Fifty One Tales by Lord Dunsany

Dunsany has to be one of my favourite all time authors, unlike Wells and Thackery though he wasn't nearly as prolific so I'm trying to savour his remaining works for as long as I can. This means that I only buy lovely old editions of his work when I find them cheap on ebay. Recently I managed to find a beautiful, apparently signed, second edition of Fifty One Tales for £10. (Usually the reprints go for more than that.)

I have to say I think it is my favourite short story collection to date. The tales are more glimpses or thoughts than actual stories. But they are all very evocative. The stories collected here all tended to deal with death and decay, the transience of all things, particularly man and cities. There were also several stories with references to Pan, which were brilliant, though far more hopeful than the rest. There was a lovely little tale about a Puritan who tried to ban dancing because it led to sex and how the devil came and claimed him at the end and thanked him for doing his work. There was a conversation between a worm and an angel, pagan sacrifices at Stonehenge, dinner with death, mistaking fame for notoriety and so many other wonderful things. I wish I could copy it all out, but I'll just write the first story. If you've not read any Dunsany you should, he's simply rather perfect.

The Assignation
FAME singing in the highways and trifling as she sang, with sordid adventures, passed the poet by.
And still the poet made for her little chaplets of song to deck her forehead in the courts of time : and still she wore instead the worthless garlands, that boisterous citizens flung to her in the ways, made out of perishable things.
And after awhile whenever these garlands died the poet came to her with his chaplets of song; and still she laughed at him and wore the worthless wreaths, though they always died in the evening.
And one day in his bitterness the poet rebuked her, and said to her: "Lovely Fame, even in the highways and the byways you have not forborne to laugh and shout and jest with worthless men, and I have toiled for you and dreamed for you and you mock me and pass me by."
And fame turned her back on him and walked away, but in departing she looked over her shoulder and smiled at him as she had not smiled before, and, almost speaking in a whisper, said;
"I will meet you in the graveyard at the back of the Workhouse in a hundred years."

Reading the Chuang-tzu in the Tang dynasty by Shiyi Yu

Reading the Chuang-tzu in the Tang dynasty: The commentary of Ch’eng Hsuan-ying (fl. 631-652) by Shiyi Yu

I thought that it would be a good idea to read some more books that were specifically about Taoism during the Tang period. Yu’s book looks at Cheng’s commentary on Chuang-tzu (Zhuang Zi). I am rather embarrassed to admit that I’ve not actually read Zhuang Zi yet. I started to pick up the “classics” but just don’t find philosophy all that appealing and then decided I wanted to wait till I could read a dual language copy, and this year I’ve just been too busy and haven’t gotten around to it. I feel like I really should, I think I probably would have gotten more out of this book if I had read the text. But still it was quite an interesting insight into Taoist thought of the time, and the interactions between Taoist and Buddhist ideas. The book attempts to figure out how the Zhuang Zi was read and viewed during the Tang by medieval Taoists.

Yu begins by looking at the classification of Taoism and Taoist books. It is interesting to show the controversy, and the different interpretations between Taoists, Buddhists and Imperial librarians as to what should be included in the catalogue. Chen Luan, a Buddhist, complains that among Taoist works are included Taoist scriptures, hagiographies, talismans, sacred charts and treatises he also accuses the Taoists of “snatching” 884 scrolls “listed under the heading [of Taoist Books] in the bibliographical section of the Han Shu and put them under the heading of Taoist scriptures and treatises” (18-19). He questions the validity at all when classical philosophical works, such as Mencius, Han Fei Zi and Huai Nan Zi are included; he also complains that medieval Taoist texts are not included in this list.

Yu also mentions the transmission in audience for the Zhuang Zi during the Tang he states that in the Wei-chin period it’s audience was “a group of high class disinterested philosophers, cynical sceptics and recluses and Buddhist writers and translators” 22. Yu sees this as beginning to change in the Liang and culminated in the Tang when Emperors “became feverant students, teachers and annotators of the Chuang-tzu” 22. This imperial patronage undoubtly changed the way people viewed the book. In the Liang Zhuang Zi also became a text to be taught, alongside Lao Zi, to the novice and the public. In 742 Emperor Hsuan-tsung (712-756) bestowed the title of “True Scripture” (真经), which has become the official title of the book in the Taoist tradition since. Hsuan-tsung also set the Zhuang Zi as an official text for state examinations and set up a Taoist academy that set a Taoist classic exam to coexist with the same exams on the classics. Unfortunately these exams proved to be quite unpopular and very few candidates sat or passed these exams. (Which Yu doesn’t mention).

