This document is downloaded from CityU Institutional Repository,

Run Run Shaw Library, City University of Hong Kong.

Title A comparative study of Lin Yutang’s and James Legge’s translations of junzi in the Analects

Author(s) Su, Yanping Angie (蘇燕萍)

Citation

Su, Y. A. (2013). A comparative study of Lin Yutang’s and James Legge’s translations of junzi in the Analects (Outstanding Academic Papers by Students (OAPS)). Retrieved from City University of Hong Kong, CityU Institutional Repository.

Issue Date 2013

URL http://hdl.handle.net/2031/7142

Rights This work is protected by copyright. Reproduction or distribution of the work in any format is prohibited without written permission of the copyright owner. Access is unrestricted.

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

A Comparative Study of Lin Yutang’s and James Legge’s

Translations of Junzi in The Analects Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics

Angie, SU Yanping

4/25/2013

Supervisor: Dr. YAN Xiu, Jackie

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts Lin Yutang’s and James Legge’s translations of

junzi in The Analects to explore how they have represented this cultural concept. It

starts by reviewing the etymology, word formation and ethical assumptions of junzi in

the original sense, before analyzing its meaning in The Analects from the intellectual,

political, moral, behavioral and mental perspectives. Upon a hermeneutic study of the

term, it argues that junzi has evolved from a political label in early literature to a

multi-dimensional concept in The Analects which denotes people who are at the same

time informed scholars, political wits and virtuous men. In particular, it highlights the

importance of virtue in shaping the meaning of junzi. The paper then moves on to

investigate Lin’s and Legge’s translation strategies for word choices and information

structures. Given that such general terms as “a/the superior man” and “a/the

gentleman” are frequently used, especially in Lin’s text, the paper examines the

feasibility of these translations by comparing their denotations and connotations with

that of junzi. Meanwhile, it also looks into the impacts of information structures on

the representations of junzi. With a detailed data analysis, the paper arrives at the

conclusion that while both texts have employed general terms to translate junzi,

Legge’s information-dense structures have foregrounded the virtuous quality of junzi,

thus capturing its defining characteristic as depicted by The Analects. Lin’s text, on

the other hand, has modified the concept of junzi and shifted its focus from virtue to

manners by adopting gentleman as one of the prevailing translations for the term.

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. YAN Xiu,

Jackie, who has supported me throughout my final year project with her

thought-provoking insights, patient guidance and constant encouragement. I am sure

that this research project would not have been successfully completed had it not been

for her valuable help and sincere understanding. During this year-long research

project, I have benefited tremendously from Dr. Yan’s instruction and become more

motivated and confident in academic research.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the professors and teachers who

have taught me during my time in City University of Hong Kong, as well as those

who have shown great concern for my research project. Their profound knowledge,

enthusiastic teaching and generous suggestions have been my inspiration as I venture

further in the domain of translation and interpretation.

Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my beloved family

and friends. It is their care and support that has been giving me the strength to carry

on with this project despite some difficulties along the way.

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…..1

Section I: The Meaning of Junzi before The Analects…………………………….…..4

1. Etymology……………………………………………………………...….4

2. Word Formation………………………………………………...…………5

3. Ethical Assumptions…………………………….…………………………6

Section II: The Meaning of Junzi in The Analects…………………………………….8

1. Intellectual Ability…………………………………………………………8

2. Political Competence……………………………………………………...9

3. Moral Pursuit…………………………………………………………….11

4. Behavioral Traits…………………………………………...…………….13

5. Mental Features………………………………………………….……….17

6. The Defining Characteristic………………………………………...……18

Section III: Similarities between Lin’s and Legge’s Translations…………..……….22

1. Varying Translations……………………………………………..………22

2. The Frequent Use of “a/the superior man”……………………….………23

2.1 Denotations and Connotations of “a/the superior man”…………..….24

2.2 Comparison between Junzi and “a/the superior man”………………..25

Section IV: Differences between Lin’s and Legge’s Translations……………..…….27

1. Information Structure………………………………………………….…27

2. The Frequent Use of Gentleman…………………………...…………….29

2.1 Denotations of Gentleman…………………………………..………..30

2.2 Historical Development and Cultural Connotations of Gentleman…..31

2.3 Comparison between Junzi and Gentleman……………………...…..35

Section V: Representations Projected by Lin’s and Legge’s Translations……...…...41

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………42

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….…43

Appendix 1 Annotations of Confucian Scholars Emphasizing Junzi’s Virtue

Appendix 2 Lin’s and Legge’s Translations of Junzi Appearing in the 40 Chapters

Appendix 3 Dictionary Definitions of Superior

Appendix 4 Denotations and Connotations of Junzi in The Analects

Appendix 5 Dictionary Definitions of Gentleman

Appendix 6 Comparisons of Cultural Connotations between Gentleman and Junzi

Introduction

In the era of accelerating cultural exchange, translating culturally-loaded terms, or

“culture-specific items” as Aixela (1996, p.57) puts it, can be an intriguing yet tricky

endeavor, considering the difficulty of pinpointing their meanings , as well as the

challenge of presenting them to a different target audience.

One of the representative examples in the Chinese context is the translation of junzi

(君子), a pivotal concept closely related to several Confucian ideas such as virtue (仁)

and propriety (禮). As a culturally-loaded term appearing consistently in The Analects,

junzi has seen its meaning greatly enriched by Confucius and his disciples who

explored the concept enthusiastically in the book. Over the ensuing centuries, Chinese

literati have also contributed their interpretations of the topic by supplying exegeses,

commentaries and annotations on The Analects. While some propose a dichotomy for

junzi, believing that it either denotes men of rank or those of moral integrity (Cheng,

2010), others argue that a third parameter, junzi’s capability, should also be added in

the equation (Chow, 2011). This great body of knowledge concerning junzi means that

a proper translation of the term involves not only picking the right word, but also a

fundamental effort of interpreting its cultural connotations. Ultimately, whether it has

been translated and represented appropriately will have a major impact on how the

target audience approaches and understands the concept.

Viewed in this light, investigating how junzi has been translated into English has

acquired a dual significance: as the starting point for examining translation strategies

and as the basis for exploring interpretations of key Confucian concepts. As far as this

1

paper is concerned, it has chosen the first volume of James Legge’s Chinese Classics

and Lin Yutang’s The Wisdom of Confucius as the pair for a comparative study, given

the influential roles both have played in disseminating Chinese culture in the

English-speaking community. While Legge’s version is generally recognized as the

most representative piece by sinologists (Edkins, 1960, as cited in Wang, 2003), Lin’s

work has enjoyed great popularity with general English readers since the 1940s (Bian,

2005). Their different target audiences, therefore, may have affected their different

translation strategies.

The paper aims to examine the translations of junzi by the two translators at the

linguistic level as well as their representations of the concept in the cultural sense. To

this end, it will focus on chapters containing junzi that both have translated and their

corresponding translations. In total, there are 40 such chapters, excluding five

translated from Liji (《禮記》) by Lin and one occurring twice in his text1.

The paper will first review junzi’s etymology by examining its usage in early Chinese

literary works, the implication of its word formation, as well as the ethical

assumptions accompanying the term. Thereafter, it will systematically investigate all

the chapters containing junzi in The Analects to find out how it has acquired new

meanings with Confucius and his disciples’ development. In this stage, it will

reclassify chapters from the book to offer a thorough and original interpretation of

junzi from the intellectual, political, moral, behavioral and mental perspectives. With

this, it aims to argue that the term has evolved from a political term to a

1「子曰：『君子求諸己，小人求諸人。』」is translated twice in Lin’s book on p. 181 and p.190.

2

multi-dimensional concept involving academics, politics, morality, personality as well

as mentality. Taking into account the annotations of noted Confucian scholars, it will

highlight that junzi has taken on more ethical implications, with the quality of virtue

assuming a central role in shaping its meaning.

In the next section, the paper will look closer into the translations of junzi in the two

texts, with particular attention paid to their specific word choices and information

structures. For the discussion on word choices, the paper will compare and contrast

the denotations and connotations of junzi with that of some translations frequently

appearing in the two texts, in order to explore their appropriateness in substituting the

concept of junzi in English culture. In addition to word choices, the paper will also

examine the two translations from the perspective of information structures, so as to

analyze how different ways of information presentation have influenced their

representations of junzi. Based on a detailed analysis of the similarities and

differences of the two texts, the paper will conclude by discussing their

representations of junzi resulted from their distinctive translation strategies.

3

Section I: The Meaning of Junzi before The Analects

1. Etymology

Research on the etymology of junzi suggests that the term can be traced back to as

early as the Western Zhou Dynasty when it first appeared in The Book of Documents

(《尚書》), The Book of Changes (《易經》) as well as The Book of Songs (《詩經》)

(Lin, 2008; Wu, 1998). Specifically, it has been found in four chapters in The Book of

Documents, including The Announcement of the Duke of Shaou (《召誥》), The

Announcement about Drunkenness (《酒誥》), Against Luxurious Ease (《無逸》) and

The Speech of the Duke of Ts’in (《秦誓》). All are believed to have been written in the

early Zhou Dynasty, except for The Speech of the Duke of Ts’in which came relatively

later (Wu, 1998). Additionally, The Book of Changes also sees junzi appear 20 times

in its text (Chi & Zhao, 1999), compared with 183 in The Book of Songs (Wu, 1998).

Many believe that junzi was originally used as a political concept in these works,

rather than an ethical one as perceived these days (Cheng, 2010; Chi & Zhao, 1999;

Lin, 2008; Wu, 1998). The first example in Table 1.1, for instance, is part of an

announcement about alcohol prohibition that King Kang (康叔) addressed to the

aristocracy of the State Wei (衛國), therefore 「庶士」, 「有正」, 「越庶」 and 「佰

君子」 are generally interpreted as different types of government officials. In terms of

The Book of Changes, there are plenty of cases where junzi stands alongside another

interesting term, xiaoren (小人), as demonstrated by Table 1.1. Some scholars hold

that junzi and xiaoren here are indicative of rank, instead of virtue, given the

contextual clues of 「與」(chariot) and 「維有解」(the action of binding and then

4

unbinding people) which are things and activities typically found in the ruling class of

the slavery society in the Western Zhou Dynasty and earlier (Wu, 1998). As for The

Book of Songs, similarly, it is likely that junzi refers to royal members, considering

expressions such as 「來朝」(coming to the royal court), 「路車乘馬」(carriages and

teams) and 「保其家邦」(protecting homes and states). Even though The Book of

Songs also features some cases where junzi denotes women’s lovers, as in 「既見君子，

不我遐棄」 (i.e. “I have seen my lord; He has not cast me away”) (Legge, 2011b,

p.18), they account for only a small number (29 times) compared with the majority

154 times when junzi refers to sovereigns or officers. Therefore, it is reasonable to

argue that in its early days, junzi was first and foremost used to denote people above

others in social and political positions.

Table 1.1 Selected Passages Where Junzi First Appeared Source Examples 《尚書》 《酒誥》: 庶士有正越庶佰君子，其爾典聽朕教。

《召誥》:予小臣敢以王之仇民百君子越友民，保受王威命明德。

《易經》 剥·上九：硕果不食, 君子得與，小人別廬。

解·六五：君子維有解。吉。有孚于小人。

《詩經》 《小雅·采菽》:君子來朝，何錫予之？雖無予之？路車乘馬。

《小雅·瞻彼洛矣》:君子至止，福祿既同。君子萬年，保其家邦。

2. Word Formation

Alternatively, one can approach the original meaning of junzi by analyzing its

formation in Chinese—「君」plus「子」. For the first character「君」, Erya (《爾

雅》)— the oldest surviving Chinese dictionary—points out that 「林，烝，天，帝，

皇，王后，辟，公，侯，君也」, on which Erya Zhushu (《爾雅注疏》) annotates that

「天、帝、皇、王惟謂天子，公、侯惟為諸侯，餘皆通稱」(Gu & Xing, 1979, p.19).

