Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:08:58.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buddhism and the Rise of the Written Vernacular in East Asia: The Making of National Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2010

Victor H. Mair
Get access

Extract

The vast majority of premodern chinese literature, certainly all of the most famous works of the classical tradition, were composed in one form or another of Literary Sinitic (hereafter LS, wen-yen[-wen], also often somewhat ambiguously called “Classical Chinese” or “Literary Chinese”). Beginning in the medieval period, however, an undercurrent of written Vernacular Sinitic (hereafter VS, pai-hua[-wen]) started to develop. The written vernacular came to full maturity in China only with the May Fourth Movement of 1919, after the final collapse during the 1911 revolution of the dynastic, bureaucratic institutions that had governed China for more than two millennia. It must be pointed out that the difference between wen-yen and pai-hua is at least as great as that between Latin and Italian or between Sanskrit and Hindi. In my estimation, a thorough linguistical analysis would show that unadulterated wen-yen and pure pai-hua are actually far more dissimilar than are Latin and Italian or Sanskrit and Hindi. In fact, I believe that wen-yen and pai-hua belong to wholly different categories of language, the former being a sort of demicryptography largely divorced from speech and the latter sharing a close correspondence with spoken forms of living Sinitic.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 707 - 751
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Along the Ancient Silk Routes: Central Asian Art from the West Berlin State Museums. 1982. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Alsdorf. 1980. “Ardha-Māgadhī.” In Bechert, Heinz, ed., Die Sprache der āltesten buddhistischen Ūberlieferung, pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
Pratoom, Angurarohita. 1989. “Buddhist Influence on the Neo-Confucian Concept of the Sage.” Sino-Platonic Papers 10 (June).Google Scholar
Muralydhar, Banerjee. 1931. The Deśīnāmamālāof Hemacandra. Part I-Text with Readings, Introduction and Index of Words. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.Google Scholar
Heinz, Bechert, ed. 1980. Die Sprache der āltesten buddhistischen Ūberlieferung/The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition. Symposium zur Buddhismusforschung, II. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gōttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, dritte Folge, Nu. 117. Gōttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Hristopher I. 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judith, Berling. 1987. “Bringing the Buddha Down to Earth: Notes on the Emergence of Yū-lu as a Buddhist Genre.” History of Religions 27.1 (August): 56–88.Google Scholar
Ernest, Bender. 1991. Personal communications (February).Google Scholar
Bhayani, Harivallabh C. 1966. Studies in Hemacandra's Deśīnāmamālā. Parshvanath Vidyashram Research Institute. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University.Google Scholar
George, Bond. 1982. The Word of the Buddha. Colombo: M. D. Gunasena.Google Scholar
John, Brough. 1949-1950. “Thus Have I Heard…” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 13.2:416–26.Google Scholar
John, Brough. 1961. “A Kharosthī Inscription from China.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 24:517–30, plus 1 plate.Google Scholar
John, Brough. 1980. “Sakāya [sic] Niruttiyā: Cauld kale het.” In Bechert, Heinz, ed., Die Sprache der āltesten buddhistischen Ūberlieferung, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
Ch'En, Kenneth K. S. 1964. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsien-Lin, Chi (also transcribed as CHI HSIAN-LIN, DSCHI HIĀN-LIN, and JI XIANLIN). 1947. “On the oldest Chinese transliterations of the name of Buddha.” Sino-Indian Studies 3.1–2 (April and July): 1-9.Google Scholar
Hsien-Lin, Chi. 1956. “T'u-huo-lo-yū te fa-hsien yū k'ao-shih chi ch'i tsai Chung-Yin wen-hua chiao-liu chung te tso-yung (The Tokharian Language: Its Discovery and Decipherment and Its Role in the Cultural Relations between India and China).” Yū-yen yen-chiu (Linguistic Researches) 1:297–307.Google Scholar
Hsien-Lin, Chi. 1959. “Tsai lun yūan-shih Fo-chiao te yū-yen wen-t'i (A Re-examination of the Language Problem of Primitive Buddhism).” Yū-yen yen-chiu (Linguistic Researches) 4:87–105.Google Scholar
Hsien-Lin, Chi. 1990. “Tsai t'an Fu-t'u yū Fo (More about the Chinese Terms 'Fu Tu and 'Fo').” Li-shih yen-chiu [Studies on History] 2:3–11.Google Scholar
