Evangelism in Translation: A Critical Study of Missionary-Scholar Walter Henry Medhurst’s Rendering of Chinese Agricultural Classic Nongzheng Quanshu

Abstract

In 1807, a group of Protestant missionaries driven by evangelistic ideals arrived in China, dedicated to “winning China for Christ.” Walter Henry Medhurst of the London Missionary Society was among them. In addition to his preaching and study of Chinese orthodox classics, he translated the agricultural work Nongzheng Quanshu by Xu Guangqi, the very influential scholar-official of the late Ming dynasty, into English. This study explores how Medhurst’s unwavering missionary convictions influenced his secular translation praxis by examining his translational motivation, methodology and quality. He aimed to dispel Western misconceptions regarding Chinese silk-weaving techniques and then secure institutional patronage and integrate Chinese civilization under the auspices of Christian culture. Driven by the missionary mandate to convey the real China, he meticulously selected the Chinese version; and adopted a bilingual juxtaposition methodology for translating agricultural terms, thus inspiring prospective missionary students to acquire Chinese. Moreover, his scheduled missionary priority, assigned by the affiliated mission, constrained his engagement with the “amateur issues,” resulting in the translated language being less semantically equivalent, which in turn provides a pragmatic justification for the need to “civilize” China. Medhurst’s translation not only advanced his missionary enterprise, but also boosted Britain’s silk-weaving industry during the Industrial Revolution and prepared the way for the Western understanding of Chinese agricultural science from the late 19th century to the present. To this end, this analysis clearly revealed that translation was inextricably linked to the propagation of Christianity in religious communication.

1. Introduction

In the early 19th century, some Protestant missionaries from the English-speaking world began to travel to China, which was then the most populous Eastern country, to spread the Christian faith. Their ways of spreading the Gospel primarily included preaching among the public, establishing schools and hospitals, conducting charitable work, and reforming printing technology to publish Christian books. These secular engagements in modern China have been the focus of extensive scholarly inquiry in the field of religious studies (Cheong and Poon 2009; Gow 2024; Klein 2011; Kwong 2023; M. X. Wang 2019; H. Wang 2020; G. Xu 2016; T. Zhang 2007). As “Christian religious culture is disseminated across various countries and regions by the means of translation” (Li and Gao 2025, p. 1), the act of translation by Protestant missionaries was also a strategic religious intervention. First, owing to the widespread use of Chinese in China and its neighboring regions, when assigning the preaching mission in China to those missionaries, the churches to which they belonged placed the Chinese translation of the Bible in a position of priority. For instance, “one of the first objects which the London Missionary Society had in view in their mission to China, was the translation of the Scriptures” (Bridgman 1835, p. 298). To date, extant scholarship focuses on how missionary translators utilized discursive Christian concepts (such as “God”) to create hybrid texts that offered both cultural interpretation and covert proselytization (Bueno 2020; I.-H. Chen 2016; He 2014; Jun and Cavayero 2025; Lai 2023; Lu 2013; H. Yang 2011). Secondly, they translated Chinese classics into English, serving the general missionary cause in an indirect way. The Jesuit missionaries from the early 16th century to the late 18th century painted a very positive picture of China. In the mid-to-late 18th century, the publication of George Anson’s A Voyage Round the World and the dissolution of the Jesuit order marked the turning point where China’s positive image in the West began waning after its zenith (Mackerras 1999, p. 39). For this reason, the Protestant missionaries’ translations of various Chinese classics present China’s authentic realities, updating the understanding of church policymakers and compatriots back home (Deng 2015, p. 41), which would reinforce their commitment to the missionary enterprise in the East and attract young recruits to China’s evangelistic field. In traditional Chinese culture, the three teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism) profoundly shaped the Chinese intellectual character and social order. These works were first rendered and consistently sustained in English translation by missionary translators (Deng 2015, pp. 50–61). Accordingly, scholarly focus has predominantly centered on their translations of these canons (Deng 2015; X. Li 2015; Lu 2013).

China’s civilizational advantage of practical knowledge outpaced that of its Eurasian counterparts before the 17th century, as evidenced by the British historian of science Joseph Needham’s contention that ancient China maintained “a level of scientific knowledge unapproached in the west” (Needham 1954, pp. 1–2). Particularly, the economic system of imperial China was fundamentally rooted in agrarian governance, which elevated agronomy to a privileged position within the disciplines of traditional Chinese science. More importantly, the 19th-century Protestant missionaries were pioneers in the translation of relevant classics into English. For example, the late Ming scholar-official Xu Guangqi (徐光啟) compiled the Nongzheng Quanshu (Compendium of Agricultural Administration 農政全書) by synthesizing previous agricultural books and integrating production techniques and experiences from various regions across the whole country. This agricultural compendium is renowned as “the culmination of ancient Chinese agricultural science and technology, holding an esteemed position in the history of China’s agricultural science” (M. Liu 2005, p. 97), and was among the earliest Chinese science works introduced to Europe in the early 18th century (Brookes 1736). In the 19th century, C. Shaw, whose identity has never been verified, published a heavily abridged translation of the section on kapok, which was published in the journal Chinese Repository (Shaw 1849). In the same year, the British Protestant missionary Walter Henry Medhurst produced a complete English translation of the section on sericulture (silk farming), which was published as a circulated volume by the London Missionary Society (LMS) Press. By the 1980s, Needham’s collaborator, Francesca Bray, had translated the book in the series Science and Civilisation in China (Bray 1984).

