Buddhology, &c.

2008 International Association of Buddhist Studies

2008-06-24T05:10:56Z

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.

Explication d’une Énigme chinoise proposée par le docteur Morrisson

2008-06-17T13:06:58Z

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. ↩

Conjecture sur l’origine du nom de la soie, chez les anciens

2008-06-16T12:23:06Z

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.

Analyse de l’Oupnek’hat

2008-06-11T10:25:15Z

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

2008-06-09T11:58:33Z

“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.

Extrait d’un Mémoire sur les plus anciens Caractères qui ont servi à former l’écriture chinoise

2008-06-08T14:20:22Z

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.

Lettre adressée à la Société Asiatique de Paris, par M. Louis de l'Or, ancien officier de cavalerie

2008-06-04T13:40:47Z

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?

Notice sur l’ancienne histoire de l’Inde et sur les historiens du Kaschmyr en particulier

2008-06-01T10:00:00Z

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. ↩

Lettre au rédacteur sur l’état et les progrès de la littérature chinoise en Europe

2008-05-30T10:00:00Z

Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1822. “Lettre au rédacteur sur l’état et les progrès de la littérature chinoise en Europe.” Journal asiatique. November 1822. pp. 279–292.

Abel-Rémusat accepts the invitation from the JA to summarize the year’s progress in the field. Since this is the first issue, he takes on a much bigger task, recounting the history of Sinology in Europe over the past sixty years.

He criticizes the early missionaries, who believed it impossible to learn Chinese in a single lifespan, and who, despite having some success, never endeavored to pass on their knowledge. Their methods were unsystematic and primitive:

L’analise la plus simple, la méthode la plus naturelle leur étaient inconnues. On avait fait des caractères chinois comme des hiéroglyphes mystérieux, qu’on ne pouvait entendre que par une sorte de divination. … leurs essais si vantés alors sont maintenant tombés dans un oubli mérité.

The most simple analysis, the most natural method were unknown to them. They regarded Chinese characters as mysterious hieroglyphs, which one could not understand without some sort of divination. … their much-vaunted works are nowadays buried in well-deserved obscurity. [p. 280]

Scholars like Étienne Fourmont were a little better, but even Fourmont maintained a snobbish attitude, exaggerating the difficulties of his labor. His students, Joseph de Guignes (1721–1800) and Michel Ange André Le Roux Deshauterayes (1724–1795) were unfortunately stingy:

On ne voit pas surtout qu’ils aient rien fait pour se donner des successeurs ou des collaborateurs. Il semblait que le mérite de savoir le chinois fût plus grand quand on le possédait seul. On s’en montrait jaloux, comme d’un trésor qui eût perdu à être partagé.

One cannot really see that they did anything at all to pass on [their knowledge] to successors or collaborators. It seems that the merit of knowing Chinese was greater when they alone possessed it. They seemed jealous of it, as if it were a treasure that they would lose if it were shared [p. 281].

And so after de Guignes died in 1800, French sinology languished:

L’étude du chinois redevint ce qu’elle avait été avant lui, une étude mystérieuse, vague et insignifiante. On s’occupa de minuties; on annonça des dictionnaires sans avoir lu un seul livre; on vanta les beautés de la langue sans la savoir; on disputa sans fin sur la forme et l’orthographe des caractères; on en inséra dans de petites dissertations, pour éblouir les lecteurs et en imposer sur la nullité du fonds par la magie de ces brillans accessoires.

The study of Chinese became again what it was before, a mysterious field, vague and insignificant. People occupied themselves with minutiae; they published dictionaries without reading a single book; they praised the beauty of the language without knowing it; they endlessly debated the form and orthography of the characters; they involved themselves in petty debates, in order to dazzle their audience and to cover up their fundamental vacuity with the magic of their flashy sideshows. [pp. 281–282].

Thankfully, the moment is approaching when students with some energy and dedication can learn Chinese responsibly. This is thanks to the publication of the dictionary of the Franciscan father Basilio da Gemona (1648–1704), which de Guignes had ripped off and published under his own name. (Abel-Rémusat delicately skirts this issue, saying only that de Guignes “took the trouble to get it published.”) The creation of a chair of Chinese language and literature at the Royal College of France is also cause for some optimism.

