An Early Attempt at Sino-Western Intellectual Dialogue: A Historical Study of Translation of Texts on Logic by Western Missionaries at the Turn of Ming–Qing Dynasties

Abstract

During the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, the introduction of Western scientific knowledge to China, facilitated by Western missionaries, included logic as a critical element of Western philosophy and scientific culture. This concept was translated, interpreted, and disseminated, carrying both academic contribution and a historical mission of cultural integration and intellectual enlightenment. The development of the Chinese conceptualization of logic mirrors the intricate process of cultural negotiation and conceptual accommodation between Chinese and Western intellectual traditions. This process went beyond simple terminology translation, representing a significant epistemological shift that introduced into traditional Chinese thought a mode of systematic reasoning previously underdeveloped in the indigenous scholarly tradition. Unlike the systematic formalization of logic in the Western tradition, logical reflection in classical Chinese culture took different forms without coalescing into a comparable systematic field. This paper finds that the introduction of Western logic, with its emphasis on formal deduction and systematic reasoning, constituted an early but significant encounter that contributed to the longer-term transformation of Chinese philosophical discourse in three aspects: it introduced a cognition-centered methodological framework that offered an alternative to the ethically oriented traditional Chinese concepts; it provided intellectual resources that encouraged a gradual shift from purely moral speculation toward incorporating empirical investigation and logical demonstration; and it laid the essential conceptual groundwork for the eventual establishment of logic as a modern academic discipline in China. Collectively, these translated texts and concepts introduced new conceptual possibilities into the Chinese intellectual landscape, contributing over time to a gradual shift from prioritizing moral introspection and analogical reasoning toward increasingly valuing empirical investigation, formal demonstration, and systematic argumentation. Ultimately, the translation of logic was not a passive reception but an active intellectual engagement that introduced new conceptual possibilities into Chinese philosophical discourse, contributing over time to a broader reorientation toward rationality and systematicity.

1. Introduction

The late Ming to early Qing period, roughly spanning the late 16th to mid-17th centuries, presented a unique historical context for the initial, substantive intercultural exchange between Chinese and Western civilizations, coinciding with the nascent stages of globalization (G. Xu 2024). This era witnessed the Age of Discovery, which dismantled the geographical isolation between East and West. Western missionaries, particularly the Jesuits, arrived in China with the dual objectives of religious proselytization and cultural dissemination, thus initiating the initial phase of Western intellectual influence in the East (Gao 2006, p. 39). Unlike the late Qing period, where Western cultural influence was intertwined with gunboat diplomacy, Sino-Western interactions during the late Ming and early Qing exhibited a spirit of mutual exploration and were regarded as a creative adaption process (Lu 2018; He 2023). Western missionaries were compelled to accommodate themselves to the Chinese Confucian-dominated cultural framework, while Chinese literati, facing dynastic decline and intellectual stagnation, adopted an open-minded approach to foreign scholarship, selectively integrating useful elements (G. Li 2008, p. 39). So, Western missionaries during the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties significantly influenced China’s social and cultural transformation, leaving a lasting impact on its developmental trajectory.

This intercultural encounter provided the structural conditions for the initial introduction of Western logic into China. The reception and translation of logic, however, cannot be understood in isolation. They were intimately tied to the broader political, religious, and intellectual dynamics of the late imperial period. Notably, missionaries first secured their position within the Chinese knowledge hierarchy by contributing to state-priority fields like astronomy, calendrical reform, and cartography. The prestige thus generated created a conducive environment for the introduction of more abstract disciplines like logic (Mungello 2024). These disciplines not only aligned with state priorities but also enabled the missionaries to gain the trust of scholar-officials and obtain access to the imperial court. The prestige generated through this scientific collaboration created an environment in which more abstract components of Western learning—such as Aristotelian logic and scholastic reasoning—could be introduced, translated, and meaningfully engaged by the Chinese literati. However, the intellectual openness of the late Ming and early Qing proved structurally fragile. The emergence of the Rites Controversy—centered on competing interpretations of Confucian ancestral and ceremonial practices—fundamentally altered the political conditions that had previously enabled productive Sino-Western exchange (Standaert 2001). Divergent positions among Catholic orders and conflicting expectations between the Qing court and the papacy eventually led to a series of early-eighteenth-century decrees that rejected the accommodative stance earlier adopted by missionaries. These rulings undermined the basis of trust that had allowed missionary scholars to participate in state-sponsored scientific work and curtailed the institutional space available for cultural and intellectual interaction. As the eighteenth century unfolded, missionary presence diminished further, accompanied by increased surveillance and intermittent suppression of Christian communities. Under these constraints, the translation and dissemination of Western logic could no longer progress through sustained scholarly collaboration or formal pedagogical channels. Nevertheless, the conceptual foundations introduced during the earlier period continued to exert subtle and lasting effects, informing subsequent discussions on reasoning, epistemology, and methodological reform within the Chinese intellectual world (Latourette 1929).

To understand this process more precisely, it is useful to employ the ancient Chinese notion of geyi 格義1—literally “matching concepts.” Geyi 格義, which originated in the early medieval translation of Buddhist texts, was the technique of using equivalent Chinese terminology to comprehend foreign notions (Ch’en 2020). It captures a deeper hermeneutic principle: translation as a process of conceptual mediation and reciprocal accommodation, where both the source (Western logic) and target (Chinese intellectual) traditions undergo mutual adjustment and reinterpretation through dialogue, notwithstanding later criticism for oversimplification (Gadamer et al. 1989). Early missionaries, when translating the core concept of li 理 in Neo-Confucianism, rendered it as “reason”, attempting to establish correspondences between Confucian concepts and Christian theology (Zhang and Liu 2022).When applied to the Jesuit introduction of Western logic, geyi 格義 demonstrates how translators attempted to bring Christian scholastic thinking into line with Confucian moral rationality by seeking equivalency not just between words but also across systems of meaning (L.H. Liu 1995). By using analogy, reinterpretation, and selective domestication, logic translation may be seen as a geyi-like process that “matched” Western and Chinese concepts.

Within this cross-civilizational dialogue, “logic”—as the methodological basis of Western scholarship—extended beyond practical applications (Y. Zhang 2024). It evolved into a crucial medium of exchange, influencing cognitive systems and modes of thought (Beaney and Liang 2023; Gao 2008; Meynard 2024; G. Zhang 2003). Western traditional logic, centered on Aristotle’s Organon, developed a formalized system that, on the conceptual level, can be understood as a chain of “concept-judgment-inference” with syllogism at its core, emphasizing the rigor of thought and the normativity of argumentation. In contrast, while traditional Chinese thought contains logical elements such as the Pre-Qin mingxue 名學 (name theory) and the bianxue 辯學 (argumentation theory), it is consistently oriented toward ethical and political ends. It prioritized empirical analogy—yileiqu yileiyu 以類取，以類予 (taking by class and giving by class, i.e., drawing inferences and making propositions based on categorical similarity)—and lacked a systematic construction of the forms of thought themselves (Cui 2009; Gao 2006, 2008; Graham 1978; Ning 2024; Y. Zhang 2024). At the paradigmatic level, this divergence runs deeper than a difference in conclusions: where Neo-Confucian epistemology characteristically moved outward from moral self-cultivation to gewu 格物, the Aristotelian tradition insisted on moving from observed particulars up to universal definitions and back down through formal demonstration. The introduction of logic was therefore never merely a linguistic translation of texts. From the outset, it became a cultural practice concerning how to think—missionaries sought to use logic as a stepping stone to demonstrate the rationality of Western culture in service of religious propagation while Chinese literati hoped to harness this unfamiliar cognitive tool to correct the academic ills of late Ming Neo-Confucianism’s degenerate tendencies, characterized by shushubuguan youtanwugen 束書不觀, 遊談無根 (to neglect the classics and indulge in groundless speculation), and to seek new methodological foundations for practical governance (Gao 2008; G. Li 2008; Ning 2024; Zuo 2016).