For a long period, the scholarship concerning Nongzheng Quanshu translation focuses on the linguistic aspects of either early 18th-century introduction or 20th-century renditions (H. Li 2017; Xu and Yao 2025; Zeng 2024). A survey of Medhurst-focused scholarship reveals that researchers have predominantly examined either his theological thought (Linhai Liu 2016) or his compilation of a Chinese–English dictionary (Li and Hansen 2018), Chinese translations of the Bible, and English translations of Confucian classics (Hong 2022; Liyi Liu 2019; Wang and Xu 2024). Notably, two recent master’s theses have undertaken analyses of terminological treatment from the linguistic perspectives in Medhurst’s rendering of Nongzheng Quanshu (Huang 2017; Z. Zhang 2022). However, the studies do not engage with the religious determinants underlying the translation activity, such as the missionary imperative persistently functioning as their central impetus (Bolton and Hutton 1998).

Out of such consideration, this study draws primarily on historical document reading and textual analysis methods to study Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu. Particularly, translation criticism is a rational reflection on and assessment of past translated works, processes and phenomena, which is undertaken by applying relatively universal criteria and considering the given historical–cultural contexts (McAlester 2000, p. 231). Its primary task “is to engage with translation by evaluating, examining, and critiquing its underlying motivations, methodologies, and quality” (J. Xu 2016, p. 433). These three facets correspond respectively to the pre-translation, in-translation, and post-translation phases, offering a comprehensive perspective for analyzing translational issues. Building on this, the following section attempts to address the following questions: (1) How the dissemination of the Gospel by Medhurst was specifically manifested in terms of his translational motivation, methodology and quality and (2) whether his translation achieved its intended religious impact or had a broader influence? This is achieved through a case study of China-based Protestant missionaries’ translational praxis (1807–1953). This study also reveals how translation served as both an evangelistic instrument and a secular conduit.

2. Medhurst’s Motivation for Rendering Chinese Agricultural Knowledge in Nongzheng Quanshu

Translation motivation refers to the reasons that compel a translator to choose a particular work for translation. Paratextual elements are crucial historical resources for reconstructing the history of translation (Batchelor 2018, p. 32). Nevertheless, paratexts within Medhurst’s translated Nongzheng Quanshu, such as the preface and introduction accompanying the translated text, are so scarce that the rationale of his translation cannot be explicitly perceived. Through examining Medhurst’s writings and other translations of Chinese classics, his rendition of Nongzheng Quanshu reveals a duality of motivation: overt pragmatism under religious impetus and a permeating evangelical conviction.

Medhurst’s translation as intervention operated as epistemic repositioning tools, promoting Chinese sericultural science within Westerners’ epistemological hierarchies while subliminally inscribing doctrinal dispositions. Primarily, he was committed to dispelling European misconceptions about Chinese sericultural science and fostering a dialog between Sino-Western civilizations in this field. In his 1838 work China: Its State and Prospects, Medhurst challenged the Western notion that ancient China lacked scientific achievements by grouping the chapter “The Art of Silk Manufacture” together with China’s Four Great Inventions, medical science, and astronomical accomplishments. He emphasized that Chinese sericulture boasts a long history, with its technical sophistication far surpassing that of England’s. It is argued that “down to the present age, the Chinese are still celebrated for the abundance, variety, and beauty of their silk fabrics, equalling in the richness of their colors, and the beauty of their embroidery, any thing that can be manufactured in France or England, while the crapes of China still surpass the products of this western world” (Medhurst 1838, p. 100). This conviction directly informed his 1840s translation project. The translation of Nongzheng Quanshu was intended as a part of his organized book series “The Chinese Miscellany; Designed to Illustrate the Government, Philosophy, Religion, Arts, Manufactures, Trade, Customs, History and Statistics of China” (abbreviated as “The Chinese Miscellany”), a comprehensive introduction to China for Western readers (Wylie 1867, p. 38). The sericulture section in Nongzheng Quanshu documented sericulture and other agricultural technologies, aligning with his appreciation of Chinese textile mastery. Before publishing this series, he had earlier translated the Confucian book Historical Classic (書經), incorporating its historical records on sericulture into the general introduction of the sericulture section in Nongzheng Quanshu.

The earliest allusion to the mulberry and silk, met with in the ancient writings of the Chinese, is in the 書經 Historical Classic, a work which existed before the days of Confucians, because it is quoted by him, and which embraces the history of China from (B.C. 2356, to B.C. 722) a period of 1634 years. In the former part of that period, we have the allusions referred to, recorded in the section called 禹貢 the tribute of Yu, who flourished 2200 years before Christ. In his days the mulberry is spoken of as a well-known production, and silk as obtained therefrom; so that it must have been discovered before his days. The usual traditions, that it was discovered during the reign of 黃帝 Hwang-té (B.C. 2640) by his queen.

The passages in the Historical Classic, in which references to the mulberry and silk are made, are as follows (Medhurst 1849a, p. 1).

As he stated in the preface of Historical Classic, this effort aimed to give the British public a more accurate understanding of China and excite their interest in the country (Medhurst 1846, p. ix). He sought to bridge civilizational misunderstandings and counteract Westerners’ prejudices against Chinese scientific achievements in silk weaving. Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu was projected to be one volume in his book series “The Chinese Miscellany”. In his translator’s preface to another translated Chinese work in this series, he explicitly states that the translation is meant to bring “the eastern and western world into a better acquaintance with each other” (Medhurst 1849c, p. Translator’s Preface). By the same token, the rendering of Chinese agricultural knowledge was an approach aligned with his missionary goal of fostering a receptive attitude toward China among Westerners. As such, the dismantling of Western misconceptions about Chinese agricultural science was imperative to legitimizing the Christian evangelical project within the country.

