tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post1586750986055532236..comments2024-03-28T15:17:25.159+08:00Comments on Classical Chinese Poems in English: 王梵志 Wang Fanzhi: 無題/世無百年人 Untitled/No man lives to a hundred yearsAndrew W.F. Wong 黃宏發http://www.blogger.com/profile/13042865467544530221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-6896639389683083642017-12-23T14:21:11.001+08:002017-12-23T14:21:11.001+08:00Sharing my rather liberal translation...
A hundre...Sharing my rather liberal translation...<br /><br />A hundred years hardly any man lived,<br />Yet everlasting songs he wants to write,<br />And fortified mansions he wants to build,<br />Surely the dead will laugh should they have sight.TY Lo (Walter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14579979247262555736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-14598764474840910992016-09-27T16:24:33.638+08:002016-09-27T16:24:33.638+08:00I thank Ray (Heaton) and John (Anonymous?) for the...I thank Ray (Heaton) and John (Anonymous?) for their comments. I am glad Ray can now see the true meaning of the poem. As John rightly points out, Eugene Eoyang should have understood and penned line 2 as "Why write immortal rhymes/" (or my "Write songs to sing for a thousand, what for/") and certainly not his "Why not write immortal rhymes?" which had led Ray astray to think of the poem as rather didactic. Fan Chenda's poem referred to in my introduction makes it clear that Wang's images of the "iron threshold" and earthy steamed bun" speak of the simple truth that life is not long lasting. a truth we must face accept and embrace. I have now added to my introduction the complete poem (in Chinese) by Fan and hope it is of uase to Ray. <br /><br />As for John's comments on my drifting away from the characters and phrases of the original especially in the last two lines, I freely admit I might have overdone line 4 by adding "we did it before" which is neither in the original nor implied anywhere. I have done that so as to create a rhyme for "what for" in line 2. However, in my ballad form rendition at the end of my notes, I have used "what folly" instead of "what for" making it possible for me to drop "We did it before" and use "By golly" (which is implied in the word 笑 "laugh". I am wondering if I should revise my rendition along these lines as follows:- <br /><br />No man lives to a hundred years;<br />Write songs to sing for a thousand, [what for?] what folly!<br />The dead, on seeing an iron wrought threshold,<br />Clap hands and laugh: ["We did it before!] "How silly! By golly!"<br /><br /> <br />Andrew W.F. Wong 黃宏發https://www.blogger.com/profile/13042865467544530221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-43785027839341370842016-09-23T08:36:14.138+08:002016-09-23T08:36:14.138+08:00Good morning Mr. Heaton!
Wang Fangzhi was a down ...Good morning Mr. Heaton!<br /><br />Wang Fangzhi was a down to earth poet. He was a realist and a pragmatist. He questioned and in fact disdained abstract, lofty yet often trendy intellectual fads prevalent among the literati. His writings were replete with such sentiments. He went so far as to question the reason for our being (If life were so rough, why did my parents brought me to this world?).<br /><br />Eugene Eoyang should have written instead: Since no one lives past a hundred, WHY write immortal rhymes?<br /><br />Door thresholds served a practical purpose for older Chinese construction. They helped keep drafts, dust, and most importantly street water from entering the housing complex. Ordinary folks used wood threshold; well to do households might wrap them with a malleable metallic compound for durability. You can still find them in some older villages and in temples everywhere.<br /><br />I am not a great fan of a poem translation to drift so far as Andrew's in this case from the original wordings (characters and phrases), especially in the last two lines, but credit is certainly due for the authenticity of meaning brought vividly to mind by his play on the ghosts "speaking" their minds.<br /><br />Indeed, why waste time, effort, and money on things which have little bearing on what is real? The poem is truly as simple as it reads. The simplest truths, however, still seem to be the most difficult to comprehend (and confront) in our educated minds even as we speak today.<br /><br />Have a good day!<br /><br />John, a fellow traveler on the blog<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-81365505103934869492016-09-22T05:49:22.456+08:002016-09-22T05:49:22.456+08:00Thanks to Andrew's translation and commentary,...Thanks to Andrew's translation and commentary, the meaning of the poem has been clarified for me. My previous exposure to this poem in translation is in Sunflower Splendor, translated by Eugene Eoyang and reads as follows<br /><br /><br />No one lives past a hundred:<br /><br />Why not write immortal rhymes.<br /><br />Forge iron to fence off evil - <br /><br />Demons just watch: clap hands and laugh.<br /><br /><br />from which I couldn't quite understand what the poet meant!<br /><br /><br />I tried to relate the meaning towards the poet proselytising us towards Buddhism, assuming he means us to address issues within one's lifetime in what we could call a rather didactic poem...is Wang telling us "don't worry about leaving a legacy"? Well if he did mean this, then I wonder how he'd react to us still analysing his poetry 1500 years later!<br /><br />P.s. hello again Andrew! Although I haven't commented for a few months I have still been entertained by your translations.Ray Heatonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11458153443445711776noreply@blogger.com