Volume 8, No. 3

Xu Jun is one of the most outstanding scholars in the Chinese TS research field. His translational and academic achievements are multi-dimensional. This paper studies this multi-dimensionality of the major contributions that Xu has made to contemporary translation studies in China, in his role as a prolific translator of French literature, and a productive translation critic and theorist. By examining his trajectory of integrating first-hand experience as a translation practitioner with his deep understanding of translation as a theorist, it is possible to see in Xu and his TS contributions a very fitting example of how, with gift, capability, academic upbringing and diligence, good translation practitioners can be innovative translation theorists at the same time, and vice versa.

Translation plays an important and particular role in the development of human civilization. Translation criticism is one of key factors for whether translation activities could be carried out scientifically as well as effectively. For a long time, translation criticism has faced two major tasks: on the practical level, translation criticism should always be present therefore engaged in translation activities; on the theoretical level, translation criticism should constantly bolster its own theoretical construction. Xu Jun has long been paying attention to translation criticism, as a firm practical presence and a determined theoretical explorer, he has made remarkable contributions to deepening the study of translation criticism and boosting translation criticism to demonstrate its awaited value. An analysis of Xu Jun’s actions and pursuits in the field of translation criticism is conducive for us to further revealing translation criticism’s core issues and grasping its fundamental demands, to promote the healthy and prosperous development of China’s translation cause with translation criticism’s leading and constructive power.

Translation view is an important internal factor that determines translation behavior and realization of translation values. It is present in every subject involved in translation activities but may not necessarily be aware of. As a distinguished translation professional being quite conscious of his own translation view, Xu Jun takes serving human culture as the ultimate goal of translation activities and emphasizes the presence of spiritual subjectivity in them. His cultural view not only guides his own translation behavior, but also becomes a leading force in the field of Chinese translation studies. During a time when technology challenges the subjectivity of human translators, investigating Xu Jun’s cultural view on translation and the inner mechanism of his achievement will hopefully help many contemporary translation professionals to realize how to give full play to human subjectivity and manifest values of translation in their respective translation activities.

In the new era, the “going global” of Chinese literature serves as a major force in the promotion of Chinese culture “going global,” elevating the significance of literary translation to an unprecedented level. Xu Jun attaches great importance to the integrity of theory and practice of literary translation, carries out theoretical innovation to guide translation practices, and explores the fundamental questions and essential features of translation in a scientific and contemporary manner, achieving remarkable success. This paper aims at summarizing the successful experiences of his practices and theoretical studies in literary translation, drawing the outline of a great translator with a strong sense of responsibility, mission and humanistic sentiment who advances with the times, providing useful guidance for domestic translation practices, and serving the cultural development of China more clearly, effectively and with higher quality.

In 1983, the renowned contemporary French writer and 2008 Nobel Prize in Literature laureate, Le Clézio, began his “poetic adventure” in China with the Chinese translation of his work Desert. Xu Jun, one of Le Clézio’s earliest translators in China, has played a pivotal role in introducing and studying Le Clézio’s works, creating a classic case of literary translation and reception. This dynamic process, characterized by the original author’s “call” and the translator’s “response,” facilitated through equal exchanges grounded in mutual trust and respect, exemplifies the essence of cross-cultural communication in translation. This collaborative endeavor has not only led to a deeper mutual understanding of each other’s cultures but also contributed to the maturation of the translator’s perspective on translation and the author’s ongoing exploration of new literary possibilities. Le Clézio’s poetic adventure in China illuminates the potential of world literature as envisioned by the author.

Throughout nearly half a century of his translation journey, Xu Jun has accumulated extensive translation experience and gained an increasingly profound understanding of translation activities. He advocates that the outstanding literary translators should excel at discovering and establishing classics. At the same time, Xu Jun places emphasis on the interaction between translation practice and translation theory. He has undertaken a comprehensive contemplation and exploration of the intrinsic features and values of translation, highlighting that the translators should adhere to ethical principles, recognize, respect, and reproduce the differences between various languages and cultures. In the new historical era, Xu Jun further deepens his understanding of translation, maintaining that it should be carried out with an open spirit and creative force, bearing the historical mission of safeguarding the world’s cultural diversity, and strive to promote cultural exchanges and mutual enlightenment between China and other countries.

Regarding Terry Eagleton’s The Idea of Culture, two issues are still worth exploring. First, what is the main thread that runs throughout the book? Second, in what way can we explain the tension between the “common culture,” which Eagleton emphasizes on the one hand, and the culture that Eagleton describes as having grown “immodest and overweening” on the other hand? Many people have misinterpreted Eagleton’s views and claimed that, to him, the importance of culture is on the wane. Is that true? In order to answer that question, we need to deem as a point of entry what Eagleton calls “culture in crisis.” Although his idea of “common culture” is derived from Raymond Williams, Eagleton has further developed the theory of common culture into which he has incorporated the element of “taste.” He sees taste as tantamount to the “commonality of belief and action,” and it is precisely this kind of public spirit that constitutes the quintessence of common culture.

The Compilation and Interpretation of The Zuo Commentary is an important work written by Yasui Ichihin in the Meiji period of Japan, which has well annotated the classics and commentaries on The Spring and Autumn Annals through gathering all the opinions about it. Yasui Ichihin had completed it after extensively collecting and intensively studying the literature for nearly two decades, hoping that through exploring Confucian classics, it could be applied to administering the country and benefiting the people. This book is elaborate in the commentaries but brief in the classics, paying much attention to textual research and refusing to adopt the views of the schools of Gongyang and Guliang. The author had critically dealt with the research results of scholars in the past dynasties based on the principle of seeking truth from facts. The book draws on the strengths of others and always gives lots of unique insights, and it is mainly characterized byits extensive citations, independent insights, and the combination of textual research and discussion. In a word, it has an important position and influence in the history of studies of The Zuo Commentary on Spring and Autumn Annals.

Although postmodern historical metafiction has been criticized for manipulating collective memory and voiding “official” history, literariness is where the legitimacy of postmodern historical metafiction as a literary category and a critical paradigm lies. Compared with other literary categories, the literary nature of postmodern historical metafiction is reflected in the fact that it is not only a double fiction of language, but also a “false” art of subject marginalization; it replaces the worship of “Zeitgeist” with the worship of technology, and opens the door to the “counterfactuals” and “possible worlds.” Moreover, the multiple temporal shaping in the writing and reading of the text—the multiple temporal manipulation through “time dislocation,” “big history,” and “rhythmic time”—is also a literary feature of postmodern historical metafiction. As far as reading strategies are concerned, readers should focus on the present nature of the text’s self-imposed time and “unread questions,” and on the discovery of new ethical landscapes rather than textual meanings.