Legal Significance of Communicating Between Two Worlds: An Initial Exploration of the Introduction of Western Law in the Late Qing Dynasty and the Emergence of New Legal Terms

Author: Wang Jian
Publisher:
Publication Date: 2001-10-01
Features: The legal evolution of modern China holds special academic significance because this period marks the break and end of traditional governance models that had endured for thousands of years, and also signifies the birth of a brand-new modern legal system in China. Although our institutional evolution in previous history was not entirely self-generated, as some argue, none of the external influences were as intense and widespread as those since the late Qing Dynasty. In the early 20th century, the Qing court issued an edict to reform the legal system. Initially, this transformation seemed merely a temporary measure, but ultimately, it led to a cultural choice, with the political and legal systems of the aging empire being replaced by Western-style institutions. Western legal norms, principles, theories, and concepts were continuously disseminated in China, manifesting as a series of terms, yet more than just words. Through constant introduction, reading, memory, and mass replication by modern media, as well as modern legal education, they have become part of our own knowledge. Even in this process, we have lost our original memory of our own history, such as how contemporary historians of Chinese legal history cannot escape the foreign terms and the various concepts and principles behind them. From a broader perspective, the process of a nation translating and accepting the terms of another alien culture can be seen as a form of cultural assimilation. Translation, first and foremost, is the conversion of linguistic symbols. In the process, it is evident that translators must face the challenge of expressing the meaning and style of the original text as completely and accurately as possible. Of course, this is not an easy task. Mr. Qian Zhongshu used the metaphor of travel: "From the initial departure to the final arrival, this is a very arduous journey. Along the way, one encounters and risks, inevitably losing some things or sustaining damage. Therefore, translations often deviate from the original or lose their essence, diverging in meaning or tone from the source text." (Revised edition of Seven Knots, Shanghai, 1994, p. 80). Such difficulties are not limited to literary translation but also apply to the translation of legal texts. Moreover, "loss" and "damage" may only be negative omissions; the translation process can also introduce positive additions. Translated terms may carry meanings that the original words do not, much like the Roman legal term "accessio" (addition). However, we can delve deeper into this issue by transforming the title of this book from a declarative statement into a question: Can people communicate the legal meaning between two worlds through translation? In our daily use of bilingual dictionaries, when we encounter an unfamiliar term in a foreign text, we always turn to the dictionary to understand it. This gives us a sense or illusion that there are always equivalent synonyms between different languages. Borges said: "Dictionaries are based on the assumption—an obviously unverified assumption—that language is composed of equivalent synonyms." Yet, can such correspondences be verified in translation? From Nietzsche to Foucault, to the more recent scholars who have made "the politics of translation" a (see Language and the Politics of Translation, edited by Xu Baoqiang and Yuan Wei, Central, 2001), have all raised thought-provoking questions about this. In the case studies of legal term translation since modern times presented in this book, it is not difficult to find such evidence. Simply put, Western legal vocabulary is imbued with the cultural spirit of the West, and their Chinese translation can be seen as the process of Western legal concepts controlling the users. Are we being controlled? This statement may sound quite harsh—more harsh is the claim that we are "colonized." But how can we not be controlled? When such a vocabulary list cannot be escaped, even if it is not translation but writing, to what extent can that writing be distinguished from translation? Of course, in rare cases—often in metaphysical discussions—we still see examples of writing in classical Chinese. However, the deliberate avoidance of "contamination" by Western terms clearly indicates that the author is particularly influenced by foreign vocabulary. To step back, even if writing is not controlled by foreign terms, what kind of control does writing in classical Chinese imply, given the vocabulary and the cultural power behind it? Although this book focuses on textual research and often stops short of theoretical analysis, the meticulous of the origins of the various legal terms we take for granted today holds great academic significance and can inspire further reflection. During the reading process, I suddenly had an idea: in another hundred years, the terms we have now accepted and seem firmly established might become completely transformed. "The future will look back on us as we look back on the past"—is this not a warning!