In essence, his translation endeavors were institutionally and personally fueled by a strong evangelistic purpose. To begin with, within a particular society, Protestant missionaries’ practice and their native social customs are deeply interconnected (Li and Fu 2025). As a member of the LMS, which prioritized ecclesiastical fidelity as its premier criterion for vetting missionary candidates to China (Rabe 1978, p. 94), Medhurst cannot escape religious consideration for his translation, which can be seen in his regular letters to LMS1. Before entering China for missionary work in the 1840s, he himself declared that he hoped to “labor for the benefits of China,” with the doctrine of the LMS being “leave it to the minds of the persons whom God may call into the fellowship of his Son from among them, to assume for themselves such form of church government, as to them shall appear most agreeable to the word of God” (Medhurst 1838, p. III). Meanwhile, sent by the LMS to Malacca in 1816, Medhurst relocated to Shanghai in 1843, where he established the LMS Press, China’s first modern printing house, and collaborated with Chinese scholars such as Wang Tao (王韜) in translating Western knowledge. However, statistical records show that, between 1844 and 1860, over 80% of the LMS Press’s publications were religious books (Duan 2006). During this period, Medhurst authored some religious works, completed his Chinese translation of the New Testament titled Xinyi Zhaoshu (新遺詔書), and made multiple preaching tours into China’s interior, establishing himself as “the acknowledged head of the mission” (Thompson 1906, p. 47) in China. He was further conferred the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1843 by New York University (Chisholm 1911, p. 20). Anyhow, Medhurst’s primary identity was that of a Protestant missionary driven by religious convictions of placing China within the divinely established order governing the universe and reinforce God’s role as the “Creator” of the world. After his death, one close associate penned eulogies affirming his missionary convictions, praising that he was “steadfast in his profession, and for nearly half a century one of the ‘faithful in Christ Jesus’” (Milne 1857, p. 165).

Secondly, Medhurst’s translation epitomized his evangelistic notion, strategically employing cultural exchange as a precursor to theological critique. He stated that “as we contemplate the introduction of a new religion into the country, it is natural to inquire, what are their present views of divine and eternal things” (Medhurst 1838, p. vi). Notwithstanding his affirmative stance toward China’s sericultural achievements and high regard for its agrarian science, Medhurst essentially sought to decry the absence of Christian theological engagement within the Chinese classics. Through his translations of those texts—notably Nongzheng Quanshu—Medhurst tried to substantiate an assertion that these works suffered from “one defect, and that is the want of religion” (Medhurst 1846, p. viii). For example, the common concept of “天” (tian/God/heaven/sky) appears in Nongzheng Quanshu (e.g., “天时,” literally meaning “weather”) and is always related to agricultural production in the natural world, without involving religious connotations. However, Medhurst argues that such a concept imbued with Christian meaning—such as the belief that all facets of agriculture reside in the providence of God—becomes reduced to mere identification “with the material heavens” and thus “love for the Great God and Father of all is never inculcated” (Medhurst 1846, p. viii.) The understanding of this idea would gradually help achieve “a large-scale conversion of the Chinese people to Protestant Christianity and the free circulation of European Christians to all parts of the Chinese empire” (Chang 2007, p. 28). Additionally, his earlier writings expressed admiration for Xu Guangqi, the Ming dynasty Catholic convert (Medhurst 1838, p. 187). This reverence manifested in the subtitle of the Nongzheng Quanshu translation, “Translated from the Works of Tseu-Kwang K’he, Called also Paul Siu,” which featured Xu’s Christian baptismal name “Paul Siu.” Alexander Wylie, Medhurst’s close friend and co-worker at the LMS Press, is another example of this missionary motive: his English translations of Chinese science traditions fundamentally served academic evangelism—inspiring more and more fellow missionaries’ engagement with divine revelation to lead the Chinese toward apprehending scientific “truth” (Wylie 1897, p. 194). Subsequently, he could hasten the fulfillment of God’s ultimate purpose of spreading the Gospel in China.

3. Medhurst’s Translation Methodology for Rendering Agricultural Knowledge in Nongzheng Quanshu

Fang’s (2019, p. 110) dual-dimension framework establishes translation methodology as both overall conceptualization (content-form equivalence) and applied praxis (problem-solving). This bifurcation positions methodology not merely as a technical tool but as a theoretical–operational continuum. Zabalbeascoa (2000, p. 119) further anchors methodology within the “realm of process,” emphasizing that it is a planned intervention. Therefore, translation methodology functions as the structural blueprint guiding the act of translation from macro- to micro-levels. The case of translating Nongzheng Quanshu first poses a methodological challenge, which is the textual instability in multiple circulating editions. Discrepancies in illustrations and characters of different versions necessitate Chinese edition selection—a decision transcending philology to become a methodological act. This selection is critical and never neutral, where Medhurst’s choice pre-structures the translation process. Consequently, a critical analysis of Medhurst’s translation method begins with textual verification of his source Chinese edition, followed by examination of how representative knowledge symbols were rendered. Delving into Medhurst’s methodology reveals its deep interweaving with his Christian mission.

3.1. Chinese Edition

Following Medhurst’s arrival in Shanghai and commencement of evangelism in the Chinese hinterland in 1843, he grew aware of the influence of the literati class in Chinese society. The late Ming Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci’s preaching and translation activities in China received crucial assistance from Xu Guangqi. Medhurst held this Shanghai-born intellectual in high regard, characterizing him as “a mandarin of great talents and influence” (Medhurst 1838, p. 187). Xu, who held a high official position, assisted Ricci’s evangelical work: “His exertions and example did much to promote the cause of Ricci, and his accurate knowledge of the language enabled him to throw the publications of his instructor into a neat and elegant style, which contributed to their acceptability with the higher classes of the people” (Medhurst 1838, p. 187). Xu once defended the Catholic cause in the presence of the emperor and “his influence contributed much to the extension of the Romish faith in China” (Medhurst 1838, p. 188). Therefore, in Medhurst’s assessment, the Chinese scholar-official class of the kind wielded “top-down societal influence,” which can be further evidenced by his work reports to the LMS. Medhurst cited the example of Xu to illustrate the once-successful Catholic missionary efforts during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties (Su 2000, pp. 443–45). He noted that the key to this lay in converting the literati class, after which the common people followed. In contrast, Protestant converts in his time were predominantly among the less educated populace, who lacked genuine reverence for God. As a consequence, Medhurst harbored a desire for his endeavors in China to be advanced by some similarly positioned collaborators. His collaborative undertakings—including Chinese biblical translations and the English translations of Chinese classics such as Historical Classic—all received assistance from Chinese scholars who possessed high literacy to varying degrees (Hanan 2003; Liyi Liu 2019). Therefore, his selection of source texts for translating Chinese books demonstrably reflected his missionary strategy, leading him to follow versions recognized as authoritative within the Chinese scholarly tradition. This tendency is also reflected in the edition of Nongzheng Quanshu that he chose.

