1 Introduction

The history of Australian literature translation in China has long been believed to originate in the 1950s. This view has been supported by various scholars, such as Hu Wenzhong (1992), Ouyang Yu (1994), Wang Labao (2000), Ma Zuyi (2006), Zha Mingjian and Xie Tianzhen (2007), Huang Yuanshen (2011), Chen Hong (2012), and Peng Qinglong (2014).

However, two scholars reached different conclusions based on their findings. In 1990, Yang Guobin pointed out that Mao Dun, a renowned Chinese writer, made a brief comment on four Australian poems and translated two of them in xiaoshuo yuebao (Fiction Monthly), a Chinese magazine. Regrettably, the paper did not receive any attention for a long time until in 2009, Nicolas Jose mentioned it in a paper. In 2011, Ouyang Yu made a new discovery that pre-dated Yang Guobin’s by 15 years. He discovered that the translations of Guy Newell Boothby’s five short stories were published under the general title of Five Strange Cases in Paris in yueyue xiaoshuo (The All-Story Monthly) from 1 November 1906 to 28 March 1907 (Ouyang, 2011). Additionally, he found that a translated short story “zi rong guan” (“The Purple Velvet Crown”) written by Fergus Hume was published in xinxin xiaoshuo (New New Fiction) in 1907. As a result, he concluded that Guy Newell Boothby might be the first Australian detective novelist introduced to China. However, his paper did not gain attention from Chinese scholars. Subsequent domestic studies continued to assert that the Chinese translation of Australian literature began in the 1950s (Huang, 2011; Chen, 2012; Peng, 2014).

2 Australian Literary Works Translated Between 1906 And 1917

Based on the newly discovered literature, Guy Newell Boothby was indeed the first Australian writer introduced in China, but this introduction occurred not in 1906, as previously believed, but in 1898. On 24 December 1898, a short story titled “Uncle Joe’s Legacy” authored by Guy Newell Boothby, was published in The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette, an English magazine published in Shanghai. The story was published in English rather than Chinese. The first piece of Australian literature translated into Chinese is The Mystery of A Hansom Cab, written by Fergus Hume. Additionally, there were more Australian literary works translated into Chinese than the six short stories discovered by Ouyang Yu. According to the author of this paper, twenty Australian novels and short stories were translated into Chinese in the late Qing dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China, spanning from 1906 to 1917, among which nineteen were regarded as British or American literature. All of the translated literary works were popular fiction, including detective stories and romance novels. These translations marked the beginning of the translation history of Australian literature in China, thus holding significant historical value and importance.

