A Comparative Study Of Zhongyong’s Two English Versions From The Perspective Of Philosophical Hermeneutics

As one of the volumes of SiShu as well as the Confucian classics, the book Zhongyong,based on Confucius’s thoughts and ideas was edited by his grandson-ZiSi. It is a book of greatvalue both as a literary relic and a philosophical masterpiece. Thus it has attracted translatorsat home and abroad from long ago and different translated versions provide effective way forthe spreading of Chinese culture. Yet these translations are different to some extent and havetheir own characteristics despite the same source text.Modern hermeneutics holds that translation is a kind of understanding and interpretation.In literary translation, however, hermeneutics can not only be a method of textual analysis butalso a process of exposing hidden meanings. As a representative of philosophicalhermeneutics, Gadamer believes that the interpretation of any text should be categorized intotime system and that’s why absolutely objective understanding of a text does not exist. Thispoint will be proved through examples in this thesis.This thesis is a study of the English translation of Zhongyong in the perspective ofphilosophical hermeneutics. The complete translation of James Legge, Ku Hungming andWing-Tsit Chang are studied and analyzed respectively. These translations are studied fromthe perspective of the historical understanding of the translators, the nature of theirtranslations, the three translators’ horizon and their relation with the original text. Throughsample studies and comparison, we observe that their translations are different and arefavored or criticized by different readers, and although all translators tried their best topreserve and transmit the original meaning of the book, there are obstacles they are not able toovercome such as their “horizon” which is inevitable and formed by history. According to thehistoricity of understanding, with time passing by, it is definite that more translation versions based on different “horizons” will appear. However, on the other hand, the existence ofdifferent translations is not only valid but also necessary because their appearance is meant tosuit the aesthetic standard and requirements of different historical periods and thus we shouldtake a tolerate attitude toward different translations.