The Transmission and Textual Transformation of the Shisong lü 十誦律 from the 6th to 13th Centuries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This one is informative. I think the author has done a detailed examination of the primary and secondary resources. My main recommendation for improving the article is that the author rewrites the abstract and the introduction. It is better to give a clear research question in the introduction. For example, Lines 79-85: the author should tell the readers the exact manuscript numbers of the two previously understudied handwritten manuscripts (if there are any). In the introduction, the author should also tell the readers the value of these two previously understudied handwritten manuscripts: Why are they worth a textual study? Because they have different readings and contents not found in other versions? Or other reasons? At the end of the introduction, it is better to add several sentences to illustrate that it is necessary to tell the significance of the "Preface to the Vinaya  律序" before the discussion of the two previously understudied handwritten manuscripts. That is to say, in the introduction, it is better for the author to briefly tell the logical cohesion between chapters in this article.

Pages 3-4: for the four phases discussion, it is better to directly quote the original Chinese texts and then give an English translation.

Lines 320-339: Could the author please give a more detailed investigation of this part? Namely present detailed textual readings of different versions (At least 3 instances)

Page 11 Table 1 (should be Table 2?): I think the author could give more instances for their differences?

Lines 508-510: 比尼 is totally different from 毗壇 / 阿毗壇 (possibly transliteration of the Sanskrit abhidharma?), why did such a different reading exist?

For  十诵律, I think pinyin “Shisong lü” is better than the literal translation Ten Recitation Vinaya. So is the Sifen lü.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editting is recommended.

Author Response

My Response to Review 1:

 

1. Abstract and Introduction

Reviewer Feedback: Rewrite the abstract and introduction with a clear research question and manuscript details, including the value of the understudied manuscripts and the logical cohesion between the chapters.

My Response: As reflected in my revision, I have rewritten the abstract and introduction to include a clear research question and to address the significance of the understudied manuscripts. Additionally, I have provided an explanation of the logical cohesion between chapters in the introduction.

2. Quoting Original Chinese Texts

Reviewer Feedback: The reviewer suggests directly quoting the original Chinese texts in the four-phase discussion and providing English translations.

My Response: Thank you for the feedback. Given the complexity of the discussion and its detailed examination in a forthcoming paper, I have decided to omit the original Chinese texts here. For a more comprehensive analysis, readers can refer to my forthcoming paper on this topic.

3. Lines 320-339: Detailed Textual Investigation

Reviewer Feedback: Provide detailed textual readings of different versions, with at least three instances.

My Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Given the complexity of the topic, which has been explored in depth in the same forthcoming paper mentioned earlier, I have chosen not to include detailed textual readings here. However, I have provided necessary references for readers to consult this paper for a more detailed analysis.

4. Table 2: More Instances

Reviewer Feedback: The reviewer suggests providing more examples in Table 2.

My Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The two differences listed in Table 2 are the most significant among the others, so I have focused on these key differences to maintain clarity and conciseness. However, I have also discussed the other differences in the following passages.

5. Lines 508-510: Clarify the Reading

Reviewer Feedback: The reviewer is puzzled by the different readings of 比尼 and 毗壇 / 阿毗壇 and asks for clarification.

My Response: I agree that this difference is puzzling and remains unclear. My current understanding is limited, but it may indicate regional variations or transliteration inconsistencies. Further research is needed to fully resolve this.

6. Pinyin Usage

Reviewer Feedback: Use pinyin for 十诵律 (Shisong lü) and 四分律 (Sifen lü) instead of the literal translations.

My Response: Revised. I have updated the text to use pinyin for 十誦律 (Shisong lü) and 四分律 (Sifen lü) as suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent contribution!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind words and positive feedback on my manuscript. I am delighted that you found my contribution to be of value. Your encouragement is greatly appreciated and motivates me to continue my research in this field.

Please let me know if there are any additional aspects you believe could further enhance the manuscript. I am committed to making it as strong as possible.

Thank you once again for your support.

Sincerely,

Limei Chi

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a high-standard philological research article. The author has conducted an exceedingly systematic collation of multiple versions of the "Preface to the Vinaya," a task that is notably laborious and time-consuming. Excitingly, it is on the foundation of the aforementioned arduous work that the author has observed a significant phenomenon, clarifying for us the transmission of the "Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya," a Vinaya text of great importance in the history of Chinese Buddhism. This represents a discovery of considerable importance.

