for the sake of enhanced meaning.
b) It does not attempt to create a
translation 'from first principles' but uses the valuable context of other
translations as a starting point.
c) It takes into account the context
of the principal intended reader,
namely the examiner of this essay. In
particular, it assumes that the reader
is familiar with the original phrase and its general meaning. It also
assumes the reader is fluent in the target language.
3. Some General Observations and
Comments on Translation
A translation in general is a
product of two, perhaps very different, environments, that of the original author and that of the
translator. The environment of the reader also affects how the result is
interpreted. This mixture of
environments can be beneficial to the final
result, in the same way that condiments can enhance the flavour of
a tasty culinary dish.
Pursuing the analogy, it is also true that if the environment of the translator is applied too liberally, then
the author's original
flavour can be diluted or masked.
The narrator, some would say
performer, of a poem or the actors and production
team of a play greatly influence the ideas and emotions of an
audience. In a similar way,
a translator can influence the audience of an original piece of classical Chinese literature, which would
otherwise be inaccessible to that
audience.
Every piece of classical Chinese
literature can be considered to be associated
with its own unique context. This
context includes much more
than the complete document itself. There
are many external influences which can
come to bear on all classical Chinese literature, a large number of which are related to when the document was
written. For example, it is common for classical Chinese literature to
include - unattributed - excerpts
from other documents. Previous knowledge
of the excerpted document would provide a
wealth of context and subtleties of
meaning for the reader of the document containing the excerpt. Also, it was
'forbidden' for a document to contain the character(s) representing the personal name of the currently reigning
ruler. Various means were used to comply with this requirement, including the use
of synonyms and homonyms. A confounding issue is that this restriction
was reapplied each time a document was copied or reproduced, but
it was not necessarily the case
that all previous resultant workarounds were reinstated. Thus there have
been many potential occasions for mistakes to be made in transmission.
Other external influences that are related to when a document was
written include those, which still apply nowadays, such as the political climate, the state of mind of the
author, and current events.
Thus accurate knowledge of when and by whom a document was written can contribute enormously to the ability to
determine accurately the meaning intended by the author. The translation
of classical Chinese literature must take into account this
unique context.
Further, the concept of context
extends beyond that of the original work,
and applies also to any translation. In
the same way that every piece
of classical Chinese literature has its own unique context which
includes all preceding classical Chinese literature, so does every
new translation of a
particular piece of such literature have a unique context which includes all previous translations and analyses of
that piece (and often also
includes recent translations of other pieces of classical Chinese literature).
4. Conclusion
While a 'correct' translation of a
particular piece of classical Chinese
literature into a particular language may well exist in theory
(although not always, because meaning may be intentionally
ambiguous, and ambiguities are
notoriously difficult to preserve in translation), there will always be a large number of candidates (some not yet
realised), with there being no way of knowing with certainty
which, if any, of those available
conveys the exact meaning or feelings intended by the author. This does
not mean that there is no point in attempting to translate classical Chinese literature; on the contrary a new
translation can never reduce the understanding of or value
obtained from a particular piece
of classical Chinese literature, and may well provide insight to inspire others to take up the challenge.
There is always value to be obtained
from one more (new or refinement of
an existing) translation of any significant piece of classical
Chinese literature. Firstly
it can never be determined finally which of all existing translations is the overall best rendering of the
meaning and feelings of the original author in the target
language. More importantly though, because changes in language usages occur over
time, the current value of
each of the extant translations diminishes with time, leaving room for the creation of refinements which may be more
valuable for the present target
audience. So take a step towards the
present, let your perspective be
malleable, and translate, translate, and translate again.
Appendix 1: The Translations
These are the 67 translations
analysed in this essay with authors and dates where known. The intention is to record just the translation
of the first 6 characters, but the nature of
some translations require more
to be recorded. All but a very few of
these were found through searches
of the World Wide Web. Attributions where
provided have also been taken from
the World Wide Web. It must be borne in
mind that such information can be
inaccurate, and the association of a name and date with a particular translation cannot be taken as a definitive
statement of authorship.
Stephen Addiss, Stanley Lombardo:
1993
TAO called TAO is not TAO.
Archie J. Bahm: 1958
Nature can never be completely
described, for such a description of Nature
would have to duplicate Nature.
Sanderson Beck: 1996
The Way that can be described is not
the absolute Way;
Alexander J Beecroft:
The Way (Dao) that can be
"Wayed" is not the constant Way.
Alexander J Beecroft:
The Tao that can be expressed is not
the eternal Tao
R. B. Blakney: 1955
There are ways but the Way is
uncharted;
Witter Bynner: 1944
Existence is beyond the power of
words To define:
Tormod Byrn: 1997
The way that can be told is hardly
an eternal, absolute, unvarying one;
Wing-tsit Chan: 1963
The Tao that can be told of is not
the eternal Tao;
Ellen M. Chen: 1989
Tao that can be spoken of, Is not
the Everlasting Tao.
Jim Clatfelter:
Words and names are not the way
They can't define the absolute
Thomas Cleary: 1991
A way can be a guide, but not a
fixed path;
Aleister Crowley: 1918
The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao.
Eugene Chen Eoyang: 1993
The Tao (Way) that can be told of is
not the commonplace and
eternal Tao
The Tao that can be expressed is not
the eternal Tao;
Gia-Feng and Jane English: 1972
The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
Tom French: 2001
The Tao that becomes a Tao is not
the Eternal Tao
Tom French: 2001
Any road or path is not forever
Fung Yu-lan:
The Tao that may be called Tao is
not the invariable Tao;
Imre Galambos: 2000
The Tao that can be spoken of is not
the enduring and unchanging Tao.
