In 1974, TheClassicofTea: Origins&Rituals, translated by Carpenter, was the first complete English translation. This section analyzes his translations of tea wares and summarizes several noticeable translation methods in this version.

In translating Chapter Four, Carpenter predominantly used a domestication strategy for most tea wares.

Example 1:

鹾簋，以瓷为之。圆径四寸，若盒形。或瓶、或罍，贮盐花也。其揭，竹制，长四寸一分，阔九分。揭，策也。

Thesaltdish: It may be stoneware and if it is round, it should be four inches in diameter. It may, however, be in shape of a casket, or even a bottle or jar. It is meant to hold the salt. There is a spoon that goes with it, made of bamboo, and is four and one-tenth inches long by nine tenthes of an inch wide. It is like chopsticks.

The term cuogui (鹾簋) consists of two characters: cuo (鹾), meaning “salt,” and gui (簋), an ancient ritual vessel for holding food, typically characterized by a round belly and two handles. Lu Yu describes it in TheClassicofTea as “以瓷为之，圆径四寸，若合形。或瓶、或罍，贮盐花也” which means “made of porcelain, four inches in diameter, shaped like a box, or a bottle, or a jar, used for storing salt”. Hence, cuogui refers to a porcelain container for salt storage, resembling a box, bottle, or jar in shape. Carpenter translates it as “salt dish,” which accurately conveys the meaning of cuo but deviates in rendering gui. According to the OxfordEnglishDictionary, “dish” is defined as “a flat, shallow container for cooking or serving food,” which does not correspond to the box‑, bottle‑, or jar‑like shapes described in the source text. However, a closer reading reveals that Carpenter later accurately translated “in shape of a casket, or even a bottle or jar,” indicating that he understood the shape of cuogui yet still chose “dish” as an imprecise equivalent. The source of this deviation may lie in the absence of a direct lexical counterpart for gui in English culture. By opting for “dish,” Carpenter sacrifices fidelity to the object’s form and cultural connotation to ensure that readers immediately grasp its core function—namely, as a tool for storing salt. Although the cultural connotation is lost in this process, the translation achieves the effect of immediate comprehension for the target reader. In contrast, the Jiangs translate cuogui as “salt cruet.” The CollinsChinese‑EnglishDictionary defines “cruet” as “a small bottle or glass container that holds oil or vinegar.” Compared with Carpenter’s “dish,” the Jiangs’ translation more closely approximates the box‑, bottle‑, or jar‑like shape of cuogui as described in TheClassicofTea.

For other utensils, Carpenter’s translation method remains largely consistent. For instance, in the same passage, jie (揭), the accessory to the cuogui, is rendered as “spoon” based on functional equivalence. According to Shen Dongmei’s annotation in TheClassicofTea, “jie is a salttaking tool made of bamboo strips.” The character ce (策) originally referred to bamboo or wooden slips used for recording in ancient times, bound together into a book; Here it is borrowed to denote a flat, sliplike tool for taking salt. By translating jie as “spoon,” Carpenter does not faithfully represent the name of the utensil but retains its core function, enabling readers to understand it as a tea implement similar to a spoon used for scooping salt. Moreover, he adds “It is like a chopstick” in the description, further explaining its shape and compensating for the morphological information lost by the translation “spoon.”

Similar examples abound: ju (筥), a round bamboo container, is translated as “basket”; huojia (火筴), fire chopsticks, as “fire tongs”; and jiaochuang (交床), a lightweight foldable stool, as “stand.” Although these translations do not preserve the cultural connotations embedded in the tea ware names, they accurately convey the functions, allowing target readers to grasp the purpose of these implements.

In addition to free translation, Carpenter also employs cultural equivalents from Western life for a small number of utensils, substituting them for the tea wares appearing in TheClassicofTea with considerable effectiveness.

Example 2:

鍑，以生铁为之。今人有业冶者，所谓急铁，其铁以耕刀之趄，炼而铸之。

Thecauldron is made of pig iron although some of today’s craftsmen use the so-called puddled-iron process to make them. They are usually made from old plowshares or scrap chains.

