Discussing the Relationship between Father and Son, Ruler and Subjects in the Xiaojing: Based on the Dunhuang Manuscripts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It could be seen research findings and significance in this article. Arguments and analyses are valid and clear. The study is valuable and suggested to be published.

I only have a few minor comments/suggestions:

1. The abstract should be reconstructed. The author needs to outline the research finding in this part and change some of his/her writing tones. 

"There has been a misinterpretation of the ancient Chinese relationships between father and son, ruler and subject." 

This sentence is too absolute and unsuitable to put in the part.

2. The author should include the literature review in the introduction section. The author should explain the previous study done by other scholars, and how this study shows different views and engages with current scholarship.

3. The citations should change to notes and be put behind the main text. Then the scholar's work shown in the citations should add to the list of references. 

I do not have any comments on the discussions in the main text. I think it is good enough. 

The language should be improved. Although it is easier to understand, there is some informal/non academic writing style.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

  I'm very grateful for your careful review of the manuscript and your suggetstions are very helpful for me.  I have revised the manuscript according to your comments.  

1, I have reconstructed the abstract and delete the absolute expression.

2, In the introduction section, I have added some literature review and showed how my study has contributed to the related studies.

3, The notes and footprints of the manuscript were formatted according to the requirements of the journal.

Thank you again for your feedback and comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It's a wonderful paper making an excellent contribution to the important topic of the difference between serving/having a relationship with one's parent on the one hand and ruler on the other.

A couple of questions/remarks:

1. Does yi 义 have to be understood as "duty"? Don't Ames and Rosemont, whose translation is being used, use the word "appropriateness"? On p. 6, yi seems to become "righteousness". It's slightly confusing.

2. In the sections referring to the classics and commentaries, it would be clearer to have the original Chinese first and then the English translation underneath. This is, I believe, the conventional layout.

3. Perhaps it might be worth mentioning the Daxue as it unfolds the educational process of extending one's concern from family to state.

Generally, the paper is well-written and clear. There's a few typos, a few examples below, and it looks like spaces are missing here and there where Chinese characters appear. It's worth going carefully through the paper.

P. 3: "take a careful examine of" should be "carefully examine"

P. 4: "the the" should be "the" (again on p. 14)

P. 7: "ethic" should be "ethical"

P. 11: "fugal" should be "frugal", "Mecius" should be "Mencius"

 

 

Generally, the paper is well-written and clear. There's a few typos, a few examples below, and it looks like spaces are missing here and there where Chinese characters appear. It's worth going carefully through the paper.

P. 3: "take a careful examine of" should be "carefully examine"

P. 4: "the the" should be "the" (again on p. 14)

P. 7: "ethic" should be "ethical"

P. 11: "fugal" should be "frugal", "Mecius" should be "Mencius"

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

  I'm very grateful for your careful review of the manuscript and your suggetstions are very helpful for me.  I have revised the manuscript according to your comments.  

1, I have  corrected the typos you mentioned in feedback.

2.  I've checked the translation of Ames and Rosemont, their translation for yi in the chapter Sagely Governing is "appropriate relationship", therefore, I adopt the translation "appropriateness" for the word yi. 

3.  I have also changed the  layout of the classics and commentaries, and added some of the missing Chinese origianl text in the manuscript. 

Thank you again for your comments and feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf