A Space for Their Voices. (Un)apologies for Translation in the May Fourth Journal New Tide

The study argues that translation in the frame space of the student journal New Tide (新潮 1919-22), was a mode of writing that legitimated the new-versus-old polarity in the May Fourth discourse. The analysis focuses on two sets of translation marginalia. One set presents the translators’ habitual apologies for the imperfection of their works. In contrast, the other set of materials shows unapologetic appropriations of foreign sources, which reveal the use of translation for the dual purposes of criticising the students’ concurrent traditional-minded Chinese intellectuals, and of validating – hence canonizing – the tenets of May Fourth.


Introduction
The object of my study is New Tide (Xin Chao 新潮, or The Renaissance), 1 a student journal based in Peking University published in the period 1919-22. The journal is widely accepted as a typical May Fourth periodical 2 and a derivative of the ideas of Hu Shi 胡適,Li Dazhao 李大釗 and Chen Duxiu 陳獨秀. 3 This view has given rise to the modernist bias that the journal was mainly in service of the advocacy of the Western literature and scholarship that foregrounded May Fourth tenets. Translation in the journal, though ranging widely in forms and themes, have been conveniently understood as a transparent channel for importing progressive thoughts to the May Fourth-era China. 4 My paper does not aim to subvert the general approval of the journal, but is prepared to contravene the simplistic assumption about how translation worked in the journal, with a description of its discourse as a unique frame space that on the one hand maintained translation as an provisional text type, and on the other hand allowed translators to exploit that liminality for the purpose of pursuing a modernist agenda. The paper mainly deals with what are termed "paratexts" (Genette 1997) and "extratexual materials" (Toury 1995, 65). These include the journal's editorial statements, guidelines for translation, translation criticism as well as a translator's explanatory notes in the form of preface, afterword, endnotes and in-text gloss. I present as main evidence the paratextual and extratextual elements of translation that are apologetic in tone, and contrast them with unapologetic appropriation in actual translations. In other words, my interest is not in an isolated analysis of individual translated texts, but in the framing of translation and the dynamic working of the journal's "translational practice" (Lefevere 1998, 13).
This study is an output of the research project "Translation in New Tide Journal (1919)(1920)(1921)(1922) and the Canonization of May Fourth in the early Republican Periodical Press" funded by Early Career Scheme (#24606617), Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.
My analysis shall also bring to surface the agency of the student translators, for the dual purposes of justifying the selection of their texts as a representative sample, and of escaping the established view of the students as mere followers of their professors at Peking University. With full awareness of the heterogeneous nature of the journal and the natural diversity among its contributors, I do not attempt to come to a definitive conclusion on all translations and translators in New Tide. Rather, I attempt to offer initial but specific observation on one aspect of the subject matter. That is, the complex mechanism of translation in connection to its immediate publication venue and context. The paper's overall emphasis on how translation was circumscribed by the frame space in the journal shall set itself apart from existing studies on New Tide, and shall contribute to the recent empirical and theoretical exploration of the interconnection between translation and narrative space in the field of translation studies.

Frame Space in New Tide
The sociological notion of "frame space" of Erving Goffman (1981) was formally incorporated into translation studies by Mona Baker (2006). The term encapsulates the sum total of the norms governing what is deemed to be acceptable to a participant in a verbal interaction (Baker 2006, 109-10). Proceeding from this concept, the frame space of a periodical can be contoured in terms of its normative characteristics through an associative reading of its founding background, editorial intent and the make-up of contributors. As seen in the editors' statements and reminiscences, New Tide was intended to be read primarily as an academic student journal. In the inaugural statement, the editor-in-chief Fu Sinian 傅斯年 (1896-1950 declared that the main purposes of the journal were for the Peking University students to communicate the University's spirit to the public and to participate in the making of "new scholarship" (xin xueshu 新學術) and "real scholars" (zhen xuezhe 真學者) in China (Fu 1919a, 1). New Tide's self-positioning as an academic publication was consistently reflected in the wide adoption of style of academic writing -most visibly, the formatted use of references -in the majority of the published essays in the journal.
The journal's concentration on academic discussion can be verified by its textual sources. A compilation of all currently identifiable textual sources translated, quoted and mentioned in the journal articles offers us a small corpus for surface inquiries. 5 The top-ten frequent words that appeared in the titles of non-Chinese sources are 'social ', 'psychology', 'war', 'history', 'principles', 'philosophy', 'essays', 'American', 'new', 'theory' and 'introduction'. The top-ten in the titles of Chinese sources are lun 論 (critique), Zhongguo 中國 (China), zhuan 傳 (biography), xue 學 (learning), shi 史 (history), shu 書 (book), xin 新 (new), zhexue 哲學 (philosophy), pian 篇 (chapter), wenxue 文學 (literature), jing 經 (classics) and lu 錄 (records). The keyword lists should certainly not be taken as an accurate abstract of the totality of the journal's content, but they do offer us a glimpse into the bibliography of the contributors. One may have the informed impression that the works most frequently discussed by the contributors were Chinese classics and English-language scholarship in modern humanities and social sciences. It is safe to assume that the journal's interest in academics was not only explicitly declared, but also consistently pursued.
