Many very brave writers manage to produce flawless
works even in times of difficulty. I am not one, and this poor little book was
battered by the distractions of the time.
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.
"Saishangga," an active fictitious (or artefactual) person, shows up again on p.58. Again, the phrase should be "people collecting ginseng."
p. 40 the reference to the murder in 1588 perplexed Yang, who did not know of it. I had written the name as Sin Se-son, which we knew was probably not right, given the record on Korean names. I was having trouble digging it back out of my notes when, zazoom, Hwiwoong found the entry:
Yang: According to your advice, I searched Veritable Record of Chosun Dynasty(朝鲜王朝实录朝鲜 29579;朝实录朝鲜王朝实录 font>) and found out about "Korean Sin Se-son". His genuine name is Sim Sa-son(沈思逊, 1493-1528). So you don't have to find the notes. Thank you.
Thank you, Hwiwoong. I'm only surprised that my original Korean transliteration was even close.
p.57:17-19/ "...the inexplicable inability to acquire a horse to convey him there." --> " ...the inexplicable inability to feed a horse to convey him there."
cf: 馬臣來言于親自哈 26352;: 馬料在外邊, 未及取來, 不得送去。 今日則爾可備呈。 font> 云。
Yang: I think 馬料 is the feed for the horses.
p.58:7~16/Bujantai, started to dance. … "One of Nurgaci's sons, probably Cuyen, sitting beside his father, personally accompanied Bujantai on a zither, moving his body in time to the music." --> Nurgaci.
Yang: According to Sin's record as below, the person had danced with Bujantai was not Nurgaci's son, but Nurgaci himself.
酒數巡, 兀剌部落新降將夫者太起舞, 奴酋便下倚子, 自彈琵琶, 聳動其身。
I think "便下倚子" means that "soon he rise from his chair."
Crossley: I don't understand that -- how are you interpreting 倚?
Since I don't (yet) think that 便下倚子 means that Nurgaci arose from his chair (I think it might mean he was leaning against his son as they sat), I'm not sure that the following phrases refer to Nurgaci and not to this son. However, now that I look at it again, I do think that the use of 自 probably does mean, as you suggest, that it was Nurgaci playing the zither, and standing up and moving while doing so. I think it would be wrong to say he was dancing, since dancing is the act of a subordinate (as with Aguda and the Kitans).
We can discuss it further if you want, but at present I am inclined to amend it to: "Nurgaci, sitting beside one of his sons, personally accompanied Bujantai on a zither." We could go on and describe Nurgaci's posture according to 聳動其身 but I don't think we need a direct quote from Sin here anyway.
Crossley: I said it was probably a simple matter of whether sixteenth/seventeenth-century Korean literati wrote uija with 倚. Subsequently Hwiwoong confirmed that c. 1600 many Koreans wrote uija as 倚子, so we went with the most concrete interpretation of the phrase: Nurgaci rose from his chair to accompany Bujantai on the zither.
I am 75% persuaded that this is correct, 25% fear we are being misled by a the coincidence of 倚 and 椅.
p.58:27-32/ "Our prince and the generals of your country want to join as one country, because then the people who have been taken from your country will be returned. But our prince has not held your country responsible for the murder of Saishangga. What had Saishangga done that you should have killed him? We have very deep feelings about this."
Yang: I am very sorry, but, I think, your translations have some omissions and errors. So I tried to translate. Of course, I also have some errors. I wish you will make correction my translation. My translation is:
"Our prince wants to join as one country with your country, so we generously repaid the people who have been taken from your country and therefore many of them returned to your country. Our prince did not betray your country like this, but your country killed our many people who had been gathering ginseng. What did they do wrong? Your country was very hard-hearted, so we have very deep feelings about this."
