Source: Tan 1991

• Texts: T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Tan Shibao assesses the use of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue朱士行錄 of Han texts in LDSBJ T2034, and argues that the text was a forgery made by Fei Changfang himself.

Tan summarises a range of opinions among prior scholars on this catalogue (27, 94). Liang Qichao 梁啟超, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤, Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次 and Lü Cheng 呂澂all regarded the catalogue as fake, though they had varying opinions about its date and probable forger. Feng Chengjun 馮承鈞 and Yao Mingda 姚名達 treated it as reliable.

Tan’s main arguments against the authenticity of this catalogue and information deriving form it are as follows:

1. The dates of Zhu Shixing’s activity make it impossible that he composed any catalogue (94-96). Daoan, the most reliable witness, says that Zhu Shixing ordained and departed for Khotan in the same year (260 CE). He would therefore, according to Tan, have been too young to have composed the catalogue before his departure. After his departure, he never returned, but it is implausible that he would have composed the catalogue in Khotan.

2. Information ascribed to this catalogue is incoherent and implausible. LDSBJ claims, on this basis, that *Lokakṣema translated the Akṣobhyavyūha in the year Jianhe 建和 1 of the Han emperor Huan 桓 (147 CE); but *Lokakṣema was not yet in the capital at that time. LDSBJ uses this catalogue to ascribe a內藏經 to An Shigao, but the wording of this notice is based upon a CSZJJ notice pertaining to an anonymous text, and neither Daoan nor Sengyou say anything about a version by An Shigao. Similarly, wording of notices about a十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭, anda 問地獄事經, ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨, are transparently based upon wording in passages of GSZ, and in the case of the Wen diyu shi jing, moreover, Tan thinks he discerns telltale details that show that Fei Changfang understood imperfectly the wording he was borrowing, resulting in gibberish and proving the direction of borrowing. LDSBJ also uses this catalogue to claim that there existed a “first” translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao. Tan dismisses this claim by noting that other, more authoritative earlier sources mention no such text—including GSZ, which Fei Changfang also cites as a source.

3. Other information is anachronistic for a Han catalogue. A notice about a益意經 ascribed to Kang Daohe 康道和 would mean that the catalogue would date to the E. Jin at the earliest. For Tan, notices about the 四十二章經, ascribed to the E. Han, and the 十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭 mean that the catalogue must have been even later, since he regards both those texts as apocrypha of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period.

4. Fei Changfang lists Zhu Shixing’s catalogue among a list of sources he himself explicitly says he had never seen.

5. Despite this, Fei also has a standard formula he uses when citing something via an intermediate source, e.g. 道安云, 舊錄云, 吳錄云. He never uses this wording in citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue.

6. Finally, Tan aims to consider all possible intermediate sources via which Fei might have known the content of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (since he says he never saw it), and believes that it is possible to logically eliminate all possibilities.

Edit

94-103

• Texts: Gu lu 古錄

Tan argues that the information cited from the Gu lu in LDSBJ T2034 is unreliable, and the Gu lu itself was probably a late forgery.

1) At the end of LDSBJ, Fei Changfang says that this catalogue “appears to be a catalogue of the scriptures brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and others at the time of the Qin 秦” (221-206 BCE). According to Yao Mingda, this claim is based upon Wang Zinian’s 王子年 (Wang Jia 王嘉) unreliable She yi ji 捨遺記.

2) Shi 釋 only came into use as a “surname” for monastics from the time of Daoan onwards, so that its use for a supposed Qin figure is anachronistic.

3) The Gu lu is used anachronistically, for a catalogue supposed to be so old, as evidence about a number of much later texts: A Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka ascribed to Daogong 道龔, who was active ca. 410-412; Sengyou cites the Bielu for the same ascription, but his tone is dubious, and he lists the text among works by *Dharmakṣema; a 八吉祥經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, where the same text is listed as anonymous in CSZJJ, and Zhi Qian would be too early for a text with such content (dhāraṇīs); and the Lalitavistara of Dharmarakṣa 普曜經. The Gu lu is also cited in evidence for the existence of a version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao, but Tan is dubious of this information on other grounds (see arguments about the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue).

4) Fei also cites the same catalogue in a general statement at the end of a long list of 125 texts, saying that his treatment of them is based upon CSZJJ’s report of the Gu lu (and Jiu lu). This statement does not match with the content of CSZJJ itself (29).

Edit

25-32

• Texts: T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Tan argues that the information cited from the Gu lu in LDSBJ T2034 is unreliable, and the Gu lu itself was probably a late forgery.

1) At the end of LDSBJ, Fei Changfang says that this catalogue “appears to be a catalogue of the scriptures brought by Shi Lifang 釋利防 and others at the time of the Qin 秦” (221-206 BCE). According to Yao Mingda, this claim is based upon Wang Zinian’s 王子年 (Wang Jia 王嘉) unreliable She yi ji 捨遺記.

