Translating “natural history” as “natural history” is also not bad

64,130 characters2009.04.23

PS: It was very, very long ago, when I was writing “Natural History and History,” that I first began to think that translating it as “natural history” might also be quite good. At the time, I had just listened to lectures on natural history by Professors Wu, Liu, and Su, and felt that Professor Wu’s rejection of “natural history” was somewhat too categorical. Back then I wrote to Professor Liu and Professor Su about some of my thoughts; it seems Professor Liu replied that he thought “natural history” was not out of the question after all. But at that point I still did not dare to write to Professor Wu =_ =|||

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_51fdc0620100dhwx.html#comment

Reading *Humans and the Natural World* (2009-04-20 00:47:51) Tags: natuurl history natural history natural history natural history miscellany Category: history of scientific thought

Having finished *Humans and the Natural World—Changes in British Ideas between 1500 and 1800*, I find that this is a work on the history of natural history thought in Britain written by a professional historian. The author, Keith Thomas, is Professor of Modern History at Oxford University and was knighted in 1988. Drawing on a wealth of historical materials (300 pages of main text, 120 pages of notes), the book vividly reveals how, over these three centuries, British ideas of natural history moved from anthropocentrism toward what is called a “new sensibility” — appreciating plants, sympathizing with animals, and drawing close to nature.

The translation is also quite good. The only regret is that in many places the book renders natural history as “自然史” [ziran shi], which is neither fish nor fowl. Over the past twenty or thirty years, because the tradition of natural history has been downgraded, abandoned, and finally forgotten, Chinese academia has even forgotten the correct translation of this term. Until before 1980, Chinese academia was still able to translate natural history correctly as “博物学” or “博物志” [bowuxue / bowuzhi], yet today more and more people will not even bother to consult a dictionary, and instead translate it from the face of the words as “自然史” [natural history], which is truly a great regression. This is like if, because some barbaric age had come and the tradition of astronomy had been forgotten by our people, a new generation of translators did not consult a dictionary at all but self-righteously translated milky way as “牛奶路” [milk road], not knowing that the correct translation should be “银河” [galaxy]. The source of the error lies in the fact that the translator does not know that the word history here does not mean “历史” [history] at all, but rather the original meaning of the Greek and Latin *historia*, namely “inquiry, investigation, research.” As a kind of “scientific” tradition, it differs from the *natural philosophy* tradition represented by the mathematical and physical sciences. What it emphasizes is detailed and concrete recording, naming, and classification, not tracing the universal principles and causes behind things. natural history is not history of nature.

Several other words related to natural history are also translated in a muddled way:

natural historian should be translated as “博物学家” [natural historian], not “自然史家” [natural-history scholar]

local history should be translated as “地方志” [gazetteer], not “地方史” [local history]

medical history should be translated as “病历” [medical record], not “医学史” [history of medicine]

Museum of natural history or natural history museum should be translated as “自然博物馆” [natural history museum], not “自然史博物馆” [natural-history museum]

naturalist should be translated as “博物学家” [naturalist], not “自然主义者” [naturalist]

history of bird should be translated as “鸟类志” [bird study], not “鸟的历史” [the history of birds]

history of animal should be translated as “动物志” [animal study], not “动物的历史” [the history of animals]

The titles of several world-famous classics should also be corrected:

1. Pliny’s *Natural History*

2. Buffon’s *Natural History*

3. Gilbert White’s *The Natural History of Selborne*, not *The Natural History of Selborne* (“塞耳彭自然史”) [Huacheng Publishing House]

If one looks at translated works published in recent years that contain the words “自然史” [natural history] in their titles, their translations are all inexplicable:

1. Ackerman’s *The Natural History of the Senses* (Huacheng Publishing House), should be *A Natural History of the Senses* [Sense Study]

2. Ackerman’s *The Natural History of Love* (Huacheng Publishing House), should be *A Natural History of Love* [Affection Study]

3. Gould’s *Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History*, should be *Reflections in Natural History*

4. Renmin University of China Press’s *Fun Natural History Series* translated by Gao Yu should be *Fun Natural History Series*, including *The Natural History of Seduction*

5. *Hunters of the Great Nature—The Autobiography of Biologist Wilson* (Shanghai Century Publishing Group), should be *Naturalist*. It completely departs from the book’s main idea, distorting a natural historian into a hunter who attacks nature.

6. Hume’s *The Natural History of Religion*, should be *The Natural History of Religion* [Religion Study]

7. *Stranger Groups: A Natural History of Economic Life*, should be *A Natural History of Economic Life*

8. *Blue Planet: A Natural History of the Ocean*, should be *Ocean Natural History*

Gucha:

2009-04-20 21:53:32 Why did my comment disappear…? It wasn’t Professor Wu who did it, was it…

Sina netizen:

2009-04-20 22:28:28 I haven’t seen your comment; please post it again.

Gucha:

2009-04-20 23:19:09 I think the term “natural history” is better than “natural history studies” [博物学]! I’m inclined to note that natural history is bowuxue, and then still translate it as “natural history”!

The translation of the term natural history or bowuxue is not only about how to establish an understanding of science; it is also about how to establish an understanding of historiography. Modern people’s understanding of history is also overly influenced by modern science, so much so that they have forgotten the traditional meaning of “history” as a field of study. In fact, whether in the West or in China, history originally did not mean what contemporary people understand it to mean.

