The Translating Subject beyond Borders: Relay Translations of Biographies of George Washington in East Asia in the Early Twentieth Century

Abstract

In the early twentieth century, the political environments of China, Japan, and Korea were heterogeneous, encompassing various discourses and orientations. Using biographies of George Washington, this article examines the particularities of the texts created through such translations. In relay translations of biographies of Washington, Fukuyama Yoshiharu 福山義春 (Japanese, published 1900) sought an ideal model of Confucian ethics; Ding Jin 丁錦 (Chinese, published 1903) represented Washington as a strong warrior who won independence after a long fight; and Yi Haejo 李海朝 (Korean, published 1908) offered a portrait in which the warrior figure recedes and the Confucian image is again reinforced. Despite the gap between the political environments of Japan and Korea and the absence of a direct connection between them, Fukuyama's and Yi's editions share more overlapping features with each other than with Ding's. Properly recognizing and highlighting individual translation and adaptation practices that do not converge on the norms of national discourse will expand the horizons of the national discourse itself.

From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, East Asia (China, Japan, and Korea) was a site of translation of the “West” as a model for the modern nation-state. Intellectuals from China, Japan, and Korea translated various Western scientific, intellectual, technical, and historical texts in large quantities. Japan was the nation that responded the soonest to this massive transition in the East Asian knowledge paradigm; there is indeed something approaching a scholarly consensus that modern Japan was formed through translation (Maruyama and Katō 1998). Furthermore, knowledge fields in other Asian countries were reorganized through the mediation of Japan, because it had reached out to Western modernity before the others (Yamamuro 2001: 143–570).

However, it is important to guard against the limitation of defining Asia on the basis of a West-centered modernity. The diversity and dynamics of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean texts that address the West can often evoke the role of the subject. The texts analyzed in this article are translations of the biography of a Western “hero” figure, a theme that attracted keen interest in the East Asian cultural sphere in the period of transition to modernity. In general, the texts indicate active involvement by the translator due to the narrative presentation and ease of meaning projection inherent in the hero's life. Moreover, as translated Western texts in these three countries are in most cases linked to each other as copies that are at once authored and translated, new interpretations of the texts can be derived by collecting disparate features of translation spaces as parts of a bigger whole.

This article examines in particular the East Asian genealogy of biographies of George Washington. In East Asia in the early twentieth century, the United States, as an emerging power, was bound to be an object of exploration, and that interest naturally converged on Washington, who was seen as the father of his country. In particular, the relay translations this article focuses on begin with Kaseidon 華聖頓 (Washington, 1900), written by the Japanese Fukuyama Yoshiharu 福山義春 (1873–?) with reference to six English texts; pass through Huashengdun 華盛頓 (Washington; 1903), translated from Fukuyama's work to Chinese by Ding Jin 丁錦 (1879–1958); and end with Hwasŏngdon chŏn 華盛頓傳 (Biography of Washington, 1908) by Yi Haejo 李海朝 (1869–1927), translated to Korean from Ding Jin's Chinese work. Of the biographies of Washington from this period, Yi's work is the only case that traversed the three spaces due to a connection of the authored and translated versions.

Ch'oe W. 2001 is the only previous study on the above-mentioned Washington biographies of which I am aware. Ch'oe Wŏnsik confirmed the relations among these texts for the first time and reviewed their contents. No further research has been done, and his analysis has been accepted as valid (Pae 2015: 242–43). However, there are two critical problems with Ch'oe's study. The first has to do with the main facts. Upon investigation, Ch'oe's discussion of Fukuyama Yoshiharu turns out to be problematic, and there also seem to be errors in his discussion of Ding Jin, which are discussed below. Second, his textual analysis is insufficient. Ch'oe conducted most of his discussion based on the text by Yi Haejo, with little analysis of the English-authored versions that served as Fukuyama's sources or the differences between Fukuyama's and Ding's translations. However, since Yi's translated version is the last of the relay translations, it is limited as a source from which to understand the preceding changes as a whole. For example, Ch'oe Wŏnsik (2001: 298) assesses Yi's translation as “nothing more than a nearly faithful translation of the secondhand translation [i.e., the Chinese translation].” But if the difference between Ding's and Yi's texts is not significant, it would be Ding's work that emerges as a watershed moment in East Asia, creating critical differences between the Japanese text and the Chinese/Korean text. However, Ch'oe's research has no analysis of this earlier stage of the translation. Thus, we cannot properly grasp the meaning of these texts based on Ch'oe's research alone.

Fukuyama Yoshiharu's Washington: The Confucian Hero Washington

About Fukuyama Yoshiharu

Fukuyama Yoshiharu's biography of Washington was a volume in the series Sekai rekishi tan 世界歴史譚 (Stories from World History) by Japanese publishing giant Hakubunkan. Between 1899 and 1902 a total of thirty-six volumes were published in this series about historical figures from East and West, old and new; the Washington biography was the thirteenth volume. As confirmed in Fukuyama's preface (discussed below), the series was geared mainly toward students rather than adults.