Existing scholarship on the late Ming and early Qing intellectual exchange has evolved from general surveys of missionary activity toward nuanced analyses of specific philosophical translations. Religious studies have extensively examined the development of Christian culture in China (Z. Nie 2016; Tao and Wickeri 2024; Tacchi Venturi 1986), the interplay between Chinese culture and Christianity (Wu 2005; Xiao 2019), Christian publishing practices (Li et al. 2024b; Xiao 2011), and theological investigations (Li et al. 2024a). Historical studies primarily address missionary contributions to the translation and advancement of Chinese mathematics (Huang et al. 2025), the development of Chinese physics (Li and Fu 2025), and the involvement of missionaries in Chinese social and political spheres (Fan 1992; Gao 2006; Peng 2016, 2022; W. Yang 2012). Within the specialized field of Western logic’s introduction to China, Robert Wardy’s work stands as a seminal contribution. Wardy rigorously challenges linguistic relativism by demonstrating how the Ming Li Tan 名理探 successfully adapted Aristotelian categories into the Chinese linguistic framework, proving that the Chinese language was far from an obstacle to formal logical reasoning (Wardy 2003). Complementing this linguistic perspective, Meynard (2019) explores the “failure” of the Ming Li Tan 名理探 from a socio-institutional and pedagogical standpoint. Meynard argues that its lack of resonance was not due to intellectual deficiency but rather to the absence of a supportive institutional environment, such as the Jesuit university system, within the Chinese civil service examination structure. These studies provide more perspectives for the study of Christian culture in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Joachim Kurtz’s The Discovery of Chinese Logic (2011), which traces across three centuries—from the seventeenth-century Jesuit introductions through to the early twentieth century—how “Chinese logic” came to be constructed as a field of scholarly inquiry. Kurtz argues that the Jesuit transmission left few immediate traces in Chinese intellectual life precisely because there was no indigenous readership capable of appreciating its technical content outside the context of Christian conversion; it was only when Western logic re-entered China via Japan in the late nineteenth century that a sustained engagement became possible (Kurtz 2011). Building on these findings, the existing study focuses on the translation of logic by Chinese literati and Western missionaries during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties in order to comprehend the mechanisms of international knowledge transmission. This research approaches these translations as active intellectual endeavors at the convergence of religion, philosophy, and cultural hermeneutics rather than as passive language exercises. It describes the specific conditions under which logical writings were translated into Chinese, the methods used to incorporate foreign ideas into the classical language, and the wider philosophical ramifications that resulted from this interaction. The simultaneous functions of translation as a vehicle of epistemic transformation and as an act of language mediation are highlighted.

The discussion proceeds from the assumption that translation, in this historical context, represented a process of reciprocal negotiation between distinct systems of thought. By analyzing the rhetorical devices, terminological inventions, and analogical reasoning employed in these texts, the study demonstrates how both Western missionaries and Chinese scholars actively redefined the boundaries of their intellectual traditions. Such a perspective illuminates the complex relationship between translation and philosophical change, revealing that the introduction of Western logic did not merely enrich the Chinese lexicon but also altered the intellectual architecture of Chinese reasoning itself. This approach seeks to contribute to ongoing debates in cross-cultural philosophy and translation history by showing that intercultural translation functions not as a linear transmission of knowledge but as a formative site of mutual adaptation and conceptual innovation.

In summary, the research value of this paper lies in the following aspects: From a historical perspective, it fills the gap in studies on the dissemination of Western learning in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties by examining methodological exchange, thereby clarifying the early origins of modern Chinese intellectual transformation. From a theoretical perspective, it offers a classic case study of bidirectional adaptation for cross-cultural communication research—unlike one-way cultural export or passive reception, the logical translation practices of the late Ming and early Qing demonstrate how heterogeneous civilizations can achieve creative dialogue through strategies such as terminology localization, conceptual analogy, and practical adaptation. From a practical perspective, this historical experience offers an enlightening historical reference for contemporary Sino-Western cultural exchanges, demonstrating how to balance indigenous foundations with external borrowings.

2. The Motivation of Philosophy Translation by Western Missionaries During the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties

The introduction of logic-centered philosophy by Western missionaries during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties was not merely a cultural export devoid of its historical context. Instead, it represented a systematic practice molded by the confluence of several factors: the global missionary strategy of Catholicism, China’s indigenous intellectual landscape, and societal imperatives. Throughout this process, missionaries employed cultural adaptation as their primary strategy. They actively engaged with China’s intellectual traditions and scholarly requirements while surreptitiously pursuing the ulterior motive of religious propagation through the translation of logic. This analysis investigates the multifaceted motivations behind the translation of logic from three perspectives: the strategic design of academic evangelization, the analogy and fusion of Chinese and Western thought, and the pragmatic needs of the literati class. This investigation utilizes specific translated texts and historical documents to provide a comprehensive exploration.

2.1. To Spread Western Knowledge

The Jesuit order viewed the dissemination of philosophical knowledge as a crucial tool of academic evangelism, aiming to acquire legitimacy and cultural authority. Subsequent to the 16th-century Reformation, Catholicism encountered significant opposition from Protestantism throughout Europe. As a key proponent of the Counter-Reformation, the Society of Jesus strategically expanded its overseas mission territories to amplify the Church’s influence. Scholarly evangelization constituted the core of the Jesuits’ missionary approach in the Far East (Guo and Zhang 2017). Matteo Ricci 利瑪竇 (1552–1610) and his successors recognized that China was a sophisticated empire ruled by a literati class proficient in Confucian texts. However, China’s established Confucian ideological framework and comprehensive social governance model presented obstacles to conventional religious propagation. To secure legitimacy and influence, adherence to its cultural norms was imperative. Consequently, the translation of Chinese classics served as a primary, high-level strategy for acquiring cultural capital and establishing a distinct identity. Through diligent study of the classics, mastery of classical Chinese, wearing Confucian robes, and practicing Confucian rituals, the missionaries sought to transform themselves from xiseng 西僧 (Western monks) into xiru 西儒 (Western Confucians) (Li and Fu 2025). This demonstrated they were civilized people capable of engaging in equal dialogue with local elites, rather than barbarians from beyond the civilized world. Matteo Ricci’s Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義 (The True Meaning of God) exemplifies this strategy. The work extensively quotes Confucian classics like Book of Songs 詩經, Book of Documents 尚書, Analects of Confucius 論語, Mencius 孟子, and The Doctrine of the Mean 中庸, employing a dialogue format between Chinese scholars and Western scholars to buru 補儒2 (supplementing Confucianism) and heru 合儒 (supplementing and combining Song and Ming New-Confucianism with Western natural science research methods) (J. Wang 2006, p. 62). Its purpose was precisely to skillfully graft Catholic doctrine onto the Confucian discourse system and can be understood as a deliberate exercise in ethnorelative communication (Bennett 2013).

The academic missionary strategy’s fundamental principle involved establishing cultural hegemony through the propagation of Western scholarly knowledge, thus facilitating the dissemination of religious doctrine. This strategy of establishing authority through scholarship was not only directed at Chinese intellectuals but also aimed at gaining acceptance and recognition for their research within mainstream European Sinology circles, thereby consolidating their standing in a broader academic sphere (H. Wang 2019a). Missionaries perceived philosophy, mirroring the medieval scholastic principle of philosophia ancilla theologiae (philosophy is the handmaiden of theology), as both the bedrock of the Western academic system and a conduit between secular knowledge and religious belief. By introducing Western philosophy, they aimed to showcase the intellectual rigor of Western culture to Chinese literati, dismantle the prejudice of yidi wu xue 夷狄無學 (the peoples of the east and north lack learning), and thereby cultivate the esteem and confidence of the scholar-official class (Xing 2003). Matteo Ricci, having rigorously studied Aristotelian natural philosophy and scholasticism at the Roman College, recognized philosophy’s pivotal role within the academic framework. Consequently, he prioritized the translation of philosophical texts during his tenure in China. His initial work, Qiankun Tiyi 乾坤體義 (Introduction of Western Astronomy), while primarily focused on astronomical knowledge, already integrated core tenets of Western natural philosophy. This work was characterized in the Siku Quanshu 四庫全書 (Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature) as the beginning of Western methods entering China [西法入中國之始], representing an early practical application of his academic evangelism strategy.3

As missionary endeavors advanced, the religious instrumentalism of philosophical translation became increasingly prominent. In 1623, Giulio Aleni’s compendium Xi Xue Fan 西學凡 (Introduction to Western Disciplines) systematically introduced the Western academic system, defining feilusuofeiya 斐錄所費亞 (philosophy) as lixue 理學, “lixuezhe, yilizhi daxueye. renyi yili chaoyu wanwu, erwei wanwu zhiling, gewuqiongli, zeyuren quaner yutianjin 理學者，義理之大學也。人以義理超於萬物，而為萬物之靈，格物窮理，則於人全耳於天近 (Philosophy is the great learning of moral principles. It is because humans are endowed with moral principles that they surpass all beings and become the most intelligent entity. By investigating things and exhausting their principles to the utmost, humans can fully realize their innate connection to Heaven.)” (Q. Chen 2001). This translation strategy, positioning philosophy as preparatory knowledge for theology, aimed to guide Chinese scholars toward accepting Christian doctrine by understanding Western philosophical logic. Subsequently, the Ming Li Tan 名理探, the first systematic Chinese introduction to Western logic, was jointly produced by Francisco Furtado 傅汎際 (1587–1653) and Li Zhizao 李之藻 (1565–1630). Through this partnership, Li’s deep engagement with the text’s philosophical content shaped its final form, making his contribution essential to what can more accurately be described as co-authorship rather than translation in the modern sense. The work served not only to disseminate logical knowledge but also to demonstrate the rational foundation of Christian doctrine by showcasing the rigor of Western thought. The translation of philosophy thus became the pivotal link in the academic missionary strategy, bridging secular knowledge and religious faith. The intellectual framing of philosophy as rational inquiry allowed Jesuit translators to present Catholic theology not as dogma but as a systematic science grounded in reason. In this way, philosophical translation functioned as a tool of soft power—converting potential hostility into scholarly curiosity. Thus, Jesuit translators’ strategy of using philosophical translation for cultural evangelism demonstrates how knowledge dissemination became inseparable from ideological negotiation. Through logic and philosophy, the missionaries built a bridge between belief and reason, theology and ethics, East and West.

