https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0770-9904
ABSTRACT
In 2020, the English translation of Mozi by Chris Fraser, a philosopher, was published, which brought a new perspective, a philosophically revisionist one in Hansen’s words, to the English translation of Mozi. This paper takes the term “fa” as an example to reveal the uniqueness of Fraser’s translation in terminology translation and highlight the importance that translators and Sinologists have recently attached to the philosophical interest of terms in Mozi. At the same time, this paper demonstrates the discussion of the term “fa” in Chinese and Western academia and explores the path of analyzing this term from the philosophical point of view both at home and abroad. Ultimately, through the translation of “fa,” this paper analyzes the integration of philosophical research and terminological translation in Fraser’s translation, and provides a philosophical revisionist approach for the subsequent translations of the terminology in Mozi.
摘要
2020年，哲学家方克涛的《墨子》英译本出版，该译本为《墨子》的英译带来了一种新的视角，用汉学家陈汉森的话来说，就是哲学修正主义的视角。本文将以“法”这一术语为例，揭示方克涛译本在术语翻译中的特点，突出近年来译者及汉学家们对于《墨子》术语翻译在哲学内涵方面的重视。同时，本文将探究“法”这一术语在中西方学界引起的讨论，探究哲学视角下中西方研究者对于“法”这一术语的分析路径。最终，本文将通过“法”这一案例，展示在方克涛译本中，哲学研究与术语英译的结合，为后续《墨子》译本中的术语提供一种哲学修正主义的翻译方向。
1. Introduction
In 2020, Chris Fraser’s English translation of Mozi, The Essential Mòzǐ: Ethical, Political, and Dialectical Writings, was published. This translation is a byproduct of his earlier monograph on Mohist philosophy, which is “a contribution to what Hansen called the philosophical ‘rehabilitation’ of Mohism” (Fraser, The Philosophy of the Mòzǐ 11). As a philosopher, he states in the introduction to his translation that it has a specifically philosophical focus. As a result, his translation has made bolder changes than previous translations of Mozi, one of which is reflected in his treatment of terminology translation. Although some translators and scholars have emphasized the importance of terminology translation in the English translation of Mozi before him, the previous translations more or less sacrificed the accuracy of terms translation for the sake of readability. As a philosopher, Chris Fraser is particularly wary of this kind of contextualized translation of terms, stating that “The translation seeks to accurately reflect the nuances of the Mohists’ philosophical terminology, arguments, and style of thinking. Key terminology is translated consistently, so that readers can see how the same concepts, themes, and patterns of thought appear repeatedly and how they are linked through various conceptual associations and inferential relations” (Fraser, The Essential Mòzǐ 33). In the book review for Johnson’s translation, Hansen notes that the argument in Mozi can be made to look more or look less like a western one “by choosing established lexical translations v. philosophically revisionist ones” (Hansen，”The Mozi” 341). And maybe this shows Fraser’s effort to demonstrate the differences between “established lexical translations” and “philosophically revisionist ones” of Mozi.
Chris Fraser’s translation of “fa” (法) is an extremely typical case. In his translation, the English word he has chosen for “fa” is quite different from that of previous translators; at the same time, he refuses to use different words to translate “fa” in different contexts as his predecessors did. Now the question is whether his treatment of “fa” here is reasonable. Does the word “fa” in Mozi have a consistent meaning? And to what extent the word he has chosen can reflect the nuances of the term “fa”? This article aims to first show the differences between Chris Fraser’s treatment of “fa” and that of other translators in Mozi translations, and then answer the above questions with reference to the studies on the connotation and form of the character “fa” in Mozi. Through sorting out the factors influencing the translation of the term “fa” in Fraser’s translation, this study aims to show the influence and unique value of Mozi in Chinese philosophy, and introduce a new way of treating terms in Mozi and other Chinese classics like it.
2. Various translations of “fa” in Mozi
The term “fa” is mainly found in “Fa Yi” and “Mo Jing,” but due to the obscurity of the “Mo Jing” part, many English translations of Mozi omit the relevant parts, hence this study focuses on the translation of “fa” in “Fa Yi” and the 10 core chapters of Mozi. Considering the content, academic influence, and viewpoints of the existing translations, this study chooses five other translations to compare with Chris Fraser’s translation. The other five translations are respectively by Mei Yibao, Wang Rongpei & Wang Hong (WRP&WH), Cyrus Lee, Ian Johnston, and John Knoblock & Jeffrey Riegel (JK&JR). The comparison will not only show how unique Chris Fraser’s translation is in treating the term “fa,” but also show the different stages of translators’ interpretation of “fa.”
