1. On the last point see Richter, Matthias L., The Embodied Text: Establishing Textual Identity in Early Chinese Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Boltz, William G., “The Composite Nature of Early Chinese Texts,” in Text and Ritual in Early China, ed. Kern, Martin (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005), 50–78Google Scholar; Schwerman, Christian, “Collage-Technik als Kompositionsprinzip klassischer chinesischer Prosa: Der Aufbau des Kapitels ‘Tang wen’ (Die Fragen des Tang) im Liezi,” Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 29 (2005), 125–57Google Scholar; Nylan, Michael, “Academic Silos, or ‘What I Wish Philosophers Knew about Early History in China’,” in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, ed. Tan, Sor-hoon (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), 93Google Scholar.

3. See Richter, Matthias L., “Manuscript Formats and Textual Structure in Early China,” in Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship, ed. Hunter, Michael and Kern, Martin (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 187–217Google Scholar. Richter argues against the hypothesis that the use of bamboo or wooden slips facilitated textual reorganization in the manner of a loose-leaf binder. Rather than being dictated by material features, Richter proposes, textual fluidity was a cultural or intellectual choice. In a similar vein, Harper, Donald, “Daybooks in the Context of Manuscript Culture,” in Books of Fate and Popular Culture in Early China: The Daybook Manuscripts of the Warring States, Qin, and Han, ed. Harper, Donald and Kalinowski, Marc (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, asserts that “[c]onventions in manuscript culture influenced decisions about the combination of pieces of text to copy.”

4. See Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Unearthed Documents and the Question of the Oral versus Written Nature of the Classic of Poetry,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 75.2 (2015), 331–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with numerous references to publications by Martin Kern, the current major proponent of orality’s crucial role in Odes transmission. On the influence of oral-formulaic theory on Western sinologists’ understanding of the Odes, see Shaughnessy, , “The Origin and Development of Western Sinologists’ Theories of the Oral-Formulaic Nature of the Classic of Poetry,” Rao Zongyi guoxueyuan yuankan 饒宗頤國學院院刊 3 (2016), 133–49Google Scholar, which draws on Saussy, Haun, The Ethnography of Rhythm: Orality and Its Technologies (New York: Fordham University Press, 2016)Google Scholar, a study of the invention of “oral literature” as a specific category of literature.

5. On textual performance, see Kern, Martin, “Shi Jing Songs as Performance Texts: A Case Study of ‘Chu ci’ (Thorny Calthrop),” Early China 25 (2000), 49–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Kern, , “Creating a Book and Performing It: The ‘Yao lüe’ Chapter of the Huainanzi as a Western Han Fu,” in The Huainanzi and Textual Production in Early China, ed. Queen, Sarah A. and Puett, Michael (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 124–50Google Scholar, on the Huainanzi 淮南子 postface as a possible performance text. Nylan, “A Note on Logical Connectives in the Huainanzi,” in The Huainanzi and Textual Production in Early China, ed. Queen and Puett, 225–65, interprets particle usage in Huainanzi chap. 7, “Jing shen” 精神, from the perspective of rhetorical performance and considers the entire book an “early performance text” (ibid., 226; also 261). Nylan also speaks of Huainanzi as an example of a type of “early texts designed for highly performative manuscript cultures” (ibid., 264) and conceives of her analysis of Huainanzi 7 as an attempt to “recapture … early listening practices” (ibid., 265). On the Han as an “empire of texts” in which large-scale compilations and literary works conceived as idealized mirrors of reality gained prominence, see Lewis, Mark Edward, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

6. See the discussion in Shaughnessy, “Unearthed Documents”; see also Meyer, Dirk, Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of Meaning in Early China (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 152.

7. Nylan, “Academic Silos,” 92; italics in the original.

8. Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo, 83.

9. Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo, 10.

10. Meyer, Dirk, “Bamboo and the Production of Philosophy: A Hypothesis about a Shift in Writing and Thought in Early China,” in Material Culture and Asian Religions: Text, Image, Object, ed. Fleming, Benjamin J. and Mann, Richard D. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 21–38Google Scholar.

