Zhou Zuoren’s Translations of Two Japanese Stories

NISHIHARA Daisuke

INTRODUCTION

I would like to examine how translator Zhou Zuoren (周 作 人 ） attempted to introduce certain Japanese stories to Chinese readers, and how Chinese intellectuals responded to modern Japanese litera­ ture. The two stories which I am going to discuss here are Shiga Naoya(志賀直哉）’s “Seibei to hyôtan”（清兵衛と瓢箪）and Senke Moto- maro(千家元麿）’s “Bara no hana.”（薔薇の花） Traditionally, until the Meiji Restoration, Japan had been very ea­ ger to learn from Chinese culture. Japanese classical literature de­ veloped under the continuous influence of Chinese literature. On the other hand, Chinese poets and novelists paid no attention to Japanese literature until the twentieth century. They never imagined that it was possible for Japan to have literature worth reading. Even the 〇/(3^ だゾ/(源氏物語）， completed in the early eleventh century， was unknown to Chinese readers. This blind spot, no doubt, was due to traditional Chinese ethnocentrism, which regarded neighbouring races as non-civilized barbarians. The new Western presence and Japan's adoption of Western tech­ nology during the Meiji Period changed the balance of power in East Asia. The Sino-Japanese War, which lasted from 1894 to 1895, brought about a sense of crisis among Chinese intellectuals and made them realize the need to study abroad. It inspired many intel­ lectuals in mainland China to study in Japan. Zhou Zuoren, who lived in Tokyo from 1906 until 1911, was one of the first Chinese scholars to realize the value of Japanese literature. Zhou Zuoren and his elder brother Lu Xun(魯迅）later became pioneer translators of Japanese novels into Chinese. What I am going to focus on here is the process of China5s first attempts to assimilate Japanese litera­ ture. This essay consists of two sections. In the first section, I will ex­ amine the Confucian view of childhood based on the notion of filial

242 ii Zhou Zuoren’s Translations of Two Japanese Stories piety. At the same time, I will explore Zhou Zuoren’s reasons for translating Shiga’s “Seibei to hyôtan” and Senke’s “Bara no hara.” In the second section, the chief characteristics of his translations will be discussed.

SECTION 1

Zhou Zuoren was the younger brother of Lu Xun, and is known as Shu Sakujin in Japanese. He was born in 1885 and died in 1967. This means that he was exactly the same age as the Japanese novel­ ist Mushanokôji Saneatsu(武者小路実篤)， two years younger than Shiga Naoya, and three years older than Senke Motomaro. As an early Japanologist, Zhou Zuoren dominated the first translations of Japanese literature, along with a few other contemporary Chinese in­ tellectuals. In 1923, Zhou Zuoren and Lu Xun published Xiandai A7

A Prayer to the Children

Children, children, I pray to you. Atone for me. Please atone for my sins And for my ancestor's sins that I could not atone for. Atone with your smile. Atone with your joy and happiness. Atone with the pride of having become true men. There is a beautiful flower garden before you.

241 Journal o f Comparative Literature 37 Go there peacefully, Jumping over me. I could not go there. I even lost sight of its fading image. Please atone for these sins1.

This poem is dated 28th A ugust,1921.There are no difficult words in the poem. The phrases are exceedingly simple, as are the contents. Some may doubt the literary value of this poem and may dismiss it as childish. Some may even regard it as a trashy piece of work. However, the poem provides a key to understanding Zhou Zuoren’s reasons for translating “Seibei to hyôtan” and “Bam no hana.” Let us notice the speaker’s attitude towards his children. In lines nine, ten and eleven, he desires his children to jump over their father in order to arrive at a better place, here depicted as a “flower garden.'' In this poem, the father^ expectation of his children to sur­ pass him is expressed. Such a way of thinking is, no doubt, completely opposed to the traditional Chinese notion of filial piety. It was required of a filial son not to stray from his father’s ways. Preserving one’s ancestor’s way of thinking was widely considered virtuous in China. Confucian­ ism reinforced this belief. For example,