In other words,「君」can be regarded as an umbrella term used both specifically and

5

generally. On the one hand, it includes various titles referring to the Son of Heaven

(天子), such as the God (天), the Emperor (帝), His Majesty (皇), the King (王), as

well as synonyms meaning states sovereigns (諸侯), like dukes (公) and vassals (侯).

On the other hand, general terms related to government officials also fall into the

category of 「君」. Similar interpretations of this character can be found in another

important work, Shuowen Jiezi (《說文解字》), the first Chinese dictionary offering

explanations based on the structure of characters. Shuowen Jiezi breaks 「君」 into

「尹」 and 「口」, explaining that 「君」 refers to the dignity (i.e. 「君，尊也」)

who is responsible for issuing orders (i.e. 「發號」) and hence takes 「口」 (mouth)

as a component (Xu, 2006). Both Erya Zhushu and Shuowen Jiezi have pointed out

the political connotation of 「君」, stressing the aspect of rank embedded in the

character. As for 「子」, the meaning seems more straightforward. It is often

interpreted as a general term meaning men, as in 「子者，丈夫之通稱也」in Baihu

Tongyi (《白虎通義》) (Ban, 1999, p.435) . Therefore, if one combines 「君」 and 「子」

to understand 「君子」, they will find the original meaning of 「君子」 largely shaped

by 「君」—sovereigns or officers—and further modified by 「子」—male sovereigns

or officers.

3. Ethical Assumptions

Although junzi entered into early literary works primarily as a political concept, some

believe that there were already ethical assumptions accompanying the term (Lin, 2008;

Wu 1999). This viewpoint is supported by a number of chapters in the aforementioned

books that emphasize the importance of virtue for junzi (see Table 1.2). Against

6

Luxurious Ease, for instance, urges junzi to reflect on the hardship of farm work and

the mind of people, whereas Xiao Ya· Gu Zhong (《小雅·鼓鐘》) captures the yearning

for a virtuous sovereign from the folk’s point of view. Moreover, contextual clues

such as 「謙謙」(humility), 「勞謙」(merit), 「靖共爾位」(i.e. “fulfilling the duties

of your offices”) (Legge, 2011b, p.366), 「正直是與」(i.e. “loving the correct and

upright”) (Legge, 2011b, p.366) and 「德」(virtue) imply the common belief held by

people that a man superior in social status should be, ideally, superior in morality as

well. This inherent expectation for virtue to present itself in junzi— though not as

significant as its political connotations—may have constituted the basis upon which

Confucius and his disciples developed the term later in The Analects.

Table 1.2 Examples Illustrating the Ethical Assumptions behind the Term Junzi Source Examples 《尚書》 《無逸》: 嗚呼，君子所其無逸。先知稼福之艱難，乃逸，則知小人之依。

《易經》 謙·初六：謙謙君子，用涉大川，吉。

謙·九三：勞謙君子，有終，吉。

《詩經》 《小雅·小明》: 蹉爾君子，無恒安處，靖共爾位，正直是與……式谷以女。

《小雅·鼓鐘》: 鼓鐘喈喈，淮水湝湝，憂心且悲。淑人君子，其德不回。

7

Section II: The Meaning of Junzi in The Analects

Preliminary statistics show that junzi appears 107 times in 86 chapters that scatter

throughout The Analects. Still, some touch upon similar concerns and can be grouped

together for the benefit of discussion. In this section, the paper will tease out these

chapters and reclassify them into five categories based on the intellectual, political,

moral, behavioral and mental characteristics of junzi, so to examine how The Analects

has endowed the term with new meanings in each respect.

1. Intellectual Ability

To start with, a junzi is an erudite man of great wisdom who understands the will of

Heaven (i.e. 「知命」) and is therefore free from perplexities (i.e. 「知者不惑」). Yet,

to attain such a high level of intellectual capability requires assiduous learning of

knowledge that ranges from traditional cultural disciplines (e.g. Six Classical Arts (六

藝)) to abstract philosophical concepts such as Tao (道). In The Analects, Confucius

consistently emphasized the role of extensive learning in shaping junzi’s character, as

only through a wide learning will a junzi build up his scholarship, and more

importantly, learn how to love men (i.e. 「君子學道則愛人」), thus adhering to the

proper principles (i.e. 「君子博學於文，約之以禮，亦可以弗畔矣夫」). In time, such

an arduous learning will ideally lead a scholar to becoming a 「君子儒」, a scholar

after the style of junzi who manifests a seamless harmony between scholarship and

morality. While profound knowledge paves the way for acquiring wisdom and

cultivate character (i.e. 「君子學以致其道」), moral eminence stands as a strong pillar

for his pursuit of knowledge in time of adversary (i.e. 「君子憂道不憂貧」). To a

8

junzi, the quest for knowledge is so fulfilling that even poverty cannot stop him from

learning (i.e. 「學也，祿在其中矣」).

Table 1.3 Junzi’s Intellectual Ability Theme Example Scholarship 6•11 子謂子夏曰：「女為君子儒，無為小人儒。」

6•25 子曰：「君子博學於文，約之以禮，亦可以弗畔矣夫！」

17•4 子游对曰：「昔者偃也問諸夫子曰：『君子學道則愛人，小人學道則易使也。』……」

19•7 子夏曰：「百工居肆以成其事，君子學以致其道。」

15•31 子曰：「君子謀道不謀食。耕也，餒在其中矣；學也，祿在其中矣。君子憂道不憂貧。」

Wisdom 6•24 子曰：「……君子可逝也，不可陷也；可欺也，不可罔也。」

14•30 子曰：「君子道者三，我無能焉：仁者不憂，知者不惑，勇者不懼。」

20•3 子曰：「不知命，無以為君子也……」

2. Political Competence

However, a genuine junzi would not stay content with personal academic

achievements. Rather, he aspires to apply his knowledge and wisdom to benefit

society as a whole. He is as much concerned about not being recognized for his

competence (i.e. 「君子疾沒世而名不稱焉」) as he is for not acquiring the heavenly

wisdom Tao (i.e. 「君子憂道不憂貧」). In this regard, the significance of his

intellectual capability extends beyond scholarly endeavor to the political arena.

Confucius believed that junzi were the ones to be entrusted with crucial undertakings

(i.e. 「君子不可小知而可大受」) who cultivated their moral character for the interests

of ordinary people (i.e. 「修己以安百姓」) rather than their own. Hence, a real junzi is

at the same time an outstanding political talent capable of enforcing propriety (禮)

and music (樂) in the state, nourishing people with kindness (i.e. 「養民」) and

employing people righteously (i.e. 「使民也義」). Through his political endeavor, he

seeks to achieve the great ambition of cultivating himself (i.e. 「修身」), putting his

family in order (i.e. 「齊家」), administering his country (i.e. 「治國」) and making

9

the world peaceful (i.e. 「平天下」 ). A junzi, in other words, belongs to a

forward-looking and this-worldly group of political talents who concern themselves

primarily with secular issues rather than other-worldly mysteries.

Table 1.4 Junzi’s Political Competence Theme Example Junzi’s competence, especially in the political arena

11•25 對曰：「……求也為之，比及二年，可使足民。如其禮樂，以俟君子。」

5•15 子謂子產：「有君子之道四焉……其養民也惠，其使民也義。」

20•2 子曰：「君子惠而不費，勞而不怨，欲而不貪，泰而不驕，威而不猛。」

14•45 子路問君子。子曰：「修己以敬。」曰：「如斯而已乎？」曰：「修己以安人。」曰：

「如斯而已乎？」曰：「修己以安百姓。修己以安百姓，堯舜其猶病諸！」

15•6 子曰：「……君子哉蘧伯玉！邦有道，則仕；邦無道，則可卷而懷之。」

15•19 子曰：「君子疾沒世而名不稱焉。」

15•18 子曰：「君子病無能焉，不病人之不己知也。」

15•33 子曰：「君子不可小知而可大受；小人不可大受而可小知也。」

It is also in this regard that one sees junzi’s original meanings preserved by The

Analects to the largest extent, as both junzi in and before The Analects can refer to

sovereigns and officials. Table 1.5 lists several examples where the term probably

denotes people superior in political rankings, according to annotations from Zhu Xi,

Liu Baonan and Yang Bojun (e.g. 「卿大夫」, 「為政者」 and 「做官的」). Almost

all the quoted chapters deal with issues regarding governance and junzi’s political role,

which provides a specific context for its political connotations to be observed. Take

「君子篤於親，則民興於仁」 as an instance, it is likely that 「君子」and 「民」

contrast more in rank than personality, as the chapter revolves around how junzi’s

behavior can easily affect the folk and guide their conduct. For junzi to exert such a

direct impact on ordinary people in ancient times, chances are that they were

high-ranking personages who received considerable public attention. Several

exegetical works also favor this idea, for Zhu Xi, Liu Baonan as well as Yang Shuda

10

have interpreted the term similarly as 「在上之人」, 「在位者」 and 「在上位的

人」. In some chapters elsewhere, Confucius also commented on his disciples’

political performance to illustrate how junzi were supposed to shoulder their political

responsibilities. Such an emphasis on junzi’s political competence is in line with

Confucius’s vision to bring peace and order out of the political turmoil in the Spring

and Autumn Period. Therefore, it makes sense to argue that the original meanings of

junzi, especially its political connotations, remain an indispensable part underlying the

term (Cheng, 2010).

Table 1.5 Original Meanings of Junzi Inherited in The Analects

Example Exegesis/Explanation 8•2 子曰：「……君子篤於親，

則民興於仁；故舊不遺，則民

不偷。」

君子者，謂在上之人也 (Zhu, 1985, p.847)。

君子，指在位者，故注以「君」言之 (Liu, 1990, p.290)。

在上位的人不遗弃他的老同事、老朋友…… (Yang, 1980, p.90)。

11•1 子曰：「……後進於禮樂

君子也。如用之，則吾從先

進。」

君子，謂賢大夫也 (Zhu, 1985, p.882)。

君子者，卿大夫之稱也 (Liu, 1990, p.439)。

……先有了官位而后学习礼乐的是卿大夫的子弟 (Yang, 1980, p.124)。

12•19 孔子對曰：「……君子之

德風，小人之德草……」

為政者，民所視效，何以殺為？欲善則民善矣 (Zhu, 1985, p.906)。

刑疏：「……在上君子，為政之德若風……」(Liu, 1990, p.507)。

領導的作風好比風，老百姓的作風好比草 (Yang, 1980, p.145)。

14•45 子路問君子。子曰：「修

己以敬。」……

正義曰：「君子」，謂在位者也 (Liu, 1990, p.605)。

17•4 子游对曰：「……『君子

學道則愛人，小人學道則易使

也。』……」

君子小人，以位言之 (Zhu, 1985, p.975)。

正義曰：「君子」者，謂王、公、士、大夫之子孫也 (Liu, 1990, p.680)。

做官的学习了，就会有仁爱之心…… (Yang, 1980, p.205)。

3. Moral Pursuit

However, The Analects definitely has added new vigor to the century-old term by

foregrounding junzi’s moral attainment of virtue (德) and righteousness (義) that

distinguishes them from ordinary people, pure scholars or political figures. With a

strong belief in virtue (i.e. 「尚德」) and a firm grasp of righteousness (i.e. 「君子

11

喻于義」), a junzi constantly reflects on virtue (i.e. 「君子懷德」), acting in

conformity with righteousness, propriety, and fidelity (i.e. 「義以為質，禮以行之，

孫以出之，信以成之」). His faithfulness to virtue and righteousness is most admirable

in hardships, as a real junzi would not “even for the space of a single meal, act

contrary to virtue” (i.e. 「君子無終食之間違仁」) (Legge, 2011a, p.166). Rather, he

would stick to virtue even in moments of haste or danger (i.e. 「造次必於是，顛沛必

於是」). Since he accords top priority to spiritual fulfillment, he shows indifference to

fame and fortune. Neither delicious food nor comfortable lodging could attract him

(i.e. 「君子食無求飽，居無求安」), for his only concern lies in acquiring the truth

instead of material enjoyment (i.e. 「君子憂道不憂貧」). It is with such a devotion to

virtue and righteousness that a junzi confronts poverty and sufferings without any

letup in his moral cultivation (i.e. 「君子固窮，小人窮斯濫矣」).

