Time Table of the Tao Te Ching

[ChiDragon]

Tao Te Ching Time table
老子 LaoTze Born: Around 571 BCE.
道德經(TTC) Written: 500 - 491 BCE.

1. 郭店 Guodian 476 – 278 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1993; Published: May 1998
2. 馬王堆-甲本[MWD-A] before 206 BCE; 篆隸(Seal/Official style); Unearthed:1973
3. 馬王堆-乙本[MWD-B] 206 – 195 BCE; 隸書(Official Style); Unearthed:1973
4. 河上公(Heshang Gong) existed in the Han Dynasty (Heshang Gong is not a name. His name was unknown).
5. 王弼(Wang Bi) 226 – 249 CE
6. 傅奕(Fu Yi) 555 – 639 CE; Unearthed from the tomb of a favorite concubine of the last ruler of Chu(楚霸王)

Emperors of the Han Dynasty(206 BCE - AD220)
漢朝 - 皇帝 Emperors of Han Dynasty
1. 高祖 - 劉邦 Liu2 bang1 206 – 195 BCE (The 隸書(Li4 Shu1) official style of character was perfected)
2. 惠帝 - 劉盈 Liu2 ying2 194 – 188 BCE
3. 呂后- Queen Lu3 188 - 180 BCE
4. 文帝– 劉恒 Liu2 heng2 180 – 157 BCE
5. 武帝- 劉徹 Liu Che4 156 - 087 BCE

Notes:
1. LaoTze was born around 571 BCE and wrote the DDJ in his seventy's.
孔子(Confucius): 551 - 479 BCE.
庄子(Zhuang Zi): 369 - 286 BCE.

2. The first emperor of the Han Dynasty had used the Tao Te Ching as his ruling guide. Before the Han Dynasty, the Tao Te Ching was written in Seal style characters.

3. Warring States (Zhanguo or Chan-Kuo) refers to the era of about 475 BCE to 221 BCE.


Correction notes:
1. The character style of MWD-A was changed from 篆書(Seal style) to 篆隸(Seal/Official style).
2. Revised the existing period for MWD-A to: before 206 BCE.
3. Change the period for MWD-B to: 206 – 195 BCE.
4. Added 武帝- 劉徹 Liu Che4 156 - 087 BCE

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I tried thinking of something to do with this but nothing came to mind.

[ChiDragon]

Of course not, you want others to do all the dirty work for you......

FYI....
This table will help one to determine the changing phase of the Tao Te Ching. The sequence of events by the style of characters, the emperors of the Han Dynasty, and the contents of the TTC will indicate why it was changed to the way it is. In addition, it will indicate who were existed at the same time to see if there was a possibility which they had met each other or not.

Edited February 25, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Okay.

[adept]

There's no evidence to suggest that a person named Laozi ever existed.

The DDJ is rumoured to be the work of many hands.

[ChiDragon]

Sorry. This is too late to be discussed here in this thread.

Edited February 25, 2014 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

This time table is very important for showing the changing phase of the Tao Te Ching by the sequence of events. Besides the time periods, we should pay close attention to the names of the emperors of the Han Dynasty. At the time, it was a taboo to use the name of an emperor in any document. The style of the character that was used in the TTC will dominate which version is prior to another. In addition, some of the characters in the TTC will be changed in according to whomever was in power of the Han Dynasty at the time. Some of the incorrect characters were used which do not make sense is because they were not the actual characters but only phonetics.

I will do my best to analyze the Tao Te Ching by going over the special characteristics of each version. Hopefully, we don't have too many interruptions during the course of evaluation. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Edited February 25, 2014 by ChiDragon

[adept]

Sorry. This is too late to be discussed here in this thread.

 

??

[dawei]

There's no evidence to suggest that a person named Laozi ever existed.

The DDJ is rumoured to be the work of many hands.

 

Maybe another thread if he doesn't want it in this thread. Might be interesting to see what evidence or passages or thoughts scholars have on it. I have tended towards a syncretic work but that Laozi is real.

[ChiDragon]

adept...
This thread is assuming that Lao Zi does exist at time time, in order, to carry on with the discussion. You may start a new thread if you want.

Edited February 25, 2014 by ChiDragon

[adept]

adept...

This thread is assuming that Lao Zi does exist at time time, in order, to carry on with the discussion. You may start a new thread if you want.

 

I'm sorry but I think it's an important point. Your thread is titled 'Time Table of the DDJ' If Laozi never existed (possibility), then the whole thread needs revising.

[Marblehead]

There's no evidence to suggest that a person named Laozi ever existed.

The DDJ is rumoured to be the work of many hands.

Oh my goodness. We have established the fact that he did exist. We are on a roll here.

 

Confucius talked with him. Chuang Tzu quoted him.

