Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(25.12, the differences with the original in 25.3 are underlined. The differ-
ence in punctuation between the two fragments is from Johnston).
MOZI 497
there is no reason not to do this in the translation. For some readers this might ap-
pear boring, but for the Mohists it is simply a matter of argumentative clarity.
13
2. Mozis repetitive style
A less explicit but much more current case of repetition in the Mozi is when parallel
or converse cases are being discussed, very often in exactly the same terms. This is
the repetitive style which Johnston correctly attributes to Mozi and wants to preserve
in his translation. However, a quick reading of Johnstons work shows that he very
often does not preserve it, and without giving any reason. For example, in chap-
ter 11 Exalting Unity I, the Mohist author warns against situations in which
people fail to conform upward:
14
If what ones superiors take to be right cannot
be taken to be right and what ones superiors take to be wrong cannot be taken to
be wrong , , , (11.2, pp. 92-93), then the
administrators and the people will duly condemn this situation. In chapter 12 of
the same triad, the author makes exactly the same point in exactly identical word-
ing, but not in Johnstons translation: If you are unable to approve of what your
superior approves of, if you are unable to condemn what your superior con-
demns (12.3, pp. 100-101). One wonders why he does so. Another example oc-
curs in the Against Fate triad, where evil kings are quoted being unable to ad-
mit that wo ba or wu ba . Throughout the triad this recurrent quote is
variously translated as: We are weak and I am weak (35.9, pp. 326-327), I
am careless (36.4, pp. 334-335), We are indolent (36.5, pp. 334-335; 37.4,
pp. 342-343) and I have been careless (37.4, pp. 340-341). And finally, in the
same triad, the Great Oath chapter of the Book of Documents is quoted in which
the tyrant Zhou of the Shang dynasty went so far as to claim that he himself was
Fate / (35.10, pp. 326-327), while one chapter further the same
quote sounds, translated more appropriately: that his people had Fate (36.6, pp.
335-336). Such cases are not exceptional in this translation. And although the dif-
ference in meaning is usually not as striking as in this last case, it is unclear why
Johnston has chosen to bring in so much variety into the repetitive Mohist style.
3. Translation of key-terms
It is an illusion, of course, to expect a one-to-one translation of each term through-
out a whole book: characters stand for various words in different contexts and
therefore often need to be translated differently. But sometimes, when the author is
13
For a similar case, where the author quotes a previous statement (), see 35.6, pp.
322-325.
14
Johnston does not think that shang tong (used interchangeably with ) is an adverb-
verb construction (conforming upward), but rather a verb-object construction (exalting
unity) (xxxix), but he does not always translate it as such in the triad named after it: agree-
ment with superiors and align with their superiors (11.2, pp. 92-93), have respect for, and
uniformity with (11.4, pp. 94-95), respecting and being in accord with (11.4, pp. 96-97),
respect, and make themselves like (11.5, pp. 96-97).
CARINE DEFOORT 498
making an argument or repeating a line, it is good to show that he is discussing the
same term or concept. For Mohists trying to come up with clear arguments, this is
all the more important. Therefore Johnston sometimes announces that he will trans-
late one or more terms in a consistent fashion. For instance, in the Exalting
Unity triad, the argument is that subjects on the lower echelons of the political hi-
erarchy should follow their superiors or leaders above. In this context, Johnston
announces: I have rendered , both here and subsequently, government lead-
ers, i.e., (11.2, p. 92, note 7). In the same fragment, however, he trans-
lates zheng zhang as effective rule (11.2, pp. 90-91); in the following two
chapters of the same triad he translates / variously as government (12.1,
pp. 98-99), a leader (12.2, pp. 98-99), the leaders (12.3, pp. 100-101), ad-
ministrative leaders and government (12.7, pp. 106-107), government lead-
ers (12.8, pp. 106-107; 12.9, pp. 108-109; 12.10, pp. 110-113;), political lead-
ers (12.9, pp. 109-110), leaders of government (12.10, pp. 110-111; 12.11, pp.
112-113; 13.2, pp. 118-119), and leaders (12.10, pp. 110-111). In a similar
fashion, the translator announces in chapter 14, Universal Love I: I have ren-
dered as disadvantage, reserving harm for (14.2, p. 131, note I), but
does not extend this translation of the two characters (ku and hi) consistently to
the rest of the triad (see e.g., 16.1, pp. 146-147).
4. Consistent use of terms
Even when the translator does not announce his intention to translate a term consis-
tently, the argument itself sometimes demands it within the context of one frag-
ment, chapter or triad. While the instances in which Johnston does not follow this
rule are legion, I limit myself to one example: the three well-known standards cri-
teria, tests (alternatively called yi /, biao or fa ) against which claims
are to be tested according to the Mohists: the documents of ancient kings, witness
accounts, and benefit for the state. In chapter 35, the first in the Against Fate
triad, Mozi insists: You must establish standards. To speak without standards is
like using the upper part of a potters revolving wheel to determine the direction of
the sunrise and sunset. The distinction between right and wrong, between benefit
and harm cannot be achieved and clearly known. Therefore, theories must have
three criteria
(35.3, pp. 318-319).
15
It is commonly
known that the Mohist authors sometimes use these three tests to make their point
in specific debates, such as about the existence, percipience and capacities of
ghosts. Chapter 31, Percipient Ghosts, having adduced proof for the existence of
ghosts from the ancient books (standard 1), goes on with a detailed record of a
ghost visiting Duke Mu with the good news that his life will be prolonged because
15
The three standards are introduced, with minor variations, in the Against Fate triad. For the
variations, see Johnston (lxii-lxiv). About the translation cannot be achieved and clearly
known for bu ke de er ming zhi ye , see below, category 5.
MOZI 499
of his shining virtue. This case of witness experience by the duke is thus presented
as the second standard (). But Johnston, for some inexplicable reason, translates
the term here as genuine: If we take what Duke Mu of Zheng saw in person as
genuine, how can we doubt the existence of ghosts and spirits?
? (31.5, pp. 282-283).
5. Grammatical matters
A last category of comments gathers eight points on which I believe Johnstons
translation is problematic. Whenever possible, I use Edwin Pulleyblanks gram-
mar as a presumably relatively accepted reference.
16
I have selected problems that
occur regularly in the translation, and illustrate each of them with one example.
The particle suo is often translated in a sloppy fashion, which influences
the translation. Since the particle su often stands for the object of a (co)verb in a
nominalization (Pulleyblank, p. 68), the sentence suo xin zhe bu zhong
should not be translated as When those who are sincere are not trusted (5.1,
pp. 30-31) but rather as when those whom he [the ruler] trusts are not loyal,
the danger being that this ruler trusts the wrong people, and not merely that he
fails to trust the good people.
The particle qi does not just indicate a rhetorical question, but also the
expectation of a negative answer (Pulleyblank, p. 142). In Johnstons translation,
this is often not the case. For example, in Moderation in Funerals III, Mozi
counters the defence of elaborate funerals as being age-old customs in the central
states, with the example of a backward cannibalistic custom that expects people to
eat their first born son. If this policy were to be continued and respected as a cus-
tom, how could this then be the Way of real benevolence and righteousness?!
? Johnstons translation as then are they the Way of true
benevolence and righteousness? (25.14, pp. 228-229) fails to captivate the im-
plied rejection in the rhetorical question.
Both in classical and modern Chinese, bu ruo does not mean not be
like but expresses the stronger sense of not being as good as or not able to
compare with (Pulleyblank, p. 175). In this translation, this is often not the
case. For instance, when Mozi complains about those in charge not caring as
much (bu ruo) for their states and families as they do for smaller items, Johnston
translates: So the kings, dukes or great officers concern for his state is not like
his concern [sic] the overly stiff bow, or the sick horse, or the garment, or the ox
and sheep
(10.2, pp. 82-85, italics added).
