JOCP132 9/3/2003 5:45 PM Page 469 karl-heinz pohl PLAY-THING OF THE TIMES: CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE RECEPTION OF DAOISM IN THE WEST1 The Euro-Dao that can be spoken of is not the true Euro-Dao, etc. —Peter Sloterdijk As valid as the first sentence of the Daodejing may be to any follower of the Dao—the Dao that can be spoken of is not an eternal truth but always mere interpretation—as meaningful seems to be Sloterdijk’s pun on this Daoist key notion to the chronicler of the Dao reception in the West. For about 200 years, interpreters from the European cultural background have appropriated the Far Eastern import in amazingly different ways, following, on the one hand, and as was to be expected, mostly the prevailing zeitgeist. On the other hand, the reception, of course, was also influenced by the continuously devel- oping knowledge in this field through translations and scholarly research by Sinologists. As will be shown below, an increase in knowl- edge about Daoism, however, did not necessarily lead to a deeper understanding of the matter. Yet this intellectual pitfall is built into the Daoist system of thought:Those who too cleverly try to probe into its teaching will be caught in the “fish trap” of words (Zhuangzi), the only “way” to the true Dao probably being silence. Hence, the unearthing of the true “Euro-Daoism” shall not and cannot be the object of this study.The point is rather to follow—some- what in the vein of a “Derri-Daoism”—the “trace” that Daoism has left in Europe and in North America during the past 200 years. This might contribute to the understanding of the Dao at least inasmuch as to explain—especially regarding some striking cases—what Daoism is not. In the following, I shall first deal with the different waves and phases of the reception of Daoism in the West, taking into consideration the fields of literature, philosophy, and New Age thought. Finally, the reasons for the attractiveness of Daoism in the West shall be examined. KARL-HEINZ POHL, professor, Department of Chinese Studies, Trier University. Specialties: aesthetics and ethics of modern and pre-modern China, history of Chinese thought, cross-cultural dialogue. E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30:3&4 (September/December 2003) 469–486 © 2003 Journal of Chinese Philosophy JOCP132 9/3/2003 5:45 PM Page 470 470 karl-heinz pohl The reception of Daoism began much later than that of Confu- cianism, though it turned out to be much more animated and diverse. The Jesuit missionaries brought the Confucian teachings, which they themselves greatly valued, to Europe, where they had a great impact on the thinkers of the Enlightenment. The Jesuits, however, did not pay much attention to Daoism (or Buddhism). They were too much influenced by the prejudice of the Chinese scholars they associated with, and thus were more impressed by Confucian ethics. Daoism, therefore, especially in its religious form, was perceived by the Jesuits to be an occult teaching. Nevertheless, the first translation of the Daodejing into a European language was the accomplishment of Jesuits. In this (not yet printed) Latin translation that came to London in 1788 as a present to the “Royal Society” (Legge: 12), the Dao was translated as ratio in the sense of the highest reason of the divine being. It was not until new research was published by the first European professor for Sinology at the Collège de France, J. P. Abel Rémusat (the chair had been established in 1814), that European intellectuals became aware of the Dao. After attempting to translate some extracts of the Daodejing and discussing the text, Rémusat characterized the concept of the Dao as being difficult to translate and suggested logos, a term which implied for him the threefold meaning of absolute being (souverain Être), reason (raison), and word (parole) as a possible, albeit not ideal, equivalent (Rémusat; Legge: 12). While his transla- tion of Dao must have been triggered by the opening sentence in the Gospel of St. John with its notion of a primordial logos, other con- jectures about the nature of the Dao were apparently influenced by Jesuit figurists (who saw Christian ideas and symbols “pre-figured” in the ancient Chinese classics, see Collani), notably his idea that in the phonetic transcription of three key words in chapter 14 of the Daode- jing, there was a hidden hint to the Hebrew “tetragramme” of Jehovah (JHVH) (Philosophes taoïstes: XXIX–XXX; Elberfeld: 144). Due to its “antiquated brevity,” the consequent darkness of the work and lack of commentary, Rémusat refrained from a complete translation of the Daodejing (Grill: 50). The first comprehensive and annotated translation (published together with the original text) was completed in 1842 by Stanislas Julien, the pupil and successor of Rémusat. With