An Analytical Study of Laozi's Biography in Shiji by Tianyu Fan BA in Chinese, May 2017

Home , Gao Heng (legal scholar), Li Daoyuan, Sima Qian, Yinxi, Zuo Qiuming

“Seize the dragon's tail” - An Analytical Study of Laozi’s biography in Shiji

by Tianyu Fan

B.A. in Chinese, May 2017, Hebei University

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

May 19, 2019

Thesis directed by

Jonathan Chaves Professor of Chinese

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………...1 \

Chapter 2: Literature Review and the Background………………………………………7

Chapter 3: Theoretical interpretation and the creative principle of Shiji………………14

Chapter 4: Textual Analysis of the biography of Laozi in Shiji…………………………29

Chapter 5: The Analysis of contradictions…………………………………………….42

Chapter 6: Conclusion………………………………………………………………….52

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………….56 Chapter 1: Introduction

Scholarly attention to the biography of Laozi in Shiji began, mainly, in a series of debates on Laozi 老子 and the Dao de Jing 道德经 conducted by Doubting Antiquity

School (Gushi bian 古史辨派) scholars start in the 1920s. The Gushi bian school was raised during the New Culture Movement of China, inspired by the thought of “sorting out Chinese classics” proposed by Hu Shi 胡适. The school gradually developed academic characteristics such as “doubting Antiquity and distinguishing the forgeries”.

With this guiding ideology and the historical research method (a combination of Chinese and Western methodology)1, they questioned the inherent understanding of ancient

Chinese history. Among these questions, the question of Laozi’s existence is probably the greatest and most influential.

As one of the most important philosophical schools in ancient China, Taoism has continuously had a significant impact on Chinese society. At the end of reign of Han

Dynasty, under the influence of various factors, the most influential local religions —

Taoist tradition was differentiated from this philosophical school. Therefore, Laozi, who has long been known as the founder of Taoism, was put in a very important position.

However, the historical record of this significant person is surprisingly deficient. Before

Shiji, written by Sima Qian, we can only find broken fragments about this person in

Zhuangzi 庄子, Zhanguo Ce 战国策, Lvshi Chunqiu 吕氏春秋, and other classic texts.

1. In Gushibian, we can see that many scholars try to use some western methodology or ideology in their study. Sometimes they used Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche or Plato as their examples to illustrate some points. Also, they try to use logistics to argue with each other. The debate between Feng Youlan and Hu Shi should be a great example.

As the first biography which introduced Laozi in detail, the biography of Laozi in Shiji naturally receives the most attention.

However, for scholars who wish to discover the identity of the historical Laozi, the biography of Laozi in Shiji is undoubtedly disappointing. Various problems in this confusing record have been highlighted in previous scholarship. The considerable time period covered, the mythical style of the narration, and the conflation of the legends of

Master Laolai (Laolai zi 老莱子) and Grand historian Dan (Taishi Dan 太史儋) trouble scholars deeply. Eventually, most scholars started to question the reliability of this biography, and there was a vigorous debate concerning it

Based on the study of the Dao De Jing and other historical materials related to

Laozi, some scholars argue that Laozi, if he existed, must have lived in the Warring

States Period (475–221 BCE). Also, it is widely accepted that the Dao De Jing was written (or compiled) at this time. Feng Youlan 冯友兰 (1895-1990) is one of the many scholars who hold this viewpoint. Beyond this, scholars such as Zhang Dainian 张岱年

(1909 - 2004), Tan Jiefu 谭戒甫 (1887-1974), and Luo Genze 罗根泽 (1900-1960) claim that there is a possibility that Laozi’s real historical identity is Grand historian Dan. There are also scholars, including Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚 (1893-1980), who think that the real time of completion of the Dao De Jing was as late as the Qin or Han Dynasty. The discussion ranges from the most conservative view, which advocates the maintenance of the traditional thought (held by Hushi 胡适 (1881 - 1962), Ye Qing 叶青 (1896―1990), Gao

Heng 高亨（1900-1986）, and others), to the most radical view which regards Laozi as a fictional figure (held by Sun Cizhou 孙次舟 and others).2

This discussion is not limited to China; with the revival3 of Western Taoism study in the twentieth century, more and more Western scholars paid attention to this issue.

Homer Dubs and Derk Bodde maybe the earliest Occidental scholars to join this debate.

Dubs introduced the discussion done by Gushi Bian scholars to the West in his paper of

1941. In that paper, he claims that the genealogy of Laozi’s descendants is the most reliable part of the biography written by Sima Qian. Based on this, he concluded that

Laozi lived around 300 BCE.4 However, Bodde’s response to Dub’s article cast some doubt on this date.5 In China, the debate continued for many years without a clear conclusion. Then, in the 1980s and 90s, just at the time when “Chinese scholarship had gone back to crediting the historicity of the early accounts”,6 Occidental scholars gradually set the dominant viewpoint that “the Dao De Jing does not attribute to any of

2. Luo Genze 罗根泽, ed., Gu shi bian 古史辨 (repr., Haikou 海口: Hainan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2005).

3.For the historical problem, occidental scholars used to have many prejudices or misunderstanding to the Taoism. That situation changed in the last century. Thus, I used the word “revival” here to describe this special change.

4. Homer H. Dubs, "The Date And Circumstances Of The Philosopher Lao-Dz", Journal Of The American Oriental Society 61, no. 4 (1941): 215, doi:10.2307/593905.

5. Derk Bodde, "Further Remarks On The Identification Of Lao Tzŭ: A Last Reply To Professor Dubs", Journal Of The American Oriental Society 64, no. 1 (1944): 24, doi:10.2307/594051.

6. Livia Kohn, God Of The Dao (repr., Ann Arbor: Center for the Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 1998). This phrase is in the note instead of the mainly body of the paper.

3 its doctrines to Master Lao, and it shows evidence of being, mainly, a compilation of beautiful poetic fragments” and “no actual Laozi ever lived”.7

The conclusion seems to be very clear. The biography of Laozi in Shiji is not informative enough for scholars to identity the historical Laozi as it contains many illogical or unreasonable parts. However, should this be the final judgement on this biography? Or on the author Sima Qian? The answer is definitely no.

In former studies, scholars have often analyzed the biography of Laozi in Shiji from the perspective of textual interpretation and historical data comparison. As Chad

Hansen mentioned in his book, textual theory is undoubtedly the dominant method. We must admit that textual theory is indeed an objective and effective method; nevertheless, it does ignore an important perspective—the possibility that a rational person will create self-contradictory materials is extremely low. Because all texts are man-made, they should follow some basic principles, and at least be cohesive. Thus, if an article has internal contradictions that cannot be interpreted, there must be a special reason for this.

In this paper, I would like to analyze the biography of Laozi in Shiji from the author's point of view. I aim to reinterpret the text and combine my interpretation with

Chad Hansen’s theory, through the author's material selection and his creative principles.

I believe that this new angle will at least eliminate the fog caused by the contradictions,

7. Chad Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought (repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 210. The phrase was quoted from Hansen’s book. However, the actual change was probably created by the influential articles in The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan, published in 1986. Later textbooks, such as The Norton Anthology of World Religions, edited by Jams Robson, tend to describe Laozi as a fictional figure. See A. C Graham, The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan, 1st ed. (repr., Singapore: Institute of East Asian Philosophies, 1986) and James Robson and Jack Miles, The Norton Anthology Of World Religions, 1st ed. (repr., New York: Westchester Book, 2015).

4 and let the researchers who study the relevant issues better understand the internal logic of this work. I hope this dissertation may also correct some misconceptions about the historical records and help people to understand the biographical literature in Chinese history more appropriately. It must be stated that contradictions do exist in this text, and I do not deny previous research. Moreover, compared with the contradictions between historical materials, it is now thought that we should pay more attention to the contradictions between the text and the author’s creative principle. Asking the right questions is really important. In this case, a better question should be: Why are there uncoordinated parts in this biography? —because the solution to a mystery is always hidden in the abnormal, not the natural. The incongruous narrative of the biography of

Laozi in Shiji also, paradoxically, hints at the answers. Thus, in the second half of this dissertation, these contradictions will be carefully examined and discussed. Such discussion is essential for a better understanding of the text.

There are six chapters in the paper. The first chapter is the introduction section.

Then, in the second section, I will review the previous literature and present a summary of my findings. Both Western views and Chinese views will be discussed. This chapter will also discuss the reasons for the divergence between these schools of thought. In the third chapter, I will set up some basic principles for the later interpretation of the biography of Laozi in Shiji; Sima Qian’s guiding ideology will also be discussed in this section. In the fourth chapter, I will give a detailed discussion of the text of the biography of Laozi in Shiji by dividing it into five parts. The former literature on the text and the most controversial points will be reviewed and discussed. In the fifth chapter, I will take a closer look at specific parts of the biography and its unique features. I will also make

5 some hypotheses that attempt to explain why the biography of Laozi in Shiji contains these unique errors. In the final chapter, I will make my conclusions. I believed that the biography of Laozi in Shiji has undergone dramatic revision, and the original logic of the biography was broken. For that the text we study still contains such mystery which need to be solved, it is still too early to claim that “there is no historical Laozi” based on it.

Chapter 2: Literature Review and the Background

Almost all the articles that focus on Laozi mention the biography of Laozi in

Shiji. In more than half of the articles, the biography of Laozi in Shiji plays a very important role, whether they are written by Western or Chinese scholars. As mentioned earlier, material prior to the publication of Shiji (around 94 BCE) is extremely scarce and, as a result, Western and Chinese scholars share the same materials when they study this topic. Therefore, an interesting and notable question is raised: Why, when the same materials are used and a skeptical attitude is shared, do scholars reach very different conclusions?

In Chinese academia, scholars have still not reached agreement regarding Laozi’s identity. Although most of them accept that the Dao De Jing was most likely finished at the Warring States Period, and its author did not live in the same time as Confucius, most of them do not deny the existence of the historical Laozi. However, in Western academia, the situation is very different. Currently, most Western scholars regard Laozi as a fictional character and the Dao De Jing as a fragmented collection of earlier works.

So why do Eastern and Western scholars have such different views? I believe that it is because they ask different questions when researching Laozi and his identity. They therefore apply different definitions to the object discussed, resulting in different viewpoints.

In any research, the questions asked are at least as important as the answers obtained. Thus, close examination of our questions is essential. For the question who the historical Laozi is, the most significant point is the definition of the figure called “Laozi”.

As we all know, Laozi is not a name but an honorific title. The meaning of the character

“Zi 子” is similar to “master” or “teacher”. Also, “Lao 老” is likely to be the master’s family name.8 Thus, semantically, this question asks, who is Professor Lao? If scholars infer different interpretations of “Laozi”, most people will instinctively realize that they may be talking about different people. The situation is similar now.

