Knowledge Analysis of Roy’s Sinological Translation: A Case Study on the Complete Translation of Jin Ping Mei

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2024.06.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Research on the Sinologist David Roy has primarily centered on the textual interpretation of his translation, often overlooking the sinological knowledge that influenced his choice of the original Jin Ping Mei. Besides, there are research gaps in understanding the broader context of his sinological translation. This article seeks to examine the translator’s deep motivations through an epistemological lens. It reveals that the previous knowledge circulation of Jin Ping Mei in the Anglophone world is a key factor in shaping Roy’s sinological research. Through multiple interactions with the author, the original text and critics, Roy developed his sinological knowledge of Jin Ping Mei. To reconstruct the original work’s full knowledge system within the broader field of world literature, Roy meticulously traces its sources, translates it word for word, and provides detailed footnotes. In doing so, he preserves the spirit of the original work to the greatest extent and offers a model of thick translation for classical Chinese literature.

Key words: Roy, sinological translation, knowledge, Jin Ping Mei

CLC Number:

H315.9

SHI Yun. Knowledge Analysis of Roy’s Sinological Translation: A Case Study on the Complete Translation of Jin Ping Mei[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2024, 24(6): 89-102.

References 55

[1]	Birch, C. 1977. Foreword[A]. In A. H. Plaks (eds.). Chinese Narrative: Critical and Theoretical Essays[C]. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ix-xii.
[2]	Birrell, A. 2000. Postmodernist Theory in Recent Studies of Chinese Literature[J]. Sino-Platonic Papers(105):3-4.
[3]	Bishop, J. L. 1954. A Colloquial Short Story in the Novel Chin Ping Mei[J]. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 17(3/4):394-402.
[4]	Chang, Su-lee. 1940. Review of CHIN P’ING MEI tr. Bernard Miall[J]. Asiatic Review 36(2):616-618.
[5]	Collier, H. B. 1944. Reviewed Work(s): Djin Ping Meh by Artur Kibat and Otto Kibat: King Ping Meh by Franz Kuhn: Chin P’ing Mei, the Adventurous History of Hsi Men and His Six Wives by Bernard Miall and Franz Kuhn: The Golden Lotus by Clement Egerton[J]. Isis 35(4):344-346.
[6]	Giles, L. 1940. Reviewed Work(s): The Golden Lotus. A Translation from the Chinese Original of the Novel, Chin P’ing Mei by Clement Egerton; Chin P’ing Mei. The Adventurous History of Hsi Men and His Six Wives by Bernard Miall and Franz Kuhn[J]. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland(3):369.
[7]	Gulik, R, H V. 2004. Erotic Color Prints of the Ming Period with an Essay on Chinese Sex Life from the Han to the Ch’ing Dynasty, B.C. 206-A.D. 164[M]. Leiden: Brill.
[8]	Hanan, P. 1961. A Landmark of the Chinese Novel[J]. University of Toronto Quarterly(3):325-335.
[9]	Hanan, P. 1962. The Text of the Chin P’ing Mei[J]. Asia Major 9(1):1-57.
[10]	Hanan, P. 1963. Sources of the Chin P’ing Mei[J]. Asia Major 10(2):23-67.
[11]	Hightower, J. R. 1953. Chinese literature in the context of world literature[J]. Comparative Literature 5(2):117-124.
[12]	Hsia, C-T. 2015. The Classic Chinese Novel: A Critical Introduction[M]. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
[13]	Mei, Yi-Tse Feuerwerker. 1966. The Chinese novel[A]. In Theodore de Bary (ed.). Approaches to the Oriental Classics: Asian Literature and Thought in General Education[C]. New York & London: Columbia University Press. 171-185.
