Paratexts in the Partial English Translations of Sanguo yanyi

Wenqing PENG

Soochow University

Abstract As Lawrence Venuti (2013,p.105) put it,the paratexts which accompany retranslations normally constitute“a more immediate form of intertextuality”.However,paratexts become unreliable when those involved in retranslation process do differently in practice or cover up relevant intertextual relations and,as a result,the actual translation is at variance with its paratexts.This article examines the unreliability (inconsistency) of paratexts and values inscribed,based on three cases in English translations of Sanguo yanyi:Z.Q.Parker’s,Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang’s and Cheung Yik-man’s translations of “The Battle of the Red Cliff” excerpted from the novel.

Keywords:paratexts; retranslation; Sanguo yanyi; Z.Q.Parker; Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang;Cheung Yik-man

1.Paratexts and retranslation

Paratexts,in Gérard Genette’s classic definition,are the “accompanying productions”,both within and outside a book,which “enable a text to become a book and to be offered as such to its readers and,more generally,to the public” (Genette,1997,p.1).Paratexts can be categorized into peritexts and epitexts,with the former being “within the same volume,and are such element as the title or the preface and sometimes elements inserted into the interstices of the text,such as chapter titles or certain notes” (ibid.,pp.4-5),and the latter being “all those messages that,at least originally,are located outside the book generally with the help of the media (interviews,conversations) or under cover of private communications (letters,diaries,and others)” (ibid.,p.5).In this paper,I will discuss the issue of paratexts accompanying three partial retranslations of a classic Chinese novel.

Let me begin by recalling the definition of retranslation.According to Koskinen and Paloposki (2010,p.294),retranslation as a product “denotes a second or later translation of a single source text into the same target language”.The phenomenon of retranslation has received attention from critics and scholars.For instance,in Jorge Luis Borges’s essay (2012),the author explores mostly antagonistic motives of retranslators who seek to destroy their predecessors.Recently,Cecilia Alvstad and Alexandra Assis Rosa(2015) edited a special issue of the journalTargeton retranslation.

The main critical contribution on which I will focus in this paper is Lawrence Venuti’s essay“Retranslation:The Creation of Value” (2013).For Venuti,in translation,“the value-creating process takes the form of an interpretation inscribed in a source text” (Venuti,2013,p.96) and in retranslation one more value is added by retranslators to establish differences from the previous versions.Venuti elaborates on the values created in retranslation from the perspectives of institution,agency,intertextuality and historical moment.In the part of intertextuality,he discusses paratexts in retranslations,noting that “a retranslation is sometimes accompanied by a more immediate form of intertextuality; paratexts,which signal its status as a retranslation and make explicit the competing interpretation that the retranslator has tried to inscribe in the source text” (ibid.,p.105).According to this statement,“immediate” and “explicit” imply that the paratexts unveil the relation among the original text,the first translator and the retranslator in a more direct way and make it easier for readers to figure them out.

But the situation in practice may be more subtle,implicit,and complex.Is a paratext always “an immediate form” of intertextuality? What more hidden links might be involved? In what follows,I will seek to add to Venuti’s argument,based on my case study of the English translations of the classic Chinese novelSanguo yanyi(Romance of the Three Kingdoms).

Before I go into my examples,I will briefly introduce the original novel and its translations.Sanguo yanyi,composed by Luo Guanzhong from the 13th to 14th century,is a historical novel based onRecords of the Three Kingdoms(Sanguo zhi) written by the historian and writer Chen Shou (233-297).The novel outlines the turbulent events of the period from AD 168 to 280,when China’s Han Dynasty (202 BCAD 220) was riven by decades of bloody strife into three separate states.The novel contains one hundred and twenty chapters with more than 750,000 words,describing the waxing and waning of the states and depicting around five hundred characters,some of whom are known to almost every Chinese household,for instance,the resourceful Zhuge Liang,the crafty Cao Cao,the proud Guan Yu,the forthright Zhang Fei,and the generous Liu Bei.

Sanguo yanyiwas transmitted overseas at a comparatively early date.The earliest translation into a foreign language was Japanese in 1689.In English,translations of excerpts appeared in various periodicals as early as 1820.Apart from the two full prose translations by C.H.Brewitt-Taylor in 1925 and by Moss Roberts in 1991,I have found 28 excerpted translations and adaptations in various forms,including partial and abridged renderings,prose and drama versions,as well as extracts inserted in journal articles or in monographs.The cases discussed in this paper are the one by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang in 1962,and by Cheung Yik-man in 1972.Another translator is Z.Q.Parker,who produced an excerpted translation titled“The Battle of Red Cliff 赤壁鏖战” inThe China Journal of Science and Artsin 1925.This translation was published in four issues successively,centering around the chapters from 42 to 50 in the original novelSanguo yanyi.