According to Fu's recollection (1919d, 200), the idea of starting a student academic journal originated from the on-and-off conversations starting in the autumn of 1916 between Fu Sinian, Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 (1893-1980 and Xu Yanzhi 徐彥之 (1897-1940, when they were dormitory roommates at Peking University. By autumn 1917, the idea had attracted nearly twenty peers. This group gave the initial shape to what was officially known as New Tide Society in 1919 (Xin Chao She 新潮社, hereafter 'the Society') [ fig. 1]. As Xu recalled (1919, 398), the Society started with 21 members in December 1918 and expanded to a team of 38 in a year. The journal was exclusively managed by this cluster of students. The Society's charter (Xu 1919, 399-400) stated as a rule that all members were responsible for submitting materials to sustain the periodic publication. Besides offering an opinion platform, the journal also functioned as a screening mechanism of the Society. A new member would have to publish at least three articles in the journal before being formally accepted into the Society. If a student was from other institutions than Peking University, he or she also needed to be nominated by two existing members to be considered, on top of the three articles.
The editors' accounts should be verified by a statistical survey. The journal presented a total of 75 contributors, among which 38 published more than once. 6 In this group of multiply-published contribu-'source'. Sources are further categorised into 'person', 'text' or 'journal' under the column 'source type'. The statistics of frequent words presented in this paragraph are based on the data of 'text' and 'journal' sources in this spreadsheet. https://doi. org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7428434.v1.
6 The statistics come from published items.xlsx in the paper's dataset. All contributors to New Tide are recorded in the column 'author'. The 75 contributors do not include advertisers, i.e. authors of advertisements. New Tide's advertising connections can be found in the graph advertising network.gephi and in the visual outpput New Tide advertising network visualization.pdf.

Michelle Jia Ye
A Space for Their Voices. (Un)apologies for Translation in the May Fourth Journal New Tide tors, 25 were members of the Society. Together with the six one-time member-authors, the Society owned over 80% of the published titles.
Thus, in the Society's charter and the actual composition of contributors, one could sense a keen insistence on soliciting like-minded contributors so as to keep the journal alive and on track. Eventually, the journal ran for twelve issues at gradually expanding intervals (Appendix 1) amid post-WWI global tensions and the cultural transformations inside China, while student contributors were also preoccupied with figuring out their own paths in education and employment (Fu 1919d, 203;Xu 1919, 399). To maintain the editorial autonomy, the journal solely relied on subsidies and donations within the university. From the very beginning, the Society refused collaboration with Qunyi Shushe 群益書社, the closest publishing partners of the university and the publisher of New Youth (Xin Qingnian 新青 年) (Fu 1919d, 200). The stable personnel and independent operation in the three years of publication despite external difficulties evinced the persistent, self-imposed exclusiveness of the editorial team.
The observations above give us a sure footing for seeing the journal as the frame space particularly reserved for Peking University students' own academic discussion. However, the exclusiveness in editorial matters did not ensure a full coherence in the actual content. In fact, what was embraced in the journal was diversity, likely a natural extension of Cai Yuanpei's 蔡元培 (1868-1940 policy of "freedom of thought" (sixiang ziyou 思想自由) and "tolerance and inclusiveness" ( jianrong bingbao 兼容並包) at Peking University (Cai 1919, 718). The potential downside of this allowance was also expected. Fu laid out the following in the inaugural statement: 本誌主張, 以爲羣衆不宜消滅個性； 故同人意旨儘不必一致; 但挾同一之希 望, 遵差近之徑途, 小節出入, 所不能免者。若讀者以『自相矛盾』見責, 則 同人不特不諱言之, 且將引爲榮幸。 (Fu 1919a, 3) Our magazine believes the public should not eliminate individuality. So, the contentions of our members need not be unified. Though we share the same aspiration and follow similar paths, minor differences are inevitable. If readers accuse us for being "self-contradictory", we will not be afraid to admit it, and will even see it as an honour.
同人等皆是不經閱歷之學生, 氣盛性直, 但知『稱心為好』; 既不願顧此慮 彼, 尤恨世人多顧慮者, 讀者想能體會茲意, 鍳其狂簡也。 (Fu 1919a, 4) All of us are students, inexperienced, vigorous and straightforward. But we know "what speaks to our hearts is goodness". So we won't burden ourselves with one worry or another, and will regret to see people worry too much. Our readers will hopefully understand us, and forgive our wild over-simplicity. 7 The editorial principles implied that the contributors did not have to agree with each other; they did not even have to be consistent and rigorous as individuals in terms of expression of opinions; as students, they were entitled to be a little loose.
