The Wenzi in Light of the Commentaries by Xu Lingfu and Du Daojian

As a starting point for this investigation, the PI will provide an annotated English translation of the entire transmitted Wenzi. This task has not yet been accomplished. Until now, the only full translation of the work is the French rendition by Levi (2012). There are also partial translations by De Harlez (1891) into French, Kandel (1973) into German, Cleary (1992) into English and Le Blanc into French (2000). Their respective merits notwithstanding, neither of these works amounts to a full-blown annotated translation of the transmitted Wenzi.

The new annotated version will explicate the Wenzi’s relationship to other prominent texts in Chinese intellectual history, above all, the Laozi and the Huainanzi. While some of this work has already been done by scholars such as Ding (1999), Levi (2012), van Els (2018) and Ho (2004 and 2019) etc., issues such as the exact relationship between the Wenzi and the Huainanzi, as well as the role of the Laozi in the composition of the Wenzi remain controversial. Also, the relationship between the textus receptus and the Dingzhou-manuscript will be revisited. Next, the PI aims to translate the commentaries to the text by Xu Lingfu and Du Daojian. These two interpretations of the Wenzi have been chosen for several reasons.

First, they represent the only complete commentaries of the Wenzi while others have been either lost or transmitted only partially. Secondly, the exegetical endeavors of Xu and Du proved to be very influential in the reception history of the Wenzi. At the same time, the two Daoist masters operate with different exegetical techniques and, most importantly, provide a very different interpretation of the key elements of the text. For instance, for Xu Lingfu, the royal protagonist, King Ping, is King Ping of Zhou, whereas Du Daojian sees in him King Ping of Chu. Thus, in view of the differences between these historical figures and their historical epochs, the teaching promulgated in the Wenzi is respectively understood as responding to radically different political situations.

Finally, the exegesis of the Wenzi, which in the transmitted form (almost) exclusively consists of Laozi’s utterings, will be compared with the most representative early interpretations of the Laozi. This part of the investigation will help establish whether and how the Wenzi commentators were influenced by the Laozi exegesis. The study will shed new light on the interrelation between different strands within the early Chinese commentarial tradition.