ATC |
Four translations, same analogy
|
Only specialists in ancient Chinese can fully understand and analyze the original Chinese reasoning presented in classical Chinese texts. Readers of translations are left with an X as it is translated as a reasoning.
Some translations are not, or not entirely, directly understandable to the lay reader; others are clear and equivalent; still others are clear but not equivalent. Mencius’ discussions with Kao Tzu (= Gaotzi = Kao Tzeu) illustrate these different situations. They are available in at least the following four translations.
Mencius. Trans., Introd. and Notes by D. C. Lau. Penguin Classics. 1970, 2003,
Mencius, An online teaching translation with introduction, notes and glossary by Robert Eno, Version 1.0 2016. http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Mencius (Eno-2016).pdf
Œuvres de Meng Tzeu. Les quatre livres, IV. Traduit par Séraphin Couvreur (1835-1919), © 1895. Mise en mode texte par Pierre Palpant, www.chineancienne.fr.
Angus Charles Graham. 1989. Disputers of the Tao. Philosophical argument in ancient China. La Salle, Illinois, Open Court.
On the term “human nature,” see the Glossary
1. Four equivalent translations of the same passage from Mencius
Different translations can cleary express the same argument. These translations are said to be equivalent as far as their reasoning movement is concerned. There may remain variations in the conceptual vocabulary used in the different translations.
In the following passage where Mencius counters Gaozi’s arguments from analogy by finding a weakness in the analogy.
MenciusLau
VI A 1. Kao Tzu said, ‘Human nature is like the ch’i willow. Dutifulness is like cups and bowls. To make morality out of human nature is like making cups and bowls out of the willow’.
‘Can you,’ said Mencius, ‘make cups and bowls by following the nature of the willow? Or must you mutilate the willow before you can make it into cups and bowls? If you have to mutilate the willow to make it into cups and bowls, must you then also mutilate a man to make him moral? Surely it will be these words of yours men in the world will follow in bringing disaster upon morality’ (fin du §)
Mencius. Trans., Introd. and Notes by D. C. Lau. ©1970, 2003, Penguin Classics, p.
MenciusEno
6A1 Gaozi said, “Human nature is like the willow tree and righteousness is like cups and bowls. Drawing humanity and right from human nature is like making cups and bowls from willow wood.”
Mencius said, “Can you make cups and bowls from willow wood by following its natural grain or is it only after you have hacked the willow wood that you can make a cup or bowl? If you must hack the willow to make cups and bowls from it, must you hack people in order to make them humane and righteous? Your words will surely lead the people of the world to destroy humanity and right.”
MenciusCouvreur
VI.I.1. p.557 Kao tzeu dit — La nature peut être comparée à l’osier, et la justice (cette disposition qui nous porte à traiter les hommes et les choses comme il convient) peut être comparée à une coupe ou à une autre écuelle d’osier. La nature humaine reçoit les dispositions à la bienfaisance et à la justice, comme l’osier reçoit la forme d’une coupe ou d’une autre écuelle.
Meng tzeu dit — Pouvez-vous faire une coupe ou une autre écuelle avec de l’osier sans contrarier les tendances de sa nature ? Vous ne le pouvez; vous devez couper et maltraiter l’osier. Si vous coupez et maltraitez l’osier pour en faire une écuelle, irez- vous aussi léser et maltraiter la nature humaine pour lui donner des dispositions à la bienfaisance et à la justice ? S’il est une doctrine capable de porter les hommes à rejeter comme nuisibles la bienveillance et la justice, c’est certainement la vôtre.
MenciusGraham
Kao-tzu said: ‘Our nature is like the willow, the right is like cups and bowls. Making the benevolent and the right out of man’s nature is like making cups and bowls out of the willow.”
‘Are you able’, said Mencius, by ‘following the willow’s nature to make cups and bowls out of it? Isn’t it rather that to make cups and bowls out of it you have to violate the willow? If you violate the willow to make cups and bowls out of it, do you also violate man to make the benevolent and the right out of him? I suggest that if anything can lead the people of the world to think of the benevolent and the right as misfortunes it is this saying of yours’
Grahan, A. C., p. 120.
