Beyond Gaining and Losing:
A Thematic Approach to The Translation of Washington Square

Translation can be considered another form of literary criticism, inspiring readers to enrich their understanding of the source text. First published in 1982 and reprinted in 2012, the Chinese version of Washington Square (1880) aimed to introduce Henry James’ thematic exploration of social conflicts and his psychological writing style to the receiving culture. “The profundity of Washington Square lies in Catherine’s victimization by both the materialism of new power and conventional moral rigidity” (Hou 2012: 23). In addition, the novel’s writing style is distinctive. “Encompassing many basic elements of James’ early works, Washington Square can be recommended to readers interested in learning about Henry James, a pioneer of the Anglo-American modernist movement” (Hou 2012: 24). The novel satirizes the utilitarianism embodied by Austin Sloper and Morris Townsend, the latter of whom attempts to marry Sloper's daughter Catherine for her family’s wealth, but ultimately fails. James’ fiction is renowned for its subtlety, which increases the challenge of translating Washington Square in a way that conveys its thematic significance and the protagonists’ consciousness. When translating a literary work, the translator functions as a literary critic, requiring both linguistic competence and critical perception. “A translation does not communicate the source text itself but the translator’s interpretation of it” (Venuti 2013: 113-14). A comparative reading of the source text and its translation engages readers in processing three layers of interpretation, creating a multifaceted communication between the source text, the translator, and the reader. Reading the translation becomes a meeting ground where readers communicate their interpretations with both the source text and the translation. This article examines how such reading constructs the themes of gaining and losing, the writing style, and the subversive act of transcending the pursuit of material benefits as presented in the novel.

The opening paragraph of the novel implicitly criticizes the utilitarianism represented by Dr. Sloper’s profession. The source text and the Chinese version are as follows:

This profession in America has constantly been held in honor, and more successfully than elsewhere has put forward a claim to the epithet of “liberal”. (James 2001: 1)

医生这种职业在美国始终是受人尊重的，并且比在其他地方更有理由被称为是一种开明的事业。 (Hou 2012: 1)

Two deviations can be observed in the translation. The first is the removal of the quotation marks around “liberal.” In the source text, “liberal” refers to public opinion about the medical profession, implying its popularity. Since the public believes in the honorable nature of a physician’s job, “liberal” suggests that the profession is more civilized and thus superior to others characterized by their obsession with material gain. This inference is confirmed in the rest of the paragraph, which emphasizes the love of knowledge inherent to the medical profession. In this context, being “liberal” means being “concerned with increasing one’s general knowledge and experience rather than particular skills” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). The removal of the quotation marks reinforces the public acknowledgment of the intellectual superiority and honorable nature of the medical profession.

The second deviation is the substitution of “profession” with 事业 (“career”). “Profession” in the source text is neutral, yet 事业 implies dedication to one’s field. This duality raises the reader’s expectations regarding the profession’s respectability, yet the use of 实用 (“practical”) and its synonym 实际 in the translation deflates such expectations, creating an ironic effect. Below are the source text and the translation: “It belongs to the realm of the practical, which in the United States is a great recommendation” (James 2001: 1); “医疗属于实用的领域，而美国人是崇尚实际的” (Hou 2012: 1). In the translation, 实用的 and 实际的 refer to the usefulness of the occupation in general and the Americans’ habit of making use of everything practical. Thus, the critique of material acquisitiveness that dominated the 19th-century United States is explicitly conveyed. Additionally, “the United States” in the source text is translated as “Americans,” delivering the clear message that individual Americans are inclined to pursue practical benefits, underscoring the negative influence of utilitarianism. It is also worth noting that “recommendation” in the source text is amplified to 崇尚 to emphasize the satire. In reality, valuing practicality could be seen as a social phenomenon during James’ time. He observed this trend during his stay with his parents in Geneva: “The School is intended for preparing such boys as wish to be engineers, architects, machinists, ‘and the like’ for other higher schools, and I am the only one who is not destined for either of the useful arts or sciences, although I am I hope for the art of being useful in some way” (James 2006: 18). The source text suggests that being useful is just one advantage of medical science. More importantly, a love of knowledge lends the medical profession a “light” (James 2001: 1).

