Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The version as a whole is of little value. The reader will find, on pp. 115,116, its explanation of Ldo’s seventy-second chapter ;—the first morsel of it that has appeared in print. Protestant missions to China commenced in 1807; but it was not till 1868 that the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, a member of one of them, published his ‘Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of “The Old Philosopher,” Lao-Tsze.’ Meanwhile, Abel Rémusat had aroused the curiosity of scholars throughout Europe, in 1823, by his ‘Memoir on the Life and Opinions of Lao-Tseu, a Chinese Philosopher of the sixth century before our era, who professed the opinions commonly attributed to Pythagoras, to Plato, and to their disciples.’ Rémusat was followed by one who had received from him his first lessons in Chinese, and had become a truly great Chinese scholar,—the late Stanislas Julien. He published in 1842 ‘a complete translation for the first time of this memorable Work, which is regarded with reason as the most profound, the most abstract, and the most difficult of all Chinese Literature.’ Dr. Chalmers’s translation was also complete, but his comments, whether original or from Chinese sources, were much fewer than those supplied by Julien. Two years later, two German versions of the Treatise were published at Leipzig ;—by Reinhold von Planckner and Victor von Strauss, differing much from each other, but both marked by originality and ability. I undertook myself, as stated above, in 1879 to translate for ‘The Sacred Books of the East’ the Texts of Taoism XIV PREFACE, which appear in these volumes; and, as I could find time from my labours on ‘The Texts of Confucianism, I had written out more than one version of Lao’s work by the end of 1880, Though not satisfied with the result, I felt justified in exhibiting my general views of it in an article in the British Quarterly Review of July, 1883. In 1884 Mr. F. H. Balfour published at Shanghai a version of ‘ Taoist Texts, Ethical, Political, and Speculative.’ His Texts were ten in all, the Tao Teh Xing being the first and longest of them. His version of this differed in many points from all previous versions; and Mr. H. A. Giles, of H. M.’s Consular Service in China, vehemently assailed it and also Dr. Chalmers’s translation, in the China Review for March and April, 1886. Mr. Giles, indeed, occasionally launched a shaft also at Julien and myself; but his main object in his article was to discredit the genuineness and authenticity of the Tao Teh King itself. ‘The work,’ he says, ‘is undoubtedly a forgery. It contains, indeed, much that Lao Tzd did say, but more that he did not.’ I replied, so far as was necessary, to Mr. Giles in the same Review for January and February, 1888 ; and a brief summary of my reply is given in the second chapter of the Introduction in this volume. My confidence has never been shaken for a moment in the Tao Teh King as a genuine relic of LAo-3ze, one of the most original minds of the Chinese race.
2My confidence has never been shaken for a moment in the Tao Teh King as a genuine relic of LAo-3ze, one of the most original minds of the Chinese race. In preparing the version now published, I have used :— First, ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers ;’— a Sd-A4u reprint in 1804 of the best editions of the Philosophers, nearly all belonging more or less to the Taoist school, included in it. It is a fine specimen of Chinese printing, clear and accurate. The Treatise of Lao-jze of course occupies the first place, as edited by Kwei Yi-kwang (better known as Kwei K4an-shan) of the Ming dynasty. The Text and Commentary are those of Ho-shang Kung (Introd., p. 7), along with the division of the whole into Parts and eighty-one chapters, and the titles of the several chapters, all attributed to him. Along the top of the page, PREFACE. XV there is a large collection of notes from celebrated commentators and writers down to the editor himself. Second, the Text and Commentary of Wang Pi (called also Ff-sze), who died A.D. 249, at the early age of twentyfour. See Introduction, p. 8. Third, ‘Helps (lit. Wings) to Lao-jze;’ by 3i40 Hung (called also Z4o-hau), and prefaced by him in 1587. This is what Julien calls ‘the most extensive and most important contribution to the understanding of LAo-3ze, which we yet possess.’ Its contents are selected from the ablest writings on the Treatise from Han Fei (Introd., p. 5) downwards, closing in many chapters with the notes made by the compiler himself in the course of his studies. Altogether the book sets before us the substance of the views of sixty-four writers on our short King. Julien took the trouble to analyse the list of them, and found it composed of three emperors, twenty professed Taoists, seven Buddhists, and thirty-four Confucianists or members of the Literati. He says, ‘ These last constantly explain Lao-3ze according to the ideas peculiar to the School of Confucius, at the risk of misrepresenting him, and with the express intention of throttling his system;’ then adding, ‘The commentaries written in such a spirit have no interest for persons who wish to enter fully into the thought of Lao-jze, and obtain a just idea of his doctrine. I have thought it useless, therefore, to specify the names of such commentaries and their authors.’ I have quoted these sentences of Julien, because of a charge brought by Mr. Balfour, in a prefatory note to his own version of the Tao Teh Xing, against him and other translators. ‘One prime defect,’ he says, though with some hesitation, ‘lies at the root of every translation that has been published hitherto; and this is, that not one seems to have been based solely and entirely on commentaries furnished by members of the TAoist school. The Confucian element enters largely into all; and here, I think, an injustice has been done to Lao-3ze. To a Confucianist the Taoist system is in every sense of the word a heresy, and xvi PREFACE.
3The Confucian element enters largely into all; and here, I think, an injustice has been done to Lao-3ze. To a Confucianist the Taoist system is in every sense of the word a heresy, and xvi PREFACE. a commentator holding this opinion is surely not the best expositor. It is as a Grammarian rather than as a Philosopher that a member of the Ja Chia deals with the Tao Teh King; he gives the sense of a passage according to the syntactical construction rather than according to the genius of the philosophy itself; and in attempting to explain the text by his own canons, instead of by the canons of Taoism, he mistakes the superficial and apparently obvious meaning for the hidden and esoteric interpretation.’ Mr. Balfour will hardly repeat his charge of imperfect or erroneous interpretation against Julien; and I believe that it is equally undeserved by most, if not all, of the other translators against whom it is directed. He himself adopted as his guide the ‘ Explanations of the Tao Teh Xing, current as the work of Lii Yen (called also Lii 34, Lii Tung-pin, and Li AXZun-yang), a Taoist of the eighth century. Through Mr. Balfour’s kindness I have had an opportunity of examining this edition of Lao’s Treatise; and I am compelled to agree with the very unfavourable judgment on it pronounced by Mr. Giles as both ‘spurious’ and ‘ ridiculous.’ All that we are told of Lii Yen is very suspicious; much of it evidently false. The editions of our little book ascribed to him are many. I have for more than twenty years possessed one with the title of ‘The Meaning of the T4o Teh King Explained by the TRUE Man of Khun-yang,’ being a reprint of 1690, and as different as possible from the work patronised by Mr. Balfour. Fourth, the Thai Shang Hwun Hsiian Tao Teh Kan King,—a work of the present dynasty, published at Shanghai, but when produced I do not know. It is certainly of the Lii 34 type, and is worth purchasing as one of the finest specimens of block-printing. It professes to be the production of ‘ The Immortals of the Eight Grottoes, each of whom is styled ‘a Divine Ruler (Ti Xiin).’ The eightyone chapters are equally divided for commentary among them,excepting that ‘the Divine Ruler, the Universal Refiner,’ has the last eleven assigned to him. The Text is everywhere broken up into short clauses, which are explained in | PREFACE, XVil a very few characters by ‘God, the True Helper,’ the same, I suppose, who is also styled, ‘The Divine Ruler, the True Helper, and comments at length on chapters 31 to 40. I mention these particulars as an illustration of how the ancient Taoism has become polytheistic and absurd. The name ‘ God, the True Helper,’ is a title, I imagine, given to Lii 34. With all this nonsense, the composite commentary is a good one, the work, evidently, of one hand. One of several recommendatory Prefaces is ascribed to Wan Khang, the god of Literature ; and he specially praises the work, as ‘explaining the meaning by examination of the Text.