In chapter two Yu looks at the relationship between Buddhists and Taoists at this time when there was “Overt mingling of the two different schools”. He also looks in detail at the life of Cheng Hsuan-ying and how his life was typical for a Taoist of the time. This chapter is particularly interesting as it examines and interprets phrases used in his biography/hagiography to likely events. Cheng does not have a complete biography but rather a few comments that are “preserved in a note on his works listed in the bibliographic section of the xin Tang shu. (44). Which says:

Hsuan-Ying styled Tzu-shih was a native of Shan Prefecture and lived in seclusion in Tung-hai. In the fifth year of the Chen-kuan reign (631) he arrived in the capital by imperial decree; in he middle of Yung-hui reign (ca 652) he was banished to Yu-chou. When the books (i.e. Cheng’s books listed above in the Hsin Tang Shu) were completed [Li] Yuan-ch’ing Prince of Tao, sent Instructor Chia Ting to learn the general meaning from him. The books were prefaced by Li Li-she, a hermit from Mount Sung Among his works only Lao-tzu chu and Chuang-tzu are recorded.
(Hsin Tang Shu 59.1517 44)

Yu attempts a detailed look at where the places mentioned in the biography are from using local gazetteers and other works. Yu interprets the phrase, “lived in seclusion” from the biography as going to that place specifically to study. According to Yu “In that T’ang literature when a young man is said to live in seclusion in the mountains it is almost always the case that he goes there to study, which, historically, according to Yen Keng-wang, was not in the least rare in the Sui-Tang period. And it has little to do with whether such a person is or is to become a hermit, a Buddhist or a Taoist. Among other reasons, Yen Keng-wang also notes that it was because of social unrest after the Chin and the availability of books at Buddhist temples and Taoist abbeys in the mountains during the times of unrest that some young people went to live in seclusion, namely, to study, in the mountains” (50-51). I think this comment portrays quite an insight into learning at the time. I would also like to point out that the majority of biographies of women Taoists also make reference to them going to the mountains, rather than going to nunneries. It is also interesting to see the social ramifications of the political unrest of the time period. What is typically viewed as an age of peace and posterity was in actuality far from it.

The next part that Yu addresses is, “He arrived at the Capital by Imperial decree”. This Yu relates to someone who was “discovered” to be of unusual talent in some areas that the Emperor took an interest in. (53). These men were not just Taoists but scholars of all schools as well as poets. Yu also points out that the time involved he was summoned by one emperor (Tai Zong) and sent away by another (Gao Zong). This discussion is interesting as it looks at the different possibilities for a Taoist (man) within the capital at this time. The options for a Taoist were to be posted in some governmental offices, most likely the special governmental bureau the Court of Sate Ceremonial that served Taoists as well a Buddhists or in a specific Taoist abbey. Taoists in this position were not considered to be recluses because they received salaries from the government. (They were in effect government employees).

Ch’eng was involved in the debates between Buddhist and Taoists that were fostered by the court at this time. As mentioned in Tao-hsuan’s Hsu Kao-seng chuan referring to the Buddhist monk Hui-Ching it says “In the tenth year of the Chen-kuan reign (636) [Hui-ching] opened a series of lectures at his temple. Princes and ministers in the capital who had reputation for their talent in argumentation all came, and he was considered the glorious celerity of the time. Visitors to the capital all spoke of him in great appreciation, saying than his quickness and judgement in argumentation were graciously and bountifully endowed. The yellow-robed (i.e. Taoist masters, so called because they dressed in yellow robes) Ts’ai Tzu-huang and Ch’eng Shih-ying (i.e. Hsuan-ying) to outstanding Taoist masters, were sent for shortly after they had uttered their disagreement. They themselves however spoiled their own argument, lost the thread of their own teaching; whereas Hui-Ching made fun of them, while explaining in a composed manner so that they went back infuriated to where they had come from”. Tao-hsuan Hsu Kao-seng chuan 3 5043a (55-56). Obviously the bias of the Buddhist source should be evident. However shortly after this he was banished from the capital. Debates during this time “as a basic form of religious competition bred an inquisitive spirit that characterized the life and society of the time. A thought, a school of learning, had to be open to the public to prove in debates that they were worthy of admiration” (57). It is of course almost without saying that I have come across no record of women participating in these debates. The importance of these debates and the prominence of the Taoist participants, and the lack of women participants, show more clearly than many sources the actual position of women within the Taoist church and Chinese society.

The next few chapters look at specific concepts in the commentaries and how these differ from previous Taoist interpretations. Unfortunately they tend to be both rather heavy in philosophy or doctrine and not a great deal of help to a social historian like myself. Yu looks at the double mystery and the void. However it important to note that within his arguments was a strong proliferation of Buddhist concepts. Chu Hsi (Zhu Xi) the neo-Confucian from the Song was critical of the reading of Chuang-tzu saying, “Even though Taoists have the Lao-tzu and the Chuang-tzu they don’t understand that they should read them thoroughly, and as a result, they found that these books had been stolen and used by Buddhists, whereas the Taoists themselves were copying from Buddhist scriptures and teachings. This is like a boy from a rich family who went to pick up broken jugs and pots left by those who had made away with the invaluable treasures in the house.” (Chu His (1130-1200 Chu-tzu yu lei ed. Li Ch’ing-te (Taipei Cheng-chung shu-chu 1982) 125.4812-12 page 123). It would appear from this quote that the Taoist books were held in much greater esteem than Buddhist works by this eminent neo-Confucian thinker, but that the Taoists themselves were viewed with disdain.