Professor Wu mentioned that the Western tradition of history “emphasizes detailed and concrete recording, naming, and classification, rather than pursuing the universal principles and causes behind things,” but the Chinese traditional discipline of “shi” is similar. The *Shuowen* explains: “史，记事者也” — “shi is one who records events” (“史，记事者也”). According to the four-fold classification of the “classics, histories, masters, and collections” (*jing, shi, zi, ji*), the *history* section is distinguished from the *classics* and *masters* sections, which discuss principles and methods, as well as the *collections* section of poetry and miscellaneous prose; it includes precisely those books that record and classify. Apart from annals, categories such as gazetteers, geography, biography, and bibliographies all belong to the *history* section, corresponding exactly to the classical meaning of *history* in the West. Using “natural history” to translate “natural history” could not be more appropriate. It signals both its genealogical relation to the natural sciences and its genealogical relation to historiography. The reason this translation now feels somewhat awkward is precisely that, on the one hand, people’s understanding of the “natural” sciences has become narrow, and on the other hand, their understanding of historiography has also become narrow. Translating it as “bowuxue” [natural history] is a kind of evasion: the term bowuxue is already, in its very wording, cut off from both nature and history, and if one uses this term again to emphasize its relation to the natural sciences, one lacks sufficient confidence. Better to stick to the original face of “natural history”!

Gucha:

2009-04-20 23:20:08 Supplement:

The greatest characteristic of Chinese is that it is especially prone to “reading the words and inferring the meaning.” And when the wording and the meaning come into tension, that is precisely where a clue for questioning appears and room for interpretation opens up. Here, the drawback of translating it as “博物学” [bowuxue] is precisely that its meaning is too smooth, making it very easy for modern people to understand: the study of being knowledgeable about things, that is. Yet “natural history” appears awkward; its surface wording and its meaning are in tension, making understanding seem less smooth. Then in general, shouldn’t translation always choose the word that looks pleasing to the eye? Perhaps that is true in literature, but academic translation must also consider another point, namely that translation does not merely pursue fluency; it also bears deeper missions, such as respecting tradition and reversing people’s understanding through translation. For example, people now obviously find *On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres* more pleasing to the eye than *On the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies*; the latter looks awkward, but we still advocate translating it as *On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres*. Aside from being faithful to the context of the time, this also serves to prompt readers, through the translation itself, to pay attention to the difference between ancient and modern cosmologies. It is precisely because “heavenly spheres” looks awkward that it more readily prompts readers to ask consciously: why are they called heavenly spheres? After some questioning, they will discover: ah! the concept of celestial bodies is modern, and Copernicus’s cosmos was so very different… Thus in this translation, the fact that it seems awkward at first glance instead becomes an advantage of the translation — of course, on the premise that the translation itself is sound.

And the main reason I oppose translating it as “博物学” [bowuxue] is precisely that it looks too pleasing to the eye, so much so that it fails to stimulate the reader’s reflection. In its very wording, the term bowuxue has already lost its connection with the natural sciences and historiography; this is just as the activity of natural history in modern society has already lost its connection with both natural science and historiography. This situation precisely stems from the narrowing of both natural science and historiography in modernity. On the one hand, natural science has gradually lost its connection with the natural-history tradition of recording, naming, and classifying; on the other hand, historiography has also become increasingly narrow, gradually limited to a kind of annalistic history based on a linear view of temporal development, while gradually forgetting the richer connotations and more diverse methods of historiography in both Chinese and Western traditions. That historiography is dominated by a linear conception of time and that natural science is dominated by instrumental rationality are results of the same origin developing in tandem; the key to recognizing this situation is the concept of “natural history.” This concept preserves the genealogical connection in the vanished tradition among “natural science,” “historiography,” and “natural history.” It is faithful to the wording, it signals the tension, and after all it is still rather easy to say (otherwise it would not have become so popular).

Sina netizen:

2009-04-21 00:17:44 Blog owner replies:

The problem with this translation is that it is wrong. The reason it is wrong is that the translator treated this actual “technical term” as if it were an “ordinary term,” too lazy to look it up in a dictionary and translating it on the basis of mere assumption.

In this translation “natural history,” neither the translator nor the reader produces the kind of tension you mention. The translators are all acting from ignorance (rather than deliberately). The reader can only understand the term “natural history” as “the history of nature,” and cannot possibly, from this translation, reflect back on the archaic sense of “natural” and “history”; nor does it prompt any tension at all. The result is complete misdirection of the reader.

By contrast, if one wants to find a bit of “tension” in the literal awkwardness, then in a pairing such as “博物志 (natural history),” it can at least produce a little effect. A reader familiar with the modern usage of “natural” and “history” will wonder why natural history should be translated as “博物志” — after all, there is neither “博” nor “物” nor “志” in it.

Gucha:

2009-04-21 00:57:26 Professor Wu is right, but I still lean toward “deliberately making a virtue of an error.” Moreover, from the history of the transmission of Western learning to the East, “博物学” [bowuxue] may not have always been a fixed translation either; in Japanese, it seems that “博物学” and “自然史” [natural history] have long coexisted, which is probably very different from an error like “milk road.” As for the effect the translation of “natural history” produces among readers, of course if one looks only at the wording, it is completely misleading. Yet in fact, because “wrong” usages have become widespread, “natural history,” whether reasonable or not, has in practice already spread. So readers are not only understanding the concept in isolation from the wording; they also have the chance to encounter it in various concrete contexts, such as a whole pile of titles like “The Natural History of XX.” Of course, if one looks only at the titles, then in most cases one is completely misled. But if one reads the whole book? Then one will certainly re-understand the concept in context.

