熊铁基

一、汉代对《老子》的改造

我认为汉代全面改造了先秦典籍，而汉人对《老子》一书的改造更为典型，因为既有传世的一些“古本”，又有新出土的帛书本和竹简本，材料相当丰富。从各种本子的比较看，文字的不同是多方面的，而且不只一次的变来变去。其篇章、结构的变化也很明显，传世本《老子》的基本面貌，是在汉代定型的。《老子》书名变成《道德经》，也应该是在汉代。

《老子》文本究竟多少字，许多本子都不相同，有五千多的，也有4999的，除开“也”、“之”、“其”、“夫”等字有无之外，也有整句增减不同的，还有一些佚文，不可能也没有必要探究很具体的数字。文句不同之存在，以帛书本和传世本相比较，差异的文句达一百四十多句（参尹振环《帛书老子释析》）。的确是有一字之差，文义廻异的情况，很难说哪是《老子》本义，哪是后人的篡改。这些不同可以比较出来，不同的原因都很值得研究。从帛书本到传世本的比较看，文句不同的变化应该主要在汉代，是汉人所为，因为汉代的《老子河上公章句》与王弼的《老子注》基本上一致（当然这两个本子本身在流传过程中前前后后也多少有些变化）。汉人对《老子》文句的改造，有无意的，也有有意而为的，传诵或者抄写并非那么“规范”，多或者少个把“也”、“之”等虚词、助词，恐怕在有些人眼中算不了什么，错误或者增减一两个字在所难免，有意改字或者增删，那就涉及到更改人的思想意图，甚至与当时的时代思潮有一定关系，这在《河上注》与《想尔注》中有不少事例（许多研究均有指出，此不列举）。

再说篇章结构，帛书本是“德经”在前“道经”在后，与传世本的顺序刚好颠倒。西汉末年的《老子指归论》的顺序与帛书同，而东汉（至少是中后期）的《老子河上公章句》与传世本相同，这个变化是在汉代完成的，主要篇幅章结构是在汉代定型的。至于《韩非子》的《解老》、《喻老》，新出土的郭店竹简本的篇章，无论怎样理解，都不影响而且只能证明汉代定型之说。

《老子》书名《道德经》，也是从汉代开始逐渐形成的。《老子》在汉以前已经成书，帛书本、竹简本《老子》的出土是为物证，汉初人称之为《老子》，所以《史记》、《汉书》中普遍用的是“读《老子》”、“问《老子》”、“好《老子》”、“通《老子》”等等，皆以《老子》为书名，《汉书•艺文志》著录《老子邻氏经传》、《老子傅氏经说》、《老子徐氏经说》、《刘向说老子》四部，已有《老子》传人尊为经典之意。《太平御览》191引杨雄《蜀王本纪》，有“老子为关尹喜著《道德经》”一句，其可靠性有多大且不说，也是西汉末年之事了。到了东汉时期，分别有《道经》、《德经》之说，《想尔注》中有记载，所以颜师古注《汉书》时广泛使用了“《老子道经》之言”、“《老子德经》之言”的注文。从东汉到魏晋，随着道教的形成和发展，《老子道德经》之书名就这样形成了，这也是汉人之所为。

二、汉人对《老子》创造性的诠释

对《老子》的诠释，现在能见到的最明显最早的是韩非的《解老》、《喻老》，他是用讲道理、引述事实的方法来进行诠释，解说《老子》，当然主要是表达他自己思想。这种方法在汉代得到广泛运用，人们根据《老子》中某些文字来表达自己的思想，《淮南子》就是其中突出的例子之一，据统计，81章《老子》有70章的文字被明确引用过（参考蒙文通《老子徵文》），而其中的《道应训》，完全是另一篇《解老》、《喻老》，全篇56段文字有53段的结语都是引用《老子》的文句，实际上也应该是一种形式的《老子》注。当然和儒家注解《五经》一样，经、传分开和章句形式的《老子》注都有，其诠释的内容非常丰富，而且有很大的创造性，重要的可以略举一、二。

