“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 © Copyright 2019 by Tianyu Fan All rights reserved 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. 1 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 2 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.