翻译的文化操控――胡适的改写与新文化的建构(英文版)(txt+pdf+epub+mobi电子书下载)

作者：赵文静

出版社：复旦大学出版社

格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT

翻译的文化操控――胡适的改写与新文化的建构(英文版)试读：

前言

本书是翻译理论模式与案例互动的研究。以André Lefevere的改写理论为框架，以胡适在新文化运动初期的主要论著和翻译为案例，论证这些作品在多大程度上是对西方文学理论和作品的翻译与改写，它们的形成和接受如何受意识形态等其他文化因素的操控。现存的文献资料反映出，改写理论中提出的多种改写形式在我国还没有真正成为翻译研究的对象。用改写理论模式有针对性地描述我国某特定历史时期的翻译现象的研究目前还不多见。希望本书能够为拓宽理论翻译研究的范围起到抛砖引玉的作用。

五四新文化运动不仅是中国历史上重要转折点，也是中国翻译史上一个非常特殊的时期。一向处于边缘的翻译文学在中国文学系统中[1]首次占据中心位置，对意识形态和诗学的发展有着非同寻常的作用。在中国历史上，传统文化从来没有受到如此严厉的质疑和批判。“五四知识分子与传统彻底决裂的那种激进的态度，或许在世界知识分子运动史上也是无可比拟的”（Denton 1996b：114）。这种决裂使得这个刚刚推翻了封建帝制而处于历史转型期的国家出现暂时的文化真空局面。以胡适为代表的新文化倡导者们通过不同的翻译改写形式引入西方文化，填补这个空白。这一时期的翻译活动，尤其是领袖人物的翻译活动，是极具代表性的。社会转型大都伴随着外来理论思潮的大量引入，像胡适这样的改革倡导者多为新思想、新理论的输入者。他们想要利用外来文化影响和改造本土文化的强烈动机，决定了他们在输入过程中必定要按照自己的意识形态和接受环境的具体需求对外来的作品和理论进行修正和过滤，以便达到他们促进变革之目的。而他们享有的话语权力以及他们的作品构成的“文化资本”（借用Pierre Bourdieu的术语）使得他们的翻译与改写注定会比职业翻译家的译作有更大的市场，进而产生更大的影响。胡适作为新文化运动的关键人物对这一时期中国文学和文化演变产生的深远影响，在他同代人中是绝无仅有的。因此研究他对外来理论和作品的翻译和改写，不仅为翻译研究也为重新审视近代历史事件和人物提供了新视角。

Lefevere是文化操控派最重要的代表人物，改写理论是当代翻译理论发展的重要成就之一（Gentzler 2001）。该理论明确地向传统的原文中心论提出挑战，指出文学翻译过程就是译者和接受环境的意识形态和主导诗学对文本的操控过程。它强调翻译既不是在真空中进行的，也不是在真空中被接受的，翻译都是在特定的接受环境中受多种社会因素的操控而进行的不同程度的改写（Lefevere 1992a：14-15）。形式上，Lefevere将文学史中的情节概述、书评、文艺批评、改译、模仿以及百科全书等都统称为“改写”，纳入翻译研究的范围（Lefevere 1992a：6-7）。其原因是这些看似原创的作品通常或是对外来作品的改写、模仿（Lefevere 1985a：215），或是“没有标出或标示含糊的翻译”（Robinson 1998d：184）。Lefevere指出，意识形态、诗学、赞助势力以及专业人士等是译者的改写和译品的接受过程中的主要控制因素。Lefevere强调翻译研究的对象应该包括各种改写形式（1992a），这为翻译研究开辟了新的视野，提供了新的方法论。受传统的翻译理念所限，改写的多种形式还没有真正进入我国翻译研究的领域。然而近代历史上，尤其是在新文化运动时期，正是多种改写形式对当时的新文学和新文化构建产生了决定性的作用（参见第三、四、五章）。因此这些改写实际上具有与传统意义的翻译同等重要的研究价值。缺乏对它们的系统了解和分析，对于诸如新文化运动这样的重要历史转型期以及其中的关键人物的研究就难免留下缺憾。这正是本书作为案例的胡适研究中存在的现象（参见第一章）。

将研究胡适的文献与改写理论有机地结合起来，就会发现他在新文化运动时期最有影响的论著实际上是对西方文学理论和作品的改写。他的成名作“文学改良刍议”（1917）是公认的文学革命宣言书，由此引发了新文学运动；他的“论短篇小说”（1918）“是中国第一篇以小说为研究对象的学术论文”（Galik 1986：10）；他翻译的《短篇小说》和他模仿外国诗歌而创作的《尝试集》都是初版后不久就多次再版，很受欢迎；他译介易卜生的系列作品：评论文《易卜生主义》（1918）、独幕剧《终身大事》（1919）以及与他人合译的《娜拉》（又译《玩偶之家》），都对当时的反封建意识、创立新文学和新文化产生过巨大而深远的影响。然而根据改写理论，上述著作均应归于改写而纳入翻译研究范畴（参见第二章）。这些作品使胡适成为新文化运动的关键人物，也为他后来成为东方文化巨人奠定了基础。这些改写的作品对中国新文学的产生和发展有着无可替代的作用，构成了胡适的重要成就，因而应该是研究这一时期胡适的最佳切入点。很多情况下，翻译成功与否以及产生影响的大小并不完全取决于译品本身的质量和数量，主要取决于原文文化在译入语文化中的地位、目的语意识形态和诗学的需要、译者的学术权威和专业人士对作品的评价。这些恰恰是胡适的翻译与改写所具备的因素（参见第三章）。因此他的作品被多次再版，产生了巨大的影响。尽管在数量上胡适的翻译与改写并没有严复和林纾的多，但是若论对当时的文学变革所产生的影响以及对本土翻译的取材（如对国别文化、题材和主题的选择）所具有的导向作用（参见第五章），可以说，胡适丝毫不逊色于严复和林纾。然而，由于现有文献极少甚至还未关注到翻译改写活动，没有从宏观上对各类改写展开系统的研究，因此在翻译文学史中，胡适一直处于边缘位置（参见第一章）。

与传统的翻译研究不同，本书将翻译活动作为社会现象，从翻译的政治和社会角度对胡适这一时期的改写和翻译作品进行分析，动态地描述这些翻译活动是在什么社会背景下发生的，这些背景因素之间有什么联系，它们又是如何相互作用将胡适和他的译作经典化从而影响目的语的文学和文化的演变的。书中也有文本对比分析，所不同的是，这些分析是从文化层面分析译者的翻译策略和意识形态对翻译的束缚，而不是在语言层面上对翻译作品和技巧进行评价。

本书共分六章。第一章是概述，即这一选题的背景和意义。作者通过文献资料证明，在对胡适多方位的研究中，还没有从翻译和改写角度在宏观上展开的研究。因此，在翻译文学史中胡适没有得到他应有的位置。这一现象恰恰可以用改写理论来解释。第二章介绍改写理论。首先阐述该理论产生和发展的背景，即邻边学科的研究成果的影响。然后概括改写理论的主要构成成分。主要强调两个方面：改写的形式和多种控制因素。本章理论联系实际，用我国翻译改写的例子对改写理论进行批判。接下来的三个章节是通过对胡适不同形式的改写的分析和研究论证改写理论。第三章通过胡适的成名作“文学改良刍议”（简称“八不”）被经典化的现象阐述改写理论中的“控制因素”——如当时的政治气候和意识形态、《新青年》杂志在读者中的权威、北京大学及其知名教授这些专业人士的积极支持等——是如何相互作用，使胡适的改写作品对意识形态和文学的演变产生影响的。通过对胡适的“八不”与美国意象派诗歌领袖Ezra Pound的“六不”进行的文本对比分析，指出胡适这篇文学革命宣言书与的“六不”在风格、结构以及部分内容上的相似之处。事实上，胡适是根据中国的国情需要按照自己的目的将“六不”改写成中国版式。本章指出即使是在似乎相同的结构和内容中各自所强调的重心却不同。此外，是在讲英语诗歌的写作风格，即如何利用修辞和押韵树立意象的问题。尽管胡适也在谈写作风格与表述，他主要是呼吁文学系统的革命，通过对传统的写作方式——过多强调形式而不注意内容——的批判从整体上改良中国文学。这正是两篇文章本质上的差异。第四章集中讨论胡适对挪威戏剧家易卜生作品的系列改写，即他的文学批评《易卜生主义》和他模仿易卜生的《娜拉》而创作的独幕剧《终身大事》。胡适首先分析了易卜生在其英文改写者笔下的形象，因为很显然胡适接触的是英文版的易卜生。尤其是William Archer的翻译和Bernard Shaw的文学评论经典《易卜生主义的精华》为胡适提供了经过他们改写的易卜生及其作品。通过分析胡适对易卜生剧本的选择和过滤，说明胡适是如何结合目的语意识形态的需要来同化易卜生的戏剧和易卜生主义的；指出在整个改写过程中，胡适绝非单纯的旁观者，他利用易卜生主义来宣传自己的“主义”。第五章研究胡适的翻译作品，即狭义的、传统意义上的翻译。与前面章节所描述的各类改写不同，胡适在翻译中尽量利用译者序，文内注释和加脚注等辅助语言方式影响读者对译品的解读。而在对文本的具体转换上，胡适的改写却极为谨慎，除了极个别处考虑到接受方的意识形态而做的改动，很少对原文进行明显的删减和增加。作者对此作了具体分析，指出改写理论对译者的操控程度明显夸大，在狭义的和广义的翻译之间缺乏明确的界定。第六章是结论部分，指出改写理论尽管在概念界定和逻辑性方面还不尽完善，有待于改进，但是该理论基本适用于描述和解释我国新文化运动时期的翻译现象。翻译研究应该包括多种形式的改写，并从接受环境角度进行描述。对胡适的案例分析证明，这一时期翻译和改写的过程的确受到意识形态、诗学、赞助势力以及专业人士的操控。改写对于目的语文化的变革的影响丝毫不亚于传统的翻译，因此具有与狭义的翻译同样重要的研究价值。遗憾的是，到目前为止，有关这方面的研究还没有得到足够的重视。

我在英国曼彻斯特大学翻译与跨文化研究中心对翻译理论进行了较为系统的研究，在研读大量理论文献、完成博士论文的同时，对翻译理论产生了许多思考。这些思考有些当时还不成熟，有些不便在学位论文中展开。因此，我在博士论文的基础上对一些理论问题作进一步探讨，写成了此书。本书的写作得到了许多专家学者的热心支持和帮助。恕我无法在这短短的前言里提及所有的热心帮助者。然而，我特别要感谢以下几位。首先要感谢我的导师Mona Baker教授，如果本书对翻译理论研究及胡适研究能有点实际意义的话，与先生的悉心指导是分不开的。能够不断得到她的指点，我的确非常幸运。先生的学问和为人都将使我受益终身。此外，在写作初期，我曾通过不同方式请教过有关方面的专家学者，得到他们的热情鼓励和帮助，其中包括：Keith Harvey博士、Drian Armstrong教授（英国曼彻斯特大学）、刘树森教授（北京大学）、向明友教授（同济大学）、陈德鸿教授（香港岭南大学）、申丹教授（北京大学）、潘文国教授（华东师范大学）、杨晓荣教授（南京国际关系学院）和David Pollard教授等。他们的意见和建议对我初期的写作具有极其宝贵的启迪作用。在此特向他们表示我诚挚的谢意。曼彻斯特大学翻译和跨文化研究中心在我攻读博士学位期间为我提供的经济资助保证了我的研究得以顺利完成。我的同事和朋友以及在英国的学友给了我精神上的鼓励与支持。请允许我再次向以上提到的和没有提到的所有关心和帮助过我的人士表示感谢。

此书的出版得到复旦大学出版社以及从事胡适研究的专家杜荣根先生的热情关注和大力支持。在此我谨向出版社以及所有同仁表示最真挚的谢意。

最后，感谢我的先生尹甦和儿子尹少骞对我的支持和理解。一心不能二用，我对他们的歉意不是此刻用语言能够尽述的。[1]作为翻译文学在整个文学系统中处于中心位置的标志之一，著名作家通常也是翻译家（Even-Zohar 2000：118）。这正是新文化运动时期的文学特点之一。Abstract

With the development of translation studies，translation has been situ-ated in a much broader and more complex research environment. The focus has shifted from the source-text and context to the target-text and context，taking into consideration not only translation in the narrow sense，but also ostensibly"original"writings，which may often be in-stances of"rewritings"（Lefevere 1985），In addition，notions of pat-ronage，poetics and ideology have also become relevant.Critical jour-nals，educational institutions and publishers，as well as professionals such as critics，reviewers，teachers and translators，now come within the scope of translation studies（see Chapter 2）.

Taking rewriting theory as a framework，this study reconsiders and an-alyses Hu Shi's most influential publications during the New Culture Movement（1915-1923）to demonstrate the extent to which these works are rewritings-translation in a broad sense. By putting Hu's works in context，the book also shows how，in the operation and re-ception of Hu's rewritings，ideology and patronage interact to canonise Hu Shi and his works.The analysis demonstrates that various kinds of rewritings played a crucial part in the evolution of Chinese literature and culture，and that Hu Shi's contribution to the movement can best be understood through the concept of rewriting.

A cultural giant in 20th-century Chinese history，and a versatile and prolific scholar，Hu Shi has been extensively researched from a variety of perspectives both within and outside China. However，existing studies have so far failed to give an adequate account of the transla-tional dimension of Hu's works，which played a crucial part in shaping his significant contribution to the New Culture Movement.The role played by Hu's translational activity deserves much more attention from researchers.The study attempts to fill this important gap by contextual and textual analyses of Hu Shi's major publications in this period to demonstrate how Hu rewrote foreign theories and works and why his works became influential in the evolution of the target literature and culture.The book also attempts to assess Lefevere's rewriting theory in terms of its coverage of forms and the configuration of control factors.

Conventions for the Use of Chinese Pinyin and Characters

Considering that readers of this thesis could be English native speakers interested in Chinese language and culture，sinologists as well as Chi-nese scholars，and that they may have read some other literature refer-ring to the same historical events and Chinese essays but in different translated versions，in the interests of clarity and convenience I at-tempt to provide a clear indication of pinyin and Chinese characters for relevant Chinese proper nouns，such as titles of articles，books，news-papers and magazines，as well as for names of influential historical fig-ures，events and habitual sayings. As for Chinese anthroponyms，since there are many homophones，for the most relevant figures it is necessary to indicate their corresponding Chinese characters besides pinyin.

1.For the most relevant Chinese articles，books and plays，at their first appearance，they are first given in pinyin，followed by the Chinese title and its English translation in parentheses.Subsequent references are in English only.

Some of Hu Shi's articles were originally written in English；these [1]will be cited in English with no Chinese。

e. g.an article："Wenxue gailiang chuyi"（“文学改良刍议”Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chinese Litera-ture）

a play：Zhongshen dashi（《终身大事》，Life's Greatest Event）

2.For the less relevant titles，at their first appearance，Chinese char-acters are followed by English translation；subsequent references are in English only.

e. g.a book or a play：《白话文学史》（History of Chinese Baihua Literature）

an article or a story：“我们对于西洋近代文明的态度”（Our Attitude Towards Contemporary Western Civilisation）

3.For relevant historical events or habitual sayings，English is used，with Chinese in parentheses after the first occurrence only.

e. g.a historical event："the Revolution of 1911”（辛亥革命）habitual saying："Chinese learning as essence，Western learning as complement"（中学为体，西学为用）

4.For relevant Chinese newspapers and magazines，at their first ap-pearance，Chinese characters are followed by English translation in parentheses；subsequent references are in English only.e.g.《新青年》（New Youth）；《独立评论》（The Independent Re-view）

5.For relevant Chinese names and publishers，at the first occur-

rence，pinyin is followed by the corresponding Chinese characters in parentheses；subsequent references are in pinyin only. Many influential missionaries are better known by their Chinese names；accordingly，these are supplied in parentheses alongside their giv-en names.

e. g.names：Hu Shi（胡适）；Chen Duxiu（陈独秀）

publisher：Yadong tushuguan（亚东图书馆）

missionary：Matteo Ricci（利玛窦）[1]The play Life's Greatest Event is the only exception，because Hu Shi first wrote it in English and later auto-translated it into Chinese.Foreword

The remarkable growth of translation studies as an academic discipline in recent years has brought with it a broadening of the concept of translation. This shift in perspective has in turn helped to situate the various textual practices that go under the term"translation"in a much broader and more complex research environment.And yet，the growing theoretical sophistication of the field has not been sufficiently supported by individual case studies that can demonstrate the com-plexity of translation practices at work.In particular，detailed case studies of non-Western translation histories and practices have regret-tably been very few and far between.

Zhao Wenjing's research on Hu Shi is a welcome contribution that re-sponds to the current imperatives and lacunae in the field in a number of ways. First，it offers a fascinating glimpse of an era and cultural context that are of vital importance not only to China but to the world at large.Second，it demonstrates in a very concrete way that the con-cept of translation has historically been fluid and cannot be neatly sep-arated from a variety of rewriting practices.Moreover，the story of Hu Shi's rise to fame as author，rewriter and translator provides ample documentation of the various ways in which translations are always em-bedded in a complex social landscape and are influenced by an array of cultural and political forces.In the course of elaborating this rich narrative of an important Chinese intellectual，the study also engages critically and productively with some of the core issues in translation studies.Among other things，it enhances our understanding of the im-portant phenomenon of indirect translation as it demonstrates how Hu Shi's interpretation of Ibsen，and his subsequent"localisation"of Ib-sen's work in the Chinese context，were filtered through the interpreta-tions of Ibsen's English translators and critics，in particular William Archer，who translated A Doll's House，and Bernard Shaw，who wrote an important critical study of Ibsen.And finally，a detailed case study of a leading cultural figure in China goes some way towards redressing the undue emphasis on Western contexts that has so far dominated the field of translation studies.

Dr. Zhao's study is both firmly embedded in the evolving critical tradi-tion within translation studies and simultaneously interrogates it by providing a non-Western and unique perspective on the cultural set-tings and textual practices of a fascinating period of Chinese history.It constitutes a welcome addition to the growing literature on translation and will no doubt contribute to the further elaboration of theoretical perspectives in the field.

Mona Baker

May 2006Chapter 1：Introduction

For centuries，translation theory was source-text-dominated. Transla-ted works were considered derivative and therefore inferior，"not only second-hand，but also second-rate，and hence not worth too much se-rious attention"（Hermans 1985b：8），In the study of translation，at-tention was paid primarily to assessing fidelity to the original text，without taking into account the context and the influence of the target culture（see Baker 1993：236），As a result，the function and role of translational activities in shaping significant historical and cultural events did not receive adequate consideration；this applies in particu-lar to translations by the key figures in these events，who usually had many more"original writings"to attract researchers'attention.This is the case with the study of Hu Shi（1891-1962），on which this book will focus.

With recent developments in translation studies，in particular rewriting theory，the concept of translation has been widened；the elements ca-pable of being analysed have become much more numerous；and the focus has shifted from the source-text and context to the target-text and context. Thus translation has been situated in a much broader and more complex research context.Not only translation proper and trans-lators，but also ostensibly"original"writings，which may often be in-stances of"rewritings"（Lefevere 1985a）or"unmarked/vaguely marked translations"（Robinson 1998d：184），now come within the scope of translation studies.In addition，notions of patronage，poetics and ideology have also become relevant.Critical journals，educational institutions and publishers，as well as professionals such as critics，re-viewers，teachers and translators，are all taken into consideration（see Lefevere 1992a：14；also 2.2），More and more significance has been attached to the role of translators and/or rewriters and the socio-histor-ical function of their [1]translational activities；in other words，to the way in which translators and/or rewriters""manipulate"a given soci-ety in order to"construct"the kind of"culture"desired"（Gentzler 2001a：x-xi）。

Extending the scope of translation studies to cover rewriting not only makes possible a more appropriate coverage of the multiple forms of translational activity，but also provides a new perspective-the per-spective of descriptive translation studies-from which to re-consider the key role played by leading figures during major cultural transfor-mation in history.