However, I would also like to remind the author of several issues that warrant attention:

 

(1)The author's research is predicated on the logical framework of printed books studies, which posits that there may be direct or indirect evolutionary relationships between two versions. However, in the era of manuscript culture, this logic may not entirely hold true, as each scribe could have collated and modified the text at their disposal, with some changes potentially being the result of a comprehensive assessment following collation against multiple versions.

 

(2)In the section titled "The chronological order of the textual sources," the author has arrived at some highly significant insights regarding the relative dating of the texts upon which different versions are based, proposing that:

 

1. The content of the Northern edition is the most complete, likely due to its reliance on Northern manuscripts from the late Tang and Five Dynasties periods.

2. The Jiangnan edition is the most concise and exhibits the greatest divergence from the Northern edition, implying that its source manuscripts from the Jiangnan region are the earliest.

3. The Central Plains edition represents an intermediate level of text complexity, suggesting that its source manuscripts from Yizhou are older than those of the Northern edition but more recent than those of the Jiangnan edition.

 

The author's conclusions are underpinned by an implicit logic that the more succinct the text, the earlier its date; and the more complete and complex the text, the later its date. While this logic often holds true, further substantiation or clarification may be required when discussing specific issues.

 

Furthermore, in the author's final conclusions for this section, it is stated:

 

Consequently, tracing the textual lineage from the oldest extant version, the Liang-Version, the sequence is as follows: the Dongchan-Version is the next closest, followed by the Jingo-Version, with the Jin-Version's source coming later. The sources of the Khitan edition and the Goryeo-Version are the most recent in this lineage.

 

According to this conclusion, the author's method of argumentation should involve a collation of the Liang-Version with other versions one by one, and subsequently collate the other versions with each other. However, in the author's argument, there is no comparison made between the Goryeo-Version and the Liang-Version.

 

(3) Conducting statistical research on the differences between various versions is a crucial methodology of this paper. However, it should be noted that "differences" can be distinguished between significant and minor variations. Some "differences" may not actually indicate essential disparities between versions, such as the use of variant characters, phonetic loan characters, and homophones (e.g., 燃＝然, 伎＝妓, 惠＝慧), which are likely errors made by the copiers rather than differences in the versions themselves. Therefore, where possible, in subsequent research, the author could further refine these differences. (This issue does not necessarily need to be addressed in this paper, so the author may choose not to respond in revisions.)

Author Response

My Response to Review 3:

(1) Logical Framework in Manuscript Culture

Reviewer Feedback: The author's research is predicated on the logical framework of printed book studies, which posits that there may be direct or indirect evolutionary relationships between two versions. However, in the era of manuscript culture, this logic may not entirely hold true, as each scribe could have collated and modified the text at their disposal, with some changes potentially being the result of a comprehensive assessment following collation against multiple versions.

My Response: As the reviewer correctly notes, during the "era of manuscript culture," it is indeed possible that "each scribe could have collated and modified the text at their disposal, with some changes potentially being the result of a comprehensive assessment following collation against multiple versions." However, the texts discussed in this paper are not ordinary or arbitrarily copied manuscripts; they were carefully calligraphed and specifically selected for inclusion in the manuscript Canon. The creation of such canonical texts differs significantly from that of texts circulated among the public or produced by individuals, which considerably restricts the scribes' freedom to make arbitrary changes or collations. Thus, the methods and logic applied to these texts are both reasonable and valid for discussing manuscript versions of the Canon.

(2) Chronological Order of Textual Sources

Reviewer Feedback: In the section titled "The chronological order of the textual sources," the author has arrived at some highly significant insights regarding the relative dating of the texts upon which different versions are based, proposing that:

1. The content of the Northern edition is the most complete, likely due to its reliance on Northern manuscripts from the late Tang and Five Dynasties periods.
2. The Jiangnan edition is the most concise and exhibits the greatest divergence from the Northern edition, implying that its source manuscripts from the Jiangnan region are the earliest.
3. The Central Plains edition represents an intermediate level of text complexity, suggesting that its source manuscripts from Yizhou are older than those of the Northern edition but more recent than those of the Jiangnan edition.