The departmentalisation of content in the journal also allowed much room for contributors to express their views with various degrees of idiosyncrasy. The main body of the journal was composed of critical essays and transcriptions of university lectures, which demonstrated the highest degree of scholarly consciousness. This was often followed by a much shorter literary section featuring short stories, drama and poetry, in which the contributors demonstrated the same level of seriousness and detachment from personal judgment. The remaining half of the journal was dedicated to critique sections targeting Chinese classical scholarship and current affairs. Recurring columns included "Old Books, New Comments" (gushu xinping 故書新評), "Recommendation of Books and Periodicals" (shubao jie-7 Unless otherwise indicated all translations are by the Author. shao 書報介紹), "Critique on Books and Periodicals"(shubao pinglun 書 報評論) and "Commentary" (pinglun 評論). Critique sections were followed by "Correspondence" (tongxin 通信), which published exchanges -mostly debates -between the Society and outsiders. Then, there were "Appendixes" (fulu 附錄) and "Statements" (qishi 啓事), where readers find publicly available documents, such as meeting minutes of the Society, admission guidelines of Peking University and news of other on-campus student unions. An issue was usually concluded with advertisements of university-affiliated publications in Peking.

Michelle Jia Ye
I observe that in critique and correspondence sections, contributors were spared the obligation to publish in real, full name. Instead, they unanimously wrote under style names, pseudonyms and even the umbrella signature "the journal" (kanfang 刊方) or "the journalist" ( jizhe 記者). This unspoken norm allowed them to voice very personal opinions. Luo Jialun 羅家倫 (1897-1969, also published as Zhi Xi 志希), the journal's editor and the key writer for critique sections, set the tone for such freedom in the opening statement of "Commentary" in the inaugural issue: 我們這班學生, 見了不忍, 故且把天天所學的, 提出來同大家討論。我們 的苦心, 是要求諸位見諒。諸位難道不知道真理是愈研究而愈明, 學問是 愈討論而愈精的嗎? 以後若是名流學者同社會上一切人物, 都肯見教, 來 批評我的批評, 那是記者等不勝歡迎的。現在就放肆了! (Luo 1919b, 105) Students like us cannot put up with the current situation. Hence, we would like to raise and talk over what we've been learning every day. We have good intentions, so we need to ask for your forgiveness in advance. Don't you know that the more truth is debated, the clearer it becomes? Don't you know that the more knowledge is discussed, the better it becomes? From now on, if celebrity scholars and others from all walks of life are willing to give us some advice and criticise our criticisms, we as journalists will gladly welcome. Now, it is time to get unbridled! In what followed in this section of the inaugural issue, Luo (1919c; sharply denounced his contemporary fiction writers and pressmen in two interconnected commentaries. In the fourth issue, Luo (1919e) continued the critical reflection on the current cultural field in another critique on the concurrent magazines in Shanghai. It is hard to tell how the critique columns were received at the time of publication, but the general "unbridled-ness" had certainly become an unneglectable character of the journal. Looking back on the first volume , Fu Sinian (1919d, 202) concluded that the previous publications were a little "fearless"(yongmeng 勇猛) and a little "arbitrary" (wuduan 武斷); the speech was "extremely free and inconsistent" ( ji ziyou er ji bu yizhi 極自由而極不一致); the contributors "spoke as they wish and stopped as they like" (yao shuo bian shuo, yao zhi bian zhi 要說便說, 要止便止), thus prone to making "unmindful" (suibian 隨便) judgements. This character remained visible to May Fourth scholars today. Chen Pingyuan, for example, observed that New Tide was "unable to make calm and rational judgments" and tended to "speak too passionately" (2011, 133-4).
Fu's reservation about unexamined criticism stood in sharp contrast to Luo's bold approach to critiques. This is a glaring difference among the editors themselves, and also an exhibit of the potential conflict between the two normative characteristics of the frame space of the journal that we previously noted -first the requirement of academic discussion, specifically the elements of argumentative rigour, critical thinking and responsible referencing, and second the tolerance for the general temperament of the student contributors, which encompasses passion, diversity, lack of experience, limitation of knowledge and occasional recklessness.
Having described the frame space of New Tide in broad strokes, I shall put forward the observation that these two key characteristics, though seemingly incompatible, were balanced and contained in the discursive translations in the journal. The presence and working of translation in the journal shall be discussed in the following sections centralising the paratextual and extratextual marginalia of translation. The discussion shall find its theoretical starting point first in the notion of translation, and second in Baker's (2006) work on narrative space and translation.

