the historical importance of the chinese

the historical importance of the chinese

THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE
CHINESE FRAGMENTS FROM DUNHUANG IN
THE BRITISH LIBRARY
RONG XINJIANG
T H E Dunhuang materials obtained by Sir Aurel Stein during his second and third
expeditions were divided between the British Museum, the India Office and the Indian
government (this final section now being in the National Museum, New Delhi).
However, most of the written material remained in Britain. When the British Library
separated from the British Museum in 1973 the paintings were retained by the Museum
but written materials in Chinese and other languages were deposited in the Oriental
Department of the British Library. In the first part of this century, Dr Lionel Giles,
Keeper of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts at the British Museum, catalogued
the Chinese and some bilingual manuscripts, and printed Chinese documents. His
Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tun-huang in the British Museum
was published in 1957.^ It covered Stein manuscript numbers Or. 8210/S.1-^980, and
printed documents. Or. 8210/P.1-19, from the second and third expeditions. The Chinese
Academy of Science obtained microfilm copies of these manuscripts and Liu Mingshu also
completed a catalogue of S.1-6980, which was published in 1962.^ Until recently,
only this group of manuscripts had been fully studied.
However, the manuscripts numbered S. 1-6980 do not cover the whole of the Stein
Dunhuang collection. There are many fragmentary manuscripts which Giles omitted
from his catalogue. Dr Huang Yungwu of Taiwan compiled a brief catalogue of
fragments numbered S.6981-7599 based on a microfilm obtained from Japan,^ and
Japanese scholars also carried out detailed research on some of the fragments.^ When I
visited the British Library in May 1985, I was told that the manuscript pressmarks had
reached S.i 1604.' Funded by a British Academy K. C. Wong Fellowship, I was invited
to London to compile a catalogue of the Chinese non-Buddhist texts from S.6981.^ Here
I will give a brief survey of the sources and historical value of these manuscript
fragments.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS
At present, the manuscript pressmarks have reached S.13989 and many of these cover
several separate fragments, numbered A, B, C, D, etc. There are two sources for these
78
additional fragments. First, many are fragments from Dunhuang and other sites which
Giles chose not to catalogue either because of their incompleteness or because of their
poor condition at the time. The latter have since been conserved. Secondly, there are
many fragments which have been removed from other manuscripts, paintings on silk and
paper, and sutra wrappers.
Among those fragments ignored by Giles, the largest is about one metre wide and the
smallest about the size of a palm. More than three thousand contain Buddhist text
without beginning or end. Because there is no title or any other clear indication of the
sutra or other text, they are difficult to identify. This may be one reason why Giles did
not include them in his catalogue. Several hundred are, in fact, copies of the Lotus Sutra
(Ch.: Miaofalianhuajing Wii;'>^WM., Skt: Saddharmapundarikasutra), which have since
been catalogued by Kabutogi Shoko.' Another group of Buddhist fragments consists of
the first panels of Buddhist sutra scrolls, on which the title of the sutra, scroll number,
abbreviations of Dunhuang monasteries (such as 'en' M for Bao-en Monastery
fl^M^ ; 'kai' W\ for Kaiyuan Monastery ^^71;^ , etc.), and the number of sutra
wrappers in each monastery are all recorded. This group is mainly found between
S.10858-11280 and S.11465-11504. They are of great importance for research on the
construction of the Buddhist canon at Dunhuang monasteries in the Tang and early
Song periods (seventh to eleventh centuries) and the sources of the Buddhist texts in the
library cave (No. 17) of the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas. Professor Jean-Pierre
Drege used some in his research on Dunhuang monastery libraries, but the list compiled
by him does not include all these fragments.'^
Redundant texts, especially the more robust official documents, were often used by
monks to mount Buddhist texts and paintings - the main offerings to temples and caves.
Daozhen | t ^ , a famous monk from Sanjie Monastery HW-^ •, 1^^ notes concerning this
practice among the manuscripts.^ The Dunhuang cave contained Buddhist sutras from
Sanjie Monastery mounted by Daozhen using waste official and private documents. Such
small pieces of mounting paper can also be found at the beginning and end of Buddhist
sutras kept in St Petersburg and Beijing, but the majority of such pieces have been
removed from the sutras and paintings in London and Paris. In the Bibliotheque
nationale de France, these mounting papers are sequenced after the manuscript and
marked with the 'Pelliot chinois' serial number followed by 'piece i, 2, 3, 4...'. The
British Library, however, has placed them at the end of the sequence of Stein numbers
and assigned each a new number. The sequence, therefore, is constantly increasing.
