Siku tiyao entry for Shenxian zhuan

Aaron Reich， Kun Li， Ning Luo

(威斯康辛大學(xué)麥迪遜分校東亞系,美國(guó)威斯康辛麥迪遜,53705；西南交通大學(xué)藝術(shù)與傳播學(xué)院,四川成都,610031)

SikutiyaoentryforShenxianzhuan

Aaron Reich， Kun Li， Ning Luo

(威斯康辛大學(xué)麥迪遜分校東亞系,美國(guó)威斯康辛麥迪遜,53705；西南交通大學(xué)藝術(shù)與傳播學(xué)院,四川成都,610031)

BiographiesofDivineImmortals[1]. 10juan.

Collected and Presented by the Liang Huai Salt Administration.

Compiled by Ge Hong葛洪[2](283-343 A.D.) of the Jin Dynasty (265-420 A.D.). This book, according to Ge’s own preface, it is said to have been composed after the completion of the Master Embracing Simplicity Inner Chapters (Baopuzi neipian 抱樸子·內(nèi)篇)[3], when his disciple Teng Sheng 滕升 asked about the existence of immortals[4]. Recorded in the text are altogether eighty-four individuals[5]. The preface names several hundred individuals that Qin Grand Master Ruan Cang 阮倉(cāng)[6](?) had recorded, and another seventy-one that Liu Xiang 劉向[7](77-6 B.C.) had compiled. Now we have recopied and collected together the immortals of old as seen in scriptures of immortals, prescriptions of Daoist medicine, the writings of various schools of thought, those spoken of by my late teacher, and those discussed by aged scholars to form ten juan.

The preface further claims that [the entries]Liu Xiang had listed were overly rudimentary, and Ge himself asserts these biographies are improvements over [Liu]Xiang’s[8]. Now in examining its [theShenxianzhuan’s]writings, [we find that]only the two entries for Rong Chenggong 容成公 and Peng Zu 彭祖[9]also appear in [Liu Xiang’s]BiographyofExemplaryImmortals(Liexianzhuan列仙傳), and that the remainder all supplement which were not yet included by Liu Xiang[10]. Examples contained in [the SXZ]such as the Yellow Emperor 黃帝 meeting Guang Chengzi 廣成子 and Lu Ao’s 盧敖 encountering Ruo Shi 若士 are both of which are parables of Zhuang Zhou 莊周, no different from the likes of Hong Meng 鴻蒙 and Yun Jiang 云將[11], who never actually existed. The king of Huainan 淮南, Liu An 劉安[12](179-122 B.C.), rebellion and suicide, Li Shaojun 李少君[13](2nd century BCE) dying of illness, are both included in theGrandScribe’sRecord(Shiji史記) andtheBookofHan(Hanshu漢書), and indeed there were actually no occurrence of either of them ascending to immortality, [yet]Hong without exception includes [them], [which is]unreasonable farfetched[14]. As for the so-called Xu You 許由 and Chao Fu 巢父, who ingested a yellow elixir left by the stones of Mount Ji 箕山 and are now living in Zhongyue, the central mountain, of modern-day, if these two people remained [alive]in the Jin times, then Ge would have seen them with his own eyes and recorded them, [which is]especially absurd[15].

Nevertheless, the “Biographies of Occult Methods”(“Fangshu zhuan”方術(shù)傳) inHouHanshuincluded Hu Gong 壺公, Ji Zixun 薊子訓(xùn), Liu Gen 劉根, Zuo Ci 左慈, Gan Shi 甘始, and Feng Junda 封君達(dá), all of which largely correspond with [their entries in]theSXZ. Therefore (we) suspect these entries were based on old writings, [as they are not]completely fabricated [by Ge Hong][16]; they were moreover handed down over a long period of time, and later became understood as historical facts. Poets of successive dynasties quoted them continuously so that it is not need to verify the validity of any individual piece.

