Article #132-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from The Art of War, by active 6th century B.C. Sunzi

When Lionel Giles began his translation of Sun Tzŭ’s Art of War, the
work was virtually unknown in Europe. Its introduction to Europe began
in 1782 when a French Jesuit Father living in China, Joseph Amiot,
acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. It was not a good
translation because, according to Dr. Giles, "[I]t contains a great
deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write, and very little indeed of what he
did."

The first translation into English was published in 1905 in Tokyo by
Capt. E. F. Calthrop, R.F.A. However, this translation is, in the words
of Dr. Giles, "excessively bad." He goes further in this criticism: "It
is not merely a question of downright blunders, from which none can
hope to be wholly exempt. Omissions were frequent; hard passages were
willfully distorted or slurred over. Such offenses are less pardonable.
They would not be tolerated in any edition of a Latin or Greek classic,
and a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon in
translations from Chinese." In 1908 a new edition of Capt. Calthrop’s
translation was published in London. It was an improvement on the
first—omissions filled up and numerous mistakes corrected—but new
errors were created in the process. Dr. Giles, in justifying his
translation, wrote: "It was not undertaken out of any inflated estimate
of my own powers; but I could not help feeling that Sun Tzŭ deserved a
better fate than had befallen him, and I knew that, at any rate, I
could hardly fail to improve on the work of my predecessors."

Clearly, Dr. Giles’ work established much of the groundwork for the
work of later translators who published their own editions. Of the
later editions of the Art of War I have examined; two feature Giles’
edited translation and notes, the other two present the same basic
information from the ancient Chinese commentators found in the Giles
edition. Of these four, Giles’ 1910 edition is the most scholarly and
presents the reader an incredible amount of information concerning Sun
Tzŭ’s text, much more than any other translation.

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Art of War (Sunzi)**

This excerpt is not a direct passage from Sunzi’s The Art of War itself but rather a meta-commentary on the translation history of the text, written by an unnamed author (likely a scholar or editor) discussing the work of Lionel Giles, a prominent Sinologist who produced one of the most influential English translations of Sunzi’s treatise in 1910.

Below is a breakdown of the excerpt’s context, themes, literary devices, and significance, with a focus on the text itself—how it presents the challenges of translation, the evolution of Sunzi’s reception in the West, and the scholarly debates surrounding its accuracy.

1. Context of the Excerpt

Historical Background of The Art of War

Author & Origin: The Art of War (《孫子兵法》) is a 6th-century BCE Chinese military treatise traditionally attributed to Sunzi (Sun Tzu), a general and strategist.
Purpose: The text is a philosophical and tactical guide to warfare, emphasizing strategy, deception, adaptability, and psychological manipulation over brute force.
Cultural Significance: It became a foundational text in Chinese military thought and later influenced business, politics, and leadership globally.

Translation History in the West

The excerpt outlines how The Art of War was introduced to Europe and the challenges of early translations:

First European Exposure (1782): A French Jesuit missionary, Joseph Amiot, translated it into French, but Giles criticizes it as inaccurate, containing additions not by Sunzi and omitting key passages.
First English Translation (1905): Captain E.F. Calthrop published an English version in Tokyo, which Giles describes as "excessively bad"—full of blunders, omissions, and distortions.
Revised Edition (1908): Calthrop’s second attempt improved but introduced new errors.
Giles’ Justification (1910): Lionel Giles, dissatisfied with previous efforts, produced his own translation, arguing that Sunzi deserved better and that even an imperfect attempt would be an improvement.

2. Themes in the Excerpt

The passage explores several key themes related to translation, scholarship, and cultural transmission:

A. The Challenges of Translation

Fidelity vs. Interpretation: The excerpt highlights the difficulty of accurately translating an ancient Chinese text into Western languages.
- Amiot’s French translation is criticized for adding material not by Sunzi (possibly due to misunderstanding or cultural bias).
- Calthrop’s English version is faulted for omissions and distortions, suggesting either laziness or inability to grasp nuanced concepts.
Scholarly Integrity: Giles argues that translations should meet the same standards as classical Latin/Greek texts, implying that Chinese works were often treated with less rigor.

