敦煌寫本斯二八九號二三事

New Light on the Tun-huang Manuscript Stein 289

左景權(DZO CHING-CHUAN)

《中國文化研究所學報》 8卷1期 (1976/12) Pp. 87-97

https://doi.org/10.29708/JCS.CUHK.197612_8(1).0020

並列摘要

It is inevitable that erroneous interpretations should be given of Tun-huang manuscripts that are difficult to read, but even manuscripts that are clear to understand are ill treated by those who study them, either because their knowledge of the Chinese language or of Chinese culture is insufficient or because of carelessness. I have chosen manuscript Stein 289 (Giles Nos. 6158 and 6167) as an example of an easy text that has been badly treated. One part or another of this manuscript has been published or noted in each of the five following works: 1. Yabuki Keiki, Meisha yoin, with its ＂Kaisetsu＂; 2. -, Vol. 85 of the Taishô shinshû daizôkyô; 3. Lionel Giles, Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang in the British Museum; 4. Liu Ming-shu, Tun-huang i-shu tsung-mu so-yin (the Chinese equivalent of the preceding); 5. Kanaoka Shôkô, Tankô shutsudo bungaku bunken bunrui mokuroku 4. None of these four eminent scholars has really seen the manuscript for what it is. The recto (according to Giles's catalogue) of the manuscript bears two texts. The first, entitled Pao tz'u-mu shih ên-tê, is simply listed by all four scholars who say no more about it. Thus it need not concern us here. The description of the second text by Yabuki and Giles present many problems, while Liu Ming-shu ignores the text altogether, as if it did not exist. Kanaoka gives us more information, but he suggests a title too strange to be probable. He has obviously mispunctuated, as he does throughout his work. He mentions, in a parenthesis, that the text takes up ten columns, but, as becomes clear when we read the manuscript, the ＂title＂ he proposes is actually contained in the second column of the text! A second fact to be noted is that the text is neither a ＂miscellaneous note＂ nor a ＂composition＂ as Yabuki, Giles, and Kanaoka would have it, but rather a poem in hexameters. Since the poem is unknown, I have thought it interesting to reproduce it here. The verso of the manuscript is even more interesting. Both Yabuki and Giles classify the text as Buddhist, but this is questionable. Yabuki prints the entire text in the Taishô under title ＂The life of the fu-ch'ün Ts'un-hui,＂ but he later notes in the ＂Kaisetsu＂ to his Meisha yoin that it is in two parts: a biographical sketch and a eulogy. Giles makes the same remark in his catalogue. For Liu Ming-shu it is a Miao-chen tsan, but, as he says, ＂it also includes an account of biographical nature.＂ Kanaoka treats this as a eulogy of the fu-ch'ün Yin Ts'un-hui, and is thus in partial agreement with Giles. This again is questionable. Yabuki does not clearly state the name of-the fu-ch'ün. Giles tries to prove it is Yin: Liu Ming-shu comes out for Li; and Kanaoka, who knows Liu Ming-shu's work, prefers Giles's ＂Yin.＂ This, too, is questionable. Before clarifying these three questionable assertions, I have been obliged to present a new version of the text, since the version given in the Taishô is not only full of mispunctuations, but also full of inexact readings (as is the rest of Volume 85 of the Taishô). Here are my clarifications to the three questionable assertions: (1) The verso of the manuscript has nothing to do with Buddhism. (2) It does indeed contain two texts, but they concern one and the same person. The first text is a eulogy which was written on his commemorative portrait; the second an inscription buried in his tomb. (3) The family name of the man in question was Li; the two texts show this beyond a doubt. We have finished with manuscript Stein 289. Similar mistakes can be found elsewhere in the five works mentioned above and in other publications, but our purpose was only to illustrate the difficulties Tun-huang manuscripts present, even the easiest among them; we had no desire to discredit the important work already done. Still much more work remains to be accomplished.