卫方济经典译介视域下的中国哲学西传研究

Chinese Philosophy’s Transmission to the West through Francois Noël’s Classical Translations

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ssr.20250321
刊名
Modern Social Science Research
年,卷(期) 2025, 5(8)
作者
作者单位

青岛理工大学 山东青岛

摘要
本文旨在探讨耶稣会士卫方济在中西文化交流中的关键角色,尤其是在中国礼仪争议背景下对儒家典籍的翻译实践。尽管当时罗马教廷已发布禁止中国礼仪的法令,卫方济仍坚持通过译介工作构建其对中国思想体系的理解。他综合经典原文、儒家注疏以及各类文化背景的观点,逐步形成一套以伦理为核心的礼仪诠释系统,并最终促成他所理解的“中国哲学”的雏形。本文以1711年其在布拉格出版的《中华帝国六经》为核心材料,通过对《中庸》和《孝经》译文的分析,揭示其翻译方式、文化意图及跨文化适应策略,评估其对欧洲启蒙运动与思想变革的潜在影响。卫方济的翻译活动不仅推动了儒家思想在欧洲的传播,也为后世研究中西文明对话提供了宝贵视角。
Abstract
This article aims to explore the key role played by the Jesuit missionary François Noël in Sino-Western cultural exchange, particularly in his translation practices of Confucian classics amidst the context of the Chinese Rites Controversy. Despite the papal decree that had banned Chinese rites, Noël persisted in constructing his understanding of the Chinese philosophical system through his translation work. He synthesized the original texts of the classics, Confucian commentaries, and perspectives from various cultural backgrounds, gradually forming a system of rites interpretation centered on ethics, which ultimately contributed to the emergence of his version of “Chinese philosophy.” This article focuses on his 1711 publication Six Classics of the Chinese Empire in Prague, analyzing the translations of the Doctrine of the Mean and Classic of Filial Piety to reveal his translation methods, cultural intentions, and cross-cultural adaptation strategies. It evaluates the potential impact of his work on the European Enlightenment and intellectual transformation. Noël’s translation activities not only facilitated the spread of Confucian thought in Europe but also provided a valuable perspective for future studies on the dialogue between Chinese and Western civilizations.
关键词
卫方济;经典翻译;跨文化互动;《中庸》;《孝经》
KeyWord
Francois Noël; Classical translation; Intercultural interaction; Doctrine of the Mean; Classic of Filial Piety
基金项目
页码 109-112
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

蔡新宇*,莫玉梅. 卫方济经典译介视域下的中国哲学西传研究 [J]. 现代社会科学研究. 2025; 5; (8). 109 - 112.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构