When I visited the British Library in 1985 the serial numbers ended at 11604 but over
two thousand numbers have since been added. Some of the additional numbered
fragments have been removed from silk paintings in the British Museum. The
provenance of the fragments is shown on their versos. For example, S.8443F has the
annotation' from Ch.0074', which indicates that the thirteen fragments with this number
have been removed from the verso of the silk painting No. Ch.0074 iri the British
Museum, 'Amitabha with the Eight Great Bodhisattvas'.^** The fragment S.8516 has
been removed from the British Museum's silk painting Ch.xxxviii.005, 'Two
79
O
IS
m
rn
o
OO
bo
c
p
5
I
Cll
c:
N
(^
o
••^ ^ ^ T ^ « h
K"- =-----a^^i A ^ "W- ^ ^ -*.
->f ,-^
4-J
bD
C
8o
Avalokites'varas'.'' On the verso of fragment S.8691 there is a pencil note, 'patch on
S.5367\ which indicates it came from the Devatasiitra (Ch.: Tianqing wenjing "^rMf^'H )
fragment S.5367. Fragment S.11352 has a note ^from 6163'. S.11564, which contains
only nine characters, fits into the hole on S.3329. Fujieda Akira has identified this latter
manuscript as an inscription praising the benevolent administration of Zhang Huaishen
^^W
and belonging with the other manuscripts S.6161, S.6973 and P.2762 (fig. i).^^
I will concentrate on those fragments removed from sutra wrappers. Sutra wrappers
{jingzhi, m'k or .^!i|^), also known as 'book cloths' {shuyi, ^tl) were used to enfold around ten Buddhist sutra rolls and were sometimes made of bamboo, brocade,
satin or silk/^ However, in the Dunhuang region they were usually made of hnen,
paper and papyrus. There are many records of the making of sutra wrappers
among the Dunhuang documents. In S.3565, 'Record of an Offering by Cao
Yuanzhong, Military Commissioner of the Returning to Allegiance Army District'
, for example, there is a clear description:
Donation of r bolt ^ of red brocade and 21 new sutra wrappers to cover the Buddhist sutras at
Longxing Monastery UW- . Donation of i bolt of satin and 10 sutra wrappers to cover the
Buddhist sutras at Lingtu Monastery M ! ^ ^ . Donation of i bolt of raw silk and 15 sutra
wrappers to cover the Buddhist sutras at Sanjie Monastery.
In the colophon of S.5663 there is another account by Daozhen:
On the 15th day of the ist month of the yimei B T ^ year (935), a copy of the Dabanruojing
^fl^^ilfi was repaired at Sanjie Monastery, together with a lesson to be read aloud in the inner
temple. The monk Daozhen repaired eleven copies of various sutras and also made a copy of the
Baoenjing^^'^^.M. and a copy of the Dafomingjingi\\^ ^il^ . With pious intent, Daozhen made
sixty wrappers for the Dabanruojing of dark red embroidered silk cloth, all complete.**
Stein was the first explorer to enter the Dunhuang library cave. From one of his
photographs showing the Chinese manuscript rolls just after they were removed from the
library cave, it appears that all the Buddhist sutra scrolls were originally covered by sutra
wrappers in an orderly way.^^ The Buddhist sutras and their wrappers were separated
in the course of transferring the manuscripts and for other reasons. Stein and Paul
Pelliot, who reached the cave next, chose the best of the sutra wrappers. Some have
already been published.^* Among the Pelliot collection there is a sutra wrapper made of
bamboo, E0.1208, which is preserved at the Musee Guimet. An official document
concerning the assignment of Linghu Huaiji v 5)JI1M^ of the Tang Dynasty was mounted
on the verso and has not been removed.^^ There are similar pieces in the British Library.