Abel-Rémusat praises the work of the British Protestant missionaries, like Robert Morrison. But the British books published in India rarely circulate in Europe, so they are of little use. Abel-Rémusat appeals to the French spirit of competition with the British:

Les Anglais ont plus fait que nous dans ces derniers tems; car leurs travaux sur la langue chinoise sont maintenant au niveau des nôtres, et nous avons beaucoup à travailler pour soutenir la réputation de supériorité que nos missionnaires nous avaient acquise, et que W. Jones lui-même avait reconnue.

The British have done more than us recently; but their works on the Chinese language are still at the same level as ours, and we have much work to do to sustain the reputation of superiority which our missionaries have acquired for us, and which W[illiam] Jones himself recognized. [p. 284].

Abel-Rémusat calls for a greater spirit of cooperation and scholarly interchange. He gives a wonderful summary of the problems that Orientalists must work on together. It is a fantastic summary of the field as he sees it in 1822:

Tirer des livres chinois les matériaux d’un dictionnaire historique et géographique, comme la Bibliothèque orientale de d’Herbelot; compléter l’histoire de la Tartarie, du Tibet, de l’Inde au-delà du Gange, du Japon; étendre et rectifier nos connaissances géographiques sur l’intérieur de toutes ces contrées; traduire les livres sacrés de Bouddha, dont les originaux indiens sont vraisemblablement perdus, ceux des adorateurs du Logos (Taosse), que nos missionaires ont pour la plupart traités avec un dédain si injuste et sit mal-entendu; extraire des ouvrages encyclopédiques ou spéciaux les notions relatives à l’histoire naturelle, aux descriptions utiles, aux procédés mécaniques; faire connaître par des traductions complètes ou des analyses étendues les pièces de théâtre, les meilleurs romans, les recueils de poésie; voilà une partie de ce qu’il faudrait faire, et, j’ose le dire, de ce que nous ferons, si nos efforts, pour aplanir la route et ouvrir l’accès aux étudians, ne demeurent pas absolument infructueux.

To draw from Chinese books the materials for a historical and geographical dictionary, like the Oriental Library of d’Herbelot; to complete the history of Tartary, of Tibet, of India beyond the Ganges, of Japan; to extend and correct our geographic knowledge of the interior of all these countries; to translate the sacred texts of Buddha, of which the Indian originals are apparently lost, those of the lovers of the Logos (Taoists) which our missionaries have for the most part treated with such an unjust disdain and have poorly understood; to extract from encyclopedic or special works the concepts relevant for natural history, for useful descriptions, for mechanical procedures; to make known with complete translations or learned analyses the theatrical pieces, the better novels, the collections of poetry; this is one part of what we could accomplish, and, I dare to say, what we will accomplish, if our efforts to pave the way and open access to students do not prove completely unproductive. [p. 286–287].

Abel-Rémusat then speeds up his narrative, ticking off the recent accomplishments in Sinology as students have begun to learn Chinese. Many new geographical and historical facts stand out, but most striking is his claim that recent scholarship has shown that:

On a montré les principes pythagoriciens et platoniciens enseignés par leurs philosophes avant l’époque de Platon et de Pythagore, le nom ineffable de JEHOVAH, le dogme du Logos et celui de la triade platonique, j’ai presque dit le secret des mystères, dans un ouvrage chinois du cinquième siècle avant notre ère.

They have shown that Pythagorean and Platonic principles were taught by their philosophers before the age of Plato and Pythagoras, the ineffable name of JEHOVA, the dogma of the Logos and that of the Platonic Triad, I would almost say the secret of these mysteries, in a Chinese work of the fifth century BCE [p. 290].

This is a wonderful example of Abel-Rémusat’s creative reading of Taoist texts.

Abel-Rémusat closes his essay by reiterating how much progress has been made in the past ten years, and he hopes that soon the Chinese language will be generally known, just like Arabic or Persian.

Sur l’origine du papier-monnaie

2008-05-29T11:00:00Z

Julius von Klaproth. 1822. “Sur l’origine du papier-monnaie” Journal asiatique. November 1822. pp. 257–267.

