Allographic Paratext and Robinson Crusoe in Translation: Priming 19th-Century Romanian Readership

Abstract

The paper analyses the paratextual side of several Romanian versions of Daniel Defoes Robinson Crusoe published in the 19th century, with a view to emphasizing the ways in which the prefaces, postfaces and translators notes, penned in keeping with the moral values prevailing in the Romanian society at the time, are meant to prime or guide the readership. The editions under scrutiny are either translations of some adaptations or indirect translations (usually via German), yet richly endowed peritextuality-wise. Our main research aim is to account for the most frequent topoi covered in the allographic prefaces to four Romanian editions of Robinson Crusoe (one published in 1835, two in 1899, and one in 1900). The 1835 edition is particularly striking in that, although written in Cyrillic (as was customary at the time), it is highly readable (in transliteration) and extremely interesting as it contains a variety of paratextual elements (a Dedication, a Foreword, a Translators Note, two black-and-white illustrations, 19 encyclopaedic footnotes). In an eclectic, selfreferential, wide-ranging preludial discourse, the translator-turned-editor capitalizes on a deft preemptive defense strategy while taking on the huge responsibility of educating the reading public. Our conclusion is that the primary function fulfilled by these 19th-century paratexts is to persuade the readership: first, to buy and read the book, and then, to read it strictly as a religious parable. By isolating and imposing the moral dimension of Robinson Crusoe, these Romanian editions privilege the pedagogical stake of childrens literature and also illustrate the power any paratext might have over texts.

Headnote

Keywords: peritext; allographic/ translatorial preface; (re)translation; (children's) literature; translator's visibility; adaptation

Abstract

The paper analyses the paratextual side of several Romanian versions of Daniel Defoes Robinson Crusoe published in the 19th century, with a view to emphasizing the ways in which the prefaces, postfaces and translators notes, penned in keeping with the moral values prevailing in the Romanian society at the time, are meant to prime or guide the readership. The editions under scrutiny are either translations of some adaptations or indirect translations (usually via German), yet richly endowed peritextuality-wise. Our main research aim is to account for the most frequent topoi covered in the allographic prefaces to four Romanian editions of Robinson Crusoe (one published in 1835, two in 1899, and one in 1900). The 1835 edition is particularly striking in that, although written in Cyrillic (as was customary at the time), it is highly readable (in transliteration) and extremely interesting as it contains a variety of paratextual elements (a Dedication, a Foreword, a Translators Note, two black-and-white illustrations, 19 encyclopaedic footnotes). In an eclectic, selfreferential, wide-ranging preludial discourse, the translator-turned-editor capitalizes on a deft preemptive defense strategy while taking on the huge responsibility of educating the reading public. Our conclusion is that the primary function fulfilled by these 19th-century paratexts is to persuade the readership: first, to buy and read the book, and then, to read it strictly as a religious parable. By isolating and imposing the moral dimension of Robinson Crusoe, these Romanian editions privilege the pedagogical stake of childrens literature and also illustrate the power any paratext might have over texts.

1. Introduction. Aim of the Present Paper

For Valerie Pellatt, prefaces and introductions appear to be the least impartial, the least denotative paratcxtual elements, yet also the ones meant to "prime" (Pellatt 2013: 3) or guide the reader. In what follows, we will examine the (im)partiality of a scries of translatorial prefaces, dedications, translator's (foot)notes and various other instances of what Fcltrin-Morris calls "loci of visibility" (2018: 10) and which supplement and complement the first Romanian versions of Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe (1719) published in the 19th century. Our paratextual investigation (essentially a matter of product-oriented research) starts from the premise that paratexts are documentary sources of paramount importance for translation theory.

In Romania, Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe was first translated in 1835. Between 1835 and 2022, a few dozen retranslations appeared (34, by our count), with two versions in particular (published in 1900 and 1943, respectively) being reedited countless times. Incidentally, this book's translation history is intimately linked with the history of both the Romanian nation and language, which evolved considerably over the last two centuries1. On the one hand, the social turmoil associated with the historical tribulations and trials naturally led to important changes in translation norms and ideology, which left an imprint on the series of retranslations under consideration here. On the other hand, the transition from the Cyrillic to Latin characters and some other orthographic reforms over time led to an unforeseen variety in terms of script, shape, typesetting, and layout of the Romanian versions.

Anatomizing the main stages in the translation history of Robinson Crusoe in Romania inevitably led us to consider investigating a sum of paratextual issues as well. Much to our astonishment, we noticed a paratextual dissymmetry between the translations published in the 19th century and the ones published in the 20th and 21st (with the latter being much less represented in both breadth and scope than the former). The six translations we were able to identify as published in the 19th century (1835, 1873, 1891, 1899(7), 1899, 1900) are endowed with an assortment of paratextual elements (prefaces, postfaces, translator's notes, footnotes, blurbs, dedications etc.). By contrast, in the 20th century, texts are only rarely accompanied by notes and prefaces (a notable exception being the only version the Communists approved of, published in 1943 and thoroughly revised in the 1960s, with a preface by the translator himself - art critic and historian Petru Comarnescu (1905-1970)). As for the 21st century, we may speak of paratextual scantiness (no prefaces, very few footnotes) with sporadic touches of "peritextual hybridity" (RisterucciRoudnicky 2008: 15) which, in this particular case, comes in the shape of very terse paragraphs (cither brief biographical sketches of Daniel Defoe or a sort of "Dummies Guide" to understanding the characters and the message of the novel).

The contribution essentially aims at discussing the extent to which these translations are acknowledged in peritexts (implicitly touching upon the translators' visibility. in Venuti's 1995 terms), as well as the extent to which the peritext may influence the reception or interpretation of the text. Despite its fragmentariness and dispersiveness, the information contained in prologues, introductions, dedications and notes can serve "as bridges so as to relate all the translations of one period" (Buesa Gómez 2003: 188) and thus contribute to both Translation Theory and Translation History.

