FAHIMEH SABEGHI
Abstract
AbstractThe Gulistan by Sa’di has been officially translated into Chinese four times: twice by Muslim translators and twice by non-Muslim translators, one of them was indirectly translated from English and the other directly from Persian. Despite the text’s historical importance in ...
Read More
AbstractThe Gulistan by Sa’di has been officially translated into Chinese four times: twice by Muslim translators and twice by non-Muslim translators, one of them was indirectly translated from English and the other directly from Persian. Despite the text’s historical importance in China’s Muslim Community, these translations have not yet undergone systematic analysis or comparison. This study examines these translations, evaluating linguistic and structural inconsistencies, omissions, and additions compared to the original Persian text. Using Gholamhossein Yousefi’s edited version as the reference, the translations were analyzed on lexical and syntactic levels and assessed for structural fidelity, including the inclusion and arrangement of stories.The study applied a comparative analytical method, evaluating each part in the Chinese translations against the original Persian text. Key research questions addressed the linguistic accuracy of these translations, conceptual errors, and the influence of the translators’ cultural and religious backgrounds on the Quality of translation. Findings reveal significant issues in four areas: pronoun gender shifts, mistranslations of names and places, interpretive additions by translators, and structural modifications, such as story omissions or rearrangements. Surprisingly, non-Muslim translators, owing to their methodological rigor, produced translations closer to the original text, whereas Muslim translators, influenced by religious considerations, introduced more deviations.The study underscores the importance of revisiting classical Persian works translated into Chinese, advocating collaboration between Iranian scholars and Chinese translators to enhance the fidelity and accessibility of such translations for Chinese readers. IntroductionThe masterpiece of Persian classical literature, Gulistan by Sa’di, has profoundly influenced Chinese culture, particularly within the Muslim community, for centuries. Since the early eighth century AH (14th century CE), it has been a foundational text in the curriculum of Islamic schools across China, serving as a critical resource for teaching Persian. Despite its historical and educational significance, the Gulistan's first official Chinese translation appeared only in 1947, produced by Akhund Wang, a Muslim scholar. Three subsequent translations followed, authored by Shui Jianfu, Yang Wanbao, and Zhang Hongnian.This study is the first comprehensive comparative analysis of these four Chinese translations. Its primary objective is to evaluate their linguistic and structural alignment with the Persian original as edited by Gholamhossein Yousefi and to examine the influence of the translators’ cultural, religious, and methodological orientations. The research addresses key questions: How do the translations differ linguistically and conceptually? What errors, omissions, or interpretive deviations exist, and how do these affect the conveyance of Sa’di’s ideas? To what extent do the translators’ cultural and religious backgrounds shape their decisions? Finally, which translation best preserves the Gulistan's literary and thematic essence? Literature ReviewAlexander Jabbari (2020) explores cultural and political adaptations in Yang Wanbao's 2000 Chinese translation of Gulistan, emphasizing alignment with Confucian, Buddhist, and state ideologies. Sara Almasie (2018) examines the accuracy of Quranic verses in Gulistan's Chinese translations. This study uniquely compares four translations directly with the Persian text, addressing gaps in prior research. MethodologyTo answer these questions, the study employs a comparative analytical approach. Each translation was analyzed story by story, with reference to Yousefi’s authoritative edited version of the Gulistan. The analysis focuses on linguistic features, such as word choice, syntax, and stylistic nuances, as well as structural considerations like the organization and sequencing of stories. Additionally, it evaluates cultural and ideological fidelity, assessing how closely each translation reflects Sa’di’s intent while considering the translators’ interpretations and contextual adaptations. By identifying recurring patterns and unique characteristics, the study provides insights into the translators’ strategies and challenges. DiscussionThe findings reveal significant variations in linguistic precision and structural fidelity across the translations. Muslim scholars Akhund Wang and Yang Wanbao introduced ideological modifications and cultural adaptations that often diverge from the original text. For example, their translations frequently altered or omitted stories they perceived as conflicting with the moral and religious values of Chinese Muslim communities. Common issues include changing the gender of pronouns, mistranslating names and places, and adding interpretive commentary that shifts the meaning of the text. While these choices reflect the translators’ cultural and religious priorities, they compromise the fidelity of their work to Sa’di’s original language and themes. In contrast, translations by non-Muslim scholars Shui Jianfu and Zhang Hongnian demonstrate greater methodological rigor and a stronger commitment to textual accuracy. Shui Jianfu’s translation, based on Edward Eastwick’s English rendering rather than the Persian original, benefits from Eastwick’s detailed annotations and contextual explanations, resulting in a relatively accurate transmission of Sa’di’s ideas. However, Zhang Hongnian’s translation, rendered directly from Persian, stands out as the most precise and comprehensive. With deep expertise in Persian studies, Zhang captures both the linguistic subtleties and literary essence of the Gulistan. ConclusionThe study highlights the evolving quality of the Gulistan's Chinese translations over time. Akhund Wang’s pioneering 1947 translation reflects the limited resources and linguistic tools available in mid-20th-century China. It contains numerous omissions, interpretive rewritings, and structural inconsistencies, making it less reliable as a faithful representation of the original text. Yang Wanbao’s later work claims to be the most complete Chinese translation but suffers from significant errors, including incorrect pronoun usage, stylistic inconsistencies, and deviations from the tone of Sa’di’s prose. By contrast, the non-Muslim translators, particularly Zhang Hongnian, demonstrate that linguistic expertise and methodological precision are more critical than cultural or religious affinity in producing high-quality translations of Persian literature. This study identifies four primary categories of translation issues: changes in gendered pronouns, mistranslation of proper nouns, addition of interpretive commentary, and alterations in the sequence or number of stories. These categories are analyzed in relation to the translators’ cultural and ideological motivations. The findings suggest that Muslim translators, driven by a desire to align the Gulistan with Islamic values, made deliberate modifications that sometimes undermined textual fidelity. Conversely, non-Muslim translators, unencumbered by such ideological constraints, were better able to maintain the integrity of Sa’di’s original intent and literary style. Ultimately, this research underscores the importance of revisiting and refining Chinese translations of Persian classics, particularly the Gulistan, through collaborative efforts between Iranian and Chinese scholars. While the Gulistan holds an enduring place in Chinese literary and educational traditions, its translations reveal the complexities of conveying Persian literary and cultural heritage to Chinese audiences.In conclusion, this study provides a valuable framework for future research on Persian-Chinese literary translations. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of existing translations, it calls for a more nuanced and collaborative approach to promoting Persian literature in Chinese cultural contexts. The enduring relevance of Sa’di’s Gulistan lies not only in its literary brilliance but also in its potential to foster deeper cross-cultural understanding through improved translation practices.