Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:55:30.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the transmission of the Shen Tzu and of the Yang-sheng yao-chi1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

T. H. Barrett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Western sinologists dealing with texts of any antiquity are usually as aware as their East Asian colleagues of the importance of textual scholarship as the foundation of their studies. Yet despite the considerable sophistication of the techniques developed in the West for editing the texts of our own classical heritage we have until now largely left the collation of Chinese texts to East Asian scholars working on the basis of their indigenous academic traditions, and have generally been content to accept their results even in cases where these are clearly somewhat unsatisfactory. Paul Thompson's magnificent study shows that there is no need to let this situation continue. Taking an ancient work which has been the subject of conspicuous foul play on the part of pre- modern Chinese scholarship, he has produced a book which is in every sense of the word an exemplary demonstration of how the most rigorous techniques of textual and bibliographic analysis should now be applied to problems which have been ignored for too long.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 168 - 176
Copyright
Copyright The Royal Asiatic Society 1980

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

2 e.g. Bunsen should be Monzen, p. 73;Google Scholar K'uo-tzu should be Kuo-tzu, , p. 58, n. 29Google Scholar; the policy of not hyphenating book titles is curiously contravened by the Lao-Tzu of the bibliography, p. 397Google Scholar.

3 Meibunsh 2, p. 142Google Scholar in Zoku Gunsho ruij , Tokyo, 1928, vol. 30B.Google Scholar

4 See Hachir, SamuraZtei Kokusho kaidai Tokyo, 1926, p. 1361.Google Scholar

5 e.g. Meibunsh 1, p. 88.Google Scholar

6 e.g. Meibunsh 2, p. 140.Google Scholar

7 In Kanda hakushi kanreki kinen shoshigaku ronsh Tokyo, 1957, pp. 2818.Google Scholar

8 Materials on Yang's career are collected in Chao Yen and Lao Ko T'ang Shang-shu-sheng lang-kuan shih-chu t'i-ming k'ao Kyoto, reprint 1978, p. 25. 10blla.Google Scholar

9 See the T'ang-shu ching-chi i-wen ho-chih Shanghai, 1955, pp. 1823.Google Scholar

10 i.e. the works listed in McMullen, D. L., Concordances and indexes to Chinese texts San Francisco, 1975, 114, 183.Google Scholar

11 See the materials cited on this work on p. 317, nn. 79, 80 of McMullen, D. L., Historical and literary theory in the mid-eighth century, in Wright, A. F. and Twitchett, D. C. (ed.), Perspectives on the T'ang, Yale University Press, 1973, 30747.Google Scholar For a bibliographical listing see the T'ang-shu ching-chi i-wen ho-chih, p. 61.Google Scholar

12 T'ai p'ing -lan 645. la (SPTK)Google Scholar and cf. Hsun Tzu 12. 7a (SPTK).Google Scholar

13 Yn-chi ch 'i-ch 'len 32. 10a in Tao-tsang Google ScholarShanghai, , reprint 1926, no. 1026, vol. 677702. Tao-tsang numbers are those of the Harvard-Yenching Index enumeration. Hereafter YCCC.Google Scholar

14 The Shen Tzu quotation, in textually identical form, is found on p. 1. 9a of this version, Tao-tsang no. 837, vol. 572.Google Scholar

15 At the fascicle head and at the end of the preface respectively. The Tao-tsang mu-lu hsiang-chu of Li Chieh Taipei, , reprint, 1975, p. 3.36bGoogle Scholar asserts that the work was compiled by Sun in connection with his Ch'ien-chin yao-fang (for which see below, n. 31) and that the annotation, especially prominent in the opening section of the text, is by T'ao. This information is plausible, and could be reconciled with the obser- vations made below, but it is not clear whether Li is propounding a hypothesis here to reconcile the conflicting attributions or providing an explanation based on genuine support- ing evidence.

16 In Journal Asiatique, CCXXIX, 1937, 232, n. 3.Google Scholar

17 See OkanishiTameto Sun i-ch'ien i-chik'ao Peking, , 1958), p. 462,Google Scholar and for the catalogue Thompson, , p. 52, n. 35.Google Scholar

18 See Sivin, N., Chinese alchemy: preliminary studies, Harvard University Press, 1968, 139, n. 104, for an example of such a taboo in a work by Sun.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Sivin, ibid.

20 Okanishi, , p. 466.Google Scholar

21 See the references given in Okanishi, , pp. 4601.Google Scholar

22 T'ai-shangyang-sheng t'ai-hsi ching p. 1a in Tao-tsang, no. 818, vol. 568. I find the date of this scripture impossible to ascertain.

23 See the additional note on the Chih-yen tsung, below.

24 No less than 86 passages, according to Okanishi.

25 Compare the Ch'u-hseh chi 4 (Peking, , 1962), p. 83Google Scholar with Ishimp 29, Peking, , reprint, 1955, p. 663,Google Scholar frame one, col. 1617. Hereafter Is.

26 Cf. e.g. YCCC 32.6a col. 7 to 6b col. 8 with Is. 27, p. 613-two, col. 1218, 911.

27 Cf. e.g. Yang-hsingyen-ming lu 2.11b col. 10 with Is. 28, p. 644, translated in Ishihara, A. and Levy, H., The Too of sex, New York, 1968, 11617,Google Scholar and Yang-hsing yen-ming lu 1.12a, col. 69 with Is. 29, p. 661-one, col. 1011.

