became convinced that most Chinese histories available in the United States were replete with factual errors.  He attributes this deficiency to the inadequate training of Western sinologues, few, if any, of whom have had the benefit of a "classical" education.


2
In hope of correcting the errors he perceived, appellant wrote an article, "Local Government in Imperial China," which he submitted to the Journal of Asian Studies, the official publication of the Association for Asian Studies.  The article was not accepted for publication.  Appellant reacted by writing numerous letters over a period of a year and a half to the editors of the Journal, challenging their rejection and asking for detailed reasons for their decision.  Dissatisfied with their response, appellant compiled a booklet that consisted ofa brief introduction and conclusion and the forty-two letters comprising his correspondence with the Journal.  He sent the booklet to "nearly every known China specialist in this country inviting them to refute [his] criticisms."1  In addition, he wrote to the presidents of Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Michigan, California, and other colleges and universities, requesting them to urge their China scholars to refute his allegations of error.  None of the China scholars replied.


3
Having failed to generate debate or discernible interest in his theories, appellant concluded he should write a comprehensive history of China in which he would correct the errors he was concerned about.  To assist him in this project, he applied to the National Endowment for the Humanities, a federal agency, for a $70,000 grant.