Aside from the meaning although and even if, the particle sui can
also precede a noun or nominalised construction, meaning even (Pulley-
blank, p. 157). This must be the case in the chapter Exalting Worthiness II,
where the authors list all the current disasters following from the mistaken policy
16
Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar (Vancouver 1995).
CARINE DEFOORT 500
of not employing the most worthy officials, indicating that powerful kings in the
past have also suffered from this. Johnstons concessive clause not only fails to
make clear sense, but it also fails to indicate that the reason why even those
kings went to ruin, was exactly this. He writes: So, although the tyrannical
kings of the Three Dynasties of former times Jie, Zhou, You and Li lost their
kingdoms and overturned the altars of soil and grain, it was for this reason
alone.
(9.4, pp. 68-69).
The verb wei followed by an adjective is used to express a superlative
(Pulleyblank, p. 25) as in chapter Heavens Intentions II, where Mozi does not
simply state that Heaven is noble, Heaven is wise (27.2, pp.
246-247) but where he insists that it is the most noble and the most wise. Not
only the verb wi indicates this, but also the previous sentence in which Mozi
claims that he does not know of anything nobler or wiser.
The expression yi X wei Y means to regard/take X as Y, which
gave rise to the verb yiwei to think (Pulleyblank, p. 49). Johnston some-
times translates neither of these two expressions, as in Exalting Unity, where it
is said that the ruling hierarchy was expanded because they considered the world
vast and wide (in Johnstons translation: because the world was
vast and wide, 11.2, pp. 92-93, italics added). In the following chapter of the
same triad, it is said that once the Son of Heaven was established, he (or they)
thought that with the experience of his ears and eyes alone, he would not be able
on his own to unify the sense of rightness in the world
(in Johnstons translation: his ears and eyes were such that,
on his own, he was not able to bring unity to the principles of the world, 12.2,
pp. 98-99, italics added).
The preceding adverb qualifies the following one. In the triad quoted above,
bian is preceded and hence qualified by wei , but in Johnstons translation
it is the other way around, which seriously impinges upon the translation. The
Mohists explain that in the perfect political hierarchy of antiquity, everything was
known to the ruler, whether it was something good or bad: even if his family
members did not quite know it all, and if the district or village had not quite
heard it all , the Son of Heaven would invariably
reward or punish the person respectively. (in Johnstons translation: although
family members were completely unaware of it and district and village had not
heard of it at all, 12.11, pp. 112-113, italics added). The Mozi does not claim
that they were completely unaware of it, but merely that they did not quite
know/hear it all.
Finally, the expression ke de er X means to get to do something
(Pulleyblank, p. 46). Johnston very often gives the verb d a full translation,
which has an unfortunate impact on the meaning of the fragment. For instance, in
Against Fate I, Master Mozi insists on installing standards in order to adjudi-
cate between different views. If you fail to do this, the difference between right
MOZI 501
and wrong, or between benefit and harm cannot be clearly known
. Johnston translates the last part as cannot be achieved
and clearly known (35.3, pp. 318-319, italics added).
Johnston or other scholars might of course want to take issue with some of the
points mentioned above: in academia there is always room for debate. My dis-
agreement with Johnston is not so much on the content or value of the Mozi; nor
do we disagree on the importance of his style. But Johnston does not succeed in
his proclaimed attempt to respect this style. In many ways this translation seems
to be a promising draft version that for some reason was hurried through the publi-
cation process. There are many indications that confirm this impression of haste:
the different interpunction of the Chinese text and its translation, the occurrence
of untranslated Chinese comments in the footnotes, the occasional lack of page
indication of the used sources, and some missing translations.
17
Despite these
drawbacks, I truly appreciate Johnstons attempt to provide a complete translation
of this very thick and valuable ancient Chinese book. For those who want to get a
general overview of the Mozi and Mohism, this is a valuable source of informa-
tion. But for those scholars who want to use the Mozi in more detail, I would
suggest that they consult other translations too.
17
E.g., bu (in 5.4, pp. 34-35) and zuo chu you du (in 35.7, pp. 324-325).