2.Z.Q.Parker’s translation

Parker’s translation contains a very brief preface by the editor.This preface mentions another translation by X.Z.,which selected the first ten chapters of the original novel.It also mentions the review onSanguo yanyiby Brewitt-Taylor in 1898.According to the preface,the translation by Parker is a continuance of X.Z.’s translation and mainly works on the battle of Red Cliff (Parker,1925,p.250).An intertextual relation can be seen between Parker’s translation and previous works:It is very likely that Parker’s translation was inspired and influenced by X.Z.’s translation and the translator Parker also had more knowledge of the original novel in Brewitt-Taylor’s review,which elaborated in detail on the characters,plot,genre and other literary merits ofSanguo yanyi.The previous works may also exert an impact on Parker’s translation methods as the editor claimed it as a continuance of the previous one.

Consider the translation of a character’s name.In the main text of Parker’s translation,the principal character Cao Cao is addressed as “the old traitor” in both conversations and the narration.For the first time,the translator put it into this phrase “the old traitor”,and he added a footnote,“Hereafter this word will be used to represent Ts’ao Ts’ao” (ibid.,p.253).It is highly likely that this translation method is influenced by Brewitt-Taylor’s review in which the character Cao Cao was described and commented as “permeant villain”,“wicked”,“having no reputation”,“eminently deceitful”,etc (Brewitt-Taylor,1925,p.174).

“The old traitor” is not only used to translate “老贼”,but also in any other place to address the character Cao Cao in place of some respectful ones like “丞相” (the Minister) or intimate address like “孟德” (Mengde,literati name of this character).For example in the 43rd chapter,Kongming told Sun Quan,“向者宇内大乱，故将军起江东，刘豫州收众汉南，与曹操并争天下” (Luo,1996,p.264).[My literal translation:Before,the whole country was trapped in a big upheaval.Therefore,Your Highness occupies the territory to the east of the Changjiang River and my Lord to the south of the Han,both desired to combat with Cao Cao.] In Parker’s translation,Cao Cao’s name is rendered as the old traitor,“In former years,when your Highness occupies a piece of territory to the east of the river and my chief to the south of the Han,both desired to combat with the old traitor” (Parker,1925,p.253).Evidently,it overestimates the negative part in the character and even reshapes the character Cao Cao in the translated text.The translation retains the pro-Liu position by the author of the original novel,and also underscores the character’s crafty and treacherous profile.

Another example can be found in translating Guan Yu’s name.In the original text,the character is often addressed with the more respectful title of Lord Guan.In Chinese,adding the wordLordafter someone’s last name shows respect and the person’s social status.Even today,the mere mention of Lord Guan echoes in the image of Guan Yu in Chinese readers’ minds.It not only demonstrates the influence of Guan Yu on Chinese culture,but also unveils the shaping of his character through this address.In Parker’s translation,this preference is further strengthened by adding an even more respectful address.When Guan Yu is introduced for the first time,his name is rendered as Kuan Kung (Lord Guan) (ibid.,p.250).In the following parts,Guan Yu is often addressed as Kuan Kung,even when it was not the case in the original text.For example,in the 45th chapter,when Guan Yu accompanied Liu Bei to Dongwu,there was a conversation between Liu Bei and Zhou Yu,the greatest general of Dongwu:

ST:“酒行数巡，瑜起身把盏，猛见云长按剑立于玄德背后，忙问何人。玄德曰：“吾弟关云长也。”瑜惊曰：“非向日斩颜良、文丑者乎？”玄德曰：“然也。”瑜大惊，汗流满背，便斟酒与云长把盏。”(Luo,1996,p.275)

[My literal translation:After several rounds of wine,Zhou Yu rose up with his cup in hand when he suddenly saw Yunchang standing behind Liu Bei.Zhou asked who he was and Liu Bei said,“This is my brother Guan Yunchang.” Zhou Yu was surprised,“The general who slayed Yanliang and Wenchou?” “Precisely.” On hearing it,Zhou Yu was appalled and soaked with sweat; he soon poured a cup of wine for Yunchang.]

In the original text,there was no mention of Guan Gong (Lord Guan).Instead,Guan Yu was called Yunchang (literati name).However,in Parker’s translation,the name was rendered into Kuan Kung (Lord Guan) and Zhou Yu’s reaction was described in Parker’s version as “Now the host was considerably surprised,rising to fill a goblet with wine and sending it round to Kuan Kung” (Parker,1925,p.309).Through the adaptation on addressing,Guan Yu is reshaped into a more positive character.However,it is worth noting that this characteristic in Parker’s translation does not conform to the translational style of X.Z.,which overly simplifies lots of details while not flattening or adapting the characters’ profiles.

The publishing details in paratexts can provide us a more comprehensive image of the translation process and the target reader.Parker’s translation was published inThe China Journal of Science and Artswhich belonged to the foreign North-China Daily News & Herald Ltd.based in Shanghai.The magazine published articles mostly in English and focused on introducing Chinese science and arts to Western readers.Furthermore,Parker’s translation was published in 1925 when not many Chinese literary works were translated to the West as opposed to the large number of Western works introduced into China.Hence,Western readers may not have a good command of Chinese literature,particularly the classic ones.An overestimation of some typical features in characters could help the reader quickly comprehend so many characters and appreciate the novel.

