330
about China took place' (p. 15), he effectively excludes the Jesuit missionaries in China from being the originators of Sinology! In contrast to the latter, the Proto-Sinologists 'knew very little about China', never 'set foot in China' (p. 135), and were primarily compilers and editors' of information and words provided by the missionaries (pp. 135-37). Their own scholarly output suffered from 'the lack of adequate Chinese' (p. 227) or the absence of a developed knowledge of the Chinese language' (p. 209). An important distinction between the works of proto-Sinologists and later Sinologists (as well as, one should say, the Jesuits in China) is the 'non-sinological thrust of the former (p. 14; on this point see also pp. 164 and 174) who 'geared their interests in China toward Europe' rather than toward China itself (p. 15).
If the author's observations are correct, then the Jesuit missionaries in China are the true originators of Sinology, not the proto-Sinologists. In his concluding paragraph he finally puts the role of proto-Sinologists into historical perspective by asserting that they deserve credit for bringing the fruits of Jesuit accommodation into the 'flow of history' where they would be picked up by later Sinologists and become 'the foundation of modern sinology' (p. 358). If this is the case, then this book has something to do with the advent of modern Sinology in the 18th and 19th centuries, a period which the author does not cover. The origins of Sinology, however, are to be found in the writings of the Jesuit missionaries in 17th century China.
―
For one who is unfamiliar with the Jesuits' accommodative approach to China, their publications, or European scholarship in the 17th century, this work has much to offer if the reader is willing to work hard enough to get through the author's sometimes frustrating style and numerous errors which proof readers and editors should have caught (the two page "Errata" at the back of the edition under review is not nearly adequate and a little unusual in that it allows the author a chance to do some revision!).
In Chapter I the author frames his study by noting the concerns of European scholars with such issues as Aristotelianism, Copernicanism, Humanism, Hermetism, the search for a universal language, geography, and history (particularly, biblical chronology). The remainder of the book follows a basically chronological format beginning with the early development of Jesuit accommodation and their creation of a
330
about China took place' (p. 15), he effectively excludes the Jesuit missionaries in China from being the originators of Sinology! In contrast to the latter, the Proto-Sinologists 'knew very little about China', never 'set foot in China' (p. 135), and were primarily compilers and editors' of information and words provided by the missionaries (pp. 135-37). Their own scholarly output suffered from 'the lack of adequate Chinese' (p. 227) or the absence of a developed knowledge of the Chinese language' (p. 209). An important distinction between the works of proto-Sinologists and later Sinologists (as well as, one should say, the Jesuits in China) is the 'non- sinological thrust of the former (p. 14; on this point see also pp. 164 and 174) who 'geared their interests in China toward Europe' rather than toward China itself (p. 15).
If the author's observations are correct, then the Jesuit missionaries in China are the true originators of Sinology, not the proto-Sinologists. In his concluding paragraph he finally puts the role of proto-Sinologists into historical perspective by asserting that they deserve credit for bringing the fruits of Jesuit accommodation into the 'flow of history' where they would be picked up by later Sinologists and become 'the foundation of modern sinology' (p. 358). If this is the case, then this book has something to do with the advent of modern Sinology in the 18th and 19th centuries, a period which the author does not cover. The origins of Sinology, however, are to be found in the writings of the Jesuit missionaries in 17th century China.
―
For one who is unfamiliar with the Jesuits' accommodative approach to China, their publications, or European scholarship in the 17th century, this work has much to offer if the reader is willing to work hard enough to get through the author's sometimes frustrating style and numerous errors which proof readers and editors should have caught (the two page "Errata" at the back of the edition under review is not nearly adequate and a little unusual in that it allows the author a chance to do some revision!).
In Chapter I the author frames his study by noting the concerns of European scholars with such issues as Aristotelianism, Copernicanism, Humanism, Hermetism, the search for a universal language, geography, and history (particularly, biblical chronology). The remainder of the book follows a basically chronological format beginning with the early development of Jesuit accommodation and their creation of a
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.