Tao and Method: A Reasoned Approach to the Tao Te Ching (review)

172 China Review International: Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1996 Xiaoqing C. Lin Indiana University Northwest Xiaoqing C. Lin is an assistantprofessor ofhistory currently working on the development ofacademic disciplines at Peking University (1898-1937). Michael LaFargue. Tao and Method: A Reasoned Approach to the Tao Te Ching. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1994. xvi, 642 pp. Hardcover $74.50, isbn 0-7914-1601-1. The DaodejingÎM.WM., traditionally ascribed to the legendary figure Laozi ^~F, and often referred to simply as the Laozi, has been translated and explicated more times than any other piece ofEast Asian literature. Almost every year witnesses the publication of a new translation or study of the ancient, enigmatic "text." While some works seek to satisfy the mystical and metaphysical cravings of "New Age" enthusiasts, others have more scholarly aims and so appeal to the critical mind's respect for historical and textual "facts." A salient feature of the latter type of scholarship is its readiness to recognize the crucial significance of two silk manuscripts ofthe Daodejingthat were disinterred in late 1973 from a tomb in Mawangdui ,HEEiE near modern Changsha in Hunan Province. The silk texts were found in the grave ofthe son ofLi Cang fIJ^, marquis ofDai and prime minister ofChangsha during the early years ofthe Han dynasty (206 b.c.-a.d. 220). Since their excavation, the Mawangdui texts have revolutionized Daodejing studies. William Boltz, an authority on the unearthed texts, observes: "Speculations about the 'original text' based on comparative studies of editions and versions of the Lao Tz« before the discovery ofthe Ma-wang-tui manuscripts are now mostly moot."1 Michael Loewe, another scholar ofthe silk manuscripts, estimates that their significance is comparable to that of the discovery ofthe ShangYin ítjljt oracle bones for ancient Chinese history, or the recovery ofBuddhist documents from the Dunhuang fjfclH caves for medieval Chinese studies.2 Robert Henricks, another sinologist who is convinced of the importance of the Mawangdui silk manuscripts for credible studies of the Daodejing, judges that the two© 1996 by University texts, known as manuscripts A and B (jia ? and yi Z in Chinese), provide the ofHawai'i Pressearliest known versions ofthe Daodejing. Henricks relates that previously the earliest editions were those associated with the commentaries ofWang Bi ??3? (226249 ) and Heshang Gong M_hÄ (third century?). Now, however, the Mawangdui Reviews 173 manuscripts are "as close to the origin as we have."3 In an early essay on the Mawangdui texts, Tu Wei-ming similarly noted that manuscripts A and B, dating from no later than 195 B.C. and between 194 and 180 B.C., respectively, represent "by far the oldest extant texts ofthe Taoist classic."4 For these and other scholars, the silk manuscripts are crucial textual facts that should not be overlooked, especially ifone claims to have insights into the original meanings of the Daodejing. D. C. Lau, one ofthe most reputable translators ofthe Daodejing, therefore felt obliged to supplement his 1963 rendition of the "traditional, standard text" with a new translation of the Mawangdui text(s). Yet rather than translating both A and B, Lau conflated die two manuscripts into one and dien added his translation ofthat conflation to a reprint ofhis 1963 translation .5 Lau's textual liberties prompted Boltz, in his review of Lau's translation of the Mawangdui texts, to fault Lau for merging the two manuscripts into one without providing adequate justification for his emendations.6 In Lau's defense, manuscripts A and B do not differ radically. Nor do they gready differ from the standard Daodejingtext, at least not in content. Boltz himself thus acknowledged diat the Mawangdui manuscripts have shown "that the transmission of ancient Chinese texts . . . seems to have been remarkably reliable and true to the original. In spite ofnumerous instances oftextual variation in the Lao Tzu, die overall agreement between the Ma-wang-tui manuscript and later versions is striking."7 Robert Henricks, in his recent (1990) translation ofthe silk manuscripts, however, adds that the Mawangdui texts differ from the standard Daodejingtext in one major way: the former reverses the traditional two-part division of the Daodejingwherein the first part, including chapters 1-37, is called dao...