我王子與爾國, 將欲結爲一家, 故爾國被擄人, 厚加轉買, 多數刷還。 我王子無負於爾國 font>, 爾國則多殺我採蔘人。 採蔘是何擾害, 而殺傷至此也? 情義甚薄, 深銜怨憾。
Crossley: I disagree somewhat about the last sentence, and I would retranslate the passage like this:
"My prince and your country will some day be one, therefore at our own cost we have repatriated persons captured from your country by us. Even though our prince has been no burden to your country, you have nevertheless killed our people who gather ginseng. What kind of damage does gathering ginseng do, that you should kill and wound them like this? This does not strengthen either our feelings or our respect for you, and we are restraining our great reproach."
p.58-50 Sin answered: The law of my country is: Whosoever among your barbarians trespasses without cause in our country is a felon. For several hundred years your people have been coming under cover of night to steal our cattle and kidnap our people. In the mountains and valleys our people live in terror of being murdered, or taken, without a shred of cause.(1) All barbarians subject to our country must follow this rule: They should honestly render what they owe, and sheathe their swords.(2) Those who take it upon themselves to violate the borders will be adjudged criminal and punished. In 1588 we had a meeting with you at Manp'ojin, we exchanged wine and foodstuffs, and we tried to establish an agreement.(3) After that my country has had no wish to harm or kill your troops --apart from those who trespass, and they will be punished.(4)
我國之法, 凡胡人無故潛入我境者, 論以賊胡。 況爾國人, 夜間昏黑, 闌入數百年曾所不來之地, 搶奪牛馬, 怯殺人民, 山谷間愚氓, 蒼皇驚怕, 自相厮殺, 勢所必至, 非爲一草之故(1)。 凡我國待夷之道, 誠心納款者, 則撫恤懷柔(2); 自餘冒犯禁境者, 則一切以賊胡論, 少不饒貸。往在戊 23376;年間, 爾國地方饑饉, 餓殍相望, 爾類之歸順望哺於 28415;浦者, 日以數千計 我國各饋酒食, 且給米、鹽, 賴以生活者何限?(3) 然則我國, 初非有意於勦殺爾 36649;也。 特以爾輩, 冒犯越境, 自就誅戮也。 Yang: "In the mountains and valleys our people were agitated and surprised; therefore both sides killed the other side. This is not because one plant (namely ginseng), but because the situation deteriorated.
"If they sincerely surrender and we will soothe and appease them;" I think "納款" not means "render what they owe" but means "归顺；降服." "When there was a severe famine in your country in 1588, many people in your country were starved to death, and those who defected to our Manp'ojin in search of food were several thousands of people. Our country provided them with drink, food, rice and salt. How many people could live thanks to our help? And their death was all of their own doing."
Crossley: "The law of my country is: Whosoever among your barbarians trespasses without cause in our country is a felon. For several hundred years your people have been coming under cover of night to steal our cattle and kidnap our people. In the mountains and valleys our people were anxious and then surprised, and there was killing on both sides; in such circumstances there will be over-reactions, and not just because of one plant. All barbarians subject to our country must follow this rule: If they sincerely submit, they will be protected and cherished. Those who take it upon themselves to violate the borders will be adjudged criminal and punished. In 1588 when your lands were afflicted with crop failures and hunger, and in danger of starvation, your people of all classes surrendered themselves and were fed at Manp'ojin. We calculated there were several thousand a day, and each was given wine and food, we even gave them rice and salt, how can we estimate the degree to which they depended upon us for their lives? Manifestly, my country has no intention of villainously killing your followers. Only those among your followers who dare to trespass will be executed because of it."
(I am dithering between "because of it" or "immediately" for 自就) but am going with the former.
p.217: note10: "In 1977 a new, corrected, and partially restored edition by Xu Huanpu was published."
1977 --> 1979, Xu Huanpu --> Xu Hengjin(徐恒晉). Yang: I guess you mistook "Heng"(恒) as "Huan"(桓), "Jin"(晉) as "Pu"(普).