Translation in New Tide
A brief overview of translation in New Tide is necessary at this point. The collection of data in this study is guided by the notion of translation as a posteriori, self-defining notion, which refers to "all utterances which are presented or regarded as such within the target culture (Toury 1995, 31-2). Following this conceptualisation, the paper takes into consideration "weakly-marked" or "unmarked" translation (Pym 1998, 58-61), whose nature or source of linguistic transfer is not explicitly acknowledged in the immediate context. In other words, the data of this study are materials that were displayed as renditions of preexisting non-Chinese sources, regardless of the length of the linguistic units and the verifiability of the actual sources. Main types of translation in New Tide are: • full-text translation in Chinese of the totality or a segment of a source text; • in-text citation in Chinese of a source text; • synopsis and summary in Chinese of a source text. In more descriptive terms, translation in the journal could be as short as a terminology quoted with its source word in parenthesis, a brief direct quotation in the middle of an argument, a summary of a book in the recommendation columns, and as long as a full-length article that presented a rendition of a non-Chinese work.
The persistent and discursive presence of translation should also be understood in connection to the Peking University students' linguistic competence. According to the Guide to Peking University Entrance Examination (Beijing daxue zhaokao jianzhang 北京大學招考簡章 1920) appended to the third number of the second volume of New Tide, applicants must sit for two rounds of written tests on Chinese, Mathematics and one chosen foreign language from among English, French, German and Russian. In the first-round foreign language papers, applicants were tested on grammar (wenfa 文法) and translation (fanyi 繙譯). In the second round, applicants to language and literature programmes were further tested on their abilities to "translate between Chinese and [a chosen] foreign language" (yi guoyu yu waiguoyu huyi 以國語與外國 語互譯) (Beijing daxue zhaokao jianzhang 1920, 614). Thus, it is safe to assume that translation was a required skill and a naturally acquired mode of practice among the university students upon admission.
Likely resulting from the acquired, normalised ability in "translating" (fanyi 繙譯) and "translating-between" (huyi 互譯), translation of various forms dispersed into the discourse in New Tide. Translation was often displayed in juxtaposition or with references to their sources. The language materials were opened up for a readership on campus who were trained to view translation in a comparative, speculative manner. This situation is generally in line with Baker's (2006) description of the frame space of translation in general under the conceptual framework of Goffman (1981): translators and interpreters act within a frame space that encourage others to scrutinise every aspect of their linguistic and -in the case of interpreters -non-linguistic behavior. Their frame space also circumscribes the limits of their discursive agency, although as with any type of constraint it is almost always possible to evade or challenge these limits. (Baker 2006, 110) In her analysis, Baker offered a range of communicative scenarios and a wealth of materials to illustrate narrative strategies adopted by translators and interpreters in different cultures to "obviate the need to intervene significantly" (2006,110) in the source and target texts themselves. The chief commonality among her examples was the translator's intention to appropriate the source text for specific -largely political and religious -purposes, and the accompanying effect of distracting and detaching the recipients from the sources.
Taking the cue from Baker's account, I shall attempt to show that the general working of translation in the frame space New Tide was somewhat different. It took effect in the way translators dutifully pointed the historical recipients back to the source text(s) by means of gloss and referencing, and frankly admitted that their translations were insufficient but tentatively working versions. In other words, the frame space of translation in focus not just implicitly encourages, but explicitly invites the scrutiny of translation and the involvement with the source. Such a display of translation materials was often accompanied by apologies from student translators for the risks of miscommunication. It was the student translators' reiterated emphasis on the translational inadequacies that had normalised the presence of translation in New Tide as an unfinished, provisional text type.

4
Apologetic Marginalia  helm Nietzsche (1844helm Nietzsche ( -1900 and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). The bricolage of multilingual sources seemed to have compelled the author to confront the risk of miscommunication to his readers, in which translation of key terms in the cited works was an unavoidable duty. In most cases, Fu's solution was to juxtapose corresponding English and Chinese materials and supplement with a Chinese gloss in parenthesis and/or in smaller fonts to further elaborate on what he meant by his choice of words. For instance, near the end of the essay, Fu listed five dimensions of the question of the meaning of life: the biological, psychological, sociological nature of human beings, the future welfare of human beings, and finally, "the everlastingness of life" (shenghuo yongcun de daoli 生活永存的道理). The fifth question (① in Figure 2), was apparently a challenge. Fu not only provided the English expression "The Immortality of Life" right after the Chinese term, but also clarified in the small-print gloss that by "life" he did not mean biological lifespan but social life, and that the social could be felt by its "xiaoguo 效果", which was also attached with the parenthesised English term "Effects" as a supplement. In the final words of the essay (② in Figure 2), Fu revealed more explicitly the uneasiness about putting his notion of life into words in Chinese. In the parenthesised gloss, he found it necessary to add "the equivalent in English" (duidai de yingwen 對待的英文), for the reason that the Chinese language has recently fallen short of what he had in mind.