This study takes rewriting theory as a framework and reconsiders Hu Shi's most influential publications during the New Culture Movement by placing them in the target context，so as to demonstrate the extent to which these works are rewritings. I examine how，in the process of rewriting，ideologies，patronage and poetics interact with Hu Shi's own writings，and how Hu Shi adapted imported ideas or images to influ-ence cultural and literary reform in China.On the basis of this analysis，I also provide some critical reflections on rewriting theory.In what follows in this introduction，I attempt to put Hu Shi in the wi-der context of modern Chinese literary history，identify a gap in re-search to be filled on him and his works，and，finally，give an over-view of the way this book is structured.1.1　Rationale for Focusing on Hu Shi and the New Culture Movement[2]

The May Fourth New Culture Movement（henceforth referred to as the New Culture Movement）is widely considered to be a milestone in Chinese history，a significant turning point that signalled the start of modern Chinese history and played an extraordinary part in the devel-opment of modern Chinese ideology and poetics（see Chow Tse-tsung 1964；Ouyang Zhesheng 2000a），This is also a very important period in the history of translation in China.The period associated with the movement witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of translations and the introduction of foreign ideologies and poetics，which brought about great changes in Chinese culture and literature.In this process，Hu Shi，one of the key figures in the movement，played a vital role in guiding the direction of the"New Culture"。

The movement acquired its name because its leading figures aimed at establishing a new cultural pattern or paradigm：on the one hand to construct new cultural values and new intellectual approaches，and on the other to provide new paradigms and ethical models by translating and introducing the new thought and achievements of other cultures. To achieve this goal，they felt they had to uproot the traditional moral and social conventions which had permeated Chinese literature for more than two thousand years.Never before in Chinese history was Chinese tradition so severely questioned and criticised.As Denton comments："The break with tradition proposed by May Fourth intel-lectuals is perhaps unparalleled in world intellectual history in its radi-calness"（Denton 1996b：114），This break inevitably created a vac-uum in literature.Under such circumstances，as Even-Zohar's polysystem theory（1978）[3]suggests，translational activities came to occupy a primary position in literary culture.Literary works with thoughts and ideas then new to the Chinese people were in great de-mand to fill the gap.Hu Shi and a small group of reformers took the lead in translating and introducing foreign literary theories and practice in China。

As"one of the oriental cultural giants"（Tang Degang 1990/2000：3），"a central figure in 20th century Chinese academic and ideolog-ical history"（Yu Yingshi 1983/2000：76），Hu Shi has become a cultural icon in modern Chinese history"first of all because his name is connected with the epoch-making New Culture Movement"（Ouyang Zhesheng 2000b：29），Specifically，it was Hu's prolific publications during the New Culture Movement that established his academic au-thority and his discursive power and laid the foundation for his later achievements. Hu Shi's pivotal role in this movement has been widely recognised，especially in sponsoring the literary revolution（Geng Yunzhi 1985；Yi Zhuxian 1987；Song Jianhua 1996；Ouyang Zhesh-eng 2000a）.

However，a close investigation reveals that besides Hu's translations of various foreign works，most of his influential publications are in fact adaptations of foreign literary theories and works. Hu Shi occasionally revealed this practice in one of his autobiographies（1989a；see 3.3.2.2），I would argue that if translation is regarded as a less obvious form of rewriting（Lefevere 1992a），these writings can equally be considered as less obvious forms of translation；in other words，as re-writings in Lefevere's term.

Indeed，the concept of rewriting is highly productive for the analysis of Hu's work. It is widely acknowledged that all translations proper vary the imported message to different degrees，to meet the needs of their new audience.Theoretical concepts，from Walter Benjamin's"after-life"and"the continued life"of the original（1923/2000：16，19），Jacques Derrida's"transformation"（1979），Edward Said's"travelling theory"（1978），and Lawrence Venuti's"foreignising and domestica-ting translations"（1995）to Gideon Toury's"descriptive translation studies"（1985）and Lefevere's"refraction/rewriting"（1985；1992），all emphasise this effect of relocating information into a new context.Rewriting theory，however，more explicitly acknowledges the value of adaptation，imitation，critical work and anthologies in transla-tion studies（as elaborated in Chapter 2），On the basis of this theory，some of Hu Shi's"original"articles would be better categorised as ef-fective practices of rewriting.For instance，his most influential essay，"Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chinese Literature"（of-ten referred to in brief as"Eight Dont's"，1917），a manifesto of liter-ary revolution which dramatically shook the fundamentals of Chinese literary language and style，is in fact an adaptation of Ezra Pound's"A Few Dont's by an Imagiste[sic]”（1913）（see Chapter 3），Similar-ly，his critical work"Ibsenism"greatly popularised this Norwegian playwright in China and ideologically influenced a whole generation of Chinese readers as well as some translators and writers（see Chapter 4），These works involved forms of rewriting which target the receiving context.Hu's rewritings，including his translations，introduced Sini-cised foreign ideas into China and had an enormous impact on resha-ping the target culture and its way of thinking.

As a great thinker and social reformer，Hu has been heavily re-[4]searched both within and outside Chinafrom various perspectives such as history，philosophy，literary criticism，historiography and ed-ucation.Many studies have been published on his achievements（Shen Ji 2000；Ouyang Zhesheng 2000d），However，existing studies have so far failed to give an adequate account of the role played by Hu's translations and rewritings in effecting social and poetic change.Hardly any study has explored the possibility of seeing his contribution to the movement as a unified one through the notion of rewriting.Al-though Hu's translation proper has been mentioned in a matter-of-fact way-noted，without further analysis（see，for example，Chen Yu-gang 1989；Chen Fukang 1992；Wang Jinhou 1996；Guo Yanli 1998；Xie Tianzhen et al 2004），and Hu's translation of poetry has been studied in a couple of essays（see Liao Qiyi 2003，2004），no scholar has yet carried out a systematic study of Hu Shi's translations and re-writings in view of their functions in moulding new ideology and poet-ics.Most researches fail to recognise the fact that besides his transla-ted short stories，what initially made Hu Shi famous was the publica-tion of his seminal essays，or，rather，rewritings of Western poetic theories，in the journal New Youth。

A recently published book，《中国现代翻译文学史：1898-1949》（A History of Translated Literature in Modern China：1898-1949）（Xie Tianzhen et al.2004），to some extent further attests to this gap in the study of Hu Shi.One of the general editors，Xie Tianzhen，is a schol-ar of comparative literature whose book《译介学》（Medio-Translatolo-gy）（2000）reflects some scholarship in translation studies.This sub-stantial work（669 pages）accumulates a huge amount of historical da-ta on translated and some meta-translation works and gives a general picture of literature in Chinese translation and the role it played in shaping national literature during this important period.It is one of the most comprehensive Chinese studies of the history of translated litera-ture.However，even this volume fails to specify the function of Hu Shi's translational activities，although it makes frequent passing refer-ences to his translations（see its index under Hu Shi entry），Though he was most productive and influential between 1917 and 1948（see the chronological list in Chen Jin'gan[1989：525-768]），Hu's role in translational activity is relegated in this volume to a rather marginal position.Chapter 2 of the volume，"Precursors of Modern Chinese Translated Literature"，for example，devotes separate sections to Li-ang Qichao，Yan Fu and Lin Shu.In a fourth section，Hu is only lis-ted among ten other translators，and while three of them appear in the title of the section，Hu's contribution is obscured as part of the"et ce-tra"at the end of the list.The criteria for this presentation are un-clear，and the result can be questioned.Lin Shu's inclusion as a pre-cursor suggests that the three principal figures are singled out because of the volume of their translations.（Although Lin did not know any foreign languages，he translated about 180 works of fiction with collab-orators.）On this basis，Hu would indeed be of secondary impor-tance.However，so would Liang Qichao，who，as the compiler ad-mits，translated relatively little（Xie Tianzhen et al 2004：49），At-tention is primarily being paid to his role as the editor of several influ-ential journals and his meta-translation works，on the grounds that all these show how much importance Liang attached to translation and how much influence his theoretical works，such as"Lun yishu"（“论译书”，On Translating Books，1896）and"Yi yin zhengzhi xiaoshuo xu"（“译印政治小说序”，Preface to the Publication of Political No-vels in Translation，1898），enjoyed among the intelligentsia.Howev-er，if this were the case，then a separate section should have also been devoted to Hu Shi.Liang's journals were not as influential as journals such as New Youth，New Tide，Independent Review and The Crescent，for which Hu Shi worked as the editor，a regular contributor or an adviser；these had wider circulation and a larger readership（see Chapter 3），Hu's articles on translation are not fewer than Liang's ei-ther，but hardly any of Hu's influential meta-[5]translation works is men-tioned，Yet even the compiler acknowledges the fact that through his translations，Hu Shi"opened a new era of baihua Chinese poetry"（Xie Tianzhen et al 2004：62），and that Hu's two collections of trans-lated short stories were reprinted more than 20 times（ibid.），The large circulation of Hu's translations should in itself be taken as indic-ative of their popularity and influence.It is true，as will be argued in Chapter 5，that Liang's advocacy of fiction writing and the publication of his translated political fiction had a great impact on the intellectual community in the late Qing period.However，in terms of the size of readership and the reaction to [6]them in academic circles，Hu's essays on the translation and introduction of foreign works arguably exerted a wider and longer-lasting influence on the development of the subject-matter and style of Chinese literature（see Xie Tianzhen et al 2004：567-570；572；also Wang Jiankai 2003）during the epochal New Cul-ture Movement.This influence is amply demonstrated by studies which highlighted the contrasts between the pre-and post-New Culture periods in respect of both the content and the form of original works and translations（see for example Chen Pingyuan 1989/1997；Ye Ziming 1991），Hu Shi's essays"Yibusheng zhuyi"（“易卜生主义”，Ibsenism）and"建设的文学革命论”（A Constructive Revolution in Chinese Literature），which called for the importation of foreign ideas and literary works，have been cited and reprinted numerous times。

While Liang Qichao's essays greatly raised the status of fiction and drew attention to the translation of political novels，Hu Shi's essays further elaborated specific principles for both the composition of origi-nal works and the translation of foreign literature（see Chapters 3 and 4），As regards the scope of their influence，Liang Qichao's remains within China，while Hu Shi's intercultural activities from 1917 to 1949 reached far beyond his homeland. While introducing Western thoughts into China，Hu often published articles [7]introducing Chinese culture to the Western world，which gained him [8]an academic reputation abroad，This demonstrates not only Hu Shi's qualification and expert-ise as an inter-cultural agent，but also the popular reception and dra-matic influence of his rewritings [9]abroad，However，the inadequate macro and systematic studies of Hu's translated activities regrettably marginalises Hu's position in the history of Chinese translated litera-ture。

Xie Tianzhen's volume also contains some inaccuracies regarding Hu Shi's translations. For instance，the following claim is made about translations of Daudet's works in Chapter 8，"Translated Literature from France and French-Speaking Countries"：

Daudet's works were among the earliest to be translated. In 1922，Li Jieren first translated《小东西》（The Little Thing）[……]，and Li re-translated it in 1934.His"Last Class"，"The Siege of [10]Berlin"and"Sophie"and so on were also translated by Hu Shi，Wang Liaoyi，Wang Shiwei，etc.（Xie Tianzhen et al 2004：388，translated by the author of this book）

Hu Shi's translations are mentioned very briefly. His translations of Daudet's"The Last Class"and"The Siege of Berlin"date from 1915 and 1916 at the latest，much earlier than Li Jieren's translation.In fact Li himself acknowledged in his Preface to The Little Thing（1922；1934）that he had been greatly influenced by Hu Shi's translated sto-ries even before he knew any French（see 5.1.2：212-3），Hu's ver-sion of"The Last Class"was extremely popular，and was included in the textbook for junior middle school which was used for many years，a fact which Xie's study does not mention.Whether in respect of his chronological priority or his influence，Hu Shi deserves more space than a brief reference among a list of names and translated works，a reference so vague that readers cannot even distinguish exactly which [11]pieces were translated by Hu Shi。

However，this apparent neglect can be explained at least partly by the nature of the compilation of the volume. To compile such a huge book，the contributors have to rely heavily on secondary materials.Hardly any of these provide an unprejudiced appraisal of Hu Shi between the 1940s and 1990，a period marked firstly by the war against Japan（1937-1945），then by the civil war（1946-1949），and then by attitudes which presented Hu Shi as a"running dog that has an American band around the neck"，"a cultural traitor"（Hu Ming 1991/2000：53，my translation），Authoritative publications of the period（1951-1962）were highly critical of Hu Shi，and certainly damaged his reputation.Hence it is inevitable for Hu Shi's role in this respect to have been overlooked in translation studies，and in academic research more generally.

This neglect of Hu's translational activity is extremely unfortunate. Translations and rewritings of Western literary theory and works played a crucial part，as I will try to demonstrate in the following chapters，in this period of transition from the old feudal regime to the republican government，and they form a significant part of Hu Shi's contribution to this movement，which dramatically influenced the evolution of Chi-nese literature and culture.The period from 1915 to 1919，the first half of the New Culture Movement，witnessed the majority of Hu's lit-erary translations into Chinese（see Chen Jin'gan 1989），Indeed，it is impossible，I would argue，to study the New Culture Movement with-out referring to Hu Shi nor to discuss Hu Shi's contributions to the movement without considering his rewritings of Western works.[1]Throughout this book，the term"translational activity"is used to cover all forms of rewriting as well as translation proper.[2]This is named after the May Fourth Movement（1919），when students in Beijing held a huge demonstration against the verdict of the Versailles Peace Conference on Shan-dong.It was an explosion of public anger，an outburst of nationalism over the then Chinese government's humiliating policy towards Japan，which were ignited first by the"Twenty-One Demands of Japan"in 1915 and then by the Shandong resolution of the so-called"Peace Con-ference"in 1919.The Incident was followed by a series of strikes in various fields and associ-ated events，which came to produce social ferment and an intellectual movement.Later histo-rians used different terms such as"May Fourth Movement"（Chow Tse-tsung 1964），"May Fourth New Culture Movement"，"May Fourth New Literary Movement"（as in Wang Jinhou 1996），or simply"May Fourth Era"，in a broader sense，to embrace socio-cultural reforms and the new literary movement.For more information about the movement，see Chow Tse-tsung（1964），[3]In his essay"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"（1978），Even-Zohar specifies three situations in which translated literature would act as a primary system.They are：a）when a literature is being established and is still"young"；b）when a literature is either"peripheral"or"weak"，or both；and c）when there are turning points，or a vacuum，in a literature（1978/2000：193-194），Chinese literature at this stage fitted both the third and the first situation.Chinese literature as a whole was not"young"as it had thousands of years of history；however，it was"young"in that numerous literary forms，which were established and valued in the West，were still in their infancy.This will be ad-dressed in Chapter 2.[4]See，for example，Chow Tsetsung 1964；Grieder，Jerome B.1970；Geng Yunzhi 1985；Chen Jin'gan 1989；Song Jianhua 1996；Jiang Yihua 1993/1998；Ouyang Zhesheng 2000；to list just a few.[5]In fact，much of Hu's translational activity is ignored.Neither Hu's influential essays"Constructing a Literary Revolution"and"Ibsenism"nor his translation of A Doll's House，for example，is mentioned in the General Introduction.The latter，however，is referred to very late in the entry on Henrik Ibsen.[6]After 1905，new style schools developed very quickly and in the 1910s，especially during the New Culture Movement，various forms of education，such as vocational and techni-cal schools and night schools，were popularised.As a result，the size of the literate popula-tion increased dramatically.In addition，Hu Shi's essays were written in baihua，and were hence intelligible to a larger readership than essays written in wenyan（e.g.，Liang Qichao's），Moreover，the shift from Empire to Republic accentuated popular sensitivity to social changes，thus producing a larger potential readership.On education reform and development in this pe-riod，see Chow Tse-tsung（1964：48-51，259-262），[7]Hu Shi was also invited to lecture abroad.In 1933，for example，he was invited by the Haskell Foundation to lecture on"Chinese Cultural Tendency"in Chicago University，which resulted in the publication of The Chinese Renaissance by Chicago University Press in 1934.[8]When Hu Shi was appointed as the Chinese ambassador to Washington D.C.in Septem-ber 1938，The New York Times commented，"Americans who know Dr.Hu Shi will rejoice at the news of his appointment.”"Few of Dr.Shih's[sic]countrymen are so thoroughly representative of the best of the new and the old China，”the editorial continued，"Few are so well qualified to explain China to the United States and the United States to China"（The New York Times，Sept.20，1938，cited in Grieder 1970：294），A few months after he took up this office，John Gunther's book Inside Asia was published，in which the author introduced the new ambassador to a wider public as"beyond doubt the single most distinguished living Chinese，from any point of view not narrowly political[……]a mental giant[……]the best type of discriminating Chinese nationalist"（Gunther 1939：260-262；cited in Grieder 1970：294），[9]Most of his academic and political essays including papers delivered at various in-ternational conferences and diplomatic occasions and publications which appeared outside Chi-na，are covered in the three volumes of Hu Shi yingyu wencun（Anthologies of Hu Shi's Eng-lish Essays）edited by Zhou Zhiping（1995），See also The Chinese Renaissance，a collection of Hu Shi's English essays，edited by Ouyang Zhesheng and Liu Hongzhong（2001），[10]The title of Li Jieren's translated story is a back translation since the original is not obtainable.The other two titles"The Last Class"and"The Siege of Berlin"are from English versions.Shafei（沙菲）in Chinese might be Sophie，a name in French.[11]By comparison to other translators，Hu Shi is given too little space（a half page）in this 669-page book.For instance，the comment on Zhao Ruihong's（赵瑞蕻）translation of the novel Red and Black by Stendhal covers 6 pages（423-428），even though Zhao was far from well-known or influential and hence did not merit such a detailed treatment.1.2　Issues Reflected in the Neglect of Hu's Re-writings

The neglect of Hu's translation and rewriting testifies to the force of"the control factors"operating in the social system according to Lefe-[1]vere's rewriting theory，namely，"patronage"，"the [2]professionals"and"ideology"（Lefevere 1992a；see Chapter 2 below），In fact，the current vacuum in research on Hu's role as a translator and transla-tion theorist reflects the way in which these factors have influenced ac-ademic research and the media in China。

The overriding concern of the New Culture Movement was the advoca-cy of"democracy"and"science"，two imported notions that have since become very popular，known as"Mr. De"（democracy）and"Mr.Sai"（science）in China.In the course of introducing Western culture，Hu criticised the existing Chinese political and ethical sys-tem.His advocacy of"wholesale westernisation"，"human rights"and"rule of law"greatly offended politicians，and in 1928 Hu was criticised and threatened by certain local officials（see Song Huichang 2000：50-64；Li Miaogen 2000：141-157），However，this did not make Hu's work less popular at the time.Hu's iconoclastic spirit also [3]brought him political trouble in the 1950s in mainland China，Not long after the Communist Party came to power in late 1949，there be-gan a nationwide movement organised by the authorities to discredit Hu Shi.This movement lasted intermittently through the 1950s and part of the 1960s（Hu died in 1962）and saw Hu Shi severely criti-cised from both ideological and academic perspectives.All Hu's achievements were denigrated as valueless，and Hu himself was la-belled as merely"a porter and a seller of foreign teaching [4]materials"（Hu Ming 1991/2000：53），Journals，radio stations，newspapers，and academic fora（i.e.，elements of patronage），all participated in this criticism.Under such circumstances，the value of Hu Shi's ideas no longer depended on the quality of his arguments.It is not a compe-tition between arguments，but a competition among those"who decide what gets printed and what does not，or who gets appointed to which position and who does not"（Lefevere 1985a：222），In contrast with the situation in the period from the 1910s to the 1930s，when Hu's publications were generally"encouraged and propagated"（see Chap-ter 3），a powerful and influential system of"undifferentiated patron-age"in China tried to destroy Hu's image and the reputation of his works，only because he was on the"wrong"side [5]of the dominant ide-ology，The professionals were either silenced or [6]obliged to conform under heavy political pressure，Hu's contribution to the New Culture Movement thus became invisible to younger generations.The histori-ans had either to avoid Hu Shi's historical contribution or to distort it.He had become a"forbidden zone"（Ouyang Zhesheng 2000d：2）for research.Though he had been a sponsor of the literary revolution，readers could no longer find his name in the [7]rewritten history of Chi-nese literature，Not until the 1990s did Hu Shi studies begin to re-store him to his deserved position（Ouyang Zhesheng 2000d）。

In addition to the ideological context，poetic and academic factors also account for the absence of previous studies on Hu Shi. The political ban was lifted around the 1990s（see Ouyang Zhesheng 2000d：2）but Hu's contribution in this area has been given little attention.First-ly，the traditional approach to translation was characterised by close orientation to the source text.Rewritings in the broader sense，where a writer is inspired by a foreign original and then goes on either to write his more or less own work or to write an imitation of the original，were not covered in translation studies in China-as elsewhere-until fairly recently（see Chapter 2），This prescriptive method re-mained unchallenged for quite a long time in China，where equiva-lence（e.g.，Yan Fu's famous triad：xin，da，ya）between the two texts seemed to be the only standard for ideal translations（see Cheung 2002），It is understandable in this climate that Hu's theoretical essays were not considered relevant to translation studies.

