1. Twitchett, Denis, “A Lone Cheer for Sinology,” Journal of Asian Studies 24 (1964), 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Canfora, Luciano, The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, trans. Ryle, Martin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 45–50Google Scholar, presents a very learned though disconnected discussion, in a popular format, of the rivalry between the centers of textual criticism and allegorical interpretation that seems very similar, in certain aspects, to the Han debate between the Old Text and New Text schools or the later methodological competition between Han versus Song learning. The rise and development of textual scholarship in Alexandria is treated in depth by Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968–1976)Google Scholar, vol. I, Part Two, “The Hellenistic Age.”

3. See Wilson, N.G., Scholars of Byzantium (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 68Google Scholar.

4. On Petrarch's work as a textual critic, consult Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, vol. II, 3–16Google Scholar.

5. Grafton, Anthony, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 1: Textual Criticism and Exegesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 9–44Google Scholar; see the individual treatments of Valla and Poliziano at Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, vol. II, 35–41Google Scholar; 42-46.

6. Kenney, E.J., The Classical Text. Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 43Google Scholar.

7. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, History of Classical Scholarship, trans. Harris, Alan. Edited with Introduction and Notes by Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 131Google Scholar. This work is centered on surveying the producers and products of medieval textual criticism directed towards the sources of the classical world. Lachmann's career is treated most accessibly in Weigel, Harald, Carl Lachmann und die Entstehung der wissenschaftlischen Edition (Freiburg: Verlag Rombach, 1989)Google Scholar. For a superlative study of a textual critic seminal in the development of the method, see the work of Grafton on Joseph Scaliger noted above (n. 5).

8. Gardner, Charles S., Chinese Traditional Historiography (1938; rpt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 18Google Scholar.

9. For recent surveys of this discipline, see Boqian, Jiang 蔣־白潛, Jiaochou muluxue zuanyao 校讎目錄學要(1946; rpt. Taibei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1957)Google Scholar; Nanhai, Dai 戴南海, Jiaokanxue gailun 校勘學磁論(Xi'an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 1986)Google Scholar; and Xuan, Qian 錢玄, Jiaokanxue 校勘學(Jiangsu: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1988)Google Scholar. Further Chinese studies on the mainland are indexed in 1949-1980 Zhongguo gudian wenxue yanjiu lunwen suoyin 中國古典文學硏究論文索引,ed. Daxue, Zhongshanziliaoshi, Zhong-wenxi (Manning: Guangxi renmin chubanshe, 1984), 138–139Google Scholar.

10. For the bibliographical and collation activities of Liu Xiang and Liu Xin, see the entries by Riegel, Jeffrey and Pokora, Timoteus in The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature, Nienhauser, William H. Jr., et al., eds. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 583–586Google Scholar; Loon, P. Van Der, “On the Transmission of the Kuan-Tzu,” Toung Pao 41 (1952), 358–366Google Scholar; and Mu, Qian 錢穆, “Liu Xiang/Xin fuzi nianpu 劉向父子譜,״GushWian 古史辨（rpt, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1982), vol. V, 101–248Google Scholar; this last work has been republished in Liang-Han jingxue gujinwen pingyi兩漢經學古今文評議（Taibei: Sanmin shuju, 1971)Google Scholar.

11. See Poon, Ming-Sun, “The Printer's Colophon in Sung China, 960-1279,’ Library Quarterly 43 (1973), 39–52Google Scholar.

12. Credit is given to Wang as the pioneer whose works paved the way for later Qing textual critics by Riegel, Jeffrey K., “Some Notes on the Ch'ing Reconstruction of Lost Pre-Han Philosophical Works,’ Selected Papers in Asian Studies (Albuquerque, 1976), vol. I, 180, n. 1Google Scholar. For an introduction to Wang Yinglin and a list of relevant studies, see the entty by Langely, C. Bradford in The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature, 882–884Google Scholar. See Wu, further K.T., “Chinese Printing Under Four Alien Dynasties,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 13 (1950), 470–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the complicated history of the printing of his major works, the Yuhai 玉海and the Kunxuejiwen 困學紀聞.

13. See Elman, Benjamin A., From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China. Harvard East Asian Monographs no. 110 (Cambridge, 1984), 37–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the rise of kaozhengxue; see pp. 68-70 for textual reconstruction and collation.

14. For the work of these scholars and their confreres on reconstructing philosophical texts, see Riegel, , “Some Notes on the Ch'ing Reconstruction of Lost Pre-Han Philosophical Works,’, and Hummel, Arthur, ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1644-1912), 2 vols. (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1943), vol. 1, 557–558Google Scholar; vol. II, 910-912.

