he who
respects
the great ministers will not be led astray'' (Confucius, 156-7).
Ezra-Pounds-Chinese-Friends-Stories-in-Letters
'' The cardinal meaning of that ideogram might be found in the last entry under that ideogram in Mathews: DISCREP- ANCY, from which ideas like ''opposing, perverse, disobedient, error, disorder, confusion, contradictory'' can be derived.
Anciently the id/ was written ?
Now, Hsu ? [Xu] Shen thinks the pictogram stands for two persons lying back against back ? ? , but later etymologists disagree with him and assert that the pict/ represents two things placed back against back. At any rate, the funda- mental meaning is ''discrepancy'' or ''overlapping. '' I have failed to Wnd any evidence supporting the idea of ''opposites,'' etc.
Since I am at it, allow me to disillusion you about Mathews. This dictionary is full of errors, even after revision. Almost every third sentence (I mean, entry) is either erroneous or misleading. Take the phrase ? ? ; it never means ''to entertain a thought. '' <''to entertain a thought'' or ''to give a thought to . . . '' would be ? ? . > NEVER. Lit. it means to house a thought in a thing, in which ''in a thing'' is either expressed or implied. Or shall I say, ''to charge a thing with one's thought''? It is often used in the sense of ''allegory''; in some contexts it means something <quite like> POSSUM's [Eliot's] objective correlative. E. g. in speaking of the Eulogy of Oranges supposedly written by Ch'u ? Yu ? an (jap. Kutsugen or Kutsu Gen) critics say he was making use of yu ? -i [? ? ]; the orange was a mere allegory. When T'ao Yu ? an-ming (Toenmei) wrote
? ? ? ? ?
''Calmly I see the Southern Hills,''
he is supposed to have taken recourse to yu ? -i: it was immaterial whether he actually saw the hills, for the important thing is that his mind was at peace. Objective correlative?
When students can make use of vernacular dictionaries I always advise them to throw Mathews out of the window. The best v. dictionary is ? ? .
I like your analysis of ? ; Hsu ? [Xu] Shen's is very weak, nor is there any satisfactory explanation. I think yours can be maintained.
Yesterday I forwarded the galley proofs of Stone-Classics, with the necessary ideograms.
Yours respectfully [signed] Achilles Fang
For the moment I cannot squeeze out a minute and write on the development of radicals. However, I shall keep this subject in mind.
I am sincerely grateful to you for introducing me to Erigena and Avicenna. For the moment I am studying the Oirishman. ''Authority comes from right reason,'' occurring in many of your writings, has intrigued me quite. In fact the entire chapter (De divisione naturae, liber primus, cap. 69; Joannis Scoti opera
? ? 62 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
quae supersunt omnia,/1853, ex typis Migne, au Petit-Montrouge,--publ. as a vol. in Patrologiae cursus completus,/column 513) is quite interesting. [ . . . ]
''No philosophy, only philo-epistemology since . . . '' What Santayana said to you is unfortunately true. In college A. F. ''majored'' in ''Western'' philosophy (my thesis was on Leibnitz and his Monalology); but all the philosophy I had was centred around epistemology. (It is so also here at Harvard. ) Only that nowadays they do not even touch on the theory of knowledge,--now it is all symbolic logic. So much so that anybody who does not draw upon the Wrst half of the Wrst volume of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is not even considered as a professional philosopher. (Neo-Realism) A. F. has given up ''philosophy'' for good, and is glad of it.
After Erigena I hope to take out Avicenna.
Hsu ? Shen: see Glossary on Xu Shen.
Ch'u ? Yuan: see Glossary on Qu Yuan.
T'ao Yu ? an-ming: see Glossary on Tao Qian.
? ? : Cihai dictionary, ed. Shu Xincheng et al. (1936).
your analysis of ? : in a letter to Fang of 28 February 1951, EP describes the ''SLEEP ideogram'' ? as
''bureaucrat [? ] faced by member of the general public [? ]'' (Beinecke). See also SP, 81. Leibnitz: see Letter 37 n.
Principia Mathematica: Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, Principia Mathematica (1910-13).
39 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [April 1951]
Fang
moderately frivolous enquiry re/ being called er JU [? ? ] Mencius Seven
lower [2. ] 31. 3.
? ? expression like ''Hi there!
Hey you. ''
idiomatic?
did I ask if any clear work on chinese pronouns in any occidental lang? probably better go on observing cases.
Everything needed is in the 4 Books.
One keeps noticing ideograms that one had failed to concentrate on.