 

(But there is enough circumstantial evidence that he did exist. Solid proof will likely never be found. But the TTC and all ts various translations using his name as author pretty much establishes the name even it is only fiction.)

[Marblehead]

I'm sorry but I think it's an important point. Your thread is titled 'Time Table of the DDJ' If Laozi never existed (possibility), then the whole thread needs revising.

Not really. He is speaking to the text, regardless of who wrote it. Establishing when the early versions/copies were written is an important matter for some. It is also important in a discussion of how much of Chuang Tzu's thoughts are consistent with the TTC.

 

Anyhow, I have no problem with you mentioning that many do not accept the thought that a person named Lao Tzu (Lao Tan) ever existed. But then, there are many who believe he did and as I mentioned above, the circumstantial evidence is enough for those folks.

[ChiDragon]

Let's start with the earliest copy of the Tao Te Ching in the Table:
1. 郭店 Guodian 476 – 278 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1993; Published: May 1998

Why the Guodian TTC(楚簡) is the oldest copy?
Let's look at its characteristics! The style of the book was the earliest form which ever existed in China. It was made out of bamboo strips; and the characters used were in seal style. The seal style is the most difficult to read besides it was written in the Chinese classic. Furthermore, the book made out of bamboo strips are so difficult to carry from one place to another. Therefore, most people memorized and pass it on by the word of mouth. During the transition in the oral communication, the sound of the character may be altered or misunderstood by the listener. As time changes, the story changes along with it. This is there are so many errors frm copy to copy.

As a rule of thumb, one should not and cannot just pick up any copy of the TTC without correcting the existing errors before making interpretations or translations. That is why it is so important to understand the history during the critical period where and when the TTC was most active.

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

And this would beg the question: Is the Guodian find a complete copy of the TTC as it existed at that time or is it, as Henricks suggests, only the chapters that this teacher wanted in his library? My count is that there are only 32 chapters or partial chapters of the TTC in the Guodian find.

[ChiDragon]

And this would beg the question: Is the Guodian find a complete copy of the TTC as it existed at that time or is it, as Henricks suggests, only the chapters that this teacher wanted in his library? My count is that there are only 32 chapters or partial chapters of the TTC in the Guodian find.

 

The tomb was robbed couple times. Fortunately, there was not many items taken. The original TTC in Guodian was unharmed. However, the TTC was found in three parts. Each part was hand copied with three different handwriting. Since the copied were reproduced, it could be in any form. One shouldn't be surprised if the TTC did not have a complete set in the tomb.

 

Edited to add part of the introduction of the Guodian slips:

 

简 本《老子》甲、乙飞丙是迄今为止所见年代最早的《老子》传抄本。它的绝大部分文句与今本《老子》相近或相同，但不分德经和道经，而且章次与今本也不相对 应。简本《老子》分见于今本《老子》的三一章，其内容有的相当于今本全章，有的只相当于该章的一部或大部。简本现存二O四六字，约为今本的五分之二。

由于 墓葬数次被盗，竹简有缺失，简本《老子》亦不例外

。故无法精确估计简本原有的数量。

 

Translation in red:

Due to the many robberies of the tomb, there are some missing bamboo slips. Thus there was no exception to the LaoZi version of the TTC.

 

Ref: another source of Guodian TTC

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

It's interesting to see that the chapters in the Guodian TTC version are not in sequence as the contemporary version. Perhaps, let's investigate why they were grouped as such....!!!

Part A
Blatt 1 Bundle A1-6: 章 #19, #66, #46, #30, #15, #64,x
Blatt 2 Bundle A7-11: 章 #37, #63, #2, #32, #25
Blatt 3 Bundle A12-17: 章 #5, #16, #64,x, #56, #57, #55
Blatt 4 Bundle A18-20: 章 #44, #40, #9

Part B
Blatt 5 Bundle B1-5: 章 #59, #48, #20, #13, #41
Blatt 6 Bundle B6-: 章 52, #45, #54,

Part C
Blatt 7 Bundle C1-3: 章 #17#18, #35, #31,
Blatt 8 Bundle C4: 章 #64,x

Ref: Guodian TTC Version

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Let's start with the earliest copy of the Tao Te Ching in the Table:

1. 郭店 Guodian 476 – 278 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1993; Published: May 1998

 

A few significant items to add:

1. The Guodian Laozi on bamboo slips was written in Chu script prior to unification. Chu was considered the southern 'barbarians'.

2. The three bundles of texts which the Guodian Laozi was split among included many Confucian text; Thus, Laozi slept next to Kongzi as bed mates

3. Why just the 32 chapters, was this the desire of the teacher/tutor? There is a lot of support for this view

4. The major themes one expects when the DDJ is mentioned are missing or extremely rare from the Bamboo version: One, Water, Way of Heaven, female and general metaphysics.

