CHALFANT: EARLY CHINESE WRITING 19 
seem to be groundless. It is unsafe to place absolute confidence in all of the 
etymologies of the Shuo Wén, but on the other hand, it is a great error to treat it, 
as has been done by some, as throughout unreliable. Even the compilers of the 
Kanghsi Dictionary had their doubts about many of the conclusions of the Shuo 
Wen, as will appear by a perusal of that work. Still upon the whole it seems to 
have merited the approval of that able corps of scholars. 
There are in existence more than one version of the Shuo Wén, which show pro- 
nounced variations in the text. This divergence in readings is probably due to the 
several versions having been derived from early independent transcriptions of the 
original manuscript. What is needed is a revision of the text, after careful com- 
parison of the extant versions, by a corps of Chinese and foreign scholars, along the 
lines of textual criticism. To cite an example of divergence in readings, the defini- 
tion of a certain ancient measure is variously given in two versions, the diserepancy 
being so great as to leave the reader unable to determine the intended dimensions. 
Some error in copying is likely the cause of this variation, but just when and where 
it occurred is the question. 
There are also instances where the definition is irreconcilable with subsequent 
meanings of a symbol. This leads the student to suspect that an early copyist has 
substituted another character for the one intended. This kind of error is easily 
made in a language in which the addition or omission of a single stroke may ma- 
terially alter the significance of a symbol. 
Another source of error may be in the imperfections of the original manuscript, 
for it is a matter of tradition that the Shuo Wén was published after the death of 
the author, thus embodying in the text some inadvertent errors which a review by 
the author might have eliminated. 
The Chinese commentators of the Shuo Wén have themselves made some in- 
genious surmises in their efforts to reconcile textual contradictions, and in many 
instances are free to admit that there must be errors of long standing in the extant 
versions. Combine the ability of the European textual critic with the accumulated 
knowledge of the Chinese antiquarian, and some of the knotty questions might find 
a solution. 
In Plates XXX. to XLEX., inclusive, I have given a list of the five hundred and 
forty “classifiers,” which in the opinion of the author of the Shuo Wén is the basis of 
the later written language. To the form given in the Shuo Wén I have appended the 
equivalent modern form together with the English definition.and the pronuncia- 
tion. These symbols have been arranged so as ‘to fall under the:successive radicals 
as now accepted’ by modern lexicographers. 
: WG ™ t Hy 4 ( 