2. Paratext-Related Translation Research

Given that we dwell on a corpus of Romanian versions of Robinson Crusoe (which, as part of what is commonly called crossover literature, has in time changed its target from the general public, initially, to children - better yet, to a dual audience2), with special focus on paratextuality, we need to take into account the research status in a number of fields: (Re)Translation Studies, Children's Literature, Literary Studies as well as Textual Linguistics - all of which could easily be subsumed under the general heading paratranslation (a concept coined by a research group at the University of Vigo, starting from Gerard Genette's (1997) tenet that there can be no text without paratext, and therefore, "neither can there be translation without corresponding paratranslation" (Yuste Frias 2012: 118)).

The last two decades have been instrumental in reviving the interest not only in children's literature as a literary, editorial, commercial product, but also in the paratext, especially when approached from a translatological point of view. Watts (2000) and Tahir Gürçaglar's (2002, 2013) works are of particular interest in the research on the subject.

It is in Palimpsestes that one finds a series of issues bringing this topic to the fore (i.e. Quand les traducteurs prennent la parole: préfaces et paratextes traductifs. issue 31/2018; Archives des traducteurs, issue 34/2020; also, Pascale Sardin's illuminating article "De la note du traducteur comme commentaire: entre texte, paratexte et prétexte" (in Palimpsestes 20/2007)). Collective volumes have also been devoted to paratextuality and translation (e.g. Alistair Rolls and Marie-Laure Vuaille-Barcan's Masking Strategies. Unwrapping the French Paratext. 2011; Anna Gil-Bajardi, Pilar Orero, and Sara Ro vira-Esteva's Translation Peripheries. Paratextual Elements in Translation. 2012; Valerie Pellat's Text, Extratext, Metatext and Paratext in Translation. 2013). The Romanian scholarship on the matter is also noteworthy, especially via Rodica Dimitriu's in-depth studies The Translators' Prefaces and Translation Studies: A Mutually Enriching Relationship (2007) and Translators ' Prefaces as Documentary Sources for Translation Studies (2009).

More recently, specialists have taken Genette's concept of paratextuality to a whole new level, by freeing it from conventionality. See, in this respect, Nitsa BenAri's influential chapter "The Translator's Note Revisited" (2021) (which points to a new phenomenon - i.e. "the comeback of the Translator's Note"), and Peter Jonathan Freeth's 2023 article on collateral paratextuality (a concept he coins in reaction to Kathryn Batchelor's notion of "consciously crafted" paratextuality (2018) and defines as "a paratextual relationship that is formed inadvertently, in parallel or in addition to another without the conscious intervention of a creator" (Freeth 2023: 426).

While there is no shortage of studies on Robinson Crusoe's (re)translatability in various languages (e.g. Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov's "Friday in Finnish: A Character's and (Re)Translators' Voices in Six Finnish Retranslations of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe" (2015); Veronica A. Razumovskaya's "Translatability of Robinson Crusoe; 300 Years Adventure in Time and Space" (2018)), there is still little research on the paratextual side of (re)translated Robinson Crusoe, which motivates our own research in the field.

3. Corpus and Methodology

Our corpus may conceivably not be exhaustive, yet it includes all the available Romanian versions of Defoe's Robinson Crusoe in the 19th century, which we present synoptically in the table below:

Up until the 1950s, other versions will continue to appear, at regular intervals: in 1908 and 1915 (anonymous, abridged versions); in 192? (an abridged version by Sarina Cassvan-Pas); 1921 and 1932 (anonymous adaptations); 1937 (a translation of an adaptation by I. Leonard and an adaptation by Ad. Z.); 1938 (adaptation by Sorin B. Rarcş); 1939 (anonymous adaptation); 1942 (an adaptation by Moş Ene [approx, the Sandman] - pseudonym of Mihail Drumeş); 1943 (Petru Comarnescu's versions, reedited in 1946, 1961, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2013, and 2015); 1945 (translator: Al. Lascarov-Munteanu); 1954 (story retold by Cornel Cincovschi); 1997 (anonymous version); 2002 (translator: Aretia Dicu); 2004 (translator: Nicoleta Radu, bilingual edition); 2006 (anonymous version); 2007 (translator: Magdalena Kis); 2008 (two versions by Cristina Nicolaescu and Alexandra Petrea); 2009 (adaptation by Talida Magheţi and Dana Scarlat); 2010 (translator: Irina Spoială); 2013 (two adaptations: George Huzum, on the one hand, Deanna McFadden and Răzvan Tanase, on the other); 2015 (a graphic novel translated by Mirella Acsente); 2017 (translator: Lucian Pricop); 2018 (two volumes translated by Andreea Florescu; another version, by Alina Loredana Brebeanu); 2022 (translator: Irina Chirica). However, it is the 19th-century versions that distinguish themselves by the particular attention invested in the paratext.

Mention must be made of the fact that all the editions which appeared in the 19th century and the former part of the 20th are actually either translations of some adaptations or indirect translations (usually via German). It is not until 1943 that the first (complete) translation relying on the English original was done. The mediated nature of these translations naturally has a bearing on the way Defoe's text was put forward to the reading public, but so does the paratext added by translators and editors.