5. The most ancient cosmology is found among the bundles which also mentions Dao but it is at a lower level of hierarchy.

 

Guodian was a thriving center of the state of Chu in the Warring States period, only nine kilometers north of its capital Ying, and accordingly many tombs of the important personages of the state were constructed there. In October 1993, the provincial government authority launched an excavation in reaction to repeated tomb robberies, which resulted in an unexpected discovery of a large number of bamboo slips, more than seven hundred of which were covered with writing. After the excavation, these slips were divided into six groups, chiefly depending on their length. Three of them contained writings related to Laozi and have been labeled A, B, and C. Specifically, on thirty-nine slips in group A, which are each 32.3 cm long, passages related to nineteen chapters of Laozi were found; on eighteen slips in group B, which are each 30.6 cm long,

passages related to eight chapters were found; and on fourteen slips in group C, which are each 26.5 cm long, passages related to five chapters were found. -- The Old Master A Syncretic Reading of the Laozi from the Mawangdui Text A.

Guodian Laozi on Bamboo slips with word by word translation:

http://www.daoisopen.com/GuodianLaozi.html

[Marblehead]

4. The major themes one expects when the DDJ is mentioned are missing or extremely rare from the Bamboo version: One, Water, Way of Heaven, female and general metaphysics.

This has caused me interest and was mentioned just a day or two ago.

 

Why leave thes out?

 

More importantly though, I think, is: What themes are included in this collection?

 

Are they the themes that are more compatible with Confucian thought? Was the metaphysical aspect of the TTC intentionally ignored in favor of only the more useful aspects that would be beneficial for a potential leader of the people?

[ChiDragon]

It's interesting to see that the chapters in the Guodian TTC version are not in sequence as the contemporary version. Perhaps, let's investigate why they were grouped as such....!!!

 

Part A

Blatt 1 Bundle A1-6: 章 #19, #66, #46, #30, #15, #64,x

Blatt 2 Bundle A7-11: 章 #37, #63, #2, #32, #25

Blatt 3 Bundle A12-17: 章 #5, #16, #64,x, #56, #57, #55

Blatt 4 Bundle A18-20: 章 #44, #40, #9

 

Part B

Blatt 5 Bundle B1-5: 章 #59, #48, #20, #13, #41

Blatt 6 Bundle B6-: 章 52, #45, #54,

 

Part C

Blatt 7 Bundle C1-3: 章 #17#18, #35, #31,

Blatt 8 Bundle C4: 章 #64,x

 

Ref: Guodian TTC Version

 

 

 

If we read the chapters in original classic:

Part A has the following contents:

1. The principles to rule a country.

2. Description of Tao.

3. Cultivation of the principles of Tao.

 

Part B

Cultivation of the principles of Tao.

 

Part C

1. The principles to rule a country.

 

The author of each group doesn't seem to be the original author who came up with those ideas. These chapters in each group seem to be premeditated to be copied from another source. This observation had been agreed upon by the knowledge native scholars and seconded to a certain extent by both English scholar E. Ryden and American scholar R. Henricks(MH ).

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

Why the focus on government? The tomb had a cup from the court of the Emperor of Chu (meaning the group right around him, not a court like a judge convicting people of crimes), indicating that this person was well-connected to the court. A leading theory is that it was the tutor of the prince of Chu at the time. So he would be most interested in chapters relating to government.

 

At the same time, there are no chapters over 66. This implies that the last several may not have existed yet at that time.

 

In general terms, either this was a government-focused selection, or the earliest editions of the DDJ were about government, and more of the water/feminine/mystical sections were added later.

[dawei]

The Laozi A is a bundle of 39 slips. Each strip is 32.3cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are 13cm apart. The two ends of each strip are beveled.60 The script type is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting on the strips is generally small and the characters written close together. According to Mattias Richter, two of the strips in the Laozi A (strips 5 and 6) are written in a different hand from the rest, marked by larger, more elaborate characters. Due to the flow of the content, however, he believes the two strips are meant to be included in the Laozi A. He suggests that perhaps the hand changed because those two strips had to be replaced (due to errors or damage) or that the scribe was replaced for a short while by someone else. Even taking into account the possibility of two hands in the Laozi A, the handwriting of the Laozi A is markedly different than that of the Laozi B or C.

The Laozi B is a bundle of 18 slips. Each strip is 30.6cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are also 13cm apart. The two ends of each strip are flat and squared.63 The script type, like the Laozi A, is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style, like the Laozi A, is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting of the Laozi B, however, is large and the characters are spaced farther apart than in the Laozi A. The handwriting is consistent throughout, suggesting it was written by a single scribe.

