Appendix: Commentary on the Variations

The following commentary is organized according to the links in the tree diagram on p. 331, moving from left to right. For each link, defined by the two states (extant or inferential) that it joins, a list of variations is given, followed by the commentary.

1-CHEN : 2.8, 2.10, 4.6, 5.13, 5.14a, 12.2, 13.3, 13.7, 14.2, 16.3, 16.4, 18.1a, 18.2, 20.2, 20.7, 20.23, 21.2, 25.6, 26.11, 28.2, 28.17, 28.18, 28.19,

[66] One may reasonably ask how much effect such an examination of the textual tradition can have. As an instance, I offer my book, Lyric Poets , in which I generally followed Wang Chung-wen's already very carefully edited text. I now see five places where I would emend my text as a result of the analysis presented here, one of them being "leaves" in place of "moon" in "Yü mei-jen." Perhaps equally important are all the variations in which I would not emend, the crucial gain in both cases being a more confident sense of just how much interpretive weight the text can bear at any particular point.

29.3, 31.1, 31.5, 32.1, 35.1, 37.3, 37.9; plus the rewritten variations 4.5, 6.5, and 27.4. Of these, 2.8, 5.14a, 12.2, 13.3, 13.7, 14.2, 18.1a, 18.2, 20.2, 21.2, 28.2, 28.18, 29.3, 31.1, 32.1, and 35.1 are singleton readings; that is, they are unique to CHEN, being found in no other source. In all the other variations, CHEN agrees with from one to twenty-one other texts, though not with any other state of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u . It is too early in the analysis to offer an explanation of this phenomenon (as we shall see, it stands in considerable contrast to the case of the other four states of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u ). In eight of the fourteen variations, there is at least one Sung text in agreement with CHEN, but in all cases there is at least one late text so agreeing, including the Li-tai shih-yü in all but two cases. These agreements suggest that CHEN was more "present" in the transmission of the tradition of tz'u poetry than were some of the other states of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u , but at this stage we cannot say whether this was a matter of CHEN's being contaminated by other texts or of its being more readily available as a source for later works. In any case, this tendency of CHEN to agree with texts outside the tradition of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u is consistent with the pattern of the rewritten variations 4.5, 6.5, and 27.4, in each of which CHEN and HOU shared a common reading with such other texts.

1-HSIAO : 3.9, 4.6, 5.14a, 7.16, 10.21, 13.4, 17.7, 17.17, 17.18, 19.7, 21.1, 21.3, 26.11, 29.4, 29.4a, 30.1, 30.4, 31.5, 33.3a, 33.4a, 33.5, 35.2, 35.3, 36.5, and 36.7; plus the rewritten variations 14.4 and 29.6. The contrast with CHEN is striking here. In all but four of the non-rewritten variations (3.9, 17.18, 21.3, and 29.4) HSIAO has a singleton reading, and only one text agrees with HSIAO more than once among these four (the Ch'üan T'ang shih , in 3.9 and 21.3). In most cases, the readings unique to HSIAO are plainly careless errors. In the two rewritten variations, however, the reading common to HSIAO and LU is the better one. If it were characteristic of HSIAO to "improve" its text in general, we should feel more comfortable with assuming independent emendation in HSIAO and LU in these two cases. On the other hand, in 29.6, no other texts agree with CHEN, HOU, and WU, so this variation is unlike those rewritten by dividing CHEN from HOU (4.5, 6.5, and 27.4). In the latter cases, CHEN and HOU share their reading with other texts, which suggests the possibility of contamination.

1-3 : 1.1, 2.1, 2.5, 3.2, 4.6, 4.11, 4.13, 5.7, 5.14 (5.14a), 6.3, 9.6, 15.4, 17.3, 22.2, 23.4, 25.3, 25.4, 26.11, 28.3, 28.12, 31.3, 31.5, 31.6, 34.4, 37.4; plus the rewritten variations 1.2b, 30.2, and 34.1. This is the link within which the archetype is located, which means that in none of these variations can we identify an archetypal reading simply by reference to the tree. Four of them (1.1, 17.3, 25.4, and 31.6) are among the

"clearly directional variations" used in locating the archetype. The rest can only be dealt with individually and provisionally. We shall discuss them in four groups.

(a) Variations dividing only states of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u :

28.3: In the note to this poem to the melody "Yü-lou ch'un," 1 read ni (nun), while 3 read chü-shih (recluse). It is easy to see how the confusion could arise from the shapes of the characters, difficult to be sure which reading is preferable.

34.4: In a textual note to another of the "Hsieh hsin en" poems, 1 had shih (is), while 3 read jih (sun). Shih appears to be the better reading, and Wang Chung-wen adopts it. In the Ch'üan T'ang Wu-tai tz'u of Chang Chang and Huang Yü (rpt., Taipei: Wen-shih-che, 1986), p. 485, the reading in HOU is reported to be yüeh (says). I have not seen HOU since the appearance of the Ch'üan T'ang Wu-tai tz'u , but the Suhsiang shih reprint of it reads jih . Chang and Huang are probably right in supposing that either form would be evidence of an ancestral shih either miscopied or derived from a damaged ancestor.