In the current paper we understand paratextuality as a functional relationship between texts. Central to the approach is Genette's 1997 theory of paratextuality applied to translated texts. Notwithstanding, if with Genette, para-/peritextual elements were usually relegated to a specific set of subordinate texts commonly defined in line with authorial legitimation, the nature of our corpus (which rules authorial validation out) compels us to a perspective more in line with Kathryn Batchelor's Translation and Paratexts, where the following definition is suggested: "A paratext is a consciously crafted threshold for a text which has the potential to influence the way(s) in which the text is received" (Batchelor 2018: 142). The paratext we are going to look into, termed allographic by Genette (1997) (in analogy to authorial) is entirely the responsibility of people other than the author: editors, critics, translators etc.). Although made up of dedications, translator's notes, footnotes, images, blurbs, postfaces, in our corpus, it is the translatorial preface, the term coined by Genette (1997: 160), that reigns supreme. Or, as noted by Tahir Gürçaglar (2013: n.p.), prefaces created by translators are of special importance for translation history and research on translation in general, as they offer the readers "a rare moment of direct contact with the translator".

We will thus carry out a qualitative, descriptive analysis of paratextual material while relying on an eclectic translatological model encompassing an array of fairly disparate elements. For example, we will rely on a number of classifications of the functions fulfilled by prefaces (e.g. denotative vs. persuasive - a taxonomy inspired by Gerard Genette's 1997 study5; explanatory vs. normative vs. informative - a classification proposed in Rodica Dimitriu's 2009 study6; confession booth vs. bunker - a dichotomy put forward by Marella Feltrin-Morris (2016)7).

Our research questions are concerned primarily with the content and the type of paratext:

*What are the most frequent topoi covered in allographic prefaces8 in the 19th-century Romanian versions of Defoe's novel?

o (a subsidiary question being: Is the novel's age-old tension between the practical and the religious tangible in the prefaces?)

* To what extent are these allographic prefaces classifiable as denotative vs. persuasive, explanatory vs. normative vs. informative, confession booth vs. bunker (see the taxonomies above)?

o (a subsidiary question being: If paratexts arc the locus of (fragmentary) metatranslational discourse, to what extent do (normative) 19th-century prefaces address translation theory issues?)

Given the scarcity of data on the identity of the translators-preface-writers and editors, one of the limitations of the study is that of not being able to delve deeper into the the sociological side. Largely speaking though, the scanty information that we now have could easily account for the tenet that translators-turned-editors are more often than not "important figures in the target field with a high degree of symbolic capital" - as pointed out by Tahir Gürçaglar (2013: n.p.).

Although our investigation aims at the peritext, peritext and paratext (which includes peritext and cpitcxt, according to Genette 1997, but may as well include metatext) will often be used interchangeably.

4. An Overview of 19th-Century Paratextual Material: Discussion of Topoi and Rhetoric

All the prefaces, postfaces, and translator's notes attached to the Romanian versions of Robinson Crusoe published in the 19th century are heavily influenced (leaving aside the paratext of the intermediary versions, notably by the intermediary versions such Joachim Heinrich Campe's Young Robinson (1779)) by the original preface, purportedly penned by Defoe himself (London, William Taylor, 1719: iv). In this three-paragraph text, Defoe manages to advance one of the most famous literary mystifications of all time (introducing the novel as his character's autobiography, therefore as non-fiction), advertise the book as a most extraordinary account of a man's adventures ("If ever the Story of any private Man's Adventures in the World were worth making Pvblick, and were acceptable when Publish'd, the Editor of this Account thinks this will be so."), and propose the book for both education ("Instruction of others", "Instruction of the Reader") and entertainment ("the Diversion... of the Reader") while emphasizing the main aim of the book, namely "to justify and honor the Wisdom of Providence in all the Variety of our Circumstances". It is precisely this message that the first Romanian editions of Robinson Crusoe (published in the 19th century) will insist upon in their paratext: the importance of contrition and of morality in one's life, and the upshot of failing to comply with one's father's wishes (with Crusoe's father obviously epitomizing the Heavenly Father). Therefore, even if Robinson Crusoe can be viewed from two levels (theological and practical), the 19th-century Romanian Robinson Crusoe(s) privileged the moral tale over the adventure story. Rather than focusing on the thrilling experiences in the book, the paratext draws attention to and reduces the novel to the pattern common to spiritual autobiographies and religious allegories (a character/ narrator sins, ignores God's warnings, repents, and ultimately achieves salvation).

In what follows, we will see most of these elements illustrated based on a Romanians edition of Robinson Crusoe published between 1835 and 1900.

The 1835 edition is in all probability the first Romanian version of Robinson Crusoe, one that introduces Defoe's novel to the Romanian readers. It is, in actual fact, a translation of a famous German adaptation which Joachim Heinrich Campe published in 1779. We owe this version to Vasile Drăghici (1796-1861), a Moldavian writer of humble origins who later in life was granted the title of boyar following some administrative functions and intellectual positions he undertook.

Although written in Cyrillic (as was customary at the time), Drăghici's version is highly readable (especially if transliterated9). It is also extremely interesting from a paratextual point of view, as it contains a variety of elements, as follows:

* a Dedication to a governor who had commissioned the translation 18 years before the publication (Alecsandru Calimah - a "vomie" [an Internal Affairs minister]);

* a Foreword (in Romanian, Precuvântare)',

* a Translator's Note (însămnare in Romanian);

* two black-and-white illustrations;

* 19 encyclopaedic footnotes.

The front page features a centered, large-font title {Robinson Cruzoe) and subtitle (seau întâmplările cele minunate a unui tânăr ['or The Wonderful Happenings of a Young Man'], followed by an acknowledgement of the fact that it is the translation of an adaptation ("Compus de Campe" ['composed by Campe']) and an indication of the translator's identity (something of a rarity in 19th century Romania, unless the translator were a major political figure or a culture icon of the time): "Compus de Campe şi tradus pe Românie de Sardariul Vasile Drăghici" [composed by Campe and translated into Romanian by Vasile Drăghici, the "sardar" - i.e. either cavalry commander or middle-rank boyar]. Campe is taken for the real author of the original text (Defoe is never mentioned in this edition), and the fact that the translator's name is on the same par with what is believed to be the author's name points to the importance of Drăghici's symbolic capital as a man of culture. The front page also contains a colophon and other publication details ("în doă părţi. Eşii. Tipografia Albinei, 1835"): the publisher's name (Tipografia Albinei ['Albina - literally, the bee's - printing house']), the structure of the text, made up of two parts ("în doă părţi"), the year and place of publication (1835, Iaşi).