15. An excellent example of textual treatment of this sort is provided by Shi, Hu, “A Note on Ch'tian Tsu-Wang, Chao I-Ch'ing and Tai Chen: A Study of Independent Convergence in Research as Illustrated in Their Works on the Shui-Ching Chu” in Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, vol. II, 970–982Google Scholar. The history and methodology of textual criticism on historical documents is treated by Gardner, , “Textual Criticism,’ in Chinese Traditional Historiography, 18–63Google Scholar, and Shunhui, Zhang 張舜微, Zhongguo gudai shijijiaodufa 中國古代史籍校讀法（1962; rpt. Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1980)Google Scholar.

16. This is introduced by Roth on p. 297.

17. Twitchett, , “A Lone Cheer for Sinology,” 110Google Scholar.

18. Personal communication, Feb. 28, 1987; cited in Honey, David B., “Edward Hetzel Schafer (1913-1991),’ Journal of Asian History 25 (1991), 184 n. 6Google Scholar. For the anti-philological viewpoint, see the various contributions to the “Symposium on Chinese Studies and Their Disciplines,’ Journal of Asian Studies 23 (1964)Google Scholar. Denis Twitchett, “A Lone Cheer for Sinology,’ places in perspective the importance of philological training for any approach to Chinese studies.

19. Thompson, Paul, The Shen Tzu Fragments. London Oriental Series vol. 29 (Oxford, 1979), xviiGoogle Scholar.

20. For introductions to the craft of textual criticism, see — among many possibilities—the most recent survey and selected bibliography by Hans Walter Gabler in The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Groden, Michael and Kreiswirth, Martin, eds. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 708–714Google Scholar, and Greetham, D.C., Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992)Google Scholar. Indispensable is Tanselle, G. Thomas, Textual Criticism Since Greg: A Chronicle, 1950-1985 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987)Google Scholar. The theoretical justification of textual criticism in the abstract is the concern of a set of learned lectures by Tanselle, G. Thomas, A Rationale for Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989)Google Scholar. A survey and justification of recent practical issues from an experienced editor is McGann, Jerome J., A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983)Google Scholar. For the Chinese side, see Gardner, , “Textual Criticism,’ in Chinese Traditional Historiograph, 18–68Google Scholar; Thompson, The Shen Tzu Frag-merits; and Boltz, William G., ‘Textual Criticism and the Ma Wang tui Lao tzu (Review Article),’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 44 (1984), 185–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Kenney, , The Classical Text, 4Google Scholar. On this point, see the famous lecture of Housman, A. E., “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism,’ Proceedings of the Classical Association 18 (1921), 67–84Google Scholar, reprinted in The Classical Papers of A. >E. Housman, ed. Diggle, J. and Goodyear, F.R.D., 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), vol. III, 1058–1069Google Scholar.

22. “Nobis & ratio & res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt” is the confident assertion of Bentley, as noted by Paul Maas in his discussion of style; see his Textual Criticism, trans. Flowers, Barbara (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 41Google Scholar.

23. Wilamowitz, , History of Classical Scholarship, 172Google Scholar.

24. Davidson, J.A., “Homeric Criticism: The Transmission of the Text,’ in A Companion to Homer, ed. Wace, Alan J.B. and Stubbings, Frank H. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), 229Google Scholar.

25. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, “Remarks on the Homeric Question,” in History and imagination. Essays in Honor of H.R. Trevor-Roper, ed. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, et al. (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1981), 29Google Scholar (reprinted in Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones [Clarendon: Oxford University Press, 1990], 19Google Scholar). Later, he reconfirmed his reiteration, in a general way, in a 1989 lecture; see his Greek in a Cold Climate (Savage, Maiyland: Barnes and Noble Books, 1991), 232Google Scholar.

26. See most conveniently, Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1968)Google Scholar. As an example of the rapid progress in this field, one standard critical text, the Aland, et al. edition of the United Bible Societies, went through three editions between 1965 and 1975.

27. By way of contrast, the text of Sophocles' play Oedipus Tyrannus has had five critical editions devoted to it from 1866 to 1982. Of complete editions of Sophocles there exist at least eleven just in the present century.

28. Boltz, , “Textual Criticism and the Ma Wang tui Lao tzu,’ 189 n. 5Google Scholar.

29. Indeed, the overall nature of classical scholarship is reflected by its traditional name: classical philology. Witness the original German title of Wilamowitz's History of Classical Scholarship cited above: Geschichte der Philologie; see too the title of Werner Jaeger's essay cited in note 30 below, and the work of Brink, C. O., English Classical Scholarship (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., and New York: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, which despite its title surveys three prominent textual critics: Bentley, Porson, and Housman.