Before we find the answers to the questions: Who is the historical Laozi? and, Did

Laozi even exist? we must first define clearly the meaning of the word “Laozi”. This definition is the key to understanding why there are differences between Chinese and

Western conclusions.

So, what is the definition of “Laozi”? The answer may not as simple as we think.

When talking about Laozi, most scholars still use Sima Qian’s Shiji as a fundamental text. In this biography, this biographee’s surname is Li, his personal name is Er, and his style name is Dan. Shiji reports that Confucius used to ask him about the rites. According the Shiji, he then exited the Hangu Pass, leaving us a book named the Dao De Jing, and his descendants were officials of the Han Dynasty. Some people purport that Laozi is

“Master Laolai” or “Grand Historian Dan”, but others disagree.

There are several reports and stories that involve Laozi; so, if there is a historical person who meets all the descriptions of “Laozi” except one, could this person be

“Laozi”? If so, then a sorites paradox about Laozi arises, unless we artificially establish a standard.

Some scholars simply believe that “Laozi” indicates the author of the Dao De

Jing. Thus, when Western scholars posit that the Dao De Jing is a compilation of early

8.Many Occidental scholars think that Lao 老 means “Old”. I personally cast doubt on this conclusion. I mention this here to give a sense of the diversity of viewpoints.

8 fragments (rather than a work by a single author), they suggest that Laozi does not exist.

However, this presupposition also has some problems. Could the statement “The Dao De

Jing does not have a single writer” prove that there is not an author called Laozi? We must cast doubt on this conclusion, too. In fact, multi-person compiling was very popular in the pre-Qin period (221 BCE–207 BCE). Some parts of the Zhuangzi were written by

Zhuangzi himself. It is also widely accepted that The Writings of Master Hanfei （Hanfei

Zi 韩非子）were compiled by his disciples. None of the texts in The Writing of Master

Mo (Mo zi 墨子) were written by Master Mo himself. It is also highly possible that The writing of Master Guan (Guan Zi 管子) was not written by Guan Zhong 管仲 (723BCE -

645BCE) himself. For this reason, all these books, to some extent, show different tones between chapters. Taking Zhuangzi as an example, when describing the event of

Confucius and Laozi’s first meeting, the tone used in the inner chapter is obviously different from the tone used in both the outer and the miscellaneous chapters. Some may claim that these books’ real author (or authors), nonetheless, have a strong academic connection with its reputed author, but Laozi is probably a completely fictional figure created by the real authors. However, this conclusion in fact developed based on the question begging — the claim can only be true when we assume that Laozi does not exist; otherwise, we can only say that this book is a pseudograph（Wei Shu 伪书）, a special Chinese term used to describe the book whose reputed author or alleged age is not consist with its real author and age.

What, then, is the definition of Laozi in the minds of Chinese scholars? By comparing their studies, we find that different scholars have different definitions. In the previous literature, we can see that many Chinese scholars mention one point: The books

(the writings of Laozi) and the person Laozi are separate entities. This means that, for most Chinese scholars, the Dao De Jing does not necessarily belong to the historical

Laozi (if there is a historical Laozi). This phrase can reflect the dominant thought for the question about the definition of Laozi in Chinese academia. We can glean two things from this assumption: firstly, their Laozi is not necessarily the author of the Dao De Jing and, secondly, their Laozi cannot meet all of Sima Qian’s description. However, as mentioned earlier, if their Laozi does not need to be the author of the Dao De Jing, then the sorites paradox must be put into consideration. How much consistency should be maintained with Sima Qian's description for us to be able to call this person Laozi? There is no clear standard. Thus, if we want to give their Laozi an accepted description, it should probably be “Laozi as he was in his time”. Because this is a vague description, and because different scholars hold different ideas, it is not surprising that no consensus has been reached on this topic.

Western scholars believe that there is no historical Laozi. Then, what is the definition of the Western idea of “Laozi”? Although different scholars have different opinion, it seems that this “Laozi” needs to meet at least two requirements: firstly, he is the teacher of Confucius, and, secondly, he is the author of the Dao De Jing. In fact, the actual standard is probably even stricter than just these two criteria. When it comes to the textual study, (there is not much archaeological evidence left), only when a person meets almost all the descriptions in the text record, will they be accepted as the historical

Laozi9. The Western definition of Laozi is obviously clearer than the Chinese definition.

9. To clarified, this is not a formal standard. I extract this standard of definition by comparing the conclusion mentioned by western scholars such as William Boltz or Chad Hansen.

This clear definition leads to a conclusion which Western scholars argue: There is no historical Laozi who can fulfill all the requirements.

Like most scholars, I believe that the Dao De Jing was most likely finished at the

Warring States Period. Although there are some scholars who refute it, I tend to follow what Feng Youlan said:

For all the pieces of evidence that prove that the writings of Laozi were finished

later, if we only take one of them out, then it cannot avoid the logical error of

question begging. However, if we see them as a whole, then the collateral

evidence shows that the writings of Laozi must have been finished later (than

traditionally thought), it cannot be a coincidence.10

Therefore, if Dao De Jing was finished in the end of the Warring States Period

(475–221 BCE), then, undoubtedly, the author of this book would not have had the opportunity of contact with anyone who lived in the Spring and Autumn Period (771–476

BCE). Therefore, there is nobody who can meet all of the criteria required to be described as Laozi.

Now that we know why there is such great divergence between Western and

Chinese thinking on this topic, let us consider a new question: What is the relationship between this issue of definition and the understanding of the biography of Laozi in Shiji?

I believe that the different definitions generated in the Western and Chinese scholarship of Laozi came from two different sources. Firstly, they instinctively chose different

10. Feng Youlan 冯友兰, “Laozi Niandai Wenti 老子年代问题,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a), Vol. 4, 283.

11 standards to make judgements about the historical materials in Shiji. Secondly, they have different understandings of the multi-person compilation. In this paper, I will discuss only the first reason, because it has a stronger relationship with our research objective.

As mentioned earlier, from the perspective of the historical philology, it is almost impossible for the historical Laozi, under the Western definition, to exist. This results from the comparison of all the texts that mention Laozi. The studies which focus on his biography, such as the article written by A. C. Graham, presents similar results.

11However, one thing must be mentioned: for Shiji, the reason why this biography can be considered as evidence that Laozi didn’t exist, is because the historical materials recorded in the biography contain contradictions that cannot be reconciled. Because there are such contradictions, we know that some of the historical records must be untrue. Studies of other external materials, such as the Dao De Jing, further contribute to the evidence that the historical Laozi did not exist; thus, we can prove the theory that Laozi never existed because there are contradictions inside the biography. In other words, we could not use the result that Laozi does not exist to prove that the biography is forged, because this results in a circular argument.

So, why are there so many contradictions in Shiji? Could it be that Sima Qian is such a poor author that he can't find the obvious conflicts in his work? Or, is that just like what said by Sun Xianzhou, Sima Qian is partial to the Taoist way of thinking and thus

11. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24.

12 has a tendency to choose historical materials that benefit Laozi’s existence? In the following section, I will provide a detailed analysis of these questions.

Chapter 3: Theoretical interpretation and the creative principle of Shiji

In Chad Hansen's book, A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical

Interpretation, he proposes a basic, but interesting, theoretical framework for interpreting ancient Chinese philosophical texts such as the Dao De Jing. In his book, he claims that he has used the “interpretative theory” rather than the more dominant “textual theory”.12

Whether his novel explanation for the text in the Dao De Jing uses this method or not, his clear and concise interpretation system can provide guidance in interpreting most of the incomprehensible text written by the ancients, including the biography of Laozi in Shiji.

For Hansen, the minimal requirements of an explanation or interpretation is intelligibility, which is “necessary, but not sufficiently conditional on an interpretation”.13

This claim may sound meaningless, but it does catch an important point: neither our interpretation of the text nor the text itself are irrational creations. All texts are created by rational human beings; thus, they should be intelligible, otherwise we would not attempt to interpret them.

In fact, considering authors as people who are rational and understandable is important. Surprisingly, this common sense is frequently ignored, especially in the area of Chinese classic literature. In some academic literature, many of the ancient Chinese literati have already been distorted to some extent. Once they become a literatus or a poet, their fundamental identification as a human being seems to disappear. They soon become simplified label and anyone can depict them any way as their wish.

12. Chad Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought (repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 201.

13.Ibid,197.

This tendency truly exists and has been so for some time. Since the trend towards text-centered theory, the author's status has been reduced further still, with authors even forgotten. However, I still would like to claim that interpreting an author’s intention is an important part of understanding their works. The foundation of this style of interpretation restores their human identity. Scientists, scholars, poets, writers, and others who lived in ancient China all share the same identification as we do. Their occupation or age does not make them incomprehensible aliens.

After we accept this minimal requirement, then we should try to define some detailed principles. When there are different interpretations, how can we decide which is the best? If we take the biography of Laozi as an example, from the beginning of the last century, numerous papers have been written on this subject. How can we evaluate which are more authoritative than others? Hansen gives some useful suggestions. He claims that a great interpretation should have the following characteristics: simplicity, elegance, economy, and coherence. This means that, when we cannot find a perfect interpretation that satisfies every criterion, the best solution is to adopt the most efficient interpretation.

Also, Hansen defined two principles to guide the choice of interpretation: the principle of charity and the principle of humanity. 14Although these basic theoretical methods were created to explain the text in the Dao De Jing, I believe that a similar system can be used to analyze the biography of Laozi in Shiji.

14.Ibid, 198-99. There is the explanation made by Hansen himself: “The principle of charity says our interpretations should maximize the truth in a language. The principle of humanity says we should maximize the reasonableness, the core of both principles is this: we assume that the rules of syntactical composition and logical entailment work.” In this paper, we mainly concern about the logical entailment.

Now we have the fundamental theoretical guidance, and, before we take a closer look at the text of the biography of Laozi in Shiji, there is other essential preparation needed. We need to try to find an overall creative principle for Shiji. As a masterpiece of more than 526,500 words, which took 14 years to finish, it is almost impossible that Shiji was written without a certain creative standard, even though those standards may never have been recorded and exist only in Sima Qian’s mind. Further convincing evidence shows that Shiji is not a work which is written to satisfy aesthetic needs and that it shows some characteristics that are similar to modern academic work We can see that Sima

Qian did not only do the textual research method but also try to collect data by doing the ancient version of field work. In China, scholars consider Shiji as an outstanding representation of Chinese classical historical literature. This label, used to describe the work, combines the characteristics of literary and historical writings

So, how can we find some hints of those creative standards? As mentioned earlier, a systemic creative principle creative principle may only exist in Sima Qian’s own mind.

