178
BOOK REVIEWS
English published in Shanghai), had interpreted the same term as "eight emancipated". It is obvious that T. K. Chuan's translation may not be the only fixed one, yet, on the other hand, it does seem that it is at least a good reference for Zürcher to cite. Furthermore, T. K. Chuan's Kao Seng Chuan or Biographies of Eminent Monks is once again a useful reference in Zürcher's field of study that has been neglected entirely. In another example, the term “Ke-i" is interpreted as "elucidating Buddhist terms” (p. 12 Vol. I). However, it is differently rendered as "matching meanings” on p. 184 of the same volume. Such interpretational discrepancy together with the misprints seem to show that Mr. Zürcher must have worked on the revision of his book over a considerable period of time, but may have neglected to make a final check of his manuscript.
These points deal with minor details which can be considered when the third impression of this book is prepared. They detract little from the outstanding scholarship of Mr. Zürcher and his important contribution to the history of Buddhism in Medieval China.
CHUANG SHEN
University of Hong Kong, 1973.
A CONCORDANCE TO FIVE SYSTEMS OF TRANSCRIPTION FOR STANDARD CHINESE. Compiled by Olov Bertil Anderson, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1970, pp. 228.
I assume that differences of opinion over transcription systems for Chinese will always be with us. For many decades now we have seen a stream of alternatives to Wade-Giles and have heard the discussions over the relative merits of favorite systems. Each time the shade seems laid to rest it pops up very much alive in some new stronghold of sinology. For some reason this problem plagues mostly the English-speaking segment of the field while those who publish in French, German, and Russian have long ago reached reasonable agreement on transcription and have gone on to other often more productive fields of study. But unfortunately the rest of us cannot agree, and nothing is more hopelessly visionary at this point than the dream of some grand concourse of sinologists all accepting a single system which all will use to the exclusion of any other.
178
BOOK REVIEWS
English published in Shanghai), had interpreted the same term as "eight emancipated". It is obvious that T. K. Chuan's translation may not be the only fixed one, yet, on the other hand, it does seem that it is at least a good reference for Zürcher to cite. Furthermore, T. K. Chuan's Kao Seng Chuan or Biographies of Eminent Monks is once again a useful reference in Zürcher's field of study that has been neglected entirely. In another example, the term “Ke-i" is interpreted as "elucidating Buddhist terms” (p. 12 Vol. I. However, it is differently rendered as "matching meanings” on p. 184 of the same volume. Such interpretational discrepancy together with the misprints seem to show that Mr. Zürcher must have worked on the revision of his book over a considerable period of time, but may have neglected to make a final check of his manu- script.
These points deal with minor details which can be considered when the third impression of this book is prepared. They detract little from the outstanding scholarship of Mr. Zürcher and his im- portant contribution to the history of Buddhism in Medieval China.
CHUANG SHEN
University of Hong Kong, 1973.
A CONCORDANCE TO FIVE SYSTEMS OF TRANSCRIP- TION FOR STANDARD CHINESE. Compiled by Olov Bertil Anderson, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1970, pp 228.
I assume that differences of opinion over transcription systems for Chinese will always be with us. For many decades now we have seen a stream of alternatives to Wade-Giles and have heard the discussions over the relative merits of favorite systems. Each time the shade seems laid to rest it pops up very much alive in some new stronghold of sinology. For some reason this problem plagues mostly the English speaking segment of the field while those who publish in French, German, and Russian have long ago reached reasonable agreement on transcription and have gone on to other often more productive fields of study. But unfortunately the rest of us cannot agree, and nothing is more hopelessly visionary at this point than the dream of some grand concourse of sinologists all accepting a single system which all will use to the exclusion of any other.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.