4

I have a book (Readings in Chinese Women's Philosophical and Feminist Thought). The main editor and translator is Ann Pang-White, but it also contains many readings reproduced from other pre-existing translations, all from different years and by different translators. It's a sort of sourcebook. There is a full list of these at the front. If I were to be citing a specific reading then I wouldn't have a problem, but at this stage I'm just citing the book in general and I don't know what to do.

  • Should I just leave the translators out? Maybe - the book itself and the introduction etc., technically aren't translated, just all of the collected readings within).

  • Should I just write "Pang-White, ed. and trans." as if she's the only one? (Also seems wrong?)

  • Should I list all the translators? Definitely seems wrong, as you would usually list these more like chapter authors than book authors with chapter-specific citations and we don't put all those names in our citations of a general book!

For reference, I am using Chicago Notes-Bibliography, and this is what I have at the moment:

Pang-White, Ann A., ed. Readings in Chinese Women’s Philosophical and Feminist Thought: From the Late 13th to Early 21st Century. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I do not use Chicago, and rarely reference translations, however the citation you have (copied below) seems appropriate, if all of Pang-White's translations are on the same tier as the others, as in, she wrote the introduction and also contributed translations.

Pang-White, Ann A., ed. Readings in Chinese Women’s Philosophical and Feminist Thought: From the Late 13th to Early 21st Century. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023.

If the introduction, etc. was also translated by Pang-White, it would make sense to write ed. and trans., as you have suggested.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .