لان
TUE CHINA REVIEW.
of the 五服,viz. 斬衰 and 寳
daly to be found in Mayers, p. 312. We are sorry also to see that contrary to established custom we are instructed to add king after the names of the four classics, the Shi, Shu, File, and Lai, it being well known that whilst the first three always have king added to them the last is invariably
termed the ‘Luni ki’記 Under 五紀 the Chinese characters are correctly given as in the Shoo King, but the translations make nonsense of them. The Bishop says they are used by geomancers," which is not the correct rendering of
sin
meng, or fortune-tellers who do make use of them, but a reference to the
is always to be understood of the classic use; instead of being rendered "year of oue's life," should be a revolution of the seasons;
is not "the star of nativity," but the stars and the zodiacul signs, and instead of being termed "disposal of times, destiny," should be calendaric calculations. (Legge's Shoo, p. 327 note).
On page 46 a similarly misleading re- mark is made as to the (used in fortune-telling.") It would be equally true to say that it is used in everything in China. It is the basis of the oldest classic, it underlies all the philosophy and comes to the surface in all important events of life. By the way
túi, marked as No. 8 under this heading, relates to vigour not to mixture. Again page 40 under the heading "sic old wires" erroneous meanings are given to
Bill and respectively; the first is known
H8
sheng po and her occupation.
is to act as a medium and consult the spirit of the departed, whilst the second is called 拜神 a pái shan po, that is a sub- stitute for women in worship.
These are a few of the graver errors which mar by their presence the usefulness of this little manual; we have noted several others but fear to weary our readers. Why are beginners to hear nothing of the
or the
氣the 三
OF
# 伏
三元: The 三合 are indeed there under another name, but they have also two other titles which might profitably be meu-
tioned, viz. 極aud三儀 The 西宮 and 四靈 the 五星 Fiva
Planets and the associated with the same, the Six Influences and the 七佛 Seven Buddhas, the 八神
Eight Gods (beginning with Dr. Burdon's favorite the Al Eight Im- or Eight Cyclical Char- acters, the 尢流 or Nine Schools; these
mortals; the
certainly deserve as much attention as those selected for the Primer. I forbear, it is very clear to me that Mayers' Manual has not been consulted in the preparation of these lists, and I oun but express my surprise that the learned Bishop has not yet made the acquaintance of so extremely useful a work, which would have added so much to the utility of his own production. It is an old saying "compendia dispendio,” and holds true in Chinese as in other literature. No thorough student will rest satisfied until he has in his hand the clue at least to the ultimate authority in these things, then, sure of his ground, he way advance with confidence. Those who like our author have been engaged in literary research, best serve the rising generation of Sinologists by in- dicating plainly the authority for whatever is liable to be challenged, thus they will prove real benefactors to their race and deserve the gratitude of those who will be glad to avail themselves of their disinterest- ed labours. But let us have no more stunted, inaccurate, confused and awk- wardly arranged chapters like this of "groups of words," rather let the effort be to improve on what we already bare, the fruit of past and difficult research
Of the concluding article on Translation from Book-style and Mandarin into Colle- quial, I find it very difficult to make any- thing satisfactory. So far as it concerns Missionaries in their peculiar calling, I
A CHINESE PRIMER.
abstain from ament each profession knows best what is best adapted to its re- quirements; but can it be otherwise than misleading to any beginner to be told that "easy and correct power of translation" (I think power to translate easily and cor- reetly must be meant)" will be found to be the result of a few months' patient persover- ing practice, after the student has acquired say a thousand characters?" To avoid the direct argumentum ad hominem, I will ask Dr. Burdon, whether he ever, in the whole course of his experience in China, met with any oue who exemplified the statement ? And when he asserts that Mandarin or Kim-un requires so little alteration to change it into Cantonese, that the difficul ties are really very few, even in the case of one who knows nothing whatever of Man- darin," who can without difficulty repress a smile P With all due deference to the Bishop, does it not seem a rather heavy draft upon the credulity of the public? It would appear as if, so far is a little know- ledge of Chinese from being a dangerous thing, that the less you know the better, if with confidence and satisfaction (to your- self) you desire to speak Cantonese.
The rising generation of Sinologists who will doubtless carry all before them, is quite to be envied, if, taking Dr. Burdon's words our serieur, they only exhibit sufficient of that unbounded assurance which such state- ments are calculated to foster and encourage. It is difficult to imagine how, after a few years' experience of the Southern dialects, Dr. Burden can so entirely differ from Dr. Williams on this point. In the preface to his Syllabic Dictionary Dr. Williams points out that the differences are idiomatic and on this account that Kwan-hwa is unintelligible in Canton, whilst so marked is this differ- ence of idiom that it has even engaged the attention of native philologists. The dicer- gences from the general language or Kwan- hwa, says Dr. Williams, are almost endless. Will it be credited that it is an easy task for any one to stand up and read off Kwan-
54
hwa in intelligible Cantonese ? That the work of translation is one requiring great taet and great experience few know better thau Dr. Burdon himself, who has earned a certain reputation as a translator, Why then run the risk of depressing and dis- heartening beginners at the very time wheu, after some months of hard study, they find the real dificulties of Chinese looming up portentously before them, by leading them to think that they ought to be able to do that which they feel is utterly beyond their power?
The whole article is a literary enric- sity. I have road and re-read it, and brief as it is, am by no means certain that I understand it. It opens with the statement that "The only style allowed by the Chi- ucse as proper for Books is what is called the mau-li or literary style; this is exceedingly terse," &c. Neat we are told that an easier style, allowed by educated Chinese under certain circumstances is Mandarin (Kún-wa). But on the next page we are informed that "Chu-fu-ts, the Prince of Chinese Writers," used a very simple, redundant man li as like the colloquial as possible." Now I should like to know how it is that if only terse man i is allowed, Chu-fu-tez can be the "Prince of Writers" with a simple redundant" style. I toel nuable even to comprehend these two adjec tives when so oorabined, for they seem to negative each other; redundancy in English tends to obscurity, and simplicity to plain- ness, but it may be otherwise in Chinese. Of one thing I am certain that Chu-fu-taz's writings are by no means easy of cotupre- hension by the uneducated masses, and if Bishop Burdon's contributions to Christian literature are in the style of that great writer they will undoubtedly command the respect even if they do not carry conviction to all gifted with a "taste for good Chi- Lese."
Meanwhile I suppose that those of
bis maissionary brethren (at whom he seems ever ready to throw stones when he has the chauce) will go on using vernacular books
169