Furthermore, the noble character of junzi also reflects in their altruistic efforts to

practice ren (仁) among ordinary people. A junzi is by no means an egocentric person

who only cares about his own moral integrity. On the contrary, he regards it his

responsibility to realize ren with indiscriminate love for humanity (i.e. 「愛人」). To

this end, he acts proactively in the political arena, assisting state rulers in formulating

polices and solving problems, in the hope of creating a peaceful and orderly state for

people to live and work. Zi Chan (子產), for instance, was acknowledged by

Confucius as a junzi for his moral attainment and political achievements—behaving

modestly (i.e. 「行己也恭」), serving superiors respectfully ( i.e. 「事上也敬」),

rearing people generously (i.e. 「養民也惠」) and ordering people righteously (i.e.

12

「使民也義」). In this regard, a junzi acquires his third and probably the most

important identity as a moral role model in society, in addition to an informative

scholar and competent political talent. Through his political influence and moral

appeal, a junzi sets a desirable example for ordinary people to follow (i.e. 「子欲善而

民善」). In other words, a junzi who truly grasps the meaning of ren and virtue not

only values self-cultivation, but also strives to achieve the great ambition of turning

his country (or state) into a better society for ordinary people.

Table 1.6 Moral Pursuit of Junzi—Virtue(仁/德) and Righteousness (義) Theme Example The Moral Pursuit of Virtue

1•2 有子曰：「……君子務本，本立而道生。孝弟也者，其為仁之本與！」

4•11 子曰：「君子懷德，小人懷土。君子懷刑，小人懷惠。」

14•6 南宮适出，子曰：「君子哉若人！尚德哉若人！」

The Moral Pursuit of Righteousness

4•10 子曰：「君子之於天下也，無適也，無莫也，義之與比。」

4•16 子曰：「君子喻於義，小人喻於利。」

15•17 子曰：「君子義以為質，禮以行之，孫以出之，信以成之。君子哉！」

18•7 子路曰：「……君子之仕也，行其義也。道之不行，已知之矣。」

Indifference to Material Well-being

4•5 子曰：「富與貴……君子無終食之間違仁，造次必於是，顛沛必於是。」

1•14 子曰：「君子食無求飽，居無求安……就有道而正焉，可謂好學也已。」

15•1 子路慍見，曰：「君子亦有窮乎？」子曰：「君子固窮，小人窮斯濫矣。」

15•31 子曰：「君子謀道不謀食……學也，祿在其中矣。君子憂道不憂貧。」

Junzi as the Moral Role Model

8•2 子曰：「……君子篤於親，則民興於仁；故舊不遺，則民不偷。」

9•13 子欲居九夷。或曰：「陋，如之何？」子曰：「君子居之，何陋之有？」

12•19 孔子對曰：「……君子之德風，小人之德草。草上之風，必偃。」

19•21 子貢曰：「君子之過也，如日月之食焉……更也，人皆仰之。」

4. Behavioral Traits

Along with the determination to realize and practice ren, a perseverance of following

propriety (禮) is also evident in a junzi. According to Confucius, a junzi should always

keep himself “under the restraint of the rules of propriety” in order not to “overstep

what is right” (i.e. 「約之以禮，亦可以弗畔矣夫」) (Legge, 2011a, p.193), indicating

a close connection between abiding by propriety and pursuing righteousness.

Table 1.7 The Demeanor of Junzi—The Faithfulness to Propriety (禮) 13

Theme Example Rules of Conduct

16•7 孔子曰：「君子有三戒……戒之在色……戒之在斗……戒之在得。」

16•8 孔子曰：「君子有三畏：畏天命，畏大人，畏聖人之言……」

16•10 孔子曰：「君子有九思：視四明，聽四聰，色思溫，貌四恭，言思忠，事思敬，疑

思問，忿思難，見得思義。」

17•21（孔子）「……君子之居喪，食旨不甘，聞樂不樂，居處不安，故不為也……」

Dignified Appearance

1•8 子曰：「君子不重則不威，學則不固。主忠信，無友不如己者。過則無憚改。」

8•4 曾子：「君子所以貴乎道者三：動容貌……正顏色……出辭氣……」

19•9 子夏曰：「君子有三變：望之儼然，即之則溫，聽其言也厲。」

20•2 子曰：「君子惠而不費，勞而不怨，欲而不貪，泰而不驕，威而不猛。」

20•2 子曰：「……君子正其衣冠，尊其瞻視，儼然人望而畏之，斯不亦威而不猛乎？」

Politeness 6•16 子曰：「質勝文則野，文勝質則史。文質彬彬，然後君子。」

11•1 子曰：「先進於禮樂，野人也；後進於禮樂君子也。如用之，則吾從先進。」 3•7 子曰：「君子無所爭，必也射乎！揖讓而升，下而飲，其爭也君子。」

To a certain extent, propriety provides a behavioral framework within which junzi put

the abstract concepts of virtue and righteousness into concrete behavior in daily life.

This behavioral framework encompasses different aspects of conduct, ranging from

appearance and dressing to talking, listening, thinking and watching. In this sense, a

genuine junzi is one who consciously regulates his behavior according to propriety,

with constant introspection on the gap between his demeanor and that required by

propriety. Outwardly, he conducts himself properly in terms of dress, manners and

behavior (i.e. 「動容貌」, 「正顏色」 and 「出辭氣」), presenting himself as a

dignified and polite public figure without arrogance (i.e. 「君子泰而不驕」 and 「君

子無所爭」), who is characterized by a “proper combination of solid worth and polish”

(i.e. 「文質彬彬」) (Lin, 1966, p.410). Inwardly, he regulates his inner self within the

parameters of propriety, such as 「三戒」， 「三畏」 and 「九思」. By adhering to

rules, he gains a thorough understanding of propriety, which is manifested in his

personalities featuring filial piety, loyalty, conscientiousness, modesty, courtesy,

bravery and integrity and so on.

14

The influence of such a strong self-awareness on the part of a junzi is twofold. For

one thing, it contributes to his assiduous self-reflection upon his conduct and propriety.

For instance, a junzi inclines to turn to himself in search of answers (i.e. 「求諸己」)

instead of blindly relying on others (i.e. 「求諸人」). For another, constantly adjusting

one’s behavior according to propriety means that a junzi is more a person of deeds

than a person of words. He is, for example, “ashamed that his words are better than

his deeds” (i.e. 「君子恥其言之過其行」) (Lin, 1966, p.406). Even such a prominent

figure as Confucius reflected that he had yet to cultivate “the character of the superior

man, carrying out in his conduct what he professes” (i.e. 「躬行君子則吾未之有得」)

(Legge, 2011a, p.206). Both examples indicate that it is important for a junzi to put

the requirements of propriety into real-life practices.

Table 1.8 Junzi is More of a Man of Deeds than a Man of Words Theme Example Deeds as a Priority

2•13 子貢問君子。子曰：「先行其言而後從之。」

4•24 子曰：「君子欲訥於言而敏於行。」

7•32 子曰：「文，莫吾猶人也。躬行君子，則吾未之有得。」

13•3 子曰：「……故君子名之必可言也，言之必可行也。君子於其言，無所茍而已矣。」

14•29 子曰：「君子恥其言而過其行。」

15•36 子曰：「君子貞而不諒。」

1•14 子曰：「君子……敏於事而慎於言，就有道而正焉，可謂好學也已。」

15•17 子曰：「君子義以為質，禮以行之，孫以出之，信以成之，君子哉！」

As a faithful practitioner of propriety, a junzi is concerned not only about his own

behavior, but also his way of handling interpersonal relationships. On the one hand, a

junzi has a pleasant character in getting along with others. He respects men of virtue

(i.e. 「尊賢」) and treats ordinary people with politeness (i.e. 「與人恭而有禮」). He

encourages good deeds (i.e. 「成人之美」) and shows sympathy for less fortunate ones

(i.e. 「嘉善而矜不能」). He enjoys artistic circles (i.e. 「以文會友」) and absorbs

15

positive influence from friends (i.e. 「以友輔仁」).

Table 1.9 Junzi in Interpersonal Relationship—Forgiving but Impartial Theme Example Forgivingness 12•24 曾子曰：「君子以文會友，以友輔仁。」

8•2 子曰：「……君子篤於親，則民興於仁；故舊不遺，則民不偷。」

18•10 周公謂魯公曰：「君子不施其親……故舊無大故，則不棄也。無求備於一人。」

12•5 子夏曰：「君子敬而無失，與人恭而有禮，四海之內，皆兄弟也……」

19•3 子張曰：「異乎吾所聞。君子尊賢而容眾，嘉善而矜不能……」

12•16 子曰：「君子成人之美，不成人之惡。小人反是。」

Impartiality 2•14 子曰：「君子周而不比，小人比而不周。」

13•23 子曰：「君子和而不同，小人同而不和。」

7•30 孔子退，揖巫馬期而進之，曰：「吾問君子不黨，君子亦黨乎？……」

15•21 子曰：「君子矜而不爭，群而不黨。」

20•2 子曰：「……君子無眾寡，無小大，無敢慢，斯不亦驕而不泰乎？……」

16•13 陳亢退而喜曰：「問一得三，聞詩，聞禮，又聞君子之遠其子也。」

15•22 子曰：「君子不以言舉人，不以人廢言。」

13•25 子曰：「君子易事而難說也。說之不以其道，不說也。及其使人，器之……」

Junzi’s Aversion to People Acting against Propriety

17•24 子貢曰：「君子亦有惡乎？」子曰：「有惡。惡稱人之惡者，惡居下流而訕上者，

惡勇而無禮者，惡果敢而窒者。」

17•7 子路曰：「昔者由也聞諸夫子曰：『親於其身，為不善者，君子不入也。』……」

6•3 子曰：「……吾聞之也，君子周急不繼富……」

19•20 子貢曰：「紂之不善，不如是之甚也。是以君子惡居下流，天下之惡皆歸焉。」

On the other hand, a junzi is a man of his own mind. He “does not form cliques” (Lin,

1966, p.398) though he does mix with others (i.e. 「群而不黨」). He is “liberal

towards others’ opinions, but does not completely agree with them” (i.e. 「君子和而

不同」) (Legge, 2011a, p.273). He is broadminded toward all and not a partisan (i.e.

