[
    {
        "id": 206828,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1973",
        "page_number": 105,
        "title": "RAS-1973",
        "content_text": "# FIVE ART CATALOGUES\n\n99\n\ndiffered somewhat from the two catalogues of Sun and Kao, by the time Kung Kuang-tao compiled his art catalogue, the editing method he adopted seemed to be, if not a continuation of that used in Sun's Kêng-tzŭ hsiao-hsia-chi and Kao's Chiang-ts'un hsiao-hsia-lu, at least unrelated to Pien Yung-yü's Shih-ku-t'ang hua-k'ao.\n\nIn a word, although these five Kwangtung art collectors had adopted a new editing system in their catalogues, they had not referred to the work of the compiler who first introduced this system. This is no different from one who counts the records but has forgotten one's ancestors, and can but be regarded as a very unreasonable incident in the history of art catalogue compilation.\n\n## III\n\n## Defects in the Catalogues\n\nAs mentioned above, though the five Kwangtung collectors' catalogues were all compiled by following the new editing method introduced in the compilation of art catalogue, it should be pointed out here that they are not without shortcomings and errors. These, on the whole, can be divided into 3 types, namely: unsuitable compilation method, carelessness in proof-reading, as well as erroneous chronology. Each of these will be discussed below.\n\n### A. Unsuitable Compilation Method\n\nIn Wu Yung-kuang's Hsin-ch'ou hsiao-hsia-chi, paintings done by the same artist are mostly grouped together. However Wu had at least in two instances separately recorded the paintings of two artists. As a result, the reader would feel rather confused when using this catalogue. For example, this catalogue has recorded two paintings by Ni Tsan (1301-1374) in chüan 4. One of these, the Yu-po-t'an-hua-t'u appears in chüan 4, p. 22b, and the other, Ho-lin-t'u, on p. 41a of the same chüan. They are thus nearly twenty pages apart. Between these two paintings, Wu recorded accordingly the hanging scrolls of calligraphy respectively done by Kung Su, Fêng Hai-su and Nao Nao, as well as a handscroll including calligraphies written by Liu Yu-ch'ing, Fan Kuo, Ouyang Ying, Yü Chi, Wu Ch'uan-chieh, Yü-fu-t'u, and Liu Kuan. In addition, in the space of nearly twenty pages, Wu also recorded Wu Chen's and Wang Fu's (1362-1416).\n\nPage 105\n\nPage 106",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1973.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8910rj06r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210379,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1984",
        "page_number": 350,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "329\n\nstudent who can find a generous sponsor for complementary studies of those rural areas which lie outside Dr. Hayes's purview: the other Peng Chau (in Mirs Bay or Dapeng-wan), Tap Mun, Sha Tau Kok, Tai Po, Yuen Long and their hinterlands. Even within Hong Kong's 400 square miles can be seen the kind of variations which Ouyang Hsiu described (in his preface to the Hsin Wu-tai Shih) as: it is a strength of Chinese society that such healthy variability can exist. Time is short, because when I was last there in 1982, the opening up of roads had already begun to erode village life, as it did in Tsuen Wan, Lantao and New Kowloon,\n\n+\n\n-\n\nDr. Hayes is a true Cadet, in the tradition of Cecil Clementi, Walter Schofield, Stephen Balfour and John Barrow, and his work puts even them in the shade. But oh! oh! that romanization! He says disarmingly in the Foreword \"I confess that romanization has been a problem.\" No shame in that: Chinese — whichever you wish of the 3,000 languages, all known as Chinese — does not lend itself to phonetic writing, and the Cadmean alphabet, while no doubt adequate for the Western Semitic language for which it was devised, was not really suited to Latin and is hopeless for English (though it does not do too badly for Finnish and Welsh) — how much less for Chinese? But of all the inadequate answers to this problem, why choose the obsolete Wade-Giles without its vital apostrophes and tone-numerals, too for what Western academics obstinately call “Mandarin”; and Meyer-Wempe for Cantonese? The latter, with omitted or misprinted diacritical marks, of which I found many (and have sent Dr. Hayes a list) is gibberish. Besides, being based on West River dialects, which differ considerably from the Upper Punyu which, after the eclipse of Sai Kwan wa from 1905 onward, became the standard speech of Canton, Hong Kong and overseas Cantonese (except those from the 5 districts known as Sze Yap), Meyer & Wempe's handy little dictionary has serious shortcomings. What a pity an updated Eitel never appeared!\n\nNothing will ever persuade me that Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien place names should be written in letters indicating a pronunciation which no local would understand. (I suppose it must be a matter of politics, with which no scholar should soil his hands). Just you try getting a boat to “Shayuyung”! (The place is",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    }
]