Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1With all this nonsense, the composite commentary is a good one, the work, evidently, of one hand. One of several recommendatory Prefaces is ascribed to Wan Khang, the god of Literature ; and he specially praises the work, as ‘explaining the meaning by examination of the Text.’ Fifth, a ‘Collection of the Most Important Treatises of the Taoist Fathers (Tao 3 Kan Kwan Ki Y4o).’ This was reprinted in 1877 at K/ang-kau in Kiang-sd; beginning with the Tao Teh A ing, and ending with the Kan Ying Phien. Between these there are fourteen other Treatises, mostly short, five of them being among Mr. Balfour’s ‘ Taoist Texts.’ The Collection was edited by a La Yii; and the Commentary selected by him, in all but the last Treatise, was by a Li Hsi-yiieh, who appears to have been a recluse in a monastery on a mountain in the department of Pdo-ning, Sze-kAwan, if, indeed, what is said of him be not entirely fabulous. Sixth, the Commentary on the Tao Teh Xing, by Wi Khang (A.D. 1249-1333) of Lin Kwan. This has been of the highest service to me. Wt Aang was the greatest of the Yiian scholars. He is one of the Literati quoted from occasionally by 3i40 Hung in his ‘ Wings ;’ but by no means so extensively as Julien supposes (Observations Détachées, p. xli). My own copy of his work is in the 12th Section of the large Collection of the ‘ Yiieh-y4 Hall, published in 1853. Writing of Wai Kang in 1865 (Proleg. to the Sha, p. 36), I said that he was ‘a bold thinker and a daring critic, handling his text with a freedom which I had not seen in any other Chinese scholar. The subsequent study of his writings has confirmed me in this opinion of him. Perhaps he might be characterised as an independent, rather than as a bold, thinker, and the daring [39] b XVili PREFACE. of his criticism must not be supposed to be without caution. (See Introd., p. 9.) The Writings of AKwang-jze have been studied by foreigners still less than the Treatise of Ldo-jze. When I undertook in 1879 to translate them, no version of them had been published. In 1881, however, there appeared at Shanghai Mr. Balfour’s ‘The Divine Classic of Nan-hua (Introd., pp. 11, 12), being the Works of Chuang Tsze, Taoist Philosopher. It was a ‘bold’ undertaking in Mr. Balfour thus to commence his translations of Chinese Books with one of the most difficult of them. I fancy that he was himself convinced of this, and that his undertaking had been ‘too bold, by the criticism to which his work was subjected in the China Review by Mr. Giles. Nevertheless, it was no small achievement to be the first to endeavour to lift up the veil from Kwang-3ze. Even a first translation, though imperfect, is not without benefit to others who come after, and are able to do better. In preparing the draft of my own version, which draft was finished in April, 1887, I made frequent reference to the volume of Mr. Balfour.
2Even a first translation, though imperfect, is not without benefit to others who come after, and are able to do better. In preparing the draft of my own version, which draft was finished in April, 1887, I made frequent reference to the volume of Mr. Balfour. Having exposed the errors of Mr. Balfour, Mr. Giles proceeded to make a version of his own, which was published last year in London, with the title of ‘CHUANG TzU, Mystic, Moralist, and Social Reformer.’ It was not, however, till I was well through with the revision of my draft version, that I supplied myself with a copy of his volume. I did not doubt that Mr. Giles’s translation would be well and tersely done, and I preferred to do my own work independently and without the help which he would have afforded me. In carrying my sheets through the press, I have often paused over my rendering of a passage to compare it with his ; and I have pleasure in acknowledging the merits of his version. The careful and competent reader will see and form his own judgment on passages and points where we differ. Before describing the editions of Kwang-jze which I PREFACE, xix have consulted, I must not omit to mention Professor Gabelentz’s ‘ Treatise on the Speech or Style of Kwang-jze,’ as ‘a Contribution to Chinese Grammar,’ published at Leipzig in 1888. It has been a satisfaction to me to find myself on almost every point of usage in agreement with the views of so able a Chinese scholar. The works which I employed in preparing my version have been :— First, ‘The True King of Nan-hwa,’ in ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers, which has been described above. The Commentary which it supplies is that of Kwo Hsiang (Introd., pp. 9, 10), with ‘ The Sounds and Meanings of the Characters’ from Ld Teh Ming’s ‘ Explanations of the Terms and Phrases of the Classics,’ of our seventh century. As in the case of the Tao Teh Xing, the Ming editor has introduced at the top of his pages a selection of comments and notes from a great variety of scholars down to his own time. Second, ‘ Helps (Wings) to Kwang-jze by 3i4o Hung,’— a kindred work to the one with a similar title on Lao-3ze; by the same author, and prefaced by him in 1588. The two works are constructed on the same lines. 3ido draws his materials from forty-eight authorities, from Kwo Hsiang to himself. He divides the several Books also into paragraphs, more or fewer according to their length, and the variety of subjects in them; and my version follows him in this lead with little or no change. He has two concluding Books; the one containing a collation of various readings, and the other a collection of articles on the history and genius of Awang-jze, and different passages of his Text.