11. Meyer, “Bamboo and the Production of Philosophy,” 23. The following objections may be noted in passing; they pertain to three issues: (1) The decreasing cost of bamboo: Nothing suggests that “lightweight stationary”—bamboo—became cheaper or more common during the period in question. If use of bamboo spread, there is nothing to suggest that this change would have come about at any other than a glacial pace. (2) The representativeness of the sample: Due to the impact of various environmental factors on the survival of organic materials, recent finds of bamboo manuscripts are geographically skewed toward the northwest and south. The archaeological sample cannot be considered representative of the entire population of light organic writing materials at any given time. More excavated bamboo slips from a particular period do not automatically imply that there were more in circulation. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to take it as a given that bamboo manuscripts buried in tombs meaningfully reflect wider social habits of manuscript production or use; in fact, scholars still debate potential motivations for interring manuscripts (see Armin Selbitschka, “‘I Write Therefore I am’: Scribes, Literacy, and Identity in Early China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (forthcoming) for an overview of arguments). (3) The relationship between material conditions and intellectual change: Material factors can be necessary conditions for social and intellectual change, but they are rarely sufficient. The availability of light writing materials by itself does not automatically mean that greater amounts of writing will be produced, that a greater number of people or proportion of the population will write, or that they will write any differently in terms of form and content. Any such outcome—or a lack thereof—will be influenced by more complex social and cultural factors.

12. Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo, 172. Similar unexplained contradictions emerge in Meyer’s interpretations of the Tsinghua counterpart of the Shangshu 尚書 chapter “Jin teng” 金縢 in different publications; see Shaughnessy, Edward L., of, review Origins of Chinese Political Philosophy: Studies in the Composition and Thought of the Shangshu, ed. Kern, Martin and Meyer, Dirk (Leiden: Brill, 2017)Google Scholar, Rao Zongyi guoxueyuan yuankan 5 (2018), 426–28.

13. Saussy, The Ethnography of Rhythm.

14. Eve, Eric, “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem,” Early Christianity 6 (2015), 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on “oral tradition.”

15. Lord, Albert Bates, “Rebuttal,” in The Singer Resumes the Tale, ed. Louise, Mary Lord (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 187–202Google Scholar. See also Vatri, Alessandro, Orality and Performance in Classical Attic Prose: A Linguistic Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vatri’s discussions throughout chap. 1. In his “Rebuttal,” Lord responded to Green, D. H., “Orality and Reading: The State of Research in Medieval Studies,” Speculum 65 (1990), 267–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which raised a number of objections against the Parry-Lord hypothesis, in particular regarding its application to medieval European literature. Olson, David R., “History of Writing, History of Rationality,” in Eurasia at the Dawn of History: Urbanization and Social Change, ed. Fernández-Götz, Manuel and Krausse, Dirk (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a concise overview of the “philosophical” approach.

16. For a rich and methodologically sophisticated account of oral traditions from the perspective of psychological memory research see Rubin, David C., Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-Out Rhymes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar. For a text-critical application of insights from empirical research into variation arising during dramatic recitation from memory, see Delnero, Paul, “Memorization and the Transmission of Sumerian Literary Compositions,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71.2 (2012), 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note also the observations on the memorization of Sanskrit texts in Rocher, Ludo, “Orality and Textuality in the Indian Context,” Sino-Platonic Papers 49 (1994), 1–28Google Scholar, as well as the rewarding personal reminiscences and scholarly reflections in chap. 4, “Literacy and Memorization,” of Dreyfus, Georges B. J., The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, an account of the author’s time as a Buddhist monk in Tibet. See Filliozat, Pierre-Sylvain, “Ancient Sanskrit Mathematics: An Oral Tradition and a Written Literature,” in History of Science, History of Text, ed. Chemla, Karine (Dordrecht: Springer, 2004), 138–40Google Scholar, on techniques of Vedic recitation, which are also discussed, as a unique type of memorization even within the Indian context, by Bronkhorst, Johannes, “Literacy and Rationality in Ancient India,” Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques 56.4 (2002), 797–831Google Scholar.