Gt/ bore not having odes text in seal, meaning DONE, not Xoating in promise. Kimb/ cursing Hawley fer incomprehensible reasons and cunctating.
benedictions anon
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 63
er JU: in a letter to EP of 5 April 1951 Fang conWrms: ''? ? in the Meng passage should mean 'Hi there! ', 'Hey you! ' (or even 'Hey Mao', or Hey johnny')'' (Beinecke).
Kimb/ cursing Hawley: see Glossary on Kimball, Dudley.
40 Fang to EP (TL-1; Beinecke)
[Cambridge, Mass. ]
June 11, 1951
Dear Mr Pound,
The whole will look very impressive in press-proof. You and Hawley must
have given sample pains to the work.
In order to facilitate my work of correlating Ch. and Engl. pages I cut the long
galley sheets into pages and numbered them red; hope the printer will not be confused.
Here and there I modiWed your romanizations, not to make them conform to the standard system but to make them consistent.
Other suggestions (done in ink) you will Wnd on appropriate pages; I beg you not to get oVended at the liberty I've taken.
I notice that the sequence of the two books is altered; I like the change, for the Ch. always speak of Hsio-Yung [Digest-Pivot] and not Yung-Hsio [Pivot- Digest].
Pp. 111-113-115 are missing; I'm waiting for them. As soon I get them I shall forward them to you. With regard to these pages, I suggest that
--Shi King, III, 1, 5, 3.
be inserted after the Ode in Chung Yung XII, 3, and
--Shi King, I, 15, 5, 2. after XIII, 2.
Yours respectfully Thank you very much for the Italian papers.
Shi King, III, 1, 5, 3 . . . Shi King, I, 15, 5, 2: these suggestions were not taken.
41 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
? ? ? ? To the Hnbl/ FANG P. S. to ms/
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [10 October 1951]
64
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
If the Hl/ Fang has any more spare copies of extracts from Hav/ YenChing/ wd/ he in benignity send 'em to
Mary de Rachewiltz
Schloss Brunnenburg, Merano, Italy
marked simply ''For Igor,''
that is for her young ''brother-in-row''
who knows more chinese than her father BUT whom I shd/ like to have
stimulated to KEEP HIS MIND ON the subject. benedictions.
extracts: Igor de Rachewiltz recalls receiving from Fang extracts from Shu jing (Book of History) and Mencius.
42 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] 16 Oct 51
Lacking energy, very hard keep eye Wxed on page, ergo may have missed something. Suppose chinese have indexed 4 books/but may not be copy of index at HaaaVUDD? Wd/ notes like following be any used to Hnbl/ FANG?
Convinced it is more important to understand the 4 Books than to under- stand chinese language, OR let us say UNLESS a man understand the ideograms IN the 4 Books, he never will understand chinese language, or ideogram/and cert/ much more important to grasp the grams in the 4 bks/ than to remember many thousand minor and derivative characters /?
?
Curious that so basic a sign, one so essential to grasp Confucian Anschauung shd/ appear only 3 times in Ta S'eu and 4 in Chung Yung.
Ta S/ III, 3, twice/VII, 1.
Chung Y/ XX, 13 <at Wrst sign might seem weaker use than in Ta S'eu/ but it isn't, on further reXection. >/XXXI 1 & 3/XXXIII, 3.
****
note tuan/Chung Y/ VI/XII, 4 ? [tuan]
****
Has Fang noted the important deWning of ?
? ? ? Chung Y/ XII 4, from the top
?
to ? the bottom. ? dont trust me not to have skipped and missed something. haven't yet been
thru Analects/ and WHATTA DAMN nuisance that printer not getting me my
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 65
bilingual stone AND the seal char/ odes so I can GIT ON and improve my damtrans/lations. how lousily low the noncoherence and muttishness of ALL murkn endamndowments.
Ta S/ III, 3, twice/VII, 1: ''? ? ? ? ? Coherent, splendid and reverent''; ''? ? ? ? ? ? As a minister, in respect'' (Confucius, 40-1); ''? ? ? ? ? if they are Wlled with reverence and respect'' (Confucius, 54-5).
Chung Y/ XX, 13: ''? ? ? ? ? ?
he who respects the great ministers will not be led astray'' (Confucius, 156-7).
XXXI 1 & 3/XXXIII, 3: these sections are omitted in Confucius.
tuan/Chung Y/ VI/XII: ''? ? ? ? ? ? ? followed the middle line between these inharmonic
extremes'' (Confucius, 106-7); ''? ? ? ? ? has its origin in ordinary men and women''
(Confucius, 118-19).
the important deWning of ? : '' ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in its entirety, a rite addressed to heaven and
? ? ? earth'' (Confucius, 118-19).