In addition,Parker’s translation is not a full-text one of 120 chapters,only nine chapters around the Battle of the Red Cliff.The target reader does not have access to the cohesion between chapters in the whole novel or a comprehensive image of characters’ profiles.Therefore,the repetition of “the old traitor”for describing the character Cao Cao can contribute to the reader’s interpretation and appreciation of the excerpted translation.Though,this oversimplification does not continue the previous translation by X.Z.in terms of translation methods and style.

3.Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang’s translation

Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang selected chapters 43 to 50 of the novelSanguo yanyiand published their translation in January and February,1962,under the title “Selections from Classics:The Battle of the Red Cliff” inChinese Literature,a journal based in Beijing and founded by the Chinese Foreign Languages Bureau and Foreign Language Press in 1951.It was later edited intoThree Classic Chinese Novelsin 1981 in thePanda Bookseries,which was designed to introduce Chinese literature to the West.

There is a one-page introduction as a kind of translator’s note or preface before the main translated text in Yangs’ version.Though unsigned,the phrase “our translation is made from […]” in the last paragraph of the introduction shows that its authors were the translators themselves.The first four paragraphs of their introduction are centered on the plot and characters of the novel.The following two relate to other relevant articles in this journal and the edition of the original text which they refer to.A sentence in the last paragraph is worth mentioning,“A few verses interposed in the text have been cut”(Yang & Yang,1962a,p.41).They did not speak of any other changes or adaptations in their translation,so it may be assumed that the deletion of a few inserted verses is the only obvious change they made to the original text.

The text conforms to the usual style of the Yang couple’s translations,which is always quite literal to the original text,according to several scholars and critics as well as the translators themselves,and is again very close to the original novel.As a comparison between their translationA Dream of Red Mansionsin 1976 with the other full-text version by David Hawkes and John Minford in 1973 will show,this style can be seen in many of their works.It can also be found in some of their paratexts,such as a 1980 seminar where the couple talked about their translation of Chinese literature.During the seminar,conducted with the Chinese scholar Wang Zuoliang in Australia,Yang and his wife spoke of their general strategy in translating Chinese literary works:

We must be very loyal to the original text […] make the meaning of the translation as close to the original text as possible […] I don’t think we should make too many explanations in the translation.The translator should be faithful to the images in the original text as much as possible,neither any exaggeration nor any addition.Of course,if it is really impossible to find equivalent expressions in the target language,it is inevitable to sacrifice part of the meaning in the original text.Yet,it is inappropriate to overstate the creativity because then it is no longer translating but rewriting.(Henderson,1989,pp.83-84)1The quotation here is originally in English and translated into Chinese by Wang Zuoliang in his book published in 1989.I have been unable to find the original text,so I translated it literally back to English myself.

In this talk,Yang described his strategy as literal translation,or faithful translation.Although he understood the unavoidability of making some changes to the translation,he showed a strong preference for faithfulness to the original text rather than the creativity of the translator.Gladys Yang presented a different voice as she preferred a less literal translation,but in their collaboration,she followed the strategy of her husband.

Is this the whole story? Did the Yang couple stick to their translational ideology and strategy in their excerpted translation ofSanguo? Let us look at two brief examples:

ST:“为将而不通天文，不识地利，不知奇门，不晓阴阳，不看阵图，不明兵势，是庸才也。”(Luo,1996,p.282)

Brewitt-Taylor (1925,p.485):

“One cannot be a leader without knowing the workings of heaven and the ways of earth.One must understand the secret gates and the value of forces.It’s but an ordinary talent.”

Yang & Yang (1962a,p.84):

“A general is mediocre unless he knows the law of heaven and earth,the changes of nature and the complexities of army formations.”

The original text is uttered by a main character Kong Ming after he has won a battle against the enemy.It concerns the six capabilities which a good general should be equipped with.1In order to illustrate the original text in a more faithful way to the reader,I give the version by Moss Roberts here since his translation is almost word-for-word:“A military commander is a mediocrity unless he is versed in the patterns of the heavens,recognizes advantages of the terrain,knows the interaction of prognostic signs,understands the changes in weather,examines the maps of deployment,and is clear about the balance of forces.” (Roberts,1991,p.355)Both versions condensed the six abilities to four,yet the Yangs’ version is more simplified than Brewitt-Taylor’s.For example,in translating the first two phrases “不通天文’” and “不识地利”,Brewitt-Taylor put them as“without knowing the workings of heaven and the ways of earth”,while Yangs rendered them as “unless he knows the law of heaven and earth”.Though Yangs translated “兵势” literally as “the complexities of army formations”,which was omitted in Brewitt-Taylor’s version,the couple simplified “不知奇门，不晓阴阳”(It literally means one does not know the interaction of prognostic signs,nor does he understand yin and yang),as “the changes of nature”.Meanwhile,Brewitt-Taylor translated the original image “奇门” literally as “secret gates”.