Ch'oe Wŏnsik (2001: 283–84) erroneously thought that Fukuyama Yoshiharu, indicated as the writer of the Japanese version of Washington (華聖頓) on the copyright page, was in fact the linguist Ogawa Naoyoshi 小川尚義 (1869–1947). This is because Ogawa is indicated as the author of Washington in the biographical section of Nihon jidō bungaku daijiten 日本兒童文學大辭典 (Japanese Dictionary of Children's Literature, 1993). However, the dictionary also says, “The copyright page states that the author of the book is Fukuyama Yoshiharu, but the relationship [between Fukuyama and Ogawa] is not known” (Osaka International Children's Literature Museum 1993: 160). Earlier, Katsuo Kin'ya (1988: 79; 1999: 99) had also tentatively identified Fukuyama Yoshiharu as Ogawa Naoyoshi, but he was not sure either. He even asked the bereaved family of Ogawa if “Fukuyama Yoshiharu” was his pen name, but they replied that it was not certain (Katsuo 1988: 90).

The theory that these two figures are the same has persisted, because in the main text of the 1914 edition of Washington we find “小川尚義 著” (“by Ogawa Naoyoshi”), in contrast to the 1900 edition, which mentioned only Fukuyama. However, for the following reasons it is likely that this is a typographical error. First, the 1914 edition, in which Ogawa Naoyoshi's name appeared, still has Fukuyama Yoshiharu on the copyright page and cover. In addition, no difference in content can be identified between the 1900 and 1914 editions, and doubtless Ogawa would have made his own new contribution. Given this, one should consider the possibility that the sinographic name “小川尚義,” visually similar to 福山義春, was inserted in error. Second, judging from Ogawa's activity, it would have been difficult for him to write Washington. As someone who studied the Taiwanese (i.e., Taiwanese Fujian) language for much of his life, Ogawa graduated from the First High School and then from the linguistics department at Tokyo Imperial University in 1896 and began work at the Taiwan governor-general's office in October of the same year. He started focusing on research and in 1898 published his Small Japanese-Taiwanese Dictionary (Nitai Shojiten 日台小辞典). He established himself as an authority on the Taiwanese language, focusing on publishing dictionaries. In other words, the chances are slim that he suddenly started working on Washington's biography, leaving Japan to focus on his other research activities. The absence of Washington from Ogawa's CV during this period is also indirect evidence; he became a professor at the Japanese language school in Taiwan in 1899 and in 1901 became an editor in the Taiwan governor-general's office (Tsai 2007: 4). Third, crucially, there is another plausible figure, with the name Fukuyama Yoshiharu. Born in March 1873 in Tamana County, Kumamoto Prefecture, Fukuyama Yoshiharu attended the Fifth High School. In 1898 he earned a degree in Chinese literature at Tokyo Imperial University, and in May 1899 he was awarded a teacher's certificate for Chinese, Japanese history, and world history. He worked at the Tsuchiura branch of Jinjō Middle School in Ibaraki beginning in 1899 and served as its first principal from April 1900, when the branch became an independent institution, until 1904 (Hattori 1902: 141–42; see also Takahashi 1904: 52–53).

In fact, it is relatively easy to determine whether Ogawa the scholar or Fukuyama the educator was the author of Washington. The fact that the timing of the publication of Washington, whose primary readers were meant to be children, coincides with the beginning of Fukuyama's career as an educator and the fact that he had a teacher's certificate in world history are circumstantial evidence pointing toward Fukuyama as the author. Continuity with Washington can also be observed in his publication of Kanbun tokuhon 漢文讀本 (Literary Sinitic Reader; Fukuyama and Hattori 1899) the previous year, because, as discussed below, that textbook and the Washington biography are similar in their moral orientation. Fukuyama, who had a background more suitable for the writing of Washington than did Ogawa, was also living under that name.

According to the memoirs of Hattori Tetsuseki (1902: 142) and Takahashi Tachigawa (1904: 53–54), Fukuyama was an educator with a wide range of abilities and refinement. However, Mito chūgaku 水戸中学 (Mito Middle School; Mishima 1910) carries a completely different assessment. This material, which outlines the history, ethos, and major events of Mito Middle School, refers to his lack of talent, clear education policy, or skills and says he was criticized by students from the time he took office in that school on September 27, 1904. He was also denounced for “instituting a sanctions committee among the students and letting them use violence [against other students] at will” (Mishima 1910: 109). Fukuyama was eventually dismissed by Governor Mori Masataka, who attended the school's graduation ceremony in March 1908 and was angered by the students' poor attitude (Mishima 1910: 111–12). Fukuyama's subsequent career is unclear, but in 1900, when (I argue) he wrote Washington, he was an elite educator on his way to success. This is the basic background for understanding the characteristics of the text.

Fukuyama's Source Materials

Fukuyama presents himself as the “editor” (hensha) of his book at the end of the preface, since Washington was a reconstruction based on many English source documents. He indicates six English-language sources in the explanatory notes of his book. I have checked each book and summarize their contents below.

