mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
A Critical Assessment of James *Legge*¡¦s Translations of the /Book of
Historical Documents /(/Shu-Ching/) and the /Bamboo Annals /(/Chu-Shu
Chi-Nien/)

Jiahe Liu and Dongfang Shao

Institute of History, Beijing Normal University

Department of Religious Studies, Stanford University

During a period of fifteen years of vigorous translation effort
James *Legge* (1815-1897), a 19th century Scottish missionary, completed
the first full edition of the /Chinese Classics./ This included the
/Analects/, the /Great Learning/, the /Doctrine of the Mean/, the
/Mencius/, constituting the /Four Books/, as well as the /Book of
Historical Documents/, the /Book of Poetry/, and the /Spring and Autumn
Annals/ accompanied by the /Zuo Commentary/. The English translation and
annotation of the /Book of Historical Documents/, as James *Legge*
called his publication of the rendering of the /*Shoo **King*/
(/Shu-ching/) in 1865, was the third volume in the
five-volume-in-eight-tomes set of the /Chinese Classics/ (1861-1872,
Hong Kong). It was the first of two translations of this Confucian
scripture by *Legge*, the second appearing as part of the third volume
in the /Sacred Books of the East /published under the editorship of F.
Max Mueller in Oxford in 1879. Nevertheless, it is this first
translation which has remained a standard work in sinological circles
for over 130 years, due in a large degree to *Legge*¡¦s extensive
¡§prolegomena¡¨ and multifaceted commentarial footnotes to this ancient
and complicated text. It arguably stands as one of the most important
sinological achievements of the 19th century, bridging the gap between
the two intellectual worlds of Qing scholarship and English sinology of
that time. In this article we intend to create a new, more comprehensive
and more nuanced assessment of *Legge*¡¦s monumental translation corpus
by examining his translations and assessments of the /Book of Historical
Documents/ and the /Bamboo Annals /that accompanied it.

I. Introductory Problems

One of the most startling problems in *Legge*¡¦s prolegomena is
the prominence he gave to the value of the /Bamboo Annals/ as a tool to
evaluate the textual reliability and chronological accuracy of the book
of /Historical Documents/. In the prolegomena, *Legge* added among other
special items an annotated translation of the /Annals of the Bamboo
Books/ (or what is now referred to more simply as the /Bamboo Annals/
[/Chu-shu chi-nien/]), an issue of some special and renewed interest to
some sinologists even today. This interest comes because of recently
renewed debates over the authenticity of the /Bamboo Annals/. The
Chinese traditional category of authenticity actually involves two
underlying claims: (a) this text was written at a single time,
essentially in a single impulse, and (b) it was written by or derives
wholly from the person whose name is now associated with it. In spite of
the numerous Ch¡¦ing scholars who had debated the reliability of the
/Bamboo Annals/ and judged it to be a forgery, *Legge* preferred the
contrary assessment of a contemporary Ch¡¦ing scholar, Ch¡¦en Fung-heng
(1778-1885). In fact, this choice of *Legge*¡¦s had very much to do with
the more significant problem of the status of the /Shu-ching /text
itself. For his part *Legge* was initially convinced that the ¡§ancient¡¨
textual tradition of that major Ruist (¡§Confucian¡¨) scripture was
reliable, and so he translated all 58 chapters of the text. Among the
commentarial notes prepared by *Legge* located among the notes in his
translation and not in the prolegomena are also extensive Chinese
passages criticizing the historical authenticity of the scripture
itself, manifesting *Legge*¡¦s growing doubts regarding the original
unity and textual credibility of this ¡§classic¡¨ (as he preferred to call
it). In fact, the /Shu-ching/ text is complicated by questions related
to ¡§ancient¡¨ and ¡§modern¡¨ textual traditions, involving extensive
problems related to layers of editorial traditions and its corruption by
forgeries. All of these questions *Legge* addressed after reading
broadly in the commentarial traditions available to him in the 1860s in
colonial Hong Kong. He himself took up a distinctively conservative
position about these matters which most scholars in China and abroad
would now rigorously question. This stands in contrast to Bernard
Karlgren¡¦s (1889-1978) /Glosses on the Book of Documents/, where the
latter refused to translate or comment on the 25 chapters of the ancient
textual tradition because he, like so many other 20th century scholars,
considered them to be forgeries. Another question worth noting is
*Legge*¡¦s use of the title /Shu-ching/, a title generally used in 20th
century contexts to assert the authority of the canonical text. As a
matter of fact, *Legge* was not motivated by this kind of cultural
agenda, and was merely following some Ming and Ch¡¦ing dynasty precedents
which referred to the text either by this title or by the more commonly
employed title, /Shang-shu/.

