Reflection On Retranslation Of The Art Of War:a Perspective Of Misreading Theory

What counts in the retranslation of literary classics is originality and superiority. But how did the precursory translators exert influence over the latecomers? And how could later translators achieve originality in interpretation and superiority over the precursory translators? So far, few people have touched upon these points. This dissertation, based on the case study of English retranslation of The Art of War, makes an attempt to probe into these issues.As China’s foremost ancient military study, The Art of War has appealed to multitudes of translators to interpret the meaning of its text with its openness and response-inviting structure. Retranslation ushers competition into the translation of the same literary works, and a keen competition inevitably exists among different translators for readers, for market and for historical reputation, and the fiercest one is that among English translators. The precursory translators nearly exhausted the interpretation options for The Art of War as a result of their priority, and their translations set criteria for the latecomers whose creative interpretation were therefore hindered, so they enjoyed much favorable positions in the competition. If the later translators followed such criteria, their translations would be considered as reproductions of the precursors’without any originality, and they themselves would be under the cover of the precursors’influence without any hope to gain historical positions. To reverse this disadvantageous belatedness and to clear interpretative space for themselves, the latecomers had to criticize, revise and creatively misread the precursors’translations, through which they could break away from the precursors’influence and establish themselves as strong translators. This dissertation is intended to figure out the approaches that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors’translations and the evolving track of these approaches, so as to probe into the nature of the inter-translator relationships by introducing Harold Bloom’s Misreading theory into the study of retranslation of The Art of War and taking the evolution of the prevailing paradigm of translation studies as background. During the period when the linguistic paradigm budded and prevailed in the translation studies, emphasis was put on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the source text (ST) and the translated text (TT) to weigh whether functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect was achieved. This practice directly influenced and gave birth to linguistic misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors’ translations in this period. Linguistic misreading refers to misreading the precursors’translations linguistically, i.e. the later translators highlighted the superiority of their own translations over the precursors’in terms of functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect in relation to the ST, and sometimes the latecomers even criticized and revised the precursors’ translations to demonstrate the superiority of their own translations. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong late translators practiced linguistic misreading on the precursors’translations so as to highlight the expressive impropriety and inappropriateness in them. As the first English translator, E. F. Calthrop served as the pioneer to introduce The Art of War into the English world, and could therefore be regarded as the first strong translator in the English translation history of The Art of War. Lionel Giles, based on his philological perspective, sharply criticized and revised the translation errors in Calthrop’s translations, cleared up Calthrop’s influence, resulting in establishing himself as a much stronger translator. Samuel B. Griffith, based on his intimate knowledge of military science, cautiously criticized and revised the translation errors in Giles’translation, broke away from Giles’influence, and succeeded in making himself the only strong translator that could match Giles in this period. Overemphasis on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the ST and the TT greatly restrained latecomers from being creative in interpreting The Art of War, and their translations were more or less branded with Giles’and Griffith’s. Under the covering of Giles’and Griffith’s translations, the survival space of others’was further reduced and only a few published. The translation of The Art of War was at its low tide.During the period when the cultural paradigm prevailed in the translation studies, translation was always conducted in a significantly wider culture-based background, with emphasis put on the connection between translation and non-literary factors and on the way translation worked within the whole cultural system. This trend provided translators with wider vision in interpreting STs, provided retranslation of literary classics such as The Art of War with new vigor and energy, and also gave rise to cultural misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors’ translations in this period. Cultural misreading refers to misreading the precursors’translations culturally, i.e. the later translators focused on the new cultural images their translations created for the ST, and highlighted the precursors’narrowness and rigidity in the interpretation of The Art of War, so as to outshine the precursors’translations and make their own translations counter-sublime. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong later translators practiced cultural misreading on the precursors’ translations from the viewpoint of changing the cultural images created by their translations, so as to highlight the precursors’restraint in interpreting The Art of War against latecomers’originality in creating cultural images. R. L Wing’s translation appeared as a calendar-workbook, Leong Weng Kam’s translation as a comic book, and Gary Gagliardi’s rewriting serials as practical strategy guides, all of which overturned the image of Chinese classics created by Giles’translation and the image of military classics created by Griffith’s translation, and helped to build these three translators as strong ones in this period.The fact that later translators misread the precursors’translations and the misreading approaches changed with the prevailing paradigm of translation studies demonstrates that the precursors play a very limited role in forming the latecomers, even hinder their development, and that the inter-translator relationships are not the later translators’imitating, inheriting, accepting or assimilating but misreading, criticizing, revising and rewriting the precursors’ translations. Just as history is dominated by the stronger, the English translation history of The Art of War is to a large extent dominated by strong later translators who kept misreading the precursors’translations.