The dedication functions as a sort of preface, which the 19th-century translator, much like translators in the 20th century, uses as a kind of confession booth, where he admits the guilt and takes the blame for not publishing his translation for over 18 years. He starts by greeting the commissioner Alecsandru Calimah in a very ceremonial manner: "Cinstitului şi prea de bun neam boeriu, Milostivului mieu stăpân. Dumisale marelui Vornic Alecsandru Calimah închină această carte Sardariul Vasili Drăghici. Domnul meu!". An overly sycophantic style characterizes the terms of address (e.g. "cinstitului şi prea de bun neam boieriu" ['to the honourable gentleman of the best and noblest lineage']; "Milostivului mieu stăpân" ['to my merciful master']; "Domnul meu!" [approx. 'Your Lordship']) as well as orthography (certain words are in capital letters: "Milostiv," "Sardariu," "Vornic"). We can see here a common topos: that of putting the translation under the protection of someone, to whom it is dedicated, with the translator praising the protector while vigorously belittling onself (usually by declaring his linguistic incompetence), which is meant to justify the embarassingly gushing praise and gain the sympathy of the allegedly hostile readers - an artful deployment of preemptive defense).

At the beginning of the Dedication, Drăghici openly admits having actually begun working on the translation in 1817, for two main reasons: he thought the moral precepts taught by Robinson's story are useful for the youth, and also out of respect for Alecsandru Calimah, who had promised to help him print the translation. He then deplores not being able to publish it then, and invokes external factors (e.g. difficulties with the printers, social turmoil) as well as internal factors (i.e. his own lack of confidence as a translator who feared criticism: "...ispita mai proaspătă, facândumă a cunoaşte multele greşale a tălmăcirei copilăreşti, mau sfiit a mă lăsa în critica unui norod... ce negreşit cu feliuri de imputări maş fi văzut defăimat..." ['the more recent temptation which made me aware of the many errors in my juvenile translation deflected me from leaving myself to the mercy of public criticism, as I am sure I would have ended up pilloried for all sorts of lapses']).

Towards the end of his hugely apologetic dedication, Drăghici explicitly takes the blame for not publishing the translation sooner and hopes to make amends by printing it in 1835: "Cu adevărat ar ave cuvânt ama învinovăţi cineva pentru tăcerea, sau lenevirea me de atâta vreme, cum de nu am căutat prilej a să tipări mai de mult, âmi voiu da însă îndreptare." ['Anyone would be perfectly entitled to blame me for keeping silent and staying idle for such a long time, and for not looking for an opportunity to publish this text earlier, but I will now rectify the situation'.]. The translator also complains about the difficulty he had in sticking to the letter of the German text (which he considered to be the original) and admits to favouring targetorientedness: (".. .este mai greu ai da tocmai acel ca din orighinal curs, de cât numai că am păzit pe cât putinţa mau ertat cuvinte însuşite Idiotizmului naţional..." [6It is rather difficult to follow the letter of the original, yet I tried as much as I could to use words which our national language has already assimilated'.]). It is at this point that the exceedingly ingratiating tone of the Dedication is partly mitigated by a moment of self-reflection, which also testifies to the fact that Vasile Drăghici was familiar with the major tenets of traductosophy and of language evolution. It is equally at this point that Drăghici's preface ceases to be allographic10.

At the end of the Dedication (as well as all over the paratext), there is a constant preoccupation with emphasizing the educational role of Robinson Crusoe's story. The translator expresses his conviction that this text would be very instructive for young readers: "Cu toate aceste mă măgulesc a crede că pentru tinerime va sluji de un marc gust, şi tot odată ei prin aceasta să vor folosâ mult învăţând cele mai bune năravuri..." ['Nevertheless, I like to believe that the story will be very useful and enjoyable for young people, who will definitely draw lessons from it and will know how to behave...'].

The Foreword (in Romanian, Procuvântaré) is, in effect, a kind of sermon. The obsequious beginning is very similar to the phrases used in the Dedication: "Al Domnii voastre Prea Plecată Slugă, Vasile Drăghici Sardari. Eşii 1834, April 5." ['Your humble servant, sardar Vasile Drăghici, Iaşi, April 5 1834'.]. As a sort of lead-in, there is a paragraph emphasizing the educational role of books (i.e. reading): "...pe cât tinerii mai din cruda vrăstă vor avea în grijirea bunelor povăţuiri, şi măsura cuvenită bunei creştiri cu atâta mai mult iubirea lor de cinste cătră faptile bune urmează a spori, şi a să întări întru neprihănire..." ['The more young people are exposed to cautionary tales and to good manners, the more their love of honesty and good deeds will grow and the stronger their righteousness will get'.].