B. The Evolution of Scholarly Standards

Progressive Improvement: The excerpt shows how later translations built on (and corrected) earlier mistakes.
Giles’ Contribution: His 1910 edition is presented as the most scholarly, incorporating ancient Chinese commentaries and providing extensive notes—setting a new standard for future translations.

C. Cultural Appropriation & Misrepresentation

The passage subtly critiques Western misinterpretations of Eastern texts.
- Early translators (like Amiot and Calthrop) may have projected their own biases or failed to grasp Sunzi’s strategic depth.
- Giles’ work is framed as an attempt to restore authenticity, suggesting a shift toward more respectful scholarship.

3. Literary & Rhetorical Devices

The excerpt uses several persuasive and analytical techniques to make its case:

A. Direct Quotations for Authority

Giles’ criticisms are quoted directly, lending credibility to the argument:
- "[Amiot’s translation] contains a great deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write, and very little indeed of what he did."
- "It is not merely a question of downright blunders… Omissions were frequent; hard passages were willfully distorted."
- "Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate than had befallen him."
- These quotes reinforce the idea that previous translations were flawed and justify Giles’ intervention.

B. Comparative Analysis

The author contrasts the quality of different translations:
- Amiot’s (1782): "Not a good translation" (too much added, too little original).
- Calthrop’s (1905): "Excessively bad" (blunders, omissions, distortions).
- Calthrop’s Revised (1908): "An improvement… but new errors were created."
- Giles’ (1910): "The most scholarly," with "an incredible amount of information."
- This progression shows how scholarship improves over time.

C. Appeal to Scholarly Standards

Giles’ argument that Chinese texts should be treated like Greek/Latin classics is a call for academic rigor.
The phrase "a similar standard of honesty ought to be insisted upon" suggests that earlier translators were negligent.

D. Understatement & Irony

The line "I could not help feeling that Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate" is ironic understatement—Giles is strongly critical but phrases it politely.
"I knew that, at any rate, I could hardly fail to improve on the work of my predecessors" is modest yet confident, implying that even a mediocre effort would surpass prior attempts.

4. Significance of the Excerpt

A. For Translation Studies

The passage illustrates the challenges of cross-cultural translation, especially with ancient, philosophically dense texts.
It raises questions about fidelity, interpretation, and the translator’s role—should they adapt the text for a new audience or preserve its original meaning as closely as possible?

**B. For the Reception of The Art of War in the West**

The excerpt explains why early Western readers may have misunderstood Sunzi’s ideas—due to poor translations.
Giles’ work helped establish The Art of War as a serious strategic text in the West, influencing military, business, and leadership studies.

C. For Scholarly Integrity

The passage defends the importance of accurate scholarship, arguing that misrepresentations distort history and thought.
It sets a precedent for future translations, encouraging rigor and respect for original texts.

5. Close Reading of Key Lines

Let’s examine a few critical sentences in depth:

"[Amiot’s translation] contains a great deal that Sun Tzŭ did not write, and very little indeed of what he did."
- Meaning: Amiot added his own interpretations (or possibly commentaries from later Chinese scholars) while leaving out Sunzi’s actual words.
- Implication: This suggests cultural filtering—Amiot may have assumed Western readers needed extra explanation, altering the text’s purity.
"Omissions were frequent; hard passages were willfully distorted or slurred over."
- "Willfully distorted" implies intentional misleading, while "slurred over" suggests avoiding difficult concepts.
- Effect: Paints Calthrop as either incompetent or dishonest, undermining his credibility.
"Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate than had befallen him."
- Personification: Sunzi is treated as a wronged figure, deserving justice through accurate translation.
- Pathos: Evokes sympathy for the misrepresented text, making Giles’ work seem noble.
"It was not undertaken out of any inflated estimate of my own powers..."
- False modesty: Giles downplays his ego while asserting his superiority over past translators.
- Rhetorical strategy: Makes his criticism seem objective rather than arrogant.