The neglect of Hu Shi's translation also reflects an attitude which regar-ded translation as derivative and inferior to creative writing，and there-fore not deserving of academic research. In Hu Shi's case，his original works greatly surpass his translations in quantity.It is no surprise，then，that after the study of Hu Shi was restored to its deserved posi-tion，"the professionals"focused on his"original"works rather than on"derivative"ones.However，taking into consideration Hu's goal，his authority and his role in this period when translation occupied a dominant position，Hu's various forms of translation are certainly signifi-cant components for studies of both Hu Shi and the New Culture Move-ment.As rewriting theory points out，for influential figures like Hu Shi，neither the quantity nor the quality of translational works primarily determines his influence（see Lefevere 2001a：41-56），One of the most important factors is the prestige of the rewriter in the target society and his/her ideological power in discourse.In China，as elsewhere in the world，works by literati with academic prestige and authority typically carry much more weight with readers.In this sense，Hu Shi's transla-tions，because of the academic authority he enjoyed，can safely be said to have been more influential than those of the professional translators of the time.I would therefore argue that without considering Hu Shi's function in translating Western culture and literature，neither Hu nor the New Culture Movement can be adequately understood.

Academic limitations are yet another important factor in Hu Shi's neg-lect. In his article"关于学术史写作原则的一些感想”（Some Thoughts on the Principles of Writing Academic History），Fan Jun discusses the neglect of foreign literature by certain institutes of Chi-nese literature when writing Chinese literary history.He claims that"scholars studying modern Chinese literature are usually weak in both foreign languages and foreign literatures.These are neglected not be-cause they will not study them，but because they cannot"（cited in Wang Xiangyuan 2001b：6，translated by the author of this book），Although this cannot be the decisive factor in this case，it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant，and is particularly evident in translation stud-ies.As the Hong Kong scholar Wong Wang-chi indicates，translation studies in China（including Taiwan）is still limited to instructors in [8]institutes or universities who have majored in a foreign language，What is more，these instructors are not well versed in the history of Chinese literature or ideological development；conversely，the majority of scholars studying Hu Shi major in Chinese literary history，history and philosophy，and are not conversant with foreign [9]languages or translation studies。

All these factors combined to ensure that Hu Shi's translational activi-ties remained regrettably neglected.[1]"Patronage"is a term used by Lefevere to refer to one control factor operating out-side the literary system.It refers to"any kind of force that can be influential in encouraging and propagating，but also in discouraging，censoring and destroying works of literature"（1984b：92），See Chapter 2.[2]These are the terms used in Lefevere's rewriting theory.A detailed elaboration of the theory is offered in Chapter 2.[3]When the Nationalist Party was defeated by the Communist Party in the civil war and withdrew to Taiwan in 1949，both parties tried to win over the famous scholars of the period.When Beijing was besieged，the Communist Party's radio station broadcast a special pro-gramme，"To Mr.Hu Shi'，to persuade him not to leave Beijing，promising that he could re-main the President of Beijing University（Hu Ming 1991/2000：46），However，Hu Shi ig-nored the Communist Party's request.See also Shen Weiwei（1996：40），[4]Hu Ming's essay gives an overview of the movement criticising Hu Shi，from which I quoted quite a few.[5]Hu's contemporary Zhou Zuoren was also treated with prejudice while his brother Zhou Shuren（better known under his penname Lu Xun），who was highly praised by Chair-man Mao Zedong，has been apotheosised and his achievements have been somewhat exagger-ated（see Wang Hongzhi 1999b），[6]Hu Shi expressed his understanding of and sympathy for such criticism from his for-mer students or colleagues，asserting，"they have no freedom to keep silent"（cited in Hu Ming 1991/2000：47，translated by the author of this book），[7]A History of Translated Literature in Modern China also mentions the influence of po-litical ideology when discussing the disappearance of translated literature in the history of Chi-nese literature since the 1950s.It lists several books on the history of Chinese literature pub-lished before 1949，which contributed special chapters on translated literature，and Hu Shi's《白话文学史》（The History of Chinese Baihua Literature）is at the top of the list according to this chronological order.The compilers admit that the situation changed after 1949（Xie Tianzhen et al.2004：6），[8]See Lawrence Wong Wang-chi's abstract for Writing a History of Translation of the Late Qing and Early Republican China presented at the Conference Research Models in Trans-lation Studies 2000，in Manchester http：//www.art.man.ac.uk/SML/ctis/events/Confer-ence2000/Conference Programme.htm（last accessed on September 18，2002），[9]Scholars in foreign literature and culture，and Chinese literature and culture have been aware of this obstacle，which has been portrayed as"two skins"incompatible with each other（see Xu Guozhang 1997），1.3　Overview of the Book1.3.1　Structure

This book attempts to demonstrate that in order to construct a new cul-ture and new literature，Hu rewrote Western ideologies and poetics as a way of influencing social and literary reform in China during the New Culture Movement. My argument is that Hu Shi's contribution to this movement can best be understood through the concept of rewriting.

Chapter 2 then discusses rewriting theory from a theoretical stand-point，outlining its development and components，and providing some critical comments on the basis of Chinese examples. Detailed descrip-tion is offered of the different theories that helped shape Lefevere's model，and of the ways in which translation is studied from the per-spective of sociology.Chinese examples are offered in the course of making critical comments on the theory.

Chapter 3 will outline the Hu Shi phenomenon and attempts to demon-strate how the"control factors"which form part of rewriting theory in-teracted in making Hu Shi and his works canonical and thus able to effect ideological and literary change. The reception of one particular article，"Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chinese Litera-ture"，is explained in detail.When Hu Shi first published this article in New Youth，he was merely a young intellectual，at best a US-trained scholar.Unlike Liang Qichao and other previous late Qing re-formers，Hu neither had the title"a master [1]of Chinese learning"（国学大师）；nor played a leading role in any political party.How could he have such a great impact？The originality and quality of his essays alone were far from enough：the same article was simultaneous-ly published in the journal Chinese Students'Quarterly but elicited no reaction（Hu Shi 2001a[1934]），The chapter attempts to show that the article is a rewriting of Western literary theory and to investigate the function of the"control factors"which popularised Hu Shi and his works。

The fourth chapter will focus on Hu's rewritings of Ibsen，his critical work"Ibsenism"and his one-act play Zhongshen dashi（《终身大事》，Life's Greatest Event）in imitation of Ibsen's A Doll's House so as to show how Hu Shi domesticates Ibsen and Ibsenism.To illustrate this，This chapter will begin by investigating the sources from which Hu Shi accessed Ibsen.George Bernard Shaw's critical work The Quintessence of Ibsenism and William Archer's translations of Ibsen's plays are discussed to find out what image they established for Hu Shi in the first place.It then will proceed to examine whether Hu Shi sim-ply accepted this image or amended it to fit the target context.It will argue that Hu filtered Ibsen's thoughts according to his own agenda by selecting nine plays out of Ibsen's twenty-five，and by highlighting the realist aspects of Ibsen's output and his iconoclastic spirit.As a re-sult，"Ibsenism"established"a socially reforming Ibsen rather than an artistic Ibsen"（Hu Shi 1993e[1919]：487，translated by the au-thor of this book），These findings are confirmed and developed through analysis of the relationship between Life's Greatest Event and A Doll's House。

Chapter 5 will study Hu Shi's translation proper from a sociological perspective，taking into consideration his choices of source cultures，genre and theme，and the influence of these choices on Chinese liter-ary circles and translation. Textual and contextual analyses demon-strate that，contrary to what rewriting theory would lead us to expect，there is little significant textual amendment in Hu's translated texts；rather，Hu employs various subtle strategies in handling the original texts in order to influence readers'interpretation.He attempts to mini-mize readers"possible confrontation with an alien culture，and at the same time to highlight the political dimension of the source texts.

Chapter 6 will summarise the findings of the study. The study demon-strates the applicability of rewriting theory to the practice of Chinese translation activities during the New Culture Movement.The process and the acceptance of translation and rewriting are manipulated by the control factors such as ideology，poetics，patronage and the profes-sionals.Various kinds of rewritings have more significant influence on the evolution of literature and culture than translation proper，as shown in Hu Shi's case.The study also demonstrates the weakness and inadequacy of rewriting theory that need improving.[1]Although in 1905 the royal civil service examination was abolished，those who had passed the examination were still considered"a master of Chinese learning"（国学大师）and academically authoritative（e.g.，Liang Qichao etc.），Moreover，students from abroad were generally considered weak in Chinese learning，and therefore not very qualified or authorita-tive in such scholarship（see Yu Yingshi 1983/2000：105），1.3.2　Clarification of Terms and Presentation

The time span of the May Fourth New Culture Movement has not [1]been agreed upon，even by participants in the movement，The historian Huo Kanqi's claim that the movement began with the establishment of the journal New Youth（September 1915）and ended with the conclu-sion of the polemic on science and metaphysics（December 1923）is adopted throughout this book，as this is certainly the period during which most of the important cultural events took place.Hence many references to the New Culture Movement cover the period from 1915 to 1923。

As will be stated in Chapter 2，rewriting theory theoretically covers in-ter-lingual/cultural，intra-lingual/cultural and inter-semiotic transfer. However，in this book，I attempt to delimit"rewriting"within the do-main of inter-cultural communication.That is to say，I will focus on literary activities that participate in inter-lingual/cultural transfer，whatever they may be based on.They might at times be simply an idea，a new genre，a style，or a piece of text drawn from another cul-ture.In this framework，the super-ordinate concept is translational ac-tivity（in Jakobson's term）with rewriting（inter-lingual/inter-cultur-al）as its subordinate，under which we might have such co-subordi-nates as criticism，review，imitation，adaptation，anthology of transla-ted works，historiography etc.，with the most obvious form of all being translation proper.

During the New Culture Movement，Hu Shi published a large number of works which in Jakobson's（1959）terms correspond to either inter-or intra-lingual translation（see Chen Jin'gan 1989：543-606，for a chronological list of Hu's publications between 1915 and 1923），Even within the area of inter-lingual translation，Hu Shi's rewritings include translations both from English into Chinese and from Chinese into Eng-lish. Since this book focuses on the role played by Hu's translational activities in shaping social and ideological developments in China，on-ly Hu Shi's inter-lingual rewritings from English into Chinese are dis-cussed.

In this book，the terms"translational activity"and"intercultural movement"are used in a general sense to refer to various types of"re-writing"，including translation proper. As for translations from a source which had previously been translated from a language other than English，the term"indirect/pivotal/intermediate/second-hand translation"is normally used.The term"retranslation"can be used to refer to the same activity.However，since it also means differ-ent versions of the same text translated in different times from the same source language，"re-translation"is not used unless it means the latter to avoid ambiguity.The term"meta-translation"refers to commentary works on translation.

Since the book deals with a cultural movement dating back to over 90 years，much second hand data are used. In order to make it more ac-cessible to a prospective audience consisting of both Sinologists and translation theoreticians，and also to substantiate the sociological di-mension required by the research，the book will introduce and elabo-rate aspects of the historical context where appropriate.[1]Hu Shi considers 1917 the beginning of the Chinese literary revolution，as the start-ing point（Hu Shi 1934/2001a）；Chen Duxiu，another pioneer in the movement，maintained in 1938 that the period had lasted to"the present"（Chow Tse-tsung 1964：6）；others con-sider the movement as having lasted from 1915 to 1925，when the May 30th Incident oc-curred.For more information，see Chow Tse-tsung（1964：3-6），Chapter 2：Rewriting Theory

As stated in Chapter 1，most of Hu Shi's contributions to the New Cul-ture Movement can best be summarised through the concept of rewri-ting theory. What，then，is rewriting theory？How is it different from traditional theories of translation？Under what circumstances was this theory established and developed？What are the strengths and weak-nesses of this theory？In what way is it applicable to the study of Hu Shi？This chapter attempts to address these questions by offering an o-verview of the theoretical background of rewriting theory，a broad con-ceptualisation of the theory，and a critical assessment of its possible applicability to examining Hu Shi's works in the New Culture Move-ment.

Rewriting theory was developed by André Lefevere，a Belgian-born scholar.With a background in comparative literature，and inspired by new developments within and outside translation studies，Lefevere es-tablished his concept of"rewriting"，or"refractions"as he formerly termed it（Lefevere 1982/2000）-a concept that covers"the obvi-ous form of translation，the less obvious forms of criticism[……]，com-mentary，historiography[……]，teaching，the collection of the works in anthologies，the production of plays"（ibid.：235）-and devel-oped his theory by focusing on the"very concrete factors"that domi-nate"the acceptance or rejection，canonisation and non-canonisation of literary works"such as"power，ideology，institution [1]and manipula-tion"（Lefevere 1992a：2），Lefevere stresses that"translation is not done in a vacuum"（ibid.：14），To achieve a certain purpose，the translator and/or the rewriter manipulate the original in various ways and are also constrained by the ideology and poetics of the target cul-ture（Lefevere 1985a；1992a），Translational activity is therefore placed in a much larger social，cultural and historical context to cover various forms traditionally excluded from discussions of translation in literature.Lefevere's theory thus takes the study of translation to a new stage.Of all the developments achieved in modern translation studies，rewriting theory is one of the most important（see Hermans 1999；Gentzler 2001b）。

In what follows，I will offer a brief overview of the development of translation studies as a discipline in order to contextualise Lefevere's position and contribution to this field.

The study of translation did not become an academic discipline until about the second half of the 20th century（Baker 1998a：277；Her-mans 1999：16；Gentzler 2001b；Munday 2001），It is sometimes ar-gued that the conference in Leuven in 1976 marked an important stage in this development（Hermans 1999：12）and that James S. Holmes'seminal essay"The Name and Nature of Translation Studies"（1972）symbolises the establishment of translation studies as an independent discipline（Toury 1995：10；Hermans 1999：8，25；Gentzler 2001a：ix；2001b：93），Some scholars have also argued that Lefevere's"Translation Studies：The Goal of the Discipline"（1978a：as Appen-dix），presented at this conference，made"a peculiar"contribution（Hermans 1999：125；Gentzler 2001a：x），This essay is considered the manifesto of the discipline（Bassnett 1980：1）and a milestone in the development of translation studies.A closer examination of Holme'sand Lefevere's essays reveals that Lefevere's expresses more explicitly the idea of setting up the discipline，with a concrete elabora-tion of the goal"to produce a comprehensive theory which can also be used as a guideline for the production of translations"（1978a：234），Lefevere stresses that the theory should"try to describe the function of the translating process in a given situation，as well as the function ac-tual translations have in the receiving culture"（ibid.：235，italics added by the author of this book），Obviously，Lefevere attached spe-cial significance to the function of the translation and to the receiving context.If we consider the time when this article was presented to the conference（1976），and the perspectives then dominant in translation theory，it becomes clear just how forward-looking and ahead of its time the essay was in giving priority to such issues.So it is safe for us to argue that Lefevere's rewriting theory accompanied the establishment of translation studies as a discipline.Lefevere is thus acknowledged as one of the pioneers of translation studies（Pym 1998；Hermans 1999；Gentzler 2001b：91）as we know it today.2.1　The Theoretical Context Within and Out-side Translation Studies

Before we proceed to rewriting theory，a brief survey of the theoretical background to the theory-the relevant scholarship from which Lefe-vere benefited and to which his theory has contributed-is essential to make clear its formation and development，since rewriting theory，like many other theories in the discipline，was elaborated by drawing on a wide variety of sources both within and outside translation stud-ies. However，it is impractical to cover the full range of scholarship to which Lefevere's rewriting theory is indebted.I will therefore limit this overview to a brief sketch of the most important sources of influence in Lefevere's works，as evident in his own acknowledgements of his sources of inspiration.

Rewriting theory，like modern translation theory in general，has great-ly benefited not only from insights developed within translation studies but also from developments in neighbouring disciplines. Major sources of inspiration have come from perspectives within literary criticism，for instance，from post-structuralists like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida；from Russian formalists such as Yurij Tynjanov and Roman Jakobson；from scholarship on the aesthetics of reception and Itamar Even-Zohar's polysystem theory；as well as from [2]the work of James Holmes and Gideon Toury，All these theories provided a new impe-tus to the study of comparative literature and translation and initiated a new way of approaching translation and translation theory，effecting an important shift from a prescriptive to a descriptive approach。

The discussion below is organised around two main developments in translation studies that were instrumental in preparing the ground for Lefevere's rewriting theory：the shift of focus from source-oriented to target-oriented perspectives；and the broadening of the concept of translation. The first shift is relevant for the development of Lefevere's ideas about"control factors"，and the second for the elaboration of his views on various forms of rewriting.In what follows，I will focus on the contribution of literary theorists in relation to discussions of the au-thor function and the interpretation of meaning，the aesthetics of re-ception in relation to reader's contribution，Even-Zohar's polysystem theory，Hermans'anthology on the manipulation of literature，Holmes's concept of translation sociology，Jakobson's tripartite division of trans-lation and Toury's redefinition of translation.The two main lines of de-velopment to be elaborated，namely the shift from source-to target-ori-ented perspectives and the broadening of the concept of translation，are interwoven，with no clear-cut boundaries.Their separation into two distinct developments is merely a matter of convenience.Most the-orists discussed in the following sections have contributed to both de-velopments.2.1.1　The Shift from a Source-oriented to a Target-oriented Approach

The focus on socio-cultural context in various theories is not new. Ear-ly in the 1950s and 60s，culture-orientation started to emerge as part of the general intellectual climate in social sciences such as sociology of literature（Escarpit 1958/1971），cross-cultural communication and foreign language teaching（Lado 1957；Shaw 1988），literary criticism（Foucault 1963/1977a；1963/1977b；1969/1977c；Even-Zohar 1978），and even translation theory（Arrowsmith/Shattuck 1961；ci-ted in Baker 1996），We can trace the source even earlier in the work of Edward Sapir（1949：546），who argued，"All cultural behaviour is patterned"（cited in Lado 1957：111），This culture-orientation，first in neighbouring disciplines and then in translation theory，influ-enced translation researchers and comparatists like Lefevere.Below，I attempt to list only a few developments that were particularly relevant to the formation of translation and rewriting theory.2.1.1.1　Literary Criticism

One of the most important developments to impact on translation theo-ry，and in particular on Lefevere's work，has been the shift of focus from the author and the original work to the reader and the context of reception as a consequence of the authority of both the author and the original work being challenged in philosophy and literary criticism."The period of the 1960s and 1970s"，writes Zhang Shouying（1999：265，translated by the author of this book），"has witnessed a boom in Western philosophical literary criticism，with numerous schools，scholars and theories"（1999：267-8），The majority of these literary theories emphasises the context of reception. A number of literary crit-ics such as Wolfgang Iser，Manfred Fuhrmann and Hans Robert Jauss place readers at the centre of literary study；the signifying potential in a literary work can only be realised in interaction with a reader，and the reader is therefore an important component of literature.Literary historians must thus take readers into consideration（see Zhang Shouy-ing 1999：267-8），Other literary critics similarly contribute to priori-tising the receiving context by destabilising the notion of an original.In his essay"What is an author？”，Michel Foucault（1969/1977c）suggests that"by granting primordial status to writing，we re-inscribe in transcendental terms an affirmation of the text's sacred origin.Tra-ditional translation theory holds dear such notions of both the author and the primordial status of an original text.Any translation of an o-riginal into a second language involves a violation of the original，thus the impossibility of ever creating"pure"equivalents"（Foucault 1969/1977c：130-1，italics added by the author of this book），Here，by questioning the tendency to place the original writing above the trans-lated text，Foucault highlights"manipulation"as part of the process of translation and projects the quest for equivalents between the source and the target texts as sheer utopia.In the same essay but a different translated version（1979），Foucault writes that"the author is not an indefinite source of significations which fill a work；the author does not precede the works，he is a certain functional principle by which，in our culture，one limits，excludes，and chooses"（Foucault 1979：159），He further argues that the author-function will disappear in re-sponse to changes in society（ibid.：160），What is important，for Foucault，is not the author but the systems within which both author and text are embedded.This reflects Walter Benjamin's ideas in his canonical essay"The Task of the Translator"（1923/2000），in which he stresses that translation kills the original and discovers that the o-riginal is dead already.Translation is the"afterlife"and the"contin-ued life of literary works"，and the task of the translator is to extend the life of the original（Benjamin 1923/2000：16，19），This position is quite critical of traditional translation theory，considering it impossi-ble to be faithful in the movement between the original and the target versions.As Edwin Gentzler puts it：

Instead of a fixed original identity，Foucault recommends fo-cusing on the relationships of texts with other texts and vie-wing the specific discourse of a particular text within its his-torical situation. According to Foucault，the author's work is not the result of spontaneous inspiration，but is tied to the institutional systems of the time and place over which the in-dividual author has little control or awareness（Gentzler 2001b：150）.

