English chinese translation as conquest and resistance in the late qing 1811 1911 a postcolonial per
English Chinese Translation as Conquest and Resistance in the Late Qing 1811 1911 A Postcolonial Perspective 1st Edition Xiaojia Huang (■■■)
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/english-chinese-translation-as-conquest-and-resistan ce-in-the-late-qing-1811-1911-a-postcolonial-perspective-1st-edition-xiaojia-huang-% e9%bb%84%e6%99%93%e4%bd%b3/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
News Framing Through English Chinese Translation A Comparative Study of Chinese and English Media Discourse Nancy Xiuzhi Liu
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
Acknowledgments
First of all, I am profoundly indebted to Professor Wang Yougui. As the usher of my entrance into the threshold of the studies of translation history, he perfectly showed me how to locate a joint point connecting Western translation theories and the treasure of Chinese history. His pioneering research on Fanyijia Lu Xun (Lu Xun as a Translator) has greatly inspired the writing of this book and contributed considerably to its theoretical framework. Without his erudition, insight, encouragement, criticism and patience, this book would never have been accomplished.
My special thanks go to Professor Wang Dongfeng who not only inspired me with his series of treatises on postcolonial translation studies but also gave this book many constructive comments. I have benefited a great deal from Professor Ping Hong and Professor Feng Zhilin who have both left their imprint on this book by pointing out many errors and providing with plenty of invaluable advice for improvement and Professor Yu Dong and Professor Mo Aiping who made their contributions to the formation of the final version.
I also owe my thanks to Dr. Xiong Tao at Kyushu University who sent me the materials that were badly needed for my research but seriously absent in the home libraries and Dr. Liu Wenjun who never scrupled to share with me his abundant collection of books and interesting academic ideas and Dr. Fu Linling who had lent me a couple of precious monographs that enabled me to track on the Hong Kong scholars’ research on postcolonial translation.
Particularly, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the editor Ms. Rebecca and her colleagues, as well as the anonymous reviewers. Without their patience, guidance and assistance, the publication of this book may have ended up a total failure.
1 Introduction
1.1 Why the Late Qing 1811–1911?
1.2 Why a Postcolonial Perspective?
1.3 Conquest, Resistance and Translation as Conquest and Resistance
3.2.4
3.3.2 Translating Tributary System into Treaty System
3.3.3 Deceiving Translation of the Sino-British Unequal Treaties
3.4 Summary
4.1 Introduction
4.2.1 Western Humanities: Key to China’s “Wealth and Power”
4.2.2 Tianyanlun: Towards “Self-Strengthening and Race
4.3 Translation of Western Fiction
4.3.1 Fiction: “An Incredible Power to Dominate the Way of Man”
4.3.2 Rendering Uncle Tom’s Cabin for “Our Race is on the Verge of being Slaved”
4.3.3 Lin Shu’s Strategies: De-Christianization and Subjectivation
4.3.4
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Why the Late Qing 1811–1911?
With the rapid advances of capitalism, the nineteenth century witnessed a great surge in European colonialism. As an increasing number of countries and regions were becoming colonies during the colonial expansion, China, the sleeping giant, was unavoidably brought onto the ambitious agenda of the Western conquerors. In 1811, a religious book was rendered and published by Robert Morrison, the earliest pioneer missionary sent by London Missionary Society (LMS) to China. The very first English-to-Chinese rendition ever found at the start of the nineteenth century (Xiong 1994, p. 7) signifies the first Western attempt in a series of ideological conquests of China. In the following 100 years, from 1811 till 1911 when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown, a great number of Western books in English were translated and published in China, ushering an interesting question under the observation of this study: what are the roles played by these translations in this period? To answer this question, a proper perspective is demanded that preferably recognizes translation more than a sheer inter-textual transformation.
1.2 Why a Postcolonial Perspective?
During the time-honored translation history, translation was long defined as a textual code-switching process, thus the challenges of translation research did not go beyond pondering over such questions as to how to decide in the word-for-word and sense-for-sense dilemma, or how to achieve the illusionary equivalence. As a result, the attention was mostly confined to the intra-textual linguistic variations that affect the process of translating.
It was not until the 1970s that some translation researchers, led by Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefereve, commenced to realize that the focus on texts alone would not
X. Huang, English-Chinese Translation as Conquest and Resistance in the Late Qing 1811-1911, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7572-9_1
solve all the problems relevant to translation. Therefore, some of them decided that translation should be studied in relation to cultural settings, thus triggering the landmark “cultural turn” in Translation Studies.
Starting from the later years of the 1980s, some translation scholars who were not satisfied with the solutions to translation problems offered by cultural studies, sought to expand their research to include more peripheral factors that had long been neglected—politics, power and empire. Among them, Eric Cheyfitz, Tejaswini Niranjana, Vince Rafael, Lawrence Venuti, Haroldo de Campos display exclusive interest in the investigation of the roles that translations play within the colonial and postcolonial contexts. Their insightful researches have won them titles of postcolonial translation theorists, and their brilliant contributions have inevitably evoked a “postcolonial turn” in Translation Studies.
According to Robinson (2014), postcolonial studies are traditionally defined in two ways:
The study of Europe’s former colonies since independence; how they have responded to, accommodated, resisted or overcome the cultural legacy of colonialism during independence. ‘Postcolonial’ here refers to cultures after the end of colonialism. The historical period covered is roughly the second half of the twentieth century.
The study of Europe’s former colonies since they were colonized; how they have responded to, accommodated, resisted or overcome the cultural legacy of colonialism since its inception. ‘Postcolonial’ here refers to cultures after the beginning of colonialism. The historical period covered is roughly the modern era, beginning in the sixteenth century.1 (pp. 13–14)
It is understandable, therefore, that China, which, as a whole has not been formally and fully colonized by the Western powers since the rise of European colonialism, seems a missing link or has vanished in these so called “post-independence” (Robinson 2014, p.15) or “post-European” (Robinson 2014, p. 15) studies.
However, postcolonial studies should not necessarily be confined to the periods after a country is colonized. It may include “the study of all cultures/societies/countries/nations in terms of their power relations with other cultures/etc.” (Robinson 2014, p. 14), in the context of which, postcolonialism refers to “our late-twentiethcentury perspective on political and cultural power relations” (Robinson 2014, p. 14), or more specifically, on “how conqueror cultures have bent conquered cultures to their will; how conquered cultures have responded to, accommodated, resisted or overcome that coercion” (Robinson 2014, p. 14).
This book adopts postcolonialism in its broadest sense, the historical period covered being “all human history” (Robinson 2014, p. 14). From this perspective, translation is recognized as endowed with a role of duality: both as an instrument of conquest and a weapon of resistance throughout the human history. In this sense, translation history does not remain archives of dull translation events and figures, but rather, the cheering truth that reveals how translation has served as a device by the vanquishers to overpower the vanquished, and how the vanquished has used translation for resistance.
1 Italics in the original
1.3 Conquest, Resistance and Translation as Conquest and Resistance
In this book, translation is defined “not as an innocent, transparent activity” (Bassnett and Trivedi 1999, p. 2), but rather, as an instrument of conquest and a channel of resistance. Being one of the perpetual themes of postcolonial studies (Ashcroft et al. 1995), conquest and resistance, however, are unexpectedly absent from the Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies (2001) edited by John C. Hawley probably because the two terms are assumed to be so self-evident that the scholars of postcolonial studies do not bother to agree upon them. However, as they frequently show up in this study as two key postcolonial concepts, a clearer distinction will undoubtedly posit this book on a safer foundation.
1.3.1 Conquest and Translation as Conquest
In the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary (Extended Fourth Edition), conquest is interpreted as: “1. conquering (eg of a country and its people); defeat 2. thing got by conquering or person whose admiration or (esp) love has been gained” (Hornby 2002, p. 561).
As a key word of the postcolonial studies, conquest is apparently more often known for its first definition, namely, conquering or defeating of a country and its people. In Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained (2014) written by Dogalas Robinsion to review the latest findings of the postcolonial translation studies, conquest, unfortunately, is undefined, notwithstanding that it is frequently used in relation to such words as empire, imperialism, colonization, etc.
In fact, “how conqueror cultures have bent conquered cultures to their will” (Robinson 2014, p. 14) in Robinson’s third categorization and description of postcolonial studies (see Sect. 1.2) has provided a cue as to how to define conquest properly, though it is not explicated in greater detail. On the other hand, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was probably the first one to initiate the concept of “translaton as conquest”. In the Gay Science published in 1882, he thinks highly of the Roman’s appropriation of Greek literature to the extent that he even envisages translation as “a form of conquest” (Nietzsche 2014, p. 262):
Indeed, translation was a form of conquest. Not only did one omit what was historical; one also added allusions to the present and, above all, struck out the name of the poet and replaced it with one’s own – not with any sense of theft but with the very best conscience of the imperium Romanum. 2 (Nietzsche 2014, p. 262)
“Translation as conquest” suggests that the translator should not be bound to source text but should instead render in a way to bring his own will into full play (Zhong and Fang 2001, p. 23), which is more literarily or culturally oriented than
2 Italics in the original
territorially, economically or politically related. In Translation and Empire (2014), Robinson applies such expressions as “the imperial use of translation” (Robinson 2014, p. 50), “translator-as-conqueror” (Robinson 2014, p. 59), “translation has indeed been used as a tool of colonial dominance” (Robinson 2014, p. 88), or “translation has served in many ways as a channel of empire” (Robinson 2014, p. 88) to assert the conquering or subjugating nature of translation, despite that he has never officially adopted “translation as conquest”.
Inspired by Robinson’s and Nietzsche’s discussions, this book chooses to define conquest as “the processes or results of conqueror cultures/nations benting conquered cultures/nations to their will, which can be territorial, political, economic, cultural, religious, etc.”. In accordance with such a definition, “translation as conquest” in this study will be used to mean what Robinson implies—translation as an instrument of conquest.
1.3.2 Resistance as an Established Term of Translation Studies
Nowadays resistance as a key word of postcolonial translation studies has been closely related to Lawrence Venuti. In the Dictionary of Translation Studies (2014) edited by Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, resistance3 is defined as follows:
A term used by Venuti (1995) to refer to the strategy of translating a literary text so that it retains something of its foreignness; as such it is broadly synonymous with FOREIGNIZNG TRANSLATION. According to Venuti, the approach was conceived as a way of challenging the assumption prevalent in Anglo-American culture that the only valid way of translating is to produce a TT which reads fluently in TL and is so “transparent” that it could be mistaken for product of the target culture.4 (Shuttleworth and Cowie 2014, p. 144)
Venuti’s theory, as can be seen, has been so influential that resistance is even “broadly synonymous with FOREIGNIZNG TRANSLATION”—a strategy also recognized as initiated by himself. Therefore, it is impossible to attempt to interrogate “translation as a channel of resistance” (Robinson 2014, p. 94) or clarify resistance as a tricky and paradoxical postcolonial term without looking into Venuti’s “resistant translation”.
