Abstract：The Doctrine of the Mean, a Confucius classic, has been translated into numerous Western languages over the centuries, with each translator providing their own interpretation. It goes without saying that an individual’s interpretation is inextricably linked to his or her cultural identity; additionally, cultural identity may have a significant impact on translations. Numerous well-known translators of The Doctrine of the Mean, including Roman Catholic missionary Michele Ruggieri in the sixteenth century, Protestant missionary James Legge in the nineteenth century, contemporary philosophers Roger Ames and David Hall, and the “cultural eccentric” Dr. Ku Hung-ming, all produced distinct translated versions rooted in their cultural identities. Ruggieri and James Legge literally translated tian, the concept in the source text, as “caelum”, a Latin word, or “heaven”, respectively, to ensure the equivalent meaning, at least linguistically, for a concept that is assumed to be unrelated to the Catholic or Christian God. They did, however, note in textual annotations that “caelum” or Heaven in Chinese culture is equivalent to God in the West. The numerous translations of this concept are determined by its translation philosophy, which is based on its own cultural identity. To the extent possible, Roger Ames and David Hall seek to replace western philosophical discourse with Chinese philosophical discourse in order to preserve Confucianism’s true meaning. They also, as it turns out, fail to transcend the constraints of Christian cultural identity. They “must do more than study Chinese traditions; they must work to transform them into a cultural resource capable of enriching and transforming our own”. Their motivation for translating Confucian Scriptures is a desire to advance their own culture. Dr. Ku Hung-ming declared emphatically his identification with Chinese culture in the preface to his translation of The Doctrine of the Mean. He translated the central concepts or words of the original text by quoting or adapting famous quotations from western thinkers in order to elevate the value of Chinese culture. This can be interpreted as a rational balancing of acceptance and restriction within the target culture. While this may distort the meaning of the original text, it is a plausible approach to the exchange of ideas between China and the West during a particular historical period.Although the translators’ cultural identity does not negate their desire to respect the original text, this desire is expressed primarily at the language level. When the fundamental concepts of the source and target cultures clash with each other, their cultural identities become immediately apparent. Not only does the cultural identity of translators manifest itself in the translation of Chinese classics by western translators, but also in the translation of translators with a Chinese cultural identity, as demonstrated by Dr. Ku’s translation, which emphasized cultural commonality over idiosyncrasy. The translator’s cultural identity is a recurring theme in the translation of the Confucius classic.The translation of classical Chinese texts is a social and cultural practice associated with a specific historical epoch, and its ideological content and form are determined by the Sino-western cultural relations and historical stage at the time. The translation orientation of classic texts establishes the goals and strategies for translation. On this basis, there is no need to resolve the conflict between the source-oriented and target-oriented translations.Discussing translation strategy selection or the gain and loss of translation orientation for classical texts without mentioning historical context is a one-sided way of understanding translating. The textual analysis of The Doctrine of the Mean reveals an intrinsic connection between the translator’s cultural identity and the interpretation of the text’s central concepts, as well as a connection between the translation strategy and the objective reality of history and culture, which will aid us in resolving the theoretical dilemma of Sino-Western cultural exchange.
吕世生. 《中庸》的多译本解读与译者文化身份认同研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(3): 62-71.
Shisheng Lü. Distinct Translations of The Doctrine of the Mean, the Confucius Classic and the Translator’s Cultural Identity. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(3): 62-71.
桑靖宇： 《朱熹哲学中的天与上帝——兼评利玛窦的以耶解儒》，《武汉大学学报（人文科学版）》2011年第2期，第21-26页。2 黎靖德编： 《朱子语类》卷一，北京：中华书局，1999年。3 罗明坚： 《天主实录》，见钟鸣旦、杜鼎克主编： 《耶稣会罗马档案馆明清天主教文献》，台北：利氏学社，2002年。4 Pfister L. F.， Striving for the “Whole Duty of Man”： James Legge and the Scottish Protestant Encounter with China： Assessing Confluences in Scottish Nonconformism， Chinese Missionary Scholarship， Victorian Sinology， and Chinese Protestantism， Frankfurt am Main： Peter Lang Publishing， 2004.5 Girandot N. J.， The Victorian Translation of China： James Legge’s Oriental Pilgrimage， Berkeley： University of California Press， 2002.6 Legge J.， The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits， Hong Kong： Hong Kong Register Office， 1852.7 Legge J.， The Chinese Classics： Confucian Analects， the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean （Revised Second Edition）， Oxford： Clarendon Press， 1893.8 朱熹： 《四书章句集注》，北京：中华书局，1983年。9 毛奇龄： 《中庸说》，见《四库全书存目丛书》经部第173册，台南：庄严文化事业有限公司，1997年。10 Ames R. & Hall D.， Focusing the Familiar： A Translation and Philosophical Interpretation of the Zhongyong， Honolulu： University of Hawaii Press， 2001.11 宋晓春： 《比较哲学视阈下安乐哲〈中庸〉翻译研究》，《外语与外语教学》2013年第2期，第77-80页。12 安乐哲： 《和而不同：比较哲学与中西会通》，温海明编，北京：北京大学出版社，2002年。13 辜鸿铭： 《辜鸿铭英译经典：大学 中庸》，王京涛评述，北京：中华书局，2017年。14 辜鸿铭： 《辜鸿铭文集》，冯天瑜标点，长沙：岳麓书社，1985年。15 王辉： 《后殖民视域下的辜鸿铭〈中庸〉译本》，《解放军外国语学院学报》2007年第1期，第62-68页。16 黄兴涛： 《文化怪杰辜鸿铭》，北京：中华书局，1995年。17 Ku H.， The Universal Order， or Conduct of Life： A Confucian Catechism， London： John Murray， Ltd.， 1906.
2022, Vol. 52 