In general, however, several layers consisting of official documents have been removed
one by one from the sutra wrappers at the British Library, except for a few wrappers
which it was decided to leave as artefacts. The removed layers sometimes contain
important historical texts. The standard size of the paper panels of Tang official
documents is 30 cm. by 45 cm.^^ If the size of sutra wrapper is larger than that of the
official documents, the mounting papers are almost complete; if the size is smaller, then
81
Fig. 2. Order of the Tang emperor, Ruizong, to Netig Changren, Governor of Shazhou Province,
7ti. Or. 8210/S.11287
the edges of the mounting documents were cut off, but most of them are fairly complete
compared to other fragments. The most interesting document is that removed from the
sutra wrapper S.11287. It is an order by the Tang emperor, Ruizong ' # ^ , to Neng
Changren ^ t H t , Governor of Shazhou Province, dated the 9th day of the 7th month
of the ist year oi Jingyun ^-^T (711)- It is the oldest extant order of this type (Lunshi
chishu ife^fi(-^'^ ) from the Tang Dynasty, and is useful for correcting some previous
reconstructions of the form these orders took (fig. 2).'**
Also among the fragments are miscellaneous manuscripts from other sites. S. 11585,
for example, is a report by a Khotanese monastery on a contract lost by monk
DabianTr^^^ft^^;;1;f^^[5(^^-X^^^4.?^*. On the verso is an original site number
' D . V I I I . I ' written by Stein to show that the item was discovered at Dandan-uiliq in the
north-eastern region of Khotan in 1900.^** S.9464 has no site number but I believe that
it was also found at Khotan. The text on the verso is a contract with the contractee
'Meina' \kM^ for borrowing copper coin with interest dated the 28th day of the 4th
month of 15th year of Dali KWi (780) of the Tang Dynasty. The second character,
'na', of this personal name is a transliteration from Khotanese."* Moreover, the sand82
encrusted paper of the document is not typical of paper from the cave but is hke other
paper from Khotan. The fragment of a letter, S.9222, has a covering sheet inscribed
^Hoernle 150/32', meaning that it belongs to the Hoernle collection in the British
Library. On the recto of the two manuscripts S.9224 and S.9225 is the Chinese text of
the Mahdprajnaparamitasutra (Ch.: Dabanruo poluomiduo jing -K]^WM§M^MX
and
on the verso is a Khotanese Buddhist text with the pencil serial numbers ' 142' and * 143'.
These also belong to the Hoernle Collection and have been published by A. F. R.
Hoernle himself and others.^^ S.9223 has Tibetan and Khotanese documents on its recto
and verso respectively, and also belongs to the Hoernle Collection.
The text on the fragment S.11605 mentions 'Xizhou bu' (aJ'li^ : cloth from Turfan).
This document was probably found by Stein at the Astana tombs near Gaochang, but
there is no original number to confirm this. The fragments S.11606-11609 are marked
with the original site numbers 'Kao.III.oi62\ 'Kao.o65\ 'Ka0.VII.03' and
'Ka0.VII.05'. All of them are documents of the late Qing Dynasty (late nineteenth to
early twentieth century) and were collected by Stein from the site of Gaochang f^fi
(previously romanized as Kao-chang). The two documents S.9437 and S. 12597 ^^so date
from the Qing Dynasty and were found by Stein at sites other than Dunhuang.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FRAGMENTS
Although most of the manuscripts are fragmentary, they are of great historical value for
Chinese studies. For example, the two fragments S.9213A and B contain the Confucian
text, Xiaojing Zhengshi jie ^r,ff^ip^fp (The Classic of Filial Piety with commentaries
by Zheng Xuan). These texts follow that on S.3993 and are supplementary to tbe
selection considered by Professor Chen Tiefan in his study of Dunhuang editions of this
text.^^ The two manuscripts S.7003B and S.11910 are copies of Lwiyu mM (The
Analects), also with commentaries by Zheng Xuan. The former is not identified in the
catalogue compiled by Dr Huang Yongwu, and the latter is a fragment attached to
S.6i2i.^"^ There are few historical books in the new discovery, S.10591 being one
exception. It contains only the title 'Biographies of Wang Shang, Shi Dan, and Fu Xi'
^M^m^Mn from juan 82 of Hanshu r S # (History of the Han Dynasty).
S.12042 contains part of Liuzi Xinlun M^^fim
written by Liu Zhou f J S of the
Northern Qi Dynasty, namely the end of Part 10, 'Shendu' '\MM , and Part 11, 'Guinong'
"KM . It contains one sentence not found in other copies of this text from Dunhuang, such
as P.3562, etc.^^ What I found most interesting when cataloguing the fragments was that
nineteen small fragments have been identified as the Daoist text, Liezi ^ij-f^tl^l^^^l
M-ti. (Liezi Yang Zhu pian with commentaries by Zhang Zhan).^^ This is probably the
best represented non-Buddhist text among the Dunhuang manuscripts (see fig. 3).
S.7292 has been identified as the Daoist Sutra Taishang Yicheng Haikongzhizang Jing,
juan I iz±-~WM':^¥\'MtM. . There are nine other copies of this text from Dunhuang^^
but this new fragment is the most important as it contains a previously unknown part
of the Daoist sutra. Kongzi Matou Bufa ^l-tWM\ V\i^ , a divination text, is found on
83
Fig- 3- Diagram of fifteen Stein fragments which once formed part of a single scroll of the Daoist
text Liezi
the four fragments S.9501, S.9502, S.11419 and S.13002, totalling twenty-four lines.
The beginning of the text is complete and its type and contents are almost the same as
that on S.1339. There are two important manuscripts containing medical texts, S.9987C
(2) and S.9987B, entitled Beiji Danyan Yaofang Juan i^MW-WM'Tj^ with preface.
