Liu Chuxuan (1147-1203) and his Commentary on the Daoist Scripture Huangdi yinfu jing (review)

Liu Chuxuan, an important figure in the early history of Quanzhen Daoism, has been credited with the authorship of a number of commentaries to Daoist classics, two of which are extant today. It is to one of these, the commentary on the Yinfu jing, that Peter Acker has devoted a short study. In the author's own words, his primary aim has been "to explore the three main foundations of Liu Chuxuan's theory of self-cultivation: The theory of inner alchemy used in his commentary, the Daoist school of Quanzhen and the transmission of sacred scriptures, here epitomized in the Yinfu jing" (p. 75).

After a handful of pages of general introductory observations about Daoism in contemporary China, the author devotes some sixty pages to the basic ideas and practices of inner alchemy, the figure of Liu Chuxuan within early Quanzhen Daoism, the Huangdi Yinfu jing and its significance in Quanzhen Daoism, and Liu Chuxuan's commentary to the Yinfu jing. The remaining pages of the book contain a full, annotated translation of the commentary, a copy of the original text as found in the Daoist canon, and a bibliography.

The one lasting impression left by this book is, alas, one of considerable carelessness. One good look at the bibliography is sufficient to give the reader a strong hint that much more work should have gone into this book. The bibliography, for instance, does not contain Chinese characters (in contrast to the rest of the book), lacks a number of bibliographical data, and is not even alphabetical: we find Porkert and Pulleyblank before Pas, and Schipper and Soothill after Welch. Important contributions to the field, such as the 2001 issue of Journal of Chinese Religions (which contains, among others, a study by Pierre Marsone on the accounts of the foundation of the Quanzhen movement), seem to have escaped the author's attention. Instead, we find among the "Secondary Literature in Chinese" references to dictionaries that do not deserve to be mentioned at all, such as the Ciyuan and the Zhongwen dacidian.

The author frequently seems to be unaware of even the most basic conventions in academic writing, for instance concerning the use of italics. Throughout the book, names of Daoist movements or traditions (such as Quanzhen or Zhengyi), temples (such as the Baiyun guan), place names (such as Zhongnan or Jingzhao), and even some Chinese characters, are given in italics, whereas a number of terms that should be italicized are not. Similarly, in the bibliography, titles of articles are frequently given in italics, whereas the titles of the books or periodicals in which they are found are not.

Another indication of the author's lack of care is found in the way names are occasionally spelled. Thus, Wang Chongyang becomes Wang Chonyang (p. 42), Fabrizio Pregadio becomes Fabricio Pregadio (p. 82), Anna Seidel becomes Ann Siedel (p. 65), and James Legge becomes John Legge (p. 77).

It is obvious that no native speaker of the English language read the manuscript. The work of a conscientious reader would have avoided a number of irritating elements, such as the author's frequent misuse of the verbs "to epitomize" and "to illuminate." As far as the integral translation of Liu Chuxuan's commentary is concerned, it would be unfair to say that it is substandard. Most of it is done correctly, albeit a trifle blandly. Certain bizarre bits of translation, such as "illustrious clothes" (p. 85) for 錦衣, illustrate the translator's lack of experience. And surely it should have been possible to come up with a better translation for the line 知之修 鍊非燒五金八石之修鍊 than the one Acker presents: "He who knows this does not cultivate and practice the cultivation and practice of heating the nine [kinds of] metals and the eight [kinds of] stones" (p. 93).

On the whole, I'm afraid...