104 KU K'AI-CHIH'S SCROLL IX THE BRITISH MUSEUM 



The correct translation, as it seems to me is "When Ku 

 K'ai-chih painted a portrait he often did not mark the pupils 

 of the eyes for several years. Upon being asked for an 

 explanation he replied 'the beauty or ugliness of the body 

 as a whole is not as a matter of fact lacking in any particular 

 spot. The interpretation of feeling really lies in this fact.' 



The point of this comment by Ku is that the way in 

 which such a minor detail as the pupils of the eyes should 

 be filled in would be determined by the interpretation of the 

 whole figure given by the artist. For example, if the con- 

 tour of the body indicated fear or pleasure, dignity or care- 

 lessness, the artist would be forced to mark the pupils of the 

 eyes in such a way as would harmonize with the rest of the 

 figure. The fact that some detail was omitted could not 

 change the leading idea of the artist in his portrait. The 

 statement of Ku is by no means mysterious or exceptional. 

 Its meaning is the plain one that all the details of a picture 

 must fit in with the general sentiment of the whole con- 

 ception. Dr. Giles has only made trouble for himself by 

 having failed to pass beyond the letter of the text into its 

 spirit although it must be said that he has succeeded in 

 correcting the punctuation and mistranslation of Chavannes. • 



*Dr. Ferguson's suggested translation is very obscure. What is 

 the meaning of 'lies in this fact"! What fact?. Is it 'the beauty 

 . is not lacking in any particular point' ? But is there any- 

 meaning at all in that? In the elucidation offered subsequently by 

 Dr. Ferguson, it need only be said that it would not need years for 

 the act of insertion of the pupils to conform to the conditions sug- 

 gested. In fact if I correctly understand the elucidation it is just 

 contrary to what the painter said : 



The 'some years' evidently is a difficulty. The phrase has been 

 taken to mean that the painter inserted the pupil only after 'some 

 years.' It is questionable whether this is the meaning at all. No 

 sense can he found in the passage if taken so. The only way is to 

 take the passage in the sense that 'some years' (after the painting was 

 completed) some one asked why it was that the painter did not insert 

 the pupils, and the reply was made "The figure of the human body, 

 i.e. the ssu t'i physical members has nothing special about it, the 

 lineaments of form do not need any profound treatment. The trans- 

 mission of the profound and mystic personality in the painting lies 

 in this way of painting the eyes." Whether this is a correct inter- 

 pretation may be questioned. It at least makes sense, and seems 

 natural and simple and this is gained without wresting of the sense of 

 the original. 



The painting of the dragon's eyes by Chang Seng-yu may offer 

 some help in understanding the passage in question. The story is 

 that the painter left the eyes out, and the deduction was that if these 

 were inserted the expression of vitality would be altogether too power- 

 ful and vivid. 



Editor. . 