Hye-Bong, Ch'ŌN. 1993. “Typography in Korea: Birthplace of Moveable Metal Type.” Koreana 7.2 (Summer): 10–19.Google Scholar
Chu, Ch'Ing-Chih. 1990. “Fo-tien yū chung-ku Han-yū tz'u-hui yen-chiu [A Study of the Relationship between Buddhist Scriptures and the Vocabulary of Middle Sinitic].” Ph.D. diss. Chengtu: Szechwan University, Department of Chinese. Published in Taiwan with the same Chinese title (English title: Study of the relationship between Buddhist scriptures and the vocabulary of medieval Chinese) as part of the Ta-lu ti-ch'ū po-shih lun-wen ts'ung-k'an [Mainland Region Doctoral Dissertations Series]. Taipei: Wen-chin ch'u-pan-she, 1992.Google Scholar
Chung, Won L. 1991. “Hangeul and Computing.” In Mair, Victor H. and Liu, Yongquan, eds., Characters and Computers. Amsterdam, Oxford, Washington, and Tokyo: IOS Press, pp. 146–79.Google Scholar
Chung-kuo ta pai-k'e-ch'ūan-shu [The Great Chinese Encyclopedia]. Yū-yen wen-tzu [Language and Script]. Peking and Shanghai: Chung-kuo ta pai-k'e-ch'ūan-shu, 1988.Google Scholar
Florian, Coulmas. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cowell, E. B. 1854. The Prākrta-prakāśa, or the Prākrt Grammar of Vararuchi, with the Commentary (Manoramā) of Bhāmaha. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1962. First edition, Hertford, 1854; second edition, London, 1868.Google Scholar
John, Defrancis. 1978. Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam. Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 19. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
John, Defrancis. 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
John, Defrancis. 1991. Letter of March 17.Google Scholar
Albert, Dien. 1991. “A New Look at the Xianbei and their Impact on Chinese Culture.” In Kuwayama, George, ed., Ancient Mortuary Traditions of China: Papers on Chinese Ceramic Funerary Sculptures. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, pp. 40–59.Google Scholar
David, Diringer. 1962. Writing. Ancient Peoples and Places, 25. London: Thames and Hudson; rpt., 1965.Google Scholar
Dobson, W. A. C. H. 1974. A Dictionary of the Chinese Particles: with a prolegomenon in which the problems of the particles are considered and they are classified by their grammatical functions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Edgerton. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Walter, Fuchs. 1930. “Zur technischen Organisation der Ūbersetzungen buddhistischer Schriften ins Chinesische.” Asia Major 6:84–103.Google Scholar
Gardner, Daniel K. 1991. “Modes of Thinking and Modes of Discourse in the Sung: Some Thoughts on the Yū-lu ('Recorded Conversations') Texts.” The Journal of Asian Studies 50.3 (August):574–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Gernet. 1956. Les aspects economiques du Bouddhisme dans la société chinoise du V' au X' siècle. Publications de I'École franςaise d'Extrême-Orient, 39. Saigon: êcole franςhise d'Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar
GÓMez, Louis O. 1987. “Buddhist Views of Language.” In Eliade, Mircea, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan. Vol. 8, pp. 446–51.Google Scholar
Goodrich, , Carrington, L.. 1960. “Two Notes on Early Printing in China.” In Hariyappa, H. L., ed., Professor P. K. Gode Commemoration Volume. Poona Oriental Series, 93. Poona: Oriental Book Agency, pp. 117–20.Google Scholar
Gurevich, I. S. 1985. “Eschē Raz o Byan'ven'… (zametki).” In Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni Institut Vostokovedeniya, Leningradskoe Otdelenie, Pis'menn'ie Pamyatniki i Problem'i Istorii Kul'tur'i Narodov Vostoka. XVIII Godichnaya Nauchnaya Sessiya lo IV AN SSSR (Doklad'i i Soobschenniya, 1983-85), part 3. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 96–101.Google Scholar
Habein, Yaeko Sato. 1984. The History of the Japanese Written Language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Hannas, William Carl. 1988. “The Simplification of Chinese Character-Based Writing.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hannas, William Carl. 1993. “Korea's Attempts to Eliminate Chinese Characters and the Implications for Romanizing Chinese.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Chad, Hansen. 1993a. “Chinese Ideographs and Western Ideas.” The Journal of Asian Studies 52.2 (May):373–99.Google Scholar
Hannas, William Carl. 1993b. Reply to J. Marshall Unger. The Journal of Asian Studies 52.4 (November):954–57.Google Scholar
