Greetings from Atlanta! I am at the 2008 Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, giving a paper, meeting up with some old friends, and enjoying the rich program of this conference. So you can expect relatively light activity on this site over the next week.
June 2008 Archives
Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1823. “Explication d’une Énigme chinoise proposée par le docteur Morrisson.” Journal asiatique. June 1823. pp. 365–370.
In this article, Abel-Rémusat discusses a curious Chinese puzzle found in Robert Morrison’s English-Chinese dictionary. The puzzle involves distortions of various Chinese characters; when these distortions are expressed verbally with their characters, they form parts of a poem.
Abel-Rémusat discusses some other puzzles he has found, many based on the forms of Chinese characters and their constituent elements. He also notes that there are many riddles as well, and the more difficult ones use homophones or obscure literary or historical allusions.
Abel-Rémusat ends his article by taking a rather mean swipe at his predecessor, Étienne Fourmont. He notes that Fourmont had translated a Chinese volume on riddles, but had misunderstood a Chinese word for riddle, yǎmí 啞謎,1 interpreting it as a proper name. This, claims Abel-Rémusat with no small measure of scorn, was a consistent habit of Fourmont:
| Il faisait ainsi des noms propres imaginaires de tous les mots qu’il n’entendait pas. Les titres des livres chinois étaient pour lui autant d’énigmes, et il ne lui est pas arrivé souvent d’être heureux à les deviner. | Thus he made up imaginary proper names out of all the words he didn’t understand. The titles of Chinese books were for him so many riddles, and it did not often occur to him to take pleasure in solving them. |
1: The yǎmí 啞謎, or “dumb riddle,” is merely one type of Chinese riddle. For a cursory but helpful introduction to Chinese riddles, see Richard C. Rudolph. 1942. “Notes on the riddle in China.” California folklore quarterly 1.1. pp. 65–82. ↩
Julius von Klaproth. 1823. “Conjecture sur l’origine du nom de la soie, chez les anciens.” Journal asiatique April 1823. pp. 243–245.
Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1823. “Addition à la Note précédente.” Journal asiatique April 1823. pp. 245–247.
In this brief note, Julius von Klaproth demonstrates that the Greek word Σήρ must have ultimately derived from the Chinese word for silk, 絲 sī. Klaproth does not make the connection straightforwardly. Instead, he takes us through cognate words in Armenian, Mongolian, Manchu, and Slavic, to demonstrate that the word traveled gradually through the various languages of Eurasia.
Abel-Rémusat adds a brief letter reinforcing Klaproth’s argument. He notes that in a forthcoming work he has uncovered a Japanese hiragana transliteration of the Korean pronunciation of 絲 sī, and it reads sir. To Abel-Rémusat, this provides incontrovertible proof of the connection between 絲 sī and Σήρ.
Jean-Denis Lanjuinais. 1823. “Analyse de l’Oupnek’hat.” Journal asiatique. April 1823. pp. 213–236.
In 1657 Dārā Šokōh, firstborn son of Mughal emperor Shah Jahān, commissioned Serr-e akbar, a translation of fifty-two Upaniṣads into Persian. In 1801 and 1802, Abraham-Hyacinth Anquetil-Duperron published his Latin translation from the Persian, entitled Oupnek’hat: (id est, Secretum tegendum): opus ipsa in India rarissimum, continens antiquam et arcanam, seu theologicam et philosophicam, doctrinam, è quatuor sacris Indorum libris, Rak Beid, Djedjr Beid, Sam Beid, Athrban Beid, excerptam: ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samskreticis vocabulis intermixto, in Latinum conversum: dissertationibus et annotationibus, difficiliora explanantibus, illustratum.
Anquetil-Duperron’s work, according to Antoine Jean Saint-Martin’s brief introduction to this article, was characterized by a strictly literal system of translation, “which made such a beautiful work almost unintelligible.”1 Only Jean-Denis Lanjuinais was able to undertake the painful business of understanding this work and intelligently reviewing it. And since Lanjuinais’ review was published only once, in the Magasin Encylopédique année 9, the Société Asiatique saw fit to reproduce it here.
