Search

This paper aims to examine in depth the Latin translation of Mencius by the Belgian Jesuit François Noël (1651-1729), a masterpiece that assumes paramount importance in Western intellectual history. Included in his Sinensis Imperii Libri Classici Sex (1711), the translation is the first publication of Mencius in a European language. Jean Pierre Abel-Rémusat's (1788-1832) disparaging remarks of Noël's translation in the early nineteenth century have exerted considerable influence on the academic community for a long period of time, though Rémusat himself viewed the Latin language as an ideal medium for translating Chinese classics. A handful of contemporary scholars have attempted to redress the balance, but a formal study of this work is still lacking. This paper attempts to compare the manuscript with the printed versions of Noël's Mencius, and discuss some of the major differences between the two. Noël's work is full of protracted paraphrases of Medieval Latin, and this can be conceived as a product of cultural translation under the principle of domestication in early modern Europe. It is known that Noël attracted widespread criticism for his conscious effort to intermingle the text and the commentaries. However, as the Jesuits were evidently not able to translate separately the Four Books and the commentaries during the seventeenth century, it was necessary for them to add the commentaries to the text in order to make the translation more intelligible to the literati in the Western world at that time. For precisely the same reason, Noël's paraphrastic renderings did not only come from the original Chinese text and the commentaries, but also from his own elaboration. He ventured to combine the commentaries by Zhu Xi ... (1130-1200) and Zhang Juzheng ... (1525-1582) and rearrange the contents in an organized manner. Noël did not mention Zhang in his translation, yet curiously, he pointed to Zhang's Sishu zhijie?? in most cases when he quoted Mencius in Philosophia Sinica, particularly in the third treatise of the book. Noël referred to some other Chinese works as well in the interpretation of Mencius, including Sishu mengyin ... and Rijiang Sishu jieyi ..., but the quotations of these works in Philosophia Sinica were not necessarily found in his Latin translation. Scholars have put forward a number of explanations to account for the later publication of Mencius in Europe as compared with the other three of the Four Books. When we observe this Latin translation and some other evidence, the point that Mencius's ideas contradict the Catholic ecclesiastical views in fact does not constitute the most compelling reason for the exclusion of Mencius from Confucius Sinarum Philosophus published in 1687. It is worthy of note that, in the process of translation, Noël in general did not distort the original meanings of the words or sentences in Mencius that were apparently at odds with Christian philosophy, though there were cases where he misinterpreted the translated materials, intentionally or not, in Philosophia Sinica. Moreover, Noël was cautious in picking appropriate Latin words to introduce key concepts in Mencius as being part of his work to synthesize the philosophy of Mencius and Christianity. It was not rare for him to use two Latin words of similar meanings to stand for one Chinese character. The author seeks to prove that there is good reason for Noël to use pietas instead of humanitas (employed by Stanislas Julien [1797-1873] and Angelo Zottoli [1826-1920]) to translate the term ren ' in Mencius, and there is also sufficient evidence to vindicate his reluctance to differentiate cor and animus in translating xin .... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today, in the arena of Classical Chinese literature study, the term Jian'an fenggu is generally conceptualized as the representative feature of the literary works, especially poetry, of the Jian'an period (196-220). Some use the terms Han-Wei fenggu or Jian'an fengli instead, and "Han-Wei" refers also to the Jian'an period. However, despite the popularity of the term, the explicit content of Jian'an fenggu has been an issue under constant controversy. Re-examining the literary histories since the late Qing dynasty, one can notice the obvious growth of popularity of the term as well as rapid changes of its content. As a matter of fact, to conceptualize Jian'an fenggu as a representative feature of a literary epoch is a way of understanding literary history that comes along with the rise of new approaches to literary history writing. This paper traces how Jian'an fenggu becomes an unavoidable term in the literary history of the past few decades, in order to explain why the term is on the one hand widely adopted, yet on the other hand its meaning has never reached a consensus. This paper also tries to show how researches might be led astray by using the term casually without a full consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article centres on the text of the Great Learning associated with Zhan Ruoshui (1466-1560) and Fang Xianfu (1485-1544), as well as the interpretation of their positions. It explores the competitive reaction to it that rapidly emerged among the Neo-Confucian elites, and the impact of this competition on the highly regarded friends and mentoring relationships in the Neo-Confucian discourse during the formal establishment of Wang Yangming's (1472-1529) Old Edition of the Great Learning and its explanation. In specific discussions, this article focuses on the exchanges and debates related to the Old Edition of the Great Learning. First, it explores the progress whereby Zhan Ruoshui completely rejected the text of the Old Edition of the Great Learning at first, followed by showing passive acceptance towards it, yet actively involved himself in the dispute over interpretation of the book finally. Second, the paper reconstructs how a short-term mentor-student relationship was being established between Fang Xianfu and Wang Yangming, after which time the differences in interpretation of Old Edition of the Great Learning gradually became more distinct, leading to a philosophical parting of the ways with irreconcilable differences. Furthermore, we can reflect on the writings of future generations about the mentoring relationship on this basis as well. Indeed, the above discussion is important for us to observe why Neo-Confucian scholars were all competing in seeking to establish a new classic text and independent discourse at the beginning of the sixteenth century when the mainstream ideologies and classical foundation were being questioned. From this perspective, it will also lead us to consider the changes in characteristics of the friends, mentoring relationships, and schools in the Neo-Confucian discourse of that time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies of Chen Yinke's Lun Zaishengyuan focus mainly on how to reconstruct Chen Yinke's own secluded frame of mind when he was composing the work in his late years. However, the author of this paper thinks that, as a major piece of literary criticism in the study of tanci throughout the twentieth century, Lun Zaishengyuan deserves a close examination particularly with regard to the literary approach that Chen took in his investigation. Chen Yinke was the first scholar ever to make an intensive probing into the lyrical rather than narrative skills in tanci compositions. And, by doing so, he pla the genre in the grand tradition of classical and 61ite literature. Chen Yinke's perspective on Zaishengyuan goes beyond that of a feminist approach; it calls for a rethinking of the aesthetic quality of the tanci as well as a re-evaluation of the overall development o Chinese literary criticism and the direction it has taken since the early twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Xia Jingguan published six volumes of selected annotations of Tang, Song and Jin poems in 1940, one of which being The Poetry of Mei Yaochen. Mei Yaocheng's poems were highly acclaimed in the Song dynasty, but not in the Yuan and Ming dynasties. In late Qing they became popular again thanks to the Tong Guang School, in which Xia was the one who most strongly recommended Mei. We can examine the significance of Xia's annotations of The Poetry of Mei Yaochen in three aspects: first, the emphasis on the spirit of scholars hailed from a humble social origin and the gentleman's ideals in his poetics; second, the expression of aesthetic notions that synthesize Tang and Song poetics and develop infinite poetic realm; and third, Xia's recognition of Mei's fengya ... heritage and the impact of Xia's promotion of Mei's poems on the history of poems in modern studies of Mei's poems. The paper concludes by underscoring the values of Xia's annotations in regard to modern studies of Mei's poems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]