Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Nathan Sivin refers to the work of Unschuld as " frequently careless in interpretation and translation and seriously misleading without the original sources in hand." Sivin is a scholar certainly worth his weight in words. He is one of the leading historian's and sinologists of chinese science and medicine the world over and his opinion is not to be taken lightly. I for one think Unschuld's scholarship has drastically improved with his latest study on the neijing, but a thoughtful eye will discover much that may bear criticism down the line, particularly from a clinical perspective, which is the obvious orientation of the original authors. For a critical review of unschulds Medicine in China" a history of ideas",by Sivin.. check out the journal Isis 1990 vol 81 pg 722-731. As clinicians, i think it is easy for us to catch any kind of scholarly bait on the subjects,..hook line and sinker, with out much of an ability to scrutinize what we read. Nathan Sivin has recently done much to improve our position with his biblio/essay "Solving Scientific and Medical Problems in General REsearch on China" It can be found on his website at university of pennsylvania, philadelphia. Interestingly enough, he claims that there is not a single usable translation of a medical classic and that all we have at the time is some good critical chinese editions. He also says there is no reliable history of chinese medicine informed by modern histiography in english. He recommends Kuo Ai-chun's 1981 "Huang ti nei ching su wen chiao chu yu i" as the best vernacular translation of the Nei Jing. any thoughts matt SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 , matt facteau <facteau8> wrote: > As clinicians, i think it is easy for us to catch any kind of scholarly bait on the subjects,..hook line and sinker, with out much of an ability to scrutinize what we read. Nathan Sivin has recently done much to improve our position with his biblio/essay " Solving Scientific and Medical Problems in General REsearch on China " It can be found on his website at university of pennsylvania, philadelphia. which is at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/rschguide.html#site > Interestingly enough, he claims that there is not a single usable translation of a medical classic and he is a practicing clinician? so he would know what is actually " usable " , right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:35 PM, matt facteau wrote: > He recommends Kuo Ai-chun's 1981 " Huang ti nei ching su wen chiao chu > yu i " as the best vernacular translation of the Nei Jing. What does that mean, " vernacular translation " ? Common spoken English? Common Chinese terms in English? -- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. -Adlai Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Matt As with all academics, this is a history to this. Sivin and Unschuld have a long-standing disagreement and they tend to work it out in public. Both Sivin and Unschuld are " scholars worth their weight in words " and both deserve a great deal of credit for their work. Unschuld has taken on some monumental tasks which Sivin has felt he has the authority to criticize - but he has not offered up an alternative. As an anthropologist, sinologist, clinician ad active translator, I see much to criticize with the work of both authors, but in general, the work of Unschuld has been more valuable to us as a growing field. In terms of addressing major texts, Unschuld is by far the more productive scholar. What are the problems that you believe are " discovered with a thoughtful eye " ? Also, I'm not sure that Sivin has really kept us with the translation of medical classics over the past 10 years. But, since he also feels very strongly about the use of Wiseman's terminology he might not find some of the more recent translations useful. However, since he is not a clinician, and probably does not even use CM much, I'm not sure how he would know. Marnae At 01:35 PM 6/19/2003 -0700, you wrote: Nathan Sivin refers to the work of Unschuld as " frequently careless in interpretation and translation and seriously misleading without the original sources in hand. " Sivin is a scholar certainly worth his weight in words. He is one of the leading historian's and sinologists of chinese science and medicine the world over and his opinion is not to be taken lightly. I for one think Unschuld's scholarship has drastically improved with his latest study on the neijing, but a thoughtful eye will discover much that may bear criticism down the line, particularly from a clinical perspective, which is the obvious orientation of the original authors. For a critical review of unschulds Medicine in China " a history of ideas " ,by Sivin.. check out the journal Isis 1990 vol 81 pg 722-731. As clinicians, i think it is easy for us to catch any kind of scholarly bait on the subjects,..hook line and sinker, with out much of an ability to scrutinize what we read. Nathan Sivin has recently done much to improve our position with his biblio/essay " Solving Scientific and Medical Problems in General REsearch on China " It can be found on his website at university of pennsylvania, philadelphia. Interestingly enough, he claims that there is not a single usable translation of a medical classic and that all we have at the time is some good critical chinese editions. He also says there is no reliable history of chinese medicine informed by modern histiography in english. He recommends Kuo Ai-chun's 1981 " Huang ti nei ching su wen chiao chu yu i " as the best vernacular translation of the Nei Jing. any thoughts matt SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.