<p>This is a hard question which even puzzles many advanced Chinese researchers, such as this piece of The Question of Authorship in Chuang Tzu</p>

<pre><code>http://140.122.100.145/ntnuj/j29/j29-10.pdf
</code></pre>

<p>found <a href="http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%BA%84%E5%AD%90_%28%E4%B9%A6%29#cite_note-.E9.99.B3.E5.93.81.E5.8D.BF-2" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>

<p>Put simply, it may be a little too hard for Chinese writing beginner to pick it up something like Chuang Tzu, being hard not only for the text classical grammar text, but its introduction to a world of idea.</p>

<p>Just because it's hard to learn doesn't mean it's not helpful. Chuang Tzu is a legendary that has been continuously influencing many people.</p>

<p>On the website you mentioned, that piece is quite classical formatted, though not necessarily the authentic one. It's really hard to tell how authentic a piece of writing like that can be, and that's the job of some specialists, such as historians.</p>

<p>Hope you learn Chinese well :D</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-02T00:55:03.847Z
congliu, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'd upvote your answer as well as accept it if I had the reputation. Thank you!
Sebastian Immel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-03T11:13:47.887Z
Pleasure to help! There're plenty of works by sceptics on how to tell a classic from fake, such as 「古書真偽及其年代」 by 梁啟超. (In bookstore: goo.gl/0lmzek ; on Google Books: goo.gl/9NXztK)
George
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-01T16:03:28.517Z
2013-10-01T16:03:28.517Z
George
<p>It is archaic, not like English from the 1600s.  From personal experience I recommend <em>Gateway to the Chinese Classics</em> by Faurot.  China Books and Periodicals, Inc. San Francisco, CA USA     ISBN 0-8251-2537-8</p>

<p>Spend a month or two with that book and you'll be good to go in terms of wrestling with Classical and Literary Chinese.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-17T05:56:35.057Z
2017-01-17T05:56:35.057Z
user3131341
<p>I'm not sure if this is even an appropriate question for this venue, but here's hoping. I want to read the translated works of Zhuangzi on this <a href="http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/man-in-the-world-associated-with" rel="nofollow">site</a>, but I'd like to know how archaic the original Chinese is. The characters are traditional, which is fine, and makes sense given that James Legge (the translator) was writing in the 19th century. </p>

<p>However, my Mandarin is nowhere near good enough to tell me if the grammar and word choice is simply quaint (e.g. circa 1850s modern Chinese), a faithful rendition of the Old Chinese that Zhuangzi was writing in, or something in between. In other words, is this an English translation of an translation (ancient to modern Chinese) or is it a translation directly from Old Chinese?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T02:46:05.963Z
It seems you misunderstand it. James Legge translated the original ancient Chinese text into English, but not in reverse. The Chinese text in that page is original, the earliest parts date from 369 B.C -- 286 B.C. (note that Zhuangzi, i.e. *Chuang Tsu*, was written by Zhuangzi and his students). James's English translation must be directly from ancient Chinese, because even today Chinese students are learning the original text of such classical works.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T09:05:14.370Z
This is the crux of my question. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. At no point did I think that Legge was translating from English to Chinese... that would make no sense. I want to know 1) WHEN the copy that Legge was working from was written (was it in the original, or had it been translated into a more modern form sometime in the intervening centuries) 2) Is the text shown on the website representative of what Legge was translating from, or is it itself a more modern interpretation of the original Old Chinese.
Sebastian Immel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T09:40:51.300Z
**1)** `WHEN the copy that Legge was working from was written, was it in the original?` Yes, it's the original, written in the mid warring era of China (403 B.C. -- 221 B.C.). Because the authors included Zhuangzi's students, the final version was done in Western Han Dynasty (206 B.C. -- 9 A.D.). **2)** Sorry for my poor English, I don't quite understand your question. The Chinese text in there is no doubt original old Chinese. But English looks quite modern so you doubt Legge was traslating from a more modern Chinese interpretation version? It's clear there's no such version in Legge's era.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T09:58:50.883Z
I compare the English translations between [the site you mentioned](http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/man-in-the-world-associated-with) and the site [sacred-text](http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe39/sbe39125.htm), both of which state the translator James Legge. The texts are almost the same except the names. But "sacred-texts" offers Legge's original translation, because at that time, the tranlation of names should follow the Wade-Giles method.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T23:29:52.413Z
What would make a difference in the English translation between translating from Old Chinese and its modern translation?
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-29T23:44:40.763Z
I am learning Chinese as well. I'd like to follow along with the story in Chinese as I go, but if it's Old/Classical Chinese it's probably not going to be particularly helpful in improving my written Mandarin.
Sebastian Immel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-30T00:40:20.980Z
@SebastianImmel FYI [Mandarin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_Chinese) is a spoken language, the written language is just "Chinese".
congusbongus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-01T17:44:41.333Z
@congusbongus Written Mandarin is worlds apart from 文言文 in many respects.
Stumpy Joe Pete
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-01T19:10:38.167Z
I think I understand your question and your comments, but I don't see the connection - @Stan has made clear the Chinese version on that website is the original version, so it won't be helpful for you in improving modern written Chinese. In this case, does it matter if Legge's translation is based on the original text or a modernized version? Given the result is modern English, there has to be a modernization process take place somewhere, maybe in his head during the translation.
NS.X.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-08T03:38:25.060Z
You are right NS.X. I after a certain point it became a matter of curiosity as to when that modernization took place. The accepted answer addressed the ambiguity in mind as to how ancient the "original" actually was. I.e. it's complicated...
Sebastian Immel
<translation><literary-chinese>
How Archaic is James Legge's Written Chinese in this Side by Side English/Chinese Book?
# How Archaic is James Legge's Written Chinese in this Side by Side English/Chinese Book?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-09-29)

I'm not sure if this is even an appropriate question for this venue, but here's hoping. I want to read the translated works of Zhuangzi on this [site](http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/man-in-the-world-associated-with), but I'd like to know how archaic the original Chinese is. The characters are traditional, which is fine, and makes sense given that James Legge (the translator) was writing in the 19th century.

