The Analects

Great book, and Confucius has much wisdom!

This was the first translation of the Analects that I read. It has faults, but so too does every other translation, and there is no translation that reads more delightfully than this one does; Dawson may be the only really elegant writer of prose to have undertaken an Analects translation. Dawson's besetting sin is a flood of conjunctions and transitions which have no root in the original. Take the following for example: "The wise delight in water, but the humane delight in mountains. For although the wise are active, the humane are at rest. And although the wise will find joy, the humane will have long life." Here the words "but" "for although" and "and although" are purely Dawson's creation: there is nothing correspoinding to them in the original. But if this is the worst sin a translator has, we may breathe freely. Lau similarly--in fact to a far worse degree-overlards his translations with verbiage, and he cannot plead the excuse of elegance. Let's compare them. Here is Lau: "A man is worthy of being a teacher who gets to know what is new by keeping fresh in his mind what he is already familiar with." 27 Would anyone reading that sentence remember it as something inspiring or exciting? And why can Lau not refrain from all the useless padding? Here is Leys: "He who by revising the old gets to know the new is fit to be a teacher." 17 A bit better--we don't quite fall alseep here at least--but "revise" is cold and, as we shall see, a strange choice. And now Dawson: "If by keeping the old warm one can provide understanding of the new, one is fit to be a teacher." 20 Is there a comparison? I can remember how exciting I found those words the first time I read them! The original has a concision of which English is incapable: "Warm old and know new, can be teacher indeed" would be a word-for-word attempt. Ten words--to Leys' 17, Dawson's 20, and Lau's (typically egregious) 27. "Know new" could mean either the man himself knowing the new, or providing such knowledge to others, or both; classical Chinese admits of these ambiguities, and it gets to the point where ambiguity becomes greater precision, as the knowledge here can be conceived of as communal and indivisible. Dawson has taken a few liberties; we could probably not justify "provide understanding" from a strict analysis of the original, although even here a defence could be mounted, for the Chinese word "knowledge" or "know" includes the sense of wisdom as well. But "keep warm" keeps the "warm" in the sentence, which neither Lau nor Leys seems interested in. Yet it is important! The soul of the Analects is alive in this translation as it is not in the others. This book is not equipped with much in the way of scholarly or philological notes, but there are enough notes to clear up the obvious problems. I would strongly recommend this as a first Analects; it's better simply to enjoy and mull over the words themselves without getting caught up in the web of se

This translation is far superior to any other that I have seen. The Analects have always been a difficult and opaque work for me. I have read it several times over many years and have always found at least half the sayings completely incomprehensible. The Waley and Legge translations are dry and dated. Lau and Dawson are easier to read but still leave me puzzled about the meaning of most of the sayings. Some of their notes are useless and distracting, while others merely fail to inform. I was always left thinking of the Analects as a few clever and witty proverbs scattered throughout a strange and impentrable work. The Huang translation, on the other hand, is clear and easy to read. It is easy to follow the structure of the book. It has just the right amount of notes and they are located just underneath the analect itself--not at the bottom of the page or end of the book where you have to interupt your reading and look for them. The sayings that are easy to understand have no notes. The other sayings have notes that clarify the context and meaning. They are brief and to the point so that they don't get in the way of the text. Things that were impossible to understand are now clear. I find that I am no longer burdened by trying to decipher the meaning. As a result I am now getting to know the character and personality of each of the students, and enjoying their interaction with the Master. This is something I was never able to do before with other translations. Reading the Analects is no longer a chore but an enjoyable journey to a distant, but accessible, culture.

The review above is uninformed. Even if he knows that the main Chinese phonetic system is called pinyin. If one reads the copious notes that back up the research in this translation, one would realize that every character is philologically proven. Whether by the lexicon Shuo Wen, the sea of words or other. This translation is the epitome of scholarly work. There is an unpresedented wealth of information in this book. There has been no one near the ability of Chichung Huang in understanding the ancient cannotations of Chinese characters. He has achieved a far more scholarly level in classical Chinese than any other Chinese scholar and translator that I have ever read. The amount of clear concise research proves it. His work is fluid, concise and true to the original exactly because the translator has the ability to be literal. His contemporaries are lacking in this regard. Ren does translate to mean humanity, as in the founding principles of humanity and rightiousness. Read the introduction please.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit. Granted, I haven't read other translations of the Analects, so my rating is for the book itself more than as a comparison to other translations. The fact that Confucius lived thousands of years ago is amazing to me ... the things he says apply to people throughout the ages, and they're full of wisdom. Having read the book, I find myself trying to be a bit more of a Confucian gentleman than I did before reading it. Confucius' teachings about humanity and being a gentleman span across the ages. I'm very glad I read this book. The only reason I didn't give the book 5 stars is because I can't compare it to other translations, and it seems a little improper to rate a translated book without comparing it to other translations. But I personally found Leys' lines to be easily understandable and interesting, even if I have no way of ascertaining their accuracy with the original text. **7/31/09 UPDATE** I was looking to buy a copy of the Analects for a friend when I came across my own review when trying to decide between versions ... which is a somewhat strange feeling! I'm still not an "expert", but having read several more Chinese classics in the meantime, including a few versions of the Analects, I thought I would update this review. I think the Leys translation is a very good introduction to the Analects for someone who is looking for a starting point in Confucian thought. The translation is a little bit loose but flows well in English, the introduction gives a good amount of context without going overboard, and the notes are nicely situated at the end to prevent clutter. This makes it a good version for the Confucius novice, a comment I mean in earnest and not a backhanded compliment. That said, I have yet to find a translation that surpasses Waley's in its rigor and thoroughness; the copious notes and detailed introduction are excellent as well. However, Waley is likely to be a little more difficult for the newcomer to Confucius and Confucianism ... so he might not be the best starting point. As always, different translations work best for different people. Read the first couple of pages of a few versions and you'll quickly have an idea of what suits you. No matter which version you end up with, the Analects is a wonderful work, worthy of the praise it receives!

The only translation that is a pleasure to read for both its language and its profundity. Ames and Rosemont bury the stodgy old Confucius and introduce us to a vibrant thinker--the kind of intellectual magnet that attracted hundreds of followers in his own time and millions throughout history. Although their choice of translation for key Confucian terms may seem unorthodox, consider where our 'orthodox' translations have come from. They have come from translators with a knowledge of the Classical Chinese language but all of the built in presuppositions of Western (Christian and essentialistic) thinking (including, surprisingly, D.C. Lau). Since the standard translations (Legge, Waley, Lau), there have been great strides in understanding the philosophy of Confucius' time. Ames and Rosemont are not only experts in the language but are at the cutting edge of ancient Chinese philosophy. This book questions many basic presumptions about Confucius' philosophy and deserves thoughtful consideration.