1. John S. C. Abbott, Lives of Presidents of the United States of America (Madison, WI: Russell, 1867): There were many books with the title Lives of Presidents in American publishing in the nineteenth century, so it is possible that several editions were used. However, it is clear that at least Abbott's edition was utilized.¹ This is a collection of small anecdotes from the first president, George Washington, to the seventeenth, Andrew Johnson, with an attempt at historical objectivity.

2. Famous Men, Being Biographical Sketches (Edinburgh: W. and R. Chambers, 1892): This deals with nineteen famous people, of whom five were from the United States. As it was published in London, it might have been more objective and avoided “the combination of excessive praises” (Garraty 1957: 100) in American biographies of Washington in the nineteenth century.²

3. W. M. Thayer, From Farm House to the White House: The Life of George Washington (London: Hurst, 1890): This is a rich, 503-page work devoted to Washington the individual and characterized by dialogue among the characters, as in fiction. It also utilized previous Washington biographies.

4. Robert Sear, The Pictorial History of the American Revolution (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1850): This book focuses on the early history of the United States in chronological style.

5. Richard Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1881): A later work by Frothingham, an expert on American history, this book summarizes America's path toward independence and its early history. It covers the period from 1643, when the New England Confederation was formed, to 1790, the beginning of Washington's presidency.

6. Moses Foster Sweetser, King's Handbook of the United States (Buffalo, NY: Matthews-Northrup, 1896): A 951-page American history and regional information book with more than 2,600 illustrations and 53 color maps. It carries a vast amount of information in dictionary form, in which chapters are divided by state and keyword.

Of these books, items 1–3 are biographies, items 4 and 5 are history books, and item 6 is something like a regional dictionary. In fact, Fukuyama says he used not only English-language books but also previously published Japanese-language biographies of Washington for his work,³ but his list of sources includes only English-language books. This list is given in the opening of his book and shows that the Washington story that Fukuyama reconstructed and rendered in Japanese was based on “Western knowledge” and was not a mere translation but a reconstruction.

Table 1 lists the contents and gives breakdown of chapters in the Japanese Washington. The chapter titles essentially show Washington's change of status over time. Important here is the fact that, except for chapter 1, the situations the United States was facing are also mentioned and foregrounded in the text, from the French and Indian War (1754–63) to independence. This is different from the English-language documents Fukuyama used. For example, Famous Men devotes two chapters to Washington's “private” matters that are unrelated to politics, such as personal interests, marriage, and land and property management, but almost none of this is found in Fukuyama's Washington. The authors of Famous Men and the other works focus on the character of Washington throughout, while Fukuyama's text also details political changes and wars in which Washington was not directly involved.⁴ In the last passage of the book, Fukuyama (1900: 161–62) writes: “Do you not know that the great monument by which to remember him forever is not this monument or his tomb, but the United States of America itself whose foundation he has solidified?” In short, in Fukuyama's Washington, the existence and birth of the United States itself takes on as much weight as the protagonist. This was likely related to what was required of Fukuyama as an education official in Meiji Japan, with its strong nationalist tendencies.

Washington Represented through Confucian Thought

The most prominent aspect of Fukuyama's work is his attempt to find Confucian virtues in George Washington. First, let us take a look at Fukuyama's introduction:

Thus, Fukuyama emphasizes Washington's character instead of his achievements or talents. The word character appears four times in the quoted passage, and the entire introduction can be considered a paean focused on Washington's character, if we include related expressions like virtue, sacred virtue, humility, leader of humanity, and person of philanthropy and fairness. What is noteworthy is the use of the expressions gentleman and saint, which refer to the ideal human figure in Confucianism. The gentleman is a “morally complete personality,” and the saint is the ultimate goal. In fact, some anecdotes involving Washington fit well with Confucian values; for example, as a child he confessed to damaging a tree his father had cherished, and after founding the country he refused to take the throne as a king or serve as president for life. For this reason, Washington was considered a man of great character in East Asia even before Fukuyama.⁵ Fukuyama's approach differs in that he relates this image directly to that of a Confucian saint. This was likely connected to Fukuyama's background in Chinese studies. As mentioned previously, just before the publication of Washington, Fukuyama had compiled Kanbun tokuhon. This text aimed to strengthen the ideology of emperor worship, and it consisted of sixty-nine epigrammatic sentences by Japanese Confucian scholars and scholars of Chinese classics of the time, including Iwagaki Matsunae 巌垣松苗, Oyama Nobuyuki 大山伸幸, and Rai San'yō 頼山陽, dealing with virtues like “sacred virtue,” “pity,” “filial piety,” “loyalty,” and “propriety.”