In fact, Venuti’s resistant theory is based upon a wide spectrum of assumptions, one of which being “most of the English-language translations that have seen print since World War II, furthermore, implement fluent strategies” (Venuti 1992, p. 6). From the point of view of postcolonialism, “fluent strategies” are problematic in that
A fluent strategy performs a labor of acculturation which domesticates the foreign text, making it intelligible and even familiar to the target-language reader, providing him or her with the narcissistic experience of recognizing his or her own culture in a cultural other, enacting an imperialism that extends the dominion of transparency with other ideological discourses over a different culture. (Venuti 1992, p. 5)
3 Also known as resistancy
4 Capital letters in the original
By tracing and criticizing the fluency/transparency of translation that dominated the Western translation theory and practice for centuries, Venuti (1992) recognizes the strategy of acculturation or domestication as an imperial device that constructs and reinforces cultural egotism and even “cultural and economic hegemony” (p. 5) by effacing the heterogeneity in the foreign text.
A remedy to this situation, according to Venuti (1992), is to apply the so called “resistant strategies” (p. 13) that facilitate in maintaining difference and diversity by holding onto the “foreignness” (p. 13) of the source text:
Resistant strategies can help to preserve the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text by producing translations which are strange and estranging, which mark the limits of dominant values in the target-language culture and hinder those values from enacting an imperialistic domestication of a cultural other. (p. 13)
For Venuti, the object to be resisted is nothing but the “dominant values in the target-language culture”. To this end, he advocates the strategies to “help to preserve the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text by producing translations which are strange and estranging”, namely, the foreignizing translation.
It is worth mentioning that in Shuttleworth and Cowie’s Dictionary of Translation Studies (2014), foreignizing translation is also strongly associated with Venuti:
Foreginizing Translation (or Minoritizing Translation) A term used by Venuti (1995) to designate the type of translation in which a TT is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original. Venuti sees the origin of such a concept in Schleiermacher, who discusses the type of translation in which “the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him”…. (Shuttleworth and Cowie 2014, p. 59)
However, this entry is considered as being oversimplified and thus a failure to communicate authentically what foreignizing translation is meant by Venuti (Wang 2008, pp. 6–7). In his founding work the Translator’s Invisibility (1995), Venuti expounds the connotations of foreignization in this way:
The search for alternatives to the domesticating tradition in English-language translation leads to various foreignizing practices both in the choice of foreign texts and in the invention of translation discourses. A translator can signal the foreignness of the foreign text, not only by using a discursive strategy that deviates from the prevailing hierarchy of domestic discourse (e.g. dense archaism as opposed to fluent transparency), but also by choosing to translate a text that challenges the contemporary canon of foreign literature in the target language.5 (Venuti 1995, p. 148)
Foreignizing translation, one of the “alternatives to the domesticating tradition in English-language translation”, as noted in this statement, consists practically of two processes that are deployed on the planes of both text selection and adoption of discursive strategy. Under such circumstances, it is validated insofar as either of the processes is aimed at resisting the dominant values of the target-language culture (Wang 2008, pp. 6–7).
5 Italics in this book, unless otherwise noted, are all mine.
1.3.3 Redefining Resistance
It should be noted, however, that not every researcher in postcolonial translation studies would accept Venuti’s foreignizing translation as the default meaning of resistance shown in the afore-mentioned dictionary co-edited by Shuttleworth and Cowie. Douglas Robinson, in Chap. Five “Resistance, Redirection and Retranslation” of Translation and Empire (2014), does not talk even a word about Venuti and his resistant translation—his first mention of this Italian American scholar is unexpectedly seen in the concluding chapter “Criticisms”, where he questions the legitimacy of Venuti’s resistant translation in many ways, the primary being:
Whether there is only one truly ‘radical’ mode of translation that can be effective in the decolonizing process, namely a neoliteralism or foreignism coming out of the German Romantic tradition from the Schlegel brothers, Goethe, Schleiermacher and Humboldt to Benjamin, as Niranjana and Venuti insist…. (Robinson 2014, p. 108)
On the other hand, the term “resistance” used a few times by Robinson in this book, notwithstanding that it is neither defined nor included in the attached “Glossary”, also seems irrelevant to Venuti as it points vaguely and merely to “fight[ting] oppression” (Robinson 2014, p. 88), or “resistance to colonial power” (Robinson 2014, p. 94). Anyway, Robinson’s reluctance to discuss resistance as “broadly synonymous with FOREIGNIZNG TRANSLATION” defined in the Dictionary of Translation Studies (2014) has created some room for this study to free resistance from being bound to foreignization.
Given Robinson’s definitions of postcolonial translation studies, postcolonialism as well as his usages of “resistance”, this study chooses to redefine this term as “the endeavor to resist against being bullied, invaded, annexed, enslaved, colonized, or conquered as a nation whose aim is closely linked to self-strengthening and survival of a nation”.
The differentials between this concept and Venuti’s are obvious: the target for resistance, from Venuti’s vantage point, is the prevailing values of the target language and culture, whereas in this study, resistance, or more specifically, national resistance, consists in defending a nation from being devoured/enslaved/vanquished, etc. For Venuti, resistance means the preference of foreignizing translation to domesticating translation, whereas from the perspective of national resistance, foreignization remains only one of the alternative strategies to assist the selfstrengthening/preservation/salvation/revival of a nation.
1.3.4 Translation as Resistance
Therefore, “translation as resistance”, or, to be more accurate, “translation as national resistance” in this book does not suggest the use of foreignizing translation for the purpose of defying the dominant values of the target-language culture, but
1.4 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: An Analytical Model
rather, consists simply in the historical facts in which translation is exploited as a weapon to facilitate the self-strengthening/preservation/salvation/revival of a nation and oppose coercion/bully/invasion/annexation/enslavement/colonization, etc. from outside the nation.
Interestingly, the usage of “resistance” as confronting foreign coercion/invasion, etc. in a nationalist stance is also seen in Venuti’s own works, notwithstanding that it is not in the least differentiated from his “resistant translation” by definition. For instance, in recognizing the translation practice by the Late Qing “scholartranslators” (Venuti 1998, p. 179) as “thoroughly domesticating” (Venuti 1998, p. 179), he affirms nevertheless that their aim of doing so was “to emulate and resist their foreign invaders” (p. 180).
1.4 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: An Analytical Model
1.4.1 The Causes of Translation History
Pym (2014) divides the research on translation history into three subareas: translation archaeology, historical criticism and explanation. Translation archaeology aims at describing the historical episodes with six “Ws”: what was translated by whom for whom, when, where with what effects, and one “H”: how. Historical criticism deals with the appraisal of the extent to which progress was prompted or handicapped, and explanation focuses on the causation of the translation events and their connections to the social changes (pp. 5–6). Given that translation history “should explain why translations were produced in a particular social time and place” (Pym 2014, p. ix), explanation should be deemed as the central question in the research of translation history, notwithstanding that it remains the only subarea “seriously absent from the Holmes map” (Pym 2014, p. 6). Explanation in the studies of translation history even “properly addresses processes of change” (Pym 2014, p. 6)—a history with no elucidation of causes will be impossible to recognize the social changes brought about by translation.
The question of causes, however, fails to attract sufficient attention within the translation academia. The approaches that seek to provide a satisfactory solution, including empiricism, tend to adhere to “a controlled approach to causation” (Pym 2014, p. 146) rather than resort to a multi-dimensional model of causes. As causation is invariably more complex and dimensional than expected in most cases, Pym (2014) recommends the four causes initiated by Aristotle to embrace more probabilities (pp. 148–149), so that the research of translation history can be posited on a more secure cornerstone.
1.4.2 Aristotle’s Four Causes
According to Aristotle, the four causes can be observed and distinguished in the process of producing a statue:
In the creation of a statue the marble is the ‘material cause’, the creation of a beautiful object is the ‘final cause’, the creation of an object with the defining characteristics of a statue is the ‘formal cause’, and the sculptor is the ‘efficient cause’. (as cited in Pym 2014, pp. 148)
Pym (2014) holds that in terms of translation, material cause can be anything needed for the making of translation, such as technology and the source text, whereas final cause refers unquestionably to the purpose for the completion of translation. Formal cause, which indicates the idea of what a translation should be like, is constantly mirrored in the characteristics of translation, and efficient cause— the translator (p. 149).
The theory of four causes may “give the picture more dimensions than it has from most empiricist perspectives” (Pym 2014, p. 149). On the other hand, Pym (2014) warns that in applying the four causes to the research of translation history, two unfavorable tendencies should be eschewed: (1) to explain everything with one cause only; (2) to pay extremely equal attention to every possible cause (pp. 158–159).
1.4.3 An Analytical Model Based on Aristotle’s Four Causes
This book aims at exploring the roles played by translation in the Western conquest of China during the Late Qing 1811–1911, with speical attention paid to the translation that served as an instrument of conquest and a weapon of resistance in the meantime. As postcolonialism provides more a broad perspective than a solid solution to the research questions in this study, an analytical model needs to be established for a closer observation. Inspired by Pym’s emphasis on exploring the causes of translation history and Aristotle’s dcotrine of four causes, an analytical model for the research of translation history has been formulated in this book, as illustrated in Fig. 1.1:
Fig. 1.1 Analytical model based on Aristotle’s
1.4 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: An Analytical Model
Table 1.1 Translation as conquest & translation as resistance
Translation as conquest
Text selection
Translation purpose
Stylistic choices
Translators’ strategies
Texts with the function of conquest are selected for translation
Translations are produced for conquest
Stylistic choices facilitate conquest
Translation strategies faciliate conquest
Translation as resistance
Texts with the function of resistance are selected for translation
Translations are produced for resistance
Stylistic choices facilitate resistance
Translation strategies facilitate resistance
In interrogating the power use of translation, this model may help the researchers who wish to explore whether translation facilitates in conquest/resistance by deciding what source texts are selected and rendered by whom to serve what purpose, with what stylistic features, as manifested in Table 1.1.
Lu Xun, who published an anthology of translations in 1909 in collaboration with his brother Zou Zuoren (周作人), chose to translate, in awkward Chinese with Europeanized lexical and syntactical features, the short stories from the peripheral or subordinating cultures/nations that almost all had boasted brilliant, time-honored civilizations but sadly lagged behind in modern times and were colonized by the European powers (Wang 2003, pp. 74–76), thus “deviating from late Qing practices in the selection of Western texts” (Venuti 1998, p. 184) as well as in stylistic choices.