[14]	Roy, D. 1977. Chang chu-p’o’s commentary on the Chin p’ing mei[A]. In A. H. Plaks (ed.). Chinese Narrative: Critical and Theoretical Essays [C]. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 115-123.
[15]	Roy, D. 1980. A Confucian Interpretation of the chin p’ing Mei[A]. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sinology Section on Literature[C]. Taipei: Academia Sinica. 39-61.
[16]	Roy, D. 1981. Review 8—no title[J]. The Journal of Asian Studies (pre-1986) 40(4):764.
[17]	Roy, D. 1982. Reviewed work: The Peony Pavilion (Mudan Ting) by Tang Xianzu and Cyril Birch[J]. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies(2):692-702.
[18]	Roy, D. 1986. The case for T’ang Hsien-tsu’s authorship of the Jin Ping Mei[J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR)(8):31-62.
[19]	Roy, D. 1993. The Plum in the Golden Vase or, Chin P’ing Mei, Volume One: The Gathering[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[20]	Roy, D. 1998. The use of songs as a means of self-expression and self-characterization in the Chin P’ing Mei[J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR)(20):101-126.
[21]	Roy, D. 2001. The Plum in the Golden Vase or, Chin P’ing Mei, Volume Two: The Rivals[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[22]	Station, E. 2013. A Lifetime Fascination[EB/OL]. [2024-4-23]. https://tableau.uchicago.edu/articles/2013/08/lifetime-fascination.
[23]	Venuti, L. 2021. The Translation Studies Reader[M]. New York: Routledge.
[24]	笑笑生. 1963. 金瓶梅词话[M]. 东京: 大安株式会社.
[25]	北京大学国际汉学家研修基地. 2011. 耶鲁大学讲座教授孙康宜在北大畅谈美国汉学研究[EB/OL]. [2024-3-23]. https://news.pku.edu.cn/xwzh/129-201788.htm.
[26]	饭田吉郎. 1989. 关于大安本《金瓶梅词话》的价值——就第五回和第五十二回而论[A]. 黄霖,王国安. 日本研究及《金瓶梅》论文集 [C]. 济南: 齐鲁书社. 94-100.
[27]	古代文学理论研究编委会. 1982. 古代文学理论研究(第六辑)[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社.
[28]	胡令毅. 2014. 高山仰止:英译本《金瓶梅词话》厄言[J]. 洛阳师范大学学报(9):32-45.
[29]	黄霖. 2001. 再论《金瓶梅》崇祯本系统各本之间的关系[J]. 上海师范大学学报(5):39-46.
[30]	黄霖. 2015. 关于《金瓶梅》词话本的几个问题[J]. 文学遗产(3):15-30.
[31]	雷威安. 2013. 汤显祖和小说《金瓶梅》的作者身份——戏剧《牡丹亭》相关资料的启示[A]. 徐永明、陈靝沅. 英语世界的汤显祖研究论著选译 [C]. 杭州: 浙江古籍出版社.100-106.
[32]	柳存仁. 1982. 伦敦所见中国小说书目提要[M]. 北京: 书目文献出版社.
[33]	潘佳宁. 2021. 论芮效卫的《金瓶梅》翻译与研究[D]. 沈阳: 辽宁大学博士学位论文.
[34]	浦安迪. 2015. 明代小说四大奇书[M]. 北京: 生活读书新知三联书店.
[35]	上村幸次. 1989. 关于毛利本《金瓶梅词话》[A]. 黄霖,王国安. 日本研究及《金瓶梅》论文集[C]. 济南: 齐鲁书社. 89-93.
[36]	史芸、杨枫. 2021. 典籍英译的副文本研究[J]. 上海翻译(2):13-18.
[37]	宋丽娟. 2017. “中学西传”与中国古典小说的早期翻译:以英语世界为中心:1735-1911[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社.
[38]	覃江华. 2022. 翻译与知识生产、管理和转化——知识翻译学刍议[J]. 当代外语研究(1):60-71. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.01.004
[39]	王汝梅. 2002. 《金瓶梅》三种版本系统[J]. 古典文学知识(5):83-89.
[40]	王汝梅. 2015. 《金瓶梅》版本史[M]. 济南: 齐鲁书社.
[41]	王炜. 2012. 《金瓶梅》学术档案[M]. 武汉: 武汉大学出版社.
[42]	吴敢. 2001. 《综合学术本金瓶梅》序[J]. 徐州教育学院学报(3):19-27.
[43]	吴敢. 2007. 张竹坡研究综述[J]. 河南大学学报(社会科学版)(6):30-38.
[44]	吴敢. 2015. 金瓶梅研究史[M]. 郑州: 中州古籍出版社.
[45]	奚如谷. 2020. 版本与语言——中国古典戏曲翻译之思[J]. 杜磊译. 文化遗产(1):47-58.
[46]	夏征农、陈至立. 2015. 大辞海(词语卷)[Z]. 上海: 上海辞书出版社.
[47]	徐敏慧. 2019. 汉学家视野与学术型翻译:金介甫的沈从文翻译研究[J]. 中国翻译(1):60-67.
[48]	徐朔方. 1986. 《汤显祖著作金瓶梅考》的简介和质疑[J]. 温州师专学报(社会科学版)(1):24-36.
[49]	杨枫. 2021. 翻译是文化还是知识?[J]. 当代外语研究(6): 2, 36.
[50]	杨枫. 2022. 知识的地方性与翻译的世界性[J]. 当代外语研究(3):1-2.
[51]	袁丽梅. 2020. “厚译”厚在哪?——对汉学家译者主体性的再思考[J]. 外语教学(4):97-101.
[52]	张宏生. 1998. 哈佛大学东亚语言与文明系韩南教授访问记[J]. 文学遗产(3):110-116.
[53]	张万民. 2018. 西方理论与北美中国古典文学研究[J]. 文学遗产(6):168-180.
[54]	张义宏. 2017. 《金瓶梅》英译比较研究[D]. 北京: 北京外国语大学博士学位论文.
[55]	郑树森. 1992. 西方理论与中国文学研究[J]. 中国文哲研究通讯(2):16-34.