Confucian values are placed together in several other places in the book, in impressive scenes involving Washington. Fukuyama writes that it was due to Washington's “virtuous character” that he could prevail when there was a discussion about his dismissal as commander in chief during the Revolutionary War (Fukuyama 1900: 121–22) and that, when his soldiers tried to enthrone him as king immediately after the war, Washington declined and resolved the situation (Fukuyama 1900: 133). This is reminiscent of humility and perspicacious judgment, two of Mencius's “four sprouts” (C. siduan 四端). Fukuyama describes the story of the boy Washington risking his life to save a child from drowning and refers to this as “natural sympathy” (C. ceyin zhi xin 惻隱之心), another of the Mencian four sprouts (Fukuyama 1900: 158–59).

While these anecdotes about Washington demonstrate his benevolence and virtue, which are at the core of Confucian thought, Fukuyama also highlights Washington as an example of overcoming oneself, another Confucian teaching. “Such great patience is truly unprecedented, and is a marvel of the world” (Fukuyama 1900: 97). This emphasis on patience permeates the book. In the first half of the Revolutionary War, for example, the Continental Army was consistently inferior to the British, and General Washington had to endure abject conditions while also suffering defeat repeatedly. Thus, humble details during this period that might not fit the glorious deeds of a hero are presented to show how the “indomitable spirit” valorized by Fukuyama shines through in extreme circumstances. In particular, the expressions “but he was not disappointed” or “he did not give up hope” are repeated seven times in the record of failures between pages 106 and 108. This aspect of Washington was expressed by Fukuyama with the Confucian term “overcoming the self” (C. keji 克己). The following quote is a comprehensive assessment of Washington at the end of the book that also represents Fukuyama's Confucian values.

Zhongyong 中庸 (The Doctrine of the Mean), one of the Four Books of Confucianism, is key to Confucian thought, and this doctrine means a practical attitude in life, without bias. “Utter sincerity” is inseparable from moderation, as it appears in the “Way of Utter Sincerity” (“Zhichengzhidao” 至誠之道), the title of chapter 24 of Zhongyong, and much of “utter sincerity” entails the practice of “overcoming the self,” that is, overcoming one's weakness and selfishness. These terms were not used accidentally but were fused with the life of Washington according to the vision of Fukuyama, a scholar of Chinese studies.

Ding Jin's Washington: Washington as a Revolutionary Warrior

Ding Jin, the Translator

About three years after its publication in Japan, Fukuyama's Washington was translated by the Chinese writer Ding Jin and published by Wenming Shuju 文明書局 (Civilization Press) in August 1903. Many different introductions to Washington were already available in China, but Ding Jin's translated version was rare for his time.⁶

Wenming Shuju was a publishing house founded under the leadership of Lian Quan 廉泉 (1868–1931), a former official who had cooperated with the anti-Qing revolutionary party to enlighten the people. Ch'oe Wŏnsik (2001: 171–72) discusses Wenming Shuju and Ding Jin but is incorrect in saying that Ding Baoshu 丁寶書 (1866–1936) was Ding Jin. Although they worked for Wenming Shuju during the same period, Ding Baoshu and Ding Jin have different birth and death dates, and the former was a visual artist (Zhu 2011: 15).⁷ Ding Jin was involved in the anti-Qing movement, and after the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 he became a soldier and was promoted to lieutenant general in 1921. In the People's Republic of China, he worked as an adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture.

The year 1903, when Washington (華盛頓) was translated, was a time when Ding Jin worked as a translator at the Baoding Military Department. The copyright page of Washington reads “original author: Fukuyama Yoshiharu, Japan,” “translator: Ding Jin, Wuxi.” That is, for the original author, the country name, Japan, is given, while in the translated version Ding's place of origin, Wuxi 無錫, is provided. Additionally, it is important that Ding revealed the Japanese source. In 1903, when he translated this biography of Washington, Japan was a relatively free political space for young Chinese people; in fact, that year key works of the anti-Qing revolutionary movement, such as Gemingjun 革命軍 (Revolutionary Army) by Zou Rong 鄒容 (1855–1905) and Jingshizhong 警世鍾 (Alarm Bell) by Chen Tianhua 陳天華 (1875–1905), were published there. At that time in Japan, there was even a group of Chinese students specializing in translation.⁸

While Ding Jin indicated Fukuyama Yoshiharu's name and stated that Washington was a translated book, he raised his own voice and edited out content that did not agree with his intent. His transformation of the text is reflected on almost every page. Some are simple supplements to the content,⁹ but there are also deliberate interventions that change the very nature of the work.

Downplaying of Loyalty and Patriotism, Emphasizing Independence and Liberty

Ding Jin's anti-Qing sentiment was bound to conflict with Fukuyama's text, which consciously highlighted the importance of “the state.” The evidence comes from Ding's introduction. Ding replaced Fukuyama's “the citizens of our country's next generation” with “the people after me,” removing citizens. Fukuyama wanted a lesson for the citizens devoting themselves to the state, whereas Ding sought to overthrow the state.