Lanjuinais begins by noting that even though many Sanskrit manuscripts of the Vedas are extant in Europe, the Sanskrit language itself is poorly known. Anquetil-Duperron’s translation from Persian of the Upaniṣads should therefore excite our interest. Lanjuinais stokes our interest with lavish praise of Anquetil-Duperron:
| Dans cet état, l’Oupnek’hat d’Anquetil Duperron, cette version latine et littérale d’une traduction persanne de longs extraits des quatre Védas, contenant l’ancienne théologie et la philosophie secrète de l’Inde, doit encore exciter vivement l’intérêt et l’attention des gens de lettres. La nature du sujet, l’antiquité du système, les rapports frappans avec d’autres systèmes européens, ancien et modernes, le nom célèbre et la profonde érudition du traducteur, son voyage dans l’Inde, le long séjour qu’il y a fait, par un dévouement admirable à la recherche des anciens monuments et à l’avancement des sciences, sa vie stoïque, sa vieillesse laborieuse, son caractère originale et d’une rare franchise, son style vigoreux, ses pensées grands, hardies, profondes, ses réflexions et les doctes recherches littéraires et historiques, philosophiques et théologiques, commerciales et politiques, dont il a enrichi cette production; tout dans cet ouvrage pique la curiosité des lecteurs. | In this state of affairs, the Oupnek’hat of Anquetil-Duperron, this literal Latin version of a Persian translation of long extracts of the four Vedas, containing the ancient theology and secret philosophy of India, should vividly excite the attention of men of letters. The nature of the subject; the antiquity of the system; the connections found with other European systems ancient and modern; the celebrated name and profound erudition of the translator; his voyage to India; the long sojourn he had there, with an admirable devotion to the research of ancient monuments and to the advancement of the sciences; his Stoic lifestyle; his productive old age; the originality of his character with his rare frankness; his vigorous style; his grand, hardy, and profound thoughts; his reflections and the learnèd literary and historical, philosophical and theological, commercial and political researches, which have enriched this publication; everything in this work piques the curiosity of readers. |
Lanjuinais agrees that the text of the Upaniṣads is quite ancient, approaching the date of the Flood. The texts are based on the belief in God, creator of all things. Anquetil-Duperron cites passages from Strabo, Plutarch, Ambrose, from the Mahābhārata, and so on to prove the continuity of the basic Indian belief in a supreme deity.
Lanjuinais defends Anquetil-Duperron’s word-for-word Latin translation, which preserved the original word order of the Persian:
| Anquetil prétend, et avec assez de raison, qu’en matière de philosophie et de théologie, le respect pour la vérité oblige à traduire très-littéralement les originaux. | Anquetil claims, and with good reason, that in matters of philosophy and theology, respect for the truth requires one to translate the originals very literally. |
Anquetil-Duperron’s introduction to the translation is a theological and philosophical comparison of the Upaniṣads with the works of famous rabbis, the Church fathers, Catholic and Protestant theologians, and with other modern thinkers. He organizes the comparison along four themes:
- The Supreme Being, his nature and attributes
- The origin of the world via emanation or via creation
- The existence of a supernatural and intellectual world far anterior to our own
- The influence of the stars on the earth and on terrestrial bodies
On fourth point, Anquetil compares Upaniṣadic thought with northern European theories of correspondence, citing the 1555 Harmonia cœlestium corporum et humanorum of Antoine Mizuald, the Tractatus de magnetica curatione vulneris citra ullam et superstitionem, et dolorem, et remedii applicationem of Rudolph Goclenius (1572–1621), as well as the writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg!