Obviously, we cannot read anybody’s thoughts, even if he or she is standing in front of us, not to mention that Sima Qian lived in the second century, almost two thousand years ago. However, we do have some materials that can help us to find the significance of his creative principle. Among them, the most two important materials are “the Postface of the Grand Historian (Taoshi Gong Zixv 太史公自序)” and “Letter to Jen An (Bao Ren

An Shu 报任安书)”.

It is greatly fortunate that the author left us some autobiographical works. More surprisingly, these works directly connect with the text we want to study, Shiji. By reading this material, we can, at least partly, infer Sima Qian’s thoughts when he wrote

Shiji. In the following part, I will discuss in detail this guiding ideology and the related views of Sima Qian.

The motivation and the goal of Sima Qian’s writing

According to the record in the “the Postface of the Grand Historian”, Sima Qian’s initial motivation that pushed him to write Shiji, is very simple: it was because of his father’s dying wish. Qian’s father, Sima Tan, is a Grand historian of the court (Taishi

Gong 太史公). The title of “Grand Historian” was an official position during the western

Han Dynasty, with the official duty of recording the history of the dynasty. Sima Qian’s narrative shows that his father’s appointment to this position was not the first time a member of the Sima family had accepted this responsibility. In the very beginning of” the

Postface of the Grand Historian”), Sima Qian writes a brief history of the Sima family:

In the ancient times in the reign of Chuan Hsü, the Nan-cheng Chung was ordered to take charge of affairs of heaven, while the Pei-cheng Li took charge of those of earth. In the reigns of T’ang and Yü the descendants of Chung and Li were reestablished as the managers of the affairs of heaven and earth. During the Hsia and Shang dynastic these same Chung and Li families continued generation after generation to manage the affairs of heaven and earth. The Earl of Ch’eng Hsiu-fu in the Chou dynasty was their descendant. In the time of King Hsüan of the Chou the family lost its position and became the Ssu-ma family. The Ssu-ma family for generations had charge of the historical records of the Chou.15

Obviously, this genealogy contains numerous fictional and legendary elements.

Many legendary figures are mentioned, such as Chuan Hsü, who is considered the grandson of the Yellow Emperor. This sort of overblown genealogical line is extremely

15. Burton Watson, Ssu-Ma Ch'ien, Grand Historian Of China, 1st ed. (repr., New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 42. The English translation of “the Postface of the Grand Historian” was translated by Burton Watson in his paper. In the translation, Burton Watson used Wade–Giles romanization instead of Hanyu Pinyin.

17 common in old Chinese texts of the autobiographical type. It often appears in the beginning of articles. To some extent, this style of writing has become a cultural tradition for Chinese ancients. The earlier example includes “Encountering Sorrow （Li

Sao 离骚）”, written by Qu Yuan, which starts with the phrase “Scion of the High Lord

Kao Yang, Po Yung was my father’s name”16.

Although the antiquated genealogy may be a literary exaggeration, the review of the family history of the Zhou Dynasty, especially the “for generations had charge of the historical records of the Chou” parts, still deserves our attention. First of all, comparing with the former parts which involves some legendary figures, this narrative is far more reliable. As we know, during the Zhou Dynasty, written history already existed in China, and with it, a means of passing family history to descendants. Also, the environment of the patriarchal society in western China during the Zhou Dynasty provided the recoding of significant family history. Secondly, the family name Sima increases the credibility of this record. The origin of the family name Sima comes from name of the official position,

Sima, in the Zhou Dynasty. Thus, based on this family name, there is the possibility that ancestors of the Sima family served as officials for the Zhou government.

Even though this depiction may be fictional, it is still meaningful, because it is a description of the beliefs held by Sima Qian, and perhaps also his father. These beliefs make recording the history a family duty. Family duty was incredibly significant in ancient Chinese society, which considered filial as one of the most valuable moral codes.

Based on this principle Qian’s father, Tan, decided to start the great lifework of Shiji.

16. Birch, Cyril, trans., “Encountering Sorrow” In Anthology of Chinese Literature: From Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, trans. Hightower, James R (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1965), Vol. 2, 51.

However, due to political frustrations, Tan was so depressed that he finally died because of the sadness. After his death, Tan’s lifework passed to his son, Sima Qian. In the postface of Shiji, this progression is recorded:

In the same year, the Son of Heaven first performed the Feng Sacrifice for the house of Han. But the Grand Historian was forced to stay behind at Chou-nan and could not take part in the ceremony. He was filled with resentment over this and lay on the point of death. When his son Ch’ien returned from his mission he visited his father at the place where he was staying between the Lo and Yellow rivers. The Grand Historian grasped his hand and said, weeping, “Our ancestors were Grand Historian for the house of Chou. From the most ancient times they were eminent and renowned when in the days of Yu and Hsia they were in charge of astronomical affairs. In later ages our family declined. Will this tradition end with me? If you in turn become Grand Historian, you must continue the work of our ancestors. Now the Son of Heaven, following the tradition of a thousand years, will perform the Feng Sacrifice on Mount T’ai. But I shall not be able to be present. Such is my fate! Such indeed my fate! After I died, you will become the Grand historian. When you become a Grand Historian, you must not forget what I have desired to expound and write. Now filial piety begins with the serving of your parents; next you must serve your sovereign; and finally, you must make something of yourself, that you name may go down through the ages for the glory of your father and mother. This is the most important part of filial piety.” …… I am fearful that the historical materials will be neglected and lost. You must remember and think of this!17

Qian fulfilled his father's last wish to complete his lifework (or, an even heavier responsibility, the lifework of the whole Sima family). There is one thing that we need to pay attention to: Sima Qian did not only inherit his father’s work but also inherited his father’s official position. He literally inherited the career of the family. It was these resources that made his goal achievable.

Sima Qian’s initial motivation, therefore, came from his sense of family duty. In a society famous for its tradition of ancestor veneration, this is an exalted, even divine,

17. Burton Watson, Ssu-Ma Ch'ien, Grand Historian Of China, 48-49.

19 motivation; however, it is not the whole story. Although Sima Qian used many modest words, such as “When I say that I ‘transmitted’ a record of past affairs, putting in good order the genealogies and chronicles, it does not mean that I “made” a work such as

Confucius did. Therefore, when you compare my writings to the Spring and Autumn

Annals, you mistake their true nature”, in the postface, and claims that his task was only to organize the historical materials written by the ancients, we can in fact find that he had an even greater dream when he embarked upon this work. This was not the dream of a respectful son, but the aspiration of a great historian and literatus.

In the “Letter to Jen An”, he says:

I have ventured not to look for more recent models, but with what little literary I possess I have brought together the scattered fragments of ancient lore. I studied the events of history and set them down in significant order, I have written 130 chapters in which appears the record of the past—its period of greatness and declines of achievement and failure. Further it was my hope, by a thorough comprehension of the workings of affairs divine and human, and a knowledge of the historical process, to create a philosophy of my own. 18

In order to gain a deep understanding of Sima Qian’s goal, first, we need to know the meaning of the phrase “philosophy of one’s own”. “philosophy of one’s own” is a commonly used idiom, which usually refers to “personal viewpoints”. Cyril Birch translated this phrase as “the work of one family(Yijia Zhiyan 一家之言)”, which probably more closed to its original meaning in Chines. However, in Sima Qian’s time, this “philosophy of one’s own” (or “the work of one family”) had a more complicated

18. Cyril Birch, ed., “Letter to Jen An (Shao-ch'ing),” In Anthology of Chinese Literature: From Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, trans. Hightower, James R (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1965), Vol. 2, 95-103.

20 and formal meaning. In the “the Postface of the Grand Historian”, Sima Qian also mentions this phrase:

It is the work of one family, designed to supplement the various interpretations of the Six Classics and to put into order the miscellaneous sayings of the Hundred schools. I have placed one copy in the famous Mountain and another in the capital, where they shall await the sages and scholars of later ages.19 In this phrase, we can see that “the work of one family” is parallel to “the miscellaneous sayings of the Hundred schools”. “the Hundred schools” and, of course, refers to the different philosophers and authors, esp. in time of the Warring States. Thus,

Sima Qian’s “create a philosophy of my own”, in fact, means that it created an independent academic school separate from the Hundred schools generated during the pre-Qin period. Also, there is a Chinese character “Yan 言” in the phrase does not just indicate “words”.

In the Zuo Zhuan 左传, there is the phrase: “There are three imperishables--The virtue, the achievements, and the teachings”. This “three imperishables” was considered the highest goal for all later Chinese literati, including Sima Qian and his father.20

Whether Sima Qian was successful or not, it is important to know that his goal was not to sing the praises of a specific school. Although he lived in an era during which the study of Huang Lao was very popular and Confucianism was acknowledged as an official school by the ruler, and Sima Qian was inevitably influenced by those trends, he strived to set up his own school and spoke for that. Actually, thousands of years later, we can say that he partly succeeded, in that people acknowledge the concept of the “historian

19. Burton Watson, 57.

20. Zuo Qiuming 左丘明, Zuo Zhuan 左传 (repr., Bei jing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2012).

21 school (Shi Jia 史家)” and his work is considered one of the greatest among all historical literature.

The guiding ideology of Sima Qian’s writing

As mentioned earlier, Sima Qian set a high goal for his writing—to “create a philosophy of my own.”. In order to fulfill this goal, he needed to develop a novel method. To some extent, this fundamental methodology of his future, “one family”, had already been established when he set this goal.

This methodology, as well as another goal of the writing, is mentioned in the same text: “Further it was my hope, by a thorough comprehension of the workings of affairs divine and human, and a knowledge of the historical process, to create a philosophy of my own”. This was probably the most fitting guiding ideology for a historian at that time. It reflects why recording history is of such importance in Sima

Qian’s understanding. This advanced belief is also held by many modern historians.

Although Sima Qian made a self-depreciatory expression that he was only organizing the former historical records, we can see that, in fact, his scheme was far more ambitious.

Organizing the old materials was the essential means to accomplishing a higher goal.

Thus, we can probably consider his writing activities as preparation for another career, a noble career which explores the laws of the development of human history, that of having a thorough comprehension of the workings of affairs divine and human, and a knowledge of the historical process,

For this reason, it is less likely that Sima Qian fabricated or distorted the historical record in Shiji on purpose. Because, if the record itself was fabricated, it would bring no

22 benefit to the higher goals of having a thorough comprehension of the workings of affairs divine and human, and a knowledge of the historical process. On the contrary, it would confuse the later researchers and cause problematic interference.

The creative mythology of Shiji

To sum up, I believe that, at least based on his highest goal of writing Shiji, Sima

Qian had plenty of motivation to be as objective as possible. However, this conclusion is not evidence that proves that Shiji has a high degree of reliability, because we do not know if the original resource used by Sima Qian was itself reliable.

Sima Qian himself did not create history: As he said, “When I say that I

‘transmitted’ a record of past affairs, putting in good order the genealogies and chronicles, it does not mean that I “made” a work such as Confucius did …”. By reading his work, we know there were two main sources for his writing. The first one is the textual material written by ancient people. The second was the data collected by Sima

Qian himself. In order to write Shiji, Sima Qian undertook a process very similar to what we call “field work” today. He went to the places where the historical events happened and interviewed the relevant people to obtain the information he needed.

Although few records remain that tell us the detail of this work, much of Qian’s investigation shows great accuracy. Some of Sima Qian’s written records are even more accurate than parts of the former historical records such as the Zhanguo Ce.

Although Sima Qian put a lot of effort into collecting, arranging and examining the historical records, the reliability of these records is still the biggest problem. The most obvious problem is that there are several different records that relate to the same

23 historical event. Because of this realistic reason, identifying the authenticity of these materials was almost impossible for Sima Qian at that time. It is even possible that this work was too time-consuming for Sima Qian to do alone. Thus, he finally chose a more efficient method to solve this tough problem. This method was to “keep them all”.

We can find the hints for this in the “the Postface of the Grand Historian” ：

Ch’ien bowed his head and wept, saying, “I, your son, am ignorant and unworthy, but I shall endeavor to set forth in full the reports of antiquity which have come down from our ancestors, I shall not dare to be remiss!” 21

This creative methodology allows us to find several obvious contradictions in

Shiji. For example, in the biography of the First Emperor of Qin, Zi Ying was recorded as the First Emperor of Qin’s grandson. However, in the biography of Li Si, Zi Ying is described as the First Emperor of Qin’s brother.

Thus, it is natural that the biography of Laozi in Shiji contains similar contradictions. In Shiji, the historical records from different sources do not avoid contradiction. This method of writing was recording both versions. At the expense of the logic of the biography, the richness of the historical materials is preserved to the utmost extent.

One more important point that must be mentioned is that, even when a record has no conflicts, it can still be inaccurate. As Sima Qian said himself, he only conducted a rough examination of the references he used. Considering the length of Shiji, mistakes and omissions are inevitable. Thus, we need to be objective when considering the reliability of Shiji.

21. Burton Watson, 49-50.

The influence of the castration

There is another inevitable topic we need to discuss: the influence of castration

(Fu Xing 腐刑). This inhuman torture was one of the most important events in Sima

Qian’s life. There is a common assumption that this event caused Sima Qian to hold strong hostility toward Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, and toward the Wei and Huo families. Because of this, Sima Qian was sometimes accused of not being objective when he wrote the biography of Wei Qing 卫青, Huo Qubing 霍去病, and Emperor Wu of

Han. Once we believe that this bias exists, it is natural to question the reliability of the other parts of Shiji.

Firstly, we should know that pure objectivity is unlikely to exist in this world, because text is man-made and all men are influenced by their own value systems. Even when authors try their best to be objective, it is inevitable that the final product will still contain parts that are influenced by personal emotion. In fact, even when we do not take this into consideration, excluding personal judgement was never a goal of Shiji. We can see that Sima Qian undisguisedly shows his favoritism to specific historical figures. This tendency is clearly demonstrated when we look at how he decided which figures should belong to which volume. For example, the “genealogies” contains the biographies of eminent people. However, we can see that Confucius and Chen She 陈涉 were also included in this part. Also, Xiang Yu lost the war with the Liu Bang and never became an emperor or created a new dynasty; regardless, his biography is in the “annals” part.

Furthermore, at the end of each biography, Sima Qian leaves his own evaluations of the events therein.

Based on this, it would not be surprising if he did write negatively about Emperor

Wu of Han. Nevertheless, this assumption can only be that: an assumption, because the original 武帝本纪 had already been usurped and there are any clues as to whether he complained about Emperor Wu. When it comes to the biographies of Wei Qing and Huo

Qubing, there is only pity, probably reflecting a negative evaluation. Those signals, which contain the relatively negative word “Herou Meishang 和柔媚上” (always be gentle and flatter the king) about Wei Qing and an unnecessarily doubtful mention about him in “Biographies of Flatterers (Ningxing Liezhuan 佞幸列传)”, are too ambiguous for us to make the judgement that Sima Qian actually aimed to deliberately slander these people.

Even these if these unevidenced accusations are true, the emotional tendency of the few words and comments in Shiji are far different from the practice of deliberately forging history. Thus, based on the question begging that assumes that Sima Qian created fake historical records, or had ulterior motives when choosing historical materials, is somewhat unfair.

In fact, I would like to make a contradictory assumption: that the castration may not have influenced his attitude, but instead, made him even more objective when he wrote Shiji. As mentioned earlier, all historians are subjective to some extent. Their subconscious value orientation affects their perspective. This value orientation comes from their own background, such as the culture they belong to, their educational

26 background, and their personal experiences. In other words, their orientation comes from their social identity. However, Sima Qian had already lost his social identity after his castration; in the social level, he was not a “man” anymore, for that he lost his ability of reproduction. If he was on longer considered as a “man”, it was easier for him to give up his former political positions and turn into a relatively neutral bystander. That’s why castration is considered the most contumelious punishment in ancient China and, perhaps, in other parts of the world. Males would rather to die than be insulted by castration.

In the “Letter to Jen An”, Sima Qian describes his feelings:

It was in consequence of my speaking out that I met disaster in the first place; were I to make myself doubly a laughingstock in my native place, to the disgrace of my forebears, how could I ever have the face again to visit the grave of my father and my mother? Even after a hundred generations my shame will but be the more. This is what makes my bowels burn within me nine times a day, so that at home I sit in a daze and lost, abroad I know not where I am going. Whenever I think of this shame the sweat drenches the clothes on my back. I am fit only to be a slave guarding the women’s apartments; better that I should hide away in the farthest depths of the mountains. Instead I go on best I can, putting up with whatever treatment is meted out to me, and so complete my degradation. 22

As well as the pain he suffered, there is another interesting point which almost escapes our attention: Sima Qian now denies any political position. The political event, or more specifically, the horrible political tragedy in which Ren An was involved was the so-called “the Case of Witchcraft” (Wugu Zhi Huo 巫蛊之祸) of Emperor Wu’s reign. It was difficult to keep safe distance from this political event. Although this event was triggered by false charges, it turned into a reasonless fight between Emperor Wu of Han and the only legitimate heir to the dynasty, Crown Prince Liu Ju 刘据, due to the death of

22. Cyril Birch, ed., “Letter to Jen An (Shao-ch'ing),” In Anthology of Chinese Literature, trans. Hightower, James R, Vol. 2, 95-103.

27 its initiator. Neither side gained any profit from this political conflict. The Crown Prince, his mother, Queen Wei, and other family members lost their lives. Emperor Wu lost his beloved son and his only heir. Emperor Wu of Han then proceeded to vent his painful feelings on all of the people involved with the events. Whether they supported the Crown

Prince or not, Emperor Wu of Han blamed them all for the result. Those who did not show a clear position, such as Ren An, were also implicated.

However, Sima Qian seems to have successfully survived this political tragedy as a man shut off from Emperor Wu, based on the information inside the “Letter to Jen an”.

In this letter, he once more denies that he provided support to his friend, Ren An, and describes himself as a “a slave guarding the women’s apartments”, i.e., a eunuch. This could be considered a signal—at this moment, Sima Qian’s political position had already been erased. The only goal of his life was to finish Shiji. Thus, he could be independent from the external political hurricane. Therefore, there is at least some possibility of him becoming more objective, because he had already lost his social role and became, instead, a pure historian.

Chapter 4: Textual Analysis of the biography of Laozi

In the context of the background described above, we can now look at the biography of Laozi itself. As mentioned earlier, the biography probably contains several nonhomologous historical records or legends. Therefore, our first task is to divide the whole biography into several small sections based on their contents. From my perspective, the most convenient method is to divide the biography into five parts: 1)

The basic information; 2) Story I: Confucius asks Laozi about the rites; 3) Story II: Lao

Zi departs from the Hangu Pass; 4) Miscellaneous information; 5) The lineage of Laozi.

Part 1

“Laozi was a man of the Ch’u-jen village of the Lai district of the Hu province in Ch’u. Surname: Li. Personal name: Er. Style: Tan. He was a historiographer in charge of the archives of Chou.”23

Laozi’s name

Laozi’s name is a frequently discussed topic on which numerous studies have been conducted. There is no consensus that the phrase “style name, Bo Yang 伯阳” in some version of Shiji was added later. Thus, in the current book of Shiji, these phrases are deleted. Also, many scholars cast doubt on Sima Qian’s description of Laozi’s name.

Scholars also cast doubt about the name mentioned by Sima Qian. Before Shiji, no materials called Laozi “Li Er 李耳”. Furthermore, according to the study of Gao Heng

23. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24. The biography of Laozi from Shiji was translated by A.C. Graham and edited by Livia Kohn. Instead of the Hanyu Pinyin, the Wade-Giles romanization was used here.

高亨, in the pre-Qin period, there is no surname “Li 李”, only the surname “Lao 老”.24

Another influential scholar, Tang Lan 唐兰, also claims that Li Er was not the real name of Laozi. He presents three pieces of evidence for this: 1) In the ancient book (the book before Shiji), Laozi did not have the surname Li; 2) The biography of Laozi in Shiji used to be revised; and 3) The people of the Han Dynasty, such as Zheng Kangcheng 郑康成, did not call Laozi Li Er. Based on this evidence, Tang claims that there is a high possibility that the statement “Surname: Li. Personal name: Er” is unreliable.25

I suspect there are other parts of the text that also experienced revision. Although there is scarce evidence for this, I suspect that “Li Er act Wu-wei……” was also added by others. I have two reasons for this assumption. Based on the code of Sima Qian’s language, he appears to be predisposed to call Laozi “Li Er”. In the whole book, this may be the only time that Sima Qian directly says a sage’s name instead of their style name or honorific title. In the early period of Sima Qian’s time, calling a person by this name was considered impolite. Moreover, in this text, we can see that, in all other parts, the name

Laozi is used, not Li Er. Thus, there is a possibility that this phrase was added or edited by others. However, there is also contradictory evidence. In the postface written by Sima

Qian, this phrase actually appears again. However, it is unclear how powerful this evidence is, because the two sentences are exactly the same. If the only example of a phrase occurs twice in a book, it may prove that the sentence was edited by others.

24. Gao Heng 高亨, “Lao zi zheng gu 老子正估,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a), Vol. 4, 237.

25. Tang Lan 唐兰, “Lan dan de xing ming he shi dai kao 老聃的姓名和时代考,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003), Vol. 4, 226.

The birthplace of Laozi

Laozi’s birthplace is another controversial topic of debate. We know that, in different versions of Shiji, there are multiple conflicting accounts of Laozi’s birthplace. 1)

Laozi’s country of birth of is reported in different versions as being Chen 陈 or Chu 楚.

