《中国人的精神》读书笔记5

cccc

Reader: Li Yanmei  
Reading Time: two days  
Reading Task: Chapter 5and Chapter 6  



Summary of the Content  
The selected chapters critique Western sinologists, particularly Dr. Herbert Giles, and reflect on the state of Chinese scholarship among foreigners.  

1. Chapter 5: "A Great Sinologue"  
    The author begins with Confucian sayings warning against pedantry, then critiques Dr. Giles’ work. While praising Giles’ literary skill, he faults his lack of philosophical insight, exemplified by misinterpretations of Confucian concepts like filial piety (se nan 色难). Giles’ translation reduces Confucius’ emphasis on the manner of moral actions to a superficial grammatical debate.  
    The chapter contrasts morality (rules) with religion (inward spirit), arguing Confucius’ greatness lies in his focus on the how (spirit) rather than the what (action). This is likened to Christ’s teaching (e.g., the widow’s mite).  
    A second critique targets Giles’ misunderstanding of the term shì (士), historically denoting a warriorgentleman, not a civilian scholar. The author ties this to China’s need for a martial spirit to resist colonization.  

2. Chapter 6: "Chinese Scholarship — Part I"  
    The author surveys Western sinology’s evolution, from early pioneers like Morrison and Gutzlaff (whose flaws are exposed) to later figures like Legge and Giles.  
    Legge’s translations, though monumental, are criticized for "harsh, crude" terminology and lacking a cohesive interpretation of Confucianism.  
    Works like Wylie’s Notes on Chinese Literature and Mayers’ Chinese Readers Manual are deemed useful but unliterary. Giles’ Strange Stories is praised for style but faulted for focusing on minor literature.  
    Balfour’s mistranslation of Zhuangzi is dissected: he misinterprets grammar, leading to flawed "central propositions."  
    Reverend Faber is highlighted as the most principled contemporary scholar, though his works lack broad recognition.  



Evaluation  
1. Style: The prose blends polemic with scholarly critique, using irony (e.g., missionaries as "famous savants") and analogies (e.g., Christ’s method). The structure is methodical, transitioning from specific critiques (Giles’ errors) to broader surveys (sinology’s history).  
2. Themes:  
    Cultural Interpretation: The author stresses understanding Chinese thought holistically, not just linguistically. Giles’ failure to see Confucius as a "religious teacher" exemplifies this.  
    Colonial Context: Critiques of sinology reflect anxieties about Western misrepresentation and China’s subjugation (e.g., the shì debate ties to national defense).  
3. Originality: The comparison of Confucius and Christ’s teachings is provocative, challenging missionary narratives.  



Reflection  
1. Academic Rigor: The author’s demand for "philosophical insight" resonates with modern crosscultural studies, where linguistic proficiency alone risks reductionism. For instance, his critique of Legge parallels debates about "cultural translation" today.  
2. Relevance to Modern China: The shì discussion mirrors contemporary tensions between civil and military elites in China’s rise. The call to "study Confucius" over Western reforms prefigures current nationalist discourses.  
3. Limitations: The author’s nationalist tone sometimes oversimplifies Western scholarship (e.g., dismissing Balfour’s effort entirely). A more balanced view might acknowledge incremental progress in sinology.