首先，就是“道论”的发挥。“道”是《老子》一书根本性的内容，其“道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物”的思想，确实是一种宇宙生成的思想。那么，什么是“道”？它如何创造天地万物？《老子》虽有几句高度概括的文字，但是“微妙玄通，深不可识”。所以人们就可以、也需要“多为之辞，博为之说”。《淮南子》首篇《原道训》就试图给道作一翻描述性的说明，同时又指出其性质、作用及其对人世的意义等等（文字较长，不烦详引）。严遵讲《老子》之“指归”，作了较具体的解说；例如讲道如何生万物：“故诸有形之徒皆属于物类。物有所宗，类有所祖。天地，物之大者，人次之矣。夫天人之生也，形因于气，气因于和，和因于神明，神明因于道德，道德因于自然：万物以存。”把虚无之道如何生出实有之物，作了比“一生二，二生三，三生万物”略为具体的表述，加入了“神明”、“太和”、“气”这样一些概念，并且在各个地方反复加以说明。《河上注》逐句解释《老子》之言：“道始生者一也”，“一生阴与阳也”，“阴阳生和、清、浊三气，分为天地人也”，“天地人共生万物也，天施地化，人长养之”……。解释“冲气以为和”一句说：“万物中皆有元气，得以和柔，若胸中有藏，骨中有髓，草木中有空虚与气通，故得久生也。”这些都成为后人理解“道化万物”的依据。

道的基本特性，虚无、清静、自然等等，在汉人的注释中有很多的阐述，紧密联系社会、政治、人生，既有理论性的阐释，如《老子指归》中对“道化万物”之反复论述，又有具体的解说，如《河上注》之处处提醒。如汉人在各种论述中谈治国、治身问题，有时是身、国并重，有时或侧重论治国之无为、清静，或侧重讲如何治身，治身又包括身、心两方面，治身的发展就成为养身之术和长生之道，以及心性之学。这些都在汉人“解老”中充分体现出来。

其次，汉人的《老子注》，虽然一切都是围绕“道论”展开的。但有一些比较具体的内容，例如关于对仁义礼乐的态度、关于“无为”的理解等等，人们借《老子》而发挥，也是有所不同的。《老子》中是否反对“仁义”，是一个值得讨论的问题，可否就“失德而后仁，失仁而后义……”来肯定它反对“仁义”？那不一定，如果按韩非《解老》之引文“失道而后失德，失德而后失仁，失仁而后失义，失义而后失礼”及其解释，那主要是说明几者之间的关系，仁、义、礼不过是道和德的功效和表现，失掉了道德，就失掉了其功效和表现。在韩非那里，只对“礼”（或者儒家之繁礼、虚礼）进行了非议（见其释“礼者……而乱之首乎”。）从《老子》本文较难看出其反对仁义，通行本的“绝仁弃义”，在竹简本中恰恰没有。至少应该说，在仁义问题上，老子与“剽剥儒墨”的庄子是不同的。

第三，汉人作注，依据的本子不同，会引出不同的理解和发挥。例如，通行本57章有一句“法令滋彰，盗贼多有”，河上公本、帛书本以及竹简本，均为“法物滋彰”，严遵就按照“罚峻刑严”的“法令”发挥，而河上公则解释说：“珍好之物滋生彰著，则农事废，饥寒并至，故盗贼多有也”。再例如，“无以为”和“无不为”的不同，“有静”与“不争”的区别等等（参考《帛书老子释析》），这些问题既关系到文本，也关系到如何理解阐释。而汉以后的人大多是按汉人的定本和解释而发挥的。

三、汉人“注老”和“解老”的意义

首先，汉人“注老”、“解老”形成了“汉《老子》”，后世所见到的主要是“汉《老子》”，和其它先秦典籍一样，传世本是经过汉人整理和改造的。其改造的痕迹比其它典籍更为清楚，除了有先秦的《韩非子》、《文子》以及其它黄老著作可作比较之外，当今新出土的帛书和竹简《老子》以及其它道家文献更是有力的实证。

其次，汉人注老、解老，既有传统思想作为依据，又受汉代时代思潮发展的影响。当时的道家传统思想主要有两个大的系统：一个是可以称为“黄老之学”的系统；一个是以《庄子》为代表的庄学系统。汉注《老子》中有这两种思想的表现，甚至有时显出某种矛盾，例如对待“仁义”的态度就是如此。而当时的时代思潮的影响，也是十分明显的：汉初实行黄老政治，汉初《老子》实际是“黄老”的同义语；东汉普遍注重养生，《老子》的“长生久视”之道就得到大力的敷陈;道教产生之后，五千文成为其主要经典，《想尔注》应运而生，在汉人一般“道论”的基础上，把“道”人格化和神格化，“一者道也”，“一散形为气，聚形为太上老君”，老子成了“道”的化身．