2) There are also conflicting reports of Laozi’s city of birth of in different versions of

Shiji: Ku 苦 or Xiang 相; and 3) There are two versions of Laozi’s village of birth: Shu

属 or Lai 赖. 26

According to Luo Genze, “Shu” and “Lai” were depicted by the same characters in ancient times. 27Thus, there is only one version of Laozi’s village of birth. However, the different descriptions of Laozi’s country of birth and province of birth raise questions for modern scholars. Here, we must pay attention to one significant detail: the different descriptions in these accounts do not raise any confusion about the actual geographic location of Laozi’s birthplace. Based on the historical cartography, “Chen” and “Chu” in fact refer to the same place in this biography. In 478 BCE, the Kingdom of Chu conquered the Kingdom of Chen. Thus, the territory of the Kingdom of Chen can be considered to be part of the Kingdom of Chu after 478 BCE. Therefore, as Luo Genze points out, this divergence does not show a conflict of place but a conflict of time.28

26. Luo Genze 罗根泽, “Zai lun lao zi ji lao zi shu de wen ti 再论老子及老子书的问题,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b), Vol. 6, 423.

27.ibid,423.

28.Ibid,424.

In the historical records, a person was considered to belong to a country or kingdom that was founded after his death, even if that later kingdom was not found in the relics. Therefore, there is a problem. It is widely accepted that Confucius died in 479

BCE, which is only one year before Chen was conquered by Chu. Thus, how can Laozi, a person who is older than Confucius, be born in place that appears after Confucius’ death?

Different scholars give different explanations. Based on their key points, I have divided these explanations into two categories. Scholars in the first group think that this an unimportant mistake (or a somewhat problematic writing choice made by Sima Qian), as the different descriptions refer to the same geographic location. The second group of scholars (which includes Luo Genze and Zhang Dainian), on the contrary, consider this an important hint which implicates that Laozi may actually have been born after 478

BCE.29

Part II:

Confucius once traveled to Chou because he wished to ask LL about the rites. LL said: “The sages you speak about have long withered, along with their bones. Also, when a gentleman attains proper timeliness, he rides in a carriage; when his time has not come, he wanders about with the wind. I have heard that a good merchant fills his storehouse but appears to have nothing; a true gentleman is overflowing with virtue but looks like a fool. Give up your prideful airs and your manifold desires, get rid of your stiff deportment and your lascivious thoughts. All these do you no good at all. I have nothing else to tell you.”30 Confucius left Chou and later told his disciples, “Birds, I know can fly; fish, I know can swim; animals, I know, can run. For the running one can make a net; for the swimming one can make a line; for the flying one can make an arrow. But when it comes to the dragon, I have no means of knowing how it rides the wind

29.Ibid,425. The original claim of Luo Genze is that “if Laozi is a person of Ku, of course he could not be a person lived in the Spring and Autumn Period, but a person lived in the Warring States period.”

30. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24.

and the clouds and ascends into heaven. Today I have seen Laozi who really is like a dragon.”31

It is commonly believed that this part of the biography of Laozi in Shiji comes from the Zhuangzi. However, there is controversy over which words come from which chapters. The only part we can be certain of is the metaphor “Laozi is like a dragon”, which obviously came from “the Turning of Heaven (Tianyu 天运)” of the outer chapters in Zhuangzi：

When Confucius returned from his visit with Lao Tan, he did not speak for three days. His disciples said, "Master, you've seen Lao Tan - what estimation would you make of him?" Confucius said, "At last I may say that I have seen a dragon - a dragon that coils to show his body at its best, that sprawls out to display his patterns at their best, riding on the breath of the clouds, feeding on the yin and yang. My mouth fell open and I couldn't close it; my tongue flew up and I couldn't even stammer. How could I possibly make any estimation of Lao Tan!"32

The origins of other parts of the biography of Laozi in Shiji are unclear. Sun

Cizhou assumed that the words said by Laozi were revised from Master Laolai’s words in

“External Things (Waiwu 外物)” of miscellaneous chapters in Zhuangzi33:

” Lao Lai-tzu said, "That's Kung Ch'iu. Tell him to come over here!"

31.Ibid.

32. Tzu, Chuang, “the Turning of Heaven (Tianyu 天运)”, in The complete works of Chuang Tzu, trans. Burton Watson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). In the translation, Burton Watson used Wade-Giles romanization instead of Hanyu Pinyin. You can find the complete title of each chapters here. For that people used different version of Watson’s translation, I think the chapter is more useful than the page number.

33. Sun Cizhou 孙次舟, “Ba gu shi bian di si ce bing lun lao zi zhi you wu 跋古史辨第四册并论老子之有无,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003), Vol. 6, 60.

When Confucius arrived, Lao Lai-tzu said, "Ch'iu, get rid of your proud bearing and that knowing look on your face and you can become a gentleman!"34

If this is true, why did Sima Qian wrongly quote Master Laolai’s words in his biography? Sun’s assumptions are not accepted by many scholars. Gao Heng claims that

“there are large differences with only minor similarities”; thus, Sima Qian must have referred to other materials.35

As well as the question mentioned above, there are other questions which are frequently asked by western scholars. Is this a historical record which truly happened in the past, or it is just a legend told by later people? If it is true, when and where did

Confucius and Laozi meet each other? How many times did they meet? Of course, to a person who lives in the modern day who has already accepted the dominant view that

Laozi is a fictional figure, the answer is clear: This is a fictional story and they never met because there is no Laozi. However, contemporary writings, including this one, prove that there is little evidence that historical Laozi of the Western-definition ever existed.

Thus, we cannot use this conclusion to answer the questions we mention above.

As early as the Qing Dynasty, scholars started to use Zengzi Wen 曾子问 as an additional material to analyze these questions. In Zengzi Wen, Confucius and Laozi experience a solar eclipse together. Based on this, scholars can pinpoint five possible times for this meeting. However, after detailed study, some scholars, such as Yan Ruoqu

34. Chuang Tzu, “External Things (Waiwu 外物)”, in The complete works of Chuang Tzu, trans. Burton Watson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968).

35. Gao Heng 高亨, “Shi ji · lao zi chuan jian zheng 史记·老子传笺证,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b), Vol. 6, 303.

阎若璩 (1636—1704), say that at these five times, Confucius could not have met Laozi with his disciple Gongsun Jingshu 公孙敬叔.36 The story about the meeting between

Confucius and Laozi certainly contains some (if not many) fictional or incorrect points.

However, some scholars acknowledge that there is also some evidence that supports the opposite view. As mentioned in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The fact that

Laozi appears favorably in both Confucian and Daoist sources seems to argue against the likelihood that the figure was fabricated for polemical purposes.”37

Part III:

Laozi cultivated the Tao and its Virtue. He taught that one should efface oneself and be without fame in the world. After he had lived in Chou for a long time, he perceived the Chou to be in decline, and so departed. When he reached the passes, the keeper of the pass, Yin His, said: “We shall be seeing no more of you. I insist that you write a book for us.” Laozi wrote them a book in two parts, discussing the ideas of the Way and of Virtue in some 5000 words, and departed. No one knows where he ended his life.38

This is one of the trickiest sections of the whole biography, because not one single word conveys the information left before Sima Qian’s work. Thus, former scholars pay little attention to this part of the text. Some scholars assume that the phrase “Guan Ling

Yin Xi 关令尹喜”, which is often translated as “the pass-keeper Yinxi”, in fact contains a

36. Zhang Shoulin 张寿林, “Dao de jing chuyu ruhou kao 道德经出于儒后考,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003), Vol. 4, 216-217. Zhang Shoulin quoted Yan’s word in his paper and discussed it.

37. "Laozi (Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy)", Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/.

38. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24.

35 derivate character (Yanzi 衍字) “Ling 令”. In their view, “Guanling Yinxi” refers to the name Guan Yinxi 关尹喜, who may be the so-called Master Guanyin 关尹子. Other scholars claim that “Guan 关” refers to “Hangu Pass (Hangu Guan 函谷关)”, and Guan

Ling 关令 is the name of an official position. To clarify, some of them still believe that

Guan Ling Yin Xi and Master Guanyin are the same person. However, because Shiji is the earliest material to record this story, there is no further evidence to confirm either side of the argument.

This story is frequently ignored by scholars because there are no other texts which can attest to it; it therefore seems to be a meaningless legend. However, even it is factual, we can still gain much information from it. As G. K. Chesterton once said, “Fable is, generally speaking, far more accurate than fact. For fable describes a man as he was to his own age, fact describes him as he is to a handful of inconsiderable antiquarians many centuries after”.39 In fact, if we take a closer look at this part of Shiji, we find that it actually shows a unique type of conflict when compared with other parts of the biography. In the next section, these unique features will be discussed in detail.

Part IV:

Some sources speak of one Lao Lai Tzu who also came from Chu. He authored a work in fifteen sections, which speaks of the practical use of the Taoist school. He also was a contemporary of Confucius. It seems that Laozi lived at least 160 years, some say at least 200 years, as a result of cultivating the Way and nurturing longevity. One hundred twenty-nine years after the death of Confucius (479 BCE), the historiographers record that Tan, Grand Historiographer of Chou, visited Duke Hsien of Ch’in and said: “At first Ch’in was joined with Chou. Having been joined 500 years, they parted. After having been parted seventy years, a hegemon

39. G.K CHESTERTON, VARIED TYPES (repr., [S.l.]: BLURB, 2019).

and king will arise here”. Some say Tan was Laozi, some say not. No one in our times know whether or not it is so. (Laozi was a hermit). 40

This text mentions two additional figures who were believed to be Laozi. Some scholars take this as evidence that there is no historical Laozi, because, during the Han

Dynasty, people were already uncertain about Laozi’s identity. To some extent, this could be accepted as weak evidence which can only work with other, stronger evidence.

As a careful historian, Sima Qian obviously did not want these doubtful materials to become confused with the other, relatively creditable parts. Thus, he used an obviously different tone to write this part. There are some reasons why Sima Qian kept these accounts in his text, instead of just ignoring them. I will discuss this in the next section.

Here, we focus on one topic only: What was Sima Qian’s attitude to these records? There are several small clues that can be said to reflect his attitude. Based on these clues, we can assume that he did not regard Laozi and Lao Lai Tzu as the same person. We can find this evidence in another chapter of the biography of Confucius. In this chapter, Master Laolai and Laozi are mentioned together. Sima Qian clearly describes them as two different people. In the biography of Confucius, he shown his attitude again by saying that Confucius learned from Laozi at Zhou and learned from

Master Laolai at Chu in the same sentence.

