Motaleat-e-zaban-e-farsi

Motaleat-e-zaban-e-farsi

A Genealogy of a Century of Translation and Reinterpretation of Khayyam’s Quatrains in China

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Hanwen Shao
Persian Department of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,Guangzhou, China
10.22034/jmzf.2026.593256.1284
Abstract

1. Introduction
The quatrains of the sage Omar Khayyam entered the cultural and literary sphere of China at the beginning of the twentieth century and, over more than a century, gave rise to numerous translations. The earliest Chinese translators generally encountered not the Persian text itself, but Edward Fitzgerald’s English translation; a translation that was itself a form of poetic recreation through the selection, omission, amalgamation, and rearrangement of the quatrains. From the 1980s onward, with the expansion of academic instruction in the Persian language, direct translation from the Persian text and textual scholarship gained importance. The writings of Bakhtiar and Sabeqi have also highlighted the differences between translations based on Fitzgerald and direct renderings from Persian. The aim of the study is to reconstruct the genealogy of these translations and to explain the effects of the intermediary language, poetic norms, and academic institutions on the reinterpretation of Khayyam. The main questions are how this genealogy was formed, what relationships were established among the translations, how Fitzgerald’s mediation transformed the image of Khayyam, and how direct translation contributed to the systematization of knowledge.

2. Methodology
The research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and a genealogical approach. The research corpus encompasses important Chinese translations and writings concerning the quatrains from 1919 to the contemporary period. The source language, date of publication, and position of the translator of each translation were identified, and its relationship with Fitzgerald or Persian sources was compared. In addition, the historical and institutional contexts of each period were examined in order to explain changes in translation norms and the social position of translators within the target culture. The theoretical framework draws upon Lefevere’s concept of rewriting, Toury’s translation norms and notion of directness in translation, Venuti’s domestication, Bourdieu’s field theory, and Damrosch’s circulation of world literature. Accordingly, the two combined axes of “mediated rewriting” and “systematization of knowledge” were employed to analyze the reception of the quatrains.

3. Discussion
The findings show that Fitzgerald’s translation functioned in China as a “secondary original.” He rearranged the independent Persian quatrains and established an image of Khayyam as a skeptical, pleasure-seeking poet influenced by the intellectual crisis of the Victorian era. Consequently, the initial reception of the quatrains in China had a structure of dual mediation. Hu Shi employed one quatrain in the service of the experience of modern poetry, while Guo Moruo rewrote Fitzgerald’s translation in the language of China’s new poetry. Xu Zhimo and Wen Yiduo emphasized meter and musicality; Wu Mi placed the quatrains in the classical form of four-line, seven-syllable verse; and Huang Kesun, through “generative translation,” transformed cultural images into elements familiar to the Chinese tradition. These differences stemmed from different poetic positions and cultural needs.
From the 1980s onward, Zhang Hongnian’s translation from the Persian text marked a turning point. His work introduced issues of manuscripts, the authenticity of the quatrains, the identity of the author, and the Persian literary tradition into the translation, and reintroduced Khayyam as a mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. This shift represented a transition from norms of acceptability in the target culture toward a greater orientation toward adequacy with respect to the source text. Nevertheless, direct translation was not merely the result of the translator’s individual ability; Persian-language programs, Iranian studies centers, academic journals, and scholarly connections with Iran provided a new mechanism for the production and legitimation of knowledge.

4. Conclusion
The study demonstrated that the history of the translation of the quatrains in China has developed from rewriting based on an intermediary language toward direct translation. Mediated rewriting and the systematization of knowledge cannot be placed in a hierarchical opposition of inferior and superior: the former model played a role in the literary dissemination and recreation of the quatrains, while the latter emphasized a return to the Persian text and a historical understanding of the work. The coexistence of these two paths demonstrates that the history of translation is simultaneously a history of the reinterpretation of a text within poetic, cultural, and scholarly contexts. This study outlines the principal contours of this genealogy and leaves the examination of reader reception, the publishing market, and new translations to future research.


Keywords
Keywords: Omar Khayyam
s Rubāʿiyyāt
translation
Khayyam&‌rsquo
s Rubāʿiyyāt in China
mediated rewriting
systematization of knowledge
کتاب­شناسی  
الف: منابع فارسی
1)      بختیار، مظفر(1371)، «چند کتاب در زمینۀ زبان و ادبیات فارسی به زبان چینی»، نشریۀ آینده، سال هجدهم، شماره‌های ۷  ـ12، صص ۳۷۵–۳۷۶.
2)      سابقی، علی ­محمد (1385)، «ترجمه‌های رباعیات عمر خیام به زبان چینی»، نشریۀ نامۀ پارسی، شمارۀ ۴۱، صص. ۳۱–۴۲.
 
