Tao Te Ching


The Tao Te Ching or Dào Dé Jīng, often Laozi in Chinese and scholarship, is an ancient Chinese classic text, becoming a foundational work of Taoism. Traditionally credited to the sage Laozi, with several similar early versions recovered, the texts' authorship and dates of composition and compilation are debated. The oldest excavated portion dates to the late 4th century BCE. While tradition places Laozi earlier, a more conservative estimation would date modern versions of the text only as far back as the late Warring States period.
The Tao Te Ching is central to both philosophical and religious Taoism, and has been highly influential on Chinese philosophy and religious practice in general. It is generally taken as preceding the Zhuangzi, the other core Taoist text. Terminology originating within the text has been reinterpreted and elaborated upon by Legalist thinkers, Confucianists, and particularly Chinese Buddhists, introduced to China significantly after the initial solidification of Taoist thought. One of the most translated texts in world literature, the text is well known in the West.

Title

In English, the title is commonly rendered Tao Te Ching, following the Wade–Giles romanization, or as Daodejing, following pinyin. It can be translated as The Classic of the Way and its Power, The Book of the Tao and Its Virtue, The Book of the Way and of Virtue, The Tao and its Characteristics, The Canon of Reason and Virtue, The Classic Book of Integrity and the Way, or A Treatise on the Principle and Its Action.
Ancient Chinese books were commonly referenced by the name of their real or supposed author, in this case the "Old Master", Laozi. As such, the Tao Te Ching is also sometimes called the Laozi, especially in Chinese sources. The term dao-de itself was not used in the time of Mencius; it emerges in the late Warring States period.
The title Tao Te Ching, designating the work's status as a classic, was first applied during the reign of Emperor Jing of Han. Other titles for the work include the honorific Sutra of the Way and Its Power and the descriptive Five Thousand Character Classic.

Authorship

The Tao Te Ching is traditionally ascribed to Laozi, whose historical existence has been a matter of scholarly debate. His name, which means "Old Master", has only fueled controversy on this issue. Legends claim variously that Laozi was "born old" and that he lived for 996 years, with 12 previous incarnations starting around the time of the Three Sovereigns before the 13th as Laozi. Some scholars have expressed doubts about Laozi's historicity.
The first biographical reference to Laozi is in the Records of the Grand Historian, by Chinese historian Sima Qian, which combines three stories. In the first, Laozi was a contemporary of Confucius. His surname was Li, and his personal name was Er or Dan. He was an official in the imperial archives, and wrote a book in two parts before departing to the West; at the request of the keeper of the Han-ku Pass, Yinxi, Laozi composed the Tao Te Ching. In the second story, Laozi, also a contemporary of Confucius, was Lao Laizi, who wrote a book in 15 parts. Third, Laozi was the grand historian and astrologer Lao Dan, who lived during the reign of Duke Xian of Qin.
Feng Youlan believed the Tao te Ching was a late work, but did not consider it a significant issue for tradition if the Tao te Ching turned out to be a much later work than the traditional Laozi. He did not believe the traditional account required Laozi to personally write the book named for him, or that this would therefore void him having been a real person.

Textual history

Principal versions

Among the many transmitted editions of the Tao Te Ching text, the three primary ones are named after early commentaries. The "Yan Zun Version", which is only extant for the Te Ching, derives from a commentary attributed to Han dynasty scholar Yan Zun. The "Heshang Gong" version is named after the legendary Heshang Gong, who supposedly lived during the reign of Emperor Wen of Han. This commentary has a preface written by Ge Xuan, granduncle of Ge Hong, and scholarship dates this version to. The origins of the "Wang Bi" version have greater verification than either of the above. Wang Bi was a Three Kingdoms-period philosopher and commentator on the Tao Te Ching and I Ching.