2.2. To Identify the Affinities Between Chinese and Western Thought

The Jesuit missionaries’ approach to translating Western philosophy was informed not only by their encounter with Chinese thought but also by a long European tradition of vernacularizing Aristotelian works for new audiences. This practice drew upon methods developed by sixteenth-century Italian humanists such as Alessandro Piccolomini, who advocated for translating philosophy into the vernacular not through literal rendering but by ampliando dove bisogna (expanding where necessary) to convey the essence of Aristotelian thought while adapting it to the linguistic and cultural expectations of lay readers. When the Jesuits arrived in China, they applied these same strategies of conceptual accommodation—abbreviating scholastic disputations, employing dialogue forms familiar to Chinese readers, and emphasizing practical applications of philosophical knowledge. This European tradition of venularization resonated with, rather than derived from, the ancient Buddhist method of geyi 格義, as both practices relied on analogical reasoning to bridge disparate intellectual systems. What emerged in late Ming China was a bidirectional process of conceptual mediation: missionaries contributed European scholastic methods of adaptation refined over centuries of vernacular translation, while Chinese literati brought their command of classical terminology and Confucian discourse, together forging a shared hermeneutic space in which Aristotelian logic could be meaningfully rendered into Chinese (Canaris 2025).

The confluence of Chinese and Western academic translation materialized during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, concurrent with the eastward dissemination of Western learning. A primary catalyst was the Jesuit missionaries’ strategic endeavor to establish intellectual commonalities between Chinese and Western philosophical traditions via academic translation, thereby facilitating the propagation of Catholicism within China. This process evolved, driven by both the pragmatic requirements of the missionaries and the intellectual inclinations of select Chinese literati who sought scholarly exchange. From the perspective of missionary needs, exploring common ground between Chinese and Western thought through academic translation was an inevitable choice for Jesuits seeking to transcend the yixia zhifen 夷夏之分 (the distinction in cultural level between the civilized and the barbarian) and achieve cultural adaptation (Tang and Yang 2013, p. 26). The precision and systematic rigor of Western scholarship spurred Chinese academics to contemplate the inadequacies of traditional methods of academic dissemination and their remediation. During the late Ming Dynasty, as the threat from the Jurchen tribes in the northeast escalated, a pervasive barbarian–civilized dichotomy prevailed among both literati and commoners, engendering initial skepticism toward the missionaries from the West. It was only when Matteo Ricci pioneered the adaptive strategy of academic evangelism, employing scholarly translation as a critical conduit, that enlightened Chinese scholars such as Xu Guangqi 徐光啓 (1562–1633) and Li Zhizao became engrossed by the advanced scientific knowledge and methodologies introduced by the missionaries. They perceived that Western science, and technology might offer a prospect of revitalization for the ailing Ming Dynasty in domains such as academic reform and technological application. Consequently, scholars represented by Xu Guangqi initiated engagement with and the study of Western scientific knowledge.

The academic evangelism strategy, initially employed by Matteo Ricci and Francis Xavier 沙勿略 (1506–1552), effectively laid the groundwork for missionary endeavors in China. This strategy was principally characterized by two key approaches: the interpretation of Catholic doctrine through Confucian texts and the engagement of China’s elite literati with Western scientific and technological advancements. The Holy See provided substantial backing for these missionary strategies. A critical component of the academic evangelism strategy involved utilizing Confucian classics to elucidate Catholic doctrine, thereby fostering the perception that Confucianism and Catholicism were not inherently contradictory, and even shared common ground in certain aspects. For example, Matteo Ricci interpreted the Chinese concepts of shangdi 上帝 (God) or tian 天 (Heaven) as corresponding to the supreme deity Deus 陡斯 (dousi) revered in Western Catholicism. He also argued that Chinese rituals honoring Heaven, Confucius, and ancestors did not constitute idol worship. Even though Niccolò Longobardo 龍華民 (1559–1654) succeeded Matteo Ricci as Superior of the Jesuit China mission, he fundamentally reversed Ricci’s accommodative approach to Chinese religious terminology, thereby sparking the intense “Terms Controversy” that preceded and later merged into the broader zhongxi liyi zhizheng 中西禮儀之爭 (the “Rites Controversy” between China and the West). The 1627 Jiading Huiyi 嘉定會議4 followed Longobardo’s lead in prohibiting the use of Shangdi 上帝 in the Chinese mission, but Longobardo was unable to persuade his colleagues to abandon Confucianism as the primary medium for conveying Christianity. Even after the meeting, missionaries continued to advocate for the Riccian perspective, which eventually became the Jesuit order’s semi-official stance (Canaris 2021). The Holy See further instructed the missionaries of the Paris Foreign Missions Society in China: “Faith does not seek to oppose or destroy the ritual customs of any nation… Do not look down upon Chinese ways simply because they differ from European ones; rather, strive to do things in the manner they are accustomed to” (Pan 2022). This directive essentially reinforced the strategy of spreading the faith through shared customs and intellectual common ground, providing ecclesiastical backing for missionaries to explore such commonalities through scholarly translation.

In summary, Western missionaries, motivated by their enduring ambition to reconcile Chinese and Western intellectual traditions, utilized scholarly translation as the principal instrument for investigating shared philosophical foundations. This methodology not only circumvented cultural impediments but also, with the backing of the Catholic Church and the involvement of erudite scholars, initiated the inaugural large-scale discourse between Chinese and Western cultures. Their endeavors to foster academic and cultural integration through collaborative intellectual frameworks furnished a critical historical precedent for subsequent intercultural interactions.

2.3. To Meet with the Needs of the Chinese Literati

The involvement of Chinese literati in the translation of Western philosophy reflected their own intellectual crisis and their pragmatic search for renewal. They were not passive recipients of Western knowledge but active agents who saw in translation a means to reform and revitalize the Confucian tradition. The motivations behind Chinese literati’s involvement in translating Western philosophical works during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties were closely aligned with the era’s demands for scholarly innovation and national development. At their core, these efforts aimed to draw upon Western intellectual resources to address deficiencies in Chinese culture and achieve dual advancement in both academia and society.

From the perspective of the intrinsic logic of academic development, the intellectual sphere of the mid-to-late Ming dynasty became rigid. This was largely because Yangmingism, in its later development, lapsed into empty abstraction, and its discourse became unmoored from practical realities. Traditional Confucianism gradually lost its innovative edge in interpreting the xingli zhixue 性理之學(the study of human nature and cosmic rationale), leaving the Chinese literati universally facing the predicament of no avenue for academic renewal. Xu Guangqi keenly recognized that the rational speculation and logical methods inherent in Western science and philosophy could serve as vital resources to supplement Confucian scholarship. His famous dictum, “yuqiu chaosheng, bixu huitong; huitong zhiqian, bixu fanyi. 欲求超勝，必須會通；會通之前，必須翻譯5 (to achieve transcendence, one must synthesize; before synthesis, one must translate)” encapsulated this strategic vision (G. Xu 1984, p. 374). Behind this proposition lay the literati’s aspiration to integrate Western logical thinking and ethical interpretations with the Confucian classics’ tianrenzhixue 天人之學 (theology of heaven and humanity) and xiushennzhidao 修身之道 (way of self-cultivation) through translating Western philosophical works. This approach aimed to avoid abandoning Confucian cultural foundations while breaking free from the shackles of traditional scholarship to construct a more systematic academic system with greater explanatory power for contemporary realities. Scholars like Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao approached Western culture without exaggerating or belittling the strengths and weaknesses of Chinese and Western cultures but rather striving to discover the virtues of each. This scholarly attitude directly led them to view the translation of philosophical works as a key pathway to revitalizing traditional scholarship (Zhou 2006, p. 412). Moreover, while Li Zhizao emphasized in his translation practice the principles of rendering Western concepts through Chinese language and avoiding arbitrary additions that distort authenticity, he still defined translation as creative translation. This formulation confirms that the literati scholars did not merely transplant Western philosophical ideas but sought, through creative transformation in the translation process, to establish resonances between Western philosophical concepts and traditional Chinese academic terminology, thereby paving the way for scholarly innovation.