If this analytical model is used to observe Lu Xun and his brother’s renditions, questions may arise such as “how could clumsy Europeanized Chinese at the cost of fluency be envisioned as being directed for resistance?”
The truth is that Lu Xun and his brother rendered in this way indeed with a political agenda, as their translated texts aimed immediately at “convey[ing] the unsettling strangeness of modern ideas and forms” (Wang 2008, p. 9), “enriching the Chinese language” (Wang 2008, p. 9), and “build[ing] a vernacular literature that was modern, not simply Westernized, earning the acceptance and esteem of modern writers in Western literatures” (Venuti 1998, p. 185), all undeniably pointing to one single destination: “ziqiang” (自强 self-strengthening) (Wang 2008, p. 9).
Looked at from this perspective, it is safe to argue that the translations respectively by Lu Xun/Zou Zuoren and the old-school translators such as Yan Fu (严复) and Lin Shu (林纾) actually shared one thing in common: they were both made an instrument of resistance, when resistance is defined as “the endeavor to resist against being bullied, invaded, annexed, enslaved, colonized, or conquered as a nation whose aim is closely linked to self-strengthening and survival of a nation”, despite their distinctions in text selection, translation strategies and stylistic choices.
Under such circumstances, three rules pertinent to the relations between translation purpose as the final cause and the other three constituents of the analytical model have loomed in the scene:
• Selection of different texts may serve the same translation purpose
• Different stylistic choices may be made for the same translation purpose
• Different translation strategies may be taken for the same translation purpose
In investigating the roles played by translation in the Late Qing, this model might offer multifarious dimensions to explore more causes, be it translation as conquest or translation as resistance.
Bassnett, S., & Trivedi, H. (Eds.). (1999). Postcolonial theory and practice. London/New York: Routledge.
Hornby, A. S. (2002). Oxford advanced learner’s English-Chinese dictionary (Extended 4th ed.). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Nietzsche, W. F. (2014). Translation as conquest. In D. Robinson (Ed.), Western translation theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche (3rd ed.) (W. Kaufmann, Trans.) (p. 262). London/New York: Routledge.
Pym, A. (2014). Method in translation history (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Robinson, D. (2014). Translation and empire: Postcolonial theories explained (3rd ed.). London/ New York: Routledge.
Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (Eds.). (2014). Dictionary of translation studies (2nd ed.). London/ New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London/New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London/New York: Routledge.
Wang, Y. G. (2003). Lu Xun de fanyi moshi yu fanyi zhengzhi [Lu Xun’s translation mode and his translation politics]. Shangdong waiyu jiaoxue [Shandong Foreign Languages Teaching Journal], 2003(2), 74–77.
Wang, D. F. (2008). Weinudi yu Lu Xun yihua fanyiguan bijiao [Lu Xun’s and Venuti’s conception of foreiginizing translation: A comparison]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 29(2), 5–10.
Xiong, Y. Z. (1994). Xiyue dongjian yu wanqing shehui [The dissemination of Western learning in China and the Chinese society in the late Qing]. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe.
Zhong, W. H., & Fang, K. R. (2001). Fanyi jiushi zhengfu—Nicai de fanyi zhexue [Translation as conquest—Nietzsche’s philosophy of translation]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 22(1), 21–23.
Chapter 2 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: A Historical Overview
2.1 Research on Translation as Conquest
In this book, conquest is defined as “the processes or results of conqueror cultures/ nations benting conquered cultures/nations to their will, which can be territorial, political, economic, cultural, religious, etc.” (see Sect. 1.3.1), and translation as conquest, in turn, as “translation as an instrument of conquest”, or in Robinson’s term, “a channel of empire” (Robinson 2014, p. 88).
The earliest record of translation serving an empire can be traced back to the ancient Pharaonic Egypt, two millennia prior to the times of the first well-known translation theorist Cicero. However, because translation, traditionally, was not concerned with “political issues of domination and submission, assimilation and resistance” (Robinson 2014, p. 50), the imperial use of translation, especially before the so called “high Middle age” (Robinson 2014, p. 50) and the “Spanish reconquest and the age of European imperialism” (Robinson 2014, p. 50), thus had long remained beyond the vision of the translation theorists.
Nevertheless, some researches show that in the ancient times of Europe, translation manifestly served as a pivotal channel of conquest. Robinson (2014) observes that Greek culture, literature, philosophy, law, etc. were appropriated through mass translation by the Romans as part of the venture to construct a glorious Roman Empire (pp. 51–52). He holds that the Roman appropriation of Greece, which emphasized the originality of the Latin language and culture, was structured not on the conception of inheriting the Greek tradition, but rather, on “the desire to displace that culture” (Copeland 1991, p.30) or on “an agenda of conquest” (Robinson 2014, p. 52). The strategies of “free translation” or “sense-for-sense translation” prevailing throughout the times of Roman Empire, likewise, noticeably stemmed from cultural appropriation, assimilation or conquest as such.
The practice of appropriating the peripheral cultures through translation for the purpose of conquest was later brought into the Christian Middle Ages, whereas the focus was shifted to how to make the pre-Christian or pre-Jesus classics (including
X. Huang, English-Chinese Translation as Conquest and Resistance in the Late Qing 1811-1911, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7572-9_2
11
2 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: A Historical Overview
the Old Testament) an integrated constituent of the Christian tradition (Robinson 2014, p. 53).
Starting from the late fifteenth century, Europe saw the pervasion of the so called “empire fever” (Robinson 2014, p. 60), featuring an explicitly close connection between translation and empire. Translators were even likened to sailors and businessmen in facilitating empire in its conquest of other states:
The translator’s work was an act of patriotism. He, too, as well as the voyager and merchant, could do some good for his country: he believed that foreign books were just as important for England’s destiny as the discoveries of the seamen, and he brought them into his native speech with all the enthusiasm of a conquest. (Matthiessen 1931, p. 3)
The empire fever, catalyzed by the progress of capitalism, transformed a couple of European powers into colonizers in the sixteenth century, which, in the following eras, extended their empires far beyond Europe to America, Africa, Asia and even the far-reaching Oceania. As a result of the colonial expansion, a multitude of formal colonies on these continents have become the subject matters for an overall investigation of translation as an instrument of empire.
Eric Cheyfitz, an Americanist with postcolonial vision, reveals in the Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from the Tempest to Tarzan (1991) how translation was abused by the European colonizers to steal the land and appropriate the property of the natives in the New World. In this book, Cheyfitz (1991) defines translation in a broad sense: a transportation of property, a transfer of real estate, and thus “the central act of European colonization and imperialism in America” (p. 104).
Tejaswini Niranjana, an American postcolonial scholar originally from India, in her illuminative book Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context (1992), affirms the roles of translation in the British rule over India in the following facets: (1) created a need for the Indians to be educated or civilized by the British colonizers through translation of European literature into their languages (pp. 21, 30); (2) consolidated Britons’ “indirect rule” (p. 74) in India through translation of the ancient sanskrit laws, and “idealize[d] their own violence” (Robinson 2014, p. 81) by convincing the natives that they were ruled by their own people rather than by the British colonizers; (3) produced a bad need for European lifestyle in India via translation of European literature, thus creating a colossal market for European commodities (Niranjana 1992, p. 21). Niranjana’s work “provides many insights” (Gentzler 2001, p. 182) for any research that seeks to “show the role translation plays in the evolution of history” (Gentzler 2001 p. 182).
One of the inspirations that Niranjana has brought to this book is the notion of historicity, which means that the historical complicity in the growth and expansion of European colonization in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries consists in interrogating the “effective history” (Niranjana 1992, p. 37) of the text, encompassing questions about who uses/interprets the text, how it is used, and for what purposes, or, as Niranjana (1992) articulates, about “how the translation/re-translation worked/ works, why the text was/is translated, and who did/does the translating” (p. 37).
In his Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society Under Early Spanish Rule (1988), Vicente L. Rafael, another dis-
tinguished American scholar of Tagalog Filipino origin, examines how the Spanish colonizers employed translation to conquer and convert the Tagalogs in Philippines. A great contribution that Rafael makes in this book is his unique multi-dimensional perspective on conversion and conquest: territorial, religious, cultural and even emotional. Since conquest is more than a territorial occupation, it requires the collaboration of Christian conversion that is realized primarily through translating Christian texts into the native languages. Rafael in this book has opened more possibilities both for the postcolonial translation research and practice, as he has actually initiated a postcolonial project that demands us to think historically, theoretically and methodically of the power use of translation in our own communities, a project that is “still very much in its infancy” (Robinson 2014, p. 101).
In contrast to the clear progress of postcolonial translation studies abroad, the ideas of translation as conquest did not seem to draw much attention in China until the beginning of the twenty-first century when some publications began to touch on this question.
In “Fanyi jiushi zhengfu—Nicai de fanyi zhexue” (Translation as Conquest— Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Translation) (2001) by Zhong Weihe (仲伟合) and Fang Kairui (方开瑞), Nietzsche’s unique conception of translation as conquest was for the first time introduced to China. “Fanyi yanjiu de houzhimin shijiao” (Postcolonial Perspective of Translation Studies) (2003) by Wang Dongfeng (王东风) is another publication that introduces translation as related to conquest to the Chinese translation academia. Wang (2003) quotes considerably from Douglas Robinson to clarify the definition of postcolonialism—a concept that proves increasingly blurry and bewildering over the decades, and agrees with Robinson in the conviction that postcolonialism introduces a perspective to envisage translation as a conspirator of colonialism, imperialism and hegemony.
However, the introduction of postcolonial translation theories as such were not followed by extensive research within the domestic translation community ever since. It should be admitted that the research of translation as conquest in China is still in its infancy, the reasons of which can be outlined as follows:
• The dominant ideology and discourses at home tend not to deem China as an empire, not even in its most powerful epochs in history.
• Very few historical records have been left due to the long-standing marginalization of translators and translation in Chinese history.
• The imperial use of translation has never been a topic in China historically, in contrast to the West that, according to Robinson (2014), boasts its first postcolonial translation theorist as early as in the times of ancient Greece.
• China suffered colonial and imperial oppressions in modern times, thus the Chinese translation scholars, starting from their standpoint, justifiably tend to give more weight to translation as resistance than to translation as conquest.
• The postcolonial translation theories, as Robinson (2014) argues, are “too new” (p. 104) or “two marginal” (p. 104) to provide sufficient theoretical support for the research of translation as conquest in the Chinese context.