「君子周而不比」) (Lin, 1966, p.401). In other words, a junzi is an agreeable,

forgiving and open-minded person who remains meanwhile independent,

strong-minded and impartial in both political and academic circles. A junzi will not,

for instance, “promote a man simply on account of his words; nor does he put aside

good words because of the man” (i.e. 「君子不以言舉人，不以人廢言」) (Legge,

2011a, p.300). In a way, a junzi’s liberal and impartial attitudes towards people echo

16

his belief in righteousness, as he considers righteousness the benchmark for his

behavior (i.e. 「君子之於天下，無適也，無莫也，義之與比」). This also explains

his clear aversion to certain types of people, especially those violating propriety (i.e.

「惡勇而無禮者」) and committing evils themselves (i.e. 「親於其身為不善者」). He

accepts none except people conforming to righteousness, and yet all the while stays

flexible in his outlook of the world and social relations. In a word, he sticks to

righteousness and propriety in handling interpersonal relationships, with a clear sense

of right and wrong that prevents him from falling into the trap of prejudice or

partiality.

5. Mental Features

Last but not least, a positive life view also characterizes a junzi’s personality, enabling

him to remain calm and carefree at all times. In addressing three things about junzi he

had yet to attain, Confucius pointed out that “the true man has no worries; the wise

man has no perplexities; and the brave man has no fear” (i.e. 「仁者不憂，知者不惑，

勇者不懼」) (Lin, 1966, p.314). When he addressed Szema Niu (司馬牛) on what

made a junzi, he again mentioned “no worry and no fear” (i.e. 「君子不憂不懼」) (Lin,

1966, p.402). Zhu Xi (2002) , annotated on the chapter by remarking that 「不憂不懼，

全乎德全而無疵」 (p.899). With his complete virtue, a junzi is able to remain serene

in the midst of misunderstandings (i.e. 「人不知而不慍」 and 「不病人之不己知」).

Rather than complaining or criticizing others, he searches himself for answers (i.e.

「君子求諸己」). Another reason why a junzi is always candid (i.e. 「君子坦蕩蕩」),

according to Cheng Zi (程子), is that a junzi follows principles (i.e. 「君子循理，故

17

常舒泰」) (as cited in Zhu, 2002, p.845). For a junzi, the devout belief in virtue,

righteousness and propriety has led him on a path filled with spiritual joy and gains.

Indeed, knowing clearly where to head for and what to strive for prevents a junzi from

unnecessary worries, confusion and fear when obstacles crop up along the way. In a

word, a junzi’s moral pursuit and adherence to propriety have a profound impact on

his disposition, helping him to adopt an optimistic outlook on life.

Table 2.0 The Disposition of Junzi—A Carefree Attitude Theme Example A Carefree Attitude 1•1 子曰：「……人不知而不慍，不亦君子乎? 」

15•18 子曰：「君子病無能焉，不病人之不己知也。」

15•20 子曰：「君子求諸己，小人求諸人。」 7•36 子曰：「君子坦蕩蕩，小人長戚戚。」

12•4 司馬牛問君子。子曰：「君子不憂不懼。」

14•30 子曰：「君子道者三，我無能焉：仁者不憂，知者不惑，勇者不懼。」

6. The Defining Characteristic

To a certain extent, the concept of junzi resembles that of the philosopher king

advanced by the Greek philosopher Plato. Both are embodiments of virtue, knowledge

and political wisdom, upon whom the future of the nation can be bestowed. Abstract

as the concept of junzi may seem, its real life examples can be found in The Analects

where Confucius mentioned four figures qualified for the title. They include Zi Jian

(子賤), Zi Chan (子產), Nan Gongshi (南宮适), and Qu Boyu (蘧伯玉), from whom

one can find some common features (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Real-life Examples of Junzi in The Analects and Zhu Xi’s Annotations

Source Text Annotations by Zhu Xi 5•2 子謂子賤：「君子哉若人！魯無君子者，斯

焉取斯？」

子賤蓋能尊賢取友以成其德者，故夫子既嘆其賢，而又言

若魯無君子，則此人何所取以成此德乎？(1985, p.800)。

5•15 子謂子產：「有君子之道四焉：其行己也

恭，其事上也敬，其養民也惠，其使民也義。」

子產，鄭大夫公孫僑……使民義，如「都鄙有章、上下有

服、田有封洫、盧井有伍」之類 (1985, p.806)。

14•6 南宮适問於孔子曰：「羿善射，奡蘯舟， 南宮适，即南容也。适之意蓋以羿奡比當世之有權力者，

18

俱不得其死然。禹、稷躬稼而有天下。」夫子

不答。南宮適出，子曰：“君子哉若人！尚德

哉若人！」

而以禹稷比孔子也。故孔子不答。然适之言如此，可謂君

子之人，而有尚德之心矣，不可以不興。故俟其出而贊美

之 (1985, p.926)。

15•6 子曰：「直哉史魚！邦有道，如矢；邦無

道，如矢。君子哉蘧伯玉！邦有道，則仕；邦

無道，則可卷而懷之。」

伯玉出處，合於聖人之道，故曰君子 (1985, p.950)。

For one thing, they all belonged to the aristocracy in Confucius’s time, either as senior

officials or noble descendants (Cheng, 2010). For another, annotations by noted

Confucian scholars indicate that they were recognized mainly for their moral integrity

and political performance (see Table 2.1). Zi Jian and Nan Gongshi are believed to

have been praised for their efforts to achieve virtue, whereas Zi Chan and Qu Boyu’s

political practices—ordering people righteously and adjusting their political careers

based on the conditions of their states—conform to junzi’s political ethics. No matter

it was Confucius’s design or merely a coincidence that the four figures mentioned all

occupied certain ranks, there is no denying the fact that their virtue, or their efforts to

achieve virtue, constitutes a significant part for the basis of Confucius’s remarks. It

also indicates that when judging whether a person can be called a junzi, simply noble

birth is far from enough. Scholarship, ability, and moral integrity are indispensable

elements that need to be taken into account.

Considering the original meanings of junzi, it is easy to see in what respects junzi has

acquired new implications with Confucius and his disciples’ development of the term.

There is little doubt that junzi has become a multi-dimensional concept whose

meanings need to be explored from more than one aspect. The above discussion also

implies that even though the political connotations of junzi still remain, its moral

dimension has gained more weight in characterizing the term. In this regard, several

19

well-known Confucian scholars have contributed their shares of opinions in their

exegetical works (see Appendix 1). While explaining the term, they have emphasized

the moral integrity of junzi by interpreting it as men of virtue (i.e. 「有德者」and 「賢

者」), men accomplished in virtue (i.e. 「成德之士」), men of ability and integrity (i.e.

「才德出眾之名」and 「才德大成」), and faithful followers of virtue (i.e. 「皇皇

謀仁義」and 「所思念在德」). This overwhelming consensus on the essential quality

of junzi suggests that junzi has more often been interpreted as an ethical concept than

a political one in The Analects. Despite some cases where junzi was meant mostly in a

political sense (see Table 1.5), its original political connotations certainly have given

way to new associations with talent, moral cultivation, demeanor and disposition.

So far, this section has explored the meaning of junzi in The Analects in the

intellectual, political, moral, behavioral and mental aspects. Intellectually, junzi are

erudite scholars manifesting great wisdom and enduring love for knowledge.

Politically, they are forward-looking political talents full of social responsibility and

deep concerns for the well-being of ordinary people. In this regard, the term has

retained part of its original political connotations. The most important feature of junzi

presented by The Analects, however, is their persistent pursuit of virtue and

righteousness that sees them resist the temptation of secular interests and endure

material hardships to cultivate their moral character. In real-life practices, they stick to

propriety as codes of conduct, maintaining a dignified public self and a disciplined

inner self. They honor their words, striking a balance between liberty and impartiality

in interpersonal relationships. With a clear life goal and strong faith, they achieve a

20

positive and carefree attitude towards life.

Analyzing junzi from the above five angles enables one to see the multi-dimensional

nature of junzi constructed by The Analects. Similar to the concept of philosopher

kings, junzi carry with them multiple identities as scholars, political figures and moral

role models. In particular, moral integrity stands out as the defining characteristic for

junzi, as suggested by the annotations of Confucian scholars. In this sense, the concept

has extended far beyond the political spectrum to become one encompassing

academics, politics, and most importantly, ethics.

Section III: Similarities between Lin’s and Legge’s Translations

21

This section will examine the translations of junzi by Lin and Legge to find out what

the two texts have in common at the linguistic level (see Appendix 2). In order to

make their translation patterns more observable, Table 2.2 has classified the

translations based on similar keywords mentioned.

Table 2.2 Frequency of Different Translations in Lin’s and Legge’s Texts Keyword/Focus Translations Appearing in

Lin’s and Legge’s Translations

Frequency in Lin’s text

Frequency in Legge’s text

Superior a/the superior man 30 38 Gentleman a/the gentleman 12

accomplished gentlemen 1

Scholar a gentleman-scholar 1 the scholar 1 the accomplished scholar 1

Virtue the man of virtue 1 a man of complete virtue 1 a man of real talent and virtue 1 a man of virtue and station 1

Political ranking the man of high station 1 the ruler 1 a sovereign 1 superiors 1

Specific reference

Confucius 1 the Master 1

1. Varying Translations

Table 2.2 indicates that neither Lin nor Legge has adopted a consistent translation

throughout their texts. While Lin’s translations make a distinction among “a/the

superior man”, “the gentleman” and officials (e.g. “the ruler” and “a sovereign”),

Legge’s text highlights the quality of virtue, as in “the man of virtue”, “a man of

complete virtue” and “a man of real talent and virtue”. It seems that both translators

have attempted to discriminate the nuance of junzi by varying their translations in

different contexts, even though they do share similar translations. For instance, “the 22

gentleman” and “a gentleman scholar” in Lin’s text are akin to “accomplished

gentlemen” and “the accomplished scholar” in Legge’s translations.

2. The Frequent Use of “a/the superior man”

The most striking similarity between the two texts, however, lies in their frequent use

of “a/the superior man” in translating junzi. Of the 47 times that junzi appears, Lin has

rendered it into “a/the superior man” for 30 times, and Legge 38. Both have employed

the term in a range of contexts where junzi signifies differently.

Table 2.3 Translations with the Keyword “Superior” Used in Different Contexts Source Text Annotations Translations

15•33 子曰：「君子不可小知而可大

受……」 蓋君子於細事未必可觀，而材德足以任重 (Zhu, 2002, p.960)。

The superior man

13•25 子曰：「君子易事而難說也……

小人難事而易說也……」 正義曰：「君子」、「小人」，皆謂居位者 (Liu, 1990, p.547)。

The superior man

4·11 子曰：「君子懷德，小人懷土。」 君子……思成己將以成物，所思念在德也 (Liu, 1990, p.148)。

The superior man

Take Table 2.3 as an example, annotations by Confucian scholars demonstrate that the

three chapters revolve around junzi’s talent, rank and morality respectively, which

should have led to different translations were junzi’s meanings to be differentiated.

However, both translators have chosen “the superior man” as their translations,

despite the nuances of junzi implied by the contexts. For the rest of the thirty or so

chapters, “a/the superior man” has also been adopted indiscriminately to translate

junzi which denotes different types of people such as virtuous men (i.e. 「君子憂道不

憂貧」), government officials (i.e. 「如其禮樂，以俟君子」), and dignified persons

(i.e. 「君子泰而不驕」). In other words, both texts have used “a/the superior man” as

23

an umbrella term to cover different meanings embedded in junzi.

2.1 Denotations and Connotations of “a/the superior man”

Theoretically speaking, it makes sense to borrow an all-embracing term to translate

junzi, for the latter is a multi-dimensional concept involving academics, politics,

morality, behavior and mentality. Yet, the question is to what extent “a/the superior

man” can convey as rich meanings as the idea of junzi.

