Editor’s Note

Tang Studies 8-9 (1990-91) Editor's Note The tardiness of this issue of the journal and its double-year format probably make it necessary for me to break my usual taboo on printing any editorial remarks. As TS 8 was nearing the final stages of preparation in early 1991 the awful news arrived of Edward H . Schafer's final illness and death. Somehow it did not seem appropriate for an issue of this journal, devoted to the field of study of which he was indisputably the guiding spirit, to go to press so soon after his demise without adequate tribute to him. It was decided therefore to make this a double issue, comprising numbers 8 and 9, expanding it to include the memorial items appearing in the first forty pages above and also expanding the Shigaku zasshi review section and the bibliography accordingly. TS 10 will revert to the normal, annual schedule; readers may expect to have it in hand by Fall 1992. In the meantime we have instituted some production changes which should in future speed the preparation of the journal and, I hope, improve its appearance. The most evident of these are the change from a brightwhite to an off-white, heavier-bond page and the change from a Times Roman font to the more elegant Palatino. We have also improved our means of inserting Chinese characters into text and upgraded our graphics capability. All credit in these matters goes, as always, to Ms. Sandy Adler, without whom T'ang Studies would be indistinguishable from the common run of "dynastic" periodicals. In addition to Professor Schafer, two other commanding figures of Western sinology were taken from us in 1991: A.C. Graham in the spring and—most unexpectedly and tragically—Anna Seidel in the autumn. The loss suffered by pre-modern Chinese Studies as a whole, through the death of these three eminent scholars within months of each other, is of a magnitude at once too painful to contemplate and too enormous to comprehend . One is put in mind of the black year 1945, when Paul Pelliot and Henri Maspero departed this world, leaving sinology despoiled in the war's aftermath of its two most influential and respected leaders. Those of us who mourn today, in the wake of the deaths of Schafer, Seidel, and Graham, cannot help but feel similarly bereft. We can but keep warm the memory of our predecessors and dedicate ourselves anew to the scholarly ideals and excellences exemplified in the works they have left behind. 187 ...