BOOK REVIEWS
215
passages in TTCLT dealing with two separate aspects of ancient bronzes into one short paragraph. This is only one example of the jumbled passages which are scattered throughout the book. Such passages can only serve to confuse the translator who in the present case has succumbed unquestioningly to the apparent difficulty and made literal readings of the "O" text.
There is yet another source of confusion in the "O" text. These are the misprints—which are obvious to those acquainted with the texts from which the KKYL is derived. In the passage just referred to there is a misprint in “O” which substitutes a non-existent character for "grain". What should read as "not a grain of grit” is translated as "not a trace of grit" through intelligent interpretation. A more serious error arises in another passage which describes the brush strokes representing water as "grain" (ku, i.e., comma-like shaped) strokes rather than “crêpe de Chine” (hu ✯, i.e., undulating surface) strokes. This again is literally translated.
There are other types of errors caused by other types of difficulties (some of them mentioned already at the beginning of this review), but enough has been said to show that the securing of original and early texts is only one of the many aspects of the preliminary work which needs to be done before a satisfactory translation can be made. There is also the question of the very worth of the KKYL as a work of scholarship. For surely it is not "a pioneer work of epochal importance, for it was the earliest comprehensive and systematic treatise on Chinese art and archaeology". This honour should be accorded the TTCLT which predates the KKYL by more than a century, if it is to be accorded to any one book of this kind which is extant. To be fair to Sir Percival David, it must be said that he was well aware of the existence of TTCLT and other similar early books, but this knowledge did not shake his faith in the KKYL. The most recent Chinese study of the KKYL, by Chang T'ieh-hsüan, also accepts without question the general importance and great value of the book.
But why was the KKYL so widely received and taken seriously for the entire Ming period and into the Ching, and even until now? The answer must be that it was published at a time when printed literature was for the first time available to a much wider public, whereas the TTCLT just missed the period of the great flourishing of the printing industry and was little known to most scholars and
BOOK REVIEWS
215
passages in TTCLT dealing with two separate aspects of ancient bronzes into one short paragraph. This is only one example of the jumbled passages which are scattered throughout the book. Such passages can only serve to confuse the translator who in the present case has succumbed unquestioningly to the apparent difficulty and made literal readings of the "O" text.
There is yet another source of confusion in the "O" text. These are the misprints-which are obvious to those acquainted with the texts from which the KKYL is derived. In the passage just referred to there is a misprint in “O” which substitutes a non-existent cha- racter for "grain". What should read as "not a grain of grit” is translated as "not a trace of grit" through intelligent interpretation. A more serious error arises in another passage which describes the brush strokes representing water as "grain" (ku, i.e. comma- like shaped) strokes rather than “crêpe de Chine” (hu ✯, ie, un- dulating surface) strokes. This again is literally translated.
There are other types of errors caused by other types of difficul- ties (some of them mentioned already at the beginning of this re- view), but enough has been said to show that the securing of original and early texts is only one of the many aspects of the preliminary work which needs to be done before a satisfactory translation can be made. There is also the question of the very worth of the KKYL as a work of scholarship. For surely it is not "a pioneer work of epochal importance, for it was the earliest comprehensive and sys- tematic treatise on Chinese art and archaeology". This honour should be accorded the TTCLT which predates the KKYL by more than a century, if it is to be accorded to any one book of this kind which is extant. To be fair to Sir Percival David, it must be said that he was well aware of the existence of TTCLT and other similar early books, but this knowledge did not shake his faith in the KKYL. The most recent Chinese study of the KKYL, by Chang T'ieh-hsüan, also accepts without question the general importance and great value of the book.
But why was the KKYL so widely received and taken seriously for the entire Ming period and into the Ching, and even until now? The answer must be that it was published at a time when printed literature was for the first time available to a much wider public, whereas the TTCLT just missed the period of the great flourishing of the printing industry and was little known to most scholars and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.