2) Shi 釋 only came into use as a “surname” for monastics from the time of Daoan onwards, so that its use for a supposed Qin figure is anachronistic.

3) The Gu lu is used anachronistically, for a catalogue supposed to be so old, as evidence about a number of much later texts: A Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka ascribed to Daogong 道龔, who was active ca. 410-412; Sengyou cites the Bielu for the same ascription, but his tone is dubious, and he lists the text among works by *Dharmakṣema; a 八吉祥經 ascribed to Zhi Qian, where the same text is listed as anonymous in CSZJJ, and Zhi Qian would be too early for a text with such content (dhāraṇīs); and the Lalitavistara of Dharmarakṣa 普曜經. The Gu lu is also cited in evidence for the existence of a version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao, but Tan is dubious of this information on other grounds (see arguments about the supposed Zhu Shixing catalogue).

4) Fei also cites the same catalogue in a general statement at the end of a long list of 125 texts, saying that his treatment of them is based upon CSZJJ’s report of the Gu lu (and Jiu lu). This statement does not match with the content of CSZJJ itself (29).

Edit

25-32

• Texts: Zhu Shixing Han lu 朱士行漢錄
• People: Fei Changfang/Zhangfang, 費長房 (forger)

Tan Shibao assesses the use of the so-called Zhu Shixing catalogue 朱士行錄 of Han texts in LDSBJ T2034, and argues that the text was a forgery made by Fei Changfang himself.

Tan summarises a range of opinions among prior scholars on this catalogue (27, 94). Liang Qichao 梁啟超, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤, Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定, Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次 and Lü Cheng 呂澂all regarded the catalogue as fake, though they had varying opinions about its date and probable forger. Feng Chengjun 馮承鈞 and Yao Mingda 姚名達 treated it as reliable.

Tan’s main arguments against the authenticity of this catalogue and information deriving form it are as follows:

1. The dates of Zhu Shixing’s activity make it impossible that he composed any catalogue (94-96). Daoan, the most reliable witness, says that Zhu Shixing ordained and departed for Khotan in the same year (260 CE). He would therefore, according to Tan, have been too young to have composed the catalogue before his departure. After his departure, he never returned, but it is implausible that he would have composed the catalogue in Khotan.

2. Information ascribed to this catalogue is incoherent and implausible. LDSBJ claims, on this basis, that *Lokakṣema translated the Akṣobhyavyūha in the year Jianhe 建和 1 of the Han emperor Huan 桓 (147 CE); but *Lokakṣema was not yet in the capital at that time. LDSBJ uses this catalogue to ascribe a內藏經 to An Shigao, but the wording of this notice is based upon a CSZJJ notice pertaining to an anonymous text, and neither Daoan nor Sengyou say anything about a version by An Shigao. Similarly, wording of notices about a十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭, anda 問地獄事經, ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨, are transparently based upon wording in passages of GSZ, and in the case of the Wen diyu shi jing, moreover, Tan thinks he discerns telltale details that show that Fei Changfang understood imperfectly the wording he was borrowing, resulting in gibberish and proving the direction of borrowing. LDSBJ also uses this catalogue to claim that there existed a “first” translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa古維摩詰經 by Yan Fotiao. Tan dismisses this claim by noting that other, more authoritative earlier sources mention no such text—including GSZ, which Fei Changfang also cites as a source.

3. Other information is anachronistic for a Han catalogue. A notice about a益意經 ascribed to Kang Daohe 康道和 would mean that the catalogue would date to the E. Jin at the earliest. For Tan, notices about the 四十二章經, ascribed to the E. Han, and the 十地斷結經, ascribed to Zhu Falan竺法蘭 mean that the catalogue must have been even later, since he regards both those texts as apocrypha of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period.

4. Fei Changfang lists Zhu Shixing’s catalogue among a list of sources he himself explicitly says he had never seen.

5. Despite this, Fei also has a standard formula he uses when citing something via an intermediate source, e.g. 道安云, 舊錄云, 吳錄云. He never uses this wording in citing the Zhu Shixing catalogue.

6. Finally, Tan aims to consider all possible intermediate sources via which Fei might have known the content of the Zhu Shixing catalogue (since he says he never saw it), and believes that it is possible to logically eliminate all possibilities

Edit

94-103

• Texts: Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

The earliest references we have to Dao'an's work(s) refer to it by such names (or descriptions) as 錄, 名錄, 經錄, 安錄, as well as the title usually encountered in modern scholarship, Zongli zhongjing mulu 總理眾經目錄. The title Zongli zhongjing mulu is first encountered in LDSBJ. However, Fei Zhangfang and his successors did not in fact see Dao'an's work. Tan argues that this title (or description) of Dao'an's work was based upon a line in which Dao'an himself describes his project, as preserved in CSZJJ: 此土眾經出不一時。自孝靈光和已來。迄今晉康寧二年。近二百載。值殘出殘遇全出全。非是一人難卒綜理。為之錄一卷, T2145 (LV) 40a1-3.