3He has two concluding Books; the one containing a collation of various readings, and the other a collection of articles on the history and genius of Awang-jze, and different passages of his Text. Third, the Kwang-3ze Hsiieh or ‘ Kwang-3ze made like Snow,’ equivalent to our ‘A wang-3ze Elucidated;’ by a La Shia-4ih of Canton province, written in 1796. The different Books are preceded by a short summary of their subject-matter. The work goes far to fulfil the promise of its title. Fourth, Kwang-jze Yin, meaning ‘The Train of b2 XX PREFACE, Thought in AKwang-jze Traced in its Phraseology.’ My copy is a reprint, in 1880, of the Commentary of Lin Hsi-Zung, who lived from the Ming into the present dynasty, under the editorship of a La Ahi-wang of KiangsQ province. The style is clear and elegant, but rather more concise than that of the preceding work. It leaves out the four disputed Books (XXVIII to XXXI); but all the others are followed by an elaborate discussion of their scope and plan. Fifth, ‘The Nan-hwé Classic of Kwang-3ze Explained,’ published in 1621, by a Hsiian Ving or 3ung (‘Er $4, ‘B. FA; the name is printed throughout the book, now in one of these ways, now in the other), called also Mau-kung. The commentary is carefully executed and ingenious; but my copy of the book is so incorrectly printed that it can only be used with caution. Mr. Balfour appears to have made his version mainly from the same edition of the work; and some of his grossest errors pointed out by Mr. Giles arose from his accepting without question the misprints of his authority. Sixth, ‘Independent Views of Kwang-3ze CHE F- Fi A)’ —by Ho Wan-ying, published in 1751. Occasionally, the writer pauses over a passage, which, he thinks, has defied all preceding students, and suggests the right explanation of it, or leaves it as inexplicable. It only remains for me to refer to the Repertories of ‘ Elegant Extracts,’ called by the Chinese K 4 Wan, which abound in their literature, and where the masterpieces of composition are elucidated with more or less of critical detail and paraphrase. I have consulted nearly a dozen of these collections, and would mention my indebtedness especially to that called Méi Awan, which discusses passages from twelve of Kwang-3ze’s books. When consulting the editions of Lin Hsi-Zung and La Sha-fih, the reader is surprised by the frequency with which they refer to the ‘old explanations’ as ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory, often as ‘absurd, or ‘ridiculous, and he PREFACE. Xx1
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1With all this nonsense, the composite commentary is a good one, the work, evidently, of one hand. One of several recommendatory Prefaces is ascribed to Wan Khang, the god of Literature ; and he specially praises the work, as ‘explaining the meaning by examination of the Text.’ Fifth, a ‘Collection of the Most Important Treatises of the Taoist Fathers (Tao 3 Kan Kwan Ki Y4o).’ This was reprinted in 1877 at K/ang-kau in Kiang-sd; beginning with the Tao Teh A ing, and ending with the Kan Ying Phien. Between these there are fourteen other Treatises, mostly short, five of them being among Mr. Balfour’s ‘ Taoist Texts.’ The Collection was edited by a La Yii; and the Commentary selected by him, in all but the last Treatise, was by a Li Hsi-yiieh, who appears to have been a recluse in a monastery on a mountain in the department of Pdo-ning, Sze-kAwan, if, indeed, what is said of him be not entirely fabulous. Sixth, the Commentary on the Tao Teh Xing, by Wi Khang (A.D. 1249-1333) of Lin Kwan. This has been of the highest service to me. Wt Aang was the greatest of the Yiian scholars. He is one of the Literati quoted from occasionally by 3i40 Hung in his ‘ Wings ;’ but by no means so extensively as Julien supposes (Observations Détachées, p. xli). My own copy of his work is in the 12th Section of the large Collection of the ‘ Yiieh-y4 Hall, published in 1853. Writing of Wai Kang in 1865 (Proleg. to the Sha, p. 36), I said that he was ‘a bold thinker and a daring critic, handling his text with a freedom which I had not seen in any other Chinese scholar. The subsequent study of his writings has confirmed me in this opinion of him. Perhaps he might be characterised as an independent, rather than as a bold, thinker, and the daring [39] b XVili PREFACE. of his criticism must not be supposed to be without caution. (See Introd., p. 9.) The Writings of AKwang-jze have been studied by foreigners still less than the Treatise of Ldo-jze. When I undertook in 1879 to translate them, no version of them had been published. In 1881, however, there appeared at Shanghai Mr. Balfour’s ‘The Divine Classic of Nan-hua (Introd., pp. 11, 12), being the Works of Chuang Tsze, Taoist Philosopher. It was a ‘bold’ undertaking in Mr. Balfour thus to commence his translations of Chinese Books with one of the most difficult of them. I fancy that he was himself convinced of this, and that his undertaking had been ‘too bold, by the criticism to which his work was subjected in the China Review by Mr. Giles. Nevertheless, it was no small achievement to be the first to endeavour to lift up the veil from Kwang-3ze. Even a first translation, though imperfect, is not without benefit to others who come after, and are able to do better. In preparing the draft of my own version, which draft was finished in April, 1887, I made frequent reference to the volume of Mr. Balfour.