Hartwell, Robert M., and Hartwell, Marianne C.. 1991a. Executive Finance and State Council, “Notes and Documentation.” Philadelphia: electronic database.Google Scholar
Hartwell, Robert M. 1991b. Personal communications (February 18 and 21, 1991).Google Scholar
HinŪBer, V.Oskar, . 1986. Das āltere Mittelindisch im Ūberblick. Ōsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte.467. Band. Vienna: Verlag der Ōsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
HinŪBer, V., Oskar, . 1990. Der Beginn der Schrift und frūhe Schriftlichkeit in Indien. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1989, Nr. 11. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Esp. section V (pp. 22-25) on the oral origins of the earliest Buddhist texts.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Frank J. 1990. “Evaṃ me sutaṁ: Oral Tradition in Nikāya Buddhism.” Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Conference on South Asia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, November 2-4. 34 pages. Published with the same title in a shortened and revised form in Timm, Jeffrey R., ed., Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992, pp. 195–219.Google Scholar
Yoshitaka, Iriya. 1961. “Tonkō henbun shū” kōgo goi sakuin [Index of Colloquial Expressions in “Tun-huang pien-wen chi”]. Kyoto: privately printed.Google Scholar
Yoshitaka, Iriya. 1985. “Tonkō henbun shū” kōgo goi ho-i [Supplement of Colloquial Expressions in “Tun-huang pien-wen chi”], I. Kyoto: privately printed.Google Scholar
Hans, Jensen. 1969. Sign, Symbol and Script: An Account of Man's Effort to Write. Third revised and enlarged edition; translated from the German by George Unwin. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Kajiyama, Y. 1977. “Thus Spoke the Blessed One…” In Lancaster, Lewis, ed., Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honour of Edward Conze. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Kao, Ming-K'Ai. 1948. “T'ang-tai ch'an-chia yū-lu so chien te yū-fa ch'eng-fen [Grammatical Elements Observed in Zen Records of Conversations from the T'ang Period].” Yen-ching hsūeh-pao [Yenching Journal] 34:49–84.Google Scholar
Young-Key, Kim-Renaud, ed. 1992. King Sejong the Great: The Light of Fifteenth-Century Korea. Washington, D.C.: The International Circle of Korean Linguistics.Google Scholar
ÉTienne, Lamotte. 1958. Histoire du bouddhisme indien, des origines ā I'ère Śaka. Bibliothèque du Muséon, 43. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Institut Orientaliste.Google Scholar
Ledyard, Gari Keith. 1966. “The Korean Language Reform of 1446: The Origin, Background, and Early History of the Korean Alphabet.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ledyard, Gari Keith. 1992a. “The International Linguistic Background of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People.” Unpublished paper, 74 pp.Google Scholar
Ledyard, Gari Keith. 1992b. Letter of October 6.Google Scholar
Peter, Lee. 1959. Studies in the Saenaennorae: Old Korean Poetry. Serie orientale Roma, 22. Rome: Istituto italiano peril Medio ed Estremo Oriente.Google Scholar
Peter, Lee. 1961. “The Importance of the Kyunyŏ chŏn (1075) in Korean Buddhism and Literature-Bhadra-cari-pranidhāna in Tenth-Century Korea.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 81.4 (December):409-14.Google Scholar
Marian, Lewicki. 1949. La Langue mongole des transcriptions chinoises du XIV siècle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389. Travaux de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Wrocław, ser. A, 29. Wrocław: Nakładem Wroławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego.Google Scholar
Chin-Hsi, Li. 1934. Kuo-yū yūn-tung shih kang [Outline History of the National Language Movement]. Shanghai: Commercial.Google Scholar
Louis, Ligeti. 1970. “Le Tabghatch, un dialecte de la langue Sien-pi.” In Ligeti, Louis, ed., Mongolian Studies. Bibliotheca Orientalia Hungarica, 14. Amsterdam: B. A. Grūner, pp. 265–308.Google Scholar