The same intention can be seen in how Ding Jin translates motherland (muguo 母國), which is Fukuyama's way of referring to Britain. When introducing this word for the first time, Ding (1903: 24) adds a footnote, saying “the colony referring to its mainland.” When Ding refers to “motherland,” it is limited to cases where the word is primarily associated with the disruptive and conflict-bringing aspects of colonialism, such as war, exploitation, and the breakdown of ties between colony and metropole (24, 26, 32, 37). He ironically flips the historical relations and says that the metropole exploited its colony despite being its “mainland” or “motherland,” that the colony had to fight back against its motherland, and that the colony decided to separate itself from its motherland. When motherland occurs in a normal narrative and does not have this effect, he simply replaces it with Britain.¹⁰

Just as he used the word motherland strategically, Ding Jin deliberately downplayed the image of Washington as someone who was once loyal to Britain. For example, just before the war with France, the young Washington was given a dangerous mission to go to a French military base and convey Britain's bargaining posture directly. Fukuyama (1900: 22) describes this as follows: “Thus, Major Washington was determined to be the most appropriate person to carry out this weighty and most dangerous mission, and the order was eventually given to the twenty-three-year-old officer.” Ding (1903: 9) translated this as: “At that point, no one other than Major Washington had the capacity to carry it out and thus he was chosen. At the time, he was twenty-three.” Ding intentionally omitted reminders of Washington's past loyalty to Britain, with its pro-state tendencies and images related to loyalty.¹¹ Ding also intensified the negative language when Britain was being described and used more positive expressions for the United States,¹² rendering Britain to some extent a proxy for the Qing dynasty and prefiguring China's anti-Qing revolution in America's anti-Britain revolution.

There is an expression worth noting in this context: the term patriotic. For example, Fukuyama's (1900: 41) description of Washington when he fought against France as a British soldier was as “one who is skilled in a great patriotic enterprise” This was modified by Ding Jin (1903: 17) to just “can deal with a great mission.” In addition Ding added, “Our people's efforts will make it possible” (36), which was not in Fukuyama's text. By people Ding of course meant the United States. As Ding's treatment of words like loyalty or patriotism shifted the focus from Britain to the United States, his strategy changed from “downplaying” to “reinforcement” as colonials became “Americans,”¹³ and Ding reinforced a negative image of Britain and emphasized the significance of building the “new country.”¹⁴

In the same context, rhetoric having to do with independence and liberty emerged in Ding Jin's text. In describing the circumstances just before the Revolutionary War, Fukuyama's (1900: 67–68) “will give up the rights of a British subject” Ding (1903: 28) modified to “will sever relations with Great Britain and claim independence.” The expression give up rights assumes having those rights due to British citizenship, while independence does not. The reason a discussion of liberty is added in Ding Jin's texts seems to be because the longing for liberty may become the seed for revolution.¹⁵

Stressing Sacrifice and Washington the Warrior

Ding Jin stresses the value of sacrifice by using expressions even more emphatic than those in the original edition. For example, after stating that Washington sent an envoy to Britain to petition for peace in the colonies, Ding (1903: 29) adds, “Our people love freedom, which means if we have no choice but to confront the strong, we will die.” Additionally, when in the original edition an old man says, “Oh, if a valiant warrior is alive and well, and if my son John is in his army, let him fight like a man, or your father will never see you again” (Fukuyama 1900: 73), Ding (1903: 31) writes, “Hurrah for the brave warrior. May my son bring himself up in your army and die bravely in war; otherwise, his old father never wants to see his son's face again” Then Ding adds, “How could this be? How could this be? How can the fierceness reach such a degree? How pleasant it is. Is it true that parents and children do not love each other so much? Is fighting on the battlefield not extremely dangerous? How can the fierceness reach such a degree? How pleasant it is” (31; emphasis added). In other words, Ding wanted to create a structure in which his readers could take even the death of their loved ones as a worthy sacrifice for independence.

In addition, death appears several times in Ding Jin's version but not the original. Where Fukuyama (1900: 78) says the troops “went out bravely and fought fiercely,” Ding (1903: 33) says they “courageously went out and fought to the death,” and where it says, “He [Washington] entered Brooklyn on the twenty-seventh” (Fukuyama 1900: 93), Ding (1903: 40) translates this as “From the twenty-seventh, he went to Brooklyn, ready to fight to his death.” By using rhetoric involving death, Ding seems to mean to raise the level of sacrifice that readers will accept. He also intensifies the confrontation between the camps by using various exaggerations in describing combat with the British. In other words, the strategy of rhetorically raising the level of sacrifice was constantly employed.¹⁶

Death-defying sacrifice is directly linked to another value: bravery. Given the great cause of the anti-Qing revolution, Ding needed Washington to be a powerful figure who could accomplish revolution rather than a flawlessly developed personality. Thus, he intervened in the text to weaken the image of Washington the saint reinforced by Fukuyama and to strengthen the image of the warrior. For example, in describing Washington as a young land surveyor going through physical hardships in his work, Ding Jin intentionally dropped the “longing and loyal heart” part from Fukuyama's (1900: 15) passage: “From this experience he learned that the paths of the human world are difficult. Thus, he who would later have to stand above the masses not only had a longing and loyal heart.” This is probably because that expression was more suitable for a saint than for a revolutionary.