Immediately before he records this catalogue, Sengyou also lists another catalogue by Dao'an, for which he gives Dao'an's own preface: 三界諸天混然淆雜。安為錄一卷, 39c29. After several other titles, Sengyou then refers back to these two works:

三界諸天混然淆雜。安為錄一卷(今有)。
此土眾經出不一時 .... 為之錄一卷(今有)。
答沙汰難二卷
答法將難一卷
西域志一卷
凡二十七卷其諸天錄經錄。及答沙汰難至西域志。雖非注經。今依安舊錄附之于末, 39c29-40a8.

Tan points out that Sengyou's reference separately to 諸天錄 and 經錄 shows that Dao'an must have compiled at least two catalogues, both of which Sengyou saw. (He also points out that Sengyou is here, for the other titles in the list, following the order of Dao'an's catalogue.)

Tan also points out that the way these two catalogues are described is not in keeping with information we have about Dao'an's work in respect of some other texts. The phrases 難卒綜理 and 混然淆雜 indicate that these were both miscellanies, listing works that were difficult to subsume under other categorisations --- and hence they are appended to the end of other lists 附之于末. Elsewhere, Sengyou describes the main body of Dao'an's work by saying, 自漢暨晉。經來稍多。而傳經之人名字弗記。後人追尋莫測年代。安乃總集名目表其時人銓品新舊撰為經錄。眾經有據實由其功, T2145 (LV) 108a18-21. This indicates, by contrast, a very orderly collection, and it shows that the title most commonly applied to Dao'an's work, 總理眾經目錄, which is, rather, fitting for the miscellanies, is entirely a misnomer as a description of the main part of his work.

Tan goes on to point out that it is commonly asserted in modern scholarship that Dao'an authored one catalogue in one juan, but this, too, is a misconception originating with Fei's LDSBJ. He argues that this means that the attempts of Liang Qichao, Tokiwa and Hayashiya to "restore" Dao'an's (supposedly singular) "original catalogue" are all flawed. Tan himself makes a fresh attempt to reconstruct Dao'an's catalogues, which arrives at different results. He argues that prior scholars typically ordered "the" catalogue in the same order as its component parts are presented in CSZJJ, which for him is an error. He argues that in fact, careful examination of the remnants of Dao'an's catalogues and information about them in CSZJJ leads to the conclusion that Dao'an wrote a total of five catalogues in eight juan, at various times and in various places (71-74).

Tan also discusses the likely dates and places at which these five catalogues were compiled (74-79). He summarises the views of previous scholars, including later pre-modern bibliographers like Fei Zhangfang and Daoxuan, all of which were predicated on the view, for Tan false, that Dao'an authored a single catalogue. In this summary, I have bundled Tan's theories about date and place of composition together with each of the texts concerned.

1. A catalogue referred to by Sengyou as 本錄, 大錄, or 安公舊錄 (71-72), in order to distinguish it from smaller, later catalogues also composed by Dao'an. E.g. 新集安公失譯經錄: 祐校安公舊錄。其經有譯名則繼錄上卷。無譯名者則條目于下 .... 安公大[本SYM]錄訖於此, T2145 (LV) 16c8-18b16 (i.e. the intervening five registers should principally be taken from Dao'an's da/benlu); 其安公時抄。悉附本錄, 37c8; 其諸天錄經錄。及答沙汰難至西域志。雖非注經。今依安舊錄附之于末, 40a7-8. Tan notes that the first of these citations establishes that the catalogue had two juan: 則繼錄上卷...則條目于下, which were dedicated to texts with known translators and anonymous texts respectively. Previous scholars treated only the first of these two juan as the benlu, which is incorrect. When scholars elsewhere refer to Dao'an's catalogue as the 名錄 or 銓名錄, this is also incorrect --- it is an incorrect extension of a name Sengyou gives for part of his own work in his preface to his work: 名曰出三藏記集。一撰緣記。二銓名錄。三總經序。四述列傳。緣記撰則原始之本克昭。名錄銓則年代之目不墜, 1b7-10. He also points out that the title given to the first set of titles excerpted (mainly) from Dao'an in CSZJJ, 經律論錄, is anachronistic from Dao'an's point of view, and does not date back to him. In various attempts at restoration, counts of the number of titles in the first fascicle have also varied (247, 245, 244). Tan himself agrees with Lü Cheng's count of 244. Tan takes the second fascicle to be incorporated the catalogue of Dao'an's anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ fascicle 5. He cites Sengyou: 尋安錄。自修行本起訖於和達。凡一百有三十四經, 16c9-10, but states that if we count the titles, we get 131, not 134. Finally, Tan also states that this catalogue had an appendix with three of Dao'an's own works, the above-named 答沙汰難, 答法將難, 西域志.

