20世紀30年代魯迅與梁實秋之間的翻譯論戰TheDisputeonTranslationCriteriaBetweenLuXunandLiangShiqiuIn1930sXiaoYanUndertheSupervisionofLiaoHongSchoolofForeignLanguagesandCulturesPanzhihuaMay2006Contents摘要……….…………...I關鍵詞………………IAbstract…………………………..…ⅡKeywords…………….IIIntroduction………………………….1I.BriefIntroductionaboutLuXunandLiangShiqiu………...2A.BriefIntroductionaboutLuXun…………..………………...…2B.BriefIntroductionaboutLiangShiqiu……….…3II.TheDisputebetweenLuXunandLiangShiqiuin1930s…….…………..4A.TheBackgroundoftheDispute……………….…….…………..4B.TheMainContentoftheDispute………………….……………5a.ContradictionandUnificationBetweenFaithfulnessandExpressiveness……….…………5b.LiteralTranslationandLiberalTranslation………….………7c.EuropeanizationandDomestication…………………….…...8d.Repetition………………….…9III.TheSignificanceoftheDispute…...…………9Conclusion……………………….…12Acknowledgement………………...13Bibliography…………………….…14摘要20世紀30年代，準確地說，從1927年至1937年是中國新文學繁盛的時代，翻譯文學也呈現出了一片欣欣向榮的景象。有關翻譯標準的爭論由來已久，30年代達到了空前高潮，許多著名的作家諸如魯迅、梁實秋、瞿秋白、林語堂、陳西瀅、趙景深和葉公超等都直接或間接地介入了這場論戰。本文從翻譯研究的角度出發，分析了20世紀30年代以魯迅、梁實秋為代表的關于翻譯標準的論戰的核心內容及其影響和意義，具體包括三個方面：魯迅和梁實秋的介紹、翻譯論戰涉及的主要內容、以及此次翻譯論戰的影響和意義。關鍵詞翻譯標準；翻譯論戰AbstractInthe1930s,tobemoreprecise,from1927to1937,Chinesenewliteraturemadearapiddevelopmentandthetranslationliteraturewasalsoinprosperity.Thedisputeonthetranslationcriteriahasexistedforalongtimeandreachedtheunprecedentedclimaxinthe1930s.Alotoffamouswriters，suchasLuXun,LiangShiqiu,QuQiubai,LinYutang,ChenXiying,andZhaoJingshen，gotinvolvedinthe1930sdisputedirectlyorindirectly.Fromtheperspectiveoftranslation,thethesismakesananalysisofthedisputeabouttranslationcriteriain1930swhichwasinitiatedbyLuXunandLiangShiqiu.Thisthesisincludesthreeaspectsconcretely:thebriefintroductionaboutLuXunandLiangShiqiu;themaincontentofthedispute;thesignificanceofthedispute.KeywordsTranslationcriteria;translationdisputeIntroductionInthe1930s,tobemoreprecise,from1927to1937thenewliteraturemadearapiddevelopmentandthetranslationliteraturewasalsoinprosperity.Thedisputeabouttranslationhasexitedalongtimeandduringthisperioditreacheditsunprecedentedclimax.ThemaincharactersofthisdisputeareLuXunandLiangShiqiu,stillmanyotherfamouswriterssuchasQuQiubai,LinYutang,ChenXiying,andZhaoJingshengotinvolvedinthedisputedirectlyorindirectly.Thisthesisdoesn’tattempttodigouttherealcausesoftheheateddebatebetweenLuXunandLiangShiqiuin1929.However,theauthorisgoingtointroducesomeideasaboutitfromtheperspectiveoftranslation.Onthesurface,thedisputewascenteredonthecriteriafortranslation.LiangShiqiuattackedLuXun’sliteraltranslation.Hecalleditthe"deadtranslations".AccordingtoLiangShiqiu,thiskindoftranslationwastotallyunintelligibletoreaders.LuXunjustadmittedthathewastranslatingina"hard'way.Hedefendedthathewasfaithfulnotonlytotheoriginalsbutalsotothereaders.LuXun,inreturn,accusedLiangShiqiuforsacrificingaccuracyforfluency.Comingalongwiththeseargumentswereridicule,derisiveandmaliciouspersonalattacks.Thisthesisholdsthatsofarastranslationisconcerned,therewasnofundamentaldifferencebetweenLuandLiang.Bothwouldliketohaveanaccurateandmorereadabletranslation.Therealdifferencebetweenthemwasthepoliticalstances.LuXun,in1929,turnedleft.SupportingtheCommunistcause,hestartedtotranslateMarxistliterarytheoriesandworks.Ontheotherhand,LiangShiqiubecameaclosefollowerofIrvingBabbitt,masterofNeo-Classicism,afterhisstudyingabroad.HecouldnottoleratethepoliticalagendabehindLuXun'stranslationactivities.Thisthesisisplannedtobypassallthepoliticalfactors.Theauthoronlymakesaretrospectandanalysisonthe1930s’disputefromtheperspectiveoftranslation.Thisthesisincludesthreeaspectsconcretely:thebriefintroductionaboutLuXunandLiangShiqiu,themaincontentofthedisputeandthesignificanceofthedispute.I.BriefIntroductionaboutLuXunandLiangShiqiuA.BriefIntroductionaboutLuXunLuXun,thefatherofmodernChineseliterature,wasbornonSeptember25th,1881,anddiedonOctober19th,1936.HewasafamousChinesewriter,athinkerandrevolutionist.HisoriginalnamewasZhouShurenandhewasborninarichandconservativefamilyinShaoxin,Zhejiang.Hisliterature'sbackgroundswerefocusedontheendofthefeudalismperiod.Whenhewasyoung,hewasinfluencedbythetheoryofrevolution,Nietzsche’ssuperhumanphilosophyandTolstoy’suniversallovethoughts.In1902,hestudiedabroadinJapan.HestudiedmedicineinXiantaiMedicalSchool.However,hedidn'tbecomeadoctorafterhewentbacktoChina.Hewasinfluencedbydifferentideasandsocialbackgrounds,whichmadehimgiveupbeingadoctoranddeterminetobeengagedintheliteraturework.Between1905and1907,heparticipatedintheLuXunwasoneofthegreatestwritersinChinaduring1880to1940.Inthisperiod,Chinawasintheperiodofrevolution.ThisspecialhistoricalbackgroundmadeLuXunacquiremanypositiveideaswhichhadbeensharedbytheChinese.Atthattime,thegovernmentwascorrupted.Hence,hewrotemanyarticlesandfictionstoreflectthesocietyofthatage.Therefore,thethemesofhisbooksareallarounddepravation.HismostfamousbooksareOutcry,Wandering,DiaryofaMadmanandDawnBlossomsPluckedatDust,etc.Duringhislifetime,hewrotealotofliteratureworkswhichweremorethan29kinds.HediedinShanghaiattheageoffifth-four.AfamouswriteratthesameperiodLaoShesaid:“LuXunwasgoodatnotonlythemodernliteraturebutalsotheclassicliterature.Hispoetrywasverygood,buthewasnotbelongingtoanykindsofoldtimes.Hehadhisownwayandstyle.Hewasinterestedineverything,nomatterthenewortheoldthings.Hecouldmakethejudgmentanytimewhenhestudies.”(Meizi,2006)Moreover,thefirstChairmanofChina,MaoZedongspokehighlyofhim,too.Hesaid:“LuXunistheoneofthegreatestpeopleofourtimeandheisalsoagreatpersonofnewChinajustthesameasthatConfuciusisagreatpersonofancientChina.”(HanShishan,2006)B.BriefIntroductionaboutLiangShiqiuLiangShiqiu,whoseoriginalnamewasLiangZhihua,wasbornonDecember8,1902,Beijing,anddiedonNovember3,1987,Taibei,Taiwan,Heisaprominentessayistandtranslator,thefirstpersonwhotranslatedTheWorksofShakespearefromEnglishintoChinese.HeattendedtheUniversityofColoradoasaseniorandthenmaderesearchatHarvardandColumbia.AtHarvard,wherehewasinfluencedbythecriticIrvingBabbitt,hewroteapaperinwhichheoutlinedtheromanticessencesofmodernChineseliteratureandsuggestedthatChineseliteratureshouldborrowfromtheformsofWesternliterature.LaterheexpandedtheseideasintoabookentitledTheRomanticandTheClassic.BythetimehereturnedtoChinain1926,LiangShiqiufeltstronglyabouttheaestheticandindependentpurposesofliterarycreation;andthushewasdenouncedbyleft-wingwriterswhofavoredamorepoliticalapproachtoliterature.Heandotherlike-mindedwriters,includingHuShiandXuZhimo,foundedtheCrescentMoonSocietyin1927andpublishedtheirideasinthejournalXinyue(“Crescent”).LiangShiqiutaughtEnglishliteratureatPekingUniversity(1934–1937)andworkedonhistranslationofTheWorksofShakespeareintovernacularChinesewhichwascompleteditin1967.Hebeganhisprosewritingin1940,whichwasduringtheSino-JapaneseWar.Acollectionofhisessays,YasheWorks(translatedasSketchesofaCottager),waspublishedin1949andhasbeenreprintedmorethan50times.WhenthecommuniststookcontrolofChinain1949,hemovedtoTaiwan.InadditiontohismanycriticalworksandhisrenditionofShakespeare,LiangShiqiuproducedanumberofotherexcellenttranslations,suchas,Hélo?se’sLoveLetters,PeterPan,andWutheringHeights.HealsowroteTheHistoryofBritishLiteratureLiangShiqiuwasaliterarycriticknownforhisdevastatingcritiqueofmodernromanticChineseliteratureandforhisinsistenceontheaesthetic.Literaryhistoriansrememberedhimchieflyforhisconservativeleaningandthefamous“warofwords”withLuXun,theacknowledgedleaderofleftistwriters.LiangShiqiuhascontributedalottothehistoryofChinesetranslation,too.LiangShiqiuwasyoungerthanLuXun.Atthattimehewasonly24yearsoldandhejustcamefromAmericaasanunknownperson.Therewerefewpeoplewhoknewhim.However,herefutedLuXun'stranslationtheorystronglyanddefinitely.Therefore,betweenLuXunandLiangShiqou,therebrokeoutadisputeontranslationcriteria.II.TheDisputeBetweenLuXunandLiangShiqiuIn1930sA.TheBackgroundoftheDisputeYanFu'stranslationcriteria“Faithfulness,expressivenessandelegance”hasbeenregardedasthestandardtranslationcriteriaallthetime,buttherewerestillmanypeoplewhohelddifferentviewsaboutit.Attheverybeginning,thesepeoplejustexpressedtheirownviewsabouttranslationanddidnotbringaboutdispute.Later,moreandmorepeopletookanactivepartinexpressingtheiropinions,andthenthedisputebrokeoutandreacheditsclimaxin1930s.LiangShiqiuwroteanarticlenamed"OnLuXun's'hardtranslation'"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999)andhepublisheditonCrescent,whichinitiatedthedispute.Later,ZhaoJingshenadvocatedhisviewabouttranslation,thatwas,"Itisbettertohaveasmoothversionthanafaithfulone"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).Then,LuXunrefuteditas“Rathertobefaithful(inthought)thansmooth(inlanguage)”(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).QuQiubainotonlysupportedLuXunbutalsoputforwardtheprincipleof"thecorrecttranslationshouldbedonewithvernacular"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).Inthearticle"OnLuXun's'hardtranslation'"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999),LiangShiqiupointedoutthatthestructureofsomesentenceswhichweretranslatedbyLuXunwerecomplicatedandhardtounderstand.HecriticizedLuXun’s‘hardtranslationasthe‘deadtranslation’,whichshouldbereadonlywithextendingfingersforseekingtheclueofthesyntaxposition.InLiangShiqiu'sopinion,thiskindoftranslationwastheworsttranslation.Atthesametime,ZhaoJingshenalsoopposedLuXun'stranslationcriteriaandmaintainedthat"Itisbettertohaveasmoothversionthanafaithfulone"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).Atonce,LuXunwrotemanyarticleswithpungentwords,suchas"HardtranslationandtheClassCharacterofLiterature","SeveralFlowingTranslations”etc.HerefutedLiangShiqiuandZhaoJingshen'spropositionsontranslationandhealsoproposedhisowntranslationcriteria,whichwas“Rathertobefaithful(inthought)thansmooth(inlanguage)”.Here,theauthorhastomentionapersonandheisQuQiubai.HehadoncewrittenalettertoLuXunandsignedhisnameasJ.Kinthatletter.Hecongratulatedthepublicationof"Destroy"atfirst.Meanwhile,healsopraisedLuXunforhisfaithfultranslation,criticizedLiangShiqiuandZhaoJingshen’stranslationtheory.QuQiubaisaid:“ThemodernlanguageinChinaispoorandmuchofthevernacularwascreatedfromthetranslation"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).Atthesametime，heobjectedtoLuXun'sviewoftranslation.Hesaid:“TranslationshouldintroducetheoriginalideaoftheoriginaltexttoChinesereaderstotally.TomaketheconceptthatChinesereadersreceiveequaltotheconceptthatreadersacquireinGreatBritain,Russia,Japan,GermanyandFrance"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).WhilecorrectingLuXun's"lumpy",QuQiubaipointedoutthathis"smooth"translationmeanttouse"vernacular".LikeQuQiubai,LuXunthoughtthatChineselanguagehadproblematicsyntaxandshouldabsorbfromtheforeignsyntaxforimprovement.However,QuQiubaithoughtthat“itwasveryimportanttoabsorbtheforeignsyntaxandformedChineseownsyntax.Onlyiftheunusualsentencesweresmooth,theycouldbeintroducedintoChineseandfullymixedwiththeChineselanguage.Iftheywerenot,itwasanirresponsibleattitudeforthereaders"(GuoZhuzhang,P193,1999).QuQiubai’sopinionwasthesameasLuXun’stosomeextent.AsregardtoLuXun's"Europeanization",LiangShiqiuofferedsharpoppositionby“AnsweringMr.LuXun"(LiZhao,P224,1997)and"Aletterabouttranslation"(GuoZhuzhang,P194,1999,).YeGongchaoalsopublishedmanyarticleson“Crescent”(GuoZhuzhang,P194,1999)tocriticizeLuXunandQuQiubai.Hesaid:“ThewesternlanguagesandChineselanguagehavetheirownfeatures.Itiswrongtothinkoneisbetterthananotheranditisimportanttofindthecomparison."(GuoZhuzhang,P194,1999)TheprotagonistsofthisdisputewereLuXun,LiangShiqiu,QuQiubaiandYeGongchao.Theyparticipatedinthedisputedirectly.ChenXiyingandLinYutanparticipatedinthedisputeindirectly,buttheyalsowrote"Talkabouttranslation"(GuoZhuzhang,P194,1999).ThoughZhaoJingshenparticipatedinthedisputedirectly,hisviewwasquicklydeniedbytheothers.B.TheMainContentoftheDisputeReferredtothedisputeoftranslationcriteriain1930s,itincludesfouraspectsasthefollows:1.ContradictionandUnificationbetweenFaithfulnessandExpressiveness;2.LiteralTranslationandLiberalTranslation;3.EuropeanizationandDomestication;4.Repetition.Inthefollowingpassages,theauthormakesabriefanalysisonthem.a.ContradictionandUnificationBetweenFaithfulnessandExpressivenessThefocusofthedisputewasthatLiangShiqiucriticizedLuXun's‘hardtranslation’andheproposedhisowntranslationtheory"Itisbettertohavesomefaultsratherthanthe'hardtranslation'"(GuoZhuzhang,P195,1999).ZhaoJingshen,professorofFudanUniversity,declareddirectlythat:“Itisbettertohaveasmoothversionthanafaithfulone”(GuoZhuzhang,P194,1999),whileLuXunandQuQiubairefutedtheopinionstrongly,LuXunputforwardhisviewabouttranslation,thatis,“Rathertobefaithful(inthought)thansmooth(inlanguage)”.InordertoenrichChina'ssyntax,LuXunproposeditwasnecessarytotransmittheoriginalworkfaithfully,includingthegrammarstructureoftheoriginaltext.Hethoughtthatonlybythiswaythetargettextcouldkeepthe‘foreignflavor’oftheoriginaltext.ThushistranslationwasEuropeanizedandtheordinaryreaderscouldn’tknowwellaboutitLuXundividedthereadersintothreekinds:thefirstwerethosewhowereeducated;thesecondwerethosewhowereliterate;thethirdwerethosewhowereilliterate