Meanwhile, Ding Jin added new content in various places to create an even braver image for Washington, as reflected above in several spots. He used the word hero frequently, as it is linked to the image of a warrior.¹⁷ The statement “Washington's enthusiasm was like heated water and like boiling a ton of stones, such that it was impossible to suppress his strength” (Ding 1903: 20) in the war between Britain and France was not in Fukuyama's text. Ding also exaggerated a simple, brief sentence from Fukuyama (1900: 79), “The people welcomed him with respect and enthusiasm,” in the following way:

The above passage describes the loyalty of the crowd, who were willing to give up their lives for Washington, and the great responsibilities of the general. These imaginative interventions were also made by Ding when translating Washington's letters. Introducing a letter from Washington written in the early days of the Revolutionary War, Ding (1903: 34) describes at the end the important burden faced by military commanders in conducting operations. Inserting his own sentence in a letter by Washington is a new kind of intervention, in essence fabricating historical records. In addition, Ding (1903: 40) emphasized more than the original that Washington did his best to win battles despite being extremely fatigued.

Thus, Washington was retouched and made into a warrior of the revolution by Ding Jin. Such elements are latent in Fukuyama's biography of Washington as well, but because of the “personal Washington” that Fukuyama emphasized, such aspects were not as prominent as Ding wanted. Because of this, he downplayed Washington's image as the ideal person and intervened in the text in ways that strengthened the warrior image. Such a hero might have presaged Ding's own ambition as a revolutionary soldier in China.

Yi Haejo's Biography of Washington (1908): Return to the Confucian hero

Yi, the Translator

Yi Haejo, who translated Ding Jin's Washington as into Korean as Biography of Washington, was a widely known figure, one of the leading authors of sinsosŏl 新小說 (new fiction), a fictional narrative genre focused on enlightened themes that flourished between the 1900s and the 1910s. Although his achievements in translation are less known, they are substantial; Biography of Washington was the first of these (see also Yi Haejo 1908a, 1913).

Yi Haejo's background was closer to that of Fukuyama than to that of Ding Jin, in that he was both an educator and a scholar of the Chinese classics. However, Yi was an active member of the grassroots enlightenment publication movement, a national restoration effort sparked by the Japan–Korea Ŭlsa Protectorate Treaty of 1905.¹⁸ Advocating for youth education, he was a publisher of the magazine Sonyŏn Hanbando 少年韓半島 (Boys' Korean Peninsula) in 1906. He was a consistently active member of enlightenment groups such as the Taehan Hyŏphoe 大韓協會 (Korea Association) in 1907 and the Kiho Hŭnghakhoe 畿湖興學會 (Kiho Education Revival Society) in 1908. His translations as well as his own fiction, published in Cheguk 帝國 (Empire) newspaper, can be understood in this context. Unlike Fukuyama's approach through public schooling, Yi's education movement was rooted in private schools.

Yi's Biography of Washington was published by Hoedong Sŏgwan; the copyright page lists Chungang Sŏgwan 中央書館 and Taedong Sŏsi 大東書市 as distributors. This distribution system was connected to the National Education Committee (Kungmin kyoyukhoe 國民敎育會; September 1904–November 1907), an education movement group to which Yi Haejo once belonged. Support for modern educational institutions and the supply of textbooks, which were the committee's key activities, led to an increase in overall demand for books and provided the impetus for Kwanghak Sŏp'o, Hoedong Sŏgwan, Chungang Sŏgwan, and Taedong Sŏsi to transform themselves into modern publishers (Song 2010: 266–67). It is certain that Yi worked on the translation of the Biography of Washington even after his involvement with the Kungmin'gyoyuk'oe had ended. The work was done while he was publishing his new fiction in Cheguk, and it took many months.¹⁹ The goals of his original work and his translations were unified by Yi's education activism.

The question of why Yi chose Washington, of all people, can also be seen in connection with Yi's creative work. In his first work of serialized fiction, Komokhwa 고목화 (The Old Tree), serialized in Cheguk (June 5–July 4, 1907), Dr. Cho, a character who heals and converts the main character, Mr. Kwŏn, and becomes an absolute inspiration, had studied medicine in Washington, DC. The Old Tree is an embodiment of Christianity not only as love and forgiveness but also as a symbol of Western civilization (Cho 2009: 579). It is significant that Washington is positioned as the symbol of Christianity in this work. In addition, Yi released his fiction Liberty Bell (Chayujong 自由鐘), named after the symbol of the American independence movement, shortly after translating the biography of Washington.²⁰ Yi was very positive about the United States, and this also affected his work as an author and translator, indicating that his elevated treatment of Washington was probably intentional.

However, though Yi Haejo listed himself as “translator” on the copyright page, he did not reveal any information on the original edition or the author. It is assumed that Yi made this choice because he knew from Ding Jin's copyright page that Ding had translated Fukuyama's text. Given the situation in Korea in 1908, the meaning of Japan/Japanese was bound to be negative to them. As such, the intervention of Yi the translator had already begun when he concealed basic information about the sources for the book.