Amid the dramatic social upheaval of the Ming–Qing transition, traditional Confucian studies of the mind and nature—particularly the later degenerate schools of Yangmingism, which indulged in empty discussions of mind and nature and neglected textual study—revealed a lack of concrete, actionable methodological support when confronting complex issues of state governance. Although Confucian thought inherently emphasized practical application, traditional scholarship often relied on individual moral cultivation and intuitive judgment to ensure clear understanding of reality and rigorous reasoning for effective governance strategies. It lacked a formalized, universally applicable logical framework. It was precisely at this critical juncture that the rigorous methods of argumentation and the clear conceptual analysis systems embedded in Western logical works resonated profoundly with the practical demands of the literati class to reform politics and rescue the nation from peril. The impetus for scholars such as Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao to translate Western texts stemmed not only from intellectual curiosity but also from a desire to benefit the people. They aimed to judiciously adopt the strengths of other nations, rapidly integrate their scientific and technological advancements, and thereby augment national power. Scholars prioritized texts closely tied to practical learning, hoping that introducing these ideas would significantly advance China’s productive forces (Wang and Wang 2005, p. 71). Moreover, the collaborative translation efforts between missionaries and literati aligned with the latter’s aspirations to understand the world’s advanced technologies and achieve national prosperity and strength. The translation of philosophical works constituted a vital component of this process, providing the intellectual foundation for disseminating scientific knowledge and helping literati better comprehend the underlying logical systems of Western science and technology. Simultaneously, Li Zhizao particularly emphasized that translators must eliminate four vices: “qianxueziman, daiduofeixue, dangtongguxi, ewenshengji 淺學自滿，怠惰廢學，黨同錮習，惡聞勝己 (superficial learning and self-satisfaction, laziness and neglect of scholarship, narrow-minded partisanship, and aversion to hearing views superior to one’s own)”. This demand for translator integrity was fundamentally aimed at ensuring that translated philosophical works genuinely served the goal of practical governance, preventing conceptual distortions caused by translators’ limitations that could hinder solutions to real-world problems (Yuan 2014).

From the perspective of the intrinsic demands of cultural exchange, the literati widely held the belief that donghaixihai xintonglitong 東海西海心同理同 (the East Sea and the West Sea share the same heart and the same mind). They believed that at the core level of thought, Chinese and Western cultures did not fundamentally oppose each other but rather possessed communicable commonalities. This conviction became a crucial ideological foundation for their participation in translating philosophical works. Li Zhizao explicitly articulated the view that donghaixihai xintonglitong 東海西海心同理同, asserting that humanity’s pursuit of truth is universal (Z. Li 1989a). He argued that Western philosophy and Chinese Confucianism are aligned in their fundamental objectives of self-cultivation and governing the state to bring peace to the world. Therefore, translating Western philosophical works was not about introducing a foreign culture but about seeking shared intellectual resources of humanity (Yan 2010). Guided by this understanding, the literati scholars placed particular emphasis on cultural adaptation in their translations. For instance, Wei Xiangqian proposed the “Four Principles of Translation”: liaoqiyi, wanqici, shunqiqi, buzeng bujian budao bushiquyi 了其意，完其辭，順其氣，傳其神，不增不減不顛不倒不恃取意 (capturing the meaning, preserving the wording, preserve its spirit, and convey its essence; neither adding nor omitting, neither inverting nor distorting, nor arbitrarily interpreting) (Wang and Wang 2005, p. 71). While appearing technical, this standard aimed to precisely transmit the original meaning of Western philosophical thought, prevent misunderstandings stemming from cultural differences, and thereby better uncover the points of convergence between Western philosophy and Confucian thought. Yang Tingyun 楊廷筠 (1562–1627) believed that the convergence and integration of Chinese and Western cultures required a lifetime of dedication. This long-term pursuit of cultural fusion led literati scholars to regard the translation of philosophical works as a core means of building bridges between Chinese and Western cultures. They hoped that through the accurate introduction of Western philosophical ideas, cultural barriers could be eliminated, enabling the harmonious development of both civilizations (Zhou 2006). Moreover, Matteo Ricci’s practice of citing Confucian classics to explain Catholic doctrines in his Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義 gained recognition among literati. Building upon this foundation, they further advanced philosophical translations to establish conceptual correspondences—such as equating the Tianzhu 天主 with shangdi 上帝 and aligning Western ethical norms with Confucian rites and righteousness—thus fostering profound intellectual dialogue between Chinese and Western cultures.

In this sense, the collaboration between missionaries and literati in translating logic marked not the subordination of one culture to another, but the emergence of a shared epistemological space. Through this space, translation became an instrument of both cultural continuity and intellectual transformation—bridging moral introspection with scientific rationality, and tradition with reform.

3. The Translation of Logic During the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties

The translation of logic during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties was a collaborative, cross-cultural endeavor. Missionaries and enlightened literati, driven by reciprocal needs, formed this partnership. Missionaries, with their linguistic and scholarly expertise, provided source texts and fundamental interpretations. Literati, in turn, refined the texts, adapted concepts, and facilitated local dissemination. This collaboration, encompassing translation objectives, strategies, and content selection, involved both cooperation and strategic negotiation, collectively shaping the practical dimensions of logical translation.

3.1. The Logical Translation Practice by Western Missionaries

As outlined in Section 2.1, the Jesuit mission in China was fundamentally shaped by the Counter-Reformation imperative to expand global influence. Within this strategic context, logic assumed particular importance. Ignatius of Loyola advocated for cultural adaptation over a rigid “Eurocentrism,” especially in sophisticated civilizations like China. He firmly believed that success depended on gaining the respect of the scholar-official class. Consequently, the Jesuits prioritized fields that could simultaneously demonstrate Western intellectual rigor and resonate with indigenous scholarly values. While practical sciences like astronomy served immediate state needs, logic was uniquely positioned as the methodological foundation of Western learning. It not only showcased a distinct form of rational rigor but also explicitly aligned with the Confucian ideal. This dual capacity to impress and to integrate made logic a primary intellectual vehicle for cultural engagement and penetration into the Chinese intellectual world (Feng 1979; C. Nie 2012; Qian 2015; N. Yang 2018; Zhang and Mo 2001; Zuo 2016).

As the progenitor of Jesuit missionary endeavors in China, Matteo Ricci spearheaded the integration of logical translation within the broader academic evangelization framework. Prior to his inland China sojourn, Ricci had devoted himself to studying Chinese classics since he came to Macau, recognizing that the literati constituted the nucleus of Chinese society, and that their confidence was pivotal to the success of evangelization (Feng 1979; Ke 1999). Informed by this understanding, Ricci incorporated logic into the translation of practical disciplines, with the objective of subtly introducing Western modes of thought. In 1607, the collaborative translation of Euclid’s Elements 幾何原本 (first six books) with Xu Guangqi exemplified this strategy. Though a mathematical work, its axiomatic structure—“definition–postulate–axiom–corollary”—essentially embodied the concrete manifestation of Western deductive logic. During translation, Ricci deliberately emphasized the demonstration of logical methods: translating “Definition” as “jieshuo界說” to highlight conceptual precision and boundaries; rendering ‘Axiom’ as “gonglun公論” to underscore its universal foundation for reasoning; and strictly adhering to the syllogistic structure of “major premise–minor premise–conclusion” in theorem proofs. Even when tackling complex geometric problems, he first clearly stated the ‘knowns’ (premises) and “to be proven” (conclusions), then derived results through logical deduction (Ji 2017; Y. Zhang 2024). In his Preface to the Printing of Elements of Euclid, Xu Guangqi keenly discerned this characteristic, stating plainly that, “cishu weiyi, nengling xuelizhe quqifuqi, lianqijingxin 此書為益，能令學理者祛其浮氣，練其精心 (the value of this work lies in its ability to cure anyone who studies it of a frivolous temperament and to train him to be attentive and precise.)” (Feng 1979; Tu and Wang 2005; G. Xu 1963b). From then on, his translations gained immense popularity among China’s intellectual circles, ushering in a new era of interaction and integration between Western scientific knowledge and traditional Chinese culture. This endeavor also contributed to the growth of Catholicism in China, securing a significant place in the history of Chinese translation and Sino-Western cultural exchange (Ricci 2018).