Apparently, it comes down to a matter of comparing the meaning of “a/the superior

man” with that of junzi. In this sense, it is necessary to take both denotation and

connotation into account. In terms of “a/the superior man”, whose keyword lies in the

adjective superior, it will be helpful to review how superior is defined in dictionaries.

Several renowned works have been consulted with relevant findings summarized

below2. The table presents two major usages of superior as a pre-modifier to describe

people. First, it refers to people higher in status with more authority than others (e.g. a

superior officer). Second, it signifies those better than others in certain respects (e.g. a

superior artist).

However, when it comes to connotation, one may probably agree that “a/the superior

man” does not bring forth special associative meanings beyond its denotative scope,

unless it appears in a particular context such as when it refers to men committed to

virtue in The Analects. Other than that, “a/the superior man” has relatively fewer

connotations when appearing alone.

Table 2.4 Dictionary Definitions of Superior Used as an Adjective Sources Definitions

2 See Appendix 3 for more detailed definitions of superior in the four dictionaries. 24

The New Oxford Dictionary of English

Higher in rank, status, or quality; Greater in size or power; (superior to) above yielding to or being influenced by (p.1863).

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

Higher in rank or social position than others; Better than other people or things of the same type (p.1463).

Collins Cobuild English Dictionary

Having more authority or importance than others in the same organization or system;

Better than others at certain activities (p.1677).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Of higher rank or class; Better in quality or value (p.1061).

2.2 Comparison between Junzi and “a/the superior man”

Viewed from the first definition, “a/the superior man” is quite similar to junzi when

the latter denotes people in a high social/political position. Since superior also

describes people “better” than others in certain aspects, “a/the superior man” can

cover specific references of junzi, such as “an erudite scholar”, “a political wit” and “a

moral person” who are essentially someone better (i.e. superior) than others

academically, politically and morally. Even though “a/the superior man” does not

foreground the aspect of virtue in particular, neither does its denotation exclude this

quality. Given the ambiguous yet broad nature of the term, using “a/the superior man”

to translate junzi may turn out the safest and most convenient solution when it is hard

to decipher this innately ambiguous and multi-dimensional idea of junzi. While some

may argue that the translation fails to provoke the connotations of junzi (see Appendix

4), it is important to note that this shortcoming has been compensated by the fact that

“a/the superior man” can be flexibly interpreted to signify junzi in different senses,

which is probably why both translators have employed the translation so widely in

different contexts, as seen in Table 2.3.

In conclusion, this section has investigated the similarities between the two texts and 25

found out that both translators have varied their translations of junzi in their texts.

Among the similar translations they have adopted, “a/the superior man” is used most

frequently as an umbrella term applying to various contexts where different qualities

of junzi are highlighted. By comparing the denotations and connotations of junzi with

that of “a/the superior man”, the paper arrives at the conclusion that translating junzi

into “a/the superior man” is feasible and appropriate. Apart from denoting

high-ranking people as junzi does, “a/the superior man” also retains the ambiguous

nature of junzi when interpreted generally as “someone better than others”. Therefore,

it can cover such “superior” qualities of junzi as political talents, intellectual eminence

and moral integrity. Hence, “a/the superior man” can be a suitable translation for junzi

in The Analects.

Section IV: Differences between Lin’s and Legge’s Translations

1. Different Information Structures

26

Except for the use of “a/the superior man”, what have essentially characterized the

two texts are their various ways of translating junzi. One of the useful starting points

to approach these translations is to analyze their information structures.

Table 2.5 Comparison of Information Structures between Lin’s and Legge’s Translations of Junzi

Information structure

Lin’s Translation(frequency) Legge’s text Translation(frequency)

single word Confucius(1) Superiors(1)

article+ single word

-a/the gentleman(12); -the ruler(1); -a sovereign(1); -the Master(1); -a gentleman-scholar (1).

-the scholar (1).

article+ adjective +single word

-a/the superior man(30)

-a/the superior man(38); -the accomplished scholar(1); -accomplished gentlemen (1).

article+ single word+

post-modifiers

-the man of virtue(1); -the man of complete virtue(1); -the man of real talent and virtue(1); -a man of virtue and station(1); -the man of high station (1).

In this respect, Lin’s translations are generally shorter and simpler, the bulk of which

take “article+ adjective+ single word” (e.g. “a/the superior man”), and in some cases

simply “article + single word” (e.g. “a/the gentleman”). Unlike Lin’s straightforward

approach, a greater variety of information structures fill Legge’s text, especially the

complicated “article + single word+ post-modifiers” combination absent in Lin’s case.

Even for the same information structure, such as “article +adjective + single word”,

Legge’s translations extend longer with more variations. In other words, Legge’s

translations offer more variants featuring different, sometimes more complex,

information structures, whereas Lin tends to draw on existing general terms such as

“a/the superior man” (30 times out of 47) and “a/the gentleman” (12/47) to translate 27

junzi. So how do these differences affect their representations of junzi?

On the positive side, Lin’s umbrella terms may be visually more pleasing and

effortless for his target audience. However, they risk over-generalizing the concept of

junzi when little information is otherwise supplied for readers to discriminate its

meanings in different contexts. In this sense, one may find some instances of how

certain qualities of junzi fail to surface when it is translated generally into umbrella

terms (see Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Examples where Certain Aspects of Junzi Fail to Surface in Lin’s text. Source Text Lin’s translation Legge’s translation

1·14 子曰：「君子食無求飽，居無求安，敏於事

而慎於言，就有道而正焉，可謂好學也已。」

the superior man a man of complete virtue

6•16 子曰：「……文質彬彬，然後君子。」 a gentleman the man of virtue 7·25 子曰：「聖人，吾不得而見之矣。得見君子

者，斯可矣。」

a gentleman a man of real talent and virtue

In the three examples provided above, Lin has rendered junzi into either “the superior

man” or “a gentleman”, while Legge has furnished additional information by adding

post-modifiers (e.g. “of complete virtue” and “of talent and virtue”). Indeed, it is

evident that virtue is an important theme in these chapters, given the contextual clues

highlighting moral cultivation such as 「就有道而正焉」 and the juxtaposition of

「君子」and 「聖人」. This may account for why Legge has particularly pointed out

“virtue” in his translations among other possible keywords surrounding junzi.

Nevertheless, if one approaches Lin’s translations from the point of view of an

English reader, such an umbrella term as “the superior man” may not offer as specific

a representation of junzi as that provoked by “a man of complete virtue”, for “the

superior man” has been used indiscriminately in various contexts throughout the book.

28

Consequently, a less information-dense translation strategy of Lin’s text may result in

over-generalizing the term junzi and rendering important characteristics of junzi less

conspicuous compared with Legge’s translations.

2. The Frequent Use of Gentleman in Lin’s Translation

In addition to different information structures, what distinguishes the two translations

is the frequent use of “a/the gentleman” in Lin’s text (see Table 2.7). Interestingly, it

seems that whenever junzi is translated into “a/the superior man” in Legge’s text, Lin

would, more often than not, use “a/the gentleman” instead. Why is “a/the gentleman”,

rather than “a/the superior man”, adopted in these contexts?

Table 2.7 Junzi Translated as Gentleman in Lin’s text Source Text Lin’s translation Legge’s translation

6•11 子謂子夏曰：「女為君子儒，無為小人儒。」 a gentleman-scholar the superior man

6•16 子曰：「……文質彬彬，然後君子。」 a gentleman the man of virtue 6•25 子曰：「君子博學於文，約之以禮……」 the gentleman the superior man 7·25 子曰：「聖人，吾不得而見之矣。得見君子者，

斯可矣。」

a gentleman a man of real talent and virtue

11•1 子曰：「……後進于禮樂，君子也……」 literally “gentleman” accomplished gentlemen

12•4 司馬牛問君子。子曰：「君子不憂不懼。」 a gentleman the superior man 12•4 司馬牛問君子。子曰：「君子不憂不懼。」 a gentleman the superior man 12•4 曰：「不憂不懼，斯謂之君子已乎？」 a gentleman the superior man 14•29 子曰：「君子恥其言之過其行。」 a gentleman the superior man 15•20 子曰：「君子求諸己，小人求諸人。」 a gentleman the superior man 15•22 子曰：「君子不以言舉人，不以人廢言。」 a gentleman the superior man 16•1 孔子曰：「求！君子疾夫舍曰『欲之』必為之

辭……」

a gentleman the superior man

16•7 孔子曰：「君子有三戒……」 a gentleman the superior man

At least two steps have to be considered in order to answer this question. The first is

to examine what these chapters have in common, the second to compare the meaning

of “a/the gentleman” against that of junzi in these chapters.

To start with, more than half of these chapters (6/9) deal with junzi’s behavioral

29

attributes, depicting junzi as someone sticking to codes of conduct and honoring his

words, in addition to behaving politely and impartially towards others (see 6•25, 16•7,

6•16, 11•1, 14•29, 15•22 in Table 2.8). Meanwhile, these chapters also demonstrate

the profound knowledge of junzi, as in 「君子博學於文」, 「文質彬彬」, and「后

進於禮樂」. Hence, the focus of the term lies in junzi’s behavioral and intellectual

characteristics. Is it the same with “a/the gentleman”?

Table 2.8 Features of chapters where Lin translates junzi into “a/the gentleman” Aspects stressed Source Text

Scholarship & Propriety 6•25 子曰：「君子博學於文，約之以禮，亦可以弗畔矣夫！」

Codes of Conduct 16•7 孔子曰：「君子有三戒：少之時，血氣未定，戒之在色；及其壯也，血

氣方剛，戒之在斗；及其老也，血氣既衰，戒之在得。」

Politeness 6•16 子曰：「質勝文則野，文勝質則史。文質彬彬，然後君子。」

11•1 子曰：「先進於禮樂，野人也；後進於禮樂君子也……」

Deeds 14•29 子曰：「君子恥其言而過其行。」

Social Life 15•22 子曰：「君子不以言舉人，不以人廢言。」

2.1 Denotations of Gentleman

Similar to the discussion of “a/the superior man”, it is necessary to figure out the

denotation of gentleman when it is used as noun (see Table 2.9). In this regard,

gentleman may refer to a man of noble birth and high social status. Additionally, it

denotes a courteous, honorable and well-educated man who can be entrusted to keep

his promises and who behaves well towards others, especially women. Finally, it is

also a polite way of addressing a man3. While the third definition, given its pragmatic

nature, can be set aside for the moment, the first two are apparently pertinent to our

discussion. In the political sense, both junzi and gentleman can serve as a social label

in signifying people of high status. Moreover, both can refer to well-mannered and

well-educated people with qualities such as politeness and credibility. Therefore, it

3 Refer to Appendix 5 for a complete list of definitions by the four dictionaries. 30

seems that gentleman stands quite close to junzi denotatively. What about its

connotations?

Table 2.9 Dictionary Definitions of Gentleman Used as a Noun Sources Definitions

The New Oxford Dictionary of

English

A chivalrous, courteous, or honorable man; A man of good social position, especially one of wealth and leisure; A man of noble birth attached to a royal household; A polite or formal way of referring to a man (p.766).

Collins Cobuild English

Dictionary

A man who comes from a family of high social standing; A man well-behaved, educated, and refined in his manners; A polite way of addressing or referring to a man (p.703-704).

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

A polite way of talking to or referring to a man; APPROVING a man who is polite and behaves well towards other

people, especially women; APPROVING a man of high social class (p.598).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary

English

A man who behaves well towards others and who can be trusted to keep his promises and always act honorably;

POLITE a man; USAGE Lady and gentleman can be used as a respectful way of speaking

about a woman or a man (p.432).