In other words，"writing is the activation of a multiplicity of forces and……the text is where the struggle among these forces takes place"（Harari 1979b：41），It is the"institutional systems"of a given peri-od or，to be more precise，the ideology of the period that shapes and manipulates what the author writes. This argument resonates in Lefe-vere's discussion of"control factors"，to which I will return later.

In fact by raising the question"what is an author？”，Foucault poses the question of"power"，According to Foucault，"power[……]is the name one gives to a complex，strategic situation in a given society"（Foucault 1976：123，cited in Harari 1979b：42，original italics），For Foucault，the author function is"but an additional instrument for the exercise of a knowledge whose only politics is that of power"（cited in Harari 1979b：44），Foucault（1972：216）argues that"[i]n every society the production of discourse is at once controlled，selected，organized and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures，whose role is to avert its powers and dangers，to cope with chance events，to evade its ponderous awesome materiality"，What discourse means for Foucault is not the semantics of what is said，but"one's intention in using discourse"（cited in Harari 1979b：43），"To speak is，above all，to possess the power to speak. Power and discourse are established in and by the same act，any seizure of power being also an appropriation of discourse"（ibid.italics added by the author of this book），It is the notion of"power"in this sense that Lefevere borrowed and used in his rewriting theory（see Lefevere 1992a：15），Power here refers to the different control factors that shape discourse and the reception of a text.The important point here for translation studies is the shift from textual structure to contextual factors.Translators could no longer confine their interpretation of the text to the question of the author's possible intention，as was the case traditionally，but were now urged to pay more attention to factors in the receiving context，such as what determines the nature of a dis-course and who exercises power in shaping its course.These became elements of rewriting theory as developed by Lefevere.

In his essay，Lefevere also quoted Edward Said's assertion that"all reading is misreading，no one reading is better than any other"（Said 1979/1983：39；quoted by Lefevere 1985a：215），Obviously，the uncertainty of the original sense is stressed，or rather，overstated. In other words，there can be no prescribed or authorised interpretation.A reader can interpret a text in his or her own way depending on their varying spatio-temporal knowledge，thus attempting to undermine the authority of the author and the original text and at the same time em-phasise the interaction between the text and the world.That is to say，a text cannot be interpreted in isolation from the world in which it is embedded.Various situational factors have to be taken into considera-tion.For Foucault and Said，more emphasis should be attached to the social contextual setting than to textual structure.As Foucault sug-gests，in the study of literature，the following questions have to be raised："How，under what conditions and in what forms can some-thing like a subject appear in the order of discourse？What place can it occupy in each type of discourse，what functions can it assume，and by obeying what rules？”（1979：158），In a much wider scope，Said asks"how a text is produced，how it confirms，justifies，or modifies what came before it，how it reveals what is contemporaneous with it，or what is taking place at the same time in adjacent disciplines；how a text is transmitted or preserved，how institutions accept，modify，or reject it，and in turn，what kind of influence a text can exert on these same institutions which have produced it"（1976，cited in Harari 1979b：45），Obviously all these questions guide literary criticism to-wards the reception end.As we will see in the sections below，similar questions are posed in the works of Even-Zohar，Lefevere and Toury，thus confirming the impact of the work of such literary critics on devel-opments in translation theory.

This shift-the emphasis on the role of the reader in investing texts with meaning-is very important to translation theory since a transla-tor is a reader of the original work in the first place，and his or her in-terpretation of the original is thus both authorised and contextualised. Translation is not done in isolation from its social and cultural context，and it cannot be confined to the text per se.Moreover，the"misrea-ding"assertion offers a plausible reason to justify various interventions in translated works.As a result，a reader and/or a translator are no longer viewed merely as a passive receiver but rather as an active par-ticipant and a contributor to constructing the meaning of the text.The shift towards the reception end creates a favourable theoretical climate for the change of focus in translation studies.By undermining the con-ventional notion of the author's authority，it becomes possible to bring about a shift of focus in literary theory and criticism and consequently to raise the status of translated literature.

To appreciate the significance of this shift，it is necessary to situate it in the context of the prescriptive approach that dominated the study of translation at the time.

Traditional translation theory tended to stress"one-to-one notions of correspondence as well as the possibility of literary/linguistic equiva-lence"（Munday 2001：117）and maintained that equivalence to the original is the basic and fundamental quality that a translated work should possess（see Baker 1993：236），This source-oriented tradition dominated the study and assessment of translation for a considerable period. In China，for instance，translation theory was preoccupied with Yan Fu's triad-xin，da，信、达、雅（to be faithful，expres-sive and elegant），which is rather source-oriented-for about 100 years，with hardly any breakthrough until very recently（see Elsie Chan 2002：62；Kong Huiyi 2002），Theo Hermans，one of the pre-cursors of the target-oriented approach，aptly describes this source-ori-ented approach thus：

Taking the supremacy of the original for granted from the start，the study of translation then serves merely to demon-strate that original's outstanding qualities by highlighting the errors and inadequacies of any number of translations of it. The outcome，needless to say，is an invariably source-orien-ted exercise，which，by constantly holding the original up as an absolute standard and touchstone，becomes repetitive，predictable and prescriptive-the implicit norm being a transcendental and utopian conception of translation as re-producing the original，the whole original and nothing but the original（Hermans 1985a：8-9）.

Since the translation is seen as a reproduction of the origi-nal，as faithful as can be，its quality can be assessed by mapping similarities and deviations.[……]viewing a trans-lation as a vicarious object，a substitute which must con-stantly be referred back to its source. The authority of the o-riginal is constantly re-affirmed in the process（Hermans 1999：37）.

From the point of view of the source-oriented approach，translation is derivative，hence not worth too much serious attention. Translation theories informed by this approach are"in fact theories for translation didactics.They are giving us materials to train translators"by com-menting on errors in the target text（Holmes 1988a：95），When translation activities are viewed in isolation from their context andhardly connected with social phenomena，translators become mechan-ics substituting stretches of original texts with equivalent stretches in the target language，rather than mediators or active and creative par-ticipants in constructing a new culture，including a new ideology and poetics for the target society.[1]The two components of the theory-the control factors and the various forms of re-writing-will be discussed below.[2]For further discussion of the theoretical background to these approaches，see Her-mans 1985b：7-15；1999：17-21；Munday 2001：4-15；Gentzler 2001b：1，103，106-144.2.1.1.2　Even-Zohar's Polysystem Theory

Source-oriented translation theory met its real challenge in system the-ory. Lefevere's work is heavily informed by system theory，in particu-lar by Even-Zohar's polysystem theory，which offers fundamental ele-ments for rewriting theory.This section will therefore move on to a short discussion of polysystem theory：its main concepts and its impact on rewriting theory.

The conception of literature as a system originates from the writings of the Russian Formalists（Lefevere 1982：55）who view literature as a"hierarchically structured set of elements"（Hermans 1985a：11），The Russian Formalists place literary studies within a larger socio-cul-tural context. Borrowing the concept of"system"from this tradition，Itamar Even-Zohar developed his model of polysystem [1]theory，in which translated literature functions as a system in its own right.As Mona Baker puts it：

Even-Zohar's work effected a shift away from the treatment of translated texts as isolated elements and towards a historical and social understanding of the way they function collective-ly，as a sub-system within the target literary system（1998b：163）.

Contrary to the traditional view of translation as peripheral，Even-Zo-har's theory suggests that"translated literature may be either a primary or secondary system"in the target social systems，depending on the dynamics of the target context（1978：123），Even-Zohar argues that translated literature is so closely constrained by the target culture that the criteria of selecting the works to be translated are decided by the situation governing the polysystem："the texts are picked according to their compatibility with the new approaches and the supposedly inno-vatory role they may assume within the target literature"（ibid.：121），Thus，privileging the target language's cultural system，Even-Zohar clearly emphasises the decisive role that the target culture plays in translation and stresses that existing factors in target cultural system act as a filter，determining what is selected for translation. These fac-tors are more explicitly elaborated in his Polysystem Studies（1990）where he produces a table，based on Roman Jakobson's scheme of communication and language，showing the scheme of the literary sys-tem，taking into account such elements as Institution，Repertoire，Producer and Consumer，Market and Product，all of which are"in-volved with the literary（poly）system"（Even-Zohar 1990：31），These elements have clearly fed into Lefevere's control factors.

What are the implications of Even-Zohar's adaptation of Jakobson's scheme？A closer look at his replacement of Jakobson's original terms reveals that Even-Zohar attached more importance to socio-cultural phenomena than to linguistic and communicative considerations. Thus，Even-Zohar's REPERTOIRE replaces Jakobson's"code"，and PRODUCT replaces"message"，etc.Perhaps the major difference lies in the use of INSTITUTION for"context"（ibid.），Even-Zohar defines his term thus：

The"institution"consists of the aggregate of factors in-volved with the maintenance of literature as a socio-cultural activity. It is the institution which governs the norms pre-vailing in this activity，sanctioning some and rejecting oth-ers.[……]In specific terms，the institution includes at least part of the producers，"critics"（in whatever form），pub-lishing houses，periodicals，clubs，groups of writers，gov-ernment bodies（like ministerial offices and academies），educational institutions（schools of whatever level，inclu-ding universities），the mass media in all its facets，and more（1990：37）.

The components of Even-Zohar's INSTITUTION are the macro-factors demonstrating the function of the literary system. This definition of in-stitution significantly expands and concretises Jakobson's"context"，Moreover，all the factors identified under INSTITUTION act as con-straints which play a decisive role in the competition for central posi-tion among various systems.This focus on the dynamics of the target system was instrumental in enabling Gideon Toury，a colleague and one of Even-Zohar's students，to develop the concept of"norms"in translation theory.Similarly，in elaborating his control factors for the literary system，Lefevere draws on literary system theory，in particular Even-Zohar's polysystem，taking the literary system as part of the ideo-logical milieu of the era to find out what repercussions"translated works from other sectors（political，religious，economic）of the ideo-logical milieu have on the literary polysystem"（Lefevere 1981a：58），However，as Hermans argues，although Lefevere frequently draws on various concepts from polysystem theory，he is more"inter-ested in its control mechanisms.These he described in terms of poet-ics，patronage and ideology"（Hermans 1999：42-43），Instead of u-sing the term"norms"as Toury does，Lefevere employs"constraints"to investigate how rewriters produce work under either ideological or poetological pressure，or both，in the target culture（The correlation between Lefevere's constraints and Toury's norms will be discussed fur-ther in 2.1.2）.[1]The polysystem hypothesis was first formulated in 1970（see Even-Zohar 1979：287），2.1.1.3　Hermans'Anthology of Translation Studies

As to drawing attention to the reception end，one specific publication played a particularly decisive role：The Manipulation of Literature，edited by Theo Hermans in 1985. This book stands as a milestone in translation theory，marking the shift of focus from the original to tar-get-relevant factors of translation activity in its historical context，and to the manipulation of the product and its function in the target cul-ture.This 1985 collection proved more influential in translation circles than the 1978 collection from the Leuven Conference（see Gentzler 2001b：131），The significance of the book can be seen from its con-tributors，most of whom，working in comparative literature，continue to be major figures in translation studies.The anthology brings togeth-er a number of seminal contributions，all of which treat translated lit-erature as one subsystem of the social and literary system and attempt to investigate [1]its impact on the evolution of the target literary system，Hermans describes this"new paradigm"（1985a：7）as"an approach to literary translation that is descriptive，target-oriented，functional，and systemic；[which shows]an interest in the norms and constraints that govern the production and reception of translation"（ibid.：11），In the introduction to the anthology，Hermans，echoing Lefevere（1985a：215-243），argues that translation is a kind of manipulation（Hermans 1985a：11），Both scholars proposed that"[f]rom the point of view of the target literature，all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose"（ibid.），The essays in the volume were meant to bring about fundamental changes in translation [2]studies.Manipulationstresses the translator's role and the various constraints at the receiving end rather than the equivalence to the source that was dominant at that time。

Hermans'anthology included Andre Lefevere's essay"Why Waste our Time on Rewrites？The Trouble with the Role of Rewriting in an Alter-native Paradigm"（1985a：215-243），Here，Lefevere put forward for the first time the notion of"rewriting"and laid out the fundamental elements of his theory（see 2. 2），Drawing on concepts such as pow-er，ideology，poetics and patronage，the essay points to Jakobson，Even-Zohar，the French philosophical critics and Holmes as its main sources of inspiration.[1]See Lefevere（1992a）；Hermans（1999）；Tymoczko（1996，1999），[2]"Manipulation"is used not only as a title for this anthology，but also to name the scholarship of this group："Manipulation paradigm"，According to Hermans（1999：8），the name was proposed by Lefevere who also went on to use it in the title of his book，Translation and the Manipulation of Literary Fame（Gentzler 2001b；Hermans 1985a；1999：120），2.1.1.4　Holmes'Concept of Translation Sociology

As noted above，James Holmes is widely recognised as one of the pio-neers of the new paradigm of translation studies（Gentzler 2001b：91；Hermans 1999：25），His work has been instrumental in shaping the ideas of theorists such as Toury and Lefevere. His essay"The Name and Nature of Translation Studies"draws a general outline for"trans-lation studies"and suggests dividing the discipline into"three fairly distinct branches"（Holmes 1988b：78）：descriptive，theoretical and applied.He further breaks down each branch into smaller subdivi-sions.Under descriptive translation studies（DTS），he lists the fol-lowing：product-oriented，function-oriented and process-oriented（Holmes 1988b：72-73；Baker 1998c：278；Toury 1991：181），In describing function-oriented translation studies，Holmes points out that

function-oriented DTS is not interested in the description of translations in themselves，but in the description of their function in the recipient socio-cultural situation：it is a study of contexts rather than texts. Pursuing such questions as which texts were（and，often as important，were not）trans-lated at a certain time in a certain place，and what influ-ences were exerted in consequence，this area of research is one that has attracted less concentrated attention[……]though it is often introduced as a kind of sub-theme in histo-ries of translations and in literary histories.Greater empha-sis on it could lead to the development of a field of transla-tion sociology（or-less felicitous but more accurate，since it is a legitimate area of translation studies as well as of soci-ology-socio-translation studies）（1972/1988b：72；ital-ics added by the author of this book）.

By drawing attention to such issues as why translators choose（not）to translate some texts rather than others and with what consequences，Holmes emphasises the need to study translation at a [1]higher level，from the macro perspective，The interest here is not in the descrip-tion of translation per se，but in the sociological dimension of transla-tion studies（see Holmes 1988b：72），Thus，rather than the conven-tional parallel analysis of source and target texts to assess whether cer-tain choices are"right"or"wrong"，"faithful"or"unfaithful"，Holmes attempts to study the way in which translational activities oper-ate and function in the host culture.The answers to the questions he poses can only be found by taking into account various relevant factors in the receiving context-the target culture.This is what he refers to as"translation sociology"，The influence on Lefevere's rewriting theo-ry is clear.Lefevere attempts to study translation from a sociological perspective，and his rewriting theory is designed to address precisely those questions that Holmes poses above（see 2.2 below）。[1]Similar questions were posed in Lefevere's later works（see Lefevere 1981a：57-58；1990；1992a：7），2.1.2　The Broadening of the Concept of Translation

In the second half of the 20th century，some literary critics and lin-guists（Jakobson 1959；Steiner 1975；Holmes 1978；Toury 1980）began to reconsider what the notion of translation means，what ele-ments might be included in studying translation and how translation operates and is constrained in the target culture. This development provided an impetus for rewriting theory，and it was partly through the interaction with such work that rewriting theory came into being.As mentioned previously，around this period，the study of translation had begun to take a descriptive，target-oriented and inter-disciplinary turn，and the distinction between translation and creation began to be blurred.The work of scholars like Roman Jakobson，George Steiner and Gideon Toury was particularly instrumental for this development.In what follows，I will briefly discuss these scholars'contribution to and interaction with Lefevere's rewriting theory.

In 1959，Roman Jakobson，a member of the Russian Formalist group whose communicative scheme informed Even-Zohar's scheme of literary system（see 2. 1.1.2），published his essay"On Linguistic Aspects of Translation"，which has been frequently quoted ever since its publica-tion.In this article，Jakobson breaks the field down into three areas and defines translation in a broader sense for the first time.He posits three types of translation：

1.Intra-lingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same lan-guage.

2.Inter-lingual translation or translation proper is an inter-pretation of verbal signs by means of some other lan-guage.

3.Inter-semiotic translation or transmutation is an interpre-tation of verbal signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems.（Jakobson 1959：233）

This article lays the linguistic and semiotic foundation for translation theory. It significantly enlarges the scope of translation as a phenome-non.Whereas Holmes"add[s]one more branch to"linguistics prop-er"[……]socio-linguistics，for Jakobson，studying"language"al-ready includes both awareness and consideration of all of these fac-tors，to be investigated in their mutual relations rather than as discrete occurrences"（Even-Zohar 1990：32），Studying language and trans-lation from a communicative perspective，Jakobson argues that transla-tion is communication（1959：234），No wonder that George Steiner takes Jakobson's article as marking the beginning of modern translation studies.Indeed，in After Babel（1975），Steiner"characterises the history of translation theory until Jakobson as a continual rehashing of the same formal[……]versus free[……]theoretical distinction"（Gen-tzler 2001b：1）.

According to Jakobson's tripartite categorisation，translation covers nearly all verbal and non-verbal，inter-lingual/cultural and intra-lin-gual/cultural communication（for a discussion of the impact of this categorisation on Lefevere's work，see 2. 2.2），Adopting Jakobson's definition，Steiner extends the notion even further to understanding as translation（1975：1），Steiner also argues that in the process of inter-lingual translation，it is not adequate merely to analyse in detail the lexis and syntax of the source text.The interpretation of the semantic，ethical value and the implied social，historical and cultural meaning，as well as presentation of the whole effect and tone，is essential（see Steiner 1975：1-48），For Steiner，it is fundamental to be familiar with the relevant historical and cultural background in understanding thoroughly the real sense of a paragraph.Wording and phrasing are the reflection of social existence.Here again contextual rather than textual structures are emphasised.The static analyses of linguistic ele-ments must combine with dynamic investigation of socio-historical fac-tors in defining translation and translated works.

In a different though related development，Toury（1978，1980，1981）elaborated the concept of norms，which focuses on"investiga-ting the evaluative yardstick that is used in making statements about translation in a given socio-cultural context"（Baker 1998b：163），By contrast to the traditional notion of an inherent and absolute trans-lation standard（such as equivalence，expressiveness and faithful-ness），"norm"is a term that derives from sociological discourse and refers to varying and variable conventions which constrain people's so-cial behaviour in a given society or culture. In translation，norms are a product of the various constraints in the target culture that directly influence translators'decisions in the process of their translational ac-tivities.Toury stresses，or possibly overstates，the function played by the target system in shaping translated works，but this is not the key issue in this context.Rather，I wish to emphasise how Toury，against an intellectual climate in which original works occupied a"sacred"position，insists on focusing on the target context.In his In Search of a Theory of Translation，Toury（1980）claimed that the ultimate goal of translation is"to serve as a message in the target cultural-linguistic context，and in it alone"（1980：16），and that translated texts are"facts of one language and one textual tradition only：the target's"（ibid.：83），Toury（1985）similarly stresses the"hypothesis that translations are facts of one system only：the target system"（1985：19，original italics）and argued that"translational norms can only be applied at the receiving end，establishing them is not merely justified by a target-oriented approach but should be seen as its very epitome"（1995：53，original italics），It is not intented to comment on the plausibility of these arguments here，but to demonstrate that Toury's theory intends to set up a hierarchy of relevant constraints that control the final translation product，thus enabling the researcher to apply the notion of"translation norms".

As to what translation is，Toury argues that translation is"any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such[i. e.as a"translation"]in a target system，on whatever grounds"（1985：20，italics added by the author of this book），For Toury，whether a piece of text should be considered"translation"depends mainly on whether the target recipients take it as such instead of on how equivalent it is to the original text.Later，Toury redefines translation as：

any target-culture text for which there are reasons to tenta-tively posit the existence of another text，in another culture and language，from which it was presumably derived by transfer operations and to which it is now tied by certain re-lationships（1995：35，italics added by the author of this book）.

The use of"tentatively"and"presumably"and the vague expressions"by transfer operation"and"by certain relationships"tremendously stress and extend the coverage of"any"，Obviously，Toury's definition blurs the distinction between translation and creative work：any form of target-culture writing，so long as it can be presumed to have a cer-tain relationship with another text from another language or culture，can be defined as translation. The domain of translation is enlarged to such an extent that many phenomena considered irrelevant to transla-tion in the past can now be legitimately studied by translation re-searchers（e.g.，pseudo-translation；see Toury 1995：40-52），Thus，Venuti explains that according to Toury，“[t]ranslation studies should[……]include various forms such as adaptation and even pseu-do-translation-either based on some original ideas or with no origi-nal text at all"（Venuti 1998：27，my italics），and Pym asserts that"Toury's broad criteria can be used to assume that virtually anything is a translation until proven otherwise"（Pym 1998：61），I would like to argue，in fact，that what Toury is prepared to define is not"transla-tion"，but the scope of translation studies as a discipline，and more especially Descriptive Translation Studies.Toury does not distinguish，at least in his use of terminology，between translation proper（inter-lingual translation in Jakobson's terms）and other forms of translational communication.Lefevere's rewriting theory，by contrast，distinguishes between translation proper and other forms of rewriting that he cate-gorises as commentary，although the distinction remains rather vague（see Lefevere 1978b：7，23）.