This reminds me of an important turning point that led me toward philosophy, related to the concept of “metaphysics.” In middle school textbooks I learned that “metaphysics = a worldview that is isolated, static, and one-sided,” and I understood the concept accordingly on the basis of that common knowledge. But gradually, when I encountered the word metaphysics in extracurricular books, if I applied my original “common-sense” understanding, it simply would not make sense in context. From the context I read another meaning, and that became the turning point that set me on the path of questioning, from which I entered the door of philosophy…

Obviously, one cannot say that because the concept of “metaphysics” is defined in the “dictionary,” in public common sense, and in everyday context (the term has at least already become an “ordinary term” in political language) as meaning “a worldview that is isolated, static, and one-sided,” therefore using that meaning to translate metaphysics would cause complete misunderstanding, and thus conclude that it cannot be translated that way. What needs correcting here is the dictionary and common sense; insisting on translating metaphysics as 形而上学 and spreading it in a broader sphere is precisely helpful in correcting the prejudices of common sense.

Gucha:

2009-04-21 01:35:09 In addition, although the pairing “博物志 (natural history)” can indeed reveal tension, this situation is not entirely the same as the case of mechanics. The key point is that Chinese tradition had neither mechanics nor mechanical studies; the tension here is an internal issue within Western learning, so in Chinese, abandoning the literal wording and adopting a free translation can most fully bring out the tension. Yet Chinese tradition did in fact genuinely possess historiography and natural history. Moreover, these two fields in ancient China can be said to have been unique in the world. If natural history is not yet so obvious, then the achievements of ancient Chinese historiography can in all fairness be said to be the world’s number one. The fact that the Chinese achieved outstanding results in both natural history and historiography is by no means accidental; rather, it points to the intrinsic connection between the two. China possesses such a deep and vast historiographical tradition, yet tragically this tradition has no successors; on this point Qian Mu and others have also lamented much. Because modern Chinese people are governed by Western modern historical views, they often forget their own unique and glorious historiographical tradition, causing what was once rich and expansive Chinese historiography to become increasingly shrunken and narrow. Western *history* likewise underwent a process of narrowing, but after all, in common terms such as natural history it still preserves the ancient sense of historiography. By contrast, the Chinese character “史” seems even more fallen, with its ancient meaning only to be found in classical Chinese. What is more, the strength of Chinese characters originally lies precisely in their ability to preserve ancient meanings even in newly coined terms; the forgetting of “shi” is particularly heartbreaking. My advocacy of the translation “natural history” is not only meant to highlight the tension surrounding the word “history,” but also to revive, in modern Chinese, the traditional Chinese roots of “shi” as historiography.

Sina netizen:

2009-04-21 09:58:42 Translating it as “自然志” [natural record] seems good.

Sina netizen:

2009-04-21 11:10:45 Blog owner replies

There are two issues here, one of understanding and one of translation.

Translation is the conversion of one language into another. The best solution in translating into Chinese is to directly use an existing Chinese term with the same or an equivalent meaning; second best is to coin a new word. Here, in the case of natural history, the situation is exactly the same as with milky way: there is already an equivalent term in ancient Chinese, so there is no need to coin a new one. It should be noted that there was no word “自然” [nature] in ancient China; this term came from the Japanese translation of nature. From the perspective of translation, the newly coined “自然史” [natural history] is of course inferior to the pre-existing “博物志” [natural history]. Until the 1980s, scholars uniformly used “博物学” [natural history studies] as the translation; only after the “modernization” movement did that traditional translation gradually fall out of use. It is said that nowadays people all say “引以为豪” instead of “引以自豪,” and say “七月流火” [the Fire Star descends in July] to mean that summer is very hot; the situation is roughly similar.

From the perspective of understanding, the crux is that natural history has nothing whatsoever to do with history of nature, and translating it as “自然史” [natural history] is wrong and misleading. A private willingness to make a virtue of an error is one thing; as a translation endeavor concerned with the accumulation and transmission of knowledge, one cannot do this. Even if you insist on creating tension in philosophical writing, you must still put the correct translation in parentheses for clarification.

In response to the netizen on “自然志” [natural record]: the ancients (Chinese, Greek, and Roman alike) had no concept of “nature” in the modern sense; “自然志” is merely another version of the same mistaken “自然史,” and has the same error.

Gucha:

2009-04-21 12:06:06 The situation does not seem to be quite so simple. The key question is: is bowuxue really an existing Chinese term with an equivalent meaning? For example, in the *Dictionary of the Origins of New Words in Modern and Contemporary Chinese*, “博物” is clearly listed as a loanword, and the corresponding term for bowuxue is given as “natural science” rather than “natural history.” In Kingsoft PowerWord, bowuxue corresponds to “natural history,” but “博物” corresponds to “natural science.” In any case, “博物” is indeed an existing word, but its correspondence is by no means as straightforward as “银河 = milky way.” On what basis, then, can one say that using bowuxue to correspond to natural history is exactly right? And why is using bowuxue to correspond to natural science not good? One should know that “shi” is also an existing equivalent term in Chinese. And the existing term bowuxue does not in fact match natural history perfectly; rather, if one accepts translating natural science as “自然科学” [natural science] instead of bowuxue, then translating the corresponding natural history as “自然史” [natural history] is the most appropriate. In this way, the relationship between “science” and “history” corresponds exactly to the relationship between science and history, and this just happens to bring the historical tradition back into science.

You’ve kept saying “wrong, wrong,” but the question is: what standard do we use to judge whether something is wrong? Language itself changes and develops. “七月流火” and “引以为豪” are different cases: the former cannot be carried along with the error just because it has become customary to say it that way, because it makes no sense in terms of meaning; the latter can be carried along with the error. For example, who gets to decide whether 大厦 should be read as xia or sha? Even if we say that at first everyone misread it as sha, once the pronunciation has been fixed, the dictionary has no choice but to change it back; if it doesn’t, then it is the dictionary that is wrong.