These include the following translations: In March 1906, Baijin ren (《白巾人》), the Chinese translation of The Mystery of A Hansom Cab, was published by the Commercial Press. In July 1907, Quqie shu (《胠箧术》), the translation of The Viceroy’s Protegé; or, A Prince of Swindlers, written by Guy Newell Boothby and translated by Wuyi shizhe (乌衣使者), was published by the Story Forest Press. In November 1906, “Shuangshi ji” (“双尸祭”), translated by Xianyou (仙友), was published on the first issue of The All-Story Monthly. In November 1906, Eryong’an (《二俑案》, Two Terracotta Warriors Case), the translation of a detective story written by Fergus Hume, was published by the Commercial Press. In December 1906, “Duanxiu” (“断袖”) , translated by Xianyou, was published in the third issue of The All-Story Monthly. Subsequently, the three short stories “Zhugong hui” (“珠宫会”), “Qingji” (“情姬”)  and “Daoma” (“盗马”), all translated by Xianyou, were published successively in the fourth, fifth and sixth issues of The All-Story Monthly. In July 1907, Baoshi cheng (《宝石城》), the translation of My Strangest Case written by Boothby, was published by the Commercial Press. In September 1907, Daoku qiyuan (《盗窟奇缘》, I Met Him in Bandit’s Lair ), the translation of a novel written by Boothby, was published by the Commercial Press, marking the first Australian romance novel translated into Chinese. In the same year, Fuguo yiwen (《复国轶闻》), the translation of A Sailor’s Bride written by Boothby, was translated and published by the same press. In June 1908, Juchang qi’an (《剧场奇案》, A Strange Case in the Theatre), the translation of a detective story written by Fergus Hume, was published by the Commercial Press. In June 1908, Haitang hun (《海棠魂》, The Beautiful White Devil) and Qingli ying (《青藜影》, Farewell Nikola ) , translations of two romance novels written by Boothby and co-translated by Xue Yi’e and Chen Jialin (薛一谔, 陈家麟) , were published by the Commercial Press. In the same year, Guizhong shi (《柜中尸》, A Corpse in the Cupboard), the translation of a novel written by Boothby and translated by Donghai diaoke (东海钓客, a pen name), was published by The Reformist Fiction Press. In 1914, Wuqian bang (《五千磅》), the translation of The Marriage of Esther, a novel written by Boothby and translated by Dongyao (东埜), was serialized with a total of 10 chapters in Issues 2 to 11 of Youxi zazhi (《游戏杂志》, Game Magazine ). In the same year, Bingku yushenglu (《冰窟余生录》, The Remaining Life in the Ice Grotto), the translation of a novel written by Delei simaosen (德雷司贸森), co-translated by Jihun and (Zhu) Shouju (覉魂、（朱）瘦菊), was published on Issues 2 to 4 of Fanhua zazhi (《繁华杂志》, Flourishing Magazine). In August 1916, Ambrose Pratt’s novel Vigorous Daunt: Bilionaire, co-translated by Shiping and Guping into Tangtuo fuchouji (《唐脱复仇记》), was published in Xiaoshuo congbao (《小说丛报》, Fiction Series). In July 1917, Boothby’s novel A Brighton Tragedy was co-translated into Chinese by Lin Shu and Chen Jialin with the title Nüshi yinjianji (《女师饮剑记》), and it was published by the Commercial Press.

3 The Characteristics Of The Translated Works

These translations were the earliest Australian literature translated into Chinese in the historical context of “Western Learning Spreading to the East”. From 1906 to 1917, all the translated Australian literary works were fiction. On the one hand, politicians and new novelists believed that fiction could serve as a means to educate and enlighten the masses, prompting them to make significant efforts to introduce novels and short stories from Western countries. On the other hand, given that fiction was the predominant literary genre in the West at the turn of the 20th century, it naturally garnered greater attention from translators and publishers. The number of Chinese translations of Australian literature and the writers introduced into China during this period was relatively small. Works by four novelists were translated into Chinese, including one by Delei simaosen, one by Ambrose Pratt, four by Fergus Hume and 14 by Guy Newell Boothby. Despite the limited number and genre of the translated works, the fact that most of them were reprinted indicates their popularity among readers at that time.

Secondly, when considering the characteristics of the translated works, it is evident that the key information of the translations, such as the authors’ names and titles of the works, was often incomplete. The translations of the same writer’s name varied, and some writers’ nationalities were confusing or mislabeled. These were also common features of the translations during the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China. This was not a unique characteristic in the Chinese translation of Australian literature during this period. In fact, some translations lacked information about the author, the original title of the writing or the translator, making it difficult to discern whether the piece was a translation or an original work in Chinese. This might be attributed to a lack of awareness among some translators and publishers regarding the importance of providing such information at that time.

But Guo Yanli (1998) believed that the phenomenon of translators’ anonymity “showed that there was still a certain degree of contempt for translated literature in the translators’ subconscious minds”. However, considering the fact that some novelists at that time also had their own novels published in anonymity, it is not necessarily indicative of translators holding contempt for translated literature. It is also possible that they had a contempt for fiction itself, as the status of fiction had traditionally been low in Chinese culture, where poetry held the most importance as a literary genre. Additionally, some translators chose to publish their translations under pseudonyms, which may have been influenced by similar considerations. For example, the translator of The Viceroy’s Protegé; or, A Prince of Swindlers used the pseudonym Wuyi shizhe, the translator of Five Strange Cases in Paris used the pseudonym Xianyou, and the translator of A Corpse in the Cupboard used the pseudonym Donghai diaoke.