Here is another example:

ST:“此人有夺天地造化之法、鬼神不测之术！若留此人，乃东吴祸根也。及早杀却，免生他日之忧。”(Luo,1996,p.297)

Brewitt-Taylor (1925,p.511):

“Really the man has power over the heavens and authority over the earth; his methods are incalculable,beyond the ken of god or devil.He cannot be allowed to live to be a danger to our land of Wu.We must slay him soon to fend off later evils.”

Yang & Yang (1962a,p.44):

“Why,the fellow has the power to change the course of Nature:he is more than human! If we let him live,he will be the ruin of our state.I had better kill him now to avoid trouble later.”

This example is more representative.When dealing with the phrase “天地造化之法、鬼神不测之术”,Brewitt-Taylor’s translation is almost word-for-word to the original text,“power over the heavens and authority over the earth; his methods are incalculable,beyond the ken of god or devil”.In contrast,Yangs’version,“the power to change the course of Nature”,omits the original images of god and devil,heaven and earth,and is then followed by their own interpretation or addition in the phrase “he is more than human!”.

The Yang couple’s translation of their selected chapters fromSanguo yanyidoes not offer very strong evidence to illustrate the unreliability of the paratexts with respect to the main translated text.In any case,Yang Xianyi’s view quoted above bears on their translations as a whole,not specifically on the translation ofSanguo.Yet it is worth our attention as it shows that we cannot make judgments on or draw conclusions about a translator’s style based solely on the translator’s own claims.The translated text may deviate slightly or substantially from the translator’s own explanation.

4.Cheung Yik-man’s version

Now,let me move on to another version of the same chapters that the Yangs translated.Cheung Yik-man self-published his translation entitledRomance of the Three Kingdoms:From Chapter 43 to Chapter 50三国志演义精华 in 1972,printed by the Tai Tung Printing Company 大同印务公司 in China’s Hong Kong.It was reprinted in 1986 in the mainland of China by the Youyi Publishing Company 中国友谊出版公司.The first edition of 1972 is bilingual,with both the Chinese and the English text in parallel.Prior to the main text,it has forewords by four Chinese scholars and the translator’s note.

4.1 Textual comparison

Before I go on to analyze the paratexts accompanying this translation,let me compare Cheung Yik-man’s version with the translations of the Yangs and Brewitt-Taylor.The source text is from chapter 44 of the novel when the character Kong Ming is replying to a brutal interrogation from a Wu advisor.

ST：孔明答曰：“儒有小人君子之别。君子之儒，忠君爱国，守正恶邪，务使泽及当时，名留后世。——若夫小人之儒，惟务雕虫，专工翰墨，青春作赋，皓首穷经；笔下虽有千言，胸中实无一策。”（Luo,1996,p.263）

Brewitt-Taylor (1925,p.453):

Kung-ming replied,“There are scholars and scholars.There is the noble scholar,loyal and patriotic,of perfect rectitude and a hater of any crookedness.The concern of such a scholar is to act in full sympathy with his day and leave to future ages a fine reputation.There is the scholar of the mean type,a pedant and nothing more.He labours constantly with his pen,in his callow youth composing odes and in hoary age still striving to understand the classical book completely.Thousands of words flow from his pen but there is not a solid idea in his breast.”

Yang & Yang (1962a,p.48):

Zhuge Liang retorted,“There are two types of scholar:the noble and the mean.A True scholar is loyal to his sovereign and loves his country,abiding by the right and hating evil,eager to benefit the men of his time and leave a good name to posterity.A mean scholar on the other hand devotes himself to trivialities.All he can do is flourish a pen,wasting his youth writing poetry and studying the classics till his hair turns white.A thousand words flow from his pen,but there is not one sound principle in his head.”

Cheung (1972,p.20):

Then Zhuge Liang replied,“There are noble scholars and mean scholars.The noble scholars are loyal to their sovereign and love their country,abiding by the right and hating evil,eager to benefit the men of his time and leave a fine reputation to future ages.However,the mean scholars devote themselves,only to literary trivial skill and labour only with pen [sic],in their youth composing odes and in their hoary age striving to understand the classical books completely.Although a thousand words may flow from each of their pens yet there is not a single plan in each of their heads.”

