Abstract
A widely accepted view about the Zhuangzi 莊子 is that its core was written by a Warring States (476–221 BCE) figure named Zhuang Zhou 莊周. The remainder of the work, according to this view, is a mixture of material that might have come from Zhuang Zhou, or from his followers, or from others whose ideas sometimes differ considerably from those typically ascribed to Zhuang Zhou. Such a view is problematic in several ways. First, it relies on an anachronistic picture of textual production that goes against much of what we now know about Warring States textual culture. Second, it downplays suggestive evidence from the Han 漢 (205 BCE-220 CE) and Six dynasties (220–589 CE) periods that could easily push us toward quite a different picture of Zhuangzi text formation. Third and most consequential, the conventional view leads to a way of approaching the Zhuangzi that over-emphasizes the Inner Chapters at the expense of the other parts of the text. For all of these reasons, it is time to seriously entertain alternative proposals about the Zhuangzi’s authorship and process of text formation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For a discussion of Zhuang Zhou’s dates, see below.
- 2.
Liu traces the origin of this view to Wang Fuzhi 王夫之 (1619–1692) but he elaborates on it considerably.
- 3.
This view is also endorsed by Christopher Rand, who concludes that “upon close inspection, the nei/wai/[za] divisions have come to appear increasingly arbitrary, and minimally reflective of any one date of composition or [of] overall textual integrity” (Rand 1983: 17). In his excellent but often overlooked study of the Zhuangzi, Rand cautiously accepts that “a significant percentage, though not all, of the ‘inner chapters’ were probably drafted by the master himself or his immediate disciples.” Liu ** your nature intact, protecting your authenticity, not allowing things to entangle your form” (全性保真,不以物累形), a doctrine that (the text notes) was in turn was opposed by Mencius (Huainanzi jishi 1998: 13.416; trans. Major et al. 2010: 501). On the “selfish” Yang Zhu, see Mengzi 7A.26 (Mengzi zhushu 1980: 13B.2768). Although similar themes of preserving one’s nature appear in the Lüshi chunqiu (e.g., the “Making Life Fundamental” 本生 chapter, Lü 2002: 1/2.21–34), they are not there associated with Yang Zhu by name. On present evidence, there is no sign of this specific association prior to the Huainanzi.
- 33.
The mountain tree story (1) has already been discussed above. Yiliao from South of the Market describes how animals’ lives are endangered by the desirability of their fine pelts (2). The tax collector escapes danger from disgruntled taxpayers through his plainness (3). Confucius starving between Chen and Cai is taught by Taigong Ren to survive by doing away with his brilliance (4), and taught by Sanghu to survive by disentangling himself from arbitrary connections (5). The story of Zhuangzi being poor but not distressed (discussed above), also contains a message about recognizing when one is born into adverse circumstances and being cautious so as to survive (6). We then find Confucius again between Chen and Cai, but this time as the teacher rather than the student, and his instruction involves merging with Heaven and disentangling one’s self from human enticements (7). The next story is the park at Diaoling (8), and the final story involves Yangzi at the inn, teaching that the way to be loved is to not be overly conscious of one’s own merits (9). Not all of these disparate pieces of advice are mutually consistent, but they could all be justly characterized as strategies for self-preservation.
- 34.
- 35.
Note that Wang Shumin takes this story as a ‘fulcrum’ of sorts (to use Liu **aogan’s term): “The most important piece of evidence for those who research Zhuangzian thought, this must certainly have been recorded by Zhuangzi” (為研究莊子思想最重要之依據,此必莊子所記; Wang 1988: 1438). But the second statement does not follow from the first. It may be, as I have argued, that this anecdote is in tension with other aspects of Zhuangzian thought. Even if I am wrong and the anecdote does (contrary to my view) illustrate a key aspect of Zhuangzian thought, it could still have been the imaginative composition of some later person, loosely inspired by a version of the anecdote like the one found in the Han Shi waizhuan.
- 36.