This study aims to examine the translation of “fa” in the most frequent and representative contexts; thus this study chooses four uses of “fa” as examples. The first one is “法其……,” which appears 12 times in Mozi, and the sentence “當皆法其父母奚若” in 4.2 is selected for study. The second use is “治法,” which appears 3 times in Mozi, and the sentence “然則奚以為治法而可” in 4.2 is chosen for study. The third expression is “刑法,” which appears 3 times in the original text, and the sentence “是以國家治而刑法正” from 9.2 is selected as the case. The fourth expression is “三法,” which is originally used in Mozi, and it appears 6 times in the original text, in this research “此言之三法也” in 36.1 is chosen as the case. The term “fa” in these four sentences is translated respectively int:
Translations of “fa” in six English versions of Mozi
It can be seen that in the first five translations, the translators are relatively flexible in their diction. They change equivalences for “fa” according to the contexts and do not deliberately pursue consistency of terms in their translations. In the first five translations, translators used various words like “imitate,” “standard,” “laws,” and “tests” to translate “fa” in the same translation; only Chris Fraser translated “fa” in all contexts into the same word “model,” including in the third case where all the other translators used the English word “law.” At the same time, the five older translations use the word “standard” more frequently, but the latest version uses the word “model” instead of “standard.” In the following three sections, this study will try to explain why Chris Fraser does so in his translation from two perspectives: the unique value of “fa” both as a term and an innovative concept in Mozi, and the reasons for translating “fa” into “model.”
3. The philosophical significance of “fa” in Mozi
The philosophical significance of “fa” will be demonstrated in two ways in the following two subsections. Firstly, the term “fa” in Mozi marks the pioneering position of Mozi in the Chinese “fa” tradition, and this can be demonstrated in the frequency and use of “fa” before and after Mozi. Secondly, from the perspective of Mozi translation, translators and scholars are calling for translations that represent the writing and reasoning styles of Mozi, and they claim that core terms like “fa” should be better translated consistently to fulfill this goal.
3.1. “Fa” tradition originated in Mozi
Nowadays, “fa” has become the cornerstone of people’s daily life in modern society. When thinking about the idea of “fa” in ancient China, people can usually date back to Li Si and Han Fei, or even Xunzi of Confucianism. However, according to research, “fa” has changed from a general word to an important term in political theory thanks to Mozi, and it is mainly demonstrated from two aspects.
Firstly, it can be suggested through the appearance of the term “fa” in the books before and after Mozi. In the works attributed to Laozi, “fa” only appears in the two sentences reading “人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然” （Man models himself after the Earth; the Earth models itself after Heaven; the Heaven models itself after Tao; Tao models itself after Nature）Footnote1 and “法令滋章，盗贼多有” (The greater the number of models and orders, the greater the number of thieves and brigands). In the works attributed to Confucius, “fa” only appears in the two sentences “法语之言，能无从乎” (How could one but comply with what model sayings have to say?) and “谨权量，审法度，修废官” (Carefully calibrate the scales and measures, review the models and statutes, and revive those offices that have fallen into disuse). In the two works mentioned above, the scholars pay little attention to the term “fa,” and hardly talk about the meaning and importance of “fa” in detail. But in the works after Mozi, such as in the works attributed to Mencius and Zhuangzi, the term “fa” appears more frequently. Li Ping has reviewed the rise of the term “fa” in the pre-Qin period, and he suggests, “If we compare the frequency and use of ‘fa’ in the works of Confucius and Laozi with the writings of Zuo Zhuan, Guoyu and that of the Warring States, we can find that Mozi plays a special role in this transformation process” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 104). He also claims that “In fact, it was Mozi who first actively reflected on the meaning of ‘fa’ and made it an important concept in the theory of governance” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 104).