古雴：

2009-04-21 13:37:30 Also, another even more important misunderstanding that “博物学” will cause is that it links natural history too closely with museums. At present, when the public hears “博物,” the first thing they think of is definitely not a natural historian, but a museum. And natural history can easily be understood as having an inherent connection with museums, or even as a kind of study devoted to collecting and displaying “specimens”; that would be a serious misunderstanding. Either “museum” should be revised to something like “博览馆,” or some older translation may perhaps be more appropriate. But the translation “博物馆” is already very firmly established, whereas “博物学/自然史” has already become loose and unsettled; why not take advantage of that and let the error stand for now, set chaos right through it, and restore the original meaning of natural history.

新浪网友：

2009-04-21 17:12:51 The translation history of the westward spread of Western learning contains many issues worth pursuing; many translations that have been handed down are not the most apt, but often they have simply been used for so long that one has had to make do with them, truly helpless. And regardless of whether the cause was merely the translator’s unintentional mistake, the current translation “博物学” has after all been shaken; this “retrogression” just happens to provide an opportunity to re-examine the related renderings. Why not use the momentum to return to the starting point and formulate the translation anew? It is truly a chance that must not be missed.

If “natural science” had originally been fixed as “格物学,” then there would be no doubt at all that “natural history” should be translated as “博物学,” and I would have no objection whatsoever! But in fact “natural science” has been fixed as “自然科学,” and the existing Chinese term “格物” has been discarded and is no longer used. Whether or not the Japanese-derived translation “自然科学” is more appropriate, its status is probably now impossible to shake. Then whether we should still insist on the existing word “博物” is something that must be considered carefully. And “自然史,” being half foreign and half already existing, is both logically defensible and suitably suggestive. Its relationship to other firm concepts such as “natural science” and “museum” is also just right. Now that there happens to be this heaven-sent opportunity to re-evaluate it, we might as well get to the root of the matter, and through renaming “自然史,” both sever its overly close connection with the “museum” that displays specimens and at the same time reveal its correspondence with “natural science,” while also helping to revive the Chinese traditional discipline of “史” studies, and conforming to popular habits and sentiment; it can also stimulate broader discussion and reflection. It truly accomplishes many things at once.

古雴：

2009-04-21 21:27:58 Also, I too am skeptical of Professor Wu’s statement that “natural history and history of nature have nothing whatever to do with each other.” Of course I know they are two different expressions, just as scientific philosophy and philosophy of science are two different concepts. But to say that the two “have nothing whatever to do with each other,” I do not think is necessarily so. Your view may perhaps be precisely the result of being misled by the translation “博物学.” In fact, since in the Western context natural history has always been linked with history, and since the present-day meanings of natural history and history are both very late formations, in the development of the history of ideas the two cannot possibly have been “completely unrelated” from beginning to end. Changes in the understanding of the former will very likely affect the understanding of the latter, and vice versa.

One can search online for a book on Buffon called From Natural History to the History of Nature. I can’t see the contents, but judging from the title’s setup, it doesn’t sound like it means the two have “nothing whatever to do with each other.”

In fact, along with the increasingly temporalized understanding of history, if I may put it that way, the Western tradition of natural history also became increasingly attentive to the diachronic aspect. From Linnaeus to Buffon, classification moved from paying attention only to morphological distinctions to introducing the idea of origins and transformation (this may be what the book above is about), and by the time of Darwin the diachronic dimension within natural history became most striking. And is the gradual penetration of the diachronic element into natural history really “completely unrelated” to its gradual penetration into history? This translation “博物学” obstructs readers from discovering that connection.

And the brilliant culmination that diachronic natural history reached in Darwin in turn fed back into people’s understanding of history. Here Marx made a major contribution. Through his philosophy of history, Marx brought the characteristics of natural history after Darwin back into the concept of history itself, marked precisely by that famous phrase history of nature & history of man. Yet the translation “博物学” has obscured the possible lines of genealogy here altogether.

I think it would be fine to translate history of nature as 自然历史（学）, to distinguish it from 自然史. We could even accept a scheme in which both are translated as “自然史,” just as with the term “科学哲学.”

老鹤晴宵：

2009-04-22 00:32:41 I think the term “自然史” is better than “博物学”! I’m inclined to note that 自然史 is what 博物学 means, and then still translate it as “自然史”!

网友回应意见

I do not think “自然史” can cover the meaning of “博物学.” Zhang Hua’s 博物志 is translated into English as: “Record of Natural History.” The contents of the book “embrace everything under heaven: it includes knowledge of mountains, rivers, and geography; legends of historical figures; strange plants, trees, insects, fish, birds, and beasts; and also records of immortals and technical arts.” Only the term “博物” can encompass all this. As for natural history, my understanding is that the term can accommodate “knowledge of mountains, rivers, and geography, strange plants, trees, insects, fish, birds, and beasts,” but if a book contains a great deal of humanistic content, then to abandon 博物 and adopt this term is untenable. In addition, the blogger has already mentioned that there was no word “自然” in ancient China. In antiquity, 自然 meant “so of itself,” and the 自然 in “复得返自然” refers to a life without restraint, not to “nature.” The Chinese translation should respect Chinese usage.

老鹤晴宵：

2009-04-22 00:40:35 As for the effect that the translation “自然史” produces in readers, of course, if one looks only at the literal wording, it is completely misleading. However, in fact, because “errors” are so widespread, whether or not it is reasonable, the concept of “自然史” has indeed already spread. So readers are not merely understanding this concept from an isolated wording; they also have the chance to encounter it in various concrete contexts, such as a whole pile of books titled “XX的自然史.” Of course, if one looks only at the title, then in most cases one will be completely misled. But after reading the whole book? Then one will certainly come to understand the concept anew in context.

I read this passage carefully. I still cannot agree. I support Mr. Fu Hao’s principle of translation: translation requires precision, and it should “take accuracy as the sole standard.” “信则万事毕矣” — how can one just let an error stand because it has become customary?