All written records recordtenjuan, corresponded to the current edition, except in the “Record of Classics”(“Jingji zhi”經(jīng)籍志) ofSuishu隋書, [where]it is called Ge Hong’sLiexianzhuan, differing in name alone[17].Upon examining theNewandOldBooksofTang’s(Xintangshu新唐書 andJiutangshu舊唐書) respective renditions of Ge Hong’sShenxianzhuan, we know the current version of theRecordofSui,Suizhi隋志 was by chance a mistake; it is not that theShenxianzhuanhad two names.

This edition [in theSKQS]was published by Mao Jin 毛晉[18](1599—1659 A.D.). Pei Songzhi’s 裴松之[19](372-451 A.D.) commentary on the “Biography of Ancient Lord”(“Xianzhu zhuan”先主傳) from theRecordofShu,Shuzhi蜀志 quoted from a section on Li Yiji 李意其, a section on Dong Feng 董奉 from the commentary on the “Biography of Shi Xie”(“Shi Xie zhuan”士燮傳 and a section on Jie Xiang 介象 from the commentary on the “Biographies of Wu Fang, Liu Dun, Zhao Da”(“Wu Fang Liu Dun Zhao Da zhuan”吳范劉惇趙達(dá)傳). He considered what Ge Hong recorded came close to deluding the masses, but because Ge’s books and writings were so widely circulated, Pei Songzhi took up and chose several events [from Jie Xiang’s biography]and recorded them at the end of this section[20]. Of these quotations taken from these [Pei Songzhi’s]books, the commentary on theRecordoftheThreeKingdoms(Sanguozhi三國(guó)志, completed before 429)[21]is the oldest and corresponded to this edition[in theSKQS]. Then we come to know this is the original edition[22].

TheCollectedBooksofHanandWei(Hanweicongshu漢魏叢書)[23]includes another version[24], whose writings are for the most part identical, but it includes altogether 92 individuals. From the order in which the sections appear, it was compiled by putting together the citations [fromShenxianzhuan]inExtensiveRecordsoftheTaiping[Period](Taipingguangji太平廣記)[25]. As there are errors in some of the headings in [Taiping]guangji, and these are also seen in other works, it did not [directly]citeShenxianzhuan. As a result, this edition has quite a few mistakes and omissions[26].Just like the entries for Lu Ao 盧敖 and Ruo Shi 若士, in Li Shan’s 李善 commentary on theSelectionsofLiterature(Wenxuan文選), Jiang Yan’s 江淹ProsePoemsonParting(Biefu別賦), and Bao Zhao’s 鮑照AscenttoHeaven(Shengtianxing升天行), both [Lu Ao and Ruo Shi]are recorded; [and]all [of these sources]name Ge Hong’sSXZ, corresponded to this [theSKQS’s]edition[27]. Because theTaipingguangjidid not cite these entries, theHanweicongshuedition subsequently did not include them, which is adequate enough to prove it [theHanweicongshuedition]is not the complete version.

Original Chinese Text of the Siku tiyao entry

《神仙傳》十卷(兩淮鹽政采進(jìn)本)

晉葛洪撰。是書據(jù)洪自序,蓋于《抱樸子·內(nèi)篇》既成之后,因其弟子滕升問(wèn)仙人有無(wú)而作。所錄凡八十四人。序稱秦大夫阮倉(cāng)所記凡數(shù)百人,劉向所撰又七十一人。今復(fù)抄集古之仙者見(jiàn)于仙經(jīng)服食方百家之書,先師所說(shuō),耆儒所論,以為十卷。

又稱劉向所述,殊甚簡(jiǎn)略,而自謂此傳有愈于向。今考其書,惟容成公、彭祖二條與《列仙傳》重出,余皆補(bǔ)向所未載。其中如黃帝之見(jiàn)廣成子,盧敖之遇若士,皆莊周之寓言,不過(guò)鴻蒙云將之類,未嘗實(shí)有其人?；茨贤鮿仓\反自殺,李少君病死,具載《史記》、《漢書》,亦實(shí)無(wú)登仙之事,洪一概登載,未免附會(huì)。至謂許由、巢父服箕山石流黃丹,今在中岳中山,若二人晉時(shí)尚存,洪目睹而記之者,尤為虛誕。

