The word sovereignty in Chinese is usually translated as 主權 (zhu quan).
But I am wondering if anyone knows when this 主權 expression actually came into the Chinese language?
In other words, I don’t think this was an item of common terminology even seventy-five years ago …
Would anyone be able to offer any authoritative comments on this topic or advise how to research this topic??? In short, I am trying to determine when the term 主權 entered the Chinese language …
A lot can be gleaned from a dictionary entry. Here’s an example with my comments in blue below.
–
zhǔ quán ㄓㄨˇ ㄑㄨㄢˊ
主权（主權）
【ZDIC.NET 汉 典 网】
(1).君主的权力。《管子·七臣七主》：“藏竭则主权衰，法伤则姦门闓。” 汉 王符 《潜夫论·叙录》：“壅蔽贤士，以擅主权。”
[color=#0000FF]A ruler’s authority. Used as far back as 7th century BC.[/color]
(2).有职权的官吏。《资治通鉴·唐穆宗长庆三年》：“上怜之，尽取 弘 （ 韩弘 ）财簿自閲视，凡中外主权，多纳 弘 货。” 胡三省 注：“主权，谓中外官之有事权者。”
[color=#0000FF]An official with powers related to his position. Used as far back as the 11th century.[/color]
(3).自主的权力。《老残游记》第十七回：“我拿了这信就有办法，将来任凭你送人也罢，择配也罢，你就有了主权，我也不遭声气。”
[color=#0000FF]Personal power/authority. Used as far back as 1903.[/color]
(4).国家对内高于一切和对外保卫独立自主的固有权力。 邵羲 《论借外债筑路之利害》：“自 沪寧 借款筑路之契约宣布，主权之丧失，国民之负担，无时可以挽回。” 洪深 《劫后桃花》六十：“现在 青岛 还了我们 中国 ，是我们 中国 人的主权了。”
[color=#0000FF]The right of a nation to be its own highest authority and to defend its self-determination. Used as far back as 1909.[/color]
Not an answer, but a direction: check out Chinese-language reports on Britain’s recent decision to recognise China’s “sovereignty” over Tibet, rather than “suzerainity”. The Chinese discussion, if it goes into the history of Anglo-Chinese relations and Tibet should include both words and some discussion of their meanings. Unless it’s the Apple Daily, in which case there will just be cartoon drawings of Foreign Devils eating babies, or something.
The word “sovereignty” in Chinese = a 3 year old screaming,“Mine! Mine! Mine!”.
[quote=“Hartzell”]The word sovereignty in Chinese is usually translated as 主權 (zhu quan).
But I am wondering if anyone knows when this 主權 expression actually came into the Chinese language?
In other words, I don’t think this was an item of common terminology even seventy-five years ago …
Would anyone be able to offer any authoritative comments on this topic or advise how to research this topic??? In short, I am trying to determine when the term 主權 entered the Chinese language …[/quote]
The term has been there quite a long time However 主權 in Chinese society has been in so few people’s hands for thousands of years that common folks have not a slightest idea of what it is, let alone the term being known. As for when did the term 主權 come to being a common concept, it is of course when people starting to hold some of it (or sadly to made believe that they actually hold some of it) that it gradually becomes commonly known. I don’t know the exact time, but within recent 20 years it certainly gained popularity.
[quote=“sjcma”]
zhǔ quán ㄓㄨˇ ㄑㄨㄢˊ
主权（主權）
【ZDIC.NET 汉 典 网】
(4).国家对内高于一切和对外保卫独立自主的固有权力。 邵羲 《论借外债筑路之利害》：“自 沪寧 借款筑路之契约宣布，主权之丧失，国民之负担，无时可以挽回。” 洪深 《劫后桃花》六十：“现在 青岛 还了我们 中国 ，是我们 中国 人的主权了。”
[color=#0000FF]The right of a nation to be its own highest authority and to defend its self-determination. Used as far back as 1909.[/color][/quote]
So, it appears that this term “zhu quan” was not in common use in 1895 … which would explain why Article 2 of the English language version of the Treaty of Shimonoseki uses the term “sovereignty” but the Chinese language version does not contain the term “zhu quan” …
Indeed an interesting topic that could take many turns.
Maybe there are other reasons that “it appears that this term “zhu quan” was not in common use in 1895 …”.
In politics, and almost every situation involving Chinese culture or for that matter, any culture, the language and interpretation are usually self-serving and thus utilized as such.
If using the authorized translation, or not, the questions that come to my mind are 1) What is the authorized wording and 2) what is the intent? Thirdly, I wonder about the insight into Chinese culture at that time, and is it the same or different in this age.
Yes. In diplomatic translation/interpreting, if there is a significant difference between two language versions of the same thing, it was allowed to exist. Surely even back in 1895 they did have translators checking the texts of treaties before they were finalized. If the procedure then was anything like the procedure now, there would have been extensive discussions about that word and how it could/should/would be expressed in the Chinese version. It would not simply have been omitted.
Well, I would be interested in any further comments by ironlady on this (to me) important topic.
Obviously, my interest in this issue has been sparked by the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895. See Article 2 – taiwanbasic.com/treaties/Shimonoseki.htm
I don’t have a ready reference for the original Chinese language version on the internet, but I suppose it should not be hard to find.