新浪网友：

2009-04-22 07:48:51 For example, in the Dictionary of the Origins of New Words in Modern and Contemporary Chinese, “博物” is clearly listed as a loanword.

博物 is not a loanword! And what use is it even if it is listed as one? There is no dictionary that has no errors.

瘦鬼：

2009-04-22 07:50:06 Go look at Professor Wu’s translated works; he handles terminology very precisely.

古雴：

2009-04-22 09:12:34 to 老鹤晴宵: Of course “自然史” cannot cover “博物学,” and that is precisely the problem. What I am saying is that Western Natural History ought to be translated as “自然史,” whereas China’s ancient text 博物志 remains of course 博物志; there is no translation issue there. It is precisely because, as you say, 自然史 cannot cover 博物学 that using 博物学 to translate Western natural history is inaccurate. Then according to your so-called “taking accuracy as the sole standard,” “自然史” is obviously much more accurate, whereas 博物志 is not accurate enough because the scope is different. In addition, saying that “博物” is a loanword does not mean that the term itself does not exist in China; rather, it means that the term’s contemporary meaning has been deeply influenced by Western learning and is no longer its classical Chinese meaning. Adopting the translation “自然史” also allows the traditional meaning of 博物志 to be restored.

古雴：

2009-04-22 09:19:47 Also, the discussion of the term “自然” is all conducted on the premise that natural science has already been fixed as “自然科学.” If a netizen or the blogger says that the translation “自然科学” is wrong and insists that it should be “格物学,” then naturally natural history would also have to be translated as “博物学” to match, and I would have no objection. But the problem is that we already use “自然” to correspond to “natural,” and “自然科学” and “自然史” originally had a close relationship; they belong to a set of related concepts rather than two mutually isolated terms (isn’t Professor Wu’s advocacy of 博物学 precisely intended to reveal its relationship with natural science?). So let’s not use the fact that there was no such word as “自然” in antiquity as an argument here; the key point is that it exists now. The current situation is that we have “自然科学” and “博物馆,” and both are difficult to dislodge; that is the premise of our discussion. Should “natural history” lean more toward the former or the latter?

古雴：

2009-04-22 09:51:26 The competition and elimination of various translations during the period when Western learning was flowing into the East was not necessarily a matter of the superior defeating the inferior, and even less could it guarantee harmony between different concepts. For example, Yan Fu spared no effort in translating terms, often deliberating for months over a single expression, yet in the end his lordship’s renderings basically never came to be transmitted; most of them were defeated by the Japanese translations. But this does not mean that the Japanese renderings were somehow brilliant. One important reason was that later Chinese study of Western learning was mainly guided by scholars returning from Japan, and they were accustomed to Japanese terminology, which of course gave Japan-derived terms an absolute advantage in competition. “自然科学” and “理科” are Japanese renderings; they defeated Chinese native renderings such as “格物” and “格致,” but at the same time one should note that in Japan “自然史” and “博物学” were both in use. (I do not know Japanese, but when Google Translate is given the Chinese 博物学 it produces the Japanese 自然史, and the Japanese version of Wikipedia also has entries for 博物学/自然史.) But at the time Chinese did not use “自然史,” and used only “博物学” alone; this may not have been a reasonable outcome. I am afraid that because what was introduced from the West and Japan during the spread of Western learning into the East was mostly the “natural science” side, and various discussions also centered on “natural science,” “自然科学” ultimately, with the help of scholars who had studied in Japan, prevailed over “格物学,” while the competition between “博物学” and “自然史” never even had a chance to unfold fully. In the end, both were fixed by habit and dictionaries, and that became the present situation—but clearly it is not necessarily the best pairing. In my view, either “格物—博物” should be paired, or “科学—史学” should be paired; but “科学—博物” violently tears the relationship apart, and that rupture is not necessarily the result of rational choice. That is regrettable. Since there is a chance to reconsider the matter, of course we should return to the starting point and re-determine it.

古雴：

2009-04-22 11:33:09 As for the translation issues in those book titles mentioned by Professor Wu. Take Gould’s Meditations on Natural History, for example: the contents of this book are all about discussions since Darwin on the origin, evolution, and changes of all things; it is the genuine article, nothing less than the History of Nature. Translating it as “自然史” is completely appropriate, and it reads smoothly from start to finish; translating it as 博物学 leaves people baffled. The translator of that book clearly knew to render it as “自然博物馆” rather than “自然历史博物馆,” which shows that this was not a completely blind mistake, but rather that “自然史” makes sense while 博物学 does not.

Take, for example, that book “Buffon: From Natural History to the History of Nature.” If one follows Professor Wu, it can only be translated as 《布丰——从博物学到自然史》. If this translation is correct, then the book is saying that after Buffon, Natural History became 自然史; if this translation is inappropriate, then that still shows that the translation 博物学 is not suitable. In any case, either way, it is enough to show that “博物学” is an unsuitable translation.

Under a narrow understanding of “history,” then after Buffon, or after Darwin, Western Natural History has already become “自然史.” And if one adopts a broad understanding of “history,” then before Buffon, Natural History was also 自然史; what changed was precisely that conception of history. Professor Wu’s lightly tossed-off “have nothing whatever to do with each other” fully proves the misdirection and concealment caused by the translation “博物学,” to the point that even a person like Professor Wu, who pays such close attention to the issue of time, has not been able fully to appreciate the close connection between Natural History and History in the history of ideas. This shows how significant it is to change “博物学” to “自然史.”

瘦鬼：

2009-04-22 12:54:38 I think the term “自然史” is better than “博物学”! I’m inclined to note that 自然史 is what 博物学 means, and then still translate it as “自然史”!

