A Comparative Analysis Of Two Chinese Versions Of Hamlet From The Perspective Of Translator's Subjectivity

The translation of Hamlet in China has been flourishing for the irresistible power and impressive charm in the original work. As early as 1921, there appeared the first Chinese version of Hamlet by Tian Han, who noted in the preface that Hamlet tops over three other tragedic works especially in terms of pain and grief represented in characters. In the past sixty years, a cohort of outstanding translators devoted themselves to the translation of Shakespeare and made great achievements, which on one hand, provided primary texts for Shakespeare studies in China and on the other, enriched Chinese culture to some degree. As the best tragedic work, Hamlet has been rendered into over forty Chinese versions, among which those by Liang Shiqiu, Zhu Shenghao, and Bian Zhilin enjoy great popularity. This study will focus on the translations by Liang Shiqiu and Zhu Shenghao and apply theoretical terms, as informed by translation studies after the "Cultural Turn", to analyses of their translations of Hamlet.The great changes in translation theory are inevitably conducive to translation and Shakespeare studies. The "Cultural Turn" in translation studies, starting from the late 1970s, has freed the translator from being called ankle-chained dancer. In turn, the gradually improved status of translators has facilitated changes in translation practices from the traditional text-orientedness to the translator-centeredness. This shift has not only broadened the horizon in the field of translation studies, but also has given priority to the study of translator's subjectivity. Although scholars have contributed to studies of Chinese Shakespeare translations, few have touched the issue of the translator's subjectivity. Most critics are only concerned with faithfulness and fluency in target language and consciously or unconsciously turn a blind eye to the existence of translators.This study tries to make a case study through comparative analyses of two Chinese versions of Hamlet in terms of translator's subjectivity. For its comparative approach in the analysis of the translator's subjectivity, this case study taps some more general issues, such as choosing translated materials, adopting translation techniques, observing translation principles and commenting on translators' motivation and restrictions from the social and cultural factors. With the comprehensive analysis on two Chinese versions of Hamlet, this study purports to illustrate the existence and functions of the translator in the process of translation and to inject a new element into translation criticism. The author is deeply convinced that the translator may attempt to bring subjectivity into full play although this intention is usually restricted. Nonetheless, admitting and considering the function of translator's subjectivity may mean encouragement for future translators to challenge canonical translations and also is worthwhile in the construction of translation theories.