Rhetoric of Death and Reducing the Warrior Image

One notable feature of Yi Haejo's translation is that it has far more deletions than additions; he adds back in grammatical subjects that had been omitted from Ding Jin's text and clarifies the meaning by changing the words used, but attempts to add material only within the framework of a given sentence. Thus, there are no insertions of full sentences that Yi created on his own, and this is the biggest difference between Ding's and Yi's translations.²¹

Yi Haejo's pattern of deletion usually involved omitting secondary information given in the original. For example, many insignificant details were deleted, including family history, descriptions of battles, litanies of proper nouns, and numbers in lists (Yi 1908b: 3–4).²² Even when Washington's deeds are described positively, they are abbreviated when allowed by the narrative (Ding 1903: 47; Yi Haejo 1908b: 47). In this way, the translator's orientation is revealed; if omissions or variations occur even in significant information given in a repetitive manner, this can be considered an intervention on Yi's part. Although it is difficult to find Yi's direct voice in the added content, it is possible to at least identify what he did not want to convey.

As mentioned above, Ding Jin frequently deployed a rhetoric of death and reinforced the level of sacrifice that Chinese revolutionaries must endure. Yi Haejo, however, intervened by deleting such features, even while using Ding's text as an original source. For example, he omitted many negative and violent descriptions of war. In particular, there are many deletions of expressions related to death. Yi omits Ding's (1903: 33, 40, 48) expressions such as “resisting death and not retreating,” “fight to the death,” and “battle to the death.” Similarly, “the murdered” (Ding 1903: 27) was changed to “the victim” (Yi 1908b: 27), probably because the former phrase evokes death. The same goes for the shortening of “Those who try to run away, cold and starving, are all the same. There is no use trying to console them” (Ding 1903: 51) to “Many people ran away because they were cold and starving” (Yi 1908b: 51).

There are also cases where the level of sacrifice demanded is lowered even when not related to death. Let us compare the handling of a scene involving a mother who sent her child to the fight in the Revolutionary War:

Yi did not translate the two highlighted parts of Ding Jin's text. One was the mother's message to fight for the nation, which Ding bracketed with side dots.²³ The other is the scene where the mother gives her sixteen-year-old son a weapon. Yi omitted the son's relatively young age in this passage. Both interventions have the effect of reducing the level of extreme sacrifice that was required according to Ding.

Abridging passages concerning being on the defensive on the battlefield is also an act of adjusting the level of suffering in the narrative.²⁴ In addition, passages about battle and the emphasis on the responsibility and sacrifice of the hero were abridged. By way of example, let us examine the transformations in a passage from Fukuyama through Ding to Yi.

As shown above, Yi's translation deleted much of what Ding Jin had intentionally added and approximated the original Fukuyama edition rather than Ding's translated edition that was Yi's source. This kind of “return” in the translation genealogy, through Ding's additions and then Yi's omissions, is found in other passages as well,²⁵ such as with the rhetoric of death being added and then deleted. These examples almost make it appear at times as if Yi translated not Ding's but Fukuyama's text.

Yi's Background in Chinese Classics and Reformism

The reason Yi Haejo deleted lines that emphasized the rhetoric of death and sacrifice is probably related to the conditions of the respective translation environments. When Ding Jin was translating, China was in the process of partial colonization by foreign powers but was not under the overwhelming influence of a single empire. In addition, the corruption and incompetence of the Qing government were widely known, and the revolutionary movement was gaining momentum. In Korea, by contrast, a fully colonial system was already operating under the ruling power Japan, a robust emerging empire that had just defeated Russia. Ding's Washington was published in Shanghai, outside the control of the Qing government, whereas Yi's Biography of Washington was published in Korea at a time when publications were already being censored by the Japanese residency-general. It is clear that it was not easy to connect Washington the warrior to Korean conditions around the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Independent writings about Washington in Korea in this period are mostly descriptions of his speeches (Yi Hunyŏng 1909), his deeds, or anecdotes about his altruism and moral character.²⁶ Occasionally, Korean readers were introduced to a Washington determined to fight and stake his life for his beliefs, but these passages appeared as abrupt examples in unrelated editorials (Yŏ 1908: 12) or unfinished series of another Biography of Washington (Ch'oe S. 1907) written by Ch'oe Namsŏn that disappeared or was suppressed after the first episode. Washington's image as a warrior was clearly not “activated” in Korea.