Archaeologically recovered manuscripts

Tao Te Ching scholarship has advanced from archaeological discoveries of manuscripts, some of which are older than any of the received texts. Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, Marc Aurel Stein and others found thousands of scrolls in the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang. They included more than 50 partial and complete manuscripts. Another partial manuscript has the Xiang'er commentary, which had previously been lost.
In 1973, archaeologists discovered copies of early Chinese books, known as the Mawangdui Silk Texts, in a tomb dated to 168 BCE. They included two nearly complete copies of the text, referred to as Text A and Text B, both of which reverse the traditional ordering and put the Te Ching section before the Tao Ching, which is why the Henricks translation of them is named "Te-Tao Ching". Based on calligraphic styles and imperial naming taboo avoidances, scholars believe that Text A can be dated to about the first decade and Text B to about the third decade of the 2nd century BCE.
In 1993, the oldest known version of the text, written on bamboo slips, was found in a tomb near the town of Guodian in Jingmen, Hubei, and dated prior to 300 BCE. The Guodian Chu Slips comprise around 800 slips of bamboo with a total of over 13,000 characters, about 2,000 of which correspond with the Tao Te Ching. Both the Mawangdui and Guodian versions are generally consistent with the received texts, excepting differences in chapter sequence and graphic variants. Several recent Tao Te Ching translations utilise these two versions, sometimes with the verses reordered to synthesize the new finds.

Contents

Themes

Structure and style

The Tao Te Ching is a text of around 5,162 to 5,450 Chinese characters in 81 brief chapters or sections. There is some evidence that the chapter divisions were later additions—for commentary, or as aids to rote memorisation—and that the original text was more fluidly organised. It has two parts, the Tao Ching and the Te Ching, which may have been edited together into the received text, possibly reversed from an original Te Tao Ching.
Contrasting with Confucianism, its general statements are free of narration or reference to "any particular persons, times, or places." The written style is laconic, with few grammatical particles. While the ideas are singular, the style is poetic, combining two major strategies: short, declarative statements, and intentional contradictions, encouraging varied, contradictory interpretations. The first of these strategies creates memorable phrases, while the second forces the reader to reconcile supposed contradictions. With a partial reconstruction of the pronunciation of Old Chinese spoken during the Tao Te Chings composition, approximately three-quarters rhymed in the original language.
The Chinese characters in the earliest versions were written in seal script, while later versions were written in clerical script and regular script styles.

Chronological theories

Early scholarship

Although debated more in early scholarship, early modern scholars like Feng Youlan and Herrlee G. Creel still considered the work a compilation; Gu Jiegang believed it to have been written over three centuries. Most modern scholarship holds the text to be a compilation, as typical for long-form early Chinese texts.
Discussing concepts of names and realities, the early scholarship of Feng Youlan theorized the school of names as preceding the work, and therefore, as opposed to the tradition of an early dating, believed it came after Gongsun Long or Hui Shi. But this theory is not as useful modernly, because the Tao te Ching does not demonstrate school of names influence the way the Zhuangzi does. Discussion of names and realities are common in early Chinese philosophy outside just the school of names.

Overview

Derived of Sima Qian's perspective in the mid-early Han dynasty, the term Daoist would typically bring Laozi and Zhuangzi to mind. Alongside the Han Feizi, the Tao Te Ching was likely becoming more influential than the Zhuangzi and Shen Buhai by Sima Qian's time, if they were not already influential going back to the late Warring States period. Sima Qian discusses them together, but names the chapter "Biographies of Laozi and Han Fei". Though influencing the Han Feizi and Huangdi Sijing, Shen Dao, associated with the Jixia Academy, does not appear to maintain the influence of Shang Yang and Shen Buhai going into the Han dynasty.
Earlier more influential, based on Shen Dao there were at least some Laozi-like currents by the early mid Warring States period. Benjamin I. Schwartz viewed Shen Dao as still naturalist but less "primitivist" than Laozi, seeing high civilization as part of nature rather than rejecting it. But if Shen Dao was influenced by Laozi, much of his other beliefs are still more archaic; he has a view of human disposition as self-interested aligning more with Zhuangzi, but less developed views of Dao, and was more fatalist, including a belief that human disposition could not change. The Zhuangzi and Tao te Ching both come to believe human disposition can change.
Despite Shen Dao's early heyday, Guanzi currents would seem more theoretically dominant among late Warring States period nobles. The Huangdi Sijing has some few Shen Dao passages, but Guanzi passages are most dominant in it. It has an introduction resembling the Tao te Ching, but doesn't provide it as a source. While it is posible it goes farther back, it is easier to suggest a modern Tao te Ching, with a more marked increase in influence, closer to the end of Warring States period, with Laozi mentioned in the Lushi Chunqiu, and commentaries in the Han Feizi.
Though scholar Pei Wang primarily treats the similarities and differences of Laozi, the Huangdi Sijing and Han Feizi, at least in review with Pei Wang, Yuri Pines Dao Companion to China's fa tradition expresses openness to the "indebtedness" of early Warring States thinkers like Shen Buhai to Laozi.