然《后漢書·方術(shù)傳》載壺公、薊子訓(xùn)、劉根、左慈、甘始、封君達(dá)諸人,已多與此書相符。疑其亦據(jù)舊文,不盡偽撰,又流傳既久,遂為故實(shí)。歷代詞人,轉(zhuǎn)相沿用,固不必一一核其真?zhèn)我病?/p>

諸家著錄皆作十卷,與今本合,惟《隋書·經(jīng)籍志》稱為葛洪《列仙傳》,其名獨(dú)異。考新、舊唐書并作葛洪《神仙傳》,知今本《隋志》殆承上《列仙傳》贊之文,偶然誤刊,非書有二名也。

此本為毛晉所刊。考裴松之《蜀志·先主傳》注,引李意其一條,《吳志·士燮傳》注引董奉一條,《吳范劉惇趙達(dá)傳》注引介象一條,并稱葛洪所記,近為惑眾,其書文頗行世,故撮舉數(shù)事,載之篇末。是征引此書,以《三國(guó)志》注為最古。然悉與此本相合,知為原帙。

《漢魏叢書》別載一本,其文大略相同,而所載凡九十二人。核其篇第,蓋從《太平廣記》所引鈔合而成?！稄V記》標(biāo)題,間有舛誤,亦有與他書復(fù)見(jiàn),即不引《神仙傳》者,故其本頗有訛漏。即如盧敖若士一條,李善注《文選》江淹《別賦》鮑照《升天行》,凡兩引之,俱稱葛洪《神仙傳》,與此本合。因《太平廣記》未引此條,《漢魏叢書》本遂不載之,足以證其非完本矣。

注釋：

[1]Scholars have translated the title in a number of ways. Robert Campany, one of the leading authorities on theShenxianzhuan, renders it asTraditionsofDivineTranscendents(2002), which is also used throughout theEncyclopediaofTaoism(2008). In the present translation of theSikutiyaoentry, we have opted forBiographiesofDivineImmortals, following Stephen Durrant’s entry in theIndianaCompanion(1986). There is no complete version of theBiographiesofDivineImmortals,Shenxianzhuan神仙傳 (hereafterSXZ) in the Daoist Canon. Instead, most scholars refer to theLongweibishu龍威祕(mì)書 edition (1794, reconstructed largely fromTaipingguangji太平廣記 or to the Ming version included in theSikuquanshu四庫(kù)全書 (1782). See Benjamin Penny (2008),pp.887-888. Peter Bumbacher argues that the text was written before 317/8. See Bumbacher (2000),p.732.

[2]Various dates ranging from 253 and 363 have been indicated for Ge Hong in the past, but most scholars agree on those marked here,pp.283-343. Ge’s style name is Zhi Chuan 稚川, and one of his epithets was the Master Embracing Simplicity, Bao Puzi 抱樸子, which doubled as the title of one of his most well-known work. He heralds from Danyang Gourong 丹陽(yáng)句容, modern day Jiangsu Province. His histories derive from several texts, includingJinshu晉書,Luofuji羅浮記,Jinzhongxingshu晉中興書,Daoxuezhuan道學(xué)傳 andMasterEmbracingSimplicityOuterChapters,BaopuziWaipian抱樸子·外篇. To posterity Ge is known as an encyclopedia writer in the Jin, reportedly writing more than seventy books, though most of them have been lost. Scholars believe Ge was over 30 years old by the time he wrote theSXZ. See Fabrizio Pregadio (2008),pp.442-443 and Chen (2008),p.318.

[3]Ge Hong’s most famous work, theBaopuzi is divided into Inner Chapters mainly devoted to descriptions and comments of religious practices, and Outer Chapters concerning “discourses of the literati”(rushuo儒說(shuō)). See Pregadio (2008),p.215.

[4]This section of theSikutiyaoentry derives from the introduction toSXZ, which reveals the relation between it andBaopuzineipian. Chen Shangjun asserts that Ge wrote the work in response to Confucian scholars who had criticized Daoism, hoping that it would serve as evidence from the existence of immortal beings. See Chen (2008),p.318.

