Here, for the purpose of illustration, we will examine the use of annotation in Zhang Guruo's Chinese version of Henry Fielding's Tom Jones. The first chapter of the novel is two to three pages in length; in Martin C. Battestin's annotated edition three-and-a-half pages, with five footnotes. Zhang's version runs to more than six pages with eight notes. Of the eight, one is about Bayonne and Bologna, two cities having a good or bad reputation respectively for making sausages (1993: 6); one is on the Roman Emperor Heliogabalus (1993: 8); and one is a reference to strong Italian seasoning (1993: 9). I would classify these three as necessary notes which provide information on the cultural background of the source text, without which the Chinese reader's understanding of the passage might be hindered.

There are, however, footnotes which aim at providing information which exceeds the criterion of necessity. One such case is the footnote stating that the famous couplet "True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest, /What oft' was thought, but ne'er so well exprest" is taken from Pope's Essay on Criticism (1993: 6). The translator goes on to illustrate what "wit" meant in the eighteenth century. This note, which is well over one thousand words long, is unquestionably learned, but for the ordinary Chinese reader, it is not very useful, whereas for scholars of English literature it is somewhat redundant. It therefore seems that much of the more detailed information could have been excluded without affecting the reader's understanding of the story.

Another example of a similar nature is related to the words "calipash and calipee", referring to "the edible substances found, respectively, under the upper shell and inside the lower shell of a turtle" according to Battestin's annotation (1975: 32). In addition to this information, Zhang's footnote also provides details about the Alderman of Bristol whose gluttony was proverbial, as well as the evolution of the institution of the alderman in English history; the note is over eight

hundred words long. Here again the note is certainly informative, but for the average reader of this novel, the benefit seems to be minimal.

There is a third category of annotation that goes beyond what we assume to be the normal boundaries of explication. Our first example is a long informative note on "humanity" provided by Zhang, listing the contrasting views of Hobbes and Shaftesbury and Fielding's different responses to them (1993:5). Since the general argument is not dissimilar to the traditional Chinese dispute over whether human nature is good or evil, the average Chinese reader would not have gained substantially in his understanding of the author's message. What this footnote supplies is information on the author's philosophical standpoint and its contexts in this argument. The question is: is a footnote the best vehicle for conveying such information?