According to the research of Wang Jiqing, the two scrolls S.3347 and S.3395 contain
different sections of the same text.^^
New discoveries have also been made concerning model or form letters (shuyi #1S).
The four lines on S. 10595, when compared with the texts on S.329 and S.361,
can be identified as part of Shuyi Jing, Sihai Ptngfanpoguo Qinghe Shu
Wi^M-WmW-W^MMM^
(Congratulatory letter on the conquest of the Barbarians
and Kingdoms in the World, Model Letter), and its beginning can be linked with the
end of S.6111. Shuyi Jing is a special form letter written during the Tang Dynasty in the
Anxi region (Central Asia), concerning the Chinese attacks on the Tibetans in Cherchen
K^ in the Tarim Basin and in Bru Zha ^ f $ in Gilgit. It describes the success won
by the Four Chinese Garrisons in Central Asia in the 6th year of Tianbao ^ f t (747)This historical material was not previously known to scholars in the field of Central Asian
studies.^*^
Several envelopes were also found among the fragments. These were originally sealed
and are referred to zs fengqi 'MW. in model letters. S.11297, S.11348, S.11349, and
S.I 1350 are all examples. Some are outgoing letters which were not sent out (for reasons
now unknown), while others are letters between Guazhou (modern Anxi) and Shazhou
(Dunhuang). All these letters have now been unfolded. While this separates the
characters written across the fold and sacrifices the original shape, it helps us to read the
contents of the sealed part and learn about the sealing system of this period.^^
Chinese literature is also represented. S.9504 is a copy of the unannotated Wenxuan
XM . It contains a passage from Jiang Yan's K'tM 'Hen Fu' UU (Rhapsody of Hate).
S.9432 is a fragment of juan 8 of Gw Chen Ziang Ji MM^^M
(Collected Papers of
Chen Ziang). The text follows that found on S.5971 and is, in turn, continued by the text
on P.3590.^^ All three belong to the same scroll.
Dunhuang transformation texts (bianwen ^#^) have been a subject of wide discussion^^
and the fragments provide some useful new information. Perhaps the most interesting is
Zhuoji Bu Zhuanwen t y ^ ^ ^ i f ^ (The Story of the Capture of Ji Bu), found on S.8459.
This text can be placed between that on P.2648A and P.2648B, thus making one long
scroll from the now separate manuscripts of P.2747, P.2648A, S.8459, P.2648B, P.3386
and P.3582.^^ S.13002, S.9501, S.9502 and S.11419 are fragments from a single copy of
'Xia Nufu Ci' T'^^B^J (Words of a Waiting Maid) written in a good hand, with red
ink used for the subject headings and for annotations. Compared with other copies of the
same text, there are some variant readings.^^
The fragments also include official Tang dynasty documents such as the legal text,
S.I 1456, concerning Su Xianchao's marriage in the 13th year of Kaiyuan
f ^ ^ 7 C + H ^ ^ 7 f e > H S # ^ # ( 7 5 6 ) , which was removed from a sutra wrapper and is
very helpful to the study of the Tang legal system. S.11454A-G were also removed from
a sutra wrapper and concern the taxes of the Tibetan regime. These documents, written
in good hands with comments and corrections in red, have great historical value for the
study of Tibetan rule over Dunhuang. Original archives of the Guiyi Jun MMW('Returning to Allegiance Army') regime which ruled Dunhuang from the Tang to the
early Song period have also been found. These have settled some disputes concerning the
regime.^^ In addition, there are many monastic and private documents.
The examination of the fragments after S.6981 is helpful in understanding the nature
of the library cave in the Dunhuang Mogao Caves. Based on the judgement that the
Dunhuang documents do not comprise a complete library collection, Dr Fang
Guangchang has recently reiterated the theory that the cave contents were 'a deposit of
sacred waste'. This was originally proposed by Professor Fujieda Akira of Kyoto
University many years ago.^^ However, the materials in the library cave mainly comprise
Buddhist texts and paintings from Sanjie Monastery, a small monastery near the Mogao
Caves. The Longxing ijiW# and Lingtu Monasteries, also in the Dunhuang area, would
have had much more extensive collections of the Buddhist canon than the small Sanjie
Monastery. There are many fragments from other large monasteries such as these among
the cave's contents but many of them were repaired by monk Daozhen at Sanjie
Monastery. A considerable number of fragmentary sutras or other texts in the library
cave remain untouched. After the discovery of the library cave in 1900, the fragments of
manuscripts were examined by the self-appointed custodian of the cave, the Daoist monk
Wang Yuanlu, and the cream of the manuscripts were collected by Stein and Pelliot.
85
Material retrieved by later Chinese and Russian scholars is even more fragmentary.