Fu (鍑) is synonymous with fu (釜), an ancient cooking pot. It has square ears, a wide rim, and a slightly protruding center at the bottom to concentrate the fire. Carpenter translates it as “cauldron,” a word that evokes rich associations for English readers. In Western culture, the cauldron carries deep historical and traditional connotations. In Celtic mythology, it symbolizes rebirth and regeneration and is an indispensable utensil in ancient religious rituals. It is also described as a sacred vessel that bestows great power, abundant life, and prosperity, as well as a source of wisdom [6]. By choosing “cauldron” to render fu, Carpenter replaces the Chinese teaboiling vessel with a familiar and evocative image for Western readers. This cultural substitution allows English readers to immediately associate fu with the form of a large pot and its mystical overtones. Although the translation does not preserve the cultural connotations of fu as a Chinese tea ceremony utensil, it fosters cultural affinity for target readers and enhances readability.

Furthermore, Carpenter translates tanzhua (炭檛) as “stoker.” The character zhua (檛) originally means a horsewhip and can also be used as a verb meaning “to strike” or “to beat.” Tanzhua is a tool made of a hexagonal iron rod for breaking charcoal. Carpenter avoids common words like “stick” and instead chooses “stoker,” which refers to a person who tends a furnace on a steam train or steamship, or the mechanical stoker itself. By using “stoker” to translate tanzhua, Carpenter employs the image of a person or machine adding fuel to a fire to refer to the charcoalbreaking tool, vividly conveying its function. Although this translation does not capture the striking action implied by the original name, it clearly and concisely explains the tool’s purpose.

The above examples demonstrate that Carpenter essentially adopts a domestication strategy in translating the tea ware names in Chapter Four of TheClassicofTea. Rather than faithfully transmitting the names themselves, Carpenter prioritizes accurately conveying their functions to target readers, thereby reducing unfamiliarity and enhancing readability. His translation as a whole leans more toward utility-attaining than truth-seeking. In contrast, the Jiangs employ different methods in translating these utensils.

Given the long history of TheClassicofTea and its abundance of culture loaded terms, especially in Chapter Four, which introduces many tea wares unique to China, the vocabulary employed at the time has largely fallen out of use, creating considerable difficulties for translation. Consequently, the Jiangs also mostly adopted free translation, as exemplified by their rendering of luohe (罗合).

Example 3:

罗合，罗末以盒盖贮之。以则置合中。

TheTeaSieveandTeaBox：

After being rolled and sieved, the fine tea powder is stored in the tea box together with a measuring spoon called ze.

Luohe refers to a bamboo tea sieve and tea box. Ze (则) is a measuring tool, often made from clam shells or from iron, copper, or bamboo, shaped like a small ladle or slip. In the Jiangs’ translation, they split the term into its two components, freely translating luo and he as “sieve” and “box,” thus clearly presenting the functional orientation of each character at the level of the translated name. The method adopted by the Jiangs, though different in detail from Carpenter’s, similarly relies on functional equivalents to enable readers to quickly grasp the basic uses of these utensils. In their subsequent description of ze, however, they not only explain its function as a “measuring spoon” but also supplement it with the Chinese pronunciation ze.

The above example shows that both translations prioritize retaining the practical functions of the utensils, relying heavily on free translation. Yet, in comparison, Carpenter is less constrained by the original word formation and does not deliberately convey the cultural connotations embedded in the utensil names; his primary goal is comprehension by the target reader. The Jiangs, while also using free translation, combine it with transliteration and annotation, striving to preserve some phonetic features on the basis of explaining the tea wares’ purposes.

Take the translation of jie (揭, the salt taking utensil) as an example. The Jiangs render it as “curette.” According to MerriamWebster’sDictionary, “curette” is defined as “a surgical instrument.” By borrowing this medical term, the Jiangs accurately reproduce the elongated shape and scraping function of jie as a tool for scooping powdered salt. More notably, they further add the phrase “a curette called jie” in the text. In this way, transliteration preserves the pronunciation of jie, while the annotation clarifies its category and use. The target reader can thus intuitively grasp the utensil’s form and function through a familiar medical term while also perceiving its original name and pronunciation in the source culture. This achieves the dual goal of functional transfer and cultural preservation.

