Abstract
In February 1999 I published a review article in the Bulletin (62/1) pointing to the difficulties encountered in trying to confirm the derivation of the Latin term ‘ Confucius’ from its supposed Chinese original, ‘ Kong Fuzi’. Briefly, the only general lexicographer to cite the Chinese term from premodern materials, Morohashi Tetsuji, does no more than quote a memorial inscription from the early nineteenth century, long after the Jesuit coinage of the Latin term, for a Mongol period figure from amongst the descendants of Confucius. Other earlier sources on this figure do not confirm the usage ‘ Kong Fuzi’ in his memorial materials, but only the more usual‘ Kong Zi’. Consequently, my own speculation was that ‘ Kong Fuzi’ could have represented a deliberate barbarism on the part of the nineteenth-century author, Cai Jinquan. The expression ‘Kong Fuzi’, therefore, remained unattested before the Jesuits, raising the suspicion that it might even be a back-formation from Latin rather than genuinely Chinese.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