Those scholars advancing the 'sacred waste' theory have not adequately considered the
nature of the British Library fragments. These did not enter the cave in their present
form but have been removed from painting rolls, Buddhist sutras, and sutra wrappers
and are therefore only an annexe to the holdings of the library cave. Accordingly it is
misleading to argue that the library cave was used mainly to store fragmentary waste.
The existence of a large number of sutra wrappers has fully proved that Buddhist sutras
in the library cave were preserved in some sequence. As Stein and others were ignorant
of the system used for the storage of scrolls by Buddhist monasteries, sutra rolls were
separated from their wrappers when they were removed from the library cave. Today we
find it difficult to recover their original order and this makes it easy to mistake them for
a deposit of waste papers.
The history of the manuscripts following the discovery of the library cave is complex.
According to Stein, monk Wang rearranged the cave's contents and between 1900 and
1907 some Uighur Buddhist texts of the Mongol Yuan period from elsewhere found their
way into the archive.•^'^ Sir Edward Denison Ross, who was in charge of the Stein
collection in the British Museum, drew attention to this as early as 1913.^^ Unfortunately,
very few scholars have heeded Ross's warning on the mixed provenance of the
documents. As various museums and libraries have collected Dunhuang manuscripts, a
further admixture of documents from different sites and periods has occurred. Any study
of the archival heritage of Dunhuang needs, therefore, to distinguish those manuscripts
which actually derive from the cave itself from those which do not.
Apart from a few exceptions, the fragments from S.6981 onwards come from the
Dunhuang library cave and are therefore closely related to those manuscripts now in
Paris, Beijing, St Petersburg, Tokyo and Kyoto. Some documents preserved in these
different institutions can be identified as belonging to the same scroll, text or genre.
Among the items in the British Library which have been removed from sutra wrappers,
S.8877, S.I 1450, S.I 1451 and S.11458 are documents of the Tang dynasty Horse Office
at Beiting itfig (Jimshar). To date, I have also identified fragments of the same form and
date in the following collections: five in St Petersburg (DX354); two or three in the
National Library, Beijing; about forty in the Yurinkan Museum at Kyoto; a few in the
Nakamura Museum of Calligraphy in Tokyo; and some belonging to the former
collection of Luo Zhenyu M'M^-. . As these documents can be identified with each other
from their contents, and because the Stein manuscripts among them definitely came
from Dunhuang, this helps to reconstruct the provenance of the holdings of the
Yurinkan Museum, the Nakamura Museum of Calligraphy and Luo Zhenyu's collection.
Because most of the fragments originally comprised sutra wrappers, the thickness and
quality of these fragments was sometimes altered by the water treatment used to remove
them, and doubts have therefore been expressed about whether they are genuine.
But such doubts are unnecessary when they are compared in form and content with the
manuscripts newly removed by the British Library.
86
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr
Frances Wood, Dr Sarah Allan, Mrs Beth McKillop,
Dr Wang Tao, and Mrs Xiaowei Bond who assisted
me in many ways during my work in London. The
support of the Chinese Section of the Oriental and
India Office Collections of the British Library,
financed by the British Academy K. C. Wong
Fellowships, is also gratefully acknowledged. Last
but not least, I wish to thank Dr Susan Whitfield for
kindly correcting and improving the English of this 5
article.
1 (London, 1957).
2 In Wang Chongmin .^ffi^- (ed.), Dunhuang
YtshuZongmuSuoyin n^^'^BB^^l
(Index
and General Catalogue of Preserved Manuscripts
from Dunhuang) (Beijing, 1962).
3 Huang Yongwu 1^4^ 3^ ,'Liubaihao Dunhuang 6
wuming duanpian de xinbiaomu' T^Hf^S^'^oi
m$^Wl^^^%rM^
(Titles for nameless Dunhuang pieces in Giles's Catalogue Nos. 6g8i- 7
7599), Hanxue yanjiu M^W'SH: (Chinese
Studies), i (1983.i), pp. 111-32.
4 For examples, see Yamamoto Tatsuro |ii:$:^g[i ,
'Tonko hakken no shohi taishaku ni kansuru ichi
shiryo: British Library shozo A. Stein S.8443' 8
^ikm^(Dm^'A\^\^^-th^fA • British
Library RJf^ A. Stein #5K^^:ic:S;# S.8443 (A
contract of hiring from Tun-huang: Chinese 9
document S.8443 brought back by A. Stein in
the British Library), Kokiisai kirisutokyo Daigaku
Ajta bunka kenkyu [B[^g#|fe;^^TvT:S:
ftW^ , xi (1979), pp. 97-114; Dohi Yoshikazu
i h l E ^ ^ ,' To Tenpo nendai Tonkoken judenho
dankanko: dendo no kanju mondai ni kan-
Yonghui period), Shimada Masao Hakase Shoju
Kinen Ronshu Kanko I-inkai .^fflIEI^(i|#dri^
#ffi,^!^^fiJ'ft ^ M ^ (ed.), Toyo hoshi no
tankyu Mi^'l^^iD^^
(An investigation into
East Asian legal history) (Tokyo, 1987), pp.