It should be noted that in Fu's in-text gloss, the relationship of source text and target text was not straightforward. Judging from the order of presentation, Fu appeared to be translating his Chinese expressions into English for a better conveyance of meaning. The other way round was also possible, in which Fu might have adopted an idea in some English-language sources, used them in his Chinese writing, and attached the source back to his Chinese rendition in order to make up for what he found insufficient in his mother tongue.
There is no certainty regarding the process, unless the origin of quoted English phrases could be identified. But in either case, it can be observed that translation was used as a method to display possibilities of expression, and a means to put interpretation on hold. The jux-

① ②
taposition of script systems -the vertical Chinese script and horizontal English print -and the use of font sizes to migrate between the main narrative and marginal notes also had the effect of allotting different interpretations to separate textual spaces, allowing each to stand alone for one possibility and leaving the finite understanding in suspense. Fu's subtle frustration at the lack of clarity in expression cannot be separated from the normative characteristics of the frame space in New Tide that I have discussed in Section 2. Academic humility, as a necessary quality in scholarly writing and a common mentality among university student, prevailed in Fu's narrative in this essay. At the beginning, he heeded that his knowledge was "too shallow and meager to undertake such a study" (zheyang yanjiu, zuozhe qianlou hai ban bu dao 這樣研究， 作者淺陋還辦不到) (Fu 1919b, 6), and his analysis should only be taken as an convenient outline, not an proper generalisation (Fu 1919b, 8). Towards the end, Fu apologised again for the brevity of his essay. He acknowledged the large amount of readings required by the overwhelming question of life, and advised his fellow schoolmates to "keep on studying" (haiyao yanjiu qu 還要研究去) (Fu 1919b, 17). Viewed in this light, the mixed presentation of sources and the suspension of conveyance of meaning in his translations could be seen as both a result of and the solution to the academic and moral demands prescribed by the unique frame space in the journal.
Other key contributors to the journal also managed their sources in a similar manner and showed apologetic sentiments in their translations. In his essay "The Essence of Thought" (Sixiang de zhenyi 思想 的真意), He Siyuan (1919, 636) acknowledged at the concluding paragraphs [ fig. 3] that he "took materials (qucai 取材)" from William James' Pragmatism and W.T. Marvin's (1872-1944) Present Philosophical Tendencies. 8 He humbly admitted that the aim was to "list the general ideas" ( ju qi dayi 舉其大意) of the philosophers, and that the ideal approach should be to read the English originals.
Similar to Fu, He Siyuan was not entirely sure about translation either. In his case, we can be certain that the final paragraph of the cited page presented a few cases of English to Chinese terminological translation. For "formalism" (fashi zhuyi 法式主義, literally meaning "the French-ism"), "individualism" (geren zhuyi 個人主義) and "socialism" (shehui zhuyi 社會主義), He adopts the same strategy of pairing up the original and his rendition. But for "pragmatism", the key theory introduced in the essay, he offered a platter of choices: 8 Unfortunately, the historical readers might not be able to access W.T. Marvin's Present Philosophical Tendencies, because the work was actually written by Ralph Barton Perry  in 1912.

Michelle Jia Ye A Space for Their Voices. (Un)apologies for Translation in the May Fourth Journal New Tide
Translating Wor(l)ds 4 87 May Fourth and Translation, 75-98 支配全體世界思想的原理, Schiller叫他做 Humanism。James 叫他 做Pragmatism。Humanism可譯為『人的』主義,或為廣義的人道主 義。Pragmatism可譯為實際主義,或為實用主義,或為『知行合一』主義。 這問題大得很,很有研究的價值,我這篇短文那能盡其萬一,不過隨便談談 罷了。 (He 1919, 636) The principle governing the worlds' ideas is what Schiller called Humanism. James called it Pragmatism. Humanism may be translated as the ism of "the mankind" ("ren de" zhuyi), or humanitarianism in the general sense (guangyi de rendao zhuyi). Pragmatism can be translated as the ism of actuality (shiji zhuyi), or the ism of practicality (shiyong zhuyi), or the -ism of "unity of knowledge and practice" (zhixing heyi). This question is big, and of great research value. My short essay can hardly deal with a ten-thousandth of the matter. My aim here is to give an unmindful account. 9 9 English terms in the original text appear in bold.

Figure 3
Apologetic conclusion in He 1919, 636 The juxtaposition of bilingual terms and optional renditions here quietly revealed the tentativeness He implied in his translations. Like Fu, he attributed the uncertainty to the complexity of the academic subject. He also subtly reminded readers of the limited scope of the "short essay". Under these premises, the various Chinese versions of the keywords in bold did not indicate the author's failure to make linguistic decisions; instead, they opened up different aspects of the theoretical terms to evince the "research value" for further study and the academic rigour of the student contributor. The uncertain translations in this apology thus exhibited and reflected positively the normative characteristics of the frame space of New Tide.