Moreover, owing to the absence of standardized conventions for translating foreign names in the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China, translators rendered the same writer’s name in various ways. For instance, Fergus Hume’s name was translated by the same translator into three different Chinese names: Xie fuke, Xu Fugu and Fuerqisi Xiumu. Boothby’s translated names include Bai cibai, Pu sipei, Bu sibai, Bo sibei and Kebao sipei. This inconsistency in the translation of foreign names was a common phenomenon at that time and also occurred in the translation of the names of other writers from other countries. For instance, Arthur Conan Doyle, the famous British detective novelist, had his name translated into Chinese as Kenan Daoer, Kenan Dali, Tuaiershi, Yakeneng Duoer, Duyi’er, Genan Teyi’er, Gaoneng Tao’er, Kenan Da’ali, Tao Gaoneng, etc.

Furthermore, the information regarding the nationalities of the writers provided in the translated works was often confusing. For instance, in the case of Guy Newell Boothby, the translator did not clearly specify his nationality, at times identifying him as American and at other times as British. In the first issue of The All-Story Monthly in 1906, Boothby’s nationality was listed as American, but in the fourth, fifth and sixth issues, his nationality was changed to British, and interestingly, the translator was the same person. In the other translations, Boothby’s nationality was identified as British. Fergus Hume’s nationality was also identified as British, while the nationality of Ambrose Pratt was labeled as American.

The information regarding the writers’ nationalities in the translated works was not entirely accurate. Australian Dictionary of Biography provides brief accounts of the life stories of the three writers, Fergus Hume, Guy Newell Boothby and Ambrose Pratt. Fergus Hume was born in 1859 in England, and his family migrated to New Zealand when he was three years old. He later moved to Melbourne in 1885, where he wrote the successful detective story The Mystery of A Hansom Cab. He eventually settled in England in 1888 and died in 1932 (Kirk). Boothby was born in Australia in 1867. At the age of 7, he traveled to England with his mother. Aged 16 he returned to Australia and worked in Adelaide. He departed for England at the age of 24 and lived there until his passing at the age of 37 (Australian Dictionary). Ambrose Pratt was born in New South Wales in 1874. In 1898 he sailed for England to pursue a career in writing and journalism, and began writing novels that same year. He later returned to Australia and passed away in 1944 (Langmore).

Based on the information above, it is wrong for translators to label Boothby and Ambrose Pratt’s nationalities as American, and their life stories show no connection with America. However, it is not wrong for translators to identify Fergus Hume and Boothby as British, as this is also reflected in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is a biographical resource for British individuals. This may be attributed to the fact that both of them were born during the colonial period and lived in Britain for a long time, and their parents or grandparents were British and later settled in Australia. It is unclear whether Fergus Hume and Boothby held dual nationality. Given that Australian Dictionary of Biography is a dictionary of biography for Australians only and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for the British only, it is reasonable to consider Fergus Hume and Boothby as both British and Australian writers. However, it should be noted that Ambrose Pratt is not an American writer, but rather an Australian writer.

Furthermore, the three writers and their works are also documented in The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature, reinforcing the notion that they are indeed Australian writers. It is not unusual in the literary history of Australia and New Zealand, both of which were once British colonies. For example, the famous writer Katherine Mansfield (1888-1923) was born in New Zealand. She lived in New Zealand until the age of 15, and then moved to Britain. After returning to New Zealand at 18, she went back to Britain at 20. As a result, she is recognized as both an English and a New Zealand writer, with her contributions documented in the literary history of both countries. Similarly, Hume and Boothby share a similar dual identity. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that they are Australian writers.