2 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: A Historical Overview
2.2 Research on Translation as Resistance
The previous review of translation as a tool of empire in the colonial times manifests that translation remains indeed “a form of colonial violence” (Robinson 2014, p. 105). One of the virtues of postcolonial approaches to translation, as Robinson (2014) articulates, lies in recognizing the power use of translation in various communities, and, more importantly, fighting back when the power use of translation is “unjust or tyrannical” (p. 88). One is tempted to assume, therefore, that when translation is used as violence in the process of conquest, resistance may inevitably become the most immediate and natural response. Thus, the study of translation as resistance constitutes the other side of the coin.
In this study, resistance has been redefined as “the endeavor to resist against being bullied, invaded, annexed, enslaved, colonized, or conquered as a nation whose aim is closely linked to self-strengthening and survival of a nation”, and “translation as resistance”, subsequently, refers to translation being exploited as a weapon to facilitate the self-strengthening/preservation/salvation/revival/survival of a nation and oppose coercion/bully/invasion/annexation/enslavement/colonization, etc. from outside the nation (see Sect. 1.3.1).
As part of the attempts to Christianize the natives, some Christian terms, like Dios (God) and Jesucristo (Jesus Christ), were forced into the indigenous linguistic system during the Spanish rule over the Philippines. However, interpreted as signs of invasion, these heterogeneous words apparently were not hilariously embraced, but instead were mistranslated, wittingly and unwittingly, by the locals in many cases. Thus, mistranslation, perceived by the Spanish colonizers as symbols of stupidity, is instead identified as a special form of strategic resistance to preclude the natives from “feeling of being overwhelmed or engulfed with alienness” (Robinson 2014, p. 100).
Niranjana (1992) observes that the words and history of the colonized were frequently reread, rewritten by the colonizers to restructure the colonized culture. As a result of the discourse manipulation, Hindi people were instituted as inferior and doomed to colonial dominance. She asserts that the processes of rereading, rewriting, or, in another word, retranslating, could likewise be used for decolonization (pp. 172–173). By “retranslation”, Niranjana virtually advocates a form of literalism initiated by Walter Benjamin who insists on words rather than sentences as the unit of translation, and the strategy of “holding back from communicating” (Robinson 2014, p. 93). However, this strategy, as Robinson (2014) comments, does not seem effective in exerting influence on a culture, given that communication is critical for the dissemination of influence (p. 93).
In order to deconstruct the cultural imperialism reinforced by fluent translation, Venuti (1992, 1995) formulates the innovative resistance theory with foreignizing translation and abusive fidelity posited at the center. Foreignizing translation, by definition, refers to any translation strategy that defies fluency, transparency or “the Anglo-American tradition of domestication” (Venuti 1995, p. 23) in translation, whereas abusive fidelity encourages “abusing”, or challenging the dominant norms and values in the target culture by preserving the “foreignness” (Venuti 1995, p.99) i.e. the exotic elements of the foreign text. Venuti’s resistance theory has found
notable popularity worldwide, and enormous resonances exclusively in the formal European colonies, since it is deemed as providing a valid solution to the difficult task of decolonization.
Developed by the brilliant Brazilian translator Haroldo de Campos, Cannibalism (Antropofagia) as “a poetics of translation” (Vieira 1999, p. 95) has drawn increasing attention within the international translation academia over the decades. Originally referring to devouring the human body and drinking blood from it, Cannibalism has evolved into a metaphor of any action of absorbing the vigor of the source text or the source culture to nourish, renew and revitalize the target culture. By Cannibalism, an approach has been formulated with which translation as resistance is deployed in assimilating the advantages of the foreign texts and cultures to fortify the native strength for resistance.
Self-translation, i.e. translating a source text by its writer into a target text, is examined in the European multilingual contexts also as “resistance practices” (Castro et al. 2017, p. 4) or “an act of resistance” (Gentzler 2017, p. vii) against hegemony, with a focus on “strategies of resistance adopted by self-translators” (Gentzler 2017, p. vii). It is argued that self-translation from the minority languages into the majority ones within Europe may serve as an instrument for the minority language groups to fight against the hegemonic norms, values or discourses by “interjecting their own worldviews and politics into their work” (Gentzler 2002, p. 197) or “inserting the minority language viewpoint into the paradigm of the majority language speakers” (Gentzler 2017, p. vii).
In China, the research of translation as resistance has remarkably converged in one landmark translator: Lu Xun. In his series of publications, “Lu Xun de fanyi moshi yu fanyi zhengzhi” (Lu Xun’s Translation Mode and his Translation Politics) (2003a), “Yishi xingtai yu 20 shiji zhongguo fanyi wenxueshi 1899-1979” (Ideology and the History of Literary Translation in 20th Century China) (2003b) as well as Fanyijia Lu Xun (Lu Xun as a Translator) (2005), Wang Yougui recognizes Lu Xun as a translator with the strongest consciousness of resistance since the early twentieth century. He observes that Lu Xun’s awareness of translation as resistance is displayed on two levels: firstly, in terms of text selection, he renders exclusively the literary works of the feeble nations that suffered humiliation and oppression from the imperial powers (Wang 2003a, p. 76; 2003b, p. 13; 2005, p. 141); secondly, he adheres to a rigidly literal translation strategy that is applied at the expense of fluency (Wang 2003a, p. 76; 2005, pp. 163–164).
In his article “Weinudi yu Lu Xun yihua fanyi guan bijiao” (Venuti’s and Lu Xun’s Conception of Foreignizing Translation: A Comparison) (2008), Wang Dongfeng draws on the similarities between Lu Xun and Laurence Venuti in reference to their ideas of translation as resistance on three spheres: (1) anti-fluency; (2) use of archaism as a foreignizing strategy; (3) literate elite as the target readership of translation that adopts the strategy of foreignization (Wang 2008, pp. 8–9). Despite the “surprising” similarities, one underlying distinction remains noticeable: Lu Xun applies foreignization chiefly for self-salvation, whereas Venuti, a scholar brought up in hegemonic cultures, preferably envisages this very strategy as an underlying agent for self-oppression (Wang 2008, p. 9).
2 Translation as Conquest and Resistance: A Historical Overview
2.3 Summary
The previous literature review has revisited the major achievements made at home and abroad in the studies of translation as conquest and resistance over the decades, among which two most significant ones can be hereby outlined as follows:
• Historicization and contextualization of translation both as conquest and resistance, thus presenting a picture as to how translation serves both ends.
• Recognization of the dual role of translation both as a tool of empire and a conduit of resistance in some formal colonies of Europe.
Meanwhile, some problems remain intact, which hopefully will be solved by this book, partially or wholly:
• The picture of translation as conquest and resistance, albeit clear enough, is not complete, as many former European colonies, quasi-colonies, semi-colonies and countries that characterize the power use of translation remain in silence or have yet to make adequate utterances (e.g. China).
• The research on translation as conquest is outweighed by the research on translation as resistance, especially in China.
• Lack of a systematic theoretical framework to scrutinize the causes of translation as conquest and resistance.
References
Castro, O., Mainer, S., & Page, S. (2017). Introduction: Self-translating, from minorisation to empowerment. In O. Castro, S. Mainer, & S. Page (Eds.), Self-translation and power: Negotiating identities in European multilingual contexts (pp. 1–22). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cheyfitz, E. (1991). The poetics of imperialism: Translation and colonization from the tempest to tarzan. New York: Oxford University Press.
Copeland, R. (1991). Rhetoric, hermeneutics, and translation in the middle ages: Academic traditions and vernacular texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gentzler, E. (2002). Translation, poststructualism and power. In M. Tymoczko & E. Gentzler (Eds.), Translation and power (pp. 195–218). Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.
Gentzler, E. (2017). Forword. In O. Castro, S. Mainer, & S. Page (Eds.), Self-translation and power: Negotiating identities in European multilingual contexts (pp. v–viii). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthiessen, F. O. (1931). Translation, an Elizabethan art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Niranjana, T. (1992). Sitting translation: History, post-structuralism, and the colonial context Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Rafael, V. L. (1988/1993). Contracting colonialism: Translation and Christian conversion in tagalog society under early Spanish rule (Rev), Durham: Duke University Press.
Robinson, D. (2014). Translation and empire: Postcolonial theories explained (3rd ed.). London/ New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London/New York: Routledge.
Vieira, E. R. P. (1999). Liberating calibans: Readings of antropofagia and haroldo de Campos’poetics of transcreation. In S. Bassnett & T. Harish (Eds.), Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 95–109). London/New York: Pinter.
Wang, D. F. (2003). Fanyi yanjiu de houzhimin shijiao [Postcolonial perspective of translation studies]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 24(4), 3–8.
Wang, Y. G. (2003a). Lu Xun de fanyi Moshi yu fanyi zhengzhi [Lu Xun’s translation mode and his translation politics]. Shangdong waiyu jiaoxue [Shandong Foreign Languages Teaching Journal], 2003(2), 74–77.
Wang, Y. G. (2003b). Yishi Xingtai yu 20 shiji zhongguo fanyi wenxueshi 1899–1979 [Ideology and the history of literary translation in twentieth century China]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 21(5), 11–15.
Wang, Y. G. (2005). Fanyijia Lu Xun [Lu Xun as a translator]. Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe.
Wang, D. F. (2008). Weinudi yu Lu Xun yiihua fanyiguan bijiao [Lu Xun’s and Venuti’s conception of foreiginizing translation: A comparison]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 29(2), 5–10.
Zhong, W. H., & Fang, K. R. (2001). Fanyi jiushi zhengfu Nicai de fanyi zhexue [Translation as conquest Nietzsche’s philosophy of translation]. Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 22(1), 21–23. References
Chapter 3 E-C Translation as Conquest in the Late Qing 1811–1911
3.1 Introduction
The wealth and prosperity of the Orient, particularly of the Middle Kingdom portrayed in Marco Polo’s adventures had been such an enduring stimulator to the Occident that when the distance between the East and West was drastically bridged by the advances of navigation technology in the sixteenth century, the Westerners commenced to transcend their own continent to seek their fortune in the rest of the world—Africa, America, Oceania and Asia, thus creating the new era of colonization.
The Portuguese ascended as the earliest Western plunderers to take possession of Macau by means of bribes and made it a trade base and military outpost, followed by the Hollanders who seized hold of Taiwan in the year 1624. Being the most invincible ocean lord at the end of sixteenth century, Spain, after the seizure of the Philippines, forced incursion into the Middle Kingdom onto its ambitious agenda in 1586, though it was not executed eventually due to Spain’s being stuck in the Anglo–Spanish War (Zhang 2003, pp. 101–121).