It is crucial to recognize Matteo Ricci’s deliberate management of his logical translations, which were guided by the principle of prioritizing missionary objectives over the dissemination of academic knowledge (Lin 1983). The original Elements 幾何原本 consisted of thirteen books. Upon completing the translation of the initial six books, Matteo Ricci determined that the translated material was adequate. Indeed, he was concerned that an excessive focus on abstract logical reasoning might detract from the primary goal of evangelization. His intention was to illustrate to the Chinese populace, through mathematical truths and the image of missionaries engaged in scholarly pursuits, that Catholicism was a rational religion—one grounded in logical reasoning and “certainly not based on blind faith.” Having achieved this objective, the translation project was logically concluded at this juncture (Lan 2010; Z. Yang 2004). Matteo Ricci not only overcame the intellectual obstacles of the Chinese populace but also formulated missionary methodologies that proved effective in China. He developed systematic insights into the Jesuit strategy of accommodation and gained considerable practical experience. The essence of his missionary approach was to respect and adapt to Chinese culture, utilizing language and methods that were acceptable to the Chinese for evangelization.

The missionary endeavors and strategic initiatives of other Jesuits, including Francis Xavier and Matteo Ricci during the late Ming Dynasty, alongside contributions from Giulio Aleni 艾儒略 (1582–1649), Johann Adam Schall von Bell 湯若望 (1592–1666), and Ferdinand Verbiest 南懷仁 (1623–1688), were instrumental in establishing the groundwork for Christian propagation in China and fostering Sino-Western cultural exchange. Among them, Francisco Furtado’s collaboration with Li Zhizao on Ming Li Tan 名理探 intensified the instrumental focus in the direct translation of logic. This text served as a fundamental scholastic philosophy textbook, where logical theories were closely linked with Catholic theology (Guo and Zhang 2017; Wang and Peng 2010; Zuo 2016). By aligning Western logical categories with Chinese conceptual hierarchies, it revealed the compatibility between Aristotelian reasoning and Confucian methods of classification and moral judgment. Another renowned Jesuit missionary was Francis Xavier, a precursor to modern missionary societies in China, who, having recognized the significant position that Chinese culture held within the entire Eastern cultural system, planned to conduct large-scale missionary work in China and by utilizing the missionary model established in Japan, attempted to discover a suitable missionary approach for China. Through interactions with Portuguese merchants and the Japanese warrior Ike-no-Hata Yajirō, he gained insights into Sino-Japanese cultural and trade dynamics, emphasizing the necessity of cultural literacy and scientific knowledge for missionaries within the Confucian–Buddhist context. Despite his failed attempt to enter China in 1552, his understanding of China and his advocacy for “promoting faith through high-level authority” provided an intellectual basis for subsequent missionaries’ localization strategies. Matteo Ricci, influenced by Xavier’s observations, adopted a respectful approach to Chinese culture (Qi 2001).

3.2. The Logical Translation Practice by the Enlightened Chinese Intellectuals

Following Matteo Ricci’s successful establishment in China and subsequent acclaim, the influx of Jesuit missionaries intensified, aiming to propagate their faith. These missionary endeavors served as a crucial conduit for fostering Sino-Western mutual understanding, thereby significantly facilitating cultural exchange and the dissemination of scientific knowledge between the two civilizations (H. Wang 2018). Translation activities experienced a surge during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, resulting in the Sinicization of over 150 Western texts. Prominent translators, including Xu Guangqi, Li Tianjing 李天經 (1579–1659), and Li Zhizao, played pivotal roles in introducing Western scientific, literary, and philosophical concepts to China.

The introduction of Western logic into the Chinese intellectual sphere during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, and its active acceptance by some scholars, was fundamentally attributable to the prevailing intellectual climate of the time. Following the mid-Ming period, Yangmingism 陽明心學,6 while correcting the rigid shortcomings of Cheng–Zhu Neo-Confucianism 程朱理學, fostered an inclusive attitude toward foreign cultures, thereby creating a space for the dissemination of Western learning. Inheriting Lu Xiangshan’s principle that donghaixihai xintonglitong 東海西海心同理同 (the East Sea and the West Sea share the same heart and the same mind), Wang’s school advocated the coexistence of diverse doctrines (W. Chen 2009). This philosophy became a crucial theoretical foundation for the entry of foreign cultures into China. According to scholarly research, when Matteo Ricci and his companions first arrived in China, the individuals who provided them assistance were predominantly scholars affiliated with or sympathetic to Wang Yangming’s school. Moreover, Wang Yangming’s practice of disseminating academic ideas through lecture societies provided an organizational model for Christian propagation. Matteo Ricci abandoned the traditional missionary approach of preaching in churches, instead adopting the accessible format of lecture societies to engage with officials, gentry, and scholars—a creative adaptation of this indigenous format.

Simultaneously, a practical learning movement emerged, centered on the core principle of jingshizhiyong 經世致用 (practical learning for governing the world). It advocated that scholarship should address all practical studies concerning national affairs and people’s livelihoods. Gu Yanwu’s call for scholars to pursue practical learning, thoroughly studying astronomy, geography, military affairs, agriculture, water management, fire control, and the institutional history of an era represented the academic shift among intellectuals of this period (Gu 1959). It was against this backdrop that the scientific knowledge and logical methods introduced by Western missionaries, characterized by their “practicality, implementation, and real learning 實心, 實行, 實學” swiftly captured the attention of figures like Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao (G. Xu 1963b, p. 66). Xu praised Western learning for its immediate practical application, while Li observed that Western scientific texts “contain much not found in our Chinese books… all of which contribute to practical learning and benefit the world.” The practical learning movement provided fertile ground for the acceptance of Western logic. The fading influence of Neo-Confucian values and the spread of the practical learning ethos of serving the world aligned with the Western value of investigating things to gain knowledge. This convergence gradually paved the way for Chinese intellectuals to understand and embrace Western learning.

Xu Guangqi was the founder of scientific translation in late Ming China, later honored as “the progenitor of scientific translation in our country.” In the autumn of the thirty-fourth year of the Wanli reign (1606), he collaborated with Matteo Ricci to translate the first six books of Elements 幾何原本, which were published the following spring. This marked the first systematic translation of a Western mathematical work into Chinese and introduced the rigorous Western tradition of logical reasoning to China’s intellectual circles for the first time. In terms of terminology translation, Xu and Matteo Ricci jointly achieved a creative transformation of the term jihe 幾何. Originally a classical Chinese word, jihe 幾何 had three meanings: (a) quantity or amount, (b) little time remaining or scarce resources, and (c) inquiring about a specific time. Through Matteo Ricci’s adaptation, jihe 幾何 acquired entirely new academic connotations, becoming the specialized term for Euclidean geometry. This strategy of repurposing an existing word accommodated Chinese readers’ comprehension habits while successfully conveying core Western academic concepts. Notably, Xu’s admiration for the Elements 幾何原本 stemmed from his comparative insights into Chinese and Western scholarly methods. He compared the axiomatic deductive system of logic to a golden needle, championing the maxim: “jinzhen duoqu cong junyong, weiba yuanyang xiu yuren” 金針度去從君用，未把鴛鴦繡與人 (I pass to you the golden needle to wield as you will, not the finished embroidery of mandarin ducks) (G. Xu 1963a). His intent was to enable his compatriots to master this logical method, so that everyone could ultimately truly “embroider mandarin ducks” on their own. This translation approach, focused on introducing methodology, reflects Xu’s strategic vision that transcended mere knowledge dissemination. He further recognized the essence of Western scientific methods: exploring scientific propositions begins with systematic observation and experimentation to achieve universal, finite understanding. Through successive induction, broader generalizations are reached, and on this inductive foundation, more complex concepts are derived through deduction. He believed this methodology could be integrated into the shishi 十事 (Ten Fields)—astronomy and meteorology, hydraulics, musical theory, military science, finance, architecture, mechanics, surveying, medicine, and clockmaking—representing an entirely new paradigm of thought (Shang 2003). Xu Guangqi’s translation endeavors reflected the hidden aspiration of Chinese intellectuals to seek “remedies” from the West. His personal oversight of compiling works like the Chongzhen Lishu 崇禎曆書 (Calendrical Treatises of the Chongzhen Reign) revealed a profound concern for saving the nation and transforming the mindset of its people.