第三，汉人所注《老子》及其阐释，直接影响着后世各种思想理论的发展．以后的各种发挥，都是在汉人阐释基础上进行的。例如，魏晋玄学倡导虚无，王弼之注《老子》是突出表现，倡“以无为本”，不就是得到汉人论述的启发吗？正如宋儒晁说之所说：“王弼《老子道德经二卷》真得老子之学欤，盖严君平《指归》之流也。……”严遵论虚无，确实论得相当详尽（此不列举）。

汉人对《老子》的阐释，有较大的创造性。

From “Lao-tzu” to “Tao Te Ching”

Xiong Tieji

1.alteration of “Lao-tzu” in Han Dynasty

In my view, Han Dynasty scholars altered pre-Qin classics in an all-around way, and the case of “Lao-tzu” is a typical example. As to the text of “Lao-tzu”, we have ample materials to refer to: there are “ancient versions” handed down from history, there are also newly unearthed versions copied on silk and bamboo slips. Comparison shows the text of “Lao-tzu” varies from one version to anther and had evidently been altered for more than one time. The alteration of section order and structure is also evident. We can conclude that the established version of “Lao-tzu”took shape in Han Dynasty, and it was also in Han Dynasty that the text was retitled “Tao te ching”.

The overall number of characters  of “Lao-tzu”varies from one version to another. Some count more than 5000, while one version counts 4999. In these versions, appearance of functional words like “也”,“之”，“其”，“夫” differ greatly, and sometimes the lengths of whole sentences are different. The number of missing characters is reasonably hard to calculate. As to the difference of wording, if we compare the silk book version with the established version, we may find that 140 sentences are different. (Yin Zhenhuan:“Annotation of the Silk Book Version of  ‘Lao-tzu’”) In some cases, two corresponding sentences only differ in one character, and their meanings are poles apart, and it is hard to decide which one conveys the original meaning of Lao-tzu, or which one had been revised by scholars of later ages. These differences in wording could be found through comparison and reasons behind these differences are subject to in-depth analysis .

Comparing the silk book version with the established version, we have an impression that the wording differences of different versions were created by Han Scholars, because the texts of “Philological Study of ‘Lao-tzu’ by Heshanggong” of Han and “Annotation of ‘Lao-tzu’” by Wang Bi were basically the same. (Of course these two versions also experienced more or less alteration in history.) The alteration of “Lao-tzu” by Han scholars may be intentional or unintentional. At that time the teaching and coping of books might not be “standardized”. Possibly in the eyes of some scholars the addition and deletion of functional words and auxiliary words like “也”and “之” was innocuous. As a result, errors and addition or deletion of one or two characters was inevitable. Those intentional alterations, additions and deletions are connected with the thought and motive of the scholars, even with the current of thought of their ages. There are many examples to confirm this in Heshanggong’s book and “Laozi xiang’er zhu”.(Relative studies are ample and no further details are called for.)

Now let's take a look at another point, section order and structure. In the silk book version, the section “Te ching ” is placed in front of “Tao ching”. The order in the established version is the opposite. The section order in “Essence of ‘Lao-tzu’”（“Laozi zhiguilun”）written in the final years of Western Han Dynasty is the same as the silk book version, while the order in “Annotation of ‘Lao-tzu’by Heshanggong” written in Eastern Han Dynasty (at least written in the middle and final ages of Eastern Han) is the same as the established version. Obviously this change in section order and the change in structure were made in Han Dynasty. As to the chapters of  “Jielao” and “Yulao” of  “Hanfeizi” as well as the bamboo slip version newly unearthed in Guodian, no matter how we difine them, they are no denial of but proof for the point that this change took shape in Han Dynasty.