Gao Heng found more evidence for this assertion. He mentions that in the biography, there is the phrase: “Laozi wrote them a book in two parts”. Meanwhile, Sima

Qian said that Master Laolai “authored a work in fifteen sections, which speaks of the

40. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24. Professor Graham translate the biography. However, the last phrase “Laozi was a hermit” was added by myself. This phrase appears in some version of Shiji.

37 practical use of the Taoist school”. These phrases indicate that Laozi and Master Laolai are two different people.41 Furthermore, Luo Genze indicated that Sima Qian never thought that Master Laolai and Laozi were the same person. The confusion between these two comes from the misunderstanding of Zhang Shoujie 张守节, who is the author of one of the most famous annotation of Shiji, Shiji Zhengyi 史记正义.42

Although scholars seemingly reached a consensus on the problem related to

Master Laolai, when it comes to Grand Historian Dan, we must acknowledge that Sima

Qian’s attitude is ambiguous; it is difficult to find any clear evidence that indicates if he believed or refuted the claim. Whether Sima Qian believed those materials or not, he chose to keep them in the biography. As he says in his postface: “I left the valuable research materials as many as I could”. I think highly of this part for this reason. The statement excellently reflects Sima Qian’s attitude when he wrote the biography.

Part IV:

Laozi’s son had the personal name Tsung. Tsung was a general of Wei, enfeoffed in Tuan-kuan. Tsung’s son was Chu, Chu’s son was Kung. Kung’s great-great- grandson was Chia. Chia held office under Emperor Wen of Han and Chia’s son Chieh became tutor of Ang, Prince of Chiao-his, and so settled in Ch’i.43

In the former study, there are two polarizing attitudes to the genealogy of Laozi’s descendants. In one hand, some scholars, such as Homer Dubs, consider it the most

41. Gao Heng 高亨, “Shi ji · lao zi chuan jian zheng 史记·老子传笺证,”,308-309.

42. Luo Genze 罗根泽, “Lao zi ji lao zi shu de wen ti 老子及老子书的问题,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a), Vol. 4, 305.

43. A.C. Graham, “The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan” in Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching, ed. Livia Kohn (repr., Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998), 23-24.

38 reliable part of the biography of Laozi. Scholars such as Luo Genze and Zhang Dainian, who believe that Laozi probably lived in the Warring States Period, also take this as important evidence. However, there is also a group of scholars who think that this is the least plausible part, because there is no concrete evidence to prove that the information provided does not forge this genealogy. This polarizing view probably comes from two main questionable points. In the following section, I will briefly discuss them.

The problem of dating related to the phrase “Wei’s general”

The phrase “Tsung was a general of Wei, enfeoffed in Tuan-kuan” has received considerable critical attention. According to Shiji, the Kingdom of Wei was founded around 403 BCE. As mentioned earlier, Confucius died in 479 BCE when he was 69 years old. Thus, if Laozi is a senior contemporary of Confucius, it is obviously impossible for his son to have become a general of the Wei Kingdom. A well-known explanation is that, here, “Wei 魏” does not refer to the Kingdom of Wei but to

“Biwan Wei 毕万魏”.44 However, most scholars still think that “be a general of X, enfeoffed in Y” must refer to a kingdom.

The comparison of Laozi’s genealogy and Confucius’s genealogy

Another issue with Laozi’s genealogy concerns the irrationality of the posited timeline. If Laozi really is a contemporary of Confucius, it follows that his eighth- generation grandchildren would have lived in the period of Emperor Wu. According to

44. Zuo Qiuming 左丘明, Zuo Zhuan 左传 (repr., Bei jing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2012).

Shiji, Confucius’ thirteenth generation of grandchildren lived from Emperor Jing’s reign until the reign of Emperor Wu. In other words, Laozi’s eighth-generation grandchildren and Confucius’s thirteenth-generation grandchildren lived in same period. Although this is not totally impossible, and we can find some examples of this situation in real life, the possibility of this is extremely low, considering the environment at the time.

Now I have reviewed and briefly discussed all five parts, we can go back to a question which is often asked: From where did Sima Qian collect his resources when he wrote Shiji? Based on this biography, we can find two different sources of historical materials. The whole of Part II, and the description about Grand Historian Dan in Part V obviously comes from the textual record written by former people. Therefore, Laozi’s name and birthplace apparently came from the dictation of someone who claimed they were a descendant of Laozi.

Thus, we can now make a temporary scheme for the sequence of the origins of each part:45

1) The origin of the story about Confucius asking Laozi for rites is considered the

oldest, based on the materials we have now. It may be a revision of Zhuangzi’s

story. However, it seems to be a conflation of Laozi’s story and Master Laolai’s

story. There are also some other possibilities: In addition to the Zhuangzi, Sima

45.Several scholars have made similar schemes from different angles. For example, A. C. Graham claims that there are five stages in the developing progress of Laozi’s legend. Zhang Daishan also made a five-stage scheme which is slightly different to that made by A. C. Graham. Also, Luo Genze made a summary of the origins of different parts of Laozi’s biography. Although similar work has been conducted many times, I will still make my own scheme here, because any slight divergence from previous schemes may reflect a significant difference in the main viewpoint.

Qian also had other reference material, or perhaps the dialogue between the two

masters was his own creation.

2) The legend of Master Laolai and Grand Historian Dan was already popular in

Sima Qian’s time; thus, it must have been generated in an earlier period.

3) The birthplaces, names, and genealogy of Laozi’s descendants were likely

provided by people who claim to be descendants of Laozi. Sima Qian probably

collected this information by interviewing these people. Thus, he may be the first

person to record this information.

4) When the story of Laozi passing the Hangu Pass was generated is unknown.

Chapter 5: The Analysis of contradictions

Now, as promised, I will discuss the common controversial points of this biography and try to understand why they are there. The following discussion will be based on one essential presupposition: The biography we discuss here was certainly written by Sima Qian. We need to emphasize this presupposition because there in fact is the possibility that the majority of the biography was not written by Sima Qian. If this can be proved, then all the theoretical preparation we set will be useless.

Firstly, it is possible that the original text was revised, or even replaced, by later writers. It is widely accepted that Shiji was edited several times by different people during its distribution. There is much evidence that proves that the Shiji that we see today is quite different from the original. Some scholars believe that it actually is a mixture of several different versions.

There is a consensus that Shiji has lost some chapters. According to the postface written by Sima Qian himself, there are more than 520,000 words in the whole book, which is divided into twelve volumes of “Basic Annals (Benji 本纪)”, ten volumes of

“Tables (Biao 表)”, eight volumes of “Treaties (Shu 书)”, thirty volumes of “Genealogies

(Shijia 世家)”, and seventy volumes of “Biographies (Liezhuan 列传)”. This description is almost the same as the text we see today. However, there is much evidence that proves that some of the chapters have been added by later scholars.

For example, in the biography of Sima Qian in Ban Gu’s Hanshu, there is the phrase: “Ten chapters lost. There is only the title without the text”.46 In the Three

Kingdoms Period, Zhang Yan wrote:

After Sima Qian was dead, those chapters were lost. It includes the biography of emperor Jing、the biography of emperor Wu、the book of rites、the books of music、the books of military、chronological table of generals and ministers of state after Han、the biography of augurs、the biography of three kings、the biographies of oracle script、Biography of Fu and Jin. In the Yuancheng period, Mr. Chu added the lost part, making the biography of emperor Wu、the biography of augurs、the biography of three kings、the biographies of oracle scrip, the language is bad, and it is not the original intention of Sima Qian.47

Those losses happen for multiple reasons; for example, during the text’s transcription. The attitude of the official government will also play an important role. It is commonly believed that Shiji’s official version may have been revised. We can find evidence for this in the biography of Yang Zhong, Hou Hanshu, which mentions that

Yang Zhong received an imperial edict to revise the book written by Sima Qian48. Also, some scholars believe that Emperor Wu of Han is responsible for the loss of some of the chapters. Some materials refer to this: in The Book of Wei in the Sanguo Zhi, there is a record that says, “Emperor Wu heard about Shiji, took the biography for Emperor Jing

46.Gu Ban, Han Shu 汉书 (repr., Beijing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 1962).

47.The phrase was said by Zhang Yan 张晏 a scholar lived in three kingdoms period, in his annotation to Han shu. I personally translated his words.

48.Fan Ye 范晔, Hou Han Shu 后汉书 (repr., Bei jing 北京: Zhong xin chu ban she 中华书局, 2015).

43 and himself to read, then got really angry; he destroyed it and threw it away.”49 However,

I accept the dominant viewpoint that this is actually a fictive record of events.

Above all, we know that it is true that Shiji went through a complicated editing process. Based on the former study, we now know that some of the chapters were added by Chu Shaosun (also known as Chu Xiansheng, see above). However, we cannot be sure whether there were other chapters, added later, which we have not found. We must accept that there is a possibility of this. If that unknown writer was really clever, what Sima

Qian left to him would be enough for him to deceive us. However, as there is little evidence to prove that the biography of Laozi was a fake account pseudograph, the likelihood of this possibility may not be enough for us to consider it.

There is also a theory which maybe more important: the majority of the text was written by Sima Qian’s father, Sima Tan. We know that this is true of some chapters, based on the research of former scholars. Based on studies into the social activities of

Qian and Tan, scholars claim that “Biographies of Assassins (Cike Liezhuan 刺客列传),

“Biographies of Fan, Li, Teng and Guan (Fanli Tengguan Liezhuan 樊郦滕灌列传)”, and

“Biographies of Li Yiji and Lu Gu (Lisheng Lugu Liezhuan 郦生陆贾列传)” were probably written by Sima Tan and then later revised or polished by Sima Qian.50 Gu

49.Chen shou 陈寿, San Guo Zhi 三国志 (repr., Bei jing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2015).

50. Wang guowe 王国维, Guan Tang Ji Lin 观堂林集 (repr., Shi jia zhuang 石家庄: He bei jiao yu chu ban she 河北教育出版社, 2001), 245-262.

Jiegang thinks that these three articles were certainly written by Sima Tan.51 Later scholars, such as Lai Changyang 赖长扬 and Zhao Shengqun 赵生群, have discussed this topic in detail based on both former research and their own viewpoints.52 These studies remind us that there are no internal markers in Shiji to distinguish the parts written by

Sima Tan from those written by Sima Qian. With other evidence which shows that Sima

Tan was probably partial to Taoism, is there any possibility that the biography of Laozi was written by Sima Tan? It is difficult to give a definitive answer.

Regardless, both are only small possibilities with very little evidence. Thus, as mentioned, we will not take them into consideration here, and we will accept the presupposition that the biography was written by Sima Qian.

Now, we can take a closer look at the controversial points in Shiji and try to understand why they are there. For most of the so-called paradoxes or mistakes, we can easily find the reasons why they were made. As A. C. Graham says in his paper: “The story of Laozi reflects a conflation of different legends”. Also, based the former study and the postface written by Sima Qian himself, we assume that Qian tried to leave as many valuable materials as possible, even at the expense of the internal logic of the text.

