Navigating the Tension Between Christianity and Confucianism in Walter Henry Medhurst’s Translation of The Shoo King

Abstract

Walter Henry Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King (尚書/書經) represents the first complete English rendering of this classic Chinese text. However, limited attention has been given to how Medhurst navigated the tension between Confucian thought in The Shoo King and his own religious beliefs, as well as his treatment of this tension in comparison to James Legge, Joseph de Prémare, Walter Gorn Old, and his interpretation in contrast to Cai Shen’s annotated edition of The Shoo King. This study adopts a “history of the book” approach to examine how Medhurst, as a Protestant missionary, translated key Confucian anthropocentric concepts, including “Ren” (仁), the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, people-centered governance, and religious ideas related to the divine. Through extensive textual analysis and comparison with other scholars’ translations, this study finds that Medhurst adhered to the principle of textual fidelity, striving to minimize the interference of his religious stance with the original meaning of Confucian philosophy. His translation of terms varied according to the context, especially reflecting the shift in The Shoo King from the idea of “Heaven’s mandate is inviolable” to “Heaven is not trustworthy.” Additionally, he enhanced the communication of the original text’s meanings through paratextual elements such as illustrations and footnotes, while retaining Cai Shen’s historical background interpretations and significantly reducing the philological commentary, presenting a “concise and focused” annotation approach. These findings highlight Medhurst’s unique contribution to the cross-cultural transmission of the Confucian canonical text.

1. Introduction

Walter Henry Medhurst1 was born in 1796 in London. In 1803, his family relocated to Ross-on-Wye, a small town in Herefordshire, where his father, William Medhurst, took over a coach station. Growing up in such an active environment, Medhurst likely developed an early interest in distant lands. He enrolled at St. Paul’s School in 1807, but due to financial difficulties, he left in 1810. Subsequently, he apprenticed under Joseph Wood, the owner of The Gloucester Herald, in the printing trade. With a solid educational foundation, Medhurst became proficient in typesetting and printing while further developing his writing skills through magazine writing. In 1815, Medhurst joined the London Missionary Society and was assigned to Malacca, marking the beginning of his lifelong journey to the East.

The nineteenth century was a period of intense cultural and religious exchange between the East and the West, largely driven by the efforts of Christian missionaries. Among them, Protestant missionary Walter Henry Medhurst played a pivotal role in the development of English Sinology. He was instrumental in the translation of the Bible into Chinese, producing the Delegates’ Version (wei ban ben 委辦本 1852), and rendered several Chinese classics into English, including The Shoo King (1849), Dissertation on the Silk Manufacture and the Cultivation of the Mulberry (zhi si zai sang gai lun 制絲栽桑概論 1849), General Description of Shanghai and its Environs (shang hai xian zhi 上海縣志 1850), and Zhu Xi’s philosophy (1844). Medhurst also made significant contributions to the emergence of modern Chinese journalism, serving as chief editor for Monthly Magazine (te xuan cuo yao mei yue ji chuan 特選撮要每月紀傳, 1823–1826), News of a Nation (ge guo xiao xi 各國消息, 1838–1839), and Chinese Serial (遐邇貫珍, 1853–1856). He contributed to humanities education by publishing geography textbooks such as Geographical Catechism (di li bian tong lue chuan 地理便童略傳, 1819) and history textbooks, including Comparative Chronology (dong xi shi ji he he東西史記和合, 1829). His travel writings, including China: Its State and Prospects (1838) and A Glance at the Interior of China (1850), provided valuable insights into China for Western readers. In the field of linguistics, Medhurst published A Dictionary of the Hok-këèn Dialect of the Chinese Language (1832), Chinese–English Dictionary (1842–1843), and English and Chinese Dictionary (1847–1848). His influence extended to the publishing industry as well; he established the London Missionary Press in Shanghai, the first Western-style mechanical publishing house in China. As Sun Cigong eloquently noted, “The wheels of the London Missionary Press turn, sending hundreds of wonderful books across the world” (Wang 1875, p. 12).

Medhurst’s scholarly achievements have been widely recognized. Hong (1996, p. 201) observed that, in terms of linguistic accomplishments, Robert Morrison is far inferior to Medhurst in quality, quantity, depth, and breadth. Wylie (1867, pp. 25–40) highlighted Medhurst’s remarkable productivity, noting that he authored 59 works in Chinese and 28 in English—an exceptional output among missionaries in China. Samuel Wells Williams (1842, p. 159) remarked that, among all living Western sinologists of his time, none surpassed Medhurst. Ernest Box (1904) further acknowledged Medhurst as a pioneer of Protestant missions in China, alongside Morrison and Milne. These evaluations highlight Medhurst’s prominent role in promoting Sino-foreign cultural exchange.

The translation of religious terminology in Medhurst’s works has long been a focal point of scholarly debate, particularly in discussions concerning the Delegates’ Version (1847–1854) of the Bible. Liu Liyi’s PhD thesis (Liu 2013) was one of the few attempts at a comprehensive study of Medhurst, with a primary focus on the Bible. Patrick Hanan (2003) highlighted both the issue of selecting an appropriate Chinese equivalent for the term “God” and the prose narrative style employed in the Delegates’ Version. T. S. Foley (2009, p. 21) argued that Medhurst played a pivotal role in advocating for the widespread adoption of “God” as the English equivalent of “上帝” (shang di). Lovett (1899, p. 513) documented the evolution of the Delegates’ Version committee—comprising British and American missionaries—from initial cooperation to eventual discord over the “Term Question” (yi ming zhi zheng 譯名之爭). Wu (2000, pp. 216–17) further observed that these conflicts primarily arose from the reluctance of American missionaries to utilize indigenous Chinese terms to convey core Western religious concepts.

The cultural and philosophical tensions between Christian and Confucian worldviews are evident not only in the Chinese translation surrounding the Delegates’ Version, but also in the English translation of Chinese classics. However, the tension present in Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King has received relatively little scholarly attention. Since the time of early Jesuit figures like Matteo Ricci, missionaries have engaged with Confucian texts to construct a bridge between Christianity and Confucianism. Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King (or Book of Documents, 書經/尚書) represents the first complete English rendition of this classical work. An important question arises: As a Protestant missionary, did Medhurst prioritize Christian doctrine at the expense of Confucian values, or did he succeed in preserving the authentic essence of Confucianism? This paper critically examines the strategies employed by Medhurst in his translation of The Shoo King, exploring how he navigated the inherent tensions between these two religious and philosophical systems.

2. Analysis of Source Texts and Literature Review

The Shoo King, China’s earliest historical compilation, records the speeches and actions of rulers from the Yao, Shun, and Yu periods through the Western Zhou dynasty. During the reign of Emperor Chè-hwàng-té (circa 220 BCE), the burning of books led to the loss of The Shoo King. In the early Han dynasty, Füh-săng (260 BCE–161 BCE) orally transmitted and reconstructed 28 chapters of The Shoo King. These chapters, written in the clerical script (lishu 隸書), came to be known as the “modern” version (jinwen 今文). During the reign of Emperor Jing of Han (188 BCE–141 BCE), another version was discovered hidden within the walls of Confucius’s former residence. This version contained sixteen previously unknown chapters, written in pre-Qin scripts, and came to be known as the “ancient” version (guwen 古文). In the Eastern Jin dynasty (317 CE–420 CE), the scholar Mei Ze (梅賾) submitted a compilation of 58 chapters to the imperial court, which subsequently became the standard transmitted edition. However, the authenticity of the 25 ancient-script chapters included in this version has long been disputed, with many scholars suspecting them to be forgeries. During the Song dynasty, Cai Shen (蔡沈) devoted a decade to compiling concise and essential exegeses for all 58 chapters. Cai Shen’s Shoo King reflects the scholarly ethos of Zhu Xi (朱熹) and the broader tradition of Song dynasty classical scholarship, emphasizing interpretive clarity and succinctness (Cai et al. 2010, p. 3). Medhurst based his translation on Cai Shen’s annotated edition, interpreting both the “modern” and “ancient” versions. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the annotation style in Medhurst’s Shoo King. An anonymous scholar (1849) noted that Medhurst provided relatively few annotations, whereas Liu (2019, pp. 169–75) argued that Medhurst’s “thick translation” strategy integrated substantial historical and cultural research into his annotations. This raises the question of whether Medhurst’s translation faithfully adheres to the original annotated edition of Cai Shen remains a subject that has received limited scholarly investigation.

Since the eighteenth century, French scholars such as Joseph de Prémare and Antoine Gaubil had produced partial French translations. Joseph de Prémare’s works were subsequently included in Jean-Baptiste du Halde’s Description de la Chine (1735). Notably, Medhurst’s nineteenth-century version stands as the first complete English translation, facilitating the transmission of The Shoo King to English-speaking readers. While James Legge (1991, p. vi) recognized Medhurst’s proficiency in Chinese, he critiqued Medhurst’s Shoo King as overly hasty compared to Gaubil’s version. In contrast, Walter Gorn Old (1904, p. vii), who translated The Shoo King without consulting Legge’s version, drew upon both Gaubil and Medhurst, praising Medhurst for offering greater scholarly value than Gaubil, though also noting that a strictly literal approach diminished literary expressiveness. Minford and Lau (2000, p. 66), in their anthology of classical Chinese literature, included Medhurst’s translation of the Yao chapters, emphasizing that pioneering efforts like Medhurst’s paved the way for Legge’s subsequent “standard” translation. Shen (2024) concludes that Medhurst’s translation is more faithful to the original than Legge’s, while Rong and Li (2011, pp. 69–73) noted Medhurst’s focus on Confucian values stands in contrast to earlier missionary approaches, which were often critical or dismissive of Confucianism. Thus, research has revealed the value and contemporary significance of Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King. However, comparative research on how his translation handles Confucian thought—especially in contrast to the works of other translators such as James Legge, Joseph de Prémare, and Walter Gorn Old—remains limited.

Research on Medhurst’s motivations for translating The Shoo King is abundant. Liu (2019) suggested that Medhurst aimed to fill the gap in English-language Shoo King translations and deepen Western understanding of Chinese political and intellectual traditions. Shen Siqin further argued that Medhurst’s translation was intended to spark European readers’ interest, while Liu (2022) linked his translation motivation to the ongoing debate over biblical terminology. Li and Xiao (2016) noted that Medhurst’s work was also driven by educational needs at the Anglo-Chinese College, where advanced courses included Shoo King translation and interpretation. Wu (2018) emphasized that Medhurst sought to challenge Western biases against ancient Chinese history through his translation. However, studies on the specific translation strategies resulting from Medhurst’s translation motivations remain scarce.