As a matter of fact, Fergus Hume (2015) had ever said in the preface he wrote for the revised edition of The Mystery of A Hansom Cab published in 1889,

        “I may state in conclusion, that I belong to New Zealand, and not to Australia, that I am a barrister, and not a retired policeman, that I am yet two decades off fifty years of age, that Fergus Hume is my real name, and not a nom-de-plume; and finally, that far from making a fortune out of the book, all I received for the English and American rights, previous to the issue of this Revised Edition by my present publishers, was the sum of fifty pounds.”

Here, at the request of the publisher, Fergus Hume was trying to put a stop to the conflicting reports about him. It seems that Hume was reluctant to be categorized as an Australian writer. He migrated to New Zealand at the age of three and lived there until he went to Australia at 26. He lived in Australia for only three years and then moved to Britain. It is understandable why he asserted his belonging to New Zealand. His statement seems to have received a little response over a hundred years later. Although his name was not mentioned in the literary history of New Zealand, in an article introducing New Zealand literature published in 2003, Hume’s four novels were listed in his major works, including The Mystery of A Hansom Cab. Consequently, Fergus Hume could be seen as a writer of three nationalities, but he is predominantly recognized as an Australian writer in many overseas studies. 

In fact, not only the Australian writers born during the colonial period introduced to China were regarded as British writers, it is also true of some Australian writers who were introduced to China in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Jack Lindsay and James Aldridge, who were at times identified as British and at other times as Australian. Most of their literary works were regarded as British literature in China at that time, but in recent years they have been studied more often than not as Australian literature.

The truth is, from the late Qing dynasty to 1917, only one writer, Delei Simaosen (德雷司贸森), was identified as Australian. That is to say, most Australian literary works were translated into Chinese by chance during this period. Most translators were unaware that they were translating Australian literature, and thus it was often categorized as British or American literature in Chinese translations. This confusion in identifying the nationalities of writers was not unique to Australian literature, but was also prevalent in the translation of other foreign literary works during the late Qing dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China.

This is partly attributed to the uncertainty surrounding the nationalities of certain writers due to their transnational life experiences, as well as errors made by translators in identifying the nationalities of these writers. Mistakes in identifying authors’ nationalities were not limited to Australian literature, but were also present in translations of British, American, Canadian, Irish, and New Zealand literary works. For example, Emma D. E. N. Southworth, an American writer, the author of The Changed Brides, was misidentified as a British writer in the Chinese translation co-translated by Linshu and Chen Jialin. One possible reason for translators misidentifying the writers’ nationalities is that they judged their nationalities by the cities where the works were published. For example, Vigorous Daunt: Billionaire (1908) was published in New York. This is perhaps the reason why its author Ambrose Pratt was misidentified as American.

The misidentification of writers’ nationalities has made it more challenging to study the history of early literary exchanges and literary translation between China and these countries. Additionally, it has posed problems for later generations of scholars, as they often based their studies on the nationalities identified by early translators, such as Tarumoto (2002), Jia Zhifang (2010) and Guo Yanli (1998), which resulted in mistakes in statistics of translated early foreign literatures.

Thirdly, during the period from 1906 to 1917, all Chinese translations of Australian literature were popular fiction, most of which were detective stories and romance novels. Boothby and Hume’s detective stories, in particular, were highly popular in Australia and Britain at the time, with The Mystery of A Hansom Cab achieving great success and causing a worldwide sensation. Given its widespread popularity, it is natural that such works would garner the attention of translators and publishers.

When examining the translation history of foreign literature during the late Qing dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China, it becomes evident that the majority of translated works from various countries were fiction. Among all the translated fiction, pure literature accounted for only a small portion, with the majority being popular fiction. This category of fiction encompassed a wide range of genres, such as detective stories, science fiction, romance novels, adventure novels, military novels, comic novels, and ghost stories, among others, with detective stories being particularly popular.