Ray Grigg: 1995
The Tao that can be named is not the
nameless Tao.
C. Ganson:
The Tao described in words is not
the real Tao.
Tam Gibbs:
The tao that can be talked about is
not the Absolute Tao.
Tienzen Gong:
Tao that can be spoke of, not the
eternal Tao.
To guide what can be guided is not
constant guiding.
Gu:
The Tao that is utterable Is not the
eternal Tao;
He Guanghu, Gao Shining, Song Lidao,
Xu Junyao: 1993
The Tao that can be spoken of is not
the eternal Tao;
John Heider: 1985
Tao means how: how things happen,
how things work.
Tao is the single principle
underlying all creation.
Tao is God.
Tao cannot be defined, because it
applies to everything.
You cannot define something in terms
of itself.
If you can define a principle, it is
not Tao.
Robert G. Henricks: 1989
As for the Way, the Way that can be
spoken of is not the constant Way;
adapted by Ron Hogan, originally
attributed to Jesse Garon: 1994
If you can talk about it, it ain't Tao.
Tom Kunesh:
The atheism that one can come to by
argument is not true atheism.
Man-Ho Kwok, Martin Palmer, Jay
Ramsay: 1993
The Tao that can be talked about is
not the true Tao.
LaFargue:
The Tao that can be told is not the
invariant Tao
D. C. Lau: 1963
The way that can be spoken of Is not
the constant way;
James Legge: 1891
The Tao that can be trodden is not
the enduring and unchanging Tao.
Lin Yutang:
The Dao that can be told of Is not
the Absolute Dao;
David Lindauer:
A tao that one can tao Is not the
entire tao
Ned Ludd:
The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
John R. Mabry: 1995
The Tao that can be described in
words is not the true Tao
Tolbert McCarroll: 1982
The Tao that can be spoken of is not
the eternal Tao.
John H McDonald:
The tao that can be described is not
the eternal Tao,
Frank J. MacHovec: 1962
The Tao described in words is not
the real Tao.
Victor H. Mair: 1990
The ways that can be walked are not
the eternal Way;
Victor H. Mair:
The Finite cannot be all of the
Infinite!
Maurer:
If Tao can be Taoed, it's not Tao.
Spurgeon Medhurst: 1972
The Tao which can be expressed is
not the unchanging Tao;
Peter A. Merel: 1995
The Way that can be experienced is
not true;
Peter A. Merel:
The Tao that can be known is not
Tao.
Maury R. Merkin:
The way that can be
trod/followed/taken/shown is not the
Thomas H. Miles: 1992
The tao that can be described is not
the Constant Tao.
Stephen Mitchell: 1988
The tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
Patrick E. Moran:
A way (Dao) that one can be directed
along is not the constant Dao.
Charles Muller: 1997
The Tao that can be followed is not
the eternal Tao.
Poynton:
A way that can be described is not
the
Jeff Rasmussen: 2001
Spoken Tao is not eternal Tao
Stan Rosenthal:
Even the finest teaching is not the
Tao itself.
Octavian Sarbotoare: 2000
The Way (Tao) that can be named, is
not the
Tang Zi-chang: 1969
Dao that can be talked about is not
the eternal Dao itself;
Arthur Waley: 1934
The Way that can be told of is not
an
Henry Wei: 1982
The Tao that can be stated is not
the Eternal Tao.
Richard Wilhelm, H. G. Oswald: 1985
The DAO that can be expressed is not
the eternal DAO.
R. L. Wing: 1986
The Tao that can be expressed Is not
the Tao of the Absolute.
Ted Wrigley: 2000
A path is just a path, a name is
just a name
John Worldpeace:
The infinity that can be conceived
is not the everlasting Infinity.
John C. H. Wu: 1961
Tao can be talked about, but not the
Eternal Tao.
Unknown:
The spirit one can talk about is not
the eternal spirit,
Unknown:
The dao that can be expounded is not
the real dao,
Bibliography
Alleton, V. and Lackner, M.,
Introduction to De l'un au multiple (http://www.gwdg.de/~oas/wsc/delunint.htm, 1999)
Eoyang, Eugene Chen, The Transparent
Eye: Reflections on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
Press, 1994)
Fang, A., "Some Reflections on
the Difficulty of Translation", in R.A. Brower, Ed., On Translation (NY: Oxford University Press,
1966)
Fu, Daiwie, "On Mengxi Bitan's
world of marginalities and "south-pointing needles" Fragment translation vs. contextual
translation" in Viviane Alleton
and Michael Lackner, directors, De l'un au multiple (Paris:
Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme, 1999)
Galambos, Imre, "Pathless path,
nameless name" (http://www.logoi.com/notes/laozi.html,
2000)
Golden, Sean, primary contact,
On-line Translation Colloquium website (http:/www.fti.uab.es/sgolden/colloquium/colloquium.htm,
1997)
Huang, Parker Po-fei, "On the
Translation of Chinese Poetry", in Rosanna Warren, Ed., The Art of Translation: Voices from the Field
(Boston: Northeastern University
Press, 1989), pp. 84-97
Kennedy, Brian, "Chinese Boxing
Classics in Translation: Problems and Perils"
(http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_kennedy_0202.htm, 2002)
Lackner, M., primary contact, Modern
Chinese Scientific Terminologies website
(http://www.gwdg.de/~oas/wsc/, 1997)
Morgan, Bayard Quincy, "A
Critical Bibliography of Works on Translation", in R.A. Brower, Ed., On Translation (NY: Oxford University
Press, 1966)