This is a beautiful example of the caliber of Klaproth’s work. He reads Critisch-historische nebenstunden by August Ludwig von Schlözer, a star historian at Göttingen. Schlözer claims in this work that the Mongols invented paper money. Klaproth notes that contrary evidence had emerged some 60 years earlier, in Antoine Gaubil’s 1739 Histoire de Gentchiscan et de toute la dinastie des Mongous ses successeurs, conquérans de la Chine; tirée de l’histoire chinoise, et traduite.

Klaproth then proceeds to correct the record, sketching the history of Chinese paper currency by reading primary sources. He relies principally on the fifteenth-century Zīzhì tōngjiàn gāngmù xùbiān 資治通鑑綱目續編 in both Chinese and in Manchu translation. He also frequently refers to Mǎ Duānlín’s 馬端臨 Wénxiàn tōngkǎo 文獻通考.

Klaproth’s article includes an amusing note of special interest to Buddhologists. When discussing a copper shortage in the reign of Táng 唐 emperor Xiànzōng 憲宗, he notes: “La cause de la rareté du cuivre, qui se fit sentir si souvent en Chine, était principalement la fabrication d’une grande quantité d’images en bronze, représentant Foe et les saints de sa religion. Aussi voyait-on reparaitre le cuivre et la monnaie, après chaque persécution que cette religion essuyait en Chine” (pp. 259–260).

Dévouement de Viravar, morceau de l’Hitopadesa, traduit du Sanskrit

2008-05-27T15:02:54Z

Alexandre Langlois. 1822. “Dévouement de Viravar, morceau de l'Hitopadesa, traduit du Sanskrit” Journal asiatique. October 1822. pp. 239-243.

This is the sort of article that only could appear in an old journal of Oriental studies: it is a translation, almost entirely free of notes, of the eighth fable in the third book of the Hitopadeśa. Langlois does not tell the reader which Sanskrit source he is using. This would be useful to know, since he translates the name of King Śūdraka as Soubhraka. Langlois also translates Skt. suvarṇapañcaśatāni, “five hundred gold coins” as “Quatre pièces d'or par jour.” One wonders what on earth Langlois was reading.

In any case, there is something heartwarming about these old articles from the Journal Asiatique. Langlois' little translation is absolutely useless as scientific inquiry into the languages and literatures of the Orient. But it does render a charming story from the Hitopadeśa into readable French. Academic journals today exist for the specialist, but the Journal Asiatique could also appeal to the reading public. This is so much more civilized—and civilizing—than what we have today.

Extrait d'un second Mémoire sur les Relations politiques des Rois de France, avec les Empereurs Mongols (I)

2008-05-19T13:30:14Z

Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat. 1822. "Extrait d'un second Mémoire sur les Relations politiques des Rois de France, avec les Empereurs Mongols (I)" Journal asiatique. September 1822. pp. 129-141.

In this article Abel-Rémusat summarizes his research into French diplomatic relations with the Mongols in the thirteenth century. Abel-Rémusat believes that his research establishes definitively the Asiatic sources of critical modern technologies. He has determined the date of inventions (printing, playing cards, and artillery) in Asia and their routes to the Occident. Abel-Rémusat believes that interaction with the Mongols sped up scientific and cultural progress, and hastened the onset of modernity:

Qu'on se transporte au XIIIe. siècle, et qu'on juge, s'il est possible, de ce qu'eussent été les siècles suivans, privés de cette masse imposante d'idées nouvelles, qu'introduisit tout à coup en Europe le commerce de l'Asie orientale, en fait d'histoire et de géographie, d'opinions religieuses et politiques, de procédés scientificques et industriels! Si le résultat d'une pareille soustraction, comparé à la marche des époques précédentes du moyen âge, peut être évalué en temps, ce n'est pas trop d'assigner plusieurs siècles au développement spontané des connaissances que soixante années de communications firent éclore.

This is not unlike the argument that would be made by Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world some 180 years later.

Traduction d'une ode chinoise, tirée du Chi-king ou Livre des Vers

2008-05-18T19:18:48Z

Ernest Augustin Xavier Clerc de Landresse. 1822. "Traduction d'une ode chinoise, tirée du Chi-king ou Livre des Vers." Journal asiatique. August 1822. pp. 78-87.