One would have the impression from Fu and He's examples that the student contributors often consulted and translated a range of academic sources when they wrote, in the manner of a responsible modern scholar. The wealth of materials they incorporated in writing was another thing they constantly apologised for. Jiang Shaoyuan 江 紹原 (1898-1983, then a current student of Philosophy at Peking University, once submitted to New Tide his paper written for the course Religion and Philosophy in the autumn term in 1919. The paper (Jiang 1920a) got published, and Jiang wrote a sequel to it (Jiang 1920b) after three months. The serialised paper contained partial translations of George Adam Smith's (1856Smith's ( -1942 The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1897), the section "Palestine" in Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) and other unspecified sources taken from German, British and American scholarships on the origin and initial stages of Christianity (Jiang 1920a, 404). Like his peers, Jiang reminded readers that the 7,000 to 8,000-word paper could only offer "a sketch" (genggai 梗概) of the early Jewish history, and many accounts were bound to be "neither elaborate nor exhaustive" (bu xiang bu jin 不詳 不盡) (Jiang 1920a, 433). In the 1921 reprint of the second volume of New Tide, Jiang added a short afterword to the second instalment, again in smaller type than the main text, saying that the paper was completed in a haste during his medical travel between Peking and Hangzhou. Jiang (1920b, 675) described the paper as more or less a patchwork of sources; inconsistency and redundancy were expected.
In other journal sections than essays, apologetic translation marginalia as such were also common phenomena. The student contributors showed a common awareness of the inevitable loss in translation, and adopted a shared strategy to turn the limitation into a proof of good scholarship. Sun Fuyuan 孫伏園 (1894-1966, the most-published translator in the drama section, noted in the afterword (Sun 1921, 136-7) to his translation of Peretz Hirschbein's "In der Finster" (1907) that the playwright's dialogue was characterised by a sort of bitterness and viciousness that often became neutralised when delivered in written Chinese. Sun stressed nonetheless that Hirschbein's play were magnificently structured, so a Chinese translation was necessary. The most mammoth translation task undertaken by a student contributor would be the book recommendation in the critique section done by Wang Jingxi 汪敬熙 (1893Jingxi 汪敬熙 ( -1968 for the fourth issue, second volume in 1920. In this assignment, Wang was requested to do a critical preview of the special issue "Instinct and the Unconscious" (November 1919) of British Journal of Psychology, which featured the works of W.H.R. Rivers (1864Rivers ( -1922, Charles. S. Myers (1873-1946), Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), Graham Wallas (1858-1932, James Drever (1873( -1950( ) and W. McGonagall (1825( -1902. In the review, Wang offered a Chinese abstract of each of the journal articles, and introduced the content section by section for some of the articles. It is not to our surprise that in the preface and afterword, Wang revealed deep insecurity about this recommendation. He described the writing experience as "immensely regretful" (da da de houhui 大 大的後悔) (Wang 1920, 818), the preview as "utterly incomplete and unorganised" ( ji de bu wanquan de erqie lingluan de 極的不完全的而 且凌亂的) (Wang 1920, 827). He admitted that he never managed to finish reading James Drever's Instinct in Man, so there was no way he could introduce Drever's new article without fundamental errors. About Carl G. Jung, he had little knowledge, and might have thoroughly misunderstood Jung's paper. Wang also apologised for the potential insignificance of this preview: "the focus of the debate [in the special issue] is not yet a topic in China. My introduction will not have any influence. This is another thing I feel regretful about" (Zhege bianlun de wenti zai woguo hai bu cheng wenti. Jieshao zhe lai sihao bu sheng yingxiang. Zhe ye shi wo ji houhui de yi duan 這個辯論的問題在我國還 不成問題。 介紹這來絲毫不生影響。這也是我極後悔的一端) (827). This last line in the preface hinted at a realistic aspect of the students' uncertainty and hesitation about translation. That is, the scholarship they were introducing through translation was rather new to the Chinese academia, and there were few Chinese-language sources they could rely on to develop a readily comprehensible academic discourse.
It is important to note that contributors outside the Society also acquired the normal practice of offering apology and asking readers to return to the source. One evidence was from Feng Youlan 馮 友蘭 (1895-1990), who was not a Society member but published five articles in the journal. In his paper discussing Henri Bergson (1859-1941), Feng (1922) synopsised L'Énergie spirituelle (1919), based on H. Wildon Carr's English translation Mind-Energy. Lectures and Essays (1920). To conclude the seven-page summary of a 262-pages book, Feng (1922, 79) encouraged the readers to "study the original" (yanjiu yuanshu 研究原書), and attached a full bibliography of his cited works to the beginning of the article.