A comparative analysis between these Chinese editions and the translated text shows that Medhurst’s choice of Chinese version was meticulous. He did not explicitly identify the Chinese edition of Nongzheng Quanshu used as its source text. Prior to his translation of Nongzheng Quanshu, three major Chinese editions were in popular circulation: the Pinglutang (平露堂) edition (first printed and circulated in 1639), the Guizhou Liangshu (貴州糧署) edition (first printed and circulated in 1837), and the Shanghai Shuhailou (上海曙海樓) edition (first printed and circulated in 1843) (Xiong 2021). Toury (2012, p. 99) points out that any attempt to justify a translator’s “selection of a source text would depend, at least in part, on what the assumed translation itself has exhibited.”

Medhurst’s translation included over 10 sericulture and silk-weaving illustrations, which firstly facilitates the ascertainment of the Chinese version. The illustration depicting mulberry pruning techniques (Figure 1) shows farmers using pruning knives. This visual representation aligns precisely with both the Pinglutang and Shuhailou editions. On this basis, the Guizhou Liangshu edition modifies an original expression “玄扈先生曰” (comment by Xuangu, Xu Guangqi’s pseudonym) to “元扈先生曰” (comment by Yuangu). Clearly, Medhurst’s translation does not align with this edition. When such a variant character is excluded, textual comparison between the Pinglutang and Shuhailou editions reveals two significant variant characters (see Examples 1 and 2). This conclusively establishes the Shanghai Shuhailou edition as his source text for the translation.

Furthermore, in a detailed comparison between the Guizhou Liangshu edition and the Shanghai Shuhailou edition, the former “proves inferior, containing some misprinted characters and illustrations that diverge from the original late Ming version” (Xiong 2021, p. 86); the latter corrected these errors in the very first engraved edition and thus was viewed as a more reliable text by most Qing scholars in Medhurst’s era. Moreover, as the historian of science Francesca Bray (Bray et al. 2007, p. 522) has observed, the illustrations in Chinese agricultural classics were cherished not for artistic style but for their function—to convey technical knowledge, specialized expertise, and multiple meanings. Consistent with Xu Guangqi’s prioritization of agrarian development, the illustrations in Nongzheng Quanshu operated as functional instruments of its “agricultural governance” doctrine rather than ornamental elements. The Guizhou Liangshu edition’s illustration of mulberry pruning (Figure 1) depicts the figure wielding the pruning knife as a beardless adolescent. By contrast, Medhurst adopts the representation of the elderly figure from the Shuhailou edition. Significantly, it is documented in Nongzheng Quanshu that one must adapt to the hand’s height when cutting, freely deciding which branches to keep or remove. The harvest of mulberry leaves requires considerable technical skill that can only be mastered through accumulated experience. Inadequate technique may lead to improperly crossed branches, hindering normal growth and sap leakage from poorly made cuts. Thus, the elderly bearded figure that Medhurst presents more accurately reflects agricultural practices during the late Ming period. Secondly, turning to Example 1, the term “麧” refers to coarse bran fragments in wheat husks, while “麵” denotes powder, which aligns precisely with the sericulture knowledge of grinding mulberry leaves into powder for silkworm feeding. Medhurst’s translation as “powder” accurately captures this technical specificity. In Example 2, the verbs “收” (to gather) and “投” (to cast) carry fundamentally different implications in feeding practices, with the latter’s meaning fitting the contextual requirements. Once again, Medhurst’s choices strictly adhere to the Shuhailou edition. His precise selection of illustrations and texts demonstrates his meticulous preservation of both the fundamental principles and authentic representation of Chinese agricultural knowledge. His correction of textual errors reveals the substantive technical essence of sericulture techniques while avoiding potential misinterpretations by Western readers.

Example 1:

Pinglutang edition: 泥封收囤，至臘月內，搗磨成麧。

Shuhailou edition: 泥封收囤，至臘月內，搗磨成麵。

The jar in which they are kept must be plastered over and kept close. In the 12th month (January) these may be beaten and ground into a powder, to be used as a remedy against the heat to which the worms are subject… (Medhurst 1849a, p. 21)

Example 2:

Pinglutang edition: 第四頓收食，拌葉勻飼；解蠶熱毒。

Shuhailou edition: 第四頓投食，拌葉勻飼；解蠶熱毒。

At the fourth meal after their revival, give this to the worms mixed up with the leaves, in equal quantities; this is to cure the worms of the feverish heat which they get into. (Medhurst 1849a, p. 37)

