Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLiu, Xiaogan
dc.contributor.editorLiu, Xiaogan
dc.contributor.editorSavage, William
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-23T15:16:51Z
dc.date.available2020-09-23T15:16:51Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifierONIX_20200923_9780472901340_35
dc.identifier.urihttps://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/41839
dc.description.abstractThe relationships, both historical and philosophical, among the Zhuangzi’s Inner, Outer, and Miscellaneous chapters are the subject of ancient and enduring controversy. Liu marshals linguistic, intertextual, intratextual, and historical evidence to establish an objectively demonstrable chronology and determine the philosophical affiliations among the various chapters. This major advance in Zhuangzi scholarship furnishes indispensable data for all students of the great Daoist text. In a lengthy afterword, Liu compares his conclusions with those of A. C. Graham and addresses the relationship between the Zhuangzi and the Laozi.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.languageChinese
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMichigan Monographs In Chinese Studies
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JH Sociology and anthropologyen_US
dc.subject.otherSociology and anthropology
dc.titleClassifying the Zhuangzi Chapters
dc.typebook
oapen.identifier.doi10.3998/mpub.19186
oapen.relation.isPublishedBye07ce9b5-7a46-4096-8f0c-bc1920e3d889
oapen.relation.isFundedBy0314e571-4102-4526-b014-3ed8f2d6750a
oapen.relation.isFundedBy0cdc3d7c-5c59-49ed-9dba-ad641acd8fd1
oapen.imprintU OF M CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES
oapen.series.number65
oapen.pages241
oapen.place.publicationAnn Arbor
oapen.grant.number[grantnumber unknown]
oapen.grant.number[grantnumber unknown]
peerreview.anonymityDouble-anonymised
peerreview.idd98bf225-990a-4ac4-acf4-fd7bf0dfb00c
peerreview.open.reviewNo
peerreview.publish.responsibilityScientific or Editorial Board
peerreview.review.decisionYes
peerreview.review.stagePre-publication
peerreview.review.typeFull text
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
oapen.review.commentsThe proposal was selected by the acquisitions editor who invited a full manuscript. The full manuscript was reviewed by two external readers using a double-blind process. Based on the acquisitions editor recommendation, the external reviews, and their own analysis, the Executive Committee (Editorial Board) of U-M Press approved the project for publication.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record