BOOK REVIEWS
177
A.D. The most authentic maps on Buddhism in China are those produced by a Japanese scholar, Oshio Dokuzan ★§♪λ in Shina-Bukyo Shi Chizu £*£ published in 1924 in Japan. Although I have no way to put the maps of Zürcher and Oshio side by side, since the latter's version is not available at this moment in Hong Kong, yet I see that Zürcher has made no use of Oshio's maps. As to Map II about the trade routes of Later Han, Albert Herrmann's An Historical Atlas of China (first edition printed in 1935 and second in 1966) has not been consulted,
Thirdly there are some minor editorial and textual blemishes in this important book. In the first place it seems that the author has been rather careless in the editing of his Bibliography. For instance, although Chen Yin-k'o's well-known study on Chih-Min-tu, a Buddhist monk of the Eastern Chin Period, Chih Min-tu Hsueh-Shuo K'ao £*£*** (which appeared in Ts'ai Yüan-pei Memorial Volume, Part I, pp. 1-18,) is mentioned by Zürcher in his 85th footnote for Chapter III (in Vol. II, p. 353), it is not included in his bibliography, although he has listed a second article also by Chen Yin-k'o there.
Again, there are quite a few misprints or mistakes in the Chinese characters, in these two volumes. As regards the former, at p. 221 of Vol. I, and again at p. 367 of Vol. II, the Chinese character “To” f£ is misprinted as ft. Similarly, on p. 444 of Vol. II, the first Chinese character for the title, Yen-tieh-lun #*, a famous treatise written in the Han Dynasty, is incorrectly printed as. Again, at p. 394 and p. 444 of Vol. II, the studio name Yü-Han Shan-fang has appeared twice. Although in its first appearance, the last Chinese character for this studio name is printed correctly, it is however, printed with a wrong form as second appearance. In addition to these, a commonly used Chinese character, Ming, has been rather frequently used by Mr. Zürcher (in p. 105 and p. 126 of Vol. I and p. 341 of Vol. II), and is always associated with a wrong form in its.
Lastly, concerning the author's interpretation of terms. For instance, "Pa-ta" Ait, a term which appears twice in p. 79 of Vol. I, has not been properly interpreted and translated except in inadequate English as "eight-ta”. Yet already in 1938 T. K. Chuan in his study, "Some Notes on Kao Seng Chuan", (T'ien Hsia Monthly, Vol. VII No. 5, pp. 452-468, the well-known Journal in
BOOK REVIEWS
177
A.D. The most authentic maps on Buddhism in China are those produced by a Japanese scholar, Oshio Dokuzan ★ § ★ ♪λ in Shina-Bukyo Shi Chizu £*£ published in 1924 in Japan. Although I have no way to put the maps of Zürcher and Oshio side by side, since the latter's version is not available at this moment in Hong Kong, yet I see that Zürcher has made no use of Oshio's maps. As to Map II about the trade routes of Later Han, Albert Herrmann's An Historical Atlas of China (first edition print- ed in 1935 and second in 1966) has not been consulted,
Thirdly there are some minor editorial and textual blemishes in this important book. In the first place it seems that the author has been rather careless in the editing of his Bibliography. For ins tance, although Chen Yin-k'o's well-known study on Chih- Min-tu, a Buddhist monk of the Eastern Chin Period, Chih Min-tu Hsueh-Shuo K'ao £*£*** (which appeared in Ts'ai Yüan- pei Memorial Volume, Part I, pp. 1-18,) is mentioned by Zürcher in his 85th footnote for Chapter III (in Vol. II, p. 353), it is not included in his bibliography, although be has listed a second article also by Chen Yin-k'o there.
Again, there are quite a few misprints or mistakes in the Chinese characters, in these two volumes. As regards the former, at p. 221 of Vol. I, and again at p. 367 of Vol. II, the Chinese character “To” f£ is misprinted as ft. Similarly, on p. 444 of Vol. II, the first Chinese character for the title, Yen-tich-lun #*, a famous treatise written in the Han Dynasty, is incorrectly printed as. Again, at p. 394 and p. 444 of Vol. II, the studio name Yü- Han Shan-fang
has appeared twice. Although in its first appearance, the last Chinese character for this studio name is print- ed correctly, it is however, printed with a wrong form as second appearance. In addition to these, a commonly used Chinese character, Ming, has been rather frequently used by Mr. Zürcher (in p. 105 and p. 126 of Vol. I and p. 341 of Vol. II), and is always associated with a wrong form
in įts
Lastly, concerning the author's interpretation of terms. For in- stance, "Pa-ta" Ait, a term which appears twice in p. 79 of Vol. I, has not been properly interpreted and translated except in inade- quate English as "eight-ta”. Yet already in 1938 T. K. Chuan
in his study, "Some Notes on Kao Seng Chuan", (T'ien Hsia Monthly, Vol. VII No. 5, pp. 452-468, the well-known Journal in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.