Shen (2024) reviewed Medhurst’s Shoo King, primarily focusing on its domestication and literal translation strategies. However, she did not investigate the ideological tensions reflected in Medhurst’s translation, nor did she consider the underlying social context. Furthermore, while she acknowledged the inclusion of illustrations in the translation, she did not explore their purpose or distinctive features. Liu (2022), analyzing Medhurst’s translation within the context of the “translation of names” debate, did not present a case study or conduct a detailed textual analysis. Liu (2019) examined Medhurst’s strategies of addition and omission, as well as the structural composition of the translation, but did not address the tension between Christian and Confucian thought evident in his work. Collectively, these studies highlight the lack of research on the ideological tensions reflected in Medhurst’s translation, particularly from a case study perspective.

Based on the above review of the research, a central question emerges: How does Medhurst’s approach navigate the tension between Confucianism in The Shoo King and his own religious beliefs? Several sub-questions also arise: Did Medhurst faithfully translate Confucian ideas? What are the differences between Medhurst’s translation and those of James Legge, Joseph de Prémare, and Walter Gorn Old? Does a succinct or verbose style characterize Medhurst’s interpretation compared to Cai Shen’s original text? These questions provide a distinctive perspective for understanding his translation.

3. Methods: The Evolution of “History of the Book” and Its Implications for the Study

The concept of the “history of the book” was explicitly introduced by French Annales historian Lucien Febvre and bibliographer Henri-Jean Martin in their co-authored work The Coming of the Book (1958). This research paradigm embodies the Annales School’s notion of histoire totale (total history) and the empirical methodologies of bibliography. By viewing the book as more than a mere textual vessel, this framework enables the examination of both social culture and the materiality of texts within book studies. In the 1980s, Robert Darnton pioneered a new paradigm in the field with his essay “What is the History of Books?” (Darnton 1982), in which he developed the influential “communication circuit” model. This model emphasizes an interpretive strategy of “seeing the big through the small” and highlights the importance of addressing the core questions of “who,” “what,” and “how.” This approach highlights how the meanings of works are socially constructed and how the material form of the book contributes to their formation. Moreover, the “history of the book” is also concerned with the study of reading—an area that, since the late twentieth century, has emerged as a prominent and distinct research dimension. Roger Chartier’s edited volume, A History of Reading in the West (Cavallo and Chartie 1999), greatly enriched the field of “history of the book” through its contributions to sources, methodologies, and theoretical perspectives on reading. Furthermore, the “history of the book” places both textual and paratextual elements at its core. Gérard Genette (1997, p. 13) observed that paratexts encompass elements such as prefaces, footnotes, illustrations, and other materials that mediate readers’ engagement with texts, broadening the material perspective within the “history of the book”.

The “history of the book” provides a crucial theoretical framework for examining Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King, as it encompasses the essential pre-knowledge required for interpreting his translated text, thereby establishing a robust foundation for scholarly analysis. Firstly, the “history of the book” emphasizes the social nature of texts and calls for a comprehensive exploration of their social meanings and the underlying ideologies they embody. Since translation itself is a form of deep reading, it also offers insights into the translator’s psychological perspective. Accordingly, this study adopts both close textual analysis and a comparative approach to examine the sociocultural context behind Medhurst’s translation, the translator’s psychological motivations, and the strategies he employed. Secondly, Medhurst’s translation is regarded as a “materialized text,” which requires not only textual interpretation and lexico-grammatical analysis, but also a broader investigation of its paratextual elements—including prefaces, footnotes, illustrations, and appendices—in order to clarify the translator’s intentions and methods.

4. The Tension Between Anthropocentrism in The Shoo King and Theocentrism in Christianity

Although The Shoo King is fundamentally a historical and political chronicle, it conveys the ideal of achieving social harmony through individual moral cultivation by portraying the words and actions of historical figures, thereby presenting a concrete manifestation of anthropocentric thought in practice. In contrast, Christianity underscores the supremacy of divinity and the salvific role of faith. As a nineteenth-century translator with a Christian background, Medhurst was inevitably confronted with the ontological divergence between Confucian anthropocentrism and Christian theocentrism. Ren (仁), the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, and people-centered governance represent three key aspects of Confucian anthropocentric thought. This section examines how these concepts are transformed in Medhurst’s translation to elucidate his strategies for negotiating the relationship between anthropocentrism and theocentrism.

4.1. The Evolution of Ren

Ren occupies a central position within the anthropocentric ethical system presented in The Shoo King, as exemplified by the assertion that “The benevolent is a human being” (ren zhe ren ye 人者仁也). Ren’s fundamental principle—“the benevolent loves others” (ren zhe ai ren 仁者愛人)—is primarily manifested in the ethical domains of ritual propriety (li 禮), filial piety (xiao 孝), and moral virtue (de 德). Characterized by an inward-to-outward resonance of emotion, ren is rooted in genuine blood ties and is concretely embodied in familial ethics such as paternal kindness, filial devotion, and fraternal affection. This core virtue gradually extends beyond the confines of the family, evolving into a normative framework for broader moral practice in society, encompassing values such as respect, empathy, and altruism. The Shoo King vividly demonstrates both the concrete realization and the ideal embodiment of Ren through the words and actions of historical figures such as the Duke of Zhou, King Wu, and Shun. Medhurst’s interpretation of Ren reflects his understanding of the philosophical and ethical distinctions between Chinese and Western thought.

Example 1

Source Text: 既克商二年, 王有疾, 弗豫。二公曰：「我其為王穆蔔。」周公曰：「未可以戚我先王？」公乃自以為功，為三壇同墠……若爾三王是有丕子之責于天，以旦代某之身。予仁若考，能多材多藝，能事鬼神。(《周書·金縢》 Cai et al. 2010, pp. 152–53)

Medhurst’s Translation: Having subdued the Shang dynasty in the second year, the king became indisposed and disconsolate. The two dukes (his brothers) said let us on behalf of the king, reverently prognosticate. Chow-kung said it is not proper to grieve (the spirits of) our former kings (by such a public ceremony). Chow-kung then took the business on himself, and constructed three altars, with their terraces…and on you three kings depend your great descendant’s cause with heaven. (But if it cannot be otherwise,) then take me Tan instead of such a one’s person. My benevolence is equal to that of my forefathers; I possess many abilities and many accomplishments, and can serve the demons and gods. (“The Book of Chow, The Golden-Edged Casket” Medhurst 1846, p. 211)2

Firstly, from the perspective of sacrificial objects, the primary recipients of worship are ancestors or individuals of outstanding merit, marked by pronounced kinship characteristics in The Shoo King. This structure stands in sharp contrast to the monotheism of Christianity, in which God, as Creator and Redeemer, is worshiped without any kinship ties to believers. The case of the Duke of Zhou volunteering to die in place of King Wu at its core is the fulfillment of ancestral obligations rooted in blood relations (as the son of King Wen and brother of King Wu), represents the highest embodiment of the Confucian ideal of Ren—a concept of “loving others” grounded in familial affection. In Medhurst’s translation of this episode, he remains largely faithful to the Ren. His translation of “自以為功” (zi yi wei gong) as “took the business on himself” accurately conveys the Duke of Zhou’s initiative and sense of responsibility. The phrase “on you three kings depends your great descendant’s cause with heaven” effectively expresses the kinship-oriented nature of sacrificial practice in The Shoo King.

Secondly, concerning the qualifications for intercession, the Duke of Zhou’s right to intercede is grounded in the recognition of his virtue and abilities. In the Christian tradition, however, as the Son of God, Jesus transcends all worldly distinctions and, by his divinity and sinless humanity, assumes the role of savior; in this process, human virtue and ability are not decisive factors. Medhurst, through expressions such as “many abilities and many accomplishments he possessed” and “benevolence is equal to that of my forefathers,” seeks to establish the ethical legitimacy of the Duke of Zhou’s intercession by emphasizing his moral qualities, rather than invoking the notion of divine redemption that is initiated exclusively by God.

Nevertheless, Medhurst’s translation exhibits certain limitations concerning the philosophical connotations of key terms, the intensity of tone, and the expression of culturally specific concepts. For example, his rendering of “鬼” (gui) as “demons” is potentially misleading, as “demons” in the Western context commonly refers to evil spirits. Furthermore, Medhurst’s translation of Ren as “benevolence” does not fully capture its rich connotations; Ren encompasses not only benevolence but also filial piety, fraternal duty, loyalty, and forgiveness, collectively constituting the comprehensive ideal of Confucian anthropocentric ethics. Additionally, the Duke of Zhou’s self-comparison is specifically directed toward his father, King Wen, rather than his entire lineage. The use of “forefathers” in the translation diminishes the deeper significance of the Duke’s comparison to his father, a sage king.

Example 2

Source Text: 惟天地萬物父母，惟人萬物之靈。(《周書·泰誓上》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 124)

Medhurst’s Translation: Heaven and earth are the parents of all things: men are the most intelligent part of sublunary things; (“The Book of Chow, The First Part of the Great Oath” Medhurst 1846, p. 182)

Before launching his campaign against King Zhou of Shang, King Wu criticized the tyrant’s brutal acts, arguing that such atrocities violated the organic unity of all things and the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, thus essentially constituting a defense of the Confucian virtue of Ren. In this context, Medhurst translates “萬物之靈” (wan wu zhi ling) as “the most intelligent part of sublunary things.” The term “sublunary,” drawn from Aristotle’s cosmology, implies the existence of a divine realm above the moon and thereby disrupts the continuous and holistic cosmology of Confucian thought, which emphasizes the unity of all beings. Furthermore, Medhurst reduces “靈” (ling) to mere “intelligence,” overlooking the unique capacity of humans to participate with Heaven and Earth in the moral transformation and nurturing of all things.

Example 3

Source Text: 帝曰：「格！汝舜。詢事考言，乃言厎可績，三載。汝陟帝位。」舜讓于德，弗嗣。(《虞書·舜典》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 9)

Joseph de Prémare’s Translation: Chun, I have for some time made a trial of your fidelity to satisfy myself that you would not deceive my expectation, and that you will govern my people with wisdom; therefore, I invest you with my whole authority. Be rather their father than their master, and remember that I make you emperor not for the people to be your servants, but to protect them, to love them, and to assist them in their necessity. Reign with equity, and render them the justice they expect from you. (R. Brookes 1741, pp. 115–17)

Medhurst’s Translation: The Emperor said, Come, you Shun! Having studied your actions, and examined your words, I find that your conversation has been meritorious for these three years. You can therefore ascend the imperial throne. Shun, however, declined in favor of the more virtuous, and would not succeed to the throne. (“The Book of Yu, The Cannon of Shun” Medhurst 1846, p. 14)

In Description de la Chine, Joseph de Prémare’s abridged French translation of The Shoo King is included. This French work was translated into English by R. Brookes in 1736 and reprinted in 1741. A comparison of these two translations reveals significant differences in how Joseph de Prémare and Walter Henry Medhurst interpreted Confucian thought. Prémare’s translation is notably characterized by a strong tendency toward Christianization. For instance, the phrase “be rather their father than their master” transforms the narrative of Yao’s abdication to Shun into a Christian “Heavenly Father–people” relationship model, which is a typical manifestation of the 18th-century European Figurist (suo yin pai 索隱派) translators’ efforts to achieve a cultural substitution of Christian doctrine through the interpretation of Confucian classics. Moreover, the statement “I make you Emperor” positions Yao as the grantor of imperial power to Shun, while in the original text, both Yao and Shun embody the Confucian ideal of “inner sagehood and outer kingliness,” meaning that Joseph de Prémare did not translate the Confucian emphasis on the virtue of kingship. Additionally, Prémare’s translation includes additions that emphasize Catholic charitable ideals such as “protect them,” “love them,” and “assist them,” while framing the three-year evaluation of Confucian virtue as a period of “trial,” consistent with the eighteenth-century European Figurist movement, which sought to interpret Confucian classics as prefigurations of Christian doctrine.