The distribution of useless tree stories in the Inner Chapters is limited to the first and fourth chapters (Wang 1988: 1.35–38, 4.150–56, 4.158, 4.163), and their interrelations are somewhat peculiar. They seem to repeat the same message in different ways—as if reflecting different versions of the same portable anecdote—without building on it as one would expect from a single-authored chapter that was designed to fit together as a connected, continuous piece.
- 37.
For an extensive discussion of the uselessness motif in the Zhuangzi, see Major 1975.
- 38.
- 39.
Compare Durrant’s meditations on Sima Qian’s (re)construction of his dying father’s last words (1995: 2–8).
- 40.
See for example the playful parody of master-disciple lineages narrated by Nü Yu 女偊 (rendered by Watson as “Woman Crookback”). The parodic nature of the ‘genealogy’ is revealed by the fact that all the names of the lineage teachers are obviously allegorical: in Watson’s renderings, Aided-by-Ink (Fumo 副墨), Repeated-Recitation (Luosong 洛誦), Seeing-Brightly (Zhanming 瞻明), Whispered-Agreement (Niexu 聶許), Waiting-for-Use (Xuyi 需役), Exclaimed-Wonder (Ou 謳), Dark-Obscurity (Xuanming 玄冥), Participation-in-Mystery (Canliao 參寥), and Copy-the-Source (Nishi 疑始). Trans. Watson 1968: 82–83; Wang 1988: 6.237–41.
- 41.
This point is made, though very flippantly, in Mansvelt Beck 2000: 10–13. Interestingly, he draws the exact opposite conclusion about it, opining that “the arguments against Zhuangzi’s authorship are never very strong anyway” (12) and insisting that “thought must be accredited to someone—not to a motley bunch of unknown individuals” (13). This is a version of Jiang Tao’s worry, that “the destabilization of authorship” can “put philosophical projects in jeopardy” (2016: 44). I would argue instead that among a motley bunch of unknown individuals, there might still have been geniuses or at least moments of genius. Suppose through some quirk of fate or cultural change, every author’s name was removed from every title page and every bibliography of every book ever written. Would the brilliance of those books be “dimmed,” as Mansvelt Beck argues, absent the figures of their authors (11)? Or would different valuable insights, perhaps equally brilliant, potentially be gained?
- 42.
Such a process is hypothesized for the last fifteen sections of the Daode**g in Perkins 2014. It was likely more common than surviving evidence suggests since a successful conglomeration would tend to efface or obscure evidence of its predecessors.
- 43.
Cook 2012 (I): 199–205 gives a helpful summary of the debate.
- 44.
Bumbacher (2016: 613) points out that “there are three different times when Zhuang Zhou is said to have been active,” namely, a) during the reigns of Kings Hui of Liang 梁惠王 (r. 370–319 BCE) and Xuan of Qi 齊宣王 (r. 319–301 BCE), already quite a big span, b) during the reign of Marquis Wen of Wei 魏文侯 (r. 424–387 BCE), or c) during the reign of Duke Ai of Lu (r. 494–469 BCE), which would make him a contemporary of Confucius. The ruler in “Discussing Swords,” that is, “King Wen of Zhao”, is generally identified as King Huiwen of Zhao (趙惠文王, r. 298–266 BCE). This would add a fourth time period into the mix, but perhaps it is better to interpret this as further evidence that the “Zhuangzi” of this chapter is not the historical Zhuang Zhou. Bumbacher adds that this profusion of improbable dates “could be interpreted as seeming to imply that Zhuang Zhou, as a historical person, most likely never existed, but rather was invented by the authors of the Zhuang zi.” This heavily qualified statement leaves me unsure as to whether Bumbacher is advocating this theory or not, but personally I believe that the preponderance of evidence clusters around a date of 320 BCE for Zhuang Zhou and the outliers are explicable by the habitually anachronistic anecdote-formation practices of early imperial China.
- 45.