However, not every translator adopts a uniform attitude based solely on the translation environment. For instance, Yi Haejo's approach needs to be reconsidered in light of Yi the translating subject. Ding Jin was a member of the anti-Qing revolutionary party, and his biography of Washington was a projection of America's independence movement onto China's political reality and vice versa. Yi, in contrast, better fits a gradual enlightenment orientation, reminding us of Fukuyama, who also had a vocational interest in education and was a scholar of the Chinese classics. Yi's understanding of Confucianism can be gauged from the fact that he had passed the chinsa 進士 examination at the age of nineteen.²⁷ However, Yi's article “Ethics” (“Yullihak” 倫理學), published by the Kiho Hŭnghakhoe (December 1908–July 1909) immediately after the publication of the Washington biography, suggests a more direct connection. This article was an attempt to scientifically found a deontology of personal ethical practice in an age when traditional Confucian ethics had fallen out of favor. It is not difficult to discern in Yi's article, which may be called a “renewal of the old,” Fukuyama's strategy of merging Confucian ideals with Washington. The moment Washington is highlighted not as a revolutionary or warrior but as a personal and ethical subject, the lesson cannot help but shift toward reformism. Yi's reformism can be identified in his skeptical stance toward the abolition of the Korean class system and the abandonment of sinographs in Korea, as shown in his fictional work Liberty Bell (Pae 2015: 248). In Yi's biography of Washington, which consists of relay translations, one can find characteristics of both Fukuyama and Ding, but due to Yi's personal inclination and politics, the former are more prominent.

However, we should not overlook the degree to which the image of fighting for independence is associated with Washington. Although much of Ding Jin's translation was deleted, Yi Haejo's book was still in essence the Washington of Ding, and no contemporary Korean writings describing Washington's life story contained more detailed information than Yi's. The inclusion of the book on the prohibited books list (Chosŏn Government-General 1910) announced on November 19, 1910, indicates that the book was already sufficiently disturbing in the eyes of the Japanese Empire.

Conclusion

To study translations, relay translations, and adaptations of Western works in China, Japan, and Korea is basically to deal with the dynamics of knowledge as it enters and crosses different spaces. As that effort deepens, one risks being confined to the logic of a certain place. This danger can be overcome by comprehensively exploring East Asian translations over a wide spectrum. In the early twentieth century, the political environments of China, Japan, and Korea were heterogeneous, encompassing a range of discourses and orientations. If translation is seen as an act of spreading knowledge from “outside” to “inside,” the gap between them and how it is bridged depend on the biases and choices of the translating subject. Sometimes the translator's broader habitus may work in a direction quite different from what most people in that place think—from what is supposed to be “Chinese,” “Japanese,” or “Korean.”

Using translations of biographies of George Washington, this article has tried to show the particularities of the texts created by the relay translations. Fukuyama Yoshiharu's Washington sought to find an ideal model of Confucian ethics, while Ding Jin's Washington represented Washington as a strong warrior who won independence after a long revolutionary fight. In Yi Haejo's Biography of Washington, the warrior figure is again reduced and the Confucian image is reinforced. On the whole, Ding and Yi probably experienced new insights in the translation process. Still, they tried to carry out their initial visions.

Were these attempts practices that went beyond “boundaries”? That is, how different were these individual translator's orientations from the common voice of each space? In fact, this question is an empty one. Although we may imagine the discursive landscapes of China, Japan, and Korea in the early twentieth century as three separate fields, at the same time when Fukuyama turned Washington into a model of virtue combined with Confucianism, the Japanese socialist Kōtoku Shūsui 幸德秋水 (1871–1911) published Imperialism: Monster of the Twentieth Century (Nijusseiki no kaibutsu teikokushugi 二十世紀之怪物帝国主義, 1901), which accused imperialism of violence on a large scale. When Washington's image as a warrior was being reinforced by Ding Jin, Liang Qichao 梁啓超 (1873–1929), who was at the center of the Chinese media, translated other Western heroic texts in such a way as to send out a conservative message to “be careful of a blood-shedding revolution” (Matsuo 1999: 276). Although Yi Haejo did not show radicalism like that of Ding in China, at the same time he was translating his work Pak Ŭnsik 朴殷植 (1859–1925) was proclaiming “the ideas of independence and freedom” in the preface to The Founding Story of Switzerland (Sŏsa kŏn’gukchi 瑞士建國誌, 1907), a translation of the William Tell story. Interestingly, there are even cases where the importance of the revolution was emphasized using works of Liang Qichao, as in the Three Founding Fathers of Italy (Yidali jianguo sanjiechuan 意大利建國三傑傳, 1902), translated from Chinese into Korean in 1907 by Sin Ch'aeho 申采浩 (1880–1936; see Son 2007). Even Kōtoku's (1901) anti-imperial writings, which were in stark contrast to Yi's reformist style of intervention, were translated into Korean during the protectorate,²⁸ and The Three Monsters of the World (Segye sam koemul 世界三怪物, trans. Pyŏn Yŏngman, 1908), published in the same year as Yi's Biography of Washington, strongly criticized the perception that the United States was a space of freedom.

These cases tell us that we need to abandon preconceptions about a particular space when interpreting the reception of content or modes of translation emerging from it. Despite the gap between the translation spaces of empire and colony, and despite the absence of a direct connection between them, Fukuyama's and Yi's editions overlap more with themselves than with Ding Jin's edition. This should come as no surprise, given that the dynamic translating subjects were not confined to imagined boundaries or a single logic. Properly recognizing and highlighting individual translation and adaptation practices that do not converge on the norms of national discourse should eventually expand the horizons of the national discourse itself.

Notes

References