Take further the translation of fu (鍑) as an example. The Jiangs render it as “The Wok” and state at the beginning of the passage: “This tea‑boiling wok is called fu.” The word “wok” is defined in both CollinsDictionary and the OxfordEnglishDictionary as “a large bowl‑shaped pan used for Chinese‑style cooking,” referring specifically to the round‑bottomed frying pan used in Chinese cuisine. According to scholar E. N. Anderson in TheFoodofChina (1988): “Wok is a Cantonese word; the Mandarin is kuo. The wok appears to be a rather recent acquisition as Chinese kitchen furniture goes [7]”. Thus, “wok” is a loanword from Cantonese. It is generally accepted in academic circles that the term is closely related to the Cantonese word huo (镬) and gained popularity in the West along with the spread of stir frying, becoming a dedicated English term for the “Chinese pan.” From the perspective of utensil morphology, the prototype of the wok can be traced back to the high‑quality iron pans produced in Foshan, Guangdong, known locally as the “佛山广镬.” Based on photographs exhibited in the Chancheng District Museum of Foshan, the Guang wok, as the prototype of the wok, indeed takes the form of a wide‑mouthed, deep pan, which bears a notable resemblance to the shape of fu as described in TheClassicofTea as “方形锅耳、宽口缘、脐部略长使火集中于中心(square ears, a wide rim, and a slightly protruding center to concentrate the flame.)” By borrowing this word, which has deep roots in the Chinese language, the Jiangs not only accurately convey the utensil’s function but also evoke cultural associations through the “Chineseness” inherent in the term itself. What is more noteworthy is that they add “called fu” after the translated name, preserving the original name through transliteration. It can be said that the Jiangs’ translation preserves the cultural authenticity of the source text while also attending to readability.

In addition to the two methods discussed above, the Jiangs also employ literal translation for some utensil names, thereby preserving the word formation. This is exemplified in their translations of fenglu (风炉) and huojia (火筴).

Example 4:

风炉(灰承)

风炉以铜铁铸之，如古鼎形，厚三分，缘阔九分，令六分虚中，致其杇墁。

TheWindStove (with its ash holder)

Such a stove, in the shape of an ancient cooking vessel, is made of bronze or iron. Its shell is 0.3 inches in thickness. and its rim is 0.9 inches, with 0.6 inches bending inward to form a chamber, which is plastered with a layer of clay.

As Shen Rumei notes in her annotation, fenglu (风炉) is a major implement among the major utensils, designed by Lu Yu himself and inscribed with some of his philosophical ideas. Fenglu refers to a tea‑boiling stove shaped like an ancient tripod (鼎ding) and cast from bronze or iron. The Jiangs translate it as “Wind Stove,” using literal translation to map the two Chinese characters “风” (wind) and “炉” (stove) directly onto English. This preserves the morphological logic of the Chinese compound. Different from Carpenter, who employs “brazier”, the Jiangs choose to present the Chinese word‑formation directly to the target reader. Unlike the cases discussed above, where free translation or transliteration with annotation was employed, the Jiangs chose literal translation for terms such as “wind stove”, which consist of common Chinese characters and remain intelligible to target readers. By doing so, they preserved the morphological structure of the compound. This flexible approach to translation actually reflects the Jiangs’ attitude of “truth‑seeking”: they strive to retain the cultural elements embedded in the tea ware names to the greatest extent possible, without exceeding the limits of comprehensibility for the target reader.