Lanjuinais sums up Anquetil-Duperron’s introduction as follows:
| Le résultat général de cette dissertation est que les dogmes de l’Inde, sous le nom de doctrine orientale, ont passé des Indiens aux Perses, des Perses aux Grecs, des Grecs aux Romains; qu’ils nous sont aussi parvenus par le nord de l’Europe; qu’enfin rien n’est nouveau pour un homme instruit, rien n’est absolument mauvais, et que tout ce qui est mauvais renferme l’indice ou le germe de ce qui est bon. | The general result of this dissertation is that the dogmas of India, under the name of Oriental doctrine, passed from Indians to Persians, from Persians to Greeks, from Greeks to Romans; that they have now appeared in the north of Europe; that ultimately nothing is new for an educated man, nothing is absolutely evil, and that everything which is evil contains the index or the germ of that which is good. |
He compares the philosophical system of the Upaniṣads to some modern European intellectual currents:
| Ce système est un vrai mélange de Spinosisme ou de panthéisme, de théosophisme ou d’illuminisme, de quiétisme, et même d’idéalisme à la manière de Berkeley. | This system is a true mélange of Spinozism or of pantheism, of Theosophism or Illuminism, of quietism, and also of idealism in the manner of Berkeley. |
Even though this motley mixture of ideas might seem inexact, chimeric, or puerile, we must acknowledge that this corpus draws upon “the most sublime principles of religion and morality.”
Lanjuinais then surveys Anquetil-Duperron’s translation thematically, beginning with passages related to God, and it is here that the Journal asiatique ends its reprint of the review.
1: Max Müller, in the preface to his translation of the Upaniṣads for the Sacred Books of the East series, says that Anquetil-Duperron’s translation “was written in so utterly unintelligible a style, that it required the lynxlike perspicacity of an intrepid philosopher, such as Schopenhauer, to discover a thread through such a labyrinth.” Friedrich Max Müller 1879. The Upanishads. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. lviii–lix. ↩
“Traité des Sectes religieuses chez les Chinois et les Tonquinois; par le Frère Adrien de Sainte-Thècle, Missionaire au Tonquin.” Journal asiatique. March 1823. pp. 163–175.
This short article introduces the work of Adriano di Santa Thecla (1667–1765), an Augustinian missionary to northern Vietnam, who in 1750 penned a Latin treatise called Opusculum de sectis apud Sinenses et Tunkinenses. The article laments the fact that this very useful Latin work remains unedited and untranslated. The Société Asiatique wants to make this work available in French translation in small installments, and this article begins that endeavor by translating two sections of Adriano’s second chapter, on the tutelary deity called Thanh-hoang, and on the Spirit Examinations.
An English translation of Opusculum de sectis apud Sinenses et Tunkinenses was completed in 2002 by Olga Dror, in Cornell’s Studies on Southeast Asia series. Buddhologists should note that Adriano di Santa Thecla devoted an entire chapter of his Opusculum to Buddhism, discussing the person of Śākyamuni, the propagation of the religion in China, the doctrines of Buddhism, its principal idols, its temples and their staff, and the rituals of the faith.
Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1823. “Extrait d’un Mémoire sur les plus anciens Caractères qui ont servi à former l’écriture chinoise.” Journal asiatique. March 1823. pp. 129–142.
In this essay, Abel-Rémusat examines the radicals of old Chinese, with an eye toward using the vocabulary of ancient Chinese to make claims about the state of civilization in ancient China.
The number of signs is very small:
| Sans doute, avec deux cents images, les premiers Chinois ne composaient pas de livres: ils n’écrivaient pas encore d’annales, ni même de romans cosmogoniques. | Without a doubt, with 200 images, the first Chinese did not write books. They did not write annals or narratives of cosmogony. |
So of what use were these signs?
| Avec ce petit nombre de caractères, ceux-ci pouvaient s’envoyer les uns aux autres des signaux pour résister à une incursion, ou renfermer leurs troupeaux; se rassembler pour une expédition, tomber à l’improviste sur leurs voisins pour les piller, toutes actions qui marquent les premiers pas des sociétés humaines. | With this small number of characters, from which they could send signals to one another to resist an incursion, or to reinforce their troops; to assemble themselves for an expedition, to attack without warning their neighbors to pillage them, all actions which mark the first stages of human societies. |
Abel-Rémusat divides classifies the Chinese radicals thematically, placing them in the categories of : the Heavens, the Earth, Man, and Parts of the Body. The remaining radicals are classed under a miscellaneous placeholder.
Abel-Rémusat, surveying some of the old Chinese characters, claims that there are no words for “dragon” or “phoenix,” which to him proves that the system of writing is anterior to the development of Chinese mythology.