The Master said, If for the whole three years of mourning a son manages to carry on the household exactly as in his father’s day, then he is a good son indeed2

Confucianism demanded that children should not deviate from their father^ ways, whereas Zhou Zuoren, in his poem, calls on his chil­ dren to go beyond himself. This is exactly the opposite of the teachings of Confucianism. During the so-called “new culture movement” between 1910 and 1930， Confucianism was criticized as an obstacle to China’s further progress. Intellectuals of the period widely believed that China’s rigid family system tended to get in the way of that country's mod­ ernization, because it interfered with attempts on the part of young

240 iv Zhou Zuoren's Translations of Two Japanese Stories people to reform society. In the course of progress, old, inefficient and unreasonable ways ought to be weeded out so as to be replaced by more reasonable, efficient and satisfactory alternatives. In this sense, society would improve with each generation. Confucianists at that time, however, laid particular stress on filial piety, which did not allow members of the younger generation to change their ances­ tor^ legacy. Whereas filial piety prohibited any deviation from the ways of the older generation, progress required children to surpass their parents. A new image of childhood was thus discovered in China. The speaker in Zhou Zouren’s poem desires that children “jump over” their father. This suggests that Zhou Zuoren’s view of children is anti-Confucianist. Actually, this progressive idea was not his alone. Most Chinese intellectuals of the May Fourth movement, such as Lu Xun, Hu Shi(胡適）， Chen Duxiu(陳独秀）and Wu Yu(呉虞）， shared this idea.

I have so far discussed two opposing views of childhood. Next, I would like to examine Zhou Zuoren^ translations of Japanese litera­ ture. As I have already mentioned, I would like to take up the stories “Seibei to hyôtan” by Shiga Naoya and “Bara no hana” by Senke Motomaro. This combination may seem strange, because of the dis­ parity in the popularity of the two stories. The Shiga story has been regarded as a masterpiece of modern Japanese literature, whereas Senke^ story has been largely ignored by Japanese readers. Howev­ er, these works share a similar concern with children. Zhou Zuoren^ selection was deeply motivated by his views on childhood. Shiga Naoya first published “Seibei to hyôtan” on New Year’s D ay,1913, in the (読売新聞）• Zhou Zuoren’s trans­ ition was published in 1923 in the anthology mentioned above. ‘、 eibei to hyôtan’’ is a story of a primary school student，Seibei， who enjoys collecting hyôtan, or gourds, more than his school work. His father and his teacher cannot truly understand the boy^ enthu­ siasm so they deprive him of his gourds, which were later found to be priceless. The author Shiga Naoya seems to be critical of the teacher and the father. After reading “Seibei to hyôtan,” in 1921，

239 Journal o f Comparative Literature 37 Zhou Zuoren wrote an essay on the story.

Although I know little about educational philosophy, I am of the opinion that there are serious defects in current juvenile education. I do not know any other cases, but judging from the conditions of juvenile education in certain families and schools I have seen, it would seem that parents and teachers have not understood the characteristics of the target of their education, namely children. This seems true indeed. “Seibei to hyôtan” quietly depicts only one rather peaceful scene, in this enormous tragedy3.

In the same essay, Zhou Zuoren criticizes the repressive social sys­ tem of China. His argument is deeply connected with his anti- Confucianism. Senke Motomaro’s “Bara no hana” was published in 19204. It is a short story of eight pages. The story is as follows. One day, the pro­ tagonist buys two potted roses at a temple festival, keeping them under the veranda or his house. Next day, he gets up to find that the flowers have been picked by someone. A six year-old girl living nearby is discovered to have done it. The child picked the roses be­ cause she loved them. Although the roses are spoiled, the protagon­ ist does not scold the girl. On the contrary, he and his wife discover that the child’s behavior is motivated only by her desire for beauty and that she has no sense of guilt about it. The protagonist thinks it wonderful that the girl acted so innocently. This simple story deals with the relationship between social rules and one’s sense of beauty. The child is motivated by her desire for the beautiful roses and has no understanding of possession. Why did Zhou Zuoren select this story and translate it into Chinese? His reasons can be understood by looking at his essay on “Seibei to hyôtan.”