瘦鬼回复：注明自然史即博物学，但问题是，自然史并不是博物学。我是学中文的，我对“博物”的印象最早来自张华的“博物志”，我知道博物学大致是什么。但对于“自然史”这个词，我的理解就是自然的历史。如果说，这本书明明是本博物志，你偏要给它带上自然史的帽子，但我就不认得了。我不会去看你的注释文字，说此处自然史就是博物学。因为这不仅不必要，而且不合理。

I found a book online. Natural History of the British Isles is translated as 冰岛自然史, and its table of contents is:

【目录信息】

Introduction

House,garden and park

Farmland,hedgerows and verges

Woods and forests

Heaths,downs,moors and mountains

Rivers,lakes,ponds and marshes

Sea and seashore

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

Index

If translated as 冰岛自然史, my understanding would be the history of nature in the country of Iceland; under that understanding, “House,garden and park” becomes perplexing, because these cannot be included within the scope of nature. So I said before that natural history cannot cover 博物学. Not only that, it also causes serious misunderstanding. “Of course, if one looks only at the title, then in most cases one will be completely misled. But after reading the whole book? Then one will certainly come to understand the concept anew in context.” The problem is: why should we read the whole book merely to prove that the misunderstanding is not serious enough? Does that make sense? First, you yourself admit that the term will cause misunderstanding; second, you think it necessary, once one enters the context, to accept this misleading translation according to the term’s actual meaning (that is, 博物志). And the reason for committing this kind of error is supposedly “not only to highlight the tension around the word ‘history,’ but also to hope to revive in modern Chinese the traditional Chinese scholarly origin of ‘史’ studies.” Sorry, I cannot understand your logic. Translation is translation, and accuracy is its only principle.

瘦鬼朋友：

2009-04-22 12:57:47 You insist on putting the hat of 自然史 on it, and then I simply don’t recognize it anymore

Sorry, I can’t understand your logic

The above are only my personal views

古雴：

2009-04-22 13:49:06 As for the talk about “tension” and so on, that is mainly what I was saying to Professor Wu; I would not use such a baffling way of arguing with ordinary netizens. Since you, my friend 瘦鬼, are studying Chinese, you should know that “史” studies in Chinese originally did not have the narrow meaning of “history.” If you take those many catalogues of classics and books that belong under the “史” division of the Four Categories—Classics, Histories, Masters, and Collected Works—and look at them, wouldn’t that also be baffling? If you open the contents of the Records of the Grand Historian and look at them, wouldn’t that also be baffling? Astronomy, geography, things, biographies, arts and literature, and so on—are these really what “history” means today?

Earlier I said that if one looked only at the title “XX自然史,” one would most likely be completely misled; now I think the misleading effect of “XX博物学” is no less impressive. For example, take Gould’s Meditations on Natural History. Its table of contents is as follows:

Preface

Part I About Darwin

Part II Human Evolution

Part III Curious Creatures and the Patterns of Evolution

Part IV Patterns and Gaps in the History of Life

Part V Theories of the Earth

Part VI Size and Shape, from Church to Brain to Planet

Part VII Science in Society — a Historical View

Part VIII The Science and Politics of Human Nature

A. Race, Sex, and Violence

B. Sociobiology

Afterword

Bibliography

Pray tell, if the title were Meditations on 博物学, wouldn’t you find the table of contents baffling? I won’t even mention again the misleading effect of “museum.”

Natural history and 博物学 can both produce all kinds of misleading associations; the key is which kind of direction is more appropriate. Is it better to guide people to associate it with nature and history, or with artifacts and museums?

古雴：

2009-04-22 14:07:04 Can “house, garden and park” not be counted within the range of “nature”? Then how can they in turn be brought within the range of “natural science”? “Natural science” can also conduct scientific research on these artificial objects, just as natural history can also conduct “natural research” on humanistic objects; this precisely expresses the methodological characteristics of these two disciplines. Likewise, with respect to certain humanistic objects, the mode of research of “natural history” differs from the methods of sociology and humanistic historiography; it treats them as if they were natural objects. Note that this “natural history” is Natural History, not History of Nature. It does not mean that the object of this discipline is nature, but rather that the “character” of this (historiographical) discipline is “natural.” Just as “natural science” can take a house as its object of study, “natural history” of course can too. This is exactly what reveals the subtlety of the translation “natural history”! Otherwise, if you translate it only as “bówùxué” [“studying things/objects”], you are also saying that its object is “things”; but then how can it encompass human affairs? Are we saying that human affairs are being studied as things? Understood that way, it is not as apt as “natural history,” which is to say—not that nature is the “object,” but that the discipline’s method and character are “natural.”

Gu Chi:

2009-04-22 14:18:51 At present my discussion all concerns the relationship between “natural science” and “natural history.” If there were no such thing as “natural science,” but rather something like “gewu studies,” then I would have nothing much to say. If you want to criticize my view, please be sure to pay attention to the existence of the ready-made, fixed translation “natural science.” If netizens cannot see, or do not acknowledge, that there is an extremely important and profound connection between natural science and natural history, then there is no need to argue with me; I am powerless to persuade you.

Gu Chi:

2009-04-22 14:33:30 The translation of any term is never an isolated matter; one must take into account the relationship among a series of concepts directly related to that term.