28 Cf. YCCC 32.20b col. 5 with Sang shki ch 4, p. 69. frame one, col. 1112, in Takaoka Ryshin (ed.), Shingonsh zensho Tokyo, , 1933 1939, vol. 40.Google Scholar This commentary, by Unsh (161493), is presumably not still quoting from the direct tradition of the text. Other quotations in the commentary (e.g. one on the same page) may all be found in Is. 27, so perhaps this also derives from another part of the Is.

29 Cf. e.g. the Kanen ysh p. 131, frame two, last two columns (in Zoku Gunsho ruij 31A) and YCCC 32.5b, col. 12. Several other works in the medical section of the Zoku Gunsho ruij also contain useful-looking quotations.

30 The Lieh Tzu is mentioned e.g. YCCC 32.4a: for Chang's connections with it see Graham, A. C., The date and composition of the Liehtzyy, Asia Major VIII, 1961, 13998.Google Scholar

31 Compare Pei-chi Ch'ien-chin yao-fang 1.4a col. 68 (in Tao-tsang, no. 1155, vols. 800820) and YCCC 32.8b col. 36. For Sun's text see Sivin, , 13840.Google Scholar

32 YCCC 32.1b col. 3 has at the start of the list, where Yang-hsing yen-ming lu has . Five names would seem to upset the parallelism, and I can only suggest as a possible emendation.Google Scholar

33 Note the mysterious reference to the introduction to the Yang-shengyao-chi in YCCC 32.10b, col. 1, and cf. e.g. 32.3b, col. 9 and 4a, col. 2.

34 Okanishi, , p. 462.Google Scholar

35 T'ai-p'ing kuang-chi 2, Peking, , 1959, p. 11.Google Scholar

36 e.g. YCCC 32.11b col. 12, and cf. Is. 27, p. 614-one, col. 12.

37 Cf. Tung-hsan ling-pao chen-ling wei-yeh t'u (Tao-tsang no. 167, vol. 73), 22b, and Chen-kao (Tao-tsang no. 1010, vol. 63740), 14.2b, both by T'ao Hung-ching.

38 Cf. its opening words, Ch 'ien-chin yao-fang 81.9b with the opening words of the section of the two-fascicle Yang-hsing yen-ming lu. The independently transmitted version of this essay, considered below, shows that material in Sun's work following the section clearly designated at Tao-lin's essay and at first glance apparently disassociated from it by separate headings is actually taken from the same source.

39 Note e.g. that T'ai-ch'ing Tao-lin She-sheng lun (Tao-tsang no. 1416, vol. 1055) 10a col. 24 is considerably rewritten in Ch'ien-chin yao-fang 81.15b col. 89 and 16a col. 1, and corresponds much better to Is. 27, p. 625-two, col. 1617: Yang-hsingyen-ming lu 1.15b col. 1 abbreviates this. Cf. also Is. 27, p. 620-two, col. 11 and T'ai-ch'ing lun 11b, col. 89; Is. 27, p. 621-two, col. 7 to p. 622-one, col. 2 and T'ai-ch'ing lun 18a col. 610: both passages are omitted by Sun Ssu-mo and the latter by the Yang-hsing yen-ming lu also. Some additions in Sun's text, e.g. the reference to the sleeping habits of Confucius, 81.16b, col. 1, may be due to his Sung editors (for whose depredations see Sivin, n. 106, pp. 13940) but the Is. confirms that Sun himself was mainly responsible for rewriting Tao-lin.

Additional note: the Chih-yen tsung

The Chih-yen tsung (Tao-tsang no. 1027, vol. 703), in discussing yang-sheng, shares a considerable quantity of text in common with the Yang-hsing yen-ming lu, including portions verified as having been in the Yang-shengyao-chi: cf. e.g. Chih-yen tsung 2.3a col. 9 to 3b, col. 3 and YCCC 32.5a, col. lOb to 5b, col. 5, which spans the passage verified in n. 28 above. But though it often quotes the same texts with identical commentary, it includes passages excised in Yang-hsing yen-ming lu: cf. YCCC 32. 1b col. 10 to 2a col. 3 and Chih-yen tsung 2.la col. 6 to 10; YCCC 32.5b col. 5 to 10 and Chih-yen tsung 2.1a col. 10 to 1b col. 8. It also includes sayings available in the Yang-sheng yao-chi but not in the Yang-hsing yen-ming lu: cf. Chih-yen tsung 3.4a col. 2 to 4 and Is. 29, p. 666-one, col. 1617. It would therefore appear to be quoting from the Yang-sheng yao-chi directly. Yoshioka Yoshitoyo has given as a terminus ad quern for this text the end of the T'ang, on p. 299 of his article Saikairoku to Shigens Taish Daigaku kenky kiy 52, 1968, pp. 283301. But as a terminus a quo he suggests (ibid.) the date of compilation of the Yao-hsiu k'o-i chieh-l ch 'o (Tao-tsang no. 463, vols. 2047): Wu Chi-yu, on p. 20 of his introduction to the Pen-tsi king, Paris, 1960, shows that this work is probably no later than the early 8th century. Thus the Chih-yen tsung cannot at this stage be taken to prove the continued existence of the Yang-sheng yao-chi in 9th-century China.Google Scholar