Translations in Korea

Theory and Practice

Wook-Dong Kim

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9789811365126
• Topic: Literatura
• Subtopic: Crítica literaria para la literatura comparada

This book explores practical and theoretical approaches to translation in Korea from the 16th century onwards, examining a variety of translations done in Korea from a diachronic perspective. Offering a discussion of the methodology for translating the Xiaoxue (Lesser or Elementary Learning), a primary textbook for Confucianism in China and other East Asian countries, the book considers the problems involving Korean Bible translation in general and the Term Question in particular. It examines James Scarth Gale, an early Canadian Protestant missionary to Korea, as one of the language's remarkable translators. The book additionally compares three English versions of the Korean Declaration of Independence of 1919, arguing that the significant differences between them are due both to the translators' political vision for an independent Korea as well as to their careers and Weltanschauungen. The book concludes with a detailed analysis of Deborah Smith's English translation of 'The Vegetarian' by Han Kang, which won the 2016 Man Booker International Prize for Fiction.

© The Author(s) 2019

Wook-Dong KimTranslations in Koreahttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6512-6_1

Begin Abstract

1. Two Korean Translations of the Xiaoxue

Wook-Dong Kim¹

(1)

Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), Ulsan, Korea (Republic of)

Wook-Dong Kim

End Abstract

A history of Western translation theory is, in a sense, a history of the debate on whether translation should be free or literal. The debate on which method of translation is preferable continues to dominate much of the translation theory and research in the Western hemisphere. As Susan Bassnett convincingly argues, the debate has been one of the most fundamental issues in translation studies, “emerging again and again with different degrees of emphasis in accordance with differing concepts of language and communication” (2002, 50). Undoubtedly, it has been one of the central recurring themes—so much so that Western translation theory seems locked in this apparently futile debate. That is the reason why in After Babel George Steiner rather flatly dismisses the whole debate as “sterile” (1998, 319) and proposes his own model of what he called “the hermeneutic movement”: that is, the act of interpretation and transference of meaning that is involved in translation.

The debate on free versus literal translation , however, is far from being “sterile” or, for that matter, futile. Rather, it is not only salutary to translation theory and studies, but also essential to them. The fact that it has dominated much translation theory for so long—from Cicero and Horace up until the twenty-first century—is, itself, one of the most compelling evidences for its importance. The debate reappears again and again in the name of Lawrence Venuti’s concept of “foreignization vs. domestication” (1995, 17–39) and of Eugene Nida and Charles Taber’s idea of “formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence” (1969, 200–201). As William Shakespeare stated, “What’s in a name?/That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II. ii. 1–2).

In Korea, as in other East Asian countries, including China and Japan, this debate has also been crucial in translation theory as well as in its practice. In the early sixteenth century, during the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910), scholars (and statesmen as well) fiercely argued about whether in translating a Neo-Confucian textbook entitled the Xiaoxue (小學, Lesser or Elementary Learning), or Sohak (소학) in Korean, they should use free translation or literal translation methods. During the prolonged and highly contested debates on the two methods of translation and other collateral issues, two different translations of the book were produced. Prior to the publications of the Korean translations of the Xiaoxue, it should be noted, the translations of the poems by a prominent poet of the Chinese Tang dynasty, Du Fu, was twice published under the title Bunryu Dugongbusi Eonhae (分類杜工部詩諺解), commonly called Dusi Eonhae (杜詩諺解), in 1481 and 1632, respectively (Fig. 1.1). This translation of Du Fu’s poems has been recognized as the first translation ever done in Korea, providing valuable materials for the study of the medieval Korean language. In a history of translation in Korea, the translations of the Xiaoxue are as significant as those of the poems by Du Fu. At least in terms of translation, however, the Korean translations of the Xiaoxue are far more important than those of Du Fu’s poems. In this chapter, I will argue that the debate on free versus literal translation is not entirely specific to Western translation theory, but is a universal issue. In the process I will claim further that the issue is inseparable from, and closely related to, the basic principles and philosophy of translation per se.

Fig. 1.1

A page from Dusi Eonhae. Poems by Du Fu, a prominent poet of the Chinese Tang dynasty, were twice translated into Korean in 1481 and 1632. This marks one of the first Korean translations of the works of international literature. (Source: Cheongju Museum of Ancient Printings, Cheongju, North Chungcheong Province)

1.1 Ideologies of the Xiaoxue or Sohak in China and Korea

It was Zhu Xi, the famous Neo-Confucian philosopher during the Southern Song period, who first conceived and planned the Xiaoxue with a view to instilling Confucian-oriented ideologies in children and young adults. Under his direction and guidance, one of his disciples named Liu Tzu-cheng compiled the book. The book was a collection of extracts from a variety of Confucian classical texts from the earliest times to the Song dynasty, among which are the Lunyu (Confucian Analects), the Mengzi , and the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou). Published in 1187, the Xiaoxue contains important instruction on the deportment and good manners required from children and young adults as a department of ethics. In the first part of the book, several issues, such as learning, human relationships, self-cultivation, and reliance on antiquity are described. In the second part, the book explains excellent speeches and good deeds from Confucian perspectives. In addition, the book provides the reader with aphorisms, stories, and poems, as well as with facts about famous (and some notorious) people in Chinese history.