However, my Mandarin is nowhere near good enough to tell me if the grammar and word choice is simply quaint (e.g. circa 1850s modern Chinese), a faithful rendition of the Old Chinese that Zhuangzi was writing in, or something in between. In other words, is this an English translation of an translation (ancient to modern Chinese) or is it a translation directly from Old Chinese?

**Tags:** translation, literary-chinese

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It seems you misunderstand it. James Legge translated the original ancient Chinese text into English, but not in reverse. The Chinese text in that page is original, the earliest parts date from 369 B.C -- 286 B.C. (note that Zhuangzi, i.e. *Chuang Tsu*, was written by Zhuangzi and his students). James's English translation must be directly from ancient Chinese, because even today Chinese students are learning the original text of such classical works.  
> **username_0**: This is the crux of my question. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. At no point did I think that Legge was translating from English to Chinese... that would make no sense. I want to know 1) WHEN the copy that Legge was working from was written (was it in the original, or had it been translated into a more modern form sometime in the intervening centuries) 2) Is the text shown on the website representative of what Legge was translating from, or is it itself a more modern interpretation of the original Old Chinese.  
> **username_1**: **1)** `WHEN the copy that Legge was working from was written, was it in the original?` Yes, it's the original, written in the mid warring era of China (403 B.C. -- 221 B.C.). Because the authors included Zhuangzi's students, the final version was done in Western Han Dynasty (206 B.C. -- 9 A.D.). **2)** Sorry for my poor English, I don't quite understand your question. The Chinese text in there is no doubt original old Chinese. But English looks quite modern so you doubt Legge was traslating from a more modern Chinese interpretation version? It's clear there's no such version in Legge's era.  
> **username_1**: I compare the English translations between [the site you mentioned](http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/man-in-the-world-associated-with) and the site [sacred-text](http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe39/sbe39125.htm), both of which state the translator James Legge. The texts are almost the same except the names. But "sacred-texts" offers Legge's original translation, because at that time, the tranlation of names should follow the Wade-Giles method.  
> **username_2**: What would make a difference in the English translation between translating from Old Chinese and its modern translation?  
> **username_0**: I am learning Chinese as well. I'd like to follow along with the story in Chinese as I go, but if it's Old/Classical Chinese it's probably not going to be particularly helpful in improving my written Mandarin.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 FYI [Mandarin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_Chinese) is a spoken language, the written language is just "Chinese".  
> **username_4**: @username_3 Written Mandarin is worlds apart from 文言文 in many respects.  
> **username_5**: I think I understand your question and your comments, but I don't see the connection - @username_1 has made clear the Chinese version on that website is the original version, so it won't be helpful for you in improving modern written Chinese. In this case, does it matter if Legge's translation is based on the original text or a modernized version? Given the result is modern English, there has to be a modernization process take place somewhere, maybe in his head during the translation.  
> **username_0**: You are right NS.X. I after a certain point it became a matter of curiosity as to when that modernization took place. The accepted answer addressed the ambiguity in mind as to how ancient the "original" actually was. I.e. it's complicated...  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2013-10-01. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

This is a hard question which even puzzles many advanced Chinese researchers, such as this piece of The Question of Authorship in Chuang Tzu

```
http://140.122.100.145/ntnuj/j29/j29-10.pdf

```

found [here](http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%BA%84%E5%AD%90_%28%E4%B9%A6%29#cite_note-.E9.99.B3.E5.93.81.E5.8D.BF-2).

Put simply, it may be a little too hard for Chinese writing beginner to pick it up something like Chuang Tzu, being hard not only for the text classical grammar text, but its introduction to a world of idea.

Just because it's hard to learn doesn't mean it's not helpful. Chuang Tzu is a legendary that has been continuously influencing many people.

On the website you mentioned, that piece is quite classical formatted, though not necessarily the authentic one. It's really hard to tell how authentic a piece of writing like that can be, and that's the job of some specialists, such as historians.

Hope you learn Chinese well :D

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: congliu, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'd upvote your answer as well as accept it if I had the reputation. Thank you!  
> **username_6**: Pleasure to help! There're plenty of works by sceptics on how to tell a classic from fake, such as 「古書真偽及其年代」 by 梁啟超. (In bookstore: goo.gl/0lmzek ; on Google Books: goo.gl/9NXztK)  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2017-01-17. Score: 1

It is archaic, not like English from the 1600s. From personal experience I recommend *Gateway to the Chinese Classics* by Faurot. China Books and Periodicals, Inc. San Francisco, CA USA ISBN 0-8251-2537-8

Spend a month or two with that book and you'll be good to go in terms of wrestling with Classical and Literary Chinese.


---