Then, a genuine code of good conduct unfurls before the reader's eyes. There are two major types of public targeted by this sermon-like speech: wives and parents. On the one hand, the Romanian society of the 1830s expected women (who are always referred to as gospodine ['housewives'] in Drăghici's text) to take good care of their husbands ("Nişte asăminea gospodine... ştiu acinsti încât să cuvine pe ai lor soţi..." ['Such housewives know how to properly honour their husbands...']) and home ("Casale şi mesăle acestora, să văd pururea împodobite de ce mai mare curăţănie şi bună rânduială..." ['Their houses as well as their dinner table are always maintained in cleanliness and order...']). Above all, however, what is expected of them is thriftiness ("...a ţine totdeauna cumpăna iconomiei..." ['to always spend wisely']; ".. .cât sânt de jălit acele case unde gospodinile nu ştiu de cât a cheltui fara măsură..." ['Those homes where housewives only know how to spend excessively are to be mourned'.]. References to Plato, to the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, to Peter the Great are also resorted to in order to reinforce the message about moderation and frugality.

The last part of the Foreword is devoted to discussing the parents' responsibility in bringing children up. Slowly but surely, the strikingly "visible" translator-turned-editor Vasile Drăghici reaches the very point he wanted to make from the very beginning (i.e. emphasizing the purpose of reading a book like Robinson Crusoe. which is meant to teach both parents and children right from wrong). Normativity is thus best illustrated here.

As for the third introductory text, entitled însămnare ['Note'], it seems to be a text written by Campe, which functions as a sort of frame for Robinson's story. The narrator speaks about a large family from Hamburg and their habit of listening to the father telling them stories every night. One of the stories, which the father prefers above all others, is actually Robinson's story. Then, when Defoe's text finally begins, we can see the same emphasis on the father figure, from the incipit all the way to the end of the book (as a matter of fact, the text begins with a heading: Tatai ['the father'] and changes the focalization of the original novel to suit the dramatic situation of Robinson's father (who lost his elder sons and ultimately depends on his youngest, Robinson) in order to elicit an emotional response from from readers (who may be parents, in their own turn, and definitely somebody's children)). One of the two black-and-white illustrations included in this edition equally depicts Robinson's father lecturing his son (while the other one shows Robinson by himself, on the island).

There arc 10 occurrences of năravuri ['(bad) habits'], 11 occurrences of cinste ['honour'], 6 occurrences ofpovăţuire ['guidance, advice'] in the paratextual elements described so far, which strengthen the sermonic, prescriptive quality of the paratext.

The three-tier preamble (Dedication, Foreword, Note) of the 1835 edition makes up the most substantial part of the paratext (and about 13% of the entire volume), but there are also other paratextual elements which round the book off. Apart from the two illustrations mentioned above, there are also 19 encyclopaedic footnotes (most of which providing geographical details about this or that proper name). For example, on page 15, there is a note enlarging upon Gvinea ['Guinea']: "Gvinea este o ţară în Africa, ocârmuită de mai multi stăpânitori." ['Guinea is a country in Africa, ruled by several sovereigns']; another one speaks about Martinique: "Această insula este una din cele mai întâi Caraibice, care să stăpâneşte de Franţezi" (p. 25) ['This island is one of the main Carribean islands, ruled by the French'.]; Pico de Tenerife: "Acest munte este înalt 13056 palme, ce este şi un vulcan purure fumător." (p. 31) ['This mountain is 130560 inches high and shelters an active volcano'.]. The fact that the text contains such footnotes (which are not all Campe's) testifies once more to the weight books had in educating the public.

The 1835 edition is of special bibliophilie importance for a number of reasons: being the first Romanian version of Robinson Crusoe; being a record of a particular stage in the development of the Romanian language; unveiling so much about the Romanian mentality on books, translation, society in the former part of the 19th century; contributing - as noted by Cutean and Mircea 2016, 55) - to the spiritual shaping of many important figures from the beginnings of modern Romania (e.g. national poet Mihai Eminescu (1850-1889), poet Vasile Alecsandri (1821- 1890), historian and statesman Mihail Kogălniceanu (1817-1891), ruler of Romanian Principalities Alexandru Ioan Cuza (1820-1873) etc. The conspicuous translator/editor duality which can be observed in the book's paratext shows Vasile Draghici (and, by extension, Romanian translators of the 19th century) as taking on the huge responsibility of educating the reading public, of cultivating (sometimes indoctrinating) the youth. The paratext of this edition can clearly be labelled as persuasive (to a much more extent than denotative). normative (to a much more extent than explanatory or informative - in Dimitriu's 2009 terms), and confessionary (see the confession booth vs. bunker dichotomy put forward by Marella FeltrinMorris (2016)). It is also self-referential (drawing attention to the paratext itself) to a larger extent than referential (drawing attention to the source text).

In all the other versions published in the 19th century the dual addressee is preserved and the concern to appeal to the parent as well as to the child-reader remains a must in both text and paratext. For example, in a succint postface, the 1899(?) editors express their desire to fill a gap in Romanian children's culture and provide translations from French, German, and English alongside Romanian folklore, all of which intended as reading incentives. What they offer is Romanian literature alternating every other month with translated children's classics. The scries - which is meant to attract teachers' and parents' attention - thus contains Romanian texts (Petre Ispirescu's fairy-tales, Dumitru Stăncescu's Snoave ['anecdotes'], Anton Pann's fables etc.) alongside Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Grigore Alexandrescu's fables, Berthold Auerbach's Little Barefoot and Joseph in the Snow. Romanian legends, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's Indian Cottage. Harriet Beecher-Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin etc. Aventurile lui Robinson Crusoe ['The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe'] - a 260page book - overspreads three consecutive monthly issues of the "Cărţile Copiilor - Samitca" series (i.e. from 4 to 6).