If Xu Guangqi’s introduction of logical methods was still a byproduct of translating Western science, then Li Zhizao and Francisco Furtado’s collaborative translation of Ming Li Tan 名理探 represented a deliberate and conscious practice in translating logic. Translated from the logic textbook Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesv, in Universam Dialecticam Aristotelis Stagiritae published by the University of Coimbra in Portugal, it was the first systematic Chinese translation introducing Western Aristotelian logic (Nie and Xiong 2016). Based on 16th-century logic lectures by Jesuits at Portugal’s University of Coimbra, the original Latin text primarily elucidated Aristotelian logic, essentially reflecting the characteristics of scholastic logic. Notably, translation began just 12 years after the 1611 publication of this source text, indicating that the introduction of Western learning in China was nearly synchronized with the Jesuit educational system in Europe at the time. Li Zhizao’s emphasis on logic stemmed from his profound reflection on the hollow academic trends of the late Ming dynasty. In his view, Western scholarship tanyuan jiuwei, bubu tuiming, you youxing ru wuxing, you yinxing da chaoxing, dadi youhuo bikai, wuwei bupo 探原究委, 步步推明, 由有形入無形, 由因性達超性, 大抵有惑必開, 無微不破 (traces origins to their depths, clarifies step by step, progresses from the tangible to the intangible, and advances from causality to transcendence) (Z. Li 1989b). It generally resolves every doubt and penetrates every subtlety.” This method of step-by-step logical deduction could precisely remedy the late Ming scholarly world’s flaw of youtanwugen 遊談無根. Matteo Ricci once remarked: “Zi wu di shangguo, suojian congming liaoda, wei Li Zhenzhi, Xu Zixian er xiansheng er 自吾抵上國, 所見聰明了達, 惟李振之, 徐子先二先生耳 (Since my arrival in the great Ming Empire, I have encountered only two truly discerning scholars: Mr. Li Zhenzhi and Mr. Xu Zixian). (T. Yang 1993)” This attests to Li Zhizao’s pivotal role in translating Western learning during that era. The translation of Ming Li Tan 名理探 adopted a collaborative model: Francisco Furtado conveyed the meaning, while Li Zhizao articulated the words (Zhang and Zhang 2017). The conveyor of meaning dictated the essence, and the articulator of words transcribed it into text. This collaborative approach ensured both the accurate transmission of the original meaning and the adaptation of the translation to Chinese expression conventions. The book is divided into two parts: the first part covers the theory of the “wugong 五公” (i.e., the five predicates) and the “shilun 十倫” (i.e., Aristotle’s ten categories), while the second part addresses core logical concepts such as propositions, syllogisms, and laws of logic. The “wugong 五公” refer to zong 宗, lei 類, shu 疏, du 獨, and yi 依, corresponding to modern translations of category 類, genus 種, species 種差, inherent attribute 固體屬性, and accidental attribute 偶有屬性. The “shilun 十倫” refer to ziliti 自立體, jihe 幾何, hushi 互視, hesi 何似, Shizuo 施作, chengshou 承受, tishi 體勢, heju 何居, zanjiu 暫久, and deyou 得有, corresponding to modern translations of substance 實體, quantity 數量, relation 關係, quality 性質, action 主動, passion 被動, posture 姿勢, place 地點, time 實踐, and state 狀態 (Li and Furtado 1959). During the translation process, Li Zhizao shifted the original text’s focus from training Jesuit missionaries to the context of gewuqiongli 格物窮理, reflecting the translator’s localized reconstruction of the text.

In terms of terminology translation, Li Zhizao inherited the tradition pioneered by Matteo Ricci of mapping Western philosophical concepts onto terms from Chinese classical texts, while also introducing a series of innovations. He translated concepts, judgments, and inferences as zhitong 直通 (direct comprehension), duantong 斷通 (disjunctive comprehension), and tuitong 推通 (deductive comprehension); interpreted deduction and induction as mingbian 明辨 (discernment) and tuibian 推辨 (deductive reasoning); and rendered science, theory, and practical application as Zhizhi 致知 (attaining knowledge), zhiming致明 (attaining clarity), and Zhiyong 致用 (attaining utility), respectively (Zhang and Hou 2011, Zuo 2016). This paralleling translation strategy, though debatable in terms of terminological equivalence, was an essential path for conveying meaning during the early stages of cross-cultural translation. In his Ming Li Tan 名理探, Li Zhizao explicitly positioned logic as a tool-oriented science, stating that “names and principles are the tools relied upon to integrate all disciplines,” and that “without these tools, one may still grasp the truth, but with them, one more readily attains it.” (Li and Furtado 1959, pp. 14, 29) He further drew a distinction between two forms of minglitan 名理探: xingcheng zhi minglitan 性成之名理探 and xuecheng zhi minglitan 學成之名理探. In his interpretation, xingcheng zhi minglitan 性成之名理探 refers to the capacity for reasoning that is naturally possessed without learning, whereas xuecheng zhi minglitan 學成之名理探 denotes the reasoning ability that is developed only through systematic study. He held that logic as a discipline is principally concerned with this latter form of reasoning that relies on learning and training. This understanding accurately captures the essential characteristic of logic as a methodological discipline.

It is noteworthy that the translation of core Western logical terms into Chinese during this period exhibited a trend of diverse exploration. In the late Ming Dynasty, Jesuit missionaries transliterated the Latin “logica” as luorijia 落日伽, later rendering it as dao 道 or li 理. When introducing Aristotle’s logic to Chinese readers, Matteo Ricci translated it as bianxue 辨学. In Ming Li Tan 名理探, Li Zhizao opted for mingli 名理 as the translation for logic. This rendering reflected the translator’s understanding of logic’s essence: ming 名 pointed to language and concepts, while li 理 signified thought and laws. Together, they aptly encapsulated the subject matter of logic. Regarding the two core methods of deduction and induction, multiple translations emerged at the time: in Qiong Li Xue 窮理學 (Thorough Inquiry into Physics), deduction was rendered as litui 理推 (reasoning by deduction) and induction as yintui 引推 (reasoning by induction); in Ming Li Tan 名 理探, mingbian 明辨 (distinguishing clearly) and tuibian 推辨 (reasoning by inference) were used to interpret deduction and induction respectively (Zhang and Hou 2011). This diverse exploration in terminology translation reflects the cautious approach of enlightened intellectuals when encountering a foreign academic system. They were dissatisfied with simple phonetic translations and recognized that a single interpretive translation could not fully capture the rich connotations of Western logic. Thus, they experimented with different translations in various contexts, leaving behind valuable translation experience for future generations.

The translation practices of Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao, and others were not blind cultural transplantation but were grounded in a clear translation philosophy. Xu Guangqi’s three-stage theory—“translation, synthesis, and transcendence”—captures the core essence of this philosophy: translation is the means, synthesis is the process, and transcendence is the ultimate goal. This philosophy elevated translation to a strategic level in cultural exchange, transcending mere knowledge introduction and pointing toward the academic ideal of independent innovation. If missionaries approached translation with religious fervor, seeking to introduce a “remedy” that could radically transform China, Chinese intellectuals like Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao pursued it with the conviction that they were “seeking a cure” to save their nation and reshape the mindset of its people. The convergence and collision of these two motivations created the inherent tension within the translation activities of this period. Guided by this philosophy, the logical translation practices of enlightened intellectuals held multiple significance in the history of cross-cultural communication: First, their participation as xiru 西儒 (Western Confucians) ensured both the academic rigor and cultural adaptability of translations, enabling Western logic to enter the Chinese context with relative accuracy. During this initial transmission phase, terminological interpretations remained largely consistent, laying a foundation for the precise dissemination of logical knowledge. Second, they imbued logical translation with a practical, worldly value orientation, aligning logic with the practical learning movement from its inception in China rather than treating it as an abstract intellectual exercise confined to the study. Yang Tingyun summarized this endeavor as qu xilai tianxue, yu wuru xiangfu erxing 取西來天學, 與吾儒相輔而行 (incorporating Western celestial learning to complement our Confucian traditions), aiming to renew Confucianism through the mutual enrichment of Chinese and Western scholarship (T. Yang 2003). Third, their translation practices pioneered collaborative models between Chinese and Western scholars, establishing a methodological paradigm for subsequent Western learning’s eastward transmission. This cooperative approach of conveying and articulating leveraged missionaries’ expertise in original texts while harnessing Chinese scholars’ mastery of their native language, becoming an effective model for cross-cultural translation.

4. The Ideological Enlightenment of Logical Translation in the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties

While religious in essence, missionary translation endeavors instigated significant intellectual advancement within Chinese academia. This intellectual evolution, diverging from the radical secular ideological shifts in the European Enlightenment, represented a gradual resurgence originating from Sino-Western dialogues. Primarily through the introduction of Western logic, which is a core component of knowledge systems, it facilitated the recombination of indigenous intellectual elements, thereby establishing crucial foundations for subsequent modernization.