30. See the contributions on British and American views of Wilomowitz in Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren, ed. Calder, William M., III (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlische Buchgesellschaft 1985)Google Scholar. Classical studies at the University of Berlin during the period in question may be taken as a microcosm of the contemporary trends in Germany as a whole; for an insider's view from a participant who went overboard in the other direction, Wilomowitz's successor Werner Jaeger, see Jaeger, , “Classical Philology at the University of Berlin: 1870 to 1945,” in Five Essays, trans, by Fiske, Adele M., R.S.C.J. (Montreal: Mario Casalini, 1966), 45–74Google Scholar. A closer focus is Solmsen, Friedrich, “Classical Scholarship in Berlin Between the Wars,’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 30 (1989), 117–140Google Scholar.

31. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, Blood for the Ghosts: Classical Influences in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 290Google Scholar. Another rebel-rousing inaugural address along the same lines was given at Basel University by the young Werner Jaeger in 1914, who proclaimed that “practitioners of philology”, shaking off the servitude to history (i.e. textual history), henceforth “were to regard themselves as ‘Interpreten’”; see White, Donald O., “Werner Jaeger's ‘Third Humanism’ and the Crisis of Conservative Cultural Politics in Weimar Germany,” in Werner Jaeger Reconsidered, ed. Calder, William M., III. Illinois Classical Studies, Supplement 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 271Google Scholar.

32. Along with Housman's edition of Manilius and Rudolph Pfeiffer's edition of Callimachus.

33. Roth, iii. Among the few working methodological examples available for practical guidance before Roth's work appeared, in addition to Thompson's path breaking study of the Shenzi fragments and Boltz's review of the Laozi, are the following, albeit small-scaled works: Gustav Haloun, in a series of articles in Asia Major, deals with philosophical fragments: Asia Major 8 (1932), 437–518Google Scholar; 9 (1933), 467-502; 10 (1935), 247-250; and n.s. 2 (1951), 85-120. Partly on the basis of Haloun's working notes, Jeffrey Riegel, University of California, Berkeley, has edited an unpublished manuscript called “The ‘Nei Yeh’: A Critical Edition.” Graham, A.C., Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies, and London: University of London 1978)Google Scholar, provides a critical edition of parts of Mozi.

34. Rothx iii-iv.

35. That is, “occasional” explications at various intervals rather than “interlinear” explications, because a sub-title of the work was Xu Shen jishang 許慎記上, ”Recorded Above [the text] by Xu Shen” Roth, 37.

36. Roth concludes (p. 54) that this work was written by He You 何誘, who is otherwise unknown, probably during the fourth century A.D. to supplement the Xu Shen commentary; later, it was distributed among the chapters in certain Xu Shen editions.

37. Thompson utilized Vinton Dealing, A Manual of Textual Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Dealing's more recent revision is Roth's theoretical foundation: Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

38. These terms, their application to the field of textual history, and the theoretical underpinnings of Dearing's methodology are placed in the context of textual criticism in general and the specific cases of the Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Huainanzi in a later article by Roth: “Text and Edition in Early Chinese Philosophical Literature,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (04–June 1993), 214–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Chapter Five was published simultaneously, with minimal additions including a diagram on transmission, as “The Strange Case of the Overdue Book: A Study in the Fortuity of Textual Transmission,’ in From Benares to Beijing: Essays in Honour of Professor Yün-hua Jan, ed. by Schopen, Gregory and Shinohara, Koichi (Oakville, Ontario: Mosaic Press, 1992), 177–208Google Scholar.

40. Roth, Harold, “Filiation Analysis and the Textual History of the Huai-nan Tzu,” Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan 28 (1982), 60–81Google Scholar.

41. Dealing, Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis, 1-20 “Preliminary Distinctions” the axioms are discussed on pp. 84-91.

42. Thompson, , The Shen Tzu Fragments, 180 n. 2Google Scholar.

43. Williams, William Proctor and Abbott, Craig S., An introduction to Bibliographical and Textual Studies 2nd ed. (New York: The Modern Language Association, 1989), 9Google Scholar.

44. Evaluations of Dearing's work include Tanselle, G. Thomas, Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1990), 282-288, 313–315 (cited by Roth in his most recent article)Google Scholar; Greetham, , Textual Scholarship, 328–330Google Scholar; and Kenney, , The Classical Text, 136–137 (on early Dearing)Google Scholar.

45. Kenney, , The Classical Text, 136Google Scholar.

46. Greetham, , Textual Scholarship, 328Google Scholar.

47. Greetham, , Textual Scholarship, 328Google Scholar. “Calculus” refers to Greg's famous Calculus of Variants, published in 1927.

