[
    {
        "id": 212263,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 205,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "182\n\nChinese Recorder, by one of the leaders of the conference. It claimed that Legge was making the Confucian Classics equivalent to the Old Testament. Legge's attempts to synthesize traditional Confucian views of God and man with Christian revelation, reflected, it claimed, an unrealistic assessment of modern Confucian ideology and Confucian bureaucracy. Taking Legge's thesis to its logical conclusion, it claimed, there was no substantial reason to promote Christian missionary efforts in China. Although it was clearly not Legge's intention to weaken the Christian missionary effort, these fears were felt by many missionaries.\n\n## II. Academic Misrepresentations\n\nLate in Legge's career at Oxford the translations of the Confucian sacred texts Legge had prepared for The Sacred Books of the East were attacked by Barthelemy Saint Hilaire. His conclusions were that there is basically no religion in China; the Chinese honour, he stated, no spiritual Being except Heaven (Tian, 天) thus contradicting Legge's discussion of the terms Shangdi (\"Lord on High\") and Di (\"Lord”). Hilaire ranked the religion of Confucius last among the world's religions, far behind even Graeco-Roman mythology, since it was built only on certain traditions, only had a human basis, and excluded all notions of divinity; while Confucius was admirable in his own milieu, his teachings only insult and degrade our intelligence. It would seem that Hilaire had not read Legge's texts seriously, and his views have not been much supported since.\n\nNevertheless, the fact that not all scholars accepted Legge's position raised some doubts in the minds of even some of his closest associates. In 1895, A.M. Fairbairn, Legge's close friend and founder of Mansfield College in Oxford, when completing a text on the philosophy of religion, was convinced by anonymous sources not to publish his materials on China (based heavily on Legge) because Legge's position was \"dated\".\n\n## III. Accusations of Interpretive Error\n\nIn 1895 Legge was confronted with a more subtle criticism. It came from an Austrian sinologist, Franz Kühnert. He wrote a criticism of Legge's translation of The Great Learning, basing his criticism on the standard interpretation of The Great Learning of the Song dynasty",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212285,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 227,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "204\n\ncolonial setting. Legge exemplified this role as a social prophet in both Chinese and English contexts in a number of ways.\n\nIn regard to the policies of the Missionary Society itself, Legge stood alone at times in his advocacy of treating Chinese colleagues as equals both in standing and in monetary compensation. Some missionaries felt this might cause too much pride among the first generation of Christians; Legge argued that a person who achieved the rank and fulfilled the duties deserved the pay, whether Chinese or Westerner,\n\nWhen given the opportunity to address the Hong Kong community at the end of his missionary career, Dr. Legge did not hesitate to speak publicly against the opium trade and gambling. This ability to distance himself on selective issues from governmental positions was in fact another aspect of his academic success. Unlike other European scholars who were bound to the directives of their religious and political superiors, Legge's Non-Conformist intellectual and spiritual disciplines were prompted by personal vision. When tensions arose between the government and the missionaries, they voiced their petitions as loyal citizens even if they opposed the government's attitudes and decisions.\n\nEven Legge's entrance into the community of Oxford University was coloured by his Non-Conformist commitments. The British Parliament having only five years earlier overturned a long-standing tradition that entering professors and students must publicly swear to belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Creed, Oxford academics were still somewhat wary about introducing a Non-Conformist into their community. Legge's character had to be upheld by supporters external to the university before he was admitted. Soon afterward Legge was acting as the Vice President of the Non-Conformist Union, remaining a major leader until the Union was handed over to A. M. Fairbairn of Mansfield College. Even though Legge was busy in the first years of his Oxford professorship in building up the number of students in his classes and completing the translations of the Sacred Books of China for F. Max Müller, he unabashedly communicated his personal concern and Christian witness to Oxford colleagues who were not Christians.