179-210; Yamamoto Tatsuro and Ikeda On
^ffl?^> Tun-huang and Turfan Documeiits
Concerning Social and Economic History, III,
Contracts, (A) (Tokyo, 1987), pp. 105, 134.
See Rong Xinjiang '•^WL , 'Ouzhou Suocang
Xiyu
Chutu
Wenxian
Wenjianlu'
m}mM^i$,\^±Xm^^^m
(Notes on
Materials from Chinese Central Asia held in
European Collections), Dunhuangxue jikan
^'Jg^^l|i|flJ (Journal of Dunhuang Studies), ix
(1986), pp. 119-33, see pp. 120-1.
At the same time. Prof. Fang Guangchang
y^Wi^ was invited to prepare a catalogue of the
Buddhist texts.
Kabutogi Shoko ^:?t^IE^ , Tonko Hokekyo
Mokuroku I ^ C ^ ^ i ^ ^ g ® (Descriptive Catalogue of the Miaofalianhuajing from Dunhuang
collected by Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot)
(Tokyo, 1978).
J.-P. Drege, Les Bibliotheques en Chine au temps
des manuscrits {jusqu'au Xe siecle) (Paris, 1991),
pp. 238-45, Annexe i.
Shi Pingting WW-^ , 'Sanjiesi, Daozhen,
Dunhuang Zangjin'
^fl-^SAM:^'l'\^M^.
(Sanjie Monastery, the monk Daozhen and
the Dunhuang Buddhist Canon), iggo nian
Dunhuangxue guoji yantao
hui wenji
^m^^Wit^m^Xm
(Proceedings of the
1990 Conference on Dunhuang Studies)
(Shenyang, 1995), pp. 178-209.
(A study of frag- 10 M. Aurel Stein, Serindia, vol. ii (Oxford, 1921),
p. 954; R. Whitfield, The Art of Central Asia: the
ments of the Dunhuang land register compiled
Stein collection at the British Museum, vol. i
in the Tianbao era of the Tang dynasty: in
(Tokyo, 1982), pi. 17, figs. 47-g, p. 312. 'Ch.'
relation to the problem of receiving an allocation
was Stein's site abbreviation for the Thousand
of land and returning it), Sakamoto Taro
Buddha Caves at Dunhuang, then romanized as
hakushishoji kinen: Nihon shigaku ronshu
'Chien-fo-tung' (now as 'Qianfodong').
(Tokyo, 1983), pp. 303-41; idem, 'A Study of a 11 The Art of Central Asia, vol. i, pi. 24,fig.15,
Fragmentary Dunhuang District Land AllotP- 321.
ment record from the Tianhao Period of the 12 Fujieda Akira M^^ , 'Tonko senbutsudo no
Tang Dynasty with regard to the Problem of
chuko Cho-shi shokutsu 0 chusin toshita kyuseiki
Land Reallotment', Memoirs of the Research
nobukkutsugoei' ^mf-m^.'^^n
• ^ftltft^
Department of the Toyo Bunko, lxii (1984), pp.
^'L-tLf.iKm'^'^mM'-^n , mw Gakuho
145-76; Okano Makoto H^^-iiS, 'To Eiki
M'Jj^^
(Journal of Oriental Studies), xxxv
shokuinryo no fukugen'
^7^'^^^-^(D'^7t
(1964), pp. 9-139, esp. pp. 63-7.
(A reconstruction of the personnel statutes of the 13 J. Needham, Science and Civilisation in China,
vol. 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part
Chavannes, Les Documents chinois decouverts par
I: Paper and Printing, by Tsien Tsuen-hsuin
Aurel Stein dans les sables du Turkestan Oriental
(Cambridge, 1985), pp. 229-30.
(Oxford, 1913), pp. 206, 208 (mistaken, 'Kuom14 Translated by Lionel Giles, op. cit., pp. 124-5,
enna' |^|p^f^ ), pis. xxxiii-xxxiv; 'Jielingna'
no. 4298.
Wi^-^. on 'Mazar Tagh 0627' (Or.8212/723):
15 M. Aurel Stein, Ruins of Desert Cathay, vol. ii
H. Maspero, Les Documents chinois de la troisieme
(London, 1912),fig.194.
expedition de Sir Aurel Stein en Asie centrale
16 British Museum, Ch.xlviii.ooi (MAS 858) and
(London, 1953), p. 191.