Tan places the composition of this catalogue in the fourteen years 335-349, when Dao'an was a disciple of Fotudeng. Tan's basis for this is in part the fact that the titles listed in the first fascicle of the catalogue are no later than texts translated by Fali under Emperor Huai of the Jin 晉懷帝 (r. 306-313). [This reasoning may be flawed, since we have no solid evidence that any texts were translated between that time and the late 370s --- MR.] Tan's terminus ad quem is the 后赵内乱 (348-349, leading to the downfall of Shi Hu 石虎), based upon a remark quoted by Sengyou (in his notes to the works of Dharmarakṣa): 安公云。遭亂錄散小小錯涉, T2145 (LV) 9c3. [The context is that Sengyou is saying he discovered, by scouring "the catalogues", four further works of Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an had not recorded, and wishes to explain how Dao'an could have missed those works: 安錄先闕。今條入錄中。安公云。遭亂錄散小小錯涉。故知今之所獲審是護出也.] He also cites a line from Dao'an's biography in CSZJJ: 安乃總集名目表其時人銓品新舊撰為經錄 .... 及石氏之亂。乃謂其眾曰..., 108a20-23. He also refers to what he holds to be the principle governing Dao'an's bibliography: to record all he saw, and only what he saw; and notes that this catalogue includes none of the texts that Dao'an saw in his later phase at Xiangyang, such as texts that Sengyou had to supplement, for which Dao'an himself later wrote prefaces. (In this connection, Tan notes that a portion of Dao'an's biography is moved in error by Huijiao in GSZ from its original location describing this phase of Dao'an's career to the later portion of the biography treating the phase after the move to Xiangyang.)

(2) 雜經目錄, two versions in two fascicles. Sengyou calls these 諸天錄 and 經錄 (see above). The name and contents of these catalogues cannot be determined, but based on the descriptions of them, Tan surmises that the first contained various texts about heavens/gods, and the second various texts spanning the period from the Guanghe 光和 reign period (178-184) to 康寧二年 (374? see below), which were either complete or fragmentary, but could not be subsumed under other categories governing Dao'an's bibliographic project. Tan believes that these two catalogues listed texts Dao'an had seen during his time at Xiangyang 襄陽.

On the basis of the phrase 康寧二年, Tan dates this catalogue to 寧康二年 (374). Some scholars (e.g. Ono Genmyō) have proposed is an error for 興寧二年 (364). He points out that Dao'an only arrived in Xiangyang (Jin territory) the next year, 365, and so it would not make sense for him to write "until now, under the Jin" 迄今晉 before that year; this makes 374 the more likely date. He also points out that he speaks of "nearly two hundred years" since the Guanghe reign period.

(3) 偽經目錄. This is the list of texts reproduced in CSZJJ under the title 新集安公疑經錄, along with Dao'an's own original preface. This list contains 26 texts. [Note that the notion that this was a text of so-called 偽經 is Tan's own inference; this word never appears in Dao'an's own writings, though Sengyou uses it once to describe Dao'an's list, T2145 (LV) 38c23 --- MR.] Tan himself states that it is difficult to determine the original title of this small catalogue (73).

Tan argues that this catalogue was written during the years between 365 and 379, during Dao'an's Xiangyang phase. In his preface, Dao'an writes 經至晉土其年未遠; he would not have written of the Jin (which must here refer to the E. Jin, since the W. Jin was too early) while under the patronage of the Latter Zhao (Shi Le) or the Former Qin (as he was in Chang'an). In addition, the last text listed is the 覓歷所傳大比丘尼戒. Mili 覓歷 was a disciple of *Śrīmitra, who came to China during the Yongjia 永賀 reign period (307-313), then moved to the Jiangdong, and died between 335 and 342. Mili's texts should have been written in this period, and it is appropriate for Dao'an to say that this last text was composed "not long ago, under the Jin". Tan also adduces the line 昔安法師摘出偽經二十六部。又指慧達道人以為深戒 from Sengyou's preface to his own list of false scriptures, 38c23-24. He interprets the second phrase to refer to an incident in which Dao'an accused Huida of making false claims to have witnessed miraculous lights and discovered relics, which took place in Ningkang/Kangning 2 (374).

(4) A catalogue of his own commentaries to sūtras, as reproduced in CSZJJ under the title 新集安公注經及雜經志錄. This text also carried a preface by Dao'an, which has been transmitted. The wording of that preface indicates that the catalogue was exclusively devoted to such works: 輒以洒掃之餘暇。注眾經如左, 39b25-26. Tan also suggests that this catalogue included eleven anonymous scriptures, which Sengyou extracted and listed in his section dedicated to anonymous texts.