II. *Legge*¡¦s Justifications for Employing the /Bamboo Annals/ along
with the /Shu-ching/

In this article we discuss, after an introduction of several
general problems, the significance of *Legge*¡¦s use of the ¡§Bamboo
Annals¡¨ in interpreting the ¡§Book of Historical Documents¡¨, and the
justifications he presented for relying on the ¡§ancient¡¨ text traditions
of this major Ruist scripture. Among the technical issues involved in
*Legge*¡¦s extensive debate over the textual credibility of the
/Shu-ching/ was his critical employment of the /Bamboo Annals/ to
challenge certain conservative interpretive traditions among Chinese
scholars. There are, for example, questions about the historical
accuracy of solar eclipses mentioned within both the /Shu-ching/ and the
/Bamboo Annals/, issues taken up in more technical ways in an essay
*Legge* included within his prolegomena which was written by his younger
missionary colleague, John Chalmers.

Another major concern motivating *Legge* was his own skepticism
about the eulogizing traditions related to the feats of the Ruist sage
kings in ancient times. These included traditions recorded about the
highly honored Yao, the magnificent reign of Shun, and the miraculous
work of Yu in controlling the floodwaters throughout the land. Using a
method of ¡§reconstructive history¡¨ learned in Scotland, *Legge* sought
to recover what were the underlying historical facts beneath these
exaggerated traditions. In this process *Legge* employed the chronology
of the /Bamboo Annals/ as a critical foil to illustrate how alternative
and critical historical traditions within China had already tried to
decipher fact from fiction. While *Legge* consequently accepted the
¡§ancient¡¨ textual tradition of the /Shu-ching/ as the original text
precisely because this tradition upheld earlier and less critical
accounts about the ancient kings, he also investigated the historical
claims related to the forgeries of the ¡§ancient¡¨ texts and believed them
to be inconsistent. In this way *Legge* balanced two important
commitments on the basis of his reading of the Chinese academic
traditions on these issues. First, he did not believe there was enough
evidence to prove that the received ¡§ancient¡¨ texts were forgeries, a
position most 20th century scholars would refute. Secondly, he
nevertheless maintained a skeptical evaluation of the historical value
of the records themselves, applying a critical analysis of myths and
traditions that was far ahead of Chinese historical scholarship at that
time. While these criticisms were also motivated by historical concerns
related to his Christian assumptions about the nature of ancient
history, especially as they related to the ¡§Noahic¡¨ flood, *Legge*¡¦s
critical edge anticipates by fifty years similarly critical scholarship
published by Chinese scholars of the School of Ancient History Criticism
prominent in the 1920s.

III. Problems Related to the Historical Content of the /Shu-ching/

This moves us into a discussion of *Legge*¡¦s interpretation of
the historical data found within the scriptural text. Taking the
hermeneutic problem here very seriously, this involves a brief
introduction into *Legge*¡¦s Scottish academic background, his Christian
missionary interests, and his shifting position over time regarding the
worth and reliability of the /Shu-ching/ text. *Legge* promoted a
historical reading of the scriptural text based on three convictions.
First, the records related to Yao, Shun and Yu were exaggerated
traditions with questionable historical value; secondly, starting with
the rule of T¡¦ang historically reliable material is presented; and
finally, the material written about the Chou dynasty was recorded by
contemporary historiographers. He debunked the myths surrounding the
sage-kings in the /Shu-ching/. While errors in these positions are
pointed out, *Legge*¡¦s recognition of the historical epochs belonging to
what is associated with the ¡§modern¡¨ textual traditions is a genuine
academic achievement.

Errors and achievements are spelled out in great detail with
regard to how *Legge* identified certain historical issues within the
text. These include: (1) How he explored the issue of the origin of
Chinese people and related it to the original use of the term for the
¡§Middle Kingdom¡¨ (/Chung-kuo/); (2) How he discussed the political
systems of the early Chinese nation by focusing in particular on the
exaggerated and embellished accounts in the /Shu-ching/--how the common
people were given the authority to overthrow a tyrant *king* and an
ideal *king* arose to establish a new dynasty under the mandate of
heaven; and (3) How he analysed at length the problems associated with
the relationship between the Lord on High (/shang-ti/) and the authority
of kings, and underscored the traditional view that the rulers of the
Three Dynasties won the Empire through benevolence and lost it through
cruelty. As it seemed to *Legge*, the change of a dynasty would
ultimately be settled not by the degree of a ruler¡¦s morality, but
rather by military force.