(b) Variations in which other texts agree only with 1:

4.13: While 1 and all other texts read i (lean), 3 evidently read chi (send). The former reading is clearly better, and its being found in all other Sung texts that include this passage tends to confirm that it was the reading of the archetype. It is significant that Wang Chung-wen, who generally follows LU as his copy-text, reads i here. Indeed, he follows 1 in all five variations in this group.

15.4: The reading of 3 (found in HOU, LU, and WU), tao (reverse) for hsin (trust), is unintelligible, as Wang Chung-wen argues. The other texts that include this passage, five of them of Sung date, all read hsin .

26.11: The reading of 3 was a lacuna, while CHEN reads ch'ü (bends) and HSIAO, yüeh (moon). One of the latter is probably the archetypal reading. Both make sense in the context, but ch'ü makes more and better sense. It is also the reading of all other texts that include this poem, and this tends to support its claim to be the reading of the archetype.

28.12: The lacuna in 3, in place of chien (interval) or hsien (leisure), cannot be authorial. The typeset edition of WU and the Su-hsiang shih reedition of HOU both restore the text.

31.5: This variation is most conveniently discussed here, although it is not entirely analogous to the others in the group. The reading of 3 was chin (suffer), which does not make sense in the context. HSIAO reads chih (branch). The reading of CHEN, chin (band), is a homophone of that in 3 and is also written with a similar character. Although the latter two readings both make good sense, the similarity of those in CHEN and 3

suggests that one of them was the reading in 1, and we are naturally inclined to suppose that it was that of CHEN, which is also found in the only other text, a late anthology, to include the poem. On the other hand, if 1 already had an intelligible reading, the chances of variation occurring between it and HSIAO would naturally be reduced. In short, we propose "band" with greater confidence as the authorial reading for the poem than we do as the reading of the archetype of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u .

(c) Variations in which other texts agree only with 3:

2.1: The reading of 1 was yü (jadeite). WU leaves a space here, and 3 read pi (emerald). Neither reading is clearly preferable, but it may be significant that the T'ang Sung chu-hsien chüeh-miao tz'u-hsüan , the only other Sung text to include the poem, agrees with 3.

3.2: That 1 read erh shou (two poems) after the title of this poem while 3 did not is not a dilemma that reference to other texts can resolve; nor is it one of much importance.

4.11: Both the ho (what) of 3 and the wu (without) of 1 are satisfactory readings in the context. That the Tsun-ch'ien chi and the T'ang Sung chu-hsien chüeh-miao tz'u-hsüan both read ho increases the plausibility of accepting it as the authorial reading.

9.6: This variation resembles the preceding. Both shan ("hill," i.e., "high") in 3 and its homophone meaning "coral" in 1 are acceptable readings. That both the Tsun-ch'ien chi , which attributes the poem to "Prince Li," and the Hua-chien chi , in which it is included as the work of Wen T'ing-yün, read "hill" similarly tends to support it as the authorial reading.

22.2: The two homophones in this variation, both read so ("tiny" in 1, and "lock" in 3), occur as substitutions for one another fairly frequently, meaning "chain" or "link." Here the other texts are few in number and late, so they do not help much in resolving this variation, which is of little significance in any case. We are inclined to adopt the "lock" form to be consistent with the clearly directional variation 25.4 (see above), which involves the same pair of homophones. That the elements of the pair take the same positions on either side of the archetype in both variations naturally suggests that we may be dealing with a case of "scribal style."

25.3: Two late texts agree with 3 in reading hang (row), which makes easier sense than jen (allow), the reading of 1. Other late texts have other readings still. While hang is the easier reading, jen remains possible ("One allows the beaded curtains to hang idly unrolled all the time , [since] all day long no one visits").

31.3: The variation between chin (gold) in 3 and han (enclose) in 1 is clearly the result of graphic confusion. "Gold" is probably the better reading, as it matches the fen (pink) earlier in the line.

d) Variations in which other texts agree with both 1 and 3:

2.5: The reading of 1 was yeh (night), while that of 3 was yü (remnant) (WU leaves a blank here). The T'ang Sung chu-hsien chüeh-miao tz'u-hsüan agrees with 3, while a late compendium, the Hua-ts'ao ts'ui-pien , agrees with 1. "Night" is the easier reading, perhaps, but it is not decisively better.

4.6: The reading of 3 here was jung (countenance), with which several Sung collections of anecdotes that cite the poem, as well as a number of later texts, agree. CHEN has shao (beautiful), with which the Tsun-ch'ien chi , the T'ang Sung chu-hsien chüeh-miao tz'u-hsüan , and most later texts agree. HSIAO reads han (cold). The latter looks like an error derived from the reading of 3, which suggests that 1 also may have read jung , in which case the error in HSIAO would be independent of the reading in CHEN, which might be the result of contamination. Alternatively, the reading of 1 (and perhaps even of the archetype) may have been han . Choice of an archetypal reading here is not possible on formal grounds. All three make good sense in the context. That han is found only as a singleton in HSIAO greatly reduces the likelihood of its being archetypal, but the division of even the Sung sources between jung and shao is equivocal.

