![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The first British embassy to China headed by Lord Macartney brought into contact two imperial discourses, each vying to subject the other to its own vision of world order. Translations produced in such a context have much to reveal about the relationship between empire, discourse and translation. This article revisits two letters from King George III to the Qianlong emperor and their four Chinese versions made by translators on both sides, focusing on how the apparently “equal” relationship as envisioned by George III had been transformed, wittingly or unwittingly, into one of British inferiority or downright subjection. The article ends with reflections on translation as a medium of discursive transfer, on the translator’s discursive stand, and on the role of discourse – both prohibitive and productive – in the production, circulation and reception of translation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Wang Hui is Professor of English at Shenzhen University, China. His research interests include English translation of Confucian classics, Chinese translation history and post-colonial theories.
Notes
1 For a critical review of traditional and modernist historiography on the Macartney embassy, see Hevia (Citation1995, 239–248); for a counter-critique of Hevia’s postmodern historiography, see Esherick (Citation1998a, Citation1998b).
2 Foucault uses the term “discourse” “sometimes as the general domain of all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements” (Foucault [Citation1972] Citation2010, 80). To avoid confusion, this article regards the imperial letters as discursive events or statements, and reserves the term “discourse” for the “regulated practice” in which “the events of discourse find the principle of their regularity” (Foucault Citation1981, 67). Sara Mills aptly sums up the relationship between the two: “Discourse itself structures what statements it is possible to say, [and] the conditions under which certain statements will be considered true and appropriate” (Citation2003, 66).
3 This translation has been challenged by critical scholars in their efforts to discredit modernist historiography of Sino-Western relations (Basu [Citation1997] Citation2014; Liu Citation2004), but their arguments are more ideologically charged than philologically sound.
4 The embassy accounts, which mislead people to believe Macartney has stuck to the British rite of kneeling on one knee and bowing slightly, are hardly more truthful. Like the Qing court, the embassy has managed to defend British honor and sovereignty in discourse, if not in reality.
5 Facsimile reproductions of the two edicts and many other Qing archives on the Macartney embassy were published by First Historical Archives of China (henceforth FHAC) in 1996. For full English versions of the edict(s), see Parker (Citation1896, 45–53) and Cranmer–Byng (Citation1957–Citation1958, 134–137). My translations are modeled on their versions.
6 A copy of the embassy Chinese version (henceforth ECV) is kept in the British National Archives (FO 1048/1) and dated 1793. The version was made in 1792 before the embassy set sail for China. All back translations from Chinese versions into English are mine.
7 Compare Qianlong’s grudging acknowledgement of British gifts: “As to the things which you have sent to me, in consideration of your sincerity and the great distance they have been carried, I have specially commanded the office in charge to accept them” (FHAC Citation1996, 166).
8 Young Thomas served as Macartney’s page in the embassy. He learned Chinese during the voyage to China and “acquired such a facility in writing the Chinese character” as to enable him to copy “all [the embassy’s] diplomatic papers for the Chinese government” because “the Chinese writers [were] afraid of their hands being known” (Barrow Citation1807, 501–502). During the imperial audience, Thomas impressed Qianlong with his ability to “say a few words in Chinese” (Peyrefitte Citation1993, 226).
9 In the first letter Qianlong is addressed in a “Chinese” manner as “the Supreme Emperor of China Kien-long worthy to live tens of thousands and tens of thousands thousand years” (Morse Citation1926, 244).
10 The court version, when not measured against literary standard and a rigid notion of faithfulness to the source text, is quite expressive and contains hardly any linguistic errors. It is far more readable than the embassy version, which is written in clumsy literary style.
11 One notable example is that the embassy version elevates the Christian God to the same position as the Chinese emperor but leaves the British king undistinguished.
12 In translating Qianlong’s edicts to George III into Latin, the missionary translators not only allowed their identification with European discourses to soften the haughty and humiliating tone of the Chinese emperor and “carefully altered the most insolent formulations” (Peyrefitte Citation1993, 288), but they also took the liberty to “rewrite every phrase connected with the character gong 贡 (tributary)”, so that Macartney is restored from a “tributary envoy” to his original capacity as an “ambassador” (Dai Citation1996, 137).