Both Toury and Lefevere extend the range of parameters that can or should be investigated in translation studies. In doing this，they en-large the domain of translation studies to cover various forms of media-tion rather than translation proper.Both reject the traditional notion of translation as replacement of an original text.Although using different terms（"norms"and"constraints"），both emphasise that contextual factors determine the strategies adopted by the translator and the shape of the textual products of translation.Lefevere goes much further than Toury in concretising the various forms that these products can assume and the various factors determining the reception and rejection of the products.

As can be detected，both Lefevere and Toury are directly influenced by the work of Even-Zohar and Holmes（Lefevere 1978b，1981a；Toury 1991），However，it is difficult to judge the extent to which they influence each other. There are shared assumptions and features in their works.For example，Lefevere poses questions such as who trans-lates/rewrites，why，and under what circumstances，for what audi-ence（Lefevere 1981a：57-58；1992a：7），Similar issues are also ad-dressed in Toury's preliminary norms（1995：53-69）：What is the translation policy in the target culture？What is the difference between translation，imitation，and adaptation for a specific period？What au-thors，periods，genres，schools are preferred by the target culture？Is intermediate or second-hand translation permitted？What are the per-mitted mediating languages？（ibid.：58-59）

Both scholars therefore emphasise extra-linguistic factors in transla-tion，taking translators/rewriters，relevant social factors，and the re-cipients into consideration. There also seem to be some similarities be-tween Toury's concept of norms（1978：83-100）and Lefevere's notion of constraints as factors which influence translators'choice of strategies and decisions in the translation process as well as his discussion of these factors（1992a：7-14），Toury's preliminary norms also address issues of ideology，and his initial and operational norms engage with both poetics and linguistics.On the other hand，whereas Toury's norm theory takes into account linguistic factors，Lefevere tends to avoid or downplay the function of linguistics in a radical way（Lefevere 1981a：58；Lefevere and Bassnett 1990：4；this point will be discussed in 2.2.1.2：74）.

From the above，we can conclude that two main developments in translation studies-the shift from a source-oriented to a target-orien-ted perspective and the broadening of the concept of translation-di-rectly inform Lefevere's rewriting theory. The forms that rewriting takes and the control factors that determine the choices and strategies adopt-ed by translators，as well as the reception of rewriting in the target culture，are all extensions of these two broad developments.I now move on to outline the details of rewriting theory proper.2.2　Rewriting Theory：An Overview

Rewriting theory is one of the most productive and versatile theories for studying the function of translational communication，that is，how translational activities operate and function in the target society. If we accept that Holmes was one of the first theorists to shift the focus of translation studies onto the product and its function in the recipient culture，it would be fair to acknowledge that Lefevere was among the first to concretise this focus by introducing the notion of rewriting.

What，then，is Lefevere's notion of rewriting？The term"rewriting"first appeared in 1985 in the title of one of Lefevere's essays："Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites？The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm"，Before that，Lefevere had used"refraction"to mean"the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience，with the intention of influencing the way in which that audience reads the work"（1982：4，italics added by the author of this book），He later adopted the term"rewriting"and de-fined rewrites，the products of rewriting，as follows：

t]exts that rewrite the actual text in one way or another，such as plot summaries in literary histories or reference works，reviews in newspapers，magazines，or journals，some critical articles，performances on stage or screen，and，last but not least，translations（1992a：6-7）.

For Lefevere，so long as a text contains some trace of another text ei-ther in the same or different culture，either in the same or different se-miotic system，either with a similar or different amount of information，either in the form of commentary or translation proper，it is rewriting. It is notable that there is no mention of the original.Here we can sketch the influence of Jakobson's tripartite model which caters for all three types of"translation"，namely inter-lingual，intra-lingual，and inter-semiotic.Thus，one defining feature of Lefevere's work has been"viewing translation as a particular mode of a broader practice"（Her-mans 1999：125），The theory offers a new angle on the study of translation by covering various concrete forms，including translation proper.

Rewriting theory has two major components：the control factors that constrain and determine the production and the reception of rewriting；and the various forms that rewriting takes. In this section，both these components will be examined in turn.2.2.1　The Control Factors

Lefevere's theory of rewriting stresses"cultural rather than linguistic aspects[of translation]and discuss[es]translation history in terms of poetics，ideology，patronage and"universe of discourse"”（Hermans 1998：400），Rewriting theory in fact offers one way of studying trans-lation sociology. It attempts to address questions such as：How do translational activities operate，and how are they manipulated and ac-cepted in the target society？How do they function in the target cul-ture？How do they interact with target literary systems？Some of the answers to these questions are offered in Lefevere's essay in Hermans'anthology，"Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites"（1985a），This is"the first full presentation"（Hermans 1999：126）of Lefevere's re-writing theory.The essay establishes the foundations of rewriting theo-ry and identifies its basic components：the control factors that operate in the literary system，and the various forms of rewriting.Although Lefevere continued to work on this theory and published several essays and books on the subject，no substantial changes were introduced to the basic elements outlined in this essay.

Lefevere begins his essay by quoting Said："It is argued that，since all reading is misreading，no one reading is better than any other，and hence all readings，potentially infinite in number，are in the final a-nalysis equally misinterpretations"（1983：39，quoted by Lefevere 1985a：215；see also 2. 1.1.1：33），He thus sets the tone for the whole article by taking as his point of departure the position of literary critics such as Said and Foucault on the possibility of there being vari-ous interpretations，or conscious and subconscious"misreading"，in literary criticism.To me，this indicates：

1.the insignificance of the source text；

2.the indeterminacy of the interpretation of a reader（or of the rewriter or translator as a reader in the first place）；

3.the impossibility of achieving equivalence in interpreta-tion or translation.

These principles further imply that manipulation is inherent in the process of interpreting a text since interpreting is a function of the reader/rewriter's ideological perspective and social background. Mean-ing per se，inseparable from its linguistic context，cannot be separated from political or ideological context.The interpretation of the target reader or the rewriter（for instance，the critic or reviewer）is deter-mined by ideological constraints，whether the reader/critic/reviewer is consciously aware of this or not.

Critics，Lefevere states，can be as creative as writers. Lefevere fur-ther asserts that the interpretation of literature，or rewriting，

h]as never been an enterprise of cast-iron scholarship and erudition only，but always of scholarship and erudition in the service of something else. There has，in other words，never been a truly autonomous criticism，responsible only to the truth，the eternal，[and]the one-and-only.There have al-ways been different attempts at interpretation undertaken on the basis of a certain concept of what the world should be like（ideology）as well as a certain concept of what litera-ture should be like（poetics）[……]，[The critics]have a-dapted works of literature，"re-written"them until they happened to fit their own poetics，their own ideology（1985a：217，italics added by the author of this book）.

For Lefevere，then，rewriting is a re-interpretation of a literary work that is subject to certain constraints，i. e.，control factors.Indeed，he repeatedly claims，"translations are never produced in a vacuum"（Lefevere 1981a：56；1992a：14；Lefevere and Bassnett 2001：3），that they serve the needs of the ideology and poetics of a given socie-ty.Ideology and poetics，for Lefevere，are the two major factors that constrain the production and the reception of rewriting.

As for the function of rewriting，Lefevere also argues that it is not the creative work but the rewriting that pushes forward the evolution of the target literature（1985a：219-220），and that it is rewriting that ena-bles the construction and the change of"paradigms"：

Paradigms are constructed on the basis of observation（i. e.，of things that are known to have happened），but also on the basis of previous paradigms.They do，moreover，contain some empirical corroboration in which the paradigm seems to be actually vindicated，which basically means that the way things happen tends to make more sense when they are seen to happen inside the framework of the paradigm and which implies，of course，that they might make even better sense when seen to happen within the framework of another para-digm（1985a：220-221）.

This indicates that intra-lingual and intra-cultural communication can make sense within its own frameworks of reference and that inter-lin-gual and inter-cultural transfer might offer even better understanding of those paradigms. In other words，to view certain literary and cul-tural phenomena from beyond the time and space of their own cul-ture，i.e.，from another frame of reference，can offer us deeper in-sight into these phenomena.This is where rewriting plays an impor-tant role.Rewriting supplies a frame of reference from outside the paradigm.Thus，Chinese classical poetry can be better understood through the translations produced by foreigners（e.g.，by Ezra Pound，etc.），and Chinese interpretations of Charles Dickens and Nathaniel Hawthorne might offer new insights to their native literary critics.This argument can be supported by many historical exam-ples.For instance，Louis Hartz's Introduction to In Search of Wealth and Power：Yan Fu and the West（Schwartz 1964）[1]discusses the Chinese thinker and translator Yan Fuand the function of his trans-lation in China at the turn of the 20th century.At the very beginning of his introduction，Hartz argues thus：

It is the genius of the foreign critic to bring to the surface as-pects of thought implicit in the life of the nation he studies but explicit for him because of the contrasts supplied by his own culture.[……]In this work Professor Schwartz gives us a new foreign observer of Western thought as a whole，al-though a man centrally concerned with the texts of classical British liberalism-Yan Fu，who translated the European writers in the China of the turn of the century[the 20th century]，And Yan Fu，from the angle of a culture which has not yet experienced modernity，seizes in their work on a theme of collective energy which[……]reflected the move-ment of Europe into the modern world. That theme has not been a preoccupation of Western critics，precisely because it tended to use other ideas as[different]channels for its expression（Hartz 1964：xi）.

Thus，Yan Fu was able to make better sense of certain themes in the works of European thinkers and philosophers，precisely by virtue of being an outsider from a distant country，from another paradigm. As Hartz puts it，"The Western critics of Western thought tell us more of what we already know about ourselves，but Yan Fu from a farther point tells us something we do not know"（ibid.：xx），Rewriting sup-plies a different angle that allows us to understand experience from the vantage point of another paradigm.

But，and this is where the issue of control factors becomes relevant，whether the new paradigm is accepted or rejected does not depend on the quality of argument or rational exchange alone. It is not the com-petition between arguments，but the competition of power and ideology that is decisive；a competition"among those who decide what gets printed and what does not，or who gets appointed to which position and who does not"（Lefevere 1985a：222），（Hu Shi's vicissitude jus-tifies this point.See 1.2），The issue of paradigms is then ultimately a prelude to the discussion of how various rewritings operate and func-tion in various systems.For instance，the function of criticism，re-view，and historiography is to establish the authority and prestige of the targeted products and/or（re）writers.The position of a paradigm is thus heavily dependent on the constraints operating in the environ-ment：the control factors.2.2.1.1　The Concept of Control Factors

For Lefevere，society is a super-system，the environment of a literary system，whereas literature is one of the subsystems，or"system of sys-tems"（1992a：14），The literary system and other systems in society interact with and influence each other. Two control factors constrain this interaction.The first operates from within the literary system and is represented by"professionals"such as critics，reviewers，teachers and translators.The other，patronage，operates from outside the liter-ary system.Lefevere uses the term"patronage"to refer to"any kind of force that can be influential in encouraging and propagating，but al-so in discouraging，censoring and destroying works of literature"（1984b：92），For instance，the media in China in the 1950s com-pletely criticized Hu Shi and his works（see 1.2），The first factor functions within the literary system，but according to the parameters set by the second factor（ibid.），In other words，professionals（critics，reviewers etc.）try to bring the literary system in line with developments in other systems.Thus，for example，critics，review-ers，and teachers of literature might denounce（or be forced to de-nounce，as in the movement to criticise Hu Shi）certain literary works because they do not conform to the dominant ideology and po-etics.However，most of the time these professionals are engaged in rewriting literary works to make them conform to the ideology and po-etics of the given period.Patronage，which functions outside the lit-erary system，means"something like power-power in Foucaultian sense"（Lefevere 1992a：15）-power in discourse.Lefevere ar-gues that"[p]atronage is usually more interested in the ideology of literature than in its poetics"（ibid.），Thus，it seldom directly ma-nipulates the poetics.Rather，it is the professionals who take care of the poetics of literature.However，this is too simplistic.There can-not actually be such a clear division.Some intellectuals are them-selves professionals and also representatives of patronage，as，for ex-ample，in Hu Shi's case.

Patronage，according to Lefevere，consists of three elements：the ide-ological component that regulates literary products to make sure that they conform to other systems of society；the economic component that guarantees the professionals'living and the quality of their products；and finally the status component that allows the professionals to be in-tegrated into a certain group or its lifestyle（ibid.：16），In other words，patronage provides social，economic and ideological guaran-tees. Again，the division does not seem to be very sensible since the three elements can be overlapping.

Patronage can be undifferentiated or differentiated. Undifferentiated patronage is where the three components come from one source with the same ideology.A good example is feudal China，where the emper-ors and the court controlled all three facets of patronage.Differentia-ted patronage，on the other hand，refers to situations where the three elements are not dispensed by the same source.In this case，"the economic success is relatively independent of ideological factors，and does not necessarily bring status with it"（ibid.：17），Differentiated patronage is the norm in modern，democratic societies.

Lefevere had been considering the control factors in translation for some time before the publication of his 1985 essay. Early in 1981，he published three articles（1981a；1981b；1981c）in which he stressed the socio-cultural perspective on translation-translation sociology.In"Beyond the Process：Literary Translation in Literature and Literary Theory"，for instance，Lefevere suggested addressing the fol-lowing questions：

What foreign works are translated"into"a literature at what time，in the service of what poetics？What is the pressure（if any）of the ideological milieu on the translator？In other words，what"mis-translations"is he or she forced to make？In what way does a translation attempt to influence the ideo-logical milieu of the target culture，and what does this mean in terms of the translation strategies used（……），What re-percussions do translated works from other sectors（politi-cal，religious，economic）of the ideological milieu have on the literary polysystem？How do individuals，as individuals or as representatives of groups，concretise or"receive"cer-tain literary works of art？（Lefevere 1981a：57-58）

Instead of posing the then popular questions relating to fidelity and e-quivalence，he locates these questions at the macro level and relates them to social factors：the constraints imposed by the target culture on translators and their products and ideological and poetological influ-ence. Obviously，there are presuppositions embedded in these ques-tions.In asking"what is the pressure（if any）of the ideological mi-lieu on the translator？”，Lefevere presupposes that such a pressure does exist；and he also presupposes that translation can influence the target ideology.Even"mis-translation"finds its justification in the i-deological environment since Lefevere believes it is the result of a con-scious strategy adopted by the translator.

Lefevere has therefore always insisted that the recipient context-in a certain historical period and societal space，including social material background，political situation，economic system，national cultural policy，social ideological tendency，literary tradition and convention-is one of the major factors not only in deciding what and how to translate/rewrite，but more importantly in shaping the function of translational communication in the target culture. So while claiming that translations are never produced in a vacuum，Lefevere also be-lieves that"they are never received in a vacuum"（Lefevere and Bassnett 2001：3），The control factors elaborated in his theory con-strain both translating and receiving processes.[1]Yan Fu is one of the most important Chinese translators and translation theorists，whose translation and writing exerted"a considerable influence on his younger contemporaries and on[……]Chinese intelligentsia and political elite"（Schwartz 1964：3）including Hu Shi and many other reformers of the New Culture Movement.2.2.1.2　Assessing the Notion of Control Factors

The theorising of control factors offers us a good model for studying translation sociology. It opens up a wider area of research for scholars of translation studies because it draws attention to the constraints im-posed by ideological and literary norms in the receivers'culture，in particular the function of patronage.It further stresses the way in which various social and literary factors influence the translator's strat-egies and the reception of translation.

However，Lefevere's treatment of control factors is not without its weaknesses. First of all，Lefevere does not seem to be consistent in a-ligning the concrete components；nor does he organise them in a logi-cal or convincing manner.For example，in his articles published in the early 1980s，Lefevere argued that rewriting takes place under five constraints that include ideology，poetics，universe of discourse，lan-guage and the original work（1982/2000：236；1985a：232-233），Obviously the five elements do not carry the same weight，nor are they at the same hierarchical level.For instance，language cannot be put alongside poetics and ideology.In his 1992 book，Lefevere reduced his major components of constraints into two：the professionals and patronage，placing ideology and poetics underneath them（1992a：14-15），He further describes the hierarchy thus：the professionals try to"control the literary system from the inside within the parameters set by the second factor"（ibid.：14），namely patronage.As for the rela-tionship with the other two，"patronage is more interested in the ideol-ogy of literature than in its poetics，and it could be said that the pa-tron"delegates authority"to the professional where poetics is con-cerned"（ibid.：15），However，the hierarchy is rather problematic and overlapping.The professionals，for instance，can also act as pa-trons as for example in Hu Shi's case，and they attach importance to ideologies as well as poetics.Sometimes ideology is their major con-cern（see，for example，Shi Zhecun's selection of material for his an-thology of translated literature in Chapter 6），Both the number of com-ponents and the components themselves are different in Lefevere's vari-ous works.Even with the three major components of poetics，ideology and patronage，there are still some problems.Firstly，while stressing the ideology of patronage and/or that of the translator（1992a：41），Lefevere ignores the fact that there are other ideologies，in particular，those of the receptors，and these ideologies interact and compete with one another.Sometimes it is the latter that play a decisive role in the success or failure of rewriting projects.Secondly，the relationship be-tween ideology and poetics is not sufficiently elaborated.Lefevere pres-ents them as parallel categories，when they should perhaps be con-ceived in a super-ordinate/subordinate relationship.Thirdly，the con-straints imposed by socio-cultural factors are heavily emphasised where-as the function of the linguistic realisations of these constraints is not only ignored but also intentionally downplayed（see Lefevere and Bass-nett 1990：4；Lefevere 1992a：90；1993；2000），In what follows，these three issues will be discussed in more detail.

Ideology or Ideologies？

Although Lefevere mentioned various types of control factors，he focu-ses mainly on patronage，ideology and poetics within and outside the literary system，the idea being that patronage outside the literary sys-tem takes care of the ideology of literature while professionals operat-ing within the literary system（critics，reviewers etc.）take care of poetics. Internal factors within the literary system operate within the i-deological constraints set by the external system of patronage（Lefe-vere 1992a：14），Ideology is a key notion in this scenario.However，this notion is not very clearly defined or differentiated.

First of all，the frequent emphasis on ideology（as a uniform，general category）fails to reveal its hierarchical and multi-faceted nature. Most of the time，Lefevere uses"ideology"in the singular form and mainly in relation to patronage，i.e.，"persons，[……]，groups of per-sons，a religious body，a political party，a social class，a royal court，publishers，and，last but not least，the media，both newspapers and magazines and larger television corporations，[……]institutions set up to regulate[……]：academies，censorship bureaus（sic），critical jour-nals，and by far the most important，the educational establishment"（1992a：15），In other words，Lefevere's is the ideology of those who have authority and power over discourse.Lefevere uses various exam-ples to illustrate his argument.In the chapter on rewriting and editing Anne Frank's diary，for instance，direct interference of the patrons，the mouthpieces of ideologies，can be seen in the various changes made to the original version.Translators and/or rewriters，in this case，in order to avoid causing offence，try to conform to the patrons'ideology or use their limited discourse power to manipulate the poetics of the work within set ideological constraints.

Arguably，however，we should recognize that there are ideologies and not just a single ideology. Ideology，as a category，is hierarchical and multi-faceted.Especially in democratic social systems，we may speak of ideologies of government authorities；of the intellectual elite group；and of the common people，all of which might be different from and indeed compete with one another.Typically，however，it is the ideol-ogies of the establishment and the elite that influence and regulate the ideology of the common people.Sometimes these ideologies may be encoded in the form of systems and regulations，but most of the time they shape the overall climate in more subtle ways.