Tan argues that this catalogue was also written in Dao'an's Xiangyang period, between 376 and 379. He bases this claim in part on the phrase 抱瓫於漢陰 in Dao'an's preface to the catalogue, 39b19, showing that Dao'an was then living on the southern shore of the Han River, i.e. in Xiangyang. The catalogue includes two texts related to the Guang zan jing 光讚經 T222: the 光讚折中解 and the 光讚抄解. The Guangzang jing is recorded as having arrived in Xiangyang in 376.

(5) A late catalogue of anonymous texts. This catalogue, Tan suggests, comprised three sections (or "daughter catalogues" 子錄), which are the titles presented in CSZJJ as 新集安公古異經錄, 新集安公涼土異經錄, and 新集安公關中異經錄 --- thus, this catalogue was organised in part according to geographic region. Tan cites Sengyou's preface to the first of these catalogues: 安公覿其古異編之於末。祐推其歲遠列之于首; he argues that this shows that these lists were appended to the end of some other catalogue. He refers to the fact that the anonymous section of the first of the catalogues [viz. the benlu, discussed above] ends with the 和達經一卷, and suggests that these lists could not have been appended to that catalogue.

Tan argues that this catalogue includes works from the Guanzhong and Liangtu regions, and should thus have been compiled after Dao'an moved to Chang'an in 379, i.e. in the period 380-385.

Summarising his arguments about these different works, Tan emphasises that a clear overall pattern emerges, showing that Dao'an compiled these different catalogues as different texts came available to him, through the combination of his own movements (and the political reach of the different regimes he worked under), and, late in his career, the influx of new texts.

Edit

67-79

• Texts: Jiu lu 舊錄
• Dates: 495-515

The title (or category?) of Jiulu 舊錄 is first attested in Sengyou’s CSZJJ, without any indication of the authorship or dates of the text in question. After Sengyou, Fei Zhangfang was the first to venture an explanation of the origin of the Jiulu, claiming that it was a catalogue of texts discovered by Liu Xiang 劉向 (77 BCE—6 CE) during his search for books 似前漢劉向搜集藏書所見經録. Daoxuan repeated this thesis in his DTNDL. However, like some scholars before him such as Yao Mingda, Tan thoroughly rejects this claim as false and baseless. At the same time, he cautions that the falsity of this myth itself does not necessarily mean that the catalogue itself did not exist. Since it was first cited in CSZJJ without the taint of this myth, the next logical task at hand is to check all entries there involving the Jiulu and deduce from them the terminus ante quem and terminus post quem of the catalogue.

Tan first summarizes the various theories proposed by previous Chinese scholars (33-34)

1) Jiulu = Zhi Mindu’s catalogue (proposed by Liang Qichao, adopted by Lü Cheng, Hu Shi, and Tang Yongtong.

2) Yao Mingda: the Jiulu was most likely compiled sometime between 341 and 370. But the entries citing Jiulu as a source in LDSBJ stretch to dates as late as the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 from the S. Qi, making it almost contemporary with CSZJJ. [This of course is already a glaring inconsistency with Fei’s proposed provenance of the Jiulu--SC]

3) Refutation of 1). Liang Qichao was the first to propose this theory, overturning his own earlier theory. He commented that the name “old catalogue” from Sengyou’s perspective does not require a date prior to Dao’an, as assumed by Fei but could be any catalogue before Sengyou’s own time. Zhang Dejun shares this view, arguing that Sengyou never laid eyes on Zhi Mindu’s catalogue.

4) Based on the entry for the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 in LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 96b9, Feng Chengjun thinks that the Jiulu was a “fake catalogue” 偽錄 dating after the fifth century.

Rejecting 1) completely, Tan reassesses the other three theories on the basis of his own findings. Step by step, he eventually arrives at the conclusion that the Jiulu could not have been compiled before 495.

A. The Jiulu must date later than Dao’an’s main catalogue. As evidenced in notes involving the Jiulu and Dao’an’s catalogue, both catalogues recorded the dates and names of translators when available, but Sengyou famously credited Dao’an as the first cataloguer to register the dates and translators of texts. By this logic, the Jiulu must have postdated Dao’an. The Jiulu also tends to record the titles in their entirety (in contrast to Dao’an’s frequent abbreviation) and the number of fascicles, which Dao’an never provided.

B. Sengyou relied on Dao’an’s catalogue(s) as his basis in the following catalogues, and supplemented in each case the following number of entries with information from the Jiulu:

新集經論錄(fascicle 2): 49
新集安公古異經錄 (f.3): 14
新集安公失譯經錄 (f.3): 20
新集安公涼土異經錄 (f.3): 8
新集安公關中異經錄 (f.3): 4
新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (f.4): 112
新集抄經錄 (f.5): 2
新集安公疑經錄 (f.5): 4

Many previous scholars, including Yao Mingda, only focused on the entries in 新集經論錄 and took the last entry there, 譬喻經, as proof that the Jiulu must have been compiled between Emperors Cheng 成帝 (r. 325-342) and Fei 廢帝 (r. 365-372) of the (Eastern) Jin 晉 (34).