Then the Britons came upon the stage. In 1583, Queen Elizabeth I made her first attempt to build trade ties with the Celestial Empire by sending a merchant with a letter to Emperor Wanli (万历) of Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). This messenger, named John Newberry, unfortunately was arrested by the Portuguese in Hormoz and failed to reach China in the long run (Zhang 2003, p. 131). In 1637, a British fleet led by Captain Weddell intruded Canton to impose trade to the locals, which has been envisioned as the very first effective British operation that “initiated the establishment of Sino-British connection”1 (Hu 2010, p. 30). During the war between the Manchus and the Ming Loyalists across the Taiwan Strait in the midseventeenth century, King James I sold ammunitions to both sides, exultantly and
1 Citations from sources in Chinese in this book, unless otherwise noted, are translated all by the author.
X. Huang, English-Chinese Translation as Conquest and Resistance in the Late Qing 1811-1911, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7572-9_3
19
unscrupulously, in exchange for ships of tea, porcelain, as well as silver that filled the British Exchequer.
When Emperor Kangxi (康熙) in 1684 removed the ban on maritime trade imposed since the previous dynasty, British merchants were for the first time permitted to set up trade firms in Canton. By the end of the eighteenth century when Britain had amounted to an economic, military, artistic and technological height not seen in the Occident perhaps since Suetonius’ Rome, it decided to send diplomatic missions to build treaty relations with China—the biggest potential material provider and commodity consumer in the world.
In 1793, a huge British delegation headed by a seasoned diplomat George Macartney arrived at the coast of China, with over 600 fancy gifts epitomizing the pinnacle of British technology and civilization, and a tough mission of signing a “friendly” treaty of alliance to open the door of this self-sufficient empire to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the requests submitted by Macartney to Emperor Qianlong (乾隆) turned out not in the least “friendly”, especially the intolerable cession of a small isle as the base for British merchants that was repudiated by the emperor as “exclusively unacceptable” (Hu 2010, p. 35). For the first time, the Celestial Empire was confronted with an envoy that arrived not as a tribute bearer, or “a vassal paying tribute to the overlord of a superior civilization” (Hanes & Sanello 2002, p. 15), but as a covetous conquistador.
In the following years prior to the outbreak of the first Opium War 1840–1842, the embassies that came with the same purpose, without exception, returned emptyhanded. Since then, Canton remained the only port open to the “barbarians”, where foreign trade was dominated unchangeably by the so called “Canton System” (Fairbank 1978, p. 163) —a regime that rigidly implemented the “restriction of Sino-foreign trade to Canton” (Fairbank 1978, p. 213) in contrast to the spirit of free trade advocated by the burgeoning colonialist countries, before it was ultimately replaced by what is known as the “Treaty System” (Fairbank 1978, p. 211) after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking2 in 1842.
In his book Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology (1964), John Beattie recognizes administration, trade, as well as religious missions as “three significant branches of the colonial enterprise” (Niranjana 1992, p. 72). It is indeed true that since the rise of European colonization, Christianity, as the most dominant faith in the West, had been widely promulgated in many parts of the world, with overt intentions to convert the indigenous lands and peoples.
In the New Testament, the “Kingdom of God” is compared to leaven—“which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened” (LaTourette 1937, p. ix), and more vividly, to a mustard seed—“which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds of the earth; but when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs” (LaTourette 1937, p. ix). These metaphors unveil the expansionary and subjugating nature of Christianity seen as “the only religion fitted for universal adoption and the only one capable of conducting the kingdoms of the world to immortal felicity” (“The Bible,” 1835, p. 298).
2 Also known as the Treaty of Nanjing
Christianity as an aggressive religion could as well be best revealed in the confession by the American social activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton:
The Christian, in his love to all mankind, wait for the majority of the benighted heathen to ask him for the gospel? No; unasked and unwelcomed, he crosses the trackless ocean, rolls off the mountain of superstition that oppresses the human mind, proclaims the immortality of the soul, the dignity of manhood, the right of all to be free and happy. (1854, as cited in Liu 2004, p. 157)
Nothwithstanding the ostensibly obscure and even “controversial” (Cox 2008, p. 3) connection between religion and empire, Christianity in the era of colonization indeed played a role so picturesque and thought-provoking in an anonymous story popular in South Africa: “When the white man came to our country, he had the Bible and we had the land. The white man said, ‘Let us pray.’ After the prayer, the white man had the land and we had the Bible” (Mofokeng 1988, p. 34).
In fact, the complicity of Christianity in colonial expansion has even been unexpectedly acknowledged from within the missionary communities:
The rapid development of the nations in Europe, with their wide programme of discovery and occupation, was shared in by the Roman Catholic Church. When Catholic nations like France, Spain, and Portugal undertook schemes of colonisation it was inevitable that the Church should share in the enterprise. (Mcneur 1935, p. 73)
It is well established nowadays that the earliest Christian operations in China occurred in the seventh century when the first messengers were sent from the Nestorian Church, and recurred in the thirteenth century, when the Middle Kingdom was under the reign of Mongols.
In the mid-sixteenth century, Francis Xavier sent by the Jesuit Society, a faction of the Roman Catholic, became the first herald to set foot on the coast of China since the age of European expansion. He was followed by more peers, including Matteo Ricci who even obtained the permission to preach the gospel to the learned scholars and high-ranking officials in the court of Ming Dynasty. During this period, the Christian missions as part of the colonial enterprise can be evidenced by the fact that the Jesuits who arrived in the Celestial Empire were practically “aided by the Portuguese colony in Macao” (LaTourette 1961, p. 433). Christianity was disseminated rapidly “under the friendly eye of the Manchu emperor” (LaTourette 1961, p. 433) to the extent that by the outset of the eighteenth century it had boasted approximately 200, 000–300,000 converts that scattered almost all over the Celestial Empire.
Christianity in the eighteenth century thus witnessed an unprecedented opportunity for spiritual conquest of China. However, this “gold opportunity” (Mcneur 1935, p. 77) desperately wildered away when the Celestial Empire, irritated by Pope Clement XI’s decree to challenge Emperor Kangxi’s royal interpretation of Tian (天 heaven) as “the True God”, decided to shut its door to Christianity. It was not until 1844 when the Qing Dynasty, trounced by Great Britain in the first Opium War, was forced to enact a “tolerance edict” (Mcneur 1935, p. 80) in the name of Emperor Daoguang (道光) that Christianity gained readmission into China.
Despite that Britain brought the renewal of Christianity in China, the Protestant countries as a whole had not been remarkably involved in the “earlier discoveries
and conquests by European nations” (Mcneur 1935, p. 83) by then. It was not until its entrance into China that Protestantism suddenly “made more rapid progress and touched the life of the country through a greater variety of channels” (LaTourette 1961, p. 436). The channels, or the so called “Protestant approach [es]” (LaTourette 1961, p. 439) included education, introduction of Western medicine and surgery, importation of Western learning, and most importantly, the translation of the Bible that was initiated by Robert Morrison, the first Protestant missionary sent to China.
3.2
3.2.1
Bible Translation
Bible: “The Word of God”
The word Bible, a transliteration from the Greek word biblia, meaning the books, broadly refer to the collections of the sacred scriptures of both Judaism and Christianity (Rogerson 2005, p. 1). This study restricts its investigation to the Christian Bible3 that is divided into Old Testament containing 39 books of Hebrew Scriptures, and New Testament consisting of 27 books central to the Christian faith.
To the apostles of Christianity, however, the Bible means far more than the mere compilation of the texts and books that communicate Christian information in general; it is God’s instructions, oracles, revelations, or more specifically, “the Word of God” (Barr 1977, p. 72), which implies “Bible inerrancy”—an underlying Christian conception that primarily emphasizes the infallibility of the Bible as it “was verbally inspired by God” (Rogerson 2005, p. 126), the almighty and omniscient God. Besides, God’s Word also indicates that the Bible transcends any production of knowledge by human beings:
What human strength could not do, God has accomplished; and in giving to his creatures a revelation of his holy will, has opened before them a world of eternal glory. Compared with the pages of God’s living oracles, the greatest productions of uninspired poets, historians, and philosophers, are as the light of the glowworm before the noonday sun. No mortal tongue can adequately describe the excellency of the divine word! (“Chinese Version,” 1835, p. 249)
Generally, although the Bible as God’s Word is institutionalized within Christianity, not all Churches consider it as the mere infallible source of Christian doctrine. For the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Bible remains but one of three authorities for God’s revelation, the other two being the Sacred Tradition and episcopacy (Mathison 2001, pp. 209–235). In other words, from the perspective of the non-Protestant Christians, the Bible has to “be interpreted in and by the church” (Mathison 2001, p. 267), with the latter being regarded as the sole authority to interprete the Sacred Scriptures and even decide which books are in conformity with the biblical canon through its tradition.
3 Also known as the Holy Bible
In contrast, with no radical defiance of the significance of Christian history and tradition as well as the annotations by the priests, the Protestants seek to envision the Bible as the ultimate authority in terms of both faith and practice, as explicated in Smalcald Articles by Martin Luther: “The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so” (Luther 1921, p. 467). An anonymous Protestant missionary that served in China also illustrates the Bible as the exclusive source of the faith of all human beings:
The Bible contains the only system of faith and practice, which is in all respects adapted to the wants of the whole human family. The declarations of its Author, and the whole tenor of its doctrines, precepts, and ritual, all unite to prove its suitableness both to the internal character and external circumstances of man, in every state of society and in every part of the earth. (“The Bible,” 1835, p. 297)
The adherence to the Bible as the sole authority, exclusive of the involvement of other texts either from the legacy of the Christian tradition or from the clergy, is now identified as Sola Scriptura,4 a doctrine followed by the Protestants by virtue of the five biblical characteristics: inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency:
• Inspiration: The Bible is conceived not as God’s own handwriting, but as elaborated by the Holy Spirit inspired by God who spoke through the prophets. The Holy Spirit and prophets as authors of the Bible secure its authenticity because they are inspired by God, whereas the apocryphal books, whose authors are not the Holy Spirit or the prophets, are erroneous and thus must be excluded from the Bible. As a result, “every part of the entire of Scripture was given by inspiration of God, so that the whole of Scripture is the very Word of God” (Mathison 2001, p. 261).
• Authority: As a divine carrier of the word of God, the Bible should be acknowledged as “the sole source of revelation” (Mathison 2001, p. 255) and thus accepted as the “sole basis of authority” (Ryrie 1986, p. 22). Every doctrine of the Bible is the edification of God and hence should be unconditionally acceded to; every rule of the Bible is the command of God himself, thus requiring unreserved subordination.
• Clarity: Also known as “perspicurity” (Mathison 2001, p. 279), which means all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith are clearly stated in the Bible to ensure its easy accessibility for every reader and worshiper who is needless of any exceptional training and teaching. In other words, no other texts are demanded to facilitate in elucidating God’s Word, nor the Church, clergymen or ecumenical council should be involved in construing the revelation from God.