Lin, Li-Kouang. 1949. I'Aide-mémoire de la vraie loi (Saddharma-smrtyupasthāna sūtra): Introduction au compendium de la loi (Dharma-samuccaya). Recherches sur un Sūtra Développé du Petit Véhicule. Publications du Musée Guimet, Bibliothéque d'Études, 54. Paris: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1983. Tun-huang Popular Narratives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1986. “Oral and Written Aspects of Chinese Sutra Lectures (chiang-chingwen).” Han-hsūeh yen-chiu (Chinese Studies) 4.2 (cumulative 8) (December): 311–34.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1988. Painting and Performance: Chinese Picture Recitation and Its Indian Genesis. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1989. T'ang Transformation Texts: A Study of the Buddhist Contribution to the Rise of Vernacular Fiction and Drama in China. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series, 28. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Council on East Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1990. “[The] File {on the Cosmic] Track [and Individual] Dough[tiness]: Introduction and Notes for a Translation of the Ma-wang-tui Manuscripts of the Lao Tzu [Old Master].” Sino-Platonic Papers 20 (October).Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1991. “What Is a Sinitic 'Dialect/Topolect'? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic Terms.” Sino-Platonic Papers 29 (September).Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1992a. “Two Papers on Sinolinguistics: 1. A Hypothesis Concerning the Origin of the Term fanqie ('Countertomy'); 2. East Asian Round-Trip Words.” Sino-Platonic Papers 34 (October).Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1992b. “Script and Word in Medieval Vernacular Sinitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112.2:269–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1993. “Cheng Ch'iao's Understanding of Sanskrit: The Concept of Spelling in China.” A Festschrift in Honour of Professor Jao Tsung-i on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Anniversary. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, pp. 331–41.Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H., and Mei, Tsu-Lin. 1991. “The Sanskrit Origins of Recent Style Prosody.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 51.2 (December):375–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henri, Maspero. 1914. “Sur quelques textes anciens de Chinois parlé.” Bulletin de I'École Franςaise d'Extrême-Orient 14.4:1-36. Translated into English as “On Some Texts of Ancient Spoken Chinese” by Yoshitaka Iriya, Ruth F. Sasaki, and Burton Watson. Kyoto: privately circulated, 1954.Google Scholar
Henri, Maspero. 1934. “Les origines de la communauté bouddhiste de Lo-yang.” Journal Asiatique 225 (July-December):87–107.Google Scholar
Mather, Richard B. 1990. “Translating Six Dynasties 'Colloquialisms' into English: The Shih-shuo hsin-yū.” Paper delivered at the International Conference on the Translation of Chinese Literature, organizedj by the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Taiwan University, held at the National Central Library (Taipei, Taiwan), November 16–18.Google Scholar
Mather, Richard B. 1991. Letter of March 17.Google Scholar
Mei, Tsu-Lin. 1980. “San-ch'aopei-meng hui-pien li te pai-hua tzu-liao [Vernacular Materials in the Compendium of Northern Treaties of Three Emperors (1117-62)].” Chung-kuo shu-mu chi-k'an (Bibliography Quarterly) 14.2 (September):27–52.Google Scholar
Mei, Tsu-Lin. 1992a. Letter of October 8.Google Scholar
Mei, Tsu-Lin. 1992b. “Vernacular Texts in Historical Context, 750-1200; Some Further Thoughts on the Yū-lu Form.” Unpublished manuscript, 14 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1967. The Japanese Language. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Antoine, Mostaert. 1977. Le Matérial Mongol du Hua i i iu de Houng-ou (1389). Edited by Rachewiltz, Igor De, with the assistance of Anthony Schōnbaum. Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, 18. Brussels: Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1977.Google Scholar
Nattier, Jan. 1990. “Church Language and Vernacular Language in Central Asian Buddhism.” Numen 37.2 (December): 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jan, Nattier. 1991. Letter of March 13.Google Scholar
Ni, Hai-Shu. 1948. Chung-kuo p'in-yin wen-tzu kai-lun [Introduction to the Chinese Phonetic Script]. Shanghai: Shih-tai shu-pao.Google Scholar
Jerry, Norman. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tatsuo, Ohta [ŌTa]. 1958. Chūgokugo rekishi bunpō (A Historical Grammar of Modern Chinese). Tokyo: Kōnan shoin.Google Scholar
Tatsuo, Ohta [ŌTa]. 1988. Chūgokugo shi tsūkō (A Historical Study of Chinese Language). Tokyo: Hakutei sha.Google Scholar
Peake, Cyrus H. 1939. “Additional Notes and Bibliography on the History of Printing in the Far East.” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, ed. Ruppel, A.. Mainz: Gutenberg-Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Paul, Pelliot. 1929. “Neuf notes sur des questions d'Asie Central.” T'oung Pao 26.4-5:201–65.Google Scholar
