MODERN CHINESE SCHOLARSHIP
Step by step the study of the original sources of the Chinese written language is passing from etymological to archeological investigation. The ShuoWen with its glosses and emandations which were inevitable in the process of recopying held sway from the 2nd century A.D. to our present time as the sole authority in the realm of ancient writing: and though through the centuries occasionally attention was called by writers to doubtful renderings these criticisms found small favour. The evidence gathered from monuments such as stone tablets and bronze vessels was not available to many scholars and was not used as a corrective to documents. Bool:s were all important. hi the 11th century On-yang Hsiu compiled his Tsih Ku Lu and later Wang Fu his Hsuan.Ho Po Ku T'u both volumes were illustrated with cuts of ancient vessels and with reproductions of the 'mbbings of their inscriptions. In the 12th century Hsieh Shan-kung produced the Li Tai Chung Ting K'uan Chih with its linguistic discussions which form the basis of all later scholarship in this field, but his range of study was limited to the small number of vesseis Imown to him. In the early part of the 19th century Yusn Yuan revived a form of scholarship which had been neglected for centuries by the publication of his Chung Ting I Ch'i K'uan Chih and he has been followed by many later scholars. It has been chiefly, however, during the last twenty-five years that the most scholarly research of ancient monuments ever known in China has been carried on, and its tendency has been toward investigation of sources on modern scientific lines.
The generation immediately preceding this one left a mass of material, and we are now greatly indebted to this group of scholars, among whom were Weng Tan-hsi, Shen Po-hsi and Tuan Fang, for having made this material available to their successors. No one has done more in this generation to introduce modem methods of handling available material than Lo Chenyu. His studies have been extensive, but have all been directed to the end of substituting the evidence of monuments and objects for that of hooks and manuscripts. He has written on the script of the Stone Drums, on Oracle Bones and on the inscriptions of bronze vessels and stone tablets. Around him and under his inspiration there has been developed a group of modern scholars who are enlarging his work and carrying it to the investigation of many new sources as they come to light. This scholarship is directed toward the use of actual proofs taken from existing remains in place of the testimony of books. They do not hesitate to criticize and correct the statements of Yuan Ytlan and even of Hsieh Shan-kung or of Hsu Shea, the author of the Shuo Wen, if they obtain evidence from sources which were not available to these revered earlier writers.
One of the latest evidences of this spirit is the appearance of a new book "Discussions of Characters on Bronze Objects" called Chin Won Pien. The author is Jung Keng, a Professor in the Peking Government University. An illuminating introduction has been written for it hy Lo Chyu. The book is arranged on the general plan of the Shuo Wen, but under each form of a character the authority of some bronze vessel is quoted. For instance, under the first character, the single horizontal stroke signifying one, the author quotes as his authority for the successive forms which he mentions the following well-known bronze vessels, viz. Yuo Ting, Mao Kung Ting, San Shib P'an, Shih Chu Ts'm. This method is followed in dealing with the forms of each succeeding character. Here we have real scientific authority to which all authors, ancient and modern, must acknowledge allegiance. It is the triumph of the modern method in Chinese linguistic studies.
J.C.F.
unless otherwise indicated