In contrast, Medhurst consciously restrains religious interpolation. For example, the phrase “having studied your actions, and examined your words” indicates Medhurst’s faithful rendering of Shun’s accession by virtue. Similarly, Medhurst translates “让于德” as “more virtuous” and uses relatively neutral moral assessments such as “I find that your conversation has been meritorious,” thereby preserving the Confucian view of virtue. This comparison reveals a fundamental divergence in interpretive frameworks: Prémare’s version exemplifies the Catholic figurist effort to uncover Christian typologies within Confucian texts, whereas Medhurst places greater emphasis on the ontological significance of Confucian political ethics and the doctrine of abdication. The contrast between their translations thus reflects a broader hermeneutic shift in Christian engagement with Chinese thought—from a substitutive approach to a more dialogical one. Underlying this shift, Medhurst’s translation reflects the growing respect among Western sinologists for the integrity of Chinese cultural traditions following the nineteenth-century Protestant “Term Question.”

In summary, the translation of Ren in this section demonstrates that Medhurst does not adhere to a Christian-centered paradigm but instead adopts a more balanced, dialogical approach to intercultural translation. Specifically, Medhurst generally strives to preserve the core narrative of the original text, faithfully representing key Confucian concepts, such as emphasizing the kinship-oriented nature of sacrificial rites in The Shoo King and expanding on the implicit yet unspoken importance of virtue in the process of succession to the throne. However, in the translation of certain philosophical terms and cosmological concepts, Medhurst remains influenced by his own religious and intellectual background. Nevertheless, in contrast to eighteenth-century Catholic translators, Medhurst’s version shows notable progress in professionalism and respect for the ontological foundations of Confucianism.

4.2. The Doctrine of Original Sin Versus the Doctrine of Mind-Nature

Profound and fundamental differences exist between Christianity and Confucianism, most notably in their respective doctrines of Original Sin (yuan zui lun 原罪論) and Mind-Nature (xin xing lun 心性論). Within Christian theology, Original Sin is regarded as an inherent and universal condition of humanity, necessitating redemption through faith and divine grace. By contrast, Confucian philosophy—whether through Mencius’s assertion of the innate goodness of human nature or Xunzi’s argument for its inherent tendency toward evil—maintains a steadfast belief in the possibility of moral self-perfection through self-cultivation and ethical effort. These fundamental distinctions underscore the deep divergence between Christian and Confucian frameworks of moral thought and practice. Against this intellectual backdrop, it is particularly illuminating to investigate how Medhurst negotiates the tension between the Christian doctrine of Original Sin and the Confucian doctrine of Mind-Nature in his translation and interpretation.

Example 4

Source Text: 「人心惟危，道心惟微，惟精惟一，允執厥中。」(《虞書·大禹謨》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 24)

Medhurst’s Translation: The carnal mind is treacherous, while the virtuous feeling exists only in a small degree; be you therefore minute in distinguishing, and be uniform in maintaining, while you firmly grasp the due medium. (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of the Great Yu” Medhurst 1846, p. 51)

James Legge’s Translation: The mind of man is restless, prone to err; its affinity for the right way is small. Be discriminating, be undivided, that you may sincerely hold fast the mean. (Legge 1991, p. 61)

Martin Palmer’s Translation: The heart and mind of the people is fickle. So be careful: be constant, stay on the Middle Path. (Martin Palmer 2014, p. 63)

Medhurst’s translation does not escape the influence of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. First, Medhurst’s rendering—“The carnal mind is treacherous”—fails to accurately reflect the meaning of the Confucian phrase “人心惟危.” (ren xin wei wei) In Confucian philosophy, this phrase highlights the inherent volatility and instability of human nature, underscoring the necessity of self-cultivation and restraint. However, unlike the term “treacherous,” “危” (wei) does not imply notions of betrayal or malice. Moreover, the use of “carnal” introduces connotations of corporeality and worldliness, potentially misrepresenting the Confucian “human mind” as inherently tainted by original sin or base desires—an interpretation that contradicts the core principles of Confucian thought. Second, the translation of “道心” (dao xin) as “virtuous feeling” diminishes the rational and principled nature central to Confucian mind-nature theory. The term “feeling” in Christian contexts often connotes emotional susceptibility or instability, inadvertently suggesting a reliance on divine grace for moral guidance—an idea not present in Confucianism.

Nevertheless, Medhurst’s translations of the subsequent lines are comparatively more faithful. His rendition of “惟精惟一” (wei jing wei yi) as “be minute in distinguishing, and be uniform in maintaining” accurately conveys the Confucian call for attentiveness and sustained focus. Likewise, his translation of “允執厥中” (yun zhi jue zhong)—the earliest articulation of the doctrine of the mean in The Shoo King—as “while you firmly grasp the due medium” effectively encapsulates the Confucian ideal of moderation and equilibrium.

James Legge’s translation, employing terms such as “mind of man” and “affinity for the right way,” preserves the undertone of moral perfectibility, though phrases like “restless, prone to err” subtly introduce the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. Moreover, Legge’s rendering of “中庸” (zhong yong) as “mean” fails to communicate the rich temporal and ontological connotations of the Confucian concept, reducing it to a mere ethical technique and obscuring its broader cosmological significance, an area where Medhurst’s translation proves more precise. Palmer’s contemporary translation adopts “fickle,” drawing on the Buddhist concept of “impermanence” (zhu shi wu chang 諸行無常), and “Middle Path,” a direct borrowing from Buddhist praxis, resulting in a conceptual blending of Confucian mind-nature theory and Buddhist ethical cultivation. In Buddhism, the “Middle Path” possesses a specific soteriological meaning, thus making Palmer’s interpretation more aligned with Buddhist psychological balance than with classical Confucianism.

While Medhurst, Legge, and Palmer each strive for fidelity to The Shoo King’s original meaning, their translations are inevitably shaped by distinct cultural and philosophical paradigms. Medhurst and Legge, as nineteenth-century Christian missionaries, embed their work with assumptions derived from the Doctrine of Original Sin, which leads to an implicit metaphysical convergence of Confucian and Christian anthropology; Palmer, as a contemporary scholar, is influenced by currents of religious syncretism, with Buddhist ideas reshaping his reading of Confucian texts, at times at the expense of classical authenticity.

Ultimately, this comparative analysis of the Doctrine of Original Sin versus the Doctrine of Mind-Nature demonstrates that translation is intrinsically embedded in the ongoing dialogue and contestation between the translators’ worldviews and the prevailing intellectual currents of their respective eras. In other words, translators’ cultural presuppositions often lead to hermeneutic misunderstandings and inevitable semantic shifts. In this context, the ongoing retranslation of classical texts is not only an academic and social necessity but also an effective strategy for mitigating the risks of misinterpretation arising from cultural biases across different historical periods.

4.3. The Concept of People-Centered Governance

The Concept of People-Centered Governance (ming ben si xiang 民本思想) is deeply reflected in The Shoo King. It emphasizes the importance of the people as the cornerstone of the state, and asserts that leaders win the people’s hearts through moral cultivation and the fulfillment of social responsibilities, thereby ensuring the long-term stability of the state. In contrast, Christian political philosophy holds that the legitimacy of power primarily stems from the will of God, which contrasts with the principles of people-centered governance. A key point of exploration is how Medhurst navigated the fundamental difference between the Concept of People-Centered Governance and Christian thought regarding the source of power in his translation of The Shoo King.

Example 5

Source Text: 「與其殺不辜，寧失不經；好生之德，洽于民心，茲用不犯于有司。」(《虞書·大禹謨》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 23)

Medhurst’s Translation: Rather than put to death an innocent person, you would [prefer] to err in irregularity. These your life-cherishing virtues have instilled themselves into the people’s minds, exercising which they do not offend against the officers of justice. (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of the Great Yu” Medhurst 1846, p. 49)

This passage emphasizes that the value of human life transcends the absolute rigor of judicial procedures, thereby minimizing the need for excessive reliance on punishment. In his translation, Medhurst renders “經”(jing) as “irregularity,” thus reducing the original term—which denotes law and ritual—to merely behavioral or moral transgressions, thereby weakening the Confucian concepts of legal wisdom and the principle of “rule by virtue” (quan bian wei ren 權變為仁). Furthermore, the phrase “instilled into the people’s minds” suggests an externally imposed force, whereas Confucianism emphasizes the moral influence of virtuous governance, encouraging people to follow the law voluntarily. The use of passive construction in the translation may lead readers to misconstrue the passage as emphasizing external legal coercion, thereby overshadowing the Confucian focus on the autonomy and self-motivation inherent in “governance by virtue.” Finally, Medhurst translates “好生之德” (hao sheng zhi de) as “life-cherishing virtues,” which generally captures the original sense of respect for life.

Overall, while Medhurst’s translation broadly conveys Confucian concepts, its theocratic undertones result in a dilution of the significance and impact of the Concept of People-Centered Governance.

