Die Mandjurischen Druckausgaben des Hsin-ching (Hṛdayasūtra) mit Reproduktion der vier-und fünfsprachigen Ausgabe by Walter FuchsReview by: Leon HurvitzJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1975), pp. 279-280Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600336 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:09:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

market," but on p. 12 the phrase "monopolized wealth and profit" is erroneously rendered "they steal the wealth of the people by cruel taxation." On pp. 2-3 and 5 no attempt is made neither to give an exact translation of the name of a special contribution the commanderies and vassal kingdoms had to make to the emperor's private purse, nor to render the specific meanings of the mentioned tax-terms. The social term po-hsing-the people of "the hundred surnames" (or by clans)-on one and the same p. 12 is translated in three various ways: "the people," "the poor" and "the empire." The word

chang ("senior, chief, important") has not been transla- ted in the expression chang-li which designates a certain group of officials (pp. 5, 9). The term tzu-shou (which has the legal meaning of voluntary surrender and confes- sion of one's guilt) is rendered simply as "surrender"

(p. 175). On p. 3 the terminological expression ts? yi ch'eng-kung ("demanded the achieved results") con- nected with the technique for the organization and control of the bureaucracy, is rendered "relied on proven worth," etc.

There are also some mistakes in the translation. On

p. 2 the phrase "put on caps of advanced worthies and

hung seal-cords on the girdles" is translated "the Emperor put on the Cap of Worthy Advancement with its tassel," whereas it describes the attire worn not by the emperor, but by dogs dressed up like officials and assimilated to them. On p. 202 the sentence "Indeed, it is just as you think, Sir" is translated as "This is certainly a worry for you." On p. 86 the text "'A hidden dragon' (i.e. a

gentleman) perfects [its] virtue by not appearing [this] means that untimely [action] is always a way to invite calamity" is rendered as follows: "A hidden dragon ful- fils its virtue by not being seen; [if a hidden dragon calls attention to itself] and if you should make some similar mistake, these are ways to bring on misfortune." As ought to be pointed out in a note, the first phrase is composed of expressions borrowed from the Yi-ching, and the image of a "hidden dragon" means that it is not the time for a gentleman's active doing (cf. Mc Clatchie's translation, Shangai, 1876, pp. 1-2, 15-16). On p. 293 the phrase "not to be in complete agreement (or in deep friendship) with him" is erroneously rendered "not helping him carry away the spoil."

Of course, mistakes are inevitable in a big work. It is not the mistakes, it is the general style of the trans- lation, the abundance of inaccuracies that matter. I)e Crespigny's is more a translation of a piece of belles lettres for the benefit of the general reader, than a ren- dering of a work of history for the use of scholars.

But extensive and solid notes supplied with Chinese characters and dealing with a series of special problems connected with the text or the history set forth therein,

market," but on p. 12 the phrase "monopolized wealth and profit" is erroneously rendered "they steal the wealth of the people by cruel taxation." On pp. 2-3 and 5 no attempt is made neither to give an exact translation of the name of a special contribution the commanderies and vassal kingdoms had to make to the emperor's private purse, nor to render the specific meanings of the mentioned tax-terms. The social term po-hsing-the people of "the hundred surnames" (or by clans)-on one and the same p. 12 is translated in three various ways: "the people," "the poor" and "the empire." The word

chang ("senior, chief, important") has not been transla- ted in the expression chang-li which designates a certain group of officials (pp. 5, 9). The term tzu-shou (which has the legal meaning of voluntary surrender and confes- sion of one's guilt) is rendered simply as "surrender"

(p. 175). On p. 3 the terminological expression ts? yi ch'eng-kung ("demanded the achieved results") con- nected with the technique for the organization and control of the bureaucracy, is rendered "relied on proven worth," etc.

There are also some mistakes in the translation. On

p. 2 the phrase "put on caps of advanced worthies and

hung seal-cords on the girdles" is translated "the Emperor put on the Cap of Worthy Advancement with its tassel," whereas it describes the attire worn not by the emperor, but by dogs dressed up like officials and assimilated to them. On p. 202 the sentence "Indeed, it is just as you think, Sir" is translated as "This is certainly a worry for you." On p. 86 the text "'A hidden dragon' (i.e. a

gentleman) perfects [its] virtue by not appearing [this] means that untimely [action] is always a way to invite calamity" is rendered as follows: "A hidden dragon ful- fils its virtue by not being seen; [if a hidden dragon calls attention to itself] and if you should make some similar mistake, these are ways to bring on misfortune." As ought to be pointed out in a note, the first phrase is composed of expressions borrowed from the Yi-ching, and the image of a "hidden dragon" means that it is not the time for a gentleman's active doing (cf. Mc Clatchie's translation, Shangai, 1876, pp. 1-2, 15-16). On p. 293 the phrase "not to be in complete agreement (or in deep friendship) with him" is erroneously rendered "not helping him carry away the spoil."

