THE TAO-TÊ CHING 道德經.
Lao-tzŭ is said to have died at the age of eighty-one years in B.C.
523,[1] though, as has been seen, nothing is known positively about
the time or manner of his decease. He had, according to historical
tradition, on leaving the Hanku Pass, consigned his writings on Tao
and Tê to Yin-hsi, the guardian of the Pass. This latter seems to have
transmitted his doctrines to others, more especially to Wên-tzŭ (文子),
who probably published the first edition of this work known to the
public. Some indeed suppose that Lao-tzŭ did not himself commit
anything to writing, and that Yin-hsi merely related orally to Wên-tzŭ
and others what he had been taught orally by the sage. This opinion
will not seem unlikely, if we consider that the use of paper was at
this time unknown and that there were very few facilities of any kind
for publishing a book. Others suppose that Wen-tzŭ was an immediate
disciple of Lao-tzŭ and that he published an account of his master’s
doctrines after the decease of the latter.[2]
In any case, however, it appears certain that for a considerable time
after the death of its author the work which is now known as the
Tao-tê ching remained in at least partial obscurity. Mencius does not
allude by name to Lao-tzŭ or his teachings, though he refers on
several occasions, and rather unfavourably, to Yang-chu (楊朱), who is
supposed to have been a disciple of the sage. The philosophers Chwang
(莊) and Lie (列), however, contemporaries of Mencius, seem to have been
aware of the existence and contents of the Tao-tê ching. The latter
expressly quotes its words, and both make mention of Lao-tan.
It has not been ascertained when or by whom its present title was
imposed on this book. We find early writers quoting its teachings as
those of Hwang-Lao (黃老), that is, of the Emperor Hwang and Lao-tzŭ.
The former lived, or is supposed to have lived, about B.C. 2600, and
some parts of the Tao-tê ching are expressly ascribed to him, for
example, Chapter VI is quoted as his.[3] Another title under which
this book is referred to by old authors is Lao-tzŭ-shu (老子書), that
is, the writings of Lao-tzŭ,[4] and it is not until the time of
Emperor Wên (文帝) of the Han dynasty, or about B.C. 160, that we find
the term Tao-tê used. We must remember also that the use of these two
words does not indicate that the book treats only of what is meant by
them,[5] nor are we to imagine that the former part of the work refers
exclusively to Tê. The first word of the former part of the book is
Tao, and the first important word of the latter portion is Tê, and
these two were simply combined in order to form a designation for the
whole, according to the usual Chinese custom.[6] Hiüan-tsung (玄宗), an
Emperor of the Tʽang dynasty, who reigned in the early part of the 8th
century of our era, besides several other innovations, gave a separate
name to each part of this book, calling the former part the Tao-ching
and the latter the Tê-ching.[7] These appellations, however, are
seldom, if ever, used, and the work is now universally known as the
Tao-tê ching. From the words of Confucius it might even with some
degree of probability be inferred that already in his time the name
Tao-tê was used, the term Ching or classic, being, of course, a much
later addition and given by way of respect.
From the naming of the book I now proceed to the considerations of the
way in which it has been divided. Szŭ Ma-chien simply says that
Lao-tzŭ made a book in two parts, containing more than five thousand
characters, and setting forth the signification of Tao and Tê. Chʽao,
however, says that the work contained 5,748 words in eighty-one
chapters. The original division was probably only one into two parts;
afterwards, however, these were subdivided into chapters. The number
of these latter composing the entire book varies considerably.[8] Some
editors make fifty-five chapters; some make sixty-four; some, and
notably Wu-chʽêng, make sixty-eight; and some seventy-two. The most
usual number, however, is eighty-one, and this is said to be
sanctioned by the old and venerable authority of Ho-shang-kung (河上公)
of the Han dynasty. The Taoists are very fond of the number three and
its multiples, and this particular multiple, eighty-one, is associated
in tradition with Lao-tzŭ’s birth and the years of his life, and there
is perhaps no greater reason for preferring this to any other division.
To Ho-shang-kung is ascribed also the addition of a title to each of
the eighty-one chapters. These titles consist of two characters each,
giving an epitome of the contents of the chapter, and they resemble
the headings of chapters and sections in our own books. Many editors,
however, reject these inventions of Ho-shang-kung, and use the
ordinary Chinese method of distinguishing each chapter by its first
two characters. This is considered the more decorous method, as the
other seems to be supplementing the author.