.Heexcludedthethirdgroupofreadersfromhisreaders.Histranslationworkwasonlyforthereadersofthefirsttype.Hethoughtthatwhenthefirsttypeofreadersacceptedhistranslationhabitually,withthetimepassingonthesekindsoftranslationswouldbecomenaturaltothem.ItseemedthatLuXun’s“faithfulness”alsoincludedtheelementsofexpressiveness.Ifhissmoothnesswastakenasexpressiveness,hisopinionwasobviouslyirresponsibleforthereaders.QuQiubainotonlydisagreedwithLuXun's"Ratherbefaithfulthansmooth"butalsodisagreedwithZhaoJingshen's"Itisbettertohaveasmoothversionthanafaithfulone".Here,itseemedthatQuQiubairegardedLuXun's"lumpy"as"expressiveness".However,hethoughtthatonly"vernacular"couldachievethe"smoothness"and"expressiveness"(GuoZhuzhang,P195,1999).Intheviewofthereaders,LiangShiqiuandZhaoJingshenputmuchemphasison"expressiveness”.However,thisdoesn’tmeantheygaveupthe"faithfulness".Theyjustputthe"expressiveness"inthefirstplaceandthe"faithfulness"thesecond,whichmeansthatthe“expressiveness”ismoreimportantthan“faithfulness”insomerespects.Infact,LiangShiqiuwasfamousfor"faithfulness"andtheprincipleofhistranslationwas"tokeeployaltotheoriginaltext".Furthermore,hepaidmuchattentionto"expressiveness"too.Therefore,whenhecriticizedLuXun,hesaid:“Translationshouldbeloyaltotheoriginaltext.Ifthetranslationnotonlyre-expressthemeaningtotheoriginaltextbutalsowasfaithfultothe"tone",suchkindoftranslationmustbethebesttranslation.Sometimeseventhoughthetranslationcanmakethereadersunderstandbutthetranslatorshavemisinterpretedtheoriginaltext,thenthiskindoftranslatorswereintolerable.”(GuoZhuzhang,P195,1999)InYeGongchao'sopinion,ZhaoJingshenandLuXunwerebothright,whichseemedthat"faithfulness"and"expressiveness"wereawholeandthattheycouldn'tbedetached.LuXuninsistedonfaithfulness,whileLiangShiqiuinsistedonexpressiveness.Theyarebothright,but“faithfulness”and“Expressiveness”shouldbetakenasawholeunit.Iftheyarecombinedtogether,thiskindoftranslationisthebestone.b.LiteralTranslationandLiberalTranslationManypeopleemphasizedtheimportanceof"faithfulness"andthiskindoftranslationbelongedtotheliteraltranslation,Therefore,LuXun's"hardtranslation"wastakenastheliteraltranslationwhichfocusedonthetranslationwordbywordandsentencebysentence.Thebattlebetween"literaltranslation"and"liberaltranslation"hadcomeintobeingforalongtime.Itreacheditspeakinthedisputeinthe1930s,too.LuXunthoughtChinahadproblematicsyntaxandheadvocatedthe"literaltranslation",butasamatteroffacthisso-called"literaltranslation"alsohadtheexistenceof"liberaltranslation".Forexample,hetranslated"kneelatknee"into"跪下"andnevertranslateditinto"跪在膝蓋上".Anotherexamplewas"themilkyway".Hetranslateditinto"天河"butZhaoJingshenhastranslateditinto"牛奶路",whichwasprovedmuchbetterlater.ZhaoJingshenmaintainedthat"expressiveness"shouldcomefirst,while"faithfulness"thesecond.Obviously,heput"liberaltranslation"inthefirstplace.JustthesameasLiangShiqiu,mostofhistranslationworkswereonlyforthecommonreadersandhisviewontranslationwasbasedonthefoundationofthereader'sability.ThoughLiangShiqiucriticizedLuXun’s“hardtranslation”,hedidn’trecommended"liberaltranslation"openly.Infact,thevastmajorityofhistranslationappearedintheformofliteraltranslation.LiangShiqiuthought:“Badtranslation"shouldincludethefollowingthreeconditions:1.Donotconformtothemeaningoftheoriginaltext;2.Unabletoconveythe“tone”oftheoriginaltext;3.Unabletomakethereadersunderstandthetranslation.