43
Fang to EP (TLS-1; Lilly)
Dear Mr Pound,
Once more my gratitude for If This Be Treason, esp. the paragraphs dealing
with Ce ? line, who (please be prepared for a shock) I had never read. Naturally I read through most of his works this week. I'm now having the book photo- stated for my Poundiana collection, which is the pride of my humble library.
Yes, I immediately mailed the three oVprints to Igor.
Thank you for your note on ? . It is, as you say, Rather curious that the ideogram occurs not too frequently in the Pivot and Digest in despite of the fact that these two books are permeated with the concept of reverentia. Nor is it less interesting to note (I assure you I don't intend to be patronizing) that you have independently come to lay emphasis on this sign, independently of the so-called neo-Confucianists of the Sung dynasty. I wish you would write something on it a bit more extensively. (Some of the neo-C. even cooked up a ritual around that idea: when they sat down to read--reread--K'ung's books, they would Wrst wash their hands, put on their headgears--like women in church service, men had to wear their hats if they wanted to show respect, in China--and burn incense sticks. )
As for the four tuan, Mathews got it--indirectly--from Mencius, p. 79 of your (and my) copy. Poor Mathews. S. v. 6541, 1 and 2 are misleading: ''a clue. '' They should mean rather ''inkling,'' ''a loose thread or two,'' ''the barest beginning. '' 3 seems to be correct, but seldom used. 4 also is misleading, for it is a synonym of 1 & 2. 5 (a part) means really ''an aspect,'' ''a phase. '' No quarrel with 6; only that ''troubles; disturbances'' are to be understood in a more special sense; for the term rather means ''much ado'' as a constitutionally indolent man would
[Cambridge, Mass. ] Oct. 20, 1951
? ? 66 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
understand it. 7 (to make a pretext) should read ''to take . . . as a pretext for . . . '' Sorry to be so nasty to old Mathews, but he was a MERE missionary.
By the way we have here a verbal concordance of the Four Books (done by a Jap. , by the name of Morimoto, who also published a sister volume, that of the Five Classics), a number of v. c. (published by Harvard-Yenching Institute at Peking) of Yi [Book of Changes], Shih (Odes), Shu [Book of History], Analects, Mencius, Chuang-tzu, indices to Li-chi (Liki)[Book of Rites], Chou-li [Rites of Zhou], I-li [Records of Rites], v. c. of K'ung's Ch'un-ch'iu [Spring and Autumn] and its three commentaries (Tso-chuan, Kung-yang chuan, Ku-liang chuan), etc. etc. Indeed, we are equipped with thousand and one tools as well as authentic texts which no Ch. scholars a generation before had dreamed of: only that we are not so learned as those old-fashioned gents.
(If it means anything to you,) I am at one with you about how the Dixionary should be made. (Frankly, however, I do not see what earthly use has a Ch. dix. to anybody, if it is to imitate the NED, and we are told to imitate that model. If the thing is ever to be completed, it will run to 100 times 13 vols. )
As I communicated to Mrs Pound, I am expecting my book on China of 220-264 early next year. (I notice you dealt [with] the period in a few lines. )
Yours respectfully [signed] Achilles Fang
If This Be Treason: If This Be Treason (Siena: Tip. Nuova, 1948).
Ce ? line: among the works of Louis-Ferdinand Ce ? line (1894-1961) are Voyage au bout de la nuit (1932),
Mort a` cre ? dit (1936), and Mea Culpa (1936).
four tuan: see Letters 42 and 44.
the thing: the Harvard-Yenching Chinese-English dictionary, a project dismissed in January 1957. my book on China of 220-264: The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard
University Press, 1952).
44 EP to Fang (TL-2; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [October 1951]
Achilles/
Yes. I noted those four tuan in Mencius p. 78/9
II, 1, vi, 5
manhood/equity/ceremonies, propriety/knowledge ? adds to ? which is cert/ NOT love, duty, propriety, knowledge.
which four wd/ have some profundity. taking love as ? <but this might be simply caritas. save for the tree, lower left> but what ideogram translated ''duty''? it is not merely dagger-thru-heart as usual I dongiVVadam who said
? a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 67
it Wrst. Even yr/ prize package Karlgren hit a bullseye in a foot note re/ relative lights of Wre and water/shine outward, shine inward. Not saying he knew what he was printing, but he printed it.
Yes, I thought there must be a concordance/ or several shots at it.
I dont think my suggestion re/ order of english words opposite the ideo- grams wd/ necessarily mean much greater bulk in a dictionary/possibly the contrary.