I come now to the text of the Tao-tê ching, and here the most
bewildering uncertainty and confusion are found. Some editors, wishing
to have the number of characters as little as possible beyond five
thousand, have cut them off apparently at pleasure, and without much
regard for the sense of the author. Others have pursued a contrary
course, and retained or added characters in order apparently to make
out what they deemed to be the true meaning of any particular passage.
This conduct has occasioned great variations in the text, and
consequently great uncertainty as to what Lao-tzŭ actually wrote or
taught. Sometimes one editor, by the suppression of, a negative
particle or a word of interrogation, gives to a passage a meaning
unlike or even opposed to that which another editor by the insertion
of this character gives to the same passage. But not only do different
editions of this book vary as to insertion and rejection of words:
they also differ as to the mode of writing many of those actually
employed. Words written in similar manners, or of similar sound, but
with widely different significations, frequently replace one another;
and not unfrequently characters totally different in sound,
appearance, and meaning are found substituted one for another in the
same passage. Hence the number of various readings is exceedingly
great, and the meaning of many passages at least very doubtful. One
edition gives in the introduction an account of some of the variations
in the text, which occupies a considerable number of pages; while
another edition gives only a text accompanied by various readings.
The next point to be considered, is the style of our author. This is
perhaps the most terse and concise ever employed. There is little, if
any, grace or elegance about it: and most of the chapters seem to be
merely notes or texts for philosophical discourses. They are composed
of short and often enigmatical or paradoxical sentences—not in verse,
as has been asserted[9]—and with a connexion either very slight or not
at all perceptible. Much of the present obscurity may be due to the
antiquity of the language and the uncertainty about the proper
reading; but much is also due to the brief enigmatical manner in which
the author has expressed himself. Many Chinese regard the style as
profound and suggestive, and so, no doubt, it is; but we can never get
at the bottom of the meaning, nor imagine all that is suggested.
Connected with the obscurity of the style, and indeed contributing
largely towards it, is the nature of the topics discussed. The origin
of the universe, and man’s place and destiny in it as an individual, a
member of society, and a conscious part of nature, are subjects which
in all ages and in all countries have puzzled the minds of thoughtful
men, and it is of these and similar matters that Lao-tzŭ principally
treats. Such subjects, even when discussed in a clear and plain style
and with a rich language, are found to be difficult of elucidation;
and how much more so must they be when discussed in short enigmatical
sentences? Lao-tzŭ, like all other philosophers who live and write in
the infancy of a literary language, had only a very imperfect medium
through which to communicate his doctrines. The language of his time
was rude and imperfect, utterly unfit to express the deep thoughts of
a meditative mind, and hence it could at best but “half reveal and
half conceal the soul within.”
The genuineness and sources of this book are also difficult of
investigation, and it is perhaps impossible to ascertain the truth
about them with any accuracy. As has been seen, a portion is ascribed
to the semi-fabulous Emperor Hwang, and Lao-tzŭ is sometimes
represented as merely transmitting this emperor’s doctrines. Chapter
XXXI has been declared spurious, and a portion of Chapter XXVII is
found first in Ho-shang-kung’s edition.[10] The beginning of the now
famous Chapter XIV is very similar to the words ascribed to the
predecessor of the Emperor Hwang, namely the Emperor Yen (炎), by the
philosopher Chwang. Rémusat and Pauthier consider the main doctrines
of the Tao-tê ching to be derived from Western sources. The former
asks—Did Lao-tzŭ learn them from the Jews or from some oriental sect
unknown to us?[11] But the illustrious _savant_ was unable to give a
satisfactory answer. The learned Pauthier thinks that Lao-tzŭ borrowed
his doctrines either from the writings of some of the ancient Chinese
sages or from some Indian philosophers.[12] In Ma-tuan-lin’s great
work a short account is given of an ancient worthy named Yŭ-hsuing
(鬻熊), who served the celebrated Wên-wang, and who must accordingly
have flourished about B.C. 1150.[13] This man seems to have
anticipated Lao-tzŭ in certain doctrines, but we have very little
information about him, and what we have can scarcely be called
reliable. Lao-tzŭ never alludes to a previous author; but there cannot
be much doubt, I think, that he was well acquainted with the history
and traditions of his country.