Meanwhile, the rough research process itself provides a hotbed for mistakes. Thus, it is not surprising that the biography of Laozi contains some problems related to time and

51. Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚, Shi Lin Za Shi 史林杂识 (repr., Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shu ju 中华书局, 1963),223-226.

52. Zhao Shengqun 赵生群, “Si ma tan zuo shi kao 司马谈作史考,” Nan jing shi fan da xue xue bao: She hui ke xue ban 南京师范学大学报:社会科学版 no. 2 (1982): 51-56. Lai Changyang 赖长扬, “Si ma tan zuo shi bu zheng 司马谈作史补证,” Shi xue shi yan jiu 史学史研究 no. 2 (1981): 22, 42.

45 causes controversy. There is evidence that shows that Sima Qian himself may also have found some unusual time conflicts between the materials he used. “It seems that Laozi lived at least 160 years, some say at least 200 years, as a result of cultivating the Way and nurturing longevity.” can be considered as an interpretation given by Sima Qian.

However, some scholars also cast doubt on the phrase and suspect that it was added by another writer. Whether this claim is true or not does not interfere with our evaluations, as we can easily find multiple explanations for the appearance of these conflicts and mistakes.

Nevertheless, there is one part of Shiji that causes internal conflict for which we cannot find an explanation. Surprisingly, former scholars have paid little attention to this strange part. We will label this section as Part III, or the “Story of How Laozi Left the

Pass”.

I say that this part is strange because that it seemingly not only causes internal conflict but also deviates from the creative principle which we discussed above. Of course, this claim needs some further explanation. Firstly, let us focus on the external.

Most scholars consider that Sima Qian referred to the Zhuangzi when writing the biography of Laozi in Shiji. Thus, this record’s reliability can also describe as questionable, because the Zhuangzi is a book that contains numerous fables. As other scholars do, I believe that the Zhuangzi played an important role when Sima Qian wrote the biography of Laozi in Shiji, and this is the only likely conclusion, because some of the stories of Laozi in the biography of Laozi in Shiji can only be found in the Zhuangzi.

However, if we accept this, then there is a big problem: Why did Sima Qian ignore the record in the Zhuangzi which discussed the death of Laozi?

In the Zhuangzi, there is an important description: “When Lao Tan died, Chin

Shih went to mourn for him; but after giving three cries, he left the room”. This phrase comes from the inner chapter of the Zhuangzi. The later study tells us that, of the three parts of the Zhuangzi (the inner chapter, the outer chapter and the miscellaneous chapter), the inner chapter is the part which was most like to be written by Zhuangzi himself. As a person who lived during the Han Dynasty, Sima Qian could obviously not be aware of studies conducted by later reviewers who originated in the Song Dynasty. However, this still does not explain why this record was abandoned.

As mentioned previously, when writing Shiji, Sima Qian used two methods which were similar to the modern technique of collecting research materials. The first method was referring to former historical records, and the second was to conduct investigations

(which included fieldwork and interviewing related persons). Therefore, if there were no convincing textual resources other than these, would it be possible that Sima Qian made his conclusions from his investigations? We cannot give an unequivocal answer; we cannot enter his mind. However, there is some additional evidence that make us question this assumption. Firstly, some later materials show that “Leaving the Pass” and “No one knows where he ended his life” are not the only popular tales about Laozi. In Li

Daoyuan’s 郦道元 Shui Jing zhu 水经注, written during the North Wei Period (around four centuries after Sima Qian wrote Shiji), there is the phrase: “the public all said it is the tomb of Laozi”.53 The phrase “the public all said (Shiwei 世谓)” shows that this tale

53. Li Daoyuan 郦道元, Shui Jing Zhu Jiao Zheng 水经注校证, ed. Qiaoyi Chen 陈桥驿(repr., Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shu ju 中华书局, 2007).

47 about Laozi’s tomb is somehow influential. This is not the only material that conveys this information. The later supporters of Buddhism obviously agree with this statement. Shi

Falin 释法琳, in Guangming Hongji 广弘明集 said that Laozi was born in Lai and buried at Huaili.54 Zhen Yuan 甄鸾, in Xiaodao Lun 笑道论 argues that Laozi died in the central

Shaanxi area, and that his tomb is still there. Shi Daoxuan claims that Zhuangzi’s record of Laozi’s death is true.55 These tales all indicate that Laozi was buried in the Qin area, which is Shaanxi Province today. This description is consistent with the story from “The

Secret of Caring for Life (Yangshengzhu 养生主)” of inner chapters in Zhuangzi. There remains the possibility that all the later legends and tales about Laozi’s tomb came from

Zhuangzi’s story. However, knowing that the tales existed at different periods in time is more important than examining their authenticity. As they were popular in Sima Qian’s lifetime, it is difficult to explain why Sima Qian failed to record them in his work. Some may argue that those tales had not yet become popular in Sima Qian’s time. Nevertheless, this still cannot explain the inner conflict caused by the choice to omit them. It is commonly believed that the genealogy of Laozi that is recorded in Shiji came from the accounts of Laozi’s descendants. Based on the text, we can see that Sima Qian tended to believe their narratives. However, if their commentary is clear and persuasive and contains records of Laozi’s son and grandson, how did they not know where their ancestor spent the last years of his life?

54. Daoxuan 道宣, Song Sixi Cang Ben Guang Hong Ming Ji 宋思溪藏本广弘明集 (repr., Beijing 北京: Guojia Tushuguan Chubanshe 国家图书馆出版社, 2018).

55.Ibid.

I acknowledge that all these problems may have separate explanations, but as

Feng Youlan said, “When they come together, we need to put them into consideration as one problem”.56 In Chapter two of this dissertation, I mentioned several principles to employ when interpreting the text. It said that there are several explanations, and that we would use the most efficient one. Thus, attempting to form a lengthy and tedious explanation to prove that it can be easily understood is obviously irrational. At least, there is no simple explanation to persuade people why Sima Qian did this.

How, then, can we interpret this phenomenon? Although there is not enough evidence to form a reliable answer, we can at least try to make some hypotheses based on the evidence we have. The first hypothesis is that Sima Qian had access to some significant historical records that remain today. Thus, at least for this specific record, the principle of “proving things by using at least two evidence” is not broken. Some scholars suspect that that the lost material (if it ever existed) was Master Guanyin’s. The current version of The Writings of Master Guanyin is a pseudograph undoubtedly a pseudo text.

However, “Yiwenzhi 艺文志” from Hansh 汉书· tells us that a book named The Writings of Master Guanyin still existed during the Han Dynasty, which contained nine chapters.

This version of The Writings of Master Guanyin is likely to be a totally different object from the writings of Master Guanyin that were reportedly found during the Song

Dynasty. Nevertheless, because we know little about the contents of this lost book, this hypothesis cannot be proved until someone finds the original book. Furthermore, even if

56. Feng Youlan 冯友兰, “Du ping lun jin ren kao ju lao zi nian dai de fang fa -Da hu shi zhi xian sheng 读评论进人考据老子年代的方法-答胡适之先生,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a), Vol. 6, 278.

49 this hypothesis is true, it still cannot explain why Sima Qian did not mention Laozi’s death, although it was recorded in the Zhuangzi.

The second hypothesis is that Sima Qian himself worshipped Laozi. In order to do no harm to Laozi’s reputation, Sima makes the audience believe that Laozi lived to be two hundred years old. However, if this is true, we must answer some additional questions. Firstly, why did Laozi not have a separate biography put together by Zhuangzi,

Shen Buhai 申不害, and Master Hanfei? Some may argue that it was because Sima Qian could not get enough references to write a separate biography. However, this argument is obviously implausible, because in the Zhuangzi (which is considered Siam Qian’s most important resource), there is enough content to construct a biography.

The third hypothesis is that the current version of the biography of Laozi in Shiji has undergone dramatic revision. I call it “revision” to mark that it was edited by someone on purpose. Most scholars accept the viewpoint that the Shiji we see today is quite different from its original version. The only question is, to what extent? As mentioned earlier, in former studies, we can see there are scholars who consider Grand

Historian Dan to be the real Laozi. It is impossible for them to rethink the problems with the modern version of Shiji. Although we do not know when and how this revision was made, at least one thing is true: There are ample preparative conditions for this revision to happen. Therefore, little negative evidence can argue against it. I, personally, prefer this hypothesis to the other two. However, there is one thing we must acknowledge: just as in the former two hypotheses, we do not have any decisive evidence to prove this one, either. That’s the reason all three hypotheses can only be considered thus, as hypotheses.

The theoretical principles we set earlier aimed to find a most likely interpretation rather a true one. All we can do is to attempt to be as close to the truth as possible. So, when all the hypotheses have equal problems, can we find another method to go further?

The answer is yes.

There is one method we can employ to attempt to figure out why Sima Qian abandoned the record about Laozi’s death but chose, instead, the story of “Laozi leaves the Pass”. We do not need to set any hypothesis and examine its reliability. What we could do is try to imagine what, if Sima Qian did include the story of Laozi’s death, would this biography look like? It is easy to notice that, if this story or record was put into the biography, it would contradict another part, which talks about Grand Historian

Dan: “It seems that Laozi lived at least 160 years, some say at least 200 years, as a result of cultivating the Way and nurturing longevity. One hundred twenty-nine years after the death of Confucius (479 BCE) ……Some say Tan was Laozi, some say not. No one in our times know whether or not it is so.”

In fact, there are already some scholars who cast doubt on the authenticity of this part. They suspect that “It seems that Laozi lived at least 160 years, some say at least 200 years” may have been added by other people. Whether this is true or not, we can certainly say that the description of Grand Historian Dan and the narrative of Laozi’s death contradict each other. Thus, there is a possibility that the record of Laozi’s death was abandoned or deleted because of this contradiction. However, all those could only make us get some information about the goal or reason why the author did so. It could not help us find the motivation of the author.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

the biography of Laozi in Shiji has been the subject of much academic research for many years. However, we still cannot say that there are enough studies, when

Occidental and Chinese scholars have so many divergences on this controversial academic subject, even by using the same materials. In fact, these great differences of opinion themselves demonstrate an important point: The materials cannot lead us to the answer. The most essential point is how we treat the materials we have, or how we interpret them. Their different attitudes and mythologies led the Occidental scholars and the Chinese scholars to two very different destinations.

I will not attempt to make an evaluation or judgement on the dominant views of these academic groups. The most important point to note is that we should always be thinking about the ways in which we can go further. I know there is a trend to concern oneself with newly excavated texts; I have a great regard for them, too. I, personally, agree that the biography of Laozi in the modern version of Shiji has experienced some very important revision. It is highly possible that this revision was done on purpose; thus, if we could find any new versions of the text, especially the earlier versions, or just some fragments quoted by other ancient scholars, we could probably find the answers to all of our questions. Some valuable discoveries could even lead us directly to the truth.