Such a choice by Medhurst also indicates the missionary-driven epistemology that permeated British Sinology in that era. The history of British Sinology in the 19th century consists of two phases demarcated by the first Opium War in 1840: a pre-war era dominated by an amateur approach, and a post-war era marked by Protestant missionaries’ progressive professionalization (Y. Chen 2008, p. 34). His translation in the 1840s initiated British Sinology’s transformation from amateur endeavors to professional scholarship. As in this phase of British Sinology, “Chinese studies transformed from a religious objective into a methodological tool, integrated within empirically driven socio-science frameworks and governed by rational academic discourse” (G. Zhang 2001, p. 48). As a seminal work of early professionalized British Sinology, Medhurst’s 1846 translation of Historical Classic and 1849 translation of The China Man Abroad: A Desultory Account of the Malayan Archipelago (Haidao Yizhi 海島逸志) (Hou 2025; Liyi Liu 2019; Medhurst 1849c) stick to the emerging scholarly ethos: objective analysis of Chinese classics superseding direct missionary agendas, which became a defining feature of the field. Bourdieu (1972) once defined habitus as the system of durable and transposable dispositions that determine how individuals think and act in line with their life conditions and social trajectory. Medhurst’s version of Nongzheng Quanshu was published in 1849, after his above two translations. This sequence explains his continuous scholarly, objective habitus in selecting the source edition—a practice that embodies the strategic direction of missionary scholarship after the first Opium War.

3.2. Agricultural Terminology

Medhurst institutionalized Chinese language acquisition and favored interlinear translations for his successors, weaponizing linguistic competence for evangelism. For pioneering Protestant missionaries in modern China, language constituted a primary obstacle to evangelization. Confronting this exigency, Medhurst dedicated exceptional scholarly effort to compiling Anglo-Chinese and dialectal lexicons, ultimately producing eight dictionaries (Wylie 1867). Mastery of Chinese was imperative to cultivate a profound understanding of China’s history and contemporary socio-politics—a prerequisite for exploring contextually viable approaches to Gospel propagation. Medhurst appealed to the LMS that his work in China required support—specifically an adequate number of men, “well acquainted with the language and habits of the people, who will go forth on missionary expeditions, and employ themselves in carrying the Scriptures and tracts, to every part of the coast of China” (Medhurst 1838, p. 425). He further elaborated in his translation as follows: “For the benefit of students in Chinese, the text is interspersed with the translation, so as to afford a pretty correct clue to the meaning of each particular character. The desire to preserve the original text perfect, both as to number and disposition of the words, has made the translation a little more stiff than it otherwise would have been, but the advantage to the student, it is presumed, will more than counterbalance this defect” (Medhurst 1846, p. ix). Therefore, he tended to maintain the original favor, through the juxtaposition of the original and translated texts, to facilitate prospective missionaries committed to acquiring Chinese language and evangelical preaching. For the compilation of the Chinese–English dictionary in a similar vein, he also hoped that “the promotion of Civilization and Christianity be the result” (Medhurst 1842, p. v). On the basis of choosing the most original version of Nongzheng Quanshu, this value is also the case for his translation of the specialized set of words.

Medhurst’s domestication-oriented value largely preserved the culturally embedded sericulture terminology in Nongzheng Quanshu. To be specific, the agricultural knowledge of sericulture documented in Nongzheng Quanshu crystallizes into specialized terminology deeply rooted in China’s geographical landscape and production culture. The statistical tally of relevant terms within Medhurst’s translation yields a count of 138 unique items (

Table 1. Statistical analysis of Medhurst’s translation methods for agricultural terms in Nongzheng Quanshu.

No.	Translation Techniques		Count	Percentage	Examples
1	Zero Translation +	Transliteration	3	2%	後高 Hów-kaon
2		Transliteration + literal translation	8	62%	四出 Szé-ch’hǔh worms
3		Transliteration + in-text annotation	1		連 lëen, joined sheets
4		Transliteration + literal translation + in-text annotation	19		蚖珍 yuen-chin, (or April) worms
5		Literal translation	57		雞桑 chicken mulberry
6		Free translation + in-text annotation	2	36%	添梯 layer, or rampin-board
7		Free translation	48		蛾眉杖子 rail of the reel

). Guided by the religion-driven translation idea, he universally employed the zero-translation method in Nongzheng Quanshu, retaining the original characters of agricultural terms before further encoding or explaining them using other translation methods. It maximizes the preservation of semantic integrity and cultural connotations of original concepts, thereby achieving authentic representation of Chinese language.

For instance, the transliteration method is applied to terms like “後高” (a variety of silkworm), rendered as “Hów-kaon” (see Table 1). This approach strictly preserves the linguistic and cultural attributes of the source language. Generally, methods such as transliteration with in-text annotations, literal translation, or their combinations, authentically represent the origins of local knowledge and are inducive to foreigners’ Chinese acquisition. Comparatively speaking, free translation and free translation with annotations (such as “添梯 layer”) align with fluent English language style; they ultimately converted the foreign perceptual experience of a cultural group into familiar expressions. In Medhurst’s translation, transliteration, free translation and free translation with in-text annotations account for 38% of the methods used. Thus, his handling of agricultural terminology largely adheres to the evangelically framed impetus to manifest the real China and promote the Chinese learning of potential missionaries.