17. Eve, “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem,” 319. In a similar vein, Kloppenborg, John S., “Memory, Performance, and the Sayings of Jesus,” in Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, ed. Galinsky, Karl (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 286–323Google Scholar, argues that Jesus narratives and even shorter, aphoristic sayings attributed to Jesus were probably not faithfully transmitted by word of mouth. There was no controlled oral transmission, as some have claimed, and wherever longer verbal parallels occur, writing was probably involved. For another refutation of the notion of controlled transmission, see Ehrman, Bart D., Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 71–78Google Scholar.

18. Eve, “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem,” 318.

19. Eve, “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem,” 319.

20. Nylan, “Academic Silos,” 94. See also Nylan, , The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 130Google Scholar, for the claim that academicians in the Qin-Han period “were far more likely to memorize an endangered text than to consign it to expensive, fragile silk or bamboo.” Richter, Matthias, “Textual Identity and the Role of Literacy in the Transmission of Early Chinese Literature,” in Writing and Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar, ed. Feng, Li and Branner, David Prager (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 206–36Google Scholar, analyzes material features of two Mawangdui 馬王堆 manuscripts, concluding that one probably served performative functions, whereas the other was more suited for textual preservation. Krijgsman, Rens, “An Inquiry into the Formation of Readership in Early China: Using and Producing the *Yong yue 用曰 and Yinshu 引書 Manuscripts,” T’oung Pao 104.1–2 (2018), 2–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues for a gradual increase in the use of punctuation and layout features which facilitated browsing and selective reading, a development which probably began with technical and administrative writings. Selbitschka, “I Write Therefore I am,” combines manuscript and other material evidence to argue convincingly that pre- and early-imperial scribes were often highly literate and concomitantly took great pride in and highlighted their ability to read and write. Out of concern for their own reputation, Eastern Han literary and philosophical figures in particular may have tried to maintain a clear distinction from these literate administrators by deprecating them as mindless copyists of dry-as-dust documents. But Selbitschka’s examples demonstrate that appreciation for writing existed in some groups in early China, and it is not always clear what kind of groups would have been involved in the transmission or study of certain texts and what attitudes they would have held, so any generalization about modes of transmission would seem problematic at this point.

21. Such elements may range from single lexical items to phrases, sentences, entire sections of text, and even to more abstract properties such as generic features of certain text types.

22. These factors are too wide-ranging and complex to address in sufficient detail, but on cognitive aspects of the last point see at least the intriguing, classic paper by Clark, Andy and Chalmers, David J., “The Extended Mind,” Analysis 58 (1998), 10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in The Extended Mind, ed. Richard Menary (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), 27–42.

23. Meyer, Andrew S., in The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China, by Liu An, King of Huainan, ed. Major, John S., Queen, Sarah A. et al. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 573Google Scholar.

24. Gasparov, Boris, Speech, Memory, and Meaning: Intertextuality in Everyday Language (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2010), 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 45.

25. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 47.

26. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 4, 8 and throughout.

27. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 7.

28. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 8.

29. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 55–56.

30. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 46; see the illuminating examples of “The mushroom omelet left without paying” (ibid., 4–6) and “May we come in” (ibid., 91–93).

31. Gasparov, Speech, Memory, and Meaning, 95.

32. For an overview of intertextuality in literary theory beginning with Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1857–1913) concept of the sign and Michail Bakhtin’s (1895–1975) work on the dialogic nature of the novel, and extending down to recent postmodern developments, see Allen, Graham, Intertextuality (London: Routledge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Strikingly, this student introduction does not suggest any concrete analytical approaches or research programs.

33. See Pfister, Manfred, “Konzepte der Intertextualität,” in Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien, ed. Broich, Ulrich and Pfister, Manfred (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985), 15–16Google Scholar.