Of course, mistakes are inevitable in a big work. It is not the mistakes, it is the general style of the trans- lation, the abundance of inaccuracies that matter. I)e Crespigny's is more a translation of a piece of belles lettres for the benefit of the general reader, than a ren- dering of a work of history for the use of scholars.

But extensive and solid notes supplied with Chinese characters and dealing with a series of special problems connected with the text or the history set forth therein,

are evidently intended for scholars. Of course, a Sino-

logist might not only find merits here, but also short- comings, as, for instance, incompleteness in some res- pects (notes lack discussions of many terms and phrases, references for some quotations, explanations of some portents, etc.). As to the general reader, he simply has no use for such detailed notes. One can't help feeling that the "addressee" of the book is uncertain; it is not quite clear for whom it is meant.

J. KROLL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, LENINGRAD

are evidently intended for scholars. Of course, a Sino-

logist might not only find merits here, but also short- comings, as, for instance, incompleteness in some res- pects (notes lack discussions of many terms and phrases, references for some quotations, explanations of some portents, etc.). As to the general reader, he simply has no use for such detailed notes. One can't help feeling that the "addressee" of the book is uncertain; it is not quite clear for whom it is meant.

J. KROLL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, LENINGRAD

Die Mandjurischen Druckausgaben des Hsin-ching (Hrda- yasutra) mit Reproduktion der vier-und fiinfsprachigen Ausgabe. By WALTER FUCHS. Abhandlungen fur die Iunde des Morgenlandes herausgegeben von der l)eutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft, Band XXXIX, 3. Pp. 26, 47 plates. Wiesbaden: FRANZ STEINER. 1970. DM 40.

The Prajfidpdramitdhrdaya, in Hsiian-tsang's transla- tion of the lesser version, is, for the Far East, one of the best known of all the Buddhist scriptures. Hsiian-tsang's version, however, is far from the only one in Chinese. The Chinese version to which the present work is devoted is characterized by Mr. FUCHS as a 'variant' of two of the known versions. The present work reproduces it in two slightly different forms. The author's aim is stated on p. 5: to sort out the different Manchu versions and to explain why one and the same tetraglot text (Tibetan/ Manchu/Mongol/Chinese) has not one preface but two, also in the same four languages.

The first thing Mr. FUCHs does is to reproduce both prefaces in Chinese, accompanied each by his own transla- tion. Following upon this, the reasoning is so close, the factual presentation so tightly packed, that summary runs the risk of omission, but I will now attempt it.

One preface is dated (1724), the other not. According to the former, the Heart Scripture, in its tetraglot recen- sion, was first printed in 1723, the first year of Yung- cheng, while the latter, undated preface would have it that such a recension had already appeared some time in K'ang-hsi, i.e. some time between 1662 and 1723. When the Yung-cheng emperor wrote his Preface to the dated block, he was convinced that the latter was a novum, only to discover, some time during the course of the year 1723, that he was mistaken. That discovery motivated him to write a new Preface, but the older one, being the work of the Emperor and hence inviolable, was left intact. Apart from this, there is on pl. 32 a sentence which Mr. FUCHS renders with 'Diesen Text habe ich ... eigens in Platten schneiden lassen ...' In all versions but

Die Mandjurischen Druckausgaben des Hsin-ching (Hrda- yasutra) mit Reproduktion der vier-und fiinfsprachigen Ausgabe. By WALTER FUCHS. Abhandlungen fur die Iunde des Morgenlandes herausgegeben von der l)eutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft, Band XXXIX, 3. Pp. 26, 47 plates. Wiesbaden: FRANZ STEINER. 1970. DM 40.

The Prajfidpdramitdhrdaya, in Hsiian-tsang's transla- tion of the lesser version, is, for the Far East, one of the best known of all the Buddhist scriptures. Hsiian-tsang's version, however, is far from the only one in Chinese. The Chinese version to which the present work is devoted is characterized by Mr. FUCHS as a 'variant' of two of the known versions. The present work reproduces it in two slightly different forms. The author's aim is stated on p. 5: to sort out the different Manchu versions and to explain why one and the same tetraglot text (Tibetan/ Manchu/Mongol/Chinese) has not one preface but two, also in the same four languages.

