George Jamieson’s Translation of “Exogamy” and “Endogamy” in the Qing Code
Rui Liu | Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
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.
Aberdeen Press &
Journal. 1921. “Mr G. Jamieson, C. M.
G.” 4January 1921.
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History
and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cams, Mario. 2014. “Restituting
Church Buildings and Negotiating Church Factions: Missionary Mapmakers and the Making of Local Networks
(1712–1716).” Frontiers of History in
China 9 (4): 489–505. Accessed December 6, 2020.
Daqing lüli huiji
bianlan大清律例彙輯便覽 [A Collection of the
Great Qing
Code] 1877. Vol. 101. Beijing: Shan Cheng Tang.
Entenmann, Robert. 2015. “The
Problem of Chinese Rites in Eighteenth-Century Sichuan.” In China and
Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, edited by Stephen Uhalley, Jr., and Xiaoxin Wu, 127–136. London and New York: Routledge.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, and Finn Sivert Nielsen. 2001. A
History of Anthropology. London & Sterling: Pluto Press.
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.
Hsia, Ronnie Po-chia. 2018. “Chinese Voices in the
Rites Controversy: From China to Rome.” In The Rites Controversies in
the Early Modern World, edited by Ines G. Županov, and Pierre Antoine Fabre, 29–49. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Jamieson, George. 1881. “Translations
from the General Code of Laws of the Chinese Empire: VII Marriage Laws.” The China
Review 10 (2): 77–99.
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.
Kubuya, Paulin Batairwa. 2018. Meaning and Controversy within
Chinese Ancestor Religion. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kuklick, Henrika. 2011. “Personal
Equations: Reflections on the History of Fieldwork, with Special Reference to Sociocultural
Anthropology.” Isis 102 (1): 1–33.
Liu, Yu. 2020. “Behind
the Façade of the Rites Controversy: The Intriguing Contrast of Chinese and European
Theism.” Journal of Religious
History 44 (1): 3–26. Accessed December 6, 2020.
Lubbock, John. (1870)
2014. The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of
Men. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Luttio, Mark D.1994. “The Chinese Rites Controversy
(1603–1742): A Diachronic and Synchronic
Approach.” Worship 68 (4): 290–313.
Maine, Henry. 1883. Dissertations
on Early Law and Custom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Malagrinò, Dylan Oliver. 2014. “Change: A Constant
Variably Defined – Law and Anthropology Perspectives on Historical Changes to the Rule of
Law.” Northern Kentucky Law
Review 41 (1): 93–118.
McLennan, John Ferguson. (1865) 1998. Primitive Marriage: An
Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Reprint, New York: Routledge/Thoemmes Press.
McLennan, John Ferguson. 1869a. “Tree and Serpent
Worship.” Cornhill
Magazine 191: 626–640.
McLennan, John Ferguson. 1869b. “The Worship of Animals
and Plants, Part I.” The Fortnightly
Review 61 (October): 407–427.
McLennan, John Ferguson. 1869c. “The Worship of Animals
and Plants, Part II.” The Fortnightly
Review 61 (November): 562–582.
McLennan, John Ferguson. 1870. “The Worship of Animals
and Plants, Part III.” The Fortnightly
Review 71 (February): 194–216.
Mungello, D. E.2018. The
Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
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.
Sera-Shriar, Efram. 2014. “What
is Armchair Anthropology? Observational Practices in 19th- Century British Human
Sciences.” History of the Human
Sciences 27 (2): 26–40.
Spencer, Herbert. (1876)
1885. Principles of
Sociology. Vol. 11. Reprint, London & Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
St. André, James. 2004. “‘But
Do They Have a Notion of Justice?’ Staunton’s 1810 Translation of the Great Qing Code.” The
Translator 10 (1): 1–31.
Standaert, Nicolas. 2018. “Chinese
Voices in the Rites Controversy: The Role of Christian
Communities.” In The Rites Controversies in the Early Modern
World, edited by Ines G. Županov, and Pierre Antoine Fabre, 50–67. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Tedlock, Barbara. 1991. “From
Participant Observation to Observation of Participation: The Emergence of Narrative
Ethnography.” Journal of Anthropological
Research 47 (1): 69–94.
The London and China
Telegraph. 1921. “Obituary – Mr. Geo. Jamieson
(1843–1920).” 3January 1921.
Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1871 (1970). Religion in Primitive
Culture. Vol 21. Reprint, Gloucester: Peter Smith.
Voget, Fred W.1975. A History of
Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Xiang, Lanxin. 2020. The
Quest for Legitimacy in Chinese Politics. A New Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.
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
History 61(2): 419–446. Accessed December 6, 2020.
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.