[{"content":"The Institute of Qing History at Renmin University of China did something pretty absurd: when translating someone else\u0026rsquo;s book, it gave the book a new main title to play up the \u0026ldquo;High Qing golden age.\u0026rdquo; The American sinologist Lawrence Kessler wrote K\u0026rsquo;ang-hsi and the Consolidation of Ch\u0026rsquo;ing Rule, 1661–1684. Translated directly, that\u0026rsquo;s 《康熙与清朝统治的巩固》. But when Dong Jianzhong (董建中), an associate professor at the Institute, translated it, he added the main title 盛世的奠基, \u0026ldquo;The Foundations of a Golden Age.\u0026rdquo; Now some people refer to the book by this made-up title.\nThe translation errors are also appallingly numerous. If anything, many of them look deliberate.\nBelow, each English passage is Kessler\u0026rsquo;s original, followed by Dong\u0026rsquo;s Chinese rendering and a literal English back-translation of it, so readers who don\u0026rsquo;t read Chinese can see what changed.\n1. \u0026ldquo;Racial\u0026rdquo; becomes \u0026ldquo;extreme\u0026rdquo; Kessler\u0026rsquo;s original:\nRacial animosity toward the alien dynasty\nDong\u0026rsquo;s translation:\n针对异族王朝的极端敌意\n(back-translation: \u0026ldquo;extreme animosity toward the alien dynasty\u0026rdquo;)\n\u0026ldquo;Racial\u0026rdquo; was swapped for \u0026ldquo;extreme,\u0026rdquo; as if racial had been read as radical. Kessler is stressing ethnic hostility between Manchus and Han Chinese. The translation strips out the ethnic dimension entirely and adds an intensity the original never claimed.\n2. \u0026ldquo;Failed to strike a chord\u0026rdquo; becomes \u0026ldquo;struck a chord\u0026rdquo; Kessler\u0026rsquo;s original:\nI was struck with the apparent failure of this challenge to Manchu rule to strike a responsive chord among Chinese patriots. Racial animosity toward the alien dynasty had been common in the first few decades after the conquest\nDong\u0026rsquo;s translation:\n我在考察三藩之乱（1673—1681）时发现，尽管这一对满人统治的挑战明显失败，然而它能引发汉人的共鸣，我对此产生了强烈的兴趣。\n(back-translation: \u0026ldquo;When studying the Revolt of the Three Feudatories (1673–1681), I found that although this challenge to Manchu rule clearly failed, it was able to strike a chord with the Han Chinese, and this aroused my strong interest.\u0026rdquo;)\nDong dropped the word \u0026ldquo;patriots\u0026rdquo; altogether. And I suspect Professor Dong simply didn\u0026rsquo;t follow the logic of the sentence. Kessler is saying the Revolt of the Three Feudatories failed to win any response from Chinese patriots. Dong\u0026rsquo;s version says the revolt failed militarily but did win the sympathy of the Han Chinese. That\u0026rsquo;s not a matter of interpretation; it\u0026rsquo;s just translating the sentence backwards.\n3. \u0026ldquo;Had begun to accommodate\u0026rdquo; becomes \u0026ldquo;had long since adapted\u0026rdquo; Kessler\u0026rsquo;s original:\nWe know from Franz Michael\u0026rsquo;s pioneering work, The Origin of Manchu Rule in China (1942), that rulers of the Manchu state had begun to accommodate themselves to Chinese political and social traditions long before they came through the Great Wall and conquered China\nDong\u0026rsquo;s translation:\n我们从梅谷开创性的著作《满人统治中国的起源》（1942）可以知道，满洲政权的统治者在突破长城、入主中原之前，早已适应了汉人的政治和社会传统。\n(back-translation: \u0026ldquo;We know from Michael\u0026rsquo;s pioneering work The Origin of Manchu Rule over China (1942) that before breaking through the Great Wall and coming to rule the Central Plains, the rulers of the Manchu state had long since adapted to Han political and social traditions.\u0026rdquo;)\nThe original says \u0026ldquo;came through the Great Wall and conquered China.\u0026rdquo; Dong renders \u0026ldquo;conquered China\u0026rdquo; as 入主中原, \u0026ldquo;came to rule the Central Plains,\u0026rdquo; a stock phrase in Chinese historiography for a dynasty taking over the realm. It describes a change of rulers, not a conquest, so it softens the fact that this was a conquest.\nOn top of that, Kessler says the Manchu rulers had begun to accommodate themselves to Chinese traditions, an ongoing process. The translation says they had already adapted, turning a process that was still underway into a finished one.\nAnd that\u0026rsquo;s just the first three pages. There are 271 more to go.\nThis article was originally written in Chinese. Read the Chinese version.\n","permalink":"https://secondreading.net/en/posts/kessler-kangxi-translation-errors/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe Institute of Qing History at Renmin University of China did something pretty absurd: when translating someone else\u0026rsquo;s book, it gave the book a new main title to play up the \u0026ldquo;High Qing golden age.\u0026rdquo; The American sinologist Lawrence Kessler wrote \u003cem\u003eK\u0026rsquo;ang-hsi and the Consolidation of Ch\u0026rsquo;ing Rule, 1661–1684\u003c/em\u003e. Translated directly, that\u0026rsquo;s 《康熙与清朝统治的巩固》. But when Dong Jianzhong (董建中), an associate professor at the Institute, translated it, he added the main title 盛世的奠基, \u0026ldquo;The Foundations of a Golden Age.\u0026rdquo; Now some people refer to the book by this made-up title.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Mistranslations in the Chinese Edition of Kessler's K'ang-hsi and the Consolidation of Ch'ing Rule"},{"content":"This is the English edition of Second Reading (再读), dashdash\u0026rsquo;s blog on Qing history. Most articles are written in Chinese first; the Chinese originals live on the main site.\n","permalink":"https://secondreading.net/en/about/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is the English edition of \u003cem\u003eSecond Reading\u003c/em\u003e (再读), dashdash\u0026rsquo;s blog on Qing history. Most articles are written in Chinese first; the Chinese originals live on the main site.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"About"}]