However, before that unpredictable day comes, there is plenty of work that still needs to be done.

Although I do not focus on evaluating the dominant views in Chinese and

Occidental academia, I must acknowledge that the statement which considers Grand

Historian Dan to be the historical Laozi inspires me. That statement causes me to rethink

52 the definitional problem when we discuss Laozi. In Luo Genze’s expositio, we can see that if we discount the story of Confucius meeting Laozi, and only discuss other parts, most of the inner conflicts disappear.

According to Shiji, Grand Historian Dan had an audience with the Duke Xian of

Qin in 374 BCE. If this is true, we can be sure that Grand Historian Dan lived from around 400 BCE to around 300 BCE. At this time, the Chen Kingdom had already been conquered by the Chu. According to the Zhanguo Ce, Zong (or “Duangan Chong”) joined a war in 273 BCE.57 Although there are still some questions about the timeframe, we can see this as being much more acceptable. Also, as Tan Jiefu said, if Laozi originally lived in Chu, then went to Qin, it is understandable that there is a legend about him travelling through the Hangu Pass.58 The Hangu Pass is an area of strategic importance to Qin, which is located on its eastern border. In Han dynasty, there are legends that Laozi tried to leave Qin via Hangu Pass and went to the west; however, if we look at the map, we find that if Laozi wanted to travel west from Qin, it is impossible for him to cross the

Hangu Pass, which is located on the east side. For this reason, we can know that the later legends about Laozi left Qin via Hangu Pass is only the fictional legends. Those legends had already deviate from the earlier story recorded in Zhuangzi, which said that Laozi went west to Qin. In fact, the true story is that Laozi went there because he wanted to

57. Liu Xiang 刘向, Zhan Guo Ce 战国策，ed. by Mou, Wenyuan 缪文远, Wei Mou 繆伟, and Yonglian Luo 罗永莲 (repr., Beijing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2012).

58. Tan Jiefu 谭戒甫, “Er lao yan jiu 二老研究,” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 ed. Luo Genze 罗根泽 (Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003), Vol. 6, 340.

53 enter Qin. Once we know that Laozi entered Qin via the Hangu Pass, then we can also gain a new perspective about the question created by the phrase “No one knows where he ended his life”. In the timeline of Laozi’s life, the event of him going to the Hangu Pass was far earlier than another record (also in Zhuangzi) about “Chin Shih went to mourn for him”. Although we still do not know why Lao Tzu's funeral was not recorded in Shiji, at least there are hints to help us with further study. Furthermore, the conflict between

Laozi’s genealogy and Confucius’ can be also be solved. All the evidence points to a similar period in which Laozi could have lived, and the conclusion is consistent with what was said by Professor Dubs around 300 BCE.

I cite the viewpoints here to show a possible interpretation of the biography other than the dominant views in modern Western academia. Although I personally prefer this view, I also acknowledge that considering Grand Historian Dan as Laozi is a logical inference that is lacking solid evidence. Whether we can prove it in the future or not, this hypothesis reminds us of one thing: when the definition of “Laozi” changes, we gain more possible hypotheses, and among these hypotheses, there may ideas of great value.

Finally, I would like to talk about my own understanding of this hypothesis and other hypotheses mentioned above. In the former studies, the biography of Laozi in Shiji was treated as an appendix to Laozi study. However, in order to solve the numerous problems, we encounter in the research, we should try to discuss them separately. Taking the hypothesis which considers Grand Historian Dan as the historical Laozi as an example, we do not have enough evidence to prove whether this view is correct or not.

However, we could still give a more conservative, but also more certain, statement. There is a high possibility that Grand Historian Dan is the real hero of the biography of Laozi

54 written by Sima Qian. Most of the story was based on his life experiences. His descendants conveyed the information to Sima Qian so he could finish the biography.

However, we cannot be sure of the relationship between him and the Laozi who we want to find, the person who left us his own philosophy. Nevertheless, we can still find his role in the biography and then try to find his relationship with Laozi in our mind.

Another thing about the biography of Laozi in Shiji which we are sure about is that the modern version is quite different from its original version. This is one of main obstacles we need to overcome in the future. Once we have a breakthrough in this regard,

I believe we could turn our hypotheses to a real answer. To summarize, there are still numerous works we could conduct to find the answer of Laozi’s mystery; it is still too early to accept the rough statement, “There is no historical Laozi”.

Bibliography

Birch, Cyril. “Letter to Jen An (Shao-ch'ing).” In Anthology of Chinese Literature: From Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, Translated by James R Hightower. Vol. 2, 95-103. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1965.

Birch, Cyril. trans. “Encountering Sorrow.” In Anthology of Chinese Literature: From Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, Vol. 2, 52-63. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1965.

Ban, Gu 班固. Han Shu 汉书. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 1962.

Bodde, Derk. "Further Remarks On The Identification Of Lao Tzŭ: A Last Reply To Professor Dubs". Journal Of The American Oriental Society 64, no. 1 (1944): 24. doi:10.2307/594051.

Chesterton, G. K. VARIED TYPES. Reprint, [S.l.]: BLURB, 2019.

Chuang-tzu. The Complete Work Of Chung Tzu. Translated by Burton Watson. Reprint, Taipei: Southern Materials Center, 1985.

Chen shou 陈寿. San Guo Zhi 三国志. Reprint, Bei jing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2015.

Dubs, Homer H. “The Date and Circumstances of the Philosopher Lao-dz.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 61, no. 4 (December 1994): 215-221. https://doi.org/10.2307/593905.

Daoxuan 道宣. Song Sixi Cang Ben Guang Hong Ming Ji 宋思溪藏本广弘明集. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Guojia Tushuguan Chubanshe 国家图书馆出版社, 2018.

Feng Youlan 冯友兰. “Du ping lun jin ren kao ju lao zi nian dai de fang fa -Da hu shi zhi xian sheng 读评论进人考据老子年代的方法-答胡适之先生.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 277-281. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a.

Feng Youlan 冯友兰. “Lao zi nian dai wen ti 老子年代问题.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 283-284. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b.

Fan Ye 范晔. Hou Han Shu 后汉书. Reprint, Bei jing 北京: Zhong xin chu ban she 中华书局, 2015.

Graham, A. C. The Origins Of The Legend Of Lao Tan. 1st ed. Reprint, Singapore: Institute of East Asian Philosophies, 1986.

Gu, Jiegang 顾颉刚. Shi Lin Za Shi 史林杂识. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shu ju 中华书局, 1963.

Gao Heng 高亨. “Lao zi zheng gu 老子正估.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 237-238. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a.

Gao Heng 高亨. “Shi ji · lao zi chuan jian zheng 史记·老子传笺证.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 297-316. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b.

Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚. “Cong lv shi chun qiu tui ce lao zi zhi cheng shu nian dai 从吕氏春秋推测老子之成书年代.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 309-342. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Hansen, Chad. A Daoist theory of Chinese thought: A philosophical interpretation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press on Demand, 2000.

Hu Shi 胡适. “Ping lun jin ren kao ju lao zi nian dai de fang fa 评论近人考据老子年代的方法.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 263-276. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a.

Hu Shi 胡适. “Yu feng you lan xian sheng lun lao zi shu 与冯友兰先生论老子书.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 281-282. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b.

Kohn, Livia. God Of The Dao. Reprint, Ann Arbor: Center for the Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 1998.

Kohn, Livia, and Michael LaFargue, comps. Lao-Tzu And The Tao-Te-Ching. Reprint, Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1998.

Lv buwei 吕不韦. Lü Shi Chun Qiu 吕氏春秋. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2011.

Lai Changyang 赖长扬. “Si ma tan zuo shi bu zheng 司马谈作史补证.” Shi xue shi yan jiu 史学史研究 no. 2 (1981): 22, 42.

Liu Xiang 刘向, Zhan Guo Ce 战国策. Edited by 缪文远, Wei Mou 繆伟, and Yonglian Luo 罗永莲, Beijing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2012.

Liang Qichao 梁启超. “Lun lao zi shu zuo yu zhan guo zhi mo 论老子书作于战国之末.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 207-208. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Luo Genze 罗根泽. “Lao zi ji lao zi shu de wen ti 老子及老子书的问题.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 301-342. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a.

Luo Genze 罗根泽. “Zai lun lao zi ji lao zi shu de wen ti 再论老子及老子书的问题.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 423-447. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b.

Qian Mu 钱穆. “Guan yu lao zi cheng shu nian dai zhi yi zhong kao cha 关于老子成书年代之一种考察.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 257- 275. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003a.

Qian Mu 钱穆. “Zai lun lao zi cheng shu nian dai 再论老子成书年代.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 355-368. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003b.

Robson, James, and Jack Miles. The Norton Anthology Of World Religions. 1st ed. Reprint, New York: Westchester Book, 2015.

Sima, Qian 司马迁. Shi Ji 史记. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Zhonghua shu ju 中华书局, 2014.

Sun Cizhou 孙次舟. “Ba gu shi bian di si ce bing lun lao zi zhi you wu 跋古史辨第四册并论老子之有无.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 47-62. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Tan Jiefu 谭戒甫. “Er lao yan jiu 二老研究.” In Gu bian shi 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 6, 317-318. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Tang Lan 唐兰. “Lan dan de xing ming he shi dai kao 老聃的姓名和时代考.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 223-236. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Tzu, Chuang. The complete works of Chuang Tzu. Translated by Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.

Wang guowei 王国维. Guan Tang Ji Lin 观堂林集. Reprint, Shi jia zhuang 石家庄: He bei jiao yu chu ban she 河北教育出版社, 2001.

Watson, Burton. Ssu-Ma Ch'ien, Grand Historian Of China. 1st ed. Reprint, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958.

Zhang Dainian 张岱年. “Guan yu lao zi nian dai de yi zhong jia ding 关于老子年代的一种假定.” In Gu shi bian 古史辨 edited by Luo Genze 罗根泽, Vol. 4, 274-297. Haikou 海口: Hai nan chu ban she 海南出版社, 2003.

Zhao Shengqun 赵生群. “Si ma tan zuo shi kao 司马谈作史考.” Nan jing shi fan da xue xue bao: She hui ke xue ban 南京师范学大学报:社会科学版 no. 2 (1982): 51-56.

Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi Jin Zhu Jin Yi 庄子今注今译. Edited by Chen Guying 陈鼓应. Reprint, Beijing 北京: Zhonghua Shuju 中华书局, 2009.

Zuo, Qiuming 左丘明. Zuo Zhuan 左传. Reprint, Bei jing 北京: Zhong hua shu ju 中华书局, 2012.