In a Notiţa Biografica ['Biographical Note'] he attaches to his translation of Robinson Crusoe published in 1899, Barbu Marian (1876-1942) lists Defoe's trials and tribulations as a merchant, a soldier, an editor, a politician, a writer (over 80 volumes), including being in prison for two years and losing his fortune 13 times. He then describes Defoe's book as instrumental in educating the mind as well as the heart and as having "o înrîurire covîrşitoare" ['an overwhelming influence'] on many generations of young people to whom it instilled "cele mai înalte adevăruri morale" ['the greatest moral truths'] (De Foe 1899: 3^4). Due to the simplicity of beauty of its style, Defoe's book "place ori-cuî, mic şi mare, tînăr şi bătrîn" ['Is enjoyable; everyone likes it, small and big, young and old'.] (De Foe 1899: 4). Unlike most prefaces, which display a tendency to "eulogise and fix the author in certain terms carried over across time" and to offer a "fictionalised and romanticised rendering of [the author's] biography" (Katsarka 2013: 346), Barbu Marian's displays an irreverent attitude to Defoe's legacy11.

Moroever, the translator cannot refrain from mocking Defoe for not acquiescing to the same fundamental value which had been promoted in the 1835 edition of Robinson Crusoe (i.e. thrift): "în amurgul vieţeî sale, De Foe a mai scris Desăvîrşitul negustor englez, slăvirea artei de a agonisi repede averi, artă în care el nu s'a priceput deloc; căci, cu toată munca-i harnică şi cu tot talentul său, a murit sărac, amărît şi de nerecunoştinţa fiului său." ['In the twilight of his life, Defoe wrote The Complete English Tradesman, in which he praised the art of amassing fortunes, an art he himself was really bad at; for despite all his work and all his talent, he died a poor man, upset, on top of it all, by his son's ingratitude'.] (De Foe 1899: 4) Although ludically phrased, these observations do more than simply draw attention to the way in which Robinson's misfortunes mirror the author's own fate; it also draws the alarm on the dangers of being reckless and defying one's parents. In 1899, just like in 1835, children's books were presented to the readers wrapped up in this moral(izing) discourse, thus advocating for self-discipline and subservience to one's elders.

In 1900, as the 19th century was drawing to a close, Radu D. Rosetti (18741964), a Romanian poet, playwright, short-story writer, attorney, and activist, produced yet another version of Robinson Crusoe. Although the prefatory comments of the 1900 edition arc kept to a minimum, they will be considerably expanded when reprinted later (1914, 1922, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1941, 1943 etc.) in order to better emphasize that Defoe's book is "cea mai interesantă, mai morală şi mai instructivă [carte]" ['the most interesting, ethical and instructive book'] (Defoe 1900/1943: 5), one which addresses both one's mind and one's heart, and manages to teach, not only entertain. As with the previous version, this one praises the beautiful, simple style which "ademeneşte şi pe oamenii maturi" ['lures adults, too, into reading it'] (Defoe 1900/1943: 5).

A salient feature of this preface (which is penned by the publisher this time, not by the translator) is the way it relies on references. According to Bokiba (1991: 84), highly recurrent references in the prefatory discourse allows for considering intertextual embedding as a sort of canon of the genre called translator's preface. We have here the endorsement of three specialists: French critic Ph. Charles (a quotation from Charles: "...omul aruncat singur [...] în faţa naturii şi a lui Dumnezeu [...] poate trăi numai prin munca lui..." ['the man facing all alone Mother Nature and God can only survive through hard work']), French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and German Joachim Heinrich Campe ("care a prelucrat opera lui Foè [...] făcând dintr'însa o adevărată publicaţiune pedagogică" ['who adapted Foe's work and turned it into a truly pedagogical publication'] (Defoe 1900/1943: 5)). The function of recommending the text is at work here, as the preface-writer quotes from writers "whose reputation is more firmly established than the author's" (Genette 1997: 268).

The preface to the 1900 version is also the first to fully acknowledge the text as a (valuable new) translation and to look back on the translation history of Robinson Crusoe·. "La noi, cea mai veche traducere e cea dela 1853 (sic!) [...] tradusă pe româneşte de serdariul Vasile Drăghici; o altă traducere veche este a lui Georgiu Popa, după Campe, apărută în 1873, în Pesta..." [Tn our country, the oldest translation dates back to 1853, translated into Romanian by sardar Vasile Drăghici; another old translation belongs to Georgiu Popa, done after Campe's text, and published in 1873, in Pesta'.] (Defoe 1900/1943: 6). It is, again, a matter of recommendation and persuasion, but the 1900 preface is the first to truly put the translator in the spotlight. The incipit of Rosetti's text, on the other hand, focuses, just like the one of the 1835 version, on Robinson's rebelliousness against parental authority (and the consequence thereof), on his immaturity and his faith in fatalism.

5. Concluding Remarks

When (re)translated into Romanian in the 19th century, Robinson Crusoe would usually be accompanied by prefaces which predictably do some (or all) of the following:

* explain the nobiliary particle de in Defoe's name by exposing it as a fraud;

* speak about Defoe's failure as a merchant;

* speak about the enormous success of Defoe's Robinson Crusoe;

* quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile (1762) and other authors/ philosophers in order to validate Crusoe as a fundamental book for children;

* present Robinson Crusoe as a book written in a style which appeals to both children and grown-ups;

* above all, introduce the book as a cautionary tale from which the reader should learn an important lesson regarding austerity in lifestyle and obedience to (parental) authority (and it is here that the marketing gimmick and dual audience convention is best seen, for parents and educators probably resonated with this educational side of the book, all the more so when blatantly advertized).

Whether preludial (most of them) or postludial, the peritextual elements analyzed here do not address the age-old tension between the practical and the religious. On the contrary, the undeniable influence of Defoe's own Preface and of Campe's "frames", which focus on the necessity of repentance, lead to a paratext privileging the moral and religious dimension of Robinson Crusoe. This is not so much about letting the dominant ideology of the time interfere with Defoe's message as a side effect of the intrinsically pedagogical purpose irrevocably assigned to the novel.