The nature of the willow is to grow into a flourishing tree and it is violated when we chop and carve the wood into the shape which suits our purposes. Kao-tzu’s analogy does have a direction of growth, and morality is against nature. But then Kao-tzu’s own example tells against him : nature would be not neutral but bad. Neither for Kao-tzu nor for Mencius is this a thinkable — what incentive would there be to moral behaviour? Although it was to become one with Hsun-Tzu in the next century (id.)
Grahan, A. C Disputers of the Tao. p. 120.
The main differences lie not in the reasoning, but in the English conceptual vocabulary used in the various translations, see
2. A difficult case:
Four different translations of another passage from Mencius
In other cases,the translations seems roughly equivalent, but the reasoning movement is nevertheless beyond the grasp of a lay reader.
In the following passage, Mencius counters Gaozi’s definition of the word « nature ». His justification is categorical.
One may find that the inferring license, corresponding to the reasoning move, needs developments based on a sophisticated knowledge of the Chinese language.
Eno’s translation is followed by an understandable explanation of that kind, apparently accessible to the lay reader.
(a) MenciusLau (1970, 2003)
6A3. Kao Tzu said “That which is inborn is what is meant by ‘nature’. ”
‘Is that’, said Mencius, the same as ‘ white is what is meant by “white” ?’
‘Yes’
‘Is the whiteness of white feathers the same as the whiteness of white snow and the whiteness of white snow the same as the whiteness of white jade?’
‘Yes’
‘In that case, is the nature of a hound the same as the nature of an ox and the nature of an ox the same as the nature of a man?’ (end of §3)
Mencius. Trans., Introd. and Notes by D. C. Lau. ©1970, 2003, Penguin Classics
(b) MenciusEno (2016)
6A.3. Gaotzi said “The term ‘nature’ simply means ‘inborn’ ”
Mencius said, “Do you mean that ‘nature’ means ‘inborn’ as ‘white’ means ‘white’?
“Precisely” ‘
“As the white of white feathers is the white of snow and the white of snow is the white of white jade?’
“Yes’“Then the nature of a hound would be the same as the nature of an ox and the nature of an ox would be the same as the nature of a man’s?’ (end of §3)
Note Eno 6A.3 :
This passage turns on wordplay. The term for the “nature” of a living thing is xing 性, which was cognate in sound and form with the word sheng 生, which meant “life, alive, inborn.” In Mencius’s time, the graph 生 could stand for either word. While Gaozi clearly wishes to make a substantive claim about how the term xing should be defined, Mencius reduces this to a lexical analogy to the word “white” (bai 白):
生 = 生 :: 白 = 白
Gaozi should have rejected the proposed analogy.
(c) MenciusCouvreur (1895)
Kao tzeu dit : — La nature n’est autre chose que la vie.
Meng tzeu dit : — La nature doit-elle être appelée vie comme tout objet blanc est appelé blanc ?
— Oui répondit Kao tzeu.
— La blancheur d’une plume blanche, dit Meng tzeu est-elle la même que celle de la neige; et la blancheur de la neige, la même que celle d’une perle blanche?
— Oui répondit Kao tzeu.
— Alors, dit Meng tzeu, la nature du chien est la même que celle du bœuf et la nature du bœuf la même que celle de l’homme. [fin du §]
Œuvres de Meng Tzeu. Trad. et notes par S. Couvreur. Cité d’après www.chineancienne.fr. p. 180
(d) MenciusGraham
Kao-tzu said : ‘it is life (sheng) that is meant by “nature” (hsing)’
‘Is life meant by “nature” ’, said Mencius, ‘as white is meant by “white” ’ ?
‘It is’
“Is the white of white feathers like the white of white snow, the white of white snow like the white of white jade?’
‘It is’
‘Then is the dog’s nature like the ox’s nature, the ox’s nature like man’s nature ?
Graham, A. C Disputers of the Tao. p. 119.