*Legge*¡¦s claim here deserves further scrutiny. We should
continue to ask why the Chou people chose to understand this point as a
matter dependant on the relationship between humans and the divine, or
between humans and cosmic nature? The answer appears to have to do with
their will to replace ¡§/Shang-ti/¡¨ with the Duke Chou¡¦s more humble and
yet heroic stature. Rather than saying that the Chou forces were
victorious because they possessed the mandate of heaven, it would be
better to say that the Shang dynasty had lost the trust of the people
and they, the Chou, had gained the hearts of the people. Quite
autonomously, then, they came to the view that the mind of the people
was the basis for determining the will of heaven, and that this mind was
more reliable than the heavenly mandate. There is consequently clear
evidence here of a human spiritual awakening in questions regarding the
relations between humans and heaven in ancient China. It is important to
note that when the Chou people took to doubting heaven, they did not go
the way of the Greeks, that is, through forming democratic
constitutions. Instead, they assumed the path of demophilic
praxis--unravelling the will of heaven with the mind of people.

In a series of lucid and engaging analyses, *Legge* makes it
crystal clear that his major goal in research was to cause Chinese
people to look more critically at their own history and the records
about their sages, assessing them according to valid historical
standards, and so cease from promoting an uncritical admiration of them.
If they continued supporting a simply traditional attitude, then *Legge*
claimed as matter of political realism that there would be no hope for
Qing dynasty China in the face of its on-going confrontations with
imperialistically-mind European powers.

IV. Discussions about *Legge*¡¦s Translations of the /Shu-ching/ and the
/Bamboo Annals/

In the following section, we enter fully into critical analyses
of his translations of both the texts of the /Shu-ching/ and the /Bamboo
Annals/. As has been pointed out earlier, *Legge* was trained in
Scottish traditions that took very seriously the critical evaluations of
textual transmissions and previous historical statements. Even before he
had entered university studies the young *Legge* had been deeply
impressed by critical historical studies on the origins of Scotland by
the highly regarded Scottish classical scholar, George Buchanan
(1506-1582). Questions about the historical reliability of texts as well
as learning to read them critically were included in his university
studies in philosophy at *King*¡¦s College in Aberdeen. This was learned
and promoted particularly through the works of Dugald Stewart
(1753-1828), and then extended later as these principles were employed
in biblical studies during his theological training at the
Congregational seminary in Highbury, England. Any ¡§righteous decisions¡¨
he sought within the Chinese canonical work would be judged in part by
standards of the Neo-Aristotelian form of Scottish realism he studied as
well as the Nonconformist theological values he imbibed from his
theological work. We look in detail at the source materials *Legge*
employed for his renderings of the /Shu-ching/ and the /Bamboo Annals/
and discuss numerous problems that arise within these English
translations. To illustrate the significance of these problems we
compare his renderings to those prepared nearly a century later by
Bernard Karlgren (1889-1978) in his ¡§Glosses on the /Book of Documents/¡¨.

We initiate the critical discussion in this major section, which
constitutes the last half of our essay, with a careful analysis of the
materials *Legge* employed in pursuing his research before translating
both texts. At the end of *Legge*¡¦s prolegomena he provided an annotated
bibliography of all the sources he employed, making it possible for
informed scholars to carry out a careful analysis of his translations
and commentarial interpretations. While *Legge* was relatively aware of
the complicated textual history of the scriptural text itself, some
questions are raised about why he did not follow other critical
evaluations of these same texts which he had access to. Regarding the
commentarial texts he employed for both works, details are provided
regarding the texts *Legge* emphasized from earlier dynasties as well as
those of the Ch¡¦ing period. We make note of the critical work of the
Sung scholar, Wang Bo (1197-1274), whose well-presented doubts about the
historical authenticity of the scriptural text struck *Legge* so
strongly that he began in the latter half of his translation to add them
in Chinese to the end of each section. *Legge* by this means continued
to translate the full ancient text of the /Shu-ching/, but also
documented indigenous scholarship presenting relatively convincing
evidence that the text in various places was corrupted. One major
drawback in *Legge*¡¦s commentarial and translation work in this text is
his lack of utilizing Wang Yin-chih¡¦s (1766-1834) very important
commentaries. This is regrettable, especially since *Legge* did
recognize its worth later on and employed it for his translation of the
/Book of Poetry/ (/Shih-ching/). Further comments are also made
regarding *Legge*¡¦s use of philosophical source materials as well as
some of the rare texts which he had access to.