Example 3: 永嘉有八輩蠶：蚖珍蠶、三月績。柘蠶、四月績。蚖蠶，四月績。愛珍、五月績。愛蠶、六月未績。寒珍、七月末績。四出蠶、九月初績。寒蠶。十月績。

In Yung-këa, there are eight kinds of worms: the 蚖珍 Yuen-chin worms, which spin in the 3rd month, (April); the 柘 Chay worms, which spin in the beginning of the fourth moon, (May); the 蚖 Yuen worms, which spin about the same time; the 愛珍 Gaé-chin worms, which spin in the fifth moon, (June); the 愛 Gaé worms, which spin in the latter part of the 6th moon, (July); the 寒珍 Hǎn-chin worms, which spin in the latter part of the 7th moon, (August); the 四出 Szé-ch’hǔh worms, which spin in the beginning of the 9th moon, (October); and the 寒 Hǎn worms, which spin in the 10th moon, (November). (Medhurst 1849a, p. 6)

This example introduces the idea that, in Yongjia county of Zhejiang province, Chinese farmers developed eight distinct varieties of silkworms based on different months and seasons. The naming of these terms reflects region-specific sericultural knowledge. For instance, 蚖珍蠶 (Yuanzhen silkworms) and 柘蠶 (Zhe silkworms) denote the worms’ physical traits and colors, 四出蠶 (Sichu silkworms) conveys their habits, and 愛蠶 (Ai silkworms) carries a poetic flair. Medhurst retained the Chinese names, supplementing them with transliteration and literal translation. Undoubtedly, these localized agricultural concepts lack exact linguistic equivalents in English culture. Transliteration preserves the authentic information and culture, maintaining the original characteristics of Chinese-specific terminology to the greatest extent. To mitigate comprehension difficulties caused by excessive transliteration, Medhurst supplemented them with literal translations and additional explanatory notes in parentheses. This approach creates an exotic experience, while also enabling Western readers to figure out the meanings of particular Chinese characters. By employing transliteration and flexibly restructuring original terms, the method resolves issues of cultural untranslatability, while also enhancing the audience’s appreciation of China’s agricultural tradition. From this analytical vantage, such culturally adaptive translation strategies inherently resonate with his evangelically conditioned stance.

4. Translation Quality of Medhurst’s English Translation of Nongzheng Quanshu

Translation quality refers to the macro-evaluation of a translated text at the linguistic level, and the assessment of it means “retrospectively assessing the worth of a translation” (House 2015, p. 2). Meanwhile, “equivalence is the fundamental criterion of translation quality, an adequate translation text is a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one” (ibid., p. 23). While semantic meaning lies in the denotation of linguistic signs to counterparts that human minds are capable of constructing, pragmatic meaning examines the communicative goals and contextual conditions under which referential meanings are effectively used as utterances. In terms of Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu, an ideal translation quality should both capture the essence of linguistic units and accommodate the potential readers’ expectations.

Superficially, Medhurst’s translation is less likely to function equivalently in terms of semantic meanings. He once remarked on the challenges of translating Chinese classics: “The obscurity and conciseness of the original has rendered it no easy task to present the thoughts of the Chinese author to the European reader, so as to interest without misleading” (Medhurst 1846, p. ix). To put it differently, the textual presentation of Nongzheng Quanshu, written in classical Chinese, follows a paratactic mechanism featuring verb-centric, scattered arrangements that achieve brevity and fluency through semantic coherence rather than syntactic connectives (Xu and Zhang 2006). This contrasts markedly with equivalent English texts that prioritize logical rigor and precise expression, typically employing relational conjunctions to make explicit connections between central themes and clauses. Theoretically speaking, to effectively reconstruct the semantic meaning and subsequently ensure the pragmatic effect of Chinese agricultural text, the translation of Nongzheng Quanshu should achieve textual kinship with paradigmatic English texts of its genre. However, through textual analysis and comparative evaluation, his translations adhere closely to the syntactic structure of source texts, preserving their concision and paratactic structure. Worse still, occasional translations display constrained readability and grammatical discontinuity. Considering that the majority of Westerners at the time lacked proficiency in Chinese and familiarity with China’s agrarian tradition, the semantic context of Nongzheng Quanshu could not be adequately reconstructed.

Example 4: 育蠶之法，始於擇種。收繭，取簇之中，向陽明淨厚實者。蛾出第一日者，名苗蛾，末後出者名末蛾，皆不可用。次日以後出者，取之。鋪連於槌箔，雄雌相配。至暮，拋去雄蛾，將母蛾於連上勻布。所生子，環堆者，皆不用。

In rearing the silk-worms, the first thing to be regarded is the selection of the seed; in choosing the cocoons for seed, take them whilst on the bush. Hold them up to the light, and separate the bright and clear from the thick and solid ones. The moths that come out on the first day are called 苗蛾 early moths; those that come out the last of all are called末蛾 late moths, both of which are to be set aside. Those which come out on and after the second day may be selected. Spread the cards on the hurdles upon the stands; and put the male and female moths together until the evening, when you may throw away the male moths; then select those eggs which the female moths have laid in order upon the cards; those which are laid in a circle, or on a heap may be rejected (Medhurst 1849a, p. 11).

In example 4, the source text introduces the selection of silkworm eggs in sericulture. It omits the subject across sequential human actions and leaves logical relationships implicit (e.g., the reason for discarding both “苗蛾 early moths” and “末蛾 late moths” is their developmental deficiencies or physical weakness). In Medhurst’s translation, this linguistic structure is mechanically replicated such as using active voice, resulting in a stylistically rigid rendition. Such translation quality “in general is not comparable with that of Jesuit translations” (Tsien 1954, p. 310) as it intrinsically contradicts the equivalence principle of the ideal quality criterion. Under such circumstances, Medhurst’s translation is viewed as “reducing very greatly his powers of expression in English” (Old 1904, p. viii).

Example 5: 此際不宜抬解。箔上布蠶，須相去一指，布蠶一個，取臘月所藏綠豆，水浸微生芽，曬乾磨作細面。第四頓投食，拌葉勻飼；

At this period of it will not be necessary to remove them, by lifting the leaves, but you can handle the worms, and spread them on the hurdles, each at a finger’s breadth from the other; you may also take the green pulse, which you stored up in the winter months, and steeping it in water until it begins to vegetate a little, dry it and grind it into a fine powder; at the fourth meal after their revival, give this to the worms mixed up with the leaves, in equal quantities (Medhurst 1849a, p. 37).

