{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042435424354243544, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010608856088560886, 'mean_word_length': 4.4634760705289676, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Howard J. Wechsler: Offerings of jade and silk: ritual and symbol in the legitimation of the T'ang Dynasty. xiv, 313 pp. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. £27.

OED, Waters, p. 27), while his second is a ' paraphrase'. Far from being a literal translation, his first version proves to be a prosaic translation based on the tendentious interpretations of traditional commentators, while his second version repeats the interpretation in a more extreme manner. A collation of Hawkes's more scholarly and rational translation of a typical line and that of Waters will suffice to illustrate the point: Hawkes: ' And the maiden many a sigh heaves for me.' Waters, metaphrase: ' My sister dissuades me, sighing for me a great sigh.' Waters, paraphrase: ' My king was led like a cow on a tether; it makes me heave a great sigh' (Song no. 3,1. 16, p. 168). As if this muddle were not enough, Waters also seeks to prove, as a sub-theme of his book, that the Ch'u Tz'u does not represent a literary product separate from the culture of the Chou further north. He refers to ' a common literary tradition ' shared by the Chou Classic of poetry and the Ch'u Tz'u. To ' prove' his hypothesis he draws comparisons between the two texts, persistently citing, however, the orthodox Han interpretation of the Classic and the orthodox Han interpretation of the Ch'u Tz'u. In other words, he again fails to distinguish between the substance of the original literary artefact and its later interpretative commentaries. Naturally, the Han commentaries of the two anthologies agree and correspond! But the worlds of the Classic and the Ch'u Tz'u are divided by two and a half centuries in time and by very different cultural values. Waters's attempts to prove his hypothesis by juggling with phonology and semantics are best passed over in silence, but the humorous reader might like to glance at sun= fragrance = Shun the sage ruler, jao = bent wood = Yao the sage ruler (pp. 160-62). The absence of seminal sinological research in Waters's bibliography may explain in part the reason for his fundamental errors. As it is, Three elegies of Ch'u is a travesty of scholarship.