Li X. (2006, 2018) observed that a version of a saying found in the Guodian manuscript “Thicket of Sayings” 語叢 (dated ca. 300 BCE) occurs in the Zhuangzi “Rifling Trunks” 胠篋 (ch.10). On the strength of this (and a few other pieces of highly equivocal evidence), he concludes that this chapter must have been early and from the hand of Zhuangzi. I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. The very fact that this saying is included in a “Thicket of Sayings” shows that it is highly portable; another version is even found elsewhere in the Zhuangzi. There is no reason to believe that the author of “Rifling Trunks” originated it. Early Chinese conventions of intertextuality did not demand explicit framing when quoting well-known sayings, no more than contemporary English language conventions do. To be clear, I have no particular objection to an early date for “Rifling Trunks.” I just do not consider the appearance of this saying in the “Thicket of Sayings” to be good evidence even for that, much less for Zhuang Zhou’s personal authorship of the piece.
- 46.
Specifically, the intriguing **gdian shiwen comment on a line from the second chapter of the Zhuangzi, “Discussion on Making Things Equal”: “Regarding ‘The Way has never yet begun to have a boundary,’ Cui [Zhuan] says, ‘There are seven pericopes in the ‘Making Things Equal’ [chapter]. This [line] connects to the pericope above. Yet Ban Gu explained it as being in the Outer Chapters’” (《夫道未始有封》崔云,齊物七章,此連上章,而班固說在外篇; Wang 1988: 2.73).
- 47.
One could cite various examples, but a prominent one is Su Shi’s 蘇軾 lines to Wen Tong 文同 (1019–79), “Barely a handful of pure verses from that powerful brush:/ Roaming carefree, equalizing things, you follow Zhuang Zhou” (清詩健筆何足數,逍遙齊物追莊周; Su Shi shi ji 1982: 6.250–51). Note that Feng Youlan also suggested that these two chapters should be taken as the core of the Zhuangzi and that the authorship of the others should be determined by how well they fit together with these two (2000: 344–47).
- 48.
Bumbacher (2016: 642–43), based on a comparison with Ji Kang’s 嵇康 (223–269) Gao shi zhuan 高士傳 (Traditions of Eminent Gentlemen), argues convincingly that the received Zhuangzi represents the youngest of the three recensions and that the earlier Zhuangzi recensions probably looked more like what is found in the Shiji. See also Wang 1988: 17.631.
- 49.
Internal divisions based on time, for example, the reigns of successive rulers, are likely to have been a much earlier feature witnessed in such texts as the Chunqiu 春秋 (Spring and Autumn) of Lu and the Zuozhuan 左傳 (Zuo Commentary). But conceptually such chronicle-divisions are very different from Inner/Outer divisions. From this perspective, the thematic seasonal calendar of the Lüshi chunqiu could even be seen as a conceptually transitional form.
- 50.
Some earlier texts might be taken as reflecting an Inner/Outer division, such as the relationship between the Zuozhuan and the Guoyu. There is good reason to believe that it was only retrospective authorial construction in the Han dynasty that assigned them both to Zuo Qiuming 左丘明 (556–451 BCE), however.
- 51.
For a list of these parallels and a discussion of their significance, see Roth 2003: 207–10.
- 52.
- 53.
It is possible that chapters 24 and 25 also belong in this sequence, since they have certain rhetorical features in common with chapters 21 and 22.
- 54.
It is unclear whether it makes sense to call it “a version of the Zhuangzi”: current evidence only bears solid witness to one passage mentioning Zhuangzi (from “Under Heaven”, chapter 33). Fragments that seem to parallel a second Zhuangzi passage (from “Utmost Happiness”, chapter 18) could, as mentioned above, also be witnessing a passage in “Yielding Kingship.”
- 55.
This is Roth’s speculation as regards the Syncretists (Roth 1991).
- 56.
See diagram at https://ctext.org/static/dh/mozi-xunzi-zhuangzi.png.
- 57.
He dismisses the single instance in the chapter where “Zhuangzi” refers to himself as “Zhou,” suggesting that it could easily be the result of later editorial intervention. The ruler in the chapter is King Wen of Zhao (趙文王, r. 298–266 BCE), not impossibly late for a contemporary of King Hui of Liang (as Zhuang Zhou supposedly was), but a better match for King **ang of Chu (楚襄王, r. 329–263 BCE) who in the Zhan guo ce 戰國策 (Strategems of the Warring States) was said to have given an audience to Zhuang **n. And according to Guan, as well as earlier scholars, the style and thought of the chapter does not fit Zhuangzi or Daoism generally (Guan Feng 1962: 85; see also Luo Genze 2001: 260). Roth (1991: 82) also follows this fairly plausible suggestion.
- 58.
The fact that Guo **ang apparently declined to comment on it suggests that its place in the anthology was fairly tenuous, however.
References
Bumbacher, Stephan Peter. 2016. “Reconstructing the Zhuang zi: Preliminary Considerations.” Asiatische Studien-Études Asiatiques 70.3: 611–674.
Cook, Scott. 2012. The Bamboo Texts of Guodian: A Study and Complete Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Defoort, Carine. 2012. “Instruction Dialogues in the Zhuangzi: An ‘Anthropological’ Reading.” Dao 11.4: 459–478.
———. 2016. “Mental Fasting in the Study of Chinese Philosophy: Liu **aogan versus Esther Klein.” Problemos Supplement: 9–23.
Durrant, Stephen. 1995. The Cloudy Mirror: Tension and Conflict in the Writings of Sima Qian. Albany: SUNY Press.
Feng Youlan 馮友蘭. 2000. A Newly Revised History of Chinese Philosophy 中國哲學史新編. The Complete Works of Sansongtang 三松堂全集 vol. 8. Zhengzhou: Henan Renmin chubanshe.
Fischer, Paul. 2008–2009. “Authentication Studies (辨偽學) Methodology and the Polymorphous Text Paradigm.” Early China 32: 1–43.
Fisher, Paul. 2009. “Intertextuality in Early Chinese Masters-Texts: Shared Narratives in Shi Zi.” Asia Major Third Series 22.2: 1–34.
Fraser, Chris. 1997. “Review of Liu **aogan, Classifying the Zhuangzi Chapters”. Asian Philosophy 7.2: 155–159.
———. 2006. “Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and the Paradoxical Nature of Education.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 33.4: 529–42.
———. 2016. The Philosophy of the Mòzǐ: the First Consequentialists. New York: Columbia UP.
Goldin, Paul Rakita. 2020. “Introduction.” In The Art of Chinese Philosophy: Eight Classical Texts and How to Read Them, 1–12. Princeton University Press.
Graham, A.C., trans. and intro. 1981. Chuang-tzŭ: The Inner Chapters. London and Boston: George Allen & Unwin; rpt. (2001), Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett.
Graham, A.C. 1990. “How Much of Chuang Tzu did Chuang Tzu Write?” Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature. Institute of East Asian Philosophies, 1986. Rprt SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. 283–321.
Graziani, Romain. 2012. “Rhetoric That Kills, Rhetoric That Heals.” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 34: 41–77.
———. 2014. “Of Words and Swords: Therapeutic Imagination in Action—A Study of Chapter 30 of the Zhuangzi, ‘Shuo jian’ 說劍.” Philosopy East and West 64.2: 375–403.
Gu Shikao 顧史考 [Scott Cook]. 2018. A Multi-Perspective Survey of Lost Warring States Texts among the Shanghai-Museum and Other Chu Manuscripts 上博等楚簡戰國逸書縱橫覽. Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju.
Guan Feng 關鋒. 1962. “A Preliminary Discussion of the Zhuangzi Outer and Miscellaneous Chapters” 莊子外雜篇初探. In Collected Discussions of Zhuangzi’s Philosophy 莊子哲學討論集, ed. Zhexue yanjiu bianjibu 哲學研究編輯部. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju. 61–98.