Looking further, Tan quickly finds proof for much later dates. First, in the 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, the entry for the Ba sui shami xiang waidai jing 八歲沙彌降外道經 gives a note stating that it is excerpted from the Udānavarga of Zhu Fonian T212: 抄出曜，舊錄云八歲沙彌折外異學經. If it were excerpted from T212, which was translated at the beginning of Later Qin, this text could not have predated 399. For the same reason, the Jiulu must have been later too. Another entry in this catalogue, for the Shi'er yinyuan zhang jing 十二因緣章經 pushes the terminus post quem of the Jiulu forward even further. At the same time as he in one locus refers to the Jiulu for information about the text (舊錄云十二因緣經, T2145 [LV] 30b8-9), Sengyou elsewhere dates the Shi'er yinyuan zhang jing ] to [南齊]建武二年, i.e. 495 CE (13c18). Further evidence for the Jiulu recording works as late as the fifth century includes Sengyou’s preface 菩薩善戒菩薩地持二經記 (f.9) and 大集虛空藏無盡意三經記 (f.9) (35-36).

Based on the date of CSZJJ (510-515 CE), Tan suggests that the Jiulu must have been compiled sometime between 495 and 515 (36).

C. Turning to references of the Jiulu in LDSBJ, Tan points to several dubious entries, including some that outright contradict the the Jiulu entries in CSZJJ. Among these is the Jiu shang jing 九傷經 mentioned earlier, which was recorded in CSZJJ without any mention of the Jiulu (36-37). [Tan compiles a list that cross-examines all the Jiulu entries in LDSBJ against those in CSZJJ.]

In short, Tan concludes that the entries in CSZJJ give no reason for us to doubt the existence or validity of the Jiulu, whereas all the mistakes and signs of fabrication first appeared in LDSBJ, suggesting that Fei, not the Jiulu itself, initiated all that was dubious about the “old catalogue.”

Edit

33-48

• Texts: T2145; 出三藏記集

By comparing the records in Sengyou’s own works and later catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ and KYL), Tan concludes that each of Sengyou’s texts Shi jia pu 釋迦譜 T2040, Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102 and CSZJJ existed in a shorter and a longer version. The main evidence from Sengyou himself is the preface and table of contents of his Faji 法集, preserved under the heading 釋僧祐法集總目錄序 in the present CSZJJ. Shi jia pu, Hong ming ji, and CSZJJ are three of the eight works by Sengyou that make up the Faji, and in the table of contents for Faji, Sengyou indicates the length of Shi jia pu as 5 fascicles, Hong ming ji as 10 fascicles, and CSZJJ as 10 fascicles. While it is true that the extant Shi jia pu is 5 fascicles long, the extant Hong ming ji and CSZJJ are 14 and 15 fascicles respectively. Looking beyond evidence within Sengyou’s own corpus, we find that the entries for both CSZJJ and Hong ming ji in KYL concur with the extant longer versions though Zhisheng also notes that Sengyou’s own catalogue (You lu 祐錄) gives a different length of 10 fascicles for both works. On the other hand, while the length of the extant Shi jia pu agrees with the length given by Sengyou in Faji, Zhisheng apparently based his entry in KYL on a longer version of 10 fascicles. Similar to his entries of CSZJJ and Hong ming ji, he again notes the existence of a shorter version, which in this case consists of 5 fascicles just like our extant Shi jia pu 別有五卷本與此廣略異. Based on these records, Tan deduces that Sengyou produced two versions for each of these three works. Furthermore, because Sengyou reproduces the tables of contents for all of the works collected in the Faji except CSZJJ right after the table of contents of the Faji itself, Tan reasons that Sengyou must have omitted the table of content of the shorter CSZJJ [hereafter CSZJJ-10f] because he must have already incorporated it in the longer CSZJJ [CSZJJ-15f] that now also encloses the tables of contents of the Faji. This then also follows that CSZJJ-15f must postdate CSZJJ-10f (146-147).

Tan then deals with a series of subsequent confusions surrounding these two versions of CSZJJ in later catalogues. Although Fei Zhangfang is responsible for most of the later misinformation, he inherits two of his most glaring mistakes from Fajing: naming the work 出三藏集記 instead of 出三藏記集, and reporting the work as 16 fascicles long instead of 15 (148).