However, this notion is deceptive, as the real purpose of practicing the profession is to achieve material success and social esteem: “a merit appreciated in a community in which the love of knowledge has not always been accompanied by leisure and opportunity” (James 2001: 1). A true love of knowledge should implicitly reject leisure and material success, yet the medical field is rewarded with both. The source text treats these two elements impartially to emphasize the appreciation of the medical profession’s honorable nature: “...and it is touched by the light of science -- a merit appreciated in a community in which the love of knowledge has not always been accompanied by leisure and opportunity” (James 2001: 1). The translation, however, emphasizes a critique of the medical profession’s hypocritical pretense of a love of knowledge, highlighting its actual desire for membership in the leisure class and material success. While the source text lacks a possessive pronoun for “the love of knowledge,” the translation provides a subject for the phrase, specifying the target of social criticism. Additionally, the translation’s detailed explanation of “leisure” -- “obsess themselves with leisure” -- delivers another blow to the mercenary nature of physicians. Henry James’ attitude toward utilitarianism is shaped by his father’s influence, who valued the spiritual over the material. As James writes in his memoirs about his father, who emphasized the significance of spirituality:

It was in no world of close application that our wondrous parent moved, and his indifference at the first blush to the manifestation of special and marketable talents and faculties, restlessly outward purposes of whatever would-be ‘successful’ sort, was apt to be surpassable only by his delight subsequently taken in our attested and visible results, the very fruits of application; as to which the possibility, perhaps even the virtual guarantee, hadn’t so much left him cold in advance as made him adversely and ‘spiritually’ hot. The sense of that word was the most living thing in the world for him--to the point that the spiritual simply meant to him the practical and the successful, so far as he could get into touch with such denominations, or so far, that is, as he could face them or care for them a priori. (James 2016: 285-286)

Unlike most parents who valued the practical advantages produced by their children’s talents, Henry James’ father felt ashamed of being practical. This attitude contrasts sharply with most Americans’ admiration and respect for the medical profession as portrayed in the novel. Generally, people “admire and respect” (崇尚) the spiritual, but the translation reveals that most Americans prioritize money and social status under the guise of a love of knowledge. The amplification in rendering “great recommendation” as 崇尚 emphasizes the subtle irony. The vague source of the “great recommendation” is replaced with the agency of American individuals in the translation. Readers get the impression that rather than being encouraged to value practicality, most Americans willingly choose to worship and honor it. By emphasizing the moral agency in pursuing material success, the translator points to the dominant social trend that prioritizes the practical over the spiritual.

The reference to the prevalent utilitarianism naturally prepares the reader to examine Sloper’s character. The combination of material benefits with the honor of being knowledgeable defines Sloper’s profession, yet his claim to a love of knowledge serves primarily to secure material advantages. The narrator emphasizes that Sloper differs from other men by not being among “the most vulgar” (James 2001: 2) in his medical practice. However, Sloper’s reputation as a “scholarly doctor” (James 2001: 1) contradicts his exploitation of patients for material gain. The fact that most doctors do not offer explanations after providing a prescription is criticized by Sloper as “the most vulgar,” yet this standard of vulgarity is based solely on his own judgment. Sloper’s claim of not being vulgar is undermined by his intention to gain both money and respect from his patients. He not only charges patients for prescriptions but also attempts to impress the public as a scholarly doctor by offering unnecessary explanations. It is no surprise that the narrator describes him as “a clever man” (James 2001: 2), and this cleverness naturally leads to his becoming “a local celebrity” (James 2001: 2). The irony is clear, as Sloper proves to be vulgar through his mercenary and hypocritical practice as a doctor. The difference between Sloper and other doctors is highlighted in the source text and the translation as follows:

There were some doctors that left the prescription without offering any explanation at all; and he did not belong to that class either, which was after all the most vulgar. It will be seen that I am describing a clever man; and this is really the reason why Doctor Sloper had become a local celebrity. (James 2001: 2)

与此相反，有的医生开一张处方就算了事，对病人不作任何解释，斯洛泼医生不属于那种类型，因为那样行医毕竟太庸俗轻率了。读者也许可以看出，我是在描写一个聪明人。是的，恰恰是聪明使斯洛泼医生成了一位当地名流。 (Hou 2012: 2)

Most doctors provide prescriptions without explanation, which reveals their focus on profit rather than genuine humane concern. Sloper, by contrast, offers explanations to patients, but these explanations are dubious, given his self-serving motives. Unlike other doctors, who are at least honest about their pursuit of material benefits, Sloper tries to disguise his mercenary interests by pretending to be thoughtful. The terms “clever man” and “scholarly doctor” carry negative connotations, suggesting his deceitful cunning and false claims to “learning” and “a love of knowledge.”

The change in narrative voices in the Chinese version effectively bridges the gap between Catherine and the target language reader, successfully evoking sympathy for the female protagonist.