• Efficacy: Referring to the effectiveness of the Bible, efficacy suggests that the Scriptures, endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit, will inevitably exert its influence on human beings, thus generating faith and submission among them. The consent to its doctrine is not enforced through logical argumentation, but rather through the creation of the accord of faith (Graebner 1910, pp. 11–12).
4 Latin for “by scriptures alone”
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
"On whose charge is my sister arrested for this deed?" said Captain Campbell, in a deep, stern voice.
"On that of Mr. Edgar Courtney, I believe," answered the sheriff.
"Edgar Courtney!" rang from every lip, in tones in which amazement had completely mastered every other feeling. Even Sibyl looked bewildered.
"Yes; and in support of his deposition he has brought to bear such a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, that even in the face of the proof being brought against a young lady so wealthy, high-born, and distinguished as Miss Campbell, it was found necessary to issue a warrant for her immediate apprehension."
"Heaven of heavens! this is maddening! Oh! for the thunderbolt of Heaven to blast that double-dyed perjurer where he stands!" exclaimed Captain Campbell, passionately.
Without heeding this indignant outburst, the sheriff turned to Sibyl and said, courteously;
"Miss Campbell, this duty is exceedingly unpleasant to me; but I regret to say you must go with me now!"
"Where?" said Sibyl, in a tone of such supernatural calmness, that every one was startled.
"Miss Campbell, I am very sorry; but it is my duty to convey you to the county jail, to await your trial."
"The county jail!" exclaimed Sibyl, losing her powerful self-control for the first time during this trying scene; and with a convulsive shudder hiding her face on Willard's shoulder.
He clasped her closer to his side, as if he defied earth and heaven to tear her from him; but still he spoke not a word. Was it the impossibility of the charge? Was it his indignation and horror? or was it this awful confirmation
of his first doubts, and the vivid recollection the scene at the astrologer's that held him dumb.
But Captain Campbell, losing all self-control, all remembrance of where he stood, once more passionately and impetuously broke forth:
"To the county jail! So help me Heaven!—never! Never will Sibyl Campbell submit to such a degradation! Sooner will I shoot her dead with my own hand where she stands! Oh, 'tis monstrous!—outrageous!—that any one should dare to accuse a Campbell of such an infernal deed and live!" he exclaimed, clenching his hands and teeth in his impotent, fiery wrath.
"My dear Guy, be calm; remember where you are," interposed Mr. Brantwell, soothingly. "If Mr. Lawless wants bail to any amount, whatever you may name——"
"Parson Brantwell, I should like to oblige you, but you must be aware that I cannot listen to you; unfortunately, the charge is not a bailable one. And I trust," added the sheriff, glancing half threateningly, half pityingly at Captain Campbell, "no resistance will be offered me in the discharge of my solemn duty; for, painful as the announcement is, there is no help for it. The young lady must come with me."
"A bride to spend her wedding-day in a prison-cell! Oh, saints in heaven!" shudderingly exclaimed Mrs. Brantwell.
"I am ready," said Sibyl, lifting her pale, beautiful face, and speaking in tones of supernatural calmness. "I will go with you, sir, and there will be no resistance offered. Guy, dearest brother, be calm; this violence will not aid me, and will lower yourself. Mrs. Brantwell, may I trouble you to bring me my mantle from the carriage?"
"Oh, must you go?" exclaimed Mrs. Brantwell, wringing her hands.
"Unfortunately, dear madam, there seems to be no alternative."
"But not in that dress—not in that dress! Sir, may she not return to the parsonage and change her dress?"
"Madam, I am very sorry, but I cannot lose sight of my prisoner."
A circle of white flamed round the eyes of Captain Campbell, and he clenched his hands and groaned in his bitter degradation.
"Then I am quite ready to go. Mrs. Brantwell, dearest friend, farewell for a short time only, I trust. Guy, brother, do not feel this so deeply; in a few days I trust to return to you all again. Willard"—her clear, full voice choked for the first time as she turned to him—"dearest Willard, I must bid you good by."
"Oh, Sibyl! Sibyl! Oh, my wife! do you think I will leave you thus?" he cried, passionately, as, unheeding the many eyes upon him, he strained her to his bosom as if he would have drawn her into his very heart beyond their reach. "Oh, my bride! my beautiful one! never will I leave you—never!"
A radiant glance, a look, a smile, rewarded him, while every heart thrilled at his anguished tones.
"Your own, in life or death, in shame, disgrace, and misery—ever your own!" she said, looking up in his face with deep, earnest, undying love.
There was not a dry eye in the church; every one was sobbing—Mrs. Brantwell so convulsively that the sheriff, who was really a kind-hearted man, was deeply distressed.
"Miss Campbell, will you accept my arm?" he said, feeling the necessity of bringing this scene at once to an end. "My carriage is at the door to convey you to——"
"The county jail! Oh, Sibyl! oh, my sister! Would to Heaven you had died before you had seen this day!"
"Brother, brother! be calm. Mr. Lawless, I attend you," said Sibyl, advancing a step, as if to take the arm he offered.
But Willard Drummond intercepted the movement, and drew her arm within his own, saying, with a fierce, threatening glance toward the sheriff:
"I will attend you, Sibyl; I alone have the right. Lead on, sir"—to the sheriff—"we attend your pleasure. No one on earth shall separate me from my bride!"
"Mr. Drummond, the—the ceremony was not finished when the interruption occurred," stammered the minister, looking deeply distressed.
But a scornful smile was Willard Drummond's sole reply, as he clasped the arm he held closer within his own.
"I, too, will go!" cried Captain Campbell. "Sheriff Lawless, your strict sense of duty will not, I trust, prevent your allowing me to accompany my sister to the county jail."
"Captain Campbell is quite welcome to a seat in my carriage," said the officer of the law, with a grave bow, and without heeding his bitter sneer.
"Farewell, Mrs. Brantwell—my more than mother, farewell!" said Sibyl, as the whole party, preceded by the sheriff, advanced down the aisle.
Mrs. Brantwell strove to reply, but her voice was choked. Taking her husband's arm, she followed them out.
The whole assembly arose en masse, and started for the door, casting threatening looks toward the sheriff, as though half meditating a rescue on the spot.
A plain, dark-looking coach, with a mounted policeman on either side, stood near the gate.
The sheriff paused when he reached it, and signified that they were to enter. Mr. Drummond handed Sibyl in and took his seat beside her; Captain Campbell, with a stern, gloomy look, followed; and then the sheriff sprang in, closed the door, and gave the order to drive on. Sibyl bent from the carriage window to wave a last adieu to Mrs. Brantwell; and the crowd
standing on the church-steps and court-yard caught a momentary glimpse of her pale, beautiful face, with its sad, twilight smile, her dark, proud eyes more scornful than ever in their humiliation. That haunting face, so perfectly colorless, with its bright, jetty ringlets, its floating, mist-like vail, its orange blossoms—could it be the face of a murderess?
The next moment she fell back, the blinds were closed, the driver cracked his whip, the policemen put spurs to their horses, and the sad cavalcade moved rapidly away.
Hushed into the silence of death, the crowd stood breathlessly gazing after it, until the sound of the carriage wheels had died away—the last cloud of dust raised by the horses' feet vanished. Then pale, and awe-struck, they drew a deep breath and looked with tearful eyes into each other's pale faces, wondering if it were not all a dream.
Whispering in low, hushed tones beneath their breath, they separated, and wended their way to their respective homes; and in half an hour the church was as still, silent and deserted as the tomb.
Like wild-fire spread the news; and before night it was not only known to all the county round, but for many a mile distant. The whole community was electrified by a catastrophe so unheard-of. Children quit their play, women their work, lovers their whispers, and laborers their daily toil, to talk over the astounding arrest. The wealth, the respectability, the youth, the beauty, the sex, the well-known arrogance and pride of the race from which the accused had sprung, all tended to heighten and deepen the breathless interest. And the time and place—the occasion of occasions on which the arrest had taken place—that, more than all, sent a thrill of horror through every heart. Each circumstance of the interview in the church was exaggerated, and people listened and swallowed everything with avidity.
In the parsonage, meantime, a cloud of the deepest gloom had settled over its lately joyous inmates.
Mr. and Mrs. Brantwell, with the three bride-maids and Will Stafford, had immediately, upon the departure of Sibyl, entered their carriage and driven to the minister's house.
And the bride-maids, in great agitation, not to say deep disappointment at losing the ball in the evening, dressed themselves and went immediately home.
Mrs. Brantwell sat weeping in a perfect abandon of grief, in the parlor below, and would not be comforted. Mr. Brantwell and Mr. Stafford, themselves in deep distress, strove to console her in vain.
Poor Will Stafford! it was not without a struggle he had seen Sibyl given up to another; but hiding the sharp, dreary pain at his heart under a gay exterior, he had resolutely determined to be gay, and conquer his illstarred passion. From the first moment he had seen Willard Drummond, an uneasy consciousness that he had beheld him somewhere before was ever upon him. He thought of the secret marriage he had long ago beheld, and he thought Mr. Drummond looked suspiciously like the bridegroom on that occasion; but he "pooh-poohed" the notion as preposterous, and strove to forget it. It was nearly dark when he had beheld that "run-away pair," as he called them; and he could not distinctly see the face of the man—their general appearance was alike, but not sufficiently so to warrant his speaking on the subject; and, of course, it could not have been Mr. Drummond, the betrothed of Sibyl Campbell. So he had hitherto scouted the idea until he had nearly forgotten it; but now, strange to say, it came back to him more vividly than ever.
While many suspicious thoughts of Willard Drummond, but not one of Sibyl, were passing through his mind, Mrs. Brantwell was still sobbing on the sofa, in passionate grief.
"Now, really, Harriet, this is wrong—this is sinful. You know," said Mr. Brantwell, fidgetting uneasily, "such violent grief is forbidden. We should be resigned to the dispensations of Providence, no matter in what shape they come."
"Oh, Mr. Brantwell, go away! I don't believe this is a dispensation of Providence; it is all the villainy of that miserable wretch, Courtney! And to think we should have kept him here, too. Oh, Sibyl! Sibyl!" concluded Mrs. Brantwell, with a fresh burst of grief.
"My dear madam, let us hope for the best. This absurd, this monstrous, this horrible charge will soon be explained, and Sibyl set at liberty," said Stafford, soothingly.
"Oh, I know all that—I have not the slightest doubt but she will be discharged, soon—very soon! But think of the horrible injustice of this deed! that she, my beautiful, high-minded, proud-spirited Sibyl, should ever set foot within a prison cell, much less be brought there as a prisoner—and on her wedding-day, too! Oh, it is cruel! it is most unjust! I have no words to express the unspeakable wrong it inflicts upon her. That her name should be bandied on every tongue—should be proclaimed as a felon's in all the papers—should be the topic of every tavern far and near! Oh, Heaven! why is this monstrous injustice permitted?" cried Mrs. Brantwell, in stillincreasing sorrow and indignation.