Landresse takes up Shījīng 詩經 191, an ode of Jiāfù 家父 remonstrating the King of Zhōu 周. He paraphrases the poem in French, and gives a line-by-line rendering in Latin. Landresse gives some helpful advice to students of Chinese who are intimidated by the language's innumerable characters: all one really needs is two thousand characters for acceptable competence, and everything else can be accessed via dictionaries. He commends Abel-Rémusat for proving that Europeans can indeed acquire good reading knowledge of Chinese in a relatively brief time.

Landresse's method of Latin translation is fascinating: he attempts to do an ordered word-for-word translation, and when he uses more than one Latin word to render a Chinese character, he links the words with hyphens. Here is an example of his method:

節彼南山	Altus ille australis mons;
維石巖巖	Connectuntur lapides asperè, horrendum-in-modum,
赫赫師尹	Metuende, formidolose Chi-in
民具爾瞻	Populi omnes te inspiciunt

Indische Bibliothek, eine Zeitschrift

2008-05-18T06:12:17Z

Claude Charles Fauriel. 1822. "Indische Bibliothek, eine Zeitschrift, von Aug. Will. von Schlegel. Bonn. 1820-1822. Heft. I-III." Journal asiatique. July 1822. pp. 44-48.

Fauriel gives a brief and adulatory review of Schlegel's groundbreaking work. At the end of the review, he notes with astonishment that Schlegel went to the trouble to commission a custom Devanāgarī type at a type foundry in Paris.

Éléments de la grammaire chinoise

2008-05-18T02:48:25Z

Antoine Jean Saint-Martin. 1822. "Éléments de la grammaire chinoise, ou Principes généraux du Kou-wen, ou style antique, et du Kouan-hoa, c'est-à-dire de la langue commune généralement usitée dans l'empire chinois. Par M. Abel-Rémusat, de l'Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, professeur de langue et de littérature chinoises et tartares au Collège royal de France" Journal asiatique. July 1822. pp. 32-44.

Saint-Martin, a co-founder of the JA, reviews in the first issue the recent work of Abel-Rémusat, a co-founder of the JA. Today we would call this "bootstrapping."

Saint-Martin begins by noting that many missionaries have acquired practical language of Chinese, but the men of Europe have precious few resources on which to rely. He savages the grammar of Étienne Fourmont (1683-1745), probably referring to the Linguae Sinarum mandarinicae hieroglyphicae grammatica duplex, Latine, et cum characteribus Sinensium:

L'inintelligible Grammaire, publiée par Fourmont, est plutôt propre à égarer qu'à instruire, quand bien même on serait sûr de la comprendre parfaitement; et peut-être sans injustice doit-on considérer cet ouvrage comme une des principales causes qui ont contribué à tant retarder jusqu'à nos jours les progrès qu'on aurait pu faire dans l'étude du Chinois. Il vaut mieux effectivement être sans guide, que d'en avoir un qui vous induise en erreur.

Far better were some 30 pages with unrefined grammatical hypotheses buried in the middle of the 1703 work Arte de la lengua mandarina by Francisco Varo (1627-1687). These were, claims Saint-Martin, the only credible explorations of Chinese grammar in a European tongue until Joshua Marshman's 1814 Elements of Chinese grammar and Robert Morrison's 1815 A grammar of the Chinese language. Even these British works were not "vraies grammaires"; they were useful works for interpreters and merchants.

A major source of error for all these European grammars is their over-reliance on native testimony:

Ce que je dis là n'est pas particulier aux Chinois; c'est une grande erreur de croire qu'il faille s'adresser aux indigènes de l'Orient, pour en obtenir des notions utiles sur le mécanisme de leur langue. Comment pourraient-ils enseigner la grammaire, quand ils ignorent même l'existence de cette science? Aussi, tous les ouvrages grammaticaux qu'ils ont publiés pour l'instruction des Européens, sont-ils tous mauvais ou inutiles.

Saint-Martin praises Abel-Rémusat for composing a grammar based on the study of Chinese literature as well as of Chinese speech, and he lauds the work for its scientific rigor.