Unlike its title (“Lesser Learning”, as compared with Daxue , “Greater Learning”), however, the Xiaoxue was never an entirely easy text for children’s education. In fact, it was a rather sophisticated book with a wide scope encompassing various subjects. Its difficulty is in part evidenced by the fact that a variety of commentary books with annotations have been published. They include the Xiaoxue Jizhu compiled by the Ming period scholar Chen Xuan, the Xiaoxue Jicheng compiled by another Ming dynasty scholar He Shixin, and the Xiaoxue Jishuo compiled by Cheng Yu of the Ming dynasty, among many others. These commentaries or annotated books were published not only in China but also in Korea, which had historically been under the influence of what is called the “Sinosphere” or the “East Asian cultural sphere”.

Strongly influenced by Chinese learning and culture during the Joseon dynasty, every intellectual in Korea was supposed to be well versed in most of the Confucian classics. Children of around eight years of age had to read the Xiaoxue immediately after they finished the Qianzi Wen (Thousand Character Classic), which is the basic book for Chinese characters. The Xiaoxue was in fact a very important textbook for primary education in Korea—even more so than in China. As fervent advocates of Neo-Confucianism, Korean statesmen wanted to indoctrinate young Koreans into believing Confucian ethics and principles from the earliest stages of their development. Certainly the book was a very good start in their educational program.

It is no wonder that from the earliest periods in the Joseon dynasty, the Xiaoxue was considered one of the most essential books, playing a pivotal role in disseminating Confucian doctrines and virtues. The book was taught in almost all educational institutions, including national schools called sahak (four schools, so called due to their location in the four main districts of the capital city Hanyang), local schools called hyanggyo, private schools called seowon, and even small village schools called seodang. The book was listed as required reading in all kinds of schools. There are every good reasons why the Xiaoxue has been so highly esteemed.

In this vein, the Korean statesmen (as well as scholars) of the early Joseon dynasty imported copies of the Xiaoxue from China and then reprinted them in the government printing office. Furthermore, keenly aware of its significance for the ruling ideology, they translated, with annotations, the book into the Korean vernacular in order to make it more easily accessible to as many people as possible. In the early periods of the Joseon dynasty, the foundation of the ruling system was threatened and undermined by the dethronements of King Danjong and King Yeonsan-gun. Shorn of his power, the former went into exile and was then ruthlessly murdered. The latter, often branded as one of the worst tyrants in the Korean history, was deposed by his officials. These incidents led to an increasingly urgent need for the development of Neo-Confucian virtues in general and loyalty to a sovereign in particular throughout the entire nation. The statesmen strongly believed that the translation of the Xiaoxue into the Korean vernacular and the dissemination of it were crucial for the restoration of lost Confucian ethics.

1.2 Beonyeok Sohak and Sohak Eonhae

Young reformist scholars, such as Jo Gwang-jo, paid special attention to the Xiaoxue in order to rejuvenate the nation with a new policy. A leader of the sarim (literati) group, Jo was determined to make Confucianism the national ethos and Korean way of life by propagating Confucian classics like the Xiaoxue. The kings, as well as high officials, were very interested in the book. According to Jungjong Sillok (the Annals of King Jungjong), King Jungjong, the eleventh king of the Joseon dynasty, took a keen interest in the book. In November 1517, the King is mentioned as having said to the high officials in the royal lecture that “the messages in the Xiaoxue stand to reason in every human affair …. Seongyungwan [the highest educational institution in the Joseon dynasty], being the foundation of the nation’s schools, must start to teach this book as a way of educating people” (Jungjong Sillok 1989, 356).

Under the recommendation of Hongmungwan (the Royal Library and Advisory Council), King Jungjong commissioned such scholars as Kim Jeon and Choe Suk-saeng to translate the Xiaoxue into the Korean language. The translating work was begun in 1517, completed in the following year, and published in July 1518. It took approximately nine months for sixteen scholars to accomplish the whole project. The translation of the book, as mentioned above, had special meanings for King Jungjong because he had been enthroned subsequent to the deposition of the wicked King Yeonsan-gun. Entitled Beonyeok Sohak, or The Translation of the Xiaoxue, the book was based on the Xiaoxue Jicheng compiled by He Shixin. It was published in ten volumes, of which approximately a third is unfortunately missing and no longer extant. According to the Jungjong Sillok, the 1300 copies of the translated book were imprinted in xylographic book form and distributed among officials, royal clansmen, and the populace who were unable to read Chinese characters.

This translation of the Xiaoxue is very important for a variety of reasons. In the first place, the translated book, together with the Korean translation of the poems by Du Fu, is indispensable for the study of Middle and pre-Modern Korean. To Korean linguists, the book is, as it were, a treasure house of Middle Korean. It is as significant to Korean linguists as The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer is to the scholars of Middle English and William Shakespeare’s works to the scholars of Early Modern English. Besides, this Korean translation of the Xiaoxue is a prerequisite to the study of Neo-Confucianism because, in their interpretations and ideological implications, the two translated versions of the same text differ in significant ways.

Furthermore, Beonyeok Sohak is of the utmost importance to Korean translation theory. It is the first book to trigger debates on free or literal translation. Seen from a translation theory viewpoint, this book is crucial to translation scholars. The aims and methods of translating the Xiaoxue into the Korean vernacular are clearly expressed in the Postscript to the book, where Nam Gon, one of the leading scholars in the early sixteenth century, states:

Now that His Majesty thinks very highly of this book, should we not lead the people all over the nation to bra...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Two Korean Translations of the Xiaoxue
• 2. The Term Question in Korean Bible Translations
• 3. James Scarth Gale as a Translator
• 4. Three English Translations of the Declaration of Korean Independence
• 5. Cross-Cultural Barriers in the Translations of Modern Korean Literature
• 6. The “Creative” English Translation of The Vegetarian by Han Kang
• 7. (Mis)translations of Foreign Film Titles in South Korea
• Back Matter