"Now, really, Mrs. Brantwell," began the more moderate spouse.
"Mr. Brantwell," sobbed his wife, looking indignantly at him through her tears, "if you can stand there, looking so cool and unmoved, it's no reason why others should be equally heartless. Oh, Mr. Stafford! won't you ride to Westport and learn the issue of this arrest, or I shall die of suspense!"
"Most certainly, madam; I shall go immediately," said Stafford, standing up. "I was about to propose it myself when you spoke."
"You will return as soon as possible?" called Mrs. Brantwell, after him, as he left the room.
"I shall not lose a moment," said the young man, as he ran down stairs, sprang on his horse and dashed furiously toward the town.
As it was impossible with the utmost expedition, for him to return before the next day, Mrs. Brantwell prepared herself for a night of lingering torture—the torture of suspense. To the anxious, affectionate heart of the good old lady, that long, sleepless night seemed endless; and she hailed the sunlight of the next morning with joy, as the precursor of news from Sibyl.
As the morning passed, this anxiety and suspense grew almost unendurable. Unable to sit down for one moment, Mrs. Brantwell paced up and down, wringing her hands, and twisting her fingers, and looking every other moment down the road, whence Stafford must come.
But, with all her anxious watching, the hours passed on; and, it was almost noon before the welcome sound of a rapid gallop met her ear, and brought her eager, palpitating, and trembling, to the door. Yes, it was Stafford, but the hope that had sprung up in her breast, died away at sight of his face. His horse was reeking with foam, his clothes were disordered and travel-stained, his hair disheveled, his face pale and haggard, as if from sleeplessness and sorrow, and his eyes gloomy and excited.
"Oh, Mr. Stafford, what news of Sibyl?" gasped Mrs. Brantwell, faintly.
"Oh, it is just as I feared it would be! Sibyl is fully committed for trial," said Stafford, leaping off his horse, and entering the parlor excitedly.
Mrs. Brantwell, faint and sick, dropped into a chair, and bowed her face in her hands, unable to speak; and her husband took up the inquiry.
"Have you seen Sibyl?"
"Oh, yes; I saw her in her prison cell, behind an iron grating, as if she were some undoubted criminal," replied Stafford, bitterly.
"How does she bear this blow?"
Oh, when one is talking to her, she is calm, and proud, and scornful enough; but, as she lifted her head when I first went in, there was such fixed, utter anguish and despair in her eyes, that I hope I may never see the like again."
"Poor Sibyl! When does this trial take place?"
"Next week. It seems there are not many cases occupying the court now; and hers occurs among the first, at the special request of her friends."
"Have they engaged counsel?"
"Yes, Mr. P——, the best lawyer in the State."
"And her brother and Drummond, how do they bear this?"
"Oh, Captain Campbell swears, and threatens, and looks as much like a maniac as any one I ever want to see. Mr. Drummond is calm; but there is something in his very calmness more indicative of grief than all Guy's more violent sorrow. They have engaged lodgings at Westport, and will remain there until after the trial."
"Is there any doubt, any fear, about the issue?"
"None in the least; there cannot be, you know. It is impossible, utterly impossible, there can be an instant's doubt about her acquittal. The trial, therefore, will be nothing but a serious farce; but it is the infernal injustice, begging your reverence's pardon, of making Sibyl Campbell a principal actor in it, to stand before the gaze of hundreds in the prisoner's dock, that is so inhuman. Oh, there does not, there cannot exist a human being on the face of the earth, so lost to reason as to believe she could be guilty of such a crime."
"On what day next week does the trial take place?" asked Mr. Brantwell.
"It opens next Tuesday, I believe. And Mrs. Brantwell, I have heard that you are to be subp[oe]naed as a witness."
"Oh, I would have gone in any case," said Mrs. Brantwell, faintly. "My poor Sibyl!" and with another burst of tears her head fell on the table again.
"Really, Mrs. Brantwell, you will make yourself ill by this foolish indulgence of grief," said her husband, uneasily.
"And there is no real necessity for it," said Stafford, feeling it his duty to say something consoling. "Sibyl will most certainly be acquitted."
"Oh, don't talk to me, either of you," said Mrs. Brantwell, petulantly. "You are men, and can't understand how this will darken all Sibyl's future life. I feel, I know she will never recover from it."
There was an embarrassing pause, and then Mr. Brantwell said:
"I will go to Westport the day before the trial comes on, and stay there until Sibyl is discharged, poor girl! I suppose she and Mr. Drummond will immediately sail for Europe until this unhappy affair is forgotten."
"Most likely. And now I must bid you both good-morning!"
"Why! will you not wait for dinner? Where are you going?"
"To Westport. Not to leave it again until this miserable trial is Over. Good-by." And Stafford hurried from the house, and mounting his still reeking horse, rode rapidly away.
CHAPTER XXX.
SIBYL'S DOOM.
"Great Heaven! how could thy vengeance light So bitterly on one so bright? How could the hand that gave such charms, Blast them again in Love's own arms?" MOORE.
As Stafford had said, a subp[oe]na was served on Mrs. Brantwell, to be present at the great trial about which everybody was talking. That good lady, who had determined already to go, regarded it as a useless ceremony; but Fate seemed determined to deprive her of that melancholy consolation, for two days before the eventful one on which the trial was to take place, poor Mrs. Brantwell, worn out by excitement and constant weeping, was seized with such a violent sick headache, that she was utterly unable to leave her bed. In vain, when the day "big with fate" came, did she attempt
to rise. At the first effort she was seized with such a deadly faintness—such a blinding giddiness, that she was instantly forced to go to bed again. And there, half delirious, with her head throbbing and beating like mad, she was forced to lie, while her physician wrote a certificate of her inability to attend, which Mr. Brantwell was to convey to Westport.
How that day passed, and the next, and the next, Mrs. Brantwell never knew. Lying in her darkened chamber, with bandages wet with vinegar bound around her burning forehead, with servants tiptoeing in and out, and speaking in hushed whispers, the time passed as it does in a dream. With her mind as well as her body utterly prostrate, she was spared the suspense concerning the position of Sibyl she must otherwise have suffered.
But on the fourth day, Saturday, though weak and languid, she was able to rise, and, with the assistance of Jenny, descended to the parlor, where, smothered in shawls, she lay rocking back and forth in her large easy chair.
And now, recovered from the first prostration of bodily illness, she thought of the time that had passed, and began to feel all the tortures of doubt and agonizing suspense again. Sibyl's trial must be over by this time, and—what had been the result?
So unendurable grew this uncertainty, that she was about to dispatch a messenger to Westport to learn the result of the trial, when the clatter of horses' hoofs before the door arrested her attention, and the next instant the door was thrown open, and Will Stafford stood before her.
Yes, Will Stafford; but so changed that she almost screamed as she saw him. Worn, haggard, and ghastly; with convulsed brow, white lips, and despairing eyes; with such a look of passionate grief, anguish, and despair that the scream was frozen on her lips; and white, rigid, and speechless, she stood staring, unable to utter a word.
Without speaking, almost without looking at her, he threw himself into a chair, and buried his face in his hands.
Oh! what meant that look, that action, that ominous silence? For one moment the sight seemed leaving Mrs. Brantwell's eyes—the power of life
seemed dying out in her heart; but by a mighty effort of her will she resisted the deadly faintness that was creeping over her, and asked, in a voice so low and tremulous, that it was almost inaudible:
"What of Sibyl?"
A groan, that seemed to rend the heart from which it came, burst from the lips of Stafford.
"What of Sibyl?" repeated Mrs. Brantwell, breathing hard, in her effort to be calm.
"Oh! Mrs. Brantwell, do not ask!" exclaimed Stafford, in a stifling voice.
"Sibyl, Sibyl!" were the only words the white, quivering lips could utter.
"Oh! how can I tell her?" cried Stafford, springing up, and wildly beginning to pace the room.
"Sibyl! what of her?" wailed Mrs. Brantwell, pressing her hands to her heart.
"Sibyl is—oh, Heaven? how can I speak the terrible words?" exclaimed the excited young man, pacing up and down like one demented.
"Heavens! will you tell me before I go mad?" cried Mrs. Brantwell, becoming as much excited as himself.
"Then listen—since I must repeat her awful fate! Sibyl has been tried, convicted, and doomed to die!"
The look that Mrs. Brantwell's face wore that moment, never left the memory of Will Stafford. There was a sound as of many waters in her ears, a sudden darkness before her eyes, her brain reeled, and her head dropped helplessly on the arm of her chair.
Stafford, in alarm, flew to the bell; but overcoming, with a mighty effort, that deadly inclination to swoon, she lifted up her head, and half
raised her hand, in a faint motion to stop him.
"I want nothing; it is over," she said, tremulously. "Sit down before me and tell me all. The worst is over, and I can bear anything now."
"Oh! it was horrible, monstrous, outrageous, this sentence," exclaimed Stafford, with a burst of passionate grief. "I never dreamed for an instant— never did—that she would be condemned. Oh, curse that Courtney! Heaven's malediction rest on him, here and hereafter!" he hissed through his clenched teeth.
"Tell me all! Oh, tell me all!" said Mrs. Brantwell, trying to steady her trembling voice.
"I wish I could! I came for that purpose; but I am going mad, I think," said Stafford, throwing himself into a chair with something like a howl of mingled rage and despair. "She told me to come and tell you; nothing else could have made me leave Westport while she lives."
"Was it Sibyl?"
"Yes; Mr. Brantwell could not travel as fast as I could, and will not be here till to-morrow, and I—oh! I rode as if the old demon were at my heels all the way—and I'll never rest easy again till I've put a bullet through Courtney's brain; for, he's the cause of it all, with his diabolical circumstantial evidence," exclaimed Stafford, with still increasing vehemence.
"Mr. Stafford, do give me the particulars!"
"You know the trial was to commence on Tuesday?"
"Yes."
"Well, as soon as the doors of the court-house were thrown open, the galleries, and staircases, and every corner of the building were filled to suffocation by an eager crowd. I got in among the rest of the rabble, and secured a good place where I could see and hear everything. Owing to some
cause or other, the people had to wait a good while; and just as they were getting clamorous and impatient, they saw the carriage making its way slowly through the mass of people that lined and crowded the streets, unable to obtain an entrance into the court-house. Then every one was on tiptoe with expectation to see the prisoner, the fame of whose wealth and beauty, and the strange circumstances attending her arrest, had been blazoned the whole country round. It was with the greatest difficulty that a passage could be forced through the crowd as she entered, dressed in deepest black, closely veiled, and in the custody of the high sheriff. Captain Campbell and Drummond followed closely after, and took their places near her. As she took her seat, you might have heard a pin drop, so intense was the silence; but when, a moment after, she threw back her vail, and her pale, beautiful face, with its dark, proud, scornful eyes, that went wandering for an instant round with contemptuous disdain for the gaping crowd, a low, deep murmur of admiration, surprise, and pity, passed through the vast assemblage of human beings; and the next instant they were profoundly still once more.