Also: Professor Wu often speaks of the relationship between “the first kind of XX philosophy” and “the second kind of XX philosophy.” For example, Philosophy of Nature is a departmental philosophy that takes nature as its object, whereas Natural Philosophy refers to the overall philosophical character; what it emphasizes is a basic philosophical attitude, not a specialized subfield of philosophy. In this sense, Natural History is similar. Therefore it is capable of bearing the mission of reviving historiography. “Natural history” does not mean a branch of historiography that takes nature alone as its object, but rather an entire kind of historiographical character, attitude, and method. In my view, Chinese classical historiography as a whole is simply Natural History, that is, natural history, that is, bówùxué, that is, record-keeping. And the modern Western notions of linear time, laws of historical development, and so on are not the character of Chinese classical historiography. Since ancient Chinese historiography had no “other,” it did not need to label itself deliberately, just as ancient Greek philosophers did not need to make a point of branding themselves as “natural philosophers” and only needed to call themselves “philosophers.” But once there is contrast with, and competition from, an other, then it becomes necessary to choose an appropriate label to indicate one’s distinctive character. So, in my view, Chinese classical historiography can quite appropriately be called “natural history.” Of course this borrows concepts from the West to interpret the Chinese tradition, but that is surely reasonable and fitting, just as our borrowing of concepts such as “philosophy” to reinterpret traditional Chinese thought need not be without significance. The name “natural history” happens to draw on the Western traditions of Natural History and related Natural Science to re-interpret Chinese classical historiography, and at the same time to interpret the Western concept of Natural History in light of Chinese classical historiography. Supporting and interpreting one another in this way, it is both the most faithful to academic logic and able to accomplish multiple things at once—how marvelous!

Netizen from Sina:

2009-04-22 18:02:54 This translation issue has been explained very simply and clearly by Professor Wu; I don’t know how it has spawned so many side issues!

Shou Gui

Netizen from Sina:

2009-04-22 18:02:57 This translation issue has been explained very simply and clearly by Professor Wu; I don’t know how it has spawned so many side issues!

Shou Gui

Blogger:

2009-04-22 20:23:48 There is no need to drag this out too much. The problems that still need to be solved are two: one is the problem of understanding, the other is the problem of translation. I hope that through ordinary, thorough, and careful reading of the literature (you can’t just rely on a brainstorm) we can solve the issues one by one.

1. Look up Western dictionaries and relevant Western literature to figure out what natural history actually means, what it meant in antiquity, what it means today, and whether there has been a substantial change. [My answer is: no substantial change.]

2. Look up Chinese dictionaries and relevant Chinese literature to figure out what “bówùzhì” actually means, what it meant in antiquity, what it means today, and whether there has been a substantial change. [My answer is: no substantial change.]

3. See whether the meanings of the two are completely the same, or basically similar. [My answer is: yes.]

4. Then look up dictionaries and read literature again to figure out what “natural history” actually means, and see whether that meaning is the same as, or similar to, the natural history just identified. [My answer is: no.]

5. If the meaning of “natural history” is not the same as, or similar to, natural history, then the problem is solved. If it is the same as, or similar to, then the issue shifts to the “translation problem.” [My answer is that the problem has already been solved.]

Gu Chi:

2009-04-22 22:15:47 1. If the words nature and history have undergone major changes in both ancient and modern times, yet Natural History is said to have no substantial change, then no matter how much I rack my brain I cannot make sense of it. I casually searched for some article titles that can hint at Western scholars having specialized research on The Nature of Natural History, and there is also the matter of Buffon—what exactly is going on there. I certainly have not read the specific literature. But I do hope Professor Wu’s conclusion was not also arrived at by simply racking his brains~~

2. Although ancient China had the text The Records of Natural Things, “bówù” and “zhì” are still mainly two separate words, not an established discipline like this one (there isn’t one in modern times either). The fixed disciplinary or bibliographic category is “history.” And the word “bówù” of course has changed enormously from ancient to modern times; for instance, today’s “museum” obviously did not exist in antiquity. In modern usage, the bówù in “bówùguǎn” [museum] has become the main usage of bówù; if you search for “bówùxué,” most of the results are “museum studies.” This is an obvious reality.

3. Compare Zhang Hua’s The Records of Natural Things and Gould’s Essays on Natural History, or the contents of the modern Western journal Natural History. Forget the titles and just look at the tables of contents; if you can randomly pick someone who is not in the know and ask them to look at it, and they can think these belong to essentially similar disciplines, then I’ll be convinced!

These points are obviously clear; one can understand them plainly in ordinary daily comprehension, so there is no need to drag in too much literature.

Moreover, proving through literature that the two have basically similar meanings in actual use is extraordinarily difficult, but if there are some clearly different and obviously dissimilar cases, then that alone can be enough to veto the claim. For example, after Buffon or Darwin, the usage of Natural History—such as the usage embodied in Gould’s Essays on Natural History, in which the evolutionary history of natural objects is taken as the “theme” of Natural History—would in no way be included in ancient Chinese “bówùzhì”; yet this is precisely the most typical modern mode of Natural History. Contemporary Western taxonomy has turned the naming problem of bówù studies into a problem of evolutionary history. The indigenous Chinese “bówùxué” has never had an equivalent part, much less become the dominant one.

Of course, my present ability and interest only allow me to rattle off opinions off the top of my head. So I do not plan to pursue this any further here. But at the very least, I want to emphasize that bówùxué = Natural History is absolutely not as simple a matter as Milky Way = milky way. If Professor Wu always sees this translation “error” as so simple and naive, then there is no possibility of discussion. I’ll just stop here for the time being.

Netizen from Sina:

2009-04-22 22:22:31 Natural history is the scientific research of plants or animals, leaning more towards the observational than experimental methods of study, and encompasses more research that is published in magazines than in academic journals.[1] A person who studies natural history is known as a naturalist. Grouped among the natural sciences, Natural history is the systematic study of any category of natural objects or organisms. That is a very broad designation in a world filled with many narrowly focused disciplines, so while modern natural history dates historically from studies in the ancient Greco-Roman world and then the medieval Arabic world through to the scattered European Renaissance scientists working in near isolation, today’s field is more of a cross discipline umbrella of many specialty sciences that like geobiology have a strong multi-disciplinary nature combining scientists and scientific knowledge of many specialty sciences.