34. Fowler, Don, “On the Shoulders of Giants: Intertextuality and Classical Studies,” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 39 (1997), 13Google Scholar.

35. Fowler, “On the Shoulders of Giants,” 25.

36. Gibson, Roy K., “‘Cf. e.g.’: A Typology of ‘Parallels’ and the Role of Commentaries on Latin Poetry,” in The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, ed. Gibson, Roy K. and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 334–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 335–36, 336–39, 340–43, 343–44.

37. See https://ctext.org, accessed on March 12, 2019.

38. On “distant reading” see the highly influential Moretti, Franco, Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History (London: Verso, 2005)Google Scholar, a collection of Digital Humanities studies avant la lettre, as it were, still largely conducted with pencil-and-paper methods. See also Moretti, Distant Reading (London: Verso, 2013). On quantitative intertextuality in Latin literature, see, e.g., Gawley, James O. and Diddams, A. Caitlin, “Comparing the Intertextuality of Multiple Authors Using Tesserae: A New Technique for Normalization,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32, Supplement 2 (2017), 53–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dexter, Joseph P. et al. , “Quantitative Criticism of Literary Relationships,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 16 (April 18, 2017)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, E3195–3204. For a study of the Lun yu and Confucius quotations in early writings substantially based on digital methods, see Hunter, Michael, Confucius beyond the Analects (Leiden: Brill, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a study of textual overlaps and processes of borrowing between medieval encyclopedias (leishu 類書), see Jieh, Hsiang 項潔 et al. , “Shuwei renwen shiye xia de zhishi fenlei guancha: liang bu guanxiu leishu de bijiao fenxi” 數位人文視野下的知識分類觀察：兩部官修類書的比較分析, Dongya guannianshi jikan 東亞觀念史集刊 9 (2015), 229–86Google Scholar. See also Sturgeon, Donald, “Unsupervised Identification of Text Reuse in Early Chinese Literature,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 33.3 (2018), 670–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on methodological issues in the detection of parallels in ancient Chinese writings. For a study applying Digital Humanities methods to the history of early Confucianism, see Nichols, Ryan, Slingerland, Edward, Nielbo, Kristoffer, Bergeton, Uffe, Logan, Carson, and Kleinman, Scott, “Modeling the Contested Relationship between Analects, Mencius, and Xunzi: Preliminary Evidence from a Machine-Learning Approach,” Journal of Asian Studies 77.1 (2018), 19–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. See the study by Delnero, “Memorization and the Transmission of Sumerian Literary Compositions,” in which the author identifies evidence of copying from memory in Sumerian cuneiform tablets. Aside from Delnero’s inventive methodology, drawing on empirical investigations into textual memory, his work also relies on the availability of large numbers of copies of the same texts. The peculiarities of scribal cuneiform culture, the physical sturdiness of the clay tablets, and the arid climatic conditions in present-day Iraq are crucial factors in this. Most of these conditions are absent in the case of early China.

40. Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋, ed. He Ning 何寧 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 15.1056 (“Bing lüe xun” 兵略訓), has shu 贖 instead of xu 續. He quotes Yu Yue 俞樾 (1821–1907) to the effect that shu stands in for xu, to be understood as “connecting, linking up,” hence, jie xu 解續: “breaking / splitting / dividing up and connecting / gathering together.”

41. Shu 屬 may be a graphic mistake for lü 履 or ju 屨 “tread / step on.” Wang Niansun 王念孫 (1744–1832) suggests the character nian 𨃨, with the same meaning.

42. Huainanzi jiaoshi 淮南子校釋, ed. Zhang Shuangdi 張雙棣 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 1997), 15.1560 (“Bing lüe xun” 兵略訓); tr. Andrew S. Meyer, in The Huainanzi, ed. Major and Queen, 587–88. Here and throughout, reconstructed pronunciations are Axel Schuessler’s Minimal Old Chinese from his Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009).

