Page:Ch'un Ts'ew Pt I.pdf/38

Rh (with a variation, however, to which he does not advert), and one by Tso, for we may consider all the paragraphs that follow the account of the capture of the lin as one addition. They were both very natural, and I should suppose were intended originally as notes rather than additions to the text. The various readings again in the three are really not of great importance. Occurring mostly in the names of men and places, they need not trouble us more than different ways of spelling unusual words in different editions of an English book would do. The most important variation of another character between them is that on which Ma insists so strongly— and in I. iii. 3. This is not what we may compare to an error of orthography, arising from writing the same sound in different ways;—it is evidently an error of transcription. Tso, I am of opinion, copied down instead of, and then tried, ingeniously but unsatisfactorily, to account in his commentary for the unusual combination of. Kung and Kuh copied correctly, but their historical knowledge was not sufficient to enable them to explain who  was. Ma has altogether overlooked the consideration of the value attaching to the various readings as showing the independence of the three recensions. Adding to them the two of Tsow and K'ëah which soon perished, we have five different texts of the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw in existence in the second century before our era. Tso, Kung-yang, and Kuh-lëang, had each his school of adherents, who sought to exalt the views of their master above those of his rivals. It is still competent to us to pronounce upon their respective views, and weigh the claims which they have to our consideration; but the question at present is simply about their texts. Notwithstanding the differences between these, there is no doubt in my mind that they ﬂowed from a common original,— 21]