Another main point of confusion concerns the names You lu, CSZJJ, and CSZJJ lu 出三藏記集錄. Tan emphatically reserves the two titles ending in lu for the catalogue section of CSZJJ, while insisting that the title CSZJJ (without –lu) can only refer to the entire CSZJJ-15f. Because Sengyou introduces the shorter CSZJJ-10f as a pure catalogue in his preface to the Faji 訂正經譯，故編三藏之錄, Tan thinks it would also be correct to refer to CSZJJ-10f as either You lu or CSZJJ lu. In contrast, because Sengyou describes the later, longer CSZJJ-15f as a much more diverse work containing an account of the canon’s history, catalogues, prefaces, biographies一撰緣記，二銓名錄，三總經序，四述列傳, Tan argues that the word lu would strictly speaking only accuratedly describe only one fourth of the work, were it applied to this larger collection of materials. Tan is quite adamant about this distinction, because Fei’s sloppy treatment of these titles spawned further outright erroneous confusion in DTNDL. In fascicle 12 of LDSBJ Fei notes the length of CSZJJ as 16 fascicles, but in fascicle 15 he presents presumably the same work again, but calls it CSZJJ lu (for both entries he miswrites CSZJJ as出三藏集記). Without noting the number of fascicles, Fei also lists the names of the daughter catalogues within CSZJJ, but leaves out 5 of the 17 catalogues for no apparent reason. In DTNDL, Daoxuan then not only inherits the miswritten title 出三藏集記 and the incorrect length of 16 fascicles, but further muddies the water by simultaneously also reporting elsewhere that the same work is 12 fascicles long. Since he also reproduces Fei’s shortened inventory of 12 daughter catalogues, we can assume the misleading 12 fascicles sprang from a careless conflation of catalogues with fascicles. As mentioned above, Zhisheng’s KYL at least corrected most of these mistakes (149-156).

[It should be noted, however, that while Sengyou himself employs the name CSZJJ lu in his catalogue section, the earliest attestation of the title You lu is in Fajing. In other words, in all likelihood, it was but a shorthand invented by later cataloguers without any basis in Sengyou’s own practice, and as such, theoretically it could be used to refer to any catalogue by Sengyou rather than a specific work. --- SC]

Regarding the dates of CSZJJ, Tan theorizes that Fei Zhangfang gave the misleading date of the 2nd year of Jianwu 建武二年 (495) only because it was the year for the last two entries in Sengyou’s main catalogue 新集撰出經律論錄. He then lists a series of much later dates in CSZJJ itself as evidence for a much later terminus ante quem. Based on the dates in the catalogues, Tan opines that CSZJJ could not have been finished before Tianjian 9 (510). For the prefaces, the latest date recorded is Tianjian 14 (515) found in慧印三昧及濟方等學二經序. Based on the content of the 雜錄序 in fasc. 12, Tan suggests a terminus ante quem as late as Tianjian 16 (517), which is however based on the supposed date for 婆利國獻真金像記 [I cannot find further information on this supposition either in Tan’s work or elsewhere --- SC]. To Tan, this also suggests that CSZJJ was most likely finished sometime between Tianjian 16 and Sengyou’s death in Tianjian 17 at Jianchu Temple 建初寺 in Yangzhou. In response to Yao Mingda’s theory that Liu Xie 劉勰 (465-522) might have been responsible for the actual compilation of the catalogues (on the basis of his biography in the Liang shu 梁書, which attributes the catalogue of Dinglin Temple to him 依沙門僧祐 ，與之居處，積十餘年，遂博通經論，因區別部類，錄而序之。今定林寺經藏，勰所定也), Tan gives a long list of commentarial notes in CSZJJ that detail several of the searches and examinations undertaken by Sengyou himself and thus prove him as the main editor of CSZJJ both in name and in fact (159-164).

Edit

146-164

• Texts: T2040; 釋迦譜 ; T2102; 弘明集

By comparing the records in Sengyou’s own works and later catalogues (Fajing, LDSBJ and KYL), Tan concludes that each of Sengyou’s texts Shi jia pu 釋迦譜 T2040, Hong ming ji 弘明集 T2102 and CSZJJ existed in a shorter and a longer version. The main evidence from Sengyou himself is the preface and table of contents of his Faji 法集, preserved under the heading 釋僧祐法集總目錄序 in the present CSZJJ. Shi jia pu, Hong ming ji, and CSZJJ are three of the eight works by Sengyou that make up the Faji, and in the table of contents for Faji, Sengyou indicates the length of Shi jia pu as 5 fascicles, Hong ming ji as 10 fascicles, and CSZJJ as 10 fascicles. While it is true that the extant Shi jia pu is 5 fascicles long, the extant Hong ming ji and CSZJJ are 14 and 15 fascicles respectively. Looking beyond evidence within Sengyou’s own corpus, we find that the entries for both CSZJJ and Hong ming ji in KYL concur with the extant longer versions though Zhisheng also notes that Sengyou’s own catalogue (You lu 祐錄) gives a different length of 10 fascicles for both works. On the other hand, while the length of the extant Shi jia pu agrees with the length given by Sengyou in Faji, Zhisheng apparently based his entry in KYL on a longer version of 10 fascicles. Similar to his entries of CSZJJ and Hong ming ji, he again notes the existence of a shorter version, which in this case consists of 5 fascicles just like our extant Shi jia pu 別有五卷本與此廣略異. Based on these records, Tan deduces that Sengyou produced two versions for each of these three works. Furthermore, because Sengyou reproduces the tables of contents for all of the works collected in the Faji except CSZJJ right after the table of contents of the Faji itself, Tan reasons that Sengyou must have omitted the table of content of the shorter CSZJJ [hereafter CSZJJ-10f] because he must have already incorporated it in the longer CSZJJ [CSZJJ-15f] that now also encloses the tables of contents of the Faji. This then also follows that CSZJJ-15f must postdate CSZJJ-10f (146-147).