We may probably now understand the nature of the difficulties
attending the reading and interpreting of the Tao-tê Ching, of which
western writers have complained. Julien speaks of it as “cet ouvrage
mémorable qu’on regarde avec raison comme le plus profond, le plus
abstrait et le plus difficile de toute la littérature Chinoise.”[14]
Rémusat and Pauthier have written in a similar manner, and the study
of a few pages of the work will show how real are the difficulties of
which they complain. But it is not to foreign students alone that
these difficulties are perplexing; they are so to the native student
also. Some of its editors are accused not only of not appreciating its
spirit, but even of not understanding its language.
The number of those who have edited and commented on this work is very
great, embracing Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucianists. The curious
reader will find a list of many of these in the Observations Détachées
prefixed to Julien’s translation. To this list many more names might
be added, but it includes nearly all the useful and well known
editions. It is only necessary here to enumerate a few of the more
important and celebrated editions, and those which are apparently not
mentioned by Julien and which have come under my notice.
1. The Tao-tê-ching-chu (道德經註) by Ho-shang-kung, or as Ma-tuan-lin
names the book, Ho-Shang-Kung-Chu-Lao-tzŭ, may be regarded as the
earliest edition of which we have now any exact information. This
Ho-shang-kung lived in the second century B.C., during the reign of
King Wen (文帝) of the Han dynasty. He derived his name from his living
as a studious hermit on the bank of a river in a grass-made hut, and
neither his original name nor anything else scarcely is known of him,
though Julien calls him “Lo-chin-kong.” To him, as has been seen, is
ascribed division of Lao-tzŭ’s book into eighty-one chapters, as also
the addition of the two-word heading of each chapter. The original work
is said to have been long since lost, and professed reprints are now
generally regarded as spurious. Many modern editions, however, present
what they designate Ho-shang-kung’s text, and Julien seems to regard
himself as possessing the genuine commentary. The edition of the
Tao-tê Ching, which forms the first volume in the Shĕ-tzŭ-chʽuan-shu
(十字全書) published during the reign of Chia-Chʽing of the present
dynasty, professes to give Ho-shang-kung’s text, revised by two
scholars of the Ming dynasty. Later editors are divided in their
opinions of the merits of the recluse’s commentary and arrangement of
the text. Some regard the commentary as a fair exponent of Lao-tzŭ’s
teachings, while others—and these I think the majority—regard it as
very bad and evincing an ignorance of the author’s meaning. The text
which is ascribed to him seems to be freer from obscurities than that
of some later editions, but he is accused of having taken great
liberties with the words of the original.
2. The edition of Wang-Pi (王弼). This man was the author of the
Lao-tzu-liao-lun (老子略論), according to Chʽao. He was a native of
Shan-yang (山陽) in the time of the Chin dynasty, which reigned over
China in the third and fourth centuries of our era.[15] His style was
Szu-fu (嗣輔), and he was an early and devoted student of Lao-tzŭ.
Besides this, and that he wrote a commentary on the Tao-tê chin, and
one on the Yi-ching, and died at the early age of twenty-four, much
regretted by his sovereign, we know little about Wang-Pi. The text
which he gives in his edition is very good, and his notes are very
brief. They are, however, in some cases almost as difficult to
comprehend as the passages they are intended to explain; though their
author is regarded by many as a better student of Lao-tzŭ than
Ho-shang-kung, and Mr. Wylie says that his commentary is “generally
esteemed for its depth of thought and chasteness of diction.”[16] He
also divided the work into eighty-one chapters. In the 40th year of
Chʽien-lung, or in 1775, a revised edition of this work was printed in
the palace, under the care of three mandarins, who have written a neat
little preface to the book. This edition is valuable as giving the
variations of Wang-Pi’s notes which appeared in the great Encyclopedia
known as Yung-lo-ta-tien (永樂大典).
3. The Tao-tê-ching-shi-yi (道德經釋義). This was the work of Lü-yen
(呂嵒), better known as Lü-Tʽung-pʽin or Lü-tsu, a famous Taoist of the
Tʽang dynasty. His commentary is very diffuse, and does not tend very
much to give a clear conception of Lao-tzŭ’s views. Many Chinese
scholars, however, believe that the genuine work is not extant, and
that all the editions purporting to be from his pen are spurious.