43. For the parallel, see Wenzi jiaoshi 文子校釋, ed. Li Dingsheng 李定生 and Xu Huijun 徐慧君 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2016), 11.450 (“Shang yi” 上義). For a study of the Wenzi with further references see Els, Paul van, The Wenzi: Creativity and Intertextuality in Early Chinese Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. On these interview scenes, see Oliver Weingarten, “Textual Representations of a Sage: Studies of Pre-Qin and Western Han Sources on Confucius (551–479 BCE)” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2010), chap. 4.1.

45. Shuoyuan jiaozheng 說苑校證, ed. Xiang Zonglu 向宗魯 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987), 15.375 (“Zhi wu” 指武); note the parallel in Kongzi jiayu shuzheng 孔子家語疏證, ed. Chen Shike 陳士珂 (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1987), 2.39 (“Zhi si” 致思), where the lines in question vary slightly.

46. Sunzi xiangjie 孫子詳解, ed. Niu Guoping 鈕國平 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2013), 3.21 (“Mou gong” 謀攻). A similar formulation can be found in chap. 4 (ibid., 32), while similar ideas are discussed in a slightly different form in Guanzi, Laozi, and Liu tao (see notes ibid., 22).

47. The phrase “alterations of the extraordinary and the usual” (奇正之變; HNZ 15/26) also occurs in Shiyi jia zhu Sunzi jiaoli 十一家注孫子校理, ed. Yang Bing’an 楊丙安 (Beijing: Zhongshua, 1999), 5.89 (“Shi” 勢).

48. Lyne, Raphael, Memory and Intertextuality in Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Wu Yue chunqiu jiaozheng zhushu 吳越春秋校證注疏, ed. Zhang Jue 張覺 (Beijing: Zhishi, 2014), 7.210 (“Goujian ru chen waizhuan” 勾踐入臣外傳).

50. Han Feizi jiaoshu 韓非子校疏, ed. Zhang Jue 張覺 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2010), 31.661 (“Nei chu shuo xia” 內儲說下).

51. Han shi waizhuan jianshu 韓詩外傳箋疏, ed. Qu Shouyuan 屈守元 (Chengdu: Ba Shu shushe, 1996), 7.656.

52. Huangdi neijing lingshu jizhu 黃帝內經靈樞集注, ed. Zhang Yin’an 張隱庵 (Taiyuan: Shanxi kexue jishu, 2013), 7.262–63 (“Yu ban” 玉版).

53. Schaberg, David, “On the Range and Performance of Laozi-Style Tetrasyllables,” in Literary Forms of Argument in Early China, ed. Gentz, Joachim and Meyer, Dirk (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 87–111Google Scholar.

54. Kern, Martin, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000)Google Scholar.

55. Zhu Xinlin 朱新林, Huainanzi zhengyin xianqin zhuzi wenxian yanjiu 淮南子徵引先秦諸子文獻研究 (Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue, 2015), chap. 5, reviews some intertextual phenomena in Huainanzi 15. While Zhu analyzes these in terms of quotations and clear dependencies, I would argue that the examples he cites strengthen the case presented here. Rarely do the verbal parallels he discusses exceed two, at most three, sentences; beyond that, resemblances turn fuzzy. Many examples adduced as cases of quotation or borrowing, furthermore, express vaguely similar ideas, but do so in a manifestly divergent manner. Sometimes, Zhu’s delineation of influences is inconsistent, for instance when he describes the origins of Huainanzi’s view of war as natural occurrence among humans as derivative of Xunzi, chap. 15, “Yi bing” 議兵 (Zhu, Huainanzi zhengyin xianqin zhuzi wenxian yanjiu, 123–25), only to trace it back at a later point to the excavated manuscript Sun Bin bingfa 孫臏兵法 (Zhu, Huainanzi zhengyin xianqin zhuzi wenxian yanjiu, 132) instead.

56. No other received text seems to preserve exactly the same verb–object combinations.

57. Shuoyuan jiaozheng, 11.271 (“Shan shui” 善說).

58. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi 呂氏春秋新校釋, ed. Chen Qiyou 陳奇猷 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2002), 9.486 (“Shun min” 順民); tr. Knoblock, John and Riegel, Jeffrey, The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 211–12Google Scholar.

59. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 21.1458 (“Qi xian” 期賢); tr. Knoblock and Riegel, The Annals of Lü Buwei, 555–56. Cf. the parallel in Xinxu jiaoshi 新序校釋, Shi Guangying 石光瑛 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001), 5.689–90 (“Za shi” 雜事).

60. In one of the economic chapters of Guanzi, the phrase yu si fu shang 輿死扶傷 appears three times in direct speech attributed to Duke Huan of Qi and Master Guan respectively. See Guanzi qingzhong pian xinquan 管子輕重篇新詮, ed. Ma Feibai 馬非百 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1979), 13.502, 556 (“Qing zhong jia” 輕重甲).

61. Huainanzi jiaoshi, 8.879 (“Ben jing” 本經); tr. John S. Major in The Huainanzi, ed. Major and Queen, 286.

62. Zhanguo ce jizhu huikao 戰國策集注匯考, ed. Zhu Zugeng 諸祖耿, rev. ed. (Nanjing: Fenghuang, 2008), 25.1344 (“Qin wang shi ren wei Anling jun” 秦王使人謂安陵君); see also Shuoyuan jiaozheng, 12.295 (“Feng shi” 奉使).

63. Ban Gu 班固, Han shu 漢書, repr. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1964 [1962]), 45.2171.

64. See “Gao You Huainan honglie jie xu” 高誘淮南鴻烈解敘, 2, in Huainanzi jiaoshi (the item is included with separate pagination). On Wu Pi, see also Loewe, Michael, A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin Periods (221 BC–AD 24) (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 585–86Google Scholar; on Meng Tian see ibid., 437–38.

65. Heguanzi jiaozhu 鶡冠子校注, ed. Huang Huaixin 黃懷信 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2014), 19.371 (“Wuling wang” 武靈王).

66. Heguanzi jiaozhu, 19.378 (“Wuling wang”). Understanding mei 每 as being synonymous with sui 雖, “even though”; see Gushu xuci tongjie 古書虛詞通解, ed. Xie Huiquan 解惠全, Cui Yonglin 崔永琳, and Zheng Tianyi 鄭天一 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2008), 420.

67. Xunzi jijie 荀子集解, ed. Wang Xianqian 王先謙 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2013 [1988]), 16.348 (“Qiang guo” 彊國); tr. Hutton, Eric, Xunzi: The Complete Text (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Xunzi jijie, 15.316 (“Yi bing” 議兵); tr. modified from Hutton Xunzi, 146.

69. Xunzi jijie, 10.232–33 (“Fu guo” 富國); tr. modified from Hutton, Xunzi, 96.

70. Xunzi jijie, 10.238 (“Fu guo”); tr. Hutton, Xunzi, 98. Cf. the parallel in Han shi waizhuan jianshu, 6.570; tr. Hightower, James, Han Shih Wai Chuan: Han Ying’s Illustrations of the Didactic Application of the Classic of Songs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952), 215–16Google Scholar.

71. Xinxu jiaoshi, 4.539 (“Za shi”). Cf. Huainanzi jiaoshi, 12.1262 (“Dao ying” 道應), where the sentences in question do not appear.

72. Lyne, Memory and Intertextuality in Renaissance Literature, 48.

73. Han shi waizhuan jianshu, 6.573–74; tr. Hightower, Han Shih Wai Chuan, 216–17. Cf. the parallel in Xinxu jiaoshi, 4.615–21. The passage in Han shi waizhuan 6 follows the Han shi waizhuan parallel to Xunzi jijie, 10.238 (“Fu guo”); tr. Hutton, Xunzi, 98 (see above). Whether by coincidence or not, the beginning of Han shi waizhuan 6 also uses the phrase “the Three Armies” (san jun 三軍), which features so prominently in the exhortation to unity.

74. Lun yu jishi 論語集釋, ed. Cheng Shude 程樹德 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 26.901 (“Zilu shang” 子路上).