Ten years ago, I read an essay on children’s sense of possession. I remember its point was as follows. Before developing the sense of distinction between other people and itself, a child, if charmed by some other person’s possession, seeks to obtain it

238 vi Zhou Zuoren’s Translations of Two Japanese Stories

by various means. Once a sense of distinction and possession has been established，children’s behavior changes naturally5.

We can apply this passage to “Bara no hana.” As we can see， the six year-old girl has yet to develop the ability to distinguish her own possessions from things owned by other people. She is charmed by another person’s roses and obtains them by stealing. uSeibei to hyotan^ and uBara no hana?, both praise children^ de­ sire for beauty. But this desire creates friction with the social order. Seibei is deprived of the gourds he collected by his teacher. The six year-old girl infringes on her neighbor’s ownership. Zhou Zuoren seems to have been interested in the contradiction between chil­ dren^ growth and social rules. At that time, Confucianism was cons­ idered by Chinese intellectuals to be an obstruction to the develop- ment of a new generation. The two stories were purposely selected and introduced to Chinese readers by Zhou Zuoren. Zhou Zuoren’s translations were motivated by the situation in China at the time of the “new culture movement.” They served not only as an introduction to a foreign literature, but also as a medium for expressing Zhou’s own ideas.

SECTION 2

I have so far examined Zhou Zuoren’s reasons for translating two Japanese stories. Now let me consider some of the characteristics of these translations. Akutagawa Ryünosuke(芥川龍之介) ， who was seven years younger than Zhou Zuoren, wrote an essay on the Anthology of Modern Japanese Short Stories. As I have already noted, it was compiled by Lu Xun and Zhou Zuoren and includes Shiga’s “Seibei to hyôtan” and Senke’s “Bara no hana.” Akutagawa’s essay was published in the magazine Shinchô in 1925, two years after the publication of the anthology in 1923. Its title is “Nihon shôsetsu no shina yaku”（日 本 小 説の支那訳）or “Chinese Translations of Japanese Stories.” As two of Akutagawa、 stories, namely “Rashômon” （羅生 門 ）and “Hana，，，（鼻 ) were also presented in the anthology, he was naturally interested in the translations. In his essay, Akutagawa praises the precision of the

237 Journal o f Comparative Literature 37 translation and notes. Akutagawa, of course, could not speak Chinese, but he could guess the gist of the text by reading the Chinese characters. This judgment was based on the notes for the translation of his story “Rashômon.”

As for the translation, compared to my original works, it is fair­ ly accurate. Moreover, there are full notes on place names, offi­ cial titles, names of tools, and so on. For instance, in tfcRashô- mon，” there are such notes as follows. Tatewaki----Ancient officer. In charge of affairs like arresting, impeachment, trial, law suits, and so on. Heian-chô ---- Period of about four hundred years after A.D. 794.

Akutagawa’s remarks reveal that his evaluation of the anthology was positive. On the other hand, there are some negative comments on the part of some Chinese experts. Taiwanese scholar Lin Lianxiang(林連样） regards the translations as "extremely clumsy.’’6 In his essay on the Chinese translation of “Kureigu Sensei” （クレイグ先生）by Natsume Soseki，（夏目 漱 石 ）appearing in the same anthology in a translation by Lu Xun, Lin criticizes the sentences as “exceedingly strange.” He claims that the sentences are so unnatural that it is difficult for Chinese readers to understand them. He says that Japanese grammar is applied unthinkingly to Chinese sentences, making the translation potentially misleading for ordinary readers. Finally, he points out that a great deal of vocabulary is imported via Japanese kanji com­ pounds, which sounded awkward in Chinese phrases. For example, Lu Xun translates “shitsumon”（質問 ）as “zhiwen，”（質 問 ）which should be translated as “wenti.” （問題 ）The Japanese com­ pound appears among Chinese sentences without any modification. The title itself also has a Japanese flavor. He translates the title “Kureigu Sensei” as “Kelaike Xiansheng.” The Japanese word “sen­ sei” is translated as ‘‘Mr,’7 instead of “teacher.” It should be tranl- slated as “laoshi,” which is the Chinese counterpart of sensei. Lin thus concludes that Lu Xun’s translation is unskillful. As we have seen, the two evaluations of the translation in the

236 Zhou Zuoren’s Translations of Two Japanese Stories

anthology are completely different. Japanese writer Akutagawa praises its accuracy, whereas Chinese scholar Lin decries its dearth of quality. Which is correct? Is the translation accurate or not? In order to answer this question, I would like to quote an essay by Lu Xun, who shared the same views as Zhou Zuoren.

If we were only to pursue ease of understanding, it would be better to rewrite the original text and create another one. It would also be better to change the incidents into Chinese ones and change the characters into Chinese. As long as we translate, our main purpose must lie in making readers read a wide range of foreign works. It is necessary not only to transfer the feeling of the original, but also to expand the reader’s knowledge7.

In spite of his explanation, many Chinese scholars are not satisfied with Zhou Zuoren and Lu Xun^ direct translations. It is also true that the translation of literary works should be fluent, or at least should make sense in the target language. Lu Xun and Zhou Zuoren's translations are infamous for their difficulty. Lu Xun, however, made an excuse for this direct translation policy in his essay on translation8 which fully reveals the two writers’ motivation. In this essay, Lu Xun admits that it was difficult for him to squeeze strange grammar into Chinese sentences. At the same time, he opti­ mistically predicts that even such strange grammar will become a part of the Chinese language. Lu Xun reinforced this idea with the example of Japan. He insists that the adoption of European gram­ mar was a common feature in Japanese translations. Therefore it is understandable that a Japanese writer, Akutagawa, was impressed by the accuracy of the translations in the anthology. Unfortunately， Lu Xun and Zhou Zuoren’s translations still sound strange to Chinese ears. Lin Lianxiang^ essay pointed out the im­ maturity of their translations. We have to admit that their purpose was not fully realized. But still,I would like to point out that their translations were a part of their attempt to reform Chinese culture. Zhou Zuoren’s selections of “Seibei to hyôtan” and “Bara no hana” were for the same purpose. Zhou also wanted to modify the Chinese language through his works.

235 Journal o f Comparative Literature 37

Inconclusion，ShigaNaoya’s “Seibeitohyôtan’’ andSenkeMoto- maro’s “Bara no hana” both praise values intrinsic to children. At the time of the translations, Chinese parents tended to interfere with the new generation’s attempts at modernization， requiring obedience under the name of filial piety. Zhou Zuoren’s translations of these Japanese stories were an attempt on his part to reform Chinese soci­ ety. It is important to understand what he wanted to realize through his translations, but it is also necessary to notice how he translated the texts. Zhou Zuoren did not only intend to change Chinese cul­ ture. He was also committed to reform his mother tongue. These attempts were based on his deep concern for his country and his people. Japanese literature was first translated in China in this his­ torical and cultural context.

NOTES

1 . The original title， “Kodomo e no Inori.” It was composed on 28 August 1921, published in a Japanese magazine Seichôsuru Hoshi no Mure, Vol.l, No.7. English translation here, and throughout this essay, by Nishihara. 2. Arthur Waley, The Analects of Confucius (London, Unwin Hy­ man, 1988), p.106. 3. “Gankai”， 22 September 1921, originally written in Chinese. 4. uBara no HanaZ， included in Senke^s anthology Aoi Eda (Tokyo, Ibunsha, 1920). Zhou published its Chinese translation in Xinchao Vol.3, No.l, in 1921. 5. “Gankai.” See note 3. 6. Lin Lianxiang, “Lu Hsün’s Chinese Translation of Sôseki’s ‘Dr. Craig,,î , Hikaku Bungaku Kenkyu, No.41,1982. 7 . LuXun，“Ti-Weiding-Cao，” 1935. 8. Lu Xun， “Guanyu Fanyi de Tongxin，” 1931.

234