Lü-yen was also the editor of a Taoist book written by a celebrated
individual of the Han dynasty, and he was the author of a number of
original pieces. He was promoted to the rank of a Genius, and he is
enrolled as one of the Pa-hsien (八仙) or Eight Genii, under the style
Shun-yang-chên-jen (純楊眞人); and in the 29th year of Kʽang-hsi,
Mou-Mu-yuen (牟目源) published an edition of the Tao-tê Ching purporting
to be a revised edition of this man’s work. It is a very useful book,
giving in addition to the commentary a list of various readings, the
sounds of the rare or doubtful characters, and other valuable
information. This is the edition, apparently, to which Julien refers
as a work “publiée en 1690 par Chun-yang-tchin-jin qui renferme toutes
les rêveries des Tao-sse modernes.”[17] I cannot understand, however,
how a sinologue of M. Julien’s erudition could mistake the date of the
famous Lü-Tʽung-pin or forget that he was identical with
Shun-yang-chên-jen, A new edition of Mou-Mu-yuen’s book was published
in the 14th year of Chia-chʽing (1809) by Tsou-Hsü-kʽun (鄒學鯤).
4. The edition with notes by Su-Che (蘇轍), a relation of the famous
poet and author of the Sung dynasty, named Su also. Che, or as he is
also called Tsŭ-yu, seems to have been an eclectic philosopher, and he
has incurred severe censure from rigid Confucianists for daring to
presume that the doctrines of Shâkyamuni and Lao-tzŭ could resemble
those of their Master. His commentary is written in a liberal and
generous spirit, and shews, besides, a considerable amount of reading,
much in advance of ordinary Chinese authors.
5. Another edition of the Tao-tê Ching, published during the Sung
dynasty, was that of Lü-Tung-lai (呂東萊) or Tsu-chʽien (祖謙), also
known as Pei-kung (伯恭). He was a very learned Confucianist, and
wrote, along with other works, an excellent commentary on the
Chʽun-chʽiu (春秋) of Confucius.
6. The Tao-tê-chên-ching-chu (道德眞經註) by Wu-Chʽêng (吳澄). This man
was a native of Lin-chiean-hsien (臨川縣) in Kiangsi, and lived under
the Yuan or Mongol dynasty. He divided the Tao-tê Ching into
sixty-eight chapters by putting, in several instances, two or more of
the ordinary chapters into one. His commentary is one of the best and
of the most popular among the Chinese literati. This is partly owing
to the fact that Wu-Chʽêng was also a well-known Confucianist and a
commentator on the classics. His style was Yu-chʽing (幼清), and it is
under the name Oi-yeou-thsing that Julien makes mention of him. In
Chinese books he is also frequently quoted as Tsʽao-lu (草廬). A new
edition of Wu-Chʽêng’s excellent work appeared in the eighth year of
Chia-chʽing (1803,) with a preface by Chang-Wên-ping, and another
edition with a short supplement appeared in the reign of the late
emperor.
7. Under the Ming dynasty there were several good, editions of this
work published, but I have been able to obtain only two of them. The
Tao-tê-hsing-ming-chʽien-chi (道德性命前集) was published during the
reign of Yung-lo in the first quarter of the 15th century. The editor
does not reveal his name but uses a _nom de guerre_, and I have not
succeeded in ascertaining anything about his history. The commentary
which he has written is very useful, and evinces a careful study of
his author and a familiar acquaintance with Chinese literature. The
text and the headings of the Chapters are said to be after
Ho-shang-kung, and the number of the chapters is eighty-one.
8. The Tao-tê-hsing-ming-hou-chi (道德性命後集) appeared in the reign of
Chia-ching (嘉靖) of the same dynasty, and nearly a century after the
above edition. The author of this commentary was Chu-Chʽen-hung
(朱宸洪), a relative of the royal family, and a military viceroy with
full powers for some time. His notes are short and not of great
utility, but he occasionally introduces quotations from early writers
illustrative of passages in Lao-tzŭ’s teachings, and he seems to have
been a man of no mean literary attainments.