5.7: See the concluding section of the essay for a full discussion of this variation, in which the reading of 1 was yeh (leaves), while that of 3 was yüeh (moon). We argue there that yeh has the better chance of being the reading of the archetype.

5.14: This variation might well have been classed with group 3 above, as only one late text agrees with 1 in reading hsü (quite), while all others, including seven of Sung date, read chi (how much). This suggests that chi is more likely to have been the reading of the archetype.

6.3: This is a more complex case than most, in that the reading of 3 cannot be determined on formal grounds. The reading of 1, with which several late texts agree, is ti (drip). LU and one late text read tuan (broken). The lacuna in 2, in place of tuan or ti , is non-authorial (the typeset edition of WU fills it with tuan ). The difficulty is, of course, that the reading of 3 cannot be determined when 2 and LU disagree, and this is particularly important since the reading of the archetype was probably that of 3.

23.4: This poem is not included in any Sung texts other than the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u , so it is not so significant (at least not for our attempt

to determine the reading of the archetype) that only one late text agrees with 1 in reading hun (soul), while many agree with 3 in reading meng (dream).

37.4: Most of the Sung texts that include this poem agree with 3 in reading nuan (warm), while the Lei shuo and a few minor texts read nai¹ or nai² (help, fend off) with 1. The latter reading makes the whole line one sentence ("Gossamer covers do not fend off the fifth-watch chill"), while the former makes it two independent clauses ("Gossamer covers are not warm; the fifth watch is chilly").

In short, whenever the archetype is located on a link in the diagram, rather than at a particular state or inferential intermediary, variations occurring across that link can be resolved only by such nonce methods as the authority of other texts or the judgment of an editor.

3-LU: 6.2, 6.3, 7.14, 8.1, 13.4, 19.7, 20.10, 21.3, 23.5, 23.5a, 26.10, 28.16, 37.1, 37.11; plus the rewritten variations 14.4, 29.6, and 34.3. The first point to note about these variations is that they are relatively few in number, fewer than those occurring across any other link leading to an extant state. Only four of them (7.14, 8.1, 23.5a, and 37.1) are not singleton variations, and even in these four the agreements with other texts are not of great significance. Although only in the case of the complex variation 6.3 (see above) can we argue that LU's reading is possibly archetypal, the relatively small number of variations arising at this link suggests that LU is generally the most reliable of the extant states. The result of our formal analysis of the variations thus agrees with Wang Chung-wen's judgment, when he chose LU as the copy-text for his edition.

3-2: 6.3, 7.7, 8.4, 16.4, 19.1, 19.9, 20.5, 29.3, 29.4a, 34.5. These variations too are strikingly few in number. In the most common case, the reading of 2 was a lacuna. In only one of these variations, 20.5, do other texts share the reading of 2. The two Sung texts to include the poem, the Tsun-ch'ien chi and the T'ang Sung chu-hsien chüeh-miao tz'u-hsüan (the latter attributes it to Tu An-shih), both agree with 3 (and hence with the archetypal reading of the Nan-T'ang erh-chu tz'u ) in reading lung (cage), and many later texts agree. This seems a much more interesting reading in the context than the fei (fly) of 2 and a number of later texts.

2-HOU: 1.2a, 1.6, 1.13, 5.3, 8.2, 9.7, 14.1, 15.1, 17.4, 18.1b, 19.2, 20.3, 20.3a, 20.16, 25.1, 25.4, 26.2, 28.4, 30.3, 31.6, 31.7, 35.4; plus the rewritten variations 4.5, 6.5, 27.4, 30.2, and 34.3. Here again, virtually all the variations consist of singleton readings unique to HOU. The three exceptions, 1.6, 20.16, and 25.4 (see above), are all cases of a lectio if not facilior , then at least facilis , and it is possible that independent error is

responsible for one or more of them. Most of the other variants in HOU are clearly erroneous readings or slight variations in the placement of the notes.

2-WU: 1.2c, 1.15, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.9, 2.10, 3.1, 4.10, 5.2, 6.4, 6.5, 10.4, 13.8, 15.3, 16.2, 16.5, 17.2, 17.3, 24.7, 26.9, 26.10, 27.4, 27.5, 29.2, 29.5, 29.7, 31.2, 31.7, 32.2, 34.2, 37.6; plus the rewritten variations 1.2b and 34.1. In all but one of these numerous variations (the exception is trivial), WU has a singleton reading, and one that is in the majority of cases manifestly inferior, as Wang Chung-wen frequently points out in his apparatus. Many of these errors are "corrected" in the typeset edition.