4 The Contributing Factors To The Translation Of Popular Fiction Works

For this phenomenon, Eva Hung (2000) held that “detective stories becoming widely known and popular in China in just a few years was inseparable from the universal popularity of this type of novel all over the world.” Interesting detective stories appealed to readers all over the world. They also met the needs of politicians aiming to popularize novels for educational purposes, translators seeking to earn contributions, and publishers pursuing profits. Therefore, it is not surprising that detective stories became the most translated type of works. Regarding the prevalence of popular fiction translations during this period compared to those of pure literature, Chen Pingyuan conducted an in-depth study, which can be roughly divided into three aspects:

4.1 The Political Purpose

Following the failure of the Reform Movement of 1898, the Reformists realized the importance of awakening the masses, and thus initiated a literary revolution. Their goal was to harness the power of literature to enlighten and educate the populace, ultimately aiming to fulfill their political ambition of advancing democracy. Notably, Liang Qichao, a prominent figure among the reformists, believed that the reform of politics, morality, religion and other ideologies, as well as the change of people’s thoughts, should all commence with the reform of fiction. His advocacy for the social functions of fiction resonated strongly within intellectual and literary circles. As a result, “before 1911, many Chinese novelists embraced Liang Qichao’s message of using fiction to save the nation and considered the advancement of democracy as the paramount objective in novel writing” (Chen, 1989). Translators also shared this objective. For instance, Yanling Gongzi (延陵公子，1906) emphasized that in order to establish a constitutional monarchy, citizens needed to be “qualified”. According to Yanling Gongzi, broadening their horizons, increasing their knowledge, and enhancing their awareness were essential for understanding constitutional monarchy, freedom, and the electoral system. To achieve these goals, “Nothing is more effective than translating books.”

Although the purpose of fiction revolution was to reform democracy, it promoted the development of new fiction and the translation of foreign novels. Liang Qichao initiated the fiction revolution due to his belief that traditional Chinese novels “inveigled people either into theft or into adultery” (Liang, 1999),  and thus were incapable of enlightening the public. There were two ways to reform fiction. One was to develop new fiction; the other was to translate foreign fiction works. As the primary goal of the fiction revolution was to enlighten the masses, the readers of both new fiction and translated fiction were supposed to be the general public. However, “Currently, the population of literate individuals is small, and those proficient in literature are even fewer.” (Liang, 1999). In such a scenario, it is evident that pure literary fiction did not align with the preferences of the majority of readers, making it challenging to gain popularity and achieve the goal of enlightening the masses. It was only popular fiction, which resonated with ordinary people, that could effectively serve the function of educating and enlightening the masses, realizing its “incredible power to influence people” (Liang, 2004). This sheds light on why the number of popular fiction translations into China during the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China far surpassed that of pure literary fiction.

4.2 The Commercialization of Fiction

In ancient China, writers penned novels driven by their passion rather than for monetary gain. However, at the turn of the 20th century in China, the influence of Reformists and emerging novelists led to a significant surge in novel readership. This growth was facilitated by the development of cities, the expansion of urban populations, the adoption of new printing technology, and the burgeoning modern publishing industry, all of which contributed to the swift development of fiction. Furthermore, the introduction of the Western copyright system and the establishment of a remuneration system made it feasible for novelists and translators to earn a livelihood through the creation and translation of fiction. Popular fiction captivated readers and proved to be a lucrative endeavor for writers, translators, and publishers. To entice readers, expand publication circulation, attract additional advertisements, and boost advertising revenues, publishers initiated payments to storywriters and translators for their contributions. For instance, the inaugural issue of New Fiction in 1902 announced the standard remuneration rates in the “Contributions Wanted” section. It stated that for original fiction writing, A-level work would earn 4 yuan per thousand words, B-level 3 yuan, C-level 2 yuan, and D-level 1.5 yuan. In the case of fiction translations, A-level work would fetch 2.5 yuan, B-level 1.6 yuan, and C-level 1.2 yuan (Wang, 2002). According to some researchers, “At that time, the market price of the best rice in Shanghai was about 4 yuan per load (50 kilos)” (Wang, 2002). Considering the purchasing power of that era, the payment was deemed substantial for both fiction writers and translators.

