It has been necessary to make a clear distinction between genetic criticism and textual criticism. I suggested that textual criticism is a science of repetition and genetic criticism a science of invention; that the aim of textual criticism is to establish the text (by eliminating its variants), whereas genetic criticism destabilizes the text by confronting it with its actual or potential versions. It now seems required to qualify this general opposition: because it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between creative variants and variants of transmission and also because it is not an adequate description of some of the more interesting work being done in the field of textual criticism. Some of the models that textual critics have put forward can be a source of inspiration for geneticists. Understanding variants as a form of variation can be a more useful way of approaching the question.