If a comparison between the translation by the Yangs and that by Cheung Yik-man is attempted,it can be seen that the two versions are remarkably similar in language and structure.In this example,on the textual level,Cheung’s version copies both Brewitt-Taylor’s and the Yangs’ translation,with slight modifications.For instance,when translating the phrase “名留后世” (“leave a good reputation to future ages”),Cheung copied the expressions in Brewitt-Taylor’s version “future ages“ and “fine reputation”; while in translating the phrase “忠君爱国” (“loyal to the king and love the country”),he copied Yangs’ version “loyal to his sovereign and loves his country”.However,a subtle mistake reveals his inconsistency.Brewitt-Taylor uses subjects and related verbs in the plural form,such as “noble scholars”,while the Yangs’ version applies the singular form,such as “a true scholar is […]” But Cheung seems to be less cautious when referring to the two translations,thus making his own version incorrect on a grammatical level.Cheung translates the first sentence of this passage as “There are noble scholars and mean scholars” using the plural form,but then continues with ‘The noble scholars are loyal to […],eager to benefit the people of his time and leave a fine reputation to future ages”,when he tries to imitate the Yangs’ version:“eager to benefit the men of his time and leave a good name to posterity”.The highlighted word suggests his negligence and inconsistency.Another example is the title of Chapter 44 given in the following.

ST：孔明用智激周瑜 孙权决计破曹操（Luo,1996,p.267）

Brewitt-Taylor (1925,p.459):

KUNG-MING STIRS CHOU YU TO ACTION:SUN CH’UAN DECIDES TO ATTACK TS’AO TS’AO

Yang & Yang (1962a,p.55):

Wily Chuko Liang Incites Chou Yu Action // Sun Chuan Decides to Rout Tsao Tsao

Cheung (1972,p.36):

Chuko Liang Incites Chou Yu Wisely; Sun Chuan Decides to Rout Tsao Tsao

Cheung’s version remains almost the same as the Yangs’ except for a single difference in the translation of “智”.In Yangs’ version,they rendered it as the adjective “wily”,meaning crafty.In comparison,Cheung rendered it as the adverb,“wisely”.Lexically,the two words contain different implications.“Wily” is an objective description of the character’s plan in this story,while “wisely” implies a positive comment on the character’s behavior.In this context,the Yangs’ version is closer to the original text than Cheung’s version.The copying by Cheung can be discerned in the almost identical nouns,verbs and structure.

The examples above illustrate the similarities and even sameness between Cheung’s and the Yangs’versions in chapters 43 and 44,and the way in which Cheung copied both Brewitt-Taylor’s and the Yangs’translations at times.Moreover,from Chapter 45 to Chapter 50,Cheung’s version remains the same as the Yangs’,except for the notes,which are more numerous in the Yangs’ translation than in Cheung’s.

4.2 Paratextual evidence

Textually,it is evident that Cheung Yik-man copied the Yangs’ version.I will provide further evidence from paratextual elements,including the reviews inChinese Literature,the Yangs’ translation,as well as the reputation of the Yangs,in order to support my argument from the perspective of the impact of the Yangs’ version.

Let us first have a look at the translators’ profiles.Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang are well-known translators of Chinese literature—both ancient and modern novels.They made significant contributions to the introduction of Chinese literature and culture to the West.One of their most famous works,which received high praise in academic circles,is their translation ofHong Lou Meng红楼梦,A Dream of Red Mansions,which I mentioned above.

I could not find any biographical information about Cheung Yik-man.The only description I found comes from a journal article in Chinese titled “《三国演义》的外文译文” (“Research on the Version of Novel ofTheThree Kingdoms”) by two authors based in the mainland of China.In this article,Cheung Yik-man was referred to as a Canadian-based or Canadian translator (Wang & Du,2006).Another two writers quoted this view in their essays:Wen Jun and Li Peijia (2011) in their article on the history ofSanguo yanyitranslations published in a journal based in the mainland of China and Feng Lei in his PhD dissertation (2012) on two English translations ofSanguo yanyi.

According to the preface to the book in this case study,Cheung was probably working at Chu Hai College of Higher Education 珠海书院 in China’s Hong Kong,when the work was published,as both the president of this college and one of Cheung’s colleagues wrote forewords to his book.In addition,the page containing publishing information at the end of this version shows that the book was printed in China’s Hong Kong,and self-published.Cheung appeared to live in China’s Hong Kong at that time,with the address noted on the page,“香港九龙太子道199A五楼/ 199A,Prince Edward Rd.,5/F.,Kln.,Hong Kong” (Cheung,1972,p.217).

Chinese Literature,the journal in which the Yangs’ translation was published,was very well known.It was founded by the Chinese Foreign Language Bureau and Foreign Languages Press in 1951,and produced many classic Chinese literary works from 1951 to 1965.The purpose of the journal was to introduce Chinese culture to the West.Due to the prevailing political and cultural norms of the fight against the outdated feudal ideologies,the works translated were selected by the authorities and supposed to satirize the decay of feudal society.

The circulation ofChineseLiteratureabroad illustrates the popularity of the journal.For instance,as an author of a PhD dissertation claims,around 15,000 volumes in 1957 were printed and there were more subscriptions after 1963 (Zheng,2012,p.103).Libraries outside the mainland of China and universities with sinological studies often subscribed toChinese Literature,either its paper edition or in microform.1Frustratingly,I searched in the libraries of Hong Kong Baptist University,Chinese University of Hong Kong,Lingnan University of Hong Kong,yet their collections of Chinese Literature lack the volumes of 1962 in which Yangs’ excerpted translation of Sanguo was firstly published.

