Crossley ERRATA

The Manchus

None of the errors actually affect the plots or lines of argument in the book, and it had not occurred to me that anybody would treat a book like this as a reference book, but it is clear that readers must be regularly and thoroughly informed of the misprints and goofs in the details of this book.

Known typos:
p. 60 "xiu" --> "qiu"
p. 67 "thorough tribute" --> "through tribute"
p. 67 "severe" --> "serve"
p. 72 "since they were they ones who" --> "since they were the ones who"
p.79:25/ from Shaanzi to Sichuan --> from Shaanxi to Sichuan
p.90:32/ the count's --> the court's
p.91:16/ on this alter of frugality --> on this altar of frugality
p.101:21-22/ Sayin Noyon --> Sayin Noyan
107:19/ Yi --> Yao
p.119:41/ Vaisrana --> Vaisravana
p.122:7 Qianlong count --> Qianlong court
p.125:17 Sungyun, a Mongol --> Sungyun, a Manchu
p.127 vocation --> vocational
p.151:16 Manchu Songyun --> Manchu Sungyun
p.176:16~18/Encun of the Tiger spirits Corps --> Enhai of the Shenjiying (神機營)
p.191:1/ Sax Roehmer --> Sax Rohmer
p.206: 25~26 the "incomplete mountain" (buxian shan) --> "no salt mountain" because its white color was not caused by any presence of salt.
p.208:21/ Achun River--> Anchun River
p.217: Chines --> Chinese
p.218, Chap.3, Note4: "Turco-Mongolian Tradition in the Ottoman Empire" --> "Turco-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire"
p.218, Note5: Chuang Chi-fan(Ehuang Jifa) --> Chuang Chi-fa(Zhuang Jifa)

p.218, Note6: Gari Ledyward --> Gari Ledyard

p.218, Note7: Monis Rossabi --> Morris Rossabi
p.221:05/ Manzhou congkan --> Manzhou congkao
p.222:08/ Qingdai baqi lingshu wenti kaochao --> Qingdai baqi lingshu wenti kaocha
p.231:11-13/ Minzu yanjiu 5(1984), 60-55 --> 50-55
p.223:08/ Baqi huji zhidu chucao --> Baqi huji zhidu chutan
p.223:28/ Guang Dong. Jiufuquan de chansheng, fuzhan he xiaowang chucao --> Kuang Dong. Jiuquan de chansheng, fazhan he xiaowang chutan
p.223:31/ Qingshi yanjiu tongshun --> Qingshi yanjiu tongxun
p.224:4/Baqi zidi de xingrong yu "huangdu" --> Baqi zidi de xingshuai yu "huangdu"
p.224:28/ eidtion --> edition
p.224:34/Shinsho no yizheng daren ni tsuite --> Shinsho no yizheng dachen nit tsuite
p.225:6/Kanda Shinobu --> Kanda Nobuo
p.225:7/ Qingshi yanjiu tongshun --> Qingshi yanjiu tongxun
p.226:13-14/ Ming Qing zhanzheng yu Qingchu lishi fazhan shi, Qingshi yanjiu tongshun --> Ming Qing zhanzheng yu Qingchu lishi fazhan qushi, Qingshi yanjiu tongxun
p.226:27/Liu Xiamin --> Liu Xianmin
p.227:10/Fu’an Dong Yi kao, reprinted in Shen --> Fu’an Dong Yi Ji, reprinted in Shenyang
p.227:32/ Mou Ranxun --> Mou Runsun
p.228:12/ Onogawa Hidemi, Toyoshi kenkyu 18:3(December, 1959), pp.99-123 --> 16:4(March, 1958), pp.441-453.
p.229:10/ Konju jichong dorok --> Konju jichong doki
p.229:12/ Xu Huanpu --> Xu Huanjin
p.230:12/ Tao Jinshen --> Tao Jingshen
p.231:9/ photo repring --> photo reprint
p.231:24/ Chinese Offical --> Chinese Official
p.232:3-4/Zai tan Cao Fu zui zhi yuanyuin ji Cao jia zhi qi jie --> Zai tan Cao Fu huo zui zhi yuanyin ji Cao jia zhi qi ji, Lishi dang’an 2(1986), pp.80-88.
p.232:6/Qingchao Kaiquo shi --> Qingchao Kaiguo shi
p.232:13/ Zhu Fangzu --> Zhu Zifang

I also took advantage of the translation opportunity to update the bibliography. The additions are here.

In the published edition of The Manchus the translated passages from this remarkable document are incomplete and in a couple instances wrong. In 2012 I had a very interesting series of exchanges with the fantastic Korean translator of the book, Hwiwoong Yang, who hunted down errors and possible errors like a tiger. I present some of the result below, they happened. At the time I wrote the book I had not studied any Korean, but subsequently did.

Our comments, with reference to the English-language paperback edition of 2002:

p.10: The manuscript was discovered in 1938 by the Korean Yi Yinsong, Yang: Yi Yinsong is erratum of Yi Yinyoung(李仁榮). I guess you mistook "young"() for "song"().

p. 37 with respect to references to han'gul: Crossley: I also think a some Korean readers have a problem with my discussion of han'gul on p, 37. I was not as specific here as I should have been. The sentence "more probable that han'gul was modelled on Kitan..." is unclear because I was referring to something specific --the use of the rhebus in Khitan. I wonder if we can clarify this by saying "more probable that the layout of phonemes within words was inspired by Kitan, which in this same respect was modeled on Uighur..." I have received complaints from people who think the way I wrote indicates that I think the phonetic elements might have come from Kitan, which was not my meaning (though the elements in Kitan worked the same way as those in han'gul).

p.37:30-31/ "The Yongning temple was inscribed in Chinese, Mongolian, and the Jurchen script" --> "Yongning temple's stele"