In translating and annotating the /Bamboo Annals/, *Legge*
relied generally on the interpretations of Ch¡¦en Fung-heng, but he was
in no way a slavish imitator or even a general follower of Ch¡¦en¡¦s
commentaries. For example, he sometimes offered mediating positions in
relating Chen¡¦s interpretation with different stances of other scholars.
In addition, a thorough presentation of a majority of the source
materials available to *Legge* in Ch¡¦en Fung-heng¡¦s work is provided,
manifesting the wealth of contemporary sources *Legge* employed in
assessing the text of the /Bamboo Annals/, even though sometimes
reliance on Ch¡¦en¡¦s work might account for some of the glaring omissions
of critics¡¦ work from his bibliography.

Problems in *Legge*¡¦s translations of both texts are documented
in detail, referring to the kinds of problems he encountered and then
illustrating them with specific and typical examples. Sometimes
comparisons with Karlgren¡¦s text are given, whenever it is interesting
and possible, in order to show the inherent difficulties of translating
these ancient texts into English. Particular problem areas relate to the
following kinds of translation challenges and errors: (1) Places where
the original text is difficult to understand in and of itself; (2)
Places where *Legge* misunderstood the scriptural text or ancient
commentaries; (3) Places where *Legge* accepted the errors of Chinese
commentators and repeated those errors in his annotations. Similarly,
details related to places where *Legge* erred or did not precisely
translate passages in the /Bamboo Annals/ are presented in eight typical
examples. These errors and misunderstandings are themselves
understandable, but do not decisively detract from the overall milestone
achieved by *Legge* in rendering both the /Shu-ching/ and the /Bamboo
Annals/ into English. Pointing out these several instances of
misunderstanding and shortcomings is in no way intended to lead to the
conclusion that the quality of work produced by *Legge* and Karlgren is
not high. These flaws by no means belittle the value of their works; our
criticisms absolutely do not carry these implications. Our concern here
is to show that in regard to the study of ancient literature such as the
/Shu-ching /and/ Bamboo Annals, /no one person has done a perfect job in
either translation or interpretation, and so there are still
opportunities for further research. In fact, their works have survived
because of their rigorous scholarship and unusual comprehensiveness, and
their interpretations have occasioned thought and discussion among
scholars. Consequently, both translations remain ¡§classics¡¨ of sinology
in their own right.

*Legge*¡¦s cultural achievement in both the translation and
interpretive analyses of the /Shu-ching/, /Bamboo Annals/ and their
associated commentarial traditions stands not only as a monument to his
own scholarly contributions to sinology, but also as a milestone in
Western academic studies of Chinese culture in general. Its influence on
the subsequent study of the history of ancient China and the ancient
world was without a doubt profound and enduring. Most scholars can of
course entertain their own views and analyses of the Chinese Ruist
classics, but none can deny that the problems raised by *Legge* were
enlightening. We conclude with further reflections on the value of
*Legge*¡¦s translations and annotations of both works, affirming their
worth as the contribution of a truly great Western sinologist of the
19th century, even in spite of its errors and misunderstandings in
translation and interpretation.

We feel obliged to offer here a final assessment of his
monumental work in translating not only the /Book of Historical
Documents /and /Bamboo Annals/,/ /but also the whole of the /Chinese
Classics. /As a translator of the ancient Confucian scriptures *Legge*
sought to be careful and precise, and succeeded in doing so far beyond
those foreigners who had tried to do something like this before him. As
a missionary-scholar he engaged himself for decades with what were
considered to be the noblest teachings of Chinese civilization; while
always self-conscious about addressing any relevant issues touching his
broad ranging Christian concerns, through the years he also gained a
greater appreciation for Chinese intellectual achievements and a more
precise account of the problems inherent in their ¡§classical¡¨ teachings.
Finally, as a cultivated gentleman he became an informed Chinese
observer and so increased in the strength of his religious and
intellectual convictions by means of his persistent and numerous
comparisons in cross-cultural religious and philosophical spheres. It
was particularly in these last two areas of critical appraisal that
*Legge* believed the best hopes for China rested, both for the Chinese
people in the Ch¡¦ing empire and for those in the future, as China fully
entered into the ¡§modern world¡¨.

Keywords: James *Legge*, /The Book of Historical Documents/
(/Shu-ching/), /The Bamboo Annals/ (/Chu-shu chi-nien/), Bernard Karlgren

**

¡ at