Example 6

Source Text: 「皇祖有訓，民可近，不可下，民惟邦本，本固邦寧。予視天下愚夫愚婦，一能勝予，一人三失，怨豈在明，不見是圖。予臨兆民，懍乎若朽索之馭六馬，為人上者，柰何不敬？」(《夏書·五子之歌》Cai et al. 2010, p. 69)

Medhurst’s Translation: our great ancestor said in his instructions, that the people ought to be cherished, and must not be trampled under foot; the people are the foundation of a country; when the foundation is firm the country is tranquil. I consider that throughout the empire, every stupid clown and simple dame can severally surpass me; (now if I) a single individual frequently err, then what need is there to wait for open complaints, is it not better to calculate beforehand on secret dissatisfaction? When I come before the millions of the people, I feel as much anxiety, as if one with rotten reins were guiding six horses. Thus for one who is the people’s superior, how can he dispense with respectful caution? (“The Book of Heà, The Song of the Five Children” Medhurst 1846, pp. 122–23)

This passage encapsulates the central role of Confucian People-Centered Governance in statecraft, and Medhurst’s translation effectively conveys the Confucian emphasis on securing the trust of the people as fundamental to national stability. Medhurst’s interpretation of “皇祖有訓” (huang zu you xun)—which attributes the concept of People-Centered Governance to the ancient sage-king Yu—underscores a Confucian tradition grounded in philosophical lineage rather than divine mandate, aligning with the secular and moral foundations of Confucian political thought. In addition, the metaphor “as much anxiety, as if one with rotten reins were guiding six horses” vividly conveys the ruler’s psychological burden and deep sense of responsibility in governing the state. This sense of responsibility aligns with Medhurst’s rendering of “民惟邦本” (min wei bang ben) as “the people are the foundation of a country,” which accurately reflects the Confucian view that the people constitute the cornerstone of the state.

However, Medhurst’s translation does not fully capture the egalitarian dimension inherent in Confucian People-Centered Governance. For instance, his rendering of “民不可下” (min bu ke xia) as “must not be trampled under foot” captures the emphasis on avoiding oppression, but it fails to convey the importance of fostering a respectful and harmonious relationship between ruler and people. Furthermore, the phrase “予視天下愚夫愚婦，一能勝予” in the original text illustrates the ruler’s humility, respect for the common people, and attentiveness to public opinion. Medhurst’s rendering of “愚夫愚婦” (yu fu yu fu) as “stupid clown and simple dame” introduces a mildly sarcastic tone with the use of “clown” and “dame,” thereby deviating from the original intent of respecting the wisdom of the people. Moreover, the term “天下” (tian xia) in Confucian classics generally denotes “all under heaven” or the entire civilized world, conveying an inclusive vision of universal harmony and moral governance. Medhurst, however, translates it as “empire,” a term associated with a specific political structure and imperial connotations. This choice significantly narrows the philosophical scope of “天下,” which, in Confucian discourse, transcends territorial and political boundaries.

Example 7

Source Text: 曰：「后克艱厥后，臣克艱厥臣，政乃乂，黎民敏德。」《尚書·大禹謨》 (Cai et al. 2010, p. 20)

Medhurst’s Translation: Yù said, when a prince can feel the difficulties of his princedom, and a minister is able to appreciate the responsibility of his stewardship, the government will be well-regulated, and the black-haired people will speedily attain to virtue. (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of the Great Yu” Medhurst 1846, p. 47)

Medhurst’s translation effectively captures the core political and philosophical principles of Confucian “People-Centered Governance.” First, his renderings of “feel the difficulties” and “appreciate the responsibility” clearly convey the essential Confucian ethical-political concept of overcoming hardship (克艱), emphasizing the need for rulers to possess vigilance and a strong sense of responsibility. Second, he accurately captured the political logic of Confucian thought—namely, “cultivating oneself to bring peace to the people”—and rendered it clearly in his translation: from each ruler (“a prince”) fulfilling their duties, to the achievement of orderly governance, and ultimately to the moral elevation of the people (“black-haired people”). In handling culture-specific terms, Medhurst adopts a foreignization strategy, translating “黎民” (li ming) as “black-haired people.” This approach not only avoids the cultural loss associated with domestication (e.g., translating as “the people”) but also preserves the original cultural imagery—black hair as a symbolic feature of the Chinese nation—ensuring that target-language readers both grasp the referential meaning and appreciate the cultural richness embedded in the source text.

Overall, in the section on translating People-Centered Governance, Medhurst thoughtfully reflects a clear understanding of the core logic of Confucian political philosophy. He emphasizes the ruler’s vigilance and responsibility, and faithfully renders the progression from fulfilling official duties to realizing effective governance and fostering moral development among the people. In addressing culturally specific terms, Medhurst adopts a foreignization strategy that preserves the original cultural connotations. However, his translation does not fully capture the egalitarian dimension of the relationship between ruler and people that underlies Confucian People-Centered Governance.

As reflected in

Table 1. Medhurst’s Translation of Core Confucian Terms.

Confucianism Concept	Target Language	Example
德	virtue, virtues, abilities, principles	玄德	retiring virtue (p. 13)	正德	adjust the domestic virtues (p. 45)	朕德	my abilities (p. 47)	德	virtuous principles (p. 58)
心	feeling, mind	道心	virtuous feeling	人心	carnal mind
仁	benevolence	靈	intelligent	中	due medium	孝	filial piety (p. 11)	性	virtuous nature (p. 137)
道	principles, ways, right way	道	right principles (p. 43)	天道	heaven’s way (p. 56)	厥道	right way (p. 123)
命	decree, regulation, orders, commands	方命	He disobeys orders (p. 10)	庸命	to follow out my regulations	眷命	regarded him with its decree (p. 42)	逆命	resisted the commands of the sovereign (p. 56)
民	people	民夷	people would be more at ease	下民	lower people (p. 10)	黎民	black-haired people (p. 41)	凡人	Common people (p. 293)
禮	ceremonies, offerings, propriety	禮于六宗	Pure offering (p. 18)	岱禮\西禮	Ceremonies (p. 23)	以禮制心	by propriety correcting your mind (p. 135)
天下	empire	天下君	empire’s chief (p. 42)	天下	throughout the empire (p. 51, p. 122)

Table Note. General translations are not marked with page numbers, whereas words, particularly those appearing for the first time or infrequently used, are indicated with their respective page numbers.

, Medhurst adopts a diversified and flexible strategy in translating core concepts of Anthropocentrism. For “德” (de), he variously employs “virtue,” emphasizing intrinsic moral cultivation; “abilities,” highlighting practical and political competence; and “principles,” underlining its normative dimension. The use of “abilities” further reveals Medhurst’s awareness of the functional aspect of Confucian virtue in governance and social practice. In translating “心” (xin), Medhurst utilizes both “feeling” and “mind,” thereby capturing both the affective and rational dimensions. However, his translation of “人心” as “carnal mind” introduces a distinctly Christian notion of original sin, reflecting the cultural and religious boundaries inherent to his missionary identity. For “道” (dao), Medhurst generally uses “way” or “principles,” effectively integrating the practical and metaphysical implications of the term, and, importantly, avoids conflating it with the Christian “Logos,” demonstrating academic awareness in maintaining terminological distinction. His translation of “禮” (li)—for example, “pure offering” for “禮于六宗”—demonstrates an intersection with Christian sacrificial concepts, while the rendering “by propriety correcting your mind” for “以禮制心” de-emphasizes hierarchy and instead accentuates moral cultivation. For “命” (ming), he adopts “decree” or “orders,” which foregrounds subjective agency in the Confucian Mandate of Heaven, standing in contrast to the Christian notion of “providence” and God’s absolute sovereignty. In sum, while Medhurst was able to adopt varied translations according to different contexts rather than adhering to rigid or literal renderings, his religious background inevitably introduced certain limitations in conveying core Confucian concepts.

Through detailed textual analysis, this chapter has systematically examined the translation and reinterpretation of the Ren doctrine, the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, and the concept of People-Centered Governance—all of which are closely tied to anthropocentrism. First, Medhurst’s translation of Ren largely preserves the core values of ancestral responsibility, filial piety, and familial affection expressed in ritual, foregrounding moral emulation rather than divine redemption and thus reflecting a pronounced Confucian ethical consciousness. Notably, compared to eighteenth-century Catholic translations, Medhurst reduces theological reinterpretation and demonstrates greater respect for Confucian ontology. Second, in rendering the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, certain lexical choices—shaped by Medhurst’s religious and philosophical background—result in semantic misunderstandings. Nevertheless, in comparison with translators such as James Legge and Palmer, Medhurst’s approach more effectively captures the Confucian ideals of focus, moderation, and equilibrium in both scholarship and governance. Third, about People-Centered Governance, Medhurst’s version effectively reconstructs the Confucian logic of rule by virtue and “cultivating oneself to bring peace to the people,” emphasizing the hierarchical progression of virtue from ruler to subject. However, some limitations persist in fully expressing the egalitarian dimension of Confucian political thought. Overall, this chapter demonstrates that Medhurst exhibited a higher degree of respect and scholarly rigor in engaging with Confucian thought than his contemporaries and earlier translators. However, constrained by his historical context and missionary identity, he was not entirely able to overcome the tendency to Christianize certain core Confucian concepts.

5. The Translation of Religious Concepts Associated with Divine

In The Shoo King, the concepts of Heaven (tian 天), God (di 帝), and Spirits (shen 神) serve as carriers of the relationship between the divine and human realms. As noted by Huang (2019, p. 47), The Shoo King is characterized by notable diversity and plurality in its concepts related to the divine (or pantheon of spirits), which are associated not only with celestial deities such as Heaven, God, and Shangti, but also closely connected to natural spirits—including mountain and river deities, ancestral spirits, and symbolic creatures such as fish and birds. However, Christianity is based on monotheistic belief. In light of this, an important question arises: How did Medhurst render the ideas related to the divine in his translation of The Shoo King?

5.1. “Mandate Granted by Heaven” and “Unreliability of Heaven’s Mandate”: The Shift from Theocentrism to Anthropocentrism

Most theological concepts in The Shoo King are predicated on the existence of “Heaven,” (tian 天), emphasizing the will of Heaven as the fundamental basis for behavioral directives. This theological system not only provides a legitimate foundation for rulers to wage war against external enemies but also effectively reinforces the public’s recognition of the ruling class’s authority, thereby imbuing the text with a pronounced religious character. However, the concept of “Heaven” in The Shoo King underwent a transformation from the Xia to the Zhou dynasty—from emphasizing the inviolability of Heaven’s mandate to advocating the idea that human effort can triumph over Heaven’s will. How did Medhurst address the concept related to “Heaven” and did his translation reflect the shift in attitude toward “Heaven” present in the original text?

