183
scholar, Zhu Xi (TM※
The correct interpretation of The Great Learning had become very controversial, partly because Zhu Xi and other Song dynasty scholars had freely reorganized the original text, and partly because there had grown up more and more disagreement surrounding Zhu Xi's interpretation of it. Legge was aware of these issues, having relied on later Ming and Qing dynasty criticism of Zhu Xi in his translation. Legge's practice, in both editions of his translation of The Great Learning, was to present the orthodox interpretation following Zhu Xi, but to reflect criticisms of it in some of his translation and in many of his commentarial notes." Kühnert assumed that the Zhu Xi interpretation was always correct.
Two years later, however, Arthur von Rosthorn wrote a concise critique of Kühnert's work, pointing out both its errors in translation and highlighting the more well-informed renderings which Legge had given the text.20
Another battle over Legge's Taoist translations prompted claims that he had not investigated original sources. Countering this Taoist "Leggism", Ted Kingsmill supported the renderings and interpretations of Herbert Giles, who himself made strong accusations against Legge. Most of Kingsmill's attacks were blatant misrepresentations; Giles' position was more well informed, but was based on sceptical premises Legge regarded as fallacious.21 Had the master translator unintentionally mutilated his Taoist texts?
During this century a number of less doctrinaire criticisms have been made, drawing attention to places where Legge made errors in translation, although the number of errors detected is surprisingly small.22
IV. Distortions aimed at Discrediting Confucius
Less than one year after Legge's death, in 1898, a Pastor P Kranz began a series of articles entitled "Some of Professor J. Legge's Criticisms on Confucianism." The persistent claim was that Legge had expressed major reservations regarding Confucius and Confucianism, and that these reservations were well justified. Kranz skewed Legge's intentions by adding emphasis to Legge's statements
183
scholar, Zhu Xi (%),TM*
The correct interpretation of The Great Learning had become very controversial, partly because Zhu Xi and other Song dynasty scholars had freely reorganized the original text, and partly because there had grown up more and more disagreement surrounding Zhu Xi's interpretation of it. Legge was aware of these issues, having relied on later Ming and Qing dynasty criticism of Zhu Xi in his translation. Legge's practice, in both editions of his translation of The Great Learning, was to present the orthodox interpretation following Zhu Xi, but to reflect criticisms of it in some of his translation and in many of his commentarial notes." Kühnert assumed that the Zhu Xi interpretation was always correct.
Two years later, however, Arthur von Rosthorn wrote a concise critique of Kühnert's work, pointing out both its errors in translation and highlighting the more well-informed renderings which Legge had given the text.20
Another battle over Legge's Taoist translations prompted claims that he had not investigated original sources. Countering this Taoist "Leggism", Ted Kingsmill supported the renderings and interpretations of Herbert Giles, who himself made strong accusations against Legge. Most of Kingsmill's attacks were blatant misrepresentations; Giles' position was more well informed, but was based on sceptical premises Legge regarded as fallacious." Had the master translator unintentionally mutilated his Taoist texts?
During this century a number of less doctrinaire criticisms have been made, drawing attention to places where Legge made errors in translation, although the number of errors detected is surprisingly small,22
IV. Distortions aimed at Discrediting Confucius
Less than one year after Legge's death, in 1898, a Pastor P Kranz began a series of articles entitled "Some of Professor J. Legge's Criticisms on Confucianism. The persistent claim was that Legge had expressed major reservations regarding Confucius and Confucianism, and that these reservations were well justified. Kranz skewed Legge's intentions by adding emphasis to Legge's statements
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.