Secondly, Mozi’s influence can be shown in the metaphors used by later scholars to illustrate the idea of “fa.” “Fa” is originally a technical term, and the author of the “Fa Yi” chapter introduced it to the field of governance. In the first paragraph of “Fa Yi,” the author gives his own idea of the term “Fa” that “百工為方以矩，為圓以規，為直以繩，為平以水，為正以縣。無巧工不巧工，皆以此五者為法” (The hundred artisans make squares with the set square, circles with the compass, straight lines with the string, vertical lines with the plumb line, and flat surfaces with the level. Whether skilled artisans or unskilled artisans, all take these five as models). In this part, the author used measurement tools to explain the concept of “fa.” At the end of the paragraph, “Fa” is further introduced from the field of technique to the field of governance through the sentence “今大者治天下，其次治大國，而無法所度，此不若百工，辯也” (Now for the greatest to order the world and the next rank to order great states without models to measure by, this is to be less discriminating than the hundred artisans). Since then, this metaphoric use of measurement tools in the political field can be frequently witnessed in later works. In the so-called Legalist classics like Guanzi and Shangjun Shu, there are cases like “法律政令者，吏民规矩绳墨也” (So, the law, rules, policies and orders are principles and regulations for governing the people) and “夫不待法令绳墨而无不正者，千万之一也” (There may be one case in 10 million, where the directing guidance of the law is not needed and yet it is correct in everything). Here “规矩” in Chinese literally means “compass and square,” and “绳墨” means “line marker.” This suggests that the concept of “Fa” in Mozi has influenced the concept of “Fa” in the later works labeled “fa-jia” or “Legalism,” which has “Fa” at the very core of its doctrine.
Li Ping is not the only scholar who has realized the significance of Mozi in the development of the Chinese “fa” tradition. When talking about the history of “fa,” Benjamin I. Schwartz has also noticed that “The meaning which figures most prominently in the most ancient texts – particularly in the book of Mo-tzu – is something like ‘model’ or ‘standard’” (Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China 321). Chris Fraser also has noted in his study “Mozi’s conception of fa being in effect the ancestor of the Legalists’” (Fraser, “Major Rival Schools” 60). It’s fair to say the term “fa” people usually use today can find its root in Mozi.
At the same time, many scholars agree that “fa” has formed a unified meaning in the work Mozi. In summarizing the significance of Mozi on the development of the concept of “fa,” Li Ping emphasizes two points: “First, Mozi made the first theoretical reflection on the concept of ‘fa’ and completed the construction of its basic meaning”; “Second, for the first time, Mozi constructs a theory of governance around the concept of ‘fa’” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 104). Chad Hansen also explained fa’s philosophical meaning in Mozi: “Thus Mozi’s discussion of fa makes it more theory laden than mere ‘standards’. Fa (standards) are publicly, objectively and naturally accessible, measurement-like standards” (Hansen, “Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy” 464). The two scholars believe that in Mozi’s theory, “fa” is a word with a particular meaning instead of a general word which changes meaning easily. Schwartz and Fraser’s words also indicate that Mozi’s conception of fa has a quite unified meaning, which is distinguished from that of works before it. And given the pioneering influence of Mozi in the course of the Chinese “fa” tradition, the unified meaning of “fa” in Mozi, and the importance of “fa” in Mozi’s theory, “fa” in Mozi should be translated consistently.
3.2. Translation of terms in Mozi
The first section has shown the various translations of “fa” in different English versions of Mozi. The first five translations have translated the same term “fa” into different English words, but the strategy of translating the same term into different words has been challenged and caused reflection among translators recently.
According to the notes in Mei’s translation, Mei Yibao has noticed the consistency of “fa” within the text of Mozi. Thus, when translating the sentence “當皆法其父母奚若” (If all take their parents as a model, what would that be like?) in 4.2, he emphasizes in his note that, “Here in Chinese the same word for ‘standard’ 法 is used. But as it will be often repeated in the subsequent text, this is too clumsy” (Mei, The Ethical and Political Works of Motse 13). Mei has realized that the character “fa” has a consistent meaning in this text, as the scholar Chen Ping claimed. However, as Mei Yibao admitted, he has failed to maintain consistency in translating the term “fa,” in order to make his translation look less clumsy and more easy to read.