The source Chinese of example 5 describes silkworm feeding methods in which silkworms are placed on bamboo mats at intervals of one finger’s width. Next, mung beans stored since the twelfth lunar month are retrieved and soaked in water until slight sprouts emerge. These sprouted beans are then sun-dried and ground into fine powder. Finally, the powder is evenly mixed with an equal number of mulberry leaves to feed the silkworms. The Chinese discourse employs concise phrasing, where the logical relationships between clauses are implied through inherent semantics rather than being marked by explicit connectives, relying on contextual sequencing to convey the narrative flow. Though English conventions emphasize logical connectors to clarify agricultural procedures, conjunctions like “then” or “respectively” are absent. Furthermore, English science texts favor impersonal constructions with implied agency, including sentences with agentless passive voice, to enhance textual formality and the objectivity of knowledge (Z. Yang 2019). Superficially, the phrasing “give this to the worms...” may appear as an impersonal construction, but it violates principles of valid semantic reconstruction. As this example shows, Medhurst does not reconstruct Chinese agricultural knowledge through the language of similar English works. Instead, he rigidly preserves the original word order. More critically, “steeping” appears coordinated with the verb “take” in this translation, reproducing the original grammatical issue. Therefore, the German sinologist Dieter Kuhn commented that the Nongzheng Quanshu translation of Medhurst was “not adequate” (Kuhn 1981, p. 70).

The primary reasons for this are attributed to the sense of Western linguistic superiority among Medhurst’s contemporary fellow missionaries and his ideology on missionary priorities. Firstly, originating with Robert Morrison, the first Protestant missionary to China in 1807, subsequent missionary translators espoused fidelity “not only to give the ideas, but also the style and manner of the original” (Morrison 1812, p. 20). Meanwhile, as is noted by Jiang (2010, p. 44), the Protestant missionary translators ostensibly followed Chinese syntactic structures and paratactic connotations, but their fundamental approach involved mimicking Chinese linguistic patterns to convey alterity, which inadvertently created an impression of Chinese linguistic imprecision among English readers. In other words, the linguistic deficiency of the Chinese language was a prevailing view among missionaries in his time (Wylie 1897). Medhurst’s primary readership consisted of missionary peers. Within this mainstream ideology, he, who “was looked upon as the corypheus among the sinologues of his day” (Thompson 1906, p. 47), proved no exception. Medhurst contended that the Chinese writing system exhibited static development, while asserting “In the science of grammar, the Chinese have made no progress” (Medhurst 1838, p. 141). Consequently, in his translations, he minimized English embellishment to ensure the effective reconstruction of Chinese agricultural knowledge, preserving the original linguistic style. Just as in the above two translation examples, Medhurst highlighted perceived deficiencies in Chinese expression, thereby accentuating the superiority of Christianity and underlining theological justification for the vision of Chinese people’s religious transformation.

Secondly, Medhurst’s primary concern was evangelism; the translation of Chinese classics rather than the Bible merely served as a supplementary tool for his beloved missionary work. In reality, non-religious translation by missionaries in China was not mission sanctioned. The directors of the LMS maintained persistent skepticism toward such endeavors, concerned that these “amateur” deeds might detract from missionaries’ core evangelistic duties by consuming their time (Girardot 2002, p. 63). Consequently, Medhurst scarcely referenced these translations in his official correspondence with the LMS (Liyi Liu 2019). Under such circumstances, he had no adequate financial support to prioritize stylistic refinement in the translated text. In introducing Medhurst’s series “The Chinese Miscellany”, Wylie (1867, p. 38) noted that the publication was abruptly discontinued in 1850. Nongzheng Quanshu constitutes the third installment in his serial. The first installment was A Glance at the Interior of China: Obtained During a Journey through the Silk and Green Tea Districts (Medhurst 1845), followed by the second installment comprising the translation of The China Man Abroad: A Desultory Account of the Malayan Archipelago. The fourth installment was a translation of the General Description of Shanghae and Its Environs (Shanghai Xianzhi 上海縣誌). In the translator’s preface of the second installment, Medhurst personally admits that “with regard to the translation, it remains merely to be observed, that it has been drawn up amidst the pressure of many more important duties” (Medhurst 1849c, p. Translator’s Preface). Among more important duties, the foremost was the production of the Chinese Bible.

“Convinced that the Bible’s word inspired by God, they believed, in theory at least, that a mere reading of the text might be enough to convert people.” (Hanan 2003, p. 199) The LMS thus always emphasized the importance of the Chinese Bible for propagating the Christian Gospel (Holliday 2016). In reality, Medhurst’s missionary biography reveals that, from 1843 to 1857, he played a principal role in collaborating with three other missionaries on the translation of the “Delegates’ Version” of the Chinese Bible (Hanan 2003). The latter half of his life was almost entirely devoted to this; nothing else held greater importance. Between 1848 and 1849, however, his disagreements with American missionaries regarding term translation widened, and the controversy over the Chinese rendition of “God” remained unresolved (Hong 2022). Consequently, during this period, he undertook extensive missionary tours throughout China’s interior while distributing his translated Christian pamphlets. Moreover, he authored a series of papers and five monographs addressing the topic of Christian terminology from 1849 to 1850, such as On the True Meaning of the Word Shin, as Exhibited in the Quotations Adduced under That Word in the Chinese Imperial Thesaurus Called the Pei-wan-yun-foo (Medhurst 1849b). As such, his demanding schedule of scholarly writings left limited capacity to dedicate to the English translation of Chinese works. As mentioned above, his second installment prior to Nongzheng Quanshu—complete with the translator’s paratextual intervention—exhibits editorial features absent from Nongzheng Quanshu and the fourth installment translation, manifesting a sign of precipitous publication. Even his earlier important translation of Historical Classic in 1846 was regarded as “done hastily” (Legge 1939, p. vi). This deficiency manifested in translation (examples 4–5) that inherently attained the extra-linguistic efficacy, thereby enhancing the legitimation of disseminating the Christian Gospel by more Westerners.