The first thing Mr. FUCHs does is to reproduce both prefaces in Chinese, accompanied each by his own transla- tion. Following upon this, the reasoning is so close, the factual presentation so tightly packed, that summary runs the risk of omission, but I will now attempt it.

One preface is dated (1724), the other not. According to the former, the Heart Scripture, in its tetraglot recen- sion, was first printed in 1723, the first year of Yung- cheng, while the latter, undated preface would have it that such a recension had already appeared some time in K'ang-hsi, i.e. some time between 1662 and 1723. When the Yung-cheng emperor wrote his Preface to the dated block, he was convinced that the latter was a novum, only to discover, some time during the course of the year 1723, that he was mistaken. That discovery motivated him to write a new Preface, but the older one, being the work of the Emperor and hence inviolable, was left intact. Apart from this, there is on pl. 32 a sentence which Mr. FUCHS renders with 'Diesen Text habe ich ... eigens in Platten schneiden lassen ...' In all versions but

279 279

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:09:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 95.2 (1975) Journal of the American Oriental Society 95.2 (1975)

the Chinese, 'eigens' is preceded by a word meaning 'now', i.e. for the first time. When the emperor dis- covered that this was not, in fact, the first time, he struck the word from the Chinese version, without thinking to

tamper with the others. (That he should not have thought of the Tibetan and Mongol versions is not surprising, but what of the Manchu? Were the Manchu rulers already that sinicized?).

Pp. 10-23 contain an example of the bibliographic expertise for which Mr. Walter FucHs is so justly famous, followed, in turn, by a printed reproduction of the ap- pendix to the pentaglot edition, accompanied this time

by a German translation. Next comes a chart containing 30 Chinese entries, accompanied by their Manchu equiv- alents in 5 Manchu versions. Then come the plates, namely, both prefaces to the tetraglot, the tetraglot itself, and the pentaglot.

Possibly without intending it, Mr. FUCHs has probably solved the problem of why the pra- of prajnid and the pari- of parinirvaiia are both represented with the character pan, which, according to tradition, was to be read not pan but pdt (yielding Mandarin po). The likelihood is that the two Sanskrit words were first heard by the Chinese as paiiia and pannirudn, respectively, which explains the pan at the beginning of both transcriptions. Later, with the arrival of Indian missionaries with a good knowledge of Sanskrit, the Chinese learned that the prefixes were pra- and pari-. They then made two mistakes. First, they heard the pra as para (having no initial consonant clusters in their own language), then they confused the para with pari, since both were transcribed with the same character. Once this happened, they con- cluded that the pan was to be read not as pan but as par (which is presumably the way pti sounded in the seventh century).

Though not the master of Mongol and Tibetan as well, Mr. FUCHs has led the profession to expect great things of him. He has not let us down.

LEON HURVITZ UNIVERSITY OF BRITISI COLUMBIA

the Chinese, 'eigens' is preceded by a word meaning 'now', i.e. for the first time. When the emperor dis- covered that this was not, in fact, the first time, he struck the word from the Chinese version, without thinking to

tamper with the others. (That he should not have thought of the Tibetan and Mongol versions is not surprising, but what of the Manchu? Were the Manchu rulers already that sinicized?).

Pp. 10-23 contain an example of the bibliographic expertise for which Mr. Walter FucHs is so justly famous, followed, in turn, by a printed reproduction of the ap- pendix to the pentaglot edition, accompanied this time

by a German translation. Next comes a chart containing 30 Chinese entries, accompanied by their Manchu equiv- alents in 5 Manchu versions. Then come the plates, namely, both prefaces to the tetraglot, the tetraglot itself, and the pentaglot.

Possibly without intending it, Mr. FUCHs has probably solved the problem of why the pra- of prajnid and the pari- of parinirvaiia are both represented with the character pan, which, according to tradition, was to be read not pan but pdt (yielding Mandarin po). The likelihood is that the two Sanskrit words were first heard by the Chinese as paiiia and pannirudn, respectively, which explains the pan at the beginning of both transcriptions. Later, with the arrival of Indian missionaries with a good knowledge of Sanskrit, the Chinese learned that the prefixes were pra- and pari-. They then made two mistakes. First, they heard the pra as para (having no initial consonant clusters in their own language), then they confused the para with pari, since both were transcribed with the same character. Once this happened, they con- cluded that the pan was to be read not as pan but as par (which is presumably the way pti sounded in the seventh century).

