介於經典與蒙書之間的民間教材——裨治文與中西教育脈絡中的《孝經》翻譯

Elijah Coleman Bridgman’s Translation of the X i a o j i n g: A Comparative Study

1835 年美國傳教士暨漢學家裨治文（高理文， Elijah Coleman Bridgman,1801-1861）在廣州出版了英文世界首見的《孝經》翻譯，目前學界對此譯本所知非常有限。筆者從《孝經》西譯史脈絡來觀察，此譯本的發表時間在 1779年法國耶穌會士韓國英（ Pierre-Martial Cibot, 1727-1780）譯本之後，並在 1879年英國新教傳教士理雅各（ James Legge, 1815-1897）的英譯本與 1889 年法國東方學學者羅尼（ Léon de Rosny, 1837-1914）的法譯本出版之前，時值第一次鴉片戰爭爆發之前，新教傳教士入華的初期階段。經比較研究發現，裨治文所依據的中文底本並非如前輩耶穌會士之以文人和帝國中為人所熟悉或具權威性的《孝經》註疏本，而是流傳於東南沿海一帶的民間教材。此外，裨治文以向英語世界介紹中國教育為目的，採取了適應讀者處境、相對上較具歸化性的翻譯進路，以通俗的文字從字面意義去翻譯與詮釋，鼓勵一般讀者以世俗教育與人倫關係作為思考更高理念的基點。最後，從裨治文所選用的版本觀察到在中國本土裡《孝經》與《忠經》、《小學》合刊的發展，也呈現在十九世紀的西方譯本中。裨治文的英譯本，不僅在《孝經》經典西譯史扮演傳承角色，也為其在清末學術和教育發展脈絡中的定位提供了一個外部觀察點。

This paper examines Elijah Coleman Bridgman’s (裨治文, 1801-1861) Heaou King, or Filial Duty (1835), the first English translation of the Xiaojing (孝經 Book of Filial Piety), from a cultural-historical perspective. Unlike other scholars such as François Noël (衛方濟, 1651-1729), Pierre-Martial Cibot (韓國英, 1727-1780), Léon de Rosny (羅尼, 1837-1914) and James Legge (理雅各, 1815-1897), Bridgman highlighted how the secular educational and ethical facets of the text might encourage personal and social development. My paper shows how Bridgman stressed the Xiaojing’s intermediate position between primary school books and the highest “classics.” His goal was to introduce the traditions of Chinese education to a general Western readership while at the same time calling for educational reform in Chinese society. Whereas Noël and Cibot used scholarly and imperial editions for their translations, Bridgman worked from a popular edition circulating in the local Guangdong area which reflected the late-Qing trend of blending the Xiaojing with other popular education texts. The paper then compares the translations of the Xiaojing by Bridgman, Legge, and de Rosny. Legge and de Rosny adopted an allegorical approach to translation, whereas Bridgman opted to translate and interpret the text literally, using it as an example of intermediate reading materials used in the Chinese education system. While translating the text plainly, Bridgman encourages his readers to appreciate education and ethical relations as the basis for considering higher ideas. Overall, in my view, Bridgman’s Heaou King demonstrates the significance of education in the history of translating classical Chinese texts, and has enriched the Chinese literary heritage from a cross-cultural perspective. By comparing his translation with those of other scholars, one is able to observe how one Chinese book was translated and interpreted through the history of China’s encounter with the West.