Yu asserts the difference of the commentators of the Sui-Tang to the different social context they were writing in. He goes on to say that the stealing of ideas between the Buddhists and Taoists could be seen as another ill-regulated dialogue between the two. Therefore the fact that Ch’eng used Buddhist concepts in his arguments should not make him be seen as a Buddhist commentator.

A Buddhist comment on the difference between Buddhists and Taoists is this from Tao-hsuan, chi ku ching fo tao lun-heng 3 53 387a
“The five thousand words of Lao-tzu are the most shallow and porous, while the [writings of] Upper Clarity and the Three Grottoes are profound, and [those of] the magnimonious Ling-pao are heavenly writ and jade characters. They surpass the Nine schools and one hundred philosophers. How could the Confucian conformists and the philosophical Taoists be comparable with them?
Mr. Know-all answered,
“The Taoist scripture of Lao-tzu, though simple, is worth respect, while the “inner chapters” of Chuang-tzu can be accepted as a teacher, but apart from them the rest were made from secular sources. The yellow court and the Primordial Yang were pilfered from the Fa-hua substituting Taoist stuff for Buddhist. Its adoption is extremely awkward. The Ling-pao [scriptures] originated with Chang Ling (i.e. Chang Tao-ling) started to come out in the Scarlet Bird reign period (238-250) of the Wu. The Upper Clarity [revelations] started with Ko Hsuan gradually spread out between the Sung (420-479) and the Ch’I (479-502). The purpose of the sage’s installing his teachings is to summon and admonish. How is it possible for one to explain and discuss the heavenly writ and big characters? They were copied in the grand-seal style and the small-seal style of the ancient texts, but the two bear little resemblance if you compare them according to the standard; that the texts are ghostly writing from the Yang-p’ing is thus proved.
During the middle of the Yuan-k’ang reign (291-299) of the Chin, Pao Ching was executed for making up a san-huang ching this is recorded in the History of Chin: to avoid this someone after him changed it into “three grottoes”. Although the name was changed, the substance still exists. If one wants to understand the San-huang as the ultimate teacher, he should know that all it says is from secular hearts, is heresy, has nothing to do with the mouth of the sage, so how could it be regarded as classics and scriptures?
People like Chang [Tao-ling] and Ko [Hsuan] all mixed registers and commandments in order to educate the secular; they are grotesque, acting against non-action. Alas! How could they point to the traces of insects and compare them to Ts’ang Chieh’s writing, and identify spoiled milk with sweet dew? (126-127).

Here the Buddhists are attempting to draw a line between classical Taoism and medieval Taoism. The thrust of the Buddhist argument was that the longevity techniques practiced by the Taoists were “inferior tricks without a superior philosophical ground comparable to that of Buddhism and that they could never be brought into reality a they claimed. But Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu were different from these magicians, even though, from their perspective, Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu were inferior to Confucianism which was in turn inferior to Buddhist teachings” (127). Here we have a clear attempt by the Buddhists to separate Taoism out into, into what today would be considered, “Philosophical” and “Religious”. One of which they regard as good the other bad, it is important to note that the Taoists themselves are not making such a distinction but claiming to be a continuation of the early philosophical thought. This gives weight to their argument, which is why the Buddhists are trying to discredit it.

Later there is an example of a debate between Buddhists and Taoists who had been working together to translate the Lao Zi into Sanskrit. The Buddhists say that the way cannot be intelligent because it created both good and evil. The Taoist debaters could not resolve the difference between the source and the existence of evil. Another very interesting argument is that the Buddhists criticise the Taoists for not being aware of the “Theory of the Three periods”. They see the Taoists as having a shaky idea of the future. This is particularly interesting as it goes against the less well-informed claim that the idea of history is a “western” one whereas the “eastern” religions see things in cycles, without beginnings middles and ends. Here the Buddhists criticise others for their inability to see the beginning, middle and end. The three stages of the law are not something that is repeated endlessly. Rather there is a definite time period. However, Yu repeatedly points out that these debates were not seen as a negative thing but attempted to foster understanding and similarities between the two teachings, so that “the similarities between Chuang-tzu and Buddhism were better understood by both Taoists and Buddhists” (161).

Unfortunately while interesting the debates between the Buddhists and the Taoists are not central to my dissertation. The book itself was interesting and insightful, and the in-depth look at the more intellectual side of Taoism during the Tang was undoubtedly helpful for the overall background of my dissertation.