The transition from the logical to the ideological, however, was neither automatic nor linear, and its mechanism deserves explicit attention. Logic, as introduced through the Jesuit translations, initially presented itself as a neutral methodological instrument: a set of formal procedures for ordering concepts, testing propositions, and drawing inferences. Yet any epistemological tool carries implicit commitments about the nature of valid knowledge, and it was at this point that the logical shaded into the ideological. When Aristotelian demonstration replaced analogical correlation as a standard for intellectual justification, it did not merely refine the rules of argument; it quietly repositioned the grounds on which authority itself could be claimed. If a proposition had to be derivable from premises through formally valid inference, then the authority of classical precedent and sage pronouncement could no longer serve as self-sufficient warrants. This was not a conclusion that most Chinese literati drew consciously or quickly, but the logical framework introduced through texts like Ming Li Tan 名理探 and the Elements 幾何原本 of Euclid created the conceptual conditions under which such a conclusion became thinkable. The ideological consequences thus emerged from the logical premises not through direct argument but through the gradual erosion of epistemological assumptions that had underpinned the orthodox Confucian order. At the same time, the missionaries themselves were not innocent carriers of a pure formal logic: Aristotelian scholasticism was already embedded in a theological framework, and the rationality they introduced was designed to demonstrate the reasonableness of Catholic doctrine. The “logical” and the “ideological” were therefore never cleanly separable in this transmission; they were intertwined from the outset, each lending the other a degree of credibility and cultural purchase that neither could have achieved alone.

4.1. Introducing the Western Philosophy Perspective

The translation practices undertaken by Western missionaries during the late Ming dynasty constituted a crucial epistemic channel through which Western philosophical perspectives were first systematically introduced into China. These activities went beyond the transmission of isolated scientific or technical knowledge and instead embedded Western modes of reasoning, epistemological assumptions, and cosmological frameworks into Chinese intellectual discourse. In this sense, translation functioned as a medium of philosophical mediation, reshaping not only what was known, but also how knowledge itself was conceptualized and justified. For Chinese intellectuals such as Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao, interactions with missionaries facilitated the recognition of Western scientific and technological breakthroughs, as well as the underlying philosophical principles. Confronting the constraints of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism, they sought to transcend conventional cognitive frameworks by integrating Western cosmological and epistemological concepts (Shang 2012), such as the natural order underpinning astronomical calendars and the logical rigor of mathematical systems. This aspiration addressed both the societal demand for intellectual renewal and the intrinsic need for Chinese philosophy to evolve. The introduction was strategically layered. Missionaries, beginning with Matteo Ricci, adopted an approach of academic evangelism. They first translated that addressed practical state needs, thereby gaining credibility. Within these scientific texts, they systematically embedded the core of Western natural philosophy: the axiomatic deductive logic of geometry and the mathematical descriptive model of the cosmos. This provided not merely new data but novel cognitive tools—formal demonstration and empirical verification—that challenged the intuitive and ethically oriented ge-wu 格物 (investigation of things) in Neo-Confucianism. Concurrently, this scientific–philosophical discourse created a receptive context for the introduction of Christian theological and metaphysical doctrines. In works like Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義, missionaries presented concepts of a transcendent Creator God, original sin, and spiritual equality. To bridge the conceptual gap, they extensively employed geyi 格義, drawing analogies between Christian God and Confucian shangdi 上帝, or between Aristotelian categories and Chinese classical logic. This effort aimed to demonstrate a fundamental harmony between Chinese and Western thought.

The profound impact of this dual introduction lay in its synergistic effect. The authority established through accurate scientific translation lent persuasive power to the accompanying religious and ethical ideas. Conversely, the theistic worldview provided a coherent metaphysical foundation for the orderly universe revealed by Western science. Thus, Western philosophy entered China not as an abstract system but as an integrated paradigm combining instrumental rationality (logic/science) with a new ethical-metaphysical framework (religion). This dual engagement—simultaneously offering new methods for thinking and new grounds for meaning—effectively disrupted the intellectual insularity of late Ming thought. Regardless of their explicit proselytizing intent, these translated works effectively disrupted the self-contained structure of traditional Chinese philosophy by introducing alternative metaphysical premises and epistemological questions. At the same time, translations of astronomical treatises articulating Western cosmology, mathematical works elucidating deductive reasoning, and technical writings grounded in natural laws systematically expanded the Chinese intellectual horizon (Xiao and Xu 1995).

In conclusion, the late Ming missionaries’ translation practice sparked a dual enlightenment by introducing a transcendent worldview that questioned conventional cosmology and ethics and paving the way for empirical and logical rationality. This foundational phase did more than just add new content to Chinese discourse; it also reconfigured the very parameters of philosophical inquiry. Crucially, what began as an epistemological reorientation—a shift in how knowledge was grounded and validated—carried unavoidable ideological implications. Once the standard of formal demonstration took root, even partially, as a criterion of intellectual legitimacy, it created a subtle but persistent pressure on the authority structures of orthodox Confucian learning: the absolute deference to classical precedent, the identification of moral cultivation with cognitive reliability, and the assumption that the sage kings had already exhausted the resources of inquiry. The sections that follow trace how this pressure, initially encoded in methodological terms, gradually registered in the ideological register—reshaping how Chinese thinkers understood the relationship between knowledge, authority, and the proper order of intellectual life.

4.2. Enlightening the Chinese Traditional Ideas

During the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, missionaries in China employed a strategy of “accommodation” to gain favor, utilizing scientific knowledge to propagate their religious beliefs and translating numerous scientific texts. This influx of new knowledge across disciplines expanded the Chinese understanding of both natural and social sciences. Simultaneously, this introduction challenged traditional Chinese cosmological, ideological, and value systems. Western learning significantly impacted the cognitive structures of the populace, shifting their understanding from observable knowledge to the realm of consciousness. The ruling class of the Ming dynasty intensified its ideological control, promoting Cheng–Zhu Neo-Confucianism7, which became dominant in ideology and culture (W. Yang 2008). Missionaries, in their engagement with Chinese culture, particularly Confucianism, acknowledged its ethical value from a natural and rational perspective. Intellectuals embraced Western learning to strengthen the nation, supplementing Confucianism within the dominant ideology and traditional values, aiming to revitalize Confucian core values.

Enlightened intellectuals embraced Western learning and engaged with translated texts, recognizing the profound impact of Western technology on Chinese society. They believed that advancements in the above fields could facilitate their objectives. These intellectuals prioritized ideological refinement and emphasized applied learning to strengthen the nation, while critiquing the prevailing impractical academic environment. The influx of Western texts spurred a quest for practical science and technology, encouraging the assimilation of Western scientific advantages to enrich indigenous knowledge, aiming to integrate these with Chinese knowledge to establish a superior scientific and theoretical framework. This acceptance was not a wholesale adoption but often involved analogical interpretations and adaptations. Even within the framework of “Western learning with Chinese origins,” new knowledge was assimilated into traditional systems, thereby diminishing its subversive potential (H. Wang 2019b). Initially, during the mid-Ming dynasty, economic prosperity fostered commercial exchange and overseas trade, alongside advancements in mathematics and arithmetic. However, the subsequent governmental shift away from these subjects, favoring the eight-part essay, led to a decline in mathematical focus, resulting in a lack of systematization and symbolization (W. Yang 2008). Western mathematics missionaries introduced abstract mathematical thinking and deductive study methods, exemplified by Euclid’s Elements 幾何原本, which established a deductive system. This knowledge, introduced by missionaries, challenged the long-held Chinese worldview of a flat Earth under a round sky. Kunyu Wanguo Quantu 坤輿萬國全圖 (The Great Universal Geographic Map), presented to Emperor Wanli by Matteo Ricci, gained popularity by 1608, with numerous copies and inclusion in popular texts. This map and associated astronomical knowledge expanded Chinese perspectives, shifting the understanding of the universe from a geocentric model to one of revolving concentric circles, thereby broadening Chinese horizons.

From a translational perspective, the celestial sphere served as a fundamental concept underpinning Chinese imperial authority, national identity, social structures, and ethical frameworks. The introduction of Western astronomical knowledge, coupled with the precise observation, measurement, and calculation facilitated by various instruments, led to the emergence of new theoretical frameworks. For instance, the heliocentric model of Copernicus and the celestial mechanics and cosmological theories of Ptolemy and Tycho provided insights into the relationship between the Earth and celestial bodies, as well as the stellar composition of the Milky Way (Ge 2001). These developments prompted a reevaluation of the prevailing cosmological paradigm within China, resulting in the proliferation of literature exploring the new worldview.

