This paper primarily explores the origin and translation process of Luo Fuchang's translation of the "Catalogue of Dunhuang Manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale de France." In 1908, Paul Pelliot acquired a large number of precious manuscripts from the Dunhuang library cave through deceptive means, which were later housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Although Pelliot conducted preliminary sorting and cataloging of the manuscripts, his work was never published. After his death, his student Louis Hambis organized his posthumous papers, but the Dunhuang manuscript catalogue was not included. Today, more comprehensive catalogues of the French Dunhuang manuscripts exist, diminishing the value of Pelliot's drafts. The Chinese translations by Luo Fuchang and Lu Xiang were once important materials for studying the French Dunhuang manuscripts, but Luo's translation contains relatively brief explanatory notes, with Lu's translation being the primary reference.

1. The Source Text of Luo Fuchang's Translation

Luo Fuchang, the son of Luo Zhenyu, was proficient in multiple languages and a pioneer in Tangut studies. He died at a young age. His translation of the "Catalogue of Dunhuang Manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale de France" was published in two parts: the first half in 1923 and the second half in 1932. Luo Zhenyu organized Luo Fuchang's posthumous papers but did not publish them. Luo Fuchang's source text came from copies made by the Japanese scholar Naoichi Kano, not directly from Pelliot. Naoichi Kano transcribed Pelliot's catalogue, which was unpublished, handwritten in a hasty manner, and only used for personal reference. Luo Zhenyu corresponded with Pelliot, and Luo Fuchang's translation work was of significant importance to Dunhuang studies.

2. The Origin of Differences Between Luo's and Lu's Translations

Luo Fuchang translated Pelliot's catalogue no later than 1914, but it was not until 1933–1934 that Lu Xiang's retranslation was published in two issues of the "Journal of the National Library of Peiping." Lu Xiang's translation was based on the original manuscript catalogue that Zhang Feng copied from Pelliot. Due to the incompleteness and omissions in Luo Fuchang's translation, Zhang Feng asked Lu Xiang to retranslate it after returning to China. Lu Xiang's translation is richer in both wording and content information compared to Luo Fuchang's. For example, for manuscript P.2014, Lu's translation includes additional details such as date, form, printing location, and preservation status that are missing in Luo's translation. Wang Zhongmin criticized Luo's translation as overly simplified, while Lu's translation better conveyed the original meaning of Pelliot's text. When Hu Shi went to France in 1926 to investigate Dunhuang manuscripts, he also found Luo's translation to be incomplete. However, the content of the source text Luo Fuchang had access to may have been far less than Zhang Feng's copy, as Pelliot revised and supplemented the catalogue in the years after Naoichi Kano left.

3. Conclusion

This section summarizes Pelliot's work in sorting and cataloging Dunhuang manuscripts and its impact, noting that although he did not fully appreciate the value of these treasures, his early contributions remain significant. It also emphasizes the efforts and significance of scholars like Luo Fuchang in disseminating Dunhuang literature.