Wilhelm Schott was a pioneer of German Sinology, publishing complete German translations of the *Analects* in 1826 and 1832, claiming they were the first direct translations from the original text. His work was criticized by the Sinology authority Julius Klaproth, sparking widespread debate in European academia. Schott’s translation and the ensuing controversy hold significant importance in the history of German Sinology, Sino-German cultural exchange, and the translation of Chinese classics. This article, through archival research, uncovers the truth behind this historical event and objectively evaluates Schott’s translation work.

1. The Origins of Schott’s Translation of the *Analects*

Schott’s decision to pursue Sinology stemmed from the visit of Cantonese sailors Feng Yaxing and Feng Yaxue to Germany, after which the Prussian authorities funded their stay at the University of Halle, where they formed a close relationship with Schott. Schott and Helmke were selected by Gesenius to shift their focus from other Oriental languages to Chinese studies. When applying for the Chinese studies project, Gesenius primarily emphasized language rather than literature or philosophy and did not explicitly propose translating Confucian classics. Helmke had referenced Joshua Marshman’s bilingual Chinese-English edition of the *Analects* for his translation, while Schott’s work was also conducted during the Halle project, similarly referencing Marshman’s version and engaging in direct communication with the two Chinese visitors.

2. The Role of Chinese Assistants in the Translation

This section explores the role and contributions of Schott’s Chinese assistants, Feng Yaxing and Feng Yaxue, in the first German translation of the *Analects*. Feng Yaxing admitted early in the project that he could not interpret classical Chinese and suggested Schott seek more learned individuals. Despite their limited education, Schott exaggerated their contributions in the preface and reports to the Ministry of Culture, possibly to justify his work. In his debate with Klaproth, Schott revealed that he relied on these two Chinese men as "living dictionaries," but due to their limited knowledge and language skills, errors arose in the translation. For instance, the translation of *Analects* 5:1 deviated from the original, which Schott attributed to ink stains obscuring the text, forcing him to rely on Feng Yaxing’s memory. Schott later admitted to being misled and noted the immense time consumed by the difficulties of the Chinese language. His translation heavily depended on Marshman’s intermediary work, casting doubt on his claim of being the "first direct translation from the original." Schott may have exaggerated the Fengs’ contributions due to a lack of written sources or to imply a unique information source for his new translation.

3. Initial Reception of the First Part of the *Analects* Translation

After the Halle project, Schott continued to receive financial support from the Prussian Ministry of Culture. He dedicated the first part of his *Analects* translation to Minister Altenstein, expressing caution in his accompanying letter. In the preface, Schott acknowledged the difficulties he faced and invited expert critique. The Ministry praised the translation and promised ongoing support. The publication garnered public attention, with advertisements highlighting it as a new achievement in German scholarship, attracting readers interested in Chinese culture. The literary journal of Cotta Verlag published a review by Wolfgang Menzel, lamenting the spread of Chinese culture in Germany while praising the universal value of Confucius’s sayings, which he deemed the best advertisement for the book. Menzel’s review appeared in 1826 before Schott received his copies, indicating pre-release interest. In 1828, another authoritative German literary journal praised the translation for popularizing knowledge of Chinese language and dispelling Western misconceptions about Chinese culture, also commending Schott’s efforts to reconcile Confucianism with Christianity. Russian authors published two reviews—one praising the translation, the other pointing out Schott’s error in attributing the *Four Books* solely to Confucius. Despite controversies, Schott’s translation, as the first direct rendering of Confucian classics into German, fostered interest and understanding of Chinese culture in German-speaking regions.

4. Revisiting the Schott-Klaproth Debate

This section discusses how Schott’s German translation of the *Analects* was soon anonymously criticized by the German Sinology authority Julius Klaproth. Klaproth accused Schott of plagiarizing Joshua Marshman’s English translation, comparing the texts in detail in a pamphlet and highlighting errors and Schott’s reliance on Cantonese dialect. Though some of Klaproth’s accusations were unfounded—such as Schott’s misunderstanding of the "dragon-horse carrying a diagram"典故 and alleged plagiarism of German transcription rules—Schott admitted in his response that his translation heavily relied on Marshman’s work, defending himself as a novice lacking the courage to deviate from predecessors’ interpretations. Schott emphasized his efforts and denied plagiarism. The controversy ultimately led Schott to abandon plans for advanced Sinology studies in Paris, but Prussian authorities still trusted and funded his continued research in Halle.

5. Contemporary Reactions to the Controversy

This section examines the academic debate between Schott and Klaproth and its impact on the scholarly community. Schott garnered some sympathy, as while Klaproth was factually correct, his aggressive tone and harsh criticism of a newcomer provoked backlash. Academic journals and reviewers commented on the dispute, criticizing Klaproth’s approach while noting Schott’s inappropriate counterarguments. Schott’s translation, though flawed due to limited resources, improved in the second part of the *Analects*, where he emphasized its independence. However, compared to Richard Wilhelm’s later translation, Schott’s work gradually faded into obscurity.

6. Evaluation

Supported by his mentor and the Prussian Ministry of Culture, Wilhelm Schott undertook the translation of the *Analects* into German at the University of Halle. The 1826 first volume claimed to be a direct translation from the original but heavily relied on Marshman’s bilingual edition, inheriting prior errors. Despite knowing his Chinese assistants’ limited literacy, Schott sought their help, leading to mistranslations. Klaproth accused Schott of plagiarism, though his critique contained personal bias and exaggeration. Despite its flaws, Schott’s translation positively influenced Western understanding of Confucianism and Chinese culture. Feng Yaxing and Feng Yaxue, though unqualified as "academic advisors," inadvertently spurred Schott’s shift to Sinology. Schott later continued his studies, becoming a founder of Berlin Sinology, while his colleague Helmke turned to basic education. These stories reflect the belated development of German Sinology, where scholars at Halle lacked experience and reliable sources, relying on questionable intermediaries.

7. Conclusion

Based on primary sources, this article re-examines Wilhelm Schott’s pioneering German translation of the *Analects* and its impact, revealing the delayed start of German Sinology. It underscores the importance of uncovering stories of Sino-Western cultural interaction and the need for better archival organization and utilization.