There is no doubt that it was in Han Dynasty that “Lao-tzu” was given the name “Tao te ching”, and this change was a gradual process. “Lao-tzu” had been finished in book form before Han—this is convincingly proved by the unearthed silk book and bamboo slip versions . In the early ages of Han people called the book “Lao-tzu”, consequently it was recorded as “Lao-tzu” in “Record of A Historian ” and “History of Han”. In these two books there are numerous phrases like “read ‘Lao-tzu’”, “ask about ‘Lao-tzu’”, “like studying ‘Lao-tzu’”and “well-versed in the study of ‘Lao-tzu’ ”. Four books listed in the chapter “Books” of “History of Han”, namely “Laozi lishi zhuan”,“Laozi fushi jingshuo”,“Laozi xushi jingshuo” and  “Interpretation of ‘Lao-tzu’ by Liu Xiang”, implicitly regard “Lao-tzu” as “ching” or canon. Chapter 191 of  “Taping Imperial Encyclopedia”  has quoted a sentence from “Story of the King of Shu” by Yang Xiong, it says “Lao-tzu wrote  ‘Tao te ching’ at the request of Guanyi Xi.” Whether this quotation is reliable is another question, the point is “Story of the King of Shu” was written in the final years of Western Han. In Eastern Han, the titles “Tao ching” and “Te ching” began to appear in the books of scholars and this fact is backed up by the recording of  “Laozi xiang’er zhu”. When Tang Dynasty scholar Yan Shigu annotated “History of Han”, he extensively wrote such words as “sentences in ‘Tao ching’” and  “sentences in ‘Te ching’”. From Eastern Han to Wei and Jin Dynasties, with the shaping and development of  Taoist Religion, the book title “Tao te ching by Lao-tzu” was eventually established. This change undoubtedly was first made by Han scholars.

2.the creative interpretation of “Lao-tzu” by Han scholars

Among the extant interpretive works on “Lao-tzu”, the earliest and most distinct are the chapters “Jielao” and “Yulao” of “Hanfezi” by Han Fei. In these two chapters Han Fei explained the theory of “Lao-tzu” and advanced his thoughts by drawing facts and reasoning things out. This method of his was extensively employed later by Han scholars , who often quoted from “Lao-tzu” to develop their own opinions. One typical example is “Huainanzi”. Statistics show that 70 chapters of the total 81 of “Lao-tzu” had conspicuously been quoted by “Huainanzi”.(Meng Wentong: “Laozi zhengwen”) The chapter “Daoyingxun” may well be seen as another “Yulao” or  “Jielao”. The writer of “Daoyingxun”concluded 53 passages of the total 56 with quotations from“Lao-tzu”, so the chapter is just an annotation of “Lao-tzu” in another form.Similar to how Confucians annotated “ Five classics”, annotative works on “Lao-tzu” appear in different forms. There are also philological studies or “zhangju” and   “zhuan”,in which the lines of the “ching” and annotative lines (“zhuan”) are clearly divided . The content of these annotations is rich and highly creative, here I just give several representative examples.

First, the developing of the “Tao” theory. Tao is the basic content of “Lao-tzu”. His thought of “Tao gave birth to the One, the One gave birth successively to two things, three things, up to ten thousand” is undoubtedly about the creation and shaping of the universe. But what is Tao? How did Tao create the universe and all things on earth? The description of this in “Lao-tzu” is very brief and “subtle, abstruse, mysterious and penetrating”. This consequently leaves room for scholars’ “elaboration on the topic”.The first chapter of “Huainanzi” “What is Tao”(“yuandaoxun”) intends to give a more specific description of Tao and at the same time point out Tao’s nature, functions and meaning to human life. (The original text is lengthy and here I’ll not quote it.) Yan Zun also made a relatively concrete interpretation of Tao in his “Essence of ‘Lao-tzu’”. He described how Tao created things on earth as this : “So all things that take form have their origins and ancestors. The sky and the earth are the greatest of things, and human beings follow. The making of the sky and human beings followed ‘qi’,‘qi’ followed harmony, harmony followed spirit, spirit followed Tao and ‘te’, Tao and ‘te’ follow their own way as it is, thus all things survived.” His description of how the empty and intangible Tao created concrete things is comparatively a little more specific and has employed concepts like “spirit”, “supreme harmony” and “qi”, which are explained repeatedly in different sections of the book. “Annotation of ‘Lao-tzu’ by Heshanggong” interpretes “Lao-tzu” sentence by sentence. It says: “The One refers to Tao as it was born.” “The One gave birth to ying and yang.” “Yin and yang gave birth to three ‘qi’, namely harmonious ‘qi’, clear ‘qi’ and turbid ‘qi’ , which respectively take form in the sky, the earth and human beings.” “The sky, the earth and human beings combined gave birth to all things on earth. The sky and the earth create them and human beings foster them.” When explaining “It is on this blending of ‘qi’ that their harmony depends” , the book says:“Original ‘qi’ exists in all things and thus all things attain harmony and flexibility. This is just like guts in pectoral cavity, marrow in  bones, or like hollow in grass and trees through which the air could flow. Thus things could survive. ” All these provided basis for later scholars to understand how “ Tao created all things.”