75. Huainanzi jiaoshi, 6.710 (“Lan ming” 覽冥); tr. Major in The Huainanzi, ed. Major and Queen, 229.

76. On self-cultivation as organizing principle of the book Huainanzi and as core concept in the work’s political ideology, see Harold Roth, “Daoist Inner Cultivation Thought and the Textual Structure of the Huainanzi,” in The Huainanzi and Textual Production in Early China, ed. Queen and Puett, 40–82.

77. See Lun yu jishi, 33.1137 (“Ji shi” 季氏). Gale uses Soothill’s translation here.

78. Cf. Xunzi jijie, 27.592–93 (“Da lüe” 大略); tr. Hutton, Xunzi, 304; Han shi waizhuan jianshu, 4.388; tr. in Hightower, Han Shih Wai Chuan, 139–40.

79. Here, Wang Liqi王利器 in his Yantie lun jiaozhu 鹽鐡論校注 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 1.13 n. 41 (“Ben yi” 本義), references two Mengzi quotes: 仁者無敵 (Mengzi zhengyi 孟子正義, ed. Jiao Xun 焦循 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1987], 2.68 [“Liang Hui wang shang” 梁惠王上]); 如此則無敵於天下 (Mengzi zhengzyi, 7.232 [“Gongsun Chou shang” 公孫丑上]).

80. Yantie lun jiaozhu, 1.2 (“Ben yi”); tr. Gale, Esson M., Discourses on Salt and Iron: A Debate on State Control of Commerce and Industry in Ancient China, Chapter I–XXVIII (Leiden: Brill, 1931; Taipei: Ch’eng Wen, 1973), 4–5Google Scholar (italics in the original). Citations refer to the Ch’eng Wen edition.

81. Gale, Discourses on Salt and Iron, 5 n. 1, notes: “A frequently used quotation of uncertain source … The passage is indeed reminiscent of Lao-tzu, chap. 68,” where it says, in the Wang Bi 王弼 version: 善為士者不武，善戰者不怒，善勝敵者不與 (Laozi gujin: wu zhong duikan yu xiping yinlun 老子古今：五種對勘與析評引論, ed. Liu Xiaogan 劉笑敢 [Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2006], 659; see ibid. for variant versions). See also Yi Zhou shu huijiao jizhu 逸周書彙校集注, ed. Huang Huaixin 黃懷信, Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, and Tian Xudong 田旭東 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1995), 8.113 (“Da wu jie” 大武解): 善政不攻，善攻不侵，善侵步伐，善伐不搏，善搏不戰 (Beitang shuchao 北堂書鈔, quoted ibid., records a slightly different sequence, which some scholars such as Wang Niansun prefer: 善征不侵，善侵不伐，善伐不陣，善陣不鬬，善鬬不敗); Guliang zhuan zhushu 穀梁傳注疏, ed. Shisan jing zhushu zhengli weiyuanhui 十三經注疏整理委員會 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 2000), Duke Zhuang 8, 85: 故曰：善陳者不戰，此之謂也。善為國者不師，善師者不陳，善陳者不戰，善戰者不死，善死者不亡; Xinxu jiaoshi, 5.704 (“Za shi”), credits 善為國者不師 to Chunqiu; Han shu 23.1088 quotes under gu yue 故曰 the following: 善師者不陣，善陣者不戰，善戰者不敗，善敗者不亡.

82. Xunzi jijie, 10.238 (“Fu guo”).

83. Lun yu jishi, 27.920 (“Zilu xia” 子路下); see Gale, Discourses on Salt and Iron, 4 n. 4.

84. See Han Feizi jiaoshu, 38.996 (“Nan san” 難三); Shuoyuan jiaozheng, 7.154 (“Zheng li” 政理), with a parallel in Kongzi jiayu shuzheng, 3.88 (“Bian zheng” 辨政); Shangshu da zhuan bu zhu 尚書大傳補注, ed. Wang Kaiyun 王闓運 (Xu xiu si ku quan shu 續修四庫全書, ed.), 6.11b–12a; and a critical discussion in Mozi jiangu 墨子閒詁, ed. Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986), 11.394 (“Geng Zhu” 耕柱).