In addition to “wind stove,” the Jiangs also adopt literal translation for huojia (火筴). Huojia refers to fire chopsticks, also known as zhu (筯 or 箸), meaning chopsticks. Huojia is made of iron or wrought copper, round and straight in shape. The Jiangs translate it directly as “fire chopsticks,” mirroring the structure by mapping “火”and “筴” to “fire” and “chopsticks.” Again, this preserves the word formation. This shows that when the source term is composed of common characters that have straightforward English equivalents, the Jiangs tend to use literal translation. By doing so, they not only retain the morphological structure but also enable target readers to visualize the utensil’s shape. In contrast, Carpenter translated huojia as “fire tongs.” “Tongs” typically refer to a hinged tool for gripping, which preserves only the clamping function of the utensil but fails to convey the shape implied by the original name. From this contrast, we can observe that Carpenter prioritizes conveying the function of the tea ware, whereas the Jiangs devote more effort to transmitting the cultural imagery.

The author has reviewed the 28 tea wares listed in Chapter Four in the two translations of TheClassicofTea (including three auxiliary items: the ash holder, jie (揭), and fumo (拂末)). Based on a comprehensive consideration of the translated names and related descriptions, the translation methods of the two translators have been further summarized. Overall, Carpenter chooses domestication strategies for translating utensil names, supplemented by occasional cultural substitution. In addition to the examples discussed above, such as cuogui (鹾簋) as “the salt dish”, jie (揭) as “spoon”, ju (筥) as “basket”, and tanzhua (炭檛) as “stoker”, other translated names not elaborated in the paper—such as ze (则) as “measure”, shuyu (熟盂) as “heat basin”, shuifang (水方) as “water dispenser”, and fumo (拂末) as “brush”—also exhibit the same orientation. From these translated names, it is not difficult to see that while Carpenter’s translations pay attention to readability, which also leads to a certain loss of cultural imaginary and even use identical terms for different utensils in his translation. For example, both fumo (拂末) and zha (札) are translated as “brush”. Fumo is a utensil for gathering tea, made of bird feathers and used together with the mill (碾 nian); whereas zha is a cleaning tool made of bundled palm fiber, shaped like a large writing brush. The two utensils differ in material, but because their functions are similar, Carpenter chooses the same word. In sum, Carpenter’s translation is dominated by free translation. While this approach enhances textual readability, it inevitably brings about repetition and loss of cultural detail.

In contrast, the Jiangs’ version exhibits a different orientation. They translate fumo (拂末) as “whisk” and zha (札) as “cleaning brush called zha”. The word “whisk” carries the meaning of “lightly brushing or sweeping”. Compared to “brush,” it better captures the characteristic of fumo. Although Carpenter’s “brush” conveys the basic function of a brushing tool, it fails to reflect its material and usage. At the same time, the Jiangs’ translation preserves the pronunciation of zha through transliteration and also explains its use. This treatment not only enhances the foreignness of the translation but also preserves the linguistic features of the source text to a certain extent.

As mentioned above, Translator Behavior Criticism proposes the “Truth-Seeking-Utility-Attaining” Evaluative Model of Continuum as a concrete model for measuring translator behavior, moving translation criticism beyond the simple binary opposition. By its very nature, the most authentic state of translation is the decoding and encoding; therefore, truth‑seeking is a necessary condition of translation, inherent to the activity itself. However, as volitional beings, translators inevitably have utility‑attaining goals and corresponding behaviors. Regardless of the type of translation, consideration of the reader naturally manifests as an expression of the translator’s utility‑attaining goal.

In concrete analytical practice, the positioning of translator behavior on the continuum should ultimately be determined through the specific translation methods identifiable in the target text. In other words, the methods a translator adopts in rendering each tea ware name constitute direct evidence for locating their behavior on the continuum. The present study aligns the different translation methods employed in the two versions with corresponding positions on the continuum: literal translation, which preserves the compound structure of the source term, is oriented towards the “truth-seeking” pole; transliteration with annotation, which retains the source pronunciation while supplementing a functional explanation, is situated at the “semi-utility-attaining” position; and both free translation and cultural substitution, which prioritize target-reader comprehension, are placed at the “utility-attaining” pole. In this way, the differing distributions of translation methods across the two versions serve as the operational basis for pinpointing each translator’s position on the continuum.

Looking at the overall use of translation methods by the two translators, Carpenter’s behavior leans more towards utility‑attaining. For his translation of the 28 tea wares, he predominantly adopts free translation and, in a few cases, cultural substitution. Whether it is the functional equivalence achieved by rendering cuogui (鹾簋) as “the salt dish”, the cultural substitution of translating fu (鍑) as “cauldron”, or the use of the same word “brush” for both fumo (拂末) and zha (札), it can be seen from his translations that Carpenter’s purpose is to enable readers to easily understand the functions and uses of these tea wares. This approach of sacrificing cultural connotations for the sake of target reader comprehension indeed greatly improves readability, but solely from the perspective of the translated names, it comes at the cost of simplifying cultural symbols to varying degrees. On the continuum, Carpenter’s translator behavior is highly concentrated; it can be said that his translation is dominated by utility‑attaining, with truth‑seeking playing a secondary role. Carpenter’s translation consistently prioritizes the transmission of function as its primary goal, while truth‑seeking towards the source text is placed in the second position.

Unlike Carpenter, the Jiangs’ translation employs a more diverse range of methods, and consequently their behavior is more dispersed on the continuum. According to the author’s statistics, among this translation, 15 cases adopt free translation (pointing to the utility‑attaining pole), 8 cases employ transliteration with annotation (pointing to the semi‑utility‑attaining position), and the remaining cases use literal translation (pointing to the semi‑truth‑seeking position). This distribution reflects the dynamic interaction of the Jiangs’ translator behavior between linguistic conversion and socio‑cultural considerations, enabling them to seek a balance between “truth‑seeking” and “utility‑attaining.” The Jiangs’ combined use of literal translation and transliteration with annotation aligns with their own stated translation philosophy. As they argue in their earlier discussion on the translation of tea classics, “foreignizing translation should be adopted at appropriate times to deliberately preserve the local cultural imagery of the source language.” [8] The distribution is summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Distribution of translation methods and continuum positions in the two versions.

Zhou Lingshun points out that “translation activity is never a pure language conversion but a dynamic process in which the translator constantly weighs and chooses between the two poles of ‘truth‑seeking’ and ‘utility‑attaining’.” The differences between the two translations are essentially the result of two different translation purposes. This can be observed from the prefaces of the two versions. Carpenter explicitly states his translation purpose in the preface: “This translation has been undertaken in fond hope that its shortcomings will not prevent its adding a measure of understanding between the peoples of the East and of the West. The efforts of West, especially America in groping toward a new relationship with China will be attended with success only to the extent that we will achieve a friendship between both peoples founded on mutual respect” [9]. It should be noted that this translation was published during the period of Sino‑US thaw in the 1970s, which provides a historical context for Carpenter’s emphasis on mutual understanding and friendship. By contrast, the Jiangs translated TheClassicofTea as cultural exporters. In their preface to the bilingual edition of TheClassicofTea as part of the “Library of Chinese Classics” series, they write: “各国人民的优秀文化正日益迅速地为中国文化所汲取，而无论西方和东方都需要从中国文化中汲取养分。正是基于这一认识，我们组织出版英汉对照版《大中华文库》，全面系统地翻译介绍中国传统文化典籍(the excellent cultures of the peoples of various countries are being absorbed into Chinese culture with increasing rapidity, and both the West and the East need to draw nourishment from Chinese culture. It is on the basis of this understanding that we have organized the publication of the bilingual edition of the Library of Chinese Classics to systematically and comprehensively translate and introduce traditional Chinese cultural classics)” [10]. This statement reflects their role as cultural exporters, who take it as their responsibility to introduce Chinese cultural classics to the world. Therefore, in their translation, they tried to preserve the local flavor of the source text as much as possible. Hence, their translation, on the basis of utility‑attaining, also gives consideration to truth‑seeking, striving for a balance between functional transmission and cultural preservation, allowing readers to both intuitively understand the function of the utensils through familiar words and perceive their names in the Chinese culture.