\n\nVI. Legge's Commonsense Philosophy\n\nBasically a form of Neo-Aristotelean philosophy, the so-called",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212291,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 233,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "210\n\n12 Helen Edith Legge, James Legge: Missionary and Scholar (London: Religious Tract Society, 1905), pp. 37-38, and Lindsey Ride, op. cit., p. 10.\n\n13 Cf. Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China held at Shanghai, May 10-24, 1877 (Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1878).\n\n14 James Legge, Confucianism in Relation to Christianity (London: no publisher's details, 1877), 12 pages.\n\n13 In fact, Legge had no knowledge that the Term Question had been proscribed by the Conference's executive committee when he wrote his paper. Cf. Anonymous, \"The Shanghai Missionary Conference\". The Chinese Recorder (May-June, 1877), esp. pp. 242, 248. Legge had begun advocating his position on the Term Question in major debates begun in 1850. Cf. James Legge. An Argument for Shang-te as the Proper Rendering of the Words Elohim And Theos, in the Chinese Language; with Strictures on the Essay of Bishop Boone in favour of the Term Shin, etc. etc. (Hong Kong, 1850), 43 pages, and William Boone, The Notions of the Chinese Concerning Gods and Spirits: with an Examination of the Defense of an Essay, on the Proper Rendering of the words Elohim and Theos, into the Chinese Language. (Includes another of Legge's essays.) (Hong Kong, 1852), 166 pages. The best summaries of the Term Question I have found are in S. Wells Williams, \"The Controvery among the Protestant Missionaries on the Proper Translation of the words God and Spirit into Chinese”, Bibliotheca Sacra 35 (October 1878), pp. 732-778, and George O. Lillegard, A History of the Term Question Controversy in our China Mission and the Chief Documents in the Case (Jamaica Plains, Massachusetts: (printed as manuscript), 1930). James Legge himself summarized the issues from his perspective in A Letter to Prof Max Müller chiefly on the Translation into English of the Chinese Terms Ti And Shang Ti (London: Trübner & Co. Pub, 1880).\n\nRobert N. Nelson, The Chinese Recorder 8:3 (May-June, 1877), pp. 351-359. See my Some New Dimensions in the Study of the Works of James Legge (1815-1897); part [\". Sino-Western Cultural Relations Journal XII (1990), pp. 29-50, esp. pp. 46-49.\n\nBarthelemy St. Hilaire, Journal des Savants (Fevrier 1894) pp. 66–78; (Juin 1894) pp. 321-331; (Juillet 1894) pp. 381-392; (Septembre 1894) pp. 509-520. He had given an earlier review of the whole series edited by Müller in Ibid (Juin 1888) esp. pp. 311-314. St. Hilaire's position is summarised in the February 1894 (pp. 66-67) and September 1894 (pp. 513-519) Journals. On Fairbairn's actions, see W. B. Selbie. The Life Of Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London: 1914), p. 308.\n\n18 Franz Kühnert, \"Die Philosophie des Kong-dsy (Confucius) auf Grund des Urtextes. Ein Beitrag zur Revision der bisherigen Auffassungen”. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften, Band 132, (Wien, F Tempsky, 1895).\n\nOne of the scholars with whom Legge was particularly impressed when he produced the first edition of his Chinese Classics was the Ming Confucian, Mao Xihe (El). Still, Legge admired Zhu Xi's scholarship. In preparing his second edition (1893-1895) of the Four Books. Legge mentioned that he had become more and more impressed with the wisdom of many of Zhu Xi's renderings. This does not mean, however, that Legge was unwilling to disagree with Zhu Xi. See my \"Serving or Suffocating the Sage? Reviewing the Efforts of Three Nineteenth Century Translators of The Four Books with Special Emphasis on James Legge (AD 1815-1897)\", The Hong Kong Linguist, Vol. 7 (Spring/Summer 1990) pp. 25-56, esp. pp. 44-45.\n\n20 Arthur von Rosthorn. \"Confucius, Legge. Kühnert\": Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften, Band 135. (Kaiser. Adademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 1897), 21 pages.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    }
]