Mei’s treatment can make his works suit his readers better at that time, but it may also provoke criticism from scholars nowadays. Because when scholars want to have a deeper understanding of Mozi’s doctrines, this kind of translation will blur the line between Mohism and other schools of thought. Just as Chad Hansen mentions, “In the classical Chinese view, all dispute is disagreement about the reference, scope, or use of crucial terms” (Hansen, “Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy” 450). Terms are such crucial tools in Chinese ancient philosophy that their different use can lead to academic disagreements. In a book review of Ian Johnson’s translation, Defoort also stresses that “When the author is making an argument or repeating a line, it is good to show that he is discussing the same term or concept. For Mohists trying to come up with clear arguments, this is all the more important”(Defoort, “A Translation of the Mozi” 497). According to them, key terms like “fa” in Mozi should be translated in a consistent way, so as to show their use, references and the author’s writing style. Notably, in the second version of Ian Johnson’s translation, he has appreciated Defoort’s suggestion, added a glossary to his translation and translated key terms like “ren” and “yi” consistently.
Compared with Mei and the first Mozi translation of Johnson, Chris Fraser makes a very different choice: he translated terms in his book consistently. Although this may make his translation clumsy, he has a good reason as stated in the preface of his translation,
Key terminology is translated consistently, so that readers can see how the same concepts, themes, and patterns of thought appear repeatedly and how they are linked through various conceptual associations and inferential relations. Significant details of the Mohists’ concepts, reasoning, and doctrines can be obscured if a translation is insensitive to the distinctive terminology they use to express their thought. (Fraser, The Essential Mòzǐ 34)
In his view, it is more important to retain the consistency and accuracy of key terms within the text than to make the text seem rhetorical. It seems that Fraser chooses a philosophically revisionist method over an established translation mode compared with former translations of Mozi, and this can be seen clearly in the following case of “fa.”
4. Comparative study of “fa”
Another question about Fraser’s translation of “fa” is why did he choose the word “model” to replace “fa” instead of the word “law” or “standard”? The proper translation for “fa” has been discussed for a long time, and this study will explain it from mainly two aspects. The first is the comparative study of “fa” in Chinese and “law” in English; and the second is the discussion of “fa” in Legalism as labeled “standard” in Fraser’s study and “fa” in Mohism which is closely related to “model” in his work.
4.1. Comparing “fa” with “law”
Due to the severe corruption of the original text of Mozi, the English translations depend highly on the collated versions by Chinese scholars centuries after Modi. This may sometimes cause mistakes in writing and understanding. Dan Robins once pointed out in his book review of Johnston’s translation that “The Mohists seem to have invented several characters so they could draw distinctions not marked in ordinary written Chinese. Later scribes missed the significance of these characters and emended many of them, and unfortunately Johnston follows their lead” (Robins, “Ian Johnston, The Mozi” 553). “Fa” could be such a case where the character is transformed by later scribes and misses its significance in collated versions.
“Fa” in Mozi is usually regarded as the simplified form of “灋” in the major existing collated versions, such as that of Bi Yuan and Sun Yirang. They have followed Shuowen claiming that “佱” is another written form of the character “灋,” which is now written as “法,” meaning “penal code” (Sun, Interspersed Commentaries on Mòzĭ 17). But today, this view has been challenged; scholars start to believe that “佱” and “灋” are two characters with different meanings, and “Fa” in Mozi refers to “佱” instead of “灋.”
Based on the works of Xu Shen and other scholars, Li Ping has analyzed the meaning of “fa” in Mozi in terms of character form. He argues that “Before the Warring States period, there were actually two ‘fa.’ One is ‘灋,’ which was derived from a certain ritual, meaning serious, neat and good; the other is ‘佱,’ which came from ‘norm and model,’ meaning emulation and imitation” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 108). As for the meaning of “佱,” Xu Jinxiong has pointed out, based on the form, sound and archeological study, that “One of the origins of the character ‘fa法’ in Shuowen is the ancient character ‘佱,’ which means the model and mold has been set for casting. Because models are like regulations, to regulate the casting tools” (Xu, “On Characters Related to the Character Jin (Gold)” 1).
According to Shuowen there are two written forms of the character “fa,” the first one “灋” is related to “刑” or punishments; and the second one “佱,” according to Xu and Li’s further study, is related to casting tools. In Mozi, the author explained the term “fa” with the illustration of tools like compasses and squares as quoted in 3.1. At the same time, Mozi himself is a craftsman who is familiar with all kinds of tools, so “fa” used here is more likely to be the casting tools “佱” instead of punishments “灋.”