Example 8

Source Text: 乃命羲和，欽若昊天，歷象日月星辰，敬授人時。分命羲仲，宅嵎夷，曰暘谷。寅賓出日，平秩東作。日中，星鳥，以殷仲春。厥民析，鳥獸孳尾。申命羲叔，宅南交。平秩南訛，敬致。日永，星火，以正仲夏。……帝曰：「咨！汝羲暨和。朞三百有六旬有六日，以閏月定四時，成歲。」(《虞書·堯典》Cai et al. 2010, pp. 2–4)

Medhurst’s Translation: He then commanded He and Hô, in reverent accordance with (the motions of) the expansive heavens, to arrange (by numbers) and represent (by instruments) the revolutions of the sun moon, and stars, with the lunar mansions, and them respectfully to communicate to the people the seasons. He then separately directed His younger brother to reside at Yu-e, called the Orient alley, where he might respect fully hail the rising sun, adjust and arrange the eastern (or vernal) undertakings, notice the equalization of the days, and whether the star (culminating at night-fall) was the (middle constellation of the) bird, in order to hit the center of mid spring…The Emperor said, Listen! You He and Hô; an entire year consists of three hundred sixty and six days; do you therefore employ an intercalary month to settle the four seasons and complete the tropical year. (“The Book of Yu, The Cannon of Yaou” Medhurst 1846, pp. 2–8)

Firstly, Medhurst’s translation offers a precise rendering of the concepts of the Season of Heaven (tian shi 天時), the Season of Humanity (ren shi 人時), and the Agricultural Season (nong shi 农時), all of which together signify the calendar system developed by human societies. Furthermore, Medhurst’s lexical choices are precise and deliberately restrain religious connotations, while the overall style of the translation is dignified and epic, echoing the tone of early Western astronomical literature. The use of the lowercase “heavens” primarily denotes natural order, thereby downplaying religious overtones and instead emphasizing the natural laws represented by the sun, moon, and stars. Meanwhile, the phrase “the expansive heavens” expresses awe for cosmic order and grandeur, underscoring reverence for the laws of nature while attenuating the notion of anthropomorphic deities. The term “communicate” further suggests that the seasons and the progression of time exist objectively and independently of human will. The accurate rendering of calendrical details such as “intercalary month” and “tropical year” demonstrates the translator’s precise understanding and effective transmission of the lunisolar calendar system.

Secondly, based on the astronomical and calendrical details in the text, Medhurst provides solid scientific evidence for the authenticity of the fifty-eight chapters of The Shoo King. In his preface to The Shoo King (Medhurst 1846, pp. iv–vi), Medhurst cites this passage and, drawing on astronomical data, compares the positional shifts of specific stars appearing at the zenith on the night of the vernal equinox. He argues that these celestial phenomena align with the precessional patterns identified by modern astronomy, thereby providing strong evidence for the historical authenticity of the fifty-eight chapters of The Shoo King. Medhurst points out that the precise ratio between the solar year and the tropical year was not accurately determined by humanity until around 600 CE. Therefore, it is highly unlikely—if not impossible—that such astronomical knowledge could have been employed to fabricate chronological accuracy as early as the Eastern Jin period, when the scholar Mei Ze (梅赜) submitted a version of The Shoo King containing 58 chapters to the imperial court.

Thirdly, the phrase “to arrange (by numbers) and represent (by instruments) the revolutions of the sun, moon, and stars” faithfully conveys that the ancients calculated the movements of celestial bodies and formulated calendars accordingly. Medhurst’s addition of “by numbers” and “by instruments” particularly highlights the rational and scientific operations and forcefully counters the Western assertion that “ancient China lacked science.”

Example 9

Source Text: 天聰明，自我民聰明，天明畏，自我民明威。 (《虞書·皋陶謨》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 30)

Medhurst’s Translation: Heaven’s perception and observation (may be ascertained) from our people’s perception and observation, And heaven’s approval and disapproval (may be known) from our people’s approval and disapproval. (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of Kaou-Yaou” Medhurst 1846, p. 64)

Old’s Translation: Heaven’s perception and intelligence is itself our people’s perception and intelligence; and Heaven’s approval and disapproval is itself our people’s approval and disapproval. (Old 1904, pp. 32–33)

Both Old’s and Medhurst’s translations position “Heaven” and “the people” within an interactive relationship, but the core concepts underlying each differs significantly. Old, through the use of the phrase “is itself,” emphasizes the equivalence of popular will and the will of Heaven. However, this interpretation fails to convey the deep reverence for “Heaven” held by the people during the slave society period, and does not reflect the historical context in the first half of The Shoo King, where Heaven was regarded as supreme over humanity. As a result, the English full translation of him does not capture the transition from the blind veneration of Heaven during the slave society to the Zhou dynasty’s notion of human agency surpassing the heavenly mandate.

In contrast, Medhurst employs expressions such as “may be ascertained from” to propose a specific logical framework: the will of Heaven is not unknowable or entirely transcendent, but can be observed, tested, and interpreted through the will of the people. In Medhurst’s interpretation, while the will of the people may serve as a manifestation or reflection of the will of Heaven, the two should not be regarded as equivalent in authority. This logic not only departs from the Christian conception of Heaven as a mystical oracular authority, but also reflects the reverential attitude toward Heaven prevalent in slave society, thereby offering a valuable reference point for understanding the gradual shift in the concept of Heaven’s authority in the later chapters of The Shoo King, where the notion of “Heaven is untrustworthy” begins to emerge.

In summary, Old’s twentieth-century translation, influenced by Enlightenment thought, elevates the importance of popular will but fails to faithfully reflect the original ideological context of reverence for Heaven characteristic of the slave society period. In contrast, Medhurst’s rendering remains more aligned with the original intent of The Shoo King, acknowledging the transcendent authority of Heaven in the early chapters and preserving the text’s internal evolution in conceptions of Heaven from the slave society to the Zhou dynasty.

Example 10

Source Text: 「嗚呼！惟天生民有欲，無主乃亂，惟天生聰明時乂，有夏昏德，民墜塗炭，天乃錫王勇智，……」(《商書·仲虺之誥》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 77)

Joseph de Prémare’s Translation: Prince! what do you say? It is the Tyen which gives life to Men: As they are subject to a thousand different Passions; it hey had not a Master to keep them in their Duty, they could not live in Peace: But Heaven sends them a very wise King, and by means of him, renders them good and happy. (Edward Cave 1738, p. 405)

Medhurst’s Translation: Alas! it is heaven that has formed mankind one with various passions, and if there be no one to preside over them, they soon get into confusion; but heaven has also produced the intelligent, to regulate them. Now the ruler of Hëá having confounded virtue, the people have been involved in misery; but Heaven has conferred on your Majesty courage and wisdom… (“The Book of Shang, The Annunciation of Chung-Hwuy” Medhurst 1846, pp. 131–32)

This passage draws upon the historical lesson of King Xia Jie (夏桀), whose loss of virtue ultimately led to national collapse. It further emphasizes that the people are all “children of Heaven,” and that the ruler is no longer the sole agent of “Heaven.” If a monarch fails to safeguard the vital interests of the people, royal authority will shift by popular will and will ultimately be replaced by an individual who possesses both virtue and talent. This perspective integrates the concept of the Mandate of Heaven with the ethics of virtuous governance, promoting the focus of philosophy in The Shoo King shifts from a heaven-determined destiny to a human-centered agency.

In Joseph de Prémare’s translation, a domesticating approach is adopted, interpreting Chinese thought through a Western religious lens. The Chinese term “天” is rendered with the capitalized “Heaven,” treating “Heaven” as analogous to the Western God (God/Heaven). Expressions such as “Heaven sends them a very wise King” clearly reflect Christian influences, highlighting the sacred and authoritative character of “Heaven” as a personified sovereign, diminishing the emphasis on popular will in the original text.

In contrast, Medhurst’s translation employs the lowercase “heaven,” and the overall style is more rational and restrained. Through expressions such as “if there be no one to preside over them, they soon get into confusion; but heaven has also produced the intelligent, to regulate them,” Medhurst emphasizes the Confucian system of “government by virtuous and capable individuals.” Notably, Medhurst avoids translating “主” directly as “Master,” instead opting for “preside over,” thus eschewing the overtly theological sense of dominion found in Christian contexts. The phrase “heaven has conferred on your Majesty courage and wisdom” presents “heaven” as the source of moral character and wisdom, particularly without pronounced anthropomorphic overtones, thereby preserving the rational spirit of the Confucian Mandate of Heaven. Medhurst’s translation more effectively highlights the interconnection among “heaven’s mandate,” “virtuous governance,” and “rule by the people,” restraining Christian theological influence and aligning more closely with the traditions of Chinese philosophy.

Example 11

Source Text: 又曰：「天不可信，我道惟寧王德延，天不庸釋于文王受命。」(《周書·君奭》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 203)

Medhurst’s Translation: I would repeat it, therefore, that the celestial arrangements are not to be calculated on my principle, is to extend the virtue of the Tranquilizing king, (Woo-wâng) so that Heaven may not be induced to withdraw the decree received by his father Wan-wang. (“The Book of Chow, Respecting Prince Shin” Medhurst 1846, p. 267)

Significant differences between the Shang and Zhou dynasties are reflected in their respective conceptions of the Mandate of Heaven. The Zhou explicitly rejected the doctrine of blind submission to fate, referred to as the “doctrine of fatalism,” and asserted that “Heaven is not to be trusted,” emphasizing that virtue and human agency are the essential forces shaping the destiny of the state. This ideological shift not only accelerated the disintegration of the slave-based social order but also laid the intellectual foundation for the people over the ruler.

Medhurst’s translation profoundly encapsulates the primacy of rationality and human agency, notably by foregrounding the central importance of “government by virtue” and effectively diminishing the absolute theocratic nature of the Mandate of Heaven. For instance, Medhurst intentionally translates “天” as “the celestial arrangements” rather than “Heaven,” thereby attenuating its religious and anthropomorphic implications as a personal deity. Furthermore, through expressions such as “my principle is to extend the virtue of the Tranquilizing King,” Medhurst accentuates the decisive role of “virtue” in shaping the Mandate of Heaven, sharply contrasting with the Christian tradition in which the will of God is regarded as supreme and immutable.

In

Table 2. Medhurst’s Translation of Concepts Related to “Heaven” (tian 天).

Sections	Source Language	Target Language
“The Cannon of Yaou”	昊天	expansive heavens
	象恭滔天	resemblance of respect, up to heaven (p. 9)
“The Great Yu’s Counsels”	皇天	imperial Heaven
	天禄	celestial revenues (p. 52)
	天降之咎	Heaven has sent down upon them calamity (p. 55)
	天道	heaven’s way (p. 56)
“The Counsels of Kaou-Yaou”	天叙	heavenly arrangement (of the human relations) (p. 62)
	天命、天讨有罪、天聽	Heaven (p. 63)
	天明畏自我民威	heaven (p. 63)
“The Oath of Kan”	天之罰	punishment decreed by heaven (p. 120)
	天	heaven (p. 119)
“The Chastisement Inflicted by Yin”	天象	celestial appearances (p. 127)
“The Annunciation of Chung-Hwuy”	天道	celestial way (p. 136)
	天命	decree of Heaven (p. 136)
“The Annunciation of T’ang”	天道	Providence (p. 138)
	天命	Heaven’s decree (p. 138)
	以承天休	Heaven’s excellent decree (p. 139)
“Respecting Prince Shin”	天命	celestial decree (p. 267)

, Medhurst employed a range of translations for the term “天” (tian), including “heavens,” “heaven,” and “Heaven,” reflecting his nuanced differentiation of its meanings in various contexts. The lowercase “heaven” typically highlights its role as a principle of cosmic order or a natural phenomenon, while the capitalized “Heaven” carries stronger Western theological connotations. The plural form “heavens” is generally linked to the physical or natural dimensions of the sky. Furthermore, Medhurst’s translations of “天道” (tian dao) include terms such as “Providence,” “the celestial way,” and “heaven’s way.” Of these, “Providence” conveys the concept of divine will. In contrast, “the celestial way” and “heaven’s way” emphasize transcendent norms or natural laws governing the cosmos, aligning more closely with Confucian philosophical understanding. Additionally, Medhurst’s renderings of “天命” (tian ming) include “the decree of Heaven,” “Heaven’s decree,” and “celestial decree.” Each of these translations foregrounds “decree” with authoritative significance. Taken together, these varied renderings exemplify Medhurst’s flexible and context-aware strategy in translating the term “tian.”

