1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article conducts a textual and reception analysis of George Jamieson’s translation of Qing marriage law with the aim of probing a translational encounter between traditional Chinese law and British anthropology. Approaching a Qing clause against marriage between persons of the same family name as an object of anthropological study, Jamieson annotated his rendition with rich paratexts to orient it under the concept of exogamy. After reflecting upon predecessors’ theories, he advanced his own by restructuring existing anthropological constructs. Taking his translation as a knowledge source, Jamieson further highlighted the existence of an endogamous limit upon the exogamy rule; this observation was absorbed by Henry Maine to strengthen his argument that exogamy and endogamy were not oppositional in agnatic societies. As revealed in Jamieson’s interaction with British anthropologists, he proved himself more than a translator of Qing marriage law but also a contributor to nineteenth-century British anthropology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.20028.liu
2021-08-18
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aberdeen Press & Journal
    Aberdeen Press & Journal 1921 “Mr G. Jamieson, C. M. G.” 4January 1921.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnard, Alan
    2000History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808111
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808111 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cams, Mario
    2014 “Restituting Church Buildings and Negotiating Church Factions: Missionary Mapmakers and the Making of Local Networks (1712–1716).” Frontiers of History in China9 (4): 489–505. AccessedDecember 6, 2020. doi:  10.3868/s020‑003‑014‑0035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.3868/s020-003-014-0035-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Daqing lüli huiji bianlan大清律例彙輯便覽 [A Collection of the Great Qing Code] 1877 Vol.10. Beijing: Shan Cheng Tang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Entenmann, Robert
    2015 “The Problem of Chinese Rites in Eighteenth-Century Sichuan.” InChina and Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, edited byStephen Uhalley, Jr., and Xiaoxin Wu, 127–136. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, and Finn Sivert Nielsen
    2001A History of Anthropology. London & Sterling: Pluto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford, Rosaline Judith
    1985 Matteo Ricci, S. J. in China, 1583–1610: A Case Study of a Precursor in Educational Anthropology. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hsia, Ronnie Po-chia
    2018 “Chinese Voices in the Rites Controversy: From China to Rome.” InThe Rites Controversies in the Early Modern World, edited byInes G. Županov, and Pierre Antoine Fabre, 29–49. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004366299_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366299_003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Jamieson, George
    1881 “Translations from the General Code of Laws of the Chinese Empire: VII Marriage Laws.” The China Review10 (2): 77–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jin, Mei 金眉
    2007 “Lun qingdai hunyin jiating falü de tezhi” 論清代婚姻家庭法律的特質 [The Characteristics of Qing Marriage and Family Laws]. Faxue法學 [Legal Science] (10): 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kubuya, Paulin Batairwa
    2018Meaning and Controversy within Chinese Ancestor Religion. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑70524‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70524-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuklick, Henrika
    2011 “Personal Equations: Reflections on the History of Fieldwork, with Special Reference to Sociocultural Anthropology.” Isis102 (1): 1–33. 10.1086/658655
    https://doi.org/10.1086/658655 [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, Yu
    2020 “Behind the Façade of the Rites Controversy: The Intriguing Contrast of Chinese and European Theism.” Journal of Religious History44 (1): 3–26. AccessedDecember 6, 2020. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9809.12638
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9809.12638 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lubbock, John
    (1870) 2014The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Men. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Luttio, Mark D.
    1994 “The Chinese Rites Controversy (1603–1742): A Diachronic and Synchronic Approach.” Worship68 (4): 290–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Maine, Henry
    1883Dissertations on Early Law and Custom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Malagrinò, Dylan Oliver
    2014 “Change: A Constant Variably Defined – Law and Anthropology Perspectives on Historical Changes to the Rule of Law.” Northern Kentucky Law Review41 (1): 93–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McLennan, John Ferguson
    (1865) 1998Primitive Marriage: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Reprint, New York: Routledge/Thoemmes Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1869a “Tree and Serpent Worship.” Cornhill Magazine19: 626–640.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1869b “The Worship of Animals and Plants, Part I.” The Fortnightly Review6 (October): 407–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1869c “The Worship of Animals and Plants, Part II.” The Fortnightly Review6 (November): 562–582.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1870 “The Worship of Animals and Plants, Part III.” The Fortnightly Review7 (February): 194–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mungello, D. E.
    2018The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Qiu, Tang 邱唐
    2016 “Qi min buhun? Qingdai zuqun tonghun de falü guifan shijian yu yishi” 旗民不婚?- 清代族群通婚的法律規範、實踐與意識 [No Marriage Between the Manchus and the Hans – The Legal Rules, Practice and Consciousness of Qing Intertribal Marriage]. Qinghua faxue清華法學 [Tsinghua University Law Journal] (1): 190–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sera-Shriar, Efram
    2014 “What is Armchair Anthropology? Observational Practices in 19th- Century British Human Sciences.” History of the Human Sciences27 (2): 26–40. doi:  10.1177/0952695113512490
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695113512490 [Google Scholar]
  26. Spencer, Herbert
    (1876) 1885Principles of Sociology. Vol.1. Reprint, London & Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. St. André, James
    2004 “‘But Do They Have a Notion of Justice?’ Staunton’s 1810 Translation of the Great Qing Code.” The Translator10 (1): 1–31. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2004.10799166
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2004.10799166 [Google Scholar]
  28. Standaert, Nicolas
    2018 “Chinese Voices in the Rites Controversy: The Role of Christian Communities.” InThe Rites Controversies in the Early Modern World, edited byInes G. Županov, and Pierre Antoine Fabre, 50–67. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004366299_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366299_004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Tedlock, Barbara
    1991 “From Participant Observation to Observation of Participation: The Emergence of Narrative Ethnography.” Journal of Anthropological Research47 (1): 69–94. 10.1086/jar.47.1.3630581
    https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.47.1.3630581 [Google Scholar]
  30. The London and China Telegraph
    The London and China Telegraph 1921 “Obituary – Mr. Geo. Jamieson (1843–1920).” 3January 1921.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tylor, Edward Burnett
    1871 (1970)Religion in Primitive Culture. Vol2. Reprint, Gloucester: Peter Smith.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Voget, Fred W.
    1975A History of Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Xiang, Lanxin
    2020The Quest for Legitimacy in Chinese Politics. A New Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Yeh, Alice
    2019 “The Hermeneutics of Silk: China and the Fabric of Christendom according to Martino Martini and the Early Modern Jesuit ‘Accommodationists.’” Comparative Studies in Society and History61(2): 419–446. AccessedDecember 6, 2020. doi:  10.1017/S0010417519000100
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417519000100 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, Guanzi 張冠梓
    2003 “Fa renleixue de lilun fangfa jiqi liubian” 法人類學的理論、方法及其流變 [Theory, Methods and Mutations of Legal Anthropology]. Guowai shehui kexue國外社會科學 [Social Sciences Abroad] (5): 23–32.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.20028.liu
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anthropology; endogamy; exogamy; George Jamieson; Henry Maine; Qing marriage law
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error