Li also argues that “What Mozi esteems and tries to bring into the governance system is actually the ancient word ‘佱.’ This pattern of thinking is closely related to Mozi’s own origin as a craftsman and the special knowledge background and thinking habits of this group” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 114). After further analysis of the text Mozi, he points out, “It can be seen that in ‘Mo Jing,’ the meaning of ‘fa’ is very unified, and it refers to the norms, procedures and standards of action. It covers three major aspects: concepts, tools and results. Thus, it’s clear that semantically speaking, the term ‘fa法’ is inherited from the ancient character ‘佱’ in the Western Zhou dynasty, which is derived from the knowledge of casting technology” (Li, “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘fa’ in Pre-Qin” 110).
Based on the above studies on the original form of the character “法,” “fa” in Mozi should be better translated into “standard” and “model” instead of “law.”
In 1985, Schwartz realized that the prominent meaning of “fa” in most ancient texts is more like “model” or “standard” through text analysis, and raised the question of “How then, in both cases, may words associated with penal law come to be linked with words meaning model or form?” These questions may now be well answered by the findings of Li and Xu: they are not the same character at all; they are two characters with different meanings, which are later mixed together.
Although some Sinologists don’t know about the two origins of “fa” in Chinese, they have realized there are some differences between “fa” in Mozi and “law” in Western culture.
Schwartz once criticized the tradition of translating “fa” into “law,” saying that “a good case can be made that in many of the ancient texts which we are considering this is often a highly misleading translation” (Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China 323). This idea has been further demonstrated by Chad Hansen.
In the passage “Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy,” Chad Hansen conducts a detailed examination of the word “fa” in the works of various masters in ancient China. He finally concludes that in China there’s no formal syntactic notion of “law.” “fa” in ancient China is used in a broader sense, meaning a standardized program of social institutional change instead of “law,” and penal law is merely a subclass of the Chinese term “fa.” In this passage, Chad Hansen frequently uses the expression “standards” to explain “fa,” and he believes that “fa-jia” should be translated into “standardizers.” He also notices the relationship between “fa” in Mozi and craft. He claims, “He repeatedly likens fa to measurement gauges – the plumb line, compass, and measuring stick. We can clearly link this notion of a measurement standard for the application of an instruction set to the verbal use of fa – to model, to emulate” (Hansen, “Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy” 465). This is in line with Xu’s conclusion that “fa” in Mozi may develop from the character “佱” frequently used in casting, meaning to model and to emulate.
It’s clear that “law” is a wrong but established lexical translation of the term “fa.” Since Chad Hansen’s study has made a clear distinction between the concept of “law” and “fa,” it’s reasonable for Chris Fraser to avoid using the word “law.” But why does he use the word “model” instead of “standard” which is often used by other translators of Mozi? This will be explained in the next section with reference to Fraser’s studies and translating notes.
4.2. Comparing “standard” with “model”
In 4.1, when explaining “fa” in Mohism, scholars both at home and abroad have emphasized the relationship between the term “fa” and Mozi’s experience of being a craftsman. Chinese scholars have noticed the possible root of “fa” in “佱,” which is originally a casting tool. Chad Hansen has also emphasized that the term “fa” originated in craft tools like measurement gauges. This origin may favor the translation of “fa” into “model.”
Fraser has a passage named “Major Rival Schools: Mohism and Legalism,” in which he compares the two rival strands of early Chinese thought: Mohism and Legalism. In this passage, when talking about “fa” in only Mohism or both Mohism and Legalism, he usually uses both “standards” and “models,” as in the following two sentences: “In ancient times, however, fa connoted not laws specifically but models or standards, of which laws were one kind” and “the Mohists thus mounted a search for objective moral standards, or as they saw it, reliably correct, easily applicable models or standards (fa) by which to guide judgment and action” (Fraser, “Major Rival Schools” 62). But when he refers to ‘fa’ in Legalism, he usually uses the word ‘standards’ as in the case: ‘The proper functioning of both fa (standards) and shu (techniques) rests on a third factor…’ (Fraser, “Major Rival Schools” 67). This shows his distinction between “models” and “standards.”