Gu Chi:

2009-04-23 00:10:03 Let me help the person above cite the source: quoted from Wikipedia.

I’ll also quote two later paragraphs:

In the eighteenth century and well into the nineteenth century, natural history, as a term, was frequently used to refer to all descriptive aspects of the study of nature—what today are called natural sciences—as opposed to political, ecclesiastical or other human-related history. ……

Furthermore, in modern usage as a term, natural history’s sense has become narrowed and more tightly focused, and more often refers to matters relating to biology……

It is obvious that from antiquity to the present the extension of this term has changed very significantly. If that does not count as a substantial change, then what on earth does?

Natural history has not only changed greatly in extension, but its intension, or rather its research methods and main concerns, have also undergone major changes. And this whole series of changes precisely corresponds to the changes in the concepts of “nature” and “history,” which is why I insist that “natural history” must be used in translation in order to correspond accurately to the Western Natural history and its evolution. I think its historical change is an obvious fact, so the main issue is the translation. Who would have thought that Professor Wu simply denied that this concept had any important changes, and then there was nothing more to say.

Friend Shou Gui:

2009-04-23 09:36:05 It is you upstairs who are stubbornly clinging to one side and grinding your horns on a block of stubbornness, to the point that what is clear to us laypeople is still being blindly contradicted by you, who remain fixed in your own view and deeply convinced that others are wrong.

Gu Chi:

2009-04-23 10:58:53 The provocation on this issue on Professor Wu’s turf will stop here for the time being. In the end, I hope Professor Wu can understand that my thinking is serious, and definitely not something I blurted out after a casual brainstorm. This consideration began at least three years ago. At the time I attended the bówùxué forum you and Professors Liu and Su held, and afterwards I sent emails to Professors Liu and Su (I still didn’t dare converse with you directly then). Professor Liu replied with the following words (verbatim): “Professor Wu believes it can only be translated as bówùxué. I think this is merely a convention, which has now become a habit and has certain advantages, but the convention should not be absolutized. History itself already contains the meaning of research and inquiry. Natural history therefore means the observation, collation, and study of nature. So I don’t think the term ‘natural history’ is in any way wrong; at most it does not adhere to the convention established by earlier people.” —This is an opinion from a naturalist; at the very least, he too feels that natural history is acceptable. On the other hand, over these past few years, although I have read only a handful of English-language works, I do have some confidence when it comes to Chinese books. Most of the books Professor Wu mentioned as being “mistranslated” as natural history are on my bookshelf, and I have flipped through many of them. From my actual experience in context, “natural history” is indeed more accurate and smoother than “bówùxué.” For example, The Natural History of Love begins with a long stretch about the “history of love,” then discusses the physiology of love, the evolution of love, survival of the fittest, and so on. Only the last two short sections discuss the customs and kinds of love, yet throughout the lines there still runs evolution, history, origins, and so forth. Only when understood according to “history” does it make sense; understood according to “things,” it simply doesn’t. And the translation The Records of Love is wrong, because the book is precisely about the various kinds of love, of which romantic love is only one; how can the title arbitrarily replace the broad sense of love with romantic love? So perhaps it could be translated as “Love Record,” but that is obviously very awkward. Taking everything into account, The Natural History of Love remains the most proper, precise, and fluent—reading the title literally is also understandable: first, it is a historical investigation of love; second, this historical investigation is not intellectual history or social history, but one that uses more of the methods of the natural sciences, namely physiology, biology, and evolution, to carry it out. This understanding may not be very exact, but it is indeed very close to the contemporary usage of “natural history,” and it also makes the book readable. Even if one says that the translator or the reader is ignorant, in fact both have stumbled onto the right answer by accident. Other books marked “natural history” are similar. If one stubbornly insists on the translation “bówùxué,” one will find many books that cannot be translated at all, or that sound awkward when translated. After all, readers today who are familiar with Zhang Hua’s The Records of Natural Things are only a tiny minority; more people know the word “bówù” through “museum.” Understood that way, “natural history” becomes even less intelligible. Besides occasionally racking my brains, I also do read books. Without accumulating sufficient confidence, how would I dare challenge you on Professor Wu’s turf? I only hope to draw your attention to this matter and prevent it from being dismissed again with a simple “totally unrelated.” To refute your “totally unrelated” claim, there is no need to list the entire body of literature; a few obvious counterexamples are enough to falsify it.

I have reposted the discussion to KKBBS.

I can’t resist mentioning one more thing: the translation “natural history museum” may not be wrong either. On this matter, one should not just smack one’s forehead and assume that if it sounds wrong, it must be wrong; if you actually look at the real content and founding purpose of natural museums in China and abroad today, you will see that this name is perfectly apt. For example, if you check the Shanghai Natural History Museum on Baidu Baike: http://baike.baidu.com/view/83946.htm it plainly says: “Shanghai Natural History Museum is one of the largest comprehensive museums of natural science in China. Planning began in 1956, and on November 1, 1956, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Committee approved the formation of a preparatory committee for the Shanghai Natural History Museum, consisting of 12 people including Jin Zhonghua. On December 27 of the same year, the first preparatory committee meeting determined that the museum’s nature was ‘natural history,’ and it was named the ‘Shanghai Natural History Museum’; its task was to prepare five specialized galleries on animals, plants, humans, astronomy, and geology;” This is the museum world’s own conscious identification: it is “natural history,” that is, the display of the history of nature’s evolution. And of course this is not just a special case of the Shanghai Natural History Museum. So calling contemporary natural museums “natural history museums” is entirely appropriate. One cannot look only at the name and assume; one must actually go and look.