Await yr/ exposition of 220-264. Having no memory hv/ no idea who was WHO at that time/ but cd/ look it up in child's guide Three Kingdoms/ confusion? ? Plus a dab of aesthetics? Have just come on a civilized german. Chlodwig Hohenlohe 1819-1901 (or mebbe he died a year or so later. )
Knr [Hugh Kenner]/ sez Thoreau quotes Kung (dunno if consciously or not)
Never hv/ seen NED, and have never felt desire to do so but mebbe that is an error? much as I disbelieve it. The main purpose of endowments, empiricly viewed, is to sabotage curiosity.
Hold ON damBIT/
the Mencius is taking four OTHER things as the TUAN or what Mat/ lists as the FOUR TUAN
waaal. cant hold up this note forever/will hv/ to inspect them unfamiliar terms hand
work broom heart
no thats all over the shop. Menc/ ''2nd/ intensity'' sage mountain (TOP, go up) but tuan itself orderly pile hand grip going down (Sherlock) deserving of contemplation.
Legge. Legge. Legge/////UGH
alZo, upper centre LOOKS alike in ? and ?
BUT is it?
mi manca testo seal [I don't have the seal text]
sans which, one guesses, and likely to be betiched by derivation.
four TUAN in Mencius: the Mencian concept of four tuan is Wtted into Canto 85/565:
THE FOUR TUAN1 ?
or foundations.
and it recurs in Cantos 86, 89, 93, 97, and 99.
manhood/equity/ceremonies, propriety/knowledge: Legge renders ? ? ? ? in Mencius, 2. 1. 6. 5 as
''benevolence,'' ''righteousness,'' ''propriety,'' and ''knowledge'' (Legge, ii. 202-3).
? adds to ? : ? (light) added to ? (to know) is ? (sense of right and wrong), the last of the ''four
TUAN. ''
68 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
love, duty, propriety, knowledge: under 6541 ? , Mathews lists seven meanings (see Letter 42) plus ? ? (four tuan): ''love, duty, propriety, and wisdom. ''
Karlgren: Bernhard Karlgren, Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese (1923).
yr/exposition of 220-264: see Letter 43 n.
Chlodwig Hohenlohe: Chlodwig Karl Viktor (1819-1901), Memoirs of Prince Chlodwig of Hohenhohe-
Schillingsfu ? erst (1906).
Knr [Hugh Kenner]/ sez Thoreau quotes Kung: Thoreau quotes Analects, 2. 17 in Walden: ''Confucius
said, 'To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, this is true knowledge. ' '' See Walden in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, ed, Nina Baym (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. , 2003), vol. B, 1812.
? and ? : ? (shame) is used in Mencius, 2. 1. 6 to deWne ? , the second tuan: ''? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness'' (Legge, ii. 203).
45 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [21 November 1951]
O FANG
The focus of energy on getting the goddam obstacles OUT of the way? ? ? Until Ez got STONES bound up facing yankwords various points not clear to Ez. continual observation, mind free from unnecessary bothers, aids observation
T'ang stone calligraphy.
Conceivable that Chiang Heng calligraphy somewhat resembled very admir-
able by no mean ordinary T'ang.
Elimination of unnecessary strokes/DISTINCTION between forms which
are NOT (biGum) clearly visible in other calligs/ and prints.
All this demanding repeated observation by senile correspondent/BUT goDDDAMMIT the WORST impediment to Ez learning a little more is the
NON-presence of ODES bound facing the SEAL text/
until that, no way to answer various wild guesses/ AND . . . also the question
of whether when the possibly greatest intellectual operation in history, the metamorphosis from seal to square character/whether the blokes who squared, followed precedent ALWAYS, or in several (? quite a few) cases improved the combination of signs.
All of which not a querry to be answered ''straight oV the bat'' as Muss [olini]/sd/re/elimination of taxes by having money represent work done.
benedictions.
P. S. wotTheHell I mean IZ: does Fang see any way to accelerate the Laughlin, Kimball etc/ to GIT bloody ON with printing the ODES?
The T'ang had ALREADY attained a graphic representation eliminating various ambiguities (to say nothing of the satisfactory proportion of the graphs).
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 69
DAWN the sloppy callig/rz and type cutters who have degenerated from this level. [In DP's hand:] and, P. S. what kind of stone has been used?
Chiang Heng: the calligrapher of the Qing Stone-Classics.
Laughlin, Kimball: see Glossary on Laughlin, James and Kimball, Dudley.
46 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [25 November 1951]
INcidentally Monsieur FANG
your preface is very well written, and the translation from CH'ien-Lung thus
showing that familiarity with the classics in one language, especially that of the Middle Kingdom, conduces to admirable use of another.
I trust the imperfections of the artigianato [artisan, craftsman] will not unduly disturb you, perfection cannot be attained by mere ten months of not stepping on gas.
Now, Hsu ? [Xu] Shen thinks the pictogram stands for two persons lying back against back ? ? , but later etymologists disagree with him and assert that the pict/ represents two things placed back against back. At any rate, the funda- mental meaning is ''discrepancy'' or ''overlapping. '' I have failed to Wnd any evidence supporting the idea of ''opposites,'' etc.
Since I am at it, allow me to disillusion you about Mathews. This dictionary is full of errors, even after revision. Almost every third sentence (I mean, entry) is either erroneous or misleading. Take the phrase ? ? ; it never means ''to entertain a thought. '' <''to entertain a thought'' or ''to give a thought to . . . '' would be ? ? . > NEVER. Lit. it means to house a thought in a thing, in which ''in a thing'' is either expressed or implied. Or shall I say, ''to charge a thing with one's thought''? It is often used in the sense of ''allegory''; in some contexts it means something <quite like> POSSUM's [Eliot's] objective correlative. E. g. in speaking of the Eulogy of Oranges supposedly written by Ch'u ? Yu ? an (jap. Kutsugen or Kutsu Gen) critics say he was making use of yu ? -i [? ? ]; the orange was a mere allegory. When T'ao Yu ? an-ming (Toenmei) wrote
? ? ? ? ?
''Calmly I see the Southern Hills,''
he is supposed to have taken recourse to yu ? -i: it was immaterial whether he actually saw the hills, for the important thing is that his mind was at peace. Objective correlative?
When students can make use of vernacular dictionaries I always advise them to throw Mathews out of the window. The best v. dictionary is ? ? .
I like your analysis of ? ; Hsu ? [Xu] Shen's is very weak, nor is there any satisfactory explanation. I think yours can be maintained.
Yesterday I forwarded the galley proofs of Stone-Classics, with the necessary ideograms.
Yours respectfully [signed] Achilles Fang
For the moment I cannot squeeze out a minute and write on the development of radicals. However, I shall keep this subject in mind.
I am sincerely grateful to you for introducing me to Erigena and Avicenna. For the moment I am studying the Oirishman. ''Authority comes from right reason,'' occurring in many of your writings, has intrigued me quite. In fact the entire chapter (De divisione naturae, liber primus, cap. 69; Joannis Scoti opera
? ? 62 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
quae supersunt omnia,/1853, ex typis Migne, au Petit-Montrouge,--publ. as a vol. in Patrologiae cursus completus,/column 513) is quite interesting. [ . . . ]
''No philosophy, only philo-epistemology since . . . '' What Santayana said to you is unfortunately true. In college A. F. ''majored'' in ''Western'' philosophy (my thesis was on Leibnitz and his Monalology); but all the philosophy I had was centred around epistemology. (It is so also here at Harvard. ) Only that nowadays they do not even touch on the theory of knowledge,--now it is all symbolic logic. So much so that anybody who does not draw upon the Wrst half of the Wrst volume of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is not even considered as a professional philosopher. (Neo-Realism) A. F. has given up ''philosophy'' for good, and is glad of it.
After Erigena I hope to take out Avicenna.
Hsu ? Shen: see Glossary on Xu Shen.
Ch'u ? Yuan: see Glossary on Qu Yuan.
T'ao Yu ? an-ming: see Glossary on Tao Qian.
? ? : Cihai dictionary, ed. Shu Xincheng et al. (1936).
your analysis of ? : in a letter to Fang of 28 February 1951, EP describes the ''SLEEP ideogram'' ? as
''bureaucrat [? ] faced by member of the general public [? ]'' (Beinecke). See also SP, 81. Leibnitz: see Letter 37 n.
Principia Mathematica: Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead, Principia Mathematica (1910-13).
39 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [April 1951]
Fang
moderately frivolous enquiry re/ being called er JU [? ? ] Mencius Seven
lower [2. ] 31. 3.
? ? expression like ''Hi there!
Hey you. ''
idiomatic?
did I ask if any clear work on chinese pronouns in any occidental lang? probably better go on observing cases.
Everything needed is in the 4 Books.
One keeps noticing ideograms that one had failed to concentrate on.
Gt/ bore not having odes text in seal, meaning DONE, not Xoating in promise. Kimb/ cursing Hawley fer incomprehensible reasons and cunctating.
benedictions anon
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 63
er JU: in a letter to EP of 5 April 1951 Fang conWrms: ''? ? in the Meng passage should mean 'Hi there! ', 'Hey you! ' (or even 'Hey Mao', or Hey johnny')'' (Beinecke).
Kimb/ cursing Hawley: see Glossary on Kimball, Dudley.
40 Fang to EP (TL-1; Beinecke)
[Cambridge, Mass. ]
June 11, 1951
Dear Mr Pound,
The whole will look very impressive in press-proof. You and Hawley must
have given sample pains to the work.
In order to facilitate my work of correlating Ch. and Engl. pages I cut the long
galley sheets into pages and numbered them red; hope the printer will not be confused.
Here and there I modiWed your romanizations, not to make them conform to the standard system but to make them consistent.
Other suggestions (done in ink) you will Wnd on appropriate pages; I beg you not to get oVended at the liberty I've taken.
I notice that the sequence of the two books is altered; I like the change, for the Ch. always speak of Hsio-Yung [Digest-Pivot] and not Yung-Hsio [Pivot- Digest].
Pp. 111-113-115 are missing; I'm waiting for them. As soon I get them I shall forward them to you. With regard to these pages, I suggest that
--Shi King, III, 1, 5, 3.
be inserted after the Ode in Chung Yung XII, 3, and
--Shi King, I, 15, 5, 2. after XIII, 2.
Yours respectfully Thank you very much for the Italian papers.
Shi King, III, 1, 5, 3 . . . Shi King, I, 15, 5, 2: these suggestions were not taken.
41 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
? ? ? ? To the Hnbl/ FANG P. S. to ms/
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [10 October 1951]
64
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
If the Hl/ Fang has any more spare copies of extracts from Hav/ YenChing/ wd/ he in benignity send 'em to
Mary de Rachewiltz
Schloss Brunnenburg, Merano, Italy
marked simply ''For Igor,''
that is for her young ''brother-in-row''
who knows more chinese than her father BUT whom I shd/ like to have
stimulated to KEEP HIS MIND ON the subject. benedictions.
extracts: Igor de Rachewiltz recalls receiving from Fang extracts from Shu jing (Book of History) and Mencius.
42 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] 16 Oct 51
Lacking energy, very hard keep eye Wxed on page, ergo may have missed something. Suppose chinese have indexed 4 books/but may not be copy of index at HaaaVUDD? Wd/ notes like following be any used to Hnbl/ FANG?
Convinced it is more important to understand the 4 Books than to under- stand chinese language, OR let us say UNLESS a man understand the ideograms IN the 4 Books, he never will understand chinese language, or ideogram/and cert/ much more important to grasp the grams in the 4 bks/ than to remember many thousand minor and derivative characters /?
?
Curious that so basic a sign, one so essential to grasp Confucian Anschauung shd/ appear only 3 times in Ta S'eu and 4 in Chung Yung.
Ta S/ III, 3, twice/VII, 1.
Chung Y/ XX, 13 <at Wrst sign might seem weaker use than in Ta S'eu/ but it isn't, on further reXection. >/XXXI 1 & 3/XXXIII, 3.
****
note tuan/Chung Y/ VI/XII, 4 ? [tuan]
****
Has Fang noted the important deWning of ?
? ? ? Chung Y/ XII 4, from the top
?
to ? the bottom. ? dont trust me not to have skipped and missed something. haven't yet been
thru Analects/ and WHATTA DAMN nuisance that printer not getting me my
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 65
bilingual stone AND the seal char/ odes so I can GIT ON and improve my damtrans/lations. how lousily low the noncoherence and muttishness of ALL murkn endamndowments.
Ta S/ III, 3, twice/VII, 1: ''? ? ? ? ? Coherent, splendid and reverent''; ''? ? ? ? ? ? As a minister, in respect'' (Confucius, 40-1); ''? ? ? ? ? if they are Wlled with reverence and respect'' (Confucius, 54-5).
Chung Y/ XX, 13: ''? ? ? ? ? ?
he who respects the great ministers will not be led astray'' (Confucius, 156-7).
XXXI 1 & 3/XXXIII, 3: these sections are omitted in Confucius.
tuan/Chung Y/ VI/XII: ''? ? ? ? ? ? ? followed the middle line between these inharmonic
extremes'' (Confucius, 106-7); ''? ? ? ? ? has its origin in ordinary men and women''
(Confucius, 118-19).
the important deWning of ? : '' ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in its entirety, a rite addressed to heaven and
? ? ? earth'' (Confucius, 118-19).
43
Fang to EP (TLS-1; Lilly)
Dear Mr Pound,
Once more my gratitude for If This Be Treason, esp. the paragraphs dealing
with Ce ? line, who (please be prepared for a shock) I had never read. Naturally I read through most of his works this week. I'm now having the book photo- stated for my Poundiana collection, which is the pride of my humble library.
Yes, I immediately mailed the three oVprints to Igor.
Thank you for your note on ? . It is, as you say, Rather curious that the ideogram occurs not too frequently in the Pivot and Digest in despite of the fact that these two books are permeated with the concept of reverentia. Nor is it less interesting to note (I assure you I don't intend to be patronizing) that you have independently come to lay emphasis on this sign, independently of the so-called neo-Confucianists of the Sung dynasty. I wish you would write something on it a bit more extensively. (Some of the neo-C. even cooked up a ritual around that idea: when they sat down to read--reread--K'ung's books, they would Wrst wash their hands, put on their headgears--like women in church service, men had to wear their hats if they wanted to show respect, in China--and burn incense sticks. )
As for the four tuan, Mathews got it--indirectly--from Mencius, p. 79 of your (and my) copy. Poor Mathews. S. v. 6541, 1 and 2 are misleading: ''a clue. '' They should mean rather ''inkling,'' ''a loose thread or two,'' ''the barest beginning. '' 3 seems to be correct, but seldom used. 4 also is misleading, for it is a synonym of 1 & 2. 5 (a part) means really ''an aspect,'' ''a phase. '' No quarrel with 6; only that ''troubles; disturbances'' are to be understood in a more special sense; for the term rather means ''much ado'' as a constitutionally indolent man would
[Cambridge, Mass. ] Oct. 20, 1951
? ? 66 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
understand it. 7 (to make a pretext) should read ''to take . . . as a pretext for . . . '' Sorry to be so nasty to old Mathews, but he was a MERE missionary.
By the way we have here a verbal concordance of the Four Books (done by a Jap. , by the name of Morimoto, who also published a sister volume, that of the Five Classics), a number of v. c. (published by Harvard-Yenching Institute at Peking) of Yi [Book of Changes], Shih (Odes), Shu [Book of History], Analects, Mencius, Chuang-tzu, indices to Li-chi (Liki)[Book of Rites], Chou-li [Rites of Zhou], I-li [Records of Rites], v. c. of K'ung's Ch'un-ch'iu [Spring and Autumn] and its three commentaries (Tso-chuan, Kung-yang chuan, Ku-liang chuan), etc. etc. Indeed, we are equipped with thousand and one tools as well as authentic texts which no Ch. scholars a generation before had dreamed of: only that we are not so learned as those old-fashioned gents.
(If it means anything to you,) I am at one with you about how the Dixionary should be made. (Frankly, however, I do not see what earthly use has a Ch. dix. to anybody, if it is to imitate the NED, and we are told to imitate that model. If the thing is ever to be completed, it will run to 100 times 13 vols. )
As I communicated to Mrs Pound, I am expecting my book on China of 220-264 early next year. (I notice you dealt [with] the period in a few lines. )
Yours respectfully [signed] Achilles Fang
If This Be Treason: If This Be Treason (Siena: Tip. Nuova, 1948).
Ce ? line: among the works of Louis-Ferdinand Ce ? line (1894-1961) are Voyage au bout de la nuit (1932),
Mort a` cre ? dit (1936), and Mea Culpa (1936).
four tuan: see Letters 42 and 44.
the thing: the Harvard-Yenching Chinese-English dictionary, a project dismissed in January 1957. my book on China of 220-264: The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard
University Press, 1952).
44 EP to Fang (TL-2; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [October 1951]
Achilles/
Yes. I noted those four tuan in Mencius p. 78/9
II, 1, vi, 5
manhood/equity/ceremonies, propriety/knowledge ? adds to ? which is cert/ NOT love, duty, propriety, knowledge.
which four wd/ have some profundity. taking love as ? <but this might be simply caritas. save for the tree, lower left> but what ideogram translated ''duty''? it is not merely dagger-thru-heart as usual I dongiVVadam who said
? a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 67
it Wrst. Even yr/ prize package Karlgren hit a bullseye in a foot note re/ relative lights of Wre and water/shine outward, shine inward. Not saying he knew what he was printing, but he printed it.
Yes, I thought there must be a concordance/ or several shots at it.
I dont think my suggestion re/ order of english words opposite the ideo- grams wd/ necessarily mean much greater bulk in a dictionary/possibly the contrary.
Await yr/ exposition of 220-264. Having no memory hv/ no idea who was WHO at that time/ but cd/ look it up in child's guide Three Kingdoms/ confusion? ? Plus a dab of aesthetics? Have just come on a civilized german. Chlodwig Hohenlohe 1819-1901 (or mebbe he died a year or so later. )
Knr [Hugh Kenner]/ sez Thoreau quotes Kung (dunno if consciously or not)
Never hv/ seen NED, and have never felt desire to do so but mebbe that is an error? much as I disbelieve it. The main purpose of endowments, empiricly viewed, is to sabotage curiosity.
Hold ON damBIT/
the Mencius is taking four OTHER things as the TUAN or what Mat/ lists as the FOUR TUAN
waaal. cant hold up this note forever/will hv/ to inspect them unfamiliar terms hand
work broom heart
no thats all over the shop. Menc/ ''2nd/ intensity'' sage mountain (TOP, go up) but tuan itself orderly pile hand grip going down (Sherlock) deserving of contemplation.
Legge. Legge. Legge/////UGH
alZo, upper centre LOOKS alike in ? and ?
BUT is it?
mi manca testo seal [I don't have the seal text]
sans which, one guesses, and likely to be betiched by derivation.
four TUAN in Mencius: the Mencian concept of four tuan is Wtted into Canto 85/565:
THE FOUR TUAN1 ?
or foundations.
and it recurs in Cantos 86, 89, 93, 97, and 99.
manhood/equity/ceremonies, propriety/knowledge: Legge renders ? ? ? ? in Mencius, 2. 1. 6. 5 as
''benevolence,'' ''righteousness,'' ''propriety,'' and ''knowledge'' (Legge, ii. 202-3).
? adds to ? : ? (light) added to ? (to know) is ? (sense of right and wrong), the last of the ''four
TUAN. ''
68 a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius
love, duty, propriety, knowledge: under 6541 ? , Mathews lists seven meanings (see Letter 42) plus ? ? (four tuan): ''love, duty, propriety, and wisdom. ''
Karlgren: Bernhard Karlgren, Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese (1923).
yr/exposition of 220-264: see Letter 43 n.
Chlodwig Hohenlohe: Chlodwig Karl Viktor (1819-1901), Memoirs of Prince Chlodwig of Hohenhohe-
Schillingsfu ? erst (1906).
Knr [Hugh Kenner]/ sez Thoreau quotes Kung: Thoreau quotes Analects, 2. 17 in Walden: ''Confucius
said, 'To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, this is true knowledge. ' '' See Walden in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, ed, Nina Baym (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. , 2003), vol. B, 1812.
? and ? : ? (shame) is used in Mencius, 2. 1. 6 to deWne ? , the second tuan: ''? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness'' (Legge, ii. 203).
45 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [21 November 1951]
O FANG
The focus of energy on getting the goddam obstacles OUT of the way? ? ? Until Ez got STONES bound up facing yankwords various points not clear to Ez. continual observation, mind free from unnecessary bothers, aids observation
T'ang stone calligraphy.
Conceivable that Chiang Heng calligraphy somewhat resembled very admir-
able by no mean ordinary T'ang.
Elimination of unnecessary strokes/DISTINCTION between forms which
are NOT (biGum) clearly visible in other calligs/ and prints.
All this demanding repeated observation by senile correspondent/BUT goDDDAMMIT the WORST impediment to Ez learning a little more is the
NON-presence of ODES bound facing the SEAL text/
until that, no way to answer various wild guesses/ AND . . . also the question
of whether when the possibly greatest intellectual operation in history, the metamorphosis from seal to square character/whether the blokes who squared, followed precedent ALWAYS, or in several (? quite a few) cases improved the combination of signs.
All of which not a querry to be answered ''straight oV the bat'' as Muss [olini]/sd/re/elimination of taxes by having money represent work done.
benedictions.
P. S. wotTheHell I mean IZ: does Fang see any way to accelerate the Laughlin, Kimball etc/ to GIT bloody ON with printing the ODES?
The T'ang had ALREADY attained a graphic representation eliminating various ambiguities (to say nothing of the satisfactory proportion of the graphs).
a. fang and pound's bilingual confucius 69
DAWN the sloppy callig/rz and type cutters who have degenerated from this level. [In DP's hand:] and, P. S. what kind of stone has been used?
Chiang Heng: the calligrapher of the Qing Stone-Classics.
Laughlin, Kimball: see Glossary on Laughlin, James and Kimball, Dudley.
46 EP to Fang (TL-1; Beinecke)
[St Elizabeths Hospital] [Washington, DC] [25 November 1951]
INcidentally Monsieur FANG
your preface is very well written, and the translation from CH'ien-Lung thus
showing that familiarity with the classics in one language, especially that of the Middle Kingdom, conduces to admirable use of another.
I trust the imperfections of the artigianato [artisan, craftsman] will not unduly disturb you, perfection cannot be attained by mere ten months of not stepping on gas.