In addition to the patron's and the translator's ideologies（Lefevere 1992a：41）-the latter's may at times be the same as the patron's-the ideologies of the recipient（s）should also be considered. Lefevere does not pay enough attention to the influence exerted by the receivers'ideology.Here the"receiver"refers to the reader of the final prod-uct，bearing in mind that translators or rewriters are merely the first readers of the text they rewrite.The value of rewriting is not static but dynamic，depending on different readers'ideological and aesthetic needs.For each translated work，there is a prospective readership through which the value of the work may be realised.The ideology of the readers is not always the same as the ideology of the patron，nor that of the translator.The recipients'expectations play an important role in determining the success or failure of a translation.For exam-ple，at the turn of the 20th century，Liang Qichao，an active patron of translation，promoted the translation of political novels.Liang himself took the lead in this initiative by translating political novels.Howev-er，most Chinese readers at the time read for entertainment，and saw literature as a source of enjoyment，not as a political tool.Compared with the popular reception of other genres such as love stories，detec-tive stories and science fiction，Liang's efforts turned out to be a fail-ure（see Wang Hongzhi 2000b：172-199；see also 5.2.2），By con-trast，in the period between the end of the Ming dynasty and the be-ginning of the Qing dynasty（approximately from late 1500 to early 1700），Jesuit missionaries tried to propagandise Christianity in Chi-na.They paid close attention to the ideology of their potential recep-tors by combining some popular science with religious translation in order to appeal to their readers.As a result，they succeeded in mak-ing their readers interested in Western culture and science and in making them accept Christianity（see Tang Zhesheng 1995；Guo Yan-li 2000：4-6），For the same reason，in translating sutra into Chinese，the translators tried to adapt their texts to Confucianism，the dominant ideology of their readers.In practical terms，they deleted offensive references such as descriptions of prostitutes，tried to avoid taboo ex-pressions such as"hug"and"kiss"，and added references to parents'authority over their children and children's total obedience towards their parents，which clearly do not exist in the original（Fang Litian 1988：260），These strategies succeeded in ensuring that the transla-ted work was accepted by readers.At the same time，we must bear in mind that，even for the same translated work，different readers have different expectations.Professional readers，for instance，pay much more attention to the academic apparatus of a book（for example，ref-erences，footnotes and appendices）while non-academic readers，who largely read only for entertainment，are likely to find it intrusive.Translators and rewriters sometimes vary their strategies according to the nature of their prospective readership，and not only the ideology or poetics of patrons and reviewers.

In deciding which form to take in rewriting the work，whether to imi-tate or to translate，write a review，criticism，paraphrase or plot sum-mary，etc. and what language to use，classical or vernacular，the re-writers presumably have their own agenda in mind apart from taking the prospective readers'ideologies into consideration.More than a century ago in China，there was an intense debate over Yan Fu's [1]trans-lations，written in classical Chinese.While praising Yan's transla-tion of Smith's Wealth of Nations，Liang Qichao，the scholar advoca-ting the translation of political novels，noted that in spite of Yan Fu's high standing in China as an interpreter of Western thought，his style is"quite abstruse，elegant yet highly allusive"，too difficult for those who have not read many ancient Chinese books.Liang asserts，"Un-less such profound learning is translated in simple and intelligible lan-guage，how can young learners benefit from it？The purpose of transla-tion is to spread worthwhile ideas among our countrymen，not just to achieve fame for ourselves"（Liang Qichao 1902，cited in Guo Yanli 1998：260，translated by the author of this book），To this Yan Fu simply replies，"The books I chose to translate are profound and ab-struse.They are not designed to nourish young learners and I have no intention to benefit them.I have translated precisely for those Chinese who do read many ancient books"（Yan Fu 1903，cited in Guo Yanli 1998：260，translated by the author of this book），Obviously，Yan Fu did not attempt to use vernacular Chinese because the prospective audience to which he appeals is the elite and the highly educated，and he was determined to use a language that would attract this group.He has no illusions that the common readers will immediately read his translations.The texts he selected for translation-philosophical works-would not appeal to the ordinary people in the first place.Therefore it was only reasonable for Yan Fu to use classical Chinese，the language of the learned elites.Ostensibly this is a debate about language and style used in translation.But ultimately，it also reveals different ideologies on the part of the translators：Liang Qichao atta-ched significance to the didactic function on the masses，while Yan Fu wanted to raise the status of the translated work and his target audi-ence was a very small group of the educated.Hu Shi（1993i[1922]）draws our attention to this ideological factor in forming poetological choice，the choice of a genuine literary language for the elite，asser-ting："Yan Fu's use of classical Chinese in his translation，just like officials from the previous Qing dynasty wearing their red cap[symbol of their specific rank in the court and their social status]when making a speech，really raises the status of the translated work"（ibid.：107，translated by the author of this book）。

Lefevere's discussion of ideology，however，fails to demonstrate these varied and complex layers of choice. In claiming that the rewriter can either conform to or subvert the dominant ideology，Lefevere seems to assume there is only one ideology，that of the patron or the [2]translator，The above examples prove otherwise and prepare the ground for my argument in the following section：poetics belongs to and serves the purpose of a certain ideology or ideologies。

Ideology and Poetics

Lefevere treats ideology and poetics as parallel concepts although to some extent he prioritises ideology，arguing that when there is conflict between the two，poetics always gives way to ideology（1992a：41），In fact the two notions should be seen as subordinate and super-ordi-nate to each other. Calzada-Pérez（2003b）argues that ideology con-sists of"the set of ideas，values and beliefs that govern a community by virtue of being regarded as the norm"，She also cites various other definitions，for example that of Van Dijk：

A]n ideology is the set of factual and evaluative beliefs-that is the knowledge and the opinions-of a group[……]，In other words，a bit like the axioms of a formal system，ideologies consist of those general and abstract social beliefs and opinions（attitudes）of a group（1998：48-9，in Calza-da-Pérez 2003b：5）。

Both definitions refer to the ideas，values and beliefs that govern a community. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary（tenth edition）similarly defines ideology thus：

a：a systematic body of concepts esp. about human life or culture

b：a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual，group，or culture

c：the integrated assertions，theories and aims that consti-tute a socio-political program（1998：575）

Poetics is clearly a major instrument for establishing ideas，beliefs，and the content of thinking characteristic of a given society，as well as setting up social norms for the community. This is implied in the defi-nition of ideology in《现代汉语词典2002增补本》（The Contempo-rary Chinese Dictionary，2002 edition with English version）：

意识形态：在一定的经济基础上形成的，人对于世界和社会的有系统的看法和见解，哲学、政治、艺术、宗教、道德等是它的具体表现。意识形态是上层建筑的组成部分，在阶级社会里具有阶级性。

ideology：man's systematic views on the world and society formed on a certain economic basis. Philosophy，politics，art，religion and morality are its concrete manifestations.Ideology is a component part of the superstructure，and it has a class character in a class society.（The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary[Chinese-English Edition]，2002：2279）

In the same dictionary，poetics is defined thus：

文艺批评：根据一定的美学观点对作家的作品、创作活动、创作倾向进行分析和评论。是文艺学的组成部分。poetics：literary or art criticism；analysis and review of the works，creative activities and creative tendency of an author by given aesthetic standards；part of the study of literature and art.（ibid.：2008）

As part of the study of literature and art，poetics defines standards for literature. According to Lefevere，it consists of the various literary in-gredients and a concept of the role of literature in a given social system（1992a：26），But who sets the standards？Who defines what literature is or should be like？Superficially it is the literary reviewers and critics who formulate rules，standards and establish the general intellectual and literary climate.But the ideologies of a community inform all these controls.In this sense，ideology should cover poetics as a subset of the beliefs and values of a community within a subsystem-literature is a subsystem of the larger social system.Poetics，in other words，should be seen as subordinate to ideology.Poetics always serves the aims of a certain ideology.For example，the New Culture reformers advocated the use of the vernacular in all written literature，including poems and essays，which used to be the genres most closely identified with classi-cal Chinese.This conformed to the then ideological need to make the new ideas accessible and intelligible to the common people after the elite intellectuals realised the significance of arousing the awareness of masses and shifted their focus from the well-educated in the upper class to the less-educated in the lower strata of society.

As noted earlier，every poetics serves a certain ideology. In his 1985 essay，Lefevere claimed that the interpretation of literature，or rewri-ting，has never been pure scholarship only.It is always"in the serv-ice of something else"（1985a：217），This leads us readers to expect that Lefevere is to acknowledge that there can hardly be any pure scholarship and erudition that is not informed by ideology.However，he continues to make clear that

There has[……]never been a truly autonomous criticism，responsible only to the truth，the eternal，the one-and-only. There have always been different attempts at interpretation undertaken on the basis of a certain concept of what the world should be like（ideology）as well as a certain concept of what literature should be like（poetics）……（ibid.）

Here，by putting the two concepts side by side as he often does，Lefe-vere indicates that poetics can be independent of ideology. In fact there have never been such things as pure literature，or pure literary standards，or poetics.The reception of writings and rewritings，in any society，has never been based solely on their artistic and aesthetic val-ue，but also on the ideologies encoded in [3]them.The reception of Pearl Buckin mainland China can best illustrate this point.From 1933 to 1949，eighteen of Pearl Buck's works had been translated into Chinese and studied with 38 editions in total（Wang Jiankai 2003：22），How-ever，at the end of the 1940s，when the communists came into power，there was a dramatic change in the situation.She was criticised by the journals World Literature and Literary Reviews in which she was regar-ded as"the most aggressive henchman of the American imperialism"（ibid.），For the following 30 years or so，none of Pearl Buck's works was translated，or even reprinted in mainland China（ibid.；see Liu Long 1992：473-476），Her anti-communist position preven-ted her from being published，although the intrinsic aesthetic value of her works remains intact.It was only after China opened its doors to the West that Pearl Buck's works regained their deserved position and studies of her works began to be undertaken.Gao Xingjian is another case in point.Having similarly won the Nobel Prize for literature，he remains marginalized by the official Chinese literary organisation.To my knowledge，Soul Mountain continues to be ignored in mainland China，and some critics still suspect that it is the ideology rather than the [4]literary qualities of the work that won its Nobel Prize，If，how-ever，an influential scholar intended to introduce a certain writer，they should first of all flaunt him or her politically.For instance，the American writer Mark Twain's works were translated and put in-to various textbooks at a time when most Western writers were banned，[5]because he was authorised as"an exposer of the dollar Empire"。

In addition to the selection of foreign authors，the choice of foreign sources is also heavily influenced by the dominant ideologies rather than poetics. According to some statistics，in the first ten years after the founding of the People's Republic of China（i.e.，between October 1949 and December 1958），3，526 foreign works（mainly literary works）translated into Chinese were from the Soviet Union，[6]making up 65.8%of the total volume of translation in this period（Bian Zhilin et al.1959：47），The situation in literary criticism was similar.In commemorating the 40th anniversary（1959）of the May Fourth Move-ment，for example，Beijing University Journal（of Humanity）pub-lished two critical articles on foreign literary translation of the period in its second edition of 1959.When Hu Shi was unavoidably men-tioned，the articles labelled him as"a reactionary intellectual fed by the Western imperialists[……]，wearing a May Fourth reformer's cloak but spreading bourgeois ideas"（Beijing University Journal 1959（2）：38，my translation），Clearly the dominant ideology was the major fac-

tor for depicting Hu Shi in this way. The ideological constraints on the description and judgement of Hu Shi and his works are discussed in detail below.

Lefevere does not always distinguish clearly between ideology and oth-er notions. In trying to draw up a typology of the changes in the trans-lation of The Diary of Anne Frank，for example，he claims that the changes"belong to three categories：some changes are of a personal nature，some are ideological，and some belong in the sphere of pat-ronage"（1992a：61），as if ideology is separable from and/or parallel to the other two.This makes it difficult to understand what ideology really means for Lefevere，although somewhere in his article，he bor-rowed a definition from Jameson that ideology"would seem to be that grillwork of form，convention and belief which orders our actions"（Jameson 1974：107，quoted by Lefevere 1992a：16）.

Downplaying Linguistics

In attempting to emphasise the importance of socio-cultural context（and perhaps sometimes to exaggerate the function of the control fac-tors），Lefevere tends to downplay the function of linguistics in transla-tion studies. For example，in discussing some shortcomings in the translation of Homer's Iliad，one translator complains："It is difficult to kill a sheep with dignity in a modern language"，Lefevere com-ments as follows："My contention is that language has absolutely noth-ing to do with it.If the original enjoys a highly positive reputation in the target culture，the translation is likely to be as literal as possible，which means that sheep will，indeed，be killed，whether with dignity or not"（1992a：90，italics added by the author of this book）.

Lefevere's argument is not convincing. It goes without saying that as the carrier of culture，language bears all the characteristics of culture and is inseparable from it.Killing a sheep with or without dignity does depend on how the action may be depicted with proper target linguistic symbols to establish a cultural image：killing with dignity.How can it be possible for the difficulties rendering the meaning of ancient Greek in modern language to have"absolutely"nothing to do with language？Secondly，no culture-oriented study can ignore the linguistic dimen-sion of translation.Language is never devoid of relevance，since most images and impressions，as well as basic meanings，are ultimately ex-pressed through linguistic symbols.The socio-cultural context might control and influence the way language works and functions.But it cannot replace the workings of the language system.This study，for in-stance，applies critical linguistics to the analysis of the translated works to see how they bear cultural and ideological identities.

Translation studies is multi-disciplinary，multi-layered，and multi-functional by nature. Nida（1982）once describes it as being compre-hensive，dynamic，descriptive，flexible and open.It should therefore draw on research tools and methodologies from various neighbouring disciplines，of which linguistics is one that brings most to the disci-pline of translation studies.As Baker argues（1996），"cultural stud-ies and linguistics both have an important contribution to make to the study of translation.Neither can provide the answer to all our ques-tions nor the tools and methodology required for conducting research in all areas of translation studies"（1996：18），Lefevere's rewriting the-ory itself is informed by various linguistics-based disciplines such as socio-linguistics，philosophy of language，and anthropological linguis-tics，in addition to literary criticism that is heavily dependent on text linguistics.Therefore，I would argue that any attempt to ignore lin-guistics in translation studies shows no understanding of the latest de-velopment of linguistics.Nor does it conform to the development of the translation studies discipline.

As a scholar in comparative literature，Lefevere himself is much more familiar with literary criticism than with linguistics. This is evident in his vague use of linguistic terms in some places.In discussing"trans-lation poetics"in the nineteenth century，for instance，he writes that"acceptable poetry translations should make use of the illocutionary strategies of meter and rhyme"（1992a：100），This is an odd use of the term"illocutionary".[1]At the turn of the 20th century，Yan Fu translated several books of classical British liberalism，such as Thomas Huxley's Evolution and Ethics，Adam Smith's The Wealth of Na-tions；Herbert Spencer's A Study of Sociology，and John S.Mill's On Liberty（also see footnote 7 in this section），[2]Once，in describing differentiated patronage，Lefevere mentions the"different，conflicting ideologies"（2000：236），But most of the time，he refers to ideology as if there is only one ideology.[3]Pearl Buck won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1938 for her writings on China.As an American citizen，she was raised in China in a missionary family and lived there for about 40 years.[4]Gao Xingjian's winning of the Nobel Prize for literature in 2000 was immediately denounced by the Chinese Association of Literature and Arts，which issued a declaration at-tacking the ideological purpose of the Nobel Prize Committee and the Swedish Royal Acade-my（in the Wenhui Daily，October 14th 2000），The French government issued a counter-declaration on Oct.15th since by then Gao had become a French citizen.[5]On September 5，1960，Beijing art circles gathered to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Mark Twain's death.The leading figure made a speech entitled"Mark Twain：An Exposer of the Dollar Empire"（cited in Wang Jiankai 2003：22，my transla-tion），This was an effective way to popularise a certain foreign author in the then China.[6]This period witnessed the closest relationship between China and the Soviet Union.The former took the latter as a model in its socialist construction.2.2.2　Forms of Rewriting

Having dealt with the first of the two components of rewriting theory，namely the control factors，I now turn to the second component：forms of rewriting.

Rewriting，according to Lefevere，covers various forms，such as：

t]he translation，editing，and anthologisation of texts，the compilation of literary histories and reference works，and the production of the kind of criticism that still reaches out be-yond the charmed circle，mostly in the guise of biographies and book reviews（1992a：4）.

The table below attempts to elaborate on the various forms of rewriting outlined by Lefevere by offering concrete examples of each form and linking it directly with Jakobson's tripartite distinction between inter-lingual，intra-lingual，and intra-semiotic translation. Some forms lis-ted in the table are not explicitly mentioned by Lefevere，but accord-ing to his definition of rewriting，these forms should be included.2.2.2.1　Assessing the Classification

The above elaboration reveals the extent to which the theory of rewri-ting blurs the traditional borderline between translation and creation. Thus，translators and/or rewriters are not only"substituters"of words but are also"connectors/creators"（terms used by Tymoczko 1999：281），However，Lefevere does not explicitly distinguish the concept of rewriting from the traditional concept of translation in terms of func-tion，purpose and influence.Moreover，he completely ignores non-lit-erary forms of rewriting，which play an increasingly significant role in modern societies.This makes his theory less representative than it might have been.Indeed，even within literary translation，some im-portant forms of rewriting are not included.（1）On the Coverage of Jakobson's Tripartite Division

Theoretically the notion of"rewriting"covers and concretises Jakob-son's tripartite division，which is in fact about"three kinds of inter-pretation of a linguistic sign"（Eco and Nergaard 1998：220），How-ever，a closer look at Lefevere's work reveals that inter-lingual transla-tion（here translation in its broader sense）is his major focus. As for inter-semiotic transfer，which Lefevere refers to as"performances on stage or screen"（1992a：6-7），Lefevere gives very little illustration，explaining that he is not an expert in this area（ibid.：7），Strictly speaking，inter-semiotic translation refers to transfer between verbal and non-verbal media，such as music，painting，sculpture and danc-ing，etc.，none of which are dealt with in Lefevere's theory.Lefevere and some other scholars（ibid.；Eco and Nergaard 1998：220；Her-mans 1999）treat performance on stage or screen as a form of inter-se-miotic translation，perhaps on the ground that such performance，al-though relying mainly on language，requires a combination of verbal language with the effect of non-verbal languages such as music，set-tings，costumes and body language like dancing，facial expression and gestures.However，it is not convincing to classify this kind of adapta-tion as inter-semiotic only.It also belongs to inter-and/or intra-lin-guistic transformation.At any rate，even"performances on stage or screen"are not considered by Lefevere from the inter-semiotic per-spective.Occasionally Lefevere uses examples from plays by Brecht and others，but only with reference to inter-lingual translation.

Intra-lingual rewriting plays an important role in reactivating and pop-ularising classical literatures. For instance，after being re-written by Mary and Charles Lamb，Shakespeare's plays became much more pop-ular among various types of readers，not only children but also adults at different education levels，thus greatly enlarging Shakespeare's readership.Similarly，in China many ancient classical Chinese essays have been rewritten into modern Chinese to make them appeal to a broader readership.Classical and canonical novels like Water Margin and The Story of the Stone have been rewritten into different genres in modern Chinese，including films and TV serials.They thus continue to influence readers and promote national classical literature.Howev-er，in rewriting theory，more stress is attached to inter-lingual/inter-cultural rather than to intra-lingual/intra-cultural transfer.Most exam-ples in Lefevere's book（1992a）deal with discourses between langua-ges and cultures，revealing the extent to which Lefevere's rewriting theory actually focuses on inter-lingual translational activities-forms represented in the left-hand column of Table 1.（2）Rewriting vs Traditional Notions of Translation

What，then，are the features that distinguish rewriting from the tradi-tional notion of translation in terms of function，purpose and influ-ence？Why people choose other forms of rewriting rather than transla-tion proper？Lefevere does not give us answers，but the following ob-servations might help us address the question.

Rewriting theory lays stress on the prefix morpheme RE-：information is re-cast，re-organised，re-produced，re-told and re-created. All re-writings share a common feature：they reflect a quite different view of the concept of being"faithful"to the original.Many reproductions may have very little obvious trace of the original.In the course of producing such rewritings，the amount and intrinsic value of relevant information，as well as the style，genre，etc.，can all be covertly or overtly amended by the rewriters according to specific needs.Various rewriting forms involve different levels of amendment to make the fi-nal product more condensed（e.g.，plot summary of major units of-fered in the context of writing a history of literature）；more relevant to target receivers（e.g.，adaptation，imitation）；more informative and accessible，or more in line with the rewriter's and/or the patron's interpretation（e.g.，criticism and review），In other words，re-writ-ing provides more space for（re）creation than the traditional notion of translation.The notion of translation as a form of rewriting is much more diverse and less constrained by the source text，and deviations from the source are more likely to be [1]tolerated.Bastin's（1998）dis-cussion of adaptationmakes this very clear：

t]he study of adaptation encourages the theorist to look beyond purely linguistic issues and helps shed light on the role of the translator as mediator，as a creative participant in a process of verbal communication. Relevance，rather than accuracy，becomes the key word，and this entails a careful a-nalysis of three major concepts in translation theory：mean-ing，purpose（or function，or skopos）and intention.We could say that translation-or what is traditionally under-stood by the term translation-stays basically at the level of meaning，adaptation seeks to transmit the purpose of the o-riginal text，and exegesis attempts to spell out the intentions of the author（1998：8，italics added by the author of this book）.