Pischel, R., ed. 1938. The Deśināmamālā of Hemachandra. Second edition by Paravastu Venkata Ramanujaswami. Bombay Sanskrit Series, 17. Bombay: The Department of Public Instruction.Google Scholar
Michael, Pye. 1978. Skilful Means: A Concept in Mahayana Buddhism. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Robert, S.. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, , Robert, S.. 1991. “The Polysemy of the Term Kokugo.” In Mair, Victor H., ed., Schriftfestschrift: Essays on Writing and Language in Honor of John De Francis on His Eightieth Birthday. Sino-Platonic Papers 27 (August 31):37–47.Google Scholar
Ramsey, , Robert, S.. 1992. “The Korean Alphabet.” In Kim-Reynaud, ed., King Sejong the Great, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
Ramsey, , Robert, S.. 1993. “The Japanese Language in Japan.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Henry, Rosemont JR. 1974. “On Representing Abstractions in Archaic Chinese.” Philosophy East and West 24.1 (January):71–88.Google Scholar
Christopher, Seeley. 1991. A History of Writing in Japan. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Silk, Jonathan A. 1989. “A Note on the Opening Formula of Buddhist Sūtras.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 12.1:158–63.Google Scholar
Sofronov, M. V. 1991. “Chinese Philology and the Scripts of Central Asia.” Sino-Platonic Papers 30 (October).Google Scholar
Lien, Sung, et al. 1976. Yūan shih [History of Yuan Dynasty]. 15 vols. Peking: Chung-hua.Google Scholar
Takakusu, J. 1901. “Tales of the Wise Man and the Fool, in Tibetan and Chinese.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (July 15):447–60.Google Scholar
Tokio, Takata. 1993. “Chibetto moji shosha 'Chōkan' no kinkyū (honbun hen) [Studies on the 'Long Scroll' in Tibetan Transcription {Text}].” Tōhō gakuhō (Journal of Oriental Studies) (Kyoto), 65 (March):313–80, plus 13 plates.Google Scholar
Li-Fen, Tuan. 1989. “Tsui-tsao ch'u-hsien hsi-tz'u 'shih' te ti-hsia tzu-liao [The Earliest Excavated Material for the Copula shih].” Yū-wen t'ien-ti [The World of Language and Script] 6 (January): 19–21.Google Scholar
Marshall, Unger J.. 1993. Communication to the Editor. The Journal of Asian Studies, 52.4 (November):949–54.Google Scholar
Van, Gulik R. H. 1956. Siddham: An Essay on the History of Sanskrit Studies in China and Japan. Nagpur: International Academy of Indian Culture.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walker. 1968. Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. 2 vols. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983. First published by George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, Watters. 1889. Essays on the Chinese Language. Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Wei, et al. 1973. Sui shu [History of the Sui Dynasty]. 6 vols. Peking: Chung-hua.Google Scholar
Yuan, Wei. Sheng-wu chi. Ssu-pu pei-yao ed.Google Scholar
Wright, Arthur F. 1957. “Buddhism and Chinese Culture: Phases of Interaction.” The Journal of Asian Studies 17.1 (November): 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Arthur F. 1971. Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959; rev. ed.Google Scholar
Yang, Paul Fu-Mien. 1989. “The Portuguese-Chinese Dictionary of Matteo Ricci: A Historical and Linguistic Introduction.” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Sinology. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Vol. 1 of the Section on Language and Script, pp. 191–242.Google Scholar
Youguang, Zhou. 1991. “The Family of Chinese Character-Type Scripts (Twenty Members and Four Stages of Development).” Sino-Platonic Papers 28 (September).Google Scholar
ZŪrcher, E. 1972. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, rpt. with additions and corrections.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZŪrcher, E. 1977. “Late Han Vernacular Elements in the Earliest Buddhist Translations.” Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 12.3 (October): 177–201.Google Scholar
ZŪRcher, E. 1980. “Buddhist Influence on Early Taoism.” T'oung Pao 66.1-3:84–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZŪRcher, E. 1990. “Han Buddhism and the Western Regions.” In Idema, W. L. and ZūRcher, E., eds., Thought and Law in Qin and Han China: Studies dedicated to Anthony Hulsewé on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 158–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZŪRcher, E. 1991. “A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts.” In Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds., From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yūn-hua. Oakville, Ontario: Mosaic, pp. 277–304.Google Scholar