The impact of Medhurst’s translations among target readerships can be indirectly gauged through contemporaneous Christian newspaper coverage. A search of the British Newspaper Archive reveals that two prominent British publications, namely Patriot (15 April 1850) and British Banner (17 April 1850), issued publication notices for Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu (Cooper 1981; Livingstone 1857). These two newspapers were distinctly religious in character, primarily catering to a faith-based readership. In the case of Patriot, the founders wanted to make the views of evangelical dissenters known to the world and present the world affairs to the evangelical dissenting community—this periodical had 1600 subscribers within a month of its first appearance (Cooper 1981, pp. 59–60). The contemporaneous announcements in Christian newspapers demonstrate, to some extent, the attention Medhurst’s translation received within Protestant circles during the mid-Victorian period. In this regard, his translation would gradually clear intellectual obstacles for disseminating the Gospel in China while fortifying its foundations. Medhurst’s rendering satisfied the predominant ecclesiastical expectations of his target audience.

Furthermore, and as mentioned before, the LMS Press was originally established by the British LMS in Batavia, Southeast Asia, before being relocated to Shanghai by Medhurst, where it became a pivotal base for missionary printing in China. Following his death, some Protestant missionaries who had worked at the press—including Alexander Wylie, William Charles Milne, and William Muirhead—composed commemorative writings in Christian-related publications. They all presented Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu (Marshall 1858; Milne 1857; Muirhead 1857; Wylie 1867), indicating their probable firsthand engagement with the translated text and their favor for its circulation among contemporary fellow missionaries or more Westerners. These evangelists, motivated by religious convictions, focused on Chinese enlightenment and religious conversion, unconsciously operated within a Western-centric mindset (Bohr 2001; Gow 2024; Lai 2010). Viewed through this lens, Medhurst’s translation was adequate at the pragmatic level as it cemented their determination to further advance the missionary cause in China.

5. Conclusions

Agronomy is cherished as one of the four scientific disciplines in ancient China, with Xu Guangqi’s Nongzheng Quanshu representing the pinnacle of its achievements. Medhurst, a late Qing missionary, translated it into English in 1849. Driven superficially by sympathy for Chinese agricultural science and a strong underlying desire to civilize China through Christianity, he opted to translate the chapter that represented Chinese silk-farming technologies. Owing to his reliance on Christian Chinese scholars, he prioritized the Chinese edition that was regarded as the most authorized edition at that time. He also followed the popular religious methodology of keeping original favor to present the agricultural terminology. As required for LMS’s provision of financial support for him, his interest in Chinese classics was merely secondary, overshadowed by his primary missionary work such as his Chinese translation of the Bible; thus, he could not afford the time to meticulously ensure the semantic adequacy of translation quality. This secondary rendering, which mirrored the unscientific grammar of classical Chinese, aligned with missionaries’ rationale for cultural evangelism, thus achieving the pragmatic effect. To this end, his translations of such an extracanonical Chinese work show an indirect evangelical consideration, wherein translation served as an appropriation whose aim lay in theologically realizing Chinese people’s subsumption within the Christian world. This demonstrates the contributions of this study to the field of religious studies. It delves into how religious imperatives dominated and shaped the cultural intermediary behavior of late Qing missionaries in China, avoiding a simple binary of cultural “envoys” or “aggressors.” Missionaries acting as “cultural mediators” during this period demonstrated an inherent tension. They needed to use Chinese elements (such as approaching the literati and translating Chinese classics) while simultaneously viewing these as requiring replacement by Christianity. Therefore, this study enriches the scholarly understanding of the history of Christianity in modern China. It underscores how religious ideology plays a decisive role in seemingly neutral translation activities.

From a broader historical perspective, translation within Christian culture served not merely as an instrument of religious propagation but also as a critical medium for social communication (Li and Gao 2025; Py and Carvalho Soares 2023). Medhurst’s translation of Chinese agricultural knowledge indirectly facilitated the development of Great Britain’s silk textile economy, while in the long term it promoted Sino-Western dialogue and exchange in scientific communication. Specifically, the British East India Company (dissolved in 1874) compelled Indian farmers to cultivate mulberry trees and produce raw silk, transforming the colonized country into a raw material supply base for its domestic silk industry; India became the second largest producer of silk after China, and mulberry silk production, which uses the Bombyx mori silkworm, accounted for over 90% of the whole country’s total silk production (Alam 1999). Medhurst’s translation was republished in British India in 1858 after its initial publication in Shanghai. Shortly afterward, in 1859, an academic paper entitled “Synopsis of the Known Asiatic Species of Silk-producing Moths” was published by a Britain-based journal, The Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, and presented part of Medhurst’s translation (Moore 1859). Taking all of these into consideration, Medhurst’s work served as an intellectual reference that facilitated technological innovation in the processing of Indian raw silk, thereby catalyzing the expansion of Britain’s commercial textile economy during the Industrial Revolution. More importantly, his influence extended beyond his era, persisting well into the 20th century. Joseph Needham, beginning in 1954, undertook the task of compiling Science and Civilisation in China, which is a seminal multivolume work dedicated to advancing Western understanding of the Chinese scientific tradition and reasserting the historical significance of China’s contributions in the fields of science and technology. “Science and Civilization in China (Volume 5, Part 9: Textile Technology: Spinning and Reeling) (Kuhn 1988) later incorporated Medhurst’s translation of Nongzheng Quanshu as a key reference for reproducing China’s history of agricultural science, which further evidenced the far-reaching cross-cultural contribution of his secular activity.” This Protestant missionary’s non-Christian translation functioned simultaneously on multiple levels.