85. Xunzi jijie, 10.238 (“Fu guo”).

86. For the interpretation of zhe chong 折衝 see Gao You’s 高誘 (c. 168–212 c.e.) commentary at Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 20.1377 n. 38 (“Zhao lei” 召類); also quoted to elucidate the Yantie lun passage in Yantie lun jiaozhu, 1.12 n. 40 (“Ben yi”).

87. See Yantie lun jiaozhu, 1.12 n. 40 (“Ben yi”).

88. See Huifeng, Ren 任慧峰, Xian Qin junli yanjiu 先秦軍禮研究 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2015), 59–62Google Scholar.

89. Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi, 3.148 (“Xian ji” 先己); cf. tr. in Knoblock and Riegel, The Annals of Lü Buwei, 105–6. Cf. the parallel in Shizi yizhu 尸子譯注, ed. Li Shoukui 李守奎 and Li Yi 李軼 (Harbin: Heilongjiang renmin, 2004), 48 (“Chu dao” 處道). Tang 堂 is lexicalized as “[hall in] a palace,” “raised foundation for a building,” and “raised, square-shaped” foundation or altar (see the glosses in Guxun huizuan 故訓匯纂, ed. Zong Fubang 宗福邦, Chen Shinao 陳世鐃, and Xiao Haibo 蕭海波 [Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2003], 427).

90. Shuoyuan jiaozheng, 7.146 (“Zheng li”); cf. the parallel in Kongzi jiayu shuzheng, 3.86 (“Xian jun” 賢君). In Lüshi chunqiu, Confucius’s interlocutor is Duke Ai of Lu; in Shuoyuan and Kongzi jiayu, it is Duke Ling of Wei.

91. Qian, Sima 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1963 [1959]), 112.2957Google Scholar; see also Han shu 64A.2806. On the memorial and the official who presented it, Xu Yue 徐樂, an associate of Zhufu Yan 主父偃, in whose biography the memorial is recorded, see Loewe, Biographical Dictionary, 624.

92. Lüshi chunqiu jiaoshi, 20.1370 (“Zhao lei”). Cf. the rendering in Knoblock and Riegel, The Annals of Lü Buwei, 524–25, where the crucial sentence is, however, mistranslated. See also the parallel in Xinxu jiaoshi, 6.821–25 (“Ci she” 刺奢).

93. On this formula, see Weingarten, , “The Sage as Teacher and Source of Knowledge: Editorial Strategies and Formulaic Utterances in Confucius Dialogues,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 68.4 (2014), 1175–1223Google Scholar.

94. Da Dai liji jiegu 大戴禮記解詁, ed. Wang Pinzhen 王聘珍 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1983), 1.2 (“Zhu yan” 主言); cf. the parallel in Kongzi jiayu shuzheng, 1.12 (“Wang yan jie” 王言解).

95. Han Feizi jiaoshu, chap. 32.708 (“Wai chu shuo zuo shang” 外儲說左上).

96. The case is different for some of the Xunzi passages quoted above, for which Han shi waizhuan parallels exist. These are most likely cases of direct textual borrowing.

97. Lyne, Memory and Intertextuality in Renaissance Literature, 6. Lyne misconstrues the distinction by defining “memory” as a “practical art” and “recollection” as an event happening to people. His reference is to Lewis, Rhodri, “Hamlet, Metaphor, and Memory,” Studies in Philology 109.5 (2012), 609–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and here see esp. 618–19, where Lewis refers to Aristotle’s De Memoria et Reminiscentia, 453a; see Bloch, David, Aristotle on Memory and Recollection: Text, Translation, Interpretation, and Reception in Western Scholasticism (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 48–51Google Scholar.

98. For this term see Sandmel, Samuel, “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81.1 (1962), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who claims to have encountered it “in a French book of about 1830, whose title and author I have forgotten.”