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The version as a whole is of little value. The reader will find, on pp. 115,116, its explanation of Ldo’s seventy-second chapter ;—the first morsel of it that has appeared in print. Protestant missions to China commenced in 1807; but it was not till 1868 that the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, a member of one of them, published his ‘Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of “The Old Philosopher,” Lao-Tsze.’ Meanwhile, Abel Rémusat had aroused the curiosity of scholars throughout Europe, in 1823, by his ‘Memoir on the Life and Opinions of Lao-Tseu, a Chinese Philosopher of the sixth century before our era, who professed the opinions commonly attributed to Pythagoras, to Plato, and to their disciples.’ Rémusat was followed by one who had received from him his first lessons in Chinese, and had become a truly great Chinese scholar,—the late Stanislas Julien. He published in 1842 ‘a complete translation for the first time of this memorable Work, which is regarded with reason as the most profound, the most abstract, and the most difficult of all Chinese Literature.’ Dr. Chalmers’s translation was also complete, but his comments, whether original or from Chinese sources, were much fewer than those supplied by Julien. Two years later, two German versions of the Treatise were published at Leipzig ;—by Reinhold von Planckner and Victor von Strauss, differing much from each other, but both marked by originality and ability. I undertook myself, as stated above, in 1879 to translate for ‘The Sacred Books of the East’ the Texts of Taoism XIV PREFACE, which appear in these volumes; and, as I could find time from my labours on ‘The Texts of Confucianism, I had written out more than one version of Lao’s work by the end of 1880, Though not satisfied with the result, I felt justified in exhibiting my general views of it in an article in the British Quarterly Review of July, 1883. In 1884 Mr. F. H. Balfour published at Shanghai a version of ‘ Taoist Texts, Ethical, Political, and Speculative.’ His Texts were ten in all, the Tao Teh Xing being the first and longest of them. His version of this differed in many points from all previous versions; and Mr. H. A. Giles, of H. M.’s Consular Service in China, vehemently assailed it and also Dr. Chalmers’s translation, in the China Review for March and April, 1886. Mr. Giles, indeed, occasionally launched a shaft also at Julien and myself; but his main object in his article was to discredit the genuineness and authenticity of the Tao Teh King itself. ‘The work,’ he says, ‘is undoubtedly a forgery. It contains, indeed, much that Lao Tzd did say, but more that he did not.’ I replied, so far as was necessary, to Mr. Giles in the same Review for January and February, 1888 ; and a brief summary of my reply is given in the second chapter of the Introduction in this volume. My confidence has never been shaken for a moment in the Tao Teh King as a genuine relic of LAo-3ze, one of the most original minds of the Chinese race.
2My confidence has never been shaken for a moment in the Tao Teh King as a genuine relic of LAo-3ze, one of the most original minds of the Chinese race. In preparing the version now published, I have used :— First, ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers ;’— a Sd-A4u reprint in 1804 of the best editions of the Philosophers, nearly all belonging more or less to the Taoist school, included in it. It is a fine specimen of Chinese printing, clear and accurate. The Treatise of Lao-jze of course occupies the first place, as edited by Kwei Yi-kwang (better known as Kwei K4an-shan) of the Ming dynasty. The Text and Commentary are those of Ho-shang Kung (Introd., p. 7), along with the division of the whole into Parts and eighty-one chapters, and the titles of the several chapters, all attributed to him. Along the top of the page, PREFACE. XV there is a large collection of notes from celebrated commentators and writers down to the editor himself. Second, the Text and Commentary of Wang Pi (called also Ff-sze), who died A.D. 249, at the early age of twentyfour. See Introduction, p. 8. Third, ‘Helps (lit. Wings) to Lao-jze;’ by 3i40 Hung (called also Z4o-hau), and prefaced by him in 1587. This is what Julien calls ‘the most extensive and most important contribution to the understanding of LAo-3ze, which we yet possess.’ Its contents are selected from the ablest writings on the Treatise from Han Fei (Introd., p. 5) downwards, closing in many chapters with the notes made by the compiler himself in the course of his studies. Altogether the book sets before us the substance of the views of sixty-four writers on our short King. Julien took the trouble to analyse the list of them, and found it composed of three emperors, twenty professed Taoists, seven Buddhists, and thirty-four Confucianists or members of the Literati. He says, ‘ These last constantly explain Lao-3ze according to the ideas peculiar to the School of Confucius, at the risk of misrepresenting him, and with the express intention of throttling his system;’ then adding, ‘The commentaries written in such a spirit have no interest for persons who wish to enter fully into the thought of Lao-jze, and obtain a just idea of his doctrine. I have thought it useless, therefore, to specify the names of such commentaries and their authors.’ I have quoted these sentences of Julien, because of a charge brought by Mr. Balfour, in a prefatory note to his own version of the Tao Teh Xing, against him and other translators. ‘One prime defect,’ he says, though with some hesitation, ‘lies at the root of every translation that has been published hitherto; and this is, that not one seems to have been based solely and entirely on commentaries furnished by members of the TAoist school. The Confucian element enters largely into all; and here, I think, an injustice has been done to Lao-3ze. To a Confucianist the Taoist system is in every sense of the word a heresy, and xvi PREFACE.
3The Confucian element enters largely into all; and here, I think, an injustice has been done to Lao-3ze. To a Confucianist the Taoist system is in every sense of the word a heresy, and xvi PREFACE. a commentator holding this opinion is surely not the best expositor. It is as a Grammarian rather than as a Philosopher that a member of the Ja Chia deals with the Tao Teh King; he gives the sense of a passage according to the syntactical construction rather than according to the genius of the philosophy itself; and in attempting to explain the text by his own canons, instead of by the canons of Taoism, he mistakes the superficial and apparently obvious meaning for the hidden and esoteric interpretation.’ Mr. Balfour will hardly repeat his charge of imperfect or erroneous interpretation against Julien; and I believe that it is equally undeserved by most, if not all, of the other translators against whom it is directed. He himself adopted as his guide the ‘ Explanations of the Tao Teh Xing, current as the work of Lii Yen (called also Lii 34, Lii Tung-pin, and Li AXZun-yang), a Taoist of the eighth century. Through Mr. Balfour’s kindness I have had an opportunity of examining this edition of Lao’s Treatise; and I am compelled to agree with the very unfavourable judgment on it pronounced by Mr. Giles as both ‘spurious’ and ‘ ridiculous.’ All that we are told of Lii Yen is very suspicious; much of it evidently false. The editions of our little book ascribed to him are many. I have for more than twenty years possessed one with the title of ‘The Meaning of the T4o Teh King Explained by the TRUE Man of Khun-yang,’ being a reprint of 1690, and as different as possible from the work patronised by Mr. Balfour. Fourth, the Thai Shang Hwun Hsiian Tao Teh Kan King,—a work of the present dynasty, published at Shanghai, but when produced I do not know. It is certainly of the Lii 34 type, and is worth purchasing as one of the finest specimens of block-printing. It professes to be the production of ‘ The Immortals of the Eight Grottoes, each of whom is styled ‘a Divine Ruler (Ti Xiin).’ The eightyone chapters are equally divided for commentary among them,excepting that ‘the Divine Ruler, the Universal Refiner,’ has the last eleven assigned to him. The Text is everywhere broken up into short clauses, which are explained in | PREFACE, XVil a very few characters by ‘God, the True Helper,’ the same, I suppose, who is also styled, ‘The Divine Ruler, the True Helper, and comments at length on chapters 31 to 40. I mention these particulars as an illustration of how the ancient Taoism has become polytheistic and absurd. The name ‘ God, the True Helper,’ is a title, I imagine, given to Lii 34. With all this nonsense, the composite commentary is a good one, the work, evidently, of one hand. One of several recommendatory Prefaces is ascribed to Wan Khang, the god of Literature ; and he specially praises the work, as ‘explaining the meaning by examination of the Text.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.