Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2017, Vol. 12 Issue (2) : 249-264     DOI: 10.3868/s030-006-017-0018-4
Orginal Article |
James Legge’s Hermeneutical Methodology as Revealed in His Translation of the Daxue
ZHENG Shuhong()
Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Download: PDF(314 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

With a focus on The Great Learning (Daxue 大學), this paper explores the specific exegetical or hermeneutical methodology adopted by James Legge in his translation of this Confucian canonical text. It begins with an analysis of the translation theory endorsed by Legge, comparing his translation with those of Ku Hung-ming and Wing-tsit Chan. The second part aims to explicate the hermeneutic dilemma faced by Legge in his dealing with this text. It looks at the intellectual context in which Legge’s scholarship on the Chinese classics had developed, as well as the academic standard he was required to maintain throughout his translation. Overall, Legge’s familiarity with Qing scholarship makes it interesting to determine where and why he follows or rejects Zhu Xi. Given Legge’s Christian missionary background and the sense of mission pervading Zhu Xi’s commentary, we conclude that Legge’s affinity with Zhu Xi is much more subtle and complex than previously speculated: the difference in their approach to Confucian texts cannot be reduced to a contrast between construction and deconstruction or between canonization and decanonization.

Keywords James Legge      Zhu Xi      Daxue      translation      hermeneutics      deconstruction     
Issue Date: 24 July 2017
 Cite this article:   
ZHENG Shuhong. James Legge’s Hermeneutical Methodology as Revealed in His Translation of the Daxue[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 249-264.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
ZHENG Shuhong
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Frank Schalow. A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 377-394.
[2] James Garrison. On Cheng Chung-Ying’s Bentiyong Onto-hermeneutics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(3): 471-480.
[3] Jos de MUL. Horizons of Hermeneutics: Intercultural Hermeneutics in a Globalizing World[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 628-655.
[4] DING Weixiang. Zhu Xi’s Choice, Historical Criticism and Influence—An Analysis of Zhu Xi’s Relationship with Confucianism and Buddhism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 521-548.
[5] CHANG Yu , . The Spirit of the School of Principles in Zhu Xi’s Discussion of “Dreams”—And on “Confucius did not Dream of Duke Zhou”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2010, 5(1): 94-110.
[6] PAN Derong , . Reader and text in the horizon of understanding methodology: Gadamer and methodological hermeneutics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(3): 417-436.
[7] LIN Cunguang. A new interpretation of Confucianism: The interpretation of Lunyu as a text of philosophical hermeneutics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 533-546.
[8] WANG Huaping, SHENG Xiaoming. Cooperative naturalism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 601-613.
[9] GUO Qiyong. Mou Zongsan’s view of interpreting Confucianism by “moral autonomy”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(3): 345-362.
[10] CHENG Zhongtang. Logic paradigm in the “Mobian” investigation: From a hermeneutic point of view[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(2): 188-205.
[11] Zhang Xianglong. Flowing Within the Text: A Discussion on He Lin’s Explanation of Zhu Xi’s Method of Intuition[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2006, 1(1): 60-65.
Full text