One should be reminded at this point that the translating contributors discussed in this section -Fu Sinian, He Siyuan, Feng Youlan, Sun Fuyuan, Wang Jingxi -were all frequent and multiply-published authors in New Tide. All of them, except Feng, were the founding members of the New Tide Society (see Appendix 2 for composition and individual publication numbers). The translations and translation marginalia presented here, though a small and selective cluster of texts, should qualify as a representative sample for us to observe the play-out of the frame space of the journal through translation.
However, I hesitate to say this is all about translation in New Tide. In fact, Fu Sinian's inaugural statement already signalled that nothing in the journal was or was expected to be done in a consistent, uniform manner. Indeed, in the same publications with these apologetic remarks, there were also some surprising translations that showed deliberate deviance from the sources but no apologetic sentiments from the translators. These were mainly found in the translations of Luo Jialun, whose 'un-bridled' critique style seemed problematic to Fu (see the end of Section 2). Two instances of Luo's translations deserve our critical attention.

5
Unapologetic Appropriation I shall first put forward the crude observation that Luo's controversial critique in New Tide often involved the weaving of partial translations into his argumentation. I have discussed this phenomenon in a previous paper in Chinese (Ye 2018) with the example of Luo's appropriation of selected paragraphs from Paul Samuel Reinsch's (1869-1923) Intellectual and Political Currents in the Far East (1911 to launch a verbal attack on certain Shanghai-based Chinese middlebrow fiction writers and translators in his first article in "Commentary" column (Luo 1919c). In this article, Luo started by offering his own views, then cited the American politician's monograph on China as supporting evidence. The citations, versed in Chinese, were obviously rendered from the English original. Put between quotation marks and provided with exact information on the source, the citations appeared to be an unproblematic integral part to Luo's argumentation. According to Luo's endnote (1919c, 117), the quotation was based on eight continuous pages -page 157 to 165 -in Reinsch's book. A close reading in comparison to the declared source reveals a different story. The quotations, containing less than 200 Chinese characters in total, were in fact translated from two small and separate segments of the cited pages, one from page 158 and the other from page 165 to 164. The Chinese translation was full of shifts fuelled by explicit value judgment. In Luo's narrative (1919c, 110), Reinsch's neutral observations about the general literary field in China were bent towards a depreciation of a particular group of traditional-minded literati exemplified by Yan Fu (1854-1921) and Lin Shu (1852-1924. ropean Romanticist literature were rephrased as renditions of the works of "absurdism" (huangdan zhuyi 荒誕主義). Moreover, Luo drastically altered Reinsch's vision of a gradual emergence of modern literature in China on the basis of established literary traditions. In Luo's version (1919c, 110), Reinsch predicted that China's "new literature" (xin wenxue 新文學) would only take place on the premise of the complete erasure of "old literature" ( jiu wenxue 舊文學). The new-old polarity was a deliberate insertion in the form of an in-text citation and in the disguise of a transparent translation.
Luo's appropriation of the source in service of the denouncement of his traditional-minded contemporaries was a stark sign of a student's 'unbridled-ness' and his open challenge to 'celebrity scholars' called out in his prologue to the column. In the meantime, the presentation of Reinsch's opinion as evidence, the seemingly dutiful referencing and the flow of argumentation was clearly answering the standard requirement of New Tide for sound scholarship. In other words, Luo adopted the academic writing format and rhetorical style precisely to validate his personal opinion that was slipped into his translation. Read in connection to the apologetic marginalia, it even appeared that Luo's partial translation was an exploitation of the conceptualisation of translation as a tentative text type and of the student contributors as humble, credible translators that had been built up in the discourse of the journal. In simple terms, what was apologised for in the translation cases of Fu Sinian and others was appropriated by Luo as a means to make translation work for his critique.
Luo's partial translation of Reinsch's book was not an isolated instance. A more glaring example was printed right on the journal's cover. To many scholars today, the original English journal title The Renaissance already presents a translation problem. Regarding the lexical correspondence of "The Renaissance" to "New tide", the most cited evidence was Fu Sinian's reminiscing notes on the first volume. Fu recalled (1919d, 199) that when the founding members were brainstorming for the journal title, Xu Yanzhi and Luo Jialun came up with the English and Chinese titles individually, and the two names "happened to be the translation of each other" (qiahao keyi huyi 恰好可以 互譯). This sounds almost suspiciously convenient. In the remaining of Fu's memoir, no more was said about why the terms were perceived as mutually translatable. The unexplained acceptance was quite different from the self-inflicting guilt on the innocent-looking translations elsewhere in the journal.