Later, we had this discussion:
p.117:18/ concubine --> empress
no. concubine is correct
Q) As far as I know, the beloved woman Hongli had lost in his youth is the Lady Fuca(富察氏), or Empress Xiaoxian(孝賢皇后). She was not a concubine, but an empress.
no, this legend refers to much earlier. long before hongli was emperor. it is a rumor, as my text said--nobody has been able to confirm anything about the story. it is in the yeshi 野史. it was a story to explain qianlong's attraction to heshen. it is not a reference to xiaoxian.
p.172:21~23/ ---which broke out after a French officer fired a pistol at the Manchu official Chonghou in the middle of an altercation--- Q) As far as I know, the man who fired a pistol was not a French officer, but a French ambassador, and also the man who was shot to death was not Chonghou but Liu Jie(劉傑). Please see this web site: http://cache.baidu.com/c?m= 9f65cb4a8c8507ed4fece763105392230e54f7216b8a924b28c3933fc23904564711b2e73a576019899e3d215cef120df7f23272341e20b59acf9f4aaae1d477719c6269304a895663d 00edbcc5124b137e02cfed968f0ba8125e2dfc5a4ae4323bc44717a97f1fb4d7062dd1e810341e1b1e942&p=8b2a910599dd11a053b5d56d17&user=baidu&fm=sc&query=%C1%F5%BD %DC+%CC%EC%BD%F2%BD%CC%B0%B8&qid=bf7e923800ae45b2&p1=4
there is nothing incorrect about this extremely short passage. Fontanier was not the ambassador, he was temporary consul in Tianjin. i do not say he shot Chonghou, i say shot at Chonghou, which is correct. as it happens the shot missed Chonghou and hit Liu Jie, but i clearly don't intend to go into that amount of detail here. for a more detailed description you can see my other book, The Wobbling Pivot. please leave this as it is.
2. p.172:16/ the appearance of the forerunners of the Imperial University founded at Peking in 1896.
Q) Do the Imperial University refers to 京师大学堂? As far as I know, "Jingshidaxuetang" was published in 1898, not in 1896. Please see this web-dictionary: http://baike.baidu.com/view/124274.htm
the entry in baidu is incorrect. the imperial university was chartered in 1896, some faculty were selected and sent to Japan for instruction, and began classes in 1898.
Q) Thank you for your kind response. When I read your response, I searched encyclopedia and other web-sites. However, Encyclopedia Britannica and Peking University’s official website says the Peking University was published in 1898. Please see below: http://english.pku.edu.cn/AboutPKU/History/ Encyclopedia Britannica: The school originated as the Capital College, which was founded in 1898 by the Guangxu emperor as part of his short-lived program to modernize and reform China's institutions. This school languished after the empress dowager Cixi's coup d'état of the same year. After the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 1911/12, the school was renamed Peking University. It was subsequently reinvigorated under the guidance of the new president Cai Yuanpei, and by 1920 it had become a centre for the most progressive currents among China's intelligentsia and students. During the 1920s two founders of the Chinese Communist Party, Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu, were on the university's faculty, and the young Mao Zedong, who began studying Marxism in 1918 under their influence, worked in the university's library. The noted writer Lu Xun lectured there on Chinese literature in the 1920s.
i understand that, but the school was chartered before 1898, and Rong Lu was one of its trustees. the teaching began in 1898 after the earlier appointed faculty had already been trained abroad and returned. if you are arguing that we should make the date 1898 because that is the date everybody will read in Baidu or or Encyclopedia Britannica, i don't think that is a good argument. however, if we are to reconsider the word "founded," that makes sense. many readers may think that "founded" means the date on which it began to function. if we change "founded" to "chartered," then it is clear what the date refers to. if you like Baidu as a source, look at the biography of 李端棻: 1896年时为刑部左侍郎的李端棻向光绪皇帝上了一道《请推广学校折》，首次提出设置京师大学的建议, this is simply based upon shilu materials that i reviewed before writing this passage. we do not need to change the date here. but "founded" can be changed to "chartered."
p.176:16~18/ Indeed it was a Manchu, one Encun of the Tiger spirits Corps, who assassinated the German ambassador von Ketteler in Peking on June 29, 1900, Q) As far as I know, he is not 'Encun' but 'Enhai'(恩海). Also, Does 'Tiger spirits Corps' which you mentioned refers to 神機營 霆字槍隊?