Though not the master of Mongol and Tibetan as well, Mr. FUCHs has led the profession to expect great things of him. He has not let us down.

LEON HURVITZ UNIVERSITY OF BRITISI COLUMBIA

GLOSSARY GLOSSARY

hsin ching hsin ching

hsiian tsang hsiian tsang

yung cheng yung cheng

k'ang hsi k'ang hsi

pan pan

Index to the Secret History of the Mlongols. By IGOR DE

RACHEWILTZ. Pp. 347. Indiana University Publica-

tions, Uralic and Altaic Series, Volume 121. Bloo-

mington, Indiana: INDIANA UNITIVERSITv. 1972. $16.00

The text in 13th century East Middle Mongolian known as the Secret History of the Mongols is a most problematic one; but at the same time it is the single most valuable text for historical and comparative study of MIongolian languages, and one of the most rewarding from the lit-

erary and cultural points of view. The raw text, once transliterated or transcribed from the Chinese syllabary in which alone it survives, is fraught with philological puzzles. Ever since romanizations (and translations) of the work appeared in the 1930's and 40's, the need for a

complete Index Verborum has been recognized as a crucial preparatory step toward a definitive critical edi- tion with full commentary.

Several scholars have attempted to compile indexes of one sort or another; one such attempt-using a com- puter-was described by John Krueger1 as follows:

"In the hope that the text. . . might prove ... amenable to machine manipulation, the writer of these lines began to place this text on punched cards. It soon became clear. . . that neither the Pelliot or Haenisch transcriptions could be copied verbatim without at least some interpretation and the making of decisions and choices. Even to correct errors became tantamount to establishing my own SH text... Nonetheless, I persisted . . . until a 10 percent sam- ple .. . as completed, and this was concorded through a machine program. The result of this immediately showed up errors which had escaped careful checking, and also revealed other minor mistakes or inconsisten- cies in the earlier transcriptions, producing in effect "feedback" to the new transcription and modifying it in turn. The outcome was that I at least proved to

myself what I had suspected before, namely, that one cannot make a concordance without a definitive text (unless, as Street suggested, one were to use it as an

intermediary stage for a final concordance), and that

1 P. 174 of John R. Krueger "The Application of

Computer Processing to Altaic Studies," Central Asiatic Journal 11, 161-186 (1966).

Index to the Secret History of the Mlongols. By IGOR DE

RACHEWILTZ. Pp. 347. Indiana University Publica-

tions, Uralic and Altaic Series, Volume 121. Bloo-

mington, Indiana: INDIANA UNITIVERSITv. 1972. $16.00

The text in 13th century East Middle Mongolian known as the Secret History of the Mongols is a most problematic one; but at the same time it is the single most valuable text for historical and comparative study of MIongolian languages, and one of the most rewarding from the lit-

erary and cultural points of view. The raw text, once transliterated or transcribed from the Chinese syllabary in which alone it survives, is fraught with philological puzzles. Ever since romanizations (and translations) of the work appeared in the 1930's and 40's, the need for a

complete Index Verborum has been recognized as a crucial preparatory step toward a definitive critical edi- tion with full commentary.

Several scholars have attempted to compile indexes of one sort or another; one such attempt-using a com- puter-was described by John Krueger1 as follows:

"In the hope that the text. . . might prove ... amenable to machine manipulation, the writer of these lines began to place this text on punched cards. It soon became clear. . . that neither the Pelliot or Haenisch transcriptions could be copied verbatim without at least some interpretation and the making of decisions and choices. Even to correct errors became tantamount to establishing my own SH text... Nonetheless, I persisted . . . until a 10 percent sam- ple .. . as completed, and this was concorded through a machine program. The result of this immediately showed up errors which had escaped careful checking, and also revealed other minor mistakes or inconsisten- cies in the earlier transcriptions, producing in effect "feedback" to the new transcription and modifying it in turn. The outcome was that I at least proved to

myself what I had suspected before, namely, that one cannot make a concordance without a definitive text (unless, as Street suggested, one were to use it as an

intermediary stage for a final concordance), and that

1 P. 174 of John R. Krueger "The Application of

Computer Processing to Altaic Studies," Central Asiatic Journal 11, 161-186 (1966).

280 280

tbt tbt

/ t --) c / t --) c

.A.

V

.A.

V

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:09:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions