largest number of followers" (W. E. Griffis, The religions of Japan, New York 1895, p. 101). Im nämlichen Sinne lässt sich auch jetzt Legge in seiner neuen Ausgabe der Chinese Classics, I, S. 111, über Confucius aus und selbst der sonst nicht confucianistische Faber sagt: » dass jeder Leser einstimmen wird, dass die Stellung des Confucius als moralischer Lehrer eine hohe ist" (Lehrbegriff des Confucius, S. 66). Herr Dvořák hat nun aus den verschiedenen Schriften des Confucius und seiner Schüler, mit Fleiss die Belege zusammengebracht um die Lehre des Confucius näher zu beleuchten, und wir können seine Arbeit in dieser Hinsicht nur loben und empfehlen. Wenn wir etwas daran auszusetzen hätten so wäre es hie und da an der Form, die sowohl für den Philologen wie für den gewöhnlichen Leser ungeniesbar ist. Das Buch würde sich leichter lesen lassen wenn Citate und philologische Bemerkungen und Glossen am Fuss der Seite gegeben wären. »Confucius sagt darüber L.J. II. 3: »(Der Meister sprach:) Leitest du es (das Volk) durch Regierung (= Gesetze), ordnest du es durch Strafen, so vermeidet sie das Volk, dabei hat es keine Scham (Mandschu: guwere be bodocibe - wiewohl es zu entkommen berechnet. . ..); leitest du es durch Tugend, ordnest du es durch gute Sitte, so hat es Scham und bessert sich zudem” wirken sinnverwirrend auf den gewöhnlichen, gebildeten Leser, für den doch das Buch in erster Linie geschrieben ist, und der, wenn nicht Sinologe, nach der mehr oder weniger richtigen Lesung die er ja doch nicht beurtheilen kann fragt. Für die Sinologen hätte es genügt die mandschuischen Überzetzungen oder die variæ lectiones als Noten gegeben zu haben; die ersteren sollten lieber nicht angeführt sein, da die Chinesische Sprache weit klarer und durchsichtiger ist als das ungelenkige Mandschu. Der Verfasser erkennt das zwar selbst in seinem Vorwort S. VI: >> Daraus ergiebt sich der rein phi Sätze wie z. B. auf Seite 191: lologische Charakter der Arbeit, höhen sie den Werth der Arbeit studies had been those of modern keineswegs und könnten eher die Verbreitung des Buches in weiteren Kreisen beeinträchtigen. Dass ich dies hier niederschreibe geschieht damit eben jene weiteren Kreise sich nicht durch die Form von diesem Buche abschrecken lassen. G. SCHLEGEL. The Lî são poem and its author, by Prof. JAMES LEGGE, Oxford. (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Jan. July and October 1895). This celebrated poem is considered by all learned Chinese as one of the most abstruse pieces in literature, having baffled the sagacity of a whole set of literati who have worked on it. Chinese, and who became professor of classical Chinese at the Collège de France in Paris after the death of St. Julien, for want of another sinologue worthy to succeed this eminent scholar, equally failed to understand thoroughly this obscure poem. We are thus greatly obliged to professor Legge for having set himself, but only after half a cen tury's continued study of classical Chinese, to make a new translation of this poem, whose author is one of the most popular men in China, and whose suicide is commemorated every year, on the fifth day of the 5th month (about beginning of June) 船、競龍船 or 扒龍船 available, of the patriot's life and (in Amoy). Like professor Legge, death. I have witnessed the festival myself in Canton, and made a coloured sketch of it, which I may publish perhaps some day. Kiuh-yuan is called indifferently or , but he is mostly known by the first name. His lamentable story is that of so many patriotic Chinamen, who have made away with themselves when they saw that their councils to the princes availed naught and because they felt the country was going to ruin. We have lately seen another example of this patriotism in the suicide of Admiral Ting. Kiuh-yuan, being dastardly slandered by a rival, lost his position as a privy counsellor to Prince Hoai of the state of Ts'u; and, after having poured out his grief and sorrow in a poem, hoping thereby to change the mind of his sovereign, he clasped a stone to his bosom and The second part treats of the poem itself, and ought to be carefully read first, in order to understand the translation of the poem which is contained in the third part. The astronomical date given by the author of the poem in Stanza 1: that he was born on the Kăngyin day (27th of the 60 day cycle) when Jupiter culminated, in the first month of spring, is too vague to be calculated. Was it an evening, a morning or a midnight culmination? Moreover, during the whole dynasty of Chow, the first month of spring now fell between November and December, and then again in January, so that we must set aside as hopeless the idea of fixing the authors birthyear. Besides, as I have shown in my »Uranographie chinoise" (p. 101 and 500), Shch-t'î or Sheh-t'î-kih was also the name of an asterism, corresponding to drowned himself in the Milo, u, T, &, o and 7 of Bootes; and 羅 stream, in the province of Hunan. This is the gist of the first part of Dr. Legge's paper, which contains a minute history, as far as as these stars are always directed to the tail of Ursa Major, which, at the time when our author lived, indicated by its direction to the East at sunset, the time of spring, it is more likely the author of the poem is aware of the allusion, Legge's translation of the line (p. 851) spoke of the asterism Sheh-t'i » How can the square and the round (Bootes) than of the planet Sheh-t'î | fit in together" is clear enough; but (Jupiter). of it. the hidden allusion is not to be seized by not sinologues, and I think Mr. Legge intended his translation of the poem also for outsiders. K'iuh-yuan uses a second time this comparison in Stanza VIII, line 45: E Although an account of the poem is given in the second Paper of Professor Legge, he gives no notes to his translation (1. c. p. 840). We think this is a great pity, for the text is too difficult to be fully understood even with the excellent translation Prof. Legge has given, »It was by not measuring their chisel, and fashioning the handle for it (that former worthies caused themselves to be killed and kept in pickle)." Here the reader should like to know to whose worthies allusion is made, and what the » punishment of pickling" was. As early as the Han-dynasty, we find the king of Kiao-si () praying the commander of the So, for instance, in the sixth Section, the author shows how impossible it was for him to associate with his enemies; as impossible as if birds of prey could live gregariously, or as if one would fix a square chisel into a round dill. The author here alludes to a verse in the Nine discussions of Sung-yuh (宋玉九辨):圓柄方 chinese army for the punishment 鑿兮,吾固知鉏語而 of pickling (敢請葅醢之 難入,” » a round dill and a square). chisel, forsooth! I positively know that they wont fit, and that it will Sometimes the term 烹醢 > to boil and pickle" was used, as by Lu Chung-lien (Mayers, Manual, N°. 427) who said: » I will send the be impossible to make the latter enter." Of course for a sinologue, who | king of Ts'in to boil and pickle the king of Liang ( will not withhold it from the stud(吾將使秦王 E). The Tso-chuan ents of Chinese who can only be simply uses the character; as in Duke Chwang's XIIth year: The people of Sung made pickle of both (Legge's translation, p. 89); in duke Siang's XVth year: 鄭人醢之三 ▲, The people of Ch'iug reduced the other three man to pickle (p. 468, 470); in duke thankful for the elucidation of them by such an old and experienced veteran in the field of sinology as the author has shown himself again in the clear interpretation of this difficult piece of chinese poetry. G. SCHLEGEL. Korean Games with notes on Siang's XIXth year: the corresponding games of China 臨衛於 , Wei was made pickle of in and Japan by STEWART CULIN, Di the army (p. 481 and 484) etc. But the commentaries give no 醢肉醬 rector of the Museum of Archaeo logy and Palaeontology, University other explication than of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, pickle is meat sauce. Are we to understand this literally, or does it mean that the living men were boiled to jelly? In the latter case » to reduce to jelly" would be more exact than >> to reduce to pickle". The question demands elucidation from a juridical point of view. The solution of these and other questions, which the learned author has surely answered already for himself in preparing his paper, would be of the utmost interest, and we hope that professor Legge 1895. A magnificent volume,splendidly illustrated and ably written by its author, whose different articles on the games played by the chinese labourers in America we have already formerly noted. It is pity Mr. Stewart Culin never visited the East, and had to rely for his informations upon the oral description of Mr. Pak Youngkiu, secretary of the Korean Commission to the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, at present |