[5]Liang Su 梁肅 (753-793A.D.), a Buddhist scholar of the Tang, reports in his “Shenxian zhuan lun”神仙傳論 (“On the Shenxian zhuan”;QuanTangwen[Zhonghua shuju reprint of the 1814 edition,p.519.10a-11a]that theSXZoriginally had 190 biographies while modern versions have only ninety or so. See Penny (2008),p.887.

[6]The dates for Ruan Cang’s life remain unknown, but it is reported that he wrote a book that does not survive namedLiexiantu列仙圖, which recorded more than seven hundred immortals, ranging from Huang Di 黃帝, Yao 堯, Shun 舜, Yu 禹, and others, up to the Qin period. In Eastern Han, The Emperor of Zhang 章帝 (58-88A.D.) granted it to Liu Cang 劉倉(cāng)(c.29-83A.D.), but this version lost. See Chen (2008),p.319.

[7]Liu Xiang, style name is Zi Zheng 子政, was a famous writer in the Han Dynasty. He wrote theLiexianzhuan, which reportedly had originally recorded seventy-two immortals, though now it lists only seventy. See Chen (2008),p.319.

[8]Durrant notes that Ge’s entries are indeed much more detailed than those of theLiexianzhi, wherein the longest biographies are rarely more than two thousand words, and some consist of only one or two lines of text. See Durrant (1986),p.678 and Chen (2008),p.320.

[9]Ge Hong expanded the story of Peng Zu from the seventy-eight characters of theLiexianzhuanto more than 1500 in theSXZ. See Chen (2008),p.320.

[10]The additional immortals can be divided into two types. The first kind includes those who lived before the Western Han that Liu Xiang did not list, such as Guang Chengzi 廣成子, Ruo Shi 若士 and Bai Shisheng 白石生. The second type includes individuals who lived in the periods between Liu Xiang and Ge Hong, such as Zhang Daoling 張道陵, Zuo Ci 左慈, Ge Xuan 葛玄.

[11]Hong Meng and Yun Jiang were completely fictitious characters. They appeared in aZhuangzi莊子 chapter entitled “Zaiyou在宥”, wherein Yun Jiang travels to the east and meets Hong Meng while passing by the Fu Yao Tree. See Chen (2008),p.319.

[12]Liu An’s suicide was recorded inShijiandHanshu. TheSXZstates that Liu An had inclinations toward Daoism and consumes an elixir of immortality to rise to Heaven. See Chen (2008),p.321.

[13]Li Shaojun was among the many Masters of Methods,fangshi方士 invited to the court of Emperor Wu of Han, Han Wu Di 漢武帝, who had a strong interest in proto-Daoist longevity techniques. Several texts, for exampleShijixiaowubenji史記·孝武本紀(jì),Shijifengchanshu史記·封禪書, andHanshujiaosizhi漢書·郊祀志, record that he died of illness; however, it is recorded that Empire Wu maintained that Li Shaojun ascended to Heaven, and it is this latter account that appears inSXZ. See Chen (2009),p.320.

[14]The persons ofSXZcan be divided into two types: fictional and historical. Huang Di and Guang Chengzi are examples of the first type, while Liu An and Li Shaojun are examples of the second.

[15]The stories of Xu You and Chao Fu are not actually recorded inSXZ, only their names appear in the entry of Wei Shuqin 衛(wèi)叔卿, where it states that he played game with the two of them. Because Wei Shuqin lived in the period of Empire Wu of Han, and Xu You and Chao Fu were contemporary with Yao 堯, Chen Shangjun concludes that readers should be skeptical towards the content ofSXZ. See Chen (2008),p.321.

[16]Due to similarities between theFangshuliezhuanandSXZ, Chen Shangjun and other scholars generally conclude that Ge Hong probably functioned more as an editor than an author, drawing together stories from a variety of sources. Ge Hong states in his introduction that he learned of these stories via external sources, which corroborates this interpretation of Ge Hong’s editorial role in the production of the text. Chen suspects that it shares similar root sources with those Ge used to compile theBaopuzi. See Chen (2008),p.322.