Chinese Literaturewas also an important channel for sinologists in European countries to learn about China and developments in Chinese literature.Good evidence comes from a special issue titled “Chinese Literature” fromChinese Literature Quarterlyin 1963; some articles contained many quotations fromChinese Literature.

The public epitexts—book reviews and journal papers—relating to the Yangs’ version as well as the journalChinese Literatureillustrate the considerable impact of the press and the availability of the Yangs’translation; thus the materials support the assumption that Cheung Yik-man was aware of the Yangs’ work before his retranslation,and that his work was the result of copying rather than coincidentally thinking along the same lines.

5.Unreliable Paratexts

Based on the textual analysis as well as the paratextual evidence,we have obtained a clear image of Cheung’s copying.Now let us have a closer look at the paratexts in Cheung’s translation.As we will see,they blur the intertextual relations and weaken the function of the paratexts as interpretation.

5.1 Translator’s Autographic Preface

Let us look at the translator’s own preface.Cheung Yik-man’s preface is one page and a half long with three paragraphs,justifying the changes he has made in this version compared with previous works and speaking of his plans for more translations in the future.Cheung (1972,p.29) claimed that his translation was more loyal to the original text than that by Brewitt-Taylor:

[…] the difference between my translation and that by C.H.Brewitt-Taylor is that my translation is a line for line and sometimes,if it is possible,word for word translation,whereas the other translation is only an inaccurate paraphrase in which it is very easy for any Chinese reader with a little knowledge of English to find out the inexcusable mistakes.A translation with such mistakes must be a stumbling block for the foreigners to have a thorough understanding of our Chinese classics.I confess my translation is by no means the best one,but I profess it to be a faithful one which,I am perfectly sure,is a requisite for the foreigners to study the Chinese literature and culture.

Cheung directly clarified the differences between his version and Brewitt-Taylor’s at the very beginning of the preface.He used quite a few critical words to comment on Brewitt-Taylor’s work and to justify his retranslation,such as “inexcusable mistakes”,“stumbling block”,“profess”,“perfectly sure” and “requisite”.Though Cheung claimed that his translation originated from his reflections on the errors in Brewitt-Taylor’s translation,he did not say a word about the Yangs’ 1962 version.Given the reputation and the impact ofChinese Literatureabroad at that time and the obvious copying on the textual level in his version,Cheung’s deliberate omission suggests an attempt to cover up his copying.Cheung (ibid.) then talked about his plans to translate more works of ancient Chinese literature since he was not satisfied with the inaccuracies in previous works by other translators.

As for the mistakes in C.H.Brewitt-Taylor’s translation,I plan to write a special article about them.I also plan to publish my translation of other chapters of this novel in the near future.

In fact,it is quite necessary for us to have faithful translations for the Chinese classics such asWater Margin水浒传 andThe Dream of the Red Chamber红楼梦 because in these two present translations by other writers I have also found out many serious mistakes that not only would make such lively and interesting novels dull but would distort the real meaning of the authors.It is my hope that after finishing the translation of this novel,some day I may have an opportunity to devote myself to this task.

However,no evidence can be found to prove that he fulfilled his ambition of translating other Chinese literary works.1I have searched the British Library and the SOAS library in London,the Library of Congress in Washington,and the libraries at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Baptist University.In terms of the two Chinese literary works Cheung mentions in the preface,the two full translations of 水浒传Water Marginwere published before 1972:One in 1933 by Pearl S.Buck,which was heavily criticized for its errors and inaccuracies,and one in 1937 by J.H.Jackson.A better full translation by Chinese-naturalized scholar Sidney Shapiro 沙博理 was published in 1980,which could not have been read by Cheung before he wrote this preface.As for 红楼梦The Dream of the Red Chamber,after several early partial translations,two full versions highly praised in academic circles were published in 1973 and 1978 respectively,both after this preface.

According to the English title applied by Cheung in the preface,it is likely that the version to which Cheung referred isThe Dream of the Red Chamberby Florence and Isabel McHugh,published in 1958.So the previous works with “serious mistakes” as Cheung said in the preface may refer to those early translations of the two novels,and it is likely that Cheung did not have time to produce his own translation of 红楼梦 when the two full-text versions by David Hawkes and John Minford and by the Yangs respectively came out in 1973 and 1976,as these two works would have greatly diminished the significance of his intended retranslation.

5.2 Allographic prefaces

Apart from the translator’s own preface,those by others also reveal the intertextual relations between author,translator,reader,previous translations,and the retranslation.As Genette (1997) pointed out,the functions of the allographic preface overlap with “the functions of the original authorial preface (prefaces are to promote and guide a reading of the work)”,but the allographic prefaces also have some special functions:“High praise of the text becomes a recommendation,and information about the text becomes a presentation” (p.265).