p.200:35~36/ his younger brother Pucheng
Q) I would like to know the Chinese character of Pucheng. Is it correct? As far as I know, Puyi’s younger brother is Pujie(溥傑).
the characters are 溥偁, but he could not have been Puyi's brother. he was a second cousin!
p.210:19/ The word liao in Chinese also means 'iron'
Q) I would like to know the source of this sentence. I searched several Chinese Classics dictionary, but I cannot find it.
this tradition is based on a passage in the Jinshi:
"In the first year of Shou-kuo , the jen-shen date of the first month [January 28] . . ., [A-ku-ta] ascended the throne. His Majesty said: "Liao chose black iron for its name because it is hard in quality. Although black iron is hard, it eventually deteriorates;only chin[gold/metal] does not change or deteriorate. The color of gold is white, and the Wan-yen clan esteems white." Thereupon, he declared the state title "Ta Chin" [Great Golden] and changed the era name to Shou-kuo ["Capturing the Country"].…
translation by Hok-lam Chan, see "Da Chin (Great Golden): The Origin and Changing Interpretations of the Jurchen State Name" but the passage is well known in whatever translation. Liao means "enduring" and "black (unrusted) iron" is a metaphor for enduring. Of course this is not the likely reason, the likely reason was geographical. But this was how imperial historians saw it.
The Amazing Adventures of the Hohenhoozits October 3, 2002
I have a lifelong problem of mixing up the names (not the histories, the names) of the Hohenstaufens and the Hohenzollerns. I think my family has said they have noticed this from birth. I know one is the dynasty of Frederick II, and one is the dynasty of Wilhelm II, but I have never got really clear which name is which. It has become the stuff of family legend. I thought for a time I could remember the Hohenzollerns by connecting them with the Zollverein, you know, the "zoll" element, so I could remember them by saying something like "the Hohenzollerns were around the time of the Zollverein." But eventually I got this mixed up and thought, "the Hohenzollerns were not around the time of the Zollverein (sort of, despite the coincidence of "zoll," don't be fooled, and so on). This is exactly the kind of mistake I make trying to navigate to other people's houses; once I have made a wrong turn, I make it every time because I think I am remembering it because it is the correct turn. So over time I psyched myself out of the correct association into the wrong one. That is where I was when I wrote The Manchus, and made a reference to the Hohenzollerns, whom of course I called the Hohenstaufens, figuring that they couldn't be around during the time of the Zollverein, etc. At some point I checked the correct names and wrote them into the manuscript, but when the galleys came I imagined I had made the mistake of thinking that the Hohenzollerns were not around at the time of the Zollverein, silly me, making the same old mistake I always make, and cleverly changed the Hohenzollerns back to the Hohenstaufens. The book came out, and there were the Hohenstaufens running Germany c.1900.
Somebody wrote to me immediately after the book came out, pointing out that I had mixed up the Hohenstaufens and the Hohenzollerns (the names) again. It could have been a family member, not sure. I wrote to Blackwell's and fortunately they were able to do a second printing, correcting that and a couple of flat out typos that one person or another had noticed. So in subsequent printings I think the dynasty of Wilhelm II has their proper names. Unless I mixed up the Hohenstaufens and the Hohenzollerns again. Let's say it all together now: "The Hohenzollerns WERE around the time of the Zollverain."
There is still a problem with The Manchus. One day I was looking at something in the book and then, about the middle of the page I was looking at, I saw this word that was absolutely no word at all. It was something like "vzcontyu." I couldn't even imagine what it was supposed to say, so I went to the manuscript and found that nothing word was there, it had gone all the way through the editing and printing and there it still was. Everybody who looked at it saw some illusory meaningful word over it. When Blackwell's agreed to the special Hohenzollern reprint, I looked desperately through the book to try to find this mystery word again, but couldn't. Perhaps there are readers out there who have noticed it, and can help me relocate it (there is always the possibility of another edition of The Manchus...) It is a puzzling lost typo; sometimes concern about it comes to me in the middle of the night, mostly because I can't imagine where it came from, how it used its chameleon powers to survive to printing, and how it is eluding me now.