In this section discussing Medhurst’s translation of concepts related to “heaven,” it is important to first highlight that Medhurst effectively captures one of the most distinctive features of The Shoo King: its dynamic perspective on “heaven,” which evolves from celestial authority to human agency as it progresses from the slave society to the Zhou dynasty. In contrast, Old’s translation tends to weaken the original reverence for “heaven” characteristic of the slave society period, positioning “heaven” and “the people” as equal and interactive from the outset. This approach fails to reflect the historical evolution of attitudes toward “heaven” as effectively as Medhurst’s translation does. Secondly, Joseph de Prémare primarily interpreted the concept of “heaven” through a Christian lens, while Medhurst refrains from introducing Western religious connotations and instead distinguishes the nuances of “heaven” according to its specific context. Finally, Medhurst’s meticulous attention to calendrical and astronomical terminology—such as “seasonal times,” “intercalary month,” and “tropical year”—not only demonstrates his profound understanding of the Chinese lunisolar system, but also highlights his approach of using scientific knowledge to interpret the text and validate the historical authenticity of the fifty-eight chapters of The Shoo King.

5.2. On the Translation of Concept Related “Spirit” and “Shangdi”: “Virtue-Oriented” Rather than Ritual and Faith-Oriented

In The Shoo King, the terms “Shangdi” and “spirit” originally denoted religious concepts rooted in the Chinese classical tradition. Unlike Western Christian texts, which emphasize ritual performance and faith, The Shoo King prioritizes the moral character of those conducting sacrifices. This raises a critical question: how did Medhurst approach the translation of terms such as “Shangdi” and “spirit,” whether his rendering effectively conveys the religious text’s underlying emphasis on moral virtue.

Example 12

Source Text: 「都，帝德廣運，乃聖乃神，乃武乃文。皇天眷命，奄有四海為天下君。」(《虞書·大禹謨》Cai et al. 2010, p. 20)

Medhurst’s Translation: Oh! the Emperor’s virtue is extensive and perpetually revolving; he is sage-like, and divine, his dignified, and elegant; so that imperial Heaven has regarded him with its decree, even to extend his authority over the four seas, and be the empire’s chief. (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of the Great Yu” Medhurst 1846, p. 42)

There are fundamental differences between Confucianism and Christianity in terms of the source of authority and cosmological perspectives. Medhurst did not effectively distinguish this point. First, he translates “皇天” (huang tian) as the capitalized “imperial Heaven,” attributes quasi-divine characteristics to the concept, potentially leading Western readers to associate it with the Christian idea of “divinity,” while the Confucian “皇天” refers to an impersonal cosmic order. Second, the phrase “be the empire’s chief” oversimplifies the original term “天下君,” (tian xia jun), which encompasses both the dual dimensions of the Mandate of Heaven and moral virtue, reducing it to a mere official title and failing to express the Confucian ideal of virtuous kingship. Third, the phrase “regarded with its decree” implies intentional intervention by a deity, whereas the Confucian term “眷命” (juan ming) emphasizes that the Mandate of Heaven is acquired through personal virtue, not directly bestowed by a personal god. Additionally, the translation separates “sage” (sheng 聖) and “divine” (shen 神) into “sage-like, and divine,” thereby weakening their inherent unity in the Confucian context.

Example 13

Source Text: 我聞曰：「至治馨香，感于神明。黍稷非馨，明德惟馨爾。」(《周書·君陳》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 248)

Medhurst’s Translation: I have heard (Chow-kung) say, “That perfect government is fragrant, and influences the immortal gods; meat of offerings have no sweet savor, but resplendent virtue is odoriferous. (“The Book of Chow continued, The Keun-chîn” Medhurst 1846, p. 293)

Genesis: The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” (8:21)

Epic of Gilgamesh: The gods smelled the sweet savor. The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer. (11:160–163)

“Fragrance” serves as a medium through which humans express reverence toward the divine and stands as a central motif in many literary texts. The use of fragrant offerings as a means of communication with the divine is a common motif in ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew traditions. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh (11:160–163), the gods gather because of the fragrance of the offerings, and this “sweet fragrance” becomes a significant moment for divine communication and a shift in divine will. In the Old Testament, the “pleasing aroma” is repeatedly mentioned as a symbol of sacrifice and divine acceptance (e.g., Numbers 29:2, Leviticus 26:31), with Genesis 8:21 standing out as it explicitly shows that the aroma of the sacrifice causes God to change His mind, deciding not to bring disaster and initiating a new blessing for humanity (covenanted through the rainbow). From a comparative religious and cultural perspective, whether in The Shoo King with virtue is fragrant or in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis, the symbol of “fragrance” in ancient religious contexts conveys a unique meaning. As Baumann (2013) points out, the sense of smell was considered one of the core attributes of ancient deities.

In The Shoo King, virtue is regarded as the essential medium between humans and the divine, surpassing the significance of material rituals. Medhurst’s translation reflects this interpretation by skillfully transforming the image of “fragrance” from a literal scent into a symbol of moral excellence, through phrases such as “perfect government” and “resplendent virtue.” His rendering communicates that it is the ruler’s virtue, not the physical offering, that resonates with the divine—a reading that stands in marked contrast to the faith- and ritual-centered framework of The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis.

Example 14

Source Text: 肆類于上帝，禋于六宗，望于山川，徧于群神。(《虞書·舜典》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 10)

Medhurst’s Translation: Shun then offered a sacrifice of the same class (with the border sacrifice) to the Supreme Ruler, he presented a pure offering to the six objects of veneration, he looked with devotion towards the hills and rivers, and glanced around at the host of spirits. (“The Book of Yu, The Connon of Shun” Medhurst 1846, pp. 17–18)

It is noteworthy that in this passage, “上帝” refers to the celestial deity, while “六宗” (liu zong) and “群神” (qun shen) represent terrestrial deities. Additionally, the expansive pantheon within the sacrificial system includes “文祖,” referring to ancestral spirits. Medhurst’s translation enables Western readers to understand a polytheistic system, rather than an omnipotent and absolute personal God. First, “上帝” is rendered as “the Supreme Ruler” rather than the Christian “God,” effectively avoiding confusion between Chinese and Western concepts of divine authority. For “六宗,” Medhurst uses the term “the six objects of veneration,” an expression that can encompass either six ancestral figures or six categories of ancestral temples and important natural deities, thus fully reflecting the diversity and pantheistic nature of Chinese sacrificial objects. The phrase “looked with devotion towards the hills and rivers” further reveals the coexistence of natural deities (mountains and rivers) and local spirits.

Overall, Medhurst adopts broad and inclusive terms that emphasize the coexistence of celestial deities, ancestors, natural and local spirits, as well as pantheistic and ancestor worship features, without adhering to the monotheistic framework prevalent in Western religious discourse.

Example 15

Source Text: 徯志以昭受上帝，天其申命用休。(《虞書·益稷》Cai et al. 2010, p. 33)

Joseph de Prémare’s Translation: Thus, you will find yourself loaded with the most illustrious Blessings of Shang ti, and you will have the Glory to execute his Will in the new order which he shall establish. (Cave 1738, p. 404)

Medhurst’s Translation: there will be a grand response of those who wait your schemes, to show clearly that you have received (the decree) of the Great Supreme, while high Heaven, should it again declare its will, would do it in the employment of excellent blessings. (“The Book of Yu, Yih and Tseih” Medhurst 1846, p. 68)

Prémare’s translation transliterates “上帝” as “Shang ti,” which avoids the direct use of “God” or “Heaven,” and retains a certain the indigenous Chinese deity’s name. However, his expression heavily draws on the Christian context. For instance, the structures “Blessings of Shang ti” and “execute his Will” closely resemble the Christian expressions “the blessings of God” and “execute God’s will,” aligning closely with the Western theocratic belief structure and thereby weakening the Confucian core concept of “virtue-based governance.” In contrast, Medhurst’s translation places greater emphasis on the original text’s connotation. He translates “上帝” as “the Great Supreme” and “天” as “high Heaven,” thereby clearly reflecting the polytheistic nature of ancient Chinese religious thought. The phrase “high Heaven… declare its will… in the employment of excellent blessings” reveals the relationship between divine will and rewards, while emphasizing that these blessings stem from human virtue and actions (e.g., “wait your schemes”). Medhurst’s translation fully reflects the rational spirit of Confucian views on the Mandate of Heaven: although the Mandate is supreme, its rewards and punishments are closely related to human actions and virtue.

Overall, Prémare’s translation is infused with a clear monotheistic influence, weakening the Confucian emphasis on virtue-based governance and the interaction between heaven and humanity. Medhurst, on the other hand, accurately distinguishes between the connotations of “Shangdi” and “Tian,” preserving the polytheistic character of ancient Chinese religion while reinforcing the causal relationship between the Mandate of Heaven, virtue, and rewards.

Table 3. Medhurst’s Translation of Concepts Related to “Spirit” and “Shangdi”.