his translation closely following the Heshanggong commentary (the only available Chinese commentary to him), it can be considered an excellent pioneer work in the field of Sinology. Julien also corrected some of Rémusat’s figurist-inspired interpretations. His version in which Dao is translated as “way” (voie) and—in accord with the first chapter of the Daodejing—interpreted as “gate” (porte) had a great influence on JOCP132 9/3/2003 5:45 PM Page 471 play-thing of the times 471 the educated elite of the time (Grill: 12). F.W. J. Schelling for instance writes in his Philosophy of Mythology with reference to Rémusat and Julien: Tao does not mean reason, as which it had been translated hitherto, and the learning of Tao does not mean learning of reason. Tao means gate, the learning of Tao is the learning of the great gate that leads into being, from non-existence, from mere potential existence through which finally all existence enters into real existence. The entire Tao-te-King aims at nothing else but to show through a great diversion of most meaningful expressions the great and insurmount- able power of the non-existent. (Hsia 1985: 237) From the sixties of the 19th century until the beginning of the 20th century, a sheer flood of Laozi translations was published: John Chalmers (English, 1868), Reinhold v. Plänckner (German, 1870), Victor v. Strauss (German, 1870), F. H. Balfour (English, 1844), C. de Harlez (French, 1891), James Legge (English, 1891), Paul Carus (English, 1898), Joseph Kohler (German, 1908), Lionel Giles (English, 1909), Julius Grill (German, 1910), and Richard Wilhelm (German, 1911). During this period the first Zhuangzi translations were also pub- lished. A study of the language of Zhuangzi by Georg v. d. Gabelentz (1888), the first German linguist in the field of Sinology, marks the beginning of scientific research on this important Daoist classic. Giles’ translation appeared in 1889 and Legge’s in 1891. A work of great impact in the German-speaking countries was a selection of Giles’ edition in German by Martin Buber, which included a profound epi- logue and was published in 1910. Richard Wilhelm’s partial transla- tion into German appeared in 1912. The first wave of the reception of Daoism occurred contempora- neously with the imperialistic penetration of China by the powerful European countries—from the First Opium War (1840–42) to the sup- pression of the Boxer Rebellion (1900)—a time in which the image of China in Europe fell to an all time low (“sick man of Asia,”“yellow peril”). As the semi-colonization of China paved the way for the Christian mission, it is not surprising that it was again mainly mis- sionaries (though now mostly Protestants) who paid special attention to the spiritual bases of China, often drawing comparisons between Christian and Daoist thought. Translations like Julius Grill’s (Profes- sor for Theology in Tübingen) with the revealing subtitle The Book of the Highest Being and of the Highest Good show the nature of these comparative endeavors. Grill not only finds several parallels between the Daodejing and the New Testament, mainly in St. John’s Gospel as he explicitly points out (Grill: 203–4) but also sees a spiritual affinity between Laozi and Jesus as both are creators of “ethical worldviews”: JOCP132 9/3/2003 5:45 PM Page 472 472 karl-heinz pohl The matching of Lao-tsze and Jesus can be justified by the very pecu- liar affinity between these two men, a wondrous correspondence between the philosophical spirit of the one with the religious spirit of the other which has its roots in a similar emotional disposition. (Grill: VI–VII) In Grill’s view, Dao is an ultimate, impersonal cause of all things that, in addition, not only possesses an all-penetrating power but is also to be considered a moral principle (Grill: 13). Although Christianity was exported fervently to all parts of the world during that era, the 19th century in Europe itself was a time of radical ideological change. Around the turn of the century the firmly rooted Christian world-view as well as its morality and rules were severely shattered, creating a longing for religious experiences in other spheres. A movement that articulated this need very strongly was the Theosophical Society (founded by Madame Blavatsky), the members of which tried to find their religious fulfillment in a combi- nation of Indian mysticism and Western occultism. At the end of the 19th century, the reception of Daoism was much influenced by the Theosophical Society (Walf 1989: 13). Remarkable for this period is also Oscar Wilde’s adoption of Daoist critique of civilization in the essay “The Critic as Artist” (with the Daoist subtitle “With some remarks upon the importance of doing nothing”) published in 1890, where he refers to Zhuangzi in the following way: Chuang Tsu the wise [.