Furthermore, in 1906, the imperial examination system, which had endured for over 1300 years in China, was abolished, effectively closing the traditional path for literati to pursue political careers. With their avenues for earning a livelihood severely restricted, some men of letters turned to writing or translating novels. While the Reformists championed the use of fiction to save the nation, it is essential to recognize that remuneration played a significant role in motivating literati to engage in writing and translating fiction. Given that their primary goal was to earn a livelihood, the preferences of readers became paramount. To increase their earnings, novelists and translators had to consider the reader’s tastes. Ordinary readers were inclined to favor popular fiction with intricate plots and compelling narratives, particularly enjoying detective stories translated from abroad.

4.3 Literary Concepts

During the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China, the distinction between popular fiction and pure literary fiction was not clearly defined in the minds of people. From ancient China to the late Qing dynasty, “Fiction was on the edge of the whole literary structure, and the differentiation of ‘pure literature’ and ‘popular literature’ had not really taken shape” (Chen, 1989). Fiction had long been perceived as shallow vulgar readings rather than as literature. For example, there was an advertisement for Bao Tianxiao’s translation of Sans Famille, a French novel, on the title page of the Chinese translation of A Brighton Tragedy. In the advertisement, the publishing house remarked, “... to say nothing of the remarkable writing skills of Mr. Bao, who could write everything so vividly. I would rather regard it as a piece of literature than fiction” (Boothby, 1917). The statement “I would rather regard it as a piece of literature than fiction” was meant as praise for Bao Tianxiao’s translation. However, the fact that the advertiser made a distinction between “literature” and “fiction” suggests that, in the eyes of some individuals, fiction had not yet been recognized as literature.

During the late Qing dynasty, the Reformists elevated fiction to the level of “best literature” for political purposes. Alongside the efforts of new novelists, the status of fiction was gradually elevated, and the distinction between popular fiction and pure literary fiction became clearer after the May 4th Movement. Revisiting these translated works today allows for a clearer assessment of their literary value. This is because these translations have been vetted by time, the status of classical works has been established, and the boundary between popular literature and pure literature has become distinct. However, the translators of that era faced a vastly different set of circumstances.

Furthermore, according to Hung (2000), during the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China, literariness was not a significant consideration in the translation of fiction, as fiction was primarily seen as a means to educate and enlighten the masses. However, “The works that were originally intended for didactic purposes, to introduce Western knowledge and enlighten ordinary people, were later subjected to a different set of standards, being evaluated based on their literary merit. This demonstrates a gap between the criteria used for selecting works and the criteria used for evaluating them” (Hung, 2000). Subsequent generations of critics, heavily influenced by Western literary standards, often associated the assessment of translated works with the standing of their authors in literary history. However, if we disregard the historical context of literary translation during the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China and solely rely on “literariness” as a criterion to gauge the value of these translations, the evaluation would be unjust. Considering the significant number of foreign literary works introduced into China during that period and the roles they played in history, the value of these translations cannot be overlooked.

5 Conclusion

The translations of Australian literature in the late Qing dynasty and early Republican China were not particularly prominent among the thousands of translations of foreign literatures due to their limited quantity. While these works may not hold significant literary value and are seldom read today, it would be inaccurate to deem them as meaningless. The translations of Australian literature, alongside other foreign literary works, injected new vitality into Chinese literature, introducing fresh narrative styles and techniques, thereby fostering the advancement of native Chinese fiction writing and enhancing the status of fiction.