Ch.xx.oo6 (MAS 859): see R. Whitfield, The Art 22 A. F. R. Hoernle, 'A Bilingual Fragment in
of Central Asia, vol. iii (Tokyo,i985), pis. 6-7,
Chinese-Khotanese, Hoernle MSS., Nos. 142
pp. 286-288; Musee Guimet, EO.1200,
and 143: Introductory Remarks', Edouard
EO.r2o8, EO.12O9/1, EO.3664, EO.1199,
Chavannes et S. Levi, ' Un fragment en
EO.1207, EO.3663, MG.23082, MG.23083: see
chinois de la Satasahasrika-Prajfiaparamita', and
K. Riboud et G. Vial, Tissus de Touen-houang
Hoernle, ' A Fragment in Khotanese of a
conserves au Musee Guimet et a la Bibliotheque
Buddhist Sacred Text', all in A. F. R. Hoernle
Nationale (Mission Paul Pelliot XIII) (Paris,
(ed.). Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature
1970), pis. I, 3, 4, 12, 30, 39, 43, 45, 87, pp. 3-26,
found in Eastern Turkestan (Oxford, 1916), pp.
69-71, 145-55^ 201-7, 221-8, 231-5, 369-70.
387-^9, Pl. XXII.
17 The sutra wrapper was listed as early as 1909 by 23 This manuscript was published by A. F. R.
Luo Zhenyu M^B.^ in his 'Dunhuang shishi
Hoernle and L. D. Barnett, *A Bilingual Fragmilu' ?'i'l:^~fi&^M (Secret catalogue of the
ment in Tibetan-Khotanese', in Hoernle (ed.).
Dunhuang caves) and published in Kaoguxue
Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature, pp.
Lingjian # " ^ ^ ^ ^ (Papers on Archaeology)
400-4.
(Shanghai, 1925), p. 40. Wang Renjun i C f ^ 24 See Chen Tiefan WMPu (ed.), Dunhuang ben
copied the text of the Tang official document in
Xiaojing Leizuan l ^ ' ^ I ^ ^ ^ f ^i-K (Classified
his Dunhuang shishi zhenji lu l>['ti"5^ftE^i|^
Collection of the Classic of Filial Piety) (Taipei,
(1909). For a colour photograph of the obverse of
1977)the wrapper, see L. Feugere, 'The Pelliot 25 See my review of Wang Su's zEift Tang
Collection from Dunhuang', Orientations, xx/3
xieben
Lunyu
Zhengshizhu jiqi
yanjiu
(Mar. 1989), p. 52, figs, i o - i i .
mM'^tmmm^&.yLnmt
(Collection and
18 Fujieda Akira, 'The Tunhuang Manuscripts: A
Studies of the Tang Manuscripts of Analects
General Description: I', Zinhun, ix (1966), p. 17.
with Commentaries by Zheng Xuan), Wenwu
19 On the text and related problems sec Rong
X^. ii (i993)> PP- 58-^Xinjiang, 'Guanyu Tang Song shiqi Zhongyuan 26 For a study of this text (but not including
Wenhua dui Yutian Yingxiang de Jigewenti'
S.I2042), see Lin Qitan WPJ^k and Chen
Fengjin PtlL.# , Dunhuang Yishu Liuzi Canjuan
(Chinese Cultural Influence on the Khotan
Jilu m%.S^m'm^miim%
(Collected Texts
Kingdom during the 7th-ioth Centuries),
of the Liuzi in Dunhuang Manuscripts) (ShangGuoxue yanjiu I ^ ^ W ^ (Studies in Sinology),
hai, 1988).
i (1993), pp. 408-9. The large character of the 27 S.10799, 12087, 13496, 13624, 12728, 12288B,
emperor's command on this manuscript has been
12951, 9928, 12288A, 12991, 12124, 13441,
used as the International Dunhuang Project
12971, 12710, 11422, 12285, 12295, 13219, 777logo.
Fifteen of these belong to one scroll (seefig.3).
20 See Ed. Chavannes, 'Chinese Documents from
Another fragment belonging to the same scroll
the sites of Dandan-Uiliq, Niya and Endere' in
has been identified in the National Library of
M. Aurel Stein, Ancient Khotan, vol. i (Oxford,
Beijing collection (L.2464 unpublished).
1907), pp. 532-3, No. 17; vol. ii, pi. cxvi.