2Even a first translation, though imperfect, is not without benefit to others who come after, and are able to do better. In preparing the draft of my own version, which draft was finished in April, 1887, I made frequent reference to the volume of Mr. Balfour. Having exposed the errors of Mr. Balfour, Mr. Giles proceeded to make a version of his own, which was published last year in London, with the title of ‘CHUANG TzU, Mystic, Moralist, and Social Reformer.’ It was not, however, till I was well through with the revision of my draft version, that I supplied myself with a copy of his volume. I did not doubt that Mr. Giles’s translation would be well and tersely done, and I preferred to do my own work independently and without the help which he would have afforded me. In carrying my sheets through the press, I have often paused over my rendering of a passage to compare it with his ; and I have pleasure in acknowledging the merits of his version. The careful and competent reader will see and form his own judgment on passages and points where we differ. Before describing the editions of Kwang-jze which I PREFACE, xix have consulted, I must not omit to mention Professor Gabelentz’s ‘ Treatise on the Speech or Style of Kwang-jze,’ as ‘a Contribution to Chinese Grammar,’ published at Leipzig in 1888. It has been a satisfaction to me to find myself on almost every point of usage in agreement with the views of so able a Chinese scholar. The works which I employed in preparing my version have been :— First, ‘The True King of Nan-hwa,’ in ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers, which has been described above. The Commentary which it supplies is that of Kwo Hsiang (Introd., pp. 9, 10), with ‘ The Sounds and Meanings of the Characters’ from Ld Teh Ming’s ‘ Explanations of the Terms and Phrases of the Classics,’ of our seventh century. As in the case of the Tao Teh Xing, the Ming editor has introduced at the top of his pages a selection of comments and notes from a great variety of scholars down to his own time. Second, ‘ Helps (Wings) to Kwang-jze by 3i4o Hung,’— a kindred work to the one with a similar title on Lao-3ze; by the same author, and prefaced by him in 1588. The two works are constructed on the same lines. 3ido draws his materials from forty-eight authorities, from Kwo Hsiang to himself. He divides the several Books also into paragraphs, more or fewer according to their length, and the variety of subjects in them; and my version follows him in this lead with little or no change. He has two concluding Books; the one containing a collation of various readings, and the other a collection of articles on the history and genius of Awang-jze, and different passages of his Text.
3He has two concluding Books; the one containing a collation of various readings, and the other a collection of articles on the history and genius of Awang-jze, and different passages of his Text. Third, the Kwang-3ze Hsiieh or ‘ Kwang-3ze made like Snow,’ equivalent to our ‘A wang-3ze Elucidated;’ by a La Shia-4ih of Canton province, written in 1796. The different Books are preceded by a short summary of their subject-matter. The work goes far to fulfil the promise of its title. Fourth, Kwang-jze Yin, meaning ‘The Train of b2 XX PREFACE, Thought in AKwang-jze Traced in its Phraseology.’ My copy is a reprint, in 1880, of the Commentary of Lin Hsi-Zung, who lived from the Ming into the present dynasty, under the editorship of a La Ahi-wang of KiangsQ province. The style is clear and elegant, but rather more concise than that of the preceding work. It leaves out the four disputed Books (XXVIII to XXXI); but all the others are followed by an elaborate discussion of their scope and plan. Fifth, ‘The Nan-hwé Classic of Kwang-3ze Explained,’ published in 1621, by a Hsiian Ving or 3ung (‘Er $4, ‘B. FA; the name is printed throughout the book, now in one of these ways, now in the other), called also Mau-kung. The commentary is carefully executed and ingenious; but my copy of the book is so incorrectly printed that it can only be used with caution. Mr. Balfour appears to have made his version mainly from the same edition of the work; and some of his grossest errors pointed out by Mr. Giles arose from his accepting without question the misprints of his authority. Sixth, ‘Independent Views of Kwang-3ze CHE F- Fi A)’ —by Ho Wan-ying, published in 1751. Occasionally, the writer pauses over a passage, which, he thinks, has defied all preceding students, and suggests the right explanation of it, or leaves it as inexplicable. It only remains for me to refer to the Repertories of ‘ Elegant Extracts,’ called by the Chinese K 4 Wan, which abound in their literature, and where the masterpieces of composition are elucidated with more or less of critical detail and paraphrase. I have consulted nearly a dozen of these collections, and would mention my indebtedness especially to that called Méi Awan, which discusses passages from twelve of Kwang-3ze’s books. When consulting the editions of Lin Hsi-Zung and La Sha-fih, the reader is surprised by the frequency with which they refer to the ‘old explanations’ as ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory, often as ‘absurd, or ‘ridiculous, and he PREFACE. Xx1
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.