The most important idea in this quotation is the translator/rewriter's role as a creative participant，and the stress on relevance rather than accuracy.

Rewriters have relatively more freedom in transferring texts and ideas from or into another culture. For example，in importing foreign ideas，rewriters can and do select materials favourable to and compatible with their own agendas by deciding how much of a text to select for rewri-ting，as well as the angle from which to comment on or imitate a given work.They produce translations in a broad sense：adapting for differ-ent purposes，from different angles，in a different style，to a different extent.

For Lefevere，all translation activities including translation proper are rewritings in one way or another（1992a），However，there should be some distinction to demarcate translation and rewriting because after all they don't have the same attribute. One question should be asked，if so many things can be categorised as rewriting，then，what is not re-writing？We cannot find answers from the theory.

Last but not least，it is worth noting that some forms of translation are not explicitly included in Lefevere's model. Pseudo-translations，for instance，are defined by Lefevere in passing as"convincing editions of non-existing manuscripts"（1992a：5，italics added by the author of this book），It is notable that the word"edition"rather than"ver-sion"is used here.However，as noted above，he does not seem to have included invisible or vaguely marked translation，where transla-tion appears in the form of an original-"an unmarked translation or"pseudo-original"（translated texts falsely presented and received as originals）”（Pym 1998：60），nor does he include"quasi-texts"（see Toury 1995），where original works [2]pretend to be translations，Both，according to Robinson，can be called pseudo-translation be-cause they are works"whose status as"original"or"derivative"is，for whatever social or textual reason，problematic"（Robinson 1998d：183），Should these forms be included in rewriting？If rewriting is the adaptation of a text to fit the ideological and poetical purposes of re-writers and/or their patrons（Lefevere 1992a），if it is a means of making accessible certain texts that would otherwise be inaccessible（Lefevere 1978b：7），then both forms of pseudo-translation should be included in the model.In fact both are very important forms of trans-lational activity，especially the invisible translation.This is attested in the rewritings of the New Culture Movement，in particular Hu Shi's work，as we will see shortly。

Despite its shortcomings，Lefevere's theory of rewriting successfully places different forms of translation，obvious and less obvious，within a larger social，political and cultural context and allows us to observe the way in which such forms interact with the target environment and to better understand the impact of rewriters on historical events. It is from this perspective that this book sets out to reconsider the role of Hu Shi as a rewriter in the New Culture Movement and to find out how he tried to realise his goal of building a new civilisation by means of various rewriting activities such as literary criticism，imitation，adap-tation，translation，and compilation of literary history and translation anthologies.These activities must be understood in relation to control factors-the ideologies and patronage-operating within the target cultural system at that point in history.These issues have been regret-tably neglected in the study of Hu Shi.In the following chapter，this book attempts to address them in some detail.[1]The terms"adaptation"and"refraction"have both been used by Lefevere（1982/2000）to refer to rewriting.[2]This is what is normally referred to as pseudo-translation in the literature（e.g.，in Toury 1995），Chapter 3：Hu Shi Canonised：The Interac-tion Between Ideology，Poetics and Patronage

When Even-Zohar replaces the terms in Jakobson's scheme with his own（see 2. 1.1.2），he attaches more importance to"a historical and social understanding of the way translated texts function collectively，as a sub-system within the target literary system"（Baker 1998b：163），He replaces"context"with"INSTITUTION"；this，he be-lieves，should include as a minimum producers，critics，publishing houses，periodicals，government bodies，educational institutions，etc.（Even-Zohar 1990：37），The control factors in rewriting theory，e.g.，patronage and professionals，also embrace these elements，in particular commentaries as represented by professionals，journals and educational institutions（Lefevere 1992a），If institutional involvement is taken into consideration in the study of the interaction between translational activities and the construction of a culture，the role and nature of an intercultural movement can be made clearer.This section offers an overview of Hu Shi's environment to show how these institu-tions and/or control factors contributed to the development of the New Culture Movement，especially by facilitating the canonisation of Hu Shi and his works.3.1　The Hu Shi Canon

As noted earlier，Hu Shi first became known to Chinese intellectuals in his twenties while still studying in the United States（1910-1917），and soon afterwards became a central figure in the New Culture Move-ment and"a spiritual leader"of the youth. His works quickly gained a large readership and became"cultural capital"，to borrow Bourdieu's term，in contemporary Chinese academia.In 1917，Hu Shi，one of the youngest professors in Beijing University at the age of twenty-six，was already recognised as"a natural leader of this small but articulate and enormously influential avant-garde.He could be sure that whatev-er he said would receive an attentive and[……]a respectful hearing"（Grieder 1970：78），Indeed，whatever Hu wrote，the pattern was that it would appear in scholarly journals first，then be published in anthologies，and reprinted shortly afterwards.A good example of this pattern is Hu's Duanpian xiaoshuo ji（《短篇小说集》，Anthology of[Translated]Short Stories），The stories in this anthology appeared in New Youth and other journals，and were then published in an antholo-gy in October 1919.The second edition of the anthology appeared in April 1920，within six months of the first edition（Hu Shi 1919/1999b：4），By 1936，it had already been reprinted 20 times（Chen Jin'gan 1989：769），In addition，Hu's book《中国哲学史大纲》（An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy）was reprinted within two months of its first publication（see Feng Youlan 2000）。

By 1920，it had become a fashion for Chinese college students [1]to keep a book by Hu Shi on their shelves，His works attained canonical sta-tus in educational institutions：his translated short [2]stories were select-ed for school textbooks；his《国语文学史》（History of Chinese Liter-ature）was used as reference or course material in universities and the middle schools in 1926（Geng Yunzhi 2000c：235），and his essay"我们对于西洋近代文明的态度”（Our Attitude Towards Contem-porary Western Civilisation）was not only published in his third an-thology but also selected for use in university [3]course materials，This"Hu Shi phenomenon"（Yu Yingshi 2000）was unprecedented in a society that viewed seniority and family background as prerequisites for a person to become a celebrity within a short period of time。

Hu's popularity did not occur by accident，nor was it due to Hu having no competition from among his contemporaries. On the contrary，this period witnessed an impressive assemblage of many distinguished scholars.Most of these scholars had a similar educational experience：first studying in an old-style private school called sishu（私塾），then in one of the newly-established Western-style schools，and finally go-ing abroad to study in such countries as France，Britain，Japan，the United States and Germany.These scholars were accomplished in both traditional Chinese and Western forms of learning.In this respect，Hu Shi was not unusual.Synchronically，he was one of many scholars who translated and introduced Western thought on their return from studying abroad；diachronically，Hu was far from being the first to ad-vocate Western learning and the use of the vernacular.Why，then，did Hu Shi，rather than any of his contemporaries，become a central leading figure in the movement？Why did his proposal to use baihua make a difference and result in a tremendous achievement within an incredibly short period of time？And given that this period witnessed an intense wave of activities aimed at translating and introducing Western literature，why did Hu's works in particular become canoni-cal？

Rewriting theory might help explain what is special about Hu Shi's writings and what led to his works being well received to demonstrate the inevitability of the Hu Shi phenomenon. First，one must consider the macro-ideological climate to which Hu Shi's writing appealed，namely，the socio-historical space the recipients were in，the political and cultural background，the country's cultural policy，ideological out-look etc.，as well as what Hu Shi did in particular in relation to rewri-ting and how his works were received.In other words，Hu Shi had to be well informed of the social and ideological climate of the time in his home country so as to tailor his writings to the specific needs of his au-dience.On the other hand，immediate feedback from authoritative professionals and prestigious institutions must have played an impor-tant role in publicising his works and enhancing their impact.A com-bination of these essential factors might explain why Hu's works attrac-ted such considerable attention from academic circles.

The following section（3. 2）offers a brief overview of the macro-ideo-logical climate before and around Hu Shi's time.In section 3.3，the focus will be set on Hu's own work and attempt to explain how and why it appealed to his contemporaries；then in section 3.4，this study will consider institutional settings and patronage to establish what role they played in securing Hu's place in the canon.[1]Professor Qi Sihe of Beijing University recalled in 1955 that"From 1920 onwards，Hu Shi's books and articles were extremely popular"，He went on to say："I was enrolled in Tianjin Nankai Middle School in 1921.Seeing that nearly every student had a copy of Hu Shi's The Outline of Chinese Philosophical History（1919）on his or her shelf，I bought a copy.Hu Shi's books such as《尝试集》（Experimental Collection）and《胡适文存》（Collected Es-says of Hu Shi）published afterwards also sold well among students"（Qi Sihe 1955，cited in Song Jianhua 1996：84-85，my translation），[2]This was based on Hu's series of lectures delivered in 1920-1921 at the National Language Teaching Institute and sponsored and organised by the State Education Department.The lecture-notes were first put together by Hu's friend as a book entitled《国语文学史》in 1927 to be used as reference material for students of history of Chinese literature.Hu Shi learned the news in Japan.He had no intention to publish the material because he thought，"some of the views expressed in these lectures were"immature"”（Hu Shi 1998[1928]：144），Hu lost no time in revising the lectures，and published as a book in 1928，changing the title to《白话文学史》（The History of Baihua Literature）（see Chen Gailing 2000；Cheung 2002：147 footnote），"This book"，Liang Shuyi asserts，"became very popular for a period because its author was very authoritative in Chinese academic community.Countless universities and middle schools used it as reference or course book"（Liang Shuyi 1937；cited in Chen Gailing 2000：175，my translation），[3]According to Chen Shuyu（2000：343-360），this essay was retained in《北京大学文选》（Beijing University Reader）-the collection of course material recommended to students in the Chinese Language and Literature Department-until the release of the Sep-tember 1948 edition（ibid.：357），when the Communist Party came to power.3.2　The Macro-Ideological Climate

The decade 1910-1920 was a rather special period in Chinese history. Indeed，no period in Chinese history is comparable in the sense that the country was then in great turmoil，with many highly significant historical events defining the era in a unique way：the overthrow of the feudal regime（1911）；the establishment of the Republic（1912）；the two unsuccessful attempts at restoring the [1]monarchy in 1915 and 1917，followed by warlords fighting for control over the Beijing gov-ernment；the resentment of Chinese people towards Japan's seemingly insatiable appetite for China's territory，leading to an anti-Japanese campaign（1915）；the nationwide May Fourth incident（1919）；and finally the presence of many foreign forces trying to find mouthpieces or footholds among the warlords.It was a complex and chaotic transi-tional period.At the same time，students returning from abroad brought with them various new ideas.New journals flourished and fresh intellectual and cultural movements began to take shape.A brief examination of the social and political situation before and at the be-ginning of the literary revolution might help us understand this unique environment in which Hu Shi's work and ideas found fertile ground.In what follows，focus will be set on three key themes：the political situ-ation；official attitudes towards learning from the West；and reform in education。3.2.1　The Political Situation

As noted earlier，not long after the overthrow of the two-thousand-year-long feudal regime（1911），the country was thrown into chaos，with regional warlords fighting for central power and foreign forces try-ing to gain a foothold by recruiting local representatives among the warlords. Within the government，there were pro-Japan，pro-Britain and pro-US officials，who tried to seek [2]support from these major pow-ers，At this point，the government was too weak and too busy with its struggle against other warlords to censor dissident voices.（In this sense the New Culture reformers were lucky to be calling for change at a time when there was no strong or authoritarian government.Other-wise their views would have been censored before they could be publi-cised.）On the other hand，seeing that feudal ideologies were no lon-ger helpful to their administration，the newly-established government also desired a solution that would help stabilise the country.New per-spectives were in great demand.As a result，this period witnessed a rare level of freedom of speech in Chinese history，a basic but very important ingredient for original ideas to take root.As Hu Shi states："The Hundred-Day Reform（1898）could not withstand an imperial decree of the Old Lady[the Empress Dowager Cixi]，which com-pletely shattered the reform.……If we had advocated abandoning wen-yan and using baihua instead in the Qing period，an imperial official's memorial to the throne would have had the newspaper publishing this closed and the editor arrested"（1993r[1935]：242-243，translated by the author of this book），Indeed，political force can be a very de-cisive factor in shaping cultural developments。[1]The first was staged by President Yuan Shikai who dissolved the Parliament and an-nulled the constitution in 1914，and then declared himself Emperor in 1915.Yuan's abolition of the Republic lasted eighty-three days，and ended with his death.The second was staged by the warlord Zhang Xun，who restored the Manchu boy Emperor Puyi to the throne；this ended within twelve days，after Zhang's troops were defeated（see Chow Tse-tsung 1964：10），[2]On the issue of foreign influence at the time，see Chow Tse-tsung（1964：197-241），3.2.2　Official Attitudes Towards Learning from the West

Official attitudes towards learning from the West were in the process of changing. In transforming a new culture，the most important factor is the receptiveness of the receiving context，i.e.，whether the host cul-ture is open to entertaining ideas from other nations.No matter how useful imported ideas might be，they will be of no consequence if the target culture does not want them.A favourable climate towards alien cultures was crucial for a country like China，where foreign values had long been opposed since the ban placed on Christianity by the Qing government in 1724（see Chen Fukang 1992：80），As a result of the ban，the flow of Western technology into China soon slowed to a trickle.During the entire 18th century and the early part of the 19th century，while Europe was being transformed by the rise of national-ism，colonialism，and the industrial revolution，successive Chinese governments adopted a closed-door policy towards the Western world，which prohibited China from developing its science and technology，its literature and culture.

This situation soon led to a vicious circle. Blind arrogance lay behind the closed-door policy.In turn，it resulted in ignorance of new devel-opments in the world.China in ancient times once had an outstanding history of leading the world in science and technology typified by the"Four Great Inventions"：printing，gunpowder，paper-making and the compass，of which Chinese people have always felt very proud.The Tang dynasty（618-907）witnessed the most prosperous period in which China was one of the centres of world culture.China's glorious history，splendid geographic position and its highly literate culture produced a sense of uniqueness，which in time became a sense of ar-rogance and superiority.Traditional Chinese intellectuals and officials regarded China as the centre of the world，which is what the word"中国”（China）literally means.Consequently，most Chinese intelligentsia，even during the late Qing Dynasty（1840-1911），con-sidered Chinese cultural heritage and institutions to be vastly superior to those of any other nation in the world，and for them the Chinese moral code was sacrosanct.They were determined to see Chinese val-ues respected and anything alien conform to Chinese traditional ideolo-gies.The Chinese intelligentsia were notorious for their narcissism.All foreigners were derogatorily called"barbarians"（Yu Guifen 2001：87），This self-satisfied attitude encouraged some intellectuals and court officials to foster a blind faith in the power of traditional Chi-nese culture.They boasted that any foreign aggressors would inevita-bly end up being acculturated into Chinese civilisation：the Mongols'invasion of China ended with the triumph of Chinese culture；the vic-torious Manchu minority was [1]similarly assimilated into Chinese cult-ure；even Indian Buddhism，which exerted considerable influence in China，was eventually"distorted"into"a Chinese version"（Tang Zhesheng 1995：31），For these court officials，then，there was no need to learn from or even to know the Other.They believed that Chi-nese culture could be self-sufficient。

China's defeat in the Opium War（1840-1842）shocked not only Chi-nese intellectuals but also the proud imperial bureaucrats. While con-ceding the superiority of Western technology，they still insisted that Chinese art，literature and values were superior.They believed that their defeat was due only to lack of access to modern armaments.Withstanding pressure from the conservatives，some [2]insightful scholar officialsput forward the idea of"learning from foreigners'strong points in order to defeat them"（学夷之长以制夷）（Chen Fukang 1992：83），Their argument was that in order to defeat the foreign en-emy，first of all the Chinese must get to know their enemy and familia-rise themselves with their skills。

From then on，Chinese reformers started to both fight against and learn from foreigners. After the Second Opium War（1856-1860），which ended with the Qing government signing several humiliating treaties，the urgent need to learn from foreigners was brought to the attention of the court.The most famous essay in this respect was"采西学议”（Suggestions on Learning from the West）by Feng Guifen（1861），in which the author emphasised the need for and the signif-icance of translating books on technology and geography.The essay pointed out the sharp contrast between foreigners，knowledge of Chi-nese language，ethics and history and Chinese officials'almost total ignorance of their Western enemy.Feng further put forward a strate-gy of learning known as"Chinese feudal order of seniority in human relationships and the Confucian ethical code as foundation，supple-mented with technology from other countries in order to become rich and strong"（以中国之伦常、名教为本，辅以诸国富强之术）（Chen Fukang 1992：87，translated by the author of this book），This is considered to be the source（see Chen Fukang 1992）of what later became the basis for the translation policy known as"Chinese learning as essence；Western learning as [3]complement"（中学为体，西学为用），Needless to say，this policy had its'limitations，which will be addressed below.However，at the time and in the climate in which the slogan was first raised，it clearly provided a fresh and in-sightful view of China's relations with the West and was therefore very significant.In a later article，Feng suggested founding a foreign lan-guage school in Shanghai；at the end of this article，he asserted that

Westerners are strong in science and technology and have lots of books in these areas. To translate merely ten or twen-ty per cent of these books would be sufficient to enable us to get an overview of their achievements.If we study them carefully and intelligently，we are sure to be able to surpass them in the near future！（Chen Fukang 1992：88，transla-ted by the author of this book）

Following the appearance of Feng's articles，a number of foreign lan-guage schools were established：the first was in Beijing in 1862 and was named Beijing Foreign Language School（京师同文馆），Other foreign language schools were later founded in Shanghai and Guang-zhou.Such schools not only taught foreign languages，various areas of the natural sciences and world geography，but also translated Western scientific books.With the help of foreign teachers，the students trans-lated numerous works into Chinese（see Guo Yanli 2000：7-17），Many diplomats，translators and scientists were graduates of these schools。

Once China began to learn from the West，Chinese officials started dreaming of surpassing foreigners and defeating foreign aggressors through learning their science and technology. However，China's hu-miliating defeat in the first Sino-Japanese [4]War（1894-1895）com-pletely shattered their illusions.The fiasco came as a serious blow to Chinese intellectuals.They not only deeply felt the national humilia-tion and disgrace but also realised that the whole nation was facing the danger of being conquered.The Hundred-[5]Day Reformin 1898 proposed concrete plans for reform of the political and educational systems and advocated a constitutional monarchy.Liang Qichao，one of the leading reformers，asserts："The Westerners have powerful weapons，but it's not only the weapons that make them powerful"（cited in Chen Fukang 1992：111，translated by the author of this book），He argues that it was not enough for the Chinese to learn merely how to make advanced weapons.They should also learn how the Westerners administer their countries.They should know the West in every possible way.The reform plans began to be put into effect and lasted for about three months.Since the conservative forces were much stronger at that time，the reform ended in failure，with some of the reformers being executed.In spite of the failure of the reform，the view and stand of the reformers influenced the young generation greatly and paved the way for greater social change later on.Finally，the Revolution of 1911（辛亥革命）succeeded in over-throwing the feudal regime and establishing the Republic.Neverthe-less，people soon discovered that the so-called revolution also turned out to be a failure in that power at all levels was still in the hands of traditional feudal forces.As one of the historians put it，"there was no intrinsic change in society，except for the replacement of an em-peror with a president，and the Empire with the Republic"（An Yu 2001：21，translated by the author of this book），All these social turbulences made Chinese scholars even more suspicious of tradition-al Chinese values and existing ideologies，and more determined to import from the other。

History proves that narcissism and hostile attitudes towards the West，as well as the kind of ideologies promoted by the conservatives in the royal court greatly influenced government policy and sometimes ob-structed important contact with Western learning. Both Wang Jinhou（1996）and Guo Yanli（2000）describe the sudden withdrawal of Chinese students from the United States.Following repeated propos-als from liberal officials to the emperor and the royal court，for the first time in Chinese history the government had decided to dispatch students abroad to learn advanced technology from the West.The first batch of 30 young men was sent to the United States in 1872.In the following years，three more batches were sent（Wang Jinhou 1996：442；Guo Yanli 2000：127-128），The aim at this stage was to learn from the West and thus become capable of defeating West-erners.However，in 1881 the Qing government decided to dismiss the Dispatch Students Office and call back all students merely be-cause some Chinese diplomats in America reported to the royal court that these students had adopted a Westernised way of life.On hear-ing the news，Mark Twain [6]immediately consulted the U.S.President Ulysses S.Grant，who then wrote a letter to Li Hongzhang（in charge of Foreign Affairs）stating that"those young students are learning how to build roads，mine，construct buildings，make ma-chines，etc.，in the United States.They will soon complete their stud-ies.It would be a great pity to call them back at this stage"（Wang Jinhou 1996：441，translated by the author of this book），Some scholars in American academia wrote another letter to the Chinese State Council opposing the decision to recall the students.The letter was drafted by President Porter of Yale University and carried the sig-natures of many other American [7]university presidents and professors，However，the conservative Chinese officials insisted on recalling the students and argued that even if these students were able to learn much from the West，they would be of no use to their motherland since they would have been brainwashed.Consequently，despite strong protests from both the US government and American academic circles，the students were called back to China in 1881 without finish-ing their study（Wang Jinhou 1996：441-444）。

As Lefevere maintains in his article"Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation"（2001b：13），"Cultures that see themselves as cen-tral in the world they inhabit are not likely to deal much with Others，unless they are forced to do so"，In other words，for other cultures to penetrate these nations there must be either a revolution from within or strong pressure from outside to force these nations to interact with the Other. History has indeed proved this in the case of China：British guns opened China to the West from the outside while the New Culture Movement provided the impetus from within.

