The Analects of Confucius : A Philosophical Translation (Classics of Ancient China)

Rating:
Summary: Read this warily
Review: Ames and Hall have been making sinological headlines since their 1987 publication of _Thinking Through Confucius_. They have met mixed acclaim and criticism from the scholarly community: their interpretations are always novel and stimulating, but their methodology is questionable in several key respects. Most glaring is their wholesale dumping of early 20th century American pragmatist philosophy onto the ancient Chinese, which has resulted in some shockingly bad conclusions. (See especially Ames's paper on Mencius and human nature, whose main claim to fame is to have been refuted 10x over.) As far as translations of the Analects go, I might have recommended this one until the very recent publication of Edward Slingerland's edition. Slingerland is not only more helpful in providing context and notes; he does not indulge in the speculative acrobatics and obsolete wheedlings of A and H.

Rating:
Summary: Read this warily
Review: Ames and Hall have been making sinological headlines since their 1987 publication of _Thinking Through Confucius_. They have met mixed acclaim and criticism from the scholarly community: their interpretations are always novel and stimulating, but their methodology is questionable in several key respects. Most glaring is their wholesale dumping of early 20th century American pragmatist philosophy onto the ancient Chinese, which has resulted in some shockingly bad conclusions. (See especially Ames's paper on Mencius and human nature, whose main claim to fame is to have been refuted 10x over.) As far as translations of the Analects go, I might have recommended this one until the very recent publication of Edward Slingerland's edition. Slingerland is not only more helpful in providing context and notes; he does not indulge in the speculative acrobatics and obsolete wheedlings of A and H.

Rating:
Summary: Sheds new light on Confucius
Review: Confucius has been much maligned since he is perceived as wanting a static rigid society. This translation attempts to show that that is not really true. The translators and editors explain in the foreword that the Chinese language is dynamic, and therefore Confucius sayings does not reflect a static society, but rather a society in a constant flux. It does come out that Confucius will not tolerate revolution, but he does accept evolution. He is not preaching a static society, but rather that all development should build on the previous.
While he stresses the importance of ritual, he also hammers in that ritual must be combined with warmth, caring, and even humour. A more gentle, less rigid, Confucius appears in this translation.
Lastly, I think Confucianism relates to Daoism as Shaolin relates to t'ai ch'i (or Bruce Lee to Yang Cheng Fu): on is concerned with the external, and one with the internal. It is just a matter of which way you chose. Ones you have achieved mastery, there is no difference.

Rating:
Summary: error in the previous review
Review: Daomonkey's reviews exhibit detailed knowledge in Chinese philosophy, and I agree with many of his criticisms. But he has made a small error in his review of this book, which is important to note.

This book is NOT by Hall and Ames, and thus does not show the proclivity towards 'pragmatization' that runs throughout their stimulating work. Rather, it is by Ames and ROSEMONT, a philosopher who has published extensively on topics in Chinese philosophy. You will find little by way of "speculative acrobatics and obsolete wheedlings" here.

The unconventional nature of the translation may seem awkward at first but repays careful reading; Ames and Rosemont provide good arguments in the introduction for adopting them.

(Also, the translation by Slingerland he mentions, published by Hackett, is indeed a fine translation with much running commentary.)

Rating:
Summary: Clumsy
Review: The authors acknowledge "the vagaries of translation," then fall victim to them. Overwordy, inconsistent and sometimes just plain sloppy. Translates _ren_ as "authoritative," which is about the most misleading choice I've ever seen. The notes and discussion, however, are quite good, and the original Chinese text is included. Pinyin romanization.

Rating:
Summary: A Fresh and Thoughtful Look at Confucius
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: fantastic translation!
Review: This is by far one of the most well thought out and justified translations I have come across. Though true that it can be "wordy", I find that it clearly conveys ideas that have been missed by others who avoid the time to clearly articulate the depth of certain concepts. Sometimes brevity is not the most important factor in a good translation. The use of 'authoritative', especially after reading the explanation given by the translator, I find to be one of the better translations I have come across. It asks the reader to put aside a certain negatice "baggage" that goes with this vocabularty, but conveys a sentiment that I find very accurate to the word itself and the religion. This is a fablulous traslation with wonderful commentary from the translator. I would consider it a first choice for anyone serious in studying the analects.

Rating:
Summary: Rich translation with origninal text
Review: This particular translation of the Analects is wonderful. The author begins the book by introducing some terms that are difficult to translate or have multiple implications. In the text itself, these words are frequently left untranslated so that the reader can fully appreciate the diversity of the meaning. The english text is presented side by side with the classical chinese text, allowing the linguistically inclined one to compare the two. A great book alltogether.

Rating:
Summary: fantastic translation!
Review: This translation questions the traditional translations of Confucius' ideas. "Ren" usually translated as "humanity" here becomes "authoritative conduct" which is closer to Confucius' original meaning of the word, which was "noble conduct." Another unique feature of the translation is that the key Chinese characters are highlighted as they appear, directly in the English translation. This is probably not the first choice for someone unfamiliar with the Analects because it is somewhat technical, but it's a must if you are looking for a deeper understanding of the classic.