Derk Bodde

Prison Life in Eighteenth Century Peking

Fang Pao (1668-1749), a well known Chinese scholar and official, because of involvement in an allegedly subversive piece of writing produced by a fellow scholar, spent a year (171213) in the prison of the highest Chinese judicial organ, the Board of Punishments, in Peking. His Yzz-chung tsa-chi (Notes on Prison Life) is a short but very graphic account of the prison conditions he experienced. It was first published only in 1851 and is an exceedingly rare document of its sort in the history of Chinese literature. The present article provides additional information concerning the prison of the Board of Punishments during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, translates Fangs Notes, and discusses its reliability and significance.

A short history of Chinese philosophy

The classic chronicle of Chinese philosophical thought from the third millennium to the 20th century. From the sage-kings of ancient China to the 1911 overthrow of the oldest monarchical system in the world, Chinese philosophy has evolved and influenced schools of thought around the world. In an accessible voice, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy clearly illuminates Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, Yin-Yang, and more. For those interested in philosophy or Asian studies, this is the perfect window into ancient and modern Chinese ideology.

KUNG-CHUAN HSIAO. Rural China: Im perial Control in the Nineteenth Cen tury. Pp. xiv, 783. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960.

Nine chapters-393 pages-of this first volume are devoted to the history of China, one-55 pages-to that of Korea, three-236 pages-to Japan through the Tokugawa era. In all of them one finds depth of scholarship, skillful organization and summary, as well as perceptive interpretations. In colleges where only students having good foundations in the social sciences and humanities have been selected, this will ~be a useful, meaty textbook. In some institutions it may be used more by teachers than by students, or students may read chapters in this book parallel with but, for each period, after the corresponding part of a less mature work. Economy is achieved and interest enhanced by not repeating recurrent patterns in Chinese dynastic developments; rather, features are described when first significant-probably in the Han period, their subsequent continuation and modifications being then mentioned and later referred to briefly. Most remarkable is the major cleavage which the authors discern between the early and later periods of China’s T’ang dynasty. Early T’ang is analytically linked with the preceding era of Six Dynasties and with continuities especially since the Han. The late T’ang period is treated with the Sung as a golden age of Chinese civilization, as a transition to early modern culture-that is, as the first phase of later Chinese history. This is a major step toward a more meaningful periodization of Chinese history. As in most surveys, periodization is explained ; political framework is supplied; then cultural achievements are delineated. Within some chapters, eras are interpretatively divided into subperiods so that this procedure is repeated. Much attention is devoted to economic and social structure and conditions. Frequent and illuminating comparisons and contrasts with Western European history are provided; indeed, this is one of the strongest features of the book.

9.75:

The perennially fascinating problem of translating Chinese into Western languages (or vice versa) has evoked considerable discussion in recent years. My excuse for adding to it here is that Professor Boodberg, in his review (see foregoing note) of my translation of Fung Yu-lans History of Chinese Philosophy , has raised questions which, while addressed specifically to my rendering of certain Chinese philosophic terms, at the same time bear importantly on the larger problems of Chinese translation as a whole. In the following pages, therefore, I shall begin by commenting—I trust in a spirit of friendly discussion—on what Professor Boodberg has said about these terms (indicating in parentheses for each of them the English equivalents used by me in my translation, the two volumes of which will hereafter be cited as Fung 1 and 2). Then, using some of these as illustrations, I shall comment on the theories of translation presented by Professor Boodberg in his own article on “semasiology,” as well as that by Professor Schafer on “two sinological maladies” (both cited in note 1 above). And having done this, I shall finally try to formulate a few general conclusions of my own.