6. Broader Implications

Why does this matter?
- The Art of War is now a global text, used in business schools, military academies, and political strategy.
- If early translations were inaccurate, modern interpretations might be based on distortions.
- Giles’ work helped correct the record, ensuring that Sunzi’s true strategic philosophy was preserved.
Lessons for Modern Translation & Scholarship
- Bias & Cultural Context: Translators must avoid imposing their own cultural lens on ancient texts.
- Transparency: Giles’ detailed notes and commentaries set a model for scholarly honesty.
- Progressive Refinement: Later translations (e.g., Samuel Griffith’s 1963 version, Thomas Cleary’s 1988 edition) built on Giles’ foundation, showing how scholarship evolves.

7. Conclusion: The Excerpt’s Core Message

This passage is not just about The Art of War—it’s about:

The struggles of translating a masterpiece across languages and cultures.
The responsibility of scholars to preserve, not distort, great works.
How knowledge spreads and improves over time through critical revision.

Giles’ translation wasn’t just another version—it was a corrective effort, ensuring that Sunzi’s genius was finally heard clearly in the West. The excerpt celebrates scholarly diligence while warning against careless interpretation, a lesson that remains relevant in translation, history, and academia today.

Final Thought

If The Art of War teaches that "all warfare is based on deception," this excerpt reveals that all translation is based on interpretation—and the best scholars, like the best generals, must strategize carefully to avoid defeat.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s portrayal of Lionel Giles’ motivation for translating The Art of War is primarily characterised by a tension between:

A. arrogance and humility, as he simultaneously dismisses predecessors while claiming no special skill.
B. scholarly rigor and commercial pragmatism, as he balances accuracy with marketability.
C. moral obligation and professional modesty, as he frames his work as both a corrective duty and a cautious improvement.
D. cultural superiority and intellectual insecurity, as he asserts Western standards while fearing Eastern complexity.
E. personal ambition and academic altruism, as he seeks recognition while pretending to serve the text.

Question 2

The author’s inclusion of direct quotations from Giles (e.g., "willfully distorted or slurred over") serves chiefly to:

A. demonstrate the subjective nature of translation by highlighting Giles’ own interpretive biases.
B. provide historical evidence that early translators were intentionally fraudulent rather than merely incompetent.
C. contrast Giles’ precise language with the vague phrasing of his predecessors, reinforcing his superiority.
D. underscore the emotional intensity of Giles’ critique, revealing his personal investment in the text.
E. lend rhetorical authority to the argument by invoking Giles’ voice as an unimpeachable scholarly arbiter.

Question 3

The passage implies that the "new errors" introduced in the 1908 revision of Calthrop’s translation are most likely the result of:

A. an overcorrection of earlier mistakes, where attempts to fix omissions led to misinterpretations.
B. a fundamental misunderstanding of Sunzi’s strategic principles, compounded by layers of revision.
C. the inherent instability of the Chinese source text, which resists definitive translation.
D. editorial fatigue, as the revisers lost patience with the complexity of the material.
E. deliberate sabotage by rivals seeking to discredit Calthrop’s work.

Question 4

The claim that Giles’ 1910 edition is "the most scholarly" is supported in the passage by all of the following EXCEPT:

A. its incorporation of ancient Chinese commentaries not present in other translations.
B. the explicit endorsement of later translators who adopted Giles’ framework.
C. the sheer volume of supplementary information provided beyond the core text.
D. the contrast with Calthrop’s "excessively bad" efforts, which lacked honesty and rigor.
E. the implication that it corrected the "willful distortions" of prior versions.

Question 5

The passage’s discussion of translation errors (omissions, distortions, additions) functions as an implicit critique of:

A. the Eurocentric assumption that Chinese texts require simplification for Western audiences.
B. the broader epistemological problem of transmitting knowledge across radically different cultural frameworks.
C. the commercial pressures on publishers to rush incomplete translations to market.
D. the lack of peer review in early Sinological scholarship, allowing shoddy work to persist.
E. the overreliance on Jesuit missionaries as intermediaries between East and West.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: C

Why C is most correct: The passage frames Giles’ motivation as a dual impulse: (1) a moral obligation to rescue Sunzi’s text from prior mismanagement ("Sun Tzŭ deserved a better fate"), and (2) a professional modesty that avoids overclaiming his own skill ("I could hardly fail to improve"). This tension between duty and humility is central to the portrayal. The other options misrepresent the balance—Giles is neither arrogant nor insecure, and the passage doesn’t address commercialism or cultural superiority.