Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:59:23.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's in a Reign Name The Uses of History and Philology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Mary C. Wright
Get access

Extract

The historian and the philologist who study the written record of China's past in different ways and to different ends both face the problem of intractable Chinese texts. The mutual sympathy that this engenders is not unmixed with complacent condescension on the part of each toward the way the other goes about solving questions that are the concern of both, especially in the realm of translation. The historian's habit of translating the names of offices functionally (Imperial Chancery rather than Sanctum of Penetralian Scriptures for chung-shu sheng) and of simply not translating such terms as era names (nien-hao) outrages spirited philologues, who declare that the characters of which these era names are composed are words with “very transparent meanings” which can and should be captured in translation. Some years ago, having been impressed with this argument, I decided to try to translate the name of an era I was studying. What happened was that my search led me to a philologically sound, but, as it turned out, entirely erroneous interpretation.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , November 1958 , pp. 103 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1958

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

1 Edward H. Schafer, “Chinese Reign-Names—Words or Nonsense Syllables?” Wennti, Yale University, No. 3 (July 1952), pp. 33–40.

See also his “Non-translation and Functional Translation: Two Sinological Maladies,” FEQ, XIII (1954), 251–260Google Scholar.

2 On the historic changes in the character of era names, see Wright, Arthur F. and Fagan, Edward, “Era Names and Zeitgeist,” Etudes asiatiques, V (1951), 113–121Google Scholar, reviewing the studies of Ichimura Sanjiro and others.

3 Derived from suggested standard table, Schafer, “Reign-Names,” p. 39.

4 Schafer, “Reign-Names,” p. 35.

5 Shih-lu, T'ung-chih, 6.34b-40a.

6 I-wu shih-mo, T'ung-chih, 2.46b-47a.

7 Yüeh-man-tang jih-chi pit (photolith. reproduction, Peiping, 1936), ts'e 12.

8 North China Herald (Shanghai), Nov. 30, 1861.

9 Wright, M. C., The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-chih Restoration, 1862–1874 (Stanford, Calif., 1957), p. 18Google Scholar, note f.

10 Wade's translation of Wen-hsiang's note of Nov. 25, 1861, enclosed in Bruce to Russell, No. 25, 1861, Public Record Office, F.O. 17/357, No. 173. Brackets in original. Professor Masataka Banno of Tokyo Metropolitan University happened to notice this document while he was working recently in the Public Record Office on another subject, and he kindly called it to my attention.

11 Compare Legge's version: “Acts of goodness are different, but they contribute in common to government.” The Chinese Classics, III, Part II (Hongkong and London, 1865), 490.

12 This statement seems to me nearly conclusive. I do not question Wade's translation of a diplomatic note, and Wen-hsiang certainly knew the “real” meaning of the era name. I can see no reason why he would invent a tall tale that might get him into trouble. Neither the coeval rule of the two empresses nor that of the Chinese and Manchus was any secret to foreigners; if the era name referred to either, why would not Wen-hsiang have said so?

13 F.o. 17/357. No. 173.