9. The Tao-tê Ching, with Prolegomena and Commentary by Hsu-Ta-chʽun
(徐大椿), was published in 1760. Ta-chʽun’s style was Ling-tʽai (靈胎),
and he was born in Wu-chiang-hsien (吳江縣) in the department of Soochow,
in the reign of Yung-chêng. He was well-known during his life as an
accomplished scholar, and a writer on medicine and other subjects. His
commentary on the Tao-tê Ching is to be reckoned among the most useful
of all the commentaries that have hitherto appeared. He speaks very
slightingly of previous editors, more especially of Ho-shang-kung,
and he advertises his readers that he has not stolen anything from his
predecessors, but has studied his author. Mr. Wylie says that Ta-chʽun
in this commentary, “in a concise and lucid style, develops his ideas
on the work of Laòu-tze, extolling it above the Confucian Classics.”[18]
10. The Tao-tê-ching-kʽao-yi (道德經攷異) by Pi-Yuan (畢沅), a high
officer under Chien-lung. He published this work in the forty-sixth
year of this reign (1781) in two volumes, and with the chapters
divided in the usual manner. The text which he gives is that settled
by Fu-yi (傅奕), an imperial annalist during the Tʽang dynasty, and his
notes consist almost exclusively of an enumeration of the variations
presented by previous editions. Mr. Wylie speaks of it as “a very
excellent examination of the purity of the text,”[19] but it is
scarcely so much as a statement of the various readings, with an
occasional attempt at explanation or reconciliation.
11. The Lao-tzŭ-tsʽan-chu (老子參註). Of this Mr. Wylie writes:—“A
critical exposition of the work (that is, of the Tao-tê Ching)
was written by 倪元垣 E Yuên-tʽàn in 1816, entitled the 老子參註
Laòu-tszè-tsʽan-choó.”[20]
Appended to several editions of the Tao-tê Ching is a small tract
bearing the name Yin-fu Ching (陰符經), that is, as explained by one
author, the Classic of the Secret Tally. It contains only a few
sentences, generally obscure and enigmatical, bearing on subjects
similar to those treated of by Lao-tzŭ. The author of the work is
unknown, and some refer it to the ancient Hwang-Ti (about B.C. 2630),
while others bring it down so late as Li-Chʽuan (李筌) of the Tʽang
dynasty.[21] It seems more probable, however, that it was written by
Tʽai-kung (太公), who is also known as Lü-wang (呂望) and Chiàng-shang
(姜尙). He was feudal chief of the principality of Chʽi (齊), and lived
under kings Wên and Wu of the Chou dynasty (about B.C. 1150 to 1120).
Szŭ-ma-chʽien[22] mentions the book under the title Chou-shu-yin-fu
(周書陰符), as having been studied by Su-Chʽin (蘇秦), a famous general
about the time of Mencius, who attained to the high position of chief
minister for six of the seven states then contending; hence he is
frequently spoken of as Liu-kuo-hsiang (劉國相). The Yin-fu-Ching forms
part of the curious book called the Magnetic Needle (指南針), where the
text is accompanied with very interesting notes.
[1] Le Livre des Récompenses et des Peines &c., par S. Julien
Avertissement, p. 6.
[2] Wên-hsien &c., ch., 211.
[3] See Lie-tzŭ’s Chung-hsü-chen-ching (冲虛眞經) Tien-sui (天瑞) ch.
where it forms part of a quotation from Hwang-Ti’s writings.
[4] See Julien’s Tao-tê-king, p. xxxiii.
[5] Hsü Ta-chʽun’s Preface to his edition of the Tao-tê ching.
[6] See Wu-Chʽêng’s (吳澄) Tao-tê ching, ch. 1.
[7] Hsü Ta-chün’s edition, Prolegomena 2. This statement, however,
cannot be verified.
[8] See Hsü Ta-chʽün as above.
[9] Pauthier, Chine, p. iii.
[10] Wên-hsien &c., ch. 211.
[11] Mémoire &c., p. 49.
[12] Chine Moderne, p.f 350, and Chine, p. 95 &c.
[13] Ch., 211.
[14] Tao-tê ching, p. ii
[15] See the Shang-yu-lu (尙友錄), Ch. 9, art. 王.
[16] Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 179.
[17] Tao te, &c. Observations Détachées, p. xxxix.
[18] Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 173. I have failed, however, to
verify the concluding part of the sentence.
[19] Notes, &c., p. 173.
[20] Notes, &c., p. 174.
[21] Notes, &c., p. 173.
[22] Shi-chi, Ch. 8.