Sections	Source Language	Target Language
“The Cannon of Shun”	羣神	a host of spirits (p. 18)
	神人以和	both gods and men will approve (p. 35)
	上帝	prime ruler (p. 18)
“The Great Yu’s Counsels”	乃圣乃神	sage-like, and divine (p. 20)
	神	the gods (p. 57)
“Yin and Tseih”	上帝	great Supreme (p. 68)
“The Annunciation of T’ang”	神祇	spirits and demons (p. 138)
	上帝	Great Supreme (p. 137)
“The Announcement of Chaou”	皇天上帝	Imperial Heaven’s Supreme Ruler (p. 243)
	上帝	Supreme Ruler (p. 245)
“The Chow Dynasty”	上帝时歆	Supreme Ruler (pp. 378–79)

demonstrates that Medhurst’s translations preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the complexity of China’s polytheistic system and ritual culture. First, Medhurst exhibits a high degree of contextual sensitivity. He does not rely on a single fixed equivalent for “Shangdi,” but rather adapts his translations to specific chapters and contexts, employing terms such as “prime ruler,” “the great Supreme,” “Supreme Ruler,” and “Imperial Heaven’s Supreme Ruler.” Second, Medhurst consciously avoids the influence of Christian monotheism on the original text of The Shoo King. He refrains from using the capitalized “God” and other overtly Christian terms, instead opting for expressions like “Supreme Ruler” and “the great Supreme.” This strategy effectively distinguishes the Chinese notion of “Spirit” and “Shangdi” from the Western Christian concept of a unique, personal God. Furthermore, Medhurst’s translations fully reflect the characteristics of Chinese religious beliefs, including polytheism, ancestor worship, and the bureaucratic nature of the pantheon. For example, his translation of “皇天上帝” as “Imperial Heaven’s Supreme Ruler” highlights the hierarchical and bureaucratic structure of the divine order. Similarly, the renderings of “羣神” as “a host of spirits” and “神人以和” as “both gods and men will approve” illustrate the collective and pantheistic nature of ancient Chinese religious systems.

In this section, which analyzes the translation of concepts related to “Spirit” (神) and “Shangdi” (上帝), Medhurst effectively reduces the risk of cross-cultural misinterpretation and provides an important model for dialogue between Chinese and Western religious thought. First, Prémare’s translation is deeply influenced by the Christian context, thereby weakening the core Confucian principle of “virtue-based governance.” In contrast, Medhurst pays greater attention to faithfully conveying the original meaning, emphasizing the key role of virtue in governance. Second, “fragrance” (xin xiang 馨香), as a means of expressing reverence toward the divine, appears widely across diverse civilizations. Especially in ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew traditions, “pleasing aroma” is frequently mentioned as a symbol of reconciliation between humans and deities, stressing faith and ritual itself. Notably, Medhurst’s translation of The Shoo King accurately communicates the Confucian core idea—that what truly moves the divine is the virtue of the ruler, rather than the physical aroma of the offering. This stands in sharp contrast to Western religious traditions that emphasize ritual and sacrifice. Finally, Medhurst’s translation preserves to the greatest extent possible the polytheistic characteristics of ancient Chinese religious culture.

6. Exploring Medhurst’s Translational Position and Strategy from a Paratextual Perspective

Through the analysis above, it can be concluded that Medhurst’s translation stands out in terms of its fidelity to core Confucian ideas, particularly when compared to the translations by Legge, Prémare, and Old. This raises an important question: How faithful is Medhurst’s translation when compared to Cai Shen’s annotated Shoo King? In addition, several sub-questions arise: What distinctive features of his paratexts, in comparison with the original, contributed to this high level of fidelity? What factors contributed to the relatively limited circulation of his translation despite its high fidelity? Why did he strive for such a faithful translation? To address these questions, this study conducts a systematic paratextual analysis of Medhurst’s translation, focusing on the materiality of the book and its paratexts, such as the visual features, footnotes, prefaces, appendices, and illustrations.

6.1. The Interspersion of Chinese and English: Ensuring High Fidelity but Reducing Readability

Medhurst adopts a character-by-character translation approach, placing each Chinese character directly alongside its English equivalent. The strategy reflects Medhurst’s printing press background, where his daily engagement with Chinese type molds deepened his character-centric approach—a tendency not only evident in character-based translation strategy but also in his strong emphasis on the compilation of multiple dictionaries.

Example 16

Source Text: 天命有德，五服五章哉！天討有罪，五刑五用哉！(《虞書·皋陶謨》 Cai et al. 2010, p. 30)

Medhurst’s Translation: 天Heaven命encourages有德the virtuous, but (use) the five kinds of 服 clothing (as rewards,) and then 五章哉 oh how illustrious will be the five displays! 天 Heaven 讨 punishes 有罪 the wicked, but use 五 the five kinds of 刑 punishments, and then 五用哉 oh how serviceable will be the five applications! (“The Book of Yu, The Counsels of Kaou-Yaou” Medhurst 1846, p. 63)

Legge’s Translation: Heaven graciously distinguishes the virtuous; are there not the five habiliments, five decorations of them? Heaven punishes the guilty; are there not the five punishments to be severally used for that purpose? (Legge 1991, p. 74)

Both Medhurst and Legge based their translations on Cai Shen’s annotated edition. However, Medhurst adopts a character-by-character translation strategy that more effectively preserves the original syntax and cultural concepts with minimal adaptation. Medhurst translates “天” as “Heaven” rather than directly adopting the Western religious term “God,” thereby effectively preserving the ancient Chinese thought. Phrases such as “Heaven encourages the virtuous” and “Heaven punishes the wicked” clearly articulate the concept that Heaven maintains moral order through a system of rewards and punishments. Furthermore, Medhurst explicitly associates “reward” and “punishment” with human virtue and wrongdoing, thereby underscoring the core Confucian principle that moral conduct determines one’s fate. The expression “five kinds of clothing (as rewards) … five kinds of punishments” further emphasizes the significance of ritual and legal systems in the religious framework of ancient China, illustrating that the Mandate of Heaven functions not merely as an abstract divine will but is concretely enacted through norms and penal codes in social governance and moral evaluation. Last, but certainly not least, Medhurst skillfully employs expressions such as “oh how illustrious… oh how serviceable…,” which faithfully recreate the tone and literary style of the original text, enhance the literary quality of the translation, and allow Western readers to appreciate the unique aesthetic of classical Chinese syntax.

In contrast, Legge’s translation is relatively plain, lacking the lyricism and syntactic variation present in Cai Shen’s rendering. For example, Legge renders “章” (zhang) as “decorations,” favoring a literal interpretation related to ornamentation, while failing to fully convey its broader connotations of “manifestation” and “commendation” within social and religious contexts. However, while this interspersion of Chinese and English ensures a high degree of fidelity to Cai Shen’s original text, it also results in clunky and disjointed readability for both Chinese and Western audiences, ultimately limiting the broader dissemination and reception of Medhurst’s translation in comparison to Legge’s.

6.2. The Footnote System: Concise and Focused

Since Cai Shen’s Shoo King is an annotated edition, comparing Medhurst’s annotations with those of Cai Shen provides the most effective way to assess how faithfully Medhurst’s translation aligns with—or diverges from—the original text. In his use of footnotes, Medhurst did not adopt Cai Shen’s word-for-word exegetical approach, nor did he use James Legge’s model of extensive annotation. Instead, Medhurst implemented Cai Shen’s principle of “conciseness and clarity,” (yao yan bu fan 要言不煩), selectively abbreviating and rewriting certain elements. Compared to Cai Shen’s annotations on The Shoo King, Medhurst retained Chinese historical background information, explanations of distinctions between the “modern” (jin wen 今文) and “ancient” (gu wen 古文) texts, and interpretations of difficult words. However, he omitted many of Cai Shen’s detailed glosses on variant characters, sentence structures, and individual word meanings, especially where the word served a merely grammatical function.

Specifically, Medhurst systematically included background introductions following each section title in The Shoo King. For example, in the phrase “曰若稽古, 帝尧曰放勋, 欽明文思安安,” Medhurst (1846, p. 1) translated the key historical context regarding Emperor Yao and the meaning of “安安” (an an) but refrained from exhaustive word-by-word explanation. A further examination of “The Canon of Shun” reveals that Medhurst faithfully translated the explanatory paragraphs following the original text, with particular attention to the distinction between “ancient” and “modern” textual traditions. He noted, “This first paragraph is omitted in the older editions… In the 6th century of the Christian era, this paragraph was supplied and is thought to be spurious. The style and phraseology are indicative of a modern date.” (Medhurst 1846, p. 13) Such footnotes focus on textual transmission and textual criticism, rather than detailed linguistic analysis. Similarly, in “The First Part of the Great Oath” (Medhurst 1846, p. 182), Medhurst retained essential background information for each section, providing concise commentary on chapter formation and historical development. Compared to Cai Shen’s detailed philological and grammatical exegesis, Medhurst employed summaries, emphasizing textual history over meticulous lexical analysis.

Medhurst occasionally includes supplementary content on astronomical, musical theory, tribute, and ritual knowledge beyond the original text. For example, in “The Canon of Yao” (Medhurst 1846, p. 8), he not only translated Cai Shen’s explanations but also added detailed astronomical notes, attempting to verify the accuracy of ancient Chinese chronology with contemporary astronomical knowledge. These annotations expanded the interpretive scope of the text, reflecting Medhurst’s acute awareness of historical and scientific issues and his cross-cultural approach. Additionally, in “The Canon of Shun,” Medhurst annotated musical scales and astronomical diagrams such as “the figure of the six cardinal points” (liu he yi 六合儀) and “the figure of the three luminaries” (san chen yi 三辰儀) (Medhurst 1846, pp. 16–17), explicating their symbolic meanings and thereby enriching the historical narrative. This method balances academic rigor and practical clarity. Overall, Medhurst’s footnotes avoid lengthy grammatical explanations and word glosses of Cai Shen’s original text, focusing more on the supplementation of historical and contextual information.

Notably, Medhurst’s “concise annotations” should not necessarily be seen as a limitation. Some Western scholars (Anonymous 1849, p. 44) have argued that although Medhurst’s and David Collie’s translations include both the original text and footnotes, “much more copious notes” are required for further clarification. James Legge, by contrast, adopted a more deliberate exegetical approach, providing detailed annotations. However, his extensive notes often included subjective interpretations, reading Chinese classics through a Western lens and thereby weakening the original intent of the text. For example, in “The Canon of Yaou,” Legge insisted on translating “帝” as “God,” arguing that “帝” is synonymous with “Heaven” and refers to the deity (Legge 1991, p. 16). Yet, in its original context, “帝” often refers to the emperor, and such interpretation may appear tendentious. Compared to Legge’s extensive annotation, Medhurst’s selective omission placed greater emphasis on historical context and ideological core of Cai Shen’s Shoo King, thereby avoiding overinterpretation and religious bias, and enabling Western readers to focus more on the cultural value and intellectual significance of the Chinese classic.

6.3. Preface and Appendix: The Dissemination of Chinese Intellectual Thought and the Commitment to Translation Fidelity

Medhurst’s translation includes two prefaces: one authored by himself and the other a translation of Cai Shen’s preface. In his preface, Medhurst highly commends the achievements of ancient China in science and technology, expressing his aspiration that Chinese wisdom could benefit European society. He also summarizes the purpose and guiding principles of his translation, with particular emphasis on his commitment to fidelity. In the translated preface of Cai Shen, Medhurst briefly reviews the origins and structure of Cai Shen’s Shoo King, outlines the textual transmission since the Qin and Han dynasties, and notes the distinctions between the “modern” and “ancient” versions.