The primary function fulfilled by these paratexts is therefore persuasive, with the informative function taking second place. The prefaces can be considered normative only by imposing a certain reading of Defoe's text and a way of life. When it comes, however, to addressing translation theory issues, they are much less prescriptive, as translation norms are subdued by prevailing social/moral norms.

Even if prefaces to translations are known to function as "repositories of occasional statements about the theory of translation" (Buesa Gómez 2003: 194), we have only found two traces of metatranslational discourse: in the 1835 version (Drăghici's cursory reflection on target-orientedness) and the 1900 version, respectively (Rosetti's translation being presented in the context of translation history).

As early as 1835 (or even before, in 1817), Drăghici's translatorial preface, and the ones to follow, up until the end of the 19th century, managed to fulfill the main function of any preface (which may be summarised by the topos of docere delectandi), along with two secondary ones: the literary consecration function (giving the Romanian public access to a literary access) and the legitimization (and imposition) of a particular reading of the source text (namely, as a religious allegory). They also made translation (and translators) as visible as was possible at the time.

By contrast, the paratext of the Romanian versions published in the 20th and 21st century usually does the following:

* lay emphasis on Defoe as a versatile, prolific type, and a founding father (of journalism, of the English novel);

* put things in perspective (outline Defoe's place in English literature as well as in world literature);

* popularize other novels by Defoe;

* stress on Defoe's writings as based on a well-documented pre-writing material;

* explain the book's message in terms of colonialism, not only as a survival story;

* briefly describe previous translations with a view to showing off the merits of the latest version.

Therefore, if the prevailing functions of 20th-century prefaces are: informative, hermeneutical and commercial, those of 19th-century prefaces are referential, ideological, and pedagogical.

What our analysis aimed to show is that paratext is not only a zone of transition (as Genette presented it); it is equally a zone of transaction, a place where (editorial, marketing, cultural) strategy is put into practice. An area for future research could be to examine the actual responses of readers to these prefaces (which are equally worth exploring from an imagological point of view) and/or contrast them with other translated children's literature corpora.

Today's editions are more informative, hence more denotative, and less persuasive, less normative. They are no longer concerned with lecturing readers on the importance of obeying parents' desires, but rather with the fact that Robinson is, after all, an adventure book, which needs to be read and enjoyed as a survival story. 19th-century editions, on the other hand, put their consciously crafted paratext at stake in order to ensure both market success and future generations with solid (if rigid) moral principles. They illustrate the subtle yet tremendous role of paratext: "a fringe of the printed text which in reality controls one's whole reading of the text" (Lejeune 1975: 45).

Footnote

1 At the beginning of the 19th century, we could not even speak of a Romanian state (but rather of principalities, two of which - Moldavia and Wallachia - united in 1859). Yet it was not until the Great Union of 1918 that a genuine unification of Romania's historical regions took place, barely lasting until 1940 (when parts of the newly-formed country were lost to the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Bulgaria). Moreover, at the time of the first translation of Robinson Crusoe (i.e. 1835), the Romanian language was still in the process of settling down and texts were written in Cyrillic (the Latin alphabet was introduced in the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia only in 1862). The Romanian versions of Defoe's novel thus appeared first in Moldova and continued to appear when Romania turned into a kingdom (1881-1947), then into a socialist republic (1947-1989), and ultimately into a democratic system (from 1989 onward).

2 In her study The Narrator's Voice: The Dilemma of Children's Fiction, Barbara Wall distinguishes between: "double address" - used to label 19th-century works like J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan, in which narrators address children and also, (c)overtly, adults; "single address" - dominant in English-language children's literature since the early 20th century, which children being straightforwardly addressed; "dual address" - which presupposes that "a child narratee is addressed and an adult reader simultaneously satisfied" (Wall 1991: 36).

3 Back-translation (placed between brackets) belongs to the author of this article.

4 The exact date of publication is not known, but we infer it to be 1899, judging by the approximate date of the illustrations and the period in which the "Cărţile Copiilor" series appeared.

5 For Genette (1997: 267, 268), the main functions of allographic are concerned with informing (e.g. offering information about the creation of the work; biographical info; situating the text within the context of the author's entire oeuvre) and recommending (i.e. persuading the public to read buy/ read the book).

6 The explanatory function supposes explaining the translation for the readership; the normative/prescriptive function entails providing instructions or guidelines for other translators, while the informative/descriptive function involves offering information regarding the source text or the socio-cultural contexts.

7 "Translators' prefaces are posited here as spaces of individuality, which, much like the interiors of a house, offer countless design possibilities, to the point that translators, unaccustomed to such largesse, are often tempted to reduce the range of options to two basic floorplans: a) a confession booth; b) a bunker. The former collects all admissions of guilt and inadequacy with respect to an unmatchable original text. [...] The latter is hardly more appealing, as it implies that an invitation for a translator to speak is equivalent to a need to defend one's choices, and therefore, a need to turn an otherwise attractive setting into a shelter against possible attacks." (Feltrin-Morris 2016: 39-40)

8 See also Jing-yi and Sun (2015: 1083-1085), according to whom the most frequent points covered in translators' prefaces are: the translator's opinion or analysis of the plots or author's writing purpose; brief introduction to the original work; introduction to the author; translator's conclusion about the process of translation (problems, strategies used), and genesis of the original work, while among the less common are: definition of the genre; contextual information; introduction to the translated work; introduction to the translator; commentary of the title.

9 All the quotations from the 1835 presented here have been transliterated into the Latin script by Andrii Kapsamun (currently a PhD student at "Ştefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania).

10 In a footnote on the translatorial preface, Genette suggests that "the translator-preface-writer may possibly comment on, among other things, his own translation; on this point and in this sense, his preface then ceases to be allographic" (1997: 264).

