麥哲倫這條新航 -- this new sea route of Magellan's

[kudra]

Here is a section from the so-called main text of Chap 41, Written Standard

Chinese, Huang and Stimson, titled

中西文化初度之交通

麥哲倫發現太平洋之後﹐知道從歐洲到亞洲去﹐可以由大西洋先到太平洋﹐太平洋

的另一邊就是亞洲﹔回來的時候可以經過印度洋入地中海﹐不必再經過大西洋。麥

哲倫這條新航線的發現﹐使西方和東方的交通進入一個新的時代。

麦哲伦发现太平洋之后，知道从欧洲到亚洲去，可以由大西洋先到太平洋，太平洋的

另一边就是亚洲；回来的时候可以经过印度洋入地中海，不必再经过大西洋。麦哲

伦这条新航线的发现，使西方和东方的交通进入一个新的时代。

My translation -- After Magellan discovered the Pacific Ocean, it was known how to go

from Europe to Asia. (Namely) it was possible to go from the Atlantic to the

Pacific, and(once) in the Pacific the other side was (simply) Asia. When

returning, it was possible to go through the Indian Ocean, and enter the

Mediterranean, without needing to again go through the Atlantic. Magellan's

discovery of this new sea route caused communication between East and West

to enter a new era.

It looks like the translation is straight forward, but this scenario from

the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean supposes the existence of the Suez

Canal, doesn't it? This discussion is all taking place just after Magellan's

time is it not? Or am I missing something? Perhaps 航線 can be loosely translated

as "trade route" in which case it could include the overland bit to get

from the Med to the Indian Ocean. I don't actually know what the typical

trade route was.

So I am asking is my confusion based on something I am not understanding about the

translation, or is the original passage in Chinese in fact historically problematic, in which

case my confusion is justified.

Thanks.

[HashiriKata]

Kudra,

Your interpretation of the passage is fine and your confusion is justified. In saying 回来的时候可以经过印度洋入地中海，不必再经过大西洋, the writer is clearly talking about sea route here (although 航線 simply means "(navigation) route").

(On the other hand, with (麦哲伦发现太平洋) 之后, it can be understood to be ANY TIME AFTER the discovery, even much later, so the writer is still correct! )

----------

PS: I'd change a bit of your translation:

"it was known how to go from Europe to Asia. (Namely) it was possible to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and(once) in the Pacific the other side was (simply) Asia."

to something like:

"It's possible to go from Europe to Asia via the Atlantic to the Pacific, and then from the Pacific to Asia."

[kudra]

Thanks HashiriKata.

I agree that taken in isolation the sentence can mean any time after....

However, the essay is about the opening up of relations between the West and China around the time after Magellan, approximately up until the time of Leibnitz(1646-1716). A lot of the essay is about Matteo Ricci (which of course you and readers of this post couldn't know unless you happened to have a copy of WSC vol 4.)

So in the context of the essay, is it really reasonable to say that "it can be understood to be ANY TIME AFTER the discovery, even much later?" In an English expository essay like this, a student would be marked down for example. I suppose Chinese expository style allows more lattitude (speaking of navigation routes:wink: ) but this seems to reference a time completely out of the context of the essay. Would a native writer still say this, or leave out the reference of going from the Indian Ocean to the Med to increase clarity?

Thanks.

[byjove]

I think the critical phrase is "不必再经过大西洋". I don't think they mean that you would not "pass through" or "touch" the Atlantic again; I think they meant you wouldn't have to CROSS the Atlantic again. The route they are outlining moves always to the west: from the Atlantic west through the Strait of Magellan to the Pacific, then west across the Pacific to Asia, then from Asia west through the Indian Ocean, around Africa and north to the Pillars of Hercules. This route means only one passage of each ocean, rather than a round trip. Hence, 不必再经过大西洋。

[kudra]

good point byjove.

However, isn't 不必再经过大西洋, essentially a comment on 可以经过印度洋入地中海, which is saying enter the Med from the Indian? 入, Here I am streaching my understanding, but it seems to me that 入 implies passage from A to B, as in A 入B. The other thing is that he gave all this detail, but he did not talk about rounding the Cape of Good Hope, which characters were available at that point in the text 好望角, and which vocabulary was in fact introduced if I remember, in the spoken Chinese volume.

Thanks for the comment. I am convinced that there is wiggle room for argument in any case.