The same question applies to the two remaining footnotes in Chapter 1 of Tom Jones. In one of them Zhang discusses his reasons for rendering the words "wit or wisdom" as “明達之識或明哲之智”, citing alliterative effect as a reason for his choice (1993: 4). In another he explains his rendering of the word "gibbeted" is a paraphrase (1993: 7). While the discussion of translation approaches and choices might be of interest to some readers, it is best that such information or argument be presented in the preface or colophon rather than in isolated footnotes. For readers who are interested in what concerns the translator in the process of translation, a systematic discussion illustrated with examples taken from the translation would have been far more illuminating than a random mention in an occasional footnote, while for the average reader who, we assume, is more concerned with the story itself, footnotes elaborating on matters of approach may be too disruptive.

To sum up, of the eight footnotes provided in the first chapter of Zhang's version of Tom Jones, we may say that three are necessary, two serve a purpose but are overdone, and three are more suitably placed elsewhere. Here the major consideration is obviously how we define the extent of "necessary background information". To answer that question we need to define, however vaguely, the translation's target readership. Our assumption here is that most readers of fiction read for pleasure, not for instruction. In that case, if the annotations are too heavy, the potential reader may be scared away.

The translator has to gather a lot of the background information about the text both prior to and during the process of translation While all this information has a bearing on how the translation is done, he has to be selective about what to include in the footnotes, what to leave out, and what other forms of communication there may be for more detailed cultural information which may only be indirectly relevant to the story.

I propose that our main criterion in making such a judgment should be the reader's need: annotation should be provided to such a degree that the reader will not encounter substantial obstacles, while not to be the extent of appearing overly intrusive. As David Hawkes remarks, "though footnotes are all very well in their place, reading a heavily annotated novel would seem to me rather like trying to play tennis in chains" (1977: 12). While I do not agree with Hawkes' categorical rejection of annotation, I nevertheless think the point he makes is important. Thus, admirable though Zhang's translation and his wide learning may be, I have to say that sometimes his annotations seem to go a bit too far.

責任編輯：admin