28 Ofuchi Ninji -^t^M
, Tonko Dokyo Moku21 The Chinese word 'na' ;f^ is always used as a
rokuhen ^ ' ^ i f ^ - g mM' (Catalogue of the
transcription of Khotanese personal names, such
Daoist Sutras from Dunhuang) (Tokyo, 1978),
as 'Ashina' HSSJ^ on D.v.6: Chavannes, op.
pp. 3io-i5> 383cit., pp. 525-6; 'Yanmenna' f^Pii'-T^ on 'Mazar 29 Wang Jiqing ^ % H" , ' Yingguo Tushuguan cang
Tagh b.009' (Or.8212/969-972): Edouard
Beiji Danyan Yaofang Juan (S.9987) de Zhengli
88
30
31
32
33
34
35
(Reconstruction of Beiji Danyan
Yaofang Juan preserved in the British Library),
Dunhuang Yanjiu ^ ! t l W ^ , xxix (1991), pp.
103-6.
The complete text has been edited by Zhao
Heping ^ I P ^ in his Dunhuang Xieben Shuyi
Yanjiu ffe^;f^'^Sf^5J[-^ (Studies on Model
Letters among the Dunhuang Manuscripts)
(Taipei, 1993), pp. 265-74.
The original unopened envelope (S.11297) can
be seen in Akira Fujieda, 'The Tunhuang
Manuscripts: A General Description', p. 29.
For details of these two manuscripts, see Wu
Chiyu ^"K-:§i , 'Dunhuangben Gu Chen Ziang
Ji Canjuan Yanjiu'
^ki^^mW^-f-^M^^^
ii?f ^ (A Study of the Collected Papers of Chen
Ziang) in Xianggang Daxue wushizhounian jinian
lunwenji ^ m ^ ^ S + t i l ^ . ^ S - ^ l i f t ^ m (Symposium on Chinese Studies: commemorating the
Golden Jubilee of the University of Hong Kong
1911-1966), (Hong Kong, 1966), pp. 241-303.
See, for example, Victor H. Mair's several books
on this topic including Tang Transformation
Texts: A study of the Buddhist contribution to the
rise of vernacular fiction and drama in China
(Cambridge, Mass., 1989) and Painting and
Performance: Chinese picture recitation and its
Indian genesis (Honololu, 1988).
This identification was confirmed by Helene
Vetch of the Bibliotheque nationale de France in
a letter to the author, 19 Aug. 1991.
On the two texts, see Rong Xinjiang 'Yinglun
Suojian Sanzhong Dunhuang Suwenxue Zuopinba' : ^ f | T m B H ^ i . ^ ^ t m iL^Mf^^lW. (Postscripts on Three Popular Literature Works in
the British Library), Jiuzhou xuekan
flM^^^l
(Chinese Culture Quarterly), v (1993.4), PP-
36 Rong Xinjiang, 'Chuqi Shazhou Guiyi Jun
yu Tang zhongyang Chaoting zhi Guanxi'
tions between the early Guiyi Jun Government at Shazhou and the Tang Court) in
Joseph Wong and Lau Kin-ming (eds.), Sut
Tangshi Lunji mB'-^m^^
(Studies on the Sui
and Tang Dynasties) (Hong Kong, 1993),
p. 113; idem, 'Shazhou Zhang Huaishen
yu Tangzhongyang Chaoting zhi Guanxi'
rk'H-mmmmm^'k^-B'^^m^^
(Relations
between Zhang Huaishen and the Tang Court),
Dunhuangxue Jikan, xviii (1990.2), pp. 1-13, see
pp. i o - i i ; idem, 'Guanyu Caoshi Guiyijun
Shouren Jidushi de Jigewenti'|l^K'Wi?clf^
m^amm^^^mmr'^m.
(Some problems
on the First Governor of the Guiyi Jun
Government under the Cao Family), Dunhuang
Yanjiu, xxxv (1993.2), pp. 46-53; idem,
' Guanyu Shazhou Guiyijun Dusengtong Nian-
dai Jigewenti'
mnt^yH'mMW-^'mf:k^iX(]^
MUf'^m
(Some Problems on the Date of the
Monk-supervisors of the Guiyijun Govcrruncnt
at Shazhou), Dunhuang Yanjiu, xxi (1989.4), pp.
70-8, see pp. 74-5.
37 Fujieda, op. cit., pp. 15-16; Fang Guangchang,
'Dunhuang Cangjingdong Fengbi Yuanyin
zhi wojian' mkummmmj^M^ft^
(My
opinion on the walling-up of the Library Cave
of Dunhuang), Zhonggno Shehui
Kexue
i1=i[lltt^f4^ (Social Sciences in China), lxxi
(1991.5), pp. 213-23.
38 M. A. Stein, Ruins of Desert Cathay, vol. ii, p.
190.
39 E. D. Ross, 'The Caves of the Thousand
Buddhas',7i?.'/5 (1913), pp. 434-6.