48. See Griffith, John G., “Non-Stemmatic Classification of Manuscripts by Computer Methods,’ in La Pratique des ordinateurs dans la critique des textes (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1979), 73–86Google Scholar. Most of these approaches are illustrated by other contributors to this book.

49. See Kenney, , The Classical Text, 137Google Scholar: “Though the ‘enchainemenf of the witnesses to a text can be determined by formal methods, ‘orientation’—that is, the decision as to which way up the stemma must be read—must still be conducted on historical lines, using the notion of ‘error’.”

50. Kenney, , The Classical Text, 135Google Scholar.

51. Mastronarde, Donald J. and Bremer, Jan Maarten, The Textual Tradition of Euripides' Phoinissal University of California Publications, Classical Studies Vol. 27. (Berkeley, 1982), 34Google Scholar.

52. On this point, see Greetham, , Textual Scholarship, 329Google Scholar, and Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G., Scribes And Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 212Google Scholar. The problem of subjective editorial judgment is approached from various angles in the following instructive introductions: Roncaglia, Aurelio, “The Value of Interpretation in Textual Criticism,’ in Medieval Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, ed. Kleinhenz, Christopher (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1976), 227–244Google Scholar, and Taylor, Gary, “The Rhetoric of Textual Criticism,” Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship 4 (1988), 39–57Google Scholar.

53. Mastronarde, and Bremer, , The Textual Tradition of Euripides' Phoinissai, 35Google Scholar.

54. See Boltz's presentation, “Textual Criticism more sinico” Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, 03 23-27, 1994, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar.

55. Roth does adopt Thompson's list of orthographic variants that need not be consulted, adding three new ones (p. 415 n. 9), and does discount minor scribal errors that are easily correctable (e.g. p. 330).

56. Shumin, Wang 王叔眠, “Jiaochou tongli” 校讎通例, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan iishi yuyanyanjiusuojikan 中央硏究院歷史語言硏究所集刊 13 (1951), 303–347Google Scholar.

57. Roth, 414 n. 4, citing Thompson, , The Shen Tzu Fragments, 180 n. 2Google Scholar.

58. The most famous example is probably Xuecheng, Zhang 章學誠(1738-1801), Jiaochou tongyi 校讎通義(rpt. Taibei: Taiwan Zhonghua shuju, 1965)Google Scholar. A modern exemplar is Shuda, Yang 楊樹達, Gushu judu shiii 古書句讚釋例, Gushu yiyi juli xubu 古書異義舉例續補 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1991)Google Scholar. All of the standard handbooks on jiaokanxue also illustrate the practice with copious illustrations.

59. Among these are the following:

a) The principle of assimilation in voicing to decide between lexical variants in the oral transmission of texts. See Miller, Roy A., “Problems in the Study of Shuo-Wen Chieh-Tzu”, (Ph.D dissertation: Columbia University, 1953), 134Google Scholar.

b) Grammar. See Boltz, , ‘Textual Criticism and the Ma Wang tui Lao tzu,’ 199Google Scholar.

c) Vocabulary and stylistics. Many contributions of Karlgren.

d) Lectio difficilior potior. See Boltz, , “Textual Criticism and the Ma Wang tui Lao tzu” 201–202Google Scholar; Hulsewé, A.F.P., “The Problem of the Authenticity of Shih-Chi Ch. 123, The Memoir on Ta-Yüan,’ Toung Pao 61 (1975), 83–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar, illustrates this tool —and unwittingly the danger of its overuse—throughout his textual analysis.

e) Taboo conventions. Cf. Roth, 86, 381 n. 7

f) Rhyming and tonal patterns. Paul Kroll, “Some Cruces in Li Po's Poetiy.” Paper presented to the 204th Meeting of the American Oriental Society, Madison, Wisconsin, March 21, 1994. Wang Shumin, “Jiaochou tongli,’ #s 73-86 all have to do with problems with rhymes.

g) Colometry. Colometiy is the analysis of a text by isolating individual metrical units, called cola. Metrical analysis can be applied to ancient Chinese documents because the Chinese, by the exigencies of writing on bamboo strips, almost automatically parsed their prose into symmetrical units. It is therefore sometimes possible to trace instances of textual corruption to the misplacement of individual bamboo strips. For instance, recently Edward L. Shaughnessy has emended the text of the Zhushu jinian on the basis of a transposed bamboo strip of forty characters, a number confirmed by the original redactor of the text in the late third centuty A.D. See Shaughnessy, , “On the Authenticity of the Bamboo Annals,’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46 (1986), 165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See further the examples adduced at Loewe, Michael, Records of Han Administration., 2 vols. University Cambridge Oriental Publications No. 11 (Cambridge, 1967), vol. I, 38 n. 59Google Scholar. A more formM attempt in this direction was hazarded by Peter A. Boodberg in 1957. He attempted to show how Chinese accounts of barbarians can be systematically parsed “isocolometrically” into one of three typical lengths of cola:

A colometrical survey of texts extending over the millennium from Han to Sung … reveals that Chinese historiographers had a tendency to calibrate their statements and align their data in cola of three typical lengths: the minimal of 16 to 20 characters … the normal, of 21 to 25 graphic units … and the oblong, of 26 to 33 characters.

After surveying hundreds of passages, he concluded that “isocolometrical analysis is an absolute prerequisite to all formal interpretation and translation of a text”; Boodberg, Peter A., “Notes on Isocolometry in Early Chinese Accounts of Barbarians,’ Orlens 10 (1957), 119Google Scholar(reprinted in Selected Works of Peter A. Boodberg, ed. Cohen, Alvin P. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979], 451–457)Google Scholar. Wang Shumin, “Jiaochou tongli,’ #46.3, deals with lacunae of more than ten characters; #73 treats lost bamboo strips which are conceived of as “texts,” not as metrical units.

60. Reynolds, and Wilson, , Scribes and Scholars, 221–233Google Scholar, offers the following typology of textual corruptions: simplification, trivialization (difficilior lectio potior), interpolation, mistakes in handwriting, changes in spelling and pronunciation, omissions, errors of addition, errors of transposition, contextual errors, editing to reflect a philosophical point, and erroneous emendation. They hasten to add, however, that “scribal errors have never been made the subject of a statistical study, and so it is not possible to establish with any degree of precision the relative frequency of the various types” (p. 222).

61. Roth, 414 n. 4; Thompson, , The Shen Tzu Fragments, 180 n. 2Google Scholar.

62. Griffith, , “Non-Stemmatic Classification of Manuscripts by Computer Methods,” 74Google Scholar. Griffith concludes (pp. 74-75) that there are five essential weaknesses inherent in the stemma: 1) It depends on the accurate dating of the MSS; 2) It is based on common errors, but it is not always clear which of the competing readings are errors; 3) It presupposes that a text is definitive, whereas alternative readings may have originated with the author; 4) It is useless in the face of significant contamination; and 5) It is not always valid for the entire text.

63. Mastronarde, and Bremer, , The Textual Tradition of Euripides' Phoinissai, 36, 43–44Google Scholar; cf. pp. 46-47.

64. Kenney, , The Classical Text, 7Google Scholar.

65. McGuire, Martin R.P., Introduction to Classical Scholarship: A Syllabus and Bibliographical Guide (1955; new and revised ed. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University Press, 1968), 45Google Scholar.

66. McNeal, R.A., Herodotus Book I (Lanham, New York: University Press of America, 1986), vii, ixGoogle Scholar.

67. Honshu buzhu 漢書補註, 2 vols. (rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983), preface, 2bGoogle Scholar. For historical reasons already clarified by Michael Loewe, the base text used by Wang, the Jiguge 汲古閣 ed. of 1641, should give way to the 1035 Jingyou 景祐 edition. See Loewe, Michael, “Some Recent Editions of the Ch'ien-Han-Shu,” Asia Major 10 (1969), 162–172Google Scholar.

68. Chuci buzhu 楚辭補註 (rpt. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1981)Google Scholar, 1.2a: “Of those [editions] of the Chuci transmitted down the ages, only the Wang Yi 王逸 version (ben 本)is the most ancient; whenever the various versions vary [from it], we must take it as correct.”

69. Roth, 327; 364 n. 20;

70. Cf. Arbuckle, Gary, “A Strong But Uneven Light: A Discussion of Some Issues Raised by The Textual History of the Huai-nan-tzu.” B.C. Asian Review VII/1 (Winter 1993–1994), 114–124Google Scholar. I wish to thank Mr. Michael Reeve of the University of British Columbia for calling my attention to this review and furnishing me with a copy.

71. Roth, , “Psychology and Self-Cultivation in Early Taoistic Thought,’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 51 (1991), 599–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar, bases his conclusions on a careful reading of texts he has constituted himself; e.g. p. 612 n. 37: “I have determined the critical text for the nineteen passages from the Kuan Tzu translated here by consulting two principle sources….” and the similar sentiments on p. 631 n. 77 for passages from the Huainanzi.

72. Lloyd-Jones, , Greek in a Cold Climate, 232Google Scholar.