On the other hand, many others believe that poem is translatable. “Gu Zhengkun (2005) held that poem could never be easily defined as translatable or untranslatable. He thought that on different parts in a poem, the levels of translatability were different(Wang Peng, 2008: 17).” The distinguished Chinese translator Xu Yuanchong (2003) also agrees on the translatability of poem. He once expressed his disagreement with Robert Frost on the untranslatability of poem and stated that “although poem untranslatability is unavoidable for it is impossible to keep the same images of the original text in the target text, poem is translatable as a whole, and that there are both gains and losses in the practice of poem translation. For the losses, they can be compensated by a translator’s creation(Xu Yuanchong, 2003: 45).” His opinion, in fact, not only confirms the translatability of poem, but also shows that the untranslatability of poem is relative. It is on such a theoretical basis that he put forward his translation thoughts of “Three Beauty”, which sets up a criterion for classical Chinese poem translation.

2.2 Previous Studies on Xu Yuanchong’s Translation Thoughts of “Three Beauty”

The translation thoughts of” three beauty”: beauty in sound, in form and in sense, sets up a standard for classical Chinese poem translation. “Beauty in sound means a poem should have musical effects like rhymes and rhythm, be coherent to read and be pleasant to hear. Beauty in form concerns the visual effects, such as the length, the symmetry of a poem. Beauty in sense means that the rendition should arouse the same emotion of the target readers just like the source poem (Xu Yuanchong, 2006: 74¬-78).” 

Currently, various studies on professor Xu’s translation thoughts of “Three Beauty” present pided opinions. On one hand, Chen Guojian(2008: 22) regarded the theory as “helpful and inspiring in that it took the characteristics of classical Chinese poem into full consideration.” Wang Houping(2010: 18) pointed out that “the theory clearly demonstrated the relations among the sense, sound and form in classical Chinese poem, and advocated a flexible application in the translating practices.” Wang Xiqiang(2002: 333) believed that “this theory was based on Professor Xu’s long-term translation practices. In turn, it provided a useful guideline for translation practices.” On the other hand, Xiong Jing (2011: 80) pointed out that “there were several contradictions between professor Xu’s theory and his practice where the sense of the poem was not faithfully reproduced.” Chen Guojian (2008: 22) held that “some untranslatable factors made the theory impractical, and rigid applications would only result in unqualified renditions.”

Previous studies on the “Three Beauty” Theory show that professor Xu’s translation theory and practices have a wide and profound influence on many translators. However, with so many pided opinions presented, one is easy to get confused, thus failing to understand the “Three Beauty” Theory critically and apply it correctly. Since few current studies has made a comprehensive comment on the theory on the bases of varied opinions, this paper tries to present a critical view on the “Three Beauty” Theory in order to promote its understanding. Besides, although there are already a lot of studies on poem untranslatability which also put forward several solutions accordingly, much remains to be done to establish a close relationship between the phenomenon and the solutions. This paper tries to explore their inner relations on the basis of “Three Beauty” Theory. It is feasible because the solution mainly discussed in this paper also derives from professor Xu’s translation theory of “Recreation for Loss”. As the solution is put forward based on a critical understanding of the “Three Beauty”, its practical effect is also discussed critically, which is just another contribution of this paper.    来~自^751论+文.网www.751com.cn/ 从许渊冲“三美论”看中国古典诗歌翻译的不可译和创造性再现(3):http://www.751com.cn/yingyu/lunwen_75247.html