What else does old Chinese lack? Words for religion, moral ideas, divisions of time, civil ranks. The language had very few terms for furniture and utensils, metals, or animals. In terms of the advancement of society, the early Chinese were very much like the tribes of New Zealand. But in inventing the art of writing, they would be able to eventually lift themselves up from their primitive state. By combining radicals to form more complex characters, the system of writing contained within itself a principle of classification, such that similar animals would contain similar radicals, not unlike “the essays of the binary nomenclature of Linnaeus” (p. 141)!
Abel-Rémusat closes his essay by making a case for the study of Chinese language as a quintessentially historical field:
| La paléographie chinoise n’est pas l’étude des formes variées que le caprice a fait prendre aux lettres, moins encore l’étude des abréviations et des ligatures, des accens et de la ponctuation: c’est véritablement l’étude des anciennces traditions, des vieux usages, des mœurs antiques. C’est sous ce rapport qu’elle mérite une attention toute particulière; car l’histoire des mots n’a droit à nous intéresser qu’autant qu’elle conduit à l’histoire de choses. | Chinese paleography is not the study of the different forms which caprice has wrought on the letters, even less the study of abbreviations and of ligatures, of accents and of punctuation: it is truly the study of ancient traditions, of old usages, of antique customs. It is in this respect that it merits our particular attention; for the history of words should only interest us insofar as it advances the history of things. |
L. L. G. 1823. “Lettre adressée à la Société Asiatique de Paris, par M. Louis de l’Or, ancien officier de cavalerie. Paris, 1823, brochure in-8º.” Journal asiatique. February 1823. pp. 109–113.
This article, signed only by “M. L. L. G.,” summarizes a letter sent to the Société Asiatique by a certain Louis de l’Or. It is a fabulous specimen of early nineteenth-century scholarly invective, pulled off with subterfuge and humor.
Friedrich von Adelung, the German director of the Oriental Institute at St. Petersburg, had published in 1820 his Übersicht aller bekannten Sprachen und ihrer Dialekte. This amusing little work is an odd list of all languages in the world, organized into their respective families.
Julius von Klaproth, writing under the hilarious pen name “Louis de l’Or, veteran officer of the cavalry,” savages the work of Adelung in his letter to the Société Asiatique, and his letter is summarized here by L. L. G. Klaproth is angry that Adelung’s work has been lavished with praise in the French newspapers. L. L. G. slyly retorts that of course the French review their own works poorly, but praise any and all foreign publications.
| On critiquerait bien ai on l’osait un ouvrage fait à Paris; mais quand un livre vient d’au-delà du Rhin, il est par cela seul un fort bon livre. Si par hasard il vient de Pétersbourg, oh! alors il est excellent. Il est si doux d’ailleurs de vanter ceux qui ne seront jamais nos rivaux! | For the works of foreigners, it is different; one gives to them readily enough the praises which one would refuse to one’s compatriates. One would well criticize it if it were a work done in Paris; but when a book comes from beyond the Rhine, it is for that reason alone a very good book. If, by chance, it comes from St. Petersburg, then oh! of course it is excellent. It is so easy to praise others who will never be our rivals! |
L. L. G., with completely feigned politeness and good will, somehow finds a way to repeat Klaproth’s words without necessarily giving them the full endorsement of the Société Asiatique:
| Sans approuver la manière dont M. de l’Or traite le savant de Pétersbourg, quoiqu’il ne soit pas très-étonnant qu’un officier de cavalerie traite un peu cavalièrement ses adversaires, nous ne pouvons que reconnaître toute la justesse de ses observations et du ses critiques. | Without approving of the manner in which Mr. de l’Or treats the scholar from St. Petersburg—although we should not be too surprised that an officer of the cavalry treats his adversaries a bit cavalierly—we cannot help but recognize the complete justice of his observations and of his critiques. |
Why, for example, does Adelung count Basque as a French dialect? He adds dialects to languages willy-nilly, and artificially inflates the number of known languages.