It is common that an author would invite someone “whose reputation is more firmly established than the author’s” and “who is capable of adding a value to a work” (Genette,1997,p.268) to write prefaces to a work.This is the meaning we could give to the prefaces to Cheung’s translation.In Cheung’s book,the forewords were written by the president of Chu Hai College of Higher Education,Kong Mou-sum 江茂森,scholars Huang Wen-shan 黄文山 and Wu Fu-kun 伍福焜,as well as Cheung’s colleague,Professor Lo Hsiang-lin 罗香林.

It is necessary to probe into their personal profiles and reconstruct the context in which their prefaces were produced.Kong Mou-sum (1901-1982) was a well-known educator during the Republic of China(1912-1949),and one of the founders of Chu Hai College of Higher Education before it moved from Zhuhai,Guangdong Province,in the south of the mainland of China to China’s Hong Kong.Lo Hsianglin (1906-1978) was a famous scholar in Hakka language and culture.From 1956 to 1968,he worked as a professor in Hong Kong University’s Chinese department,and in 1969,he was the first director of the Research Institute of Chinese Literature and History at Chu Hai College of Higher Education.Huang Wen-shan (1898-1988) produced a great deal of excellent research in fields of cultural studies,sociology,anthropology,and ethnology.Huang was a supporter of anarchism during the May 4th Movement of 1919.I have not found much information about Fu-kun Wu,with only a few words online about his background as “伍福焜，密歇根大学博士，中山大学、珠海等院校教授” (Wu Fu-kun,Doctor of Michigan University and Professor of Sun Yat-sen University,Chu Hai College of Higher Education,etc.).According to my research,there were several editions of Wu’s manuscripts during the Republic of China (1912-1949)in recent years,which indicates both his reputation as a well-known scholar and the value of his works.

These preface-writers all praised Cheung’s good knowledge of English literature and language as well as Chinese literature.As president Kong Mou-sum said,“Professor Cheung Yik-man writes in good colloquial English without falling into slang,and the short paragraphs are pleasant” (Cheung,1972,p.2).Professor Lo Hsiang-lin also justified Cheung’s retranslation since previous versions contained inadequacies.Two preface-writers even recalled traditional Chinese translation concepts in their preface to advocate Cheung’s work.Prof.Huang Wenshan showed his admiration for Cheung’s translation using Yan Fu’s three principles,“Such style of translation is really up to the three standards:resonance,assimilating and creating.As to the standards of translation,in addition to Yen Fu’s three standards:accuracy,intelligibility and elegance,I think these standards are the standards of ‘integral translation’”(ibid.,p.25).

Yet the previous English translations were not mentioned in any of these prefaces,with the exception of the one by Lo Hsiang-lin,who discussed in detail Brewitt-Taylor’s version of 1925.IfChinese Literaturewas widely visible at home and abroad,why did none of the four preface-writers mention the Yangs’translation of 1962? It is possible that they knew of the Yangs’ work but did not check it or compare it with Cheung’s version when they wrote the prefaces; alternatively,they were never aware of the Yangs’translation.

5.3 Notes to the main text

Apart from the prefaces,I will also examine another kind of paratext:notes.The main function of notes is “to serve as a supplement,sometimes a digression,very rarely a commentary” (Genette,1997,p.327).In the case of the novelSanguo yanyi,things are more complex because all the notes or,more precisely,commentaries on a popular edition ofSanguo yanyiwere made by a Qing Dynasty critic Mao Zong-gang and his father Mao Lun in the mid-1660s,rather than by the original author Luo Guan-zhong.Moreover,it is a different situation in the translations because not all versions include the translation of Mao’s commentaries,with some translators preferring to give their own notes to their translated texts,as the Yangs did,in order to help readers understand the novel’s content and context.

Interestingly,the notes to the main translated text in the Yangs’ 1962 version were mostly removed in Cheung’s translation,except for the last note at the end of the text about an allusion to the historical story of Zizhuo Ruzi (子濯孺子).Cheung put this note into both Chinese and English,in accordance with the whole text as a bilingual version.

The only note in Cheung’s translation is the following:

春秋时，卫国派庾公之斯追击子濯孺子，他们都很会射箭，但子濯孺子因为生病，不能拿弓应战。庾公之斯对他说：“我跟尹公之他学射箭，尹公之他跟您学射箭，我不忍用您的技术反过来害您。”于是把箭头敲掉，射了四枝没有箭头的箭回去了。

In the time of Ch’un Ts’ew age,Kingdom of Wei sent Yu-kung-chih-szu to overtake and attack Tzu-cho-ju-tzu.They both could shoot arrows very well.But Tzu-cho-ju-tzu being ill could not handle his bow to defend himself.Yu-kung-chih-szu said to him,“I learned archery from Yin-kung-chih-tar.Yin-kung-chih-tar learned archery from you.I cannot bear to use your skill to harm you.” So he knocked off the tips of some of his arrows and returned after shooting four arrows without tips.(Cheung,1972,p.216)

