据点勘记判定藏经洞写卷原貌

Determining the Original Appearances of the Scrolls from the Dunhuang Library Cave Based on Their Inventory Records

点勘记是敦煌写经的古代清点者书写在卷子背面,标明经文名称、卷次、归属和完整与否的记录,反映了古人所见敦煌写卷的本来面目,可以用来判定藏经洞开启前敦煌写卷的原貌。根据点勘记的位置、数量、特点和含义,可归纳出藏经洞开启前后写卷外部形态变化的五种类型,即写卷被发现前已断裂、被发现前已残缺、被发现后断裂、被发现后残缺、被发现前补缀过卷首而被发现后断裂残缺。写卷外部形态不断变化的事实使得敦煌文献原貌的认定具有时效性,需要用实证分析的方法,从写本历史变化的整体上观照缀合研究。

The inventory records,which were written on the back of the scrolls by people from medieval China who counted Dunhuang manuscripts,often include the titles of the scriptures,number of the volume,their provenances,and whether they were complete.These records indicate the original appearances of the scrolls from the Dunhuang Library Cave as seen by people from medieval China.They can be used to determine the original appearances of the scrolls before the opening of the Dunhuang Library Cave.By analyzing five types of reconstructed Dunhuang manuscripts,this article illustrates the original appearances of the Dunhuang scrolls based on the locations,numbers,characteristics,and meanings of the inventory records.It also compares the original appearances of these scrolls with those reconstructed in the modern period,in order to depict the evolvements of Dunhuang manuscripts.The five types of reconstructions are as follows:Based on the fact that the status of the scrolls have been constantly changing,this paper argues that the original appearances of Dunhuang scrolls are time-sensitive,and that the original appearance of the same scroll is historically justified if it is different from that during the other periods.We must reconstruct and study Dunhuang manuscripts from a historical perspective,and pay attention to the whole evolution of manuscripts in order to promote the reconstruction of fragmental Dunhuang manuscripts.The five types of reconstructions are as follows:First,manuscripts split before the discovery of the Library Cave:for example,in the manuscript BD2333…Ф.237+BD7587+BD8674(Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra,Fascicle Twenty-nine),on the verso of the beginning of each fragment,there is an inventory record written by the same person,such as“the seventh”(diqi,弟七),“the first”(diyi,弟一),“the third”(disan,弟三)and“the second”(di’er,弟二).These records indicate that the scroll was torn into fragments before the Library Cave was sealed,and that people from medieval China,in order to arrange the fragments to repair them,wrote inventory records respectively on the fragments from the same long scroll that had been torn apart.Second,manuscripts damaged before the discovery of the Library Cave:for example,on the verso of the beginning of manuscript BD2543 in the manuscript S.69+Дх.1176+BD2543(Lotus Sūtra,Fascicle Four),there is an inventory record“the fourth,lacking three and a half sheets of paper”(disan,qian sanzhiban,弟四,欠三纸半),indicating that before the Cave was sealed,people from medieval China had noted that a large section of this manuscript was missing in front of BD2543,and the missing“three and a half sheets of paper”are S.69+Дх.1176.Third,manuscripts split after the discovery of the Library Cave:for example,on the verso of the beginning of manuscript BD1775+BD4194(Lotus Sūtra,Fascicle Four),which is BD1775,there is an inventory record“the Lotus Sūtra,without the beginning”(Miaofalianhua jing,wutou,妙法莲花经,无头).This record suggests that the end of the original scroll was not missing.Therefore,the split between BD4194 and BD1775 at the end of the extant scroll appeared after the opening of the Cave.Fourth,manuscripts damaged after the discovery of the Library Cave:for example,on the verso where fragments S.12318 and BD4849(Lotus Sūtra,Fascicle Three)can be joined,there is an inventory record,“Fascicle Three of the Lotus Sūtra,without the beginning”(Miaofalianhua jing juan disan,wutou,妙法莲华经卷第三,无头).This record indicates that this damage had not occurred when people from medieval China did the survey.In other words,this split and damage happened after the discovery of the Cave.Fifth,scrolls that have been repaired at the beginning of the manuscripts before the Library Cave was sealed,and have been damaged after the opening of the Cave:for example,on the verso of the beginning of BD11106 in the manuscript BD7456+BD11106+BD1190(Suvarñaprabhāsottama-sūtra,Fascicle Seven),there is an inventory record“the seventh”.This record indicates that the first sheet of paper in front of BD7456+BD11106 was previously missing.Since the format,script and status of the first sheet of paper of BD7456 are different from the other part,this sheet of paper was probably added later.The title of the sūtra,“Fascicle Seven of the Suvarñaprabhāsottama-sūtra”(Jinguangming jing diqi,金光明经弟七),is written on a patch on the verso of this manuscript where the first and second sheets were joined.There is a symbol indicating the title of the sūtra,“”,which suggests that after this reconstruction,this manuscript became a complete scroll.It means that the current splits between these fragments,the loss of the lower part of BD11106,and the absence of a line of the commentary as well as the end title of BD1190 all happened after the opening of the Library Cave.The scroll has undergone complicated transformations from whole to fragmental,from restoration to re-damaged,which is a microcosm of the changes that have taken place in Dunhuang manuscripts over time.Based on the fact that the status of the scrolls have been constantly changing,this paper argues that the original appearances of Dunhuang scrolls are time-sensitive,and that the original appearance of the same scroll is historically justified if it is different from that during the other periods.We must reconstruct and study Dunhuang manuscripts from a historical perspective,and pay attention to the whole evolution of manuscripts in order to promote the reconstruction of fragmental Dunhuang manuscripts.