| …on ne doit pas être étonné que le nombre des langues actuellement connues s’élève, selon M. Adelung, à 3,064, dont 587 pour notre Europe. Si on parcourt par hasard le catalogue du savant Allemand, on pourra facilement reconnaître qu’il lui serait facile d’ajouter encore à ce nombre, s’il avait parcouru chacun des pays de l’Europe. Il suffirait presque de voir ce catalogue pour reconnaître que l’auteur en est Allemand; car c’est pour l’Allemagne surtout qu’il montre toute sa libéralité. Il y compte au moins 163 dialectes. | …one should not be surprised that the number of currently known languages is heightened, according to Mr. Adelung, to 3,064, of which 587 are European. If one by chance comes across the catalog of the German scholar, one would easily recognize that it would have been easy to add even more to this number, if he had gone through each of the countries of Europe. It should suffice to view this catalog by remembering that the author is himself a German; because it is for Germany above all that he shows all his liberality. He counts there at least 163 dialects. |
It is at this point that Klaproth really lays on the sarcasm:
| Si l’auteur connaissait la France aussi bien que l’Allemagne, il est permis de croire que, quoiqu’il nous ait déjà faits très-riches, il nous aurait encore gratifié de quelques dialects qu’il a oubliés. A Paris même, le dialecte du faubourg St.-Marceau pourrait différer assez de celui qui est en usage a la chaussée d’Antin, pour que M. Adelung les ait ajoutés a sa liste. | If the author knew France as well as Germany, one could imagine that, though he already treated us very generously, he would have granted us even more dialects which he has left out. In Paris alone, the dialect of the suburb of St. Marceau could differ enough from that used on the Chaussée-d’Antin, that Mr. Adelung would have added them to his list. |
A splendid savaging of a horrible book, made even more brutal by the good humor, the feigned politeness, and the fake anonymity of our “veteran officer of the cavalry.” This review not only makes me nostalgic for the good old days of Orientalist scholarship, it also brings to mind how isolated and provincial the current American scene is. Klaproth is furious that the Parisian press is giving great reviews to a German work on linguistics published in St. Petersburg. Imagine the impossibility of this in the American scene today. When is the last time you have seen a French or Russian book reviewed in the New York Review of Books? When is the last time you saw a Japanese or German book reviewed even in scholarly journals like the Journal of the American Academy of Religion?
Antoine Jean Saint-Martin. 1822. “Notice sur l’ancienne histoire de l’Inde et sur les historiens du Kaschmyr en particulier.” Journal asiatique. December 1822. pp. 361–368.
Here we have, in 1822, a French Orientalist debunking the assertion that India is devoid of history before the Muslim conquests. Saint-Martin believes the notion of an India without history is absurd on its face:
Il est difficile d’imaginer l’existence d’une grande nation civilisée, assez indifférente à tout ce qui la concerne, pour ne pas chercher à en conserver le souvenir…
Saint-Martin brings up the many local histories and genealogies still preserved in India; these are more than sufficient to show a concern for history. And if one were to examine these local histories in conjunction with the epigraphical evidence, one could write a perfectly respectable history of India.
Saint-Martin then cites an article1 published by Abel-Rémusat in the Journal des savans, in order to demonstrate that Chinese and Japanese Buddhist texts may also preserve hitherto lost historical data. His enthusiasm for these sources may seem quaint to us now:
| Les données consignées dans cette notice présentent un degré de précision et d’exactitude très-remarquable, et tout-à-fait propre à donner à l’histoire indienne des bases scientifiques d’une haute certitude. | The data presented in this article give a very remarkable degree of precision and exactness, and entirely sufficient to grant to Indian history a scientific basis of great certainty. |
Saint-Martin then describes H. H. Wilson’s recent discussion of the history of Kaśmīra before the Muslim conquests, and he spends the rest of the article discussing the sources used by Wilson. Wilson used primarily the Rājataraṅgiṇī, an eleventh-century history of Kaśmīra. Saint-Martin is confident that this and other texts will be a source of great interest to Orientalists and to scholars of antiquity more generally.
1: Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1821. “Sur la succession des trente-trois premier Patriarches de la religion de Bouddha.” Journal des savans. January 1821. pp. 6–15. ↩