"Oh, Aunt Penniman!” Catherine could only murmur again. It might very well be that she admired him -- though this did not seem to her a thing to talk about. But that this brilliant stranger -- this sudden apparition, who had barely heard the sound of her voice -- took that sort of interest in her that was expressed by the romantic phrase of which Mrs. Penniman had just made use -- this could only be a figment of the restless brain of Aunt Lavinia, whom everyone knew to be a woman of powerful imagination. (James 2001: 34)

The mixed perspectives are notable in this context, serving two purposes. On one hand, the narrative, focused on Catherine, reveals her awareness of her aunt’s imaginative ideas about Morris’ proposal. On the other hand, the narrator provides an objective assessment of Morris’ feigned interest in Catherine, as well as Mrs. Penniman’s unreliability in predicting Morris’ intentions toward Catherine. The idea that a person who has barely heard Catherine speak should admire her undermines his credibility. It is not surprising that the narrator depicts Morris Townsend as a cunning ghost who makes a sudden appearance before Catherine. The word “apparition” clearly carries negative implications about Morris, whose presence can best be characterized as opportunistic. The reader is encouraged to feel sympathy for Catherine, who has become the target of Townsend’s fortune-seeking. A comparison between the translation and the source text reveals insightful differences:

“哎呦，佩尼曼姑妈” 凯瑟琳只能又低声叫嚷起来。她很可能是喜欢他的，但这用不着公开谈论嘛。这个聪明漂亮的陌生人几乎还没有听到过她的嗓音，现在突然光临，对她居然这么垂情，以致要用到佩尼曼太太刚才说的那个浪漫的字眼——这一切只能是拉维尼娅姑母的异想天开。人们都知道姑母是个想象力异常丰富的女人。 (Hou 2012: 39)

A key difference between the source text and the translation is the portrayal of Morris’ appearance. In the source text, Morris is called “this sudden apparition,” which suggests “a ghost or an image of a person that is dead.” In the translation, Morris becomes “聪明漂亮的陌生人” (“a smart and handsome stranger”). By amplifying the narrator’s description of “apparition,” the translator prompts the reader to withhold judgment about Morris’ integrity. It is this “apparition” that haunts Catherine and her father, and their confrontation further highlights Catherine’s ongoing subjection to conventional filial piety. The narrator observes the odd nature of Morris’ relationship with Catherine. The word “apparition” implies the narrator’s criticism of Morris, who continues to haunt Catherine and her father throughout the novel. Given that he has not heard Catherine speak, Morris’ interest in her cannot be genuine. Simultaneously, the reader gains access to Catherine’s thoughts, as she believes her aunt’s unreliable assessment. The differing references to “Mrs. Penniman” and “Aunt Lavinia” illustrate the shift in narrative perspectives. In the final sentence of the translated passage, the use of “姑母” explicitly highlights Catherine’s point of view. Indeed, Catherine’s gullibility leads her to accept Morris’ proposal, but Sloper’s strong opposition intensifies the conflict between father and daughter.

Morris’ mercenary nature is confirmed when he persuades Catherine of the need to be “clever.” The translation of the word in this instance highlights Sloper’s moral judgment of Morris. The source text and the translation are as follows:

“I suppose it seems to you a kind of curse?” said Morris. “It must be very dismal. But don’t you think,” he went on, presently, “that if you were to try to be very clever, and to set rightly about it, you might in the end conjure it away? don’t you think,” he continued further, in a tone of sympathetic speculation, “that a really clever woman, in your place, might bring him round at last? don’t you think -- ” (James 2001: 132)

“你觉得那是一种诅咒，是吗？”莫里斯说，“那一定是种叫人伤心的诅咒。但是，你是不是认为，”他停了一会，又接下去说，“如果你多动点脑筋就能把事情弄好，到最后你还是可能把那笔钱搞到手？你是不是认为，”他继续说，语调中充满了热情的猜测，“在你的地位，一个真正会动脑筋的女人到头来可能会使他回心转意？你是不是认为……” (Hou 2012: 164)

Morris articulates his concept of cleverness clearly in this passage. In the translation, “try to be very clever” is altered to “你多动点脑筋” (“use your wits a bit more”), creating a vivid picture of Morris’ attempts to teach Catherine how to craft a scheme to obtain her father’s money for his own benefit. “In tandem, translation and criticism enhance the understanding and appreciation of literature.” (Gaddis 11) In the source text, the word “clever” would lose its impact if it were literally translated as “聪明” (“smart”). For one, Catherine was not inclined by nature to deceive her father for money. For another, the detail in Morris’ instructions shows his determination and patience in guiding Catherine to win her father’s trust. For Morris, being “clever” means having the ability to achieve one’s goals through deception. He instructs Catherine on how to deceive Sloper into believing in her genuine love for him, ultimately preventing him from disinheriting her, thus securing a leisurely life for himself. Additionally, it is noteworthy that while the source text makes no direct reference to the money Sloper plans to withhold, the translation introduces a clear mention of it. This emphasis effectively highlights Morris’ vulgarity and his mercenary intentions.

