|
|
|
| A Study on Dao Yao Fragments in Dunhuang Manuscripts Collected in Japan |
| Qin Hualin |
| History Department, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The early photos of Dunhuang manuscripts taken in the first half of the 20th Century can be regarded as an academic rich mine. They not only preserve many original features of Dunhuang manuscripts but also provide information in the process of loss. The library of the Institute of the Humanities of Kyoto University has a set of early photos of the Dunhuang manuscripts. The photos are large in size, clear in image, clear in shooting time and collection source. These photos deserve the attention of researchers.The library collection catalogue records the collector of the Dunhuang manuscript as “Etou, Tokyo”, who is Etou Takao, a famous antique dealer in Modern Japan. The Etou Takao Dunhuang manuscripts collection is now stored in the National Diet Library of Japan, the collection number being WB32-1 （30）. This collection was little known for a long time until 2012 when Wang Ka mentioned and supplemented the WB32-1（30）manuscripts in the Daoist leishu (categorized writings) of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui and Tang Dynasties, which not only pointed out that its document nature is the fragment of Dao Yao but also further pointed out that the manuscripts can be combined with P. 2443 manuscripts preserved in France. It can be seen that this scroll is indeed from the Dunhuang Sutra Cave and has important literature value.In March 1908, Pelliot spent three weeks on a large-scale inspection of the documents of the Dunhuang Sutra Cave. Seven volumes of Dao Yao, including P. 2443, fell into Pelliot's hands. It can be inferred that P. 2443 and WB32-1（30）, which originally belonged to the same manuscript, had been broken into two as early as March 1908. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the WB32-1（30）manuscript had been dispersed from the Dunhuang Sutra Cave before the arrival of Pelliot (i. e. 1900-1908). Since the release of the Dunhuang Sutra Cave, the manuscript had been circulated among antique dealers and collectors for a long time until it was purchased by the National Diet Library of Japan in 1960.WB32-1（30）and P.2443 belong to the same manuscript of Dao Yao. However, these two manuscripts have no year title. For such Dunhuang manuscripts without exact time, we should first divide periods. Based on a comprehensive investigation of the shape of the manuscripts, the taboo characters in the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the age of writing and the calligraphy style, especially considering that it is very likely that Taoists are deliberately not taboo under the influence of the Buddhist custom of “not worshiping the king”, it is appropriate to date the transcription of the manuscripts of Dao Yao, WB32-1（30）and P. 2443, to a period from the early Sui Dynasty to the prosperous Tang Dynasty (i.e. the late Sixth Century to the early Eighth Century). We cannot just push the copying age of the two manuscripts of Dao Yao forward to the “Six Dynasties” or narrow it down to the “Wu Zhou Period” based on the fact that it did not avoid the taboo words in the Sui and Tang Dynasties.When Wang Ka talked about joining together P. 2443 and WB32-1（30）, he made a full argument on the front part of Dao Yao, and did not involve the Buddhist practical text on the back, so it was not comprehensive. After careful examination of the images, we find that the two manuscripts of P. 2443 and WB32-1（30） have been trimmed and cut to varying degrees. The latter, in particular, has been handed over to antique dealers in China and Japan from the Dunhuang Sutra Cave. In order to improve the appearance and raise the price, the mercenary antique dealers cut the upper and lower ends of the original volume horizontally as a whole without harming the words of Taoist books on the front. It can be seen that when piecing together Dunhuang fragments, we should take into account various complex factors that may be encountered in the dissemination of the original manuscripts, such as cutting, repair, and trimming, and be as cautious as possible.
|
|
Received: 02 May 2021
|
|
|
|
1 方广锠编： 《滨田德海搜藏敦煌遗书》，北京：国家图书馆出版社，2016年。
2 池田温： 《敦煌文书的世界》，张铭心译，北京：中华书局，2007年。
3 荣新江： 《辨伪与存真》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2010年。
4 李德范： 《敦煌西域文献旧照片合校》，北京：国家图书馆出版社，2007年。
5 高田時雄： 「日藏敦煌遺書の來源と眞僞問題」，『敦煌寫本研究年報』2015年第9號，1-17頁。
6 中村不折： 《禹域出土墨宝书法源流考》，李德范译，北京：中华书局，2003年。
7 施萍婷： 《日本公私收藏敦煌遗书叙录（三）》，《敦煌研究》1995年第4期，第51-70页。
8 大淵忍爾： 『敦煌道経·目録編』，東京：福武書店，1978年。
9 王卡： 《敦煌道教文献研究——综述·目录·索引》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2004年。
10 王卡： 《南北朝隋唐时期的道教类书》，见荣新江主编： 《唐研究》第19卷，北京：北京大学出版社，2013年，第499-527页。
11 神塚淑子： 「国立国会図书館所蔵の敦煌道教写本」，名古屋大学文学部編： 『名古屋大学文学部研究論集·哲学篇』第59巻，爱知县：名古屋大学文学部，2013年，59-88頁。
12 岩本篤志： 「滨田徳海旧蔵敦煌文献再考」，『敦煌寫本研究年報』2018年第12號，第131-146頁。
13 法］伯希和： 《敦煌藏经洞访书记》，见《伯希和敦煌石窟笔记》，耿昇译，兰州：甘肃人民出版社， 2007年，第409-438页。
14 敦煌文献研究委員会編： 「浜田コレクション目録」，氣賀澤保規編： 『濱田徳海旧蔵敦煌文書コレクション目録』，東京：東洋文庫，2020年，5-38頁。
15 Fujieda Akira， “The Tunhuang manuscripts： a general description，” Zinbun， No. 9 （1966）， pp. 1-32.
16 张涌泉： 《敦煌写本断代研究》，《中国典籍与文化》2010年第4期，第61-69页。
17 刘昫等： 《旧唐书》，北京：中华书局，1975年。
18 辻正博： 「唐代寫本における避諱と則天文字の使用」，『敦煌寫本研究年報』2016年第10號，437-448頁。
19 窦怀永： 《敦煌道教文献避讳研究》，《敦煌研究》2009年第3期，第56-62页。
20 魏徵： 《隋书》，北京：中华书局，1973年。
21 陶弘景： 《真诰》，见《道藏》第20册，北京：文物出版社；天津：天津古籍出版社；上海：上海书店，1988年。
22 张承宗： 《六朝道教人物杂传述要》，《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》1998年第1期，第108-113页。
23 丁培仁： 《增注新修道藏目录》，成都：巴蜀书社，2008年。
24 佚名： 《上清道宝经》，见《道藏》第33册，北京：文物出版社；天津：天津古籍出版社；上海：上海书店，1988年。
25 王素、李方： 《魏晋南北朝敦煌文献编年》，台北：新文丰出版公司，1997年。
26 神塚淑子： 「京都国立博物馆所蔵敦煌道経」，名古屋大学文学部編： 『名古屋大学文学部研究論集·哲学篇』第63巻，爱知县：名古屋大学文学部，2017年，77-82頁。
27 池田温編： 『中国古代写本識語集録』，東京：東京大学東洋文化研究所，1990年。
28 杜伟生： 《谈敦煌遗书的修复》，《北京图书馆馆刊》1993年第2期，第146-149页。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