4.3. Promoting the Modernization of Chinese Traditional Philosophy

Despite the interruption of Sino-Western exchanges during the Ming–Qing transition due to the Rites Controversy, and the failure of their direct intellectual endeavors to yield the advancements of modern science, these exchanges nonetheless laid the groundwork for philosophical modernization in China. They facilitated the rise of rationality and critical thought, albeit within the framework of practical scholarship. This rationality, though intertwined with theological considerations, challenged authority, emphasized argumentation, and pursued systematicity, thereby initiating a subtle erosion of blind faith and dogma (Li and Fu 2025). Thinkers such as Fang Yizhi 方以智 advocated for the integration of philosophy with scientific inquiry, as demonstrated in his Wuli Xiaoshi 物理小識 (The Principle of Physics), which incorporated natural knowledge introduced by missionaries, reflecting attempts to synthesize Chinese and Western thought and investigate the laws of nature. This vision of grounding philosophy in empirical research, though nascent, signaled a novel academic trajectory. The political critiques and governance proposals of figures like Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲 and Gu Yanwu 顧炎武, while primarily stemming from reflections on the Ming dynasty’s decline, exemplified pragmatism, critical analysis, and institutional examination—qualities aligned with the rational spirit of contemporary Western learning.

The advent of this phenomenon marked a pivotal juncture in the modernization of Chinese philosophical discourse. The novel nomenclature and conceptual frameworks introduced by missionaries through translation, coupled with their endeavors to interpret Chinese classics through Western philosophical lenses, exemplified an early experiment in recontextualizing traditional Chinese thought within the framework of modern philosophical language. Despite its inherent interpretive challenges, this geyi 格義 phase represented an unavoidable preliminary stage in the intercultural exchange between disparate philosophical systems. It compelled Chinese intellectuals to confront issues that were either less emphasized or differently articulated in traditional philosophy—such as the distinction between substance and appearance, the subject–object dichotomy, and the epistemological problem of certainty (Gao 2008).

The arrival of Jesuit missionaries in the late Ming dynasty, beneath the surface of religious propagation, precipitated a profound epistemological structural upheaval. Its core impact lay in systematically introducing Christianity’s finite epistemology, modern empirical scientific methods, and rational tools epitomized by Euclidean geometry and Aristotelian logic, thereby directly challenging and reconstructing traditional Chinese cognitive paradigms (S. Xu 2011). First, concerning the conception of truth, missionaries, grounded in the scholastic tradition, emphasized humanity’s inherent limitations in grasping absolute truth. This philosophical awareness of renqi zhilou 人器之陋 (the inadequacy of the human vessel) created tension with China’s indigenous veneration of the absolute authority of emperors and sages (Ricci 2001). Together, they catalyzed critiques of the monistic doctrine of the Dao by philosophers such as Li Zhi 李贄, Huang Zongxi, and Wang Fuzhi 王夫之, thereby fostering a dialectical, open, and pluralistic conception of truth that acknowledged its relativity and potential for development through debate. Secondly, in epistemological approaches, their introduction of telescope observations, Copernican theory, and calendrical practices established the empirical principle of jiwu yi qiongli 即物以窮理 (proceeding from things to exhaust their principles), sharply contrasting with the a priori tendencies of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism, which was centered on lili yi xiantian 立理以限天 (establishing a priori principles to limit nature). Scholars such as Xu Guangqi and Wang Xichan 王錫闡 thus emphasized deducing mathematical laws from objective celestial phenomena, shifting epistemological focus from ethical interpretation towards empirical facts and mathematical verification. What is significant here, from the perspective of logical translation’s facilitating role, is that this shift was not driven by astronomical observation alone: the inferential scaffold of Aristotelian demonstration—the habit of moving from stated premises through explicit steps to necessary conclusions—supplied the epistemological template within which empirical findings could be organized, reported, and contested. Without this template, observation remained anecdote; with it, observation could aspire to proof. The translation of logical texts thus facilitated the epistemic modernization of Chinese philosophical discourse not by replacing indigenous inquiry but by providing it with a new standard of what counted as a well-formed argument about the natural world. Finally, at the methodological level, the axiomatic deductive system demonstrated through the translation of the Elements 幾何原本of Euclid, alongside the formal logic introduced by the Ming Li Tan 名理探, provided Chinese scholarship with unprecedented tools for demonstrating ‘why things are so’. This not only fostered Xu Guangqi’s methodological self-awareness of jinzhen duren 金針度人 (passing on the golden needle) but also prompted philosophers like Fang Yizhi and Wang Fuzhi to synthesize a new epistemology. This xin zhizhilun 新致知論 (New Theory of the Extension of Knowledge) emphasized bridging sensory experience to rational necessity through combining zhice 質測 (empirical research) with Tongji 通幾 (philosophical reasoning), alongside the abstract grasp of xiangshu 象數 (the structured realm of natural phenomena quantifiable by mathematics) by the xinsi 心思 (the reflective and calculative mind). The impact of logical translation extends far beyond mere knowledge transmission; its true power lies in its constructive force. During the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, the logic introduced by missionaries was essentially a foreign cognitive paradigm emphasizing formal deduction and systematic argumentation, grafted onto China’s scholarly tradition through translation and interpretation. This was not a passive import but rather stimulated scholars like Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao to proactively apply this new paradigm to address the problem of academic hollowness in the late Ming period. Their intent was to pursue a fundamental accessibility—not merely introducing knowledge but transforming it into a catalyst for restructuring indigenous knowledge and generating new ideas. Thus, this logical translation is, at its core, the story of laying the conceptual groundwork for the emergence of China’s modern rational spirit and scientific methodology through cross-cultural interpretation (H. Liu 2024).

5. Conclusions

The initial extensive intercultural exchange between Chinese and Western civilizations was largely facilitated by the philosophical translation endeavors of Western missionaries during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, a period of considerable historical and scholarly significance. It not only marked the historical starting point for the mutual exchange of Western learning in the East and Eastern learning in the West but also laid the foundational discourse framework and interaction model for centuries of cross-cultural exchange between China and the West (Zhang and Li 2023). Far from being a simple act of knowledge transmission, it embodied a complex process of bidirectional adaptation, in which Western missionaries, guided by academic evangelism, reformulated Aristotelian and scholastic concepts within the language and cosmology of Confucianism, while Chinese literati reinterpreted these foreign ideas through indigenous epistemological and ethical frameworks (Li and Gao 2025). It transcended the insularity of traditional Chinese philosophy by introducing Western philosophical problem-consciousness, modes of thought, and discursive systems, thereby stimulating the self-renewal and evolution of traditional thought. Furthermore, it established an effective model for cross-cultural translation. The concepts of cultural adaptation, demand-driven translation, and critical synthesis, developed by missionaries and literati scholars during this translation process, remain crucial for future cross-cultural interactions (Gao 2006). Ultimately, it accumulated a wealth of intellectual capital. The empirical methods, methodical reasoning, and rational spirit of Western philosophy provided essential intellectual resources for China’s contemporary ideological emancipation and social transformation, invigorating the Chinese intellectual landscape of the time. Cross-cultural philosophical dialogue not only reveals differences but also promotes mutual self-understanding and renewal within each tradition (He and Hosle 2023).

Despite these findings, the present study has several limitations. Its qualitative nature, relying primarily on textual and historical analysis, constrains the scope of generalization. The surviving corpus of missionary translations is unevenly preserved, and the circulation and reception of these texts remain only partially documented. Moreover, this study focuses mainly on Sino-Western exchanges and does not systematically address how similar translation dynamics unfolded in other East Asian contexts such as Japan and Korea. These gaps suggest the need for further research employing comparative, quantitative, and digital methodologies to trace the broader regional networks of conceptual transmission and intellectual influence.

Beyond its historical significance, this case study offers methodological implications for contemporary research in comparative and global philosophy. It encourages scholars to move beyond diffusionist narratives of influence and instead explore how philosophical systems evolve through reciprocal reinterpretation. Future investigations could compare this early Sino-Western dialogue with parallel encounters in other cultural contexts—such as the Jesuit missions in Japan or the transmission of Islamic philosophy into medieval Europe—to explore how intercultural translation reshapes the global architecture of thought. When viewed within this broader framework, the late Ming and early Qing translation of logic emerges as a revealing instance of early cross-civilizational negotiation, illustrating that bidirectional adaptation constitutes a durable paradigm for understanding how civilizations interact, transform, and generate new meanings across cultural boundaries. How to uphold one’s cultural sovereignty in cross-cultural communication while achieving genuine equality in dialogue and mutual learning among civilizations is precisely the most central question this historical case poses for contemporary cross-cultural communication and global philosophy studies.