11 Half a century later, in the Preface to his 1943 translation, Petru Comarnescu will describe Defoe in very similar terms, with but half-concealed disdain (see Hăisan 2023): there are four occurrences of "om mijlociu" [middle-class, but also mediocre man] to describe Defoe, who is equally presented as "iubitor de intrigi şi urzeli" [a devious schemer], an author utterly inferior to Homer, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and ignored by many illustrious contemporaries (e.g. Dryden, Swift, Steele, Addison).

References

Bibliography

Batchelor 2018: Kathryn Batchelor, Translation and Paratexts, London, Routledge.

Ben-Ari 2021: Nitsa Ben-Ari, "The Translator's Note Revisited", in Klaus Kaindi, Waltraud Kolb, Daniela Schlager (eds.), Literary Translator Studies, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 157-182.

Bokiba 1991: André-Patient Bokiba, Le discours préfaciel : instance de légitimation littéraire, in "Études littéraires", no. 24(2), https://doi.org/10.7202/500969ar, p. 77-97.

Buesa Gómez 2003: Maria Carmen Buesa Gómez, The Preface as a Genre in English Translations in the 17th Century, in "Estudios Humanísticos Filología" 17(2), p. 185-196.

Cutean, Mircea 2016: Smaranda Cutean, Gabriela Mircea, Un volum rar: „Robinson Cruzoe seau întâmplările cele minunate ale unui tanár" (Iaşi, 1835) şi câteva comentarii bibliografice şi istorice tangenţiale, in "Apulum", no. 53, p. 55-82.

Defoe 1835: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Cruzoe sau întâmplările cele minunăte ă unui tânăr, trans. Vasile Drăghici, Iaşi, Tipografia Albinei.

De Foe 1899: Daniel De Foe, Aventurile lui Robinson Crusoe, trans. B(arbu) Marian, Bucureşti, Editura Tipografiei Adeverul.

De Foe 1943 [1900]: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, trans. Radu R. Rosetti, Bucureşti, Cartea Românească.

Defoe 1943: Daniel Defoe, Viaţa şi nemaipomenitele aventuri ale lui Robinson Crusoe, trans. Petru Comarnescu, illustr. Mariana Petraşcu, Bucureşti, Editura Ziarului "Universul".

Defoe 1998: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, trans. Petru Comarnescu, preface by Andrei Bantaş, Bucureşti, Alfa.

Defoe 2007: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, Oxford/ New York, Oxford University Press.

Defoe 2022[2017]: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, trans. Lucian Pricop, Bucureşti, Cartex.

Defoe 2022: Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, trans. Irina Chirica, illustr. Mihai Bacinschi, Chişinău, ARC.

Dimitriu 2009: Rodica Dimitriu, Translators' Prefaces as Documentary Sources for Translation Studies, in "Perspectives. Studies in Translatology", no. 17/3, p. 193-206.

Feltrin-Morris 2016: Marcha Feltrin-Morris, Persuasive Spaces: Translators' Prefaces to the Divine Comedy, in "Forum Italicum", vol. 50 (I), p. 38-49.

Freeth 2023: Peter Jonathan Frecth, Between Consciously Crafted and the Vastness of Context: Collateral Paratextuality and its Implications for Translation Studies, in "Translation Studies", 16:3, p. 419-435.

Genette 1997: Gerard Genette, Paratext: Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge University Press.

Hăisan 2023: Daniela Hăisan, Donning an Editor's Hat: (ParafTextual Ambiguity in "Robinson Crusoe" (Re)TranslatedInto Romanian (1943), in "Anadiss", no. 36, p. 41-56.

Jing-yi, Sun 2015: X. Jing-yi, Zhi-xiang Sun, Changing Content of Translator's Prefaces: with Special Reference to China Yilin Press's Translated Publications, in "Journal of Literature and Art Studies", 5/11, p. 1081-1089.

Lejeune 1975: Phillipe Lejeune, Le pacte autobiographique, Paris, Seuil.

Pellatt 2013: Valerie Pellat, "Introduction", in V. Pellatt (ed.), Text, Extratext, Metatext and Paratext in Translation, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 1-6.

Risterucci-Roudnicky 2008: Danielle Risterucci-Roudnicky, Introduction à l'analyse des oeuvres traduites ['Introduction to the Analysis of Translated Works'], Paris, Armand Colin.

Tahir Gürçaglar 2002: Şehnaz Tahir Gürçaglar, "What Texts Don't Tell: The Use of Paratexts in Translation Research", in Theo Hermans (ed.), Crosscultural Transgressions. Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, Manchester, St. Jerome, p. 44-60.

Tahir Gürçaglar 2013: Şehnaz Tahir Gürçaglar, "Agency in Allographic Prefaces to Translated Works: An Initial Exploration of the Turkish Context", in Hanne Jansen and Anna Wegener (eds), Authorial and Editorial Voices in Translation 2 - Editorial and Publishing Practices, Montréal, Editions québécoises de l'œuvre, n.p., retrievable from: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/76f39872-8555-4d74-aac-35fdl0093ced (consulted in November 2023).

Venuti 1995: Lawrence Venuti, The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, London/New York, Routledge.

Wall 1991: Barbara Wall, The Narrator's Voice. The Dilemma of Children 's Voice, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Watts 2000: Richard Watts, Translating Culture: Reading the Paratexts of Aimé Césaire's "Cahier d'un retour au pays natal", in "TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction", 13(2), p. 29-46.

Yuste Frías 2012: José Yuste Frías, "Paratextual Elements in Translation: Paratranslating Titles in Children's Literature", in Gil-Bajardi, Anna, Pilar Orero & Sara Ro viraEsteva (eds), Translation Peripheries. Paratextual Elements in Translation, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, p. 117-134.