2.2 Historical Development and Cultural Connotations of Gentleman

The term gentleman has a long history in English culture despite its seemingly

easy-to-classify definitions. Etymologically, it is derived from gentiliz hom in Old

French meaning “man of noble birth” (Pearsall, 1998, p.766). In other words, the term

was used originally in a political sense, similar to the case of junzi. In her book The

Image of the English Gentleman in Twentieth-century Literature, Berberich (2007)

reviews the historical development of gentleman, arguing that the medieval

knighthood, known for their “code of moral conduct, courteous behavior to women

and fair play to defeated foes in battle” have laid the foundation for the term that first

appeared in 1413 (p.15). Later in the 16th century, gentleman came into general use,

witnessing every aspiring Renaissance gentleman strive to “be proficient in a variety

31

of subjects, ranging from rhetoric and logic, to history, philosophy, poetry, theology

and civil law, and also mathematics, astronomy, cosmography and foreign languages”

(Berberich, 2007, p.16). It was also around this time that gentleman education started

to thrive in Europe, producing a number of guidebooks and treaties on gentleman’s

arts of living, such as Henry Peacham’s The Compleat Gentleman, James Cleland’s

The Institution of a Young Noble Man, as well as Laurence Humphrey’s The Nobles.

The task of systemizing the modern theory of gentleman education, however, fell on

two distinguished men of letters in the 17th century—John Milton and John Locke,

who advocated that the paramount objective of education rest in rearing gentlemen for

the betterment of society (Zhu, 2004). In particular, Locke (1989) held that a

gentleman should possess four qualities—virtue, wisdom, breeding and learning,

among which he regarded virtue as “the first and most necessary of those endowments

that belong to a man or a gentleman” (p.195).

Along with the development of gentleman education came the heyday of gentleman in

the 19th century, when economic progress of Victorian England led to the rise of

middle class eager to climb up the social ladder by fashioning themselves after the

manners of nobility (Berberich,2007). Gaining the title of gentleman was no longer an

aristocratic monopoly, but was made available to a larger population whose births

may not be “noble” in the first place. In fact, Berberich quotes Mason’s explanation

and presents two usages of gentleman in the Victorian era—“gentleman of birth” and

“nature’s gentleman”. While the first still carries class connotations, the latter

indicates the possibility for laymen to become gentlemen so long as they “adhered to

32

the set of code of manners advocating honour, charity and social responsibility”

(Berberich, 2007, p.20).

Viewed in this light, our modern understanding of gentleman remains pretty much a

Victorian asset, for most English dictionaries today still feature a similar distinction

between “gentleman of birth” and “nature’s gentleman”. Further, there is no denying

the fact that gentleman has accumulated abundant cultural connotations after centuries

of development. Though some see it as an elusive term impossible to pinpoint

(Berberich, 2007), there has been some attempts to circumscribe the scope of the term

in academia. The English Gentleman, for instance, explores the concept through four

aspects, namely a gentleman’s principles, feelings, manners and pursuits. While

representations as such often vary from person to person, there seems to be a

consensus on certain qualities constituting the gentility of a gentleman. They mostly

include conservatism, rationalism, politeness, showing respect to females, bravery and

fair play (Li, 2009).

Unlike their counterparts in the French Revolution who resorted to bloodshed in

overthrowing feudalism, the English middle class chose to compromise with the

aristocracy by adopting a moderate approach in their political reform. Their

conservative mindset also reflects in their resistant and indifferent attitudes towards

technological innovation preoccupying German and the US in the mid-nineteenth

century. Apart from implying a conservative mind, the term gentleman also conjures

up an image of a stiff-upper-slip man who refrains from expressing his emotions in

public. In a way, the self-restraint character of English gentlemen has a lot to do with

33

their belief in rationalism, an idea advocating appealing to reason rather than emotion

in acquiring knowledge and handling interpersonal relationship. Therefore, it is

generally believed that a gentleman would not allow his impulses or personal

preferences to interfere in his profession or social life. Neither would he tolerate

unfair practices in competitions or injustice done to anyone. Instead, he upholds

rationalism and values fair play, trying to rectify wrong-doings through his efforts.

Despite a seemingly rigid and stiff personality, a gentleman is recognized as the

embodiment of etiquette and politeness, whose refined manners come from strict

adherence to codes of conduct regulating visually everything about his life, from

appearance and attire, to his tone and facial expressions. His politeness is most felt in

his ways of showing respect to females, a legacy passed down from the medieval

knight’s worship of lovers. Lastly, a gentleman is also acknowledged for his bravery,

who demonstrates patriotism and courage especially in wars.

So far, we have reviewed the history of gentleman in English culture from the 15th

century onwards. Despite its original affinity with nobility and medieval knights, the

term has come to be associated increasingly with the expanding middle class who

acquired the title through conscious emulation of behavioral codes required in a

gentleman. Meanwhile, the medieval chivalry and gentleman education have

bestowed rich cultural connotations on the term. We have limited our scope to six

commonly found characteristics of an English gentleman (i.e. conservatism,

rationalism, politeness, showing respect to females, bravery and fair play), which

shall serve as the basis for the latter comparison between junzi and gentleman.

34

2.3 Comparison between Junzi and Gentleman

In a way, the evolvement of gentleman bears some striking resemblance to that of

junzi. While gentleman started off as a synonym of aristocrats in feudal England, junzi

originally meant sovereigns and officers in the early Western Zhou Dynasty of China.

While the door to gentlemen’s world was later made open to non-aristocrat middle

class on the merit of their manners, junzi saw Confucius push virtue to the central

stage. As such, they have evolved from a political label to one entailing behavioral

and moral qualities of a person. In this sense, it is clear that the chief factor

distinguishing gentleman and junzi lies in their defining characteristics. While the

major consideration for a gentleman rests with his manners, virtue is the core feature

of junzi in The Analects.

Regardless of their different defining characteristics, it is fascinating to see how the

two concepts, rooted in two different cultural environments, share a number of

cultural connotations.

To start with, the political conservatism evident in a gentleman should not sound

strange for anyone having some knowledge of Confucius’s political view. Living in a

time of drastic social change in the Spring and Autumn Period, Confucius was

nonetheless a devoted follower of Zhouli (周禮), the constitution of the Western Zhou

Dynasty which he admired as the ideal society for human beings. When his

contemporaries were taking bold measures to help ambitious state rulers build up

military power, Confucius was preoccupied with the dream of reviving Zhouli to

reconstruct political order. That is why when his disciple Zi Lu (子路) asked

35

Confucius what he would do first if he went to assist the ruler of Wei, Confucius

replied firmly「必也正名乎」, meaning “to rectify names” (Legge, 2011a, p.264). As

the ideal personality for Confucianism, junzi inevitably share some conservative

characteristics found in Confucius. This is why the concept of junzi has so often been

associated with propriety (禮) and music (樂) (see Appendix 4).

When it comes to rationalism, even though it would be difficult to compare

Confucianism with rationalism at a theoretical level, it is easier to observe the

behavior of a gentleman guided by rationalism and that of a junzi by Confucianism.

Interestingly, while a gentleman refrains from allowing his personal preferences and

emotions to meddle in his interpersonal relationships, a junzi would stay away from

forming cliques in order to maintain liberal and impartial in social life. Though their

guidelines may differ, they both try to strike a balance in solving the tension between

themselves and the social environment. In other words, they are both men of

principles, a feature which can also be seen in their attitudes towards deeds and words.

While a gentleman is regarded as someone “who can be entrusted to keep his

promises” (Summers, 1987, p.432), a junzi tends to place action as a priority over

words (e.g. 「君子恥其言而過其行」). Hence, they are both men of deeds rather than

men of words.

Furthermore, both gentlemen and junzi are embodiments of etiquette, politeness and

knowledge. Traditional treaties on gentleman education feature a long list of

requirements concerning etiquette and courtesy (Berberich, 2007). Similarly,

propriety has set forth strict codes of conduct for junzi to follow. Besides, both

36

gentlemen and junzi need to master a wide range of subjects to lay a solid foundation

for refining their demeanor. A gentleman is nurtured amid the art and literature of

ancient Greek and Roman, whilst a junzi is expected to study Six Classical Arts (六藝)

of traditional Chinese culture. Whatever behavioral codes or learning they pursue,

both have thus achieved a laudable deportment that sees them present a dignified,

honorable, courteous and well-educated public image. However, there is a noticeable

difference between the two in terms of their attitudes towards females. Influenced by

the medieval chivalry, a gentleman is supposed to treat women always with great

respect, a quality still highly valued in some European cultures today. If we turn to the

cultural environment where junzi was situated, it shows a different picture. For the

better part of its history, China was a patriarchal society where females were reduced

to the subordinates of males. Few comments on women can be found in The Analects,

except for one famous line 「唯女子與小人為難養也」. Whether or not the utterance

indicates Confucius’s disdain for women is open to interpretation, but The Analects

certainly does not make it an issue for junzi to respect females as much as their British

counterparts have done.

As for bravery, one may find plenty of evidence in The Analects to argue that a junzi

possesses a similar quality as a gentleman. For example, Confucius believed that 「勇

者不懼」was one of the characteristics of junzi along with 「仁者不憂」 and 「知

者不惑」. When he addressed Szema Niu (子牛) on what constituted a junzi, he again

mentioned 「不憂不懼」. Despite these instances, bravery may carry different shades

of significance for junzi and gentleman. In a junzi’s case, bravery generally means a

37

fear-free mental state. Yet, for a gentleman ready to take up arms in defense of his

nation and people, bravery is specifically associated with courageous deeds in facing

perceivable dangers such as enemies and disasters. Therefore, it may not be

appropriate to equate the bravery of a junzi with that of a gentleman.

Another difference between the two can be explored from their attitudes towards

competition. A gentleman values fair play in contests and detests injustice, whereas

the expected reaction for a junzi is 「不爭」, as in 「君子矜而不爭，群而不黨」. The

two distinctive attitudes may have resulted from different social backgrounds where

the two terms originated. While English gentlemen witnessed a large number of new

entrants from the middle class known for their pioneering and enterprising spirit

cultivated during their struggle for wealth and power, the social stratum of junzi in

Confucius’s time consisted mostly of laid-back scholars and noble descendants who

were socially securer and hence politically less proactive than their British

counterparts. This may account for why politeness, or even tolerance, was often

hailed as a worthy quality of junzi in competitions.

In a word, the juxtaposition of a gentleman alongside a junzi exposes interesting

similarities and differences in terms of their cultural connotations (see Appendix 6).

Originally a social and political label, both terms have taken on new meanings related

to manners, knowledge and morality, even though they ended up with different

defining characteristics—manners for gentleman and virtue for junzi. Meanwhile, a

number of similarities have been found in their political conservatism, their rational

and impartial ways of handling interpersonal relationships, their chief emphases on

38

deeds, their extraordinary etiquette and politeness, as well as their profound

knowledge. However, there are noticeable differences in their attitudes towards

females and competition. Great respects to women, for which a gentleman is widely

known, is absent in a junzi. Unlike a gentleman who values fair play in a competition,

a junzi is held virtuous for his humble retreat. Last but not least, even though both

feature the quality of bravery, the meanings of bravery can be different for them. A

gentleman’s bravery often points specifically to courageous behavior in disasters, yet

in a junzi’s case, it generally refers to a fear-free mental state.

At this stage, we shall better address the question as to why “a/the gentleman” has

been used to translate junzi in the chapters listed in Table 2.7. As discussed earlier, the

majority of the chapters foreground the intellectual and behavioral attributes of a junzi,

where the term denotes a well-educated and well-mannered person with such

connotations as profound knowledge, strict adherence to propriety, consistency in

deeds and words, as well as impartiality in social life. In this sense, gentleman seems

to be a suitable equivalent of junzi in English culture. For one thing, it shares a similar

etymological meaning and evolvement pattern with junzi. For another, there are

abundant similarities between the two in cultural connotations, especially those

concerning manners and intellectual ability. Therefore, “a/the gentleman” can convey

the meaning of junzi in a more effective and specific way, compared with “a/the

superior man” in those chapters.

With this, we shall come to our conclusion about the differences between Lin’s and

Legge’s translations of junzi. By and large, Lin’s translations feature simpler

39

information structures, while Legge’s translations usually supply more information to

stress junzi’s virtue, despite the relatively complicated information structures. Lin’s

use of existing general terms may risk rendering the quality of virtue inconspicuous,

even though they do prove suitable choices, especially in the case of “a/the

gentleman”.

Section V: Representations Projected by Lin’s and Legge’s Translations

With the frequent use of existing general terms, Lin’s translations have represented

40

junzi from a holistic standpoint without effectively discriminating the nuance of the

term. Neither is the defining characteristic of virtue in junzi visible in his translations.

In particular, rendering junzi into the western concept gentleman matches well with

junzi’s connotations of manners and intellectual ability, yet fails to foreground their

moral integrity. Compared with The Analects, Lin’s translations may have offered a

representation that focuses more on junzi’s exterior features rather than their essential

qualities.

Even though Legge has also adopted the umbrella term “a/the superior man” for the

bulk of his translations, the quality of virtue is made more conspicuous in his text, as a

result of employing explicitation (i.e. using virtue-related words as post modifiers). To

a certain extent, such a deliberate information presentation can call readers’ attention

to the aspect being emphasized, thus reinforcing their mental association between the

idea of virtue and that of junzi. Consequently, Legge’s translations may have captured

the defining characteristic of junzi in a more effective way, and hence offered a

representation of junzi closer to that of The Analects.

Conclusion

Based on a thorough understanding of junzi before and in The Analects, this paper has

41

compared Lin’s and Legge’s translations and representations of the term. Though both

translators have varied their word choices (except the prevailing one “a/the superior

man”), Legge tends to employ information-denser structures to foreground the aspect

of virtue more often than Lin does, the latter favoring existing general terms such as

“a/the gentleman”. In light of this difference, the paper has examined the feasibility of

translating junzi into general terms by comparing and contrasting the denotations and

connotations of junzi with that of “a/the superior man” and “a/the gentleman”. It has

found out that none of them adequately convey the connotations of junzi, but can be

appropriate choices on certain occasions.

As a result of their different translation strategies, the two texts have offered

distinctive representations of junzi. Legge’s emphasis on the virtuous quality of junzi

conforms to that of The Analects, and the junzi thus represented has captured the

defining characteristic of the concept. Lin’s representation, on the other hand, has

modified the concept of junzi by employing such ready-made terms as gentleman that,

despite some connotative similarities, have different focuses in meanings compared

with junzi. In this sense, it is reasonable to conclude that Legge’s representation has

highlighted the original and essential qualities of junzi more effectively than that of

Lin.

Bibliography

Works in English

Aixelá, J.F. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In M.C. Á. Vida & R.

42

Álvarez (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp.52-78). Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Berberich, C. (2007). The image of the English gentleman in twentieth-century

literature: Englishness and nostalgia. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashagate.

Cambridge University Press. (2008). Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary.

Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Legge, J. (1964). I ching/book of Changes. The United States: The Citadel Press.

Legge, J. (2011a). The Chinese classics (Vol.1). Shanghai: East China Normal

University Press.

Legge, J. (2011b). The Chinese classics (Vol.4). Shanghai: East China Normal

University Press.

Lin, Y. T. (1966). Wisdom of Confucius. New York: Modern Library.

Locke, J. (1989). Some thoughts concerning education. Yolton J. S. & W. J. (Eds.).

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (1998). The new Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1995). Collins cobuild English dictionary. London : HarperCollins.

Summers, D. (Ed.). (1987). Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Harlow,

Essex : Longman.

Works in Chinese

班固。（1999）。白虎通義。西安市：三秦出版社。[Ban, G. (1999). Bai hu tong yi.

Xi’an: San Qin Publishing House. ]

43

卞建華。（2005）。對林語堂“文化變譯”的再思考。上海翻譯，1，47-50。[Bian,

J.H. (2005). Rethink Lin Yutang’s trans-adapation. Shanghai Journal of

Translators, 1, 47-50.]

程碧英。（2010）。《論語》“君子“詞義辨析。中華文化論壇，1，70-74。[Cheng, B.Y.

(2010). Identify the term junzi in The Analects. Forum on Chinese Culture, 1,

70-74. ]

池水湧 & 趙宗來。（1999）。孔子之前的“君子”內涵。延邊大學學報，1，125-129

[Chi, S.Y. & Zhao, Z.L.(1999). The meaning of junzi before Confucius. Journal of

Yanbian University, 1, 125-129.]

郭璞 & 邢昺（1979）。爾雅注疏。北京：中華書局。[Guo, P. & Xing, B. (1979). Erya

Zhushu. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Co.]

康有為。（1984）。論語注。北京：中華書局。 [Kang, Y. W. (1984). Lun yu zhu. Beijing:

Zhonghua Book Co.]

林貴長。（2008）。孔子與“君子”觀念的轉化。天府新論，2，35-39。[Lin, G.C. (2008).

Confucius and the transformation of the concept of junzi. Tianfu New Idea, 2,

35-39.]

劉寶楠。（1990）。論語正義。香港：中華書局。[Liu, B.N. (1990). Lun yu zheng yi.

Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Co.]

王輝。（2003）。理雅各與《中國經典》。中國翻譯，2，37-41。[Wang, H.(2003). James

Legge and the Chinese Classics. Chinese Translators Journal, 2, 37-41.]

吳正南。(1998) 。“君子”考源。武漢教育學院學報，5，29-37。[Wu, Z.N. (1998).

On the etymology of junzi. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Education, 5, 29-37.]

44

許慎。（2006）。說文解字。長沙：岳麓書社。[Xu, S. (2006). Shuowen jiezi. Changsha:

Yuelu Publishing House.]

楊伯峻。（1980）。論語譯注。北京：中華書局。[Yang, B. J. (1980). Lun yu yi zhu.

Beijing: Zhonghua Book Co.]

楊樹達。（2007）。論語注疏。南昌：江西人民出版社。[Yang, S.D. (2007). Lun yu

zhushu. Nanchang: Jiangxi People’s Publishing House.]

周國正。（2011）。孔子對君子與小人的界定——從《論語》“未有小人而仁者也”

的解讀說起。北京大學學報，2，115-121。[Chow, K.C. (2011). The definition of

junzi and xiaoren by Confucius: a discussion of a sentence in The Analects.

Journal of Peking University, 2, 115-121.]

朱熹。（1985）。四書集注。長沙：岳麓書社。[Zhu, X. (1985). Si shu ji zhu. Changsha:

Yuelu Publishing House.]

朱美華。（2004）。 英國“紳士教育”思想的演變及其影響。中山大學研究生學刊，

3，126-130。[Zhu, M. H. (2004). The evolution and the impact of “gentleman

education” in England. Journal of the Graduates of Sun Yat-sen University, 3,

126-130.]

李靜。（2009）。 論英國人的紳士風度。語文學刊，8，34-36。[Li, J. (2009). On the

British gentility. Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 8, 34-36.]

45

Appendix 1 Annotations of Confucian Scholars Emphasizing Junzi’s Virtue

Source Text(partial) Annotations

1·1 子曰：「……人不

知而不慍，不亦君

子乎? 」

君子，成德之名 (Zhu, 1985, p.752)。 君子，人之道德成名者 (Kang, 1984, p.2)。 「君子」者，白虎通號篇：「或稱君子者，道德之稱也。君

子為言羣也。子者，丈夫之通稱也。」(Liu, 1990, p.4)。 君子——《论语》的“君子”，有时指“有德者”，有时指“有位者”，这里是指“有德者” (Yang, 1980, p.2)。

1·14 子曰：「君子食

無求飽，居無求

安，敏於事而慎於

言，就有道而正

焉，可謂好學也

已。」

有道，有道德者。正謂問其是非……正義曰：此章言君子當

安貧力學也……故此言家貧者，食無求飽為君子也 (Liu, 1990, p.32)。 君子——《论语》的“君子”有时指“有位之人”，有时指“有德之人”。但有的地方究竟是指有位者，还是指有德者，很

难分别。此处大概是指有德者 (Yang, 1980, p.9-10)。 2·12 子曰：「君子不

器。」 成德之士，體無不具，故用無不周，非特為一才一藝而已

(Zhu, 1985, p.768)。 成德之終，貴博學多能而不器 (Kang, 1984, p.23)。 此則學為修德之本。君子德成而上，藝成而下，行成而先，

事成而後 (Liu, 1990, p.56)。 3·24 儀封人請見，

曰：「君子之至於斯

也，吾未嘗不得見

也。」

君子，謂當時賢者 (Zhu, 1985, p.786)。

4·5 子曰：「富與

貴，是人之所欲

也。不以其道得

之，不處也。貧與

賤，是人之所惡

也。不以其道得

之，不去也。君子

去 仁 ， 惡 乎 成

名？……」

言君子所以為君子，以其仁也 (Zhu, 1985, p.789)。 言君子所以為君子，以其仁也，若貪富貴而厭貧賤，則是

自離其仁，而無君子之實矣，何所成其名乎？(Kang, 1984, p.47)。 此君子，是「知者利仁」……此君子，是「仁者安仁」也 (Liu, 1990, p.143)。