(GuoZhuzhang,P197,1999)Asregardstotheliteraltranslationandliberaltranslation,ChenXiying'sviewswerecompletelydifferentfromtheothers.Heagreedtoneitherliteraltranslationnorliberaltranslation.Heheldhisownopinionandhesaid:"‘liberaltranslation’whichwasequalto‘paraphrase’inEnglishdidnotmean"translation",whiletheEnglishnameof“直譯”is"literaltranslation".Thegreatsuccessoftranslationwastoconveytheoriginalmeaningoftheoriginaltextinthetargettext.Itisrequirednottoaddordeletesomethingfromtheoriginaltext."(GuoZhuzhang,P197,1999)Hecriticizedthe"literaltranslationand"liberaltranslation.Hethoughtthattheidealtranslationwasthetranslationwhichcouldtransmitthe"verve"oftheoriginaltextLinYutandidnotagreetothestatementof"literaltranslation"and"liberaltranslation"either.Hethoughtthedenominationoftheliteraltranslationandliberaltranslationwasimproper.Hegaveanexplicitexplanationinhisarticle"talkingabouttranslation"abouttheview(GuoZhuzhang,P197,1999).LuXuninsistedonthe“literaltranslation”,whileLiangShiqiupersistedinthe“liberaltranslation”.Here,theauthorwouldliketopointoutthat“literaltranslation”and“liberaltranslation”canbecombinedharmoniously,eventhoughsometimesLuXunandLiangShiqiuthemselvesavoidablyassociatewiththesetwokindsofwaystogether.c.EuropeanizationandDomesticationLuXuninsistedon"rathertobefaithful(inthought)thansmooth(inlanguage)”.Hesaid:“TherewassomethingwrongwithChina'ssyntax,whichwasnotaccurateenoughandsometimesincapableoftransmittingsomeexquisiteconceptsprecisely.”(GuoZhuzhang,P197,1999)ThushemaintainedthatitwasnecessarytointroducetheEuropeanizedstructureintheoriginaltextintoChineselanguage.Tosomeextent,eventhoughQuQiubaiagreedwithLuXun’sview,healsoputforwardthatitwasbettertowriteandtranslatewithvernacular.QuQiubaiandLuXundisagreedwitheachother.LuXundidn’tagreewithQuQiubai's"purestandardtheoryofvernacular",whileQuQiubaididn’tagreetoLuXun's"lumpy"either.IntermsofimprovingChinesesyntax,LuXundidn’tcompletelydenytheYanFu’stranslationcriteria.However,healsoknewthatitwasnotsoeasytoimprovetheChineseonlybyintroducingEuropeanizedsyntax.LinYutangsaid:“Nomatterwhatkindoflanguageitwas,itwaslumpybeforenationalizationandshouldnotbeexcludedfromthetranslation.”(GuoZhuzhang,P198,1999)QuQiubaiheldhisextremeview;hesaid:“ThespeechofChinawassopoor;evensomedailywordswereanonymous.Andwejustexpressthemwithgestures,itseemedthatourChineselanguagecouldn’tbreakawayfromthe"gestures"dailylifecouldn'tgoonwithout“gestures”,whichisthesameasthatfishcouldnotlivewithoutwater.Naturally,therewerenotadjectives,verbsandprepositionsinChineseandthatiswhytheycouldn’texpressthecomplicateandexquisitematters.”(GuoZhuzhang,P198,1999)ItisdifficulttodomesticatetheEuropeanizedsyntax.Eachlanguagehasitsowncharacteristic.Moreover,thedevelopmentofthelanguagedoesnotmerelydependonborrowingtheforeignwordsandonthecontraryitneedsalongandcomplicatedcourseforimprovement.LuXun’sEuropeanizationandLiangShiqiu’sDomesticationwerebothright,butifthe“Europeanization”and“Domestication”canbecombinedtogetherandthenthiskindoftranslationmaybethebestone.d.RepetitionThefourthaspectofthedisputewasrelatedtotherepetition.WhenLiangShiqiucriticizedLuXun's"hardtranslation",healsopointedoutthereasonswhichmadehistranslationworksdifficulttounderstand.MostofLuXun'stranslationworkswerenotbasedontheoriginaltext;hejusttranslatedfromtheothertranslatedversions.LiangShiqiucalledthiskindoftranslationas"retranslation",butLuXunandZhengZhenduocalleditas"repetition".LiangShiqiusaid:"Itwasnotagoodwaytoretranslatethoseworkswithliterarymeaning.Nomatterhowexcellentatranslatorwas,whenhistranslationversionwascomparedwiththeoriginalwork,itwasfoundthattheflavorhadbeenchangedalot."(GuoZhuzhang,P198,1999)ThoughLiangShiqiudidn’trecommendretranslation,sometimeshehimselfunavoidablyadoptedthiskindoftranslation.Forexample,hehastranslatedTheLoveLettersofthemonkPeterAbelardtoHeloise,whichwastranslatedformEnglishandtheoriginaltextwasLatin.LuXunexpressedhisownviewonretranslation,too.Hesaid:“Itiseasierfortranslatorstotranslatewithconversionratherthanliteraltranslation”.(GuoZhuzhang,P200,1999)III.TheSignificanceoftheDisputeNowadayswhenwepeoplerethinkthisdispute,itisfoundthatthedisputehasgreatrealisticsignificanceintranslationcircle.Thesetranslators’translationtheoriesandpracticalexperienceswereinvaluable.Thefollowingparttalksaboutthesignificanceofthedisputein1930s.Firstly,thedisputepromotesthe“re-cognition”oftranslationcriteria.YanFu’stranslationtheorywasfaithfulness,expressivenessandelegance,whichhasbeenconsideredasthecriteriaoftranslationformanyyears.ItiscorrectthatLuXungivesprioritytofaithfulness,but“expressiveness”shouldnotbeignored,either.Thetranslatorsshouldberesponsibleforthereaders.Theirtranslationworksshouldbebasedonthefoundationoftheloyaltytotheoriginaltext.Atthesametime,theyshouldstrengthenthereadabilityofthetranslationworks.AsRegardstoYanFu’s"elegance",therearemanypeoplewhohelddifferentopinions.Intheauthor’sownopinion,thetranslationshouldnotonlykeepthestyleoftheoriginaltextbutalsobebasedon“faithfulness”and“expressiveness”.Asfor“literaltranslation”and“liberaltranslation”,theywereindeedaunitwhichcouldn'tbedetached.Differentstylesoftheoriginaltextshouldemphasizeparticularlyondifferentpointsofthe"literaltranslation"and"liberaltranslation".Thetranslatorsshouldcombinethemtogether.Ifthetranslationmethodhelpstore-appearthestyleoftheoriginaltextaccuratelyandvividly,thiskindoftranslationmethodisthebestone.Whilereferredtothelanguageofthetranslation,itispossibletoborrowsomeEuropeanizedsyntaxproperlytoenrichChinesestepbystep.Secondly,thedisputehelpsstrengthentheresearchabouttranslation.Theresearchabouttranslationshouldbedeep,carefulandspecialized.Itisbetternottodrawaconclusionhurriedly.Meanwhile,itisrequiredtolearnandpreservetheachievementsandexperiencesthattheancestorshavemadebefore.Takingthedisputein1930sasanexample,forvariousreasons,alotoftranslatorswhohadcontributedalottothehistoryoftranslationwereignoredinthepast,someofthemwereevenmisunderstood.LiangShiqiuisthebestexample.LiangwasthefirstpersontotranslateTheWorksofShakespeareintoChinese.Inaddition,hehadtranslatedmorethantenkindsofotherfamousliteraryworks.However,whenhewasmentioned,peoplejustgavehimthemisjudgmentandforgothiscontribution.ChenXiyingandZhaoJingshenhadtranslatedmuchexcellentworksbeforeliberation,too.LuXun,thefatherofmodernChineseliterature,tillsnowthereisstillnothoroughandcompletestudyonhim.Therefor