Medhurst faithfully translated these prefaces with the fundamental aim of enhancing the recognition of ancient Chinese scientific and mathematical accomplishments in the Western world. As noted by Medhurst (1846, p. vi), ancient Chinese astronomers, despite lacking modern optical instruments, demonstrated remarkably advanced astronomical knowledge. Medhurst also emphasized the unique scientific foundations of ancient Chinese music systems, observing that Westerners had not fully understood the scientific principles of pitch, intervals, and harmony embedded in the Chinese system. Additionally, through the example of the Great Yu’s water control project, Medhurst argued that this large-scale engineering achievement showcased the integration of ancient Chinese science, technology, and systematic planning.

Medhurst’s concerns extended beyond the dissemination of scientific achievements; he also hoped that Chinese thought could serve as an inspiration for Western society. Medhurst (1846, p. vii) observed that the moral philosophy and political-economic concepts found in The Shoo King possess universal significance across different eras and cultures. Even in highly developed European societies, the principles of reciprocal justice, benevolence, respect, and obedience articulated in The Shoo King remain highly relevant. Notably, Medhurst criticized the earlier French translation by Antoine Gaubil, highlighting the numerous errors contained in both editions and their limited circulation in Britain. Therefore, Medhurst aimed to present Chinese thought to British readers through a more rigorous and accurate English translation, thereby promoting deeper cultural exchange between China and the West.

Medhurst attached great importance to faithfully translating the original text, striving to align both form and content as closely as possible with the Confucian classics. Medhurst (1846, p. xi) explicitly stated his intention to preserve the original word order and content as much as possible, providing precise English explanations for each Chinese character. Although this sometimes resulted in a rather rigid translation, it facilitated readers’ understanding of the essence of the original text. Medhurst was also aware of the differences between Christian and Confucian thought, and he (Medhurst 1846, p. viii) explicitly remarked that The Shoo King “lacks religiosity,” indicating a conscious effort to avoid Christian influence in his translation.

In addition to The Shoo King, Medhurst included translations of other Chinese classics in the appendix to offer readers a more comprehensive understanding. These supplementary materials include the Extract from Chinese History (translated from gang jian yi zhi lu 綱鑑易知錄), Appendix A: Chinese Constellations and Appendix B: Chinese Astronomy. The Extract from Chinese History, spanning approximately 70 pages, was intended to assist Western sinologists in understanding the historical background of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties referenced in The Shoo King. Appendix A: Chinese Constellations provides a systematic introduction to the names, shapes, and astronomical coordinates of the twenty-eight constellations in ancient China, analyzing their differences from the Western zodiac. Medhurst emphasized that both Chinese and Western constellation systems are deeply influenced by historical and cultural factors, lacking a unified scientific standard, and each exhibiting unique characteristics (Medhurst 1846, p. 400). Appendix B: Chinese Astronomy discusses the methods by which ancient Chinese astronomers reconciled the solar year with the lunar cycle, such as the use of leap months and calendar adjustments. It also highlights the cross-cultural transmission and evolution of concepts such as the degree divisions of the twenty-eight constellations, the Metonic cycle, and the 360-day year system.

In summary, the prefaces and appendices in Medhurst’s translation underscore his emphasis on the value of ancient Chinese science and thought, and demonstrate his commitment to fidelity in the translation of the original text.

6.4. Illustration Strategy: Illustrations as a Tool for Faithful Interpretation

One of the most distinctive features that sets Medhurst’s translation apart from Cai Shen’s original annotated edition and other translators’ versions is his extensive and deliberate use of illustrations—nearly 30 in total (As shown in

Table 4. The illustrations in Medhurst’s Translation.

Image	Page	Title in Chinese	Title in English
Image 1	Cover	渾天儀	Armillary Sphere
Image 2	XVI	堯舜家譜圖	Genealogical Chart of Taou and Shun
Image 3	p. 16	渾天儀	Armillary Sphere
Image 4	p. 19	玉圭和玉璧	Seceptres
Image 5	p. 21	律管	Tubes
Image 6–7	p. 36	宮商角徵羽	Two Diagrams about Five Tones
Image 8	p. 37	中西方音階對比	Comparison of Chinese and Western Scales
Image 9	p. 37	十二律管的循環關係	12 Tubes of the Chinese Panpipe
Image 10	p. 38	八度音	Diagram of Octave
Image 11	p. 70	朝服上的十二紋飾	Twelve Ornaments on Court Dresses
Image 11	p. 77	中國古樂器十二品	Twelve Types of Ancient Chinese Musical Instruments
Image 13–23		中國諸省輿圖	Maps of Chinese Provinces, Describing Mountains and River Features, Including Shanxi, Shandong, Sichuan, Henan, Gansu, etc.
Image 24	p. 118	五服圖	Diagram of the Five Tenures
Image 25	p. 199	河圖洛書	Diagram of the Record from the River Lo, With the Nine Classifications
Image 26	p. 208	九道圓弧形軌跡	Nine Arc-shaped Trajectories

)—covering maps, musical instruments, astronomical devices, genealogical charts, and various ritual artifacts. This visual strategy, uncommon among comparable translations, significantly enhances both the informational density and visual clarity of the text. The illustrations serve two primary functions. First, they maintain a high degree of relevance to the original content and aid Western readers in intuitively grasping complex Chinese systems of ritual, music, geography, and cosmology. Visuals such as genealogical charts, court dress ornamentation, pentatonic rulers, twelve-pitch pipes, and comparative musical diagrams effectively reveal the scientific underpinnings of Chinese ceremonial practices and their connection to mathematical principles. Detailed maps and diagrams of the Five Tenures further clarify geographical and political structures. Second, the illustrations function as powerful evidence of the intellectual and technological sophistication of ancient Chinese civilization. Medhurst deliberately highlights Chinese scientific achievements—such as the armillary sphere—to draw parallels with Western paradigms and promote a more balanced cross-cultural understanding. By integrating visual media with textual analysis, Medhurst’s translation reduces cultural barriers and exemplifies an innovative methodological approach that facilitates cross-civilizational knowledge transmission.

Another notable feature of the illustrations in Medhurst’s translation is their gradient distribution, with a high concentration at the beginning of the volume and a gradual decline toward the end. As noted by Lin and Yue (2018, pp. 163–72), the structure of Medhurst’s translation is divided into the chapter titled “The First Part of the History of Pwan-kăng.” The first half of the volume features detailed footnotes, whereas the latter half is characterized by more concise annotations. There is a clear stylistic distinction in Medhurst’s annotations between these two sections, and the distribution of illustrations closely mirrors this organizational pattern: a significant number of illustrations are concentrated before page 80, with a marked decrease in the second half, corresponding to the shift in annotation style. This design may have been shaped by time constraints, or it may have been deliberately intended to guide readers to concentrate on the textual content in the later sections after establishing a cognitive framework in the early chapters.

In summary, this chapter on paratextual analysis demonstrates that Medhurst’s strategies—including his word-for-word translation, concise and focused annotations, and comprehensive illustrative supplements—underscore his commitment to faithfully representing the original text and promote a deeper understanding of Chinese thought and culture within Western society. Firstly, by integrating Chinese and English on a character-by-character basis, Medhurst preserves the rich lyricism and syntactic variations of the original text. However, this approach limits the accessibility and broader impact of his translation. Secondly, Medhurst’s approach to footnotes follows a selective and concise annotation strategy, inspired by Cai Shen, emphasizing the retention of essential background information and textual distinctions. Unlike Cai Shen, Medhurst avoids excessive grammatical and philological commentary, ensuring that the annotations remain focused and relevant to the overall meaning of the original text. This contrasts sharply with James Legge’s more expansive and interpretive annotations, which, though detailed, may introduce subjective biases. Additionally, Medhurst’s prefaces and appendices underscore his deep respect for ancient Chinese science, technology, and philosophy, as well as his commitment to fidelity to the text. Finally, a particularly notable feature is his extensive use of illustrations and charts, especially in the first half of the translation. This approach enhances the informational density and aesthetic appeal of the work in comparison to Cai Shen’s original annotated edition and other translators’ versions.

7. Conclusions

Medhurst was the first scholar to produce a complete English translation of all 58 chapters of The Shoo King. This raises critical questions: How did Medhurst interpret and transmit this foundational Chinese classic? What are the distinctive features of his translation? Adopting a “History of the Book” perspective, this study explores the encounter between Confucianism and Christianity in Medhurst’s English version of The Shoo King. The analysis demonstrates that Medhurst endeavored to transmit Confucian thought to the West as authentically as possible, with the hope that Western society could derive wisdom for governance and self-cultivation from The Shoo King. In translating the concept of Ren, Medhurst faithfully highlighted the kinship-oriented nature of sacrificial rites. When dealing with religious concepts such as Shen (spirit or deity), he consciously avoided using the terminology of Western Christian monotheism, instead emphasizing the primacy of moral cultivation over material ritual. Notably, Medhurst’s translation highlights the shift in attitudes toward Heaven, transitioning from the hierarchical values of a slave society to those of the Zhou dynasty within The Shoo King, marking a movement from theocentrism to anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, due to the constraints of his missionary identity and religious stance, elements of a “Christianized” interpretation—such as the incorporation of original sin—are inevitably present in his translation.

Medhurst’s translation demonstrates a deep respect for the ontological principles of Chinese classical texts. Medhurst’s approach to translating The Shoo King differed significantly from that of his contemporaries, such as John L. Nevius, and W.A.P. Martin. These scholars typically adopted a Christian doctrinal perspective and were often critical or dismissive of Confucianism, aiming to emphasize the superiority of Christianity (Song 2020, pp. 90–91). Unlike eighteenth-century Catholic translators, most notably Prémare, whose translation is infused with strong theocratic and Christian overtones, Medhurst deliberately reduced religious interpolation, and focused on maintaining fidelity to Confucian ethical principles. Furthermore, in contrast to English translators such as James Legge and Walter Gorn Old, who leaned towards a paraphrasing translation style, Medhurst based his work on Cai Shen’s Shoo King, demonstrating rigorous textual fidelity by faithfully preserving the content of the original. In contrast to Cai Shen’s Shoo King, Medhurst’s annotation strategy deliberately avoids excessive explanations of numerous individual terms, focusing instead on key interpretations related to the overall meaning of the text, thereby effectively preventing over-interpretation. Additionally, the integration of visual elements further enriched readers’ understanding of Chinese astronomical knowledge, musical techniques, and the feudal system. Medhurst’s rigorous approach to translation was reflected in his word-for-word rendering, his pioneering completion of the first full English version of The Shoo King, and his relatively faithful preservation of core Confucian ideas, and secured his unique and prominent academic status in the history of The Shoo King’s transmission to the Western world.