[17]The attribution of theSXZto Ge Hong remains consistent from the Sui period onward; however, the reference to the text in the bibliographical treatise ofSuishuis the most problematic. It reads: “Liexianzhuan,tenjuan, compiled by Ge Hong.”SeeSuishu隋書 (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1973), 33:979. See also Penny, “Text and Authorship,”p.174.

[18]This is the version included in theSikuquanshu. While theSXZwas lost during the Southern Song, three editions—each in 10juanand each attributing authorship to Ge Hong—appear at the end of the Ming within a period of seven years. The third of these was printed during thechongzhenperiod (1628-1644A.D.) by Mao Jin in hisJiguge汲古閣. For more on Mao Jin, see Campany (2002),p.385. The originalSXZhad tenjuan, which is confirmed by a number of external sources. Although some material seems to have been lost during the Song, theSXZstill divides into tenjuan. See Chen (2008),p.323.

[19]Pei Songzhi was a scholar of the Former Song 前宋 who doubted the veracity of the biographies contained in theSXZbut cited them nonetheless in his writings. See Durrant (1986).

[20]This sentence of our translation is adapted from Benjamin Penny (1996),p.166.

[21]Pei Songzhi completed hisSanguozhizhuin 429, approximately 100 years after theSXZappeared; it is the oldest book to cite theSXZ. See Chen (2008),p.322.

[22]Chen Shangjun notes his discrepancy with the editors ofSikuquanshu, stating that Mao Jin’s version could not be the same as the original book due to textual variants. He notes that the numbers of immortals differ across versions.SikuQuanshu’shas eighty-four individuals, while Liang Shu’s 梁肅 (759-793A.D.)Shenxianzhuanlun神仙傳論 is said to include 190. In the introduction toXianyuanbianzhu仙苑編珠, compiled by Wang Songnian 王松年 (fl. the Five Dynasties period), he states theSXZincluded seventy-three individuals. TheDaozang道藏 compiled in the Ming Dynasty did not include theSXZ, and theDaozangquejingmulu道藏闕經(jīng)目錄 states that theSXZhad been lost, facts which attest to its scarcity during the Ming dynasty. See Chen (2008),pp.323-324.

[23]Bumbacher notes thatSikutiyaospeaks simply of the “Han Wei congshu,” yet thecongshubearing this title and having been published during the Ming Wanli period did not contain theSXZ. He suggests that either theGuangHanWeicongshu, published in 1592, or theZengdingHanWeicongshu, published during the Qingganlongperiod (1736-1795A.D.) must be meant, believing the former being the more likely one. See Bumbacher (2000), 800, note 296.

[24]There are two version ofSXZstill extant: one in theHanweiCongshu, and the version published by Mao Jin, which is the one included in theSKQS. The primary difference between the two versions is the numbers of individuals each records. TheHanweicongshurecords ninety-two individuals, while theSikuQuanshuversion only includes eighty-four, with only seventy-seven being the same across both versions. Among these seventy-seven are further variants in content. See Chen (2008),p.325.

[25]TheTaipingguangjiis a large collection of supernatural events throughout ancient history. One of the so-called “four large books” (Songsidashu宋四大書) of the Northern Song 北宋 (960-1126A.D.), it was compiled on imperial order by Li Fang 李昉, Hu Meng 扈蒙, Li Mu 李穆 and other members of the National University (taixue 太學(xué)) during the years 977 and 978. See Cheng (1995).

[26]We have adapted part of this section from Penny’s translation. See Penny (1996),p.183.

[27]Li Shan’s commentary onWenxuan文選 cites theSXZa total of fifteen times. Jiang Yan’sBiefu, Bao Zhao’sShengtianxing, and also Jiang Yan’sGuonongnongyouxianall cite the stories of Lu Ao and Ruo Shi, which also appear in the Mao Jin version. The version ofHanweiCongshudoes not include these entries, which proves thatHanweiCongshudoes not include the entire version of theSXZ. Chen Shangjun indicates that Mao Jin’s version could be a fragment of a Song Dynasty edition. Yu Jiaxi 余嘉錫(1883-1955A.D.) argues that there were two editions, but that Mao Jin was more comprehensive and careful with his editing. See Chen (2008),p.326.