Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered?
Guodian Laozi
絕聖棄辯，民利百倍。
絕巧棄利，盜賊亡有。
絕(為+心)棄慮，民復季慈。
—————————–
Received Laozi
絕聖棄智，民利百倍；
絕仁棄義，民復孝慈；
絕巧棄利，盜賊無有
—————————–
Robert Henricks asks:
“Is the Guodian chapter (A1 / 19) the original form of the chapter, which was changed at some point to make the chapter more pointedly anti-Confucian? Or, is the wording in later editions the original wording, meaning that the Guodian chapter was altered by someone who wished to downplay the anti-Confucian tone of the book? Recall that the other texts found in this tomb were predominantly Confucian.”
He continues:
"One question raised is whether these two questions sum up all our options. It is conceivable, after all, that there never was an ‘original’ version of the Laozi. That is, given the work of Michael LaFargue and others who point to signs of ‘orality’ in so many parts of this book (three- to four-line series that are metric, parallel, and rimed), it is possible that slightly different versions of some of these chapters, or portions of chapters, circulated in China before any form of the text was written down. Moreover, different versions of parts of the text could have been written down, for the first time, at different times in different parts of the country.” (Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian p. 13)
Henricks (p. 14), Qiu Xigui (The Guodian Laozi p. 61) and Chen Guying (The Guodian Laozi p. 161) all take the first suggestion, that the original Laozi text was not anti-Confucian. I don’t see how we can be sure, one way or the other. Perhaps the safest position to take is the third, that there existed different versions circulating at the same time. Any opinions are welcome.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:01 am
While I’m still waiting for my copy of the Guodian Laozi monograph report, there was mention of the “lost” chapter. I think the fact that a completely new chapter was “discovered” makes the entire document suspect. How could an entire chapter of a text be lost and then not lead someone to question if the “new” chapter was genuine and then, subsequently, whether or not the entire find is a fraud??
(Giles wrote at length with evidences that the Dao De Jing / Laozi text itself was a forgery.)
What are your thoughts on whether or not the Dao De Jing itself is a forgery?
July 5th, 2009 at 6:23 am
hello jiaxiang,
There is no lost/new chapter. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I am not familiar with Giles’ theory about the Laozi being a forgery, but the Mawangdui and Guodian finds prove him wrong. Unless Giles meant that the Laozi we have today was not written by Lao Dan of the 6th century BCE. Most scholars in the West still do not place much credence in that story. Even Sima Qian didn’t know if it was true.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:23 am
A few references for you regarding H. Giles’ thoughts on the Daode Jing:
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601733.pdf
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601757.pdf
Argh! Sorry about that! I think I’ve mixed up the newly discovered cosmological text (太一生水) with the Daode Jing. (I’m still waiting for my Guodian Laozi monograph report, so I’ll shut up until I get that and absorb it.)
Do you think the Guodian discoveries would have changed his opinion? Why or why not?
Thanks!
July 10th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Hi jiaxiang,
When I have a moment, I’ll try to read Giles article. Alot has transpired in the past 125 years since he wrote that. In the meantime, you might be interested in reading a “biography” on Laozi I wrote a few years ago and published at the China History Forum:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25025&st=0&p=4936661&#entry4936661
(You might have to scroll on the page to find it.)
August 27th, 2009 at 10:07 am
What is the simplified answer as to why the Guodian find is an important version?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
The simplified answer is that it is the oldest version, and perhaps closer to the original wording.