Wenzi

The Wenzi () is a Daoist classic allegedly written by a disciple of Laozi. The text was widely read and highly revered in the centuries following its creation, and even canonized as Tongxuan zhenjing () in the year 742 CE. However, soon afterwards scholars started questioning its authenticity and dismissing it as a forgery that was created between the Han dynasty and the Tang dynasty. The text's fate changed in 1973, when archeologists excavated a 55 BCE tomb and discovered remnants of a copied on bamboo strips, offering a glimpse of what the text looked like prior its drastic revision into the current text.

Author

The title (; in this context meaning "master") is analogous with other Hundred Schools of Thought texts like , , , and . Wen (meaning among other things "literature" or "culture") is a Chinese surname, and hence "Wenzi" is interpretable as "Master Wen." Wen is also frequently used in given names, posthumous names, et cetera, due to its positive connotations. For example, King Wen of Zhou (Analects 5.15). Hence, "Wenzi" could also be interpreted as a nom de plume denoting "Master of Literature/Culture." Nothing can be said for certain about the identity of Wenzi, no matter how this name is interpreted. Although we do not know his true identity, various hypotheses have been proposed.

The bibliographical section of the 1st century CE Book of Han says Wenzi was a student of Laozi, a contemporary of Confucius (551-479 BCE), and an adviser to King Ping of Zhou (r. 770-720 BCE). This cannot be true, as King Ping and Confucius lived two centuries apart, and it fueled suspicion of the text's forged status in later centuries. To solve the chronological inconsistency, some commentators suggest a mistake for King Ping of Chu (r. 528-516 BCE), whose reign does coincide with Confucius' lifetime.

The early commentary by Li Xian (; fl. 516 CE) records that Wenzi's surname was Xin () and his sobriquet () was Jiran (,) he served under Fan Li, and studied with Laozi.

The later commentary by Du Daojian (1237-1318) furthermore notes Wenzi was a nobleman from the Spring and Autumn period state of Jin, his surname was Xin () and courtesy name was Xing (). He was also called Song Xing () referring to his home of Kuiqiu (), which was in the state of Song.

Received Text Written references to the first appear in the Han dynasty. The no longer extant 1st century BCE by Liu Xiang and Liu Xin said the had 9 . The bibliographical section of the 1st century CE Book of Han records the text in 9 , says Wenzi was a student of Laozi, a contemporary of Confucius (551-479 BCE), and adviser to King Ping of Zhou (r. 770-720 BCE), but adds "the work appears to be a forgery",Tr. . presumably because King Ping and Confucius lived two centuries apart.

In his ca. 523 CE , the Liang dynasty scholar Ruan Xiaoxu () records the Wenzi text in 10 volumes. Bibliographies in the 636 CE Book of Sui and the 945 CE New Book of Tang both record 12 volumes.

In 742 CE, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang canonized the as a Daoist scripture (along with the , , and ) honorifically called the . The emperor posthumously styled Wenzi as the .

The Daozang "Daoist Canon" includes three redactions under the subsection of the section. The oldest extant edition is the by Xu Lingfu (; ca. 760–841) of the Tang dynasty. The is by Zhu Bian of the Song dynasty. Third is the 1310 CE by Du Daojian (; 1237–1318) of the Yuan dynasty. Judith M. Boltz cites the opinion of Complete Library of the Four Treasuries bibliographers that Du's version was the most reliable redaction. She notes that Du Daojian became the rightful literary heir to Wenzi when he discovered a copy of the classic at the of Mount Jizhou () in Zhejiang, where hagiographic legend says Wenzi took refuge and wrote down his teachings.

Content Although the has traditionally been considered a Daoist text illustrating Laozi's thinking, it contains elements from Confucianism, Mohism, Legalism, and School of Names. The textual format records Laozi answering Wenzi's questions about concepts like . Besides citing passages from Daoist classics like and , the also cites others like the , , , and . Regarding the received text, Yoshinobu Sakade concludes: While these references make the appear as a source of ancient thought, in the form we know it today it is a forgery, with about eighty percent of the text quoted from the , and the rest consisting of an amplification of the or quotations from other texts. The present version contains expression similar to those found in the Taoist scriptures … These elements suffice to show that the extant was written between the third and eight centuries, before the time of Xu Lingfu.

Excavated text In 1973, Chinese archeologists excavated a Han dynasty tomb near Dingzhou in Hebei. Its occupant is identified as King Huai () of Zhongshan, who died in 55 BCE. Tomb furnishings included a precious Jade burial suit, jade ornaments, writing tools, and remnants of eight Chinese classic texts, including the and Confucian Analects copied on hundreds of bamboo slips. These bamboo manuscripts were fragmented, disordered, and blackened by fire, perhaps accidentally caused by tomb robbers.

The specialized project of deciphering and transcribing this ancient copy was delayed owing to a 1976 earthquake at Tangshan that further damaged the Dingzhou bamboo slips. The team published their first report in 1981 and their transcription in 1995 (both in the archeological journal ).

Ongoing sinological studies of the so-called Dingzhou are providing both specific details of the presumed urtext edition and general insights in the early history of Daoist texts. Portions of the Dingzhou are basically consistent with certain section in chapter 5 of the received text. Consensus is building that this excavated dates from the 2nd century BCE, while the transmitted text was created after the 2nd century CE.

The question-and-answer format is a significant difference between the bamboo and received versions. Ames and Rosemont explain: Consistent with the court bibliography in the History of the Han, the Dingzhou has Wenzi as teacher who is being asked questions by a King Ping of the Zhou. The received text, on the other hand, has the teacher Laozi being asked questions by the student Wenzi, certainly less appropriate given that texts are usually named for the teacher rather than the student.

Translations Compared with the numerous English translations of familiar Daoist texts like the and , the presumably apocryphal has been disregarded. Thomas Cleary wrote a popularized translation of the transmitted , which he attributes to Laozi.

There is no authoritative English translation based on the groundbreaking Dingzhou readings, nothing comparable with the Analects translation by Ames and Rosemont. English translations of select Dingzhou bamboo strips can be found in the monograph by Paul van Els.

Wenzi

Bron en licentie