"The jury were already impaneled, and the presiding judge, and the State attorney, and Sibyl's counsel, had taken their places, so the trial immediately commenced. When the clerk of the court put the customary question—'Guilty or not guilty'—I wish you had seen the slender form of Sibyl tower aloft, and her glorious eyes flash, and her beautiful lip curl with scorn and disdain, as she answered:
"'Not guilty! your honor.'
"There is no use in my telling you the State attorney's charge. You'll see it all in the papers, if you have any curiosity on the subject. All I need say is, that it seemed to destroy every favorable impression made on the minds of the jury by the youth, beauty, and sex of the prisoner. He spoke of the pain it gave him to be obliged to make this charge against a woman, whose interesting appearance he saw had already made a deep impression on the minds of all present; but he trusted the gentlemen of the jury would not allow themselves to be carried away by their feelings, for 'appearances were often deceitful;' and he made a long preamble about demons wearing the forms of angels of light, and of the crimes other women, gentle and loving
before, had been induced to commit in sudden paroxysms of jealousy—as this crime had been—as he was prepared to prove. He spoke of many cases of women—some of which had come under his own immediate knowledge —of women stabbing themselves, their lovers, their rivals, in fits of jealous passion. He spoke of the well-known jealousy and vindictiveness that had ever characterized the race from which the interesting prisoner at the bar had sprung, and that he would soon show that she had been ever noted— even since childhood—for these same faults. Then he drew a pathetic picture of the victim—her youth, her gentleness, her trusting simplicity— until every woman present was sobbing as if her heart would break. But when he concluded by saying that the murdered girl was the wife of the prisoner's lover—married to him in secret, as he would shortly prove—a thrill ran through every heart."
"His wife!" exclaimed Mrs. Brantwell, looking up in dismay and incredulity.
"Yes, Mrs. Brantwell, his wife; and she was, too," said Stafford, sorrowfully. "When Willard Drummond—who had all this time been standing motionless, his hat drawn over his brow—heard the words, he started, reeled, and turned as deadly white as if he had received a pistol-shot through the heart. Sibyl lifted her wild, black eyes, and reading in that look, that action, the truth of the words, with a long, low cry dropped her face in her hands, with such a look of utter despair, that every heart stood still. Captain Campbell sprang up as if some one had speared him, and would have throttled Drummond on the spot, I firmly believe, if a policeman had not interfered, and held him back.
"The first witness called was an old Methodist minister, who deposed, on oath, that he had married Willard Drummond—whom he promptly identified—to a young girl called Christina Tomlinson, about a year and a half previously, as nearly as he could then recollect. They were married at night, without attendants; and the bride seemed very much frightened. He concluded by giving a description of her, which exactly tallied with that of little Christie.
"Mrs. Tom was then called, and affirmed that on the night in question, Christie had gone to Westport with Drummond; and when they returned late
at night, she found her niece lying senseless in his arms, which circumstance he accounted for by some plausible reason she had now forgotten. Being cross-examined, she affirmed that the deceased and the young man Drummond were always together, after the prisoner left the island; and she, Mrs. Tom, not liking their intimacy, had endeavored to put a stop to it, but in vain. She could not swear positively that her niece and Miss Campbell were bad friends, but she did not think they were on good terms; and her principal reason for ending the intimacy between the deceased and Mr. Drummond, had been the fear of the prisoner's anger, which she knew, when excited, was extremely violent. That on the night of the murder the deceased had appeared out of spirits, and complaining of a headache, had retired early. That when she awoke in the morning she found her gone, and the house-door open, things which had never happened before. That she had no suspicions of the truth, until Miss Campbell came in and told her her niece was murdered. That thereupon they had gone down to the beach together, and she had identified a handkerchief belonging to her niece, marked with her name, deeply clotted with blood. That the prisoner—who had never hitherto appeared to care for Christie—seemed deeply, almost wildly agitated that morning, which had surprised her (the witness) not a little at the time.
"Mrs. Tom was then dismissed, and Captain Campbell was called to take the stand. A low murmur of sympathy ran around as they observed his pale and haggard face; and all listened with breathless interest to the testimony he reluctantly gave. He said that on the evening of the murder, being on the island, Christie had approached and given him a note, which she directed him to give to his sister. That he had done so; and that Sibyl had appeared violently agitated upon receiving it, and impetuously insisted upon going to the island that night. That he had urged her not to go, but she had insisted; and upon his telling her Carl Henley was going over that evening, she had said she would accompany him; and he had then left the room, and he did not see her again for upward of a fortnight.
"Carl Henley next took the stand, and after the usual oath, stated that on the evening of the murder he had taken Sibyl across to the island. That in the boat she had talked wildly, though he could not recollect what she had said. That she had left him when they had reached the shore, and had run up
the rocks, through the storm, in the direction of the lodge. That he had returned to the cottage; and shortly after went to bed, leaving 'Aunt Tom,' as he called her, and Christie down stairs. That about midnight, being awakened by the violence of the storm, he had got up and distinctly heard a cry of 'murder,' though whether it was in Christie's voice or not, he could not say. That a moment after, by the light of a flash of lightning, he had seen a woman flying past, with long black hair streaming behind her, 'jest like her,' he expressed himself, pointing to Sibyl. Being cross-examined, he swore positively to seeing the woman, whom he said he took, at the time, to be Sibyl; and nothing her counsel could say could weaken his testimony in the least.
"There were several other witnesses examined; but though I have forgotten their testimony, it all went to prove that Christie was beloved by everybody who knew her but Sibyl; that she had not an enemy in the world but Sibyl. Among others, came that infernal Courtney, who swore positively that he knew Sibyl to be jealous of Christie; and in proof of which, adduced several circumstances that seemed to have a great deal of weight with the bench; that Sibyl's agitation upon receiving Christie's note was so palpable, that he began to have misgivings on the spot; that when he beheld her, the following day, after coming from the island, she seemed like one deprived of reason, as if 'remorse for some crime' preyed upon her. Oh! I could have strangled the white-livered villain on the spot," said Stafford, grinding his teeth. "Then the court was adjourned until the following day, and the prisoner removed.
"Next day it was the same. There was little new evidence against Sibyl; but it seemed clear to all that the jury had already made up their minds as to her guilt; and that her youth and beauty only seemed to aggravate her crime.
"Then the defense was taken up; and Mr. P—— made a very good speech, and did all he could to disabuse the minds of the jury, but it was like beating the air. He did all he could, but that was too little to save Sibyl.
"The State attorney rose again, and set aside all P.'s arguments in a cool, contemptuous manner, that carried conviction to the minds of the spectators. And then the judge arose to sum up the evidence and charge the jury. In his mind there seemed not the faintest shadow of a doubt as to the
guilt of the prisoner, I cannot remember what he said; but I know, despite his gray hairs, I felt a demoniacal desire to knock him down all the time he was speaking. Then the jury withdrew to deliberate; and during their brief absence the silence of death reigned in that crowded court-room. Every eye was bent upon Sibyl; but after hearing of Willard's marriage she never lifted her head. It was as if the heaviest blow that could possibly befall her had passed, and life or death mattered nothing to her now.
"The jury was not absent ten minutes ere they returned. Their sudden entrance was ominous; but their grave, stern faces were more ominous still. I had to grasp the arm of a man beside whom I stood, for I felt myself trembling in every limb. The jurors all stood erect, and every breath seemed suspended.
"'Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?' asked the venerable judge.
"'We have, your honor,' responded the foreman.
"'How say you, then? Is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty of the crime with which she is charged?'
"'Guilty!' was the awful response.
"At that word, there rose a cry that thrilled through every heart; and Willard Drummond, like a man possessed of a demon, fled from the house, while the appalled crowd fell back in turn before him. A dreadful silence followed; and then the judge arose, and in a voice that trembled in spite of himself, said:
"'Prisoner, arise, and receive the sentence of the law.'
"Every breath was suspended, every voice was hushed, but the prisoner neither moved nor stirred. She seemed frozen into the attitude in which she had fallen, at the news of Willard Drummond's perfidy.
"Mr. Brantwell, who was standing near, with a face pale with deepest pity, touched her on the shoulder, and said, in a faltering voice:
"'Sibyl, my dearest girl, arise; let me assist you.'
"He took her arm and supported her to her feet; but when she lifted her head, all beheld a face so cold, so white, so rigid, with such frozen eyes and colorless lips, such an awful look of woman's deepest woe, that every face grew pale, and every eye was filled with tears. As for me, I felt as if I were going mad. I heard the judge saying something—to save my soul I could not tell what, until the last awful words met my ears:
"'Prisoner, the sentence of the court is, that you be taken hence to the prison from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and that there you be hanged by the neck until you are dead!'
"I could listen no longer. How I burst from the crowd I know not, but I reached the open air frantic, almost maddened. The crowd poured out after me, and presently the prisoner appeared, between your husband, her brother, and the sheriff.
"I saw no one but Sibyl. Her face wore the same fixed, stony look it had done when she arose—not a muscle had quivered. It was evident she heard not, cared not for the awful doom about to befall her. I broke through the crowd like a madman, until I stood before her.
"'Sibyl—Sibyl!' I cried out.
"Something in my tone arrested her, and she looked vacantly at me. She passed her hand across her forehead, as if to clear away a mist, and then said, in a low, dreamy tone:
"'Ah, Mr. Stafford, I have a request to make of you.'
"'What is it?' I asked, scarcely able to speak.
"'Hasten to my dear friend, Mrs. Brantwell, and tell her what has happened; but, tell her not to be sorry for me, for it is better as it is. Guy, I am tired; take me away.'
"She said all this in a strange, weary tone, like one that is bewildered. I saw them help her into a coach, saw it driven away; and then I went to the hotel, feeling—well, it's no use trying now to tell you how I felt. Long before daylight this morning, I started to come here—and that is all."
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE BANKRUPT HEART.
Oh, break, break, break! poor bankrupt, break at once, To prison, soul! Ne'er hope for liberty!" SHAKESPEARE
"Every sense
Had been unstrung by pangs intense, And each frail fiber of her brain
As bow-strings when released by rain, The erring arrows launch aside
Sent forth her thoughts all wild and wide " BYRON
There was a long pause. Then Mrs. Brantwell raised her head, and asked.
"When do you return to Westport?"
"I cannot go before to-morrow; my horse is unfit for the journey."