Actually, Fraser has explained the relationship between “models,” “standards” and “fa,” saying that “the word ‘fa’ refers not only to standards but to models, which the Mohists consider one type of standard. Indeed, ‘fa’ can be used as a verb meaning ‘to model on’ or ‘to emulate.’ Accordingly, in Mohist writings, the paradigm case of applying a standard involves perceptually comparing whether something is similar enough to the standard to count as emulating it satisfactorily” (Fraser Late Classical Chinese Thought 84). Fraser believes that the term “fa” includes “models” and “standards,” and Mozi includes “models” into the concept of “standards,” which is an unusual understanding of “standards.” He believes that “fa” in Mohism has a focus on the action of “to model” and “to emulate,” instead of merely standards. When interpreting “fa” in Mohism, Fraser uses expressions like “role models,” “model emulation,” “model on somebody;” however, when talking about “fa” in Legalism, Fraser focuses on the “objective standards,” “public standards”and “standards of sth.” In his opinion, “fa” in Mohism is more like role models people should emulate, and “fa” in Legalism is more like the standards by rulers people have to obey. In the translation notes of The Essential Mòzǐ: Ethical, Political, and Dialectical Writings, Fraser also has mentioned the two aspects of “fa” such as when it’s used as noun it is “a general term for explicit standards used in guidance and evaluation” and when it’s used as a verb it means “to emulate or model on something” (Fraser The Essential Mòzǐ 330).
Although Schwartz doesn’t differentiate Mozi’s “fa” from Legalists’ “fa” in exactly the same way as Fraser does, he confirms the distinction between fa in the two schools of thought. In his book, he agrees that “the primary meaning of the term fa in most texts is model or technique. With the rise of Legalism, with its orientation toward the forcible imposition not only of penal law but of institutional models of all sorts, it is possible that the coercive connotation of the word fa is very much reinforced” (Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China 323). According to Schwartz, before the rise of Legalism, the term “fa” usually means model or technique; this also suggests “model” would be a better translation for “fa” in Mozi.
It can be suggested from the above materials that “fa” in Mohism and Legalism are not completely the same. In translating “fa” in Mozi, “model” is more suitable than “standard” in three ways: firstly, compared with “standard,” “model” can better fit Mozi’s life experience and his practice of using the metaphors of specific measurement tools in the original text; secondly, “model” can better suit Mohists’ frequent use of “fa” as a role model to emulate; and thirdly, “model” can better reproduce the effect of “fa” as both a verb and a noun in Chinese.
5. Conclusion
By comparing the differences in the translation of the term “fa” in the six translations of Mozi, this study finds the uniqueness of Fraser’s translation in treating the term “fa.” Firstly, Fraser has translated “fa” consistently in his work; and secondly, Fraser does not use “law” and “standard,” which are commonly used by other translators, but chooses “model” instead. In order to find out the reasons for Fraser’s choice, this study examines several issues involved in the English translation of the concept of “fa” and finds out the answers one by one based on the studies of Western and Chinese scholars.
The first question is whether “fa” in Mozi’s translation should be translated in a consistent manner. Through research, this study finds that Mozi is an important work in the development of the “fa” theory in China. Mozi’s use of the term “fa” transformed it from a technical term to a governing term, which has influenced the principles of Legalism. At the same time, Mozi is the first work to complete the construction of the meaning and theory of the unified concept of “fa.” From this point of view, Mozi is the root of the Chinese “fa” tradition. The adoption of a consistent translation of “fa” helps to reflect the significance of Mozi in the history of the Chinese “fa” system and philosophy, and it’s beneficial for readers interested in Mozi’s thoughts and ancient Chinese philosophy.
At the same time, judging from the recent English translations of Mozi, some translators and scholars have begun to emphasize that the repetition of terminology in Mozi’s reasoning process should be preserved. It is believed that this will help general readers and scholars to understand Mozi’s way of reasoning and uses of terminology more precisely. For the above reasons, it’s reasonable for Fraser to translate the term “fa” in Mozi in a consistent way.
The second question is that translators and scholars often use the words “law” and “standard” to translate “fa,” but why does Fraser not use these two words, but “model” instead? This can be explained from the following two aspects.