The whole process of establishing contact with foreigners was constant-ly scrutinised to find"the most appropriate"way of learning from the Other. As they experienced recurrent failures in dealing with foreign-ers，the reformers constantly adjusted their strategies and coverage，from mere technology to the administrative system，politics（e.g.，the Hundred-Day Reform），and eventually the Qing regime itself（e.g.，the 1911 Revolution），Their attitude towards learning from the other changed over time：initial reluctance and passivity later gave way to enthusiasm and active engagement with foreign learning.Hu Shi and other scholars in the New Culture Movement later even started questio-ning whether the"essence and complement"（“体”和“用”）policy was appropriate and proposed a reverse strategy：to treat Western learning as essence and Chinese learning as complement.In the early 1930s，Hu Shi further argued for"wholesale westernisation"（全盘西化）and later changed this call into"wholehearted internationalisati-on"（充分世界化）（cited in Zhou Cezong 2000：139；also in Li Mi-aogen 2000：146，148）。[1]These two events，when Mongolian and Manshu minorities gained control over the Han，took place during the Yuan dynasty（1271-1368）and the Qing dynasty（1644-1911），[2]In old China，officials at hierarchical imperial courts were mostly appointed on the basis of royal state civil service examinations.A few from wealthy families got their ranks by paying money to the local authorities.So those who went through competitive examinations to gain their positions were scholar officials.Here，the reference is to"officials"such as Lin Zexu（林则徐），Wei Yuan（魏源），and Feng Guifen（冯桂芬）who were among the first to be aware of the importance of understanding and learning from the West（see Chen Fukang 1992：83-85），[3]There is a similar expression relating to Japanese translation policy，namely"Japa-nese spirit，Chinese skill"，later modified to"Japanese spirit，Western crafts"，Both Chi-nese and Japanese expressions attempt to retain control of traditional ethics and the feudal empire while borrowing some skills from foreign sources（Yu Guifen 2001：12；Chow Tse-tsung 1964：13），It is not clear which expression（Chinese or Japanese）preceded the oth-er.[4]This war ended with the defeat of China's navy at the hands of the Japanese，who were traditionally looked down upon by the Chinese as inferior.The conservatives blamed this defeat on the movement to acquire learning from the West，and on its initiators.[5]The repeated defeats suffered by China at the hands of foreign powers，the weak-ness and incompetence of the Qing court，and the success of the Meiji reformation in Japan prompted many Chinese to take action.Consequently a reform movement was initiated by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao in 1898，known as Hundred-Day Reform（戊戌变法），The emperor Guangxu sympathized with the reformers and attempted to adopt their modern educational as and administrative reforms.But he stirred the conservative forces and was frustrated by his aunt，the Empress Dowager，Cixi.The reform lasted only 100 days and en-ded in failure，but their ideas stimulated the Chinese intellectuals.These reformers such Li-ang Qichao and Kang Youwei spread their ideas through publications and Liang remained active even during the New Culture Movement.Their ideas greatly influenced the important figures of the later generation including Hu Shi.（see Hu Shi 1931；Chen Jin'gan 1989）[6]Either the date reference"1881”or the name of the president of the US at the time in Wang Jinhou's book（1996）is incorrect.Grant was the U.S.President from 1869 to 1877，during which period the four batches of students were sent to the U.S……[7]For the whole letter，see Wang Jinhou（1996：442-444），3.2.3　Reform in Education

Reform in education created a new academic climate favourable to dis-seminating Western thought. One of the cornerstones of the feudal sys-tem was"the long continued use of the dead classical language[wen-yan]as the language of the royal civil service examinations，and as the common written medium of communication within the large unified empire.For over two thousand years，the dead classical language of ancient China was maintained as the recognised tool of education and as the respectable medium for all poetry and prose"（Hu Shi 1962/2001b：451），The abolition of the royal civil service examination sys-tem in 1905 cut off the link between the well-educated and the system of power for the first time.Consequently，classical language and liter-ature（文言文）lost their dominant position as they ceased to be the only channel of civil advancement.The few Chinese who had received higher education simply became professionals，like any other group in society.Their ensuing loss of authority and lack of financial guaran-tees strengthened the affinity between the intelligentsia and society.The art of Confucian civilisation and mastery of classical Chinese were no longer essential ingredients of education，and the need for a new and different kind of knowledge eventually resulted in the founding of new-style schools in the large cities.These new schools offered students more access to Western thought and systems.Students sent a-broad returned to teach in the higher education institutions and partici-pated in spreading this new style of learning.Newspapers and maga-zines prospered and the publishing business developed dramatically.The number of professionals in these fields，such as university instruc-tors，editors，journalists，artists，translators，etc.，also grew signifi-cantly（see Chow Tse-tsung 1964：193-194；259-260）。

Two events have been considered extremely significant during this pe-riod：the founding of the prestigious academic journal New Youth in September 1915 by Chen Duxiu（陈独秀，1879-1942）and the reform of Beijing University introduced at the end of 1916 by the new chan-cellor Cai Yuanpei（蔡元培，1867-1940），The former provided a fo-rum for disseminating new ideas，whereas the latter strengthened the position of Western learning and thus fundamentally [1]changed the aca-demic climate in universities，It was after the reform of Beijing Uni-versity that Hu Shi and many other liberal scholars were invited to be professors at Beida，the most prestigious university in China at that time.All these events shaped a macro-ideological climate-a strong system of"patronage"positive towards Hu Shi and his writings-without which it would have been unimaginable for Hu Shi's ideas to take root at all。[1]On the reform of Beijing University，see Chow Tse-tsung（1964：48-51）.3.3　Hu's Seminal"Eight Dont's"，its Nature as Rewriting and its Impact on Literary Cir-cles

Successive failures of earlier attempts at establishing contact with Western learning before the New Culture Movement，as discussed in the previous section，must have made new reformers like Hu Shi won-der what was fundamentally wrong with the current Chinese perspec-tive on culture. Looking retrospectively at this period，it is not an ex-aggeration to argue that these failures were largely a consequence of the dominant translation policy，embodied in the principle of"Chi-nese learning as essence，Western learning as complement"，That is to say，Western studies for practical use，whereas philosophy，the laws，institutions，and literature，too，had to be protected against Eu-ropean influence，i.e.，Chinese learning as the fundamental structure or to render it in another way：Chinese learning remains fundamental，as essence："ti"，while Western factors play a subsidiary role，as methods："yong"，The focus of the translation then was on anything but Western ideologies.

Throughout this period，the ti（essence）and yong（methods）idea was a constant preoccupation of Chinese intellectuals. There was con-troversy on what precisely constituted"ti"and how much Western"yong"could be allowed into China without damaging her essence-ti.At the heart of this policy was an attempt to confine Western learning to a subordinate，auxiliary position，thus minimising Western influ-ence in order to safeguard traditional ideologies.This resulted in un-successful moves towards reform.Later on in the New Culture Move-ment，Hu Shi and the liberal intellectuals changed the slogan into"Western learning plays the fundamental role while Chinese learning serves as subsidiary"（see Zhou Cezong 2000，translate by the author of this book），This introduced a radical change in the purpose and methods of translation.We will return to this shortly.

Although earlier reformers wanted to learn from the West and attached considerable importance first to Western technology and then to West-ern law and administrative systems，they either could or would not in-troduce thorough changes in traditional ethical values. Moreover，their translations and introductions failed to reach the majority of the read-ing public.For example，the famous translated works by Yan Fu and Lin Shu，including rewritings of various kinds，had a target audience comprising mainly the well-educated and higher-ranking officials.The language used in their translations was mostly classical literary Chinese-a language unintelligible to all but the elite literati.

Without the foundation of long-standing feudal ideologies being eradi-cated once and for all，any importation from the West was doomed to be radically changed，if not resisted altogether. This explains why there was no genuine fundamental change in the social and intellectual landscape after the Republic was established，and why，not long after the 1911 Revolution，there was a short-lived restoration（1915），in which the country returned to its previous system of government-the President again became the Emperor.

Hu Shi believed that intellectual and cultural regeneration must take precedence over political reform，and that new ideological values must replace the old ones before any political settlement could be effected.（Here I have no wish to comment on the feasibility of this idea.）So in his"归国杂感”（Reflections on Returning Home）published in New Youth in January 1918，Hu expressed his [1]determination"to re-frain from talking politics for twenty years，”so as to focus on laying a solid cultural and ideological foundation for political reform（Hu Shi 1997[1918]）。

Hu Shi undoubtedly had luck on his side. The repeated earlier failures at reform taught him some useful lessons；the tempestuous transitional socio-historical period provided him with a turning point，a rare oppor-tunity to capitalise on freedom of speech so that his"Wenxue gailiang chuyi"（“文学改良刍议”，Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chinese Literature）could be publicised in order to address"vacu-ums in a literature"（Even-Zohar 1978：121）；the experience of studying abroad provided him with deep insight into Western thought and systems，and enabled him to broaden his outlook in terms of thinking of ways to eradicate feudal culture.Hu Shi understood that the emphasis in Western thought on democracy，science and individu-alism meant that it largely conflicted with the existing Chinese ethical system.To construct a new culture，the old culture had to be de-stroyed first.Hu Shi put it thus in 1918："When advocating literary revolution，we cannot but start from destruction"（Hu Shi 1993k[1918]：40，translated by the author of this book），Literature was regarded as the foundation of all cultures and their ideologies，and language as the paramount element of literature.So Hu specifically targeted the literary language，which he saw as the carrier of tradition-al ethics and values.It was with this motivation that Hu Shi published his seminal article“Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chi-nese Literature”，to which Hu himself later referred as“Eight-Dont's”or“Eight-Dont's-ism”（Hu Shi 1993k[1918]），And it was princi-pally this article that made him famous within academia and ultimately launched a literary revolution.Even his critics recognise this as one of his greatest achievements.What follows will focus on this article，a manifesto for the literary revolution，and discuss the context of its pro-duction and reception。3.3.1　The Essay

The literary revolution in early-20th century China is commonly be-lieved to have started with the publication of Hu Shi's essay"Some Tentative Proposals for the Reform of Chinese Literature"in New Youth（Grieder 1970；Yi Zhuxian 1987b；Song Jianhua 1996），The revolution"led over the next several years to the acceptance，in the schools，in newspapers and magazines，and by the writers of a new style of literature，of a language closer than the classical written lan-guage to the usages of common speech"（Grieder 1970：76），Hu was always proud of the part he played as a sponsor and promoter of this movement，and he seems to be better remembered for this than for any other of his many endeavours.

Hu Shi was well prepared for a literary revolution. In addition to put-ting forward suggestions on how to carry out reform，Hu's“Tentative Proposals”or“Eight Dont's”also explained the reason why Chinese literature needed the reform.Although a student in [2]the United States，Hu was by no means unfamiliar with the situation back in his homeland.According to Hu，he was better informed than other Chi-nese students in the United States because he had a strong desire to effect change at home（Hu Shi 1989a：265），Throughout the period he was abroad（1910-1917），while keeping a keen interest in West-ern literature-he read all of Ibsen's plays（Hu Shi 2001c[1931]：245），and was awarded a prize in 1914 for his essay“In Defence of Browning's Optimism”（Grieder 1970：44）-Hu maintained close links to China and Chinese current affairs，and carefully observed what was happening back in his motherland.He took a course in Si-nology while at Columbia University and was frequently invited to lec-ture to American audiences about the new republic of 1912 in China.In preparing for his lectures，he accumulated a large amount of back-ground knowledge about the reforms introduced in China over the past few decades（Hu Shi 1989a：182，212），He maintained contact with the editors of intellectual Chinese magazines such as《甲寅杂志》（Tiger [3]Magazine）and New Youth，introducing Western literary tendencies by either writing letters or submitting translated short sto-ries（see Hu Shi 1993h[1915]；1993l[1916]），Hu was also one of the editors of [4]the journal Chinese Students'Monthly，in charge of the Home News column（Chow Tse-tsung 1964：26），More importantly，Hu had been considering and discussing how to reform Chinese lan-guage and literature with his fellow-students in the United States long before he published his seminal essay，"Eight Dont's"，A series of ar-ticles [5]in English had been published as a result of these discussions，According to Hu，“[t]hese articles were read in English and pub-lished in Chinese Students'Monthly.They attracted no comment and were soon forgotten"（Hu Shi 2001a[1934]：85），In contrast，Hu's"Eight Dont's"in New Youth drew immediate attention from the edi-tor，who recommended Hu's essay to the public。

Hu first sent a letter from New York to Chen Duxiu，the editor of New Youth，publicly putting forward the eight principles for a Chinese liter-ary revolution. The letter was immediately published in New Youth in October 1916，with an enthusiastic introduction to the author by Chen Duxiu.Encouraged by Chen，two months later in November 1916，Hu developed this letter into an article，elaborating his proposed eight principles，and sent it to Chinese Students'Quarterly and New Youth.This time，instead of calling for a literary revolution as in his letter，he modestly entitled the article"Some Tentative Proposals for the Re-form of Chinese Literature"（see Jiang Yihua 1993a：15，19），In this article，Hu expressed his view on traditional literature，criticising it for paying too much attention to style but little or no attention to content.As a result，he argued，traditional writing carried no real meaning.To change this tradition，Hu proposed the eight principles.Given the centrality of the article to the discussion in this chapter，I quote the"Eight Dont's"in full quoted from two [6]translated versions：

1.Writing should have substance.

2.Do not imitate the ancients.

3.Emphasise the technique of writing[follow literary gram-mar].

4.Do not moan without an illness.

5.Eliminate hackneyed and formal language.

6.Do not use allusions.

7.Do not use parallelism.

8.Do not avoid vulgar diction.[7]（Hu Shi 1996[1917]：123-124）

1.Don't write about nothing.

2.Don't imitate the ancients.

3.Don't ignore grammar and syntax.

4.Don't groan without being sick.

5.Don't use clichés。

6.Don't use allusions.

7.Don't write in parallels.

8.Don't avoid common speech and popular language.（Hu Shi 1917；quoted by Huang Guiyou 1997：130）（See Appendix 2 for the original）

Before we compare Hu's"Dont's"with those of Ezra Pound，who sig-nificantly influenced Hu，it is necessary to outline the position of wen-yan and baihua in order to set the essay in its linguistic context.

Wenyan is classical literary Chinese，as used by traditional scholars in their written work. Before the New Culture Movement，it was the only official and literary language and the medium of education in the coun-try.Compared with baihua，or"Mandarin vernacular"（a term taken from Wickeri 1995：129），wenyan tended to be more dense and ab-stract，and often contained learned or technical vocabulary，resulting in a language that was extraordinarily difficult and unintelligible to all but the limited number of literati，and as such was removed from the experience of the vast majority of the reading public.Hence，for Hu Shi，wenyan functioned like Latin in medieval Europe.Since it was the only language used in the royal civil service examination（until 1905），wenyan was a prerequisite for those who wanted to be promo-ted.Baihua，on the other hand，was a [8]vernacular variety intelligible to the majority of common people，It was also the language of fiction and drama.Both these genres were looked down upon by the literati as"lowbrow"entertainment and had never been classified as genuine literature.Although essentially variants of the same language，wenyan and baihua differ tremendously.Unless one gets a special training in wenyan，one cannot understand wenyan literature even if one recognis-es all the characters in which it is written.Baihua，on the other hand，is readily accessible to the vast majority of the Chinese popula-tion，for whom it is the natural language of hearth and home。

At the turn of the 20th century，the ability to use wenyan was still the major criterion in assessing whether a man was well-educated or not. At that time，Chinese literature was dominated by three literary schools that originated from the works of ancient scholars.Writers ad-hering to different schools followed their respective principles and style in writing non-fictional prose and poetry，trying to imitate the ancients.By the time Hu claimed the need for change，this traditional Chinese literature had exhausted its resources and was facing an im-passe.As Chow Tse-tsung（1964）explains，the poetry of the Jiangxi school tended to use archaic and obscure words.Most of this school's writings had either trivial or conventional subject-matter.Similarly，writers of the Wenxuan school imitated the style of writers living in the period between the third century B.C.and the fifth century A.D.（1964：270），Some of their writings frequently drew on classical al-lusions and employed parallel prose（骈文），and were overburdened with stale rhetoric without paying much attention to real content，hence Hu's criticism of this type of literature as having"no sub-[9]stance"，On the whole，the works of all three schoolswere ossified in form.In content，the writings adopted a sentimental pose and were incapable of mirroring the real lives，thoughts and feelings of Chinese people in the 20th century.The ideologies of the old culture also per-meated these writings：for centuries there had been no change whatso-ever in the literature.Thus by the first decade of the 20th century，all genres of Chinese literature had become stereotyped and stagnant，"with very few exceptions"（Chow Tse-tsung 1964：270），Traditional Chinese literature needed change；it needed a revolution。

Hu Shi's eight principles directly highlight the weaknesses of classical literary writing. In this article，for the first time in Chinese history，Hu Shi declared that wenyan was a dead language and its [10]literature a dead literature，He went on to state："From today's perspective of historical evolution，we can say with complete certainty that vernacu-lar literature is really the canonical and will be a useful tool for devel-oping future literature"（Hu Shi 1996[1917]：138），This essay aimed，in opposition to the dominant poetics，to defend and justify the dignity and the claim to canonical status of modern vernacular lan-guage and literature；to undermine wenyan literature's orthodox literary position；to call for abandoning classical Chinese；and to"effect the unity of the spoken and written languages"（ibid.），In short，the es-say tried to elevate baihua to the position of a national language，so that the well-educated would not feel ashamed to use it.Hu's conten-tion is that a dead language cannot produce a living literature，and must therefore be abandoned.Mandarin vernacular，a living lan-guage，should instead be used not merely in genres of entertainment，but also in education and in canonical literature。

From our current perspective，it may be difficult to perceive the cour-age，insight，and originality of this article. However，we should re-member that it was written nearly ninety years ago，at a time when we-nyan was dominant in education and in the composition of so-called"highbrow"literature.The article targeted the very core of Confucius ideologies，and tried to destroy the authority and hegemony of the wenyan tradition.The purpose of such destruction was to construct a living literature that could help change the social superstructure.Chi-na，Hu argued，needed such a revolution in order to displace the he-gemony of the classical tradition and create a vernacular literature that would be intelligible to the less educated，respond to modern social problems，and help transform society（Hu Shi 2001a[1934]：96）.

It should be stressed that such reform of traditional literary poetics was much more difficult than overthrowing the feudal regime. Since the O-pium War，the Qing regime had been weakened by regular foreign en-croachments.The repeated defeats suffered by China at the hands of foreign powers revealed the weakness and incompetence of the Qing court.The failure of the Boxer Uprising-an anti-foreign movement against Westerners and Western influence-in 1898-1900 resulted in the signing of the unequal Treaty of Beijing in 1901，in which China was disarmed and forced to pay indemnities ofto the great powers：Britain，France，Russia，the US，Germany and Japan（Chow Tse-tsung 1964），All this，plus the corruption of Qing offi-cials，heightened the resentment among Chinese citizens.The col-lapse of the regime was only a matter of time.To undermine the tradi-tional literary language was quite a different matter.Classical Chinese had been in use as the written language of the literati for thousands of years，and had a profound influence on intellectual life.In addition，language constrains ways of thinking and values.To abandon wenyan literature and replace it with another variety could fundamentally de-stroy the foundations of feudal culture.It may be argued that feudalis-tic values could still be conveyed through baihua.Hu Shi also realised this："I understand that baihua alone cannot produce new literature.I also understand that new literature must have new thought and new spirit.But only with a new tool，can we start to think about these as-pects"（1993g[1933]：210，my translation），Obviously，for Hu Shi，change in language and form was an essential first step towards a-chieving a literary revolution.And by doing this，Hu was preparing and creating a proper climate for transplanting new thought and spirit.Later，Hu Shi and his elite group published articles to complement this early vision of a literary revolution，such as Hu's

试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]

下载完整电子书