Guthke, Karl S. 1993. Last Words: Variations on a Theme in Cultural History. Princeton: UP.
Hagberg, Aric A., Daniel A. Schult and Pieter J. Swart. 2008, August. “Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX.” In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008), eds. Gäel Varoquaux, Travis Vaught, and Jarrod Millman. Pasadena, CA. 11–15.
Han Feizi jijie 韓非子集解. 2003. Ed. Wang **anshen 王先慎. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Han Shi waizhuan jishi 韓詩外傳集釋. 1980. Ed. Xu Weipeng 許維遹. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Han Ziqiang 韓自強. 2000. “Han Dynasty Bamboo Slips from the Zhuangzi Miscellaneous Chapters Excavated at Fuyang”. In 阜陽出土的《莊子⋅雜篇》漢簡. Daojia wenhua yanjiu 道家文化研究 vol. 18, 10–14. Shanghai: Sanlian shudian.
Hanshu 漢書. 1962. Compiled by Ban Gu 班固. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Hu **sheng 胡**生 et al. 2014. “The Han Bamboo Slips of the Zhuangzi from Fuyang Shuanggudui” 阜陽雙古堆漢簡《莊子》. Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻研究 vol.12. Shanghai: Zhongxi shuj畫. 188–201.
Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋. 1998. Commentary by He Ning 何寧. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Hunter, Michael. 2017. Confucius Beyond the Analects. Leiden: Brill.
Ing, Michael D. K. 2012. The Dysfunction of Ritual in Early Confucianism. Oxford University Press.
Jiang Tao. 2016. “The Problem of Authorship and the Project of Chinese Philosophy: Zhuang Zhou and the Zhuangzi between Sinology and Philosophy in the Western Academy.” Dao 15.1: 35–55.
Johnston, Michael and Michael Van Dussen. 2015. “Introduction: Manuscripts and Cultural History.” In Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen, eds., The Medieval Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches, 1–16. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kastenbaum, Robert. 2000. The Psychology of Death. Third Edition. Springer.
Kern, Martin. 2003. “The ‘Biography of Sima **angru’ and the Question of the fu in Sima Qian’s Shiji.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123.2: 303–16.
———. 2015. “The ‘Masters’ in the Shiji.” T’oung Pao 101.4–5: 335–362.
Kjellberg, Paul and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds. 1996. Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi. SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany: SUNY Press.
Klein, Esther [Sunkyung]. 2010. “Were There ‘Inner Chapters’ in the Warring States? A New Examination of Evidence about the Zhuangzi.” T’oung Pao 96.4–5: 299–369.
Knoblock, John and Jeffrey Riegel, trans. 2000. The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lewis, Mark Edward. 1999. Writing and Authority in Early China. SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany: SUNY Press.
Li Ling **零. 2001. “Looking at the Genre and Categorization of Ancient Writings from an Excavated Text Perspective” 從簡帛發現看古書的體例和分類. Zhongguo dianji yu wenhua 中國典籍與文化 36.1: 25–34.
Li Xueqin **學勤. 2006. “Looking at the ‘Qu qie’ Chapter of the Zhuangzi from the Guodian Yucong IV Bamboo Slip Manuscript” 從郭店簡語叢四看《莊子 ⋅ 胠篋》. Jianbo 簡帛 1: 73–76.
Li Xueqin **學勤. 2018. “Looking at the ‘Qu qie’ Chapter of the Zhuangzi from the Guodian Yucong IV Bamboo Slip Manuscript (從郭店簡《 語叢四》 看《 莊子⋅ 胠篋》).” Trans. Kim Tae Hyun 金泰炫. Bamboo and Silk 1.2: 337–346.
Liao Mingchun 廖名春. 1998. “Discussing the Origins of the Zhuangzi Robber Zhi Chapter” 莊子盜跖篇探源. Wenshi 文史 45: 49–50.