The English version above is literally translated from the Chinese one.It is different from the note to the same allusion in the Yangs’ version.The Yangs put it as a footnote as they did to all notes in their version:

They were both famous archers of ancient times.During a battle Yu-kung Chih-szu was sent to overtake Tzu-cho Ju-tzu,who being ill was unable to defend himself.“I learned archery from your pupil,”said Yu-kung Chih-szu.“I cannot use your skills to harm you.”So he knocked off the tips of four arrows and returned after shooting these.(Yang & Yang,1962b,p.59)

Although the English version of Cheung’s note is different from the Yangs’,some similarities in word choice and sentence structure remain.For example,Cheung slightly modified Yangs’ “I cannot use your skills to harm you” to “I cannot bear to use your skills to harm you”.The last sentence is also quite similar:Cheung kept most of the sentence with minor modifications.Also,this allusion was neither explained in Mao’s commentaries to the original novel,nor in Brewitt-Taylor’s 1925 translation; so Cheng’s note was highly likely inspired by or had referred to the Yangs’ footnote.In this regard,it can be assumed that Cheung’s intention was to cover up his copying of the Yangs’ translation and to distance his version from previous works.

6.Value in paratexts

It is evident that the textual comparison presents a different story from that in the paratexts.If paratexts are,as Venuti (2013,p.105) suggests,“a more immediate form of intertextuality”,what information could be read in the paratexts of Parker’s translation,the Yangs’ translation and Cheung’s translation?

Parker’s footnotes present his individual comprehension of the characters and the reshaping of the characters by overemphasizing negative or positive parts in them.Then,the translator’s value-inscribing directly affects the main translated text and the target reader’s reception of the story.The value inscription in the Yangs’ version is not that evident since their translation demonstrates only certain degree of simplification though they claimed to be faithful to the original in the interview almost three decades later.

In Cheung’s case,an intertextual link was hidden by the retranslator on purpose.And if we examine his case in terms of values,what kind of value does that deliberate covering-up involve? On a purely textual level,the identity between Cheung’s and the Yangs’ versions means that Cheung added zero value.With respect to Brewitt-Taylor,Cheung did add value,because there was an appreciable difference between the two versions,which Cheung’s preface made clear.

The problem,however,is that the value Cheung claimed to have added is not his own but belongs to the Yangs.This fact is important,because this is precisely what plagiarism is about:presenting something as your own which in fact is not your own.Plagiarism,like theft,is a matter of ownership.In this case,Cheung Yik-man merely copied most of the text in the Yangs’ translation and got it published in another place by another press.Cheung is not the rightful owner of the version he presented as his own; it belongs to the Yangs.This could be called “negative” value.

When the translator not only fails his claim to make a difference but also copies other works to pretend an equal ability,a negative value is therefore inscribed.The adjective “negative” here refers to a retranslation with a value that is not accepted by the moral criteria in the prevailing social norm.Also,we could say that the value plummets upon the discovery of plagiarism.

What is plagiarism? According to Louis de Jaucourt’s article “Plagiarism” from Diderot’sEncyclopédie,a plagiarist is “a man who,wanting at all costs to become an author,and who having neither the genius nor the talent necessary,copies not only sentences,but even pages and entire passages of other authors,and has the bad faith not to quote them” and the plagiarist “claims for himself the honour of a discovery made by another” (as cited in Randall,2001,p.17),which illustrates the morally objectionable nature of plagiarism.Also,as Randall (2001,p.95) suggests,“Plagiarism exceeds the limits of copyright as authorship exceeds those of ownership”.

Cheung’s copying of the Yangs’ translation covers most of the text (exactly the same from chapters 45 to 50),and makes deliberate modifications in chapters 43 and 44.As Jaucourt says,the plagiarist “by means of a few minor changes in expression or a few additions presents the productions of others as something that he has himself imagined or invented” (as cited in Randall,2001,p.17).Cheung’s minor modifications reveal his intention of claiming authorship of the translation by making it “look new and different”.

In addition,whether the value is dubious depends greatly on the information possessed by the reader.As Venuti mentioned in his 2004/2013 essay,some readers,who possess adequate information,might figure out intertextual links where others might not (Venuti,2013,p.100).In Cheung’s case,we can say that the retranslator Cheung Yik-man does not want his intended reader to spot the intertextual link.Indeed,spotting the right link depends on the reader’s access to the earlier version,together with his or her willingness to compare the relevant versions in some detail.The retranslation may be judged differently by readers who do not look at the work from a critical and comparative perspective.

7.Conclusions

Lawrence Venuti’s discussion of paratexts in his 2004/2013 essay has offered us a chance to reflect upon paratexts and their actual functions:What do paratexts actually do? Paratexts in retranslations are often regarded as windows on the complex relations between author,translator,retranslator,reader,and translations.However,at times they prove to be value-inscribing,sometimes unreliable,and even cover up highly relevant intertextual links.When this happens,they fail in their function of expounding or announcing new interpretations.Instead,they mislead the reader.