First of all, there is the distinction between “fa” and “law.” In early translations, translators often translated “fa” into “law,” and for this reason, “fa-jia” was translated as “Legalists.” But nowadays this view has been challenged by scholars. Among them, Hansen has made a systematic analysis of this issue, and he has finally pointed out that even in Legalism we will not find the formal, general syntactic concept of a “law.” “fa” in Chinese ancient philosophy does not conform to the syntactic notion of “law,” and “fa” is a broader concept than “law.” Therefore, it is misleading to translate “fa” into “law” and “fa-jia” into “Legalists.”
Secondly, this paper analyzes the words “standard” and “model,” and finds Fraser’s distinction between the two in his previous philosophical research and notes. The translator sees “model” as a kind of standard, a norm related to internal morality, which is often associated with “role model to emulate,” while “standard” is more focused on external regulations from superiors. At the same time, the translator also thinks that the word “model” fits well with Mozi’s list of weights and measures, tools such as the set square and compass. Finally, the word “model” is a good fit for the Chinese usage of “fa,” which is both a noun and a verb.
Fraser is both a translator and a philosopher who has a rich knowledge of Chinese philosophy. Through analyzing the translation of the term “fa,” this study shows how Fraser, as a philosopher, integrates his philosophical study of Mozi with his translation and how he absorbs academic achievements into his translation to give a philosophically revisionist translation of Mozi. This also points out a direction for the English translation of terms in Mozi and other Chinese philosophical classics: since classical Chinese philosophy emphasizes terms, translators of philosophical texts should pay more attention to the history, uses, and connotations of terms and try to retain the original style of using terms in their translations, which will help foreign readers to see the clue of Chinese philosophical development.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Tang Yang
Tang Yang received a B.A. degree in English from Beijing Sports University, Beijing, China, in 2019 and a M.A. degree in Translation and Interpreting from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China in 2023. She is now working at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China as a research assistant. Her research interests include comparative literature, translation of Chinese classics, and pre-Qin classics.
Notes
1. The original texts of several Chinese classics are noted in this paper, for which I have selected existing translations for the reference of non-native Chinese speakers. For the Chinese texts from Mozi, Fraser’s English version is given; the translations of texts in Laozi and Lunyu are respectively by Lin Yutang and Roger T. Ames; and the translations of texts in Guanzi and Shangjun Shu are from Library of Chinese Classics Series by Zhai Jiangyue and Duyvendak.
References
- Defoort, C. “A Translation of the Mozi.” Monumenta Serica 59 1 (2011): 491–501. Print. doi: 10.1179/mon.2011.59.1.025.
- Fraser, C., Eds. The Essential Mòzǐ: Ethical, Political, and Dialectical Writings Oxford University Press, 2020. Print.
- Fraser, C. Late Classical Chinese Thought: Oxford University Press, 2023. Print. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198851066.001.0001.
- Fraser, C. The Philosophy of the Mòzǐ :The First Consequentialists: Columbia University Press, 2016. Print. doi: 10.7312/fras14926.
- Fraser, C. “Major Rival Schools: Mohism and Legalism” Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Ed. J. Garfield and W. Edelglass: Oxford Handbooks, 2011. 58–67. Print. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328998.003.0007.
- Hansen, C. “Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy.” Philosophy East and West 44 3 (1994): 435–88. Print. doi: 10.2307/1399736.
- Hansen, C. “The Mozi: A Complete Translation.Translated and Annotated by Ian Johnston.” Journal of Chinese Studies 52 (2011): 335–42. ( Print).
- Li, P. “On Mozi and the Rise of ‘Fa’ in Pre-Qin.” Law and Social Development 20 2 (2014): 103–16. (InChinese). Print.
- Mei, Y. P. The Ethical and Political Works of Motse: Hyperion Press, 1973. Print.
- Robins, D. “Ian Johnston, the Mozi: A Complete Translation.” Dao 10 10 (2011): 551–56. Print. doi: 10.1007/s11712-011-9238-x.
- Schwartz, B. The World of Thought in Ancient China: Harvard University Press, 1985. Print. doi: 10.4159/9780674043312.
- Sun, Y. R. Interspersed Commentaries on Mòzĭ: Zhonghua Book, 2021. (In Chinese). Print.
- Xu, J. X. “On Characters Related to the Character Jin (Gold).” Yindu Journal 2 01 (1992): 1–4. (In Chinese). Print.