[
    {
        "id": 212264,
        "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": 206,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "183\n\nscholar, Zhu Xi (TM※\n\nThe 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.\n\nTwo 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\n\nAnother 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?\n\nDuring 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\n\nIV. Distortions aimed at Discrediting Confucius\n\nLess 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",
        "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
    }
]