The recent discovery of Chinese translations of Australian literature from the late Qing dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China challenges the conventional understanding of when Chinese translation of Australian literature commenced. These translations represent the early stages of the history of Australian literature translation in China and hold pioneering significance for the initial cultural exchanges between Chinese and Australian literatures.

References

[1] Australian Dictionary of Biography. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/boothby-guy-newell-5293. Accessed July 13, 2019.

[2] Boothby, Guy Newell. (1917). A Brighton Tragedy. Trans. by Linshu, Chen Jialin. Shanghai: The Commercial Press.

[3] Chen, Hong. (2012). The Study of Australian Literature in China in the 20th Century. Journal of East China Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences). No.6, 135-153.

[4] Chen, Pingyuan. (1989). A History of Chinese Novels in the Twentieth Century (Vol. I). Beijing: Peking University Press.

[5] Guo, Yanli. (1998). An Introduction to Translated Literature in Modern China. Wuhan: Hubei Education Press.

[6] Hu, Wenzhong. (1992). A Survey of Chinese Translation of Australian Literature. In Hu, Wenzhong, Collected Papers on Australian Studies in China (pp. 257-261). Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.

[7] Huang, Yuanshen. (2011). A General Preface. In Peng Qinglong, A Critical Study of Peter Carey’s Fiction. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[8] Hume, Fergus. (2015). The Mystery of A Hansom Cab. Createspace.

[9] Hung, Eva. (2000). Giving Texts A Context: On Chinese Translation of English Detective Novels at the Turn of the 20^th Century China. In Wang Hongzhi, Translation and Creation: On Early Modern Chinese Translation of Foreign Fiction (pp. 88-117). Beijing: Peking University Press.

[10] Jose, Nicholas. (2009). Australian Literature Inside and Out: Barry Andrews Memorial Address. Journal of the Association for the Study of Australian Literature, Vol. Special Issue, 1-13.

[11] Kirk, Pauline M. “Hume, Fergusson Wright (Fergus) (1859–1932)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/hume-fergusson-wright-fergus-3817/text6053, published first in hardcopy 1972, accessed online 1 November 2023.

[12] Langmore, Diane. “Pratt, Ambrose Goddard Hesketh (1874–1944)”. Australian Dictionary of Biography. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pratt-ambrose-goddard-hesketh-8096. Accessed July 13, 2019.

[13] Liang, Qichao. (2004). Selected Works of Liang Qichao. Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House.

[14] Liang, Qichao. (1999). The Complete Works (Vol. I). Beijing: Beijing Publishing House.

[15] Ma, Zuyi. (2006). A General History of Chinese Translation: Modern and Contemporary Parts (Vol. II). Wuhan: Hubei Education Press, 2006.

[16] Ouyang, Yu. (2011). “A century of Oz Lit in China: A critical overview (1906-2008)”. Antipodes 25.1, 65-71.

[17] Ouyang, Yu. (1994). Australian Literature in China: On the Ascendancy and On the Edge-some Thoughts on the Problems with the Chinese Reception and Perception of Australian Literature. Notes and Furphies, No. 32, 3-6.

[18] Peng, Qinglong. (2014). China’s Translation of Australian Literature (1949-1978): An Academic-historical Perspective. Chinese Translators’ Journal, No. 6, 24-25.

[19] Wang, Labao. (2000). Australian Literature in China. Southerly 60.3, 118-207.

[20] Wang, Yan. (2002). On the History of Fiction Periodicals in the Late Qing Dynasty.

[21] Yang, Guobin. (1990~1991). Australian Poetry in Chinese Consciousness: A Translator’s Note. Notes and Furphies. 6-10.

[22] Yanling Gongzi. (1906). A Congratulatory Speech on the Publishing Ceremony of The All-Story Monthly. The All-Story Monthly, No. 1, 1.

[23] Zha, Mingjian, Xie Tianzhen. (2007) The History of Foreign Literature Translation in the 20th Century China (Volume 2). Wuhan: Hubei Education Press.