The Subjectivity Of Translator From The Perspective Of Intertextuality A Critical Analysis Of Zhuangzi Translation Of The German Version Of Richard Wilhelm/Lao Naixuan And Stephan Schuhmacher/Victor Mair

The traditional chinese philosophy was already known by the western world by the end of19th Century, and the translation of Zhuangzi has been started since the beginning of20th Century. Two systematic german versions are as followes:one by R. Wilhelm in1912with the name Dschuang Dsi. Das wahre Buch vom siidlichen Bliitenland and the other of S. Schuhmacher in1998entitled Zhuangzi. Das Buch der Spontaneitat. The second version was translated into German by the English version of Victor Mair. Facing the German Zhuangzi versions, it always lacks a systematic translation criticism. Therefore, in this present work, it’s attempted to interpret these two versions from the perspective of intertextuality and in terms of the subjectivity of the translator.The work Zhuangzi is characterized by abundant phenomena of intertextuality, which prepares on the one hand the translation difficulties and on the other hand offers a great space of subjectivity of the translator. The intertextuality is to be understood in this work on two levels:First, the phenomena of intertextuality in the original text, and secondly, the mode of treatment of the translator to the phenomena of intertextuality in the original text, namely how the translator reproduces the original intertextuality.Subject of this work is to compare the two different translation version of Zhuangzi from the perspective of intertextuality and in terms of the subjectivity of the translator, namely from the initial question:How can the subjectivity of the translator shape the translation? Thus, the objective of this work is as follows:The decision or treatment of the translator to the intertextuality in these two versions is demonstrated and interpreted by the analysis.The main body of this work is made of two sub-components, as follows:First, the comparison and analysis of the paratext in both versions. According to Genette, the theorist of intertextuality, paratextuality belongs to the study of intertextuality. The paratexts as preface, introduction, glossary appear in both versions, and by the analysis of paratexts we can see the subjectivity of the translator, such as the opinion to the original text, the translation policy, etc.. In addition, the paratexts also provide the reader access to the translation.Second, the analysis of the maintext in two versions. This part deals with the specific mode of treatment of the translator in the process of the reproduction of the intertextuality in the original text. The two types of classical phenomena of intertextuality, namely the Daoism terminology and the parables in Zhuangzi, are reproduced by the two translators in different ways and this difference mirrors the subjectivity.By analyzing the main part, we can already see that the two translators treated the intertextuality of the original differently, although the starting point of both is the same, namely reproduce the original in the best way. This difference is mainly due to the professional and the time factor. Wilhelm mostly quoted the Intertexts from the target culture, such as Faust and Bible, to interpret the intertextuality of the original. Because as a theologian, Wilhlem possessed not much knowledge of the Chinese language and read the original Zhuangzi with the help of a chinese official. Moreover, the chinese culture was completely unfamiliar to the reader at the beginning of the20th Century. If the translation stands closer to the target culture stand closer, it can easily awaken the reader’s interest in the foreign culture. The version of Mair appeared in1994, when several English versions of Zhuangzi were already available on the book market. Therefore, the objective reader might have certain prior knowledge of Daoism. As Sinologist, Mair put in the translation more value to the literary brilliance of Zhuangzi. With this background, Mair tended towards an almost word-for-word translation. But he also added detailed explanations in the glossary, so that the reader can understand his translation better. But it is not to be overlooked that the implicit intertextuality of the target language also occurs in Mair’s translation. So, the two translators interpreted the intertextuality of the original with the intertextuality of the target culture, but the specific methods of treatment differ from each other.According to Harold Bloom, each reading should be considered as "misreading" and any interpretation as a "misinterpretation". It’s not an issue of the accuracy, but of the creativity. This theory may also apply to the translational work. Thus, it is in this work not to make a review of the two versions, but only an attempt to interpret the two versions from the perspective of intertextuality.