Edit

146-147

• Texts: Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄; Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 ; T2034; 歷代三寶紀

Tan argues that probably Fei Changfang did not see Baochang's catalogue, and the entries that he claims to cite from it in the LDSBJ were likely made up. Tan lists the following proofs:

1. In the list of Baochang’s works in LDSBJ, which should ostensibly be in chronological order, Baochang’s catalogue appears to be in the wrong position. Thus, Fei was likely not certain when the Baochang catalogue was composed, and perhaps Fei never saw the Baocahng catalogue at all. [This argument seems weak --- LQ]

2. The structure and content of the Baochang catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ appears suspicious:

(1) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Baochang’s catalogue has 17 divisions, but LDSBJ fascicle 15 says that it has 20 divisions.

(2) LDSBJ fascicle 11 states that Sengshao’s 僧紹 catalogue, the Hualin Fodian [zhong]jingmu 華林佛殿眾經目, which was the predecessor of LDSBJ, was based on Sengyou’s catalogue with some modifications. But Sengshao’s catalogue was supposed to be a catalogue of the royal library collections, thus it should not, and could not possibly be based on Sengyou’s catalogue, which was a general catalogue.

Furthermore, Ruan Xiaoxu’s 阮孝緒 (479－536) Qi lu 七錄 contains a catalogue of Buddhist texts, which, according to Tang Yongtong, should be a catalogue of the collections in the Hualin library. Baochang’s catalogue contains far fewer texts than the Qi lu, and is thus unlikely to be based on Sengshao’s catalogue.

(3) Fei characterises Baochang’s catalogue as poor in quality 覼縷, but this is at odds with the praises lavished upon Baochang by Daoxuan.

3. Problems in the LDSBJ entries supposedly citing from Baochang:

(1) LDSBJ says that Baochang’s catalogue contains records of Sengshao’s catalogue and Baochang’s Ming seng zhuan 名僧傳. But these two texts could nowhere be fitted into the divisions of Baochang’s catalogue as recorded in the LDSBJ. These records must therefore be fabricated by Fei.

(2) LDSBJ fasc. 4 assigns the 禪行三十七品經 to An Shigao, and says that records of this text can be found in both Baochang’s and Sengyou’s catalogues. But this title is not in Sengyou’s catalogue of An Shigao’s works. Thus, this record must also have been invented by Fei.

(3) Fei assigns a 修行道地經 to An Shigao and claims that the record is from Baochang and Bie lu 別錄. But according to Dao’an and Sengyou this text was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Also, in the chronology section of the LDSBJ, under 永康元年, Fei says that Zhi Mindu’s catalogue records that An Shigao translated this text, without mentioning Baochang and the Bie lu.

(4) The dates given for records of *Saṅghabhara's 僧伽婆羅 works, allegedly from Baochang, do not make any sense.

Edit

174-185

• Texts: "Dao'an's catalogue" 道安錄 ; Daozu lu 道祖錄 ; Er Qin lu 二秦錄 ; Gu lu 古錄 ; Jiu lu 舊錄 ; Song Qi lu 宋齊錄 ; T2034; 歷代三寶紀 ; Zhao catalogue 趙錄 ; Zhi Mindu dou lu 支敏度都錄 ; Zhi Mindu’s catalogue 支敏度錄; Yi jing lu 譯經 ; Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄

Tan reports that several catalogues cited by Fei Zhangfang in LDSBJ are supposed to have been compiled at a date earlier than the translation dates of the scriptures they recorded. Appealing on this basis to one of the principles that Liang Qichao proposed for recognizing forgeries, Tan thus questions the authenticity of the following catalogues:

- 古錄
- 舊錄
- 支敏度錄
- 支敏度都錄
- 竺道祖錄
- 趙錄
- 二秦錄
- 宋齊錄
- 道安錄

Edit

20