the hundred surnames are able to stop the people from harming themselves.” Now according to Ulrich Unger’s research into Classical Chinese grammar, the particle 己 always refers back to the subject of the main clause. Moreover, Harris, obviously relying on Emerson, translates 己 as well as 其 as “themselves” (Emerson has “each other” for 己 and “themselves” for 其) which does not really make sense. Therefore, I believe that 己 here cannot refer to the people but must refer to the ruler.無害 does not mean “avoid harming the people” which would be 不害 but “there is no harm.” My translation would thus be: “Thus when the sage, while occupying a position above, is able to avoid that harm is done to others, but is not able to cause others not to harm himself, then those of the hundred surnames will already (矣) have removed [all] harm from him.” The particle 則 is wrongly translated as “though” or “however” by Harris (Emerson has “but”). It means “then, as a consequence,” and this is crucially important for correctly understanding this sentence which obviously wants to say that the sage does not have to protect himself because through his virtuous influence he has been able to protect others. In line 10–14 on p. 107 we read: 故賢而屈於不肖者,權輕也;不肖而能服賢 者,位尊也. Harris translates as follows: “Therefore, if worthies yield to an unworthy, this is because their authority is too light. If unworthies submit to a worthy, it is because his status is respected.” I would read this as: “Therefore, if worthies have to yield to unworthies, this is because their weight is too light. If an unworthy is able to submit a worthy, it is because his position is worthy.” It seems to me that 服 is one of the verbs that Unger calls “uneigentlich”; in 服賢 it should therefore be transitive, not intransitive, and mean “to submit a worthy” while “to submit to a worthy” would be “服於賢者.” In line 17–18 I would argue that 世 does not mean “lifelong” but “hereditary.” Emerson, whom Harris has followed before on lines 1–6, is right here. And 官長 in 21–22 does not mean “prime minister” but more neutral “head of an office.” However, all these squibbles are just examples for the fact that there may occasionally be some problems in the translations. Overall Harris’ translations that I read are, as Bryan van Norden and Michael Puett have remarked already, an excellent contribution to bringing back our attention to these often neglected materials.

中文翻译：

---

Friederike Assandri, Dispute zwischen Daoisten und Buddhaen im Fo Dao lunheng des Daoxuan (596–667)。Bibliothek der Tang und Song, 5. Gossenberg: Ostasien Verlag, 2015. vi, 261 S. Bibliographie, Index。32,80 欧元。ISBN：978-3-940527-61-5

百姓能止民害自己。” 现在根据乌尔里希·昂格尔对古汉语语法的研究，助词“己”总是指回主句的主语。而且，哈里斯显然是在依赖爱默生，把己和其都译成“他们自己”（爱默生对己有“彼此”，其有“他们自己”），实在说不通。因此，我认为这里的己不能指人民，而必须指统治者。无害不是“不害民”，不害而是“无害”。故译为：“故圣人居上位，能免害人，不能使人不害己，则百姓已（矣)已经消除了他的[所有]伤害。” 粒子则被哈里斯错误地翻译为“虽然”或“然而”（爱默生有“但是”）。它的意思是“那么，结果”，这对于正确理解这句话至关重要，这句话显然是想说圣人不必保护自己，因为通过他的美德影响，他能够保护他人。在第 10-14 页。107我们读：故贤而屈于不肖者，权轻也；不肖而能服贤者，位尊也。哈里斯翻译如下：“因此，如果贤者向不贤者屈服，那是因为他们的权威太轻了。无能者臣服于有道者，那是因为他的地位受到尊重。” 我会这样读：“所以，如果贤者不得不屈服于不贤者，那是因为他们的重量太轻了。不配能臣服于配得上的，那是因为他的地位配得上。” 在我看来，服是昂格尔称之为“uneigentlich”的动词之一；因此，在服贤中，它应该是及物，而不是不及物，意思是“臣服于贤者”，而“臣服于贤者”则是“服于贤者”。在第 17-18 行，我认为世的意思不是“终身”而是“世袭的”。哈里斯之前在第 1-6 行关注的艾默生就在这里。而官长在 21-22 的意思不是“首相”，而是更中立的“办公室主任”。然而，所有这些争论只是为了说明翻译中偶尔会出现一些问题。总的来说，我读过的哈里斯的翻译，正如布莱恩·范诺登和迈克尔·普埃特已经说过的那样，对让我们重新关注这些经常被忽视的材料做出了出色的贡献。意为“臣服于贤者”，而“臣服于贤者”则是“服于贤者”。在第 17-18 行，我认为世的意思不是“终身”而是“世袭的”。哈里斯之前在第 1-6 行关注的艾默生就在这里。而官长在 21-22 的意思不是“首相”，而是更中立的“办公室主任”。然而，所有这些争论只是为了说明翻译中偶尔会出现一些问题。总的来说，我读过的哈里斯的翻译，正如布莱恩·范诺登和迈克尔·普埃特已经说过的那样，对让我们重新关注这些经常被忽视的材料做出了出色的贡献。意为“臣服于贤者”，而“臣服于贤者”则是“服于贤者”。在第 17-18 行，我认为世的意思不是“终身”而是“世袭的”。哈里斯之前在第 1-6 行关注的艾默生就在这里。而官长在 21-22 的意思不是“首相”，而是更中立的“办公室主任”。然而，所有这些争论只是为了说明翻译中偶尔会出现一些问题。总的来说，我读过的哈里斯的翻译，正如布莱恩·范诺登和迈克尔·普埃特已经说过的那样，对让我们重新关注这些经常被忽视的材料做出了出色的贡献。而官长在 21-22 的意思不是“首相”，而是更中立的“办公室主任”。然而，所有这些争论只是为了说明翻译中可能偶尔会出现一些问题。总的来说，我读过的哈里斯的翻译，正如布莱恩·范诺登和迈克尔·普埃特已经说过的那样，对让我们重新关注这些经常被忽视的材料做出了出色的贡献。而官长在 21-22 的意思不是“首相”，而是更中立的“办公室主任”。然而，所有这些争论只是为了说明翻译中偶尔会出现一些问题。总的来说，我读过的哈里斯的翻译，正如布莱恩·范诺登和迈克尔·普埃特已经说过的那样，对让我们重新关注这些经常被忽视的材料做出了出色的贡献。