4·11 子曰：「君子懷

德，小人懷土。」 懷，思念也。懷德，謂存其固有之善 (Zhu, 1985, p.792)。 君子己立立人，己達達人，思成己將以成物，所思念在德

也 (Liu, 1990, p.148)。 君子怀念道德 (Yang, 1980, p.41)。

4·16 子曰：「君子喻 卿士大夫，君子也；庶人，小人也。貴賤以禮義分，故君

於義，小人喻於

利。」 子、小人以貴賤言，即以能禮義不能禮義言。能禮義，故

喻於義；不能禮義，故喻於利 (Liu, 1990, p.154)。 6·16 子曰：「質勝文

則野，文勝質則

史。文質彬彬，然

後君子。」

古稱天子、諸侯、卿大夫、士，皆曰君子。君者，羣也，

言羣下之所歸心也。子者，男子之稱也。非有位而稱君子

者，以其人有道德，可任在位也 (Liu, 1990, p.233)。

6·25 子曰：「君子博

學於文，約之以

禮，亦可以弗畔矣

夫！」

臧氏琳經義雜記：「君子乃成德之稱，不嫌其違畔於道。顏

淵篇此章再現，無『君子』字。」(Liu, 1990, p.243)。

7·25 子曰：「聖人，

吾不得而見之矣。

得見君子者，斯可

矣。」

君子，才德出眾之名……張敬夫曰：“聖人、君子以學言，

善人、有恒者以質言。” (Zhu, 1985, p.839)。 聖人神明不測，君子才德大成，此以學言之 (Kang, 1984, p.99)。

9·6 子曰：「吾少也

賤，故多能鄙事。

君子多乎哉？不多

也。」

「君子」者，則有德堪在位者也 (Liu, 1990, p.331)。

15·20 子曰：「君子

求諸己，小人求諸

人。」

又《离娄下篇》曰：孟子曰：君子之所以异于人者，以其

存心也。君子以仁存心，以礼存心 (Yang, 2007, p.258)。

15·31 子曰：「……君

子憂道不憂貧。」 君子皇皇謀仁義，未嘗謀利，而富貴乃為君子所有 (Kang, 1984, p.241)。

16·6 孔子曰：「侍於

君子有三愆：言未

及之而言謂之躁，

言及之而不言謂之

隱，未見顏色而言

謂之瞽。」

君子，有德位之通稱 (Zhu, 1985, p.968)。

20·3 子曰：「不知

命，無以為君子

也。不知禮，無以

立也。不知言，無

以知人也。」

明於天性，知自貴於物，然後知仁、義、禮、智，安處善，

樂循理，謂之君子 (Liu, 1990, p.769)。

Appendix 2 Lin’s and Legge’s Translations of Junzi Appearing in the 40

Chapters

Source Text Lin’s translation Legge’s translation 1•8 子曰：「君子不重則不威，學則

不固……」 the superior man the scholar

1•14 子曰：「君子食無求飽，居無

求安……」 The superior man a man of complete

virtue 2·12 子曰：「君子不器。」 The superior man The accomplished

scholar 2•14 子曰：「君子周而不比，小人

比而不周。」 The superior man The superior man

4·5 子曰：「富與貴，是人之所欲

也……君子去仁，惡乎成名？……」 the superior man a superior man

4•5 子曰：「富與貴，是人之所欲

也……君子無終食之間違仁，造次

必於是，顛沛必於是。」

The superior man The superior man

4•10 子曰：「君子之於天下也，無

適也，無莫也，義之與比。」 The superior man The superior man

4•11 子曰：「君子懷德，小人懷土；

君子懷刑，小人懷惠。」 The superior man The superior man

4•11 子曰：「……君子懷刑，小人懷

惠。」 The superior man The superior man

4•16 子曰：「君子喻于義，小人喻

于利。」 The superior man the superior man

6•11 子謂子夏曰：「女為君子儒，

無為小人儒。」 a gentleman-scholar the superior man

6•16 子曰：「質勝文則野，文勝質

則史。文質彬彬，然後君子。」 a gentleman the man of virtue

6·25 子曰：「君子博學於文，約之

以禮，亦可以弗畔矣夫！」 The gentleman The superior man

7·25 子曰：「聖人，吾不得而見之

矣。得見君子者，斯可矣。」 a gentleman a man of real talent

and virtue 7·30 孔子退，揖巫馬期而進之，

曰：「吾聞君子不黨，君子亦黨

乎？……」

a superior man the superior man

7·30 孔子退，揖巫馬期而進之，

曰：「吾聞君子不黨，君子亦黨

乎？……」

a superior man the superior man

7·32 子曰：「文，莫吾猶人也。躬

行君子則吾未之有得。」 the superior man the superior man

7•36 子曰：「君子坦蕩蕩，小人長 The superior man The superior man

戚戚。」 9·6 子曰：「吾少也賤，故多能鄙

事。君子多乎哉？不多也。」 a superior man the superior man

10·6 君子不以紺緅飾。 Confucius The superior man 11•1 子曰：「先進於禮樂，野人也；

後進于禮樂，君子也……」 (literally “gentleman”)

accomplished gentlemen

11•25 對曰：「……求也為之，比及

二年，可使足民。如其禮樂，以俟

君子。」

the superior man a superior man

12•4 司馬牛問君子。 a gentleman the superior man 12•4 司馬牛問君子。子曰：「君子

不憂不懼。」 A gentleman The superior man

12•4 曰：「不憂不懼，斯謂之君子

已乎？」 a gentleman the superior man

12•19 孔子對曰：「……君子之德

風，小人之德草。草上之風，必偃。」 the ruler superiors

13•23 子曰：「君子和而不同，小人

同而不和。」 The superior man The superior man

13•25 子曰：「君子易事而難說也。

說之不以其道，不說也……」 The superior man The superior man

13•26 子曰：「君子泰而不驕，小人

泰而不驕。」 The superior man The superior man

14·24 子曰：「君子上達，小人下

達。」 The superior man the superior man

14•29 子曰：「君子恥其言之過其

行。」 A gentleman The superior man

14•30 子曰：「君子道者三，我無能

焉……」 the superior man the superior man

15•1 子路慍見，曰：「君子亦有窮

乎？」 the superior man the superior man

15•1 子路慍見，曰：「君子亦有窮

乎？」子曰：「君子固窮，小人窮

斯濫矣。」

the superior man The superior man

15•20 子曰：「君子求諸己，小人求

諸人。」 A gentleman the superior man

15•21 子曰：「君子矜而不爭，群而

不黨。」 The superior man The superior man

15•22 子曰：「君子不以言舉人，不

以人廢言。」 A gentleman The superior man

15•31 子曰：「君子謀道不謀食……」 The superior man The superior man 15•31 子曰：「君子謀道不謀食……

君子憂道不憂貧。」 The superior man The superior man

15•33 子曰：「君子不可小知而可大 a superior man The superior man

受也……」 15•36 子曰：「君子貞而不諒。」 The superior man The superior man 16•1 孔子曰：「求！君子疾夫舍曰

『欲之』必為之辭……」 a gentleman the superior man

16·6 孔子曰：「侍于君子有三

愆……」 a sovereign a man of virtue and

station 16•7 孔子曰：「君子有三戒：少之

時，血氣未定，戒之在色……」 A gentleman the superior man

16•13 陳亢退而喜曰：「問一得三，

聞詩，聞禮，又聞君子之遠其子

也。」

the Master the superior man

17•4 子游对曰：「昔者偃也問諸夫

子曰：『君子學道則愛人，小人學

道則易使也。』……」

the superior man the man of high station

17•24 子貢曰：「君子亦有惡乎？」

子曰：「有惡。惡稱人之惡者……」 the superior man the superior man

Appendix 3 Dictionary Definitions of Superior Sources Definitions The New Oxford

Dictionary of English

Higher in rank, status, or quality: e.g. a superior officer. Of high standard or quality: e.g. superior malt whiskies. Greater in size or power: e.g. deploying superior force. (superior to) above yielding to or being influenced by: e.g. I felt

superior to any accusation of anti-Semitism. Having or showing an overly high opinion of oneself;

supercilious; e.g. That girl was frightfully superior. (p. 1863) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

Better than average or better than other people or things of the same type: e.g. This is clearly the work of a superior artist.

DISAPPROVING describes someone who believes that they are better than other people and acts in such a way: e.g. I can’t bear Amanda-she’s so superior.

Higher in rank or social position than others: e.g. The soldier was reported to his superior officer for failing in his duties. (p.1463)

Collins Cobuild English

Dictionary

If one thing or person is superior to another, the first is better than the second: e.g. Long-term stock market investments have produced superior returns compared with case deposits.

If you describe something as superior, you mean that it is good, and better than other things of the same kind: e.g. Lulu was said to be of very superior intelligence.

A superior person or thing has more authority or importance than another person or thing in the same organization or system.

Your superior in an organization that you work for is a person who has a higher rank than you: e.g. The company president, and my immediate superior, was the dynamic Harry Stokes.

If you describe someone as superior, you disapprove of them because they behave as if they are better, more important, or more intelligent than other people: e.g. Finch gave a superior smile…You can stand there and feel superior as you point and laugh at them.

If one group of people has superior numbers to another group, the first has more people than the second, and therefore has an advantage over it.

If you describe someone as your superior in a particular activity, you mean that they are better than you at that activity; used in written English. (p.1677)

Longman Dictionary of Contemporar

y English

Of higher rank or class Better in quality or value Of higher quality Derog (as if) thinking oneself better than others: He smiled a

superior smile as he drove pat in his expensive new car.(p.1061)

Appendix 4 Denotations and Connotations of Junzi in The Analects

Denotation Connotation -A erudite scholar; -A political wit; -A person persistent in moral cultivation; -A person with dignified and polite manners; -A person in a high social/political position.

-Intellectually: a master in traditional cultural disciplines such as Poetry (詩) and Six Classical Arts (六藝) with a thorough understanding of Tao(道) and an enduring love for knowledge unaffected by hardships; -Politically: a competent sovereign or official full of social responsibility who is capable of enforcing propriety (禮) and music (樂) in the state, nourishing the people with kindness (i.e. 「養民」) and employing the people righteously (i.e. 「使民也

義」); -Morally: the embodiment of virtue (德) of righteousness (義) and a moral role model in society who practices ren (仁) and shows indiscriminate love for humanity (i.e. 「愛人」) with an indifference to fame and fortune; -Behaviorally: a devout practitioner of propriety who values deeds over words and behaves liberally and impartially in interpersonal relationships; -Mentally: a man with a positive, carefree and forward-looking attitude towards life.

Appendix 5 Dictionary Definitions of Gentleman Sources Definitions The New Oxford

Dictionary of English

A chivalrous, courteous, or honourable man: e.g. he behaved throughout like a perfect gentleman.

A man of good social position, especially one of wealth and leisure.

A man of noble birth attached to a royal household: a gentleman of the Bedchamber.

A polite or formal way of referring to a man: opposite her an old gentleman sat reading.

Gentlemen used as a polite form of address to a group of men. Used as a courteous designation for a male fellow member of the

House of Commons or the House of Representatives. Origin Middle English (in the sense ‘man of noble birth’): from

GENTLE+MAN, translating Old French gentilz hom. In later use the term denoted a man of good family (especially one entitled to a coat of arms) but not of the nobility. (p.766)

Collins Cobuild English

Dictionary

A gentleman is a man who comes from a family of high social standing: e.g.…this wonderful portrait of English gentleman Joseph Greenway.

If you say that a man is a gentleman, you mean he is well-behaved, educated, and refined in his manners: e.g. He was always such a gentleman.

You can address men as gentlemen, or refer politely to them as gentlemen: e.g. It seems this gentleman was waiting for the doctor.

A gentleman’s agreement or a gentlemen’s agreement is an informal agreement in which people trust one another to do what they have promised. The agreement is not written down and does not have any legal force. (p.703-704)

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

A polite way of talking to or referring to a man: e.g. Ladies and gentleman, the show is about to begin.

APPROVING a man who is polite and behaves well towards other people, especially women: e.g. He was a perfect gentleman.

APPROVING a man of high social class: e.g. a gentlemen’s club. (p.598)

Longman Dictionary of Contemporar

y English

A man who behaves well towards others and who can be trusted to keep his promises and always act honourably: e.g. He was a perfect gentleman and looked the other way while she took off her wet clothes.

Polite a man: e.g. Say thank you to the kind gentleman, Billy. Usage Lady and gentleman can be used as a respectful way of

speaking about a woman or a man. The words are used especially in the person’s presence. (p.432)

Appendix 6 Comparisons of Cultural Connotations between Gentleman and Junzi

Similarities Gentleman Junzi Political Conservatism -moderate political reform;

-resistant to change. -advocating the revival of Zhouli

Striking a Balance in Interpersonal Relationship

-appealing to reason; -minimizing the interference of personal preferences.

-sticking to righteousness; -liberal and yet impartial.

Deeds >Words -keeping one’s promise -deeds as a priority over words

Embodiments of Etiquette &Politeness

-courtesy education with detailed behavioral codes; -a dignified, honorable, and courteous public image.

-codes of conduct proposed by propriety (禮); -a dignified, honorable, and courteous public image.

Profound Knowledge -art and literature of ancient Greek and Roman

- Six Classical Arts (六藝)

Differences Gentleman Junzi Defining Characteristics

refined manners virtue

Attitudes towards Females

respectful unknown

Attitudes towards Competition

fair play less proactive

Meaning of Bravery (specific) fighting courageously in danger

(general) a fear-free mental state