ب: منابع انگلیسی
1)      Bloom, H. (1994). The Western canon: The books and school of the ages. Harcourt Brace.
2)      Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (R. Johnson, Ed.). Columbia University Press.
3)      Çelikkol, A. (2013). Secular pleasures and FitzGerald’s Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Victorian Poetry, 51(4), 511–532.
4)      Damrosch, D. (2003). What is world literature? Princeton University Press.
5)      Davis, D. (1989). Introduction. In O. Khayyám, The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám (E. FitzGerald, Trans., pp. 1–43). Penguin Books.
6)      Khayyam, O. (1859). Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, the astronomer-poet of Persia (E. FitzGerald, Trans.). Bernard Quaritch.
7)      Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. Routledge.
8)      Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
9)      Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. E. J. Brill.
10)  Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. E. J. Brill.
11)  Toury, G. (1995a). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins.
12)  Toury, G. (1995b). The nature and role of norms in translation. In Descriptive translation studies and beyond (pp. 53–69). John Benjamins.
13)  Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
14)  Yarshater, Ehsan (1988). Persian Literature. Albany, NY: SUNY Press and Bibliotheca Persica.
 
ج. منابع چینی
 
[1] 巴赫提亚尔,莫扎法尔.(1991).序:海亚姆——生活与美的歌者.载于欧玛尔·海亚姆,《波斯哲理诗》(张鸿年,译,pp.1-8).北京:文津出版社.
[2] 郭沫若.(1923).波斯诗人莪默伽亚谟.创造季刊,1(3),"杂录"1-41.
[3] 海亚姆.(2017).《鲁拜集》(张鸿年,译).北京:商务印书馆.
[4] 胡适.(1919).希望.新青年,6(4),374.后收入:胡适.(1920).《尝试集》(p.48).上海:亚东图书馆.
[5] 黄克孙.(1987).序.载于黄克孙(衍译),《鲁拜集》(pp.iii-viii).台北:书林出版公司.
[6] 李亚林.(1994).波斯的李白——莪默·伽亚谟及其《鲁拜集》.外国文学研究,(03),73-75.
[7] 刘建基.(2006).跨文化沟通:衍译的再现——《鲁拜集》翻译在台湾.外国语文研究翻译专刊,创刊号,213-227.
[8] 马耀民.(2002).一九七○迄今台湾的翻译批评与翻译研究:以《中外文学》与《淡江评论》为例.载于张汉良(主编),《方法:文学的路》(pp.255-281).台北:台湾大学出版中心.
[9] 穆宏燕.(2017,8月23日).波斯文学翻译与研究在中国.中华读书报,07版.
[10] 邵斌.(2010).翻译即改写:从菲茨杰拉德到胡适——以《鲁拜集》第99首为个案.北京第二外国语学院学报,32(12),8-14.
[11] 邵斌.(2011).《诗歌创意翻译研究:以〈鲁拜集〉翻译为个案》.杭州:浙江大学出版社.
[12] 邵斌,朱安博.(2009).是"鲁拜集",也是"柔巴依集":Rubaiyat的译名之争.北京第二外国语学院学报,31(06),55-60.
[13] 王一丹.(2012).跨越东西方的诗歌之旅——从《鲁拜集》的最初汉译看文学翻译成功的时代契机.新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),33(06),1-7+115.
[14] 闻一多.(1923).莪默伽亚谟之绝句.创造季刊,2(1),"评论"14.后收入:孙党伯、袁謇正(主编).(1993).《闻一多全集:第2卷》(p.99).武汉:湖北人民出版社.
[15] 闻一多.(1926,5月13日).诗的格律.晨报副刊·诗镌,7版.后收入:孙党伯、袁謇正(主编).(1993).《闻一多全集:第2卷》(pp.140-142).武汉:湖北人民出版社.
[16] 吴笛.(2016).海亚姆《鲁拜集》的生成与传播.外国文学研究,38(05),9-15.
[17] 吴笛.(2017).菲茨杰拉德《鲁拜集》翻译策略探究.安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),45(06),758-763.
[18] 咸立强,李岩.(2008).胡适与郭沫若译诗比较研究——以《鲁拜集》中两首诗的汉译为例.北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),(03),37-40.
[19] 许昆.(2018).《鲁拜集》的译介传播,以及郭、黄译本对比.传媒论坛,1(15),143-144.
[20] 徐志摩.(1924,11月7日).莪默的一首诗.晨报副刊.后收入:赵遐秋、曾庆瑞、潘百生(编).(1991).《徐志摩全集:第4卷》(p.241).南宁:广西民族出版社.
[21] 袁荻涌.(1990).郭沫若为什么要翻译《鲁拜集》.郭沫若学刊,(03),38-40.
[22] 张鸿年.(1991).海亚姆再认识.载于欧玛尔·海亚姆,《波斯哲理诗》(张鸿年,译,pp.9-32).北京:文津出版社.
[23] 张静文.(2025).欧玛尔·海亚姆《鲁拜集》在中国的翻译与接受(1919-2024).齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(04),100-103.
[24] 周巧巧.(2014).翻旧调出新音:接受美学观照下的译者主体性——以《鲁拜集》两个汉译本为例.名作欣赏,(15),20-22.
 
 
 

  • Receive Date 30 June 2026
  • Revise Date 05 July 2026
  • Accept Date 05 August 2026