The basic natures of Tao are empty, intangible, quiet and natural. These natures are elaborated by Han scholars in their annotative works on “Lao-tzu”. These works are closely connected with the society, politics as well as life. Some are theoretic, e.g. the explanation of  “how Tao created things” in “the Essence of Lao-tzu”. Some are concrete, e.g. the argument in “Annotation of ‘Lao-tzu’ by Heshanggong ”. These books deal not only with principles of government but also with self-cultivation. Some of the books lay equal stress on both aspects, some lay stress on one aspect and analyze the meaning of “no doing” and “attaining quietness” to administering a country or methods of practicing self-cultivation. Self-cultivation includes physiological and psychological cultivation, and later people developed health-keeping and rejuvenation techniques as well as “xinxing” theories. All these are fully demonstrated by Han scholars in their interpretations of “Lao-tzu”.

Second, although all the interpretive works on “Lao-tzu” by Han scholars revolve around the Tao theory, some have content that is relatively concrete, e.g. attitudes toward benevolence, uprightness, ritual and music and understanding of “no doing”. These scholars developed the theory of “Lao-tzu” in their respective ways. Whether “Lao-tzu” is against benevolence and uprightness is a question that demands discussion. The book says, “After Tao was lost, then came morality (‘te’), After morality was lost, then came uprightness. After uprightness was lost, then came ritual.” Yet it is hard for us to conclude from this single statement that Lao-tzu was against benevolence and uprightness. The corresponding text of this part quoted by Han Fei in his “Yulao” is different in wording, it says:“The loss of morality followed the loss of Tao. The loss of benevolence followed the loss of morality. The loss of  uprightness followed the loss of benevolence. The loss of ritual followed the loss of uprightness.” This quotation and Han Fei’s interpretation of it mainly deal with the relationship between the listed concepts. In Han Fei’s eyes, benevolence, uprightness and ritual are merely the functions and manifestation of Tao and “te”.After Tao and “te” are lost, their functions and manifestation no longer exist. Han Fei only criticized “ritual” or the red tape and flashy rituals of Confucians. (See his interpretation of “Rituals…are the main cause of disorder.”) The original text of “Lao-tzu” shows no distinct negative attitude torward benevolence and uprightness. The phrase “eliminate benevolence and abandon uprightness” that is found in the established version is absent from the bamboo slip version. From these we can at least conclude that there is a distance between Lao-tzu and Zhuang-tzu’s attitudes torward benevolence and uprightness —Zhuangtzu strongly criticized Confucianism and the Mohist School.

Third, Han scholars based their interpretive works on different versions of “Lao-tzu” and reasonably and different understanding. One example, Chapter 57 of the established version says:“The more laws and decrees are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be.” Here “laws and decrees” are written as “treasurable things” in Heshanggong’s version, the silk book version and the bamboo slip version. Yan Zun based his understanding of this sentence on “laws and decrees” and emphasized  “strict laws and punishment”. Heshanggong’s interpretation of this sentence is naturally different. He said: “The more treasurable things there are, the more thieves and bandits there will be, as farm work is neglected and starvation and cold would follow.” Other examples of wording differences are “nothing to be done” and “everything is done”, “quietness dominates” and “no struggling”, etc. (Refer to “Interpretation of the Silk Book Version of ‘Lao-tzu’.”) Problems of this kind are connected with difference of version as well as the scholars’ understanding of Lao-tzu’s thought. Most scholars after Han based their research on the established version—the established version was edited by Han scholars.

To sum up，the established version of “Lao-tzu” was edited and altered by Han scholars. Han scholars based their annotation and interpretation of “Lao-tzu” on traditional thoughts and were subject to the influence of the current of thought of their  ages. Their works directly influenced various thoughts and theories that were developed in later centuries.