In retrospect, the equivalence was possibly inspired by Hu Shi, who adopted the idea of "The Renaissance in China" from Zhang Shizhao 章士釗   and Huang Yuanyong's 黃煥庸 (1885-1915 dialogue in the reformist journal Jiayin 甲寅 in 1915 and wrote a treatise under the same title in 1926 (Hu 1926). My interest is not in Hu Shi's impact on New Tide, but the way the terms were justified as translation of each other in the journal. Turning our eyes to translation in the textual marginalia, we see another relevant piece of material in an endnote in Luo Jialun's first critical essay in the inaugural issue, titled "New Tides of the World Today" (Luo 1919a). In the main text, Luo envisioned the journal as the portal for Chinese readers to feel worldly "currents" (chao 潮). The essay began briefly with political currents, moving from global colonial expansion, to constitutional monarchy and democratic movements in the West, Meiji Restoration in Japan, then to Russian revolution in 1917. The essay then gave a weightier discussion on intellectual currents, starting with the European Renaissance [ Fig. 4].
When writing about "Renaissance", a word so central to New Tide and to the historical subject matter at hand, Luo did not opt for a juxtaposition of bilingual terms like his peers. Instead, he left the term untranslated, and referred readers to a note (on the left in Figure 4). The Chinese character liu 六 (six) in parenthesis led to the marginal text space at the end of the essay, where Luo offered his elaboration on the term (on the right in figure 4).
The endnote revealed the reason why "Renaissance" was left untranslated in the main text. Luo was unhappy with the existing Chinese translation: wenyi fuxing 文藝復興. He believed that wenyi fuxing was a literal rendition of the English expression "the Revival of Learning", which was itself a misrepresentation of the Renaissance. He argued the Renaissance learning was not simply to resurrect antiquity, but to "adopt Greek scholarship and thoughts as approaches to the newest situation" (yong Xila de xuewen sixiang zuo menjing, cong zui xin de fangmian zou 用希臘的學問思想作門徑， 從最新的方面走). Following this interpretation, Luo put forward his Chinese and English translations of "Renaissance": xinchan 新產 (new produce) and "New Birth". The replacement of the prefix "re-" in "Renaissance" with the lexical unit "new" (xin 新) was not for no reason, as Luo continued to say the journal title Xin Chao 新潮 (New Tide) was true to "the root of the word" (yugen 語根) of "Renaissance", and loyal to "the real spirits of this era" (zhege shidai de zhen jingshen 這個時代 的真精神). It remained ambiguous if "this era" meant the age of the Renaissance, or the eve of May Fourth. But it is certain that in this easily neglected endnote, and through his criticism on existing translations and his proposal of new ones, Luo forged a lexical and emotional correspondence between the European Renaissance and Xin Chao 新潮, and suggested strongly that some "new tide" in the present China was as pressing and necessary as the intellectual current that once freed Europe from the Dark Ages.
It is now useful to recall that the insertion of 'new' was also exercised in my first example of Luo's translation, where he turned Reinsch's forecast of a gradual emergence of modern Chinese literature from its classical tradition into an either-or 'new versus old' situation.
Luo's publications in the inaugural issue thus presented to us an interesting translational word chain: "renaissance" was equated to "new birth" (xinchan 新產) in the marginal note of his essay, and "new" (xin 新) equals "modern" in the appropriated translation in his critique. This chain of association may not comply with our understanding of the terms today, and my emphasis is not on the accuracy of Luo's translation. Neither am I about to focalise Luo's own advocacy in the capacity of a New Tide editor and a student leader in the May Fourth era, however compelling this line of inquiry may seem. My central contention has been in the mechanism in which the normative characteristics in the frame space of New Tide gave rise to the conceptualisation of translation as a tentative, indeterminate, and source-searching textual practice, and in which these expectations and presumptions about translation created a discursive textual space in the journal to accommodate the many voices of the student contributors -sharp and mild, reserved and progressive, critically argumentative and passionately opinionated. In my analysis of the translation marginalia, the working of the many types of translation in the frame space and compartmentalised context in New Tide should have begun to reveal its mammoth complexities and intricate dynamics.

Conclusion
In this study, I approached the complex working of translation in the frame space of New Tide with a close reading of a selection of paratextual and extratextual marginalia that contained and surrounded translation. I reconstructed two normative characteristics of the frame space of the journal: the requirement of academic writing and the tolerance for students' opinions. I described in particular the hovering apologetic tone in translation, and associated the habitual apology with the contributors' collective awareness of the academic rigour and humility required by the journal and by the student contributors' self-identity as a group of inexperienced, diverse-minded and passionate young scholars at Peking University. Having demonstrated how meticulous and tentative the students could be about their translations, I then showed the contrasting examples of partial translations and translation criticism that signalled unapologetic appropriation of foreign sources in service of the critique of the concurrent Chinese intellectuals and the legitimisation of the May Fourth's typical new-versus-old polarisation of the Chinese intellectual landscape circa 1919. New Tide has long been accepted as a leading journal amid the intensifying competition for authoritativeness among intellectual groups following May Fourth, 1919. It will be redundant for me to conclude that translation in New Tide is as resolutely revolutionary