Talk:Zhuangzi (book)

Dating

Hello, the article lacks specific dating information. Creel's 1970 What is Taoism believed it was writtenly shortly after 300 BC. But I am not going to make a section on dating without having reviewed more comprehensive material on the subject, and I would have my own pages to work on before I endeavored to make a study of this.FourLights (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no specific dating information to begin with. The article already includes "text from the late Warring States period (476–221 BC)" and the slightly more specific c. 3rd century BC, because of the earliest known copies (see the manuscripts section). Creel's main work is from the 70s, so almost certainly dated and largely surpassed by more recent scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

FA push

Perhaps this is a bit self-aggrandizing, but this has been my dearest book to read the past couple of years, and I love its article on here, @White whirlwind's and others' work actually really helped me acquire the interests I presently do about Daoism and China in general.

I am presently involved in a lot of articles at various levels (basic drafting, getting to GA status, and now also FAR), so now I'm wondering what people think it might take to get this article featured status, because I feel its present state "deserves" that final step. Remsense留 16:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is certainly on the right path for FAC. As you mention, WW's work is very solid, particularly on the themes and content sections.

What would help achieve FA is a rethinking of the influence section; currently there is no mention of its influence between the 4th and 17 centuries. Even the existing "Early times" and "Daoism and Buddhism" sections could probably do with further expansion (particularly considering the Zhuangzi is, as the article says "the most important of all Daoist writings"). Other possible areas for improvement would be a short list of Chinese editions (not just English translations!) and perhaps more comparison to the Tao Te Ching, which I'm sure exists. A quick glance at the China Knowledge entry reveals some missing contextual details, such as Liu Xiang and the "Three Mysterious Books" (though would best be sourced to somewhere other than China Knowledge!). There is also hardly any mention of commentaries, which is a central of Chinese text like this – Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you've crystalized my thoughts, perfect! Yes, quite, thank you very much. Remsense留 22:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also been looking at the modern influence it has had, especially in the West, esp. on Heidegger. Remsense留 00:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added what I think is an adequate mention of the collation by Liu Xiang, which I think fills out the textual history nicely—a FA version of this article probably wouldn't require much more detail on that front, right? I've also added a bit on its influence on Heidegger, but I'm not sure it's quite adequate yet.

Concerning selecting translations—wouldn't the importance of certain translations need to itself be attested in a RS? I wonder where I could find that. Oh! The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems a good bet.

References

Remsense留 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, thanks for taking on this project! As you might imagine, I don't have sufficient time / spoons to help much at the moment, but I do have a pretty good and brief source to suggest wholeheartedly:

• Klein, Esther (2010). "Were there "Inner Chapters" in the Warring States? A New Examination of Evidence about the Zhuangzi". T'oung Pao. 96 (4/5). Brill: 299–369. doi:10.1163/156853210X546509. JSTOR 41354706.

I've cited this article somewhere before (a quick search tells me apparently this was at Zhuang Zhou and for some reason Sima Biao), but it has more relevance here. I feel like I definitely have more sources to recommend; I'll see if I have time at least to point to them today. Folly Mox (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha I realise upon reread I characterise a source as "brief" that evidently spans 70 pages. Probably I've just read it too many times. Folly Mox (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much Folly! Remsense留 13:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, I'm starting to read about the various commentaries, do you have an opinion about how they should be presented in the article? I feel if they're all included in the "Influence" header, it'd be unfocused and too long, but I'm not sure if they should have their own header either. Remsense留 20:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense, nice to hear from you, and my apologies on the late response. There is not really precedent for an FAs of Chinese classics, so your uncertainty is understandable.

I'm not intimately familiar with scholarship of the Zhuangzi specifically, but if I was turning the Analects or Mengzi into an FA, I would absolutely include a commentaries section. In many cases, the commentaries are inseparable from the original texts; it is really a Western phenomenon that they are read without commentaries. Much like Hindu texts, most of the classics were explicitly written to be read under the tutelage of a scholar/sage or indeed a commentary. Part of the reason Daoist and even Confucian texts can appear so vague/ambiguous in isolation is because of this expectation.

Where are you reading about the commentaries so far? Have you checked Wilkinson? He often has rather helpful lists of these kinds of things. Aza24 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, thank you for the continued support! Especially given the effort required to assess a FA comparatively lacking precedent, like you've said. As of yet, my research is a bit of an uncohered pile of notes, but I think I have a good grasp on the sum total of what should be added to get the article "comprehensive".
I am making use of Wilkinson, as well as some analysis from Ziporyn (2009):

• Ziporyn, Brook, ed. (2009). Zhuangzi: the essential writings; with selections from traditional commentaries. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 978-0-872-20911-4.

A potential issue is that I do not know the best way of laying out the new material, as it largely consists of philosophical and literary analysis of the of the text, either in China or the West. I know I only have so much room (~1500 words), but it feels odd to just list commentaries without some substance of what they themselves say. Top-level sections for "Commentaries", "Themes", and "Influence" seem like arbitrary divisions, since much of the material in the latter two are derived from Chinese or Western commentary, of course. It feels wrong to put all the autochthonous analysis before 1910 on one side, and all the modern analysis on the other. — Remsense诉 01:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You might consider renaming the "themes" section "interpretations". Then perhaps "commentaries" could fit as a subsection. I would be hesitant to put them in the Influence section, though it seems you are hesitant to do this as well! When it comes to commentaries, most are untranslated, and as a result a lot of literature about them is only in Chinese. Since the West doesn't have a commentary tradition of the same longevity, Western scholars aren't as interested in it (the same reason Chinese calligraphy is ignored in the West whereas Chinese painting is admired: there's no Western calligraphy equivalent so its value is comparatively lower).

If you take some of the commentaries listed at the China Knowledge page, you might find something about them by researching individual authors, rather than looking for the commentary itself. I agree that a actual commentary content is ideal. If this isn't possible, a pure list is certainly better than total omission.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "I only have so much room (~1500 words)"—at the moment the article is 3552 words in "readable prose size"—very far from the recommended max of 10,000. To this point, you might look closer at some of the sources in the SEP article. I'd also recommend checking out the two entries, "Daoism" and "Daoism and philosophy", on Oxford Bibliographies (available through the TWL). Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, 5000 is a soft cap I set on myself to see if I could be adequately concise, but it may not be productive. — Remsense诉 08:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Image provenance

So, looking at the paintings used to illustrate the article, File:Zhuangzi.gif doesn't seem to be clearly sourced and as such I'm not sure whether it's truly in the public domain and therefore free to use. I've tried a reverse image search and looked through the original website it is attributed to, which is luckily still up and still charming. Anyone more fluent in Chinese able to clearly source or adequately replace it? Remsense留 08:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The red ink "collector's seals" certainly seem to imply a premodern origin for the artwork, but I haven't been able to identify it after a brief search (not sure if your reverse image search returned this result, which proves nothing). Collector's seals are also sometimes added in deliberately anachronistic modern artwork (although typically executed poorly and without an actual analogue in art history unless the work is a well executed forgery, which was its own skill, prized to a similar level as original artistry, as recently as last century). The bottom right collector's seal has an irregular shape; if it's legitimate, it might not be difficult to demonstrate that the image is PD-OLD. Folly Mox (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)