The author's conclusions are underpinned by an implicit logic that the more succinct the text, the earlier its date; and the more complete and complex the text, the later its date. While this logic often holds true, further substantiation or clarification may be required when discussing specific issues.

My Response: Perhaps due to my inaccurate expression in English, there has been a misunderstanding. My reasoning for the evolution of the printed Canon texts is not that "the more succinct the text, the earlier its date; and the more complete and complex the text, the later its date." Instead, my argument is that when compared to the latest version of the Canon, the Khitan Canon, the closer a text's content is to that version, the later its lineage; conversely, the greater the difference, the earlier its lineage.

Firstly, it is a common understanding in Canon studies that the textual lineage of the Khitan Canon (Northern Canon) is the latest among the three lineages. However, it is difficult to determine which is earlier between the textual lineages of the Jiangnan Canon and the Kaibao Canon, and this needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Secondly, collation records from Shouqi confirm that, when compared with the fifth scroll of the Shisong lü in the Khitan Canon, the Kaibao Canon and the first-carved Goryeo Canon omitted three sections, totaling several thousand characters. Finally, examining the fifth scroll of the Jiangnan Canon reveals not only the omission of the aforementioned three sections of several thousand characters but also two other sections with significant omissions. Based on the changes in this scroll’s content, I tentatively suggest that the evolutionary trend in Shisong lü’s textual lineage of printed Canon editions is one of gradual increase, whereby the text omitted in the Vinaya due to repetition is progressively restored.

 

Reviewer Feedback: Furthermore, in the author's final conclusions for this section, it is stated:
Consequently, tracing the textual lineage from the oldest extant version, the Liang-Version, the sequence is as follows: the Dongchan-Version is the next closest, followed by the Jingo-Version, with the Jin-Version's source coming later. The sources of the Khitan edition and the Goryeo-Version are the most recent in this lineage.

According to this conclusion, the author's method of argumentation should involve a collation of the Liang-Version with other versions one by one, and subsequently collate the other versions with each other. However, in the author's argument, there is no comparison made between the Goryeo-Version and the Liang-Version.

My Response: I have revised this section to ensure accuracy in English expression. I did not compare the Goryeo edition (Recarved Edition) with the Liang-Version before concluding that the Goryeo edition was compiled later. This conclusion is based on the collation notes by Shouqi, which indicate that the Goryeo Recarved Edition had already undergone textual revisions based on the Khitan edition. These revisions can also be observed through comparison with the Jin edition. Therefore, the formation of the Goryeo Recarved edition must be later than both the Jin edition and the Khitan edition, meaning that it is reasonable to conclude this without a direct comparison between the Goryeo-Version and the Liang-Version.

 

(3) Statistical Research on Differences Between Versions

Reviewer Feedback: Conducting statistical research on the differences between various versions is a crucial methodology of this paper. However, it should be noted that "differences" can be distinguished between significant and minor variations. Some "differences" may not actually indicate essential disparities between versions, such as the use of variant characters, phonetic loan characters, and homophones (e.g., 燃＝然, 伎＝妓, 惠＝慧), which are likely errors made by the copiers rather than differences in the versions themselves. Therefore, where possible, in subsequent research, the author could further refine these differences. (This issue does not necessarily need to be addressed in this paper, so the author may choose not to respond in revisions.)

My Response: My research does not qualify as "statistical research." Although I used some data to analyze and compare the results, the aim was not to make a precise comparison of textual differences through statistical methods but rather to reveal a general trend in the evolution of the texts. To make this trend clearer, I excluded data related to homophones or variant characters, which tend to highlight the characteristics of manuscripts but obscure the overall trend. In the next stage of my research, I plan to conduct more detailed statistical analysis and explore the unique features of the manuscripts.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

More clearly discussed now. Looking forward to your forthcoming paper you mentioned. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mnior revision of the English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. I’m glad to hear that the discussion is now clearer.

Regarding the forthcoming paper I mentioned, I appreciate your interest and look forward to sharing it with you when it is ready.

I have also made the minor revisions to the English language as suggested. 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and support.

Best regards,
Limei Chi