I was curious and looked around for a few minutes, but did not find any immediately obvious reference to the original text – only analyses and summaries.
Here is the Chinese original.
China permanently transfers (rangyu) the right[s] (quan) to the following territories…
ydjh.chc.edu.tw/society/hist … mage/8.htm
[quote]第二款
中國將管理下開地方之權並將該地方所有堡壘、軍器、工廠及一切屬公物件，永遠讓與日本。
一、下開劃界以內之奉天省南邊地方。從鴨綠江口溯該江抵安平河口，又從該河口劃至鳳
凰城、海城及營口而止，畫成折線以南地方；所有前開各城市邑，皆包括在劃界線內。
該線抵營口之遼河後，即順流至海口止，彼此以河中心為分界。遼東灣東岸及黃海北
岸在奉天所屬諸島嶼，亦一併在所讓界內。
二、臺灣全島及所有附屬各島嶼。
三、澎湖列島。即英國格林尼次東經百十九度起、至二百二十度止及北緯二十三度起、至
二十四度之間諸島嶼。[/quote]
Here is the Japanese version. The Qing (Qingguo, NOT Zhongguo) cede (割與) the sovereignty (主權) of the following territories in perpetuity.
第二條
清國ハ左記ノ土地ノ主權竝ニ該地方ニ在ル城壘兵器製造所及官有物ヲ永遠日本國ニ割與ス
一 左ノ經界内ニ在ル奉天省南部ノ地
鴨緑江口ヨリ該江ヲ溯リ安平河口ニ至リ該河口ヨリ鳳凰城海城營口ニ亘リ遼河口ニ至ル折線以南ノ地併セテ前記ノ各城市ヲ包含ス而シテ遼河ヲ以テ界トスル處ハ該河ノ中央ヲ以テ經界トスルコトト知ルヘシ
遼東灣東岸及黄海北岸ニ在テ奉天省ニ屬スル諸島嶼
二 臺灣全島及其ノ附屬諸島嶼
三 澎湖列島即英國「グリーンウィチ」東經百十九度乃至百二十度及北緯二十三度乃至二十四度ノ間ニ在ル諸島嶼
It looks like the English translation translates 權 as sovereignty.
Article 2 of the Japanese version:
Here are two analyses of the “validity” of the 1895 Treaty.
Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa)
taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/histo … egal2c.htm
One-China Policy and Taiwan
taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/onechina-tai.htm
Don’t know if you are interested in these aspects.
Ironlady, can you clarify what you mean by “it was allowed to exist”? (I’m interested in the topic of diplomatic translation and value your comments, and I’m not sure what “it” is referring to here.)
Hi,
I can’t speak to historical practice, only to what goes on these days when a treaty or international agreement is being negotiated.
I’ve been involved in the final step of approval of text for this sort of thing. One time it involved my being called out of bed at midnight to go downstairs to the hotel lobby and go over a text line by line to determine whether the English and the Chinese really were equivalent, and then to argue the US position to make them equivalent. There was definitely no way anything was going to be different in the two versions unless someone purposely made that happen, or the interpreter employed by one side was not aggressive enough/did not feel supported by his own side.
I think it could be argued that the intent of both sides in the treaty you’re talking about was to write texts that were equivalent, but I can also see where the Chinese side would use the specific wording of the Chinese text to interpret things the way they want to. “The Qing” is not equivalent to “the PRC” per se (I am ignorant of the issues of political succession and what obligations it might carry, especially through multiple governments) and “cede all rights to” is not the same as “give up sovereignty over”. But we are arguing in English about texts in Japanese and Chinese. (Which I encourage. It’s how I keep food on the table, after all.) 
[quote=“ironlady”]Hi,
I think it could be argued that the intent of both sides in the treaty you’re talking about was to write texts that were equivalent, but I can also see where the Chinese side would use the specific wording of the Chinese text to interpret things the way they want to. “The Qing” is not equivalent to “the PRC” per se (I am ignorant of the issues of political succession and what obligations it might carry, especially through multiple governments) and “cede all rights to” is not the same as “give up sovereignty over”. But we are arguing in English about texts in Japanese and Chinese. (Which I encourage. It’s how I keep food on the table, after all.) [/quote]
I think here that Japanese had already arrived at zhuquan as a translation for the modern concept of ‘sovereignty’ but that Chinese may not have adopted it yet. This is just before huge numbers of Chinese students (like Chiang Kai-shek and Lu Xun) began studying in Japan and bringing back the new Japanese lexicon for modernity.
That sounds logical.
But, of course, the Chinese argument will be “That isn’t what it says in Chinese.” And they’d be right, technically.
[quote=“ironlady”]Hi,
I can’t speak to historical practice, only to what goes on these days when a treaty or international agreement is being negotiated.
I’ve been involved in the final step of approval of text for this sort of thing. One time it involved my being called out of bed at midnight to go downstairs to the hotel lobby and go over a text line by line to determine whether the English and the Chinese really were equivalent, and then to argue the US position to make them equivalent. There was definitely no way anything was going to be different in the two versions unless someone purposely made that happen, or the interpreter employed by one side was not aggressive enough/did not feel supported by his own side. […] [/quote]
Interesting, thanks for clarifying.