Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:05:50.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Wang Bi Recension of the Laozi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Rudolf G. Wagner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are seventy-nine places in Wang Bi's Laozi zhu where the text of the Laozi transmitted over this commentary differs from quotations of it contained within the commentary. Building on the textual studies of Professor Shima Kunio, this essay demonstrates that the readings given in the commentary are supported in practically every case by a series of early quotations and texts of the Laozi, such as the Mawangdui manuscripts and the “Old Manuscripts” that form the basis of Fu Yi and Fan Yingyuan's editions. A comparison of all of these differences shows that Wang Bi's original text must have belonged to the same broad textual family as these early manuscripts, being most closely linked to the two “Old Manuscripts” and less directly related to the Mawangdui manuscripts. In most of the these cases, the textus receptus has been supplanted by the reading transmitted through the Heshang Gong commentary. Consequently, it is now necessary to replace the textus receptus of Wang Bi's Laozi with a conflated version of the two “Old Manuscripts” and, in some cases, the Mawangdui manuscripts.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 14 , 1989 , pp. 27 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For standard texts of these two commentaries, see Bi's, Wang Laozi Daode jing zhu , in Wang Bi ji jiaoshi , ed. Lou, Yulie (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1980), vol. 1, 1-193; Google Scholar and Heshang gong zhang ju Daodejing zhenjing zhu , Daozang , HY 682.

2. See the listing in Kunio, Shima , Roshi kosei (Tokyo: Kyoko shoten, 1973), 25 Google Scholar ff.

3. Lu Deming , Shiwen xulu , j. 25, Laozi Daodejing yinyi (Sibu congkan ed.), 350a.

4. Fan Yingyuan, Laozi Daodejing guben jizhu (Guyi congshu ed.).

5. Tsung-i, Jao, “The Su Tan Fragment of the Tao-te-ching (A.D. 270),” Journal of Oriental Studies II, 1955.1, 1-28 Google Scholar; Xiang, Laozi jiaojian, Er zhu (Hongkong: Dongnan, 1956)Google Scholar; and “Laozi Xiang Er zhu xulun ,” in Fukui hakase shoju kinen Toyo bunka ronsliu (Tokyo: Waseda University Press, 1969), 1151-1171 Google Scholar. For the dating of the Xiang Er text to the late second century, see, Shixiang, Chen “Xiang Er Laozi Daojing Dunhuang canjuan lunzheng ,” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 1.2 (1975), 41 ffGoogle Scholar; and for the fifth century date, see, Kunio, Mugitani , “Roshi sojishu ni tsuite ,” Tōhō gakuhō 57 (1986), 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

6. Hanmu, Mawangdui boshu zhengli xiaozu , “Mawangdui Hanmu chutu Laozi shiwen ,” Wenwu 1974.11, 8 ffGoogle Scholar. Photostatic reproductions are given in Hanmu, Mawangdui boshu zhengli xiaozu, Mawangdui Hanmu boshu (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1974), vols. 1 and 2Google Scholar.

7. See Shima Kunio, Roshi kosei, 33. Nai, Yao , Laozi zhangyi , Taibei: Guangwen shuju 1975 Google Scholar; Xu Dachun , Daodejing zhu in Xu Lingtai xiansheng yishu , vol. 12.

8. Xulun, Ma, Laozi jiaogu (1924; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghus shuju, 1974), 6 Google Scholar. Ma argued that certain mistakes from Wang Bi's text had entered the Heshang gong Laozi text. This was considered proof that Heshang gong's commentary is later that Wang Bi's. In view of the Mawangdui texts, this view does not withstand scrutiny.

9. See, e.g., Lau, D.C., Chinese Classics, Tao Te Ching (Hongkong: Chinese Univ. Press, 1982), 155 Google Scholar; Wing-tsit, Chan, The Way of Lao-tzu (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), 162 fGoogle Scholar. Lau used the “Wang Bi” text for his Laozi translation. Rump, Ariane with Chan, Wing-tsit, Commentary on the Lao Tzu by Wang Bi, Monograph of the Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy no. 6 (Honolulu 1979)Google Scholar, and Lin, Paul J., A Translation of Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Wang Bi's Commentary, Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies no. 30 (Ann Arbor 1977)Google Scholar, both use the “Wang Bi” text of the Laozi. William Boltz merges the “Wang Bi” with the Heshang gong text into a conflated “textus receptus”; see Boltz, William, “The Religious and Philosophical Significance of the ‘Hsiang Erh’ Lao tzu in the Light of the Ma-wang-tui Silk Manuscripts,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 45 (1982), 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Lao Tzu Text that Wang Pi and Ho-shang Kung Never Saw.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48.5 (1985), 493-501 Google Scholar.

10. Taro, Hatano, “Roshi Ochu kosei” , Yokohama shiritsu daigaku kiyo A-2, A-3, A.8 nos. 15 and 27, (1953-1954)Google Scholar.

11. I am grateful to Professor Terry Kleeman for directing my attention to this valuable work, which is also referred to by Boltz in his paper “The Religious and Philosophical Significance of the ‘Hsiang Erh’,” 99, n.14

12. I should emphasize that in the following discussion and examples, the term “Wang Bi Laozi Receptus” refers specifically and exclusively to the received “Wang Bi version” of the text. This should be strictly differentiated from what I will try to reconstruct as the original text known to Wang Bi, which I will refer to as “Wang Bi Laozi Urtext.”

