Talk:Zhuangzi (book)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Content

Hello everybody, I have just finished reading this one and would like to add the content (a list of chapters). Perhaps somebody has weighed this idea before and decided against it (since it is not on the page, whereas for many philosophers a list of works is present). I would like to know why not. If I hear nothing or encouragement I will add the following:

Book I. Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease

Book 2. The Adjustment of Controversies

Book 3. Nourishing the Lord of Life

Book 4. Man in the World, Associated with other Men

Book 5. The Seal of Virtue Complete

Book 6. The Great and Most Honoured Master

Book 7. The Normal Course for Rulers and Kings

Book 8. Webbed Toes

Book 9. Horse's Hooves

Book 10. Cutting Open Satchels

Book 11. Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance

Book 12. Heaven and Earth

Book 13. The Way of Heaven

Book 14. The Revolution of Heaven

Book 15. Ingrained Ideas

Book 16. Correcting the Nature

Book 17. The Floods of Autumn

Book 18. Perfect Enjoyment

Book 19. The Full Understanding of Life

Book 20. The Tree on the Mountain

Book 21. Thien Tsze-fang

Book 22. Knowledge Rambling in the North

Book 23. Kang-sang Khû

Book 24. Hsü Wû-kwei

Book 25. Tseh-yang

Book 26. What Comes from Without

Book 27. Metaphorical Language

Book 28. Kings who have wished to resign the Throne

Book 29. The Robber Kih

Book 30. Delight in the Sword Fight

Book 31. The Old Fisherman

Book 32. Lieh Yü-khâu

Book 33. Historical Phases of Tâoist Teaching

There are many sources, but I think this is the complete one. Some references:

http://nothingistic.org/library/chuangtzu/

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=2712&if=en

Let me know what you think. --Faust (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! But I think it would be best to add the original Chinese chapter titles as well as English translations, given how translating from Chinese (especially Old Chinese) is a complicated matter resolved differently in different translations. Also, maybe it would be good to separate the Inner and Outer chapters in the list. --Jashiin (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you like the second source. I will copy/paste it below. If there will be no negatives I will add it in a few days.

莊子 - Zhuangzi

內篇 - Inner Chapters

逍遙遊 - Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease

齊物論 - The Adjustment of Controversies

養生主 - Nourishing the Lord of Life

人間世 - Man in the World, Associated with other Men

德充符 - The Seal of Virtue Complete

大宗師 - The Great and Most Honoured Master

應帝王 - The Normal Course for Rulers and Kings

外篇 - Outer Chapters

駢拇 - Webbed Toes

馬蹄 - Horses's Hoofs

胠篋 - Cutting open Satchels

在宥 - Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance

天地 - Heaven and Earth

天道 - The Way of Heaven

天運 - The Revolution of Heaven

刻意 - Ingrained Ideas

繕性 - Correcting the Nature

秋水 - The Floods of Autumn

至樂 - Perfect Enjoyment

達生 - The Full Understanding of Life

山木 - The Tree on the Mountain

田子方 - Tian Zi-fang

知北遊 - Knowledge Rambling in the North

雜篇 - Miscellaneous Chapters

庚桑楚 - Geng-sang Chu

徐無鬼 - Xu Wu-gui

則陽 - Ze-yang

外物 - What comes from Without

寓言 - Metaphorical Language

讓王 - Kings who have wished to resign the Throne

盜跖 - The Robber Zhi

說劍 - Delight in the Sword-fight

漁父 - The Old Fisherman

列禦寇 - Lie Yu-kou

天下 - Tian Xia

--Faust (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A chapter list is a good idea and I have two suggestions. Make a table (see Help:Table) with four columns for chapter number, pinyin (I'll be glad to add this), characters, and translation. Use a modern translation instead of Legge's outdated 1891 version. Keahapana (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is an idea on the tables. I did use the old translations btw. I like them and I have a decent source for them.

	莊子 - Zhuangzi
內篇 - Inner Chapters	外篇 - Outer Chapters	雜篇 - Miscellaneous Chapters
逍遙遊 - Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease	駢拇 - Webbed Toes	庚桑楚 - Geng-sang Chu
逍遙遊 - Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease	馬蹄 - Horses's Hoofs	徐無鬼 - Xu Wu-gui
養生主 - Nourishing the Lord of Life	胠篋 - Cutting open Satchels	則陽 - Ze-yang
人間世 - Man in the World, Associated with other Men	在宥 - Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance	外物 - What comes from Without
德充符 - The Seal of Virtue Complete	天地 - Heaven and Earth	寓言 - Metaphorical Language
大宗師 - The Great and Most Honoured Master	天道 - The Way of Heaven	讓王 - Kings who have wished to resign the Throne
應帝王 - The Normal Course for Rulers and Kings	天運 - The Revolution of Heaven	盜跖 - The Robber Zhi
	刻意 - Ingrained Ideas	說劍 - Delight in the Sword-fight
	繕性 - Correcting the Nature	漁父 - The Old Fisherman
	秋水 - The Floods of Autumn	列禦寇 - Lie Yu-kou
	至樂 - Perfect Enjoyment	天下 - Tian Xia
	達生 - The Full Understanding of Life
	山木 - The Tree on the Mountain
	田子方 - Tian Zi-fang
	知北遊 - Knowledge Rambling in the North

--Faust (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I worked a bit on a good article nomination with White Whirlwind some time ago. Not sure I have the time to be a reviewer for this one, but I would think the first thing a reviewer would want to talk about is the citations. I think it's a good, compressed style, but I've never seen citations done like this before. In addition, the citations make a reference to a 1998 Mair text which doesn't appear in the works cited list, as well as a "authorless" work in the works cited, which seems a bit strange. Are they the same work or what? TI. Gracchus (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. To answer your questions: the citations are in a pretty standard format for the field. That "Authorless" one is supposed to be a solid line, which is used when you have a bunch of works in a row all by the same author, in this case it saves writing "Victor Mair" over and over. Very standard stuff.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! There's still a lot I have to learn, I'm afraid. I'm increasingly tempted to review this article - the only problem is that it is so beautiful already I don't feel qualified to offer any critique. I may try to get help or training from the Good Article gurus to try and address this. My schedule is a bit unpredictable, but I'll see what I can do. It's obvious you've put in a lot of work and I'd like to help if I can. TI. Gracchus (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zhuangzi (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanhe (talk · contribs) 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My first impression is that that article is quite close to meeting GA criteria, but I'll study the article and sources and give a more detailed review in the next few days. -Zanhe (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Per Chinese MoS, hanzi should be removed from the lead as it is already in infoboxes. On the other hand, the WG romanization Chuang Tzu is quite often seen in English literature and should be included in the lead.

• "Virtually every major Chinese writer and poet in history ... were familiar with and deeply influenced by the Zhuangzi." This is a bit over the top and should be toned down or at least attributed to Mair. (also in the "Influence" section)

Done.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Content

• The sentence - "In this anecdote, Zhuangzi humorously and absurdly uses "Wonton", a name for both primordial chaos and, by physical analogy, wonton soup, to demonstrate what he believed were the disastrous consequences of going against things' innate natures." - is uncited and looks dubious. "Wonton" seems to be the idiosyncratic translation used by Mair. The original Chinese word 渾沌 hundun is different from wonton the food, and it's doubtful that wonton soup had been invented in the Zhou dynasty.

Although Mair does tend toward idiosyncrasy, he generally does so with good reasons: in this case, the Chinese word hundun 渾沌 probably is the same as the food and was extant in the late Warring States period, contrary to what you wrote. The connections between hundun Chaos and "wonton" food have been noted since at least Wolfram Eberhard. Mair (1994:386) has a note on the subject, which is also treated in Anderson's The Food of China, which Mair cites.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

References

• Some sources cited are available on Google books, including Mair 1994, the main source for the article. It would be helpful to add the URLs in to the citation templates, to make it easier for people who'd like to check out the sources and read more.

I've never put Google Books links onto WP sources before, so I wasn't entirely sure what the formatting practice was. Take a look at the two I found and if there's anything wrong with them I'd appreciate anyone fixing them for me.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Breadth

• The article covers most main points quite well. One major omission I can see is the analysis of the philosophy of the outer and miscellaneous chapters, especially the Yangist chapters (cf. the Zhuangzi entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). According to David Nivison in the Cambridge History of Ancient China (p. 786), Yang Zhu or one of his disciples may have been the unnamed "master" quoted in Zhuangzi, and Yangism may have evolved into Zhuangzi's Daoism, so this seems particularly important. The Primitivist and Syncretist chapters also deserve at least a brief summary.

• The article mentions commentaries by Guo Xiang and Cheng Xuanying. I think other important classical commentaries are also worth a mention, perhaps in a list format similar to the "notable translations" list. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a few, and ctext.org has more.

Those are good points, and I additionally was planning to add another area that is not currently in the article, namely the Zhuangzi's huge influence on Zen Buddhism, particularly in Japan. However, I was hoping to leave these for if/when the article gets ready for FA nomination. I'd rather not have to add ALL this material at the moment, if possible.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall this is a very well written article and I enjoyed reading and reviewing it. I'll put it on hold while waiting for your improvement. -Zanhe (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Query

What is the status of this review? I see a couple of minor edits from the nominator on March 8, but nothing in the four weeks since then. If the improvements requested aren't going to be done, then the nomination should probably be closed as unsuccessful, given the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I posted a message on the nominator's talk page. Despite the issues raised, it's a high quality article and I really hope it will pass. -Zanhe (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The only issue that seems to be untouched is the breadth note, which he chose to hold off on. Aside from that the issues appear to be fixed now (i handled any that he said he did but didn't), so the article passes. Wizardman 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream?

I am currently asking "Are there any Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream?" at our Reference Desk here. Reliable Sources supplied in the answers, if any, are liable to also be useful for improving this article (and perhaps some of its related articles). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See my reply over at the Reference Desk.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation analysis

Hi, thanks for writing this. As a reader seeing this GA-rated article, I had been expecting a little more background and analysis on English translations from the "Modern influence" and "Notable translations" sections to meet GA breadth, i.e., what makes these translations noteworthy? How were they reviewed and which, if any, are the gold standard, particularly in English (since this is the English Wikipedia)? Was Legge the first English translation? Etc. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS?

Although the newly added Zhuangzi "translated for modern life" (Tricker 2022) explains why it is so good, is this self-published work a reliable source? Keahapana (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted unreliable source 19:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Keahapana (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)