Morris’ ultimate goal is to “gain,” and the translation reveals both his character and Catherine’s, reinforcing the novel’s critique of utilitarianism. The source text and the translation are as follows:

Morris stood stroking his beard, with a clouded eye. “Why have you never married?” he asked, abruptly. “You have had opportunities.” “I didn’t wish to marry.” “Yes, you are rich, you are free; you had nothing to gain.” “I had nothing to gain,” said Catherine. (James 2001: 231)

莫里斯捋着胡须，两眼显得有些迷惘。“那你为什么一直没有结婚！”他突然问。“你曾经有过不少机会。” “我不想结婚。” “是的，你有钱，又自由自在，结婚了也得不到什么。” “我不要得到什么”，凯瑟琳说。 (Hou 2012: 287-88)

The use of different tenses highlights the two protagonists’ attitudes toward their relationship’s prospects. Morris seeks to determine whether Catherine’s remaining single is related to him. The present perfect tense in “You have had many opportunities” indicates his curiosity about Catherine’s current plans and his willingness to marry her now that her father is deceased. Catherine’s response, however, suggests that she is in control of her life. She uses the past tense in “I didn’t wish to marry” to indicate that it was her decision. Morris, interpreting the past tense as a potential opening, hopes she might wish to marry him now. He attributes her previous choice to her wealth and newfound freedom. For Morris, marriage is a transaction for money and freedom. Yet, the past tense in his final question implies a desire to understand whether she might change her mind now. In the translation, the lack of time markers in Catherine’s statement—“我不想结婚”—confirms her firm decision not to marry. This shift from subtlety to clarity reflects the translator’s appreciation of Catherine’s strong will. Catherine’s repetition of Morris’ phrase, replacing “you” with “I,” suggests that she sees through his intentions. The translation, however, exposes Morris’ manipulation by implying that Catherine’s disinterest was tied to his lack of money and prospects. Yet, Catherine’s indifference in repeating his words shows she has grown wise to his scheming. The translator’s choice to clarify Catherine’s stance demonstrates her values. Unlike Sloper or Morris, Catherine refuses to define herself by gains or losses. The varying translations of the same phrase suggest the translator’s interpretation of Catherine’s position. “The interlingual translation is bound to reflect the translator’s own creative interpretation of the SL text” (Bassnett 86). By depicting Catherine’s rejection of the clever pursuit of gain, the translator underscores the novel’s critique of utilitarianism and celebrates Catherine’s independence and moral strength. Catherine’s final response to Morris serves as an ironic commentary on his life, which ultimately holds “nothing to gain.” Although her thoughts after being abandoned by Morris are not explicitly represented in the source text, her choice to remain single and refusal to resume a relationship with him suggest a stoic resolve. Just as she defines her own gains and losses, Morris is aware of his own. As James, inspired by the Stoic Epictetus, reminds us, “no gain can make up for the loss of virtue,” and “no one is undone by an action not his own...His true undoing was when he lost modesty, faith, honor, virtue” (James 1984: 13). Catherine’s nearly identical repetition of Morris’ words highlights James’ subtle portrayal of a heroine whose emotions are not overtly expressed. While the translation clarifies Catherine’s position, it sacrifices some of James’ rhetorical subtlety. This is seen in the clarification of “it” as “money” and the reduction of four dashes to one in describing Catherine’s reaction to her aunt’s view of Morris. Therefore, balancing the emphasis on the novel’s theme with preserving the author’s subtlety would be ideal.

Gaining and losing, a central theme of the novel, serves as an effective touchstone for revealing the characters’ moral values. The frequent use of key epithets in the source text encourages the reader to reflect on their specific meanings. By amplifying these significant terms, which reveal the protagonists' moral traits, the Chinese version employs necessary strategies to critique the prevailing utilitarianism. Readers are encouraged to recognize Sloper’s hypocrisy as a local celebrity, to sympathize with Catherine, who has internalized patriarchal values, and to identify Morris’ mercenary motives. Yet, ultimately, Catherine prevails. By rejecting the two male authorities who emphasize the importance of being clever, she subverts their utilitarian values. As she concludes, the meaning of her life is neither enhanced by gain nor diminished by loss. Her defining quality is the dignified power to control her own life, which earns the reader’s admiration and respect. “With Catherine Sloper, James begins to suggest through his central characters that consciousness provides individuals with the possibility to resolve fundamental conflicts and to gain a certain degree of control over their lives” (Hayes 117).