Issues re translating Confucius's Analects (#254, Topic C)

I was invited to give a talk on issues related to translating Confucius's Analects to members of the Washington Literary Society this afternoon. This was the second time I was asked to give such a talk in recent months. With a younger and more serious audience as well as a longer time period (1:30 - 4), I spent some time extending my PowerPoint presentation. I outlined seven topics for discussion. One, three principles of translation (first advocated by Yen Fu 嚴復, who translated Huxley's Evolution into Chinese in the 19th century); my English renditions of these three principles are fidelity 信， fluency 達， finesse 雅 -- together "3F". Two, a brief history of translating Analects into western languages (beginning with Latin, published in 1687, of which I have a xerox copy); at the marketplace, 30+ English renditions are readily available; I have read 20+. Three, a comparison of selected passages in Analects in 11 other renditions (not including mine); one of several examples cited is 三人行，必有吾師矣 -- with two troublesome words likely to be mistranslated, 5 non-Chinese-native translators had indeed committed 7 errors (out of 10 opportunities); 6 Chinese-native translators fared better, but only slightly: out of 12 opportunities, they committed 7 errors. Four, areas where translators may contribute to a proper understanding of Analects -- Chinese classics, Analects included, are without punctuation marks; they risk being misinterpreted through misplaced punctuation marks. Five, areas where translators may add to a better appreciation through footnotes and rhyming. Six, areas where I am still looking for English words to improve my translation -- an example of words I have resolved is 懷; one I am still searching is 仁 -- I have changed the rendition of 仁 some 20 times before committing one in the volume I published in 1999, but I am still open to suggestions in future revisions. (In a Q&A session, one attendee, an experienced interpreter for high-level visiting delegations, suggested a transliteration, simply as ren, without translating it. My long-held view is that such an approach is an insufficient discharge of a translator's responsibilities (I disapprove of those who did in their renditions); given this comment, whose view I respect, I must reassess my own view.) Seven, areas where western religionists (Jesuits in the 17th centuries and British missionary Legge after the Opium War) deliberately misinterpreted the Chinese custom of 祭 as religion and Chinese reverence to parents 孝 as ancestor worship (and translating the word as filial piety). To correct these deliberate misinterpretations was the main purpose of my engaging in a translation of Analects. Thus, in the Q&A period, I encouraged the attendees to express their views on these issues. (At the beginning of my presentation today, I apologized to the attendees, in advance, by saying that I would have harsh words for western religionists, but these words must not be construed as my disrespect for their religions. After my wife joined the session, at about 2:15, from attending a lunch-time banquet (I had to forgo it for this talk), I mentioned that I respect her religious belief.) At the end, I left my e-mail address and the address to my blog. I have already received one e-mail, and I look forward to others.