Liji zhengyi 禮記**義. 1980. In The Thirteen Classics with Commentary and Subcommentary 十三經注疏, ed. Ruan Yuan 阮元. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Liu **aogan. 1994. Classifying the Zhuangzi Chapters. Trans. William Savage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies.
Liu **aogan. 2014. The Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy. In the Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy Series. New York: Springer.
Liu **aogan. 2018. “Reflections on Textual Analysis in the Post-Graham Era.” Carine Defoort and Roger Ames, eds. Having a Word with Angus Graham at Twenty-Five Years into his Immortality. Albany: SUNY Press.
Lü Buwei 呂不韋. 2002. The Spring and Autumn of Mister Lü 呂氏春秋. Commentary by Chen Qiyou 陳奇猷. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Luo Genze 羅根澤. 2001. Luo Genze Discusses the Various Masters 羅根澤說諸子. Shanghai: Guji.
Major, John S. 1975. “The Efficacy of Uselessness: A Chuang-tzu Motif.” Philosophy East and West 25.3: 265–279.
Mansvelt Beck, B.J. 2000. “ ‘Ik’ zei de gek, ‘I’ Mencius, ‘I’ Laozi, ‘Zhuang Zhou’ Zhuangzi.” In Linked Faiths: Essays on Chinese Religions and Traditional Culture in Honour of Kristofer Schipper, ed. Jan A.M. de Meyer and Peter M. Engelfriet. Leiden: Brill.
Mengzi zhushu 孟子注疏. 1980. In The Thirteen Classics with Commentary and Subcommentary 十三經注疏, ed. Ruan Yuan 阮元. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Perkins, Franklin. 2014. “Divergences within the Lǎozǐ: A Study of Chapters 67–81.” T’oung Pao 100.1–3: 1–32.
Puett, Michael and Sarah A. Queen. 2014. Huainanzi and Textual Production in Early China. Leiden: Brill.
Rand, Christopher C. 1983. “Chuang Tzu: Text and Substance.” Journal of Chinese Religions 11: 5–58.
Richter, Matthias L. 2013. The Embodied Text: Establishing Textual Identity in Early Chinese Manuscripts. Leiden: Brill.
Roth, Harold D. 1991. “Who Compiled the Chuang Tzu?” Chinese Texts and Philosophical Contexts: Essays Dedicated to Angus C. Graham. Ed. Henry Rosemont Jr. Critics and Their Critics 1. La Salle.: Open Court.
———. 2003. A Companion to Angus C. Graham’s Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Shiji 史記. 1959. Compiled by Sima Qian 司馬遷et al. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Sturgeon, Donald. 2017, May 1. “Exploring text reuse with Text Tools for ctext.org” [blog post]. Retrieved from https://digitalsinology.org/text-tools/.
Su Shi 蘇軾. 1982. Su Shi shi ji 蘇軾詩集. Bei**g: Zhonghua shuju.
Toher, Mark. 2012. “The ‘Exitus’ of Augustus.” Hermes 140.1: 37–44.
van Els, Paul and Sarah Queen, eds. 2017. Between History and Philosophy: Anecdotes in Early China. Albany: SUNY Press.
Vankeerberghen, Griet. 2010. “Texts and Authors in the Shiji.” In Michael Nylan and Michael Loewe, eds., China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal, 461–79. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wang Shumin 王叔岷. 1988. Zhuangzi jiaoquan 莊子校詮. Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiu yuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo.
Watson, Burton, trans. 1968. The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. New York: Columbia UP.
Yu Jiaxi 余嘉錫. 1985. Comprehending the Formal Structure of Ancient Writings 古書通例. Shanghai: Guji chunbanshe.
Major, John S., et al. trans. 2010. The Huainanzi: A guide to the theory and practice of government in early Han China. Columbia University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klein, E.S. (2022). Early Chinese Textual Culture and the Zhuangzi Anthology: An Alternative Model for Authorship. In: Chong, Kc. (eds) Dao Companion to the Philosophy of the Zhuangzi. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92331-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92331-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92330-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92331-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)