The Laozi C is a bundle of 28 slips. Each strip is 26.5cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are 10.8cm apart. The strips have flat, squared ends. The script type, like the Laozi A and B, is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style, like the Laozi A and B, is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting is uniform throughout, suggesting it was written by a single scribe. According to Peng Hao, the Laozi C was written by a single scribe, and not the same scribe that copied either Laozi A or B. However, when one looks to content, one sees that 14 strips have material from the received Laozi and 14 strips have material not found in the received Laozi. Due to this difference in content, this last bundle was separated out from the rest and subtitled the TYSS. However, there is no reason to believe that these strips were meant to be separated out from the rest of the bundle.

See:

https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/23748/ubc_2010_spring_lundin_ritchie_jennifer.pdf?sequence=3

[ChiDragon]

Tao Te Ching Time table

老子 LaoTze Born: Around 571 BCE.

道德經(TTC) Written: 500 - 491 BCE.

 

1. 郭店 Guodian 476 – 278 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1993; Published: May 1998

2. 馬王堆-甲本[MWD-A] 206 – 195 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1973

3. 馬王堆-乙本[MWD-B] 194 – 180 BCE; 隸書(Official Style); Unearthed:1973

 

Emperors of the Han Dynasty(206 BCE - AD220)

1. 高祖 - 劉邦 Liu2 bang1 206 – 195 BCE (The 隸書(Li4 Shu1) official style of character was created)

 

Notes:

3. Warring States (Zhanguo or Chan-Kuo) refers to the era of about 475 BCE to 221 BCE.

 

The change of the character style.

During the Warring States, each state has a writing style of characters. Regardless, all their styles were in 篆書(Seal style). After the first emperor of Han(劉邦 Liu2 bang1) defeated the last emperor of Chu(楚霸王), Liu2 adopted the ruling principles from the TTC. However, the TTC was written in the Seal style(篆書) which was very difficult to read. Hence, Liu2 created the Official style called 隸書(Li4 Shu1).

 

This can be justified by looking at the Time Table. At the beginning of the Han Dynasty, MWD-A copy of the TTC was written in Seal style(篆書). Then it was revised to the Official style(隸書). Furthermore, since the name of the first emperor of the Han Dynasty was 劉邦(Liu2 bang1), therefore, all the characters of 邦(bang1) was changed to 國(guo2).

 

In the classic, during the Warring States, the character 邦(bang1) means country; and 國(guo2) means region. Since the change was made, then 國(guo2) means country. In the modern time, 國(guo2) becomes a country or a small country and 邦(bang1) means a big Nation like the United States.

 

The intention of this post is to prove that the MWD-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between the years of 劉邦(Liu2 bang1) 206 – 195 BCE. It was because of the changes of the character style and the character 邦(bang1) was replaced with 國(guo2).

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

 

The change of the character style.

During the Warring States, each state has a writing style of characters. Regardless, all their styles were in 篆書(Seal style). After the first emperor of Han(劉邦 Liu2 bang1) defeated the last emperor of Chu(楚霸王), Liu2 adopted the ruling principles from the TTC. However, the TTC was written in the Seal style(篆書) which was very difficult to read. Hence, Liu2 created the Official style called 隸書(Li4 Shu1).

 

The Li Shu was started prior to Han (attested by archeological finds of documents) and evolved and matured and eventually was the official script of the Han. But it was a simpler style suitable for bureaucracy.

 

The intention of this post is to prove that the MDW-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between the years of 劉邦(Liu2 bang1) 206 – 195 BCE. It was because of the changes of the character style and the character 邦(bang1) was replaced with 國(guo2).

 

I think that is a typo, You mean MWD-A ?

[ChiDragon]

The Li Shu was started prior to Han (attested by archeological finds of documents) and evolved and matured and eventually was the official script of the Han. But it was a simpler style suitable for bureaucracy.

 

I think that is a typo, You mean MWD-A ?

Yes, there was a typo. I mistyped as MDW-B. It has been corrected to MWD-B.

The answer to your question is NO. I mean MWD-B as I had originally stated. Please look at the time table carefully. I will look into the Li Shu matter. Thanks!

 

Edited to add:

隸書起源於秦朝，相傳由程邈形理而成，在東漢時期達到頂峰，書法界有「漢隸唐楷」之稱。隸變，又稱為隸定，是漢字由小篆演變為隸書的過程，大約發生在秦漢之間，是漢字發展的轉折點，對後世的漢字有很大的影響。現代的楷書和行書寫法絕大部份和隸變之後相差不遠。

 

Yes, you are right 隸書(li shu) was started in the Quin Dynasty. The change from seal style to the official style was during the transition period between the Quin and the Han period. However, the Li Shu style had reached to its peak of perfection in the Han Dynasty.

 

Ref: 隸書, Li shu

Edited February 26, 2014 by ChiDragon