Huangdi Sijing

Compared with Laozi by Sima Qian, the Tao te Ching would traditionally be taken as preceding Shen Buhai. Questioning their chronology, Creel proposed that Shen Buhai may have preceded it as well, but Shen Buhai does bear a "striking" resemblance to Laozi. Though not enough to eliminate a late dating, discovery of the early Mawangdui silk texts and Guodian Chu Slips again made a dating before the third-century BCE at least more probable.
Included in the Mawangdui tomb with ten similar passages, the Huangdi Sijing can contribute to debate for an early Tao te Ching. Although it does not directly quote from the Tao te Ching, Yates did treat it as quoting from the text. Admittedly, Yate's data can still suggest a late pre-Han compilation for much of the material, but does have earlier material like Shen Dao, increasing the theoretical likelihood of prominent Laozi and similar currents dating back to the late Warring States period if not earlier.
Leo S Chang theorized potential Laozi influences for the Sijing, with some passages similar to the Zhuangzi. It's introduction resembles the Tao te Ching. But it does not actually quote the Tao te Ching. As Chang notes, there are "no lengthy parallel expressions between" the Sijing and Laozi, and Guanzi passages are dominant. The Sijing has similar ideas to Laozi of strategically "assuming feminine conduct", but the ruler switches to an active posture at "the right moment", countervailing against Laozi's passivity. In Laozi, the Dao gives birth to the One; in the Sijing, they are the same. Laozi disparages law; the Sijing's law 'derives from Dao'.

Before Zhuangzi

Linguistic studies of the Tao Te Chings vocabulary and rime scheme point to a date of composition after the early Classic of Poetry, but before the Zhuangzi, and would generally be taken as preceding the Zhuangzi. This is the traditional "before Zhuangzi" theory. Although the Book of Songs is a diverse work, they do not bear any especial resemblance. Xiagan Liu argued that the Tao Te Ching's poetic structure resembles the Book of Songs more than the later, Warring States period Songs of Chu.
Upholding the traditional early dating of Sima Qian, Sinologist Xiaogan Liu criticized late theories as based in negative rather than positive evidence, and the idea that Laozi could be contemporary with later parts of the Zhuangzi, which refer to him as "Great True man of Ancient Time". Not considering Laozi an exceedingly difficult text, he moreover questions why the Han Feizi would feel the need to annotate Laozi if it's author was contemporary to him. In the evaluation of Mark Edward Lewis, Laozi's presence in the Han Feizi is itself indicative it's author felt that it specifically would be of interest to rulers; that it was, by the late Warring States period, not at least just another text.
As one suggestion the work is an ancient text, ancient texts are arguably divided in two parts. The Mawangdui versions divide the text in two parts, and one version also didn't have chapters yet. When the Tao te Ching did get chapters, they weren't given titles. Alongside the Huangdi Sijing, late Warring States texts Xunzi and Han Feizi are the first to give titles to chapters. While the Han Feizi is Laozi's first preserved commentary, Laozi was naturalist, adapting to nature. The late Xun Kuang and Han Feizi enter into the philosophical age of trying to control nature.
As another criticism of late theories for the work, although the earliest recovered versions are from late in the range of possible dating, their language is already "coherent and natural". Benjamin I. Schwartz considered the Tao Te Ching remarkably unified by the time of the Mawangdui, even if these versions swap the two halves of the text. While the Han Feizi itself may not the most effective example of Daoistic syncretism, translator W.K. Liao considered the Han Feizi's Chapter 20 "Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings" academically thorough.

After Zhuangzi

Essentially the dating of A.C. Graham, the Stanford Encyclopedia supposes compilation of the modern text as dating back to the late Warring States period circa 250 BCE, drawing on a wide range of versions further dating back a century or two. Termed the "After Zhuangzi" theory, representative of Ch'ien Mu and Graham, a lack of early references contributes to Graham's late dating. While the Zhuangzi is the first reference for the Tao Te Ching, its Inner Chapters do not demonstrate familiarity with it. Thus, an early stratum representative of the Zhuangzi's core Inner Chapters may have preceded it.
The late Warring States period Han Feizi includes the Tao te Ching's earliest known commentaries. As Graham argued, the Han Feizi does make a "sustained effort" to use the Tao te Ching, but is not the most effective example of Daoistic syncretism, and is limited to a few chapters. Its Laozi arguments had likely not been around very long, or would have incorporated them more comprehensively. Its "Interpreting Laozi" is again comparable with the Guanzi.
The Han Feizi's "Way of the Ruler" can be considered a core ideological text of the Han Feizi. While incorporating Laozi from the very beginning of the chapter, it quotes it only briefly; Laozi had an "undeniable" influence in the late Warring States period, but only a limited individual level of intellectual and political influence or utility for the author.
The late encyclopedic Lushi Chunqiu's "Ren shu" chapter includes an example of wu wei Daoistic influence, but isn't specifically Laozi, despite the text mentioning Laozi. Renshu instead exhibits syncretism comparable with Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, Han Fei, Guanzi and the Mawangdui Huangdi sijing.
As argued by Creel, as a work which includes discussion of government, the Tao te Ching's more governmentally complex ideas of Dao or wu wei could well be expected to come after some early ideas of them represented in the Zhuangzi, which didn't as much involve government. The Analects have wu wei as an idea of government, but one of virtue, not a technique of governmental control like the Tao te Ching.
Discussed in the Outer Zhuangzi's after Mozi but before Laozi and Zhuangzi, Shen Dao shares content with the Inner Zhuangzi, and can also be directly compared with the Tao Te Ching. Less technically complex than Shen Buhai, while Shen Dao's current probably does not go back to the Spring and Autumn period, some such content could go back to the early fourth century BCE.
Sinologist Xiaogan Liu did not regard the Zhuangzi's placement of Laozi chronological, with Laozi "already reaching the ultimate" anciently before Zhuangzi; nor did Sinologist Chad Hansen the consider Outer Zhuangzi entirely accurate chronologically. But it is plausibly chronological, and Hansen positioned Shen Dao under "Pre-Laozi Daoist Theory" for the theoretical framework of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Daoism's 2024 edition. With Shen Dao being comparable, his time could theoretically form a grounding for its development, or might have been finished by his time, if the Zhuangzi's indications are not chronologically accurate.

Translation

The Tao Te Ching has been translated into Western languages over 250 times, mostly to English, German, and French. According to Holmes Welch, "It is a famous puzzle which everyone would like to feel he had solved." The first English translation of the Tao Te Ching was produced in 1868 by the Scottish Protestant missionary John Chalmers, entitled The Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of the "Old Philosopher" Lau-tsze. It was heavily indebted to Julien's French translation and dedicated to James Legge, who later produced his own translation for Oxford's Sacred Books of the East.
Other notable English translations of the Tao Te Ching are those produced by Chinese scholars and teachers: a 1948 translation by linguist Lin Yutang, a 1961 translation by author John Ching Hsiung Wu, a 1963 translation by sinologist Din Cheuk Lau, another 1963 translation by professor Wing-tsit Chan, and a 1972 translation by Taoist teacher Gia-Fu Feng together with his wife Jane English.
Many translations are written by people with a foundation in Chinese language and philosophy who are trying to render the original meaning of the text as faithfully as possible into English. Some of the more popular translations are written from a less scholarly perspective, giving an individual author's interpretation. Critics of these versions claim that their translators deviate from the text and are incompatible with the history of Chinese thought. Russell Kirkland goes further to argue that these versions are based on Western Orientalist fantasies and represent the colonial appropriation of Chinese culture. Other Taoism scholars, such as Michael LaFargue and Jonathan Herman, argue that while they do not pretend to scholarship, they meet a real spiritual need in the West. These Westernized versions aim to make the wisdom of the Tao Te Ching more accessible to modern English-speaking readers by, typically, employing more familiar cultural and temporal references.

Challenges in translation

The Tao Te Ching is written in Classical Chinese, which generally poses a number of challenges for interpreters and translators. As Holmes Welch notes, the written language "has no active or passive, no singular or plural, no case, no person, no tense, no mood." Moreover, the received text lacks many grammatical particles which are preserved in the older Mawangdui and Beida texts, which permit the text to be more precise. Lastly, many passages of the Tao Te Ching are deliberately ambiguous.
Since there is very little punctuation in Classical Chinese, determining the precise boundaries between words and sentences is not always trivial. Deciding where these phrasal boundaries are must be done by the interpreter. Some translators have argued that the received text is so corrupted due to its original medium being bamboo strips linked with silk threads—that it is impossible to understand some passages without some transposition of characters.

Notable translations