13. Wang Bi, Zhouyi zhu, in Lou Yulie, Wang Bi ji jiaoslii, 397.

14. Lu Deming, Laozi Daodejing yinyi, ed.cit. See, too, Hatano Taro, Roshi Ochu Kosei, vol. A-2,12.

15. Fan Yingyuan, Laozi Daodejing guben jizhu (Guyi congshu ed.).

16. Fu Yi, Daodejing guben , Daozang HY 665. See, for example, Appendix I, no. 48.

17. In zhang 10 wu yi , is given for wu , in zhang 16 fan wu for fu wu , and in zhang 20 kuo for bo .

18. Hatano Taro, “Roshi Ochu Kosei,” vol. A-2,12.

19. For these and the following variara, see Appendix II.

20. Gu, Ban, Hanshu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962), 53.2410Google Scholar.

21. Lu Xisheng, Daode zhenjing zhuan, Daozang HY 685. Xie Shouhao, Hunyuan shengji, Daozang HY 769,3.18b ff.

22. Professor Shima Kunio punctuates these phrases in such a manner as to leave those he does not need for his own analysis unintelligible; Roshi kosei, 27.

23. On Kou Qianzhi, see Mather, Richard, “K'ou Ch'ien-chih and the Taoist Theocracy at the Northern Wei Court (425-451),” in Facets of Taoism, ed. Holmes, Welch and Anna, Seidel (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1979), 103-22Google Scholar

24. Qian, Sima, Shiji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), 63.2141Google Scholar.

25. Yan Zun, Daode zhenjing zhigui, Daozang HY 693.

26. Shima Kunio, Roshi kosci, 51.

27. Liu Dabin, Maoshan zhi, Daozang HY 304, 9.1a.

28. Shima Kunio, Roshi kosei, 33.

29. Shima Kunio, Roshi kosei, 117.

30. Shima Kunio, Roshi kosei, 109.

31. Jao, “The Su Dan Fragment,” 13 ff.

32. The quote seems to have been discovered by Qiao, Li , Laozi guzhu , (Susuguan, 1929), 2.24bGoogle Scholar. This has been referred to by Erkes, E., Ho-shang-kung's Commentary on the Lao-tse, (Ascona: Artibus Asiae, 1950), 9 Google Scholar; and by Seidel, Anna, La Divinisation du Lao Tseu dans le Taoisme des Han, Publications de l'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient vol. LXXI (Paris, 1969), 32, n. 4Google Scholar. Hung, However, W., “A Bibliographie Controversy at the T'ang Court,” HJAS XX. 1-2 (1959)Google Scholar, 81 and 121, has noted that this quote is only indirect and not verbatim.

33. Liuchao wenxuan zhu (Sibu congkan ed.), 3.37b. See, too, Seidel, La Divinisation du Lao Tseu, 32, n.4.

34. Exceptions are I.72b (36.1) and II.42b (59.2), while II.54b (65.4) and II.56b (67.2) differ otherwise.

35. The commentary to Laozi 23.1 refers to zhang 35; the commentary to Laozi 57.1 refers to zhang 48, and the commentary to Laozi 28.5 refers to zhang 40.

36. This is the case in the commentary to Laozi 28.5, which quotes Laozi 40.

37. Henricks, Robert G., “A Note on the Question of Chapter Divisions in the Ma-wang-tui Mansucripts of the Lao-tzu ,” Early China 4 (1978-79), 49-51 Google Scholar; cf. “Examining the Ma-wang-tui Silk Texts of the Lao-tzu, with Special Note of their Differences from the Wang Pi Text.” T'oung-pao 65, 4-5 (1979), 166-98Google Scholar; “Examining the Chapter Divisions in the Lao-tzu,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 45.3 (1982), 501-24Google Scholar.

38. Xie Shouhao, Hunyuan shengji, 3.18b.

39. See Wagner, Rudolf G., “Wang Bi: ‘The Structure of the Laozi's Pointers’ (Laozi weizhi lilüc) — A Philological Study and Translation,” T'oung Pao 72 (1986), 92ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Wagner, “The Structure of Laozi's Pointers,” 110.

41. Chao Yuezhi, Ji Tangzi Laozi Daodejing zhu , (Guyi congshu ed.), lb.

42. Dong Siqing, Daode zhenjing jijie , Daozang HY 705, preface.

43. For an attempt in this direction, see Wagner, Rudolf G., “Interlocking Parallel Style: Laozi and Wang Bi,” Etudes Asiatiques 1 (1980), 18ffGoogle Scholar.

* The following abbreviations are used: MWD/A and B: Mawangdui Laozi A and B manuscripts respectively; FY: Fu Yi; FYY: Fan Yingyuan; HNZ: Huainanzi; YZ: Yan Zun; XE: Xiang Er; SD: Su Dan; I: indirect evidence.

* The notes are coded as follows: a) Fan Yingyuan's reading is correct, as evidenced by Wang Bi's commentary; b) Fan Yingyuan's reading is correct, as evidenced by indirect evidence; c) Wang Bi Laozi Receptus is correct; d) both readings are incorrect.